Immigration

Immigration Hawks Dig in, but Why?

As our economy continues to grow, why are we still looking for scapegoats?

|

Donald Trump
Mark Wilson/SIPA/Newscom

President Trump must be slipping. Yesterday an undocumented immigrant with an unpronounceable name was all over the news, and the president still hasn't demanded, let alone officially, that the Department of Justice look into the matter.

The immigrant—which according to The New York Times "has taken up permanent residence among us"—is 2015 BZ509, or "BZ" for short. It's an asteroid, orbiting in the neighborhood of Jupiter, but going in the opposite direction of Jupiter and all the other planets. Damn foreigners can't drive.

Like a lot of undocumented immigrants, BZ has been living among us for a considerable time—with no one the wiser and no harm done to anybody. But now that it's been brought to the attention of the authorities, it can expect a call from the intergalactic ICE squad at any time.

If all of this sounds a little nuts, well, OK. But then the entire immigration debate right now is not just batty, it's practically certifiable.

The big furor last week concerned President Trump's use of the word "animals" to refer to members of MS-13. Some news reports claimed he had used the term to describe all immigrants, which led to push-back from Trump supporters: There the media go again, lying about the president. This retort elicited a rebuttal in turn, to the effect that Trump's precise wording (to the extent such a thing exists; "Trump's precise wording" is almost an oxymoron) doesn't matter because the president "systematically obliterates any distinctions between the overwhelming majority of immigrants who are law-abiding and the violent minority among the foreign-born."

That's certainly true, going back to the president's statement that Mexican immigrants are "bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

A year or two ago remarks like that hit the air like a thunderclap out of a clear blue sky. Now they seem, if not tame (can one say "tame," or is that too much like "animals"?), then more mainstream. But not in a good way.

These days federal immigration officials are splitting up undocumented-immigrant families—part of a deliberate strategy to discourage border-crossing. Here in Virginia supporters of gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart have been mocking the name of GOP rival Nick Freitas, a veteran of the Army special forces, saying it sounds like something you'd order at Taco Bell.

In Georgia, state Sen. Michael Williams, who is running for governor, recently unveiled his "Michael Williams Deportation Bus," which he says he will drive through Georgia's (non-existent) sanctuary cities. "We're not just going to track them, watch them roam around our state. We're going to put them on this bus, and send them home," Williams says in an ad. The back of the bus, whose windows have steel mesh over them, bears the legend: "DANGER! MURDERERS, RAPISTS, KIDNAPPERS, CHILD MOLESTERS, AND OTHER CRIMINALS ON BOARD."

Actually, if Williams wants to send violent criminals to Mexico, he should round up American citizens, not immigrants—documented or otherwise. Data from Texas show, as the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh reported back in February, that "in 2015, the criminal conviction and arrest rates for immigrants were well below those of native-born Americans. Moreover, the conviction and arrest rates for illegal immigrants were lower than those for native-born Americans."

Those results are consistent with other research—which shows, for instance, that metropolitan areas that have seen large immigration increases have, at the same time, seen their crime rates decline. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, drug use, DUI—time and again, the research shows that immigrant influxes do not increase the rates of such crimes.

Pointing this out doesn't seem to have much effect. In fact, thanks to the phenomenon known as the "backfire effect," it might just encourage immigration hawks to dig in their heels. Still, you do have to wonder why such furor over immigration should surface now. The country is in the 108th month of economic expansion. Unemployment is, at 3.9 percent, the lowest it's been in two decades—so if immigrants are "taking our jobs," they sure aren't taking very many of them. Why the animosity toward people who are simply trying to make a better life for themselves?

Crime is down, business is booming, jobs are plentiful—so let's go kick a Mexican in the teeth. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Advertisement

NEXT: UPDATED: Here's Why $19 Billion $43 BILLION Won't Fix New York's Subway—or Your Local Transit System

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If all of this sounds a little nuts, well, OK. But then the entire immigration debate right now is not just batty, it’s practically certifiable.

    Columns like these are certainly not helping the case, mind you.

    Those results are consistent with other research?which shows, for instance, that metropolitan areas that have seen large immigration increases have, at the same time, seen their crime rates decline.

    So Reason, yet again, is trotting out the sheer idiocy of “illegals are actually LESS criminal than citizens” bullshit that defies any logic.

    Unemployment is, at 3.9 percent, the lowest it’s been in two decades?so if immigrants are “taking our jobs,” they sure aren’t taking very many of them. Why the animosity toward people who are simply trying to make a better life for themselves?

    So, Reason is now “The US must make like better for all people”.

    I thought they were OPPOSED to intervention, but they really aren’t. They just want to bring all of the problems HERE instead. Because their friends and allies need cheap domestic help.

    1. It never dawns on people like Hinkle that convincing the country to care so much about the welfare of those in other countries might cause them to want to intervene in those countries. Or that importing problems from the rest of the world might create a need to and a desire to solve those problems. Japan never has any problems with terrorism and oddly they never seem to give a shit about intervening in the Middle East. Now reason will tell you that the nonintervention is why they don’t have terrorism because terrorism just magically arises from intervention and has nothing to do with any particular religion or group of people. But maybe, not having large groups of immigrants who are committed to the jihad allows Japan to not give a fuck about what is going on in the Middle East? What a crazy idea.

      1. If we don’t intervene and fix those countries then we will need accept a bunch of refugees.

        Therefore the only solution is to invade and start forcing them to have abortions.

        1. Preventing a refugee crisis is a pretty compelling reason to intervene. Of course, the refugee crisis is only a crisis, if you accept the refugees.

          1. America has IMMORALLY & ILLEGALLY intervened & blown up a lot of the Middle East & North Africa with their War Crimes & Europe willingly took almost all the refugees the wars created!!!…Like the Chinese proverb goes: “May you live in interesting times!”

            1. Right. Everything we do is bad, and the Arabs are noble and pure.

              1. America shouldn’t be bombing the shit out of the middle East and Africa, and you interpret that as the same as saying everything we do is bad? Can the United States do anything wrong in your eyes?

        2. If we don’t intervene and fix those countries then we will need accept a bunch of refugees.

          What I don’t get is why we need to take in the refugees.

          Seems to fit, nicely, in the “not our problem” file.

      2. Intervention is wrong, except when it feelz right.

      3. Mexicans are Muslims now, John?
        Even by your usual white supremacist standards, you’re on a retard binge today.
        Maybe take Trump’s cock out of your mouth for a while.

    2. So Reason, yet again, is trotting out the sheer idiocy of “illegals are actually LESS criminal than citizens” bullshit that defies any logic.

      Don’t let then numbers get in the way of your prejudices!

      1. Statistics are for cucks.

        1. You are too stupid to understand statistics. Stay in your lane.

          1. The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) refers to a methodological crisis in science in which scientists have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate/reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.[1][2] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[3] as part of a growing awareness of the problem.

            Because the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method,[4] the inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work.

          2. Has that replication crisis study been successfully replicated?

            1. Yes it has. When you keep trying various population groups to derive a pre conceived conception with a beta of 10%, it only takes 10 different attempts to get the answer you want.

        2. There is an old sports axiom: Statistics are for losers!…Best example: Wilt Chamberlain broke all the individual records, but, Bill Russell won 11 championships & Wilt only 2!

