Paul Manafort

Manafort's Lies Are Mueller's Loss, Too—But Good News for Trump: Reason Roundup

Plus: What the heck is happening in Ukraine? And please give Reason your money.

|

@caitlin__kelly/Twitter

Paul Manafort's plea deal is falling apart, as FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller accuses him of lying in his statement. It's bad news for both men—but good news for President Trump. Federal prosecutors didn't say what Manafort allegedly lied about (other than that it involved "a variety of subject matters") or how they had caught it.

"Manafort denied doing so intentionally, but both sides agreed in a court filing that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson…should set sentencing immediately," reports The Washington Post.

The filing also indicated that Mueller's team may have lost its potentially most valuable witness in Manafort, a top campaign official present at discussions at the heart of the special counsel's mission to determine if any Americans conspired with Russia's efforts to sway the U.S. election.

As a former manager of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Manafort is certainly privy to lots of private information about how it operated, including whether it "colluded" with Russians.

But that's not what Manafort was under fire for in federal criminal court; those charges stemmed from Manafort's years as a sort of international calamity mercenary, providing political consulting services to shady authoritarian characters worldwide and, particularly, for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and other pro-Russia politicians in Ukraine.

In August, a jury found Manafort guilty of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to report a foreign bank account. A mistrial was declared on 10 remaining charges, which could have meant a second jury trial to consider whether he was guilty of failing to register as a foreign agent, money laundering, witness tampering, and lying to federal prosecutors.

The following month, Manafort accepted a plea deal, copping to two counts of conspiracy (one against the U.S. and one to obstruct justice), and agreeing to cooperate in Mueller's Russia probe.

Now, prosecutors say in the court filing that "after signing the plea agreement, Manafort committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel's Office on a variety of subject matters, which constitute breaches of the agreement."

Here was Trump's response:

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, current President Petro Poroshenko's proposed declaration of martial law for 30 days was just approved by the country's parliament, following a flare-up in conflict with Russia. "There's little debate about what happened Sunday when three Ukrainian naval vessels attempted to pass through a narrow bottleneck separating the Crimean Peninsula and the Russian mainland," said NPR's Lucian Kim yesterday.

In a video filmed aboard a Russian coast guard ship, crewmembers can be heard cursing before ramming a Ukrainian tugboat. Neither side denies that later the Russian coast guard opened fire to stop the other two Ukrainian vessels and seized all three of them together with their crews. Ukraine says six seamen were injured, and the Kremlin accused Ukraine of committing a dangerous provocation.

Poroshenko framed his move as necessary in the face of potential Russian aggression on land. Emma Ashford of the Cato Institute comments:

And from journalist Michael Tracey:

Among U.S. political elites, that's certainly been true. The Hill reports that "Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) on Monday urged President Trump to commit additional military assistance to Ukraine in response to Russian aggression near Crimea." And here's Nikki Haley at the United Nations emergency session yesterday:

@USEmbVilnius/Twitter

FREE MARKETS

Do you like us? Now's the time to show it! It's the first day of Reason's annual webathon (and "Giving Tuesday," if you're into that sort of thing). More details here.

QUICK HITS

Advertisement

NEXT: What Do We Do for an Encore?: Support the Next 50 Years of Reason

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. DID SOMEONE SAY THERE ARE DONUTS???

    Oh, donate.

    1. Hello.

      1. What?!? No Tim Horton comment?

  2. The Phony Witch Hunt continues, but Mueller and his gang of Angry Dems are only looking at one side, not the other. Wait until it comes out how horribly & viciously they are treating people, ruining lives for them refusing to lie. Mueller is a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue….
    ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2018

    But did that convince Twitter?

    1. I remember a time when REASON would rake dickhead prosecutors over the coals for shits and giggles.

      1. Them not going after such a despicable character like Mueller is unfortunate.

        1. No kidding, he makes Jeff Sessions look like a Keebler Elf.

          1. To be fair, so does everyone.

          2. “he makes Jeff Sessions look like a Keebler Elf.”

            ‘Look like’? You mean, he isn’t?

        2. Hey, this isn’t Preet we’re talking about. This guy is working to bring down a literal Nazi regime right here in America.

          You know who else got in bed with Russians?

          1. Walter Duranty and the New York Times?

          2. Gregory Hines?

          3. James Bond?

          4. The Vikings?

          5. Inspector Clouseau?

          6. Hillary?

          7. Bionic Barry? Other Barry?

      2. Why is *Mueller* despicable?
        Argue all you want that his mandate delivered to him by DOJ was too broad. But why is Mueller a dickhead for working within the very broad mandate that was delivered to him?

        1. You know, he has a track record from BEFORE this.

          1. Everything Jeff knows about Mueller can be found in this article. He has the curiosity and information retention of a gold fish. Ignore Enron. Ignore the anthrax investigation.

  3. Sen. Tom Cotton is using the prospect of scary sex offenders to try and thwart a widely-backed prison sentencing reform bill (the FIRST STEP Act).

    Cotton, the fabric of our lies.

    Ooo, that’s a good one. Someone write that down.

    1. Also, as a winter hiker, Cotton kills.

  4. “Do bots have First Amendment rights?”

    I don’t know. Can autonomous cars have their driving privileges revoked?

    1. Autobots are the good guys, its the decpticons we need to watch out for.

      1. I can never keep that straight.

  5. Three cheers for #FOIA, thanks to which we now have the video of a border agent’s gender reveal explosion that ended up burning 47,000 acres of land https://t.co/FLaZ3AsP7a pic.twitter.com/V71v2Zg1Ck
    ? Peter Bonilla (@pebonilla) November 27, 2018

    Doing his job by making America less desirable for the illegal immigrant by burning it.

    1. Since gender reveal parties typically use blue smoke to announce a male baby and pink smoke to announce a girl, Dickey’s wife presumably was expecting a boy.

      The flames signify it’s going to be a ginger.

      1. Is that it? I had assumed the burning down 40k acres meant it was a girl.

      2. Gingers prove wrong the Catholic doctrine of when a soul enters a body.

    2. Was the gender reveal party part of his duties as a border agent? Because, otherwise I am not sure how his employment is relevant.

      1. That the witness video had to be obtained through an FOIA request suggests that his federal employment initially shielded him from public scrutiny.

  6. Read Shoshana Weissmann on why Kavanaugh-replacement Neomi Rao was “right about dwarf tossing, dignity, and consent.”

    You must be this tall to act as a stunt performer.

  7. Ukraine’s strongman president, whose government is demonstrably backed by actual Nazis, declares martial law and of course the big US media reaction is that Russia hasn’t been condemned aggressively enough
    ? Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 27, 2018

    Wrong kind of Nazis, I suppose.

    1. “Ukraine’s strongman president, whose government is demonstrably backed by actual Nazis…”

      Is that the reason Russia is giving for attacking the ships?

      1. Maybe they didn’t like being blockaded.

      2. Russian bots have now invaded antifa.

  8. “The filing also indicated that Mueller’s team may have lost its potentially most valuable witness in Manafort, a top campaign official present at discussions at the heart of the special counsel’s mission to determine if any Americans conspired with Russia’s efforts to sway the U.S. election.”

    And here they thought they had Trump dead-to-rights on that parking ticket from 2012!

    1. As near as I can tell, they never had him as a valuable witness. Typically, if you’re using somebody as a witness against somebody else, the stuff they’re going to testify to is detailed in the plea agreement. They confess to it under oath, so that they can’t later change their story.

      This doesn’t appear to have happened in Manafort’s case.

      I’m guessing that Mueller is starting to get desperate, and is now threatening anybody he’s got leverage over, demanding they implicate Trump in SOMETHING. And he’s getting bupkis.

  9. Has anyone noticed how rags like Vogue and other publications has treated FLOTUS?

    It’s nuts how disrespectful they are. The side that goes high when you go low, eh? The side that always talks about ‘civil discourse’, hm?

