Border wall

Trump's Border Wall Is a Bad Idea. So Is a Government Shutdown.

The best we can hope for is that Trump gives in.

|

MICHAEL REYNOLDS/UPI/Newscom

With each passing day, it looks more and more likely that a partial government shutdown could happen in the next month unless Congress agrees to allocate $5 billion for President Donald Trump's proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. If Congress won't fund his wall, Trump says he's willing to take responsibility for a shutdown.

There are a few ways this could play out, but unless Trump folds, it's a no-win situation. That's because building a border wall is a bad idea, and so is shutting down the government.

Scenario 1: Trump gets his wall funding and the federal government stays open

In this scenario, Congress agrees to provide $5 billion for the wall, and Trump signs the spending deal into law before midnight on December 21. While this would keep the government fully funded, it would also be a waste of $5 billion.

Trump has been obsessed with illegal immigration since the early days of his campaign, and his preferred solution is a wall. The wall would supposedly keep Mexicans and other Central Americans from entering the U.S., but as Reason's Shikha Dalmia explained in January, net migration flows have actually reversed in recent years. Now, more Mexicans are trying to leave the U.S. than are attempting to enter. The pro-wall argument also assumes that illegal immigration to the U.S. is a bad thing, which isn't true. Illegal immigrants are less prone to commit crimes than native-born Americans. In fact, studies suggest that undocumented immigration is actually linked to decreased crime.

There are plenty of practical considerations to take into account as well. For instance, the federal government doesn't actually own more than two-thirds of the land on the southern border with Mexico. And even if Trump was able to get the wall built, it would likely take additional Border Patrol agents and technology to apprehend potential border-crossers. Plus, the wall would do nothing to stop illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. legally and overstayed their visas. Such immigrants made up 44 percent of the entire undocumented population in 2015, according to a Center for Migration Studies report.

Then there's the fact that $5 billion would just be the start. Reason's Eric Boehm estimated in March that getting the wall up could cost up to $28 billion, which doesn't include the $48.3 billion in maintenance costs over the first decade. While $5 billion is just a fraction of the wall's total cost, the sunk-cost fallacy could cause Congress to eventually appropriate 10 times that amount with much less fanfare.

Thankfully, this appears to be the least likely scenario. While it's possible the Republican-controlled House could approve a bill funding the wall, it would probably die in the Senate. Republicans hold a 51-49 majority, but Senate rules require that such bills receive the support of at least 60 senators. It's highly unlikely that nine Democrats vote for border wall funding, which could mean:

Scenario 2: Trump doesn't get his wall funding and the government partially shuts down

Unless Republicans and Democrats can agree on a spending deal in the next week, this is what will happen. To be clear, Trump has already approved $931 billion of the federal government's roughly $1.2 trillion in proposed funding for the 2019 fiscal year, according to Bloomberg. As I explained on Tuesday, there are seven remaining spending bills that must be approved by the December 21 deadline in order to avoid a partial shutdown. They would fund the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as well as the Departments of Justice, Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security; the last of which is where Trump wants to direct border wall funding.

Lawmakers in both parties agree that Republicans don't really have a plan of action moving forward. "There is no discernable plan. None that's been disclosed," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R–Texas). "I've not heard of any Republican who's sitting down and figuring out how to get this through. There's no plan," added Sen. Patty Murray (D–Wash.).

Meanwhile, the House is out of session until Wednesday, when there will only be three days left to avoid a shutdown. So what happens if neither side budges? As is usually the case when it comes to a government shutdown, nothing good.

For one thing, it likely won't save any money. Shutdowns have no effect on the roughly two-thirds of the federal budget that goes to entitlement spending.

Taxpayers aren't saving on federal workers' salaries, either. A fact sheet published by Democratic staffers on the Senate Appropriations Committee claims 380,000 non-essential federal workers will be furloughed. This includes the majority of workers at the Departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development, as well as NASA, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the IRS. They won't be paid during the furlough, but after past government shutdowns, Congress has usually voted to give them back pay. Essentially, they will likely be paid for not working.

Another 420,000 essential employees will keep working without pay. However, like their furloughed colleagues, they'll probably receive back pay once the shutdown is over.

This is probably a good time to point out that essential employees include federal workers who carry around guns. This includes 41,000 federal law enforcement and correctional officers like FBI and DEA agents. About 53,000 TSA agents will still be on the clock (a government shutdown doesn't mean the government can't grope you), as well as 54,000 Customs and Border Protection agents and officers. As Reason's Scott Shackford accurately noted when the government shut down in January: "The parts of the federal government authorized to shoot you are still functioning."

But a shutdown can hurt private businesses. The fact is, there are so many hoops the government makes companies jump through that when a shutdown happens, some businesses have to stop what they're doing until federal offices reopen.

This means the best scenario is

Scenario 3: Trump gives in and the shutdown is averted without border wall funding

According to Politico, there's a chance Trump agrees to a bipartisan spending deal that includes funds for border security, but not a wall. While this wouldn't do anything to reform the federal government's wild spending habits, it would avoid a shutdown without giving in to Trump's ridiculous demands. At least right now, that seems like the best we can hope for.

Correction: This post originally stated that visa overstayers make up a third of the entire undocumented population. But according to to a 2017 Center for Migration Studies report, the number is closer to 44 percent.

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

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. So…I’m guessing Reason prefers interior enforcement for illegal immigrants who slip through in the absence of a wall?

    1. What about sane immigration reform so that migrants taking huge personal risks will be disincentivized?

      1. Sane… like the most permissive immigration policy in the world? Lowest amount of means testing for most first world countries? A looser policy than even Canada? 1 million a year. The horror of this inhumane policy.

        1. Why shouldn’t we have the most permissive immigration policy in the world? A good argument can be made that such permissiveness led directly to many of the US’s greatnesses.

          But that talking point is not exactly true. We permit more people than other countries, but per capita we’re like 19th out of 24 OECD countries.

          But the question of reform is about the status of the millions of illegal immigrants and future illegal immigrants. The disincentive comes from regulating at the employer end, right? No work, no illegal immigration. As for those present, you have to have a path to citizenship, or you just have millions of people with no rights standing around, and that’s not very libertarian.

          1. I’d love hear why per capita is a useful measure for immigration. Go for it, make the case.

            If Democrats were serious about opening up immigration they’d go against their own policies of wage and price controls, expansive labor policy, and would defund welfare programs. Notably, they are doing the exact opposite of those things.

          2. “A good argument can be made that such permissiveness led directly to many of the US’s greatnesses.”

            It wouldn’t be a very persuasive argument, unless you believe Canada (with all its huge, nearly empty landd) would be a world power within 20 years if they accepted 20 million South Americans.

            Uncontrolled immigration will never “directly lead” to greatness. There has to be a system or a way of life that can sustain these people, and if they’re contributing to the economy, then that particularly economy was strong and open minded to begin with.

            “Who’s going wash your cars and pick your fruits” was always a laughable nonsensical defense of open borders. If we had to, we could reduce immigration and hire guest workers to pick our crops and such. People would step over each other to apply, and we could get BEST applicants. America is hot destination because of its greatness.

            There are already more than 300 million people living in this country. Why MUST we accept more people, especially when the economy is becoming less and less analog? States like CA will be crushed by a housing crisis in the near future.

            1. Why MUST we accept more people

              Why should anyone forbid them from entering? By what moral authority?

              1. Moral authority? What the fuck are you babbling about? If it were a moral issue we’d be obligated to invade their countries to make their governments stop mistreating them you massive NeoCon.

                1. Well that depends on your moral premises, doesn’t it?

                  One can make a moral argument for invading the world, and one can make a moral argument for not invading the world.

                  So what is the moral argument for forbidding peaceful people from coming here?

                  1. Who gives a damn about a “moral argument”? We have no obligation to accept anyone, regardless of their circumstances. We need to consider potential immigrants like Australia and New Zealand do – if you can’t take care of yourself and aren’t considered likely to be a net asset to the country, you don’t get in, period. And merely being a future reliable Democrat voter is not sufficient rationale.

                    1. Well that’s your moral argument, that migration should be considered an exercise in collective decision-making. I reject the premise entirely.

                    2. That’s ok jeffy. We generally reject your opinions.

                  2. Why would you assume that ecpveryone crossing our border has peaceful intentions, you dolt?

              2. Little Jeffy, asked and answered literally dozens of times here, and by so many of us,

                Now fuck off, m’kay?

