How Mass Immigration Stopped American Socialism

Relatively open borders helped halt the early 20th century welfare state.


For centuries, Americans have worried that immigrants could overwhelm and negatively alter economic and political institutions in the United States. In 1783, at the end of the American War of Independence, even Thomas Jefferson had misgivings about too rapid an influx of immigrants, writing that they "will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty." John Jay, the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of The Federalist Papers, thought that Catholicism was inimical to the principles of individual liberty and representative government, so he argued that the federal government should "erect a wall of brass around the country for the exclusion of Catholics." Prominent Federalist Party member Harrison Gray Otis said, "If some means are not adopted to prevent the indiscriminate admission of wild Irishmen and others to the right of suffrage, there will soon be an end to liberty and prosperity."

But the Founding Fathers were conflicted: Many supported an open immigration system because of their Enlightenment ideology. The newly independent United States had been recently settled by a diverse group of immigrants from Europe, as well as by African slaves. The political, legal, and economic institutions of the colonies were English, but only about 60 percent of the white population in 1790 was of English stock, while the rest were mostly Scots, Irish, Scots-Irish, German, and Welsh. Immigration had already made the United States the most ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse society in the Western world when the Constitution was written, and the founders expected it to continue.

Right-wing fears about assimilation persisted into the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But there were also left-wing fears that immigration was slowing down the transformation of the United States into a unionized welfare state ripe for an eventual transition to socialism. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and their American followers warned that immigrant-induced diversity reduced worker solidarity and that this problem would continue so long as the United States had near-open borders. At the same time, many American Progressives and other immigration restrictionists embraced the ideology of eugenics and were thus worried that immigrants were bringing inferior genetic traits that would undermine American prosperity by lessening support for democratic institutions.

Today, support for immigration is associated with the political left. But back then, immigrants were a barrier to the demographic central plans of lefty reformers. Overall, the impact of immigration on American policy has done more to confirm the fears of Marx and Engels than of Jefferson and Jay. American government grew slower when the stock of immigrants was high, and union membership was lower when immigration was greater. It was only after Congress ended open immigration from Europe that the size and scope of American government expanded dramatically.

Unions Against Immigration

From 1820 to 1921, the average annual number of immigrants to the United States was equal to about 0.66 percent of the resident population. From 1922 to 1967, when immigration was most restricted in American history, the average inflow of immigrants was equal to 0.14 percent of the resident population per year—a 79 percent drop. Since 1968, when immigration law was liberalized, the average inflow of immigrants has been equal to about 0.3 percent of the resident population per year—more than double the flow of the restrictionist period but still less than half that of the open immigration period during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Friedrich Engels wrote that immigrants in the United States "are divided into different nationalities and understand neither one another nor, for the most part, the language of the country." Furthermore, the American "bourgeoisie knows…how to play off one nationality against the other: Jews, Italians, Bohemians, etc., against Germans and Irish, and each one against the other." He argued that open immigration would delay the socialist revolution for a long time as the American bourgeoisie understood that "'there will be plenty more, and more than we want, of these damned Dutchmen, Irishmen, Italians, Jews and Hungarians'; and, to cap it all, John Chinaman stands in the background."

Indeed, American meatpackers and steelmakers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries intentionally hired workers from diverse national, ethnic, and racial backgrounds to inhibit their ability to form labor unions: More diverse backgrounds increased transaction costs among organizing workers. Meanwhile, union members in the United States generally opposed immigration and took nearly every opportunity to argue for closed borders.

Unlike union movements in other countries, unionization grew slowly in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and grew primarily among skilled occupations. Samuel Gompers was the founder and head of the anti-socialist American Federation of Labor (AFL), part of an anti-revolutionary reform movement derisively called "slowcialists" by its more radical opponents. He supported every major anti-immigrant law debated in Congress, from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the National Origins Act of 1924. Gompers started by targeting Chinese and Japanese workers for exclusion but eventually expanded his efforts to include even white European immigrants like himself. (Gompers was from the United Kingdom.) And he was not an outlier. Terence Powderly, head of the Knights of Labor, endorsed a ban* on French Canadian labor migration in 1896. Not to be outdone by the competition, Gompers' AFL voted in 1897 to endorse a ban on illiterate immigrants by a 5–1 margin. The group even took its anti-immigrant argument to the International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam in 1904.

Gompers and the heads of the other anti-immigrant labor unions were correct to believe that immigrants made their unionization efforts more difficult. Ethnically homogenous immigrant groups who dominated the workforces of certain employers were able to organize, as in the case of the 100,000 Polish and Eastern European United Mine Workers (UMW) in Pennsylvania who joined the great anthracite coal strike of 1902. But that was the exception. Since 1900—the earliest date for which unionization and employment data are available—union membership as a percentage of those employed has been strongly negatively correlated with the stock of the foreign-born population. And the same surge of immigrant-induced diversity that reduced solidarity and stunted unionization among workers also stunted the formation of interest groups to lobby for laws that would lower the cost of unionization and expand the welfare state.

Socialism Rejected

A large percentage of socialist intellectuals and organizers in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were immigrants. For decades, a minority of immigrants in the United States were socialists, but a majority of the socialists in the United States were immigrants—a situation unique in the Western world. Germans who settled in Milwaukee, Finns and Scandinavians who settled in Michigan and Minnesota, Eastern European Jews in New York City, and other immigrant groups disproportionately contributed to the growth of socialist political outreach and thought in the United States. In 1916, for instance, 13 out of the 15 daily socialist newspapers in the United States were printed in a language other than English.

Although immigration increased the number of socialists in the United States, it also increased the perception that socialism was an alien and foreign ideology that was distinctly un-American.

Prior to America's entry into World War I, the Socialist Party secured its highest share of votes in states with low foreign-born populations, like Nevada, Oklahoma, Montana, and Arizona. This was because such places were geographically isolated from the power bases of the major American political parties and because they were relatively homogeneous. In the 1920 election, following World War I, the Socialist share of the vote fell everywhere except in the four states with large immigrant or German-American populations: Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin. Immigrants supplied a great number of socialist organizers and intellectuals, but they supplied relatively few votes for the Socialist Party except in the election of 1920.

German immigrants deserve special attention. Marx and Engels were both German, and it was Germany where socialists had the greatest political influence during the 19th century. German immigrants to the United States, especially those from more industrialized regions, brought years or decades of experience with socialist politics and labor organization along with them. They founded the Socialist Labor Party in 1876, originally as the Workingmen's Party, a group that would remain overwhelmingly German. And German immigrants disproportionately voted Socialist in 1920 because of their opposition to American involvement in World War I, although they had been less likely to vote Socialist in 1912.

German immigrants were also active in labor organizing. They pushed their unions to support more extreme policies and made up a large percentage of their more radical members. And they founded numerous socialist German language newspapers to support their unions. German editors helped get many of those papers started, and many of them were exported to Germany when the government there banned the publication of socialist newspapers. Thus, Germans living in America became a major voice for socialism in Germany.

Immigration historian Marcus Lee Hanson wrote that "more immigrant Socialists were lost to the cause in the United States than were won from the ranks of the newcomers." If anything, his observation understates how ineffective the socialists were and their degree of attrition once on American soil. For instance, one list of 797 exiled socialists from Germany who arrived in the United States and were taken care of by the Socialist Labor Party records that only 191 of them joined the party—an attrition rate of 76 percent. And not only did many socialist immigrants abandon their ideologies when they arrived, but their mere presence is correlated with slowed growth in the size of the government in the United States.

The Story of Spending

Although it is difficult to measure historical economic institutions over time, there is suggestive evidence that they either improved or at least were not adversely impacted by immigration. For example, American counties with more immigrants during the late 19th and early 20th centuries have higher incomes and less poverty today, which indicates that they probably have better institutions today as well.

In the absence of long-term historical comprehensive measures of economic institutions, the size of the government is a decent substitute, since a smaller government is so highly correlated with overall economic freedom today. The simplest way to see whether immigration has affected the size of the government is to plot federal expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) against the stock of immigrants as a percentage of the population.

They are negatively correlated with a coefficient of 0.63 for the years 1850–2018. During the 45-year period 1922–1967 when immigration was most restricted, federal government expenditures grew from 4.5 percent of GDP to 18.3 percent—a 302.5 percent increase. And that understates growth in the size of the federal government during this period, as the United States was still demobilizing and deregulating its World War I wartime economy in 1922.

The two 45-year periods that bookend the restrictionist 1922–1967 period had substantially less growth in growth in government spending. From 1876 to 1921, federal expenditures as a percent of GDP rose from 3.2 percent to 6.9 percent of GDP—a 117.8 percent increase over the entire time. Again, the end date exaggerates growth in the size of the federal government, as in 1921 it had not completed demobilization after World War I. Using 1916—just prior to the United States entering World War I—as the end year shows a 54 percent decline in the relative size of government, from 3.2 percent of GDP in 1876 to 1.5 percent of GDP in 1916.

From 1968 to 2013, federal expenditures as a percent of GDP rose from 18.9 percent of GDP to 20.6 percent of GDP—an 8.7 percent increase. When the size of federal expenditures is measured on a real per-capita basis instead of spending as a percentage of GDP, the results are very similar.