          1. There’s also a saying in non-sports: “Sports metaphors are for losers because competitive sports are, by definition, a zero-sum exercise and thus a terrible analogy for the real world.”

      2. The numbers don’t say what you claim. If you think they do, then explain why. Just pointing to the lie and saying Nut Uh, doesn’t respond to the argument.

        1. Why bother? You’ll just put your hands over your ears and yell “La la la la immigrants are all criminals Reason is a leftist rag la la la!”

          1. Said, how do you account for the fact that John is usually right, and that you are usually wrong?

            1. Your scoreboard is broken.

              1. No, it’s really not. John is usually right. If you don’t see that, then the problem is with you, not him. Same goes for anything I say, LC1789, and most of what Ken says.

                You could learn a lot from us.

      3. So, again, their logic is that illegals — in cities that have been known to turn blind eyes to crimes committed by them — are more peaceful than native citizens.

        …YET, their home countries are hellholes exponentially worse than ours. And their departure doesn’t make the numbers there better or worse, so it’s hard to argue that they were the good guys in their shithole home countries.

        Odd.

        1. YET, their home countries are hellholes exponentially worse than ours.

          Gee, maybe one reason why other countries are hellholes is because they have corrupt authoritarian governments stealing the wealth and the liberty of the people? And that people peacefully migrating here doesn’t change that basic dynamic in the other countries?

          1. They have corrupt authoritarian governments that they choose and tolerate themselves. If we’re talking about Central/South American illegals, most of these countries of origin are either Communist or have disastrously experimented with Communism at one point or another. They’ve also chosen the authoritarian regression and retardation of the Catholic Church.

            Immigrants internalize certain behaviors from living in, choosing, and tolerating corruption, Communism, and authoritarianism. Behaviors like a contempt for law and order, lying and dissembling, cheating and corruption, a sneering disrespect for private property rights, and a massive sense of entitlement to whatever they touch, use, or steal. There’s nothing “peaceful” about what a disproportionate number of them do once they get here.

            Non-citizens committed a disproportionate share of crimes 2011-2016
            Crime and the Illegal Alien

            1. That couldn’t possibly be because we filter immigration by removing those with criminal pasts…. Nah.. it’s a stupid argument you make.

              1. We filter legal immigrants by removing those with criminal pasts.

                We filter illegal immigrants by not letting in the ones unwilling to break our laws.

                This is why only idiots conflate the two while discussing immigration policy.

          2. Actually, Mexico, one of these shithole countries has the 12th best economy in the world because of all the Mexican immigrants in the USA sending money back home. It is no wonder they are vehemently opposed to any change in the American immigration paradigm!

          3. “Maybe one reason why other countries are hellholes is because they have corrupt authoritarian governments stealing the wealth and the liberty of the people.”

            Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

            Years ago, after watching a video about kids starving in central Africa, my daughter asked me why there was so much poverty there. That’s pretty much the answer I gave: some countries should be wealthy with minerals, oil, fertile land, etc., but are burdened with governments so bad, they make even the very worst accusations of TDS and Clintonism look like a walk in the park. There are decent countries in every region, but there are also some countries so bad, rational people would sooner live in a sewer if given a choice.

      4. It’s Reason that’s not letting numbers get in the way, by insisting on conflating legal and illegal immigrants. The former ARE more law abiding than citizens, the latter, less.

    3. The FED Unemployment stats are phonier than Pro Wrestling & so are all the other stats saying how beneficial unfettered immigration & wide open borders are!!!….Like Trump said several times during the GOP debates: “Either you have a country or you don’t!”….If you have a country, you secure your borders & properly allow in the people you want to in an orderly & logical fashion!

    4. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

      Read more here,…. http://www.onlinereviewtech.com

  2. The term “precise wording” is an oxymoron. There is only wording, as in what he actually said. And what he actually said was that MS13 are animals. The claims otherwise are what are known as lies.

    Actually, if Williams wants to send violent criminals to Mexico, he should round up American citizens, not immigrants?documented or otherwise. Data from Texas show, as the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh reported back in February, that “in 2015, the criminal conviction and arrest rates for immigrants were well below those of native-born Americans. Moreover, the conviction and arrest rates for illegal immigrants were lower than those for native-born Americans.”

    Speaking of lies, how many times is reason going to conflate legal and illegal immigration to pedal this lie? All this statistic proves is that the legal immigration system is doing a good job of keeping out criminals and deterring immigrants it does let in from becoming criminals. Beyond that, the overall criminality of immigrants says nothing about the need to deport the individuals who are criminal. What is the point of this statistic? Does reason thi8nk that because some immigrants are not criminals those who are should not be deported?

    1. Precise wording does indeed matter. Take the term “criminal immigrant” for instance. You would use that term to describe “someone without a permission slip” and “murderer from another country” interchangeably, as if they are remotely equivalent.

      1. You would use that term to describe “someone without a permission slip” and “murderer from another country” interchangeably, as if they are remotely equivalent.

        No I wouldn’t. Not every criminal is a murderer. Beyond that, it is called wording. The term “precise” adds nothing to the sentence.

        1. So there’s no difference between sloppy wording and precise wording.

          Thanks. I’ll remember that the next time I’m asked to come up with a specification for a piece of software.

          1. Sure there is. But saying the wording is “precise” is not the same thing as referring to someone’s precise wording. The first is describing what they said. The second is just putting a redundant modifier onto the noun. It is a subtle difference but a significant one.

          2. “I’ll remember that the next time I’m asked to come up with a specification for a piece of software.”

            Also try to remember that your brain isn’t the computers you work on.

      2. Most of those without that little “permission slip” that you want to believe is so trivial end up stealing identities of real people (frequently young children).

        Identity theft is not a victimless crime. At the very least, it’s a right pain in the ass to clear up. Identity theft so the illegals can start sucking the welfare and Medicaid teat isn’t victimless, either. It costs us billions.

        That’s not to say that eliminating welfare wouldn’t help. It would. But for now, illegals cost us a shitload of money.

        1. Maybe all the open borders folks here can openly publish their identity information online, so as to help illegals fit in here in the US.

  3. Those who are against open borders should love reason. Reason does more to discredit the open borders side than even the most committed nativist ever could. Reason is quite simply unable to make an honest argument about this subject or even admit the most basic facts or write any piece that does not come across as hateful and condescending towards American citizens. I really don’t think being a mendacious asshole who snidely calls Americans lazy and criminal while ignoring the real problems associated with immigration is going to win many people over to your side. But, I suspect persuasion isn’t really the point here.

    1. But, I suspect persuasion isn’t really the point here.

      Self-aware John is a thing now?

      1. I am perfectly aware that reason and people like you are more interested in virtue signaling and posing than telling the truth. Virtue signaling has always been an easy way for stupid people to feel smart.

        1. Reason isn’t virtue signaling. Reason is a stepping stone job. Everyone here is looking for higher paid gigs at more ‘mainstream’ publications, so they need to show their new employers they are the “right kind of people”.

          1. Sounds pretty accurate. And then one sees how libertarian they were.

            I mean, Dave Weigel is LIBERTARIAN AF.

        2. John, no one on here does more virtue signaling than you (measured by word count).

          1. He’s hoping to one day be hired as a Federalist contributor.

          2. No. John is trying to straighten you out and help you shed your dumbass open borders bullshit beliefs. It’s very generous of him, and more than you deserve.