    Idjits! Fools!

    Meanwhile they spent so much energy over rating Michelle’s beauty and sense of style and good taste.

    No homo.

    1. Melina Trump is a no kidding underwear model. And she seems ageless. And she dresses well and always looks good in the moment. I have never seen that woman as first lady where she didn’t act with dignity and class. And the media treats her like a whore. Meanwhile Michelle Obama was constantly being mean spirited and nasty and divisive and they acted like she was Jacki Kennedy or the Queen. It is disgraceful.

      1. And Melania, from what little I’ve read, seems vastly more thoughtful.

        Michelle talked smack and they passed it off as being ‘smart’.

        It’s a no contest in my view all around.

        1. Melania speaks multiple languages. She really did draw the genitc inside straight of being gorgeous and very intelligent. She is likely much smarter than Michelle. But the vicious hags in the media would never admit that because they are so butt hurt and jealous of her.

          1. Yeah I’m pretty shamelessly ageist in my tastes but Melania is one hot mom! I do also like that she is smart. I have to say I always have thought this was one of the things that spoke the best about Trump. He demands his women be top-shelf hotties but he likes them smart too. Ivana is quite smart and they have become good friends again. Also he has for some time hired a lot of women into very high positions.

          2. Actually I think Michelle is pretty smart to be fair. She’s certainly smart enough to know she doesn’t have to do jack shit just like her useless husband, whose only real accomplishment in his entire adult life is getting Romney’s shitty healthcare plan through one of the friendliest Congresses any president has ever worked with.

            She was smart enough to know she could straight up write in her book that she probably got into Princeton because she was a legacy, and also got help because she was black, and it would not injure her reputation of accomplishment in the slightest; to the contrary.

      2. Michelle Obama also impersonated a nutritionist without the proper occupational licensing.

        1. Isn’t that illegal in most states?

        2. Dietician. They’re the ones that have to be licensed.

          Anybody can call themselves a nutritionist. Sorry to be pedantic, but one of my daughters is a Registered Dietician with a masters degree and the whole nutritionist thing really pisses her off. She despises Gwyneth Paltrow, for example, because her bullshit made up diets get so much attention. So I’m being pedantic on her behalf. My daughter’s, not Gwyneth.

          1. I don’t blame her because it’s people like Paltrow and her stoopid moonrock food that bring the profession in disrepute.

          2. ok, I accuse Michelle Obama of being an un-certified dietician, for your daughter.

        3. Michelle is the sort of person who would tell an Italian how to properly pronounce their own words.

          I can totes see her arguing with one about how it’s pronounced ‘LASAGNE’ and her arguing “No. it’s ‘LASAGNA!’ in smug fashion.

          This happened once in an Italian class I took. The professor who was Slovenian was telling the class Versace is pronounced ‘Ver-sa-cheh’ not ‘Ver-sa-chee.’ Some student argued it was indeed the latter because, get this, she shops there all the time and she knew.

          Everyone in the class cringed.

          I see Michelle as one of those.

          1. People like Michelle Obama never understand why people laugh at her.

            She is ignorant like her husband.

      3. Meanwhile Michelle Obama was constantly being mean spirited and nasty and divisive and they acted like she was Jacki Kennedy or the Queen. It is disgraceful.

        Remember the #bringbackourgirls photo? With the “tattling 4-yr.-old” hangdog expression. Really hit them high when they hit low with that one.

      4. Michelle once made Maxim’s Hottest 100 Women on Earth list.

        Michelle Obama.

        Seriously.

      5. Melina Trump is a no kidding underwear model. … And the media treats her like a whore.

        They’re prudes, I guess.

    2. The media is just peanut butter and jealous.

  10. There’s a Senate runoff election in Mississippi today.

    And America is burned out on this crap already. Next.

  11. I guess I’m not with it, because I had never heard of a “gender reveal party” for a baby.

    I thought this border person was having a party to reveal which gender “xe” identities with, and things got so hot that an actual fire broke out. Maybe I’m too woke.

  12. “Now, prosecutors say in the court filing that “after signing the plea agreement, Manafort committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s Office on a variety of subject matters, which constitute breaches of the agreement.”

    Most of Mueller’s victories seem to have been about getting people to plead guilty to lying in return for testimony. It always has been and always will be an indication of weakness and failure.

    The last thing any prosecutor wants to do is make his or her star witnesses plead guilty to lying. The purpose of a jury is to weigh the credibility of conflicting testimony, and if Mueller’s prosecution turns into a clown car full of proven liars, he’s gonna lose.

    Can Mueller even put Manafort on the stand anymore without opening himself up to charges? The joke is on everybody who thought any of this would lead anywhere. Go soak your heads.

    1. “Go soak your heads.”

      First I have to choke my chicken.

    2. All Mueller seems to be able to do is indict people for lying to him. Yes people lie to investigators. But, when that is all a prosecutor has at some point it becomes clear that it is the prosucutor who is lying and the witnesses who are being indicted for refusing to tell the lies the prosecutor wants them to. It is getting pretty hard to deny that is what is going on here. Anytime someone tells Mueller anything except what he wants to hear, he accuses them of lying.

      The whole thing is just a corrupt joke and is doing untold damage to the credibility of DOJ and the justice system in this country. But remember, it is Trump who is destroying institutions and norms.

      1. The DOJ had credibility?

        1. Sadly, among a lot of people it did, especially on the right. The last defenders of DOJ and the federal justice system were primarily Republicans. Mueller has done his best to put a stop to that.

          1. So, it’s all a win then?

            1. No. It just means the right will at some point start acting like the left and we will have no rule of law.

              1. Isn’t that a pervasive problem, though, especially on the Federal level? That it’s easy to get someone for lying to an LEO, and the state has long been getting increasingly aggressive about claiming that as a consolation prize? What do you think can be done about this?

      2. Yes people lie to investigators.

        And when, like Gen Flynn, they ACTUALLY didn’t — he will prosecute them anyway.

    3. It is hard to imagine a more self defeating act than for a prosecutor to indict one of his witnesses for lying or accuse one of them. The moment a prosecutor does that, he has made that person utterly useless at trial. Why would anyone believe a government witness that the government admits is a liar?

      1. Exactly.

        The prosecutor is practically impeaching the witness before the witness even gets on the stand. Rather than have your witness exposed as a liar, the prosecutor probably won’t even use that witness–unless there is no other choice.

        Ultimately, Mueller is gunning for an impeachment hearing, where there won’t be a jury so much as a Democrat controlled house and a bunch of fawning journalists. Still, the purpose was to create more witnesses with pressure from Manafort and others who’ve been pressured into pleading guilty to lying in return for testifying for the prosecution.

        It’s a tell.

        It’s a screaming tell. He’s bluffing.

        If he’s showing us his best cards and they’re all self-defeating, then he has a low hand.

        At some point, Trump really should consider calling his bluff. Time for Mueller to show us all his cards or stop harassing the president.

        1. Manfort got zero benefit from that plea deal. He is already going to spend his life in prison. Meuhller has zero leverage over him. What does Manfort care if Meuller cancels the plea deal? In fact, I think the deal was a bad deal for Manfort. Let Mueller cancel it and take your chances at trial. They can’t throw you in prison in the next life.

          1. Trump will pardon Manafort before he leaves office.

            Manafort knows this.

        2. If Muller had anything at all, it would have been leaked before the midterms.

          1. Yeah this looks like a real fucking shitshow, and the stupidity of the Left has once again given Republicans, who do not “deserve” demographically to be ruling this country, a seemingly endless own goal. You see all the idiot lefty press practically wetting themselves like the snare is finally, finally starting to close around Trump.

