The 5 Craziest Things GOP Candidates Have Said About Immigration
Trump, Carson, Walker, et al turn their backs on Ronald Reagan in favor of nonsense, xenophobia, and outright cruelty.
The Republican Party lost its collective mind over immigration.
To see how just unhinged things have gotten, here are the five craziest things GOP presidential candidates have said about immigration in the past few weeks.
5) Bobby Jindal:
"We must insist on assimilation. Immigration without assimilation is an invasion. We need to tell folks who want to come here they need to come here legally. Learn English, adopt our values, roll up your sleeves and get to work."
Now, that sounds reasonable, until you start actually thinking about it for more than five seconds. Academics have studied this question in depth, and what do they find? That the United States has consistently been at or near the very top of the world in successfully assimilating immigrants, regardless of what its politicians "insist" on. Bobby Jindal ought to pay a visit to one of those immigrant suburbs in France he loves talking about, compare it to Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, then get back to us.
4) Chris Christie:
"We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in, and then when your time is up, whether it's three months or six months or nine months or 12 months—however long your visa is, then we go get you and tap you on the shoulder and say, "Excuse me, thanks for coming—time to go."
This idea, which began as a Newt Gingrich joke nearly a decade ago, faces a couple of practical obstacles. First, human beings are not packages. Second, the Supreme Court recently ruled that law enforcement can't track human beings without a warrant. Third, visa policies are reciprocal, which means what we do to foreigners, foreigners will do to Americans when we visit their countries. And finally, what Chris Christie is describing is a police state.
3) Scott Walker:
"Some people have asked me [about building a border wall with Canada]. They've raised some legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks, that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at."
Like a lot of Walker statements this campaign, he has since semi-walked it back. But he's not the only candidate contemplating the ridiculous.
2) Ben Carson:
"We need to seal our borders—but not just the southern border, the northern border, the Pacific border, the Atlantic border, every border."
Let's say this slow enough so that even an internationally renowned neurosurgeon understands it. You cannot "seal" the border! It can't be done. You could build a hundred-foot-tall fence along our 7,500 miles of land, and some kind of force field along the coasts, and that would still do nothing about the 40 percent of illegal immigrants who came to this country legally. People from 38 countries can travel to the U.S. without a visa. To truly "seal" the border would require massive disruptions in international travel, mobility, and trade.
1) Donald Trump:
"We're going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together…. But they have to go. But they have to go…. They have to go. We either have a country or we don't have a country."
Let's be clear here: The GOP frontrunner is talking about deporting American citizens. The they he is talking about are children born here. We haven't seen an idea this repulsive since World War II, when FDR forcibly relocated Japanese-Americans into internment camps.
If that's the path Republicans want to go down, they're going to have to learn to love the immigration policies of President Hillary Clinton.
Written and hosted by Matt Welch. Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Jim Epstein.
About 3.30 minutes.
Music: "80's+" by Podington Bear and "The Killbots Are Coming!" by Flex Vector
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to get automatic updates when new videos go live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Argh...crazy goose stepping Progs on one side, then this shit.
Yep. Once again, Reason goes into Full Retard mode on immigration.
" Reason goes into Full Retard mode on immigration."
I noticed that too. After this quote of B. Jindal,
"We must insist on assimilation. Immigration without assimilation is an invasion. We need to tell folks who want to come here they need to come here legally. Learn English, adopt our values, roll up your sleeves and get to work."
the author says that it sounds reasonable! Since when does anyone have a right to insist on assimilation? What business is it of anyone's what language a newcomer speaks or learns or what values he or she holds? These are surely private, individual choices that are up to the newcomer. None of President Jindal's business insisting otherwise.
It is reasonable. Multiculturalism doesn't work.
Private, individual choices work. Governments, even well intentioned ones, dictating over values and languages works less well.
"Multiculturalism doesn't work."
You can blame the newcomers, but America has always been multicultural.
Multiculturalism is the base of this country
As a person who lives in a bilingual household with an immigrant spouse, I of course have no issue with what language you speak in your own home and among your friends and family. Mixing of cultures ... SO LONG AS OUR CULTURE IS NOT ATTACKED AS A PART OF IT ... is the best part of America.
No ReConquista's nor Jihadi's are welcome.
That being said, if you want to legally remain in this country, you must learn English. You must follow our laws and no one ... NO ONE ... who came here illegally should ever be allowed to become a naturalized Citizen.
