Free Immigration Is a Core American Value
Just consider the policies that the Founding Fathers embraced.

It's become fashionable among the national conservative right to oppose immigration, both legal and illegal. Various primers and mission statements for the movement call for the United States to "drastically reduce legal immigration from its current levels" via a "temporary full immigration moratorium," citing contemporary immigration as "a source of weakness and instability."
National conservatives invoke heritage and tradition when they speak of what they want to conserve. But what they often fail to mention—or, at the very least, fail to accurately represent—is how intertwined immigration is in American heritage and traditions. For all their invocations of the Founding Fathers, they offer an incomplete view of what the Founders actually said about immigration.
One of the grievances behind the Declaration of Independence itself centered on immigration. King George III, the Declaration charged, had "endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither." Volokh Conspiracy contributor Ilya Somin has noted this complaint "was aimed at a series of royal orders" that, among other things, "forbade the colonies from naturalizing aliens" and passing laws to promote migration. The regulations directly contributed to "the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States," the Declaration explained.
No wonder—in the colonial days, immigration was both a boon to the young America and a headache for the distant Britain. In 1700, the British Parliament "limited the colonies' ability to grant naturalization and other group rights because it believed that colonial naturalization policies weakened English citizens' trading positions," according to a 2021 Cato Institute paper. After a period of liberalization, Britain cracked down on certain colonial settlement and naturalization authorities. By the beginning of the Revolutionary War, about 2.2 million people were living in the colonies—"much of that growth fueled by the 346,000 European immigrants and their descendants," the Cato paper noted.
The Founding Fathers turned to questions of citizenship and naturalization soon after the Revolution was won. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates worried that overly harsh barriers to citizenship could prevent deserving immigrants from coming to the nation. Gouverneur Morris had proposed an amendment that would require someone to have been a citizen for 14 years before being able to serve as a senator.
It sparked a vigorous debate: James Madison said he "could never agree" to the amendment since it would "give a tincture of illiberality to the Constitution" and "discourage the most desirable class of people from emigrating to the U.S." James Wilson, himself a nonnative, lamented that he might be "incapacitated from holding a place under the very Constitution which he had shared in the trust of making." The delegates eventually adopted a nine-year minimum as their standard.
When Congress addressed naturalization in 1790, it established what the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh has called "the most open naturalization law in the world at the time." The Naturalization Act of 1790 was imperfect by today's standards—it did not offer citizenship to Native Americans, indentured servants, or free black people—but it provided a straightforward and relatively open pathway to citizenship to many. Free white people of "good character" could naturalize after living in the country for just two years.
Beyond those political machinations, the Founding Fathers spilled much ink detailing their hope that America would become a safe haven. In correspondence with a Dutch minister and emigrant, George Washington wrote that he'd "always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong." In a 1783 letter concerning Irish arrivals, Washington stressed that America was "open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions." He once again praised America's promise "to afford a capacious asylum for the poor & persecuted" in a 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson at times wrote skeptically about immigrants, particularly their ability to assimilate. In 1785, he worried about the "heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass" of a population that might result from "as great importations of foreigners as possible." In 1801, in his first State of the Union address as president, Jefferson took on a different tone. Congress had raised the minimum residency requirement for citizenship to 14 years, prompting the president to request that the body revise its naturalization laws.
"Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?" Jefferson asked. The Constitution provided that "residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design," he explained. "But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?"
Of course, the Founders were no monolith on immigration. Jefferson would continue to have reservations about assimilation. Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1751 that he would prefer immigrants to be "the lovely white" and not "all blacks and tawneys." He worried that Pennsylvania would "become a Colony of Aliens"; if it were to welcome Germans, he reasoned that they could "shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of us Anglifying them." As with issues of slavery and suffrage, prejudices of the time often permeated the Founders' views. They could fail to live up to their promises of equality for all, showing a clear preference for some immigrant groups over others. Black immigrants couldn't receive citizenship until 1870, and other racist restrictions on naturalization would last far longer.
Still, the policies the Founders embraced are telling: They laid the groundwork for a nation that would have essentially open borders for much of its history. Those policies extended America's promise not just to those with the fortune to be born on its soil, but those who sought refuge on its shores.
As Abraham Lincoln put it, immigrants and their descendants are bound to the nation, if not through blood. "When they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men," he said in 1858. "They have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood…of the men who wrote that Declaration."
"That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I agree that it's very libertarian to look to the founding fathers for guidance on the shape, scope and role of the government. Perhaps the Libertarian Flagship might do this on a wide-ranging group of topics such as the cradle-to-grave Welfare state we've currently deployed, the broad taxation of natural citizens, the right to bear arms, section 230, hemp and food trucks.
There’s better be sex workers operating out of those food trucks, there’s just better be!!!
I’ve thought about opening a food truck and sticking it out at the local Air Force base. If I do, the plan is to hire a hot blonde with big tits to run it. So there you go.
The author makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigration, instead alluding that illegal immigration is contemporary. The constitution certainly doesn’t support that fallacy.
The nation is currently broken and divided at its core, its cultural values. Immigrants particularly illegal ones bring the cultural elements that they don’t realize led to the oppression they’re fleeing. Making the situation worse. Do they care?
How can we expect immigrants to share the values guaranteed as inalienable rights when the fact that we don’t value them ourselves is evident in our divided nation?
At the core of all values is truth, aka reality. We all rationally share truth in peace. All behaviour not meeting that standard is corrupt.
Criminalizing lying will bring the nation together against the enemy, irrational coercion.
Even Misek, like the proverbial broken clock, is correct on occasion.
In between denying the Holocaust, and reciting Mein aka of while kneeling before his shrine to Hitler.
I hope that in your lengthy and arduous hiring process for the woman to run your food truck, your examination of their qualifications is thorough. You may of course need multiple follow-up interviews to make sure you have the right candidate.
Amd you didn’t even touch on the ‘teamwork’ drills when I s hire the second hot chick. To see how well they work with each other, and me.
The true American point of view is to bull-whip the scum all the way back across the border.
He was equally against the native American of the wrong kind and for the immigrant of the right kind, the former President declared, but the immigrant who did not become in good faith an American "is out of place" in the United States.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset.
"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.
"The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself," the colonel continued, "by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to a breed of spirit of bitterness and prejudice and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries amd jealousies and hatreds."
It behooves us all to distinguish between immigrants and illegal alien border-jumpers.
Anyone, no matter what race or original nationality, who comes to this country legally; who strives for citizenship; who embraces our language & culture while respecting their own traditions; who wants to help keep this country great--I welcome him or her with open arms and call them a fellow American.
Those who sneak into this country illegally; who break immigration, employment, tax, zoning and even basic traffic laws on a daily basis; who reject our culture and retreat into ethnic enclaves; who demand taxpayer-funded social services not even available to citizens in good standing--I have little sympathy for them and their "plight".
Oh, and one more thing re: a "path to citizenship". We have a path to citizenship. It's called our legal immigration process and 1M people follow this path every year. It is a also process which millions have willfully defied. The can be no reward of citizenship to them.
Founding Fathers didn't govern a Socialist Welfare State . Those who immigrated worked or starved . Later immigrants were screened for their ability to contribute .
Still, the policies the Founders embraced are telling: They laid the groundwork for a nation that would have essentially open borders for much of its history. Those policies extended America's promise not just to those with the fortune to be born on its soil, but those who sought refuge on its shores.
They laid the groundwork for a lot of things that aren't happening, babydoll...
Ever notice the only time we ever hear about the Founders and the Constitution any more is when the latter is getting used to beat up the descendants of the former?
No. Because that's grievance, not a real thing.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Just come out and say you're gay.
It's 2023, FFS!
"They laid the groundwork for a lot of things that aren’t happening, babydoll…"
So if their aims haven't been 100% successful, we should reject them all? Legal immigration has been a huge boon to America throughout our history.
There's no reason to reject those who are fleeing persecutions, limit it to those who have means and education, or deny those who aren't already from a country that's culturally and religiously like us.
Most of the people making asylum c,aims aren’t fleeing persecution. They just want to make more money.
Which sounds like an excellent trait in someone coming to a capitalist country. The line between acceptable and unacceptable is whether they come here legally or illegally, not whether they have suffered or just want a better life.