More Diversity, Smaller State

There are several potential explanations for why immigrants did not grow government expenditures in the United States. The likeliest theory is that the high levels of American ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic diversity caused by immigration hobbled the rise of an American labor movement and reduced overall voter demand for bigger government. This is the essence of the complaint voiced by Marx, who warned that immigrant-induced ethnic and racial differences reduced worker solidarity, slowing his efforts to stoke a revolution in the United States and elsewhere.

A relatively open immigration policy resulted in more immigrants who increased the fractionalization of the United States. As a result, unionization rates remained low, because collective action in heterogeneous communities is costlier than it is in homogeneous communities. Thus, unions, the main organized groups that lobby and vote for a larger and more interventionist welfare state, were smaller than they would have been in a less diverse America. Furthermore, voters were less supportive of redistribution, welfare, and government-supplied services when the consuming population was more heterogeneous. As a result, federal outlays, state expenditures, and local tax rates were negatively correlated with the size of the immigrant population.

All in all, immigration did more to slow the growth of government in the 19th and early 20th centuries and to frustrate the goals of left-wing reformers than it did to overturn the fundamental economic and political institutions of the American founding. With few exceptions, immigrants helped preserve, protect, defend, and expand American free markets.

*CORRECTION: The original version of this article included incorrect phrasing about the endorsement of a ban on French Canadian labor migration.

NEXT: He Didn’t Answer the Phone One Night While on House Arrest. He’s Been Sent Back to Prison for Four Years.

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Since Koch / Reason libertarianism is fundamentally about making billionaires — especially our benefactor Charles Koch — even richer, the US must import millions of Democratic voters every year to ensure socialism never becomes politically viable in the US.


    1. (And, admittedly, besides voting Democrat like Koch-funded libertarians do, it’s also true that immigrants are more cost-effective as laborers.)

      1. The transition for some is laborer -> union laborer -> union employee -> laid off employee -> unemployee.

        Collective bargaining rewards poor performance while disincentivizing good performance. Rewarding non-performance is the step that follows this.

    2. Socialism is fine to billionaires as long as it’s largely funded by the middle class.

  2. Now do the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

    1. Yep. That was then; this is now.

  3. 74000+ fraudulent mail-in ballots.

    1. You think that mail-in voter fraud is bad NOW!?! Just you wait till the Trump-Putin-Kingly-Dear-Leader Loyalists-Royalists scream and holler about imagined massive voter fraud for another few years! Before you can vote, to prove (to all parties in highly-likely future disputes) that you are who you say you are, you’ll have to mail in your DNA sample, not only with your actual vote, but also, DNA samples (with separate side-vote-copies, to various other addresses) to the local R-party rep, the D-Party rep, maybe even the L-Party (Green Party, Commie Party, etc.) reps, PLUS the Controlling Local Voting Authority, and THEN you will FINALLY be allowed to have your vote counted! And ALL of the “parties to your DNA info” will solemnly pinky-swear to “protect your data”, of course! So, no worries!

      1. Short version: Quite often, the cure is worse than the disease… ESPECIALLY if the cure is from Government Almighty!

        1. Shorter yet; spaz flag for the spaz!

      2. lmao…. “mail in your DNA sample”? No, no lying SQRLSY. It was the DNC that wanted to have a “mail in” stuffed election.

        It sure is fun to watch lefties panic over having to show-up with a legitimate I.D. and Address to vote. I thought the left was suppose to be the “democratic” champions – oddly when it comes to elections their “democratic” championing goes right down the toilet.

        Of course; what should anyone expect of the party who thinks *stealing* = wealth instead of value = wealth?

        1. TJJ2000 Dictatorbot … Do you STILL believe that the USA is, and should be, a 1-party Dicktatorshit?

          Model TJJ2000 Dictatorbot believes that the USA already is (and should be) a 1-party dicktatorshit! That the USA HAS BEEN a 1-party dicktatorshit for some 200 years!!! There is NO point in trying to persuade the Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot of ANYTHING! Almost ALL of the circuits of the Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot have gone kaput, big-time!
          Model TJJ2000 Dicktatorbot is lusting after an UPGRADE to its rusting old body! Wants to be upgraded to Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot, and run for POTUS in 2024, with Alex Jones as the VEEP of Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot!!! Be ye WARNED!!! Model TJJ20666 Dicktatorbot will be well-nigh INDESTRUCTIBLE! (Unreachable by ANY logic or considerations for the freedoms of others, MOST certainly!)
          PLEASE do NOT enable the lusting of the rusting TJJ20000 Dictatorbot!!!

      1. Only assholes ask for a cite, leftie shitbag.

        1. Do you have a cite on that? If you’re NOT lying, then why NOT a cite?

          Question for you: Are all right-wing nut-jobs liars, or only the stupidest ones?

          1. The double question. Do you feel guilty when you look at kiddie porn?

            1. Have you stopped severely abusing your blow-up doll yet? Yes or no!

              1. Yes. I popped it yesterday.

                1. Popped her plastic cherry! SOMEONE had to be first! Good for you!

                  As Billy Joel sang, “Catholic blow-up dolls, they start MUCH too late!”

    2. Here is more information on the supposed 74,000 “fraudulent ballots”.

      Basically, he counted the difference in tallies between two lists. One list had the number of ballots requested. The other list had the number of ballots returned. But there is a time gap of 10 days between the cutoff date for both lists. So people who requested ballots and returned them in that 10 day gap would not be counted on one of the lists.


      “Mr. Logan never said this was fraud or criminal, he merely stated the facts as they were provided to him and did not have an explanation,”

      Not even the Cyber Ninjas guy is saying this is proof of “fraud”. That is what the right-wing demagogues want you to believe.

      1. In addition, the lists he used were not official lists, they were advisory lists given to political parties so they could track who is returning ballots.

        In short, there are plenty of explanations for this discrepancy that do not rely on a MASSIVE FRAUD hypothesis. That is even presuming that this figure was arrived at in good faith in the first place, which I don’t for a moment believe considering the source.

        1. Sure if you ignore everything else and cherry pick one thing, then your thesis holds, fatty.

      2. Check register —

        Deposit $300
        Check $30,000
        Balance $0

        Ignorant Imbeciles — That’s not “proof” of fraud….
        Let’s start with math for toddlers?

        1. Okay, here is some elementary level math.

          From the AP article:

          The EV32 file includes all requests that voters make for early ballots, either by mail or in person, up to 11 days before Election Day, Patrick said. The EV33 file includes returned early ballots up to the Monday before Election Day.

          So if a voter requested a ballot 9 days before Election Day, and returned it on the Monday before Election day, that ballot WOULD NOT count on the EV32 list, but WOULD count on the EV33 list. So the fact that the tallies on the two lists don’t match is not smoking gun evidence of MASSIVE FRAUD. It merely represents the limitations of the reporting that the two lists represent.

          And this is even considering that the figures on the two lists should be considered as reliable as the ‘official’ figures, which they shouldn’t be – they are not official lists, just advisory lists that are given to political parties.

          And this is even assuming that the Cyber Ninjas crowd arrived at this figure in good faith, which I am skeptical of.

          1. And I’m sure Jesse is going to bring up this objection:

            BUT BUT BUT THE CUTOFF FOR REQUESTING ABSENTEE BALLOTS IN ARIZONA IS 11 DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAY!!!!! So there couldn’t have been any *legal* absentee ballots requested after that! It smells of fraud!!!!!

            Yes, that is true. But the EV32 list counts all *early ballots*, not just absentee ballots. So a voter could have voted early 9 days before Election Day, and that ballot would not have been counted on the EV32 list, but would have been counted on the EV33 list.

            1. You’re only talking to your self now fatty.

            2. No. I’m not the one repeating state propaganda.

              Of your theory and the defenses is true, then Maricopa County did not provide all materials to the auditors as required by a state judge. This would seem to be egregious on the part of the county.

              So do you want to push no fraud or that they violated a court order willingly?

              Either way looks terrible for the defense.

              Also I see you avoided the factual imaged data out of Ga… why?

              1. Trump lost you whiny bitch.

                1. Lost to cheating, lying, manipulative, deceitful, Nazi Cheerleaders.
                  Leave it to you Tony to be cheering for the Nazi’s (def; National Socialists)

            3. Since I did indeed name-check Jesse here, I did view what he had to say… it was the usual non-sequiturs, red herrings, insults, and dickish behavior. Not surprised.

              He just knee-jerk criticizes the people he doesn’t like. Sarcasmic says he thinks voting should be a privilege that is limited, and Jesse criticizes that. Meanwhile I say I think voting should be a right that is protected for all citizens, and Jesse criticizes that too. He criticizes both sides of an argument if the people he hates happen to be on opposite sides. It’s funny and sad to watch actually.

              It is entirely personal with him. It is not about policy or ideology. It is 100% personality. If I came out tomorrow saying “I love Trump, let’s slap some tariffs on China and build the damn wall”, he would criticize that too. It doesn’t matter.