            More charitably to their intelligence, they may be trying to manipulate Trump’s infamous paranoia and goad him into firing Mueller. Ken is saying Trump should call Mueller’s bluff but isn’t it in his interest to keep him in? The Democrats should want Trump to fire Mueller. Then they can sputter in outrage and make him look corrupt (most Americans seem to have a poor grasp of how all this works) and then proceed to their own investigation.

            Mueller may be a good “fig leaf” for the Democrats so it doesn’t look partisan like their own investigation will. But the latter has overwhelming advantages. Once they are doing their own investigation (especially on the outraged excuse that this was reluctantly needed because of Trump’s tyrannical firing of Mueller) they are in complete control; they can take it any way they want. And if Trump does not cooperate 100% with every little petty shit they do, no one will defend him. Dershowitz will not; Judge Nap will not; no one who believes in the Constitution will.

      2. Well, it’s been obvious all along he’s had nothing; If you’re going for a plea agreement to use somebody as a witness against somebody else, the plea agreement itself will typically specify in detail what they’re to testify about. In order that you don’t get them on the stand, and they suddenly testify that your real target is innocent.

        But none of these plea agreements had that feature. They just plead guilty to some triviality unrelated to Trump. Mueller was just collecting scalps.

        I’ve been convinced for some time now that the only real purpose of continuing the “investigation” has been to keep Trump from getting control of the DOJ, by setting things up so that any personnel changes could be construed to be “obstruction of justice”. That, and trying to make people afraid to work for Trump.

        1. Brett,

          I never thought of the DOJ angle. But I think you are onto something there. That is exactly why they are doing this.

        2. I agree Brett.

          The Lefties have been infiltrating the government bureaucracy for decades. Many of these jobs are in cities and we can clearly see who cities vote for and that urban areas and bureaucrats largely contribute to the Democratic Party.

          Its makes sense. The Democratic Party is corrupt and many bureaucrats are corrupt whether they will admit it or not.

          Lisa Page and Peter Strozk are not anomalies.

          Pretty smart to neutralize non-Lefties by silencing their speech, attacking them with federal charges from the DOJ, and/or siccing the IRS on them.

          Reason staff make me sick since Preet Bharara tried to silence dissenting speech and threatened to attack dissidents with federal charges. Its like Reason only got upset because they were impacted and disinvited to Cosmo parties. When it happens to Trump, Reason is fine with it.

  13. ….The Fake News Media builds Bob Mueller up as a Saint, when in actuality he is the exact opposite. He is doing TREMENDOUS damage to our Criminal Justice System, where he is only looking at one side and not the other. Heroes will come of this, and it won’t be Mueller and his…
    ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2018

    ….terrible Gang of Angry Democrats. Look at their past, and look where they come from. The now $30,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they’ve got nothing but ruined lives. Where is the Server? Let these terrible people go back to the Clinton Foundation and “Justice” Department!
    ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2018

    I’m not going to lie to you. I enjoy this level of discourse from warring factions in our nation’s capital. They used to rail like this only to their spouses and mistresses. Trump has opened a whole new level of transparency.

    If Mueller wasn’t such a pill, he’d be on Twitter going toe to toe in this flame war.

  14. Was Photo Of Migrant Mother ‘Fleeing Tear Gas’ With Children At U.S. Border Staged?
    But one observant Twitterer found some unusual things in the very same picture posted above. In the background, it appears as if many people are not fleeing anything, and a photographer with a camera on a tripod appears to be taking pictures of a child running as another photographer shoots people “posing as if fleeing.”

    MSNBC: The Majority Of People Who Make Up The Migrant Caravan Are Men
    “It’s very difficult because this has become such a polarizing issue,” Schwartz replied. He added, “The truth is that the majority of the people that are part of this caravan, especially outside if we can make our way over there we’ll show you, the majority of them are men.”

    Hmmm. That didn’t seem that complicated or polarizing. It seemed like a simple fact that people on the right have been pointing out for several weeks.

    1. In yesterdays podcast, Nick admitted that open borders wasn’t an actual policy. I can’t wait to hear an actual policy solution from the editors now that even the leftists editors here agree open borders is just a bullshit talking point in order to virtue signal for their friends along the beltway.

      And when it’s presented, I’ll be right here waiting for Tony and Rev to scream racist, bigot, blah blah blah

      Because nothing is more satisfying than watching the left eat itself. NOTHING

      1. Nah, you’ll get “this is racist under Trump and we’ll just ignore Obama doing it because he is progressive and dreamy” forever.

      2. They always deny being for totally open borders but then always argue against any policy that restricts immigration. They promise there is some restriction they support. They just can’t seem to ever name it. It is so patently dishonest.

        1. Yep. They claim the caravan will be vetted, ignore when they rush the border and get thru unvetted, and never say exactly how much detaining they are willing to do to enforce said vetting. Just promises to ‘vet’ and virtue signaling about Dumpf and his mouth breathing morally and intellectually inferior voters.

          Take a few shots of vodka and check out its Twitter page

          1. Reason spends decades excoriating DHS for incompetence only to suddenly claim that DHS can be trusted to vet millions of refugees from failed states. It would be nice if they just told the truth and were consistent. If they want to point out the failures of DHS, fine, that is what a Libertarian magazine should be doing. But don’t then claim DHS can suddenly be trusted to do what amounts to an impossible job when saying so suits you. Just admit upfront the people can’t be vetted and some of the are likely to be criminals or worse but that Reason is okay with that. If they would just take a position and live with it, they would be a lot more credible.

            1. Should I donate to Reason in the name of “The Refujihad”?

            2. “People can’t be vetted and some of the are likely to be criminals or worse” won’t fly politically and Reason knows it. Being honest hurts donations and ad clicks. Screaming ‘racist’ is clickbait, which is why I never click on an immigration article here.

              1. “People can’t be vetted and some of the are likely to be criminals or worse”

                Just like with the right to own guns.
                Or the right to drink alcohol. (Think of all those drunk drivers out there!)
                Or the right to sell your body for sex. (There might be a 17-year-old having sex with an 18-year-old! Oh no!)

                I cannot fathom the reasoning behind supporting the liberty to do things like own guns or drink booze, even though from a social perspective they may lead to harmful outcomes, but then taking the exact opposite position and support restricting the liberty to migrate, BECAUSE of the harmful outcomes that might ensue. Where is the consistency in that?

                If you don’t support the right of free people to migrate, because you think these people are icky and will do things you won’t approve of, then how can you support the right of free people to, say, own a gun, or drink booze? They might do things that you don’t approve of, which might lead to negative social outcomes.

                1. No one has a right to come here. You refuse to understand that and know what it means.

                  1. Yes they do. By what just authority can it be restricted?

                  2. He’s a partisan hack.

                    There’s no point in trying to reason with him.

                    Might as well be discussing L. Ron Hubbard with a Scientologist.

                    He can’t think critically. Can’t follow a logical argument against his positions.

                    He’s a retard. Why argue with a retard?

                    1. Oh boo hoo. Ken doesn’t like that I call bullshit on his arguments.

                    2. Ha! You can’t even address an argument!

                      You’re against opening the border with Mexico if it means Mexicans have to show ID–and then you want to call yourself an open borders guy?

                      You’re a phony, and you’re a fucking retard.

                    3. You are twisting MY argument. My argument is that once we start demanding that they have to show some mandatory ID, then it will become mandatory for US to do the same for THEM.

                      I am very very suspicious of any mandatory national ID card system. Aren’t you, Mr. Libertarian?

                    4. “My argument is that once we start demanding that they have to show some mandatory ID, then it will become mandatory for US to do the same for THEM.”

                      There’s no need to point out that Jeff is lying about being an open borders person in defense of the principle that Mexican citizens shouldn’t have to show an ID to cross the border. Because Jeff doesn’t care what he’s wrong or right about, what the issue is, or why what he’s saying is retarded.

                      He really doesn’t.