Asylum is a legal system that exists. Until it doesn't, or changes to a system requiring applications to be submitted abroad (which is my preference), asylum seekers are in the country legally.
We naturalize over a million people every year. How many more do you want?
I think the answer you get will simply be "more."
Can we start with not trying to cut legal immigration, like the Trump Administration did?
Did this Fiona person replace Sikha?
She changed nationality like some do sex.
The only time we had free immigration was with europe. America has NEVER had open immigration with anyone else; certainly not africa, east asia, or the middle east. We fought a war with Mexico over land.
In today's episode of reason's saga: "How can we tie in open borders with literally anything at all?"
Yeah, totally crazy to write an article about what the Founding Fathers had to say on a libertarian issue.
They were slave holders.
And? What's your point?
And from the looks of the comments the Founders made, they weren't all that happy with unfettered immigration.
They were fine with people of "good character" with "bona fide" desires to become Americans. They did not want to become "a colony of aliens".
Unstated in that is that we expect them to actually integrate into our society. Not retreat into barrios and enclaves where they keep their languages, customs, etc. and essentially make Little Vietnam or Little Colombia sections of town.
Who do they root for in the World Cup? It's fine to root for the old homeland when they're playing just about anyone else, but if they are playing team USA--you gotta be rooting for team USA. Otherwise, you're not an American originally from Brazil, you're a Brazilian who happens to be living in the US.
Immigration is somewhat like a divorce. Your ex-wife is the mother of your children and you may have some good memories about them--may be on good terms with your ex-in-laws. But if there's a situation where you have to chose between your new wife and your ex-wife...well, you don't put your ex-wife's favorite ornament on the top of the Christmas tree if you want your new marriage to be a good one.
Immigrant families do fully join our culture, but the first generation are often helped by living in a community of immigrants from the same place. And it’s a good thing if they bring some things from their old country, such as the cuisine, the art, etc. — it enriches American culture.
Also, I have news for you. I know lots of native-born Americans who grew up playing soccer and are fans of foreign teams.
"Immigrant families do fully join our culture." Yes and no. That's a huge part of the assimilation need for immigration. If you allow immigration to be done improperly, then the assimilation into the culture doesn't work and allows for the creation of insular groups within communities who generally suffer because of it.
The main concern for any immigration process is to make sure that cultural assimilation occurs.
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…
AND GOOD LUCK HERE...............>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Manifest Destiny laughs in your fucking face.
As do most people with integrity and a 3 digit IQ
End the welfare state. Open the borders. In that order.
Better repeal the 19th, or the welfare state will be back.
Non dependency on federal welfare was also a key aspect. Oddly not talked about here.
When you can make an argument on the face of the billions spent on illegal immigrants, maybe we can have a discussion.
But this entire narrative of zero cost illegal immigration is idiotic.
Immigrants are by and large ineligible for a slew of federal benefits.
Studies also back up that they contribute far more than they take.
But go on with your bigoted narrative Jesse. Wouldn't want to pop that balloon of bullshit you believe in.
I smell bullshit
So did the National Academies.
raspberrydinners hey fuckturd eat shit and die.
https://news.yahoo.com/hospitals-stuck-illegal-immigrant-uninsured-permanent-patients-massive-223110870.html
Since you obviously suffer from a brain damaged memory you may want to Google about the illegal alien who was under 16 and caught by the INS who then used tax dollars to pay for her abortion.
Look at this one case of an illegal immgrant! And she got an abortion! Paid for by the state! Every other illegal immigrant is exactly like her!
Hopefully I've ouraged you enough that you miss the fact that my example is completely unconnected to the issue of legal immigration.
This is a false talking point that has been refuted so many times only retards repeat it. Illegal immigrants now qualify for free Healthcare and legal care in many states. They qualify for housing assistance and food stamps of they have a child born here.
This tired false narrative is boring.
The illegal immigrants get more benefits from the taxpayers than do Social Security retirement beneficiaries.
His Miss Fiona given up her job, home, and banking account funds to any illegal immigrants yet? Why not? Has her town's hospitals been overrun with illegal immigrants who are not required to pay the costs? Is Fentanyl destroying the young ones in her gated community. Have illegal gang members raped, robbed, or murdered any of her relatives? No. That's just for those border states to contend with. FH will safely stay in her well-secured home and do her virtue-signaling by writing articles telling those border towns to suck it up and do more!
Washington State is now moving to have Medicaid cover illegals.
Ineligible does not mean that they do not receive them. What with identify fraud and all, not to mention the don't ask don't tell nature of welfare systems in places like California and cities where they want to let illegal aliens vote.
And, that "ineligibility" does not apply to taxpayers being forced to school the children, who get free meals. And good luck trying to get illegal aliens to pay for their medical treatment and emergency room visits.
You understand there's a difference between legal immigration (the subject at hand) and illegal immigration (what you just talked about), right?
It is possible to be in favor of legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration.
Who said there was no difference? I sure didn't. But Fiona implied it. See the article she linked to as mentioned below. Once again a comment adding no value. Thank you Nelson.
"Who said there was no difference?"
We're talking about legal immigration. The article is about lefal immigration. Illegal immigration is a different subject entirely.
Yet of the four sentences in your post, one incorrectly claimed illegal immigrants get "federal welfare" (is that actually a thing in the real world or is it only in your head?), one was a bland comment, and two talked about illegal immigrants, which isn't what is being discussed. You can't seem to differentiate between the subject being discussed (legal immigration) and the subject that isn't being discussed (illegal immigration). When 3/4 of your sentences aren't about the topic under discussion, it's fair to assume you can't differentiate beyween them.
As a refresher, here's what you said:
"Non dependency on federal welfare was also a key aspect. Oddly not talked about here.
When you can make an argument on the face of the billions spent on illegal immigrants, maybe we can have a discussion.
But this entire narrative of zero cost illegal immigration is idiotic."
Immigration is what peopled this country [in addition to slavery..., never mind the depopulation of the native inhabitants] in the beginning and up to the 20th Century. We do not need masses, Fiona, we need people who will do the work that is needed to be done, and who are qualified to fill necessary positions. immigrants should be screened and processed, not just let in. Not come one and all because it sucks in the shithole you would be leaving. I can think of no better way than to screw your country than to have open and unlimited immigration.
"we need people who will do the work that is needed to be done"
We create enough white collar workers with citizens to fill the positions available, so the "work that is needed to be done" isn't highly educated, technocratic jobs. It's low-skill, manual labor like harvesting produce.
Granted, companies want to bring in high-skill workers who will work for mid-skill salaries, but we don't need those workers.
Agriculture, on the other hand, employs huge numbers of illegal immigrants for a reason. No one will take those jobs and we don't have a sensible seasonal worker program to fill the labor needs legally.
"who are qualified to fill necessary positions"
The positions that don't already get filled legally don't have a lot of qualifications. "Can you pick lettuce for 12 hours a day?" is pretty easy to qualify for. Any healthy immigrant can do it.
"immigrants should be screened and processed, not just let in"
Screened for what? Moral character? The right beliefs? An acceptable level of melan ... I mean cultural similarity to America? Would people fleeing persecution pass the screening? Is there a minimum bank account necessary? Do tired people qualify? Poor people? Huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
Should we be a beacon of liberty and freedom*? Or an actual beacon of liberty and freedom.
*Credit check necessary for liberty and freedom
“It’s low-skill, manual labor like harvesting produce.”
Public schools have entered the chat.
Because naturalized citizens don't deserve the right to send their kids to school?
No. It was an attempt at a joke that Public schools are already producing “low skilled, manual labor”.
Maybe if you live in the South. Up here in the Northeast our schools are excellent and turn out high-skilled students ready for college.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state
Apparently Oregon would have worse riots if their students learned enough science to make a functioning Molotov Cocktail. So poor education systems have an upside?
I can think of no better way than to screw your country than to have open and unlimited immigration.
Both/all countries. The native country needs people to stand and fight for freedom (take your pick of the boxes of liberty), win, and pass the values and ability to overcome such adversity to their children. Admittedly, I can’t really fault anyone for not sacrificing their children to the gangs of their homeland or whatever, but no country really needs people to just run away in the face of adversity.
Just look at how America, and our government, has developed since the 60s.
Going great...
the first sentence of this article is a lie so I quit reading. Conservatives are all in favor of legal immigration. Reason really is a shit site these days.
