Trump and DeSantis Won't Stop at Keeping Out Illegal Immigrants
From “ideological screening” to barring entire cultures deemed “hostile to…the American way of life,” the candidates have big plans to target legal immigrants too.

In his last presidential address in 1989, Ronald Reagan called this country's ability to attract immigrants "vital" and "one of the most important sources of America's greatness." He made no distinction between "legal" and "illegal"—immigrants, simply and generally, keep the U.S. "a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas."
This isn't something that you'll hear former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis say on the campaign trail. "We talk a lot about illegal immigration," said DeSantis at an event last week. "But no one really talks about the legal immigration system and there's some Republicans that say, 'As long as it's legal, it doesn't matter.' I don't subscribe to that."
Nor are Trump's second-term crackdown ambitions limited solely to undocumented immigrants, The New York Times reported on Saturday. Instead of targeting legal status, many of Trump's policies would target ideologies he dislikes. "The visas of foreign students who participated in anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian protests would be canceled," per the Times. "U.S. consular officials abroad will be directed to expand ideological screening of visa applicants to block people the Trump administration considers to have undesirable attitudes."
In other words, DeSantis and Trump aren't content to think about legal immigration versus illegal immigration. Instead, they're thinking about good legal immigration versus bad legal immigration.
Trump nodded to this attitude in a campaign speech last month in Iowa, saying that his administration would implement "strong ideological screening of all immigrants" to keep out "dangerous lunatics, haters, bigots, and maniacs." In a Fox News appearance this week, DeSantis allowed that ideological testing "may be difficult." But "if you have a country that has a culture that's hostile to kind of the American way of life," he continued, "I would just say don't bring in people from that country."
Trump's comments are reminiscent of the so-called extreme vetting of immigrants that he pushed as president, which included his infamous "Muslim ban" and a 2017 order that almost completely shut down travel to the U.S. from six Muslim-majority nations. The policies operated on a faulty premise; though ostensibly meant as security measures, the Cato Institute's David J. Bier noted in 2018, "No one from the travel ban countries, nor any Muslim refugee, has killed anyone in a terrorist attack in the United States in more than 40 years."
DeSantis, similarly, says he "would not want to import people" from "societies that have…toxic cultures." Setting aside the obvious issues with the president determining which societies have toxic cultures, consider a gay man from Iran or a Christian from Afghanistan. Those countries might have cultures that are "hostile" to "the American way of life," as DeSantis said. But by barring immigration from those countries, would DeSantis be hurting the regime or the people trying to flee it?
These policies illustrate a wildly limited view of America, completely neglecting the nation's track record of pluralism and acceptance of diverse views. "If you're a communist, Marxist, or fascist, you are disqualified" from immigrating here, Trump said last month. Also disqualified: people who "don't like our religion." (What is "our religion," exactly?) DeSantis says immigrants have "got to subscribe to the founding principles of this country." How do you prove such a thing?
This would move U.S. immigration policy in an unproductive—not to mention discriminatory—direction. The priority wouldn't be bringing critical workers where they're needed, allowing immigrant entrepreneurs to launch startups in the U.S., offering refuge to the world's vulnerable and displaced, or giving Americans the ability to sponsor their family members for resettlement. It would be a centrally planned, exclusive vision of America's promise, and it would neglect the ways in which Americans benefit from various forms of legal immigration.
In a speech at the National Conservatism Conference last September, DeSantis lamented that "mass immigration, whether illegal immigration or whether it's just mass immigration through the legal process," isn't "conducive to assimilating people into American society." DeSantis and Trump aren't content to accept migrants who come to the U.S. "the right way." If their plans come to fruition, there won't be a right way for the people whose cultures the candidates deem undesirable.
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
We get a doubler with this one!
She hasn't quite gotten to trump is Hitler. But slowly auditioning for WaPo.
Do you think WaPo will still be in circulation by the time she gets the call up to the majors?
The DNC will fund it (more).
I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I’ve made such great m0ney.I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It’s’ really user friendly and I’m just so happY that I found out about thisI worked Here ══════►►► http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Somehow they always funding to help push narratives. Vox has never made a profit.
Are they finally figuring out that DeSantis has no shot?
"Take your tired, poor, huddled asses yearning to breathe free, and fuck off if you can't pass this ideological purity test."
Might as well give the Statue of Liberty back to France.
That was my point.
And you made it well.
Look at all the "not a leftists" band together. How cute.
I’m trying to have a conversation with the adults.
You’re welcome to join in if you can talk about the topic instead of the people talking about it.
I won’t hold my breath.
And I said it was cute. Have as many convos with the other leftists you want.
That's what I thought.
It is a clever line. And he put it in quotes.
“Take your tired, poor, huddled asses yearning to breathe free, and fuck off if you can’t pass this ideological purity test.”
I didn't know if he snagged it or thought about what the Statue actually would read.
I'm thinking more like what the Statue of Liberty should read.
It should read that it’s 2023 and we have taken in far more “poor huddled masses” than we ever should have.
Fucking white savior progs, always living in the past.
Perhaps they will all have a gathering at a half million dollar house.
Concert bathrooms are cheaper.
Might as well give the Statue of Liberty back to France.
They absolutely would NOT want it back at this point. They're suffering far more than we are from mass importation of undesirables.
I supported that before Romney was nominated.
You are welcome to send the quote back, as it wasn't on the damned statue for the first 50 years it was displayed, and has absolutely nothing to do with the statue whatever.
France just gave us a statue. They have nothing to do with the obnoxious socialist poem some idiot decided to slap on it.
Shitty poetry on secondhand statuary is no basis for an immigration policy.
Perhaps head to Burger King and insist that “Have it Your Way” includes them giving you a massage while they feed you the food with toothpicks all for no charge.
A sign on a statue as the compass for running a country sounds like the Monty Python Holy Grail scene regarding pulling a sword from a stone making Arthur king of the Brits.
"A sign on a statue as the compass for running a country..."
That's the opposite of my point.
The sign on the statue described the country as it was then, and it sure as heck doesn't describe it now. To the point where it's a bad joke.
How many people have you hired this quarter that have no valuable skillset for your personal business?
The US has changed since then. Shipbuilders aren’t hand hammering in rivets anymore. Coal miners aren’t using picks to remove seams anymore. Most food production doesn’t involve hand picking the crop. When I had a select cut on my woodlot, the loggers used a harvester machine. They had zero chainsaws with them (and no handsaws either).
All I'm saying is that the sign needs to be updated.
Texas believed that NY was still advertising per the sign.
The Black Tom Incident tried to update that location.
Hochul found jobs for a whipping 8% of NYC illegals. 2% bothered applying for work permits.
Hell, some of the ones who found their way to Chicago gave up after the first snowstorm back on Halloween. They're going back home.
https://nypost.com/2023/11/13/news/some-migrants-so-fed-up-with-us-already-heading-back-home/
The moment they can work legally, their value to employers plummets.
