Donald Trump

Trump Takes Full Ownership of His Anti-immigrant Nativism with Latest Ad

Candidates used to let political operatives do the dirty work so they could appear above it all. Not Trump.

|

President Donald Trump has a new, grossly misleading ad about immigration. It is clearly intended to cause outraged reactions and deepen the divide between those with differing opinions about how to handle foreigners coming to America.

In the unlikely event you have not yet seen the ad, here it is:

The murderer highlighted in the advertisement is Luis Bracamontes, a Mexican immigrant who was living in Utah illegally for years. He had been deported twice for drug crimes. In 2014, after a confrontation with deputies in the parking lot of a hotel in Sacramento who were there investigating complaints about drug deals and thefts, Bracamontes shot and killed one deputy, then went on a rampage, shooting a motorist while carjacking him, and later killing a sheriff's detective.

He was utterly unrepentant when caught, and the clip of him used in Trump's ad is from his sentencing hearing. He was sentenced to death in April.

The goal of the ad is obvious and unsurprising. Trump wants to paint the immigrants in the caravan currently marching toward the Mexican border as though they're all potential Bracamonteses: invaders, terrorists, violent threats to our civil life that must be stopped before they disrupt society. He is using it as the justification to send thousands of troops to the border for no reason (which will no doubt consume plenty of the money from the latest absurdly unnecessary boost in military spending). He wants to blame Democrats and sanctuary cities (though as noted, Bracamontes had in fact been deported, not shielded).

It's not true that immigrants are any more of a criminal threat to Americans than Americans are criminal threats to each other. It has never been true in the United States, even though fear of immigrants has been a recurring social tradition. Bracamontes is an anomaly. He's a horrifyingly violent anomaly, and we shouldn't act as though his murders aren't a big deal. But treating all immigrants as potential murderers is the same sort of nonsense as treating all gun owners as potential mass shooters. Like those who try to use every high-profile shooting as a justification to diminish our constitutionally protected right to own guns, Trump wants to use fear to convince Americans to let him be more authoritarian and make our country less free.

The blatantly nativist and racist nature of the advertisement has brought forth condemnation and comparisons to the infamous GOP Willie Horton advertisement from the 1988 presidential campaign, which used racially tinged crime fearmongering to attack presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.

Dukakis' rival—George H.W. Bush—wasn't directly involved in promoting that advertisement, and there are some who feel that Trump's latest ad is even worse precisely because Trump himself is pushing it. In other words, this is another example of Trump "violating norms." But honestly, as gross as the advertisement is, the fact that Trump is taking ownership of his awful message exposes the nasty underbelly of the political class. There's no hiding behind some political action committee or blaming "dark money" for this spot, like many politicians do. These nasty, fear-based ads have been a part of our body politic forever. The one thing I'll say for Trump is that he isn't pretending the president is personally above the fray.

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.

261 responses to “Trump Takes Full Ownership of His Anti-immigrant Nativism with Latest Ad

  1. Comments for this story are disabled.

    1. Ha Ha. Warning Everyone! Lots of word vomit below. Proceed with caution.

      1. Why are so many faux libertarians bigots, and vice versa?

        Is it ignorance? The gullibility? The alienation from decent, modern, mainstream society? Backwater religious education? Homeschooling by lousy parents? Mindless, cowardly blaming of others for self-inflicted problems and deplorable lives? Right-wing radio? Childhood indoctrination?

        1. And then there’s this idiot who never has made a pertinent argument but relies on ad hominems and straw men to cover up the shallowness of his knowledge on any given subject. Just parrot talking points because you obviously lack any ability to debate any issue beyond superficial, callow, insults.

          1. Trump’s most recent assault on decency, like most of his supporters, deserve nothing but insults.

            “Bigot” is not an ad hominem attack. It is a description of Trump’s conduct and of his ardent supporters.

            Carry on, clingers. So long as your betters permit. Speaking of which . . . see you at the polls.

            1. Arty, you just reinforced his point.

              Never stop being predictable, obtuse, and unoriginal.

            2. Rev., some friendly advice: Nobody here wants to hear about your clingers anymore. (In my day, we called them dingleberries.)

              If you want to cut down on clingers, you can try shaving your crack, or else moistening the toilet tissue (with clean water) before you wipe.

        2. Says the one who is bigoted towards anyone who isn’t an urbanite of the smuggest variety.

        3. “Why are so many faux libertarians bigots, and vice versa?”

          You tell me. Why are you such a bigot?

    2. I like how Scott and his fellow travelers fail to distinguish betwee legal and illegal immigrants. It almost makes it sound like thay have a point.

      1. “It’s not true that immigrants are any more of a criminal threat to Americans than Americans are criminal threats to each other. ”

        And it never occurs to them that we should be *picky* about who we let into the country, and take it from demographics that commit *less* violent crime than we do.

        American immigration policy should *benefit* Americans.

  2. The blatantly nativist and racist nature of the advertisement

    How is it racist?

    1. Apparently the author, like most Progressives, mistakes culture for race. Hispanic isn’t a race. Even arguing that it’s a culture is pushing matters, since it covers Spain, Portugal, all of South and Central America, and assorted little patches like Cape Verde. I got news for the La Raza punks; that ain’t one culture.

      1. Nice pedantry. But everyone knows the meaning of the word “racist” has changed in everyday use. It now means “bigoted.” You can complain about the evolution of the meaning of words, or you can accept the fact that you don’t own how other people use words. My favorite example of this is when people complain about the changing of the word “literally.” And who complains most often about the changing nature of the meaning of words? Why, conservatives, of course, since a defining feature of conservatism is fear of change.

        1. Impotent imbecility announced

        2. Oh, come on. We’re not talking about the meaning of “racist” changing. We’re talking about it being wrongly applied, deliberately.

          Democrats have been using it as an all purpose, content free epithet for years, but they still rely on it having its original meaning in order for the epithet to sting.

          1. The progtards might as well start pointing and screaming “witch!” When anyone disagrees.

        3. Your postmodern jibber jabber is entertaining but ineffective

          1. Like postmodern art, it’s putting a pile of crap on a pedestal, calling it art and anyone who calls it what it is a racist rube.

          2. I think you meant to say “thine.”

        4. You libtards keep using the word “bigot” without realizing that it’s true definition describes yourselves, to a “T”.

        5. You are wrong on many levels. Literally.

    2. Eh, he says the Willie Horton ad was racist, so I’m ignoring him.

      “Because the guy it featured was black” doesn’t make it racist, guys.

      That was a convenient deflection for Democrats at the time, of course.

      But that’s not the same as truth.

      (I mean, make the same argument one can make against the Horton ad, which is that it overstates the dangers of crime and recidivism and poorly places blame on political opponents, by all means.

      But “THAT’S RACIST!!!!!” only works well when there’s … racial bigotry?)

      1. “Because the guy it featured was black” doesn’t make it racist, guys.

        It does when you’re a leftist Obama/Clinton loving turd burglar like Shackford.

      2. It’s hard to believe we’re still dealing with that garbage 30 years later. and I’d bet on people the age of my youngest sister (31) and below who have heard of the Willie Horton ad only know it as “some racist ad campaign”

        Also, use of “anti-immigrant”

        1. I remember the ’88 election. As a white kid from North Idaho, my first thought wasn’t the guy was black, it was that he was a criminal. I didn’t even think about his race until some leftist brought it up.

      3. ‘ “Because the guy it featured was black” doesn’t make it racist, guys.
        That was a convenient deflection for Democrats at the time, of course. ‘

        In the 80s, Leftist race baiters controlled The Narrative. All you’d ever see on tv and in the papers were Lefties bemoaning the “racist” Willie Horton ad.