Pity. The rest of the article is quite moving.
Are you open to broadening what is legal?
I like to tell the lying xenophobes "Hey look, illegal sub-human immigrunts BAD, legal immigrunts GOOD? Then GIVE the illegals their "philosopher's stones" in the form of "magic papers", and transform bad into good!"
Win-win magical fix here, folks!
Yes. Are you open to the idea that governments necessitate borders which means there has to be some kind of immigration system which will stop people from trying to sneak in?
Beyond the 1M or so legal naturalizations we have every year, more than any other country on the planet? Plus the half-million legal immigrant visas issued each year. Plus the 6M or so non-immigrant visas issued (student visas and the like)? Plus the few hundred-thousand temporary-asylum standing orders? And the 1.5M border-crossing cards?
And would this expansion be before or after elimination of the welfare state incentives?
I'd be willing to talk some sort of streamlining and expansion. But some of the non-negotiables would be:
* immigration visa must be applied for in-person at a US consulate (outside the US)
* any previous deportation order from the US automatically disqualifies
* having been in the US illegally at any time in the previous 5 years automatically disqualifies (and is a retroactive automatic disqualifier, should it be discovered that the applicant lied)
* having ever been convicted of a felony in the US is automatic disqualifier
* visa holders in the US convicted of any felony and certain misdemeanors are automatically disqualified and summary (enforced) deportation; this includes tax evasion and tax fraud
* overstaying a visa is a felony, with sentence of summary, enforced deportation
* visa holders are inelligible for welfare programs, and fraudulently accessing disallowed programs is automatically disqualifying
* visa would be a limited-time only, say a 5 or 7 year permit; if the visa holder has not applied for citizenship in that time, then they must not want to stay...if they have applied but the process is not completed, they must still leave the country until the process is completed, because overstaying a visa would be disqualifying for citizenship applications, too
We have enough home-grown criminals and people living in poverty. There's no need to import more of the same.
We are actually suffering from a labor shortage and would benefit by increasing immigration.
Not a labor shortage, a participation rate problem.
^this^
The labort participation rate is on-trend for the entire 21st century.
If you think the unemployment rate and the labor participation rate are unconnected, you are completely ignorant about what the kabor participation rate measures.
Hint: the largest demographic spike in history reaching retirement age and the downward trend of the LPR since 2000 are directly connected.
Where did I say they weren’t connected? Nice strawman to avoid the point.
Anyway, I’ll help you out. Our labor participation rate is around 62%. That is very low for a society who wants many social welfare benefits and who wants to be competitive economically in the world. The answer is not simply, oh, since 38% of people don’t want to work, let’s bring in more unskilled workers to do the work.
Such logic simply results in more people seeking less and less government benefits because of lack of labor participation and collected taxes.
I agree that immigrants can and do add to the economy of the country when immigration is done right. I also understand that a poor economy is not going to get better simply by an infusion of people lacking skills.
“Our labor participation rate is around 62%.”
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART/
It is 62.4%. It peaked in February, 2000 at 67.3%. It has steadily dropped over the past 23 years.
The labor participation rate measures the number of people over 16 who are either working (employed) or actively looking for work (unemployed) who aren’t incarcerated.
The two largest cohorts who aren’t participating in the labor market at any given time are retired people (a larger group than the past due to longer life expectancy, plus the Baby Boom is the largest demographic spike in American history) and discouraged workers (those who have given up looking for work). In a low unemployment environment with a large number of unfilled positions available (the job market we have now), the second group is effectively zero.
The trend line for the last 23 years would predict a lower LPR than we have now, so there is nothing unusual about the present LPR, given American demographics.
I keep seeing people trying to make the LPR some sort of indictment of the job market, but all it shows is that there are a lot of retirees in the Baby Boom generation still alive.
I’m not sure if it’s a desperate attempt to pretend the job market isn’t great or if it’s actual ignorance about what the LPR is and what it means.
We do have a labor shortage right now. It isn’t people who could work but aren’t looking for work, which is what a labor participation problem is. Unless you think that people aged 60-77 need to stop retiring and get back to work?
"oh, since 38% of people don’t want to work"
Yes, those damned senior citizens. They should stop retiring!
It isn't 38% of workers under 60 who aren't working. It's 38% if all people over 16. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the LPR at all.
Wait, if there’s a labor shortage then the trope that native born workers aren’t willing to work like the immigrants must be total bullshit.
"We are actually suffering from a labor shortage"
That’s an argument for expanding guest worker programs, not unlimited immigration.
Which I think is an excellent idea especially for seasonal manual labor, which is one area where the quotas are too low to meet the demand and few Americans will work for the pay offered.
"Immigration visa must be applied for in-person at a US consulate (outside the US)"
Agreed, and also asylum applications. It wouldn't have to be done in their country, it could be any country. The one thing everyone would know is it couldn't happen inside the US. This would be the most effective way to keep asylum seekers from being falsely lumped in with illegal immigrants.
"any previous deportation order from the US automatically disqualifies"
I would have a start point for this element that began after asylum and immigration applications ceased to be accepted inside US borders. But otherwise, agreed.
"having been in the US illegally at any time in the previous 5 years automatically disqualifies"
Agreed. Again, with the caveat that it wouldn't count when asylum was still given to those who came to the US to claim it.
"having ever been convicted of a felony in the US is automatic disqualifier"
Agreed. I would include any violent crime, even if it was pled down to a misdemeanor.
"visa holders in the US convicted of any felony and certain misdemeanors are automatically disqualified and summary (enforced) deportation; this includes tax evasion and tax fraud"
This would have to be carefully done. Illegal employers use threats of deportation to keep their illegal workers in line. If they were now above-board, but could still threaten to get them arrested and deported, the potential for abuse would be dangerous. Plus a two-tiered justice system with different penalties for the same crime .ight raise Constitutional issues.
"overstaying a visa is a felony, with sentence of summary, enforced deportation"
If they are immigrants, they can't overstay their visa. That's the point of a green card versus a visa. Unless you mean a temporary work visa?
"visa holders are inelligible for welfare programs, and fraudulently accessing disallowed programs is automatically disqualifying"
Green card holders, as people who are working and paying into the system, probably can't be barred from services or denied Social Security credit (for example) for quarters worked before they naturalized. Temporary work visa holders can't access those programs, I believe, but I could be wrong.
"visa would be a limited-time only, say a 5 or 7 year permit; if the visa holder has not applied for citizenship in that time, then they must not want to stay"
Citizenship takes a minimum of 7 years, and often takes longer. I don't think a "ticking clock" would be beneficial unless there was an extension program available. Life happens and having the shortest possible time for citizenship and the maximum visa length be the same isn't reasonable. If you wanted to have a maximum period to qualify and apply for citizenship (maybe 15 years?) I could see that, but not the same time as the minimum requirement.
Immigrants are much kess likely to be unemployed or criminals than natural-born citizens. Maybe because they appreciate what we have more because they weten't born with it as a birthright? Maybe because they see becoming an American as a privilege they want to earn? I have no idea why, but they are more industrious and less criminal than the average citizen.
I like how you think. Saying, "This is what it takes to become an American" and basing it on behavior and desire, not nationality and bank accounts, is a great way to attract high-quality (as opposed to high-dollar) new citizens.
I assume you didn’t bother following the link in the first sentence, which backs up the claim made.
So if I link a Bernie comment regarding immigration you'll shut the fuck up? I can find random comments from either side.
Just read the citation. It calls for a temporary pause until immigration is reformed. Lol. Wasnt even anti immigration. It is pro reform.
Ah yes a temporary pause, because the government does "temporary" so well.
What a retarded non sequitur.
So temporarily halt all immigration until it is "reformed"?
I'm 100% certain that the standard for "reform" will be completely reasonable, attainable, based on the needs of the country, and not political at all.
I'm also 100% certain that all politicians are pure of heart and motivation, only doing the work they do for the betterment of the country.
100% certain may be misleading. Let's say I'm equally confident in the truthfullness of those statements.
The comment Fiona summarized doesn't match the summary, yet you cover for her false interpretation. Good work Nelson.
I was responding to Jesse's summary, not Fiona's. Is Jesse's assessment wrong? Is the link advocating for a pause in immigration until the system is "reformed" like she says?
Conservatives support legal immigration the same way progressives support legal guns.