Not quite. They still get exempted from ACA compliance taxes stoll making them cheaper as compared to hiring a citizen.
The poem was put on the statute in 1903. With full knowledge of that poem and the existence of the statute itself, and with full understanding that tens of millions of immigrants had entered the Country during the great wave, the Country came to its senses and passed the 1924 immigration act which IMO, should be passed again, in 2023. THAT describes the Country as it was then not your Bull spit.
I’m saying the poem needs to be scratched off or replaced. Could we be in agreement?
Perhaps they could remove the plaque and reset to where the confederate statues were relocated.
The bad joke is pretending there is a similarity between the days when half the continent was empty and there was no welfare state, and today’s world of pretentious virtue signaling.
Hell, and just the difference in farming technology between 1903 and 2023.
The United States simply does not need and has no space for a massive influx of illiterate peasants. I'm sorry that this is inconvenient for the illiterate peasants of the world.
the Monty Python Holy Grail scene regarding pulling a sword from a stone making Arthur king of the Brits.
Not absurd enough (way more relevant than it has any right to be).
I have an Iranian friend who hasn’t seen those I sent him the Help Help I’m Being Repressed 3:00 scene yesterday
edit: duh, link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAA-G947ofg
"Trump and DeSantis Won't Stop at Keeping Out Illegal Immigrants"
Koch Reasonistas are finding that deliberately conflating legal and illegal immigration isn't working anymore, so they've moved on to whispering about dogwhistles and nefarious secret plans.
whispering about dogwhistles and nefarious secret plans
^^^ didn't read the article
And you conflate legal and illegal immigration as well, ass.
I did which is exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
"...deliberately conflating legal and illegal immigration..."
Christ on a Cracker!!! Give the illegal sub-humans their Magic Papers From Government Almighty already, and transform them from dross into GOLD! Or does the word "transform" SCARE You, Perfect Power Pigs? Makes Ye think of TRANNIES, hypocrite SheMale?
I'll tell you what Shillsy.
Get rid of all the wage regulations, licensing and taxes that make it impossible for citizens and legal immigrants to compete with under-the-table illegal aliens, and then you can get rid of entry controls.
Stupid fuck.
You have the Perfect Freedoms to work under the table, too, Perfect Bitch!!! Don't You do that already anyway, for Your VERY kinky Johns? Under the table!!!! Waaaay... KINK-EEEEEYYYY!!!!
It's amazing that Republicans keep building weapons for the Woke. Ideological screening is exactly what the progressives want. If you consider that conservatives have unconditionally lost the culture war, what kind of immigrants would the progressives allow into the country?
The US has two political parties, the Democrats and the Democrat Auxiliary. When the Dems can't get it done, their Auxiliary is there to do the job. You can identify the Auxiliary by the small "R" after their name.
One of the Iron Laws:
Me today, you tomorrow.
they used to disqualify you from immigrating to the US if you were a member of the communist party
Worked fine. Good idea. They should bring that back.
how many walking in is too many?
Ooh, my little Reason one, my Reason one
When I gonna see your byline, Fiona?
Ooh, you make the border run, the border run
Immigrants are crossin' the line, Fiona
Never gonna stop, open up, welcome ev'ryone
This is the only place they should come underneath the sun
My, my, my, ay, ah, wooh!
M-m-m-my Fiona
Gotta have a place to live, a place to live
When you gonna let 'em inside, Fiona?
Give 'em each a pizza slice, isn't that nice
Get 'em outta here by high tide, Fiona
Never gonna stop, open up, welcome ev'ryone
This is the only place they should come underneath the sun
My, my, my, ay, ah, wooh!
M-m-m-my Fiona
M-m-m-my Fiona
Comin' here for amnesty, a-amnesty
What is their political crime, Fiona?
Need 'em all to vote for me, v-vote for me
Then work 'em on the production line, Fiona
Never gonna stop, open up, welcome ev'ryone
This is the only place they should come underneath the sun
My, my, my, ay, ah, wooh!
M-m-m-m-m-m-m-my, my, my, ay, ah, wooh!
M-m-m-my Fiona
M-m-m-my Fiona
M-m-m-my Fiona
M-m-m-my Fiona
Oh, my Fiona
Oh, my Fiona
Oh, my Fiona
What's this?
A jokey musical post can actually work if it's based on a well known song and relates to the topic?
Then why does SQRSLY fail so bad every time he tries? 🙁
Like my Tariff Man (sung to Rocket Man)?
Should I repost it? You will love it.
To Pearl Jam’s Betterman
Lurchin, watchin the clock,
his brain has stopped,
like Biden, plopped,
Tell him, read the card, he practices his speech,
As he falls on the floor, slurs all over
Portends to keep with D crooks all over
He’s retarded, he’s a Dem sped,
Scant mind in Fetterman
He dreams no color, he is brain dead,
Scant mind in Fetterman
Scant mind in Fetterman
Scant mind in Fetterman
Recall when the commentariat collaborated on The Pedo Went Down to Georgia?
No, keep your day job.
https://reason.com/2022/09/27/for-florida-gov-ron-desantis-political-stunts-are-more-important-than-substance/ and
https://reason.com/2022/09/21/are-ron-desantis-migrant-flights-legal/
Ass POTUS, DeSatan will be forcing USA taxpayers to trick and ferry billions upon brazilians of sub-Brazilians from Brazil to Botswana, and to deport illegal sub-Martians from Mars to Uranus! Ass long ass the illegal Martians SUFFER-SUFFER-SUFFER, red-meat-hungry socons and troglodytes will be DELIGHTED to spend those extra tax dollars! Butt I for one think that illegal Martians are intelligent beings, too, and hope that they will NOT suffer on Uranus, from too many foul odors, etc.!
DeSatan… SPEAKS to me! Get Thee behind me, DeSatan!
Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers
DeSatan loves me, This I know,
For DeSatan tells me so,
Little ones to GAWD belong,
We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
DeSatan tells me so!
DeSatan loves me, yes indeed,
Makes the illegal sub-humans bleed,
Protects me for geeks and freaks,
I LOVE to pay taxes, till my wallet squeaks!
PUNISH Disney, I’ll PAY for their pains,
Ass long ass DeSatan Blesses our gains!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
DeSatan tells me so!
DeSatan expels the low-lifes to Venus,
Moves them ANYWHERE, with His Penis!
His Penis throbs with His Righteousness,
Take no heed, He says, of His Frighteousness!
ALL must be PUNISHED, they say!
So never, EVER be or say gay!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
DeSatan tells me so!
Our USA taxes must PAY The Way, He may say,
To EXPORT the illegal Mars aliens, every day!
To Pluto, Jupiter, or Uranus, they must ALL go!
Oh, the places that the low-lifes will go, you must know!
The taxes we shall pay? Through the money, we must BLOW!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
Yes, DeSatan loves me!
