MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Tells Salvadoran Immigrants to GTFO

These immigrants lived in the United States for nearly two decades before the administration revoked their protected status.

Immigration protestorsLENIN NOLLY/EFE/NewscomThe Trump administration has revoked Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Salvadorans currently living in the United States. The immigrants now have until mid-2019 to make legal arrangements to stay in the United States; failing that, they must either return to El Salvador or endure life as an illegal immigrant.

About 186,000 people received the status, which allows them to live and work legally in the United States without the risk of deportation, following a devastating earthquake in El Salvador in 2001. Their legal right to be here has been renewed multiple times over the past two decades, thanks to the continually dangerous situation in El Salvador. Most have developed roots in the U.S., buying homes, building careers, and starting families.

Monday's decision put all that at risk.

Those who stay will lose their legal right to work, in addition to risking arrest and deportation. Many might still prefer that to returning to their country of origin. El Salvador was the most violent country in the world in 2016, suffering a murder rate of 91 killings for every 100,000 people. The murder rate in the United States was 5.4 per 100,000 for the same year. A full 24.5 percent of Salvadorans were crime victims in 2015, according to the U.S. State Department.

Meanwhile, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) estimates that deporting 186,000 Salvadorans will cost $1.8 billion, along with an additional $3.1 billion reduction in annual GDP.

The 1990 Immigration Act allows the executive to grant Temporary Protected Status to immigrants currently in the United States if an armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other "extraordinary and temporary conditions" in their home country poses a "serious threat a serious threat to their personal safety." This status can be renewed every 6 to 18 months without limit. Both the Bush and Obama administrations agreed multiple times to extend the 2001 protected status granted to Salvadoran immigrants in the United States.

This isn't the first time President Trump has revoked a group's Temporary Protected Status. In November he did the same thing to about 59,000 Haitians and 5,300 Nicaraguans.

Salvadorans looking to stay in the country as legal residents must now turn to Congress for a fix.

In early November, Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) introduced the American Promise Act, which would grant legal residency to anyone with Temporary Protected Status who has lived in the United States for more than three years. The bill has attracted 62 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats. It has yet to receiving a hearing.

"Where President Trump and the administration are failing to show moral leadership, Congress must step forwards," Velázquez said yesterday. She's not wrong about what's needed. But whether Congress will actually act is a whole other story.

Indeed, the only reason these Salvadoran immigrants have had to rely on the thin protection of these Temporary Protected Status designations is because successive Congresses have found it far easier to pass these decisions to the executive branch rather than reform our insane immigration policies. With Trump's team eager to deport any immigrants it can, this congressional abdication is looking increasingly short-sighted.

Photo Credit: LENIN NOLLY/EFE/Newscom

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.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Via con dios.

  • swaged||

    Kivlor is John.

  • Kivlor||

    Nope. John's been here way longer than me, and I think, from what I've read, that I'm definitely way to his right.

  • swaged||

    Ok John.

  • XM||

    "Vaya con dios"

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Vaya con queso.

  • ||

    "With Trump's team eager to deport any immigrants it can, this congressional abdication is looking increasingly short-sighted."

    Okay. I'm confused. Obama deported record numbers of immigrants. What's the diff between Trump's and Obama's policies? And is this just part of an overall strategy to reform immigration in which a bi-partisan deal is being worked on?

    /high five to USA.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its Boooshes fault!

    /lefties

  • Flinch||

    It is, lol. All those Clintonistas he left in place with his "new tone" have done alot of damage.

  • mtrueman||

    "What's the diff"

    Immigrant. Refugee. Consult a dictionary or ask a parent or teacher.

  • Rhywun||

    The word "refugee" does not appear anywhere in Britches' post.

  • mtrueman||

    All the more reason to consult a dictionary, parent or teacher. Britches is obviously no help to us.

  • Headache||

    yeah. temporary is in the dictionary as well.

  • BambiB||

    Temporary Protected Status

    Why is this a problem?

  • shawn_dude||

    (Assuming this is a serious question...)

    Obama deported people who were committed violent crimes in the US and also people who had recently entered illegally and had not yet set down roots.

    Obama wasn't looking to deport long-time residents, many of which have American citizen children, who are employed and responsible.

    Trump would deport the American citizen children along with their immigrant parents without shedding a single tear. He doesn't care if they're here legally (like these Salvadorians), avoiding crime, working and adding to the economy, and raising children.

  • hello.||

    All false of course. Obama actually didn't deport more immigrants. He just started counting people turned away at the border as deportations so he could pretend to be tough on crime.

    Also most of the MS-13 gang is comprised of El Salvadoran immigrants. What a richness they add to the American economy.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    And some people claimed we were being overly dramatic when we warned that Drumpf was basically Hitler. Can any serious person deny it now? Can any of you defend your decision not to support Hillary Clinton, when she was the only person standing between Putin's puppet and the Presidency?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Putin is anti-border wall. Since most Americans support controlling immigration, Putin is not our man.

    Hey, you hear the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation for various crimes relating to Russia activities.

    You might not have since the faux networks are not covering it much.

  • Kivlor||

    In other news, Trump announced the impending release of his 2 memoir/manifesto, My Struggle: Four and a Half Years Fighting Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice Volume 1: A Reckoning. Trump has said that Volume 2: The America First Party will be released in 2019.

  • Kivlor||

    ***2 part

  • colorblindkid||

    He's sending people back to their home country who were here on an intentionally temporary program until the situation improved. All we are doing is implementing a massive brain drain on developing countries. What if these 200,000 people can then take what they learned here and make El Salvador a better place? I don't think we should kick them all out, but it is not some horrific civil rights disaster or oppression. They are citizens of a different country who were let in on a temporary basis until damage from the earthquake was fixed, which it has been.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Fucking Rule of Law, how does it work?

  • mpercy||

    Umm, I'm not sure how using a lawful power--Congress created the TPS program with certain executive powers, namely, the ability institute a waiver on expiration (basically to let it roll over for another period)--and simply choosing to NOT renew a waiver previously granted constitutes a "rule of law" problem?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And these people do have the option of applying for residency.

  • jb2000||

    And Congress has two years to make changes to TPS.

  • shawn_dude||

    Note that many of these (likely most) have American citizen children. So while the parents are citizens of a different country, their kids are Yanks. Should we be forcing American citizens out of the country to live in the most violent country in the world? Are our American kids just cannon fodder for making El Salvador a better place?

  • hello.||

    The children not only aren't required to leave but can also sponsor their parents and siblings for legal status and eventual citizenship. Look up the term anchor baby. Chain migration is actually a thing.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    So, putting an end to 'temporary' exemptions, amd telling these people they have a year and a half to either ask for permenant residency or leave is the same as loading them onto boxcars and shipping them to death camps.

    God, I hope you were,being sarcastic. Because if you weren't you clearly suffer from permenant damage to your sense of proportion.

  • Flinch||

    It's not sarcasm Schofield, it's... progressive psychosis, in my estimation. I'm guessing OpenbordersLiberal-tarian was one of the hordes who needed a shot of thorazine in the wake of the 2016 election results not matching network expectations. His level of rhetoric is usually only obtained by dyed in the wool, coolaid drinkers addicted to the hate oozing out of their tv via daily scripted MSNBC missives. You know, the only reason to be pro-open borders is in support of pickpocket politics in a low level anarchist kind of way. That really deserves a place somewhere in the DSM, but the APA is itself infected these days and won't consider the matter of how it is wholly unreasonable to feel entitled to your neighbors wallet as long as there are enough layers of bullshit, and elected officials hold hearings before diving off into abrogating the 13th amendment one voter at a time while laughingly referring to the attack as "wealth redistribution". He won't be saved... he's on the wrong side of the looking glass: he has faith in muggers who use a valise & microphone instead of a gun.

  • Headache||

    Who did Hitler deport?

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuck Clinton and fuck you.

  • nova3930||

    Seems to me that Congress is the right entity to address this. I'm not sure what most people think of as temporary but I tend to think it's somewhat less than multiple decades. Let Congress actually fix the problem instead of using executive bandaids....

  • damikesc||

    That's baffling to me as well.

    "He's ending a TEMPORARY program after EIGHTEEN YEARS." Yeah, quite the Holocaust here, guys. And given that leaked memos have shown Dems are pro-illegal immigration for purely electoral reasons, Republicans would have to be mind-blowingly idiotic retards to go along with it.

    ...so, rest assured Flake will support it.

  • Leader Desslok||

    ...so, rest assured Flake will support it.

    Glad I don't live in AZ any more, Flake is slightly worse than McCain.

  • Flinch||

    Got that right. GOP is stuck on stupid all day long.

  • mpercy||

    Congress specifically created this problem by granting the executive power to waive the expiration of the temporary status.

    To wit:

    —If the Attorney General does not determine under subparagraph (A) that a foreign state (or part of such foreign state) no longer meets the conditions for designation under paragraph (1), the period of designation of the foreign state is extended for an additional period of 6 months (or, in the discretion of the Attorney General, a period of 12 or 18 months).

    If the AG says he's determined that there's no reason to extend TPS, then it goes away. Period.

    Because the law goes on:

    "(5) REVIEW.—
    "(A) DESIGNATIONS.—There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the
    designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.

    So I'm not sure what the lawsuits will claim...

  • Flinch||

    Due process, of course. It's the most elastic tool and invites specious claims without penalty to the claimants.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ironically, twenty years is long enough to learn what "temporary" means. Now is the time we Congress jump into action, as continually kicking a temporary status down the road with renewals is an untenable situation.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    This looks a lot like the DACA situation wherein Trump explicitly told congress it was their job to fix it, not his. His agenda is to force these cowards to vote, not necessarily deport anyone. I don't see a downside. But Reason's headline is "Trump tells Salvadorans to GTFO". I don't think that's what is happening here.

  • Flinch||

    Congress, jump? They haven't done but maybe... two months worth of real oversight in the last 3 decades. Kicking the can and not reading bills they vote on is what they are good at. Maybe if we can get another dozen resignations, they can find their collective rear.

  • Kivlor||

    Trump Tells Salvadoran Immigrants to GTFO

    BEST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

    These immigrants lived in the United States for nearly two decades before the administration revoked their protected status.

    Wait, I thought Libertarians are supposed to be against groups of people having "protected status" or other special privileges.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Being pro-Open Borders requires you to forgo many Libertarian principles like property rights and national sovereignty.

    The Constitution too since Art. I, sec 8 and 9 enumerate Naturalization and regulation of migration to Congress after 1808.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What do property rights have to do with immigration? How is national sovereignty a libertarian principle?

  • ||

    The country is collectively owned by the voters, who get to decide what you do with your house. That's what property rights REALLY means.

  • Kivlor||

    This is pretty retarded. If my house lies within the jurisdiction of X court doesn't mean it is the property of the court.

    The state owns the borders of the nation, and all property within the borders are under the jurisdiction of the state. That does not mean all property within the borders is owned by the state.

  • ||

    So if a crime is committed on my property , like say growing marijuana, or perhaps growing wheat for my own consumption, then it's totally cool, according to libertarianism, for the state to enter my property and arrest everyone. Cause like, it's in their jurisdiction.

  • Kivlor||

    The issue isn't the jurisdiction Hazel. Libertarianism objects to the specific law you've described, not the authority of the state itself.

    Does the state have a right to come on your property and arrest you for murder? Is that objectionable to libertarian principles?

  • ||

    Smoking weed, like employing illegal aliens, is a victimless crime. Murder is not.

  • Flinch||

    If you are hinting at Wickard v Filburn, we agree there has been a long standing problem: virtual reality happened long before the internet happened along, and was created by SCOTUS as the mere imagining of a possibliliy of commerce was interchangeable with fact [according to them], and with that mirage codified the matter was "settled", creating new federal powers without constitutional amendment. It was opium den logic... no wonder courts have been recently confused regarding the Trump travel ban: they aren't tripping hard enough to "get it" in a field of logic so shattered a kaleidoscope is welcome reprieve compared to the stack of schizo logic of case law we see today.
    But no, that's not Libertarianism you are referring to, that's plain jane statism trotted out under the haze of the New Deal, it's price fixing and power grabs. And that is what today's uniparty is all about - ignore those d and r designators in DC... they are made members of the Cocktail Party, and we are not invited.

  • Kivlor||

    Smoking weed, like employing illegal aliens, is a victimless crime. Murder is not.

    Trespass and squatting are not victimless crimes, so your analogy is useless.

  • ||

    They aren't tresspassing and squatting if they're on my property and I want them to be there.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Since you're not actually housing any of these people on a permanent basis, your point is a stupid one.

  • ||

    Since you're not actually housing any of these people on a permanent basis, your point is a stupid one.

    So you'd be fine if I rented them a room right? Right?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Let us know when that actually happens on a long-term basis.

  • Kivlor||

    They are trespassing within the bounds of the state and trespassing / squatting against the state. You may want them there, but that is irrelevant.

  • chemjeff||

    "Trespassing against the state"? WTF?

    So let me get this straight. If I invite a person onto my property, and this person uses absolutely no public resources to be on my property, but this person does not have the correct immigration papers from the state to be in this country, this individual is "trespassing against the state"? So my rights on my property are not really my rights, they are contingent on the state's permission?

