Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Open Borders in America: A Look Back and Forward

Featuring highlights from decades of Reason immigration coverage

Reason magazine, in print since 1968, has long focused on immigration policy in general, and, specifically, open borders—the idea that people's movement across national boundaries ought to be free of government restrictions.

For much of its history, America had essentially open borders, both before the establishment of the United States and after. In 1921 the Emergency Quota Act, initially intended to be a temporary measure, imposed the first serious restrictions on entry into the United States.

The restrictions were motivated by nativist sentiment, xenophobia, and fears over economic and social stability. Critics of liberal immigration policies wrote off America's open-border past as a product of the massive frontier the country had, which gave immigrants ample room to settle. But as Joseph P. Martino noted in "Two Hands, One Mouth," an article in the September 1984 issue of Reason, the idea that immigration didn't threaten America when it was a younger country because of the enormous frontier has never really been based in reality.

Ironically, [the] simple picture of immigrants settling on the frontier never was true. If we check out the history of various immigrant groups in America, as Thomas Sowell did in his book Ethnic America, we find a more-revealing picture.

Marion Doss/FlickrMarion Doss/Flickr

Sowell reports that in 1900, over half of the farmers in America were of German ancestry. That is, the bulk of the immigrants who settled the frontier were Germans. Even so, during colonial times nearly half the German immigrants were craftsmen rather than farmers and worked at their crafts after they immigrated. By the late 19th century, the proportion of farmers among German immigrants had dropped to 25 percent.

Most Jewish immigrants, from colonial times on, were craftsmen and businessmen rather than farmers. In fact, the massive influx of Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (one-third of all Jews in Eastern Europe immigrated to the United States during that period) remained and worked almost exclusively in the large cities of the East.

The same, wrote Martino, held for Italian, Slavic, and even Japanese immigrants, many of whom took jobs unrelated to the frontier and, in fact, came to the country after the frontier had been mostly settled. Martino concluded:

Does this [lack of evidence immigration causes economic harm] mean we ought to throw open the gates and let anyone enter who wants to? The American experience of a century ago and the experience of Hong Kong today suggest that we might very well be better off for doing so. However, that's another subject entirely. The point here is simply that whatever we do about the level of immigration shouldn't be done relying on the standard arguments about jobs and resources. They are false to the core.

Unfortunately, more than 30 years later, those same false arguments dominate immigration debate. And Reason continues to offer counterarguments. Here's some of Reason's best open-border content from the past few decades. 

In a March 1987 editorial entitled "Freedom Without Borders," Virginia Postrel wrote of a U.S. government "eager to deny" immigrants:

Even as we cheered the Statue of Liberty last year, Congress slapped more locks on the golden door.

Contrary to fashionable opinion, the government doesn't simply discriminate against people fleeing right-wing regimes. It takes a more general closed-door stance. The freedom-loving folks at the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted asylum to only seven of the 216 Guatemalans who asked for it last year. But they also denied almost 3,000 Nicaraguans the same status, accepting fewer than 1,300 as refugees. Even people from Afghanistan find themselves behind bars in America. Our borders, too, have become prison walls for the oppressed.

If he were making a movie "about the Jewish immigrant experience in the United States, cartoonist Art Spiegelman says he'd show the mice drowning off the coast of Cuba while U.S. officials refuse to let them in—not cheerfully singing a la Steven Spielberg's An American Tail. Our immigration policy has changed little since the government turned away thousands of Jews in the '30s and '40s, sending them to their deaths in Europe. The names have been changed, but mice are still drowning. The struggle for human rights does begin at home, after all.

In an April 2006 piece titled "Open the Borders," Tim Cavanaugh made his case for doing so:

When asked about visaless borders, every person I interviewed for this article gave two replies: that we need to be realistic about our options, and that the guest-worker compromise will be more fair than what we have now. The first of these answers is half-right: In the current political climate, the idea of eliminating visa requirements with Canada and Mexico seems as heretical as the notion of pasteurization or a sun-centered solar system.

Beyond that, the arguments of realism and fairness are entirely wrong. The guest worker compromise is unrealistic because it has nothing to do with economic reality on this continent. Nor is it especially fair: At best it will grandfather in some portion of the existing undocumented workforce (and probably not a very large portion). For anybody who dreams of coming to the United States for a better job, or to start his or her own taqueria or a retail toque outlet, the various current Senate proposals will not increase, and may even reduce, the legal opportunities to pursue the American dream.

Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter. Is that a problem? I don't think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be.

Photo Credit: Marion Doss/FLickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • jay_dubya||

    Congrats on a job well done on this article. Im glad I made it here before the flood of toxic racism from tbe anti-immigration folks. Picking strawberries is not a crime! Existing in a place without the explicit approval of the state is not a crime! Nothing is more ridiculous than the notion that the same government that cant deliver the mail should be allowed to use violence to enforce arbitrary & discriminatory limitations on the labor market.

  • DJF||

    There is no right to movement in a market based world. You only have a right to move on your own property. Any other movement is requires negotiation with the owners.

    In a market based world there would be up to 7 billion borders based on up to 7 billion property owners all of whom can stop people from moving on their property if they so wish

    Today’s world of 200 or so borders is the result of government usurping the peoples right to control their own property and borders.

    A world with no borders is a world of absolute government not one of individuals rights nor market based ideas.

    Picking strawberries is a crime if you trespassed on other peoples property in going to or leaving the strawberry field

  • Vulgar Madman||

    If I don't let people pick my strawberries, I'm a racist I guess.

  • np||

    You've stated this before and every time it's still false.

    In a truly free market based world the exact opposite would be the case.

    You don't own someone else property, nor does the government.

    You may not agree to let someone in from another location on your property and that is fine. But who are you to tell force someone else who would?

    If I fly in some in some immigrant. I dare you to stop me. C'mon, go ahead and initiate force.

  • np||

    And as I've said before:

    Today’s world of 200 or so borders is the result of government usurping the peoples right to control their own property and borders.

    This just means you are in favor of government continuing to usurp people's rights. Extend that logic and that just means you would have the single world government you thought you are avoiding.

    Just think about it inductively. 1 property, 2 properties, N+1 properties. There's no logical point at which your usurpation ends.

  • ||

    "the flood of toxic racism from tbe anti-immigration "

    This stupidity ranks right along with calling anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies a racist.

    Tony has ejaculated the same level of hatred here before, once just a couple of days ago.

    Does that make you proud ?

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's the Proggy way.

    All arguments start with the ad hominem epithet "Racist sexist homophobe".

  • Libertopian||

    'Racism' is an invalid concept at odds with the reality of human biological diversity

  • ||

    This stupidity ranks right along with calling anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies a racist.

    Not "anyone." No-one has called Hiawatha Warren a racist yet.

  • AlmightyJB||

    She's totally a racist.

  • ||

    It's about fucking time!

  • Robert||

    Damn, I missed fucking time!

  • Kords||

    Shoot you weren't kidding, no one pro-immigration comment after yours. I, on the other hand, couldn't agree more.
    Simply because immigrants may not vote in accordance with libertarian principles or collect welfare payments is not a real excuse to limit their freedom. That doesn't feel very libertarian at all to me. Also, it's shocking to me that people claim to be "pro-free market" but also want to restrict the movement of labor. As it stated in the article, there is some serious "cognitive dissonance" that exists there.

  • ||

    Let me adjust my swastika armband here.

    I'm pretty nativist now though could be open borders in theory. But for the latter to happen I would want a wholesale change to the regulatory and welfare state(s).

    See California and its changing political makeup for an example of what the current state of open borders brings.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Let me adjust my swastika armband here.

    Damn, that was a good one! You have almost reached Bo levels of "argument" here. Keep trying, one day, maybe, you will be able to raise yourself up to Botardation.

  • ||

    "Picking strawberries is not a crime!"

    kumba yah my lord kumba yah.......... Yes. Of Course..

    We should all be allowed to pick the strawberries that someone else ploughed, planted, and hoed on their land. ( no ho jokes )

    It's al the same same.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Texas

  • pukelsheim||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
    www.work-cash.com

  • JFree||

    "For much of its history, America had essentially open borders, both before the establishment of the United States and after."

    This is CRAP. During the colonial era, non-English (incl Scots-Irish) had to get permission from the King or charterholder to emigrate. Colonies were tenants of the crown with rules for how they could recruit settlers - covers the 'English'. 'Open borders' is an insult to those who came over as indentured servants or slaves or the transported.

    One of the first innovations of US diplomacy was bilateral negotiations with European sovereigns re emigration and citizenship changes. A major cause of the War of 1812 was the impressment of sailors because the British government did not recognize citizenship changes. Absent those consular agreements, no emigration from Europe.

