CPAC

Why Immigrants at CPAC Like Donald Trump

The president is conflating closing the borders with tightening national security and it seems to be popular with many newcomers.

|

Nick Gillespie, Reason

Today is the final day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the largest annual gathering of right-wing political activists, which is being held just outside of Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump is scheduled to speak at 11:30 A.M. and a massive crowd of several thousand people have already assembled at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center.

I spoke to a number of people waiting to hear the president to get a sense of what drew them to the event. If they were old enough to vote, they all voted for Trump in 2016. Dan, a middle-aged man, said Trump's top achievement was the economic growth since the president took office. His fellow attendee Gunther, also middle-aged, said his top issues were fiscal responsibility, family values, and faith, which he said was related to values but distinct. Gunther granted that deficits have increased under Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress but he said that the way to address that is through cuts to entitlements.

Nasim, a twentysomething Iranian American, was attending with her mother, who emigrated to the United States after the Islamic revolution in 1979. Nasim said she was a conservative pretty much across the board and wasn't concerned by Donald Trump's or Republican hostility toward immigration. "We want to help people, but we can't help everyone," she said. We should only be bringing in "top people," educated immigrants who are going to add to the economy. I asked Nasim and her mother what they thought of Trump's refugee and asylum policies—last fall, the president moved to cap refugee admissions at 30,000 in 2019, a recent low (and a reduction from an earlier stated cap of 45,000). Would Nasim's mother have been able to emigrate here after the Islamic revolution if Trump were president? She granted the point but talked about larger immigration issues in terms of "national security," which is a common refrain at CPAC. Discussions of immigration quickly become conversations about keeping the country safe from terrorism (this, despite essentially no link between immigration and terrorism). Indeed, a representative of the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative gay-rights group, told me one of his organization's top priorities was calling for stricter immigration as a way of furthering national security.

I spoke with a group of girls named Katrina, Tori, and Katy, who were between the ages of 18 and 22. For Katrina, she liked Trump's positions toward abortion, immigration, and stopping drugs from entering the country. For Tori, border security was the top issue, again conflating the issues of immigration and national defense or security. She and Katy both also liked that Trump "doesn't back down" to Democrats or political opponents.

Finally, I talked with Amira, Batya, and Javier, who were between the ages of 18 and 26 and all were either immigrants or first-generation-born in America. Amira had an Israeli parent and for her, national security and immigration were again linked issues. She wasn't necessarily against more legal immigration but illegal immigration was a "big" problem (like some other people I've talked to here, she wasn't necessarily against allowing more people to enter here legally). Batya's family was from the former Soviet Union and while she liked that the economy was expanding under Donald Trump, she said she was growing increasingly skeptical of him.

Javier was of Dominican heritage and proudly sporting a "Make America Great Again" hat that been signed by both Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Turning Point USA's Candace Owens. He was strongly pro-life and in favor of a border wall. While conceding that all Republicans are pro-life, Javier said that Trump had announced he would sign any legislation limiting abortion that crossed his desk and "he clearly meant it."

Gallup

When I asked him about pervasive Republican hostility to immigration—apart from all the fearmongering over the declining number of illegal entries, GOP senators have introduced legislation to cut legal immigration by 50 percent—Javier invoked security issues but also added an argument I've heard from a number of other people at CPAC. It's bad for America to take too many educated and successful people from other countries, he said, because it will create a brain drain and vacuum in those sender countries. That's a strange sort of empathy to my ears, but it's a line of argument that conservatives are developing to bolster their anti-immigration policies.

More interestingly, Javier said that most of his relatives—"90 percent"—were Democrats but to him the Republican Party was more welcoming. "In 2016," he said, "people like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, people who looked like me were running for president." He said that what drew him to the GOP was that he believed its policies would help him succeed over the long run and in the long term. "I don't like to feel like I'm being controlled," he said, explaining what he didn't like about Democrats, especially people such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Amira and Batya agreed that the leftward feint by contemporary Democrats turned them off too.

This is an obviously limited sample of people at CPAC, much less of Trump supporters more generally. But a pretty clear picture of what they care about and why is emerging. I find the linkage between immigration policy and anything related to national security genuinely unconvincing and troubling, but that's where Trump-supporting conservatives are. If libertarians want to engage them and change their minds, that's worth knowing. As I noted yesterday, these are essentially cultural issues, not policy ones—nobody is interested in what sorts of facts are real or what sorts of policies might be effective.

In a short period of time, Trump has radically altered the character of the Republican Party and the character of the conservative movement. In the wake of the midterm elections, Gallup found Republicans want their party to become even more conservative while Democrats actually want a more moderate party. Oddly enough, even as the most-visible Democrats (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) talk more openly about democratic socialism, they may be unrepresentative of where their party is going (hell, Beto O'Rourke just came out as a "capitalist"). And Donald Trump, even as he pulls the Republican Party away from its historical associations with free trade, being friendly with immigration, and being pro-military intervention, may simply be getting warmed up.

NEXT: Thanks to Decades of Government Meddling, U.S. Dairy Is Going Through a Crisis

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. Some immigrants actually like Orange Hitler?

    I learned in college the only reason Republicans ever win elections is because many people vote against their own self-interest. That must be what’s happening here.

    1. Off-topic

      The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy

      Russia was able to hack our election and install one of its intelligence assets as President because of the EC. Despite the hack ? and despite a biased anti-Clinton media ? Clinton still won the popular vote by 3 million. That’s what should matter.

      #StillWithHer

      1. There’s no such thing as the popular vote. No one votes for the President except the electors. The rest of us vote for our states electors.

      2. I earned $8000 last month by working online just for 6 to 9 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.
        Try it, you won’t regret it!…..

        SEE HERE >>=====>>>> http://www.payshd.com

        1. I am making easily persistently $15k to $20k simply by doing direct work at home. Multi month again i have made $45890 from this movement. amazing and smooth to do work and standard pay from this is bewildering. i have propose each final one of you to join this progress right directly as low protection and get than full time salary through take after this association.

          Just Visit Now…… http://www.SalaryHD.Com

    2. Speaking of which : Did you know there was a group called the Association of German National Jews that supported Hitler in the earliest years of the Reich? Not that that odd historical fact holds any meaning. Obviously they were a freakishly small minority who didn’t represent other German Jews in any way whatsoever. I just thought of it seeing the reference to “Orange Hitler” above……

      1. I’m surprised this group doesn’t get more attention from journalists when the question of black Republicans, immigrant Republicans, female Republicans, etc. comes up.

        1. It’s because [some obscure story about ancient history] only appeals to a very small subset of people who want to be able to say “I know this thing you don’t know”. The rest of us aren’t interested. We prefer to consider the present and the future rather than congratulate ourselves for knowing trivia about the past.

        2. Eddy, if it doesn’t fit the de ocrat party’s narrative it doesn’t exist. That’s the MSM.

  2. When will reason get it into their head that illegal immigration immigration

    1. Because conflating the two is the only way they can pretend to assume the moral highground, and assign secret evil motives (That’s raaacist) to those that oppose the illegal aspect.

      My sister-in-law is a Hispanic black immigrant from the Caribbean. Her and my brother had to dance through all sorts of legal hoops, deal with mountains of paperwork and pay all sorts of fees to gain landed immigrant status in Canada five years ago.
      She resents the hell out of those who cheated.
      As does my mother who emigrated from Europe in the 70’s and my other sister-in-law who emigrated from Illinois in the early 00’s. Doing things the right way was not easy for either of them, and yet the cheaters are now the victims and heroes.

      And here’s Gillespie pretending they’re all same-same.

      1. Yeah, I laughed when I read the headline. Who’s been doing the “conflating” for decades.

        1. My pal’s sister is losing 80 kilos at regular intervals. She has been over weight anyway last month she started to take those new dietary enhancements and she has lost forty kilos to this point. test the site online here……….

          http://Internet32.com

      2. So the immigration system has to remain exactly the same forever and ever, lest your relatives feel resentful. Got it.

        Here is another option. We don’t create an immigration system based on the feelings of immigrants. We instead create an immigration system that is rooted in protecting the liberty of all people, immigrants and citizens alike. If changing the immigration system to make it rooted in liberty means that your relatives feel resentful over the changes, then tough noogies. We’re not going to maintain a broken status quo just to avoid hurting people’s feelings.

        1. What’s that system look like? Specifically, is there a number attached? If so, how are those spots allocated? If not, is there any border security at all?

          1. We’ve been over this several times. Jeff believes that if we throw the doors wide open and let anyone in the world who wants to live in the US come on in, there would be no significant increase in immigration, and that even if he’s wrong about that and a billion immigrants showed up, that would cause no negative changes to our way of live.

            1. Well I honesty don’t know what the number should be, I believe we average about a million a year. It’s just that I never hear people who bitch about enforcing current immigration law offer up any policy at all and certainly never a number nor any type of restriction on who can come live here. I think we should be a welcoming country, to your point though, seems like there is a limit.

              1. Do not expect Jeffy to argue in good faith,anyone who disagrees with him about open borders must be either an authoritarian or a racist. Or more likely both. He believes in little to no enforcement at the border even less once they come here. Because freedom of association, but doesn’t explain how it okay that allowing anyone in could violate others freedom of association, and why he gets to decide but we do not. Or how this is not also authoritarian.