        Now the peasants have social media, can speak amongst themselves, and find that no one else finds the Willie Horton ad racist either.

        When you’re a racist, all you see is race. and Willie Horton is just a black guy. Either that’s how the Left sees it, or they’re deliberately spreading the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics through their race baiting.

        If you’re not a racist, you see a criminal whose violence was enabled by the Left.

    3. It isn’t, and the word has been rendered meaningless by the alt left media and millennials who don’t know any better. They just parrot what they are taught.

    4. NPC Meme

      Mr. Feelz: Why don’t you like Donald Trump?
      Mr. NPC: Trump is a racist.
      Mr. Feelz: What has Trump done that is racist?
      Mr. NPC: He did X!
      Mr. Feelz: How is X racist?
      Mr. NPC: …
      Mr. NPC: …
      Mr. NPC: You’re racist!

  3. Using this murderer to paint all immigrants in a bad light is no better than using the mail bomber from Florida to paint all Trump supporters in a bad light.

    1. “Using this murderer to highlight the fact that unchecked borders allow very bad people into the country.” There, fixed that for you.

      1. “Using the Parkland Highschool Shooting to highlight the fact that unchecked gun ownership allow very bad people to own guns.”

        Libertarians and Republicans alike rightly cry foul when it comes to this type of demagoguery coming from Democrats. Why is it okay when the same type of demagoguery comes from Republicans on an issue that they care about?

        Both are terrible examples of using a singularly bad event to stoke fear and push an agenda.

        1. But if we can distinguish between letting convicted criminals have guns, and letting ordinary, law abiding people have guns, we can distingish between illegal and legal immigration.

          In both cases the real demagogues are the people trying to elide critical and relevant distinctions.

          As does the OP.

        2. i find your continued determination to logically explain things to those who intentionally aren’t listening quite admirable. i certainly dont have the energy.

          lots of fake libertarians these days that preach individualism, but love collectivizing.

          1. Seconded. The patience exhibited by chemjeff, and the tolerance exibited by BUCS, are a constant source of inspiration. They are better men than me.

            1. The next time Jeff explains something that isn’t sourced on a strawman assumption of an argument not being made will be his first.

              1. Pretty much. Jeffy largely argues feelz, and sophistry.

          2. So libertarians are for allowing criminal illegal aliens in? Or do you support some enforcement to insure we keep out criminals, terrorist, foreign adjutators etc? Or should our borders be completely unmonitored and to hell with the consequences? Being pro-immigration doesn’t mean we can’t have screenings.

          3. I don’t think “libertarian” means what you think it means.

            Then again, maybe the Rev. has gotten bored posting under his own name and is trying out his first sock.

        3. Unchecked? There’s that ignorance again Jeff.

          1. You mean how Frank White described the borders as “unchecked”? Yes, I agree.

            1. Honest question Jeff, what enforcement would you support, it any?

              1. What kind of force should be used on a peaceful person who has not harmed anyone else?

                1. Depends on whether or not they’re in the middle of peacefully committing a crime.

                  1. What kind of force should be used on a person who refuses to buy health insurance in violation of federal law?

                    1. Juice, does a government have any rights to sovereignty? Does a government have any duty to know who is and isn’t entering their countr? Does a government have a duty to it’s citizens to insure that those who are entering are not entering for notorious reasons? Is entering a country in defiance of that countries laws really peaceful?

                    2. Rather not a government but I should have asked does a nation have any rights to sovereignty?

                2. What kind of force should be used on a peaceful person who has not harmed anyone else while they’re forcibly breaking into someone elses’ home?

                  FTFY

        4. I’ve got no problem with the Left tallying up victims of gun crimes.

          Wake me when they get to 10 million. I’ve tallied up tens of millions of disarmed civilians murdered by their governments in the 20th century.

          Although in the Parkland Shooting, that kid should have been locked up long before the shooting, and wasn’t because of Obama administration and local Democratic Broward policy against disparate crime rates by ethnicity, so they just don’t arrest kids named Cruz.

          Lefties want to disarm you, then leave violent criminals, and mentally deranged violent criminals, on the streets to terrorize you.

    2. But the key point here is, the ad doesn’t paint all immigrants in a bad light. It paints ILLEGAL immigrants in a bad light.

      It is a fundamentally dishonest rhetorical tactic by open borders advocates, to pretend that anybody complaining about illegal immigrants is talking about immigrants in general. But the ad is quite clear: It’s about illegal immigration.

      1. The Open Borders crowd have no honest arguments, so all that’s left are dishonest ones.

    3. Lying about it paints you in a bad light.

      Also, it makes people very angry because the implication is that you think we’re all extremely stupid and will believe liars like yourself.

      Comments like yours are rocket fuel for the pro-Trump movement.

    4. Where did you get “all” from? It wasn’t in the ad.

  4. this is another example of Trump “violating norms.”

    Muh NORMZ!!1!

    1. I’m old enough to remember when the Left thought it was peachy keen to transgress norms.

  5. I wish fearmongering and demagoguery didn’t work so well, but evidently they do.

    1. Agreed. It’s depressing. Even the number of commentators on this forum falling for this shit. Sad.

      1. Who is falling for it? Intelligent people know the ad doesn’t say all illegal immigrants are killers. Intelligent people do realize that one of the reasons we have immigration avenues for legality is to sift out actual criminals. Only your side is trying to remove the sifter for foreign criminals by advocating for unchecked immigration.

        So do you want to try again?

        1. Very very few people are calling for unchecked immigration. Intelligent people know that that is a straw man and only called for by an extreme segment, Libertarians included.

          1. Seems whenever the right calls for any sort of enforcement, including just screening out criminals and deporting those who commit crimes her; certain members of the left and a number of open borders libertarians throw a fit and call it racist/bigotted. They also label anyone who supports such measures anti-immigration. See ChemJeff and old Mexican Bastard as examples A and B. They may not be explicitly calling for unchecked migration, but they have made no attempt to give any indication how their positions differ from the that position. Also, read any story by Shikha or Shackleford on immigration enforcement

            1. They claim that saying they support unlimited immigration without restriction is a straw man, because we can’t prove that there is no possible hypothetical circumstance under which they would refuse to admit somebody.

              It’s just that they support no restrictions on immigration in every case that’s been shown so far.

      2. Like, the Average Dude is a mental slacker, man.

    2. I wish ignorance and stupidity as a basis for political commentary didn’t exist, yet here you are Jeff.

    3. Makes me think we have enough criminals in this country as it is, we don’t need to be letting in more. I can’t get a pair of nail clippers on a plane but we’re going to let tens of thousands of people from god knows where in and then sort it out later? No.

      1. TSA.. sort of like the border patrol. Expensive federal attempts at control which frustrate lawful travelers and fail to actually stop the determined bad actors. It’s funny that you understand how stupid airline security is, yet fail to apply the same logic to the border.

        1. So your proposal is that the borders should be wide open with no means to monitor who is and is not entering the country? And how long could a nation state maintain sovereignty if that policy were enacted? It is easy to offer platitudes, but I have seen very little attempt to address these issues from the open borders advocates.

  6. Like those who try to use every high-profile shooting as a justification to diminish our constitutionally protected right to own guns, Trump wants to use fear to convince Americans to let him be more authoritarian and make our country less free.

    This is absolutely right. But it’s not because Trump is some sort of Hitler figure. It’s because his supporters WANT him to act more authoritarian when it comes to immigration.

    There is a lot of disturbing similarity between the anti-gun crowd on the left and the anti-immigrant crowd on the right when it comes to the tactics and the arguments they deploy in order to advance their causes.

