Donald Trump

Lies About Chain Migration Are Donald Trump's 'Welfare Queen,' a Tall Tale To Comfort the Base

Politicians, especially presidents, should be held accountable for telling patently false anecdotes about real people.

|

President Donald Trump appeared this morning on Fox & Friends, which is reportedly his favorite TV show this side of The Apprentice franchise. Here's a clip from his interview with host Brian Kilmeade:

When discussing immigration policy, Trump repeatedly insists that "chain migration" allows for the fast and uncontrolled importation of huge numbers of family members. In today's interview, he says, "Chain migration is a disaster. You look at what's going on where someone who comes in is bad and has 24 family members yet not one of them do you want in this country."

Note that Trump here is talking about legal immigration, not illegal entry. His defenders often say it's illegal immigration that bothers them, but the fact is that the president, along with many leading Republicans, are working to reduce legal immigration by as much as 50 percent. The term "chain migration," which originally described a well-observed pattern by which residents of one town or area in a foreign country ended up settling in a particular new town or region because they followed previous migrants, is designed to conjure up images of one new arrival in America (someone bad, in Trump's formulation above) quickly and deviously smuggling in enough people to field a high school football team. Yet as Shikha Dalmia has written,

Beyond spouses and minor children, American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings—not aunts, uncles, and cousins. Moreover, they can do so only after they themselves receive green cards or become naturalized citizens.

It can take up to 45 years for an immigrant to show up in the United States, gain citizenship, and bring in the next single link in this chain. As a result, the U.S. annually admits only about 2 to 2.5 family members of immigrants per 1,000 residents, the same rate as Canada and Australia, countries with skills-based systems Trump says he favors. Dalmia further notes that fully two-thirds of immigrants sponsored by other immigrants are spouses and minor children.

Last December, the White House tweeted this chart, which is supposed to drive home the insidious nature of chain migration:

If this is the ticking demographic time bomb that keeps Trump up late at night, he should rest easy. Dalmia again (via Katherine Mangu-Ward):

If a typical 26-year-old foreign woman were to get married to an American citizen, and then sponsor her 25-year-old sister to get a green card, that sister would be 40 years old before she could obtain permanent residency. If she's a Filipina, her sister would be closer to 50 years old. If the sister then sponsored some other immediate relative, that person would have to go through a 15- to 25-year process as well. Over a half a century, then, most families could at best traverse two links in the alleged "chain," hardly the kind of thing that would result in mass migration.

The White House chart is illustrating a process that would unfold over centuries, not months or even decades. The larger conversation about immigration is misleading in other ways, too. While the percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born is at a recent high (13.5 percent in 2016, a level not seen since the period between 1870 and 1920), the rate of growth in net migration of legal and illegal immigrants is slowing along with overall rate of population and the raw number of illegal immigrants has been declining for at least a decade (the illegal population was 11 million in 2016, down from a 2007 peak of 12.2 million). The number of illegal Mexicans, an early and sustained focus of Trump's ire, also peaked in 2007.

While Trump's description of chain migration and its effects on American population is false and misleading, it serves a clear political function. It's a signal to his base that he gets it and is looking out for their interests, which include not simply making America great again but rolling back the supposedly still-growing tide of newcomers invading the country from non-traditional places such as China, India, and Mexico (currently the three largest sender countries, in decreasing order of immigrants).

His hammering on "chain migration" calls to mind Ronald Reagan's oft-repeated story about a welfare cheat in Chicago. Though he never named her, Reagan is widely understood to be talking about a woman known as Linda Taylor (among other aliases). Drawing off accounts in the Chicago Tribune (which coined the term welfare queen), Reagan first told the tale in January 1976, during his run for Republican presidential nomination:

In Chicago, they found a woman who holds the record…She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans' benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.

By October, reported Slate's Josh Levin in 2013, Reagan was claiming that she had "three new cars, a full-length mink coat, and her take is estimated at a million dollars." He attributed his facts again to investigative reporting by the Tribune, wrote Levin, but "I can't find anything in the Tribune to support the claim that Taylor's take reached $1 million." There's no question that Taylor was a criminal—she was convicted in 1977 of ripping the government off of $8,000 in various welfare scams—but the distance between that and a million dollars is vast.The welfare queen was understood to be black, as was the "strapping young buck" whom Reagan claimed in other speeches was using food stamps to buy "T-bone steak…while you were waiting in line to buy hamburger." Tellingly, outside of the South, Reagan referred to "some young fellow," a less racially charged description. Did such a person exist? Perhaps, but the point wasn't to be factually accurate but to connect with what he took to be his overwhelmingly white audience's sense of outrage and solidarity against the Other.

This sort of fabulism and exaggeration is appalling when it comes from anybody purporting to traffic in facts. It's all the more troubling when, in the cases of both Reagan and Trump, it's being used to demonize ethnic and racial minorities whose political power and cultural standing is marginal at best. That presidents of all people stoop to such tactics in unconscionable and my first inclination is to call out the racism and xenophobia in Trump's comments along with his made-up example.

But that's a losing strategy, actually, when it comes to Trump. Among the many genius elements of his rhetorical style is his ability to tie his critics up in knots. Just last week, he artfully managed to get Democratic politicians to burn air time defending members of the violent MS-13 gangs as something other than "animals." What's the old saying? When you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. If you talk about factual inaccuracy and racism with Trump or his supporters, suddenly you're going to be talking about racism plain and simple.

There's no reason to play Trump's game. He is wrong about chain migration, pure and simple, just as he is wrong more generally about the costs and benefits of immigration. The next time you see him (or his supporters), ask him (or his supporters) to produce his magical immigrant and the 24 relatives he has brought in via America's glacially-paced immigration system. He (and they) won't be able to, which should at least give them pause, if not the deeper shame they should feel about bullshitting all the time.

Related: "The 5 Best Arguments Against Immigration—and Why They're Wrong"

Full text and supporting links here.

NEXT: Study: Elite Colleges' Race-Conscious Admissions Discriminate Against Asian Applicants

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. And yet again Reason lies on the immigration issue. The assumption behind this article is that you must be a citizen to bring a family member in. This is not true. You can be a refugee and apply to bring in you

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency…..he-us.html

    There is no limit to the number of nationalities that qualify for admission through Form I-730 every year. Moreover, to qualify for this status, your relatives would not even need to meet the main qualification for obtaining asylee or refugee status ? that is, that they were persecuted in their home country.

    They would instead be classified as your “derivatives.” They would, however, still need to show that they are notbarred from receiving asylee or refugee status, meaning that they do not pose a security threat and have never persecuted anyone or committed a serious crime. (If other grounds of inadmissibility, such as having a communicable disease, apply ? especially to refugee derivatives ? they should request a waiver.)

    You can also bring in immediate family members if you are a Green Card holder

    http://www.uscis.gov/family/fa…..-residents

    And once they are green card holders, they can then sponsor their spouses, children and family members. That is why it is called “chain migration”.

    Nick is accusing Trump of lying while lying himself about this issue.

    1. He’s not lying, specifically. He’s looking at one single set of parameters – one person going through the full process to obtain American citizenship and then sponsoring a relative who also goes through the full process to obtain citizenship.

      And then he ignores every other possibility because to do so would be to admit what’s happening, which anyone who’s ever visited or had family in a refugee resettlement area can attest to firsthand.

      And he invents a new version of Trump in his head who apparently campaigns against Chinese and Indian immigrants (not companies abusing the H-1B program, but of course Nick probably wouldn’t bother going that far in his fantasy). This fake Trump also doesn’t like Mexican immigrants, despite the real Trump making it clear on many occasions that he’s against ILLEGAL immigration no matter the source country.

      It’s better this way because when Nick gets called out for bullshit he can say “but wait that’s not what I meant!”

      1. Is supporting immigration so hard that the only way to do it is to lie and mischaracterize the facts? It would appear that it is judging by reason’s support of it.

        1. Supporting their version is, yeah.

        2. And that’s the thing right there. Anybody who can’t argue ALL THE FACTS and has to cherry pick to attempt to win an argument… You KNOW they don’t have a good argument. Almost everything has pros and cons, and if you debate them honestly you can come to a “best overall” solution to most things. You’ll end up with some downsides to be sure, but you try to maximize the upsides.

          Let in anybody from anywhere just because immigration simply has too many potential downsides on a practical level for any sane person to be in favor of it. So everyone who wants to promote that for their ideological reasons (the left wants to destroy our culture and get voters… I’m not sure why some libertarians support it, although some claim it is purely on the principle…) has to argue using lies, cherry picked stats, or just generally distorted versions of reality like this in here.