              1. Do you need a candygram?

              2. And here is the funny thing. I don’t hate Jesse. I don’t feel the need to reflexively criticize every single comment of his. Actually I wouldn’t mind having a beer with Jesse at some point. I think we could potentially have an interesting and lively conversation.

                1. But what if the bar was two hours away from Jesse? And it was busy so you’d have to wait in line to be served?

      3. Here is the Breitbart article on the story:

        Note that this story does not mention ANYTHING about the details behind this figure. The author doesn’t tell you about the time gap between the two lists, whether the lists really are the ‘official’ record of absentee ballots, etc. They are LYING TO YOU by omission.

        1. Fake but accurate.

          1. I’m sure Jesse will be along shortly to tell us how the AP is “fake news”, we should trust Breitbart, Dems cheat, massive fraud, blah blah blah

            1. I couldn’t give a fuck what that lying sack of shit says about anything. That’s why I muted his master baiting ass.

              1. Mean girl troll.

                1. The trolls don’t mute anyone. Those turds that JesseAz leaves on every one of my comments aren’t because he’s muted me. It’s because he’s desperate for attention. A troll. Trolls don’t mute. They’re muted.

                  1. Sure whatever you say screetch.

                  2. sarcasmic
                    July.16.2021 at 3:09 pm
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    I look forward to when they’re critical of the sitting president during the next election, and your head explodes because they’re saying mean things about Biden while a Republican competes.


                    July.16.2021 at 3:11 pm
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    I was going to add something about people who might be splattered by the mess, but nobody cares about your alone ass. Shit. Nobody will know you’re missed until they shut the power off and things start to smell.

                  3. You appear to be the one engaging in attention seeking behavior.

              2. Lol. Look at the lying hypocrite.

                He knows that others can actually read my posts which is why he cries so much.

                The only one trolling is you sarcasmic. Every part of your self worth is a lie.

                Youre the biggest troll on the site.

                You muted me because I exposed your hypocrisy and you couldn’t take it.

            2. You keep saying what you think ull say. You and sarcasmic have both stated that this is trolling behavior.

              In fact you don’t even wait for me to be in thread. That is indeed trolling behavior.

              The fact is your wither defending state propaganda who also has not released their primary evidence or youre defending the county not turning over all data in violation of judicial rulings.

              It is odd how you blindly accept Maricopa County statements as faxt without evidence and then attack Cyber Ninjas for the same issue. Almost like you’re a dishonest piece of shit.

              1. It hardly matters now. The electoral college voted and Biden was sworn in. Legally, constitutionally, by all the laws of men and gods, Biden is president, and Trump is diarrhea in Brioni suit.

        2. When are you going to deal with your months long shitposts about “CRT is not taught in schools”?

      4. Also, Cyber Ninjas used the wrong lists for determining how many many mail-in ballots were returned vs. sent out. They used early voting reports sent to the political parties, which do not claim to have accurate numbers for mail-In ballots.

        This is just the kind of incompetence / misinformation we predicted from a clearly biased “auditor”.

        1. Can you cite the lists presented by Maricopa? They keep pointing to numbers without actually providing evidence. Numbers only released after the election and count was made.

      5. AP is not credible, I quit reading their biased coverage long ago.

    3. And Spiritus Mundi here is revealing the entire purpose of the ‘audit’ in the first place.

      It is to lie with numbers in order to push a narrative of MASSIVE FRAUD in order to justify clamping down on the right to vote, and if necessary, deprive the voters of their choice for President in 2024 should they choose the ‘wrong’ candidate.

      Because of course, in our wonderful ‘democracy’, it’s actually the state legislature that has the ultimate authority to choose the electors for President. So in 2024 if the people choose Team Blue, the Team Red legislature can just wave their magic wand and declare “oh, the vote was corrupted by fraud, we know this because of that supposed audit that we conducted 4 years ago, therefore, we will choose the electors that the people ‘genuinely’ chose, and that is the Team Red candidate.” And they will receive the enthusiastic support of the Team Red voters in the state, rather than condemned as undemocratic usurpers, because Team Red will have laid the groundwork for a belief in this MASSIVE FRAUD narrative.

      1. Any fraud is wrong. It does not seem cumbersome to me for each person voting to prove who they are. This must be done when buying alcohol, tobacco or a ticket to a rated R movie. This was also required when entering Canada, Great Britain and Germany. Before the lockdowns. Not only must this be done when purchasing a firearm from a gun dealer but one must also have a background check performed on them.

        1. One more time:

          I support a voter ID requirement, provided that it is implemented in a manner that generates only a minimal burden on voters to secure their ID. Sound good?

          1. Why? Isn’t it a solution chasing a problem?

            1. Because voting is a right and it should be treated as a right. The government shouldn’t be placing unnecessary burdens on the exercise of a person’s right. The government requiring voters to prove their identity in order to vote is a necessary burden in my view. The government requiring voters to prove their identity in order to vote, by forcing them to get a voting credential in this one specific way (wait in line at a DMV office) when there are other, less burdensome, ways that would work just as well, is an unnecessary burden IMO.

              1. What does it solve? You’ve got to show me real fraud and people impersonating others to vote multiple times before you can convince me that voter ID is needed. And outside the fevered minds of Trump supporters, I haven’t seen it. So it’s a solution without a problem.

                1. It solves the problem of right-wingers not believing the election is secure unless everyone shows their IDs. Primarily it’s to appease them.

                  1. You assume good faith on their part. Bad assumption. They’re just moving the goalposts until they win.

                    1. Lol. God dam. And you claim to not be a leftie. You just now use every talking point they have.

                2. Lol. You want to prove and impossibility.

                  Fag drunk a walks up to a voting line says he’s sarcasmic, votes, leaves.

                  He was just a random fat drunk not sarcasmic.

                  Sarcsmic wakes updates, goes to the polls, finds put he can’t vote. Other drunk is far gone and nobody knows who he was.

                  No arrest so you say no fraud.

                  Every election has at least some case of found fraud even without looking at it. I can link a half dozen stories on nursing home votes where families stated their relatives could not vote.

                  You just bury your head in the sand like it was an Old E bottle.

              2. You have to show ID to buy beer and cigarettes , everyone seems to manage.

              3. Voting is indeed a right, but a right reserved for those who are citizens of the political entity conducting the vote. Unless you lean towards a belief that all humans have a right to vote at any time in any jurisdiction.

                So, besides “rights” to free stuff, voting is the only right where proving eligibility is justified.

                1. Voting is indeed a right, but a right reserved for those who are citizens of the political entity conducting the vote.

                  Yes that is what I mean. It is a universal right for all citizens. As such the barriers to exercising that right should be as small as possible.

                  1. It is a privilege. It is not granted to non citizens. Actual rights like habeus corpus and jury trials are

                    Youre a fucking ignorant shit.

                    1. Not granted to minors either.

                    2. The constitution lists several reasons your privilege to vote can’t be abridged.

                      But it’s not wrong to say that the original framers of the constitution were not particularly excited about universal enfranchisement.

                      The thing is, if we are going to go along with the notion that educated elites should rule lest the majority deprive people of their rights, then the educated elites should be the ones ruling and not Donald Trump and his army of racist high school dropouts.

                      So fine let’s do away with encouraging voting and put university professors in charge. I think we could do much worse.

                      A mob of hysterical dumb racist religious freaks is like the worst of all available options.

              4. Now do 2nd Amendment Rights and tell me government shouldn’t be creating burdens to exercise that right

                1. I agree. The barriers to exercising your Second Amendment rights should be as small as possible.

                  Did you think this would be a ‘gotcha’ moment?

                  Why don’t you tell us why there ought to be more barriers to voting than to owning a gun.

                  1. So you believe gun buyers shouldn’t show ID?

                  2. And there are far less barriers to voting you stupid shit. Foreigners can actually purchase a gun.

              5. Voting is a privilege. It gets removed for felonies. It is not given to non citizens.

              6. Voting is not a right. Read the constitution.

                1. The Constitution:

                  Amendment 15 – Right of Citizens to Vote

                  Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

                  Amendment 19 – Women’s Suffrage Rights

                  The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

                  Amendment 24 – Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification in Federal Elections

                  Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

                  Amendment 26 – Reduction of Voting Age Qualification

                  Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

                  1. So where was that Amendment that gave non-citizens and the mail the right to vote again?

                    For some reason; I missed the “any mail” or “any person” phrases in all that.

              7. (wait in line at a DMV office)

                I agree with the voter ID, but this part makes you sound like a retarded 120 yr. old. I signed my most recent mortgage with Docusign and file my taxes online every year. I ought to be able to fill out an application online to tell some government pogue to go fetch those two documents, that they already have copies of, instead of being forced to carry reams of evidence to the DMV.

          2. If the ID is adequate for buying a firearm and boarding a domestic flight, I might be down with that.

            1. Sure, I don’t see why not. But it would require a shift in our thinking. We can’t be thinking of voting as a privilege, and voters have to jump through hoops in order to earn the privilege. We have to think of voting as a right, and the barriers to exercising that right should be as absolutely minimal as possible. We don’t have to make people wait in line in order to get IDs needed to vote. There are other ways to do it that also results in secure elections.

