Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Debate: Nations Can and Should Control Their Borders

Is it right to limit immigration?

AFFIRMATIVE:

Limiting Who Enters Is a Legitimate Function of the Sovereign State

Jonathan H. Adler

Joanna AndreassonJoanna AndreassonMany people are understandably objecting to the Trump administration's immigration policies. Enforcement of the law has been intrusive, arbitrary, and callous. The economic case for a more liberal immigration regime is strong and more generous policies could benefit U.S. citizens and immigrants alike.

But some go further than that, suggesting that the only immigration policy consistent with individual freedom is one of open borders. These people, who often identify as libertarians, even believe that it is inherently illegitimate for the government of a free society to impose any limit on immigration.

This is an error.

Like any other government power, limits on migration may be misused or abused. But just because specific immigration policies are unwise does not mean that the entire enterprise of policing borders is illegitimate.

It has long been understood that a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty is control over a nation's territory, including control over the border. To say that a nation is sovereign is to say that the government is responsible for the territory over which it exercises its sovereignty. This means it has valid authority to exclude outsiders.

As Emer de Vattel, one of the most important natural law theorists of the 18th century and a profound influence on America's founders, explained in The Law of Nations, "the sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain person, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the right of domain and sovereignty." Among other reasons for this, once the sovereign admits foreigners into its territory, "he engages to protect them as his own subjects, and to afford them perfect security."

State sovereignty in relation to outsiders may be analogized to property ownership. Most libertarians readily accept that it is reasonable and legitimate for people to deny or limit use of their stuff. This is true whether that stuff is owned individually or collectively. Condominiums, cooperatives, corporations, and the like are forms of collective ownership through which the owners authorize managers to, among other things, constrain the use of the collectively owned property. Accordingly, my homeowners association can prevent nonresidents from using our ponds and traversing our conservation lands, just as it may impose limits upon how association members make use of these common resources.

Like it or not, much of the land, air, and water in this country is collectively owned. These areas are vast, politically managed commons. The use and depletion of our common resources can harm—and, indeed, violate the rights of—individuals within the broader community. Because the resources and spaces are common, none of us may exercise self-help the way we might with our own property. Instead, we are forced to rely upon the collective management that is provided by the state. Not only is power over the border an inherent aspect of national sovereignty, control of access to common resources necessarily requires controlling entry, and that will sometimes justify placing limits on immigration.

Many things done by the state to manage and protect common resources and spaces are unwise, foolish, counterproductive, or problematic in other ways. But there is nothing inherently illegitimate about the state taking actions to, for instance, ensure that our public roads are safe and our watersheds are clean so as to avoid poisoning someone's person or property by transmission through common mediums. And this is true even though many of us will have different ideas about how clean the air or water should be, how "safe" or uncongested the roads should be, and so on.

Immigrants aren't simply teleported into Galt's Gulch, where they remain for the rest of their lives. Entering the country involves crossing a border, which demarcates the boundaries of the state's inherent defense obligations. The state has the legitimate authority to protect "our stuff" and "our spaces" from outsiders, just as I have a right to protect "my stuff," even when I do so for reasons beyond my material self-interest or self-preservation.

Collective management of common spaces may be less than ideal. Much of my own scholarship explores how and why to allow private and nongovernmental ownership of ecological resources. Yet in the absence of such reforms, collective management is necessary and legitimate.

To say that it is legitimate for the government to impose limits on immigration is not to say that any and all such limits are justified. Valid state powers may be misused or abused.

Take national defense. Few would deny that this is a legitimate function of the government. Yet to admit the legitimacy of national defense is not to endorse any and all defense policies. Many are unwise and even oppressive, but that is a problem of the specific policies, not a problem with the entire endeavor.

Likewise, in thinking about immigration, it is important to differentiate the question of whether the state may limit entry into the country from the separate question of the extent to which the state should pursue that interest (and the question what means of doing so are just and proportional).

Some argue that limits on immigration infringe upon the associational rights of citizens. Not really. I have the right to associate with those who will associate with me. I don't have the right to impose those associational preferences on others or make them bear the costs of that choice. In a wholly privatized world, it might be sufficient to let the owners of each space determine who does or does not enter, but that is not the world we inhabit.

Photo Credit: Joanna Andreasson

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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Control the borders as per the constitution.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Note how the Constitution is conspicuously lacking in Shikha's response.

    It doesn't matter to her what Americans want. It doesn't matter to her what powers and responsibilities were delegated to the federal government.

    The government should just do "Good". Like a good Lefty, she is a theocratic totalitarian at heart. The concept of self government and government faithfulness to the citizens it governs is entirely alien to her.

    Which is as anyone with any sense would expect, given that self government finds its strongest historical cultural support in America, and she aint from here.

    Which is the lesson.

    The world at large does not have the political culture that makes America America. Not Americans are Not Americans. America is America because of Americans. Fill America with Not Americans, and it becomes Not America.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Notice how the Constitution is not libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It is now. It wasnt with slavery. Thats why the Founders were Classic Liberals, not Libertarians.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    It's not even close to libertarian, not with so much taxation theft, coercion, and ambiguity; unless you compare it to monarchy.

  • vek||

    That's because pure libertarianism has never existed, and never will exist. It is about as good as it has ever got, and probably ever will get.

    IMO pure libertarianism is as retarded and delusional of a utopian dream as communism. We theoretically could have got a touch better than the US Constitution in the real world, but not by much. Human nature and purist libertarianism being unworkable in the real world make it impossible to outdo it by much.

  • IceTrey||

    A government that doesn't initiate force is a retarded and delusional utopian dream?

  • Cyronic||

    Retarded? No. Delusional? Yes, so long as the term "force" is so broad as to include things like taxation. (And that definition isn't technically wrong, but it will never change.)

  • vek||

    "A government that doesn't initiate force is a retarded and delusional utopian dream?"

    Cyronic is right, I was being a bit over the top. Retarded is unnecessary. But it is delusional.

    The fact is that strict adherence to the NAP just doesn't work. The flaw is in human nature, not the logic of libertarianism. The reality is that force is sometimes (often really if we're being honest...) a very practical way to get shit done in the real world. That's why it is the norm.

    One can cook up 1,000,000 theoretical situations where 99% of people would be for some "common sense" violation of the NAP, like having it be illegal for 80 year old naked men to jerk off in front of pre-schools while staring at the children. No victim, therefore totally cool by libertarian standards! NOT cool by most peoples standards.

    Or simply stuff like immigration. I don't want my culture to be obliterated, because I think it is better than other cultures... And I don't care what anybody else has to say about that. Japanese people are free to think their culture is the best, but I like traditional American culture. Therefore open borders, which would 100% destroy what remains of that culture, can fuck off.

    I could go on forever. Hence a limited government, with minimal exceptions to the NAP, is as good as it will ever get. I think the correct, but minimal, violations of the NAP can actually create a better society than true anarchy ever could personally.

  • CE||

    Utopian, certainly. Doesn't make it retarded. Thinking it may happen any day soon is certainly delusional, but it's still a valid dream.

    One could imagine a government that arrests and brings evil-doers to trial, but only after a warrant for their arrest is sworn out by an independent judge, and only imprisons them after a fair, speedy public trial. And is financed by donations and fees for voluntary services.

    Just because things have been bad for a long time doesn't mean you can't try to make them better.

  • vek||

    Well, as I said a VERY limited government is very possible. I think lots of fee for service stuff is doable. I think we could eliminate vast swaths of things the government gets involved in now, where it has zero business even on a fee for service basis.

    But that's still not NOTHING. Best case scenario, I think we could get back to about as small as the USA was in the early 1800s, but perhaps with a little more volunteerism. All things considered that would be plenty good enough for me, even if it's not utopia.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Constitution isn't libertarian, compared to what *actual* legal system in the world?

    Oh, none?

    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    You meant that the Constitution isn't libertarian compared to Anarchotopia. In that sense, you're right. It's not. The Constitution can't compete with fantasies where everything works out just as you'd want it to.

    I note that self government and rule of law also don't compute for you. In fantasy land, you don't need a *means* to ensure freedom. All it costs is the price of wishing for it.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Tell me how the rampant taxation and coercion of this Constitution are libertarian. Oh, maybe you mean "your" Constitution, as interpreted by you, as opposed to the real Constitution, as interpreted by its minions?

    And you tell me I'm living in a fantasy?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Compared to what *actual* legal system in the world?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Libertarian is relative? So vote Republican if that's all you care about.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Vote Republican if you care about reality"

    I do.

  • vek||

    Its intent was pretty damn libertarian. IMO they could have been FAR more explicit, to help put future idiots in check even more, but I think they assumed too much common sense on the part of their progeny. That said, look at how well RELATIVELY SPEAKING it has done. The UK theoretically has laws ensuring "free speech," yet they have hate crime laws on the books. We do not, because the founders were DECENT in writing our Top Man Limiting Rules. Ditto with guns, and a ton of other shit.

    The world is fucked. The US Constitution is one of the LEAST fucked government documents in history. We're lucky they didn't do an even shittier job frankly.

  • Juice||

    The whole point of the Constitution was to create a bigger, more powerful central government to replace the small government of the Articles of Confederation. If the Founders wanted small government, they would have kept the Articles.

  • Bob Meyer||

    The Founders wanted a way to control state governments that had gone too "democratic". State governments were laying tariffs on goods from other states, and treating citizens of other states as "foreigners".

    They hoped to constrain two governments with one document. The Constitution is not the law that governs us, it's the law that governs the government. It states what the Federal government can and cannot do. That's why it was argued that no Bill of Rights was necessary since the Federal government was not empowered to violate rights.

    Things didn't turn out the way the Founders intended because the Enlightenment ended and the idea that people were capable of understanding the world and living according to their reason faded away and with it the goal of restraining the state.

    Politics is downstream from culture and culture is composed of ideas. It makes no sense to blame the Constitution for failing to restrain government when the ideas that supported a limited government disintegrated.

  • Sam Haysom||

    I mean the vast majority of the non-libertarian actions weren't voted for by their progeny. Without rampant immigration the new deal never passes.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Without rampant immigration the new deal never passes.

    You're kidding, right? FDR won in 1932 in a landslide election. There is no way the relatively few number of immigrants compared to native-born citizens tipped the vote that drastically in his favor.

    We got the New Deal because AMERICANS WANTED IT. You can't blame it on the dirty foreigners.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    We got the New Deal because AMERICANS WANTED IT. You can't blame it on the dirty foreigners.

    Yes, several decades of immigration by socialist-sympathetic foreigners prior to 1932 had NO effect whatsoever.

  • Kivlor||

    Scarecrow, , ideas and systems have to be compared comparatively.

    When you say "that's not true libertarianism, true libertarianism has never been tried," you sound like a communist.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "Libertarian" commenters on Hit & Run making a serious argument that the US Constitution is not a libertarian document is like the most Reason thing, ever. We've hit peak Reason at this point.

    Gee, why doesn't anyone take libertarians seriously?

  • vek||

    "If the Founders wanted small government, they would have kept the Articles."

    Like it or not, they wanted to create a more functional government. Anarchy, or even extreme degrees of Minarchy, have their problems. I think they could have remained a little more minimalistic personally, and that they overshot compared to the Articles... But the Articles were creating a lot of practical problems.

    Like it or not people prefer a functional government and society to MAXIMUM freedom. What most sane people want is a nice balance. As libertarians we lean a lot further towards messy freedom than most people, which I think is the correct position, but even I want something functional. That's why I'm not an Anarchist.

  • vek||

    With respect to FDR, I have read previously that immigrants and the children of immigrants are the ONLY reason FDR won the election. Americans who had been around longer and become dyed in the wool Americans voted against him. His victory was even credited to immigrants in his own day.

    It's not so far fetched is it? I mean Hispanic Americans have tipped several entire states politically, and I believe presidential elections (at least in the popular vote, if not electoral college) in recent years... Yet almost NO Hispanic immigrants in the USA are beyond 2nd/3rd generation born here. They're almost entirely recent-ish immigrants in the USA, excepting some in California/Texas and the southwest. One side of my family moved to Cali from Mexico in the 1800s actually, and I'm basically as white as it gets culturally, but very few statistically go back that far in US borders.

    It was the same thing back in FDRs day, but it was Italians, Jews, Greeks, Eastern Europeans, etc. Now of course most of these groups (excepting Jews of course) tend to lean strongly conservative, but not back then. Immigrants DO have effects on politics... This should be obvious.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Which is as anyone with any sense would expect, given that self government finds its strongest historical cultural support in America, and she aint from here.

    So magic dirt created superior Americans. Is that your argument?

  • TLBD||

    I agree. Where Dalmia (or anyone) is from doesn't excuse her (or them).

    Though, to be honest, while I don't agree with her conclusions in this particular case, this is the least unhinged article I've seen from her, so props for that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Where Dalmia (or anyone) is from doesn't excuse her (or them).

    Not to the buybuy's out there. To them, it's more like:

    Shikha --> From India --> A Shithole Country --> Shikha's a bad person

    It is entirely bigoted and xenophobic. If the closed border crowd really wants to make a convincing argument, they really shouldn't rely on 'advocates' like this for their position.

  • TLBD||

    If the closed border crowd really wants to make a convincing argument, they really shouldn't rely on 'advocates' like this for their position.

    Nobody here is advocating for closed borders, but your point about bigots ruining rational debate for everyone is correct. Though using bigots as an excuse to end rational debate is also pretty irritating and rampant.

  • ||

    Not to the buybuy's out there. To them, it's more like:

    Shikha --> From India --> A Shithole Country --> Shikha's a bad person

    It is entirely bigoted and xenophobic. If the closed border crowd really wants to make a convincing argument, they really shouldn't rely on 'advocates' like this for their position.

    It's funny that you say this like people can't read 2-3 Shikha articles themselves and readily come to the conclusion that you are wrong and she's batshit insane.

    Not only does Shikha routinely conflate Canadian immigration policy with US or European policy, she will, in 2 back-to-back articles say one group should adopt the other's immigration policy and then say how terrible the other's immigration policy is an no one should emulate it.

    The issue isn't whether buybuy is as racist and xenophobic, it's whether he's as racist and xenophobic as Dalmia is.

  • vek||

    Here is the question you people refuse to EVER answer: Is it racist to point out that foreigners are NOT all created equal? That some with certain qualifications or from certain nations tend to have more/less problems in different respects? To point out that they DO have different statistical likelihoods of having certain voting patterns, certain statistical outcomes, etc?

    I don't think it is. For people to ignore this stuff is retarded. If I told you you had to take in a house guest to stay with you and your kids, and I said you can pick from 2 groups: 1 group will pay you more money than the electricity/utility costs of housing them, will kick down for the grocery bill, and has a statistical likelihood of .1% of being a violent criminal... And the other won't cover their utility costs, will want to eat more food than they're willing to buy out of the fridge, and has a 5% chance of being a violent criminal...

    Which one do you want to be your house guest? Well, that's what immigration is. We can CHOOSE to only let in incredibly amazing people... Or we can let in people that have higher rates of problems than native born white folks (which as the majority population is really still the bar to use). So why should we let in sub par people? Other than silly principles most people don't care about?

  • CE||

    So why are people born here automatically okay and granted citizenship at birth? Shouldn't "we" wait until they are adults and see if they agree with traditional American values? Make them pass a test or swear an oath, like immigrants who want to become citizens? But then who writes the test and grades it?

  • CE||

    Sounds like communitarian thinking, like the nation is "our" house. What if I have a house and I want to rent it to someone from another country? What if I own a business and I want to hire someone from another country? Why do you get a say? Why does your Congressman?

  • vek||

    I DON'T think birthright citizenship is a good idea. Certainly not if at least one of the parents isn't a citizen. It's a horribly abused, dumb idea.

    I would be PERFECTLY happy with people having to swear an oath of allegiance to gain citizenship, including belief in specific ideals. We could perhaps not boot people born to at least one citizen parent out, but not extend full citizenship to them unless they met the basic criteria. A test is an awesome idea, provided it is written by the right folks. That's the rub of course.

    I'm also COMPLETELY against the idea of universal suffrage. That, more than any other single thing, is what has destroyed this country. Letting morons vote is a bad idea. That's why universal voting never happened in the past, even in societies that had SOME form of democratic voting. You want to set a bar of some sort, to ensure that half illiterate drug addicts don't have the same say as a well educated guy on the straight and narrow.

    The whole modern concept that all people are citizens, all people should vote, etc are newish inventions. Rome had lots of "subjects" in its borders that weren't citizens. That's not a bad way to do things, if the details are thought out.

    I have somewhat of a mind to be semi fair about things... But the way we've mish mashed things together nowadays is a horribly non functional mess.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "So magic dirt created superior Americans. Is that your argument?"

    I would probably treat you with some modicum of respect if your ideas and comments didn't always boil down into this kind of bullshit. Since they do, you are "Little Jeffy". A childlike moron in the worst possible way, with the dumbest ideas.

    What creates "superior Americans" (your moronic wording) is our culture based on living in a constitutional republic. Foreigners are not brought up in such a system.

  • buybuydandavis||

    When they have no arguments, they shriek "Racist!", seeking to smear and divide instead of argue.

    I'm glad you were here to point out the obvious to them, though I note that none of them have responded to your spelling out what I had already spelled out:
    "The concept of self government and government faithfulness to the citizens it governs is entirely alien to her.

    Which is as anyone with any sense would expect, given that self government finds its strongest historical cultural support in America, and she aint from here."

    Notice that there is no reference to dirt, though there is to "historical cultural support".

    Race baiter chemjeff if not merely vermin, but stupid vermin at that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is just a disgustingly xenophobic response. "We are superior, they are inferior". It makes no distinction between individuals and their unique talents.

    Would you really want individuals in other countries judging you entirely by your nationality? "Oh, you're an American, you're loud and rude and ignorant. Who wants your kind here?" No, you'd want to be judged on your own merits. Why deny the same courtesy to others?

    Fact of the matter is, people like buybuy don't view foreigners as on the same moral plane as themselves. Foreigners should be treated like dirt, because they are dirt. Americans are the chosen people who deserve good things. Everyone else can fuck off. Isn't that right buybuy?

  • TuIpa||

    "This is just a disgustingly xenophobic response"

    Which may or may not be true, but has nothing to do with anything unless one's goal is to signal one's virtue.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Another swing and a miss for Little Jeffy. The point is that you can't bring everyone from there here, without having here become there.

  • buybuydandavis||

    You're a race baiting imbecile.

    "people like buybuy don't view foreigners as on the same moral plane as themselves"

    SJWs Always Project.

    He doesn't view anyone who disagrees with himself on the same moral plane as himself, hence his incessant smearing of anyone who disagrees with him.

    I am not so inane as to believe that the world lacked freedom for tens of thousands of years and lived in shitholes thereby because they were all "bad people", nor that our freedom is made possible because we are the first generations of "good people" to grace the world with our presence.

    They lacked the ideas, the values, and the culture of freedom which we inherited, and which was built up primarily in northwest Europe and then exported across the world largely by the British. In Barack's words, "we didn't build that", but some Americans do secure and propagate that tradition more than others, while some are bent on destroying it.

  • Cyronic||

    "We" and "they" imply a collective comparison. And yes, Americans as a collective culture are superior to many "theys." Some ideas and values - and therefore cultures - are simply better than others.

    Breaking things down to an individual-comparison argument is fair, but doesn't really invalidate the above point.

  • vek||

    Again, statistics Jeff!

    Many foreigners have a lot of wrong think on important issues. If we bring in too many at once, in a democratic system, they can fuck up OUR system. Hence limiting immigration, and hoping for eventual assimilation, are key to preserving freedom.

    ALSO 99% of people are not advocating for race/nation based immigration policies... But properly ascertaining the qualities of individuals. An Indian doctor will pay more in taxes than he uses in government services, and has close to a 0% chance of being a criminal of any sort... The same is NOT true for a Mexican who only went through the 8th grade, which is the average of illegal immigrants from Mexico BTW.

    I want the doctor, not the 6th grade graduate.

  • Paradigm||

    Also lacking in Shikha's response is the extremely un-libertarian principle of placing a burden on your fellow man through one party's desire to shower government goodies on the illegals.

    3 easy steps to get me onboard with open borders:

    1) Get Mexico to open their border
    2) Get Mexico to offer me equivalent government benefits to what their illegals are currently getting in the US
    3) Get Mexico to relax their laws that'll land me in one of their jails indefinitely for doing what Mexican illegals do daily here

    See? Not hard.

  • ||

    This is actually something I espouse as a hallmark of the disingenuous nature of 'open borders' advocates like Shikha. As an American citizen, we are protected from encroachment of free speech and a RTKBA. Presumably, wherever-Americans holding dual citizenship should enjoy such protections in their 'wherever' country. If you were really an individual liberty open borders advocate, this would be a completely reasonable expectation. The fact that they generally accept the welfare state at home and distinctly do not support the individual liberty state abroad in any sort of meaningful cultural sense makes them, pretty nakedly, socialists that like their electorate raised in oppressive shitholes and easily bought off with free shit.

  • Drig||

    Interestingly enough, there is a very compelling argument that the Constitution DOES NOT grant the authority to control immigration. Yes, it grants power over the Naturalization Process, but there is very little in the way of actual border controls, save for tariffs.

    Google the following and read the article from the Foundation for Economic Education:

    "Does the Federal Government Have the Power to Regulate Immigration? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison Said No."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    After 1808, Congress can regulate immigration.

    Article I, Section 9:
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

  • Drig||

    "[Your] reasoning here is that since the federal government is prohibited from banning migration (immigration) or importation (the slave trade) only until 1808, it must be granted the power to do so after 1808.

    This is the same backward reading of the Constitution – that anything not prohibited to the federal government must be within its powers – that conservatives scream bloody murder about on almost any other issue. It is true that for individuals possessing an inalienable right to liberty, a law that prohibits, for example, certain activity on Wednesdays and Fridays does not restrict individuals from that activity on any other days of the week. That is a correct legal interpretation for laws pertaining to individuals.

    However, the Constitution is not a set of laws pertaining to individuals, and the federal government does not have an inalienable right to liberty. On the contrary, the Constitution is written with the assumption the federal government has no power not delegated to it. The Tenth Amendment was ratified to ensure that point wasn't lost. Therefore, just because certain powers are prohibited to the federal government by one or another clause of the Constitution, one cannot assume that any power not prohibited is granted. Only powers explicitly delegated are within the federal government's purview."

  • Drig||

    "Strict constructionists go so far as to point out the words "expressly delegated" were used in many of the ratifying conventions, "expressly" left out by Madison in drafting the Tenth Amendment because he thought it unnecessary."

    From the article. Read up.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Article Four, Section Four states that the "United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion."

    Invasion. People coming who weren't invited.

    *Shall protect*. Not "has the power". *Shall protect*. An affirmative responsibility.

  • Drig||

    It's kinda hard to construe peaceful immigration as foreign "invasion". I'd say that's more than a little bit of a stretch.

  • Nardz||

    Is It?

  • perlchpr||

    Google "La Reconquista".

  • Hamster of Doom||

    When people walk somewhere I don't want them to, it is exactly like rape-rape.

    /let's all sound like millennials

  • TuIpa||

    "It's kinda hard to construe peaceful immigration as foreign "invasion"."

    It's equally hard not to. It is a subjective assessment, and open to interpretation, none of which would be definitive.

