MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Meet #NeverTrump Savior Evan McMullin, Who Believes in Amnesty for Illegals!

The former CIA agent holds some views that many conservative Republicans find unacceptable. But at least he's not a libertarian...

Campaign siteCampaign siteIndependent candidate Evan McMullin—the last great hope of #NeverTrump conservatives and Republicans—appeared on Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier last night. Overall, I'd say he made a strong impression. Unlike, say, Donald Trump, he's not a self-aggrandizing jerk and he seems to have a basic grasp of reality that often eludes the Republican nominee.

And yet he shares at least some things with Trump. For instance, like Trump, he has no experience in elective office. A former CIA counte-terrorism agent (who talked about dealing with Middle Eastern terrorists "face to face") and GOP congressional staffer, McMullin also has no problem with same-sex marriage. Or, more specifically, he thinks that issue has been "settled" and it's fruitless for conservatives and Republicans to keep hammering away at it. Also like Trump (at least in his latest incarnation), McMullin is anti-abortion and said that he would work to overthrow Roe v. Wade and otherwise limit and ban the procedure (these topics were discussed live on air yesterday but were edited out of the clip below).

Unlike either Trump or Hillary Clinton, McMullin channels Libertarian Gary Johnson when it comes to trade. McMullin said he generally supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership, though he thinks it still needs to be "tweaked." "We need to trade," he said. "Ninety-five percent of consumers are outside our borders and we need access to them." Unlike Johnson, who believes that immigration is a boon to America and that we should allow more newcomers to enter the country and work and live legally, he emphasizes the need to "control" the U.S.-Mexico border. "I'm for whatever it takes to secure our border with Mexico," he said, adding that he's against "deporting 11 million people" and believes in a path to legal status for current illegals. Asked about Syrian refugees, he notes that "the worst possible way" for a terrorist to reach the United States is to be refugee.

He is a staunch War on Terror hawk who believes in keeping Gitmo open. He thinks we're winning against ISIS but our pace is too slow. He said the "caliphate" in Iraq and Syria can be destroyed and that "we shouldn't take anything off the table," including ground troops, to make that happen. "We need to put ourselves on a war footing," he said, "and remind ourselves that that's what we're involved in."

As Brian Doherty notes, McMullin, a practicing Mormon, has made the ballot in Utah but failed in his bid to do the same in California. He's also on in Minnesota but is starting his campaign after the deadlines in two dozen or more states. His claim that he will compete in all 50 states (mostly by using legal challenges) strays into Trumpian overstatement.

For the sake of having more choices on every presidential ballot, I hope he does make it on everywhere. His issues page is here.

But that shouldn't take away from the fact that his is essentially a vanity project, if not a joke candidacy, for Bill Kristol and other #NeverTrump types. The Republican Party—and McMullin is GOP proxy—has long had a love affair with manifestly unqualified candidates who have never held elective office (see: Trump, Herman Cain, Ben Carson) or even played a commanding role in government (Eisenhower's military and war experience is categorically different than, say, running Godfather's Pizza or hosting Celebrity Apprentice). That speaks to a specifically Republican and conservative contempt for actual experience not just in policymaking but in actual governance (of course, when they can lay into opponents for being "inexperienced," they don't miss a beat).

A final note about McMullin's ability to capture #NeverTrump right-wingers. Given his positive stances toward marriage equality and a path to legalization (or amnesty, as nativists are wont to call it!), it will be fascinating to see exactly who embraces him among The Weekly Standard and National Review crowds. These folks generally find Gary Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor, risible and unserious because, among other things, he is too libertarian on trade, abortion, and foreign policy.

But it turns out that McMullin, like Johnson, brushes past gay rights in a way that will likely alienate some social conservatives. And his willingness to legalize current illegal immigrants should be a non-starter with conservatives who attacked Trump for being soft on immigration (yes, you read that right). All of which is to say that McMullin might not smell as strongly of patchouli and weed as do libertarians Gary Johnson and Ron Paul (yes, conservatives have called Ron Paul's 2012 campaign "pure hippie flower-child nostalgia"), but he should be just as unacceptable to large numbers of conservatives. Perhaps his candidacy, which seems mostly focused on questions of foreign policy given his background, will do less to consolidate #NeverTrump Republicans and more to reveal serious differences between "national greatness" and nativist conservatives.

