Fascism

Restrictionism Is the Road to Fascism in America, Not Open Door Policies

Neocon David Frum has it exactly backwards.

|

President Donald Trump's draconian border enforcement is provoking an equal and opposite reaction from Democrats, who

Border Barrier
Polaris/Newscom

are ditching past qualms to become unabashed advocates of more humane and open border policies. This has put Atlantic writer David Frum, a neo-conservative-turned-#NeverTrumper, in a tizzy. If Democrats don't do an about-face, they'll put America on the path to fascism, he warns, because "if liberals won't enforce borders, fascists will."

Though certainly bold, Frum's prophesy—it would be wrong to call it a prediction as it admits no uncertainty—is politically simplistic and based on stunningly questionable premises.

To be sure, Frum doesn't embrace every right-wing, anti-immigrant trope. He acknowledges "immigrants are making America safer" because they commit fewer crimes than the native-born population. And he grudgingly accepts that immigrants might be a net economic boon, though he disputes the extent of their fiscal contributions.

But Frum's fevered imagination takes over from there, turning even good things about immigrants into bad news. Most absurdly, he admits immigrants abuse drugs and alcohol at half Americans' rate but twists this into blame for Washington's lackluster response to the opioid crisis. (In Frum's telling, employers would have noticed the absence of their drug-addled American workers sooner were there no immigrants to fill the gaps.)

Likewise, Frum concedes immigrants perform dangerous jobs like drywalling and roofing — only to argue that because they're too powerless to demand labor reforms, they "set back the ideal" of equity. He doesn't seem to have considered that a better cure for these equity concerns might be creating portable guest worker programs without the present visa rules that make workplace advocacy so risky.

Himself a Canadian immigrant, Frum also fears mass immigration is fundamentally changing America's character. Some 45 million foreign-born people live in the U.S., he notes, and by 2027, they'll represent 14.8 percent of the population. That matches the "1890 historic high," which was swiftly followed by the rise of the nativist Know-Nothings and the strict immigration limits they demanded.

Frum does not explain why, a century later, 14.8 percent is still a meaningful metric, nor does he say whether he'd be as worried about "mass immigration" if the bulk of these immigrants were from non-"shithole" countries like Denmark. Canada is already 20 percent foreign-born; Australia is 28 percent; and neither is plagued by the looming fascism Frum envisions being triggered by a lower proportion of immigrants here in the United States.

Though a #NeverTrumper who willingly calls out the president's "demagoguery" about the Central American migrant caravan, Frum's own take on the caravan is functionally similar. He insists that "however manipulatively oversold, the caravan existed; it was not a lie. … Thousands of people were indeed approaching the U.S. border, many hoping to force their way across by weight of numbers."

But it was a lie.

Caravaners travel together for safety, not force, and in nearly 8,000 words, Frum neglects to mention that the overall number of migrants flocking to the border is at near historic lows since 2000, even with the caravans en route. (Trump's harsh rhetoric likely contributed to a February spike in the number of families apprehended, as fear that the border would be closed and asylum options canceled prompted many families to migrate sooner than they'd planned. But a sustained spike is still probably not enough for border crossings to reach 2000 levels.) The composition of would-be immigrants has changed, too: More families fleeing the Northern Triangle countries are flocking to the U.S. border, while the number of single Mexican men has dropped to a trickle.

If there were a true border crisis, Trump's anti-immigration tirades would have wide resonance outside of his base. Hard-hit border towns would jump into Trump's camp. In reality, the opposite has happened. Along the 2,000-mile Mexican border that spans four states and nine House districts, only one seat is held by a Republican, Texas Rep. Will Hurd. He's a persistent critic of Trump's border policies.

So far from shrinking, support for increased immigration has gone up in the age of Trump. Only 24 percent of Americans back cutting legal immigration in contrast to the 40 percent who did in 2006, per the Pew Research Center. To be sure, the partisan divide on immigration has widened, but that's more because Democrats have shifted towards open immigration than because Republicans have become more restrictionist. More crucially for gauging future trends, young people in both parties increasingly believe immigrants strengthen the country, with 58 percent of millennial Republicans holding that view compared with 36 percent of Gen Xer Republicans.

Frum dismisses this rising pro-immigration sentiment as an anti-Trump effect not to be taken seriously. But that's ridiculous. Indeed, the reaction to Trump shows Americans simply don't have the stomach for the kind of harsh enforcement Frum and his fellow restrictionists seek.

It would be politically stupid for Democrats to take Frum's advice and abandon their own base to embrace his prescription, which includes 50 percent cuts in legal immigration—the harshest proposal on the table—and doubling down on border enforcement by building more detention and deportation facilities. (Incidentally, Frum's idea of "humane"—as opposed to "fascist"—enforcement involves keeping families together in prison-like detention camps instead of separating kids from parents.)

In fact, the more Republicans dig in on their restrictionism to court older, white voters, a shrinking share of the population, the more sense it'll make for Democrats to make immigration-friendly policies which appeal to young and ethnic voters a major plank of their platform. Democrats are realizing this, as evidenced by their new comfort with the more unadulterated pro-immigration stance that so bothers Frum.

The Democratic presidential primaries for 2020 will serve as a field test for various shades of immigration-friendly positions. Former Rep. Beto O' Rourke (Texas), born and bred in the border town of El Paso, is at one end of the spectrum as the consummate anti-Trump. He's made Trump's harsh border policies a centerpiece of his campaign and is not only opposed to building a wall, but, in a Reaganesque stroke, has called for tearing down existing barriers. In vivid contrast with Trump's crude immigrant bashing, O'Rourke offers a fundamentally positive vision of immigrants as crucial to America's future success, just as they were to its past. Other Democratic candidates aren't articulating the same message, but none are flirting with Trumpism.

Trump yells "the immigrants are coming" and Frum "the fascists are coming." Hysterically worrying about the former will make the latter much more likely.

Contra Frum, Democrats should not do border restrictionists' work for them.

This column originally appeared in The Week

NEXT: Privacy-Minded Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Stop NSA from Collecting Your Phone Records

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. What is with your obsession over importing as many people as humanly possible? You do know that immigration will not cease until everyone who wants to come to the US does so. That would mean a country that was equal with Guatemala and Nigeria in terms of living standards.

    I don’t want to live like that. I don’t want to live in a country where my only option is to live in a gated community or way out in the sticks just to avoid extreme poverty. I don’t want to pass on a country that is poorer than what I inherited.

    Yes the net effect of open borders is to make the WORLD better off, but I don’t give a damn about the world.

    People like you are parasites, incapable of building anything, look at you, you couldn’t build your own country up. So you latch on to a more prosperous host and then suck the life out of it. Heck you don’t even have a real job, your existence is provided by charity; like my cousin with down syndrome who’s company doesn’t exist for profit but to provide jobs for people like him.

    Libertarianism is a death cult, willing to sell their children’s future for a few more dollars today.

    1. What we need are more parody accounts.

      1. I think you, chipper and OBL kind of have it covered.

      2. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??.
        VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
        >>=====>>>> http://www.AproCoin.Com

    2. You should be kicked out of this country. You haven’t demonstrated your worth. You think just because you were born here you get to stay? I don’t think so.

      1. Your lack of attachment to your own tribe or country, while Nobel in the grand scheme of humanity, is utterly useless in the real world.

        1. Here’s a good read for those who still have an open mind…

          http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..ion-policy

          Summary: Immigration good, tribalism bad!

          (All who think free movement of people and species are bad, go back to Africa, where humanoids came from!)

          1. Is it not true that the end result of open borders would be a world in which the United States is no more attractive than any other nation?

            And tribalism exists whether or not autistic libertarians like it. People are not interchangeable cogs with no attachment to the groups around them.

            So yes, I have an attachment to the Americans who are here right now, that includes Americans of all colors and Creed’s. Sue me.

            1. Not bad…

            2. I am buying front row tickets to your first battle with OBL.

            3. We have shitloads and buttloads of future Leninists and Stalinists born here every day… And Comrade Bernies as well. If the ideas of individual freedom can triumph over them… And I believe that they can… Then the good ideas, by their very truth, can triumph over Leninists and Stalinists born in other lands, as well. The truth will set us free!!!

              1. It’s not the political opinions of people I’m worried about, it’s their poverty. From that poverty flows socialist voting patterns.

                In addition to voting patterns, the importation of poverty waters down the safety net we currently have, as it is spread thin between more and more people.

                I know libertarians don’t care about those things, but many people like them. Many people like the idea of knowing they have a minimum living standard which they won’t fall below, hell it’s the reason poor people want to immigrate here.

                But it’s okay, let’s continue importing poverty until the whole thing collapses under the weight of math. I’m sure your libertarian future is bright on your floating garbage off the coast of southeast Asia.

                1. Safety net payouts don’t have a denominator. You get the same amount no matter how many people are on the dole until legislators change it. Maybe debt goes up and maybe they decide to raise taxes, but they don’t seem to be bothering with that lately.

                  Of course, as you people can’t seem to accept because it’s devastating to your case, immigrants, legal or otherwise, only serve as a boon to the safety net, since they are younger than the general population and often pay in without taking out.

                  Also escaping your rationalization is the fact that people come here in order to be less poor and to engage in pure capitalism to do so.

                  You are the socialist. You are describing collective harms and collective solutions involving restricting the freedom of individuals in order to preserve an artificial economy.

                  1. “safety net payouts don’t have a denominator”

                    You are truly math illiterate, resources by their nature are scarce. There is no magical pool of unlimited value just waiting to be extracted by politicians. Debt goes up until it can’t, the benefits are cut, if something cannot go on forever then it won’t.

                    And they don’t pay more in than they take out, they have children who need to be educated, they utilize hospitals, they use infrastructure. None of which is close to covered by their $12/hour payroll tax.

                    I also don’t care if you consider me a socialist, it’s just a word.

                    1. You just waxed hysterical about “socialist voting patterns.”

                      Here’s an idea: how about try selling capitalism to them? Common though the misconception may be, skin color does not determine political beliefs.

                    2. It’s an undefined word, maybe I shouldn’t have used it. I’ll keep it simple, since you, like most libertarians are borderline autistic; and think that catching someone using a misplaced word “wins” the argument.

                      Here’s my concern
                      1. Importing more poor will strain the existing safety net. As poor people consume more tax dollars than they produce.
                      2. The poor will vote to expand the safety net beyond what it currently is, as they are poor and their reaction is natural.

                      Is that argument laid out well enough for you?

                    3. It’s just not supported by data.

                    4. Please give me the math showing how a family of 5, father as a landscaper, mother as a hotel maid and their 3 children can pay more in taxes than they consume.

                    5. From Trump’s alma mater, no less.

                      Relevant to your point:

                      Immigrants in general ? whether documented or undocumented ? are net positive contributors to the federal budget. However, the fiscal impact varies widely at the state and local levels and is contingent on the characteristics of the immigrant population ? age, education, and skill level ? living within each state.

                      You are not wrong to claim that sometimes immigrants are a relative tax burden in local jurisdictions (school, etc.), but the overall picture is positive, and if anything this is an argument for investing in their education, since it later makes the numbers better at the local level. Chin up!

                    6. “and if anything this is an argument for investing in their education”

                      Actually it’s an argument for keeping the net takers out.

                      But you’re stupid so you don’t umderstand that.

                    7. Here’s your math:

                      See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/bus…..es/499604/

                      We the native-born are the moochers. The illegal sub-humans pay and pay and pay into Social Security, and will never benefit from it. But we will mooch off of this to prop up Social Security for us..

                    8. The Atlantic?!?!?

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAJAJAJHAHAHHA

                2. Anti-immigrant hysteria (with “fixing” efforts funded by, who else, Government Almighty) is just the latest round of Government Almighty “fixing” the problems it just created!

                  The collective hive mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that The Collective Hive created, The Collective Hive gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies? And now also property confiscations for wall-building? So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

                  When will we stop the perpetual cycle of Government Almighty always getting bigger, to fix the LAST batch of problems created by excessive Government Almighty?

                  1. That Atlantic article misses a shitton of the subsidies based on what it chooses to exclude. But you knew that asshole.

                    1. He’s Hihn. His arsenal consists of lying, acting crazy, or being stupid. He is physically incapable of anything else.

                    2. OK, so the Atlantic is generally thought of as slightly left-of-center, so we can ignore ALL of what they say, gotcha…

                      http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..ion-policy …

                      Please refute all of what Cato has to say, other than, neener-neener-neener-neener, I can NOT hear you, because I do NOT want to listen!!!

                      Got anything else to say to Cato?

                    3. No. You’re a shit splattering insane person and you get told to fuck off Hihn.

                    4. What a genius-level, BRILLIANT, fact-filled riposte to what the researchers at Cato have so carefully documented!

                      Can we PLEASE all fall down on our knees and worship your brilliant mind and clever tongue?!?!?

                    5. Shut up and take the dick Hihn. It’s all you’re good for, since you’re an insane shit splattering joke.

                    6. CATO is open borders dumb ass. They also skew what payouts they count. They dont count the cost of welfare to American children of illegal immigrants, for example. They exclude the incarceration costs of illegal immigrants. They dont factor in the cost for identity theft. Again, you know this asshole. This gets told to you every thread. But you cant give two fucks because your naive ignorant mind is made up.

                      Open border libertarians are as naive as communists. You exclude basically all negative externalities. dont account for decreased work ethic on average from crossers. Of all crossers were the great workers you claimed they were, their countries wouldnt be destitute. It’s common sense. You dont flood a welfare based country with low levels of educated immigrants. It’s why every country has rules and regulations for legal immigration. If you’re too ignorant to understand this, shut the fuck up when adults are talking.

                    7. OK then all humans are evil because they shit, and shit costs money to dispose of. Let’s just totally ignore the work that they do.

                      Illegal sub-humans are evil, and the native-born (or those blessed with Proper Papers from Government Almighty) are good. From WHERE do we get this truth? Born 5 yards on this side of the border, good… Born 5 yards on the other side, bad… Did God tell us this? Evolution? The Universe? Natural rights? ANY higher, impartial moral source that you can cite? Or just something that you and your fellow collectivist all-is-for-the-Hive, Hive-worshipers, have pulled out of your collectivist asses?

                      “CATO is open borders dumb ass.” … All who disagree with me are wrong, no matter how many facts they trot out. That’s pretty much what you say here…

                    8. Fuck off Hihn you shit splattering ignoramus.

            4. “Is it not true that the end result of open borders would be a world in which the United States is no more attractive than any other nation?”

              There are many countries int he world that are much more attractive than the United States – safer, much less corruption, less threat of the state interfering with your life. Yet for some reason, 350,000,000 Americans don’t move to these places. How can that be?

              Family, friends and familiarity are the most important factors. Most people stay in place for them. And always will.

              1. Yet for some reason, 350,000,000 Americans don’t move to these places. How can that be?

                They control their borders and restrict immigration.

          2. All who think free movement of people and species are bad, go back to Africa, where humanoids came from!)

            Of all of the retarded arguments for open borders, this has to be the most retarded one. Yes, human migration has been going on for all of human history. So what? Lots of things have been going on for all of human history. So has disease murder and death. Are those okay? Mass migrations never work out well for the people living in the targe area of the migration. But, it is, as it always is for you ass clowns, Americans’ duty to sufffer for your principles. You are all just nobel like that.

            1. Says he who will NOT live by his principles, and move back to Africa! Y’all obey my new rules, AFTER I have gotten mine!!!

              1. It takes an especially stupid motherfucker to think I’m going to disadvantage my family just to fit in your clique.

                1. It takes specially narcissistic and self-righteous mothers to push rules for other people to follow, but not follow them, themselves. I’m OK with you not going back to Africa… I’m OK with your ancestors having come here. But don’t be slamming the door, now that you and yours are here, and having self-righteous hissy fits, when others want to do what your ancestors did, while you persist in not un-doing the sins that you now tell others not to commit! Can your wee tad of a brain follow that?

                  You don’t want anyone else to come here? Then go back to Africa! Sounds entirely fair to me! What is good for the goose, is good for the gander! Live by the sword, die by the sword!

