Immigration

A Viral Video Shows Why Border Walls Are Ineffective

Trump said mountain climbers couldn't scale his wall. All it takes is a ladder and some rope.

|

"We had…championship mountain climbers" who couldn't get over bolstered 30-foot border fencing, President Donald Trump told Fox News in September. No one, he said, could scale the structure.

A viral video circulating on social media shows a group of migrants climbing over the wall using a ladder and some rope.

And according to a recent Washington Post report, smugglers have been able to saw through the barrier using commonly available cordless saws (this is not a new phenomenon). All of these reports contradict Trump's claim that a border wall would be "virtually impenetrable."

Of course, the wall in 2019 looks much different than the one Trump promised during his 2016 campaign. It's made of steel bollards, as opposed to the "concrete plank" that he said would be financed by Mexico. And despite Trump claiming responsibility for building new stretches of border barrier, his administration has focused almost exclusively on renovating existing fencing. 

Will fortifying fencing and building new barriers—at a conservative price estimate of $18 billion—meaningfully impact undocumented immigration and the smuggling of humans and drugs? It's actually tough to measure the wall's impact. 

Border apprehensions for illegal entry and other offenses totaled 396,579 in 2018, down from 1,643,679 in 2000. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security linked those lower apprehensions to the wall. "When it comes to stopping drugs and illegal aliens from crossing our borders, border walls have proven to be extremely effective," a statement said. "Border security relies on a combination of border infrastructure, technology, personnel and partnerships with law enforcement at the state, local, tribal, and federal level. For example, when we installed a border wall in the Yuma Sector, we have seen border apprehensions decrease by 90 percent."

Yet the vast majority of cocaine and heroin that arrives in the U.S. from Central and South America comes through legal ports of entry. It's also difficult to ascertain the role of barriers in reducing apprehensions. As David Bier of the Cato Institute notes in Reason, Congress implemented the Secure Fence Act in 2006, the same year they also bumped Border Patrol from 12,000 to 21,000 officers. Is the wall the deterrent? Or the patrols?

Even DHS concedes that a constellation of policies are at work, which undermines the case for investing so many billions of U.S. tax dollars in a wall, particularly when sections of that wall would require the confiscation of private property owned by U.S. citizens and building in desolate areas that only the hardiest and most desperate immigrants can cross without dying

Bier also noted that apprehensions are down at least in part because immigrants have worked around the wall both figuratively and literally. In 2006, for instance, more than a third of undocumented immigrants came here by way of a visa overstay. By 2012, that number was up to 58 percent

"It's not surprising that you put up a big wall somewhere, people go somewhere else," Bier tells me. "That's been true at least to some extent everywhere they've put up fences. People go around them if they can. In some cases, they go over them." 

NEXT: California Gov. Newsom Picks Fish Over Farms

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. In 2021 this won’t matter anymore. With the Democrats rapidly embracing the Koch / Reason open borders agenda, our next President is guaranteed to support unlimited, unrestricted immigration. Finally, all those highly skilled doctors and engineers will be able to walk right across the US / Mexico border!

    1. Walk across the border? They’d better be building a high-speed rail! Think of the jobs that will create! Jobs for illegal immigrants! What are you, some kind of heartless villain that wants illegal immigrants to have to suffer to get here?

      1. Hyperloop. With an emphasis on loop.

    2. From the same article: “It’s not surprising that you put up a big wall somewhere, people go somewhere else,” Bier tells me.”

      So, but walls do work.

      1. Walls throughout history did work.

        Florence, for example, is a walled city.

        They had, in addition to those dastardly Sienese and Pisans, a Mongorian problem.

      2. Billy Bunion notes that the percentage of illegal immigrants who come here by crossing the border is lower than it was kiki n the past. The percentage of illegal immigrants who overstay visas has increased. This suggests that more border security reduces the number of people trying to come across the border.

        Indeed, the number of border apprehensions in 2018 is 75 to 80 percent lower than in the year 2000. Coincidence?

      3. Of course walls work. There are always going to be some breeches. There is no legitimate argument against walls and border security. None. It’s idiotic.

        Yet here we are and reason wants us to donate so they can continue supporting progressive world views while masquerading as libertarian oriented. Amazing.

        1. “Progressive.”

          They keep using that word…

          1. You have to understand, in these forums, “progressive” is a label for “someone or something I don’t like”.

            1. “Progressive is what communists call themselves, when they don’t want to admit they are communists.”

        2. Libertarians for eminent domain? None of you know what libertarianism is.

        3. It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on those who would spend other people’s money and take or destroy other people’s private property. And I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument why we need more more more border security. In fact I think what’s already in place is overkill. But that’s the police state for you; why simply kill when you can overkill?

          Call me idiotic if you want; the idea of living behind concrete and razor wire never appealed to me. If it appeals to you, feel free to spend your own money to build your own wall on your own property.

    3. Open borders, or open immigration? Not the same thing; I’m all for the second, but I surely want to know who I am letting into my house.

      1. Not your house. OUR country. Not the same thing.

    4. Oh for heaven’s sake, the wall in that video is much less than 30 feet tall — and *nobody is patrolling it*. Any farmer can tell you that a wall by itself will only slow down the invaders; you have to keep it *patrolled* to do any good. Yes, Trump should build a real wall, but he should also hire four times as many border-patrol troops as we currently have. Let them use spy-drones to help watch and steer them toward invasion-points.

      Most of all, change our “asylum” policy, so that anybody who comes crying for “asylum” will get a compassionate hearing, a compassionate hot meal, a compassionate flea-bath, and a compassionate one-way plane ticket to Argentina.

      1. Ya talk about spinning the facts – That picture CERTAINLY isn’t the wall Trump is proposing…

  2. Reason opposes all immigration enforcement: border walls, border protection, biometric reentry checks, employment verification, standardized ID cards, etc. And Reason is gleeful that after sabotaging funding, the solutions that Trump tries to cobble together in whatever way he can aren’t very effective.

    According to Reason, we’re just supposed to open our wallets and let the poor of the world walk right in, take our stuff, and take the unskilled jobs. Because Our Betters tell us so. That’s libertarianism Reason style.

    1. Pretty much.

    2. It worked for Nanno Gillespie.

    3. You are supposed to respect people’s liberty because that is what it means to have a commitment to liberty. So if by “our betters” you mean philosophical thinkers who created the foundation for liberty, then yeah, “our betters” demand that we respect the fundamental liberty of all people.

      1. You must respect the liberty of the people that show up on your doorstep and demand entry into your home, because to deny them entry is to infringe on their liberty.

        This is why people mostly laugh at libertarians; that is, when they are not ignoring them.

        1. Why do you guys keep confusing private property with national borders? Are you some kind of communists?

          1. As long as the government can legally confiscate your real property for a failure to pay taxes on it, there’s nothing private about it. It’s not confusion. It’s reality.

            1. That’s wrong. A fee simple title is a title of private ownership. Everyone recognizes that. And yo didn’t address my argument. At all.

              1. //Why do you guys keep confusing private property with national borders? Are you some kind of communists?//

                THAT is not an argument.

                Second, don’t pay your taxes. See what happens.

                1. Precisely this. We may believe we own private property, but in fact all we are doing is renting it from the government.

                  So private. Much ownership.

                  In the context of borders, one might think that people like Jeff would be angry if a private entity bought all the land along our 1900 mile southern border and put up ‘no trespassing’ signs.

                  1. The liberty interests of illegal border crossers stop at Jeff’s front door.

                    Just another NIMBY.

                    1. Well, there is a difference between private property and so-called ‘public property’ and I don’t find the ‘locked door’ argument very compelling myself because it isn’t actually that analogous.

                      I do find the argument that Congress is allowed to set naturalization requirements to be valid enough, and I find their ability to control entry into the U.S. a fair trade off for their massive distortion of labor markets.

                      If we want to talk about immigration reform, the only reasonable place to start if you aren’t a sophistic mouth-breather is entitlement and welfare reform. Without that, well, immigration is a necessary casualty.

                      In fact, much of our immigration problem are a direct result of the U.S. government massively distorting the U.S. labor markets. Given that those distortions are massively popular with people on both sides of the aisle, well, you start to see where the problem is.

                      The ‘Libertarian’ solution appears to be to burn the whole house down against the wishes of the electorate. That’s pretty nut balls to me, and I think plenty of both Republicans and Democrats (as well as average independents) agree.

                    2. //Well, there is a difference between private property and so-called ‘public property’ and I don’t find the ‘locked door’ argument very compelling myself because it isn’t actually that analogous.//

                      I think the gate community analogy is a good one. A small country, in essence, with a small border.


                    3. I think the gate community analogy is a good one. A small country, in essence, with a small border.

                      Of course, I’m no fan of HOA either so that doesn’t hold a lot of water with me either.

                      Understand I’m not offering solutions, I just don’t think anyone else is either. In fairness, I’m probably just hurling molotov’s at both sides of the issue but then both sides make it so easy to burn them down.

                    4. Understand I’m not offering solutions, I just don’t think anyone else is either. In fairness, I’m probably just hurling molotov’s at both sides of the issue but then both sides make it so easy to burn them down.

                      This is pretty much where I am, too. The whole issue has been hijacked by partisans on either side whose only drive is to make sure to believe the opposite of what the other side believes as hard as they possibly can.

            2. So your argument is that there is no such thing, really, as private property? The state owns it all?

              Sounds a bit… umm… communistic to me…

              1. My argument is that your libertarian delusions are inconsistent and your freshman year sophistry is about as much of an answer to illegal immigration as having a bigger asshole in order to avoid getting things shoved in your ass.

                1. That’s deep. Like his asshole. Which you just shoved his head up.

                2. Gee I don’t know. Which is a better solution – making immigration easier? Or communist ideas about how private property is a myth?

                  I’m gonna go with the not-communist option

            3. This (evil, ignorant, communist , marxist , socialist, come on – hit me with every slur ) liberal is very uncomfortable with the concept of property taxes. It very much feels like government charging rent for something that supposedly belongs to oneself. Property rights indeed!

          2. “Private property” is every bit as abstract and notional as national boundaries. We have an agreed-upon system for defining what it means to “own” land. What we think of as land “ownership” is a contrived concept, not a fact handed down from God. The same is true about national sovereignty and boundaries. We live in a world of sovereign nations. For us to be the only place that rejects that notion and leave its borders wide open would be national suicide. Most of us consider the destruction of our way of life to be too high a price to pay for feeling good about our principled devotion to liberty.

            1. Thank you.

              Libertarian principles can only work if everyone, everywhere, plays by the same rules. But, they don’t. And, they won’t.

              1. So then you are against say free speech, because not everybody respects it. Interesting.

                1. Because we were definitely talking about free speech, and not immigration, borders, and national sovereignty.

                  Context is important.

                  If you’re going to be flinging around poorly though out zingers, try to stay on point.

                2. Well, I’m all in favor of free speech for those of us having an intellectual debate.

                  If you could shut your cock holster, that would make it easier for the rest of us.

                  Of course, I won’t force that course of action on you.

                  I may hire a few ghey strippers as a distraction, however.

              2. It is how pure libertarianism is like communism – they both deny human nature.

            2. Ah, then you won’t mind if I come into your house and take some of your stuff.

              1. Being intelligent is also quite an abstract notion, but you would still be offended if I called you stupid, right?

            3. Actually, land ownership is ordained by God and the land originally portioned to a family is supposed to remain in the family.

              If it were to be sold out of financial need, during a jubilee year, it was supposed to be returned to the original family.

            4. What we think of as land “ownership” is a contrived concept, not a fact handed down from God.

              Huh. So, say, John Locke’s view of private property is just as arbitrary as, say, Karl Marx’s view of private property. Interesting.

              1. “Contrived” is not the same as “arbitrary”, moron. Words mean stuff.

          3. The only difference is scale.
            In scope, they’re the same.

            I live where I live. . . and the rest of the country is my back yard. Stay the fuck out. My country. Not theirs. Fuck them.

            1. “The only difference is scale.”

              There are countless examples in biology, computer science, systems science where a difference in scale drastically changes how a system behaves.

        2. That analogy breaks down for a couple of reasons:
          1. Scale – Keeping everyone you don’t want out of your own home is practically quite possible.
          2. You are not the only person in this country. Just because you don’t want a particular immigrant to enter the country, others may have reasons for wanting to welcome that immigrant to come here. They may have a job that only that person is qualified for, they might want to eat at that person’s ethnic restaurant, they might want to have the opportunity of being co-worker, friend, neighbor, or spouse of that person. That immigrant might be someone’s relative or friend.

          1. //Keeping everyone you don’t want out of your own home is practically quite possible.//

            I’ll continue reading once I stop laughing. And, for future reference, if you are going to have two or more accounts, try to vary the writing style a little.

            Responding to your own arguments and playing “good cop, bad cop” makes you look like a complete psychopath.

            1. So, you are choosing to deflect rather than engage in meaningful debate. OK.

              1. //Keeping everyone you don’t want out of your own home is practically quite possible.//

                You want me to meaningfully engage with this? In that case, I’m going to need a bigger bib, because the amount of drool that I would need leaking out of my mouth to take this seriously would be enough to drown a whale.

                1. What’s so hard to understand? Obviously, because enforcement of the law can’t be 100% this is a reason to do away with the law entirely.

                  Since a murderer might not be caught, this is a reason to make murder legal.

                  That’s essentially the argument presented for point 1.

                  For point 2, we generally assume that the majority party won the right to make collective decisions in the United States so if the majority party wants to restrict immigration more they would appear to be within their rights to do so as a matter of constitutional separation of powers.

                  Unless you’re Obama, of course, in which case creating laws as the executive for immigration was totally fine. Obviously, Trump trying to reverse another executive order can not be allowed though.

                  1. Geraje Guzba: Makes familiar argument that a country is like a private home.
                    Me: Argues that the analogy has flaws.
                    BYODB: Completely abandons talking about the analogy, and refutes arguments I never made.

              2. That’s usually the way it goes. This is not a case of facts this is truth. Do you believe Trump or your own eyes. Many of the comment trust the former.

          2. It is hilarious that you decry some individuals as bad for deciding for everyone that 1 million new legal entrants is enough while advocating for those who want unlimited is good despite those wanting the cap having to pay for open borders.

            Only one side forces the other group to pay for their decision. You could give 2 shits about negative externalities of your preference.

            1. I said that people who express concern for paying for services, welfare, etc. are bad people? When did I say that?

          3. Your entire 2 is bollocks. “Might” this, and “might” that.

            Might also be a child-raping murderer, as well. Or maybe he prefers to rape and kill women like those in your family.

            If they’re let in, that violates the rights of those who want them gone.
            If they’re gone, nobody’s rights are violated.

            It isn’t rocket surgery.

            1. You don’t have a right to kick out someone who is not even on your property.

            2. Just want to get it on the record that I’m OK with keeping rapists and murderers out of the country. I kinda thought that was just a given for everyone involved in this conversation.

    4. Or we could change the immigration laws so that people from Mexico and Latin American can more easily come over legally on work visas, work for a while, and then return home. Which is what they really want to do, anyway.

      1. More delusional thoughts from fantasy island.

        https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings

        “As the Trump administration demands funding for a border wall to stop illegal immigration, a new study finds that for the seventh consecutive year, visa overstays far exceeded unauthorized border crossings.”

        1. WELL DUH, because actually jumping the border is dangerous, and so people have figured out ways to game the visa system, such as applying for tourist visas with no intention of being an actual tourist.

          If we just cut out the bullshit from the entire visa system, make getting a work visa as easy as getting a driver’s license or doing a firearm background check, then you wouldn’t have people trying to game the labyrinthine immigration system that we currently have.

          You wouldn’t have nearly as many visa overstays because there would be no reason to game the system in this way.

          1. I get it. Get rid of immigration laws, and people won’t break them anymore.

            This is why, day in and day out, you get abused for being a fucking retard.

            1. Always with the personal insults, because your arguments are weak and inconsistent.

              1. Great argument. Retard.

                Feel better?

                1. Ok, got it, you are not here to debate in good faith. But we already knew that.

                  1. “You arguments are weak and inconsistent” is a weak and inconsistent argument.

                    Good faith, huh?

                    Please, tell me more.

                  2. Geraje Guzba is the same individual that was ok with execution of a prisoner a few weeks ago just because the co-conspirator took a plea deal and blamed the other for pulling the trigger. That tells you everything you need to know about Guzba!

                    1. Being okay with the execution of a *convicted* murderer? I am.

                    2. A pity the MFer wasn’t executed sooner. Ray Cromartie was guilty of felony murder. The world is a better place without his murdering ass breathing in it.

              2. The usual. Argue till you have lost then hurl a vulgarity.

                1. We only hurl them at shitheads.

            2. I clearly proposed *modifying* the immigration laws, not getting rid of them.

              1. Yup. Modifying them to the point of irrelevance.

                1. A 3-generation immigration moratorium is what’s needed.

                  There are entirely too many low-IQ dimglows who belong here, without importing them by the millions.

                  Liquefaction doesn’t apply only to the ground.

                  1. Back to the daily stormer with you.

          2. Ever heard of the free state project? It’s a movement based on the idea that you can create political change via demographic change. Think about that for a moment.

