Economic Nationalism

Conservative Nationalists, Not Immigrants, Are Having Trouble Assimilating in America

Their orgy of statism is un-American.

|

The restrictionist right's standing rap against non-Western immigrants is that they come from statist countries and lack the cultural DNA to assimilate into America's system of free enterprise, democracy, and individual liberty. But it is the new right, following President Donald Trump's lead, that is taking a hammer to the system. Conservatives who care for their movement's integrity and their country's identity ought to worry less about imaginary external threats and more about the real ones emerging from their own camp.

Restrictionist conservatives have long insisted that their problem with "mass immigration" from Mexico, Asia, and the Middle East isn't that their natives are racially different but that they're culturally different. They believe that Latinos come from statist polities and are therefore too susceptible to the lure of Big Government social programs and handouts, if not outright socialism. "Most of the millions of immigrants we have welcomed came from countries where the only government they knew was one that made all the decisions about economic and social policy," lamented the late conservative doyen, Phyllis Schlafly. "The current level of legal immigration to America adds thousands of people every day whose views and experiences are contrary to the conservative value of limited government." Meanwhile, conservatives warn that letting in too many Muslims will lead to blasphemy laws and fatwas dooming America's commitment to religious liberty and free speech.

Even someone like the National Review's Charles C. Cooke, a libertarian-minded British immigrant who is far from a reflexive restrictionist, finds such concerns sufficiently compelling that he thinks it is entirely appropriate for the U.S. citizenship test to ask new entrants to attest that they are not communists or subversives and would respect religious liberty, even though, arguably, such inquiries about personal beliefs violate the spirit—if not the letter—of the U.S. Constitution.

Given how zealously the American right has guarded America's core freedoms from foreigners, it is beyond ironic that it elected a president who tramples on them on a daily basis.

While conservatives have been worrying about importing socialism from abroad, Trump is foisting on the country what Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, a conservative hero (until now), considered its equally dangerous collectivist twin, economic nationalism.

Under the guise of America First, Trump has basically given up on the free market. He has dedicated his administration to concocting manifestly bogus national security rationales to slap tariffs on America's trade partners that don't agree to his terms for doing business. And then he has tried to placate American farmers and industries hurt by retaliatory tariffs with billions of dollars in countervailing handouts. He has tried to order companies such as General Motors to desist from shuttering unprofitable plants to keep his jobs numbers up. And in an even bigger affront to free market capitalism, Trump has tried to strong-arm companies such as FoxConn to set up shop where his base resides. In short, Trump is going beyond crony capitalism to command capitalism.

But it isn't just the free market that Trump is trampling. He's trampling free speech. Even as he lambasts immigrants from "shithole" countries, he echoes tinpot Third World dictators that call the press the "enemy of the people." He routinely questions whether news he deems to be "fake" or "crooked" or "dishonest" ought to be constitutionally protected. And he has repeatedly fantasized, including at a recent social media conference at the White House, about siccing the regulatory state on big tech platforms that allegedly "censor" conservative viewpoints—a fantasy that his Department of Justice acted on this week when it opened an antitrust investigation against Google, Amazon and Facebook.

And now he's getting personal. He attacked Somali-born Rep. Ihan Omar (D–Minn.) by name at a campaign rally and invited her to return to her country for criticizing his policies, beaming as the conservative faithful issued their own fatwa with chants of "send her back."

One would have thought that conservatives would recoil in horror that Trump is turning his back on practically everything they have spent the last half a century fighting for and rededicate themselves to looking for ways to restore the "conservative value of limited government." But one would be wrong. In a conservative version of wokeness, they are positively giddy about the possibilities for deploying state power that Trump has opened for them.

At a recent gathering of conservative luminaries in Washington, D.C., even as the University of Pennsylvania's Amy Wax lamented the failure of non-Western immigrants who litter and talk too loudly to culturally assimilate into America, Yarom Hazony, an Israeli citizen and author of The Virtue of Nationalism, who is fast becoming the intellectual godfather of the neo-right, intoned that it was time for conservatives to "declare independence…from what they call classical liberalism." Given that Thomas Jefferson essentially relied on classical liberalism when he asserted in the Declaration of Independence that the government's job was to protect the God-given and inalienable rights of individuals but otherwise leave them alone to pursue their life, liberty, and happiness as they saw fit, Hazony's wording was explicitly calculated to invite conservatives to turn their back on America's founding. But did the audience break into chants of "send him back"? No. It applauded in approval.

Not to be outdone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a former libertarian who has taken to delivering fire-and-brimstone sermons against the evils of market capitalism that would put the jeremiads of the loudest mullahs against the ills of capitalistic usury to shame, declared to a rousing ovation that the "main threat to your ability to live your life as you choose, does not come from the government, but the private sector." If an immigrant had said anything like that, Schlafly would have wasted little time branding them unfit for America.

It gets worse.

The emerging consensus among smart-set conservatives is that if there is anything wrong with Trump's protectionism, it's that it is not radical enough. Trump, apparently, is still too concerned about global supply chains and productivity. What the country needs, Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance argues, is an ambitious industrial policy dedicated to rebuilding the lost manufacturing base of the heartland, combined with massive infusions of government cash to reverse "family decline, childhood trauma, opioid abuse, community decline." Conservatives, Vance believes, need to "be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish those goods."

It is not just the economic realm that conservatives want to remake by deploying "political power," but the social as well.

New York Post editor Sohrab Ahmari, a recently converted Catholic, electrified some conservative quarters when he suggested in First Things that it was time for Christian conservatives not just to dispense with politeness and decency when dealing with liberal enemies that have turned "elite institutes" into "libertine and pagan" strongholds, but also the bogus notion of state neutrality in matters of religion. Such notions, he suggested, were preventing them from using the government to "defeat [the liberal] enemy" and promote their faith in a bid to "[enjoy] the spoils in the form of a public-square reordered." In plain English, Ahmari is spurring conservatives to dispense with this foolishness about separating church and state—so that they can use the state to impose their religion.

That conservatives are preaching a full-scale abandonment of America's bedrock commitments to capitalism, democracy, religious pluralism, and individual liberty shows that even as they accuse immigrants of not assimilating in America, they themselves are dissimilating from America.

The vast majority of immigrants believe in America's fundamental promise. If conservatives don't, then they are the real problem. Immigrants may or may not be increasing littering in America, but conservatives are trashing it.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week.

Advertisement

NEXT: Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Is a Nostalgic Defense of Movie Violence

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. You have to go back.

    1. Great commentary. Need more like her.

      1. Great commentary.

        What, this horseshit?
        The vast majority of immigrants believe in America’s fundamental promise. If conservatives don’t, then they are the real problem.

        If immigrants are believing “in America’s fundamental promise” they’re in for a rough go, because Shikha’s political tribe destroyed it back in the seventies.

        Also, SHIKHA YOU DISINGENUOUS SMEAR ARTIST, STOP DELIBERATELY CONFLATING LEGAL IMMIGRATION WITH BORDER JUMPING.

        1. no, YOU stop conflating immigration with “border jumping”. It is impossible to “immigrate” to the United States on foot without permission. Hiking the desert or sailing up to any marina in my yacht is not “immigrating”, it is sailing, hiking, air ballooning or riding. Fly on a private plane to any small airstrip and see if you can find an immigration agent.

          1. No… you stop this pro-open border horse-crap. Progressive/Libertarian nit wits like Dalmia refuse to understand the difference between reasonable/rational legal immigration and just plain wholesale invasion. She is a turd parading as a concerned libertarian and part time patriot. In reality she is a typical Indian socialist. I love India and I admire greatly 98% of the Indians who come to this country work hard to participate in this country’s promise. I am proudly very involved in the community. Unfortunately she is the other 2% who wish this country could operate like socialist utopia in which everyone is equal in misery. There is so much wrong with her article that it is hard to know where to start. This country should put it’s economic interests first simply because every other country does. While I tend to disagree with tariffs, I understand we need to quit submissively sell out to China in the hopes that maybe someday they will quit acting like a Communist dictatorship bent on controlling the world. Dalmia apparently is clueless on this issue. Perhaps like some many turds in the progressive ranks she has economic interests in China and cares little for American sovereignty. I venture to guess it is the latter. As an immigrant she doesn’t appear to have assimilated. BTW Dalmia, Rep Omar deserves a fair amount of criticism in her constant berating of this country while she occupies the role of a lawmaker. She is a tool of CAIR and as such is not particularly smart or clever (few lawmakers are ) and she is paid by the US taxpayers who she finds despicable. So if those among us want to voice our displeasure in her constant ridicule of our founding, armed forces, support of Israel, white men, Christians all the while ignoring the fact we provided a home for her family then so be it. Dalmia and most of the staff at Reason forget that this country / Republic will not survive if we allow it to be subjugated by totalitarian governments who take advantage of policies that undermine our economic survival. In addition allowing open borders in a welfare state where anyone can come become an instant citizen and then be eligible for free healthcare, education, housing without actually contributing is economic suicide. The idea that we need an additional 40-50 million poor, under-educated, non English speaking immigrants who refuse to assimilate, contribute economically, then spit on our Constitution and disrespect our laws is absolute madness. If this is the modern face of Libertarianism then count me out. This is simply a globalized nightmarish vision straight out of 1984. I am convinced the more I read of her insipid rubbish that she is evil.

      2. intellectual vacuity is good commentary?

    2. It’s an absurd premise. I’m from here. I don’t need to assimilate. Foreigners like Dalmia need to assimilate.

      Oh, and kick the fucking illegals out.

      Build the wall!
      MAGA!

      1. ” I’m from here. I don’t need to assimilate. ”

        Proving once again that you can only read the headline and make a stupid comment.

        1. Stupid is the only thing Shitlord knows how to do.

          1. Hey, it’s your faggot friend/dickpuppet.

          2. I am making 80$ an hour… After been without work for 8 months, I started freelancing over this website and now I couldn’t be happier. After 3 months on my new job my monthly income is around 15k a month… Cause someone helped me telling me about this job now I am going to help somebody else…
            Check it out for yourself ..
            CLICK HERE …… http://xurl.es/rnxxs

      2. I don’t think we should build the wall.
        I think we should patrol the border using predator drones and sniper teams and just kill anyone who invades.
        No questions asked. No comment made. Just kill them all.
        Mine the areas you aren’t going to patrol regularly.
        Use motion and heat sensors and auto-drones to detect incursions.
        Never let the invaders know they’ve been spotted.
        Just kill them. Old ones. Young ones. Males. Females. Those with confused gender. “Asylum” wannabees. Drug trafficers. Human traffickers. All of them. If groups come in, wait until they cross – then kill them all. Leave their bodies to rot and be vulture food. Let their bones bleach in the sun. Stop the invasion.

        Kill them all.

        1. Nice sock, shitforbrains….even more stupid than your last one. Didn’t think that was possible.

          1. You certainly have an intimate knowledge of socks.

          2. Hey McJizz, you dumb cunt. I don’t need socks. I keep telling you this. And you’re pretty fucking stupid for thinking it is.

            But then, you’re really fucking stupid anyway, so it fits that you’ll think so.

        2. You sound like a straight-up sociopath.

        3. Drug trafficers

          Between the narcs and the drug trafi”c”ers, the narcs are the traitors and should be tried for treason and executed; and the drug traffickers are the true patriots and should be given medals and citizenship. That’s not just my opinion; it’s absolute moral fact.

      3. you are not from here. “Here” means everything that is good and valuable like the internet we are all using, the main urban areas that are thoroughly international, the Atlantic tradition of the North Eastern United States, and everything that is not “flyover” bullshit or derelict midwestern towns and swapy southern shitholes. If “here” means the 85% land between the Pacific and the Atlantic that is completely unoccupied, then nobody is from anywhere. You are nothing, you have nothing, and are worth nothing.

        GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY

        1. Lol.
          You die first.

      4. I doubt very much Thomas Jefferson would provide free health insurance and free college tuition to people who enter this country illegally, breaking our laws.

        So yeah, the whole premise is false. Law and order is a bedrock of our country and illegal immigration is against the law.

    3. We have to go back, Kate!

    4. +1

      This is more hysterical than usual for Shikha. She doesn’t seem to like all this #winning for America.

      Two points on her nonsense.

      1) On Political Culture

      PEW Research on Hispanic Americans, breakdowns by immigration and foreign birth
      https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
      Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1
      The trend is the same across immigrants generally.

      Note that Shikha provides no data on immigrants on this point, just rants “Orange Man Bad!”

      It’s not rocket science people.
      Anglo American liberty is the exception in the world, not the rule.
      Countries are people.
      Import Not Americans, Become Not America.
      Get bigger, more statist government.

      2) Economic Nationalism.

      Similarly, economic nationalism was the rule and not the exception for most of America’s history. You can argue “muh free market” if you like, but you don’t get to pretend economic nationalism is somehow un American.

      I’d also note that trade with Slavemaster Xi somehow amounts to a “free” market is a rather dubious proposition. Are the Chinese people free under Xi’s imperial rule? Is it free trade as long as you have foreign despots keep the slaves you extract value from on foreign soil?

      Another “Libertarian Moment” brought to you by the Reason as the flunkies of the global slavemaster class.

      1. Other Pew link:
        https://goo.gl/WBi1BV
        Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1

        I get “your comment is awaiting moderation” if I put two links in a post.

        1. So give them a reason to support conservatives.

      2. Reason: Free trade is when American workers pay payroll and income taxes, while Emperor Xi pays no tax on exports to the US.

        Commie bastard Adam Smith disagrees, favoring tariffs to offset local taxes on production:

        “It will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign industry for the encouragement of domestic industry, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the borne market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country, than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it.”

      3. you don’t get to pretend that economic nationalism is conservative or libertarian, but you will anyway.

        1. Government of, by, and for the people is both libertarian and conservative.

      4. Thank you for an insightful response. I am beginning to believe they hired Dalmia just to stir the pot. She really doesn’t bring anything else. She is rather 1 dimensional (Orange man bad, open borders good, Xi is good, again Orange man bad). I imagine they believe that Robbie is too reasonable and Nick is too stale. I have to laugh at her preference for Chinese economic policies over those offered by Trump.

        1. This article has over 300 comments, so you may have a point. This must be good for traffic and advertising, even if it hastens Idiocracy.

          1. Shika is certainly Reason’s top earning ho

            1. I bet that makes ENB all kinds of jealous

      5. Shitma is always like this.
        Isn’t is interesting how her positions always match progressive positions with some libertarian whitewash slapped on?

        Shitma is a fraud.

    5. We’re already where we came from. You go back.

      1. you are not from anything that allows anyone to actually live in the 21st or even the 20th century. The suburbs is not a “country”.

        1. The suburbs are more of a country than the slums of LA or NYC or DC.

    6. Dahlmia, you don’t represent libertarians. You certainly aren’t an analyst. You cannot hide your hate for trump which compromises your ability to think clearly.
      All nations have the right to decide who may or may not enter their country.
      Regardless of your opinion, the fact is that they are here illegally. The rule of law is the cornerstone of free societies.
      You are deluded in the sense that you believe that they are coming in to a nation where they won’t be a burden to this nation. They have access to the welfare state upon arrival. Dismantle the welfare state and then you can possibly begin to make the case for unlimited immigration. Don’t forget to make the requirement for citizens to have id optional while you’re at it.
      Then you can begin to make the case that our citizens don’t have the right to decide who enters their own nation.

  2. This is one of Shikha Dalmia’s best columns yet, rivaling even her piece comparing border enforcement to fugitive slave laws. It’s clear to anyone paying attention that Rep. Omar is exactly the kind of citizen this country needs more of. We’d have a far more libertarian government if the voting population looked more like her, and less like Tucker Carlson.

    #OpenBorders
    #BlackAndBrownImmigrantsAreNaturalLibertarians

    1. bravo

    2. excellent non argument

    3. #SomalisAreTheMostAmericanAmericans

    4. Hahahahaha this is the funniest so far.

    5. I posted OBL’s comment as an in image in response to Shikha’s tweet of this article.

      Shikha liked it.