                  1. Well since the assertion that I “don’t want anyone else to come here” isn’t accurate, you only succeeded in making yourself look stupid again.

                    1. OK, then, let me take another wild guess… In the innermost secret Holy Mind of “Tony admits he lies and scams” (Which are TOOO Holy and Secret for the rest of us to know…)… I “don’t want anyone else to come here, unless they suck all of the sensual appendages, to include hemorrhoids, of The Holy And High One, Who IS Known As Tulpa / Hihnister One”

                      Am I getting closer? Please, pray, do tell!

                    2. “OK, then, let me take another wild guess… ”

                      No don’t. It will be incalcluably stupid like the rest of your intellectual diarrhea. Save us both the trouble.

                      “Am I getting closer?”

                      Nope. I was right. Your guess was incalcluably stupid like the rest of your intellectual diarrhea.

                      Stick to shitty nursery rhymes and looking like the hobo who stinks of shit and talks to the sky. Your mind-reading schtick sucks.

                    3. Says he-she-it who STILL will not tell us what he-she-it actually thinks and stinks…

                    4. I haven’t ever seen a post from you that would make it matter Hihn. You would ignore it and splatter shit everywhere regardless of what I say, like you already have.

                      Trying to deny it will just get your posts pointed out.

                      Now don’t you have some pedestrians to accost?

                    5. “… regardless of what I say…”

                      Yes, because you NEVER say anything coherent! Do you even know how to post a link, excluding links to the previous nonsense that you have blathered?

                      I know karate and kung fu and mitsubishi and yamaha and kawasaki and 12 other Japanese words, but NONE of them enables me to fight your swirling, stinky farts in the wind, because there is NOTHING to connect to!!!!

                    6. You’re for rough fucking in the ass Hihn. You brought that on yourself.

                      Debating is for people who aren’t insane shit splattering idiots, not you.

                    7. OK, so what point do you want to debate? Other than, you are brilliant, and all who oppose you, are turds?

                    8. With you? Nothing. You’re a shit splattering insane person. Now fuck off Hihn I don’t want you splattering shit all over me.

            2. Murder started in Africa. Therefore murder is good. -open border assholes.

              1. USA Americans good, ferriners bad. -Self-satisfied closed-minded closed-borders smugsters.

                1. As if on cue you show up to splatter more shit Hihn.

                  1. I am smart and all who oppose me are stupid-heads… This is SUCH an obvious High and Holy Truth, that there is NO need for me to do ANYTHING to prove it, other than calling everyone else an icky-poo poopy-head.

                    -Tulpa the Supreme Narcissist

                    1. Jesus Hihn you can’t stop splattering shit everywhere. At least you gave up on pretending not to be Hihn.

                      Now fuck off you shit splattering clown.

          3. There is a slightly updated Cato report on the issue, which discusses the difficulty in accurate statistics regarding crime and Illegal Aliens. Particularly this sentence:
            “49 states do not record the immigration statuses of those in prison or convicted.”

            In the one state that does keep such records, Non-citizens are 142% more likely to have been convicted of a crime. They commit more serious crimes, are more likely to be classified as “dangerous”, and are more likely to be gang members.

            Legal and illegal immigrants are very different populations, and trying to combine them to get more favorable statistics is disingenuous.

    3. Shorter version:
      “We will name-call outcomes of policies we don’t like. We won’t name-call outcomes of policies we like.”

      1. (Sorry. Meant to reply to the main topic.)

    4. @John broseph

      I don’t understand where you or anyone else gets this narrative that open borders activists are compulsive altruists who are willing to give up all the good things in their lives to help the global poor. They aren’t.

      A rising tide lifts all boats. The reason we want to import more people is that people are what make America great. If America had 5 times as many people as it does now it will be 5 times greater. Do you think that if half of all Americans, that the remainder would be richer and better off? The economy would crash from losing all those workers and entrepeneurs.

      Restrictionists try to paint themselves as people who don’t think it’s reasonable that the inhumanely saint-like open borders advocates demand so much sacrifice from them. That’s bunk. Restrictionists are just fools who are throwing away free money because… I honestly don’t know why, they’re just dumb, I guess.

      No one is demanding any sacrifices from you. The reason I want open borders is because I want a cut of the colossal amount of wealth that open borders will generate, for myself and my children. There’s no conflict between selfishness and altruism in this case.

      You are the one who is demanding people make unreasonable sacrifices. You are demanding people give up the economic benefits of open borders for themselves and for their children for no good reason. If you are some kind of ascetic it’s your life. But don’t drag the rest of the country down with you.

    5. Actually given our current path and the nature of the immigrants flooding the country, the path is towards socialism.

      If only we were importing libertarians.

      1. PEW Research on Hispanic Americans, breakdowns by immigration and foreign birth

        https://goo.gl/WBi1BV
        Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
        https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
        Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

        The trend is the same across immigrants generally.
        Import Not Americans, Become Not America

        1. +100

    6. “What is with your obsession over importing as many people as humanly possible? ”

      Because that’s how you destroy America.

  2. Fascism isn’t coming by immigration issues. It’s a sum of the ever creeping removing of freedoms from the peasants only. The ruling class will get to keep them.

    Freedom of speech
    Freedom of religion
    Freedom to bear arms
    Freedom to peacefully assemble
    Freedom to confront your accuser
    Freedom to a fair trial
    Freedom to be left alone
    Ect
    Ect

    Every free country in the world has very restrictive immigration policies. Why the US alone can’t, is beyond reason.

    1. +1000

      1. EXACTLY! Why can’t all these horrible brownies just stay on they’re side of the WALL?!

        We don’t need them terking are jerbs!!

        1. I have a real problem with people on both sides of this issue. There is way too much intentional intellectual laziness.

          Pretending that open borders are a solution is just being a willful Pollyanna. It relies on the premise that people will be rational actors, each independently migrating according to their own individual economic needs.

          But that doesn’t exist in the real world. People here do in point of fact act out of rational self-interest, but they also act out of loyalty, patriotism, etc. In addition to individual incentives, there are group incentives.

          For those who want to pretend that there is no downside to open-borders immigration, I’ll refer you to a thought experiment.

          Let’s pretend that every nation on earth goes to fully open borders tomorrow. What happens?

          Well, tomorrow, nothing.

          1. But very quickly after that, Taiwan ceases to exist as an independent state. China has wanted to annex Taiwan since the minute it claimed the island. 1 billion Chinese means that in an open borders world, they send 30 million folks to Taiwan and then vote to join China. Done and dusted.

            Then Russia takes Georgia without firing a shot.

            Then Jordan sends 20 million Palestinians into Israel. Israel not only ceases to exist, but the newly elected overloards install Sharia law and declare Judaism to be illegal, and practicing it becomes punishable by death.

            That is where real open borders leads. There has to be some sort of limit, or this is the inevitable result. You want that middle-eastern oil? Well, if you are China you just sent 20 million people to live in Kuwait. Then Saudi, etc. After the takeover, you just change the laws to prevent anyone else from doing it later.

            1. So there is a problem in the extreme example.

              3 people immigrate to the US and it has absolutely no impact.

              300 million people come here and the impact is obvious.

              54 million, as we have now? Well, obviously the impact has to be somewhere in between those extremes. It isn’t the destruction of the nation. But it also isn’t nothing.

              1. Stop Cyto you’re making too much sense

                There’s not a single feeling in your entire argument so the left has nothing to retort

                1. Painfully obvious points like these are one of the reasons I adore Orwell. Despite being an avowed Socialist, he is not afraid to point out hard truths his fellow travelers dared not confront.

                  People can talk facts all they want and have statistics bleed out the nose but it seems fairly obvious to me that, one, increased immigration in a time of perceived economic scarcity and slowing growth is downright harmful to democracy. Brexit, Trump, Orban, Le Pen, etc. etc. How many examples do we need? Two, it would downright reshape the culture of the country. Perhaps one does not care about this, but I like our culture. Three, it implies a leveling where the US sinks down to the economic conditions of her neighbors while her neighbors rise. No thanks.

              2. It’s easy to destroy a nation in a 50-50 country.

                The Dems probably don’t win a single Presidential election since Carter, maybe Kennedy, but for immigration.

                And without massive changes, Republicans don’t win another once the next Dem gets in and christens 10-30mil illegals as voters.

                Countries are People
                Import Not Americans
                Become Not America

          2. Pretending that open borders are a solution is just being a willful Pollyanna.

            Open borders isn’t a solution to a problem any more than abolishing licenses to braid hair. The only problem it solves is to end the use of force on peaceful people who have not harmed anyone else.

            1. The only problem it solves is to end the use of force on peaceful people who have not harmed anyone else.

              What magnificent circular reasoning.

        2. “EXACTLY! Why can’t all these horrible brownies just stay on they’re side of the WALL?!”

          Racebaiters gonna Race Bait

          “We don’t need them terking are jerbs!!”
          i.e.
          “Corporate profits Uber Alles!”

          There’s no *libertarian* reason to tailor immigration policy toward a transfer of wealth from labor to capital.

    2. If most of the people pounding on the door were likely to vote R, you can be sure as shit we’d have a restrictive immigration policy.

      1. +10

  3. I suspect that the U.S. will be a fascist country soon, possibly in my lifetime (even though I’m on the downhill side of it). I don’t know that immigration–one way or the other–will be the deciding factor.

    As an aside, I’ll be interested in what progressives have to say about the southern border if they get the comprehensive gun ban they’re thirsting for, or even if they get partway there (e.g. a ban on semi-automatic firearms). Guns will start flowing north across that border, and I wonder if progs will be fine with a southern border that you can walk a circus elephant through in places without anybody noticing.

    1. You would have thought the same thing in 1919, when police and the Bureau of Investigation were busting down doors and throwing hundreds into jail for “sedition”.

      But you would have been wrong. Have faith.

      1. The fact that we dodged that bullet in earlier times is no guarantee that we will the next time.

      2. But you would have been wrong. Have faith.

        What? No. That was fascism and it never really went away. Maybe you have some semblance of free speech nowadays, but it’s still been mostly a command-and-control economy since then.

    2. even though I’m on the downhill side of it

      High five! (But not too hard — my shoulder’s a little stiff today.)

    3. I wonder if progs will be fine with a southern border that you can walk a circus elephant through in places without anybody noticing.

      It won’t affect them one iota. They deliberately isolate themselves in communities where they don’t have to face any of the consequences of their policies.

      Your scenario means the borderlands become the territory of the cartels. That affects a few white ranchers and a shitload of blue-collar and poor Hispanics. Progressives, especially the white upper-middle class that makes up their leadership caste, don’t give a shit if these populations get caught up in a neo-feudal state, as long as none of these same actors show up on their doorstep to kill their children in front them before putting a bullet through their skull.

    4. I suspect that the U.S. will be a fascist country soon

      LOL, it’s been quite fascist since about World War I.

  4. National security is the bulwark against people like YOU Shikha.

    We let you into the USA because of our immigration policies and desire to control who enters the USA.

    You were clearly a mistake to let in, as you hate the USA, but we also get a bunch of good people who want to Americans and want America to do well.

  5. Consorting with willing foreigners is the catchphrase for my 2020 campaign.

    By the way, you know who else consorted with willing foreigners in and around 2015?

    1. Dammit, if you hadn’t thrown the year in there you had a great set up for “Germans”, since the little bastard was Austrian.

  6. Strictly speaking, fascism is about unifying the separation of powers within the executive. Letting the executive inflict immigration policy on the American people without any input from congress might properly be called “fascist” in a descriptive sense.

    Given that, it’s strange to see the word used as a pejorative by someone who wants the executive to ignore democracy’s proper place and the rules of naturalization Congress has set. Was DACA passed by Congress? Wasn’t that just a policy inflicted by the executive?

    If you support the executive violating the separation of powers and congress’ enumerated powers to inflict your preferred immigration policy on the American people that way, without any input from congress as required by the Constitution, then the descriptively fascist person in this equation is you.

    1. George Orwell observed in his essay “Politics and The English Language” that “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” ”

      He wrote that in the 1940s IIRC. It doesn’t appear that anything has changed.

      1. And yet what Orwell was fighting against during the Spanish Civil War wasn’t something he had any problem identifying.

        I defined it well enough. A more technical definition might have referenced nationalism and totalitarianism, but unifying all the power in the executive–rather than a separation of powers–is a crucial ingredient, and, hence, wanting the executive to usurp the enumerated powers of congress and ignore democracy’s proper place is descriptively “fascist”.

        1. Sure. My comment was directed against the author’s use of the term; I agree with yours.

          1. It’s something I think about a lot lately. Been arguing with some younger people with . . . um . . . less evolved ideas about this stuff offline, and it’s been really rubbing me the wrong way.

            Plenty of progressives will tell you that when the cops put a car thief in jail, that’s socialism. It makes ignorant people highly susceptible to the worst bait and switch routine ever. They might not be so vulnerable if they understood that socialism means something specific about nationalizing industry, (in practice) prices set by bureaucrats (instead of markets), and the redistribution of wealth. No, taxing privately owned businesses whose prices are set by markets to build muh roads isn’t an excellent example of socialism–or what we should expect when President Occasio-Cortez takes the White House.

            I feel the same way about fascism. It doesn’t mean something as specific as socialism, but then, there are plenty of people on the right (some come here to comments at Hit & Run) who will tell you that the Nazis were socialists. Why, the Nazis even called themselves socialists!

            I like to give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can’t tell the difference between totalitarianism (which can be right or left) and Fascism, but they’re doing plenty of damage to the cause by blurring the line between socialism and everything else in their own way. Yes, the Nazis sucked, but, no, they weren’t socialists–no matter what Hitler and Goebbels said.

            1. I have definitely seen a shift in the definition of socialism that the Left embraces. When I was younger, if you called Social Security or The Great Society a socialist program they’d go mad with rage. Nowadays they insist that any government action is “socialism” and therefore unless you’re a total anarchist you’re a socialist.

              1. They think socialism is a thing, not a form of government. Taxing for roads is socialism for example.

            2. Ken, the only modification I’d make to your definition of Fascism is its role in the economy. Both socialism and fascism seek to control the economy by the government. Socialists want to control the means of production through voting, which is often done through outright nationalization or through regulations dictating what will be produced, and how. Fascists want to control the means of production through the executive, generally by installing party loyalists at the heads of private industry.

              The hilarious point is that both avowed socialists and crypto fascists often employ a mix of both methods. The real difference comes down to socialists being more democratic than the dictatorial executive. Obama installed union leaders and long time democrat loyalists onto the boards of GM and several banks. As I have said before, the distinctions between the two isms in American politics is almost meaningless, and yet another reason why we should get over our obsession with the European models that have brought no end of horrible -isms to the world in recent history (communism, colonialism, imperialism, etc).

            3. so?cial?ism
              /?s?SH??liz?m/
              noun: socialism
              a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

              The Nazi state owned and controlled most means of production. The definition does not require the state own ALL means of production or that could be Communism.

              I do find it funny that Ken dismisses even Hitler and Goebbels themselves who said over and over and over about how they are Socialists. Even in propaganda, there is an element of truth or the Sheeple will not have a basis to believe it.

              1. “The Nazi state owned and controlled most means of production.”

                Controlled maybe. Owned? Do you have a link for that?

                Deutschland uber alles, as the Nazis had it put everything in the service of the state–from industry and the church to labor and the family. Nazi fascism was both extreme nationalist and totalitarian that way. Totalitarianism can be either right or left–just like authoritarianism. North Korea is a totalitarian regime of the left, and Germany under Hitler was a totalitarian regime of the right.

                Hitler executed all the communists and labor leaders he could catch as soon as he took office because he didn’t want labor unrest getting in the way of his war machine. Hitler followed the model that still exists in Germany today, where half the board members to corporations with more than x number of employees were elected by shareholders and the other half were elected by the employees. This was meant to eliminate the need for labor unions.

                Profits still went to the shareholders, who continued to own the means of production, prices were still generally set by markets, and the redistribution of wealth was not a priority. Hitler’s idea of socialism was that if the Nazis conquered eastern Europe and divided the land among the German people, it would good for all Germans. If that’s socialist, then so were Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan.

