Reason Roundup

Rand Paul Plan Aims to Attract More High-Skilled Immigrants

Plus: Trump drops Census citizenship quest, veterans says wars weren't worth it, millennials make good nuns, and more...

|

Overhauling employment visas. On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) introduced a highly important, eminently reasonable proposal for fixing one aspect of our flawed immigration system. Paul's Backlog Elimination, Legal Immigration, and Employment Visa Enhancement (BELIEVE) Act would:

  • expand the overall number of employment-based immigration visas that the U.S. allocates annually from 140,000 to 270,000,
  • end per-country caps on employment-based immigration green cards,
  • authorize the spouses and older teenage children of immigrants granted work visas to work in the U.S. themselves without counting toward the annual cap on employment-based visas,
  • make it easier for U.S. employers to hire immigrants in certain desirable work categories (those on the U.S. Department of Labor "Shortage Occupation" list), and
  • make it easier for the children of those with temporary worker permits to stay in the United States upon turning 21.

Paul's proposal "would solve most of the major issues with skilled immigration in one piece of legislation," writes David Bier at the Cato Institute's blog.* And it "would do more to move the United States toward a merit-based system than any other legislation introduced this congress. No legislation since the 2013 immigration reform bill that passed the Senate would increase skilled immigration more than this bill."

A similar but less broad bill passed the House of Representatives earlier this week.


FREE MINDS 

The Trump administration has backed down on its threat to require a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. "In place of the Census question, Trump says he will issue an executive order instructing government agencies to sift through existing databases and documents to determine residents' immigration status," Reason's Eric Boehm explains.

"I am here to say we are not backing down on our effort to determine the citizenship status of the United States population," Trump told reporters yesterday. But as Boehm notes, "the administration is backing down from an 18-months-long legal battle to include that question on Census forms—a fight that even many conservatives have suggested was an error from the outset."


FREE MARKETS

Facebook's new cryptocurrency, Libra, could weigh down Bitcoin and other decentralized alternative currencies. President Donald Trump recently tweeted his misgivings about both.

"Bitcoin is unfortunately getting caught up in the political fire aimed at Facebook's plans for a global currency," Jerry Brito, executive director at the think tank Coin Center, told The Block. "That the president is calling for Libra to be regulated like a bank reflects the fact that Libra is a company issued asset. In contrast, Bitcoin is an open and permissionless network of users like the internet, not a company."


QUICK HITS

  • "Nearly 18 years since the start of the war in Afghanistan and 16 years since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, majorities of U.S. military veterans say those wars were not worth fighting," according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center.
  • The National Taxpayers Union asks conservatives to reject Sen. Josh Hawley's internet censorship bill.
  • After decades of decline, Catholic nunhood is experiencing a resurgence in the millennial generation. This convent cohort is younger, more diverse, and more conservative than their recent predecessors: "Ninety percent of American nuns in 2009 identified as white; last year, fewer than 60 percent of new entrants to convents did. They're also younger: The average age for taking the final step into the religious life a decade ago was 40. Today, it's 24."
  • "Support for legal abortion stands at its highest level in more than two decades" in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll.
  • Vanity Fair tackles the Justin Amash presidential speculation. "Those I spoke to agreed that the 39-year-old wasn't ready to retire from the political arena, sinking into a tenured chair at the Cato Institute or taking a job complaining about Trump on cable news, like some of his former Tea Party peers," writes Tina Nguyen.
  • Notes on the rise and fall of Portland as platonic hipster ideal:

* CORRECTION: This previously listed the Cato author as Daniel.

Advertisement

NEXT: Kamala Harris Is Reimagining Herself as a Progressive Prosecutor

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. “Nearly 18 years since the start of the war in Afghanistan and 16 years since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, majorities of U.S. military veterans say those wars were not worth fighting,”

    No fucking shit? I’d bet they would just love to invade and occupy Iran for 15 years.

    1. Hello.

      On census citizenship status. We have that here. I see don’t see what’s the problem. It’s like photo ID to vote and merit based immigration. All things we have in Canada – a place progs love to threaten they’ll move to whenever they lose an election.

      1. I can see reasons for and against asking on the census. But I found it surprising that it wasn’t a standard question.
        If I were in charge, I’d probably have the census be a head count and that’s it. It’s the only constitutionally required purpose.

        1. I’ve never answered any question on the census other than count of people in the house. It’s never been a problem. This is a blown up non issue. You don’t have to answer every question.

          We should just answer, “Check with NSA” on every question.

          1. If it’s a headcount to determine representation in government, citizenship distinction is kind of important…

            1. Not really. The representation is based on total number of people (with some exceptions that mostly don’t apply anymore) and not number of citizens.

              1. The representation is based on total number of people (with some exceptions that mostly don’t apply anymore) and not number of citizens.

                “See! The ends don’t connect so there’s no disconnect!”

                Every *body* doesn’t necessarily vote or get to vote. Every body that gets to vote doesn’t necessarily contribute to the tax base. Centering representation around body counts and spending out of the tax base means you are (or may possibly be with a bias in favor of it) giving representation to people who don’t contribute. It’s not equality before the law and/or represents taxation without representation.

                I’m not saying a citizenship question on the census is the right answer (representative democracy in the internet age seems very antiquated and rickety) but acting like “See! No disconnect!” has some exceedingly obvious and anti-liberty implications to it. The representatives aren’t there to represent every tourist and passerby. Especially when the decision is based around things like how to spend property taxes.

                1. I am not stating my opinion on anything, just noting how it is. As the Constitution stands, citizenship is irrelevant for the head count for representation.
                  Maybe it’s important to know about citizenship for some reasons. Like I’ve said, I find it surprising that it isn’t a standard census question.
                  But for the essential purpose of the census, a count of all persons, it is not an important distinction.

