California

Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Carries Shades of 1994 Proposition That Killed California GOP

All this anger about immigration (and a lack of sympathy for the poor people coming here) is not only cruel, but politically foolish.

|

I had yet to migrate to California from the Midwest in 1994 when Proposition 187, which banned most public services for illegal immigrants, passed overwhelmingly. It received nearly 59 percent of the vote, with only a handful of Bay Area counties voting against it. The measure wasn't drafted by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, but he was its most high-profile supporter. That helped him overcome a large polling gap and win a second term by defeating Democratic Treasurer Kathleen Brown, who is Jerry Brown's sister.

As a libertarian, I oppose most public services for, well, everybody. But the statewide initiative did more than try to turn off the spigot for taxpayer-funded programs. In opposing the initiative at the time, The Orange County Register complained that "it would also introduce Big Brother elements into schools and hospitals. Immigration and welfare problems should be resolved with less government, not more." It noted that reporting "suspicious-looking immigrants…will be the conservatives' unintentional mechanism to create even more racial divisiveness."

I got a taste of that possibility shortly after moving to California. Driving through the Imperial Valley in my sports car and suit jacket, I had to slow down at one of those inland immigration checkpoints. As I approached, the uniformed official there waved me through without forcing me to stop. Meanwhile, other immigration authorities searched the cars and trucks of the other drivers, all of whom just happened to be Latino. The idea that people have to "show their papers" in the course of their everyday lives has always stuck in my craw.

But let's face it. The Prop. 187 campaign was never about a rational debate about immigration, public services and government intrusion. It was an emotional debate, fueled by frustration at the state's changing demographics. Those ads featuring grainy black-and-white photos of illegal immigrants running across the border played on fears. The initiative was blocked by the courts, but no matter. As myriad commentators have noted, the California GOP suffered a steady decline since then.

Fast forward to 2014. Democrats passed Senate Resolution 51. Its original language included the following: "That, after 20 years, the Legislature expressly acknowledges the harm caused to Californians through passage of the discriminatory and xenophobic Proposition 187 and its corresponding campaign. Its passage marked a reprehensible period for California." The final version stripped out "discriminatory and xenophobic" and other words, but still criticized Wilson by name.

That symbolic resolution was in poor taste and a reminder that Democrats aren't against promoting ethnic division to motivate their voters. But it's mainly a reminder of how quickly political fortunes can change—and how divisive language can haunt political parties for a long time. Only two years later, Donald Trump won the presidency based in part on his unyielding approach to illegal immigration. By the way, he received the lowest percentage of the California vote of any major political party candidate since 1924. And he continues to stir the immigration pot during the ongoing federal "shutdown."

It is not wrong for a country to police its borders, states to limit social services or politicians to engage in wide-ranging discussions about immigration and citizenship. My gripe is about tone and approach. All this anger about immigration (and a lack of sympathy for the poor people coming here) is not only cruel, but politically foolish. Republicans are riding high with their tweet-crazy hero at the helm, but don't be shocked if in a few years the national GOP resembles its barely existent California variant.

Immigration is a hot-button issue because it touches on the foundation of who we are as a nation. We all know the "Give me your tired, your poor" statement on the Statue of Liberty. We are indeed a nation of immigrants, many of whom came before there were any serious restrictions at all. My Dad fled Nazi Germany for the United States, so those of us with such family connections will understandably bristle at some of the current ugliness.

Ronald Reagan believed in controlling the border, but spoke sympathetically about the topic. "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life," he said in his farewell address. "But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."

It's probably too late, but unless the GOP rediscovers that inspirational approach, the party will long be saddled with the current president's rhetoric, much in the same way as the California GOP still is saddled with the fallout from Prop. 187.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He was a Register editorial writer from 1998-2009. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Movie Review: The Upside

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. “By the way, he received the lowest percentage of the California vote of any major political party candidate since 1924.”

    So Socialists hate him, and that’s a bad thing?

    Do you really think Californians have libertarian principles?

    Hold onto your feelings, you can express them when you’re in the bread line

    1. Cowardly Diversion.
      He didn’t even mention the hatred that consumes you.

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has another sockpuppet.

      2. Reagan granted amnesty and in return for that the new voting block did what to California?

        This article basically admits that no matter what you do, granting large swaths of illegal immigrants amnesty will result into massive votes for government expansion. He tries to use feelings to hide that truth.

        SAD!

      3. ‘Cowardly Diversion.
        He didn’t even mention the hatred that consumes you.’

        Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        1. Trump publicly humiliated again! Proves himself wrong again!!!

          President Trump Went to a Border Town to Prove They Need a Wall. Residents Say Otherwise.

          McAllen Mayor Jim Darling, who is not affiliated with a political party, tells TIME that even if it was not Trump’s intention, the roundtable appeared to make the case for increased funding at legal ports of entry instead of the wall. … “I understand he’s trying to make a point, I’m a little theatrical myself, most politicians are. I understand why someone would say ‘Okay, those were all confiscated at the point of entry, so what’s that gotta do with people crossing the river?'”

          Meanwhile, Julie Hillrichs, spokeswoman for the Texas Border Coalition, a group of border mayors (including Darling), county judges and border communities focused on issues that impact border quality of life for more than 2.5 million people, tells TIME the Coalition believes the real way to increase security at the border would not be a wall, but increased investment in the legal ports of entry that already exist in their area.

          “We have never supported the wall,” Hillrichs says. “The Border Coalition has consistently over the years stated we believe the wall is a wasted investment.”

          Another MAJOR defeat.
          Read the whole piece to see how totally he screwed up, proving the WRONG point!!

          1. Hihn, you stupid bitch. You do know your posting format is like a distinctive signature, right? Since we instantly know when it’s you, why do you bother to make up new handles? Are you that stupid?

            If so, commit suicide.

            1. FAIL by domestic terrorist! Cowardly diversion from in-con-veeeeeeeeen-yent facts

              What are you doing to defend our borders, other than being like MS-13?

              Border Agent Debunks Trump’s Case For A Wall To His Face: This Is A Tunnel Built Under Existing Wall

              U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Melissa Lucio showed President Trump how enterprising border crossers have dug elaborate tunnels under walled off sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, “Here, this is just a couple of miles from where we stand. This is a tunnel,” she said, pointing to a photograph of the tunnel. “This is the second tunnel recently that we have located. This is an area that we actually have wall.”

              She’s not being paid, but you want HER to commit suicide, thug?

              Your ilk has been oppressing others for centuries.
              Libertarians have been defying you for 50 years. You’ve already lost.
              As PROVEN by your actions.

    2. +100

    3. The reason for that low vote IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE ILLEGALS, and their children of course. If you look at native Californians, or hell even white Californians, he probably got as good or better vote percentages as Rs have there in a long time.

      I’m a native Californian, not some transplant like you home boy. The old school California was a rugged individualist western state… All the urbanite tools from the east coast, and then later the illegal immigrants, are the ones that fucked up California.

      My family bailed from that state almost 2 decades ago, because of the afore mentioned people ruining the state.

      Like it or not, demographics is destiny. California is the future for the entire country if we don’t get immigration under control. Keep in mind I’m part Mexican myself.

      1. I’m a native Californian

        Priceless. How the hell are you letting your state get so out of control?

        1. You fight for your local government to avoid turning Socialist…

          Then you fight for your county to avoid turning Socialist…

          Then you fight for your state to avoid turning Socialist…

          Then you flee that Socialist state to fight for the USA to avoid turning Socialist.

          1. Cant always fight demographics when the federal government wont enforce immigration law to keep the USA a free and Constitutional Democratic Republic.

            1. If serious, you might try working to restore the LP migration plank to the constitutionally-savvy language that attracted 4 million voters to our candidates. As it stands now, it’s as though Republicans rewrote the plank so they could finally point and holler “open border anarchists,” nanny nanny boo boo!

              1. No one knows what you’re babbling about. All this nonsense about ‘planks’ that is only in your diseased mind.

                No one cares.

          2. Poor trolling troll thinks he’s making a point and not trolling.

            1. Its just sad that trolls like SparkY troll to call others trolls.

        2. My family said “Fuck this place, it’s beyond saving.” and left almost 20 years ago now.

          It wasn’t completely fucked AT THE TIME when we moved, but it was clearly going that direction. Unfortunately he chose a state that only bought us 20 years when we moved… So I am now planning for getting out of Washington state, because it is also a lost cause at this point.

          Pretty much every other member on all sides of my family have also left. Out of my couple dozen closest relatives, I can only think of 3 that HAVEN’T left California. That should really say something. Especially since some sides of my family go back to the 1800s in that state, and have a town named after us!

      2. vek|1.10.19 @ 11:37AM|#

        Depends on what you mean by “end well.” Personally, I hope the left starts a violent uprising. IMO a lot of the extreme leftists need to be killed in order to set shit straight. Being the nice guy I am, I don’t want to throw the first punch… But I’d LOVE to throw the last punch

        Oh, never mind. You’re just a standard Internet tough guy and not someone with courage of conviction.

        1. So you’re saying a real man of conviction should be hunting down and murdering illegals?

          1. If someone openly says that they need to killed before they kill us, which vek did, then yeah. Otherwise it would be better to just drop the tough guy act.

            1. If someone openly says that they need to killed before they kill us, which vek did, then yeah

              It’s not like the far left is known for its “live and let live” philosophy.

            2. Self-defense is what Vek said.

              He’s excited about defending himself.

              Nothing wrong with that.

              Leave it to SprkY the troll to lie…again.

              1. Self-defense is what Vek said.

                Leave it to a troll to cover for a pansy.

              2. Poor SparkY.

                He too scared to defend himself.

              3. He’s excited about defending himself.

                Nothing wrong with that.

                Uh actually, there is very much wrong with it. Whether you like it or not, a majority of this country did not elect Trump. This isn’t a criticism of the EC (I actually prefer it), but to point out that this problem is not between a majority and small minority, but two roughly equal populations.

                It takes both populations giving up in order to send us into civil war. When people like Vek make those statements, it is essentially taking any sort of compromise off the table. That fatalistic cynicism is great for apocalyptic fiction, but horrid for reality. People like Vek may think they have the temerity to fight off those soft liberals- and their agents in the police force, FBI, CIA and elsewhere. But even if they are the tough guys they claim to be, they are wishing for a scenario where millions are killed- including millions who they are politically aligned with. No sane person should be hopeful for it.

            3. First, he said nothing about killing immigrants. Second, by your logic, one cannot type “#MeToo” until after one catches this guy and hands him over to the police.

              1. he said nothing about killing immigrants

                You’re right, he was talking about leftists.

                1. Leftists starting violence and vek defending himself.

                  Sounds good to me.

                  1. Leftists starting violence and vek defending himself.

                    Poor troll doesn’t know how to read. Sad, troll. Sad.

                    1. To jump in if anybody checks back:

                      I’m about 95% sure this will not be able to be settled peacefully. Sometimes political differences become too great. I personally am in favor of peacefully splitting the country up. Having a large country where half the people hate the other half IS NOT a good way to have a functional society. You don’t need to be a large country to be a prosperous one either. You only need to be big if you want to be imperialist, which I don’t.

                      Half the country still roughly believes in the ideals the country was founded on. The other half wants to be a socialist hell hole. Other than some major catalyzing event shocking millions out of being commies, there is no way to compromise that will leave EITHER side happy.