    Every shipping company also had a formal agreement with the US govt. The captn was required to gather pssngr information and present that to the customs officer of the docking port. No manifest - no docking. No passenger info - no disembarkation. Those manifests are how Americans today can find out which ship their ancestors arrived on. This didn't just 'happen'. It was MANDATED.

    After immigrants started arriving in significant numbers, the US govt narrowed the immigration ports so they could manage the flow. Individual immigrants were now subject to health/political screens. This happened decades before the govt chose 'quantity' as the means of management.

  • The Heresiarch||

    I'm curious if you can point to some source documents for this.

  • JFree||

    Some of the consular agreements/templates are online - eg here's one with Saxony from 1845 - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19t.....ax1845.asp and Henry Wheaton was the ambassador who did those with most of the German sovereigns around the 1848 revolutions.

    Genealogical libraries are the best source for anything that applied to individuals. James Kettner's 'Development of American Citizenship 1608-1870' is the only macro-picture history that I know of of the transition from feudal droits/denization to naturalization/alien rights (the terms used during Constitution era) to citizenship/migration rights on this side of the ocean.

  • igotnuthin||

    Open borders are only viable AFTER:

    1) the US ends all welfare of any kind. Including doc secirity and Medicare.

    2) every other country on the planet adopts a free society similar to the US

    Otherwise this is a scam.

  • Win Bear||

    I think (1) is sufficient.

    I don't see a need for (2).

  • Sam Haysom||

    Reciprocity is the basis of ethics. Otherwise one side is just getting scammed.

  • MJGreen||

    How would we get scammed?

    Do we get scammed when other countries enact tariffs or other protectionist policies? The broader advantages of trade do not require reciprocity.

  • ||

    "Do we get scammed when other countries enact tariffs or other protectionist policies? "

    You will definitey think so as soon as someone who can live for a tenth of what you do is able to do what you do.

    Like what is happening to many Americans since NAFTA.

  • JFree||

    They do require that the winners from trade compensate the losers though - otherwise its no different than some utilitarian majoritarian two-wolf-and-a-sheep-decide-whats-for-dinner. The same really does apply to immigration as well since the beneficiaries are those well up on the income ladder and the losers are at the bottom already.

  • ||

    The idea is to set up an impossible standard so that you can SEEM like you're not being a bigot, but know full well that the effect will be the same.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Kind of like how libertarians don't acknowledge the uniquely welcoming immigration policy the USA has and move on to focusing on lower hanging fruit in more restrictive counties like I don't know the two countries on our border that have draconian immigration policies.

  • Free Society||

    The idea is to set up an impossible standard so that you can SEEM like you're not being a bigot, but know full well that the effect will be the same.

    Am I bigoted because I don't want to raise my children next door to a Somali refugee camp? (on land seized by eminent domain no less)

    You seem to be implying there exists a natural right traverse and consume the property of others, to make the world more compatible with whatever multicultural narrative you find appealing. And to seal the deal you call everyone a bigot or a racist if they don't ratify this false right you've invented.

  • MWG||

    Who said anything about immigrants "consuming the property of others"?

  • Free Society||

    Non-discrimination laws, welfare programs and tax funded commons. People don't have a right to immigrate to anywhere, only a right to emigrate from anywhere.

  • ||

    +11..!! from anywhere not to anywhere

  • Libertopian||

    And of course it's near impossible to end welfare while importing millions of new citizens who will vote for more of it.

  • np||

    The key is get rid of voting. Otherwise, the natives will NEVER give welfare once they have it.

  • np||

    *give up*

  • np||

    An equivalent alternative to getting rid of voting is for voting to affect those who vote for whatever or whoever it is they vote for and only them.

  • np||

    If you think this is a fantasy, it is just as much of a fantasy to think that spending will be rolled back, that somehow the massive, gigantic unfunded liabilities from Medicare, Medicaid and pensions of the native will ever be handled without further borrowing and inflation.

  • Ambler||

    Interesting article, but I'm not clear on the position of the LP. Does the LP really see no difference between the immigrants of yore, who came here in search of freedom and opportunity, and the current group in which so many come in search of welfare benefits? Does the LP really think that the Democrats are pursuing amnesty out of altruism, as opposed to seeking citizenship for people who vote overwhelmingly Democrat? Does the LP really think that the cause of liberty will be advanced by giving the Democrats millions of new voters? I certainly agree that neither major party is ideal, to put it mildly, but does the LP really see no difference in Democrats and Republicans, especially when it comes to Second Amendment support? Any comments will be welcome.