                    5. And once again.
                      By what just authority can an individual’s right to migrate be restricted?

                    6. If someone says they’re a communist I’m fine with them not being allowed here.

                      I don’t care about the freedom of people who wish I had none

                    7. If someone says they’re a communist I’m fine with them not being allowed here.

                      Okay, so let’s apply this same line of reasoning to other liberties:

                      “If someone says they’re a communist I’m fine with them not being allowed to own guns.”
                      “If someone says they’re a communist I’m fine with them not being allowed to publish on the Internet.”

                      In the latter two cases, libertarians would rightly argue that communists have rights too even if we find communism to be an odious ideology, and that fundamental rights of even communists should not be restricted.

                      Why does this argument not apply in the case of migration?

                    8. Fine Jeff. Let’s invite 100 million communists into the US, give them amnesty, and let them vote.

                      How long before we don’t have any right to anything?

                      You’re defending the devil as if you won’t get the horns too

                    9. Let’s invite 100 million communists into the US, give them amnesty, and let them vote.

                      Here’s a better idea:

                      Let’s not deliberately invite anyone.
                      Let’s not give anyone amnesty or voting rights just for residing here.
                      Let free people be free to associate with whomever they wish to associate with.

                    10. By what just authority can an individual’s right to migrate be restricted?

                      *sigh*

                      You’re right to go somewhere does not obligate anybody else to allow you entry.

                    11. You’re right to go somewhere does not obligate anybody else to allow you entry.

                      Okay, so you won’t be inviting any migrants onto your private property. Which I completely support your right to do so.

                      Now about public property…

                    12. Step 1: Illegal immigration
                      Step 2: Democrats give amnesty, welfare and voter rights
                      Step 3: Same socialist shit that caused shitholes to be shitholes
                      Step 4: America is another socialist shithole

                      That’s my train of thought. You want to argue we’re already there, fine. You want to argue that poor former socialists will not make the same mistakes, fine (but check out what former Californians did to Texas)

                      History has proven that socialists gonna socialist. And you granting them freedoms they would take away from us doesn’t make you a better person. Go over to China, praise any -ism besides communism, and see what happens

                    13. Step 1: Illegal immigration
                      Step 2: Democrats give amnesty, welfare and voter rights
                      Step 3: Same socialist shit that caused shitholes to be shitholes
                      Step 4: America is another socialist shithole

                      You realize that you are predicating your recognition of their liberty on your dire assumption of what they will do with that liberty, correct?

                      If that is going to be your argument, then explain why you do not extend the same logic to the recognition of other liberties.

                      For example, the right to own a gun, the right to drink booze, the right to pay for sex, etc.

                      “Prostitution should be illegal because otherwise, it will lead to men objectivizing and degrading women, and that is bad for society.”

                      “Private gun ownership should be illegal because otherwise, it will lead to large amounts of preventable gun violence, such as suicides and murders particularly of children, and that is bad for society.”

                      Why do you not accept these arguments, based on the same logical reasoning as your argument for restricting immigration?

                      So why do you not accpet thi

                    14. “can’t think critically” is Ken-speak for “doesn’t automatically agree with my arguments”

                      Perhaps Ken should think critically for a moment and try to see different perspectives other than his own.

                2. Just like the right to own guns? Committing a crime and getting caught generally mean you lose that right. Same for immigrating? Congrats, now you have detention and vetting.

                  1. Just like the right to own guns? Committing a crime and getting caught generally mean you lose that right.

                    That is the law infringing on the right to own a gun.

                    1. And here I am going even farther than the NRA on the right to keep and bear arms, and in the next comment I’m sure I’ll be called some sort of progressive hack partisan.

                      I am not a progressive, I’m not a liberal, I’m not a leftist, I’m not a socialist, I’m even more libertarian than most of you, and the fact that my views conflict so often with yours makes you look bad and therefore you fling the insults.

                    2. Well, chemjeff, I’m glad someone has this much time on his hands to keep up such a principled libertarian argument against these Republicans who seem to have no shortage of time on their own hands.

      3. “I can’t wait to hear an actual policy solution from the editors now that even the leftists editors here agree open borders is just a bullshit talking point”

        Tim Cavanaugh detailed open borders as an actual policy solution when he was here at Reason and also when he was at the LA Times.

        http://articles.latimes.com/20…..avanaugh23

        He was right back then, and that’s still right now.

        In short, I want an open borders treaty (ratified by the Senate) with Mexico–not open borders to the world. Open borders to the world is a straw man if you’re talking about me.

        The treaty would require Mexico to establish an ID system that we could independently verify, and Mexican citizens could travel back and forth across the border without a visa, much like Americans can when they’re entering Mexico or Canada. All those who were under indictment, convicted felons, people who weren’t inoculated against certain communicable diseases, etc. would be excluded. That way, the only people sneaking across the border at night would be the bad guys–vastly improving our border security.

        1. Notice, this policy would be both democratic and constitutional. Congress is charged with setting the rules of naturalization, and the Senate would need to ratify this treaty. However, we will never achieve sufficient support for such a policy so long as people like Shika Dalmia, and others here at Reason, continue to equate open borders with a total lack of control and an open invitation to all comers. They’re shooting the cause of open borders in the foot.

          1. I think open borders is a real policy with a real philosophical argument behind it. My problem is with people who say they are not for it, but then do not have any idea what they are for, but instead just sputter outrage at whatever completely reasonable (and longstanding) immigration control efforts are suddenly being spotlighted by the clickbait media. Or people who keep begging the question like Shikha.

          2. Congress is charged with setting the rules of naturalization

            naturalization =/= immigration

            1. You’re a retard.

              1. Ooo witty comeback!

                immigration = the act of migrating inwards (to a country)
                naturalization = the act of becoming a citizen of a country

                One can immigrate without being naturalized.

                1. You’re a retard.

              2. He really is. There is no reasoning with him.

                1. Ken Shultz|11.27.18 @ 11:18AM|#

                  You’re a retard.

                  John|11.27.18 @ 11:27AM|#

                  He really is. There is no reasoning with him.

                  I believe this is called “losing the argument badly.”

                  1. I believe this is called “losing the argument badly.”

                    You think this is the first time we’ve discussed this?

                    He’s impervious to argument and facts. There’s no reason to argue with a Mooney.

                    If you can’t win an argument with a Mooney, that’s all on the Mooney.

                    1. Ken, we have never actually “discussed” this, because in order for there to be a discussion, there has to be at a minimum a comprehension of the arguments made by the other side. As far as I can see, you haven’t even bothered to make an effort to comprehend the arguments that I make.

                  2. No its not Juice. If you think Jeff won this argument, you are as dumb as he is.

            2. The Mises Institute crowd talks a lot about a vision where immigration is completely decentralized to the states, and the concept of state citizenship (alongside Federal) is resurrected from the 19th century. It’s a vision where immigration is very, very easy and naturalization, especially on the Federal level, is very, very hard; so there is a huge, probably a majority, permanent class of noncitizens existing alongside the citizens. On a practical level I think it is the single most horrible, batshit crazy solution ever proposed, but it sure is philosophically interesting.

              1. Diego,

                When you combine that plan with the Privileges and Immunities clause it would effectively be completely open borders. Once I am legally admitted to a state, no other state can deny me entry consistent with the P&I clause. So, Kansas can have restrictive immigration laws and it won’t mean a damn thing if California doesn’t, since anyone who gets into California can just move to Kansas and there is nothing Kansas can do about it. Such a system would allow immgration law to be set by whatever of the 50 states decided to have the most liberal entry rules.

                Beyond that, it would make getting a VISA into this country a mamouth pain in the ass. If I am a Chinese and I want to take a vacation to the Grand Canyon, I can’t go to the US embassy in Bejing to get a VISA. I have to go to the state of Arizona to get one. What is every state going to set up embassies and consulates all over the world?