            1. The point being “other people are hell”? That in a democracy, all those other damned people might end up voting differently than you want them to?

              It’s odd that you give as an example the free state project where libertarians are using demographic change and democracy to try to promote more freedom.

              1. A country’s political system doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s influenced by it’s people, traditions and culture. Illegal immigrants will eventually bring their culture with them if there are enough of them moving to a given area. Whether that’s a good thing or not, I’ll leave for others to decide. I simply want to live in a country that first and foremost respects and protects private property rights above all else as that is a basis for a civilized society. Also, I don’t assign any virtue to democracy. It’s mostly just a tool for 51% percent of people to coerce the other 49%.

                As it’s been said before, some people will have to be physically removed.

                1. Libertarian policies *only* work in a vacuum. The real word is too complicated to address with anything other than some vague iteration of “FREEDOM!”

                  1. You don’t have to be a Rothbardian to understand the possibility of a country without the state

                    1. You don’t have to be Einstein to understand the possibility of a universe without gravity.

                      Fortunately, the limit of peddling in possibility is the threshold of living in reality.

                  2. Got it. You’re a statist. I won’t try to dissuade you from your religion of choice.

                    1. Not a statist, at all; just not a believer in the notion that a cohesive country can exist, or function in the world, or protect anybody’s rights to liberty, without *some* state apparatus holding it together.

                      The definition of statism is far, far harsher than that. But, at least you didn’t call me “slaver,” so I guess I should be grateful.

                2. You are right if enough of these immigrants come over they will influence the culture. It be just like when all those Irish came.

                  1. Goddamn dirty Irish!

                  2. Are you comparing the politics and culture of 19th century Ireland to modern day Central America? While I can’t be terribly specific when speaking to the culture of 19th century Ireland, I can safely state that the general culture of Central America is not terribly focused on individualism and freedom from state coercion. You’re employing a false equivalency in order to mischaracterize my post.

                    Not all cultures around the world are created equal. It would be wise to keep that in mind when attempting to maintain a society and culture based around the ideas of private property and freedom from state theft and coercion.

                    1. *correction*

                      …when attempting to CREATE a society and culture based around the ideas of private property and freedom from state theft and coercion.

                    2. He’s comparing the unwelcome attitude toward Irish immigrants to the unwelcome attitude toward Hispanic immigrants. There were missives about how the awful Papist, dirty Irish were going to ruin the country. Back then it wasn’t so much their political beliefs as their unacceptable Catholicism.

                3. It’s not like we Americans have no experience with how immigration works. We know from decades of over two-hundred years of experience that immigrants assimilate, especially by the second or third generation, and that the bringing of their culture ends up being largely being superficial attributes such as food, music, parades once a year, going to a particular church.

                  1. California had a drastic and destructive change in a very short period of time, due to almost unrestricted immigration.
                    The rest of the country doesn’t want that happening to them.
                    If you think California is doing fine, you’ve bought some serious propaganda.

                    1. Around 1849?

                    2. But seriously, when did I say I was for unrestricted immigration?

                    3. “when did I say I was for unrestricted immigration?”

                      If you’re not a proponent of unrestricted immigration, then what limits ought to be placed on peoples immigrating to this country?

                    4. Look elsewhere on this page. I proposed a change in work visas as a topic for discussion.

                    5. I saw it. You said there shouldn’t necessarily be ANY limit. How is that not unrestricted?

                    6. I proposed building in negative feedback mechanisms rather than some arbitrary number. It’s just the way I think from my computer science / systems training.

                      Regardless, I throwing out a rough idea of how work visas could be structured, to spur discussion.

          3. Immigration is nothing more than a job application. And as you yourself stated during the Kavanaugh debacle nothing is guaranteed in a job interview.

      2. No way !
        We have to focus all of our energy on impeachment before ‘he who is not Hillary’ is re-elected in a landslide.

        1. Agreed that working on immigration reform would be a better use of Congress’ time than an impeachment, especially when there’s no chance the Senate will actually remove Trump from office. To use corporate-speak, Washington, D.C.’s “core competency” these days is divisive politics; it’s the only activity where they are in their comfort zone.

          1. Why does “immigration reform” and “common sense gun laws” nearly always sound like bullshit?

            1. Because they are?

          2. No, working on welfare reform would be a better use of Congress’ time. In fact it’s the one and only existential crisis facing the country.

          3. Dude…your corporate-speak is about 15 years out of date. Core competency…LOL.

            Try any sentence using the word agile. Then you will sound smart.

          4. I believe the House has moved legislation through all we need is the Senate. Oh sorry forgot about Senator McConnell.

          5. “Dude…your corporate-speak is about 15 years out of date.”

            Nicest thing anyone’s said to me in a while. Wish I could say I didn’t know any corporate-speak.

      3. Congratulations. You’ve just demonstrated, yet again, why engaging a libertarian with anything but a swift, hard punch in the face is an utter waste of time.

        1. Just checking, because it’s a long comment thread: Is this your response to my writing, “Or we could change the immigration laws so that people from Mexico and Latin American can more easily come over legally on work visas, work for a while, and then return home.”?

      4. 1 million a year can legally come over on a yearly basis. 1 million. What is the upper cap you actually accept mikey?

        1. Don’t see why there would need to be a cap if it were structured in a sensible way. Perhaps rules something like:
          – You must have a sponsor.
          – You must find a job within a certain time period and leave after some set time period.
          – You must have health care, not accept welfare, etc.

          1. But then they wouldn’t get to put kids in concrete cells indefinitely. This is about hurting the outsider, not about economics or culture or anything else. Trump supporters are sick with a bad case of tribalism. They’ve fallen for oldest political trick in the book: identify an out group as a scapegoat, and then unify against them. Standard tactic by dictators, cult leaders, and teenage girls since the dawn of time.

            1. You e just displayed all the behavior you attribute to Trump supporters.
              There’s a word for that

    5. +10000

      reason is a joke at this point.

      1. Then why do you spend so much time here?

        1. I think I’ve figured that out. It’s the place where loveconstitution1789, John, JesseAz, Nardz, etc. are used to coming every day to talk with each other, bitch about Democrats and the Reason writers. I don’t think they think much anymore about the website where they hang out together actually being associated with a libertarian foundation and magazine.

          1. And to abuse you and your alter-ego, chemjeff.

          2. So your analysis on psychology is as shitty as the rest of your analysis. Good to know.

        2. Discuss things with good commenters that are still here.

          Also to keep the reason trolls from fluffing the articles too much. I mean how much of Boehm’s ass can Chipper MW possibly eat?

          1. ::slow clap::

        3. Love it or leave it!

          Look, when the world floods in 12 years it’ll all be over anyway. Why are you so concerned about what they think?

          1. I’m concerned because people new to libertarianism will come to Reason, start reading the comments section and think that people like loveconstitution1789 and Geraje Guzba are representative of libertarians.

    6. Isn’t that just the logical consequence of following the libertarian strain of thought? Freedom, no borders, no states – except everyone else has still borders and states, hence the one way flow of traffic.

      1. reason staff are NOT Libertarian. Hence we get these spastic articles about DOWN WITH AMERICANS and GIVE US DONATIONS.

        1. You’re farther from a libertarian than they are my ironically named friend.

          1. Libertarians are Republicans that, for some reason, feel the need to adopt a deep seated philosophical justification for smoking weed and, to appear consistent, resort to swallowing the rest of the panoply of unworkable, impractical, and nonsensical libertarian positions on any number of things.

            “My freedom to smoke weed means anyone from anywhere in the world is free to come to this country, and do whatever!”

            There is a reason the party is in shambles and that’s because most libertarians are children that never grew out of their anarchist phase.

            1. Fuck outta here with that. Libertarians are as far from Republicans as they are from Democrats.

              1. Libertarians are from reality. That we can agree on.

            2. There is a reason the party is in shambles and that’s because most libertarians are children that never grew out of their anarchist phase.

              So you’re not a libertarian today?

              1. I tried it, but the meetings were always being held in the back of some nearly defunct ethnic restaurant and the only attendees were college stoners, angry construction workers, one enthusiastic but horribly unattractive female in an army coat, and – invariably – some version of a stand up comic resembling Lewis Black.

                So, I would just choke down my free sandwich, or falafel, and get the fuck out of there.

                Best decision I ever made politically was to leave the libertarian party behind.

                1. I see. So you found it wasn’t your type of team.

                  1. When Republicans were impeaching Clinton for a sex act, Reason and libertarianism was my kind of team. When Democrats and the GOP in IL and California were ousting Obama’s senate opponent for having sex with his wife, Reason and libertarianism was my kind of team. When Obama talked about downplaying intellectualism and Reason called him out on such bullshit, Reason and libertarianism was my kind of team.

                    After they cheerleading the Kavanaugh hearings and now cheerleading impeaching Trump for something even less overtly criminal than getting a BJ from a subordinate, it seems pretty clear that I haven’t changed as much as the team has.

                    1. Downplaying *anti-*intellectualism that is.

                    2. So, not your type of team, either. Gotcha.

                    3. When you argument starts with the simple-minded claim that Bill Clinton was impeached for “a sex act”, while the reason was that he committed the crime of perjury in a civil court case to avoid responsibility for being a serial sexual harasser, the rest of your statement gets lost in your incompetence.

                  2. Intellectually and visually. The problem wasn’t just that they were stupid, but that they looked exactly as stupid as they in fact were.

                  3. I thought libertarians didn’t have teams. What happened to your free mind?

                    1. Libertarianism.

                    2. I thought libertarians didn’t have teams. What happened to your free mind?

                      Look how dangerously close Skippy came to getting my point! You’d better be more careful in the future, you wouldn’t want to find yourself accidentally agreeing with me on something.

                    3. Libertarians don’t have teams. The reason why is because ‘libertarians’ don’t even agree with each other, let alone anyone else, and hardly any of them vote for libertarians.

                      They’re a ‘team’ in the same way communists are, in that very few of them actually agree with each other even while they’re all under the same tent.

                  4. There are more teams in libertarian thought than the naive pop culture libertarians he described. Not sure why you’re drilling down to just that team.

                    1. I’m just glad he eventually found a team that satisfied his needs a little better.

                2. Most libertarians aren’t members of the Libertarian Party.

          2. reason’s gotta send in the socks.

      2. If only Reason were to advocate for the abolition of the state. I’d happily accept an open borders policy on the condition that ALL government funded schools and ALL welfare programs are abolished. If they want a free market in labor, fine, just get rid of all the market distortions created by the state first.

        1. Reason generally has a moderate libertarian viewpoint, so you’re just not going to get them to advocate for anarcho-libertarianism.

          1. Yeah, the thing about that is that when you say you just want a little bit of the state, you inevitably get a lot of the state. Small governments last for only a brief moment, and then you get some guys in a room who chuck out the articles of confederation and create this mess we have now.

            1. They dont chuck put the articles, they just redefine the words and take over the schools and judicial branch to build narratives around the word changes.

              1. No, they did replace the articles of confederation. The replacement was the constitution. Two different documents. One with basically no central government, and another with a central government. As far as I know, it’s the closest we ever got to Ancapistan.

          2. Reason generally has a moderate libertarian viewpoint

            No. Reason has a viewpoint, right now, that they falsely believe to be more politically viable than alternatives. Once it’s painfully obvious to them that it’s not viable, they’ll slowly adopt a new viewpoint, jive it with what they espouse are their principles (now), and call it post-civil, cultural, or social libertarianism or similar.

            A moderate libertarian viewpoint would recognize that welfare and immigration are linked together. A moderate libertarian viewpoint would recognize that even if you freely allow migrants to come and that even if that freedom makes the welfare state more solvent in the short term, it’s still a welfare state (as well as other government programs not identified as welfare) that’s now larger and is still fundamentally insolvent in the long term. A moderate libertarian viewpoint would recognize that even if you open the borders and make the welfare state more solvent, taxation is still theft and taxing more people is more theft.

            The “moderate libertarianism” that’s fine with more taxation and more theft as long as we all ignore imaginary lines and the rights associated with those lines (on either side) is not libertarianism. Reason doesn’t really advocate an open borders policy, they advocate a “my/their borders” policy. It’s not like we get a ‘free speech in China’ article for every ‘brown people should be able to come to America’ article. There’s no compare/contrast the treatment of the LGBTQ community in Iran with Transgender bathroom rights in North Carolina. Every discussion of globalism is about how America, as a country, should take part or lead in a growing international community. It’s never a discussion about how governments at a global level should recede or be proportionally smaller. It’s Reason’s preferred domestic agenda du jure 99+% of the time and, frequently, no matter how superficially retarded or ill-conceived it is.

            1. Exactly.

            2. A moderate libertarian viewpoint would recognize that even if you freely allow migrants to come and that even if that freedom makes the welfare state more solvent in the short term, it’s still a welfare state

              So, in other words, the welfare state being insolvent is not actually dependent on whether or not we open the borders?

              That letting in more immigrants might actually make the insolvent welfare state less insolvent, but an issue that nevertheless still needs to be addressed?

              The question of whether or not taxation is theft is in fact unrelated to whether or not we bring in more taxpayers?

              So, “A moderate libertarian viewpoint would recognize that welfare and immigration are linked together” in a manner that makes no difference to whether or not that system is unjust and insolvent?

              1. //So, “A moderate libertarian viewpoint would recognize that welfare and immigration are linked together” in a manner that makes no difference to whether or not that system is unjust and insolvent?//

                That’s what you got from mad.casual’s comment?

                Jesus fucking Christ. And then you complain when people throw up their hands in exasperation.

                1. That’s what you got from mad.casual’s comment?

                  Explain to me what I missed.

                  He clearly said that the influx of immigrants doesn’t affect the insolvency of the welfare system and acknowledged that immigration may in fact make the system less insolvent.

                  I agree with him 100% that this doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the welfare system should be done away with.

                  So what in his point did I misunderstand?

                  1. //A moderate libertarian viewpoint would recognize that even if you freely allow migrants to come and that even if that freedom makes the welfare state more solvent in the short term, it’s still a welfare state (as well as other government programs not identified as welfare) that’s now larger and is still fundamentally insolvent in the long term.//

                    I guess you just stop reading where convenient. Or, can’t read. Take your pick.

                    1. So, in this excerpt he argues that the welfare state is fundamentally insolvent. He also argues that “even if that freedom [to let migrants come] makes the welfare state more solvent in the short term, it’s still a welfare state . . . that’s now larger and is still fundamentally insolvent in the long term.”

                      So without the migrants, the welfare state is insolvent. With the migrants, the welfare state is maybe less insolvent in the short term but is still fundamentally insolvent.

                      So the argument is that the migrants won’t help the insolvency of the system, but also aren’t causing it or making it worse.

                      Take a moment out from hurling insults at me to read and comprehend what you are responding to, because your accusations are making you look like an idiot.

          3. Moderation does not mean naive lil mikey.

        2. The reason staff that are Anarchists rarely slip up and admit it. reason also has a mix of Lefties and just straight goof balls.

          You can tell reason is circling the bowl with how long its taking to get $200k. I mean how many times is Gillespie gonna have to give under different socks to keep his job?

          1. I wish there actually were some Ancap writers here to help drown out the likes of Billy Binion and the growing number of lefties. But I’m pretty sure Gillespie and/or Welch wouldn’t allow it because some Ron Paul newsletter in the 90s blah blah blah

            1. Most of the writers are located in the d.c. to n.y. corridor. Until they get writers not living in largely monotone cultural bubbles it will always be libertarianism lite.

              1. There is truth to this.

      3. It isnt required to be naive to be a libertarian. One can understand the order of deregulating matters. Opening borders without controlling for welfare is something asshole sophist like Jeff and mikey (but I repeat myself) dont understand.

        1. Open immigration: let in anyone (and the family that they directly support) as long as they have a verified job (that will support that family) and they aren’t criminals. If they lose their job give them a short time to find another, or they get to move back home.
          Not open borders, to be sure.

          1. Question: Do these immigrants qualify for minimum wage laws? How about health insurance? How about social security? How about CHIPS or food stamps?

            If they do, it’s hard to see that they would keep their wage benefits over a domestic workforce.

            The main way that math seems to work out is that they will pay into systems that they are ineligible to receive benefits from. In this way, we somehow manage to put American’s out of work while moving more and more of them to transfer payments supported by an underclass of immigrant workers.

            That’s…an interesting way to reorder a society.

            1. If they do, it’s hard to see that they would keep their wage benefits over a domestic workforce.

              Because they work way harder.


              1. Because they work way harder.

                Perhaps it could be said that they work harder than others in their wage bracket, but that wage bracket probably qualifies for quite a few transfer payment programs if they are a native worker as opposed to an illegal immigrant today.

                I’m sure transfer payments have no effect on domestic labor…

                That said, even if what you say is true I’m not convinced that’s the reason why they have such comparative advantage. Do we outsource labor to China because of their productivity as well? How about India?

                How can it be that humans all over the planet are so much more productive than the U.S. workforce? I only ask because this seems to be implied across the board when talking about immigrant labor, yet the question of why that is seems to remain unanswered. The implication must be that American’s, despite being a nation of immigrants, are somehow lazier than immigrants.

                I find that to be a bizarre line of reasoning personally.