  • buybuydandavis||

    When people immigrate, their politics immigrates with them. If they have a politics antithetical to liberty, and statistically *they do*, there is nothing peaceful about the assertion of their political values which inevitably follows from their invasion.

    That's what invasions do. Change political control. Invasions are not about tanks, they're about changing who rules and the kind of rules.

  • vek||

    Were the German barbarians that didn't happen to be carrying swords not part of an invasion of the Roman empire when they "peacefully" immigrated there against the will of the Romans?

    That's what I thought.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Calling immigration an "invasion" is a deliberate distortion of the word in order to portray immigrants as more sinister than they truly are.

    Clearly an invasion, in this context, means an organized military force conquering land and placing it under the jurisdiction of a foreign government. That is not what simple migration is about.

    The closed border crowd will cling to whatever thin rationale that they can come up with in order to justify their xenophobia. The end with the conclusion of "keep them out", and then search for pretexts to justify their conclusion. We have LoveCons's assertion that immigration may be regulated by the same clause in the Constitution that governed the slave trade (lol), and we now have an assertion that immigration may be regulated by just assuming it is tantamount to a military invasion. Both claims are ridiculous.

    If one actually looks at history, one will see that the federal government's power to regulate immigration (as opposed to naturalization) was entirely invented by the Supreme Court in the late 1800's on the theory that a state that did not keep track of who was entering could not be sovereign, and so it was an "implied" power in the Constitution even though it does not appear in the text. In other words, "activist judges" made it up, a situation in which Republicans would denounce in every other context. But here of course they love the result, so they don't mind the judicial activism so much.

  • TuIpa||

    "Calling immigration an "invasion" is a deliberate distortion of the word "

    No it isn't.

    What now? You insist otherwise, and this goes nowhere because you think you have a monopoly on defining words.

    But I'm not required to accept your assertion of that power, and there is litetally nothing you can do about that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You're right, I can't force you to accept the commonly understood meanings of words. But it is not hard to see what is going on here. It is no different than when pro-abortion advocates describe abortion as a mere "choice", or when gun confiscation advocates describe gun confiscation as "common sense gun control". They are corruptions of the language intended to project a false meaning on their true actions. It is the same thing with describing immigration as an "invasion". It is not incorrect. But it is deliberately misleading in order to push a particular narrative. And it strains all credulity to think that the immigration-as-invasion definition is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote Article Four of the Constitution. If they really thought immigration was a form of invasion, why did they not immediately set out to prevent this 'invasion' after the Constitution was ratified? No, what they had in mind was an invasion of the military type.

  • TuIpa||

    "You're right, I can't force you to accept the commonly understood meanings of words"

    Especially when it isn't commonly accepted, and you are stealong bases.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Or when anti-abortion advocates describe an embryo as a "baby".

  • Vernon Depner||

    Or when age of consent advocates describe a physically mature teenager as a "child".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is exactly right. The whole point of using these misleading terms by these interest groups is to create a false impression of reality in order to push a narrative.

    For those who call immigration an "invasion", the point is to conjure up a spectre of menacing hordes with sinister motives.

  • TuIpa||

    "This is exactly right. The whole point of using these misleading terms by these interest groups is to create a false impression of reality in order to push a narrative."

    You mean like you do with "open border crowd"?

    No, of course not, that different because reasons.

  • TuIpa||

    *closed border crowd

  • Vernon Depner||

    Given the demographic realities of today's world, immigrants need not have any sinister motives in order to constitute a menacing horde. They can come with no other motive than to better their own lives. There are BILLIONS of people in other countries whose lives would suddenly become far better if only they could set foot in the US. If we threw our borders wide open so that all who wished to could come and stay, we have every reason to believe that hundreds of millions would do so, and that would be a catastrophe for our way of life.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If we threw our borders wide open so that all who wished to could come and stay, we have every reason to believe that hundreds of millions would do so, and that would be a catastrophe for our way of life.

    Okay then, which is more important: protecting liberty, or protecting our way of life?

  • TuIpa||

    The same thing accomplishes both.

  • TuIpa||

    Is it ok to collectivize people or not?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Protecting whose liberty? Protecting OUR liberty and protecting our way of life go together.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Protecting OUR liberty and protecting our way of life go together

    Sometimes, sometimes not.

    If "protecting our way of life" means artificially raising our standard of living by maintaining a quota-based immigration system, then this infringes upon liberty of association between foreigners and citizens.

    So the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

  • Vernon Depner||

    So, I'll offer a compromise: if you want to bring a foreigner here, and agree to be responsible for his upkeep and behavior, and agree that he will never set foot off of your own property, then I will agree that it's none of my business.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Liberty is our way of life, which we conspicuously don't have in common with the overwhelming majority of the world.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "The whole point of using these misleading terms by these interest groups is to create a false impression of reality in order to push a narrative."

    No Little Jeffy. that's you. That's what you do.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Little Jeffy, this is just another sad retread of your semantical arguments trying to distort what is clearly and generally accepted under the constitution. You've been slapped down on this issue dozens of times.

    So just stop.

  • Paradigm||

    > But it is deliberately misleading in order to push a particular narrative

    You just defined political correctness. PC is designed to hide nefarious activities (i.e. push a narrative). For example, the left wants us to call anchor babies, "American-born children of undocumented immigrants." That's concocted to hide the fact that they're here illegally. Another example would be Nick Gillespie's insistence on calling people who oppose open borders "anti-immigrant." It's bogus and designed to sneak in a narrative before anyone can respond effectively.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You just defined political correctness."

    Of course he did.

    SJWs Always Project.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It is the same thing with describing immigration as an "invasion".

    Except that no one is doing that.

    They're describing ILLEGAL immigration as invasion.

    Which it demonstrably is. Ask the pre-Columbian civilizations about it.

  • vek||

    Were the German barbarians that didn't happen to be carrying swords not part of an invasion of the Roman empire when they "peacefully" immigrated there against the will of the Romans?

    That's what I thought.


    Jeff, if you're willing to destroy the standard of living in the USA, and destroy our political freedoms, JUST so you can feel virtuous about upholding international freedom of movement as a principle... Then you're a moron. It will result in a net LOSS of freedom for Americans. Trading one pretty lame freedom for hundreds of awesome and important ones is NOT worth it.

    And no sane person would ever agree to that tradeoff. So you're just being a dumb zealot to push that ONE freedom over all others. It makes no sense.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I repeat:
    "When people immigrate, their politics immigrate with them. If they have a politics antithetical to liberty, and statistically *they do*, there is nothing peaceful about the assertion of their political values which inevitably follows from their invasion.

    *That's what invasions do.* Change political control. Invasions are not about tanks, they're about changing who rules and the kind of rules."

  • retiredfire||

    "If one actually looks at history, one will see that the federal government's power to regulate immigration (as opposed to naturalization) was entirely invented by the Supreme Court in the late 1800's on the theory that a state that did not keep track of who was entering could not be sovereign, and so it was an "implied" power in the Constitution even though it does not appear in the text.
    But there is text that supports immigration laws and it is at the end of the powers granted to Congress, in Article 1, Section 8.
    It is the "necessary and proper" clause, which gives the government the power to bring about the organization of those entering, through making categories of who would be granted naturalization, and how they should be dealt with.
    One such category is illegal aliens, who are required to be deported.
    It may not have happened, right away, but the power was always there.

  • CE||

    But what if someone did invite them, for a job or to rent a home? Are they only invaders if they show up with no prospects and no connections, just a dream for a better life?

  • vek||

    Bottom Line: The Founders dropped the ball on some stuff. There is a zero percent chance that the Founders would have an Open Borders view of immigration in the modern world.

    They were white nationalists at best... But really Teutonic Supremacists in reality, with the Anglo-Saxon branch of Germanic peoples being the best of the best in their minds.

    IMO the Founders were real world, pragmatic libertarians. They realized that anarchy is a bunch of bullshit... But that having a pretty limited government, but still with enough teeth to keep shit on lock down, was the way to go. If we still had 1800s levels of government our nation would be AWESOME. Far better than it is now. And ALSO far better than outright anarchy, which is what purist libertarian thought taken to its logical conclusion really creates.

    I'm for limited AF government... Not NO government.

  • sarcasmic||

    If we still had 1800s levels of government our nation would be AWESOME.

    If we still had 1800s levels of government there would be no restrictions on immigration at all. No papers, no identification, no passports, no permission to work, no rules at all in that respect.

    Our resident Trumpistas would be completely disgusted, and be longing for Wilson and FDR to give them the power they need to control the people they don't like.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Except there would also be no welfare state if we had 1800s levels of government, which would keep a lot of the illegals from wanting to come here in the first place.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What is the evidence for the proposition that the welfare state is the CAUSE of immigration?

  • TuIpa||

    People like free money.

    Argue that jeff. Look even dumber.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well of course people like free money. The real question though is whether the benefits of "free money" outweigh the costs and barriers associated with acquiring that "free money".

    I would be interested in seeing an actual study which examined this issue more in depth when it came to illegal immigration.

  • TuIpa||

    "I would be interested in seeing an actual study "

    Or you could just not be an idiot and look at the vast influx as evidence, of you know, actual preferences not stated ones.

    "Well of course people like free money."

    You're the one who asked the stupid question.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So you don't have an actual study to cite. Got it.

  • TuIpa||

    That people like money? Or that they are immigrating and revealing they are immigrating?

    Are you an idiot?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tulpa, Jeffy is stupid. He has to argue like a dimwitted first semester college freshman. Trying shit, like challenging whether the air we breathe really exists, or the commonly accepted definitions of words. Like these are clever arguments, and expecting everyone to run around gathering evidence to refute his stupidity.

    This is because he has no real argument at all. And he spits the same garbage like a broken record no matter how many times he is slapped down.

    Little Jeffy is not worthy of, and should NEVER be shown any respect or consideration. Only derision and contempt.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Translation: I offer thought-provoking arguments rooted in principle, and your only recourse is to attack me personally.

    You won't ever put forth ideas of your own. Because if you did, it would expose you to have to defend those ideas. Much more fun to just attack other people.

    Why don't you actually defend a proposal or an idea for a change, with facts and reason? All you ever do instead is whine and complain and attack.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "You won't ever put forth ideas of your own"

    I have, many times. It's simple.

    Enforce existing immigration law.
    Build the wall.
    Once the illegals are largely removed, streamline currrent immigration processes
    Implement a new guest worker program

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Show me the study"

    This is one of the classic Lefty tactics. If you say "water is wet", they ask for a study.

    They deny the perfectly obvious and make the implicit idiotic claim that knowledge only comes from "studies".

    Either he's truly a moron, or he's arguing in bad faith. Either way, there's not point it treating this tactic as anything but bullshit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Little Jeffy, you are the stupidest fuck of all the stupid fucks. How do you expect to ever be taken seriously with galactic ally retarded questions like that.

  • vek||

    I said LEVELS of government, not the particular laws or tasks.

    The modern world necessitated a need to control immigration more than in the past. Mainly for two reasons. One being it's a lot easier for people to move around than in the past. Two is that the standard of living gap between rich and poor nations is exponentially greater. In other words there is more incentive for a dirt farmer from Africa to want to move here than 300 years ago when most Americans were just toiling in the soil themselves, but with slightly better hand tools!

    There is a 100% chance that the Founders would be in favor of a sane immigration policy if they were alive today, and had all the relevant facts available.

    A 1st world nation CANNOT exist in the world today with open borders. In the future if political norms and economic gaps are drastically lessened, it MAY be somewhat more realistic. But not now. Even then that would not cover some of the other cultural issues that would still potentially be MAJOR problems.

    You're just a utopian moron dude, admit it. Nobody wants to make our country worse for the benefit of foreigners... Why should we?

  • Vernon Depner||

    In the early 1800s most immigrants arrived from overseas on sailing ships, having spent their life's savings on a one-way ticket, and modern communications and information technology did not exist. Restricting immigration as we do today would have been a practical impossibility then, so we don't know what the founders would have preferred in theory if the means had existed.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm for limited AF government...

    That's a lie. You want an expansionist activist government if it means keeping the dirty foreigners out.

  • TuIpa||

    "You want an expansionist activist government if it means keeping the dirty foreigners out"

    Nothing like telling people what they want as you call them liars to make you look rational.

    You want open borders because you hate America and want to fuck over white people.

    See how stupid that sounds? But you did it, and do it every day without fail.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Except the closed border crowd really do push for greater government intervention in order to stem the tide of illegal immigration. It is not wrong to call them out on their supposed commitment to "limited government" as they want to strip more and more of our Fourth Amendment rights.

  • TuIpa||

    "Except the closed border crowd"

    IT'S OK TO COLLECTIVIZE PEOPLE I HATE, JUST DON'T DO IT EITH BROWN PEOPLE FROM OTJER COUNTRIES!!! - shorter, utterly oblivious chemjeff

  • TuIpa||

    "Except the closed border crowd really do push for greater government intervention in order to stem the tide of illegal immigration. It is not wrong to call them out on their supposed commitment to "limited government" as they want to strip more and more of our Fourth Amendment rights."

    EVERY SINGLE ONE!!! ALL OF THEM!! THAT'S WHY MY HYPOCRISY IS OK AND I WILL NEVER ADMOT OTHERWOSE NO MATTER HOW STUPID I HAVE TO ACT!!! - Honest chemjeff

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There you go. Direct the conversation away from the subject, and towards personal insults and ad-homs. That is what winners do when they are winning arguments!

  • TuIpa||

    "Direct the conversation away from the subject, "

    Yes, you have done that repeatedly with your gross hypocrisy.

    Don't pretend you get to do that and then act indignant.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "There you go. Direct the conversation away from the subject, and towards personal insults and ad-homs. That is what winners do when they are winning arguments!"

    Like when you call everyone 'racist'? Fuck you, you insulting little moron. Your lucky anyone tolerates your tiresome stupidity at all.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I have never called everyone racist. So you are a liar, as usual.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You refer to people here as racist and hating brown people all the time!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Little Jeffy opines downthread,

    "Actually, I fully accept and acknowledge your liberty to be the biggest racist bigoted fuck that you want to be when it comes to associating with foreigners"

    Yeah, you NEVER call anyone racist..........

  • Paradigm||

    > Except the closed border crowd really do push for greater government intervention in order to stem the tide of illegal immigration

    Wrong once again. I want government to be what I voted for, which is codified in our immigration laws, which passed the legislature and executive branch for which we the people elected representatives.

    Wanting laws on the books enforced is not an expansion of government. It's a correction of a bastardization of government that open borders advocates like you helped create.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I want the government to protect me from invasion. As do most Americans.

    Let us know when you get open borders anarchotopia working, and I'll come by for a visit.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Except the closed border crowd really do push for greater government intervention in order to stem the tide of illegal immigration

    You keep saying 'greater'--but what the 'closed border crowd' is wanting is the required amount of border control as set forth by the Constitution.

    Not 'greater.

    More than we may have today, given the left's incessant undermining of it, but not greater than what is required by the Constitution.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    A government controlling its borders is not "expansionist activist". Every other country in the world controls its borders, or at least is part of a supernational treaty organization that controls the borders between its members and non-members.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A government controlling its borders is not "expansionist activist".

    But the status quo is unacceptable to you, no?

    Do you want to see the government's actions and authority expand in this area, or not?

  • Paradigm||

    > Do you want to see the government's actions and authority expand in this area, or not?

    Again, enforcing existing laws is not expanding government. See my response to your similar incorrect comment above.

  • vek||

    Jeff, I'm not an anarchist! SOME issues are important enough for government to be involved. Like tracking down murderers. And in the modern world, controlling our borders.

    There are 6+ billion impoverished, half illiterate people in the world. If we had legal open borders, the USA would be dragged down to 3rd world living standards in a matter of a couple decades by the flood of people coming here.

    I don't care what principles anybody has to back it, I DO NOT want that to happen. The foreigners can make their own countries not shit holes, I don't want to ruin mine for their benefit, the NAP be damned. Existential threats are reason enough for me to violate the NAP in this minimal way.

    As far as OTHER stuff, I'd probably slash the government by 90%+. All drugs legal, legal hookers, no licensing laws, zero welfare, I could go on for days. Just because I believe in a certain government function you don't like doesn't mean I'm not for small government asshole!

  • buybuydandavis||

    " But really Teutonic Supremacists in reality, with the Anglo-Saxon branch of Germanic "

    That's what Old Ben Franklin was. Hilarious to hear him calling almost all of Europe not white. Those swarthy Swedes! And Germans!

    Although he seems to be more of a Martian or Venusian Supremacist.

    Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751
    https://goo.gl/bMdP2D

    Last Paragraph:

    24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The economic analysis of slavery's effects on poor whites parallels the situation today with the effects of imported labor on the American working class.

    The whole article is worth the read.

  • vek||

    I've seen that quote before, it's a funny one! I don't see how he could dislike Germans, Swedes, etc... Everybody knew the Anglo-Saxons WERE German! And other northern Europeans were generally seen as being good, superior beings by most Brits of the time. Silly.

    What is interesting towards the end there is that he includes the Reds in his vision of America. Pretty interesting to be pro Indian as well as white in that time period. Again, silly guy!

  • CE||

    This time it'll stay limited..... this time it's different....

  • TuIpa||

    First chemjeff said

    "chemjeff radical individualist|8.26.18 @ 10:18AM|#

    Is it really so hard for you to view foreigners as individuals?"

    Then he said

    "chemjeff radical individualist|8.26.18 @ 11:14AM|#

    The border restrictionist crowd "

    He shit all over the thread with that exact stupidity, so skip it and do something else. Watching jeff cry about collectivizing brown people he wants open borders for while simultaneously, obliviously doing exactly what he whines that others shouldn't do isn't worth wasting your time with.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Poor poor Tulpa.

    I expect maybe 5 more posts decrying my supposed hypocrisy on the subject, totally derailing and hijacking the conversation away from the subject.

    What was the original subject anyway? Oh yeah, it was my supposed hypocrisy, wasn't it? That's the point of all this. Don't talk about immigration, don't talk about treating foreigners like some bunch of extraterrestrial aliens who want to destroy America, oh no, it's beat up on chemjeff because of some supposed personal vice.

    If you can't win the argument, then shoot the messenger. Amirite?

  • TuIpa||

    "my supposed hypocrisy"

    It's basically unchallenged at this point.

    Your enemies, you collectivize, while insisting others get treated like individuals.

    Your posts prove it in this thread repeatedly, and rather than address it, you attack me.

  • TuIpa||

    "If you can't win the argument" ignore that you constantly, repeatedly use "open border crowd" in this thread while simultaneously, unironically insisting people be treated as individuals.

    You have literally no shame or self awareness.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    2 down, 3 to go.

    Come on I know you have it in you. Complain more about my supposed hypocrisy. More! More! Continue to threadjack and derail the conversation! That's your whole point, right?

  • TuIpa||

    You hypocrisy is on display in your posts, all I'm doing is pointing out that you argue in bad faith.

    And you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise, and much to prove me correct.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    2 more to go. You can do it!

  • TuIpa||

    So, is it ok to collectivize people or not?

  • TuIpa||

    You seem very invested in makong this about me instesd of your logical inconsistency and lack of principles.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There! You did it! I knew you could. Congratulations on successfully derailing the conversation and making it all about me. Which was your whole point all along. Screw the whole conversation about immigration and borders, let's point fingers at chemjeff and call him a hypocrite! Because THAT'S what REALLY matters in all this, amirite?

    I mean, who knows what YOU actually support. You allude to things here and there, you suggest in passing you favor freedom of association between foreigners and citizens, good for you, but you aren't willing to forthrightly come forward and say "on the subject of immigration, this is what I believe, in full, in detail, and why I believe it". It's MUCH more fun just to attack people for their supposed lack of purity than have to defend one's own beliefs. Because if you had to defend your own proposition, others might call YOU out on your inconsistencies! By never stating what you are for, you remain "pure" by always attacking those who do state what they are for. Good for you! Congratulations on your valuable contributions to the discourse. Too bad we can't have more Tulpas in these discussions!

  • TuIpa||

    "There! You did it! I knew you could. Congratulations on successfully derailing the conversation and making it all about me"

    ACTUALLY, I pointed out how you tried to derail the conversation with your hypocritical arguments.

    And there is a lovely discussion ocurring, but as befits you, you are too self involved to even notice.

    Because AGAIN, you want to change the subject from your hypocrisy to me.

    Even when im the process of being proven a hypocrite, you can't stop being a hypocrite.

  • TuIpa||

    "I mean, who knows what YOU actually support"

    You would if you asked like a reasonable person, instead of making hypocritical assumptions like you have already.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You would if you asked like a reasonable person

    I don't believe you. Your entire schtick in this discussion has been to attack me personally.

  • TuIpa||

    ...

    ...

    ...

    I STILL DON'T CARE!!!

    LOLOLOLOL

  • TuIpa||

    "Your entire schtick in this discussion has been to attack me personally."

    You mean like how you attack the closed border crowd?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Little Jeffy! Your arguments have ALL been destroyed many times here at Reason, and by many people. You have nothing new. No need to derail anything.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tulpa is arguing in good faith, you're not.

    So no, you are not 'rite' in any way.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "derailing"

    One of the many immunizing strategies of SJWs. If you contradict The Narrative, they call it "derailing", and grant themselves intellectual license to ignore the point.

    "If you can't win the argument, then shoot the messenger. Amirite?"

    The projection never ends.

    Does Jeffy, and SJWs generally, do anything *but* shoot the messenger with character assassination?

    He's done nothing but shriek "Racist!" in response to my original comment.

  • mulp||

    "Control the borders as per the constitution"

    Not a single word in the Constitution about "control the borders". Citizenship has nothing to do with being inside the US in the Constitution. If it did, half the population circa 1820 was illeally residing in the US because they were not citizens and laws in States prohibited them being citizens for reason of origins, religion, bondage, lack of land ownership.

    Note, Ben Franklin, born in Boston, was put in bondage to his older brother, from which he fled, criminally, to Philly. Bondage was what happened to young people when they no longer had means of support, as the means of giving them the means of support for a period in years of free labor to their master.

    Not only were there no border controls after the Constitution, there were no border controls for as long as anyone alive at the writing of the Constitution was alive, and that only prohibited immigration of Chinese. The borders with Mexico and Canada were open to people until after 1965 placed quotas on migration within the Americas. There were customs on goods, so everyone was stopped and asked if you have imports to declare.

    So, you must want ICE eliminated as not in the Constitution.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Shikha (shorter):
    The default should be that your rulers ignore what secures the Blessings of Liberty to yourselves and your Posterity, but instead spends the hard won peace, freedom, and security gifted us by our ancestors on their self righteous virtue signaling.

    By the way, I love the token "pro border control" faux opposition stiff Reason dredged up for this Kabuki dance of a "debate". You should have just played Charlie Brown's teacher in his place. "Wah wah wah wah wah wah..."

    How about Reason just answer the question?
    How is the US supposed to preserve what freedoms we have by importing people who value freedom less than Americans do?
    Immigrants want *bigger government*. The data is clear.

  • MasterThief||

    The arguments go directly over Shikha's head. What value is there to allowing anyone to become part of our society when the rest of the world doesn't do the same? Whether you characterize the organization of this country as a constitutional republic or a democracy, does it not degrade the rights of both the individual and the collective to actively bring in foreign influences to override their decisions?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How is the US supposed to preserve what freedoms we have by importing people who value freedom less than Americans do?