                  1. I fail to see how illegal aliens are fundamentally different, for the purpose of representation, than “Indians not taxed”

                    1. “Indians not taxed” at the time referred to Native Americans living in their own sovereign nations and therefore not subject to the laws of the US, but subject to their own sovereign laws.

                      Undocumented immigrants are living in the US, not their own country, and are subject to US laws.

                      That’s the difference. You’re welcome.

                    2. Illegal aliens are apparently not subject to the laws of the US, as proven by their presence

                    3. Illegal aliens are apparently not subject to the laws of the US, as proven by their presence

                      That doesn’t make any sense. Getting away with breaking a law doesn’t mean you aren’t subject to the law. It’s like saying I’m not subject to speed limits because I went over this morning and didn’t get a ticket. Illegals are deported regularly and arrested for other crimes. They are clearly subject to the laws of the US. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be illegal.

                    4. Nardz, the open border people will say whatever it takes to keep losing the fight.

                      I say keep it up!

          2. You don’t have to answer every question.

            It’s illegal to refuse to answer questions on the Census.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/221

            13 U.S. Code § 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

            (a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
            (b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

            1. has this ever been enforced? asking for a friend.

              1. I refused to answer anything but the number of people one time and they kept calling back and threatening to fine me but after a dozen calls they got bored and left me alone.

        2. The Fourteenth Amendment has a specific provision on reducing representation in proportion to the number of male citizens of twenty-one years of age denied the vote for reasons other than crime.

          If we do not have a count of male citizens 21+, we cannot correctly apportion the House under such a circumstance; therefore the Census should, in addition to a headcount, include a question about who meets the 14th Amendment minimums.

          1. Where did this talking point suddenly come from, that we somehow NEED a census count of citizens in order to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment? I have only started seeing it over the past week or so. Is this something Trump tweeted out? Did Tucker Carlson devote a segment of his show to it?

    2. “What do you do for a living?”

      “I conquer and occupy Middle Eastern Countries.”

      1. Whenever you see a fake Tulpa post that starts with ITT, it’s a guarantee he’s throwing a tantrum and you’ll be in for a lot of scrolling.

          1. Thanks for providing an example.

    3. ITT Sparky throws a tantrum because Ken caught him lying.

  2. Dangit. Where’s Fist.

    1. He has put on quite a few pounds so it takes him longer to make it to the blogs.

      1. Alrighty then. Enjoy yourfapping relaxation time, Sir. Madame. Blender. Or however you choose to identify yourself at this point in time.

  3. […] News – Rand Paul Plan Aims to Attract More High-Skilled Immigrants – https://reason.com/2019/07/12/rand-paul-plan-aims-to-attract-more-high-skilled-immigrants/ (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Be Sociable, […]

  4. A worker shortage? I was told we are in the worst recession with no end in sight.

    1. I get hit up by recruiters at least 4 to 5 times a week.

    2. The recession is so bad that all the workers died.

  5. […] News – Rand Paul Plan Aims to Attract More High-Skilled Immigrants – https://reason.com/2019/07/12/rand-paul-plan-aims-to-attract-more-high-skilled-immigrants/ (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Be Sociable, […]

  6. If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t trying to get Trump reelected in 2020, she might as well be.

    Exhibit 1: She’s now accused Nancy Pelosi of being a racist:

    “When these comments first started, I kind of thought that [Nancy Pelosi] was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood. But the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

    —-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/outright-disrespectful-four-house-women-struggle-as-pelosi-isolates-them/2019/07/10/a33c63a8-a33f-11e9-b7b4-95e30869bd15_story.html

    1. Chick fight!

      1. More like retard fight.

        The Dems will have to reap what they have sown.

        Eat your own. Go ahead.

        1. Eat your own. Go ahead.

          You’ve got your choice of two flavors: crow and hat.

          1. I thought it was: jelly or syrup

          2. Don’t you mean eat shit and die?

    2. I’m convinced her and her chief of staff our republican deep cover operatives.

      Exhibit B-
      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/aoc-chief-of-staff-confirms-green-new-deal-was-not-really-about-the-climate

      In a report by the Washington Post, Saikat Chakrabarti revealed that “it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

      The revelation came during a conversation with Sam Ricketts, climate director for presidential candidate Jay Inslee. Chakrabarti further told Ricketts of the Green New Deal, “I think … it’s dual. It is both rising to the challenge that is existential around climate and it is building an economy that contains more prosperity. More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability and justice throughout.”

      She’s going to be drawn out of her district by the next election.

    3. It’s upsetting to see two of my favorite Democrats feuding like this. But based on my years of formal training in intersectionality, I must side with the woman of color against the privileged white woman. Pelosi should listen to AOC’s concerns and try to do better.

      #LibertariansForAOC

      PS — There’s no way Drumpf wins in 2020.

    4. Because of this story, Democrats who would have voted against Trump will now vote for Trump, or those who care enough about politics to be interested in this story who would not have voted Trump will now vote for Trump?

      1. Probably more that she’s helping to maintain the perception that Democrats have lost their goddamn minds.

        1. I can’t imagine party infighting could influence an election with such a polarizing incumbent.

          “AOC and Pelosi are fighting, so now I won’t vote against Trump.”

          Or, “I didn’t really have an opinion beforehand, but after reading about this political party infighting I am now going to see what the other party has to offer.”

          1. Sure, most people won’t change their minds. But people exist who could go either way. And they are the ones you need to convince.
            Trump is very polarizing, but in a somewhat unusual way.

          2. “I really want to vote for Biden because I think he’s got the best chance of beating Trump, but if we end up with fruitcake like AOC, I just won’t vote.”

            1. Bingo. This is what happens. It’s about whether or not an independent or center-left Democrats will vote at all, not about if they will vote for Trump.

    5. She just does what her handlers at Justice Democrats tell her to do. I think their game is to wreck and rebuild the Donkeys as a real socialist party. They’re looking past the 2020 election.

      1. Left-wingers do the long game very well.

        If true, the DNC is done.

