Coronavirus

Freedom for Me, Rule of Law for Thee

The right's response to the coronavirus lockdowns brings out a longstanding American paradox.

|

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" asked the British essayist Samuel Johnson on the eve of the American Revolution. Although regarded as one of the finest writers of the 18th century, Johnson wasn't a popular figure in America at that time. But he did point to a paradox about American politics, where high-minded defenses of freedom have long coexisted with the extreme curtailments of liberty.

McGill University's Jacob Levy maintains that this paradox didn't end with slavery: It has repeated itself with disturbing regularity in post–Civil War America.

And it's happening again in the pandemic, as the same right-wing movement that cheers President Donald Trump's draconian immigration crackdowns in the name of the rule of law is now in defiance mode against the lockdowns.

A lot of COVID-19 policies have gone overboard. In Michigan, where I live, the original 41-day lockdown has grown into two months and counting. The state's Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, has eased some of her restrictions, but she has also added stringent (and nonsensical) new ones, including classifying more businesses as non-essential and barring them from opening. Worse, given that there is no vaccine in sight, the risk of secondary outbreaks is spawning containment schemes that will make an all-encompassing surveillance state a massive danger to civil and economic liberties, requiring constant vigilance..

But Johnson's line comes to mind when some of the critics of those liberty-busting restrictions turn around and endorse crackdowns on workers whose only crime is that the government refuses to give them papers to do jobs that Americans won't. President Trump, capitalizing on decades of anti-immigration activism, has built a political movement around not just chasing those people out of the country but targeting their employers and the cities that dare stand up to his policies.

Trump's first presidential pardon went to the notorious former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose many human rights abuses include forcing an undocumented woman to deliver a baby while shackled. (Arpaio, who the pro-Trump radio host Rush Limbaugh once called a "national hero," was himself convicted for contempt of court because he ignored orders to stop racially profiling Latinos in his zeal to go after undocumented immigrants.) Since then, this administration's border policies have brought even worse atrocities, like snatching 5,500 children, including infants, from migrant parents and putting them in separate detention facilities without an effective tracking system to reunite them.

Now Trump is discovering individual liberties and tweeting that Whitmer and other blue-state governors should "LIBERATE" their economies. When one Michigan barber defied the state's rules and reopened his salon with the help of gun-toting militia members standing guard against the cops, there was sympathy not condemnation from the crowd that defends all sorts of border-control ugliness in the name of the "rule of law."

Six sheriffs in Michigan have declared they won't enforce their state's lockdown because they "question" some of the restrictions, basically turning themselves into sanctuary cities on this issue. Whitmer hasn't pushed a confrontation with these sheriffs, perhaps because she does not want to risk the bad optics. By contrast, Trump has deployed an iron fist against cities that refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts. Just a few weeks ago, he threatened to withhold coronavirus aid from sanctuary cities that don't cooperate with his immigration agenda.

Such hardball tactics have become popular with red-state governors too. Texas and Ohio have proposed bills to fine and arrest duly elected local leaders who so much as criticize anti-sanctuary policies, basically outlawing dissent. Arizona has considered laws to freeze the assets of pro-immigration protesters. In the name of enforcing the rule of law, the police state is spreading to more facets of American life, corroding a whole swath of American liberties.

Yet folks like Fox News' Laura Ingraham, who has accused immigrants of "destroying the America we love" and has been among the chief cheerleaders of Trump's enforcement regime, is now without any hint of irony warning that the coronavirus crisis is a liberal ploy to achieve "social control over large populations…through fear and intimidation and suppression of free thought."

Her colleague Stuart Varney, who exulted in February that Trump had "unleashed the Justice Department to go after the sanctuary movement," is now giddy that anti-lockdown "defiance" is growing.