      #ClownWorld

      https://twitter.com/buybuydandavis/status/1155292576867504128

    6. Fine form there OBL.

    7. The immigrants will vote for more statism.

    8. Dahlmia suffers from the hate she harbors for Americans in general. She can never explain why breaking the law can be excused for her own purposes.
      Immigration does need reform, especially on how the decision is made on who comes in.
      Illegal is illegal- that must be dealt with first. Any argument against that is an argument against civilization, and an argument for totalitarianism, since they are the ones that do not follow the law except when it suites their personal gain.

    9. Perfect.

  3. Not to be outdone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a former libertarian who has taken to delivering fire-and-brimstone sermons against the evils of market capitalism that would put the jeremiads of the loudest mullahs against the ills of capitalistic usury to shame,

    Coming from psychotically pro-Open borders writer who previously identified as ‘Conservative’ this would be funny if it weren’t just sad.

    1. Well, to be fair, he does have a very slappable face.

      1. Backpfeifengesicht

      2. that is key

      3. Better keep Tucker away from Cognac Bodine then. The face slapping would be epic.

  4. OK, so everyone (recent immigrants–legal or not–to 10th generation Mayflower descendants to Indian tribe members) has to take an “American” oath to uphold our foundational ethics?

    1. The first of which is to defend the border against criminal invaders.

      Kill them all.

      1. you’ll be the first to go

    2. Naturalized citizens have been taking such an oath since the founding of the country.

      Although you have a point. Maybe *all* citizens should Take the Oath as a requirement for all the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship.

      I’ll take your suggestion under advisement.

      https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america

      Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
      Oath

      “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

      1. if the attributes of citizenship required passing the naturalization test, most Americans would be illegal aliens.

        1. Correct. So what? As a natural US citizen, you do not have to prove your allegiance to US foundational values. As an immigrant, you do. Under international law, countries cannot arbitrarily strip you of citizenship for your views; but countries are perfectly free to refuse you immigration for any reason, including your political views.

    3. Support of the foundational values of the United States is a strict legal requirement for immigration; legal immigrants (like myself) have to swear an oath to that effect. Furthermore, immigrants whose history suggests that they are less than fully committed to the foundational values of the US are ineligible for immigration under US law, and have been for a long time.

  5. The article is, perhaps, a little over-the-top, but essentially accurate. This new “brand” of nationalist conservatives are scary. But only if you believe that much of what they say will come to pass. I really doubt it will. They sound a whole lot like the worst of the liberals and their shrill complaints.

    1. The article is, perhaps, a little over-the-top, but essentially accurate.

      As accurate as a Texas Sharpshooter.

      In the first couple paragraphs she’s talking about the Restrictionist Right. By the 6th she’s talking about Trump, Ilhan Omar, and Tucker Carlson and, a paragraph after that she’s talking about a seemingly random collection of ‘conservative thinkers’ who’s correlation to Carlson, Trump, or Immigration Conservatives seems to be that she can somehow apply the ‘conservative’ label to them.

      It’s a pretty scattered screed.

      1. I agree that the label “conservative” doesn’t even belong in this article. On the other hand, Trump doesn’t deserve the label, either. Nor do most of his cronies. (Not that ALL of his policies have been bad, but, overall, his score is quite low) Back in the sixties, we might have referred to these “nationalist conservatives” as “right-wing reactionaries bigots.”

        The quote from JD Vance sounds like something right out of the Nazi Party playbook in the 1930’s.

        1. AlbertP
          July.26.2019 at 11:54 am
          “…(Not that ALL of his policies have been bad, but, overall, his score is quite low)…”
          Bullshit.

        2. Who cares what you think about Trump? I would like to get an idea of what you think he has done right and wrong. Right Wing Reactionaries? Seriously? in what context? Compared to Obama? Yes perhaps but Barry was a progressive socialist turd. To Bush? Yes another progressive turd. So goes for all of the Dem candidates. So I imagine you to be a progressive POS. Trump would never be my first choice but his opening up of ANWR, deregulation, lowering Corporate tax, assistance with Vet issues…made me a quasi fan. He really did accomplish a fair amount in his first 2+ years despite this Russian nonsense. I resent progressive snowflakes/cupcakes who pretend to be Libertarians/Conservatives while spouting “orange man bad nazi “..

          1. “Who cares what you think about Trump? I would like to get an idea of what you think he has done right and wrong.” These sentences seem in conflict with each other.

            But, I will humor you:

            Corporate tax cut = good

            Reducing some federal bureaucracy, even a little = good

            Stances on middle-east military involvement = not terrible, but then, after Bush and Obama, the bar is pretty low… so.. good, but barely.

            Spending billions to build a border wall = bad

            Tariffs and protectionist policies = bad, real bad
            Creating what will probably be the biggest federal deficit of all time, by a comfortable margin = Very bad.

            Tax cuts without spending cuts = bad, bad

            Overall, considering the rather marginal gains garnered through a little bureaucratic reform and a marginal cut to the corporate tax, and the rather serious long-term effects of more tariffs, and perhaps more to come, pretty sad.

            I was really hoping Trump might end our involvement in the Middle East. It doesn’t look like that will happen.

            Note that I am not even addressing the things he says he would LIKE to do, such as censoring the internet, or fix citizenship laws, and not taking into account his… er…..rhetorical and political “style.”

            Not as horrible as some imagine, not as good as some would like to believe. A disaster? Well, in my book, the war and the deficit is enough to qualify as a disaster. In that sense, of course, he is no worse than Obama and Bush.

            Have a good day!

            1. “Creating what will probably be the biggest federal deficit of all time, by a comfortable margin = Very bad.”

              Making innumerate assumptions = even worse

              In terms of %GDP (which is what really matters–OK, GDI would be even better) Trump won’t hold a candle to his lightworker predecessor.

              “Tax cuts without spending cuts = bad, bad”

              Assuming the government owns your money = awful, very, very, VERY awful

              Spending is the problem. Full stop. But wokatarians such as Reason and yourself have very selective outrage over fiscal matters. Really, all you can do is echo the conventional wisdom talking points of “established” media.

              “Note that I am not even addressing the things he says he would LIKE to do, such as censoring the internet, ”

              So generous of you. Why, it’s almost as if you can tolerate the First Amendment. I know if challenging, but yes, even the President has 1A rights, much as you would prefer to censor them.

              “Not as horrible as some imagine, not as good as some would like to believe. A disaster? Well, in my book, the war and the deficit is enough to qualify as a disaster.”

              *Yawn* Get back to me when you want to actually cut the things that matter, i.e. entitlements and the welfare state. One utterance of MIC and I know you’re not serious, so keep that in mind.

              1. I have no reason to wish to censor Trump’s speech. He is free to say whatever he wishes to say, as am I. With both parties seemingly intent on doing “something” about what they see as private censorship, I would rather he told both parties to grow up.

                For someone who supposedly wasn’t going to tolerate, or sign into law, or pursue, trillion dollar deficits, he sure is coming up short. Why did you mention that entitlements, social security, and government run health programs are the main drivers of the deficit and the debt? Do you think I don’t know that? When the interest paid on the debt is the fourth-largest item in the budget, something is seriously wrong.

                I believe in a much, much, MUCH smaller government, starting with the federal government.

                One question: what is MIC? I am unsure as to your reference.

                1. Look at those goalposts fly… You were so certain of your statements before.

                  So about those taxes? You’re arguing that as long as the government is spending we should be taxed more. Is it just the slightest of possibilities that you can see some potential downsides or outright flaws in that reasoning? But even if we accept that the proper thing to do is fund the government regardless, can you explain why tariffs are “bad, real bad” while cutting income taxes is also bad?

                  “Why did you mention that entitlements, social security, and government run health programs are the main drivers of the deficit and the debt? Do you think I don’t know that? When the interest paid on the debt is the fourth-largest item in the budget, something is seriously wrong.”

                  Because the “libertarians” who write for Reason struggle with that concept and you seem to endorse their positions. Clearly I was wrong and you thing Suderman’s criticisms of the failed Obamacare reform were terrible, right? You also think that we’re wasting time and energy bringing up defense spending in the context of deficits/debt, right? Or will we be presented with the typical Motte and Bailey of “well defense is a part of the problem” even though mathematically the only requirement for closing the deficit is cutting entitlements. It is literally impossible to solve the problem without that unless you are are advocating for massive tax hikes (just not tariffs!!). They aren’t the “main drivers.” They are the problem. Period.

                  Interest is the 5th or 6th largest outlay since you bring up state spending (“starting with the federal government”). Medicaid and Education are both over $600BB.

                  “One question: what is MIC?”

                  Seriously? What self-respecting libertarian doesn’t know what MIC stands for?

                  1. You assume too much. What would I do if I were in Trump’s position? Freeze the budget. Across the board. One can’t reduce government spending without, as a first step, stopping it’s growth. That does make sense, doesn’t it? Where are those Repubs now? Do I think we spend to much on the military? Yes, but even cutting the military budget to zero, which I certainly don’t support, wouldn’t begin to address the deficits we face.

                    Another measure I would undertake is to freeze all corporate “give-aways.” No more 3% underwriting of Big Oil, and no more 30% underwriting of “Big Green.” No more grants and special tax exemption for “special” companies or industries.

                    Tariffs are bad because they raise the cost of living for the people and, generally, don’t make the “protected” industries any more “secure” or profitable.

                    Tax breaks without cuts in spending, generally, do give a little shot to the economy, for a year or two. But, then things return to normal, and the only thing left is more debt.

                    As far as Obamacare, it was a mess before it was ever put into place. One basic reason? It was designed to be passed. It was never designed to actually “work.”

                    Of the high-rated (by WHO) health-care systems I have looked at, I prefer the Aussie system. It is about as universal as a health system can get, yet it is heavily privatized, and it is about 30% less expensive than our current system, which, under Obamacare, has become even more regulated and complex than the Aussie system. The Aussie system would also avoid most of the constitutional problems I have with Obamacare. As far as so-called single-payer systems, or some version of Medicare for All, well, they are a joke. And that is being kind.

                    MIC.. oh, you mean the Military Industrial Complex. Sorry, I haven’t worked for the government for years, and I am unused to acronyms. The MIC is real. On the other hand, so is the bloated and inefficient welfare system, (in fact, many aspects of the current social-support system make the MIC look downright efficient. And the medical system (with the worst offender being the government-run entities.) Let’s also get the government, as much as possible, out of the medical-delivery system: Medicaid may be the worst health system in the world, and the cost-per-participant is through-the-roof.

                    While it is unlikely realistic to get rid of all the influence of “Big Oil” or “Big Health,” “Big Ed,” or big-anything-else, one can certainly mitigate its effect through shrinking and decentralizing government, and shrinking the federal budget.

                    When it comes to thing we need to address, like education, or whatever, we have fifty different “laboratories,” called “States” to utilize. By shrinking the size and cost of the federal government, (though with the debt, it will take a while), and returning that money to the People (and therefore, the States). we can let those fifty laboratories get to work addressing problems they see, and, who knows, maybe somebody might learn something new.

                    1. Oh, I did leave out one “minor” thing: along with freezing the budget, we must also, of course, balance it, and with as little delay as possible.

        3. “Conservative” as a label needs definition.

          What are “Conservatives” conserving?

          Certainly not free markets since for most of the nations history (up until the 1970’s in fact) we have wide ranging expansive tariffs. If Conservative means anything it would be economic nationalism. (One might observe that economic growth and prosperity does not seem to have suffered under tariffs.)

          Open borders was the case … sort of … early in our history, but there was no safety net for anyone, including citizens then and immigration was almost exclusively by ship. Almost immediately after becoming a nation we began to screen immigrants for disease and refuse admission to known criminals.

          Thereafter we had periods of high immigration followed by nearly no immigration at all. The high immigration periods matched up to events in source countries (like to potato famine in Ireland) and were fairly short lived.

          To make a ‘bold and rash statement”, George Will and his ilk are not conservatives as the vision they expose is nothing that our nation has ever done. Not to say their views are not perfectly valid, but they are not in any way conservative. Trump actually is more conservative (not modern Republican) than any of our recent Presidents.

          By the same token, Shitma and her ilk here are REASON are not libertarian but rather progressive. The views policies they champion are purely progressive except for occasional tilts toward fiscal restraint. You will note however, they do not champion the disassembly of the welfare state and the elimination of the government safety net, but rather open borders to bring more people in to use them.

          Hence my assessment that Shitma and her ilk are progressive, and fraudulent.

      2. Scattered screeds are a Shikah speciality.
        Fundamentally, the citizens of America owe nothing to anyone who isn’t a citizen.
        It’s our Country.
        The scum washing over the border has no claim – unless they want to try to take by force. And that’s what we should respond to – their attempt to take from America.
        It’s not immigration.
        It’s invasion.

        Kill them all. They mean nothing to us.
        If you disagree, fine. Go to their country and help them build it up to be like America. Don’t bring those pieces of walking shit here and ask America to become a third-world shit hole.

        America has had some difficulty determining what to do with radioactive waste. Perhaps we should cast is in large blocks of concrete and sow it along the border with Mexico. Use enough to ensure a fatal dose for anyone passing between them.

        Or just shoot the invaders as soon as they cross the border.

        Just kill them all.

        1. No. It’s the progressives that have to go. Exile them all to Venezuela.

    2. Please explain yourself and how long have you sucking down the progressive drivel. When you throw around terms like “Conservative Nationalists” without any context you betray your simplistic liberal mindset. Nationalism by it self is not a bad thing. For example if I support the USA in the Olympics, salute the flag, buy American, support our troops, honor the Constitution, I am expressing a sense of Nationalism. How is this a bad thing? Some how Conservatives and even rational Libertarians have allowed the simplest expression of patriotism to be hijacked by silly progressives like yourself. Her article was a disgrace. Unlike many of your ilk I will not apologize for my love for my country, for being white, for being a veteran or for wishing we would enforce immigration laws while encouraging those that are sincere to get in line and do it the right way. Snowflakes like you give me gas.

      1. There is another for “nationalism.” It’s called “chauvinism.” I will take for granted that the reader knows the definition of that word.

        There is nothing wrong with being glad to live in what it probably the best nation on the face of the world. There is nothing wrong with living under perhaps the best form of government that the world has ever seen (though still far from perfect.)

        I DO see a big problem with the notion that one is somehow “special” just because one happened to be born here. That doesn’t make one special — just lucky. And I also don’t see a problem with sharing this “Shining City on a Hill” with as many folks as possible.

        If that bothers someone, or somehow makes them feel insecure, well, maybe they need to grow a pair,

        1. another “word”

        2. Projection is a bitch, mr. Progressive

        3. The life boats from the Titanic were clearly better than remaining on the ship, much as going to the USA is clearly better that remaining in a third world hellhole.

          But, the life boats from the Titanic could only hold so many before it would sink just as the Titanic did. For those already on the life boat, is would be crazy to demand they allow everyone on, as that would cause the boat to sink losing all hands.

          In terms of “sharing this “Shining City on a Hill” with as many folks as possible”, we do that. It is called LEGAL IMMIGRATION and serves the same purpose as limiting the number on the life boat did.

          Wonderfully, over time, our “life boat” grows, unlike that of the Titanic, allowing us to take more people each year. It may be perfectly rational for people to invade the USA illegally. Like the life boat, they are escaping severe consequences and believe that being here can be no worse. For those of us here however, it is not rational to put the life boat at risk.

  6. “”Conservative Nationalists, Not Immigrants, Are Having Trouble Assimilating in America””

    Such a silly generalized statement. Living in NYC for 30 year, there are plenty of immigrants that live in their enclave as if they never left their home country. Some don’t speak any English. I’m not knocking that either. but to make a claim that immigrates are not having troubles assimilating in America is false and makes one question if you even know what you are talking about.

