MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Germany Just Agreed To Essentially Close Its Borders. How Did We Get Here?

Rigid work restrictions forced hundreds of thousands of people to sit in camps, in limbo, living on taxpayer money. Nothing good can come from that.

Haeferl / Wikimedia CommonsHaeferl / Wikimedia CommonsGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel stunned the world in 2015 by announcing that she would allow nearly a million asylum seekers into her country, a humanitarian gesture offering hope to those suffering from the ravages of wars worldwide.

The move transformed her into the poster child for opening up international borders. High-profile German politicians, mainstream media outlets, and the public rallied behind the idea. Images of Germans welcoming refugees at train stations matched public opinion polls showing majority support for the new arrivals. To those who were feeling a bit nervous, the chancellor reassured them that the country and her government could "handle it."

But by 2018, the public mood had soured significantly. A new YouGov poll finds 72 percent of Germans saying their country's immigration policy is negligent, with only 12 percent saying it's about right. Last week, the reversal in public sentiment became official when the German chancellor ended a standoff with hardline immigration restrictionists in the government by dealing a mortal blow to the concept of open borders. She agreed to speed up deportations, to turn back refugees already registered in another European Union nation, and to let anti-immigration leader Horst Seehofer remain as head of the ministry charged with implementing these policies. She even acceded to opening "transit centers" along the border in Bavaria where refugees could be detained, though this provision was later dropped.

The deal is a dramatic repudiation of everything Merkel asked Germans to believe in just three years ago, which leaves many wondering: What on Earth went wrong?

The German Bureaucracy Did Not Deliver

Channeling a million migrants into productive lives in their new home is no small job, and in this case, government itself became a stumbling block. Germany's bureaucratic institutions were asked to review each application and grant or deny asylum, allow residence, or deport—as quickly as possible. They were also tasked with providing shelter, health insurance, food, and "integration" assistance in the form of language courses and job placement.

But even as officials worked to help the newcomers, restrictions designed to zealously protect native workers' jobs made the effort nearly impossible. Aside from needing legal status, in Germany, refugees face regulatory hurdles—from additional training and certification requirements to demands that they already know the language—before they can qualify for jobs at any level.

Germany's bureaucratic monolith, not exactly known for its efficiency, and resistant to rapid change, was expected absorb the sudden influx. And refugees' new lives hung in the balance. Without approved legal residency and permission to enter the job market, they could not hope to support themselves and contribute to society. Instead, hundreds of thousands of people would sit in camps, in limbo, living on taxpayer money, indefinitely. A report from the Institute for Employment Research found that just 10 percent of the working-age refugees who arrived in 2015 were employed by 2017.

Nothing good could come from such a situation. A series of high-profile refugee-related scandals followed, taking a toll on the nation's patience. Studies revealed that the new arrivals were not finding employment. The year 2016 began with reports of mass groping by foreigners in Cologne's central train station. There were a couple of murders committed by refugees, one of whose application had been denied but who was not deported. And a scandal erupted in Bremen after migration office employees allegedly took bribes in exchange for approving asylum applications.

Reports of ill-equipped public employees surfaced in the media. Local leaders openly denounced the German federal government's failure to provide needed resources. Merkel's own Interior Ministry began saying the refugee inflows were not sustainable.

Evidence was mounting that the bureaucracy was simply unable to "handle it," as the chancellor had promised.

Loosening Regulations Could Have Prevented This Crisis

There was never any room for error in Merkel's open-border policy. While empathy and solidarity led Germans to back her push initially, a deep appreciation for order and stability are also etched into the country's psyche. The uncertainty that resulted from three years of bureaucratic failures led to increased anxiety and eroded the public's support for immigration.

And the far right was lurking. Every error by the state, it claimed, proved that Merkel's efforts were a grave mistake.

The strategy worked. After the 2017 elections, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), a euroskeptic-turned-anti-immigration organization, entered Parliament with the third most votes of any party. The result shocked and frightened the German mainstream, exposing the scope of the blowback to Merkel's failed refugee policy.

To save her party and her tenure, the weakened chancellor gave in to her more hawkish allies, inking this month's agreement to formally end the experiment in open borders and joining a long list of flip-flopping politicians willing to betray their convictions for political expediency.

Migration is still a must for Germany's future, thanks to worrying demographic patterns. Without a lot of new workers, the aging population and its shrinking taxpayer base will lay ruin to the country's generous welfare system.

But the country is stuck wondering how to successfully integrate such a huge mass of outsiders. This riddle is one shared by a number of countries worldwide.

Merkel could have enacted new immigration laws focused on easing barriers to employment. Admittedly, this would have required major policy changes for a risk-averse country, such as opening low-wage jobs to newcomers—but it would have helped avoid the idleness (and resulting boredom and frustration) that can push people to commit crimes, which in turn increases resentment among the native-born population. Instead, she threw the problem at a bureaucracy unaccustomed to dealing with high levels of immigration and hoped it would figure something out. The consequence has been plummeting support for refugees and a German people more bitterly divided than at any time since World War II.

Photo Credit: Haeferl / Wikimedia Commons

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.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Raise your hand if you ever thought you would see a "libertarian" publication championing Big Bureaucracy and claiming that it's the administrative state's duty to find jobs for unskilled illiterates

  • Cy||

    They're 'Woke." Get "Hip."

  • perlchpr||

    Goddamn it. I got really excited when I saw that he comment count had gone up. I should have realised, it's Sunday, it was just Hihn shitting up the place. :-/

  • buybuydandavis||

    Where's "Left - Right = Zero"?

    I was so looking forward to it!

  • NashTiger||

    Well, all you are actually saying is that Left = Right.

    Left and Right could = 0.27. or 1,093,462
    You don't ever really make much sense

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    From my viewpoint, left - right = 0.00000000013

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is getting more like physics. So why not include the dimensions of the units we are measuring? National socialism (right) and international socialism (left) are both about the initiation of deadly force, so the unit of power would be the time derivative of the capacity to convert people into cadavers. The difference was pretty small back when there were a lot more international socialists with nuclear arsenals.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn's all tuckered out.

  • FlameCCT||

    His/hers/its hihnsanity must be driving him/her/it hihnsane!

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    You frequently attack people without provocation. Myself included.

    Are you just trolling? Or do you really believe that when you start poking at people, calling them names, that you are somehow not to blame?

    It's a fair question, so don't cry foul that I'm asking it.

  • BigT||

    "And the far right common sense was lurking. Every error by the state, it claimed, proved that Merkel's efforts were a grave mistake.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    'far right' was correct the first time, cracker-assed cracker T

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Stem the flood of immigrants.

  • perlchpr||

    Holy fuck. It came back and really went to town.

  • Horny Lizard||

    I suppose punching you in the face qualifies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties like you and violence. They go hand in hand.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Does Brietard shoo you away in the evening so you can come shit up a libertarian thread, LoveTrump'sCock1789?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trolls swoop in years later to add nothing. Shining example in no yards penalty.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    New Jersey law says that threatening to punch someone in the face counts as assault. Perhaps we could claim self-defense, Horny Lizard.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties Unite!

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Raise your hand if you ever thought a Troll would completely misrepresent an article in his comment.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "...claiming that it's the administrative state's duty to find jobs for unskilled illiterates"

    Yeah man, the Cock Ring here TOTALLY misrepresented what the article said! Would Cock Ring PLEASE put his or her reading glasses on!

    The article said that Government Almighty should GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY with its endless employment mandates and regulations that get in the way of hiring people! Smaller guv, not large guv, is needed, and this article represents that truth!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Raise your hand if you thought a Troll would try to troll a comment.

    *raised for Butler.

  • fatcyst||

    What Germany should do is subsidize the native Germans so they can have X children rather than importing savages and paying for them to rape and murder.

  • Presskh||

    Totally agree, fatcyst. While I agree that having the government subsidize the "production" of native children is anti-libertarian, it is by far the best alternative for increasing the population of future workers.

  • Jeff77042||

    Agreed.

  • Hank Phillips||

    My question is: Did the asylum-seekers eventually find the asylums they were looking for?

  • LynchPin1477||

    Loosening Regulations Could Have Prevented This Crisis

    It's literally in bold face in the article

  • Ken Arromdee||

    I don't see the phrase "also, they should stop providing shelter, health insurance, food, and integration assistance" in the article, even those come from the government too. And I suspect we never will see that, even though that's something a libertarian should oppose, and even though the fact that immigrants get free things is what's making the immigration unmanageable in the first place.

  • VOTE MILES||

    This guy gets it.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Or stop trying to force a government decree for forced immigration to start the entire problem.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Europeans are bragging about the rewilding of their continent as wolves return to regions they once lived in. They also brag that they let refugees in and have regulations that discourage home construction. They are learning the hard way that charity should be about providing economic independence and settling the earth, not establishing the dependence that proves one's ability to afford the noblesse oblige.

  • shermanator||

    There is a reason you did not see this. That being, the author is a progressive, as evidenced by her political affiliations and last employment. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jcamino/

  • SIV||

    #MAGA

    libertarians have always been BIG STATISTs and now they're going full prog. To me it was never anything more than how to say "anarchist" w/o having to explain why I don't want to throw a brick through a Starbucks window.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These people are LINOs when they want the Libertarians cause to go full Prog.

  • Longtobefree||

    I want to throw a brick through Starbucks window, but it will be a plastic brick so it qualifies as a political statement.
    Question: Do I actually have to go get black clothes and a bandanna?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties would want you arrested for a 'hate crime'.

  • Ariki||

    As long as the bandanna is red.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    When I was a toddler, the fringe left threw red paint at old ladies wearing fur coats. Now, the clean up will be easier. The fringe right will throw plastic straws at people leaving Starbucks.

  • FlameCCT||

    Sheez, have you forgotten public school lessons so soon?
    They'll use the straws to send a stream of spit balls at the customers.
    ;-)

  • No Yards Penalty||

    #MAGA
    #MakingAryanGoobersAuspicious

  • Longtobefree||

    Right wing snowflakes do not get triggered.
    Right wing snowflakes use triggers.

  • Chipper Got Me Banned||

    HIhn's here, loveprostitution is going insane, and it's only the first few comments.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    You kind of sound like a nutcase. Or is there some context I'm missing?

  • A racist||

    No he's a nutcase.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The BOLD CAPS are coming out!
    He's super serious now!

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    You're all over the place with your comments. You may want to consider a more traditional sentence/paragraph structure. And if you intend to be persuasive, perhaps not insulting me, without provocation, right off the bat, might be a good idea.

    Or go out of your way to alienate me for no reason and then claim I'm bullying you.

  • FlameCCT||

    He/she/it suffers from Hihnsanity, possible side effect from CRIS (Cranial-Rectal Inversion Syndrome).

  • Ariki||

    Stupid x Moron = Hihn²

    Isn't math fun?

  • fatcyst||

    Youre a faggot too.

  • FlameCCT||

    Hihnsane is a cigarette from the UK? ;-)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chipper is banned again. From comon sense.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    "Right wing snowflakes use triggers:
    Another right-wing-nut-job internet toughboi fapping over his ammo pile.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties hate ammo, guns, and constitutional protections.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is scared that population decline will take away his goobermint bennies.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You know, I've read this over and over wondering where the other side was--where LC1789 was advocating 'sucking t the government teat.

    WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is "giving my own money back " ... FROM WHERE?

    It's this, isn't it. The tax cut.

    It's the fact that LC1789 believes that the money he earns belongs to him first and not at all to anyone in the government.

    Understand, Michael, NOT believing that the money you earn belongs to you removes you, completely, from libertarianism. But you did that long ago, didn't you?

    LC1789 isn't stealing from anyone. It is the government, that promises stolen funds, that is the thief. It is they who steal from the elderly and posterity--by promising things they don't have--not because of tax cuts, but because they enriched themselves first and then spent what was left on things other than the elderly or the youth as they'd promised.

  • gravytop||

    You mean that when right-wingers see a horse, their first instinct is to fuck it in the ass while thinking about Roy Rogers? I can see that.

  • hello.||

    Lol. Don't worry Mikey nobody would waste a bullet on your obsolete old ass. More fun to watch you devolve into a drooling vegetable as the brain cancer and dementia ravage what's left of your already meager faculties. It's almost worth all of the taxes we pay to keep your welfare queen old ass in that nursing home.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    You should try the German immigration campus. I hear they're free.

  • Oli||

    You.. didn't even read the article, did you?

  • fatcyst||

    The turd world doesn't, doesn't want to, and never will never understand libertarianism one bit. Its useless to apply those principles to them.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Weigel'sPsychoFakeNemesis, take Trump's cock out of your ass,

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No yards penalty, really chocking up the web traffic for Troll town.

  • NashTiger||

    Oh Mai

    This wasn't true Sociali/I mean Good Government though

  • tlapp||

    Yes they went from freedom of movement to government needing to facilitate it and assist with the transition.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    My first impression involving a triple face palm.

  • Cy||

    "They were also tasked with providing shelter, health insurance, food, and "integration" assistance in the form of language courses and job placement."

    But.. but... Immigrants don't use welfare! They're all like 'dreamers' and stuff!

  • Ken Arromdee||

    A truly libertarian open-borders perspective would demand open borders, but also no social services. Supporting a policy on libertarian grounds which opens the borders but gives the immigrants social services is only being halfway libertarian, and being halfway libertarian can be worse than either fully libertarian or not at all.

    Libertarians who really want to open the borders from a libertarian perspective should demand the combination of open borders and no social services as a *package*, and not approve of half-assed open border policies that are worse than either alternative because only contain the first part. I've yet to actually see any libertarians do this.

  • hello.||

    It's okay Mikey. You were too stupid to read long before the dementia set in. Now you're stupid and ragey.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    That would be a brilliant rebuttal, but for the fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything Ken said.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    I said nothing about about open borders, government services or Trump. I merely observed that your response was entirely unrelated to the comment you were replying.

    Thanks for demonstrating why. YOU CAN'T FUCKING READ!

  • Mock-star||

    Its Hihn. He's the one true libertarian. If you do not agree 110% with him, you are a Trump ball gargling conservatard. Even if you disagree with him by being more liberal than he is. Its truly fascinating.

  • Chipper Got Me Banned||

    Now Michael Shin can't read OR write. Next thing you know, he won't be able to do math!

    Left - Right = __

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't even know where his own ass begins.

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    It worked well before the federal government got involved. States would require bond in case immigrants became a public charge. Don't see a reason why it won't work today at the expense of the immigrant's sponsor. Relatives pay smuggling fees of over $5k per attempt to organized crime. Our border would be safer and taxpayer costs would be much lower if they were just given the option to migrate legally.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Open borders, no social services, and no restrictions on land use. Roosevelt, our first Progressive president, got the ball rolling on the anti-immigrant front by preserving a huge percentage of America as national parks.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Gotta have no voting too.

    Without no voting, the "package" inevitably gets altered to include welfare benefits.

    Then you can pray they do not alter it any further.

  • tlapp||

    Yes even Milton Friedman said open borders can't work with a welfare state. That's why despite the desire for libertarians to support that freedom it is a failure. Unless you can get rid of the welfare state there needs to be some immigration controls. Government begets more government. The real world not the libertarian ideal world.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes. You cannot decry the affront to liberty that are border restrictions while turning a blind eye to the injury caused by the welfare state. Every person added to the welfare rolls only increasing the harm.

  • SIV||

    Valedictorians every one.

  • BruceMajors||

    Becoming a valedictorian costs the taxpayer $12,000 - $29,000 (in DC or NYC) per student per year.

    But as CATO and Reason studies show, 112% of immigrants pay far more in taxes than that even when they have 3 or 4 children.

  • hello.||

    Who tells Hihn that Germany's social welfare system is even more generous than ours and the point has once again sailed over his Alzheimer's addled head?

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    I think the US is in Europe at least a few nights week. At least for a quickie.

    The more important question is, does the US use a condom?

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Hopefully not. That would help address their population problem.

  • A racist||

    What a stupid dodge.

  • Ariki||

    It's funny how subtlety of thought is beyond you.
    So yes, stupid is an accurate description. Or are you just off your meds?

    Dementia + Aspergers = Hihn

  • fatcyst||

    You have more I'm sure.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Even more bolds and caps!

    I'm living the dream!

  • NashTiger||

    Bolds + CAPS = OLD MAN YELLS AT CLOUD

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks bolds plus caps is self-defense instead of perpetual pants-shitting.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Bwahahaha!

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Stalking you down the page? There doesn't appear to be a way to avoid you. You're on the whole page.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    It's depressing to hear how Drumpf is not only ruining the United States, but that his white nationalist xenophobia is spreading globally.

    Let me be clear — open borders is the correct policy.* To the extent there are any "problems" associated with mass migration, the solution should not be to close the borders. It should be to re-organize the government agencies responsible for helping migrants adjust to their new country. Increase funding for language and job training programs. Establish mandatory diversity classes for schoolchildren. But whatever you do, don't be seduced by the easy answers offered by the alt-right!

    * Except when it comes to Israel. Only white nationalists support "Open Borders for Israel."

  • Cy||

    And Ukraine! Those poor Russian refugees!

  • jonnysage||

    Does your house have open doors?

  • perlchpr||

    Wait, you've confused me now.

    I thought the Open Borders Libertal-tarian position of truth and goodness would mandate open borders for Greater Palestine. Y'know, at least for the Palestinians who the country rightfully belongs to. And if they happen to then make good on their promise to push the Jews into the sea, well, after all, what can you really do about it?

  • Longtobefree||

    What you can really do about it has been done since 2948 - - - - - - -

  • Longtobefree||

    Or maybe 1948

  • Longtobefree||

    We time lords have a hard time typing; it is so old fashioned.

  • mnarayan||

    Any questions, brainwashed goober puppets?

    What medicine do you take when you're not posting here?

  • A racist||

    Yes your answer was.

  • Ariki||

    You asked for questions, he asked one, you diverted.
    Pretty simple.

    Also fuck you Hihn, you feckless cunt.
    (verbal assaulty type smirk)

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Micheal, they don't make medicines for retardation. They make medicine for psychoses. Honestly, I think the mere suggestion that you are mentally ill is an insult to mad people.

  • hello.||

    Good Mikey. Add anti-Semitic to your wonderful set of personality traits you ignorant backward senile old piece of shit.

  • A racist||

    Hey, you're a fellow racist!!!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Micheal, what's your position on that oil pipeline through the Dakotas? A neighbor of mine had a dream that a flying horse took him across all of the Dakotas, which is why he says he owns that land and has the authority to approve the pipeline.

  • Echospinner||

    Fact. There is no such US pledge. There is no mutual defense treaty between the US and Israel. As always if the shooting starts they are on their own.

