Donald Trump

Why the Obsession with the Migrant Caravan, Mr. President?

Is Trump's anti-immigration position deeply held or just a way of getting the vote out?

|

If there's one thing President Donald Trump really doesn't like, it's illegal immigration. His current obsession: the "migrant caravan" of 7,000 people moving north through Mexico toward that country's border with the United States. Made up of people fleeing Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, the caravan is about 1,000 miles away from the border.

The president recently asserted without evidence that caravan was hiding "criminals and unknown Middle Easterners," a claim that even reliably anti-immigrant groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) pooh-poohed. That hasn't stopped Trump, though, who has ordered 800 additional troops to the border to assist 2,100 National Guard troops already stationed there.

He is also, reports The Washington Post,

JOSE MENDEZ/EFE/Newscom

weighing a plan to shut the U.S. border to Central Americans and deny them the opportunity to seek asylum, asserting similar emergency powers used during the early 2017 "travel ban," according to administration officials and people familiar with the proposal.

Under U.S. law, foreign nationals fleeing persecution have the right to apply for asylum once they reach American soil, but the executive order under consideration would suspend that provision and bar Central Americans as a matter of national security, according to those familiar with the proposal.

One point: It bears repeating that virtually all of Trump's claims about immigrants, especially ones about them bringing drugs, crime, and disease, are factually wrong. That is also true of claims that the migrant caravans or asylees in general pose serious terrorist threats to America. As Alex Nowratesh of the Cato Institute reports,

The members of the migrant caravan will either apply for asylum at the U.S. border or try to enter illegally. From 1975 through the end of 2017, 9 Americans have been murdered in attacks committed on U.S. soil by 20 foreign-born terrorists who entered illegally or as asylees. During that time, the annual chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack committed by an asylum seeker or an illegal immigrant was about 1 in 1.3 billion per year….

During that time, about 31.3 million illegal immigrants entered the U.S. illegally (most have since emigrated, legalized, or passed away) and about 732 thousand asylum seekers have been admitted. Nine of the 20 terrorists who entered did so as illegal immigrants, meaning that about 1 terrorist entered hidden amongst every 3.48 million illegal immigrants. They killed zero people in domestic terror attacks. The 11 terrorists who entered as asylum seekers murdered 9 people in terrorist attacks or about 1 murder for every 81,000 asylum seekers let in.

Questions: What is Trump's motivation for being so anti-immigrant, whether legal or not? He launched into his anti-Mexican diatribe a few minutes into his announcement that he was running for president, so it was obviously in the front of his mind. Is it a deep-seated commitment or is it because he understands in an almost feral way that it appeals to his base? Recent polls in Texas, for instance, show that among Republicans, immigration is the most important issue, with 31 percent putting at the top their list. By contrast, just 9 percent of Democrats and independents think it is the most important issue. (As Matt Welch reports, the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate in New Mexico, Mick Rich, is also using the caravan heavily in his ads.)

In the end, the underpinning of Trump's position may not matter. And while being so focused on fortifying the border may help him and the Republicans win a few races in November, his enthusiasm is actually making Americans more favorable toward immigration, with a record-high 75 percent of us (and 65 percent of Republicans) agreeing that immigration is a good thing.

Watch "This Border Patrol Agent Resigned After Changing His Mind About Immigration," produced by Reason's Zach Weissmueller:

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.

274 responses to “Why the Obsession with the Migrant Caravan, Mr. President?

  1. His current obsession: the “migrant caravan”

    Because it’s a great “get out and vote” motivator for Republican.

    1. And the media is rather obsessed with the migrant caravan. But, sure, let’s pretend like thousands of people marching toward your southern border isn’t news.

      1. Waving foreign flags, while telling anyone with a camera they have every intention of invading a sovereign nation’s border. Because… reasons.

      2. We sail through endless skies
        Stars shine like eyes
        The black night sighs
        The moon in silver trees
        Falls down in tears

      3. And the media is rather obsessed with the migrant caravan. But, sure, let’s pretend like thousands of people marching toward your southern border isn’t news.

        They aren’t going to affect Mr. Gillespie, so they’re irrelevant to him.

        1. They affect his feelz, so everyone else must comply or the SJW’s will crawl out from their dens and begin their long screeching howls of discontent and shaming.

        2. They’re not going to affect you either.

          1. They intend to enter my country illegally and have violated intl law by declining asylum in Mexico as was offered,

          2. They’ll make every neighborhood they live in a filthy barrio, so you’re wrong about that.

      4. So is the media “obsessed,” or is it news?

        1. It’s news. Unsure how Trump could be obsessed with news that is a direct assault on national sovreignty but Reason isn’t one to define that.

          1. Trump conspired with Russians to win the presidency and currently lets the Russians and Chinese listen into his phone calls.

            National sovereignty. Give me a fucking break.

            1. “Trump conspired with Russians to win the presidency and currently lets the Russians and Chinese listen into his phone calls.”

              LOL

              1. Just because it’s ridiculous doesn’t mean it’s not true.

                1. You are possibly the most retarded, idiotic, brain-dead loser on the planet. Your very existence is a drain on the collective intelligence of the human race.

            2. I had my doubts before, but now I’m convinced you’re actually a parody account.

            3. Trump conspired with Russians to win the presidency

              One party worked with Russian insiders to go after their political opponent.

              That party was not Trump’s.

              currently lets the Russians and Chinese listen into his phone calls.

              “MAH PHONE CALLS!”

              Sorry, but your lack of concern about emails is going to be hard to square here.

    2. Make more profit weekly… This is an awesome side job for anybody… Best part about it is that you can work from comfort of your house and earn 100-2000 dollars every week … Apply for the job now and have your first check at the end of the week.

      linked here…..=====??? http://www.Jobs73.com

  2. “Why the Obsession with the Migrant Caravan, Mr. President?”

    You mean the guy who campaigned on building a wall?

    Yeah, it’s a mystery.

  3. Questions: What is Trump’s motivation for being so anti-immigrant, whether legal or not?

    Because he knows it’s a wedge issue and vote getter, duh.

  4. I think the president, with the help of the Russians, of course, orchestrated the whole caravan.

    1. Everyone knows Russians hate gypsies

  5. Good question, Gillespie. Why would the president care about 7,000 people from a foreign country trying to overwhelm our immigration system and abuse or asylum laws? Racism is the only possible explanation.

    1. Gillespie’s affectation of writing an article as if he has been living under a rock for the past three years is not charming.

      1. To be fair, he did write the last one as though his memory of anything taking place before the Trump administration was spotty. Maybe he’s suffering from dementia or the early stages of Alzheimer’s?

        1. The lingering effects of taking bad drugs back in the 90s?

        2. I do think this is one of those things where Gillespie cannot muster up any empathy for his opponents to even glean some understanding of why they hold the position they do. Therefore, the fact that he has opponents confuses and enrages him.

          1. I think you are probably right about that Mickey. But how on earth does someone allow their head to get so far up their ass that they can’t understand why people would legitimate concerns and objections to a mass migration? I can’t fathom being that disconnected from reality.

            1. I don’t know, how does someone allow their head to get so far up their ass that they can’t understand why people would have legitimate concerns and objections to civilians with assault weapons and high-capacity magazines?

              1. Because there are no legitimate concerns with that. Last I looked guns didn’t have agencies of their own. People do. There migrants are not objects you fucking half wit.

                Are you really so stupid that you think that is a clever remark? Are you 12? Fail out of the seventh grade?

                1. Millions of Americans think it’s a legitimate concern. And I don’t think your “mass migration” concerns are legitimate.

                  1. Good for them. And there are good reasons to dismiss those concerns. If you want to debate gun control fine. But why don’t we talk about the huge social costs associated with mass migration and why people have a legimate right to object to it, since that is the subject here.

                    But hey fuck them. I am sure their daugher’s were asking for it when they get raped and they have the money to pay taxes to educate and house and feed all of these people.

                    1. Would you allow me some freedom of association? If these people want to cut my grass for me, at an affordable cost, what is it to you?