            You should thank John for being so generous with his time. And me for pointing this out to you.

  4. Scapegoats not surviving contact with facts has never mattered. So the facts going from “this doesn’t make sense” to “this really doesn’t make sense” aren’t going to change anything.

    Seriously dude, when has the scapegoating been entirely baseless and wrong ever stopped folks from buying into it?

  5. Actually, if Williams wants to send violent criminals to Mexico, he should round up American citizens

    This is an excellent idea as long as he can still pick up violent immigrants as well. Maybe he could also load up all the welfare queens, again citizens and immigrants, and drive them off too.

    1. Can we include the who knows how many millions of Visa-Overstayers too? Some have been here illegally for 3 decades & longer…3 of the 9/11 hijackers were Visa-Overstayers & still nothing has been done to address the matter!

    2. It’s I’m all for sending our most evil criminals to Mexico, never to return. They are called ‘progressives’.

  6. I’ve got that globalist fevah and the only thing that will help is more Reason.

    1. There is never and never could be any downside to mass immigration. This is what reason actually believes.

      1. It’s the elitism and soft-authoritarianism that bothers me.

        I want to persuade my fellow Americans to demand a more open immigration policy.

        They seem to want to disenfranchise voters from setting the rules.

        I’m starting to wonder if a lack of cultural Christianity is the problem. I’m not saying that the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom, but treating other people as if they and their right to make choices for themselves were important may be the beginning of all libertarianism–and a lot of people get that from cultural Christianity.

        Gay atheists will tell us that they should be treated the way we’d want to be treated if we were them without any awareness of where such assumptions came from–but the idea that other people are important because Jesus died for them is a pretty good guess as to where those ideas originated in our culture. That abolitionism and the civil rights movement galvanized around churches shouldn’t surprise anybody because of that.

        1. Gay atheists will tell us that they should be treated the way we’d want to be treated if we were them without any awareness of where such assumptions came from–but the idea that other people are important because Jesus died for them is a pretty good guess as to where those ideas originated in our culture. That abolitionism and the civil rights movement galvanized around churches shouldn’t surprise anybody because of that.

          That is true of all atheists. It never occurs to them that someone else might not share their ethical assumptions or that their ethical assumptions have no primacy over anyone else’. The other thing that always amuses me about atheists is that they are nothing if not earnest. They all believe in the good and the need to be moral. They also believe that morality is something that is objective and that they have through reason discovered. Okay. If morality is an objective thing outside of them, then how come there never seems to be any part of morality they don’t like? If it exists outside of them and is not just a product of their desires, then there should be parts of it they don’t like but are true anyway? There never is.

          1. So you think morality comes from some external authority? How did this external authority decide what is moral?

            1. No dipshit, I am saying that atheists believe morality is objective. As in it exists outside of them and is not determined by them but instead discovered by them through reason.,

              If you are not smart enough to understand the point, and you clearly are not, just go troll another thread. Stop wasting my time.

              1. All atheists are objectivists? That is clearly incorrect.

                1. Objectivist is a technical term that means a lot more than believing in an objective truth. Believing in an objective reality and morality does not make you an objectivist.

                  I really don’t have the time or the patience to teach you these things and you seem to be untrainable anyway. So, just go merrily on living whatever delusion suits you. If it works for you, have fun.

                  1. I really don’t have the time or the patience to teach you these things

                    TRANSLATION:

                    I’m butthurt that you won’t shut up and agree with me. Furthermore, I’m almost completely full of shit and am being a blustery asshole because I don’t want people to know I’m lost. So I’m going to call you dumb and hope that nobody else catches on.

                    1. Sparky, there are only so many hours in the day. People like John and myself are incalculably generous, attempting to straighten you all out on these issues where you’re all so horribly wrong. However, there is a limit.

                      So really, it isn’t John, and it isn’t me, It’s you guys and your insane open borders nonsense that are the problem. Open border no matter what has been consisterly and continually debunked.

                      Chipper is endlessly obtuse, perhaps willfully. That isn’t John’s fault. It’s Chippers. If you all quit acting like Progressives, and taking progressive positions on things, then maybe you will actually listen and learn something p.

              2. An atheist is simply someone without faith. Plenty of atheist respect and even follow religious morality on its own merit, rather than out of fear of some invisible boogeyman.

                1. As opposed to what I call anti-religionists who are actively hostile to all religion. They give atheists a bad name.

                2. This is why there’s a term called ‘agnostic’, because the idea of atheism is essentially the same as that of a theist: that there is certainly no god when such a certainty is not possible.

                  1. “This is why there’s a term called ‘agnostic’, because the idea of atheism is essentially the same as that of a theist: that there is certainly no god when such a certainty is not possible.”

                    This is making unwarranted assumptions about the nature of faith.

                    Faith is not the presence of certainty. Faith is what you believe despite the uncertainty.

                    Why should we think that the uncertainty of agnostics is any more substantial than the uncertainty of Christians?

                    Anyone who is certain is being irrational–regardless of whether they’re atheists or Christians. If I’m cautiously optimistic about the existence of God despite my uncertainty, does that make me agnostic? If not, then “agnostic” is being used as a bullshit term. The only legitimate use of the term “agnostic” is for people who have no opinion one way or the other.

                    Certainty is generally irrational–even in applied math because there can be concerns about dyslexia, miscounting, questions about source data, the possibility of typos, etc. Uncertainty is the human condition–and that doesn’t change because you believe in God (or that there isn’t one).

                    1. Atheists who are certain are irrational. Christians who are certain are irrational. Atheists who are uncertain are just rational atheists–not agnostics who think there isn’t enough information to form an opinion. Rational Christians have a specific word for forming an opinion despite the uncertainty–they call it “faith”.

                      It is theoretically certain that 1 + 1 = 2, which is to say that it doesn’t require any faith. Faith implies uncertainty because sans the uncertainty, there isn’t any faith at all.

              3. I am saying that atheists believe morality is objective

                HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HA HA HAH!

                1. John would never lower himself to asking an atheist what they believe and then actually listening to the answer. It would conflict with his preconceptions.

                  1. You should really look in a mirror, when you say stupid shit like that. It might be revealing for you.

        2. Oh wow…

          Okay dude, even if you’re right that “treating other people as if they and their right to make choices for themselves were important may be the beginning of all libertarianism–and a lot of [libertarians] get that from cultural Christianity”, you are dead wrong if you think that’s what a lot of Christians get from “cultural Christianity”.

          Christianity has always been on board with, if not the leader of, placing itself as an authoritative source on what should and shouldn’t be done, and has never balked at using the law to enforce that on others. Christianity has never stuck to “we’ll preach, but we won’t force you to listen”. You gotta remember, that whole “Freedom of Religion” thing? Was because folks knew how aggressive Christians would be with other Christians, nevertheless with non-Christians.

          1. So what? Neither has any other religion or set of ethics. Moreover, no society in history is all live and let live. Every society has a set of mores and standards or it couldn’t function.

            All you are saying here is that Christians are human beings subject to the same foibles as any other human beings. Well, no shit. No one ever claimed otherwise.