    1. I don’t think most question anymore. She’s made it appropriately clear that her ass does all of her talking and most of her thinking.

      1. Is her ass that expressive? I haven’t seen it.

    2. Nah, dude. If you wanna see real immigrant enclaves, go to Toronto or Europe. Here is America, most immigrants integrate just fine. And even for those that don’t, their kids definitely do.

      1. Eunuch talking out of his fake vagina again.
        Like most open borders advocates, you have no experience of what you speak.
        I’ll give you this: immigrants do assimilate at a better rate than illegal aliens.
        Still – the entire towns/cities, like chamblee or tucker or Duluth, composed of illegal aliens and immigrants belies your claim.
        Ever try to do business, or just talk, with a South Korean?
        The dimness of your wit is stunning

        1. Nard the Tard with another useless post. The only thing you are capable of doing is following chipper around to call him a Eunuch. Get a life you witless wanker…and also, fuck off.

          1. Fuck off yourself, Jason.

            Seriously, fucking yourself off is the only way you’re going to get laid at your age.

            1. Wow, I must’ve really gotten under your skin so much that you are now my stalker. That’s some next level Creeper stalker shit. I’ve never been doxxed before! Congratulations, you sick fuck.

              1. LOL, “stalker”–when you set up an account with a burner email, don’t leave the email visible, and at very least don’t use your actual name in the email. Anyone with five minutes to spare could have found that shit out.

                That’s basic-bitch common sense, so don’t REEEEE at me for being an exceptional dumbshit. Hell, you should be thanking me for reminding you to lock that shit up.

                1. So who exactly is McJizz?

                  1. If you’ve got some links or info, that would be awesome. Could have some real fun with the douchebag.

              2. I mean seriously, you did the same stupid shit that Mary Stack did. How fucking embarrassing is that?

                1. I don’t hide behind a sock you fucking miserable half-wit. The fact that you know who I am and have obviously spent A LOT of time going through my instagram pictures makes you A FUCKING STALKER. GO FUCK YOURSELF and GET A FUCKING LIFE! And if you ever think you might want to meet me BRING A FUCKING ARMY asshole!# Now fuck off you fucking sicko.

                  1. I don’t hide behind a sock

                    Son, anyone not using their real name on here is hiding behind a sock. What, did you forget the password to your McGoo account like that dumbass shriek did and had to make a new one?

                    have obviously spent A LOT of time going through my instagram pictures

                    Stop digging.

                    And if you ever think you might want to meet me BRING A FUCKING ARMY asshole!#

                    LOL, the only thing you’re capable of taking down is a carton of skim milk.

                    1. You’re a fucking loser chained to your miserable life and get off on cyberstalking people who debate you. Go fuck yourself and get a life asshole.

                    2. You’re a fucking loser chained to your miserable life

                      Stop projecting.

                      and get off on cyberstalking people who debate you.

                      I spend five minutes looking up one exceptional dumbshit who leaves his email account visible and uses his real name, in the 8 years I’ve been commenting here, and suddenly I “get off” on people’s stupidity.

                      Please, don’t call your masturbatory Whedon-esque rejoinders “debate.”

                    3. The truth hurts doesn’t it you fucking psycho stalker. Get a life, loser.

                    4. “I spend five minutes looking up one exceptional dumbshit who leaves his email account visible and uses his real name, in the 8 years I’ve been commenting here, ”

                      No…it’s much deeper. You know my name. You know my email. You know my age. You know my marital status. You seemingly know a lot of things about me that I can’t explain. You know some of my best friends are owls. Some of my friends would love to rip your face off. I would encourage them, …given the chance…..because you’re a fucking degenerate stalker and you deserves nothing less….and my friends like the game too. The owls are not what they seem fucko!

                    5. I’m guessing McJizz is some scrawny soyboy. Would I be correct in that assumption?

                    6. “You know some of my best friends are owls. Some of my friends would love to rip your face off. I would encourage them, …given the chance…..because you’re a fucking degenerate stalker and you deserves nothing less….and my friends like the game too. The owls are not what they seem fucko!”

                      You’re a bigger kook than I had guessed Jason. You really might want to dial back the threats. As you are somewhat disadvantaged, even more so than usual.

                  2. An army? It would take a dismissive backhand to teach you your place. As if you’re capable of any real physical prowess or tactical behavior.

    3. Question no more.
      You have two options with Shikah.
      1) She’s mentally defective and that accounts for her random anti-American babblings,
      2) She knows what she’s talking about – but she’s just a liar and hates America.

      1. 3) You’re Pedo Shitty and fooling nobody.

        1. What’s not fooling anyone is that pathetic combover of yours.

          1. You’re a fucking loser chained to your miserable life and get off on cyberstalking people who debate you. Go fuck yourself and get a life asshole.

            1. Now you’re resorting to copy-pasta? Hihn giving you pointers?

                1. Face it, you’re more pissed off at yourself.

                  1. Because you’re a fucking psychopath stalker with a miserable existence?

                    1. Your desperation is hilarious, Jason

                    2. Jason really is a silly bitch.

        2. Sorry McJizz, we’ve already established you progtards are the pedos here.

          You’re so weak and desperate.

      2. 3) She’s a nationalist mole sent to false flag Reason’s globalists as fools.

        Even most of Open Borders crowd here thinks she’s a jackass losing the argument for them.

    4. Yes Houston is the same way Mexican/Chinese enclaves where hardly anyone speaks or trying to speak anything but the native tongue.

    5. Living in NYC for 30 year, there are plenty of immigrants that live in their enclave as if they never left their home country.

      I’m guessing you don’t get out of Staten Island much.

      1. I’m guessing you’ve not gotten far from home yourself considering your pathetic pleas for bike lanes.

  7. “Nationalists R The Real Anti-Assimilationists”

  8. As AlbertP states, it may be “over the top” but what is being said has come to pass. It is no longer a possibility, it is proven. As far as root cause, with the liberals and their shrill complaints , neo-nationalists and their cries for cultural war, I would suggest that Christopher Lasch was on to something 30 years ago. We are deep into the throes of cultural narcissism. America suffers from a clinically definable narcissistic personality disorder and much of the agitation springs from that.

    1. Like the French?

  9. “”Their orgy of statism is un-American.”‘

    That pretty much sums up DC.

  10. Ahahahhaahhaahahhaahaha

    God she is so fucking stupid lolololololololo

  11. For those who believe that current immigrants are not assimilating as well as they should, what would constitute proof of that claim?

    That some of them take welfare? Well all the statistics I’ve seen show that immigrants take welfare at approximately the same rate as do native-born citizens of similar socio-economic backgrounds.

    That many of them vote for Team Blue? There is no requirement that assimilation means voting for a specific tribe or party.

    That immigrants tend to live in ethnic enclaves? Okay, but that practice is no different than in times past, and previous immigrants seemed to assimilate just fine.

    1. “That some of them take welfare? Well all the statistics I’ve seen show that immigrants take welfare at approximately the same rate as do native-born citizens of similar socio-economic backgrounds.”

      Let’s go ahead and assume by “immigrants”, you actually mean illegals. It is a safe assumption with these idiotic arguments.

      If an home intruder came in and cost me as much as much as my son costs me…I wouldn’t say “Well, this idiot is no worse than my child”.

      Illegals should take NO benefits as they should not be here.

      1. Pedo Jeffy absolutely mean illegals. He also means illegals who rape little kids.

        1. By now we’re all aware of your obsession, pedo Shitty. You might need to get help.

          1. I wouldn’t be surprised if this Shitlord guy turns out to be an actual pedophile. He sure seems to be obsessed with the topic.

            1. Another dodge from one of you scumbags.

              No, we just hate pedophiles. Garbage ‘Ike you doesn’t understand anything good or decent like that. So you assume everyone is like you.

      2. No, I mean immigrants. If I had meant an undocumented immigrant, I would have said so.

        But while we’re on the subject – You really think that a migrant crossing the border without the correct papers is equivalent to a thief breaking into your house? That all of America is analogous to one big house?

        1. The thief doesn’t have the proper papers to enter your property.

        2. Anyone, not just a thief. In case you didn’t pick up on it, the commonality between the house, and America is both contain a boundary and both have laws about when that boundary is crossed by unauthorized people. If you disagree, send us your address and we will all come and break into your house. Cool with that? No of course not.

          1. …now hold on. Are any of y’all hot with tight anuses?

            1. And what kind of anuses does Red Tony like? Depends.

            2. Well, before my last Mexican meal, my anus was tight.

              Now? Not so much.

              1. “You don’t come here for the tacos, do you?”

              2. Stop culturally appropriating Mexican anuses!

              3. Sounds like more of a burrito man.

          2. The country itself is no one’s property.

            1. Wrong. The common grounds are jointly owned and administered by the various governing bodies. It’s like a country club that all the members might own, but the board governs.

        3. Then you are wasting our time with a non sequitur. In fact, the whole of you Dalmia types waste our time obfuscating “immigrant” vs. “illegal immigrant”, as if we who object to illegals are also objecting to legals. You’re all basically just liars. STFU.

        4. America has sovereign borders. You just don’t like it. So you make your ridiculous sophist arguments.

          We are going to continue to have sovereign borders, and you’re free to continue to not like it. I’m fact, you can not like it all you want.

      3. That isn’t the point. I don’t begrudge their taking it however do we really need a million more people on the rolls every year? Please tell me how that benefits the taxpayers or the country. You really can’t because it doesn’t. Welfare benefits are supposedly a stop gap measure to help people get out of poverty. They not designed to support someones family in Honduras or Somalia.

    2. “For those who believe that current immigrants are not assimilating as well as they should, what would constitute proof of that claim?”

      A stroll through the Somali neighborhoods of Minneapolis and St. Cloud, MN or Dearborn, MI would be a start. Wander through Victor Davis Hanson’s neighborhood near Selma, CA for further information.

      1. Yes, and? That immigrants live in ethnic enclaves? That immigrants can change the character of the local neighborhood to which they move? Yes that is true. That’s been true the whole time. Why is this time significantly different? What is substantially different between Somalis moving to Minneapolis and creating a small ethnic enclave there, and Irish moving to Boston and creating a small ethnic enclave there?

        1. Last I heard you didn’t have to worry about getting the shit beaten out of you for walking through an Irish neighborhood while being the “wrong” race. Is that too subtle a distinction for you?

          1. Somebody’s obviously never been to Boston.

            1. Yea, but Boston is a shithole

            2. Who would actually want to go to Boston?

              1. Paul Revere?

              2. The Red Sox?

          2. I’d suggest getting out more. It’s not as bad as it once was, but being the wrong skin color in Irish or Italian (or other nationalitiies’) neighborhoods is still a good way to catch a beating.

        2. The difference is that the Irish brought Corned beef, Irish Whisky,
          Leprechauns, River dance and Guinness. The Somalis have brought ignorance, disease, religious intolerance and anger. In the end the Irish assimilated (at least my ancestors did). The Somalis don’t seem interested. In fact they seem intent on turning this country into a caliphate.

          1. The Know-Nothings of the day said all the same things about the Irish that you say today about the Somalis.

            In WASPy mid-19th century New England, the Catholic Irish were regarded just as scornfully as you regard the Muslim Somalis today.

          2. Corned beef was produced in Ireland, but it was an export product developed by the British Colonial Overlords. The native Irish didn’t eat much of it in “the old country.” Once in the US, it was used as a substitute for Irish bacon and ham, as it was cheap.

            The Scots spell it “whisky.” The Irish spell it “whiskey,” as we do in the states.

            One thing that accelerated Irish-American assimilation was the near destruction, even before emigration, of the Irish native tongue, and its replacement with English. The British were less successful in stamping out Catholicism in Ireland, so that 19th century Irish immigrants were distrusted for not sharing the Protestant background of the earlier Scots-Irish/Ulster Scots, who were largely “Dissenters” from Anglicanism, such as Presbyterians. Knowing English gave the Irish a leg up on other groups in regards to political involvement, and many WASPs resented Irish success in that regard, hence, Know-Nothingism.

        3. I don’t care if they assimilate or not, just so long as they do not vote to oppress me or unbalance U.S. politics, which they usually do.

      2. Homple, I’m glad you brought up Minnesota. My grandfather was born there, in New Prague, I think in the 1880s. I have no idea how old he was when he learned English. His family spoke Czech. Even at the end of his life, he spoke English with an accent so heavily Eastern European that I could not understand much of what he said.

        At age 16, I was sure my grandfather, with that accent, couldn’t have been born in the U.S. I said so to my mother. She took offense. And showed me his birth certificate. And then she knocked me over, saying she didn’t speak any English herself, until she went to public school. I had no inkling. I hadn’t even given it a thought.

        By the time I was born, my mother had not the slightest trace of an accent—unless you count the distinctive Minnesotan lilt. And she had just finished up her wartime job, where she worked at the headquarters of the OSS—so pretty assimilated.

        The reason I knew nothing about my mother’s ethnic past was because she was ashamed of it. She had been called a Bohunk, and treated to anti-Catholic bigotry—which contributed to life-long agnosticism. The first chance she got, she fled Minnesota to D.C., to get away from that. And she didn’t choose to talk about it.

        It worked. She got the life she wanted. After OSS, she worked for years as administrative assistant to the head of the National Geographic Society. And then more years in the same capacity for TV news anchor Howard K. Smith.

        I mention all that as foundation, to suggest a lot of folks commenting here don’t seem to know much about how slowly (or how quickly, if you prefer) assimilation has happened, or how well it has worked, and continues to work. Sometimes it seems that commenters here are not so much afraid that assimilation will not happen, as they are that it will.

        1. Beautifully said – thank you!

        2. Your family history story is precious. Irrelevant, but precious. We don’t mind slow assimilation. We mind our tax dollars being spent on poor illegals, our public health suffering because of illegals, our public treasuries being emptied by illegals, our citizens and residents being murdered by illegals, and the damn Democrats becoming the forever party due to illegals voting. Which part of “illegal” do you not understand?

        3. My maternal grandparents were Norwegian immigrants and didn’t speak much English until their kids started school, had to learn English on the fly and helped their parents learn it. Nobody was interested in ghettoization. The kids were encouraged to “Americanize” as quickly as possible. Grandpa and Grandma had a Scandinavian lilt to their English, the kids only accent was Rural North Dakota.

          Some people want to assimilate and some won’t. I don’t know about your forebears, mine certainly did and if they could, anybody could.

          1. Most legal immigrants, in my experience, do want to become American.
            I’ve yet to meet a single illegal, of the dozens I’ve known, who saw the country as anything but a colony to exploit for monetary gain while self segregating and making fun of the others (that is, Americans).
            Check that – my friend Paco, who came here as a child and whose parents specifically avoided ethnic enclaves, is as American as anybody else.
            So, that’s like a 2% rate

            1. “Check that – my friend Paco,”

              Bullshit. You have no friends. The rest of it was stupid too.

              1. Jason, you should harm yourself.

              2. You so sad, Jason.

            2. Nardz, I just told you a story about an ethnic enclave, New Prague, where many people spoke Czech—including even people born in the U.S—and in some instances continued to do so all their lives. My mother, born in 1919, had 4 siblings, all notably older than she was. She spoke Czech at first, then switched to English. So did all her siblings—all perfectly assimilated. One brother became mayor of his mid-western town. Another brother became a senior sales manager at Diamond Match. A third brother was in the habit of reciting William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold speech, while he shaved.

              I suggest you should relax about ethnic enclaves, and give it some time.

              1. Stephen, with all due respect, you can fuck right off.
                How many Czechs immigrated here a century ago?
                They had no choice but to assimilate, and had every incentive to do so.
                Now? Not so much.
                There are millions of people coming in every year and growing their ethnic enclaves.
                That’s one of the points of having a legal system of immigration – to allow time and incentive for peoples to assimilate.
                That’s not what we have. We have entire cities taken over by foreign nationals who are very determined, and encouraged by some here, to remain very much foreign and segregated.
                It’s colonialism.
                But I’m sure you think your century old story carries more weight than first hand experience

                1. You’re missing the point: A lot of European immigrants of the past didn’t actually assimilate much at all. Their kids did.