  • ||

    They aren't tresspassing against the state. You haven't established that the state has a right to tell me who I am allowed to invite onto my property.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw, poor socialists trying to school Libertarians on state power and how our Constitutional Democratic Republic works. How cute.

    He has absolutely no clue that in the United States, States have rights too.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You can invite anyone you want. That they are able to legally enter the US to eat there is a separate consideration. So just stop. Your premise is bad.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Entering the country illegally is. That they are or are not on your personal property is irrelevant.

  • hello.||

    They aren't tresspassing and squatting if they're on my property and I want them to be there.

    Unless your property happens to be adjacent to the Mexican border, somebody else's property was involved as well.

  • Kivlor||

    So let me get this straight. If I invite a person onto my property, and this person uses absolutely no public resources to be on my property, but this person does not have the correct immigration papers from the state to be in this country, this individual is "trespassing against the state"? So my rights on my property are not really my rights, they are contingent on the state's permission?

    In some hypothetical it may create an interesting situation, where should these hypothetical people not use any common areas or common resources that are owned by the state. This isn't the case, and never will be in our lifetimes. Immigrants don't magically materialize across borders, and magically stay on private plot they were invited to in the wilderness with its own completely self-sustaining resources.

    First, they trespassed by crossing the states borders. Then the squatted and stayed, claiming to have the same rights to the resources and services of the actual individuals who have inherited a property interest in the state.

  • chemjeff||

    "In some hypothetical it may create an interesting situation, where should these hypothetical people not use any common areas or common resources that are owned by the state. This isn't the case, and never will be in our lifetimes."

    In other words, you are dodging the question. Understandable from your point of view, because your argument leads to the inexorable conclusion that all our property "rights" are only contingent on the state's permission.

  • swaged||

    "In other words, you are dodging the question. "

    Not really. It's basically impossible to enter the U.S. without crossing several pieces of differently owned property. They hypothetical , in that case, isn't even very interesting.

    "Understandable from your point of view, because your argument leads to the inexorable conclusion that all our property "rights" are only contingent on the state's permission. "

    Again, no. But, you clearly don't even understand what you'ddiscussing because you keep insisting it requires the establishment of rights for states. It doesn't.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It's spelled out in the constitution that the federal government has the enumerated power to regulate Our sovereign borders and set naturalization policy, of which immigration is a subset. These aren't novel ideas that have never been explored. Even if idiots like Hazel behave as though they are.

  • Kivlor||

    They aren't tresspassing against the state. You haven't established that the state has a right to tell me who I am allowed to invite onto my property.

    People have rights. 1 of those is to associate. Another is to form groups (ie incorporate). Those groups have rights due to the rights of the people creating/constituting them. Those groups can act to defend and protect their rights and their property interests. One form of such groups is a state. States are defined by borders. States can defend and protect their borders, choosing who can cross them.

    The trespassers against the state can be rounded up and shipped out, even if they are on your property, just as any fugitive can be. You are just so narcissistic and self-centered you can't see that this has zero to do with your personal property.

  • Kivlor||

    In other words, you are dodging the question. Understandable from your point of view, because your argument leads to the inexorable conclusion that all our property "rights" are only contingent on the state's permission.

    No, you've posited an impossible hypothetical situation. It was meaningless and I deemed it unworthy of a response.

    As I stated earlier, these people have trespassed. The fact that they are invited onto your property afterwards doesn't change that, because they aren't wanted for trespassing on your personal plot.

  • chemjeff||

    I have posed an unlikely - not impossible - hypothetical situation in order to challenge the bullshit premises in your claims.

    Here is a not impossible situation. Suppose you and I own two adjacent parcels of land, but a national border separates our two parcels. You are free to walk on to my parcel of land, and I am free to walk onto your parcel of land, without using any public resources whatsoever. Suppose I invite you onto my parcel of land, but you lack the correct papers from my country. So, WHO exactly have you "trespassed" against in this scenario? I *invited* you onto my property. Who have you harmed by coming onto my property without the correct papers? Answer: no one. There is no such thing as "trespassing against the state". There is only trespassing against individual property owners, and if they invite you onto their property, then you are not trespassing.

  • CLM1227||

    How long until they start arguing illegal aliens are their personal property?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Who owns the government of the United States? Who owns public land? I know that someone owns it because I can't use it as I might wish, so all of humanity?

    The open borders imbecile thinks that the child of the Japanese man who killed my uncle at Guadalcanal has the same claim on this country as the descendants of the man who gave his life defending it. Your father killed at Normandy beach? The children of the man who killed him has the same claim as the child of the one who was killed? The infrastructure that was paid for with generations of taxes places me as having no more claim to this country than any living human because something something liberty?

    Sorry, but you can not be in support of property rights and then claim "public lands are owned by all humanity" and remain intellectually consistent. Not that consistency has anything to do with patting yourself on the back for your superior compassion.

    Defense of property rights includes property held in common. Pretending that there are no rights inherent in citizenship is a direct denial of the property rights held in common by citizens.

  • Brandybuck||

    Don't interrupt him when he's foaming at the mouth. You'll just get spittle on you.

  • Zeb||

    If anything, immigration restrictions do more to harm property rights than to support them. Unless you believe that the whole country is the collective property of the citizens. Which is pretty damn un-libertarian.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So you're against the constitution?

  • Brandybuck||

    Where in the Constitution does it say the whole country is the collective property of the citizens?

    If I invite Jose onto my property, it's my property right, not yours or the government's or even the collective citizenry. If Jose is walking down the street on a legal right of way, he's infringing on no one's property rights.

  • Headache||

    Well when the government prints documents in two languages, or places street signs in two languages, and then confiscates my property($) to do so, then an infringement has occurred.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think I'm obliged to say it's all good or all bad. The US constitution is very good as far as constitutions go. That doesn't mean I think that everything that the government is permitted to do constitutionally is perfectly fine and good.

  • Kivlor||

    How is national sovereignty a libertarian principle?

    The difference between libertarian and anarchist has always been described to me as being the difference in whether or not you believe in having a government that is very limited in scope, vs no government at all.

    With that loose definition to work with, a state is defined by its borders. A libertarian believes in having a state. Therefore by definition a libertarian would say that a state has the right to determine who crosses said border and immigrates to the country.

    Maybe I'm wrong and libertarians are actually anarchists.

  • Zeb||

    Libertarianism, as you describe it here, is inherently a compromise, I think. It seems to me that the commonly stated fundamental principles of libertarianism do lead logically to anarchism. But for reasons obvious to most people, anarchy isn't really a tenable situation and government is at least inevitable and possibly desirable.
    And having a sovereign state probably does require defining and controlling borders to some degree. But how that power is best exercised to maximize individual liberty is not so obvious, I don't think.

  • Kivlor||

    And having a sovereign state probably does require defining and controlling borders to some degree. But how that power is best exercised to maximize individual liberty is not so obvious, I don't think.

    Having a sovereign state requires having a designated bounds to said state's authority. (a jurisdiction)

    Once you accept having a state, controlling the borders of the jurisdiction naturally follows. Especially when you add in realities like other states with armies and the issue of foreign invasion and subjugation.

    It seems like you've laid to rest your own objection to national sovereignty. So all that's left is to discuss what policy is best.

  • Zeb||

    It seems like you've laid to rest your own objection to national sovereignty.

    Perhaps somewhat conditionally. I don't entirely accept having a state, at least on a principled moral basis.

    But I won't get offended if you call me an anarchist.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    If the US were not a definable sovereign state, it's territory and citizenry would rapidly be absorbed by various foreign entities.

  • Zeb||

    That may well be. But that would be one of those practical compromises on matters of principle that I mentioned.

  • Kivlor||

    So would it be fair to say you morally object to the state, but you accept that it may be a necessity in practicality?

    Thanks Zeb, this has been a fun convo with you.

  • Zeb||

    That's not a bad summary.

    I also appreciate being able to have a reasonable conversation with someone I disagree with.

  • silver.||

    I finally made an account just to say that this was a pleasant, thoughtful exchange. Thank you, folks.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Maybe I'm wrong and libertarians are actually anarchists."
    You described it better than me. Anarchists are different than Libertarians.

    Some "Libertarians" don't understand that rights are not absolute but we should only give up just enough of those natural rights to form a limited government to protect everyone's rights.

    Its why property rights are not absolute (eminent domain) but property rights should be protected from abusive government seizing of land for private developers.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Does not follow.

    Presumably, the libertarian state would be constrained by libertarian principles.

  • Kivlor||

    I know you don't follow MJ. The discussion is at satellite level above your head.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    How do you get from "a state has borders" and "a libertarian believes in having a state" to "a state has the right to determine who crosses said border and immigrates to the country"? You're missing at least a few premises here.

  • Kivlor||

    These build on each other.

    I started with "what is a libertarian?" Is a libertarian different than an anarchist? My proposal is that (A) they are different, because a libertarian believes in individual and property rights and having a state--a limited one--while the anarchist believes in having no state. This is how every libertarian I've ever met distinguishes themselves from an anarchist.

    If (A) is true, then (B) the objection to national sovereignty is null from a libertarian POV. We then define a state, and states are commonly understood as (C) polities with physical borders on a map. Now, if these are true, then (D) libertarians believe that states have borders and have a right to exist. Libertarians believe If so, then (E) a state would have a right to defend its borders from outsiders and choose who can cross those borders like any person or corporation would have the right to defend its property from a libertarian POV.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    choose who can cross those borders like any person or corporation would have the right to defend its property from a libertarian POV.

    Why? Where does this come from? Libertarians - especially American libertarians who celebrate the Constitution - generally don't afford the government the same kind of near-total authority they afford private citizens and groups on their private property. The govt is held to a much stricter standard, with limitations erected to defend liberties.

    So again, presumably, the libertarian state would be constrained by libertarian principles. Is 'defense' a limiting condition here? I'm guessing not, as a fieldworker is not a threat to the nation. Why does the govt get to "choose who can cross those borders," even when it interferes with my freedoms of contract and association? We can ignore the headier argument over whether such a govt is obliged to take non-residents' liberties into account.

  • Kivlor||

    Why? Where does this come from?
    The US Government is essentially a corporation. Can corporations defend their property boundaries? I would argue yes.

    Why does the govt get to "choose who can cross those borders,"

    If it has borders, it possesses them. Which implies ownership. Which means the state would have the rightful authority to determine who crosses them. That's kind of a basic part of property rights.

    even when it interferes with my freedoms of contract and association?

    From a libertarian POV, does the state have the rightful authority to imprison a murderer? How about a criminal trespass? If so, they can certainly interfere with your freedoms of contract and association in some limited ways. This is no different, as they are pushing someone who does not belong in their jurisdiction back out of it, and placing them outside of association/contract bounds with you, much like the criminal in prison is taken out of society and placed beyond typical association/contract.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    In all fairness, this love constitution fellow is the other side of the coin, intellectually speaking, of Tony. At least Tony is trollish sometimes.

  • ||

    Therefore by definition a libertarian would say that a state has the right to determine who crosses said border and immigrates to the country.

    Stop personifying the state. The state has no rights that are not derivative of the rights of individuals within it.

  • Kivlor||

    Does a corporation have rights Hazel?

  • ||

    A corporation doesn't have natural rights. It can have legal rights, which ought to be derived from the rights of the shareholders. I.e. the law should comport with what is morally just - legal rights should enshrine natural rights as well as obligations that flow from voluntary contract.

  • swaged||

    "A corporation doesn't have natural rights. "

    So, when people come together, Hazel thinks they lose their natural rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hazel.

    The people gave/give power to the states. The states gave/give some power to the federal government. That is how our Democratic Constitutional Republic works.

    The people already gave the federal government the power to control immigration and naturalization as enumerated in Art. I, Section 8 & 9.

  • ||

    The people gave/give power to the states.

    I didn't.
    What do you mean by "the people" ? The majority? I didn't agree that the majority could give up power on my behalf.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Aren't you just a foreigner anyway? A guest in my country?

  • Kivlor||

    Hazel, if magically there were no government, could people form a corporation? If yes, can that corporation own property? If yes does that corporation have rights regarding that property?

  • ||

    Can other people form a corporation that forces me to be a member of it? Can that corporation have rights over my property that I did not consent to?

  • ||

    Can other people form a corporation that forces me to be a member of it? Can that corporation have rights over my property that I did not consent to?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Can that corporation have rights over my property that I did not consent to?

    No, but the state can force me to pay taxes to buy breakfast and lunch for immigrant kids because their parents are too fucking worthless to do so themselves.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Red Rocks:

    I'm curious. Are you more bother by immigrants draining resources versus citizens who drain resources?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Are you more bother by immigrants draining resources versus citizens who drain resources?

    Are you saying you're bothered that poor black people in the South drain resources?

  • Kivlor||

    Can other people form a corporation that forces me to be a member of it? Can that corporation have rights over my property that I did not consent to?

