Illegal Immigration Isn't an 'Invasion'

Overheated rhetoric is a ploy to treat migrants like enemy combatants.


When ideologues on the left and the right want to make a case for why the government really needs to crack down on something, they rhetorically elevate the offense. One example from the left is the desire to impose speech codes or hate speech laws. "Words are violence," some argue. After all, being rude can cause "stress" or "harm," just like wielding a knife or gun.

The same lame bombast also infects the right. "It is an invasion, that's not an overstatement," Fox News host Tucker Carlson told his viewers last month, referring to illegal migration. The purpose of these rhetorical maneuvers is clear. If words are violence, then we should treat insults like assaults. If illegal migration is an invasion, border crossers should be treated like an enemy in a war.

I don't care much for politically correct language. I avoid the euphemism treadmill. Whether you call people who violate immigration law "illegal aliens," "undocumented noncitizens," or "unauthorized immigrants" doesn't make much difference to me (or the law). But illegal migration is not an invasion any more than words are violence. The problem is the inaccuracy, not the politics.

The Constitution requires the federal government to protect against an "invasion"—what every court that has reviewed the question has interpreted to mean an "armed hostility from another political entity." James Madison labeled invasion a "foreign hostility" or attack by one state on another, and the Constitutional Convention debates connected the power to repel invasions with the power to raise armies. All the widely used English dictionaries from the Founding confirm this understanding, and of course, the other uses of invasion in the Constitution have the same meaning.

Using the word invasion as a substitute for illegal migration is both offensive to anyone who's lived through a real one and insulting to the intelligence of everyone else. If you can't tell the difference between 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris today as tourists, it's time to crack open a history book, not opine on immigration policy. Perhaps because they know the comparison to an invasion is so weak, nativists like former President Donald Trump also promulgate the risible conspiracy theory that foreign governments are "sending" the immigrants here.

Migration across the border may involve violations of U.S. laws, but the comparison to an invasion ends there. Border crossers aren't coming to overthrow the government or take over the Capitol (unlike a few nativists this year). Indeed, it's the U.S. government that is attempting to assail the migrants, not the other way around. People crossing the border actively try to avoid conflict with U.S. authorities either by 1) evading detection and peacefully moving to their destinations, or 2) intentionally seeking out U.S. agents to submit to the government's legal procedures. Reporting from the frontlines of this supposed conquest, The Wall Street Journal described how some invaders were inquiring for directions to the closest "immigration office."

An "invasion" isn't just an overstatement. It's a completely unserious attempt to demand extraordinary, military-style measures to stop completely mundane actions like walking around a closed port of entry to file asylum paperwork or violating international labor market regulations in order to fill one of the 10 million job openings in this country. But the goal of this nativist language warfare is nothing less than the removal of immigrant rights. "We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country," Trump tweeted in 2018. "When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came."

The right labels leftists who shut down speech "snowflakes" because they cannot handle hearing certain words or ideas. But hysterically shouting "invasion" every time people seek safety or opportunity in this country reveals a similar fragility. Carlson apparently feels so threatened by these farmhands and families that he demands that they be met with military force. Citing the minuscule percentage of migrants who are actually violent criminals as a reason to treat them all as invaders doesn't change the absurdity of the argument—it demonstrates it.

But Carlson and Trump are not just wrong; they have it backward. Migration is the exact opposite of an invasion. Nearly all these so-called invaders are coming to serve Americans. This supposed invasion will contribute to the strength and prosperity of the United States, not undermine it. This isn't Santa Anna's soldiers crossing the Rio Grande. It's four kids with their mom reuniting with their dad at a farm outside of Atlanta. They're not coming to blow us up or take our stuff—they're coming to work with us, work for us, and buy our products. They want to be us, not conquer us. And that's the most important point: A crackdown on migration does not vindicate the rights of Americans to be free from foreign attackers. Rather, it is a violation of our rights to associate, contract, and trade with peaceful people born in other countries.

The fact that these actions are so often illegal is lamentable. But Congress could pass a law tomorrow to legalize migration (as it in fact did for the first century of American history). The illegal part of illegal immigration is a problem easily solved by Congress. It does not warrant the suspension of habeas corpus or calling up militias to shoot the "invaders."

Real invasions are met with violence, and so it's unsurprising to see this language repeated by a variety of different nativists who have gone on to commit terrorist attacks. To reject these attacks—as assuredly nearly all nativists do—is to reject the premise on which they were based. There is no invasion. It's just an overheated political analogy in pursuit of a policy outcome—if only the wielders of the word would admit that. If nativists have a good argument to make against liberalized immigration, let them make that argument instead of mangling the English language.

NEXT: Russian Ammo Ban Hurts Gun Owners, Not Vladimir Putin

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. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,…………… READ MORE

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in We the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See……………VISIT HERE

        1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,…………… READ MORE

    2. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.DSw I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
      I highly recommend to everyone to apply…

      Join this right now………………… VISIT HERE

    3. Right it isn’t an “invasion”, but is ILLEGAL, which is what is wrong with Reason mag. Like the law or not, illegal is illegal plain and simple.

  1. Illegal Immigration Isn’t an ‘Invasion’

    And a rectangle isn’t a square either.

    1. If someone climbs through your window , enters your home, and takes a shower in your bathroom after helping themselves to your food that is sometimes called a ‘home invasion.’
      Not a military invasion for certain, but not simply unexpected visitors either.

        1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.GFj Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

          You can check it out here…………………VISIT HERE

        2. Good comment JOD. Reason is becoming my least favorite mag due to its movement from intelligent decency to “make sure everyone gets what they want and to hell with cost, danger, or other mistakes.

      1. Is it an invasion when someone rents and apartment and gets a job?

        1. Depends; Did they rent “LEGALLY” by contract??
          Or just break-in illegally and pretend to be renting?

          lol… Your concept is so stupid that’s all that’s needed to address it.

          1. Sarcasmic has trouble applying learnt concepts in new situations if these don’t exactly match the situation in which he learned them. To put it another way, he isn’t dumb. But hes also not terribly bright. I had to learn this the hard way when i engaged in a conversation about physics with him once.

      2. I’m sure Mr. Bier would have no problem if we happened to immigrate through his yard, set ourselves up in his house, and take whatever we need. Your property taxes get to pay for our kids’ bilingual education. He also gets to take us to the local ER and pay all our expenses when we get sick. You are wrong Mr. Bier, they are taking our stuff to the tune of billions of dollars to the in just the states. They mostly take “under the table” jobs from unscrupulous American employers who don’t pay a fair market wage or the appropriate payroll taxes. Legal immigrants jump through all the hoops required to come here. These people need to do the same if they want to come here. By the way, how do you know that only a miniscule number of these people have criminal backgrounds? They aren’t being properly vetted or being screened for infectious diseases.

  2. All forms of immigration are desirable because they import cost-effective labor for employers like Charles Koch. (For the unaware, Charles Koch is the billionaire who funds — and he absolutely hates hiring American-born workers.)


