Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Wilbur Ross’s Census Lies Matter

The commerce secretary’s phony rationale for adding a citizenship question is inconsistent with the rule of law.

In an age when the president prevaricates promiscuously or his opponents will say almost anything to make him look bad (take your pick), it is tempting to conclude that public officials can lie with impunity. But that is not always the case, as Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross discovered when he tried to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 U.S. Census.

Last week a federal judge in New York ruled that Ross, whose department includes the U.S. Census Bureau, "violated the law" and "violated the public trust" in "multiple independent ways" when he decided to change the census form—most egregiously, by offering a phony rationale he invented after he had made the decision. As U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman's 277-page decision shows in head-shaking detail, that kind of dishonesty poses a clear threat to the rule of law.

The Constitution requires an "actual enumeration" of each state's population, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, every 10 years so that representatives can be apportioned correctly. Asking about citizenship, which the main census form has not done since 1950, undermines that goal, since people may worry that the information they provide will be used against them or their relatives—a fear for which there is historical precedent, notwithstanding the government's promise of confidentiality.

Since 1960 the Census Bureau and the commerce secretary have warned that a citizenship question would aggravate the undercounting of "hard-to-count" groups, including not just unauthorized residents but people who live with them. Last January bureau staff conservatively estimated that adding the question would cause a 5 percent drop in form completion by noncitizen households.

Two months later, Ross nevertheless reversed his department's longstanding position, directing the Census Bureau to reinstate the citizenship question. He said he was acting at the request of the Justice Department, which had asked for the change to facilitate enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Ross gave the same explanation to members of Congress. He told the House Appropriations Committee he was "responding solely to Department of Justice's request" and told the House Ways and Means Committee the DOJ "initiated the request for inclusion of the citizenship question."

The explanation was fishy. The Justice Department had managed to enforce the VRA for more than half a century, notwithstanding the absence of a citizenship question. Furthermore, the Census Bureau had told Ross the information the DOJ supposedly wanted could be obtained more accurately and less expensively, without impairing the census, by mining other federal records.

The evidence Judge Furman considered, including internal email and testimony by Ross's deputy chief of staff, solved the puzzle by showing that Ross said he wanted a citizenship question shortly after he took office in February 2017, more than nine months before the DOJ letter that purportedly prompted the decision. Furman found that Ross—who, contrary to his congressional testimony, discussed the issue with presidential adviser Steve Bannon—instructed his underlings to find "a rationale for a decision their boss had already made."

They ultimately came up with the VRA excuse, which DOJ officials were not willing to mouth until Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered them to do so at Ross's behest. Sessions told his staff not to discuss the trumped-up data request with the Census Bureau.

Ross's mendacity matters legally because the states and organizations that challenged his decision claimed he had violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an agency to explain the "basis" for a decision so the courts can decide whether it is "arbitrary and capricious." As Furman explained, "a court cannot sustain agency action founded on a pretextual or sham justification that conceals the true 'basis' for the decision."

Since undercounting the population of cities where unauthorized immigrants are concentrated works to the disadvantage of the Democratic Party, it's not hard to imagine what Ross's real motivation might have been. But his sloppy coverup has done a public service by showing that lies still have consequences.

© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

  • Nardz||

    Fuck off, Sullum.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    The authoritarian mentality, mandating what we now call Political Correctness. They began by stoning rebels to death, then burning witches, crushing anyone who defied their need to control others, totally. As society evolved, they evolved, adopting new methods to maintain control. Burning books, then censoring movies, then television, now politically correct speech and behavior.

    The most powerful rose to run nations, like monarchs of old. The less powerful created family businesses, ancient monarchs on a smaller scale, limited by their power and skills. A real estate investor might expand his power by forming actual businesses, all of which would fail. Even the mid-level managers they needed, have no need to submit.

    The very weakest can't run a business, or even a department. They still must control, but with little or no skills ... in anything. The electronic age finally produced what even they very least qualified could aspire to dominate and control. The online forum.

    Thus was born the cyber-bully. The very bottom of the authoritarian barrel, with low skills, low income and low intelligence. Simple enough. Just log in and bellow. They control nobody and nothing, yet possess absolute power and total omnipotence ... in their own minds.

    It was Nathaniel Brandon who first described the single trait that unifies all authoritarians. A tiny ego.
    Caused mostly by their tiny .... hands. (wink, wink)

  • vek||

    LOL

    Yeah, it's either that, or sometimes people just have common sense... Not ALL rules that maintain a decent civilization are crazy. But you sure are Hihn!

  • vek||

    Silly Hihn! I'm not a Christian OR a total Trump-tard. I just happen to think he's the best president we've had in a few decades, but that's only because the bar is so damn low.

    I would have preferred Ron Paul personally, who I know you LOVE Hihn! For some reason even though he's the most libertarian politician of any importance of the last several decades, the fact that he is mildly conservative on a few issues makes him literally SATAN to you.

    Abortion and The Gays getting married don't matter much to me either way, but all his other positions sure were up my alley! I don't ask for perfection in an imperfect world.

  • vek||

    I'm fine with partial Trumptard... Even though being in favor of some of his good policies doesn't make one a tard in the first place...

    No kidding Hihn. Nobody ever thought a wall would stop 100% of people... But it does make them have to go through extra effort, and will likely reduce numbers by some amount.

  • James Pollock||

    "I just happen to think he's the best president we've had in a few decades"

    If ineffective leadership is your thing, then Trump's your man!

  • vek||

    Because Obama was better? He passed exactly ONE law of any importance, and it was a mess, which most of the public was against until Trump got in.

    Or do you prefer the drooling retard Bush II?

    It's a low bar... But Trump has been hustling harder to try to fulfill campaign promises than anybody I've seen in my lifetime. And he's passed a few decent laws. He's made good judicial appointments. He's done some good with EOs.

    He's not Thomas Jefferson, but I'll take him over the other hacks we've had the last several decades.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Since undercounting the population of cities where unauthorized immigrants are concentrated works to the disadvantage of the Democratic Party, it's not hard to imagine what Ross's real motivation might have been. But his sloppy coverup has done a public service by showing that lies still have consequences.