            2. Combine American entrepreneurial freedom with hardscrabble immigrants and we get the nuclear bomb before Germany. In fact, anything not invented by a Native American can be attributed to permissive immigration policy.

              1. You do know it was actually kinda difficult to get admitted back in the day?

              2. Tony, you’re against entrepreneurial freedom and for more government control. So fuck off with your disingenuous talking points.

                1. He’s against entrepreneurial freedom and for more government control.

                  You’re a disaffected bigot who has lost the culture war and is for more government control.

                  Sounds like a strange debate at a libertarian site. Where is the hope?

                  1. Yeah, you say that same shirt every time. Boring. I notice you don’t dispute what I said about Tony. Nor should you, as he heeds the communist call.

              3. Hmmm, well, if you assume that recruiting hundreds of leading foreign scientists to come here is exactly the same as recruiting tens of millions of illiterate socialists, then sure Tony.

              4. I bet the Native Americans wish they had had a lot more effective border control and had kept all the white men out.

            1. Cato says the exact opposite, and note that we aren’t even referring to info propagated by anyone on the left. The CIS is not a credible source.

              And welfare use isn’t actually your concern about immigration, is it? You don’t give a stringy shit about immigrant welfare use, do you?

              1. Cato is a clown-car of Koch cash-collecting cucks.No one takes them seriously anymore They spend far more effort NeverTrump-tweeting than on policy these days.

              2. Tony,

                Cato can have any opinion they like. These are government figures from people who probably tried their level best to put a positive spin on them.

                And actually, we have had many discussions here, that you were part to, were the problem of the welfare state being incompatible with open borders has been discussed.

                Do you start every day forgetting everything before?

          3. “A good argument can be made that such permissiveness led directly to many of the US’s greatnesses.”

            An argument I’ve made to the Alt-Right myself when they argue that multi ethnic societies can’t work, that the waves of migrants in the 1800s provided the manpower for the US to become the world’s superpower. Sounds like working to me.

            But note that those waves occurred under vastly different conditions.

            Before the income tax and the welfare state. They came when the vast majority of Americans were farmers, and newcomers could simply plunk themselves down and start trying to dig a living out of the dirt, and would go back to the old country if they failed. They came when we needed manual labor. They came at a time when immigrants were expected to assimilate, and desired to do so. In the early 1900s, there was vast pressure on “hyphenated Americans” to assimilate, to Presidents telling them to drop the hyphen or be considered traitors.

            And those waves came predominantly from Germany and Ireland, whose people then and today were among first world countries.

            Those conditions made for greater likelihood of successful assimilation and contribution of those immigrants. Those just aren’t the conditions today.

            1. The bigots have been making these arguments throughout American history. Against the Irish, blacks, gays, Hispanics, women, Asians, eastern Europeans, Catholics, other Hispanics, Italians, Jews, other Asians, atheists, Muslims, agnostics, etc. ‘But this time it’s different — our bigotry makes sense this time’ is a losing argument in American because America is better than its intolerant, ignorant, superstitious, stale-thinking, half-educated rubes.

              1. Arty, your progtarded bigotry ever makes sense. The only true path to end your racism is to cast off the chains of socialism and government. Only then can e share in opportunity with some level of equality.

              2. “I can ignore the facts if I just call you a racist”

              3. Rev, when the nurse takes you back to your room. You can look in the shiny metal mirror and see one of the most irritating bigots I know.

      2. So… no more social welfare?

        1. I assume you’re referring to the disingenuously pragmatic argument that illegal immigrants are a drain on the social welfare system, which is the opposite of the truth. (They skew younger, they pay taxes in but receive no benefits.)

          1. CBO showed that DACA will cost 26BB dollars over the next 10 years. And since that’s a government number and you have unshakeable faith in the public sector…

          2. No, although you could make that argument. Instead, consider that low-skilled labor that’s American born is already on welfare generally speaking then extrapolate what adding millions more of them would do. Not to mention that generally when a good, say low-skill labor, is more common it’s price goes down.

          3. They pay no taxes other than SS contribution (if they’re not getting paid in cash, which is fairly standard for illegal labor) and sales tax. More than half the population in CA pay little to no income tax. The CBO already estimated that the cost of taking care of illegal aliens represented a slight negative in the budget.

            If an undocumented aliens work at Mcdonalds and they send 2 kids to school, then they have already taken more from the state than they paid in. If the kids don’t become doctors or something, they too will likely take more than they pay in. This is true for citizens. The math doesn’t change because the democrats put certain people on a pedestal.

            On average, immigrants play a huge role in the economy. But most people don’t live averages, and the success stories you might see in places like Irvine is not typical. Truth be told populous states like CA depend on the good graces of the 1% (tech, stocks, intellectual property) to survive. Once they go, no amount of immigrants would save the state.

            1. If an undocumented aliens work at Mcdonalds and they send 2 kids to school, then they have already taken more from the state than they paid in.

              That is an argument against public funding of education, not against immigration.

              1. No you fucking moron, it’s an argument against both.

                1. It isn’t a good-faith argument against immigration, in the same way that when prohibitionists use the argument of “druggies just wind up on the public dole!” as an argument against drug legalization.

                  1. It isn’t an argument against immigration. It’s an argument against allowing immigration by people who aren’t almost certain to have high incomes.

                    Which just happens to rule out the people who’d come here illegally, because the whole point of doing that is that you don’t expect to be allowed in legally.

              2. We do have public funding of education, and it’s not going away anytime soon. So yes, it is an argument against illegals.

              3. “My arguments aren’t relevant to the actual world we live in. Muh anarchy.”

              4. Yes Jeffy.

                So as soon as you get education privatized and welfare eliminated (and we will certainly support that), THEN we will support increased immigration.

                I wish you every success.

    2. “Borders are totalitarianism, m’kay?”

    3. I stray from the Libertarians on immigration because of the reality described by Milton Friedman. You can’t have open borders with a welfare state.

      As for the government shutdown it would be worth it if it was for major changes to entitlements, eliminating things like Jimmy Carter’s twin boondoggles the Dept of Energy and Dept of Education which produce no energy and educate no one.

      1. You can’t have open borders and hostile nations that fund terror, or hostile nations like China. Open borders really doesn’t work in any practical sense, which is why no functional country has them.

  2. What is the point of commenting on an article that cites Politico?

    1. Not wading through the trash that is politico comment platforms?

      1. Oh, I will completely trash these comments.

    2. Did you get that far?
      Once this idiot used Shikha as a reference and the the phony claim that “illegal immigrants are less prone to commit crimes than native-born Americans” I quit reading.
      Typical open borders bullshit.

      1. “Once this idiot used Shikha as a reference”
        Doesn’t that violate the laws of physics?

      2. Typical open borders bullshit.

        Our old, stale-thinking, bigoted, right-wing authoritarians can’t die off fast enough. But die off they will, to be replaced by better as younger Americans, improving our nation.

        1. Yes, yes, thanks for your input Rev.

          How long is it before the nurse takes you back to your room anyway?

    3. Yes. It’s a Setyon article, which means a level of research that consists of listening to a Vox “Explainer” podcast for quotes and cites, and scanning Scopes as due diligence.

  3. >>>Essentially, they will likely be paid for not working.

    how is it a shutdown again?

  4. But a shutdown can hurt private businesses. The fact is, there are so many hoops the government makes companies jump through that when a shutdown happens, some businesses have to stop what they’re doing until federal offices reopen.

    That the extortioners can’t extort with as little pain for their victims as possible is not justification for enabling the extortioners.

    1. Beat me to it. Libertarians for the government picking winners and losers!

      1. Well they’re already libertarians for taxation and libertarians for welfare, so this is just a minor step.

  5. I think you misposted this Joe. Salon and HuffPo are on the next internet block.

  6. Reason wastes so many letters to just get to vox.com.

    Joey is concerned that the smooth functioning of government might be interrupted. I am not.

    1. The point is that a shutdown ends up spending more money.

      1. They need to put rangers on all the entrances to the national parks, for example, to tell people the national parks are closed.

        1. No, clown they don’t need to they choose to. It isn’t like the park stops being a park.

          And they do it to get clowns like you to beleive that it costs more to shut down the government than not.

          Way to buy the propaganda.

          1. Sarcasm, how do it work?

            1. Lying that you were being sarcastic abput something that actually happens, how do it work?

              “Chipper Morning Baculum|12.14.18 @ 11:24PM|#

              Sarcasm, how do it work?”

              Oh. That’s how.

