Donald Trump

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Let Immigrant Killer Featured in Trump Ad Go Free 'for Reasons Unknown'

Why did the Trump ally let a future killer go? And what does that say about the president's inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric?

|

As Scott Shackford noted here, Donald Trump has released an unmistakably nativist, racist ad depicting Latino illegal immigrants as insane cop killers whom Democrats allow to freely roam the country at murderous will. Here's the ad the president tweeted:

Shackford's main point was that Luis Bracamontes, who now sits on death row in California, is in no way representative of illegal immigrants, much less legal ones. Immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans, among other things. Using anomalous cases to make a policy point—and it's a stretch to call Trump's fact-free ravings on immigration "policy"—is never a good idea.

There's another problem with this specific ad. Trump is using Bracamontes' various crimes and delayed punishment to own his political opponents. At one point, the ad declares in all-caps hysteria, "DEMOCRATS LET HIM STAY." At another, it asks, "WHO ELSE WOULD DEMOCRATS LET IN?", stoking fears that the migrant caravan on its way from Central America, and other people crossing the border with Mexico, are barbarians shuffling toward the gate.

Well, put this in your pipe and smoke it: The Sacramento Bee reports that Bracamontes first entered the country in 1993, when Democratic Pres. Bill Clinton was in office. He was arrested, served time, and deported in 1997 (Clinton and the Democrats were extremely hostile to illegal immigration, building parts of their 1996 campaign platform around the theme of militarizing the border).

In any case, Bracamonte showed up again in the Phoenix area, where a Republican guy named Sheriff Joe Arpaio was running the scene:

Records in Arizona show he was arrested on drug charges again in Phoenix in 1998, then released "for reasons unknown" by Arpaio's office. Arpaio is a Republican.

Bracamontes was next arrested May 4, 2001, on marijuana charges in Maricopa County, and deported three days later. Republican George W. Bush was president at the time, and was president when Bracamontes slipped back into the United States a short time later.

The date of his re-entry is not clear, but records show Bracamontes was married in Maricopa County on Feb. 28, 2002, when Bush was president.

More here.

So that ad Trump is touting could just as easily say "REPUBLICANS LET HIM STAY" and "WHO ELSE DID SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO LET GO?" Last year, Arpaio was pardoned by the president after being found guilty of contempt of court for flouting a federal order to stop "the unconstitutional racial profiling and detainment of Latino residents."

To return to Shackford's original point: We shouldn't be using outliers and extreme cases when discussing immigration, much less building policy around such people. Perhaps more than on any other issue, we need a different conversation about immigration, legal and otherwise. President Trump has shown time and again that he lacks any command even of basic facts and legal processes (his contention that he can end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right, by executive order is just the most-recent example of this ignorance). Virtually all the main arguments against immigration (legal or illegal) are predicated upon half-facts, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods. That doesn't mean the only defensible position is a libertarian version of open borders, in which people who want to live and work here peacefully and legally should generally be allowed to after a background check.

And here's something for restrictionists to ponder: Whatever you think you're accomplishing by demonizing immigrants, including the migrant caravan (that doesn't include scores of ISIS operatives), you're doing it wrong. Since Donald Trump became president, in part by attacking Mexicans and others, a record-high number of Americans think immigration is a good thing. That includes 65 percent of self-identified Republicans. Nativism may win you a safe seat in Congress, but you're losing the bigger battle due to strident, over-the-top, and non-realistic rhetoric about the people who move here to have a better life.

In any case, we'd have much more productive discussions if we began talking honestly about the history and contemporary reality of immigration. That's something the president and his defenders resolutely refuse to do.

Advertisement

NEXT: Control of the Senate Could Depend on These 10 Races

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

  1. This article’s intellectual dance aside, we all know that the system as it currently stands allows people like Bracamontes to act freely, that Democrats broadly favor having the system continue to be at least this lenient, and that Republicans broadly favor doing something to keep people like Bracamontes from entering the country.

    This is classic Trump: Getting the Democrats to draw attention to a highly embarrassing racist, cop-killing illegal immigration, without Trump having to pay a cent for the coverage. Democrats and their apologists will nit-pick the details like this article does, all while making what I wrote in my opening paragraph more and more inescapably clear to the public.

    Trump wins. As he should. Even an arch-libertarian should understand that libertarianism isn’t served by not defending the public against people like Bracamontes.

    1. Well put.

      1. Another reason he wins is that this unpresidented assault on Sheriff Arpaio’s dignity is clearly fake news to begin with. It’s almost as silly as claiming that Joe Arpaio, rather than one of them there left-wing liberals in New York, allowed the Dead Sea Troll to walk free. Did Arpaio write the inappropriate “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated, so-called judge too? I don’t think so. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        1. Holy fuck. You got three months’ probation time served. Let it go and move on, Raph. You won.

          1. Trigger seems to be confused. Golb’s appropriate sentence of incarceration at the Rikers Island jail complex was outrageously dropped–what is the explanation for such a scandal? What we need to do now is build an Internet wall to keep the perpetrators out of our bible museums and our college campuses. We here at NYU give our full support to each and every one of our department chairs, on the strength of this precedent; let the word go out very clearly that any unwanted “parody” of our faculty officials will be treated as a public safety matter and as a crime, with direct and immediate consequences.

    2. But… The FEELZ!

      1. The racist feelz are being met.

        1. No one cares about your sex life.

    3. the system as it currently stands allows people like Bracamontes to act freely

      Which is why he’s currently on death row.

    4. Is any libertarian arguing that Bracamontes shouldn’t be in jail right now?

      1. Shhh, you’ll collapse the delicate strawman.

        1. By soaking it with his tears, in the fashion you endorse?

      2. The Open Borders Crowd argues for allowing all the Bracamontes of the world to come to the US.

      3. Jeffy, his victims are dead because of you and people who be,wife as you do. So much blood on your murdering hands you might as wel, have done it yourself if you weren’t so fucking weak and ineffectual.

        Do you wear footy pajamas like a little kid? Based on your weak sophistry and inability to listen, that’s how I picture you. Just a stupid kid who can’t listen.

    5. Nicely done.

    6. Gibberish. His ad is just a fact-free bit of bullshit and so is your defense of it.

      Trumpism is based on lies and you do a good job demonstrating it.

  2. Could someone explain to me how this is racist exactly? Anti-immigrant, sure. Misleading, yeah. Hostile, obviously. But racist?

    1. “Anti-immigrant,” is it?

      You mean anti-illegal invader?

      1. Ask an educated person who is not a bigot to try to explain this for you.

        If you can find one in your can’t-keep-up, deplorable community.

        Carry on, clinger.

    2. Just like CNN told you: It’s racist in the same way the Willie Horton ad was racist.

      It featured a nonwhite person portrayed negatively. More importantly, it made an assertion that Democrats dislike.

      1. Bracamontes is looking pretty damned white to me.

        1. He’s a white Hispanic, obviously.

          1. And when a white Hispanic shot an unarmed black man in Florida they forgot to mention the Hispanic part. How convenient…

    3. Leftist Dictionary
      racist: an argument you can’t refute

    4. It’s all very simple.
      If it helps the DNC it is pure and good and lovely and honorable and has merit.
      If it reflects badly on the DNC it’s racist.