    At least Sullum admits that they Lefties are using illegals to help in their sloppy coverup to steal this Constitutional Democratic Republic from Americans.

  • Paloma||

    Why Reason hasn't hired you to write an opinion piece remains a mystery.

  • buybuydandavis||

    This is so asinine.

    From census.gov
    https://goo.gl/woJQaF
    The doc linked has charts for common questions on the census starting at page 121.
    The census has asked place of birth and citizenship from 1870 to 2000.
    Parents place of birth from 1870 to 1970.

    Totally constitutional. Totally legal. Totally reasonable. But it conflicts with the Open Borders agenda, so
    ******* pants shitting hysteria NOW ************

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Asking about citizenship, which the main census form has not done since 1950"

    The usual lying from Reason. The problem with Reason is that they're not entirely sold on lefty propaganda. They actually try to cover their propaganda with weaseling qualifications so they can pretend to themselves that they're not lying scumbags. So it's easier to catch them at it. Look for the strange qualifications to statements. Look for what is *not* said that is obviously relevant.

    If they say "not on the main census form", know that it *is* on one of the forms.

    "It wasn't on *that* paper, it was *this* paper!"

    The doc I attached above actually has all the census forms since 1790.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thanks buybuydandavis. Good work.

  • vek||

    Yup. I really think a lot of them want to be able to lie to themselves and believe they're not idiot prog tards, when in fact that is exactly what they are on a host of issues. They certainly don't take the proper libertarian position on a lot of things. How asking this question is anything other than politicking by one side or another is beyond me. I of course am in favor of it, and anybody who isn't is only against it for purely political reasons.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its so easy to pick out non-Libertarian positions too. Reason staff thought they were fooling people.

    A Libertarian position on national borders would be to what degree we as the citizens want border security and how many non-citizens do we want to allow into the country temporarily or permanently.

    Denying the citizens of a nation the right to defend themselves and rule their own nation is NOT a Libertarian position.

  • vek||

    Well it's certainly not a moderate or sane libertarian position. It is an Anarchists opinion though. I do think if you want to rigidly adhere to the NAP immigration gets tricky... There is effectively shared property in nations, but there's private property, etc. It's not cut and dry...

    But here's the thing: They bend on SO MANY other issues due to real world factors, like gun rights for instance, why they MUST take up absolutist opinions ONLY on the stuff the left loves... That's where the true colors shine through.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    YOU .... PATHETIC .... LYING .... SACK OF SHIT ... PSYCHO .... YOU EVEN GOT THE PAGE NUMBER WRONG!!!

    IT STARTS ON PAGE 122. ..... PLACE OF BIRTH AND CITIZENSHIP ARE IN THE UPPER THIRD OF PAGE 123 (check my FACTS) ..................AND YOU NEVER READ IT ... OR EVEN SAW IT ... BRAINWASHED FOOL OF THE POLITICAL ELITES.

    BOTH QUESTIONS HAVE FOOTNOTES STARTING IN 1960 ,... SULLUM IS CORRECT ... YOU'RE A FOOL (STILL)

    TWO FOOTNOTES 4 AND 5

    4) In 1960, place of birth was asked on a sample basis generally, but on a 100-percent basis in New York and Puerto Rico. Citizenship was asked only in New York and Puerto Rico, where it was a 100-percent item.

    5) Question was only whether parents were foreign born.

    For any other retards
    a) The questions were last asked FULLY in 1950 .... exactly as reported
    b) In 1960 -- citizenship asked in ONE STATE .... and Puerto Rico (which is not a state)
    c) 1970 + --- BOTH place of birth and citizenship asked ONLY if parents were foreign born along with at least 20 other questions (didn't count how many)

    The doc I attached above actually has all the census forms since 1790.

    WHO brainwashed you THIS TIME ,.. Breitbart? Alex Jones? StormFront? A Trumptard web site? Steve Bannon?

    (puking uncontrollably)

  • NolanLibertarian||

    SAME RETARDED FUCKUP ... AND WACKO CONSPIRACY BABBLING .. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa

    The usual lying from Reason. The problem with Reason is that they're not entirely sold on lefty propaganda. They actually try to cover their propaganda with weaseling qualifications so they can pretend to themselves that they're not lying scumbags. So it's easier to catch them at it. Look for the strange qualifications to statements. Look for what is *not* said that is obviously relevant.

    Windbag makes TOTAL ass of self!

    If they say "not on the main census form", know that it *is* on one of the forms.

    HEY, CHUMP! IF YOU'D ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN THING ... YOU'D HAVE SEEN THE FOOTNOTES (maybe. who knows?) .... AND MAYBE ... JUST MAYBE ... THE "MAIN CENSUS FORM" IS
    a) Asked in all states (1960)
    b) Asked of all people (1970+).

    this is Trump's base ... but MOST low-educated whites have a soul, and integrity, and at least READ WHAT THEY BABBLE ABOUT.

    (How many will now punish me for speaking truth to powder)

  • NolanLibertarian||

    ******* pants shitting hysteria NOW ************

    You do THAT so much, you should buy Depends,
    In bulk.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Oh, Michael, you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

    From 1960 through 1980 they ask if one is naturalized.

    From 1990 through 2000 they ask if one is a citizen.

    On the forms that most people see,

    Perhaps you, Michael, should take some time out from incoherent ranting under numerous names and read the piece yourself.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Michael, we're talking about different questions.

    Read the census forms themselves. Not the summaries.

    The question about being naturalized is separate from either of the questions you're referencing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Hihn. They wont let him out of the insane asylum to buy depends for all pants shitting he does.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn's got multiple socks running at the same time.

    He much be bartering in cigarettes to get other lunatics to help.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Hihn. They wont let him out of the insane asylum to buy depends for all pants shitting he does.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Hihn. They wont let him out of the insane asylum to buy depends for all pants shitting he does.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another day of squirrels running the show.