There are only two exceptions I would EVER make to this - you can earn your way out by a minimum of 10 years of HONORABLE military service, and if you come here as a non-hostile, non-combatant refugee from a known area of violence seeking sanction AND THAT ONLY AFTER REVIEW OF THE PERSON'S RECORD AND NO OTHER CRIMINAL ACTS.
" if you want to legally remain in this country, you must learn English"
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Surely it protects one's rights to speak or not speak any language according to their own choice. The idea of forcing anyone to learn English is nuts. Newcomers have every right to attack any culture they deem worth attacking, as long as they don't make trouble by harming others too much. The idea of forcing anyone to hold identical values to B. Jindal is also nuts. The idea that an illegal can serve with honour is also nuts. Their honour was forfeit once they crossed the border illegally. I know this from personal experience. Refugees are cowards and quitters. They have no more honour than your mercenaries.
Ok. I'm fine with that. Are you fine with zero public funds or effort to accommodate those who don't learn english? Outside of international airports and other international travel hubs of course.
"Are you fine with zero public funds or effort to accommodate those who don't learn english?"
Wal mart, Target and other retail outlets use their own funds to post bi-lingual signs in their stores. Damn near every retail web site asks if you want to continue in English or Spanish. None of this is done with public funds. It is called SERVING THEIR CUSTOMERS. A great capitalist tradition!
So are you going to use the power of the state to force companies to stop these practices?
There is no official language in los Estados Unidos de America.
"I know this from personal experience."
good, shitbag. Go somewhere else.
mtrueman|9.14.15 @ 9:21PM|#"
"...the author says that it sounds reasonable!"
The ignoramus known as trueman didn't bother to read, since the ignoramus known as trueman only posts here to see his name on the screen:
mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
"[?] What you haven't fathomed is that I'm so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn't bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.
You are a pretty fucking lame piece of shit, trueman. Does your dog even tolerate you?
Oh, and fuck off, asshole.
Where is that idiot that posts under the name, Michael Hihn? He always sticks up for illegals and thinks every American should learn Spanish, just to make illegals happy. This guy is a dumb ass!
First?
Shit. Anyways, we see how well border control has worked with the WOD.
Hey, if we stick 'em in jail, they sure won't be able to get drugs there, right?
" what Chris Christie is describing is a police state"
Just giving people what they apparently want.
Huh, who knew that Christie is a statist asshole? Oh wait, everybody.
Also, you know who else wanted a police state?
Sting?
Good answer. But I think the guy is rich enough to just buy an island. Hell, everybody loves him, I bet he could get the crown to buy him an island.
Considering Chris Christie's bulk, you could easily nominate him again.
I had an idea for an animated film depicting Chris Christie and Hilaary Clinton having a presidential debate where it devolves into a contest of devouring infants and toddlers. With exclamations of 'Chris Christie must feed!' And 'cankles is hungriest of all!'. In all honesty I suspect that they both secretly devour babies anyway.
It would explain a lot.
I like it.
"We're going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together.... But they have to go. But they have to go.... They have to go. We either have a country or we don't have a country."
I'm sure he and maybe one other person believe that means something.
Isn't this already happening, everyday? I seem to recall a national columnist describing this very thing happening right after 9/11/01.
If I can remember, I'll come back and post a link.
Stupid phone calls.
The column I was trying to remember was by Steyn: http://www.steynonline.com/7133/killing-on-camera
It's one dude and one column, and I don't know the verity of his claims, but if true this crap is already going on.
That the United States has consistently been at or near the very top of the world in successfully assimilating immigrants, regardless of what its politicians "insist" on.
Then this seems more superfluous than crazy.
Yeah, but then there wouldn't be 5 CRAZY things to draw the Buzzfeed audience.
"Then this seems more superfluous than crazy."
But calling something superfluous doesn't make for hyperventilating pants shitting fun, now does it?
To truly "seal" the border would require massive disruptions in international travel, mobility, and trade.
THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO, SMART GUY.
I would label this article the 5 craziest things said by critics of anti-immigration candidates.
Their claim that Carson could not stop ilegals who come here legally (via visa) is totally dumb- these are the easiest people to stop and the easiest to throw out. It's obvious that ourmain problem is the illegals coming thru our southern border, and those can be stopped.
The other idiotic criticism was that Trump wants to throw out families, which, for some bizarre reason, Welch thinks is akin to murder. He even claims some children were born here. So what? They aren't citizens. Welch'sargument is particularly the work of a crazed pro-illegal asshole.