                  Hell, there were a thousand or more German-language newspapers in the US up till about 100 years ago.

                  More pointedly, people like you said the *exact* same stuff about all those Euro immigrants that you’re saying now. They were wrong then; why are you right now?

                  1. And if we were living in a 19th or even early 20th century world you would have a point. But we don’t. And the fact is that the vast majority of the rest of the world is in favor of a large, intrusive state. That used to be something that nominal libertarians cared about, but this modern wokatarianism seems to cry out for turning off your brain and dismissing likely outcomes if it means reality will conflict with your fantasies. It’s really no different that advocating for eliminating police forces because you’re certain that people are inherently good.

                  2. Steve, my story is not much different, even with Czech spoken by my grandparents.

                    More pointedly, people like you said the *exact* same stuff about all those Euro immigrants that you’re saying now. They were wrong then; why are you right now?

                    The difference is that all the people I met from that era were very much interested in assimilating and becoming Americans, language notwithstanding. The new enclaves seem more interested in establishing zones duplicating the conditions of their old countries, right down to the ethnic feuds and sharia laws that are decidedly un-American. This is the product of multiculturalism that tells us not to criticize those tendencies.

                2. Nardz, you have the time frame wrong, along with pretty much everything else. Major Czech immigration started in the late 1840s, when the entire U.S. had a population of ~ 20,000,000. It did not then take millions of immigrants to deliver a notable effect. More to the point, the places where the Czechs immigrated to, in the upper mid-west and a pocket in Texas, were thinly populated places at the time.

                  Thus, your presumption about, “no choice but to assimilate,” is off the mark. Instead, the time and places involved were ripe for ethnic enclaves, and the Czechs—predominantly Catholics amidst Protestant neighbors—supplied them.

                  Those enclaves lasted a long time. Check out a map of Czech ethnicity today, and you can see that pattern of settlement still persists. Unless an American lives near one of those areas, meetings with people of Czech descent are not commonplace, even today. And yet, pretty much any person of Czech descent you do meet will be completely assimilated, and not unusually, a notably patriotic American in whom tendencies toward toward center-left politics and social conservatism coincide.

        4. Yes, very well put! :).

        5. Assimilation has to be something a group wants to do. Most of the Czech’s I have known have commented that their families wanted to and made efforts to do so all the while embracing their old culture and traditions. My Irish family did the same while never losing respect for a good bottle of whisky or disdain for the royals.

          1. Correct.
            You who, as opposed to the cited Czechs, don’t generally assimilate well?
            Belgians.
            They are apparently a very small, tight knit, and extremely insular community in the US.
            It’s kinda weird.

        6. I don’t care if they assimilate or not. I care how they vote, and whether they unbalance U.S. politics. I have to live under the laws for which they vote. I don’t want any more gun-control, income taxes or inflation, all of which they vote for by voting Democratic.

    3. “”For those who believe that current immigrants are not assimilating as well as they should, what would constitute proof of that claim?”‘

      The question contains the generalization fallacy. There is a subset, and not a large one, of immigrants do not assimilate. I see this almost a daily.

      “That immigrants tend to live in ethnic enclaves? Okay, but that practice is no different than in times past, and previous immigrants seemed to assimilate just fine.””

      It is no different than the past, and not all previous immigrants assimilated.

      1. Previous immigrants were segregated by society, many of today’s self segregate.

        There is a huge difference there.

    4. Shocking. Jeff is fucking wrong again.

      https://ijr.com/immigrant-households-welfare-higher-rate-natives

      “The Center for Immigration Studies used Census data to estimate welfare use among non-citizen households — including green card holders and guest workers — and immigrant households, finding that only 50 percent of native households used welfare services compared to 63 percent of those headed by non-citizens and immigrants.”

      1. Jeff did include the caveat “from similar socioeconomic backgrounds”, though. How’s it look when that’s used to filter?

        1. Even using the CIS’s own numbers, if you compare across similar educational backgrounds, similar income, and similar family sizes, immigrants consume welfare at only a *slightly* higher rate than native-born citizens. The bulk of the disparity is due to Medicaid, and that can easily be explained by noting that undocumented immigrants, almost by definition, don’t have access to employer-sponsored health insurance, while for native-born citizens in the same socio-economic category, it’s much more of a mix.

          Places like CIS publish these bombshell headlines not because they want to inform, but because they want to mislead. They want to push a narrative about lazy shiftless welfare mooching immigrants and they are pretending that people won’t look any deeper than the headline.

          1. Yet you want more

      2. The Center for Immigration Studies is a nativist hate bag full of bigots who massage data to suit their twisted ideology. Their data has been debunked by Cato.

        1. Bullshit.
          Cato “debunked” it by saying things like free school meals and food stamps for “native” born children don’t count.
          But eunuch is just a xenophilic little bitch who has no friends because he’s a bigot with a weak mind, no wit, and desperation for approval.

          1. “But eunuch is just a xenophilic little bitch who has no friends because he’s a bigot with a weak mind, no wit, and desperation for approval.”

            That’s why you follow him around like a puppy dog? Also what kind of intellectually-stunted dipshit calls someone a “xenophilic bigot”? Your dumb ass can’t even type a single sentence without contradicting yourself. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            1. Somebody who can’t remember to do something as simple as lockout the visibility on their burner gmail account is in no position to call anyone a dumbass, Jason.

            2. Explain the contradiction between xenophilic, in the clearly defined context of nationality, and bigot.
              Go ahead, Jason- I’ll wait.

      3. I’m more worried about the figure itself, forget about immigration. “Only 50%” of Americans received welfare services? That’s alarming! Who is even shouldering the burden these days?

    5. This is true. We could probably handle the tides of immigrants if we didn’t have a native born establishment hellbent on valuing other cultures above ours.

      1. Culture is over rated.

        There is no such thing really just a collection of micro cultures. You have gamer culture, nerd culture, highbrow culture, rap culture…
        The culture in New Orleans in terms of food, art, music, mannerisms, is very different than Albany or San Diego.

        Language, well most Americans speak English but there are many regional differences in accent, syntax, idiom, and grammar.

        And culture is dynamic, not static. As different groups or influences come into play it changes. The Japanese love baseball and Americans love Sushi.

        There are some generalities you can say about people from one region or another but they do not mean very much.

        What we talk about in assimilation is a two way street, not one melting into the other. Somalis in Minnesota will become a part of Minnesota culture and vice versa.

        1. A libertarian claiming that culture is overrated.

          Jesus fucking christ.

          Culture is everything if you ever want a free society. It is the ONLY thing that stands in the way of authoritarians. This is the exact reason that leftist scumbags hate American culture so much.

          1. Unfortunately, culture is often antithetical to individualism. And individualism is the root of libertarianism.

            1. “Muh individualism!” cries the groupthinker

            2. Horse shit. Do not mistake autonomy for individualism.

              Individualism is a choice, not a basis.

    6. First of all, that most are criminals. They became criminals the instant they crossed the border illegally. If they respected our laws, they’d apply and wait. But they don’t. So that’s the first sign.

      Welfare? It’s not “some” on welfare. It’s most. And no, the numbers aren’t even close to native-born citizens. Each “Dreamer” who came here and went through 12 years of public education cost Americans $150,000 for that alone. Add in $100,000 of welfare, $100,000 for unpaid emergency room visits, and it would have been far cheaper to pay a bounty hunter $20,000 a scalp to kill them and their parents the instant they crossed the border. For what they’ve sucked out of the American system, we could have built Trump’s wall 20-50 times over.

      Best solution? Kill them all the instant they cross the border.

    7. “…immigrants take welfare at approximately the same rate as do native-born citizens of similar socio-economic backgrounds.”

      Fatuous argument.
      1. You do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
      2. Are you saying that we would be no worse off by increasing the population of illiterates?

    8. PEW Research on Hispanic Americans, breakdowns by immigration and foreign birth
      https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
      Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1
      The trend is the same across immigrants generally. And extends for multiple generations.

      Import Not Americans, Become Not America.
      Mass immigration without assimilation is colonization.

      Note that racebaiterjeff inverts the burden of proof. We do not have magic dirt. When immigrants come to the US, they bring their political culture with them. Duh.

      Those are realities that require no proof. Let racebaiterjeff argue that we do in fact have magic dirt, or magic air, that imbues all immigrants with the spirit of Thomas Paine if he wants.

      1. It’s the nativists like buybuy here who are actually arguing on behalf of the “magic dirt” fallacy.

        Imagine that we get the immigration policies that they desire – huge walls, sharply limited immigration at all levels, onerous regulations against hiring undocumented workers, high taxation to pay for it, checkpoints and warrantless searches in the name of stopping those pesky immigrants from coming here.

        And buybuy thinks that new native-born citizens, which are born in this environment, will turn into magic liberty lovers? Just because they were born on the “magic dirt” of American soil? No, they will turn into xenophobic little bigots. All of this repression and regulation and paranoia will seem “natural” to them.

        Buybuy never once bothers to ponder the type of America that HE would end up creating. He loves to predict that more immigrants will lead to a worse-off America. I’d like to see him try to prove that fewer immigrants, and more native-born citizens growing up in a climate of fear and paranoia, will turn America into a Thomas Paine loving paradise. Because it won’t.

        1. More strawman bullshit from Pedo Jeffy. As usual totally mischaracterizing everything Dan said.

          You’re lucky we’re even this nice to you.

        2. “Just because they were born on the “magic dirt” of American soil?”

          No. Because they were born in a political culture of Anglo American liberty. Such as remains, at least.

          The US was not some hellhole from the 20s to the 60s with strict immigration ceilings in place. Our primary civil rights problems were not immigration related, but still related to the legacy of slavery, and extending full civil rights to blacks.

          Up until a couple of years ago, I’d never even heard of Operation Wetback. Actually enforcing our immigration laws did not make us a police state. Because we enforced them. The problem now is that our laws have no credibility because we don’t enforce them, thus failing to provide any deterrent to illegal immigration.

          Enforcing them would have costs.

          Not enforcing them has greater costs. Turning America into just another Latin American country, another Mexico, would be a catastrophic loss for America *and* the world.

          The US as Mexico Norte in the 20th Century does not stem the tide of fascist and communist totalitarianism. There is no other country in the world with power to keep Emperor Xi from de facto rule of the world today.

          1. Because they were born in a political culture of Anglo American liberty.

            They’d be born into a political culture of “build the wall”, “keep the foreigners out”, “America for Americans and the rest of you can go to hell”, “If you hire a person who doesn’t have the right papers, you’re a traitor and deserve to be punished by the state”. That is the culture that YOU would be creating in this country. Please tell me how this is consistent with “Anglo-American liberty” again?

            The US was not some hellhole from the 20s to the 60s with strict immigration ceilings in place.

            The 20s to 60s also saw the rise of socialism in the US. That’s not a coincidence. You want to know why Scandinavian people are totally okay with their huge welfare states? Because they don’t regard welfare recipients as “lazy moochers on the dole”, they view welfare recipients as akin to relatives who are down on their luck.

            And, by the way, the 20s to 60s was indeed a very racist time, not just against blacks, but against non-whites generally. If this is what you want, then you are just making my point for me.

          2. And do you even know the history behind Operation Wetback?

            It was a military-style campaign, led by an actual Army general placed in charge of the INS so as to sidestep charges of violating Posse Comitatus. It involved rounding up about a million undocumented immigrants and sending them back to Mexico, sometimes not even to their own hometown but to where the Mexican government demanded that they be sent, as a part of some central plan to improve the economy of Mexico. American citizens were also mistakenly deported. Many migrants died due to mistreatment or just because they lacked food and water at their detention facilities.

            Sound at all familiar?

            1. Yes, it sounds like the reverse of what’s happening now.

        3. I, in general, take the libertarian open borders position. However, the voting trends and politics of most immigrants gives me pause. I have to live under the laws for which they vote. And they unbalance U.S. politics by voting overwhelmingly Democratic to impose oppressive gun-control, higher taxes & spending, and inflation. If they voted more libertarian, it would be easier to support more open immigration.

          1. Government is the gun we point at each other.

            Open borders means we put that gun in the hands of people statistically less libertarian than Americans.

            You don’t make America more libertarian by importing people who are less libertarian than Americans.

            Not rocket science.

      2. So without magic dirt, how did Thomas Paine become imbued with the spirit of Thomas Paine? Oh, right, he brought it with him when he immigrated. Seems like a notable point in favor of immigration.

        Not that it did Paine much good. He was one of the most hated men in America when he died.

        1. That’s a great argument in favor of English immigration to the British colonies of North America in the 18th century.

  12. Not all cultures are equal.
    Equating say for example the advanced Swiss culture with a Mohammedan culture should be evidence enough to anyone with enough logic to realize that cultural relativism is a crock of shit.

    1. Doesn’t that depend on the metric that you are using for comparison?

      1. No, they are not equal, independent of the metric.

        1. And by the way, jeffy is going to sperg out here because his disease riddled mind sees a value judgement in a simple observation not of the relative merit of cultures, but that they are simply not 1 to 1 equal.

          Watch.

          1. Pedo Keffy never says a thing about who he is or his background, ever. So I amigome him as a really annoying college kid with weak, clueless, permissive parents who coddled him. I envision him in college classes being as annoying and sophist there as he is here.

            A series of savage beating s by a combination of classmates, and possibly a stern new stepfather would be the best thing for him.

            1. On top of it, he is that annoying asshole kid who sits in the front of the class and attempts to answer every queation. It is clear he never read the source material, but feels his answer is ways correct. Every teacher hates him.

              1. ….whereas you are the slow kid sitting at the back of the class eating your own boogers with your down your pants.

                1. Cunt, you are way out of your depth here. Best you crawl back under your rock.

            2. Out of curiosity, what exactly happened to all the other Shitlords?

              I take great comfort in thinking that you are the last of their useless, sorry lot.

              1. Yes, yes, I’m. Sure you do proggy. I’m sure you do. Don’t worry though, turns out they’re not really gone. But hidden away in a pocket universe, soon to return to plague you progtards.

            3. A series of savage beating s by a combination of classmates, and possibly a stern new stepfather would be the best thing for him.

              Yeah, right, sounds real libertarian.

        2. “No, they are not equal, independent of the metric.”

          So they’re not equal as long as don’t as long as you don’t measure them? That’s even stupid for you. Do you even think before you vomit the contents of your worm-riddled head? I already know the answer, shithead.

          1. Oh Jason, now I can get to know the real you.

            What fun!

      2. Yes it does depend, and that gets scary as well. Whose or what metric should be used? Governments historically have used their metrics to be utilized for discrimination and pogroms or far worse with full on genocidal actions.

      3. Feel free to list the metric that Arabic society is better than Western society.

        Your pick of metrics.

        1. Arabs vs. Westerners?
          I thought this was about the Swiss vs. the “Mohammedans”.
          And are we referring to “society” or to “culture”?
          What exactly is being compared to what?

          1. straw red herring men, impressive

          2. Stop it. The straw man has suffered enough.

            1. I didn’t notice a Tony post so perhaps not.

              1. Sorry I’m late. I was busy in the BONE ZONE.

                (All alone in the BONE ZONE…again…sigh…)

          3. I agree with Jeff. Culture, society and nationality are distinct concepts.

            Switzerland is a good example. There are distinct cultures, languages, regions and customs depending on tribal origin. The Swiss are actually very proud of that. There are also societal traits in common as well as nationality which would include political and economic factors.

            1. No no, it’s much easier just to lump all of those other people as one disaggregated blob and to make half-baked comparisons.

              1. The French speaking Fribourg Canton and the Schweitzer Deutsch linguistic areas of Switzerland as well as the Ticino region to the south despite their differences all adhere overwhelmingly to Western standards of personal liberty, direct democracy and economic freedom as a unifying whole.
                This is in contrast to the Islamic societies.
                Ja, it is quite obvious which system is superior and why it is superior.