                The whole argument is idiotic. The Constitution doesn’t mean that and was never meant to mean that.

                1. The Constitution doesn’t mean that and was never meant to mean that.

                  Umm, in the early Republic, individual states did set their own standards for immigration themselves.

                  1. Individual states that have a federal government that governs, national defense, customs and international relations and naturalization. The idea that that doens’t include the power to control the borders is something only someone as dumb and dishonest as you could believe.

                    Stop responding to my posts Jeff. I am serious, you are too stupid to bother with. Tony makes more intelligent points that you do.

                2. Hmm don’t know why I didn’t think about P&I. Been a while since I looked at the Mises argument. Here; this looks like it might be an example of the argument. Looks like it has done some historical research on antebellum immigration policy.

                  1. Diago,

                    That article is pure sophistry. Their evidence is that courts allowed states to control immigration as a function of police power. That is true as far as it goes but that doens’t mean it isn’t a federal power. It means that it is a federal power that the feds allowed the states to exercise for the first 100 years or so of the Republic. Congress choose not to enact any immgration laws and in the absence of them occupying the field the states were free to do so. Once Congress did exercise their power, then the state laws fell away.

                    Napalitano’s claim is that Congress didn’t exercise immigration powers because it didn’t have them. But there is no direct evidence of that being so. No one ever said Congress didn’t have those powers or claimed they didn’t once Congress asserted them.

                    1. I am interested in this and will have to give it a closer reread. But for now, can you address its P&I claims in particular?

                    2. Phrased poorly. I meant the fact that according to the P&I claim you made earlier the states should not have been able to control internal migration at all but the article claims they very much did so.

                    3. Under the P&I clause every state has to treat citizens of other states the same as they do their own. California can’t require me to get a VISA or say I can’t get a job there because I am not from the state. Also understand that you can be a citizen of a state without having US citizenship. States could and some are thinking about doing so, allow foreign residents to vote in state elections. So if states can set their own immigration policies, they can make foreign nationals citizens of the state even though they are not citizens of the US. Once that person is a citizen of a state, the other states can’t stop them from traveling to, working in or doing whatever they want in other states. They are a citizen of a state and entitled to the same respect that any other state gives its citizens.

                    4. Yes I do understand all that. But didn’t the article claim that states did restrict internal migration? This couldn’t just be a matter of unexercised Federal powers. How did they do so in light of P&I?

                    5. Napalitano’s claim is that Congress didn’t exercise immigration powers because it didn’t have them.

                      Hey John, perhaps you can inform us all where Congress derives its power to regulate *immigration* (separate from naturalization). Hmm?

                    6. Hey Jeff, perhaps you could read this entire thread again and see where I explained it to you. Sorry dipshit but the argument is right in this thread. Go troll someone else into repeating the same argument over and over to your sorry ass because you are too stupid and dishonest to understand it.

                    7. John, naturalization =/= immigration

                      So where does Congress derive its power to regulate immigration? Hint: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 isn’t the answer

                    8. Yes it does. It always has. Without control of immigration naturalization doesn’t mean anything. It is a necesary implication of the naturalization power. It is also a necessary implication of the war powers. Under the laws of war, a country has the power to detain foreign aliens and so forth.

                      To read immigration as a state power is to say that the the document didn’t give Congress the war power and naturalization power to their normal extent but somehow didn’t bother mentioning it. It is a totally unconvincing argument that was never made until very recently and has never persauded a single court.

                      You can believe it all you like. But it isn’t true and the Constitution will never be read that way regardless. So run along and let the adults talk for a while. I think you have shit on this thread enough.

                    9. Without control of immigration naturalization doesn’t mean anything.

                      That’s not true. There is no necessary connection between the rules for immigration and the rules for naturalization.

                      To read immigration as a state power is to say that the the document didn’t give Congress the war power and naturalization power to their normal extent but somehow didn’t bother mentioning it.

                      Does the Constitution mean what it says, or not? The nation got along just fine for a century with no centralized control over immigration. If the Framers really meant to have the federal government exert power over immigration (separate from naturalization), why did they never exercise that power at all?

                    10. I’ll indulge Lawyer John with the correct answer: SCOTUS granted Congress the power to regulate immigration by “reading in” to the Constitution an “implied power” to do so, as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act cases of the late 19th century. The power does not derive from the written text of the Constitution itself. It was an invention of SCOTUS. That is why the early 19th century Congresses did not assert any power to regulate immigration – they didn’t have the power to do so.

                    11. No.The Supreme Court didn’t grant it to the Congress you half wit. No one ever claimed that the Feds didn’t have this power. It was never litigated. Everyone assumed it. What was litigated was the states ability to add additional restrictions to what the feds already did. No one ever claimed the feds couldn’t restrict immigration, only that the states could do so as well under the general police powers. And even that was largely unsuccessful. The Supreme Court in the Passenger Cases (Sup.Ct.1849) invoked the Commerce Clause to ban the levy of fees upon foreigners wishing to disembark at state ports. The Court invalidated state immigration fees even though Congress had yet to implement any relevant federal regulations. The Court reasoned that Congress exclusively controlled foreign affairs and foreign commerce even when the power had not been exercised. In the Head Money Cases (Sup.Ct.1884), the Court upheld a federally imposed tax on foreign immigrants, again with direct citation to the commerce power. As congressional action began to reach beyond taxation to other forms of regulation, however, the Court sought a broader ground for decision.

                    12. If you’re going to copy-paste, you should cite your source.

                      http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immig…..pter2.html

                      The Court eventually found the source of the federal power to regulate immigration in a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Case (Sup.Ct.1889) was the first case to hold that the federal power to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration is a matter of vital national concern. Furthermore, it is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the Court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government. Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now “remove”) non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally “absolute and unqualified.”

                      So Congress’ power to regulate immigration does not derive from the text of the Constitution itself. It was assumed to be in there by SCOTUS, which adopted the 19th century version of the “Living Constitution” idea.

                    13. So, John, not even SCOTUS believes that Congress’ power to regulate immigration derives from Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. Immigration is separate from naturalization.

                    14. It comes from a variety of sources. At some point hundreds of years of practice and court decisions settle the matter. You are incapable of changing your opinion about anything and you just sort of emote whatever position suits you at the time. But, at some point, even argument by authority becomes persuasive. The argument has long been settled by the courts. Your side lost. It is what it is.

                    15. That is John’s way of saying “chemjeff is right but I won’t admit it”.

                    16. If the Feds are empowered to “provide for the common defense” and to “repel invasions”, then they are empowered to regulate immigration. The rest is just haggling over degree.

                      That’s CD’s way of saying “John is right, and chemjeff is an idiot troll”.

                    17. He is an idiot troll.

                      And it gets worse. He’s been pounding on the idea that the government has no legal means to determine who can and can’t come within our borders–for more than a year.

                      It’s retarded.

                      What you should realize is that now he’s taking it to a new level by opposing opening up the border if it means Mexican citizens will have to show an ID to come in.

                      He’s not an open borders guy. He doesn’t want the border opened. He’s an idiot and he’s a liar.

                    18. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
                      The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

                      This takes immigration regulation away from states and hands it to Congress in 1808.

                    19. ChemJeff doesn’t care if he’s wrong on the facts.

                      He doesn’t care if he’s wrong or right at all.

                      He’s just trolling.

          3. The problem, Ken, is that you are still operating within the premise that the mob has some just authority to decide who comes and goes from this country. THEY DO NOT. *Just like* the mob has no business dictating to me who may enter and leave my own property, the mob has no business dictating to anyone else who may enter and leave the nation. The mob does not collectively own the nation.

            You have to let go of the idea that the mob has some legitimate authority to control who comes and goes from the country. They have no more legitimate authority to decide that, then they have to decide who may own a gun, or who may drink booze or smoke pot.