                1. In terms of Hitler and Goebbels calling themselves “socialist” by way of “The National Socialist Party”, that was propaganda meant to appeal to blue collar workers who thought of socialism as a good thing. No doubt, they exploited bigotry against Jews in denouncing international capitalism as a Jewish controlled conspiracy. They also called their invasion of Poland a “liberation”. Goebbels official title was “Minister of Propaganda”. The lies of Hitler and Goebbels make Obama and Baghdad Bob look like amateurs. They were among the first totalitarians to exploit mass media for propaganda purposes. Everything they ever said about themselves in public is highly suspect–much better to judge them by their actions rather than their words.

                  1. Goddamn, Ken, you’re more reflexively progressive than I’d previously thought.

                    Explain just what the hell “left” and “right” signify to you, such that you feel there’s a significant difference between North Korea and Nazi Germany.
                    Explain how “everything they said about themselves”, as opposed to “their actions” didn’t match up and proved them not socialists.

                    Nazism, fascism, social democracy, communism are merely types of progressivism. Progressivism is fundamentally socialism; characterized as strong centralized authority, the attempt to create New Man through central planning, and totalitarian.

                    C’mon man. You’re better than buying bullshit paradigms that ignore fundamentals in favor of superficial qualities.

                    1. “Explain just what the hell “left” and “right” signify to you, such that you feel there’s a significant difference between North Korea and Nazi Germany.”

                      I think I already did that when I pointed out that totalitarianism can be left or right–just like authoritarianism.

                      “Left and right” have been about socialism and reactionaries since, at least, shortly after the revolutions of 1848, in which the two dominant coalitions in the French legislature were the “democratic socialists” and the reactionaries. Left and right are still properly contrasted as socialists and their enemies to this day. The other definitions are mostly journalists spouting horseshit.

                      The Nazis were not about stripping shareholders of their profits or the means of production, having prices only set by bureaucrats, or the redistribution of wealth. They were not socialists. Why do you want them to be? Is socialism not bad enough for you?

                    2. “Nazism, fascism, social democracy, communism are merely types of progressivism. Progressivism is fundamentally socialism; characterized as strong centralized authority, the attempt to create New Man through central planning, and totalitarian.”

                      This is factually incorrect.

                      Progressivism shares authoritarian tendencies with socialism and fascism, but that hardly makes progressivism, socialism, and fascism the same. Because a fire truck and a race car are both painted red doesn’t mean that fire trucks and race cars are the same thing. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism aren’t even the same thing. They have differences between them. For instance, where authoritarians like Maduro mostly just care about what you do, that isn’t enough for Hitler and the Kims. In totalitarian societies, doing what you’re told isn’t enough. You have to be a true believer.

                    3. There are legitimate differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but you want to pretend that socialism, progressivism, and fascism are all the same thing–because they’re given to both authoritarianism or totalitarianism? Because real libertarians like me oppose government coercion in all its forms, that doesn’t mean all those forms are exactly the same. You might see similarities between rape and arson. For instance, they both involve doing something to somebody against their will, but arson and rape aren’t the same thing. And I’m not willing to pretend something is true just to make socialism look even worse than it is.

                      You end up undermining your own argument against socialism and progressivism when you say things about it that aren’t true. I don’t need to believe things that aren’t true just to take down socialism and progressivism. I have no problem tearing them apart with intellectual honesty.

                    4. I had no idea this thread would stay alive for days.

                      Fascism is one of the most poorly defined words thrown around these days. If fascism is totalitarianism of some form or another, it can be on the Right or Left. Far Left is socialism, communism, and other forms of authoritarianism. Far Right is theocracy and monarchism, which can be totalitarian too.

                      I will have to post more tomorrow but Nazi ran germany industry under socialism. Its why the German government had a massive bureaucracy of Bureaus, Reich ministries, and state run companies vital to the war effort. Sure powerful german aristocratic families like Krupp owned their companies but the german state owned every german and slave working for Krupp. Krupp also was not allowed to produce any product not authorized for the war effort. If you cannot make what you want, who really owns your compamy.

                      Some Mazis wanted to seize all industry for state purposes but Hitler needed powerful tycoons and they would not accept a communist type state seizure of companies. Of course the Third Reich seized all industry by late 1944 anyway.

                      Nazi germany was many things but one thing was always evident, socialism uses people. The SS, supposedly an aryan pure master race army, used Muslims, Kosaks, and other non-aryans to form divisions of the Waffen SS. Brown people in Nazi black uniforms made by Hugo Boss.

                    5. “Deutschland uber alles, as the Nazis had it put everything in the service of the state–from industry and the church to labor and the family. Nazi fascism was both extreme nationalist and totalitarian that way. Totalitarianism can be either right or left–just like authoritarianism. North Korea is a totalitarian regime of the left, and Germany under Hitler was a totalitarian regime of the right.”

                      Nothing in here differentiates between left and right.

                      I’ve made the exact point about authoritarianism and totalitarianism that you make above – to you before.

                      And I explained how progressivism is socialism above. You even quoted it. Central planning of economy, centrally planned social engineering, creation of New Man.
                      I’m still waiting for you to explain how progressivism can be distinguished from socialism, and how fascism, social democracy, and communism aren’t merely just types of it.

                    6. Progress necessarily includes a goal.
                      What is that goal?

    2. If you support the executive violating the separation of powers and congress’ enumerated powers to inflict your preferred immigration policy on the American people that way, without any input from congress as required by the Constitution, then the descriptively fascist person in this equation is you.

      So, basically everyone then? Both supporters of Obama’s DACA and supporters of utilizing a #NationalEmergency to fund a project rejected by Congress.

      1. Except the emergency declaration was using a power Congress had given the Presidency. I know nuance is hard to understand.

        1. It was revoked as well, if not for a veto.

          I’m willing to say Obama’s DACA thing was an executive power grab. It was ridiculous in nature. Legislation by executive fiat.

          I assume you’re not wiling to say that losing a vote, losing a budget standoff, and then suddenly declaring something a #NationalEmergency to get your way after 2.1 years in office (also after your party lost an election) isn’t at least a questionable application of the NEA?

          1. It may or may not be questionable. Buy even losing to a vote and having it vetoed is not the same as executive fiat since veto is a power given to the Presidency in the Constitution. If Congress had truly wanted to end NEA, then they should have ended this. Trump’s moves rather you like them or not are technically legal and he is using a power Congress had given him. Sure they voted to stop him but they couldn’t overcome a veto. He was playing by the rules. This is not really up for debate, now are the rules, especially the NEA, correct, no they aren’t in my opinion. But comparing it to DACA is not intellectually honest. It’s comparing apples to oranges.

            1. Nobody is doubting they are legal. They are dangerous to what was intended to be an executive with limited power, at best.

              1. Yeah, but I’ll argue that building a wall that can have no effect on immigration policy one way or the other – well, except that it makes it easier to enforce whatever policy you happen to have – is not of the same degree as changing policy by fiat.

                The policy in this case being “come on in and immigrate illegally! We won’t enforce the law!

                This resulted in a highly predictable boom in illegal immigration of those specific folks. Which results in more people breaking employment law, more people being exploited because they cannot go to the authorities about employment disputes, etc.

                A wall is just a wall. It just sits there looking ugly. It neither increases nor decreases the immigration quota. It does not change the mission of the border patrol. It just makes it easier for them to do their jobs.

                So pragmatically there is a huge difference between subverting government policy and subverting the funding process without changing policy.

              2. My point is your false equivalency between DACA and the emergency order. Congress chose to allocate those powers to the President, that is in itself not desirable, but they went ahead and did it anyhow. Trump using those powers is no worse than the last four presidents using those same powers. DACA however, had no legislative mandate or cover. Completely different situations.

          2. “”It was revoked as well, if not for a veto.”‘

            Then it wasn’t revoked. Rebuked yes.

      2. “So, basically everyone then? Both supporters of Obama’s DACA and supporters of utilizing a #NationalEmergency to fund a project rejected by Congress.”

        That isn’t everybody.

        I opposed DACA without Congress and funding a wall without Congress–for the same reason.

        I support securing the border, but opposed legal chicanery to fund that–even if it’s technically legal because it’s working around Congress’ legitimate role in a republic with the separation of powers.

        1. You, me, and maybe a few other people that I’m aware of. The polarization of this issue, and desire to see outcomes regardless of means to achieve them has caused hypocrisy on both sides for sure.

          1. Many people support the idea of removing the NEA, however, that isn’t what Pelosi did. In fact she and the Democrats defended Tuesday law they just don’t want Trump to use it. Which is even worse than not repealing it. I would support full appeal just not selective enforcement based upon what letter is after the President’s name. It really isn’t that hard to understand.

      3. So, basically everyone then? Both supporters of Obama’s DACA and supporters of utilizing a #NationalEmergency to fund a project rejected by Congress.

        Yeah reprogramging a few billion dollars in construction funds is totally the same as refusing to faithfully enforce the laws. So basically you are pig ignorant on the technicalities of the subject but emote an opinion anyway.

        1. Ends justify means. I can’t wait to see your response when the next Democrat president declares a national emergency to fund one of their pet projects.

          Sure it’s legal. But it’s not in the interest of what the founders envisioned of a limited executive. Actually I blame Congress much more than I blame Trump. He’s just the unintended consequence.

          1. But it’s not in the interest of what the founders envisioned of a limited executive

            Yes it is. The Founders only said the money must be appropriated by Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution. that says whether or how much Congress must control the purpose money is used for.

            Basically, your vision of hte Constitution is “give me my fucking pony”. But it is of course everyone else who is about the ends justifying the means.

            Even if you had a point, which you don’t, you fuckers cheering DACA deprives you of any moral authority to complain about this. There is basically no aduse of exectutive power you won’t endorse if it furthers open borders.

            1. I’m not cheering DACA. Pay attention. I don’t want a pony and I’d prefer not to pay for yours.

              There are people who are pro immigration who aren’t liberals, you know.

              1. Congress appropriated the money and gave the President the power to spend it, so take it up with them. And you are making everyone pay for your pony by telling the people harmed by immigration to fo fuck themselves they had it coming.

                1. No I’m telling them I prefer individual liberty to their entitled sense of low wages.

                  1. Oops.. high wages

                    1. Individual liberty to the entitled sense of high wages? What? That doesn’t even make sense. So it is either individual liberty or high wages? What exactly is your point and who is the they you are referring to?

                    2. I assume John’s mythical person affected by immigration was part of the “they took out jobs” group. I really can’t think of too many other groups of people affected.

                      You know the group that hates the brown horde because they offer competition in the labor market.

                    3. Took our jobs. God I hate autocorrect.

                    4. I hate people who are so stupid that they refer to the descendants of white Europeans as “the brown horde” then transpose their ignorance and racism onto other people to bolster their argument.

                    5. You got me. Congrats.

                    6. It certainly seems like I did, yes.

                    7. “I hate people…”

                      Now right there you have an honestly truthful confession from Tulpa about the true nature of Tulpa!!!!

                    8. Awww I made you mad. Why so mad Hihn?

                      You gonna cry?

                      Nah, you’re gonna splatter more shit everywhere because you can’t help yourself Hihn.

                    9. Ah, so that’s who it is. I should have realized it.

                      Hope you’re having a good one Sqrlsy.

                    10. Thanks Leo! I’m hanging in there in the OK to splendid range, and I hope you are too, there, or better…

                      In more detail, I recently got turned into a newt, by a witch! But then, after a long, pregnant pause, very baffling to all the lookers-on, which (pregnant pause) would have been blown by any actor less skilled than John Cleese… “I got bettah!”

                    11. So the best you can do is offer a straw man and infer racism? Seems pretty thin. Actually, those hardest hit by immigration tends to be minorities. Also, considering the impact on education, the increased costs of insuring that non-English speaking children receive education, the huge financial impact this has, almost everyone is impacted to some degree. Some states obviously are more impacted than others. In fact, your inability to see how anyone but the straw man you created can be impacted by immigration demonstrates either willful ignorance on your part or intellectual dishonesty.

                    12. It IS the best he can do. I openly confronted him about his ignorance and racism and he couldn’t even muster a cogent reply.

                    13. You’re obviously a troll, based on your childish handle. You don’t deserve a better response. The adults are trying to discuss things here.

                    14. What does it say about you then that a troll slaps the fuck out of your assertions with fact, then?

                      Everyone can see you ad-homming. You’re not fooling anyone. The facts don’t change because I’m the one fucking you with them.

                      No, here’s what is really happening. You have no reply. So you call names and hide.

                    15. Neither wages or languages in school are compelling arguments to limit individual liberty and empower another government agency to use force against otherwise peaceful people. I believe in individual liberty. Nice deflection though, as I see you failed to address that aspect. This is a libertarian site, right?

                      You’re really arguing about other languages in school? Sounds like an issue for school boards, not federal government. I suggest you go to your next PTA meeting.

                    16. It costs 8k more per TESOL student ( as of 2016) on average. And the TESOL programs are federally mandated.

                      But you’ll just call me a troll again because why actually understand anything when you can call names and hide.

                    17. Then the issue is federal government is involved in education. They have no right to be. Take it up with them. Just because federal government over-reached on education doesn’t mean we should give up even more liberty.

                    18. But most of the funding comes from the state level so try again.

                    19. States provided education before the Dept of Education was created and unless you are arguing states don’t need to provide immigrant children with education that is a non-sequitor argument. Or are you stating that public education, even at the state level, should be eliminated?

                    20. Why are they not compelling arguments? Because you say so? Also, your assertion was that only the straw man you created is impacted and I was asserting that isn’t the case. However, rather than counter my argument you decided I was trolling. Seems evident that rather than a civil conversation or debate you prefer sycophantic acceptance of your point.

                    21. Your own quote, ” And the TESOL programs are federally mandated.”

                      I thought that’s what we were talking about.

                      States can decide whom they want to educate. It’s separate from whether I need a permission slip from government to be here legally. This is about immigration.

                    22. “Your own quote, ” And the TESOL programs are federally mandated”

                      That’s MY quote dumbass.

                    23. “States can decide whom they want to educate”

                      What? Are you high? No they can’t.

                      Jesus Christ why are you discussing this when you know nothing about it.

                      “It’s separate from whether I need a permission slip from government to be here legally. This is about immigration.”

                      And one of the arguments is that educating the children of immigrants, which we are LEGALLY REQUITED TO DO, costs more.

                      What the fuck is wrong with you?

                    24. Ok I admit it you got me. You out trolled me.

                      “States can decide whom they want to educate” is absolutely sublime.

                      It takes a serious troll to make that but of cosmic-level stupidity look serious and you pulled it off.

                      Well done.

                    25. I wish I were high. It might make this discussion more enjoyable.

                      You or SM76 have yet to make a compelling argument as to why I should give up my right to freely associate with immigrants, to hire them or to rent to them as I see fit. Why should I give up that right? Answer that.

                      Because they cost more in public services is not a compelling argument to me. It’s a compelling argument as to why those public services shouldn’t exist, perhaps, but not to why the federal government should arbitrarily restrict immigration.

                    26. “You or SM76 have yet to make a compelling argument as to why I should give up my right to freely associate with immigrants, to hire them or to rent to them as I see fit. Why should I give up that right? Answer that.”

                      So I guess we’re done with you being wrong about states being allowed to educate anyone they want?

                      How convenient for you.

                      “Because they cost more in public services is not a compelling argument to me”

                      TommyLeeJonesinthefugitive.jpg

                    27. I got confused between posts from you and SM. Sorry.

                      We’re talking about immigration not education. Explain to me why I should give up my right to free associate with immigrants, legal or not.

                    28. “We’re talking about immigration not education”

                      We are legally required to educate the children of immigrants who are of school age. And they cost more if they are ESL’s.

                      Continually asserting they are not related makes you look obtuse, and smacks of trolling itself

                    29. I thought I made it clear that I don’t think we should be compelled to pay for any immigrant to be educated. Repeal that requirement. It’s existence doesn’t affect my belief that individuals should be able to freely associate.

                    30. Fine. As soon as it is repealed (and you didn’t KNOW it was a requirement until I told you) THEN we can talk about open borders.

                      Not before. THAT is libertarian first principles.