People like Ingraham and Varney don't just turn a blind eye to the loss of liberties caused by a harsh immigration enforcement regime. They invoke an alternative set of political principles that prioritize law enforcement over freedom to justify the immigration crackdown. They have developed an elaborate vocabulary in which undocumented immigrants—people trying to feed their families, much like jobless Americans sneaking around to make a buck during the lockdown—are branded as "criminals" and "invaders." Businesses that hire immigrants aren't seen as enterprises trying peacefully to keep themselves alive, like those reopening despite the lockdowns; they're derided as "crooked, faithless employers" who deserve the harshest penalties for violating the "rule of law."

President Trump got elected the first time around by mounting a campaign of "fear and intimidation"—to use Ingraham's words—against immigrants. Now, after three years of disregarding civil liberties and human rights, he is positioning himself as the champion of liberty to get re-elected. Samuel Johnson's paradox lives on.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Minnesota Police Arrest CNN Reporters for the Act of Doing Journalism During George Floyd Protests

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. //By contrast, Trump has deployed an iron fist against cities that refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts. Just a few weeks ago, he threatened to withhold coronavirus aid from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with his immigration agenda.//

    This is what Shikha considers to be an “iron fist”? The federal government **threatening** to withhold federal money from local municipalities …. is an “iron fist”?

    This is why nobody takes this twit seriously.

    1. You misspelled ‘twat’.

      1. Why can’t she be a twit and a twat?

        1. Let’s not get all twit for twat.

          1. Why is Screech running around shitting up threads with his lame AmSoc?

            1. I don’t know?

            2. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month .cxc . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

              Heres what I do……………… See More here

    2. Shreika is back. Can’t Gretchen Whitmer ban her or something, or call her non-essential?

      1. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Last month my pay check of nearly 30 k$.This online work is like draw straight-arrow and earn money. Do not go to office.OCx I do not claim to be others,I just work. You will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this WEBSITE.

        I hope,you can find something………..► ScolloconGress

    3. This really is quite egregious. Just flip over to Stossel for a prime counterexample – he uses the case of the Obama DOJ going after the University of California system because they put a huge number of college courses online for free. They were real college class lectures, free to all.

      The DOJ went after them and actually threatened to remove their funding if they left the courses online as they were. The issue? They said it violated the ADA. Since the lectures were in the form of videos, they had to be close captioned to accommodate the hearing impaired.

      That’s both frivolous and iron-fisted. And the DOJ didn’t back down. The University system did. They took down the videos.

      1. “Since the lectures were in the form of videos, they had to be close captioned to accommodate the hearing impaired.

        That’s both frivolous and iron-fisted.”

        Federal GSA IT accessibility guidance requires websites to be available to persons w/ disabilities: Section 508; drawn from the Americans w/ Disabilities Act (1990). States have incorporated their own disabilities acts into statute (law). If the USDoJ got involved, it’s because the CA state atty. gen.’s office did not. Neither frivolous nor iron fisted.

    4. She even face planted on the title, contrasting freedom with the rule of law. They are opposed. They are inextricably intertwined and cannot exist without one another – Hayek 101. Libertarian publication indeed.

      1. *They are NOT opposed.

        1. Julia S. Robert making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Last month my pay check of nearly 30 k$.This online work is like draw straight-arrow and earn money. Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I just work. You will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this WEBSITE.I hope,you can find something…. Articles About

    5. The federal government shouldn’t be funding local municipalities anyway. The fact it is indicates it is taxing its citizens too much.

  2. “The right’s response to the coronavirus lockdown….”

    He Shithead, what is the libertarian response? Bleating?

    1. In her mind the correct response is as follows.
      Progressives: Supplication to our better, wiser overlords.
      Socialists: Supplication to our better, wiser overlords.
      Libertarians: Supplication to our better, wiser overlords.
      Conservatives: Supplication to our better, wiser overlords and stop being so racist.

      1. Great strawman.

        This is a great take on the hypocrisy of the American right. They believe in rights, but only those granted by their citizenship. So while they cheer sanctuary cities which preserve assembly rights for citizens during the pandemic (as they should), they bemoan sanctuary cities who attempt to preserve those rights for non-citizens as some violation of the rule of law.