    5. It don’t look racist to me. The left is thinking way too much about thought crimes.

    6. It don’t look racist to me. The left is thinking way too much about thought crimes.

  3. “Why did the Trump ally let a future killer go?”

    What does being a Trump “ally” have to do with this? Would it be any different if he were a Trump adversary?

    I don’t think we can criticize these kinds of associations and then turn around and use them ourselves.

    It feels like the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, when the last survivor runs up to Donald Sutherland but it turns out that he’s now one of them, too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUXHB5U-Vl4

    Not you, too, Nick!

    1. It feels like the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, when the last survivor runs up to Donald Sutherland but it turns out that he’s now one of them, too.

      No, it feels like the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers if you’d watched it every week since Nov. 2016.

    2. agree it’s a terrible headline.

      if you read the rest, he’s pretty clear that the main point is we shouldn’t use obvious outliers to make important points about policy.

      it’s a two-parter: trump’s statement of “democrats let him stay” is stupid, but it’s also factually questionable, and an equally stupid point “arpaio let him stay” could be made.

      it’s unfortunate that the headline seems to try to just make the point “arpaio let him stay”

      1. “We shouldn’t use obvious outliers to make important points about policy” – depends on the policy.

        If the policy is “you should have the right to self-defense, even though a large majority of the population will never attack you”, the fact that some people ARE dangerous is not only relevant, it’s decisive. The argument for most forms of insurance is similar – claims are rare, but significant enough as a risk that insurance is sensible.

        As for “Democrats let him stay”, the last several years have shown us that exaggerations of this sort are how Trump tricks media into advertising for him: Democrats highlight the exaggerations, add their usual going overboard, and in so doing they draw attention to the fact that their own position is much more extreme than Trump’s is.

        1. Democrats are this bad and worse on a constant basis. No exaggeration required.

      2. “agree it’s a terrible headline.”

        It does seem that Reason has some pomo identitarian tarting up every headline. As bad as the articles are, the headlines are always worse.

    3. or put another way: there are plenty of good legit reasons to hate democrats and vote them out of office. Bracamontes’s murders are simply not one of them. if you think his killings are a reason to get rid of democrats, then Sheriff Joe has to go too. but we all realize that argument is stupid, right? right?

      1. Sheriff Joe does need to go, and go he did.

        1. Just not to prison thanks to President Soon to be Indicted

          1. Everyone who isn’t an idiot understands that while Joe is garbage like you, his prosecution was purely political nonsense.

            1. Only idiots think his prosecution was political nonsense.

              He was ordered to quit violating the Fourteenth Amendment by a judge and he defied the order.

          2. What will you do if your dreams don’t come true?

            1. Suck. Like he does now.

          3. OP, the people who will be indicted are you amd your friends once we get a real AG to replace Sessions. Whose primary focuse will be putting progressives in prison.

    4. Equally: “And what does that say about the president’s inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric?”

      Nothing, really.

      (Inflammatory? Eh, maybe.

      But I’d prefer analysis that avoided trying to tell me how I should feel about things, myself.

      I expect this nonsense from the interns. I know Nick knows better.)

      1. No he doesn’t. He uses the Cato report on immigrant crime rates, which left out most of the data from Arizona.

        John Lott

    5. “Not you, too, Nick!”

      Nick was probably the driving force behind turning Reason into the identitarian pomo hellscape it is today.

      1. Why does Nick hate libertarianism so much?

        1. Nick’s an anarchist.

          Anarchists cannot have anarchyland rise from the ashes of the USA if libertarianism saves the USA from imploding.

  4. Here we go….again.

  5. Nativism may win you a safe seat in Congress, but you’re losing the bigger battle due to strident, over-the-top, and non-realistic rhetoric about the people who move here to have a better life.

    I’m not running for Congress, Nick, so I’ve got to wonder who you think you’re talking to and what, exactly, makes you think they’re listening?

  6. Maybe Arpaio was going through a libertarian phase at the time.

    As for immigrants being caught doing crime less than the natives, there needs to be a better word to use than crime. Or a better bar. Criminality is a fluid state in which we all find ourselves at pretty much all times thanks to endless legislation/regulation. Is the act of being in this country without government sanction count as crime? If so, then illegals are in the continuous act of criminal behavior. At one point miscegenation and same-sex coupling were crimes. Using acts that our betters have defined as criminal as a litmus test is a terrible practice.

    And Trump? Yeah, guess what. Lying and hypocrisy is what a-holes do at election time. ON BOTH SIDES.

    1. Does the statistic start from the point after the illegal immigrant broke the law entering the country?

      If he’s saying immigrants that lawfully entered the country and throwing in those who came in unlawfully, I think it’s disingenuous. The latter committed a crime. Simple as that.

      1. broke the law entering the country

        Conveniently overlooked is that every illegal alien is already a criminal.

        1. Also overlooked is that our Visa and immigration laws filter out applicants with prior criminal histories. So the argument is silly on its face. It’s comparing sub groups filtered to avoid the metric they are comparing to.

        2. That’s not true.

      2. Many illegal immigrants didn’t break the law to get into the country.

        How does that impact your query?

    2. The statistic is disingenuous anyway. First, it tends to lump legal and illegal immigrant crime together, even though legals are put through such a wringer that they HAVE to be far better behaved than the general public or they’d never make it through.

      Second, children of illegals get birthright citizenship, and thus are not counted in any stats about illegals’ activity, including costs of welfare benefits, public schools, etc (“illegals aren’t eligible for welfare so they don’t cost anything!”)

    3. Maybe Arpaio was going through a libertarian phase at the time.

      Maybe just having a moment.

  7. fine you win. disband America.

    >>>”Why did the Trump ally let a future killer go?”

    unlikely Joe and T were buddies in 1998.

    1. C’mon. If Kaitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning were women, Joey and Donny were friends.

      1. ha. fun w/SAT logic.

  8. It must be a day of the week because Reason is conflating legal immigrants with illegal aliens.

  9. A rebuttal to Nick. And the gloves are off!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD_b9nC3Sxo&t=424s

    1. This is the 3rd friggin time I try to post this. /fumes. I notice posts work when you ‘reply’ so let’s try that here. Anyway….

      I heard Trump on the radio say that the caravan must go through a port of entry in order to lawfully be admitted. No mention of ‘sending them back. As far as I know, the U.S. is still welcoming immigrants at normal historical levels.

      What am I missing exactly? And why is Reason insisting on conflating illegal immigration with lawful immigration? I expect this from leftist publications but not Reason.

      Also, the caravan is suing the U.S. government because, get this, they claim their constitutional rights are being violated (as they wave their Honduran flags).

      /spins Twilight Zone record.

      1. Success!

      2. Oops. Link. The squirrels have me in a mess.

        https://fxn.ws/2CUox4J

      3. I’m not sure why you don’t expect it from Reason. You’re not that new here.

        Actually, there is mention of sending them back. They’re just going to get hearings first. And spend their time in a tent camp until those hearings.

      4. “And why is Reason insisting on conflating illegal immigration with lawful immigration? I expect this from leftist publications but not Reason.”

        Check your premises.

        Reason has gone pomo.