          I really hope I run into some of these Reason writers in person someday so I can debate some of these issues with them and see if they’re just outright sticking their heads in the sand on the downsides or what. I’d love to know if they’re just that dense, or if they’re doing it to destroy western civilization and BK the country like the left is!

          1. Instead of just acknowledging that illegal immigration is bad, and pushing for a reform package that would greatly increase and stream,one both work VISAs and legal immigration, Nick lies his ass off to support a broken lawless system. He’s with the progtards on this.

            I would sooner take up arms in civil war then let the floodgates full open to such lawlessness. On the other hand, I fully support any reasonable immigration reform proposal if the law will actually be enforced and we take control of the border. I think most people would.

            1. Exactly. I am 100% in agreement.

              On almost every issue that’s not trannies or immigration Reason takes a somewhat reasonable approach… If a law would improve on the current broken ass laws for whatever subject, then we should do it.

              Yet somehow on immigration any of the reasonable proposals that have been made have all been attacked viciously as the worst thing on earth… Maybe they’re not perfect, but almost ANYTHING is better than the ridiculous shit show we have now. For all of the writers here nothing but full on open borders seems to be acceptable.

              Unfortunately I have the ability to differentiate between a principle in theory and how it would work in a perfect make believe world, and how it would work in the real world as it exists. Unless and until global wages are all almost equalized (which will never happen) unlimited immigration will obliterate the standard of living in any 1st world country. Which people find undesirable. So maybe the principle is correct, but the real world outcome is undesirable to almost everybody… So I say screw the principle. I do hope and pray we at least get a merit based reform passed. That’s really all that’s needed to fix things to be “good enough” IMO.

    2. Off topic (but not one Reason covers so unavoidable).

      File under “Questions not asked”

      If FBI, DOJ, CIA, etc thought placing an informant inside the Trump campaign was prudent to protect the country against Russian interference and illegal influence in an America election, why didn’t they place informants inside the Clinton campaign, especially after Uranium One, hacked emails, the Russian-sourced Steele dossier, John Podesta’s brother lobbying on behalf of Russia interfence in Ukraine, inflated speaking fees ($500,000) paid by Russia to Bill Clinton for a speech at the Russian bank Renaissance Capital, etc?

      Would have thought Reason would provide more coverage of the run-up to the Special Counsel since the three letter entities were concerned about Russian interference, and before the election the concern was purportedly independent of which campaign was being influenced or manipulated. Purportedly.

      1. Most of our world must seem inexplicable to half-educated, disaffected losers.

        1. That seems to explain much of the incredulity you routinely express on this forum.

        2. So the explanation is . . . ?

        3. So the explanation is . . . ?

    3. 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

    4. Interesting CA demographic data for school age children.

      I found this on accident when goofing around on Zillow, researching where to live. Seemed interesting to me so thought I would share.

      In 2014, Latinos will surpass whites as largest racial/ethnic group in California

      “When this milestone occurs, it will mark the first time since California became a state in 1850 that Latinos are the Golden State’s single largest racial or ethnic group. ”

      I personally would be very, very curious to know how much of this change was from legal immigration or illegal immigration, birthing children who then became American citizens by default. Then again it does not matter now. Hopefully everyone integrates like it is claimed is inevitable.

      1. Being a native Californian I can tell you right now! The majority of those people are ones who received Amnesty from Reagan, OR their children. That’s the legal ones. Millions more and still illegal as they didn’t get in in time to get their citizenship from Reagan.

        That amnesty single handily put the nail in the coffin for any conservative governance in Cali. If that hadn’t happened California would probably still be a purple state at least.

        Also as a native Californian, and somebody who is part beaner even! Mexicans CAN integrate. Most of the ones from when I was a kid were very Americanized. The problem is when the huge flood of them started coming in in the 90s it literally rolled back the speed of integration hardcore. If you’re 10 out of 1000, you work to fit in HARD because you have to. If you’re 500 out of 1000, you don’t even really need to bother.

        The only way they will ever integrate fully is if we stop the rapid flow of new immigrants.

        1. Blasphemy! Open borders no matter what! Just because!

  2. The US currently admits about 1 million legal immigrants every year, a very generous number.

    Nearly 80% of them are admitted through one family category or another.

    Only 20% were admitted because of their skills or job offers. Full disclosure: I was once of them, and it took me 4 years.

    As I understand Trump’s plan, he wants to reduce the total number of immigrants from 1 million to about 500,000, but nearly all of these would be admitted based upon a point system that rewards skills, education, job offers and even family connections (but to a much smaller degree).

    So we would end up having a new cohort of immigrants that would be much more likely to succeed and contribute.

    It’s a crazy idea, that a US, a sovereign nation, should select how many immigrants should enter and what their profile should be. Crazy, I tell you!

    1. Not crazy, just unlibertarian.

      1. Then what is a realistic libertarian immigration policy? No other country in the world allows in as many immigrants in as the US and every other country has a specific skills based migration system.

        It seems strange that the people who want a utopian version on immigration will compromise on basically every single other issue.

        Maybe, a system that increases skilled based migration without reducing the number of total immigrants would be a pragmatic compromise, but this seems to be the only issue that Reason refuses to entertain compromises on. Speech, guns, freedom of association, and religious liberty can all be compromised on, but not chain migration.

        Is anything that upsets white collar domestic workers the only things that are “unlibertarian”?

        1. How about a system in which the state’s only role in this area is in setting the rules and conditions for NATURALIZATION only. To decide how a person may become a citizen. But in terms of simply IMMIGRATION, to decide who may visit or work here without being a citizen, the state should have almost no role at all. Because fundamentally it is a question of the liberty of free association.

          1. Oh, so now freedom of association is important? Not when states mandate pee pee policies or courts expand public accommodation laws? That’s curious how this works.

            1. Oh, also not when the NFL makes a rule about anthem protests.

              You see why no one believes that Gillespie’s position here has anything to do with freedom of association?

              1. It is consistent in the sense that Reason resents traditional America and loves seeing it altered/ humiliated.

            2. For me it is. Are you going to argue against my proposal, or against strawmen?

              1. I was always arguing against Gillespie’s position.

                I don’t disagree with your position, necessarily. I just find it to be impractical. Firstly, I think immigration falls under “freedom of movement” rather than “freedom of association”, because association would always require that some immigrant be invited into this country, which is not always the case. And I think “freedom of movement” is an unrealized ideal, so long as states exist. Generally, I support liberal immigration policies with vetting of new entries. I don’t have much of a beef with legal immigration as it currently operates, but I also don’t have a problem with increasing the number of skilled immigrants.

                I don’t know if there is much for us to argue about on this.

                1. Fair enough. I don’t completely agree but it is a far sight better than “don’t let in the scary brown people”.

          2. So, Chemjeff, you are an advocate for a labor system where there would be a literal underclass of workers without any of the expansive labor protections offered to American workers?

            Or, are you an advocate for making sure those who do immigrate here have nothing to do while here?

            If there’s a third option, feel free to make your case but notably no one at all (and I mean no one) is talking about deregulating the labor market. Possibly because people realize that those labor regulations are specifically there to inflate American wages at the expense of anyone else who cares to compete. And no, recent efforts by the states to reduce credentialing do not have much, if any, effect on this issue.

            For example, the minimum wage will single-handedly make sure that the people who are illegal immigrants now are jobless tomorrow, and that’s before you get into the more complicated issues.

            1. Maybe labor protections should be something that is negotiated between employer and employee, and not imposed by government mandates.

              I am in favor of deregulating the labor market.

              But at the end of the day, the results of the exercise of liberty matter less than the exercise of liberty itself.

              1. So the ends justify the means, in your view. Sadly, that’s what I was hoping not to hear from you but it does confirm that you’re simply unable to see past first order consequences. That, or you just don’t care about them.

                Predictable consequences are not unintended consequences, you know, and you can’t force people to be free.

                At least your name does seem accurate, since your version of liberty would ironically destroy liberty which is pretty radical for an individualist.

                1. So the ends justify the means

                  No, exactly the opposite! Individuals should be free to exercise their liberty as they see fit. The fact that some individuals will make poor decisions with their liberty does not justify infringing on everyone’s liberty.

                  1. So, if the exercise of liberty in the realm of immigration necessarily means the end of liberty than we should do it since the exercise is more important than the result. I agree with the sentiment, but if you don’t see how something like that could be antithetical to liberty I don’t think you’ve been paying attention or you are far younger than I think.