                1. anyone who disagrees with him about open borders must be either an authoritarian or a racist. Or more likely both.

                  I’ve never said that either. Sheesh you guys.

                  It just so happens that most of the arguments presented for border restrictionism are either based on a statist premise, based in bigotry, or based on falsehoods or flat-out lies.

                  For example, Borjas argues that more immigration would lead to lower standards of living for those at the bottom of the labor pool, and he has facts and models and data to back up his argument. I can respect that argument, even if I have problems with it. It’s not based on bigotry or authoritarianism.

                  On the other hand, if you go to Breitbart, you will see story after story about illegal immigrants committing crime. Very little in the way of studies or statistics. Just emotional story after emotional story about horrible immigrants raping and murdering the natives. This is very clearly a strategy to create a narrative about immigration that at is core is rooted in fear and bigotry. And I call out that kind of crap when it shows up here.

                  See the difference?

                  1. Jeff you have called me a racist at least twice and an authoritarian despite the fact that I support strict borders while liberalizing legal immigration requirements. Yes it is a fair assessment of your general argument. Especially if the argument is esoteric in t he least bit. You project an awful lot for someone who believes that they are fair. TYou also seem capable of reading people’s mind:
                    “This is very clearly a strategy to create a narrative about immigration that at is core is rooted in fear and bigotry. And I call out that kind of crap when it shows up here.”

                    You stated this as if it were undeniable fact rather then conjecture on your part. Proving my original thesis.

                    1. Jeff is, based on the reasons you stated and many other examples, psychotic.
                      He treats his fantasies as if they are reality, thus the constant projection and strawmen.

                    2. You stated this as if it were undeniable fact rather then conjecture on your part. Proving my original thesis.

                      Okay, read this: (it’s long, and read the whole thing)

                      http://www.bloomberg.com/polit…..ve-bannon/

                      Breitbart, along with other outlets, purposefully pursued an agenda of highlighting certain stories above others, in order to push an agenda. One of the narratives they pushed was about immigration. That is why they publish article after article on immigrants behaving badly, because they want to create the impression that immigrants themselves are dangerous people.

                      It isn’t an accident. It is propaganda on their part.

                    3. An opinion piece by a competitor, one who has a different ideological stance is not proof Jeffy. It is actually sad that you referred to it as such. SMH. Also, every newspaper publishes certain stories to push their agenda, Reason, constantly pushing a disingenuous stat that immigrants commit less crime then native born Americans when we’re discussing illegal immigration not legal immigration is exhibit A. Try again.

                    4. Oh come on. The article quotes Breitbart’s editors directly.

                      “When we do an editorial call, I don’t even bring anything I feel like is only a one-off story, even if it’d be the best story on the site,” says Alex Marlow, the site’s editor in chief. “Our whole mindset is looking for these rolling narratives.” He rattles off the most popular ones, which Breitbart News covers intensively from a posture of aggrieved persecution. “The big ones won’t surprise you,” he says. “Immigration, ISIS, race riots, and what we call ‘the collapse of traditional values.’ But I’d say Hillary Clinton is tops.”

                      That isn’t just mere opinion. That is Breitbart’s editors admitting that they choose topics based on narratives that they wish to push with their site. And they are very influential, and they know it. Why do you think they highlight so many stories about crime committed by illegal immigrants? Do you think their reporting on this topic is representative of the actual magnitude of the problem? Do you think their reporting fairly represents the statistical reality of the problem, or do you think their reporting is designed to drum up fear and anxiety about illegal immigration?

                    5. So Breitbart is like every other news outlet – only you disagree with them.

                      Great point, chemjeff, though it’s unclear how this is relevant to anything.
                      Maybe you can find some quotes “proving” water is wet?

              2. “It’s just that I never hear people who bitch about enforcing current immigration law offer up any policy at all and certainly never a number nor any type of restriction on who can come live here.”

                There is a policy – it’s law.
                There have been tons of people offering their opinions, most commonly advocating for merit-based (that is, higher qualifications required – see Canada, Australia for examples) immigration rather than chain or lottery based.
                But there’s another policy that’s been unofficially pursued, contrary to both law and the consistently stated desires of the American people. That is, lax border control and arbitrary enforcement of immigration laws.
                The people “bitching” about enforcing current immigration practice have been very consistent. The people bitching about immigration restrictions have been moving the goalposts every time they’re asked.

            2. if we throw the doors wide open and let anyone in the world who wants to live in the US come on in, there would be no significant increase in immigration,

              I’ve never said that. I think there would be an increase.

              that would cause no negative changes to our way of live.

              I’ve never said that either. I think there would be both pros and cons to having more immigration.

              1. I mean your original response wasn’t even intellectually honest:
                “So the immigration system has to remain exactly the same forever and ever, lest your relatives feel resentful. Got it.”
                That was an intellectually dishonest attack and demonstrates that you have no real intention of debating honestly.

                1. I have heard the same tired trope over and over again. I think I can be forgiven for being short in my reply. “I had to suffer, therefore you must too” is a dumb rationale for ANYTHING, immigration-related or not. A system that violates liberty and harms people should be changed and reformed, regardless if the beneficiaries of such change “have an easier time” compared to those who had to endure the suffering.

                2. The argument is complete bullshit! Why should I give it any quarter whatsoever?

                  “I was beaten as a child, therefore, child abuse should remain legal because kids these days shouldn’t get it easier than I had it” ??? You have to admit this is a stupid argument. It is the same argument that is presented above, just in the context of immigration.

                  1. Keep arguing straw man there. First, who stated it has to remain the exact same? Second, who argued that it must remain restrictive because it was restrictive in the past? Many have point Ted out that in fact our current system is much more liberal than when our ancestors immigrated here but that isn’t the same. Also, you keep making the assertion that immigration enforcement is an infringement on liberty yet this is not necessarily self evident. They do not have the right to enter this country without permission. In fact, the lack of respect of our laws demonstrates a certain unwillingness to honor our liberties. We have the liberty to choose the government we want representing us, and through them we have created laws that we live by. You can argue if you feel these laws are just, but enforcing these laws is not automatically hindering their liberty. You disagree with these laws, good convince others to change them. However, you don’t try and even understand those who disagree with you. You immediately assume the worse of them. Do you understand most people are in favor of liberalized immigration but want tough border enforcement? We want a secured border but also want a robust immigrant population, especially one that benefits the country by having skills or trades that we need?

                    1. They do not have the right to enter this country without permission.

                      Why not?

                    2. “They do not have the right to enter this country without permission.

                      Why not?”

                      Asked and answered a few dozen times you fucking moron. You just don’t like it.

                    3. Oh I know what your answer is. Don’t let them in because you have some unspecified right to decide who enters my property. That is the collectivist answer.

                    4. However, you don’t try and even understand those who disagree with you. You immediately assume the worse of them.

                      I have become somewhat jaded with all of these Internet arguments over immigration, that is true.

                      Do you understand most people are in favor of liberalized immigration but want tough border enforcement?

                      Please understand where I am coming from on this. I do not believe immigration decisions should be put in the hands of any collective. Not the state, not the majority, not some court, no one. if I want to invite you onto my property, for whatever reason I choose, I should have the right to do so, regardless of whether the majority disagrees with this decision, regardless of whether the state disagrees with this decision. I understand that this is a radical view at this point in time. I understand that most people won’t adopt it. But I do think it is most consistent with the principles of liberty. So I understand that most disagree with me. I understand that most disagree with me not out of any racial animus but because they believe that immigration ought to be under their control. My position is that this belief is misplaced. The people, and the state by proxy, have been given power to control immigration, in error. But correcting this error will be hard, and will require people giving up power that they have been accustomed to wielding, or at least believing that they had the power to wield. That is never an easy task.

                    5. So, you think you should be allowed to import foreigners and hold them on your property. You want to be able to import slaves.

                      Oh, you want them to be allowed to leave your property? Then you are not the only one involved in this decision.

                    6. Well sure. Public lands are there to facilitate the defense of liberty. So individuals ought to be free to use public roads, etc., for transportation to different parcels of private lands.

                      If your argument is “I don’t want foreigners on YOUR land because those foreigners affect me in some vague unspecified way”, then please explain how this same argument should not also be applied to the exercise of every other liberty.
                      “I don’t want you to have guns on your land because those guns might affect me.”
                      “I don’t want you to grow pot on your land because those plants might affect me.”
                      If you reject those arguments but accept the same argument when it comes to immigration, then why?

                    7. “”I don’t want you to have guns on your land because those guns might affect me.””

                      It’s like you fucking idiot progs have to always reflexively attack gun rights as though they aren’t explicitly protected.

                      You want to import child rapists. Add to that the fact that you’re too god damned stupid to understand the Constitution and you end up where everyone is at with you, mocking your inane stupidity and desire to import child rapists.

                    8. Liar.

                    9. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololol

                    10. Liar.

                    11. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    12. Liar.

                    13. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    14. Liar.

                    15. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    16. Liar.

                    17. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

              2. While it may be up for debate that an increase in legal immigration may benefit America, that argument can only be made in times of low unemployment and high demand for workers. Outside of that scope, there is no positive argument for even legal immigration.
                There is absolutely zero positive arguments for ANY illegal immigration. By it’s very nature, illegal immigration allows for the entry into America of masses of people who have not been vetted for their criminal past in their home country. They have not been vetted for their work skills and their possible contribution to the well being of the country. They have not been vetted for possible infectious diseases. They have not been vetted for anything they attempt to smuggle into the country. I see no logic to any argument that America, or any other country should have open borders. If you want to enter America, do so legally at a point of entry.