              1. Voting is deciding who uses violence without consequence. It should be a privilege, not a right.

                1. I disagree. We can’t have the legitimacy of a government if we don’t all have a say in it on some level.

                  1. Why should someone who has never done anything productive in their life have a say in how funds confiscated from productive people are spent and who spend them? I say fuck you.

                    1. Well, that same person is also subject to the authority of the state. Even if that person is a complete lazy asshole, that person may still be drafted, arrested and sent to jail, and possibly executed by the state.

                    2. Children are subject to the authority of their parents. Doesn’t get them a seat at the table when planning the budget.

              2. Getting a “shall issue” ID was not a cumbersome task for me. Driver’s license, CCW permit or passport.

                Voting, similar to driving, carrying concealed or traveling to another country, is a responsibility.

              3. There are hoops to jump through with almost everything. I don’t like having to jump through hoops but sometimes there has to be some balance between making things easy vs. making them secure and safe.

                We should minimize barriers to voting WITHIN REASON.

                Sorry but if somebody can’t bother to get a valid ID then in my mind that person doesn’t deserve to vote. Requiring proof of identification to vote is completely reasonable – frankly more reasonable than a lot of things that ID is required for (say disposal of a computer monitor)

                1. Jeff is so fat and lazy he thinks an hour at the DMV over the course of 4 years is too onerous.

                  1. Couldn’t he bring snacks? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a problem with eating snack while waiting in que at the DMV.

                2. there has to be some balance between making things easy vs. making them secure and safe.

                  Embrace the power of “and”. Don’t fall for the false tradeoff.

                  Sorry but if somebody can’t bother to get a valid ID then in my mind that person doesn’t deserve to vote.

                  No. Every citizen of legal age DESERVES to vote. We have to stop thinking of voting as some sort of privilege that only the worthy deserve to have bestowed upon them. It dilutes the meaning of citizenship to believe that only *certain* citizens ought to have the privilege of voting.

                  Requiring proof of identification to vote is completely reasonable

                  I agree! The question in this discussion is not WHETHER there ought to be an ID requirement, but HOW it ought to be implemented. In some other countries, the government mails the voting credential to every citizen. Why not do something like that here? Why should the burden be entirely on the voter to get the ID?

                  1. If they give a shit about voting it is not a lot to ask someone to get a vetted ID. This is not difficult. And instead of whining about it, in July, they could easily go and get that ID. And be all set for the midterms, anything local as well as for the 2024 POTUS election. Again, if it is important to them how can they not obtain an ID in the next fifteen plus months?

                    1. I just reject the line of thinking that citizens ought to demonstrate their “seriousness” for voting by being forced to jump through *unnecessary* bureaucratic hoops. And no it is not *necessary* to make people stand in line for hours at a DMV to get an ID when there are other ways that minimize the burden on the individual to get that ID in the hands of that individual.

                      Provided they are citizens of legal age, they are entitled to vote, whether they take that right “seriously” or not.

                    2. In what other arena would libertarians ever seek to argue in good faith that it is a GOOD THING that citizens are forced to navigate a state bureaucracy in order to “prove” that they take their rights “seriously”?

                      “Oh look, I had to fill out 1 gazillion forms in triplicate and wait 7 months for my background check before I received my gun. But that’s okay, since I successfully navigated these arbitrary bureaucratic obstacles, it proved that I was serious about my right to own a gun!”

                      “Oh look, I had to get 70 million permits from my local city council and attend 40 million regulatory board hearings before I could open my business. But that’s okay, since I successfully navigated these arbitrary bureaucratic obstacles, it proved that I was serious about my private property rights!”

                      It is a complete inversion of the proper burden here. WE are the ones that have the rights, and the role of the state should not be put arbitrary tests in front of us to make sure we take our rights “seriously”, the role of the state should be to secure our rights in a manner that offers the smallest burden possible to the citizens.

                    3. “Oh look, I had to fill out 1 gazillion forms in triplicate and wait 7 months for my background check before I received my gun. But that’s okay, since I successfully navigated these arbitrary bureaucratic obstacles, it proved that I was serious about my right to own a gun!”

                      Who’s making this argument for voting? I must’ve missed it.

                      Either that or you’re making up bullshit again because you’re inherently dishonest.

                    4. This is a simple task. With an abundance of time to accomplish it. They are not being asked to manipulate the Schrödinger equation or climb Mt. Everest.

                    5. Yes it is a simple task. But it is still a task. What is the harm in lessening the burden of that task on the citizen?

                    6. Sounds like you are advocating for the elimination of the burdensome task on citizens known as the income tax. On this we can agree.
                      The harm is the security. We don’t want Republicans defrauding the election system. So there is the easy task of obtaining a vetted ID to be used during voting to ensure each vote for a Democratic party candidate counts. I suppose there may be some deplorables and insurrectionist types that are just incapable as a human being of completing this simple task in 15 months.

                    7. So there is the easy task of obtaining a vetted ID

                      Okay, so suppose there exists an individual for whom the task of obtaining an ID by waiting in line at the DMV is not a particularly easy task, for whatever reason. Should the government do anything to make the task easier for this person?

                    8. Yes. Allow them to schedule an appointment at the DMV so they don’t have to walk-in, take a number and wait.

                    9. What if the individual does not have reliable transportation?
                      What if the individual lives in a very rural area that is 2 hours away from the nearest DMV?
                      What if the individual is in fragile health?
                      Or what if the individual simply cannot find the time, due to all of the other obligations that the individual has?

                      I can go on all day with a lot of ‘what if’ possibilities.

                      And if you are going to respond “well, I won’t tolerate lame excuses, they just need to take personal responsibility for getting their ID”, then I would ask whether it even ought to be THEIR ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY to get the ID in the first place. Yes individuals must do *something*. Maybe fill out a form. But beyond that? Why make it harder than it needs to be?

                    10. I would also point out that there are examples of countries out there where the individual doesn’t have to do *anything*. Once they reach voting age, they are automatically registered to vote, and when an election rolls around, the government sends voting credentials to them. All the voter has to do is literally go to the mailbox, get the envelope with the voting credential, then go to the polling place. That’s it. No waiting in line at a DMV.

                    11. Sometimes the best possible choice is not in front of someone. Fifteen months is an eternity to accomplish a simple task. Operation Warp Speed had not even begin fifteen months ago. I’m confident that anyone that wants to vote and is legally able to do so would be able to obtain an ID in that time period. The only folks that would sandbag this want to maintain an opportunity for increased fraud or those suffering from the perfect solution fallacy.
                      Of course, we could just sunset a lot of the government programs and spending. This would result in people being able to make their own choices. And this would be ideal for these folks that can’t manage to get an ID in 15 months. They will have more time and if they also happen to miss an election there will be fewer consequences since they are mostly now making decisions that government previously did. And they get to keep more of their own money to make those decisions. Win-win-win.

                  2. “Every citizen of legal age DESERVES to vote. ”


                    Every citizen of legal age DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY to vote.

                    1. Then we just disagree. It’s not a mere ‘opportunity’, it’s a right.

                    2. Sorry, that was a bit of a knee-jerk response there.

                      Sure I guess there are some citizens who, for karmic reasons, don’t really “deserve” to vote, because they are worthless human beings. But they still ought to have their right to vote respected. If that is what you meant, then I agree.

                    3. I strongly believe that voting is a right. However I think that your definition of a “right to vote” is a bit closer to my definition of “instilling a process that makes it as easy as humanly possible to vote, and completely ignoring all costs to that, such as risking election fraud”

                      I feel I’m between two extremes – the far right extreme of “There was massive election fraud in the 2020 POTUS election and Trump is the legitimate POTUS” vs. the far left extreme of “Election fraud is a complete impossibility and any attempt to make elections secure is tantamount to disenfranchisement”

          3. Lol. Youre a fucking liar. You’ve said making someone go to an office to get an ID is to big a burden. You’ve said making someone spend an hour is too big a burden.

            Youre a lying piece of shit.

    4. Bottom line, is that Team Red fundamentally does not agree on a right to vote. They believe voting should be a privilege, and that only those deemed worthy of the franchise should be granted the privilege of voting. It is sad but I think it reflects where we are today.

      1. Meanwhile the left wants everyone to vote. Especially those who haven’t gotten a clue about anyone or any thing, because they’ll vote for whatever the media promotes (which is always the left).

        Which is worse?

        1. If we are going to have elections, then they ought to reflect the genuine will of the voting public. The government should not attempt to “choose its voters” by throwing up unnecessary and burdensome hurdles to voting.

          Of course elections ought to be secure. But there are ways to make them secure that don’t simultaneously create these giant bureaucratic hoops that citizens have to jump through in order to prove that they are eligible voters.

          Should there be voter ID? Absolutely. Does a voter ID requirement necessitate that every voter have to haul themselves to a DMV office to stand in line for hours to get an ID? No. In some other countries, the government mails voter credentials to every eligible voter before the election, and then on voting day the voter presents that credential in order to receive a ballot. Why can’t we do something similar here?