    I dont mean the technical problems ....hahaha.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihnler does sound like Hitler.

  • Boomer||

    Whether it's Constitutional, legal, or reasonable isn't the issue. The issue is the process used to change the census form. Personally, I don't have a problem is asking about citizenship on the census forms, but if the government decides to make changes to the form it must give a reason--an honest reason--about why. If I have to follow the rules then so should the fucking government. The reason given for adding citizenship questions to the census form is to enforce the VRA, which is clearly bullshit.

  • Nardz||

    Packing a district with illegal aliens, whether or not they vote illegitimately, affects representative apportionment.
    This impacts the voting rights of every citizen, to the detriment of those not in the district.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That's not what Wilbur Ross said, though.

  • Nardz||

    Hypothetically, you could have a district with almost a million illegal aliens and one citizen. That one citizen is now given disproportionate power as, assuming there is no illegal voting, his/her one vote would elect a US representative. That representative, elected with a total of 1 vote, now gets to vote on house Bill'sthat are decided by simple majority.

    And if California gains an electoral vote due to the presence of illegals, that vote must be taken from another state (say, West Virginia).

    I don't see how states gaining or losing electoral votes and representatives due to the presence of illegals is anything but a violation of someone's voting rights.

    Further, why should we bend over backwards to make an illegal resident feel more comfortable in their trespassing?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Where in the Constitution does it say a reason must be given before enacting rules? It doesn't.

    Do The People deserve to know why rules are made by legislatures? Sure.

    Government bureaucrats and politicians have been lying about things for a long time now. Is a Census question to single out illegals really the hill you want to die on?

    Something tells me that if Trump gives in on this issue, the lefties will still lie their asses off.

  • Bubba Jones||

    LOL at trying to ban disingenuous claims from politicians.

  • Boomer||

    US Constitution | Article 1 | Section 8:14: [The Congress shall have the power] [t]o make Rules for the Government...

    If you read the findings of Judge Furman (linked in the article) starting at the bottom of page 24, he clearly outlines the rules followed by the Census Bureau to make changes to the census form.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Citizenship was a "sampling question" asked of 1 in 6 households in 2000. As was place of birth, etc. (pages 123 and 128)

  • DajjaI||

    I'm so proud of my country for rallying around immigrants and fighting Trump's stupid wall and his other autocratic impulses such as described here. We are in over a month of shutdown. People have sacrificed so much for the cause. But it's time now for immigrants to show their appreciation. They must renounce welfare and demonstrate they value American ideals of freedom and equal rights (without squishy exceptions). Because I am starting to lose patience.

  • vek||

    LOL

    You've got to be trolling... But there is a really simple way to make sure you don't have immigrants that move here and leech off the state: Require them to have high educations and good job prospects!

    And actually throw out the illegal ones who enter outside of that system. Magically no moochers!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution requires an "actual enumeration" of each state's population, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, every 10 years so that representatives can be apportioned correctly. Asking about citizenship, which the main census form has not done since 1950, undermines that goal, since people may worry that the information they provide will be used against them or their relatives—a fear for which there is historical precedent, notwithstanding the government's promise of confidentiality.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 2:
    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

    What the Constitution actually says. Not only does it grant government the authority to Census in such a manner according to law, but clearly separates people in the USA and eliminates them from the Census (excluding Indians not taxed). Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    But in the long run, limiting the Census to only count everyone in the USA will save taxpayers tens of millions, since the job can be done by temporary workers and a few permanent Census employees to certify the numbers.

    All the illegals will be deported so they wont be counted.

    Win-win-win.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    But in the long run, limiting the Census to only count everyone in the USA will save taxpayers tens of millions

    How does doing the same thing save money?

    They already use tens of thousands of temporary workers so no savings there. (The gummint has no permanent workers who work only a month or two every 10 years.

  • vek||

    Yup.

    Even if anybody does want to interpret that to mean counting ALL persons, it was still a fuckup on the part of the founders. They should have made it citizens. As good as the founding documents were, if they'd just been a BIT more explicit with some of their intended meanings, it would have saved us all a lot of trouble...

  • Libertymike||

    vek, there comes a time when constitutionalists must recognize the wisdom of Spooner:

    "But whether the constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."

  • vek||

    Yup. It is only a piece of paper at the end of the day, and it is up to citizens to FORCE the government to abide by the limitations put upon it.

    I'm hoping we're coming to a nice little period of snap back soon :)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, the Founders had excluded hundreds of thousands of people located in the USA because they were non-white males. Many of the Founders wanted to get rid of slavery but they had no idea what the future held.

    The Founders likely never imagined that Americans would let non-Americans and their Lefty slavers run the USA in a manner that was clearly heading for America's self-destruction.

    Some of the Founders could predict some of the reason for America's demise but ultimately the solution to preserving the United States of America lied with Americans protecting it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am definitely inclined to agree that "free persons" includes everyone in the USA.

    The solution is to immediately round up all illegals and deport them.

  • vek||

    Yup. I think them having too much faith in future generations to have the common sense and the courage to uphold some of the bits in there is the central flaw. They just couldn't imagine people willingly giving up their freedom just cuz, or bending over like such bitches.

    Oh well. We got a decent couple hundred years out of it before it started going REALLY awry. And we may yet pull it back from the edge of the abyss. Time will tell.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +100

  • vek||

    HIHN, quit spamming all the threads.

    If you want to make a single rant against somebody on an article, FINE. But stop it with this copying and pasting of the same crap 50 times over on 20 different articles.

  • vek||

    LOL

    Hey now, no need to go making physical threats there buddy! Half the time your copy/pastes aren't even relevant to what is being discussed dude. And everybody has already seen them, and either agrees, or doesn't with your so called evidence.

  • Sevo||

    "STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS, TRUMPTHUG"

    Fuck off and die, Hihn.

  • RoyMo||

    Once again slavery acts as a poison pill.

  • Bubba Jones||

    In 1789, the idea of a migrant labor force was a bit nuts.