            1. No one ever claimed otherwise.
              To the contrary, Ken just claimed otherwise.

              1. No he didn’t. He claimed Christian ethics were that way. The point is that as an ideal they work. Sure people never meet the ideal but that is true no matter what. The question is if you don’t adopt that ideal then what? We have adopted something much worse.

                1. On re-reading, I was overly flip with you.

                  That said, my point which was not that people “fail” at their ideals, it’s that Ken is assigning ideals to a group of people who don’t claim or exhibit those ideals, now or in the past.

                  1. They exhibit those ideals regardless of whether they claim them. Those ideals are infused in the culture. You can’t help but be influenced by your culture. It permeates our assumptions.

                    Like I said, atheist gays may not be Christians, but when they’re advocating the golden rule–that they should be treated the way we would want to be treated if we were them–they’re doing so as a result of the influence of Christianity.

                    Is it irrational for them to find that logic persuasive or to make such assumption? They may not claim Christianity as the basis for their argument, but the culture of Christianity has informed their assumptions about fairness, etc. And that’s just one example!

                    When you get into questions about rights and choice, etc., the influence of Christianity is even more apparent.

                    1. One of the misunderstandings between Muslim informed culture and Christian has to do with free will vs. determinism.

                      Christians generally believe that an omnipotent God restrained himself from protecting his own perfect son because God believes in free will. He allows us to choose to defy him–although someday we may be held accountable for our choices. This has led to a society that is generally sympathetic to the idea that people should be free to make choices for themselves.

                      Islamist informed culture doesn’t see God that way.

                    2. In standard Islam, Jesus didn’t die on the cross because he never did anything wrong–so God wouldn’t have let anything bad happen to him.

                      In standard Islam, God doesn’t punish you because you chose to rebel against him and sin, rather you sin because God wills it. If God didn’t want it to happen, it wouldn’t. This is why terrorists yell “Allah Akbar”. If God didn’t want them to kill all those people, then he wouldn’t have allowed them to do so. The success of their attack is evidence of God’s sanction.

                      God doesn’t condemn you because you chose to sin. In their culture, you choose to sin because because God has already condemned you. You’re not judged because of your choices–you have no choice to disobey God’s will. Believing you have the choice to disobey God is blasphemy–that can’t be done because everything that happens is God’s will. Nobody has the power to disobey God.

                      Can you see why that might result in a different culture surrounding the right to make choices for yourself?

                      Can you see why a society influenced by Christianity would be more sympathetic to the right to make choices for yourself?

                    3. Very well put Ken. Unfortunately, too many of the people here are so full of bile and hatred towards Christianity that your words will be lost on them.

          2. EscherEnigma,

            Injustice has always abounded in this country, from the time of its creation right through today, but I think it would be wrong to say that the American people have never really cared about injustice.

            Because people fail to live up to their ideals doesn’t mean they don’t have ideals.

            Yeah, Christianity has been used to justify all manner of evil, but it’s also had a profound effect on our culture and our ideals.

            Certainly, at the center of Christianity, there’s always been things like “If you have done so unto the least of these, you have done so unto me” and “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”. That these ideas are compatible with things like natural rights, equality before the law, etc. shouldn’t be controversial. The controversial suggestion would be that 2,000 years of a religion had no influence on our cultural values.

            If Christians have never always turned the other cheek or lived by those ideals, that isn’t to say that those aren’t Christian ideals with a tremendous amount of influence on the culture.

            1. You seem very confused on what I said.

              To be clear, things I did not say or claim include:
              “[…] the American people have never really cared about injustice.”
              “Because people fail to live up to their ideals […] mean[s] they don’t have ideals.”
              “That these ideas are compatible with things like natural rights, equality before the law, etc. [is] controversial.”
              “2,000 years of a religion had no influence on our cultural values.”

              Which is to say, you are refuting claims I did not make.

              The claim I did make is that wherever you think libertarians get their ethical ideas, few Christians get “libertarian ethics” from their religion, and in fact get what y’all regularly refer to as “statist” and “slaver” ethics from their religion.

              1. I don’t know what you’re using as your gauge of Christian ethics, but the differences between “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” and the NAP are practically negligible.

                Seems like the Golden Rule was so good, they had to reinvent it–and just strip it of its associations with Christianity.

                First Amendment religious protections are so obviously lifted from points of Protestant doctrine (see Two Kingdoms, etc.), the guy who wrote the First Amendment credited Martin Luther with “showing us the way”.

                Libertarians of recent decades may have found novel rationalizations for their ethics that don’t include any direct references to Christianity, but they had to bob and weave and ignore the obvious to get there.

                Libertarian ideas did not drop out of the sky fully formed ex nihilo. Libertarian ethics arose within the context of a culture that had been deeply influenced by Christianity, and plenty of Christians today still arrive at libertarian conclusions because of that influence.

                1. I tend to agree with you Ken, and I’m an agnostic. People also tend to forget that the very concept of natural law and natural rights originate with god. Strip god out, and you literally get progressivism in a nutshell and it’s a primary reason why people think of rights as positive rights: because there is no other way to read it without the god portion.

          3. Untrue. Christianity has a belief in what should be done, for sure, but a core message has always been to love the sinner. It is why when the Pope told the gay guy recently that God loves him regardless…that is basic Christian theology. We can believe that the act of gay sex is a sin, but Christian faith does require one to love the sinner as child of God.

            Will we criticize? Of course. That is life. It’d be wrong to not say “This is not the best way to do things”. But a gay man has a much better shot at survival in a Christian society than any other society. And we recognize that not everybody is going to do things the “best” way and God will forgive anybody.

            Christianity gets tons of heat, but its positive impact on the world dwarfs any other faith or movement. Christianity basically supported the Renaissance. What has atheism done, honestly?

            1. You seem very confused on what I said because your response is entirely irrelevant to what I said.

          4. Christianity has always been on board with, if not the leader of, placing itself as an authoritative source on what should and shouldn’t be done, and has never balked at using the law to enforce that on others.

            Yeah, like when St. Augustine, and later St. Thomas Aquinas, demanded that prostitution be outlawed because it was sexually immoral.

            Oh . . . wait . . . actually, it seems those two saints and Doctors of the Church said governments shouldn’t outlaw prostitution even though it was immoral and shouldn’t be done, and for the whole Middle Ages the Church went along with that and opposed outlawing prostitution.

            Well, clearly they and the medieval Church weren’t true Christians, since you’ve assured us that Christianity has never balked at using the law to enforce views on what shouldn’t be done.

            1. Oh fuck off. No one cares.

        3. They seem to want to disenfranchise voters from setting the rules.

          YES. For the same reason that “they” want to disenfranchise voters from setting the rules about gun rights, or free speech rights, or drugs, or anything else which constitutes an expression of one’s natural rights.

          The voters shouldn’t get a say in whom I choose to hire in my business, for the same reason that the voters shouldn’t get a say in which gun I choose to buy, or which herb I choose to smoke, or which hooker I choose to pay for sex.

          1. Great. But you don’t get to unilaterally choose who comes into MY country. You can hire anyone you want. So if they can’t come here then you’re perfectly welcome to open a facility in whatever foreign country you wish.

        4. Gay atheists……….

          Gaytheists?