                1. While it may be up for debate that an increase in legal immigration may benefit America,

                  I am not interested in “what benefits America” in some collective sense. At least as far as I’m concerned, immigration is not about economics. It is about liberty.

                  1. “I am not interested in “what benefits America” ”

                    We know. It’s why you want to import child rapists.

                    1. Liar.

                    2. You can’t even muster enough energy to deny it because you know it’s true, you want to import vhild rapists.

                    3. Liar.

                    4. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololol

                    5. Liar.

                    6. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    7. Liar.

                    8. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    9. Liar.

                    10. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    11. Liar.

                    12. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    13. Liar.

                    14. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

          2. Aspirationally, I don’t think there should be any border controls at all.

            Pragmatically, I think Ken’s approach of a type of instant visa system is probably a reasonable compromise.

            1. Even if a compromise was made for an “instant visa system”, that system only works if immigrants come through the front door. So you would still have border enforcement just like we do now.

              1. We wouldn’t need nearly as much border enforcement, because there would be no need.

                You wouldn’t have armies of IRS agents fanning out across the land trying to track down every last undocumented immigrant, because the state would be handing out permission slips like candy.

                1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                  Lololollololo

                  1. Liar.

                    1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    2. Liar.

                    3. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

        2. “So the immigration system has to remain exactly the same forever and ever, lest your relatives feel resentful. Got it.”

          That isn’t at all what he said dumbass.

          Let’s go ahead and ignore you inane bullshit argument and focus on your desire to illegally traffic pedophiles to the US. You have a lot to answer for.

          1. focus on your desire to illegally traffic pedophiles to the US. You have a lot to answer for.

            If I expressed any desire to traffic pedophiles, then yeah that would be disturbing, wouldn’t it? But I didn’t, and you know that, but you don’t care, you and Nardz and Tulpa all just like to troll.

            But as long as we are on the subject of atonement for personal sins, perhaps you would like to atone for consistently threatening to harm and murder your political opponents? That doesn’t sound very consistent with the NAP at all.

            1. Is hyperbole, even threats, actually aggression? Are you now arguing words are violence? That seems fairly authoritarian to me, and since you proclaim you are all about the NAP, obviously there must be an alternative explanation. See how that works Jeffy?

              1. Is hyperbole, even threats, actually aggression?

                I didn’t say it was. This is you getting defensive again. I said that threatening to murder your political opponents isn’t very consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle. Which it isn’t, because he’s advocating a violation of it. Not that the words themselves are aggression.

                there must be an alternative explanation

                The most likely alternative explanation, in this case, is that Shithead is a profoundly unlibertarian troll who likes to puff up his own pathetic sense of self-worth by threatening to murder people from behind the safety of his keyboard.

            2. Jeffy, you little piece of crap. Let’s get some things straight. The NAP only applies to people who leave me alone. I am not Gandhi. I am not a pacifist. Threaten or harm me, my family, or anyone I’m responsible for protecting, and expect a quick end. This goes for shitbird commies who plan on enslaving decent Americans. If a moronic little pussy like you doesn’t agree with that, then fuck off. Your opinion has no value, nor do you.

              And apparently you are a booster of transporting illegals, even pedos into the US. Just admit it.

              Either way, you are clearly a malignant little pile of offal.

              1. Threaten or harm me

                And by “threaten or harm me”, what you really mean is “vote in a way I don’t like”.

                You ROUTINELY threaten to harm and murder people who have done absolutely nothing to harm you, their only ‘crime’ is to vote in a way that you don’t approve of. That is the height of murderous authoritarianism. You are a sad pathetic bully who has to rely on trolling Internet comment boards to boost your self-worth. I’m not angry at you. I feel sorry for you.

                1. Another Little Jeffy bullshit strawman. I meant what I said and I said what I meant. You’re just too much the moron to understand.

                  And yes, everything you said is complete bullshit. As usual.

                  When the progtards want to throw you iinto a gulag, or worse, you will be begging someone like me to come save your stupid ass.

                  1. Wait wait wait I thought I was one of the progessives that would be throwing you into a gulag. When did this change? I was so looking forward to it.

                    1. You’re one of the progressives that want to import child rapists. You know it’s true too, that’s why you spend so much time personally attacking the people who point it out.

                    2. Liar.

                    3. “chemjeff radical individualist|3.2.19 @ 7:07PM|#

                      focus on your desire to illegally traffic pedophiles to the US. You have a lot to answer for.

                      If I expressed any desire to traffic pedophiles, then yeah that would be disturbing, wouldn’t it? But I didn’t, and you know that, but you don’t care, you and Nardz and Tulpa”

                      You own post proves me right! Cry more now you pathetic importer of child rapists.

                    4. Liar.

                    5. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololololol

                    6. Liar.

                    7. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololololololollolol

                    8. Liar.

                    9. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    10. Liar.

                    11. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    12. Liar.

                    13. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

        3. Here another option. Keep bringing up the fact that you support giving baby rapists asylum. I don’t really need any argument beyond that.

          1. No you don’t, because for you demagoguery is a substitute for logical argument.

            ONE MORE TIME, since you all just love to discuss this topic.

            If your position is “no asylum for Bad People”, then you are giving a green light for oppressive governments to oppress people, just as long as it’s the Bad People.

            If your position is “asylum for everyone”, then you are removing all meaning from asylum, let alone letting a lot of Bad People into the country.

            There is a difficult moral choice to be made in the middle, and evidently none of you are adult enough to even recognize it let alone discuss it in a mature manner.

            1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

              Lololollololo

              1. Liar.

                1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                  Lololollololo

    2. Nick cannot pronounce the word “illegal”.

  3. If you look at the overall positions of “conservatives” vs “liberals”, you find that in general “conservatives” talk about what they are against (health care, voting rights) and who they want to hurt (immigrants, the poor, minorities, gays), while “liberals” talk about what they are for and who they want to help. To the “conservatives” out there, does this really represent the American (and to some also, Christian) values you claim to hold?

    1. lol I can’t tell if this is satire or just projection

      1. I’m going to go with satire. Because I already drink too much.

      2. Progs certain,y hurt people the most.

        1. Is this where you threaten to kill progressives again?

          1. No. There is no contextual impetus to do so. If you weren’t so stupid, you might have worked that out for yourself.

            Don’t you have a small child to restrain so your illegal pedo friends can rape them?

            1. Obvious trolling is obvious.

              1. No Jeffy, you’re the troll. Everyone here despises you. Haven’t you worked that out yet? And for all the reasons pointed out to you by myself and so many others. You’re a whiny, race card playing, sophist, moron, and a little pussy. You recycle the same discredited positions day after day like your stupid questions have never been answered.

                No one can have a real substantive discussion with you. So it’s best to antagonize you and drive you away.

                You deserve that, and so much worse.

                1. Everyone here despises you.

                  No, just you and your little gang of gaslighting trolls.

                  1. Denial ain’t just what jeff does about his desire to import child rapists.

                    1. Liar.

                    2. “chemjeff radical individualist|3.3.19 @ 2:53PM|#

                      Liar.”

                      Ha! Even the comment board sets you up to lool stupid, you pathetic importer of child rapists.

                    3. Liar.

                    4. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    5. Liar.

                    6. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    7. Liar.

                    8. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    9. Liar.

                    10. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                2. I mean even if he was a cool dude he supports giving child fuckers asylum.

    2. Exactly the opposite. Liberals hate corporations, religious people, whites, males, farmers, anyone in medical industries, miners, anyone in fuel industries, bankers, manufacturers, builders, anyone who generates electrical power, hunters, gun owners, soldiers, boy scouts, anyone in financial industries, and a huge number of others.

      Conservatives mostly want to be left alone by hateful, greedy, totalitarian leftists.

      1. Liberals do not hate any of those groups. They just want to put reasonable limits on the more socially destructive behaviors of them. They stand against pollution, risky finical engineering, discrimination, racism, sexual abuse, and gun violence.

        1. Hahahahahahaha

        2. “Liberal don’t hate all those people, liberals only want to control everything those people do everyday, because they are all dangerous and incompetent, like children. The ones who refuse to obey liberals’ benevolent commands are evil and belong in prisons or re-education camps. Don’t confuse that with hate though. The lord doesn’t hate his serfs, but he must rule them with a firm hand.”

        3. Ben’s wrong about Liberals and corporations. They’re one and the same thanks to rampant corporatism in the West. But anyway, let me fix your statement for you…

          – Liberals use pollution concerns as an excuse to overtax and social engineer.
          – As far as stupid financial engineering goes they are Bretton Woods.
          – They actively discriminate but as oikophobes rather than xenophobes. Somehow they think that’s okay.
          – Liberals present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist, but this is merely a way of defending their class interests.
          – Liberals will hide or excuse sexual abuse when it serves their interests (Clinton), and denounce it when it serves their interests (“Trump says they let him grab their pussy”)
          “and gun violence” You’ve never read a Reason article before I take it?