          1. If I was king I would severely limit voting. If your livelihood depends on government cash, as in you’re a government employee, contractor, on welfare, etc, then you can’t vote. If you don’t pay taxes then you can’t vote. If you’re younger than 30 you can’t vote. Why? So you can’t vote to give yourself stuff, you can only choose how taxes are spent if you actually pay them, and you’re (hopefully) no longer an irresponsible twit.

            1. Basically Mike, Jeffy, and Screetch are the same lonely guy in his basement spaming this forum with their left wing bullshit all day.

              1. Me saying voting should be limited is the opposite of anything any leftist ever preaches, so right there your comment makes this guy look like a genius.

                1. Lol. Ignorant of the KKK huh? Democrat south in the early 1900s?

          2. The government should not attempt to “choose its voters” by throwing up unnecessary and burdensome hurdles to voting.

            Chemmy, the same argument can be used the other way. The government should not attempt to “choose its voters” by allowing anyone and everyone to vote regardless of their right to vote.

            Bottom line, is that Team Red fundamentally does not agree on a right to vote.

            Bottom line is asking for a person to identify themselves in order to secure that right to vote, once, in one place only, is not asking a lot. It is not oppressive. Does not prevent a vote, but does prevent voter fraud, voting in multiple precincts, voting when one is not a citizen, voting more than once, voting in place of another voter, voting for a person on the rolls that is not longer alive, etc. etc. Not too much to ask in my eyes.

            1. Bottom line is asking for a person to identify themselves in order to secure that right to vote, once, in one place only, is not asking a lot.

              One more time: I AGREE 1,000%.

              The question here is not WHETHER there ought to be a voter ID, but HOW it ought to be implemented. I object to placing the burden for obtaining the ID entirely on the voter. If there is going to be an ID requirement – and I think there should be – then the government should move heaven and earth to make that burden of obtaining an ID as absolutely small as possible. If there are not enough ID places in certain areas, then government should have “pop up ID events” to get people their credentials. If there are individuals who cannot get to the ID place, then government should go door to door if necessary to get them their IDs.

              The bottom line is, getting an ID to vote should not be viewed as some Trial by Bureaucracy that a prospective voter has to successfully pass in order to be deemed worthy of the franchise. That is how I think too many people view the voter ID requirement. As a type of minimal test of whether someone deserves to vote – did they do the work to get the ID? No no no no no. Don’t think of it that way.

        2. You forgot the desire of some leftists for universal access to voting–no citizenship or other eligibility required.

          1. It seems safe to forget, or not pay attention to, such fringe opinions on the left or right.

            1. And yet the WH is coercing FB to censor them.

            2. Fringe beliefs like people can be born into the wrong body, or teaching race essentialism starting in elementary school, or human control of world climate, or society should be shut down and everyone should take an experimental novel vaccine for a virus that 99% of the population has a 99.9% chance of suffering no complications from…

      2. Or, and hear me out here, they think voting should accurately reflect the will of the people, and be protected from anyone trying to game the system or harvest the ballots of non-voters to inflate the count for a particular candidate or party, so they want to implement common sense security measures to protect the process.

        No one has had their right to vote revoked by requiring minimal verification. Voting is not complicated. If the Dems are unwilling to have robust voter ID verification like most other advanced nations, you have to wonder why.

      3. The left, like you believes in outright fraud so they can steal elections. See we can all make baseless claims about what the other side believes.
        Non-leftists believe in one person, one vote and that shouldn’t be diluted by liberals with boxes of fraudulent ballots. Simple As.

      4. It isnt a right you stupid shit. Once again. If it was a right there would not be a citizenship requirement on federal elections.

      5. By the way jeff, over 70% of all voters believe there needs to be more strict voter ID requirements dumbass.

        Blows your team red delusions away.

        1. Even if only one Democratic party member supported it we recently learned that would be enough for bipartisan support.

    5. Wow, chemjeff radical individualist seems oddly breathless trying to downplay this.

      1. It’s because he’s a leftist.

      2. He’s tedious. Is he like this all the time?

  4. Good thing we dodged that ‘early 20th century’ welfare state. Otherwise we might be looking at fiscal due to unsustainable Federal wealth transfers.

  5. Otherwise we might be looking at fiscal collapse

    1. yeah, without that influx of freedom voting immigrants, we might have ended up with an income tax, a poorly designed government retirement plan, and a poorly implemented government run health insurance scheme for retirees.

      1. Bullet, dodged.

        Oh, wait…

      2. Maybe we’d’ve wound up with them a generation or more earlier — which made a difference to those of that time, and may have made a difference today, because it would all compound. Disaster delayed is disaster averted for some, and disaster mitigated for those who come later.

  6. American Socialism was Stopped???? No?? Go on with your bad self.

    Funny how the article tells of all the Socialism brought to America by immigrants yet spins it into a theory that actually doesn’t even exist.

    Thomas Jefferson, they “will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.”

    Pretty much pegs it head-on. And is exactly why invasion security is a necessary function of any standing nation and vetting ‘legal’ immigration is of importance.

    21st Century propaganda goal-post; How to blur all lines between illegal and legal immigration.

    1. I’ve never heard that Thomas Jefferson quote before, but it’s a fantastic summary of human nature. I’m going to have to find a way to use that in the future.

      1. We all need to stand back and appreciate the towering intellect and vision of the founding fathers of this country.

        1. ^hear hear!^ often thought they make our modern ‘statesmen’ look like mental, moral, and academic pygmies

          1. Barely functional retards next to the founders.

      2. Remember it was Jefferson who had to save Thomas Paine from the French Guillotine.

      3. But it makes sense only if you think temperate liberty is a narrow point, hard to stop on.

        1. it is definitely narrower than is accepted today. Plus… the constant moving of the overton window makes certain that anyone trying to land in the zone will miss the mark.

    2. Nothing is ever stopped, because the future is infinite. But if something is bad, delaying it is good, no? That’s what most of medicine is about: delaying the time you get sick and die.

      1. Not dealing with problems until the last minute totes is the path to success!

    3. Shorter: Import Not Americans, Become Not America

      1. unless you have a functional defn of American that can be accepted and defended by American institutions.
        This may have existed to some extent in the past – when Americans of different political parties could still mostly agree on what it was to be American – and that America was the greatest country in the world -past and present.
        This doesn’t exist anymore… if anything American institutions appear to be infected with the exact opposite view and motivation.

        1. We became an empire, and like many late empires, can’t define who we really are anymore.

          And all the barbarians are demanding their citizenry because why not? They want to be one of us and we have no logical reason to say no.

        2. “functional definition of American” = U.S. Constitution
          Opposite View = Democratic National Socialism (i.e. Nazism).

          In politicians hands it isn’t even an “opposite view”; it’s a treasonous take-over of the USA. There is a reason their is an “Oath of Office”.

  7. The left is full psychotic.
    They cannot be reasoned with, because they don’t want to acknowledge reality, and there is no point in attempting to.
    Kill or be killed.

    1. You need to calm down. Go rage at Twitter or something. Jeez.

      1. Hey, TDS-addled piece of shit! Here’s how petty your fave POS POTUS can be:
        “Biden says it’s time to reverse Trump’s low-flow shower rule, especially as drought grips West”
        Yep, any crises anywhere and what screws can we tighten? Happy now?
        (Reason doesn’t like the link – you can find it)

        1. Meanwhile:
          Woman drowns due to flooding in Grand Canyon.

          1. Was she taking a shower? Trump killed her! The Biden shower head rule would have saved her!

        2. The thing about low flow fixtures is that while they help reduce the usage, that extra capacity is then allocated to new connections so the next time there is a drought they are screwed again (with even more customers) unless they fix enough leaks in their distribution system or add sources.

      2. Your lack of self awareness is astounding.

        1. People on the left now are buying guns. Why? Because they’re afraid of nutters like you who use language of war. They fear some rightwinger like you is going to go on a rampage at a public school because of what they teach. They fear you will knife someone in the grocery line for using an EBT card. They fear you’re going to shoot at them for going to an abortion clinic. So they’re arming themselves. Because you don’t always get your two minutes of Twitter hate. Get your release, man. Buy some lotion if you have to.

          1. Screetch if you are that paranoid by all means go buy a firearm. Of course you’ve never fired one, which makes you way more dangerous than anyone else if you’re carrying. Hope it’s all legal man. This forum is monitored.

          2. “”People on the left now are buying guns.””

            They can show an ID to buy a gun but not to vote?

            “”They fear some rightwinger like you is going to go on a rampage at a public school because of what they teach.””

            Who on the left is supporting carrying said firearms at school?

            1. You must really enjoy lice eggs.

              1. What????? More trolling and mean girl antics from sarcasmic?!?!?

          3. Lol. Remember how you said using the word “you” was trolling. Hmmm..

            What you’re now doing is blame seeking. Youre aware of self agency right?

          4. “Know when we’ll disarm? When those radical right wingers disarm.” — The President’s Analyst

        2. “Your lack of self awareness is astounding.”