      2. The other thing cultural Christianity does is it infuses people with is the idea that our fellow Americans can be persuaded to change their minds. Can’t tell you how many of my fellow libertarians seem to be mystified by the suggestion that we should be out there trying to persuade our irrational countrymen to see things our way. For Christians, this is foundational stuff. Jesus started out with twelve guys, and one of them was a traitor. No reason why we can’t preach the libertarian gospel and convert the heathen like he did.

        Like I said, I think they have problems getting past the idea that they should even care about deplorables, but that’s the only way forward that isn’t elitist or authoritarian. Otherwise, they’re talking about seizing the reigns of power and inflicting libertarianism on an unwilling populace using the coercive power of the state.

        1. Jesus started out with twelve guys, and one of them was a traitor.

          As Borges has shown us, Judas was the real hero of the story.

          1. I wouldn’t say the hero, but he was the needed catalyst for it all. He is arguably the most important Apostle and the second most important person in the New Testament.

  7. The reason to attack immigrants is because if Trump wins reelection, it’ll probably be because he carries the same swing states in the rust belt that he carried in 2016.

    Regardless of whether immigration is good for the economy, generally, unskilled voters in the rust belt are likely to perceive this as fighting for their benefit between now and November 2018.

    That’s why Trump is going after illegal immigrants.

    The mission of free-market capitalists should be to persuade white, blue collar, middle class “deplorables” in the rust belt that immigration is good for them. If you can’t do that, here’s a primer:

    1) Jobs created through government interference at the border are unsustainable.
    2) Automation is a bigger threat and doesn’t need to sneak across the border.
    3) Cheap labor is a resource like oil, and having more of it available for less is good for economic growth.
    4) If cheap labor were bad for economic growth, China would have the slowest growing economy over the last 20 years.
    5) Cheap labor makes services available that middle class people couldn’t afford otherwise (care for elderly parents, cheap child care for working mothers, cheap housework, etc.)
    6) on and on and on and on . . .

    1. 1) Jobs created through government interference at the border are unsustainable.

      Controlling immigration doesn’t create jobs. It controls the supply of people available for the jobs that do exist. So, your sentence doesn’t make any sense.

      2) Automation is a bigger threat and doesn’t need to sneak across the border.

      Sure. And that alleviates the need and value of cheap labor. This point contradicts your others. If automation is coming, then there is no need to import cheap labor. And doing so will just create social problems as automation eliminates the jobs they were brought in to do.

      3) Cheap labor is a resource like oil, and having more of it available for less is good for economic growth.

      Not necessarily. An overabundance of cheap labor can cause businesses to reduce investment in capital, which reduces productivity and economic growth with it. And one man’s cheap labor is another man’s bad labor market. There are significant social costs that come with lower wages and tight labor markets, which importing large amounts of cheap labor can cause.

      1. “Controlling immigration doesn’t create jobs. It controls the supply of people available for the jobs that do exist. So, your sentence doesn’t make any sense.”

        Again, the reasoning behind this is that people in the rust belt don’t want to have to compete with cheap unskilled labor. They believe that stopping that labor at the border will make less competition for them.

        To whatever extent they believe that their jobs will be safe because the government is stifling competition for unskilled labor at the border, they are wrong. Whatever jobs are created through government interference at the border are unsustainable.

        1. Again, the reasoning behind this is that people in the rust belt don’t want to have to compete with cheap unskilled labor. They believe that stopping that labor at the border will make less competition for them.

          Sure. And there is nothing “unsustainable” about that. Markets adjust. Controlling immigration and raising wages, as a result, are really nothing but a tax on certain goods and services. The market will adjust to them like any other tax. You may not like that, but there is nothing unsustainable about such a system.

          The question is whose interests should predominate; those of the consumers or those of the producers. There is no “right” answer to that. It depends on what you value more. But there is nothing about the access to cheap labor or cheap consumer goods that makes it the only value worthy of pursuing in economic policy. Indeed, access to cheap consumer goods and cheap labor can cause a market to go off kilter as people consumer more and save less than they otherwise would or businesses invests less in capital.

          1. “Sure. And there is nothing “unsustainable” about that.”

            You’re acting as if there’s no substitute for cheap labor in a subthread about automation, which is odd.

            You’re also forgetting that one of the substitutes for labor is to simply stop offering services.

            Before the last oil shock when I was a little kid, all the gas stations had attendants. Every time you pulled into the gas station, three guys would jump on your car. One to wash your windshield, one to check the air on your tires, and one to ask you how much gas you wanted in your car. $5 worth of regular. Then they’d pump it in your car.

            I can’t remember the last time I saw a gas station with an attendant. Those guys weren’t replaced by automation. People just aren’t willing to pay for the cost of that service anymore.

            The substitute for gas attendants was “nothing”.

            You really can price yourself out of a job.

            1. You’re acting as if there’s no substitute for cheap labor in a subthread about automation, which is odd.

              No I am not. I am saying the exact opposite. I am saying automation repaces cheap labor and that is why we don’t need that much of it.

              You’re also forgetting that one of the substitutes for labor is to simply stop offering services.

              Demand will create the supply and vice versa. How much is a question of cost and availability.

              Before the last oil shock when I was a little kid, all the gas stations had attendants. Every time you pulled into the gas station, three guys would jump on your car. One to wash your windshield, one to check the air on your tires, and one to ask you how much gas you wanted in your car. $5 worth of regular. Then they’d pump it in your car.

              That went away because cars no longer needed their oil checked and serviced like they once did. Once cars got better, there was no point in paying any money for the attendants. No amount of new cheap labor is going to change that.

              1. I am saying automation repaces cheap labor and that is why we don’t need that much of it.

                Automation frees cheap labor for the next unskilled service that has not yet been automated.

                1. Automation doesn’t replace cheap labor–especially when you consider the initial costs.

                  Automation replaces expensive labor. The cheaper the labor is, the less likely automation is to replace it.

      2. “If automation is coming, then there is no need to import cheap labor.”

        I think you’re missing the point that automation is accelerated to the extent that labor becomes more expensive.

        Without cheap labor from immigration, at some price, automated trucks become more cost competitive and homes that are prefabricated in a factory by robots become more cost competitive.

        Automation isn’t only driven by technological advances. It’s also driven by cost considerations. As the cost of labor rises, the cost competitiveness of automation becomes higher.

        In Mexico, everything is delivered. Each McDonalds there has dozens of guys on mopeds with hotboxes on the back that deliver–and fast. They mostly work for tips. Those guys will lose their jobs to automated cars long after Americans do–because they’re cheaper than both American workers and automation. If they were more expensive to hire, they’d lose their jobs sooner.

        1. I think you’re missing the point that automation is accelerated to the extent that labor becomes more expensive.

          No, that is exactly my point. If you have tons of cheap labor then your investment in capital and automation lags and your productivity and wealth along with it.

          Automation isn’t only driven by technological advances. It’s also driven by cost considerations. As the cost of labor rises, the cost competitiveness of automation becomes higher.

          Yes, you are just making my point for me. Restrict the labor supply and you get more capital and higher productivity and a higher average standard of living.

          1. Restrict the labor supply and you get more capital and higher productivity and a higher average standard of living.

            Restrict the number of people producing value, as in creating capital, and you’ll get more capital.

            Restrict the number of people producing things and you’ll get more productivity.

            Restrict the amount of stuff produced by restricting the supply of people producing it and you’ll have a higher standard of living.