    You moved to a place. You settled it. You had skin in the game.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Hmm, if the distinction is between "free persons" and "other persons" (not including those clever untaxed Indians) then what will happen in place like NYC? If they willingly give up freedom, can we knock 40% off their head count?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Asking about citizenship, which the main census form has not done since 1950, undermines that goal, "

    Asking about anything, anything AT ALL, besides, "how many people residing in this house?" undermines that goal. What's special about citizenship?

    And, yes, as observed above, you engaged in weasel wording to avoid the fact that the question has routinely been asked since 1960, just not everywhere and of everyone.

    So, I suppose you'd have no objection if they just asked states like California, and didn't bother in Wisconsin?

    It's a really bad sign when people become determined, not merely not to ask a question, but to forbid anyone else from asking it. It means the truth has become your enemy, and you know it.

    Oh, and, "Furman found that Ross—who, contrary to his congressional testimony, discussed the issue with presidential adviser Steve Bannon—instructed his underlings to find "a rationale for a decision their boss had already made."

    Like that's unusual in any administration...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1000

    The Lefties know that we know and they hate that Trump has agency heads that are willing to do something about it.

    Some people really believed that they could destroy this Constitutional Democratic Republic without a fight.

  • markm23||

    I was wondering when someone would mention all those _other_ questions that have been added to census forms just because some government agency wanted statistics. A question about citizenship might deter illegal aliens from filling in the form, but a multi-page form tends to deter everybody.

  • vek||

    Bullocks.

    This is pure politicking by the left. As usual. They're using bullshit lawfair to stop perfectly legal and appropriate actions by the administration... AGAIN.

    The fact is knowing the number of citizens IS a political play by the right... But it ALSO has legitimate uses. The fact is NOT asking gives the government less information, and less useful information... The lefts position has no uses other than politics... But it will help leftist districts get more representation for people that shouldn't even be here.

    Maybe Trump should just say if he doesn't get the question he'll deport ALL the illegals before 2020 using the military? Starting with the DACA kids and their illegal parents of course, since they have a nice list for them already! Maybe then they'd be okay with a simple valid fucking question on a census form!

  • Libertymike||

    Ross' appointment, itself, is a lie: the president promised to drain the swamp.

    Why don't we see more zealous criticism of Trump's drain the swamp scam?

  • Jerry B.||

    Heard a report on the Davos meeting yesterday, and the head of Marriott was saying that the government shutdown was hurting his employees in the hospitality industry, most of whom are immigrants. Ironic that Pelosi's defense of illegal immigrants is probably hurting plenty of illegal immigrants in the service and hospitality industries.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Jerry B.

    I thought it was the president's shutdown meant to defend paying for his wall that Mexico was supposed to pay. He said he was going to own it and be proud of it. He said that on Tee Vee and, well, he's not a gawddamned liar, or is he?

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Thanks. we need satire in this swamp of hatred.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Thanks. We need satire in this swamp of hatred.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Wilbur Ross: "Well, adding that question is pertinent because, see this can of soda? The additional cost to it would only be like 5 cents. Now I don't know about you but I don't mind paying 5 cents more if it helps the country."

  • Longtobefree||

    "every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."
    So we have the constitution telling the legislature to take a census.
    We have have the legislature telling the executive branch to set up rules on how to "which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ", amended to "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed".
    We have a DOJ asking to have a previously valid question moved to the main census form, and a commerce secretary agreeing to that request.
    So far, so good.
    Then we have a single judge claiming supernatural powers to determine the thought process of individuals with more accuracy than those individuals themselves, and throwing the whole constitution and legal process out based on his single ideas.
    Welcome to the revolution.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nominating and confirming judges are clearly political ventures since some judges clearly refuse to follow the Constitution and/or enacted laws.

  • vek||

    Yup. These leftist judges are out of control with this shit. They really are thwarting the legitimate powers of legislatures, executives, etc all around the country... Simply because they don't agree with the decisions for political reasons. It's not that right wing judges don't do this sometimes too, but orders of magnitude less often IMO.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Do you really think the folks here are capable of grasping the connection to the 9th Amendment?
    Or how he distorts the Tenth's meaning?

  • Mickey Rat||

    I take that the principle of not coming to a decision and figuring out a rationale for it later is not something we castigate the judiciary for violating.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The reasoning here is interesting.

    If the citizenship question is on the census, illegal immigrants will not answer and the states that harbor them will be hurt.

    Because of the personal choice of individuals.

    And the 'libertarians' at Reason are siding with the state.

    Good job!

  • JFree||

    Imagine my surprise when I read that something called the Administrative Procedure Act exists and that that is the EXACT vehicle via which govt could be massively reduced without all the diversionary ideological shit thats been spewed my whole life whining about how impossible it is to actually reduce govt without calling some constitutional convention.

    course I suppose its funner for most Americans to just walk around spewing their partisan projectile diarrhea from all orifices

  • vek||

    Except on the long form questionnaire with more detailed questions... Which remained until 2000 right?

    So piss off. Either way, a legit question should be able to be asked. If people want to lie or refuse that is their call.

  • vek||

    Ugh. I will only gripe about one bit: We're not the ones selling out America... That would be idiots who want open borders. We're trying to SAVE America from becoming Not-America, which is inevitable if we allow in too many immigrants in too short a period of time.

  • vek||

    OMG, quit spamming! This post has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed. At least your copy/paste above ostensibly does. Give it a rest man. Go harass Breitbart or something.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    He seems to have responded to your comment on open borders, which is NOT what was being discussed.
    You should have quit when he called out your error on the "long form," instead you launched a new attack on a new topic.

    If you're such a poor loser ... stop starting the fights.

  • Rockabilly||

    I love fucking with the census.....

    Sex? Yes - a lot

    Race? To the Top!

    Name? You first.