    2. I kind of “skimmed” the video and in the middle the guy says that illegal immigrants are sucking up school and welfare resources, but then a bit later shrugs and says, “Ok, technically they pay taxes, but not enough.” I guess they’re just not enough for his liking. And he says they get fake SSNs, so they’ll be paying those taxes, but they’ll never get a dime back from SS or Medicare. So those taxes are supporting citizens with no benefit to the illegals. And then he talked about how many anchor babies were had over the past decade or so and it was something like 4 million. “And they’re automatically US citizens,” like that’s some horrible outcome. So, they’re US citizens just like you who were born in the US and will likely live their entire lives in the US, paying all those taxes you were so concerned about. It seemed the video was just a re-hash of all the same tired complaints we’ve all heard a thousand times and it won’t change anyone’s opinion.

      1. Low income people cost the state far more than they pay in. A low income illegal with four kids in a public school especially so.

        The welfare state necessitates immigration restrictions. I think we all would rather see the welfare state die, but the more of these types we take in as voters, the less likely that is.

      2. What they can’t file a 1040? And get an earned income credit! I guess the anchor baby isn’t the sponsor for the parents and can’t get welfare either?

      3. “So, they’re US citizens just like you who were born in the US…”

        And therein lies the problem. You appeared to have “skimmed” your disingenuous response as well by conveniently omitting relevant facts associated with the anchor babies and more. It is understandable since those facts and possibilities would defeat your argument.

    3. Subscribed

    4. Great video! You’re good at this.

  10. So is Reason a libertarian publication? I can’t remember the last time I read something here that even resembled libertarianism…

    Might as well be HuffPo

    1. Reason is currently being used to get Lefties elected.

      1. Reason has been converged by the pomos and is now in the business of discrediting libertarianism while the writers audition for Salon.

    2. Define libertarian. For example, can one be libertarian and support anything Trump does or wants?

      To be honest, I don’t even know what libertarianism means in the current construct… I thought I knew, but I truly do not. And one thing that I know for certain: Libertarians rarely agree amongst themselves on anything. Whether that is a strength or a weakness remains to be seen.

      1. I think the dominant strain of libertarianism that we see in these forums is, for lack of a better phrase, “culturally homogeneous libertarianism”. They want liberty, but only in the context of a culturally homogeneous society. Liberty for Americans, and everyone else can go to hell. The biggest problem with that position, though, is that the costs associated with maintaining the cultural homogeneity are not trivial, and directly diminish the liberty of those culturally homogeneous one who are supposed to have been promised liberty in their little cultural enclave. It’s not possible to have “secure borders” without infringing on the liberty of those inside the borders.

        1. Perhaps that sums up any political ideology, not just libertarianism. Thank you, chemjeff.

          1. Nah, chemjeff is still a dick. His made up “culturefulture homozygotic libertoonianism” is psychobabble for “people who call chemjeff out on shit”. I believe in liberty for Americans because America has a foundation built on liberty. Why don’t Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, etc., build a foundation of liberty in their own countries? Because they don’t have to. Not when they can leave and come here.

            Also interesting that chemjeff can’t find a rational argument for immigration that actually promotes liberty like, say – because one of our inalienable rights under the US social contract is that of free association, US citizens should have the right to invite anyone they like to visit, to marry, or to work for them. Eliminate counterarguments by simply requiring the person asserting their right to associate to take responsibility for their action through sponsorship. The individual, group, or company who sponsors a non-citizen is then liable for any and all of their actions. Americans responsible for all the people in America. Liberty and justice for all. Easy peasy.

            If chemjeff and his butt-buddies want 7,000 Guatemalans here, they should put up an insurance bond to cover the potential liability and provide for the care and monitoring of all 7,000 individuals.

            Shifting cost from the group advocating and benefiting from an action to all citizens is not at all libertarian.

            1. because one of our inalienable rights under the US social contract is that of free association, US citizens should have the right to invite anyone they like to visit, to marry, or to work for them.

              Yes, that is one very powerful argument in favor of open borders. Thanks for repeating it here!

              Eliminate counterarguments by simply requiring the person asserting their right to associate to take responsibility for their action through sponsorship. The individual, group, or company who sponsors a non-citizen is then liable for any and all of their actions.

              Umm, individuals are responsible for *their own* actions. If I hire you to work in my firm, and then, on your own time, you commit some crime, then I am not responsible for the crime that you committed, regardless if you are an immigrant or not.

              And this just speaks to the point of how “homogeneous libertarianism” breeds a xenophobic outlook on the rest of the world. No one would ever dream of requiring this type of sponsorship requirement for travel between states, even though all of the same arguments are valid for it – if I visit another state, there is certainly the possibility that I could get into trouble, consuming some of that state’s public resources. So why shouldn’t I have to post a bond just for interstate travel? Because I get the benefit of the doubt, while the foreigners don’t.

              1. Yes, that is one very powerful argument in favor of open borders. Thanks for repeating it here!

                The truth is the truth. But don’t spin it as ‘open borders’. People who come into my house UNinvited are likely to get shot and will certainly be arrested. Why should our country be any different?

                Umm, individuals are responsible for *their own* actions.

                Now, try being intellectually honest and don’t spin away from my original argument. I will agree that American citizens are responsible for “their own” actions, because that is a demonstrable conclusion based on analysis of our legal system. It is magical thinking to believe that visitors accept this same responsibility unless and until they prove their intention to do so by completing the process of becoming citizens.

                Allowing in people with exposure to nothing but corrupt government and expecting them to understand and uphold liberty is magical thinking. Sponsorship would get the government and its inability to discriminate out of the way, making working and living with immigrants a choice, which is, after all, a libertarian ideal.

                1. Umm, responsibility and self-ownership are not American concepts, they are universal concepts.

                  What you seem to be saying is that foreigners are like children who can’t be held responsible for what they do.

                  1. Which goes back to the xenophobia. Those scary furriners can’t be trusted and are to be alternatingly feared, and spat upon.

                    1. It’s not xenophobia, it’s an adverse reaction to the oikophobic practices of your team.

                    2. None of the above non-libertarians want to define what Libertarianism is or why its awesome.

                    3. Which goes back to the xenophobia.

                      Why? Only because your fallacy allows it to go nowhere else.

                      The proposal I presented, off the top of my head, not even fleshed out, allows in anyone, instantly, for any reason, as long as a US citizen/company/group is willing and able to take responsibility for opening the border to them until such time as that immigrant is a proper citizen. Post a bond, get a visa. SHOW ME THE XENOPHOBIA!

                  2. Umm, responsibility and self-ownership are not American concepts, they are universal concepts.

                    You are either ridiculously naive, or simply a thinly veiled shill for collectivism. Based on your history, I tend to think the latter.

                    Responsibility and self-ownership are alien concepts to most of the world and throughout most of history, where party(China/USSR), caste(India), tribe(Middle East), or family(Central & South America) govern most social interactions and pervade the legal systems. UK and much of Europe still have monarchs for fuck’s sake.

                    Expecting people fleeing dictatorships, military juntas, or gangs to understand or even care about liberty is MAGICAL THINKING. Why do you think they will not vote for security over liberty if you allow them a vote and over time turn this place into the place they fled.

                  3. you seem to be saying is that foreigners are like children who can’t be held responsible,

                    Engage in fallacy much? Like every single time you post? I never argued any such thing. The position I have taken requires a sponsor who is jointly liable to make sure the actual cost of immigration is properly apportioned to those receiving the benefits, the immigrant and/or the friend/spouse/employer/group who invites them.