                      The right/libertarians have already compromised this country into oblivion. This is NOT America as it used to be even now. There’s nowhere left to go but full on socialism.

                      So if compromise is off the table, which I believe it is… Then historically you’re left with secession or a civil war to settle the issues.

                      If people are too dumb to do the smart thing and split the country, I’m just saying I would rather the commies throw the first punch. As for worrying about the Feds… Most rank and file, AND most officers/leaders until you get to the VERY top where it’s more political, tend to be very conservative in the military and law enforcement.

                    2. Whether it’s an R or a D in office when shit goes down could make a big difference. If it’s an R IMO the military will mostly do whatever they’re told as far as putting down communist terrorist groups, a la truly militarized ANTIFA types. If it’s not an R there would be mass refusal to obey orders to oppress people fighting for their freedom, because most soldiers would agree with those people not the president, and mass defections to the right wing side. Some lefties might split off still though.

                      This is the grand delusion the leftists have… They think they’re going to use the military to crush civil unrest… The military will be against them, as they are in almost every case in recent history. The military is always an inherently right wing group of people. That’s why all the right wing dictators got in power by having the military on their side. Lefties almost always had to start guerilla campaigns, because the regular military WAS NOT on their side. It’ll be the same here.

                      Will millions die? Maybe. But that’s the breaks dude. Millions died to stop Hitler too, was that not worth it? Freedom is worth any price. People today have no balls. If you were alive in 1776, you’d be against George Washington because he had the balls and brains to realize we needed to kill the British if we ever wanted to be free. War is best avoided, but sometimes war is the only solution, and a righteous solution to boot!

            4. Spark, people like you, who go off about ‘internet tough guys’ are usually weaklings attacking others. You likely are a weak little creature, and bristle at the idea of a man of action, as you can never be one.

              Just be content to clutch your pearls while real men do the heavy lifting.

      3. “By the way, he received the lowest percentage of the California vote of any major political party candidate since 1924.”

        Funny how Republican voters don’t turn out when the electoral system ensures that their vote for President doesn’t matter, and all the other statewide races are between two Democrats.

    4. Members of the CA Libertarian Party might have libertarian principles. Possibly some of the 50ish% of voters registered as Republican/independent, as well.

      Lumping the entire state as “socialist” without regard to reality is kinda the definition of operating on feelz.

      1. No, the whole state BEING socialist is very telling. The democrats now have a veto proof majority in the state assembly.

        That IS reality.

  2. All true, but when bellowing authoritarians get power … watch out!

    1. Yep, just look at Nancy – – – –

  3. I agree that Prop 187 was racist and xenophobic, and that as libertarians we should oppose social services. Thus, the solution is for DREAMers to renounce welfare. Then Americans have no excuse but to accept them with open arms. And they don’t have to betray their bad hombre uncles by paying for a stupid wall that will only be used as a pretext to oppress them. I love immigrants with all my heart. But it makes me nervous that they are becoming voters, because they may not understand that freedom and equal rights means without exception. I wish there were more here on this comment board to show us that they get it. Instead they seem to be pretty radical socialists for the most part. I saw a DREAMer kid on Tucker the other night, he was a republican and supported the wall. Which will be used as a pretext to round up and detain his uncles. So sad. Actually it’s a similar problem with American Jews. We need to renounce Israel as our safe space if we ever are to be free of antisemitism. Otherwise it will be used as a pretext to drive us out.

    Finally I think we are approaching a crisis of capitalism in that we’ve solved all the problems and in fact we’ve returned to the Garden of Eden (USA). The solution is to stop working so that others can pick up the slack. Whereas socialism tries to divide up the work equally, which will fail miserably. I wish someone else would understand this. #prepare4rapture

    1. He just PROVED you full of crap!
      Stop being such a public disgrace to libertarians.

      1. Poor Hihn troll.

      2. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        1. Trump publicly humiliated again! Proves himself wrong again!!!

          President Trump Went to a Border Town to Prove They Need a Wall. Residents Say Otherwise.

          McAllen Mayor Jim Darling, who is not affiliated with a political party, tells TIME that even if it was not Trump’s intention, the roundtable appeared to make the case for increased funding at legal ports of entry instead of the wall. … “I understand he’s trying to make a point, I’m a little theatrical myself, most politicians are. I understand why someone would say ‘Okay, those were all confiscated at the point of entry, so what’s that gotta do with people crossing the river?'”

          Meanwhile, Julie Hillrichs, spokeswoman for the Texas Border Coalition, a group of border mayors (including Darling), county judges and border communities focused on issues that impact border quality of life for more than 2.5 million people, tells TIME the Coalition believes the real way to increase security at the border would not be a wall, but increased investment in the legal ports of entry that already exist in their area.

          “We have never supported the wall,” Hillrichs says. “The Border Coalition has consistently over the years stated we believe the wall is a wasted investment.”

          Another MAJOR defeat.
          Read the whole piece to see how totally he screwed up, proving the WRONG point!!

      3. Don’t ever change, my friend.

        1. He just PROVED you full of crap!
          Stop being such a public disgrace to libertarians.

          1. Just stick with one sock you stupid shit. You don’t fool anyone.

  4. Trump publicly humiliated again!
    Proves himself wrong again!!!

    President Trump Went to a Border Town to Prove They Need a Wall. Residents Say Otherwise.

    McAllen Mayor Jim Darling, who is not affiliated with a political party, tells TIME that even if it was not Trump’s intention, the roundtable appeared to make the case for increased funding at legal ports of entry instead of the wall. … “I understand he’s trying to make a point, I’m a little theatrical myself, most politicians are. I understand why someone would say ‘Okay, those were all confiscated at the point of entry, so what’s that gotta do with people crossing the river?'”

    Meanwhile, Julie Hillrichs, spokeswoman for the Texas Border Coalition, a group of border mayors (including Darling), county judges and border communities focused on issues that impact border quality of life for more than 2.5 million people, tells TIME the Coalition believes the real way to increase security at the border would not be a wall, but increased investment in the legal ports of entry that already exist in their area.

    “We have never supported the wall,” Hillrichs says. “The Border Coalition has consistently over the years stated we believe the wall is a wasted investment.”

    Another MAJOR defeat.
    Read the whole piece to see how totally he screwed up, proving the WRONG point!!

    1. Dude, WTF is wrong with you? Seriously?

      1. An extremely exaggerated sense of self worth coupled with the arrogance of know it all ism.

      2. How to piss off a goober. PROVE them wrong … publicly ,… with a link to the source. Watch them go RAGE,

        Dude, WTF is wrong with you? Seriously?

        HE is not the one REFUSING “inconvenient” proof. Seriously (sneer)

    2. Fuck off and die, Hihn

      1. Trump publicly humiliated again! Proves himself wrong again!!!

        President Trump Went to a Border Town to Prove They Need a Wall. Residents Say Otherwise.

        McAllen Mayor Jim Darling, who is not affiliated with a political party, tells TIME that even if it was not Trump’s intention, the roundtable appeared to make the case for increased funding at legal ports of entry instead of the wall. … “I understand he’s trying to make a point, I’m a little theatrical myself, most politicians are. I understand why someone would say ‘Okay, those were all confiscated at the point of entry, so what’s that gotta do with people crossing the river?'”

        Meanwhile, Julie Hillrichs, spokeswoman for the Texas Border Coalition, a group of border mayors (including Darling), county judges and border communities focused on issues that impact border quality of life for more than 2.5 million people, tells TIME the Coalition believes the real way to increase security at the border would not be a wall, but increased investment in the legal ports of entry that already exist in their area.

        “We have never supported the wall,” Hillrichs says. “The Border Coalition has consistently over the years stated we believe the wall is a wasted investment.”

        Another MAJOR defeat.
        Read the whole piece to see how totally he screwed up, proving the WRONG point!!

        1. O one is listening to your worthless ass, Hihnfaggot.

  5. There are some commenters here who love to proclaim how libertarian they are (not counting OBL!) by hating immigrants, legal or not. Somehow, “protecting borders” turns into stealing my money to prevent strangers from crossing other strangers’ property so they and I cannot do business or meet for any other reason. Somehow these “true libertarians” have taken upon themselves the right to take and use my money for purposes I do not approve of, all for my greater good at their discretion.

    Then they have the gall to claim they are protecting me, just as if they had built a fence around their home to protect themselves; somehow, if I don’t build a good enough fence around my property, it becomes their business to steal my money to build a fence around my neighborhood to protect me from people who scare them.

    And then to add insult to injury, they tell me I am not a libertarian, they are the only true libertarians.

    A pox on them all. They are just Progressives of a different bent, scared to death that someone, somewhere, is not as afraid of strangers as they are; not as afraid of competition for jobs, that they might have to work harder and smarter, they because their parents had the foresight to immigrate to here and birth them here, now they have the right to be afraid of the next set of immigrants and to use my money to prevent anyone further immigration just so they can remain fat and lazy.

    1. They are just Progressives of a different bent
      They rationalize stealing money and stealing property, and restricting people’s freedoms by claiming that it’s all for the welfare of this nation’s citizens. Jeez, where have we heard that before?
      Also, I live in a city that’s heavily brown, white, and poor. (It’s like the color of my semen.) The worse thing I can say about the browns is that the language barrier is annoying but also an opportunity, and that they are often fat–just like us whities! I wish we had an influx of thin people; we should be inviting more Asians into this country to temporarily deflate America’s obesity problem and satisfy my yellow fever.

    2. I don’t claim to be a libertarian because of my opposition to open borders. I claim to be libertarian because I AM on 98% of issues. Legal drugs, minimal government, fee for service for most of what’s left, etc.

      I think by a purist reading of libertarian principles, open borders are the correct opinion.

      However, that doesn’t mean it will have good REAL WORLD results.

      Given that immigration is such a major issue, and that the moral wrong done by being selective is so small, I think it is acceptable to control immigration.

      I don’t CARE that it is immoral by libertarian standards, because it isn’t THAT bad. It’s not murder, or rape, or slavery. Not allowing people into our country falls somewhere between calling somebody a jerk and kicking them in the shin IMO.

      The idea that the most moral thing to do HAS TO BE the best in practical terms too is absurd on its face.There are a million scenarios where doing the moral thing clearly leaves one worse off materially.

      If purists want to fuck the country up to be moral… They should argue it from that perspective. It is essentially arguing from a place of feelz, like progs. But it is the only real argument there is.

      Because the practical argument just doesn’t hold up. We could turn the US into a $100K a year per capita giant Switzerland by only allowing in hyper skilled people, versus illiterates. I think we all know which one of those would be a “better” country. Argue the morals, because you can’t win on practical outcomes.

      1. Its perfectly Libertarian to have the USA around and have border security.

        Anarchy is the ideology that does not allow government that curtails movement because there are no nations.

        1. It’s not libertarian to steal my money and use it for my own good.

          If you want to use your own money to buy border parcels and build a big ass wall to keep trespassers off your property, go ahead.

          Leave my money alone.

          Don’t tell me who I can do business with.

          Don’t tax stuff I buy so you can raise the price of goods I buy for my own good.

          1. But let me ask you a question:

            Do you fundamentally challenge the idea that America would be a “worse” place if we only allowed in highly skilled, positive tax paying immigrants?