            Brilliant!

      3. It controls the supply of people available for the jobs that do exist. So, your sentence doesn’t make any sense.

        You talk as if there are a fixed number of jobs in the economy, so when an immigrant takes a job a native must be rendered unemployed.

        That is zero-sum thinking. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Immigrants take jobs, but that means they are producing something of value. Not only that, but they are consumers as well. They create both supply and demand. They grow the pie.

        1. “They grow the pie.”

          You trot this line out every time this debate comes up without ever once accepting that you sound like an idiot growing pies of stoopwork.

          1. Learn some basic economics and then you’ll realize who the idiot actually is.

            1. If you can grow pies, then I’ll take 2 peach and 1 apple please.

        2. You talk as if there are a fixed number of jobs in the economy, so when an immigrant takes a job a native must be rendered unemployed.

          … and …

          Not only that, but they are consumers as well. They create both supply and demand. They grow the pie.

          This is exactly right. It’s also important to realize that the demand for things isn’t fixed in any rational fashion. To meet our needs we only need a few models of cars, a few basic staples for food, a reinforced cardboard structure for shelter. Everything else is elaboration, and there are no limits on elaboration. I’m pretty sure entertainment in all it’s guises is the largest sector of the economy these days.

          Someone got rich on pet rocks at one time. We will never run out of jobs as long as it’s easy and cheap to create a corporation and employ people.

        3. No, it isn’t zero sum thinking. If you flood the job market with labor faster than the absorbtion rate, you end up with not enough jobs, this is where wage depression sets in. How many barely literate low skilled workers do you think you dump into a geographical area before you run out of jobs for which they are competent? It isn’t unlimited.

      4. “An overabundance of cheap labor can cause businesses to reduce investment in capital, which reduces productivity and economic growth with it”

        China had a billion peasants with not much more to do than scratch a subsistence living from an acre of land–just enough to keep themselves from starving to death . . . most of the time.

        Because of some vicious, ugly, and misplaced Malthusian thinking, they implements some authoritarian population control programs. They joined the WTO in 2001? 17 years later, one of their biggest problems is a shortage of labor because of demographics.

        They have more opportunities than people.

        Labor is a resource. Having more of a resource available for less if good for the economy, long term. There may be short term situations, recessions, etc., but over the long term, having more of a resource available to the economy for less money is better for economic growth.

        “Too many people” was never their problem. Government interference in the economy was the problem. The people were a resource. Their labor was a resource, and having an abundance of it available for cheap is the fuel that made their economy grow. In fact, their abundance of labor helped make our economy grow by shifting the cost of manufacturing to a place where it cost less.

        Isn’t bemoaning excess people in our own country even as we complain about the low cost of labor in China making manufacturing here uncompetitive, isn’t that burning the candle at both ends?

        1. Their problem was not too many people. Their problem was people not being productive. The solution to that is to figure out a way to make people more productive. The same is true of us today. We get richer by figuring out how to be more productive. You don’t do that by importing unskilled labor any more than China could do it by killing people off. There is no point in importing unskilled labor. All it does is create the problem of how to make them more productive. It is creating a problem where none exists.

          1. There is no point in importing unskilled labor. All it does is create the problem of how to make them more productive. It is creating a problem where none exists.

            It doesn’t create a problem. It solves a problem. Lots of problems. Problems like “Where do I find cheap laborers to do this job that isn’t automated and that I can’t afford to automate?”

            1. Green card. Stay a specific time as long as you’re employed, don’t vote and no you’re 16 children and 34 cousins ain’t allowed.

              1. So in order for sarcasmic to associate with the person of his choice to perform a task that both parties freely agree to, sarcasmic must first get a permission slip from the state which comes with a whole lot of other caveats and strings attached. Why exactly?

                1. No, the immigrant must. Because, like every other country I know of, the U.S. has decided it has borders, and feels it best to control such, oddly enough, like every other country. Why is that concept confusing to you?

            2. “It doesn’t create a problem. It solves a problem. Lots of problems.”

              All it does is increase the factors of production if you want to get down to it. It does nothing to increase Total Factor Productiviy. Increasing labor supply does not make you more efficient and if slavery taught us anything (economically) is that having boatloads of cheap labor is not a recipe to long term economic success.

              If we ever reach our high water mark (economically) because our population peaks out, that is fine with me. I think our standard of living is pretty good and I don’t feel like living in a one bedroom place for $2000 a month because there are too many people and having to spend an hour in traffic both ways because there are too many people and deal with the environmental destruction of places I think are pretty because we have too many people. I see little personal incentive to grow our country demographically so we can chase phantom 3% GDP growth forever and line the pockets of financiers in New York.

      5. And having an unusable amount of cheap labor also leads to perpetual unemployment, swelling of the welfare rolls, more crime, homelessness, etc..

        But hey, open borders no matter what!

    2. 4) If cheap labor were bad for economic growth, China would have the slowest growing economy over the last 20 years.

      That is a fallacy. Maybe China grew in spite of cheap labor. Moreover, China is an emerging economy. They rely on cheap labor because that is all they had at one time. The whole point of growth is to move beyond that so that your productivity, wages and standard of living go up. Cheap labor is not the way to growth in a developed country that already has a high standard of living.

      5) Cheap labor makes services available that middle class people couldn’t afford otherwise (care for elderly parents, cheap child care for working mothers, cheap housework, etc.)

      And it makes doing those things less profitable for the people who do them now. Why does the middle class interests outweigh theirs? Moreover, won’t automation make most of those things even cheaper anyway? Why bring in the labor when you know the automation is coming and in fact doing so will delay the development of the automation?

      None of your points are valid Ken.

      1. And it makes doing those things less profitable for the people who do them now.

        In that case we better outlaw all automation as well as cheap labor. It has the same effect.

        Why does the middle class interests outweigh theirs?

        By middle class interests do you mean the people who pay for these services, who will have more money in their pocket if these services are cheaper?

        Why bring in the labor when you know the automation is coming and in fact doing so will delay the development of the automation?

        In that case let’s raise minimum wage to fifty bucks an hour! Everything will be automated!

        1. Why do so many libertarians favor thighs that might make some goods 5% cheaper at the cost of destroying thousands or more good jobs? It makes me think it’s less about libertarianism. And more about just being a greedy selfish asshole.

    3. Sadly, this is EASILY the best argument in support of more open borders I’ve seen. You’d think people PAID to write about this stuff would have generated anything close to this.

      But it tends to be “Stupid rube hicks don’t know shit!”

      1. The best argument for open borders is still sadly lacking. As there is no real good argument for open borders.

    4. “The mission of free-market capitalists should be to persuade white, blue collar, middle class “deplorables” in the rust belt that immigration is good for them. If you can’t do that, here’s a primer:”

      Trying to persuade normal white Americans to take a pay cut for the sake of an abstraction you call ‘the economy’ is what it amounts to. Calling for people to sacrifice can work, but you need an inspirational leader for that. Trump is too divisive for that. Trump knows this and so he relies on his bag of divisive tricks like scapegoating and fearmongering.

      1. I gave a list of five examples of the kind of benefits I was talking about–none of which were anything like what you suggested.

        If you think a pay cut is the only thing immigration has to offer these people, then rather than talking to them about economics, you should definitely do libertarianism a favor and just nail your tongue to a desk somewhere instead.