                    “When two or more parties are jointly and severally liable for a tortious act, each party is independently liable for the full extent of the injuries stemming from the tortious act. Thus, if a plaintiff wins a money judgment against the parties collectively, the plaintiff may collect the full value of the judgment from any one of them. That party may then seek contribution from the other wrong-doers.”

              2. Jeffy, if you ever lived in any part of the world other than here or the more civilized parts of Europe you would probably meet a very quick miserable end. The only reason you exist in relative safety in the US is on the backs of people like me. Rough men willing to do brutal violence to protect our borders so a whiny little pussy like you can run his mouth and spout his drivel.

                I would tell you to ponfpdeer that, but you don’t learn. So it would be a waste of time. Like your whole life.

        2. But that’s basically the only sort of libertarianism that’s even minimally feasible. I mean, a libertarian society made up of people who aren’t culturally libertarian? Never gonna happen, except in a society like Hong Kong under Patten, where you’ve got a libertarian dictator. Probably the only example of that in all history, and it ended with them being tied up in a bow and given to China.

          A libertarian society where there’s actually a minimally democratic government can only be stable if cultural libertarians are the great majority, and unless the world is libertarian, that means, yes, secure borders and highly selective immigration.

          And except for libertarian anarchists, libertarians favor maximum sustainable liberty, not absolute liberty that lasts a week. So this isn’t alien to libertarian thought.

          Reason doesn’t reject this because it’s contrary to libertarian thought. They reject it because they’re not really libertarians anymore.

          1. Then if this is what you actually advocate, can we at least be upfront about the costs of your proposed version of libertarianism?

            Namely, that the continued pressure to keep out those “non-libertarian” foreigners represents continued violations of liberty of those citizens that those strictly enforced borders are supposed to preserve! There can’t be “secure borders” without massive loss of liberty for those residing inside the borders. Ultimately border restrictionism is just another type of prohibition, leading to the same types of enforcement tactics that every other prohibition (on drugs, guns, sex work, etc.) leads to. Namely, that innocent people who have done nothing wrong are hassled, imposed upon, and sometimes harmed and killed by the state just due to suspicion of violating the prohibition.

            This is not to mention that your version of homogeneous libertarianism leads to a paranoid and xenophobic posture towards the rest of the world. Everyone in the out-group is automatically assumed to be a troublemaker intent on harm.

            1. Is this how you respond to new people who show up at a libertarian meetup (or chat room?)

              Might explain libertarianism’s performance in national elections…

              Tell me, Jeff, in your ideal libertarian society, what happens if a person murders another person? If anything at all, how is it paid for, and how is that paying not an infringement on the rights of the payers?

              1. Yes, the taxes to pay for law enforcement and a judicial system to enforce violations of the NAP represent an infringement of the property rights of its citizens. This is considered tolerable (barely), at least by me, on a pragmatic level: because the alternative would be worse.

                Now, consider this scenario: suppose you and I are neighbors on adjacent parcels of land, and I invite you onto my property. There are no violations of the NAP, correct? No third party should get in the way, would you agree? Now, suppose that there is an international border separating our two parcels of land. How does this invitation now suddenly become a violation requiring enforcement by the state?

                1. Jeff is on extremely powerful anti-psychotic medication, but often refuses to take it. Try to keep that in mind when reading his…ahem…”posts.”

                  1. Oh look, it’s our resident attention-whoring professional troll trying to derail another conversation.

                    1. “chemjeff radical individualist|11.2.18 @ 5:03PM|#

                      Oh look, it’s our resident attention-whoring professional troll trying to derail another conversation.”

                      Hey your meds ard working, I never thought you’d be able to admit this!

                2. You tolerate the NAP infringement necessary to prosecute murder. I argue that the same applies to borders.

                  You should be free to invite guests to your home, or even to run a hotel for tourists. Theoretically, to rent to a foreigner forever. But you’re not policing the activity of your tourist. You pass that burden to the state.

                  What if your tourist is a monster, and he overpowers you, then moves on to others?

                  You brought the concept of pragmatism into this. That’s my argument as well, along with the argument of many libertarian purists who have confronted reality on this subject. There are third-world slums in many a first-world nation that speak to the practical difficulty of policing very anti-liberal peoples once they’ve become ensconced.

                  Pragmatism is a slippery slope, but the world isn’t and will never be utopia.

                  1. You tolerate the NAP infringement necessary to prosecute murder. I argue that the same applies to borders.

                    But, all else equal, there is no NAP infringement for just crossing an international border.

                    You should be free to invite guests to your home, or even to run a hotel for tourists. Theoretically, to rent to a foreigner forever. But you’re not policing the activity of your tourist. You pass that burden to the state.

                    That is correct, regardless if the guest is a foreigner or a citizen. So what exactly is the argument?

                    What if your tourist is a monster, and he overpowers you, then moves on to others?

                    What if a citizen tourist is a monster, and he overpowers you, then moves on to others?

                    What is the difference?

                    There are third-world slums in many a first-world nation that speak to the practical difficulty of policing very anti-liberal peoples once they’ve become ensconced.

                    So you want to keep these anti-liberal peoples out, even though they haven’t done anything wrong? Because you *think* that they *might* do something wrong? Based on what?

                    1. “But, all else equal, there is no NAP infringement for just crossing an international border”

                      Shorter chemleft “Nu uh!!!”

                      It’s extraordinarily tiresome that even when completely explained to him, chemleft simply denies them then struts all over the place like he did something.

                    2. “Based on what?”

                      Judgment. Same as everyone’s basis for everything they do.

                      “there is no NAP infringement for just crossing an international border”

                      There is if the owners of the far side of the border don’t want the crossing. There is also an NAP infringement for pushing a button, if that button launches a missile. Judgment, yet again.

                      Just as you’ve conceded that law-enforcement is necessary to prevent wanton murder, many of us concede that we can’t allow ourselves to be surrounded by people who don’t respect NAP before we start trying to Jackie Chan our way out of the situation.

                      It’s not ideal. It is pragmatic.

                    3. many of us concede that we can’t allow ourselves to be surrounded by people who don’t respect NAP before we start trying to Jackie Chan our way out of the situation.

                      You don’t KNOW if the individuals involved “don’t respect the NAP”. You are simply assuming that they do, based on a group characteristic. How do you know if they don’t respect the NAP unless they actually do something that violates the NAP?

                      If you think this exception to the NAP is justified – to avoid being surrounded by people you don’t like, even if they haven’t actually violated the NAP, but based on a group characteristic – then this opens up a giant can of worms. For example, suppose a neighbor moves in next to me that I just don’t like. He hasn’t done anything wrong – yet – but I just don’t like all the tattoos that he has. Should I have the legitimate power to have him evicted by the state, based on nothing more than my antipathy towards him and his scary tattoos? If so, then you have turned property rights into a collective right, not an individual right. Is that *really* what you think libertarianism ought to be?

                    4. ‘You don’t KNOW if the individuals involved “don’t respect the NAP”.’

                      shorter: Libertarianism is a suicide pact.

                    5. Is the right to keep and bear arms a “suicide pact” when many people use those guns for evil purposes?

                      Maybe the state ought to apply your prejudicial logic to the right to own guns. After all, the state doesn’t know if the prospective gun buyer is going to use that gun for self-defense, or use that gun to kill preschoolers. Better be safe than sorry and ban gun ownership. Sound fair to you? No? Oh, well then.