                1. Perhaps it could be said that they work harder than others in their wage bracket, but that wage bracket probably qualifies for quite a few transfer payment programs if they are a native worker as opposed to an illegal immigrant today.

                  I’m sure transfer payments have no effect on domestic labor…

                  Well, again, my experience with this is very narrowly in construction, so I can only speak to that. Construction is not an arena in which the illegals make less than legal minimums, or even really less than native-born labor (although if you’re paying anyone, native or not, under the table, you can get around Prevailing Wage laws, which are another thing).

                  They aren’t competing with welfare recipients – they’re typically competing with native-born unionized labor. In that specific context, the apples-to-apples comparison is that some guy who traveled here from northern Mexico to send money back to support his family is going to work like the devil, and doesn’t mind putting in long hours and working Saturdays because he wants to work as much as possible, make as much money as possible, and go back home for a spell.

                  The native-born white (or black, to be fair) union guy is typically going to have a much more entitled attitude and it’s much harder to get him to be consistently productive and not slack off the moment you turn your back.

                  Do we outsource labor to China because of their productivity as well? How about India?

                  Partly, but there we’re also arbitraging the difference in currency value. Different thing altogether.


                  1. (although if you’re paying anyone, native or not, under the table, you can get around Prevailing Wage laws, which are another thing).

                    A fair enough point that I bring up myself sometimes. It’s one of the reasons I like to point to government labor market distortions as one of the real problems, as opposed to the end results of those programs being at fault.

                    It could be better understood, perhaps, as a problem with black market labor being preferable to legal labor due to massive distortions.

                    I’m not going to cry about Union labor being undermined though. They made their bed and now they whine about getting what they wanted good and hard.

                    What is amazing is that Unions still support Democrats generally, since Democrats are the party of more immigration. That runs directly counter to their Union base, but I assume Democrats are more willing to create mandatory Union work than Republicans so that probably explains all of it.

                    1. What is amazing is that Unions still support Democrats generally, since Democrats are the party of more immigration. That runs directly counter to their Union base, but I assume Democrats are more willing to create mandatory Union work than Republicans so that probably explains all of it.

                      Yeah – I think you’re right about it being about the spending. Being in construction, I try to tell people that a great deal of government is really all about the public works projects, which in turn are really all about feeding the unions.

                      When you’re in public construction, that part is just blindingly obvious.

                      But the actual union membership, as opposed to the hierarchy, seems to be turning on the Dems.

                  2. It also could be useful to notice that if you hire labor in China, you’re also doing an end run around little things like the EPA and environmental protection laws.

                    It doesn’t really apply to construction in the United States, obviously, but if you’re building electrical motors you might go out of business if not for getting around all those legal requirements that suddenly manifest if you’re an industrial manufacturer here in the U.S.

                    1. You’re largely right about that – in construction, we have the Chinese steel thing, but it’s the nature of the business that what we do has to be done at the location it’s going to stay at.

                    2. Indeed, but I’m forced to notice that comparative advantage has been directly manipulated to such an extent that free and open immigration is essentially a bullet to the brain for every aspect of American life as it currently exists.

                      I will never agree with those that want to pursue immigration reform before reforming entitlements and a host of other market distortions that make immigration look like a speck in someone’s eye.

                      Someone would need to be pretty stupid to think that immigration reform is even possible without addressing all the elephants in the room. In fact, most of what we see in immigration debate are people who are essentially arguing for fucking around at the edges instead of addressing any real problems.

                      It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

                  3. Also, according to Tim Cook, China has manufacturing capabilities/know-how that can’t be found elsewhere:

                    https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-is-number-1-reason-we-make-iphones-in-china-its-not-what-you-think.html

            2. “If they do, it’s hard to see that they would keep their wage benefits over a domestic workforce.”

              Seems we would want an immigration system with built-in negative feedback to naturally limit the number of people who want to immigrate.

    7. It’s how I read it.

      As I’ve mentioned in the past, it’s time for them to offer solutions. They’re good at criticism but let’s see some jam in what they think should be done.

      Of course, unless they think there really isn’t a problem (which is specious) and it’s all in everyone’s head.

      The interesting part is what the video inadvertently shows is there really is a problem.

      So less Dalmia screeds and more actually ideas please.

  3. Barbed wire would help. A landmine here and there. Not sure why this is such a difficult thing. Ever try to scale a wall outside a military base? Didn’t think so.

    1. Razor Wire

      1. Because there’s no way to bypass razor wire. No way at all. it’s foolproof!

        1. Quicksand. Punji sticks. Red fire ants.

        2. Razor wire is not intended to stop anything. It is intended to slow people down enough to allow the MA2 to kill them all.
          And it does that well.

          1. Razor wire coated with ricin?

          2. Yep. A wall doesn’t have to stop anyone to be effective. It just has to delay them long enough for enforcement action. Of course, a well-designed physical barrier CAN in fact stop people, but for efficiency these should be reserved for the most attractive illegal entry points.

    2. I was wondering how long it would take before someone suggested killing people for crossing borders. So I’ll take this opportunity to remind people that the guns you put on borders inevitably end up pointing inwards.

      Oh, and have you seen military bases? In the 20 years I was in I never saw an American base with walls. I saw one little ‘base’ (really, just a contracting office) in Italy with a 7 foot wall. But then again, it was in the middle of a little town in Sardenia. A lot don’t have fences, let alone walls.

      1. That changed after 9/11. They all have fences and/or walls now, as well as entry control points. You can’t just walk onto a military base.

        At one base I was at in Europe, we had extremely lax security precautions…civilian protesters would walk onto the site, vandalize equipment, accost military personnel, create problems. After 9/11, when I helped build the wall to the base, all that shit came to an end.

        So yes, walls work, especially when combined with other security measures.

        1. See, the Berlin wall. It was intensely patrolled, and was a bit less than 2000 miles long . . . . . .

          1. You realize there’s a difference between walls meant to keep people out versus walls meant to keep people in?

            The Berlin Wall has no relevance to our border walls.

      2. I live very close to a large Air Force base. It is surrounded by high chain link fences topped with razor wire, and the entire perimeter is electronically monitored. You would never sneak inside without ending up with rifles in your face. Would it be possible to get through or over the fences? Sure, but good luck with that.

        1. Yes

          But do you want the USA to be a military base?

          I have no military creds, honestly. When I was a kiddo brat on base they had those chain link and barbed wire fences. It took a half dozen 9 year olds one day to figure out how to get through that enough to cause some mischief. The MPs just turned us over to our parents.

          “What was he doing ?”

          “He was driving an ambulance”

          “What do you mean he cannot drive anything let alone an ambulance”

          “He couldn’t start it he was sitting in the divers seat. He was making whooo whooo noises and making a ruckus”

          “A ruckus. Well thank you.”

          “They dug a tunnel. Under the fence”

          “They won’t be doing that again Lt. Keep an eye out.”

      3. But, you know, otherwise your home is your castle. If that border crosser jumps the fence in your backyard and enters your home, you can legally blow his brains out. But to do it at the border is immoral.

        I get it.

        1. But, you know, otherwise your home is your castle. If that border crosser jumps the fence in your backyard and enters your home, you can legally blow his brains out. But to do it at the border is immoral.

          Yes. Because you don’t own the land at the border. The person who does own that land can do exactly what you say.

          I get it.

          It really doesn’t seem like you do.

          1. So, you agree that the government has the right to shoot illegal border crossers?

            1. So are we back to “the government owns all the land and you must submit and obey, and I’m totally not a communist either”?

              1. Learn to read retard. And then go kill yourself.

                1. What a witty comeback.

                2. You played yourself.

                  Seriously, you are obviously outclassed here. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

            2. So, you agree that the government has the right to shoot illegal border crossers?

              Read my comment again, slowly and carefully.

              Or are you asserting that agents of the government have a right to shoot anyone on public land at any time? Is this your argument?

              What was your take on the Bundy case?

              1. //The person who does own that land can do exactly what you say.//

                Government owns lands at the border. Government, therefore, is within its right to shoot illegal border crossers. No?

                1. Government owns lands at the border. Government, therefore, is within its right to shoot illegal border crossers. No?

                  That is the argument you are making, yes. But by your argument, agents of the government (“The Government” can’t do anything) can shoot anyone who is on public land at any time, no?

                  Or maybe the idea of public land is different from the concept of government-as-private-land-holder?

                  And let me ask you, per your theory is it okay for government agents to shoot people for being on a private citizen’s privately held land? Because that’s what your border plan will require.

                2. And what was your take on the Bundy case? Government land, therefore good shoot?

                  1. In some fairness, there are distinctions in what law enforcement can and can’t do based on your legal home nation.

                    In the case of Bundy, he absolutely fell within the jurisdiction of American law enforcement. A foreign national illegally penetrating America’s borders can hardly be compared to an American citizen in terms of what the government says it can do to them. Sure, both were ‘trespassing’ in some form but honestly if the government had shot all of the Bundy protesters they would appear to have been well within their rights for an armed occupation of Federal buildings. Waco or Ruby Ridge might be better analogies for federal overreach than the Bundy ‘protest’.

                    I might not make that argument myself since I tend to lean anti-government and thus tend to agree with the Bundy group in their protest, but I can see how one might draw that conclusion and even see how that conclusion could be ‘right’ from a certain point of view.

                    1. A fair point. I was thinking most directly of the guy who was shot in cold blood, whose name I don’t recall at the moment.

                      I just think that seeing the government’s relationship with public land as being analogous to that of a private land owner with his land is fundamentally feudalistic and should be viewed as suspect in a free society.


                    2. I just think that seeing the government’s relationship with public land as being analogous to that of a private land owner with his land is fundamentally feudalistic and should be viewed as suspect in a free society.

                      Yeah, I could agree but I’m not so sure that either of you are making that case. I’ll admit to skimming what GG says.

                      What empowers the federal government to lock down the Bundy’s isn’t the same thing that empowers the federal government to lock down a border with a foreign nation. Both might be authorized by constitutional principles, but we’re not talking about similar actions.

                      For example, going to war with Afghanistan is not the same thing as Charlotte police locking down violent protests. The two simply aren’t analogous, hence all the strain to make the square peg fit the round hole.

                      From my point of view, the government is generally able to shoot anyone that crosses the border illegally but they don’t derive that authority from domestic law enforcement statutes. They have that authority because they are empowered to deal with foreign agents crossing the border or who have already crossed the border, and it’s easy to see where there could be cases where lethal force is not only authorized but the moral thing to do.

                      An example of it being the moral thing to do is when you have caravans of drug importers crossing our border with technicals that are better armed than our border guards. In that situation, why wouldn’t we authorize lethal force?

                      Of course, the flipside of that where we shoot everyone crossing the border is probably more ridiculous than one where we don’t shoot anyone crossing the border.

                      It’s another situation where the people on both sides of the argument are essentially advocating for the status quo without even noticing.

                    3. An example of it being the moral thing to do is when you have caravans of drug importers crossing our border with technicals that are better armed than our border guards. In that situation, why wouldn’t we authorize lethal force?

                      Yeah – and I have absolutely no problem with Trump’s quasi-military response to the caravan. There comes a point where a roaming wave of people has to be halted and dealt with in some way.

                      Of course, the flipside of that where we shoot everyone crossing the border is probably more ridiculous than one where we don’t shoot anyone crossing the border.

                      It’s another situation where the people on both sides of the argument are essentially advocating for the status quo without even noticing.

                      Completely agree.

            3. Maybe, maybe not, but you want to shoot someone for seeking economic opportunity, freedom, a better life?

            4. Are you an immigrant yourself or native born?

    3. Barbed wire would help. A landmine here and there. Not sure why this is such a difficult thing. Ever try to scale a wall outside a military base? Didn’t think so.

      Ah, the East Germany solution. Why has no freedom-loving nation ever thought of that before?

      1. Because the pressure of potential migrants from impoverished and violent shitholes has never been this intense before?

        1. I disagree that the hysteria about immigrants has never been this intense.

          1. I agree. It’s pretty amazing that people think now, of all times, is when we have immigration hysteria.

            Wake me up when widespread terrorism related to immigrants is a thing, because the 1800’s happened last I checked.

          2. It seems to be cyclical, every 80 years or so.
            Initially the entire country was open borders,
            then we had the Know-Nothings and the Chinese cases,
            then we had “open borders” at Ellis Island,
            then we had quota-based immigration laws,
            then we had the Immigration Act of 1965.
            Now it’s swinging back to restrictive immigration again.

          3. But that’s not what I said, is it? I said nothing about “hysteria”. I said the “pressure of potential migrants…has never been this intense before”. That is, the potential for very large numbers of migrants to come here has never been greater if we do not control entry at our borders.

      2. Are we back to pretending the Berlin wall was to keep people out and not in?

        1. And that fundamentally changes the concept how?

          Understand that what I’m responding to is this argument that the “solution” to this “problem” is a taller wall with razor wire and soldiers willing to shoot to kill?

      3. And, as I’ve noted before, even if we went full-bore Iron Curtain our southern border is far too long to effectively police.

        It would be easier by far to simply annex Mexico, but I don’t think that’s going to be happening any time soon either.

        Not saying I have a solution to whatever someone’s problem with immigration might be, but I don’t see how a border wall + military guards is at all a solution here in reality. It’s expensive and pointless security theater at best.

        I’d have to admit I don’t really see a total solution even being possible on either side of the argument. This is one of those area’s where the status quo appears to be better than any of the ‘solutions’ put forward to ‘fix’ the status quo.

        1. //And, as I’ve noted before, even if we went full-bore Iron Curtain our southern border is far too long to effectively police.//

          I don’t think you would have to go that far. As long as the agents policing the border were willing to shoot at least *some* people trying to sneak across the border, it would be a sufficient deterrent.

          Take the picture in the article headline, for example. Imagine one of those guys takes lead to the face and drops like a stone. Most likely, the rest would scatter. You don’t have to gun down everyone, just create the threat of being able and willing to gun down someone.

          Maybe some people would take that risk anyway. I don’t think they would.


          1. I don’t think you would have to go that far. As long as the agents policing the border were willing to shoot at least *some* people trying to sneak across the border, it would be a sufficient deterrent.

            If it was, New York and Chicago would be crime free.

            1. I don’t see the connection at all, but okay.

              1. Cops keep shooting people there for minor infractions of the law as a deterrent yet people still live there, move there, and furthermore keep committing minor infractions of law that gets them shot.

                Hell, right now today there are a hell of a lot of risks to one’s life and limb to obtain access to the United States illegally. I’m not so sure putting more risks on them is going to significantly alter their behavior when the risk is already death as-is.

                1. Something tells me GG doesn’t really understand poverty and desperation. He seems to feel that the threat of wrinkling an Armani suit will lead someone to go die of starvation in the desert.

                  1. I’ve been so poor in the past that I went to county jail over inability to pay a speeding ticket (coincidentally, this is when I started to look into libertarianism for obvious reasons), and while that doesn’t even compare to the squalor of Mexico (yes, I have been to Mexico plenty of times) I can easily understand the desperation that goes along with it.

                    If I were living on dirt streets surrounded by sewage with a constant treat of murder by drug cartels, you can bet your ass I’d risk crossing the U.S. border even if it meant razor wire and machine gun emplacements. Especially if I had kids, or wanted any.

                    1. If I were living on dirt streets surrounded by sewage with a constant treat of murder by drug cartels, you can bet your ass I’d risk crossing the U.S. border even if it meant razor wire and machine gun emplacements. Especially if I had kids, or wanted any.

                      Exactly.

                2. //Cops keep shooting people there for minor infractions of the law//

                  Right. That’s absolutely a fact.

                  End of discussion.

                  1. It wasn’t my claim that shooting a few people brings the rest in line, I was attempting to refute the notion that’s really true using a more domestic illustration of the same thing as an example.

                    We’d also need to note the incentive for an illegal alien from South America is far larger than it is for black man moving to New York or Chicago for work.

                    From the outside, it would seem insane for a black man to move to New York City for work since New York shoots black men for minor infractions of law and they routinely have their rights vs. search and seizure violated. I guess you might argue they don’t shoot enough of them to stop their move to those cities…?

                    At which point I guess we’d need to ask how many illegal aliens you’re willing to shoot to create a disincentive. My guess is the ‘correct’ amount would probably qualify as a war crime to most Americans.

                    1. When your example is unrealistic and counterfactual, it doesn’t really demonstrate anything.

                      I live in NYC. I am guessing you don’t.

                    2. I live in NYC. I am guessing you don’t.

                      Oh, look, he’s a New Yorker.

                      Shocking.

                    3. No, I don’t live in New York. I don’t see how my example is unrealistic or counter factual though.

                      Your claim was that shooting some number of immigrants will cause the rest not to attempt crossing. Last I checked, even the Berlin wall was breached on a pretty daily basis and they actually did shoot people crossing ‘illegally’. Turns out, risk of death wasn’t enough of a disincentive to escape the USSR.

                      What’s absurd is using a wall used by tiny nations with heavy guard presence as an example for what we should do in the U.S. when we are many, many orders of magnitude larger. Never in history has a wall over such a huge area been attempted, and even those that come close (say the wall of China) were inevitably breached and, even then, that wall wasn’t even intended to stop immigration it was intended to stop actual invading armies that posed an actual existential crisis.