                      Well OK, socialism means that they might show up at the emergency room, or the schools, etc., and demand socialized services, I got that part… But, when we ALWAYS demand more Government Almighty “services” to cover up the past fuck-ups of Government Almighty… As in, Government Almighty instituted socialism in the first place, now we must build giant walls and giant armies at the borders, to defend socialism ONLY for “deserving Americans”… Then WHERE is the never-ending process of Government Almighty creating a NEW program, to fix the fucked-up results of its OLD programs, EVER going to end?

                    2. ‘Government Almighty instituted socialism in the first place, now we must build giant walls and giant armies at the borders, to defend socialism ONLY for “deserving Americans”.’
                      Yeah I see the “can’t have immigration with a welfare state” argument here all the time. Fucked up government does not trump free association.

              2. Or, many people here could, you know, understand that POV while not agreeing with it.

                Versus someone who can’t understand the POV or reasoning at all of people holding different views.

                These are different things.

      2. “Gillespie’s affectation of writing an article as if he has been living under a rock for the past three years is not charming.”
        FTFY

  6. Controlling immigration has been Trump’s issue since he entered the 2016 election. The caravan is a political demonstration that directly challenges his position and US sovereignty over its immigration policy. Do you really have to wonder why it interests him?

  7. Trump’s job as president is to defend the USA from invading hordes.

    1. American-soil-invading hordes of babies are coming our way, via many Momma’s wombs! Many of them will be socialists, drug dealers, and rapists, and murderers, even, when they grow up! ***IF*** we allow them to grow up in America, they will MALGA, Make America Less Great Again!!!

      WHAT is Trump doing to protect us from the onslaught of this horde?!?!

      1. “WHAT is Trump doing to protect us from the onslaught of this horde?!?!”

        Posting some military at the border to keep the illegals out, thereby enforcing duly enacted law, for one thing.

        1. There are loads of Latino citizens already in the U.S. The U.S. is becoming browner without any immigrants. The white and black citizens have a lower birth rate than hispanic citizens (that’s citizens not even residents). There are also many more intermarriages then there used to be. Remember the Cheech and Chong song. All the border walls in the world won’t stop this trend. The old white people have to stop panicing. They can’t win this battle.

          1. Can we paint the brown babies white, as they pop out of the chutes? THEN we could stop panicing!

          2. I have nothing against “brown people” and I’m happy that we have duly naturalized immigrants. I disapprove of a swarm of unidentifiable people migraging illegally.

            1. Well OK then, you’re less racist than Trump and Trumplodytes, AKA Trump-troglodytes. See “Trump wants fewer immigrants from “shithole countries” and more from places like Norway
              He reportedly made the racist remarks during a meeting Thursday.” … At http://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/1…..ies-norway … Talk or try to talk non-racist sense to your Trumpista friends if you have any. Also see https://reason.com/archives/201…..wall-of-bu … Where we see that Trump and his bureaucrats are jumping on any and every excuse that they can find, to turn rule-following non-American residents into illegal subhumans, via any route that they can find! To thwart Congress, which would NOT cut back LEGAL immigration as much as Trump wants!

              Trumpistas will tell you, just get out of America before your visa expires.

              But… If I fell deathly ill or my plane reservations got cancelled, so my departure got delayed a bit. Then Donald’s army of bureaucrats jumps on the chance to turn me into an illegal sub-human.

              Telling us what the law is doesn’t help the fact that the law is an evil, inhumane ass, as enforced by Donald’s army of bureaucrats! Being black and sitting in the front of the bus used to be illegal, too, you know!

              Trump is appealing to his racist-nationalistic base, if we are honest!

              1. “We have only one task, to stand firm and carry on the racial struggle without mercy. Heinrich Himmler”
                Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/aut…..ch_himmler

                MeThinks that Der TrumpfenFuhrer may possibly be the reincarnated Himmler…

                The day before yesterday, witches were the scapegoats. Yesterday, the Jews were the scapegoats. Today, the illegal sub-humans are the scapegoats. (Many-many more fell between these cracks).

              2. So Norway is not a shithole country? Guess I’ve been misinformed.

  8. Poor Gillespie and the other propagandists whose plans are not working out.

  9. >>>In the end, the underpinning of Trump’s position may not matter.

    the underpinning of T’s position *does not* matter.

  10. “What is Trump’s motivation for being so anti-immigrant, whether legal or not?”

    Is this a serious question?

    1. We’re the first line of defense to our brothers to the north.

      By the way, I saw something about Canada getting its deficit under control. Is that still true?

      1. Canadians would not put up with Nick’s take. We can get pretty damn protective of our borders. Peace, order and good government all that.

        7000 people are about to over whelm your borders and libertarians are acting like ‘nothing to see here racists’.

        I’m sorry. This is not acceptable. No one is saying don’t let them in but you better damn well VETT them. As you said, some find their way up here.

        The United States bears some responsibility.

        Where did you read that? Not according to these numbers:

        https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/indicators

        1. I was a Stossel recently about it. The video was 6-7 years old.

        2. No one is saying don’t let them in but you better damn well VETT them.

          Well, no one except Trump.

          1. We just “vett them” because suddenly Libertarians are believers in the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

            1. Take it up with Rufus.

        3. Is anyone saying they should not be vetted? And what does that mean, a criminal background check? A health screening? A psychological profile analysis? Those seem like they could be done easily.

          1. The problem is what do you do with them in the mean time? Can’t lock them up. That would be separating families and locking up children. If you let them go, then they just blend into the country and are effectively let in. Moreover, even if they are “vetted”, they are not refugees by the legal defintion. They are not fearing for their lives. They are economic migrants and under the law should not be admitted anyway.

            1. 7000 is nothing in a pool of 330 million. And their entrance into America life should be welcomed.

              But as you say, what do you do in the mean time?

              That’s a lot of people to process. I wonder how much this puts stress on civil servants who have to process all this.

              When Trudeau wanted to let in, I think it was, 12 000 people with a specific time frame, it was explained to him we didn’t have the apparatus in place to process it the way he wanted so he relented.

              1. The problem is that if you let this 7,000 in there will be hundreds of thousands that follow. It is called a moral hazard.

                1. My problem is that we don’t enforce our laws in this area. And it’s not just illegal immigrants–look at the massive amount of disability fraud that’s still going on. WTF? If we simply must have welfare, let’s at least be sane about it.

                  1. If the progtards decide they can do whatever they want, why shouldn’t I? And if there is no rule of law, wouldn’t it just be easier to wipe them out? Since they don’t have very many guns, and can’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

                    The left doesn’t think this shit through. The only reason they get to exist is the rule of law, and Christian decency. Beyond that I see no real impediment to their anhilation.

                2. People forget we DID an amnesty. Back in 1986. The problem has gotten exponentially worse since.

          2. Vetting = spayed and neutered

            1. Gotta keep the low born from breeding.

    2. My father had to demonstrate to the Canadian government – via apprenticeship (he became a kick ass tailor) and vouches from family members – he can contribute. He paid his fricken dues and waited patiently to become a citizen of Canada – a PRIVILEGE as he always told us. Just like his cousins did in the USA. No illegal bull shit and that you condone illegal activity conflating it with ‘anti-immigration’ is puzzling.

      What’s the gig here I’m missing at Reason?

      1. “What’s the gig here I’m missing at Reason?”

        Journalists and the vast majority of Team Blue Elite face ZERO career/financial competition from these soon to be fast breeding dedicated blue voters (aka useful idiots.)

        1. As Cruz pointed out, if illegals were taking jobs as reporters and lawyers, we would have a “crisis”. But theyre not, so we do not apparently.

        2. As Cruz pointed out, if illegals were taking jobs as reporters and lawyers, we would have a “crisis”. But theyre not, so we do not apparently.

  11. Why not skip the wall and simply deny welfare to illegal aliens? That could be done, but no one seems to want to do that. Or we could lean on Mexico.

    For the record, I take Friedman’s view on immigration and a welfare state. Which isn’t precisely libertarian, but neither is a welfare state.

    1. I thought it already was. Didn’t welfare reform do that? How did that get repealed without anyone seeming to know about it.

      1. No – since most welfare programs are administered by the states, the results vary widely by state and program.

        Walk into any emergency room at any time of day and you’ll see illegal immigrants receiving welfare that you’ll be covering in taxes or incredibly high medical bills.