                    6. Do I call the police when I hear a woman screaming and gunshots in said neighbor’s house, or just ignore it?

                      You’re imposing the notion that judgment will be deeply flawed. There’s a lot of truth to this, which is why a libertarian should aspire to make judgements impose on others as little as possible.

                      And that leads us back to pragmatism. As much as we’d like to make human judgment not be part of the equation, this world is comprised of… humans. A perfect libertarian constitution will still have to be enforced. Perfect laws will still come down to some court acting on evidence to convict or acquit, and while we might agree it should err on the side of acquittal, it will be imperfect nonetheless.

                      We agree that given a fairly ideal libertarian state, open borders are best. Where we disagree, probably impassably, is whether REAL states, with their damnable social welfare, are made closer to or further from ideal by barring anti-NSP leeches from entering and voting.

                    7. barring anti-NSP leeches from entering and voting.

                      How do you know who is an “anti-NAP leech”?

                      In my above example, should I have the legitimate power to use the state to evict my scary tattooed neighbor? After all, he looks like he might be one of those scary anti-NAP guys, at least from my point of view. Or maybe he should enjoy the benefit of the doubt unless he demonstrates otherwise?

                    8. “How do you know who is an “anti-NAP leech”?”

                      Well, duh. Suppose you’ve got two hypothetical states. State A is a nightwatchman state where you’re maximally free, including free to starve to death if you’ve got squat other people want.

                      State B is a welfare state where people who do well are taxed to raise people who don’t do well, (Or just don’t bother doing!) to a living standard much better than your average 3rd world country.

                      Who travels to state A? Who travels to state B?

                      We’re a welfare state, which means we attract leaches. Everybody understood that, which is why libertarian ideology said that open border came AFTER achieving a nightwatchman state!

                      The order has only been reversed now because the institutional LP has been taken over by leftists who deprioritize or reject every part of libertarianism that conflicts with leftism.

              2. Jeffy is very stupid. We destroy his arguments and discredit his ideas here daily. Over and over. But Jeffy doesn’t ever learn.

            2. “Namely, that the continued pressure to keep out those “non-libertarian” foreigners represents continued violations of liberty of those citizens that those strictly enforced borders are supposed to preserve! ”

              “muh anarchy”

              Keeping people out of your clubhouse is not a violation of their rights.

              Anarchist libertarians are much like communists. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
              Governments are our means for protecting liberty.
              Markets are our means for producing wealth.

              They want the effect while destroying the cause.

              1. The nation is not “your clubhouse”.
                Are you too going to start asserting collective property rights over everyone’s property?

                1. “muh anarchy”

                2. “muh anarchy”

                  1. “muh authoritarian”

                3. Jeffy, your parents didn’t beat you nearly enough.

              2. And once again you are just proving my point. You explicitly endorse a two-tiered system of rights – rights for the “chosen ones” (Americans) and much fewer rights for everyone else. I guess we’ve thrown overboard the whole “all men are created equal” concept too, haven’t we?

                1. They have the same rights to exclude me from their countries as I have to exclude them from mine.

                  When you’ve got anarchotopia working, where everyone has rights without those organizations enforcing those rights, give me a call.

                  1. They have the same rights to exclude me from their countries as I have to exclude them from mine.

                    Should they? If so, why?

              3. Governments are our means for protecting liberty.

                Yes they are. And I am fully in favor of the concept of government as a protector of liberty. I’m not an anarchist.

                Are you going to address the costs to liberty OF CITIZENS of your preferred border restrictionist program?

                1. Life is full of tradeoffs.

                  If there were no criminals, we wouldn’t need the police.
                  If there were no illegal aliens, we wouldn’t need border restrictionist programs.

                  I don’t live in magical unicorn pony land, where we can have all we want for the price of wishing for it. Where we can have our cake and eat it too.

                  Maybe someday you’ll realize that you don’t live there either.

                  1. Well at least you admit there’s a tradeoff to be made. Progress at last!

                    So why don’t you discuss some of those tradeoffs you are bravely willing to make with MY liberty.

                    For example, you want “mandatory e-Verify”, right? Would you care to discuss what this *actually* means in practice, and how much of a burden it will be on everyone?

                    If there were no illegal aliens, we wouldn’t need border restrictionist programs.

                    I have an easy-peasy way to get rid of all the illegal aliens. Want to hear what it is?

                    1. You’re going to bitch at them like you do everyone else?

                    2. Oh look our attention whore is back.

                    3. Why do you announce that you’re back like that?

                      Stick to being a leftist who is embarrassingly wrong about libertarianism, and we will see you’re back without your proclamation.

                    4. Stick to being a leftist who is embarrassingly wrong about libertarianism

                      That’s such a negative way to portray yourself. Perhaps you should read a book on the subject. Or better yet, go back to smoking crack.

                    5. I like how you tried to do what I did, but because you’re also an idiot, it didn’t make any sense.

                    6. The best part is that it proves my posts deeply upset you, and that your response is to be shockingly derivative.

                    7. Your posts don’t upset me. You’re just lame and boring. You’re a sad sad troll who, by his own admission, has been trolling at Reason for YEARS and years. That is pathetic by any standard. I realize that you are going to respond with some lame comeback to what I write no matter what I say. Because you literally have nothing better to do. Because this is how you find joy in your life. Which is beyond sad.

                    8. Please, prove how pathetic you are by calling me some more names. Please.

                    9. “Your posts don’t upset me.”

                      Proof they upset you.

                      “Please, prove how pathetic you are by calling me some more names. ”

                      Even more proof.

                      Of course I obviously upset you, what I say about you is true, and you’re wasting a Friday night proving you don’t understand tenses.

                      Couple that with you trying to be like me, and it is obvious you are utterly apoplectic.

                    10. Well have fun crying yourself to sleep tonight, again.

                    11. You used pathetic twice, even your vocabulary is uninspired.

                    12. “crying”

                      There you go imitating what I do again!

                      Lololol

                    13. “You’re a sad sad troll who, by his own admission, has been trolling at Reason for YEARS and years. That is pathetic by any standard. ”

                      But arguing with me on a Friday night by trying to replicate what I did and proving you don’t understand tenses is far far worse.

                    14. He realized I was right about how sad he is for wasting his Friday getting kicked around by me, instead of selling his manpussy for 5 bucks a pop like he normally does.

                    15. I got no problem with e-verify.

                      I show up with my birth certificate and social security card to every new job.

                      Your solution to get rid of illegal aliens is to get rid of America. Heard it before.

                    16. YOU have no problem with e-Verify.
                      Are you going to discuss honestly the costs associated with e-Verify? What a mandatory e-Verify system would mean for all employers everywhere? No, you’re just going to wave your hands and say “oh it’s not a big deal”, kind of like how you presume open border advocates blithely dismiss the costs of their ideas? Oh, I see.

                    17. The costs of e-verify are as nothing compared to the cost of importing enough big government voters for a permanent big government electoral majority.

                      When are *you* going to stop waving away the fact that countries are people?

                      Import Not Americans. Become Not America.

                2. Countries that have no borders arent countries you stupid little piece of shit.

          2. I mean, a libertarian society made up of people who aren’t culturally libertarian?

            So that means you’re right out then?

        3. Nobody can be made to involuntarily participate an ideology. Just look at “democracy in Iraq”.

          The intellectual circle-jerk that is so many self-declared “true libertarians” suggests that to expect/require participants in a libertarian society to believe in libertarian society is not only unnecessary, but actually antithetical to libertarian philosophy.