    Fact. Although Joshua recounts that the Canaanites were totally destroyed he lied. They are mentioned later in the Bible. A recent DNA study revealed where they are now. They are 90% of the population of Lebanon.

    You left out the Egyptians, Hittites, Amonites, Jebusites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Mamluks, Christian Crusaders, various Islamic caliphates, France, Ottomans, and the British. Quite a long list of claims there. In any case it is Jews again now and they are not going anywhere.

    If you are going to use the Bible to support the Palestinian narrative you are not helping them. The claim is that there never was a Jewish kingdom despite the growing body of archeological evidence to the contrary.

  • butt-head||

    "before I ALSO pee my carpet laughing"

    But your old body does that regardless, inadvertently

  • Echospinner||

    I would not wish to exacerbate any incontinence issues you may have. You seem upset enough already.

    You wrote "Toady, the United States has pledged its entire military force to GUARANTEE that Israel remains the sole nuclear power in the area ..."

    Nope there is no such guarantee. There is no such policy. Show it to me.

    That is pure alt-right crap. The history of the US and Post revolution Iran has been one long conflict from the start. The whole revolution was based on hatred for the US because of our support from the Shah. You remember the hostages, embassy? That was Israel's fault?

    Canaanites.

    "Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded…. (Josh. 10:40, 11:15)"

    He may have won some victories but he did not wipe out the Canaanites. As generals often do he exaggerated the body count. After his death it seems there was quite a lot of smiting and smoting left to do.

    So tribe A attacks tribe B. Happened countless times in history.

    "1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the LORD, "Who of us is to go up first to fight against the Canaanites?" 2 The LORD answered, "Judah shall go up."
    1Judges

    Not to mention again scientific and archeological evidence that the Canaanites persisted in the area.

    So I would not take the verse from Joshua at face value.

  • Echospinner||

    Thus far you present nothing but argument by assertion which is really not an argument at all. It is just a shouting match. I generally avoid those but I was bored today.

    You gave me a reason to look up some biblical history and archeology which is something I enjoy. So I got something out of it anyway.

    Had not read ch20 of Deuteronomy in a while. The war chapter.

    For example
    9 And it shall be, when the officers have made an end of speaking unto the people, that captains of hosts shall be appointed at the head of the people. When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it...12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it.

    Rules and tactics of war from ancient times. Fascinating. There are rules for who should be exempt from conscription, for appointment of officers so as to have an effective fighting force. Great stuff.

    I think I know where you are coming from, the Middle East and why the US is involved, the Jewish Israel lobby all that. Not my first day. That is another discussion.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn mainly focuses on the top part of the thread to get the most out of bold.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    You are aware that the First Crusade was the impetus of over a century of Islamic aggression throughout the Mediterranean and Europe?

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    I made no such claim.

    I said that the First Crusade, which you referenced upthread, was the result of century of Islamic aggression. It was. Islamic groups pillaged and conquered throughout the Mediterranean, and further up into and around Europe.

    I never mentioned the Jews in relation to the First Crusade.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why respond to Hihn, his insane rants mean nothing. Its a ploy to illicit web traffic.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano criticizes others for government bennies while shrieking that population decline will take his away.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    My statement is historically accurate. Islamic kingdoms were out for plunder and conquest. The Crusdes were a response to that stimuli.

    Now you're calling me 'a liar'.

    You complain about bullying and aggression. You yourself are extraordinarily aggressive and appear to be attempting to lick a fight where none exists.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Then, by God, give the land back to its rightful owners, the Canaanites. Wait, what? They're all dead? Sounds like the Jews have be best surviving claim then.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    I think the oldest and best claim would be the Protozoa.

  • DRM||

    Yes, one question, and one follow-up.

    Given that Israel was largely founded by Jews who had been allowed to peacefully immigrate to Palestine by Muslim rulers, do you think that maybe, just maybe, it was ultimately bad for Palestinians for their rulers to allow the Jews to immigrate to what they claimed was their ancestral homeland, even though it was done peacefully and the initial result of the immigration was economically advantageous for the region?

    And given that example from very recent history, might it similarly be bad for Americans in the long run for their rulers to allow Mexicans to immigrate to what was fairly recently part of Mexico, and which is also claimed to be the land of Aztlan, the ancestral homeland of the Mexica?

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Well played Sir.

  • Ariki||

    Seriously folks. This is what happens what someones emotional filter takes precedent over their rational filter.

    Do you drink soy Hihn?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Maybe a rational reboot is possible.

    Micheal, let's go by the numbers. How long does an ethnic group have to live in a country to claim indigenous status in that country?

    I mean, you say that 300 years of rule is not enough to establish an eternal claim on a land. Arab rule in the Levant only lasted a few centuries before the Crusades. By your criteria, it makes sense to invade every part of the planet every couple of centuries to insure that no nation has the right to keep your people out of it.

    Oh, and by the way, Spanish Jews have been living in the Middle East and North Africa ever since Spain kicked them out over 500 years ago, and there were existing Jewish communities in most of the places they moved to.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn-fected.

  • ThomasD||

    Israel was largely founded by Jews who had been allowed to peacefully return to Judea by Zoroastrian rulers, who had just defeated the Babylonian rulers who had enslaved the Jews.

    Islam is rather a late comer to the region.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Israel never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Other countries pledged to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But yeah, the ctrl-left thinks that treaties are meaningless unless they are the trade agreements that give them access to cheap avocado toast.

  • NashTiger||

    JEWS x INVASIONS = CONSPIRACY

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mikey would have been a Sonderkommando.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    While we're on the topic of the immigration policies in other countries, let's look beyond German and examine Latin America. The 2017 International Migration Report from the UN shows Europe and Asia each taking over 70 million international migrants while the region comprised of Latin America and the Caribbean takes fewer than 10 million international migrants. If the ctrl-left can take a break from resisting the tyranny of assigning people alphabetically to address the immigration policies in Latin America and the Caribbean, there will be plenty of immigration visas for people trying to leave Africa and the Middle East.

  • buybuydandavis||

    * Except when it comes to Israel.

    And Japan. And China. And Mexico. ...

    Remember, it's only racism when Whitey does it!

  • Brian||

    After 75 years, Germans stop worrying about "you know who else?" questions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Many of the German Nazis (Socialists) kept telling the Allies that they were not Nazis and just worked through de-Nazification classes.

    They then had families and taught them to be proper Socialists.

    Hitler was partly right that Europe would be Socialist for a Millennia.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hitler was a Socialist. A 100% lefty.

  • hello.||

    Mikey Hihn defends communism against fascism while babbling incoherent about Jewish conspiracies and alternative history and calling others racist.

    When none of your family will step forward to claim your rotten old corpse and the state has to handle your final resting place remind me to donate an Israeli flag to drape your coffin in.

  • Azathoth!!||


    Why do you say the Book of Genesis is a fraud?


    The Christian creation story? Hmmmm.....why would anyone look at it as a less than accurate historical source?
  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Socialism is a left wing construct. Not the right.

    How can you be ignorant of such a basic fact?

  • Ariki||

    Fascism, which at its very best is Socialism with the virtues left out.

    Quote by someone who has lived experience with both systems and is so much smarter than you Hihny its almost a shame to quote him to you.

    Hihn + Keyboard = Incoherent

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    That you dismiss it does not make it any less so. You may also dismiss gravity, but I wouldn't suggest stepping off the ledge of a skyscraper expecting not to fall.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    "Is that why you deny Hitler was a righty?"

    Hitler was a leftist. He was against communism largely in that they argued about WHO was going to be in charge, not so much how. in a 1927 speech, Hitler said "We are socialists. We are the enemies of today's capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

    Although not purely socialist. Hitler ran a command economy, just as many modern socialist countries do.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    I well aware of what you said. You're wrong, my statement is correct. You have no special status that provides validity to a statement merely because you type it.

    Your commentary is poorly organized and a pain to follow, probably because you feel a need to attack almost every other commenter. I also find your grasp of history at least a bit tenuous, and perhaps deliberately self serving.

    Those aren't attacks, just casual observation. You are of course free to organize your writing as you choose, but it currently is not designed to flow smoothly for third parties.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Left - Right = Zero"

    There it is!

    *splooge*

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Left - Right = Zero"

    There it is! *splooge*

  • jonnysage||

    Blame the people for allowing such central management. Feel good politics run by a massive central bureaucracy does not work.

  • Cy||

    It works great for the bureaucracy and those that run it.

  • hello.||

    Mikey Hihn has the ultimate libertarian solution: complete centralization under a total state.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn doesn't Socialism hard enough.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    I can't fathom what he's all about. He keeps going on about libertarianism, but appears at least neutral to favorable towa da socialism, and rabidly hostile to the right.

    The guy attacks almost every person who posts and raves about r and I'm subjects.

  • Jerryskids||

    You put up a "Free Shit! Come Get Some!" sign on your door, don't be surprised when lazy free-loaders show up. You put up a "Help Wanted" sign, you get a different sort of person.

  • Ghatanathoah||

    The problem isn't that Germany attracted a lot of freeloaders. The problem is that the native German population is full of lazy freeloaders who don't want to have to compete for work with hardworking immigrants. So they pressured the government to implement regulations to protect their jobs from competition.

    If the immigrants and refugees were really lazy freeloaders, those regulations would have been unnecessary.

    If you don't want immigrants to take your job, all you have to do is stop being so pathetic that some newb who barely speaks the language is a better worker than you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Floods of immigrants are the problem.

  • hello.||

    It's too bad the dementia took Mikey's sense of shame along with his admittedly minimal reasoning capabilities. Cutting taxes is entitlement. Sitting your obsolete old ass in a Medicare-funded nursing home spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to keep prolonging your worthless life is true liberty.

    Speaking of parasites Mikey how does it feel to know that you'll be worm food before Trump wins his next term in office?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Cut all welfare.

  • hello.||

    Just be glad that those of us still working and paying taxes are willing to suffer your senile rambling obsolete old ass Mikey. You're welcome.

  • A racist||

    Thank God old age will take you soon.

  • Mock-star||

    "If I;m senile at the age of 76, how old are you, 760?"

    ZING!

  • perlchpr||

    After the 2017 elections, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), a euroskeptic-turned-anti-immigration organization, entered Parliament with the third most votes of any party. The result shocked and frightened the German mainstream[.]

    If they picked up enough votes to become electorally significant, they are part of the German Mainstream.

  • hello.||

    Mikey still thinks Hillary should be president for winning the popular vote but that parties who are electorally successful are not mainstream.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Are you talking about another country? Someone as brilliant as yourself should readily state the U.S. is a republic.

  • butt-head||

    You don't have to yell, dude.

  • NashTiger||

    TYPING - CAPS = 0 Sound Waves

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The mainstream, by definition, is where the water IS. Not where you think the water ought to be.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    2+2=4, not -4. What time of day do they pass out your meds?

  • ||

    Nothing went 'wrong'. It was a stupid thing to do. The results were plain to see and the average citizen spoke out.

    It's also interesting to note how they frame this. Apparently, those insular far right miscreants didn't understand our tolerant open borders philosophy and scared people to death! Please.

    Same shit here in Canada (you hate immigrants!) and Trump in the USA.

    Normal immigration is fine. VERY FEW people are against that. MASS migration under the guise of 'compassion' is not a bright idea.

    Slowly integratIng and assimilating new peoples is a long process. Which is why we always kept the numbers at a level we deemed the bureaucracy could handle and the population at large.

    But one million is such a short time frame (and mostly Muslims no less) was foolish and the results spoke for themselves. At the end of the day, we knew all along open borders was a challenge.

  • Homple||

    The German government, having grown dissatisfied with those it ruled, decided to "dissolve the people and elect another". They were too quick about it and alarmed the ones they wanted to dissolve.

  • Ghatanathoah||

    No government in history has ever done this. There has never, in the entire history of the human race, been a government was motivated to invite in immigrants and refugees in order to replace its existing voting base. The idea is completely ridiculous.

    Politicians want to let in refugees and immigrants for the exact same reasons they state publicly: because they think it will improve the economy, and because they have compassion for the plight of those people.

    You know how ridiculous leftists sound when they insist everyone is a secret bigot and that's the only reason they could possibly want to support right-wing policies? "Electing a new people" is the right wing version of that.

  • Homple||

    I think Brecht meant culturally, not politically. At least I took it that way.

    Besides, New Labour in the UK pretty much had a strategy of voter importation.

    As for compassion, how's that working out for the existing population in, for example, Sweden?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In America immigrants are used as bought voters.

    Its all in the numbers because some immigrants vote against the Socialist agenda but most vote for it.

  • hello.||

    You know how you vote exclusively for Democrats because that AARP mailer you got back in 1972 when you hit retirement age told you to? Immigrants kind of do the same thing. To be fair most of them aren't nearly as stupid as you are but they are equally greedy and anxious to turn government guns on their fellow man in order to extract their living.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    I'm what fashion is your website proof of anything? It looks like a bunch of stuff you wrote on a website. By that standard, a prosecutor would just start website for any case they're prosecuting, amd repeat their allegations on it. Thus securing a conviction.

    Do you see what I'm talking about?

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Ok, and how does any of THAT constitute that the other poster here is a "psycho"?

    And what am I "lying about". I never said anything about the contents of the page one way or the other. Nor am I interested in doing so.

    Do you have some kind of persecution complex? It may measure you to know I don't really care enough to be interested in anything like that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mikey no likey socialism.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    You use words like "psycho" and "assault". They don't mean what you think they do. It appears anyone who dares disagree with you in any way is "attacking" and "bullying" you. Even if that were true, you should work a lot harder on being correct. You frequently are not.

    In fact, you're the kind of,guy that sits in a bar and makes unsolicited smart ass remarks, insults, amd ,aybe flicks peanuts at other people. Then when someone has enough of your shit, and stands up, you cry about how they're threatening you.

    Don't be that kind of punk.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians are great, aren't they.

  • hello.||

    Libertarians like Mikey exist to tell us that the government putting guns to our heads in order to steal our money to keep the state-funded roof over his obsolete old ass is true liberty.

  • fatcyst||

    If these folks are right wing theyre still more libertarian than you.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is desperate to keep his goobermint bennies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Whos Mikey?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mikey no likey Socialism.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Really? Because that's precisely what Tony Blair and the Labour Party attempted to do, and pretty much explains the US Democrats' enthusiasm for virtually open borders and a "path to citizenship".

  • ||

    This. The misnamed "anti-immigrants" don't actually want closed borders. We understand limited phased immigration is fine. We understand that allowing asylum seekers are needed. But fully open borders that Germany did is nuts. And the German people realized it.

  • lulz farmer||

    Nah, I want to close the borders completely. I don't want the ethnicity of my country changed to African or something like that and have my descendants bloodlines mixed with Africans or Arabs or other shit-tier people who create nightmare societies. Thanks.

  • lulz farmer||

    You are the type of contemptible human garbage who never has to pay the costs associated with bringing these literal savages in. You're fine with foisting it on others because you can externalize the costs. All immigration should be re-routed into your neighborhood and your neighborhood should be surrounded by military preventing you from fleeing the situation so that you get a taste of what you've inflicted on others.

  • soldiermedic76||

    You live in Boise, that explains it all. There is a reason the rest of us Idahoans refer to Boise as East Portland. And we don't mean it as a compliment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I live at 15th and Main, in the state capital of Idaho

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's homeless status confirmed.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    From the Wikipedia entry for Boise Idaho:

    As of the census[36] of 2010, there were 205,671 people, 85,704 households, and 50,647 families residing in the city. The population density was 2,591.6 inhabitants per square mile (1,000.6/km2). There were 92,700 housing units at an average density of 1,168.1 per square mile (451.0/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 89.0% White, 1.5% African American, 0.7% Native American, 3.2% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 2.5% from other races, and 3.0% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 7.1% of the population.

    Seriously? You're bragging that you know all about ethnic diversity because you live in the "big city" (America's 99th most populous city) where only 89.0% of the population is white? For comparison, Wikipedia reports that Rockland County NY is 77.5% White ( 63.0% White non-Hispanic) and Vineland, NJ is 67% White.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks living in a city that's over 80 percent white is "diverse."

  • VinniUSMC||

    The Hihnfection doesn't think... that's his problem.

  • Jeff77042||

    Agreed.

  • Rockabilly||

    I was planning on going to London.

    Man, I was so excited. I packed my bags, had my plane ticket, got to the airport and then this dude said: "Where is your passport?"

    I said "Passport?" "Man, I don't need a passport, I am a free citizen able to go wherever I want."

    Well, the man gave me the boot, even after I spoke with his supervisor.

    I was undeterred and wasn't going to let some bureaucrat dictate to me where I can travel.

    Further investigation found even if I traveled by sea I would need that sticking 'passport.'

    I just couldn't walk to England. When Canada wouldn't let me in, I just found an unguarded section of their border and walked through the woods.

    So I devised a plan. I'd stow away on the Queen Mary 2. It wasn't easy, believe me. That Queen is guarded, but I did. It was a real hassle, I had to bring food and what not and it took about 6 days but I did it.

    I don't recommend it with a family though.

  • Cy||

    "I don't recommend it with a family though."

    You idiot! if you take your family, they'll never make you leave!

  • hello.||

    Mikey is speaking from experience here.

  • Ariki||

    God dam Sttttttttttttttttticky keys.

  • hello.||

    You can't get asylum from the hobgoblins hiding in your closet Mikey.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Basically what happened is that they tried to deep fry the frog, instead of boiling it. (Yes, I know, you can't really boil a frog by raising the temperature slowly enough.)

    Instead of taking a couple generations to replace the Germans, the German government tried to do it in a decade, and the German people rebelled.

    "But the country is stuck wondering how to successfully integrate such a huge mass of outsiders. This riddle is one shared by a number of countries worldwide."

    By not allowing them in, in the first place. It's like thermonuclear war: The only way to win is to not play the game in the first place.

  • ||

    Like Poland and Hungary did. They refused to play.

    Austria and Italy played and then stopped because it wasn't fun (or funny anymore).

  • Homple||

    Austria and Italy took the EU candy and then found out what goes on in the van.

  • perlchpr||

    It's horrible, but I laughed.

  • Ariki||

    haha and those freaky Germans drive that van......

  • NashTiger||

    *VW microbus

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    What's really insidious though is the totalitarian left believes that failure and chaos benefits them. This is the whole idea underpinning the "Cloward-Piven Strategy". Or as Rahm Emmanuel formulated it, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

  • SQRLSY One||

    And now the totalitarian RIGHT is having orgasms over the failure of the German policy to bring immigrants in!!! Massive failure will be attributed to the immigration itself, and NOT to the failure of German Government Almighty to GET OUT OF THE WAY of letting them WORK! Talk about "shadenfreude" (the joy of seeing suffering), just read the xenophobic comments right here!!!