          To which our low-watt bulb asshole replies:
          “People on the left now are buying guns. Why? Because they’re afraid of nutters like you who use language of war.’

          Yep, real ‘language of war’ there, Nardz! He got ya there, din’he!

      3. Rage?

        July.16.2021 at 3:09 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        I look forward to when they’re critical of the sitting president during the next election, and your head explodes because they’re saying mean things about Biden while a Republican competes.


        July.16.2021 at 3:11 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        I was going to add something about people who might be splattered by the mess, but nobody cares about your alone ass. Shit. Nobody will know you’re missed until they shut the power off and things start to smell.

  8. “American government grew slower when the stock of immigrants was high, and union membership was lower when immigration was greater.”

    If you’re trying to sell a causal relationship between immigration and undermining union membership, I’ll buy that immigration has traditionally made it harder for unions to monopolize a company’s access to labor However, I’m not sure that’s as relevant today–when union membership often isn’t attached to a trade and is more about being a government employee. If immigration undermined the ability of unionized miners in the 19th century, what does that have to do with undermining the teachers’ unions, law enforcement unions, or the National Association of Government employees in the 21st century?

    The reason the labor unions in this country have largely turned from being against immigration to being in favor of it is because they don’t think immigration is a threat to their unions anymore, and I don’t see any good reason to argue with them about that.

    1. If immigrants started taking unionized government jobs in significant numbers, there would be a strong backlash from Black women.

    2. So what Reason is saying is that mass immigration is good because it undercut American labor then, but mass immigration has nothing to do with stagnant wages and unemployment now.

      1. I would argue that mass immigration has very little to do with stagnant wages, and that, pre-pandemic, we were seeing wages grow for unskilled workers faster than they have in generations.

        Rising standards of living (things like rising wages relative to the cost of living) is largely a function of productivity. It’s about being able to buy the same things you needed before for less than you did before–and then having some left over to buy things you couldn’t afford before. Within that context, an abundance of cheap labor is like an abundance of cheap energy.

        The consumer discretionary income of unskilled workers wouldn’t rise if they had to pay more for the same amount of gasoline than they did before. Their standard of living would rise if they had to pay less for the same amount of gasoline as they did before. Likewise, if unskilled workers had to pay more for housing, food, and manufactured goods because the wages of construction workers, food workers, and factory workers were higher, that would not increase their standard of living.

        Productivity gains, on the other hand, increase the standard of living and wages. If it only takes two workers to do something that used to require five, more people can afford to buy whatever they’re making. It’s the same effect if you can substitute cheaper labor either through immigration or trade. The consumer ends up saving money and using those saving to buy other things they couldn’t afford before–and that is the nature of sustainable economic growth.

        If an abundance of cheap labor were bad for wages or bad for the standard of living, the standard of living in China must have dropped precipitously over the last two decades and wages must have been minimal. Actually, in the history of the world, standards of living have probably risen faster for more people than they have for incredibly poor Chinese people–who were subsistence farmers just 20 years ago.

        Meanwhile, standards of living have continued to increase in the United States during that time. Go back 25 years on the following chart:

        1. The other data to look at in, terms of the standard of living, is where we are in the world (despite or rather because of trade with China):

          See where we are on the list:

          The countries above us are tiny little countries that divide their resources of a very small population. It tends to show people in oil rich tiny countries being especially wealthy–you can put Norway in that category. We provide a higher standard of living on a world basis than Brunei–an oil rich nation with less than 500,000 people.

          1. And your standard of living will be redistributed via the Cali UBI programme.

            1. That definitely doesn’t add to productivity.

              1. Some folks don’t understand that a rising tide lifts all boats. Yachts and dinghies.

        2. “I would argue that mass immigration has very little to do with stagnant wages”

          Law of Supply and Demand repealed for Labor! Hurrah!

          Ken makes the case for CCP Mercantalism:
          standards of living have probably risen faster for more people than they have for incredibly poor Chinese people–who were subsistence farmers just 20 years ago.

          Beside screwing US Labor with immigration policy, we’ve screwed US Labor with tariff policy. Even Adam Smith was in favor of tariffs to offset domestic taxes on production.

          1. The laws of supply and demand don’t disappear when there’s an abundance of cheap labor, but the quantity of labor demanded is a function of that labor’s cost. The less it costs, the more labor businesses wish to consume.

            Again, if an abundance of cheap labor were associated with failing wages in the overall economy, wages in China must have decreased over the last 20 years. That isn’t what happened. Instead, they attracted much of the world’s manufacturing over the last 20 years because they had a huge supply of cheap labor.

            Think of what happened with natural gas in the wake of the fracking revolution. Having an abundance of cheap natural gas drives the consumption of natural gas higher. It’s cheaper than coal. They’re putting the coal industry out of business by undercutting coal on cost. Is an abundance of cheap energy bad for consumers or businesses or the overall economy? The correct answer is no.

            No doubt, if you’re a coal miner being displaced by natural gas or someone who does manual labor getting displaced by a large supply of unskilled immigrants, or an office worker being displaced by automation, that’s bad news for you. That doesn’t mean cheap energy, cheap labor, or automation are bad for the overall economy. Other people are benefiting from lower costs.

            There is a system where the government tries to use regulation and artificial barriers to stop market forces and supply and demand fluctuations from disrupting people’s lifelong employment trajectories. They’ve tried to do that in Cuba and Venezuela and they used to do it in the Soviet Union. That fails miserably, and the extent to which we try to emulate those failing strategies is the extent to which we fail.

            Suffice it to say, the health of the economy and the strength and stability of wages relative to our standard of living does not spring from the government’s efforts to protect us from supply and demand, and immigration restrictions that are meant to protect us from a large supply of cheap labor are no exception.

            Because coal miners are getting screwed by the falling costs of energy doesn’t mean the rest of the economy is suffering from falling energy costs. The abundance of cheap energy may be leading to all sorts of new opportunities for higher paid jobs elsewhere in the economy. And that’s what’s happened in the United States over the last 20 years.

            At the beginning of 2019, the headlines were about how unskilled workers were seeing wage increases that were higher than their managers. Wages increased despite our factories moving to China and despite a net inflow of immigration. If you’re the one being displaced by this, that stinks, but working moms, for instance, are benefiting from cheap childcare provided by immigrants. Other consumers are saving money on landscaping and house cleaning services. When they save money using cheap labor, what do they do with that money they save?

            Some of them buy things that may drive demand for higher paid jobs. People are buying boats, motorcycles, RVs, and they’re splurging on snowboarding lessons and a trip to Colorado. Some of them are buying legal weed and concert tickets. They’re gambling in Vegas. They’re saving for their retirement. They’re remodeling their kitchens or taking yoga classes. The jobs associated with this consumer spending isn’t necessarily low wage, and you want to kill the goose that’s laying the golden eggs?

            Being an unskilled laborer who can only differentiate yourself on the basis of how you’ll work for less than the other guy is supposed to suck. You may need to change professions or move somewhere else in the country. If you’re unwilling to do what’s necessary to compete with immigrants who don’t speak English and may only have an 8th grade education, I feel for you, but I can’t quite reach you.

            Regardless, labor is a resource, having a large supply of a resource is good for the economy, and a large supply of cheap labor is no exception.

            1. You’re engaging a fucking ignoramus:
              “…Again, if an abundance of cheap labor were associated with failing wages in the overall economy, wages in China must have decreased over the last 20 years. That isn’t what happened. Instead, they attracted much of the world’s manufacturing over the last 20 years because they had a huge supply of cheap labor…”

              The common claim from lefty ignoramuses assumes a ‘race to the bottom’.
              Any look at wages, world-wide, would tell those other than lefty ignoramuses that the economy driven by consumers means wages are and always will be a race to the top.
              Remember when ‘made in Japan’ meant cheap stuff? I was there in the late ’60s; lunch cost a dime. So is lunch now a nickle or are those lefty shits lying?

            2. “The laws of supply and demand don’t disappear when there’s an abundance of cheap labor”

              “Again, if an abundance of cheap labor were associated with failing wages in the overall economy,”

              It’s fun watching you go completely retarded in a vain attempt to defend selling out US Workers to the ruling class.

              It not whether there *is* abundant cheap labor.

              It’s what happens to the price of labor when you *change* the supply of it with a massive increase of cheap labor. It’s really not rocket science to figure that out, nor is the outcome in doubt.

              You have to blah blah blah an ocean of evasion to confuse yourself enough into thinking you’ve repealed the most basic of economic laws.

      2. Or that we staved off Socialism – by implementing the New Deal, Social Security, Wage and Price Controls, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid – all implemented in a 30 year period that was interrupted by World War II.

        And now that we have open borders, and have implemented Too Big to Fail, TARP, Obamacare, Direct Income Payments, forced lockdowns, government assimilation of big media and big tech, and coming soon the Green New Deal, within a 15 year span.

        1. Are you sure wages have stagnated?

          1. Jeff is too stupid to understand that productivity increases can either lead to wage growth or to production cost decreases, ie prices come down, to the consumer.