    2. In Italy, they now demand migrants to prove their poor in order to get welfare. Or else, none for you. Some of them have assets and actual wealth and still demand welfare. Not right to taxpayers.

      As Salvini said: Italian tax payers pay for it for Italian citizens who need it. Period. Not to migrants who expect it.

      Hard ball I know. But they owe nothing to anyone.

      1. they’re

      2. “But they owe nothing to anyone.”

        Except the migrants children.

        1. There’s debate about that. Italians want to give to the children.

    3. Why not skip the wall and simply deny welfare to illegal aliens? That could be done, but no one seems to want to do that.

      Probably because it has already been done.

      1. On paper, not in practice. Just like disability fraud. Neither party stops anything.

    4. Non-citizens can’t get welfare. There are exceptions for children. I suppose you could try to roll back those exceptions. That might create more hungry children. That’s a good deterrent. If it weren’t for the moral hazard of the hungry children.

      1. Not in practice. This is not a secret.

      2. Not true. Lester the liar.

    5. California tried it in 1994 with prop 187. Courts killed it.

  12. If the caravan is just no big deal and something Trump is “obsessing about”, why is the media covering it just as obsessively? They were doing that long before Trump ever said anything about it.

    Beyond that, why obsess over the caravan? Maybe because 7,000 people waving forgeign flags and demanding entry into the country is something the President, as commander and chief and the head of the CBP and ICE should be concerned about? Just a thought.

    Trump’s motivation for being so anti immigrant is that he promised his supporters he would do something to secure the borders. It was kind of a big deal during the campaign. Gillespie’s own magazine seemed to be very concerned about it.

    Did Nick get ahold of some bad acid or something? He has always been shallow but he has never to my knowledge been anything like as stupid as he has been recently.

    1. This magazine-website has gone full derp.

    2. why is the media covering it just as obsessively?

      Have they even made it into Mexico yet?

      1. I believe they successfully stormed and overwhelmed the gates of Mexico earlier this week

  13. Is it time for a Nick Gillespie NPC meme?

    1. Gillespie was NPC before NPC was a thing. He’s like that annoying kid from high school who tells you that he liked a band before they were cool, but in actuality he just started buying their albums after they had a hit on the radio.

      I don’t think he’s ever said anything outside of mainstream opinion ever since that time he tried it out on Bill Maher’s show regarding the Fast and Furious Program.

      1. He has been unsuccessfully auditioning for a spot on cable news for about 10 years now.

        1. CNN will EVENTUALLY hire him, right?

          1. Nick is getting too old. I think his dreams of being a big time TV personality are fading fast.

            1. But CNN is getting kinda desperate now.

              Too bad the only time Welch or Gillespie were tolerable on TV was with Gutfeld. Who needs neither of them.

              1. Gurfeld would be better off without both of them.

            2. Maybe they’ll reboot Happy Days?

              1. Aaaaayyyyyyyy!

      2. Man, you guys are brutal.

  14. One thing is for sure, the migrant caravan isn’t playing well for Democrats. If it was, Nick would not be so angry and butt hurt over Trump making an issue of it.

    1. I can almost hear discussions of “How many of us would have to be blown up in order to stay at the top of the news cycle!” wafting out of the offices of Democratic politicians and hopefuls.

    2. Who is making it an issue? I don’t get the whole argument.

      Are we really suppose to pretend as if thousands of migrants streaming toward the border wouldn’t automatically be covered by media outlets? It’s an insane proposition. Is the president suppose to ignore a national issue?

      1. Yeah. A group of radical pro borders NGOs create a caravan of thousands of immigrants that are marching through Mexico with the goal of coming accross the US border and crashing our asylum system and Nick thinks it is all Trump’s fault for making an issue of it.

        1. Why our DoJ isn’t going after this group is lost on me. You want to fund attacks on national sovreignty? Well, you get some repurcussions for doing so.

  15. http://voiceofeurope.com/2018/…..teen-girl/

    Only a racist would be in any way concerned about a mass migration from failed states and societies.

  16. Why are you hitting yourself?

  17. It’s everyone’s obsession.

  18. Or maybe Trump believes the US, as flawed as it is, is worth protecting. And allowing Open Borders (unlimited immigration) will fundamentally change the US and not in a positive way.

    According to Pew 174 million people third worlders would move to the US if they could. And that doesn’t count their wives and dependent children.

    Do you want your town to end up like this?

    https://tinyurl.com/yb4ce4ht

    And yes, these folks didn’t use force or fraud to take over this town, so it’s all hunky-dory in Libertarian Land.

    And to the commenters who say if your culture needs the government to protect it/defend it then it’s not worth defending, welcome to New Yemen, New Brazil and New DRC.

    1. Reason’s position on immigration has degenerated to Fuck You That is Why. They don’t even pretend that they could win a rational argument on the issue. They just call anyone who objects a racist and pretends there could not possibly be a rational objection to it or that the issue is in any way a contensious one for which reasonable minds could differ. That is nothing but them admitting that they know they can’t win a ratinal argument but don’t care because this is what they want.

      1. Re: John

        They just call anyone who objects a racist and pretends there could not possibly be a rational objection to it or that the issue

        What possible *reasonable* objection has been provided for trampling over Americans’ right to hire, rent to, sell to and even marry immigrants whenever they want? What possible reasonable objection has been provided that justifies imposing completely arbitrary rules on who can come in and even who can opt out?

        What reasons are you alluding to, other than “dem Immigruntz takum er jebz!” and “Middle Easterns!” and “ass-rapists”? Are THOSE supposed to be “reasons”?

        Please. Tell a different story, Trumpista.

        1. And sure enough Old Mexican crawls out of his hole and says fuck you that is why.

          Go die in a fire you racist fuck.

          1. Never. “Liberty, Property and Life”. Those are the reasons FOR Immigration.

            Yours? “I hate immigrants.”

            1. You are not pro liberty at all. You are pro yourself and I want. That is it. You expect everyone else to pay the price for your feelings and wants. It is as pathetic as it is transparent.

          2. Pretty sure you’re the one saying fuck you that’s why.

      2. NPC John:
        Stop calling me a racist

        Reason:
        No one is calling you a racist, John

        NPC John:
        Stop calling me a racist

        1. CAthy and Old Mexican are all over this thread. Beyond that, every time you claim there are no legitimate objections to this, which you do every single time the issue comes up, you are calling those who object racists.

          1. There are options other than racist. Like slaver.

            1. So being opposed to the immigration of low educated, low skilled workers, who are willing to work for extekely low wages is pro-slavery? Do you just mindlessly shout slogans and hope no one calls you out on your shit? Or did you think you were actually making a cognitive point?

    2. According to Pew 174 million people third worlders would move to the US if they could. And that doesn’t count their wives and dependent children.

      Lol, do you think Pew has a policy of only surveying men?

      1. So women don’t have husbands and dependents either? He shoudl have said “spouses” but you are not helping your case here.

      2. Actually, I understated the numbers. Because there’s another 150 million who would immigrate to other 1st world countries but the US is not their first choice. So, yeah let’s add another 300 million low-skill, under-educated people to our already debt-ridden welfare state. Libertopia is just around the corner.

        1. “You shouldn’t be here’.

          Nice.

        2. let’s add another 300 million low-skill, under-educated people to our already debt-ridden welfare state

          Let me know when you’re advocating abortion for all Medicaid recipients.

        3. Around the corner from… Altruria? California? I personally hold the LP platform committee responsible for turning a legal, balanced and sensible plank into another club Republicans can wield to drive voters away from the LP. The Libertarian Defense Caucus formed to counter another such wave of whack-job infiltrators urging preemptive surrender during the Cold War.

    3. Re: MiloMinderBender,

      Or maybe Trump believes the US, as flawed as it is, is worth protecting.

      Protect it from poor brown people.

      He’s a brave knight, that one.

      1. Because everyone looks at Latin America and thinks “damn I wish America were more like that”. What we totally need is millions of people who don’t speak the language, have few marketable skills and come from some of the most violent and dysfunctional societies on earth. What could possibly go wrong?