                      Now fuck off troll.

                    31. No. No it’s not. Read this if you’re confused.

                    32. Limiting government isn’t a first principle of libertarianism?

                      Stop smoking crack troll.

                    33. From YOUR LINK

                      “Limited government: To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution. Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power, captured in Lord Acton’s famous dictum, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thus they seek to divide and limit power, and especially to limit government, generally through a constitution enumerating and limiting the powers that the people delegate to government”

                      How fucking stupid are you? You post a link and you don’t even know what it says troll.

                    34. “It’s a compelling argument as to why those public services shouldn’t exist, perhaps, but not to why the federal government should arbitrarily restrict immigration”

                      You want open borders before the government stops wasteful spending on extraneous things. I want the spending to stop before the borders are opened.

                      You continually and unrepentantly assert that I’m racist because of my preference. You refuse to accept anything other than racism as my reasoning despite having it explained to you numerous times

                      So stop pretending you have some moral high ground.

                    35. I’ve never called you racist. I don’t know who you are besides being someone who doesn’t like Tony apparently.

                      I don’t have a moral high ground. I have libertarian first principals on my side, which I believe are paramount.

                      You want open borders before the government stops wasteful spending on extraneous things. I want the spending to stop before the borders are opened.

                      No I want “open borders” AND government to stop spending on extraneous things. I’ll have to take your word for it that you want open borders, because your arguments thus far don’t support that.

                    36. “No I want “open borders” AND government to stop spending on extraneous things. ”

                      Then why do you keep insisting the added cost of educating immigrants isn’t related to immigration?

                      Stop lying. You didn’t even understand the argument until I spelled it out for you.

                      “I’ve never called you racist”

                      You’re a fucking liar. You’ve been doing it all night in this thread. You think “You know the group that hates the brown horde ” isn’t calling me racist?

                      Fuck you liar. You’re full on trolling at this point.

                    37. Oh that one time “all night” ?

                      Did a Mexican take your job? That’s the character I was describing, someone bitter about losing their job. I’m sorry if that was you. If you work hard and apply yourself you might be able to regain employment. I would stop with the anger though. It’s not a good look for anyone.

                    38. “Oh that one time”

                      You said “never” troll. It wasn’t that one time, but that one time is all it takes to show you’re a lying troll.

                    39. “Fuck you liar. You’re full on trolling at this point.”

                      “I’ve cornered him before and he simply calls troll and flees.”

                    40. I’m still here troll.

                      Anything else you want to be wrong about troll before you flee?

                    41. Ok.

                      No, I’m good. Have a nice evening.

                    42. Bye troll. Flee now like I said you would.

                    43. Being naive isnt a first principle of libertarianism Leo. For fucks sake.

                    44. Neither is limiting individual actions which don’t infringe upon the rights of others, by the use of force. That’s what immigration law does.

                    45. “which don’t infringe upon the rights of others”

                      And has been explained to you NUMEROUS times, being forced to pay for their education at gunpoint (as well as other things) DOES infringe upon the rights of others.

                      You response to that point is to fail to adequately respond to that point

                    46. Except the 14A would argue the states can’t educate whomever they want. Or did you forget Brown V Topeka?

                    47. That’s a construct of our government, duly implemented per our constitution. If you don’t like it then change it.

                      It doesn’t change the fact that government has no authority over whom I choose to associate with.

                    48. Other than the fact that you maintained above that states can choose who the educate. Which is blatantly wrong. Father you stated that above you can’t think of anyone that immigration burdens, but I’ve provided multiple examples, with education being the most prominent one. You have, however, been unable to discount this so you have decided to redefine the boundaries of the debate (when you were the first one to introduce the idea that immigrants do not I pact or burden anyone). Since this is a false analogy bon your part, yes the government does have some say in who you can employ or rent to. There is a cost to society, especially in regards to illegal or unregulated immigration. You have yet to prove otherwise. Instead you make assertions that are not supported by data and then you scream foul when your assertions are proven unsustainable.

                    49. “That’s a construct of our government, duly implemented per our constitution. If you don’t like it then change it”

                      You mean like… Immigration law?

                      “It doesn’t change the fact that government has no authority over whom I choose to associate with.”

                      Immigration law is a construct of our government, duly implemented per our constitution. If you don’t like it then change it.

                      Jesus Christ you’re a stupid troll.

                    50. Leo,
                      You are arguing immigration in a vacuum,a pseudo reality, that has never, nor will probably ever exist. Your argument seems to consist solely of you wanting to discount reality and to ignore the will of others or the harm that may be caused by your policies. You dismiss any good faith argument that opposes your position and you arbitrarily define the boundaries of the debate so that it favors your position. You ascribe the worst traits to those who oppose your pollyandish positions. And you make basic assertions that are easily countered. You then call foul and redefine the parameters even tighter. You are arguing am abstract and furthermore you know it’s an abstract that is why you dismiss any and all opposing views. It isn’t that you believe in love and let live unless they live by your rules. You don’t even entertain the thought that people can oppose you in good faith. And further, what you describe is less libertarian than anarchy. But I doubt you can see the nuance. The fact is that ideology, no matter what you describe it as, requires some form of tribalism. You have decided to label yourself a libertarian and anyone who doesn’t 100% buy into your ideology must be othered. Okay, fine.

                    51. In the interest of better understanding your position…. How would you define the legitimate functions of government, and how do your views on immigration fit that definition? I’m genuinely curious and appreciate the discussion.

                    52. Well, hopefully you’ll respond. It would be nice to understand your idea of what government should be, and where immigration policies fit within that definition. But if you’ve left the conversation before we can understand that, hopefully you’ll have a nice night. I appreciate the conversation tonight.

                    53. It’s his move. I’ve cornered him before and he simply calls troll and flees.

                    54. “Neither wages or languages in school are compelling arguments to limit individual liberty and empower another government agency to use force against otherwise peaceful people. I believe in individual liberty.”

                      Perhaps, but what you’re really describing as your belief is internationalism/universalism.
                      If you dont believe in nations or governments, just come right out and say it. At least it’s an ethos…
                      But realize that you then necessarily renounce belief in protection under the law as well.
                      There can be no law without some form of government, and unless that government is one global government, there are polities (such as nations). The entire concept of multiple polities fails logically if those polities do not distinguish between native and foreign, and exert some level of authority regarding that distinction.
                      In order to be intellectually honest, you’ve got to admit anarchy, and renounce protection under law, or singular worldwide rule.

                    55. He couldn’t even be honest about calling people racists. You saw how quickly he realized he was cornered and fled.

                      “Oh ok that ONE TIME”was literally the best he could come up with.

                    56. Fuck, the idiot even linked to a paper that proved MY point.

                    57. I don’t need to do any such thing. Governments are implemented among men with sovereignty within their borders. Their only legitimate function is to protect the natural rights of those within their borders; their rights to life, liberty, and property. Their subjects, within their borders, should be free to act so long as they don’t infringe on another person’s life, liberty, or property.

                      If an immigrant comes to the U.S. to live or work, and doesn’t infringe on other individual’s life, liberty, or property then government should leave them be. They are a subject within the borders of that government, no more, no less. No need to grant them citizenship, voting rights, education, welfare or otherwise.

                    58. The only way an immigrant can come is to cross the nation’s borders. If there is no enforcement at the borders then there really is no sovereignty. The nation-state exists only so long as it can maintain it’s sovereignty by having borders. Once you eliminate a nation’s ability to decide who can or cannot cross into their borders the idea of nation-states and sovereignty no longer exists. It really isn’t that hard to understand. I wonder why no country has ever not had some form of border enforcement or some form of immigration control?

                    59. Again, you have demonstrated that you are arguing an abstract not reality. By your very argument a nation-state is sovereign within it’s borders, which implies that those borders stand for something. What you are arguing is despite the existence of a sovereign nation state with defined borders that you can choose to ignore aforementioned borders because you feel you have the right to bring in anyone as long as it doesn’t impact others. We have pointed out that there is always impact. You have chosen to ignore those impacts or dismiss them. You have arbitrarily defined what you will and will not count as an impact. As such, it is obvious that you choose not to argue in good faith and you have chosen not to be realistic but to create some fantasy world that we know doesn’t exist and will never exist.

                    60. The nation-state exists only so long as it can maintain it’s sovereignty by having borders.

                      Why, specifically? The nation state exists to protect the rights of those within their borders, at least in my ideal world. Why should the government prevent those who come to live and associate with her citizens peaceably stop them from entering? What rights of ours are they protecting, specifically?

                    61. If anyone can enter the nation-state then it ceases to be sovereign. That means anyone can enter, for any reason. The idea that you can create a country that is sovereign but has no control on who enters is inviting invasion. Or inviting those who want to subvert the government and the will of the people originally there. What you describe cannot exist. The fact that you believe you can maintain a sovereign nation with no form of enforcement of borders seems highly improbable. How do you maintain a nation if you do not have defined borders and some control over who enters those borders?

                    62. The borders are defined. That’s not a question. We know where they are, and Mexico AFAIK agrees.

                      If there are invaders who wish to do us harm we should repel them.u

                      If there are people who wish to cross the borders and live and work here, not challenging our sovereignty or wishing to infringe on the rights of others, then I welcome them to come with or without government permission. Why would you not?

                      If we have legitimate reason to believe that they would infringe our rights, then I’m fine with telling them not to cross the borders. It might even be easier to find those people of we stopped focusing on the ones who just want to live or work here.

                    63. But the only way to separate the ones that just want to work here and live by our laws is if they follow the law to get here in the first place. As long as we have rampant illegal immigration we can never separate those who want to contribute from those who don’t. Open borders is fine in theory but impractical in implication. Also, unless you own property right on the border (or right at another point of entry, your ability to host whomever you want without it impacting others is severely limited. At some point they will trespass across others land to get to yours. The argument can be made that crossing public land is trespassing can also be made. The majority of Americans don’t abide by illegal immigration (while most support legal immigration). Since public land belongs to the people those who cross it illegally could be argued to be trespassing. Property rights arguments only apply if you live in such a manner that illegal immigrants never cross anyone else’s property.

                    64. Collective property rights are what you’re describing. That argument should be rejected as quickly as any other form of collectivism.

                      Individuals have property rights. I would never argue that individuals shouldn’t be able to bar anyone from using their property. Immigration restrictionists, by definition, must claim that the majority has the right to restrict the property rights of individuals, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to have the authority to determine who can legally utilize my property.

                      Think for a minute. Is it that important to you to restrict immigration that you would actually invoke collectivism???

                    65. But we know at least some do want to infringe on our liberties. There is at least some who belong to radical groups who want to return the southwest, even the entire west, to Mexico, who come here not to abide by our rules. Additionally, all have chosen to come here against our rules and have chosen not to abide by our laws. This shows a certain contempt for our manner of government. Additionally, foreign governments, such as the Mexican government, have been shown to assist them and even provide them legal assistance. The Mexican government continues to call them Mexican citizens and many see themselves as Mexican citizens ( at least according to polls). The utilize criminal syndicates, and at least a small but significant percentage are associated with these criminal syndicates, to get here. Family often the Mexican military and police have fired upon and even occupied American Territory to assist the illegals entering the country. Even if these bad actors are only 10% of those entering, they are still entering our country with no real intention of just coming here to work and follow our laws. Until we control the border better wr can never separate the chaff from the kernel. Open borders will never be a realistic approach, at least not in the near future.

                    66. If there are invaders who wish to do us harm we should repel them.

                      And how would you distinguish these invaders from the type of foreigners you would let in freely? If 100,000 Chinese soldiers gathered at the Mexican border and began marching into the US, how would you justify using force to stop them within the principles you have stated. Suppose someone in the US had invited them. Whose rights would they be violating by simply entering the US?

                    67. Wow, talk about false equivalency.

                      We should probably give up all of our liberty so that we can be safe. There are all sorts of people out there who want to harm us, right?

                    68. talk about false equivalency.

                      Why is it false? Explain that in terms of the principles you have stated.

                    69. You want me to explain to you how a foreign army amassed on our border isn’t equivalent to an individual immigrant who wants to come here and work?

                    70. I’m sure my question was clear.

                    71. How would you know if someone was exercising their right to bear arms peacefully, vs someone pointing a gun at your face?

                      If 100,000 Chinese soldiers are on our border with guns marching across, then I’ll allow ICE to try to stop them (LOL). The fact that there are 100,000 of them brandishing weapons qualifies as probable cause in my mind. Feel free to arrest them!

                    72. I did a quick search on the internet. In all the history of our country, 100,000 Chinese soldiers haven’t tried to cross our southern border. I think we’re safe, just in case people were reading this and were afraid. I wouldn’t want there to be mass chaos in the streets or anything.

                      But if they ever do, we should know that ICE is there to protect us.

                    73. Vernon exposed a fundamental problem with your reasoning, Leo, and your response is to deflect with superficial conditions.
                      One need not be armed to be a soldier.
                      One need not be a soldier to be a foreign national loyal to a foreign government.
                      And one can certainly appear to be peaceful and just seeking work (you haven’t explained why the latter is a requirement, it’s merely assumed), yet be hiding or lying about hostile intent.
                      And if a foreign nation wants to send millions upon millions of ones in this manner, you’ve not explained how youd oppose that, or if youd oppose it at all.

                    74. The onus is on your side to justify violating natural rights of would be immigrants. I don’t need to justify why we should have rights.

                      I wouldn’t preemptively violate your right to associate, speak, or bear arms unless there was an imminent threat by you exercising any of those rights. Conservatives seem to accept that the right to speech and arms are more important than the potential security risks that might arise from those rights. I agree. I don’t see how rights to association are any different, yet conservatives seem to think they are.

                    75. Don’t all people have the right to bear arms? If they’re just marching peaceably with rifles shouldered, how do we justify stopping them? That’s hardly the same thing as pointing it in someone’s face. Don’t we have to respect all their rights, even though they are foreigners? That’s what you’ve been arguing here for weeks. If you are ready to admit you were wrong, and that we can treat them differently just because they are foreigners, then we’ve made some progress here.

                    76. I’m not. We make compromises on all of our rights when there is a threat of imminent danger to someone else’s rights. We aren’t allowed to point guns at people threateningly even though we have a right to bear arms. We have a right to free speech as long as we don’t incite riots. We have a right to cross a border as long as we’re not threatening to violate someone’s rights.

                      It seems that you believe either that humans don’t have a right to travel and associate with each other peacefully, or that rights only exist for citizens. Because if you believe in free association and natural rights (that all individuals have rights that aren’t bestowed by government) then I don’t know how you can justify our government violating the natural rights of immigrants to peacefully come here and associate with US citizens.

                      So which is it? We don’t have natural rights or we don’t have a right to freely associate?

                    77. So, what about those Chinese soldiers? Whose rights are they violating?

                    78. So, what about those Chinese soldiers? Whose rights are they violating?

                    79. I don’t know how to answer this any differently. Chinese soldiers on our border are an imminent threat. They don’t have a right to cross our border as an imminent threat. They are threatening our rights to life and liberty.

                      This stupid hypothetical is just a distraction from the point that you can’t seem to address. Do people have natural rights? Is the right to peacefully associate with each other a natural right?

                    80. How are they violating anyone’s rights, walking peaceably, exercising their natural rights to go where they wish and bear arms?

                    81. I don’t know, you tell me how they are violating anyone’s rights. Then you can tell me how they are the same as Mexican immigrants, which is the topic at hand.

                    82. Well shit. It’s been 30 minutes with no response. I’ve had to rethink my entire world view because 100,000 Chinese soldiers might be amassed on the southern border with the intention of crossing so that they can peacefully brandish weapons and potentially take my job. And now I don’t know if I should be advocating for their liberty or calling my local ICE agent to take care of the situation.

                    83. Update: I called ICE just in case. They said, “Um… What does that have to do with anything?”

                    84. It’s been 30 minutes with no response.

                      Some of us have work to do and don’t have the privilege of being able to argue on web sites around the clock.

                    85. No, you need to explain how they are different from “Mexican immigrants”, in accordance with your principled stand that crossing international borders is a human right that our government must respect. If you can’t do that, then your “principled stand” is bullshit and your argument with those of us who want more controlled entry and immigration is merely over process, standards, and numbers and not a principled argument about “rights” as you are trying to portray it.