              2. “Only 5 of these 100 candies are poisoned with cyanide. Go have a few, most of them are good!”

            2. Yet the myriad tribes, customs, cultures and languages of Switzerland as a whole are unified by a standard that is superior to the myriad Mohammedan societies.
              Not complicated.

            3. “I agree with Jeff”

              Good way to destroy any credibility

        2. They have more sand!

        3. Arabia is better at beheadings, stonings, violent censorship, theocracy, cowardice, castes, patriarchy, parochialism, and dessert.

          1. “Arabia is better at beheadings”

            These days, but the French, for a few years, really were the pinnacle of it

            1. French rationalism and egalitarianism is clearly coming into vogue among American progressives again.

      4. They are clearly unequal. Now, which is better depends on your metric. If Pedo Jeff wants a child bride or servile boys, then Muslim culture is preferable. If a gay atheist like myself doesn’t want to be killed by a mob, then Swiss culture is preferable.

        1. How about if one wants more than one wife?

      5. “Doesn’t that depend on the metric that you are using for comparison?”

        Here’s a metric – which culture would you rather live in? Switzerland or Pakistan?

        Take your time.

        The multiculturalists talk a good game, but how they *and everyone else* behaves is what to look at.

        The Swiss don’t want to move to Pakistan. The Pakistanis do want to move to Switzerland.

        Same with Anglo America and Latin America.

    2. People see what they see.

      A fair portion of the conflict seems to be between the realists in the dominant culture and the guilt obsessed virtue signalers within the same culture who insist that the realists are terrible, racist people for believing their lyin’ eyes.

    3. To borrow from Thomas Carlyle. “Each culture is superior to mine in that I may learn from it”. Our number system comes from that Mohammedan culture. Also remember that when European culture was in the dark ages it was the Arabic Mohammedan culture that preserved much of the knowledge of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman culture.

      1. You think numbers were invented after 540 AD?

        1. Also, the Mohammedans burned the library at Alexandria, because the Sultan said “I don’t need books that aren’t the Koran”.

          The idea that Muslims kept Western Civ alive is ridiculous revisionism. They didn’t practice ANY of its tenets. And they in fact tried to erase much of it.

        2. Indians invented it, not arabs. The arabs picked it up through trade, then westerners picked it up through trade with the Arab world.

      2. You are incorrect.
        Islam derived most of its intellectual property from its conquests (dhimmi culture) of other religions, peoples and nations.
        The Dark Ages are a misnomer as the fall of the Roman Empire was the best thing to happen as Rome was a slave based economy thus unsustainable in the long run. With the fall of Rome Western Europe innovated superior agricultural methods and technologies resulting in greater yields and the subsequent exponential population growth.
        Capitalism was innovated in the “Dark Ages” in Europe. The West allowed markets to prosper thus creating more prosperity and eventually allowing exploration and trade through city states such as Venice. This can be traced back to the decentralized Greek city state culture and its impact on Western European states.

        1. The Muslim trading networks stretched from North Africa to Indonesia and China. They dwarfed the Christian trading network which consisted of a handful of cities in Europe. The idea of Muslims being somehow hostile to trade and enterprise is ludicrous. Mohammed himself had a background as a business man.

          1. Islam wasn’t hostile to trade, it was hostile to capitalism.

            1. ” it was hostile to capitalism.”

              I’m not sure they are. Muslims oppose usury, but so do many faiths.

              1. I didn’t say “Muslims are hostile to capitalism”, I said that “Islam was hostile to capitalism”. In other words, your statement about the history of capitalism and your attempt to use Muslim trade in support of that statement is b.s.

                1. I never made any statement on capitalism. I was commenting on Arab trading networks. It was Mauser that made the dubious claim that Europeans came up with ‘capitalism’ during the dark ages. Obviously untrue as land owners were legally prevented from disposing of their property as they wished by the king. Exercising restraint, I chose to ignore these foolish remarks, and instead pointed out the vast networks of trade dominated by Arabs.

                  1. And you made an equally foolish remark by conflating “trading networks” with “capitalism”.

                    1. I’m not conflating capitalism with trading networks. i pointed out that Arab trading networks during the dark ages were much greater than those of the Europeans, It has nothing to do with capitalism. If you think it does, or think something else entirely, you haven’t made your thoughts clear to me.

                    2. Correct: trading networks have nothing to do with capitalism. Yet, you kept bringing it up in the context of a discussion on who was responsible for the modern capitalist system as if it was relevant.

                      Glad you realize your error!

                    3. “Glad you realize your error!”

                      Glad enough to tell me what ‘my error’ is?

        2. Europe was stuck with little innovation happening until the Crusades brought in an influx of new goods and ideas from the Middle East.

          1. you really need to read some history

            1. Nah, eunuch has his groupthink narratives. They make him feel like he could some day actually have friends

              1. ….whereas you’ve already completely given up on the prospect.

                1. McJizz, adults are having a discussion here. Now run along lest you be slapped down again.

                2. Your attempts to white knight for your dickless squad mates really aren’t helping them, Jason

            2. The Arabs and North Africans had extensive trading networks. They also had an educated class and the ability to write, keep ledgers and books is important in commerce. That is not to say the Europeans did not. Look at the Vikings for example and those from Southern Europe.

              There was a sort of golden age for Islamic culture and then it sort of became a backwater.

              I like history and there is so much more than you can say in an internet post. A great series of books I read a while back is by historian Thomas Cahill. He wrote about the Irish, Jews, Christians, Greeks and other threads through history and how they impacted on civilization. Good reads.

        3. “Islam derived most of its intellectual property from its conquests” absolutely, but that the way most things work. The Chinese invented pasta, Marco Polo brought it back to Italy, and Chef Boy Ardee put it in a can. The idea that a culture is all good or all bad is silly. We acquire things we like and add it too our own. Somewhat like the Borg only here America is the Collective.

          1. “We acquire things we like and add it too our own.”

            Absolutely. That’s not the predominant argument here.
            The Mohammedans ultimately failed and the West triumphed because Islam did not predominantly innovate and apply democracy and a reason based philosophy as the West did which ultimately culminated in the Renaissance the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The West and its ideas ultimately won out simply because they were superior.

            1. It might be worth mentioning that the west also won because the Ottoman Empire backed the Germans in WWI and lost significant power after that war. Things might have been different if the Ottoman Empire had been on England and Frances side or simply neutral. Who knows its just history.

              1. My bad WWII not WWI

                1. You serious?
                  They didn’t call the Ottoman empire the “sick man of Europe” (for over a century prior to World War I – after which it ceased to exist) for nothing.
                  If you’re going to bring up history, at least be partially familiar with it

          2. In some places, they call that “cultural appropriation”, mind you. Just nobody gets mad if a non-white does that.

      3. The Arabs adopted Hindu numbers.

        1. Correct and we adopted them from the Arabs. Thus, and not correctly, we call them Arabic numbers.

          1. “we call them Arabic numbers”

            The Chinese call them Arabic numbers as well. We can thank Arabic traders for this. They were the ones with promissory notes and letters of credit that spread the system.

            1. Arabic traders monopolized trade by force and violence and you want us to thank them for it?

              1. If you like the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, you should thank the old Arab traders who spread the system throughout the world. Arab trading was not by force and violence, but letters of credit and promissory notes. The history is interesting, I found.

                1. The positional number system and zero long predated Islam and were invented several times. It would likely have become far more widespread far more quickly if Muslims hadn’t destroyed a wide swath of civilizations across the ancient world.

                  This is how Islam operated: ‘If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.’

                  1. “The positional number system and zero long predated Islam and were invented several times.”

                    It was the Chinese who first came up with the concept of zero, and they passed it to the Indians. The Arabic number system, as it’s known in China and European countries, was spread by Arab traders.

                    I’m not sure which ‘ancient civilizations’ the Muslims are supposed to have destroyed, or how this relates to the promulgation of the zero.

                    1. Well, obviously you’re not familiar with the history of Islam, which is why you keep posting your starry eyed drivel. I suggest you catch up on history before commenting again.

                    2. “Well, obviously you’re not familiar with the history of Islam”

                      I’m not a historian or Islamist. But tell me, which ancient civilization were destroyed by Muslims, sorry Mohammedans?

      4. Just because a culture (like the camel-fucking mulsim culture) teaches us by way of being a bad example does NOT make it superior. Mostly, we can look at muslim culture and say, “that’s NOT the way to do it”.

        As for preserving culture – to the extent they stole it for themselves, well, ya got us there!

      5. Also remember that when European culture was in the dark ages it was the Arabic Mohammedan culture that preserved much of the knowledge of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman culture.

        Jesus, fuck, this is inaccurate. Read “The Inheritance of Rome” sometime and find out how wrong you are.

        Also, there was nothing “dark” about the so-called Dark Ages. That term was a Renaissance-era shibboleth when classicism came back into fashion.

        1. Why read that, when you can just read the previous comment from Mauser that you just plagarized?

          1. Because it might be more complex than the YA fiction about teenage wizards that you usually read, Jason.

          2. Please keep impotently attacking people that have offended your Dickless Squad members.
            So much better than ever posting thoughts, analyses, ideas of your own.
            But, from all available evidence, you have none.

            1. Be understanding. The closest he’ll ever get to being beat off is if an owl smacks him with its wings.

              1. You’re a fucking loser chained to your miserable life and get off on cyberstalking people who debate you. Go fuck yourself and get a life asshole.

                1. When are you going to start “debating,” you idiot, because you haven’t done jack squat in this thread so far that approaches the term.

                  1. There’s no debating with a sicko like you, you fucking creep.

                2. Jason, your life appears to involve having us live in your head.

                  1. This might be the best socking-backfire I’ve ever seen

      6. The positional number system was invented by Hindu mathematicians centuries before Islam even existed.

        1. “The positional number system was invented by Hindu mathematicians centuries before Islam even existed.”

          It was the Chinese who introduced the concept of 0 (zero). The Hindus introduced the concept of using symbols for zero rather than the blank spaces employed by the Chinese. That’s how I recall it. It was Arab trading culture that spread the system throughout the world.

      7. “Arabic Mohammedan culture” was responsible for massive destruction of knowledge and books across its range. They used pre-Islamic books for heating their baths.

    4. “with a Mohammedan culture”

      Christ -> Christian
      Mohammed -> Mohammedan

      The trouble with this formulation is that it equates Christ with Mohammed, or suggests that both men played comparative roles in their respective faiths.

      1. It implies no such thing. It’s just a kind of meronym.

        And of course they didn’t play analogous roles: Mohammed was a mass murderer preaching conquest and subjugation.

        1. “It implies no such thing.”

          Sure it does. A follower of Christ is a Christian. A follower of Mohammed is a Mohammedan. But Muslims don’t follow Mohammed. They follow Allah, that’s God to you and me. Mohammed, unlike Jesus, was only a man. A venerated prophet to be sure, but not an object of worship.

          1. A better parallel would be Paul

          2. I’m sorry, but your etymology is wrong. In fact, the relationship isn’t “following”, it is simply “associated with”.

            Some who follows the religion most closely associated with Christ is a Christian. Someone who follows the religion most closely associated with Mohammed is a Mohammedan. Someone who follows the religion most closely associated with Buddha is a Buddhist. In all three cases, the association between the human and the religion is very different.

            Again, your mistaken etymology.

            1. I don’t see Muslims putting Mohammed on a par with Christ or Buddha. There are no images of him in mosques, no mention of him in prayers. He is the final prophet in a long line that includes Jesus and goes back to Abraham. To draw parallels between him and Christ just obscures the differences which are many. There are reasons why Christians call themselves Christian and MUslims don’t call themselves Mohammedans.

              1. I’m not drawing any parallels between Mohammed, Christ, and Buddha, you are.

                The term “Mohammedan” is a common, unambiguous term in English for “Islamic” and “Muslim”. How it originated or whether it is analogous to “Christian” is irrelevant.

                What bothers you about the term is not the lack of analogy, but its evident lack of respect for the preferences of Muslims; you’ll just have to deal with that.

                1. “The term “Mohammedan” is a common, unambiguous term in English for “Islamic” and “Muslim”.”

                  I’m not disputing whether it’s common or not. I’m pointing out the mistake in taking Mohammed for the ‘Christ of Islam.’ Mohammed is just a man. He’s not a messiah. He’s not a god, He’s not a son of god and he’s not a third part of a single god that comes in three parts. Muslims don’t worship Mohammed, but the deity they call Allah.

                  “What bothers you about the term is not the lack of analogy”

                  That’s exactly what bothers me, as I’ve pointed out at least 3 times now in the space of a few hours.

                  1. You’re lying about what bothers you, and that’s why you fabricate etymologies and analogies that don’t exist.

                    1. “You’re lying about what bothers you,”

                      That’s not polite It’s also cowardly. You should apologize.

                    2. Your pearl clutching and hypocrisy are precious.

                    3. “Your pearl clutching and hypocrisy are precious.”

                      Doesn’t seem all that apologetic, but I accept it in the spirit of friendship.

  13. >>>is an ambitious industrial policy dedicated to rebuilding the lost manufacturing base of the heartland

    likely be centered around robots?

    fun column. is Tucker a “former libertarian” who goes L –> FoxNews?

  14. The first time in a long time I’ve actually read a Dalmia piece and while I agree with a lot of what she says, I have to reject the major premise of the piece. It’s not a binary choice, accepting open borders or accepting the big government right. How about we reject both? There’s too damn many collectivists who are either ignorant of or reject the sovereignty of the individual on both sides. Why do you think the Left pushes so hard for unrestricted immigration? Because these people are hard-working, self-sufficient free-thinkers with a healthy skepticism of government? I rather doubt it, hard work and self-sufficiency and skepticism of government to a Democrat is like garlic and silver and holy water to a vampire. And yet those are bedrock American principles.

    1. Nice comment. The scary thing is that conservatives and libertarians seem to have abdicated the teaching of American exceptionalism as it applies to the principles contained in our founding documents. If American kids are favoring socialism, etc., then what can you expect immigrants to favor? What is being taught or not taught? Sure, maybe Hillsdale College and a few others are doing the job but more broadly the principles of individual liberty, the free market, and a government concerned solely with protecting rights, are not being learned. I know it is hard to oppose Santa Claus, but if we can’t come up with compelling arguments, then America as we’d like it is doomed.

      1. I haven’t. I excoriate those who trash talk our country. The conversations are always incredibly predictable.

        1. ” I excoriate those who trash talk our country.”

          Don’t forget all the libtards you are planning to execute also….while you sing “we don’t need another progtard” like Tina Turner.

          1. Learn to read, fuckhole. Excoriate != execute.

            1. No shit? I didn’t say it did you brain-dead dim-wit.

              1. …okay, are you acting like this because you got slimed?

                (For those of you who aren’t ghosts, “slimed” is ghostworld’s equivalent of consentless cornholing.)

                Because if so, you shouldn’t take it out on others. You should go to the ghostpolice and seek ghostjustice.

                1. You mean act like you, Tulpoopy? It’s all for you and your boyfriend. You know who.

                  1. Calm down. You don’t have to run anymore. Nobody can hurt you except yourself and other ghosts.

                    1. winning again. You are really bad at this, Tulpoopster.

                    2. winning again.

                      Except when it comes to women.

                      I’m sure you’re a really nice guy, at least.

                    3. I’m sure I could whip your ass you fucking psychopath.

                    4. Get back in the locker where the beautiful people stuffed you, turkey.

                    5. “Get back in the locker where the beautiful people stuffed you, turkey.”

                      Well, for sure that wasn’t you you fat fucking sicko. Go beat your wife to validate your pathetic existence you fucking psychotic piece of shit.