    1. There is also a lot of disturbing similarity between the animal rights movement and the pro-life movement.

      1. Yep. And the one definite thing they all have in common? THE FEAR.

        1. The Politics of Fear: Noun – Anything anyone who disagrees with me says.

    2. I guess, if you think demanding new laws that strip a Constitutionally-guaranteed right from law abiding citizens is just like expecting the government to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

      I mean, if you support open borders, you could make an honest attempt to argue why that would be a good thing for the country and lobby to get the laws changed. But apparently its much easier to elect people who will ignore the law and call anybody who points out the fact that they’re ignoring the law a deplorable, xenophobic, nativist, racist.

      1. Our open borders have apparently been a very good thing for America over the last few hundred years.

        Maybe one of the greatest successes of the current administration is that they’ve tapped into a background angst and convinced everyone that America had failed and needed saving? I say America is fucking amazing, and one of the many reasons it is and has been so fucking awesome is unchecked immigration. I say that as someone who has spent half his life in Southern California, feeling many of the effects of a porous border. I remain unconvinced that the old way was a problem, except maybe in the sense that it failed to stimulate a more efficient guest worker program.

        1. Please tell me how open the borders we’re for my great-Grandparents? They were subject to quotas as to how many from a certain place to immigrate to the country. They were inspected like livestock. The spelling of our name was angliscized. Many were held in quarantine for extended periods of time. The idea that the borders have always been open is completely false. They may have been for a period of time, but starting in the latter 19th century immigration was severely regulated. In fact, compared to pre World War II immigration laws, ours are fairly liberal.

          1. “The idea that the borders have always been open is completely false. They may have been for a period of time”

            So which one is it? Maybe the reality is that we don’t and have never had an illegal immigration problem, unless you’re one of the individuals that is susceptible to fear mongering then maybe we have.

        2. America didn’t fail. It’s just that the country is only exceptional in the same way that Greeks think their country is exceptional, and we need to apologize for all our errors that make us no better than Iran and Saudi Arabia. I know this is so because Barrack Hussein Obama said so.

    3. It isn’t an anti-immigrant crowd. It’s an anti-ILLEGAL immigrant crowd.

      I want our borders secured. I’m married to a legal immigrant. You think I’m opposed to my own wife?

      Probably the most irritating thing about open borders advocates is this grating refusal to admit the issue is ILLEGAL immigration, that not wanting the border open to anybody who feels like waltzing in isn’t the same as wanting it closed completely.

      It’s your side that’s like the anti-gunners, in that they refuse to distinguish between gun ownership by ordinary, law abiding people, and career criminals. While you flatly refuse to distinguish between people who immigrate legally, and people who do so illegally.

      Catch a clue: That’s like refusing to distinguish between somebody who makes a withdrawal from the bank, and somebody who robs it. Illegal immigrants are very different from legal ones.

      1. If Jeff had to argue against a real argument he’d have nothing to say.

      2. If there were no immigration laws, all immigration would be legal. So, if you only have a problem with illegal immigration, elimination of all laws against immigration should satisfy you, right?

        1. Hm, let’s see: If there were no laws against robbery, walking into a bank and taking money that wasn’t yours wouldn’t be a crime. Would that mean I shouldn’t have a problem with it?

          There are people we want in the country, and people we don’t. That picture up there is of somebody we don’t want in the country.

          This is why no country on the face of the earth makes ALL immigration legal.

          So, no, I wouldn’t be ok with there being no immigration laws.

          As it is, I’m opposed to illegal immigration because,

          1) Immigration laws (Imperfectly!) distinguish the people we do want here from the people we don’t want here.)

          and,

          2) People who enter the country illegally have already demonstrated that they spit on our laws. Why should we want more people to spit on our laws?

          1. Hm, let’s see: If there were no laws against robbery, walking into a bank and taking money that wasn’t yours wouldn’t be a crime. Would that mean I shouldn’t have a problem with it?

            That’s not analogous. A person merely crossing a border isn’t taking anything from anyone. Theft is a real crime with a real victim.

            So, no, I wouldn’t be ok with there being no immigration laws.

            How about no passports, visas, or paperwork, just a one-time criminal background check? After that, if you pass, welcome to America. Good luck.

            Would you be ok with that being the whole of immigration law? There would be a whole lot of legal immigration going on after that and you’re cool with legal immigration.

            1. So how do you enforce the checks you propose without immigration laws and enforcement. If you lack these things, you background check is meaningless because anyone who chooses not to comply can do so without repercussions.
              Also, I disagree that those who enter a country is not taking things from those in already in the country. This is an assertion often made but the evidence to support it is lacking. It could be the case, but there also is evidence to the contrary. Especially in a nation that provides education for all and a generous social safety net.

      3. A sane person in a room full of insane people sounds insane. The OBL crowd hopes no one will notice the disingenuous bigotry that is wrapped in a failure to mark the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

    4. “This is absolutely right. But it’s not because Trump is some sort of Hitler figure. It’s because his supporters WANT him to act more authoritarian when it comes to immigration.”

      By authoritarian, you mean enforce existing immigration law? Yeah……….

      What a monster.

  7. I missed the ad where Trump condemned non-white legal immigrants. And John Lott disagrees with your take on crime by illegal aliens – https://tinyurl.com/yc3lfev3.

    1. No one takes John Lott seriously.

      1. “No one” is not in evidence.

        (I take him with a grain of salt, but equally he’s not a simple fraud or liar.

        Provide arguments, not foot-stomping.)

          1. Mother Jones?

            LOL

            1. Attack the arguments, not the source.

              1. When was the last time you followed that advice?

                1. “the next time will be the first time”

                  1. ^SIV’s answer to “So have you ever managed to make one of your chickens orgasm?”

              2. Chipper Morning Baculum|11.1.18 @ 1:48PM|#

                Attack the arguments, not the source.

                Chipper Morning Baculum|11.1.18 @ 1:07PM|#

                No one takes John Lott seriously.

                I mostly read the Reason comment section for the irony.

                1. ^This

                2. Did you miss the link I posted?

                  1. “Did you miss the link I posted?”

                    ‘Don’t hold me to my own standard!!!’

                    I’m sure we could post links to the umpteen times people demonstrated that MJ was deceptive and/or full of shit.

                    But really, given you started this line of ‘argument’ why bother?

              3. You mean, like that time you said, “No one takes John Lott seriously.”

          2. Mother Jones?

            1. The “arguments” are just bald assertions, unsupported by irrefutable facts.

              1. Modus operandi for the left these days. I was just debating with someone about the myth that Trump removed questions about LGBTQ status from the census. She contended that Trump has enacted multiple policies that are intended to discriminate specifically against the LGBTQ population. When I asked if she could expand upon which policies she referred to, she linked to a Box article whose main assertions seemed to be appointing conservative minded and constitutional originalist is anti-LGBTQ and that rather than supporting legislating from the bench, that defending the anti-discrimination as written is somehow indefinsible. And that waiting for the legislatute to do their job meant you were a bigot and that any debate about the properness of the trans community in the military or if sexual orientation should be part of anti-discrimination laws, was completely invalid. And quite possibly made you the next failed, vegetarian, Austrian painter.

                1. Box should read Vox, fucking autocorrect.

                2. Additionally, she seemed quite unaware that her idea of tolerance was the least tolerant bullshit I have ever read. She completely dehumanized and demonized anyone who dared to disagree with her. Even when a lesbian pointed out she didn’t want the government knowing who she was. She (the lesbian) quite logically pointed out that since she didnt trust Trump, having him have her identified as a lesbian was the last thing she wanted. This other lady seemed not to grasp the concept that if Trump truly is as henious as she contends, that the last thing you want to do is give him the ability to track those who he is supposedly bigotted against. The total and complete lack of understanding was mind blowing.