You mean we can have illegal immigrants as long as they're safely locked up?
No, they need serial numbers.
American-style with one serial number on just the torso/lower or pretty-much-everywhere-else-outside-our-borders with serial numbers on pretty much any part that can be wholly removed or swapped out? Serializing livers is going to get interesting.
"You mean we can have illegal immigrants as long as they’re safely locked up?"
I see what you did there. And it made me laugh out loud. Inappropriate, but clever. Well done, sir!
Leftists aren't people; they're literally cancer.
This is a *libertarian* publication, not a conservative one. We libertarians don't believe in arbitrary government rules limiting the free movement of individuals. There should be no such thing as "legal" immigration. Come on in if you want.
Fuck off you leftist cunt, a libertarian site would at least address the trillions stolen annually for the all encompassing government and the welfare state within it.
"...We..."
Is that a turd in your pocket?
"There should be no such thing as “legal” immigration. Come on in if you want."
That's one of the dumbest applications of the "pure ideals only" nonsense that people try to use to marginalize anyone who believes the real world is almost entirely shades of grey.
Nations need defined borders and standards of citizenship. The idea of abolishing borders and allowing unfettered, unregulated immigration is, being as kind as possible, completely unworkable and completely insane.
You’re not a libertarian.
You sound like Groomer Jeffy.
Sure, just don't force me or anyone else to pay for you to be here.
"Conservatives are all in favor of legal immigration."
You may want to read some of the posts from the paleocons here before you make such a bold statement. And read some quotes from Steven Miller. And maybe check out the legal immigration policies and proposals of the Trump administration. Then get back to us.
Shrike uses paleocons. Hi shrike.
Nelson isn’t shrike. I don’t always agree with him, but he doesn’t have any of shrikes ticks. Plus lots of people would describe most of the commenters as paleocons or yokeltarians (man it’s been a long time since I’ve seen that one come out).
I've never heard the term "yokeltarians". It seems unnecessarily condescending to a generalized group of people.
But I appreciate you noticing that I have my own issue profile and writing style.
I look forward to our next ideological agreement (or disagreement, as the case may be).
Reason's previous chief open borders fanatic, Shikha Dalmia, was so bad at her job that she didn't even attempt to disguise the fact that Koch-funded libertarians demand open borders because their sugar daddy wants cheap labor: A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.
Fiona may be tedious and repetitive (go ahead, look up how many times she's submitted essentially the same column about Ukraine) but she's not quite as inept as her predecessor. She has the self-awareness to dress up her sugar daddy's #CheapLaborAboveAll agenda as some lofty principle by appealing to patriotism.
You know what else is a "core American value" while we're on the subject? Representative government. The idea that voters should have some degree of influence over policy.
One of my main themes is that Democrats can get away with quite a bit (like running an obviously unfit stroke victim for US Senate) because the media is mostly on their side. But they can't get away with absolutely anything. I bet whoever Democrats run for President in 2024, that candidate won't admit to supporting open borders.
Why not? Because even with the media spinning for them, running on an open borders platform would be political malpractice. Most voters don't like the idea.
But Koch-funded libertarianism doesn't care about "most voters." It cares about enacting any policy, no matter how unpopular, that will inflate the inherited fortune of its silver spoon billionaire sugar daddy.
Fiona may be tedious and repetitive (go ahead, look up how many times she’s submitted essentially the same column about Ukraine) but she’s not quite as inept as her predecessor.
This really seems like just a matter of time on both counts.
Bash that strawman, Fiona. Oh, and FYI—this isn't 1789.
"It's become fashionable among the national conservative right to oppose immigration, both legal and illegal."
Did I miss specific citations?
Because that is not at all what the republican platform says.
Yes, there is a link right on the word "fashionable" in the sentence you quoted.
There is a provided link that references one person’s thought on an immigration moratorium while reform occurs. Apparently, this one person’s position is somehow applicable to all conservatives on a national scale and also morphs into total opposition to immigration even though that one person’s position isn’t to oppose immigration.
Read the paleocon posts here. There is a huge hostility to immigration (see: Replacement Theory and Tucker Carlson) in the conservative coalition (especially the hard right). It's not even particularly hidden.
The conservative consensus seems to be that people with the right education, from the right places, with the right religion, and who hold similar cultural beliefs as conservatives are good. Everyone else is questionable.
Yet that's just not true. You all on the left have to be the world's best villain creators on the planet. You impart completely contrived narratives to generate a bad guy that you can righteously slay. It's just getting so tired anymore.
Well, there's also the conflation of legal and illegal immigration (examples are all over these comments), quotes and policies supported by people like Steven Miller, and the policies and proposals of the Trump Administration attempting to severely limit legal immigration.
Hard right conservatives in particular are hostile to legal immigration, but many more moderate Rs are on board as well.
Actually there are no examples of it. Just you claiming there are.
Jesse, in a discussion of legal immigration, you literally made a four-sentence post (above here) where three of them talked about illegal immigration. Either you don't understand the difference or you conflate the two.
Bringing up illegal immigration in a discussion of legal immigration is like bringing up criminal businesses when discussing legitimate businesses. The Mob isn't Starbucks. Illegal immigration isn't legal immigration.
And again, look to Steven Miller and Trump Administration policies and proposals rolling back legal immigration and the warm reception it received from conservatives. Never mind the embrace of Replacement Theory in conservative circles.
Yet, there’s not a conflation. That’s the problem, you on the left falsely frame it to the extreme and claim it has to do with all immigration to cover for the left’s inaction and amorphous position on illegal immigration. It’s simply a political tactic claim rather than a legitimate position on the right. It’s pure disingenuousness to obfuscate.
On immigration I would fall on the center-right area. I support robust legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. I believe in consequences for employers who hire illegal workers, and support an expanded seasonal guest-worker program. I think that illegal immigrants should be deported.
I don't know who you are accusing of being "on the left", but it isn't me.
Apologies if you aren’t on the left. But you claim a conflation on the right that is a false narrative characterization by the left of the issue. Be wary of casting about generalizations of groups that don’t apply, otherwise you look to simply be doing the work of political opponents rather than making logical arguments.
Opposition to nondiscriminatory immigration, which doesn't preference racial, religious, or cultural compatibility nor create educational, skill, or means requirements, is red meat for cultural conservatives. That opposition, misrepresented as sensible policy, ignores the historical success of nondiscriminatory immigration.
The first-generation American entrepreneurial success story is so common it would be a trope in a TV show. Those people didn't come in successful, they created success for themselves through hard work and tenacity.
The last thing we need is the immigrant version of the born-on-third-base trust fund babies we are already plagued by.
Give me a hungry, appreciative person who grew up struggling over the spoiled brat of some European technocrat who thinks he is successful because his parents are successful.
It's the stream of "it's not that we don't want legal immigration, we just think that they should only be educated/wealthy/religiously compatible/culturally compatible/etc." talking points that I find so disingenuous.
Working class people and manual laborers deserve the freedoms of America as much as white collar workers and deneficiaries of generational wealth. People from the global south are just as worthy as those from the north.
No one can predict what the children of immigrants will accomplish. But what we do know is that the present system has worked quite well over time and there's no reason to think that changing the criteria will make any difference to successive generations. And that's what immigration is really about: strengthening America over time.
If those cultural beliefs are individualism, liberty, and limited government, I don’t see the downside to expecting immigrants (of any variety) to adhere to them.
Might be useful to track the amount of immigration and growth of government.
Unfortunately those are only libertarian values. The two major parties prefer coersion (Ds on the economy, Rs on culture) and deficit spending.
And individualism? Have you seen how anti-abortionists respond to a moral belief system different than theirs? Have you seen how progressives respond to speakers with controversial ideas?
Have you seen conservative government retribution exacyed on companies who speak on public issues? Have you seen how progressives talk about idiocy like "micro-aggressions", "free speech zones", and an ever-widening definition of "racism" like they have the right to limit how other people share their beliefs with the world?
"Live and let live" has turned into "live the "right" way or move to another state". Academic freedom and discussion of a wide range of ideas (good, bad, and indifferent) aren't allowed any more by either party. Parents should make decisions for their children, except for if they make "bad" decisions.
Americans say they believe in those things, but when the rubber meets the road they allow their tribe to restrict other people's expression and actions based on their preferred belief system.