  • Ariki||

    I would support open borders if every nation and culture on the planet shared the same values.
    Sadly they do not, so I do not.

    I cannot abide the influx of a people that believe things that are the antithesis to western values.

    You want in? Leave your negative cultural bullshit at the border.
    Simple.

    Can you guarantee that?

  • SQRLSY One||

    I'd like to see brain scan tech improved and made reliable and affordable. Brain-scan them at the border, and keep violent shitheads OUT! Religious and cultural "tests" don't work as well as brain-scan tests could, if we put our minds to it.

    No, I can give no guarantees... Neither can parents, when they decide to have children. The kiddos can grow up to be violent or full of cultural bullshit as well. But we don't outlaw having kids!

  • lulz farmer||

    It's not the government's job to get these 83 IQ illiterates jobs. Most of them have no desire to work. They just want to live off the taxpayer and fuck or rape white women.

  • Ecoli||

    It really is that simple: too many, too fast.

    The same thing has happened to southern California. The progressive answer to American citizens is, "fuck you, open the door."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Lefties have a dilemma. Now that most Americans are on to them and voting against Democrats, the Lefties feel the urgency to flood America with immigrants and hopefully stave off the USA moving back from Socialism.

  • lulz farmer||

    If you did it slower, it would still fail. Biological differences and incompatibilities are real. Your ideology is false.

  • BigT||

    How about all those Irish, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, Vietnamese, Greek, etc people who came from totalitarian shitholes? It's their desire to become culturally American that made it work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The ones that wanted to be American did. The ones that wanted to be Americant's did not.

  • Ariki||

    This comment is either genius or moronic. I am unsure.
    What do you mean by "High"?

  • Azathoth!!||

    And now you know the answer is 'moronic'.

  • ||

    I'd like to add, there's also an added problem that goes beyond processing from the bureaucracy (the author makes it sound like if only they could be more enlightened migrants would be given a better 'fair shake') and that's with the concept of minority rights in the West. It's one thing to have people come in and expect them to follow the laws and rules of the host nation full stop (majority rule) but it's quite another to give exceptions and exemptions via minority rights which only stalls the possibility of integrating. The other problem is we often see reports on demographics (to the extent they're accurate) on how whites (depending how the term will be defined in the future - white hispanic!) will eventually be minorities (or at least have a smaller majority) not just in Europe but in America as well. Not only that, the media seems to applaud and welcome it.

    It would be naive to think there wouldn't be push back.

    Basically, people reached a conclusion through a natural evolution and said, 'yeh, I think this needs to slow down'.

  • lulz farmer||

    White is not a social construct. The "white Hispanics" who think they're white but are actually just mestizos can think whatever they want -- doesn't make it true. Anyway, this is all just a genocidal program. Of course people would be against it once they understand what is happening.

    There's a reason that no democracy was in play the entire time here. The people would never agree to such a policy.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Meh, when I was a kid, people still told "Polish jokes", because they were ignorant of history. Poland was ahead of the UK in terms of developing democracy before its neighbors partitioned it in the late 18th Century. Now, the descendants of plantation owners insist that Polish people are White in the hopes that the descendants of plantation slaves stay busy attacking Polish neighborhoods instead of more established enclaves. Whites and Blacks can get along if they ignore the propaganda from race baitters.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I think it depends on how you racially classify people. Biracial people are becoming more common, but researchers classify them as racial minorities and not biracial.

  • SQRLSY One||

    When the German welfare state collapses with too many geezers and not enough working people, they will wish that they had done this thing better!

  • ||

    It will be interesting to see what France will do. That leaves them (the UK?) as committed to free-flow migration. Recall they chastised Italy for 'closing down' its borders causing friction. Will they do the same to Germany?

    Sweden too is rethinking this whole migration thing.

    Categorizing this is a 'far right' thing is unhelpful and should be rejected. Indeed, the threshold to be considered 'far right' is very loose these days. We all generally can be classified or considered a racist or misogynist according to the narrative and progressive orthodoxy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you are not fully on board with Socialism, they will call you any names necessary and do anything to get you off their backs.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialism is not kewl.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn doesnt like Socialism either.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The deal is a dramatic repudiation of everything Merkel asked Germans to believe in just three years ago, which leaves many wondering: What on Earth went wrong?"

    The primary problem was that she tried to inflict an unpopular immigration policy on the German people over their objections and against their will.

    There's a lesson here for everybody, alright--unfortunately for the elitists among my fellow libertarians, too--and the lesson is this: There is no libertarian substitute for persuasion.

    Inflicting policy on unwilling people is all you have left without persuasion, and not only is inflicting policy on unwilling people an unlibertarian, authoritarian thing to do, it also doesn't work for long and certainly not without negative consequences. Even things people would otherwise like become unpopular when they're inflicted by elitist governments from above. I'd quickly come to hate pizza, beer, ice cream, or bacon if the government tried to force it on us. Why would it be any different with immigration?

    Those of us who can't imagine persuading our fellow Americans of the benefits of immigration should stop calling themselves libertarians. If you want to use the government to inflict libertarianism on the American people over their objections and against their will, then you're not a libertarian. You're an authoritarian with a better agenda.

  • ||

    And call people who question it 'xenophobes' and other names.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, that isn't the way to make friends and influence people.

  • perlchpr||

    I'd quickly come to hate pizza, beer, ice cream, or bacon if the government tried to force it on us.

    Well, to be fair, it does make one shudder to simply contemplate the quality such items would come to have under such a schema of enforced government consumption.

    Pizza made with "gub'mint cheese" is going to be atrocious.

    *gag*

  • Longtobefree||

    Not Bacon! Never hate Bacon.
    Better to have a revolution than hate bacon!

  • Hank Phillips||

    So Werkel should have said: "These are not the asylums you're looking for."

  • SQRLSY One||

    The Germans added too many mandates and regulations on immigrants who were willing to work, is a major problem here!

    A few months ago, I had carpal tunnel surgery on both wrists at the same time (was all bandaged up on both hands). I couldn't even scratch my own butt-hole! So I asked the hospital and the surgeon, what they were charging for butt-scratching services. They spoke 12,000,000 fancy policy-position words at me, and I still didn't know the answer. "The Google" knows, though, and it turns out to be like $15,983 (give or take) for one day's worth of butt-scratching, by butt-scratchologists who are degreed, credentialed, certified, and licenced, AND who ALSO carry the mandatory health insurance policies covering alien abduction therapy, aromatherapy, Scientology therapy, addiction therapy, sex change therapy, species change therapy, enrich-my-uncle-the- hypnotist therapy, past-lives regression therapy, sex addiction therapy, love-your-Government -Almighty relationship therapy, therapy-therapy, and on and on...

    So I found myself an illegal human who would scratch my butt as needed, for $20 per day, instead!!!

    Would Government Almighty PLEASE GTFO of the way of humans (legal and illegal both) who are willing to work for affordable prices?!?!?!

  • Cy||

    "The Germans added too many mandates and regulations on immigrants who were willing to work, is a major problem here!"

    Apparently you know nothing about the German educational and job placement system. There are some pretty big restrictions for anyone trying to work in a position requiring education in Germany. Children are often set on different paths as early as middle school.

    This is what all of the naive, arm chair, "libertarian," open borders fools don't understand. The systems these illegal invaders are flooding into are not designed for them. They speak different languages, have different standards, have different procedures in a thousand different fields and are there for welfare programs. And the glaring hole in the "work for affordable prices" bullshit, THERE AREN'T ANY JOBS for people who can't speak the language and have no education on procedures or cultures in a heavily technology based service economy.

    You are/were advocating to open all borders into every country and now that you see it doesn't work, as you claimed it would, your next piece of advice is for the governments and societies to change in order to accommodate the invaders. GENIUS!

  • SQRLSY One||

    "...next piece of advice is for the governments and societies to change in order to accommodate the invaders."

    I advise that we tear down the uber-regulatory nanny state, NOT in order to "accommodate the invaders", but rather, to get to a stable, sustainable state! The welfare state, AKA the uber-regulatory nanny state, is undeniably headed for a BIG CRASH as geezers swamp the system, and there are NOT enough workers! And the workers cost WAY too much, because of over-regulation, as I have detailed above!

    We need fresh young blood, and less regulations!!! Else the whole thing collapses fairly soon!

  • Cy||

    You sound like the "That wasn't true communism crowd."

    So you admit you were wrong? Open borders "immigration" doesn't work.

    Your new stance is: "Open borders immigration works, but you need to eliminate a bunch of government restrictions and welfare?"

  • SQRLSY One||

    Your new stance is: "Open borders immigration works, but you need to eliminate a bunch of government restrictions and welfare?"

    Yes, that's pretty accurate! The geezerfication (aging of populations, even worse in Europe and Japan than here) leaves us very few other choices! Inventing a bunch of really-really good AI and robots, better and cheaper than now by far, is about the only other decent "out" that I can see...

  • SQRLSY One||

    Even if we do get those decent, affordable AIs and robots, the next thing we'll have to guard against?

    The uber-regulators will then require the butt-scratching robots to be degreed, credentialed, certified, and licenced, AND who ALSO carry the mandatory health insurance policies covering alien abduction therapy, aromatherapy, Scientology therapy, addiction therapy, sex change therapy, species change therapy, enrich-my-uncle-the- hypnotist therapy, past-lives regression therapy, sex addiction therapy, love-your-Government -Almighty relationship therapy, therapy-therapy, and on and on...

    In other words, the uber-regulators will lust mightily for preserving their powers and money, so the robots will possibly get us right back to where we started, if we're not careful!

  • gimmedatribeye||

    How do we get rid of the welfare state?

    In the meantime, are you suggesting we still allow unlimited immigration/open-borders?

    What if we can never get rid of the welfare state? Personally, I don't think it can be done.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Sad to say, ditching the entire welfare State looks like a very tough nut to crack. I have no good answers for you on that one. It will have to collapse before it can be fixed.

    In the meantime, since the Germans could NOT see fit to get rid of their anti-work policies, bringing in so many immigrants was a mistake, I will admit. Smaller volume of flow would be better.

    Demographics problem remains... "Birth dearth", too many geezers. SOME reasonable degree of immigration into 1st-world nations remains a "must have".

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    We need to adopt a legislative strategy of incrementalism, much like the democrats have done with great success. Always leaving them with a little bit less. This will require a Republican Congress, or a mix of republicans and libertarians, that are capable of not backing down to the democrats all the time.

    For example, there was recently an opportunity to roll back unemployment budgeting and shorten benefits, as the economy will easily support that in the current job environment. Congressional republicans pissed that opportunity away.

  • lulz farmer||

    Low IQ third world peasants who take more out of the system than they put in are not "fresh young blood," egghead. These people are a net burden. They are NOT the equals of the natives in ability and never will be. They are the reason their own countries are shitholes -- because it's full of people like them.

  • Homple||

    Cy is correct, Sq knows jack shit about German society. That's because he doesn't think he has to. His faith in human interchangeability absolves him from thinking about cultural differences and how they affect behavior and assimilation.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I know German culture and can speak it moderately well, so you're flat-out wrong.

    Government Almighty over-reach SUCKS, planet-wide, and it does NOT matter what your culture or language is!

    "Treat other people the way you'd like to be treated" is a UNIVERSAL human value or rule, and if you don't want an elite pretending to be your moral superiors, all day, every day, telling you what to do and not do at a micro-managing level, then do not BE an elite, pretending to be others' moral superiors, all day, every day!

    Libertarian love of individual freedom is a simple extension of the Golden Rule, and applies EVERYWHERE on this miserable planet!

  • Homple||

    I worked there for 14 years, subject to German immigration law and hired employees under German employment law and had much interaction with government regulators and the tax system and didn't see anything that made me think the people would be better off governed by Gary Johnson.

  • fatcyst||

    Race realism is still real. Not everyone is created equal despite what your liberal uni taught you.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    I don't know what differences truly exist or not. It would be nice to see a large scale objective study, if for nothing else but to put the subject to rest. However, I see no way that could ever happening without massive unrest.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Apparently you know nothing about the German educational and job placement system.

    And neither do the people who whine, "why can't we have tuition-free college like they do in Germany?" In Germany, the school system determines who is headed for college and who isn't before they hit puberty. If you're not sorted into the higher education-bound group at an early age, you can forget about college and a professional career. Americans would never stand for that, not the least because of the effect that would have on the racial make-up of American colleges. Under a German or English-type system of rigid student tracking, US colleges would be almost all white and the rest Asian, with no Black students to speak of. Germany can afford free tuition because they don't waste resources on students who are not proven college material.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Also in Germany they make all church-members pay taxes for their church membership, which Government Almighty then collects, and pays to the Church. And then they wonder why church membership is down...

    Also in many German towns and cities, it is illegal to cut down your own tree, w/o Government Almighty permission... Unless the tree has died! So people have learned, drive a few copper nails into the tree, and it will die within a year. So, de facto, per German micro-management, you must slowly torture you tree to death, and THEN you may cut it down! (No word to be had on whether killing your tree with Zyklon B gas is OK, or not).

    Germany is NOT a place for individual-liberty-lovers to live in!!!

  • fatcyst||

    Do you mean German temples? I think it might be closer to your expertise.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Before this devolves too much, let me just say that there is a happy medium between open borders free for all and the current wave of restrictionist policies. That's what most of us actually want, and it would be nice if something could be learned from Germany's experience about how to do it right. Alas, the lesson will probably be lost amid bickering by the two extremist camps.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open borders people ruined it for native-born citizens to compromise anymore.

    Most countries will move to a period of assimilation and equilibrium. I predict about 5 years before anything but a trickle of immigrants are allowed into European countries.

  • DajjaI||

    The problem as I've said all along is that Germany doesn't have free speech, so they were unable to speak out against this policy and prevent the crisis from happening in the first place. Police went around arresting people for posting 'xenophobic content' on facebook. So people were afraid to speak out. There was not widespread support for this policy as we are told. Of course this kind of thing always results from speech restrictions. As Germany knows all too well.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It is not as if speech restrictions bit Germany in the ass before...

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Germany Just Agreed To Essentially Close Its Borders. How Did We Get Here?

    A reluctance to depose and execute treasonous politicians who attempt population replacement on your country probably doesn't help. Next time elect a Pinochet type, and this sort of thing won't happen.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    German Hillary is not a very good leader.

  • Sevo||

    So will the Brits float a 'child Merkle' balloon and scream "RACIST!!!!"?

  • creech||

    My reaction too. Dude quoted in today's paper, from the London rally, that "we're here because of the horrific scenes from the Mexican border." The Queen better screen her tea party guests better in the future.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump evidently walked in front of the Queen and it set off a media fire storm.

    I am sure that Trump knew exactly what he was doing and it was a fuck you from the first nation to break away from the King of England.

  • BigT||

    Chuckle and Wills refused to meet Trump. I say ban them both from the USA forever.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Which European Socialists are those nobodies?

  • Nardz||

    I actually saw when this happened. Was hilarious.
    England needs to be reminded of their place.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    They should send their entire government packing I'd they want to survive as a nation. They are in real trouble.

  • No Longer Amused||

    How did we get there? Germany got tired of having Merkel be George Soros' "open borders" stooge and deliberately destroy the country by ushering in millions of immigrants that look at Europe as someplace they were unjustly evicted from after they invaded it a millennia ago.

    Germany is under no obligation to be something other than German, for Germans - it's their homeland, and nobody else is entitled to just wander in and ruin it for them.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Let's see...allowing a million people, most of whom do not understand or care to understand your culture and values, into your country leads to massive shitstorm.

    As basically EVERYBODY who is not a woke SJW retard predicted. Right?

    And the reason for this shitstorm is failure of government to act efficiently, competently, and humanely. As no government, ever, acts. Bureaucrats are, like, the anti-humanity.

    So the solution is fewer regulations, which will allow the government to function better, because reasons. THEN you can let a million people in, and it'll go great, also because reasons. Right?

    I just want to make sure I am parsing this goddamn foolish, ignorant, and tone-deaf argument, which has no place in this publication, correctly.

    Reason's collective retardation on the issue of mass immigration is so bad that even people like me, who generally favor open borders, can only shake our heads and back. Away. Slowly.

    This kind of shit, Shikha, and Soave are why I stopped giving you money.

    You cannot bring a million people into a place where they do not speak the language, do not understand the culture, and do not care about its values, and expect them to happily assimilate and become productive.

    That is not the same thing as saying asylum for people, especially mothers and their children brutalized by monsters like Assad, is wrong. They need and deserve protection. But I am sure a woke SJW would just call me a bigot and be done with the argument.

  • Uncrumpled Napkin||

    Out of all the comments I've read this one makes the most sense. Most of the other comments do not see the forest for the trees...

    One of my questions is why should we (the general public) be worried about a shrinking population? Who is benefiting from a non-native growing population and who is this hurting?

    Growing non-native population:
    Benefits = Big business (more money), big government (More money, more votes)
    Hurts = the native population (loses identity)

  • SQRLSY One||

    So who will take care of you in your old-age home? How do we FORCE the natives to make more babies? If we use force, what will be the costs of using force?

  • CLM1227||

    I should think the libertarian answer to "who will take care of you in your old age" is "your kids."

    Why should you appropriate my offspring to care for you exactly? And why should we be appropriating the best of foreign countries just so you can have an old people home? If you didn't invest in the future of this country, why should we bend over backwards for you?

  • Longtobefree||

    The Libertarian answer is "I already took care of myself".
    And if the feds didn't steal 12.5% of earned income, most people would not have a serious problem doing exactly that.

  • Uncrumpled Napkin||

    I would rather die in the woods alone than be put in an old-age home.

    I am for a shrinking population. I do not believe in the hysteria surrounding a shrinking population that you are being spoon fed by the elites to keep their system going and enriching themselves.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ~310M people in America crowds our major cities and connecting roads to the point of 1-2 hour commutes.

    We dont need a bunch of immigrants.

    Maybe in 40 years if Americans pretty much stop having babies. Since sex is so fun, babies are a common result of even what people call safe sex.

  • fatcyst||

    We only feel we can't have babies because we work 40+ hours/week and pay 40% of it to those undeserving so they can have more children that do not contribute.

    The native inhabitants should get assistance or no one at all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No welfare.

  • TLBD||

    I'm not sure why we need to make more babies besides the fact that everything is a giant fucking Ponzi scheme.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties want all the Ponzi schemes and avoid wealth creation via free market.

    Even Trump trying to get the USA to have free trade with trading partners scares the shit out of Lefties. Free trade results in tens of thousands of fired government employees who must then compete in the free market.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Even Trump trying to get the USA to have free trade..."