        1. I’m not on the right, but okay. Let me be crystal clear, I’m 100% against lockdowns whether the government says you get to be here or not. What I do strongly agree with Dahlia on is what fundamental rights are. She seems to think that providing expensive health care, food, shelter and education are “rights” despite not understanding that the flip side of a right is a responsibility to make sure you are in someway providing such things to everyone else. Freedom of speech works as a right because I have the right to speak and the responsibility to make sure you’re aloud to do the same. Thus we all need to oppose censorship.

          If she believes that it is everyone’s right to scarce goods and services despite their inability to reciprocate in any way, we have a problem. If you can figure out how to create a welfare state that can provide everything to everyone effectively without holding a gun to the heads of people who honestly participate in the system and robbing them blind, I’m all ears. Let in whoever the fuck you want. Until then, the world is still a network of nation states and the states have to live by the natural laws of scarcity and robbing Peter to pay Pedro is an actual moral hazard whether or not you chose to realize it.

        2. ahahaha FUCK OFF SCREECH AHAHHAAHHA

        3. Abolish the welfare state first. Then attempt relevance. Otherwise, you would enslave us taxpayers. Unless that is your goal…slaver?

        4. That, fuckhead, is because the US Constitution was written for “We the People of the United States”, not everyone from every piss-ant, and non piss-ant country in the world.
          America for Americans

  3. Are you fucking kidding me?

    1. She kids thee not.

      Really.

    2. Are you serious? Trump is the greatest threat to liberal democracy since the rise of Adolf Hitler. It is our duty to resist him every step!

      1. OBL… is that you?

      2. Lefties are always so historically illiterate.

  4. Reason Magazine
    Progress Uber Alles

    1. Freedom uber alles. For citizens and non-citizens alike. You know rights are endowed by our creator, not your citizenship… right? What a concept.

      1. Reality is hard, huh leo?
        So shallow.
        Dude doesn’t even think deep enough to realize he preaches universal collectivism

      2. We all see what you’re trying to do: Conflate legal immigrant non-citizens with illegal immigrant non-citizens. Not gonna work here, sorry.

        1. He’s not just trying to conflate them, he’s succeeding. There is not any significant moral difference between the two. One of them disobeyed a stupid law that shouldn’t exist, the other obeyed it. Obeying stupid laws is a kind of silly thing to do, but it’s reasonable considering the consequences if you get caught by the bad guys who pass and enforce the aforementioned stupid law.

          If you pass a stupid law, you don’t have any right to get upset when people disobey it. If you want people to respect the law, there is a baseline level of intelligence the law needs to meet, and immigration laws don’t meet it.

          1. In the age of coronavirus, all pro-open borders arguments are DOA. Adios, suckers!

          2. Just because you think a law is stupid, doesn’t make it so.
            To have a cockamamie belief that a law, simply because you think it’s stupid, should not apply is what is really stupid.
            And you can’t fix stupid.

          3. These fucking anarchists…

      3. so then it IS our duty to ensure that all of humanity enjoys those freedoms, right?

        Long live the empire!

  5. This article is just a way for shitty Shikha to once again whine and cry about not having open borders, and demonize Trump for it.

  6. “The right’s response to the coronavirus lockdowns brings out a longstanding American paradox.”

    RYFKM? Are Whitmer (put my boat in the water), DeBlasio (I get to travel to my gym with my bodyguards / to parks not by my home), Northam (I was afraid people would think my mask was a KKK hood again) Republicans now? Who is flouting which laws and regulations?

    1. DeBlasio’s trips to the gym.
      Christie going to the beach when it was shutdown for everyone else. Which produced a classic photo.

      1. Christie: Missed that. Was this during the COVID-19 house arrest or one of the NJ brouhahas when he was Governor? In either case, Christie at a beach? Ewww. Probably better he went when it was closed.