                    86. Do people have natural rights?

                      Sometimes we have to tell the philosophers to run along and play so that the adults can deal with a real world problem. Haven’t you ever watched Star Trek?

                    87. What about those Chinese soldiers? Whose rights are they violating?

                    88. Apparently the squirrels understand how hard it is to get through to you.

                    89. Squirrels have rights too.

                    90. Why are you OK with other people being forced to subsidize your choices? You talk about rights, but are happy to offload responsibility for the taxation of US citizens to pay for your pony. And when challenged, despite knowing in advance their will be a cost, you demand your pony anyway.

                      If you TRULY had principles, you’d accept that your desires have a cost and that imposing that cost is immoral. You would insisting that cost be done away with so no one has to bear any cost for your choices. Instead, you handwave at governement and pretend the cost they are extracting has nothing to do with you.

                      Except that’s obviously bullshit. You don’t get to demand what you want, knowing it has a cost, while simultaneously blaming government for it.

                    91. Any response, Nardz? You had a well thought out response, I was hoping to continue the discourse.

                    92. Zion Williamson is a beast.

                      Anyway, first you argued that government has no prerogative to infringe on your freedom to associate, thus trying to work open borders into a multiple polity world rather than anarchy or singular worldwide government.
                      Then you acknowledge that borders do exist and sovereign governments may control them, but should only keep out bad people and allow in good people.
                      Which is it?
                      Your response at 10:54 pretty much invalidates your previous statements.

                    93. Further:

                      Leo Kovalensky II|3.29.19 @ 9:22PM|#
                      “I believe people have the right to freely associate without government interference or permission. I would no more give up that right because of some potential undesired outcome than I would give up my right to free speech or to bear arms because they might also have undesired outputs.”

                      Leo Kovalensky II|3.29.19 @ 10:54PM|#
                      “The borders are defined. That’s not a question.
                      If there are invaders who wish to do us harm we should repel them.
                      If there are people who wish to cross the borders and live and work here, not challenging our sovereignty or wishing to infringe on the rights of others, then I welcome them to come with or without government permission”

                    94. Those are mutually exclusive positions.
                      Either government has the prerogative to control borders and regulate entry, or the government doesn’t have the right to regulate entry.
                      The latter position is open borders.
                      The former position is not, and admits some limit on your freedom to associate by your own definition. At that point, you’re debating the specifics of immigration policy, not the merit or morals of having a policy.

                    95. I see the confusion now. The undesired outcome was not a threat to life, liberty, property. In the context that statement was made referencing the existance of the welfare state and public education. The undesired outcome being that some immigrant may use that system, just like citizens. My point is that we should abolish those systems if we don’t like them, not further cede rights like association.

                      I hope I made it clear. I concede that governments have an interest to keep people out of the country if their intent is to harm us. I conceded that I would give up my right to freely associate with people who would do us harm.

                      Freedom to associate isn’t an absolute right. You’ve tried to paint it that way, that it must be one or the other. No right is ever absolute.

                      Government should leave people who just want to come here and peaceably associate alone. There are no compelling reasons to give up my right to associate with those who just want to live work here. Can you think of any?

                    96. I concede that governments have an interest to keep people out of the country if their intent is to harm us.

                      If anyone in the world is free to stroll across the border unmolested, how then would you establish their intentions before allowing them to enter?

                      Even if they do have negative intentions toward us, why should that disqualify them from entering under your stated principles? Don’t the have a right to hold and express negative opinions towards the US? Should native born people with hostile feelings towards our country be expelled? Are you proposing Thoughtcrime as a disqualifier for entry into the US?

                      If the effect of their presence is to harm us, even though that is not the intention of individual visitors or immigrants, don’t we still have a right to defend our country against them?

                    97. What is your solution to the possibility that someone might cross our border and harm us?

                    98. What is your solution to the possibility that someone might cross our border and harm us?

                      Just the usual measures that all countries take?requiring entry through authorized ports; issuing visas; screening of potential immigrants and foreign workers; border and port security measures to minimize irregular entries; limiting the number of immigrants so immigration officials are not overwhelmed; limiting immigration so our society’s ability to assimilate immigrants is not overwhelmed; deportations of those who don’t follow the rules. And, of course, defending against foreign armed forces.

                      Now, you try answering one of my questions.

                    99. And yet, people entered our country, bought airline tickets, hijacked planes, and used them to kill thousands of Americans. And yet, people have legally gone to stores and purchased guns, walked into public places and killed lots of Americans. The cost of freedom is that there are always possibilities of people abusing their rights to do bad things. It doesn’t mean we should give up liberty because we’re afraid of the next bogeyman.

                      I’ve laid out in this very thread what I think is a reasonable approach to solve immigration. Allowing more people to come here legally after passing background checks will free up the authorities to go after whatever bad guys might be out there.

                    100. I’ve laid out in this very thread what I think is a reasonable approach to solve immigration.

                      If you had merely done that, as others here have, you would not have gotten the reactions you did. What you actually did was assert that all humans have a right to go and live wherever they wish as long as they’re not trespassing on private property, and that it is therefore immoral for our government to stop anyone from entering our country. When it was pointed out to you how stupid and damaging it would be to make that our policy, you started back-pedaling and making exceptions allowing us to exclude some people, based on distinctions that you pulled out of your ass and could not defend. To continue credibly in this conversation, you now need to admit that your position is not based on a rigid devotion to a moral principle as you had claimed, and that you are arguing for an immigration policy based on practical considerations, as are the rest of us.

                    101. To continue credibly in this conversation, you now need to admit that your position is not based on a rigid devotion to a moral principle as you had claimed, and that you are arguing for an immigration policy based on practical considerations, as are the rest of us.

                      No I don’t. I’m arguing for an immigration policy based on first principles of natural, individual rights. I’m arguing for a policy based on the Non-Aggression Principle. I’m arguing for limited government which doesn’t infringe on our rights.

                      Just because you don’t understand my position or reject it doesn’t mean it’s invalid. Humans have natural rights irrespective of governments or sovereignty of those governments. I believe that freedom of association is an important natural right. Government’s only legitimate claim to limit that right is if it’s being used in a manner to infringe on another individual’s rights.

                      (cont, 1/2)

                    102. (cont, 2/2)
                      You used an example earlier of an imminent threat from a foreign power trying to cross our border. I agree that’s a case where the government has a legitimate claim to use force to repel that threat if it’s a credible threat on the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. That’s been my position all along, whether explicitly stated or not. My only failure seems to be to have thought of every possible scenario (though seemingly unlikely in this case) and explained my position relative to that in every single comment, so as to avoid cherry picking on your part.

                      I’ve even tried to draw corollaries to other natural rights, which I suspect that you wouldn’t give up so easily for a false promise of security from our government. For instance, the right to keep and bear arms. While it’s true that having that right might lead to insecurity, the benefits of the right far outweigh the risks to security. If and when people utilize their right to bear arms to infringe on the rights of others, we should repel that behavior with the use of force. So to with the right to associate freely without government permission.

                      That’s my position. That’s been my position all along.

                    103. So, you do not wish to continue credibly. Have a nice life.

                    104. Actually, those hardest hit by immigration tends to be minorities.

                      You forgot about women!

                    105. Why would I include women? Is there evidence that immigrants harm women? However, there a re multiple studies that demonstrate the lower class, least educated, which tend to be minorities (I know quoting statistics and facts is racist) are impacted the most by importation of low skilled workers. Middle and upper class minorities, like middle and upper class whites are far more insulated from this impacts.

        2. Yeah reprogramging a few billion dollars in construction funds is totally the same as refusing to faithfully enforce the laws.

          Are you saying that Trump’s National Emergency is an example of faithfully executing the law?

          1. It is with regards to how the law was written. Now if you are arguing the law is wrong, make that your argument. Not specifically to Trump but to the overall law.

    3. YEs. Fascism comes in many forms. It does not have to be racial facism. Who says fascists could never support open borders? Reason Libertarians love nothing better than putting a boot on the right face in the name of “freedom”.

    4. democracy’s proper place and the rules of naturalization Congress has set

      The topic isn’t naturalization. It’s immigration and Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate it, unless you want to broadly interpret the commerce clause, which of course you do.

  7. So if there’s an immigration policy that’s more likely to lead to fascism

    Intelligent people stop here and say to themselves “since no immigration policy is leading to fascism why am I ruining my credibility trying to link opposition to my immigration preferences to fascism?”.

    1. Marshal gets it.

  8. “because they commit fewer crimes than the native-born population”

    Stopped reading right there. Even if this were true (it’s been debunked a million times before), it isn’t logical in any capacity. A crime-based approach to citizenship would result in the deportation of most blacks. Only shills write stupid shit like that and your repeated mass migration calls are tiring.

  9. I’m all for welcoming immigrants as long as they are libertarian. In that case, give them full citizenship. Otherwise slave-like conditions are ideal. Or as a wise man once intoned, “Ask and ye shall receive.”

  10. The greatest living libertarian writer hits another home run!

    Now I have even more labels to assign to opponents of the Koch / Reason open borders agenda. I usually refer to them as the “alt-right” or “white nationalists.” But I’m going to mix it up from now on and call them “fascists” too.

    #OpenBorders
    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall

    1. PS ? Thanks for alerting me about how David Frum is a bad guy after all. I had been giving him credit as one of the good conservatives because he’s anti-Drumpf. But apparently his differences with Orange Hitler are quite minor if he still supports a fascist immigration policy.

      #BorderEnforcementIsFascism

    2. The greatest living libertarian writer hits another home run!

      Oh dear, did Hihn die?

  11. The U.S. has never had this many immigrants before, not even close. Even as a percentage of the massive population, immigrants are at an all-time high. This level of mass migration is really extreme in any national or global historical scale. It’s time to tap the brakes and allow assimilation to take its course. Continuing on this course is definitely the path to socialism and the nail in the coffin for U.S. liberty.

  12. The U.S. has never had this many immigrants before, not even close. Even as a percentage of the massive population, immigrants are at an all-time high. This level of mass migration is really extreme in any national or global historical scale. It’s time to tap the brakes and allow assimilation to take its course. Continuing on this course is definitely the path to socialism and the nail in the coffin for U.S. liberty.

    1. Alarmist, authoritarian bigots wielding falsehoods are among my favorite faux libertarians.

      Carry on, clingers. Until your replacement, that is.

  13. Open borders and MS13.
    Making America safer.
    Well I feel better.

    1. Another constitutional joins the commentariat. I think that’s number two for today.

  14. Allow your neighborhood to be overrun by collectivists and you will find your neighborhood overrun by collectivism.

    1. The ones who believe in collective property rights, for instance?

  15. C’mon reason, you let her flog this horse already. Is this some penance that Preet forced on you?

  16. Everyone ignoring the facts and arguments in the article? Arguing for restricting human freedom because… reasons… in what is actually thinly veiled panty-pisssing racism?

    Good, wouldn’t want anything to change around here.

    1. lol. Good lord Tony.

    2. Always dependably as dumb as shit. You are consistent Tony.

      1. That means a lot coming from Mr. “Brown people are inherently socialist parasites.”

        1. It takea an especially stupid motherfucker to categorize the descendants of white European colonials as “Brown people.”

          1. What color is their skin?

            1. According to who and which ones? Hispanics come from all backgrounds and tend to come in every shade of skin pigmentation and hair color as all humans.

    3. Nobody actually reads Shikha’s articles, Tony.

      1. She could post the same article five days a week and I’d never know it.

    4. 1+1=window is a fact but if you don’t prove to me every time how it isn’t a fact and I get enough people to repeat that it is a fact, then it is a fact and you’re in denial.

  17. David Frum >> Shikha Dalmia

    sad but true

  18. What Reason apparently supports is the SOCIALIZING of common property rights of American citizens and guests to allow for open immigration

    Support for illegal trespassing as opposed to support for common property rights.

    1. “Now seize a bunch of private land and build that wall!”

      1. NO
        one fact does not imply the other as so many people seem to ,assume !!!

        poor argument to use for ,any libertarian with semi-reasoning powers

      2. Seize land on the Mexican side of the border. Problem solved.

    2. You have it backwards. Its the immigration restrictionists who support collectivist property rights by saying that you need government permission to be on private property. I’m ok with “illegals” on my property, why would you deny me that right and freedom to associate?

      1. I should add, I respect your private property rights to keep anyone you want off of it. Evict illegals all you want.

        Now respect my private property rights to allow anyone I want on mine, without needing support of a popular vote, or a permission slip from the government. Talk about tyranny of the majority…

        1. How many illegals do you currently host on your property?

          1. I’m not allowed to. You?

            1. Then how many immigrants have you sponsored?

              1. Sponsored… what a fucked up system we have, huh.

                Please Mr. Government, may I please sponsor this person to come here to live and work? You poor statist Republicans.

                1. Nice Dodge there. You stated you couldn’t legally have illegals on your property so I ask how many immigrants you have sponsored (meaning here is a legal way for you to live what you preach) and your best response is to call me a statistics Republican. I see you rather demonize those who don’t agree with you 100% rather than try and to legally live up to the ideals you supposedly support.

                  1. How am I supposed to sponsor them? I don’t employ people. Your attempt at a gotcha actually just illustrates how stupid out system is in that you need an employer to sponsor you to get an H1B or some other stupid government permission slip. Then once you’re here, you get the privilege of staying in the country so long as you can keep your sponsor happy.

                    Live and let live, man. It’s such an easier system to understand.

                    1. So you want to host immigrants but you don’t employ them and you feel that won’t impact others? Live and let live meet pragmatism.

                    2. What does someone’s employment status have to do with their ability to live here if they wanted to?

                      And before you claim they are a drain on society or some such thing, consider that we have programs which not only allow, but encourage such behavior. But those programs are not what we are talking about.

                    3. No, my point is that you want the ability to host whoever you want on your property but haven’t stated how they will support themselves or how your you will support them. It’s not a really tough point to understand. Open borders and free crossing seems like a good idea but it fails when you apply it to the real world. This is one of the largest reasons that I’m not full libertarian, is because I’m to pragmatic to buy into some of the pie in the sky ideas. I support fully less government but open borders isn’t realistic. It simply isn’t a sustainable model for a stable society. Now, you have demonstrated that you lack th ability to see nuance. You maintain that anyone who opposes unregulated immigration does so because they “don’t like brown people”. This is a straw man. Then when people push back, you refer to then as statists and trolls. You do realize someone can support immigration and be opposed to unrestricted immigration, especially those who avoid the process altogether for vetting by entering the country illegally. No, before you launch your next straw man, I am not maintaining that they or even most are criminals but it’s hard to determine that without vetting them. Sorry, but the one function of government is to protect it’s citizens from outside forces. I know you will demagogue what I say, and attempt to infer that I am scared or racist or both. Feel free.

                    4. And I don’t support or wish to continue wlefare or any social program, but to discount these programs is Pollyanna thinking. The reality is that they do exist and you can’t divorce this fact because it is inconvenient to your position.

                    5. It’s not inconvenient to my position.

                      I believe people have the right to freely associate without government interference or permission. I would no more give up that right because of some potential undesired outcome than I would give up my right to free speech or to bear arms because they might also have undesired outputs.

                      This is libertarianism. You’re free to reject it if you wish. If I haven’t convinced you otherwise then there’s probably no reason for us to continue. Enjoy your evening.

                      By the way I’m sorry if you thought I called you racist. I don’t know you, nor would I assume you are. I was being snarky with John. It had nothing to do with you.

                    6. You are free to associate on your property, provided you follow procedure if doing so requires them to enter the country.
                      You’re not free to invite the entire non-US world into the US so that you might have the chance to associate, on your terms and yours alone, with one of the previously unspecified 7.2 billion other people in the world.
                      And how far will you take your freedom to associate?
                      Must you be free to host Bin Laden (when he was alive) unfettered?
                      Must you be free to host Dylan Roof unfettered?
                      What are the acceptable limits to your freedom of association (ignoring your ability to travel outside the US to do so, as our government doesn’t restrict you in such a case)?