                  1. And that if appointment of conservative judges is as big a threat as she maintains then that implies that the government and the judiciary branch have way too much power.

        1. It’s amazing how Reason lauds John Lott’s gun findings/stats, but all of sudden believe that he can no longer do math after his report on illegal immigration and crime.

  8. But, of course, it is legal for the entire global population to hop the US border, in droves, then hop on the paychecks of tax paying Americans, overcrowding and compromising public services, schools, hospitals, even the roads, becoming inadequate for traffic, everywhere. How dare anyone think otherwise. Reason’s immigrant derangement syndrome….virtue signaling their morally superior humanitarianism, while expecting other people to pay for all of their good deeds, whether those compelled to pay their bills are barely supporting themselves or can spare the money.

    1. But look at what you have done. You have assumed the worst about immigrants, that they are going to be this huge burden with very little upside to their arrival. What about the positive things that immigrants can and have done for everyone? And even if immigrants are neither a net burden nor a net plus in some global or national sense, what is so wrong with just letting people alone to go about their lives in a totally average and mundane way?

      1. Let’s compromise. Let’s all cheer for all the legal immigrants but agree to keep out all the illegal ones. Deal?

        1. But we can’t count on the legal immigrants to only vote for democrats

        2. And you’ll cheer louder as immigration laws are greatly loosened, right?

          1. But even loosened laws require some enforcement mechanism. Otherwise, there might as well be no laws. You will find a good number of posters here support the idea of liberalizing immigration law while beefing up enforcement of those who circumvent the law. These ideas are not mutually exclusive.

      2. And even if immigrants are neither a net burden nor a net plus in some global or national sense, what is so wrong with just letting people alone to go about their lives in a totally average and mundane way?

        Forced from your homeland under threat of gangland execution is a pretty interesting definition of mundane. The kinda semantic drift that I’d prefer not happen in this country if possible.

        1. Forced from your homeland under threat of gangland execution

          These caravans are in the thousands strong. They can’t band together to defend themselves as a common community, but apparently they have no problem demanding that the United States provide for their every need and comfort, while calling the inhabitants of that same nation “racist”.

          Anyone who thinks these people are “natural libertarians” or “natural conservatives” are idiots.

      3. “You have assumed the worst about immigrants,”

        Nobody is going to take you seriously as long as you refuse to admit that we’re talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.

        You’re not even worth talking to, until you’re willing to acknowledge that distinction.

      4. First generation immigrants are a burden to the taxpayer, second and third are beneficial.

        I’d like to see stats on legal vs illegal immigrants taxpayer burden.

        1. First generation immigrants are a burden to the taxpayer, second and third are beneficial.

          And even then, from a moral or proper civil libertarian perspective, ‘beneficial to the taxpayer’ is synonymous with ‘grist for the mill’ or ‘axle grease for the leviathan’.

      5. As long as the government isn’t taking money from me to support them, it’s fine. But once they start doing so, it becomes my business.

        1. And once they commit crime, it becomes societies business. They may or may not commit more or less crime (the data is unclear and different people interpret it differently) but even natural born citizens who are criminals are societies business.

  9. ROTFLMAO!! I just had to pay a visit after I saw this ad. I just knew the Reason staff would have their hankies in the air over this one! And sure enough….

  10. The Willie Horton ad (and LBJs ad with the girl picking daisies) were low blows, but they worked. Voters respond to fear.

    1. The difference, of course, being that the Daisy ad was pure fearmongering (OMG Goldwater is gonna start a nuclear war!) and the Willie Horton ad pointed out something that actually happened as a result of Dukakis’ furlough program.

      1. Actually, the furlough program existed for a long time in Mass. before Dukakis was governor and I have been told that he had tried to end it, so wasn’t really responsible for Willie Horton. Not that he would have been a good president, and I have my doubts how much that ad really contributed to his loss compared with the one with him in the tank.

        1. The “he tried to end it” narrative was spun long ago by Dukakis dupes. Even after learning of Horton’s exploits, the Duke doubled-down on keeping the program.

          Mike Dukakis was one dirty, slimy sob.

          1. He married a sterno bum.

          2. He hosted one hell of a cocktail party though.

            https://tinyurl.com/y8a28l64

        2. The subject of the furlough program that Horton abused to commit more and heinous crimes was, actually first brought into the political realm by ALGORE, in a debate during the demoncrap primaries.

          1. As was Obama’s birth certificate first brought up by those in Clinton’s camp. However, it only seems problematic when Republicans use it as an issue.

  11. “Trump wants to paint the immigrants in the caravan currently marching toward the Mexican border as though they’re all potential Bracamonteses?”

    Well, they will likely end up being illegal immigrants, so they’ll have that in common. By mostly refusing Mexico’s offer of asylum, work, and identification, they’ve shown they aren’t really just fleeing to somewhere safe from their government, and interviews I heard on BBC radio indicated most wanted to come to the U.S. to get higher wages and more benefits, not safety.

    1. And they are all potential criminals, we have little to no way of knowing unless we screen them. The fact that they have bypassed our numerous consulates in Mexico (where they could legally apply for assylum) and refused Mexican assylum does give reason to be concerned.

    2. The vast majority in the “caravan” don’t qualify for asylum because they aren’t at risk from their own government, which is what the program is set up for.
      What will happen, if they get that far, is they will apply for asylum and then fail to show up for subsequent hearings, morphing into the melange of the 22 million illegals, who know their chances of getting caught and deported are slim, to none.
      THEIR INTENT IS TO BECOME ILLEGAL ALIENS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

  12. whats not true about the add? and to say there are no criminals in the caravan is a lie itself, no one has checked them all. give me any group of a 500 + people and there will be criminals among them.

    1. Keep making America great, Ron. We’re counting on you.

      1. Thank you your welcome someone has to do it. i found it hilarious this morning when the news was interviewing a local person of latino heritage agreeing with Trump that we can’t allow such a large influx of illegals. the reporter looked like a deer in the the headlights of a car, stunned beyond belief.

        1. BTW that local person was in Sacramento one of the most diverse cities in the country, its only 30% white, and all my family members in Sacramento 99% of them are other than white heritage and they and there friends don’t want this type of immigration of course they all came here legally or were born here.

    2. No kidding.

      I’m not sure why Reason is taking the ‘naif’ track here.

      In fact, I find their seeming downplaying of this caravan to be bewildering. Ok. They disagree with anything Trump does – what do they propose as an alternative?

    3. Leftist frowns face means truth doesn’t matter.

    4. Actually, was just listening to a news report. Seems the caravan was pretty violent in the way it crossed into Guatemala and then Mexico, so I think we can dismiss the idea that there aren’t any criminals among them.

    5. This is similar to those who assertions that investigating to see if voter fraud is a problem is wrong because no evidence has been found of voter fraud. Even though no one has seriously looked for it.

  13. Scott Shackford, you are a liar.

  14. The fact is that Latin America has some of the most violent societies in the world. Of the 13 countries with the highest per capita murder rate in the world, six of them are in Central America and Northern South America including the top two Hondurus and El Salvador.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indi….._desc=true

    To put this into perspective, the murder rate in El Salvador is 82.4 per 100,000 per year. The murder rate in the US is 5.35 per 100,000 per year.

    Reason is demanding that the US let anyone from these countries who wants to do so enter the US. Those murder rates are not by accident. It isn’t magic dirt that is producing them. If you let thousands of people from these societies into the country, you are going to get a fair number of very bad people who are going to do some very bad things once they are here.

    Pointing that fact out and saying it is not a price that the country should have to pay, is not being racist. And Scott’s claiming that it is is just him telling the country that it is their job to suffer so that he can feel smug. If Reason wants open borders, it should be honest and own the forseable consiqences of that instead of just yelling racist whenever someone points them out.