        1. “If you think a pay cut is the only thing immigration has to offer these people,”

          I don’t think that. But the cheap labor you speak of means lower wages, doesn’t it? I don’t see the attraction of lower wages to normal white Americans.

  8. Why pick on immigrants? They are without sin and the existence of the welfare state has no bearing on the issue since only dirty natives use welfare.

    When it was noted that the carry-on bags of multiple airline passengers traveling from Minneapolis to Somalia contained millions of dollars in cash, on a regular basis, law enforcement was naturally curious to know where the money came from and where it was going. It soon emerged that millions of taxpayer dollars, and possibly much more, had been stolen through a massive scam of Minnesota’s social-services sector, specifically through fraudulent daycare claims. To make matters worse, the money appears to have wound up in areas of Somalia controlled by al-Shabab, the Islamic jihadist group responsible for numerous terrorist outrages.

    http://www.city-journal.org/ht…..15924.html

    Does the reason staff just pretend that things like this don’t happen?

    1. Maybe if they put all the money on one pallet and shipped it via Iran, the feds would have had no issue.

      1. Fair point.

    2. Ugh, John, why do you hate free and open commerce?

    3. I like the subheading on the link, “raises questions about the limits of assimilation” Ha! Um, wouldn’t we actually have to expect immigrants to assimilate in order to see any limits of it. This isn’t the turn of the 20th century. Nowadays every culture is equally beautiful and unique and special (except the west)

      1. Eh, go back to the thread about how America isn’t really browning from earlier in the week (or maybe late last week?).

        Folks are assimilating just fine.

        1. That sounds like a racial thing but I’m talking about culture. Have you heard of cultural appropriation? People who are generations removed from immigrants are assimilating less than their grandparents did.

          1. “That sounds like a racial thing but I’m talking about culture.”
            As was I.

            Folks are assimilating just fine.

    4. People defrauding a government welfare program and funneling the money overseas is the kind of thing a libertarian publication would be discussing. Ordinarily, that is. Since the alleged perpetrators are refugees, it’s too counter-narrative to run here.

    5. They did it because it was the kind of fraud Americans do not want to do anymore.

    6. Is there any legitimate reason to travel to Somalia?

  9. “”The Economy’s Improving?Why Keep Attacking Immigrants? New at Reason””

    Sure the economy is improving, but that doesn’t me we should ignore those who violate immigration law?

    I’m ok with immigration. I can entertain a conversation on open borders. I’m for fairness within the system. If someone coming across the Atlantic, or Pacific is required to process through customs, why should those crossing the southern border get a pass?

  10. Is this a regular meeting of Libertarians For Big-Government, Bigoted Immigration Policies, or a special meeting?

    1. This is one of the regular meetings.

    2. OH NOES THE BIGOT IS COMPLAINING ABOUT BIGOTRY!!!

      DA HARRA!!!

  11. Given that Reason keeps publishing the same shit, I continue to have the same response:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3SxEOvAOEg

    I’m sure not gonna work any harder than they do. I’m not even on the payroll.

  12. Mogadishu, Minnesota
    When it was noted that the carry-on bags of multiple airline passengers traveling from Minneapolis to Somalia contained millions of dollars in cash, on a regular basis, law enforcement was naturally curious to know where the money came from and where it was going. It soon emerged that millions of taxpayer dollars, and possibly much more, had been stolen through a massive scam of Minnesota’s social-services sector, specifically through fraudulent daycare claims. To make matters worse, the money appears to have wound up in areas of Somalia controlled by al-Shabab, the Islamic jihadist group responsible for numerous terrorist outrages….

    1. If we only restricted immigration, fraud would go away!

      1. If we restricted immigrants getting on welfare, welfare fraud for immigrants would go away.

    2. I seem to have missed the part where it was mentioned that these were illegal immigrants.

      Or is the argument that we should prohibit all immigration?

      1. Is that your argument? Seems a little extreme. Being pro immigration myself, we should allow some people in every year.

    3. Last week I went for a picnic. After laying out the food on a blanket in the grass, I realized I’d forgotten my after dinner 12 pack and hiked the couple miles to my car. When I got back, my food was covered with ants and other insects.

      Can you imagine! We need to ban insects!

      1. By your thinking, we should be giving the inscts welfare, and free access to all government services. Vent ahead of the non insects.

        1. By my thinking we should be withholding welfare, not banning immigrants. If you put a pizza out, insects will come. If you put welfare out, people who want welfare will come.

          We can tune our incentives to get the immigrants we want. Why wouldn’t we do that?

  13. Eye-popping surge of illegal immigrants abducting children
    Children ‘abducted’ by illegals hoping to pose as families at U.S. border

    The government warned federal judges in 2016 that their attempts to create a catch-and-release policy for illegal immigrant families would lead to children being “abducted” by migrants hoping to pose as families to take advantage.

    The court brushed aside those worries and imposed catch-and-release anyway.

    Two years later, children are indeed being kidnapped or borrowed by illegal immigrants trying to pose as families, according to Homeland Security numbers, which show the U.S. is on pace for more than 400 such attempts this year. That would be a staggering 900 percent increase over 2017’s total….

    1. “The government warned federal judges in 2016 that their attempts to create a catch-and-release policy for illegal immigrant families would lead to children being “abducted” by migrants hoping to pose as families to take advantage.”

      The policies you advocate incentivize this kind of criminal enterprise. If the borders were open and prospective immigrants weren’t desperate to curry favor with federal authorities, these crimes wouldn’t exist.

      1. And if I left my doors open and welcomed thieves and burglars, I probably wouldn’t get beaten up during a robbery either.

      2. People who abduct children in order to commit immigration fraud have a criminal and depraved mind. Trying to avoid “incentivizing” them is the wrong policy. These people need to be identified and deported.

  14. I presume the current fuss is over whether to enforce the federal immigration statutes will be enforced.

    Only if they’re going to be enforced would it be useful or helpful to discuss amendments.

    Unless of course we’re convinced the immigration statutes are unconstitutional, which I don’t think Trump’s critics believe.

  15. This immigration frenzy is the last desperate gasp of the Trumpkins. They failed on terrorism (Trump accidentally destroyed ISIS, much to their chagrin), and they didn’t have much luck going after black people and the NFL, so now it’s back to immigrants again. This is his base, and they are trying to keep them alive and stop them from overdosing on oxy at least until they can vote. Of course they will fail. But it does expose an important conundrum that separates the races in GA and LA (remember Roy Moore?) – will blacks vote for or against immigrants?

    1. That might be the dumbest thing I have seen in a while. I am pretty sure the Trumpkins are happy ISIS was destroyed. And last I looked the NFL was going to penalize any team who had a player who didn’t stand for the anthem.

      You really are stupid aren’t you?

      1. Your tears….. Hold still………..

        1. yeah, you really are that dumb.

          1. And now by cutting aid to El Salvador, and providing better support to the unaccompanied children entering from there (so they don’t become gang members), Trump will also be weakening and destroying MS-13. Leaving him nothing to bloviate about. Yeah, he really is that dumb.

            1. Yet he’s still ten times smarter than you are.

  16. Because making dumbass old coots afraid of phantom brown people is easier than addressing any of their real needs?

    1. Tony, you’re the dumbest person out there, regardless of age. What are your needs? I mean besides a barely pubescent boy?