    Yes and no. The corporation owns the borders around the land you live in, and it has jurisdiction over those borders, as set up by those who first founded the corporation. You inherited a property interest in the corporation, and that comes with certain privileges and with certain requirements. You can of course divest yourself of your property interest, give up your claim to citizenship, and head for greener pastures. The state is not stopping you.

  • ||

    The corporation owns the borders around the land you live in

    When did that happen? How did the corporation come to own my property again?

    You inherited a property interest in the corporation, and that comes with certain privileges and with certain requirements.

    Ahh so that contract someone else signed 229 years ago before I was born is still binding on me.

    Because Fuck You That's Why.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Ahh so that contract someone else signed 229 years ago before I was born is still binding on me.

    Yeah, it actually is. That's why you choose to live here and not a third-world shithole.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hazel is the useful idiot who wants the USA to be one of those third-world shit holes.

    His fellow socialists hate that America is so successful, so they want to bring us down.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You seem to have a very socialized world view. You are positing a system where our rights come from a state whose role is to micromanage markets such as labor. It seems like your Libertarianism is simply a matter of degrees rather than a major difference.

  • chemjeff||

    It's not socialism per se, but collectivism, the collectivism of nationalism. He likes Americans so much, he wants to coerce his fellow Americans to give preferences to Americans just like he does.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I don't have to coerce Americans to do anything. The majority of Americans, including me, want immigration controlled and that is how our system works. We win. You agree to it by playing.

    If your team was winning, there would be open borders and socialism until the border going in and out need to be locked down to prevent escape from the socialist hell.

    You are right though...America first!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    BestUsedCarSales|1.9.18 @ 1:11PM|#
    You seem to have a very socialized world view. You are positing a system where our rights come from a state whose role is to micromanage markets such as labor. It seems like your Libertarianism is simply a matter of degrees rather than a major difference.


    Not sure if you are replying to me.

    If you are, the People gave up some of their rights to form a limited government. Under our system as originally intended, free market was rarely and restrictively disturbed by the limited government.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hazel, if you don't love America, then get out. Them try your hitching in any other country on earth and see how that goes.

  • Mark22||

    Ahh so that contract someone else signed 229 years ago before I was born is still binding on me.

    It's not: you are free to terminate it at any time, but then your rights under that contract also terminate.

    What you can't do is claim the benefits of that contract without fulfilling the obligations.

  • Kivlor||

    When did that happen? How did the corporation come to own my property again?

    It doesn't, it surrounds your property and has jurisdiction regarding it. You own it. That happened back at the incorporation of the state. ~230 years ago

    Ahh so that contract someone else signed 229 years ago before I was born is still binding on me.

    Because Fuck You That's Why.

    230 years ago men incorporated our nation (the state). All of their descendants, if they maintain certain requirements, have a property interest in that state. Additionally, others acquired (or were gifted) an interest in that state. Their descendants too will have a property interest in the state. Not just anyone. These specific people.

    If you are one of these people, and you wish to continue to have a property interest in the state, you play by the rules and maintain certain requirements. Or you can choose to leave the jurisdiction of the state, and renounce your citizenship, thus divesting yourself and all of your future descendants of said interest.

  • Mark22||

    Stop personifying the state. The state has no rights that are not derivative of the rights of individuals within it.

    Correct. And the individuals comprising these United States have both common lands, plus covenants and restrictions on the individual private property. As part of that, we can jointly and democratically decide to exclude people both from our common lands, as well as from each other's private property. It works just like an HOA really.

  • hello.||

    Maybe I'm wrong and libertarians are actually anarchists.

    Only as far as beaners'n'bombers are concerned. Reason supports a colossal welfare state big enough to transport third world migrants here en masse at the general public's expense and to make sure blacks have adequate police protection to chimp out and destroy private property. When it comes to having borders or repelling an invading army then it's all anarchy all the time, baby!

  • Mark22||

    Maybe I'm wrong and libertarians are actually anarchists.

    The term "anarchist" these days just refers to violent leftists and has nothing to do with the original meaning of the term.

    As a libertarian, I don't favor the existence of nation states. However, in the short term, nation states are the reality we live under, and if we want to move politics in a more libertarian direction, we have to be careful how we go about it. Adopting individual libertarian ideas piecemeal does not necessarily move us closer to libertarianism: selective enforcement of laws or selective exemption from regulations generally makes a nation more corrupt, not more libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw Hugh. You and Hazel just show how not-Libertarian you are.

    "What do property rights have to do with immigration? How is national sovereignty a libertarian principle?" You are confusing Anarchy with Libertarianism.

    The Constitution is one of the foundations on which American Libertarianism is built.

    From this document and the Declaration of Independence the USA was formed, which created a collection of territory with property rights protected by federal and state governments. The federal government has property rights over all US territory after the states relinquished some of their power to the central government. States derive their property rights from the citizens who have property rights within that state. Not only do you have the property right to allow or disallow person onto your property but so does every other land owner in America. Congress controls legislation about national boundaries which can preclude you inviting non-Americans into the USA and pass over other people's property or public property to get to your property.

    Libertarianism is society of liberty under rule of law. The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to protect America's sovereignty and regulate immigration and naturalization.

    Without national boundaries there would be no United State nor a government to protect your property rights nor the property rights of your neighbors.

  • ||

    Cart before the horse.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The people already gave up power to form the the states and the USA.

    You are about 229 years too late.

  • ||

    I get it. Someone else, 229 years ago, signed a contract.
    And that contract is binding on me, from birth, because .... fuck you that's why!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You don't have to be a party to the contract. You never signed it.

    If you stay in the USA, you agree to the terms because of your American privilege. With privilege comes great responsibility.

    Guess what Hazel, every socialist country that you love has a far more oppressive contract from birth than America.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So you agree that the only difference from socialist Nations you malign is degree.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No. All socialism is bad. It takes away the choice to voluntarily associate and keep the fruits of your labor. The government controls the means of production to varying degrees.

    You can be a non-socialist nation and voluntarily pay taxes to fund roads etc. You can also voluntarily give up some of your natural rights to form a limited government to protect everyone's rights and the sovereignty of said nation.

  • swaged||

    "And that contract is binding on me, from birth, because .... "

    You choose to live under it.

    Change it, or leave.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hazel, we have a process to amend that contract. If you don't like the terms, the process is open to you just like everyone else.

  • Kivlor||

    Let's make this a little more abstract, because that's where the libertarians really want to take it.

    People have rights.
    People can associate and form groups. (ie a corporation)
    Those groups have rights from the people forming them. (ie can own property)
    Those groups can enforce and defend their rights. (ie defend property interest)
    A state is an association of people...
    Now loop the logic back to the top and substitute state where corporation was.

  • ||

    Can people force other people to become members of their group without their consent?

  • damikesc||

    Can people force other people to become members of their group without their consent?

    Libertarians don't seem to have a big problem with it...as long as they support the group they are forced to join.

  • Mark22||

    Can people force other people to become members of their group without their consent?

    If you are a US citizen, you are a member of the group "US citizens". Whether that's by choice or by birth is irrelevant.

    As part of that, you have certain rights and certain obligations. Your obligation is to obey the laws and to pay taxes. Your right is to vote and, thereby determine what everybody's obligations are and who else can become a citizen.

    I'm sorry if you don't like that deal, but it's the way citizenship works in every democratic state.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    And now see how this is literally the socialist argument.

    "This is Our property, and the State is Our Agent, and as such it has total authority to make the rules for maintaining Our property, unbound by any liberal considerations."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Except that socialists work to reduce natural rights until they are gone. There are no individuals. There are no individual rights. The state is all.

    In a Libertarian nation like the USA, the individuals give up just enough of those rights to form a limited government to protect those rights.

  • ||

    In other words, they give up just the rights that loveconstitution doesn't think are important.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    HazelMeade|1.9.18 @ 1:06PM|#
    In other words, they give up just the rights that loveconstitution doesn't think are important.


    Hazel, you're a socialist so no individual rights are important to you and your fellow tyrants.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No Hazel, you stupid bitch, they give up the rights to the extent designated in the constitution, which Locecmstitution didn't draft, or sign. Unless you contend he's well over two hundred years old, Nd secretly Ben Franklin or something.

  • chemjeff||

    The difference is voluntary vs. involuntary association.

  • damikesc||

    And one is free to renounce one's citizenship if one opts to not participate in the contract agreed to.

  • ||

    And one is free to renounce one's citizenship if one opts to not participate in the contract agreed to.

    Try telling that to the IRS.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're free to tell them that, yes.

  • chemjeff||

    What contract agreed to? The contract that I supposedly agreed to as a newborn baby at the moment of my birth?

  • damikesc||

    What contract agreed to? The contract that I supposedly agreed to as a newborn baby at the moment of my birth?

    So, feel free to forfeit your rights.

    Stand up for your principles.

    A big part of the contract is your right to speak. You don't agree with the contract, so your speech should be censored, no?

    Or do you just want to keep the part of the contract you like?

  • chemjeff||

    What "contract"?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, if you don't like the constitution, there is a designated process to amend it. Feel free to engage in that process.

  • chemjeff||

    And can you not think for 2 seconds the logical implications of your argument?

    "Hi, we're from the ATF and we're here to seize your guns. You have no right to complain, because the people voted to seize the guns and you agreed to the contract ceding your rights to the people at the moment of your birth. Now hand them over!"

  • damikesc||

    "Hi, we're from the ATF and we're here to seize your guns. You have no right to complain, because the people voted to seize the guns and you agreed to the contract ceding your rights to the people at the moment of your birth. Now hand them over!"

    If they go through with the procedure to pass a Constitutional Amendment, then they'd have a case to make.

    But the gun grabbers, of course, do not.

  • chemjeff||

    Wait wait, so you really think that your right to own a gun originates from the Second Amendment?

  • damikesc||




    Wait wait, so you really think that your right to own a gun originates from the Second Amendment?

    reply to this report spam

    The government not infringing on guns (which they do PLENTY as is, anyway) comes from it, due to it being a natural right.

    Most of Europe has gun bans. Australia does as well. A government ABLE to infringe upon rights makes those rights useless. The Soviet Constitution provided tons of rights. Fat lot of good it did the citizens.

  • chemjeff||

    But but but "contract".

  • damikesc||

    And today chemjeff learns the difference between a contract and a commandment...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialists love commandments because you cannot back out of one.

    Chem no likey contracts.

  • Kivlor||

    This "what contract" stuff is preposterous. I can only imagine that those "libertarians" arguing about how we can't force people to abide by contracts they did not sign have never worked in the private sector and signed many contracts. Almost all contracts these days include a statement roughly saying:
    "The rights and obligations of the parties to this agreement will be binding on, and will be of benefit to, each of the parties' successors, assigns, heirs and estates."

  • Hugh Akston||

    You are confusing Anarchy with Libertarianism.

    Actually I'm asking a question about what nationalism has to do with libertarianism. For future reference, you can spot a question by the little curly thing at the end of the sentence.

    Libertarianism is about the maximization of individual liberty. There's nothing about that end that necessitates the existence of coercive governments, much less of bordered nation states. While there are some things in the Constitution that help protect individual liberty, there are other things that don't. As Zeb points out below, the Constitution is not a declaration of libertarian principle. And of course the government routinely ignores constitutional limits when they are inconvenient.

    Some libertarians are willing to compromise some aspects of liberty for other goods they value, like order or security or equality. National borders are one such compromise, one that some libertarians are comfortable with, and others aren't.

    Of course I feel silly having to explain these things to you that you obviously already know as part of your official role as Ultimate Arbiter of Who Is and Is Not Libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I explained it to you. You can call me what you want but if you write stuff that is not Libertarian then I will call you on it. As Libertarians we have common principles. One is property rights. If not let me know, so I can bring Classical liberalism back minus the slavery. Unlike Republicans and Democrats who are over the map on what it means to be them, Libertarians are usually in sync with what our common principles are.

    Anarchy is what you want. No sovereign states who control borders.

    Next we have socialist states that control nearly everything including who comes into and out of a sovereign nation.

    Then we have a Libertarian state or classical liberal state. This consists of a compromise of liberty with a limited government to protect that liberty as much as possible.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    (contd) There are things in the Constitution that are not Libertarian, like the allowance of slavery. How can you have some people free and some people be property? The Constitution and declaration of independence covers pretty much all libertarian principles and some that are not. Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness. They cover the formation of a limited government designed to be restricted as to protect natural rights as best as could be agreed upon by tens of thousands of colonists. These colonists were trying a new form of government that protected freedom rather than being a monarchy or oligarchy.

    No document can be perfect but the fundamental principles are there to try and protect natural rights and protect the nation that was formed for that purpose.

  • hello.||

    Of course I feel silly having to explain these things to you that you obviously already know as part of your official role as Ultimate Arbiter of Who Is and Is Not Libertarian.

    Wow. Irony is well and truly dead. RIP.

  • Kivlor||

    Once you realize that libertarian =/= pro constitution, it's not hard to understand that they'd be opposed. But there's some irony in that normally reason would be opposing groups having "protected status" however, since endangers the sacred cow of "we want more brown people" they toss their own principles to the wind.