    1. Hey look, John is in favor of using the murder rate of a place to prevent free movement of people out of that place. Good luck being stuck in DC for the rest of your life, John.

      1. Washington DC is a part of this country. Latin America is not. We are under no obligation to let the people live there move here. If you think we are, then be honest about that and claim that you do not believe in borders at all and the US government is under just as much obligation to look out for the interests of the people of Latin America as it is to look out for the interests of the people who pay its taxes and elect the government. Good luck with that position.

        1. We are under no obligation to let the people live there move here. If you think we are, then be honest about that and claim that you do not believe in borders at all

          First of all, nobody is asking you to do anything, but to say that “we’re under no obligation to let anyone in…” Excuse me? Your obligation is NOT TO INTEREFERE in the peaceful and voluntary movement of non-aggressive people who want to interact and contract with Americans. This “we” you talk about, is that your friends at Stormfront?

          And a libertarian worth his or her salt and who prides him or herself of being one would NOT believe in the legitimacy of borders. Borders are lines on a map placed there by conquerors – history has proven that. They become rapidly meaningless the moment people act by their on volition. They’re fictions meant to establish State ownership of the lives of people sitting within them.

          1. First of all, nobody is asking you to do anything, but to say that “we’re under no obligation to let anyone in…” Excuse me? Your obligation is NOT TO INTEREFERE in the peaceful and voluntary movement of non-aggressive people who want to interact and contract with Americans. This “we” you talk about, is that your friends at Stormfront?

            We as a soveriegn nation have a right to control our borders and determine who lives here. If you want to let them in because you are a racialist and Hispanic supremacist, then win an election and make that happen.

            Stop claiming national sovereignty is white supremacy. It is fucking retarded. You are not convincing anyone and you are just wasting everyone’s time.

          2. The borders are not fiction when progressives want everyone who steps over the US border to be showered with government benefits.

            1. To be fair, they want everyone who doesn’t step over the US border to be showered with government benefits, too.

          3. Fuck off Mexi Fry. No one gives a shit what you think. And keep your murdering raping illegal pals out of my country, m’kay?

            1. It’s your country now, Last Of The Shitferbrains?
              When did you buy it?

          4. I know you’re a beaner, and English is not your first language , ol’ wetback, but deciding to get together with the purpose of invading someone else’s country isn’t ‘non-aggressive’.

            Just ask that part of your ancestry that makes you brown, and ‘His’panic instead of Spanish. Cortez took that part of the world over with how many men?

            Borders ARE lines on a map placed there by conquerors. And, unlike your stupid ancestors, we’re able to turn back people who want to conquer us.

            ….while aping the Spaniards who conquered them….?

    2. The fact is that Latin America has some of the most violent societies in the world.

      Societies? That’s a lie.

      Some COUNTRIES may struggle with criminality derived from the drug war or civil wars funded by America or the Soviet Union, but that doesn’t mean the SOCIETIES are violent. You’re merely conflating the two things.

      To put this into perspective, the murder rate in El Salvador is 82.4 per 100,000 per year. The murder rate in the US is 5.35 per 100,000 per year.

      You’re doing exactly what many of us have accused the left of doing: play fast and loose with statistics without placing them in their proper context, especially when the left compares murder rates between the US and other “industrialized countries” to argue against gun ownership, but it is not going to work, John. The murder rate in El Salvador is indeed high but that country has been beset with problems stemming from a recent civil war and the drug war. That’s first. Second, the US is a BIG place with a much greater population distribution. If you compare the murder rate in certain CITIES in the US, that number comes closer to the murder rate in El Salvador and other places. Is that enough to say that the societies within those cities in the US are especially VIOLENT?

      I took you for a radical Trumpista but now you upgraded yourself to a gawddamned liar, too.

      1. Some COUNTRIES may struggle with criminality derived from the drug war or civil wars funded by America or the Soviet Union, but that doesn’t mean the SOCIETIES are violent.

        Yes it does. That murder rate isn’t the result of aliens or evil American drug lords. It is the result of the people in those places killing each other. It is funny how you are such a Marxist but are too stupid to know it. You are claiming that criminality is the result of external economic factors and oppression and not societal breakdown and individual choices, which is straight up Marxism.

        The guy that is a murderer and criminal in El Salvador willl almost certainly be the same when he comes here. He won’t magically transform by crossing the border.

        . Second, the US is a BIG place with a much greater population distribution

        Yes, the US has pockets of very disfunctional criminal elements and cultures that are very broken. Bringing in more people from such cultures is not going to help. It will just make things worse. You just gave away your argument. You admit that the US has pockets of high criminality. No kidding. We dont’ want to create more.

        1. Re: John,

          Yes it does.

          NO, It does not. Unless you want to aregue that Prohibition-era America presented evidence that American society was particularly VIOLENT. Be ready to argue that if you’re not a hypocrite.

          The guy that is a murderer and criminal in El Salvador willl almost certainly be the same when he comes here.

          And? That’s ONE guy.

          1. NO, It does not. Unless you want to aregue that Prohibition-era America presented evidence that American society was particularly VIOLENT.

            It did. The US has always had a violent society in many ways. And maybe you missed it, but drugs are illegal here too. So whatever evil effects the drug war is having on Salvadorans won’t stop just because they come here.

            And? That’s ONE guy.

            No, that is a whole lot of people. Look at the violence rates.

            1. Re: John,

              It did. The US has always had a violent society in many ways.

              You know that you’re becoming insane, John? Now yu’re arguing something extraordinary just to win an argument. At least I commend you for sticking to your guns rather than vacilating or equivocating like a coward but that’s just insane.

              No, that is a whole lot of people. Look at the violence rates.

              WHAT ABOUT THE TWINKIE, John? Statistics don’t say that a WHOLE SOCIETY is made of criminals- that’s INSANE!

              1. Statistics don’t say that a WHOLE SOCIETY is made of criminals- that’s INSANE!

                I know you are not bright, but you are not this dishonest. You know what I mean. We are talking about relative levels of violence and criminality. They are more violent societies than we are and letting them in in large numbers will have the effect of making the US more criminal and violent as a whole.

                Again, you are not fooling anyone by playing stupid here and lying. Like all open borders advocates, all you know how to do is lie.

          2. The US murder rate at the height of prohibition was 9.7 per hundred thousand. It is 85.5 in El Salvador today. So, yeah, there is a big difference between the two societies.

            http://www.jrsa.org/projects/Historical.pdf

        2. Re: John,

          Yes, the US has pockets of very disfunctional criminal elements and cultures that are very broken.

          You’re deflecting the point. You’re using statistics to judge a WHOLE SOCIETY, not just some groups or an underprivileged underclass but a WHOLE SOCIETY.

          Bringing in more people from such cultures is not going to help.

          Again, you’re committing a “Guilt By Association” fallacy which bigots have favored a lot late of late and that’s what you’re demonstrating today, John: That you’re a bigot.

          You want to see people as groups – FINE! Say so. I won’t, because each human individual of will is a special creation by God. And HE is the reason why rights are INDIVIDUAL, not collective.

          1. You’re deflecting the point. You’re using statistics to judge a WHOLE SOCIETY, not just some groups or an underprivileged underclass but a WHOLE SOCIETY.

            The murder rate in these countries is a ful ten time higher per capita than the US. Yes, they have a much higher level of criminality and dysfunction than we do. The facts are what they are. This isn’t a small difference. This is a difference in orders of magnatude. The fact that not every Salvadoran is a criminal doens’t change the reality that letting in thousands of Salvadorans will make the US into a more violent and criminal place.

            And you condem US Society every fucking day on here.