                      Bit of a difference, I’d say.

                      How many trillions of dollars are fiscal conservatives willing to light on fire for marginal gains? Apparently infinite amounts, since what you advocate for is a continuing cost proposition.

    4. Ever try to scale a wall outside a military base? Didn’t think so.

      YES, and I was successful. When in high school, there was a deactivated ABM base a few miles away. Still USAF property, fenced in. We climbed the fence, using a borrowed doormat to safely get over the barbed wire.

      To our dismay, we found that when the site was deactivated, they took the Ajax missiles with them.

      1. Good reply. Made my day.

  4. Maybe instead of a wall they can just put up a huge rope maze like you see at fast food restaurants and amusement parks.

    1. Fuck that, put up ticket counters and charge for entry. Help pay off the national debt from the proceeds.

      1. *leans forward* …I’m listening. Tell me more.

  5. I lock my front door when I leave the house, in spite of the knowledge that all anyone has to do is break a window to enter. I suppose you do not even have a lock on your door.

    1. Locks don’t work! They’re a waste of time. In fact, I use 1234 as my password on all my accounts, and I don’t even try to hide it!

      1. +1000

        We dont need a military either. Our enemies are just going to destroy us anyways.

        Fucking reason is such a joke. Look how reason is struggling to meet its donation goal.

      2. If someone wants to get past your lock they can. The purpose of locks is to keep drunks out of your flat.

        A burglar alarm is 1000% more effective than a deadbolt.

        1. You managed to both miss the point and look incredibly retarded simultaneously.

          1. And admitted he lives in a small flat in a bad neighborhood full of drunks.

    2. What a maroon! I got me one of those big beautiful $30 billion door locks that the salesman told me makes my house impenetrable. Best thing? The salesman assured me my neighbor was going to pay for it.

      1. It’s the best, most beautiful lock ever! Lot’s of people say are saying so!

        1. So you don’t lock your house or your car, right?

          Well in libertopia, CA, I’ll grant that it doesn’t make much difference.

          1. Don’t you just hate people who can’t see past Manichean duality?

    3. Viral video showing why door locks are ineffective.

      Viral video showing why keys for automobiles are ineffective.

      Viral video showing why “no” does not mean NO to reason staff. Yup, the fact that America is saying NO to illegals does not mean “no” to reason staff.

      Why can’t reason staff stop raping America?

      1. They’re only raping 0.00002% of America. Don’t be so dramatic.

  6. “We had…championship mountain climbers” who couldn’t get over bolstered 30-foot border fencing, President Donald Trump told Fox News in September.

    Probably true – but Trump could have hired illegal immigrant Mexican mountain climbers at half the price and I’m quite certain they would have gotten the job done.

    Nevertheless:

    Trump never said that, if he said it he was joking, you should take Trump seriously but not literally, the wall has worked as advertised, to the extent the wall hasn’t worked it’s the Democrats fault, you’re just a Trump-hater, Reason is a piece of shit that never said anything bad about Obama or Clinton, this is all just more TDS, your own article proves the exact opposite of what you claim it said, you left out several key parts because you’re a partisan hack auditioning for a job at Vox, plus what John said. Sad!

    1. A+ would read again

    2. For example, when we installed a border wall in the Yuma Sector, we have seen border apprehensions decrease by 90 percent.”

  7. Oh, for the long past days of Virginia…

    1. So are borders. So is national sovereignty. So are cultural cohesion, safety, and economic stability.

      Just a bunch of bullshit.

      Is this what is means to be a libertarian? Apparently.

      1. They aren’t libertarians. They don’t even know what the word means.

      2. What is the purpose of having a government in the first place?

        Is it to protect liberty?

        Or is it to engage in cultural engineering to create some homogeneous society?

        1. Our government is a unique cultural product, which is why it protects liberty.

          Culture matters.

          If you disagree, feel free to go pursue liberty in Iran.

          1. So the purpose of the state is to create a homogeneous political culture. Is that your take here? Dissent will not be tolerated?

            1. The purpose of the state is to maintain a culture of liberty. Again, if you disagree, go fight your fight for liberty in Iran, or China.

              I am sure they will love your novel theories and will take you seriously.

              1. Actually, this country is pluralist. If you have a problem with that, go to Japan, or Iran, or another homogeneous country. Your dreams of cultural purity are something you cannot impose on others.

                1. A culture of liberty is inconsistent with a pluralist country? Think before you speak.

                  1. Just the opposite! Liberty is incompatible with an insular culture! This has been known since at least the times of Voltaire. Go read your Voltaire and stop wasting our time.

                    1. I never said anything about an insular culture, but a culture of liberty.

                      Fucking freshman. Go back to class.

                    2. I love when that fucking idiot starts with “actually” and doesn’t in fact correct anything lololl

                    3. Chipper thinks importing authoritarians and socialists is the only way to maintain liberty… fucking lol

                    4. A “culture of liberty” with huge walls surrounding it to prevent that culture from being contaminated with the impure essences of dirty foreigners. Got it.

              2. “The purpose of the state is to maintain a culture of liberty.”

                That seems a bit cart before the horse. If you don’t already have a culture that loves liberty, the government isn’t going to magically create such a culture. It will reflect the society.

                1. Look who suddenly gets the point.

                  1. From the horse’s mouth, straight to our ears. Unfortunately, it bypassed his brain.

                  2. The beatings will continue until you all start loving liberty!

                2. You just made the perfect argument against open borders.

                  1. He doesnt realize it either which is hilarious.

                  2. It’s only the perfect argument if you assume you are starting off with a liberty-loving culture and liberty-hating immigrants.

                    If you don’t start off with liberty-loving culture, the government isn’t going to magically be able to force the native populace to love liberty.

                    If you are looking for a demographic group that is a threat to freedom-loving culture upper-middle class soccer moms are higher on the list than illegal immigrants.

                    1. Why can’t it be both?

                      We do seem to have a growing number people within the upper middle class who are opposed to liberty, therefore why would we wish to import large numbers of people from Central America who are already coming from a more collectivist culture to begin with? But then again, maybe you can tell me all about the growing number of Rothbardians in Honduras that I never knew about before.

                    2. 1) The evidence that immigrants from Latin America are more collectivist than other people is dubious. The evidence that I have seen presented in this comment section is a Pew survey of 1500 Hispanic people, surveying legal, not illegal immigrants. And the thing they said wrong, that is supposed to make me want to ban them all from immigration, is that many of them would like more government services. The same Pew survey says that Hispanic people have many conservative tendencies, which should make certain commenters here such as Giraje happy. Any characterization of Hispanic illegal immigrants as lovers of socialism counters my experience with knowing many personally.
                      2) It judges people by what demographic group they belong to, instead of treating them as individuals. One of the bedrock principles of libertarianism is individualism.
                      3) It ignores that immigration history in America clearly shows that immigrants assimilate into the overall American culture.
                      4) It makes an assumption that people cannot change.
                      5) I’m sure my ancestors were unacceptable in some way as immigrants.
                      6) The whole idea of fending off socialism by keeping certain groups of people has the flavor of not being able to accept that one cannot control everything, and not having the humility to realize one is probably better off not *trying* to control everything. I thought this was also one of the core principles of libertarianism.

                    3. This is why I mentioned the free state project earlier in the thread, so that you’d have to acknowledge the possibility of political change via demographic change. It’s disingenuous to acknowledge it in one instance but not another. You can’t have it both ways.

                    4. The free state project hasn’t actually accomplished much change.

                      The hubris of trying to shape the political future by controlling the demographics of immigrants is that it is based on the belief you have accurate knowledge of those demographics and can accurately predict how those people will assimilate in the future.

                      It’s a lot of belief in your own infallibility.

                      Meanwhile, you are interfering with other people’s lives, livelihood and freedom of association and travel. I would think a libertarian would take great pause at doing that.

                    5. You’ll notice I never specified who should or should not be permitted to immigrate to this country and under what circumstances. What I’m saying is that you cannot suggest that a country’s political system is not influenced in any way by what immigrant groups you import into a country.

                      These vague and manipulative appeals you make to “core libertarian principles” remind me of the type of appeals to emotion that leftists use and the shaming tactics used by the Christian fundamentalists I grew up with. Its lost on me. I only care about private property rights and freedom from government theft and coercion. The market will sort out the rest. But like I said earlier in this thread, I’ll gladly go along with total free movement of people once we’ve abolished all government schools and social services. Even trade. You support the abolition of the state, and I’ll get behind total free movement of people, no restrictions. How does that sound?

                    6. Sounds like a reasonable position.

                      Choices of people who immigrate to a country will, of course, affect the future of the country. I don’t believe anybody can be good at predicting what that effect will be, though.

            2. For fuck sakes jeff, go you even have to be dishonest here, implying anyone for controlled migration is basically a nazi you dishonest fuck?

              1. No, Jesse, not “anyone”. Just people like Geraje here who demand cultural conformity and who only seem interested in “liberty” for a narrow range of permissible actions.

                1. Psychoticjeff, here to make up arguments and pretend they’re reality.
                  Might as well be reading AOC posts as Jeff’s – they’re of equal intellectual value

                  1. Fuck off, asshole.

          2. So the state should protect liberty, but not “too much” liberty. Liberty that threatens the social order can be dangerous.

            1. //So the state should protect liberty, but not “too much” liberty.//

              No shit.

              Philosophical musings like this are why people abuse you. Freshman year dorm room view of the world.

        2. Protecting private property rights is supposed to be the first priority. I don’t know what the hell you mean when you say “liberty”. Keep it simple and stick to the NAP and, by extension, private property rights.

        3. More jeffrey sophistry. using a terrible false dichotomy.


        4. Is it to protect liberty?

          Or is it to engage in cultural engineering to create some homogeneous society?

          Way to present a false dichotomy where literally neither of the two options represents reality.

          I do note you apparently hold a Wilsonian view towards government and rights though, since it appears that you believe government is there to ‘protect’ rights. It isn’t, and was never intended to.

          1. I do note you apparently hold a Wilsonian view towards government and rights though, since it appears that you believe government is there to ‘protect’ rights. It isn’t, and was never intended to.

            “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

            So what is the purpose of the state, if not to protect rights?


            1. So what is the purpose of the state, if not to protect rights?

              Again with the Wilsonian bullshit.

              The purpose of the state is to govern, and it is limited in it’s governorship by rights held by the people and states respectively.

              Please, though, continue to spout rhetoric straight from the mouth of America’s first Progressives.

              1. You mean by citing the Constitution? How about this one?

                We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

                Yeah, more Wilsonian claptrap, amirite?

                1. Yeah, it is. If it’s the governments job to protect your rights, you’ve already given away the farm since the government is the one most able to violate those rights.

                  I do notice that your little citation happens to be from the declaration of independence though, which just so happens to not be the constitution that governs the United States of America.

                  1. No it’s not the Constitution, but it’s not “Wilsonian claptrap” either.

                    The idea that the role of the state is to protect people’s rights, at least in the American context, didn’t originate from Wilson, it originated from the founding principles of the nation itself. That’s my point.

                    1. I was going to write a long disparaging post about your blatant misunderstanding of the relationship between governments and rights, but instead I’ll sum it up in a bite size chunk that your brain might be able to digest.

                      The government can no more safeguard your rights than a burglar can safeguard your private property.

                    2. I think part of the problem here is that we are just talking past each other.

                      I am looking at the state from more of a conceptual, idealistic framework. What the state *ought* to look like in so-called Libertopia. The reason why the state should be shrunk down drastically, but *not* ultimately to zero – because that remaining minarchist state would be what should be protecting people’s rights.

                      Another way to look at it is to think about what is the rationale for not shrinking the state all the way to zero and going all the way to Ancapistan. Because if we did that, we’d just have the Law of the Jungle and no one’s liberty would be protected – the rule would be, might makes right. So what is the plan for protecting people’s liberty in this case? To create a minimal, neutral state, that all would agree would handle matters arising from disputes concerning fundamental liberty, and leave everyone else alone to go about their lives. That is what I see.

                      If you look at what exists today of course it is far from that ideal conception. It’s full of liberty-munching thieves, sure. They are not the rationale for the state – they are there IN SPITE of what the state ought to be doing.

                      I don’t think this is “Wilsonian claptrap”, the state shouldn’t be some superhero saving everyone from peril. It’s basically just theoretical libertarian musings on the rationale for a state.

              2. The purpose of the state is to govern,

                That’s a tautology. Not very informative.

                What is the proper scope of governance of a legitimate state?

                and it is limited in it’s governorship by rights held by the people and states respectively.

                That’s right, it should be limited in its duties to protecting liberty. Very little, if anything, beyond that.


                1. That’s a tautology. Not very informative.

                  Try reading the constitution, it contains literal enumerated powers that define governance. I guess I shouldn’t have expected that to be self evident when speaking to such a low-grade intellect.


                  What is the proper scope of governance of a legitimate state?

                  Again, we already have a document that outlines that. Maybe, since you can’t tell the difference between a constitution and a declaration of independence, this could serve to explain your confusion on the subject.

                  Furthermore, since you can’t understand the difference between a prohibition and an enumerated power it could help to explain your reliance on the founders of American progressivism as the source of all wisdom.

                  1. Oh fuck you. So Thomas Jefferson was a “Wilsonian progressive” when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Sure whatever.

                    1. Why was the bill of rights written, in your opinion?

                      Also, I note that Jefferson wasn’t the primary author of the constitution as opposed to the DoI. Why then don’t you use James Madison as your lodestone?

                    2. In my opinion, the Bill of Rights was written to make more concrete the aspirations of preserving liberty, that are NOT all that explicit in the main text of the Constitution itself.

      3. Libertarianism does mean openness to cultural change and the evolution of civil society. So, yes, if you are a person who is deeply concerned with “cultural cohesion”, libertarianism may not be for you.

        1. “Libertarianism does mean openness to cultural change and the evolution of civil society”

          No it doesn’t.

          1. By the way, in case it wasn’t clear, you described progressivism. Exactly.

            You literally think you’re a libertarian for adhering to the central tenets of progressivism Jeff.

        2. Libertarianism does mean openness to cultural change…

          That doesn’t mean we can’t have an opinion about what the “cultural change” should be.

          1. “should be”

            What the culture “should be” is whatever people decide it to be through their own free and voluntary choices.

            Let go of trying to direct people to make the choices that you think they ought to make. Just let go.

            1. Then why are you posting?

              1. Fuck off.

                1. Let go of trying to direct people to make the choices that you think they ought to make. Just let go.

            2. No.

              1. You just can’t let go of the need to try to control people in their free and noncoercive choices.

                1. Who said anything about “control”? I most certainly will continue to try to influence people to do what I think is right. You have frequently suggested doing so yourself, telling us that it is our responsibility to convince unlimited numbers of immigrants of the virtues of liberty.

          2. Geraje did more than call for his having an opinion. He called for the government to enforce cultural cohesion. He called for a government that forces people to want a libertarian government.

            1. Which is absurd on its face.

              “I want a culture of liberty, and if you disagree I’ll throw you in a cage!”

            2. And where did geraje say that?

              1. “ The purpose of the state is to maintain a culture of liberty.”

                1. So not really what he said.
                  You’d be nothing if you were not dishonest

        3. And when that evolution is anti-NAP? Or that evolution is opposed to free speech? Or that evolution promotes the welfare state?

          If you’re deeply concerned with liberty, then “libertarianism” may not be for you.

          1. If society stops loving freedom, the government isn’t going to be able to force them to love it. In the end, libertarianism must be sold on its merits and adopted voluntarily.

  8. I have a wall around my property! Government can still come and take it anytime they want. So, I guess walls real don’t work! If that ever happens, maybe I wouldn’t feel to much of a financial loss if someone else had paid for it.

    1. Even if they don’t come and take it, the laws are still in effect on your private property.
      You can’t commit a murder and claim it is OK because it was on your private property, nor should you be able to.

  9. The picture reason uses was the old section of wall. You can clearly see the ocean.

    Either way, nothing is invincible. Great thing about groups of people needed to climb the new design is it attracts attention and that is what CBP can focus on.

    reason will keep pushing and pushing this open border nonsense until the opposite of what they want happens. All the illegals will be rounded up and deported with less and less time between grab and have their asses back in the shitholes they come from.

    1. You’re a mean person. What are you so afraid of?

      1. Running out of bullets.

        1. There you go folks, LC1789 is afraid someone with a little less will get the upper hand!

          1. How can they raise their hands with bullets in them?

  10. Libertarians should be pushing the envelope in advocating for the protection of liberty.
    That means free speech rights, that means gun rights, and that also means freedom of association rights.

    1. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to keen on pushing the envelope in terms of real world solutions, to real world problems. That’s why the party and most of its platforms are a complete joke.

      1. I don’t know if you are familiar with Reason. It tends to be a voice for a broader spectrum of libertarian thought and not have much association with the Libertarian Party.