                  2. Also, I should clarify that when I say that your idea is the ends justify the means I mean that you view liberty as the end result and you don’t care about the means to get there, even if it means that immediately after you get ‘liberty’ it vanishes for everyone.

                  3. No, exactly the opposite! Individuals should be free to exercise their liberty as they see fit.

                    But I am not free to do so. The US government compels me to work about half of my time for others, and on top of that, the US government compels me to associate with people I may not want to associate with.

                    And your proposed open borders policy would represent an additional infringement on those two liberties.

          3. To decide how a person may become a citizen. But in terms of simply IMMIGRATION, to decide who may visit or work here without being a citizen, the state should have almost no role at all. Because fundamentally it is a question of the liberty of free association.

            Well, indeed it is! It is also fundamentally a question of property rights!

            So, when you bring in your buddies to hang out with in the US, I am compelled by law to associate with them, to pay for the infrastructure they use, and to pay for the education of their children.

            I object to that infringement of my rights to freedom of association and property.

            1. The only guy who gets it. Controlling immigration is about protecting property rights of citizens, who have a right to decide who can traverse their property, including commonly held property.

              1. You don’t own ‘commonly-held property’. The state does.

            2. Then you are opposed to all government-owned property?

              1. You can argue it either way actually. The sovereign owns the property via the appointed state… In the USA the people are the sovereign. So, yeah, in a way it is commonly held property in the USA. In the UK the Queen more or less owns everything!

          4. No Jeff, in part because we can’t handle all the people who would come here if they could. Also there are bad people that should be kept out that will harm us if given the chance. Which is a big part of why countries have sovereign borders.

      2. Not crazy, just unlibertarian.

        Libertarian principles of open borders only apply to a libertarian state, i.e., a state where individuals have freedom of association, freedom of expression, and have their private property protected. Libertarianism is about bearing the costs and consequences of your personal choices.

        Libertarianism has nothing to say about limiting immigration to a progressive social welfare state.

        1. And that’s my biggest thing. In a true libertarian nation I would be far more able to accept international freedom of movement… But as long as I am forced to deal with these people, to pay for all the socialized costs low skill immigrants don’t contribute enough to pay for, etc I can never be in favor of it.

          The fact is sometimes practical choices have to take precedence over principle. This is one of those times. The potential downsides are just too great with the world the way it exists now.

    2. So we would end up having a new cohort of immigrants that would be much more likely to succeed and contribute.

      Because government does such a great job at picking winners and losers!

      1. Would it be better if we stop accepting any immigrants. That way the government wouldn’t be picking winners and losers. Seems like maybe this is an elegant solution to the issue since I’m sure that’s what really bothering you about the proposal.

        1. It is one of many criticisms of this proposal.

          Here is a clue: if we went to some sort of “points-based” system for immigration, the system will be rigged as always to favor those who are politically well-connected, we will end up with a system that is a lot like the one we have now, except with an added layer of bureaucracy thrown in for good measure.

          1. Here is a clue: if we went to some sort of “points-based” system for immigration, the system will be rigged as always to favor those who are politically well-connected, we will end up with a system that is a lot like the one we have now, except with an added layer of bureaucracy thrown in for good measure.

            Seems to work fine for Canada, Australia, and much of Europe.

            1. So does “single payer health care”. Hey let’s copy their systems for that too!

              1. Because those things are hardly equivalent. But is the sort of nonsense that can be expected from you.

          2. DOOD. Do you REALLY think we have a huge need for 8th grade educated people who don’t speak the language of the country? Because that’s the average illegal Mexican immigrant. Many legal refugee/family free pass immigrants from other countries are no better.

            How can one simultaneously bitch at white/black/Hispanic native born working class Americans for not being “educated enough” while insisting we import millions of people WITH FAR WORSE EDUCATIONS???

            Maybe the specifics of our merit based system will be a bit jacked… It’s the government, OF COURSE it will be stupidly implemented. But it’s a statistical fact that if we only let in college degreed people from other countries, they will make more money, commit less crime, and generally succeed here more than illiterates. Period. Since we could get 10 million people a year coming in if we let in anybody who wanted to come, why not filter that down to only the best 1 million?

            We all know smart people are more likely to succeed, so I see no need to let in losers. I would exclude myself from moving here if I were a foreigner because of what I look like on paper. We’ll lose a few good people, but overall it will provide much better results.

      2. Here’s an even more straightforward method: The median household income is about $59,000 per year.

        http://www.businessinsider.com…..ome-2017-9

        We could admit only those who have a job offer that exceeds the median household income, or at least have skills / ongoing education that would likely result in such a job offer.

        What do you say?

        1. Your proposal would exclude the budding entrepreneurs whose initial salary might be very low but who have the potential to become very successful and very rich.

          And why did you choose the “median household income”? One can be quite successful making a salary less than that.

          And your system would be easily defeated by potential immigrants getting worthless credentials in things like “computer technology” which would satisfy the bureaucratic beancounters at USCIS but who wouldn’t be adding much value to the economy, at least in the manner that you define it.

          This is exactly the problem with schemes like the one you put forth.

          1. What percentage of immigrants with no job offer, or a low-wage job offer, are budding entrepreneurs? You’re arguing for importing a haystack for a chance at finding a needle.

          2. Your proposal would exclude the budding entrepreneurs whose initial salary might be very low but who have the potential to become very successful and very rich.

            We already exclude those people. For example, as a skill-based immigrant, I had to become successful outside the US before the US would give me an immigrant visa. I have consistently earned more than twice the median income ever since coming back to the US.

            And why did you choose the “median household income”? One can be quite successful making a salary less than that.

            You’re right: his choice is wrong. The correct choice is to require people to pay more in taxes than the average American consumes in government services. That puts the income requirement at about $100000/year.

        2. Nay. Plenty of people in the U.S. who come here penniless and with apparently little to no future end up becoming great employees, business women and men, and contribute far more to society beyond a few dollars by enriching the U.S. socially and culturally.

          If you want to craft some sort of points based system favoring those who have money or connections then perhaps instead we should gather the leaders of the various Native American tribes, have them craft the policy of who can stay and who should go and apply it retroactively to everyone who isn’t at least 1/16th native American?

          1. Nay. Plenty of people in the U.S. who come here penniless and with apparently little to no future end up becoming great employees, business women and men,

            And many more don’t.

            If you want to craft some sort of points based system favoring those who have money or connections then perhaps instead we should gather the leaders of the various Native American tribes, have them craft the policy of who can stay and who should go and apply it retroactively to everyone who isn’t at least 1/16th native American?

            Native Americans have their own territories where they can set policy. They have no special rights or say over the rest of the US.

            1. @Mark22: “and many more don’t.”

              I don’t have such statistics at hand, but I’m reminded that, apart from Native Americans, everyone of us is descended from immigrants, many, perhaps most of whom came to the U.S. with few resources. We aren’t called the land of opportunity for nothing.

              1. Native Americans were also immigrants. But that’s irrelevant anyway. Property rights or governance is not determined by ethnicity in a free society, it is determined by laws. You don’t get to claim ownership or authority over land centuries later because you somehow look like the people who once lived there. After a generation or two, all claims are null and void. Even our tax system works out that way, where you basically pay for your land over and over again every 50 years through taxes, or you lose it.

                I don’t get to go back to my ancestral home in Europe that my family was driven out of for religious reasons; other people live there now, they paid the taxes on it, they maintained it, and they have property rights in it.

                For Native Americans, the case is even weaker: most of their lands were simply abandoned when 90%+ of them died from European diseases; many of the remaining lands were lost in wars with colonial powers; and the remaining Native Americans not only got US citizenship, they also got vast stretches of land with special, tribal authority. Native Americans have been more than adequately compensated by the US, for problems that the US government or today’s Americans aren’t even responsible for.

            2. And many more don’t.

              Since none of us are omniscient and can predict one’s future success, LET ALONE the state which has additional added incentives to NOT make accurate predictions, why even engage in this exercise?

              You’re falling for the same collectivist nonsense that justifies government picking winners and losers in the marketplace because “panels of experts” can better decide these things rather than individuals in their own circumstance.

            3. And many more don’t.

              Since none of us are omniscient and can predict one’s future success, LET ALONE the state which has additional added incentives to NOT make accurate predictions, why even engage in this exercise?

              You’re falling for the same collectivist nonsense that justifies government picking winners and losers in the marketplace because “panels of experts” can better decide these things rather than individuals in their own circumstance.

              1. Here’s the problem Chemjeff, you and all the other morons are pinning your whole hopes and dreams on the EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.