  3. It is, and they are.

    1. +1
      This would be so much easier if we could just up vote good posts.
      Come on, Reason, help us out.

      1. I agree.
        That’s part of what I like about Disqus.

  4. But taking selfies in the capitol is (as long as you have ever supported a republican)

    1. No, it’s an insurrection worse than 9-11.

    2. If the government can arrest Nuns for praying in the Capital rotunda, then I think arresting unauthorized people taking selfies is OK.

      1. How about shooting them in the face or detaining them without bail or trial for 8 months?

        Consider your answer carefully. Some unscrupulous hack might choose to apply your standard to illiterate Mexican migrant farm workers.

        1. Knock. Knock.

          Who’s there?

          I suppose I probably shouldn’t waste a guess on ‘Ashli Babbitt.’

          Carry on, clingers.

          So far as your betters permit, that is.

          1. The vax gestapo. Dein Ausweis, bitte.

          2. I wish I could be there when you are finally executed as a traitor.

          3. Tell us a No-Knock joke, the one that begins with a flash-bang and ends with the end of a 4th Amendment.
            Isn’t “immigration” legal? Sneaking across a border is a crime which should not be rewarded. Or did that get changed also? Criminals cannot vote can they? Foreigners cannot vote can they?
            Where can I apply for a job as a professional voter? How does a dictator get elected???
            Yes this country is now at the point of no return.

        2. Who was shot in the face? Plenty of poor people in jail because they can not even raise the money they need to make bail. I don’t have to assume someone would apply these standards because it likely has already been done.

          1. Who was shot in the face?

            Un unarmed woman named Ashli Babbitt. If you haven’t heard the name, it’s because nobody at Salon or Mother Jones has said her name. But hell, that’s really nothing compared with the travesty of justice that is making Chicago gangland shooters pay 10% towards their bail bond.

            1. Some people still talk about her.

              Our First Affirmative Action Martyr

              In this case they even acknowledge her as an Enlightenment™ First.

            2. I believe she was shot in the chest, but shot in the face does sound better. As does she was doing nothing but trying to kill a member of Congress.

              1. And we know this because of all the other members of Congress who were killed, due to the lack of any further heroic intervention by Lt. Byrd.

              2. … trying to kill a member of Congress.?
                Holy crap.

              3. Believe the point of entry was her neck. Pretty strange way to kill a member of congress. Unarmed 5 foot 4 inch woman surrounded by armed cops. Asshole cop that murdered her is doing TV interviews and stated on camera that he would have killed her whether she was armed or not. Terrified of a tiny woman. Scumbags like you are pimping this thug as some kind of hero so naturally he’s trying to cut a book deal. Pre order for your autographed copy asshole.

              4. Trying to kill a member of Congress?
                None of whom were there, and with her bare hands?
                All I can hope is that you encounter Lt. Michael Byrd, when he is displaying the utmost courage.
                What a piece of inhuman shit!

              5. You really are a lying propagandist.

              6. Who owns the Capital building?

                1. or is it Capitol?

  5. If libertarians really hated the state as much as they hate the nation, they might actually be good for something.

    1. If your assumptions create reality, then the Moon is made of green cheese, Unicorn farts and pixie dust can power vehicles, all the things Chris Kristofferson doen’t believe in his Country song are true, Buckwheat’s Sister Cotton is a monkey, ‘Ifs’ and ”Buts’ are candies and nuts, and we can all have a Merry Christmas.

  6. Finish the wall. It will not stop all illegal crossings of course, but channel them and reduce numbers. The claim that the wall doesn’t work also says it makes no sense to lock the door because someone might break a window and get in anyway.

    1. Finish the wall. It will not stop all illegal crossings of course, but channel them and reduce numbers.

      In order for The Wall to work, it has to be (a) continually monitored (at great expense), and (b) the defenders have to be willing to use lethal force to stop those who attempt to breach the wall. All of the examples of walls that “worked” contained these two elements to them – Israel, Berlin, etc. If you are not willing to accept these two conditions, then building The Wall is pointless. The public is unwilling to stomach ‘kids in cages’. Do you think the public would be willing to stomach dead Mexican women and children at the foot of The Wall?

      And EVEN IF somehow there was public support for shooting unarmed Mexican women and children because they were ‘invaders’, all that would happen is that the so-called ‘invaders’ would simply find another way around. By sea, by air, etc. What that means in practice is that all of OUR liberties are constrained with more security nonsense at every port of entry in order to crack down on the illegal immigrant ‘scourge’.

      The War on Illegal Immigration is no different than the War on Drugs in the sense that it is a never-ending ratchet upwards in enforcement and punishment in order to stop peaceful people from interacting with each other in ways that don’t fundamentally violate anyone’s rights. There is no upper bound to what it would take to stop illegal immigration. What is the highest price you’d be willing to pay?

      1. peaceful people from interacting with each other in ways that don’t fundamentally violate anyone’s rights.
        Those people show up at the gate.

        1. They show up all over the place, not just at the gate.

          1. Aren’t you afraid that one of them might infect you with their dirty, dirty germ-breath, or does that only apply to wypipo you stupid shit-eating cunt secretion?

          2. How many are you going to take in guy?

            1. Something tells me cytotoxic spent a lot of his youth peeping on his mom fucking Julio the pool boy.

      2. Israel, Berlin, etc.

        Hey cool, cytotoxic is a racist cunt who compares Jews to Nazis and also can’t come up with a single example to support his position and hopes that an “etc” will suffice for the rest of the argument he forgot to make.

        Hey, remember how cytotoxic spent the last 18 months, every day, 7 days per week, usually between 8 and 14 hours per day arguing that permanent house arrest of American citizens enforced by men with guns was necessary because he’s a lardass fat piece of shit who thinks everyone else in society is obligated to make sure he is never exposed to a communicable respiratory virus? Or hey, remember how cytotoxic spent the last 8 months, multiple times per week, stating plainly that trespassing on federal property is rightly punishable by immediate summary execution? It’s almost like cytotoxic is a stupid, lying, cunt-mouthed sack of shit hypocrite histrionically screeching about imaginary dead Mexican babies while calling for Apache attack helicopter strafing runs on Trump supporters and supporting the cold blooded murder of unarmed Americans for misdemeanor trespassing. But then, that’s nothing new. Back when cytotoxic was still using his original handle he repeatedly said that illegal immigrants deserved welfare more than American citizens. It’s ironic how obsessed cytotoxic is with American immigration since he is a Canadian who lives in the greater Toronto area with his parents. But hey, since cytotoxic likes being an inflammatory moron, let’s hold him to his premises. We’ll live by your rules, cytotoxic: If shooting unarmed American women for trespassing on US federal government property is good and proper, then shooting unarmed Mexican women for trespassing on the US government’s property is also good and proper.

      3. Thanks for telling the world that you have no concept of “rights”, either what they are and are not, nor how they might possibly be applied.

      4. Jeffy, everything you said has been discredited a hundred times over here. You know that. So stop lying, apologize to everyone for threadshitting, and go away.