        1. I don’t know about that. Sarwark and Gillespie seem pretty interchangeable to me.

          1. Have to take your word for it. I don’t belong to, nor follow the activities of, the Libertarian Party anymore.

    2. Damn straight – if I want to hire illegal immigrants to work at remodeling my condo tower in New York City or guest workers at my golf resort in Miami, whose business is that? (And the beauty part is that if I don’t want to pay them what I signed a contract to pay them, who can they complain to? They’re not even American citizens, they got no rights! Hahaha, I’m such a smart businessman.)

      1. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the libertarian position relegates government to the role of protecting people from fraud, and not much more.

        I guess having undocumented individuals from other countries smuggled into the United States by international drug cartels and then living among the citizenry with false names, bogus documents, and engaging in a plethora of illegal practices does not qualify as conduct even remotely approaching fraud.

        1. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the libertarian position relegates government to the role of protecting people from fraud, and not much more.

          You had some extra words there.

        2. That is one, somewhat extreme formulation of libertarianism, popular with libertarians who are highly concerned with feeling that their political beliefs are based in a deep rationalism. There is a wide spectrum of libertarian thought, including libertarians who are more pragmatic/less purist.

          1. Your stupid fucking ass thinks libertarianism is progressivism so we can see what your opinion is worth.

          2. “More pragmatic/less purist” somehow always means larger state. Huh.

            1. Oh – we have purist Skippy here today. Good to know.

              1. Libertarianism is like cocaine – you can do some, but you need to know when to stop. Most libertarians are cocaine addicts; their noses are bleeding, their eyes are red and dilated, they’re one bad decision away from sucking a dick for more coke, but yet they’re always there to berate the sensible guy doing a bump before going out to the bar.

                If you’re not vacuuming an eight-ball to the face, you’re obviously doing it wrong.

                1. I’m making a point about Skippy, specifically. He and I have known one another for a long time, and he’s been chasing me around calling me both a puritan and a pragmatist, whichever is worse in the context, for years now.

                  1. All libertarians are on a spectrum; a spectrum of delusion. It’s like the song “Imagine,” by Lennon. Sounds nice. Feels nice. Even brings some warmth to your heart and a tear to your eye. But it’s ridiculous and unrealistic.

                    In this day and age, other than giving idealists something to chew on and rant about at the local watering hole, the libertarian legacy is solely a boon to dishonest “free marketers” who support exploiting an underclass of illegal immigrants for profit while doing absolutely nothing, in practice, to reduce the bloated welfare state.

                    The greatest trick the Koch’s ever pulled was convincing people that their personal enrichment at the expense of foreign born and native American workers was the pinnacle of morality.

                    1. Wow. That’s a pretty content-free screed there.

                      Is libertarianism a spectrum, or one specific and sooper wrong belief? You seem to want it both ways, for some reason.

                      So libertarians are naive and stupid lying exploiters of the poor you so despise and look down upon? You’re suddenly very concerned for the welfare of illegal immigrants whom you were advocating shooting on site just a few posts ago?

                      And then you go with “Koch agrees with x, therefore x is wrong?”

                      It must be hard being an enlightened NYC elite trying to educate us naive knuckle-dragging working-class types about the evils of free markets.

                      Pray tell, what are the correct principles to have? Because so far I haven’t noticed you having any. You keep screaming about the political culture you’re going to lose to the dirty foreigners, but does that culture have any content besides “me, me, me?” Because so far I haven’t see it if so.

                    2. //So libertarians are naive and stupid lying exploiters of the poor you so despise and look down upon?//

                      I don’t despise poor immigrants, I want them to follow the law. Libertarians do not want them to follow the law, because if they did, there would be no underclass of poor illegal immigrants to exploit. You’re an ideological ant for a billionaire that pulls on your heart string just enough for you to drop your pants.

                      If you love taking Koch up the ass, at least be honest about it.

      2. (And the beauty part is that if I don’t want to pay them what I signed a contract to pay them, who can they complain to? They’re not even American citizens, they got no rights! Hahaha, I’m such a smart businessman.)

        If minimum wage, payroll taxation, and/or contribution to public welfare were on the chopping block in exchange for open borders, the vast majority of open borders opponents would be down with the deal. The issue, repeatedly, is that the deal is open borders with a welfare state and the (continued) selective enforcement of wages and taxation.

    3. Too bad they supported using public accomodations law to push gay marriage…

      1. Are you for prohibition of gay marriage?

      2. Yup. The LINOs really outed themselves on that issue.

        Just as well now there are less actual Libertarians. We can actually discuss Libertarianism without as many gay dope smoking Lefties incorrectly describing what they think Libertarianism is to other people wrecking the brand.

        1. Just as well now there are less actual Libertarians.

          “fewer” actual libertarians. “Less” is generally indicative of a measure of volume rather than a measure of comparison (e.g. “There was less water in the flask” vs. “There were fewer flasks on the shelf.”)

          1. The volume of Libertarians is less.

            You people crack me up.

        2. I know it can be hard for someone with a black-and-white, rigid world view but people who want gay people to be able to marry, and people who are concerned about using public accommodation laws to force social change are BOTH concerned with promoting liberty.

          I realized this when I was contributing money to two different libertarian organizations: one for religious freedom, and one for school choice, and they ended up in a Supreme Court fight again each other. It dawned on me that it’s wonderful to have libertarians debating other libertarians in the Supreme Court. Sometimes a balance between different freedoms and rights has to be worked out.

    4. As soon as you progressives stop forcing me to pay for public accommodations and the rest of the welfare state we’ll talk, until then fuck off and get your hands out of my wallet.

      1. Who are these progressives you are addressing? Do you think that a lot of progressives hang out in the commentariat at a libertarian website?

        1. You bitch. Your post admitting you think the tenets of progressivism are libertarian is RIGHT THERE.

    5. “Libertarians should be”

      Minding their own fucking business.

      But you’re a fucking prog so you don’t know anything about it.

    6. So, you’re good with businesses deciding who they can hire and do business with?
      Even if the ones they decide they don’t want to associate with are people of color?

  11. I wonder what Libertarians would have said to Qin Shi Huang when he wanted to annex territory and build walls. They won’t work! You’ll never keep all this territory!

    1. “Nǐ shìgè báichī, qiáng bù qǐ zuòyòng” would be my guess.

  12. A common argument against so-called “open borders” is the claim that new immigrants will come here and then immediately turn around and vote for socialist policies.

    Two responses:
    1. Free migration is not the same as instant citizenship. There is nothing inconsistent with holding a position that advocates for an easy process for migration, but a difficult process for obtaining citizenship.
    2. Nevertheless, some of those migrants would inevitably become citizens by one way or another. If they turn around and vote for socialist policies, it will be because the arguments in favor of liberty were not persuasive enough for them. And if the arguments in favor of liberty are not persuasive enough for them, why do we think that the arguments in favor of liberty would be persuasive with new native-born citizens either? In this sense it doesn’t really matter what the immigration policy is – if the arguments in favor of liberty aren’t persuasive, then the country will become socialist inevitably, one way or another.

    So instead of grousing about immigrants “voting for socialism”, we should be far more concerned with creating a message of liberty that will sell to people of all types and all backgrounds, both immigrants and native-born citizens alike.

    1. you sound like a (classical) liberal. don’t you know liberals are unwelcome in the comments?

      1. A classical liberal that has no problem with the country turning into a socialist state by means of unfettered immigration and demographic displacement.

        1. i’m assuming he does have a problem with that. I know I sure do.

          We both want a freedom loving country. I’m just unwilling to make it an unfree country as step 1 of my attempt.

          1. The thing about “selling freedom” is that it is not merely a process of sitting down with someone and giving them the inside scoop on liberty in hopes that they will see the light. This is especially difficult for adults who have spent their formative years and the majority of their lives living in collectivist societies. It is even more difficult for adult immigrants from impoverished and/or failed states where the promise of mere subsistence is enough to sway them to support socialist policies. Multiplying these difficulties by tens of millions of people entering the country in a relatively short span of years does not make the problem easier to solve.

            If tomorrow the economics of the world were such that immigrating to China made sense to you, what would it take for you to be convinced that authoritarian socialism is preferable to the freedom you have grown accustomed to?

            1. It is even more difficult for adult immigrants from impoverished and/or failed states where the promise of mere subsistence is enough to sway them to support socialist policies.

              Is this why some of our most passionate opponents of socialism hail from Cuba and from former Soviet bloc states? Wouldn’t your cultural argument be more of an argument against letting in French, German and British people?

              If tomorrow the economics of the world were such that immigrating to China made sense to you, what would it take for you to be convinced that authoritarian socialism is preferable to the freedom you have grown accustomed to?

              Is there reason to believe a Communist regime would ever find itself in the position of being the economically attractive place to be?

              1. I’m not saying it is impossible to sell the virtues of freedom to immigrants. I am saying that it is difficult, especially if they are poor, and poorly educated, and if there are tens of millions of them pouring into the country over a short period of time.

                //Is there reason to believe a Communist regime would ever find itself in the position of being the economically attractive place to be?//

                China is one example. But, that wasn’t the point. The point is that many people come to the United States for the economic opportunities, not because of an admiration for our civic structure.

                1. I’m not saying it is impossible to sell the virtues of freedom to immigrants. I am saying that it is difficult, especially if they are poor, and poorly educated, and if there are tens of millions of them pouring into the country over a short period of time.

                  But you’re missing my point that higher levels of education correspond pretty strongly with more elitist attitudes and stronger socialist tendencies. Experience has shown that it is much easier to sell the poor who are fleeing communist regimes on the idea of liberty than it is to sell, say, members of the British Royal Family on the idea.

                  The point is that many people come to the United States for the economic opportunities, not because of an admiration for our civic structure.

                  But our plethora of economic opportunities are because of our economic freedoms. They are not a random draw of combinations. Many countries have gotten infected with the notion that the solution to their economic woes was to seal off their borders and produce everything internally. This has failed every time.

                  1. //But you’re missing my point that higher levels of education correspond pretty strongly with more elitist attitudes and stronger socialist tendencies.//

                    Maybe, I don’t know. But not understanding the politics and being promised free shit when you’re poor as dirt also draws people to socialism. Both can be true.

                    //But our plethora of economic opportunities are because of our economic freedoms. //

                    I agree with that. But many people, especially when they are uneducated and poor, do not understand that.

                    1. But many people, especially when they are uneducated and poor, do not understand that.

                      Well I suppose thank God we have educated elites like yourselves to make decisions on behalf of the benighted poor.

                      Quick survey question: where is socialism in the US more rampant, the college-educated bourgeois, or the uneducated working class?

                    2. //Well I suppose thank God we have educated elites like yourselves to make decisions on behalf of the benighted poor.//

                      You and Laursen are the fucking clowns that literally spent all day whining about how it is our job to educate immigrants about the beauty of freedom and liberty. Now I’m the asshole for suggesting that some of them don’t quite get it?

                      Yea. Go fuck yourself.

                    3. You are the asshole for PRESUMING that they CAN’T understand liberty BECAUSE they are poor.

                    4. You and Laursen are the fucking clowns that literally spent all day whining about how it is our job to educate immigrants about the beauty of freedom and liberty.

                      Yeah – you still don’t get it.

                      They don’t need me, you, or Mike Laursen to educate them.

                      Let the Progressivism go. It’s infected your mind and you don’t need it. My burdens are not your burdens and you needn’t worry about me.

                      Yea. Go fuck yourself.

                      I knew we’d get there eventually. You know what “there” is? The end of the road for your argument.

                      But of course you don’t know that. Come tell me to fuck off again.

                    5. //You are the asshole for PRESUMING that they CAN’T understand liberty BECAUSE they are poor.//

                      Because they are uneducated, not because they are poor.

                      The worse part about your stupidity is your stridency and confidence, and inability to read.

                    6. //They don’t need me, you, or Mike Laursen to educate them.//

                      Considering that you two idiots were harping incessantly about our failure as a society if we do not educate immigrants in the ways of liberty, and that if we do not it is *we* that have failed, not them, this reversal is quite rich.

                      P.S.

                      Go fuck yourself.

                    7. Considering that you two idiots were harping incessantly about our failure as a society if we do not educate immigrants in the ways of liberty, and that if we do not it is *we* that have failed, not them, this reversal is quite rich.

                      Remind me where I argued that. If I did, it was wrong, but what is it that gives me the impression that this is another one of your “re-phrasings” of what I said?

                      Go fuck yourself.

                      lol. Is this what passes for a rebuttal in Manhattan? We here in the barbaric West aren’t familier with these fantsy-pants argumentationisms.

                    8. Wow, I’ve been virtually absent from this comment thread all afternoon, come back to find there are nearly 400 comments and I have apparently been “harping incessantly about our failure as a society if we do not educate immigrants in the ways of liberty” even though I haven’t even been around.

                    9. Wow, I’ve been virtually absent from this comment thread all afternoon, come back to find there are nearly 400 comments and I have apparently been “harping incessantly about our failure as a society if we do not educate immigrants in the ways of liberty” even though I haven’t even been around.

                      You keep forgetting that you’re also Jeff, and a couple of other people. So, you’re all over the place, man.

                    10. Because they are uneducated, not because they are poor.

                      Yeah, no.


                      Geraje Guzba
                      December.6.2019 at 2:14 pm
                      I’m not saying it is impossible to sell the virtues of freedom to immigrants. I am saying that it is difficult, especially if they are poor, and poorly educated, and if there are tens of millions of them pouring into the country over a short period of time.

                    11. You have contempt and disgust for immigrants because of their status. You’re the complete NYC elitist dickhead stereotype come to life.

                    12. //especially if they are poor, and poorly educated,//

                      Highlights one portion, ignores the other, thinks his point is made.

                      Go suck on a handgun, asshole.

                    13. //Wow, I’ve been virtually absent from this comment thread all afternoon, come back to find there are nearly 400 comments and I have apparently been “harping incessantly about our failure as a society if we do not educate immigrants in the ways of liberty” even though I haven’t even been around.//

                      Everybodys knows you and jeff are the same poster, dumbass.

                  2. //You have contempt and disgust for immigrants because of their status. You’re the complete NYC elitist dickhead stereotype come to life//

                    I have contempt for dumb assholes like you. Your freshman year sophistry and amateur libertarian preening are why you get abused by everyone, except your socks.


              2. Is there reason to believe a Communist regime would ever find itself in the position of being the economically attractive place to be?

                Well, I’m forced to notice that China exists…

                1. Well, I’m forced to notice that China exists…

                  And has only become economically attractive to the extent that it has economically liberalized.

                  And even still, I don’t think people are doing a lot of fleeing Hong Kong to get into China.


                  1. And has only become economically attractive to the extent that it has economically liberalized.

                    I’m not so sure that’s the thing that attracts the U.S. to China, especially given that when we opened trade to them no one considered them economically liberal at all.

                    I’d say that getting access to Chinese markets and their lax manufacturing and environmental controls is worth throwing American labor under the bus for most American businesses.

                    As a long term strategy, we’re essentially making the bet that communist China will never outgrow their reliance on American innovation and patents. China is betting that American reliance on their workforce and manufacturing will ensure we don’t interfere in their aggression towards their neighbors.

                    So far we’ve both been right, I guess.

            2. Immigrants are people who are deeply familiar with what life is like in those socialist and/or impoverished countries — and decided to get the hell out and go to America.

              Your theory is exactly 180 degrees backwards from the reality. As I asked elsewhere, have you ever gotten to know any illegal immigrants from Mexico or Latin America? If not, it would be an enlightening experience for you.

      2. You sound like a progressive. Don’t you know that progressives aren’t classic liberals?

    2. How about we try selling liberty to people, but also insist that they stay in their own countries? How does that sound?

      1. How does that sound?

        Like meddling in foreign elections and quid pro quo. What are you some sort of Russian Oligarch?

        1. or Hunter Biden hmmmm

        2. Ruslan Olegrach is the name, sir.

      2. It sounds like hypocrisy.

        “We think liberty is great! But if you try to come here we’ll throw you in a cage!”

        1. Still not answering the question of why they can’t have liberty where they are.

          I think everything should eat healthy food. That does not mean they are entitled to raid my refrigerator.

          Nice quip on the cage, you dumb leftist piece of shit.

          1. Sure, they can. Or, they can choose to leave. Or, they can choose some other option. It’s their choice to exercise their liberty as they wish.

            I think everything should eat healthy food. That does not mean they are entitled to raid my refrigerator.

            The better analogy to the current situation is:

            “I think everybody should eat healthy food, but they shouldn’t be entitled to shop at the grocery store down the street from me”.

            No one is arguing that anyone else is entitled to your food except yourself.

            Nice quip on the cage, you dumb leftist piece of shit.

            Libertarians have referred to jail cells generally as “cages” for a while now. It is not specifically referring to the immigration family separation policy. It’s nothing about leftism either. Leftists are totally fine with throwing people in cages too. It is an anti-authoritarian statement. But I guess calling me an “anti-authoritarian piece of shit” would be too revealing.

            1. //Sure, they can. Or, they can choose to leave. Or, they can choose some other option. It’s their choice to exercise their liberty as they wish.//

              And they can show up at your home and demand entry. You should have absolutely no objection.

              1. Sure, they could. But I have private property rights over my land. If I wish to invite them in I may. If I wish to keep them out, I may as well. That is me exercising MY liberty.

                If your argument is that the state should be permitted to exercise property rights over public land in the same arbitrary way as a private property owner may exercise property rights over his/her own property, then I don’t think you’ve thought the implications of that position through enough.