  7. France’s internet tax isn’t playing so well with U.S. authorities.

    Oh, how delicious.

    1. I see what you did.

      +1 Apple tarte tatin.

    2. will Trump add Tariffs or will he use France as an example to follow?

  8. After decades of decline, Catholic nunhood is experiencing a resurgence in the millennial generation.

    We will see if they make a habit of it.

    1. Dead cat bounce.

      1. Yea, that’s a good pun

  9. Whenever I click on a Twitter link, it’s just a huge word salad. Why is it popular?

    1. Narcissism? Boredom? A sad desire for attention?

    2. Vegans love salad.

    3. Yea that was a little long

    4. Whenever I click on a Twitter link, it’s just a huge word salad. Why is it popular?

      Don’t hate people. They have agendas. (Anyone who tells you to hate swaths of people has their own agenda.)

  10. Exhibit 2:

    Here’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez going after Joe Biden, first for being too old and then for being a segregationist:

    “When it comes to age, I think age gets used as a proxy for capacity. And so I think there are some folks that are of a certain age where you can kind of question their capacity . . . . I think Joe Biden, his performance on the stage kind of raised some questions with respect to that. But I don’t want to say, just because someone is seventy-nine, they can’t or shouldn’t run for President. I don’t want to use those proxies, a number as a proxy for capacity. I think you have to assess a person’s capacity on a case-by-case basis.

    . . . .

    When you are struggling to talk about segregationists, and you err on the side of discussing them in glowing terms, that is a big problem.

    —-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-on-the-2020-presidential-race-and-trumps-crisis-at-the-border

    If Tucker Carlson said this on Fox News, it probably wouldn’t matter. AOC is saying this shit to The Washington Post and The New Yorker. She’s accusing Pelosi and Biden of unpardonable sins, and she’s doing it from the pulpit of her power base’s churches. She’s not criticizing them. She’s accusing them of sins that can’t be forgiven. People with those sins can only be excommunicated.

    1. It might be time to hit back. The moderates in the DNC and GOP should just flat out go on the offensive and call Ihan, Sanders, AOC and so on for what they are: SOCIALISTS.

      Defense is for losers here. Too much at stake.

      1. Defense is for losers here.

        Yes, preciously. Attack, attack, attack. Somewhat related – Crime Bill Joe is a moron for not hitting back at Prosecutor Harris on the busing bullshit. Crime Bill Joe should’ve hit back and hit back hard – start talking about how many black people & single mothers Prosecutor Harris put away for non-violent crime. We live in a Twitter world of hot takes now. Even reasonable explanations of prior actions are for losers.

        1. Exactly. When she went the ‘little girl on a bus’ emotional crap bull shit he should have hit right then and there.

          This is where Trump kills it. And I think people on some level appreciate this.

          1. And this is where Trump gets the reputation of being a bully and an asshole.

            1. Even though what he’s really doing is fighting against bullies and assholes.

              Its called bulling your bullies. Guess what? It works.

              1. Placating bullies never worked and Trump learned that by dealing with NIMBY’s and unions as a developer. Bush flat out accepted every BS the left gave him and Americans got tired of Republicans sitting back and not reacting.

                1. Exactly. Its also why Gary Johnson crashed and burned in a race he should have been able to secure at least 10 million votes.

                  With the world in turmoil, you have to be a fighter. You have to be willing to get dirty and be a dickhead. I don’t like it. Its repulsive. Trump is vulgar, a liar, a manipulator and a womanizer. But it got us Gorsuch. It got us a halt of entries of new regulation in the federal registrar. It got us out of the Paris Accord. It got us a re-examination of Title IX. It got us the elimination of the Clean Power Plan. The list goes on and on.

                  What does this say about “the ends never justify the means?” Its a gray area. This is all a gray area. Ideologies, including Libertarianism cannot deal with gray areas – it throws their adherents into a frenzy so much so that they’d rather give up on all of their goals just to maintain purity.

                  Purity, so far, has given us nothing but more powerful foes.

                  1. Purity is the virtue for the impotent

                  2. Its a gray area. This is all a gray area.

                    Declaring it all to be a “gray area” is just granting yourself moral license to do whatever you wish, both good and evil, as long as you can find a sufficient rationalization for that lets you sleep at night.

                    I’m not actually asking for “purity” per se. I”m asking that people act in accordance with their values. And it sure seems like an awful lot of people have no higher value than “acquire power”. Which is pathological and wrong and should not be defended.

                    1. Denying that gray areas exist is the same as demanding that people see the world as binary, which it demonstrably is not. I’d go so far as to say that forcing people into these false dichotomies as a way to help yourself sleep at night is a recipe for tyranny.

            2. well he did say “some people” not all.

            3. You have to be an asshole to deal with assholes.

              And Jeff. The left are assholes.

            4. And this is where Trump gets the reputation of being a bully and an asshole.

              Sure, but not everyone considers polite, pleasant, and morally correct to be synonymous or even strongly correlated. Polite assholes do the right thing all the time and crass but otherwise charming individuals routinely turn out to be the worst scumbags and shitheads.

          2. Didn’t I also hear that Harris had in fact made statements opposing bussing in the past? Or am I thinking of something else?

            1. Prosecutor Harris made statements opposing busing after the goddamned debate. She essentially holds the exact same position that Crime Bill Joe does, but since she was a child at the time and benefits from not having had to cast an actual vote for/against the policy back in the 70s, she gets to rail Crime Bill Joe for “not really being a racist buuuuuuuut being a racist. It’s politics in its purest form.

              1. In a field of terrible candidates, she might be the most evil.

                1. She really is. And Tulsi Gabbard, supposed Russian Agent that served with honor in our military, is the only one with the decency to call Prosecutor Harris out for it. Even the media wont do it.

                  Journalists my ass.

        2. Even reasonable explanations of prior actions are for losers.

          Reason is for losers!