A prominent advocate of Reconquista was the Chicano activist and adjunct professor Charles Truxillo (1953–2015)[7] of the University of New Mexico (UNM). He envisioned a sovereign Hispanic nation, the República del Norte (Republic of the North), which would encompass Northern Mexico, Baja California, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.[8] He supported the secession of US Southwest to form an independent Chicano nation and argued that the Articles of Confederation gave individual states full sovereignty, including the legal right to secede.[7][9]
Truxillo, who taught at UNM's Chicano Studies Program on a yearly contract, suggested in an interview, "Native-born American Hispanics feel like strangers in their own land."[9] He said, "We remain subordinated. We have a negative image of our own culture, created by the media. Self-loathing is a terrible form of oppression. The long history of oppression and subordination has to end" and that on both sides of the US–Mexico border "there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections.... Southwest Chicanos and Norteno Mexicanos are becoming one people again."[9] Truxillo stated that Hispanics who achieved positions of power or otherwise were "enjoying the benefits of assimilation" are most likely to oppose a new nation and explained:
There will be the negative reaction, the tortured response of someone who thinks, "Give me a break. I just want to go to Wal-Mart." But the idea will seep into their consciousness, and cause an internal crisis, a pain of conscience, an internal dialogue as they ask themselves: "Who am I in this system?"[9]
Truxillo believed that the República del Norte would be brought into existence by "any means necessary" but that it would be formed by probably not civil war but the electoral pressure of the region's future majority Hispanic population.[9][10] Truxillo added that he believed it was his duty to help develop a "cadre of intellectuals" to think about how the new state could become a reality.
In an interview with In Search of Aztlán on 8 August 1999, José Ángel Gutiérrez, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, stated:
We're the only ethnic group in America that has been dismembered. We didn't migrate here or immigrate here voluntarily. The United States came to us in succeeding waves of invasions. We are a captive people, in a sense, a hostage people. It is our political destiny and our right to self-determination to want to have our homeland [back]. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. If they call us radicals or subversives or separatists, that's their problem. This is our home, and this is our homeland, and we are entitled to it. We are the host. Everyone else is a guest.... It is not our fault that whites don't make babies, and blacks are not growing in sufficient numbers, and there's no other groups with such a goal to put their homeland back together again. We do. Those numbers will make it possible. I believe that in the next few years, we will see an irredentists movement, beyond assimilation, beyond integration, beyond separatism, to putting Mexico back together as one. That's irridentism [sic]. One Mexico, one nation.[12]
In an interview with the Star-Telegram in October 2000, Gutiérrez stated that many recent Mexican immigrants "want to recreate all of Mexico and join all of Mexico into one. And they are going to do that, even if it's just demographically.... They are going to have political sovereignty over the Southwest and many parts of the Midwest."[13] In a videotape made by the Immigration Watchdog website, as cited in The Washington Times, Gutiérrez was quoted as saying, "We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."[8] In a subsequent interview with The Washington Times in 2006, Gutiérrez backtracked and said that there was "no viable" Reconquista movement, and he blamed interest in the issue on closed-border groups and "right-wing blogs."
or some Chicanos, Aztlan refers to the Mexican territories annexed by the United States as a result of the Mexican–American War of 1846–1848. Aztlán became a symbol for activists who believe they have a legal and primordial right to the land. In order to exercise this right, some members of the Chicano movement propose that a new nation be created, a República del Norte.[13]
Aztlán is also the name of the Chicano studies journal published out of the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.
Movements that use or formerly used the concept of Aztlán
Brown Berets
MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán")
Plan Espiritual de Aztlán
Raza Unida Party
Freedom Road Socialist Organization, which calls for self-determination for the Chicano nation in Aztlan up to and including the right to secession.
“Replacement Theory”
I see you haven’t met Kirkland…
So many strawmen, so little time.
The Libertarian’s Lament: “They told me I’d be able to shoot my six-guns while snorting blow off a hooker’s tits, but all I got was refugees pissing on my lawn.”
Suckers!
"....shoot my six-guns while snorting blow off a hooker’s tits"
You've given me an excellent idea for future competitions. Compared to that 3 gun [competitively shooting an AR, shotgun, and SA pistol] is so dull and boring.
"You’ve given me an excellent idea for future competitions."
but what will the range officer say.
SA pistol is so dull and boring.
Found your problem. Tell me you use a shitty Glock without telling me you use a shitty Glock. 🙂
Hey, that's not cool. Don't gun-shame. Glock people are people, too.
Lol.
Sorry Glock guys but pistol whipping someone with a hunk of plastic just does not get your message across.
Lefty shit's comment
STRAWMAN!
Fuck off and dies, asshole.
Really? National conservatives hide their bigotry saying they just want to “fix” the immigration problems? No, say it ain’t so…
Funny how the ire is usually directed at darker skinned immigrants. Imagine that.
Funny how you specifically want to change the ethnic and cultural demographic to achieve your political goals and have the chutzpah to use the old dead white founding fathers you hate to do so.
"change the ethnic and cultural demographic to achieve your political goals"
Because brown-skinned people have something in their genes that makes them vote Democrat?
No, but minorities tend to vote Democratic. That's the reason Dems support open borders and Repubs don't. If illegal immigrants voted Repub, then you would see Dems against open borders and Repubs for open borders.
It's kind of the other way around. Minorities vote Democrat because the Republicans (or a vocal portion of them) sound like they are anti-immigration. The main group of immigrants that conservatives seem to worry about are from Mexico, and lean heavily Christian (Catholic), pro-family, and pro-life, and many of them are willing to work very hard, if only to send money back home.)
Many other groups of immigrants from Asia (Japan/Korea/Taiwan/India) are similarly pro-family and pro-traditional values, and many of them are small business owners who aren't overly enthused about high taxes. A lot of immigrants could conceivably vote Republican, if made to feel welcome.
This. I've never been into collectivist strategizing, but I feel like Republicans could really clean up with the Hispanic vote (which, as you state, is a natural fit for a lot of them). Hell, they could possibly even become competitive in places like California.
That’s why democrats have ballot fortification programs. To prevent that kind of thing.
Many of us in actual border states see the costs associated with unchecked immigration. 30% increase costs for ESL education. Destroyed hospitals and social charities. Trash and destruction of public properties.
When a handful wind up in dem cities they cry like little bitches regarding cost. Which side is being honest here?
Libertarianism doesn't mean mindlessly ignoring costs to taxpayers.
Republicans (or a vocal portion of them) sound like they are anti-immigration
You mean the way they sound like Putin assets? The way they selectively sound like vaccine and mask deniers when it's convenient for the narrative that they sound like vaccine and mask deniers? The way they sound like they're obsessed with Hunter Biden's laptop because of the dick picks?
No. Conservatives, including the same immigrants you named, recognize that you can have free handouts, and you can accept all comers, but you can't have progressively more and more free handouts to all comers. Just because you continue to perpetuate the the false narrative that rooftop-Koreans are racist, anti-immigrant Conservatives doesn't make it true.
I completely agree. That's one of the biggest ironies on the right. Most immigrants are conservative and would vote Repub if they simply welcomed them in.
LOL
Sure, buddy.
Has nothing to do with mass propaganda or socialist (aka nanny state) beliefs. Definitely nothing to do with handouts or NGOs...
The DNC wishes.
Not at all. But the brown-skinned (and black-skinned) people who DON"T vote Democrat are labeled "race-traitors" by their fellows.
If 90% or so of the illegal aliens that the left wants so desperately to come to this country unfettered actually wanted to, say, vote for Trump, I'm pretty sure Democrats would be manning the cannons that would be installed along the border in record time. Kinda like how Cubans are rounded up and flown back to Cuba. Even Cubans who get to Mexico and come across the border there are culled from the masses and sent back to Cuba, but Mexican, Salvadorans, etc. are given basically free passes. Because Cubans, having seen communism, tend to vote against communism when they see it (and hence against Democrats).
So a bunch of rich old white slave owners were keen to import more rich old white men to... like buy their slaves or something? Did I get that right? I'm pro immigration and we've seen a lot of it lately. I'm also pro assimilation and pro rule of law. That's the part that seems to be missing here.
Worked out great for the American Indians.
By free do you mean no cost? By free do you mean free to disobey our countries immigration laws?
If one is free to disobey immigration laws what other laws are they free to disobey?