            Because I don’t see how any sane or logical person could. In a country where we have socialized costs, and everybody is a net negative tax payer below $50-60K a year in income, anybody you let in that makes less than that burdens YOU.

            I’ve run through rough numbers before, and others have done proper run downs, but it seems pretty damn easy to arrive at figures FAR higher than the cost of the wall to allow in all these low skill immigrants.

            So if such a proposal lets you keep MORE of your money, are you okay with it? Or are you just going pure dogmatic for the sake of being dogmatic… Because, I don’t think a rational person can possibly believe that we are MATERIALLY better off with mass low skill immigration with a welfare state like we have now.

        2. Poor troll does not even know what Libertarian fundamentals are.

          Tiny and limited government is fine with Libertarians.

      2. I claim to be libertarian because I AM on 98% of issues.

        Especially the issue where people who disagree with you need to be killed.

        1. I claim to be libertarian because I AM on 98% of issues.

          Especially the issue where violent leftists who are trying to kill you need to be killed.

          Fixed that for ya, Sparky.

          1. Azathoth gets it.

        2. That’s perfectly libertarian actually.

          Other than the left actually already being violent against conservatives and libertarians EN MASSE already, if things step up, you’re damn right I’ll protect myself.

          Then there’s also the argument that men with balls would make… Which is at what point do non immediately violent acts against you become severe enough where revolt is warranted? If we had 90% taxes? 95%? 99%? What about if the government demands a camera on you at all times? What if they demand you do things you deem immoral?

          Where is the line crossed without threat of immediate violence on their part?

          The founding fathers started killing their oppressors when they were being treated WAY better than modern day Americans are. Because they weren’t fucking pussies like most modern libertarians, who would rather bitch about things, and endlessly cuck to the left, than actually stand up and make their righteous ideals into reality. Pacifism is NOT a virtue when you’re being oppressed.

          1. “Where is the line crossed without threat of immediate violence on their part?”

            Prima nocte…

            All kidding aside, I’m with you though

            1. Right??? It must have been nice to be a nobleman back in the day huh? LOL

          2. Right-wing bigotry exposed. Again

            Other than the left actually already being violent against conservatives and libertarians EN MASSE already

            (snort)

            THERE’S ONE ISSUE FROM CHARLOTTESVILE:. WHO INITIATED VIOLENCE
            EVERYTHING ELSE IS DESPERATION and DIVERSION by Alt-right wackos

            If YOU care about the truth. These are the best SHORT videos — for angles and timing — UNDENIABLE PROOF (except to psychos)


            The initial assault.

            “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
            Alt-Right Facsists/Racists crash into them en massse, swinging clubs.
            Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. They CAME for violence

            The assault by car, mayhem and death.
            This aerial drone proves pure assault, no provocation here either.

            These are Nazis, Racists and Jew-Haters. Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
            Trump threw his own daughter under a bus, playing to the very worst in his base SHAMEFUL.

            It’s now only a matter of time. The Alt-Right has been disgraced REPEATEDLY
            But Hillary’s emails ….. (lol)

      3. Nailed it

      4. Who put you in charge of my money, my business, my friends, and my property? Who made you the dictator with guns who runs my life for my own good?

        1. The trolls have resorted to reusing bad arguments over and over and over.

      5. It is essentially arguing from a place of feelz, like progs

        In other words, making an argument you don’t understand.

        1. I understand the NAP. I also understand that in THE REAL WORLD, strict adherence to the NAP doesn’t always get you the best results. Most of the time strict adherence is both moral AND the best results… But not always.

          Therefore one must decide between adhering rigidly to moral values, OR getting superior real world results.

          For me, it depends on the issue. 98% of the time, I go with the morals. Drugs, hookers, etc etc etc. But there are a couple of issues that I think are so negative in practical terms, and such small moral violations, that one would have to be an idiot not to say “Fuck the morals.”

          In other words, if somebody offered you 1 million dollars to walk up to a random person and tell them they’re a fat, ugly, piece of shit… Would that be worth it? It’s mean for no reason, hence immoral. But it’s a small immorality, and a lot of material gain. I’d do it.

          However if somebody offered me 100 dollars to shoot some random person in the face, I would not do it. It’s BIGLY immoral, and not much gain.

          I see mass immigration of low skill people as being a LOT more like scenario one than scenario two. I don’t try to justify it morally, because it’s not a strict NAP compliant position… But it is practical in a welfare state!

          1. I consider it logical to be prepared to used brutal lethal force on people who talk like the democrats do. Rev. arty is a good example. As is antfa,and many other progtarded imdividuals and groups.

            My freedom and life are worth more than their lives if they threaten me.

      6. The whole point of libertarianism is to argue on behalf of liberty for liberty’s sake. For example you should have the right to smoke weed EVEN IF smoking weed is bad for you. If you want to argue that liberty should only be permitted if the results are beneficial by some metric then that is the collectivist mindset, not a libertarian one.

        But EVEN IF you are going to approach immigration from a utilitarian point of view rather than a libertarian point of view, you have to be honest about both the costs and the benefits. What you do is you vastly inflate the benefits while minimizing the costs. “$100K a year per capita giant”? Lol. Ok whatevs. Now tell us what immigration restrictions would be necessary to pull that off. Hint: A lot more than just some damn wall.

        1. For example you should have the right to smoke weed EVEN IF smoking weed is bad for you.

          It should be noted that Prohibition and the Drug War are perfect examples that even when we succumb to the reasoning “The moral thing (not infringing on peoples’ rights) should not be acceptable if breaking morals give practical benefits”, rarely end up in the practical benefits predicted. Millions of people in jail, murderous black markets, and ensuing semi-civil wars in neighboring countries are all bad outcomes, and there is no indication that it is making drug use more useful.

          But even if we could reach the practical gains, the immorality is a practical detriment in and of itself. Let’s just say we could have a perfect system of monitoring and enforcement that new when you did something “unpractical” and killed you for it, or fined you heavily. We might have a country with all sorts of practical benefits, but at the cost of our souls- at the cost of our free will. That is not practically good, in my mind.

        2. As I said above, on almost all issues I am willing to let freedom ring. Including when I think there are negative effects from that freedom, or at least the potential for them. Drugs are not an existential threat. Mass immigration is potentially an existential problem.

          If people with common sense like me don’t win this fight here soon, you will get to see the disaster that is brought on by fully unchecked immigration. We don’t have TRUE open borders, so it will just be a long, slow motion turning to shit… But if we ever got REAL open borders, we’d be proper fucked.

          As far as turning the USA into a nation with a $100K a year average income… That might be shooting a touch high, but there are places in the USA that are already damn near there. The way you would get there is allowing in almost no unskilled immigrants, and allowing in unlimited skilled immigrants. If we’d let in 40 million people that were highly skilled only (the number of recent immigrants to the US) we’d have the same population, but a lot more high income earners.

          1. The low end wages would be pulled up by the high earners (which is what always pulls up low end wages historically, as sweeping a floor is no more intrinsically valuable here than in India where such a job probably makes you $2K a year), and the whole country would be far more affluent, with lower taxes as a percentage of income. Ta-da.

            Any incremental steps we take that direction, versus flooding us with unskilled people, will have those same benefits in smaller amounts.

            For a real world example see: Indian tech programmer immigant, and the neighborhoods they make in Bellevue, WA versus Hispanic neighborhoods in LA, like Compton, which is now mostly Hispanic. One is a high end suburb where people make $100K+ a year, and has virtually zero crime… The other is a crappy borderline ghetto, with far higher than average crime rates.

            Those two scenarios are an active choice we can make, if you toss out strict adherence to the NAP in this instance.

            To put it more succinctly: If your morals require you to shoot yourself in your dick in some situations… Maybe it’s best to just be immoral in that one instance!

      7. Vek, how do you feel about a reciprocity visa program?

        1. I think in theory it is a “fair” way to do it on the surface…

          The problem is, in the real world, in many cases it would end up only being a one way train. If we gave total reciprocity to saaay Somalia, and allowed in unlimited Somalis… That wouldn’t be a good thing for the USA. Very few Americans want to move to Somalia, and the skills brought to the table by your average Somali are basically non existent.

          Which is why I think a well constructed points system of some sort is the MOST fair way to do it, that also doesn’t screw us. Since any standards based on being culturally compatible are completely impossible today, I say just make it be no limits on any country, or religion, or anything else… BUT you do have to meet XYZ objective criteria.

          In short a system that would basically let in as many doctors, engineers, scientists, etc as wanted to come in, no matter where they’re from. Personally I think some skilled trades would be good to have in there too, think welder, plumber, maybe mechanics, etc. But people whose job qualifications are literally: Nothing. Don’t need that shit. We have millions mooching on welfare in this country already. Boot them off welfare, and make those deadbeats wash the dishes, and cut lawns, etc.

          I’m a pretty smart and pretty successful dude, I beat all the US averages by a solid amount… And I’ve done some shit jobs in my life. If it’s not “beneath” me, it’s definitely not beneath welfare losers to do some of these jobs.

        2. That said, possibly with some countries where there was a legitimate 2 way situation, it might be decent. Places that might work would probably have comparable education and incomes to the USA. So like Japan, Germany, UK, Australia, etc. Those would actually be places Americans MIGHT really want to go live/work too, unlike Somalia or Venezuela!

          I don’t see where blanket agreements would have any major negative repercussions with places like that. China or India, which could be a fit in some ways because they have a lot of talented people… I dunno. With no limits, a flood of people coming here could get to be a bit much. I don’t think there is a good “set it and forget it” way to deal with immigration. I think the circumstances change over time, and one needs to reassess and adjust.

      8. Who is this “we”? If you have a country with 100 libertarians and as such you decide on open borders, and 101 socialists come in, you don’t have a libertarian country anymore.

        1. And therein lies the problems! Strict adherence to libertarian principles creates a situation where libertarianism is guaranteed to be destroyed. The only way a libertarian society could be maintained is by NOT being libertarian on a small handful of VERY important issues. Immigration, who gets to vote, and things like that.

          1. It would be easier if we just decided that socialists are an existential threat, so it isn’t a violation of NAP to destroy them. Nor should it be, as they are antithetical to freedom.

            1. A perpetual “open season on commies” law? I like it! 🙂

              1. Like all fascists.

    3. The money taken from us to build a wall is FAR FAR less than the costs Imposed on cities and states to house, feed, educate, and heal the people coming illegally.

      So your point is stupid, myopic, and selfish.

      1. Do you have a source for this Dizzle? I’m not saying you’re wrong, because I have no idea. I’m genuinely curious.

        1. Yes, but it’s not letting me post the links cuz they’re too long.

          Google “cost of illegal immigration on California” there’s a Washington examiner article from 2017 that goes state by state.

          Or google “cost of illegal immigration” and there’s a decades long study by CIS on their website that has been tracking the costs since the early 1990s.

          No matter what numbers you use, illegals cost at least 10x what the wall would

          1. Thanks for the reading material.

            *thumbs up*

          2. Yup. A fraction of a single year could pay for a wall. How effective it will be, who knows… But it will at least slightly deter people, and in the scheme of how much money our government pisses away, it ain’t shit to worry about.

        2. Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

          Quotes and charts:
          A majority of non-citizens are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

          In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.


          While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.