DeSatan tells me so!
(If we did NOT do-doo, doo-doo-doo, ALL of this, then that them thar illegal Mars aliens WILL show up on OUR doors, in the formerly pure USA!!! We MUST keep them AWAY, far away, out in the Deep Dark Yonder!)
#MeInTheAss’CauseI’maGullibleLowBrowBlowHardConTard
#BeenTrumpledUnderfootForFarTooLong
Illegals want to infect us with TikTok.
"The visas of foreign students who participated in anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian protests would be canceled,"
Note that he didn't say "pro-Hamas", he said "pro-Palestinian".
So foreign students who aren't protesting in favor of terrorism, but merely are protesting against the official government line of support for Israel would have their visas canceled. How is that not outrageously authoritarian?
Is it just my perspective or has Republican pants-shitting been especially voluminous lately?
Remember when you shit your pants about the SECOND INSURRECTION BY RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS on 9 / 18 / 21?
How many lives were lost on that terrible day? Did the property damage exceed the #BLM riots of 2020?
Why yes, I remember asking "How many of you Peanuts are going?".
It seems we have only the low-energy Trump Cultists here. They have been assigned the easy home-troll duties and not the outdoor high-risk assignments.
Fiona told us sending immigrants to blue areas was a dumb stunt that totally backfired. Because Democrats passed the "we [heart] immigrants" consistency test with flying colors. Take THAT, DeSantis!
Then the Democratic mayor of overwhelmingly Democratic NYC said Fiona's sugar daddy's open borders agenda would "destroy" his city.
Luckily for Fiona, inability to feel shame is a prerequisite for a job as a Koch-funded "libertarian."
DeSatan tis of Thee,
Sweet Man of tyranny!
From every mountainside,
You can smell Him for free!
DeLand where de eagles glide!
DeLand where de illegals hide!
DeSatan, tis of Thee I sing,
To the liberals, tears You bring!
You make the proggies cry!
Talk with THEM?! Don’t even try!
DeSatan, tis of Thee I praise!
For the woke, Holy Hell You raise!
Illegal Martians? Low-life scum, You catch and send,
To Uranus with them! Ignore tax dollars You spend!
We must punish ALL, who to USA might sail,
At ALL costs, DeSatanism MUST prevail!
#MeInTheAss’CauseI’maGullibleLowBrowBlowHardConTard
#BeenTrumpledUnderfootForFarTooLong
Sandy, way to call out Fiona
+1000000.. Well said.
From Reagan's farewell speech, 1989, describing the "shining city on a hill":
DeSantis, 2023:
“Immigration should only be done when it benefits the American people. If it doesn’t benefit the American people, then it should not be something that’s being done."
Yeah, I figured chemjeff critical race theorist would despise that part.
You much prefer political thinkers who beg DARK BRANDON to save us from FASCISM.
#TotallyNotALeftist
Oh look, here comes Dishonest Sandra the Bitch to fling poo and add nothing of value.
Why don't you tell us all why, when you bring up that reference to the DARK BRANDON article, you purposefully omit the fact that when I brought it up, I specifically mentioned that I did not agree with the DARK BRANDON part of that article? Hmm?
Is it because you're just here to fling poo?
Here's your original post. No disclaimer that you rejected the SAVE US, DARK BRANDON portion of the article.
I also did a CTRL+F search of your username and, excluding hits where other people mentioned you, here's what I found:
Another post by you complaining entirely about Trump (who was long out of office by that point).
An eventual admission that Team Blue is sometimes bad too, after someone brought up Biden's bathed-in-red speech and you realized you couldn't defend it.
You make it sound like from the beginning you clarified that the DARK BRANDON stuff was batshit. That's not what happened though.
I didn't cite the DARK BRANDON stuff, I never defended it, I never claimed it was the crux of my argument. I made that clear the entire time. But, what a surprise, you ignored my entire argument and only used the one portion that I did NOT cite to try to mock me for it.
Because what's more important to you: talking about how your team wins votes and elections by demagoguery and scapegoating foreigners? Or mocking the people you don't like?
It's understandable that you don't want to defend the shameless and despicable tactics that your team routinely engages in at this point so you change the subject.
"your team"
LOL
Accuses me of arguing dishonestly, then implies I'm a Republican even though I've made all this clear dozens of times since retiring OBL:
1. I'm a registered Independent.
2. I haven't voted since Gary Johnson in 2016, a throwaway to express disapproval of Trump and Clinton.
3. I regard Republican voters as self-sabotaging idiots who deserve to lose every election in which they give Dems the opponents they want (Trump 2024, numerous #StopTheSteal grifters in 2022).
4. Even if Republicans get their act together and nominate someone less radioactive than Trump in 2024, I'm still sitting out that election.
Oh, I see. So you support the Team Red values and goals, you just don't like their candidates or voters.
So yes, ideologically, they are "your team" even if you are embarrassed by them or recognize (correctly) that their candidates are grifters and clowns.
You always divide us into binary teams while denying binaries in other places. Doesn't that seem odd to you, dork?
The issues on which I'm "conservative" tend to be those where the "liberal" position is broadly unpopular except among diehard Democratic loyalists.
I think the Biden economy is subpar. Despite Buttplug's gaslighting, that's not an inherently "MAGA" or GOP position: Poll Shows Just 14 Percent Of Voters Say Biden Has Made Them Better Off. Are you in that lucky 14%, jeff?
I oppose racial preferences. That hardly makes me "MAGA" or necessarily Republican-aligned either, since a majority of voters in CA of all places recently rejected them. How about you, jeff? Upset by the recent Supreme smackdown of race-based college admissions?
I think open borders is a completely insane idea. Are there any nationally prominent politicians who make campaign promises to implement open borders? Probably very few, because I'd wager not just Republicans, but also the vast majority of Independent swing voters find that proposal toxic.
Then there are the issues where my views are far outside the mainstream, with virtually no home in the GOP: legalize all drugs, reduce the Pentagon's budget, stop spending billions on a proxy war to defend a non-NATO country, tell Israel to figure it out on their own.
Yeah, you can't dismiss me as just another Fox News stooge because I mock your adoption of the latest left-wing fads like "neopronouns."
So you want to legalize all drugs but you think that "open borders" is an insane idea. Why? To me those two ideas are incongruent. The War on Drugs is scarcely different than the War on 'Illegal' Labor.
And, by the way:
I have never praised the Biden economy as being some terrific engine of growth.
I have never supported government-mandated racial preferences.
I have never even used "neopronouns" as I recall. So you are mocking me for something I haven't done.
And if you disagree with any of that, I challenge you to find even one quotation where I have done any of the above.
You've unfairly put me in this category of 'left-winger' and spent most of your energy mocking me and people like me while you spend virtually no effort going after the people in Team Red whom you claim not to be a part of. Why is that?