The big question is why Welch thinks that we should tolerate this mass of humanity invading our country, murdering our citizens at a high rate, receiving govt welfare and food stamps and stealing jobs from legal Hispanics (who oppose illegal immigration by 66%) and from African-American (over 1 million jobs stolen by illegals). Why doesn't Welch move to a country that would welcome this kind of invasion ? (Try to find one you asshole)
So rationale, ..many sense. May I subscribe to your newsletter??
Beyond your snark, do you have a counterpoint? Or some kind of useful contribution to the discussion?
Suicidy|9.14.15 @ 4:02PM|#
"Beyond your snark, do you have a counterpoint? Or some kind of useful contribution to the discussion?"
Pointing out bullshit is contribution enough.
Except it isn't bullshit. Deep down you know that. Of course it doesn't agree with your open borders narrative, so you have to attack it with snark. Refuting facts is a lot more difficult.
Suicidy|9.15.15 @ 12:13AM|#
"Except it isn't bullshit. Deep down you know that."
Deep down, you're a fucking ignoramus, but we knew that already, didn't we?
I don't want this misunderstood; you are a REAL, FUCKING IGNORAMUS. Is that clear?
You might be able to tie your shoe laces, but even that would be surprising. YOU ARE A FUCKING IGNORAMUS.
And a pathetic loser besides; fuck off.
If they were born here, they are citizens. Read the constitution.
What you propose is to make thousands of people stateless, just to protect some domestic workers from more competition - you know, the market, and to protect your precious welfare system.
Yes and when the become 18 they can claim their citizenship. Look deeper. This is the way it has been happening for a long long time - birthright is what you get when you reach maturity. And spare me the "they're citizens now" bullshit. Can my 10 year old drink? Can she vote? Can she buy a gun? NO. Try understanding the complexity of the system before you make stupid statements.
What does birthright citizenship have to do with drinking and voting?
Oh yeah, that's right: nothing. It's just a strawman.
"Birthright is what you get when you reach maturity."
Let's see here, hrmm, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
The above is relevant. Privileges do not a citizen make, but rather anyone who is subject to the jurisdiction of - the United States of America, has birthright citizenship.
YOU read the constitution. Especially the part of the 14th amendment regarding 'jurisdiction'. If you understood it's meaning in the context of its use in the nineteenth century, then you would know that it has been incorrectly applied to create the concept of anchor babies. Which is just a 'gotcha'.
Now, you know I'm basically on your side, Suicidy, vis a vi the whole illegal immigration thing. Nor am I weighing in on the meaning of jurisdiction, etc. I am, instead, going to repeat one of old man's points: The US has a pretty good rate of assimilation. I don't know if old man has pointed out that one of the reasons for that is birthright citizenship. Many countries in Europe don't have that, and so you have generations of people who aren't second class citizens: They're not citizens at all. And that's where ghettos full of angry people come from.
That's a good point. But we have a real problem with anchor babies here. I think we need to work out an alternative.
I know it is, that's why I brought it up. Old man with candy brings rational points to his side of the argument.
But I'm not so sure birthright citizenship matters. We want to make sure the people here are assimilated. If they're not here, who cares if they are assimilated?
Deport their illegal parents, and most of the time the kid is going with them.
Sure, many of them are going to come back when they are adults, many won't, and it doesn't matter because they are citizens, subject to the same conditions as the rest of us.
The problem is the huge wave of illegal immigration that the elite are just ignoring, while failing to realize the very real world costs.
We haven't seen an idea this repulsive since World War II, when FDR forcibly relocated Japanese-Americans into internment camps.
Another GOP frontrunner. But let's face it, to make your plan of internment camps palatable, we're going to have to declare some kind of war on Latinos. Is that what you want, Reason?
We absolutely CAN seal the border. We could build walls/fences as has been proposed, and those are only partial solutions. But technically, we could build minefields, which would be isnanely cheaper and insanely effective.
The point is it IS doable.
And if this country weren't so full of emotional pussies and instead rational adults, we'd realize there's nothing "cruel" or anti-civil-rights about that. Every freaking country should have minefield borders, it would solve a LOT of problems. One recent example that comes to mind is the Zimbabwe refugees flooding into South Africa.
Are you fucking serious? Minefields?
That's literally a declaration of war. You are killing citizens of another country.
Get out.
For some reason, casual murder doesn't bother people in the immigration context. Anything to stop more taco shops from opening I guess!