            1. “The problem, Ken, is that you are still operating within the premise that the mob has some just authority to decide who comes and goes from this country. “

              The mob isn’t Congress nor the Senate.

              The problem is that you’re a partisan hack of a retard.

              1. And where do you imagine Congress thinks it gets its authority to dictate who may come and go into the country? By popular will, that’s why. You all but say so when you continue to bleat that libertarians must persuade people to adopt an open borders philosophy. As if the people ought to have the power to restrict migration in the first place!

                The power to restrict migration should be taken away from the people, because they never should have had it in the first place. JUST LIKE the power to restrict ingesting drugs, or to restrict gun ownership, or to restrict prostitution, should be taken away from the people, because they never should have had it in the first place.

            2. I don’t think that’s his point at all. He mentioned as an afterthought that his solution happens to have the boon of being democratic. Nowhere is it even suggested that this is what makes it “legitimate.” It is twisting his words to make that one little remark the center of his entire point, to make him into some sort of democratic fetishist.

              1. ChemJeff is just a Prog troll who comes on here to throw shade on anyone who makes a point that makes Progressives look bad. There just is no reasoning with him.

                1. Once again, you cannot argue the point so you resort to insults.

                  Once again: by what just authority may the right to migration be restricted?

                2. You should see ChemJeff argue that congress shouldn’t cut spending because future congresses might increase it. It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen.

                  And it’s all partisan. He can’t even understand what you’re saying if it doesn’t already fit into one of his partisan preconceptions.

                  He should go see a psychiatrist. It’s like arguing with a Moonie.

                  1. You should see ChemJeff argue that congress shouldn’t cut spending because future congresses might increase it. It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen.

                    You are lying about my argument because you cannot see it other than through your lens of pro-Republican boosterism. YOU are the one who is a toadie for Republican bullshit on this matter. You want to give Republicans credit for “cutting spending” when they didn’t actually cut any spending. Cut the crap, you just want Republicans to get a win even if they don’t actually do anything to rein in spending. “Because the Democrats would be worse!!!” That is the tribalism within you. I am the one honest enough to call bullshit on both tribes. You are not.

                    1. Lying about your argument?

                      You’re a fiscal conservative who opposed cutting $1.022 trillion from spending–supposedly because the cuts didn’t start happening until after the next election.

                      That makes you a concern troll and a liar.

                      Now you say you’re an open borders person who opposes opening the border by treaty if it means Mexican citizens will have to show an ID.

                      You’re a concern troll and a liar about being an open borders person.

                      QED You’re a concern troll and a liar.

                    2. You’re a fiscal conservative who opposed cutting $1.022 trillion from spending–supposedly because the cuts didn’t start happening until after the next election.

                      I oppose giving Republicans credit for “cutting spending” when they didn’t actually cut any spending. I would be THRILLED if Republicans ACTUALLY CUT $1.022 trillion. And not just “promise to cut sometime in the future”, but ACTUALLY CUT. Let me know when they do that!

                      YOU are the one berating people around here for not being the Republican toadie that you are.

                      Now you say you’re an open borders person who opposes opening the border by treaty if it means Mexican citizens will have to show an ID.

                      I oppose creating a regime which would mandate a national ID system. If you can show how your ID system would work without intentionally or unintentionally leading to a mandatory national ID card, then by all means present it.

                      I actually mention above that I think your solution is better than what we have. You didn’t acknowledge that because you don’t want to believe that. But it falls short of my ideal, yes.

        2. So, no open borders without a national ID system?

          And you think a national ID system in the US won’t be horribly abused by the state?

          1. An ID for Mexicans, you retard.

            P.S. It’s easier to get back into the U.S. with a passport. Have you never left the country and come back? Is all this new to you?

            1. Oh so the Mexican government isn’t going to demand a reciprocal ID card on Americans wishing to migrate to Mexico?

              There are Mexican passports too, you know. Why not use existing passports to create your ID card fetish?

              1. Do you imagine that you should get to dictate Mexico’s immigration policies?

                Are you a Mexican citizen?

                Yes, I’m willing to make Mexican’s show ID at the expense of an open border with Mexico. If you’re not, then stop pretending you’re an open borders person.

                Just tell people you’re a partisan hack of retard instead and stop hurting the cause of open borders with your partisan retardedness.

                1. Do you imagine that you should get to dictate Mexico’s immigration policies?

                  You seem to want to do so. Demanding that they accede to this ID card system while pretending that they won’t get to make reciprocal demands on us. A treaty works both ways. A treaty is, by its very definition, both sides coming to a mutual agreement on changing their behavior to accommodate the other. You can’t have it both ways – say that we will have open borders once the Mexican government accepts this ID requirement that we will dictate to them, then claim that there won’t be any sort of reciprocal restrictions placed on Americans by the Mexican government.

                  I am absolutely opposed to any system that creates a national ID card. That would be even worse for liberty than what we have now. Just imagine all the hanky-panky that the state could get away with if we had a uniform mandatory national ID.

              2. One could use a passport. Or for more convenience one could use a passport card that the State Dept. might issue as a sort of minipassport. That’s really all. I don’t understand what the big difference would be between that and “existing passports.” It’s not like the fact that something is a card makes it more scarier. It’s not a “national ID card” unless it’s something you can be asked to show or possess while minding your own business in the interior. If my brown ass is wandering about San Diego and I am stopped by any kind of LEO, I just say, “American citizen, pendejo,” and show him my drivers license. Then he runs it with the state DMV. If he demands I show him a Federal document (like a passport) then you have yourself a National ID card.

                The border with Mexico would still be an international border after all. If you want to cross an international border you normally use a passport. Even in the Schengen area people still carry their passports when going abroad.

                1. *in the interior of your own country

                2. We already have that. And I am fine with passports because they are voluntary. But notably passports are only given to citizens, and they don’t have anything like criminal background checks. I don’t know how the Mexican government treats their passports but I imagine it’s similar. I don’t think passports alone will satisfy Ken’s demand for an ID system that attempts to vet migrants.

                  1. “And I am fine with passports because they are voluntary. But notably passports are only given to citizens, and they don’t have anything like criminal background checks.”

                    You’re a stupid asshole.

                    We’re talking about Mexican citizens willfully seeking such an ID from the Mexican government.

                    And if you don’t think the U.S. already uses passports to reject convicted felons, etc., then in addition to being a retard, you’re also an ignoramus.

                    1. Since both sides ALREADY use passports, then why this big charade of creating some new ID requirement? We already have that.

                      Oh wait, passports don’t include criminal background checks. Convicted felons CAN get US passports. Is that the problem?

                    2. I think the gist of Ken’s plan is:

                      Visa free travel between the US and Mexico
                      Mutual right of abode and employment between the US and Mexico for their citizens
                      both subject to normal immigration restrictions on criminality, hygiene, etc.

                    3. Visa free travel between the US and Mexico
                      Mutual right of abode and employment between the US and Mexico for their citizens
                      both subject to normal immigration restrictions on criminality, hygiene, etc.

                      That sounds great in principle. In practice, I am highly fearful that trying to implement it will mean a mandatory national ID system.

                    4. Why would it do that?

                      If I never want to go to Mexico or any other foreign country, I do not ask the State Dept. or any other Federal agency for any sort of identification. If I do I do, because no foreign country recognizes the State of New York as a sovereign. Basically you are just saying Ken’s plan will lead to a national ID card system because it will make migration too easy or pervasive, is what you’re saying. Maybe you have a point. Migration would be so pervasive, there would be Mexicans all over the place and border-crossing would become so common, that maybe our current system of trusting state IDs in the interior would come under political attack. And maybe travel to Mexico would become so common for Americans that passport applications would become routine and normalized even for the most backwoods yokels, so we’d all just figure we were all carrying Federal documents anyway so why the hell not?

                      So would you, as one who wants to make immigration easier, prefer the status quo to Ken’s “compromise” plan, holding out only for your ideal?