    This country "imports" people all the time who lack our value system and require instruction in the ways of liberty and freedom. They are called children. They are normally educated via schooling.

    Besides, immigration is different than naturalization. If your argument is "I don't want those inferior people here because they will vote for Democrats", then fine - don't grant them citizenship. But that is not an argument for forbidding immigration without naturalization.

  • TuIpa||

    "This country "imports" people all the time who lack our value system and require instruction in the ways of liberty and freedom. They are called children. They are normally educated via schooling."

    And now that we are importing masses of people from a significantly different culture in numbers never before seen, there is no guarantee the limited success schooling has had will continue to work.

    But if we listen to people like you, it's racist to even discuss such things.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You don't really have a lot of faith in liberty yourself, do you?

    If you did, you wouldn't be so hesitant to accept the liberty of foreigners, for fear that their exercise of it might yield results that you don't favor.

  • TuIpa||

    You're doing the exact same thing, but with citizens and claiming it's ok, so we can see what your opinion is worth.

  • TuIpa||

    Jeff, it's no wonder you think that way, you're an idiot who doesn't even understand the post you replied to.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually, I fully accept and acknowledge your liberty to be the biggest racist bigoted fuck that you want to be when it comes to associating with foreigners, consistent with the NAP. And I fully understand that having a bunch of racists running around empowered to act like racist fucks will have some negative consequences. But I don't condition the exercise of liberty on the consequences that it might yield - again, consistent with the NAP.

    But you won't acknowledge the liberty of foreigners to associate with whom they choose - or even acknowledge the liberty of the nonracist nonbigoted citizens to associate with the foreigners that they choose with their own property, for fear that it will produce "bad" results.

  • TuIpa||

    "But you won't acknowledge the liberty of foreigners to associate with whom they choose"

    Yes actually, I do. See? I told you, you don't even understand what you're replying to.

  • TuIpa||

    Jeff threw me in with the "closed border crowd " he constantly whines about, and now he has no idea what the fuck to do.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well then, if you really do favor true freedom of association between foreigners and citizens, then good for you.

  • TuIpa||

    Like I care what a hypocrite like you thinks about it.

    Tomorrow you'll be bitching about your stupid fucking assumptions about "the closed borded crowd" again, having learned exactly nothing.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You obviously do care what I think, since the vast majority of your posts in this discussion are replies to me.

  • TuIpa||

    "You obviously do care what I think, since the vast majority of your posts in this discussion are replies to me."

    ACTUALLY, considering the reply was specific to you opinion about my opinion, that is demonstrably factually wrong. There was exactly one reply, making it clear your opinion was meaningless.

    Honestly, "you replied to me so you care" vould be the stupidest thing ever propagated on the internet.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh, you do care what I think, so that you can seize upon it and use it as the basis of another ad-hominem.

    You must be exceptionally bored if this is what you believe to be the most productive use of your time.

  • TuIpa||

    "use it as the basis of another ad-hominem."

    Like "closed border crowd?"

    Face it, you know I don't care and that tears you up, which is why you twist yourself in knots trying to make me.

    "You must be exceptionally bored if this is what you believe to be the most productive use of your time"

    You've been here longer today than I have, probably posted as much, and have repeatedly used ad homs. That seems more like an admission than an accusation.

  • Paradigm||

    Jeff, stop citing the NAP as long as you're going to expect me to provide welfare, medical, and in-state tuition for these people for whom you signal so much virtue.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You don't really have a lot of faith in liberty yourself, do you?"

    Notice how, like all of Jeffy's "arguments", it's not about facts, but about smearing you.

    "for fear that their exercise of it might yield results that you don't favor."

    You mean exactly like how their exercise of liberty resulted in the wondrous liberty of Mexico and Guatemala?

    The observable facts show what kind of society results from Mexicans exercising their political preferences. It's called Mexico.

  • vek||

    That's right, I like AMERICAN culture and the views most native born AMERICANS have compared to those from abroad... I guess I'm a horrible person for not wanting foreigners to come to the land my ancestors built, then vote away my right to own guns, have free speech, lower taxes, etc.

    If that makes me a horrible person, then fine. I am totally okay with keeping my freedoms and being called a horrible person... It beats being a nice person and losing all my other freedoms!

  • Modus Pwnens||

    This country "imports" people all the time who lack our value system and require instruction in the ways of liberty and freedom. They are called children. They are normally educated via schooling.

    LOL. So you want to give immigrants welfare for 18 years and then let them vote? Assuming you could even teach an adult like a child.

    If your argument is "I don't want those inferior people here because they will vote for Democrats", then fine - don't grant them citizenship.

    Nice offensive strawman you got there. Anyway, they don't need citizenship to vote, thanks to the rulings against voter ID laws that you guys love.

  • Kivlor||

    It is if they come here, to spawn broods of freedom hating barbarians

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I see. So the entirety of a person can be reduced entirely to race and nationality. Children of Guatemalan immigrants "hate freedom" because Guatemalans are brown people who hate freedom (why just look at Guatemala!) Is that about right?

  • Paradigm||

    > Children of Guatemalan immigrants "hate freedom" because Guatemalans are brown people who hate freedom (why just look at Guatemala!) Is that about right?

    No. That's actually not right at all. It's a liberal-left cliche designed to stop discussion that liberal-left folks don't like to have. Thankfully nobody of any consequence takes it seriously anymore.

  • Paradigm||

    > Children of Guatemalan immigrants "hate freedom" because Guatemalans are brown people who hate freedom (why just look at Guatemala!) Is that about right?

    No. That's actually not right at all. It's a liberal-left cliche designed to stop discussion that liberal-left folks don't like to have. Thankfully nobody of any consequence takes it seriously anymore.

  • vek||

    Here's the thing, if Guatemalan immigrants didn't statistically ALL vote for ALL the wrong policies, maybe people would change their minds. But they do. In the mean time, perhaps it's not a bad idea to limit the number of anti-freedom fresh immigrants being allowed in at any one time? Like we may be able to convert them in time, but if you bring in too many unconverted ones at once you're fucked?

    Make sense?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "If your argument is "I don't want those inferior people here because they will vote for Democrats", then fine - don't grant them citizenship."

    And their children too?

    Is that the society you want, of a disenfranchised servant class, or are you just delaying the issue one generation?

  • DesigNate||

    Would that be the same schooling that teaches kids to love and want Big Government?

    How's that working out for us?

  • Jerry B.||

    Anyone who wants to immigrate should be able to do so if they can show that they, as individuals or a family, will not have to rely on the State (and my money "given" to the State), to provide for their welfare. I may willingly give to charities or organizations that aid them in getting set up, but that would be my decision.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This would be hard to manage but its a good start for immigrants applying for citizenship.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Could 700 million industrious self supporting Chinese move to the US, and elect Xi as Emperor for Life?

    Countries are people with land, not lands with people. On that land, they impose rules according to their values.

    Import enough Not Americans, and Americans would be people without land, with foreign rules imposed on them by foreigners.

    Immigration is about what kind of laws you're going to live under. Welfare payments are the least of what you give up by population replacement.

    But have no doubt, you *will* give that up too. Once you let enough people into the country with the will for bigger government (as polls always show that foreigners have), you're going to get bigger government.

  • vek||

    FACTS.

    The "Magic Dirt" theory is bullshit. People carry their beliefs with them, DUH. While they might take to a very rough idea of a few American principles upon landing, BEST CASE SCENARIO is that it takes a few generations for shit to really sink in... If ever. African Americans STILL don't "get' or accept any of the key principles America was founded on, and they've been here since before independence.

  • perlchpr||

    That seems like a remarkably injust reading of things. African Americans, until very recently, didn't actually get the full protection of the government, and we certainly weren't educating them with a mind towards them learning those principles.

  • vek||

    Well, here's the question, how many generations do we give them a free pass for? They got 2A protections even before segregation ended. Black men could vote before white women. They were legally more free to write and speak their views than people in Europe... They've now had over half a century of PREFERENTIAL treatment in legal terms over white people.

    So again, how long do they get a free pass for?

    Keep in mind I'm not saying their history here isn't fucked... But there were many black intellectuals back in the day that got this shit in the 1800s even. But it just has never sunk into the black mainstream. There are no signs of this changing.

    So whatever the case, it is merely a fact that they have never embraced America in full... So it is an example of non integration. It is not unreasonable to think it is at least possible other groups, say Hispanics, might not either. It could go either way.

    But to automatically assume EVERYBODY is going to perfectly integrate and just mirror white, middle class, constitution loving values is a waaay more unlikely view than that some groups will and some won't. The ENTIRE FUTURE of the country depends on groups getting this shit right... If they don't, America is destroyed forever. It's not unreasonable to NOT want to risk the future of the nation on an unlikely scenario with zero past evidence of success, given that NO non white group has EVER bought in lock, stock, and barrel like whites have.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    From a few things I have read, African Americans (as in, people migrated from Africa in the past 30 years) DO get American principles. The ones with American roots centuries old seem to disagree.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Do you have any data for that?

    All the data I see (mainly from Pew surveys) show foreigners from all parts of the globe preferring bigger government than American preferences.

  • vek||

    I think what he really means is that blacks FROM AFRICA (and the Caribbean), tend to do better than native born blacks on most metrics. People like to point this out... The problem is, they're comparing them to the worst demographic by most metrics in the USA.

    They commit less crime, better employment numbers, etc than native born blacks. Probably the same for voting perhaps, I don't know. But the thing is their unemployment numbers, crime rates, etc are still worse than whites, and even Hispanics from some of the numbers I've seen. We obviously get some chain migration stuff, but largely we're skimming doctors and other middle class/wealthy/educated people from Africa, so of course their statistics are decent... When you're just skimming the cream, it's not hard. But even at that they don't stack up against whites, Asians, etc.

    So better than native born blacks is cool and all... But it's not exactly a high bar to pass.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Could 700 million industrious self supporting Chinese move to the US, and elect Xi as Emperor for Life?

    Immigration =/= Naturalization

  • TuIpa||

    I disagree and the definition sides with me.

    What now?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But immigration is not the same as naturalization. Sorry, reality wins out on this one.

  • TuIpa||

    I disagree and the definition sides with me.

    What now?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The definition does not side with you.

    im·mi·gra·tion
    noun: immigration

    the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.

    nat·u·ral·i·za·tion
    noun: naturalization; noun: naturalisation

    1.
    the admittance of a foreigner to the citizenship of a country.

    So you can live in fantasy land or you can acknowledge reality. Your choice.

  • TuIpa||

    Actually, you proved me exactly correct.

    Thanks!

  • TuIpa||

    Here's what you didn't realize when you stupidly gave me the win there, YOUR DEFINITION necessarily requires IMMIGRATION as a part of NATURALIZATION, so when you admit the power to control NATURALIZATION you BY DEFINTION have the power to control IMMIGRATION.

    Sorry jeff, you lost this one.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    so when you admit the power to control NATURALIZATION you BY DEFINTION have the power to control IMMIGRATION.

    Umm, no. There is no necessary requirement in the definition of naturalization that naturalization must include permanent residence in a country, as is the case with immigration.

    Immigration is about who lives here and who doesn't.
    Naturalization is about who is a citizen here, and who isn't.

    There is no reason that citizenship must be contingent on residency.

  • TuIpa||

    "Umm, no. There is no necessary requirement in the definition of naturalization that naturalization must include permanent residence in a country"

    Umm, yes there is.

  • TuIpa||

    I won jeff. And you know it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Umm no there isn't.

    There is nothing inherent in the definition of naturalization that requires permanent residency in the country.

    In fact, the laws of this country right now declare that a child of an American citizen is also an American citizen, even if their residence is in a foreign country. Just look at Ted Cruz for example.

  • TuIpa||

    Umm, yes there is.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes it is part of naturalization. You're the only dumbfuck who says otherwise. Because that's how you operate.

    Go arguemthadrink in a federal immigration court sometime. They'll laugh you out.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    True, but it's also true that Immigration => Naturalization. If the majority of the adult population couldn't vote, the usual suspects would be screeching about how undemocratic our country is. Heck, some leftist jurisdictions are starting to let non-citizens legally vote in state and local elections!

    And that's even before we note that without voter ID laws, in practice you don't need to be a citizen to vote in any jurisdiction, or several jurisdictions, as many times as you wish.

  • vek||

    Here's the problem genius, nobody is willing to have that conversation in the USA today!

    If we could allow people in with no chance at ever getting citizenship or voting rights, I, and a lot of other people would be a lot more open to allowing people in for economic reasons.

    So let's get this on the table, and then we can talk about it. But until this is a real thing being discussed, it's a pointless differentiation. Our system is basically only setup for very temporary employment, or citizenship for the most part. There are a few caveats to that, but not many.

  • TLBD||

    Could 700 million industrious self supporting Chinese move to the US, and elect Xi as Emperor for Life?

    Some might argue that is a reductio ad absurdum.

    But it really isn't. Sure, it takes it to an extreme, but it highlights the inherent problem with the type of open borders people like Dalmia advocate.

    The state is the most powerful violator AND protector of liberty, and the state is only limited by its people. This is true throughout history, regardless of whatever fantasy the anarchists believe. Bring in enough people that don't want to limit the state, and you won't have liberty, full stop. For an ideology (libertarianism) that takes humanity from the individual perspective and extrapolates that into economics, it has a really hard time doing the same for politics. Why? I have no idea, it seems pretty obvious to me.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Bring in enough people that don't want to limit the state, and you won't have liberty, full stop.

    Which is arguably what we have right now IN AMERICA, by Americans themselves.

    So it's a little bit rich to see all of this gnashing of teeth about OMG IMMIGRANTS DON'T BELIEVE IN LIBERTY when Americans themselves aren't that big of defenders of liberty either.

    I will take an immigrant fleeing Chinese Communist persecution over an entitled American collecting SSI checks every day of the week.

  • TLBD||

    Which is arguably what we have right now IN AMERICA, by Americans themselves.

    We have a large percent of the population that does not want to limit the state, held barely in check by another percentage of the population that does, along with the foresight of our founders.

    It is a sad state of affairs, but if you are making the claim that open borders style immigration, or even a continuance of our current policies will not tip the scale in the favor of those who do not want to limit the state, you are fooling yourself, or are a liar.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Only if the advocates of liberty are unpersuasive.

    Unlike most of the closed border advocates, I don't believe human beings have some pre-programmed immutable culture.

    If the self-proclaimed advocates of liberty declare "We are in favor of liberty! Except for you people, you need to go back to your shithole country!" then that is not a very persuasive argument.

  • TuIpa||

    "Only if the advocates of liberty are unpersuasive"

    That could be the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So Americans are born into a state of valuing liberty?

  • TuIpa||

    Ok, now you topped it.

  • TLBD||

    lol

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I dunno Tulpa. That's quite a statement for you to make. Given how much profoundly idiotic things Little Jeffy says in every post. Hard to be sure which one is the dumbest of them all. Given the sea of stupidity that Admiral Jeffy navigates his failboat.

  • TLBD||

    Only if the advocates of liberty are unpersuasive.

    Unlike most of the closed border advocates, I don't believe human beings have some pre-programmed immutable culture.

    Again, no one is proposing closed borders. Jesus you're mendacious.

    So, you're placing the burden of teaching liberty on others so that we don't lose our own. Doesn't sound very individualist of you, does it?

    I also didn't say culture was immutable, did I? Your arguments are rudimentary and childish.

  • TuIpa||

    Not to mention inconsistent and hypocritical.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Your arguments are rudimentary and childish.

    Quite so. Arguing with him is like nailing jello to a wall. If you take any individual comment, it seems like a thoughtful person wrote it, which lures you in (compared to the Rev. Buttplug type obvious trolls). But you put all of them together and it's clear he's just trolling.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But you put all of them together and it's clear he's just trolling."

    It's not that he's trolling, it's that he doesn't believe in his own arguments. Such are postmodernists.

    They believe in nothing but power.

    His "arguments" are attempts to manipulate. Hence the endless ad hominem, which doesn't establish truth, but acquiescence.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually, there are people here advocating for closed borders. Go ask buybuy what he thinks the correct level of immigration should be.

    So, you're placing the burden of teaching liberty on others so that we don't lose our own.

    No, the burden of teaching liberty is on all of us who value liberty.

    There's a reason I used children as my example. Children aren't born into a state of valuing liberty. They have to be taught. Same with everyone. The burden for advancing any point of view rests with the advocates of that viewpoint.

  • TuIpa||

    "Go ask buybuy what he thinks the correct level of immigration should be."

    So you think we have to ask him, AND you get to assume his motives?

    Lol

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Go ask him! Go ask him!"

    What a ninny.

    I'm for immigration rules that benefit America citizens. I've said it many a times here.

    I don't think that such rules would imply a level of 0.

    But it would mean, first and foremost, that there are rules, that we decide them, and they are enforced. Rule of law prevails. Self government prevails. Government of, by, and for the American People prevails.

    That's what's in the interest of the American citizens. Not being invaded against our will. Not having our rulers flout the laws. And not importing a tide of big government voters to remove the freedoms we have left.

  • vek||

    Jeff, I won't say NOBODY, but I will say VERY FEW people say it is completely immutable.

    But here is the thing, SPEED and SCALE matter. Culture is an ever changing thing, going one direction or another. If you bring in a ton of people who pull things statist, that can tip things hard one way for a time. This then entrenches the New Normal into culture, and in order to roll it back you have to convince people that going the other direction is good, and then overturn all the laws passed while it was bad.

    Everybody knows how easy THAT is right?

    Hence smaller numbers, spread over time avoids the radical tipping that is easily possible.

    As un-liberty friendly as Americans are, we are sadly THE most libertarian culture on earth. PERIOD. END. OF. DISCUSSION. It's sad, but true. So all immigrants, unless we literally started giving them a political leanings test to come here, on average will be for more government. Just pull your head out of your ass and look at reality for what it is, not what you want it to be!

  • buybuydandavis||

    When the big government immigrants start voting, they vote for big government and welfare expenditures.

    Welfare is secondary issue. Political power for big government voters is the issue that libertarians who care about preserving the remaining freedoms of American citizens should be focused on.

    Countries are people. Import big government voters, get big government.

  • Here for the outrage||

    "Libertarian restrictionists think that forcing natives to cough up taxes for the public schooling of immigrants is "forced integration" that violates free association (as if immigrants don't pay taxes!). But again, that logic would apply not just to people entering the country from abroad but also those entering from the womb."

    How dare I request tax dollars be spent on American children?! The nerve

  • damikesc||

    Note, these same people also vigorously oppose nation building.

    They don't want to fix problems over there. They just want to bring those problems HERE instead.

    I'd rather not fix the problems AT ALL. They aren't OUR problems.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Is it really so hard for you to view foreigners as individuals?

  • TuIpa||

    No harder than for you to do the same with opponents of third world mass immigration. Fuck their actual arguments, just lump them in with Nazi's and pat yourself on the back.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeffy is a huge bigot you know. He appears to really hate whitey.

  • vek||

    When we can start giving them individual tests on their political views, and reject them if they're more statist than your statistically average American... THEN I will give a fuck. Until then they all lean left compared to people in this country, so fuck 'em.

  • Nardz||

    Americans don't own the USA.
    Americans are but citizens of the world, with no more rights to this land than any of the other 7,000,000,000 people who exist.
    No accident of birth or actions taken by forefathers should privilege people born here over someone born (accidentally, because existence is just an accident) in Mexico, China, Bosnia, Somalia, or anywhere else.
    We are all equal with a right to all from, on, and in the earth equally, no matter the location.
    Citizens of the world, unite!

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Piss off

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He's being sarcastic.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Poe's Law

  • JoeBlow123||

    Shikha Dalmia is the Reason representative for open borders? Seriously guys? Have you ever read anything she has written?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Have you?

    She's been their designated propagandist for Open Borders for a good couple years now. Or more.

  • vek||

    Needless to say, Adler provides a far more sane and real world position. As he says, like it or not nation states are collectively owned common property. It is not unreasonable for people to not want to foot the bill for low income foreign nationals. We're stuck with out native born poor, but why import them? It makes ZERO practical sense. You can say 2 things are both immoral, but 2 things don't have to be equally immoral. Stealing a pack up gum is not the same as murder. Forcing people to not have children is infinitely worse than not allowing a foreign national to enter YOUR country.

    In nations with democratic systems for people to make their voices heard, they get to vote for things. One thing Dalmia ignores is that THE MAJORITY OF THE US POPULATION DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING EVEN HER IDEA OF OPEN BORDERS.

    The condo association has spoken, and overwhelmingly so. Even most non whites in the USA only want to allow in skilled immigrants. So she's really saying "Well, I know better than the vast majority of the people, so clearly they should fuck off!"

    Obviously mob rule isn't always good... But this is an ancient right of all nations and states to control borders. You don't HAVE a nation or a state without borders, and the rights and privileges being a citizen of one side or the other of that border.

  • vek||

    If one wants to talk about "rights" does a culture not have a right to PRESERVE ITS EXISTENCE? Because she thinks not. No culture can maintain itself if it will allow infinite foreigners to enter at will. Would it not be reasonable for Fiji to place limitations on immigration to prevent its entire culture and people from being overwhelmed in their own homeland? Of course it would.

    Well the same damn thing applies to big countries, and dare I say it... White countries. If some small African nation were being overrun by white immigrants to the point of out numbering the native Africans, and the Africans didn't like it, liberals would be shitting themselves over how horrible it was to be replacing the poor Africans with evil white people and destroying their native culture. The USA, Europe, etc have a right to not be overwhelmed and replaced by foreigners if the people so choose too. Frankly the standards should be whatever the people want. According to most people in the USA they just want skilled immigrants that will pull their own weight. Not too unreasonable.

    I don't think I have a right to demand Swiss citizenship, anymore than a Swiss guy has to demand citizenship here. If Switzerland wants to have high standards, and they very much do, so be it. If some other place wants low standards, that's their call... But low standards will get you low caliber immigrants. And Americans seem to not like that, and that should be fine.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Some people once thought that they had the right to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".

    Shikha disagrees.

  • vek||

    NAZIS!!!

    Either that, or just sane pragmatists who understood that culture matters...

  • sarcasmic||

    Because nothing say liberty like "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!"

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Without papers and a strong police to enforce papers, we cannot be truly free!

    I swear life has gone beyond parody. Someone open a portal to Tartan Tony's dimension, let's see what else is on offer.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The border restrictionist crowd will never be upfront on how much of a police state they truly want to create.

    They want national ID cards? Say goodbye to what's left of citizen privacy. Oh and it would grease the skids for single-payer health care too, as those national ID cards would be really handy as national health insurance cards too.

    They want mandatory e-Verify for every single business? Then say hello to an army of ICE agents looking over the shoulder of every single mom-and-pop business checking their papers to make sure they aren't hiding some of those sneaky illegals.

    They want a border wall? Well a wall is useless without border guards patrolling the wall. Who's going to pay for all that? Oh and the guards are more likely to be the Joe Arpaio types unapologetically profiling brown people. Gee is it any wonder why brown people tend not to vote for Republicans?

  • sarcasmic||

    You're making the mistake of looking at foreseeable consequences and foreseeable results.

    You're not supposed to look beyond intentions.

    How are you going to pave the road to hell if you keep looking at where you're going?