  • Greg Gutfelt's Nutpunch||

    I can't speak for the LP, but reason.com is consistently with democrats on this issue. A massive flood of tyranny voting browns is the only ethical option for them. If you oppose this, it must be because of their skin color or their cuisine. Y'know, some objection about them in particular, not their views on liberty.

    As far as democrats are concerned, mexico and latin america are a farm system to grow serf voters.

    reason's position on the matter isn't really specific. It could be a zealous ignorance of nuance, or it could be a blindspot to just help crony employers and the 2party voting complex.

    But the most trivial realization any rational libertarian should arrive at, is that transactions between dissimilar countries will make them more similar. Its similar to compromising with democrats. They will just find a new normal and push their agenda further. Evil must be isolated and eliminated. Not granted a direct channel to influence your elections. What counterinfluence do we have on Mexican law? We are importing slave voters.

  • Greg Gutfelt's Nutpunch||

    We share a porous border with a slave producing political entity. Supposedly we are supposed to just keep taking them in, generation after generation, cuz altruism.

    Now is not really the time to test SCOTUS or have a constitutional crisis by further eroding the fabric of the average voter.

    If someone goes to Mexico and starts indoctrinating all them kids into libertarianism my thoughts would change, but so would the democrat party's. reason.com's position is just off.

    You can't stare into an abyss without the abyss staring into you. You can't share a porous border with a 3rd world shithole with corrupt cops and tyrannical govt without that spilling over and changing your core.

    travel (and trade) between like political entities has no reason to be restricted. the USA and mexico are not like. if free trade was a universal good, then economic sanctions on Iraq or Russia would be immoral. The degree to which a nation is not free is the degree to which you must restrict and sanction trade and travel with them. Otherwise you are just importing their conditions home. You end up making your workers compete with other nations slaves for the same produced goods.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You can't share a porous border with a 3rd world shithole with corrupt cops and tyrannical govt without that spilling over and changing your core."

    When you import people, you import their political culture with them.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Hey! Mexico has endured far worse than having US on the border.

    Si, se fucking puede.

  • np||

    A massive flood of tyranny voting

    Voting i.e. democracy, is inherently tyrannical. All of it.

  • JFree||

    Anyone who thinks the Republican Party is any different from the Dems or the LP on this issue is deluded. Immigration right now is not a partisan issue (except on the surface). It is a class or insider/elites v everyone else issue. Billionaires want amnesty (for themselves really). They want increased competition at the bottom of the ladder so they can continue to distort the economic playing field. They want cheap yardwork/nannies/etc. And everyone who opposes them is a racist know-nothing.

  • Libertopian||

    Jewish groups are at the forefront of the effort as well. Groups who hypocritically support ethnic/racial nationalism for themselves (Zionism).

  • ||

    Perhaps it's because most of us are either immigrants or children of immigrants, and we remember when the imposition of immigration restrictions doomed millions of us to brutal deaths.

  • Win Bear||

    Libertarians can give you a fairly consistent answer on is what immigration restrictions should be like in a libertarian world: there wouldn't be any need for them, so there shouldn't be any.

    What you're actually asking is "what should immigration restrictions be, provided that government otherwise as it is, i.e., largely non-libertarian". That's not a question whose answer follows from libertarianism. Some people believe that the more rules of a libertarian society you adopt, the more progress you're making.

    Others (myself included) disagree because we think many combinations of rules from conflicting ideologies are worse than either ideology. By analogy, a French-style dinner, Greek style, or an Italian-style dinner by itself each gives you a full and reasonably healthy dining experience. That doesn't mean that when you pick the deserts from each dinner menu you end up with a good three course meal.

  • JPyrate||

  • JPyrate||

  • buybuydandavis||

    "immigration didn't threaten America when it was a younger country because"

    Because there was enough of a political culture supporting the fundamentals of Anglosphere concepts of freedom ad government on which the US constitutional order was based, including a lack of a welfare state and a lack of hyper regulatory control.

    We live in a different US now, where those political fundamentals have little support, and a massive regulatory state promotes a dependency state.

    While support for freedom is low enough in the US, the concepts on which it is based have little roots in the world outside the Anglosphere. When you import people, you import their politics, which given world population, will likely be a politics with *less* support for freedom than we already have here.

    Similarly, if you import the poor and uneducated, you're importing either voters for the dependency state, or menial servants for the ruling classes.