              1. Chipper Morning Baculum|12.14.18 @ 5:00PM|#

                The point is that a shutdown ends up spending more money.

                reply to this report spam
                Chipper Morning Baculum|12.14.18 @ 5:01PM|#

                They need to put rangers on all the entrances to the national parks, for example, to tell people the national parks are closed.

                reply to this report spam

                Those are your posts. You weren’t being sarcastic you sad fucking liar.

                1. That’s it you sad lying bitch, run away and hide.

                  1. Get your sarcasm meter fixed, cunt!

                  2. Tulpa, there’s a reason you’re openly mocked. You are a dumb fuck. Please assess and correct the problem.

      2. Only because assholes in government push back pay for missed time. Fuck the fed workers. Let them suffer for once.

        1. ” Congress has usually voted to give them back pay. ”

          But there has never been a President Trump to veto such spending before.

          Trump should announce he will refuse back pay to government workers placed on furlough.

          *That* would be an actual Libertarian Moment!

      3. No, the point is that libertines like yourself and joey accept it.

      4. Only the government could spend more money while it’s closed than while it’s open. That’s the best case for slashing it in half across the board I can think of at the moment, but it’s not a very good argument for keeping it open when spending only goes up.

      5. “The point is that a shutdown ends up spending more money.”

        Then progtards best learn to obey so we can avoid that, eh?

      6. Ok, but this is how our government is constructed and intended to function. This is why the President HAS the ability to Veto legislation, particularly budget legislation. And why 2/3 is required to overcome it.

        If you hate shutdowns so much, pray tell how you would modify the constitution to make it work better.

  7. The government shuts down, and the FDA stops approving drugs, and the food stops getting tested, and the water supply gets tainted (with taint), and the power grid goes down, and people start killing each other, maces and helmets and motorcycles, dogs and cats, MASS HYSTERIA!

    1. And people who work for a living won’t notice a difference.

  8. Every time the subject comes up, you hear something like this:

    “Taxpayers aren’t saving on federal workers’ salaries, either. A fact sheet published by Democratic staffers on the Senate Appropriations Committee claims 380,000 non-essential federal workers will be furloughed.”

    Leading to the question- if those workers are non-essential, why do they have jobs in the first place?

    1. hahaha, never heard that one before.

    2. To fill jobs in non-essential agencies, duh.

      1. And to do non essential work. And very little of that even.

    3. That it takes until the comments section to find this point is concerning

    4. “… if those workers are non-essential, why do they have jobs in the first place?”
      Here’s a hint:
      The federal workforce has double the percentage of minority workers, than in the general population.
      It’s a make-work program for the unemployable.

      1. Like the military then. The GOPe’s take on a jobs program.

  9. I don’t understand the problem here. Candidate Trump said that Mexico will pay for the wall. He should be negotiating with Mexico and not the US Congress. Congress should pass the spending measure and leave the wall funding to Mexico.

    1. He should be sending a bill to Mexico for the public services consumed their illegal invasion.

    2. You don’t want to understand. Without regard to where the money might come from, the President can’t SPEND money unless it is appropriated. So this entire line is $hit (like Shitma, but with one less syllable) as it sounds ever so clever, but actually displays a complete lack of understanding how our government works.

  10. Nobody here should support huge amounts of government spending and vast use of eminent domain in order to build a literal barrier to freedom that won’t solve any existing problem. It’s a good candidate for the least libertarian project imaginable. Sorry to have to state the fucking obvious, but we got some leakage in here from Trumptard.com.

    1. Considering that these anti-liberty comments are being posted on an article arguing that even attempting to slightly and temporarily reduce the number of government agents infringing on our liberties is somehow a “bad idea”, I’d say this site is actively trying to shed any remaining credibility about being pro-freedom that it once had.

      1. an article arguing that even attempting to slightly and temporarily reduce the number of government agents infringing on our liberties

        Then it seems you didn’t understand essential facts of the situation. A shutdown does not result in lowering spending or reducing government requirements.

        Furthermore, confiscating and spending billions of dollars on the construction and maintenance of a wall that will likely not recoup its cost for the number of illegal immigrants it keeps out really is anti-liberty.

        1. “Furthermore, confiscating and spending billions of dollars on the construction and maintenance of a wall that will likely not recoup its cost for the number of illegal immigrants it keeps out really is anti-liberty.”

          The money has already been confiscated. Your contention that the wall will not recoup costs is a knee jerk reaction based in your personal bias. You present no evidence. Nor do you exp,sin how any of this would be ‘anti liberty’, beyond maybe where your feelings are impacted.

    2. Everyone knows that we have to use eiminent domain and tax dollars in order to enslave the US populace instead.

    3. God damn it Tony, stop making me agree with you!

      I don’t get the obsession with a physical barrier across 1900+ miles. I mean, to a simpleton it sounds like a great idea until you realize that tunnels and ladders were already invented.

      It’s rough to try and jive this wall with being a fiscal conservative or small government conservative. They just don’t go together.

      1. Well it’s not all 1900 miles and in the limited segments where it already exists it has been effective.

        1. Well yeah, because you can walk around that bit of the wall to a part where there isn’t one.

          There are tunnels under some of them already, too, although I guess we could just pay the border patrol to go around with ground penetrating RADAR but that costs money too.

          1. And in response to the idea that if the whole thing had a wall it would be equally effective as the segments that are there now, I could concede that it could slow the entry of illegal aliens for a brief period of time until they start bringing those ladders and tunnel supplies to the border. They’d also just use the ocean. The incentives to get here aren’t looking like they’re going to change, which means they aren’t going to stop trying.

            They have already proven to be at least relatively adept at doing this, although I’ve heard no shortage of stories of a bunch of people dying in cave in’s from tunnels either.

            The wall is a solution that’s been tried throughout history with limited success, but usually also at great cost. I’d much prefer to attack the incentives rather than spend tons of money on half-solutions (more like 1/10th solutions).

            1. Walls only work when they are backed by the credible threat of lethal force.

              The public is never going to stand for the US Military shooting at unarmed women and children.

              1. “Walls only work when they are backed by the credible threat of lethal force.”

                This is of course stupid and wrong.

                They work when the cost of getting past them exceeds the payoff. Lethal force isn’t necessary at all.

              2. Our border patrol manages to be effective without employing lethal force in all but the deadliest of situations. Which are the ones not involving unarmed women and children. This won’t be any different.

            2. “The wall is a solution that’s been tried throughout history with limited success…”
              Some success is better than no success – as in 22 MILLION illegals, at least living here.
              The best attack on the incentives would be deporting all of the illegals, with an insistence that every future one caught would be sent, packing, without delay or court action.
              But, somehow, I doubt you would be in favor of that.

              1. No court review of government action? What is an authoritarian bigot doing at a libertarian site?

                1. No bigger authoritarian bigot around here but you, Pastor Costco.

                  1. I like what you did there Peter.

      2. The way I see it, encouraging people to locations of checkpoints isn’t a bad thing. It would actually streamline refugee entry. Basically a funnel. And considering we jumped to a 205 billion dollar deficit in November, its a small price to pay. Remember, most open borders people agree that a checkpoint makes sense. You think that girl who died of dehydration would have been better off wandering through more desert?

    4. Ok Tony. From now on, any illegal immigrant caught in the US will be relocated to your neighborhood. Then we can discuss how not letting every third world socialist, gay-murdering, female genital mutilater, and pederast in to our country is anti freedom.

      1. There are lots of illegal immigrants in my neighborhood and yours. Mostly they’re washing dishes and doing lawns. The people I worry about are the whiny-ass crackers with itchy trigger fingers. Illegal immigrants don’t commit more crimes than other groups. They have incentive not to, you racist fuck.

        1. Do you think everyone hires people to do simple menial work for them?

          1. Tony thinks Americans are entitled to a continuous supply of slaves.

            1. Fmwe has thismargument three hundred years ago, we would be the ones arguing against bringing blacks here from Africa against their will. Insisting that they come here it’s like everyone else, free, but with the same responsibilities as the rest of us.

              Tony would be arguing for bringing them here in slave ships to be his slaves. And to an extent, that’s what Illegals are, a de facto slave class.

              Tomy is a slaver. Tony is evil.

        2. Wow, so you only think illegals do washing dishes, and lawns. You could have wrote doctors, engineers, factory works.

          Better question Tony, why do you want to import a new slave class?

        3. “There are lots of illegal immigrants in my neighborhood and yours. Mostly they’re washing dishes and doing lawns”

          Right where they belong, eh slaver?