        1. Again, let me know when you take any of that into account when determining whether native-born Americans are allowed to reproduce.

          1. Move to El Salvador and get back to me. Tell us more about the magic dirt in America that makes everything all better.

            1. “Magic Dirt” ???

              Are you The Lab Manager????

              For those who don’t know, The Lab Manager is a Stormfront loving racist who trolls in the comments aection of Target Liberty and Economic Policy Journal. He uses “magic dirt” a lot whenever disparaging immigrants from non-White countries.

              1. El Salvador isn’t like the US because the people who live there are not the same as the people who live here. People are different. Doesn’t make them better or worse or less human, just different. If you want the country to be more like El Salvador, bring the population here.

                Of course, you think nothing of saying horribly racist and collectivist things about Americans. You are a complete Mexican racist. But then whine when anyone states the obvious that all of Latin America is broken and dysfunctional. You of course think it is wonderful. So wonderful you live in the US, the land of the hated white man.

                Go fuck yourself and take your Hispanic racial supremacy with you.

                1. Of course, you think nothing of saying horribly racist and collectivist things about Americans.

                  Bet you the house you can’t back up that lie.

                  Oh, and don’t start with conflating Trumpistas with Americans. There are very few Trumpistas.

                  1. You use the word “Trumpista” every other sentence. That describes 48% of the population, which you call racists and fascist in every post.

              2. Magic dirt is a pretty common concept and not just in the immigration debate.

                From the NYT:

                https://tinyurl.com/y9fj26ny

                One Park Slope dad told me he sees the move as a “prelude to breaking up the specialized high schools.” He added that the plan would “put the academically struggling kids in schools where ‘magic dirt’ makes kids smarter.”

                It’s a good shorthand way of disagreeing with the progressive/libertarian notion that all people and cultures are equally worthy.

              3. You are the one claiming tha Americans and Hondurans are basically interchangeable . If the people are basically the same and the cultures arent really tha different…why is Honduras a shithole and we are not?

                Your argument leaves location as the only cause.

            2. I’m quite literally saying there is no magic dirt and most Americans suck.

              1. Not every American is as stupid and awful as you are Cathy.

          2. determining whether native-born Americans are allowed to reproduce.

            I keep forgetting when you say things like this that you are criticizing pro-lifers. Because you just sound like someone advocating China’s forced abortion for this country. It’s totally helping your cause.

            1. I’m not criticizing pro-lifers. I’m criticizing immigration opponents.

              1. No, you are trying to be clever but are failing miserably.

          3. I’m just as surprised as Cathy. The Jawnbot could be counted to side with anything that uses service pistols to force women to reproduce at gunpoint. I have lived all over the Caribe and Latin America and the one thing males and nuns are excited about is forcing children–even adults–to have unwanted babies. Is there a trumpista Republican Race Suicide imperative overriding the usual posturing?

    4. Lol. Rossi’s Ice with a woman in a burka.

      1. Are we talking about Skinhead O’Connor, lately turned saracen amoker and renamed Hush Ada? The one that pleads suicidal, and is looking for a form-fitting vest? That kind of heat speech would get you fired on Network.

    5. The US is worth protecting.

      Now what about the US do you think is worth protecting? Simply its demographic makeup? Well no. That is such a superficial criterion.

      You want to protect “US culture”? Okay, well first you should probably define specifically what you mean.

      What is worth protecting about the US, in my view, is its (relatively good) commitment to liberty. And some of us think that creating a police state in order to chase down illiterate Guatemalans who are doing nothing more ‘harmful’ than creating better lives for themselves, is not just a waste of resources, but injurious to the cause of liberty for EVERYONE, citizens and non-citizens alike. The non-citizens are thrown out of the country for the ‘crime’ of making a better life for themselves, and the citizens see more of their liberty eroded away in the name of fighting illegal immigration.

      And posting stories about all-black neighborhoods in England as some sort of scary dystopia is just racial demagoguery.

      1. What is worth protecting is its sovereignty and the right of the people in it to expect its government to look out for their interests. If you want to let these people in, win an election and do so. The problem is not that you want to let them in. It is that you think the US does not have the right to keep them out if they choose to do so.

        1. the right of the people in it to expect its government to look out for their interests

          lolololol

          What if we expect the opposite?

          1. Then you can go fuck yourself. Why should the American public have any concern for people who make no secret about hating them?

      2. How much commitment to liberty do you think the new residents of Savile Town have?

        1. It is those people’s jobs to suffer so that Jeff can feel smug. That is literally Jeff’s position. He will never suffer any ill effects of this or certainly doesn’t think he will. And he could not care less about the people who will. It is all about their duty to suffer for Jeff’s principles. That is the way every open borders advocate is.

          1. And it’s the job of the Sandy Hook parents to suffer so you can feel smug. blah blah.

            1. In some ways sure. The price of an armed society is sometimes people misusing guns. Now do immigration and get back to me.

              1. John, these people would forfeit any rights we have to open the borders.

                Why? Who knows. But they will. It’s hard to find somebody seriously willing to argue AGAINST free speech and gun ownership, but if they do, they will usually support open borders.

        2. How much commitment to liberty do you think the previous residents of Savile Town had?

          1. You’re right. England’s commitment to liberty and freedom and identically the same as Pakistan’s.

            1. Identically, no. But do you think native populations should also be vetted based on these factors to determine whether they should be adding to the population?

              1. Do you think we shoudl let people in who make no secret of their desire to transform our society and make it worse?

        3. Well, let me see.

          Are these mostly Muslim residents rioting and demanding an overthrow of the British government? Are they murdering their non-Muslim neighbors and demanding that they convert to Islam? Or are they peacefully going about their lives according to their Muslim traditions while living in Britain?

          Oh but wait you are going to say THREE OF THE LONDON SUICIDE BOMBERS CAME FROM SAVILE TOWN! Yes they did. And that’s wrong. But that is hardly reason enough to condemn everyone who lives in that town as being hostile to liberty.

          1. I already called this out. They’ve totally displaced the entire town and didn’t use force or fraud, so you’re totally cool with it. If people don’t like it just convert or move to the next town. And then they take over the next town: rinse, lather and repeat.

            The Constitution may not be a suicide pact, but blind adherence to Libertarian Ideology certainly is.

            1. This – They have no need to protest or rebel, the EU and British government is carrying all the water for them.

            2. So what exactly is the “suicide” part? That Muslims come to Britain and live peacefully alongside non-Muslim native-born British? Why is this a problem exactly?

              Oh I see. Non-Brits are coming to Britain and doing some things that have been historically regarded as non-British. Like wearing burqas and going to mosques. Well then. Then it looks like there is going to be a change in British culture *one way or another*. EITHER Brits continue to be welcoming to foreigners, in which case new customs become intertwined into their existing cultural norms (as has happened in this country, over time), OR Brits do an about-face and adopt a more restrictive atmosphere, which means a more suspicious and xenophobic posture. They’ll have more cultural homogeneity but they will be also more suspicious of outsiders than they are currently.

              The point is, EITHER WAY there is going to be some change in the culture. Either more Muslim-friendly, or more xenophobic. There is no real third option here where British culture remains in a state of stasis.

              So why don’t you explain to us the pros and cons of adopting a more xenophobic stance towards foreigners, which seems to be the one that you support.

              1. hat Muslims come to Britain and live peacefully alongside non-Muslim native-born British? Why is this a problem exactly?

                And the dozens of dead bodies from terrorist attacks and hundreds of bodies from knife attacks and crime committed by those Muslims say otherwise. You can’t be that fucking stupid to believe that. Thery are not there to live in peace. What the fuck is wrong with you?

                1. “They” are not collectively guilty for the crimes of single individuals.

                2. All of those young, raped girls are the eggs one must crack to make an omelette.

                  1. All of those dead schoolchildren at Sandy Hook are the eggs one must crack to make an omelette of the right to keep and bear arms. Amirite?

                    You can get on your moral high horse all you want about all the bad things that bad people do. But trying to suppress the liberty of everyone in order to stop a few bad people from doing bad things is the road to tyranny. Even the most insistent border restrictionists understand this when it comes to speech, or guns. Why can’t they understand this basic fact when it comes to immigration?