Watch the Fox News spot below.

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.

On select articles, Reason is testing a new comment promotion feature developed by SolidOpinion. Commenters can purchase points and bid to promote their comments and/or the comments of others. Winning comments are displayed at the top of the comment thread for each article, and are identified as “promoted comments.” Point purchases and bidding are handled SolidOpinion. Please send any questions and feedback to promoted-comments@reason.com.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    There's no CIA in Libertopia! Only CYA!

    Amirite?

  • Citizen X||

    Who?

  • Swiss Servator||

    David French 2.0

  • Citizen X||

    Aaaah!

  • Guy Behind the Guy, Jr.||

    Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.

  • ||

    That speaks to a specifically Republican and conservative contempt for actual experience not just in policymaking but in actual governance

    So we need more Top Men candidates?

  • Swiss Servator||

    Yeah, for a site called "Reason"...

    *sneaks drink from flask*

  • ||

    *joins Swissy in a nip*

  • DWB||

    *wonders if it's too early, decides it is not*

  • Drake||

    Caught my eye too. Written like somebody who has been inside the beltway way too long.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm so old, I remember when a government careerist was not looked on favorably by libertarians.

  • Nick Gillespie||

    No, not Top Men candidates, but maybe people who have some on-the-job experience. As I've learned from watching TV shows like Scandal and House of Cards, being the president is pretty complicated, especially given how world events and policy issues cut in on sex and murders for personal gain.

  • wareagle||

    DC is full of people with on-the-job experience. For some reason, people seem unhappy with those people's performance.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    But what did you learn from watching "Get Smart" and "The President's Analyst"?

  • Drake||

    So, a CEO or successful business person doesn't qualify? Only somebody who has spent years in a Legislature or Governors' office? Us people in the real world need not apply.

  • kbolino||

    Isn't libertarianism an ideology about limited government? Maybe you can make the argument that in order to limit government, you need to have some understanding of how it works (to manipulate processes, get laws passed, whatever), but saying that having an understanding of how government works is more important than the desire to limit said government is not a recipe for libertarian goals to be effected.

    Not that any of the candidates currently on offer have such a desire...

  • Drake||

    I would like somebody on the receiving instead of the inflicting side of government once in a while.

  • kbolino||

    Being on the "receiving end" can just as well teach you, shall we say, an appreciation for what a powerful weapon government can be. Who would destroy the weapon, when they could wield it instead?

    My preference will always be first and foremost for those who have a sincere desire to limit government. Sadly, as I said, no one in this race seems to pass that test.

  • Homple||

    "I would like somebody on the receiving instead of the inflicting side of government once in a while."

    Amen, Brother Drake.

  • DWB||

    People who hate government rarely run, much less make it a career, hence the mess we are in.

    And picking Weld doesn't exactly say much for Johnson's learning curve.

  • kbolino||

    Johnson/Weld is a hot mess. For fuck's sake, can't you people at least lean towards the libertarian side of issues like gun control or free speech? I don't expect you to be doctrinaire minarchists, but goddamn the amount of stupid unlibertarian shit they say is ridiculous.

  • Guy Behind the Guy, Jr.||

    Yeah, but hate speech.

  • kbolino||

    Johnson should know better, as this isn't his first rodeo. But it seems like they think "Libertarian" is just another word for "somewhere between the Republicans and the Democrats" and not a distinct political philosophy in its own right.

  • LarryA||

    To be fair, that's what almost everyone thinks. "Libertarians take the Republican side on economic issues, and the Democratic side on social issues."

    The idea that there might be a libertarian side for all issues goes completely over most people's heads.

    Including, unfortunately, Johnson and Weld.

  • John||

    I have a lot of experience in government Nick. More than you will ever have. I can tell you the people running the government are not that bright. Being one of them is not a asset much less a job requirement.

  • kbolino||

    As I've learned from watching TV shows like Scandal and House of Cards

    Please tell me somebody else is actually in charge of setting editorial policy at the magazine...

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    I mean, not even Veep?

  • kbolino||

    Gah, of course I knew this, but KMW is editor-in-chief of the magazine, and Gillespie is just editor-in-chief of the TV and web parts.

    Still...