          In truth, liberals are race-baiters, class warriors and inept social engineers. Fulminating, bitter, self-righteous tweeters and tumblrers calling down the harpies on anyone insufficiently adjusted to the new bien-pensant parameters of the day.
          They’ve ghettoized Blacks, aborted their children and destroyed their families, they’ve elevated body dysmorphia and mental illness to a sacrament, and they’re trying to destroy the working class by importing pseudo-slave labour to be their nannies, work their fields and fill their factories on a massive scale through illegal immigration.

          1. Very. nice. I’m borrowing some of that.

        4. The will to power for [good reasons] is functionally exactly the same as the will to power behind every war and oppression and genocide in world history. Unchecked power always turns out the same.

          Libs hunger for power. And leftists’ philosophy has zero limiting principles.

          1. I don’t understand how you people go all day every day ranting about “leftists.” It’s just an amorphous bogeyman. The Nazis were leftists. The fascists were leftists. Reagan was a leftist. Your spoiled ham sandwich is a leftist. I don’t get how, when you circle jerk your way around rightwing message boards all repeating this single, unchanging idea to each other, you don’t get bored.

            1. Yeah the precise correctness of the label “leftists” was clearly the point. Hunger for power must be called by precisely the right name. That’s what life is about.

              1. So Dick Cheney is a leftist?

                1. Who cares? Dick Cheney isn’t in power, isn’t running for anything, and hasn’t been relevant in any way for more than a decade. Living in the past is for fools.

                  Also, your obsession with labeling things is sad.

                  1. Living in the past is for fools.

                    Living in the past — in particular, pining for good old days that never existed and disdaining modernity — is about all the Republicans, conservatives, and faux libertarians have left.

                    For right-wingers, fear of modernity and progress is both a cause and consequence of losing the culture war.

                    Carry on, clingers.

                    1. I can’t believe I’m agreeing with the one-note, robotic name-caller here, but yeah. When conservatives are living in the past, it’s also foolish.

                      Stop talking about Reagan, conservatives. No one under 40 cares. Talk about the future. The left isn’t going to go back to the 1980s and put you in re-education camps for wrongthink about AIDS. They’re going to do it in the 2020s or 2030s because you won’t denounce and repudiate biological gender.

                    2. I can’t believe I’m agreeing with the one-note, robotic name-caller here, but yeah. When conservatives are living in the past, it’s also foolish.

                      Which is ironic, considering Arthur L. Hicklib isn’t mouthing anything different than Robespierre, Marat, or Lenin before him. He’s just not self-aware or educated enough to realize it.

                    3. Arty, Arty…….

                      Don’t you know we conservatives and libertarians are all the very model of a modern major general?

                      Silly bitch.

                2. Well as the previous article pointed out, Trumpian conservatism defines itself not according to policy or ideas, but according to identity and culture.

                  So the term “leftist” is just a shorthand slur meaning “everyone who is outside of the cult”.

                  1. Label-obsession is sad. You can’t make a substantive argument.

                    And you are apparently defending hunger for power for some reason.

                  2. No it doesn’t dumbass.

                    Though now you are defined by your support of illegal alien pedophiles, and possibly sexual predators in general.

                  3. The article doesn’t ‘point it out’. It makes that claim. Which is debatable at best.

                    And the slur is yours, as usual. Another vile Little Jeffy retarded strawman.

              2. So everyone who hungers for power is a leftist?

                Every politician is a leftist?

                1. No, but every leftist hungers for power. No leftist imagines himself toiling on a farm, in a mine, or locked up in a gulag after the revolution. They fantasize about being in charge.

                  1. Who precisely is a “leftist”? As that term is commonly thrown around here, it has come to mean basically anyone who doesn’t support Trump. Is this what you mean?

                    1. Here are some terms that play to you Little Jeffy: moron, sophist, disingenuous, annoying, Anarchist, predator friendly…….

                      I could go on, but maybe it’s starting to sink in.

                    2. As LC1789 might say: Poor Shithead . He knows he is losing so all he can do is troll.

                    3. I’ve already beaten you at every argument you’ve ever made here. So have manymother people. I’m not wasting my time answering ‘why do foreigners have to get permission to cross the border’ or how the constitution empowers the federal govt. to regulate immigration for the thirtieth or fortieth time just because you’re obtuse.

                      You’re the troll dumbass.

                      Smell yourself.

                    4. Poor Shithead. He knows he is losing so all he can do is troll.

                    5. “chemjeff radical individualist|3.3.19 @ 11:29AM|#

                      Poor Shithead. He knows he is losing so all he can do is troll.”

                      Why are you narrating your own posts?

                    6. “chemjeff radical individualist|3.2.19 @ 7:01PM|#

                      Who precisely is a “leftist””

                      You.

                    7. Liar.

                    8. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollolololololololol

                    9. Liar.

                    10. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollol

                    11. Liar.

                    12. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    13. Liar.

                    14. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

        5. This is the problem with leftists. The term ‘socially destruct behaviour’ is completely relative to your own opinion. What you find to be socially destructive may well be seen by many others are fun. What you see as masculine toxicity many others see as natural male behaviour.
          We are at the point now where for a guy to simply ask a woman out is seen as ‘sexual harassment’. It’s pathetic. All men are now seen as ‘potential rapists’ in the eyes of you leftist assholes. Leftists like Harris and Booker are now talking about giving reparations to a generation of blacks who’s parents were never slaves at the cost of American tax payers who’s parents were never slave owners. How many generations are supposed to pay for the sins of their descendants. Slavery was abolished in the 19th century. Absolutely nobody alive today has ever slave in America
          We have has enough of leftists demanding we behave in a certain way which is alien to our nature stretching back hundreds of generations. Nobody in today’s America is ‘oppressed’.

    3. To the “conservatives” out there, does this really represent the American (and to some also, Christian) values you claim to hold?

      Fuckin’ LOL at this proglydyte gaslighting. Is American a racist, sexist hellhole or a beacon of liberty? Make up your mind.

    4. In fairness, they also whine a lot about how bad the Washington Post hurt their feelings.

      1. Tony, have you ever offered an intellectually ho eat argument in your life? Because I have never seen one yet. In fact I have tried to engage you in honest debate but it has proven futile. You seem incapable of doing anything but demonizing those who you disagree with. You’re a nihilist and unfortunately a not very amusing or entertaining (or even original) one. You are like a band that only knows three chorda and one rhythm and recycles it in every song they produce. They only change the tempo but it’s still the same stale recycled shit over and over. You are the Bro-Country of liberal trolls.

        1. He’s a banal little poof, who is both intellectually lazy yet thirsts to dominate the rest of us vicariously through the progressive movement. Tony is almost certainly a sociopath, with a deep seated hatred for most people, especially children, Christians, and anyone who is successful.

        2. Well that hurts my feelings. But I’ll try to go on.

          1. Don’t lie Tony, we all know you didn’t understand even half of my rant and are trying to be witty to cover up your lack of comprehension. Also, do sociopaths like yourself have actual feelings besides anger?

            1. I don’t even feel anger.

              1. But unlike a Vulcan, simple logic seems to escape you. So I am left with the conclusion you have major mental issues. Glad to know.

                1. I hate to be rude, but have you considered that maybe you’re just not intellectually equipped for the things you’re talking about? Put another way, insufficient facts always invite danger.

                  1. Nope. You’re a moron. He’s not.

                    Glad to,straighten you out. On that at least.

                  2. Tony you have never offered anything remotely resembling an esoteric argument. There is nothing sophisticated (or even factual) in your peurile rants. Please don’t attempt to come off as an intellectual because it is self evident that you aren’t. You’re redundant and a sophist. You make assertions and claim their facts. You resort to ad hominems, straw men and appeals to authority. This latter one, however, fails because you rarely even offer someone or something that could be considered actual authority except on a partisan basis. And the saddest part is, is that your total lack of self awareness has deluded you into thinking you actually are “winning”. The truth is is that people just grow frustrated with the inanity of your sophomoric arguments that they give up realizing the futility of trying to have an intelligent, intellectually honest discussion with you.

          2. Tony, you’re a sociopath. So you’re largely devoid of feelings. This is why you fit in with progressives so well.

        3. “You seem incapable of doing anything but demonizing those who you disagree with. You’re a nihilist and unfortunately a not very amusing or entertaining (or even original) one. You are like a band that only knows three chorda and one rhythm and recycles it in every song they produce. They only change the tempo but it’s still the same stale recycled shit over and over. You are the Bro-Country of liberal trolls.”

          Tony is a prototypical progressive.
          But unlike his NPC fellow travelers, at least Tony has personality and wit.
          I don’t think he’s half the true believer chemjeff is, but Tony enjoys his arrogant misery – and he’s here, rather than WaPo, because he’s a masochist.
          I like Tony because he is so sincere – but he occupies the proper place of progressivism: powerless and unserious.

          1. ChemJeff is the Taylor Swift to Tony’s Bro-Country liberal trollishness. It sounds fun and has a nice beat but eventually you realize it had little to no substance.

            1. And it’s formalistic.

        4. He’s not a nihilist he’s just lazy and cynical. He’s far too emotional and queeny acting to be a nihilist. It’s something older gay guys do when they get to ugly and pudgy to be tolerated as drama queens they become bitchy sarcastic losers.

    5. “and who they want to help”

      with other peoples money. I can be super generous with your money.

      1. The majority of progressives don’t actually want to help anybody, though some will not object if it happens accidentally.