                    Bottom line: TANSTAAFL.

                    1. All of those dead schoolchildren at Sandy Hook are the eggs one must crack to make an omelette of the right to keep and bear arms. Amirite?

                      Can you cite the Constitutional rights you’ll forfeit because somebody misused them?

                      No more outlawing illegal search and seizure because some criminals might get away with crimes, amirite?

                      You can get on your moral high horse all you want about all the bad things that bad people do. But trying to suppress the liberty of everyone in order to stop a few bad people from doing bad things is the road to tyranny.

                      It is not my job to secure the liberty of every person on Earth nor my desire to do so. Nation building is a fool’s errand. Hondurans have the responsibility to provide liberty to Honduras. It’s not America’s job to do that.

                      If you’re going to demand we let them in, why not just send our troops there and overthrow their government? It’d be less destructive to keep them there than to bring them here.

                      Even the most insistent border restrictionists understand this when it comes to speech, or guns. Why can’t they understand this basic fact when it comes to immigration?

                      Our Constitutional rights are ours. Nobody else’s. Our rights are actually exceptionally rare in today’s world.

                      You’re conflating Constitutional rights with no right whatsoever. I guess you don’t have a good argument to make so you’ll try this.

                  2. Basically, you’re waving the bloody shirt as an appeal to emotion. It’s reprehensible when the gun-grabbers do it after a mass shooting in order to justify gun confiscation, and it’s reprehensible when the border restrictionists do it after some undocumented immigrant does something terrible, in order to justify closing the border.

                    1. Basically, you’re waving the bloody shirt as an appeal to emotion.

                      No, we’re pointing out the problem, repeated in numerous countries, of allowing uncontrolled immigration. The UK has had pedophile rape rings. Germany had mass sexual assaults. Sweden has shitholes nobody can enter. And Europeans will PROTECT the illegals there regardless, because Europeans are God damned idiots.

                      I do not want that here. And I have every right to demand my government do one of the few things they are specifically tasked with doing — securing the borders. Sorry if you don’t get your indentured servant to underpay and abuse. C’est la vie. Your desire to have your yard done cheaply doesn’t trump my expectation of the government to actually do one of the few key jobs of a government.

                      It’s reprehensible when the gun-grabbers do it after a mass shooting in order to justify gun confiscation, and it’s reprehensible when the border restrictionists do it after some undocumented immigrant does something terrible, in order to justify closing the border.

                      The mob overran the Mexican border and declined amnesty when offered by Mexico.

                      We owe them nothing. They should be viewed as invaders and killed if they attempt to cross. No more playing.

      3. Show me a Second Amendment in a Constitution written by a South American Junta.

      4. There are laws about how to immigrate. No American born or dead owes jack shit to Guatemalans or Chinese or Frenchmen. If they want to immigrate they can immigrate like everyone else, get in line, pay the money. If they do not like our laws, tough shit, it is our country, they do not have voting rights. If you do not like our laws, tough shit, it is a democracy so persuade enough people to change the laws.

        Until then jeff you can fuck of with your moral pretension.

  19. Relevant:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2SDFwu_JR8

    It’s a debate between Tucker Carlson and Cenk Uygur at Politicon. The first half is about immigration. It is illuminating to see how much Tucker and Cenk agree on this topic. For instance both of them are basically anti-big-business demagogues now, blaming them for the immigration problems that we have today. Of course Tucker sees it in the context of “those businesses aren’t hiring American workers like they’re supposed to”, and Cenk sees it in the context of “those businesses are exploiting those immigrants”, but still, they are both on the anti-business train to various degrees.

    1. In a world where any workder can be replaced at any time by someone more desparte from overseas, life really sucks. Has it ever occured to you that a tight labor market where people have a sense of security and leverage against their employers might be conducive to freedom?

      Lets have a labor market where everyone is subject to being preplaced at any time by cheaper foreign competition. Don’t you think that is going to cause people to support having a government safety net?

      This is like seven feet over your head. I seriously doubt you will understand the point but I can always dream.

      1. Has it ever occured to you that a tight labor market where people have a sense of security and leverage against their employers might be conducive to freedom?

        So what is your argument then? That the state should artificially create a tight labor market, in order to privilege one set of workers over another?

        How is this not just another form of rent-seeking? Doesn’t seem terribly pro-freedom to rig the labor market in this way.

        1. Yes. That is my argument. If you want to have truely open borders, you are going to make all but the very top elite in this country as insecure and desperate as the most insecure and desparate person on earth. Hey, you don’t like working 12 hours a day and being treated like shit? No problem, there is a guy who is even more desparate than you who thinks that would be great, get the fuck out of here.

          A tight labor market gives people the security to value freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean anything if the risk and uncertainty that comes with it outweighs the opportunity it provides. And if freedom means working a job that you are one more desparate immigrant away from losing and facing employment, people wont’ value it and will take the security offered by socialism.

          There is a reason why Marxists want to import enormous hoards of migrants. It is because they understand that it will cause people to lose faith in freedom and capitalism.

          1. Wow John. That is one of the most condescending arguments that you have ever written I think. So you don’t think people can handle real freedom, they must only be granted conditional, limited freedom, circumscribed by government manipulations and riggings of the market.

            You realize that when the state rigs the market, it will rig the market in favor of the powerful. One might argue that the immigration system that we have today is exactly the result of that scenario. Tucker Carlson would seem to think so.

            Perhaps a better solution would be for the state not to rig the market in the first place.

            1. John seems comprehensively unfamiliar with American history.

              Homeschooling, backwater religious schooling, and stale thinking have consequences.

              1. You seem comprehensively unfamiliar with how much everyone in the world hopes that your retard face is beaten mercilessly with an aluminum bat.

            2. I think people value freedom as a rational calculation of the benefits of the opportunity it affords them versus the costs of the insecurity and risk that comes with it. People turn to tribalism as a means of coping in dangerous situations. They give up their freedom when under attack because doing so is necessary to survive.

              You think freedom is great. Imgine a choice between the Victorian West and a prison. Easy choice right? You would take the West. What if you were a quadrapolegic unable to take care for yourself? The west would be nothing but a ticket to a quick death. The security and certainty of a prison sounds pretty good doesn’t it?

              Basically, you are naive and have no idea how the real world works and what actual hardship and risk look like. You are a typical Libertarian fat, dumb and happy certain in the knowledge that everyone is just like you and that all answers can be found in “meh PRINCIPLES”

              1. So, don’t give people “real” freedom, because they can’t handle it. Sheesh.

          2. Jawn could take this to his fellow trumpistas and really score some points. Heck, the Don prolly can’t spell hordes either. What’s wrong with the locust swarm marching on Argentina, Chile or Venezuela anyway?

        2. Jeff, is the market ALWAYS supposed to be at the benefit of the business?

          Workers NEVER should have an upper hand ever?

          Because that isn’t how a free market works. At all. This is rather pernicious crony capitalism, since I get the joy of paying for your cheap lawncare guy.

          1. Careful, you’re starting to sound like a Marxist.

    2. Chemjeff, you’ve just shown how there is a lot more in common between some elements on the Right and some elements on the Left with regards to this issue. Primarily nationalists and pro-labor liberals view this issue through the same lenses.

      It really is just one monolithic group

  20. I’m a little disappointed. I was hoping we were going to get a long treatise on “blowback”.

    Because those cartoons do totally suck.

    1. Old Mexican and Cathy crawled out of their holes. Mexican will now proceed to shit all over the thread with racist insults and irrational rants.

  21. Why is Trump concerned about 7000 illegal immigrants?

    They are the ones who decided to advance on the US in mass, like an illegal army.

    Should he look the other way?

    1. We should embrace them, because they likely come from cultures that don’t do a lot of embracing of the whole ‘gender is fluid’ concept.

      1. They want to get away from their shithole countries that they’ll say or do anything.

        Do you think they’ll beg entry with attitude?

      2. Make America Binary Again!

    2. An “illegal army” that is going to hand themselves in voluntarily at a border crossing in applying for asylum. Huh. That’s a mighty strange army .