    5. “It’s a good candidate for the least libertarian project imaginable. ”

      I’m so glad we have Tony here to tell us how to be libertarian.

    6. in order to build a literal barrier to freedom
      How are narcos and slave laborers freedom?

    7. “a literal barrier to freedom”

      Uh, no……….

      If it were, you would be all for it Tony. You slaver piece of shit.

    8. I do Tony. You might too if you ever grow up and get out of your Mom’s basement.

      1. Wow, this is NOT where I posted this.

  11. Over 90% of the government still operates during a shut down. What horrors does reason think will happen with a shutdown?

    1. It’ll be blamed on Trump?

      1. While cares what idiots scream.

      2. I don’t think you wrote that correctly. Instead of ‘blamed on Trump’ I think you mean ‘credit given to Trump’ since he’s already said that he’ll be happy to own the shutdown. Which is probably smart, since his supporters don’t give a flying fuck if the government shuts down for a while.

        1. Hell, I’m no trump supporter and I don’t care.

          1. In two years when there is another election,no one will even remember any shutdown, except for people who have already made up their mind on who they are voting for.

        2. I love how everyone talks about his shrinking pool of supporters as if they’re the only voters who matter.

          1. That they are obviously concerns you.

      3. Trump fixed that with his press conference. Even though when bad things happen it’s always the fault of progressives.

    2. It’s a tiny slowdown, not a shut down. Calling it a shutdown is a bizarre exercise in Doublespeak.

    3. “What horrors does reason think will happen with a shutdown?”
      The same horrors all “journalists” have – that people will realize that we don’t need so much government, because most people’s lives won’t be affected, and smaller government means a less powerful government and “journalists” won’t have the same power they did, when they try to influence policy.
      The media drives government, the less powerful government is, the less that driving works, and the media loses power.
      It’s as simple as that.

  12. So Is a Government Shutdown.

    Can be TOO free.

  13. I don’t think shutting down is drastic enough.

    How about we fire them all and start over.

    1. Sad. I liked her.

  14. If gummit shuts down, who will tell the peoples what to do?

    1. The press. They try to tell us what to think already.

  15. Representative Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), apparently a member of the Freedom Caucus, introduced a bill:

    “To allow the Secretary of the Treasury to accept public donations to fund the construction of a barrier on the border between the United States and Mexico”

    http://www.scribd.com/document…..ll-Funding

    Perfect solution, amirite . . . especially if the donations are tax deductible. Maybe more things should be that way.

    1. Should do it for any new weapons systems.

      1. Hey, the Feds could have their very own GoFundMe page!

        How about every federal agency has to appeal to the public for funding their respective departments before the start of each fiscal year?

        If your nipples aren’t hard pondering that idea then you are a progressive and a collectivist.

  16. What about what about what about Her’s border wall*?

    *”well, it’s more of a fence…”

  17. Wouldn’t the wall help to exclude terrorists? Common sense in these terrorist times suggests we need to know who’s coming in, period.

    1. FWIW, one of the best arguments for letting Mexican citizens cross with an ID (and no visa) is that the only people sneaking through the desert at night would be the bad guys–making people like terrorists much easier to catch without thousands of migrant workers to hide behind. Why sneak across miles of a dangerous desert when you can simply walk across at a checkpoint by showing an ID?

      We could keep out convicted felons in Mexico if we required them to develop a database we could independently check to see who’s a convicted felon, etc. As it is, we can’t even keep out people who’ve been convicted of felonies in the United States because there is such a swarm of people sneaking through the deserts at night. There was a murderer in Portland, recently, who’d been deported dozens of times.

      Incidentally, letting people cross the border that way is what everybody from Nick Gillespie to yours truly means when we’re talking about “open borders”. One of the main benefits would be that our border would be more secure than it is now against things like convicted felons, cartel killers, known gang bangers, and terrorist threats.

      1. How do you then deal with the ones that violate our employment laws, and decide to stay indefinitely?

        1. I don’t consider that a problem.

          Labor is a resource, and having more of it is better. If cheap labor were bad for economic growth, then the slowest growing economy in the world over the last 20 years would be China’s.

          I consider welfare a problem, and my solution to that problem is to cut it for everybody. I also want to cut Medicaid.

          1. Well, we at least agree on cutting welfare, including Medicaid.

            1. I think we also agree that having a wall might not be a bad thing.

              I suspect that I’ll never convince my fellow Americans to allow the kind of immigration laws I’d like to see so long as the border is insecure.

              I think we agree that congress should set the level of immigration, and any kind of border agreement with Mexico needs to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. I think we agree that no immigration policy is acceptable if it’s inflicted on the American people over their objections and against their will.

              In other words, we can disagree on something fundamental like whether cheap labor by way of immigration is a good thing–and still agree on a lot of other fundamental stuff. It’s the intellectually dishonest open borders people that are the worst enemies of open borders. I probably agree with Dalmia on the desirability of lots of immigration, but it’s all the other shit she says–stuff that you disagree with, I’m sure–that make me disagree with her so vociferously.

              Once we agree that we should all be honest about this stuff, all the other divisions are just about persuasion. Lots of people don’t have problems with me but have problems with Dalmia, and it isn’t because she’s open borders. It’s because she’s not . . . willing to accept that immigration is within the proper purview of democracy, that sometimes she’s not entirely candid about the facts, etc. Funny how that works!

              1. I’m a lot more flexible on a number of issues when the overall trajectory at least substantially reduces problems we have with spending and immigration. In recent years things have been so bad it feels like all will be lost if we aren’t completely intractable on securing the border and digging in or he’s on spending.

      2. Well, the wall is intended to make people come across at the border checkpoints. That way we know who is coming in and out. This is such a great idea, nearly every country in the world tries to do the same thing with various levels of success.

  18. Han’t Israel made good with walls?

    1. Because the Israeli military has no compunction against shooting at those trying to breach the wall.

      How many dead Mexicans do you think the American public will tolerate?

      1. As many as it takes to make the point I imagine.

        1. You think that public opinion, which was outraged by Trump’s family separation policy, will sit by idly and tolerate dead unarmed Mexicans at the hands of US soldiers? Really?

          1. public opinion, which was outraged by Trump’s family separation policy
            No, the media and the corporate slavers were outraged (or pretended to be) by the policy.

            1. Yes, it was unpopular among the public at large.

              http://www.thedailybeast.com/p…..acceptable

              http://www.vox.com/policy-and-…..es-parents

              A majority of Republicans liked it. Everyone else hated it.

              1. More sophistry and shitty strawmen. True hallmarks of a Little Jeffy rant.

                Do you need MeeMaw to come change your nappy Little Jeffy?

            2. “No, the media and the corporate slavers were outraged (or pretended to be) by the policy.”

              That’s not what slaver means, dipshit. Slaver actually means you.

      2. “Because the Israeli military has no compunction against shooting at those trying to breach the wall.”

        Another shitty straw man from Little Jeffy. Who is now showing his anti Semitism.

      3. Lots I hope. I hope to see their dead bones piled up bleaching in the sun in the news. As soon as that spreads through south and central america they will stop traveling up with the intent on sneaking in.

        Probably save lives all around in the long run.

    2. Those are military walls and borders as defense against Hamas and Hezbollah.

      They are manned by soldiers and backed by the airforce and army. The fences and walls are just one layer of the defense.

      And it is still a challenge. Missiles go over and tunnels go under.

      1. So… yes they work?

  19. “That’s because building a border wall is a bad idea…” So is mass, unchecked, third world migration, but then Democrats need a new slave class for their welfare plantation.

    1. The corporatists are totally onboard too.
      No need to build that factory in Laos, Guatemala or Ghana to take advantage of slave labor pricing when you can put it right in the middle of your biggest market. The savings in shipping alone…

  20. Oh my garsh, imagine all the monuments that will be closed to the public if the government shuts down. The children who won’t get to visit our national parks. The little, tiny children.

    1. I’m surprised a cosmotarian electronic publication like Reason is opposed to a government shutdown. Some of those monuments (on NPS land) are for Confederates.

  21. A border wall AND Ba shutdown are great ideas. Keep people out what we don’t want, and save money. Let do both!

  22. “The pro-wall argument also assumes that illegal immigration to the U.S. is a bad thing, which isn’t true” and then the only explanation for that conclusion is that illegals commit fewer crimes. Since when did everyone agree that crime was the only possible downside to illegal immigration? If you’re going to state flat out that illegal immigration is not a bad thing, it probably makes sense to explain why not for at least a few of the reasonably possible arguments.