    Yes, Trump shows his love of fire-free homes by pouring gasoline on the fires, to put them out! Trade wars are trade peace! Night is day, God = Satan! Love = hate! Stuff is anti-stuff! Everything is what Trump says it is!!!

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    What a poor analogy. You would be laughed out of a policy debate match.

  • SQRLSY One||

    And your input has no substance at all! "Poor analogy"? Why, how, ANY details? You give NONE!

    Trump amps up the trade wars, and LC1789 says that Trump is a super-hero for being in favor of free trade! If you know his posting history, and Trump's history, you would KNOW that Trump pours gasoline on the fire, and then says that he's anti-fire!!

    You put the "anal" in "analogy"!

  • fatcyst||

    Yea youre a retard SQR

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    "Yes, Trump shows his love of fire-free homes by pouring gasoline on the fires, to put them out! "

    That isn't anything but a bunch of snark. You may as well just say "atrumo is a big meanie amd if you say anything remotely favorable, or even just not totally hateful I will say some snarky dumbass thing and shit all over you".

    How's that for input?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Typical vacuity for an uninformed moron...

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    You're proving my point with a vague smartass comment.

    I think everyone gets that you hate Trump and don't agree with his trade strategy. But he's the first president in decades to actually do something about the shafting we get from China and the EU, among others. No one knows for sure if it will work or not. I hope it does.

    Do you hope it works? Or are you so invested in hating the guy that you would rather see his,policy pail amd Americans get hurt to satisfy your spite?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "One of my questions is why should we (the general public) be worried about a shrinking population?"
    Because our welfare state is and always has been a Ponzi scheme that requires an increasing number of new entrants into the system. In case you hadn't noticed, the federal government has accumulated massive debt largely due to these Ponzi obligations. Native birthrates in the productive class are nowhere near what they need to be now, let alone decades down the road. Just like any other product, if we can't make enough new workers we'll have to import them. I don't deny that there are costs to the native population. But any rational person who looks at the numbers is forced to conclude that the current system is on the verge of collapse. I personally think it's too late to save the empire no matter how many new taxpayers we can press into service to the state. The only asset we have left is Full Faith and Credit in the U.S. Treasury and we're rapidly pissing that away. The end will be soon and it will be very tough. And every politician will stare into the camera like GWB in 2009 and claim that nobody saw this coming. And all of those Mexicans will be climbing the wall to get back into Mexico and take their labor with them.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen well said!!!

  • Vernon Depner||

    And all of those Mexicans will be climbing the wall to get back into Mexico

    Net Mexican immigration might already be negative. Much of the current influx over the southern border is coming from further south than Mexico.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Good point!!!

  • fatcyst||

    You can check the stats and youll learn the actuals. Also dont forget the millions of illegals entering.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Stats about the comings and goings of illegals are always guesswork. There are no "actuals".

  • Uncrumpled Napkin||

    Then let Rome burn...

  • oscar||

    "This kind of shit, Shikha, and Soave are why I stopped giving you money"

    Exactly, same here.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I will never give Reason money as long as they spout anti-Libertarian and anti-Americans bullshit.

    If Reason goes under, Libertarians will always find each other somewhere else.

  • fatcyst||

    Fuck Libertarians. I think folks with a libertarian mindset may be an ally though.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yea, libertarianism!

  • BruceMajors||

    Isn't that impermissible hate speech? By asking questions that might lead someone to advocate using force to stop a Honduran from crossing the border from Mexico to the U.S., are you not essentially crying "fire" in a crowded theater and should you not be imprisoned?

  • mpercy||

    It's ok to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, if the theater is actually on fire.

  • mtrueman||

    It's ok to yell "Theatre" at a crowded fire.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    No, that would be a micro aggression at the fire.

  • mpercy||

    "You cannot bring a million people into a place where they do not speak the language, do not understand the culture, and do not care about its values,"

    Not only this, but many of the people being brought in actually HATE the culture and its values and instead want to impose their stone-age culture where men and women are to be kept separate, gays are to be stoned, infidels are to be killed, etc.

    They have no intention of EVER assimilating, and instead make demand after demand that their host countries defer to their beliefs and modify the public accord to suit their desires.

    And did I mention the child rape rings?

  • NashTiger||

    [William J Lepotomane] You said Rape twice [/William J Lepetomane]

  • lap83||

    You cannot bring a million people into a place where they do not speak the language, do not understand the culture, and do not care about its values, and expect them to happily assimilate and become productive.

    It would really be a miracle if they did assimilate and become productive considering that many of them only went for the entitlements.

  • Ecoli||

    The bracero program worked pretty well for America in times past...

  • Eddy||

    By all means let in migrants into your country, just so long as you do it in a way that afterwards, there's still a country for them to come to.

    Turning into another country is self-defeating even from the standpoint of welcoming migrants - the new country into which you transform isn't necessarily going to be more tolerant or rights-respecting.

  • Homple||

    "The modern definition of 'refugee' is someone who wants to live somewhere else. Keep taking them in and soon enough the refugee is you."

  • Ben_||

    It's called learning from your mistakes. You guys are idealogues so that kind of knowledge acquisition is unavailable to you. You know borders should be open regardless of any consequences. When things work out terribly, that just means your ideals weren't applied aggressively enough.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open border people and Lefties do no speak for Libertarians.

  • oscar||

    Apparently they now speak for Reason, however.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    True. Unfortunately.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    America, and the world, both need to work very differently for open borders to be successful.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Merkel could have enacted new immigration laws focused on easing barriers to employment. Admittedly, this would have required major policy changes for a risk-averse country, such as opening low-wage jobs to newcomers—but it would have helped avoid the idleness (and resulting boredom and frustration) that can push people to commit crimes, which in turn increases resentment among the native-born population."

    In other words, the immigration policy failed because Germany is not otherwise a sufficiently economically libertarian society. This would suggest that Merkel's policy was doomed to failure from the start, as she was not going to spend her political capital to change the political culture to loosen Germany's labor policy, even if she was temperamentally inclined to if she recognized the necessity. This is despite the pooh-poohing by the open borders crowd on being told that welfare states are incompatible with an open borders policy. This article is a tacit admission that open borders critics are correct,

  • Homple||

    One man's barriers to entry to employment is another man's quality assurance for employees.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    German Hillary will fail.

  • DJF||

    """""but it would have helped avoid the idleness (and resulting boredom and frustration) that can push people to commit crimes, which in turn increases resentment among the native-born population.""""

    Strange, when i am bored and frustrated I don't go out and commit crimes.

  • Cy||

    It's ok if you do, it's the government's fault!

  • Murray99||

    Though I am always happy to blame the nanny state, I do not believe that it is the government´s fault that the immigrants couldn´t get a job in Germany. First of all, most of the immigrants do neither speak English nor German, so how could they possibly qualify for work? Secondly, they scarcely have any other job-related skills.
    Thus, without any discernible qualification whatsoever, they wouldn´t find a job even if they didn´t need job permits.
    And, by the way, without any job they do not contribute to the German social system nor do they pay any taxes, i.e. an immigration of this type does not fix the problems of the German welfare system, it exacerbates them.

    "But the country is stuck wondering how to successfully integrate such a huge mass of outsiders. This riddle is one shared by a number of countries worldwide." - well, this riddle can be solved easily: this approach does not work at all.

  • perlchpr||

    I have to wonder, are there no farms in Germany? Even someone who doesn't speak the language or have any other appreciable skills should be able to learn how to pick cabbages.

  • perlchpr||

    And more importantly, from the perspective of integration, being out working with other people would provide a much better opportunity to learn to speak the new language more fluently.

  • Homple||

    Yes, there are farms in Germany and they are operated without having to import helot labor.

    Odd, that.

  • Longtobefree||

    As it turns out, picking cabbages is not a full time job.

  • Frank Thorn||

    German engineered cabbage picking machine

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ3ZUoz6cWM

  • Murray99||

    Well, apart from picking asparagus there is not much of a demand for unskilled labor in German agriculture - and asparagus season is not that long...

  • Homple||

    Spargelzeit!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Agriculture is extremely automated and increasingly becoming more automated. Outside of row crops, most work is done by machines. Even row crops are now being harvested increasingly by machines. Even dairies, the historically most labor intensive animal agriculture, is going automated, as completely robotic milking parlos are becoming more common. About the only section of agriculture not increasing in automation at the same place, is the antiquidated, anti-science organic movement. And even they are being forced to automate.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Pace not place

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    Someone has to benefit from agricultural subsidies, import tariffs, and labor restrictions.

  • soldiermedic76||

    What does that have to do with anything I said. Automation decreases costs, lowering production costs and increasing profit margin.

  • MaxBlancke||

    If the Germans were planning to build a set of pyramids using Ancient Egyptian construction methods, then huge numbers of unskilled laborers might be helpful. Farming, construction, and industry in Germany are now largely automated or mechanized.

  • ||

    Ironically, letting so many in lacks compassion for migrants because they're being put in a position where the odds of succeeding are against them. But shhhh, here's a welfare check until you figure it out - if ever.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Road to Serfdom.

  • Robert||

    What'd they do in the countries they came from? Asking seriously.

  • soldiermedic76||

    For the most part worked in labor intensive jobs that for the most part have been automated in the western world.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Most Islamic countries are very primitive.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Kind of my point.

  • fatcyst||

    Probably nothing. All the ones making any money there work in gov't getting paid via foreign assistance. And they don't leave.

  • fatcyst||

    Youre right. It makes no sense whatsoever and there are numerous holes in the story. Makes you wonder whos in control here.

  • Ecoli||

    Eventually the migrants will assimilate, maybe. More likely, eventually the natives will assimilate, and then America (or Germany or Britain or wherever) will no longer be the country it was.

    I suppose I will be accused of nostalgia, or worse, but there is a reason migrants are coming this way. Reshaping America to become Latin America is a bad idea.

  • Homple||

    But there will be more taco trucks, so on average, we will be better off.

  • Cy||

    What? Venezuela is a UTOPIA!

  • Longtobefree||

    Your plane leaves at noon; be on it.
    (It goes by way of Los Gatos canyon)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The immigrants have to want to assimilate. Many dont seem to want to. Some do though.

    People used to shame immigrants into assimilating. Some Reason writer wrote about his immigrant parents/grandparents not wanting to speak English in America and he was weirdly proud of that.

    I would shame my relatives that are immigrants into speaking English and assimilating as much as possible. If my distant relatives could immigrate, learn English, and fight the British for US Independence then immigrants can become Americanized.

  • Ecoli||

    I am seriously considering moving to Mexico. I plan to assimilate there. Speak the language, obey the laws, etc. It seems to be my duty to assimilate, not to mention just generally fitting in and being competent.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There was a time that I considered leaving the USA. I realize that after the Lefties conquer the USA, they will spread their tyranny WorldWide and you will get sucked into fighting anyway. Outside the USA, you can easily be deemed an enemy of America.

    I would rather fight it out inside the USA. At least, here my dissent is considered patriotic still.

    Trump is evidence that the Socialists have not fully conquered America and Lefty gains can be rolled back.

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah. My brother once phrased it as "Would you rather be subjected to US Domestic Policy, or US Foreign Policy?"

    :-/

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Excellent way to put it.

  • BruceMajors||

    Mexico won't allow you as an American to own property, so you won't be able to assimilate.

  • mtrueman||

    Mexicans can own property. There's still plenty of things for American tourists to buy in Mexico.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mexicans but nit Americans can own property. There was a curfufle in Baja Mexico over Merican ex-pats and Mexico not recognizing their property rights after buying land, building houses and contributing to their community.

  • mtrueman||

    I advise Americans to get dual citizenship for themselves and their family.

  • MasterThief||

    Gillespie is who you are thinking of. He made his open border arguments with anecdotes that really more proved the points of those defending limited immigration. Humans are tribal and there is only so far that the tribe can expand before the core of the tribe stops recognizing others as part of that tribe. This is the idea behind nations. Rapidly changing demographics destroys the culture and society of the host tribe. While this might be for the better in some cases, it shouldn't be accepted as the default when less developed societies overtake developed societies through this process.

  • mtrueman||

    Appeals to tribal loyalty are not going to impress libertarians, who focus on the individual and not the collective, whether you call it a tribe or a nation or whatever. And preserving culture and society are concerns of conservatives, not libertarians who are comfortable with their destruction. Again it's individuals that matter.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Appeals to tribal loyalty are not going to impress libertarians, who focus on the individual and not the collective, whether you call it a tribe or a nation or whatever.

    +1 to that!

    Plus, these naturalistic arguments such as "humans are tribal, therefore closed borders" swing both ways.

    Humans are cooperative, therefore communism!
    Humans are selfish, therefore capitalism!
    Humans are stupid, therefore monarchy!

    Just observing one of many (conflicting) aspects of human behavior is not in and of itself a rationale for anything.

  • fatcyst||

    No one is trying to impress libertarians (and I mean no one). Globalists are trying to coerce our voting though through various means.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, American Libertairans have found a solid base in individualism with a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

  • MJBinAL||

    I don't believe there has been an appeal to tribal loyalty. There has however been a discussion involving human nature, a topic of some value.

    Tribalism, is an extension of familial attachment. Unless you have a new and promising plan to reprogram humans, this isn't going anywhere soon. There is also an issue of culture, and culture is important. Some cultures result in more peace and prosperity than others. Some cultures value the individual, others inflate the importance of the group, be it society or religion.

    When people from repressive societies and cultures immigrate to western nations in pursuit of freedom, they generally assimilate pretty readily. They were already rejecting the culture they came from so assimilation is simply a learning experience.

    When people from repressive societies and cultures immigrate to western nations in pursuit exclusively of greater material goods, the generally assimilate poorly. They want to retain the culture they came from, want to spread thier culture in the new place, and even reject attempts to get them to learn and accept the new culture.

  • MJBinAL||

    So, mass immigration, which is generally a search for greater material goods, or safety from physical harm, will generally result in a failure to assimulate. The failure is causes by the fact that the immigrants did not move in search of freedom or dissatisfaction with the culture they came from, but rather "for more and better stuff".

    If you have a desire to help those from these failed cultures, feel free to join a church mission or perhaps a liberal charity, that will attempt to introduce modern ideas into the culture they have. Your success in this will be in seeing those who cleave to your teaching prosper, so that others see it. This is a long, hard road, but hats off to your desire to help your "fellow man".

    Bringing them into your own country is generally not going to be successful for you, or them. With the modern welfare state, they recieve more as handouts that they ever had before. They do not understand the fundamental culture, and so are easily brought to the class envy school of politics. If you want to destroy your nation and it's culture, this is the way to get it done.

  • mtrueman||

    What's with the obsession over how immigrants 'assimilate' to their new home? They should be free to speak whatever language they like, even arabic or spanish. Haven't you better things to concern about?

  • MJBinAL||

    The obsession, is integral to forming a society, and more importantly, forming one based on libertarian ideals. If, in a democratic society, the majority of the population believes in distribrution of wealth, limits on speach, government management of the economy, second class citizenship for women, or any other ideas. Those ideas and beliefs will become ingranded into the culture, into common practice, and into law.

    If you wish you establish and maintain a libertarian society, you must first admit that these are ideas, and when idea become accepted they are in effect adopted into the common culture.

    This will be a long and painful process at best and will never take place if you are continually absorbing large numbers of people whose culture isl 180 degrees opposite to libertarianism. It is necessary, for us to spread the ideals of minimalist government - maximum freedom in our country in order to establish the kind of society we want as libertarians.

    This is the fallacy of 80% of the crap published here. Applying your libertarian ideals to immigration, foreign trade, open borders, actually sabotoges your efforts to acheive reforms WITHIN the country.

    So yes, assimulation is critical .. JUST TO AVOID GOING BACKWARDS in our work to form a more libertarian society HERE.

  • MJBinAL||

    Sorry for my typos guys,

    Point is, we need to work on making libertarian ideas more broadly accepted in this country. Demonstrate that acceptance by makes changes to government and it's impacts on us internally, from welfare both personal and business, to freedom of association.

    When we have reached this point, we are in a position to bring immigrants in and see them flourish or fail, stay or return from where they came from. All by their own choice.

    It seems the Reason commitariat always wants to put the roof on the house before they dig the hole for the foundation!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How can there be a 'libertarian culture' here, which prides itself in allowing individuals to be nonconformist, when you insist on stifling conformity to some shared culture?

    What you are demanding is conservative collectivism, not a 'libertarian culture'.

  • MaxBlancke||

    Assimilation is not really about language or diet. In a high trust society, it means foremost that you need to learn that stealing or assaulting people is wrong. That if you are employed, you should show up on time.
    Assimilation means that one cannot abduct and rape a child, even if one is experiencing a "sexual emergency".
    The biggest part of assimilation is that of shared basic moral values.

  • lulz farmer||

    These people have low IQ, are innately violent and lazy. It's not desirable that they do "assimilate" -- what does that mean? That we intermarry and interbreed with these people, polluting our own gene pool and destroying what created modern civilization?

  • Longtobefree||

    Surely any country has a million jobs, and food and clothing, and housing for a million people lying around waiting for a need?

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    If a country is going to do this sort of stupid thing then the refugees should not have been allowed to just roam around.

    They should have been forcibly directed to some unused bit of country side and told to build themselves a camp. The government would provide tools and materials but it would up to the migrants to actually build the shelters and infrastructure themselves. Also it would be up to them to provide police and fire services for the camp but the government would provide first-aid clinics.

    The government would airdrop food and other supplies into the area on a daily basis. Of course citizens could donate supplies.

    The migrants would not be allowed to leave this area. If caught outside the perimeter they would be deported to whatever country it is thought they came from.

    If a migrant wants out they would have to show fluency in the language, a firm understanding of the cultural norms of the country and be willing to sign a contract stating that they will not engage or promote whatever idiotic cultural norms (acid throwing, clitoral mutilation, sex with goats etc.) from the culture they came from.

    In addition any children 12 and under can leave but only if the parents agree to permanently give up custody and there is a German family willing to adopt.

    Inside the camp the migrants could start businesses without having to obey the regulations imposed on the rest of the country. So it would be seen if they could actually improve their conditions.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Any rioting would cause the airdrops to stop for a week. Any type of mass-breakout would be beaten back with tear-gas, water cannons, earth-movers, and clubs. And if severe enough, machine-guns. Again, anyone caught outside the perimeter would be deported.

    It sounds miserable and it would be, but it would still be better than what they were fleeing from. Plus there would be a path out but they must behave and jump through the hoops given to them.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    This template could also be used elsewhere.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, THIS is the policy that the Native Americans should have used against the invading Europeans!!! All of North and South America would be SOOO much better off now, had the Native Americans had the balls and the wisdom to implement these policies!!!

  • Don't look at me.||

    Well, the natives would certainly be better off.