        Adults are trying to talk here. Maybe you should go outside and wait for the ice cream truck. You fat fuck.

      5. Speaking of limits……

        What’s yours? 8 billion? Is enough ever enough? Or is that only learned in hindsight?

        You can’t be trusted to make that call. Your white guilt is not our problem.

    2. “The claim that the wall doesn’t work also says it makes no sense to lock the door because someone might break a window and get in anyway.”

      No, that’s not the argument.

      It’s the difference between a linear wall along one edge of a property that is in effect purely decorative because anyone can go around it with effectively zero effort and a closed wall with locked gates all the way around the perimeter of the property.

      Neither will stop everyone, but the linear wall will stop no one.

      1. Because people routinely take 500 mile walks in your delusional imagination. The fact is you don’t need a full perimeter just a deterrent in the ONE direction the flow of illegal migration is coming from.

    3. Ending drug prohibition would stop most of it.

    4. Building the wall is pointless, because some undocumented persons will always get through.

      Everyone should wear masks at all times, even if they only prevent infection 1 time out of 100. If it saves even one life!

      1. Hermetically sealed bag over a prog’s head will prevent at least 100% of the virus transmission.

  7. “Indeed, it’s the U.S. government that is attempting to assail the migrants, not the other way around. People crossing the border actively try to avoid conflict with U.S. authorities either by 1) evading detection and peacefully moving to their destinations, or 2) intentionally seeking out U.S. agents to submit to the government’s legal procedures.”

    And they are doing this because they do not have a right to cross the border without checking in with US authorities and obeying US immigration law, especially during a pandemic. For over a year, US citizens had not been able to cross the Canadian border, a US citizen would not have been justified by trying to sneak into Canada avoiding Canadian authorities. It risible to characterize that people actively avoiding obeying US law are being unjustly attacked by US law enforcement.

    There is no right to immigrate to the United States.

    1. Everyone in the world (provided they are black or brown, subliterate, culturally unassimilable, and fit only for menial labor) is an undocumented American.

    2. Freedom of travel is a basic human right. If the Canadian government or some other government attempts to limit that right, it is entirely justifiable to try to evade those authorities and their arbitrary edicts. If someone is living peacefully and harming no one he is not violating anyone else’s rights.

      1. So you would be fine with a homeless man and his buddies living in your home provided they were peaceful and harming no one?

        1. That would be a violation of property rights.

          Whose property rights are illegal immigrants violating? It’s just a bullshit process crime. Driving 5mph above the speed limit is a greater threat, since it can actually cause harm.

          1. Yup. Crossing borders illegally is totes just a bullshit process crime. I guess unless we start having passports issued by some private party, it’s also fine to print your own and maybe add some nice fake security features to it.

            Just how pathetic are you really?

            1. Given that you can’t show actual harm inflicted, and the only “crime” is paperwork related, then yes that is by every definition a “process crime”.

              I have no thoughts on private passports.

          2. And its doubtful that someone who intentionally breaks immigration law is less harmful than someone driving 5 mph too fast, no matter how much defeated serfs whine about the reality of country borders.

            1. Driving above the speed limit can actually kill.

              Coming in without papers harms….no one?

          3. Whose property rights are illegal immigrants violating?

            The rights of ranchers, farmers, or homeowners whos personal property extends to the border… Or the US Government’s since they technically own everything that isn’t owned by a private citizen or private entity.

            1. If they actually step on someone’s private land, then I don’t mind even shooting them. But if they don’t set foot on private land, then I don’t care.

              Sure, maybe the government owns everything. But then everyone who walks into a park is trespassing…I don’t think it works like that.

        2. Oops.
          NIMBY alert.

      2. Once someone violates a law, they cease to be “peaceful”.
        Don’t like the law, change it, but don’t claim that anyone has a right to violate it by calling them “peaceful” when they do.

  8. Most dictionaries have more than one definition of “invasion”.

    My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “invasion” as:
    an invading or being invaded: specif.,
    a) an entering or being entered by an attacking military force
    b) an intrusion or infringement
    c) the onset of something harmful or troublesome, as a disease

    I’d sat definitions b) and c) would apply.

    1. Agree….’b’ definitely applies, and so does ‘c’.

      1. b sure, but hardly c. Immigration isn’t harmful, and the pretense to the contrary is ridiculous.

        More generally, Bier seems unaware that language is often metaphorical. I mean, the British Invasion in the 60s wasn’t even about Britons physically coming to the US. (It was about the popularity of British rock bands). There’s nothing ‘wrong’ about metaphorical uses of language.

        Of course, it’s also true that our choice of metaphors can say something about us. Calling illegal immigrants an invasion is dehumanizing, and inviting an inappropriate escalation in response. Just because something is a viable metaphor doesn’t make you a decent person for using it.

        1. b sure, but hardly c. Immigration isn’t harmful, and the pretense to the contrary is ridiculous.

          Someone carrying a disease across a border seems like it would fit the definition to a ‘t’. That would be *the* point at which the disease invaded the population.

        2. Immigration isn’t harmful, and the pretense to the contrary is ridiculous.

          I’m sure all of the people raped, murdered, and killed in DUI accidents by immigrants who comprise nearly half of the prison population will be comforted to learn this. Oh but wait, I forgot, they’re all there for victimless drug crimes like those poor persecuted negro youths.

          1. I don’t think you’re winning arguments here. Get a hobby.

          2. Citations most definitely wanted.

        3. You are correct that immigration isn’t harmful, so long as it is done legally. Arguing otherwise isn’t merely silly, it defies one the basic concepts of this nation, that we are a nation of laws, and not one of men. If you don’t like that, feel free to join the outflux.

          1. For our first 100+ years as a country, there were no immigration laws. There doesn’t need to be such a thing as illegal immigration – and when Washington did get around to enacting immigration restrictions, they weren’t because of any actual security or other issue, but because of pure racism.

            When the law is wrong, it should be abolished, not enforced. There’s no valid justification for immigration restrictions like we have.

            1. Yes, there is. No country wants useless bums and economic upgraders without loyalty to the law of the country. So get outta here.

    2. a) an entering or being entered by an attacking military force
      b) an intrusion or infringement
      c) the onset of something harmful or troublesome, as a disease

      I’d sat definitions b) and c) would apply.

      Even if (b) and (c) apply, the only definition that matters when it comes to the Constitution is (a), and that definition definitely doesn’t apply.

      1. the only definition that matters when it comes to the Constitution is (a)

        The term “invasion” is used thrice in the entire US constitution and left undefined therein. Perhaps you’re confusing the US constitution for the constitution of Canada, where you live. The next time you’re reading the US document, try not skipping article I, section 8, clause 4. See if you can find a definition for the term “insurrection” in there while you’re at it.

  9. In the 1930s, Germany was invaded by foreign, illegal enemy invaders and combatants known as “Jews”, “Gypsies”, etc.. Hitler saved Germany!