    1. “is that illegals commit fewer crimes”

      Which is of course demonstrably wrong.

    2. And the claim they commit fewer crimes is absolute bullshit. The opposite is the case, and not be a little.

      Not only do the statistics (by reputable sources, not CNN or Cato) support this. But the only time I was called to jury duty it was for Circuit court and all violent crimes including murder. Every single one of the accused was foreign born claiming to speak only Spanish.

      I was not chosen for a jury so got to sit through jury selection over and over. It was a long week.

  23. Win win.

    Govt shutdown is great, bring it on. Dont care who did it.

    Wall is a joke.

    Bring them both to a halt.

    1. The wall is good, and necessary. Glad I could straighten you out on that.

      1. That’s the dumbest thing you’ve said in awhile, and that’s saying something. Wasting taxpayer dollars on an eyesore isn’t a Libertarian tenet. Take your dumb ass back to Breitbart.

        1. Look faggot, i’m far more intelligent than your stupid ass could ever imagine. If you can’t understand the value of the proposed wall then that’s on you.

          Also, I’m not going anywhere, but you can GTFO. I’m sure WaPo and and Fox can use a few more pants shutting dullards to round out their commentariat.

          Anyway, die and go to Hell now. You won’t be missed, except as the punchline to a joke.

        2. Take your dumb ass back to Politico, Myshkin

  24. Just build it 8 inches over on the Mexican side, and fund it by buying 5,000 fewer tomahawk missiles. Problem solved, everybody’s happy except maybe Mexico and Raytheon, but fuck those guys. It’ll be worth it just to have people STFU about it.

    1. 8″ on the Mexican side puts it in the river.

      1. So build it a foot taller.

      2. You make that sound like a bad thing.

  25. Instead of furloughing hundreds of thousands of federal employees, *actually* shrinking government, Reason doesn’t want them to miss a moment of running your life.

    “Libertarian Moment”

  26. So many trolls respond, with so little to say and none of it for any useful purpose.

  27. Is this article from the Onion? Beside using Shrike as a credible source
    “Plus, the wall would do nothing to stop illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. legally and overstayed their visas. Such immigrants make up about a third of the entire undocumented population.”

    Welp, we can’t stop the 1/3 so let’s not care about the other 2/3. Joe must be great with disasters. Part of my house is on fire, I might as well let it all burn since that part is burned.

    Wait was this written by Tony or Chemjeff?

    1. Kirkland.
      Tony and Chemjeff can at least write.

  28. Government spending boondoggles are a total waste of money and just an exercise in graft to get politicians re-elected.

    Except for a border wall. Then, it’s totally vital and necessary, not a boondoggle at all, and if you disagree you hate America.

    1. No Little Jeffy, you disagree AND you hate America.

      1. No, Jeff is correct and you are an economic halfwit. Seriously, piss off. 4chan will love your schtick.

        1. Sock puppet faggot hiding behind a sock. I own you bitch. You fuckng Marxist collectivist moron.

          You’re too scared to reveal who you reall are. Probably Hihn. Doesn’t want to get put into the psycho ward.

          1. Wow, some have probably been wondering who would date Jeffy, living in Mom’s attic and all, and then here comes Myshkin and now we know.

    2. “Walls don’t work, because muh anarchy”

  29. Prohibitions criminalize harmless behavior, fill the jails with nonviolent ‘criminals’, divert government resources to chase down otherwise peaceful people when they could be out looking for the real bad guys like rapists and murderers, wind up eroding the liberties of everyone, not just the prohibition’s targets, and represent a terrible way to solve the underlying problem that a prohibition was intended to solve.

    Except for the prohibition on labor. There it’s totally justified, we need to enforce the prohibition harder, tighten the screws more, dream up more ways to impose more burdens on more employers and more citizens in order to fight the scourge of illegal immigration, and if you disagree you hate America.

    1. Not just one strawman for you to do rhetorical battle against but a whole army, huh.

      1. Would you like to share with us what type of immigration policy that you support? Please, feel free to lay out the specifics.

        1. Why bother? You always argue back like an idiot. Then next time pretend no one ever answers your stupid wuations or breaks down your stupid arguments. When it’s been done literally dozens of times.

          I’ve even had to point this out at least ten times by now. You’re that fucking obtuse. This is also why you’re hated, and not taken seriously.

          You really are an idiot looking for a village to haunt.

          1. Translation: Shithead here has no ideas, only insults.

            That is all you have. Whining and insults.

            And in the rare case when you do offer some idea, it is just a slogan like “build the wall” or “secure the border”. No details, no intelligent discussion of the costs or tradeoffs.

            What do you support, in detail? Why are you so afraid to take a stand of being in favor of some concrete idea, instead of just hiding behind juvenile insults?

            You are a coward. Afraid to defend your ideas fair and square.

            1. He’s not going to openly support his racism. Hit and run is the argumentation of choice when ignorant paranoia is your only justification.

              1. Amd hiding behind a sock puppet is yours, isn’t it you cowardly bitch?

            2. Jeffy, I’ve expkained my ideas to you secpveral times in the past. So has just quit everyone else here. You spout your same bullshit in every new immigration discussion, and whine about how no one has addressed your points. Which are all previously discredited.

              I’ve even explained THIS to you several times before. But you’re like a broken record. Everyone is tired of extending their energy to re explain something to you for the tenth or twentieth time, just for you to continue shitposting your inanity. There is no intelligent comversatikn where you are concerned.

              You just make it difficult for the rest of us to have a sunstantove discussion on the subject. Your posts are the equivalent of litter. And I am FAR from the only one saying this to you.

              Do you get it now?

              1. ChemJeff doesn’t believe what he believes for reasons.

                He believes what he believes for the same “reasons” that Scientologists believe L. Ron Hubbard, and Moonie believes the Reverend Moon.

                ChemJeff feels like you don’t understand him because in order to feel like he does, you need to be in the cult. If you would just join the cult, then you would understand.

                ChemJeff says the same kinds of subrational shit that cult victims say when they’re being deprogrammed. Unless you’re a cult deprogrammer, there’s no point in arguing with him. He’s devoted his life to the Reverend Moon.

                1. Fuck off Ken. You are just a Republican apologist. Liberals are the enemy, while Republicans should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is what comes across in every single one of your posts.

                  You don’t need to be in a cult in order to understand the premises of your interlocutor. For example, above you write, about Dalmia:

                  “It’s because she’s not . . . willing to accept that immigration is within the proper purview of democracy”

                  Immigration is NOT within the proper purview of democracy. Just like free speech is not within the proper purview of democracy, or gun rights is not within the proper purview of democracy, or the right to smoke weed is not within the proper purview of democracy. They are all fundamental liberties for which the mob should be powerless to restrain. Get it?

                  1. Ken nailed it.

              2. Oh I get it. You are a coward hiding behind false bluster and lame insults.

                You have nothing more than memes and insults and whines and slogans. No detailed description of what you favor. No assessment of the costs and benefits. Because you don’t really give a damn. You just want to ‘pwn the libs’.

                1. yep, that’s it…
                  So there is no point for you in staying here, the environment is so poor….
                  It was nice of you to stop by though ….
                  Please, come back when you can’t stay so long.

    2. “Needz moar human widgetz to polish monoclez”

      Jeff gets around the problem of foreigners favoring big government by proposing that they be permanently disenfranchised.

      “Libertarian moment.”

      1. I favor non-citizen migrants should have the same rights that they have right now. If you think that this is some sort of hellscape for non-citizens, then let’s talk about that. But I don’t.

        You have previously said that you are in favor of a very small amount of immigration. What do you think should be their status while becoming naturalized? Should they be given voting rights after crossing the border?

        1. You favor a *permanent* disenfranchised class.

          “Libertopia”.

          I don’t. Look up *temporary* and *permanent* to understand the difference.

          Thing is, you’re just living in sparkly unicorn pony land.

          Not gonna be a legal permanent disenfranchised class, despite your desire to rule over an imported disenfranchised peasant class forever and ever. And they’re going to use social services. We don’t even have the will to prevent *illegals* from using social services, let alone people we let legally in the country.

          All the premises of your self righteousness are simply false.

          1. I don’t favor a “permanent disenfranchised class” any more than you do.

            Instead of parading around on your moral high horse, perhaps you can explain what you think should be the status of the immigrants that you want to come here.