    Jeez.

  • TuIpa||

    "chemjeff radical individualist|8.26.18 @ 11:14AM|#

    The border restrictionist crowd "

    "chemjeff radical individualist|8.26.18 @ 10:18AM|#

    Is it really so hard for you to view foreigners as individuals?"

    You are an idiot and a hypocrite who does literally nothing he wants others to do.

    How many times do you have to not view people as individuals, while bleating about treating your precious brown people as individuals, before ypu realize what a fucking moron you sound like?

    You can't even be superficially consistent you stupid hypocritical fuck.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    See, that's the Tulpa I have come to expect. Full of ad hominem personal insults. This one gets a B+.

  • TuIpa||

    And that's the chemjeff we all laugh at who can't even argue something without being a hypocrite .

  • TuIpa||

    No one is surprised you avoided the actual hypocrisy you displayed in order to attack me.

  • TuIpa||

    '"See, that's the Tulpa I have come to expect. Full of ad hominem personal insults."

    Which "that's the Tulpa I have come to expect. " is, but you aren't intelligent enkugh to understand.

    You literally used an ad hominem and then bitched about me using them, when I didn't.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There's a reason you are using the Tulpa handle, and it isn't to promote logical discourse.

  • TuIpa||

    And there's a reason you're changing the subject to me as a poster rather than your hypocrisy.

  • TuIpa||

    "There's a reason you are using the Tulpa handle, "

    Jeff drops another ad hom, in a thread where he whines about ad homs

  • buybuydandavis||

    The open borders crowd will never be upfront on how much of a police state they truly want to create.

    But you can see how it works in Europe. Import incompatible culture with incompatible values. Use the resulting strife to crack down on the freedoms of the indigenous population.

    Divide and conquer. If a society is too cohesive to be divided, import another that's incompatible with it.

  • vek||

    It's a bunch of disingenuous bullshit to say we need a police state to enforce immigration laws. We don't need anything much more than we have now.

    I don't want a national ID card, or e-verify. We don't need either. People should be made to show proof of citizenship, birth certificate, or whatever when getting state licenses. State IDs can be used for shit just as it is now.

    The IRS already KNOWS most of the fraudulent SSNs being used for those who use IDENTITY THEFT to work here. You could literally just get a list from the IRS and nab people. When illegals working completely off grid are found, just boot them out.

    Yes, agents will have to patrol the wall. Compared to the immense costs of net negative tax payers being imported, AND the political consequences of their bad political views, it's a small price to pay.

    That's about it. We've intentionally ignored the law for so long we let a huge backlog build up. It would take time to work through the backlog, but once we did we probably wouldn't need to spend much/any more than we do now. Once people knew we were serious about it, and knew they'd get deported stat when found, the number even trying to come in would probably drop like a rock too. Lax enforcement has encouraged illegal immigration.

  • ||

    Because nothing say liberty like "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!"

    Do they ask you for papers at the border going into Venezuela?

    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  • vek||

    Being asked for a passport at the border is not Nazi Germany. Nor is showing an ID to do official business... I mean I have to bust out my ID to buy a 6 pack, if I have to do that it surely isn't sooo horrible to have to show it for voting or doing other guvmint business is it? Gimme a break.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Because nothing say liberty like "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!"

    Who is asking this, exactly?

    And when are they asking it?

    Are they asking it when you want to pay with a check? When they want to verify that it is, indeed your credit card?

    Are they asking it when you go to your bank?

    When you sign in to your account?

    Do they ask it when YOU want to enter THEIR country?

    When you enter your workplace?

  • vek||

    The truth that no open borders moron will ever admit is that no 1st world country could possibly survive as a 1st world country with anything remotely approaching open borders. We live in a world full of impoverished, uneducated people, with bad political and cultural views. If you let in unlimited numbers, it will drag the 1st world country down to the global mean economically and culturally... Which is to say, it will make it a shit hole. If we had true open borders legally, we would probably have several million immigrants a year... Perhaps more. We would be overwhelmed quickly, wages would drop like a rock, quality of life would go to shit, we would have cultural clashes the likes of which we have never seen before, and if they could vote bye bye freedoms! It would be a total shit show.

    I don't want the USA to become a shit hole. And frankly I don't care if that violates the NAP. Every rule has its exceptions, and open borders is one that is worth making for the NAP. Destroying the USA as a 1st world nation IS NOT WORTH IT just so I can virtue signal and feel smug. Yet this is what Dalmia proposes.

    Some principles are worth upholding even if they have small downsides practically speaking... Even if making crack legal made a few more crack users, probably worth it. However civilization collapsing downsides? Hell no.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The truth that no open borders moron will ever admit is that no 1st world country could possibly survive as a 1st world country with anything remotely approaching open borders"

    They don't care. If their virtue signaling destroys the country, so be it.

    It's all deontology, consequences be damned.

  • vek||

    Some of them really do seem to be that nuts. In some of the immigration threads people have said that it doesn't matter if the USA became a 3rd world country... It's more important to uphold the NAP and not restrict peoples movement! As I said, some principles are more important than others, freedom of international movement just ain't that important.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Muh principles", though the heavens fall!

  • Modus Pwnens||

    The elites expect to remain the elites, but think that bringing in a wretched underclass will give them more concentrated wealth and power in a massively unequal society. In late 20th and early 21st century America, elites weren't treated like elites have been in the past. They aim to change that going forward.

    Then there are the hucksters like Dalmia who make up propaganda to further the elites' purposes. They are clearly not sincere themselves, since they argue dishonestly and self-contradictorily. They know what they're doing.

    Then there are the deluded useful idiots, who sincerely believe in their mistaken principles. We can pity these people, but they too have to be stopped.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The elites expect to remain the elites, but think that bringing in a wretched underclass will give them more concentrated wealth and power in a massively unequal society.

    That's ultimately what it boils down to. For Dalmia and commenters like Old Mexican, open borders is about naked ethnic self-interest. They don't give a crap what kind of strain it puts on the nation's resources, since their fellow ethnics are benefiting from our very generous welfare state and labor regulations. For commenters like chemjeff, their lack of future time orientation, along with their deliberate avoidance of the long-term effects of mass migration and the limits of scale reveal an autistic view of society as a simple job fair, where a country is simply the sum of its GDP. Either way, they view open borders as a means to consolidate control of the nation's resources in their specific favor.

    Most tellingly, most non-immigrant supporters of open borders deliberately avoid living in the same communities as immigrant populations. They don't mind them coming here, they just don't want to actually be in the same community as them. They exist merely for the self-indulgence of the Optimates, viewed as an abstract "good" when convenient (hence, the manic focus on the existence of ethnic restaurants as an indicator of economic and social health), and studiously ignored when not (such as the increase in free-reduced lunch use in schools where immigrant populations have grown).

  • vek||

    This is so spot on it is ridiculous. Out of all of them the true believers terrify me the most. They're just so stupid, short sighted, autistic, and ignorant of history it's mind blowing. The outcome from true open borders is sooooo obvious to anyone with a room temperature IQ or above, I just don't see how anybody can be in favor of it. Who wants to turn a 1st world country into a 3rd world one ON PURPOSE???

  • vek||

    NO principle is worth destroying the greatest country in the history of mankind for. Any principle that demands suicide is a shit principle, and any person that thinks you should adhere to such a principle is a lunatic. Anybody who refuses to accept the fact that in a world of half illiterate peasants that you can't have open borders is fooling themselves. Maybe in 100 years if every nation on earth is within spitting distance in terms of education/income/cultural norms/etc it might be semi feasible... But until then, it will destroy 1st world nations.

    There's a reason nobody serious supports open borders. Even the Dems don't really support it, they're just lying to dumb constituents to rile them up. They want to keep the status quo, as evidenced by them doing nothing when they could in Obama's first term. Some of their mob does believe in it though, and we all know how brilliant they are. LOL

    So between: common ownership (like it or not) and common expenses people might not want to pay, the right of self determination (including maintaining one's own "evil oppressive white culture" if they so choose), and not wanting to be suicidal as a 1st world country, I would say it's a pretty reasonable position to have some restrictions on immigration... NAP compliant or not.

  • Nardz||

    +4

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Always good stuff, vek.

  • ace_m82||

    "NO principle is worth destroying the greatest country in the history of mankind for."

    Thou Shalt not Murder? What's the purpose of government if not to prosecute initiations of force, the worst of which is presumably murder? If the government murders, then it's violated its one "legitimate" purpose, yes or no?

  • vek||

    Well, you're just playing a silly game.

    But I'll play.

    No murder isn't important enough to burn it all down for either! Our nation has murdered TONS of people... Yet it's still the best thing going. We murder (and otherwise oppress) less than most other nations historically. So as a practical matter, it wouldn't be worth destroying our LESSER OF TWO EVILS government for murder either.

    How about that baby cakes?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    The government has a monopoly on initiation of force.

    If you don't pay your taxes, they can drag you out of your home and throw you in a cage. If you resist this, they can murder you.

    Might sound harsh, but that's the way it has to be for a government to exist. And anarchy quickly devolves to authoritarianism so that's not an option.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    >>>Might sound harsh, but that's the way it has to be for a government to exist. And anarchy quickly devolves to authoritarianism so that's not an option.

    Look at what you wrote, and think about that for a second.

    See, I'm annoying. I'm sorry, I can't seem to help myself. I just don't get it. People seem to blame anarchy as causative for all the mayhem and authoritarian petty warlords bureaucracy that government brings anyway, so this is why we have to have government.

    And then I think, "... oh, I say, hold on."

  • Kivlor||

    No, you're just too dense to understand basic concepts. Anarchy isn't to blame, human nature is. Anarchy is anathema to human nature, whereas heirarchies are natural to us.

    As an aside, it was incorrect of Modus to describe anarchy as "devolving" into authoritarianism. It evolves into that.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Ah, yes. I might have known it's just that I'm too stupid.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    As an aside, it was incorrect of Modus to describe anarchy as "devolving" into authoritarianism. It evolves into that.

    Interesting point. I chose the word based on a value judgement, and as I consider authoritarianism more base than anarchy I considered it a devolution. But if you look at it as increasing orderliness, then it would be evolution. Fascinating.

  • vek||

    Hamster, it's not that you're too stupid... You're just too naive. You must be a utopian.

    Both pure communism and pure libertarianism are fundamentally flawed because they don't accept the different aspects of human nature. We're a mix of individualism and group dynamics. Communism ignores out individualistic and self serving streaks, libertarianism our pack animal instincts and the need for order of some level.

    Freedom, AKA libertarian thinking, is the better way... But in pure form, essentially anarchy, it just doesn't work because people are flawed. The logic of libertarian thinking isn't wrong, it's just people aren't good enough for it.

    So the best we can really get away with in the real world, not utopian fantasy land, is a limited government. Something along the lines of what the USA used to be when we actually had small government, for instance. We might be able to even limit it a touch more in a perfect world... But that's about as good as it gets. Human nature is a limiting factor.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "NO principle is worth destroying the greatest country in the history of mankind for."

    Not to deontologists.

  • sarcasmic||

    Anybody who refuses to accept the fact that in a world of half illiterate peasants that you can't have open borders is fooling themselves.

    That's what they said about the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese...

  • TLBD||

    5 million immigrants over 50 years for Italians, 5 million over 100 years for Irish, and there aren't even 4 million ethnic Chinese in the country today.

    Small enough populations to assimilate fairly rapidly, though that process was not without issues.

  • sarcasmic||

    So you're saying that they didn't say that about the Irish, Italians and Chinese?

    Or are you saying that it's different this time?

  • TLBD||

    I'm saying your analogy sucks.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. Because there was obvious racism against the Irish, Italians, and Chinese, but the current anti-immigrant crowd is free from sin. Is that it?

  • TLBD||

    Nope, keep trying.

  • sarcasmic||

    What do you mean, exactly, by issues? Guinness? Pizza joints? Egg foo young?

  • TLBD||

    Have you never seen Gangs of New York?

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes. I have. And things have not changed one bit. Nobody assimilated. It's still a war zone. Amiright?

  • TLBD||

    So it wasn't an issue because it isn't now?

    Good argument.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes, it isn't an issue now so it isn't an issue now.

  • TLBD||

    The holocaust wasn't an issue because it isn't now.

    That also right?

  • sarcasmic||

    non se·qui·tur
    ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
    noun
    noun: non sequitur; plural noun: non sequiturs; noun: nonsequitur; plural noun: nonsequiturs
    a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

  • TLBD||

    Quick, give a word for missing the point.

  • TLBD||

    Hint: was is a past tense.

  • sarcasmic||

    Quick, give a word for missing the point.

    Trumpista

  • Modus Pwnens||

    It's like the massive expansion of the US government in the 20th century never happened in your world.

  • vek||

    Well, to answer your question: There were huge problems for a long time.

    Here's a thought experiment, if we had taken in HALF as many Irish, Italians, etc... Would we have had fewer problems and less trouble integrating them quicker? I bet so. Would that have been better for Americans that were already here? I bet so. So would that have been a better policy? Probably. Massive population isn't what makes a country nice to live in, having a wealthy, stable, harmonious society is.

    Frankly, I do think most immigrant groups could be integrated eventually... It's a question of how much of a shit show we want to have between now and then.

    That said, as a counter example, blacks have NEVER integrated. I suspect a large part of this is that they stand out like a sore thumb, AKA can be visually distinguished. I think the reason all Europeans integrated is because within a single mixing you can't tell anybody apart. You might be able to spot a gingery freckley Irishman... But mixed with an English/German/Italian it gets lost in the mix in 1 generation. You ever notice the Chinese immigrants from the 1800s mostly didn't mix in an integrate in that way? Wonder why...

    Will immigrants who can't pass go the route of blacks and never adopt generic "white" American values? I hope not. I think Hispanics will get bred in/out actually, but I wonder with other groups. We'll see.

  • vek||

    Additionally, the differences in culture between all those white groups was smaller.

    And the gap between education levels/wealth etc was smaller. The difference between Italy in 1900 and America was not nothin', but Italy was one of the most advanced and wealthy nations in the world still. Illiterate peasant farmers from the 3rd world have a LOT larger gap with America than those people did. Taking in immigrants from Korea today is more akin to what it was back then than with the outright 3rd world, and few people would say Korean immigrants are sketchy.

    These issues are so painfully obvious that it's insane anybody even has to say it. People from educated countries with smaller cultural gaps will integrate more easily... DUH. The others might eventually, but it will be MUCH more painful.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    That's what they said about the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese...

    Notice what happened to our government after they came?

    Those immigrants were exploited by wannabe authoritarians to gain power too.

  • TLBD||

    They were often outright bribed, same as is happening now with a few more degrees of separation.

  • Kivlor||

    You realize that this whole immigrant story is a myth, right? Roughly half of the Italian and Irish immigrants went back, they didn't stay. The ones who did make it were by and large the wealthy ones. If you only pick the cream of the crop, it shouldn't be a surprise if they succeed here.

  • Kivlor||

    That's what they said about the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese...

    Do you have reason to think they were wrong?

  • vek||

    Funny how all the Chinese still like to live in Asian neighborhoods (usually called China Town in big cities), and don't vote like other people that have lived in the USA for long periods of time... Funny that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's your kind of thinking that allowed Rome to drift from a Republic into an Empire.

    "If we take away the Emperor's powers, then the barbarians might win. Therefore let's give him more power to fight the barbarians. Who cares if we're undermining our own Republican form of government in the process? The important thing here is to maintain the glory of Rome!"

    At least you admit that your views on immigration are incompatible with the NAP. You are literally placing mob rule ahead of the NAP. I can't imagine how any sane libertarian-minded person would ever endorse this point of view in any general circumstances. Should the mob have power to decide if you should have guns or not? To burn flags or not? To protest the national anthem or not? To utter "hate speech" or not? To refuse to serve gay wedding couples or not?

    Once you give the mob power over immigration, you have no legitimate basis to deny the mob power over the rest of your life. Which is why principles like the NAP are held in such high esteem among libertarians.

    You don't want a libertarian view of things. You want mob rule based on some faulty assumption that the mob will decide to choose libertarian outcomes. Well good luck with that. But don't come whining to complain here when that same mob turns on you and demands to confiscate your guns.

  • Kivlor||

    The Romans would have been better off if they'd just let the barbarians in. Wow.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's your kind of thinking that allowed Rome to drift from a Republic into an Empire.

    No, the Roman Republic effectively ended with the final conquest of Carthage. What killed off the final remnants of Republican governance was the naked corruption and self-interest of the Optimates that ultimately enabled Caesar and then Augustus to align themselves with the Populares, and gain the support of the military, merchants, and underclass that finally brought the former to heel.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Libertarianism is not a suicide pact
    Or a slavery pact

  • vek||

    LOL

    I simply advocate a few areas in life where strict adherence to the NAP is simply a practical failure.

    If you think the correct answer for Rome was to simply surrender to the barbarians (my German ancestors BTW!) then you're a moron! If they had done that, Rome as a civilization would have collapsed centuries earlier than it did! They couldn't hold it together forever, but they bought several centuries of semi-civilized life for their citizens.

    As I said above, is there something WRONG with a culture wanting to continue to exist? Should the British Isles just allow the native Britains to be overrun by foreigners in their own ancient homeland? Does a country that has not been invaded since 1066 have an OBLIGATION to destroy itself over a SINGLE bullshit policy position? 5% of the population of India could move to the UK, and thousands of years of British culture would be extinguished in a single generation.

    Fuck that. The English, Scots, Irish, and even the Welsh have a right to maintain their homeland for their people, and to continue their amazing cultures. I would say the same thing for ANY culture too, not just Europeans. There is more to life than GDP and purist principles, and much of it is worth fighting for.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    NO principle is worth destroying the greatest country in the history of mankind for.

    The police state that you want to erect in the name of 'protecting' America is what will lead to its downfall.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    lol - hyperbolic much?

    As a lot of other countries have far tighter immigration controls yet, like the energizer bunny, they kepp on going.

    Disclaimer: I think we should allow more legal immigration and the process to legally immigrate should be easier. But open borders is crazy and idiotic. Imagine if South Korea were open and North Korea stopped latrooing that border.

  • vek||

    As I said in a post above, we don't need a police state you idiot. We could probably do it without hiring a single extra LEO if we just made a half way real stab at deporting these people any time law enforcement stumbled across illegals.

    The thing you ignore, is if we DON'T deal with the problem we will definitely fall as a civilization anyway... So there's not a lot to lose by trying. If morons like you get your way, look at the voting demographics in 50 years and notice how all the lovely new immigrants are likely continuing to vote for horrible policies, and much of that silly old white minority still believes in crazy concepts like limited government. Mark my words, that is the fate of this country if we don't slow down immigration, and make sure we're only letting in educated and economically productive immigrants.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    As a thought experiment, flip it around, vek. Can the U.S. forbid Americans from emigrating because the government wants to preserve American culture in America?

    "Sorry, you're too white and successful to be allowed to leave. We want your culture and prosperity to stay in the country."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's actually not that much of a 'thought' experiment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....ted_States

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Well, that's a tax, but I mean more in terms of physically preventing people from leaving, or physically collecting and detaining those who do. Sort of the way the USSR hunted down defectors during the Cold War. If border control is a legitimate function of government, (and, IMHO, it is) then surely that means the government has as much control over the exits as the entrances.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Once granted, this power would never be used in a manner not expressly intended. Come on, GTDC, the government has the best of intentions and only harms those who deserve harming. It's there to HELP. So we don't even need to consider the ramifications and possible consequences; only the imagined benefits.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Well, duh. :) This is purportedly a libertarian website, so we all know the government only acts for the greater good, and that the definition of 'greater good' is something that everyone always agrees about. Like I said, it was just a thought experiment.

    Sure would like to hear vek's thoughts on it though...

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Trust me on this one - no sane country is going to object to it's libertarians leaving. Personally, I would even go so far as to suggest that if they don't have the means to leave on their own, the state provides them with a nice helicopter ride, as long as they're not too persnickety about their destination...

  • Modus Pwnens||

    That is not a valid analogy.

    Forbidding someone to enter your property is perfectly legal. Forbidding someone to leave is kidnapping. So there is an enormous moral difference between the two directions.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    vek said "NO principle is worth destroying the greatest country in the history of mankind for."

    So in that context, kidnapping to ensure the survival of the country must be acceptable.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    "Forbidding someone to enter your property is perfectly legal."

    P.S.: Circular logic ahoy. Any bill signed into law and survives legal challenge is perfectly legal. The history of every country is littered with perfectly legal injustices.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Not circular logic at all. Has nothing to do with what the law is; that is what libertarians would WANT the law to be.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    You stating that something is "perfectly legal" has nothing to do with what the law is? Is English not your first language?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Here, let me help--


    Forbidding someone to enter your property is perfectly within your rights. Forbidding someone to leave may not be. So there is an enormous moral difference between the two directions.

    There. Always glad to help the too-literal.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    It speaks volumes that vek has continued posting comments without actually addressing this question.

  • vek||

    Of course they shouldn't be able to do that.

    But there's a big difference there. Having a law that states you're not allowed to shoot somebody for no reason is a BIG difference from REQUIRING you shoot somebody for no reason.

    Having standards for who we let move here is radically different from forcing people to stay. We're extending a PRIVILEGE to people we allow to come here, if somebody wants to give up a privilege that's their call. IMO anybody who would want to leave America is pretty dense... Maybe for a short time for a work opportunity or something, but not for good. As sad as it is the USA is still the best country on earth.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "One thing Dalmia ignores is that THE MAJORITY OF THE US POPULATION DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING EVEN HER IDEA OF OPEN BORDERS."

    She doesn't give a damn what the peasants think.

    She's a theocratic totalitarian. Rulers should do Good. Damn the peasants if they don't like it. The concept of self government is entirely lost on her (as it's similarly lost on the "muh anarchy" crowd).

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    She doesn't give a damn what the peasants think.

    Sure, let's put the peasants in charge! Let's see how well that works out!

    54% favor banning flag burning

    67% favor banning 'assault weapons'

    77% favor more limits on political campaign donations

    I am sure you want the peasants to decide what is best in these cases too, right? Oh wait, no, in these cases, YOU will be the one who wants to tell the peasants to go to hell.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    You can bet your bottom dollar that if most people supported open borders, chemjeff would be arguing that we must respect the will of the majority. Rationalization replaced reason around here a long time ago.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually I have never conditioned my support for my positions based on majority opinion. The mob is fickle, and relying on the mob for support is doomed to fail in the long run.

    But, if you want to condition your support for border restrictionist policies based on majority opinion, then please explain why the majority's opinion should not be considered in these other matters, such as with gun control, flag burning, or campaign finance laws.

  • TuIpa||

    Because some of them are protected in the Constitution.

    It may not be the defining factor in the overall decision, but it is an irrefutable differencr that cannot be ignored.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But if the mob wants gun control and the Constitution stands in the way, then the Constitution is wrong. No? Time to pack the courts and get some more Notorious RBG clones on SCOTUS to overturn Heller. Why not? Isn't this the logical result of deferring to the mob for support for a position?

  • TuIpa||

    "But if the mob wants gun control and the Constitution stands in the way, then the Constitution is wrong. No?"

    You asked about differences and I demonsted one. Stay focused little guy.