            1. Re: John,

              The murder rate in these countries is a ful ten time higher per capita than the US.

              But you’re comparing two NON-COMPARABLE populations! You’re doing what the LEFT does all the time!

              And you condemn US Society every … day on here

              Oh, what a liar you are. Trumpistas =/= the whole US society.

              Fucking cheat.

              1. But you’re comparing two NON-COMPARABLE populations!

                I am comparing two different populations. They are certainly comparable. And unless you believe that only good Salvadorans will want to come or they will magically transform when they get here such that the immigrant pool won’t represent the overall population, then they will necessarily be as a group much more violent and criminal than American population.

                Oh, what a liar you are. Trumpistas =/= the whole US society.

                Just 48%. You only slander half the population. That makes it okay. God you are a fucking moron.

              2. What makes them non-comparable?

          2. When someone suggests vetting individuals, you freak out.

            Make up your mind, do you want open borders or do you just want to feel good about yourself through virtue signalling about how the caravan has good people too?

    3. John’s wrong. It’s not magic dirt. It’s magic air. This was decided centuries ago, in 1770’s Britain (or 1550’s England, depending on the story)

      It’s magic air John. By breathing it they become free and just like us.

  15. It’s not true that immigrants are any more of a criminal threat to Americans than Americans are criminal threats to each other. It has never been true in the United States, even though fear of immigrants has been a recurring social tradition.

    Never? Did you look it up in the historical record? Read all the documentation? Check me if I’m wrong here Sandy but, IIRC, this country was founded on the notion that foreigners, their government and sympathizers, were an existential threat to the natives (just like the settlers were to the natives before them).

    1. The other question is why Scott is so convinced that it must be true. Even if it were true that immigrants in the past have been less criminal than natives, that doesn’t mean that it must be true or will be true in the future. The US has never had a wave of immigrants from societies as comparitively violent and dysfunctional as the ones in Latin America are now.

      Moreover, even if it were true that immigrants as a whole have been less violent, not all immigrants are the same. Just because say Chinese immigrants were rarely criminal doesn’t mean that Italian or Irish immigrants were not or that Latin American ones won’t be.

      And this of course ignores the central fallacy of Scott’s point which is that he is claiming that because immigrants who right now are being carefully vetted and told they will be kicked out if they commit a crime are less criminal than natives, therefore immigrants in general are less criminal such that we can just open the border and see the same results we are getting now.

      Scott is just lying his ass off here.

      1. Were immigrants in the past really less criminal is another pertinent question. If so how do they explain the gang activity in the five points region of New York during the mid 19th century? Or the fact that organized crime during the first half of the 19th century was most prevalent in immigrant populations? Or that in many Western States the counties that have above average criminal activity compared to the rest of the state often correlate with those counties with the highest illegal immigrant population? Of course correlation does necessitate causation but it does imply that further investigation may be warranted. There is also reason to credibly believe that criminality in illegal populations is underreported, because other illegale are their preferred target.

    2. It’s not even the point that they are more of a criminal threat. It’s that, when an American kills an American, we don’t need to wonder what that American was doing in America. When a multiple time deportee kills an American, we do.

      But as we’ve seen countless other times now, most recently with Shikha blaming Obama for destabilizing El Salvador by deporting violent Salvadorean criminals back there, Reason is forever willfully obtuse on the issue of immigration.

      1. Wo, wo, wo! WO CAMEL. Back it up. Beep, beep, beep.

        Shikha blamed Obama for what now? I can’t believe that. I need a citation. That’s preposterous.

        1. Here:

          Barack Obama is hardly blameless. He poured fuel on the burning Central American subcontinent when he mass deported some 161,000 gang members and other criminals back to these countries. “[Sending] such a large number of criminals, many of them violent gang members, into countries with relatively small populations, proved to be extremely destabilizing,” Massey says. It turned these countries into even bigger cauldrons of conflict and violence where daily life for ordinary people became impossible. Many migrants in the caravan recount heart-wrenching stories of family members being harassed, kidnapped, beaten, and killed because they refused to join the gangs or succumb to extortion.

          The U.S. is responsible, at least in part, for the mess in these countries. We ought to be sending planes to evacuate their residents ? not greeting them with boots and bayonets.

          1. So sending them back causes crime there, but bringing them in does not ? WTF!

            1. Sure, it does cause crime here, but only racist Nazis would care about that.

          2. I can’t believe she gets paid for that.

            1. Shikha probably gets paid double for having to put her name to such nonsense.

          3. Oh shit! I stopped reading Shikha for the most part, and just enjoy the dumpster fire that is the comments. That’s some comedy gold right there. Thanks for that, I’ve got a couple libertarian friends that will love reading this.

        2. Beep beep beep?

        3. Shikha blamed Obama for what now? I can’t believe that.

          Really? Between the beyond parody reality we live in and Shikha is it that unbelievable?

          1. We really do live in clown-world.

        4. “Shikha blamed Obama for what now? I can’t believe that. I need a citation. That’s preposterous.”

          That’s why Shikha does most of the immigration articles at Reason. Nothing is too preposterous for her.

  16. So far no one has demonstrated with fact or evidence that the ad is incorrect. People have just complained that it’s “nativist” and “racist.”

    Anyone with a logical brain laughs at this deranged nonsense.

    1. “I’m uninterested in criticisms of my argument that do not use the word ‘false’.”

  17. Scott, I like you, but hasn’t Trump been consistently anti-illegal immigration and not anti-immigrant? Or is Reason taking the position it’s the ‘same thing’ now?

    I know if I had the same problem here in Canada damn straight I’d be against illegal immigration. How is dealing with this a bad thing? You have to or else why have laws? The caravan can be perceived as challenging your laws. Come on man.

    And that has nothing to do with my position on the flow of immigration.

    1. When exactly did seeking asylum become a form of illegal immigration? The laws are pretty clear on this. Perhaps we should be sending more judges to complete the asylum hearings instead of troop to do….what exactly?

      1. Fair enough.

        BUT, what if among them the goal is to gain illegal entrance? It’s not out of the realm of impossibility that’s the plan, given the numbers, for some in the group. No?

      2. We’re sending troops to keep them from just walking into the country and disappearing. They’re only going to apply for asylum if they’re caught.

        1. i’ll be pretty impressed if the migrant caravan every tracks daily just “disappears.”

          but i guess it’s all speculation until they get here many months from now.

          1. If at all.

        2. That’s the part of the equation that people seem to be ignoring. You can’t possibly think among all those people some aren’t going to try and sneak in. That’s why the military as reinforcement to help prevent this is prudent.

          I don’t see why it’s such an esoteric problem treating this as a national security issue. Is the plan to turn them all away? Or is the plan to organize and begin the process of letting the real asylum seekers in?

          Little details like that would be good to know. All I read is how Orange Man Bad.

          1. that’s a fair point. i also want details of the plan, but i doubt we are gonna get em.

            my cynical take is that this is all bluster for midterms, no plan at all. The caravan is 3 to 6 months away. I’m pretty sure we can mobilize troops in days. why start now? the only reason we are aggressively attacking this “problem” (without a clear plan, mind you) is because midterms are next week.

            once they are over, the caravan will be non-news for months. until they actually get close.

            but, as even this thread of “libertarians” will show, talking now sure does rile people up. most important election of our lifetimes people.

          2. ” Is the plan to turn them all away?”

            It should be, at this point: They were offered asylum in Mexico, and turned it down. So we know they’re not refugees, they’re just economic migrants.

            If they were the sort of people who’d qualify to enter legally, they would have applied and done so.