          Only narratives are important!

          1. In politics, yes, absolutely. Anyone who thinks differently is either (1) right out of college and thus still an idealist or (2) a total fucking idiot detached from reality.

            1. Or
              (3) Thinks that truth and facts are more important than pleasing narratives

              1. You really think that truth and facts are more important than pleasing narratives in politics?

                Hahaha, yeah, only if you care about things like sensible policy. Why do you think that nearly none of our politicians deal in facts and truth?

                1. You really think that truth and facts are more important than pleasing narratives in politics?

                  I think that determining truth and knowing facts are the standards that we should hold for ourselves. When we allow ourselves to subjugate our standards in favor of pleasing narratives, then it corrupts our reason.

                  I don’t think that we should enable lying shitweasel politicians when they seek to ignore facts and distract from the truth in order to push a narrative aimed at seeking power. And that should be true regardless of whether the politician is from Team Red or Team Blue.

                  Don’t you?

                  1. I think that determining truth and knowing facts are the standards that we should hold for ourselves

                    Hey, me too (also an answer to your final question). But that’s not the world that rules in politics, is it?

                    I don’t think that we should enable lying shitweasel politicians when they seek to ignore facts and distract from the truth in order to push a narrative aimed at seeking power.

                    Me neither, but we will and we do. This won’t change. “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Hey, I’m a believer – its why I do what I do in my local community. But, its dumb politics, really dumb politics. Your favorite politicians did not get into office by being nice honest people.

                    1. One doesn’t become a libertarian because they want to play in the world that politics exists in. They do it because they want to at least suggest some alternative. I think there is value in that even if it has no chance of succeeding.

                    2. Zeb, I agree with you on an idealist level. I also think that’s why Libertarians are basically irrelevant except on a few topics – drugs, sex and crime.

                      Its sad but it is what it is. Until Libertarian candidates start growing a whole lot of very dirty political teeth, they won’t matter.

                    3. “One doesn’t become a libertarian because they want to play in the world that politics exists in.”

                      Cool, but we’re not discussing origin stories, we’re discussing political reality

        3. precisely* freaking autocorrect…

      2. It might be time to hit back.

        Yes, the silence is deafening.

        call Ihan, Sanders, AOC and so on for what they are: SOCIALISTS.

        SOCALISTS vs NAZI’s 2019 version. Let’s call it Operation Barbarossa. FIGHT! WIN! FIGHT!

      3. go on the offensive and call Ihan, Sanders, AOC and so on for what they are: SOCIALISTS.

        How is it an attack to call them what they acknowledge being?

        1. Probably wants them to go further and to accuse AOC of being Stalin in a skirt.

  11. Amash got a love letter from NPR this morning. If he runs for Pres, he’ll cause trouble for Trump!

  12. PREDATORY MISS Teacher Brittany Zamora, 28, who had sex with student, 13, was ‘grooming other kids with nude pics’

    Under the plea deal, she will likely spend about 30 years in prison and would be in her 50s when released.

    This big-mouthed beauty is a naughty girl and deserves a spanking, but 30 years…

    1. 30 years is a long time. Bet she “only” gets 5-10. Now if it was a man doing it yeah probs 15-20.

  13. Angry bagel guy who lives in van explains viral rant: ‘It’s about belittlement’

    Other meltdowns surfaced Thursday on his YouTube channel, which was filled with videos of himself unleashing rage at 7-Eleven workers, law enforcement and neighbors over his insecurities about his 5-foot stature.

    Let’s take bets: will this clearly disturbed garden gnome either shoot up a Girl Scout convention or become a state senator, because I think both are distinct possibilities.

  14. Jordan Peterson: A Libertarian Reading

    here are plenty of libertarian themes throughout, inextricably woven with the rest of the eminent psychologist’s philosophy. Whether he meant to do so or not, the freedom themes are there nevertheless. Maybe it’s impossible to write a book about how to better yourself without invoking some of the core principles of freedom. Maybe by telling people to stare cold, cruel reality in the face and to triumph nevertheless, Peterson has hit on something fundamental—that it is up to each of us to create meaning in our own lives, to improve the world by improving ourselves and helping those around us. And that those who promise us a brighter future at the cost of submission to their will are snake oil salesmen, whether knowingly or not. At the heart of 12 Rules is that libertarian message—that meaning, progress, and prosperity all require freedom. Only with personal freedom can the individual choose a better life for himself. Tyranny can never do that for him.

    I guess someone doesn’t care about fighting the lib-fighting sections.

    1. “eminent psychologist”

    2. From the article:

      Time Preference/Delayed Gratification

      I don’t see what this has to do with libertarian thought at all. Libertarians, I would imagine, would agree that you should spend your money however you want, whether it be spending it all on hookers and blow, or saving it in a rainy day fund. Either one is a perfectly valid choice for how a person chooses to live his/her own life. That one choice leads to different consequences than the other choice is up to the individual to deal with.

      1. Time Preference/Delayed Gratification

        Are you saying that since this one particular thing isn’t necessarily libertarian then nothing he wrote/spoke about is libertarian?

        I’ve never read anything by him. I listened to one speech on YouTube. I don’t know enough about him to criticize one way or the other. But to pull one specific topic then make a judgment of his entire work based on that one specific topic doesn’t make a lot of sense.

        1. Are you saying that since this one particular thing isn’t necessarily libertarian then nothing he wrote/spoke about is libertarian?

          Not at all. This article is supposedly a “libertarian reading” of Jordan Peterson. I disagree with this one part of it being a “libertarian reading”.

          1. It seems to me that the thesis of the article is:

            “In a few hundred pages of personal anecdotes, lessons from history, and psychological expertise, Jordan Peterson offers strategies for the individual to rise and face life’s hardships, and to find meaning in the fight for personal betterment.”

            The section about time delay is just a small part of the article. If your point is just to say that that one particular part has nothing to do with libertarianism, you probably ought not make it sound like you’re condemning the whole article.