                There are exceptions to all rules. Some women are stronger than some men… But men are vastly stronger on average.

                I’m saying it makes a LOT more sense to base laws the involve millions of people are the statistically likely result. If you miss a few geniuses from Somalia that had 4th grade educations, your will STILL come out vastly better on average by only allowing in people who have a VASTLY HIGHER LIKELIHOOD of success.

                The fact is that an Indian Comp Sci degree holder is probably 100% guaranteed to make more money than 99.9% of Somalis with no credentials. That Indian is ALSO 10,000,000% more likely to found a billion dollar tech company.

                You can’t base laws off assumptions like women are stronger than men, when it’s clearly not the case in almost all instances. If you have an individualized system, based upon some reasonable merit measures, you can not discriminate via national origin etc however. That’s as fair as it needs to be IMO.

        3. Nay. Plenty of people in the U.S. who come here penniless and with apparently little to no future end up becoming great employees, business women and men, and contribute far more to society beyond a few dollars by enriching the U.S. socially and culturally.

          If you want to craft some sort of points based system favoring those who have money or connections then perhaps instead we should gather the leaders of the various Native American tribes, have them craft the policy of who can stay and who should go and apply it retroactively to everyone who isn’t at least 1/16th native American?

          1. Statistics my friend. You know what percent of people with advanced degrees come here and are highly successful? Almost all of them. The percentage for statistically average Mexican illegal immigrants and their 8th grade education… A LOT lower. Not ZERO mind you, but simply a lot lower odds.

  3. I was about to say “Light the John signal” but I’m too late.

    1. I would think you would be bothered by reason discrediting your position by lying in support of it.

      1. I’ve never stated my position.

        1. I’d love to hear it, please enlighten us.

          1. No thanks. It’s more fun to poke people with a stick.

            1. Kirkland, is that you?

  4. If a typical 26-year-old foreign woman were to get married to an American citizen, and then sponsor her 25-year-old sister to get a green card, that sister would be 40 years old before she could obtain permanent residency. If she’s a Filipina, her sister would be closer to 50 years old. If the sister then sponsored some other immediate relative, that person would have to go through a 15- to 25-year process as well.

    I’ve read this several times from Shikha, and I see a lot of “could take up to X years” or “can be as long as X years”, none of which strikes me as a very confident description of what is typical. I’ll take my lazy ass to Google forthwith, but a link to or a discussion of the actual process in detail would do wonders here.

    1. and then sponsor her 25-year-old sister to get a green card, that sister would be 40 years old before she could obtain permanent residency.

      Permanent residency is a green card. Shika isn’t even making any sense there. The sister can’t come to the country until she has a green card. And as soon as she gets that green card, she can sponsor someone else. Dalmia is just straight up lying there and pretending that there is some gap between coming to the country after being sponsored and getting a green card and being able to sponsor others. No, there is not. Reason prints straight up lies about this issue all of the time. For them to complain about Trump lying is pretty fucking rich.

      1. You’re completely full of shit as usual, John. Do you think you get a green card immediately upon request? No, it takes YEARS to get one.

        1. Not in my experience. And I’m married to a legal immigrant, and know many others.

          Depends on the category you applied under. But, yeah, the green card is in your hands pretty quickly once you’re actually in the country.

        2. You are an illiterate retard who doesn’t understand the point. It does not take 15 years to get a relative a green card. Shika is lying when she says it does.

        3. You’re completely full of shit as usual, John. Do you think you get a green card immediately upon request? No, it takes YEARS to get one.

          It can take years or it can be much quicker, it depends on what category you apply under. It certainly doesn’t take 45 years, and it usually doesn’t take 15 years.

          Under an amnesty program with permanent residency, millions of people would get a green card immediately, so they could immediately sponsor others. And many of those others would likely be in a high preference category themselves.

      2. You have to become a US citizen to sponsor your sister under non-refugee/asylum seeker immigration rules. Permanent residents are allowed to sponsor spouses and unmarried children only. Presumably your sister’s unmarried children are not sponsoring their spouses and unmarried children. And, no, coming to the United States does not require a green card.

        1. STaying in the US requires you having a green card. And the children do not have to be married to have children themselves. And once they have a green card, they can then get married and bring over their spouse. No, you can’t bring your first cousin over. But, it is easy to see how chain migration actually works.

          It is a real thing. Whether it is good or not is debatable. But claiming it is a myth is a lie.

    2. Thank you for making my point before I could. The ‘it could take’ language is an obviously disingenuous construction. Never mind what it ‘could be’ – just tell us what it is. That would be telling the truth.

      When I see someone lie to me in one paragraph, I see no reason to grant them the assumption of open minded respect.

    3. “but a link to or a discussion of the actual process in detail would do wonders here.”

      The actual facts wouldn’t fit Reason’s Narrative.

  5. just as he is wrong more generally about the costs and benefits of immigration.

    Did one of the Reasoners just admit that there are costs to immigration. I need to bookmark this page.

    1. Yeah, the primary cost is in diapers for John.

      1. “I know, I’ll throw a tantrum about someone else throwing a tantrum”

        lol

      2. In that case he should be just fine immigrants around here love throwing diapers anywhere but their own trash.

  6. It would be cool if at some point people stopped beating up on the cartoon villains and started addressing some of the harder questions. But I guess beating up on cartoon villains makes for a better show.

    1. How about we start by telling the truth. Nick says you have to be a citizen or an NPR to sponsor someone. That is totally untrue. As I show above refugees can sponsor people. Then Nick quotes Dalmia describing the length of time it takes for people to sponsor that is a complete lie. It pretends that there is a difference between being a green card holder and being a permanent resident (they mean the same thing) and that there is some kind of gap between getting a green card because someone sponsored you and being able to sponsor others (there isn’t). Nick then says this

      It can take up to 45 years for an immigrant to show up in the United States, gain citizenship, and bring in the next single link in this chain.

      You do not have to be a citizen to sponsor others. That statement is a bold faced lie.

      1. Ok, I gotta ask. Are you on cocaine or speed or something right now? I know I certainly couldn’t muster the energy to reply to every post with a four paragraph essay. You’re like the energizer bunny on speed right now.

        1. Well, you’re not goldbricking on our dime, Sparky.

          1. I do more work in ten minutes that you do in a week. Having a brain will do that.

          2. Why are you responding to yourself?

            1. You think I’m Sparky? Why would you think I’m a pedophile?

              1. What the shit is going on here now?

                1. It’s Speed Thursday?

              2. Hi Tulpa

                1. Hi Tulpa

                  Explain Tulpa.

    2. I have to say that I’m torn on the illegal immigration issue. In a libertarian America, I’d say, yes, let most in, but that posits a society that does not provide welfare on the scale we do.

      I’m also deeply troubled about the motivations around this debate. There have been laws on the books that prohibit illegal immigration all along, but they aren’t really being enforced. Why not? The left is obviously trying to import votes (though that may be a shortsighted goal–what about the next generation?), and everybody likes the cheaper labor.

      I don’t like any of this, but I think we probably should focus on doing something about the welfare system first.

      1. I think we probably should focus on doing something about the welfare system first.

        I’m with you exactly on this point. The argument regularly put forth is that immigrants are less likely to use welfare. I’d prefer that nobody use welfare, including citizens. If I’m already being taxed to support millions of citizens, I’m not going to be overly sympathetic to “only” adding a couple hundred thousand more people who aren’t citizens.

        1. The open borders crowd promises to seriously think about welfare reform at some indefinite point in the future after the borders are opened and the UBI, a basic human right, has been implemented.

          1. No no, far better to go with Hans-Herrmann Hoppe’s idea of forcibly removing communists and subversives from our midst in order to create Libertopia.

            1. This is a good illustration of why I figured it was too much to ask to stop going after cartoon villains.

            2. Case in point.

              1. Because as we all know not letting someone in is totally equivalent to actively removing them. It is known.

                1. I suggested, long ago, reviving indentured servitude for illegals who want to stay. Do your time, then you’re a citizen with a trade.

                  I was kidding, but it’s almost like a solution, though it’s not exactly libertarian.

                  1. It’s constitutional, though; The 13th amendment does permit involuntary servitude or slavery as a punishment for crime.

                    1. Like being sentenced to be someone’s butler after not paying for causing a car wreck.

            3. The funny thing is that the only way you ever could maintain a Libertarian society WOULD be to be strict about who came in, and what their political ideology was. You may also have to remove communist leaning people that happened to be born within your borders. There is no other way to maintain it, because clearly the ideas of liberty simply don’t appeal to a large swath of people, mainly because humans are a strange mix of individualistic and pack animals at the same time!