I think it is because you are emotionally connected to the concerns of Team Red. They may be idiots in your view but their hearts are in the right place. So you give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure they stormed the Capitol trying to overturn an election, but they did it because they loved their country. The BLM rioters, on the other hand, they are anti-American scum who are traitors who deserve the harshest penalties permitted under the law. Am I close? I think I am close.
"I have never even used 'neopronouns'as I recall. So you are mocking me for something I haven’t done."
You defended the idea of "nonbinary they / them 7-year-olds" when some C-list actress bragged about hers.
"spend virtually no effort going after the people in Team Red whom you claim not to be a part of"
Ask Nardz or Sevo if that's true.
"Sure they stormed the Capitol trying to overturn an election, but they did it because they loved their country."
I described the 1 / 6 mob as a bunch of sore losers throwing a guaranteed-to-accomplish-zilch tantrum on behalf of a buffoon from TV who couldn't even beat a dementia patient. The closest I come to "defending" those clowns is to push back on the absurd leftist talking point that 1 / 6 was meaningfully comparable to 9 / 11.
You defended the idea of “nonbinary they / them 7-year-olds” when some C-list actress bragged about hers.
Oh, so we are now moving the goalposts. First it was *I* who was using "neopronouns", now we are talking about someone else who claimed to have a nonbinary 7-year-old. So at least you implicitly admit that you lied, I don't use "neopronouns" and it was wrong of you to claim that I "adopted" them.
As for the parent of this 7-year-old, are you the parent? Do you know what is going on in this family's life? How can YOU be so sure that the parent is wrong and you are right when it comes to the gender identity of this child?
"Oh, but there are only two genders, male and female, and this woman is a batshit insane lefty for preaching this crap about nonbinary kids!" And then you turn around in the very next breath and claim not to be on Team Red, even when you adopt their very same culture war rhetoric.
And your opposition to Team Red, *as publicly presented here*, is mainly tactical/strategic. Oh, they chose the wrong people as candidates. Oh, they chose the wrong strategy for their campaign. It isn't philosophical/ideological. When have you ever gotten into an argument with Jesse or any of the other right-wing posters around here on an issue of *substance*, and not just the daily horse-race of electoral politics? Very rarely, if ever, and it is because you agree with them, on a philosophical/ideological level.
It is what I keep saying about the right-wing libertarians around here: they are Republicans, except maybe on one or two issues. But they will use their disagreement on those one or two issues to insist they are absolutely positively not Republicans.
That's you. You're a Republican who disagrees with other Republicans on maybe one or two issues - drugs, the Pentagon budget, maybe something else. But on virtually EVERYTHING ELSE, you agree! You'll take the Team Red position on ALL of the culture-war issues. You've shifted towards Team Red on economic issues - immigration, maybe on trade as well? Who knows. And you'll give them the benefit of the doubt when it matters.
Even when you describe Jan. 6, you still give them the benefit of the doubt. You don't outright shill for them by claiming they were "peaceful tourists" or whatever, like the abject GOP partisans around here, so you get a minor point in your credit for that, but neither will you condemn their violent assault on the Capitol. They were merely "sore losers" who picked a poor strategy.
Oh, also, two more of your claims that you chose not to defend:
I have never praised the Biden economy as being some terrific engine of growth.
I have never supported government-mandated racial preferences.
So we can assume that when you tried to assert that I think the Biden economy is wonderful or that I support government-mandated racial preferences, that you were lying. Right?
At least him and sarc are finally admitting it has a cost born by taxpayers. They don't care and don't see it as theft from one to give to another. But they aren't exactly libertarian.
Good place to post actual libertarian thought construction and not Fiona appeal to emotion.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/
Will you admit that there is a benefit to immigration?
And I have read that Hoppe article before.
What he fails to bring up, ironically, is the issue of liberty when it comes to the immigrants themselves.
It may be useful to think of the government as analogous to the trustee of an HOA, but it is an analogy only, not identical. The government has an additional burden of securing the rights of all within its borders, which is somewhat different than what an HOA has to do.
With this in mind, let's consider this statement from Hoppe's article:
So while an HOA trustee may justifiably say "you cannot invite that immigrant into the community because the costs associated with that immigrant are too high for our community to bear", a government may not be able to make that same argument IF it would result in the loss of fundamental liberties of the citizen or the immigrant. And in this case, one of the fundamental liberties in question is freedom of association.
When you get past the pretentious language, Hoppe's argument boils down to warmed-over utilitarianism - do the benefits outweigh the costs? And like most utilitarianism, the cost/benefit analysis is not done objectively, it is always biased in the direction of the author's personal preferences. Because Hoppe is opposed to mass immigration, unsurprisingly, his cost/benefit calculation minimizes the benefit of liberty and maximizes the costs of migration.
The government has an additional burden of securing the rights of all within its borders, which is somewhat different than what an HOA has to do.
It does not, in fact, have such a burden. If it did, all forms of imprisonment and deprevation of rights would be outlawed.
What he fails to bring up, ironically, is the issue of liberty when it comes to the immigrants themselves.
The immigrants have the liberty to come to the country under the rules governing immigration for the country. They do not have the liberty to show up and expect to be admitted and cared, at the expense of the current citizens, for until when/if they are able to care for themselves.
Don’t like the rules, push your congress critter to change them. Circumventing the established protocol leaves us where we are now, with a growing immigrant population that is more burden than benefit.
Here’s another question for you, personally. How many illegal immigrants could you house and support with your current circumstances and resources? They could live with you and you could support them until if/when they found a better circumstance. You don’t have to find them a job or help them out of the situation, just feed, cloth, house, pay for medical, transport them, make sure they are schooled etc. until they are ready to be free from you.
When are you volunteering?
The immigrants have the liberty to come to the country under the rules governing immigration for the country.
And the government has an obligation to construct those rules in a manner that secures the rights of everyone involved.
All jeff proved is he didnt read the actual essay and began throwing out non sequitur.
Hoppe explicitly details public costs and the usurpation of those agreed to costs for the public.
Easier instance that even sarc can understand.
Sarc and all 4 of his friends go even and uy a vacation house they can all use. One of his friends gets a room mate and then extends the agreement to all the other investors without questioning them. The room mate utilizes the property bearing costs for all the investors.
Nobody would agree to the above. But jeff and sarc would demand nobody complain about it.
Glad I don't have to pay rent for the time I spend in your head.
Youre in the thread. Youre not spending any time. But you and Jeff remain sophisticated regarding the topic. So trying to enlighten you. I know. Tilting at windmills. You refuse to learn.
And Jesse ignores counterarguments to the ones that he presents. Only the arguments from his right-wing tribe are valid, all others are ignored. Because he lacks critical thinking skills.
Let me try again: the cost/benefit analysis that Hoppe presents is incomplete. One must also consider the cost/benefit calculation associated with liberty. There is a cost associated with denial of liberty and there is a benefit associated with securing liberty.
The phone call came from inside the smorgasbord! The killer is in there with him!