                1. //Sure, they could. But I have private property rights over my land. If I wish to invite them in I may. If I wish to keep them out, I may as well. That is me exercising MY liberty.//

                  Who the hell gave you those property rights? Your “private” property is sitting on top of government land. So, technically, the government is using your “private” property as a conduit to deny the liberty of the immigrant that wants to be there, instead of you.

                  Your liberty is built upon the coercive arm of the government restricting the liberty of others. Land is free to all.

                  1. Your “private” property

                    Not communist. Not communist at all.

                    1. What happens if you don’t pay your property taxes? Don’t blame me for pointing out reality.

                    2. Well, let’s see where this goes:

                      1. If I don’t pay my property taxes, the state will take my property.
                      Therefore,
                      2. I don’t really own my property, and there is no such thing, really, as private property.
                      Therefore,
                      3. The state may rightfully step in and abrogate my private property rights, even ones not having to do with taxes, because private property is a myth anyway.

                      Item 1 is an injustice.
                      You, however, USE the injustice of property taxes to JUSTIFY taking private property rights away from people IN THE NAME OF this collective goal that you seek of “cultural homogeneity” or somesuch.

                      You derive power from the injustice you claim to abhor.

                      At least the actual communists are honest enough to admit openly that they support the power that taxation gives them.

                    3. //Well, let’s see where this goes:

                      1. If I don’t pay my property taxes, the state will take my property.
                      Therefore,
                      2. I don’t really own my property, and there is no such thing, really, as private property.
                      Therefore,
                      3. The state may rightfully step in and abrogate my private property rights, even ones not having to do with taxes, because private property is a myth anyway.

                      Item 1 is an injustice.
                      You, however, USE the injustice of property taxes to JUSTIFY taking private property rights away from people IN THE NAME OF this collective goal that you seek of “cultural homogeneity” or somesuch.

                      You derive power from the injustice you claim to abhor.

                      At least the actual communists are honest enough to admit openly that they support the power that taxation gives them.//

                      You objecting to keeping illegal immigrants out of your home on the ground of “their liberty ends at my front door” is some dumb libertarian logic.

                      If its not immoral for you to have a system in place to check who comes into your house, it isn’t immoral for the government either.

                      Your private property is on lease from the government, a government that obtained that property from dispossessing its prior owners to form the jurisdictional boundaries of wherever the fuck it is you live. Your defense of your private property, on lease to you from the government, is itself an injustice. You are, in fact, empowering the government in its acts of injustice by perpetuating the system. Therefore, if some random illegal immigrant wants to waltz into your living room, your absurd libertarian principles compel you to accept it.

                      That’s the point. Moron.

                    4. Psychoticjeff, here to rail against arguments that exist only in his own sick mind

                  2. Your liberty is built upon the coercive arm of the government restricting the liberty of others. Land is free to all.

                    Spoken like a true Communist.

                    1. Okay. Be my guest. Don’t pay property taxes. And then when the government sells your house and kicks your naive ass to the street, you can sit on the corner holding up a cardboard sign that says “Evicted like a delusional Libertarian.”

                    2. Okay. Be my guest. Don’t pay property taxes. And then when the government sells your house and kicks your naive ass to the street, you can sit on the corner holding up a cardboard sign that says “Evicted like a delusional Libertarian.”

                      So you don’t disagree that your view is communistic? Or do you have a sense that there would be something wrong with the government doing this to me?

                      Can you summarize your philosophy with a phrase other than “might makes right?”

                    3. //So you don’t disagree that your view is communistic? Or do you have a sense that there would be something wrong with the government doing this to me//

                      This is world you are living in. What more do you want me to say? You seem perfectly fine with asserting your right to deny strangers entry into your home, but seem to think that denying strangers passage across the border is denying them their liberty because your “private” property interests are different than that of the state. But, there is no meaningful difference because the state acts on behalf of the people to, among other things, protect private property interests.

                      Take a gated community for example, as an analogy for the country. Your position is tantamount to saying that people from outside the community have an affirmative “liberty” based entitlement to waltz right in, so long as they don’t walk specifically walk into your home. Everyone can walk into the restaurant you own with a few other investors, so long as they don’t sit at your table. Strangers can pour into a private theater, so long as they don’t sit in your seat.

                      This is absurd. If the government has no right to, and should not, control the border, then your individualized private property rights don’t mean shit.

                    4. But, there is no meaningful difference because the state acts on behalf of the people to, among other things, protect private property interests.

                      In many states, if someone trespasses on my property, I can shoot them.

                      Extending your logic, an agent of the government can shoot anyone anywhere anytime, right? Because the whole country is the government’s private property, right?

                      The government can abrogate any right of yours it wants to, at any time, therefore you have no rights. How is this any different from Tony’s philosophy? Again, how is this any different from simply declaring “might makes right?”

                      Your position is tantamount to saying that people from outside the community have an affirmative “liberty” based entitlement to waltz right in, so long as they don’t walk specifically walk into your home.

                      Nope. Gated communities are owned collectively by the HOAs.

                      Everyone can walk into the restaurant you own with a few other investors, so long as they don’t sit at your table.

                      Nope. If I own the restaurant, I can ask them to leave.

                      Strangers can pour into a private theater, so long as they don’t sit in your seat.

                      If the owner of the theater is letting them in, then yes.

                      Your argument starts from a de facto assumption that the government owns everything and we are all merely serfs operating within the bounds set for us by the government.

                      You’re resting back on simply declaring this to be “reality” and calling anyone naive for criticizing it.

                      So let me ask you – what do you think of this world view of yours? Government ownership of everyone is good and proper? What’s your problem with socialist countries, then? They’re just practicing the reality you are rationalizing.

                    5. //Your argument starts from a de facto assumption that the government owns everything and we are all merely serfs operating within the bounds set for us by the government.//

                      No. My argument is that the government acts to protect private interests, and one of those acts is securing the border.

                      You just can’t fucking read. Thank god you’re in construction.

                    6. My argument is that the government acts to protect private interests, and one of those acts is securing the border.

                      My private interests are not served by that. What you’re demanding is that the government acts to protect your perceived interests. My interests don’t seem to count in your system.

                      You just can’t fucking read. Thank god you’re in construction.

                      lol. You are just Mr. Tweed in the flesh, aren’t you? Do you smoke a pipe and have elbow patches on your corduroy jacket? Inferior minds are dying to know!

                    7. //My private interests are not served by that. What you’re demanding is that the government acts to protect your perceived interests. My interests don’t seem to count in your system.//

                      The point is, the government has the right and the power to do so. Don’t like it? Vote for someone else.

                      But the notion that other’s people’s liberty is being violated by the lack of an entitlement to show wherever the fuck they want is just one small part of why libertarians like you are fucking retarded.

                    8. The point is, the government has the right and the power to do so. Don’t like it? Vote for someone else.

                      lol, no, that’s not your argument at all. Did you forget what your point was?

                      I am saying I don’t like it and I’m going to vote for someone who agrees with me. You are spreading thousands of words of butthurt all over this page because some of us are saying this.

                      So this is absolutely not your argument, and ret-conning it in now isn’t helping your overall case.

                      Matter of fact, this what you’re saying here is pretty much exactly Tony-ism – the government can do this, so suck it up because resistance is futile.

                      But the notion that other’s people’s liberty is being violated by the lack of an entitlement to show wherever the fuck they want is just one small part of why libertarians like you are fucking retarded.

                      What is it about the private property vs. public property distinction that you can’t understand? It’s been pointed out to you again and again and again and again and you keep pretending you’ve never heard it before.

                      Not one single person here has argued that anyone can go anywhere anytime without restriction. Not one.

                      And you call me retarded.

                      Poetic.

                    9. Public property intranationally is private property internationally

                    10. No, a nation-state is not simply analogous to a piece of private property.

                      Nation-states are peculiar institutions invented in, what, around the year 1500, while the idea of personal private property goes back to caveman days.

                      There are differences in terms of scale, in terms of internal politics and pluralism, practical difference, and so on.

                    11. 1648
                      Peace of Westphalia
                      Try to keep up.
                      And no, you haven’t negated the analogy at all.
                      The idea of defined, delineated territory with rules for who can and cannot trespass predates Man. It is literally the foundation of property rights and nation states.
                      Learn some fucking history.

                    12. Oh.
                      So because a bunch od kings, emperors, dukes, popes, earls, and associated other authoritarian despots sat down in 1648 to declare that all the land in the realm is actually owned by the sovereign, we libertarians in 2019 should sit down and shut up and cheerfully hand over our property rights to the state which will guide its loyal subjects to the ‘proper’ use of those rights. Got it.

                    13. Thread fail.

                      This:
                      Nardz
                      December.7.2019 at 2:35 pm
                      Psychoticjeff, here to rail against arguments that exist only in his own sick mind

                      Goes here

                2. Did Jeffy really just tell someone else “I don’t think you’ve thought the implications of that position through enough”? Oh my god…

                3. So, pray tell, who do you go to, if your efforts to enforce your private property rights are met with forceful refusal?
                  The fact that the state maintains its ability to enforce its laws – trespassing isn’t a law you created – even on your property, is an example of the state’s ability to control who can enter the lands under their control.
                  Government has control over everything within its borders, or if not to would mean little pockets of anarchy, everywhere and you wouldn’t have someone to enforce your private property rights.

                  1. Wouldn’t say “control” necessarily.
                    Maybe “authority over” or “responsibility for”

      3. Perhaps there are some former guards for the Berlin Wall who could be hired as consultants?

      4. Considering that my father’s side of my family came from another country seeking liberty and economic opportunity, it doesn’t sound good to me.

        Considering, from the native American’s point of view, the other side of my family were also immigrants, that’s problematic, too. (We sure messed with the natives’ cultural cohesion.)

        1. But the Indians had absolutely no right to defend themselves against the European invasion, because freedom to travel and freedom of association, right? If they couldn’t convince the Europeans of the virtues of Neolithic living, then that’s the Indians own stupid fault, right?

          1. And he vanishes, like a fart in the wind.

            1. If you are referring to me, I have more important stuff to do than check this website. Will be back sometime later today.

              1. LMAO

            2. It’s a really odd criticism to level at someone on a comments section that isn’t a live chat or interaction.

          2. But the Indians had absolutely no right to defend themselves against the European invasion,

            An Indian private property owner has the right to defend him/herself against any trespassers, British or otherwise. How is this not clear?

          3. As I wrote above about a different aspect of immigration, “the analogy breaks down”:
            – The native Americans weren’t one coherent group of people that we can discuss that simply. A serious discussion would have to go into individual nations or tribes of natives.
            – They didn’t have the concept of a nation-state, which is a somewhat odd modern invention that we all think is normal because that’s what we grew up with. They had the concept of their tribe or nation’s territory, but not borders as Western people conceive of them.
            – People who come to America seeking freedom, economic opportunity, or whatever the heck they are seeking are not looking to kill all of us and take our land.

            1. People who come to America seeking freedom, economic opportunity, or whatever the heck they are seeking are not looking to kill all of us and take our land.

              That’s a tautology.

    3. The idea that poor people would turn down free stuff because of words is utterly laughable. It completely ignores human nature. But I guess that’s just like any other day in libertopia.

      And if you need proof look at american citizens.

      1. Presumably, destitute and illiterate farm hands crossing over from failed states in cartel caravans have the intellectual wherewithal to critically engage with the concepts inherent to the preservation of a liberal, constitutional republic.

        And if you can’t sell freedom to that guy, and a hundred million more just like him, well then what the hell does freedom mean to you?

        1. What, do you think only college graduates are capable of understanding liberty?

          This take of yours is extremely patronizing. Dare I say, elitist.

          1. Being educated helps. Being illiterate and stupid does not.

            Why don’t you go hand out Constitutions in Juarez? You’d kill two birds with one stone, including yourself.

            1. So they’re just dumb illiterate morons who are too stupid to know what’s best for them. Gee, this sounds exactly how the left-wing coastal elitists regard Trump voters in flyover country.

              Maybe if you want to be treated with respect and dignity, you should consider treating others with the respect and dignity that you demand for yourself. I think some famous philosophical thinker said something along those lines a while ago.

              1. So, when are you leaving for Juarez?

              2. “So they’re just dumb illiterate morons who are too stupid to know what’s best for them.”

                This kind of hysterical crazy girlfriend Borderline Personality Disorder bullshit is why people constantly laugh at you and think you’re crazy.

                1. I can almost see him flip his bleached blonde hair when he says shit like that.

        2. Just because someone is an illiterate farmhand doesn’t mean they are not smart or don’t understand the benefits of liberty. Have you ever gotten to know any immigrant from Mexico or Latin America personally?

          1. So, when are YOU leaving for Juarez?

          2. Just because someone is an illiterate farmhand doesn’t mean they are not smart or don’t understand the benefits of liberty.

            ^ This.

            Some of the most honestly and consistently libertarian, anti-communist people I have known were illiterate Mexican laborers. I my experience they don’t come here because they love the way things work back home.

            1. I’d be willing to wager that the number of illiterate Mexican laborers you’ve meaningfully interacted on matters of deep, philosophical libertarian principles with is exactly equal to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

              Angels don’t exist and, if they did, they wouldn’t be dancing on pins. So, I’m going to call bullshit on this one.

              1. I’d be willing to wager that the number of illiterate Mexican laborers you’ve meaningfully interacted on matters of deep, philosophical libertarian principles with is exactly equal to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

                You would be wrong. I’ve worked in construction in California for 15 years, many of those years as a field superintendent. I’ve interacted with more illiterate Mexican laborers than I can count. Not all were equally articulate on political and economic subjects, or even equally interested, and they certainly weren’t quoting Rothbard, but if you want to hear a rant about stupid regulations and see some righteous anger at government interference in economic activity, go talk to a Mexican.

                My views on this subject, in fact, are largely conditioned by own experience with Latin immigrants, many of them less than fully legally here. I’ve also been presented with news stories of other illegal immigrants I’ve been told exist who only come here for welfare. I don’t deny that these people exist, but I have no experience with them.

                1. Well that anecdote certainly proved your point. Of course the decades-long voting patterns and polling data showing that they favor a more “proactive” government certainly back that up.

                  But hey, bitching about government regulation sure disproves that.

                  1. Look! All you had to do was completely ignore my last paragraph and you were able to make sure to disagree with me!

                    1. You’re trying to dispute the idea that illegal immigration has negative political/governmental consequences by pointing to California as an example.

                    2. You’re trying to dispute the idea that illegal immigration has negative political/governmental consequences by pointing to California as an example.

                      No, I’m not, really. People who have been around a long time and know me know that my position on immigration isn’t that firm and has been evolving from my open-borders absolutism of 10 years ago. As I said above, my personal experience with illegal immigrants has been pretty much uniformly positive, but I don’t deal with welfare people, I work with people who come here to work their asses off. I’ll take an illegal Mexican over a unionized native-born white guy any day, and I’ll happily pay him 150% of what I would pay the union guy.

                      Ultimately I think that the vast majority of the troubles with immigration are due to the fucked up system and the fact that we make it way, way too hard to come here and work temporarily.

                      I’ve always been highly critical of the wall idea as a waste unless you’re going to militarize it to the point that it becomes a legitimate threat to liberty all on its own, and that’s the position I’m largely taking here today.

                      Keep in mind that we still want to trade with the outside world, and these arguments over the wall and Mexicans sidestep the fact that a huge percentage of our illegal labor (at least in construction in CA) comes in from East Asia in shipping containers. A lot of those people are essentially slaves because of their immigration status combined with their inability to return to where they came from.

                      In the end, if you really want to stop people, you need to stop goods as well. You need to isolate our economy completely.

                      But if we open the border considerably more to temporary workers, the workers wouldn’t being staying as permanently (I know this from direct personal experience) and we would have more resources to pursue actually bad actors.

                      I am not saying there are no downsides to illegal immigration. I’m saying militarizing the border is not a solution, or is at least a solution that brings with it even worse problems.

                    3. //Ultimately I think that the vast majority of the troubles with immigration are due to the fucked up system and the fact that we make it way, way too hard to come here and work temporarily.//

                      //Something tells me GG doesn’t really understand poverty and desperation. He seems to feel that the threat of wrinkling an Armani suit will lead someone to go die of starvation in the desert.//

                      Which is it? The laws are too onerous and the people that want to come here really just want to work a little bit and then leave? Or are they fleeing poverty and desperation?

                      Newsflash: Once they’re here, they stay.

                    4. The laws are too onerous and the people that want to come here really just want to work a little bit and then leave? Or are they fleeing poverty and desperation?

                      Man the view from the Ivory Tower is blurry, isn’t it?

                      You really think this is some kind of gotcha? You’re unfamiliar with the concept of the man of the house leaving the impoverished area to find work and send money home to the family?

                      Really?

                      Have you ever been outside of Manhattan? Or even outside of the posh apartment you grew up in?

                      Newsflash: Once they’re here, they stay.

                      You’re really showing me that I was wrong to say that the current state of the law incentivizes them to stay. I see the error of my ways, now.

                      Bravo, sir. Bravo.