            1. The section about time delay is just a small part of the article.

              And chemjeff takes a rather contorted or contrived counter position. Peterson’s point isn’t that you can’t have coke and hookers ever, just that the hookers you can afford and managed consumption of narcotics represents more of a life plan while showing up at your job just long enough to afford enough coke to kill you and spending the rest on hookers represents narcissistic self-destruction. Not to put words in Peterson’s mouth but he’s probably fine with people getting coked out of their skulls and smashing as long as they don’t advertise it as a life plan or a behavior pattern that a larger society should be based around.

          2. You are confusing “libertarian” with “libertine” again. Self responsibility and self restraint should be libertarian virtues.

        2. Are you saying that since this one particular thing isn’t necessarily libertarian then nothing he wrote/spoke about is libertarian?

          From what I’ve seen of chemjeff, he will often cherry pick one thing out of a wall of text, remove the context and then criticize it. Its his shtick.

          1. Well look at you, spreading narratives over facts.

            Who cares if what you say is untrue. If it advances your cause, then full steam ahead!

            1. Who cares if what you say is untrue. If it advances your cause, then full steam ahead!

              In your mind, does someone pointing out the realities of a particular system, like say, politics, mean that they endorse such a system?

              You seem to be insinuating that by merely identifying the fact that politics favor narratives and lies over facts and truth, that I am okay with such a system. I am not. But, if i were morally bankrupt enough to be a political strategist, I’d tell Prosecutor Harris to attack Crime Bill Joe for being racist. Is Crime Bill Joe racist? Probably not. But look at Prosecutor Harris’ poll numbers after the first debate.

              1. Jeff is a psychotic who is existentially dependent on only allowing himself to acknowledge his “truth”
                It’s a egotistical defense mechanism that leads to nervous breakdown unless protected, as in a bubble, by others.

                  1. You can just say “Sparky” you pussy, no reason to be afraid like that.

    3. I’d say he’s got more of an individualist message than a libertarian one. Of course, there is going to be some overlap. His main message seems to be that you are responsible for yourself and for the things you do in the world.

  15. Paul’s plan sounds ok, but bills that have auspicious acronyms for names are usually trash disguised as treasure. Proceed with caution.

    1. I’m in favor of the ACRONYM Act
      Abolish
      Cutesy
      Redundant
      Odious
      Names,
      You
      Morons

  16. Like I said….Pelosi is not a racist. Just a fake woke retard:

    “Because they know what the facts are and what we are responding to. We respect the value of every member of our caucus. The diversity of it all is a wonderful thing. Diversity is our strength. Unity is our power.”

    DON’T. PANDER.

    1. Pelosi is not a racist. Just a fake woke retard:

      That label is wrong, this label is right.

      LABEL! FIGHT! WIN!

  17. Apparently, there are yuge ICE raids planned for Chicago, Los Angeles, and Miami this weekend. They’re targeting people who didn’t show up for their hearings and were denied asylum or citizenship. Pelosi is trying to prevent these raids from happening, and reading about her efforts, I came across what must either be a sign of the End Times or, maybe, we just shouldn’t buy Pelosi’s version of events:

    “Pelosi also told members that she plans to reach out to religious leaders to encourage them to oppose the efforts, as she did last month when Trump first threatened the raids, one person said. Pelosi also spoke to Trump by phone last month and urged him to call off his plans.

    , , , ,

    Pelosi later told reporters she thinks evangelical groups played a significant role in Trump’s decision to call off the initial raids and she hopes they’ll chime in again.

    “They were very concerned that this goes too far because these raids were not what they signed up for with President Trump. And I think their calls to the president made a difference,” Pelosi said. “Hopefully the president will think again about it or these groups will weigh in once again.”

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/11/pelosi-immigration-raids-1406808

    Pelosi, reportedly, contacted these evangelical groups last time to shut down the raids before they happened.

    There are a number of possible interpretations here:

    1) Pelosi is so influential with evangelicals that when she calls them up to object to Trump’s plans, they mobilize against him.

    2) Pelosi is either full of shit or delusional.

    3) The word “evangelical” is being applied in an unconventional way.

    Yeah, I know “evangelical” can apply to Episcopalians who prefer that their ministers are gay or lesbian so as not to make anyone feel excluded and these “evangelical” groups can and do run protection operations for illegal immigrants. That being said, when most people use the word “evangelical” to describe political activists, they’re usually talking about people who think Pelosi is a baby-murdering Jezebel.

    I’d accuse Politico of making the mistake, here, but I’m seeing other outlets (WSJ) referring to these same groups as “evangelicals”, too. That must be how these groups are billing themselves. Regardless, playing with the meaning of words never changed anything else about the things they describe, and if anybody thinks that Trump has anything to fear from the right because Nancy Pelosi is rallying them against him, they’re mighty gullible.

    1. Almost every church of every denomination in MA has decided to support and shelter immigrants. It doesn’t seem to me like too far of a stretch to believe this happens across the country.

      1. Almost every church of every denomination in MA has decided to support and shelter immigrants. illegal migrants and lawbreakers.

        There, FTFY.

        And I have no problem with that, as long as the illegal migrants remain confined to church property in perpetuity, the way asylum used to work.

        What’s not acceptable is for churches to “support and shelter” illegals and then pawn off the fruits of their “charity” on US tax payers.

        1. And I have no a huge problem with that

          There, FTFY.

          1. No, really, I don’t have a problem with churches sheltering illegal migrants as long as the illegal migrants remain confined to church property in perpetuity, the way asylum used to work.

      2. “Almost every church of every denomination in MA . . .”

        Do you have a link to that?

        1. I don’t know if I can find specific links, but the local news stations are regularly reporting on churches sheltering immigrants. It happens quite often in Northampton which, as you note, many of the churches are the all inclusive kind. But I’ve also seen reports of churches in other cities doing the same.