  17. Reason isn’t virtue signaling. Reason is a stepping stone job. Everyone here is looking for higher paid gigs at more ‘mainstream’ publications, so they need to show their new employers they are the “right kind of people”.

    1. So that means the long timers like Jacket, Glasses, and Purple Hair are losers?

    2. How will they explain away all their pro-gun-rights articles?

      Or all the right-wing economics they keep endorsing?

      What’s the use saying nice things about illegal immigrants and people who have dick-removal surgery, if in the end you’re just fronting for the Kochs’ evil agenda of killing children with guns while taking away their health care and paying them starvation wages?

  18. I just got paid 7k dollar working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over 12k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.socialearn3.com

  19. As our economy continues to grow, why are we still looking for scapegoats?

    Because scapegoating foreigners is a time-tested technique for riling up the masses and drumming up populist support for one’s tribe. It is disgusting and shameful, but that is the modern Republican Party for you.

  20. Limit immigration until the current bumper-crop assimilates.

    1. Why do you believe the “current bumper-crop” is not assimilating?

      1. Er, “until the current bumper-crop assimilates” actually assumes they are assimilating, because it implies a future state when they are assimilated and thus the limit is removed.

  21. In Georgia, state Sen. Michael Williams, who is running for governor, recently unveiled his “Michael Williams Deportation Bus,” which he says he will drive through Georgia’s (non-existent) sanctuary cities.
    First of all, Michael Williams lost the primary.

    Secondly, it was Lt. Governor Casey Cagle who claims that Decatur Georgia is not cooperating with ICE and thereby in violation of Georgia law. Cagle is in a runoff with Kemp for Governor.
    Decatuer sanctuary city in Georgia

    Please check your facts before writing inaccurate information or it makes you look stupid.

    1. C’mon LC, what are the odds of THAT happening?

  22. The realities underlying the immigration debate are that we have more than enough people, more than enough imported poor people (see The Characteristics of Unauthorized Immigrants in California, Los Angeles County, and the United States by Karina Fortuny et al; the February 9, 2006 report by the California Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) on efficacy of border police; the Analysis of the California 2001-02 Budget Bill by the LAO), and more than enough imported criminals (read about Jamiel Shaw, Kate Steinle, Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez, ); consider the disproportionate medicare fraud, food stamp fraud, and mortgage fraud by recent arrivals from cultures in which crime and fraud are normal – look up Glendale medicare fraud).

  23. “Immigration Hawks Dig in, but Why?”

    Because some people think that the freedom of America is worth preserving.

    But I’m sure you’ll just assume they’re racists.

  24. How about because more people = more suck? What is there good about large numbers of people competing for finite resources? Not to mention degradation of the environment generally.

    1. Honestly this is what I was thinking. More traffic, more pollution, more people, more problems, more competition to live in nice places.

      I know people I grew up with, staunch “coastal elites” from California and South Florida, thinking of moving to places like South Carolina and Utah and Texas because houses are too expensive everywhere they would want to live (California, Seattle, Denver, Boston, D.C.). Next you know Arkansas will be on the list of places people might move to!

      Arkansas, people, Arkansas!

    2. Bingo!

      “50 million American households can’t afford basic living expenses ”
      https://www.marketwatch.com/

      story/50-million-american-households-cant-afford-

      basic-living-expenses-2018-05-18?

  25. Soooo this whole immigrants commit less crime thing… I have read on it, and agree that it is likely true for most legal immigrants. But illegal ones are a completely different story.

    How does one make these figures jive:

    Hispanics commit half as many murders as non Hispanic whites, yet are less than 1/4 of the percentage of the population…

    And Hispanics commit less crime than native born people?

    Simple! Black people are mostly native born!

    The fact is Hispanics commit crimes at VASTLY higher rates than WHITE AMERICANS, but vastly lower rates than BLACK AMERICANS.

    Here’s the thing though… If you’re setting your bar for acceptable crime levels based on what’s going on in the black community, you REALLY need to raise your bar for what is acceptable.

    In other words, this is a bullshit semantics game. If a bunch of Hispanics move into a mostly white area crime will go up considerably. If they move into a black area, crime may well go down! But again, unless your bar is so low that Detroit, Chicago, or St. Louis are acceptable outcomes to you, then you have to look at the reality that Hispanics increase crime in most places they move.

    Also, labor force participation rate is lower than it’s been since the 70s, etc etc etc. Official unemployment rates are bunk. These are all BS arguments if you actually know the DETAILS of the stats being used. So try again Hinkle!

    1. Well said!

  26. If I were to read all the comments, how many would boil down to #MakeAmericaWhiteAgain ?? Or have the fauxbertarians taken an early long weekend?

    1. “If I were to read all the comments, how many would boil down to #MakeAmericaWhiteAgain ?”

      None of them. The in,y way you draw that conclusion is if you’re some fucking piece of shit progtard.

  27. I have to wonder if the author lives in a state impacted by illegal immigration like Texas. We are forced to spend millions of dollars every year feeding, educating and healing people who have entered the country illegally. Why do they deserve special consideration when those who opt to enter legally are forced to pay fees, follow the immigration laws and wait for years to become citizens? I amazes me how those most supportive of illegal immigration and illegal immigrants are also those living in locations where it is not a problem.

    1. This is actually a statistical fact.

      The people who trumpet “diversity” for the sake of diversity as a positive good just because, are the people who live in the least diverse areas. The more one has to live around people from other nations/cultures the less they like the idea.

      Also a similar type of situation is upper middle class white folks who live in gated communities not minding illegal immigration because they don’t see the effects, even if there are many in their general area. “Oh, but I have a Mexican doctor named Jose who lives down the street as a neighbor, he’s a great guy!” Which he probably is… But Over in the lower middle class part of town, that became 70% Hispanic from 10% in a span of 15 years, those Jose’s are not driving BMWs and paying their taxes. They’re working low end jobs living 15 people to a house at best, or many are in fact criminals.

      I know. I grew up in California in lower middle class neighborhoods. They’re not all bad people, but they aren’t the kind of people we need to be letting in by the millions either. Not in a world that has an ever lower amount of demand for low/no skill labor!

  28. Crime is down, business is booming, jobs are plentiful?so let’s go kick a Mexican in the teeth. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

    Are you seriously so wealthy, insulated, and out of touch with the state of the country that you believe this? Americans are scared, and they ought to be: they know that the current recovery is built on sand, that many of those jobs aren’t good jobs, and that both personal and national debt are major problems.

    Unemployment is, at 3.9 percent, the lowest it’s been in two decades?so if immigrants are “taking our jobs,” they sure aren’t taking very many of them.

    Unemployment is low because many Americans have given up looking for work and are living off government programs. The labor force participation rate never recovered from its precipitous drop under Obama. Young Americans are having a tough time finding jobs and are woefully underemployed, after being saddled with massive student loan debts.

    Why the animosity toward people who are simply trying to make a better life for themselves?

    Gosh, it might have something to do with the large six figure sum I sent to Uncle Sam just a couple of months ago? See, those “people” are trying to make a better life for themselves with my tax dollars, and I don’t like it.

    A. Barton Hinkle: go out and see what’s actually going on in the country. People are scared and they are angry, and for good reason.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.