          It SHOULD go without saying that participants in a libertarian experiment have to buy in, just as any other non-authoritarian system requires buy-in. Unfortunately, Leftist rhetoric has (quite ironically) characterized any buy-in expectation (to non-Leftist ideology) as “nationalism” of the ugly, “racist” sort.

          Too many “libertarians” have proven vulnerable to their propaganda.

          1. A libertarian who understands and upholds the non-aggression principle was already for free movement of people and free association before hearing any leftist propaganda.

            1. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I was once a world-without-borders type too. I think it was Hayek who said that experience made him a nationalist against his better desires, or something like that.

              We would solve a lot if we could eliminate the welfare state and its incentive to leech.

              But houses have doors, doors have locks, and libertarian homeowners have guns. All for a reason.

            2. “A libertarian who understands and upholds the non-aggression principle was already for free movement of people and free association before hearing any leftist propaganda.”

              Oh jesus, this flatly nonsensical crap again.

            3. NAP is a different concept from state sovereignty to protect its borders.

              Just like NAP allows preemptive self defense when an actual threat is imminent. You dont have to wait for people to kill you before you can shoot back.

          2. Truthfully, I think only a very few set of ground rules are necessary for libertarianism to flourish. The most important of these is the NAP. In addition, you need a state that is unable to amass vast amounts of power over its citizens, so that if some rogue individuals want to use the state to oppress the people, they will be thwarted by the inability of the state to have the means to do so. And that’s pretty much it. It doesn’t matter if individuals like socialism, or communism, or anarchism, or anything else. As long as they aren’t intent on imposing it on others by force (violating the NAP), that’s totally cool with me at least.

            Would someone who fervently believes in Marxist socialism be more likely to want to use the state to further his aims? Sure, but if the state’s powers do not permit such designs to be implemented, then it doesn’t matter what our Marxist socialist friend wants, he won’t be able to achieve it.

            So cultural homogeneity isn’t really necessary for libertarianism. All that is really needed is a minimal commitment to what is essentially the Golden Rule. And that isn’t a tough sell.

            1. Apparently it is.

              1. It is? Look at all of the transactions and interactions that you engage in on a daily basis. How many times are you aggressed against in those transactions, compared to the total number?

            2. As for the risk of having a Marxist socialist in a state where the government doesn’t have the power to do what he wants:

              It was once illegal to tax income in this country. Then more of its population became socialist. You know the rest.

              It is of course impossible to prevent the native population from changing its ideology to something horrible. One could argue that it is even inevitable.

              But what is the point of having principles if one is unwilling to at least try to promote/preserve them?

              An employer doesn’t hire everyone who walks up to his door. Why should a nation?

              1. It was once illegal to tax income in this country. Then more of its population became socialist. You know the rest.

                Then perhaps the constitutional prohibitions were not strong enough.

                It is of course impossible to prevent the native population from changing its ideology

                There is no such thing as an ideology of “the native population”. Only individuals have ideology.

                But what is the point of having principles if one is unwilling to at least try to promote/preserve them?

                WHOSE principles? Mine? Yours?

                An employer doesn’t hire everyone who walks up to his door. Why should a nation?

                An employer ought to have every right to hire whomever he/she wishes, including everyone who walks up to the door. Agreed? This is because the employer has property rights over his/her property. A “nation” does not have these property rights, only individuals do. So it is not up to the “nation” to decide what individuals may wish to do, again consistent with the very basic ground rules like the NAP.

                1. You misapplied my employer example. I wasn’t talking about whether he should be required to hire everyone. I was talking about whether he wants to.

                  I don’t see the fact that beliefs exist at the individual level being relevant to any of this. If you’re going to get hung up on principles belonging only to the people who hold them, then why bother promoting libertarianism?

                  You’re making it difficult to build an argument. For either of us.

                  Oh, and there are no prohibitions, constitutional or otherwise, that are strong enough to survive a people changing their mind. It’s just paper.

                  1. chemleft can’t advocate for libertarianism because he isn’t a libertarian and hasn’t educated himself on the subject, including the history of the movement.

                    He’s just an ideologically inconsistent contrarian looking for something to latch onto, but his having no actual principles makes anyone who interacts with him recoil.

                    1. Oh that’s rich, the professional troll accusing me of having no principles.

                      Please, attention whore harder

                    2. Will that make you cry harder?

                    3. He’s really stupid too.

                  2. The bottom line, I think, is that you want to apply police powers to punish ‘violations’ that don’t implicate the NAP at all, and you’re justifying it by appealing to the legitimacy of using police powers to punish violations of the NAP, like murder.

                    If/when you can show that merely crossing a border violates the NAP in some way, then I’ll listen.

                    But, as in my neighbor example above, just crossing an international border per se, all else equal, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

                    Now, if that crossing occurs at the expense of someone’s individual private property rights, then you would have a case. But not because the person crossed an international border, but because the person crossed a property line.

                    1. Your bottom line is basically correct. I argue that the nation has property and property rights that can be violated, which I interpret as an NAP violation.

                      I understand the danger of applying rights to a collective (or worse, a river…), but I argue that once you’ve agreed that police should exist, you’ve agreed to the existence of a police station, and that while no individual officer owns the station, trespassing there is still an NAP violation.

                      Given this, I argue that a libertarian society has a border, in that on the other side of it exists people who don’t respect NAP. A libertarian society that has bowed to pragmatism and allowed for the existence of a state to defend NAP can (and should) think about whether to allow enemies of NAP to cross that border freely.

                    2. A libertarian society that has bowed to pragmatism and allowed for the existence of a state to defend NAP can (and should) think about whether to allow enemies of NAP to cross that border freely.

                      I agree with this. But the question is, how do you know who is an “enemy of the NAP”? You seem to want to use group characteristics to judge entire collectives of people as guilty. That seems extremely unlibertarian.

                    3. “Oh that’s rich, the professional troll accusing me of having no principles.”

                      You’re accusing yourself of having no principles?

                      You’re right, you don’t.

                    4. “That seems extremely unlibertarian.”

                      You’re a leftist, your declarations on what is and is not libertarian are as worthless as the rest of your schizophrenia induced hallucinations.

                    5. And you’re a troll just seeking attention.
                      If you call 1-900-TROLL-PHONE-SEX, you can get some attention there too. Why not check it out?

                    6. “Hi I’m chemleft and I don’t understand tenses!!!”

                    7. Well chemjeff’s run back to the redoubt of an argument’s loser, calling people “trolls”. I suppose if this were twitter, he’d be shrieking “Russian Bot!”

                    8. Yes, he is an extraordinarily small mind with little if anything of value to say.

            3. “So cultural homogeneity isn’t really necessary for libertarianism. All that is really needed is a minimal commitment to what is essentially the Golden Rule. And that isn’t a tough sell.”

              You state that cultural homogeneity isn’t really necessary, and then in the next sentence specify what sort of cultural homogeneity IS necessary. Do you even read your own copy?

              And, yeah, the world suggests it IS a tough sell. Look around you, how many libertarian societies do you see?

              Look, I already went over this: We don’t want a libertarian society that automatically self-destructs. We want a libertarian society that’s sustainable.