              So he’s actually more correct than you will ever be, although your can’t see it because it is also a direct 180 from what libertarian principles are. In other words you can’t have a libertarian society without breaking some libertarian principles! Funny that! But also very true.

        2. And in fact, households with immigrants use more welfare than native-born citizens. We should be importing only people who can support themselves fully and not consume still more welfare from the taxpayers.

          Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

          Quote:
          About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households? Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

          1. Also, ALWAYS keep in mind that all “native” statistics include our own native born dysfunctional groups. Probably 1/3 or more of that 30% is native born blacks and Hispanics. With the immigrant crime stats the only thing that keeps them even seemingly lower is native born blacks killing each other left and right for kicks. If you compare any of those stats to white or Asian Americans you will rapidly see that ALL groups of immigrants, that aren’t highly selected for skills, are vastly worse than whites/Asians. We should not be using African Americans as the bar that we want to set for what’s acceptable, either in crime or welfare use IMO… Because they’re dysfunctional as fuck as a group.

  7. Lies About Chain Migration was my nickname at the bike shop on the rez.

    1. You got to have something better than that.

      1. Look, it’s been a long week.

        1. Excuses, excuses

    2. Heep big glad.

  8. I love the “only a tiny number of immigrants use this to get in, but it is a racist slashing of immigration to get rid of it” argument. It either matters or it doesn’t.

    1. Sort of like how building a wall on the Mexican border is a total waste of time and would do nothing to stop illegal immigration but doing so is nothing but a racist attack on those who long to come here for freedom.

      And Nick is lying when he says only a tiny number of immigrants come here as family members.

      1. Sort of like how building a wall on the Mexican border is a total waste of time and would do nothing to stop illegal immigration but doing so is nothing but a racist attack on those who long to come here for freedom.

        This isn’t contradictory at all. It’s completely possible for racists to fear a non-existent flood of Brown Hoards.

        1. If that is true, then building the wall won’t affect said brown hoards. Either it is effective and racist or it isn’t and is not. It is apparently impossible for open borders people to hold consistent or honest positions.

          1. No – you misunderstand what I’m saying. It’s possible for someone who is racist to want to build a wall with the intent of keeping out people of a different race even if there were no people actually crossing the area where they wanted the wall.

            This person’s wall would be both ineffective and racist in intent.

            Note that I’m not saying you’re necessarily racist if you want to build a wall, just that it’s not necessarily self-contradictory to claim that a wall is both ineffective and racist in intent.

        2. flood of Brown Hoards.

          Flood of Brown Hoards was my nickname on the toilet last night.

          I’m hoping that the word you’re looking for is hordes.

          1. I’m hoping that the word you’re looking for is hordes.

            A typo worthy of John himself.

  9. This sort of fabulism and exaggeration is appalling when it comes from anybody purporting to traffic in facts.

    We’re talking about politicians, are we not?
    I’ll defer the use of my shocked face.

  10. Again Reason reposts the same bullshit, and again I post the same response…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BVzFkxSd0E

    1. Thanks. That will come in hand for my memes list.

  11. I like chain migration. I also like allowing democratically elected representatives to tweak with a system that has remained unchanged since the 1960’s. I’m not sure how skills based migration became “racist” since Europe and Canada use that very system. I suppose it’s “racist” because it threatens the jobs of the cosmopolitan class as opposed to chain migration threatening the jobs of the working class.

    The US still allows in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. That’s a good thing. And I don’t see what’s wrong with sprinkling in more white collar professionals into that mix. It will be funny to watch white liberals change their position on immigration real fast when they suddenly have to compete with foreigners. That’s the primary benefit of skilled based migration.

    1. The US still allows in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. That’s a good thing. And I don’t see what’s wrong with sprinkling in more white collar professionals into that mix.

      Who says there’s anything wrong with that? People opposed to Trump’s preferred immigration policy would be fine with adding more white collar professionals. But that’s not what’s on the table.

      1. That is absolutely what’s on the table. The only reductions that would occur by increasing the mixture of skilled migration is fanciful expectations by a worried class of reporters who don’t want Jimmy to compete with Sanjay.

        1. Why should Hail have to compromise he’s the one with the immigration preferences that poll about like 12 percent support. Shouldn’t he get to dictate terms.

        2. The only reductions that would occur by increasing the mixture of skilled migration is fanciful expectations by a worried class of reporters who don’t want Jimmy to compete with Sanjay.

          Uhhhhhhh

          I think you need to read more about the immigration policy debate

          Trump and Tom Cotton want to cut total legal immigration by 50%.

    2. Yeah, I’m an engineer here, and my son will probably be some kind of STEM one day, so this runs against my personal economic interest. But… we are in the happy position of being a country people want into, a LOT of people want into. More people than we could possible accommodate.

      This means we should be selective. Let’s skim the world’s cream! Only law abiding English literates who are well educated, and I don’t mean in “X” studies, I mean engineering, science, medicine. The sort of people who will create a future US we want to live in.

      Sure, it will drive down wages for people like me, but it’s still what’s best for the country.

      1. I don’t think anyone other than no shit white nationalists would have a problem with that Brett.

        1. Only if you start from the assumption that the government should be deciding whom I may or may not invite onto my own property.

          Why should the collective “we” have any power at all in this area?

          And no before you start whining about “borders” and “sovereignty”, there is nothing necessarily incompatible with having borders and sovereignty, and allowing free migration of people unimpeded by arbitrary permission slips from the state. It just changes the acceptable parameters of how the state may exercise its sovereignty.

          1. Fair enough. But, what you just voiced is the ideal libertarian position. Reason never expresses such a position on any other issue. This and abortion are the only issues that it takes the extremist position on. Literally everything else is also a compromised position. So, I understand when people get frustrated when Gillespie, of all people, goes all an-cap, but just with regards to immigration. Even on trade, they are more than fine with managed trade even when it results in a bureaucratic supra-state like in the case of the European Union.

            Why is no compromise allowed on this one issue?

            1. And Abortion isn’t even a libertarian issue. It is a scientific and philosophical question about when life begins. You can be on either side of those issues and still be consistent with the NAP and libertarian principles. Yet, Reason has never to my knowledge published pro life opinion. Only the ENB extreme abortion on demand at any poiint during pregnancy is allowed.

              And yet, they whine and complain about the Atlantic not being committed to ideological diversity because it fired Kevin D. Williamson.

              1. And Abortion isn’t even a libertarian issue.

                so declares the non-libertarian Republican

                1. Jeff

                  Are you capable of making an argument? Again, how is the question of when life begins a libertarian question? And whether abortion is the taking of another life or the exercise of personal sovereignty depends upon your answer to the question of when life begins.

                  Now, what part of that do you not understand? Get back to me when you can say something sensible. Otherwise, stop emoting.

                  1. Good Lord, the speed has rotted your brain. The question of abortion from a libertarian perspective is about more than just the question of when life begins. Even if we were to all agree on the precise moment when life began, there would still be the issue of rights. There is no clear answer to this question which is why there is disagreement among well-meaning people.

                    1. Even if we were to all agree on the precise moment when life began, there would still be the issue of rights.

                      If we all agreed when life began, the issue would be settled. No one has a right to kill another person and a person’s sovereignty over their own body can only be trumped by the interests of another human being.

                      Are you this dishonest and hard headed or really this dumb? What do you mean “there is still a question of rights?” No there is not, unless you believe women have the right to murder their children.

                      How old are you? Are you 12? You seem to be completely unable to reason or have any understanding of basic logic and argument.

                    2. Okay, John. Does a pregnant mother have the right to evict the unborn child from her property?

                    3. Not if the child is a life. Mothers do not have a right to kill their children. It is that simple. That is not up for debate unless you want to renounce the NAP. Now, what is a child is up for debate. And that has nothing to do with Libertarian principles.

                    4. Let’s both assume that the unborn child is alive. I’m not talking about the mother killing her child. I’m talking about the mother evicting her child. Why does she not have the right to evict the child from HER PROPERTY?

                    5. So if a couple were to specifically request a fetus that you want to abort, that would be totally different than someone requesting admittance for an alien. Because you would rather not be inconvenienced.

                    6. I don’t even know what you are talking about.

                    7. Unsurprising.

            2. Guess what, not everyone agrees on everything.

              Furthermore, we all prioritize different policies at the expense of others, often due to subjective considerations.

              1. And how you prioritize different issues shows what you actually value. Reason values open borders and not many other things when it comes to liberty. Guns, economic freedom, religious freedom, those things are all of lesser value and things that can be traded and compromised on according to reason. That doesn’t mean they are wrong. But it does tell you what the really value.