  • TuIpa||

    *demonstrated

  • TuIpa||

    Like, in all seriousness, what kind of fucking idiot sees any connection between my oost and your reply?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I hate the peasants. Rulers should rule, and the peasants take it and like it."

    CommieJeff: vermin.

  • vek||

    Honestly Jeff, I just don't see international freedom of movement as a fundamental right that is of the same level of importance as other "major" rights like free speech, the right to self defense, etc.

    Open borders people in recent years have tried to elevate it to that level... But it's silly. Also, none of those other things are existential problems. Mass immigration would destroy the entire civilization that allowed it, and drag a 1st world country down to 3rd world in no time in the world as it exists.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Sure, let's put the peasants in charge! Let's see how well that works out!"

    As CommieJeff explicitly rejects self government.

    Another Not American.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    As much as Shikha gets on my nerves, I'm with her ((Hi, OBL; a different her) on this. Governments restricting who I do business with or where I go is not only a massive violation of the NAP and self-ownership, it also requires a massive intrusive bureaucracy of national ID cards, military, and taxation to support it all.

    I have no problem with people owning border land gunning down trespassers (with due warning of property lines, etc). I have no problems with bigots refusing to do business with foreigners, however they want to define that. I have no problems with such bigots raising enough money to buy up as much border land as possible to keep out as many foreigners as possible, even if they buy up all border parcels, as long as they maintain existing easements (because to deny me access to my land along established easements is tantamount to stealing my property).

    What I object to is stealing money from me in the form of taxes to institute coercive agreement with your bigotry in the name of "sovereign territory". Fuck off, slavers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Once apon a time, borders were controlled and there was only a token customs force and no national ID cards.

    I wonder how that happened?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Once upon a time, there was no immigration control whatsoever. Then the racists came along.

    Gun control, immigration, both with racist roots, neither allowed by your so-called libertarian Constitution. Funny how that works.

  • vek||

    Only because it wasn't practical or possible for MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people to just pour into our country and start voting, demanding handouts, demanding we change OUR culture to suit them etc. In Europe, they had more border enforcement back int he day because it was more important and had real world effects. We likewise stepped our shit up as it came to have practical effects.

    You may be willing to destroy the standard of living, culture, political freedoms, and everything else in the name of a not especially important "right" (international freedom of movement)... But most sane people aren't. People don't want to go from a comfortable 4 bedroom house, 2 cars, a boat, gun rights, freedom of speech, etc to a shack, a moped, no expensive floaty toys, no guns, and no free speech. How in fucks name is letting in random assholes from abroad worth that practical trade off???

    I agree that the NAP doesn't support it... But who cares??????? It's just not worth it. It's like saying that if you had to choose between banning Fruit Roll Ups and a 1st world country, you'd choose not banning Fruit Roll Ups and living in a 3rd world hell. It just doesn't make any sense. It may be principled, but it's retarded. The world will probably never be ready for true open borders, but if it ever is it sure as hell isn't now.

  • sarcasmic||

    Only because it wasn't practical or possible for MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people to just pour into our country and start voting, demanding handouts own guns, demanding we change OUR culture to suit them etc. In Europe, they had more border enforcement gun control back int he day because it was more important and had real world effects. We likewise stepped our shit up as it came to have practical effects.

    I could continue, but I hope you get the point.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you are going to base your border control arguments on utilitarian grounds, then you had better start explaining why you support an individual right to own guns based on utilitarian grounds.

  • vek||

    As I've said elsewhere, mass immigration is an existential threat. It's not just going to cause some minor hiccup. If you want to go full on open borders, not just more open, but still restricted in some ways immigration, there is no outcome possible but utter obliteration of 1st world countries. Period.

    As far as things go I would be MORE than happy to defend 2A on utilitarian grounds. Perhaps it would help if I pointed out that I am a libertarian on 95% of issues BECAUSE it produces the best real world results. That is also happens to be the correct principles is nice, but being the best outcomes is the real reason I am in favor of it.

    Let's get real here... If communism created societies that were 5 times as wealthy, had no income disparities, less crime, happier people, etc... How many people would be AGAINST communism? Probably not a lot. Well, that's libertarianism/freedom to me. It delivers the goods 99% of the time. I'm even willing to let a lot of stuff slide in cases where it doesn't and it's more freedom for small practical tradeoffs... But with existential threats, I'll stick with being pragmatic. I like American culture more than 3rd world shit hole cultures, or even current European culture, sorry!

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Also racist roots: minimum wage, marriage laws, drug war, and arguably Planned Parenthood.

    It's like all our screamy hot-button issues were born of keeping those other people under control, and none of them accomplished much except a lot of expense and furor.

    Let's keep doing it! Fifty-fifth time's the charm!

  • sarcasmic||

    We got the right people in charge! It will work this time! MAGA!

  • Kivlor||

    "Once upon a time, there was no immigration control whatsoever. Then the racists came along."

    You are retarded. 1) many nations have to some degree controlled their borders and immigrants for centuries. 2) the racists didn't just come along and demand to kick out the immigrants. Racism as you know it is the default for the vast majority of humanity.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Muh principles, reality be damned!"

  • JoeBlow123||

    You live in a fantasy land. The same type of utopian nonsense spewed by communists.

    I suggest some utilitarianism and practicalism inserted into your worldview.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    One wit referred to libertarians as "Communitsts for Capitalism". There's a lot of truth to that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah, because libertarians support forced collectivism. You're so smart.

  • Azathoth!!||

    What is it you think you're supporting when you support making American citizens pay for everyone else in the world?

    Because that's where 'open borders' leads--until the golden goose is dead.

    And then?

    What happens then? After we let every person fleeing a shithole, and every person fleeing oppression and every person who just wants to be here, all 7 billion of them in, what happens?

    There's no time for assimilation, no time for people to become American, no time for anything.

    Except destroying everything that made anyone want to come here in the first place.

    What good is that?

  • vek||

    When we can ACTUALLY buy border land and gun down trespassers, when there is no welfare, when there is TRUE freedom of association restored... And a lot of other things... We can discuss open borders. Until then it is a greater violation of native born citizens rights to force foreigners upon them than it is to bar them... The order you do things in matters, ending the welfare state and restoring freedom of association come BEFORE allowing in endless hordes of 3rd world immigrants in any sane world.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Exactly this. Big handfuls of this. When closed-border proponents can get their way without taxing me to pay for their safe space while ignoring my objections, they can go right ahead. Until then, slavers fuckem off.

  • TLBD||

    Does anyone in this thread know what closed borders means?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I think we're all just Calvinballing this.

    Tag! You're it! *runs away cackling wildly*

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There are some people who actually do want zero immigration at all.

    But speaking for myself, I use the term somewhat loosely to refer to people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum of "open borders": broadly, they want strict state control over who enters the country, a large police force dedicated to catching and deporting undocumented immigrants, and a large regulatory apparatus over individuals and businesses to limit particular types of interactions between citizens and undocumented immigrants.

  • TuIpa||

    "There are some people who actually do want zero immigration at all."

    And you constantly pretend those are the people you are talking to, and that those people for the sum total of opposition to your ideas, instead of who they actually are.

    You are literally incapable of nuance.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And you constantly pretend those are the people you are talking to,

    Except I refute this claim with my very next paragraph in the comment that you replied to.

  • TuIpa||

    " I use the term somewhat loosely to refer to people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum of "open borders": broadly, they want strict state control over who enters the country, a large police force dedicated to catching and deporting undocumented immigrants, and a large regulatory apparatus over individuals and businesses to limit particular types of interactions between citizens and undocumented immigrants."

    THAT?

    No you fucking idiot, that PROVES IT!!

    AHAHAHAHH

    YOU THOUGHT THAT REFUTED IT?!?!?!

    Omfg you have to be a parody account this canmot be a real person.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I shouldn't have to explain this, but:

    One can believe in a policy of strict control of immigration without being in favor of zero immigration at all.

  • TuIpa||

    The irony of you posting that made my head hurt.

  • TuIpa||

    You spend LITERALLY EVERY DAY up until today characterizing ALL of your opponents as "closed border crowd" and then NOW, after I kick you around for it, you cave, and then think to preach to me?

    Jeff, we can all read your posts. You're not fooling anyone.

  • vek||

    Technically one can be in favor of MORE immigration than we have now... But still want standards applied. I don't know that I'd have too much of a problem with moderately increasing our current legal immigration levels, if they were all PHDs, doctors, engineers, etc.

    Wanting SOME standards, which can be widely debated on their various merits, does not equal closed borders.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    'Closed border crowd' is a code word used to replace the word 'racist'.

    The poster using it has the same intent as others do when calling 'racist' and that's to ignore their opponents points, while attempting to win the debate by silencing the opponent or at least get all others to understand they have nothing of value to say.

    And as others have noted, there do not seem to be as posters arguing for completely closed borders - so he pretends as if they exist, but it's really just one idiot with a 1/2 filled gas can and a lighter setting starwmen on fire.

    All while acting self-righteous and superior.

    Arrogance & idiocy - a potent combination.

  • ace_m82||

    The State shouldn't do stuff.

    (I'll stop commenting this when it ceases to be the answer to the underlying question, or when I get bored of it.)

  • buybuydandavis||

    I was wondering why there was so little response to Shikha's latest. Normally they're be 300+ comments by now.

    Turns out Reason didn't include it in their "Featured" articles.

    Funny how her anti Trump screeds get featured, but not an article where she attempts to make a first principles case for Open Borders Uber Alles.

    We've found the limit of Reason's shamelessness. Too ashamed of their fundamental open border arguments to Feature them.

    Sad.

  • vek||

    I was surprised when I saw these "debate" articles too. They weren't featured, which is funny, because these are the kind of random non timely thing they probably SHOULD feature.

    Go figure.

  • perlchpr||

    Dropping them on the weekend is a bit odd, too.

  • TLBD||

    It is because they don't work much on the weekend and these were already written for the magazine, I believe.

  • Everything is awful||

    Tell you what. You can have your open borders when everything else about the US is libertarian too. So no income transfers. No free school breakfast, lunch, dinner. No SNAP. No public school funding. No public healthcare funding. I've lived in TX for the past 20 years. The domestic migration rate to TX has averaged 1:2.4 illegal immigrants for that 20 years. When fertility differences are added in, each new citizen household pays for 4 immigrant households. It's one of the few states where the majority of Medicaid spending is for children not elderly in nursing homes. And Chip spending (unlike indigent elder care) is only 1/2 federal with the other 1/2 being state taxes. Spending in a school heavy with ESL students averages $14,000/student/yr. In my neighborhood school, it's $6250.
    So you want an open (or even just less restrictive) immigration system, YOU pay for it. Let YOUR kids sit in over-crowded classrooms because the school across the freeway has 70% ESL students. I'm done!

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, one cannot be partially free until one is totally free.

    (Not that Statist "open borders" are libertarian, I just hate the argument.)

    What did Ron Paul say when he was told half of people pay no income taxes?

    "We're half way there."

  • vek||

    Here's the thing though genius, order of operations matters. When one "freedom" like international freedom of movement ruins everything else, causing a net drop in freedom, it's not unreasonable to demand the other shit gets sorted first. This is obvious to most people, which is why this is such a common statement with respect to immigration. To put it even more simply: You don't put the cart before the horse.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    What did Ron Paul say when he was told half of people pay no income taxes?

    "We're half way there."

    Of course the ideal tax rate is zero, but since that's impossible most Libertarians think 1/2 not paying any taxes at all is a problem as they have no 'skin in the game'.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The current choice isn't between welfare for undocumented immigrants vs. no welfare for them.

    The choice is between the welfare state vs. the police state.

    Because those undocumented immigrants aren't going to magically deport themselves. The state is going to do it. And they are going to be consuming tax dollars when they do it, AND consuming our liberty in the process.

    So, which would you rather have: the welfare state, or the police state?

  • sarcasmic||

    At least on talk radio, the most vocal proponents of the war in immigrants are also vocal proponents of the war on drug users. I don't think they really give a shit about living in a police state. They welcome government men with machine guns on every street corner, demanding papers and searching for drugs, if it means more security.

    I'm not sure where our anti-immigrant "libertarians" stand, but is sure seems to me like they want a police state. How else can you systematically verify that everyone on the street or at work has properly asked permission and complied with orders from their masters in government?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Of course they want a police state. They are just being coy (to put it generously) in explaining the true costs of their ideas. They would much rather bash illiterate Guatemalans.

  • TuIpa||

    "Of course they want a police state. "

    Sigh, it's like you want people to point out your hypocrisy.

    No no, THEY are ok to collectivize, not OTHER PEOPLE.

  • vek||

    As I've said elsewhere, I think we could deal with our immigration problem without hiring any new LEOs overall period. We just need stronger enforcement, and less looking the other way. When a LEO of any type comes across an illegal, ship their asses home. The IRS already knows about MILLIONS of cases of illegals using fake SSNs. They could turn that over to ICE, and they could just work down the list.

    Once illegals knew we were serious, fewer would come, and I bet a bunch of the ones here would self deport. Keep in mind hundreds of thousands a year ALREADY go home. Cut the number coming in, increase the number going out, and the number here will shrink. Eventually it will get down to a number that is tolerable. Zero is not possible, but something VASTLY lower than 10-12 million sure as fuck is.

  • TLBD||

    So if you're not for open borders you are anti-immigrant? Sounding a lot like Jeff there sarcasmic.

  • TLBD||

    Tulpa had it right. Fucking anarchists are incapable of nuance. Black and white only, in everything.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah, because anyone who disagrees with Trumpistas is an anarchist. You got us all pegged.

  • TLBD||

    Ah, so TDS is what happened to you. Sad.

  • sarcasmic||

    Damn straight! I don't like Trump's protectionist or xenophobic policies so that means I don't like his tax cuts or reduced regulations either! I want more taxes and more regulations because Trump doesn't! I also want no government at all at the same time! I'm sooo confuuuused!

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Holy false dichotomy, Batman.

    The welfare state is guaranteed under your preferred policy (well, until we run out of money, then we get a few options: homegrown police state, police state imposed by invaders, or warlordism). Whereas enforcing the borders does not require deporting people who are already here, and deporting people who are already here does not require a police state. We already deport scads of people now.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But in terms of border enforcement, the status quo is unacceptable to you, though, right?

    And I hate to break it to you, but we already have quite a bit of a police state dedicated to enforcing immigration laws. Should these enforcement efforts be increased? How would this not be an increase in the police state?

  • TuIpa||

    Incentives instead of punishment.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So for instance, the state should "incentivize" businesses that do not hire undocumented immigrants? What form would this incentive be in? And how much would it cost?

  • TuIpa||

    It's interesting that when you get a credible answer to your question of "How would this not be an increase in the police state?" your immediate response isn't to acknowledge your deficiency of argument, but to immediately demand simple answers to compex problems.

    "What form would this incentive be in? "

    One option is tax reduction.

    "And how much would it cost?"

    Tax reduction costs nothing.

  • TuIpa||

    I'm also fascinated by the sudden switch to niggling detail management and cost concern, as though the point isn't devising a solution, but rather, finding a reason not to.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    There is no such thing as "a bit of police state". You either have one or you don't.

    By your logic, anything besides anarchy is a bit of police state.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    The choice is between the welfare state vs. the police state.

    This is a false dicthomy making your question: which do you prefer, complete BS.

    A similar question; did you beat your significant others or did you just verbally abuse them?

    Are you for taxes or for people dieing in the streets?

    See how that works?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perhaps in the context of this discussion the closed border crowd can elaborate on some of their affirmative ideas, instead of just bitching and whining all the time about the "damn illegals". You all complain about the cost of undocumented immigrants on the welfare state. Fine. How much will your proposed policies cost? You want to build a wall. You also want to staff it with border guards and technology. All of this costs money. How much? You want to "enforce the law", harder than it's being enforced now. Presumably this means more regulations and rules on all of us. How much will all of those regulations costs? Do you want a national ID? And how much will it cost in terms of lost liberty of CITIZENS having to put up with the army of ICE agents looking over their shoulder to make sure they aren't secretly hiding undocumented immigrants, or following all the byzantine rules you want to impose on them? How much lost liberty will be suffer when we are all forced to get a national ID card granting even more power of the state over our lives? (A National ID card would really grease the skids for single-payer health care, by the way. It could very easily double as a national health insurance card. Bernie Sanders thanks you!)

    Time for the closed border crowd to finally admit that TANSTAAFL. There are downsides to immigration, yes. There are also downsides to what you propose. Time to start listing those.

  • Vernon Depner||

    There is no "closed border crowd" here.

  • vek||

    We don't need a national ID! Mostly, we just need current LEOs to stop looking the other way. We need to make it KNOWN that we're not going to tolerate this shit anymore. I could literally go to ANY construction site in my city, and probably half the people would be illegals. It's not hard to find these people and deport them.

    We got here by decades of ignoring the law as written. If we were to simply enforce current law, with less looking the other way, we could slowly get ourselves out of the problem too.

    Your we can either do NOTHING or we HAVE to become Nazi Germany dichotomy is simply bullshit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Imposing an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like imposing an unpopular war. That's why the Constitution properly enumerates the power to set the rules of naturalization to congress--in the same place that it enumerates to them the power to declare war.

    There are places where democracy has no proper role, which is why, for instance, the First Amendments starts with, "Congress shall make no law". Whether to declare war, whether to tax, and whether to allow immigration aren't one of those places.

    Of course, what our immigration policy should be is an entirely separate question from whether the government should set the rules for immigration. I would argue that those of us who want to see an open border with Mexico will never achieve such a thing so long as we continue to argue that our fellow Americans have no right to weigh in on immigration policy. Elitists telling American voters that they should have no right to weigh in on a policy questions that are clearly within the proper purview of democracy could hardly be doing the push for open borders any more harm.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And it really shouldn't be so shocking for a libertarian to see this light. Libertarianism isn't about seizing the reigns of power and inflicting open borders or anything else on the American people over their objections and against their will. Libertarian policies--within the proper purview of democracy (e.g, spending, taxes, war, immigration)--can only be accomplished through persuading our fellow Americans to demand freedom rather than government coercion. How can we advocate that our fellow Americans choose freedom out of one side of our mouths and tell them that their opinions shouldn't matter out of the other?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, Ken. Suppose the people can't be persuaded that open borders is the correct policy. Then what? Continue to go along with the infringement of liberty that closed borders represents?

  • Ken Shultz||

    People can be persuaded to have their nipples pierced. They can even be persuaded to pay for the privilege.

  • TLBD||

    Persuade me that open borders increases liberty for me and my family and all those I care about.

  • sarcasmic||

    There are some really cool markets and restaurants around here that simply didn't exist before the influx of Somali refugees and other people from the Muslim world.

    Sure they brought teenagers with them and there was an associated uptick in crime as a result of there being more teenagers around, but it went away soon enough.

    But we all know that persuading you is a fool's errand.

  • TLBD||

    Yeah portland is really becoming a bastion of liberty.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah portland is really becoming a bastion of liberty.

    Portland isn't where most of the Somalis went, the Portland that makes the most news is in Oregon, and I don't live in any of the above.

    Thank you for playing.

  • TLBD||

    Oh Lewiston-Auburn. Even better.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh wow. TLBD knows how to use google.

    *slow clap*

  • TLBD||

    Yeah, that's it. Fantastic use of Occam's Razor.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Persuade me that open borders increases liberty for me and my family and all those I care about.

    You have your liberty restored to associate with whom you please, citizen or not.
    You will have the vast majority of a giant bureaucracy eliminated.
    You will be able to hire the people that you want to hire, without first getting permission from the state.
    You will not have to put up with government audits and raids to check to make sure you aren't hiding any of those sneaky illegals.
    You will no longer have to prove that you are a citizen in order to get a job.
    You will get rid of the "Constitution Free Zone" that supports the current immigration regime.
    You will have fewer police running around looking for people who have done nothing wrong except lacking proper government papers. These police can then be repurposed to find actual criminals.
    Plus, ethnic restaurants and food trucks.
    All of these are benefits for CITIZENS.

    Oh, and by the way, it would also be of great benefit for immigrants wanting to find better lives for themselves.
    It would also put out of business the human traffickers who get rich finding ways to evade current border controls.

    There would of course be costs and problems to be worked out. There is no such thing as a free lunch. But the important principle here is preserving human liberty. Whatever costs there are along the way can be mitigated as they arise.

  • TLBD||

    All of those things are great. Not persuasive due to your last paragraph completely downplaying and not really addressing the risks to liberty for not only our current citizens, but those who immigrate here.

    I do appreciate the reply though.

  • sarcasmic||

    What about the risks to liberty entailed in a national ID, building and policing a wall, verifying that every employee of every business has their proper papers, increased checkpoints, and everything else it will take to enforce these laws against people who lack permission and aren't obeying orders?

  • TLBD||

    If one makes the wild assumption that those things are necessary for border security... which they are not.

  • sarcasmic||

    The people who want those things are looking for any excuse, and popular support for border security fits the bill quite well.

    Just look at all the liberty we've lost in the name of fighting terrorism. The war on immigrants will be no different.

    Libertarians seem to be great at observing that every excuse to exercise power will be abused. Well, except when the power is used for something they like.

  • TLBD||

    Yes, every excuse to exercise power will be abused.

    It is not that I like any of it. It is about a rational balance and not some fantasy libertopia that exists only in my mind.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is about a rational balance and not some fantasy libertopia that exists only in my mind.

    As I see it, immigration enforcement the way Trump and his supporters imagine it will require a lot of manpower and a lot of surrendered liberty.

    Like jeff has observed in many of his comments, the people demanding more government appear to be ignoring the costs in both money and freedom.

    Something about wanting security over freedom.

  • vek||

    I don't accept your premise. I think we could deal with the immigration issue with very little increase in spending, or loss of liberty. 95% of the problem has been this *wink wink* we'll just ignore all the obviously illegal people here. The IRS alone has records of millions of KNOWN false uses of social security numbers! You're telling me ICE couldn't work through that backlog over a period of years? You're telling me illegals KNOWING the government won't put up with this kind of shit won't decrease the numbers coming here?

    Risk/Reward is what has driven it up like this. For decades there has been a very low risk, and a large reward to coming illegally. You change that balance, and the numbers will change dramatically over time.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Do open borders necessarily require open citizenry? How would this resolve if people, with few exceptions, could just arrive, work, and live here, openly, without the magic paper--and without voting rights?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You'll note that many of the responses here by the closed-border advocates are not really focused on how immigrants might vote, but instead are centered around the cultural values of immigrants (which are supposedly immutable). They simply don't want foreigners here, even if they don't vote. Because they will corrupt the purity of essence of America, or something.

  • TuIpa||

    "are not really focused on how immigrants might vote, but instead are centered around the cultural values of immigrants (which are supposedly immutable). "

    Jesus fuckong christ you stupid fuck, THEIR CULTURE INFLUENCES THEIR VOTE, YOU OBLIVIOUS RETARD

    "They simply don't want foreigners here, even if they don't vote. Because they will corrupt the purity of essence of America, or something."

    How can you be this stupid? And make it to adulthood? And feed and clothe yourself daily?

  • Tony||

    What the fuck is libertarian about policing people's fucking thoughts, pray tell?

  • vek||

    If they're thoughts about how guns should be forbidden, how a communist economy is better, etc then FUCK their thoughts.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    You'll note that many of the responses here by the closed-border advocates...