            Do you favor the legal ability of at least some immigrants to come here and work if they choose, but not to seek citizenship if that is their choice? Yes or no?

            1. If your answer is “yes”, then we are on the same page, at least qualitatively. It should be no problem for immigrants to come here and work, but not necessarily seek citizenship, if that is what they desire.

              1. “Need moar human widgetz”

                1. Your crocodile tears for migrants is so noted. You only bring up the supposed plight of migrants when you can use it as a club to try to beat your opponents with. But the reality is, you don’t give a damn about the migrants one way or another. You would be perfectly happy to see migrants as a disenfranchised slave class, as long as they are a disenfranchised slave class somewhere else. That is what this really boils down to.

            2. “I don’t favor a “permanent disenfranchised class” any more than you do.”

              Pick a team and play.

              You’ve denied that immigrants would be a problem with changing the political nature of the US because you wouldn’t let them vote.

              If you’re saying they get to vote, then their politics matter and their politics change the US.

              I’ve already answered your question before. I’m not for importing a permanent disenfranchised servant class, whether they so *choose* to be disenfranchised as a condition of entry or not.
              a) Not good for us.
              b) They’re not going to remain disenfranchised forever. Once in, they will want the vote and agitate for it, much like illegals agitate for amnesty now.

              1. Stop the equivocating.

                Would you favor a legal path for immigration that does not necessarily lead to naturalization? Yes or no?

                And for heaven’s sake, NOBODY IS “IMPORTING” ANYBODY. It is insulting to use that term when it comes to free people migrating. They aren’t slaves. They are free people who choose to migrate.

              1. No? So every single person who sets foot in America, with legal permission, must be prepared to become a naturalized citizen?

  30. Regulations stifle innovation, funnel money away from private owners of capital, to the coercive state which, more often than not, uses regulations as a pretext to exercise power over the firms to be ostensibly regulated.

    Except for regulations on migration. There, we need more regulations and more bureaucrats deciding how many migrants we ought to have, we need all-encompassing rules in the labor market to punish businesses who step out of line, and if you disagree you hate America.

    1. More sophistry and shitty strawmen. True hallmarks of a Little Jeffy rant.

      Do you need MeeMaw to come change your nappy Little Jeffy?

    2. Article IV, Section 4
      “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”

      *shall* protect

      This matters not to Jeff, because “muh anarchy”.

      He pretends we’ll have the freedom made possible by Anglo American government while destroying that government, much like Marxists pretend they’ll have the production of markets after they’ve destroyed markets.

      It’s easy to feel self righteous when you live in a land where sparkly unicorn ponies shit gold and fart diamonds.

      1. In your view, is *any* type of immigration a form of invasion, as that term is used in the Constitution?

        Do you think the Framers intended that section to mean that the federal government should prevent all immigration whatsoever, because immigration is equivalent to invasion?

        1. Straw man time!

          Legal immigration may be wise or unwise depending on the levels, but it’s not invasion.

        2. 10, 20 million illegals counts as invasion to me. How about you?

          1. Of course not. An invasion, properly understood, is a military intervention under the direction of a foreign power.

            You use the term ‘invasion’ to stoke fear, that is all. It is to twist the language to suit your narrative. The Constitution’s use of the word ‘invasion’ refers to a military invasion, not a bunch of peaceful migrants.

            The early Republic had very few, if any, restrictions on migration at all. Funny how they didn’t think that the phrase that they themselves wrote into the Constitution represented an ‘invasion’ with all of those foreigners coming here with little to no screening whatsoever.

            When you make arguments like this, it leads reasonable people to conclude that you are not motivated by security or the rule of law, but primarily by fear of the migrants themselves.

            1. Government is not peace, it is a gun.

              People come and live somewhere, and when they have the power, they get their hands on the gun.

              Damn right I’m afraid of immigration.

              Unlike you, I don’t take for granted the peace, freedom, and prosperity we have in the US. It doesn’t just emanate from the dirt. Countries are the way they are because of the people who live in them.

              Import Not Americans, become Not America.

              1. Oh good heavens. If immigration is such an existential struggle for national survival, then how did America even make it this far?

                You paint this unnecessarily bleak picture of immigration in order to justify your fear.

                In reality, what happens is that both immigrants and the host nation adapt to the other. Immigrants adapt a LOT, while the host nation adapts a LITTLE.

                If you really think this current wave of immigration will lead to the end of the Republic, then you have zero faith in the power of current institutions to assimilate immigrants.

        3. The Framers intended immigration to be controlled by the federal government.

          That is called, LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

          NO ONE, who is not a citizen of the United States has a “right” to come into the United States.

          Therefore, the Federal Government is responsible for setting the rules for legal immigration and enforcing said rules.

          Specfically, the Federal Government is charged with limiting immigration to keep the states from being overrun. This was called, protecting them from invasion.

          1. The Framers intended immigration to be controlled by the federal government.

            They actually didn’t, by their own deeds. In the early Republic, the federal government had no role in immigration, only in naturalization.

      2. He pretends we’ll have the freedom made possible by Anglo American government while destroying that government

        Huh. So you are convinced that migration will lead to the destruction of the government. This is an utterly alarmist and absurd conclusion. I know this because previous waves of immigration did not lead to the destruction of America. There has always been an anti-immigration strain in America, and today’s is no different. Why do you think today’s anti-immigration crowd is correct, when all the other times in the past, they were wrong?

        1. ” I know this because previous waves of immigration did not lead to the destruction of America. ”

          Because all people are exactly alike and nothing has changed in a century and a half.

          “Why do you think today’s anti-immigration crowd is correct, when all the other times in the past, they were wrong?”

          Repeating what I wrote earlier:
          Note that those waves occurred under vastly different conditions.

          Before the income tax and the welfare state. They came when the vast majority of Americans were farmers, and newcomers could simply plunk themselves down and start trying to dig a living out of the dirt, and would go back to the old country if they failed. They came when we needed manual labor. They came at a time when immigrants were expected to assimilate, and desired to do so. In the early 1900s, there was vast pressure on “hyphenated Americans” to assimilate, to Presidents telling them to drop the hyphen or be considered traitors.

          And those waves came predominantly from Germany and Ireland, whose people then and today were among first world countries.

          Those conditions made for greater likelihood of successful assimilation and contribution of those immigrants. Those just aren’t the conditions today.

          1. They made the same types of arguments back in the 1920’s as you are making today. “In the pasts, immigrants could just become farmers! Now, they are moving into the cities working in factory jobs and stirring up support for socialism! We can’t have that! Time to clamp down on immigration in order to keep out the undesirables!” And by the way, Ireland was one of the ‘shithole’ countries of their day. Ireland was a virtual slave colony of Great Britain. Every negative stereotype that you attribute to today’s immigrants, were attributed to the Irish of the past. And yet the Republic didn’t fall apart.

            You’re just a modern-day variant of a Know-Nothing. They were wrong then and you are wrong now.

            1. “They made the same types of arguments back in the 1920’s as you are making today.”

              Not exactly the same arguments in the 1920s, but the fact is the restrictionists won the day and the US severely capped immigration. Claiming the survival of the US under the restrictionism of the 1920s as evidence that open borders can’t fail is your usual disconnect with reality.

          2. In the early 1900s, there was vast pressure on “hyphenated Americans” to assimilate, to Presidents telling them to drop the hyphen or be considered traitors.

            Do you have any real evidence that modern immigrants aren’t assimilating as fast as they did in the past?

            1. How about the part about all of them calling themselves hyphenated Americans?

              Do you have any evidence that they are?

              I go back through the census records for my family, and all the foreign names change and get Anglicized. Great Grandpa Laurs became Lou. They assimilated.

              But not a lot of phone polling was done through the 1800s, so it’s rather disingenuous to demand data that really just won’t be available.

              What you can see with today’s data are the marked Democratic and Big Government political preferences of Hispanics today.

              PEW Research on Hispanic Americans – with breakdowns by immigration status and time in country
              https://goo.gl/WBi1BV
              Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
              https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
              Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

              The Demographic/Big Government tilt is similar for immigrants generally. Pew has that somewhere too.
              Import Not Americans, become Not America.

              CA, which was the state of Reagan and Nixon, is now a permanent Democratic One Party State on the strength of immigration since.

              1. Well that is kinda what I thought. You view “voting for Democrats” as equivalent to “not assimilating”. Most everyone else views assimilation as something like learning the language and customs and traditions of the host country.

                Do you think assimilation necessarily requires supporting Republicans?