If a sizable population keeps breaking a particular law over and over again, is it ever worth considering changing the law to accommodate the people?
Depends on the change and the outcome. Just because lots of people choose to break laws doesn't negate the need for those laws.
Does the law prohibit imposing on others by force or by fraud? Does it prohibit violating others' rights? If so, then, no, it is never appropriate to tolerate that behavior. If not, then that law should probably be repealed, even if only a very small number of people are violating it.
What a retarded question.
If millions keep committing robbery, just make robbery legal!
Mike is retarded.
Democrats are now doing just that in many cities they control.
Sorry - no free immigration of citizens from other countries unless I also have the right to freely emigrate to THEIR country.
I checked the Googles, and it looks like it's pretty easy to emigrate to Mexico. I assume it's probably the same for most Central American countries as well.
Guess I'm in the minority, but I'd love it if the company I work for had a larger labor pool to hire from. I've worked with a few Mexicans throughout the years; those hombres get after it.
There's ways to accommodate that without the disastrous chaos on the border we have now.
Word. Open it up for more work visas.
Doubt anything changes though. Wedge issues are vote getters.
What kinda shit are you trying to pull. From official Mexican source.
"To qualify for the temporary visa, you must show a monthly income of 300 times the minimum daily wage in Mexico (which was 80.04 pesos a day using 2017 figures). To qualify for the permanent visa you must show a monthly income of 500 times the minimum wage. In both cases, your income must be documented with six months of bank statements."
I would be overjoyed if this condition was imposed on all the both legal and illegal aliens trying to enter the US.
Or, in dollars:
"You may obtain a temporary resident visa in Mexico, if you prove that during the last year you had an overall bank balance of over US$27,000 or during the last 6 months you had a monthly income of over US$1,620."
Seems pretty easy to me. Pero yo soy un gringo rico.
Americans cannot buy property in Mexico. You can buy a 99 year lease.
Seems pretty easy to me. Pero yo soy un gringo rico
I bet it's real difficult for those people fleeing dire poverty in Venezuela and all the other South American countries they're passing through Mexico from.
Oh most definitely, but I'd take some suramericanos out in our shop or on our construction crews as well.
I don't know if they work as hard as Mexicans, but I'm sure most of them have a better work ethic than the average American. (And yes, I'm all for cutting state "benefits", which would help with that problem)
I’m sure most of them have a better work ethic than the average American.
More and more often anymore, I find this phrase says more about the speaker than the actual facts on the ground. I mean, Cesar Chavez died in 1993. Mexicans and S. Americans have been every bit as much and progressively more a part of union labor, worker's rights, and minimum wage efforts for the last 50 yrs. as Americans. At some point it should be obvious to you that you're just another Progressive, Anti-American crypto-racist.
That's not to say Mexicans or S. Americans aren't hard working but it, as I said, speaks more to your racist ideologies. Are you saying you wouldn't hire an East Asian to roof your house or work your crew because you don't see a lot of them mowing lawns? You wouldn't hire an East Indian carpenter because you don't see a lot of East Indians tossing limbs into wood chippers? You wouldn't hire a Ukrainian mason because you don't see a lot of them (re)tarring driveways? I see plenty of all white or nearly all white labor crews. Usually, they're just not the ones working for pseudo-progressive morons like you who needs a warm body with no experience on payroll and will hire their friends cheap if they have any.
I mean, it should be clear that I'm no fan of Unions or credentialism, but you realize you're effectively advertising the quality of your work as on par with "Able to be completed by illiterate laborers with zero documented experience.", right? Even if you only hire fully naturalized and duly trained/certified immigrants, that slurs your whole stupid, "Americans expect too much for the skills they (don't) have." narrative. You aren't paying for just any immigrants who cross the border, you're paying for the ones who get their union cards and/or operator's licenses and demand more pay, just like their white co-workers.
Ha, you really kicked it up to 11 there.
I'm not in HR or personnel management, but yeah I'd hire any of those people as long as they had the soft skills to not completely blow the interview. We're pretty desperate for new hires. Not a union shop, though. So don't have to worry about that.
Hint. Government makes it easy to not work. Reduce welfare you'd have plenty of workers. Importing more workers without solving that problem leads to more of the same problem in another generation. And in fact exacerbates it.
Yeah for sure. There's lots gov should do/stop doing: reduce welfare, disability, and unemployment benefits. Abolishing the fed min wage (leave that in the purview of states/municipalities) would help alleviate the dearth of young workers with any kind of skills. Delisting marijuana could help in finding workers who can pass a damn drug test.
Even doing all of that, though, I have my doubts that the labor shortage would disappear. In the meantime, I'm all for increasing work visas for able-bodied, motivated individuals. In my (completely anecdotal) experience, second generation immigrants are generally productive.
You do realize why people normalize statistics right? If you did you would understand your error.
Slight disagreement, this only contributes to Reason's stupidity about "Borders are just imaginary lines." Sorry, self-retarding dumbfucks but everywhere from the curb in front of your building to the sidelines at the Superbowl people draw "Imaginary" lines. The point isn't the lines, the point is the limits of protections and liberties. Most kids who aren't retarded learn this on the playground by the time they're 6.
The only way the lines *don't* matter is if there's a full or nearly full reciprocity of most/all rights across the border. As long as I can buy a gun in TX and not in Mexico and California's emissions standards apply outside CA, anyone proclaiming the "Borders are a figment of imagination." bullshit is just them announcing their need to go fuck themselves.
There have been many, many groups of people throughout history who were happy to move people across borders without any regard for the rights of people moving across one way or the other. The most well-known and... successful were in no way libertarian.
Dear President Biden;
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.
I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Fox, that I'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me (free) into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U..S. From Mexico . I am sure that President Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help. You're the man!!!
We could simply normalize our immigration law with that of Mexico (the lists below are available at a number of different sites, and I cannot claim I verified any of them):
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
Fucking Fiona. Like a demented bot, she churns out the same asinine open-borders pitch for every premise. Any chance she is a Koch family spawn, working at her first "real job"?
You can have a nation of shared ideals or "multiculturalism" and tribal rights which is where we are going. The start of this insanity was allowing millions of socialist and secularists into the country 120 years ago. What is America today? BLM? LBTGXUYZ?
"allowing millions of socialist and secularists into the country 120 years ago"
If the Immigration Act of 1924 and other restrictions that stemmed that flood had not been put in place, the result would have been catastrophic.
You really think the socialists and secularists moved here? Plenty are homegrown, and polished up at finishing schools (i.e. universities).
You should read some history about early 20th century America
Yes. They’re the ones who taught three generations how great communism would be if we only had the right people in charge (them and their buddies, natch).
At least Reason continues to make the case against the national conservative menace. Even if it's like the neighbor's mean kid down the street, while they have little to say against the gang of hoodlums running the neighborhood.
That gang of hoodlums might be running for office in 2032, so that’s what we’re going to spend all our energy talking about. What’s passed is past.
https://reason.com/tag/biden-administration/
Little to say:
https://reason.com/tag/biden-administration/
Minor criticisms. Compare that to Trump articles. And articles not about Trump that manage to squeeze in attacks against Trump. Boehm and Sullum are prime offenders.
One of my ancestors had to take a loyalty oath early in the Civil War in order to get his steamboat pilot license renewed. From a drunken German who was a recent immigrant and not yet a citizen.
It’s a significant reason he joined the Confederacy instead.
So when's the movie coming out?
(They might have to switch the sides so make him a Union pilot, and maybe a few other changes like sex scense, but otherwise it would be historically authentic.)
Did s/he have to swear that a minor illness was GONNA KILL US ALL, like you did, asshole?
Inquiring minds want to know.
https://twitter.com/gelderbailey/status/1625204723916673053
Seems like a relevant, progressive question:
Bullshit.... What country can exist with everyone different colors.... nothing in common.... Salvadoran barbeque anyone? This country is going to die..... thank the gutless white politicians for not saving our civilization.
Skin color is the most important thing
There have been plenty of countries like that historically, but they are usually empires. Also, in most of those places, there is usually a homeland for the different peoples.