    Now Trump wants to save America!
    Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

  10. The Beatles launched the British Invasion
    An invasion of tourists to a seaside community in the Spring
    An invasion of students to a sleepy college town in the Fall

    1. You know the day destroys the night
      Night divides the day
      Tried to run
      Tried to hide
      Break on through to the other side!

      The “other side” that I would like to see us “break on through” to, is one where we no longer do this, as described below… No longer engage in “my tribe’s lies leading to violence are GOOD, and YOUR tribe’s lies leading to violence are BAD!”

      From “Jesus_Validated” web page…

      We aren’t merely just self-righteous by genetic programming; we are also prone to making up lies about our “tribal enemies”, in order to justify attacking them! Not to make you retch, but please recall your history. And not to pick on Christians too much; this is just the history that I am most familiar with. Dark-ages Christians spread horrible lies about “witches” (pre-Christian Wiccans, pagans, etc.) in order to justify witch-burnings, witch-drownings, etc. And the same with rumors about Jews and (ugh!) drinking the blood of Christian babies, etc. (Sorry I had to go there).

      This, too, may be at least somewhat genetically programmed. See and (same thing)
      A terrifying new theory: Fake news and conspiracy theories as an evolutionary strategy.

      Social scientist Michael Bang Petersen on why people believe outrageous lies — as a tool in violent group conflict.

      So we instinctively hold fast to the lies that we WANT to believe, to mark our tribal allegiances! And to pre-justify “my tribe’s violence GOOD, and YOUR tribe’s violence BAD!” This is next to impossible to “educate away”, since it is so primordial. It’s not a matter of FACTS; it is FAR more so, a matter of tribal alliances and allegiances, and political (and even physical, in times of war) survival.

      The true nature of reality has very-very little to do with short-term political success. That’s what the above-cited article is all about! Short-term political success has MUCH more to do with signaling that “I am part of OUR tribe! I hold ALL of the wacky beliefs that OUR tribe holds, whether they are true, or not! My tribe’s violence GOOD; THEIR tribe’s violence is BAD! So when our tribal chieftain is looking to whack the bad guys with a stick… Remember! I am one of the GOOD guys! I go with the untruths of OUR tribe, NOT those of the BAD tribe!”

    2. British tax collectors called the diaspora “the brain drain.” Even the Rolling Stones moved to France in order to keep a few percent of their income. Mathematicians, engineers, surgeons, physicists, chemists and biologists get visas to enter legally every day. Archbishops, field marshals, socialist orators, public charges and violent terrorists should have no trouble whatsoever flitting into Yemen, Afghanistan, Uganda or Iraq.

      1. OK, you’ve covered doctors and socialist orators. What about immigrants who are skilled in hanging drywall or in roofing, cleaning and sizing portions of fish in a restaurant, caring for grape vines in a vineyard?

        1. If the fish example is unfamiliar to you, go read Anthony Bourdain’s tribute to immigrant kitchen staff in “Kitchen Confidential”.

  11. Pains me that anyone gives the time of day to Tucker Carlson, part of a network where they successfully argued in court that no reasonable person would believe what they’re spewing.

    1. Now do CNN.

      1. Just curious when did CNN argue in court that no one should take what they are saying seriously? Because that seem to be the Fox line.

        1. Let’s wait and see what kind of argument they come up with to fend off the inevitable lawsuits from Andy Cuomo’s sexual abuse victims since they freely admit that Fredo was running a PR team for his bro while presenting himself as a serious newsman leading CNN’s coverage of New York during the COVID panic

        2. Rachel Maddow was once sued for libel. It too was thrown out of court based on no reasonable person would believe it.
          A federal judge on Friday dismissed a $10 million defamation lawsuit by One America News (OAN) against Rachel Maddow, finding that a “reasonable viewer” would know the MSNBC prime-time host was only offering her opinion when she called the right-leaning network “paid Russian propaganda.”
          You must be pretty dumb not to understand why it’s so important t free speech that the Tucker and Maddow cases were both dismissed for the same reason.

          1. Is Tucker or Maddow submitting known lies (as lawyers) to courts of law? Truth or known lies submitted to the courts; “both sides” are equal?

            Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory

            Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today?

            1. Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today?

              Tell us the one about how you’re not a sockpuppet of sarcasmic even though you outed yourself several times while drunk off your ass.

              1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

                Fuck off, spaz!
                You eat shit, you said so yourself!
                You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
                Take your meds!
                That’s so retarded!
                You’re a Marxist!
                Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
                Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
                Trump rules and leftists drool!
                You are SOOO icky-poo!
                But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

                Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!

          2. Seeing as they call illegal immigration, “Reconquista,” re-conquering the Southern US. . . It is absolutely an invasion.

            The only way to call it not an invasion is A) you’re involved, or, B) you’re as sharp as a sack of hammers.

            I’m gonna guess (& hope) that David is just dumber than a pile of rocks atop a puddle of sludge.

    2. Now do MSNBC.

    3. Now do the Washington Post.

      1. Yes yes we know. Every media source is equally bad therefore believe your ‘gut’ or what your Uncle Fester told you or what that smart-sounding guy with a YouTube channel told you.

        1. bOtH SiDEs!!! right cytotoxic?

          Oh wait, except when we’re supposed to obsequiously lick the boots of self-styled experts who are consistently wrong about everything. Sorry, my mistake, I forgot that you’re a lying shit-mouthed Marxist who thinks your appeals to authority are somehow special.

          Want to know the difference between Jerry’s uncle Fester and Tony Fauci? Jerry’s uncle Fester probably hasn’t spread hundreds of lies about public health over a storied 5 decade career whose highlight was publishing a statement that AIDS is spread by household contacts and causing millions of deaths. Tony Fauci has.

          Want to know the difference between the AP and Alex Jones? Alex Jones doesn’t make a pretense of being a neutral arbiter of truth while he spews ranting, raving, psychotic conspiracy theories like the president of the United States being a Russian intelligence agent who got peed on by hookers in a Moscow hotel room. The AP does.

          1. Butt who shall lead us to The Lord Trump the best, Alex Jones or My-Pillow guy?

            MyPillow Guy Punts Timeline for Trump Retaking Power as Conspiracy Theories Get Wackier


            The Lord Trump didn’t return to us as scheduled, but the Second Coming is now re-scheduled. You can TRUST us THIS time, for sure!

            The Lord Trump DID return to us faithful ones, but He did it in an invisible way! Hold strong in your Faith in Him!

            The Lord Trump didn’t return to us yet, this is true! It only did NOT happen because YOU were not faithful enough, and didn’t send Him enough donations!

            The Lord Trump didn’t return to us yet, but He DID miraculously protect us all from the VERY worst forces of Evil, which is Der BidenFuhrer! Hold fast in your Faith… Lord Trump will come back VERY soon now! Especially if you send more money!

            The Lord Trump moves in Mysterious Ways! All will be revealed SOON! Especially if you have Enough Faith to DONATE till it HURTS!

      2. No difference between the Associated Press and Alex Jones. I mean, they both sometimes make mistakes, right? Equally bad! So go with Alex Jones!