  • John Titor||

    You know it might just be someone trolling under Gillespie's name right? I mean, I don't exactly hold Nick 'I used to write for teen magazines' Gillespie as an expert on foreign or public policy, but I don't believe he's this stupid.

  • Suicidy||

    If he hasn't watched 'That's My Bush!' then he isn't qualified to comment.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    being the president is pretty complicated, especially given how world events and policy issues cut in on sex and murders for personal gain


    And the 2016 winner of the coveted Marcotte Award for Excellence In Incoherent Sentence-Crafting goes to...

    (btw, what is up with English majors who can't write for shit getting jobs in political editorializing? Don't we deserve a better class of hack?)

  • ||

    My god I hope this isn't a serious reply.

  • Red Rocks Okey-Dokein||

    I suspect a lot of people in this thread need to have their sarcasm meters re-calibrated.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Sarcasm meters, or they got absolutely perfectly trolled by someone using his name...

  • Guy Behind the Guy, Jr.||

    That speaks to a specifically Republican and conservative contempt for actual experience not just in policymaking but in actual governance

    Libertarians should also be contemptuous of experience in gov't.

  • lap83||

    Given his stances toward marriage equality and a path to legalization (or amnesty, as nativists are wont to call it!)

    This insistence on using the right terminology is so wise and important, why won't those stupid yokels embrace it already?

  • commodious screws with Reality||

    Illegal migrants aren't illegal, they've committed illegal acts. So they're not being legalized, they're having past criminal acts forgiven. Why is amnesty not the proper word for it?

  • ||

    Hitler?

  • lap83||

    The word makes Latino children sad? Heck if I know.

  • commodious screws with Reality||

    It's just an odd quibble for him to have. It's not as if INS busts the door down and shouts "YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE IE YOURSELF IN THIS COUNTRY."

  • Swiss Servator||

    But that shouldn't take away from the fact that his is essentially a vanity project, if not a joke candidacy, for Bill Kristol and other #NeverTrump types.

    And yet here you are spilling pixels about it...

    The Republican Party—and McMullin is GOP proxy—has long had a love affair with manifestly unqualified candidates that have never held elective office (see: Trump, Herman Cain, Ben Carson) or even played a commanding role in government (Eisenhower's military and war experience is categorically different than, say, running Godfather's Pizza or hosting Celebrity Apprentice). That speaks to a specifically Republican and conservative contempt for actual experience not just in policymaking but in actual governance (of course, when they can lay into opponents for being "inexperienced," they don't miss a beat).

    EMRGERD, NOT A LIFELONG APARATCHIK! NO EXPERIENCE "GOVERNING" US PEONS????? ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE CONSTITUTION - ONLY LIFE LONG POLITICIANS CAN PROPERLY RULE US!!!

    WTF, Nick?

  • MikeT1986||

    There's "legally qualified" and "has good qualifications" you can criticize someone for only fitting the first of the two criteria.

  • Swiss Servator||

    *ahem*

    PROPERLY RULE US!!!

  • commodious screws with Reality||

    Good and hard?

  • Swiss Servator||

    Of course.

  • Suicidy||

    Methinks Nick is signaling for some elitist cocktail party he REALLY wants to attend this weekend.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Given the worship of Roman-style Constitutional Republic, maybe he wants to bring cursus honorum and dignitas back?

  • Swiss Servator||

    Yeah! So, Mr. Running-For-Office...what did you ever do as Praetor, huh?!

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    This guy's stomping on our moment!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Unlike, say, Donald Trump, he's not a self-aggrandizing jerk and he seems to have a basic grasp of reality that often eludes the Repupblican nominee.

    *Gillespie plunges knife into yokel chests*

    Nick, you slay me. Love it!

  • Mongo||

    The very few reasons somebody is not qualified for president is if they are under 35 and not considered a born-US citizen.

    If you get enough votes, you are in, so stop with this way of thinking.

  • RBS||

    But at least he's not a libertarian...

    To be fair, neither is the LP candidate

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    herpa derp

  • Swiss Servator||

    2 washed up Elephants = libertarians? Have you been reading what the Dynamic Duo have been saying? I think Weld is trying to run to Hillary's left on gun control, for example.

  • tarran||

    The Libertarian Party at this point has only the most tenous connection with libertarianism the philosophy. In this case it's not too different from the Holy Roman Empire (neither holy nor Roman) the Democratic Party (not very democratic) or the Republican Party (not very republican).