                    6. And Bill Murray.

    2. You agree with a lot of what she says? She just spouts off that a bunch of unconnected white guys are all Nazis because they disagree to varying degrees with her extremely radical stance. I will go as far over the top as she does and say that Implicit in her headline is the notion that they should all “go back” since they aren’t assimilating to her shitty radicalism

    3. Yeah, her argument that the worst of the right is (almost) as bad as the best of the criminal invaders is bullshit.

      I’m a Nationalist. That is, I believe in our Nation and don’t want to see if polluted by a bunch of disease-carrying, low-IQ socialists from south of the border (or anywhere else in the world). Truth is, most of the world it too retarded to be anything but a drain on America. Mexico is one rung down (average IQ 10 pts less than America). Central America and most of Middle East are two rungs down (-20 IQ points). Africa is 3 or 4 rungs down. The definition of mental retardation is an IQ of 70 or less. Africa is an entire continent where the average IQ is “mentally retarded”.
      But these are averages. In the US, mental retardation affects about 6%. The difference is that in a country like say India, or Zimbabwe, where the average IQ is 82, as much as 33% of the population is retarded.

      We don’t need more retards… especially those carrying disease and looking for handouts.

      1. “We don’t need more retards…”

        Then fuck off and eat a bullet, shithead.

        1. You first, Mary.

      2. Wow, BambiB, you sound like such an ignorant and close minded person. Yikes.

      3. The higher IQ people immigrate; low IQ people don’t. I don’t care how stupid or smart they are – I care how they vote. They vote unbalanced left.

  15. Yes they assimilate so well we just had one legal green card holder ASSimilate his 18 wheeler into around 24 other cars killing 4 people because he was SOOOOOOOO fucking well assimilated that he went right by the runaway truck ramp because his ENGLISH IS JUST SO FUCKING GOOD!

    1. That sounds like an occupational licensing problem as opposed to an assimilation problem.

      1. “…an occupational licensing problem…”

        And who says Reason is no longer libertarian?

  16. The restrictionist right’s standing rap against non-Western immigrants is that they come from statist countries and lack the cultural DNA to assimilate into America’s system of free enterprise, democracy, and individual liberty. But it is the new right, following President Donald Trump’s lead, that is taking a hammer to the system. Conservatives who care for their movement’s integrity and their country’s identity ought to worry less about imaginary external threats and more about the real ones emerging from their own camp.

    This paragraph had everything. Literally all of your disingenuity and ignorance in just a few sentences.

    1. I don’t think it’s possible to pack all of Shikha’s disingenuity and ignorance into that small of a space.

      1. I didn’t think it was possible to pack that much stupid into a single person and yet, there you are.

        1. you need to work on originality

          1. Dude can’t even come up with an original burner email address.

            1. Fucking psycopath. Go beat your wife…or whatever the fuck you do for fun you sick fuckwit.

  17. Didn’t read it. Don’t care. When you start the article calling the object if your ire un American you don’t get my time.

  18. Shiksa, please stop with your colonialist attitude. You can’t march in here and tell us natives how to live or what it means to be American.

    1. And what tribe are you?

    2. “It’s only colonialism when Whitey does it”

  19. That conservatives are preaching a full-scale abandonment of America’s bedrock commitments to capitalism, democracy, religious pluralism, and individual liberty shows that even as they accuse immigrants of not assimilating in America, they themselves are dissimilating from America.

    The vast majority of immigrants believe in America’s fundamental promise.

    Note the difference in treatment: immigrants are presumed good with exceptions which must be uniquely identified. Conservatives are uniformly guilty! Guilty! Guilty!.

    1. and she can’t define the promise relative to their own beliefs

  20. “The vast majority of immigrants believe in America’s fundamental promise. ”
    This is utter and complete bullshit. The VAST majority of immigrants live in ethno-conclaves that don’t even attempt to assimilate or become American. They’re like my dog, he lives here, but has no idea what it means to be an American.
    That’s how we get an idiot like Ilhan Omar down talking America and Americans while strolling the halls of Congress.

    1. You’re right. New York City never had ethnic enclaves like “Little Italy”, Germantown” (Yorkville) or Chinatown or the almost entirely Jewish sections of Brooklyn. All of these areas came about because of discrimination by both the ruling WASPs and the various ethnic populations.

      These “unassimilatible” groups only lasted one generation which stayed in the enclave until they died off. The next generation intermarried and left the ethnic enclaves. The new immigrants, legal and illegal, are doing the same.

    2. But your dog knows perfectly well what it means to be a dog which you do not. The dog does not care what breed another dog is, where it came from, or what language it barks. To a dog a dog is a dog.

      Most people are not that smart and we are all pretty much the same

  21. Dalmia has one thing right. The “conservatives” have advanced about 100 years to the point where they have adopted the ideas of early 20th Century Progressives – Protestantism for all, forced assimilation, elimination of immigration from non-Protestant and/or non-white countries, protectionism and control of the major corporations.

    Congratulations conservatives, your new leader is Woodrow Wilson.

    1. Wilson was a globalist, and the New Right is not.

      1. Wilson was a WASP only globalist. That’s not very global.

        1. In Wilson’s time, WASPs were the globe

  22. “In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

    “If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.

    “We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, conservative nationalist

    1. Roosevelt was part of an open and organized hostility to “Hyphenated Americans”, to the point of calling them traitors and telling them they should get out.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American

      When racebaiterjeff and others “buh what about the earlier waves of white immigration, you racist Nazi Klansman bastard”, they always leave out the part where the *conditions* for immigrants have materially changed.

      We use to aggressively push assimilation, and had no welfare state.
      We now have “foreigners are the best Americans” plus a welfare state.

      Which set of conditions more likely leads to assimilation?

    2. “In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us”

      Why? Out of some misguided belief in social or national purity? Assimilation is a two way street. Immigrants impart some aspects of their culture to the host and vice versa. Both the immigrant and the society inevitably change, your insistments notwithstanding.

      1. Who assimilates to who, and how much, is a matter of choice.

        Letting foreigners settle in the US is a choice.
        How much pressure we put on them to assimilate to us is a choice.

        Mass immigration without assimilation is colonization. That’s a choice too.

        If you like your America, and want to keep your America, you don’t want mass immigration without assimilation to *our* values.

        If you want America to turn from an Anglo American political culture to a Latin American political culture, then you’ll want unlimited immigration from Latin America.

        If you want to destroy the Anglo American political culture of the US, the most *libertarian* political culture in the world, then you’ll want unlimited immigration to the US generally.

        1. “Who assimilates to who”

          I made this clear in my first comment. Both sides assimilate each other. It’s not out of choice, but inevitable. America’s culture is changing all the time. Whether you want it or not, whether you like it or not.

          “If you want to destroy the Anglo American political culture of the US…”

          … You might want to find better things to do with your time. Anglo American culture will be around for a while yet. Even the original Indian culture is still around in the form of names that have infiltrated the culture of the Anglo Americans. We name our cities, states and sports teams after them.

          I’m not sure what you find so hateful about Latin American culture and why you see it as something to be avoided. Perhaps spending a little time in Mexico or Texas will give you a more positive view on your neighbors to the south.

          1. You’re absolutely right that America’s culture is constantly changing and that immigrants change it. And the way we influence how it is changing is through immigration policy.

            If we let in more third world socialist peasant families, American culture will become more third world, socialist, and peasant like. And that’s what American citizens are objecting to.

            As for why people don’t like Latin American culture, a simple look at the social, political, and economic history of Latin America should tell you why.

            1. “As for why people don’t like Latin American culture, a simple look at the social, political, and economic history of Latin America should tell you why.”

              They managed to get through the 20th century without getting embroiled in all these wars that Canada and the USA got into.

              “And that’s what American citizens are objecting to.”

              They’re idiots though. They wouldn’t know a 3rd world country, which incidentally I vastly prefer to your 1st world countries, even if they tripped over one. Bunch of fucking goofs don’t even have passports, and you feel it necessary to parrot these assholes, citing them even as some sort of authority that’s supposed to impress me!

              1. They managed to get through the 20th century without getting embroiled in all these wars that Canada and the USA got into.

                Well, yes, if you live under socialist and military dictatorships, in poverty, economic and social turmoil, you don’t have much time to fight Nazis or communism.

                They wouldn’t know a 3rd world country, which incidentally I vastly prefer to your 1st world countries

                When you say you “vastly prefer” them, does that mean you live in one of those 3rd world countries? Or do you just prefer that other people live in poverty?

                you feel it necessary to parrot these assholes, citing them even as some sort of authority that’s supposed to impress me

                No, I’m simply explaining to you that the US is a sovereign country and Americans have the right to determine their own destiny.

                Where do you live, incidentally?

                1. “When you say you “vastly prefer” them, does that mean you live in one of those 3rd world countries?”

                  Yes, its name is Mexico. You’ve probably heard of it.

                  Or do you just prefer that other people live in poverty?”

                  Let them live where they want is my desire.

                  “No, I’m simply explaining to you that the US is a sovereign country and Americans have the right to determine their own destiny.”

                  Your statist crap doesn’t persuade me. Save it for the rubes.

          2. “I’m not sure what you find so hateful about Latin American culture”

            I don’t like the results, much like the Latin Americans who have come to the US in the tens of millions in the last few decades to escape the results of Latin American culture.

            Why do you suppose *they* “find so hateful about Latin American culture”?

            1. “Why do you suppose *they* “find so hateful about Latin American culture””

              The poverty. What else would it be?

          3. I’m not sure what you find so hateful about Latin American culture

            Virtual firearms prohibition.

      2. You’re absolutely right: assimilation of immigrants is a two-way street and changes the host culture.

        That is precisely why Americans don’t want more immigration from certain cultures: they don’t want their culture changed in those directions.

        1. “That is precisely why Americans don’t want more immigration from certain cultures”

          I think it’s a little late for that. Americans seem fated to bring people in from the far corners of the world, sometime even by force, only to decide, decades or centuries later, that we don’t like their kind. If you believe in a national curse, we are looking at it here.

          1. “Bring people in”? “Decide decades or centuries later”? What are you smoking?

            Americans have consistently expressed a preference for limited immigration and immigration from Western nations and have consistently voted to kick illegal migrants out of the country.
            Mass immigration, diversity, globalism, and open borders are values that elites and special interests are trying to impose on Americans as a whole.

            You know this, because you yourself accuse Americans of being narrow minded rednecks, compared to your enlightened cosmopolitan views. You can’t have it both ways, on the one hand accusing Americans of being xenophobic and on the other hand saying “you asked for this so stop complaining”.

            1. “Americans have consistently expressed a preference for limited immigration and immigration from Western nations”

              Nonsense. Americans imported millions from Africa to do the difficult work they were unable to do themselves. These imports have been treated poorly and resented ever since. It’s absolutely shameful.

  23. “The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself,” the colonel continued, “by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to a breed of spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries and jealousies and hatreds.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, conservative nationalist

  24. “Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.

    “We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.

    “If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren.

    Theodore Roosevelt, conservative nationalist

    1. And the founder of the Progressive party.

    2. Sadly Theodore Roosevelt common sense has dissipated to almost nothing on the left and these Libertarians here are much closer to the left on any social issues than to the right.

    1. This goes pretty good to the tune of Macarena.

  25. When we treat democracy like a free market “cable bundle” we get the worst of both capitalism and socialism.

    People have no alternative but to cast their one vote every 4 years for someone whose cable bundle may sadly not reflect their own values, but is “better” than others.

    People embrace and advocate what they don’t want because they have to, to get the “cable bundle” that has what they do want. That’s how idiots and liars get elected. This has become what people expect from democracy.

    We can do so much better. We can develop the technology to vote on every issue independently online. We can require that people tell the truth and support that by recording our observations.

    Or we can do the same things expecting different results, like usual.

    1. So we let all the loons in Cali, NY and FL decide everything for us? I don’t think I like that idea.

      1. Then you don’t want democracy.

        If you did, you would recognize the importance of truth and our need to do everything we can to support and empower it.

        1. No, I don’t want democracy. I want a Constitutional Republic.

          1. You and I live in one.

            More or less.

          2. So you want to be governed.

            Governing everyone and everything takes a lot of government.

            That’s not very Libertarian of you.

            1. Says that guy who literally wants mob rule.

              1. He a,so wants to get rid of the Joooooooooooossssss!

      2. You realize there are conservatives in all those states? The ones in CA and NY in particular might enjoy finally having their voices heard on a national level.

        If you don’t like a popular vote then you don’t like democracy and you don’t like freedom. You like the system we have because it benefits politicians you like. One day it won’t, and then you won’t like the system.

        Besides, I don’t get why pandering to a handful of Iowans and ignoring California’s tens of millions is preferable.

        1. You’re nonstop dumb as shit. Never anything intelligent.

          We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic.

          Jeez!

          1. What point are you trying to make? Do you define “representative republic” (a form of democracy) as “the minority wins”? If so, it’s not even a representative republic.

            1. We are the United STATES you fucking doofus.
              Not one gigantic blob where CA and NY get to choose the president.

              That is the entire reason for the electoral college

              Seek help or better yet just quit posting dumb shit

              1. So Wisconsin and Pennsylvania get to pick the president.

                You’ve yet to explain why that is better.

                1. All 50 states do and the electoral college is weighted based on population

                  You’re retarded that explains it right?

                  1. So why not just go with population alone and let the people choose the person who will be president over all of them?

                    The most populous states in the country are irrelevant to picking the president right now. Only a random assortment of unrepresentative states matter on election day. This is not what the system was designed for.

                    You’re only defending it because it helps Republicans more than Democrats.

                    1. Tony, if the job of the US president were what you want it to be, namely the leader of a progressive social democracy who micromanages the lives of 330 million Americans, then it would make sense to elect him on population alone. But that’s not his job.

                      The job of the US president is supposed to be limited to national defense, interstate commerce, and a few other issues. For that job, it makes sense that the president is picked based on the electoral college, not popular vote.

                      The fact that progressives have temporarily managed to pervert the role of the US president doesn’t mean that we should further cement that perverted role by then also adopting the popular vote for his election.

                      Hopefully, progressives will come to understand that they should realize their policy preferences at the state level, not at the federal level.

                    2. I think you feel shame and guilt that your preferred party wins the presidency only by exploiting a ridiculous undemocratic shithshow system somewhere deep in your loins.

                      I know for a fact that if Hillary Clinton won the presidency while losing the popular vote, you’d be game for burning the Electoral College to ashes.

                    3. We know you feel no shame. Ends always justify the means with fascists like you. And yes, unlike your reflexive propaganda smearing anyone who dares oppose you, fascist is precisely what you are.

                    4. The big states get plenty of electoral votes Tony. You just don’t like that they can’t dominate the rest.

                    5. I think you feel shame and guilt that your preferred party wins the presidency only by exploiting a ridiculous undemocratic shithshow system somewhere deep in your loins.

                      Tony, I’m a former long-term Democrat but I don’t have a “preferred party” at this point. I left the Democrats because the party is increasingly being taken over by socialists, neo-Marxists, and racists with bad policy ideas and deplorable views.

                      I know for a fact that if Hillary Clinton won the presidency while losing the popular vote, you’d be game for burning the Electoral College to ashes.

                      Well, Tony, you “know” a lot of things that aren’t true. In fact, I had no preference between Trump and Hillary, which is why I didn’t vote for either of them.

                      However, should an actual democratic socialist or neo-Marxist win the presidency, I won’t ask for “the Electoral College to be burned to the ground”, I’ll simply leave the country, because I don’t want to experience another country destroyed by socialism.

                2. no, all 50 states do, dullard

                3. So Wisconsin and Pennsylvania get to pick the president.

                  You’ve yet to explain why that is better.

                  Because people in New York and California are assholes.

              2. I have always thought that an interesting historical fiction novel would be where the US is split into 4-5 different countries. Then you go 200-300 years into the future and see how things turned out.

        2. Besides, I don’t get why pandering to a handful of Iowans and ignoring California’s tens of millions is preferable.

          Because there’s a higher political asshole percentage in California. I oughta know; I live here.