  • Homple||

    Living in animal skin tents and chasing down buffalo for lunch while fighting marauders from other tribes was not so hot. But they would have invented electricity, automobiles, modern medicine for themselves by now so yeah.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Based upon what. Most tribes had not even domesticated large beast of burden nor had they discovered the functionality of the wheel. Besides, the had an agriculture based upon corn, which is prone to failure without huge inputs. This is why civilizations continued to crumble in America's, periodic famine.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Also, they had very little metallurgy. Most were not even to the standards of the copper age, yet alone bronze age.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Also, they had very little metallurgy. Most were not even to the standards of the copper age, yet alone bronze age.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Would they? I doubt too many would trade modern conveniences for Stone age technology.

  • Don't look at me.||

    So you've never been to a reservation have you?

  • soldiermedic76||

    You would be completely wrong on that assertion. I grew up on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, graduated from Lakeshide High School in Plummer, ID. Google it and them tell me I have not been to a reservation.

  • fatcyst||

    ... but they were too stupid, primitive and dishonorable.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Most of the Native American tribes were a mess and didn't actually have established territories with borders. Many of them engaged in practices far more brutal than their European contemporaries. Including cannabalism, genocide, etc..

    The ortrayal of native Americans as 'noble savages' by the left is a revisionist fantasy

  • MJBinAL||

    Why do you await that Michael? I believe that his post suggests he would condemn those things and prefers societies that have less of those things.

    If you have a serious interest, you might try reading a book, Commanche Empire. Non-fiction, a history of the Commanche nation in the southwest. The Commanche, were more sophisticated in many ways than are commonly understood, but brutal far beyond Western standards.

  • mtrueman||

    "but brutal far beyond Western standards."

    Westerners almost genocided the Comanche out of existence. There were only a few thousand left by the time they were rounded up and confined to reservations. The Comanche were never up to western standards of brutality.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Really? Commanche routinely bashed in the heads of captured infants. We're infamous for their torture. Kept slaves. Routinely raped captive females of all ages. And this just scratches the surface.
    As for the main cause of death to Native American tribes, it was generally disease, unintentionally introduced to them by Europeans.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Were not we're fucking autocorrect.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The Comanche were never up to western standards of brutality.

    You're kidding, right? There's a reason they terrorized tribes and settlements from Nebraska all the way into northern Mexico and throughout the southwest, and it wasn't because they were benevolent and generous.

  • BruceMajors||

    Maybe the liberal-tarians will move to Liberland and enact a UBI for the immigrants to come there?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perhaps the Germans could call this particular camp a "ghetto"...

  • Don't look at me.||

    I'm sure after a while they will come up with a final solution to the problem.

  • mtrueman||

    How about de-lousing? Don't you know the first thing about concentration camps?

  • TGoodchild||

    Or, OR...the proposal was flawed from the start and rested on a number of long-demonstrated, false premises about multiculturalism. WW2 guilt, white guilt, etc. do make for good policy justifications.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You will NEVER get Lefties to admit they fucked up.

    Some Lefties still defend FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans. Socialists are just real pieces of shit.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well, at least under FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans, babies were not snatched from Momma's arms, transported hundreds of miles away, and then lost track of! You who claims to love the USA Constitution? Have you EVER heard of "cruel and unusual" punishments being forbidden under the same? If wantonly snatching babies doesn't meet your definition of "cruel and unusual" punishments, then what DOES? Do pray tell...

  • gimmedatribeye||

    Being broken on the wheel or scaphism seems pretty cruel and unusual.

  • A racist||

    Omfg shut up.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Make me!!! Nanny nanny boo-bah!!!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Now when you are willing to honestly discuss what really happened you can rejoin us at the grown ups table.

  • fatcyst||

    Theyre not citizens so none of that matters.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    I'm pretty sure if I strapped you down to a steel chair bolted to,a concrete floor in a sound proof room with access to a variety of tools and devices, that I could figure out a few things.

    But being taken from ones parents would be somewhat unpleasant.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yep, something that happens every day across the country as people who broke the laws are sent the jail or prison while their children are not. If they have no one to care for those children ... off the foster care they go.

    But this is TOTALLY different because .... because .... well IT JUST IS! LOL

  • Bearded Spock||

    Ah, it's inspirational to see the True Libertarian Faith on display in this article. Even when reality smacks them full in the face, their devotion to their vision of Paradise is stronger than that of any snake-handling Pentacostal.

    Suddenly importing millions of randy young Muslim men with Third World attitudes towards women and private property wasn't the reason for this failure, it was those darn sclerotic Eurocrats and their stuffy rules!

    It would have been a success if those young gropers had had even less official supervision!

    The solution to this problem is even more open borders!

    Oh, and the Germans are secretly racist, too!

    CAN I GET A HALLELUJAH HERE!!?!?!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open border people are not Libertarians.

    Open border people discount that they are a minority opinion and have the Constitution, property rights, and this Constitutional Democratic Republic standing in their way. They want to force Americans to submit to non-American making rules for Americans.

  • mtrueman||

    Free movement of people, goods and ideas has always been central to Libertarianism.

  • BruceMajors||

    Is forcing me to pay for daycare for their kids so they can take a job plucking chickens for Perdue?

  • mtrueman||

    No one is forcing you to stay put and pay for their kids daycare. You are free to leave and Libertarians will support your freedom to cross whatever borders you happen upon.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Bullshit dodge there.

  • mtrueman||

    The freedom to escape government oppression is central to Libertarianism. But no libertarian can do anything to free a man who's determined to remain a slave.

  • soldiermedic76||

    But you didn't address his question, therefore you dodged.

  • mtrueman||

    Libertarians are against government oppressing people.

  • BigT||

    No, property rights are fundamental. Free movement is subordinate to property rights.

  • fatcyst||

    Free movement (within our country). Third worlders dont understand any of this anyway so its a very bad strawman on your part.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Free movement of people, goods, and ideas within a small and limited government framework.

    Absolute liberty is more an anarchist's cup of stong man tea.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Ok Mtrue, then you should push for a constitutional amendment to secure open borders. Be warned, many do not want to live in a country with porous borders.

  • Azathoth!!||


    Free movement of people, goods and ideas has always been central to Libertarianism.

    Nope.

  • mtrueman||

    Free movement of people, goods and ideas has always been central to Libertarianism.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Open border people are not Libertarians.

    How many people are in the market for tips on libertarianism from disaffected, authoritarian, intolerant, backward, downscale, right-wing goobers?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's is the bottom of the barrel.

  • MJBinAL||

    And yet Michael, it is higher when you are not here ... Hmmmm.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians for Constitutional democratic republic!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So what is the reality that libertarians are supposed to accept here?

    That "certain people" are inferior and don't deserve liberty?

  • Bearded Spock||

    No, it's that certain cultures have radically different views of individual rights and the roles of the sexes, as well as cultural traditions which are profoundly different than those of Europe.

    And the naive idea to import millions of these people -- most of which were young men -- and then to financially subsidize them without any requirement or obligation for them to accept and follow Western ideals and local customs was bound to end disastrously.

    Yet when numerous people pointed out this obvious fact, they were smeared as racists and treated as an ignorant fringe.

    The parallels here between Germany and the US are inescapable. Immigration policy based on wishful thinking and emotional sloganeering is not only unpopular politically but doomed to fail.

    Open borders. Welfare State. National Identity. Pick any two.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You are making my point for me. So what is the solution? Don't let in Muslims because their culture is inferior? Just as I said - you believe certain people don't deserve liberty because they are inferior in some way. Either they are innately inferior (like 'lulz farmer' believes), or they have inferior beliefs, or they have inferior cultures, or something. So they don't deserve anything more than to suffer and die in their home countries. What exactly should nations like Germany do when confronted with refugees, Muslims or otherwise? Send them away to die? Do you think the people would support that any more than they would support letting them all in?

  • soldiermedic76||

    Not inferior, but definitely not compatible with our view of the rights of individuals.

  • Bearded Spock||

    chemjeff do you really, truly believe all cultures are equal? I'm asking what you think deep down inside, not your superficial virtue-signaling public image that you project in order to protect your social status.

    Speak honestly now: If you had your choice of living in the Middle East, would you rather live in Israel, or Saudi Arabia?

    Do you really think that simply giving people freedom will turn them into liberty-loving citizens?

    If that were true, then Iraq and Afghanistan would be Libertarian paradises by now. Yet in many ways, they are worse off than before the US poured trillions of dollars into them. Because for most of the population, their local culture and traditional beliefs supersede any hang-ups the Americans have about free speech, women's rights, and one person, one vote.

    Ironically, Libertarians roundly reject the idea that US military intervention in Third World countries will produce friendly pro-western democracies, but they accept without question the idea that importing millions of people from those same countries into Europe will suddenly turn them into pro-western democrats.

    I admit I don't know what will work when it comes to refugees. But I do know what doesn't work, and that is an immigration policy based on a naive belief that all cultures are "equal" and we must do "something", even if that "something" is incredibly stupid and doomed to failure. Because compassion.

  • Bearded Spock||

    On second thought, Saudi Arabia's climate sucks when compared to Israel's. That would be an easy choice for anyone.

    So let's try this comparison: Would you rather live in Israel, or the Gaza Strip? Same climate, virtually the same geography, but radically different cultures.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    chemjeff do you really, truly believe all cultures are equal?

    Of course not. They're not all equal because they're not all identical. But there is no way to honestly compare complex things like "cultures" unless precise parameters are agreed upon to serve as the basis of comparison. Different cultures are superior in some ways and inferior in other ways.

    Do you really think that simply giving people freedom will turn them into liberty-loving citizens?

    Nope. I never said that it would. But that is not the point. The point is to respect their liberty to do as they wish, consistent with the NAP, even if they aren't liberty-loving citizens.

    That you think they come from an 'inferior' culture does not justify infringing on their liberty.

    You still seem stuck under the paradigm that there should be some centrally planned migration policy in which 'top men' select the 'correct' migrants to come here. Why will central planning work "this time"? Why do you think the police state work "this time" to perform as intended, and NOT infringe upon all of the liberties of citizens as a side result? Why do you think this version of prohibition will work "this time"?

  • Ersatz||

    Nope. I never said that it would. But that is not the point. The point is to respect their liberty to do as they wish, consistent with the NAP, even if they aren't liberty-loving citizens

    NO... I think this is just wrong. Liberty must be chosen. It is then lived. It is incompatible with those who "aren't liberty-loving citizens". You don't "give" liberty to someone who doesn't respect or want it and all is right in the world. Liberty is a form, a type that you have to instantiate. [note.. I express this as dogma, but it only represents my current belief. I am willing to be persuaded differently]. Even the right to life you have to choose [by supporting yourself in a way the keeps you alive].

    Plus.... as an aside, It is 'icky' to me the way NAP is revered amongst some in a similar way to how someone openly expressing his Christianity is 'icky' to the culturally sophisticated.

  • Ersatz||

    hmmm... I should have used quotes around - culturally sophisticated -

  • AZ Gunowner||

    A great many of them are NOT going to respect YOUR liberty.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chemjeff is another Anarchist. I almost forgot about him. Sarcasmic and zeb should start their own voluntary society.

    They have some contradictions when judge judy hosts property claim court and demands that people behave themselves. There is no way to enforce that without government force based on rule of law.

    In anarchy-land, there are no rules. I can do what I want!

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    They don't appear to believe that we are a nation of laws. Do they persist in some fantasy that a fringe of their ilk will in any way be authentic ones calling the shots if we cease to be a nation of laws?

    If the rule of law fails, the most likely result will be the rapid elimination/subjugation of the radical left by traditional America and the far right. Who have all the guns.

    If I were a leftist, cessation of the rule of law would be the absolute LAST thing I would want.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yes, don't let in Muslims.

    Their "culture" is inferior,

    and, a LOT of them want to forcibly turn our culture into theirs.

    I don't want to live in "culture" built around violence.

    That is what Islam is - a death cult married to a crime syndicate.

  • MJBinAL||

    This is correct, and does NOT say that every Muslim is going to want to force women into genital mutilation. I am eager to hear my open borders buddys here describe how OUR society is improved by Muslims who want to impose sharia law here.

    I am also open to explanations of how they would screen them out. INS and the State Department have not been very successful.

  • Azathoth!!||


    So what is the reality that libertarians are supposed to accept here?

    That "certain people" are inferior and don't deserve liberty?

    This is really hard for you, isn't it?

    Everyone HAS liberty. They're all born with it. Everyone.

    Got that?

    In family units it just happens. When you start extending those family units into tribes people need to start taking others into consideration.

    It is this 'consideration' that turns into societal mores, laws, customs and traditions.

    But humans are fallible and sometimes this consideration can take wrong turns.

    Entire cultures can grow up around those wrong turns.

    Some cultures have grown that lack even a mechanism for understanding liberty (though it often comes out in their folklore).

    Those cultures can not help but be inferior to culture that embrace liberty.

    The people are people. They all have liberty innately.

    Are we clear now?

  • MJBinAL||

    No, everyone is deserving of liberty.

    BUT, All systems of ideas (the bedrock of culture) are not equally condustive or compatible with liberty.

  • BruceMajors||

    This is what will happen in the US and it will crush the electoral chances of LP and libertarian candidates.

    One fourth of US public school students, at a cost of $12,000-$29,000 per child annually, are immigrants legal or illegal, or have at least one parent who is. This costs almost $200 billion annually, more than Section 8 housing vouchers, AFDC, or food stamps cost for American citizens.

    Continue to import people who immediately trigger exploitation of the taxpayer, particularly people who overcrowd rural schools and raise property taxes for working class Americans who have saved their whole lives to own a middle class home, ensures that voters will vote for Trump, not a Libertarian.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""it will crush the electoral chances of LP and libertarian candidates"".

    Maybe that's the point?

    If you look at Conquest's 3rd law, the beltway libertarianism of Cato/Reason starts to make more sense.

    the second is probably equally relevant

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is there anyone defending capitalism anymore?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Only the real libertarians, no one else that I can see!

  • SQRLSY One||

    But "capitalism" seems to be a bad word, for many, sad to say...

    Maybe use "economic freedom" instead, for better PR...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Me. Free market and capitalism are marvels of human interactions.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Free market capitalism has done more to facilitate advances in human thinking, freedom, technology, philosophy etc. than anything else in all of time and space.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Reason's Open Borders fetish is getting a tad wearisome. The cold fact is that there are forces who consider themselves at war with the West. Such forces are not limited to the Jihadists who strap bombs to themselves; they include a large number of Islamic males who consider women to be livestock and act accordingly.

    Open border WITH a string set of incentives to assimilate? That could work. Now would, could.

    Open borders with the current concatenation of apparently suicidal fools preventing such assimilation? Poison.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Libertarians express libertarian position.

    Bigoted, authoritarian right-wingers whimper disapproval.

    Good times.

  • A racist||

    He whimpered.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Interesting. Rev., do you actually speak to people like that in your daily life?

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    For so,Rome whomcries about civility all the time. You're a very nasty person. No wonder they universally hate you here.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Open borders with the current concatenation of apparently suicidal fools preventing such assimilation? Poison."

    Agreed! The Germans screwed it up!!! I hope we can learn to do much better!

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    Is this article about labor restrictions or immigration? Protectionism has been the most politically effective method of keeping out foreigners. Immigrants with TPS have a labor participation rate of close to 90% here in the US. There is no such thing as to many workers in a economy.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Yeah, we need to talk about your TPS reports.

  • BruceMajors||

    In American English you would write "too many workers" and not "to many workers" if you are discussing the number of workers.

    Current immigrant workers are state subsidized at the expense of the taxpayer. Perdue etc. can only hire them if the American taxpayer is forced to provide them with "free" public daycare for their children, via public schools. This is a subsidy to the immigrants or to their employers including corporations. It isn't a market economy. This subsidy may be causing mal-investment in labor intensive industries instead of industries that use robots, or higher skilled labor, etc.

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    We should outsource the daycare to robots and let immigrants undercut automation. Better use of government intervention.

  • Cy||

    We already do. Have you seen kids on tablets and cellphones lately? Some public schools are requiring parents to purchase them for 'educational purposes.' Teachers are starting to see the writing on the wall. Their days are numbered.

  • mtrueman||

    "This is a subsidy to the immigrants "

    No, it's a subsidy to those who work in the free public daycare facilities. They are the ones coming out of the deal with a government paycheque at the end of the month. The immigrant workers get only the peace of mind that their children are being well taken care of as they sweat and toil over their desks.

  • SQRLSY One||

    For SOME of our taxes, the illegal humans pay and pay, to prop up our bennies, and THEY go NO bennies!!! So those who bitch and moan about these "free-loaders" ARE SOMETIMES way OFF OF THE MARK!

    The illegal humans are paying for your and my Social Security paychecks when we retire, is the actual facts. They pay in, but have virtual zero chance of getting paid back. See…

    See "The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes" (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one... AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....es/499604/

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    For SOME of our taxes, the illegal humans pay and pay, to prop up our bennies, and THEY go NO bennies!!! So those who bitch and moan about these "free-loaders" ARE SOMETIMES way OFF OF THE MARK!

    Odd, isn't it, that those who scream the loudest of THEY'RE TAKING OUR WELFARE! never seem to mention all of the taxes that they pay...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans do pay almost 50% in taxes some of which goes to illegals.

    Deport illegals.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    What's sad is that if the open borders enthusiasts would quit fighting against immigration reform and allow the border to be secured, then we could all focus on modernizing legal immigration, and work VISA programs. Which would allow a lot more people in legally and easily than what we have now.

    But they won't have anything to do with it. I'm guessing the democrats are far mr interested in preserving fights over things like DACA as a wedge issue at election time than actually solving the problem. Just like congressional republicans with the ACA.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perhaps you all can quit fighting against this pointless drive to "secure the border" which is more of a slogan than a concrete goal. There is no way that the border will ever be "secured" enough to the satisfaction of the right-wing anti-immigration mob. What's more, attempts to secure the border will tighten the ratchet against OUR liberties even more and more. Just wait until we have "mandatory e-Verify". That would be terrific, right? Except it would make it a crime for me to hire my neighbor's kid to mow my lawn without checking his government documents first. Yeah, that's real conducive to fostering liberty, isn't it? And then when employers massively flout the 'mandatory e-Verify' regulation, then the right-wing paranoia mob will demand that the government crack down on those 'unpatriotic employers', with even stiffer penalties. And then they'll cook up some other anti-liberty method to enforce compliance with their desire to "secure the border". That is the logic of prohibition. It is a game that cannot be won, yet you all are bound and determined to try, to the detriment of YOUR OWN liberty and everyone else's too.

    Just let people be free to pursue their liberty as they see fit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are looking for anarchy which allows for absolute liberty.

    In Anarchy-land, you can do whatever you want and so can everyone else.