          Here’s an example

          1. I don’t know why the links aren’t working, but if you do a search on the Springfield mayor fighting with local churches over immigration you might get the full page.

            1. That’s a lot different from stating that “almost every church of every denomination in Massachusetts” decided to shelter immigrants.

              In fact, that claim is ridiculous on its face–no matter what you’ve seen on local television.

              1. Be reasonable Ken, you’re talking to someone who believes what he sees on local TV.

              2. Yeah, I guess there’s no point in believing the news. I’m sure it’s all propaganda anyway.

                1. I don’t believe the news said, “Almost every church of every denomination in MA has decided to support and shelter immigrants”. I think that’s just what you said, and I think you just made it up. I think you just pulled it out of your ass.

                  1. You’re absolutely right. When the Boston news reports on it and the Springfield news reports on it it’s really just my imagination making things up. Why would I believe what I see and hear on the TV anyway?

                    1. I don’t think retreating to childish sarcasm like you’ve done is going to prove what you want it to.

                    2. “When the Boston news reports on it and the Springfield news reports on it it’s really just my imagination making things up. Why would I believe what I see and hear on the TV anyway?”

                      There’s this thing called the appeal to authority, but if you think your TV has it on this claim, you’re even worse off than most people who suffer from that. It’s one thing to be wrong in thinking that some scientist knows what flavor of ice cream you like better than you do for yourself. Quite another to imagine that the local fucking news is reporting on the state of almost every church and every denomination in Massachusetts.

                      According to this site, there were about 4,200 churches in Massachusetts in 2010 representing about 120 different denominations. And your contention is that almost all of them are sheltering illegal immigrants?

                      That’s fucking stoopid.

                      Meanwhile, the whole thing is a non-sequitur. Because you saw stories in a couple of places in Massachusetts doesn’t mean that almost every church of every denomination is sheltering illegal immigrants. You’re probably the only person in this thread who needs that pointed out. It’s ridiculous on its face. There isn’t any reason why anyone should take that statement seriously. Your bullshit detector should have gone off–even if it was something you saw on the news. That isn’t something they could know!

                      Yes, you’re supposed to use critical thinking to filter the things you see–even if you see it on something as authoritative as your local television news. LOL

                      Your perceptions are apparently way off and easily manipulated. What else have your perceptions and lack of critical thinking skills made you wrong about? If this is your standard MO, then if you ever get something right, it’s probably only by coincidence.

                    3. Oops!

                      Left off the link:

                      http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/rcms2010a.asp?U=25&T=state&Y=2010&S=Name

                      It’s not like I got it from the local TV news!

                    4. Your perceptions are apparently way off and easily manipulated.

                      I guess reading things on the Internet is automatically more authoritative than TV news. I’ll keep that in mind.

                    5. Why would I believe what I see and hear on the TV anyway?

                      The news is presenting an anecdote that you are now claiming is evidence. The irony of your self-chosen handle never ceases to amaze me.

                2. “Yeah, I guess there’s no point in believing the news”

                  Ladies and gentleman, Sparky believes the news.

          2. “I don’t know if I can find specific links”

            So no.

            1. I was hoping you’d show up to throw another temper tantrum, Kenny.

              1. Sorry to disappoint. Meanwhile, you still have no links.

    2. “They’re targeting people who didn’t show up for their hearings”

      I was told this doesn’t happen

      1. This was why I thought the triumphant tone of Boehm’s article (and the rest of the media) was way off, when they were reporting on Trump’s “capitulation” on the census question yesterday. They seem to imagine that Trump’s decision to compile a database of federal databases to find illegal immigrants . . . um . . . I see no good reason to assume the only purpose of that would be to get an accurate count on the census. I appreciate that some might assume that Trump is looking to scare illegal immigrants away from using social services, but that also seems like an excellent way to track asylum seekers who lost their asylum hearings, too.

        By international treaty, asylum seekers are eligible for all the same benefits as American citizens, and, considering that many come here penniless, chances are that a lot of them qualify for Medicaid, housing assistance, food assistance, etc. If you’re on the lam because you didn’t show up to your asylum hearing or you lost, then finding out that there won’t be a census question about your residency status isn’t good news–if the alternative is ICE coming to look for you because you’re on rent assistance, food stamps, or Medicaid. That isn’t good news for anybody except to the extent that they get a rise out imagining that Trump lost the news cycle that day.

    3. I’d accuse Politico of making the mistake, here, but I’m seeing other outlets (WSJ) referring to these same groups as “evangelicals”, too.

      Easter Worshippers. That shit can spread like WILDFIRE through the media.

  18. This article is very informative and up to the point thanks a lot
    Can America Afraid due to Russia Interference in Iran. Russia steady gives support to Iran against United State pressure. America wants from Iran to withdraw your plan to generate uranium for making nuclear weapons. But Iran has not been able to increase uranium production

    https://www.writenaregiven.com/2019/07/can-america-afraid-due-to-russia-interference-in-iran.html

  19. Paul’s proposal is a step in the right direction but ultimately the “merit-based” approach is less moral than simply allowing people to move here freely. We need to just legalize immigration, full stop. The only reasons to prevent entry would be legitimate ties to terrorism or violent criminal histories.

    1. Paul’s proposal is a step in the right direction but ultimately the “merit-based” approach is less moral than simply allowing people to move here freely.

      In what way is it “moral” to take my money at gunpoint to give free healthcare, education, housing, and transportation to every homophobic, misogynistic third world redneck who wants to move to the US?

      1. That’s an argument against taxation, not immigration. You can also ask that same question about being forced to give money to current American citizens. In general I’m sympathetic to that line of thinking but it’s not a reason to deny innocent people the freedom to choose their own lives.

        1. “That’s an argument against taxation, not immigration”

          Actually, it’s both.

          “You can also ask that same question about being forced to give money to current American citizens. ”

          We do. You pretend like we don’t so you can use that as a distraction.