  26. America was built in European culture for Europeans. Everything you see bad and good and all the freedoms we enjoy is thanks to them. If anyone thinks this country should he changed, point me to a successful country who had a major demographic shift where the majority becomes a minority group.

    1. Yes even the Scandinavian nations are starting to have trouble by bringing in large numbers of immigrants of different cultures. Despite what the left and Libertarians believe it is true that countries can change for the worse. Look around the world and who has been the most successful? The West. Immigration should be on a case by case situation and not doors wide open and the decision should be what they add to our nation and not what they can take. Ridiculous we have to accept every person that says they want asylum. Shame we cannot split the country in two and let the left and right separate.

    2. “point me to a successful country who had a major demographic shift where the majority becomes a minority group.”

      USA isn’t so shabby. One group, a tiny minority, all but genocides the majority out of existence and founds a really keen republic.

      “America was built in European culture for Europeans”

      Americans are some day just going to have to let go of this fixation with Europe. Once they came and settled in great numbers, bringing their precious culture with them. Now they stay at home, evidently having better things to do.

      “If anyone thinks this country should he changed”

      Out of curiosity, is there any country in the world that shouldn’t be changed, besides America, of course?

      1. Okay name a Latino or Black Country that is not a shit hole,

        1. The ones Europe and America didn’t plunder. Wakanda?

          1. Dumb dumb dumb dumb de do da dada dumb
            They could make a song about you
            Who ever fuck has been plundered ?
            Turn off Pirates of the Caribbean
            It’s fiction

          2. If you look at actually data, it’s clear that it wasn’t colonialism that turned African countries into shitholes, it was socialism.

        2. Obviously there is not a Latino or Black Country that isn’t a shithole. And some of the Yellow ones are pretty iffy, too, to be quite frank. Look at from their perspective, though. Every day with every immigrant, every asylum seeker entering the USA, makes these shitholes just a little less shitty. Some day it may be you or your children clamoring at their gates.

          1. Every day with every immigrant, every asylum seeker entering the USA, makes these shitholes just a little less shitty.

            No, it just concentrates the shittiness in one area and spreads it to other areas, like a cancer cell.

            1. Take one Honduran rapist, send him packing to the USA, and that’s a burden taken from the shoulders of all Hondurans. So much the better if you do the same with an army of Honduran rapists.

              1. Nah, it just leaves the remaining ones with more targets.

                Besides, we’re already full up on Honduran rapists.

          2. Every day with every immigrant, every asylum seeker entering the USA, makes these shitholes just a little less shitty.

            In what way do poor, third-world countries become better places by the emigration of their most entrepreneurial and enterprising individuals?

            From the point of view of third world countries, the exodus of these people is the worst thing that can happen to them.

            1. ” of their most entrepreneurial and enterprising individuals?”

              They are also the most frightening. They rape, take our jobs, go on welfare, and speak English with an accent, if at all.

              1. You say that as if there were some contradiction there; there isn’t.

                First of all, at the population level, third world immigration comprises a lot of extremes: entrepreneurs, scientists, criminals, and crooks.

                Second, people who are at the top of the social hierarchy in their countries of origin end up doing menial jobs in wealthy Western nations.

                You really don’t hang out with a lot of immigrants, do you?

                1. “First of all, at the population level, third world immigration comprises a lot of extremes: entrepreneurs, scientists, criminals, and crooks.”

                  A lot more are extremely poor and desperate. In some cases, they risk their lives to accomplish what they want.

                  “Second, people who are at the top of the social hierarchy in their countries of origin end up doing menial jobs in wealthy Western nations.”

                  Because they are immigrants and not Americans. They believe in something called sacrifice. They give up prestigious careers but you can bet their children can take advantage of chances not open to them in their home land.

                  1. Well, you said:

                    Every day with every immigrant, every asylum seeker entering the USA, makes these shitholes just a little less shitty.

                    I’m glad that you realize now that when hard-working people who give up prestigious careers in their countries of origin come to the US, that actually makes the shitholes they leave more shitty. QED

                    1. People with prestigious careers die too, leaving their countries shittier. What’s important is that nobody is irreplaceable. One skillful person leaving makes room for others to take their place.

        3. “Okay name a Latino or Black Country that is not a shit hole,”

          Happy to oblige.
          Chile
          Costa Rica
          Panama (with caveats)
          Uruguay
          Cayman islands
          Aruba
          Bermuda

          1. How many people from those countries are migrating to the U.S.?

      2. actually it was really just the infections from the Eurasian land mass that did that to the American natives, dullard

      3. The vast majority of Native American deaths were the result of accidental disease. The rest was a mixed bag.

        1. I suppose it was a disease that accidentally stole their gold and leveled their cities.

      4. USA isn’t so shabby. One group, a tiny minority, all but genocides the majority out of existence and founds a really keen republic.

        So you are saying that the (putative) genocide of Native Americans by Europeans and the “really keen republic” that it resulted in is justification for the wholesale replacement of entire populations and cultures today?

        1. Too communist for you?

          1. No, I’m simply saying that your argument that “because the Native Americans let themselves be replaced by the Europeans, the Europeans should now let themselves be replaced by (whoever)” is not very persuasive.

            1. ” is not very persuasive.”

              It never is until it happens. In the long run history is just waves of different people washing over the landscape. It doesn’t stop.

              1. So you’re saying that because civilizations and cultures always get destroyed by barbarians eventually, we should just give up on civilization and culture altogether?

                We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. Western civilization and liberalism is something new and unique in human history and it is worth defending. I’m hoping that whatever will replace it will be something objectively better, not a reversion to bread and circuses followed by another dark ages, which is what you are advocating.

                1. “we should just give up on civilization and culture altogether?”

                  Give up on your efforts to try to preserve them and stop them from changing. Tough, I know, for a conservative, but that’s my advice.

                  “not a reversion to bread and circuses followed by another dark ages”

                  What the heck are you on about? Bread and circuses are the hallmark of civilization. You really don’t think barbarians were holding the events, do you?

      5. “point me to a successful country who had a major demographic shift where the majority becomes a minority group.”
        USA (white Europeans replaced natives)
        Australia (same)
        New Zealand (same)
        Chile (same)
        Costa Rica (same)
        England (Angles, Saxon, Jutes, Normans replaced romanized Celtics)
        Hungary (Asians replaced locals)
        Finland (same)
        Etc etc etc

        1. It seems to me that the lesson from all those cases should be: if another ethnic group shows up on your doorstep trying to replace you and your culture, fight them with everything you’ve got.

          For some reason, your lesson from those historical examples seems to be that people should let themselves be enslaved and slaughtered by the millions.

  27. This foreigners treasonous article shows clearly what this site is all about..

    THIS ARTICLE ITSELF IS A LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL

    1. If you’re not happy here, then you can leave. As far as I’m concerned, if you hate reason.com, if you’re not happy here, you can leave, and that’s what I say all the time. That’s what I said in a tweet, which I guess some people think is controversial. A lot of people love it by the way. A lot of people love it, but if you’re not happy at reason.com forums, if you’re complaining all the time, very simply, you can leave. You can leave right now. Come back if you want. Don’t come back. It’s okay too, but if you’re not happy, you can leave

      1. The cleverest, most in depth thing mcgoo has EVER said… is plagiarism

        1. Like a lot of otherwise useless geeks, he has to imitate guys who can actually get laid to make himself feel important enough to not down a bottle of Oxy in utter despair.

          1. Shouldn’t you beating that ugly thing you call your wife and convincing her she shouldn’t be voting? Fuck off you miserable fat coward.

            1. Your fedora on too tight again?

              1. Weak. Like you. You fucking sicko.

                1. @The ghOst of mcgOo well somebody is being a prissy little beta lefaggot, did somebody make you run to your safe space, somebody ruin your fedora, neck beard?

                2. You sure do like to mouth off about beating women. Must be all the pent-up resentment from none of them giving you the time of day.

      2. I was here before Shikha and the Progressitarian invasion of Reason.

  28. Let’s be honest, there people aren’t conservatives, anymore than Lizzie is a liberal. They are statists, just pursuing a different flavor of statism.

  29. People who eagerly await for the destruction of the world at the hands of Jeebus do not care about America, and they care about Israel to the extent that they want to keep it around to be the first on the chopping block. Conservatives have never cared about what they say they care about. They are lying, hypocritical, anti-democratic, racist homosexual prostitutes who have never gotten over losing their right to own swarthy-skinned people and fuck little boys in the gym shower.

    1. You never read a book in your life have you?

      1. I read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover. Find me a libertarian who managed that.

        1. @Tony I read it cover to cover asshat and I bet your fucking lying about reading anything in it let alone any book at all. Everyone of your “comments” is a fucking lie, hell I read “Atlas Shrugged” at least once a year and I bet you get your PC, SJW control freak panties in a bunch because the book shows you for what you are, a gutless, little shit stain who is envious of those who do better than him. Go to hell, lefaggot.

          1. You seem a well-read sort.

        2. Only the one time? 🙂

  30. I hate to say I told you so, well, not HATE as such, but let’s go through the motions…

    Why is anyone surprised at any of this? Has anyone ever encountered an Ugly American on the internet ranting about liberty and thought, “Oh, yeah” This guy really believes what he’s saying. I’d better listen.”

    It was a sham. It was an OBVIOUS sham. Stop looking so disappointed. Most right-wing libertarians are con artists. The refreshing sincere few are thin on the ground.

    “main threat to your ability to live your life as you choose, does not come from the government, but the private sector.”

    This is a persistent blind spot among American libertarians. The obsession with “government” leaves you open to dismissal by all other colours of libertarian, such as most Europeans. Nowhere else is it an article of faith that “government” abusing power is more pernicious than or different in kind to any sufficiently large organisation doing the same. Many corporations wield power today dwarfing that of most governments. As long as you pretend that corporate or market-acquired power abused is somehow less harmful than democratically-allocated power abused, libertarians from elsewhere will not believe you are serious, and rightly not.

    1. So have you had a recent head injury?
      WTF are you talking about?

      Yea it’s the right wing that is for more government. I mean they’re for higher taxes government healthcare “free” government controlled education

      Oh wait that’s the other side you fucking idiot

    2. There is no corporation that wields anywhere near the power of the US government

    3. It’s pretty ironic that this is exactly what right-wing nationalist and Fox host Tucker Carlson is quoted as saying in the article:

      “Not to be outdone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a former libertarian who has taken to delivering fire-and-brimstone sermons against the evils of market capitalism that would put the jeremiads of the loudest mullahs against the ills of capitalistic usury to shame, declared to a rousing ovation that the “main threat to your ability to live your life as you choose, does not come from the government, but the private sector.” If an immigrant had said anything like that, Schlafly would have wasted little time branding them unfit for America.”

    4. In reply to Elliot B

      American and European libertarians do not have the same perspective I agree.

      Pernicious or seeking power. You are worried about human nature. To me that is a constant in every discussion of power over others.

      To diffuse power in your view is to break up google, Facebook Apple, or others.

      Yet there I do have a personal choice, which I can make in minutes with no cost at all. I can choose to not use Facebook or twitter, I do not. I can use other search engines, shop not on Amazon. Not use certain products. I do not need to subscribe or read anything. I can stop posting here.

      At the ballot box I can vote as I wish yet majority rules and my choices are then taken away. The politics and courts will then determine the rest.

      So I prefer the market to the ballot box. Here in the US I am in more control there. Might be different elsewhere.

    5. was a sham. It was an OBVIOUS sham. Stop looking so disappointed. Most right-wing libertarians are con artists. The refreshing sincere few are thin on the ground.

      How many sock puppets do you have? I have seen probably half a dozen just on this page alone.

    6. Nowhere else is it an article of faith that “government” abusing power is more pernicious than or different in kind to any sufficiently large organisation doing the same.

      Certainly not in Red China or Soviet Empire or Nazi Germany.

  31. I thought I was at the Onion or the Babylon Bee

    This article is as dumb as shit

    1. There are truly so many places in the internets that exist to stroke Republican shaft. Why does this have to be one of them?

      1. You are a nonstop dumb shit machine

        1. I suppose your shit is in Mensa.

          1. Thanks for proving my point

            1. Tell us more about how brown people are inherently incapable of governing themselves.

              Are you capable of wiping your own ass, out of curiosity?

              1. Well we’re still waiting for one example

                1. Does America look like it’s being governed well right now?

                  1. It is if you like reality TV.

                    1. So you’re pro hag?

                  2. Yea record low unemployment, two years of growth, unlike you know who, and DJIA at record highs

                    Just awful

                    So explain why we have an illegal immigration problem ?

                    1. Obama had more than two years of economic growth (assuming you actually think the president is the primary factor in that). And unemployment was 4.7% when Trump took office.

                  3. Well, if you look at US politics and demographics, one of the major contributing factors to bad governance seems to be large minority populations from third world nations. QED

      2. @Tony Its funny you use the word “shaft” in that comment because I bet your an expert in stroking shaft, leffaggot. Did your boyfriend give you fucking AIDS this week, dip fucking shit?

        1. He only gives me AIDS every second week. We do have to pencil in some time for being better than you in every conceivable way.

  32. If we can build a wall to keep out immigrants from “shithole” countries, can we also build a wall around some of our shithole states?

    1. That is going to suck for you because most of the “shithole” states are ones run into the ground by the left. Look at the facts, asshat, everyone of the cities your boys and girls run are shitholes. Deny it all you want, facts are facts, Chicago, LA, San Francisco etc. And just a FYI false on the Trump statistics, Trump has had HIGHER economic number than Nobama you fucking liar. Nice try.

    2. I think a wall around California, Massachusetts, New York, and DC would be great!

      Unfortunately, it’s those states that want to impose their policies on the rest of the country, rather than simply agreeing to disagree.

  33. Didnt read past the headline.

    Fuck shikha and fuck reason for posting her trash.

    1. “Didnt read past the headline.”

      Of course not. Why start now?

      1. Not all of us are dependent on our talking points being spoon fed to us.
        Mcgoo, like his Dickless Squad mates, certainly is

        1. Fuck off, you vapid quasi- sentient testicle.

          1. Nardz is just upset that he wasn’t invited to Shitforbrain’s latest Progressive Hunting Party.

            1. Damn, yall really need to work on some decent material

  34. The “values” of the republican Party are NOT those of the USA. Republicans have NO RESPECT for the U.S. Constitution, are fascist, anti-American TRAITORS, and are trying to destroy this country and everything good for which it stands because they HATE the USA. They nearly worship tRump who is in love with despots and dictators (Kim Jong-un, Duterte, Putin) and wants to be a dictator himself. And these worthless morons think they are patriotic. Immigrants come here because they appreciate the freedoms of American democracy which Repukes are trying their hardest to rescind.

    1. can you cite some specifics?

    2. OBL has a new handle?

    3. Agreed, HumboldtRick.

    4. You’re off your meds.

    5. I can’t tell: is HumboldtRick a Justice Democrats operative, a Russian troll, or a parody account?

      You’re right on one thing: immigrants (like myself) come here because we appreciate the freedoms of American democracy, and the biggest threat to those freedoms in recent years have been Democrats, social justice activists, and open borders advocates.

  35. calling her an intellectual dilettante would be an insult to intellectual dilettantes worldwide

    1. She calls herself a “progressive libertarian”.

  36. Shikha is right. The National Conservatism Conference was an open declaration of war against libertarianism:

    ““Today is our independence day,” Yoram Hazony, an Israeli political theorist, author of the recent book “The Virtue of Nationalism” and the conference’s intellectual prime mover, declared in his fiery opening remarks. “We declare independence from neoconservatism. We declare independence from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism.””

    At least it’s clear who our adversaries are. You can be a libertarian or a nationalist, but you can’t be both.

    1. You can be a libertarian or a nationalist, but you can’t be both.

      Congratulations on passing your “Socialist Propaganda 101” class. But you do need to read up a bit more on your classical liberal and libertarian philosophy to understand why actual libertarians just laugh at your argument.