    Occupation? Gigolo

    And now I can add some transgender stuff and maybe add that I'm an illegal alien from Mars

  • NolanLibertarian||

    I loved those jokes back in junior high too!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Of course, the usual suspects here completely miss the whole point of this story, which is not per se relitigating the wisdom (or lack thereof) of asking about citizenship status on the census forms. It is about Wilbur Ross's lies about his motivations for asking the questions, and Ross's lies to Congress when asked about those motivations.

    But of course the peanuts here are in favor of the changes, so they are willing to overlook a cabinet secretary lying to the public and lying to Congress if it means they get their political way.

  • vek||

    And the left has a problem with this sort of thing when exactly?

    Half the reason libertarians and right leaners have got their asses handed to them, and our freedoms lost, over the last few decades is because we've tried to maintain the moral high ground.

    Well, I say fuck that shit anymore. It hasn't been working. We've been losing. We were told it's a fist fight, with rules... Then the leftists busted out a machete, and we've still been trying to fight with just our fists. So I say screw it, fight dirty, and WIN. It's not the moral high ground or anything, but I'd rather be a slightly impure winner, than an honorable loser... This isn't a game. This is for the future of human civilization here.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Two problems with your argument:

    1. You are letting your opponents dictate the moral course of action for you. You are letting your opponents take over your own sense of moral agency. Don't you think that YOU should be the one deciding what is right or wrong for YOUR life, not someone else, and certainly not the people that you hate?
    2. What is your real goal? Is your real goal to do something productive? Or is your real goal just to obtain power for power's sake? To "score a touchdown" in the next election? Because if your goal is to do something productive, you undermine your own agenda when you try to achieve it by duplicitous means.

  • vek||

    1. So? I'm all about being an upstanding sort... But sometimes if you're dealing with scumbags, all that will do is get you good and fucked. If I'm negotiating a business deal with a civilized human being, I'm kind, courteous, reasonable, and so on. If I have a mugger trying to "negotiate" how much of my shit he's going to take, I'm not going to be any of those things, because that person cannot be reasoned with, and you will get nowhere trying to reason with him.

    Living in la la land and pretending you must NEVER change your own actions based on the external circumstances is a nonsense concept. The Founders tried to be reasonable, and eventually concluded violence was the only answer, because they were reacting to the way the British behaved. Since the leftists are willing to fight dirty, that means those who oppose them will have to be willing to fight dirty AT LEAST SOMETIMES, when it is required. I really have no problem curb stomping commies since commies have decided it's okay to curb stomp people they don't like. You're advocating pacifism in the face of aggression essentially. Fuck that.

  • vek||

    2. I want to save and improve the country. That will require winning elections, but they're a means to an end. You should know I'm no line towing R, but I am also not a purist libertarian. I KNOW I won't get most of what I actually want, but some things are possible. Frankly I think this country is screwed no matter what anybody tries to do, because too many people are stupid and/or asleep at the wheel. But we gotta at least try to lessen the damage, or perhaps even save things enough to make a meaningful difference.

    And since when has it undermined peoples goals getting there by duplicitous means? Do you know NOTHING of history? It's dirty. ALL OF IT.

    The Dems have got plenty by being shady. The kind of obvious and outright political lies they tell all the time are orders of magnitude worse than the stuff that idiot Republicans have been willing to do in recent decades. Who else won while being dirty? Napoleon, Caesar, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, etc etc etc. Moral high ground is rarely worth anything in politics historically speaking.

    Ever read any Machiavelli or Sun Tzu? Deception, lies, trickery, brutality... Those are some of the most tried and true methods to winning. The thing is most people use such means to achieve evil ends... Some use them to achieve good ends. The founders were violent revolutionaries, AKA terrorists, but they had good intentions. I see nothing wrong with fighting dirty to achieve a better end result.

  • vek||

    STOP SPAMMING. I don't care about drugs, I care about the illegal people themselves!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I would also imagine that this type of question on the Census form would raise Fifth Amendment concerns, since it is illegal not to fill out the census form. If an illegal immigrant were compelled to fill out a form stating in essence that he/she was in the country illegally by answering "no" to the census citizenship question form, wouldn't that be a form of self-incrimination?

    But hey, this is just a libertarian website, it's not like I can expect commenters here to be concerned about the liberties of the people or anything. It's far more important to kick out the illegals than to worry about trifling things like civil liberties.

  • vek||

    Maybe. But only because our system is retarded. I don't think foreigners illegally in our country should be entitled to the full protections citizens have. And there are indeed legit legal arguments that the interpretation that ANY asshole on our soil enjoys all the rights a citizen does are not valid. Many other nations (like Rome!) in the past granted rights and privileges to citizens that others did not get, and I see no fundamental problem with that. As long as nations exist, that comes with some people being citizens, and all that entails, and others NOT being citizens.

    Obviously we should have some basic rules in place for all foreigners, and be decent about things... But the shit show we have now where some illegal immigrant is able to sue our government for BS reasons, and remain in the country while wasting taxpayer money in our court system, etc... It's just madness. We shouldn't be able to just shoot them and throw them in a ditch on sight or whatever, but we should be able to just catch them, and send their asses back home literally the next day. Just because we've been doing stuff wrong and like idiots in the past, doesn't mean we must continue doing so.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So illegal immigrants shouldn't be protected from self-incrimination?

  • vek||

    They can decide to NOT rat on themselves all they want... That doesn't mean there shouldn't be repercussions though. They could refuse to fill out the form, and deal with those repercussions. They could lie on the form, and deal with those repercussions. Or they can fill it out right, and deal with those repercussions.

    As you should well know by now, I think the second we find out anybody is here illegally, they should be arrested and back on a plane, train, or automobile back to their home country ASAP.

    The current interpretation that anyone who sets one foot on our soil deserves every right and privilege afforded citizens is BS in my opinion. Even if it IS legally the case as per our laws and constitution, it shouldn't be.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But repercussions are the bane of progressivism.

  • vek||

    Yup. They always want all the perks, none of the costs, or risks, or anything else. That is their way.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They can decide to NOT rat on themselves all they want... That doesn't mean there shouldn't be repercussions though.