    Please show one single post from anyone advocating closed borders. And the voices in your head do not count.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Libertarians make an excellent argument for authoritarianism. Given an understanding of what they'll actually do if given enough rope, I want to make sure a boot is kept firmly on their necks. As they deny that citizenship is a reciprocal arrangement the involves not only an assertion of their rights, but also includes duties and obligations to their country and other citizens, I suggest dumping them out in international waters where no state will claim those obligations, nor will any state be obligated to enforce their rights.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes yes, we know. Illiterate Guatemalans are such an existential threat that it's necessary to oppress Americans in a police state in order to root out such infernal evil.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not a police state if you ask permission, obey commands, and carry your papers at all times. As long as you're not doing anything wrong...

  • lap83||

    If you apply the term "police state" to something that literally every nation has ever done, it loses impact

  • sarcasmic||

    If you apply the term "literally" to things that are not true, it loses its impact.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Plenty of libertarians (and notably, all the libertarians who actually win elections above the level of dog catcher) support border enforcement and oppose illegal immigration.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I have a sneaking suspicion this is the wrong question. Let's talk zero-sum games, and why everything has to be seen as one.

    Would you like to play a game, Professor?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Are you implying that you can have a secure border (to the extent that's possible) and still be welcoming to foreigners? Inconceivable!

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Well, we'd have to give up the invigorating exchange of ideas such as demonstrated here, and I know that would be a great loss to us all, but perhaps we could look into it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "But the most thoughtful open border theoreticians don't say the government may never place limits on any foreigner."

    And without border security, you would do that how?

  • lap83||

    Speed bumps?

  • Jerryskids||

    I think borders should be presumptively open, just as with any other government action the burden of proof is on the government to show why an action should be prohibited. Sure, you need a system and a process to admit entry, but the way the system works now the would-be immigrant has the burden of proof to show why he should be allowed in rather than the government having to show why he should be denied entry. Of course, it wouldn't hurt my feelings any to extend a citizenship test to native-born Americans and kick out the ones who fail to show any knowledge of American values like individualism, limited government, natural law, etc. "Oh, you voted for Bernie Sanders? Off you go then, have fun in Venezuela."

  • WJack||

    The question is whether Judeo – Christian Western Culture, i.e., civilization is benevolent enough to preside over its own demise.

    Seems that some of the victims of the progressive educators here hope so.

  • Tony||

    Which one of those dogwhistles--sorry, I mean adjectives--does not describe Latin Americans?

  • WJack||

    Wow, your progress educators failed to point to point out the differences between North and South American. Take a look at your TV.

  • Tony||

    Neither of those differences has to do with being Western or Christian.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Shikha's ridiculous response is a good reminder of just how silly modern libertarianism can get, and a good example of how Gillespie's supposedly imminent "Libertarian Moment" is probably never going to happen with ideas like this.

    Only on Reason would an argument that there should be no restrictions on immigration be seriously considered. The Libertarian Party should run with this in their 2020 platform. Just look at the national polling data on immigration!

  • lap83||

    Neither open borders nor closed borders are on the table. But keep imagining that the Democrats plan of enforcing immigration law for everyone except people who happen to live to the south will magically turn the country into libertopia

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Unsurprising that no one has taken me up on my challenge at @9:41 AM posted above.

    It seems as though the advocates for border restrictionism would much rather just attack open borders, attack the culture of immigrants, attack the immigrants themselves, attack the "elites" who are supposedly "importing" immigrants to undermine America, do a lot of attacking, but they never fully explain and defend what they themselves are FOR.

    I suspect many of them would don't know, or don't really care, how much of a police state would be necessary in order to fully realize their border restrictionist fantasies.

    Has there even been a bill submitted in Congress that outlines these plans?

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Tony Abbott managed to solve Australia's illegal immigration problem simply by taking the matter out of the hands of the courts and putting it into the hands of the military. As far as I know, few people are calling Australia a police state.

  • Vernon Depner||

    a police state would be necessary

    Nonsense. Enhanced security measures on the southern border, combined with an orderly system for foreign workers to enter and leave the country legally for employment, could greatly reduce illegal entries and illegal immigration without adding to the power of the domestic police state.

  • sarcasmic||

    A police state is necessary for the ones who slip past border security and to terrible things like working and raising families.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Only if you equate any law enforcement at all with a "police state". I realize some people who call themselves libertarian do in fact take that position.

  • sarcasmic||

    Many people equate reactive and proactive law enforcement. I am not one of them.

    I think of reactive law enforcement as the police acting when a victim asks for help after someone has harmed their life, liberty or property.

    Ideally the cops should be really fucking bored if people aren't fucking with one another.

    That is opposed to proactive law enforcement, which is when the cops treat people as guilty until proven innocent. Like stop and frisk, or demanding papers.

    In that case the cops are never bored. Three felonies a day and all of that. Observe anyone long enough and they can be arrested for something.

    The more proactive law enforcement there is, the closer we get to a police state. That's why I'm not a fan of cops looking for people who lack permission slips. Adds slip to the slippery slope.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    The article was on a debate as to whether any government had the right to set immigration policy.

    Most posters commented on this idea, one way or the other, all except you.

    You moved the goalposts to a false dichotomy or either full open borders or a police state.

    First - it's a false dichotomy, second it's not relevant to the actual debate the article highlighted.

    Conclusion: you're an idiot and poor reading comprehension skills.

  • k5ep@geomadre.com||

    I am going to suggest a less-tortured solution that worked well for many decades. Prior to 9/11, the US/Mexico border was basically open from the physical border up to the Border Patrol checkpoints (usually 60 or 80 miles "inland" from the border. The same situation existed on the Mexican side. People came and went routinely with essentially no government oversight or questions asked. It worked well. If you wanted to get into the interior of either country, then you had to get a visa. People who didn't like foreign nationals just didn't live in border areas.

  • Qsl||

    Unfortunately people don't want to discuss possible solutions that give each side a little of what they want. Hardliners and slippery slopes are the rule of the day. I remember when you could cross either border without a passport. Those were good times.

  • Vernon Depner||

    We could probably negotiate a return to that with Canada if our government were interested.

  • Qsl||

    That was both borders, and as DHS places the vast majority of illegal immigration as originating from Canada (you know, the land of nationalized healthcare, speechcodes, and areas where English isn't even the dominant language), I find your concerns over nationals destroying the way of life here suspect.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "DHS places the vast majority of illegal immigration as originating from Canada"

    That is absolutely false. The number of Canadian illegal immigrants is tiny compared to the number of Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants coming over the souther border. The government estimates I've seen of Canadians living in the US undocumented are in the 90,000 to 100,000 range. The number if undocumented residents from Mexico alone is estimated at about six million, and that number is undoubtedly conservative. Most illegal border crossers coming across the Canadian border are not Canadians, but Mexicans and Central Americans who have paid Canadian traffickers to get them in.

    If you could read, you would see that my concern about foreign nationals destroying our way of life is based on the sheer numbers of them that would show up if we adopted Shikha's plan to admit everyone who is not contagious or a fleeing criminal. Cultural clash is a legitimate concern but it is manageable if we limit the number of immigrants.

  • Vernon Depner||

    We've already established that, madam. Now we're talking price.

    OK, let's cut the crap. No one here really wants wide-open borders with no controls on immigration. Everyone knows that with the conditions in most of the world today, that would result in our being swamped with hundreds of millions of immigrants in the "wretched refuse" category, which would have disastrous consequences. No one here wants closed borders. We all understand the value of immigration. The real disagreement here is over numbers. How many immigrants should we allow in? A hundred thousand a year? A million a year? Two million? Ten million? Why that number? That's the real argument here hiding under the theories.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How many immigrants should we allow in?

    Why should there be any fixed number of permitted immigrants at all?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Please read my posts before responding to them.

    "Everyone knows that with the conditions in most of the world today, that would result in our being swamped with hundreds of millions of immigrants in the "wretched refuse" category, which would have disastrous consequences."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If one views immigration as an exercise of individual liberty, then the exercise of that liberty shouldn't be conditioned on the consequences of that exercise, consistent with the NAP.

    If I have the liberty to speak freely, and I use that liberty to say hateful bigoted things against someone, and that someone feels sad, those sad consequences from that person isn't reason enough to restrict my liberty to say hateful things, or the liberty of everyone else to say whatever they wish to say as well.

    Why should a similar analysis not apply in the case of immigration?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Because people feeling sad because you say mean things to them will not destroy our country.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But that is still a consequentialist view of liberty. That the exercise of liberty should be permitted only if the consequences of that exercise are good, or at least not too bad.

    That's contrary to the whole natural rights viewpoint, which states that I don't have to justify to the state why I may exercise my liberty in terms of the consequences it may or may not produce, it's the state that has a very large burden of proof in order to show why my exercise of liberty may be detrimental.

    Lots of people drink, smoke, do drugs, bang hookers, engage in all sorts of terrible habits and if enough people did those things, they would have serious societal consequences. Should the liberty for individuals to do these things be restrained in a similar manner that the liberty for individuals to associate with foreigners should be restrained?

    These are the questions that really get to the heart of the matter IMO. Not really "how many immigrants to permit".

  • Vernon Depner||

    Making sensible, practical decisions here in the real world gets to the heart of the matter IMO. Not following your principles over a cliff.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Then where do you draw the line?

    If your argument is "freedom of association must be restricted because otherwise large negative consequences will result", what is the dividing line on negative consequences between when the state should protect one's liberties, and when the state should not?

    This is the same type of argument that the gun grabbers use, by the way. Sure some want to ban all guns, but quite a few of them are fine with some gun ownership, as long as the negative consequences aren't too severe. And they view private ownership of so-called 'assault rifles' as being very clearly over the line. How does your argument for restricting freedom of association in immigration on consequentialist grounds not also apply to issues of gun control? Or tons of other issues where fundamental liberties are implicated?

  • Vernon Depner||

    If a soundly reasoned argument based on facts leads to a better course of action than resolutely following your philosophy would, then you should re-examine your philosophy. If your doctrine is a sound guide for your actions, it will not lead you to argue against our survival. If Libertarianism forces us to turn our country into another third world shithole by importing hundreds of millions of impoverished immigrants, then Libertarianism is faulty.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If your doctrine is a sound guide for your actions, it will not lead you to argue against our survival.

    It doesn't.

    If Libertarianism forces us to turn our country into another third world shithole by importing hundreds of millions of impoverished immigrants, then Libertarianism is faulty.

    People and actions don't follow straight-line trajectories. If migration leads to negative consequences, free people will work to mitigate these consequences. As I mentioned above, countries don't really want a bunch of their taxpayers to leave, so they will incentivize their citizens to stay put. This argument reminds me a lot of the one that the "peak oil" people put forth: that we will "run out of oil" if current trends continue. No, we actually won't. What will happen is, as we use up oil, it will reach a price where other energy sources will become competitive, and then we will switch to those, without any outside coercion required. It is the same deal here. Migration will lead to some benefits and also some costs, and when those costs reach a certain level, other opportunities will become available and the effects of those costs will be mitigated. But this can really only happen if free people have the liberty to put forth solutions in the first place.

    But, suppose I am wrong. What is your plan? Liberty should be tolerated, unless.... ? What condition should be met before individuals' liberty should be cut off and the state should start controlling things?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Why are you even offering a practical argument, then? If you believe Liberty should be served as a matter of principle, then it shouldn't matter to you if the result of virtually unrestricted immigration results in paradise or a shithole. Obviously, you agree with me that results matter. You're just wrong about what would happen.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    See this is part of the problem. I lay out what I believe in and I am fully willing to acknowledge there will be problems and costs, but that respecting people's liberty is the higher goal. And the response i get is hyperbolic claims about how it would lead to the destruction of America, and in its place, no real discussion of what an alternative guiding philosophy should be. Do you want immigration quotas set by majority rule? Do you want quotas set by some utilitarian calculus? If so then by what guiding principle should immigration rules be set by this manner, and not rules for other issues (guns, abortion, speech, labor regulations, etc)? It is as if many view immigration as a completely separate case that does not have to be consistent or congruent with any other philosophical approach.

  • Allutz||

    The part that makes people feel you are disingenuous is that you appear to handwave away the costs when to others they appear quite significant.

    What, for instance, do you say to a person that says the consequence of your action will be that within 30 years the US will be a country that looks more like Venezuela/Zimbabwe/Iraq than current America/Canada/Britain? That your application of the NAP in this instance will end its application for a century around the world.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't handwave away the costs. I am upfront in acknowledging that there will be costs and burdens. I don't buy into the hysterical paranoia that immigration will lead to the destruction of America. But, for instance, will there be more crime? Probably. Will there be more demands for welfare for immigrants? Certainly, and we have to be prepared to resist that.

    What, for instance, do you say to a person that says the consequence of your action will be that within 30 years the US will be a country that looks more like Venezuela/Zimbabwe/Iraq than current America/Canada/Britain?

    I think that would be a ridiculous claim.

    Now if you were to argue something like "America would look like a larger version of Belgium or Spain with their internecine conflicts", then I think that would be closer to the truth.

    To think that America could turn into Zimbabwe in the course of 30 years must require an assumption that American institutions are incredibly weak to begin with. If that's the case, then immigration or not, America is doomed anyway.

    Now, what is it that you support, and why?

  • Allutz||

    I don't see why you would choose Belgium and Spain, their internecine conflicts are between people who are more similar to each other than Americans and Mexicans or Americans and Chinese.

    The probably the best analogy to current America is that it is a rich Brazil. And it is richer than Brazil primarily because it has a better constitution (partially due to its political inheritance from England, and partially because it was founded by good people at a good time), and quite frankly, better people. People in America are generally smarter and harder working than Brazilians (on average), which is the only other large, multiethnic Democracy with 1 language. India is similar, but India has more language fracturing. But neither of those countries has something approaching good governance, and the only real wealth they are accumulating is through "spillover" which is essentially outsourcing from the real wealth creating nations like the US and Britain.

    Personally I am very skeptical that liberty is a robust political value, my sense is that authoritarianism is the norm, and that cultural and ethnic diversity actually drives both the left and right towards greater authoritarianism. And to be honest, that is what is historically supported.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I am fully willing to acknowledge there will be problems and costs

    No, you're not. You're refusing to acknowledge that the problems and costs of nearly open borders would be horrendous. That makes your devotion to principle look silly. As I said, if you are truly devoted to the principle that "respecting people's liberty is the higher goal", then it wouldn't matter to you if the result of following that principle was turning the US into a shithole.

    Yes, setting laws through democratic republican processes is fine with me. A guiding philosophy should be just that—a guide. It should not be taken as a book of hard rules to be followed resolutely regardless of easily predictable perilous consequences. Fundamentalism is bad, nkay?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You're refusing to acknowledge that the problems and costs of nearly open borders would be horrendous.

    That is because I don't think they would be "horrendous". I think there would be difficulties, but that they would be manageable. Because, as I said above, actions do not proceed in a straight-line trajectory. Even under the most idealistic open borders scenario, we are not going to have 300 million people show up on our borders all at once on Day 1. Agreed? Migration takes time, incentives will shift and change, migration may outpace job creation, migrants will come and go, based on all of these changing circumstances. This is how markets adapt and change. I thought libertarians favored market-based mechanisms for decision-making?

    Yes, setting laws through democratic republican processes is fine with me.

    Which issues should be subject to democratic processes, and which issues should be kept away from the opinions of the mob, and why?

    A guiding philosophy should be just that—a guide.

    This is another way of saying "I am giving myself license to be inconsistent and arbitrary when the circumstances call for it". A set of governing principles SHOULD BE a set of hard rules that guide how we make decisions. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

  • Vernon Depner||

    we are not going to have 300 million people show up on our borders all at once on Day 1.

    No, not on Day 1. During Year 1? That's conceivable. During Decade 1 of nearly open borders? 300 million is probably a very conservative estimate.

    As I've said, I think you're daft if you believe we can "adapt and change" to that in a beneficial way.

    Which issues should be subject to democratic processes...?

    I'm basically OK with the Bill of Rights. It could perhaps be tweaked a bit for clarity.

    This is another way of saying blah blah blah....

    There is a huge amount of real estate in between fundamentalist extremism and unprincipled licentiousness. I believe in the Golden Rule. I don't handle snakes or drink poison.

    "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

    Yes, it is.

  • Tony||

    If there are no jobs for immigrants, immigration magically slows to a halt.

    Right now there are tomatoes and strawberries rotting on the vine because our restrictionism is preventing labor supply from meeting demand.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Nope. Being unemployed in the US is still a much better life than billions of humans currently have.

  • Tony||

    So what's the problem?

  • Vernon Depner||

    The problem is under at least some control now, because we make an (inadequate) effort at border and immigration control. If we allowed everyone in the world in who wanted to to come here, the problem would be inundation with impoverished people from incompatible cultures, and the economic and social disruption and social welfare costs that would result from that. How many more times does that need to be said to you?

  • Tony||

    I have no idea what "incompatible cultures" means, as American culture is whatever Americans make of it, almost all of us being from relatively recent immigrant waves. Sounds like you're just being a curmudgeon here, and I'll refrain from more unkind words.

    But what could be better for libertarianism than for this hysterical paranoid fantasy to come to pass? Immigrants crash the welfare state, making it untenable for all of us, and then, as a bonus for you, dissuade further immigration. Surely, from a libertarian point of view, your point is not to argue in favor of maintaining the welfare state?

  • Vernon Depner||

    I have no idea what "incompatible cultures" means

    Yes, you do, but you can't admit it.

    American culture is whatever Americans make of it

    No, American culture is what Americans HAVE made it, and an enormous immigration wave from very different cultures would transform it.

    almost all of us being from relatively recent immigrant waves.

    There has never been an immigration wave the likes of which we would experience if we threw our borders wide open to immigrants today. It would be overwhelming.

    I do not want the current state to "crash". That would be a nightmare of violence. I want it reduced in an orderly and peaceful manner. I don't care if that's the "libertarian point of view" or not.

  • Tony||

    Nobody is advocating 100% unrestricted immigration or "open borders." That is a straw men whose purpose is to turn you against fellow Americans in a blind, impotent rage to ensure that when you go to vote, your brain is fully turned off. Why are we talking about fantasy scenarios, especially when you feel the problem is so urgent?

    Why don't you describe to me what types of cultures are incompatible with American culture and why.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nobody is advocating 100% unrestricted immigration or "open borders."

    It's kinda amusing how the Trumpistas claim that those who don't agree with them are anarchists who want no government at all, and then accuse others of black-and-white thinking.

  • TLBD||

    It's quite amusing that you're calling me a Trumpista.

    Then claiming you dont have TDS.

    What is the final stage again? Hallucination?

  • sarcasmic||

    What is the final stage again? Hallucination?

    I dunno. You're the one seeing imaginary hordes of brown people coming to take over the country. You tell me.

  • TLBD||

    I find it fascinating how people project their racism onto others. You and Tony are quite the pair.

  • sarcasmic||

    I find it fascinating how anti-immigration people complain only about Hispanics and Arabs, and accuse anyone who calls them on it a racist.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Nobody is advocating 100% unrestricted immigration or "open borders."

    No, just 99%. Let's not quibble.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, American culture is what Americans HAVE made it, and an enormous immigration wave from very different cultures would transform it.

    Yes, it would. Culture is not a static thing. But if the culture changed in a manner that was the result of the uninhibited exercise of individuals' liberty, would that really be a bad thing?

  • Tony||

    Just had an idea for the worst dystopian novel ever: It's a world of irony, with libertarians going door to door ensuring we all celebrate the correct holidays and use the correct fork for salads.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It had better not be a plastic fork.

  • Tony||

    At least we don't have to wonder about their position on straws.

  • Vernon Depner||

    if the culture changed in a manner that was the result of the uninhibited exercise of individuals' liberty, would that really be a bad thing?

    Ask the Native Americans. Or the Polynesians.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Obviously, the liberty of Native Americans was infringed upon by the explorers of the time. So that's not a terribly convincing argument.

  • TLBD||

    Cant happen again because reasons amirite

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What exactly do you envision? Illiterate Guatemalans will conquer the nation?

  • TLBD||

    Less absurd than 300 million people pouring to the country and singing kumbaya together.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They are both pretty absurd.

  • lap83||

    "No one here really wants wide-open borders with no controls on immigration. "

    Chemjeff begs to differ

  • Vernon Depner||

    I don't believe him.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't favor ZERO controls. I favor only minimal controls. Basically, unless you are horribly sick, or you are a known criminal, then you may come in. I certainly don't favor a quota-based approach.

  • Vernon Depner||

    So, if we go to your approach, and next year, 300 million newcomers show up, you're OK with that?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If those 300 million newcomers came as a result of their own free choice, then sure. Why not? I think there would be some problems that we'd have to deal with. We'd probably need a lot more roads and bridges. There would probably be more crime. There would be a demand that all these people be eligible for welfare, which ought to be opposed and resisted. I am skeptical of the claim that immigrants come here BECAUSE of the welfare state, but if that were the case, and there was no welfare for them, then they would find this place to be fairly miserable and leave.

    But you would not have 300 million people showing up on day one. Migration takes time and during the course of people migrating here and there, incentives change and opportunities are created elsewhere. If a large number of poor people left developing countries, then that would suggest that the people there weren't being paid enough in the jobs that they had. Companies would have to pay them higher wages in order to keep their talent from leaving. That would be a disincentive for any more people to leave. There would be millions of market responses of that nature that would take place.

  • Vernon Depner||

    That's a nice fantasy.

  • John||

    It is a delusion. The scary thing is that Jeff actually believes this nonsense. Sure there might be some problems with 300 million people showing up at our doorstep but we could deal with it. It terrifies me to think there are people out there as dumb and Tony and Jeff appear to be.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Jeff actually believes this nonsense.

    I'm not convinced of that.

  • perlchpr||

    If those 300 million newcomers came as a result of their own free choice, then sure. Why not? I think there would be some problems that we'd have to deal with.

    Like the fact that 290 million of them would be very very homeless?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Like the fact that 290 million of them would be very very homeless?

    If 300 million of them showed up all at once, then yeah. But that isn't going to happen. Migrants will come and go based on changing incentives and circumstances. If there is nowhere to live, then that is a pretty strong incentive not to come, isn't it?

  • Vernon Depner||

    If you're currently living in a 4x6 shack made of flattened cans, it's not much of an incentive.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nuh uh! If you don't support the border wall then you're an anarchist! You want no government at all! MAGA!

  • Tony||

    We all still pretending this isn't 100% about race? Good thing life is so long that we have time for such endless exercises in code talking.

    Why would someone be embarrassed to speak plainly about what they mean? Since when did the PC police intimidate you guys?

  • lap83||

    "We all still pretending this isn't 100% about race?"

    No one is pretending it isn't 100% about race for you. But it's a bit more complex for those of us with a 3 digit IQ

  • Vernon Depner||

    Just wait until large numbers of white South Africans start asking for asylum here. We'll see how it's about race for Tony.

  • Tony||

    LOL

  • Tony||

    No it isn't. Nobody is screeching about a border wall with Canada. Nobody even talks about people flying in on visas.

    If your problem is preserving the American gene pool, why not just say so? That's what I don't get. I can't think of a single political belief I have that I pretend is about something it's not out of embarrassment.