        The stated ends are merely a method to, or excuse for, the means.

        1. Agreed. Ultimately it’s about aquisition of power so they can punish anyone who disagrees with them.

  4. Because legal immigrants don’t have common cause with people sneaking across the border or overstaying a visa.

    Legal immigrants don’t want their communities to become a dumping ground for outlaws any more than natives do. Legal immigrants don’t want to pay for government services for other countries’ populations any more than natives do.

    Legal immigrants want jobs. And they want government to side with people here legally, people who obey laws and build communities, rather than siding with outlaws.

  5. “the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center”

  6. Libertarian post-CPAC drinks, 5 pm, Walrus and Oyster Bar https://www.facebook.com/events/326579901534848/

    1. It says “Libertarian post-CPAC drinks (and or dinner)”

      I wonder which of the two Gillespie would choose?

  7. Oh dear God, the irony!

    Not long after Michael Cohen testified in front of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) decided to fundraise off Cohen’s testimony. She sent an email to supporters asking them to sign a petition urging President Donald Trump and future presidents to not pardon anyone connected to the Russia probe, The Hill reported.

    The email read, “Our criminal justice system is hanging on and doing its job ? the truth is coming out ? despite unprecedented, relentless, and potentially illegal pressure from Donald Trump and his associates in and out of government.”

  8. “Beto O’Rourke just came out as a ‘capitalist'”

    I thought Warren called herself a capitalist, too.

    And don’t forget how FDR “saved capitalism.”

    1. And Cory Booker should just come out. Period.

  9. “Oddly enough, even as the most-visible Democrats (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) talk more openly about democratic socialism, they may be unrepresentative of where their party is going”

    Between the popularity among Democrats of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, you may be whistling past the graveyard, Mr. Gillespie. If average people don’t associate those things with socialism, they sure as hell should.

  10. Shorter Nick: How dare those dark-skinned folks not think like me!

  11. When I asked him about pervasive Republican hostility to immigration

    Weird, Trump has never said a negative word about legal immigration. Conservatives may think the H1-B Visas are being abused, but overall, have few problems with legal immigration.

    Did you ask him why reporters cannot tell the difference between illegal and legal immigration?

    1. Exactly. BISA programs don’t need to be scrapped, just improved or altered to prevent abuses, and I know of few people that are ‘anti immigration’.

  12. In a short period of time, Trump has radically altered the character of the Republican Party and the character of the conservative movement. In the wake of the midterm elections, Gallup found Republicans want their party to become even more conservative while Democrats actually want a more moderate party. Oddly enough, even as the most-visible Democrats (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) talk more openly about democratic socialism, they may be unrepresentative of where their party is going (hell, Beto O’Rourke just came out as a “capitalist”).

    Odd. Nobody has to define “moderate”.

  13. Gillespie has shared my ideas about open borders for many years. I saw him recently reassert that open borders is not about erasing the border and people moving back and forth across it without our knowledge or consent. Open borders means that people from Mexico can come here without a visa once Mexico establishes an ID system so that we can verify that the people coming across our checkpoints legally aren’t convicted felons, aren’t wanted by the police, aren’t cartels or terrorists, etc.

    One of the benefits of such a system is that if Mexican citizens could come across the border at a checkpoint by simply showing an ID, the only people sneaking through miles of desert at night would be the people who couldn’t get across the border simply by showing an ID. In other words, this form of open borders would make the border more secure against criminals and terrorists than it is now, when the bad guys have a blanket of thousands of people simply looking for work to hide behind.

    1. Being in a sea of irrational Trump supporters for the last few days may have given Gillespie vertigo, but the fact remains that if border security and people’s openness to immigration are connected in the American mind, rationally or irrationally, then the kind of open legal immigration we want depends on securing the border. We will probably never get the kind of support for the open legal immigration system we want so long as the border remains insecure. Those Americans who oppose securing the border are actively undermining the process of opening up our legal immigration polices–whether they realize it or not.

      1. Being in a sea of irrational Trump supporters: translation I am smarter than everyone else why should they have different ideals then me? It must be because they are sycophants and thus I can dismiss them easily. Sometimes Ken you are nearly as bad as Tony and Jeffy and Kirkland. But then you do offer actual thoughts and show some ability at self reflection and criticism. So I may be to harsh in comparing you to them. Maybe you are just so smug that you often come across as a know it all that people have a hard time tolerating. Maybe what we would have called a barracks lawyer when I was in.

        1. Oh, look at Mr. Defensive here.

          News flash, it’s possible for Trump supporters to be irrational too, just like any other group of people. Calling *them* irrational is not the same as calling *you* irrational.

          1. Possible? Of course

            In reality it is very uncommon, relative to your constant state of inanity.

            Now let’s talk about you being a booster of pedophiles.

          2. How am I defensive? By pointing out the banality of your tired arguments? You are no threat to me so I have nothing to feel defensive about. You amuse me so I engage you for the sheer joy of it… Don’t think I have ever felt that you have ever threatened me or made me feel less secure in my opinions. The simple fact is that your stance is only defensible in abstract and lacks any true pragmatism required to be really workable. I prefer to live in the real world. But keep on, the judges almost awarded you a point there.

            1. You’re clearly being defensive because when Ken mentioned “sea of irrational Trump supporters” you took it personally.

              Not everyone who voted for Trump is as calm and rational as you are. Okay?

              1. This is a good point. Look at the gamut run by people who enable child fuckers. Some are sneaky and insidious forwarding their sick goals by guile and deceit. Others just come in for bore blasting out asylum for baby rapists at full volume. So clearly if the shittiest people on earth can contain such diversity of temperaments so can the only serious political ideology left in the world.

              2. “You’re clearly being defensive because when Ken mentioned “sea of irrational Trump supporters” you took it personally.”

                Like you do when we point out you want to import child rapists you mean?

                1. Liar.

                  1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                    Lololollololololololololololoo

                    1. Liar.

                    2. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    3. Liar.

                    4. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

              3. If I were a Trump supporter you may have a point (though you and your I’ll continuous TDS has made me more empathetic to him and his supporters). Calling out after hominems attacks is not a sign of defensiveness it is being intellectually honest, which I realize you can’t recognize because you lack intellectual integrity.

        2. “Being in a sea of irrational Trump supporters: translation I am smarter than everyone else why should they have different ideals then me?”

          Actually, I’m just reading the statements of people Gillespie quoted and noticing that their arguments are irrational.

          “The fact remains that if border security and people’s openness to immigration are connected in the American mind, rationally or irrationally, then the kind of open legal immigration we want depends on securing the border.”

          —-Ken Shultz

          Actually, I was making the point that the rationality of Trump supporters’ arguments for securing the border is irrelevant if the thing that’s holding back a more open legal immigration policy is a lack of border security. If border security is the price of a more open legal immigration policy, then it is what it is regardless of whether their arguments are rational.

          If you were smarter, soldiermedic, I wouldn’t have to explain that to you.

          1. Ken at anytime in my above post did I say anything about your quoted last paragraph? No, I didn’t even address it. I spoke only of your constant smugness and your assumption that you are smarter than everyone else. Which you just did again. Thank you for proving my point. In your rush to prove yourself smarter then me, you both failed miserably and actually helped prove the very point about you I was trying to make. Thank you, you are the quintessential barracks lawyer. As for your self quoted paragraph (which again I didn’t address at all except in your fevered brain) I actually think you made a decent point thus my statement:
            “But then you do offer actual thoughts and show some ability at self reflection and criticism.” But you’re narcissism got the better of you and you ended up making a fool of yourself. Keep up the good work, it’s always entertaining watching a dog chaelse it’s tail.

            1. Chase it’s tail.

            2. “Ken at anytime in my above post did I say anything about your quoted last paragraph? No, I didn’t even address it.”

              That’s why I quoted it. You ignored it. The reason I think those people Gillespie quoted are irrational isn’t because I think I’m smarter than everyone who has different ideals. The reason I brought it up was to point out that their irrationality is beside the point–if the point is to achieve a more open legal immigration policy.

              I’ve been arguing around here since, well, for years and years that Democracy has its proper purview, and immigration policy is within it. We do and should accept stupid immigration policies if they’re popular even if they’re stupid. If the American people won’t accept an open legal immigration unless the border is secure, then that’s the way it is–whether it’s stupid or not. But if you think I have to pretend stupid arguments are smart because of democracy or anti-elitism or whatever, you’re out of your mind.

              We have to respect democracy–within its proper purview–even if it’s stupid. The Constitution does a pretty good job of making these distinctions. It gives enumerated powers to Congress (democracy) like the power to declare war, the power to ratify treaties, and the power to set the rules of naturalization, and it does that because imposing such things on the American people over their objections and against their will is incompatible with a free society–regardless of whether their opinions are stupid.

              1. The Constitution also separates out things that have no business being subject to democracy. For instance, the First Amendment starts out, “Congress shall make no law . . . “. No the popularity of someone’s religion or speech isn’t and shouldn’t be subject to its popularity or democracy. But if you think that means I have to pretend that every stupid religion is smart or that every stupid thing people say is smart, you’re out of your mind.

                Irrational arguments are irrational regardless of whether they should be respected, and I will never sit here like some idiot progressive and pretend like somebody’s stupid argument is smart just because their ideals are different from mine and we have to make everybody feel special. Fuck that. Anybody who doesn’t like being called out for their irrationality should avoid that by avoiding irrationality–and that goes for idiot Trump supporters and idiot progressives alike.