                1. Since you are on speed this afternoon, John, care to point out where Reason writers have declared their support for gun control?

                  1. I never said they supported gun control. I said they saw it as an issue that can be traded away for things that are more important. And that was exactly the position reason took during the last presidential race when the LP VP candidate, Bill Weld held terrible positions on gun rights.

                    Here is Doherety doing just that

                    https://reason.com/blog/2016/08…..tion-and-g

                    Tracinski is explicit that the attitude stuff related to culture war issues about discrimination and guns is more important to him than spending or budgets or the growth of government. This might indicate that Gillespie was right all along that people worried Johnson isn’t Libertarian enough?especially in the context of choice between him, Trump, and Clinton, though I would never want to state or imply that anyone has any obligation to vote for any candidate who make them uncomfortable for any reason?are less than serious about libertarianism or even conservatism in its best sense. They just want a guy who shares their predilections on a couple of issues that mark them firmly as “not left.”

                    Guns are just a culture war issue and not something to be taken seriously.

                    1. Good Lord. You are going to throw Johnson/Weld as an example of this? Voting for politicians is a package deal. Both Johnson and Weld had some pretty terrible positions on a great many issues. Remember Johnson’s “burqa ban”? And yet people like Gillespie still came out full-throated in favor of Johnson, even though according to you immigration is one of those things that they are unwilling to compromise on. Johnson was pro-choice but also opposed late-term abortion, another one of those issues that you claim Reason libertarians never compromise on. Bringing up votes for candidates is a poor way to make your point. It is perfectly consistent to vote for Gary Johnson as the lesser of many evils yet not endorse every single thing that he stands for. After all, that is what you did when it came to Trump, right?

                    2. That piece hasn’t aged well given how fickle reason is when it comes to cutting spending, fighter JETZ! aside.

                      Fun fact, kids, CBO projects keeping all DACA kids woild cost 26BB. Now about that fiscal conservatism convenience…

                      And given reason’s rather indifferent attention to potentially explosive government spying/abuse of power, one is left to wonder just how committed reason truly is to civil liberties in general.

                      But looking at their postings from a libertine perspective certainly fixes many of the inconsistencies.

          2. It in fact complete liquidates the meaning of sovereignty. By your logic Kelo just changed the acceptable parameters of how a person might exercise his property rights.

            1. Kelo was about legitimating THEFT.

              There is no theft that takes place by permitting free association of people.

              1. It is not theft when you pay for it dumb ass. Kelo was about the limits of government coercion. It was not about theft. Theft is when someone steals something not when the government forces you to sell it at a fair market price.

                1. Eminent domain steals your future equity from you by forcing you to liquidate your assets when they dictate that you do.

                  1. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You can’t steal “future equity”. I can’t steal something you don’t own. Do yourself a favor and learn to understand your own positions.

                    1. Oh so I guess “loss of future earnings” is not a thing….

                      It’s the same basic idea. If you harm me, and in so doing deprive me of the ability to continue working at my job, then you have caused me to miss out on the earnings that I would have been able to obtain. It is the same thing with eminent domain. If the state demands that I surrender my property to them, even if they pay market price, they are still depriving me of the future earnings that I might have obtained from that piece of property.

                    2. Future earnings are part of the fair market value of the property. If a property produces revenue, its price will be the present value of those revenues. You don’t understand how this works.

                    3. I’m not talking about revenue-producing property. I’m talking about equity.

                    4. The NPV already takes the discount rate into account. The fair market value is a version of the NPV.

                      Given an infinite time horizon and not using a discount rate gives silly results such as “future equity” is infinite.

                2. Forcing you to sell something at a fair market price is an oxymoron; A fair market price, by definition, is the price at which the takes place voluntarily. It simply doesn’t exist in the absence of a willing seller and a willing buyer.

                  1. Well take it up with the eminent domain enthusiasts then.

          3. Your property is in my country Jeff. So I get a say so to who is in my country. However, you are free to move t some other country where none of that is my problem.

            SOS erikusly, cut the shit with that “I can invite whoever I want to my house” argument. It’s bullshit.

      2. The sort of people who will create a future US we want to live in.

        “we”

        Seriously, go fuck yourself

        1. Serisously,

          Go fuck yourself Hail. And try getting a brain while you are at it.

        2. Hail, John is one of the more decent and reasonable people among the commentariat. Which is why I go out of my way to defend him. You on the other hand, are just a piece of shit. You have no real argument, so piss off.

        3. So you’d prefer to live in a city like Calcutta? Filled with low/no education, living in shacks, working for next to nothing?

          Because if we had TRUE open borders, and abolished the minimum wage and all the others things we would like to do, that’s what we would have. If we DON’T have open borders and eliminate all the other bullshit, and allow in only super high skilled immigration, we’d just become a vastly wealthier and more prosperous country than we already are.

          I don’t want to live in Calcutta. You might, but I will fight you tooth and nail to prevent turning the greatest country in the history of the world into a shit hole.

  12. By October, reported Slate’s Josh Levin in 2013, Reagan was claiming that she had “three new cars, a full-length mink coat, and her take is estimated at a million dollars.” He attributed his facts again to investigative reporting by the Tribune, wrote Levin, but “I can’t find anything in the Tribune to support the claim that Taylor’s take reached $1 million.” There’s no question that Taylor was a criminal?she was convicted in 1977 of ripping the government off of $8,000 in various welfare scams?but the distance between that and a million dollars is vast.The welfare queen was understood to be black, as was the “strapping young buck” whom Reagan claimed in other speeches was using food stamps to buy “T-bone steak…while you were waiting in line to buy hamburger.” Tellingly, outside of the South, Reagan referred to “some young fellow,” a less racially charged description. Did such a person exist? Perhaps, but the point wasn’t to be factually accurate but to connect with what he took to be his overwhelmingly white audience’s sense of outrage and solidarity against the Other

    sure or maybe he was just a seer.

  13. against immigration

    Nice straw-man you got there…

  14. Wow. The picture of the wee lass with the towel on her head for modesty does not help your case.

    1. Having a population whose cultural values demand children be covered head to toe lest they appear sexual does wonders for the level of freedom in your society. Didn’t you know that?

      1. Having a population whose cultural values demand children be covered head to toe lest they appear sexual does wonders for the level of freedom in your society. Didn’t you know that?

        ^ The moment John starts arguing against freedom of religion and tolerance of socially conservative morality.

        1. Saying people have a right to do something when they are here, doesn’t change the consiquences of allowing them in in the first place.

          What do you thinkn would happen if the population became majority Muslim? Would we be more free? If so, why would that be the case? And if we would not be, then why is it a good idea to allow that to hapen?

          1. Would you support infringing on the religious liberty of Muslims if it meant keeping them out of the country?

          2. What do you thinkn would happen if the population became majority Muslim?

            I’ve known lots of Christians who feel that children are over-sexualized in our culture and would like to see them covered up more. What will we do if Christians become a majority?

            1. That doesn’t answer my question. Answer it and get back to me.

              1. The rather obviously implied answer was “probably about as free as we are in this majority-Christian country where lots of people have socially conservative views about how people should dress.”

            2. I think there’s quite a bit of wiggle room between the Muslim notion of socially conservative and mainstream Christianity’s view of socially conservative. Are there Christians who approach the same level of social conservatism? Possibly, I’d guess very very few, but that is comparing a small minority of believers to a majority of believers which doesn’t seem like a fair comparison even if it can be an apt one on occasion.

              It is somewhat amusing though to see social conservatives argue against social conservatism, but I suspect many examples that tend to be used by American social conservatives are short-hand for the bigger theological differences between Christianity and Islam. It’s hard to ignore that Jesus and Mohammed were, to say the least, very different people.

              1. Are there Christians who approach the same level of social conservatism?

                It depends on where you are. Degrees of social tyranny tend to correlate more with geography and socioeconomic factors that with what label you choose to affix to your religious beliefs.

                Urban Turkey and Syria, for example, have for eons had reputations for being very socially lax to the point that western society has often viewed them as decadent, rather than as socially intolerant.

                When you get to places like Afghanistan and Sudan, or the nomadic tribes of the Syrian desert, they tend to have views that might be fairly described as “backwards” and “socially intolerant.” This is the case whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Yazidi.

                Everywhere you look in history, social tolerance is an effect of urbanization, not of adopting one religion or another.

                1. Okay, so do you want to let millions of radical evil Christians into the country? Stop changing the debate and talk about immigration.