        1. Not a hell of a lot of one, no. Sorry.

          1. damikesc is ALWAYS perfectly correct about EVERYTHING, and NEVER lies, or talks totally worthless shit out of damikesc’s ass!

            Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
            How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

            Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

            So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

            “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
            Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)



            1. Hey everybody, sarcasmic needs attention again.

              1. Hey look, everyone, Stalin’s Main Sock is lusting yet again after thought-control, power-lust, genocide-lust, and self-righteous self-justification of “My tribe’s lies promoting violence GOOD; YOUR tribe’s lies promoting violence BAD!”

                Has this approach ever been tried before? What were the results?

                1. Hey everybody, sarcasmic needs attention again.

                  1. Marilyn Mansion Mason-Jar-Full-of-Over-fucked Mayo is a one-trick pony full of new and original ideas from her 1-neuron “brain”!

                    1. Hey everybody, sarcasmic needs attention again.

  12. Invasive species. I looked out the window at some English sparrows – none appeared to be armed.
    Invasion of privacy. This could be done by the military, but weapons are not used, so the argument is not supported.

    1. Try again.

    2. What if they were armed? Being armed is a basic human right, isn’t it?

  13. If Reason says it ain’t no invasion then we can conclude that it is really an invasion. Although, Reason is interchangeable with any other MSM propaganda source.

  14. If you can’t tell the difference between 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris today as tourists,

    That’s a special kind of stupid. I Stopped reading at this point.

    1. How long does it take to get from Berlin to Paris?
      Twelve hours by Mercedes or two weeks by Panzer.

      1. “how did you find Paris, Fuhrer?”

        “I went to Belgium, and turned left!”

    2. A child chasing a butterfly across a border is an invasion. Ask a descendent of the Comancheria anarchy that once occupied Texas, New Mexico, colorado and on up into Canada. A border is part of the definition that separates the U.S. Bill of Rights from obituaries and dustbins.

      1. Buttplug chasing that child is an attempted invasion.

  15. The whole “invasion” rhetoric is an example of a fallacy of equivocation. Where one meaning of the term ‘invasion’ that might apply (i.e., a large group of people traveling to a different place) is intended to imply another meaning of the term ‘invasion’ that definitely doesn’t apply (i.e., a type of military conquest). “See, these people coming here satisfy the meaning of the term ‘invasion’ by one definition. Therefore it is the same as an ‘invasion’ as intended by the Constitution.”

    That migration under certain circumstances might qualify as ‘invasion’ by some definition of the term does not mean that the same migration qualifies as ‘invasion’ as the Constitution contemplates the meaning of the term.

    1. Are you trying to argue that the words in the Constitution have meaning?

      1. He forgot about penumbras.

      2. Umm yes? Why would you think otherwise?

        1. The way you’re known far, wide, and consistently for misinterpretting or even outright disregarding the Constitution.

          1. The way you’re known far, wide, and consistently for misinterpretting or even outright disregarding the Constitution

            Is that so? Could you provide a citation for such an example of that?

            1. Every single fucking post you’ve made here, fat ass.

            2. Could you provide a citation for such an example of that?


          2. And while you’re at it, could you explain why my personal views on the Constitution somehow nullifies the argument that I presented above, as opposed to simply being a way to avoid having to discuss the correctness of my argument by engaging in silly personal attacks against me?

            1. When you pedantically harp on the meaning of a term in the constitution when it suits you while ignoring the plain language of the constitution in other instances, that does actually address your “argument” if you’d like to characterize your idiotic and pathetic attempts at deflection as such. When you’ve spent the last 8 months calling misdemeanor trespassing by unarmed protesters an insurrection, don’t be surprised when people think you’re being a deliberately obtuse cunt when you suddenly become concerned about the meaning of constitutional terms of art.

              1. It also makes one issue, the other, or both exceedingly personal. Blanket plain letter interpretation is objective, blanket semantic interpretation is subjective. Selectively objective and subjective necessitates speculation. Specifically, bad faith.

    2. The whole “invasion” rhetoric is an example of a fallacy of equivocation. Where one meaning of the term ‘invasion’ that might apply (i.e., a large group of people traveling to a different place) is intended to imply another meaning of the term ‘invasion’ that definitely doesn’t apply (i.e., a type of military conquest).

      Now tell us again about that insurrection on January 6th that nearly toppled the government of the United States.

    3. They call it, “Reconquista.”

      Or, an invasion.

      Ain’t it neat when you know what words mean?

  16. If you can’t tell the difference between 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris today as tourists, it’s time to crack open a history book.

    And if you can’t tell the difference between tourists in the Schengen Area and people violating recognized borders of a sovereign nation maybe you should stay away from this subject.

    1. “We need to take the heat of Boehm and Sullum. Maybe this Bier guy can insult our readers.”

    2. And if you can’t tell the difference between French people (or French government) resisting the takeover by 100,000 Germans and those same people (or their government) giving away their wealth and way of life to 100,000 (or more) North Africans, you are a lying cunt.

  17. “Majority of US counties majority minority for the first time ever.” and “There is no invasion.”

    Why do I feel like I’d also be disappointed in the amount of money Reason writers are willing to sell out for?

    1. C’mon done to Crazy Charlie’s Midnight Madness Sale! Huge discounts! Everything must go!

    2. Money? It probably only takes cocktails and pussy.

    3. What is interesting about that the decline in white peeps is if you dig deeper into the census data something like twenty million peeps that identified as white seem to have now self identified as mixed race since the last census.

      As a serious student of genealogy I can’t count the times some has complained that they had Indian ancestors only to find out they had no Native American DNA.

      1. The “Indian Princess” family story is very common in Southern families, and is often used to explain away “colored” family traits like brown eyes. I was told the story myself by my grandmother. As usual, genetic testing has shown my brown-eyed, dark-haired family has no trace of Native American genes. There is, though, a dose of Spanish that can’t be explained by our known ancestry.

      2. When the FD, to which I belonged, began giving free promotions to the non-white, scrambling, on a massive scale, happened for formerly white people to become some other race.
        In California, one usually didn’t have to go far to find a Hispanic in the woodpile.

  18. And the whole point of the ‘invasion’ rhetoric isn’t to have a grammar seminar on the precise meaning of the word. It is a demagogic appeal for a reactionary response.

    “The illegal immigrants are invading!”
    “Invading? We can’t have that! Send in the marines!”

    Team Red cannot present their case for their preferred immigration policies in a way that doesn’t sound so gauche and nativist, so they must use these emotional appeals to try to gin up support. “We must build the wall because fuck the foreigners” doesn’t sound nearly as persuasive to most people as “We must build the wall to STOP THE INVASION”.

    It is no different than when people on Team Blue uses anecdotes of starving orphans to justify the vast welfare state. They cannot justify why so much money must be spent and wasted, why the orphans require government money to be fed, why all of the agencies in charge of feeding starving orphans are necessary. Instead they hold up pictures of starving orphans and demand that you must support their preferred policies or the orphans die. It is emotional blackmail, and it is what Team Red and Team Blue do.