                1. I didn’t ignore it, I didn’t address it because it wasn’t the subject of my response. Not very difficult to understand.

  14. It’s bad for America to take too many educated and successful people from other countries, he said, because it will create a brain drain and vacuum in those sender countries. That’s a strange sort of empathy to my ears, but it’s a line of argument that conservatives are developing to bolster their anti-immigration policies.

    Actually, that’s a line of reasoning the Democrats used to use – foreigners should be allowed to come over here and get good educations as doctors and engineers and scientists but then they have a duty to go back home and make their own societies a better place. You know, individuals must sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective.

    Of course, Trump is also more like the old-school Democrats in other ways, the whole “New York values” thing, the patrician Rockefeller Republicanism, the pro-“reasonable” gun control stance, etc. Which shouldn’t be surprising since Trump was a Democrat before he was a Republican.

    Since the Democrats have morphed into Socialists, the GOP is (more openly) morphing into the Democratic Party and there’s damn few real conservatives left. They’ve forgotten that power is supposed to be a means to an end and not an end unto itself, all they care about is getting elected and you’re not getting elected telling voters Uncle Sam is not Santa Claus.

  15. They should play a fun team-building game at CPAC. Those who are virgins go to one corner, those who fuck through holes in their sheets go to another, and those who engage in marital rape to another. Then everybody go back to their hotel and fuck a hooker.

    1. I thought conservatives were all closeted gays.

      Anyway, as far as fucking through holes in sheets, why would they jizz all over their nice clean Klan uniforms?

      1. Say what you will about the Klan, their laundry game is top-notch.

      2. Why would Democrats be at CPAC?

        1. Are you harshing my stereotypes?

    2. Hey Tony, at the progtard get together they should okay a game. Where al, the kiddie rapists like you go to ome side, and then there is no one left on the other.

      Maybe you and Jeffy can go hang out. Fucking pederast.

      1. The problem with me is you can’t get under my skin. But you might do better if you weren’t so blind drunk that your posts look like you were just mashing a keyboard with your palms.

        1. I know I can’t get under your skin. You’re a sociopath. You have no real feelings. I’ve said that many times. I just like being a dick.

          And my typing isn’t too bad for using a tablet. So piss off.

        2. Right but those lesions sure can.

          Lol you are so easy to troll. Old sexually frustrated gay guys like you are the saddest people on earth. like Gloria Swanson in sunset boulevard.

        3. “The problem with me is you can’t get under my skin. ”

          Sure I can, I can just talk about your tiny dick and watch you freak the fuck out.

  16. I’m gonna say it. I don’t think Trump is a nondrinker. I think he says that to cover for the fact that he drinks heavily, and in the morning. It would fit his lying pattern.

    1. I’ve always thought that his not drinking was one of the reasons he was such a narcissistic asshole. I thought that long before he got into politics.

      1. His drug of choice is praise of himself. He’ll go to the worst shithole place to score a hit. North Korea is his alley behind the titty bar.

        1. It seems to be a drug you also partake of, since you never defend your position, you just assume you’re always right and anyone who disagrees with you does so put of ignorance, for nefarious reasons, or both. That is champion level of narcissism. Yet, ironically enough, you like to call out others narcissism while revelling in yours. Hypocrisy that name is Tony.

          1. To y really represents the worst humanity has to offer.

          2. Well I’m not blaming anyone for his mental illnesses. I may be an attention-craving narcissist who thinks he’s right about everything, but I have had the judgment to rule out running for president and inflicting myself on the entire world.

            1. Yet you insist on coming on here and imposing your peurile outlook on the rest of us who would prefer an honest debate.

              1. No you wouldn’t. At the very least you’re not badgering the 90% of the Reason population who do nothing but lick Trump nutsack. Is that a component of honest debate?

                1. You’re more fun. And I did address them quite often in 2016, and pointed out their inability to see facts. You, however, are now more unhinged than they are. And you make more outrageous claims then they do on average. As for Shitlord, why engage him, he owns his trollishness and seems unrepentant. I have actually debated LC and John and several occasions, especially with LC in regards to his Luddite views on nuclear power. I ask you in good faith questions which you never seem wanting to answer, so yes, no I just make derisive comments. However, you are actually better than Kirkland, who is an imbecile.

                  1. Also, you suck up all the oxygen in the room with your sophistry and thus lessen the chances of debate with those I disagree less with. I disagree with you far more than I disagree with them, thus your presence, which is nearly constant, lessens the chance that we will debate with the Trump supporters. If you kept quiet maybe some of us would debate then rather than attack you.

                    1. Debate what though? The very existence of a fact? We’re dealing with a great, glorious wall between worldviews, and that’s why nobody can do anything but bitch at each other. I think I’ve chosen the evidence-based path. I don’t think libertarians and/or Trumpies have. I think there is so precious little common ground on the actual nature of truth. But I’m squarely in the liberal, intellectual tradition, whereas libertarians are proud ideologues (committed to proving themselves right about a hypothesis), and/or Trumpies are just racist rednecks. But ask me a question and I’ll do my best to answer.

                    2. I’m not sure how you can believe you have chosen the evidence based path, when the clear path laid out by those you support leads to nothing but economic destruction and hatred. Why you can’t see the clear pattern that capitalist societies that value liberty are far more tolerant, far more prosperous, is mind blowing.

                      Sure, libertarians have a lot of issues, mostly that a large percentage of them are too stupid to think beyond the NAP’s component of force (completely ignoring fraud, for example).

                      However, libertarians are far, far closer to the policies that would create the most ideal society than any other ideology.

                      Of course, you’ll make the claim that you’re a classical liberal or some other bullshit that is disproven by your authoritarian tendencies and your constant support of authoritarians. Meanwhile you’ll just project those deficiencies on others.

                    3. I value capitalism and individual liberty, not economic destruction and hatred. Glad we cleared that up.

                    4. That’s astonishingly wrong. It’s about the delicate balance between freedom and tyranny. You assume incorrectly that you have answers you can apply universally that will solve a problem (real or fictional), whereas, the libertarian approach is to allow an individual choice. There is no choice in progressivism, only dogmatic adherence to a fictional “diversity” that can never happen.

                    5. I do not assume I have answers I can apply universally. I believe in trial and error, pragmatism, using facts, and discarding a belief when it doesn’t pan out.

                      Libertarians, as you have so nicely reiterated, do think they have the answer for everyone. What on earth makes you think that whatever form of society that comes about by “allowing individual choice” isn’t just as much an overhaul as anything I’d propose? It would, in fact, be vastly more disruptive, if we really applied the policies libertarians want. And most people wouldn’t like it, so you have to do away with democracy to boot.

                  2. I agree. One nice thing I can say about Tony is that he isn’t the imbecile Arty is.

            2. And what makes you think Trump has any mental illness. Stupid accusations do not constitute proof. It really pisses me off that assholes like you are totally incapable of seeing the positive things Trump has done.
              Unemployment is at record lows.
              Black and Hispanic employment is at record highs.
              Americans are finally receiving real pay rises.
              The stock market is at record highs.
              The wall is being constructed as we speak.
              Peace is breaking out on the Korean peninsular.
              He has renegotiated trade deals with Europe, Canada and Mexico.
              He is now in the process of sorting out China for their disgusting trade practices and currency manipulation.
              Trump is in the process of withdrawing troops from the illegal wars in both Syria and Afghanistan.
              For these last 3 actions he should be awarded the Noble prize. Obama got the prize for making a speech just before he destroyed most of the rest of the M.E. in wars which Bush started and he continued.

              I can’t think of any president who has both kept more promises or achieved so much in just over 2 years. And people like you actually believe him to be mentally ill

              1. See, most or all of those are lies, especially the part where Trump is responsible for the good stuff. They also happen to be verbatim Trump talking points. This is just weird and it makes me uncomfortable.

                1. “See, most or all of those are lies”

                  {{cn}}

              2. It’s like you are just regurgitating Trump’s unhinged CPAC speech.

                1. And you’re a person who wants to import child rapists.

                  1. Liar.

                    1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololololololololllll

                    2. Liar.

                    3. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    4. Liar.

                    5. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    6. Liar.

                    7. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    8. Liar.

                    9. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    10. Liar.

                    11. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

  17. Another spirited gathering of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Cruel, Bigoted Immigration Policies and Practices.

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. The US takes in more refugees than any other country.

      1. And bigoted malcontent and right-wing faux libertarians can’t stand it.

        1. Kirkland do you ever get tired of being an imbecile and a bore? You really seem to have some deep seated self doubt that requires you to attack everyone else. It really is quite repugnant. I mean you rarely even come up with new insults or even attempt to expand upon your limited vocabulary. And I have yet to see you make a single cognitive argument. I know I know carry on clinger and something something something about me being angry about losing the culture war and fucking my sister (which I don’t even have one) but why should I expect anything else from an empty suit like you?

          1. He accuses everyone of being a bigot, yet is the biggest bigot of them all.

            1. He just dumb.

              A more mediocre mind has never been seen

              1. And completely repetitive.

  18. He said that what drew him to the GOP was that he believed its policies would help him succeed over the long run and in the long term. “I don’t like to feel like I’m being controlled,” he said, explaining what he didn’t like about Democrats, especially people such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Amira and Batya agreed that the leftward feint by contemporary Democrats turned them off too.