            So, presumptively, every last freaking one of them should be turned away, yes. If there turns out to be a random college educated, English literate, law abiding person in the caravan, who just got swept up by it as it went along, we send them home and tell them to apply at our embassy back in their hope country, if they want us to pay any attention.

            Not one of them should be allowed on US soil. Not even one of them.

            1. Additionally, the US has multiple consulates, including many along their route, where they could legally apply for assylum before reaching the US. Their continued refusal to do so suggests that they have very little actual plans to apply for assylum. Additionally, since this was organized with those whose express purpose is to challenge our immigration laws (some of who also support the idea of Mexico reannexing portions of the US) there is more than adequate reason to question the motives of those in the caravan.

      3. Perhaps they should have applied for asylum and waited for approval before heading here.

        Also, the proper place for asylum seeking was in the neighboring country.

        What is so bad about Honduras or Guatemala that they won’t seek asylum there? How about Mexico?

        Perhaps the convoy could be given an escort across the US to Canadian border and they can seek asylum there – after all, the US is a fascist country run by a white supremacist if the left is to be believed.

      4. Yeah, the laws are pretty clear on this: They were offered asylum in Mexico, and turned it down. When they reach our border they’re just migrants who’ve been coached to say some magic words.

      5. wouldn’t they be seeking assylum in Mexico? Any danger they were in while in their home country would be resolved now no since they are no longer there?

    2. When exactly did seeking asylum become “illegal immigration”? the laws are pretty clear that it’s legal.

      Perhaps we should be sending enough judges to complete the asylum hearings instead of troops to do….what exactly?

      1. It became illegal immigration when they walked bast the first country they could have gotten refuge in.

    3. Re: Rufus the Monocled,

      Scott, I like you, but hasn’t Trump been consistently anti-illegal immigration and not anti-immigrant?

      What, have you been living under a rock? Just what the FUCK do you think he means by ending family reunification policy (or chain migration), or limiting the number of HB1 visas or cutting BY HALF the number of LEGAL immigrants?

      Trump and his merry band of Trumpistas (Tom Cotton, the creepy Steven Miller) have CONSISTENTLY attacked IMMIGRATION itself.

      The caravan can be perceived as challenging your laws

      Under WHAT THEORY? The caravan is just travelers walking up a road towards the border. They have broken NO LAWS. They have yet to arrive to the border and BY LAW, the can arrive at a port of entry and seek asylum. How is that breaking any laws? That’s just more fearmongering and lying.

      1. >They have broken NO LAWS.

        Except, you know, when they illegally crossed the border into Guatemala and then again into Mexico (and assaulting border guards in the bargain). So it would be foolish to assume they don’t intend to do the same here and prepare for that eventuality.

      2. You understand, old Mexican, that nothing you write is worth reading, right?

      3. “Just what the FUCK do you think he means by ending family reunification policy (or chain migration), or limiting the number of HB1 visas or cutting BY HALF the number of LEGAL immigrants?”

        We think he means that he wants a merit based immigration policy, where “merit” is defined as “benefit to already existing US citizens.” Where a company can’t pretend they were unable to hire Americans, hire a bunch of foreigners, and then fire their existing American workforce after they’re finished training their replacements.

        You know, American government policy that’s aimed at the welfare of Americans?

        “The caravan is just travelers walking up a road towards the border. They have broken NO LAWS. ”

        Garbage. They already broke Mexico’s laws by entering that country illegally, and the only thing stopping them from breaking our laws in the same way is that they haven’t gotten here yet. And a few thousand soldiers, of course.

  18. How is the ad any more dishonest than the pro dreamer ads showing only those going to college, lawyers, etc. Nearly half if dreamers won’t go to college. A large percentage still don’t know English. Both sides use hyperbole for political ads, buy I’ve never seen a reason writer criticize the pro immigration and dreamer ads.

    1. That is a great point. But it is totally different when reason lies about the nature of immigration because reasons!!

  19. Shorter version: it’s a very effective ad, but Reason doesn’t care about your safety ? the guys that pay Reason’s bills want cheap imported labor.

    Indirect costs, such as becoming a victim of violence or a casualty of drunk driving, or paying huge taxes for government services for illegals are irrelevant to the guys who pay Reason’s bills.

    1. And they probably live in lily white northern states where the closest they get to Mexico is the Taco Bell drive through.

      1. They don’t have to stand in line behind the population of Honduras at the DMV.

      2. They live in walled enclaves where the consequences of illegal immigration aren’t crime, but a cheaper and more compliant servant class.

    2. ‘the guys that pay Reason’s bills want cheap imported labor.’

      This is their single overriding issue. They are willing to give up every other bit of liberty to maintain this. We know this because if we keep importing tens of millions of collectivists a decade as we are now every other liberty but freedom of movement (and that just means the freedom for others to move here, never the reciprication) goes away forever.

    1. LOLZ

  20. Why couldn’t they be coming from Norway instead? Darnnit.

  21. When all those immigrants were coming through Ellis Island back in the day, how did U.S. (and Canadian for that matter because I’m sure it was a similar system) set the check points of entry? There were just as many, if not more, people coming through. So how is this caravan any different and why doesn’t U.S. customs do the same?

    I would actually like an article on how it was achieved.

    1. Immigrants coming through Ellis island went through a great deal of screening, by US officials and those that ran the boats that carried them. If they were rejected by the US, the shipping company that brought them had to cover their return trip home.
      Thus, they were first screened by a ship doctor, then a doctor at Ellis island, then had physical fitness tested (just walking up and down stairs and such), and further were means tested to prove they’d be self supporting. Additionally, they were required to prove that they wanted to become American and would try to learn English.
      Very different than today’s lack of standards

      1. That much I knew. Ok, so let’s expand a little. If I read this correctly, they’re not a) doing this anymore? Which I admit would surprise me and b) not going to do it with the caravan assuming it reaches in great numbers?

  22. When right-wingers whine for decades about how unfair it is that America’s evolving electorate is deaf to conservative positions because most Americans reflexively associate the Republican brand with bigotry and backwardness, I will savor a fine beer and enjoy the crushing of right-wing aspirations for a generation or two.

    1. How did you feel when the Deporter in Chief was doing it? Or was that different? Did he put a bow on their deportation papers and apologize with a slice of cantaloupe?

      1. He had good intentions.

        1. And did you see how crisply his pants were creased?

        2. And a darker complexion

  23. I wonder what the results would be if the administration put all these “asylum” seekers into camps and then kept careful track of the murder rate in the camps.

    Would the rate be closer to the norm here in the US or would it be closer to the norm of the countries the aliens came from?

    In any event that would not be the reason for the camps, the camps would be there to keep them from joining the population-at-large until the aliens could be bio-identified via DNA, fingerprints, and photos. Detail where all their relatives and friends live. Show fluency in English and American cultural norms, show they could competently drive a car, and agree to a contract stating that any sort of legal trouble other than parking tickets and other low-level things gets them sent home. And that means never missing a court date, never saying “no habla” to any government functionary for any reason ever, no participation in anything political, and not waving the flag of their home country in public. Also they need an American citizen as sponsor who will put up a significant amount of money that will be forfeited if the alien falters.

    They agree to those things, they get to stay and be put on the legal residence path and then onto the citizenship path.

    1. In the English language…not English or British cultural norms.

    2. It would save everyone a lot of time and effort if you just send the buggers back. That’s what you want, isn’t it?

    3. I wonder what the results would be if the administration put all these “asylum” seekers into camps and then kept careful track of the murder rate in the camps.

      Would the rate be closer to the norm here in the US or would it be closer to the norm of the countries the aliens came from?

      To be a valid experiment, you’d have to put a bunch of citizens in a separate camp, FDR-style, and compare the results. You should volunteer.