                    5. Why would it do that?

                      If the US government tries to dictate to the Mexican government what should be in their ID cards, then the Mexican government will try to dictate the same to the US government. Sovereignty works both ways. Treaties work both ways.

                    6. I don’t understand this “in” the ID cards business. Right now every citizen of a country can get a passport, and normally only identifying information is carried on the passport either visually or electronically. But for some time immigration processing has involved background checks with the issuing country. I don’t see the functional difference, nor what sort of change is called for by Ken’s system.

                      Again, you are simply talking about what goes on right now, the status quo. The US government does indeed require a visa from Mexicans crossing the border. For that we demand access to criminal, hygiene, etc. information about their citizens. And in point of fact the Mexican government has chosen not to reciprocate! At least for tourists. They consider it in their interest to let us visit visa free. But they could decide otherwise any time. And they have decided otherwise for permanent residency, just like in the relationship between nearly every other country. If I want to move to Mexico the Mexican government will demand from the Americans my criminal history and so forth.

                      I understand that you do not support any of this because of your moral and political philosophy of the proper role of the state. But sometimes you talk as though the kind of things you bring up are some kind of threat posed by Ken’s plan, instead of just the status quo. I can’t really make sense of it all.

                    7. …Once again, as long as I, an American citizen, do not need Federal documents to move about my own country, there is no “national ID.” I don’t get this business about what Mexico “might” demand the US put “in” the documents required for Americans to have in Mexico. This is just what’s already happening.

                    8. (Adjustment: Ignore the visa business; I was getting tripped up and confused there. The point is that both the US and Mexico now ask for “national” identification from aliens, including citizens of the other country. And they do use said identification to access criminal records, etc. from the alien individual which the other country’s national government makes available to them.)

                    9. Ken’s plan is better than nothing. But Ken’s plan still retains the premise that the state has the legitimate authority to regulate immigration. It really doesn’t.

                  2. I did leave out the fact that we have passport cards already; I see that now. Anyway I don’t understand why it would not work. Wouldn’t we just use and improve existing port-of-entry background checks? Also for foreigners their own governments would issue them passports.

                    1. Best that I can see it is, if the Mexican government does not require criminal background checks for their passports, as our government doesn’t require it for our citizens, then a passport is insufficient for vetting people from a criminality point of view. So in order for passports to work, they would have to include criminal background checks. And if we try to impose this requirement on them, they will try to impose this requirement on us. Which basically means that citizens can’t leave the country if they’ve ever been convicted of a crime.

                    2. I do think that is indeed Ken’s vision, that both countries maintain the privilege of setting their own entry requirements for aliens convicted of certain offences, belonging to certain groups, etc. I think the whole idea is that the much-ballyhooed “people with a lot of problems, bringing crime, bringing drugs,” etc. are indeed kept out; whereas the “good people” are allowed to travel and immigrate freely.

                    3. A horrifying idea, isn’t it?

                      Perfectly constitutional, too.

                      Fully within the purview of democracy.

                      We get all the benefits of not having the wild west on the border, too.

        3. “Open borders to the world is a straw man if you’re talking about me”

          It’s the democratic socialist platform. You do you

          1. There isn’t anything socialist about the solution I outlined above. In fact, the more socialist a country is, the pickier they are about legal immigration. The European elite may have been open about letting in refugees and asylum seekers, but try to legally immigrate to Germany, Sweden, or Denmark from outside the EU.

            The more people are forced to pay for each other, the pickier they get about whom benefits from their largess. That seems to be a general rule–cross-culturally and throughout history.

            Anyway, being a Mexican citizen in the U.S. under the treaty I outlined above wouldn’t make Mexican citizens eligible for Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid any more than being an American citizen in Canada makes one eligible for the equivalent of those things there.

            Meanwhile, the benefits I was talking about remain. If the only people who came here were free to cross the border at a checkpoint, the only ones sneaking through miles of desert at night would be the bad guys–vastly improving our border security. I appreciate that the reason a lot of people don’t want an open border treaty with Mexico is that they equate open borders with socialism.

            1. I think that’s a big misconception. The last thing unions or socialist democracies want is an influx of people who haven’t been paying taxes all their lives, and that’s why the United States is so much more tolerant of immigration that the social democracies of Europe. Hell, one of the reasons the British want to leave is because EU regulations effectively require socialist level spending on welfare programs EU wide so that there is little reason to want to stream into one country or another within the EU to take care of their rich welfare spending.

              1. AOC saying it over and over must be all be in my head

            2. I was agreeing with you. Your plan about an agreement with Mexico is not the same argument I was disagreeing with.

              Honestly, it’s not the worst idea I’ve heard. But that does create an underclass of sorts. Now we’re talking about degrees of amnesty/ citizenship. I still think healthcare for all would be the next talking point for progressives, thus slipping down the slope once more. (remember, the people you agree with about borders also think healthcare is a human right)

      4. Because nothing is more satisfying than watching the left eat itself. NOTHING

        And this is the problem with about half the commenters here. They would rather bitch and whine about “The Left” than do anything that resembles promoting liberty.

        1. What liberty is the left focusing on these days?

          The right for non-americans to have access to american wealth?

          The right for crazy parents to transition their kids?

          The right for democrats to redistribute wealth based on junk climate science?

          There is no mainstream left looking to minimize the role of government. I recognize that I agree with the left on some issues, such as less military intervention. But that small portion of the left does nothing to reign in the socialist insanity that most of the left takes part in.

          Conservatives, while imperfect, are the only thing keeping America together. They’re the only ones who give a damn about the Constitution.

          So yea Jeff, while I agree with you sometimes, I do get nothing but warm fuzzies watching socialists and cultural relativists go at it

          1. Jeff is a liar.

            Jeff opposes opening the border if it means Mexicans have to show an ID to get in.

            There isn’t any argument or principle behind any of this.

            He’s a concern troll and a liar.

            1. The only liar around here is Ken who pretends he is a libertarian but is actually just a Republican toadie and water-carrier.

              1. It’s all partisan to you–because you’re a partisan hack.

                You lied about being a fiscal conservative–when you said you would only support cutting spending on Medicaid by $772 billion if it were done before the election.

                A real fiscal conservative doesn’t oppose cutting spending because the cuts happen after the next election. You’re a liar.

                Now you say you’re against opening the border if it means Mexicans will have to show ID.

                You’re a liar about being an open borders person, too.

                Lies, trolling, partisanship–you’re a partisan hack and a fucking retard.

                1. Let me repeat, Ken, since you seem to have difficulty grasping this.

                  I OBJECT TO GIVING REPUBLICANS CREDIT FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY DIDN’T DO.

                  I am in FAVOR of cutting spending. The Republicans didn’t cut spending.

                  I didn’t believe Republicans are serious about cutting spending. I still don’t. They played games and gimmicks. You want us all to praise Republicans for their chicanery. That is because you are evidently just a Republican water carrier on this issue.

        2. Jeff,

          I’m enjoying your work today, despite the vast amount of disagreement I still have with you. So I’m taking a new tactic. Outrage is boring.

          What I would like to know, is to what extent you believe we should be inclusive of people who want to take away our constitutional rights.

          1. I don’t care about “inclusion”. If you want to hate immigrants and have nothing to do with them, by all means, feel free to do so. That is your right.

            This isn’t about compassion or inclusion or diversity or charity or any of the other touchy-feely emotional reasons for immigration. That is the left-wing argument. That is not my argument. My argument is and always has been about liberty. Liberty for the migrants, AND liberty for the citizens.

            All people have the liberty to travel wherever, and associate with whomever they please, consistent with private property rights and of course the NAP. And a just government should recognize and protect that liberty.