          1. Now, KevinP, why don’t you be honest about the comparisons of who is on welfare and who isn’t.

            Using CIS’s own data:

            For individuals without a highschool education, the welfare usage rate is 63.1% for native-led households, and 83.0% for non-citizen immigrant-led households. Still higher, but not the eye-poppingly large difference.

            And if you look further, the major difference is due to school lunch programs, and Medicaid.

            Immigrants are not *especially* more conducive to getting welfare than native-born households who are in a similar situation.

            1. Nearly 20% more isn’t eye popping to you?

              And of course you ignore the part where these programs were actually intended (whether we agree with them or not) for citizens.

              1. Of course he does. I would say Jeffy is intellectually dishonest, but that would require him to have a real intellect.

                He does not.

            2. Let us ALSO look at the demographics, which that article doesn’t touch. Black and Hispanic NATIVE BORN rates are vastly higher than white and Asian rates, as per usual, hence making the native use look far worse.

              As I’ve said before, if you’re going to use black rates as to where we should set the bar for acceptable… You need better standards. IIRC (too lazy to google), this same study showed 33% of white households used welfare, and only something like 28% or so of Asian households.

              In other words, compared to the communities in America that are considered functional, the immigrants are damn near 3 times higher!

          2. Kevin lies, AGAIN. That is NOT from the Census Dept. It’s from an anti-immigrant group …. in the Washington Examiner.

            It NEVER stops for his ilk.

      2. Who put you in charge of my money, my business, my friends, and my property? Who made you the dictator with guns who runs my life for my own good?

        1. At least your paychecks in Yuans will come in.

    4. The money taken from us to build a wall is FAR FAR less than the costs Imposed on cities and states to house, feed, educate, and heal the people coming illegally.

      So your point is stupid, myopic, and selfish.

      1. Who put you in charge of my money, my business, my friends, and my property? Who made you the dictator with guns who runs my life for my own good?

        1. I think, alphabet blitherer, that the question should be reversed.

          Who are you to say, while hiding behind the guns of the government, that I should pay, in perpetuity, so that you might assuage your misplaced guilt?

          1. YUP.

            I’m sick and tired of supporting illegal immigrants with my tax money.

            I really with we could A/B test the world. If we could show people what an America that HADN’T allowed in large numbers of unskilled people was like, peoples jaws would probably drop. Not to mention if we ALSO were able to eliminate all the socialist crap. America would basically be paradise.

            1. Israel, without Palestine?

    5. Also, no one is scared of having to compete with illegals. The vast majority are low skill workers that lower wages and decrease opportunity for our existing low skill workers. Illegals enrich the wealthy business owners and fuck the uneducated workers, the exact opposite of what the line worldview says is correct.

      So again, your point is stupid.

      1. [citation needed], especially when it is immaterial and none of your business what level skill my friends, business partners, and employees are, regardless of what personal problems you have with my choices.

        Who put you in charge of my money, my business, my friends, and my property? Who made you the dictator with guns who runs my life for my own good?

        1. I love calling ICE on fellow farmers who use illegal labor.

          Bye bye illegals.

        2. Great, get rid of the existing welfare state and the employment regulatory regimes and then we’ll talk. Until then your complaint is as useful against your point as it is useful for it.

          1. It boils down to this:

            Libertarians have absolutely and comletely lost the argument on the welfare state and labor regulations at the national level. They have had some extremely minor success at the state level.

            Knowing that they can not win on the national stage, they have decided to go after immigration without touching the elephants in the room. The reason why? Because they know the whole system will implode, which will quite definitely harm the majority of American’s income and standard of living, at least in the short to mid term.

            They do this because they believe they know better than the populace, and are now willing to institute their moral agenda on an unwilling populace via lies and deception. Emotive arguments in favor of unrestricted immigration into the United States is one of the few area’s where libertarians stop using logic or reason, and the ‘why’ is because they no longer give fucks about American’s that don’t agree with them.

            Ironic, in my view.

      2. Economist George Borjas: Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers

        Quote (but read the whole article):
        … it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers – the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans – sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

        Once we understand immigration this way, it’s clear why the issue splits Americans – why many low-skilled native workers are taking one side, and why immigrants and businesses are taking another.

      3. Also, no one is scared of having to compete with illegals.

        They aren’t scared of having to compete with illegals. Even a trivial examination can see through this retarded ruse. Just as with the false label of homophobia, it’s more perplexed than fear. They’re perplexed by having to abide by the US government’s regulations *and* then compete with illegal immigrants under the guise of equality.

        See, if you just pretend that the imaginary line doesn’t mean anything then you can ignore the fact that an illegal can take a job for $7/hr. or through other under-the-table arrangements while a native born citizen legally cannot. It lets you perpetrate an effective fraud, double-up on the slavery and oppression, and wash your hands of the whole sinful mess by crossing yourself and saying the word “equality”.

        The only way the border becomes ‘just a line’ is if American citizens can renounce their citizenship or arbitrarily opt in and out of participation and/or protection by the US Government, and they can’t. Even then, the border isn’t entirely rendered as just a figment of peoples imagination.

    6. have taken upon themselves the right to take and use my money

      Nope. Our money gets taken too and while we disagree with the taking, you’ll have to kill us before the taking doesn’t at least buy us some say so. And we say the taking needs to stop before anything else. Dismantle the welfare state and we wouldn’t need a wall. Hell, dismantle the welfare state and you can keep your money and the rest of us can build a wall with the leftover funds. Or not. We can keep our money and people can trickle into this country without costing us a dime.

      The point is, bringing more people in specifically to perpetuate the taking isn’t libertarian and when the taking fueled the actions that drove these people out of their respective countries of origin to begin with, it’s neither honest nor virtuous.

      Hitler was pretty clearly an open borders guy and, arguably, he wasn’t misanthropic enough to fit the current open borders mold. He simply shot or gassed the untermensch. If he’d exploited them (better or more) for slave labor and/or as a tax base, which is the explicit open borders aim, the Tausendj?riges Reich would probably still be with us today.

        1. Uh, I will just post this since what you wrote about Nazi Germany’s borders was nonsense.

          You’re misunderstanding what I implied. He was open borders because it’s not a real thing as much as a proxy for “I’m going to enforce the laws I want to enforce, where I want to enforce them.” Hitler clearly had little regard for Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.’s borders. I suffer no delusions that Hitler was not a statist control freak.

          Similarly, the open borders movement now doesn’t give two shits about making (e.g.) guns transferable freely from IN to IL, NV to CA, or USA to MEX/CAN. They don’t care if IN or CO or wherever wants the ACA or gay marriage or if NC wants gay marriage but not tranny-friendly bathrooms. As we see in spades here. Regardless of whether the immigrants had anything to do with it or not, CA granted amnesty, effectively opened its borders, and got (even more) progressively less free. The policy didn’t work for CA, there’s no reason to just assume it would work for NV or any of the other states with their myriad of other distinct regional and cultural identities and regulations. But Borders for thee, not for me.

        2. Being more clear, it would be an interesting fight indeed if Trump had more pointedly hung his border wall fight on repealing or generally fucking with the Commerce Clause rather than funding the whole government. I strongly suspect that many of the open borders people would stand their ground despite any/all patent absurdity of regulating interstate commerce but not international commerce. What percentage stand their ground because TDS and what percentage would do so because they’re really just manipulative statists, or if there’s even a difference, I can’t say.

    7. Unfortunately we’re not going to be getting rid of taxes or the commons anytime soon, so what do you propose the government do to secure the border?

  6. “Trump’s Immigration Rhetoric Carries Shades of 1994 Proposition That Killed California GOP
    All this anger about immigration (and a lack of sympathy for the poor people coming here) is not only cruel, but politically foolish.”

    We have always been at war with eastasia.

    It’s amazing what nonsense can be spouted lately at Reason. Not simply untrue, but inversions of the truth. AntiTruth.

    Prop 187 was the last hope to keep CA from becoming Not America. The peasants passed it 60 to 40. Yay! CA is saved!

    But they didn’t reckon with the ruling class telling them to go fuck themselves and their little referendum too. Judicial authoritarianism strikes, referendum declared unconstitutional, and the ruling class gets to continue their relentless transformation of CA into Not America. Now CA is a One Party Leftist State, hemorrhaging citizens. I doubt it ever comes back.

    The lawless ruling class turned CA into a One Party State, not the Republicans who tried to save it.

    1. Don’t forget Prop 209’s role in the decline of Republicans in California. Both pushed away people who benefited from the status quo.

    2. +100

    3. Yup. As a native Californian, that was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for that state. Reagan’s amnesty was pretty much what kicked that off though too. Encouraged millions to flood into the country, and legalized, and gave voting rights, to all the previous illegals.

      I barely even recognized my home town last time I went there. It was literally like being in a foreign country, and I ain’t talking a nice one like Germany or Japan either! It looked about as run down and janky as Mexico does, honestly. Which I guess is better than it being Somalia…

      It was already going down hill in this way when I was growing up, but when my dad grew up there it had been like Mayberry. That is what can happen in just a few decades of bad policy.

      1. But yeah, the fact that the majority of citizens knew they did not want this bullshit… And then had it rammed down their throats anyway… That is infuriating. The elites have been doing this on a ton of issues for decades. If Trump doesn’t “save the day,” which I don’t see happening… Some REAL hard edged politicians are going to come along and straighten this shit out in the future. And they won’t be nearly as nice about it as Trump is trying to be. Mark my words!

      2. Reagan’s amnesty was part of a package deal with the Congressional Democrats – Amnesty for those currently in the US now, while getting increased border controls and immigration enforcement later.

        Wanna guess how that turned out?

        Incidentally, I hear that there’s a suggestion being floated these days… something about amnesty for the Dreamers now, and increased border controls later…

        1. The Democratic Party is on the ropes. There is no need to ever negotiate with them again where it negatively impacts the USA.

          Government shutdown? Good. Saves taxpayers billions and a bunch of shitbird bureaucrats will quit.

          Democrats won’t reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid budgets? Government shutdown. Save the taxpayers billions.

          And on and on….

          1. Except the shutdowns don’t really reeuce spending in real terms. Entitlements are mandatory, so the gravy train rolls on.

            1. Reduce* damn it!

            2. Entitlement budgets dont last forever.

              Food stamps programs will evidently be out of money by the end of January. Social Security has COLA increases, etc.

              Be assured that as soon as entitlements are affected at any point, the Lefty media will use that to try and break Trump’s will.

              Luckily, tens of thousands of federal employees will quit by then and taxpayers will not have to pay them one red cent above back pay (if they worked). This is one of the best parts of this shutdown.

              Trump gets rid of tens of thousands of Democrat supporters who normally cannot be fired easily from government and drains the swamp at the same time. MAGA!

              1. That’s true, and a good point to bring up that food stamps and social security may very well be affected. If I’m not mistaken, Medicare and Medicaid won’t be though, which are the biggest offenders.

                1. Someone has to process all those Medicare receipts from medical facilities.

                  1. IIRC, this was the case last time.

                    The idea that we’ll need a protracted shutdown and that a length of time will pass before people dealing with medicare start getting affected assumes medicare is always operating at ‘current and paid up in full’ status across the board. That medical providers and insurers aren’t already looking at red ink and asking “Where’s the money going to come from?”