          “but it’s not a reason to deny innocent people the freedom to choose their own lives.”

          I’d sure be a lot more capable of enjoying my own life if you weren’t importing people I had to pay for.

          Oh that’s not the freedom you meant.

          1. You’re right, that’s not the freedom I meant. I believe freedom of movement is of a higher moral order than freedom from taxation. Being told you can’t go where you want is a greater impingement on your rights than having taxes levied.

            1. Also statistics show that immigrants – including illegal immigrants – have a net positive contribution to the tax base. The effect is the exact opposite of what you’re saying. As more people come in, you’ll have to pay less.

              1. “Also statistics show”

                They show lots of shit. Including the exact opposite of your claim, depending on the source.

                Which has exactly fuck all to do with anything because this isn’t a utilitarian argiment

              2. Also statistics show that immigrants – including illegal immigrants – have a net positive contribution to the tax base.

                Lumping legal and illegal immigration together for that statement is at best ignorant and at worst extremely dishonest.

              3. I’m a legal immigrant. I have a large net positive effect on the tax base.

                Illegal migrants have a large net negative effect on the tax base.

            2. “You’re right, that’s not the freedom I meant.”

              No shit?

            3. “Being told you can’t go where you want is a greater impingement on your rights than having taxes levied.”

              Nevermind, to you it is a utilitarian argument.

              Let me just say that “fuck your rights, I’m for this other guy” isn’t a winner.

              1. I support your rights and the other guy’s rights. Unfortunately those sometimes come into conflict with each other, which necessitates a decision about which particular rights are more fundamental to a person’s core freedom. If you want to call that utilitarian I’m fine with that.

                1. I support your rights and the other guy’s rights. Unfortunately those sometimes come into conflict with each other, which necessitates a decision about which particular rights are more fundamental to a person’s core freedom.

                  There is no conflict here, either as a matter of law or as a matter of libertarian principle.

                  Under current US and international law, the government has a right to tax me large amounts of money and the government has a right to exclude non-citizens.

                  Under libertarian principles, the government lacks the power to limit free movement across national borders, but it also lacks the power to impose high taxes or non-discrimination laws on people.

                  The conflict you see is because you mix up libertarian principles and current US law: you want to restrict government powers when it comes to freedom of movement while tolerating continued infringement of property rights under US law; that’s not consistent. More importantly, it’s not feasible either.

                  1. I don’t WANT to tolerate either of those intrusions on personal freedoms, but if I had a choice about which one to get rid of first it would be the limitation on free movement. You seem to be arguing in favor of keeping all of those infringements intact, which to me is worse than keeping just one.

                    1. I don’t WANT to tolerate either of those intrusions on personal freedoms

                      Again, you claim that preventing non-citizens from moving to the US is an “intrusion on personal freedoms”. But you have failed to demonstrate that non-citizens have a right to move to the US, either under current international law or under libertarian principles.

                      You seem to be arguing in favor of keeping all of those infringements intact, which to me is worse than keeping just one.

                      I have consistently and always argued that we first need to get rid of the welfare state, limits on freedom of association, and infringement on private property, and then we can open borders to anyone who wants to come.

                      There is no “choice” about that: if you try to do it in the other order, you end up with a totalitarian socialist state.

            4. I believe freedom of movement is of a higher moral order than freedom from taxation.

              And where does this supposed “freedom of movement” right come from? Neither current human rights law nor libertarianism recognize such a right.

              Under national and international human rights law, your right to “freedom of movement” exists only within nations that you are a citizen of.

              Under libertarianism, you only have negative rights, not positive rights like “freedom of movement”.

              1. Freedom FROM state restrictions on movement, if you like that wording better. I personally consider it a basic human right which is completely consistent with the non-aggression principle.

                1. I personally consider it a basic human right

                  We have already established that it is not a “basic human right” according to widely accepted legal and moral standards. Whether you personally “consider” it to be that is irrelevant for having a discussion.

                  which is completely consistent with the non-aggression principle.

                  Forcing me to subsidize, and associate with, people I don’t want to associate with is a massive violation of the NAP, and that is what you are arguing for.

        2. In general I’m sympathetic to that line of thinking but it’s not a reason to deny innocent people the freedom to choose their own lives.

          Take it from an actual immigrant: innocent people neither have the freedom nor the right to immigrate wherever they want.

      2. Is it *more* moral, or *less* moral, to take that money and give free bennies to citizens instead?

        1. It’s a distraction and a lame talking point. When you’re done demonizing citizens on welfare, immigrants will still need to be paid for.

        2. More moral.

          It is marginally more moral to take my money and give it to someone in my household than to my neighbor, as it is less alienated from me. And so on, until seizing my money and spending it on immigrants is less moral than on my fellow citizens but more moral than on foreign aid.

        3. Is it *more* moral, or *less* moral, to take that money and give free bennies to citizens instead?

          Is it more serious when you steal $1 from me or when you steal $1000 from me?

    2. Which still sorta requires that we, uh, stop them at the border, hold them while investigating their histories, then carry out ICE raids to get rid of the violent criminals and terrorists that made it in…

      1. You don’t need to detain anyone to run a background check, it shouldn’t be any more time consuming than going through customs at a US airport. Also it’ll be a lot easier to keep out the actual dangerous people if we’re not also busy trying to keep out the lettuce farmers.

        1. You don’t need to detain anyone to run a background check, it shouldn’t be any more time consuming than going through customs at a US airport.

          You really have no experience with immigration, do you? Background checks for Europeans coming to the US take days, and that’s given excellent European record keeping; background checks for other countries often take weeks or months.

          1. Someone legally entering the US with a valid passport does not need to wait “days” to enter the country. It takes like 10 minutes at the airport.

            1. Most non-citizens require either travel authorization or a visa. Both of those you need to apply for before you come to the US.