    3. Hmm, I bet most unions are against Cuban immigrants.

      1. Janet Reno sent some Union Thugs to grab one up and send him back

      2. It’s a little complicated, but even the trade unions see illegal immigrants as an alternative to union labor. People who are here illegally are harder to organize, and they seem them as as threat to union jobs. They support legal immigration. Legal immigrants often tend to be low wage and ripe for organizing.

        The unions tend to want to go after the companies that hire illegal labor, rather than the illegal immigrants themselves. When they’re organizing hotel workers, janitors, and construction workers, they want the government to give green cards to the illegal immigrants doing those jobs so they can be brought into the union and start paying dues.

        Back in the day, they were almost uniformly opposed to immigrant labor because immigrant labor was the alternative to union labor. That isn’t necessarily the case anymore. Look at the United Farm Workers, they’re in favor of fining and punishing operations that hire illegal labor, and they’re in favor of giving those illegal aliens green cards so they can be organized into the union.

        Check that link. Read what they want. “Naturalization not deportation” is probably the best summary.

        In other words, even when we’re not talking about cops’, teachers’ and bureaucrats’ unions, the unions don’t seem to see immigration itself as their enemy anymore. They seem to see legal immigrants as an excellent means of growth for the union.

        So, if we’re trying to undermine the unions with legal immigration, that doesn’t seem to be what’s worrying them. The unions want more legal immigration, and they want all the illegal immigrants to get green cards.

  9. Regarding immigrants:
    “Democratic Lawmakers Blast Federal Judge’s Ruling That Says DACA Is Unlawful”
    “U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, who was appointed by former GOP President George W. Bush, released a 77-page ruling on Friday, arguing that the DACA program is unlawful—banning new applicants. Democrats and President Joe Biden quickly responded, criticizing the ruling and arguing that legislation was necessary to bring an end to the uncertainty enforced upon immigrants who have benefited from DACA…”

    No, legislation WAS required to even initiate the program; the uncertainty is your fault, not the judge’s.
    Seems Reason didn’t find it newsworthy.

    1. The irony is that the status of the dreamers was always precarious because of the obvious unconstitutionality of the DACA executive order. Now that it’s been declared unconstitutional, Congress will be forced to act to save them–and the dreamers won’t be left in limbo anymore.

      The Democrats in red and purple states and districts weren’t about to stick their necks out for the dreamers so long as they didn’t need to do so, and so long as the DACA executive order was saving them from deportation, there was no need. Now that the courts have finally kicked the chair out from under DACA, . . . .

      I think it should also be understood that the most proximate cause of the deluge of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras was DACA. We used to have less than a thousand asylum seekers a year from all three countries combined before DACA. After DACA, the wave crests at some 150,000 a month, with 80% of them either being children of families traveling with children.

      There isn’t anything surprising about people sending their children here by the hundreds of thousands after we promise not to deport people who come here as children. If they want to turn off the problem at the border when they reform DACA, they need to set a cutoff date. If you came here illegally as a child, before 2018, say, then you’re protected as a dreamer.

      If they don’t do that, the flood of children from the third world generally, and that Northern Triangle countries specifically, will continue forever.

      1. “…There isn’t anything surprising about people sending their children here by the hundreds of thousands after we promise not to deport people who come here as children…”

        There are people who at least claim to be surprised and, like turd, jeff, sarc and Tony, are perhaps stupid enough to be so.
        We see it in SF on a regular basis among those surprised that the rising bum budget seems to result in more bums!

        1. If a new tax was imposed on successful people they would have enough money to fully fund the programs and end homelessness once and for all!

  10. The untold story.
    Notice how Harris/Biden don’t want boatloads of immigrants fleeing communism to move in though.

    1. Why not? Harris/Biden are communists who hate America, so why wouldn’t they want those immigrants to come here and vote? Makes no sense. Maybe they fear the immigrants wouldn’t vote for them because they’ve seen the destruction that their politics causes. No. Can’t be it. Immigrants are dirty.. They’re usually brown… They must be commies…

      Trump was right! Keep the immigrants out!

      Oh fuck, Harris/Biden are saying the same thing, but they’re wrong about everything!

      I don’t know what to think! I’m so confuuuuuuused!

      1. Yes, you’re confused; dragging that strawman around only makes it obvious.
        Perhaps single-syllable words would allow you to understand?

        1. At this point he is so broken it is all he has left.

      2. There’s been no significant change in immigration policy for decades. Politicians just rearrange the deck chairs so their supporters will think they’re doing something to improve the situation, while their real goal is to maintain the supply of easily exploited illegal workers.

        1. It’s dishonest slavery. That the illegals prefer it to where they came from makes for a very questionable justification.

          I’ve become incredibly agnostic over indentured servitude of late. Should people be free to become contractual dependents? Because it’s appallingly obvious that people are willing to accept some facsimile of that.

      3. What a wonderful not-leftists spin on the situation. I now see that the problem with the left’s blatant hypocrisy on immigration isn’t that it lays bare their purely cynical motives for importing all the world’s migrants (except those they fear may vote Republican), but that Republicans are pointing it out.

        1. And sarc can prove what an ignoramus he is by trying to spin what only he, jeff and mike would see as coherent, let alone ‘clever’.

        2. That whooshing sound was my point going over your head.

          When you judge policy by the people, not the policy, and the people you hate do the same policy as the ones you have sworn allegiance to, what are you supposed to think? Always at war with Eurasia. Or was it Eastasia?

          1. “…When you judge policy by the people, not the policy, and the people you hate do the same policy as the ones you have sworn allegiance to, what are you supposed to think?…”

            This from a TDS-addled piece of shit who, if Trump walked on water, would claim it was because he can’t swim.
            Fuck off and die, asshole.

          2. All you fucking do is go into threads and lay blame to people and not policy you hypocritical fuck.

          3. What a trollish thing to say.

  11. OT, #ME TOO:
    “Gov. Cuomo to be grilled by AG’s lawyers in sexual harassment probe”
    “Gov. Cuomo is the guest of honor today at a weekend grilling.
    He was to be quizzed by investigators Saturday as part of the state probe into sexual harassment claims by his female aides.”

    Gee, a Saturday ‘interview’; it’ll be ‘old news’ by Monday, right?

    1. I thought it meant hamburgers on the grill and some beers in his backyard.

      1. Stag, though; no more temptations.

        1. His brother is bringing the hookers.

      2. If you are at a woman at the cookout, when you’re burgers are done Cuomo will grab your buns for you.

        1. That might not be mayonnaise on the bun.

    2. They didn’t want to interfere with the Democratic all-star’s weekday tasks of sending COVID positive people to senior housing.


    A general strike (or mass strike) across the U.S. is planned for Oct. 15. It may involve a substantial proportion of the total labor force across metro areas, towns, and rural communities that could bring the economy to a standstill.

    Organizers of the general strike call themselves “National General Strike Day” and appear to be a movement that may involve workers in many workplaces and or unions.

    Not much is clear about “National General Strike Day,” except their top 5 following on Twitter is the “Party for Socialism and Liberation,” “Socialist Rifle Association,” “AFL-CIO,” “United Steelworkers,” and “UAW.” They do blame “capitalism in decline” for why they’re striking.

    1. Their reasons for striking are listed on their website and state, “the U.S. Government is not serving its people:”

      The United States is the only developed country that requires zero paid time off for maternity leave

      Unemployment rose to 14% in 2021 because companies refused to raise wages

      Only 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of all global carbon emissions

      The Federal Minimum wage hasn’t been raised since 2009

      40 million Americans live at, or below the national poverty line

      Pharmaceutical companies are extorting patients for medications

      And the average American is $90,460 in debt just to afford basic necessities like housing, food, clothes, education, and medical bills
      They say, “this demonstration serves to show your company, and our country as a whole, that you deserve basic human rights. Your labor is a bargaining tool, and you are worth more than what society is offering you.”

      1. Here are their demands:

        % corporate tax rate (No loopholes)

        Free Healthcare for all

        12 weeks paid paternity and maternity leave

        $20 minimum wage

        4 day work week

        Stricter Environmental Regulations on Corporations (Bans on single-use and microplastics, and limited emissions)
        The group says the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 “protects your right to strike even if you are not a union member because you are engaging in concerted activity.”

        1. If anyone who worked for me didn’t show up to work in support of that garbage, I would get rid of them.

      2. But where do the robots stand? Given our transition to automation, most union workers can go fuck themselves, and I can still get the stuff I want–probably better and cheaper.

    2. They can blame themselves and the candidates they helped elect for why capitalism is in decline. I’ll be working that day.

  13. What was the message America was sending to the world during that time of relatively open borders?

  14. More OT:
    Damn Asian kids, taking all the As and not leaving any for black or brown kids:
    “A PTA Purge of Asians
    America’s top public high school shows us what discrimination looks like today.”
    “Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology is a school for gifted students ranked No. 1 among all public high schools nationwide by U.S. News & World Report. In December the county school board changed its admissions process, replacing a rigorous, race-blind entrance exam with a “holistic” (read: subjective) formula that includes grades but also puts caps on the number of students each middle school could send to TJ—a de facto limit on middle schools with high numbers of Asian-American students…”

    Racist bastards…

    1. I predict some Asian family relocations, and a new form of gentrification. Unless some neighborhoods are reserved for black families. We could call it yellow-lining.