    Selfish.

  19. “The president is conflating closing the borders with tightening national security and it seems to be popular with many newcomers.”

    Open borders advocates shocked to learn that legal immigrants don’t confuse themselves with illegal immigrants, news at 11

    1. There’s plenty of illegals that support limited or closed borders, as well, as long as those closest to them get through the door before it closes. Even the ones that bitch about Trump only consider the borders of majority-white countries to be violable and racist, as a type of third-world reverse-colonialism.

      Only radical leftists believe that there should be no borders at all.

      1. A few leftists, mostly libertarians. Most people want sensible immigration and border control. Bigoted malcontents and right-wing extremists crave authoritarian immigration policies and practices.

        1. Try a different programmed response, hicklib.

          1. I would say whoever designed KirjlAnfs algorithm needs to learn how to code. It’s pretty fucking simplistic. I know, I know carry on clinger. I’ll save you the trouble if responding Kirkland. At least Tony occasionally comes up something semi-original. Rarely, but it has been known to happen.

            1. Kirkland’s algorithm

        2. Big beautiful wall coming soon. You are going to rage stroke out. Wins on ice baby.

  20. While conceding that all Republicans are pro-life

    Javier must have been unaware of the 2016 Independent Republican pro-choice ticket of Gary “GayJay” Johnson and William “Republican for Hitlery” Weld.

  21. Oh great the gangs all here Tony, Kirkland and Jeffy. All we need is one Hihn’s sock puppets. Do the have some secret signal that brings them running to flood message boards with poorly constructed strawmen, ad hominems and outright bigotry against anyone they even slightly disagree with?

    1. Do the have some secret signal

      Yeah, it’s called “Saturday afternoon and there’s no college football on TV”.

      1. Yeah, you miss watching all those tight ends.

        1. I have a friend who is so addicted to gay sex that he started doing amateur porn just to get fucked more.

          He was less obsessed with gay sex than you are.

          1. Hey, what’s wrong with being obsessed with gay sex? Even though I am happily married in a heterosexual relationship, doesn’t mean I am not still attracted to men and like to jerk off to gay, tranny or bi mmf porn (the last is my favorite).

            1. Obviously I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, but I do draw the line at involving children, which is something Shitlords is possibly even more fixated on.

              1. I’m glad your standards are higher than chemjeff’s

              2. I see you as a chickenhawk Tony. Though probably not into pre pubescent boys.

                1. I’m not ruling out becoming a chickenhawk when I’m old enough to be one (I bought a house near my old college just in case), but for now I tend to like people around my own age. Having a conversation with a college freshman can be exhausting, though sometimes they can be nice to watch as they jog.

      2. Jeff, I wish you could have a meaningful debate, because I enjoy debate. You, however, seem less interested in listening to others then in deriding those who disagree with you. You claim to the contrary, but I have seen little evidence other than your own self proclamation.

        1. I give as good as I get.

          If you treat men with respect, I will treat you with respect.

          If you insult me and call me names and assume bad motives and troll me, then I will do the same to you.

          1. Bullshit, the first time I tried to engage in honest debate with you you reverted to calling me racist and stated the only reason I wanted to secure the border with Mexico was to keep out brown people. You are never magnanimous. I call bullshit. Try again!

            1. You’re going to have to remind me of the context of this conversation.

              1. I was arguing for increased border security and more liberal legal immigration. You made a reference to my dislike of illegal border crossings being because I don’t like brown people. It was one of the first things you said to me. Since then you have repeated this line multiple times about me and anyone who doesn’t believe in full open borders. I’ve often seen you make the argument at the beginning of a thread, the first comment.

                1. Unprovoked as it is. I’ve also seen you and mtrueman feeding off on another using this line. And similar ones.

                2. You’ll have to provide a link to the discussion. I may have been too hasty, who knows.

                  1. You want to import child rapists. WE KNOW you have shitty judgement.

                    1. You are a liar, Tulpa, and a troll.

                    2. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollol

                    3. Liar.

                    4. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    5. Liar.

                    6. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    7. Liar.

                    8. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    9. Liar.

                    10. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

          2. And as for giving as good as you get, your fooling yourself and yes I insulted you because you just tried to insult me with that bullshit post. You inferred you were always the injured party, which everyone here knows is pure, 100% horse pucky.

          3. But at least you’re a tad more honest than mtrueman, Tony or Kirkland. But I don’t think that’s saying much.

          4. You give as good as you get, jeff?

            [Nardz|3.2.19 @ 1:27PM|#

            [[chemjeff radical individualist|3.2.19 @ 5:45AM|#
            “so opposed to conservative notions of responsibility”
            “How so? I don’t think anyone here argues that people ought to be free from the responsibility of their own choices.
            Many people here DO take offense at the idea that there is some collective responsibility based on appeals to patriotism, rather than based on what an individual freely agrees to.”]]

            This is inconsistent with your contention that child rape while awaiting hearing for an asylum claim does not necessarily disqualify an individual from deserving asylum based on that individual’s membership in an oppressed class]

            1. [chemjeff radical individualist|3.2.19 @ 3:16PM|#
              Oh good grief. It’s been two days and you still misrepresent my argument.
              “deserving asylum based on that individual’s membership in an oppressed class.”
              I never argued this position. That is wholly one of your inventions.]

              [Nardz|3.3.19 @ 12:20AM|#

              [[chemjeff radical individualist|2.28.19 @ 5:00PM|#
              I advocate that asylum matters more about what the OPPRESSOR does rather than what the OPPRESSED does.]]
              ]

              1. Yes, Nardz. What the OPPRESSOR does to individuals. If the OPPRESSOR doesn’t do anything to me, even if I share some group membership with those who are oppressed, then my claim of asylum ought to be rejected. See how that works? But who cares. It’s not like you actually give a shit about this issue. It’s all just about trolling.

                1. “chemjeff radical individualist|3.3.19 @ 11:29AM|#

                  Poor Shithead. He knows he is losing so all he can do is troll.”

                  You mean trolling like “you’re losing so all you can do is troll” like you did you importer of child rapists.

                  1. I do not and have never advocated importing child rapists. That is a slanderous lie.

                    It’s people like you who make me reconsider my support for CDA Section 230.

                    1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    2. Liar.

                    3. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    4. Liar.

                    5. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

  22. Come on Gillespie, you’re not that dense.

    After hearing my Italian former sister-in-law rail on illegal immigrants, I can tell you exactly why LEGAL immigrants support Trump: They are infuriated by the fact that they stood in line, paid thousands of dollars, and waited for years to simply be able to work in the US, while if they had crossed the Rio Grande without telling anyone they could get a job, no questions asked.

    Not only would they get a job, they’d have a legion of politicians, university professors, and businessmen seeking to protect their status and ensure they obtain the full benefits of citizenship without any of the obligations.

    Such blatant unfairness naturally breeds resentment, resentment that leads to politicians like Trump getting elected. And if left unaddressed, it will lead to politicians even worse than Trump.

    And in the face of these obvious facts Reason still pretends that only racist white rednecks oppose illegal immigration.

    1. Poor people from Latin America have virtually no avenue in the established process. And what Trump is scaremongering about (even though illegal immigration is down year by year) are refugees. At any rate, it doesn’t hurt anybody, so anyone giving a fuck is being at best irrational in the way you describe (like, mind your own business), or irrational in more sinister ways. Either way, it’s not a real thing. It’s tried-and-true racist populism. I guess fat asshole fascists keep using it because it works. Pay attention to something that matters.

      1. Why is the plight of poor Latin America the sole responsibility of the USA. If these people are not capable of building prosperity in their own then why should America simply allow these people to literally barge into the country. The politicians in America are elected to serve the will of those who elect them, not the wishes of people in other countries. They are the servants of the people, not the masters or overseers.

        1. So in what ways do you think the US should intervene in Latin America so that conditions resulting naturally in refugees are mitigated? I think we can handle them, and I also think we are in a position to affect global economics, and I think we should do both. Building a wall is one way to go about things, but it’s a bit of a hamfisted approach, and hardly in the small-government tradition.

          1. “So in what ways do you think the US should intervene in Latin America so that conditions resulting naturally in refugees are mitigated? ”

            None.

      2. “Poor people from Latin America have virtually no avenue in the established process”

        And? They have no right to demand one.

    2. ” They are infuriated by the fact that they stood in line, paid thousands of dollars, and waited for years to simply be able to work in the US, while if they had crossed the Rio Grande without telling anyone they could get a job, no questions asked.”

      Your relatives sound like morons. What the hell are they waiting for years paying thousands of dollars for while they can waltz in over the Rio Grande, no questions asked. An entrepreneurial society favors the bold, those willing to take a risk. Your paper pushing form filling relatives will always find themselves at the back of the line in a society that rewards initiative.

      1. Your point of view is vile, but there is a certain amount of truth to it. We have been incentivizing lawless behavior, and it needs to stop. Trump is trying to do that.

        1. “Trump is trying to do that.”

          Trump is trying to cut back on waiting and paperwork? I wouldn’t say that. Rather he’s trying to capitalize on the resentment of those left behind in society. Like the preposterous idea that foreigners are the source of all our troubles.