    So you don't think the prohibition on self-incrimination should apply to illegal immigrants. Okay got it.

    The current interpretation that anyone who sets one foot on our soil deserves every right and privilege afforded citizens is BS in my opinion.

    Strawman. No one argues this position, not even me.

  • vek||

    That IS how they're treated now. They get ridiculous amounts of legal protection the second they set foot on US soil. 10 feet on one side of the line we can tell them to back the fuck up, and not be obligated to do ANYTHING for them. 1 foot on our side and they're entitled to sue the government, stay in the country while suing under bogus legal pretenses, entitled to TONS of legal protections they don't deserve.

    An illegal here should be able to immediately just be put back on a bus and sent home within 30 seconds if they're from most countries in the world. There is NO legit grounds for asylum if you live in Mexico. Your husband beating you, or gangsters being after you might mean you should move half way across Mexico... But not that you can move to WTF ever country you want just cuz.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Citizenship isn't the only legal method of residency.

  • vek||

    And if anybody was willing to have an honest conversation about expanding other forms of legal residency I'd be open to it. I don't like the idea as long as we have birthright citizenship, but if we did away with that having more temporary workers, even if longterm, wouldn't bother me so much.

    But good luck having a good faith conversation about reasonable things with open borders types...

  • NolanLibertarian||

    I haven't counted that carefully, but I believe you've trashed our Constitution four times now.
    There is no serious "open borders" position. Please try to stay even close to the issues,

  • vek||

    Shut up Hihn.

    I think the founders did a pretty bang up job for the time period, the info they had at hand, etc. Many future amendments were decent too. But there are many flaws in the constitution and later amendments, am I not free to express my opinion about them? We DO have ways to amend it for a reason you know.

    And you know damn well many people advocate for TRUE open borders here. Many progressives do too. Some people don't advocate for true open borders as well, but are in favor of policies that are close enough to true open borders to be effectively the same difference.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Your assault was non-responsive.

    Open borders is right-wing hysteria (on how many support it)
    Like "coming for our guns."
    And "the war on Christianity."

    As we saw in Orwell's 1984, he assumed the vast majority of people would not realize how totally they'd been manipulated through mind control. He was off only on his time frame.

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Crisis at the border. A witch hunt. Coming for our guns. War on Christianity

    Orwell also missed that there would be two competing parties, each with their own mind control. BUT a growing majority wise enough to reject both.

  • vek||

    Jesus Christ Hihn, you're dense!

    If you don't think they're coming for our guns, and anti religion I don't even know what to tell you.

    There are elected Democrats RIGHT NOW who have said we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment, because people should not be allowed to own guns. There are ALSO many millions more people out and about in the public with this view. There are then 10s of millions more who think firearms rights should be so severely limited as to effectively make 2A useless. Seen the proposed nonsense in Oregon? 5 ROUND CLIPS MAX. Next it'll be only .22 LR weapons or something.

    Death of a thousand cuts is what got most of Europe and the rest of the world disarmed. I'm just smart enough to see that somehow every time they get one more small thing, they never stop there, it's on to the next small thing... Until eventually you have nothing.

    I won't even get started on how they're attacking all religions that have standards Progs don't approve of...

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, it wouldn't be self incrimination, so long as the only consequence was deportation, as deportation isn't a criminal punishment.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    You say illegal immigrants have committed no crime. Then why are they illegal?

  • Sam Haysom||

    Silly rabbit as you unceasingly say illegal immigration isn't a crime. Talk about shoving your own petard up your ass. Lolcat inbred dipshit.

  • vek||

    I believe in a distinction between CITIZENS and NON CITIZENS.

    So has pretty much every government in the history of mankind. The US government does too in COUNTLESS laws we have.

    I think full constitutional protection shouldn't be given to foreign nationals. We should have statutory rules on how we handle such people, but there is no reason foreign nationals should be given every right a citizen enjoys with respect to things like deporting them... We need no justification to deport people IMO, that should just be a statutory matter to be decided on by congress... Yet we allow illegals to sue the government to prevent their deportation. It's BS.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    I see you evaded or distorted his points.

    You ignored your contempt for the constitution, on birthright citizenship, a norm for perhaps a thousand years.
    And added contempt for rights as being endowed by a Creator (innate to all humans)
    The authoritarian bent keeps popping up.

    Then again, I'm pro-liberty.

  • vek||

    Nonsense! Birthright citizenship was NOT a universal thing. People who owed allegiance to foreign powers were often excluded, as they should be.

    And the concept of varying levels of legal protections is as old as time. In Rome you had citizens, and people who lived within the empire but could NEVER become citizens, or had to say serve in the army to do so etc. That's subjects WITHIN the empire, let alone foreigners from other nation-states.

    So don't give me your bullshit Hihn.

    Random legal rights have nothing to do with anybodies value as a human being. Being able to sue a foreign government and prevent them legally deporting you from a place you're not legally entitled to be has ZERO to do with being treated civilly. I'm not saying we should beat them and lock them in cramped dog cages, which would be violating their human rights. So fuck off.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The Constitution requires an "actual enumeration" of each state's population, without regard to citizenship or immigration status, every 10 years so that representatives can be apportioned correctly."

    The question isn't whether illegal immigrants should be counted for census purposes. The question is whether they should be asked on the form. If the policy was to exclude illegal immigrants from the census count, that would be different.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Regardless, those who want Trump to build a wall might cite this as a reason to build it and choke off illegal immigration. It's much like the "slave power" argument abolitionists used to justify the Civil War. Southern states were enjoying more power in Congress and the electoral college because they could count slaves in the census. Some states are enjoying the exact same benefits today because the number of representatives they're apportioned by the census includes illegal immigrants who can't legally vote. That perverts our system of democracy. Why should California's voters enjoy more representatives in Congress and the electoral college than voters from states with fewer illegal aliens?

    If we can't not count illegal aliens for census purposes, then an anti-illegal immigration person might well argue that illegal aliens should be kept from crossing the border--for the sake of preserving the integrity of our democracy. In close elections, the presidential election can, will, and maybe has been won because of electoral college votes the winner only has because he carried a state with a large number of illegal aliens.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ^Ken sees what is coming.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I see a legitimate argument.