  • lap83||

    Literally no one in this comment section was even thinking about an "American gene pool" (whatever the hell that is?) until you brought it up. But yeah, you are so above race

  • Tony||

    In their defense, some of them may not be thinking that, they're simply participating in unthinking mass hysteria fed to them by right-wing media. Some may not even know what they're upset about.

    But obviously it's mostly about race. It always is. The fact that there isn't actually any kind of immigration crisis right now, nor has there been one in a decade, is a big clue.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The reason why it's a subject of discussion is that some libertarian commentators are proposing creating a crisis by throwing the borders wide open. But thank you for explaining to us how our subconscious minds work. Did you study on Vulcan?

  • Tony||

    Some libertarians think all roads should be toll roads. Are we talking about something that's real or not?

  • sarcasmic||

    Some libertarians think all roads should be toll roads.

    Um, not really. Privately owned doesn't mean there must be a toll.

  • Tony||

    Yeah it could mean nobody is allowed to drive on it but the owner.

  • sarcasmic||

    It could mean a lot of things.

  • TLBD||

    I always get a kick out of it when the only people that can hear the dog whistle call everyone else racist.

  • lap83||

    Also I resent the implication that Canadians would not corrupt the "American gene pool". I like their bacon but I had quite enough exposure to hockey growing up in Minnesota, thank you very much.

  • lap83||

    Also, it's insulting when people confuse upper Midwest accents with Canadian. They are totally different dontchaknow. (not eh!)

  • sarcasmic||

    You misspelled Minnesoter.

  • lap83||

    It's pronounced Minnesooohta

  • Hank Phillips||

    The American gene pool was the topic of Teedy Rosenfeld's writing on "race suicide" (letting white women choose to control birth). Tony is correct in observing that republican nationalsocialist eugenics are still at the root of sending men with guns to bully physicians and immigrants. Unfortunately the motivation is too Germanic to be openly admitted and still seat candidates after elections. At Nuremberg we hanged such politicians and judges with no regrets.

  • lap83||

    "republican nationalsocialist eugenics are still at the root of sending men with guns to bully physicians and immigrants. "

    Did somebody sound the crazy troll siren or what

  • johngray0||

    It's about immigrants with phD's vs those with 5th grade educations. Note, even the hard right is open to more highly educated immigrants. Who don't tend to be white.
    One group of immigrants makes us richer.
    The other--via our massive welfare and entitlement system--makes us poor.
    Both are largely non-white.

  • vek||

    This is what the "They're all racists!!!" crowd will never touch.

    If an immigration reform were on the table that was sensible, and completely race/nationality neutral... Almost all of the right would totally go for it.

    I still think caps are needed, because IF we can ever fully assimilate people from vastly different cultures, it still takes time. If 100 million Chinese immigrants moved here tomorrow, our freedoms would be fucked. But something possibly higher than we have now numbers wise, and all high quality... I could be open to that.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    This thread isn't libertarian, and we are all bigger assholes for having perpetrated it.

    We are the Nick Gillespie of the free market exchange of ideas.

  • sarcasmic||

    Does that mean we all get awesome leather jackets?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Swooshy emo hair and a pensive gaze. It's gonna be rad.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a sad, sad day when Tony is the voice of reason among supposed libertarians.

  • TLBD||

    You really do have trouble with Occam's Razor, dont you?

  • TLBD||

    Tony is not stupid, but he is a mendacious, power hungry little twat, as he always has been. He supports open borders because of that, not in spite of it. He knows it means power for his authoritarian leftist heroes that he lives vicariously through.

    But sure. Tony is the voice of reason.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like I said, it's a sad, sad day.

  • Tony||

    Well your people collude with foreign adversaries to steal democracy, so what are you doing casting stones?

  • sarcasmic||

    Smells like Tulpa.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'd like to see a Wayback machine with Shikha convincing the Canadian government that the Fenians should march in unresisted. What I do see is a bunch of infiltrators into the LP vandalizing the Migration platform plank. Far better to delete entirely all mention of migration in the party platform leave the stump with the good parts missing. Likewise on abortion, with that battle won the Canadian LP has no such plank. But the GOP and Prohibition Party have--since the 1972 LP plank became Roe v Wade--thrown fits attempting to adopt a Forced Labor amendment coercing women to reproduce. We can afford to rest on laurels and ignore their carpetbiting as well.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'd like to see a Wayback machine with Shikha convincing the Canadian government that the Fenians should march in unresisted. What I do see is a bunch of infiltrators into the LP vandalizing the Migration platform plank. Far better to delete entirely all mention of migration in the party platform leave the stump with the good parts missing. Likewise on abortion, with that battle won the Canadian LP has no such plank. But the GOP and Prohibition Party have--since the 1972 LP plank became Roe v Wade--thrown fits attempting to adopt a Forced Labor amendment coercing women to reproduce. We can afford to rest on laurels and ignore their carpetbiting as well.

  • Echospinner||

    I can understand economic arguments against unlimited immigration to some extent although right now with what is becoming a labor shortage we should be opening the pipeline, not slowing it.

    When I see people bringing up culture I see a dog whistle. What cultures are you talking about exactly? The Amish who live a few miles from here are perhaps the most insular community around but I don't hear any complaints about them. I have known and worked with people from all over the world who came here. They are indistinguishable from other Americans after a short time and certainly within a generation.

    What is culture anyway? It hardly exists. There are no fixed boundaries in culture. Even for those who live in the same place as their ancestors whatever we define as culture is vastly different than it was a few centuries ago.

    As a libertarian I don't care about your culture however it is defined. It is irrelevant.

    Lefties and righties are group thinkers. Libertarians are rugged individualists.

    The first step should be to overhaul our broken legal immigration system. Can we at least agree on that?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Amish who live a few miles from here are perhaps the most insular community around but I don't hear any complaints about them.

    You answered your own question. They're insular. Their extreme views don't affect the rest of us. They are not at the school board meetings demanding that their children be taught in Old Swiss German.

    I have known and worked with people from all over the world who came here. They are indistinguishable from other Americans after a short time and certainly within a generation.

    That would immediately change if immigration were opened up to the extent that some are advocating here (if you're not contagious or a fleeing felon, come on in!) We would face an unprecedented wave of immigration that would overwhelm and transform our country. It is because of the restrictions on immigration we enforce that the assimilation you've see takes place.

    The first step should be to overhaul our broken legal immigration system. Can we at least agree on that?

    Yes. And, put in place a legal and orderly system for foreigners who do not wish to stay here permanently to come here for employment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You answered your own question. They're insular. Their extreme views don't affect the rest of us.

    Their community is also small enough, in land area and population, that they have little to no impact on everyone else.

    If they started settling in communities throughout the US in the numbers approaching Hispanic immigrants, that impact would be noticed immediately. If the Amish started populating large swaths of major cities in Pennsylvania and the upper Midwest, to the point that those cities started posting dual-language signs in English and Swiss-German, and Amish activists started demanding that school curriculums focus on Amish history and culture over "English" history and culture, anyone who doesn't think this would cause social conflict is fucking retarded.

  • vek||

    I would like to point out that you're actually WRONG. Political and cultural views of many ethnic groups, even after having been here for a long time, are still radically different on many subjects from the "legacy" population of the USA, AKA white people that historically made up 85-90% of the population.

    By the numbers, if the USA were still 85% white, we'd be living in a far more fiscally and socially conservative nation. That is the inter generational baggage white people have received from our families that other groups don't have. Like it or not, it is plain as day in statistics and polling.

    But also, the integration that does happen mostly has only happened because immigration has been a trickle, not a flood. With true legal open borders we could be transformed in major ways very quickly. Even what we have had happen has flipped the entire political landscape, changed culture dramatically (Japan doesn't have any issues with race baiting SJWs BECAUSE they don't have large minority groups!), and had vast economic consequences.

  • Jerryskids||

    Has anybody mentioned yet that if there's a principled argument for strict border control it seems the argument could be used to justify restricting emigration as well as immigration? Would the Berlin Wall have been morally justified if the West Germans rather than the East Germans had built it?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yes, equating excluding trespassers with kidnapping has already been mentioned and dismissed as ridiculous.

  • John||

    Whether you come here is the business of the people who live here. Whether you leave here and go somewhere else is the business of the people who live there. The two situations are entirely different.

    Moreover, the US government has to respect your rights because you are a citizen and that is its purpose. So, it must respect your right to leave. It does not have to respect the rights of foreigners and thus need not respect their claimed right to enter.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Whether you come here is the business of the people who live here. Whether you leave here and go somewhere else is the business of the people who live there. The two situations are entirely different.

    False, because you are taking whatever skills, knowledge, and talents you have with you. If the only doctor moves out of town you can be assured that affects those who remain. If you're working at Area 51 and decide one day you want to move to Russia I'd imagine the government might have some legitimate national security concerns.

    Moreover, the US government has to respect your rights because you are a citizen and that is its purpose. So, it must respect your right to leave. It does not have to respect the rights of foreigners and thus need not respect their claimed right to enter.

    Actually, the Constitution says the government has to respect the rights of people, not just citizens. The 2A doesn't read "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed', does it? Non-citizens have Fifth Amendment rights, don't they, because otherwise there's be no cold cases. You could just accuse someone on a student Visa of going back in time and killing Lincoln and have them drawn and quartered right there. No evidence necessary, because the foreigner has no right to a trial, right? Is the government allowed to turn someone's home into an army barracks if the owner only has a green card?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    If the only doctor moves out of town you can be assured that affects those who remain.

    Sure it affects them; it doesn't imply they ought to have any kind of control over it. Any more than they could force the doctor not to retire if he wants to.

    If you're working at Area 51 and decide one day you want to move to Russia I'd imagine the government might have some legitimate national security concerns.

    Another bad analogy. They don't let you work in such places unless you sign your rights away.

    Actually, the Constitution says the government has to respect the rights of people, not just citizens. The 2A doesn't read "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed', does it?

    It says "the right of THE people". Not "the right of people". Entirely different meaning. 2A only applies to "the people" as in "We THE people of the USA" in the preamble.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Sure it affects them; it doesn't imply they ought to have any kind of control over it.

    DING DING DING!

    A doctor moving out of town affects everyone in the town in some way, but that effect alone doesn't justify mob rule over the doctor's decisions.

    So why does the same argument not apply to an immigrant doctor moving INTO town?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    The Preamble states "We, the People of the United States," and the second Amendment protects "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms. The capitalization in the former implies a different meaning than the lack of capitalization in the latter. Otherwise, foreigners have no rights whatsoever that the government need recognize, so torturing a confession to the time-travelling assassination of Lincoln from a foreign tourist before you subject them to the Bloody Eagle is totally what you think the Founders intended to happen.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It does not have to respect the rights of foreigners

    Oh c'mon John not even you believe that.

    Perhaps you meant that the government has to respect *fewer* rights of foreigners than they do of citizens.

    Otherwise then government torture of foreigners would be totally legit.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    I think he means foreigners on foreign soil (which immigrants are or were).

    There is no constitutional bar to the US govt visiting any kind of torture and mayhem on foreigners on foreign soil that it wishes to. Obviously that doesn't mean it would be moral or wise, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not talking about what the Constitution says or doesn't say. I'm talking about what the government is obliged to do (of which constitutional requirements are only a subset). A just government is obliged to protect the natural rights of all people under its jurisdiction. To call government torture of foreigners immoral, is another way of saying that the government is obliged to not initiate force against foreigners - one of its obligations - even if the Constitution doesn't call for it.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I think he means foreigners on foreign soil (which immigrants are or were).

    And which Americans who renounce their citizenship and emigrate must then become, right?

  • Echospinner||

    "We would face an unprecedented wave of immigration that would overwhelm and transform our country. It is because of the restrictions on immigration we enforce that the assimilation you've see takes place."

    I actually don't care if they assimilate or not. If an individual takes care of their own responsibilities and does no harm fine. If they do not it is irrelevant where they came from and plenty of the "native born" fit in that category.

    We have had massive waves of immigrants. My folks came on those ships to Ellis island with nothing. It did change our country and transformed it into what we have now which I am fine with. Let's not even talk about the Irish. Nobody cares anymore.

    As for the Amish good example. There are local issues but they tend to get resolved. Those who choose to stay in the community are harmless and productive although far from assimilated. So assimilation and culture are not the issue

    Language issues go away fast unless you are an older fart like me who would have a harder time. So what? So far as schools, my wife is an immigrant she did not speak English at first but she was 5. She learned English with no effort at all, watching TV as she remembers.

    Economics probably does require some limits but we could do way better than this. Why don't you want those workers to stay, raise families and have the same opportunities as the rest of us? You want serfs, not citizens.

  • Vernon Depner||

    We have had massive waves of immigrants.

    We have never had a massive wave of immigration like what would occur if we threw the doors nearly wide open as has been suggested by Shikha and several commenters here. What would happen then would be unprecedented.

    If an individual takes care of their own responsibilities and does no harm fine.

    But that's not what we're seeing even with the limited immigration we have now. Immigrants are increasingly demanding accommodation. If we threw open the gates and immigrants arrived along with millions of their countrymen, the demands and balkanization of our country would greatly increase.

    Language issues go away fast

    They have in the past because of the controlled tempo of immigration. They would not if we were flooded with immigrants under a nearly open borders policy.

    Why don't you want those workers to stay, raise families and have the same opportunities as the rest of us?

    I do, at a reasonable, controlled pace. Taking everyone who wants to come here as long as they're not contagious or demonstrably criminal would draw a disastrous flood of newcomers who would overwhelm our ability to integrate them into our society. Also, there are a lot of foreign workers here who do not really want to stay, but because of the cost and danger of crossing the border, they won't risk moving back and forth between here and their home countries for employment. We need to change that.

  • Echospinner||

    Not that far off in position here. If we want to set a limit per year or something mine would likely be higher. We could still have a green card or renewable work visa for those who want do not want citizenship and a clear and simplified path for those who do. What we have now is a mess and the anti immigration folks want to tighten restrictions.

    Since we can dispense with the cultural nonsense then it is just a practical discussion.

  • CE||

    Taking everyone who wants to come here as long as they're not contagious or demonstrably criminal would draw a disastrous flood of newcomers who would overwhelm our ability to integrate them into our society.

    You underestimate the power and capacity of a free economy.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You're delusional about the power and capacity of a free economy.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    The language issues didn't go away until the ethnic enclaves went away. There were still foreign language Catholic churches for European immigrants in rust belt cities, even just a couple of decades ago.

    The ethnic enclaves of the previous waves of immigration were tiny compared to what we have now with Spanish-speaking areas.

  • Echospinner||

    "The language issues didn't go away until the ethnic enclaves went away. There were still foreign language Catholic churches for European immigrants in rust belt cities, even just a couple of decades ago."

    So what? Because they chose to go to the Ukranian church that bothers you? Gee most of the Jews around here seem to live in the same areas and go to the Jewish community center to play racquetball, and they pray in some foreign language Some of them have their own schools and summer camps for kids. Oy vay.

    Language was not a problem, some people are capable of communicating in more than one.

    Before the belt got rusty it pumped out the materials we needed. Think of WW2 where did the steel, tires and other things come from, Boston?

    In libertopia I would be for open borders. I am strongly pro immigration and willing to be pragmatic about it. This culture stuff is nonsense.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    This culture stuff is nonsense.

    Anyone who denies that culture doesn't exist is too stupid to take seriously.

  • vek||

    "I actually don't care if they assimilate or not. If an individual takes care of their own responsibilities and does no harm fine."

    Then you're a fool. The SOLE reason America is America, is because of American culture. If we swapped 100 million American citizens with Chinese citizens, the very next election you could bet your ass we'd lose a lot of freedoms. The SAME thing would happen if we swapped with 100 million white Europeans. Because OUR culture is more freedom oriented than any current European culture.

    Sure, if Italian American families still eat more spaghetti than English American families that's not a big deal... But if those Italian Americans hadn't eventually come around to being pro 2A, pro free speech, etc we'd have a big problem on our hands. This is why assimilation is a MUST. To get good and fast assimilation you can't have too many immigrants at once.

    I don't know the exact "ideal" number, and I don't claim to... But I do know some numbers that are definitely too high. Like taking in 100 million people in 10 years for instance. Our current level of around 1 million a year has had sweeping political implications ALREADY. We're tilted far to the left of where we would have been with fewer immigrants. It's a statistical fact. MAYBE we'll convert these people in time like we did with Italians... But if the flood is too big and too fast, it makes it a lot harder.

  • johngray0||

    Why reason can't at least acknowledge the welfare aspect of immigration is beyond me. Is the Reason staff not aware of Milton Friedman? Who made the pitch about having open borders, or massive welfare, but not both?

    And by "welfare" I include entitlements until the imbalance between average contribution and withdraws cease. We are going broke by the overspending on the current set of people we have. Noting against immigrants personally, but what do you think will happen to the deficit of we import millions with 6th grade educations? It's throwing gas on the fire.

  • scJazz||

    So uhhh? When did Reason hire a bunch of Liberals to write on the subject of Immigration? Did Reason also fire all of their Editors and replace them with TDS bots?

    Thought experiment for the Authors... can we all come crash at your houses, eat your food, drive your cars, demand a living wage, free health care. Heck even vote and by vote I mean of course insist on the force of the Governement which is not YOU to demand these things from you? You must of course pay for ME while I do all of this stuff to your home, car, fridge, etc. Where would the authors like to draw the property and laws line? Some nebulous out there somewhere >>>, if so, what happens when that line gets closer to you the authors?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    When did Reason hire a bunch of Liberals to write on the subject of Immigration?

    Continuously over the past decade, maybe more. You must be new here.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Worst thing to happen to Jacksonville since they lost Tim Tebow.

    Multiple fatalities reported in shooting at video game tournament in Florida

    I blame the ACLU. Whenever they support right-wingers, people die.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Clearly many in the border restrictionist crowd tend to view immigration through a consequentialist lens. They oppose greater immigration because they believe it will lead to negative consequences that outweigh any benefits that might arise. Many in the so-called "open border" crowd tend to view immigration through a deontological lens. They favor free migration of people as an exercise of individual liberty, which should be valued for its own sake. Any benefits that may arise from such migration is purely incidental, and any problems that may arise can be mitigated through the usual institutions. So we are not even speaking in terms of a shared moral framework on the issue.

    To the consequentialists, why should immigration be treated in this manner, but not other issues? If your argument is that mass migration will make America worse off (however you choose to define that), and thus should be restricted, then why does this same argument not apply to, say, gun ownership? Or minimum wages? Or abortion? Or speech, particularly speech in the form of campaign contributions?

    Or maybe immigration is a special case that there need not be consistency between the arguments used to oppose mass immigration, and the arguments used to oppose, say, hate speech laws. Perhaps it is fully consistent, in a certain sense, to argue against immigration based on consequentialist terms, but to take a deontological stand against hate speech laws. If so, why should that be the case?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    It's not nearly that complicated.

    For matters occurring entirely within the territory of our government, the NAP should be followed as closely as possible. The government is expected to punish or prevent violations of the NAP.

    For matters involving people or things outside of the government's territory, we can't really follow the NAP, because there is no enforcement of the NAP on an international scale. So we have to go with pragmatism.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    If your argument is that mass migration will make America worse off (however you choose to define that), and thus should be restricted, then why does this same argument not apply to, say, gun ownership? Or minimum wages? Or abortion? Or speech, particularly speech in the form of campaign contributions?

    Leaving aside abortion (which libertarians do not agree on), the libertarian positions on those things don't make us worse off. Utilitarianism and idealism don't have much daylight between them on those issues.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    the libertarian positions on those things don't make us worse off.

    That is not true when it comes to gun ownership. The libertarian position is, correctly, that individuals have a natural right to self defense, and inherent in that right is the ownership of devices which enable self-defense. This is true regardless of the consequences of widespread gun ownership. The statistical evidence, however, shows a correlation between gun violence and gun ownership. The utilitarian argument would be to restrict gun ownership in order to restrict gun violence.

    That is also not true when it comes to, say, free speech. From a utilitarian point of view, there is no positive social good for "hate speech". So why permit it? The libertarian point of view is, correctly, that free speech is an inherent right which should be protected regardless of the consequences.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    The libertarian position is, correctly, that individuals have a natural right to self defense, and inherent in that right is the ownership of devices which enable self-defense

    No, it's not. The libertarian position is that you should not use force against someone who is not initiating force. And owning a gun is not initiating force. The other stuff about natural rights is just your opinion; it is not necessary for the libertarian position.

    The statistical evidence, however, shows a correlation between gun violence and gun ownership. The utilitarian argument would be to restrict gun ownership in order to restrict gun violence.

    You've got a bunch of fallacies packed in there. First, in your own argument, conflating correlation and causation. Second, the so-called "statistical evidence" article you link to treats all "gun deaths" like murder, when in reality most of them are suicides, accidents, or self-defense. This misrepresentation is not a new or obscure tactic of the gun grabbers, and you're no spring chicken in these debates. So it's clear you're just grasping whatever you can find to start an argument like a true troll.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, the argument is as I stated: the utilitarian argument is to restrict gun ownership so as to restrict gun violence. I didn't say gun murders. As the link shows, statistically, suicide by gun is more common when there are more guns available.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    From a utilitarian point of view, there is no positive social good for "hate speech". So why permit it?

    Strawman. Utilitarianism doesn't specify that we should ban everything that doesn't produce a positive social good.

    And a simple utilitarian argument for permitting "hate speech" is that, even if it were a "social good" to ban it, it's difficult to impossible to define it. In practice, any attempt to do so is inevitably going to include socially beneficial speech.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    any attempt to do so is inevitably going to include socially beneficial speech.

    So? Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

    That's the utilitarian approach.

    Some legitimate speech is banned, but in the end, you have an omelette, so it's all worth it.

    You can't really have it both ways. Utilitarian ethics leads to some very unlibertarian results.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You keep presenting a false choice between suicide-pact dogmatism and utterly unprincipled pragmatism. You can have it both ways—being guided by principle but recognizing that philosophies are not infallible guides. In fact, not recognizing that is intellectually immature and dangerously dumb.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Utilitarianism doesn't specify that we should ban everything that doesn't produce a positive social good.

    Utilitarianism is about maximizing the happiness of the people. If some act does not produce a positive social good, and by banning that act, more people are made happy than unhappy, then utilitarianism says that the act should be banned.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    No, it's not that simple. There are a lot of things that you think you know about utilitarianism that you don't.

    First, it's not about maximizing "happiness", whatever that means. It's not happinessarianism. It's about maximizing utility as embodied by a utility function, which is chosen to model the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

    Any reasonable utility function must include the benefits of having clearly defined laws. Vague bans based on potential reactions to particular acts have inherently negative utility and thus no place in utilitarian logic.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Utilitarianism is mainly characterized by two elements: happiness and consequentialism. Utilitarian happiness is the biggest happiness which (supposetly) every human being looks for. In utilitarianism everything useful to happiness is good. Therefore, the name of the doctrine is utilitarianism, based on the principle of utility. Utility is found in every thing which contributes to the happiness of every rational being. The criterion of good and evil is balanced between individual's happiness and the happiness of the community, "each counting in an equal way" (Bentham, Introduction in the principles of morality and legislation)."

    http://utilitarianphilosophy.c.....n.eng.html

    It is easy to have clear, specific bans on hate speech. Just ban a list of words and phrases. There - easy peasy. So yes, some legitimate speech will be banned. But that is the unavoidable cost of maximizing happiness overall.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Your view of utilitarianism, as well as the text you quoted, seems to imply that if it would double the happiness of 51% of the population to enslave 49%, then that's just what we should do.