                It is not a surprise that immigrants tend to support Democrats, since Republicans have done their level best to alienate them. Instead of viewing immigrants as some type of inferior species refusing to assimilate, perhaps view them as ordinary people responding to the political preferences set in favor of them. If Team Blue panders to you, while Team Red threatens to deport you and your family, which team do you think you are more likely to support?

                But none of that has anything to do with a refusal to assimilate.

                1. er, “set in front of them”

                2. Assimilating politically means becoming like the Americans already here. The Americans already here were roughly divided between Democrats and Republicans. The immigration since the 1960s has *not* been like that.

                  They have *not* assimilated.

                  And they have turned our most populous state from a Republican majority to a One Party Democratic State.

                  1. Assimilation is about learning the language and the customs. Not about who you vote for.

                    And besides, your timeline is off. California didn’t become a deep-blue state until the 90’s. Huh I wonder what was happening in California in the 1990’s that would turn off a lot of Latino voters from voting for Republicans.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1…..sition_187

            2. Holy Shit!

              Are you fucking kidding me? Do you follow the news AT ALL?

              Good Lord Jeff, that is over the top even for you.

              1. I also know history. Reagan earned 37% of the Latino vote in 1984. W earned 40% of the Latino vote in 2004. All of this happened after the 1965 immigration law.

                For a Latino voter who is inclined to support a conservative candidate, why would this person even consider voting for a Republican, given what Republicans NOW support?

  31. Private property is the foundation of all liberty, and defending private property rights represents a core function of any just government. Private property owners should have full authority on what they may use their property for.

    Except when it comes to immigration. In this case, private property rights are to be tossed aside in favor of a nebulous collective property right of the public to decide who may or may not set foot in this country. If an individual wishes to use his/her private property for the benefit of an immigrant, that individual should be restrained from doing so unless the collective first gives permission to the immigrant.

    1. More sophistry and shitty strawmen. True hallmarks of a Little Jeffy rant.

      Do you need MeeMaw to come change your nappy Little Jeffy?

    2. Protecting your borders entails protecting the country’s borders.

      You take protection of property rights for granted. It doesn’t occur in every society. Venezuelans voted in their nightmare.

      Countries are people.
      Import not Americans, become Not America.

      1. Countries are people.

        No they are not.

        People are people. Countries are lines on a map.

        You are the one tossing aside private property rights in favor of this supposed collective right to decide who may come and go.

        1. “Countries are lines on a map.”

          More denial of reality. The lines on the map represent a reality. You keep denying reality.

          Countries are people. They are what they are because the people in them make them that way.

          If all Americans are raptured tomorrow, and Mexicans move in and take over, do you think it’s the same country?

          Countries are not lines on a map. Nor are they gps coordinates. They’re people.

          1. The lines on a map represent the extent of the state’s jurisdiction. That is all. People live IN countries. But countries are not people.

            You are perhaps referring to some sort of national identity associated with citizenship. Yes of course that identity changes with the composition of the citizenry. Immigration works both ways – the immigrants adapt a great deal to accommodate the new host country, and the new host country accommodates a very little bit to accommodate the new immigrants. But the point is that the accommodation that either side makes to the other is not equal. The immigrants adapt WAY more than the host countries do.

            Can you do us a favor and at least TRY to regard people as individuals, and not just collective blobs labeled by their citizenship?

            1. “Ignore the facts, because we’re all individuals.”

              You estimate the effects of *lots* of individuals by making predictions based on what is known about them. I’m not going to personally know tens of millions of people.

              “the new host country accommodates a very little bit”

              CA went from Nixon/Reagan to a Democratic One Party State. That’s not “a very little bit” for CA or the country.

              1. And California, is economically dying. It doesn’t seem so bad if you don’t look too deep, but the whole thing is propped up with taxes from a relatively small number of high wage earners. And those are in industries with very little in the way of fixed assets.

      2. Buybuy let me ask you a serious question.

        When the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, do you believe that (a) this sentence is true, and if so, (b) that it is true for *all people*?

        1. “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”

          One people choosing to dissolve political bands with another.

          Do they have that right? Do they get any choice in who they have political bands with? If not, why not?

          Reality is that political bands go by jurisdiction which goes by dirt, because competing defense agencies are known warring tribes, and people have decided to support states instead of being in a permanent state of war. People point guns and say “our dirt, our rules”.

          I don’t agree that a Creator gave us rights. That Creator is irrelevant. If he exists, he’s an epiphenomenon. He’s not here enforcing laws. It’s the people who choose what rights to enforce. I prefer libertarian rights. I think that would be best for the world, but most of the world just doesn’t agree with me on that. But they agree with me most in the US.

          Import Not Americans. Become Not America.

          1. You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe that ‘all men are created equal’?

            1. He actually answered you, he just refused to indulge you in your yes/no contrived conclusions game. He provided context and reasoning. You wanted to trap him into black/white.

              Nice try.

          2. It’s the people who choose what rights to enforce.

            But where do rights come from, in your view? The majority?

            1. Legal rights come from the barrel of guns, the will of people to point those guns, and their success at aiming them.

              People will go along with majority determination of the rights to enforce as long as the groups in the voting polity don’t have too different views. When it gets too different, the guns come out.

              There are people’s moral preferences, there is their willingness and ability to fight for them. They will enforce equal rights in their polity if they are willing and able to do so. They can enforce whatever moral preferences that they are able to, but they can’t make the *outcome* of that enforcement what they want by preference. Some rules work toward freedom, prosperity, and security, and some don’t.

              “All men are created equal” is propaganda. Not that they *aren’t* created equal, but that it’s not even wrong. At best, it’s simply confusing your moral preferences for a dictum of the universe.

              1. All men being created equal, was equal in rights before God. I am pretty sure Jeffy doesn’t even believe in God so where he is going with this is entertaining.

                The Constitution, reserves theses rights “for ourselves and our posterity”. This notably does NOT include anyone, anywhere in the world, who would like to live in the USA. Ourselves and our posterity means ourselves and our children, not everyone worldwide.

  32. On issue after issue, the normal libertarian position is turned upside down when it comes to the special case of immigration.

    1. More sophistry and shitty strawmen. True hallmarks of a Little Jeffy rant.

      Do you need MeeMaw to come change your nappy Little Jeffy?

    2. Principles are not out of context absolutes. At least if you’re not a nitwit.

      The normal libertarian position is not to destroy the most libertarian country in the world.

      1. Great! I am in favor of not destroying the most libertarian country in the world either. That is why I vigorously oppose the liberty-destroying taxes and regulations and laws that the border restrictionists advocate.

        Do you even acknolwedge this? That enforcing the border means curtailing the liberties OF CITIZENS?

        If your argument is “but that’s a small price to pay for the larger benefits”, then clearly delineate both the costs and the benefits that you see would arise from such a plan.

        But first you have to come up with an actual plan!

        1. Being libertarian is about maximizing freedom. *Enforcing* rights. Because that All Knowing All Powerful Creator doesn’t see fit to do the enforcement himself, humans point guns to enforce the rights they prefer.

          Any enforcement of rights entails limiting the freedom of action of everyone. I don’t live in sparkly unicorn pony land where we can have rights for the price of wishing for them.

          My plan: enforce our immigration laws. Costs money. Costs freedom. Actually protects rights in the US.

          Your plan: open borders. Pretend that millions of unlibertarian immigrants won’t avail themselves of their power to get welfare benefits, won’t avail themselves of political power. Because sparkly unicorn ponies. Denounce those who would preserve liberty in America. Muh anarchy.

          1. Costs money. Costs freedom. Actually protects rights in the US.

            You can’t have it both ways. You say immigration laws protects rights in the US, but then that they will also cost freedom. What this really means is, *some* rights are protected but others are not. The ones that aren’t protected are ones like property rights, association rights, and our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches.

            Property rights – because you wish to dictate to me who I may or may not invite onto my own property.

            Association rights – because you wish to dictate to me with whom I may or may not associate, using my own resources.

            Fourth Amendment rights – because any immigration enforcement scheme will inevitably lead to some form of mandatory National ID card that will have to be presented upon demand. “Papieren bitte”

            1. Pretend that millions of unlibertarian immigrants won’t avail themselves of their power to get welfare benefits

              No actually I think they probably will. But here’s the thing: most of the ‘welfare’ that immigrants consume is in the form of education for their kids, which is MANDATORY. It’s not a fair criticism of the immigrants to fault them for sending their kids to school when they are required by law to do so. All the rest, the welfare that immigrants consume, when compared to that consumed by native-born citizens of similar education and income levels, occurs at about the same rate. In other words, the immigrants are about as ‘unlibertarian’ as the native-born citizens that we already have.