The progressives want to eliminate race and ethnicity, just like they want to eliminate gender. They think that people can only be equal in law if they are equal in fact. They think that ethno-nation states lead to gas chambers and lynching, so we have to destroy national identities as a way of avoiding these evils. In the English-speaking nations, the ESG companies are trying very, very hard to push the idea of race cross-marrying through media - the only way to truly get rid of racial discrimination is to get rid of race. Likewise they think the only way to get rid of sex discrimination is to get rid of gender.
These are fantasies, because you can't undo millennia of evolution in a century of engineering. Cultural differences between ethnicities are deep. The vast majority of men are naturally masculine and the vast majority of women are naturally feminine. And all of this helps the our overlords who want to be able to move labor around the world at will and who want mothers in the workplace depressing wages and generating taxes.
Just consider the policies that the Founding Fathers embraced.
Somehow, I don't think Fiona's ill-considered "Repeal the 14A." stance is going to go over as well in Progressive circles, or as poor in Conservative circles as she thinks it is.
I mean, I'm not opposed to common law, blood-lineage citizenship and giving the Natives the right to opt out of taxation *and* representation and eliminating the 14A, I just don't think Fiona is bright enough to have the slightest clue what she's saying.
Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, And Cruel Immigration Policies And Practices, convened at a website popular among intolerant, antisocial, disaffected wingnuts and faux libertarians.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, and only until replacement.
Fuck off and die, asshole bigot.
Must be the Rev. Got him muted...
bigot
bĭg′ət
noun
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ..
A hypocritical professor of religion; a hypocrite; also, a superstitious adherent of religion.
A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious or other creed, opinion, practice, or ritual; a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, system of belief, or party organization; an intolerant dogmatist.
A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite.
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, gender or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
The replacements are needed in Chicago, the cultural war victors capital. Somehow, some way the locals keep murdering themselves at staggeringly high numbers where illegals need to be called up from the farm system to fill in for those losses.
The USA has MORE immigrants than any other nation in the world.
Yet; Invasion pushers just can't find any comfort in that.
Sure, immigration was great for Europeans. But today, the more relevant question to ask is, was it also a "boon" to the natives that were already here? I'm guessing not! Well, we are the natives now.
It was much easier to have an open immigration policy in 1790 - when the Americas had abundant wide open land for the taking, and the world population overall was still less than a billion people. But times have changed. Now it's 8 billion, and the US alone has 320 million people, and not even enough fresh water for everyone.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1627868907473186816?t=pX6WgXOqTNVMQRelCMWTYA&s=19
National divorce won’t happen but we should still talk about it
The conversation reveals difficult truths about the American political dynamic that most are unwilling to face
I’ll probably do an episode on this soon
[Pic]
the founding plutocrats were evil and the Constitution was illegally installed and should be declared null and void... if anyone here can read a book from end to end, which I doubt, you should read Dr Woody holton's book entitled unruly Americans
That Constitution is what is suppose to ensure Human Liberty and Justice for all. How about YOU are evil and illegally installed and should be void in US politics? If you hate the USA (defined by the US Constitution) so much maybe it's time to EXIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1627792427296620546?t=ylX0dlULnTztIflftzWmJg&s=19
This is a sentiment shared by all English people at heart. We know we're being taken advantage of by foreigners but the government won't do anything about it except raise our taxes.
[Video]
I don't think this article proved its point. Immigration has always been a hydra-headed issue ripe for manipulation by any number of factions and constituencies.
I was going through your article and i found many useful information in your article.
Free and unfettered immigration lasted only a short time. Less than 14 years after founding the founding fathers introduced the first immigration legislation. They realized the need for Legal immigration even with a wide open continent, over free immigration, which posed a threat to the new nation.
Naturalization Act of 1790 The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the first rules for acquiring citizenship in the United States of America.
1819 Seems the 1819 Congress Enacted the First Significant Federal Legislation Relating Specifically to Immigration Among its provisions, it: (1) established the continuing reporting of immigration to the United States; and (2) set specific sustenance rules for passengers of ships leaving U.S. ports for Europe.
1864 Centralized Control over Immigration Congress first centralized control over immigration under the Secretary of State with a Commissioner. The importation of contract laborers was legalized in this legislation.
1868 The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted to guarantee American citizenship rights to black Americans following the abolition of slavery and the defeat of the Confederacy. The goal was to prevent states from disenfranchising former slaves, but the amendment has more recently been misused to grant citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.
1875 Direct Federal Regulation of Immigration Direct federal regulation of immigration was established by a law that prohibited entry of prostitutes and convicts.
1882 The Chinese Exclusion Law The Chinese exclusion law curbed Chinese immigration. Also excluded were persons convicted of political offenses, lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become public charges and those deemed “lunatics” and “idiots. The law placed a head tax on each immigrant.
1885 Admission of Contract Laborers was Banned 1888 Provisions were Adopted for Expelling Aliens Provisions were adopted—the first since 1798—to provide for expulsion of aliens.
The Bureau of Immigration 1891 The Bureau of Immigration was established under the Treasury Department to federally administer all immigration laws (except the Chinese Exclusion Act).
1903 Consolidation Immigration law was consolidated. Polygamists and political radicals were added to the exclusion list.
1906 English Language Requirement Procedural safeguards for naturalization were enacted. Knowledge of English was made a basic requirement.
1907 Restrictions for Medical Conditions A bill increased the head tax on immigrants, and added people with physical or mental defects or tuberculosis and children unaccompanied by parents to the exclusion list. Japanese immigration became restricted
1917 Restrictions for Medical and Moral Conditions Added to the exclusion list were illiterates, persons of psychopathic inferiority, men as well as women entering for immoral purposes, alcoholics, stowaways, and vagrants. A bill increased the head tax on immigrants, and added people with physical or mental defects or tuberculosis and children unaccompanied by parents to the exclusion list. Japanese immigration became further restricted.
1921 First Numeric Limits The first quantitative immigration law was adopted. It set temporary annual quotas according to nationality. A book titled Not Like Us: Immigrants and Minorities in America, 1890-1924, discusses this period.
1924Quota System The first permanent immigration quota law established a preference quota system, nonquota status, and consular control system. It also established the Border Patrol.
1929 Quotas Made Permanent The annual quotas of the 1924 Act were made permanent
1946 Start of the Bracero Program Legislation provided for the importation of agricultural workers from North, South, and Central America—the basis of the “Bracero Program.” At the same time the Chinese exclusion laws were repealed.
1946 War Brides Procedures were adopted to facilitate immigration of foreign-born wives, fiance(e)s, husbands, and children of U.S. armed forces personnel.
1948 First Refugee Provisions The first U.S. policy was adopted for admitting persons fleeing persecution. It permitted 205,000 refugees to enter the United States over two years (later increased to 415,000)
1950 Communist Exclusion The grounds for exclusion and deportation of subversives were expanded. All aliens were required to report their address annually.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 The multiple laws which governed immigration and naturalization to that time were brought into one comprehensive statute, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. It (1) reaffirmed the national origins quota system, (2) limited immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere while leaving the Western Hemisphere unrestricted, (3) established preferences for skilled workers and relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens; and (4) tightened security and screening standards and procedures.
Refugee Relief Act of 1953 The Refugee Relief Act also referred to as the Special Migration Act of 1953 was a law passed by the 83rd Congress. After the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 expired in 1952, this legislation became the nation’s second refugee resettlement law and increased the admission rate to over 200,000 refugees.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 The Hart-Cellar Act abolished the national origins quota system but still maintained was the principle of numerical restriction by establishing 170,000 Hemispheric and 20,000 per country ceilings and a seven-category preference system (favoring close relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens, those with needed occupational skills, and refugees) for the Eastern Hemisphere and a separate 120,000 ceiling for the Western Hemisphere.
1976 Refugee Changes The 20,000 per-country immigration ceilings and the preference system became applied to Western-Hemisphere countries. The separate Hemispheric ceilings were maintained. 1978—The separate ceilings for Eastern and Western Hemispheric immigration were combined into one world-wide limit of 290,000.
1980 Refugee Act The Refugee Act removed refugees as a preference category and established clear criteria and procedures for their admission. It also reduced the world-wide ceiling for immigrants from 290,000 to 270,000.
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was a comprehensive reform effort. It (1) legalized aliens who had resided in the United States in an unlawful status since January 1, 1982, (2) established sanctions prohibiting employers from hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee aliens known to be unauthorized to work in the United States, (3) created a new classification of temporary agricultural worker and provided for the legalization of certain such workers; and (4) established a visa waiver pilot program allowing the admission of certain nonimmigrants without visas.