    It's really quite liberating to not feel you have to support a political party simply because it has appropriated your political philosophy into its name. If it runs candidates you like, vote for them. But if they suck, feel free not to.

    If a libertarian guy was running as a Republican or Democrat, I could see myself voting for him. But, in my opinion, a non-libertarian running as the LP's candidate should get as many votes from libertarians as he would if running as the Democratic or Republican party candidate. Thus I have no anxiety about writing in None of the Above on my ballot in the line below Gary Johnson's name.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    And letting perfection be the enemy of the good.

  • tarran||

    In what universe is Gary Johnson good?

    Seriously. he has advocated an interventionist foreign policy based on a stupid version of the white man's burden. He had completely shit upon the freedom of association. He's advocated that the state should be able to deprive the mentally ill of their rights.

    Nowhere in the man do I see any sign that he has any analytic abiliity. The man emotes his way through problems, and frankly he emotes like a slacker. Which means that he will govern badly since the civil service will have little trouble running him amok.

    If you vote for Gary Johnson you are signaling to the LP that they can run non-libertarian retread Republicans and succeed. And guess what happens when a political party fields candidates drawn from the same pool of people who fucked the republic into the fiscal coffin corner it finds itself in now? If they win, they are still going to get the same shit they are rebelling against.

    What do they call it when someone does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    he has advocated an interventionist foreign policy

    No, he did not. He said there were times we should intervene for humanitarian reasons without expounding on where that line exists. That DOES NOT make him an interventionist, and implying it does is prog-speak.

    He had completely shit upon the freedom of association.

    This is mendacious bullshit. He supports current public accommodation law (wrongly). You can't name one other FoA issue he's bad on, because it doesn't exist. Saying hes bad on all FoA because he makes one exception is prog-speak.

    But, by all means tarran, you keep on playing the contrarian. It makes you look cool. Especially in my eyes.

  • tarran||

    He said there were times we should intervene for humanitarian reasons without expounding on where that line exis

    You mean all the guys reporting that inteview where he said the U.S. should absolutely intevene to stop genocides were lying? I guess that's possible. OTOH, if they aren't lying, it makes for an impressive target list..

    This is mendacious bullshit. He supports current public accommodation law (wrongly). You can't name one other FoA issue he's bad on, because it doesn't exist. Saying hes bad on all FoA because he makes one exception is prog-speak.

    That's kind of like saying that aside from his habit of throttling coeds there is no evidence that Ted Bundy is a misogynist. The vast edifice of economy killing laws and regs that dictate things like the current Title IX persecution of men in colleges, hiring decisions, pay decisions, what products businesses are allowed to put on the market and to whom they sell them, that created the college debt crisis is all being dictated by the public accommodations law.

    That anger you feel at me? It's really anger you feel at yourself. You're wasting your vote on someone who doesn't deserve it. You know it. I know it. And someday you'll admit it to yourself.

  • Swiss Servator||

    NUH UH, YOKEL!!!!!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    GJ
    ____________

    HC

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    DT

  • RBS||

    Wait a minute, that's not a picture of Hitler!

  • kbolino||

    The Nolan chart like any political assessment can be gamed by the choice of issues/questions and the generosity of the assessor in answering those questions.

    I strongly question Johnson/Weld's position at the top of that chart given their statements on speech and guns; those two questions alone should put them closer to the middle.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    GJ is exactly where I'd put him and is exactly where I fall on the chart when I take their test.

    He's got one big libertarian failing and that's public accommodation law. An issue that he'd never be able to correct in the next 8 years regardless, nor would I want him or any other LP candidate to attempt as there is way more low hanging fruit to expend political capital on.

    He's the 75% solution that can actually make an impact in drawing people to the fold.

    I don't get people pissing that opportunity away because he's not pure enough. He's a libertarian for chrissake. The first one to ever have a shot at making an impact to the status quo.

  • kbolino||

    What libertarian goals is Johnson realistically going to deliver on? And what libertarian goals is he going to sell out on to get there?

    I don't trust Johnson any more. He's not failing a purity test. He's failing a "are you even a fucking libertarian, like at all?" test.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

  • RBS||

    Hey, I was just making a cheap joke at GJ expense, who I will still be voting for.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Pretty much stuck with them, yes. No real alternatives this go 'round. Or last...