                    7. Dylann Roof and Bin Laden are obviously people who have infringed on people’s rights and don’t deserve liberty. I’ll accept that as a limit to my freedom of association.

                      I would assume that you don’t think a typical immigrant crossing the southern border isn’t equivalent to Roof or Bin Laden. The debate is about them, not the rare occasion a terrorist attempts to cross our borders.r

                      In fact, as I’ve stated above, it might even be easier to secure our borders if ICE were focused on finding terrorists instead of nagging people who simply want to live and work here in peace.

                    8. Dylann Roof and Bin Laden are obviously people who have infringed on people’s rights and don’t deserve liberty.

                      SLAVER

                      /s

                    9. The idea that you can have unfettered immigration without impacting others is pollyandish is my point. If it does impact others then the libertarian position would not be to support unfettered, free imigration but to make it as free as possible while attempting to mitigate any impact to others as much as possible. Open borders seems more anarchist then libertarian.

                    10. Open borders is anarchist, if one has a logically consistent perspective.
                      But I dont think Leo is open borders based upon mitigating statements, though his rhetoric remains inconsistent.
                      His position is extremely idealistic, but doesn’t seem to be the absolute opposition to border control that it was initially presented as.
                      I disagree with it and favor restricted immigration, but as long as we all agree that our government has the prerogative to regulate entry, then we can debate details of that regulation.

                      Leo, it seems you can accept border regulations to prevent entry of hostile actors. How would you propose doing so?

                    11. I would propose an expanded guest worker program, which includes a criminal background check. Allow those people the freedom to cross our borders to live and work here, to travel to see family back home etc. ICE can focus on the bad guys that way.

                      The system should have no limit on numbers of people who can apply. Any limits just keep the current black market situation going.

                      The guest workers should have no access to welfare, no right to vote, no automatic pathway to citizenship. Immigration and naturalization are entirely separate things.

                      That’s a basic outline of what I would propose.

                    12. Furthermore, legalizing drugs would eliminate most of the bad actors which wish to cross our borders. No need to further restrict rights when freedom has a solution.

                      Getting rid of the minimum wage would also reduce the need for a black market for labor, which is part of what fuels immigration as well.

                      I’m not even opposed to the border wall if Americans vote in favor of it through Congress. Its dumb, expensive, and likely ineffective, but so are most things government does. Doing it through executive fiat is a dangerous precedent and anti limited government.

                    13. Legalized drugs may lessen crime, but it may not. Smuggling is one of the oldest crimes, and will probably remain so. Even Gene Roddenberry in his utopian federation still believed that smuggling would be a problem. If not drugs, then something else will replace it. Just as drugs replaced alcohol when prohibition was overturned. It hurt the mafia but they adapted.

                    14. “What does someone’s employment status have to do with their ability to live here if they wanted to?”

                      “I would propose an expanded guest worker program, which includes a criminal background check. Allow those people the freedom to cross our borders to live and work here?”

                      Leo contradicts himself again.

                      And BTW, how do you justify a criminal background check? We don’t deport native born criminals.

  19. The hysteria over immigration isn’t because of a surge in nationalism, a tilt toward fascism or an outright rise of the Nazis.

    We had much more virulent anti-immigrant sentiments and movements within the body politic in the late 1800s and again in the early 1900s.

    And guess what? Those were eras of peak immigration, where a substantial portion of the population was immigrants. And the last 20 years has seen the largest degree of legal immigration since that time. Add in a huge influx of illegal immigrants…. and magically you have people worried about immigration (particularly the illegal sort).

    So no, restricting immigration isn’t the way to fan the flame of nationalism and tilt us toward a new fascist state. The only reason those sentiments exist is because we have a situation that is making a lot of working class folks nervous. It isn’t the first time this situation has made those same sort of folk nervous. And there is no reason to believe they’ll become less nervous if you make sure there is even more immigration (particularly of the illegal sort).

    Besides, the alt-right may be tilting toward a bit of xenophobia, but it is the mainstream left that is passionately embracing all things fascist – from strict censorship codes to nationalizing industries to controlling wages and prices… the left is enamored of all things fascist.. except applying that label to themselves. That, they reserve for others.

    1. Lest you wonder where in the world I could possibly get the notion that we have a lot of immigration happening at the moment, have a look at this graph of immigration as a percentage of the total population over the last 180 years.

      People may be ignorant, easily spooked, uneducated and even wrongheaded. But they are not really all that stupid. When a trend is this big, they’ll notice. Even if the press isn’t telling them anything. They can figure it out when they go to McDonald’s and have a look at the staff. Or when they go to their job as a framing carpenter and look over at the drywall crew.

        1. But Shikha and her ilk assure me we have draconian immigration laws that basically make immigration impossible.

      1. It’s the white GCs I usually have a problem with, not the brown crew, who tend to keep their heads down and work hard.

        1. Well at least you’re not racist. Keep the hate alive.

        2. Unless you and all your buddies from the trailer park are having a hard time finding work because the Guatemalans get all the jobs these days. And nobody can get the wage your dads were getting for hanging sheet rock in your tiny midwestern town, because now there’s plenty of labor to go around.

          So what are you gonna B.S. about as you pass the bong around on the weekend? Is it going to be how great it is that increased mobility has made labor more fungible and brought additional productivity and efficiency to the marketplace?

          It is a perfectly predictable that those guys are gonna lament the fact that “those other guys” are threatening their way of life.

          An anecdote:

          When I graduated college, I took a job doing paternity tests while I was waiting for my graduate fellowship to kick in. There were two of us “college boys” in the lab. The rest were “lifer” techs. They viewed us with great suspicion and hostility. They spread rumors that we were bad at our jobs and there was general hostility.

          1. When I went in for my first review the manager was shocked to learn that I was the most efficient worker in the lab. By more than double. She was convinced that the only way I was able to complete twice the work of anyone else was by being slack and doing shoddy work.

            In the end I designed a new process that allowed two workers to cooperate to do 3 times the normal workload with improved accuracy.

            The hostility of the existing workers was predictable. They even laid some of their fear and loathing on race. It is exactly analogous. Right down to the fact that senior management didn’t notice that they had someone on staff who was able to reduce their labor costs by 60% after only 2 months on the job.

            1. And there lies the nut of a true argument for immigration reform.

              Immigrants unquestionably lead to a better economy… at least up to some point. This was the Bush argument when he took a swing at it.

              Unfortunately it seems that both political parties would rather have an issue as red meat for their bases and keep the status quo, where we have huge numbers of illegal aliens living and working illegally in the US.

              I mean, what’s not to love? Dems get more subgroups they can pit against one another, business gets easily exploitable labor, Republicans get an issue to appeal to blue collar workers…… Win-win, right?

              Well, except for the exploited workers. But who cares about them, amirite?

              1. I agree with your description of the reasons for political gridlock on the issue among politicians and their donors.

                And of course there are few things more predictable than white Americans reacting hysterically to the thought of brown people taking something away from them. Solve that problem and you’ve fixed the core problem of American politics since it came into being.

                  1. The brown people that you hate so much, you misanthrope!

                    1. So your retort is to create a straw man. I fully oppose northern European illegal aliens as well. I have no problem sending Norwegian’s who come here illegally back to Norway (and I’m of Norwegian descent). And for sure, those damn illegal Icelandic people need to go home.

    2. The only reason those sentiments exist is because we have a situation that is making a lot of working class folks nervous.

      And I’d add that most voters want immigration controls and are pissed that neither party seems to give a shit.

  20. Is Trump’s border enforcement really draconian? Isn’t it basically enforcing the law as written?

    1. Yes, but fascism don’t you know

    2. I have a friend that moved to Ireland and a friend trying to get dual citizenship with Italy.

      They have far more hoops to jump through than we do.

    3. It’s racist for America to have immigration law. Or any law really. Or no law.

    4. Written laws can never be draconian. Interesting.

  21. Ever notice that everything that makes sense leads to fascism? This fascism thing is starting to sound like a great idea!

  22. Still no reference to the welfare state…

    Keep pretending money doesn’t matter

    1. If you think immigrants will bankrupt the welfare state, shouldn’t people who hate the welfare state be for more immigration to speed the process along?

      Of course data and basic logic tell us that immigrants bolster the welfare state since they skew younger than the general population, and illegal immigrants even do us the favor of paying into it without taking any benefits.

      1. That argument is completely non-sequitor. The reason many people are against welfare is it doesn’t work and it’s unsustainable. Making it more unsustainable is in no one’s benefit. Wow, Tony just when I think you can’t top yourself in inane arguments you prove me wrong.

      2. Except economists have well documented the costs of immigration to the country, at a rate of thousands of dollars per year for the first two generations. But providing that information would do nothing to persuade you otherwise.

        And “bankrupt the welfare state” would leave us all broke, and I don’t want to stand in a breadline with the simpleton idiots that voted to make us that way.

        1. His argument lacks any real logic. He thinks he is making a point without realizing his dad attempt at snark demonstrates the shallowness of his intellectual abilities.

          1. I usually don’t respond to him, he’s just a troll.

            Chemjeff will come around a bit after 5 pm to put up a good faith argument.

            1. Almost 8:00 and no Jeffy. I hope he’s OK.

              1. You’ve seen the depth of his intellect.

                To quote “He’s pretty fucking far from OK”

              2. I was wrong….

                SAD!

          2. Logical, intelligent thinking is something no one has accused him of having.

        2. The people holding this country back are clearly the descendants of the first immigrants (and “immigrants”) who can’t stop having major crises of drugs and social problems.

          More recent immigrants tend to be entrepreneurial, which might have something to do with self-selection. They were industrious enough to pack up and get here, after all.

          Kick out the hillbillies, that’s what I say, since suddenly for some reason we’re all so concerned with the collective good over individual freedom.

          1. This is stupid even for you. It isn’t even close to being historically accurate. Even if you don’t include Native Americans, the Spanish were the first immigrants, so by your logic this is the group that we are most concerned about. The hillbillies as you refer to them, specifically applies to the Appalachians, who are mostly descendants of Scots-Irish indentured servants and didn’t start arriving until the late 17th and early 18th century. So they aren’t even close to the first immigrants. The Spanish, English, Dutch and French all easily pre-date them, with the Spanish being the undisputed first immigrants outside the ancestors of modern Native Americans. Try again Tony.

            1. So we let the South Americans in and build a wall around West Virginia.

              1. Did you even bother to read what I wrote. You called to kick out the first immigrants, which were the Spanish. As I explained the hillbillies came much later. You’re an idiot how doesn’t even realize that your attempt at snark makes you look like an idiot because you can’t even get basic facts right.

          2. The people holding this country back are clearly the descendants of the first immigrants (and “immigrants”) who can’t stop having major crises of drugs and social problems.

            There aren’t enough American Indians left to explain the statistical changes among the total population so I doubt that’s the answer. Further while you’re correct they are in a crisis their history shows the ineffectiveness of the left’s belief the solution to all problems is more money.

            1. If European immigrants had managed not to cause the worst genocide in human history and, say, half the population of the Americas were Indians, I wonder what white people would be thinking about immigration policy.

              1. If European immigrants had managed not to cause the worst genocide in human history and, say, half the population of the Americas were Indians, I wonder what white people would be thinking about immigration policy.

                How did your preferred immigration policy work out for the American Indians? Maybe you’re not making the point you think you are.

                Sing it loud sister.

                1. My preferred immigration policy is not the genocide of Americans again, just to be clear.

                  1. But was it really the worst genocide? Was it even a genocide? Considering the fact that the Romans completely destroyed the Carthagenian culture, how many cultures and people’s the Mongols wiped out etc this is a questionable at best assertion. Additionally, most of the death of natives in the Americas was completely unintentional, as a result of disease. And there is, despite the myth, no evidence that the Europeans ever intentionally attempted to infect native populations. Once again your grasp of history (rather your lack thereof) undermines any argument you tried to make.

                  2. It takes an especially stupid and historically ignorant motherfucker to think that what happened to the Indians is “the worst genocide in human history”

                    1. You can look it up.

                      As for Tulpa, take your meds.

                    2. Or you could support your assertion.

                      Or you could stop lying.

                    3. Is anyone surprised that Tony didn’t come ready to support his asinine assertion?

                    4. I have studied it. There is considerable debate as to rather or not it even qualifies as a genocide. Additionally, there is not debate that the vast majority of deaths were the results of disease and that these diseases were unintentionally introduced. There is little debate that there is no solid evidence that any European powers ever intentionally introduced any of the diseases that led to the majority of deaths of natives in the Americas. Additionally, if you look at the examples of many other cultures throughout history, what happened in the Americas actually isn’t even unique. So, maybe you out to look it up Tony.

                    5. *Aught to.

                    6. They intentionally landed on the shores of the continent. They didn’t know about germs, but their intentional actions still resulted in probably hundreds of millions dead. And they probably weren’t too distraught about it.

                      And then there’s the wholesale slaughters of entire civilizations that frequently happened.

                    7. So not genocide, an accident. Nice of you to admit you were utterly wrong.

                    8. “probably hundreds of millions dead. And they probably weren’t too distraught about it.”

                      That’s a lot of probably. It’s almost like you know you are full of shit. Probably.

                    9. Tony backpedaling from genocide to probably on purpose at the speed of light. I’m surprised that comment didn’t travel through time.

                    10. Homo sapiens intentionally entered Europe and Asia leading to the extinction of Neanderthal and other contemporary hominids. The Apache and Navajo intentionally migrated out of Canada and nearly wiped out multiple Pueblo people. Comanche migrated out of Idaho and Wyoming and displaced many tribes, killing many in the process. The Aztec intentionally migrated out of Northern Mexico and the American southwest and wiped out, conquered and displaced who knows how many peoples in central America? So what is your point?

                    11. The Mongols and Turks invaded Europe and introduced bubonic plague (and if the history is correct they intentionally did this) resulting on how many millions of deaths over centuries? Again, how is what happened in the Americas unique?

                  3. “Tony|3.29.19 @ 5:37PM|#

                    My preferred immigration policy is not the genocide of Americans again, just to be clear.”

                    Oblivious Tony is best Tony. To laugh at.

                  4. Tony|3.29.19 @ 5:37PM|#

                    My preferred immigration policy is not the genocide of Americans again, just to be clear.

                    Genocide is not an immigration policy, it is an outcome. Do you suppose it matters to American Indians that it wasn’t a policy?

                    You’re the king of irrelevant.

                    1. You say that on a thread dominated by Tulpa’s mentally ill rambling?

                    2. The only one who seems mentally ill I. This thread is you Tony. You made multiple unsupported assertions and then doubled down in a petty, peurile point about Europeans intentionally coming here.

          3. Kick out the hillbillies, that’s what I say

            Yeah, but then you’d have to fuck off back to the land of your ancestors, and you clearly don’t want to do that.

          4. “Kick out the hillbillies, that’s what I say”

            All that “replacement population” talk is just ridiculous!

      3. If you think immigrants will bankrupt the welfare state, shouldn’t people who hate the welfare state be for more immigration to speed the process along?

        Because destroying the country is the logical response to it doing something stupid? People who let their hatred of others ruin their thinking should write less.

        1. Starve the beast is the only strategy going for ending the welfare system. All those brown socialists aren’t going to vote it away, so you might as well let them contribute to the solution, am I right?

          1. am I right?

            Still waiting for your cherry to pop.

          2. What “brown” socialists you fucking moron?

            1. Socialist Tony is race baiting again.

              It’s the go to argument of Leftist vermin.

  23. Wow what a dumbshit article.

    We don’t keep folks from leaving. But we CAN’T let everyone in who wants to come here. In the words of Trump they are not their “best”. Many are welfare sponges.

    These countries are shit holes because of the residents. If you import all of the residents you create a shit hole here.

    1. Every sentence in your comment is false.

      1. All your losing has made you shrill, bitter and even more overtly stupid.

        1. Yawn.

          1. Yes and you’re boring too, apparently even to yourself.

    2. These countries are shit holes because of the residents.

      Wouldn’t you want to escape?