    I will say that my favorite argument against your point is "The Constitution doesn't say they can regulate who comes in, just that they can set Naturalization requirements". It's preposterous, and patently untrue as one of the first 10 Acts of the First Congress was to regulate immigration.

  • Zeb||

    It's preposterous, and patently untrue as one of the first 10 Acts of the First Congress was to regulate immigration.

    I'm not sure that's such a strong argument. Things like the Alien and Sedition acts, which were obvious violations of the 1st amendment were also passed early in the republic's history.

    But I do agree that Congress does have the constitutional power to regulate immigration as they see fit. The argument about immigration isn't a constitutional one, but a policy disagreement.

    As for the protected status thing, I think it's just one of those situations where there isn't a very good answer. It sucks to kick people out who have been here for decades and don't have a life in El Salvador at all anymore. It also sucks that the temporary status was allowed to continue for so long and that congress won't do anything to unfuck the situation.

  • Kivlor||

    Even the most anti immigrant people--such as myself--wouldn't say that it doesn't suck to have to kick these people out. The fact that it sucks doesn't make it the wrong decision or a bad one. Sometimes doing the right thing is painful. It hurts to set a broken leg. Doesn't mean you should not set it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Many Americans feel that illegals and protected classes have taken advantage of American's hospitality.

    Its unfortunate that illegals need to be kicked out immediately but they have years and/or decades to leave voluntarily. Democrats won't kick out potential voters out of the USA.

    Its like cutting social programs. Someone has to do it and hopefully it will be soon under Trump. People will bitch and complain and we are all complicit in getting to this point. Some have more blame than others.

    There is nothing that says that we cannot allow some illegals back in down the road.

  • damikesc||

    Let's put the cards on the table.

    I won't speak for others, but I would not give two shits if illegals stayed here forever...if all of the advocates became their SPONSORS and paid ALL expenses occurred by those people. Requiring either useful skills (carpentry and construction isn't one and plenty of Americans are more than qualified) or a SPONSOR to pay for their expenses is a fully rational and logical policy.

    But none want to do that. They want to force me to subsidize their good feelings.

  • chemjeff||

    What if they were just indistinguishable from native-born Americans and other permanent residents in terms of how they interacted with the government?

    If a resident (not the same as a citizen) is entitled to some thing, then all residents are entitled to the same thing, on the same terms. We can argue whether residents ought to be entitled to that thing, and we should.

    I guess my question is, why does illegals potentially receiving public assistance outrage you so much more than residents or citizens potentially receiving public assistance? Is the real issue the welfare state itself, or who benefits from the welfare state?

  • damikesc||

    What if they were just indistinguishable from native-born Americans and other permanent residents in terms of how they interacted with the government?

    Given that they aren't citizens, they cannot. Legitimacy is big.

    I guess my question is, why does illegals potentially receiving public assistance outrage you so much more than residents or citizens potentially receiving public assistance? Is the real issue the welfare state itself, or who benefits from the welfare state?

    Why Libertarians are such morons about "Well, we want to reduce welfare...AND we want to import millions of people who will vote AND use welfare" is lost on me. I don't like anybody using welfare...but I doubly don't want us to be the charity case for the world.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    One of the reasons Trump is so popular is pulling the band-aid off the illegal immigration problem.

    Black, White, Brown, and Native Americans are just sick of being called racist assholes for trying to cut some of that temporary help to non-Americans.

    Americans are being taken advantage of and they're sick of it.

  • chemjeff||

    Oh good heavens. No one is arguing about "importing" anyone. All I am saying is that if a resident is entitled to some benefit, then all residents should qualify for the benefit on the same terms. It's called equality before the law. So if for instance residents are entitled to "free" lunches for their kids at public schools, then illegals who send their kids to those schools should also be entitled to those same lunches. It doesn't mean that there ought to be free lunches, or even public schools. Only that all should be treated equally. It's not really that hard.

  • swaged||

    So you want equality under the law, while ignoring the law.

    Got it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No one is arguing about "importing" anyone

    Hazel's been doing it throughout this entire thread.

  • hello.||

    No one is arguing about "importing" anyone. All I am saying is that if a resident is entitled to some benefit, then all residents should qualify for the benefit on the same terms.

    Reason supports government-provided refugee resettlement. Which includes travel costs and a living stipend. Benefits, by the way, that native citizens are not entitled to.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well Damikesc. That is the progressive way. To be generous with other people's money at gunpoint.

  • loveconstitution1789||

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

    Congress can regulate migration of persons to states after 1808. The Founders compromised with slave states that the issue of who can come into the USA voluntarily and forcefully would be addressed again then. There would probably be no USA without that compromise. The Founders hope was to revisit the slavery issue after being Americans for a few decades and things got better after independence. Maybe the slave states would give up slaves easily.

  • hello.||

    But there's some irony in that normally reason would be opposing groups having "protected status"

    Since when exactly? Reason supports special rights for gays, trannies, non-white races and ethnicities, women, Muslims, refugees, and immigrants and always has.

  • Zeb||

    There is a reasonable debate to be had about immigration policies. But it's ridiculous to say that immiogration restrictions have anything to do with libertarian principle. It is entirely a practical compromise of those principles. Which may be necessary to maintain certain freedoms. But don't pretend that it doesn't compromise other freedoms.

    And yes, the federal government controlling immigration is absolutely constitutional. But the constitution is not a statement of libertarian principle.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You beat me to the response but Libertarianism is a compromise of maximum Liberty reduced to form a small and limited government to protect Liberty.

    Maximum Liberty is anarchy. You are absolutely free to do whatever you want because there is no government.

    If Libertarianism is classical Liberalism and I think it is, then the Constitution is really the best document to not only put Libertarian principles onto paper but form a successful Libertarian country from it.

    You can have Libertarianism without the Constitution but you cannot have the Constitution survive relatively intact without Libertarianism.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    ' Libertarian principles like... national sovereignty'
    Citation required.

  • ||

    In this case "protected status" means "you get to do the same shit that ordinary Americans get to do".

  • Kivlor||

    Yeah, except you're not ordinary Americans.

  • ||

    So it's a "special privilege" to be excepted from a specially unprivileged status - i.e. having lesser rights due to accidents of birth.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Accidents of birth is what we are calling decisions by parents on where to have kids?

    There is nothing stopping El Salvadorians from forming a Democratic Constitutional Republic like the USA and being the best country in the World.

    Oh wait, there is. Salvadorians don't want to do that. They want to come to the USA ignore our Rule of Law, which is one reason America is great BTW, and then get pissed when Americans don't want to be taken advantage of anymore.

    Its like with welfare and you cut their "benefits". Its THEIR money!

  • ||

    Accidents of birth is what we are calling decisions by parents on where to have kids?

    Um, yes. The child has no control over where his parents gave birth.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    But the parents do.

    The parents can make their country super safe and corrupt free. They choose not to.

    BTW, Americans are not responsible for every kid born to less-than-awesome-American circumstances. Never going to happen.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Sins of the father etc.

  • Kivlor||

    Is it a special privilege to inherit a property interest from my parents? Because that is what we're talking about.

    When my father died he left me a property interest in his properties. Am I in receipt of a special privilege because the rest of humanity was excepted from my inheritance? By saying to other people, "no, that's not yours" do they have "lesser rights due to accidents of birth"?

  • ||

    Inheritance is functionally equivalent to giving away property. The closer analogy is: can you as a citizen of the US, leave other US citizens property that you don't own, to still other unrelated US citizens, purely by virtue of belonging to the same nationality. I.e. Does your citizenship status confer rights over other people's property to you that you can leave to other people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hazel, you are all over the place.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hazel, you are clearly incapable of understanding very basic concepts, so I will leave you with this, count your blessings that you are allowed to be here or shut up and go back to wherefer the hell you came from.

  • chemjeff||

    "Is it a special privilege to inherit a property interest from my parents?"

    If you inherited property from your parents upon their death, it is only because they freely chose to bequest the property to you. You were not automatically entitled to their property just because of your blood relationship or your physical proximity.

    By contrast, this "special privilege" of citizenship (for natural-born citizens) was not the result of any free person deliberately bestowing this privilege on the citizen.

  • Kivlor||

    If you inherited property from your parents upon their death, it is only because they freely chose to bequest the property to you. You were not automatically entitled to their property just because of your blood relationship or your physical proximity.

    By contrast, this "special privilege" of citizenship (for natural-born citizens) was not the result of any free person deliberately bestowing this privilege on the citizen.

    If my parents die intestate, as their child I am an inheritor of what is theirs. They didn't have to freely choose anything. Their inaction followed by their demise is enough. If they owned stock in a company, I inherit the stock, or split it among my siblings, or it is held in common if it can't be split.

    This citizenship was designed by those who founded the polity and certainly was freely given.

  • chemjeff||

    "If my parents die intestate, as their child I am an inheritor of what is theirs."

    Only because the law defines blood relationship to be a factor for inheritance would you be able to acquire your parents' property. You would have ONLY a *legal* right to your parents' property, NOT a natural right. Because it isn't really yours. In fact, from a Lockean point of view and in the absence of a state with inheritance laws, if your parents died and you decided not to do anything with your parents' land, then the land would revert back to an unclaimed state, free for someone else to mix their labor with it and claim it as theirs.

    Do you see the point now? The moment I was born I was granted certain legal rights of citizenship, defined by the state, based on my location and time of birth. The moment I was born, I also acquired certain natural rights, by virtue of my existence alone, that the state does not define and cannot take away from me. The coercive state has placed demands upon me because of my citizenship, and I would expect a libertarian to say that when the demands of the state are in conflict with my natural rights, that it is the state, 99% of the time, that is wrong. But YOU seem to be saying that the artificial rights (and coercive demands) created by citizenship should trump my natural rights to live my life as I please. Is that really the argument that you want to be making?

  • Kivlor||

    "if your parents died and you decided not to do anything with your parents' land"

    This is the operative part of your argument that was a critical miss. If you choose to do nothing with it. If you reject your inheritance, sure, it's not yours. If your parents die, and you do nothing with the house, it returns to "unclaimed" and anyone can claim it.

    In choosing to stay in the US, you choose to maintain your inheritance of citizenship. You could leave and renounce it.

    The coercive state has placed demands upon me because of my citizenship, and I would expect a libertarian to say that when the demands of the state are in conflict with my natural rights, that it is the state, 99% of the time, that is wrong.

    Your forebears have placed certain obligations upon you. And yes, still, in most cases where your natural rights are in conflict with the state, your natural rights trump the state's interest. But not all.

  • chemjeff||

    But citizenship is not an inheritance. That is where your argument falls apart. Citizenship is a legal privilege, and a legal burden, imposed by a coercive state. It is not a "contract" in any sense of the word - it is not two parties coming to a mutual agreement, it is one party imposing its will on the other, based solely on the time and place of birth, about which the citizen had absolutely no control. The state, properly considered, has a higher obligation to use its power to protect the natural rights of its citizens. That is why it is instituted in the first place. But when the state decides to use its authoritarian power to use citizenship as a weapon to abridge the natural rights of its citizens, that is when the state is in the wrong. I am under no moral obligation to accept an obligation of citizenship from a state when it is abusing its coercive power. So the state does not have the open-ended power to get all its citizens to dance to its tune like trained monkeys just because they all carry the label 'citizen'. The state itself has an obligation to act like it is supposed to.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The state, properly considered, has a higher obligation to use its power to protect the natural rights of its citizens.

    That's right--citizens, not people who became de facto refugees.

    If you want to blame anyone for this, blame Bush and Obama for signing off on the TPS renewals every 18 months.

  • chemjeff||

    In truth, the state has a higher obligation to protect the natural rights of EVERYONE. How it chooses to prioritize those protections is where the role of citizenship comes in. If there is some conflict between protecting the natural rights of citizens, and protecting the natural rights of non-citizens, then I would expect a state, from just a pragmatic point of view, to prioritize the citizens over the non-citizens. But in this case, there isn't even a conflict. Which citizen's natural rights are violated if the Salvadorans are deported?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    In truth, the state has a higher obligation to protect the natural rights of EVERYONE.

    Since this is just begging the question, the rest of your post can be summarily dismissed.

  • hello.||

    I also acquired certain natural rights, by virtue of my existence alone, that the state does not define and cannot take away from me.

    Living in the jurisdiction of your choice without any incumberance on yourself was not one of those rights just FYI.

  • damikesc||

    having lesser rights due to accidents of birth.

    You want us to guarantee American rights for non-Americans?

    Will your nation-building obsession never end?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialism 101. All your hard work as Americans building the USA to what it is, belongs to us.

  • Rhywun||

    Except they aren't Americans, ordinary or otherwise.

  • Kivlor||

    you said it better.

  • ||

    So what? All people have the same natural rights. People born in the US aren't just granted special rights by God. Being excepted from rules which arbitrarily impose burdens on you isn't a "privilege", any more than a tax cut is "spending".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People do have natural rights. In the USA we also have give up some of those natural rights to have a limited government to protect those rights from those who want to take your rights.

    Its one reason why boatloads of people want to come to the USA.