  • mpercy||

    There's always someone who will ruin a thread, isn't there?

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    Germany must open up it's labor market or else we should impose tariffs on all their products. It's only fair that they play by the rules.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You have to solve your own major problems before importing others'. A couple of Germany's is a too generous welfare system and a bureaucracy to go along with it. The only way Merkel's scheme worked was a complete change to her nation's current culture.

  • hello.||

    New Libertarian Man and New Soviet Man are always one Utopian centralization scheme away from reality.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarianism is basically what are Founding Fathers were. Libertarianism works but has been derailed for decades.

    New soviet man never existed.

  • MJBinAL||

    I beleive you are correct. However, most of the most strident "libertarians here" are not libertarians in the mode of the founders, but rather anarchists.

  • mtrueman||

    Germany is still participating in airstrikes against Syrians and thereby contributing to the flow of refugees trying to escape the chaos. That's how we got here.

  • Murray99||

    But Syrians were actually a rarity among the "refugees".

  • mtrueman||

    What country has produced more refugees than Syria? Currently, not historically.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Except a large portion of the so-called refugees are from North Africa not Syria.

  • mtrueman||

    You mean Libya? That's another refugee creating machine thanks to NATO, keeping Europe safe from the Ruskies.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Libya is but one of the country tries. Moroccan is another, Algeria etc.

  • mtrueman||

    What country is the greatest contributor of refugees?

  • Echospinner||

    It is a token force. A few aging aircraft and a tanker. Whatever participation they have had was probably just as a courtesy since they showed up.

  • mtrueman||

    They could have had the courtesy to mind their own business and not bomb Syrians. Thed esruction of Syria is the cause of the crisis, and Germany plays its part by accepting refugees rather than militarily assisting al Qaeda like the US her salafist partners.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Merkel could have [blah blah blah] .... Admittedly, this would have required major policy changes [blah blah blah] ....Instead, she threw the problem at a bureaucracy [blah blah blah] ""

    AND NO ONE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY FORESEEN THIS OUTCOME
    /super-smart policy-people at smart-person magazine

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes yes, those refugees should have been turned away at the border and sent home, back to die in their home country, as they were meant to do.

  • MaxBlancke||

    It is kind of a depressing reality, but if Western Europe or the US become economically destabilized, the first people to suffer will be those living in less prosperous countries, who rely largely on aid to survive.
    It is also worth noting that all of the migrants in question passed through several peaceful countries on their way to Germany. Virtually none of them are expressing much enthusiasm for living a German lifestyle. They choose Germany (or the US) because those are the places with the most liberal benefits.

    I would love to hear a reasoned explanation of how a Western European open borders policy could possibly work. Lets say 90% of impoverished Africans decide to stay there, and only 150 million or so decide to emigrate to Western Europe. As their origin countries have very low literacy rates, it is impossible that they will have aptitude or ability to work any but manual labor jobs for many years. If that. Quite a few of the new guests that I have heard interviewed either have no intention of working at all, or have grandiose expectations of entering highly paid professions for which they have no training.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not defending free migration in the context of a welfare state for the migrants. However, I do think that welfare for migrants fleeing oppression is the lesser evil, compared to turning them away and to their deaths.

    Furthermore I'm not a big fan of making these collectivist assumptions about migrants. Perhaps some are illiterate peasants and perhaps some are not. Perhaps some will struggle and some will be successful. Let's not prejudge individuals and instead let them succeed or fail on their own merits. But that can't happen when the state intervenes and prevents both citizens and migrants from associating to their mutual advantage.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians do not support any welfare.

  • JeremyR||

    Maybe not, but it's a reality that they have to accept.

    You can't have open borders and welfare, and welfare isn't going away.

  • Nardz||

    CJ, like all Progressives, cannot keep his ideology consistent.
    So border control is too much centralization, thus threatens liberty, but those that cross the border should be provisioned by central planners?

    But don't let me stop you from progressive virtue signalling, CJ. I'm just surprised you have the time for it considering all the time and resources you must be devoting to rescuing poor savages. That white mans burden must weigh heavily upon you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    but those that cross the border should be provisioned by central planners?

    You can of course find the quote where I advocated for this, right? No? Oh then you're just lying.

    I don't advocate for welfare for anyone.

  • MaxBlancke||

    My views are somewhat colored by the fact that I have spent most of my career living and working in the countries of origin of the latest migrants.
    I am all for aiding those in need either in their home countries, or in controlled temporary safe locations. I have personally worked hard to those ends.
    One person is an individual, and can and should be treated as such. Larger numbers of people will tend to behave and think more along predictable cultural averages. It is a truth that an average immigrant from a high trust society in Europe or Asia will be easier to integrate into our society than the average immigrant from equatorial Africa. When you are dealing with small numbers, you can treat everyone as an individual. But this discussion is about unrestricted immigration of millions of people.
    The larger the number, the higher likelihood that the subject people will tend towards the mean for their origin culture.
    Many of us believe that a primary function of the state is to provide for the common defense against outside threats. Open borders policies are the opposite of that duty.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It truly is amazing to see the number of self-professed libertarians, who are supposed to be in favor of liberty for liberty's sake, take such little interest in the liberty of foreigners.

  • BruceMajors||

    If a foreigner can only be here when you hold a gun on me and force me to pay for day care for his child so he can take a job to pay his rent, the liberty being violated is mine and you are violating it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You're right! That *is* a violation of your liberty.

    So let's consider one possible alternative:

    1. The migrant isn't allowed to come here in the first place. So you are no longer forced to pick up the tab for his daycare expenses. Terrific! Except:
    2. Your liberty is violated *in other ways* by the state apparatus designed to keep the migrants out.
    3. Plus, the migrant suffers and/or dies at the hands of an oppressive government regime back home.

    Is this the "more libertarian" answer?

  • lulz farmer||

    It's not my concern that these shitholers are oppressed by their own government by their own people in their own countries. GFY communist sophist.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They have a duty to die in their shitholes rather than bother you even in the slightest. Got it!

    Taking away your liberty in the form of welfare for migrants is bad, but taking away your liberty in the form of constructing a police state to stop the migrants is good. Got it!

  • Brian||

    The correct answer is "extend libertarianism beyond the slim progressive head nods to borders and abortion, rather than stopping short there."

    BTW, that's the right answer.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chemjeff wants see America fail.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    From what I read of him, he has no real concept of America as a country at all. I don't think it's part of his value system, which appears to be very emotion driven amd sophomoric.

  • MJBinAL||

    Why don't you, to paraphrase my grandmother, tend to your own knitting? In short, why don't you expend your efforts to eliminate welfare programs? Get rid of government funded schools?

    Instead, apparently fully aware of the disaster that combining open borders with these programs represents, you advocate for open borders.

    Ah, but it's easier to point to "the children" or bewail the right of everyone in the world to live in the United States isn't it?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And just to be clear, I'm not in favor of the state forcing you or anyone else to pay for someone else's daycare.
    I'm also not in favor of the state depriving you or anyone else of your liberty to associate with whom you choose, even if that person doesn't have the correct papers from the state.

    But if we have to start making utilitarian compromises, then I'll pick the scenario that has the lower body count.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Does a nation have the right, even the duty, to protects it's own people and borders? This is the reason I identify as libertarian leaning rather than full libertarian, the total lack of pragmatism or reality in some of the stances of self proclaimed libertarians. Who, BTW, are just as dogmatic and tribalist as any partisan Democrat or Republican.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Does a nation have the right, even the duty, to protects it's own people and borders?

    From military invasion? Sure.

    From peaceful migration? What is the threat from which the state would be protecting the people?

    I am against central planning of migration just as much as I am against central planning of the economy.

  • lulz farmer||

    It's so peaceful that it has to be done TOP-DOWN with no consent and heavy penalties for dissenters. So peaceful!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Is it peaceful when it surplants the culture of the natives? Changes the fundamentals of the native culture? Futhuremore don't the inhabitants of the country not get a say as to who does or does not enter their country? In the case of Germany, the government forced the citizens to accept the refugees, long after the people said enough. How does that square with your ideals of peaceful entry? Non-aggression?
    And when. The aforementioned migrants try and force the native inhabitants to change to accommodate the migrants culture at the expense of the native culture, how is that peaceful?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Which is more important:
    1. The rights of the individual
    2. The continuance of the culture that you like

    Futhuremore don't the inhabitants of the country not get a say as to who does or does not enter their country?

    Why should they?

  • Azathoth!!||


    Which is more important:
    1. The rights of the individual
    2. The continuance of the culture that you like

    The correct answer is (2).

    Why?

    Because the culture I like is the only culture that respects the rights of the individual.

    If you don't like that culture and are not willing to extend the same rights to me that I extend to you then you are an impediment to a culture that values the rights of the individual.

    My culture is superior to all others.

    Why?

    Because my culture accepts that yours to exist and wants it to thrive so long as it doesn't try to destroy mine.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The constitutions gives the power to regulate migration too.

    Article I, section 9.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Find me one court case, anywhere, from any time, which has relied on Article 1, Section 9 as a general grant of power to the government to regulate migration of all people.

  • MJBinAL||

    Interestingly, it is one clause do cut and dried, that it has never been challenged!

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Jeff, there is no court case because it is not in question, except in your mind.

    Get over it. Everyone else has.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    chemjeff,
    It's been a while since this places was dominated by libertarians. it's mostly fauxbertarians (aka Contards) shitting up the comment threads with the white nationalist fantasies, brought out of the closet by Trumplethinskin.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nonlibertarians like YOU.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Yards, you aren't libertarian at all. Your comments show a hard left point of view.

  • MJBinAL||

    Actually, Yards,and Chemjeff are both anarchists. They can't really visualize any limits at all.

    ChemJeff believes that nations protecting themselfs is limited to military, immigration does not apply. o, if Russia had 400,000 troups immigrate here only to organize on arrival, he would have no problem with it.

    Clearly an absolutist, and that is a anarchist, not a libertarian.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    One of my limitations is that I have a hard time with people who consider the constitution and our republic, without all the unnecessary nonsense that has been heaped on over the years, to be excessive government.

    Chemjeff and Yards are that kind of people. They believe that they are better off with anarchy than the US Constitution. Which is unfathomable to me.

  • Dadlobby||

    Were it not for borders we would have no Constitutional Republic in the US of A. Cato's Letters, (on freedom of speech) "only 27% of Germans support the right to offend minority groups, and a mere 38% the right to offend religious feelings". Maybe they are trying to slow the onslaught of violations of individual rights in Europe, much of it based upon PC immigration policies. Governments die from within, even Constitutional Republics which (try anyway) to guarantee individual rights.

  • librich||

    I love Reason, but the libertarian dogma on immigration is brain dead. It is allied to a similar libertarian blindness on population growth. When I was a kid, there were 3.5B people on the planet. Today there are 7.6B. Immigration isn't a matter of small numbers of refugees. Millions of people are pouring out of parts of the globe with higher birth rates. At some point in the not-to-distant future, we will exhaust the carrying capacity of our world. Countries who have managed to avoid being drowned by the body count may have the chance to maintain a reasonable quality of life for its citizens. Countries who have not will suffer the consequences.

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    Outlaw DDT.

  • turco||

    Have you heard if Julian Simon? If not, look up his work.

    The earth is nowhere near "carrying capacity"

  • Sevo||

    librich|7.15.18 @ 6:24PM|#
    "...At some point in the not-to-distant future, we will exhaust the carrying capacity of our world..."

    Do neo-Malthusians ever learn?
    Fucking idiot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open border people are LINOs.

  • cecil1||

    How did we get here?

    Its because Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for everyone IS White Genocide.

    Some basic truths: Access to White people is not a human right
    https://i.imgur.com/wXKT2t5.png

    Do you not understand that

    1. White people exist.
    2. White people have the RIGHT to exist.
    3. White people have the RIGHT to exist AS White people in White Communities and Nations.

  • turco||

    So collectivist rights trump individual rights?

    What about "all" men created equal with the right to "pursue happiness" anywhere they want?

    The problem is not immigration. The problem is the welfare state.

  • lulz farmer||

    What about the context to the platitudes you quoted? "All men are created equal" referred to the abuses of power by Kings. Not unlimited racially alien vagrants with their hands outstretched. Expecting people to actually read and be intellectually honest about this, though? Can't have that.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There is no 'anywhere they want'.

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Cecil Rhodes 1: Don't start copying and pasting that white nationalist drivel on Reason comment threads. it doesn't even play on The Federalist, where most of the fauxbertarians/Contards already hang out.
    Go fuck yourself on a burned-out cross and take your cousin/wife/mom with you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Troll [period]

  • sharmota4zeb||

    1) I favor a generous immigration policy.

    2) Do you know who else wanted Germany to have porous borders and meet refuges at train stations?

    3) Germany can balance it's books through immigration by requiring retires to move to Mexico if they want to receive government pensions.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If only the US was more like Europe. Lol.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialist? No thanks.

  • BBerry12||

    "flip-flopping politicians willing to betray their convictions for political expediency."

    Uh, no, democratically elected politicians responding to the will of a majority of the electorate. German dictators fell out of fashion in the mid-'40s.

  • lulz farmer||

    Nobody voted to bring these people in to begin with so I guess German (and other country) dictators have been really IN FASHION until the last few years where they began to cry "populism!" at people noticing it is not their benefit to be colonized by millions of rape monkeys who live off money they have to pay into.

  • I can't even||

    "How did we get here"?

    Hilarious question after years of ignoring the disaster brewing in European countries who opened their borders to Muslims.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    *gasp* No! Not the Muslims!

  • lulz farmer||

    You are a champagne socialist who needs to be air-dropped into Kabul.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A "champagne socialist" who wants to end the welfare state. Whatevs.

    You on the other hand are just another racist asshole.

  • esteve7||

    Muslims are not a race.

  • MJBinAL||

    No, Muslims are NOT a race. In fact, Islam is a collection of IDEAS. IDEAS for the basis for Culture. So I guess Jeff believes that all IDEAS are equal and all CULTURES are equal.

  • mtrueman||

    "who needs to be air-dropped into Kabul"

    Wouldn't that be terrible? I can't imagine life without welfare.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " The deal is a dramatic repudiation of everything Merkel asked Germans to believe in just three years ago, which leaves many wondering: What on Earth went wrong? "

    Only morons.

    "Migration is still a must for Germany's future, thanks to worrying demographic patterns. Without a lot of new workers, the aging population and its shrinking taxpayer base will lay ruin to the country's generous welfare system."

    The fundamental farce is in expecting a replacement population to pay for the retirement of those they replace, instead of putting that money towards themselves and their own children.

  • fatcyst||

    Turd worlders wont be paying any taxes, only receiving.

  • Mark22||

    If that makes you smirk .... who will pay the FICA taxes to support YOUR retirement?

    So your argument is that we should bring in large numbers of third world migrants so that they can be forcibly taxed in order to pay for the retirement and healthcare of geezers like you. Thanks for illustrating again what a left wing, authoritarian jerk you are.

    The libertarian position is clear: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be abolished (along with most other social welfare programs) and taxes should be greatly lowered. At that point, the number of tax payers in the country doesn't matter anymore.

  • MasterThief||

    You could explain how he has inaccurately explained your position and show how he is wrong beyond that. You're beyond retirement age and suggest that population decline is a problem because of funding for government pensions that you are old enough to receive. This does sound to me like you're supporting big gov and the importation of foreigners for your benefit. The libertarian position would be to eliminate or mostly phase out this program so that we don't require a rapidly growing population to fund a quasi- ponzi scheme.
    A population decline by individual choices in reproduction is not a problem that needs to be solved. Importing people from places with a high birthrate into one with a low birthrate is intentional cultural and ethnic replacement

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Spare us your slogans and sound bites and DELIVER like I have. (smirk)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks failing to deliver anything of consequence is accomplishment.

  • MasterThief||

    You could explain how he has inaccurately explained your position and show how he is wrong beyond that. You're beyond retirement age and suggest that population decline is a problem because of funding for government pensions that you are old enough to receive. This does sound to me like you're supporting big gov and the importation of foreigners for your benefit. The libertarian position would be to eliminate or mostly phase out this program so that we don't require a rapidly growing population to fund a quasi- ponzi scheme.
    A population decline by individual choices in reproduction is not a problem that needs to be solved. Importing people from places with a high birthrate into one with a low birthrate is intentional cultural and ethnic replacement

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks at others for taking government benefits while crying that MUH POPULATION DECLINE will mean the loss of his gibs.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't stand when his own hypocrisy is exposed.

  • Mark22||

    Fucking liar Then total psycho

    The only thing that is "Fucking liar Then total psycho" is your statement of a position and then a total denial of your position in the next posting.

    The goober knows I'm 76 ... AND STILL SAID THAT!!

    So you are a geezer? You are receiving government benefits? Hence my statement: "so that they can be forcibly taxed in order to pay for the retirement and healthcare of geezers like you." Note that I didn't say "to pay for your benefits"; obviously, I'm paying for your benefits.

    When will that happen, Slick?

    One way or another, within half a century; that's inevitable. The only choice we have is whether the country that remains will be the kind of leftist totalitarian shithole you apparently prefer, or a free country with free markets.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another bitchfit.

  • Mark22||

    ****SAYS SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID WILL BE ABOLISHED ... WITHIN A HALF CENTURY .... ***IT'S *** INEVITABLE*** . BUT HE HAS NO FUCKING CLUE HOW!!!

    They will go bankrupt.

    _ SHAME ___ ON __YOU ___ SICK ___ FUCK ___ BULLY ___ AND ___ PSYCHO ____ LIAR

    That's indeed what you are.

  • MasterThief||

    I'm really kinda lost on what Hihn is trying to even say in his responses. Maybe there's a failure to understand him, but he seems to deny saying things even as he confirms it and tosses out non sequiturs.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "That means, without immigration, our population would be DECLINING"

    Heavens to Betsy, NO!

    More capital per capita? Cheaper housing prices?

    How horrible! Americans might actually be able to afford having children. We couldn't have that!

  • No Yards Penalty||

    What would a Reason article about immigration be without Trump's Cock Cobble, DumbdumbDavis and LoveTrump'sCock1789 around to bring the Contard viewpoint to what used to be a libertarian hangout.
    Don't your white nationalist Trumpsucker's have Brietard, The Federalist and Daily Stormer to pollute with your cracker-assed drivel?

  • fatcyst||

    No content and racism - well done!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hes a big troll.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Yards is a progressive moron, got it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But the country is stuck wondering how to successfully integrate such a huge mass of outsiders. This riddle is one shared by a number of countries worldwide."

    They will integrate them back into their countries of origin. Easy peasy. If they're lucky.