    Reason is full of anarchists, who don't believe in states, and want to eradicate all instances of it's power. But the reality of Open Borders for the US where the US government isn't going away is that the poor American citizens have increased economic competition, while the ruling classes get cheaper servants and political dependents who will vote for a less free America.

  • Win Bear||

    But the reality of Open Borders for the US where the US government isn't going away is that the poor American citizens have increased economic competition,

    They have that competition regardless of whether you let people in or not.

    The real reason not to let people in under our current system is because they would be entitled to lots of government benefits.

  • mjudge55||

    e Debra replied I’m amazed that you able to get paid $7792 in four weeks on the internet . read this article here a link........ w­w­w.W­o­r­k­4­h­o­u­r.Co­m

  • zsanderson61||

    what Robin responded I am alarmed that you can profit $9492 in 4 weeks on the internet . Check This Out........... WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  • Buy Converse Sneakers UK||

    Thus simply not feasible, totally divorced from reality.

  • Win Bear||

    For much of its history, the US also didn't have much of a welfare state, and after acquired one, didn't make welfare benefits available to immigrants, legal or illegal. This is also the problem Europe has with immigrants and refugees: they show up for the simple reason that being a welfare recipient or even recipient of refugee benefits in Europe still beats working in many other parts of the world.

    I think open borders are great, but they only work if we don't give tons of free stuff to people who have never paid into the system.

  • ||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
    www.work-cash.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.www.netjob80.com

  • Magua||

    There are proponents of a world without nations and also without borders. I suppose the Libertarians believe that people will self-govern and no one will ever wish harm on neighbors or invade them. Free trade should make all people so prosperous that wickedness would melt away. Another alternative is some glorious world government where the bosses located in who knows where can fairly and competently administer a very limited governance in all the cultures and lands of the world.

    For now every nation has borders. Boundaries seem to be endemic to human beings and other creatures. We like our property lines and take considerable trouble to measure and define these. Our dogs understand these boundaries and fiercely patrol the property lines. The stateless world with no borders will first require a profound evolutionary change in human beings. If that happens it could be a million years in the future.

  • ||

    Sometimes your parody is spot on, sometimes it's weak.

  • Sevo||

    International Jew|5.16.15 @ 11:03AM|#
    "Libertarians remind me of the communists I knew in my youth, back when many Jews were communists. They have a very naive view of human nature, thinking we'll all be angels if only their favored economic system were enacted."
    Lefty ignoramuses remind me of lefty ignoramuses. They project their fantasies and are too stupid to understand that libertarianism *relies* on people acting in their own best interests.
    Lame, IJ, even by your pathetic standards.

  • np||

    I suppose the Libertarians believe that people will self-govern and no one will ever wish harm on neighbors or invade them.

    No, everyone else, like yourself is hoping for a utopian world enforced by some benevolant ruler. Pray tell, in your scheme who will watch the watchers? Once given a monopoly of force, who could legitimately oppose them?

    I and others like me are not as naive. If you can't trust people to be so benevolent, then how the hell can you trust that your politicians--born of the exact same pool of untrustworthy people--to be just?

  • ||

    Well, this thread is well on its way to becoming as bad as I expected. I did enjoy the phrase "tyranny voting browns", though. ILLEGAL DOESNT MEAN A SICK BIRD USA USA USA USA

  • DesigNate||

    I don't think most of the regular anti-immigration people that post here are racist or xenophobic, but goddamn do these posts attract some fucktarded trolls.

  • ||

    The Mexicans are spamming this thread with those "make money from your laptop" posts. They're taking our spammer jobs!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Reason knows what butters its bread. They're trying to Sheldon us again!

  • Charlotte Falcon||

    Open borders are great as long as we stick with two fundamentals: 1) we abolish the welfare state and 2) we strongly encourage social and economic integration. The first is needed to make sure we get the right type of immigrants; the ones who want to work. The second is to protect and improve our culture. The way to enforce the latter is through social institutions. Ignore calls for mindless multi-culturalism. Encourage the use of English everywhere possible. Restore respect for our culture at universities and in popular culture. Stop blindly degrading Christians and Crackers. Eighty percent of this country is one or the other. If we don't repeat ourselves, newcomers won't. Stand up for western culture, for fuck's sake. It is why, whether they realize it or not, people are moving here. I am not talking about laws or dictates, I am talking about attitudes and social interactions, if someone denigrates this country, our religious heritage, western culture, etc. strongly tell them to FUCK OFF (a wonderful nugget of English).