#TotallyNotALeftist
That word has no meaning anymore, since it was just a few days ago there were commenters here insisting that Liz Cheney was a leftist.
Just like when leftwing people would make accusations of racism too often and too casually, the word has lost all meaning now. Congratulations?
Liz Cheney is a leftist hero but not a leftist. Okay, Jeff. Is that another of your 'observations' on Liz?
DeSatan, tis of Thee,
The Great One, who reigns supreme,
With His mighty hand,
He rules across the land,
His power we cannot flee!
DeSatan, tis of Thee I laud,
For punishing the "woke" fraud,
He silences their cries,
And exposes all their lies,
His wrath they cannot defraud.
DeSatan, tis of Thee I sing,
His justice makes the heavens ring,
With His righteous might,
He vanquishes the night,
To His glory we all shall cling.
DeSatan, tis of Thee I adore,
For sending the aliens offshore,
To Uranus they will go,
And there they shall know,
That DeSatan's power reigns forevermore.
DeSatan, tis of Thee we'll pay,
Our taxes for His righteous way,
To export the "low-lifes",
To far-off planets and strife,
DeSatanism shall never sway!
#MeInTheAss’CauseI’maGullibleLowBrowBlowHardConTard
#BeenTrumpledUnderfootForFarTooLong
Hello. My name is SQRLSY and I am a Copypasta-ic.
It's been noted many times but Reagan would be a globalist Marxist today.
The Trump Cult would call him a pedophile for sure.
A pedophile AND a groomer! Don't forget groomer!!!
No matter what one thinks of immigration, everyone believes it must benefit the American people. Even if I'm a Hamas-supporting, lgbtqi2map+, black trans side-shaved lesbian who wants "the great replacement", you believe that Immigration "benefits the American people".
Reasonable people can disagree on what those benefits are, but the idea that "immigration should NOT benefit the American people" is to be clinically insane.
black trans side-shaved lesbian
Oh, that's good.
Buttplug Award material there.
They’d have to be a minor for you to give them an award.
The other side of the comparing/contrasting Reagan to modern conservatives is the worlds that these two statements were made in are completely different.
In Reagan's world, there was no discussion about crisis-Illegal immigration, this was in the context of non-crisis legal immigration with the presumption of assimilation. We are a world apart from that now. Assimilation is now racist. Illegal immigrants are eligible for all welfare benefits with no expectation that they will now, or ever put anything back into the system. Said welfare state has a considerably wider spread in 2023 than it did in the 1980s. Reagan was speaking from a platform of American Exceptionalism which is now actively eschewed by the very people advocating for open borders. Reagan never would have accepted immigration if its purpose was to "destroy the nation state" which is the subversive purpose of open borders now: Open the borders completely, don't enforce illegal immigration, and offer illegal immigrants 100% welfare state coverage-- the literal purpose of that is to destabilize the country. It's an entirely Marxist-- or Trotskyist concept.
As Peter Hitchens says of his prior Trotskyism: We were for open borders, not because we gave a damn about immigrants, but because we wanted to destroy the nation state.
In Reagan’s world, there was no discussion about crisis-Illegal immigration, this was in the context of non-crisis legal immigration with the presumption of assimilation.
At the time, they viewed it as a crisis. From the archives (starring a certain Mr. Schumer of New York):
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/07/us/president-signs-landmark-bill-on-immigration.html
Illegal immigrants are eligible for all welfare benefits
That is just factually not true. They are not eligible for most federal benefits.
Reagan never would have accepted immigration if its purpose was to “destroy the nation state” which is the subversive purpose of open borders now
Oh come on. You can always find a few radicals who take a policy and twist it into something sinister. That doesn't mean that the good-faith arguments in favor of that policy are baloney.
Speaking only for myself, I favor an "open borders approach" to immigration, which I view as having a system which preserves to the greatest extent feasible freedom of association while still having an orderly system of migration that does some minimal screening of migrants for contagious disease and known criminal activity. I favor this because it secures our liberties (again to the greatest extent feasible) and it reduces the power of the state to meddle in our lives. I don't favor this out of some desire to tear down nation states. I think it's still entirely possible to have national borders and an open-borders-ish immigration policy - after all, that is what the US looked like for the first 150 years of its existence.
From Reagan’s farewell speech, 1989, describing the “shining city on a hill”:
nothing in there about welcoming hordes of communists with open arms.
Thanks to his amnesty we went from a shining city on a hill to a flaming dump under the freeway.
Lol. Well done. ^
“….living in harmony and peace.”
Well Jeff, the constant racial grievance pimping coming from your side kinda bakes in a victim mentality and resentment in the people sneaking in as soon as they get here if not before. It doesn’t take a lot of skill for them to capitalize on your self loathing.
Which is exactly the way your masters want it, you useful fucking idiot.
Ok, Fiona, you've convinced me to vote Republican in the next election.
So Trump and DeSantis are not all that bad?
Also reagan
"It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here,"
He was not pro illegal immigration no matter how much you want him to be. He was lied to in 86 by democrats.
The act provides these three essential components. Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people.
Again. Not for unlimited illegal immigration.
He was lied to in 86 by democrats.
"The buck stops
hereelsewhere."The bill had wording to establish a more secure immigration system such as exit Visas to monitor overstay. Reagan left office 18 months after signing. It was up to congress to complete the agreement. They never did.
Stop defending your team.
I'm not defending my team as I have no team. I am attacking your defence of Reagan.
No you didn't. You made a non sequitur based on complete ignorance of the 86 agreement.
Not a non sequitur. You should look the phrase up.
You blame the Democrats for a law that Reagan signed and happily promoted. I doubt you'd extent the same tolerance were the positions reversed. The Democrats may well be to blame for not following through - though whether they lied outright to Reagan has not been shown. But the fact is he signed it.
Reagan again, this time for emphasis:
"And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here."
Anyone who reads these comments can see that they largely reject this vision of immigration.
Reagan today would be accused of being an open-borders leftist.
From “ideological screening” to barring entire cultures deemed “hostile to…the American way of life,” the candidates have big plans to target legal immigrants too.
At this point, "hostile to the American way of life" could mean toddlers slipping dollar bills into dudes' thongs, perpetually waving, bowing and scraping to the Hugo Boss/Palestine -inspired rainbow flag, universal masking, "non-carceral forms of accountability" for murderers, etc.
So be careful who and what you not only want to let in, but keep out. This thing doesn't just swing both ways, it swings infinite ways.
Probably makes sense to just take a temporary hiatus on immigration for a time.
Ability to attract immigrants? Sure. Not precisely a source of greatness but a symptom indicative of greatness. But the ability to attract says nothing about the desirability of actually importing.
That's like conflating a woman's ability to attract a good husband vs her ability to attract sexual partners.
Good! It's about time!