        1. Were bystanders trying to shove him back in the ocean?

          1. No, but George Costanza pulled a golf ball out of his blow hole.

            1. Talk about a hole in one!

            2. the sea was angry that day my friends

      2. I’m surprised Christie Kreme isn’t too embarrassed to go to the beach in a swimsuit.

        1. That’s why he goes when no one else is allowed.

  7. Shecky is Reason’s clickbait. You must understand this.

    1. Reason is Reason’s clickbait. Shecky is just the least believably (in)coherent.

  8. “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” asked the British essayist Samuel Johnson on the eve of the American Revolution. Although regarded as one of the finest writers of the 18th century, Johnson wasn’t a popular figure in America at that time. But he did point to a paradox about American politics, where high-minded defenses of freedom have long coexisted with the extreme curtailments of liberty.”

    Why the hell are you even writing for a libertarian magazine then, you pretentious demagogue, if you believe earnest defenses of freedom are actually dogwhistles to enslave black people?

    Seriously, fuck you Shikha, and fuck whichever editor thought it would be a good idea to print your disingenuous tripe.

  9. Hey guys,

    Some government dick is threatening to shoot a bunch of citizens protesting against police authority. Is it time to start shooting yet and taking 2nd Amendment remedies

    1. “”Some government dick is threatening to shoot a bunch of citizens protesting against police authority.””

      Yet socialist what to empower the government even more.

      1. No, they want to use the mob to murder and terrorize the public into submission. The using the police to murder and enslave people by the tens of millions comes later.

      2. AmSoc would like the government to pay for his housing. He certainly won’t do it on his own.

    2. Yes fuckhead, the police are doing their jobs and protecting private property and innocent people. Sorry, but leftist mobs are not going to be allowed to burn down the country despite your orgasmic hope that they will.

      The police are doing idiots like you a favor by breaking up riots. If they didn’t do that, some dumb ass like you might get the idea that you can go into good neighborhoods and riot. And that would be signing your death warrant and would leave you wishing you still had the police to deal with rather than an armed citizenry.

      Let me let you in on a little secret; unless and until you manage to repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the public so they can be your victim, people like you are nothing but mouthy garbage to be laughed at. Go back to your hole before you actually do something stupid and get hurt.

      1. So the 2nd Amendment is about shooting unarmed protesters who you wish would go home and stop bitching, John. No wonder you were in the military. Seig Heil, marine.

        1. In worker’s paradise, 2nd amendment is about wandering the country side shooting farmers for the crime of growing crops and doctors for the crime of conspiring to harm fearless leader.

          1. My political heroes are Emma Goldman and George Orwell. They shot and were shot at by Communist stooges. What’s that got to do with police brutality in the US?

            1. In new worker’s paradise, atrocities that happened in previous worker’s paradise can’t happen again. I’ll get back to you when I think of reason.

            2. “My political heroes are 五毛党”

              Fixed for accuracy.

                1. Get a load of mtrueman defending the commie.

                  1. I attack illiteracy in all languages. Even commie languages.

            3. ahahahahaha FUCK OFF SCREECH AHAAAHAAHHA

              1. Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

        2. https://disrn.com/news/black-business-owner-weeps-after-looters-destroy-his-sports-bar-i-dont-know-what-were-gonna-do

          Protesters who do things like this. Have some jerk off material jack ass. I am sure that guy crying over his destroyed business is really going wet your whistle, you miserable, worthless fuck.

        3. It’s not about protesters, it’s about looters and vandals, but you already know that you dishonest turd.

        4. Knowing what a smug ashore you are, I have no doubt that you take great pride in your disingenuous strawman bullshit.

    3. Before I answer, can I just get your GPS coordinates?

      1. Mom’s basement doesn’t get a cell phone signal so he’s not sure.

    4. In worker’s paradise, police guns shoot rainbows. Of course they’re never needed since everyone is so well provided for that there is no need to protest. I’m pretty sure history will back that one up.

      1. Why do so-called libertarians bring up meaningless asides about communist terror when presented with arguments about how the police should stop choking people to death?