      1. Also a strange way for terrorists to get in. I mean, if anything surely they’ve heard of airplanes.

      2. No – It’s a mighty strange and broken system we’ve created that they plan to exploit.

      3. They live in shithole countries. They should clean their own house.

        What complicated it it that US policy and actions have largely made their countries shitholes.

        We’ll never hear the truth in the media. Just the propaganda of the day.

      4. Happens every day in the immigration biz. For a while the fleeing hordes were issued a Notice to Appear, which they then waved at the Checkpoint Charlies as “papeles” and went on through to El Norte. But rules were changed so that “arriving immigrants” basically get nowhere. They do get forms in English to fill out. Schools under Papal Comstock laws teach prayer, as in Mussolini’s Italy, but not many Rs.

      5. They already overran gates at Mexico and declined amnesty there.

    3. Santa Ana attacked the Alamo with less than a few thousand men.

      Those few thousand Mexican soldiers brought their families to bivouac nearby.

  22. I reminded of the scene in “The Probability Broach” where the evil Federalist John Jay Hamilton taunts the North American Confederacy, saying they can’t stop his plot to take over the country without violating their NAP principles.

  23. Trump thinks there are Arabs in the caravan. Fox News told him so.

  24. Oh and this is more fake news:

    The members of the migrant caravan will either apply for asylum at the U.S. border or try to enter illegally. From 1975 through the end of 2017, 9 Americans have been murdered in attacks committed on U.S. soil by 20 foreign-born terrorists who entered illegally or as asylees. During that time, the annual chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack committed by an asylum seeker or an illegal immigrant was about 1 in 1.3 billion per year…

    The Bomb Brothers from Checnya killed seven people all by themselves.

    And Ramzi Yousef killed 6 in the 1st WTC bombing.

    That’s 13, without even trying, which last time I checked was greater than 9.

    1. And oh yeah, the NY Limousine Company Guy got asylum as well, after fleeing his native Pakistan on a murder charge. That’s twenty more dead, but it’s not terrorism, so it’s okay.

    2. None of them crossed the Mexican border.

      X=0

      1. So what? Is there something magical about doing so that makes people not dangerous?

        1. Maybe our magic dirt gets more imbedded in their shoes and they became way better refugees?

  25. “The president recently asserted without evidence that caravan was hiding “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners,” ”

    They’re coming for the purpose of violating our immigration laws, and have already violated Mexico’s immigration laws. So, yes, they’re criminals, and not hiding, either.

    1. To be fair, the assertion is credible if not provable, and should be investigated.

  26. Does Pres. Trump mangle standard English (especially punctuation and capitalization) because he left Fordham and the University of Pennsylvania a subliterate person, or is his illiteracy instead a cynical affectation designed to signal to his poorly educated, downscale, shambling supporters that he is one of them?

    1. A little of column A, a little of column B, a little of column Alzheimer’s.

  27. Why would any country’s leader be interested in a foreign army advancing toward his country’s border?

    1. Define “army.”

    2. This is not Hamas. There are no rocket attacks to San Antonio.

      It is civilian border with millions in goods and people crossing every day.

      You want to make it military?

      Know what that means.

      1. An army that invaded Mexico and overran its border.
        An army that turned down amnesty when offered by Mexico.

        They are a militaristic force. They should be dealt with harshly and we should be going after the groups behind this.

  28. In 2011 US DEA agents gunned down 3 pregnant women in Honduras.They were suspected of carrying drugs not pregnancies. In 2014, joint US _Honduras operations killed nocturnal fishermen. They were suspected of carrying drugs not fish.Examples of our drug wars that Central Americans are fleeing.

    1. So because of a Drug War that I oppose, I have to allow every Central American into the country?

      Invade the World, Invite the World!

    2. Yes, that’s true, and probably the main cause of economic disaster between Brownsville and Magallanes, just as prohibitionist shooting and looting caused the Panic of 1907, the 1929 Crash and Depression, and the 1987, 1992, and 2007–plus the two Flash Crashes. Pulling the CIA, FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG, DARE, PIAB, OFBCI, DEA, NSA, et alii out of South America would solve most of this problem–a problem that did not exist before our looter thugs invaded them. Reasonoids could read the news from these countries once in a while.

    3. Yes, that’s true, and probably the main cause of economic disaster between Brownsville and Magallanes, just as prohibitionist shooting and looting caused the Panic of 1907, the 1929 Crash and Depression, and the 1987, 1992, and 2007–plus the two Flash Crashes. Pulling the CIA, FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG, DARE, PIAB, OFBCI, DEA, NSA, et alii out of South America would solve most of this problem–a problem that did not exist before our looter thugs invaded them. Reasonoids could read the news from these countries once in a while.

  29. So wait, I’m confused. Is the libertarian (Libertarian?) position the abolishment of the Nation-state? Is it (now) a “fundamental right” to walk across internationally recognized borders whenever you want? That’s news to me.

    Because everywhere I go when I travel – just to visit, not to stay – I’m required to: (a) have a passport, (b) get prior approval (i.e. a visa) from the country I want to enter, (c) provide an explanation of what I’m going to do while I’m there, and (d) not take jobs from the locals. If they suspect it’s (d), frequently they’ll turn away folks. [It was a real problem for our company sending employees to Canada.]

    7,000 people is roughly 7 infantry battalions – or a Regiment (+). Would any of you be willing to assert that you could vouch for all the people in a Regiment (+) that was wending its way across several national borders with the express intent of saying fuck you to all of the rules in place regarding international travel?

    1. More specifically, what exactly is the position of Cathy L, The (Right Racist) Rev. Fuckhead, and the rest of the Open Borders Crew – including Gillespie? (Who, it has already been pointed out, is lying about his stats. Regardless, is it his position that the deaths of legitimate citizens – if in small enough numbers – is “A-Okay!!”??)

      If US citizens are killed by people here illegally in small enough numbers is that simply acceptable “collateral damage” with the open borders crowd?

      Finally, Mark Steyn took on some open borders folks in a Monk Debate on this exact issue and handed them their ass. I believe more people should maybe listen to it.

      And this article comes right on the heels of an article where the EU court said it was not acceptable to mock the Prophet; I’m sure that’s totally unrelated to the mass immigration of Muslims into the EU, though.

      1. Here it is.

        And it is Munk, my apologies.

      2. REason won’t touch what is goin on in Europe. And its article about the EU decision never once mentions Muslim immigration as a cause. They are pathetic on this issue.

        1. I consider myself a hardcore libertarian, but I simply cannot fathom how to square the open borders fetish with the concept of a nation state and/or national sovereignty. If the United States is an entity, if the Constitution has any meaning at all, it is that it only has effect over its citizens and the territory that is The United States.

          Relaxed immigration may well be a “nice thing” – kind to those in need, a beacon to those living in shitty areas – and something I personally support as a grandchild of immigrants – on both sides. But I’m not hearing anyone actually offering a legal or defensible argument as to how people have a “right” – a RIGHT – to just waltz into the country. Does Art. I, sec. 8 (clause 4) not matter? Is it just ignorable?

          Do the various immigration and naturalization acts (1875, 1921, 1924, 1965, etc.) mean nothing? Do ‘libertarians” believe that the various SCOTUS decisions holding that it is an exclusive federal issue are bullshit? I’m trying to understand Reason’s (and the commentariat) positions on it, but in all of my reading here, I have yet to hear a coherent defense – indeed any defense – of the Open Borders position beyond “anyone who is against immigration is a racist and hates brown people.”

          1. Reason spent years rightfully cricizing the regulatory state and exectutive overreach only to endorse DACA, the worst case of Presidential abuse of power in my lifetime. They have no principles when it comes to immigration. All commitment to the rule of law or anything else goes out the window. They are complete fanatics.

            1. I guess it makes sense when you consider who pays for the masthead. Do the Kochs benefit from illegal immigration? That’s also a serious question. I can’t get my head around it. I’ve heard some people talk about “freedom of movement” but that’s out of the minarchist/anarchist camp, so that at least is ideologically consistent.