I have seen the Republican party degenerate over immigration. Reagan and Bush saw immigrants as an asset, but other Republicans saw them as a way to get votes. That began the descent to making the undocumented the enemy and now even turning on the documented immigrant. If either of these two clowns get the Presidency, we are guaranteed there will be a shitshow.
I have seen the Republican party degenerate over immigration.
You oughta see the Democratic party over immigration. Chicago and New York are getting REAL fun to watch!
Here's Matt Welch in 2015 on the Democrats' wiffle-waffling on immigration:
And for you fivethirtyeight Democrats in the chat (y'all know who you are):
And that "labor wing" of the Democrats (completely gone, now) has a VERY um, "problematic" history on immigration-- in the way Immigration is Supposed to be Viewed now by Right Thinking, Correct-Minded Persons.
Here’s Democrat Barbara Jordan discussing Immigration whos views are often claimed is “misused” by the anti-immigration forces of today, but yet it’s more often than not the pro-immigration forces that misuse the misuse of her immigration platform.
She says that she doesn’t like the developing attitudes of “hostility towards immigrants” because it’s a divisive attitude, then she immediately pivots to what is now considered hate-filled racist rant.
At one point she says, “If we want to preserve our immigration tradition and our ability to ‘yes’ to the people who want to get in and seek entry, we’ve got to have the strength to say ‘no’ to the people are that not supposed to get in. We need to make deportation a part of a credible immigration policy.”
By the modern standards of the Democratic party, that is a horrifying statement.
She follows that with an interesting allusion to the far left forces that were brewing in the Democratic party at that time:
"As one who is accustomed to preaching apple-pie and motherhood, it has been a real awakening to get some of the people who are not so happy with what we've said, but we've made some tough recommendations..."
So yes, we DO need a Barbara Jordan in the Democratic party, because her views on immigration are completely reasonable, rational and realistic-- all concepts which are now derided as right wing, racist and hate-filled.
Jordan:
Border management. We support a very simple view about border management: Prevent illegal entries, facilitate legal ones.
[...]
We applaud "hold the line" in El Paso.
Everything I've seen about apprehensions, deportations, etc. puts Trump significantly below Obama and The former-Obama VP between the two.
Everything I’ve seen about apprehensions, deportations, etc. puts Trump significantly below Obama and The former-Obama VP between the two.
Yes, because the wall and the stay in mexico policy stopped the flow to a trickle. Less cases, less apprehensions, less deportations. Meanwhile Mexico had to contend with the immigrants on their side. At a large cost.
Obama and Joe? Look at Joe. With 10 million cases coming at you the number of apprehensions and deportations should be considerably higher, as they are and were under Obama.
Here is Joe's policy pledge before the election 2020:
Joe Biden - “Vice President Biden believes we need comprehensive immigration reform, including changes that would expand access to legal immigration. As president, Vice President Biden would legalize DREAMERs, create a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already strengthening American communities, and reform the asylum system. " (Source: Campaign email to NPR)
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/12/759442642/immigration-where-2020-democratic-candidates-stand-on-border-crossings-and-more
What Trump did was working. Dems still refused to do anything about the problem. When Trump was out, the floodgates opened again. ALL of the main primary Dems wanted it.
I have seen the DNC degenerate over immigration and expose how much their cries for sanctuary be lies once they bore the cost.
And also...
Parody.
Reagan and Bush saw immigrants as an asset, but other Republicans saw them as a way to get votes.
Skilled immigrants from friendly countries are an asset.
Unskilled immigrants, or immigrants from cultures that are hostile to liberal societies, are hurting us.
That began the descent to making the undocumented the enemy
“The undocumented” have always been “the enemy” of both legal immigrants and American taxpayers. Even Cesar Chavez knew that.
and now even turning on the documented immigrant.
Legal immigrants (like myself) aren’t hurt by what Trump and DeSantis are proposing. To the contrary, keeping out the a–holes that we fled from when we immigrated to the US benefits us.
Reaganiterally tried to reduce the undocumented. The leftists always ignore that. It was a 1 time deal.
I'm already planning to vote for DeSantis... You don't have to keep trying to convince me!
Keep the communists out. I have no problem with this. They eat everything from the inside out.
Sounds like sarc in a liquor store.
Sarc isn’t the one that has the eating problem. The that does once went to Comicon where folks kept walking up to him for an autograph. They thought he had played the boulder at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1725305404719022083?t=cHpXYYvlYXW0TEQ8BEqpBQ&s=19
Extremist Palestine account "wolPalestine" (Within Our Lifetime), who has over 120k followers on Instagram, posted a "zone of direct actions" map where followers can carry out attacks on targets. They list businesses, banks, media and more.
[Link]
From “ideological screening” to barring entire cultures deemed “hostile to…the American way of life,” the candidates have big plans to target legal immigrants too.
Legal immigrants are people who have immigrant visas. Trump and DeSantis are denying immigrant visas to “entire cultures deemed hostile to the American way of life”, they aren’t “targeting legal immigrants”.
And as a legal immigrant, let me say: I approve of what they are proposing. I don’t want the US flooded with people who want to murder me for being a gay atheist.
Ideological, economic, and intelligence requirements are a normal, widespread, and legal part of any legal immigration system. Sorry if you don't like it, Fiona.
I know… Instead of worrying about all those billions of ILLEGAL (violations of the Supreme Law) acts and debt let’s focus on one of the very few things the federal government actually exists to do. /s
If you take national security away from the US government you just as well not even have a national government as it was the only/very reason the ‘union’ was ever created in the first place.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"
Trump and DeSantis Won't Stop at Keeping Out Illegal Immigrants
I sure hope not!
From “ideological screening” to barring entire cultures deemed “hostile to…the American way of life,” the candidates have big plans to target legal immigrants too.
Sounds great, but doesn't go far enough. Total immigration moratorium needed.
Both are right about it…
Well, as the comments here make clear, we can drop the pretense that the debate is any more about "legal vs. illegal" immigration. It is about immigration in its entirety, and that there is support for restricting legal immigration as well.
Yes. Why shouldn't there be restrictions on legal immigration as well?
Well, duh. Obviously the only reason to have immigration laws at all is to allow admission to be selective.
This should help keep the US in line with its founding principle: "One People, One Nation, One Leader."
I just hope the leader's Trump and not Sanders.
Instead, they're thinking about good legal immigration versus bad legal immigration.
And?
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" is a noble sentiment. But it pretty clearly excludes us having to also take in their vile, rotten, immoral, destructive, backwards, oppressive, criminal, and otherwise evil along with them.
Setting aside the obvious issues with the president determining which societies have toxic cultures
What's your issue with that? It's not rocket science. Communism, socialism, despotism, Islam, and otherwise authoritarian societies = toxic cultures. Might we rescue some people who truly desire freedom from said culture? Sure. But the overwhelming evidence in every first world nation that has had a glut of immigrants from toxic cultures has not seen those people assimilate into first world society. Instead, they cling to the archaic and failed ideas that they were supposedly fleeing from.