              A libertarian society inhabited by people who mostly aren’t libertarians isn’t sustainable, it’s unstable unless the government, (And there WILL be a government!) isn’t the least bit democratic. The non-libertarian people will keep asking for one exception after another, and in a democracy, they’ll get them, and the society will evolve away from being libertarian.

              And yet we know that undemocratic governments don’t tend to be libertarian in the real world, they tend to be authoritarian. And the one exception rolled things up and handed everybody over to a totalitarian state when administrations changed.

              In order for a libertarian society to be sustainable, the inhabitants must be mostly libertarians, and in a world where most people aren’t libertarians, that means you can’t have open borders.

          3. Countries are people.

            A libertarian country requires libertarian people.

            Import Not Americans, become Not America.

            1. Countries are people.

              “Government is the name for the things that we do together”

              1. “Chemjeff is the name for the downie who posts on Reason and gets laughed at!

                1. Chemjeff is always not even close to being an libertarian.

              2. “I can make a steak with chicken thighs”

                1. So if “countries are people”, what kind of country is America? The country with people like Obama? Or the country with people like Trump?

                  1. The US is a country *barely* hanging on by a thread from becoming permanently ruled by a largely hereditary ruling class, entrenched by untouchable power in the Deep State and imported big government voters.

                    If Hillary had won, the American Revolution was done. Democracy was *already* comatose, with the Obama administration using the IRS, law enforcement, and the judiciary to rig elections, in cahoots with the MSM and tech oligopolies.

                    But they screwed up! They underestimated Trump and lost! It was miracle.

                    But Trump only bought time unless he drains the Deep State. If the Left is not held accountable, next time they’re in, the Deep State won’t be taking any chances. The next election the Left wins will be the last real election in the US.

          4. ” Just look at “democracy in Iraq”.”

            Pat Buchanan was right when he laughed at the NeoCons and their plans of spreading freedom to Iraq.

        4. We want liberty in a society that will support it. We are the consequentialist libertarians. We want to preserve actual liberty in the world.

          The Open Borders Crowd – those that aren’t simply post modern Marxists consciously trying to destroy America – are deontologist clericolibertarians, . They want to avoid the sin of initiation of force, and if that wipes liberty from the face of the earth, that’s fine and dandy, because “muh principles”.

          1. If you want to declare yourself to be a “consequentialist libertarian”, then you had better fully embrace the description.

            For starters, you may want to explain why the private ownership of guns should be tolerated in this country, when all the statistics show that gun violence and gun deaths are higher in this country than in any other advanced country.

            Then, you may want to explain why the provision of health care should be in the hands of private organizations, when all the statistics show that publicly-run health care systems yield superior outcomes in other advanced countries.

            If you really want to be a consequentalist, you had better OWN IT.

            1. Like I own you?

            2. “For starters, you may want to explain why the private ownership of guns should be tolerated in this country, when all the statistics show that gun violence and gun deaths are higher in this country than in any other advanced country.”

              Did your stats take into account Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?

              1. Chemleft likes to make exceptionally stupid proclamations and provide no evidence and then insult people who point out how exceptionally stupid and devoid of proof his proclamations are.

              2. No no no. Consequentialism means that you look at the results of exercising that liberty now, not in some hypothetical case where the US becomes Nazi Germany. We see the results now. Why won’t you support limiting a person’s right to own guns, Mr. Consequentialist?

                As I figured, you are only a consequentialist when it suits you.

                1. “As I figured, you are only a consequentialist when it suits you.”

                  You only look at data that suits you.

                  And obviously have no clue why we have a 2nd amendment. It’s not about duck hunting. It’s about people being able to defend themselves from criminals and criminal government.

                  “Why won’t you support limiting a person’s right to own guns, Mr. Consequentialist?”

                  Tens of millions of disarmed civilians murdered by their governments in the 20th Century attest to that being a bad idea.

            3. “Advanced country” is doing all the work there; You have to seriously restrict the domain of countries you examine to make this case even look facially plausible, and even then it collapses the moment it’s examined with any rigor.

      2. Libertarianism in US-political context often refers to Christian right-wing individualists (as long as the individual isn’t gay, that is). I’d put Reason more in a continental/classical-liberal tradition, which, to add to the confusion, libertarianism can mean as well.

        1. What sorts of individual rights do yokeltarians, Christian or otherwise, want to deny to gay people?

          1. Well, the right to conscript florists, for one.

            Libertarianism recognizes that you can only really have those choices where you yourself bear the costs of the choice. If you’re spared the cost, eventually whoever is paying the piper will end up calling the tune.

            Believers in positive rights reject that. They want to expand “freedom” by taking away from people natural costs of their behavior, like having huge medical bills if you go and contract some hideous disease inserting tab A in slot C instead of B. Or having trouble more trouble finding a florist than the average guy, if you’re marrying another guy.

  11. This typical Leftropaganda tactics- the target of your attack cannot possibly survive the hit job unlessthey agree with the Lefty position.

    Arpaio gets hammered for arresting people.
    Arpaio get hammered for the running of his jail.
    Arpaio gets hammered for releasing people.

    1. Arpaio gets hammered for arresting people.
      Arpaio get hammered for the running of his jail.
      Arpaio gets hammered for releasing people.

      I don’t think you could have more thoroughly missed the point of the article.

      1. Considering the #14 debacle, he thoroughly missed his nick as well.

      2. LovesTrumpsCock69er has a habit of missing the point of Reason articles.

        1. Poor trolls.

      3. In all likelihood, he got hammered into unwillingly releasing the guy. It happened enough times.

  12. If I didn’t know better I’d say Reason’s writers actually want the magazine to fold due to lack of readership. My guess is that by now their donations are down to 0 dollars per year.

    1. No. Charles Koch drops $100,000 in the Reason’s coffers every time Nick swallows.

      1. “$100,000”
        Oh wow. And here I thought Reason writers were cheap whores.

        1. Once you divide it up among the whole staff? They are cheap.

  13. That looks like a very effective commercial. This is one of the rare issues where, in our polarized time, you have something that reaches across the aisle and can appeal to suburban moms, blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc.–various groups that are booming in number and are becoming the core of the Democratic base. If Repulbicans can put off their inevitable obsolescence this law-and-order angle will be one of the reasons!

    1. If Repulbicans can put off their inevitable obsolescence this law-and-order pandering to fear angle will be one of the reasons!

      There, FIFY

      1. Whatever you want to call it; I was being being descriptive rather than suggesting approval or disapproval. In fact myself I happen to bear few characteristics of “law and order” types; I am pro-death penalty and that’s about it. I am most often bitching about the innumerable law-and-order moral panics that we suffer as a society.

        But this is a good ad for those above mentioned groups especially, no doubt about it. This country responds to law and order appeals and those groups do especially, whether we like it or not.

      2. If this is “pandering to fear”, then so is everything that everyone everywhere ever says.

  14. “Shackford’s main point was that Luis Bracamontes, who now sits on death row in California, is in no way representative of illegal immigrants, much less legal ones. Immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans, among other things.”

    You really think nobody noticed the switcheroo between illegal immigrants, and “immigrants”, unqualified? Fallacy of equivocation here.

  15. Luis Bracamontes, who now sits on death row in California

    Now all California needs is a real Death Row again, instead of a retirement village with free meals and recreation.

  16. Racist against whites? That dude looks pretty fucking white.

    1. White Hispanics are all the rage.

      The Anglo American countries are relatively free, secure, and prosperous compared to the Hispanic American countries. Culture matters.