        1. In worker’s paradise, there are no libertarians to point out communists terrors. They were all choked to death during the revolution along with anyone who questions the glorious assent of worker’s paradise.

        2. We all agree here that cops are authoritarian bastards who need to be reined in, and we support people who protest the murderous actions of these authoritarians. We also respect private property rights and are against people using the protests as a pretext for looting and destroying the property of innocent third parties. The point of Speechless’ response is that the authoritarian regimes you and your ilk support are the most egregious perpetrators of violence against the people who live under these regimes.

          1. Thanks for putting that so nicely. That is exactly my point. It will always be the the result of their ideology since the entire point is to make all of society a monopoly where all the guns and money are going to be controlled by a tiny group of people who will distribute it selflessly and with out corruption because…………

            Unfortunately, I can’t state this to him directly since I have resolved to never respond to a single one of his posts without making it into a “In worker’s paradise joke.” I’ve added it to a list of my uncompromising principles.

        3. “Why do so-called libertarians bring up meaningless asides about communist terror ”

          Why do you try to call your ideology’s terrorism meaningless?

        4. Asshole, you’re the one who wants an all powerful government running everything, not us. Those of us here that aren’t slaver shitbags like you want far less laws, and far less government control. So the likelihood of events like Mr. Floyd’s horrific death are greatly reduced.

          And slavers like you are the reason that we’re concerned about ‘communist terror’ in the first place.

          Marxism? You’re soaking in it.

    5. In the worker’s paradise, the unionized workers will hold the guns and fight the wreckers and saboteurs who destroy public property.

      1. Wow, what an impressively random whirligig of satire.

    6. Let’s see, we have protests against the local police in a city where the city council is 12 Democrats and 1 Green, the county attorney and sheriff are Democrats, and the state governor and AG are Democrats.

      I bet the usual left-wing idiots are going to try to deflect attention from this all-Democrat fuckup by talking about Trump.

      1. In worker’s paradise, only one party will be allowed. This way all blame and punishments for party’s failures (which don’t exist) can be not distributed equally.

      2. The cop responsible is a Democrat, too. I heard it on RT.

    7. They’re also whining that government dicks are not threatening to shoot a bunch of citizens rioting and robbing others in the midst of a protest.

    8. In workers paradise, burning down private businesses is protesting.

    9. The number of you socialists, that have any idea how to use a gun, or to mount any kind of coordinated action, will be dwarfed by those of us who can.
      Careful what you wish for, it could mean a lot of American Socialists watering the tree of liberty.

  10. The way I see it is that these people in Minneapolis are the wrong kind of protesters. They’re protesting about whether the police should be allowed to put their knee on a Black man’s neck. Since when is this under the purview of libertarianism? WRONG

    If we are going to start lighting police offices on fire it has to be for the right reasons. Like the right of cattle ranchers to park his cows on public land for a couple decades or the right for some religious wacko from Waco to diddle little girls. That’s libertarianism— which isn’t about the police. Jesus Shikha… for shame.

    1. They everyone with an IQ above ten sees it, you are a toothless moron who just wants the mob to terrorize your enemies. Burning shit down and stealing things is not protesting. Even someone of your low IQ should understand that. So, stop fucking lying.

      1. AmSoc imagines that by advocating for the social goals of the political class, he’ll eventually be a beneficiary of their largess.

        1. He somehow thinks he will have a seat at the table. When really, the mob will eventually turn on him too.

      2. He won’t ever stop. People like him must go. If we want to keep our constitutional republic.

    2. In worker’s paradise, all cows, land and little girls to diddle will be evenly distributed among those who display party loyalty.

    3. I mean, I don’t think the police should be allowed to kneel on the back of anybody’s neck.
      You seem to be exclusively focused on the color of people’s skin.
      There’s a word for that

      1. Does it start with an R??????

  11. Yes, if you think some laws are abusive, you must think all laws are. That is all this article is doing. It is fallacy even an overly earnest 8th grader could see through.