      1. When my Great-Grandparents’ families left Norway and Denmark they didn’t try to turn America into Scandinavia, but they learned English and worked hard. They gave their kids “American” names and insisted the kids learned English and didn’t use Norwegian (or Danish). Fleeing bad conditions is normal, however, if you bring with you the same mentality that made the situation bad in your home country then this situation not normal. Most probably do want a better life but at least some want us to repeat the bad programs that made their country shitholes in the first place. I am not saying this is the reason to restrict them but I am arguing against the idea that they are angelic or that there is no danger to allowing mass amounts into the country without some restrictions.

    3. “These countries are shit holes because of the residents.”

      Countries are people.

      The US is not more free, secure, and prosperous than Mexico because it has magic dirt that Mexico lacks.
      The US has Americans.
      Mexico has Mexicans.
      They make different countries.

  24. Restrictionism Is the Road to Fascism in America, Not Open Door Policies

    The French in 1940 disagree.

    1. Maybe she’s referring only to the Maginot line? I know the very secure borders of Poland (traffic arms) led to that nation falling to Fascism.

      1. The French built the Maginot line… A fortress wall to beat all fortress walls. They got their asses kicked anyway! Walls don’t work very well in more modern times, it sure seems to me… They don’t stop visa over-stays, for one thing, in our immigration wars…

        1. They got their asses kicked because the maginot line didn’t extend the whole border. In fact, the Germans simply went around it, through the open borders between France and Luxembourg and France and Belgium (which is the same route the Germans took in 1914). So the enforced border worked but was incomplete. The Germans instead used the open border. Yet you think this proves your point?

          1. Yea, he stepped into that one.
            The Maginot Line is an example wall opponents should steer very away from.

            1. “So the enforced border worked but was incomplete.”

              All history fans who know a darned thing about WWII know about these details. But apply them to Donald and His Wall. It works, where it is installed, and can stay installed. As the Rio Grande spills out of the canyons South-East of El Paso (plus Big Bend park), there are many-many miles where the spring flood waters will wash away your wall, every stinkin’ time, pretty much. And then we’ll also have to build a wall at the Canadian border, to make it work “fool-proof”. The French learned that “fool-proof” is a fool’s errand… You have to put your wall EVERYWHERE!!! Else you get bypassed. In today’s world, we better put walls on each and every border (as the French failed to do), plus at both our Atlantic and Pacific beaches, plus a sky-shield for un-authorized aircraft… And then they tunnel under the walls anyway! Or they over-stay their visas!

              A fool’s errand… Between this method and an alternative, the costs might be a wash… The perhaps-competitive alternative is to put Bernie Sanders in charge, so that he can ruin our economy, and THEN the immigrants will stay away! That might actually be cheaper than building a “bypass-proof, perfect” wall!

              1. No but the argument that it only works where it is installed and manned seems to argue for having a complete wall. But they will find another, more difficult method argues that the wall will reduce illegal crossing allowing resources to be spent better on monitoring these other methods. It is a rule we learned in base defense. Projecting a strong defense, being able to deter or funnel attacks into an area you choose. Now this isn’t base defense but the concept is the same. Projecting a strong defense and focusing resourced where we want them.

              2. The idea anyone is arguing for a bypass proof border is a straw man. It is a non-sequitor argument. It is a ridiculous argument. Anyone arguing for such a thing is pollyandish. The idea is to make it far more difficult for people to enter without vetting.

                1. The logical extreme argument? OK, I ‘fess! However, it does illustrate where the thinking of some people is headed.

                  Note that border hysteria, political theater, and grand-standing is endangering our genuine military security needs. We do not have infinite funds.
                  See http://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/…..index.html

                  Hold on, I got more…

                  1. The walls are not a cost-effective measure at ALL… They are political show-pieces. If we wanted cost-effective, we’d do this:

                    http://www.businessinsider.com…..all-2019-2
                    A simple technology could secure the US-Mexico border for a fraction of the cost of a wall ? but no one’s talking about it

                    But Trump is obsessed about what LOOKS intimidating… Walls (old tech thousands of years old) and barbed wire (dating from the late 1800s). He wants his (and I quote) “Big, beautiful wall”. And the psychology (hate the other tribe or troop) dates back to apes and monkeys. To hell with effective; it is all a political show. And since we are racists, we do NOT bother with the political theater with respect the Cannucks.

                    Once again, if we’d want effective, we’d go fiber-optic sensors. Leaves the wildlife alone as well…. But NOOOO, Trump and the troglodytes want highly visible political theater!

                    PS, soldiermedic76, thanks for your service, and I respect you for actually carrying on a real debate, not stupid name-calling like I see from the many-many names of Tulpa, for example…

                    1. PS, in the name of full disclosure and honesty, some previous incarnations of “electronic fences” have been total flops. But they do deserve a fresh chance, with new tech. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19409682 is old border tech, no mention of fiber or fibre? The new tech is NOT at all the same as the old tech, so it deserves a fresh chance! SAVES YOU MONEY!!!

              3. “there are many-many miles where the spring flood waters will wash away your wall, every stinkin’ time, pretty much.”

                Yeah. Mankind is incapable of building a permanent structure across a river.
                Bridges have to be rebuilt every spring.

                1. Walls and bridges are different animals, moron. People pass freely underneath bridges. Study up on the difficult concepts!

        2. It would be easier to enforce visa overstays if we didn’t have to focus all resources on enforcing borders. Yet, I know that you really don’t care about visa overstays either because you oppose any internal enforcement as well. So your point is an argument in good faith.

          1. All the everything would be easy to enforce if we had a government with the will to enforce immigration law.

            Right now, illegals correctly figure that if they don’t get caught breaking *more* US law, they’ll eventually be rewarded for breaking US immigration law with US citizenship.

            If we started to actually deport all illegals discovered in the country, not just the “bad hombres”, they’d see that eventually they’d get the boot too, and most would move out instead of waiting for their lives to be overturned.

  25. Open borders will lead to a mass migration of millions of freeloaders who will most likely vote democrat and continue America’s downward spiral into authoritarianism .

    What kind of fucking ‘freedom’ is that?

      1. Interesting. the URL leads to this headline

        Birmingham school stops LGBT lessons after parents protest

        1. Because the people protesting aren’t from around there.

          1. Fascinating = I guess we’ll have to see how it’s played out and what song the fat lady sings

            1. So to rephrase your original comment:

              “Open borders will lead to a mass migration of millions of freeloaders who will most likely vote REPUBLICAN and continue America’s downward spiral into authoritarianism.”

              1. Uhm, try again Eric. That was just stupid.

      2. Its cute you think the Demcorats are not going to throw the gays over the side once the Muslim vote becomes more valuable.

        1. The Jews have already been tossed.

          1. And if immigration is ever solved, expect them to throw the pro-life Catholic Hispanics over the side too.

          2. I keep wondering when they will notice.

            I asked a Jewish friend of mine. He’s in complete denial. He thinks the Dems are getting better toward Jews.

        2. That’s why Ls and Gs are being de-emphasized in the Culture War in favor of TQWTFs. The idea of castrating homosexual men, either literally or just socially, is something traditional Muslims are down with. The academic left and Islam have a common cause there.

  26. Why must my freedoms be sacrificed for the freedoms of others? Why can’t leftists attack the leftist policies that cause people to fear mass immigration? Why is it always the people who want to be left alone must have their money taken and freedoms removed?

    Why does leftist policy drive more leftist policy on the rest of us?

    How about you clowns stop forcing diversity in the name of wealth redistribution down our throats?

  27. Shika seems willful in her strawmanning of Frum’s arguments. From inserting imaginary racism by saying
    nor does he say whether he’d be as worried about “mass immigration” if the bulk of these immigrants were from non-“shithole” countries like Denmark.

    He doesn’t say “I would be just as worried if…”, therefore that must be what he means. Really intellectually lazy, that. That isn’t even worthy of a high school debate.

    Then there’s this, immediately preceding:

    Frum also fears mass immigration is fundamentally changing America’s character. Some 45 million foreign-born people live in the U.S., he notes, and by 2027, they’ll represent 14.8 percent of the population. That matches the “1890 historic high,” which was swiftly followed by the rise of the nativist Know-Nothings and the strict immigration limits they demanded.

    Frum does not explain why, a century later, 14.8 percent is still a meaningful metric

    Uh…. because it is the only historically relevant example? I’d say that pulling up the single relevant moment in history as a datapoint for consideration is pretty much exactly the correct thing to do. And it would be incumbent on those who think it is not relevant to provide at least some meaningful reason to discard the only example we have.

    I ain’t even on the other side of this argument, but dang! You gotta do better than straw man and lazy burden-shifting.

    1. “Shika seems willful in her strawmanning of Frum’s arguments. ”

      Shikha gonna Shikha

  28. Caravaners travel together for safety, not force, … Frum neglects to mention that the overall number of migrants flocking to the border is at near historic lows since 2000, even with the caravans en route. (Trump’s harsh rhetoric likely contributed to a February spike in the number of families apprehended, as fear that the border would be closed and asylum options canceled prompted many families to migrate sooner than they’d planned….) The composition of would-be immigrants has changed, too: More families fleeing the Northern Triangle countries are flocking to the U.S. border, while the number of single Mexican men has dropped to a trickle.

    Let’s see…

    The caravans were organized by political activists from the US who were explicit in their desire to impact the US election. So no, I don’t think it is reasonable to argue that they were traveling in large caravans for protection.

    And rhetoric lead to a spike in apprehensions? Rhetoric that Trump said he wanted people apprehended? ….Uh, Ok. I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere.

    1. The number of mexican men has dropped to a trickle…

      Let’s go to the Census Bureau – from the Reuter’s article linked above:

      The share of immigrants from Mexico fell to 25.3 percent last year from 26.5 percent in 2016, while the share from China rose to 6.4 percent from 6.2 percent.

      Trickle, smaller deluge… whatevs. Same diff….

      There’s loads of easy arguments to make here without building straw men and misrepresenting statistics. Leave that to Trump and his ilk.

      Legal immigrants are actually skewing toward Trump’s goal of “best and brightest”, with more college degrees coming in than ever before.

      But what of the illegal crowd? How do we even get reliable data about that?

      1. It is borderline insane to argue that reducing immigration is the road to fascism – unless you are going to claim that 1950-1980 was the peak of fascism in the US. I’m sure Jimmy Carter and the Kennedy clan will be shocked to hear that.

        Getting the cart and the horse reversed like this is pretty hard to do when it is so blatantly obvious that the worry about immigrants is a reactionary position.

        You might argue that addressing peoples fears by reducing immigration is not the right way to go about things, but it certainly isn’t even arguable that making their reasons for having those fears even more real is going to fix things.

        And the insertion of “because they are brown” as a racism slur isn’t productive either. We had the exact same fears when the torrent of immigrants were Irishmen. And there were plenty of nasty stereotypes being passed around during that era as well.

        You can’t claim the moral high ground by pointing out that people are exactly the way people have always been. It just won’t work. There is no special “racism” embodied in worry over having a huge new group of “other” people joining your group. What they look like isn’t a factor. It is the fact that they are “other”. Always has been, always will be.

        1. I guarantee you that Dalmia lives nowhere near the neighborhoods inhabited by illegal immigrants and suffers exactly zero effects from their presence. If Dalmia speaks more than ten words a day to anyone outside of her tiny social bubble, I would be shocked. But she is happy to call people who are harmed by immigration racist.

          1. John, who can’t leave his house without being knifed by a Mexican gang member.

            1. I live in a great neighborhood. I live with Progressive whites. Like they would ever allow Mexicans into their neighborhood unless it was to be servents.

            2. My neighborhood is 95% Democratic and more white and segregated than Birmingham in 1955. A black or hispanic who isn’t the hired help shows up and some good little Democrat with their “Love Trumps Hate” sign in the front yard calls the cops, who are fascist as hell, in less than five minutes. That is how Progressives and gentry liberals operate.

              1. So I’m dying to know where you’re getting your ideas about all the harms immigrants are causing. Clearly it’s not anecdotes from your own life.

                Could it be some fat asshole on FOX News telling you to believe things and not think too hard about them?

                1. It is called getting your perception of reality from somewhere besides Rachel Maddow’s ass. You should try it sometime Tony.

                  1. Rachel Maddow went to Stanford and Oxford. Hannity is a college drop-out.

                    1. Rachel Maddow is a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist. She is just a carpet munching version of Lousia Mensch. Sorry but the President of the House isn’t going to sign an execution warrant for the President. Rachel lied to you Tony.

                      As far as Hannity, you should probably stop watching him as well. Try turning your TV off all together and reading a book sometime.

                    2. I know what websites you link to every time you try to provide evidence for something. You have no credibility, and you are so far in the bubble you don’t even realize how ridiculous you’re being when you try to pass off the Daily Caller as credible. Being addicted to rightwing propaganda can happen on the internet the same as on the TV and talk radio. And by books I can only assume you mean Ann Coulter’s latest.

                    3. The difference between the best of the right and the best of the left in political talk is that most of the right understands that they are entertainers. Rush and Hannity in particular are very explicit about it. They do political talk, but it is about attracting viewers/listeners so you can sell ads.

                      Hannity was mentored by Neil Boortz early in his career, and they both used to say the same thing – it is about entertainment. Rush has said it explicitly many times as well.

                      Rachel Maddow is the perfect example of the opposite. Her entire existence came about because of ideologues who wanted to make a left-wing version of Rush. They made Air America (funded by billionaire activist) so they could have their own rush. So she learned that you need to be ideological and you are there to push propaganda for your team. That’s why she spent a couple of decades being terrible at it and having terrible ratings.

                      The rise of Trump finally got enough people on the left whipped into a frenzy and she found an audience of angry HRC voters to save her network, briefly pushing her to the top of her TV genre.

                      But it didn’t have legs. Because smug isn’t entertaining. It is annoying.

                      She never figured out that Rush is being tongue in cheek when he says “talent on loan from God” and that it was a shtick played for laughs as well as outrage.

                    4. “”Rachel Maddow went to Stanford and Oxford.””

                      Did she major in crying?

                    5. Rachel Maddow went to Stanford and Oxford, so what?
                      Hannity was a college drop out… so was Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, so what is your point Tony? Are you so shallow that you think having a sheepskin makes someone automatically correct?

                    6. Rachel Maddow went to Stanford and Oxford, so what?

                      So to the civilized world, which increasingly does not include Tucker Carlson addicts, being educated at the best places in the world to be educated means something.

                      That two guys became billionaires after dropping out of college does not mean all who drop out of college are geniuses. I’ll let you look up the name of that particular fallacy.

                    7. I guess you missed the whole pay for college access scandal , you sad degree slurper.

                      Boy you look stupid right now.

                    8. I guess you missed the whole pay for college access scandal , you sad degree slurper.

                      Boy you look stupid right now.

                    9. Actually,multiple studies have demonstrated that those who receive education at state schools vs “elite” schools generally have similar levels of knowledge and abilities. In fact, some studies maintain that many elite schools are now offering lesser education. Many of the top scientist come from state schools. Your allegiance to “elite” schools seems rather bourgeois. It seems progressives are the most class conscious and most caste oriented group of individuals. Let’s worship someone because they matriculated at a blue blood university.

                    10. Fair enough. Genius is as genius does. And Tulpa is as severely mentally ill does.

                    11. Just goes to show that Stanford and Oxford give degrees to idiots.

                      Education in the USA has gone way down hill. You used to get a junior college/undergrad degree type education back ground in high school. Now we have college grads who dont uderstand how government or businesses work or have basic maths skills to use on every day life.

              2. LOL that’s how it is in many places I’ve lived; the prog whites are the most hoity-toity people I’ve ever come across. In places with more mixture the whites tend to be more blue-collar yet somehow manage to get along with their black and Hispanic neighbors.

          2. I guarantee you that Dalmia lives nowhere near the neighborhoods inhabited by illegal immigrants

            I do. If you live anywhere near DC, you do too. Has it been some major problem for you or something? Had trouble finding a landscaping job?

            1. Typical bugman response.

          3. Au contraire.

            I bet a lot of homes in her neighborhood have illegals as their servants. Probably some are live in!

            I bet Shikha says a lot more than 10 words a day to Consuela. She’s very picky about how the house is cleaned.