    People who come from shitty corrupt countries and don't fight for their rights there, don't necessarily vote to keep American constitutional principles intact.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    " also have give up some of those natural rights to have a limited government to protect those rights from those who want to take your rights."
    Seems to me we've given up all of our rights for limitless government. But thank god it's protecting us from Salvadorans. Makes it all worthwhile.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Being excepted from rules which arbitrarily impose burdens

    Since most of them probably don't speak English anyway, they'll actually be more comfortable in a culturally familiar environment.

  • ||

    I see. It's for their own good that they have lesser rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A person born in El Salvador to non-American parents can never become US president.

    An example of perfectly acceptable lesser rights.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    At least you're willing to admit that third-world trash countries are that way because of the third-world trash population.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Red Rocks White Privilege|1.9.18 @ 12:06PM|#
    At least you're willing to admit that third-world trash countries are that way because of the third-world trash population.


    You said that not me. It was a very lefty thing to say BTW. I know you only want brown people to vote Democrat and hate them otherwise.

    I would like them to clean up the country of their origin and make it as great as the USA.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You said that not me. It was a very lefty thing to say BTW.

    That was directed at Hazel, which you'd probably understand by the rest of my posts in this thread.

  • chemjeff||

    And this is the most sickening rationale for deporting them that I have seen. The obnoxious patronizing rationale of "oh they should be sent back for their own good, they have some patriotic duty to fix their own country". Give me a fkn break.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are many reason to kick them out.

    One is fuck them.

    A second is that latino countries are notoriously corrupt and there is a reason for that. Latin people's dont fix that problem. Then millions of them want to come into the USA and they want to vote. The ones that don't vote for keeping the Constitution intact are just fucking Americans who want to keep it intact.

    A third is that non-Americans have zero right to be in America. Their rights do not trump my rights to live in a free-loving country.

    A fourth reason is, why can't they fix their own country and make it a better place to live?

  • chemjeff||

    "One is fuck them."

    Duly noted, you don't give a shit about anyone except yourself. And people wonder why libertarianism hasn't taken off yet.

    "A second is that latino countries are notoriously corrupt"

    So does that mean every single Latino person is corrupt? Maybe - just maybe - one reason why many of these Salvadorans are here in the first place is because they were disgusted by their home country's corruption and wanted to be rid of it?

    "The ones that don't vote for keeping the Constitution intact are just fucking Americans who want to keep it intact."

    Well they certainly aren't going to be voting for your tribe if you bigotedly presume that they will vote a certain way based on their skin color alone.

    "A third is that non-Americans have zero right to be in America. Their rights do not trump my rights to live in a free-loving country."

    A "right[] to live in a free-loving country"? Well that's a new one. Please, expound on this newfound natural right some more.

    "A fourth reason is, why can't they fix their own country and make it a better place to live?"

    Perhaps they don't want to. Why haven't you cleaned out your basement or your garage or re-tiled your roof yet?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chem: Thanks for trying to keep up. Better luck next time.

    We know you are a socialist and individual rights don't matter.

    You just keep being that useful idiot that you are.

    Let me know when you sponsor an unknown immigrant family in your home and cover all their expenses until they become naturalized. Its all lefty narrative until you have to completely pay for your decisions to "help" people rather than forcing me to.

  • chemjeff||

    Well, that is your typical response when you're out of arguments, just go straight to the name calling of "socialist".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are though. You are for controlling the means of production. Undermining the values of a constitutional democratic republic are paramount to this goal.

    You are not fooling anyone.

    You should be proud to be the socialist that you are. I wonder why you consider it a defamation to call you that?

    Its almost as if the discussion is not going as you hoped so you want to chart a new course.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, he's explained it to you over and over. You either can't or won't understand what he's telling you. That's your problem, not his. You should be grateful he took the time out to dpstraighten you out like that, considering all your shitty premises and stunted thinking.

    You should thank hi from the bottom of your heart.

  • chemjeff||

    Elias, you would never tolerate being treated the way that you and LC1789 and Kivlor and the rest of the anti-immigrant crowd around here are treating the Salvadorans. Being wrongly judged and having your humanity stripped away based solely on your nationality. You and and the other nationalists are just one more flavor of collectivists, denying the dignity of the individual, dividing up the world into the "good tribe" and the "bad tribe" and demanding that the state compel citizen conformity to your collectivist nationalist goals under penalty of death, all for the glory of the state. It is just sad and pathetic to watch. It is just one more piece of evidence that the Right was never seriously interested in individual liberty. It only pretended to support individual liberty if it helped those individuals act "patriotic" (in their estimation). But the moment those uppity citizens started using their liberty to "denigrate America", then all talk of liberty goes out the window and it's time to call in the goons from the state to enforce some order.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Being wrongly judged and having your humanity stripped away based solely on your nationality.

    Being sent back to your home country is not having your humanity stripped away, you drama queen.

  • chemjeff||

    I am talking about how people in this discussion are referring to the Salvadorans. People like LC1789 have no problem referring to them as "murderous Salvadorans" based on no other information than their nationality. Do you think this is a problem, or not?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I am talking about how people in this discussion are referring to the Salvadorans.

    And yet here you are whining that they're getting sent back to their home country.

  • hello.||

    People like LC1789 have no problem referring to them as "murderous Salvadorans" based on no other information than their nationality.

    MS-13 originated in El Salvador. The violent crime and murder rate in El Salvador are orders of magnitude higher than most other countries on earth.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, I would never be judged in such a manner because if I were to move to a different country I would follow their rules in the first place and apply for residency. Just like everyone should.

  • chemjeff||

    What do you think TPS is? Rules for temporary residency. The Salvadorans DID follow the rules when they could have worked under the table as illegal immigrants, under the radar of the authorities. The only reason they are in trouble NOW is because they DID decide to follow the rules and so the state knows where to find them in order to kick them out. And yet that doesn't stop you and others from denigrating them as "murderous Salvadorans". You are holding a double standard, you are demeaning an entire group of people based on their nationality where you would never stand for such a thing yourself.

  • hello.||

    What do you think TPS is? Rules for temporary residency.

    T-E-M-P-O-R-A-R-Y. Look that word up. They knew the deal when they signed on to it. Well, probably they didn't since they're mostly illiterate in their native language as well as English. But the terms were accessible to them.

  • hello.||

    Duly noted, you don't give a shit about anyone except yourself. And people wonder why libertarianism hasn't taken off yet.

    Not giving a shit about anyone except yourself has certainly killed a lot less people than the altruistic compassion of international socialism.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well said.

  • hello.||

    All people have the same natural rights.

    Are you the same retard who used to prat about endlessly about gamboling across the fields? Reality check for you: there is no natural right to travel or reside unincumbered to any destination you please.

  • Juice||

    Depends on what's being "protected". Is your right to live and work like a normal person being protected? OK, sounds good to me. On the other hand, I don't support "protecting" someone's "right" to force someone else to bake them a cake.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "El Salvador was the most violent country in the world in 2016, suffering a murder rate of 91 killings for every 100,000 people."
    How is that America's problem?

    Notice you did not report on crime stats for Salvadorians committing crimes here in the USA. Must not be available.

    I also noticed that Salvadorians were allowed to come to the USA because of a natural disaster in a gesture of goodwill. They overstay their intended temporary reason for being in America and now it is because of high crime back in El Salvador.

    So, massive numbers of El Salvadorians are murdering in El Salvador but all the El Salvadorians in the USA are just earning and contributing $3.1B to the GDP. No bias from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

  • mtrueman||

    "Notice you did not report on crime stats for Salvadorians committing crimes here in the USA."

    You think the 'Salvadorians' are not pulling their weight when it comes to committing crimes in the USA?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why is that missing? Christian has stats on how they are victims and how El Salvador is a murder capital.

    Then there seems to be a disconnect with saying Salvadorians are murderous bastards back home but no crime in the USA.

    Yes, please. Send in more murderous bastards to the USA.

  • mtrueman||

    "Then there seems to be a disconnect with saying Salvadorians are murderous bastards back home but no crime in the USA."

    Different place, different connect. Not terribly surprising.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you mean that murderous Salvadorians just stop because they're in America, that is doubtful.

    America's murder rate is fairly low. The USA has a murder rate of 4.88 and ranked 94 worst out of 219 countries. Most of the lower rate countries are tiny. Millions of Americans travel and move to all sorts of countries with the rare murderous intent.

    Its almost as if some people wont murder even if they can get away with it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Yes, please. Send in more murderous bastards to the USA."

    I'm sure Jeff would be just fine with a million more Kate Steinles. As long as foreigners get to run rough shod over the IS, at our expense.

  • Kivlor||

    Well, there is the possibility that the legal ones aren't committing as much crime as they would normally at home. What is common is that we see in many immigrant demographics a drastic decline in criminality among first generation legal immigrants. This is likely attributable to the fact that if they're caught breaking the law their status here is immediately in question and they may be sent home. However in the second generation we see a drastic uptick due to the fact that their kids can't be deported, and they return to their natural inclinations.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Could be. I found it suspect that Christian pushing an open border agenda and then leaves out group crime states but includes group victim stats.

  • chemjeff||

    Could you provide a citation for your claims?

    "they return to their natural inclinations"

    oh barf

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So Salvadorians are not murdering in massive numbers?

    Natural inclinations is probably not the best phrase but what term would you use to describe Salvadorians murdering fellow Salvadorians which does not sound like self defense?

  • chemjeff||

    How about instead we try not to collectivize about an entire group of people, and judge them individually on their own merits?

    After all, the next time there is some incident about gun violence, would you as a (presumed) gun owner like to be lumped in with the characterization of "GUN OWNERS ARE MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN MASSIVE NUMBERS"?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Except that we aren't letting them in individuals, but as a collectivized category of people. So they will be judged as such.

  • Zeb||

    As I understand it, Salvadorans are not, on the whole, murdering in massive numbers. Rather, certain very violent criminal groups are doing a lot of murdering in El Salvador.

  • chemjeff||

    "As I understand it, Salvadorans are not, on the whole, murdering in massive numbers. "

    But that's not what Sean Hannity said! Are you calling Sean Hannity a liar????????????????

  • loveconstitution1789||

    chemjeff|1.9.18 @ 12:47PM|#
    "As I understand it, Salvadorans are not, on the whole, murdering in massive numbers. "
    But that's not what Sean Hannity said! Are you calling Sean Hannity a liar????????????????


    You watch Hannity? Haha. You must think that gives you a finger on the pulse of conservative America, huh?

    The rants really come out when you lefties get cornered.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Zeb: Ah. So small violent criminal groups are murdering and the rest of the Salvadorians are not stopping it?
    Of course, ALL Salvadorians are not on a murder spree or there would be few Salvadorians left.

    Chem: Gun owners are killing people in massive numbers. Murder indicates unlawful homicide and self-defense is not that. Criminals attempting harm are not innocent.

    Keep up the charade though. It's entertaining.

  • chemjeff||

    Whatever man. You are just descending further and further into your collectivist bigotry against foreigners.

    I bet when you see a Latino person with a tattoo, the first thing you think of is "MS13".

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    I think "mmmmmm latina mama si". Or if it's a dude..."what's up bro".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MS13? You mean one of the hundreds of Mexican gangs that operate in the USA? I bet you wouldn't know a gang member from anyone else.

    I know to you Americans are such meanies for sending illegals back to their country of origin.

    I know that you are a socialist and okay with murdering anyone that won't cooperate. So I take your nonsense with a grain of salt.

  • hello.||

    MS13? You mean one of the hundreds of Mexican gangs that operate in the USA?

    MS-13 originated among Salvadoran immigrants in the southern US, actually. It's not a Mexican gang.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Whatever man. You are just descending further and further into your collectivist bigotry against foreigners."

    See how the leftist trash disparages other by calling them racist when he has clearly lost the argument? So typical of their kind.

  • hello.||

    I bet when you see a Latino person with a tattoo, the first thing you think of is "MS13".

    The odds would be pretty good.

  • Kivlor||

    I'm sure you're capable of doing some looking. But it is well advertised that legal immigrants (especially Hispanic ones are given special attention in the media) have lower crime rates than natural-born American citizens. (less than half the incarceration rate)

    And yet Hispanics commit crime at drastically higher rates than white Americans and the overall population. And then there's black people...

    Open Borders: "We can't blame immigrants for crime by American-born Hispanics"
    Rational Human: "Well, those criminals are the children of the immigrants."
    Open Borders: "You're just trying to take the information out of context because you're racist."

  • chemjeff||

    Oh good Lord. You use the pseudo-science Jared Taylor crap to try to support your claim? Nowhere in his article does he even attempt to control for perhaps the most important variable involving crime: economics. Minority communities tend to be poorer, in denser urban areas, and more heavily policed. So of course the crime rate will be higher, if for no other reason that there are more officers to report more crimes. Fortunately, this question has already been studied. If you compare two neighborhoods that have similar economic profiles, but one is mostly white and one is mostly black, then - guess what - the two neighborhoods also have similar crime rates.

    http://faculty.washington.edu/.....ings/Krivo Peterson 1996.pdf

    I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that you are a white nationalist, given your comments. But what are you doing here at Reason?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Nowhere in his article does he even attempt to control for perhaps the most important variable involving crime: economics.