                  1. Okay, so do you want to let millions of radical evil Christians into the country?

                    Fundamental point: it’s not up to me what other people do if they’re not hurting me. I have no power to “let” anyone go anywhere except my own property.

                    Do I want Christians or Muslims passing laws on what I can wear? No. Am I laying awake nights in distress that this is a clear and present danger in my life? No.

                2. You state that it’s a correlation, which seems like an important caveat here. Iran was fairly westernized before the revolution, does this then mean they became less urban and this caused them to become more conservatively religious? I doubt you’d claim that.

                  1. Iran was fairly westernized before the revolution, does this then mean they became less urban and this caused them to become more conservatively religious?

                    First point to clarify: we think we have a rural-urban divide in this country? What we have doesn’t even remotely resemble the case in Asia and North Africa. The people who live in Cairo and the people who live 10 miles outside of Cairo pretty much speak different languages entirely, let alone have different cultural norms and notions of what is and isn’t “Islamic.”

                    I’ve known a couple of people who were in Iran in 1979 and witnessed the revolution first hand. Their account is very far from the official western account that Iran-as-a-whole has lurched toward the theocratic. Their take is that the revolution was very much a pro-western, modernizing revolution that had democracy and free markets at its heart.

                    The trouble was that the serious agitation was started by college students who didn’t really have a plan. It was just like Paris 1968 except when the college students in Paris lost steam, the whole thing just kind of dissipated. In Iran, when the college students lost steam, there was an Ayatollah-in-exile with an already-developed plan to take over the Iranian government and set up a theocracy.

                    1. From what I understand, the Iranian people are very, very displeased with how that whole situation turned out, but understandably are wary of fomenting another revolution when the topic at hand is how very shitty the last one turned out.

                      tl;dr answer to your question: no, Iran didn’t become less urban – they fell victim to a reactionary movement when a modernizing revolution failed. What’s going in Turkey right now is also a backlash against a high degree of modernization over the course of the 20th century. Did you know that the Turkish parliament was 20% women before women could even vote in the US?


                    2. From what I understand, the Iranian people are very, very displeased with how that whole situation turned out, but understandably are wary of fomenting another revolution when the topic at hand is how very shitty the last one turned out.

                      tl;dr answer to your question: no, Iran didn’t become less urban – they fell victim to a reactionary movement when a modernizing revolution failed. What’s going in Turkey right now is also a backlash against a high degree of modernization over the course of the 20th century. Did you know that the Turkish parliament was 20% women before women could even vote in the US?

                      It was a rhetorical question, since it seems obvious that urbanization or lack thereof isn’t the causative factor. The factor is a marked increase in Islamic theocratic ideas paired with an outright rejection of their populace of westernization itself.

                      I’m sure some people are against it, I would be astounded in this day and age if there weren’t, but it’s not a coincidence that most (not all) Muslim-majority nations seem to all be backsliding into the Middle Ages.

                      If the majority of Iran, for example, did not want theocratic rule it seems probable that this is not what they would have ended up with and/or that it would not have lasted for the past 40 years. That said, in the grand scheme of things 40 years is a blip. I still hope for a widespread Islamic reformation, but sometimes those can take a thousand years to manifest.

                    3. This seems like a dance around the issue, which is that the vast majority of modern Islamic thought is inherently theocratic whereas most of modern Christian thought is not. There will always be exceptions to both, but taken as a whole it seems clear. I would not argue that taking a rural person and transplanting them into an urban center would necessarily change their outlook though, even while it could.

                      So, while yes there is a correlation it’s important to note that it is not a cause. And, like you, I’m not terribly afraid that religious fundamentalists of either stripe are likely to have much influence in the West in the near future. It definitely doesn’t keep me up at night.

                      If a large number of Islamic fundamentalists were brought into the U.S. the result isn’t necessarily that they will become ‘westernized’ by virtue of becoming urban though. Not that I’m afraid that’s a real possibility either, but the reason for that is the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Europe isn’t that lucky.

                    4. It’s been clear for a long time that majority in Iran is pro-western, and that this is what the Supreme Council sees as the single greatest threat to its hegemony. Because it is.

                      If the majority of Iran, for example, did not want theocratic rule it seems probable that this is not what they would have ended up with and/or that it would not have lasted for the past 40 years.

                      You read the part about the Islamists being the ones ready with a plan when the government was torn down, right? What was the rest of the population supposed to do? Have another revolution? That’s my point.

                    5. Europe isn’t that lucky.

                      Europe also has a very different historical relationship with North Africa and West Asia than we do. Europe has traditionally been defined as “that part of the world that didn’t turn Muslim in the Middle Ages.” Prior to Charlemagne at Barcelona, there was no such thing as “Europe.”

                      Likewise, if the US has done some rude things in the ME, it’s nothing compared to what European countries have done over the last couple of centuries.

                      Europe is now dealing with some identity issues, and you can’t ignore the massive difference that Muslims are ghettoized in Europe in way they just aren’t here.

                      the vast majority of modern Islamic thought is inherently theocratic whereas most of modern Christian thought is not

                      This depends on how you define “theocratic.” Islam has a “total social vision” that Christianity arguably doesn’t – i.e. Islam is not really a “transcendental” religion – it’s more about how you behave here and now and how well you follow the Law. But many modern Muslims, like many modern Christians, argue that the modern “theocratic state” is just one of the Devil’s cleverer tricks – those humans who claim to represent poor little Allah who can’t stand up for himself are kefir if there ever were any.

                      Again, I would argue that the nastier things you see going on in Asia and Africa have to do with politics and economics, not with the content of their religions.

                    6. But many modern Muslims, like many modern Christians, argue that the modern “theocratic state” is just one of the Devil’s cleverer tricks

                      Among Christians, that is a mainstream view. Among Muslims it is a small minority view, your atypical sample of Champagne swilling Muslims at progressive cocktail parties not withstanding.

                    7. “Europe is now dealing with some identity issues, and you can’t ignore the massive difference that Muslims are ghettoized in Europe in way they just aren’t here.”

                      You also can’t ignore that Musims are under 1% of the US population. Were under half a percent fairly recently. It’s difficult to ghettoize a population when you don’t have enough of them in a typical state to populate a ghetto.

                      In Europe the numbers are about ten times higher. That’s also a massive difference.

            3. I’ve known lots of Christians who feel that children are over-sexualized in our culture and would like to see them covered up more.

              Perfectly reasonable, as long as it remains a preference and privately enforced rule rather than law.

  15. Lies About Chain Migration Are Donald Trump’s ‘Welfare Queen,’ a Tall Tale To Comfort the Base

    The analogy would make some sort of sense if welfare wasn’t something libertarians normally argue against rather than wholeheartedly for.

    1. It’s the new, kinder, gentler libertarianism. The kind that has learned to love the UBI.

      1. Ah, yes, the UBI. The surest way to destroy a society that has ever been conceived by ostensibly thinking adults. Libertarian as fuck, or simply a Trojan horse designed by Libertarians to bring about anarchy?

        You decide!

        1. The LP is turning into a Trojan horse to get freedom minded people to accept authoritarian government, so long as it’s left wing. Honestly, if the Volokh Conspiracy hadn’t moved here, I’d have taken one look around, and written Reason off as a sad joke. Man, has this mag ever gone down hill since I was as subscriber a couple decades ago.

          1. The LP is turning into a Trojan horse to get freedom minded people to accept authoritarian government, so long as it’s left wing.

            Au contraire, I would argue that they’ve re-tooled the libertarian message to act as pied-pipers to disaffected liberals being driven away from the Democratic Party by progressives. They try to sell libertarianism as being against all those elements of the Republican Party that liberals don’t like, having given up on turning the Republican Party libertarian.

            Unfortunately, sometimes when they’re pretending to drink the Flavor-Aid, they forget not to swallow before they get to the planter to spit it out.


            1. Unfortunately, sometimes when they’re pretending to drink the Flavor-Aid, they forget not to swallow before they get to the planter to spit it out.

              Lets hope they figure this out before Hale-Bopp comes back around, eh?

            2. I think the problem is that there are VASTLY more right-libertarians than left-libertarians.

              The left-libertarians have somehow managed to take over most of the main publications, and even think tanks etc. But out in the wild, in real life, I have met TONS of right-libertarians, and almost nobody that fits the “Reason writer” mold of libertarianism.

              I think they’re just trying to push their crappy agenda the same way the progressive controlled media is… They’re trying to ram it down the throats of a bunch of people who mostly disagree with them.