              So your plan is to take away liberties of citizens, in order to stop immigrants from coming here and do bad things, that native-born citizens are going to do anyway. Brilliant!

              won’t avail themselves of political power.

              Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Quite frankly I doubt too many immigrants really care all that much about whether they have the right to vote or not. I think a lot of them just want to provide for a better life for their families. I do favor a lengthy rigorous process to earn citizenship if that is what immigrants wish. But in the process of naturalization, I don’t think it should be illegal for them to simply stay here and work if that is what they want. That is all.

              1. Jeff,

                YOUR plan is to take away the rights of citizens by diluting their economic and electoral influence until it is gone. I realize that you do not see that.

                You are not actually a libertarian, you are an anarchist. And I respect that, but don’t agree with it.

                As libertarian’s, we generally agree with most, maybe even all, of the ideals of anarchists. What makes us NOT anarchists, is that we realize that the ideal world for instant adoption of all these ideals does not exist.

                Other nations, and people, do not embrace the NAP, the are fully prepared to take what they want with guns, backfire bombers, or whatever. Everyone who would like to come here is not coming to enjoy the opportunity to support themselves, become educated, assimulate to our society, but rather, many, probably most, want to come here for a better economic life including our welfare systems.

                1. There is much more here, but the discussion of the wall and immigration is a balancing act where we try to protect the rights of our citizens as much as possible within the US, and we offer to those we think can come here, support themselves, assimulate, and eventually become citizens, that opportunity. All this within the limits of how many we are prepared to assimulate and support in this process.

                  As a libertarian, I have the same problem with Anarchists that I have with Marxists. Both assume that an ideal world is achievable. The things you have in common are significant. The Marxist believe that after a time, people will become “The Communist Man” and the government will whither away as unneeded. Anarchists, like you believe that if you just knock government down, that things will just work out.

                  I respect your idealism, but am too much of a realist to agree with you.

              2. ” I don’t think it should be illegal for them to simply stay here and work if that is what they want. That is all.”

                Permanent disenfranchised servant class.
                QED

                “Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. ”

                Maybe we’ll destroy America, or maybe we won’t.

                How glib.

                And I don’t blame immigrants for wanting to come here at all. If I lived in Mexico, I’d want to come here too.

                I blame the Americans glibly virtue signaling how they all for freedom of foreigners while they destroy America.

            2. I’m not “free” to tell cops to go fuck themselves if they come to arrest me for suspicion of a crime. If I don’t go along with the arrest, they will shoot me. If they didn’t have that power to shoot me when I refuse arrest, they couldn’t enforce *any* rights, and I wouldn’t have any rights.

              The world is an imperfect place. We don’t have an All Knowing, All Powerful arbiter intervening to make all things Right.

              The liberty to aim for is as much as you can get. That generally requires giving up some freedom to get others.

              I may *know* I’m innocent, but if refuse to go along with the cops, they will shoot me. And I approve of that as a general rule, because if they didn’t have that power, they couldn’t arrest the *guilty* either, and I would have no rights.

              Property Rights – yes, you can’t invite the Russians and their ICBMs onto “your” property. Get over it.
              Associate Rights – associate with who you please, but that doesn’t give you the right to import people we don’t want here. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
              Fourth Amendment Rights – national ID – This is far from my biggest worry.

              The world is an imperfect place. I don’t want the US to be Mexico. If it takes a national ID, I won’t lose sleep over it.

              1. Jeff, not even going to comment on the rest of your stupid but:

                “All the rest, the welfare that immigrants consume, when compared to that consumed by native-born citizens of similar education and income levels, occurs at about the same rate. ”

                You conveniently ignore that 95% of these illegal immigrants happen to overlap with the very poorest, least educated, most crime ridden 10-20% of our native born population.

                That Americans with 8th grade educations (the average for illegal Mexicans) have comparable welfare rates to illegal Mexicans is NOT relevant… What IS relevant is that those rates are FAR higher than a median average American citizen.

                Also, WE HAVE A CHOICE in who we allow into the country. We could easily allow in NOTHING but immigrants that make fare more than the median American in income, hence pay more in taxes, hence are a net REDUCER of tax burdens on native Americans… Instead of people with far lower incomes, which creates a net INCREASE in the burden on natives.

                WE CAN CHOOSE whether to ease the burden or increase it on natives. Why should I as a native born American choose to increase the burden on myself? So some illiterate peasant can have a better life? Fuck them. They can fix their own country, and leave my pocket book the fuck alone… We have enough dead beats here already.

  33. We have had government shutdowns in the past and they weren’t the end of the world. Government shutdowns are “partial shutdowns.” Critical functions continue to function. Social Security checks go out on time, Medicare payments to providers continued to be made. The Military continues to function, air traffic controllers continue to manage air traffic. A few non-essential government employees get furloughed but continue to be paid.
    It’s not like every government office will go dark.
    We need a border wall, unlimited illegal immigration cannot be permitted. Unlimited immigration isn’t just about cheap labor to harvest vegetables and fruits. It’s really about lowering the wages of blue and white collar workers. An American computer engineer earns $100,000 and up a year, a computer engineer from India will work for $30,000 a year. This is true across the blue and white collar job spectrum.

  34. So now libertarians think a government shut down is a BAD thing?!?

    1. Corrections, Reason Libertarians think it’s a bad thing. Not real libertarians.

  35. Statistics can always tell a story that is not accurate, illegal immigrants do cause crime. I am born and raised in Los Angeles and I have seen it first hand.

    1. What you gonna believe, Shikha’s open borders shilling, or your racist lying eyes?

    2. I love how people who claim illegal aliens don’t commit crimes fail to come to grips with the fact that the illegal alien being here is a crime by itself.

      If you’ve already committed one crime what are the odds you’ll commit another?

      1. Dude, I’m part Mexican myself… Grew up in California.

        I have one simple question to ask:

        If Mexicans and other Hispanics are so fucking law abiding… How is it that they’re ~15% of the population, and commit ~35% of murders every year? After blacks, Hispanics are the most criminal ethnic group in the US. BY FAR. Murder, assault, all of them, far over represented. FBI stats show this year after year.

        Keep in mind almost all of them are either illegal immigrants themselves, or at best children/grand children of illegals… Because keep in mind the US population was something like 2-3% Hispanic tops in the 60s… If we’d kept the Hispanic population where it was, instead of 5-7 folding it, our murder rate would probably be approximately 30% lower nationally. The PC argument does not hold up to basic mathematical scrutiny. And anybody from an area that had a large Hispanic influx has seen it all happen with their own eyes.

        The last town I lived in in California had a fair number of kids in actual gangs… Not a single one of them was white… Or Asian… Or Indian… And it was light on black folks in that town, so no black gangs either… Yet there were a hell of a lot of Hispanics in gangs. Ergo, with no Hispanics, that entire town would have had precisely ZERO actual gang members. Criminals? Of course. But not organized gangs.

        Some people can’t accept that reality isn’t what they want it to be.

  36. I find it both hilarious and sad that a LIBERTARIAN website can write an article about how a government shutdown is bad. Just the idea that a bunch of fuckwit GS-15s will miss their lattes in DC for a whole week makes me so excited I’m praying for a shutdown.

    Really, the staff should all declare themselves transgender and go to work for Slate at this point.

    1. Or Vox, at least.

  37. “but as Reason’s Shikha Dalmia explained in January, ”

    Oh, well, then this must be right…

  38. There are many arguments here against building a wall to help to maintain the security of our southern border. Never mind the fact that those that elected Trump want it. If you support illegal entry by ANY means into MY country you are guilty of aiding and abetting criminals. Look around: the “rule of law” no longer applies with any equality. Chances are really good that the “rule of law” would decimate both houses and parties of Congress, the IRS, FBI, most state governments…….in other words we have ALL aided in the destruction of our GREAT Nation by allowing it to fall into the hands of career political thugs.

  39. As per usual, nobody has ever claimed the wall would magically stop 100% of illegal entries… But here’s the question: If it deters 10%, say around 100,000 people a year… Just the savings on schools, roads, etc would be more than paid for from this, because your average illegal immigrant is a massive net negative tax payer. If it shaves it by 20%, 30%, or more… Well then all the better!

  40. 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.Mesalary.com

  41. 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.