  17. Things Cato and Nick don’t want you to read
    John Lott

    1. Interesting, and pretty much common sense backs this finding. As I noted above:

      Allowing in people with exposure to nothing but corrupt government and expecting them to understand and uphold liberty is magical thinking.

      1. Do you deny the power of American magic dirt?

    2. +1
      The commenters are the only reason to keep coming to Reason.

    3. +1000 thanks

  18. Clinton and the Democrats were extremely hostile to illegal immigration, building parts of their 1996 campaign platform around the theme of militarizing the border

    But did nothing. It was pure electioneering.

  19. his contention that he can end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right, by executive order is just the most-recent example of this ignorance

    Well, it wasn’t until the 1960s when the bureaucrats started to allow children of transients to be citizens. And since it wasn’t statute or court ruling, executive order could change the bureaucratic behavior.

    Nick seems to be ignorant of history.

    1. “birthright citizenship, a constitutional right”

      Begging the question.

      The 14th conspicuously did *not* grant birthright citizenship to Native Americans, who though born in the US, were subjects of Native American Tribal governments, and therefore *not* made automatic citizens by birth until THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.

      There was no legislative change similarly granting birthright citizenship to babies born in the US to citizens of all other polities in the world.

  20. “Every argument I can’t refute is racist”

    Reason now race baits.

    Is there any doubt they’re leftist identitarians?

    1. Maybe they’re just trying to fit in with all the hip, cool kids at Vox and the NYT.
      If Dean Baquet and Ezra Klein are wearing the ideological equivalent of chartreuse Daisy Dukes, Gillespie wants to wear chartreuse Daisy Dukes

      1. Both consciously and unconsciously trying to fit in with the cool kids.

        I think that many are just wired to believe that which is socially advantageous to believe. It’s not just that they’re consciously trying to fit in, it’s that the beliefs that fit in are what their brains recognize as True.

        How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
        They can always see the number the Party wants them to see.

  21. Heavens to Betsy! Inflammatory rhetoric in a political campaign!

  22. Smells like Nicky is desperate.

  23. Nick’s #FakeNews.

  24. “We shouldn’t be using outliers and extreme cases when discussing immigration, much less building policy around such people.”

    That’s right Nick, we shouldn’t be… Yet that is EXACTLY what YOUR side is doing.

    The average illegal immigrant from Mexico has an 8th grade education, it’s probably lower from Central America. Makes far too little money to support the tax burden they create in our highly redistributionist system. That’s IF they don’t have kids, if they do they could be blowing more JUST for their kids education than they GROSS in pay in a year. They commit more crimes than native born people. If they get amnesty, or they birth kids here, they vote overwhelmingly for the left.

    I could go on. THAT is the statistically average illegal immigrant. As opposed to a nice Chinese or Indian IT engineer who moves in. They WILL commit fewer crimes, be net tax payers, not use a dime in welfare, and make the country more prosperous. Quit being such a willful fucking liar Nick! There’s NO WAY you can’t know all this stuff after being a “reporter” for so long.

  25. “In any case, we’d have much more productive discussions if we began talking honestly about the history and contemporary reality of immigration.”

    Yes, we could. Like how the country was the most stable and prosperous when we had the lowest immigration rates in history? That’s an interesting part of the history of immigration nobody on your side seems to talk about. Or how about how the overwhelming majority of Americans favor ONLY letting in skilled immigrants? Or how the majority of the country wants the same or lower levels of legal immigration, and as little illegal immigration as possible?

    But you don’t want to “talk honestly” about any of that stuff do you? Fucking tool.

    1. And the shitty Reason website ate my other, strongest comment the one time I didn’t copy it before posting because the website is so janky…

  26. “Immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans, among other things.”

    This is a lie and a distortion rolled up into one!

    Illegal immigrants DO NOT. Don’t go mixing them up with legal ones. Hispanics are ~16% of the population, yet commit ~35% of murders. Almost all Hispanics in the USA are either illegal immigrants, or the children/grandchildren of them, since America was less than 2% Hispanic pre 1965, and most did not get here legally. They are the 2nd most criminal group in America after blacks.

    The deception is “native” stats count blacks and Hispanics that were born here in the numbers… Technically correct, but anybody using black crime rates as an acceptable “bar” for criminality is insane. White and Asian Americans have a LOWER crime rate than even legal immigrants if you adjust for this. Some people know how to pull logic and useful facts out of statistics, at least when we’re not wearing blinders.

    In short, if Hispanics move into an area, unless they’re displacing a black community, the crime rate is going to go WAY THE FUCK UP in that area. Anybody who has lived in an area where this has happened has seen it with their own eyes. I did growing up in California. I never worried about white or Asian kids stealing my bike, that’s for sure.

    It might not be nice, or PC, but it’s all fucking true. If a part Mexican guy from California can admit it, can’t an Irish-Italian hipster?

  27. Twisted.

    The question isn’t about who let him in or who let him loose 20 years ago.

    The question is about which party wants to get people like him the hell out of the country, and which party wants to protect people like him from deportation.

    1. For educated, successful, and decent people, the question is which party embraces and appeases the bigots.

      For disaffected, shambling, authoritarian people, there is not question, just slack-jawed adoration of Pres. Trump.

      Carry on, clingers. So long as your betters permit, anyway,

      See you on Tuesday.

  28. Stop conflating crime statistics between illegal and legal immigrants.

    The studies have shown the legal immigrants are more law-abiding than the general population. They also show that illegal immigrants are over-represented in crime statistics; which makes sense since they have no problem violating our border laws.

    The truth is that illegal immigrants break more laws than the general population. Don’t try to whitewash it.

    1. https://preview.tinyurl.com/y9rz7cqo

      “As a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56 percent fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015,” author Alex Nowrasteh writes.

      The data shows similar patterns for violent crimes such as homicide and property crimes such as larceny.

      Another study, published in March in the journal Criminology, looked at population-level crime rates

      States with larger shares of undocumented immigrants tended to have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares in the years 1990 through 2014.
      Light and Miller ran a number of statistical analyses to more clearly isolate the effects of illegal immigration from those other factors. Among other things, they find that the relationship between high levels of illegal immigration and low levels of crime persists even after controlling for various economic and demographic factors such as age, urbanization, labor market conditions and incarceration rates.

      1. Bullocks.

        The biggest distortion in those “facts” is that they’re ignoring what people REALLY mean. Which is they increase crime anywhere they go, assuming they’re not displacing even more dysfunctional communities of color…

        In the USA blacks (13% of population) commit about 50% of murders every year, Hispanics (16% of population) commit about 35%. BOTH are far over represented compared to their percentage of the population.

        AT BEST, the argument one could make is that Hispanic immigrants are less criminal than blacks. The illegals themselves are often not super horrible, but their children have huge spikes in criminality. This is well documented.

        But ignoring that everybody (whites, Asians, Jews, Indians, etc) BUT blacks and Hispanics commit ONLY 15% or so of murders every year shows what a bullshit deception they have to play in order to sell this lie.

        Sure, illegals commit fewer crimes than blacks, and native born Hispanics… But that they’re less criminal than the 2 most criminal groups in America is NOT really where one wants to set the bar, is it?

        If the south side of Chicago is acceptable levels of criminality to you… Well you can keep it buddy, other people have standards!

  29. 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

  30. 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.