    1. Spoken like a communist apparachik. If you think you’re tractor allowance is unfair then you must think all laws are unfair. Here’s your boot to put on your neck, John.

      1. Haven’t made it to 8th grade?

      2. That doesn’t even make any sense.

        1. Out there somewhere is a perfectly eloquent and insightful post waiting so have some of it’s meaning and content quality redistributed to this one.

          1. On paper, Amsoc should be the perfect person to consult on redistribution.

            1. In reality, his highest and best use is being processed into mulch.

        2. It was posted in blind, impotent rage.

      3. In glorious worker’s paradise, we won’t have need for tractor allowance. Machinery robs people of opportunity to use labor in fields for the glory of the glorious worker’s paradise. Anyone found using anything besides they’re state issued hands for labor will be punished by firing squad.

      4. In workers paradise, posting nonsense in a comment section will earn you a weekend at the master’s dacha.

    2. Forcibly separating young children from their parents and stuffing them in chain-link cages is not abusive? WTF?

      1. Nobody mentioned your fantasies

      2. Yes, in that the case the parents putting their children in that position is abuse.

      3. But enough about FDR and the Japanese. That was a long time ago.

      4. I mean, did someone force them to come here? Cause that’s been a consequence since 2014.

  12. “And it’s happening again in the pandemic, as the same right-wing movement that cheers President Donald Trump’s draconian immigration crackdowns in the name of the rule of law is now in defiance mode against the lockdowns.”

    Excellent point.

    As is usually the case, we Koch / Reason libertarians should obviously side with progressives on the subject of lockdowns. IOW, we should advocate severely restricted movement of people who are already in the US — while encouraging completely free movement of the rest of the world’s population into the US.

    #LockDownTheInterior
    #OpenTheBorders

    1. Oh fuck off you GOP today.

      1. I’m not GOP today. I wasn’t GOP yesterday. And I won’t be GOP tomorrow.

        1. #George Wallace?

      2. AHAHAHAHAH SCREECH IS PISSED!

      3. In workers paradise, non-party publications like GOP Today will not be allowed.

    2. Nicely presented.

  13. Hey libertarians!

    This is what you’re getting in bed with when you employ whataboutisms directed at Bill CLINTON or your fucking bullshit about how Nancy Pelosi is the worst monster since FDR.


    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump
    This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible. Learn more
    ….These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

    How can you defend this and get in bed with these fetid apparatchiks in the GOP? You must smell pretty bad. Ew!

    1. Fuck off you maggot coated shit stain.

    2. In worker’s paradise, Twitter will be owned by the party…..errrr the people. Only true information will be received by the comrades after the Ministry of Truth has had a chance to filter through each and every attempted communication. Information determined to be false or question glory of glorious worker’s paradise will be punished by shooting squad.

    3. > Hey libertarians!

      Libertarians are NOT the ones fellating Trump! Those fetid piles of donkey dung were never libertarian, just knee-jerk contrarians.

      If you will notice, the Libertarian Party just nominated a candidate to run AGAINST Trump. Gosh.

      1. Low IQ Brandy, here to declare that he is the sole arbiter of people’s identity.
        Such liberty

        1. Trump is a fascist.

          1. De Oppreso Liber, aka Lying Jeffy, is a lying piece of shit, who deserves nothing but derision.

          2. Hahahahaha. It’s like you fucking idiots want people to vote for him.

            Please name the fascist things he’s done. And I mean actual fascism, not the authoritarian bullshit you idiots call fascism.

            1. I’d also be curious why a fascist would allow an imbecile to insult them online or anywhere. That’s not fascist behavior traditionally.

    4. Ahahahahaha FUCK OF SCREECH AHAAHAHAAHA YOU SAD FUCKING PEDOPHILE AHAAHAHA

    5. So you don’t think throwing bricks at windows and burning shops and cars is endangering the physical safety of the public?