  • RBS||

    He should tell Weld to STFU about guns though.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Weld is there for name recognition, mainstream credibility and fundraising. Agree, he's not a libertarian.

    Thank god he has no function in government.

  • tarran||

    You could write in None of the Above. That's what I'll be doing.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, you owe them your vote. Not voting for johnson is voting for trump. And killing puppies.

  • ||

    Pretty much stuck with them, yes. No real alternatives this go 'round. Or last...

    Yes, they are the herpes and shingles of 2016, aren't they?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Sorry. Poe's law.

  • Citizen X||

    As unfulfilled as Johnson leaves me on a number of issues, i'll probably pull the lever for him myself.

    Phrasing aside, though, the only reason i'll be voting this November is because my polling location hands out candy on the way out the door.

  • tarran||

    Why not write in "None of the Above"? You still can get that sweet, sweet candy.

    Or better yet, skip the polling booth and go to Walgreens and get the stuff you like most.

  • kbolino||

    I don't know if X lives there, but can you still do write-ins in California? That undermines their glorious democratic people's consensus voting system.

  • ||

    Or better yet, skip the polling booth and go to Walgreens the boudoir and get the stuff you like most.

    I whole heartedly agree; wifey and I will go out dancing and make an evening of hot, sticky, sessy, marital bliss! "Time WELL SPENT!"

    As opposed to voting for Pres, which is, "Time, ...well..., spent."

  • Pan Zagloba||

    evening of hot, sticky, sessy, marital bliss! "Time WELL SPENT!"

    Would it be crass to remind you of Lena Dunham's "first time" video about voting for Obama?

  • ||

    Would it be crass to remind you of Lena Dunham's "first time" video about voting for Obama?

    May the spawn of thousand bot flies emerge from your testicles. And, yes, yes it would.

    Fortunately, Dr. ZG is, herself alone, Viagra Incarnate.

  • Swiss Servator||

    We get a lousy little sticker... I am jealous.

  • DWB||

    "These folks generally find Gary Johson, a former two-term Republican governor, risible and unserious because, among other things, he is too libertarian on trade, abortion ..."

    Without the right to life, ALL other rights are pretty much moot, hey Nick???? *

    Many conservatives have accepted Ogberfell and the conservative movement is fairly split on how to handle immigration, but seems to slightly lean towards amnesty of some sort.

    You can take the writer out of TigerBeat, but ...

    *Yes, honest libertarians can come to either position on abortion, but apparently Nick has appointed himself Pope of Libertarianism.

  • Glide||

    Being pro-choice is officially in the party platform. So "libertarian on abortion" is pretty much a synonym for pro-choice.

    Obviously whether it should be in the platform is a 400-comment brawl so let's not even go there, but it seemed like a perfectly fair sentence to write to me.

  • DWB||

    Definitely don't want to start an abortion thread, but Nick was not writing for The Libertarian Party, but libertarianism so no, he gets NO slack.

    But hey, if he and other libertarians like himself really believe that they will be eaten last, please kiss-up to the wolf.

    Props are NOT pro liberty!

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, being Libertarian on abortion is pretty much a synonym for pro-choice. But being Libertarian means thinking that Gary Johnson is a good presidential candidate.

  • Suicidy||

    No. Being libertarian is NOT a synonym for pro-choice. As if the baby's live has no value and he/she has no rights of his/her own.

  • ||

    btw, that's a big ol' *bald head.

    *I'm just glad I still have hair covering my massive crown or else I would have to wear hats. And who wants to wear a hat all day?

  • Swiss Servator||

    -1 Safety Dance?

  • Drake||

    So his disagreements with Trump are on the few things I agree with Trump on.

    He wants to continue endless wars in the Middle East, expand security and the welfare state, all while ignoring our own borders.

    What's his over-under on total votes? 50?

  • PapayaSF||

    LOL "Prosecutorial discretion," bitches!

  • mashed potatoes||

    OT: China dipping its toe into the Syria mess, on the side of Russia and Assad.. some of that 3d chess.. (though we only support Jihadist, I don't really care) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....ning-assad

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The Republican Party—and McMullin is GOP proxy—has long had a love affair with manifestly unqualified candidates that have never held elective office (see: Trump, Herman Cain, Ben Carson)


    Three guys (two of which were not nominated for the office they were seeking) = "longstanding love affair"?