              1. You just don’t get it Slade. A border has no meaning if a butterfly can ejaculate over it, Old Beaner told me so. And if I want to hire a guy from anywhere in the world he’s got a right to show up here for work. Old Beaner told me so. And if the rest of you wind up sharing in the expense of housing, feeding, providing medical care for him, imprisoning him, well, to do otherwise is a violation of the NAP. Old Beaner told me so.
                When you cut through his bullshit you’ll see it’s merely about more Mexicans Slade. The fact that the Beaner isn’t advocating sending flotillas of aircraft carriers to invite all of Chad or Somalia to work the factories willing to hire them tells you so. Bur HIS peeps are closer, and able to appear at a meaningless border and mug for the media markets that makes the difference to him. That and he’s convinced they’ll be faith full Dems who won’t let another Trump happen, ever again. The fact he may be related to some has no bearing on this issue.
                Be warned Slade. You’re dangerously close to being labeled a Trumpista” should you disagree. Unless, of course you’re willing to tell him to shit in his hat.

                1. Well, I’m certainly willing to tell anyone that… a couple of dozen years in the Marine Corps will do that for you.

                  But I am continually learning and trying to burnish by libertarian bona fides, so it’s a genuine question. Your answer is about what I surmised from the responses, but I was hoping there was someone in the commentariat who could offer a well-reasoned explanation of how open borders squares up with the Constitution and Congress’ obligations to determine the rules for Naturalization.

                  The fact that Trump is now the one making declarations about immigration concerns me, but that’s because Mr. Phone-and-Pen President decided he could do what he had previously said he was legally and Constitutionally prohibited from doing. That the Team Blue morons could never foresee a day when Team Red might again hold the White House isn’t my concern.

                  I just don’t see how reinforced regiment worth of people waltzing up to the border with the stated intent of ignoring the border is anything other than an invasion. I mean, if I took, say, all of the Ninth Marines – in civilian clothes and minus any weapons – and just walked them through several countries and into a third country – with the stated purpose of ignoring the laws regarding international travel, and it seemed like I was making a political point right before elections there, some might call it an act of war. My claims that we were peaceful, well-intentioned, and totally looking for work would be a complete non sequitur.

                  1. +many, Slade

                  2. I was hoping there was someone in the commentariat who could offer a well-reasoned explanation of how open borders squares up with the Constitution and Congress’ obligations to determine the rules for Naturalization.

                    Assuming you are serious in this request, the answer is: Congress sets the rules for naturalization, but naturalization is different from immigration.

                    Immigration is about moving to and fro. Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen. It is possible to move somewhere and not become a citizen, and not interested in becoming a citizen either.

                    It is about freedom of movement, AND about freedom of association. If an employer wishes to hire a qualified employee for his business, why should the state reverse that decision if that employee is a citizen of a different country? Why should the majority have the right to overrule the association rights between employer and potential employee?

                    1. What if an employer wants to hire a convicted felon serving a life sentence without parole?
                      What if an employer wants to hire a known member of IS or Boko Haram?
                      What if an owner of a daycare center wants to hire a convicted child molester?
                      What if an owner of a hospital wants to hire someone with a license to practice surgery?

                      Freedom of association is not absolute, as all licensing requirements show.
                      Further, what claim to legitimacy does any government have if it cannot define its borders and area of sovereignty?

                      Are voting rights the only thing you’d have distinguishing a US citizen from a PRC resident?

                    2. hire someone without* a license to practice surgery?

                    3. Perhaps the state-mandated licensing requirements are, mostly, bullshit in the first place.

                      Further, what claim to legitimacy does any government have if it cannot define its borders and area of sovereignty?

                      You keep insisting that borders and sovereignty require that there be someone keeping track of who comes and who goes. Why? If I have a raucous house party and I invite the whole neighborhood to party in my house, without keeping track of who comes and who goes to my house, does that diminish in any way my property rights of my house? The fact that I don’t have a formal guest list means that I no longer own my house? No, that is silly. I, as the owner of the house, am still sovereign over my property and I still set the rules even if I have no idea who is on my property. Same deal with nations.

                      Are voting rights the only thing you’d have distinguishing a US citizen from a PRC resident?

                      The privileges of citizenship are what distinguishes citizens from non-citizens. These privileges include the right to vote, yes. But if a PRC resident wants to move to the US, just to live and work here without being a citizen, why should anyone stop that from happening?

                    4. If I have a raucous house party and I invite the whole neighborhood to party in my house, without keeping track of who comes and who goes to my house, does that diminish in any way my property rights of my house?

                      If goings on at your house damage others property, YOU are the one held responsible.

                      Who is responsible for the illegals? How many drive with no insurance or license (many of them)?

                    5. Who is responsible for the illegals?

                      They themselves are. They are adults too you know.

                      How many drive with no insurance or license (many of them)?

                      Then that’s on them.

                    6. In your “house party” analogy, Jeff, the problem is this:

                      What happens if you want to exclude people from entering your house – as is your prerogative as the property owner? Wouldn’t it violate the NAP if people who you didn’t invite or didn’t want to come in just barged in and said, “Fuck you, we’re coming in. Freedom of movement and all.” What if they were white supremacists who wanted to hold a Klan rally in your living room (for example?)

                      Do you not see how a defined national territory, with a body of elected representatives, has a responsibility to control the turf in much the same way as a property-owner would? Aren’t they supposed to be stewards for us – the homeowners of the territory defined as the good ol US of A? Aren’t they supposed to control the borders of our home?? Indeed, a big problem in the real world – not analogy-land – is that people living down near the border are having their property rights transgressed by people entering illegally.

                      How do you square the existence of a military in the Constitution with your belief that none of the Immigration and Naturalization Acts are valid exercises of Congressional power? Isn’t a military to “defend the sovereign territory” of ‘these United States?’

                    7. This is such a load of sophistic bullshit. It is lawerly, sophistry, bullshit.

                    8. This was in reply to chemjeff and his parsing naturalization from immigration. Sophistry to the max.

          2. Slade, all the other attempts to destory the USA have failed. Trump is rolling back some socialism.

            Plan B is flood the system will socialist immigrants to break it. That and break the US economy via debt.

      3. You are right. Time to start suppressing people’s liberty whenever it is abused.

        When people get shot, time to start confiscating guns. Amirite?

        1. A government of, by, and for the people.

          Who, to you, are “the people”?

          Are we all just citizens of the world?

          1. In a republic, the people do not have carte blanche authority to do whatever they like. For starters, they may not vote to take away fundamental natural rights.

            Furthermore, from a libertarian perspective, the people ought to have very little collective power. Most decisions ought to remain in the hands of the individual. If I want to sell my labor for $1/hr, or for $1 million/hr, and I can find a willing employer to accept this contract, the mob should simply butt out of this transaction. Doing so increases the liberty of the individual to live one’s own life as he/she sees fit.

            From this point of view, the people ought to have very little authority to decide who comes and goes over the border.

            1. …but why should YOU?

              YOU are not, alone, paying for the roads etc used.

              Why do your desires trump the numerous others who oppose you?

              1. That’s like asking “why should the minority of citizens who are gun owners be the ones who set gun policy?” That is besides the point. The point isn’t about who sets gun policy. The point is defending the liberty to choose to own a gun or not.

                Same thing here. It isn’t about my personal desires, or your personal desires, or the desires of the majority. It is about defending the liberty to choose to migrate or not, to choose to associate or not.

    2. Ah! A sane citizen. Please help us track down the crew that hacked the LP migration plank out of the 2016 platform. Those Rajneesh cultists are the ones that need inspection. The pathetic locust swarm march is a media stunt much like the Supreme Court circus act to save the Carbon Tax and subsidize the Church of Global Warmunism. Pay it no mind.

    3. Libertarians have a problem with anarchists that have infiltrated Libertarianism to destrpy it from the inside out.

      Anarchists cannot get anarchy-land if Trump works put and Makes America Great Again.

  30. If there’s one thing Trumpistas really doesn’t like, it’s immigration.

    FTFY

    1. I am honestly surprised that the crazy fucker they arrested for the bomb plot wasn’t you Hihn. We hadn’t seen you all day and it was awfully suspicious. We can still hope they lock you up before your hurt someone you crazy ignorant bastard.

    2. Could you respond to my questions above? How should I – a libertarian – feel about immigration? Is it “Open Borders UBER ALLES!!”??