    1. Think of the wall like a mask. It’s not there to protect you, it’s to protect others.

    2. “The Proud Boys are mounting an insurrection!”
      “An insurrection? We can’t have that! Send in the marines!”

      The neat difference is that one of those things actually happened while the other is a concoction of your sub-70 IQ masturbatory fantasies.

      1. Insurrection? I thought you said inch erection.

    3. Case already made, and it’s the law of the land, dumbshit.

  19. “If illegal migration is an invasion, border crossers should be treated like an enemy in a war.”

    The problem is that Reason does not discriminate between possible invaders and so-called immigrants !

    Anyone crossing the border illegally is assumed to be an immigrant in Reason’s eyes

    1. Any human here without the proper “papers please” is an illegal sub-human in the eyes of rabble-rousing demagogues, and deserves to be cause sub-human scum, until we can all work up the nerve to gas (or otherwise murder) them all to death!

      Anyone recall the Iran-Iraq wars of the 1980s? Lots of it was fought in low-laying salt-water marshes. Very tough terrain for Iraqi military vehicles… And it is expensive to bring in bunches of rocks or logs to raise up the mud to make roads. But there were BUTTLOADS of Iranian corpses just laying around for free! So the Iraqis just limed ’em up (for rot-proofing), and lined ‘em up and laid ‘em down to make roads! Lime ’em up, line ’em up, lay ’em down!
      So we can soon expect Der TrumpfenFuhrer (Part II) and-or conservaturd heirs to steal a page from the Iran-Iraq war! The Mexicans won’t pay for His Walls?!? Make raids on Mexican peasant villages, round up conscript wall-building labor, and build the wall out of the limed-up corpses of illegal sub-humans!!! (Or at least the top-rim of the wall, for max psychological intimidation). For every American soldier killed in the effort, there will be reprisal shootings of 200 more illegal un-Americans!
      Don’t say no one warned you of what is coming! Conservaturds want to “win” at any costs!

      Iran-Iraq war…
      For those who may not believe me…
      Documentary : Madness in the Marshes: Hussein’s Last War : The Iraqi leader’s tactics were surgically precise in the spring of 1984. Thousands of Iranian troops paid the ultimate price.

    2. “…and deserves to be CALLED sub-human scum…”

      I am a mortal and fallible humanoid, and will admit to error, unlike a lot of PERFECT people around here!

      1. Will you admit to being a blabbering idiot?

  20. Wherever brainwashed mystics and looters flee the results of their ideology, David Bier is there to help them get into These States. Here they can enroll in flight school, get on the dole and help Republicans set up a National Socialist Theocracy complete with public kabul-stoning of women. Bier is of the putsch that tried to get the unemployable population of Yemen moved to America as public charges. Who better to “help” dump the LP off the ballot in a third of all states while reducing our vote share by 2/3 by backing the current platform plank calling for importation of dangerous terrorists. Bier is the type of “friend” The Kleptocracy wants the LP to pal up to.

  21. The Everglades has a thing or two to say about invasive species.

    I bet the North American tribes have something to say about it, too (most migrants in the 15th-16th century were also not an invading army, but curious explorers seeking fortune).

  22. While there are real problems at the border the issue gets far more attention than it deserves and language like “invasion” adds to the problem.

    1. Yes, we really should spend more time discussing very serious topics in a neutral and dispassionate way, like the former president of the United States instigating an insurrection to destroy the US federal government and the very heart of cherished democratic institutions.

      1. I love when new satire shows up.

      2. I don’t remember Obama doing that.
        I know Trump didn’t.

        So. . . Was it Obama or someone before him?

    2. So does calling the detention centers “concentration camps”. But I don’t recall you being too bother by that.

  23. It is just so fucking ironic that Columbus Day (a day celebrating the contributions of Italian immigrants) is being usurped by “Indigenous People’s Day” on the pretext that the Europeans were invaders (but not military invaders!) that brought disease with them that destroyed the NA tribes. Can someone explain to me why that exact same logic cannot be applied to the people South of the border? Is it just that Europeans are white and everyone hates them that they get to be brutally scrutinized for actions that everyone else gets excused for?

    1. Shhh, smallpox blankets were totally a real thing, and unfettered migration from failed narco states with no public health infrastructure during the woRsT pAndEMiC iN a CEnTuRY is just tourism.

    2. Is it just that Europeans are white

      Yes. But you knew that.

      1. I did indeed.

    3. The governor of Texas is literally spreading an actual disease to score a political point.

      How about the Mexicans come in and the Republican go out?

      Bug-chasing vermin.

      1. How about the Mexicans and the commie Democrats hit the bricks?
        There are 3rd world shitholes already set up to handle Mexicans, and plenty of communist countries for the Democrats.

  24. Native Americans would disagree

    1. They would if they could, but the invading horde of Europeans killed 80% because they weren’t wearing masks.

      1. They should have worm mask its there fault

  25. Is this “article” for real?

  26. your tilt should be towards DC, not Tucker Carlson. they’ve turned immigration into abortion and guns.

  27. “They want to be us, not conquer us.”

    Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

    Of course there are a few people who want no immigration at all. Argue with them if you derive your jollies from it.

    But there are plenty of people who want immigration, just not so much of it and not so uncontrolled. And they’d like assurances that the immigrants will assimilate properly. (to the good parts of U. S. culture, not the bad – we have enough of the bad already)

    1. Ask why are they not vaccinating illegals at the border but firing Americans who aren’t vaccinated. Some strange BS going on in our government

      1. The Dems have been importing voters for about a couple centuries. Why should they let a pandemic stop them?

    2. “They want to be us, not conquer us.”

      Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

      They don’t want to kill us as much as wear our skin as a suit.

    3. The Vandals wanted to be Romans.

      1. The Vandals wanted to be Romans.

        The Vandals were just coming to do the jobs that Roman citizens were unwilling to do…

  28. “Border crossers aren’t coming to overthrow the government”

    That’s exactly what the left is hoping for.

  29. The dictionary describes an invassion as “an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity”, or, “an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain”.

    Now when we have a million or more foreign nationals entering our country in violation of our laws it really doesn’t matter to me if they are armed or not, it is an invssion.

    1. So what if they’re armed? We all have a human right to bear arms, don’t we?

  30. And I guess unlawful entry isn’t a home invasion either. Reason needs to get rid of writers who can’t out Reason a smart 5th grader or hire a smart 5th grader to vet these stories so they pass the laugh test.

  31. I want to thank the participants on this thread:

    Whenever I see the word “immigration” in an article, I know it’s time to make popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show. I am seldom disappointed. So, once again, thanks!

  32. Illegal Immigration Isn’t an ‘Invasion’
    Overheated rhetoric is a ploy to treat migrants like enemy combatants.

    Overheated rhetoric like accusing people who want immigration law enforced of “treating people like enemy combatants”?

    You are doing what you are accusing other people of: overheated rhetoric, in your case, mixed with a good deal of manipulation and fabrication.