      At least it’s clear who our adversaries are.

      Indeed! Your adversaries are classical liberals and libertarians.

      1. You should start by reading Hayek’s “Why I am not a Conservative.”

        Here’s a link: https://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

        And here’s a quote:

        Connected with the conservative distrust of the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one’s self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, un-British, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.

        A great deal more might be said about the close connection between conservatism and nationalism, but I shall not dwell on this point because it may be felt that my personal position makes me unable to sympathize with any form of nationalism. I will merely add that it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: to think in terms of “our” industry or resource is only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest. But in this respect the Continental liberalism which derives from the French Revolution is little better than conservatism. I need hardly say that nationalism of this sort is something very different from patriotism and that an aversion to nationalism is fully compatible with a deep attachment to national traditions. But the fact that I prefer and feel reverence for some of the traditions of my society need not be the cause of hostility to what is strange and different.

        1. I’m not a conservative, I’m a libertarian.

          That doesn’t change the fact that you and Shikha are socialist a-holes.

          1. Did you even read the article?

            It’s the nationalist conservatives who are arguing for a huge New Deal style government jobs program for the Red States, as well as far greater regulation of the free market.

            1. Just because people who call themselves “nationalist conservatism” call for certain policies doesn’t mean that those policies are a necessary element of either nationalism or conservatism.

              In fact, “New Deal style government programs” are clearly not conservative at all.

              1. Which is why libertarians should be opposed to the people at this conference trying to move conservatism away from free enterprise and free markets.

        2. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, un-British, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.

          – F. A. Hayek

          Their orgy of statism is un-American.

          Dalmia, This. Very. Article.

          Strange, you seem to have no issue when she uses the same language that you and her supposedly despise.

          1. “Logical consistency is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples.”

        3. Nationalism is simply the *for* in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

          If Hayek opposes self government, that’s his problem.

    2. You can be a libertarian or a globalist, but you can’t be both.

  37. I wonder. Does anyone have an answer to the following?
    Why do columns like this at Reason.com attract comments from so many microencephallatic misanthropes?

  38. Why on Earth does a Libertarian website publish Marxist bullshit like this drivel from Shitka Shitforbrains? WTF? Shitka’s tribe would execute every Libertarian and Conservative in this nation if they could. Fuck her and anyone who supports her craziness.

    1. “Libertarian website”

      Check your premises.

      Nick declared @Reason’s “core value” as Open Borders:
      In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

      Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.

      https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

  39. You’re retarded that explains it right?

  40. People here have said they don’t want a democracy, they want a constitutional republic.

    So you want to be governed.

    Governing everyone and everything takes a lot of government.

    That’s not very Libertarian of you.

  41. Thanks for helping us Really Very Helpful Post. I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion..thanks for the post.

  42. Seriously, fuck “Reason”, their getting more leftard each week, seriously I am getting sick of them thinking that if they bend over enough the control freak, PC, commie leftards will accept them and stop making fun of them. Sorry, but the Koch brother’s “open borders” bull shit isn’t a thing right now, illegal immigrants are breaking the fucking law, in fact, their acting like their above it. Its like “Reason” doesn’t give two shits about the immigrants that actually put in the hard work and became citizens, they think their edgy for supporting law breaking. No, your not edgy, your fucking stupid.

  43. Conservative Nationalists, Not Immigrants, Are Having Trouble Assimilating in America

    Yes, you are absolutely right: as a classically liberal immigrant, I came to the US because it was one of the more liberal, free market oriented, and tolerant societies on the planet, and that is the only kind of society I’ll agree to assimilate into.

    I will never assimilate to into the kind of intolerant, oppressive, racist, exploitative society you represent, Shikha.

    1. “US because it was one of the more liberal, free market oriented, and tolerant societies on the planet, and that is the only kind of society I’ll agree to assimilate into.”

      If you don’t mind, what bits of culture from the old country have you decided to keep, maybe even preferring them to the American way of doing things? I mean things like language, business networks, family, or whatever. If you immigrated from Canada, you don’t have to reply.

      1. None.

        When people try to speak to me in my native language, I tell them to switch to English.

        1. What if their English is not up to scratch? Are you still able to communicate in your first language?

          1. I’m not sure what you’re asking me. I’m an immigrant, I speak English in the US, and I expect other immigrants to do the same.

            I have neither tolerance nor patience for people who come to the US and expect Americans to change their ways to accommodate them; I think such people should be kicked out of the country.

            When in foreign countries (including my native country), I usually speak the local language, again, because that’s the polite and considerate thing to do.

            1. ” I speak English in the US, and I expect other immigrants to do the same. ”

              Or they should be sent back to where they came from? Doesn’t freedom of speech give one the freedom to choose which language you use? This is unlibertarian.

              1. Doesn’t freedom of speech give one the freedom to choose which language you use?

                Yes, and I choose English.

                This is unlibertarian.

                How is my personal choice of English “unlibertarian”?

                Or they should be sent back to where they came from?

                As a matter of US immigration law, every immigrant is required to demonstrate fluency in English. So if they don’t speak English, they should be “sent back” as a matter of US law.

                1. “Yes, and I choose English.”

                  I read that. But you were complaining about other people who chose not to speak English. You don’t seriously call yourself a libertarian, do you? Don’t be afraid to admit you aren’t. I don’t, myself but I admire some of the libertarian thinking – an individual’s right to speak languages other than English, for example.

  44. I continue to be appalled at the quality of comments on Reason articles.
    But this comment is on another subject — the relevance of the major US parties today. I see both Rs and Ds as an aggregate of fascists; just with different agendas.
    ===============================================
    As a university student in the ’50s and ’60s, and a law student in the 1960s, I wanted to be a “conservative”. I failed to squeeze myself into those uncomfortable shoes. Loved Bill Buckley (met him during a speech at my university); but he couldn’t persuade me, either. Loved Barry Goldwater in 1964 (met him at a local gathering in my home town) ; but he couldn’t do it either. I could never figure out what “conservative” really meant. With the current President’s high-jacking of the R party, “conservative” has ceased to mean anything relevant — at least to me.

    In general the Rs represented less government; less tax-and-spend. All good; but they totally neglected civil liberties. Life in the gated communities is good?

    The Ds were just the opposite — but occasionally did some heavy-handed things in support of civil liberties (a worthy objective, anyway).

    Reason came into existence in 1968. Then the Libertarian Party was so awkwardly established in the early ’70s. I realized, finally, what I was — and still am — a libertarian.

    Reason advances the ideas and actions for human liberty as a value in and of itself.
    I have lived around the globe and have had a successful and adventurous life. I can attest, experientially, that human liberty is better than statist control. I did not inherit what I have today.

    Columnists like Shikha Dalmia are inspirational and supportive of the values I care about. May she and the others who do the same on Reason’s pages, and TV, and legislative testimony, live long and prosper. To those of you who believe otherwise, please go to hell — there are so many locations to choose from. I realize America has become ethically weak. But just please do not, under the cloak of democracy, take me with you.

    There is no substantive continuum from left to right as currently discussed. It is a semantic fraud. The accurate continuum is from anarchy on one extreme to totalitarian control on the other.

    Where do you stand? It is not a black and white choice; it is not an on-off switch.
    Libertarians are not anarchists. But they are so far away from the totalitarian control end that fascists may characterize them as such.

    I use Mussolini’s definition/writings on fascism; economically: ostensible private ownership, actual public control. Today’s fascist black shirts are AntiFa; the fascist brown shirts are the white nationalist groups. When the two fight, all I want to do is pop some beers and fire up the popcorn. Sort of like Russia and China going to war.

    There are not many actual socialists — under the definition being government ownership of the means of production, which, incidentally, includes workers. Health Care seems the most vulnerable to them. Single-payer certainly qualifies as socialist. Most other state intrusion is best characterized as fascist.

    That’s it. Best to all lovers of human liberty.

    1. I agree 100%, and I’ve been reading Reason since the 80s.

      I don’t understand why so many people who seem to hate Reason’s writers spend so much time on this site…

      1. Reason is both news and opinion. The news section is still relevant to libertarians.

        As for the opinion section, given that Reason is one of the few magazines that claims to be libertarian, we should hold their feet to the fire when they promote a progressive/socialist/globalist agenda instead of libertarianism. Make a choice: stop misrepresenting Reason as a libertarian publication, or become libertarian again.

        1. Um… what few others? (Asking for a friend)

        2. I’m in favor of capitalism, free markets, free trade, free speech, gun rights, abortion rights, lower taxes, smaller government — and yes, open immigration.

          I’m against socialism, excessive government regulation, protectionism, censorship, laws against victimless crimes, the War on Drugs, xenophobia, bigotry, theocracy, and political correctness.

          That’s how I define libertarianism.

          How do you square your own claimed “libertarianism” with nationalist conservative arguments for greater government control of the economy and more restrictions on private companies?

          1. The problem isn’t with my libertarianism, the problem is that you define libertarianism as a grabbag of left “liberal” policies and attitudes rather than as a set of principles and outcomes.

            We don’t live in a libertarian society. Many of the policies you favor have the effect of increasing the government’s infringement on my liberties. Both as a libertarian and as an American, I object to such policies.

            1. Since when is it liberal to be in favor of capitalism, free markets, free trade, gun rights, lower taxes, and smaller government? Since when has it been liberal to be opposed to socialism, excessive government regulation, protectionism, and political correctness?

              Yes, I agree with liberals on some issues, like supporting abortion rights and opposing the War on Drugs. I used to agree with ACLU-type liberals when they defended free speech (even free speech for Nazis), but they’ve been taken over by politically correct progressives who view freedom of speech as secondary.

              I’m not a conservative — I’m a libertarian. My criterion for judging is: “Does this proposed policy increase or decrease individual freedom?”

      2. I come here to read Tuccille, Sullum, KMW, Lenore, Stossel, Jesse, Remy and ENB–definitely not Dalmia, Dick Jacketski, or the Pope’s altar girl. In the comments I see fourscore Dixiecrat Republicans ganging up on three plucky communist infiltrators. Hardly ever does a libertarian or laissez-faire objectivist make an appearance anymore.

        1. I come here for my Two Minutes Hate on Progressitarians.

          Bailey, Lenore, and Stossel are ok.

    2. + (since there is no “like” button)

    3. I see both Rs and Ds as an aggregate of fascists; just with different agendas

      No, they are not. They are simply representative of what progressive social democracies turn into.

      1. Crying “both sides!”, and other equivocations, is the closest leftists come to conceding defeat.
        Seeing Albert and Ronin cosign Lloyd’s little rant is just another example.

        1. Sometimes both sides are wrong. There were no good guys in the war between Hitler and Stalin.

    4. I have been reading Reason for years but only recently commenting here.

      Like you I came to realize I was libertarian a while back when I found that conservative was like wearing shoes that don’t fit.

      I remember the yahoo groups before all of this when libertarian was a new thing. There were disagreements of course but people were on fire for liberty. They were not republicans vs democrats, lefties vs. righties they were writing a new gospel. It was a whole new way of seeing the world.

      Of course that all changed when Van Halen let go of David Lee Roth.

      1. I liked Sammy Hagar better.

    5. “Libertarians are not anarchists.”

      They simply believe that a country has no borders.
      That censorship is a good thing.
      That government investigations are also good because they can prove you innocent.
      That the US needs a national health care policy.
      That the government owns your income as long as it has a spending problem.
      That the death penalty is unacceptable, but there should be no limit on late term abortions.

      1. Surely you can empathize with people who don’t want the state to execute women who get abortions, even if you think it should.

  45. Please tell me the content of the article is better than the stupid title.

    1. Nope, sorry.

  46. This is the final straw. I will no longer read Reason. WTF happened here? You guys looking for jobs at The Bulwark and/or Cory Booker’s campaign?

    1. Note to foreign readers: The LP and evidently Reason are so infiltrated by looters that any mention of the voluntarily-funded section of wall at New Mexico is classed as ungoodthinkful thoughtcrime. Foreign readers and expats know only too well that 99&44/100% of voters outside the US habitually vote communist and fascist while lustily banning libertarian parties.

  47. Calling the press the enemy of the people is just calling their bluff on being fair and objective, rather than ideologically tilted to the side of the socialist regressives.

  48. Poo goes in the loo.

  49. “Conservatives thinks immigrants from collectivist nations favor big government and socialism”

    I kept reading to find a rebuttal, and it never came.

    It’s a bit disturbing that to play the equivalency game, Shikha puts Trump’s bluster and economic populism at the same level as the squad’s advocacy for nation destroying socialism and radical egalitarianism. As far as racism in concerned, they’ve beat Trump rather comfortably. At least two of them antisemites and the women’s group exclude members based on their race.

    America will endure bad economic policy. It won’t survive AOC’s vision of society. No sane American should EVER trade immigration for a stable society. That’ll be like the left sacrificing personal choice to achieve “diversity” and egalitarianism.

    You cannot be an open border society and a never ending welfare state at the same time. The ready made “the market will take care of the situation” will become a moot point when the people flooding in are hostile to market solutions. 70% of Puerto Ricans would vote democrat if they all moved here, despite what happened to their craphole of a nation.

    Entitlement spending is more than half the budget. SS pays out 3 times what people put in. So I have to know, how is an open borders society ultimately beneficial to America? Because they contribute revenue to the economy? OK, but libertarians already argue that tax cuts and revenues can’t make up for the deficit. More immigrants = more spending. Period. And Nancy Pelosi can’t be the head of the dems forever. AOC might take over one day and she’ll enough drones at the coast to do some REALLY unlibertarians things to the country, the kind not favored by those really scary nationalists.

    1. “I kept reading to find a rebuttal, and it never came.”

      We’ve got data and common sense on our side, they’ve got the Racist Shriek.

  50. So Phyllis Schlafly of the Wizened Christian Temperance Union is unhappy? The abortion ban forcing Latina gals to cross borders for medical birth control were exported by Phyllis, the Pederasty, and men with guns. Irish girls had to run the same gauntlet until voters worked up the courage to un-amend the Constitution and repeal the rape of individual rights. As for Shikha, she could set an example by herself crossing uninspected from India to Pakistan or vice-versa. The “won’t work” wall there shouldn’t even slow her down.

  51. Reason, who has never met an alien, illegal or legal, it didn’t fawn over.

    1. #HateAmericaFirst

  52. Restrictionist conservatives have long insisted that their problem with “mass immigration” from Mexico, Asia, and the Middle East isn’t that their natives are racially different but that they’re culturally different.

    That’s only for public consumption. Most restrictionist conservatives privately agree with people like Steve Sailer and Greg Cochran that it is the racial differences (HBD) that cause the real problems. Tucker Carlson is almost ready to defend that point in public.

    1. Just because scientific facts don’t line up with PC dogma doesn’t mean those facts aren’t correct… This is coming from.somebody who is part native and part Mexican… The science clearly shows there are genetically derived differences in mean average IQs. This one fact alone perfectly explains all the great mysteries in the world. Why some places are crime snd poverty ridden, never able to make the jump to 1st world… While places like South Korea went from peasant farmers to 1st world in basically a single generation.

      Facts aren’t always PC…

  53. “The restrictionist right’s standing rap against non-Western immigrants …”

    That alone is solid justification for a lawsuit against the publication for false advertising. Nobody but a couple of nuts cares about the nationality of who is coming in. People of reason want our laws obeyed and to adopt the kinds of immigration rules in place in every civilized nation in the world except ours.

    What is fascinating is that it takes almost the entire media industry, control of our schools, hollyweird, and subversive bureaucrats embedded in our government in order for the regressive Statist ideas of so-called “progressives” to compete on a nearly equal playing field. Imagine if we imposed diversity laws requiring quotas of ideas – the left would wither and die, unable to sustain the fictions.

  54. Every one has their own opinions,Must respect and move on

    https://karno27.blogspot.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.