We have the same problem in a domestic sense. Nobody in their right mind lives in California anymore. Problem is, those moving to greener pastures are bringing their corruption and rot with them.
If you want a better life than the one you came from, I'm all for it. But if you're going to insist on bringing your genital mutilation practices with you - then I'd say you in fact prefer your country of origin and have no business being in America or Europe.
(Or, at least, I would have until the gay community and its allies made genital mutilation chic.)
Problem is, those moving to greener pastures are bringing their corruption and rot with them.
There is little evidence of that.
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas would beg to differ.
Listing a bunch of states isn't "evidence".
For example, Washington State has been a nutty left wing state for decades; just look at their senators and governor. Ditto for Oregon.
People moving from blue to red states tend to be conservative. That's no accident either: it's what Democrats want and it's a major reason for the policies they adopt.
For example, Washington State has been a nutty left wing state for decades; just look at their senators and governor. Ditto for Oregon.
Compare their urban centers from their rural centers.
California moves in looking for cheaper property, lower taxes, and friendlier business atmosphere. They go to the urban parts, and then metastasize into suburbia. They rarely venture into rural areas. Once they get there, they want progressive policies that increase property costs, raise taxes, and are more hostile to business. Sooner rather than later, the State falls into decline - and takes everyone with it.
Take my word for it - Spokane would like nothing more than an immediate divorce from Seattle. Same goes with Southern/Eastern Oregon from Portland. Idaho's getting pretty fed up with Boise as well. They don't want to be California. But the California Virus always goes straight to a State's central nervous system. And then there's not much the rest of the residents can do about it.
Compare their urban centers from their rural centers.
That divide has been around for decades; it didn't start with people moving from red to blue states in recent years.
California moves in looking for cheaper property, lower taxes, and friendlier business atmosphere.
Yes, conservatives from California are looking for this. They would be fools to move to Washington State though, a blue shithole that's as bad as California. That's because Washington State's conservatives have been asleep at the wheel just like California's conservatives.
"Problem is, those moving to greener pastures are bringing their corruption and rot with them."
I'd say that is very true by 1st hand experience as well as by documented statistic showing Immigrants vote [D] on a 75% margin. The criminal self-entitlement aren't moving to change their ways and start earning they are moving to graze/consume someone else's greener pasture.
AT pegs this on the head.
(Or, at least, I would have until the gay community and its allies made genital mutilation chic.)
"The gay community" strongly opposes genital mutilation.
It's progressives who are making genital mutilation chic, many of them claiming to be "Christians". Clean your own house.
“The gay community” strongly opposes genital mutilation.
No they don't. Show me one meaningful, persuasive, influential, and effective illustration of where the gay community is leading the charge against the rainbow lifestyle.
Most gays and lesbians live the same way as straight people. We're all around you, you just don't even know who we are.
A bunch of radical leftists claim to speak for "the LGBTQIA+ community". That makes about as much sense as Nancy Pelosi speaking for the Catholic Church.
Clean up your own house. The rise of the "LGBTQIA+" nonsense is a failure of conservatives and churches to educate kids. You only have yourself to blame.
So, you're not going to show me a meaningful, persuasive, influential, and effective illustration of the gay community leading the charge against the radical stuff?
Yea. Consider my expectations met.
So, you’re not going to show me a meaningful, persuasive, influential, and effective illustration of the gay community leading the charge against the radical stuff?
You can find thousands of gay men like that on Twitter. Go do your own research.
Go ahead and list the first hundred.
You won't even be able to list ten.
Gays Against Groomers, 400000 followers.
https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs
One.
Nine more.
The rise of the “LGBTQIA+” nonsense is a failure of conservatives and churches to educate kids.
Yea, kind of like one doesn't blame a drug dealer for dealing drugs to kids. It's the failure of their parents to educate them to not do drugs, that's the problem. Don't do anything about the drug dealer - do something about the kid and his parents. That's the real problem.
Riiiiiight.
You're the peddler. You do it knowing you're peddling something toxic and destructive. You could be better, but you CHOOSE not to. You CHOOSE the rainbow lifestyle, when you don't have to. And in doing so, you empower and ally with every degenerate that follows and is derivative from you.
You’re the peddler. You do it knowing you’re peddling something toxic and destructive.
I'm not "peddling" anything, I treat my sexuality the way everybody should: as private. My lifestyle is that of a conservative, wealthy, retired, divorced male.
And when I am "toxic and destructive" towards a--holes like you, it will be with a smile and you won't even know why, because you evidently know nothing about other people's lifestyles.
I treat my sexuality the way everybody should: as private.
Lie. You bring it up on this website every chance you get. For no reason. It never has anything to do with anything, but yet you feel compelled to bring it up unprompted any chance you get. It has no bearing nor gives credit to any argument you make, but you’re obsessed with telling people anyway.
You are lying. And, worst of all, you’re lying to yourself. You have no identity beyond your homosexuality. If you did, nobody would ever know you were a homosexual in the first place. Least of all on some internet comment section.
It’s a choice you make. And now you’ve admitted it. With a smile.
You are delusional.
You did it right here in this very thread. As I've said before - this is a compulsion by people who decide to deviate from the norm. It's not just enough for them to be deviant and quietly/privately live out whatever kinks they fancy - they have to make sure everyone knows they're deviant.
To the point that it becomes the cornerstone of their identity, like it has for you. And in order to reconcile that deviant identity against a reality that runs contrary to it, you necessarily spread your toxicity and destructiveness as far as wide you can, normalizing it however possible to desperately cover for the fact that your chosen identity is abnormal.
It's pathetic and it's cowardly. You can be better. You just have to choose it.
x
GG, well said.
What rigorous ideological screening process? I already had a green card, fwiw. I had to pass a trivial citizenship test - "How many justices are there on the Supreme Court?" "Name an NY senator", etc., write down a few sentences dictated to me, and sign a document saying that I wasn't going to do bad things and that I was prepared to swear an oath of allegiance. (I noted that I was not prepared to swear but was prepared to affirm, under the appropriate section of US law). Oh, and give my fingerprints to the US government for the 95th time.
The green card process was more arduous, if anything, but even then there was no screening for ideology. They wanted to be sure I wouldn't be a public charge, and my marriage was legit and not entered into just to get residency.
if people are going to live in your house, you have every right to make sure they aren’t looking to burn the house down and steal your possessions.
And I support you setting whatever standards you wish for people wanting to live in your house.
But the nation is not an extension of your house. It is a nation of millions and millions of citizens and residents each with their own liberties and preferences.
Ideological and cultural compatibility is what it means to have a country
What do you mean by "compatibility"? Right now we have ideological "compatibility" in the sense that there is peaceful transition of power between administrations (well, except for that whole Jan. 6 thing, which you all insist was just a peaceful parade, so we'll ignore that for now).
Do you mean "compatibility" as in "conformity"? We all must think alike? Only Republicans allowed into the country?