1989 Nursing Exemption A bill adjusted from temporary to permanent status certain nonimmigrants who were employed in the United States as registered nurses for at least three years and met established certification standards.The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was a comprehensive reform effort.
1990 Birth of the Current Category System Comprehensive immigration legislation provided for (1) increased total immigration under an overall flexible cap of 675,000 immigrants beginning in fiscal year 1995, preceded by a 700,000 level during fiscal years 1992 through 1994, (2) created separate admission categories for family-sponsored, employment-based, and diversity immigrants, (3) revised all grounds for exclusion and deportation, significantly rewriting the political and ideological grounds and repealing some grounds for exclusion, (4) authorized the Attorney General to grant temporary protected status to undocumented alien&nbs
1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted in 1996, resulted from the process of deliberating on the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform established by President Bill Clinton and the Congress to examine both legal and illegal immigration issues.
1998 American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act Increase in H-1B visa cap. New fees and penalties for abuse of the H-1B system
1998 NACARA On November 19, 1997, President Clinton signed into law the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). NACARA provided permanent residence (“green cards”) to certain Nicaraguans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, nationals of former Soviet bloc countries and their dependents.
2000 Haitian Amnesty Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA), which was enacted in December 2000 applied to Haitians who had been the beneficiaries of an earlier DED designation in 1995.
2000 American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act Removed effective caps on H-1B by allowing for more renewals of H-1B status without counting against the cap
2002 Homeland Security Act Created the Department of Homeland Security. All immigration enforcement and adjudication now located within DHS.
2004 L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004 Added new penalties for abuse of the L-1 intra-company transfer visa.
2004 H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 Added 20,000 new H-1B slots for foreign students graduating with a masters degree from American universities.
2005 REAL ID Act Established federal standards for identification documents.
2006 Secure Fence Act Authorized construction of a partial border fence along 700 miles of the 1,954-mile U.S. — Mexico border.
2012DACA President Barack Obama announces the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which offered deferred action from deportation (renewable every two years) and eligibility for a work permit for illegal aliens brought into the U.S. as children. DACA was a presidential executive order and was widely criticized as unconstitutional.
2014 DACA Expanded, DAPA Introduced President Obama issued another executive order announcing the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which deferred the deportation of illegal aliens living in the United States since 2010 who had children who were American citizens or legal permanent residents. His executive order simultaneously expanded DACA.
2017 Trump Launches Pro-American Immigration Reforms President Donald J. Trump issued numerous executive orders furthering a pro-American immigration reform agenda. These included orders authorizing border wall construction, withdrawing the U.S. from the TPP, “Buy American and Hire American,” withholding funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry, ensuring proper vetting, and phasing out DACA.
2022 Biden’s Open Border
Dictator Joe Biden voids 232 years of immigration law!
Amazing how the Founders abandoned their principles once they got actual power. They were.... human!
Sometimes the reality of the situation dictates a change of perspective. Even for astoundingly intelligent people like the Founding Fathers.
Sure, sure; The founders were all about a border-less nation. /s
That's why the ?? Constitution was about humans and not a "Union of States".
Oh wait...........
Damn, that was a good burn.
"Free Immigration Is a Core American Value"
That may be true if the U.S. were not ruled by a state !
Anyone who currently accepts the existence of the state must also accept the validity of the borders of that state.
They go hand-in-hand. Trying to divorce them is a fantasy.
As for open borders, if they were imposed on a country of private property, that would require legalizing trespassing !
They could only be valid on a state-controlled society!
NO libertarian should support open borders.
And to the extent the LP platform does, it is not libertarian !
@reason has stake out an invalid position to support them !
?free? sh*t for Immigrates is a Core American Value alright....
They just got their word order mixed up.
"National conservatives..." This odd phrase is odd. I bet those "national conservatives" are white too, huh, and supremely satisfied with their supremacy, huh?
Subtlety is hard, but worth it.
It is a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_conservatism
It is in the minds of the left. Just like this Qanon person/group/urban legend.
Regardless of principles, the fact is that the US birthrate is now below the replacement rate. A declining population with a rising deficit is not a good combination.
Humorously; The more immigration the more the debt rises.
Having "open borders" is fine. The issue is assimilation. Congress has gerrymandered the immigration laws to favor outsourcing. As a retired tech guy, and one of those who went to India to train someone to do my job, and then manage those teams, I've seen this is action. Compare today to when I was a kid in SoCal 90 miles from the border. Green cards back then were free to immigrant workers coming to work the fields. People wanting to stay and become citizens simply filled out the paperwork and got a job. Yes, you had sponsors, but they didn't have to pay ridiculous amounts of money.
Today they tie legal immigration to lots of money while still allowing people to flow in undocumented. They have created, in a sense, a new slave class. These folks have to stay under the radar their whole lives, working menial jobs, and being anything but free.
We need to fix the assimilation process. When the boat people came to the U.S. at the end of the Vietnam war, Carter put them all in my home town of Westminster, and some surrounding communities. It was a controlled assimilation. Yes, it was not without issue. I remember the kids coming to our high school and being clueless to our customs, and our language. Let's just say we had as much to learn as the immigrants did.
That said, because of Carter's plans, the future generations were able to succeed. This worked much better than tossing them on planes at night or buses and dropping them off in random towns with no plan of assimilating.
Finally, I remember in school during the 70s that our nation was once known as the "immigrant nation." I have no idea what the heck happened in just two generations since then. We need to fix it.
"Having “open borders” is fine. The issue is assimilation."
Those are not mutually exclusive. The ability to assimilate depends on who and how many are allowed to enter in a given time period. Also assimilation is not just a matter of educating the immigrants in our customs and language, it is also a matter of adjusting our systems (education, welfare, Social Security, etc.) to absorb the immigrants without bankrupting our country.
If immigration is uncontrolled(open borders), we have no hope of effectively assimilating immigrants.
"I have no idea what the heck happened in just two generations since then."
Simple; The non-assimilating started their very own Nazi-Empire 'government' and conquered the USA (defined by the US Constitution).
As many *invasions* do.
The OP begs the question: Is Libertarianism a nationalist or globalist ideology?
If we the people do not own and are not sovereign in these United States, who is the sovereign?
Is it some global entity?
The idea is that the people are sovereign in which ever demesne they choose to live in. But it gets very unclear when you're looking at globally applicable principles. You have to resort to natural rights or other bullshit arguments.
Marxist People don't want to be sovereign..
ncgarymcpherson says this well with, "The issue is assimilation."
They want to conquer and consume.
Although I love America with all my heart, I do not love it because America Anglicized the Germans! I love it because American culture has evolved by being gradually Germanized, Africanized, Sinocized, Francocized, Nativized and Mexicanized over the centuries. Anglican culture was not so perfect that it was not improved by being tempered by assimilation with many other cultures. I have never understood the desire of some to preserve what was never at any time in our history a pure culture worth preserving at any cost. The only thing that ought to be preserved at all costs is liberty, and that outcome is very much in question recently.
Amen
LMAO... HELLO!!! The US Constitution *is* about ensuring Liberty and Justice for all. NOT Germanized, Africanized, Sinocized, Francocized, Nativized and Mexicanized....
Seems your confusion is nothing short of cognitive dissonance.
The most amusing aspect of immigration articles is the oscillation between supporting open borders and claiming support for open borders is a strawman.
What do you guys make of this
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-to-limit-asylum-to-migrants-who-pass-through-a-3rd-nation/ar-AA17LYiY?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7cb87609372340c39fa3375bc7223f6b
Do I need to upgrade my Reason subscription? I'm not receiving all these great articles by Mike.
Amen.
‘Rooftop Koreans’ could be a great name for a K Pop band.
He will be replaced. He’s not very useful, and obviously broken.
It is another shrike sock.
That's not what Replacement Theory is. You either don't know what it is, swallow cultural conservative redefinitions whole, or are intentionally pretending it's something that it isn't.
Tucker Carlson doesn't report. He opines. He never kets the facts (or rational thought) get in the way of a narrative. If the Dominion duscovery hasn't convinced you of the fecklessness and dishonesty of the cultural conservative xhattering class, you have chosen to be unconvinced.
It takes a long time to translate them into Azillan.