    If they're not so lucky, Germans gonna German. Things don't end well for unpopular minorities in Germany, when the Germans decide they no longer cherish all that cultural enrichment.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Dumbedumbdavis, do you reach some sort of cracker-ass quota at some point at Daily Stormer or Brietard or The Federalist and feel compelled to share your white nationalist wisdom on a libertarian site? Or do you get fapping material when LoveTrump'sCock1789, Weigel'sFakeNemesis, SIV and other un-closeted cross burners back up your drivel?
    Why not wander over to that glib site, where the other fauxbertarians and neo-zionists set up shop?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Troller on the dole-er.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Well reasoned retort!

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Remember when this used to be a libertarian website where libertarians left comments?
    Cause I do.

  • fatcyst||

    5+ years ago? They really showed their true colors during the last election though when many admitted supporting Hillary.

  • Sevo||

    No Yards Penalty|7.15.18 @ 10:59PM|#
    "Remember when this used to be a libertarian website where libertarians left comments?
    Cause I do."

    Still not happy with the glibertarians, but yeah.

  • kc75081||

    Sad result when idealistic imaginings meet reality. Voters need to look and see before supporting bad policy. The leftist media is too blinded by ideology to give an accurate picture. Its not like you can just plug in any migrant for a German. Academics could quantify this but they would be fired.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Germans don't have magic dirt that turn anyone in the world into a German? Who knew?

  • JeremyR||

    To paraphrase someone or other, immigrants are your future rulers. Choose them wisely.

    I think some Germans realized this and that they don't want to live as 2nd class citizens under Shariah law.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We should have central planners full of 'top men' selecting the 'correct' immigrants to come here. I'm sure it will work out brilliantly! After all, they're top men!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    That's actually our immigration policy in the USA. Only a small percentage of our immigration visas go to refugees or people who sign up for the diversity visa lottery. Most go to people selected by employers in industries selected by our top men in government such as Josh Gottheimer. Gottheimer bounced around between the Clinton White House, Microsoft corporate jobs, and his own political campaigns.

  • Mark22||

    Only a small percentage of our immigration visas go to refugees or people who sign up for the diversity visa lottery. Most go to people selected by employer

    Nonsense. The vast majority of immigrant visas are given based on family relationships.

  • Mark22||

    We should have central planners full of 'top men' selecting the 'correct' immigrants to come here

    No need for "top men" or "central planning". All that is necessary is to require that the average immigrant pay more to the government than the government spends on his behalf. That amounts to about $20000/year. Any immigrant who pays that much in taxes every year, consistently, for a decade or two gets citizenship. Any immigrant who misses that target gets deported.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "No need for 'central planning'. Here, let me explain to you my central plan for immigration."

  • Mark22||

    "No need for 'central planning'. Here, let me explain to you my central plan for immigration."

    If you think that that is a "central plan", you are either completely ignorant of what "central planning" is or you are a lying p.o.s. who is trying to obfuscate the abhorrent history of socialism/communism.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It IS a central plan. It's not as detailed as the ones that the Soviets used, but it's a plan that you want imposed by a centralized authority over all of immigration. The central plans that communist countries used weren't terrible just because they were massive and detailed; they were terrible fundamentally because they centralized power in the state to control the lives of free people. And you want to do the same thing. Just own up to it for once.

  • Mark22||

    It IS a central plan

    No, it is a policy, an immigration policy that complements our tax policy.

    they were terrible fundamentally because they centralized power in the state to control the lives of free people

    Yes, like our tax system. And what you want to do is extract even more taxes from the top 20% of American tax payers in order to realize your socialist global workers' paradise. Just own up to it for once.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Using current tax policy to justify current immigration policy is rather rich. Both are completely broken messes.

    And what you want to do is extract even more taxes from the top 20% of American tax payers in order to realize your socialist global workers' paradise. Just own up to it for once.

    Except I have been crystal clear and consistent that I oppose welfare benefits for anyone, migrants included. YOU are the one who uses collectivist arguments when it suits you, then take umbrage when you are called out on your collectivism. "How dare you" etc etc.

  • Mark22||

    Using current tax policy to justify current immigration policy is rather rich. Both are completely broken messes.

    I'm not "justifying" anything. I'm saying that, as a practical matter, I am not willing to open borders until taxes and government spending have been sharply decreased. That's because I'd like this country to survive for another half century.

    You're saying "open borders now because it increases liberty, even if we can't lower taxes or government spending yet". Regardless of any philosophical or moral issues, that's simply not a realistic position.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am not willing to open borders until taxes and government spending have been sharply decreased. That's because I'd like this country to survive for another half century.

    Good heavens. It's THE NATIVES which created the welfare-warfare-surveillance state, not illiterate migrants from Guatemala. Blaming foreigners for the welfare state is just scapegoating.

    You're saying "open borders now because it increases liberty, even if we can't lower taxes or government spending yet".

    I am saying that we should be advancing the cause of liberty wherever we can, on multiple fronts.

    I am saying that the liberties of INDIVIDUALS are more important than collectives, or national cultures, or any of the other collectivist nonsense.

  • Mark22||

    Good heavens. It's THE NATIVES which created the welfare-warfare-surveillance state, not illiterate migrants from Guatemala. Blaming foreigners for the welfare state is just scapegoating.

    Where did I "blame" foreigners for anything? Saying "I don't want Guatemalan refugees in the US" isn't blaming them for anything.

    I am saying that we should be advancing the cause of liberty wherever we can, on multiple fronts.

    We should. Unfortunately, you are advancing the cause of totalitarianism.

  • MJBinAL||

    ChemJeff,
    When you get all those welfare programs, including SS and MediCare, taxpayer funded schools, and all the rest eliminated , you will find many more of us willing to get on board with more open borders.

    After all, many of the immigrants who came here in the early years of our nation, returned to the country of origin because they were unsuccessful here. When no welfare exists, immigrants will self select.

    Until then, talk to the hand.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good Lord. Predicating open borders on "the end of the welfare state" is frankly ridiculous. It's THE NATIVES who are demanding the welfare state, not foreigners. It's THE NATIVES who consume the vast majority of the welfare state. If the country goes broke due to the welfare state, it won't be because of illiterate Guatemalans who came here.

    The total cost of the welfare state in this country is north of $1 trillion a year. The total cost of illegal immigration, even based on the biased statistics from places like CIS, is about $110 billion a year. (That includes cost of enforcement along with cost of welfare itself.) Illegal immigrants consume far less than 10% of the welfare state, probably closer to around 5%. Which, not so shockingly, is about the same proportion of the population represented by undocumented immigrants.

    The other 90-95% of the welfare state is consumed BY NATIVES. So what is your plan to reduce their consumption of welfare? If the state must suppress the liberty of foreigners to come here in order to cut down on their welfare costs, what are the liberties that the state must suppress of NATIVES in order to cut down on THEIR welfare costs? Hmm?

  • Mark22||

    Good Lord. Predicating open borders on "the end of the welfare state" is frankly ridiculous

    I didn't. I predicated it on massive reductions in government spending.

    Illegal immigrants consume far less than 10% of the welfare state, probably closer to around 5%.

    They can consume no welfare at all and they would still be a net drain on fiscal resources. The requirement for immigration ought to be "more than per capita government spending", not "more than per capita welfare spending".

    If the state must suppress the liberty of foreigners to come here

    No liberty is being suppressed since foreigners have no right to come here in the first place.

    what are the liberties that the state must suppress of NATIVES in order to cut down on THEIR welfare costs? Hmm?

    No liberties ought to be suppressed for "natives". The natives can vote themselves as many welfare benefits and as much government spending as they like and then they have to live with the consequences. That is what being a citizen of a nation means. If Americans choose to turn the US into Venezuela, then Americans need to live like the people of Venezuela; we can't run off to Canada.

  • Mark22||

    The central plans that communist countries used weren't terrible just because they were massive and detailed; they were terrible fundamentally because they centralized power in the state to control the lives of free people.

    Central plans were terrible because they didn't work; they didn't work due to the information problem. Keeping people out of the country who don't contribute more on average than they cost the government avoids the information problem.

    Every government controls the lives of free people in one way or another, even libertarian government. If you can't deal with that, you're an anarchist. In your particular case, you seem to be an anarchist of the utopian communist variety.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So you've gone from "I don't have a central plan!" to "I totally do have a central plan, but mine will work, unlike those Soviet central plans!" Interesting.

    Central plans were terrible because they didn't work; they didn't work due to the information problem. Keeping people out of the country who don't contribute more on average than they cost the government avoids the information problem.

    Except with your central plan, the government is using a very crude measure of individual potential for success and self-worth - just income. Furthermore your central plan relies on the use of averages, even if the numbers are correct. On average the government may spend $20k per year on each person, but it does not spend that much equally on everyone. Your plan would exclude otherwise legitimate migrants by your own measure, if they fall below that average. Your plan suffers just as much from the information problem as the Soviet ones did.

    Every government controls the lives of free people in one way or another, even libertarian government.

    So you've also gone from "How dare you compare my central plan to Soviet central plans!" to "All central plans control the lives of free people, just deal with it!"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, the US Constitution and the Constitutional Democratic Republic is nothing like the USSR.

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    Not in Chemjeff's eyes. He really needs to spend so,e time in a place like NK.

  • Mark22||

    So you've also gone from "How dare you compare my central plan to Soviet central plans!" to "All central plans control the lives of free people, just deal with it!"

    So you are a utopian communist who misrepresents any form of government as "central planning".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The idea is to REDUCE the amount of central planning, not to justify it or defend it.

  • Mark22||

    The idea is to REDUCE the amount of central planning, not to justify it or defend it.

    Neither income tax nor welfare nor immigration laws are "central planning", so a desire to reduce the amount of central planning in the US is irrelevant to those issues.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Some central planning is always needed. This why the Constitution is superior to the Articles of Confederation. Immigration is a vital function of governments everywhere. Borders are needed to insure that you continue to have a nation-state.

  • lap83||

    To paraphrase someone or other, immigrants are your future rulers. Choose them wisely.

    Good point and I think that highlights a prejudice many open borders types have (mostly progressives)....that immigrants are more than willing to remain nice little worker bees in their permanent underclass

  • Mark22||

    Channeling a million migrants into productive lives in their new home is no small job

    Neither the German nor the US government even manage to "channel" millions of their own citizens into productive lives. The idea that they can do this for a million migrants who don't speak the language, don't know the culture, don't have any significant education, and are often hostile to Western culture and values is absolutely ludicrous.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But it's much more important to channel foreigners into productive lives, because racism."

  • sharmota4zeb||

    According to a National Review article, Germany needs to increase NATO spending to 2% of it's GDP. It says Germany's GDP is $3.4 Trillion and the military budget is only 1.2% of that.

    0.8% of $3.4 Trillion is $27.2 Billion. If paid directly to 1 million refugees, that's $27,200 per refugee, enough to live modestly on. I'm not saying that every refugee has to join the military, but Germany's defense obligation would pay for 1 million new military jobs. Those new military personnel can be existing citizens or newcomers. Either way, the jobs and budget are there. Germany can simply classify the new military personnel as unarmed frontier scouts, then pay them to patrol rural areas and count how many trees the country has. After all, trees absorb carbon dioxide, which makes it essential for the government to estimate their total biomass for improved global warming models for those who believe in that stuff.

  • Mark22||

    Migration is still a must for Germany's future, thanks to worrying demographic patterns. Without a lot of new workers, the aging population and its shrinking taxpayer base will lay ruin to the country's generous welfare system.

    German politicians made promises they couldn't keep: on retirement, on reproductive freedom, on social services. The result was a collapse in birth rates and a demographic disaster. Those were massive political mistakes.

    You can't fix these massive past mistakes by importing millions of workers from the third world. That's just adding more mistakes on top of past mistakes.

  • Bill Adams||

    Yeah, as ever, Germany's only hope for its aging population welfare state is the importation of a million young Muslim men to faithfully tend those helpless infidel oldsters. Bullshit.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Either liberty is a fundamental right of all human beings, or it is not.

  • Mark22||

    Either liberty is a fundamental right of all human beings, or it is not.

    That's easy: the ability to cross national boundaries is not a "fundamental right of all human beings".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    National boundaries are not synonymous. So, why not?

    Oh, wait: "the people" collectively own public property. Right? So if that's the case, why can't I transfer any of my collective ownership rights on this public property? Oh wait, that's because I don't really have any property rights when it comes to public land. The state owns public land, not "the people" or "the collective".

    And, if you believe that "the people" collectively own public property, then "the people" could justifiably impose anti-liberty restrictions on the use of that public property based on their "ownership" of the property. No free speech or no gun possession on public land, because "the people" have decided thusly. Right?

    The correct way to view public property is as property owned by the state, in trust, to further its properly legitimate mission of securing the liberty of all who use that property. So the state may not justly restrict liberty on individuals using public property, because that would be a violation of its trustee relationship with the people.

    This is in contrast to privately owned property, in which the property owner has no such trustee relationship to anyone and may choose to be as much of an authoritarian dick as he/she wishes.

    So, if a migrant wishes to cross a national border, onto public property, why should any third party stand in this person's way?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    er, "national boundaries are not synonymous with property lines"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The US Constitution sets the territory of the United States of America from states that join the Union. States gave up some sovereign power to form the USA and for the common defense.

  • Mark22||

    And, if you believe...

    I'm stating a fact, not a belief. There is an enumerated set of "human rights" that people generally agree on. You can find it in the UDHR, for example. That set of "human rights" does not include the right to cross national boundaries at will.

    You are free to disagree about whether people ought to be allowed to cross national borders at will. You are not free to claim that something is a "human right" when it is not, according to the usual meaning of that term.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So the UN defines human rights now? I'm sure this will be the first and only time you will be citing the UN as an authority on anything. Convenient isn't it?

  • MJBinAL||

    We have a nation. As nation formed on the basis of some ideals. Among those ideals, was and is, the phrase "to secure for ourselves and our posterity". You will note, that it does not say "all of mankind". It effectively says "for us and our children".

    What all of the open borders crowd expose, is actually the revocation of our nation. A revolution to eliminate the nation, apparently in the belief that all the other nations will look over and say "wow, that's cool!" rather than just dispatching their military to capture the parts they want.

    Stupid, stupid, Stupid.

    In reality, it will never get that far. What will happen is taxes will increase, either directly, or via inflation, or both to deal with the rising costs. Crime, and civil unrest will increase, especially among the new immigrants who will cluster in ghettos, living on government subsidy. And eventually, a true police state will emerge as the people value peace, safety, and stability enough to give up their rights to get it.

    And, in small part, it will be dipshits like you who will be responsibile. Love ya man.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Which is more important:
    1. The individual
    2. The nation
    Pick only one.

    And eventually, a true police state will emerge...

    You can't have it both ways. If your dystopian version of open borders leads to a police state backlash, then what about the police state created by the status quo and Trumpian immigration policies?

    Your version of the police state that you advocate is actual state violence conducted against individuals who lack the proper papers. By contrast, your hypothetical police state that you posit is predicated on the assumption that immigrants are inherently prone to crime and are just bad people so those good and proper Americans will demand "something be done". Which is an actual police state, and which is based on assumptions and generalizations?

  • Mark22||

    Your version of the police state that you advocate is actual state violence conducted against individuals who lack the proper papers.

    Yes, that is what states do, libertarian or otherwise. For example, these very United States will "conduct state violence" against me if I don't cough up enough money every year to finance the needs of half a dozen illegal migrant families. And reducing that state violence against me, by legal means like voting and lobbying, is my primary political concern.

  • Mark22||

    So the UN defines human rights now?

    No, not at all. They are simply a globalist organization and even they don't recognize the right you postulate. It should be clear that conservatives, Christians, and the US Constitution also don't recognize the "human right" you postulate.

    So far, you have provided no source for the existence of the human right you postulate.

    I'm sure this will be the first and only time you will be citing the UN as an authority on anything. Convenient isn't it?

    Not at all. I frequently cite the UN when it comes to defeating shitty globalist ideologues with their own words. For example, I cite the UN about climate change because their own studies contradict their policy proposals.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Oh, wait: "the people" collectively own public property. Right? So if that's the case, why can't I transfer any of my collective ownership rights on this public property? Oh wait, that's because I don't really have any property rights when it comes to public land.

    What are you talking about? Of course you can. You just have to convince your fellow owners to abide by it. All 329,999,999 of them.

    For more local property rights, the numbers are, of course, lower.

    But you can, absolutely transfer, assign, set aside, build upon, etc using your collective property rights.

    You just have to work WITH your fellow owners.

  • Cy||

    You can respect someone's liberty without giving them free healthcare.
    You can respect someone's liberty without giving them free education.
    You can respect someone's liberty without giving them free food.
    You can respect someone's liberty without giving them free shelter.
    You can respect someone's liberty without allowing them onto your property.

    You can respect someone's liberty without opening our borders.

    Liberty isn't pretty.
    Liberty isn't convenient. That includes towards your feelings.
    Liberty doesn't come from you enforcing your will on others.
    Liberty recognizes reality, not fantasy. That includes demographics, history, science, birthrates, resources, languages, cultures, etc...

    The people of a country can choose who enters their country. They can set the number at 0 or infinity. It's their country. You need to respect that. You need to respect THEIR property rights. Your feelings and opinions do not trump their rights. Your feelings and opinion do not trump their liberty or the exercise of it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The people of a country can choose who enters their country.

    No, they shouldn't.

    They can set the number at 0 or infinity. It's their country. You need to respect that. You need to respect THEIR property rights.

    "The people" do not "own" the country. No one does. We don't have a feudal system anymore. Individual property owners own their plots of property. And I absolutely respect their property rights - over their own property. The state has a duty to respect the liberty of all who use public property.

    So I do not respect claims over my property made on behalf of any collective, whether it is a socialist collective wanting to expropriate my property directly, or a nationalist collective wanting to expropriate my property indirectly.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "National borders" not anarchist's "no borders".

  • Cy||

    How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say "I absolutely respect their property rights - over their own property?"

    When you say things like: "The people" do not "own" the country. No one does."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, Cy. What part of the Washington Monument do you "own"? And can you sell or transfer your property interest in that piece of real estate? No? Then you don't really own it, not even a teensy weensy portion of it.

    You DO own the property that you yourself bought and paid for, whatever it is. Your rights to your property should be respected.

    But you DON'T own the public road outside my house. Nor do I. No single person does. No "collective" does. THE STATE owns the road.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So I do not respect claims over my property made on behalf of any collective

    But you'll use the services provided by the collective without a whiff of complaint.

  • Mark22||

    "The people" do not "own" the country.

    Citizens can vote about what happens with the public lands in this country: we can vote to sell them and we can vote to restrict people from entering them. That means that citizens do, in fact, collectively "own the country" because citizens exercise the control that collective ownership brings.