  14. We need to end the lockdowns! Except for the immigrants, they need to remain locked up! Ain’t liberty grand?

    1. I see you’re using the typical leftist tactic of conflating legal and illegal immigrants. In case you haven’t noticed, that doesn’t work here.

      1. And yet Hihn keeps trying it.

      2. So if the only problem with illegal immigrants is that they broke the law, would you support repealing all immigration restrictions? That way they won’t have broken the law anymore, since the law doesn’t exist anymore. There will be nothing but legal immigrants, and everything will be fine.

        That last sentence isn’t sarcasm, it is what would actually happen if we did that.

        1. Sure. Right after we demolish the welfare state and restrict voting rights to taxpayers.

        2. When they came, they were breaking the law and they knew it.
          Even if we cast off all of those, democratically created laws, which a majority of people want retained and enforced, all those already here would still be in jeopardy because when they came, and for every minute thereafter, the had broken laws.
          Even the dumbest of Congresscritters knows it would be a political death sentence to pass an amnesty to cover the thirty-odd million of them. That’s why you haven’t seen one.

        3. Let’s also abolish laws against assault so nobody ever gets assaulted here.

  15. And it’s happening again in the pandemic, as the same right-wing movement that cheers President Donald Trump’s draconian immigration crackdowns in the name of the rule of law is now in defiance mode against the lockdowns.

    Yeah. Because these are totally equivalent to each other.

  16. “The government refuses to give them papers to do jobs that Americans won’t.” I think she means “the government refuses to give them papers to do jobs that MOST Americans won’t FOR SUCH LOW WAGES.”

    And by the way, who has developed the “elaborate vocabulary” here? The tried and true term “illegal alien” seems more straightforward than the “undocumented immigrants” newspeak.

    1. In NYC, it is now “noncitizens” because bringing attention the illegal immigration status of one group of immigrants versus another somehow marginalizes, blah, blah, blah ….. JUSTICE!!! ARRRHHH!!!

      1. You think being a citizen entitles you to justice? Wake up and smell the chickens coming home to roost!

    2. The most relevant part of the quote is the second, not the first. The idea that you need papers from the government to do a job is stupid and authoritarian, full stop. Why Americans are not doing the job is not super relevant.

      Personally, I do think the language changes are silly. “Illegal alien” is fine, because everyone understands that they broke a stupid law. It isn’t any different than if someone said “illegal runaway slave.”

  17. “In Michigan, where I live,”

    Well fuck me with a rusty fence post.

  18. Supporting immigration law duly passed under authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution implies one should support executive diktats of dubious statutory and Constitutional providence. How many logical fallacies does Dalmia’s article rest upon?

    1. “Constitutional providence”

      Droll. Or quaint. Do you really think a piece of paper is going to protect you from the coming insurrection?

      1. What insurrection, leftist trash?

        1. The leftist trash insurrection. Coming to a city near you.

          1. Kinda glad the Right spent so much time arming themselves and learning how to use those arms.

  19. This is the largest load of bullshit topped with donkeyjizz sprinkled with decomposing rat corpses I’ve ever read.

    The woman needs to pull her head out of her ass

    1. Mickey Rat. My post was meant as a comment on this trash piece, not your comment. Apologies for any anguish this may have caused you during these challenging times.

  20. “When American conservatism becomes un-American
    Authoritarianism is a long way from what the Constitution’s Framers had in mind.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-american-conservatism-becomes-un-american/2020/05/28/336a953a-a0f6-11ea-b5c9-570a91917d8d_story.html

    A new / old Trumpy Right has griped too much of America, that is neither conservative nor American. Whereas, actual, American conservatism acknowledges that America begun as something new in the world;

    I believe that the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ~ Ronald Reagan

    and seeks to conserve this new and uniquely American ideal from both the old foreign left and right. Those with such short time perspectives that they can’t see that the American founding is, really, the new and unique thing are being duped to believe that it is old and outdated and that the oldest and worst forms of political organization and power are the newer and better alternatives.