    2. Shika is the most viciously dishonest writer I have ever seen. She is just appalling.

      1. Well that’s crazy hyperbolic. I know for a fact you’ve read writers from Jezebel.

        1. Can you really count them as “writers”?

          1. Now that’s just misogynistic. Check your privilege, dude.

      2. “Shika is the most viciously dishonest writer I have ever seen. ”

        Postmodernists gonna postmodern

        “Honesty is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples”

  29. “Draconian”

    LOL

    1. In the first two paragraphs, we have:

      * draconian
      * unabashed
      * a neo-conservative-turned-#NeverTrumper
      * tizzy
      * fascism
      * prophesy
      * politically simplistic
      * stunningly questionable

      She’s lost the ability to write anything but hyperbole.

      1. Hyperbole and buzz words.

      2. You did better than me. I never made it that far. Lol.

      3. “neo-conservative-turned-#NeverTrumper”

        How many neocons aren’t NeverTrumpers?

  30. Ok, here’s an off-topic article that will make your head spin.

    Elizabeth Warren is against a government program and in favor of making sending money in to the government voluntary.

    Yeah… let that sink in. WTF?

    So the deal is that all the big agricultural commodities have government programs to promote them. “Got Milk?”, “Pork, the other white meat!”…. all brought to you by the US government. Producers have to contribute to a fund that lobbies on behalf of their crop and produces such advertisements.

    Warren says the lobbying arms are pro-corporate and anti-family farm. So she wants contributions to be voluntary.

    Who woulda thunk it?

    1. The funny thing is that she thinks that this will appeal to farmers. The stupidity of the “big AG” myth is just that for the most part. And who does she think buys commodities from farmers and ranchers. Yes we want poorer smaller purchasers, because it isn’t hard enough to make a profit during these periods of low commodity prices. Who advised her that this was a good line?

      1. Also, many of these corporations that she refers to are largely co-ops that these farmers belong to.

  31. I posted this once but it was in a dead thread. I apologize for the length, but the amount of ignorance and misinformation dislplayed by the reason staff and some of the readers on here regarding the use of the NEA to fund to border wall requires a long and a bit technical reply. So here it goes.

    To understand the issues involved in Trump’s emergency declaration you have to first understand a few things about how the government spends its money. What is called “fiscal law” stems from Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution which states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”. This is what gives Congress the power of the purse. The government cannot spend money unless it is appropriated by Congress. From this flows all of government fiscal law.

    Appropriating the money, however, isn’t quite enough. Money can only be spent for activities that are authorized by law. So Congressional spending bills come in two types; authorization and appropriations. The authorization says what you can do and the appropriation tells you what if any money you get to do it. It is not uncommon for Congress to authorize or even require something to be done only to then refuse to appropriate or in some cases specifically forbid any money being spent to do it.

    1. This was the heart of the dispute of funding Obamacare in 2013. Obamacare was the law of the land and President Obama had the authority to implement it starting in 2013. Congress, however, had the equal authority to refuse to fund that implementation and make the law a dead letter. This sort of thing happens all of the time, though rarely on that scale. The partisan media wrongly claimed that Congress had a duty to fund the implementation of Obamacare because it was the law. Congress is under no duty to fund anything it doesn’t want to.

      What is often forgotten when talking about the spending power is what the Constitution doesn’t say. It only requires in the next clause that the Congress have a public budget. Outside of that and the requirement that Congress appropriate funds for the army and navy for no more than two years at a time found in Article 1 Section 8, the Constitution doesn’t tell Congress how it must do its budgets. There is no requirement that Congress specify a specific purpose for every dollar spent. Congress could conceivably pass a budget that, provided it didn’t exceed two years, said merely “$3 trillion is appropriated to the executive to be used for all authorized purposes during the next year” and it would be a lawful budget under the Constitution.

    2. Congress of course doesn’t do that. It exercises its spending power by restricting how money it appropriates can be used. This is what is known as “purpose” in fiscal law. For an expenditure to be lawful, it has be spent during the period it was authorized to be spent (time), for an authorized purpose (purpose), and in an amount not exceeding the appropriation (amount). Time, purpose and amount is the holy trinity of fiscal law.

      How specific Congress gets in telling the executive how it can spend appropriated money depends on the will Congress. Sometimes they get very specific about how money can be spent and other times not. They also allow the executive to change the purpose of how money can be used in some circumstances; a process called reprograming.
      Congress depriving the executive of any discretion of how it spends appropriated money was what the fight over earmarks was about. Earmarks were Congress telling the executive “here is so much money to build buildings and you must use it to build a building in Congressman Smith’s district”. All ending earmarks did was cede some discretion over how appropriated money is spent to the executive. When you understand that, watching all of these “principled Conservatives” who not ten years ago led the crusade against earmarks today claiming that Trump exercising discretion over how to spend appropriated money represents an assault on all that is right and good strikes one as a bit rich to say the least.

    3. With all of this in mind, the issues involved in Trump’s emergency declaration to build the wall becomes a lot clearer. There are two statutes involved in the decision; 10 U.S. Code ? 2808 and 33 U.S. Code ? 2293. Both statutes allow the reprograming of defense construction funds (? 2808 defense construction funds that have not yet been obligated and ? 2293 Army Corps of Engineers Construction Funds) to be reprogramed for a new projects that the President deems essential to national defense during times of declared war or when the President declares a national emergency under the National Emergency Act of 1976.

      Trump has declared that border security is a national emergency under the National Emergency Act of 1976 and reprogramed funds previously appropriated for defense construction and Corps of Engineers construction to construct a border wall that he deems essential to national defense. That is what this dispute is about; the President’s authority to reprogram previously appropriated funds consistent with the National Emergency Act of 1976.

      Understand what it is not about. It is not about the President impinging on Congress’s power of the purse, since the funds have already been appropriated. Whether and to what extent Congress restricts the President in how he can use appropriated money is a statutory and political matter. The Constitution only requires that the money be appropriated. It says nothing about who determines the purpose.

    4. Also Trump is not setting some horrible precedent that will be used by some future Democratic President to declare a national emergency to seize everyone’s guns or act on gays, whatever that means. Trump is invoking a specific authority to reprogram a set amount of appropriated funds for a specific purpose. Even under the National Emergency Act, the funds still have to have been appropriated for DOD of Corps of Engineers construction and the reprograming must be something that is deemed essential for national defense and otherwise lawful. The National Emergency Act doesn’t give the President the power to suspend the Bill of Rights or engage in otherwise unlawful activity. It just gives him the power, among other things, to reprogram money.

      Since he is only spending appropriated funds, Trump’s action doesn’t violate the Constitution’s requirement that all moneys drawn from the treasury be appropriated by Congress. Is he violating the statute? The answer to that is it depends. The statutes have two requirements; that the President declare a national emergency and that the money be used for a purpose the President deems essential to national defense.

    5. As far as the emergency is concerned, Congress gave the President the discretion to determine what constitutes a national emergency. What that means is up to the political process. If Congress disagrees, they can use their powers to stop him. Indeed, the President told Congress he intended to do this during the shutdown. Had Congress wanted to, they could have included language in the spending bill prohibiting him from doing it and used their leverage from the shutdown to force Trump into agreeing. The fact that they didn’t do that I think deprives Congress of the ability to claim this is being done over their objection. Even if it is, however, Congress is free to attach such language on the next spending bill or other bills to force Trump to stop. The fact that they gave away their leverage from the shutdown doesn’t make Trump’s action illegal.

    6. This leaves the issue of the project being essential for national defense. This is where I think as in a lot of debates, especially on immigration, the two sides of the issue are talking passed each other. Imagine if instead of a border wall, a President used these statutes to reprogram money to build homeless shelters because he believed homelessness to be a national defense emergency and building homeless shelters essential to national defense. It is safe to say any reasonable person would conclude the President was violating the law in that case. Suppose instead of a border wall or homeless shelters, the President reprogramed the money to build fortifications on the Mexican border to defend US soil from a hostile army based in Mexico. There, it is safe to say any reasonable person would concede the President was acting in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law. So, the question is whether a building a border wall is more like building homeless shelters or more like building fortifications to defend the country against a hostile army.

      It is pretty hard to say it isn’t closer to the hostile army example. So, no the Republic hasn’t ended over this.

  32. The strategy for Republicans to concentrate on attracting older white voters while suppressing younger non-white voters at the ballot is probably a winner in the short term. It could even win Trump a second term, especially if he can persuade even more of the white voters who supported Obama when they were given the chance. Exploiting fear and distrust of outsiders and scapegoating them for society’s problems works well over the short term. I caution against pogroms against immigrants. This might cause otherwise normal older white voters to sympathize with the victims.

    1. Exploiting fear and distrust of outsiders and scapegoating them for society’s problems works well over the short term.

      So there are no downsides or harms to mass immigration. Is that your final answer?

      1. “So there are no downsides or harms to mass immigration.”

        The downsides are in the long term. In the short term older white voters should be able to have their way. In the long term, after the next election say, younger non-white voters will have the advantage. At that point, the Republicans, if they still exist, will have to face the task of coming up with a winning strategy, a major bummer. It wouldn’t be the first time whites found themselves abandoned by a major political party. The Dixiecrats led the way back in the 60s.

        1. There are a lot of downsides in the short term. And most of those downsides are suffered by nonwhites. So your vision of an open borders nonwhite future is not going to materialize.

          1. “There are a lot of downsides in the short term.”

            You think a second term for Trump is a downside? I would have thought the opposite. I thought older whites would realize this may be their last chance to really dominate non whites and milk the opportunity for all its worth.

            “So your vision of an open borders nonwhite future is not going to materialize.”

            I agree. Not in the short term.

        2. If the entire country was filled with people who don’t believe in our Constitution, there’s no such thing as a winning strategy other than armed conflict.

          1. “there’s no such thing as a winning strategy other than armed conflict.”

            No need to resort to armed conflict, as despair, dispossession and Oxycontin will do the job.

          2. If the entire country was filled with people who don’t believe in our Constitution

            You’re talking about right now?

      2. Import Not Americans
        Become Not America

        Whether you consider that a downside depends on your feelings toward America now.

  33. I’ve come to understand that Reason is actually a camouflaged Republican website who’s sole purpose is to re-elect Donald Trump by repeatedly showcasing Russian collusion, climate change and open border inanities of the left. By virtue of that crowd at last night’s victory lap rally, I’d have to say they’re so far successful.

    1. It’s the only justification for an article by Shecky.

      1. If you were to run a false flag operation designed to make those who support immigration look like hateful nuts, you would be hard pressed to be any more effective in that endevour than Dalmia already is.

    2. Is Shikha a mole of the Alt-Right sent to discredit Libertarian Open Border policy, or is she really this inane?

      The new Poe’s Law.

  34. First a historical point. The Know Nothings were active in the 1850s as a reaction to Irish and other immigration from northern and western Europe, not to the mass immigration from eastern and southern Europe in the late 1800s. As to the thesis of the article, I think the main danger of a future fascist government in this country comes from American leftists who now fairly openly advocate a corporate state, not from rednecks and old white people voting to give Trump or some future Trump vast powers. Given that, and the fact that foreign born Americans and their children tend to vote with the Dems, it is in the interest of those who want a free country to support some restrictions on immigration. I wish the country were in position to allow open borders safely, but it isn’t.

  35. But Republicans have to impose a police state otherwise the Democrats will! Aarrgh!!!

  36. The “historically low” migrant surges to the border is putting serious pressure on our border resources in ways we’ve never seen before. Bill Clinton didn’t have to deal with 7 thousand migrants crossing Mexico to reach the southern border and the nation. Even former Obama people are saying this, why does Shikha insist on playing sleight of hand with stats?

    We’re not a fascist state due to occasional security theater, no more than we’re a lawless dysptopia because thrice deported illegals sometimes kills Americans and police. The migrants who wish to come here are enamored with egalitarianism and some will vote for radicals who will enforce it with government force. The Cubans are the Vietnamese in this country are exceptions, not the norm.

    AOC would (probably) never have won in a state like Montana. That image is perfect illustration of worrying trends in the demographic shift. Immigration without economic freedom is meaningless. Is there some cognitive dissonance in opposing a 20 dollar minimum wage and not wanting the nation to accept waves of people who vote for this kind of policy? They’ve done it to their nations.

  37. California governor to visit El Salvador to talk immigration. Needs more poor people.

    http://tinyurl.com/y4kfrjws

    1. Trump should sick the DOJ on Commifornia Governnor Newsome for violating the Logan Act.

      California does not get to negotiate anything on behalf of the United States and CA is one of those states.

    2. SF sidewalks need more fertilizer.

  38. I cannot understand how anyone can think open borders policies can end in anything but disaster. Not just for people in wealthy countries, but for everyone.
    If say, 400 million Africans are able to reach Europe in the next few years and apply for benefits, it would do little to solve the problems in Africa, but would bankrupt Europe. Large masses of illiterate and unskilled people are not needed as they might have been in previous centuries.
    Open borders means that people will flow rapidly from poor nations to wealthier ones, until equilibrium is reached. In this case, equilibrium means that the conditions in the wealthy state deteriorate to the point where they are no longer wealthy.
    The world economy is a pretty fragile thing, and supply chains are complex and tenuous. The first people to suffer from economic collapse of wealthy nations would be the world’s poor, who depend on direct and indirect aid.

    If you live in an urban area, you can experiment with this on a micro scale. Leave your home unlocked, and post notices in poorer areas that you intend to do so. Then watch as equilibrium is attained.

    1. Germany with a large and unwanted ethnic minority does not end well.

  39. Libertarian Bowel Movement.

    Mexico warned this week that “the mother of all migrant caravans” could be heading toward the US.

    Interior Secretary Olga Sanchez Cordero fears that up to 20,000 migrants from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are already gathering in Honduras.

    “We have information that a new caravan is forming in Honduras, that they’re calling ‘the mother of all caravans,’ and they are thinking it could have more than 20,000 people,” she insisted Wednesday.

    It comes as another caravan of about 2,500 Central Americans and Cubans is making its way through Mexico’s southern state of Chiapas.

    http://tinyurl.com/y2py9z5l

    1. How did you manage to survive the last caravan? If Mexico is threatening us with the mother of all migrant caravans, it will even worse.

      1. You think that’s bad? Biden is a pervert.

        Biden doesn’t recall alleged kissing incident from 2014

        http://tinyurl.com/y63zc74v

        America has more than enough taxpayers to fund the foreign freeloaders.

        From the Land of the Free to the Land of the Freeloaders, both foreign and domestic.

    2. No wonder Trump is cutting off aid to those countries. That announcement came right out of the blue.

  40. Absolute tosh.

  41. Actually given our current political path and the nature of the immigrants flooding the country, the path is towards socialism.

    If only we were importing libertarians.

  42. ” And he grudgingly accepts that immigrants might be a net economic boon”

    They’re a huge transfer of wealth from the American working class to the American employing class and foreigners. Duh.

  43. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  44. “He acknowledges “immigrants are making America safer” because they commit fewer crimes than the native-born population.”

    What an utter crock! EACH AND EVERY crime committed by an immigrant is an overall increase in crime. If they weren’t here, there’d be no such crimes. Furthermore, we only know about the crimes that are reported. As immigrants tend to stay with other immigrants and immigrants, especially the illegal ones, are reluctant to call the police, these statistics are meaningless.

    1. All those things could be said about the native born too.

      1. Anericans have no responsibility or duty to allow foreign nationals entry.

        1. +10

  45. if you need a best home online jobs at home. visit this site…. http://www.home.jobs89.com

  46. Open Door Policies Won’t Lead to Fascism

    No, they won’t.

    But open doors are what WE want. Doors. Doors allow controlled access. Doors can be shut if need be.

    You want no doors. No doors, no walls, no control whatsoever.

    For us, mind you. Just for us. Everyone else can have as much control as they like. Only the US should operate sans borders. Even pointing out that you all have no problem with everyone else having border control is considered a failing by you.

    That’s probably because the one thing hypocrites truly hate is having their hypocrisy pointed out.

    1. “Walls are only bad when Whitey builds them”

  47. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  48. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.pradabagtmall.com/ word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.