          1. To be fair, they’re not nearly as bad as American leftists.

            1. “To be fair, they’re not nearly as bad as American leftists.”

              Or rightists, you might ad. The typical illegal has more gumption and courage and resourcefulness than your typical legal American regardless of his/her political beliefs.

    3. Then your relatives don’t truly understand the Rube Goldberg machine that is the US legal immigration system.

      Your relatives probably had to wait about 6-7 years between applying for residency, and actually receiving a green card. That’s a long time. Plus there were a ton of expenses and lawyer’s fees and doctor’s fees and forms to fill out and deadlines to meet and all sorts of crap. That was terrible that the US government made your relatives go through all of that crap.

      But guess what. Compared to immigrants from Mexico, it was downright speedy. The wait time for family visas from Mexico is *over 20 years*.

      http://travel.state.gov/conten…..-2019.html

      So maybe next time you see your Italian relatives, you can mention this little factoid. Maybe that might change their point of view some. Of course I don’t really expect you to, but hey, hope springs eternal.

      1. “If it’s hard to get a date with that dime piece, just rape her – it’s only fair.”
        -chemjeff

        1. So violating immigration law is equivalent to rape. Is that your argument? Really?

          1. No jeff, it’s yours.

            And it aligns nicely with your desire to import child rapists.

            1. Liar.

              1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                Lololollololo

                1. Liar.

                  1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                    Lololollololo

                    1. Liar.

                    2. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    3. Liar.

                    4. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

                    5. Liar.

                    6. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                      Lololollololo

        2. Would you care to explain why there ought to be a waiting time of up to 20 years for legal immigration from Mexico to the US? Why is this an appropriate length of time?

          1. If we had real border security and sorted out the bullshit with the illegals, maybe we could then alter and improve the immigration process so it doesn’t take so long.

          2. “chemjeff radical individualist|3.2.19 @ 11:59PM|#
            Would you care to explain why there ought to be a waiting time of up to 20 years for legal immigration from Mexico to the US? Why is this an appropriate length of time?”

            No, I don’t really care.
            It doesn’t change the fact that your argument is because something is hard and you might not get what you want, fuck everyone else and impose your will regardless of law or their desires.
            Might as well just rape that chick who declined your invitation for a dare, or rob that bank that declined your million dollar withdrawal.
            Fuck that progressive shit

            1. No, I don’t really care.

              I know you don’t. Screw those foreigners. Who gives a shit about them, amirite?

              It doesn’t change the fact that your argument is because something is hard and you might not get what you want, fuck everyone else and impose your will regardless of law or their desires.

              That depends on whether or not the law itself is a just law.

              1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                Lololollololo

                1. Liar.

                  1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                    Lololollololo

          3. “chemjeff radical individualist|3.2.19 @ 11:59PM|#

            Would you care to explain why there ought to be a waiting time of up to 20 years for legal immigration from Mexico to the US?”

            Because sometimes that is how long it takes.

            Now you, the supporter of importing child rapists, needs to explain why they get to demand it be shorter.

            1. Oh fuck off Tulpa.

              1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                Lololollololo

                1. Liar.

                  1. Do you think anyone cares that you call others “liar” when you want to import child rapists?

                    Lololollololo

    4. Not only would they get a job, they’d have a legion of politicians, university professors, and businessmen seeking to protect their status and ensure they obtain the full benefits of citizenship without any of the obligations.

      So put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead and tear up your papers. Birth certificate, driver’s license, social security card – go ahead and burn them all. And then go speeding on the highway, get stopped by the police, and say “oh but I don’t have any papers” and see what happens. According to you, there will be legions of supporters coming out of the woodwork to give you benefits and handouts and money and support because you’re one of those poor poor undocumented individuals suffering under Trump’s racist regime. Right? That is what you really think happens to undocumented people, right?

      1. You never read what you write, chemjeff, do you?

        Guess that might help explain your “denying child rapists asylum in the US is an endorsement of oppression” position…

        1. Just fuck off. Go back to 4chan or wherever.

        2. Which article did he do say that? Or is that one of the threads Reason recently deleted?

          It’s certainly believable. Jeffy does want absolutely no screening of anyone crossing our border. So I’m certain he has no problem with kiddie raping foreigners coming here. Since in his little mind we have no standing to tell them otherwise.

    5. If you think being here without citizenship is so superior to being here with citizenship, then renounce your citizenship. According to you, it would be a net benefit! So what’s standing in the way? Hmm?

      1. So,e of us are patriots, and value our citizenship and this country. Unlike you.

  23. I earned $8000 last month by working online just for 6 to 9 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.
    Try it, you won’t regret it!…..

    SEE HERE >>=====>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  24. “It’s bad for America to take too many educated and successful people from other countries”

    We ARE taking all of their possible agitators and (classically) liberal revolutionaries. Long term it could be argued to be bad for America. The more liberalized other countries are, the better for humanity, including America.

    But those aren’t the ones the Democrats want, they want those that they can buy votes from with other people’s money.

  25. In America the reason for restricting immigration is always the same. The immigrants are chinging the culture faster than the current inhabitants can handle. A generation or two of assimilation and things will change again.

    1. Yeah but Latin American immigrants aren’t changing culture in Alabama or Wyoming where they still vote on the hysteria. Everywhere they actually are, people seem to be fine with it. I know the food alone enriches my life at least as much as anything done by a dead white guy.

      I do remember when people used to get really pissed off about having to press 1 for English. It was such a hardship, practically state-enforced indentured servitude. Seems like most of us have gotten used to it.

    2. ” A generation or two of assimilation and things will change again.”

      Who assimilates who? That’s the question that keeps the conservatives here awake at night.

  26. Well I’m done with the copy-paste war with Tulpa.
    As usual, he comes in to a thread, shits all over it with his trolling, along with his troll buddies who evidently are not mature enough to discuss a morally complex topic without resorting to demagoguery and name-calling.

    ONCE AGAIN:

    If your position is “no asylum for Bad People, even if they are fleeing legitimate persecution”, then you are giving the green light to oppressive governments that it’s okay to oppress people as long as it’s Bad People that they are oppressing.

    If your position is “grant asylum to everyone”, then it weakens the entire concept of asylum itself, and granting admittance to people who aren’t really being oppressed in any meaningful way.

    The trolls on either side will of course demagogue the issue. We see here on display the demagogues on the right, saying “how dare you want to ‘import child rapists’!” Then there are the demagogues on the left, saying “how dare you want to turn away desperate people!” Sober, mature, thinking people in the middle can perhaps have a thoughtful discussion on the difficult moral choices to be made. Evidently that’s not possible here though.

    So, fine. Keep out the Bad People. Don’t be specific about what that means, don’t even acknowledge the moral choices associated with such a position, but be smug in your virtue-signaling that you have done what felt right to you. Congratulations! You have the critical thinking skills of a 6th grader!

    1. No replies then? Yeah, I didn’t think any of you trolls would actually engage in the issue in a substantive manner.

      1. Well yeah why would we, we saw you admit you want to import child rapists. You got pilloried and are now trying desperately to save face.

        1. What, you mean you don’t want to actually have an adult discussion on the topic of asylum? You just want to troll? No way!

          1. An “adult discussion” wouldn’t disingenuously frame child rapists as generalized victims of oppressive governments that need asylum, and argue that anyone who doesn’t agree with your position approves of that oppression taking place. Yeah, child rapists don’t deserve asylum. People claiming that they deserve it under the rules of some stupid oppression stack have no credibility.

            1. An “adult discussion” wouldn’t disingenuously frame child rapists as generalized victims of oppressive governments that need asylum

              I never claimed that.

              I never claimed that a child rapist was a victim *because he was a rapist*.

              My claim all along was what to do about asylum applicants, asking for asylum based on a real claim of legitimate oppression, but who aren’t saints themselves.

              What if, say, a thief is being persecuted for his religious views, and the thief claims asylum based on that persecution? Would you reject the application because “hey, he’s a thief”? If you do, then you are giving a green light to all the oppressive governments in the world that it’s okay to oppress Bad People because other nations won’t accept their asylum applications.

              1. No, you claim it’s ok that he’s a child rapist because he’s a victim. Then you claim that if the child rapist is a legitimate victim of oppression by his home government, anybody who won’t accept him into the country is a bad person who endorses government oppression.

                It’s an idiotic position, and you’re psychotic.

                1. No, you claim it’s ok that he’s a child rapist because he’s a victim.

                  I never once said that. That is your dishonest projection. I never once excused child rape or tried to justify child rape.

                  Then you claim that if the child rapist is a legitimate victim of oppression by his home government, anybody who won’t accept him into the country is a bad person who endorses government oppression.

                  You are the one casting moral judgment, not me, on those who won’t accept asylum applications.

                  I’ve said over and over again what my actual position is. You are a gaslighting troll trying to put words in my mouth and create a false narrative about me. And a hideously slanderous one at that. Go fuck off.

                  1. Yes we know, you want to import child rapists.

  27. ?Google pay 95$ consistently my last pay check was $8200 working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 15k all through ongoing months and he works around 24 hours consistently. I can’t confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern…GOOD LUCK .

    click here =====?? http://www.Geosalary.com

  28. We aren’t against immigrants or immigration.

    We are against illegal immigration.

  29. Great article. Thanks for sharing this post, It is really a valuable article. Please keep sharing.
    Gregory Finkelson

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.