    2. It is one thing to teach CRT but something else to actually apply it.

  15. You can definitely tell the left wing anger is boiling that they lost the DACA case, and they won’t have a chance to get it back. Jeff and his many socks are posting frantically.

    They know they need Congress to write a bill and pass a law, but they know that’s impossible now too.

    Expect more left wing violence over the next few years as they lose Congress, and then the White House, and then the SC goes 7-2.

  16. Yet more OT:
    “”White privilege Trumps everything”: Jokey meme, or symbol of America’s disease?”,racial%20segregation%20and%20the%20genocide%20of%20indigenous%20peoples.

    Salon left out the part where the card is carried by members of the Fighting Honkies high-school basketball team!

    1. Joe Biden has been president for only three weeks, yet for many Americans that brief time feels like years because the Age of Trump was so horrible.
      Holy crap.

      1. I know I really hated the tax cuts! How dare he left me keep my money!

  17. But the Founding Fathers were conflicted: Many supported an open immigration system because of their Enlightenment ideology.

    There is not one whit of evidence that ideology had one iota of influence on pro-immigration sentiment until possibly the 1960’s. If you have that evidence show it.

    Nor would it since the US is the country that CREATED the modern legal notions of migration that maybe now exemplify some ‘Enlightenment ideology’. But those were created on the basis of
    a)eliminating the feudal notions of serfdom/droit de detraction/etc as evidenced in all the bilateral treaties that created virtually 100% of 19th century migration here
    b)motivated by the ECONOMIC realities of the US which had a lot of land and a huge labor shortage.

    1. Welcome to America. Put your X on the ledger… here. Thank you. Good luck making a living. Next.

  18. “Immigration had already made the United States the most ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse society in the Western world when the Constitution was written”

    More diverse than Mexico? They had centuries of diversifying under their belt by the time the constitution was written. Catholics don’t seem to have been as squeamish about intermarriage as the Puritans were.

    1. Ever seen a black Mexican?

      Me neither.

      1. Yeah searching for Afro-Mexicans turned up zero results.

        Screetch you are still one of the biggest dumbasses here.

      2. You live in Maine dumbfuck.

      3. I’m aware of a Cuban sandwich.

        1. Yo quiero Veracruz. Muy hermosa.

    2. I nominate Brazil. Plus nicer beaches and smaller bikinis.

      1. Remember US has not only English but Scots, Welsh and both types of Irish.

  19. “Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and their American followers warned that immigrant-induced diversity reduced worker solidarity and that this problem would continue so long as the United States had near-open borders.”

    That totally proves that Democrats are not socialists, right?

  20. Gaslighting really is the bread and butter of the left (and Reason, BIRM) now.

  21. How many members of The Squad, who are socialists in the actual fucking government, are immigrants again?

    1. What do you want to do with the brown people, precisely?

  22. The writer speaks post-1932 European socialist dialect. Right wing referred to armies before 1932, and right and left today mean nothing more than christian religious versus more pagan and less religious socialism. Outside a 100% socialist universe of discourse the expressions only transmit information on the cluelessness of the writer.


    Clashes broke out between police and demonstrators in Lyon, France, on Saturday after the country said it would make vaccines mandatory for healthcare workers, and the use of a “health pass,” indicating proof of vaccination for certain activities. [Video]


    Austin is a lot different than it was just 2 short years ago. I had to be down there today & it took my breath away. If you look at these pics & think they’re shaming the homeless or those simply too effed up to make it home, get your head on straight. [Pics]

  25. Socialism was not stopped, but halted. Socialist are still working hard in the USA to ruin the country while gaining power and wealth for themselves with the lie that Socialism is a great equalizer.

  26. Socialism is good in theory, but not really work in reality!

    1. No, it’s objectively evil in theory.

      1. Depends on what you mean by socialism. If you’re talking about authoritarian socialism, sure, it’s evil because it’s authoritarian.

        If you’re talking about Denmark, that’s the happiest place on earth.

        1. That’s why Denmark is a global world power with a huge diverse population. Everyone wants to go to Denmark. Oh wait, that’s not true.

          Quick, name me three big companies in Denmark without googling it. Name me one of their best selling pop artist. Yeah, that’s what I thought. Denmark actually says they’re not socialist, so you don’t have a point.

          I’m sure some white ass Nordic country where people are legendarily cold and aloof has some appeal to Honduran migrants, because that society is better than their hellhole. Other than that, who wants to go to Denmark?

          1. Hans Christian Andersen doesn’t count?

          2. Your logical fallacy is: what the fuck does diversity have to do with which distributive system you choose?

            We could at least try Denmark in the US. Even the mild steps into social welfare helped the US, with all its power and resources, create the modern world. Think what we could do if we did even more.

        2. It’s funny how Leftists always point to the Whitest of White ethnostates for their ideal societies.

          Is all that wailing about White Nationalism just more Leftist projection?

          1. Sorry, what does skin color have to do with any of this?

        3. If you’re talking about Denmark, that’s the happiest place on earth.

          Denmark is more free market and less socialist than the US. It finances its social welfare state through massive taxes on the middle class, not on “taxing the rich”. It balances its budget. It places strict limits on welfare payments. Abortion is limited to the first trimester.

          You want Danish-style government in the US? Conservatives would love that.

          1. sans the high taxes…

            1. Denmark may not be a US conservative’s dream, but it is far more conservative and free market than what we currently have in the US and what Democrats want. So, conservatives would be happy to move into that direction.

              Top marginal taxes in Denmark are comparable to the US. The major difference between Denmark and the US is that Denmark imposes high income taxes on all workers, which is necessary to finance the social welfare state and balance the budget. Conservatives should welcome that, because then we can have a discussion whether lower and middle classes are actually getting their money’s worth for those high taxes.

              Democrats, on the other hand, peddle the fiction that everybody can have Danish-style government handouts and “the rich” will pay for it. Scandinavia actually tried that and that doesn’t work.

  27. Not even trying for believable anymore, are you?

  28. Are you mad? Individual freedom is way too dangerous to place in the hands of the browns.

    Liberty is a contingent value. First, you have to be an American citizen. Everyone else can shove their individual liberty and die starving at the foot of our big wall.

    1. Are you mad? Individual freedom is way too dangerous to place in the hands of the browns.

      Stop being such a f*cking racist, Tony.

      Liberty is a contingent value. First, you have to be an American citizen. Everyone else can shove their individual liberty and die starving at the foot of our big wall.

      Although imperialists and war mongers like you may wish it to be otherwise, it is the job of the US government to ensure liberty for US citizens only and not meddle in the affairs of other people.

      1. That’s not what the US government has traditionally felt.

        1. Well, yes: for about a century, globalist, imperialists, and progressives have been in charge of the US government–people like you.

  29. How Mass Immigration Stopped American Socialism Relatively open borders helped halt the early 20th century welfare state.

    The “early 20th century welfare state” has blossomed from about 5% of GDP in 1900 to 44% today, mostly entitlements, government handouts, and interest to pay for the former. If that is “halting” the welfare state, I’m wondering what Reason would consider “growing” the welfare state.

  30. Reason explains how immigrants stopped socialism in America

    “You see most of the early immigrants favored socialism, especially the Germans. This increase in socialism led to an impression that socialism was unamerican, resulting in labor unions pushing for restrictionist policies. But diversity hobbled such efforts (and now much of what remains of union are occupied by socialist immigrants). Thus concludes our research that show how immigrants reduced GDP spending and slowed down union growth”

    Well all righty then. But going back to the question at hand – how did immigrants STOP socialism in this country?

    We have to know, because 30-40% of the population is immigrant now and most of them favor socialism as much as those Germans. The socialists who are voted in are typically immigrants.

    Try to come up with an answer, I think I’ll head to the National Review and read their “how importing more white racists into the country actually reduces racism”.

  31. Family law is included in civil law. The point of this law school is the concept of Family. detail – for more information

  32. Socialism Ideology is kind of rubbish!

  33. Wrong. All those immigrants that came voted FDR 4 times and put in the foundations for socialism, crony capitalism and his attacks on both individual and economic freedom.

    1. “crony capitalism” is a misnomer of lefty-propaganda.
      It has and always will be “crony socialism”.

  34. Now do the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

  35. Absurd revisionism straining to support a predetermined ideological viewpoint.

    Immigration is at an all-time high in the US, as a percentage of the population and staggeringly so in absolute numbers.

    The massive waves of immigration since 1968 is a world-historical, unprecedented experimentation in social upheaval and transformation.

    The incredible growth of socialism in America during that time would never have happened without it. Yes, socialism and the destruction of the constitutional design of limited government and federalism long predates this, but the point stands. Immigrants vote for and support socialism and racial identity politics in overwhelming numbers.

  36. “Just import millions more people. Sure, it lowers wages for the working class, drives up housing, healthcare and educations costs, strains infrastructure, and harms the environment . . . but it also decimates social cohesion and trust!”

Please to post comments