    I know of nobody who wants to treat illegal aliens like enemy combatants. What we want is for them to be removed from the country and repatriated; what we want is for immigrants to the US not to make America a less prosperous nations and not to become a burden on US tax payers.

  33. They’re not coming to blow us up or take our stuff—they’re coming to work with us, work for us, and buy our products. They want to be us, not conquer us.

    Of course they do. These days, Americans go to the polls, vote themselves big spending politicians into power, and they will tax and print money and give it to you for not working. And that’s why people come to the US illegally. That’s why Democrats support it. And Reason loves it!

    Unfortunately, it’s bankrupting and destroying the nation.

  34. Thank you for putting your laughably false conclusion right in the headline so I didn’t have to waste my time reading the article.

  35. It is an invasion the violation of the Rio Grande is just like the barbarian tribes crossing the Rhine and Danube into the lands of the Roman Empire. They have no right of admittance into our territory or polity. They ARE invaders, and it SHOULD BE war – we should declare war on Mexico, seize a 50-mile border strip, and treat it as a free-fire zone to stop these latter-day Cimbris and Teutones from violating our territory and laws. Being a libertarian doesn’t mean you let everyone from every f’ed up country into ours.

    1. A few cruise missiles on the haciendas of the traffickers would probably be much more cost-effective.

  36. First, I am a libertarian – a registered LP and have been active in the party in years past. At the moment, I do not hold any posts in the organization.

    But, on this issue I have disagreement with the party stance on border security. While I support the idea, in theory, of an open labor border, the reality is that many of these immigrants end up accessing our welfare state apparatus. I tend to agree with Milton Friedman on this issue that an open border and a welfare state are simply not fiscally compatible

  37. Is “migrant” a euphemism for “trespasser”?

    1. They have a right to freely associate with us, whether we like it or not. Ask Jeffy.

  38. Europe Braces for Tsunami of Afghan Migrants
    If we’re talking about afghans the European borders are mostly closed with walls (!) being built in a lot of countries as we speak. They’re “not going to repeat the mistakes of 2015”. Damn few Muslim countries are willing take them on permanently. We could ultimately be talking about millions of people and a whole lot of them will end up here.

  39. If several hundreds of illegal aliens cross the border every year, it would be overstatement to call it an invasion. If several thousand migrants (enough to populate small town), flood the border every year, with everyintention to force our hands into accepting them by coordinating their movement, then it’s rhetorically appropriate to call it an “invasion”. Even some Mexicans who had to deal with migration on their own soil characterized it as such.

    These people do not come to serve America. They comes to serve themselves because their society failed them. At best, they’ll enrich giant corporations. And if history is any indication, they’ll continues to vote for failed policies of their homeland. This is cultural suicide.

    Unvaccinated Americans might want to “serve” their country too. But companies should restrict their movement and choices with vaccine mandates? Gee, what vaccine mandates and safety measures did we observe when we stuffed thousands of migrants in cages? Don’t think for a SECOND that libertarians are somehow immune to Orwellian language and delusions of Utopia that infects the left. In fact, I see more of it here everyday.

    What benefits is there to massive migration in a time of pandemic in America, where physical business will continue to decline and education and law enforcement faces uncertain futures? Let’s build more housing when the government can just cancel evictions on a whim? What other country is accepting gazillions of outsiders at the rate we are now?

    It’s a clown world. We live in a clown world.

  40. Immigrants should be:
    A) 55 or under
    B) Have a skill the country needs
    C) Be able to speak English

    That’s what New Zealand thinks anyway.

    But wait, they have taken in around 25,000 refugees…since WWII.

  41. In an ideal world, it would be as easy to move between countries as it is to go from city to city here, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We repeat the refrain that “Immigrants built this country!” like it was a great thing that was all smooth sailing. Chinese and Irish labor was used to pay them almost nothing and left many citizens angry because they could not work at those jobs. Miners at the turn of the century who went on strike were replaced by foreign workers for less money. In LA, many many many of the businesses (and rich families) use illegal labor so they can 1)pay less than minimum wage 2)not have to pay payroll taxes because it is cash 3)cheat their workers because who are they going to tell? Families have women clean their houses and raise their kids all for less than minimum wage, and if the woman complains she is threatened with ICE.
    Apartments in LA that are infested with roaches and are little more than hovels house illegal immigrants from all over the world, and there is no incentive to ameliorate the problems, because just who are those bangladeshis going to tell? Are they willing to risk deportation for a few thousand roaches?
    I had a neighbor whose entire family was here illegally from Mexico and she made sure even though she was 45 at the time to have a child in America so that it would make it harder to deport all of them. My whole life in LA and OC I have lived next to people from all over the world who remained here illegally. Russians, Greeks, Mexicans (mostly Mexicans), Guatemalans, Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos…and they worked jobs where it was cash under the table, no taxes, no benefits, no nothing. Their children went to school for free, they got medical care for free if they used the emergency room, and they were on the old food stamp programs. I always wonder if the people who think “no human is illegal” have actually lived in a place where they live and work?

    1. I most definitely have. There are two ways to address the problems you raise: crack down more on illegal immigrants, or make more immigration legal so that immigrants cannot be exploited as easily.

    2. “we don’t live in an ideal world”

      A brief description of the problem with libertarianism and all other dogmas.

      Yeah, that should be “we are a nation built by cheap laborers with no rights.” The very least we’ve been able to do is finally offer personhood to those who built our civilization. Yet all conservatives want to do for the current crop of imported cheap labor is ostracize and expel them.

      I suppose we’ll simply have to wait for them to die off and become irrelevant before we give the humans keeping our society going the rights we enjoy through no effort whatsoever, just like all the other times.

      1. Yeah, we need new niggers. We get it, tony.

        God, you’re boring.

  42. The author is indeed playing the euphemism game. Perhaps the term invasion doesn’t technically fit. Perhaps subversion is a little better description. Or infiltration. Better yet, infestation.

  43. Factually, it is, has been and will be…

  44. Is this Reason pulling a Psaki arguing Americans aren’t “stranded” in Afghanistan? It sure seems like it. Or is it just another attack in the right like there story on the 25th attacking people for questioning the Vetting process of Afghani refugees because according to the writer only SIVs were being brought to America and they have undergone extensive vetting and therefore the ones (some of which are named again in this article) are evil Nativist lying? Well guess what Reason was wrong on that story,and the evil Nativist right, as the Pentagon in their morning briefing verified that less than 50% of refugees brought to the US so far are SIV holders or applicants. Given their track record, it’s logical to question the premise of this story also.

    1. If you dislike Reason so much, why be here?

      1. Why are you here liberal plant?

      2. Reason used to be a well written, intellectual magazine that even when I disagreed with them, which was often, was at least intellectually honest and actually libertarian. It no longer is, it hasn’t been for at least five years. It definitely leans to the left. I was told wait until Trump is out of office, it will attack Biden as hard as it attacked Trump by people like you. But it hasn’t. I’ve been posting and reading Reason since 2001. How long have you? And only tribalist/sycophants don’t call out their own side for being intellectually dishonest. Does it hurt your feelings that not all commenters are Reason sycophants? And expect better from what was once a proud magazine with intellectually stimulating and honest articles?