    We don't have a feudal system anymore.

    Correct: we have "democracy", that is "rule by the people". You seem to be confusing democracy with anarchy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A properly instituted government would not permit a tyranny of the majority to use its voting power to suppress the liberties of the people.

    Are you really asking for majoritarian democracy? Really?

  • soldiermedic76||

    That is why we have a republic. The republic allows for the voice of the people to be heard while attempting to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
    You seem less supportive of limited government then you seem to favor no government.

  • Mark22||

    Are you really asking for majoritarian democracy? Really?

    We're not talking about what I am "asking for", we are talking about facts. And the fact is that the American people collectively exercise our property rights through representative democracy. It's also a fact that the US government is only responsible for protecting the liberties of the American people, not of any other people.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And the fact is that the American people collectively exercise our property rights through representative democracy.

    This is just plainly not true. You don't have any property rights over public land! You cannot buy or sell or transfer any property interest in public land. The right that you are discussing is a right to VOTE for people who pledge to do as you ask. But that is not a property right, that is a voting right. The people for whom you vote are free to ignore you and do whatever they choose. That is because THEY have the real power over public property, *not you*. Until I see a private individual successfully sell their property interest in the Washington Monument, then I'll believe that individual citizens have property rights over public land. Let me put it to you this way: You have exactly the same amount of "property rights" over public land, as you do "property rights" over your Social Security entitlement. Neither one actually belongs to you. Both of them are just promises made by politicians to you to act on your behalf, but promises that they can and do break all the time.

  • Mark22||

    This is just plainly not true. You don't have any property rights over public land! You cannot buy or sell or transfer any property interest in public land. The right that you are discussing is a right to VOTE for people who pledge to do as you ask.

    Yes, just like I exercise my property rights over the common areas within an HOA.

    In any case, this is irrelevant to the question at hand, since the right to exclude foreigners is guaranteed both by the US Constitution and international law, regardless of its justification. That is, I don't have to prove to you that Americans have property rights in public lands because the right to exclude foreigners exists regardless.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "muh anarchy"

  • Gilbert Martin||

    So "loosening regulations" could have prevented the crisis, eh?

    So could not have granting those people entrance to the country in the first place.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So, send them back to die? How is this a better solution?

  • Mark22||

    So, send them back to die?

    Why would they die? The violent crime rate in places like Afghanistan is comparable to Western crime rates. The murder rate is actually lower than in the US, and substantially lower than in many Western inner cities.

    How is this a better solution?

    It's better for Western tax payers whose money is forcibly extracted by Western governments in order to pay for the benefits of migrants.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Technically, they're going to die wherever they are, humanity not having figured out that whole immortality thing yet. Maybe you meant, "die sooner"?

    Might want to first establish that it would be sooner.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yes Jeff, send them back to die (eventually, since the murder rates are not much different than anywhere else) and would you go with them? I mean to help them out you know ... from the good of your heart .... using your own money.

    After all, this country was "preserved for ourselves and our posterity", vs. anyone who can sneak in.

  • Devastator||

    It's a pragmatic one. There aren't unlimited resources in Germany to absorb 20 million refugees from the middle east and africa.

  • lulz farmer||

    I think it's getting pretty close to 1/4 non-European in Germany at this point, which would be around 20 million. Let's not kid ourselves and think those who've lived there for generations really fare on average any better than recent arrivals. Not true in any country that keeps data. Biology is biology.

  • InternetHandle12||

    Less gov would have stopped gangs of migrants from sexually assaulting women en masse on New Years Eve? Only an ideologue could look at Germany's failed open borders policy and claim it failed because it wasn't open enough.

  • ||

    Germany Just Agreed To Essentially Close Its Borders. How Did We Get Here?

    *checks social security card*

    *checks passport*

    How did *we* get *where*? Or do you mean "How did Germany get to where it is?" to wit, the answer is obvious.

  • dpbisme||

    Gee, surprise-surprise the Germans just figured out that there are 1.2 Billion people in Africa and that a large majority of them would like to get out.

    An example of the fact that Open Border Idiots know nothing about economics and demographics.

    The Neocon may not be able to spread Democracy, Freedom, and the Rule of Law to the rest of the world but it is still the best method for uplifting societies.

    The Europeans gave up on Nation Building and Self Defense to provide services to their people but it is going to be the death of them in the long run.

  • Devastator||

    Yep. I hate to see people turned away but people need to stay in their own countries and fix them rather than trying to bring their problems here to Germany.

  • lulz farmer||

    Yes I'm sure they left England for a ready-made country to suckle at the teat of a taxpayer-funded panoply of handouts. Not to an uncertain future as a settler creating something from nothing. Stop equivocating.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Like our colonists refused to leave England?"

    It's funny when people castigate European immigration to the Americas in an attempt to defend Open Borders.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No amount of effort to assimilate people will work if they don't want to assimilate.

    Many of the "refugees"/immigrants from the ME do not want to assimilate.

    A great many of the Muslims are there to convert Europe into Muslim states.

    And part of that will be the theft, rape, and murder that Islam countenances against the unbelievers.

    When you invite in a "religion" that is really a desert pirates' (Mohammed) justification for his lust for theft, child-rape and murder don't expect that's not what you're going to get.

  • Jeff77042||

    Agreed.

  • lulz farmer||

    Did blacks "integrate" after hundreds of years in America? Go over to Germany -- did the Turks brought in as guest workers (that curiously never left, just like in England with the same scam) -- did these people "integrate"?

    The answer is no. Human capital isn't equal. Biology isn't equal. We aren't infinitely malleable. Evolution is real and created differences. Libertarian eggheads who purposely exclude every bit of data that makes them uncomfortable are why no one can take you seriously.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No, it is NOT true for current immigrants.

    And actually the European immigrants did want to assimilate, and they had to, because we didn't coddle them by printing everything for them in their language.

    But beyond that the Muslim invaders, many of them are exactly such, want to impose their belief system on others.

    None of the European immigrants of the 19thor 20th Centuries had that attitude.

    And NONE of them thought it was the word of Allah to kill the unbelievers.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    I would also point out that the London Tube bombers were 2nd generation Muslim immigrants.

    They didn't assimilate too well did they?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    I would also point out that the London Tube bombers were 2nd generation Muslim immigrants.

    They didn't assimilate too well did they?

  • Murray99||

    "High-profile German politicians, mainstream media outlets, and the public rallied behind the idea." - well, no. Seems that the public actually never rallied behind that idea, only a small part of it.

    "A new YouGov poll finds 72 percent of Germans saying their country's immigration policy is negligent" - was this poll made after the murder of Susanna B.? This case made the headlines in June. The girl was raped and murdered by a migrant from Iraq who then fled the country using a false name (using an obviously false name by the way, but security checks seem to apply only to Germans...) . His extradition was due to the private initiative of a high-ranking law enforcement officer. Without his efforts, the German government would have done nothing to prosecute the killer.

    "Germany's bureaucratic monolith, not exactly known for its efficiency" - are you out of your mind? Please, make a comparative study of the efficiency of German bureaucrazy against the American one. Then, let´s talk again.

    "Migration is still a must for Germany's future, thanks to worrying demographic patterns. Without a lot of new workers, the aging population and its shrinking taxpayer base will lay ruin to the country's generous welfare system." - Sorry, that´s a non-sequitur, unless you propose a Ponzi scheme as a (pseudo) solution.

    "Merkel could have enacted new immigration laws" - No. That´s the responsibility of the Bundestag, the German parliament.

  • EirkKengaard||

    "The consequence has been plummeting support for refugees and a German people more bitterly divided than at any time since World War II."

    The official position is "No one could have seen this coming."

  • buybuydandavis||

    Especially the people who claimed to see it coming at the time.

  • Jeff77042||

    Ms. Gonzalez, this article leaves much to be desired. You barely addressed the issue of crime committed by these "migrants." I don't have a source but I think the murders they've committed is more than a "couple." The sexual assaults were not a one-time thing in just one place, they're on-going. One article said that they were committing ~200,000 crimes a year. Mostly fraud & theft but also, of course, murder, rape & assault.

    Ms. Gonzalez, I served in seven third-world dystopias, four of them Islamic visions of what can only be described as Hell on Earth, I kid you not. The West is collectively *insane* to allow these people in and in large numbers. No, not all Muslims are quote-unquote bad although even the so-called moderates have beliefs that range from deeply-disturbing to downright *hair-raising*.

    Let's conduct a thought experiment: You, Ms. Gonzalez, are living in Germany. One-million "migrants" from the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) are massed on the German border just waiting for the green-light to enter. They *will* commit x-amount of crime as described above. And *you* & everyone you care about *will* be among the victims, to include rape & murder. And no, they can't be vetted anymore than they were the first time. Okay, the decision to allow them in or not rests solely with you. What's it going to be?

  • Joey JoJo Jr. Shabadoo||

    She doesn't care. A small price to be paid for her open borders dreams.

  • Jeff77042||

    Understood.

  • JWC||

    *whew* I had to wade through nearly 700 comments to find one that not only made sense, but was more than the utterings of a troll or a white supremacist. Yes, it should go without saying that allowing immigrants from primarily one culture (Middle Eastern, Arabic, Islamic) to immigrant to one's land will have the net effect of altering the native culture
    (German, English, French, Dutch, etc.) to that of the culture of the immigrants. It is their politics and the economics of their governments they flee, after all, not their culture, their religion, their belief systems. When the invading culture, and I use that word advisedly, is one that has no tradition of Western liberalism and little sense of modernity, there is a very real danger that it will overwhelm the existing culture, particularly when there is such a great disparity in birth rates. Libertarians, like communists, are often so enamored with their own ideas and theories, they do not recognize that some of the very ideas to which they are so wed, open borders in this case, the free movement of people, can only result in a world that would view most of their other ideas as anathema.

  • Jeff77042||

    Thank you. It probably isn't a coincidence that the one comment you found that makes sense is from someone who's actually "been in the shit" and his dealt with these people up close and personal.

    Societies that are homogenous tend to be harmonious and have high levels of social trust/cohesion. Examples include Japan and the Scandinavian countries. (Less and less true of Sweden with each passing day). Societies that are heterogeneous, i.e. diverse, tend to be chaotic and have low levels of social trust/cohesion. Examples include the Balkans at different times in history, Rwanda in '94, Darfur in the 2000s, much of the Middle East and parts of Africa today and increasingly parts of Europe. Said in all seriousness, this particular experiment in social engineering of importing large numbers of Muslims into societies with Enlightenment values is emphatically *not* going to end well. For that matter, it's not going well.

    P.S. Victims of illegal aliens: http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

  • vek||

    Yup. The fact is having anything over a nominal 10% or whatever minority population in a country is a recipe for disaster. It always creates problems between the groups, and frankly without allowing in such people the majority group has no REASON to make concessions. If you have other people with radically different views you either have to completely ignore them, which will piss them off, or make concessions you don't want to make. That's whack. Germans shouldn't have to change THEIR culture to accommodate some foreign assholes.

  • Hank Phillips||

    How strange. So experience has taught Germans to adopt the following policy:

    We support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


    There may be a lesson in this for the Libertarian Party of These States...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So let's review the closed-border position:

    1. The government shouldn't pick winners and losers in the marketplace, but it should totally attempt to pick winners and losers among migrants coming here.
    2. Prohibitions against drugs and alcohol don't work, but a prohibition against labor will absolutely work.
    3. Freedom of association is important for Christian bakers refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, but freedom of association isn't important at all for employers wishing to hire foreign employees.
    4. Culture is more important than individuals. Those individuals who refuse to conform to a Western culture shouldn't be allowed in. Liberty can only be created in the context of a culture of stifling conformity.
    5. It's outrageous that some immigrants collect welfare, even though the welfare that they do collect is around 5-10% of the total welfare spending in this country. It's so outrageous that extreme methods to stop such welfare must be used, such as building a giant border wall, or separating families just to teach them a lesson. But when it comes to the 90-95% of welfare consumed by native-born citizens, no such extreme measures are called for. At most they'll get a stern talking-to about how lazy they are. But separating native-born families, just to teach them a lesson about the evils of mooching on the public dole? That would be totally outrageous.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "muh anarchy"

  • vek||

    I'm not a purist libertarian!

    There are some things where they are of such large scale importance that some small concessions to absolute freedom can and should be made.

    Immigration is one of them.

    If we opened the borders tomorrow for realz, we would be a 3rd world country in probably 10-20 years. Illiterates would be pouring in here faster than we knew what to do with. They would vote wrong. They would be low productivity. Their cultures would clash with ours. Fuck that shit.

    I like American culture the way it is. Well, really the way it was in the past... But the more of it we can keep the better. YOU say you prefer this shitty open borders vision of the future... I would prefer low and slow immigration of nothing but skilled people. Your opinion isn't more important than mine, and since the welfare state, laws regarding immigration, etc aren't going anywhere anytime soon I'm going to fight for the vision that will be better for me and 99% of current US residents. I don't CARE if your way is better for the immigrants. Fuck them, let them fix their own countries.

    My German ancestors made Germany the great country it is, and America the great country it is, so let the Somalis make Somalia something to be proud of, cuz it ain't my problem.

  • slgjlkgj||

    Maybe, just maybe having open borders to a bunch of immigrants from the most radicalized, anti-western part of the world was just an awful idea in theory and in practice. And no amount screeching about demographic changes will alter that. I used to remember when libertarians were in favour of getting rid of welfare programs instead of advocating ad hoc band-aid "gov't solutions." SAD!

  • slgjlkgj||

    Maybe, just maybe having open borders to a bunch of immigrants from the most radicalized, anti-western part of the world was just an awful idea in theory and in practice. And no amount screeching about demographic changes will alter that. I used to remember when libertarians were in favour of getting rid of welfare programs instead of advocating ad hoc band-aid "gov't solutions." SAD!

  • Devastator||

    I agree. If they want to set up shariah law let them do it elsewhere. Western civilization has moved on from theocracy based governments, if you live here you need to leave that shit behind too, and it seems they don't want to do that.

  • vek||

    Funny thing is, you never hear people bitching about East Asian immigrants anywhere... They show up, work hard, get educations, take care of their own shit, don't commit any crimes. That's why they're called the model minority right?

    Where people come from MATTERS.

  • Devastator||

    Given the emergency conditions it was time to stop the influx. There are legal paths to get into the country.

  • Augustine||

    Don't you see it? If the immigrants were allowed to work at jobs without certificates and knowing the language everything would be all swell and hunky dory. I'm bored and yet I don't wish to commit crime so I would not be a good immigrant.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Kochs need moar human widgetz"

  • ThomasD||

    Had anyone asked, prior to the recent mass migrations into Europe, if Germany had onerous, restrictive, and illiberal work restrictions, I'd have replied most certainly. And would have further asserted that they really needed to stop oppressing their population with such regulations and rules.

    But fascism is as fascist does.

    The idea that importing a mass of largely uneducated third worlders and providing them welfare would be the path to ending these restrictions is, on it's face, absurd.

  • lulz farmer||

    Of course they are. These people are getting more money than working class Germans for doing nothing. Some of the payouts because they popped out large numbers of useless eater children go into the six figures. Of course, generations later you still have Turks speaking pidgin German and still financially a net drain because this idea of magic dirt and access to institutions somehow transforming them into Europeans isn't true and you can't change their biology except by mixing them with the natives which destroys the natives and creates something wholly inferior to the natives. What's horrifying is that populations even worse than Turks are the recent arrivals.

  • Murray99||

    Well, if you count payments according to the Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz (AsylbLG, nice abbreviation...) as welfare, then they are eligible. They receive housing, clothes, food, medicinal care for free for six months, afterwards they get allowances instead of in-kind services. Only few people know how the system actually works, since there are no simple laws in Germany and adminstrative practices aren´t always transparent, either.

  • EirkKengaard||

    "Migration is still a must for Germany's future, thanks to worrying demographic patterns. Without a lot of new workers, the aging population and its shrinking taxpayer base will lay ruin to the country's generous welfare system."

    Why did they base their "generous welfare system" on a pyramid scheme?

    Robots (made in Japan) to the rescue.

  • XM||

    Those regulations existed before the arrival of migrants. If Germany didn't accept any of these people, all of them would have been spared from those onerous regulations.

    America is capable of harboring large amount of outsiders because it has a huge economy that can sustain and cater to a more diverse population. The foreign born population here is sizable enough to fit a mid sized nation. Assimilation is so much easier because connections to your homeland is common in big states and language requirements are largely informal.

    Most countries aren't America. Some places are probably no better than Montana. Trudeau thought he could play the good guy on refugees and when that resulted in unintended consequences he changed his tunes.. Even American progressives would began to fret a bit if large amounts of migrants continued to flood their cities every year and compete for jobs.

    I think most Germans saw the writing on the wall, which led to the erosion of the initial good will. A lot of these refugees are economic migrants. They were complaining about the food and housing and some of them were bribed in to returning.

  • lulz farmer||

    America is not capable of it at all. It is a Keynesian clown economy and it doesn't work. 20 trillion debt largely because you have black and brown populations that net cost over a trillion dollars in quantifiable costs every year--and of course the expensive wars don't help. That is, the net drain demos take out and cost more than a trillion than they pay into taxes -- in quantifiable costs, so you know it's more than that when you factor in a known unknown of the amount of crime, property damage and related costs these people commit at massively higher rates. They are being propped up by an exploited and shrinking demographic of European (and I suppose some east Asian) producers who's birthrates have tanked since they have to pay for all of this nonsense and have little left over to actually have families with.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Germans are fast appreciating the value of mace, pepper spray and pistols. With any luck they'll soon have a Second Amendment of their own and fewer Saracen berserkers.

  • vek||

    One of MANY reasons I love the Japanese. Wherever their population ends up going numbers wise, Japan will always be Japan. The way the USA and Europe are going they will culturally cease to exist. I'd rather have a smaller population and continue to be America, versus turn into whatever shit show we'll end up when we're a minority population in our own damn country.

    America is a weird one too... You can almost argue the immigration point here more... But there is ZERO reason that Germany should destroy itself just to virtue signal. According to genetics many of the Germanic peoples have lived in that geographic area for 10,000+ years. They don't owe losing their lands to anybody.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Europe has purposely chosen a path which has now left them with 2 options -

    submit to Islam,

    or, wage a genocide that would make Hitler blush.

    They don't have the guts anymore to do the latter, so eventually they will succumb to Islam.

  • vek||

    Well, they can always just deport!

  • vek||

    Well, Germany may yet survive as a nation. Hopefully the go even further than this and really do toss out a bunch of those slacking ass refugees. Eastern Europe was smart from the get go and didn't even let anybody in, but it's not too late for Germany, France, Italy, etc to get their shit straight again.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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