              Granted they’re still better on economics, guns, etc than 98% of non libertarians… But if they really wanted to sell it to the audience that already exists, and not try to propagandize people, they would at least offer some right-libertarian writers for some of these subjects where there is a lot of internal disagreement. Silly things like how maybe it would make sense to end the welfare state BEFORE open borders? It’s a very common opinion, but one they won’t even touch. It shows their true colors.

  16. Goodness. There is not a single lie by Trump detailed in this article, yet the headline claims otherwise. Instead, it’s the same warmed over racism mongering. What absolute bunk.

    What’s better for Americans — chain migration, or a more merit-based system of admission? The answer is obvious.

  17. Like any successful peddler of shoddy goods, Pres. Trump knows his target audience — gullible, poorly educated, broadly bigoted, backward, resentful, economically inadequate, disaffected, frightened, full of entitlement — exquisitely well.

    His customers lap this stuff up like a handful of street pills washed down with a cheap sixer and celebrated with a cigarette, a Hardee’s combo, and a revival meeting.

    1. His customers lap this stuff up like a handful of street pills washed down with a cheap sixer and celebrated with a cigarette, a Hardee’s combo, and a revival meeting.

      ^ Kirkland actually typed this thinking it would make him sound intelligent and worldly, and not at all like a teenager imitating dialogue from a Tarantino movie.

      1. In fact, we have no proof that Kirkland isn’t a teenager imitating dialog from a Tarantino flick. I’d say you’re onto something with this one Square.

      2. It was designed to be accurate. I detest political correctness.

    2. His customers lap this stuff up like a handful of street pills washed down with a cheap sixer and celebrated with a cigarette, a Hardee’s combo, and a revival meeting.

      Showing off where you live again, Kirkland?

  18. The welfare queen was understood to be black, as was the “strapping young buck”…Tellingly, outside of the South, Reagan referred to “some young fellow,” a less racially charged description.

    How is either description “racially charged?” Is “strapping young buck” a racial slur now? It’s certainly not as bad as “porch monkey.”

  19. “Beyond spouses and minor children, American law allows immigrants to sponsor only parents, adult children, or siblings?not aunts, uncles, and cousins. Moreover, they can do so only after they themselves receive green cards or become naturalized citizens.”

    That’s … why it’s “chain migration”? Because “brother” then can bring in “children”, thus “cousins”?

    “It can take up to 45 years for an immigrant to show up in the United States, gain citizenship, and bring in the next single link in this chain”

    Yeah, and sale prices are “up to” 80% off!

    What’s the median, Nick? The requirement is “legal resident for five years”, as far as I can tell, for most people.

    That it could take “up to” nine times as long is about as dishonest as the things you’re complaining about.

    And they are dishonest, and should be pushed back against! Just, you know, without also trying to sell me a line of bullshit based on the sort of cheap weasel-wording a high-schooler should be disgusted by someone trying to use on them?

    Once, ages ago, I expected some vague pretense of honesty and rigor in Reason’s content.

    I guess that doesn’t get pageviews and clicks or something.

  20. So the rest of the media is defending MS13 and Gillespie decides the time must be right to defend welfare chiselers of color

  21. If you read the Slate piece, Reagan didn’t exaggerate anything about Linda Taylor.

    1. Another dimbulb right-wing authoritarian who lets his unconvincing libertarian drag slip right off when salivating over Ronnie Reagan.

      Carry on, clinger.

      1. Arty, you should kill yourself. Really. Just like every progressive.

  22. Yes, please, cite Dalmia. Always a strong move.

    1. I know, right? I thought Nick was trying to be persuasive.

  23. Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare – Judicial Watch

    https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/04/ most-illegal-immigrant-families-collect-welfare/

  24. ” Yet as Shikha Dalmia has written ”

    Citing a Shikha article as a reference. Does Reason really have no idea that Shikha is their resident laughing stock, even with the ever diminishing Open Borders crew?

    I invite everyone to go to the comment section of Shikha’s article where I and others take down the lying propaganda of her article.

    “It can take up to 45 years”

    Sale now! Up to 99% off!

    How about the stat for “it can take as little as X years”?

  25. No other country in the world allows in as many immigrants in as the US and every other country has a specific skills based migration system.

    The United States admits approximately 1,000,000 per year.

    Canada admits about 250,000 per year.

    Australia admits about 170,000 per year.

    By population Canada and Australia admit almost twice as many immigrants as the USA.

    1. To be more precise, Canada and Australia [each] admit almost twice as many immigrants as the USA.

      And Trump is proposing to reduce legal immigration by nearly 50%. I’d say that quallifies as being anti-immigration period, not jus anti “illegal immigration”.

      1. Admitting 500,000 immigrants is anti-immigration?

        1. If even one person in a gated East Coast or Silicon Valley community feels a drop of guilt, or some (D) doesn’t feel 100% confident going into a general election, it is never enough.

        2. I would say that reducing immigration to a level that is, in fact, one of the lowest in the world demonstrates that, yes, you are against immigration as such, and not just against any particular kind of immigration.

          1. It’s NOT one of the lowest in the world.

            The reason Canada can let in a high percentage is because they’re all MORE than self supporting, 6 figure making, zero crime committing immigrants. They will throw you out of the country if you lose your job and attempt to use welfare for quite a long period of time IIRC as well.

            In other words their immigration system is a LOT better than ours. We could take in 2 million doctors, engineers, scientists, etc a year and it would do wonders for the economy. They would likely still vote wrong, since American culture is the most conservative/libertarian leaning on earth, but they would definitely be an economic boon.

            I would accept increased numbers for increased quantity frankly. I would roll the dice that we can convert Chinese guys that make 200K a year to at least being fiscally conservative after awhile!

  26. It can take up to 45 years for an immigrant to show up in the United States, gain citizenship, and bring in the next single link in this chain.

    That’s true for legal, employment-based immigrants. For people who receive amnesty (like in 1986) or who sponsor relatives, it often only takes a few years.

    The White House chart is illustrating a process that would unfold over centuries, not months or even decades.

    Well, if that were actually the case and it took 45 years for each generation to bring in more relatives, then there wouldn’t be any harm in removing these laws from the book, wouldn’t there?

    It’s all the more troubling when, in the cases of both Reagan and Trump, it’s being used to demonize ethnic and racial minorities whose political power and cultural standing is marginal at best.

    So why do you want to subject poor little Mexican abuelitas to the horrible suffering of being a “demonized ethnic and racial minority” in the US when they can be proud, capable Mexicans in Mexico, free from the evils of American white supremacy and oppression?

    1. That’s the part I always love the best: This isn’t even a big deal, it doesn’t do nothin’!

      So we can get rid of it then?

      NO! NO! NO!!! Anything buy that!!!

      But I thought it didn’t do anything anyway, so what’s the point?

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

      It always shows what’s really going on…

  27. Politicians, especially presidents, should be held accountable for telling patently false anecdotes about real people.

    And journalists like you, Nick, should be held accountable for making patently false statements about political matters; and I don’t care whether you are simply ignorant of how the US immigration system works or whether you are deliberately lying.

  28. Mass migration is only a problem for Trumplestilskin and his idiocracy of followers then said immigrants are not white Europeans.

    1. Most Europeans are socialist, statist pricks; I would very much object to letting them into the country.

    2. To be fair, white Europeans did found the USA that you want hordes of immigrants to flood into.

  29. The problem is that this article is just as full of shit as Trump is on lots of things!

    As I understand it that 25 year old could get her citizenship STAT by marrying an American. She could then sponsor say 4 of her siblings at the same time. All of those siblings could in fact be married with 5 kids already.

    So where Reason mentions a single sister coming in in 10-15 years, even if it DID take 10-15 years (which it doesn’t have to), that could be 8 brothers + their spouses, and 20 children! For 28 ppl from 1. Every one of them could then sponsor a ton of their family members too. This DOES happen.

    So while it COULD go like Reason illustrates, it could also go a LOT more like Trump says. It’s exponential growth, so the growth all comes at the tail end, not the beginning anyway.

    The real problem is that none of those relatives have to meet any kind of high bar because they now have an American citizen relative. They could all literally be illiterate goat farmers. There’s no reason brother/sister/whoever shouldn’t still have to meet a high bar. I’m totally cool with a family of Indian Doctors all moving in, even if they get slightly fast tracked by having an H1B brother that married an American. But not if they’re goat farmers… There just isn’t a lot of call for goat herding anymore…

    Reason shows its obvious bias by completely ignoring obvious things like the above. I’m glad I’m not a paying subscriber or I’d be forced to go through effort to cancel my subscription!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.