            Furthermore, restrictions on immigration is just another type of prohibition, and we all know how prohibitions turn out – they end up creating more problems than they solve. They create black markets, deprive even law abiding people of liberty, and fuel an ever growing police state in order to try to catch all the people slipping through the fingers of the prohibition. Eventually prohibitions end when the people say it is no longer worth it to try to enforce it any longer, that the costs of enforcement are greater than the purported benefits that they might bring. Same is true here.

  15. No donations from me, Reason. I’ll donate to free minds and free markets; I won’t donate to “we have to become Venezuela, because immigration”.

    1. at least a “MAYBE LATER” button. the “NO THANKS” seems dickish

    2. I doubt Reason will post numbers of total donations and any comments that come with the money.

      It would be interesting to compare donations before Reason went full FUCK AMERICANS.

  16. “President Petro Poroshenko’s proposed declaration of martial law for 30 days was just approved by the country’s parliament”

    —-Fact

    “Ukraine’s strongman president, whose government is demonstrably backed by actual Nazis, declares martial law and of course the big US media reaction is that Russia hasn’t been condemned aggressively enough”

    —-Twitter

    I don’t know if it’s that Twitter makes people look dumber than they are or if it’s that Twitter helps people set their true inner-retard free. Either way, tweeting tends to make an ass of you and me.

    P.S. When a “strong man” requests emergency powers for 30 days from the legislature and the people are standing behind him because of a legitimate fear of invasion, does that make him a “strong man” or a man with strength?

    1. Is the Ukrainian government doing this because of provocation from the Russian government? Is Putin’s government coalition more acceptable somehow than Ukraine’s? Is Reason just looking for a strongman to appease, because of an irrational commitment to extreme pacifism?

      1. Given some things ENB had written over the last couple of weeks, I don’t think she has any conception or knowledge of foreign policy, the implications of this or that. The other day she was suggesting that Trump was too hawkish because neocons were condemning his pragmatism–a comparison that doesn’t make any sense.

        If someone is anti-immigration or willing to go to war, then they’re a strong man, and that means we should oppose whatever they want to do–especially if it seems like that person could be a stand-in for Trump and his policies somehow.

        I think that’s the extent of the logic here.

        And, yeah, there does seem to be a heapin’ helpin’ of pacifism here–as if resisting the Japanese invasion of Manchukuo would have been wrong if it meant war.

        I keep having these strange conversations with millennial types about how violence isn’t the worst possible outcome of every situation. It’s more than just cowardice we’re dealing with, here, it’s also a complete hostility to anything smacking of principle. I might respect their principles if they were principled pacifists a la Gandhi, Tolstoy, and MLK, but that’s not it. They seem to be hostile to any principled people–with those who might resort to violence in defense of principle being excellent examples in their minds.

        It’s just ignorance and stupidity. It’s like the World War II, Cold War, and the gulags never happened, and if they did, there’s nothing to learn from them.

  17. General Motors is cutting 14,000 U.S. jobs in response to Trump’s tariffs.

    I don’t support the tariffs, I think they are a bad idea, but GM is laying off workers because their cars suck and no one wants to buy them.

    1. GM stands for Just Mediocre.

  18. The border patrol agent is most likely now in charge of a whole sector

  19. POLICE TOYS HAVE HANDCUFFS! AND ALSO FLASHLIGHTS! AND MUH GUNS!

    CALL THE REAL POLICE WITH THE REAL HANDCUFFS AND THE REAL GUNS TO ARREST THESE GUYS!

    1. Somebody needs to go rescue all those senior citizens snoring in their beach chairs. It ain’t easy outrunning a one-inch rise every century.

      1. Every last bit of the alarmism being promoted about Global Warming is the result of computer models initialized with educated guesses about past and future processes.

        You are not to question the predictions of these models. Or even the appearance of questioning.
        Therefore, no reporting.

    2. But Johnny, it is flooding in Venice and there are wild fires in California. Strange and unprecidented things are happening. Everything is spinning out of control!!

  20. Don’t we need more controlled burns?

    1. You just focus on controlling the bums and let the experts worry about controlling the burns.

    2. You know who else controlled burns?

      1. MASH’s Colonel Potter

        Gracie Allen

      2. Smithers

      3. Barbers who know how to shave people?

  21. Serious question: what exactly is illegal about trying to “sway” an election?

    1. And who, specifically, was “colluding” and what, specifically, were they “colluding” about?

  22. “please give Reason your money”

    OK, on one condition. Get Thomas Sowell to come back and ask him about immigration.

    1. In fact, If you can arrange a debate between him and Shikha (and publish it without “editing for style”) I will donate my entire Christmas gift budget to you as well.

      1. I will also donate toward this beat down, I mean debate

  23. THIS JUST IN: men are men and women are women.

    This is what happens when you let the left get comfortable in western civilization.

    https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1067324997235019776

  24. Two years and god only knows how many millions of dollars spent, and all they can get is some procedural “lying to investigators” charges on a few low-level flacks.

    In other words, the standard, typical outcome that almost always happens with these things.

  25. And also, as John pointed out yesterday, there’s still not a peep about the ongoing French rioting against Macron and his fellow enviro-Nazis.

    Welchie Boy is supposedly married to some French broad and goes over there quite a bit. If that’s really true, you would think this story would be in their wheelhouse. This is a pretty big story everywhere in the world right now, but not here for some odd reason. Is it because there’s no way to blame the riots on Donald Trump?

    1. People are protesting for actual freedom. There is no Libertarian interest there.

      1. Freedom is just another word for “not quite environmental enough”

  26. the special counsel’s mission to determine if any Americans conspired with Russia’s efforts to sway the U.S. election.

    Any Americans? Boy they must’ve used a bulldozer to widened the scope of that investigation. Soon enough it will be his mission to determine if any Americans conspired with Russians on anything while the election was happening.

  27. Three cheers for #FOIA, thanks to which we now have the video of a border agent’s gender reveal explosion that ended up burning 47,000 acres of land

    WTF is a “gender reveal explosion,” besides a pretty kick ass band name?

    1. Sounds like queercore or something

    2. A “gender reveal explosion” happens when an SJW accidentally falls into a superconducting supercollider such as CERN. Xe gets swirled around faster and faster, finally crashing into an impenetrable barrier and exploding. The scientists then study the submoronic particles that come flying out.

  28. Is there any substance to Mueller’s accusations? Or is this just a prosecutor who is mad that the guy who plead a deal didn’t really know anything that’s helpful?

    1. “How dare this guy we accused of lying LIE to us!?!?!”

    2. Keen insights on law in general and prosecutions in particular are evident from those questions.

      Keep up the good work.

  29. General Motors is cutting 14,000 U.S. jobs in response to Trump’s tariffs.

    GM is cutting jobs because their vehicles suck. Many of these jobs will be coming from plants in Canada.

    STOP lying Reason. This is why I refuse to give you money or Bitcoin.

  30. On #GivingTuesday, help support @reason in our second 50 years of bringing libertarian news, politics, culture, and ideas to the wider world!

    Does that include more hard hitting articles that compare Trump to Evil-Kirk and Kahn?

    1. First an article using Star Wars, then Buck Rogers, then Battlestar Galactica, THEN back to Star Trek.

  31. It’s not a witch hunt when people start reporting to prison . . . unless one is gullible enough to believe that witches exist.

    1. So I guess the Salem witch trials were not witch hunts either once people started hanging from the gallows.

      My God you are stupid.

  32. Looks like Manafort’s been promised a pardon, and Trump is betting he won’t be impeached or indicted for obstruction.

  33. nice post really i like it

    railway group d result
    https://www.railwaygroupdresults.in

  34. “What kind of bootlicking busybodies spend their spare time…” We all know what kind. Incels with narcissistic rage at a lack of supply. If they spent their time working on improving their job skills, they’d probably make enough money to attract someone or at least rent the desired GFE gratifications

  35. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to http://www.mkoutletfire.com/mi…..black.html word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.