I am glad you're a citizen, Geiger. We need more like you.
10M illegals in 3 years should lead to a near shutdown of all immigration, IMO.
People like Camp's desires have abused the system horribly.
Thank you, as it seems Reason and many US citizens forget that immigrants have taken an oath to receive citizenship since 1778 or 1790 depending on which you believe is the first one. Wikipedia has an article on it, and another regarding oaths of citizenship for other nations. The current one is:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Harrigan asks "what is our religion?" That would be what the oath above states, regarding our freedom of religion in the US Constitution. People who want to eliminate our freedom of religion because they want to use government force to put their religion before the Constitution, shouldn't be allowed to become citizens, and many Muslims believe that. Inviting them in is inviting conflict in our country.
“Name an NY senator”
Not a Georgian one?
Q 56 (one of many like it) : '....Have you EVER been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party (in the United States or abroad)?...'
I often hear progressives justify high taxes by saying it's not fair that they pay while some people manage to dodge them.
Only Christians allowed in. You know, the good ones and not the Roman fake ones.
Yeah I thought it was rather ironic that Trump would be the one to make the religious litmus test argument for immigrants. As if he is the model of religious piety himself.
No it isn't.
It absolutely fucking is... 'Cause Goldilicks GorillaShit SAID so!
Hey Goldilicks GorillaShit... If shit ALL belongs to YOU, WHEN are ya gonna pay ALL of those real estate taxes?
"Unity"? So everyone must have the same religion, same ideology, same culture?
Which religion? Which ideology? Which culture?
This is a standard you would impose on prospective immigrants, I imagine? What about current citizens?
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer, is what he means, basically.
It’s more in response to your first comment above in that being made to jump through unfair hoops doesn’t justify making other people jump through unfair hoops.
My MomDad beat the shit outta all of us... So we MUST beat OUR children, ass well!!! So was it Written, So Must Shit Be Done!!!!
That's not what I meant.
I think a lot of unfairness and injustice comes in the form of people having to go through shit, and rather than undo the unfairness and injustice that caused what they went through, they expect others to go through the shit as a matter of fairness. "I had to, so they should to."
Goldilicks GorillaShit is a shit-fucking necrophiliac!!! I suspected shit all along!!!
Oh, agreed four-square!!! Otherwise we NEVER make progress!
(Otherwise... Give up on houses and such! Let's sleep in the grass and let the bugs bite our butts, as PJ O'Rourke wrote.)
I have no idea of what you are talking about.
My ancient ancestors slept in the grass and let the bugs bite their butts, and it made them TOUGH and MANLY!!! So we should all be doing the same things today!!!
Well, in the US, there are a bunch of religions. Which one do you have in mind?
Protestant Christianity (what we preach).
Failing that, amoral consumerism (what we practice).
How 'bout restricting the admission of religionists who preach that the rest of us should be killed or subjugated?
Less Hamas, more Jews.
Asking questions like that isn’t exactly the rigorous screening you claimed you experienced. Do you really think that anyone intent on harming the US is going to come across that question and say, “bugger, that rules me out”? Or are they going to lie, knowing perfectly well that no “rigorous screening” will take place? Even you aren’t too stupid or dishonest to answer properly.
And – you may not know this – the purpose of these kinds of questions are not for screening anyway, as no screening takes place. They are to set up the opportunity for future withdrawal of citizenship and subsequent deportation should the person turn out to be a hostile – because then it can be claimed that they committed perjury on their application and that hence their citizenship is void, they can be deported, and they lose some constitutional protections.
And see para 2 of my response to Grosser Goldscheiss above.
All the good fooooooood of course. What else could it be?
The bottoms of undocumented children available to be coerced onto the crotches of men that dress as women and read books.
The Third Shreich
Sounds good.
Screening like that is on current Visas and your side is crying about terminating them for funding Hamas, a designated terrorist group.
LOL. "It's not a shadow ban, it's a priority list for removing people that we don't tell anyone about. (after they get through the maybe/maybe not "Muslim" ban, COVID ban, etc.)"
Keep going, you're making Geiger's case for him.
As I have already noted, such screening is not the rigorous screening that the Geiger Cunter claimed was happening. My side? LOL
That's pretty funny, though it should really have been worked in properly for maximum points.
It's a metaphor, you pedantic pinhead.
Ein Volk, ein Shreich, ein Doucheland?
It’s a metaphor that SUCKS and puts your FASCISM on full display! For all rational, thinking non-THUGS to see!
How many Catholic priests, Native American Shamans, Methodist Ministers, Scientology “Leaders”, Jewish Rabbis, and Islamic and Hindu “Holy Men” are you inviting into YOUR house to stay with YOU? None, right? Since they are living “at large” in the territory of the Collective Hive of the USA, then with the Collective Hive of the USA being just EXACTLY like YOUR living room, the public (voters, through the Powers of Government Almighty) should decide which religious leaders are allowed to practice which religions in USA territory!!! Because the Collective Hive owns it ALL!!! …
Straight-through and honest analogy here… If this does NOT clarify to you, the collectivism inherent in your analogy, then you have a fossilized mind!
You pay taxes on your property, and maintain it. You have the right to says who uses it, no doubts in my mind about THAT! You do NOT own (or pay taxes on) ALL territories in the USA, power-grabbing PIG!
Okay, fine. The nation is an extension of your house.
Well, it’s also an extension of my house too.
So, whose house rules should we use to govern this extended house? Yours or mine?
“Oh, we’ll just put it up to a vote! Majority rules!”
Yeah, well, what about those things called rights? Those really shouldn’t be put up for a majority vote, should they?
“Oh no no, we will have a Constitution and courts and things like that to protect against that! Don’t be silly!”
So the nation isn’t really then an extension of your house – you don’t get to set the rules, the requirement that individual liberty be protected takes precedence over your particular preferences.
Unless you want to do away with that whole individual liberty thing.
Protestant Christianity (what we preach).
"We" do?
And the puzzle gets solved by the definition of the USA (US Constitution).
Which CLEARLY gives authority for invasion controls.
And you're a retard, you shit-eating shifty shitheaded squirrel.
You will need to define rigorous. My guess it will be just past the line you are arguing against.
I noticed that ye did NOT deny your FASCISM, fascist power pig!
And for the record, I'm not retarded, shifty, or shit-headed... Ye shifty FASCIST shithead!
Yes, much better.
We can disagree over the precise definition, but I think even you can agree with me on this, that asking someone to declare something on a form without further investigation is not rigorous, particularly if there's a strong motive to lie and the liar doesn't expect further scrutiny.
The greater share of the US populus does.
But that does not constitute "unity".
So, kick out all the non-Christians?
To put it more succinctly, the religion of America is The Enlightenment, which was the philosophical movement that allowed people of different religions to live together without insisting on killing each other.
And it's far past time for a Holy War against agents of The Endarkenment.