    And held public office = qualified, or...?

    Oh right. It's a Nick Gillespie article. Facts be damned and carry on as normal

  • Tak Kak||

    Don't forget Wendell Willkie

  • AlmightyJB||

    But what does he think think of gay wedding cakes because from what I can tell that is the most important (only?) issue to team red as to why they are #neverjohnson.

  • Drake||

    See Weld's bizarre idiotic statements on the 2nd Amendment in the morning links.

  • Swiss Servator||

    He sounds like he went to the CA Democrat School of Scary Gunz!

  • RBS||

    Shells! Clips! AUTOMATIC!!! HANDGUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Swiss Servator||

    WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Only one link about Johnson and nothing in that article that I saw.

  • RBS||

    The best part of this thread is everyone responding to the handle that may or not be Nick...

  • ||

    I thought I was the best part of this thread *kicks soccer ball towards RBS*

  • Swiss Servator||

    Aren't the comments always the best part of any H&R post?

  • Guy Behind the Guy, Jr.||

    SHUT UP TULPA

  • Pan Zagloba||

    No, alt-text is best part of any Shackford post.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Good point.

  • kbolino||

    I'm pretty sure that is Nick (no funky Unicode characters in the handle), although I also strongly suspect he's trolling the commentariat. That seems to be the policy of everyone not named Ron Bailey lately.

  • kbolino||

    I forgot Ed. Krayewski doesn't troll so much as get trolled.

  • RBS||

    Poor Ed, he really took it personally when nobody liked his article last week.

  • John Titor||

    The Republican Party—and McMullin is GOP proxy—has long had a love affair with manifestly unqualified candidates that have never held elective office (see: Trump, Herman Cain, Ben Carson) or even played a commanding role in government (Eisenhower's military and war experience is categorically different than, say, running Godfather's Pizza or hosting Celebrity Apprentice). That speaks to a specifically Republican and conservative contempt for actual experience not just in policymaking but in actual governance (of course, when they can lay into opponents for being "inexperienced," they don't miss a beat).

    Thus sayth the English literature Ph.D. with zero experience in serious foreign or public policy work or journalism, who used to write a teen advice column as Alyssa Milano.

    If we're going to start throwing credentials around.

  • R C Dean||

    Tut, tut, Nick. Using the badthink term "illegals".

  • ||

    So this guy is running as a Rand/Jeb?/Marco hybrid? Didn't that guy already lose in the Republican primaries? How is this not just sore loserism?

  • Zero Sum Game||

    So what you're saying is that he's worse than Trump on many issues except that he's more likeable?

    War hawk → horrid
    Believes in the "security" state and the "war on terror" justification to expand it → horrid.
    Overturne Roe v. Wade → horrid

    While I'm pro open borders, that comes with a caveat. First reduce the entitlement state, then open borders. We don't need to become Sweden with huge taxpayer-funded entitlement programs and a problem with massive numbers of immigrants showing up to sponge off of it. I want people to come to America but for the right reasons. They should be adapting to our way of life, not changing it to suit their own. It should be mentioned that many illegals if made citizens would be voting for more entitlements with their proggy ilk. That is not going to help the libertarian cause of reducing government.

    One should always be asking oneself why a major political party supports the things they do, because there's almost always an ulterior motive. The left wants amnesty for illegals because they know that it means more voters for their brand of big state horseshit.

    So the only thing he's better about than Trump at the is trade and likability? Did I miss something?

  • ranrod||

    McMULLEN and Nick Gillespie are traitors.. These sellouts are working to finish off the USA
    by granting AMNESTY for up to 50 million invaders..

    YOU PEOPLE ARE THE WORST OF THE WORST.............

  • 0x90||

    Well, one of us is, anyway.

  • EndOfPatience||

    "... a path to legalization (or amnesty, as nativists are wont to call it!) ..."

    So, how about, as the antonym to "nativist" we introduce the term "hater", as in, "those who hate the community they live in and wish ti import a replacement"?

    Does that work for you, Nick?

  • SparktheRevolt||

    The only reason Nick/Reason cares is McMuffin will take away votes from The Ambiguously Libertarian Duo.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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