    Funny how West Virginia's bone-crushing poverty hasn't prevented it from being in the top 15 safest states in the country. States like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming are also all similarly high in safety rankings, despite not being economic powerhouses.

    I guess the reasons for this will forever remain beyond our understanding.

  • Kivlor||

    Interestingly, you really got stuck on Jared Taylor, who is actually quite the respectable and respectful fellow, and completely ignored that everything on the other link agrees with him on the facts, but tries to make up the most retarded arguments to defend the sacred cow of open borders.

    I specifically chose 2 sources from opposite ends of the spectrum because the facts are indisputable. Hispanics have drastically higher rates of criminality than the average population and the white population once you look at second and third generation.

    From the first link: : if the high Hispanic crime rate (such as it is) entails forbidding Hispanic immigration, does the higher black crime rate entail "deporting" blacks en masse to Africa?

    All they have is the most fallacious of arguments. Note how they shift the discussion from keeping out more immigrants to "well then we just have to deport the blacks".

    Or Restrictionists hold immigration responsible for crimes committed by Hispanics as a whole, not just by immigrants or illegal immigrants.

    Where they try to pretend that we cannot observe that these are the children and grandchildren of a specific subset of immigrant, which would mean bringing more of them in is only going to exacerbate the problem.

  • hello.||

    It's the poverty what done it. They dindu nuffin.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    With Trump's team eager to deport any immigrants it can, this congressional abdication is looking increasingly short-sighted.

    I would also remind those among us who believe this has anything to do with moral leadership or lack thereof that these are politicians. This is about elections. If there are enough votes - actual or eventual - or enough graft in it for enough congressmen, it will be fixed.

  • ||

    Not to say that we should deport them all to the last man. However, the stats I heard this morning roughly indicated that the entirety of the growth of the Salvadoran economy last year was roughly equal to the sum of money sent from immigrant workers in this country. The numbers may be slightly off but it's certainly a very unlibertarian notion to have a nation's economy largely and directly dependent on another nation's jobs and/or growth in such a manner. If we aren't able to be the world's policeman, then we aren't able to be it's nanny either and, specifically because I don't want this; if we are able to be the world's nanny, then we are able to be the world's policeman).

  • Hugh Akston||

    But it's super libertarian to force people out of their homes because they spend their money in a way you don't approve of.

  • ||

    Any fears I had of Hugh Akston proposing anything resembling an actual solution to... anything have been thoroughly laid to rest.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What's the problem that needs solving?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    There are... people... here! But... they're not... come on!

  • ||

    None, not interested in your solutions even if you had them.

  • hello.||

    By definition a place you are permitted to live in only temporarily is not your home. And they aren't being deported because of how they spend their money.

  • Mark22||

    But it's super libertarian to force people out of their homes because they spend their money in a way you don't approve of.

    They aren't spending their money, they are spending my money.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    it's certainly a very unlibertarian notion to have a nation's economy largely and directly dependent on another nation's jobs and/or growth in such a manner.

    You thicc

  • ||

    Three years is a bit short. I'd make the number more like 7 years. We need the people equivalent of the law on borrowing stuff - if you had it more than X amount of time, it's yours. If the government lets you live in the US legally for more than 7 years, you can stay. It's absurd to kick people out of the country after they've put down roots.

    The anti-immigration types should support this since it sets a time limit on how long the government will be willing to grant TPS. They legally can't just keep renewing TPS forever without letting people naturalize. Either send refugees back or grant them permanent residents visas.

  • ||

    If the government lets you live in the US legally for more than 7 years, you can stay. It's absurd to kick people out of the country after they've put down roots.

    The anti-immigration types should support this since it sets a time limit on how long the government will be willing to grant TPS.

    Except it makes no bones about the national level motivations behind the expatriation to begin with ultimately sanctions it in any and all forms.

    Al Assad just has to drive the terrorists out his country via bloodbath for 7 yrs. and then... done. All the people who didn't want to live under the regime don't have to. Win-Win.

    Nevermind that the US effectively removed all the doctors, lawyers, nurses, property owners, and businessmen from El Salvador and left the poor and the criminals. The point is; everybody has American jobs!

  • ||

    That was completely incoherent. Take your meds.

  • ||

    if you had it more than X amount of time, it's yours.

    This is more simply understood and even less coherent.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hazel, you are clearly getting more frustrated as this discussion is not forever in your favor.

  • damikesc||

    Three years is a bit short

    2001 wasn't 3 years ago.

    If the government lets you live in the US legally for more than 7 years, you can stay.

    Not punishing somebody isn't the same as permitting the behavior.

    It's absurd to kick people out of the country after they've put down roots.

    No, the absurdity is letting them grow roots. Kicking them out is sensible.

    Either send refugees back
  • Brandybuck||

    This is why Trump is a tool. It's also why those who on the right who say their concern is for illegal immigrants and that they have no problem with legal residents. THESE ARE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS YOU FUCKTARDS!

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    No...they WERE temporary legal immigrants. Not anymore.

  • Zeb||

    Well, after Sept. 2019.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Two years should be enough time to pack up and move.

    They only gave us 30 days to move in the military.

  • ||

    See? Motte-and-bailey strategy.

    Motte: I'm only against ILLEGAL immigration! Legal immigration is great!

    Bailey: H1-B visas are terrible, we should have fewer of them. And let's get rid of OPT while we're at it. Fuck foreign students. And send all the refugees back, even if they've been here 20 years.

  • ||

    Motte: I'm only in favor of open immigration via legal means! Illegal immigration is, obviously, illegal!

    Bailey: If Americans let them stay after some arbitrary time period that I just decided after hearing that Trump brought up this issue that's the Americans' fault, fuck them and the law.

  • ||

    I'm pro-illegal immigration too.
    When the laws are fucked up, it's your duty to break them.

  • Harvard||

    So, you're Tony now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialism seeks to undermine constitutional democracies at every turn.

  • Zeb||

    Or Milton Friedman, who also frequently observed that with the welfare state, immigration is beneficial, but only if it's illegal immigration (assuming illegal immigrants aren't using welfare).

  • ||

    Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall Milton Friedman ever accusing his opponents of Motte-and-Bailey on the matter while lithely and disingenuously offering "Either send refugees back or grant them permanent residents visas." as though he would accept either decision equally.

  • Zeb||

    I don't believe you are wrong. I was just looking at the argument that illegal immigration is a good thing.

  • Brandybuck||

    The solution to that is to get rid of the welfare state, not to double down on it while building a wall.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "I'm pro-illegal immigration too.
    When the laws are fucked up, it's your duty to break them."

    And when dangerous foreigners want to subvert the constitution, citizens like me are free to stop you, as necessary. Under those circumstances, I don't favor your odds.

  • colorblindkid||

    They are not immigrants. They were guests. They were part of an intentionally temporary program to help them get back on their feet then go back. That was the stated intended goal, and the conditions they were given when they came.

  • ||

    And that "temporary status" should have ended after like two years if we were serious about it being temporary. If we let them stay for twenty that's on us.

  • Rhywun||

    It's almost like Americans are conflicted on the whole issue or something.

  • ||

    It's almost like most Americans are racist fucktards who lack the empathy necessary to understand that a refugee from El Salvador is a human being with the same basic rights as them.

  • chemjeff||

    I don't think it's fair to say "most Americans are racist".

    But on the nationalist Right, however, yeah they really don't give a shit about foreigners.

  • ||

    True. I'm just mirroring his language. More accurately, there's a fanatical faction of racist fucktards who bear outsized influence on this issue because they are basically single-issue voters on it.

  • Rhywun||

    I'm just mirroring his language.

    I was making an observation that Americans don't agree on this issue and that is why there is no consensus on how to solve it for good.

    I don't see how your nasty screed follows from my observation but that's just me.

  • ||

    My point is that the *reason* that we havn't given these people legal status already is largely because there's a faction of people who are dead set against any immigration for any Hispanics, regardless of how long they have been here or why they are here. IMO, People who are that fanatically dead set against anyone being allowed legal status in the US, regardless of what might happen to them if they went home, or whether they are married to American citizens or have children or homes and lives here are reasonably described as "racist fucktards".

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hey dummy, the US is hardly short on Latino immigrants. Maybe we need to stop importing more for awhile so we can have more of that diversity you progressives love so much.

  • hello.||

    People who can't comprehend the meaning of the word temporary and don't understand how immigration law works can be reasonably described as retarded pieces of donkey shit. Hello HazelMeade, you retarded piece of donkey shit.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    He/she does have the same basic human rights...that's why he/she needs to go back to their Country and fight for those rights. They've tasted a better life, time now to spread it to their Country.

  • chemjeff||

    "They've tasted a better life, time now to spread it to their Country."

    Perhaps these individuals feel no patriotic duty to fight for the health of some foreign state. Do you realize how patronizing this sounds?

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    That's on them. Do you represent them? The US was temporarily patronizing them for too long. Bye bye.

  • chemjeff||

    Do you think they have some patriotic duty to fight for the health of the Salvadoran state? No? If not, then why presume to think that they ought to?

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Because they are Salvadoran. I'm American.

  • ||

    After living in the US for 20 years, it's quite possible for someone to think of America as their homeland. Some of them might even have served in the US military and fought in wars.

  • hello.||

    Some of them might even have served in the US military and fought in wars.

    In which case they would qualify for residency under one of several different programs. Same as if they married a citizen. You have no clue what you're talking about, you retarded piece of donkey shit.

  • hello.||

    Perhaps these individuals feel no patriotic duty to fight for the health of some foreign state.

    It's not a foreign state. It's the place they came from less than 20 years on a TEMPORARY basis.

  • ||

    Unlike your ancestors who fled persecution in England right?
    Why didn't the Puritans fight for their rights in England instead of stealing land from the Native Americans?

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    I'm not English.

  • ||

    Are you Native American? No? then presumably your ancestors came here for some reason instead of working to make their homeland a better place.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Why didn't the Puritans fight for their rights in England instead of stealing land from the Native Americans?


    Ummmm...because England was stronger? 2 million Salvadorans with a glimpse of freedom is a pretty good start for changing a shit hole Country possibly?

  • ||

    So after the American revolution, Washington should have invaded England and taken the colonists with him.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Yeah HazelMeade that makes total since instead of staying in the New World and creating a Country better than any other created before or since.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    ...Washington and crew should've went revolutionary on the biggest Empire of that age.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid|1.9.18 @ 1:27PM|#
    ...Washington and crew should've went revolutionary on the biggest Empire of that age.


    I am borrowing this.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Lol we did go revolutionary on them just not on their soil. You got the point though. The force used against England at the time was just the amount needed to keep them from tyrannizing us.

    Also, for the record and not for the loons like hazel and chemjeff, I think the U.S. immigration policy should be more inviting than most other countries but still limited to a sustainable amount. I'm for legal immigration, against illegal, and I even think the dreamers™ should stay(just because they are pawns...otherwise they should get in line like the rest).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    HazelMeade|1.9.18 @ 12:54PM|#
    Unlike your ancestors who fled persecution in England right?
    Why didn't the Puritans fight for their rights in England instead of stealing land from the Native Americans?


    Good thing the Indian tribes didn't kick the Europeans out. There might have never been a USA.

    Most English did stay and create a democracy that is socialist but tries to be free market. It can be done!

  • Azathoth!!||

    They did.

    Cromwell was a Puritan.

  • Rhywun||

    America was neither founded upon nor follows today the fantasy anarchist principles in your head. And it's obvious you have no understanding of human nature if you think it ever will.

  • Zeb||

    Sadly, it's probably equally fantastic to believe that America will ever return completely to the principles it was founded on.

  • damikesc||

    It's almost like most Americans are racist fucktards who lack the empathy necessary to understand that a refugee from El Salvador is a human being with the same basic rights as them.

    Explains them being here 17 years later instead of being booted out after 2 yrs.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    HazelMeade|1.9.18 @ 11:48AM|#
    It's almost like most Americans are racist fucktards who lack the empathy necessary to understand that a refugee from El Salvador is a human being with the same basic rights as them.


    But Americans were not racist fucktards when they tried to help Salvadorians by giving them a temporary place to live?

    Funny how Americans are bad only when wanting temporary guests to leave.

    Hazel, keep up this narrative because it is allowing my side of kick them all the fuck out to win. Americans are pissed and elected Trump to kick them out.

  • Kivlor||

    Sadly, it's probably equally fantastic to believe that America will ever return completely to the principles it was founded on.

    I share this sentiment wholeheartedly. But I have this very strong feeling that you and almost everyone else who talks like they would like that actually would approve. The libertarians would be the right next to the progs and cuckservatives in opposing that course.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    They're only against illegal immigration in the sense that DC is only against illegal firearm possession. When all immigration/firearm possession is banned, it will technically be true.

  • hello.||

    Over 1 million people per year are legally permitted to immigrate to the US whereas DC actually did have a total ban on firearms. So take the false equivalency and fuck a beaner in the ass with it.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    No these people were for the most part Illegal Immigrants who were in the country when the earthquakes stuck. Only a small percentage were here legally on visas.