                    5. “No, I’m not, really. People who have been around a long time and know me know that my position on immigration isn’t that firm and has been evolving from my open-borders absolutism of 10 years ago. As I said above, my personal experience with illegal immigrants has been pretty much uniformly positive, but I don’t deal with welfare people, I work with people who come here to work their asses off.”
                      Yes, and your prejudice leads you to, at least to an extent, dismiss both the fundamental issue of national identity and the concerns others have.

                      “I’ll take an illegal Mexican over a unionized native-born white guy any day, and I’ll happily pay him 150% of what I would pay the union guy.”
                      My old boss was from southern California and he too was hispanophilic. He hired lots of illegals and paid them well. Most were positive, though couldn’t really speak english, but it also cost us several contracts and worse.

                      “Ultimately I think that the vast majority of the troubles with immigration are due to the fucked up system and the fact that we make it way, way too hard to come here and work temporarily.”
                      The problem with our immigration system is that people think it’s their right to come here and our privilege to ask anything of them. Ok, you prefer foreign laborers to domestic. Fine. What are you going to do to ensure that they only stay here temporarily? Are you going to be responsible for any civil or legal violations they commit? And what of the increased price of housing and other goods due to greater demand? What happens to the native you didn’t hire because you want a foreigner, the native that can’t afford rent or food now? Sucks for him I guess, he should’ve been born somewhere else. Fuck your neighbor, love thy foreigner.

                      “I’ve always been highly critical of the wall idea as a waste unless you’re going to militarize it to the point that it becomes a legitimate threat to liberty all on its own, and that’s the position I’m largely taking here today.”
                      A wall doesn’t need to be 100% effective to be worthwhile. Maybe it stops 90%, maybe it stops 10% – is there some level of effectiveness/cost where we can discuss the idea? Walls are among Man’s oldest structures; dismissing their utility is pure Modern Man hubris.

                      “Keep in mind that we still want to trade with the outside world, and these arguments over the wall and Mexicans sidestep the fact that a huge percentage of our illegal labor (at least in construction in CA) comes in from East Asia in shipping containers. A lot of those people are essentially slaves because of their immigration status combined with their inability to return to where they came from.”
                      Ok? So Asian slave labor will still be an issue.

                      “In the end, if you really want to stop people, you need to stop goods as well. You need to isolate our economy completely.”
                      So if you don’t want to get raped, you have to stop seeing men completely? But someone might break in, so just fuck any guy that looks at you I guess. Again, a 10%, 50%, 90% reduction is better than 0.

                      “But if we open the border considerably more to temporary workers, the workers wouldn’t being staying as permanently (I know this from direct personal experience) and we would have more resources to pursue actually bad actors.”
                      Visa overstays are a thing. A big thing. Some of my former coworkers did what you describe. Vonderson went back to Brazil after a year or two (with many, many pairs of blue jeans to re-sell). Lorena went back to Guatemala… after 25 years. Dounia disappeared after stealing a $10,000 NHL championship ring off a job.

                      “I am not saying there are no downsides to illegal immigration. I’m saying militarizing the border is not a solution, or is at least a solution that brings with it even worse problems”
                      The border is militarized. There’s checkpoints and everything. Fortifying open areas of the border isn’t militarizing it – it’s adding a barrier to deter and make crossing more difficult.

                      You might consider that a lot of Americans are tired of having things shoved up their ass while they’re told to shut up and take it by “elites”.
                      Those “elites” promised immigration liberalization in the 60s wouldn’t drastically alter the demographics of the country.
                      Lie.
                      Those “elites” promised illegal immigration would be stopped if we just gave amnesty to those already here in the 80s.
                      Lie.
                      The “elites” voted for border fortifications to stop illegal immigration in the 00s.
                      Lie.

                      One of, if not the, the fundamental purposes of the United States federal government is to defend against invasion. Whether it’s one person or a collective, illegal entry is invasion. The People have the right to their land

                    6. The People have the right to their land

                      And now we’re back to Guzba-style communism.

                    7. Nation state does not equal communism
                      Internationalism does

                    8. Yes, and your prejudice leads you to, at least to an extent, dismiss both the fundamental issue of national identity and the concerns others have.

                      No, this is what I’ve come to be less dismissive toward. But I also don’t prioritize “national identity,” as I think trying to forge “national identity” on the scale of the US is a very dangerous thing, and is causing much of the partisan bickering we have going on.

                      Being perfectly honest, my primary “nationalist” feelings are for California.

                      What are you going to do to ensure that they only stay here temporarily? Are you going to be responsible for any civil or legal violations they commit? And what of the increased price of housing and other goods due to greater demand?

                      Why do these questions not apply to people I have to hire from Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada?

                      See – this is trouble with trying to solve everything at the federal level and mandate uniform practice for the whole nation. We don’t have a labor surplus in California right now. We have a labor shortage where people are literally traveling in from other states and sleeping in their cars so they can save up money and take it back.

                      We’re just not allowed to hire them if they’re coming from Baja.

                      is there some level of effectiveness/cost where we can discuss the idea?

                      We’ve already been down that road. We built a wall. It didn’t do what was promised. Now we’re being asked to do the same thing harder.

                      So if you don’t want to get raped, you have to stop seeing men completely?

                      Strange analogy. No. If you want to stop people from the crossing the border you’re going to need to be able to stop shipping containers from crossing the border.

                      The People have the right to their land

                      Nation state does not equal communism

                      *stares at Nardz pointedly*

                    9. “No, this is what I’ve come to be less dismissive toward. But I also don’t prioritize “national identity,” as I think trying to forge “national identity” on the scale of the US is a very dangerous thing, and is causing much of the partisan bickering we have going on.”
                      I didn’t say anything about forging national identity, but it should be recognized. Simple ideas like personal agency and responsibility was fundamentally it. The dissolution of such ideas seems to coincide with mass immigration. Partisan bickering arises from the progressive desire to impose their identity on others. One of the ways they do that is through demands for immigration.

                      “Being perfectly honest, my primary “nationalist” feelings are for California”
                      Trying to make the rest of the country live like California is going to get a lot of people killed. California can’t have their own immigration policy because it won’t be self-contained. So, like CAFE standards, you’d be setting policy to fuck over the rest of the country.

                      “Why do these questions not apply to people I have to hire from Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada?
                      See – this is trouble with trying to solve everything at the federal level and mandate uniform practice for the whole nation. We don’t have a labor surplus in California right now. We have a labor shortage where people are literally traveling in from other states and sleeping in their cars so they can save up money and take it back.
                      We’re just not allowed to hire them if they’re coming from Baja.”
                      Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada are part of the United States. Baja is not.

                      “We’ve already been down that road. We built a wall. It didn’t do what was promised. Now we’re being asked to do the same thing harder.”
                      The fortifications in San Diego reduced illegal entry there by something like 90%. The promises made by Congress were partially fulfilled, but left unfinished.

                      “Strange analogy. No. If you want to stop people from the crossing the border you’re going to need to be able to stop shipping containers from crossing the border.”
                      Is it? Both our examples are just taking things to absurd lengths of effectiveness. Will some illegal aliens be smuggled through containers? Yes. Will it be less than caravans traveling as a body on foot? Yes.

                      “The People have the right to their land
                      Nation state does not equal communism”
                      “*stares at Nardz pointedly*”
                      Yes, that’s what a nation state is – territory in which inhabitants are citizens who delegate authority over that territory to a government, authority which includes regulation of access by non-inhabitants/-citizens.
                      If you want more immigrants for the needs of California, you have to convince representatives of the people in Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio, etc to be ok with that.
                      Unlike produce and plants, which California very much restricts entry from other states of, people are unconstrained moving across state borders.

                  2. This is what is supposed to keep me up at night worrying about invading hordes of Hispanic people? That the immigrant (not even illegal immigrant) subpopulation od 1500 Hispanic people surveyed skewed a bit more toward conservatism and having more government services. Especially when the survey shows they pretty much assimilate to the same views as the general population by the third generation.

                    1. And the US will only have a population of 500 million by then

                    2. Sorry, what is the relevance of the population growth?

                    3. “What is the relevance of population growth [in a discussion of immigration]”
                      -Special Mikey Laursen

                    4. By the third generation, the policies of the first two, which were going to be in the direction of government giving ” a helping hand”, which is what they need, despite possible ideological dislike of such, is so ingrained that reversal isn’t possible.
                      Not to mention that the experience is that the second generation becomes far more leftist. Look at the attitude of the “dreamers”.

                    5. OK, I’ll try to guess what you’re getting at. Is it that all these Hispanic people who gave the wrong answer on a survey to a question about whether they want more government services are Papists who breed like rabbits? Unlike good Protestant Americans who can proudly wear a rubber on our Johnson!

                    6. And if our culture is shifting toward wanting bigger government, more progressivism, and socialism, that is to be blamed on Hispanic immigrants?

                2. Some of the most “progressive” Americans I know, who demand much larger and more intrusive government, also loudly bitch about big government interference in their lives. They hate things like abortion restrictions, housing codes, laws restricting alternative medicine, drug laws, etc. People complaining about how overbearing government has impacted them personally is not indicative of a principled objection to big government.

                  1. And weirdly, a lot of the most “libertarian” Americans I know are totally fine with armed agents of the state killing people on the spot for not having the proper papers.

                    People aren’t always self-consistent.

                    1. Did you not support your right to shoot trespassers on your property?

                    2. Did you not support your right to shoot trespassers on your property?

                      My property? Yes. Someone else’s property? No.

                      Most of the land along the border is privately held. All of it should be.

                    3. Ok, so keep the state off private land – but hold those land owners responsible for allowing illegal immigrants entry beyond their private land. Those landowners can allow anyone they want onto their own property, but are responsible for keeping them from trespassing onto others’ property.

                    4. Wait, so those illegal immigrants aren’t OMG INVADERS if they only go on private land?

                      You can’t seriously be launching screeds on the importance of “culture, language, borders” and then throw it all away if you are willing to tolerate those ILLEGAL INVADERS to BREACH OUR BORDERS and DEFILE OUR SOVEREIGNTY as long as it happens on private property, are you?

                      So these ILLEGAL INVADERS *wouldn’t* be destroying American sovereignty if they were on the American side of the border but on private land?

                      You need to get your story straight. You can’t seriously claim to be the defender of American sovereignty if you are willing to tolerate a transgression of this magnitude.

                    5. Ok little hihn, see if you can figure this out:
                      You have property on the border
                      You can have aliens on your property
                      If you allow aliens off your property, you are responsible for the consequences

                    6. “…a lot of the most “libertarian” Americans I know are totally fine with armed agents of the state killing people on the spot for not having the proper papers.”
                      I don’t want to be around a lot of the most “libertarian” Americans you know, because that is a terrible way to deal with anyone but those with whom you are in a shooting war.
                      Most people want those, who don’t have the proper papers, to be sent back to where they were, before they violated our laws – not even that they be punished for those violations.
                      Unless you think that living outside the US, when that is/was your home, is some kind of punishment.

                    7. Most of the land along the border is privately held. All of it should be.

                      No, it really shouldn’t be. That was a mistake. It would make more sense for the government to own a buffer strip on the border, or at least an easement, so they could conduct border security operations with minimal trespassing on private property.

                3. Compare this:

                  //I’ve interacted with more illiterate Mexican laborers than I can count. Not all were equally articulate on political and economic subjects, or even equally interested, and they certainly weren’t quoting Rothbard, but if you want to hear a rant about stupid regulations and see some righteous anger at government interference in economic activity, go talk to a Mexican.//

                  WITH

                  //Some of the most honestly and consistently libertarian, anti-communist people I have known were illiterate Mexican laborers.//

                  Like I said before, grumbling about parking tickets does a libertarian make.

                  I think my call on your bullshit was spot on.

                  1. I think my call on your bullshit was spot on.

                    Yeah, it wasn’t, but tell yourself what you need to.

                    1. Statement 1: “Some of the most honestly and consistently libertarian, anti-communist people I have known were illiterate Mexican laborers.”

                      Statement 2: “[I]f you want to hear a rant about stupid regulations and see some righteous anger at government interference in economic activity, go talk to a Mexican.”

                      And my grandfather complains about parking tickets and the line at the DMV. Total libertarian.

                      Fucking retard.

                    2. And my grandfather complains about parking tickets and the line at the DMV. Total libertarian.

                      What does that have to do with what I said? Why are you a libertarian purist all of a sudden when literally everywhere else on this page you’re pissing and moaning about libertarian purists?

                      Fucking retard.

                      Yess! Feel the hate flowing through you! It will transform your insults into indisputable arguments!

                    3. //What does that have to do with what I said? Why are you a libertarian purist all of a sudden when literally everywhere else on this page you’re pissing and moaning about libertarian purists?//

                      Because you tried to portray illegal Mexican construction workers as some of the most dedicated libertarians you ever encountered in your life only to admit that most don’t care about politics except when it comes to grumbling about minor construction regulations.

                      It’s a ridiculous assertion and you’re trying backpedal your way out of it.

                      Lastly, I’m not a libertarian, because I’m not a child.

                    4. Because you tried to portray illegal Mexican construction workers as some of the most dedicated libertarians you ever encountered in your life

                      Yeah – not what I said, but if you need to rephrase to maintain your self-image, you do you.

                      only to admit that most don’t care about politics except when it comes to grumbling about minor construction regulations.

                      Yeah – again, not what I said.

                      Like I’ve told you before, if you have to keep re-phrasing arguments in order to rebut them, your position may not be as solid as you think it is.

                      Lastly, I’m not a libertarian, because I’m not a child.

                      lol. Declaring yourself not a libertarian does not make you a grown-up, child.

                    5. The larger point: people grumbling about their personal interactions with the government, or government in general, does not at all indicate that they won’t demand or vote for more government.
                      I try to make Leftists face the incongruity between their opinion of government’s competence in reality and their preferred policies/votes – which I still think worthwhile – but it usually doesn’t change their behavior. At least not in the short term. Takes years of reinforcement

                    6. The larger point: people grumbling about their personal interactions with the government, or government in general, does not at all indicate that they won’t demand or vote for more government.

                      It’s true. I just personally have found that those who have lived under actual socialism are those who are most repelled by it.

                    7. You’re right about that, S=O
                      But how do you explain demographic voting patterns then?

                      And there is a vast difference between political refugees and economic “refugees”
                      Those fleeing oppressive political systems with shit economies are more likely to blame the oppressive political system than those fleeing oppressive economies are to blame the shit political system.

                    8. Can you give an example of a country with an oppressive or poor economy that doesn’t also have an oppressive government?

                    9. Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, etc

                      Not all shitholes have extraordinarily oppressive governments, special mikey.

                      Regardless, you completely miss the point.

                    10. Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia are examples of places without extraordinarily oppressive governments?

                      Papa Doc, Muslim death squads, state discrimination against Jews and Roma, none of those things count?

                    11. Everywhere has had extremely oppressive government historically.
                      Name the oppressions they commit today.

        3. Guzba, is that an Afghan surname? I hear Afghanistan is a bit of a backward country full of destitute illiterate non-Christians who don’t understand democracy and liberty. I hear it’s built into Afghan’s defective genes that they are like that.

          1. You are right about everything except the gene part.

            1. Somehow you have overcome your heritage and are a model American citizen.

          2. Border security works or the Lefties wouldn’t be bitching about it this much.

            1. No, no.

              They’re “libertarians.” Everyone in the world has an unfettered right to enter the United States and if we can’t convince them, once here, to be upstanding people who respect the constitution and revere liberty, then *we* are the problem, not them.

              1. The left hasn’t gone all-in on open borders because they think the invaders are anti-socialists, at heart.
                That part is what the Chamber of Commerce types try to fool themselves with, to justify the cheap labor they desire.

    4. We’re fucked either way, so just pursue accelerationist policies that make it even harder to preserve liberty? Thanks for giving legitimacy to white suicide conspiracy theories.

      There’s nothing stopping individual immigrants from changing, but there’s only one party in power that has any semblance of liberty to it. Nationally, only one group of people still votes for that party in a majority; white men. I’m hoping that will change as the GOP continues to purge RINOs who can’t connect to non-whites/anyone under 40 in any capacity.

      1. Oooooooo! Evil white men!

        Want to see how evil brown men vote?

    5. Some people will have to be physically removed.

    6. Why do you keep repeating arguments that we’ve repeatedly stomped into the dirt? “Please, sir, may I have another?”

    7. No, we should be far more concerned with abolishing the welfare state before opening the borders. The fact that your response to that is always, “we’ll get around to it” and your bleeding heart demands for solutions to anyone anywhere being hungry clearly demonstrate that you do not care about the welfare state. Stop gaslighting as if you do.

      1. Let’s think about this in utilitarian terms for just a moment.

        What are the harms to your liberty by the security state created by border restrictionism?

        What are the harms to your liberty by the welfare state?

        And why does one outweigh the other?

        1. Ha, yes, utilitarianism. Lets use that.

          Whatever is the greatest good for the majority of white Americans.

          I see no possible downsides, although you just ripped off your own nuts in public.

          1. Whatever is the greatest good for the majority of white Americans.

            Well that’s certainly one way to look at it. Why should we adopt that standard?

            1. We shouldn’t, but that’s what happens when you try and use utilitarianism to compare things. It was, after all, your suggestion to use that measure.