    4. “I wonder what the results would be if the administration put all these “asylum” seekers into camps and then kept careful track of the murder rate in the camps.”

      Actually, listening to Trump speak, that’s the plan. No “catch and release” for these clowns, the Army Corps of Engineers is building camps along the border, and anyone who applies at the border will be held until their application is held, and if rejected, will be immediately deported.

      Obviously some judge in Hawaii is going to order the camps closed. Perhaps Trump has decided it’s time to ask how many battalions the judge has.

  24. Ads like this are a useful Rorshach test for the Media types.

    If their first reaction is outrage over the fact it might show a minority group in a bad light, or it might hurt Democrats, then you know where their sympathies lie.

    For the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not live inside the Beltway, this ad generates a lot of outrage. But that outrage is directed towards illegal immigrants and their enablers in Washington, not towards Trump.

    1. There aren’t as many poorly educated, envious, disaffected bigots in America as you appear to perceive. Visiting a modern, successful, educated community could illuminate this point.

      1. Your posts all seem precision engineered to answer the age old question, “What if OpenBordersLiberal-tarian were a less subtle parody account?”

        1. You guys are welcome to spout your downscale, ugly right-wingery while prancing about in libertarian drag. Others are free to note what you’re doing.

          May the better ideas win. I know that’s easy for me to say, because the ideas I prefer have been winning for six or seven decades in America, and because America’s demographic prospects indicate that arc of progress is likely to continue. But it is still the proper sentiment.

          Carry on, clingers.

      2. what exactly are your educational accomplishments since you seem to think you are superior to everyone else on this site?

      3. “I have nothing but my hatred to sustain me.”

  25. The only thing keeping these crypto-Nazis in power is the stupidity of the American people (and the Russians, and cheating). Let’s stop being stupid!

    1. You first.

      1. I already don’t’ vote for any Republicans. It’s not, it turns out, that difficult.

        1. Considering how authoritarian and collectivist progressives are, I think you ability to identify crypto Nazis is severely impaired.

    2. Tony is blissfully unaware that his god like hero Obama deported quite a few people.
      But it’s all about TEAM, isn’t it?

    3. Everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi:
      The Emotional Child’s Guide to Discussion

  26. Holy fuck this speech is painful to watch. Sad to see it happening in real time. I have seen dementia patients that I walk into the room and they are watching fox, and they go on similar rants. It honestly isn’t that different. My money isn’t on election 2020, it’s on Alzheimer’s>heart attack>stroke.

    1. What was wrong or inaccurate about it?
      Because it kinda destroys the “anti-“immigrant rhetoric.

  27. he does bring up a good point. Trump doesn’t have the seemingly endless army of sycophants, shills, and hatchetpeople that Clinton, Obama, etal employ. I mean, seriously, new ones continue to pop up every week in the media. Still.

    So the dude has to do his own dirty work.

    Plus, having been a life long New York Democrat until recently, so he knows how to catfish, and go right to the bottom.

  28. The irony of watching all of the #notall and #racist people freakout in this article, contrasted with the same people applying the principle they so oppose to cops in the other article today.

    This is why you are intellectually impotent, and politically impotent. And it is why deep down, despite any claims contrary, libertarianism is inherently progressivism. The yokels need to get out while they can, because despite how much they believe it, you aren’t their allies, you will put them in the gas chambers first chance you get.

  29. Whatever flavor of libertarianism that says that society shouldn’t protect itself from that guy is nothing I want a part of. Talk about rights is meaningless unless there’s a social contract to respect them.

    Two other notes:
    1. Believing in totally open borders yourself doesn’t mean it’s ok to conflate illegal and legal immigration when critiquing the views of others who draw sharp distinctions.
    2. It’s not a straw man to assert that the position of most Democrats is to make no effort to keep the murderers out. It’s their own plain position; they don’t want any border restriction.

  30. Just a reminder, if this isn’t enough to make you think “hey, maybe importing violent populations isn’t wise”…

    The courts of California ruled that when a hispanic immigrant like this murders a woman at random in public, he didn’t really commit murder, because he didn’t understand that guns kill people. Because he’s an immigrant.

    Maybe that’s why their murder rates are so high? They are just too stupid to understand. That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of the jury. It’s case law now.

    1. Hush, this issue alone has settled any wave of Blue that may have been forming, and it nealy insures another four years of Trump.

  31. If you aren’t a “nativist” you are a “foreingerist” and either a capitalist relying on low skilled labor trying to further push down native wages, a Democrat trying to secure political hegemony with a bunch of foreign ringers, or simply a fucking idiot.

    There is no rational case for a libertarian open borders USA. Unilaterally allowing mass immigration leaves the u.s. government literally nothing to negotiate on to try and secure rights for us to immigrate. The vast majority of immigrants coming to the United States over the last 50 years since immigration ‘reform’ of 1965 are virulently antiliberty and staunchly collectivist.

    If you are a free movement libertarian you are moron advocating for the email of everything you hold dear except for mass immigration.

  32. So, to recap

    a) the ad is not misleading, much less grossly so, in any way
    b) neither was the Willie Horton ad
    c) true and effective ads are therefore racist

  33. ” It’s outrageous what the Democrats are doing to our country. Vote Republican Now!

    Don’t tell me what to do.

    1. Don’t tell me what not to do.

  34. Yep- I clearly showed up after all the Trump apologists got their word in.

  35. How is securing our borders against invasion a nativist position, which is defined by comparing native born citizens to recent (legal) immigrants?

    The policy is to limit the invasion by those who do not have the consent of the governed to be invaded. He’s preserving both our sovereignty and our right to seal govern.

  36. “Arguments I can’t refute are so racist”

  37. “His critics take his words literally, but not seriously; his supporters take his words seriously, but not literally.”
    – Salena Zito (2016)

  38. There are real problems with immigrants that you simply do not discuss. And remember we are talking about illegal immigration particularly.
    The biggest problem with immigrants in general is not them but their children. They work hard, their children often do not and many from south of the border end up on welfare and are swelling the ranks of single parents.
    Those from the middle east have children who are then radicalized and become part of the terrorist network, like the subway bomber in England.
    I am sure you will say that “it ain’t so” or “prove it” but the progeny of some immigrant groups are a real concern and this should be addressed before the original immigrants are allowed to come to our shores.

  39. “The blatantly nativist and racist nature of the advertisement has brought forth condemnation and comparisons to the infamous GOP Willie Horton advertisement from the 1988 presidential campaign, which used racially tinged crime fearmongering to attack presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.”

    When you’re a racist, all you see is race. That’s all Reason sees.

    In both ads, I saw *criminals* whose crime was made possible by Democrats.

  40. “The blatantly nativist and racist nature of the advertisement has brought forth condemnation and comparisons to the infamous GOP Willie Horton advertisement from the 1988 presidential campaign, which used racially tinged crime fearmongering to attack presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.”

    When you’re a racist, all you see is race. That’s all Reason sees.

    In both ads, I saw *criminals* whose crime was made possible by Democrats.

  41. Most violators of U.S. immigration and border control laws come cross from the south. Why cannot this be honestly shown and discussed?

    If you or I decided to simply walk through the checkpoints at an airport after returning from an overseas trip, and refuse to show our passports, we’d be tazed and arrested at best or shot at worst. Why then do non-citizens get to saunter across the border, in violation the Law, with impunity? Do to them what would be done to us – shoot the invaders.

    Admittance to Galt’s Gulch is by invitation only.

  42. “It’s not true that immigrants are any more of a criminal threat to Americans than Americans are criminal threats to each other. It has never been true in the United States…” And how do we know that, it’s because that’s what some leftist college professors claim. Who are you going to believe, them or the evidence of your eyes and ears.

  43. 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.