  • DajjaI||

    True but America needs to do a better job of exporting its values of peace and prosperity to other parts of the world so that these people CAN return home. This includes ending the drug war. I think we should offer a path to citizenship for them, but it sure would be nice if they could offer some insight into the problems of their home country.

  • ||

    I think Dajjal's account has been hacked.

  • Rhywun||

    it sure would be nice if they could offer some insight into the problems of their home country

    Take a look at some towns that are heavily populated by recent Central American migrants. A lot of those problems have been brought here.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To lefties latin gangs don't really exist because that's racist to point out facts like that.

    The fact that latin gangs move to where latin peoples form little communities, is beyond comprehension to lefties.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Apparently "temporary" means "permanent" and a year and a half to apply for a different immigration status means "don't let the door hit you on the ass". What is it about immigration that makes the writers here hysterics?

  • Zeb||

    There are two questions here that (I think) have very different answers.

    1. What is the right way to enforce laws and enact policy.
    2. What is the decent way to treat people.

    It's pretty shitty to deport people whose lives are entirely in the US. It's also shitty and bad governance to misuse the law allowing TPS as an end-run around the normal immigration policies.
    I'm for much more open immigration, but the right way to do that is to change the laws.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, and it makes it very difficult to have a rational discussion about what laws we want when someone is making emotional "sky is falling" arguments against rescinding a status that was never intended to be permanent and does not mean all the people under that status will have to leave.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its like cutting social programs- someone's gotta pull the band aid off and its gonna hurt for a time.

    Someone's gotta cut illegal immigration so we can get back to not being pissed that illegals are gaming our Rule of Law.

  • Ron||

    its not really an anti immigrant or GTFO moment when they have two more years out of the last seventeen years to become legal

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    "Anything That's Peaceful"

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    "Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff"

  • ||

    I'm seriously not playing anti-immigrant on this. I think most of these people should be amnestied in somehow or otherwise clearly laid out a path to citizenship.

    That said, in this case, "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff" still feels and pretty objectively looks an awful lot like "Some people got hurt and I just happened to profit off of it".

    They didn't exactly volunteer to leave El Salvador and we can't keep the good ones in and the bad ones out without a selective application of borders which, if you're on the other side of the border that sometimes kinda doesn't exist, looks a whole lot like you're willing to support people getting hurt as long as you get paid. And if the border truly doesn't exist then, as libertarians, there is an initiation of force that is occurring and we're effectively absconding with valued goods, services, and property as a direct result of that initiation of force. I like the borders and prefer the mindset that we aren't responsible for the violence and aren't absconding with El Salvadoran property, but that means I'm a libertarian who likes selective application of borders.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "They didn't exactly volunteer to leave El Salvador.... "
    Actually they did. It was a natural disaster but America was generous and offered sanctuary and probably temporary sanctuary.

    It sucks when someone offers you temporary help after a disaster than then ends that help at some point.

  • ||

    Actually they did. It was a natural disaster

    Some did. Some were here before that. Per the articles' indication, a significant reason they stay is because of the violence (which was there before the disaster). Whether you were forcibly kicked out of your house or just displaced by violent squatters, the point is, a stateless (in the 'state of being' sense) acontextual application of the libertarian (as well as other) principles can and does lead to some decidedly non- or even anti-libertarian outcomes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It's why you gotta fight for your right to ...part-ay!

  • Juice||

    I keep seeing conservatives saying, "I thought libertarians believed..." and then go on to show that they really just don't get it. Either they don't get it or they're just making a disingenuous argument.

  • chemjeff||

    It's called gaslighting. The idea is to get you to doubt your own beliefs by simply labeling an unlibertarian belief, or vaguely-sounding libertarian belief, as "libertarian".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Or its lefty useful idiots trying to act like Libertarians on a Libertarian forum.

    Some day these lefty useful idiots might realize that by doing this Libertarians here have an excellent way to sharpen their counter-points to socialism and show any newly visiting viewers how to point out socialism's utter failures.

  • ||

    I keep seeing conservatives saying, "I thought libertarians believed..." and then go on to show that they really just don't get it.

    Yeah because nobody up to and including the magazine itself has used "I thought libertarians believed..." as a preamble to some pretty objectively immoral and statist shit left, right, and center. Less than 5% of the electorate and dropping and only the conservatives are still confused about libertarianism!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Like a Gillespie special "I thought conservatives believed..." article?

  • DaveSs||

    I wonder just how many of them never planned for the eventuality that they would be asked to return to their country of origin.

    Looking at the history of this Act there is very good reason for people who came here to believe it really is going to be a temporary thing. Prior to 2000, one to three years was the norm for allowing temporary sanctuary.
    Even since 2000, its been usually two to four years.

  • chemjeff||

    I agree that the "temporary" nature of TPS has probably been abused by the executive branch to a degree, contrary to Congress' wishes. (Although Congress did give the AG the power to renew TPS status without limit, so it is also a case of "what were you thinking, Congress?"). I also agree that the refugees are probably not so much refugees anymore, given that the earthquake happened 16+ years ago.

    But you should read some of the commentary about this from the Right. When they aren't high-fiving Trump about it, they are characterizing these TPS refugees as violent criminals, moochers, criminal elements, etc., and just generally horrible people. TPS recipients are ineligible for public assistance, they get work permits so they are working, and felons cannot qualify for TPS. But they don't seem to care about what the law says or who these people really are. Instead they are just happy to see them go. They don't care that they are going to be sent back to a very violent country. They don't care that they have been Americanized over the past 16+ years and would be leaving all that behind. They really don't. They just want the dirty foreigners out. THIS is the type of ugly element that is prevalent on the Right now. And why it is hard for me to see the Right's obsession with immigration and their opposition to it as based in little more than bigotry and xenophobia, not some grand desire to see the rule of law enforced.

  • chemjeff||

    And I blame the Steve Bannons and the Tucker Carlsons and the other conservative media grifters on the right. These media charlatans present every immigration story in the most negative possible light, portraying immigrants, legal or otherwise, as criminals, moochers, violent felons, Balkanized unassimilated un-Americanized factions living among us as some sort of fifth column, and otherwise horrible people. When you listen to years and years of this type of propaganda, you cannot help but think that the foreigners pose a danger. After all if all I ever heard about Martians is that they enslave and kill humans, then I would be inclined to believe Martians are dangerous too. So it goes with them. They only listen to what right-wing grifters tell them about immigrants and they refuse to even listen to what other media outlets say about immigrants because it's supposedly "fake news". It is all so disappointing.

  • ||

    When you listen to years and years of this type of propaganda, you cannot help but think that the foreigners pose a danger.

    Really? I've listened to NPR for the entirety of my adult life (more than two decades) and am hard pressed to believe or accept more than about a third of what they say. I'm not even sold on the notion that public radio in the interest of an informed electorate is a decent idea.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    NPR is propaganda.

    Additionally, its not in the interests of America to have socialists spew lefty propaganda over US airwaves and act like they are the voice of America.

    Evidence of lefty nonsense out of control is all the social outrage from ignorant college grads.

    There are real problems in the USA and the World. They usually involved socialist governments, so the left has avoid all those stories.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I do not know what you expect to happen when this has been a continual nagging problem for decades with nothing done about it. It just festers. I am amazed this charade has lasted this long.

    Think about this, all it took was one million Arab refugees to make lily white Germany kneecap Angela Markell and put AfD as the third strongest faction in parliament. These are people with legitimate threats to their life too, not economic migrants like Mexicans or other Central/South Americans. Doesn't matter though, their circumstances matter zero. Same story ad naseum across Europe.

    This crap has been going on in America for *decades* in the USA with way larger numbers than that with little political backlash.

    What exactly did you expect?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What exactly did you expect?

    He expected a government official to wave a magic wand and *poof* everyone gets a social security number.

  • Woke Becky||

    Actually, according to the UNHCR, only 3 out of 10 people pouring into Europe are genuine refugees. The others? Economic migrants with way darker skin. Perhaps, you saw the headlines about them being auctioned in Libya.

  • hello.||

    They only listen to what right-wing grifters tell them about immigrants and they refuse to even listen to what other media outlets say about immigrants because it's supposedly "fake news".

    Just like you want to portray every immigrant as a downtrodden rags to riches all-American love story and refuse to believe statistics that don't comport with your idealized fantasy. The only difference is that unlike you, a lot of the anti-immigrant types actually live among immigrants. They interact with them on a day to day basis. They don't hire them for 6 bucks an hour to change their kid's shitty diapers because they're too lazy to do it themselves. They get to see them in their home environment, when the working day is done. They actually get to see the skyrocketing violence and crime in their communities once they are overtaken by immigrant populations. They get to see declining property values. They get to gangs dealing drugs on the street corner. They get to see fat Mexican mammas with 4 kids buying$ 500 carts full of groceries with food stamps. It's not propaganda, it's the day to day fucking reality they live in because people like you decided to be generous with the lives and livelihoods of what you perceive to be your inferiors. Go fuck yourself. The bubble you live in is fiction. The bubble they live in is their fucking reality.

  • Careless||

    deporting 186,000 Salvadorans will cost $1.8 billion, along with an additional $3.1 billion reduction in annual GDP.

    Holy shit, they're insanely poor if that's true. At a max, they're saying they have an average (mean, not median!) income of $16,667

  • Flinch||

    They sound like... welfare cases? If that is true, then the GDP number is vaporware and should be looked at as a newfound 'surplus' as it is government spending that will no longer be occurring - that would improve the deficit picture, albeit a very small piece. However, I suspect the opposite is true: the number is way too low for standard government program(s) money laundering specs. Sounds to me like the bulk of these people are hard working, and... are cash & carry for as many things as possible - including the money they wire home every month.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Comments are a good primer on why anarchism rules and liberalism/libertarianism drools.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Someday anarchism will work...
    *starts building wasteland cruiser*

  • Zeb||

    I don't think you need to believe that anarchy is something that will ever really work to be an anarchist. Just acknowledge that government isn't a special case and there isn't a real distinction between governments and any other organized groups of thugs who want to tell people what to do.

    I'll argue about practical politics, and try to see the other point of view. Because it's interesting and amuses me. But ultimately, I can't morally justify government, so I'll call myself an anarchist if pressed.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    I like some points of anarchism but don't think it's viable at this point. Hopefully in the future. *puts tinfoil hat on*
    I think the Human race will achieve forms of self-governance like anarchism and libertarianism (and unfortunately shitty forms like communism) when we immigrate off of Earth.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You being more Anarchist makes sense. If you cannot stand to give up some of your rights for limited government and you don't want government, that's anarchy as you say.

    You said some libertarians things but then some stuff especially about rule of law seemed non-libertarian

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I don't think you need to believe that anarchy is something that will ever really work to be an anarchist

    If you don't actually believe anarchy would work if it was implemented, but still advocate for anarchy, you're either an idiot or a hypocrite.

  • Zeb||

    MJG's point is (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) that libertarianism has some inherent contradictions that a lot of libertarians have a hard time admitting to. It's hard to avoid the fact that strict application of libertarian principles (as commonly stated) leads to a philosophical anarchism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are very few contradictions in Libertarianism.

    One such contradiction is that you need enough people to voluntarily agree to work together and respect everyone's rights with limited government force to protect those rights. But you cannot force people to associate.

    Another is personal responsibility and the moral hazard that sometimes results which can be wildly unpopular. People think that free shit makes life easier. It often does not as everyone cannot be unproductive and still have free shit.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    There's that, but I'm sorta saying the opposite. Not so much that libertarian principles lead to anarchism, but that classical liberal/midcentury libertarianism opens the door to expansive government. It's still loose enough that one can sneak in all sorts of state action. Other values come in and weaken the supposed core of the ideology, safeguarding individual liberties through strict restrictions on state action. See Kivlor making the (Red) Tony argument that, once you accept x, you must accept all of X, and we're merely haggling over the price. There's almost no mention of limits on state action wrt borders or balancing policies with concerns for individual liberties; rather, there's a zealous effort to justify seemingly unencumbered state action.

    It's in the Constitution! It's the state's property! So what does a libertarian have to complain about?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The great thing about the Constitution is that it can expand to protect more rights and the changing times. The problem comes in with human nature and Americans themselves.

    The Founding Fathers knew that Americans would lose this country if they became complacent with protecting its fundamental protections of freedoms and limits on government.

    There can be no perfect document or it would be so long that nobody would know what it said.

    I know that I use Rule of Law a lot and that does encompass a bunch of good and bad. The Founding Father's idea was to keep government so restricted that the bad was limited. Even the Founders that were against slavery knew that they had to compromise to form the USA and then resolve it later. Hopefully it would resolve itself. The idea is that Rule of Law was based on few laws that most people agreed to and really didn't impact much, so even if you were against it you would not be completely impacted by a particular law.

    We have the fundamentals still going but our system is so bogged down with laws and rules. I am in the legal field so most people have no idea how many rules there actually are like I do. There are laws that literally prevent you from working at what you are good at unless you get government permission. Law license for example.

    Libertarians complaining within the framework of our constitutional system is what I look forward to. It makes Libertarians have sharper arguments since we have to battle the left and right.