        1. Since about 1980 for me.

          Consider that it isn’t Reason that changed, but where you stand. And I’m tired of your false accusations that I am a liberal or progressive — it’s just laziness on your part — you have no evidence of it.

          1. Yeah theres totes no shifting of the overton window going on, a magazine totally cant buy into the general agenda of all of the other mainstream media and CNNs perceived left bias is probably also just evidence that we changed ‘where we stand’.

            Youre a poor kind of shill.

  45. Illegal Immigration Isn’t an ‘Invasion’

    The FUCK it isn’t.

  46. There is plenty of hyperbole on both sides of this debate. Are they an ‘army’ in the classical sense? No. But they aren’t tourists either. The argument that it’s okay because American businesses give them jobs is specious. By that logic, allowing in 100, 000 prostitutes would be okay since there would be plenty of John’s willing to pay them for sex. Immigration is a good thing – when it’s legal and regulated. As a nation we have a moral obligation to our citizens to know who we are letting in. Without any screening and vetting we open the doors to criminals – as clearly evidenced by the number of illegals in our prison system. We have plenty of homegrown murderers, thieves and rapists. We don’t need to be freely importing more.

    1. There are more than two sides, of course.

      Here is a Cato study on how much illegal (and legal) aliens contribute to crime rates:

    2. allowing in 100,000 prostitutes would be okay since there would be plenty of John’s willing to pay them for sex.

      I’m pretty sure ENB already did a few articles arguing exactly this…

  47. Republicans, which, to be fair, got all their governing ideas from you guys, having no policy platform (literally, they don’t even write them anymore), have decided to go all in on the sweet, addictive politics of “let’s genocide all the icky people!”

    Tucker Carlson, of frozen foods fame, feeds undiluted xenophobia into you people’s heads every day, and you’re going to end up Ashli Babbitting yourselves to protect your daughters from brown menaces that need not even exist. A fool and his money are soon parted.

    1. One wonders. . . in what backwards, degenerate, low-IQ world you live. . .

      Because you said nothing that fits, even slightly, with reality.

      Wait – are you frying on acid?

  48. Now do the current administration and commie hating Cuban asylum seekers.

  49. David Bier, I assume you live in some sort of place that you call your own, and it has limits to its extent. Outside of those limits you do not much care what happens. INSIDE< howeve,r yuo have certain expectations as to how things will go down.

    How's aobut next time I'm wide awake at oh three hundred and bored.. I want someone to tlk to, and to make me a good cup of coffee. We can share that cup as we chat.. at oh three hundred. I will also assume the metes and bounds of that place that is YOURS are clearly defined, at least inYOUR mind. WhenI come over I fully intend to cross those lines, and enter freely into your space. I might even get hungery whilst I am there, and demand you feed me. Well. And often. If you refuse I will engage the services of some people with guns who will come and force you to provide for me.

    However, I am quite certain that when you discover me INSIDE your home you will consider that I have effected a home INVASION. Why? Because not being a resident of that domicile, I have NO RIGHT to make use of it, nor to demand of you any benefit or service whatever. In short I am an intruder and ought be dealt with according to laws against tresspassing, housebreaking, theft, etc.

    HOW can you regard people who have NO RIGHT to be within our borders, who gain entry by any means necessary,have no intention of carrying their own weight or bringing any benefit to those already there, rather to become an YUUUUGE burden upon them.
    Those who have lnved along the border for generations have had their cattle stolen and/or killed, property theft is rampant in that area, they have destroyed much, killed people, raped large numbers of Americans, ambushed lw enforcement, sucked deeply off the American welfare teat, brought along with them the very dangeruis and damaging illicit narcotics trade, and on the list grows.

    Protocols are established to examine and "vet" anyone desiring entry lawfully. These MUST be followed. Yes, much in that set o flaws needs changing. But that is no reason to toss it all, whichis precisely what yuor kind are busy about doig.

  50. Nothing says leftist in libertarian clothes like playing semantic games.

  51. The Libertarian notion that every human being has the right to enter any country they choose and set up residence is at best childish, along the lines of unicorns and endless bounty without toil, but in reality it is destructive to the notion that “we the people” (or any people) have the right to govern themselves.

  52. So when Castro dumped Cuba’s prison population (not dissidents mind you) onto Miami. That wasn’t an invasion? They where there to serve Americans? Which ones?

  53. Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the United States middle class through shortage of housing, higher housing (land) costs, greater competition for jobs, lower wages, higher taxes to pay for greater poverty, mortgage fraud, medicare fraud, tax fraud, identity theft, other crime, higher taxes to pay for indigent healthcare (hospital closings), higher taxes for cost of public schools, price of college, degradation of the military, depletion of resources, paving of farms,burden on the taxpayer and overall congestion since 1965 than the increase in population (Hart-Celler) and change in its nature (more poor}

    By the late 1960s cheap and available land began to become scarce. tierra properties, a short history of los angeles
    The land shortage is especially acute in coastal and mountainous areas like those around San Francisco and Seattle.

    And recently, a study showed that children growing up in environments with lots of trees were mentally healthier than urban children. Nature relieves stress:
    sciencedaily 2019 04 190404074915

  54. merriam-webste
    2: : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

    It depends on which definition you use. An invading army is only one definition, the only one Reason wants to consider for their propaganda purposes.
    It is not hard to argue the people coming are “hurtful” to this nation. Coming with few skills, poor health, many carrying or infected with covid, and overwhelming our schools an social systems. Along with gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers and other criminals.

  55. If u think govt should only exist to protect our natural rights you need to be very careful in who you let in…it just isn’t the welfare “big daddy’ threat but the ginning up of the anti American sentiment the left uses to gain illegal immigrant support…where does it lead? One could make a very good argument that certain immigrant groups have not helped the cause of liberty overall…the vast immigration from 1880-1910 and then in the 1980’s of Russian and Eastern European socialists, bolsehviks, communists, and “intellectuals” pretty much took over the academia and in many cases media/foreign policy (neolibs and neocons)…attacking American beliefs in sound money, free markets, non inteventionism…and traditional families…as Judge Smeils said…”some people just don’t belong”…

  56. Illegal immigration has effected the real estate markets as well. It has resulted in more tough background checks by landlords when renting out real estate properties. Learn more at Home

  57. Illegal Immigration Isn’t an ‘Invasion’
    It isn’t?
    What is it then?
    A flood of tourists expecting US citizens to pay their way?

  58. The government doesn’t want immigration reform because the parties gain too much by kicking the football back and forth,

    The answer is simple. Just issue work and residency permits. You could do a background check, Covid test requirements, whatever. Like getting a drivers license.

  59. California is now majority Latino. You can play with the words all you want. The result is the same. China and Russia replace original populations to gain a stronghold. Tibet would call that an invasion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.