Anything to get your taco shops, too, right?
It's pretty telling that the only thing you have to promote open borders is a bunch of stupid roach coaches.
*That's literally a declaration of war. You are killing citizens of another country.*
Yup. War has indeed been declared--by the millions of illegals who have invaded the USA.
Minefields. Snipers. Cut-off from welfare goodies. Buh-bye.
"Cut off the welfare goodies," is the only reasonable thing you've posted.
An impenetrable border where illegals suffer the consequences of ignoring our laws can be emotionally satisfying, but it's not reasonable. Or realistic.
It's more realistic than thinking we're going to reform the welfare system.
Cato--
When I tried to enter Canada "legally" in 2007, I was denied entry because I had a DUI in 2000.
When I ran, they tried to shoot me-- then they put me in a cage!
When does my country retaliate?
When the next revolution comes.
The big problem with that: walls keep people out and in. As far as we've slid into a police state already, are you okay with the knowledge it would be that much harder to voluntarily leave if things got bad?
And that is the best argument against a fence/wall. I'm old enough to remember the Berlin Wall.
I also think that a nation has the right to control its borders. So what's the answer? Do we lay a mine field? Do we just give up and let whoever can make it here (mostly those from the Americas, since its a pretty long swim otherwise), just let them settle in, ruin neighborhoods and schools, bankrupt hospitals and get as much public assistance as they can?
Or is there some middle way between a police state and anarchy?
Even I probably wouldn't go quite that far. But yeah, building a wall would be relatively easy. We build the Panama Canal a hundred years ago, and with much less sophisticated technology than we have now.
"unhinged" "craziest" . . . the tools here at Reason online are showing their lefty side - denigration of the ideas of others.
Pathetic. Get rid of Welch he's become a joke.
Nah, it's apparent from your posts that you're the joke.
What"s your problem?: political? financial? career?, relationship? health?, privacy? freedom?
Problem Solving/Personal Freedom Consulting for 20+ years.
Onebornfree Personal Freedom & Problem-Solving Services
onebornfree.blogspot.com
My problem is blog-pimps; how do you get rid of them?
Please come up with an answer and use it on yourself.
Illegal immigration is a symptom of the welfare-warfare state. Most folks want to treat the symptom rather than the disease.
Indeed.
But I'm struggling to understand why allowing millions of unskilled, Statist immigrants whose citizen offspring will vote themselves more Welfare is going to advance the cause of liberty.
First end the Welfare State, then let's open borders.
More accurately, getting rid of the welfare state would mean the inevitable illegals would do nothing but contribute to our economy as they help themselves.
Haha, sure:
http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Leg.....Households
No neighbor, i think you misunderstand his point. I believe he's saying that if you get rid of the welfare state, then massive hordes of illegal immigrants would cease to be a problem.
He's wrong, but that's what's he's trying to say, I think.
RRR-
Do you consider "public education" as "welfare"?
Why not? Does it change the numbers?
On TRUMP: Let's be clear here: The GOP frontrunner is talking about deporting American citizens. The they he is talking about are children born here.
No. First, Trump argues that birthright citizen is not in fact constitutional.
But even if it is, Trump's position amounts to the Craaaazy idea that children should be kept with their legal guardians. If the legal guardians go, the children under their charge go with them. Oooh. Craaaaaazy talk.
If you want to argue that it's crazy to have children stay with their legal guardians, knock yourselves out, but these hysterical fits of pants shitting do not make for an argument.
The *quality* of argument from Reason's staff has really taken a nose dive since the Proggy invasion. When you import Proggies, you import their irrationality and indifference to the truth, and it appears to be *contagious*.
There has been no "proggie invasion." The Reason staff are libertarians, ironically unlike the majority of their commenters, who I suspect are actually conservative trolls.
Chapman is in no sense a libertarian.
There has definitely been a shift toward leftist sensibilities and sympathies since Postrel was in charge. I started reading Reason around 1990, and really enjoyed it up until the last few years, when the both the tone and quality of its content changed.
I can totally relate, as I live in Washington state. The influx of Californians to my state has nearly destroyed it. Is this a good time to push my plan to euthanize all the progressives?
Yeah they're here in Denver, too. Sigh. They ruined Cali, so they have to leave it, then, wherever they go, they try to implement the same bullshit that ruined Cali.
Some people just never learn.
Unfortunately, though, euthanasia must be voluntary, or it violates the NAP.
The GOP frontrunner is talking about deporting American citizens.