  • Zeb||

    I see what you mean. I guess my personal definition for libertarian is a lot tighter than a lot of people's. Which is why I can make no sense of the claims that protecting our borders is some kind of essential feature of libertarianism.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I did specify midcentury libertarianism because it is weird to chastise libertarianism when it includes guys like Rothbard and David Friedman. I think even we can underestimate how broad the term has become and how many competing ideas there are. There are plenty of minarchists that I think have solid blueprints for tolerable government... though they also dip their toes in the anarchy pool more than most. I think most of them are in the "sure, anarchy, but it won't work" category you mention above.

    Re-reading the essay I linked made me think of the right libertarian argument parroted by LC here, about the new priority of protecting freedoms through shaping the electorate. Like utilitarianism with classical liberalism, that's a competing moral calculus through which a number of values get smuggled in to override earlier positions.

    Also, I hope people appreciated the phrasing of "anarchism rules" above.

  • Kivlor||

    See Kivlor making the (Red) Tony argument that, once you accept x, you must accept all of X, and we're merely haggling over the price. There's almost no mention of limits on state action wrt borders or balancing policies with concerns for individual liberties; rather, there's a zealous effort to justify seemingly unencumbered state action.

    It's in the Constitution! It's the state's property! So what does a libertarian have to complain about?

    I've not discussed such limits because of the "libertarians" up thread arguing that national sovereignty is not libertarian.

    And I resent being compared to "Red Tony". I'm far, far, far to the right of that. My politics are not welcome in Team Red.

  • hello.||

    Coming from people who have no problem whatsoever with the welfare state, government-required tranny bathrooms, compulsory fag wedding cakes, and only turn into anarchists when the subject is beaners who will clip their lawn for less than minimum wage, the irony is pretty fucking rich.

    In a truly anarchic society the beaners'n'bombers you love so much would be living in your house while you sat in the street bleeding to death from the shiv in your chest pondering the subtleties of privatizing ambulance service and never spend a second worrying about it. But it's easy to be a borders-only anarchist and wax poetical about the racism of bourgeois libertarianism when you are never exposed to the consequences of your own ideas.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ROAD WARRIOR!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you imagine anarchists would be kinder to immigrants than we are?

    The facts suggest otherwise.

    "You are in Zapatista rebel territory. Here the people command and the government obeys." Bottom sign: "North Zone. Council of Good Government. Trafficking in weapons, planting and use of drugs, alcoholic beverages, and illegal sales of wood are strictly prohibited. No to the destruction of nature."

    ----Translation of sign

    https://tinyurl.com/yc3nmmxl

    Anarchist justice would likely be harsh and cruel--and they might not take kindly to strangers. Go to rebel held areas in Chiapas, where they've been autonomous and ideologically anarchist for decades, go past the armed guards, and offer to buy their land--so you can move there permanently. See how receptive they are to that.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    And an even better primer on where left-right, progressive-communitarian distinctions start to break down.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I agree that the free flow of labor across our borders is of great benefit to society--just like the free flow of goods. However, there isn't anything libertarian about ignoring the separation of powers and arguing for the executive branch to inflict a free immigration policy on an unwilling electorate. Libertarianism is about persuading our fellow Americans to want what we want--it's not about inflicting our views on the American people against their will.

    There isn't any distinction between libertarians of one kind or another on that issue.

    Using the coercive power of government to inflict what people think is in the best interests of the common good is what being a progressive is all about. There isn't anything libertarian about that. If you want to inflict immigration, wars, taxes, or regulation on the American electorate against their will, then you're not a libertarian on that issue. You're a progressive.

  • Kivlor||

    Ken, I always enjoy your posts.

    I may not be a libertarian, and I may disagree with you 100% RE: more legal immigrants, but somehow you have managed to master the natural human urge to dominate others. When others argue for inflicting their views on the public at large regardless of the public's desires, you seem to always avoid that.

  • Mark22||

    People who call themselves "anarchists" are usually nothing of the sort: they want open borders and they want to be able to occupy buildings and private property, but they still want others to be subjected to high taxes and onerous regulations, at government gunpoints.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Pro-legal immigration people (like me) are terribly undermined by the refusal of pro-illegal immigration people and their support for illegal immigration.

    How do I persuade friends and family that more people from other countries should be free to come here legally--on a temporary basis--if "temporary" becomes nothing but horseshit?

    Why should average Americans support work visas, student visas, or any other kind of legal visa--if the left has no intention of enforcing the rules once they're back in charge of the White House?

    Maybe one of the reasons why so many average Americans are opposed to changing immigration laws to make it easier for immigrants is because they don't believe the left has any intention of abiding by any immigration laws--past the moment they get amnesty for as many illegal immigrants as possible.

    It isn't even speculative anymore. It isn't a question of whether the left has no intention of abiding by our immigration laws. They're demonstrating the fact right before our eyes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ken, I have the impression that most Americans are fine with some immigration as has been our history. Americans are just fed up with being taken advantage of and our system of Rule of Law as it applies to immigration being undermined.

    Then open border types and illegal immigrant advocates act like Americans are being selfish for our past generosity toward immigrants. It comes off as if non-Americans are entitled to be in the USA.

    The result will be massive deportations until the level of illegals is lowered and the left stops using immigrants as tools to get them elected. If the media would stop covering immigration from the open border view all the time, most Americans would probably go back to being liberal with immigration.

    Billions in free publicity is backfiring on more than one front.

  • Ron||

    thats the whole issue in a nutshell isn't it. why bother with new better laws when they won't abide by existing laws. the people aren't stupid we all know any new law will probably just make things more complicated in order to be for politicians to pick winners and losers at whim only in order to screw over the other political party not in order to promote good immigration laws

  • Ken Shultz||

    And all the new proposals are predicated on amnesty.

    Give all these people amnesty now, and in the years to come, we'll start abiding by the immigration laws . . . and this time we really mean it!

    Why would anyone believe that when the left is insisting that we don't abide by the laws--right freaking now?

    Persuade the American electorate that the new laws will be enforced as written and that control of the border is reasonably secure, and I bet the average American voter's opinion on immigration changes significantly.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    If only you could be as eloquent as this at discussing the baby otter rape epidemic.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    they don't believe the left has any intention of abiding by any immigration laws--past the moment they get amnesty for as many illegal immigrants as possible.

    Now that left-wingers are openly admitting that increasing immigration is a means to alter the political landscape and get more Democrats in power, there's no reason to take anything they have to say about being "compassionate" or "market principles" or whatever rhetorical smokescreens they use seriously. They know full well that immigrants support Democrats, can be used as activist shock troops to push Democrat policies in the media, and don't give a damn if parts of the country become a third-world shithole as long as they stay in power.

  • Brandybuck||

    Oh noes! People will brown skins! We gotta twist our language to and call them illegals so it doesn't sound like we're racist! Call them rapists and terrorists too! Because that's what brown skins people do, rape and terrorize all the white women!

  • Kivlor||

    I'll say it: don't let them in. They ruined their countries. They'll ruin this one. And one need only look at their voting patterns to tell. They want welfare. And they take advantage of it once they're here.

    If that's racist, we need more racists.

  • Zeb||

    The thing is, the same is true of most native born American white people as well (both wanting welfare and ruining their own country).

    Maybe there is some collectivist gene (and if there is it infects most of humanity). But I think it's probably more likely that their countries (or perhaps American progressives) ruined them more than they ruined their countries.

  • Kivlor||

    The country is constituted of its people. And its people determine its government. The fact that their countries are in ruin is not an accident, and it didn't just happen to them. The fact that our country is in decline is not an accident, and it didn't just happen to us.

    RE: native born whites, you're just wrong. For now. But when the system gets sufficiently filled by these people who hate us and only seek to loot you will see the typical white man give up. Whites are the only thing keeping the country afloat as it is.

    blacks are twice as likely to be on welfare as whites, and hispanics are barely below double.

    Now, add in criminality...

  • Kivlor||

    But you're right to a certain degree about whites ruining America. We just threw the door open and let in the barbarians for the last 30 years because we feel bad about our skin color. White privilege and all. It's going to be our fault that they burn our nation down. And they will burn it down.

  • Mark22||

    The thing is, the same is true of most native born American white people as well (both wanting welfare and ruining their own country).

    As an immigrant myself, I guarantee you that the US population is one of the smartest, most educated, most productive in the world; far better than Mexico or El Salvador, and significantly better than most of Europe.

    The people ruining this country are not the people on welfare, it's people like you, people who are ignorant of the rest of the world, privileged, and busy screwing this country out of selfishness.

  • hello.||

    Maybe if I scream RACIST at the top of my lungs, nobody will notice that I'm a fucking retard who can't put together an actual argument!

  • Mark22||

    Oh noes! People will brown skins!

    I don't care whether they are brown, yellow, green, white, or black. The US should deport illegals regardless of skin color, and it should have a race neutral, skill-based immigration policy.

    It's racists like you who want special exemptions for "brown people".

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Perhaps a "temporary government program" isn't the closest thing to Eternal Life, like we've been led to believe.
    All government programs should, at their inception, include a Sunset Date, some sooner than others.

  • Kenrm||

    The bill, when created and signed was intended as temporary aid due to El Salvador earthquake damage in 2001. Well, its 17 yrs later than the temporary welcome mat needs to be rolled up.
    Its the same as if you opened your home to a neighbor until their devastated home was rebuilt. Imagine your neighbor living with you for 17 years. I'm sure by now, you'd be saying "Get the f*** out!!!"
    Don't forget, when these people go back to El Salvador, their earned assets from here will allow them to live in luxury back home AND at the same time be among family and friends.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Old rule from haggling, the first person who gives a number loses. Setting the exemption at three years in country isn't reasonable, the Democrats can't seriously think that will fly.

  • Flinch||

    As I understand it, most of the El Salvadorans given refugee status were on account of a natural disaster. So... TWO decades? That's alot of presidents not doing their job. But there is a bigger problem: these same presidents that let and administrative situation sit and rot without any hint of an end goal, have allowed something worse to happen - El Salvador is now rotting from the head down with socialism and may be on a similar trajectory as Venezuela. That is going to be a bittersweet pill for those repatriated. I'm sure they will find comfort in food and family, the smells and sounds of where they grew up, but the shine may not last long when they find an economy with a boot on its neck.
    However this turns out, we can be assured of two things: it's going to court [with or without facts], and...whatever tatters of the Bush [spending orgy] legacy remain will crack and splinter under the scrutiny. We know where Obama was, so that's already a done deal: he was working on his handicap "as Rome burned" so to speak.

  • DRM||

    Right, the program exists for "extraordinary and temporary conditions". So name the "temporary conditions" that prevent the El Salvadorans from returning?

    The violence, while deplorable, certainly isn't a temporary condition; a civil war began in 1979, and, to quote Wikipedia, "the violence in El Salvador has not stopped since." That's ten years longer than the Berlin Wall lasted.

    Argue all you like for open borders as a principle. But as far as faithfully executing the law, Trump's just doing what Bush and Obama should have done.

  • Wanderer||

    Which part of "Temporary Protected Status" did you fail to undestand ?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If we are going to implement a genuine merit-based 'America first' immigration system, the sensible approach would appear to involve enabling these Salvadorans to stay and sending a couple of hundred thousand half-educated, belligerently ignorant, bigoted, economically inadequate yahoos (from the likes of West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming) packing.

    The depleted human residue that remains in our can't-keep-up backwaters after generations of bright flight (the smart, ambitious young people departing at high school graduation for campuses and successful cities in pursuit of education, opportunity and modernity, never to return) is a failure here. Perhaps those goobers would prosper elsewhere. And America would benefit greatly from the addition (Salvadorans) and the subtraction (yahoo losers).

  • hello.||

    The Salvadorans whose average economic output is $16k per year? Those ones? Half-educated, belligerently ignorant, bigoted, economically inadequate yahoos don't cease to be half-educated, belligerently ignorant, bigoted, economically inadequate yahoos just because they have brown skin. And you're a pathetic fucking racist for playing it that way. Go fuck yourself.

  • Mark22||

    If we are going to implement a genuine merit-based 'America first' immigration system, the sensible approach would appear to involve enabling these Salvadorans to stay and sending a couple of hundred thousand half-educated, belligerently ignorant, bigoted, economically inadequate yahoos (from the likes of West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming) packing.

    See, that doesn't work because, unlike the US, other nations actually refuse to take "half-educated, belligerently ignorant, bigoted, economically inadequate yahoos".

    That's presumably because you are still in the US and haven't emigrated to a country that you don't hate: nobody will take you.

  • Mark22||

    because->why

  • Mark22||

    With Trump's team eager to deport any immigrants it can,

    Trump isn't deporting any immigrants; he is deporting illegal migrants, and in lower numbers than Obama so far.

  • vek||

    I feel sorry for them being from such a shithole and all, and was actually good friends with an El Salvadorean in high school whose family moved here in the 90s... But maybe if you've been here for 20 years with a legal temporary status, PERHAPS you could have applied for legal full citizenship? Temporary needs to go back to meaning temporary, plain and simple. The program has been abused.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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