              Travel authorization is available for travelers from a small number of trusted countries that share electronic records with the US and requires 72 hours advance online application; if those records are entirely clean, you may get travel authorization, otherwise you need to go through the regular visa process.

              If there are questions during travel authorization, or when entering from most other countries, travelers need to apply for a visa, and that usually takes a minimum of several weeks, and can take many months.

              Sounds like you really have no idea how international travel works, do you.

            2. Rhayader, which is it? Are you deliberately lying or are you just completely ignorant of the realities of international travel and immigration?

  20. Rand Paul Plan Aims to Attract More High-Skilled Immigrants

    Rand will discover that skilled immigrants are in high demand around the world and that a century of progressivism has made the US less and less attractive.

  21. “Facebook’s new cryptocurrency, Libra, could weigh down Bitcoin and other decentralized alternative currencies.”

    Libra is not decentralized. Is it not crypto either.

    1. Does it strive for harmony and adore their partner’s body and mind?

    2. Yep, they need to remove the word “other”. Especially since the following paragraph actually seems to acknowledge that Libra is not like Bitcoin in structure – since Bitcoin is decentralized and Libra will be centralized at an operated by Facebook.

  22. do the goddam bills all have to have stupid acronym names?

  23. Tommy Robinson got locked up for doing journalism, not a peep from the journalists here though.

  24. By 2007 Portland seemed perfectly pitched between scrappy and cosmopolitan, having more strip clubs than any U.S. city

    I thought Tampa held that distinction.

  25. and was attracting, according to The Wall Street Journal, “college-educated, single people between the ages of 25 and 39 at a higher rate than most other cities in the country.”

    That was your first indication there was going to be a problem.

    1. Those who’d come to Portland expecting a plug-and-play lifestyle of cheap rent and a part-time barista gig while playing in a band found the model did not work, though whose fault this was remained unclear.

      This is what always cracks me up about Portland. It’s Seattle 15 years ago.

      1. correction: Seattle 25 years ago. Man time has flown.

        1. funny was going to say “dude … 30 where ya been?”

    2. but more in the mold of a European city. I recall hearing Amsterdam mentioned a lot.

      yeah, heard that here too. And it’s distilled bullshit. These bike lane nazis would never put up with Amsterdam-style system. Never.

    3. “I sometimes think we’re the scatterbrained generation,” a 26-year-old woman told me, for a 2010 opinion piece headlined “Is Portland the New Neverland?” “You have so many choices,” she said, “and you know what you end up doing? Nothing. You become the DJ-fashion-designing-knitting-coffee-maker.”

      This part cracked me up. Not picking a specialization in a hyper-specialized economy is a recipe for poverty. “Just do what you love” is such terrible advice. Do what you love if it can make money. If not, do what you can tolerate to make money so you can do what you love.

      The article is actually pretty good. I do think there are some people on the left looking at these domestic terrorist groups like antifa and thinking “eh, I’mma bounce outta here.”

      I do think the nation’s ambivalence towards antifa really turned once Andy Ngo was attacked. Plus its hard to claim a group is decentralized when they have people wearing matching logos and selling merchandise.

      1. It’s a great article. I really like Nancy Rommelmann. And the more problematic she gets, the more I like her.

      2. It’s passages like this that I love the most. They’re the passages of realization– that moment when “social-justice” comes into sharp focus.

        Portland is pulling off the pretty slick trick of beaming to the world an image of tolerance and inclusion, while concurrently denying certain of its citizens a place at the table. That’s some scary-strong juju, and maybe one best kept in check lest exclusionary tactics be taken for progress, be enshrined by some centralized authority.

        1. That is some really good stuff. I hope a lot more people on the left start coming to this realization. Unfortunately, I think the more people that come to this realization, the rather large group of people on the far left will fight to censor and suppress their voices.

      3. The irony is that the so called beacon of progressive tolerance is still “the whitest city in America”.

        That is not an accident. There is a whole history of how Portland marginalized and excluded black people as they moved north to find work. As late as the 80s I recall Oregon had a reputation for being unfriendly toward any outsiders.

        I have said it before but here in flyover country, I live in the rust belt where we have a very diverse population, we don’t have all this fuss. Well Oberlin but that little commune doesn’t count.

      4. “This part cracked me up. Not picking a specialization in a hyper-specialized economy is a recipe for poverty. “Just do what you love” is such terrible advice. Do what you love if it can make money. If not, do what you can tolerate to make money so you can do what you love”

        Great advice. Use your job to achieve your goals. The purpose of work is to make money. If you expect happiness and satisfaction from it you will most likely be disappointed.

        Heh I’m sure there are days when even Mick Jagger wakes up and says, “oh crap I have to go sing and dance again today”

  26. Re Facebook Libra
    Nice witty remark from the marketwatch.com article on this today:

    “In just a few short years, Facebook has earned a level of distrust that took the banking sector much longer to achieve. “

  27. It’s fun to talk about Immigration in meta terms and yell “racist!” or “Trumpista!” and all, but has anyone gone to the “list” linked in the article for “preferred” occupations?

  28. Hey did anyone else see this Archeresque “phrasing” typo in the Hill story about R Kelly? Third paragraph down, it says:

    “His arrest came after a federal grand jury on Thursday indicted him on 13 counts including sex comes and obstruction of justice.”

    Go see it before it disappears.

    1. I totally picked up on that too! It gave me a good chuckle. 🙂

  29. The only part of the Rand bill that I could support is not counting the wife and kids towards the cap if they also work. The schedule A list is a joke.

  30. usli Gabbard will not win but at least if she gets in the next set of debates the idiotic never ending wars will get some TV time . That subject will not get any tv time from the MSM. Almost 5 trillion spent on war from 2000. The Warmongers are making a few very rich and the rest of us poorer or dead. The DNC requires 130,000 donors so even a $1 donation gets here in the next debate.https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=tulsi%20gabbard%20for%20president%202020&epa=SERP_TAB

Please to post comments