    I like to see these issues decided with reason, and this is a legitimate argument for immigration control that isn't racist, economic, or based on emotion.

    I don't know if they teach this stuff in history class anymore.

    So, for those who are unfamiliar with the historical context of slave power and the apportionment of representatives to the House (and, thus, the number of representatives each states is granted in the electoral college) here's a reproduction of a newspaper clipping from 1859--about the likely impact of the census of 1860.

    https://tinyurl.com/y9ccobuv

    Because slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes, slave states had a disproportionate number of representatives and a disproportionate amount of influence over our democracy, making the votes of slave holders in the South count for more than the votes of non-slave holders in the North. It's the same situation today with illegal aliens. They can't vote, and yet their presence amplifies the power of the legal voters in their states.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I might add a few of points here:

    1) I remain committed to open legal immigration from Mexico by way of a treaty, ratified by the Senate as required by the Constitution.

    The means to achieve that is through persuasion of my fellow Americans, not perverting or denigrating our system of democracy.

    2) Have any of you pro-immigration people noticed that the anti-immigration people who frequent this site rarely jump on my case for my open borders views?

    I think there are a couple of reasons for that. For one, I try to be intellectually honest. That means accepting facts and arguments that aren't necessarily pro-immigration on their face. The second big one is that I'm not trying to strip these people of the influence of their vote.

    Democracy has places where it doesn't belong (See the First Amendment which starts, "Congress shall make no law"), but it has places where it belongs, too.

    3) I denounce authoritarianism solutions honestly. It's the same thing with my environmentalism, by the way. I happen to believe that climate change is a serious risk. I also routinely and honesty denounce anybody and everybody who would use the coercive power of government to inflict authoritarian solutions on people forcing them to sacrifice their standard of living against their will.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The solution remains persuading our fellow Americans to act voluntarily, and advocating authoritarianism only undermines that solution. I can hardly get anybody around here to pick a fight with me on immigration or environmentalism because of these three things. Maybe my fellow open borders people and environmentalists should try it out. I suspect the reason most of them don't is because they're partisan hacks--and they'd rather watch the planet fry or open borders never happen than give up their partisan hackery.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    2) Have any of you pro-immigration people noticed that the anti-immigration people who frequent this site rarely jump on my case for my open borders views?

    Because they realize you're a useful idiot for their cause.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Except people like you are the best recruitment possible for rational restrictionist immigration. You are a long winded shitbag.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Democracy has places where it doesn't belong (See the First Amendment which starts, "Congress shall make no law"), but it has places where it belongs, too.

    Okay, so now explain why freedom of association between citizens and non-citizens should be subjected to the purview of democracy, but the freedom of association between citizens and other citizens should not.

  • vek||

    Well Ken, that's because you are always eminently reasonable, and well thought out in pretty much everything you ever post. You also actually engage in intelligent conversation, consider multiple sides of arguments, and generally aren't a crazy zealot about anything.

    Jeff, it's because NATION STATES EXIST. And if you believe in nation states, then there are things that come along with that. Like borders.

    I'm not an anarchist. I believe in nation states. I believe that 1st world nations cannot exist in the world as it is today without limitations on immigration. I think anyone who disagrees with that is an idiot. If we had TRUE open borders, we'd go to shit in no time at all with the flood of people that show up.

    None of this is purist libertarian stuff, or 100% NAP compliant... But I don't care. Because there are exceptions to every rule in the real world. This isn't a fairy tale, this is real life, and things don't always work the way we wish they did.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Okay, so now explain why freedom of association between citizens and non-citizens should be subjected to the purview of democracy"

    Not only have I never argued that freedom of association between citizens and illegal aliens should be subjected to the purview of democracy, I've repeatedly argued for years--here on this site--that the government has no business making it illegal for people to hire illegal aliens.

    If you're saying otherwise, it's either because you're ignorant or you're a liar. I think it's the former. I think you're an ignorant person who believe you have to support positions that are pro-immigration regardless of whether they're honest or make any sense. And I think that makes you (and people like you) the greatest barrier to achieving open borders in this country. Your intellectual dishonesty and authoritarianism is an embarrassment to the argument for open borders. If you want to do the argument for open borders a favor, you should go educate yourself and in the meantime just STFU.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not only have I never argued that freedom of association between citizens and illegal aliens should be subjected to the purview of democracy

    Sure you have. You did so just above. If I want to associate with an illegal immigrant, then you believe I have to persuade the public to permit me to do so via some democratic mechanism. So why should that be so?

    I think you're an ignorant person who believe you have to support positions that are pro-immigration regardless of whether they're honest or make any sense.

    I unapologetically support the pro-liberty position. Sorry not sorry if that offends you.

  • Nardz||

    So if you want to associate with Charles Manson, him being in prison limits your freedom. Thus he must be let out of prison.
    You want to associate with the entire Quds force, thus they must be let into the country because otherwise it violates your freedom.

  • Bubba Jones||

    How do you differentiate open borders from de facto annexation?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "How do you differentiate open borders from de facto annexation?"

    "Open borders" had become a terribly abused term. What I mean is that there should be a treaty with Mexico that allows Mexican citizens to go back and forth across the border without a visa--so long as they aren't convicted felons, have been inoculated against certain communicable diseases, aren't wanted by the police, etc. All of this would necessitate a database that American authorities could use to verify these things independently.

    If Mexican citizens were free to cross the border at a checkpoint by flashing an ID, the only people sneaking through the deserts at night would be the bad guys. As it stands now, we have a hard time keeping illegal aliens who have been convicted of violent felonies in the U.S. from sneaking back across the border after they're deported when their sentences have been served. Indeed, the border would be more secure with the "open borders" policies I'm talking about.