              After all, slavery was a good thing under that measure since it provided for the majority at the cost of a minority. That’s how it works, and it’s such a well known downside of utilitarianism vis-à-vis liberty that it’s astounding anyone with half a brain would suggest using it to discuss any issue in terms of freedom or rights.

              1. Fine, while I think you interpreted my comment uncharitably, perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant was something like a cost-benefit analysis.

                Perhaps instead of fixating on WELFARE STATE, we should be examining the costs to liberty of the security state created by immigration, compared to the costs to liberty of the welfare state, particularly the portion consumed by immigrants.

                Both the welfare state and the security state represent restrictions on our liberty, so let’s try to compare which is the bigger restriction, so that we can make an educated decision on which one is the bigger problem. Sound good?

    8. Good idea. Problem as I see is the Republicans don’t really want to reach out to immigrant. They did once upon a time but some how forgot that and decided to focus on old white men.

  13. The only wall that will work is one Trump can build this morning, a Financial Wall. All he needs to do is sign an executive order ordering the DOJ to prosecute employers of illegal immigrants under the RICO Act, instead of the weak immigration laws, and fine employers one million dollars and a year in federal prison for each illegal they hire. This free Financial Wall will as drive the 30 million illegals already here back home when they unemployable.

    1. Great idea! I wonder why no one has thought of that before! Now, about implementation . . .

  14. The barrier should be built or not regardless of what Trump said or whether the structure can scaled by mountain climbers.

    1. My attitude exactly. Fuck it….build the damned wall first, then we can debate effectiveness. I’d be ok having a moat with alligators, too.

    2. It is one part of what we should be implementing; comprehensive border control.
      The next part would be enforcing the myriad laws, passed through the legislative process, that have gone by the wayside, that were intended to make living here, without permission to do so, impossible.
      Like enforcement of labor laws.

  15. Trump said mountain climbers couldn’t scale his wall.

    Proof that the man is an idiot. The solution is invariably to make the wall higher, but the height of the wall is not he problem. It’s the wall itself. It’s a purely symbolic monument to his ego. It’s doesn’t solve the stated problem, and no one with two working cells truly believes it does. It’s a symbol, that’s all it is.

    And if it’s just a symbol, just put up a standard chain link fence and be done with it.

    1. It’s a purely symbolic monument to his ego.

      The wall stood before he ran for office so, mostly not a monument to his ego and as far as monuments to egos go, it’s no Vietnam, Cuban Missile Crisis, Great or even Berlin Wall.

      And if it’s just a symbol, just put up a standard chain link fence and be done with it.

      If you didn’t care how enduring the symbol was or needed it to change, you should really just hang a stoplight. But, of course, as others have pointed out and the open borders retards continue to ignore and deflect from, this isn’t strictly about bodies moving across the border.

    2. Proof that the man is an idiot, or proof that the man believes his supporters are idiots? You can see here all the commenters that claim walls do work in that they provide a deterrent to illegal immigrants, which is true enough, but it’s not what Trump claimed. Trump claimed he was going to build a big, beautiful, 30-foot high wall from sea to shining sea and Mexico was going to pay for it. And of course you’re a retard if you think Trump actually meant what he said, he obviously meant he would repair or replace and possibly add a few hundred miles of fence, beef up ICE and the Border Patrol, crack down on illegal immigration – you know, a metaphorical wall, not a literal wall.

      I’m still not sure what a metaphorical great trade deal or a metaphorical bringing our troops back home or a metaphorical Obamacare repeal or a metaphorical paying down the national debt looks like – I don’t speak Trumpanese and it hasn’t been explained to me yet, but I’m quite certain they sure as hell don’t look like what literal ones would look like.

      1. I’m still not sure what a metaphorical great trade deal or a metaphorical bringing our troops back home or a metaphorical Obamacare repeal or a metaphorical paying down the national debt looks like – I don’t speak Trumpanese and it hasn’t been explained to me yet, but I’m quite certain they sure as hell don’t look like what literal ones would look like.

        Was there a candidate for promising all those things truly for realsies? Did you vote for her?

      2. I have not seen a mountain climber climb the border wall yet.

        As usual, Trump is correct.

        1. No he has not. Funny LC. Yep he has never seen it.

          That wall looks pretty easy.

          It has “anti climb panels”

      3. You post is proof that you are the idiot.
        Trump would have done every one of those things if he was able to, including getting enough of a financial benefit from Mexico to pay for the wall.
        They were aspirations, that didn’t get the support of even his “own” party – partially why it lost its control of the House.
        None of them were metaphors. That’s what the charlatans that pose as national leaders promise, while intending to do none of it.

    3. Only as stupid as most politicians. Has any of them every spent money that was not motivated by ego and re-election goals?

    4. “The Perfect Solution Fallacy (also known as the ‘Nirvana Fallacy‘) is a false dichotomy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution to a problem exists; and that a proposed solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. In other words, that a course of action should be rejected because it is not perfect, even though it is the best option available”.

      https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/perfect-solution-fallacy/

  16. the video is viral = the wall is wrong?

    1. Weak sauce indeed.

      Reason operates from the premise, it seems like to me anyway, walls don’t work and that the problem isn’t really a big deal.

      Hence, videos like this just ‘duh’ prove their point.

  17. Was the Wall plugged in that day?

  18. The border walls don’t work, but they’re a sick, inhumane violation of universal rights.

    Sorry you can’t have both. It would be like if the Nazis accidentally sent the Jew-carrying trains to Euro Disneyland instead of camps.

    1. They seem to work pretty well between East and West Berlin. I suppose it a matter of will to enforce….

      1. I suppose it a matter of will to enforce

        ^ This. The wall doesn’t matter until you’re willing to put someone on top of it to shoot anyone who tries to climb it.

        1. Yes, the only police enforcement of any crime involves shooting. Literally thousands are killed very day at routine traffic stops which are really no different than Checkpoint Charlie.

          1. Think it through, Skippy. I know I’m your White Whale and you’re driven to distraction by your need to contradict me at every turn, but just think it through for, like, five seconds. Please.

            1. You’re the one who said the only law enforcement response to someone climbing the wall was to shoot them.
              And you tell someone else to think it through.

    2. Your analogy is more like building the border wall in Nebraska. A more accurate analogy is that the Nazi train carrying Jews to prison camp breaks down on the tracks.

      1. No, I still didn’t get it right. The analogy would be that the Nazi’s didn’t lock the doors on the train cars.

        1. At which point, we’re talking about a Hogan’s Heroes episode.

          1. Is that the one where Hogan fools Klink, blows up a train and Sgt Schultz is an unwitting participant?

            1. Ho-gan!

  19. The biggest problem with this argument is it proves too much. The same logic applied to rape and murder would conclude from FBI crime statistics that the laws, law enforcement and prison sentences for these are not effective and so should not be done.

    Some cost/benefit analysis might make a case that a wall is less effective than other options but that is not the all-or-nothing approach the activists choose to take.

  20. I love when ridiculous adherence to ideology makes people argue absurd points. I mean, go ahead and argue that unlimited immigration is a good thing and provide examples and explanations for it. But don’t make the absurd argument that walls don’t work or that enforcement is ineffective simply because it doesn’t stop 100% of people. Taking positions like that actually cut against your open borders stance as it appears like you’re grasping to justify your position.

  21. Where’s the Old Beaner? Threads like this usually make him turgid. I’ve long suspected the Beaner was Gillespie anyway, and inasmuch as he’s busy huckstering for cash I suppose Beaner’s absence should be expected.

    1. reason staff are busy donating money under sock names to keep their jobs.

      Its hilarious that reason staff thought donating a few buck Day 1 & 2 would spur a rush of donations.

  22. It’s actually tough to measure the wall’s impact.

    Push it over, and any decent seismograph will measure the impact.

  23. It worked in Israel, so why can’t it work in the U.S.?

    Just curious.

    1. You call that working? You want to live in that situation?

      1. Relative to their situation before the wall
        Yes?

        1. So, the Israelis built their wall to solve a different problem.

          1. If you ignore fundamentals for superficial pleading, sure

            1. I would think that a wall built to keep people out for economic/cultural reasons vs. military reasons is a fundamental consideration.

              1. I’m sure you do, special mikey

      2. I guess it’s a feature to turn people that construct our houses, mow our lawns, clean our toilets, cook our food, and watch our children into people that shoot at us and try to blow us up.

        1. This might be the most racist thing I’ve ever read on Reason
          Congrats

          1. Oh, please. That was a desperation play.

            1. You stereotype the US as dependent on illegal immigrant labor for servile maintenance, positing that Americans are incapable of doing these things themselves and that those illegal immigrants are so emotionally feeble that they will respond to immigration limits with bloodthirsty violence.
              In short, “our” servants have no agency and are no different than animals.
              Progressives are fucking disgusting

              1. Oh, please. I was making an accurate descriptive statement about how things are. I was not making a normative or prescriptive statement.

                1. When you do it, it’s ok
                  When david Duke does it, he’s the racist
                  Right

                  1. I didn’t say anything that Anthony Bordain didn’t say in his brilliant chapter in the value of Latino immigrants in “Kitchen Confidential”.

                    I said what I said out of deep respect for illegal immigrants I’ve known personally, how hard-working and solid people they are, and appreciation of how much they make the American world function and how they deserve better.

                    I grew up in a family doing just the type of blue collar, dirty work I described. And I deeply respect anyone who does that type of work.

                    1. How “solid” can someone be, when their first action is to thumb their nose at the laws of then nation they have just entered?
                      And it’s not just a simple, local law, like speeding but one passed through the national legislature, elected by the vast majority of American voters.

                    2. They really showed that Jean Valjean for stealing that bread! How dare he break the law!

                  2. “They have to break the law because the poor little things don’t know any better. But even though they have no personal agency, thus are not responsible for their actions, I respect the servant caste!”
                    -special mikey

                    1. Leaving your impoverished village, going to El Norte, earning money and sending it back home is personal agency.

    2. Israel is surrounded by nations that don’t want Israel to exist and are willing to fire rockets over their wall, killing civilians, constantly. Not to mention actual invasion by actual hostile military forces that are just a few miles away at all times.

      Totally comparable to the situation we have in the United States on our southern border, and the distance such a wall would need to run is exactly the same with the exact same costs going forward forever.

      You just don’t pay a guard once, and it turns out walls have maintenance costs. IF you’re for such a wall, you just surrendered your fiscal conservative credentials. I suppose if you truly believe that Mexico is an existential threat to the U.S. you might be intellectually consistent, although I’d be curious how one believes such a thing.

      Thought it was worth pointing out, since the Israel example has been laughable for years for more than just the reasons I list.

      1. Fiscal conservatives’ credentials are just fine with spending money to defend the country and enforcing Constitutionally enumerated powers of the Congress, like immigration and naturalization.

  24. The Chinese built a wall centuries ago and they don’t have a problem with illegal immigrants from Central and South America.

    Seems to me, if it works for the Chinese it will work for us.

    1. The invaders went around that wall.

      China is a crappy place to live in, so that’s an effective deterrence. North Koreans who escape there pick their poisons.

      1. Hmm, but the Great Wall of China’s does bring in tourists, so maybe if we make a really scenic border wall…

        It would be kind of inconvenient, though, for a Great Wall of America to be located way out in the middle of the Sonoran desert. Maybe one in Orlando, Florida and another near Las Vegas.

      2. No, they didn’t go around the wall.

        They bribed guards or went to unmaintained areas of it

        1. Constantinople held out for 1,000 years behind their walls

          1. So you want Fortress America then.

            1. How else can we fight off the teeming Hispanic hordes who statistically gave the wrong answer to a survey question about whether they want more government services.

              1. Addresses?
                Put up or shut up

                1. What does that mean?

          2. Constantinople held out for 1,000 years behind their walls

            Metaphorically, yes, but when push came to shove, their walls held out for about a month.

            1. Yea, that one was f’d up.

              And Alexios 3 was a bitch

  25. So do you count a border wall as “ineffective” if one person can get over it?

    1. Guess it kinda depends on who that person is.

  26. Of course the solution is as simple as outlawing rope. I don’t know why the President has not suggested it? Maybe they could have a segment on Fox so he would see it and then propose it.

  27. Yes, the wall by itself is ineffective. Thats why its backed by patrols and sensors.

    And it should have gun towers too.

    1. Oh, totally. Let’s kill people for wanting economic opportunity and a better life!

      1. You must be of French descent

        1. Hell, no, I am not one of those damned, unbathed Frogs! They eat snails and they don’t even have a real language! We need to keep them out of the good ol’ USA or they’ll stink up the pure essence of our cultural cohesion.

          1. So you didn’t inherit cowardice, but developed it all on your own

            1. I’m cowardly for not wanting to shoot poor people hopping the border to look for work?

              1. You’re a coward because you’re pathologically dishonest and don’t have the balls to admit your true beliefs

                1. Amen.

  28. Private ownership is perfectly analogous to immigration enforcement in that in both cases sovereign boundaries are recognized and we have a say in who comes and goes. The constitution allows for that.

    The fact that my domain over my property isn’t absolute isn’t an argument against either. I can’t shoot a 5 year old for waltzing onto my front yard. The border patrol can’t herd migrants to actual concentration camps. But we can ultimately ask them to leave or decide who gets to stay in.

    No one’s liberty was taken away when a government says they must meet certain requirement to enter their domain. The constitution does not grant default entry to foreigners, and while that document isn’t necessarily the final arbiter, the concept of “open borders” is absurd enough that no civilized nation should adopt it. Otherwise, we’d just let random foreigners drive our senators and let them work for the NSA. Or my rights are violated when I have to provide documentation for a job.

    Can the government admit only white immigrants? No, because that’s against the law. That only shows nations and private property have to function within rules and limitations. That’s not an argument for open borders and anarchy.

    1. No one’s liberty was taken away when a government says they must meet certain requirement to enter their domain.

      What about freedom of association?

      1. What does the CRA have to do with this article?

  29. Any obstacle not covered by observation and fire is ineffective. That includes minefields and razor wire. A little 155mm artillery air burst would severely discourage climbing activities. A little DPICM wouldn’t hurt either. Border Patrol quick reaction teams in Blackhawk helicopters, backed up by Apache gunships, that could reach the area in 10-15 minutes to apprehend the invaders would be nice as well. The wall is better than doing nothing.

    1. Tsk tsk. So many violent fantasies about immigration.

    2. Invaders? These people are your fellow human beings who just want a better life. We who were born here are very lucky we just happened to be born on the rich side of the border.

      1. “We who were born here are very lucky we just happened to be born on the rich side of the border.”

        Yea, fuck your ancestors.
        You’re just “lucky” to have “privilege”
        History just started a few years ago, and nothing before led to it.
        Typical progressive

        1. My ancestors? Like my grandfather who was allowed to immigrate here from Denmark, seeking a better life?

          It is anti-immigration advocates who show people like him disrespect.

          1. Whatever you gotta tell yourself.
            I think it’s a damn shame your grandfather’s work in establishing a life for himself and his posterity in the US is dismissed as “luck” by his degenerate grandson, though.

            1. I was obviously talking about my luck as being born in a certain time and place as opposed to some other possible time and place, through no agency of my own.

              This is an observation that is quite commonly made and not at all original to me. We have all heard such observations before and understand their plain meaning, unless we are deliberately acting obtuse to try to “zing” somebody.

              1. Yes, progressives often attribute current circumstances to accidents of luck.

      2. These people are your fellow human beings who just want a better life.

        The same is true of burglars.

        1. Hmm, the only burglars I have personally known were a house full of lazy, drugged-out hippies who couldn’t have been more opposite in personality than the hard-working, sober, family-oriented Hispanic immigrants I know.

          1. But they just want a better life for themselves and they’re your fellow human beings

            1. No, they weren’ttrying to find a better life for themselves. They were wasting their lives and making terrible decisions with no thought for the future.

              1. So are you.
                So are illegal immigrants.
                I hope your meth head friends kill you.
                Would be good for all

  30. >Yet the vast majority of cocaine and heroin that arrives in the U.S. from Central and South America comes through legal ports of entry.

    No that’s just where most of it is caught there is no way of knowing how much is coming in surreptitiously. It’s like the argument
    more people overstay their Visa’s than jump the border.
    That may be true but we have those people’s names and they were allowed into the country to begin with ie properly vetted, not complete unknowns.

  31. Typical left-leaning logic to push a biased point of view. The absolute standard of effectiveness being used to support this line of reasoning is ridiculous. No one ever seriously said the wall would be unscalable. The point of the wall is a deterrent that slows the ability of illegal crossers so apprehension efforts become more effective. Build the wall!!!

  32. The gist of this story is Trump is an inveterate fibber. Is that that supposed to be news???

    On another front, it sure looks like Trump was pretty stupid to hire Rudy to be his lawyer and emissary to investigate Biden and his son, because Trump had to know what Rudy stooped to in his prosecution of Michael Milken (viz., got him to cop a plea by threatening to prosecute Milken’s brother, proving all is fair in government prosecutions.

    In a classic case of “what comes around goes around,” watch for Trump to throw Rudy under the impeachment bus. Trump and Rudy sure deserve each other.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.