                    1. This is officially the longest shutdown in US history.

                      Another reason why Trump is awesome.

              2. Employees currently furloughed should not receive back pay for their furlough vacations.

          2. The progtard media should be destroyed next.

      3. It looked about as run down and janky as Mexico does, honestly. Which I guess is better than it being Somalia…

        Where I went to high school was an actual multicultural area up until about 2000, after which it started to become flooded with Hispanic immigrants, most of them Mexican.

        While this was never a high-income place, it was largely lower-middle to middle class. Save for a few gentrified islands, it’s almost all working poor now. The schools are crap, with free lunch ratios rising in general proportion to the number of Hispanic students populating them, and of course they’re all demanding their gibs.

    4. Right. What kind of “reason” is this, thinking that the California GOP killed themselves off by supporting a proposition that PASSED 60-40?

      They killed themselves off by not defending it vigorously enough. That was the hill to die on, and they caved.

    5. If I’m reading you right, they did the same with prop 80 in 2008 and then struck it down several years later. Hilariously California exit polling from Obamas first election showed…

      Over 96% of blacks voted for Obama
      Over 90% of blacks voted AGAINST prop 80

      So even with 63% of whites voting for prop 80, it was still struck down by the massive swell in black voter support in Obamas first term. The rich white libs running California couldn’t let those homophobic black people vote down their gay marriage bill, so they overrode it in the Cali courts a few years later.

      1. +100

      2. Black culture is extremely homophobic.

    6. Re: “Prop 187 was the last hope to keep CA from becoming Not America”

      This phrase encapsulates the problem more than any other. The fear that brown skinned people from south of the border will come an take away the land we took from the indigenous people. America is a land of immigrants and has been for all the time we were a country. My Irish ancestors were just as unwelcome as the Hispanic and Latino people are now. America has always been the idea that I will come work hard, do the unpleasant work and in return my kids get an education and a chance at a better life. It worked for the Irish, French, German, Swiss, Italian and I believe it will worked for all who come here. If the Republican Party can not embrace this idea, it is time for a new second party.

      1. Something seems to be different.

        Irish and many European immigrants were very Socialist or okay with government rule. A lot of that changed as they assimilated into the Wild West and freedom loving America.

        1. Way back when, my college history professor pointed out (gleefully, of course) that socialism was transported and popularized on our shores by refugees from Europe (mostly Germans, he said) who fled after failed revolutions c. 1848. For some long forgotten reason, I researched the plethora of little socialist groups in the Chicago area after the Civil War and virtually everyone was founded by immigrant German socialists.

          1. He was partly correct.

            He also seemed to leave off that America used to break most immigrants of their Socialist ways or definitely minimize their Socialist ways. Its partly why some American cities were so corrupt and still are. Chicago coming to mind. Detroit’s Socialist corruption caused an implosion and that city might blossom as a freer city because most of the Socialists fled.

            The pioneer immigrants could not use much Socialism. It was mostly free market or die.

            I dont think you can fully get rid of Socialism. Too many scared people that dont want to compete in a free market.

      2. OBL has a new account.

      3. Mod4, you’re speaking in platitudes and ignoring reality. As such, you’re not worth talking to. And by the way, those o,attitudes are also bullshit.

    7. transformation of CA into Not America

      So “America” is when decent white people vote for Trump.

      But “Not America” is when brown people vote for Hillary.

      Do I have that about right?

      1. Poor troll cannot bait enough people to reply to his script.

      2. Not America would be over-regulated industries, forcing publicly traded companies to put a woman on their board of directors, ridiculously unconstitutional gun laws, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

        It’s asinine to assume that everyone discussing this issue from a different perspective is doing so out of racism and xenophobia. Be better.

      3. Officer Singh: American
        Illegal who murdered officer Singh then tried to flee back to Mexico: not American

        My friends wife who lives in Peru: not American
        My friends wife who moves from Peru to here in 8 or 9 months as a permanent resident: American

      4. Chemjeff is race baiting vermin.

      5. Hey Jeffy, I remember recently you whined and bitched that you never brought race into your arguments or called people racist. This is just one example of why you are full of shit.

        Seriously, who do you think you are calling anyone racist? You think you so slick you punkass, blasphemous, dope fiend bitch! I had my jimmy whacked seven times last week! I bust a cap in your nigga ass, shithead!

  7. ‘ We all know the “Give me your tired, your poor” statement on the Statue of Liberty. ‘

    But open border idiots always forget the “your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” part.

    Do they yearn to breathe free? Is that what you see when you look out at the world? 7 billion libertarians who only need to have their innate libertarian desires unleashed in America? Is Mexico really a nation of Thomas Paines, who only need the chance to become American citizens so they help us usher in Libertopia?

    Funny thing. If they’re all Thomas Paine, why is Mexico so unlibertarian? Who made it that way? The Albanians? The Chinese? The Cursed Dirt of Mexico?

    Such a mystery.

    “As a libertarian, I oppose most public services for, well, everybody. ”

    Good luck with that in the People’s Republic of Formerly America on the Pacific.

    1. Yup. The intent of most new immigrants is very different from those in the past. People moved here to get away from living in monarchies, dictatorships, etc in the past. And some just wanted more economic opportunity too.

      The thing is I think more did have an interest in freedom back in the day. Nowadays it seems those have flipped, and it is almost 100% just in it for the money.

      Whatever the cause, every single immigrant group in America votes strongly left wing. The cause is frankly irrelevant. It is what it is. Even if you believe these people can be converted eventually, that STILL means we need to meter the influx, so as to not flood the country with 1st generation leftists who will ruin the country!

      Oh shit… It’s too late, that’s exactly what we already did 🙁 Look at what an electoral map would look like if the demographics were still like they were even 10 or 15 years ago, let alone 30-40 years ago. Trump would have won in a massive landslide. What that REALLY means, is Trump wouldn’t have even been on the ballot, because people with ACTUAL solid conservative values would have probably been elected instead.

      The whole spectrum has shifted left because of immigration. This is not disputable.

      1. America has experienced successive waves of intolerance and ignorance, mostly related to religion, skin color, nationality, and perceived economic pressure. Those targeted have included Italians, Jews, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, the Irish, gays, Catholics, eastern Europeans, women, agnostics, other Hispanics, atheists, other Asians, and others.

        What makes America great is that the backward and intolerant do not win over time. This latest batch of bigots seems nothing special.

        1. We are so fortunate to have the Rev, a man who really knows what he is talking about when it comes to intolerance and ignorance.

          Care to talk about assimilation Rev, or would you get frog-marched out of your political community for doing so?

        2. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|1.11.19 @ 8:43AM|#
          “What makes America great is that the backward and intolerant do not win over time.”

          Good. Scumbag assholes like you will get lost.

        3. “”What makes America great is that the backward and intolerant do not win over time. “‘

          Which is why I expect the left’s rise in popularity to be temporary.

        4. “I love the feces covered streets of SF and hate Americans.”

      2. +1000

      3. The whole spectrum has shifted left because of immigration. This is not disputable.

        There you go again, scapegoating penniless Guatemalans for America’s problems.

        Was it the penniless Guatemalans who created the welfare state? Who created the surveillance state? Who decided to get America involved in countless overseas wars? Who created the drug laws that enriched the criminal elements in their own nations?

        1. There you go again, being a race baiting vermin.

        2. Hayek openly acknowledges culture and the acculturation things like government (or lack thereof in old Wild West America) may have on people. Why do all you open border types keep ignoring it like the plague? We not only are socializing our country with bigger and better government everyday but liberally importing people with bad habits, low educations, and little respect for American customs. Seems like a bad deal for me and a deal literally the rest of the world rejects outright no matter how “open” and “liberal” (see Canada).

        3. Jeffy is babbling about bullshit.

          Jeffy, people just like YOU created all these problems. Not me, baby dick.

        4. Actually, European immigrants are largely responsible for making government in America bigger. I’ve previously read that FDR would have LOST his first election if not for the overwhelming support of immigrants and their first generation children.

          America has slowly converted most immigrant groups in the past to an American-ish view… But each generation is has also got watered down. Seems to me the exact same thing is happening with the current crop, only we don’t know if many of these groups will go the way of Italians, AKA actually assimilate properly, or if they will all end up becoming like blacks, which is to carry on a separate and parallel culture that never assimilates fully.

          The immigration of people here since 1965 has been THE LARGEST MIGRATION OF PEOPLE IN HUMAN HISTORY in terms of the raw numbers. That it has completely shaken the country to its core, and changed everything is an obvious outcome. The thing is it has mostly not changed for the better. If it had been slower it probably wouldn’t have changed us as much, and changed the immigrants more… Which is what is optimal if you have a superior culture to those moving in, which the USA did. As fucked as we were, we were the most libertarian culture on earth. Pissing that away for the feelz just ain’t worth it.

          1. How STOOPID are right-wingers?

            I’ve previously read that FDR would have LOST his first election if not for the overwhelming support of immigrants and their first generation children

            NEVER a source. (snort)
            That was over 1/3 our population at the time. The ignorant are so easily manipulated.

      4. Look at what an electoral map would look like if the demographics were still like they were even 10 or 15 years ago, let alone 30-40 years ago. Trump would have won in a massive landslide.

        So not just brown people then, but all people are just robots programmed by their race to vote in a certain way.

        Are the white people who voted for Hillary Clinton “race traitors” then?

        1. Voting for Hillary was a vote for the Party of slavery- The Democratic Party.

        2. Well, the thing of it is this: The opinions of white people, and their political leanings, have not shifted a ton. Some things have changed for sure. But it is largely the same.

          What changed was the demographics, whose voting patterns have ALSO not changed much. Look at the voting record of ANY ethnic group in the US going back decades, and it’s basically all within a fairly narrow margin, and every single one of them is leaning towards the left.

          It’s not that some of this stuff is immutable, but that it is the way it is. Personally I think a lot of it is simply being a minority, especially a poor one, in a country… OF COURSE you’re going to vote for free shit, because why not? And statistically that describes basically every non white group except Asians that have moved here in large numbers.

          I don’t know WTF is wrong with Asians, they’re getting screwed as hard as whites on a lot of stuff.

    2. Huh.
      So the reason why California is messed up, is because of decisions made in the past that put it on this trajectory.
      But the reason why Mexico is messed up, is due solely to the (presumed) consent of the people living there today, and historical context is irrelevant.

      Is that what you are saying?

      1. The judicial authoritarianism of the ruling class to overturn the vote of Californians in the past filled CA with people who vote for Leftist authoritarianism today.

        But you just keep on blanking out the inconvenient facts, race baiting vermin.

    3. “”But open border idiots always forget the “your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” part.”‘

      Liberty Island is next to Ellis Island. They also seem to forget that the call for the tired, poor huddled masses still required them to process legally. It was never a call for people to come and jump the borders.

      1. +100

  8. All this anger about immigration (and a lack of sympathy for the poor people coming here) is not only cruel, but politically foolish.

    The California GOP is alive and well. In fact, its 4.6M strong.

    The fact that more and more illegals started voting in Commifornia and voting for Socialism has not changed the numbers of registered Republicans in that state by much but notice that No Party Preference voter registration has almost tripled.

    GOP registered voters:
    September 7, 2018 – 4,676,247
    September 5, 2014 – 4,977,723
    September 8, 2006 – 5,358,160
    September 4, 1998 – 5,227,013

    Democrat registered voters:
    September 7, 2018 – 8,349,565
    September 5, 2014 – 7,658,175
    September 8, 2006 – 6,661,439
    September 4, 1998 – 6,858,806

    No Party Preference:
    September 7, 2018 – 5,105,351
    September 5, 2014 – 4,070,440
    September 8, 2006 – 2,900,269
    September 4, 1998 – 1,844,866

    1. As typical of Reason staff writers, they don’t do their homework and have incurable TDS.

    2. Republicans hold 7 of 53 positions in California’s Congressional delegation.

      Which, in dumbfuck terms, is ‘alive, well, and strong.’

      No wonder the dumbfucks spend their lives complying with other people’s preferences.

      1. It’s all because of gerrymandering.
        /s

        1. Conservatives fled Commifornia. Setting districts really has nothing to do with it.

          Red California is still Red today. Its the rural mountain regions.

          Blue Commifornia is still Blue today as it was after Reagan.

      2. Poor trolls.

        They dont understand many conservatives fled Commifornia, so drops in districts voting Republican are partly associated with less conservatives overall. Not because of wanting to limit immigrants from South America and Mexico.

      3. The irony is California is so financially fucked and your tds has twisted your innards so much you’re now defending their near socialist state in the name of criticizing trump.

        Bravo!

      4. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|1.11.19 @ 8:37AM|#
        “Which, in dumbfuck terms, is ‘alive, well, and strong.'”

        Asshole trolls here, which, in dumbshit terms is “progressive”

        1. If there is ever a Reason convention in Vegas, I wonder if PB, Tony, the Rev. Hihn, or any of the other obnoxious progtards who post here would dare show up and identify themselves.

          My guess is they’re all too cowardly. Which is the progtard way.

  9. This is such a boring, tedious issue. There are about 5,000 policy items I can think of that are more important than illegal immigration, starting with entitlement spending, that people should care about much more if they were rational.

    1. Talk about those issues all you want, while the party of chains continues to import future voters…. Go on… Keep talking.

      1. I think there might be a point somewhere in there.

        1. There is a Cy said it.

          All the other policy items are irrelevant if the USA is voted from a Constitutional Democratic Republic into a 3rd World shithole of corruption.

          Our Republic does not work if voting is rigged and non-Americans are used to vote our Nation into oblivion.

          1. From my perspective, the immigration debate is irrelevant if we don’t get entitlements under control. You can make immigration zero and this country is still on a trajectory towards bankruptcy. I don’t think that’s even debatable.

            1. We can curb illegal immigration AND curb entitlements.

              1. Sure, and that’s fine. My point is though that between the two, I think entitlements are a much more valuable topic of discussion and as I said, I don’t think it’s debatable or even close.

                1. Immigration AND entitlements are important topics.

                  Trump could accomplish the wall promise, restrict illegal immigration, and move on to the next issue.

                  Lefties dont want that.

                  Fine, whatever, its a Democracy. Lefties are entitled to kick and scream as much as they want while the majority political force under Trump rolls back government and enforces immigration law.

                  1. We just have different priorities is all. I would put all of my current domeatic effort into entitlement reform, and worry about other issues once we have at least a solid handle on how to go about it.

                    It’ll never happen, I know.

                    1. Domestic*

                      Off my game today

    2. There’s no policy item more important than immigration.

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

  10. Soooo your basic idea is this:

    Because our elite has decided we’re not ALLOWED to enforce our immigration laws… Despite voting for it, and being in favor of it in polls countless times over the years… We need to bend to the every whim of illegal immigrants… Because if we don’t, they’ll make us pay politically when they inevitably get amnesty and can vote… If they’re not voting illegally already.

    Well, that’s a real winning position there. How about you just have a fucking spine?

    We could just deport all the fuckers, and make the western states part of America again.

    Leftists and Cosmotarians are FAR too concerned with being “nice” all the time. Being nice is NOT always the thing that is in your best interests. Can any individual make it through life doing any favor that every single person asks of them their whole life? Of course not. You’d kill yourself trying to do nice things for other people all the time, because some people will take as much as there is to take.

    Sometimes you have to say “No!” and do what is in your own best interest. The cucked out Republican party is probably going to go a lot more this direction in the future, as many have realized there is no negotiating with the left. And if we DO keep going that route, America will cease to exist as the nation it has always been.

    1. “The cucked out Republican party is probably going to go a lot more this direction in the future, as many have realized there is no negotiating with the left.”

      Why should America’s liberal-libertarian mainstream negotiate with Republicans? Why not continue to shape America’s improvement by winning the culture war and watching right-wingers mumble about all of this damned progress?

      1. There’s nothing mainstream about libertarianism and there’s certainly no alliance between liberals and libertarians. Policy items that centrist libertarians would agree with on loberals are too often, for the liberals, based on the whim of who is in office.

        For example, see the left’s immense hypocricy on the Syria and Afghanistan military drawdown announcements, or Obama refusing to reschedule marijuana even though he could have.

        1. To take it a step further, Democrats and libertarians might agree on preferred policy outcomes with respect to immigration (although I’m skeptical of Democrats’ true intentions), but we certainly don’t agree on the principles that lead us to similar conclusions.

          It’s like the drug war. I suspect that many Democrats who support legalization aren’t doing so because they respect individual liberty, but primarily as another tax scheme.

          1. Absolutely. A very salient point to bring up. Most potential intersections between libertarianism and modern day progessivism are more due to coincidence than harmonious thinking. Then you have campaign Obama claiming he’s going to close Gitmo, he’s going to stop warrantless wiretapping, and he’s going to bring the troops home. Something to be potentially excited about from a libertarian perspective.

            Then he gets to office and either ignored his promises, or in the case of wiretapping, made it fucking worse.

            1. Obama is a Socialist and everyone knew it at the time of election 2008.

              If you voted for Obama, thinking he would not be a Socialist, you were not paying attention.

              1. I wrote in Ron Paul

                1. Same. Tied and maybe beat ‘None of the above’ for best vote I ever cast.

          2. The fact that Democrats allowed ‘legalized’ drugs in states without pushing a national repeal of drug laws illustrates exactly what Democrats are up to.

            Marijuana is not 100% legal in the states where it is ‘legal’ because they want to tax it at higher rates than other products.

            Marijuana has not been removed from the unconstitutional Controlled Substances Act because Democrats need the bigger Nanny and Police-State that comes with drugs being illegal nationally.

      2. liberal-libertarian mainstream

        You sir are no OBL.

      3. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|1.11.19 @ 8:30AM|#
        “Why should America’s liberal-libertarian mainstream negotiate with Republicans?”

        That would be you and OBL, asshole?

    2. I don’t want to be nice to the left. I want to change things and make their lives in my country a living hell, even criminalizing their Marxism. The typical progressive should be afraid to leave their home in the morning if we’re doing it right. Then they can decide to change or GTFO.

    1. Asshole’s constant assholery is a pain.

  11. If Mr. Greenhut wants to support immigrants, he could start or join a voluntary organization that provides them with food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care, etc., because, despite his claim of libertarianism, he’s apparently perfectly happy to let my tax dollars pay for such things.

    1. But because government has made the very existence of some immigrants in this country illegal, I fail to see how Mr. Greenhut could support these people… legally.

      1. At least you admit that people helping illegal immigrants is illegal.

        1. It’s illegal in the sense that possessing certain types of drugs or firearms without government permission is also illegal in certain localities.

          1. Drug laws are unconstitutional. There is no federal authority to ban any product or service. They can regulate interstates commerce and thats it. Regulation of commerce is mentioned in the Constitution, not banning.

            In fact, even slavery is not “banned”.
            13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            Non-criminal punishment slavery and involuntary servitude is prohibited or banned. It took a constitutional amendment to accomplish that.

            Prohibition required a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.

            1. I think you know where I stand on the constitutionality of federal immigration control…
              immigration =/= naturalization.

              My point was that illegality in and of itself is a fact. Whether that illegality is legitimate or not is a value statement.

              1. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
                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.

                Luckily, this Clause shifts the power to regulate migrants from the states to Congress in the year 1808 and onward.

                If Congress declares uninvited non-Americas are “illegal” and violate US Code, then the Constitution allows for that.

                I get that you dont like it. Amend the Constitution. But you can’t, so you lie.

                1. It does nothing of the sort, it says specifically that Congress cannot regulate migration or importation prior to 1808.

                  Your claim that time-bounding forbidding something is the same as permitting something after the time elapses requires an interpretation of the Constitution not as defining what government can do, but in assuming it can do everything it is not expressly prohibited from doing. If the founders intended your line of reasoning they would have specified within Article I, Section 8 that Congress has the power to regulate following 1808. They didn’t and you can’t explain why.

                  1. Poor Leo. It says “… shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight”

                    Why would the Founder prohibit Congress from regulating migrants and slaves until 1808 if they never had the power? Because Congress does have the power and it was restricted until 1808.

                2. And when did naturalization get ‘nationalized’? That’s right, the Progressive Era – with the express concern that America was losing its Protestant whiteness.

                3. “Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
                  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.

                  Luckily, this Clause shifts the power to regulate migrants from the states to Congress in the year 1808 and onward.

                  If Congress declares uninvited non-Americas are “illegal” and violate US Code, then the Constitution allows for that.

                  I get that you dont like it. Amend the Constitution. But you can’t, so you lie.”

                  Ummm…..I don’t think that section of the constitution says what you think it says. https://tinyurl.com/y9yp2v9k

                  1. McGoo is a troll, so why would anyone click on a link that does not show what the link goes to?

                    1. Trolls like YOU are funny.

              2. Fortunately Leo, no one else, not the President, congress, the courts, etc. hold that view about immigration. It’s just a semantically word game to suit your world view, not reality.

  12. For a small pretense at rational thought, please distinguish between immigration policy, and criminal border crossers.
    They are two issues, with different ‘solutions’.

  13. 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

  14. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work -online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by -sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link….

    http://www.GeoSalary.com

  15. Proposition 187 didn’t kill the California GOP, it passed with strong majority support, but in the end was killed in a dishonest political deal by Democratic Governor Gray Davis.

    The law was held up by lawsuits and appeals (of course) and after Gray Davis was elected, he simply stopped the states appeals in support of the law, effectively killing it.

    As a result, California continued to absorb more illegal immigrants until it became a sanctuary state. That’s what killed the GOP there – and Prop 187 was an attempt to save it.

    1. don’t forget the anti gerrry mandering law which essentially became gerrymandering by “honest” judges

      1. Most times when the Left says they’re “anti” something, they’re for it.

        1. They’re also always guilty of whatever they’re accusing their opponents of.

  16. I just can’t get over this article. Reagan granted amnesty. They then transformed California, and voted in the most highly regulated, highly taxed, un-libertarian policies in the entire country.

    And the author thinks it’s because their feelings were hurt. So be nice to us or we’ll make you socialist. We’re now hostage to illegal immigrants, and it’s our fault, not because we gave them voting rights but because we said mean words.

    Thanks for the laugh

    1. It’s almost as laughable as you claiming the disaster that is known as California is because Reagan let the illegal brown folks vote. California would’ve had no problems completely fucking itself over without them. Hispanic voters only account for about 25% of the democratic base, and 11% of the republican base (and a much smaller percentage eventually gained citizenship through amnesty). Unfortunately for you and the rest of us, the problems of California are deeper systemically and on the move. I guess it’s just better to be a racist asshole. https://tinyurl.com/yc9jg3lh

      1. So, getting past the racism, you don’t disagree that California was and is statist as fuck and that the influx of immigrants hasn’t done squat to advance liberty and, arguably, has aided the leviathan to shuffle forward, right? That, through no fault of the immigrants legal or otherwise, amnesty/open borders did precisely jack squat to advance liberty in California and, again strictly associatively or coincidentally speaking, had the opposite effect?

        Because if you assume the whole racist/not racist argument to be the hollow shell that it is, your left with the fact that they granted amnesty/opened borders *and* got progressively more socialist, causally related or not. Also, the possibility that the state of affairs could’ve been causally related and had nothing specific or particular to do with race.

        1. I don’t disagree with that. My only point is that it is racist and naive to blame the state of affairs in California on minorities that came here illegally and eventually got voting rights through amnesty….which is the central fear of many Trumpsters in favor of the wall, or so they claim.

          1. My only point is that it is racist and naive to blame the state of affairs in California on minorities that came here illegally and eventually got voting rights through amnesty….which is the central fear of many Trumpsters in favor of the wall, or so they claim.

            I think you’re being a bit racist assuming a minority and a race are synonymous and naive in thinking that they don’t blame a significant portion of native Californians too.

            1. My comments were in response to:

              Ryan (formally HFTO)|1.11.19 @ 9:59AM|#

              I just can’t get over this article. Reagan granted amnesty. They then transformed California, and voted in the most highly regulated, highly taxed, un-libertarian policies in the entire country.

              And the author thinks it’s because their feelings were hurt. So be nice to us or we’ll make you socialist. We’re now hostage to illegal immigrants, and it’s our fault, not because we gave them voting rights but because we said mean words.

              Thanks for the laugh

          2. California Hispanic Population
            1980 – 19.2%
            1990 – 25.8%
            2000 – 32.4%
            2010 – 37.6%

            California White Population
            1980 – 66.6%
            1990 – 57.2%
            2000 – 46.7%
            2010 – 40.1%

            Correlation does not equal causation but you would have to be a fool to ignore this trend with California turning from purple-ish to as blue as the depths of the ocean.

            1. And strangely enough, that 26% drop in the white population in California JUST SO HAPPENS to be about enough to close the spread that the Democrats have in any statewide election… Funny that.

              But demographics had NOTHING to do with it right?

              LOL Idiots.

              In all honesty though, self sorting has made a big difference too. When my dad was a kid, growing up 35-45 minutes outside of San Francisco, his town was all white Republicans. There were pickup trucks with gunracks everywhere. My moms home time in the mountains was STILL like that in the 90s when I was a kid.

              My entire family, ON BOTH SIDES, with the exception of literally a few people, has bailed from the state. We’re mostly all conservative/libertarian leaning. We were replaced with a combo of illegal Mexicans and white liberals who moved there from elsewhere. So that moving out of people like us, and moving in of white liberals has helped tilt things too.

          3. “My only point is that it is racist and naive to blame the state of affairs in California on minorities that came here illegally and eventually got voting rights through amnesty”

            It’s a fascinating mental illness. Kind of scary too.

            Half the country denying reality, and then hysterically attacking you as a racist if you point it out.

            PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
            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

            1. Blame Republicans, fucking them for decades.

  17. The Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to regulate immigration. It only has authority over uniform rules of naturalization. The Supreme Ct. granted the Feds the power c. 1884 by upholding the Chinese Exclusion Act. If Congress is not authorized, the power belongs to the states and the People ( 10 Amendment). By declaring Prop 187 unconstitutional, they have caused decades of futile and counter productive federal involvement in another area the founders understood they were not competent to administer. Now the only chance is for Congress itself to return the power over immigration to thenStates and private interests. I am not holding my breath.

    1. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
      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.

      In 1808, the Constitution shifted power to regulate migrants from states to Congress and the federal government. It was supposed to be 1800, but the slave holding Democrats got it pushed back to 1808.

      1. Here we go again…

        1. Its as accurate as the day you first should have seen it.

          You hate it then and evidently still hate it.

          As long as you keep lying, I will keep reminding you of the Congressional power to regulate migrants.

          1. Since Congress isn’t expressly forbidden from regulating drugs at any date, is it also allowed? Think of all the other myriad things that aren’t expressly forbidden in the Constitution. Would you agree that Congress then has that power to regulate those things because they aren’t expressly forbidden? Why is this clause different?

            1. Do you not know how the Constitution works?

              The Constitution says what powers government has. If a general power is not listed, government cannot do it.

              Banning products and services is a pretty powerful general power. Its not listed as a federal power. Regulation is but only for commerce that is international and interstate. Intrastate commerce regulation is NOT a power the federal government has.

              All drugs were legal in 1776, 1789, and up until 1971. Even attempts to control marijuana were more regulation out of existence than banning.

              That Clause gives Congress the power to regulate migrants in 1808. There is no Clause in the Constitution allowing bans of products and services.

              1. You’re clearly missing my point. It (A1S9C1) does not grant ANY power, except the power to tax up to $10. It specifically forbids regulation prior to 1808. I’m asking why you would read the expiry of that prohibition as granting Congress a power that is not granted in Section 8.

                1. The powers are that Congress can regulate migrants in 1808 AND charge a tax or duty of $10 for imported slaves.

                  Notice how Section 9 consists of limitations AND powers. The Founders decided that these Clauses fit best in this Section.

                  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.

                  The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

                  No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

                  1. (contd)
                    No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

                    No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

                    No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

                    No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

                    No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

                2. “Its as accurate as the day you first should have seen it.

                  You hate it then and evidently still hate it.

                  As long as you keep lying, I will keep reminding you of the Congressional power to regulate migrants.”

                  Dumbfuck LC thinks the section of the constitution that deals with the slave trade and the importation of slaves regulates migrants. https://tinyurl.com/y9yp2v9k

                  1. Poor McGoo the troll.

                    Cannot use HTML to show what his link is and cannot understand how the Constitution works.

                  2. I mean, it literally says migrants…

                3. Additionally, you refuse to answer why the Founders would restrict the power of Congress to regulate migrants if Congress never had that power?

                  States had sovereign power to regulate everything until they gave up some of their powers to form the USA. The slave holders didnt want the Congress undermining slavery, so the state’s right to regulate migrants and slaves until 1808 was specifically listed to protect it from Congress.

                  Until 1808 that is.

                  1. I’m not a historian on that clause. However, I do know that there were clearly states which were concerned about the impact on the slave trade. A1S9C1 is described in every text I’ve read about it as applying to the slave trade specifically. It seems reasonable to assume that it’s inclusion as a prohibition is a concession to the slave state delegates, and specifically about regulation through taxation (since taxation is expressly mentioned).

                    But it still doesn’t answer why the power isn’t included in section 8 if they intended it to exist.

                    1. Leo, the people who superficially “study” the Constitution are wrong….a lot.

                      The great thing about the Constitution, is that anyone who can read American English can read the Constitution for themselves.

                      The Constitution is very simple and concise for what it accomplished.

                      Using basic logical thought, its very easy to understand and know for sure that most politicians and bureaucrats lie and misstate the powers and limitations of the Constitution for their own nefarious goals.

                    2. If Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 was only about slaves then why mention migration?

                      Slaves dont migrate. They are property.

                      Free persons migrate from one place to another.

                      Its also why the tax authorized in that Clause can only be laid on importations of slaves not migrations of free persons.

                  2. Additionally, you refuse to answer why the Founders would restrict the power of Congress to regulate migrants if Congress never had that power

                    ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
                    Before the Constitution, Congress had NO POWER.

                    And, ummmm, DID NOT EVEN EXIST!

                4. By the way, the power of Congress to tax is expressed in A1S8. So you could even argue that the power is not granted by A1S9C1, but instead limited in amount.

                  There’s a clear point here, in that Article I, Section 9 is a list of specific limitations on Congress and Article I, Section 8 is a list of specific, enumerated powers Congress is granted.

                  It doesn’t follow that if the Founders intended Congress the ability to regulate immigration specifically that they would enumerate that power in Section 9 and not Section 8. In fact, it would have made sense to include immigration within the Naturalization power (A1S8C4), since they are related but not equivalent.

                  1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

                    “and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time”

                    This is a power not a limitation. The first part of that Constitutional Clause is a limitation.

                    Once again, why would the Founders list a prohibition (limitation) on Congress to regulate migration if Congress never had such a power?

                    1. But, the power to raise taxes and appropriate money is specifically granted in A1S8. So again, given that power, the S9 clause is not required to grant any power, only to say that they are required to state and account those receipts and expenditures “from time to time”. It’s still a limitation on power. They’re not allowed to operate the finances of the government without making public reports on that activity.

                    2. Limitations dont require the government do anything only to NOT do something.

                      I am sorry you dont understand the difference between power and limitation.

                    3. It sure gets annoying to explain this stuff to these people. At least he’s not as dense as Jeffy. But he still wants to play pretend.

                  2. The federal power to control all territory of the USA is supreme. Out of that comes Naturalization, regulation of migrants and slaves, national defense, etc.

                    We Americans control the United States of America is why.
                    US Constitution, preamble:
                    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                    1. It does not say “We the People of the World…” or “We the Immigrants…”.

                    2. You’re reaching. It doesn’t say “We the citizens” either.

                    3. Poor Leo. Another day of lost arguments for you.

                      Maybe someday, we will find a topic that you know something about.

                      I have faith in you buddy.

                    4. Hahahaha…poor troll LC1789 loses an argument and declares himself the winner.

                    5. He didn’t lose McJizz. He is exactly right. You’re confused, as you are bitchass blasphemous dope fiend.

                    6. It’s easy to tell when you’re winning an argument when the other side moves on to petty insults. Have a good day.

                    7. It’s easy to tell when you’re winning an argument when the other side moves on without good support for their lies.
                      Have a good day.

                    8. Poor troll thinks that I have to announce that my arguments won the day. It is apparent to everyone that reads this who has the better argument with support.

                      It is interesting that Leo’s post typically are followed by McGoop95

                    9. Same guy? Or maybe they’re sucking each other’s dicks?

            2. You’ve got the losing end of the argument, since at least 1808. The moment the time limit was up, Congress did that which was prohibited before the time limit.

              They evidently thought they had the granted legal power to do it, and did, and no one has complained of it since.

      2. +100

        I hadn’t noticed the *migration* aspect of the clause before.

        1. This settles the question of whether the federal government has the right to control immigration.

    2. And it is tin foil hat time, like arguing the federal government is not authorized to collect the income tax.

    3. The Constitution *obligates* the federal government to prevent invasion.

      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
      BuildTheWall

  18. So let me see if I get this straight.

    Immigrants are robots who are programmed to vote for socialism.

    The desires of immigrants don’t matter, because they are after all just robots.

    The immigrant robots are responsible for most, if not all, of America’s problems. If it wasn’t for these immigrant robots, then America would be Libertopia by now.

    Do I have that about right?

    1. Poor Chemjeff does not know how to read demographic voting information.

      1. I dont click troll links that illustrate that you dont know how to use HTML and identify what the link goes to.

    2. No but then you know that and are just being an asshat…again.

    3. “So …”

      One of the tells for racebaiterjeff’s cognitive dissonance kicking in, where he will hallucinate an argument no one ever made into the mouths of the people disagreeing with him.

  19. I got a taste of that possibility shortly after moving to California. Driving through the Imperial Valley in my sports car and suit jacket, I had to slow down at one of those inland immigration checkpoints.

    this had nothing to do with prop 187 which was overturned

  20. “The Prop. 187 campaign was never about a rational debate about immigration, public services and government intrusion. It was an emotional debate, fueled by frustration at the state’s changing demographics.”

    Aren’t you emotionally ignoring the fact that the State of California sued the federal government for the cost of incarcerating and educating all those illegal aliens–and the courts ruled against them?

    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05…..liens.html

    Seems to me that the federal government should be reimbursing states for the costs associated with caring for the illegal aliens they fail to keep out of the country–and that’s regardless of whether you support or oppose immigration. Why should California taxpayers have to pay for the federal government’s responsibility?

    No, the proper response was not to throw public school elementary teachers in jail for failing to report the illegal aliens in their class to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The proper response was for the federal government to take its responsibility for illegal aliens seriously–but since the courts failed so miserably, . . .

  21. It isn’t clear to me that the taxpayers of Iowa should be forced to provide state services to the residents of other states. Why should they be forced to pay for and provide services to people from other countries? Force people to pay for each other, and, yeah, they get picky as hell about who whom benefits from their “charity”.

    That’s a huge part of what Prop 187 was all about, and it was when we were coming out of a recession, too–which makes people ever more picky about forced charity for others.

    People remember the California of the 90s, when Silicon Valley took off and everybody got rich. They seem to have forgotten the early part of the 90s, when the economy crashed, the aerospace industry in southern California cratered, the gangs proliferated, and the rioters went nuts. Anyone who needs to remember what that was about, check out the excellent film, “Falling Down” from 1993.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD5ofrSNDFA

    That was the mood in California in 1993. That was the year before Prop 187 passed.

  22. Holy shit – way to completely reverse the narrative.

    I lived in CA in 1994 when the proposition passed with 59% of the vote. It passed because everyone could see what was coming – a flood of free-riding, leftist voting, illegal aliens. A federal judge casually waved the proposition aside – and what everyone feared has in fact come true. California (a state that produced Republican Governors a couple decades ago) is rocketing leftward at an incredible rate.

    And what happened to that Reason bs narrative that legal and illegal immigrants don’t receive welfare? “State services” are welfare.

    1. It’s not that Governor Moonbeam is further to the center than he used to be. It’s that the Democrats in California have shifted so far to the left underneath him, Governor Moonbeam almost looks like he’s coming from the right.

      1. He does. That is one of the funniest things the Lefty media cannot see… for the trees.

        Governor Moonbeam almost pulled off looking normal or “centrist” when compared to the utter Marxism coming from Commifornia politicians and voters.

        Banning plastic straws is just the tip of the iceberg.

  23. It’s not lack of sympathy it’s fear for the destruction of our society and what little liberty we have left.

  24. Mr. Greenhut, California has the gini coefficient of a banana republic. The left leaning CA econo blogs are pursuing a federal land value tax when they take over the federal government. (in addition to and along with all of the other redistribution methods.) Your sympathy for the entire worlds poor will be practiced on a daily basis when you have tenements in your backyard and rationing of energy and square footage. Its Castros land reform act with a capitalism twist.

    1. “Mr. Greenhut, California has the gini coefficient of a banana republic.”

      It would be interesting to do regression analysis on the gini coefficient and country of birth of persons living in a country/state.

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

  25. I had yet to migrate to California from the Midwest in 1994 when Proposition 187, which banned most public services for illegal immigrants, passed overwhelmingly. It received nearly 59 percent of the vote, with only a handful of Bay Area counties voting against it.

    If Proposition 187 is responsible for destroying the California GOP, how the fuck did it pass with 59% of the vote?

    C’mon! You’re not even trying!

  26. I’m pretty sure whatever law they passed that said the top two vote getters on the ballot go to the general election is why the GOP is mostly dead in Cali.

    1. You’re reversing cause and effect.

      They went to top two in the general *after* the GOP was no longer competitive enough to consistently make the top 2.

      1. I didn’t know the chronology. That makes it even worse.

  27. Can we agree that the holocaust was pure evil and proves what human beings are capable of. Can we also agree that leftism and socialism were and are pure evil as the slavery, killing fields, starvation and tyranny takes place as we speak. Leftism also proves what human beings and central planners are capable of. The dilemma we are facing in the U.S is this: leftists want to import a majority of leftists through open borders. This isn’t promotion of a euro free but high welfare state.. this is marxism, seizing property and is filed under and should always be in the category of pure evil.

  28. It is not wrong for a country to police its borders, states to limit social services or politicians to engage in wide-ranging discussions about immigration and citizenship. My gripe is about tone and approach. All this anger about immigration (and a lack of sympathy for the poor people coming here) is not only cruel, but politically foolish.

    What are ya gonna do? You want to advance a cause (or a career), ya gotta join forces w people ya can’t stand otherwise, & gotta adopt tone & approach that works. You want legal pot, you can’t just stand on the idea of individual freedom, ya gotta campaign in a way that attracts potheads qua potheads, promises tax revenue, etc.

    It’s not politically foolish. Whatever you do, you must make enemies. In the long run you’re dead, in the short run you’re alive & trying to scrap for every scrap.

  29. Thoughtful article by Greenhut, and my hope is that the GOP will push asinine superstitious priorities until replaced by the LP. Since the day we enabled the Supreme Court to enable women’s individual rights (somewhat) via Roe v Wade, the bigots have pressed coathanger abortion Amendments. So where it the Libertarian counterproposal of an Atlas Shrugged Amendment protecting the freedom of production and trade?

  30. Is American citizenship a privilege requiring assimilation into our culture, but bestowing certain benefits and protections, or is Universal or Global Citizenship an inalienable right that trumps the selfish concepts of nationality and citizenship? Of course, a radical view of political equality must reject every form of political distinction, including the traditional concepts of citizenship and nationality, as immoral forms of invidious discrimination.
    …That said, doesn’t global progress argue for the exportation of the social, economic and political systems that immigrants are dying to come here for, rather than the Democrat party’s “Open Borders” importation of the world’s poor from the areas of under-opportunity. Why should the world’s poor abandon the rest of the world to dictatorships? Why abandon the rest of the world’s natural wealth and resources to dictatorships? Are the Democrats trying to help foreign dictatorships?
    So how should we best export the economic and political freedom of our country to the underdeveloped areas that are now governed by dictatorships? Is that a reasonable question for the Libertarians of Reason Magazine? Tell us something we don’t already know.

  31. For all those claiming libertarians should be for open borders and that anyone against illegal or unfettered legal immigration, please consider:
    I am a libertarian person born and raised in Honduras. I don’t understand the fetishized and romanticism white Americans have of “brown people.” It’s almost like they assume “people of color” (I loathe that newly made up term) are somehow intrinsically victims and better people. Many people, a legal immigrant myself, oppose illegal immigration and to chalk that up to racism is a facile and purposefully silence-your-opponent response, because nowadays we call anyone who disagrees with even sensible policies a racist. These guilt-ridden liberals try to compare Irish and Italian immigrants to today’s “brown” immigrants while willfully ignoring the fact that Ellis Island wasn’t swam over and that there were many requisites for immigrants; moreover, there weren’t cushy social welfare nets and benefits for newly arrived immigrants.

    1. Agree on all fronts! Progressives, and now left libertarians like the ones at Reason are ridiculous.

      A proper, logical way to think about immigration from an individualist perspective would be to recognize that the quality of an immigrant will VARY from person to person. An engineer from Mexico will probably end up having a life similar to a native born engineer. A really poor uneducated immigrant will have a life like a really poor and uneducated native born person, but usually even worse because the minimum bar set in many foreign countries is ever lower than in the US… Hence they do even worse than our poorest people often times.

      So the question is, do you want to bring in immigrants that will fill up neighborhoods like Manhattan/Beverley Hills/Random nice middle class suburbia… Or do you want to bring in immigrants that will create more Comptons/Oakland/St. Louis etc.

      It IS a choice.

  32. trump’s a racist, but the accusations that california democrats are “open border” by the gop aren’t that far off the mark. proposals to allow illegal aliens to vote in local elections, be eligible for medicaid, and prosecute landlords for informing immigration authorities on illegals are just talking points, but the fact that local elected officials are having these discussions at all indicates blurring the line between the illegals and the rest of the population.

    1. MOST countries allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, I did so in Canada, when I worked there for a few years.

      Ever hear of no taxation without representation?
      We fought a revolution over that. So, WHO are the moral hypocrites here?

  33. The El Chapo Trial Shows Trump Is All Wrong About Drugs

    … no matter what the president says, the southern border is not how drugs come to America.

    For eight weeks, a jury in Brooklyn federal court has been listening to witnesses recount how Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman moved tons of cocaine and heroin from Mexico to the United States, almost none of it?if any at all?across an unsecured stretch of border.

    The makings of tens of thousands of overdoses was not backpacked across the desert by undocumented aliens. Much of it was smuggled by licensed drivers in vehicles through official points of entry, hidden in jalapeno pepper cans or frozen seafood or hidden compartments or wherever else might elude the searchers and their canines.

    El Chapo also brought drugs in via trains and ships and submarines, none of which would be hampered by a wall. And he did not use tunnels just to break out of a Mexican prison. He constructed more than 100 that ran under border barriers, often from a warehouse in Mexico to one in the U.S., in an industrial area where trucks could come and go without drawing particular attention.

    Listen closely for the screams of anguish, “FAKE NEWS!”
    (lol)

  34. ANOTHER ass-whupping on Trump … this one by a GURL!

    Border Agent Debunks Trump’s Case For A Wall To His Face: This Is A Tunnel Built Under Existing Wall (video at source)

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Melissa Lucio showed President Trump how enterprising border crossers have dug elaborate tunnels under walled off sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, “Here, this is just a couple of miles from where we stand. This is a tunnel,” she said, pointing to a photograph of the tunnel. “This is the second tunnel recently that we have located. This is an area that we actually have wall.”

    She’s not being paid, and a woman, but she IS protecting the borders
    a) on the job, and
    b) by whupping Trump’s sorry ass.

    Clearly, his border visit was HUMILIATING.

  35. `yes you can 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

  36. “That [proposition 187] helped him [Pete Wilson] overcome a large polling gap and win a second term by defeating Democratic Treasurer Kathleen Brown, who is Jerry Brown’s sister. … The Orange County Register complained that ‘it would also introduce Big Brother elements into schools and hospitals. Immigration and welfare problems should be resolved with less government, not more.'”

    Is banning public services for illegals really what “killed the GOP” in California? How exactly are government functions supposed to be “resolved with less government, not more”? It’s government one way or another, unless such programs are abolished entirely as Greenhut opposes most public services for everyone.

    Greenhut errs in assuming movements to abolish government welfare for illegals hurts the GOP. Seems to me, most of the GOP in California are welfare state proponents, which IMHO, is their downfall – they’re no different than the big government welfare Democrats.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.