    In short, the "open borders" I'm describing doesn't let people come across indiscriminately. It lets us discriminate against those threats that are legitimate. It allows us to actually enforce the law like we can't right now. What I'm calling for isn't annexation. "Open borders" in this way is border security. And I'm not the only one talking about it that way. When people like Gillespie and Cavanaugh are talking about open borders, this is what they're talking about--checking legitimate IDs.

  • vek||

    I get your meaning.

    With a BUNCH of caveats, something like that might be workable. But should we do this with the whole world? Just Mexico? Just Latin America? If it was even all of Latin America, we might be flooded with so many people willing to work for cheap it REALLY properly screws up our job market. IMO it already has hurt low end wages a lot. But with the whole world, it DEFINITELY would.

    What about birthright citizenship? This would be creating a nightmare scenario where people would come here to get their kids US/Dual citizenship by the millions, then try to use that to get themselves citizenship, etc.

    If we ended birthright, which I think we should require 1 parent at least be a citizen, then maybe. Otherwise it would become de facto annexation from anybody who decided to come here and pop out babies.

    These aren't simple issues, especially if you put any importance on maintaining America as a free nation, with something resembling our existing culture. IMO all we'll get from large scale immigration is less freedom... So the question is is it worth limiting a single freedom, international freedom of movement, to save on net far more freedom? I think yes.

  • BYODB||

    You are historically ignorant and a disingenuous debater Hihn. Should citizens of China count for apportionment in Virginia? It would seem your answer would be 'yes'.

  • BYODB||

    So it only applies to Mexican citizens? Seems racist.

  • vek||

    Idiot. He is saying that Chinese citizens that happen to be living in Virginia illegally DO get counted for apportionment now... Which is fucking absurd.

    We don't count people staying in hotels temporarily... Why should we count people who illegally crossed or overstayed their visas???

    Cuz the constitutions says so? Well that may be so, but if it is it is a FLAW in the constitution that should be remedied.

  • vek||

    Illegal immigrants have "meddled" in our elections more than the Russians could ever dream of! But the Dems don't seem to mind that for some reason...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Bush Jr. won by five electoral votes. If Al Gore had won, it almost certainly would have been because he carried states with illegal aliens.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, it makes Russian meddling look tame by comparison, and it makes the criticism of Trump's win because of the electoral college seem ridiculous. Were it not for the way that votes in the electoral college are apportioned, Trump's victory would have been greater and Hillary's defeat would have been worse.

  • vek||

    Yupper on both those counts.

    I'm originally from California, and the way that state has changed from when I was growing up there... It's mind blowing. And a very large portion of that is because of illegal immigration, and the Reagan amnesty, followed by tons more illegal immigration. I'm part Mexican myself, but it is just heartbreaking to see what has happened to that place.

    My father never wanted to leave the place where we both grew up. Suburbs in the north bay, where it was basically the best natural environment on planet earth... But that place was just going downhill so fast he decided we needed to bail. That was almost 20 years ago, and where it is now... It's barely recognizable.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Southern states were enjoying more power in Congress and the electoral college because they could count slaves in the census. Some states are enjoying the exact same benefits today because the number of representatives they're apportioned by the census includes illegal immigrants who can't legally vote.

    And let's not forget to point out that it's the same people, the same party, benefitting from an underclass that does not have the full rights of a citizen.

    And can we also point out that they want to keep it this way?

    With lax border security providing them the underclass their slave ships once provided?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1000

  • Mongo||

    The old man is still around all these years after weathering that DC stripper scandal!

  • BYODB||

    Exactly how else would we discover how many illegal immigrants are being used for the apportionment of seats in our own government?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Yes, they do.

  • BYODB||

    Of course they do, we just don't know how many. It's the same issue left over from the slave days. No one has suggested a 3/5 compromise yet, I notice.

  • vek||

    Screw 3/5ths! I say we talk them down to 2/5ths, or even 3/10ths! That'll teach California a lesson!

  • BYODB||

    They shouldn't count at all since they do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction or law. It's absurd that a government that does not represent them would use them for apportionment for citizen representation.

  • NolanLibertarian||

    How did you miss, just above: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?
    Do you what that means? Where it originated?

  • vek||

    Well, sane people are just trying to get the lot of them deported... But since sane people are thwarted at every step by idiots, the least we could do is not count them when figuring who gets how many seats in congress. :)

  • NolanLibertarian||

    Evasion

    NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?
    Do you what that means? Where it originated?

    And I know why you refuse to deal with that. Or believe I do. Blame your own evasions.

  • vek||

    LOL Of course they do!

    That's the whole problem!

  • Mongo||

    El Chapo is also the nickname of your perineum, Hihn.

  • TxJack 112||

    What a load of crap!! Go look at old HANDWRITTEN census forms and you will see notations about place of birth and if US cotizen. There is a box that says "US citizen Y/N" I know because my grandfather came to Texas in late 1800s from Mexico with his parents. The records list his place of birth as Mexico and under US citizen is says "N". The question is a problem because supporters of open borders do not want Voters to know how many people are actually in US illegally since the always underreport the numbers

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +100

  • Earth Skeptic||

    You guys are looking at this all wrong. If, like me, you prefer a generally disfunctional government, or at least would prefer a government that tries to do less, then the only justification for all the time, money, and attention sucked up by government is the SHOW.

    And, IMO, things that get people stirred up, like Ross' provocations on the census form (and the judicial response), make the show better--at least in the sense of reality TV shows.

  • awildseaking||

    You can't support freedom and open borders at the same time. It's like claiming to defend democracy by respecting the will of the people who vote for monarchy.

  • M.L.||

    Of course they can and should ask about citizenship. The deranged left just hates that the concept of citizenship even exists and they want to destroy it.

  • Olderthandirt-stillkickin||

    Others have to decide for themselves, but 2010 was the first time in 40 years I spoke with a door to door Census taker, and then I only reported how many people were living in my home. I'll never say more.

  • HVAC Repair Huntsville||

    I really have no problem curb stomping commies since commies have decided it's okay to curb stomp people they don't like. You're advocating pacifism in the face of aggression essentially. LOL

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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