    If your reaction to the above makes you think, "what a racist", you are part of the problem. you can love your country, your society, your culture, etc. without being a bigot or hater. You also don't have to love everything in your heritage, but to throw out the baby with the bath water is just stupid. If you think, "it's not my heritage or country", what fuck are you doing here? Go home!

  • ||

    How about a lesser barrier: no welfare for non-citizens? Eliminating welfare for citizens is a far higher hurdle, perhaps deliberate.

  • Homple||

    No welfare for non-citizens? Sure, until the first story on the evening news about hungry, poor immigrants not getting SNAP cards, or the first images published of a little girl clutching a ragged teddy bear being denied admission to a hospital.

  • ||

    I'm sure that will get folks to open their wallets and donate. It usually does.

  • Free Society||

    Not when there's a welfare state to pick up the tab. Welfare does wonders for undermining charitable giving.

  • Homple||

    "I'm sure that will get folks to open their wallets and donate. It usually does".

    And that's why our welfare state is shrinking, right? Because more functions of the welfare state are being assumed by private charity.

  • Free Society||

    Left libertarians are confused.

  • Derpetologist||

    C+ trolling

    "our religious heritage"

    First off, it's *your* heritage. Secondly, who cares?

  • Derpetologist||

    No. I am non-religious like many other Americans. People boast of their heritage and ancestry when they have little else to be proud of.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Like that ridiculous loser Benjamin Franklin, or Charles de Gaulle, or Winston Churchill. What I find is marginally successful social awkward cubicle drones are the most likely to denigrate heritage and ancestry so Id be careful with the you guys are all losers card.

  • Derpetologist||

    This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humoring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.

    - R A Heinlein

    None of the guys you mention spent much time boasting of their ancestry. They were too busy accomplishing things.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Its hard to think of two people who boasted more of their ancestry and worried more about pertecting their heritage than de Gaulle and Churchill. It's not surprising that a marginal successful if that cubicle drone wouldn't know that.

  • Derpetologist||

    So give an example of either one boasting of their ancestry. It should be easy if they did it as often as you say.

    As for your feeble insult:

    "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."

  • Free Society||

    You don't descend from a parasitic worms, do you? I'll assume not. Are you happy about that fact? On some level you must be. Ahh ha, you're an irrational ancestry boaster!

  • Derpetologist||

    Hey everyone, look: the neo Nazi is going to lecture us on how to win friends and influence people!

  • Derpetologist||

    1. Is it right to focus on the border when about 40% illegal immigrants are people who overstay visas?

    2. I don't know why people worry about the political views of illegal immigrants. There are plenty of Americans who already vote for authoritarian policies.

    3. It really ought to be easier to immigrate to the US either temporarily or permanently. I feel sorry for the people who try to come legally and get stuck in bureaucratic limbo for years.

  • tz||

    Do you lock your doors - both car and house? If so, are you not worried in exactly the same way those who want to be sure that those coming into the country share the values?

    Just imagine Russia if they didn't let VI Lenin immigrate.

  • Derpetologist||

    Libertarians are already way outnumbered by native authoritarians. Why should I care about a possible influx of foreign authoritarians?

    I lock the doors to the things I own. I don't own the country.

    Lenin was smuggled into Russia- more proof that borders don't do much to keep people out.

  • Derpetologist||

    If you're so worried about socialism, why focus on the relative handful of mostly poor, powerless foreigners rather than the much larger number of wealthy, politically active authoritarians?

    Strain at the gnat and swallow a camel...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Libertarians are already way outnumbered by native authoritarians.

    No kidding.

  • MJGreen||

    But this is still the land of the free, damn it. Maybe you don't love or appreciate that, but I do. Which is why we need to stop people from hiring any immigants for at least the next 10 years. And if that means the occasional raid on businesses and homes, and CBP checkpoints every 20 miles, you can be assured that it's all for the sake of FREEDOM.

  • The Heresiarch||

    Real Americans taste freedom via their rectums.

  • davidk.davidk||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • What's that smell?||

    Why not have the immigrants work on line for Google?

  • Robert||

    Why don't we focus on reforming the worst abuses of immigr'n? Like, find the immigr'n equivalent of medical marijuana & promote that.

  • ||

    Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.Jobs-Cash.com

  • alishagowana||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • ||

    Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.Jobs-Cash.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online