  • Vernon Depner||

    He seems to have a childishly absolutist view of -isms in general.

  • CE||

    Democracy in action.

  • Allutz||

    I don't think immigration is particularly different. The default is to resort to freedom, if there is significant evidence that this freedom is causing violations of other freedoms (some guy is making robots that go around kidnapping and sodomizing people) then you weigh the values and consider whether freedom would be increased or decreased by continuing to allow such a thing to occur. I think Mr. Rape Robot would rightly have his freedom to generate rape robots curtailed.

    The reason why immigration is often viewed as "different" is because immigrants are not tractors, they are autonomous being that act in our world, and particularly act in our political realm. In many ways they act (statistically) in predictably anti-freedom ways. One of the main reasons the 1924 immigration act was passed was because Irish/Italians were the fuel for big city machine politics and people didn't like that. Those immigrants represented the tipping point for policies like the income tax and the New Deal being implemented. So the immigrants and people were more free, until they weren't.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Those immigrants represented the tipping point for policies like the income tax and the New Deal being implemented.

    Where does this myth come from, that immigrants were responsible for the New Deal?

    FDR was elected by a landslide in 1932. There is no way the relatively small number of immigrants, compared to native-born citizens, could have changed the outcome. Even if you subtract the electoral votes for FDR from the heavily industrialized states (where there were a lot of immigrants), such as New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and New York(!), FDR *still wins*.

  • Allutz||

    FDR winning and FDR implementing his entire agenda are different things (also people forget that Hoover was also a guy with terrible policies). Many of his worst policies were initially ruled unconstitutional. If you look at the midterms the Dems also would have performed more poorly in those killing Social Security and NLRA. Catholic support is cited as critical for both his re-election campaigns.

    Plus, machine politics and the progressive era are not just a Democratic thing. There came to be a bipartisan agreement for a period of time about the need for aggressive governance. The Democrats were pro-machine and wanted to use the Fed government to implement that countrywide, but the Republicans were also in favor of a big fed government to crack down on what they saw as corrupt machines in NY, Chicago, New Orleans, etc.

    The immigration wave caused authoritarian impulses in both parties to rise, just like today.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Furthermore if you took away the welfare state and enacted effective voter fraud prevention mechanisms, I think a lot of the animus against illegal immigration would tamp down. The animus is driven by real-world problems that ivory tower libertarians pretend don't exist.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Let me sum up the arguments for you, Jeff: Nuh-uh, and also you're stupid.

    We had the same arguments in the fifth grade, it was just over which was the best Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle back then.

  • Echospinner||

    It is a silly argument

    Raphael of course.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Well, like, duh.

  • XM||

    Foreign nationals have neither a human nor constitutional right to freely move into our nation. So even if the immigration debate boils down to "does it help us" (which is a common standard for immigration in other nations), there's nothing too arbitrary about it. The constitution allows congress or the president to have discretion on immigration.

    Car culture is beneficial to the economy and allows us personal autonomy. That's not an argument for dismantling speed limits or traffic laws. Libertarianism is about maximum personal freedom, not anarchy. The government (without or without 1A) has no business prosecuting someone for doing a nazi salute, because it's not directly harming anyone. If a nation opened its borders and abandoned background checks and any caps, the unintended consequences would affect other people.

    And immigration isn't something that can argued in a vacuum. What's gonna happen to states like CA once the the nation adapts open borders? The cost of living and housing there is already through the roof, and the economy will be less and less brick and mortar. The flow from South America alone would be overwhelming and many of them might be eligible for medicare within 5,10 years.

  • Echospinner||

    "Foreign nationals have neither a human nor constitutional right to freely move into our nation."

    The constitution is not the issue. Slavery was constitutional until it was not. Human or natural rights are the issue. Many libertarians think that freedom to live wherever you choose is a human right and positive good.

    "Car culture is beneficial to the economy and allows us personal autonomy. That's not an argument for dismantling speed limits or traffic laws. "

    Cars are machines. There is no such thing as car culture. We might as well talk about wasting machine culture.

    "The cost of living and housing there is already through the roof, and the economy will be less and less brick and mortar. The flow from South America alone would be overwhelming."

    The housing issue and cost of living in California is not the fault of immigrants. Far from it.

    "If a nation opened its borders and abandoned background checks and any caps, the unintended consequences would affect other people."

    Nobody here has recommended no background checks.

    Really I do not understand why this is so emotional yet an election was won on chants like "build the wall" and "rapists and murderers". This is not new in history.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Really I do not understand why this is so emotional

    It is cultural anxiety. Just read some of the comments. The concern is not really about race, or about undocumented immigrants breaking the law, or about welfare mooching. The big emotional concern is that immigrants will come here and turn America into a worse place. In this view, America is a very specific and fragile idea, and changes to that idea will shatter and destroy America. It is a lack of faith that liberty is a good guiding principle in cases where the consequences are unforeseen. Liberty is okay when it comes to mundane things like health care being bought in a free marketplace instead of being forcibly provided to you by a central planner. But liberty "goes too far" when it comes to the perceived survival of the nation itself. In this case, authoritarian measures are required.

    That's really what it boils down to. A lack of faith that liberty is the correct answer.

  • Vernon Depner||

    in cases where the consequences are unforeseen.

    You're the only one here who is too dense to foresee the easily predictable consequences of allowing anyone in the world to move here who is not contagious or a fleeing felon. No, I have no faith that what liberty we have left would survive such an onslaught. Anyone who does is delusional.

  • Qsl||

    One of the many difficulties with libertarianism in at least its most vocal form is that it tends to be very loose in application, so you can have consequentialist and deontological arguments existing side by side, with "libertarians" free to choose which ever interpretation best supports their own self-interests. And to be fair, it is going to affect everyone to some degree, although it makes the more-libertarian-than-thou displays amusing to watch, much like watching SJWs eat their own.

    A reasonable person sees merit in both (policy without an eye towards consequences is utopian, meanwhile only considering consequences is at its core corrupt), but gosh darn if trying to get to point of having honest debate in this dumpster fire of either/or seems more trouble than its worth most days.

    Immigration policy is probably less important than the how of enforcement (building a wall on the southern border? Really? REALLY?), but even moderate libertarian ideas of greatly expanding worker visas while restricting access to citizenship are alternatively castigated as being leftist infiltration conspiracies to heralding the coming of the Fourth Reich depending on which side of the fence you are on, so I dunno.

  • vek||

    Here's the thing Jeff: There are matters of scale.

    If we can have a great improvement of liberty for a small practical cost, that's awesome! A great improvement in liberty for a great cost, probably still worth it! A small improvement in liberty for a massive cost... Yeah, not so much.

    International freedom of movement is simply not that important a thing IMO. We're not killing somebody. We're not raping somebody. We're not locking somebody up for life. We're just saying "Sorry bro, you gotta live in the country where you were born, or somewhere else that wants you."

    That is no great injustice. Whereas true open borders would DESTROY more liberty in the USA than the granting of it would create. When two liberties are at odds, does going with the more important of the two not make sense?

    Basically, pick your battles man. Open borders has too many negative repercussions in the eyes of most people, and the gain in liberty is basically non existent from the point of view of current citizens. So nobody cares! I'd much prefer to go to the mat over cutting the FedGov budget by 90% than this nonsense.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Utilitarianism and idealism don't have much daylight between them on those issues.

    And if libertarianism actually works, there shouldn't be much daylight between consequentialism and libertarianism on most issues. In cases where a sound utilitarian argument can be made against a doctrinaire libertarian course of action, we should be open to accepting that libertarianism has a flaw in that area. Libertarianism need not be a perfect and infallible rule book for all public policy questions in order to be a valuable guide.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Well put. If your theory doesn't fit the facts, don't blame or ignore the facts.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And if libertarianism actually works, there shouldn't be much daylight between consequentialism and libertarianism on most issues.

    Define "works". Produces desirable outcomes? Well duh, a deontological framework is never going to "work" from a consequentialist point of view. That is comparing apples to oranges.

    Libertarian success should be defined IMO as the protection and preservation of everyone's individual liberty, consistent with the NAP, even if the exercise of that liberty produces negative consequences.

    In cases where a sound utilitarian argument can be made against a doctrinaire libertarian course of action, we should be open to accepting that libertarianism has a flaw in that area.

    It is not a flaw in libertarian philosophy. It is instead the application of an inappropriate standard. As far as I understand it, libertarianism has never been about producing superior outcomes. It has always been about the process of achieving outcomes, which is via free choice of individuals exercising liberty.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Define "works". Produces desirable outcomes? Well duh, a deontological framework is never going to "work" from a consequentialist point of view. That is comparing apples to oranges.

    There is no reason that a position based on idealism can't happen to be the same as a position based on pragmatism.

    Libertarian success should be defined IMO as the protection and preservation of everyone's individual liberty, consistent with the NAP, even if the exercise of that liberty produces negative consequences.

    What if those negative consequences include the future destruction of everyone's individual liberty? So that by protecting liberty you have destroyed it. Not a hypothetical, as the immigration issue is a real-world example (among many others).

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What if those negative consequences include the future destruction of everyone's individual liberty?

    This is absurd. Recognizing the liberty of others cannot destroy one's own liberty provided it is all consistent with the NAP.

    As an example, if I invite a person into my house, and this person robs me, the violation of liberty that occurred was not the initial invitation, but the theft.

    No one is arguing "let immigrants come here, and do whatever they want, even if it means violating people's liberty".

  • Vernon Depner||

    But if you knowingly invite a thief into your house, you're an idiot, and undeserving of sympathy.

  • sarcasmic||

    I seem to recall jeff saying that he's not in favor of completely open borders, and would exclude known criminals and people with serious diseases. Totally open borders is easy to argue against, except that no one but a straw man is making the argument.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    He's currently talking about deontological argument based on the NAP and condemning consequentialism as unlibertarian. There doesn't seem to be any wiggle room in such an argument to exclude criminals and disease vectors.

    But I wouldn't be surprised if he made a completely contradictory argument in the past -- he does tend to do that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Criminals have forfeited claims to liberty by their own actions.

    Very sick people commit harm by their spread of disease, and so they are violating the NAP just by standing near you.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    And surprise, chemjeff completely misses the point again.

    Recognizing the liberty of others cannot destroy one's own liberty provided it is all consistent with the NAP.

    That's a pretty strong statement. You have any evidence/justification for it?

  • sarcasmic||

    If liberty means being free to do as you please as long as you don't infringe upon the life, liberty or property of others, then recognizing the liberty of others doesn't harm your own liberty. It's pretty simple logic.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If liberty means being free to do as you please as long as you don't infringe upon the life, liberty or property of others

    Paying for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the children of lazy immigrants infringes on my property.

  • Tony||

    As far as I understand it, libertarianism has never been about producing superior outcomes.

    Let's not go overboard on the sales pitch.

  • sarcasmic||

    Thing is, liberty tends to produce superior outcomes compared to central planning anyway, even if it isn't a selling point. This is because competition in ideas allows the best to win, whereas central planning forcefully suppresses competing ideas, especially if they are better, and only allows the planners' ideas to win.

  • vek||

    I'm a strong libertarian leaner BECAUSE in 99% of cases it produces the best real world results.

    Let me flip this on its head... If the PRINCIPLES are the most important, and actual good results are COMPLETELY worthless... Then are communists correct that we should implement communism because it is the most "moral" system in their eyes???

    People are against communism because it is an abject failure in practice. If communism produced societies that were richer, freer, happier, safer, etc I suspect the whole world would be communist, or trying to become communist.

    To accept that a set of principles USUALLY produces desirable outcomes, does not preclude one from making common sense exceptions in the small handful of areas where it has bad outcomes. To me true open borders is one of these obvious exceptions to 100% purist interpretation of the NAP.

    Also, practically speaking, most people don't care about principles at all. Like 0. So if you want to get something done in the real world, you HAVE to show them why it is the BEST way in practice to do it. So principles arguments will never win against practical ones in a democracy.

  • ||

    Of course nations/nation-states have a right to protect/control their borders. Hello.

    Listening to some you get the feeling they'd let the Huns in.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Wow, I largely stopped reading Dalmia a couple years ago because I felt her arguments were often... reaching, at best. But she makes the correct case here, and makes it very well. Whether Adler is right about the authority to police the border (a boring question to me, but then I'm an anarchist), that he doesn't bother mentioning any of the limits on this authority make it rather useless for libertarian theory. Perhaps that's beyond the confines of this very small debate here, but the most we get from Adler is that sometimes powers are abused or misused. I'd say he throws out the entire project of liberal boundaries on state action, suggesting repeatedly that if the state may act in service of some legit goal, we might disagree about the policies enacted but not their legitimacy. The whole liberal/libertarian project is about the narrow scope of those legitimate powers. We'd never accept this handwaving in a debate about state authority to regulate speech or contracts or whatever. We'd see it as a poison-pill for expansive state power, as we see exercised with immigration.

    Going full "it's the state's property, and therefore they have the same broad powers that private property holders do" is never a good thing from a libertarian POV.

    Course, it's all pretty boring because she and Adler are talking past each other. Would have preferred Adler respond to Dalmia's argument, rather than the other way round.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    And this - this is just pathetic:

    Some argue that limits on immigration infringe upon the associational rights of citizens. Not really. I have the right to associate with those who will associate with me. I don't have the right to impose those associational preferences on others or make them bear the costs of that choice.
  • Hamster of Doom||

    No kidding. Holy sheezus, he knows he just logically outlawed Vacation Bible School and pretty much anything folks did as a matter of course pre-1985, right?

    If I could have one thing in life, it would be that people take that thing they just said that made perfect sense to them, and run it through the filter of their opponent being in charge. Holy shit, y'all. Stop helping.

  • ||

    But she makes the correct case here, and makes it very well.

    I wouldn't say 'very well'. She manages to avoid her usual hyperbolic bullshit rhetoric. While not displayed with its usual flourish, her basic stupidity is still rather apparent in the piece. First, her 'condo' analogy is terrible because she, apparently, doesn't know how a condo or renter's associations generally works. If you don't like your condo association, you either live with it or leave the building/community. Forming a second condo association is virtually always more oppressive and combative than just living under the existing association or leaving and is, in some cases, forbidden. Moreover, in many states and communities, it's the larger state or community that protects you from the tyranny of the association. The idea that you just form a second condo association and liberty happens both literally and metaphorically is beyond dumb.

  • ||

    The "The taxation argument can in fact be used to justify a limitless government that controls one's fellow citizens' every move." blatantly misunderstands the argument and distinctly favors her own idiocy. It's an empty straw man at best and a deliberate bad faith reading at worst. If the wealthiest 10% of the world can't escape the tax monster, but only keep it contained within it's borders, feeding it more immigrants and dissolving the borders does nothing to kill the tax monster. Quite the opposite. This is the argument that's actually being made in the taxation argument and the main way you don't see or understand that is if you truly believe people you're arguing against are idiotic subhuman bigots who want to close the borders and raise taxes on themselves. Moreover, it displays a distinct lack of awareness that the "This border doesn't mean anything." argument has been used by equally and more authoritative and oppressive regimes to great success throughout history.

  • Steve_in_CA||

    Shikha's argument is spot on. If we accept the notion that our government has no obligation to recognize potential immigrants as people with human rights that need to be respected because our government has the right to act like a condo association, we are doomed as a nation.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If we accept the notion that our government has no obligation to recognize potential immigrants as people with human rights that need to be respected

    "Respecting human rights" doesn't automatically mean admitting them to the country.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Our government's first responsibility is to our own citizens and the rights our citizens have under our Constitution. We are not the arbiters or enforcers of some vague notion of "human rights" around the world, no matter what Jimmy Carter had to say about it.

  • gphx||

    For an upcoming carnival London police are equipping themselves with knife detectors and acid attack kits to aid victims who have had acid thrown in their faces.

    How many machete and/or acid attacks where there before the UK opened its borders to Middle Eastern refugees?

    This is what happens when a country doesn't control its borders and why doing so is central to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Sam Grove||

    Unfortunately, restricted legal immigration has produced uncontrolled immigration.

  • Vernon Depner||

    No. Incompetently administered legal immigration and a lack of a workable legal way for foreign workers to come here for employment have needlessly exacerbated illegal border crossing, but the controls we do have in place most certainly reduce immigration. If we went to Shikha's system of admitting everyone who is not contagious or a fleeing criminal, there would certainly be an enormous and unprecedented increase in immigration.

  • Sam Grove||

    Unfortunately, restricted legal immigration has produced uncontrolled immigration.

  • Sam Grove||

    I don't know what I did to make a double entry. What I was trying to do was close the tab.

  • Eddy||

    I think the malefactors are called squirrels. They can multiply your posts if they're in a bad mood.

  • ranrod||

    8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
    Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both

  • ranrod||

    Your hatred for the USA is showing....
    Open Borders Anarchists are waving Mexican flags at protest over the weekend.
    Comment section: I am a US citizen FIRST and FOREMOST!!!! WITH AZTEC HERITAGE... NOT Mexican...
    Mexican is a nationality NOT A RACE.. I was born in the USA from two people who came in legally years apart,
    met and married.. They were proud and grateful to be allowed in...
    they never ever had a mexican flag in our home...
    ok... getting off my soap box... very pissed off at the protests and the anti-America lemmings..

  • ranrod||

    How Immigration and Multiculturalism Destroyed Detroit..from 2009
    Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosques in Michigan, paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June according to NBC's Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America. English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing. Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city.
    Detroit plummeted from 1.8 million citizens to 912,000 today. At the same time, legal and illegal immigrants converged on the city, so much so, that Muslims number over 300,000. Mexicans number 400,000 throughout Michigan, but most work in Detroit.
    http://www.newswithviews.com/W.....sty506.htm

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    If you have no borders, you have no nation.

  • PG23COLO||

    Adler's arguments are rubbish in the land of the free.

    All individuals have the inherent, natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights do not come from governments. The only legitimate justification for government is to protect those rights.

    A government which denies individual rights based on the place of a person's birth, is acting contrary to it's charter and such actions are illegitimate.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "You can't protect someone who's trying to destroy you!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7VkjA8IQxE

  • Vernon Depner||

    But seriously—"The only legitimate justification for government is to protect those rights." Yes, to protect those rights FOR THE PEOPLE THEY GOVERN. Not for everyone in the whole fucking world. If people in other countries prefer a king or a dictator or Communism, that's THEIR right.

  • tommhan||

    If we just opened the door and let everyone in we would be as populated as China. Wouldn't that be fun?

  • vek||

    Don't worry, we'd be just as poor as China too! So that'd make up for everywhere being over crowded and natural resources being pushed to their limits... Right?

  • Mark22||

    Rather, we argue that in a liberal polity that is serious about protecting individual freedom, the government's powers to limit immigration should be severely constrained, just as they are when it comes to speech, gun ownership, and the other liberties.

    A good limit on immigration is that it shouldn't result in additional infringements on the liberties of current citizens, wouldn't you say? I'd say if you don't agree with even that simple principle, you can't call yourself a libertarian.

    If you agree with that, than you can't let anybody into the country who pays less in taxes than they impose in costs on the government. And that pretty much means most of the illegal migrants and a large chunk of legal migrants.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    True. And like it or not, we can trace our current immigration problems directly to the 1965 immigration "reform" sponsored by Ted Kennedy which effectively changed the focus of immigration law from "skills-based" to "family-based" (which even then was referred to by critics as "chain migration").

  • vek||

    That law, in hindsight, may be the worst law ever passed in the history of the country. It really depends on if we get it straightened out in the future, and manage to salvage things before they get too bad. Time will tell.

  • CE||

    And pretty soon poor people won't be allowed to have kids either?

  • Vernon Depner||

    They shouldn't be having them at public expense now.

  • vek||

    Because if you already have a problem, making the problem WORSE makes a lot of sense right?

  • VinniUSMC||

    Adler versus Dalmia is like Holyfield versus Trump, a spectacle that has only 1 realistic outcome.

  • CE||

    It has long been understood that a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty is control over a nation's territory...

    It has long been understood that a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty is the power to tax. That doesn't mean it's not stealing.

  • Vernon Depner||

    No, taxation by a democratic republican government is not stealing. If you believe it is, you are an anarchist, not a libertarian.

  • CE||

    The default condition should not be a blanket ban on entry that is relaxed for this or that category—low-skilled, high-skilled, family-based, diversity visas—in response to some political whim. The default should be openness. If the government can show a "compelling" interest to keep some particular person out—because she or he poses a national security, law and order, or a public health threat— fine, it can close the border to that individual. Not otherwise.

    Wow, Shikha makes sense for once.

  • Vernon Depner||

    No, it doesn't make sense, because the real problem is not particular individuals coming in, but the unprecedented tidal wave of immigrants that would come if we went to her system of nearly open borders. One impoverished immigrant with poor hygiene habits is not much of a threat to "national security, law and order, or...public health". One hundred million of them are.

  • sofubar||

    I don't know. Ms. Dalmia seems to give the argument of many people saying they are in favor of open borders (or at least open borders for Democrat-voting people)...that people who don't want "open" borders don't want immigration at all, and don't like foreigners in general. Seems a little hard to take her side when many people, if not most, simply want, say, temporary restrictions on people from countries that have a propensity to train for and carry out terrorism (including Trump). That is not a "muslim ban" yet that is the translation that ends up in the media. Also, there are not all that many people saying they don't want people to cross our southern border either. There is mention of restricting illegal immigration for the same reason people register for a slew of things, apply for another slew, and even more have background checks for yet other slews of things. Many just want to identify the people who have increased or legitimate risk of causing harm. Can't do that if you don't even know who's coming or going. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is not unreasonable, all things considered.

  • librarian||

    It is perverse to subordinate fundamental natural rights to derivative collective rights.

  • Vernon Depner||

    It would be perverse to destroy one of the few places on Earth where the idea of fundamental human rights is taken seriously at all in service to devotion to an abstract ideal of doctrinal purity.

  • librarian||

    If a kid is drowning in a pond, do you first ask if they are a member of the homeowner's associate?

  • Vernon Depner||

    One-third of all drowning victims are people who jumped in to try to save other drowning victims.

  • vek||

    To summarize:

    1. A 1st world country CANNOT remain 1st world with open borders in the world as it exists today. It would 100% guaranteed drop living standards. Why should citizens of these countries want to slit their own throats?

    2. It DOES violate a strict reading of the NAP... But so what? If a principle demands you commit suicide in a certain situation, perhaps it is okay to ignore that principle now and again?

    3. If going 100% purist on a single not very important right creates a net reduction in all other rights... Isn't it MORE freedom oriented to simply let that one right slide to preserve the others?

    4. Basically nobody wants NO immigration... Just immigrants that are likely to pay for their own shit, and hopefully not be too terribly anti freedom. Is that so horrible?

    5. People who don't appreciate that the culture of a civilization is what MAKES that civilization are idiots. Just as #1 would destroy our average wealth/income, so too would too many immigrants change the culture in ways that were not freedom oriented. Again, why should we commit suicide?

    6. Open borders people are autistic retards. Thankfully basically everybody, including most left leaners, don't want ACTUAL open borders. If you're so dumb even the left can't go there... Jeebus.

  • Salero21||

    Absolutely and Totally agree with that!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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