      How does that square with what I’ve written above. Serious question – please. Explain to me how I square the concept of national sovereignty with “anyone can walk in whenever they want?”

      I’m genuinely curious to hear the underlying principle or rationale.

      1. I don’t give a shit how you, John, lc1789, or anybody feels about immigration.

        I care about self-ownership and individualism. If you hate immigrants and own border land, deal with them like you would all trespassers: electric fences with razor wire on top, hungry dogs, mountain lions with lasers on their frickin’ heads for that matter. I don’t give a shit.

        What I do care about is collective coercion. When self-proclaimed libertarians want Trump to control who crosses my land or who I rent to or hire or invite as my guests, what any thinking person should feel is revulsion at collective coercion and the hypocrites who think it’s OK when controlled by Trump on my unwanted behalf, but if Hillary or Bernie were to do so, they’d be all up in arms and screaming about fascists abusing their rights.

        1. Okay, so you don’t have an actual coherent view on immigration. At least that much is clear now. Have you ever actually read the Constitution or is that just an “old dead white guy” thing? Do you think that – in a Republic – that the elected representatives are supposed to handle those things that are specifically listed as their responsibility? Or just… flush that all away with bromides about “self-ownership” and nonsense about killing trespassers? (Which appears to be your stance).

          Thanks for responding.

          1. It is Hign using a sock puppet. He is nuts

            1. Yup. That is for sure. How do you keep track of all of the sockpuppets people use on here? Is there some kind of a chart someone has, like a program at a hockey game for knowing all of the players?

            2. At least you’re back to typoes. There is hope for you yet.

          2. It is entirely coherent. It is immoral when coercively collectively controlled, as are all collective coercive actions. If individual property owners want to deal with them as trespassers, that is their business, not mine.

            Q. What is so hard to understand about self-ownership, individualism, and principles?

            A. Nothing. — But collectivists either scoff at the principles, or turn a blind eye to them and change the subject to “Hillary lost — get over it.”

            1. Except that you’re ignoring that we live in a Constitutional Republic. Are you an AnCap? Because if you are, your position makes more sense. But if you ‘believe’ in the U.S. – in the sense that you believe it is a valid government representing its citizens – then what you are saying is simply an evasion and a non sequitur.

              Are you saying that NO collective action is allowed? i.e. It is immoral to have government, like Congress, govern the things listed in Article I, sec. 8 of the Constitution?

              For another example, is the military immoral in your eyes? (Since it represents the ultimate form of ‘collective coercion.’)

              Genuine questions, Mike.

              1. Keerist. If people based every opinion on the current GOP-DEM reality, why would anyone waste time reading Reason or even thinking? Why would so many hypocritical commentators pay so much lip service to libertarian principles?

        2. Polit is hihn and about this close to going bold again.

      2. It walks, talks and quacks like ordinary infiltration and sabotage. Politics is the continuation of war by other means, and LP platform hacks: the child-molester plank of 1982, the good-faith antiabortion infiltrators disguised as fiscal auditors plank, and now this importation of locust swarms, uninspected terrorists and disease vectors hacked out of what was a vote-getting migration plank in 2016 are examples. Eternal vigilance looks within and without, and outlier parties, let’s face it, are whack-job magnets to an even greater extent than The Kleptocracy parties (which are bad enough). Recall also that the definition of government includes mention of geographical areas.

      3. Explain to me how I square the concept of national sovereignty with “anyone can walk in whenever they want?”

        Sovereignty simply means that there is a single authority setting the rules. It does not necessarily mean that there must be someone keeping track of who comes and who goes.

        Consider the example of a public municipal park. Most parks of this type do not have walls, or guards, or city agents keeping track of who comes and goes from the park. But the municipal government does indeed have sovereignty over this park, in the sense of determining the rules for proper behavior in the park (i.e., no camping, no overnight stays).

        1. This argument is not then making the case for free/unlimited access, as parks do close, but you’re simply insisting upon a lack of enforcement.

          This is inconsistent with an argument predicated on free association and/or freedom of movement.

          1. And sovereignty doesn’t mean a singular authority, it means a defined hierarchy of authority- such as municipal, county, state, federal.

  31. Nick should look into the Rajneesh Cult takeover of a town in Oregon. Then there is the matter of birth control being made illegal in most of Latin America, and how that tendency manifests itself in Puerto Rico.

    1. The fact that even someone as dumb as you are understands that you cannot import people from an alien culture without making your culture more like theirs shows how dishonest and willfully ignorant the open borders advocates are.

      1. I wonder how your ancestors changed the culture when they immigrated.

        I wonder how *you* changed the culture as you grew up.

        Sadly, you don’t wonder.

  32. I’m pro immigration and I don’t find Trump’s anti foreigner rhetoric appealing or productive. But 7000 people marching toward the border with the intention of breaching it looks like an invasion that kinda requires a response by the federal government. That would be the case no matter who is president. Trump may be obsessed with illegal immigration but I’m not sure that’s relevant in this case.

  33. Nick, get your tuckas down there and see for yourself. Until you get out of your cushy corner office and do real reporting I’ll believe the journalists on the ground, the Mexicalis, our Border Patrol, and yeah, even the migrants themselves reporting the bad actors.

  34. Why? Because he saw what Merkelism did to Germany, and he doesn’t wish to have it repeated here.

  35. Well it’s another day and another Reason post about another caravan and again not a single word pointing out that all those folks are supposed to be applying for (and getting ) asylum in the next country they come to – which is not the United States.

    No mention of why Mexico is supposed to get a pass for facilitating them traveling all through their own country up to the United States border instead of granting them asylum in Mexico.

    There is no distinction between Reason and the mainstream media in that regard.

    1. In their defense, Mexico has offered asylum.

      It was rejected.

      Which also relieves any obligations on our part. You do not get to asylum shop.

      1. “In their defense, Mexico has offered asylum.”

        They may have done so this time but I don’t recall hearing that did so in any of the prior instances.

        In any event that doesn’t excuse them for allowing them to travel unimpeded through the entire length of Mexico to get to the United States border.

  36. Why the Obsession with the Migrant Caravan, Mr. President?

    Has it escaped your notice that there is an election looming?

    1. Yeah that’s probably it.
      It is like the NFL kneeling thing. Even when the team has no players that kneels (i.e., the Eagles), he will still rile up his supporters with insinuations that they do.

      It is just demagoguery.

      1. Hard to demagogue 7,000 entitled shitheads trying to invade your land.

        I’ll let them in if we house them in your house alone. And they may not leave your house. So, have fun feeding them, son.

      2. That’s like saying there are no NFL players who kneel in protest to non-existent system-wide racism. The socks said it all.

  37. Mr. Gillespie, how would libertarians deal with the now 14000 people at our southern border? Let them all in and hope for the best? How would soliciting SPONSORS from the American population to provide shelter, teach them English, find them a job, etc. work? How many takers will you get? Mr. Gillespie, write an article of solutions, not just complaining.

  38. Trump is not “anti-immigrant.” He took an oath to defend the law and protect our sovereignty.

    What is it about invasion that Gillespie so admires?

  39. Since the first migrant squatter was block voted into National office We the American People have been listening to the cry WAIT!!! WAIT!!! the rest of my Country isn’t here yet. Fuck you undeserving migrant squatters. Which National Park should We be forced to give up first to settle the rest of your stinking family. Those that like most of the rest of 230 million that have come to squat for the money since the Democrats forced “Immigration and Nationality Act” of 1965 that have not and refused to assimilate???

  40. It’s like they can’t help but continue the lie that anti-illegal is anti-immigration.

  41. Yeah, that study regarding crime rates is the definition of a pile of shit. Illegal immigrants are much, much less likely to report crimes in the first place, given that criminals are overwhelmingly more likely to prey on their in-group, that means that the official stats are worth bupkis.

  42. Trump is right, there is a procedure potential immigrants must follow, storming our border and demanding citizenship isn’t it. There is no RIGHT to US citizenship, there is no RIGHT to illegally enter this country.

  43. Nick should be asking why the left is funding and trafficking illegal aliens into the US but he’s not ‘because Trump’.

  44. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.