  21. You know, I can’t help rolling my eyes when “progressives” say the words “rule of law”. I have concluded, after decades of listening to them, that they don’t believe that a law is a social contract at all. They only believe that a law is a weapon to be used selectively against your political enemies, not something be followed by themselves.

    1. If you only learn this about progressives, your missing the point. Assume this about all who seek political power.

  22. I am still waiting for brown people to save our constitutional rights, Shikha.

  23. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . YEr Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

    Heres what I do…… SeeMore here

  24. “But Johnson’s line comes to mind when some of the critics of those liberty-busting restrictions…”

    On Americans and legal residents. Sorry, I am not a globalist… let other countries worry about their citizens and we will worry about ours. If you a foreigner and you do not like the terms we offer in the US, please feel free to break into whatever other country better suits your ideals instead.

    “…turn around and endorse crackdowns on workers whose only crime is that the government refuses to give them papers to do jobs that Americans won’t. ”

    BS. The crime is not a lack of paperwork! If someone breaks into my house and decides to live there, he’s not an “undocumented roommate.” The name for someone who is not welcome somewhere, but who enters anyway, is a trespasser.

    “Invader” works too. If someone breaks into my house and demands money (because he’s just trying to provide for his family, you know!), he’s a home invader. I don’t care what he thinks entitles him to violate the border of my domicile… he’s sadly mistaken in any case.

    And on that second bit in the excerpt… again, BS. There are _no_ jobs that Americans won’t do. There are jobs Americans won’t do for third-world pay, in violation of all kinds of employment, wage, taxation, health and safety, worker’s compensation, etc., laws and regulations. There are jobs Americans won’t do if living on that pay means having to live in substandard, often illegal, conditions in terms of housing code violations and occupancy restrictions.

    It strikes me as funny (not ha-ha funny) that the same people who pile on all of these restrictions and regulations on every bit of life are so insistent that we let people into the country with the knowledge that the first thing they will do is ignore all of the rules and restrictions that the rest of us have to follow.

    If the jobs “Americans won’t do” really need doing, then the people who need those jobs done are going to have to sweeten the pot. You’ve heard of that whole free-market thingy, right? The invisible hand and all that? “I can’t find anyone to do the job” is a self-solving problem, but not if you think the answer to people not accepting your pittance is to let people in with the express intent of letting them violate all of the rules to do it.

    We can’t have open borders with a welfare state. We can’t have open borders with birthright citizenship for offspring of foreign nationals that was never the intent of the 14th Amendment. We can’t have open borders if we are going to let newcomers bypass rules the rest of us have to live by. First things first– if you’re going to make the libertarian argument for open borders, then get libertarian on that other stuff first, then we’ll talk. I’d be all in favor of eliminating the welfare state, birthright citizenship, and making sure that we all play by the same regulations (whether by eliminating them or by enforcing them evenly; I’d vote for the former, but either will do for the purposes of what I describe here).

    Do those things and then (and only then) I would be happy to open the border.

    1. Well said

  25. I have subscribed to Reason magazine since the mid-90’s, given gift subscriptions, and donated probly $2K or $3K to Reason Foundation (even got my name published in a list of donors in one issue). I have kept every issue going back about 25 years, going on 300 issues.

    However, this article is the straw that broke the camel’s back. As I want to get a libertarian magazine, I will not renew.

    At least I have the old issues I can review for libertarian content.

  26. “The rule of law” is still rule, i.e., the initiation of violence, threats, fraud (propaganda). It’s not reason, rights, or choice. It’s not libertarian.
    It’s a contradiction to claim laws (in principle) protect rights. Now, we see, in practice, rights being violated routinely by LEOs, e.g, asset forfeiture (legal theft), killing unarmed citizens (I feared for my life) and no immediate arrest of LEOs even with video proof. A public protest or riot must come before anything is done.

  27. Get daily new Mahakal Shayari and status click here for Mahakal Status in Hindi

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.