No. He is talking about deporting the parents of American citizens. The American children are welcome to stay.
I think the best solution to ridding the US of illegal immigrants is going back to a 1800s mode of immigration, i.e; no immigration laws whatsoever. There is nothing in the constitution about regulating the borders, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of it. Until then, paid workers visa's and a fast track to citizenship would bring the money into the system for tax purposes and help regulate the externalities caused by currently having a massive welfare state and numerous freebies that need to be cut down to a chewable size until we can allow a completely unrestricted immigration flow.
So you would advocate "auctioning" the visas? Do you care to elaborate on this idea? I kinda like it.
It's a far more interesting idea than the crap offered in the Reason article above.
Have a list of all the people who wish to work in the US, and select applicants based on a cost vs. benefit balance. They can then work here without harassment for several years and then go back to their country of origin when their time is up.
Canada actually has this: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/apply-who.asp
Another idea is to copy the Australian's ideas of utilizing a sort of immigration tariff that works within supply and demand, however since the United States is not an island and people can just walk across the border I am not sure how that could be best implemented.
Just secure the fucking border.
It is incomprehensible how a country with the worlds largest military cannot secure their border.
Yeah, why can't the central government figure out the prices for everything?
"It is incomprehensible how a country with the worlds largest military cannot secure their border."
Completely comprehensible.No mystery at all.
The Progressive Theocracy does not *want* to secure the border.
Nor do the corporate rent seekers. Cheap labor gets Republicans moist as well.
"As charter school teachers in Seattle are showing up to work despite a court's ruling their schools unconstitutional, public school teachers in the city are on strike, leaving 53,000 students at home for the first few days of the 2015-16 school year.
"There's a big irony here right now in Seattle," said Liv Finne, director of Education for the Washington Policy Center, which advocates for charter schools in the state. "The teachers are on strike in the traditional schools?there's nobody going to school. Yet, the three charter schools that are in Seattle are open for business."
To all the 'libertarians' who said the Kentucky Clerk should go to jail for not doing her job, should the Seattle teachers be jailed? Spared because they are in the sacred socialist teachers union, I suppose. Reason has become a leftist rag and most of the people who comment here are lying shiteating statists.
I have zero sympathy for teachers. If they are also fucking underpaid, how come there are so goddamned many education school graduates and far more applicants than positions for them? Seems to me teachers are overpaid, relative to the supply demand curve.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can do neither work as bureaucrats.
Also, you have to look at their salary in the context of how long they work a year. A summer off is what the economists call an opportunity cost. Or something like that. The alcohol may be kicking in. Am I slurring my words?
I honestly don't think she's worth the money to be jailed. Just fire her.
"Let's be clear here: The GOP frontrunner is talking about deporting American citizens. The they he is talking about are children born here. We haven't seen an idea this repulsive since World War II, when FDR forcibly relocated Japanese-Americans into internment camps.
If that's the path Republicans want to go down, they're going to have to learn to love the immigration policies of President Hillary Clinton."
Matt Welch mic drop.
"Now, that sounds reasonable, until you start actually thinking about it for more than five seconds. "
Insisting on assimilation still sounds perfectly reasonable to me hours later.
Of course, I'm not an Open Borders fanatic, so I don't have to resort to pants shitting hysteria to try to make a point.
You're crazy. You're an extremist. Blah blah blah.
These are not *actual arguments*. Hyperventilation is not an *actual argument*.
Bunch of the people here are a shrill about an open borders, as progressives are about any kind of progressive bullshit. Don't let them have the last word. It drives the bat shit crazy.
"We must insist on assimilation""
You know what's funny about that? Most of the world assimilates to American pop culture.
Give them all some Elvis movies and Michael Jackson videos... we'll see them at the karaoke bar!
Now for a more sobering thought, these ding-a-lings just spout any absurd thought in their brains without trying to realistically think of solutions. Why? Because they are not going to do a damn thing about it and they know it ! What the fuck will they talk about next election cycle to incite the hominids?
Probably how President Trump/Hillary is presiding over the Libertarian Moment.
Ok, I finally made it to the end of the thread; nobody else post anything, ok?
Does this mean there will be escalating rhetoric for the remainder of the campaign to see who can look the toughest on illegal immigration?
What are the chances that the eventual victor will actually implement any of these "solutions".
I don't think I heard any xenophobia in any of those comments. A couple were off the wall, Cristie's tracking and Carson's sealing all the borders. A wall can be built that is effective. