Public Opinion

Most Americans Support Immigration, Regardless of Age

Pew survey data complicate the young/old and left/right framing of this issue.

|

David Marlin / Zuma Press / Newscom

A recent Pew Research Center report on Generation Z (defined as people born after 1996) confirms that younger Americans tend to be more "liberal" or "progressive" on various social and political issues than earlier cohorts. But the definition of those terms is debatable and not necessarily coherent. Immigration policy, the excuse for the ongoing partial shutdown of the federal government, illustrates the complexities lurking beneath the labels.

New York Times reporter Dan Levin is surprised (or thinks readers will be surprised) to hear a 19-year-old college student who describes herself as a political conservative say "immigrants make our country richer." Levin says "the Republican party has moved farther to the right on issues like immigration," endangering its standing with young women like her.

Yet Pew's surveys, which included a sample of 920 minors as well as a sample of about 11,000 Americans 18 and older, found that attitudes toward immigration are very similar across generations. The share of respondents saying legal immigrants have a "somewhat positive" or "very positive" impact on the country ranged from 72 percent among baby boomers (born from 1946 to 1964) to 79 percent among members of the Silent Generation (born from 1928 to 1945), the oldest cohort for which data were reported. In the two youngest generations, 78 percent saw immigration as positive. The share who said "very positive" was highest among millenials (35 percent) but higher among the oldest generation (30 percent) than the youngest (28 percent).

Pew did not ask about illegal immigration, and there may be significant generational differences there. A Quinnipiac survey conducted last month, for instance, found that 18-to-34-year-olds were substantially less likely than older Americans to support a border wall.

Still, Ronald Reagan and likeminded Republicans of his and subsequent generations not only would have readily endorsed the proposition that "immigrants make our country richer"; they supported legalization of unauthorized residents and wanted to allow voluntary transactions between American employers and foreign workers, arguing that interfering with such arrangements was dangerously misguided. If Republicans are less inclined today to support such policies, does that mean they are more conservative than Ronald Reagan, or less? If conservatism implies support for economic freedom, the answer seems clear, and it is not the one the Times gives.

Another way of looking at the left/right divide focuses on the Pew question that asks respondents whether they think "government should do more to solve problems" or "government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals." Younger Americans are more inclined to pick the first option, which supposedly shows they are more "liberal" or "progressive." Yet when a Donald Trump supporter demands a border wall and increased enforcement to stop illegal immigrants and illegal drugs from entering the country, he is surely saying "government should do more to solve problems." He definitely does not think those issues are "better left to businesses and individuals." Likewise with Republicans who favor restrictions on abortion, prostitution, or gambling.

This tension has always been apparent in the positions of self-identifed conservatives, who usually claim to favor free markets but make exceptions for transactions that offend them. The nature of those transactions may change, such that the Republican president elected in 2016 wants to block the cross-border employment that the Republican president elected in 1980 wanted to facilitate. But that counts as a move to the right only if we arbitrarily say it does. Is Bernie Sanders more right-wing than Ronald Reagan?

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.

267 responses to “Most Americans Support Immigration, Regardless of Age

  1. “”The share of respondents saying legal immigrants…

    Legal being the key word.

    1. That always complicates the narrative

      1. Just conflate them like CATO in order to lie to the people that took the poll. Why the fuck not, those rubes won’t notice!

      2. No it doesn’t and you know it.

        Everyone knows it’s very difficult for swarthy Latinos to become legal immigrants. If it were easy, the MAGA hats would be calling for restricting legal immigration even more.

        Let’s not bestupid ourselves by pretending this is about immigration policy esoterica. It’s about race. It’s never been about anything else. You know it. I know it. Why the charade? (Pronounced shar-ahhd.)

        1. Good thing Obama never deported anyone.

        2. Good thing Obama never deported anyone.

        3. Tony, you’re for illegals, and against legal immigration. So you can get your de facto saves to serve you at your coveted faggoty dinner parties. Thats how it is for most of you progtards.

          At heart you are just a goddamn slaver.

          1. You might actually have gotten the arrow on the target this time. Nowhere near the center, but on the target.

            It is difficult to throw a faggoty dinner party without enough footmen!

        4. I’m kinda new here. Who’s this “Tony” wiggler? Does he not know that he’s in a Libertarian comment section? Or does he just like abuse?

          1. if Tony is real he’s an awesome Lone Voice.

          2. I don’t think if anything my comment was pro-small-government. But how insightful of you to recognize that the libertarianism of the commenters here is pretty much warmed-over white racial grievance.

          3. Tony is great. I’m a huge fan, and not saying that sarcastically.
            He’s almost a perfect example of progressivism- I say almost, because he does actually have some personality

          4. Reason is libertarian. The commentariat is alt-right and authoritarian right and Trumpsters — the only ones who would commit the abuse you’ve noticed. Libertarians don’t do such things.

            On any given page, there are rarely more than three libertarian commenters. All the cyber-bullies and censors SEEM to be Trumpsters, and act like Trump.

              1. Has widdle Tulpa been twiggered again? (smirk)

                Were ALL you bullies “triggered” when Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN? (sneer)
                You are SO helpless! Get used to it. It’s over. Mueller is in the wings. A prison cell around the corner.

                1. Now THAT’S Hihn.
                  Fuck off, Hihn!

          5. He’s cruising the rough trade.

        5. BS. It’s as easy for swarthy Latinos to become legal immigrants as anybody else. I’ve known some.

          What’s difficult is for poorly educated English illiterate swarthy Latinos to become legal immigrants, particularly in the numbers they’d like to. There’s a cap, no more than 7% of annual immigrants can be from any specific country. And to be a legal immigrant, you generally need to demonstrate English literacy, some degree of education, and a clean criminal record.

          What there isn’t, is anything in the immigration law about “swarthy”.

        6. I’m for LEGAL immigration (at one half to one third the current levels – and on a VERY selective basis).
          I’m also for shooting criminal invaders – unless they’re bunched up and napalm is more cost-effective.

          1. Who gives a hoot, when over 70% of Americans are laughing at your latest loss?

            Were you “triggered” when Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN?
            It’s now worse than his business failures. So … will he quit … or commit suicide? His tiny ego has the strong smell of doom

            1. Trump didn’t have to unload a bunch of freeloaders, from a bus that was supposed to be taking them, within the hour, off on a taxpayer-paid junket.
              Schiff-for-brains seem particularly peeved.
              THAT’s humiliation.
              The SOTU speech will happen and Nancy will be sitting in her office with egg on her face, yet again.

            2. See, this is the problem today in a nutshell.

              Pelosi triggers a confrontation by refusing to accommodate the SOTU speech. Had this been done during Obama’s tenure the firestorm would have been unparalleled. But it’s Trump in office, so it’s all good.

              Trump, well known to be perhaps the most combative occupant of the Oval Office in decades, after considering all options, decided to lower the temperature and put the speech off until after the shutdown was resolved. In other words, he did not rise to the bait. For once in his life.

              The response from the progressives? To praise Trump for showing some statesmanship? No. To crow about him being humiliated by Pelosi. Small wonder DC can’t get anything done.

    2. “Legal being the key word.”

      As far as I know there’s nothing illegal about showing up at the border and asking for asylum. The government is legally obliged to consider your case, even.

      1. Yes, just not legally obligated to approve the application.

        1. How did you feel when Trump caved AGAIN to Pelosi?

      2. What you “know” is incorrect.
        The government is legally obliged, if someone asks for asylum, when already in the country, not if they haven’t managed to sneak across the border. That’s why the last “caravan” has been stopped and is going though the process of being evaluated, while having to wait, in Mexico.
        The international accord on asylum says a refugee can’t “asylum shop” by passing through a safe country to request asylum in another one – they must take the first safe-haven.
        Most of those coming, here, when asked, are looking for work and the vast majority (80+%), when prompted by treasonous lawyers to falsely claim asylum, don’t get it approved – and the courts are very liberal on the applications.
        You can’t be granted asylum just because your home country sucks. There has to be an individual, verified threat, from the home government for your persecution or death.
        Saying all these people need asylum is a scam.

        1. Legal being the key word. Seeking asylum in the USA is still not illegal.

  2. Yet when a Donald Trump supporter demands a border wall and increased enforcement to stop illegal immigrants and illegal drugs from entering the country, he is surely saying “government should do more to solve problems.”

    “Oh, that’s *different*, and you know it!”

    1. The additional money Trump is asking for is about 8 hours of federal spending. If congress fought this long over every $4.1 billion, it would take about 40 years to budget for 2019. So it’s not about the money.
      I’ll believe the wall is “immoral” when Nancy Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer and every other left-wing nut job tears down the walls around THEIR homes!
      So that leaves us with the utility of the wall. Is 60,000+ dead Americans from drugs, thousands of murders and rapes and over 80,000 criminal aliens driving drunk enough reason to build the wall?

      You’re damned right it is!

      If we aren’t going to shoot them as soon as they cross the border, then we need a wall.

      1. They are SO eager to be manipulated by lies.
        And so humiliated when Pelosi kicked his ass on the SOTU

        1. Fuck off , Hihn!

  3. Look, it doesn’t matter. The country is like a house, and the majority of the residents of the house elected Trump to keep the doors locked.

    1. For a minute there I thought you were going to link to the lady of reason blog.

    2. A minority of the residents elected Trump to keep the doors locked, but they were in the right rooms. If Hillary had campaigned in the formal living room that the kids aren’t allowed in, this would have gone the other way.

      1. Multiple rooms? Formal living rooms? Phbbbt… If we all lived in subsidized housing together, we wouldn’t have to deal with such nonsense!

    3. So the neighborhood gets to build a wall around my house by majority rule?

      No thank you. Fuck off, slaver. You buy border land and do whatever you want to keep trespassers off your land, but don’t steal my money for your land and wall.

      1. You don’t have an HOA do you? My neighborhood gets to tell me when my fence is down or to bring in trash cans.

        As for stealing money – so we only fund what we want right? Sweet, I nominate strawberry studies in CA to be defunded. Also the Dept of Education. You don’t want to see my money right?

        1. I do and I can’t wait to get out of it.

          Thing is when we got here it was very loose and everyone got along.

          Then the busybodies came in and took over.

          1. That always happens. You have to really care about sticking your nose into other people’s business to want to be on an HOA board. HOA boards are a great example of Hayek’s tenet that the worst rise to the top.

            1. Beware of old men bearing clipboards.

              1. Especially when that is all they are bearing.

        2. An HOA is contracted with. What contract did you sign with the closed border crowd to authorize them to take your money? What possible kind of contract could possibly authorize theft of some third party’s property and money?

          1. That one you signed when you registered to vote.

            Or did you miss that?

            1. In which libertarian deflated like a balloon with a weak farting sound and fell to the floor, dead.

              1. Kicked to the curb by a GURL. (Pelosi)

                1. Fuck off, Hihn!
                  If all you’ve got is Nancy acting like a petulant cunt and taking her ball and going home is “kicking someone to the curb” – YOU GOT NOTHING!

          2. What possible kind of contract could possibly authorize theft of some third party’s property and money?
            It’s called the Constitution of the United States of America.
            You are free to move to somewhere that it isn’t the Supreme Law of the Land.
            Meanwhile you will live under its rules, and one of those is that Congress has power over naturalization, which any half-wit knows, includes who comes in, when, and how.

      2. a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf|1.23.19 @ 3:13PM|#
        [Insert infantile argument here]

        Rinse and repeat

      3. Nope, not about your house. The wall, literal or figurative, is about the shared park that is owned by the neighborhood, which most residents understand to be for kid play, dog walking, and occasional picnics. And then some A-hole decides he wants to set up a homeless camp there, and can’t understand the push-back.

      4. Wow! “… do whatever you want to keep trespassers off your land…”

        I’d be using a .300 Win-Mag.

    4. majority of the residents of the house elected Trump

      (lol) Nearly 10 million voted against Trump.
      Trump received the highest number of “anti” votes of ANY President (voted against Hillary, not FOR Trump)
      He won the Electoral vote by …. a mere 39,000 voters
      Trump won the GOP nomination with only 37% of the primary votes, roughly the same percentage who believe Obama is Kenya, only because there were so many candidates.
      71% of Americans oppose shutting down the government — which they blame on Trump and/or the GOP — to get wall funding.
      80+% of Republicans support Trump, but more as a Republican than as Trump. 43% of Republicans want anyone BUT Trump on 2020

      A majority is defined as over 50%.

      1. See what happens when criminal aliens vote?

        We’ve got 141 counties with more registered voters than residents. You seriously think that there isn’t any voter fraud going on?

        1. Two MORE bullies PISSED that Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN? (sneer)
          It’s now worse than his many business failures. So … will he quit … or commit suicide?
          His tiny ego has the strong smell of doom

          See what happens when criminal aliens vote?

          The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

          1. Fuck off, Hihn!

  4. Is “most Americans want” really a metric we are going to make policy with?

    1. Perhaps the Census should ask “most Americans” if that’s a metric they “want”.

      *** ducks ***

      1. The one time Americans stood as one lately, we rejected the metric system.

        1. And we got a great song out of it!

          Stand Up For The Foot

    2. Tulpa
      Is “most Americans want” really a metric we are going to make policy with?

      We know you’d prefer a dick-tatership … rule by the Orange business failure … but the pussy keeps CAVING to a Gurl Named Nancy.

      It’s now almost worse than his many business failures. So … will he quit … or commit suicide?
      His tiny ego has the strong smell of doom. As do all your temper tantrums here

      1. Fuck off, Hihn!

  5. I agree that illegal immigration is overall good for the economy. But I also think that public sentiment is changing. Because here we are shutting down the government for over a month to show solidarity with immigrants, but what have they done to show they appreciate us? They need to renounce welfare and declare support for freedom and equal rights (without squishy exceptions). Otherwise we are only introducing a demographic threat that will undermine the very values that make us great and in the long run they will plunder us.

    1. “I agree that illegal immigration is overall good for the economy.”

      Well, you shouldn’t, because it’s only “good” for the economy in the sense that it enlarges it. If you took the US, and grafted on a third world slum, our economy would get larger. And that’s what illegal immigration does.

      But the per capita income suffers, and most of the suffering is at the lower end of the economic scale due to increased competition for jobs that pay badly already.

      Illegal immigration is one of the causes of income stagnation over the last few decades. We’ve imported millions of lower skilled workers to compete with our existing lower skilled workers, and pull down wages.

      Sure, it’s great if you’re a high income worker in the financial sector, the illegals aren’t competing with YOU. And it lowers the price of anything involving lower skilled labor. But it sucks for most of the population.

      1. We’ve imported millions of lower skilled workers

        No one has “imported” anyone. They are not slaves, they are not widgets. They are free people freely migrating. Let’s cut it out with the dehumanizing language.

        1. I’ll stand by “imported”. They’re here as a result of high placed people in America wanting them here, and leaving the border undefended in order to facilitate it. They’re here as a result of somebody else’s decision, as well as their own.

          They’re imported as much as anybody coming in on a H1B visa they got only because somebody else arranged for it.

          1. They’re here as a result of somebody else’s decision, as well as their own.

            When you decide to shop at Wal-Mart, did Wal-Mart’s manager “import” you into his store?

            1. What kind of Nazi looks past the collusion of corporations to hold native wages high while paying to transport foreign workers into the country to use as cheap labor while equating the actions of an individual Wal-Mart manager’s decision with the Wal-Mart’s, the community’s, or even the staff’s broader policies? I thought you were a radical individualist?

              I don’t generally walk into a Wal-Mart claiming they impoverished my neighborhood and started a drug war in my back yard. When I see people doing stuff similar to this, I largely agree with Wal-Mart choosing to deport, silence, and detain them without trial.

              1. I have no idea where this came from.

                1. Trump (Obama, Bush II, Clinton, etc.) =/= Wal-Mart Manager
                  Wal-Mart policy =/= Immigration policy
                  Immigrants =/= customers
                  etc.

                  Terrible analogy by unfathomable metrics.

                  1. Well then good thing that is not the analogy I was making.

                    Suppose I choose to apply to work at your firm, and you accept my application and hire me. Did you “import” me into your firm? Answer: no.

                    1. Jesus you’re an idiot Jeff.

                    2. If you were from somewhere else, and couldn’t have come to where the firm was without an invitation? Yeah.

          2. The only slaves are hundreds of thousands of Americans … ordered to work without pay … by the Orange Dictator and his cult of brainwashed puppets-on-a-string.

            But Pelosi just kicked his sorry ass again
            Left – Right = Zero

            1. Fuck off, Hihn!

        2. Do they rights? Are they paid a minimum wage? Do they hide in shadows?

          Sounds like slaves to me but you believe what you want there.

          Interesting you say they are free people migrating, but we aren’t free to tell them no. I’m sure you let people go through your house all the time right?

          US should decide who comes in. Why do the south get preface compared to Africa . You are a racist.

        3. They are not slaves, they are not widgets. They are free people freely migrating.

          Get them to drop the ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’ nonsense and the narratives that go so far as to blame us for those situations and we might have a deal.

          They can’t be both hapless victims of circumstance who’s rights just happened to get denied at the border *and* captains of social and economic adversity waiting to pump new life and innovation into an American economy stifled by an overabundance of natives and naturalized immigrants.

          1. Why? Those that claim refugee status, are nonetheless free people who have chosen to seek refuge. WHY they are seeking refuge is a completely separate question.

            1. Those that claim refugee status, are nonetheless free people who have chosen to seek refuge.

              People driven from their homes by oppressive social situations are free? You’re starting to sound like Tony.

              WHY they are seeking refuge is a completely separate question.

              Sure, the sort of question free people might ask, evaluate, and, based upon the answer, act accordingly. I mean, presumably, these people don’t want their oppressors to just follow them into this country. They aren’t just pieces on a game board to be moved into home base in order to maximize points, right?

              1. I am not arguing that individuals are completely free from all external forces. No one is. When I use the word “free person”, I am using it to mean “not a slave”. A person who has the ability to make decisions on his/her own behalf and act upon those decisions within the limitations of his/her abilities. Unlike slaves or widgets, who have no agency and cannot make decisions on their own behalf.

                1. Unlike slaves or widgets, who have no agency and cannot make decisions on their own behalf.

                  So slaves have no more agency or self-determination than widgets?

                  1. Legally, no.

                    1. Well, even by the most oppressive definition, you’re 3/5ths wrong.

                      At least in this country anyway. Other countries may be more conservative about what constitutes a slave and what constitutes forcing someone to leave the country; but hey, we’re free, so who are we to judge, right?

                      All that matters is that when a corporation gets approval for an H1B Visa, pays to have someone transported to work in this country explicitly because they can’t find anyone locally willing to work at that wage, and thereby purchases themselves a critical position in determining whether than person can be a citizen or not, that we all pretend it’s not a modern day form of importing slaves!

        4. Actually, quite a few were imported, by coyotes and other human traffickers,. It is almost every week that you hear of another vehicle full of deceased illegals being found after a failed attempt to smuggle them into the US. This is often because the smugglers abandon them rather than face arrest. Those who do make it to the US are often forced to work off their “debts”. While human smuggling for sex is rare, it does happen. It also is not unheard of for illegals to be forced into hard labor or criminal enterprises to pay off their debts to these human smugglers. While they were not forced to come here, and the problem is not as large as some in media state, it does happen. So yes some are literally slaves imported to the country.

          1. It is almost every week that you hear of another vehicle full of deceased illegals being found after a failed attempt to smuggle them into the US.

            When you drool so heavily, don’t lean over your keyboard.

            1. Fuck off, Hihn!

      2. most of the suffering is at the lower end of the economic scale due to increased competition for jobs that pay badly already.

        Why should the government institute a protectionist racket, in the form of border restrictions against low-skilled foreign labor, to protect low-skilled American labor? What is the economic value behind this type of protectionism?

        1. Because the low skilled America labor is Americans, and the low skilled foreign labor is NOT Americans, and the only justification for government is that it’s for the benefit of the people governed.

          A government that operates for the benefit of somebody other than the governed is a government of occupation, even if it allows the illusion of democracy in order to avoid an uprising.

          Or to put it another way, the Constitution no more enacts Rawl’s A Theory of Justice than it does Herbert Spencer’s Social Statistics. Our government does not exist to benefit the world, it exists to benefit US.

          1. Because the low skilled America labor is Americans

            The domestic consumers of the overpriced products that are produced by the low-skilled Americans, who are overpaid compared to foreign labor, are ALSO Americans. If you are going to trot out the “benefit of the people” argument, why is it that the overpaid American laborers are the ones who get the benefit of this protectionism at the expense of the overcharged American consumers?

            This is one of the main problems with protectionism. For ever class of people that you can claim benefits from any particular protectionist policy, I can identify another class of people that is harmed. And ultimately, what really happens is not this cost/benefit analysis, but that the cronies closest to the levers of power are the ones who call the shots.

            1. “Overpaid American laborers”

              …….And there it is. Little Jeffy wants Americans to wrk for $5 an hour. So he favors let indigent foreigners swarm in uncontrolled to depress wages.

              1. Little Jeffy wants Americans to wrk for $5 an hour.

                Actually, no I don’t. Unlike you, I think more highly of Americans, generally speaking. (You being a notable exception.)

                Every single American receives a free (to them) education that gives them enough skills and talents to have, if not a career, then a job that is beyond simple physical labor. Every single one. If an American graduates high school and, barring some sort of disability, is utterly incapable of getting a job beyond lettuce picking in the fields, then that is on them. So an immigration policy that serves as protectionism for these types of jobs is really just a subsidy for mediocrity. Why in the world should the US government rearrange the economy so as to reward layabouts who have no better career options than physical labor because they slept through high school and never gave one thought whatsoever to what they were going to do with their lives? So I absolutely want everyone to have jobs that are commensurate with the education, skills, and talents that they have. Americans, generally, are overtalented and overeducated for jobs that illiterate Guatemalans with 7th grade educations can do.

                1. And by the way, before you start wagging your finger at me accusing me of snobbery and condescension, just a reminder that this is the SAME ARGUMENT used against the minimum wage for why it shouldn’t be regarded as a “living wage”. Minimum wage jobs are not careers, they are starter jobs for those beginning in the workforce or for those who want part time work. They aren’t supposed to be a job that one has for one’s entire life for raising a family. And applying government force to make a minimum wage like this distorts the labor market and creates a hammock for low-wage people to be stuck in these jobs when they should be out building a career. SAME DEAL for physical labor jobs and immigration.

          2. Cheap immigrant labor benefits many of the people governed by the US government. And foreign nationals working in the US are governed by its governments and pay for them as well. It’s not as simple as you are trying to make it.

        2. “Why should the government institute a protectionist racket”

          National defense.
          THE fundamental reason for government.

          1. National defense.

            It’s the magic words that justify all government actions!

            Tell us, does the “national defense” rationale justify anything beyond autarky?

            1. No, [comment deleted].
              National defense, the fundamental purpose of government, is what allows space for freedom and rights. It’s what protects life, liberty, and pursuit of property/happiness. It’s that which creates the possibility of property rights.
              Government is a warlord. That warlord establishes legitimacy by conquering territory and maintains legitimacy by keeping other warlords out.
              Anarchy and negligence of border control doesn’t equal freedom – it equals a battleground for multiple warlords, some of whom are more respectful than others.
              It just so happens that we, Americans, are together our own warlord and have a set of rules for governing our sovereign territory. Every illegal immigrant is an invader and an affront to citizen sovereignty.
              Utopia doesn’t exist and never will. Where it is sought, hell is found.

              1. Narzd and his fellow Trumptards are PISSED that the Orange Dick-tater has caved to Pelosi AGAIN.

                It’s now worse than his business failures. So … will he quit … or commit suicide?
                His tiny ego has the strong smell of doom

                1. Fuck off, Hihn!

                2. Fuck off, Hihn!

                3. Fuck off, Hihn!

          2. The calculation problem, which is THE reason why socialism/communism is a terrible problem, applied to national defense just as much as to any other good or service.

            1. Are you saying that citizenship is a market? Government is a market? Physics is a market?
              What the fuck are you talking about?
              Go suck progressive dick somewhere else, baculum.

              1. The thug is ranting again.

                1. Fuck off, Hihn!

      3. It is difficult to disaggregate importation of labor from importation of goods.

        If it’s ok for us to buy goods that were made by Mexicans in Mexico, it isn’t that different to buy goods that were made by Mexicans in Texas.

        I think the correct answer is that “some” migrant labor is good. Stricter border controls make the labor less migratory which has unintended consequences.

    2. You are delusional. I also like how it went from illegal immigration to immigrants.

      Americans like immigrants – legal ones.

      1. Do they? I hear lots of whining about H1B visas and what not as well.

        1. Do they? I hear lots of whining about H1B visas and what not as well.

          It’s literally classified as a Temporary (Nonimmigrant) Visa by the USCIS. You can become a citizen without an H1B and the H1B confers no enhanced or advanced immigration status.

          And that’s setting aside the thorny issue with saying the government picking winners and losers in the market and placing bets against itself (i.e. its taxpayers) is ‘legal’.

        2. Yes, because there are some highly educated people in silicon valley who are directly competing with this laborers. And there are some people with H1Bs who discover they are indentured servants.

          Perhaps a better solution would be to decentralize silicon valley. I have no suggestions on how to do that. Perhaps ending H1B visas would force it? I dunno.

          1. Yeah, because 65,000 H1B visas overwhelm the national labor force of 160 million. And even if half the visa holders end up in Silicon Valley (not very likely), they would comprise less than 2% of the workforce.

            But hey, symbology counts more than actual impact.

            1. So what you’re saying is the number is nowhere near large enough to really influence the labor pool but just large enough to really act as a handout on behalf of the government to a select few corporations.

              So, how many H1B Visas will it take to fix the problem with the 160 million government-educated natives who are unwilling or legally unable to fill the positions?

              Also, at what point does it pass from being a symbolically fascist gesture to an functionally fascist one?

        3. Not nearly as much as actual illegal immigration.

  6. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come…. http://www.mesalary.com

  7. I think I’m just gonna sit back and wait for somebody else to provide the information the information that was left out of the article. I usually don’t have to wait long.

    1. You want all five Ws? Two or three ain’t good enough for ya?

  8. It’s almost like you’re saying that 200 million voters can’t be described in a single axis with 3 clumps in the left, right, and middle that agree on the 3 accepted positions on every issue.

  9. “Pew did not ask about illegal immigration”

    And that was no accident… They didn’t want to know.

    1. Pew-Pew-Pew!!

      1. 9 out of 10 stormtroopers prefer walls to keep out jedis.

    2. Exactly. If you ask that question it stops being ‘overwelming evidence’.

  10. I support legal immigration. I oppose immigration (legal and illegal) that is designed to suppress wages of US citizens. I oppose immigration that has a net cost to US taxpayers.

    Government’s prime responsibility is to advance the prosperity and happiness of the citizens represented by that government.

    1. Government’s prime responsibility is to advance the prosperity and happiness of the citizens represented by that government.

      I disagree. Government’s prime responsibility is to protect and defend liberty. Whether or not the exercise of that liberty results in happiness or not, is entirely up to the citizens involved.

      1. Jinx, you owe me a Coke. Unless of course you don’t consent to playing this game…. I wouldn’t force you against your will 🙂

        1. I’m calling the NAP police!

          1. I hated the fucking NAP police in kindergarden.

          2. I hated the fucking NAP police in kindergarden.

      2. Wrong, your lack of basic civics and political science is showing again. Government doesn’t protect liberty, they are restricted from infringing on certain liberties. Positive vs. Negative rights, look into it.

        1. No they do more than that. Government, at least in a libertarian sense, ought to create a framework by which violations of liberty are punished. In so doing, the liberty of individuals is protected.

          http://definitions.uslegal.com…..man-state/

          A night watchman state refers to a state with the least possible amount of powers, to uphold law. Powers exercised by a night watchman state cannot be reduced any further without abolishing the state altogether and instituting a form of anarchy. Powers of the state is limited to the police, the judicial system, prisons and the army to protect individuals from coercion and theft, punish criminals, and defend the country from foreign aggression.

        2. So it appears as though, when you read my comment about “protecting liberty”, you thought I was referring to positive rights like “a right to be free from hunger”, and because you ASSume I am a leftist, you decided to take it upon yourself to school me, when in fact, I was referring to “protecting liberty” in the sense of a night watchman state. Your assumptions got the better of you. Does that about sum it up?

          1. Protecting liberty… like the liberty to live in a country with secure borders, free from the interference of foreign actors intruding into my life?

            1. liberty to live in a country with secure borders, free from the interference of foreign actors intruding into my life?

              Now THAT’S a positive right. BYODB will be happy to school you on the difference between positive vs. negative rights.

            2. If by “foreign actors” you mean immigrants, then your argument would appear to be for a ban on any immigration, even for tourism or trade (unless you think you are going to be put in charge of all visas). You are calling for positive rights.

              1. Variable access is granted to foreign actors based on statutes decided through representative government. Representatives are constrained by the constitution.
                That’s the deal. The constitution is a contract.
                Is it your contention that security of borders is a positive right conferred by a government that would otherwise be prohibited from defending its citizens and territorial integrity?
                See above for further clarification on the purpose of government.

                1. A government that cannot secure basic duties, such as maintaining secure borders and territorial integrity, cannot continue to be seen as legitimate in any real sense.

                2. The constitution is a contract.

                  Between whom?

                  My only contention is that the right to have protected borders and to be shielded from “foreign actors” (whatever that may mean) is a positive right. You only get it through forcing other people to provide it.

                  It may well be an essential duty of government. It may be practically necessary in some sense. But it’s a compromise on liberty, not a liberty in and of itself.

            3. Protecting liberty… like the liberty to live in a country with secure borders, free from the interference of foreign actors intruding into my life?

              DOESN’T KNOW WHAT LIBERTY IS!

              1. Fuck off, Hihn!

        3. GOOBER ALERT!

          Wrong, your lack of basic civics and political science is showing again.

          I’ll TRY to dumb it down to your level, but ….

          Government doesn’t protect liberty,

          Wait for it …..

          they are restricted from infringing on certain liberties.

          THAT’S HOW LIBERTY IS PROTECTED

          Positive vs. Negative rights, look into it.

          Defended by government. (smirk)

          1. Fuck off, Hihn!

      3. Government’s prime responsibility is to protect and defend liberty of its own citizens.

        FIFY

    2. Government’s prime responsibility is to advance the prosperity and happiness of the citizens

      I disagree. Government’s prime responsibility is to protect my life, liberty, and property from transgression. And by prime responsibility, of course, I mean their only responsibility.

      1. Me, you, and Jeff agree on this. When the government colludes with crony capitalists to suppress wages, or when it imports its political allies, it necessarily does so at the expense of its citizens.

        1. When the government colludes with crony capitalists to suppress wages

          Okay, what if the government did absolutely nothing at all, and domestic capitalists invited, unhindered by the state, foreign labor to work at their factories who were willing to work at lower wages than domestic labor. Would you regard this as “suppression of wages”?

          1. I’d regard it as a casus belli

            1. Time to declare war!

              http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..gn-workers

              Despite his rhetoric that immigration hurts American workers, President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club is seeking to hire 61 foreign workers for the 2018 winter season, according to the Labor Department.

              Trump’s “Winter White House” has applied to hire 21 cooks from other countries to work at the resort from October to May. The Palm Beach, Fla., club also wants to hire 40 foreigners for wait-staff positions.

              1. Little Jeffy takes statements out of context and creates a straw man in his arts and crafts class!

                What a big boy!

                1. Little Jeffy takes statements out of context and creates a straw man in his arts and crafts class!

                  When goobers get crushed by facts, they … WHINE like that,
                  The equivalent of sneering, “Fake News.”
                  Because, of course, the universe disappears if one closes one’s eyes and refuses to see it.

                  (An adult would support an assertion about context and straw men with argument and/or facts … without the infantile reference to arts and crafts.

                  A bully would launch an unprovoked assault, with childish personal insults … seeking only high fives from others in his pack of wild dogs. )

            2. So you’re a socialist, then.

            3. Is it because it infringes on your right to have a job or your right to have a high wage?

              1. If I didn’t demand to have a high wage, do I have a right or an expectation by my government not to yank the rug out from underneath me?

                I’m not saying I wouldn’t compete with immigrants at the same job. I’m just saying that without a relative economic catastrophe, the poor indigenous workers of wherever and I are never really going to be able to compete on anything remotely resembling equal footing. Further, especially in current and recent political climates, there’s nothing saying my own government won’t specifically fuck my footing by setting the minimum wage at $15/hr. and requiring diversity hires while allowing undocumented laborers (and their employers) to undercut me any way they can.

                1. Little Jeffy wants those annoying Americans to get out of the way so the poor downtrodden foreigners can take whatever they want at will. And fuck Americans citizens, who are ‘overpaid’.

                2. Maybe we should let in more low-skill labor then and put them on a more equal footing with people who follow the rules.
                  Or get rid of the rules and taxes that give illegals that edge.

                  1. Maybe we should let in more low-skill labor then and put them on a more equal footing with people who follow the rules.
                    Or get rid of the rules and taxes that give illegals that edge.

                    I don’t disagree with the latter, but the former sounds like an exceedingly selective abdication that we can’t do both simultaneously.

                    I’d bet good money that some sort of ‘Resident Expatriot” or “Naturalized Former Citizen” that selectively rescinded some rights while granting other rights (or amnesty to the violation of some rights) would be more popular than expected (though hard to judge since nobody on any side is even remotely considering anything close to such a quid pro quo).

          2. I would only support what you suggest for one illegal immigrant. The one who takes your job.

            OK, that is pretty restrictive so I will amend it. I would support enough illegal immigrants to take your current job, and to take every other job you apply for. At substantially reduced cost to your employers, current and prospective. You should live in the economic climate you advocate. For the same reason, I think the massive illegal alien population in California should be housed in silicon valley, in section 8 huts, right next door to the royalty of high-tech. Zuckerman should be forced to tear down his immoral wall, and so should Nancy and Gavin. They want it, they should deal with it on a daily basis, just like the rest of us.

        2. I don’t think we agree

          1. If not, then change your defined prime job of government to include colluding with … anyone … at the expense of another. (He screwed up by damning collusion with only his enemies, but allowing it for his own tribe. Libertarians must see though that type of malarkey.)

    3. I oppose immigration (legal and illegal) that is designed to suppress wages of US citizens.

      What about immigration restrictions designed to increase the wages that US citizens have to pay their employees?

      1. That is a better choice than welfare payments to citizens who won’t do the work at immigrant wages.

        1. Yeah, maybe. My point is that it’s not just a simple calculation. Immigration is great for some Americans, less great for some others.

      2. When we get such restrictions, I will reevaluate my thinking. Let me know when that seems imminent.

  11. Even Trump says he wants immigration. However, immigration does not mean amnesty so politicians need to be careful when they interpret polls like this. Remember, House Speaker Eric Cantor lost his seat in a PRIMARY election over the issue.

  12. See? It’s just like I’ve been saying ? the Koch / Reason immigration agenda is extremely popular with all but a handful of alt-right white nationalists. In fact I predict the 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee will explicitly run on open borders and win in a landslide.

    1. Especially with the votes from outside the border, right?

      1. Voter fraud is a right-wing myth. And anybody who crosses the border should be granted immediate citizenship and voting rights.

    2. That’s right OBL! And soon, with some hard work, we can flood the labor market and get wages down to $5/hr.

      1. As a Koch / Reason libertarian, one of the few areas of disagreement I have with my progressive friends is on the minimum wage. They want to raise it; I want to abolish it. If the free market says some people’s work is worth $5 / hour, then that’s what they should get.

  13. “most Americans” sucks as a group I don’t care what they want.

    1. “most Americans” sucks as a group I don’t care what they want.

      Because minority rule.
      I eagerly await your diktats for today, Blessed Leader.

  14. great shot of Ron also.

    1. Ron would weep in shame at your comment just above this.

  15. There is no moral authority to steal my money to confiscate somebody else’s land to keep out people who you don’t like. Buy border land, build a wall, patrol it with machine guns for all I care — but not at my expense. Use your own money.

    As for legal authority, show me.

    Article 1, Section 8: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… To declare War …

    Article 1, 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 … I have never seen this used in any context but slavery, which is the only subject the Framers dodged, kicking the can down the road 20 years. They didn’t dodge war or naturalization; why single out immigration, which was not contentious?

    14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    1. Don’t fall back on hand-waving about border control being too obvious to enumerate; it’s hard to think of a natural right more obvious than self-defense, and that’s what the Second Amendment is; even the power to declare war is enumerated.

      1. Only an anarchist or a leftist would expect limited government w.r.t. immigration. It is known, because LC1789 sayeth so.

        1. Yes, and every time I post this, he either never responds, or references the 1808 clause.

  16. Poll question: Do you favor legal immigration?
    Majority of respondents: Yes
    Conclusion/headline: MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMMIGRANTS

    Poll question: Do you favor illegal immigration?
    Majority of respondents: No
    Conclusion/headline: MAJORITY OF AMERICANS XENOPHOBIC AND RACIST

    1. Both of those questions are pretty lousy poll questions. The can be interpreted in too many ways by respondents. Ask how much immigration and who should be allowed to immigrate and for what purposes to get some real idea of people’s views on the subject.

      1. Are they lousy poll questions?
        Thanks for alerting me. I had no idea!
        That was totally the point of my post – to figure out the best poll questions!
        You must have an IQ of at least 7,000!

        1. Sorry, I was more jumping off from your comment than responding to it.

          1. Then I apologize for jumping down your throat, zeb.
            And you’re certainly correct that poll questions are often framed in vague terms, precisely so the data collected can be fit into the narrative sought by the polling entity.
            Again, my bad.

  17. The majority always knows best, which is why we have runaway welfare/warfare, and incurable debt.

    When are libertarians going to ask the simple question: how many people can the American land mass support? Are we too dogmatic to do that? When I was a kid, America had 150M people. We have 320M now, and the gains these days are mostly from immigration. Would America be a good place to live with 500M people? How about 1B or 2B?

    Are Reason-ers insufficiently “reasoning” to think about this?

    1. Do you want to know the answer to that question? I suspect it is that North America can support a much larger population than it currently does.
      I don’t really want it to, but I don’t own the whole damn place, so it’s not really up to me.

    2. How many? We can go as far as human creativity and our efforts take us. I am an optimistic futurist. How many on mars?

      Can America be a good place with…? Depends on how well we run America. Venezuela is not overpopulated and the US is far from overpopulated. The difference is government.

      1. “The difference is government.”

        The progressive drops its mask.

    3. America has limitations of capacity like everywhere else in the World. The USA has ~3.8 million miles squared.

      That would be enough land to stack billions like cordwood.

      Realistically you need to consider food supplies, traffic, water sources and quantity, etc.

      1. I’m sure you could fit several billions into large urban areas pretty well and provide for their needs assuming a reasonable rural economy and infrastructure.
        But it’s not going to happen overnight and trying to plan for the future beyond a decade or two is pretty pointless. I’m pretty confident in people’s ability to figure it out, whatever happens. But I’m pretty sure I’ll be dead before we get to 1 billion, so I don’t get to find out.

      2. I have seen calculations that demonstrate youcould fit the entire population of the world into Texas with 33×33 ft/person.

        Any calculations about resources are worthless because people are constantly inventing new solutions and technologies. That is the mistake the Malthusians made.

  18. Levin says “the Republican party has moved farther to the right on issues like immigration,” endangering its standing with young women like her.

    Because Levin is a Lefty moron. He doesn’t understand that many of these young people have Libertarian tendencies as long as they steer clear of Socialism.

  19. Relevant:

    http://ppe.mercatus.org/essays…..g-citizens

    Takehome message:

    One often hears an argument in favor of restricting or controlling or limiting immigration, which says something like, “It’s important to protect our values. We need to control immigration in order to protect the values that are important to a modern liberal democratic society in particular.” And I want to say, yes, that is the issue?it’s protecting our most important values. And I think the most important of these values are freedom and, to that extent, also equality because without some kind of equality, freedom is just a privilege. So we want freedom for everyone. That’s what a liberal democratic society means.

    But what I also want to suggest is that immigration control is the danger to freedom. It’s not immigration that’s the worry, it’s the control. The basic message of the talk I want to present is to suggest that it’s the attempt to control outsiders that is the danger because you can’t control outsiders without controlling insiders. What immigration control is about, ultimately, is not the control of immigrants?it’s the control of citizens and residents. It’s about the control that’s exercised over ourselves. And this, I want to suggest in this talk, is something that we should be much more concerned about.

    1. Vichy France agrees

    2. That’s just stupid.
      Fear mongering with twisted illogic doesn’t good policy make.

    3. Bad premise, with shitty soft headed logic. No wonder Little Jeffy posted it.

      Dumbass.

  20. The basic message of the talk I want to present is to suggest that it’s the attempt to control outsiders that is the danger because you can’t control outsiders without controlling insiders.

    He’s abso-fucking-lutely right that you can’t control outsiders without controlling insiders. The part where he’s not even aware enough to know how dead wrong he is is that he tacitly presumes that the government isn’t spending billions upon billions of (insider) dollars to control its insiders. Instead, 62% of Americans insisting the government remain open is the current example of insiders generally lacking for government control.

  21. Yet when a Donald Trump supporter demands a border wall and increased enforcement to stop illegal immigrants and illegal drugs from entering the country, he is surely saying “government should do more to solve problems.” He definitely does not think those issues are “better left to businesses and individuals.” Likewise with Republicans who favor restrictions on abortion, prostitution, or gambling.

    Note the term “illegal”. You start out with a premise about “immigration”, but then throw this one in there. Two different issues, and you know it.

    That aside – until we get rid of the welfare state, this is all for nought. Because government is still there, and individuals and businesses CAN’T be the arbiters of immigration. That’s a government function by its nature.

  22. Yet when a Donald Trump supporter demands a border wall and increased enforcement to stop illegal immigrants and illegal drugs from entering the country, he is surely saying “government should do more to solve problems.” He definitely does not think those issues are “better left to businesses and individuals.” Likewise with Republicans who favor restrictions on abortion, prostitution, or gambling.

    Note the term “illegal”. You start out with a premise about “immigration”, but then throw this one in there. Two different issues, and you know it.

    That aside – until we get rid of the welfare state, this is all for nought. Because government is still there, and individuals and businesses CAN’T be the arbiters of immigration. That’s a government function by its nature.

    1. Great Comment — Trashing the authors deceptive assertion that, “Since when was it governments job to enforce the law”. lol… Love it.

  23. New York Times reporter Dan Levin is surprised (or thinks readers will be surprised) to hear a 19-year-old college student who describes herself as a political conservative say “immigrants make our country richer.” Levin says “the Republican party has moved farther to the right on issues like immigration,” endangering its standing with young women like her.

    That’s because Levin is a fucktard who either deliberately or naively conflates legal and illegal immigration.

    I know this has been pointed out already, but it is a required part of the progressive messaging, and maybe even their brain-washed right-think. And needs to be called out every time.

  24. Trump may destroy himself before Mueller gets a chance. The shutdown has been a total disaster for him and the GOP.
    A minority of voters support a wall, even fewer as a priority and a staggering 71% oppose shutting down the government to get wall funding.

    His ego may have backed him into a suicide trap. Pelosi has been kicking his ass, ever since she manipulated him into saying he’d be “proud” to shut down the wall, and “will not” blame Democrats. So he owns this. Totally. And who could disagree that he’d prefer suicide over Pelosi getting a total victory. But she already has. Trump HAD 25 billion for border security, that he personally negotiated, then broke his on deal when his Lords and Masters (Coulter/Hannity/Ingraham/Limbaugh) attacked him as a pussy on DACA.

    He had $25 B, but has since collapsed to $5.7 B. Beat by a gurl.

    1. I think she stole a copy of Trump’s playbook and is using it against him. This SOTU thing was a direct kick in the nuts and he does not seem to know how to respond. He can’t inflict more pain on the voters which is what he started with. Turns out she is just as ruthless. I wouldn’t turn my back on her.

      He publicaly owned the shutdown before it started. WTF kind of master negotiating tactic is that, why turn the weapon on yourself?

      1. He publicaly owned the shutdown before it started.

        Until he reversed himself. As he always does. Master of the Squeal

        1. It is like something from Monty Python.

          “You said that”

          “No I didn’t ”

          “Yes you did we all heard it. There were 30 people in the room.”

          “You are making this up”

          ” It is written down. We have video of the whole thing. It was on TV. The whole country watched you say it ”

          “Fake news.”

          1. Nailed it!

              1. Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do. –Benjamin Franklin

                You are SO helpless! Were ALL you bullies “triggered” when Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN? Get used to it. It’s over. Mueller is in the wings. A prison cell around the corner.

                PLEASE throw another hissy fit … PROVING yet another victory for liberty!
                (sneer)

                1. Fuck off, Hihn!

                  1. “I usually judge how cool I’m being by how many angry people are following me around with signs.” Seanbaby

                2. Hihnfaggot, at least you admit you’re a nazi.

  25. I’m all in for immigration. When are you all leaving?

    1. You’ve confused immigration with emigration.
      Thereby showing an IQ insufficient for retaining citizenship.

      1. Not at all, I assume they’ll be landing somewhere.

        1. Which is emigration.

        1. Has widdle Tulpa been triggered again?
          Were ALL you bullies “triggered” when Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN? (sneer)

          You are SO helpless! Get used to it. It’s over. Mueller is in the wings. A prison cell around the corner.

          “A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business
          -Eric Hoffer

          PLEASE throw another tantrum … PROVING yet another victory for liberty!

          1. Fuck off, Hihn!

            1. “I usually judge how cool I’m being by how many angry people are following me around with signs.” Seanbaby

              1. Hihnfaggot is off it’s meds again.

  26. “Pew did not ask about illegal immigration”

    Rendering the poll meaningless. I’m all for legal immigration but against illegal migration.

  27. Immigration issues today is about Communism vs a Constitutional Republic. Its not about race, compensation or the countries resources. The government is shut down today in a dual between the socialist and the capitalist. That is the Elephant in the room being ignored by needle picking media.

    Its about the fact that Immigrants (illegal or legal) support the “welfare” communist structure of governing at a rate of 70% to 80% and have gone from a 9% total population vote to well over 18%. As seen in the legislative, judicial, and administrative system; The U.S. cannot survive such an invasion of communistic ideological voter power that has no problem flushing the Constitution down the toilet in favor of Communism.

    That is the REAL issue with immigration – the fact that if every citizen of the Soviet Union was “imported” into the U.S. then the U.S. would be the Soviet Union. Its about the INVASION.

    1. I thought it was impossible to type while wearing a straitjacket!

      1. Well you sure conquered that handicap, Attila the Hihn. How’d you get your shoes off?

      2. It hasn’t stopped you Hihn. Fuck off.

        1. Were ALL you bullies “triggered” when Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN? (sneer)

          PLEASE throw more tantrums … PROVING yet another victory for liberty!

          1. Fuck off, Hihn!

            1. “I usually judge how cool I’m being by how many angry people are following me around with signs.” Seanbaby

        2. Were ALL you bullies “triggered” when Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN? (sneer)

          PLEASE throw more tantrums … PROVING yet another victory for liberty!

          1. Fuck off, Hihn!

            1. PLEASE throw more tantrums … PROVING yet another victory for liberty!

              Fuck off, Hihn!

              (sneer)

        3. Were ALL you bullies “triggered” when Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN? (sneer)

          PLEASE throw more tantrums … PROVING yet another victory for liberty!

          1. Fuck off, Hihn!

            1. “I usually judge how cool I’m being by how many angry people are following me around with signs.” Seanbaby

  28. The Pew Charitable Trusts
    The Trusts, a single entity, is the successor to, and sole beneficiary of, seven charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by J. Howard Pew, Mary Ethel Pew, Joseph N. Pew, Jr., and Mabel Pew Myrin ? the adult sons and daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew. Honoring their parents’ religious conviction that good works should be done quietly, the original Pew Memorial Foundation[2] was a grantmaking organization that made donations anonymously. The foundation became the Pew Memorial Trust in 1956, based in Philadelphia, the donors’ hometown. Between 1957 and 1979, six other trusts were created, representing the personal and complementary philanthropic interests of the four siblings.[3][4] The Trusts continues to be based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with offices in Washington, D.C., London, and Brussels.
    Although today The Pew Charitable Trusts is non-partisan and non-ideological, Joseph Pew and his heirs were politically conservative. The modern day organization works to encourage responsive government and support scientific research on a wide range of issues, including global ocean governance, correction reform, and antibiotic resistance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/The_Pew_ Charitable_Trusts

  29. Pew: U.S. Illegal Immigrant Population Lowest in Years | Breitbart
    “There were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2016
    ———-
    TRY AGAIN! 40 to 50 million is more like it.

    Why would anyone who reads Breitbart believe this crapola from PEW???

    1. 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

      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 is a woman, but she IS protecting our borders
      a) on the job, and
      b) by whupping Trump’s sorry ass.

      Trump’s border visit, ANOTHER public humiliation!
      Trumpbots be as wacky as Berniebots!!!!

      1. Lol you can never help yourself, you constantly lose your shit and put yourself Hihn.

        1. Were ALL you bullies “triggered” when Pelosi publicly humiliated the Bully in Chief, AGAIN? (sneer)

          PLEASE throw more tantrums … PROVING yet another victory for liberty!

          1. Fuck off, Hihn!

            1. “I don’t feel right, ain’t got enough haters . Somebody send me some, so I can aggravate them”
              – Plies

              Ask and it shall be given
              -Jesus Christ

              sneer
              -TheFOURTHReich

  30. No freaking amnesty. None. No “comprehensive reforms.” No compromises. No amnesty. But the aspiring valedictorians of DACA? No! Deport them! But the children! No! Deport them! But Jesus says? No! Deport them! And stop trying to Jesusplain immigration at us! How about we enforce our laws? How about we normal Americans demand that we get a say in who comes here and who doesn’t? And how about the Republicans stop trying, again and again and again, to undermine and undercut the will of the party’s base? No amnesty. None. Don’t like it? Go home.

    1. This is our country and this is our choice. You’ve proposed radically changing our nation by allowing massive, uncontrolled immigration, legal and illegal. And we’ve said “Hell no.” Now, maybe in Washington you think a bunch of illegal aliens worried about being deported is an emergency. Out here in America, we don’t. We think it’s a good start.
      https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/ 2018/06/11/can-the-gop-establishment- stop-being-idiots-just-once-n2489357

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

        McAllen Mayor Jim Darling, … 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?'”

        Trump had a table filled with goods confiscated by Border Patrol .,… at Ports of Entry! How STOOPID is that! OMG )

        … 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.

        “The Border Coalition has consistently over the years stated we believe the wall is a wasted investment.”

        Read the whole piece to see how totally Trump screwed up

        MORE PROOF! Trump a bat-shit crazy liar (for any who still NEED proof)
        FBI data: the 100 most dangerous cities in America … NO border city in the top 60, SUCKERS!

        The “crisis” is not at the border. It’s in Trump’s total lack of moral values. And his low-information puppets.

          1. 22 people on this page have stated opposition to Trump’s wall.

            But only one has been assaulted by unprovoked aggression.
            The one who links to proof the aggressors are wrong.
            Coincidence?

  31. Fuck these Venalzuelans. They voted for this crap. How many are blaming Maduro and not the policies? Are they blaming Chavez? They’ll vote the same way when some new loon comes along promising them free shit. And to hell with the right down there, they’re no better. In 1960 Venezuela’s population was 8 million, small enough to have built a decent society like the Swedes, but no, they’re rotten Conquistadors or Commandantes to the core.

  32. This will probably piss people off, but here goes.

    Does it annoy anybody else, besides me, that Jeff Bezos has $140B? I don’t begrudge him being wealthy. He came up with a brilliant idea and executed it very well. Same for Zuckerman, and all the other billionaires. How much money does a person need after all. Wouldn’t Jeff be just as well off if he kept $5B for himself and gave $135B in bonuses, cash or stock, to Amazon employees? I don’t know how many employees Amazon has but $135B would surely be a nice payday for them.

    I am thinking of this from the perspective of what I would do, at least what I think I would do. With $5B I could buy everything I could possibly want, keep working or retire, make my children wealthy, etc.

    I am not suggesting a new tax or a law, just simple humility and generosity.

    1. He does not give away as much as Gates or Buffett but that may change as he gets older. Almost all of that net worth is in the company he started and runs. He is the principal shareholder. Stock is not money unless you sell it. It could be worthless tomorrow if the market crashed or something.

      So having all that stock gives him power in the company. Also if he started selling off the stock price would drop like a rock. Investors watch that stuff.

      Or he might just be a greedy asshole. Who knows.

      1. Also, maybe you don’t go throwing money around when you’re working from a business model in which you don’t make any profits for the first 7 years.

        1. Right from his point of view he doesn’t have that money he has 8% of the company he grew. I’m sure he has plenty of other assets as well but that number is mostly just a stock price.

    2. Two items that your statements don’t acknowledge —

      1. That $140B plus can turn into $140B debt overnight; Just examine the history of Detroit’s Automobile Market. If a Company flips $1 Million of product a day; it is careless and detrimental for the Company/Owner to be living paycheck to paycheck and their back-up money NEEDS to be large enough to cover fluctuations in the market.

      That “has” money is often used to pay employees during a market down-fall instead of lay-offs every other day.

      2. Any household (working couples and etc..) making over $220,000/yr are THE TOP 1%. Their “saved” (beyond yearly bills) wealth over 50-years of labor is the only way they get that “big” $140B in worth. Its not as if they got it overnight as the jealous people in-vision

      Always remember; ALL (except those that live on LAW/TAXES) produce something PEOPLE of all income levels enjoy or need (Food, TV, Cars, Etc.. Etc…) and if the market is free anyone who can out-preform them will take that profit margin from them. If people cannot take the market then the current “RICH” producer is doing a better/cheaper job than anyone else can do.

      1. WOW! Lots of GREAT answers here! BRAVO

        1. Fuck off Hihn, and the answers were stupid.

          1. Tulpa AGAIN defends seizing wealth from the rich. (yawn)

  33. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come.
    visit……….. http://www.Mesalary.com

  34. Reason never cared in the 100 years prior when significantly more americans wanted less immigration than wanted more. Suddenly these dissembling fucks are populists.

    http://www.people-press.org/wp…..aphic1.png

    1. Yeah, when 60-70% of Americans were still first and second generation immigrants — they wanted to punish where their own parents and grandparents were born.

      Ummm, your link shows 17 years, not 100. one reason Trump’s approval is plummeting as steeply as your chart.

  35. A legal immigrant will not encounter a border wall.

    1. Neither will anyone else!

      ANOTHER ass-whupping on Trump … by a GURL!
      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, and is a woman, but she IS protecting our borders
      a) on the job, and
      b) by whupping Trump’s sorry ass.

      BREAKING: Now humiliated by another gurl … Nancy Pelosi
      It’s now worse than his business failures. So … will he quit … or commit suicide? His tiny ego has the strong smell of doom

      1. Fuck off, Hihn!

        1. NOTHING pisses off conservatards more han PROOF they are WRONG.
          (smirk)

    1. Thanks for the reminder.

      1. Fuck off, Hihn!

        1. Authoritatians

    2. B.S.!!! All of the earth isn’t everyone’s… Only a global communist dictator would make the claim that everybody’s hard-earned property is “all of ours”. Its rather disturbing how many people are arrogant/entitled enough to truly believe their self-claim to everyone else’s resources isn’t really a massive theft.

      If you didn’t earn it — IT IS NOT for you.

      1. TJJ2000 just made a TOTAL FOOL of himself …
        Low IQ = right-wing hysteria

        Pay attention. I’ll slowly.

        The earth is for all of us.

        Earth is a planet.
        It (the planet) exists for all of us to live upon (living things)
        It is NOT your property.
        WHICH of its people would you exterminate this time? Niggers, Fags and Kikes are no longer fun to slaughter /sarc

        1. Your paycheck, house and land is PART of the planet earth.

          You claim they “exist” for all of us to live on… WELL BIG MOUTH as you say — “IT IS NOT YOURS!!!”.
          The paycheck, the house, the land. ITS ALL OF OURS!!

          AND AS OURS – You HAVE 0-Rights to it for yourself so what are you doing hording it!?!?! You Low IQ communist. Hand it over — ITS NOT YOURS its OURS…

  36. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……

    http://www.geosalary.com

  37. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…2citypays.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.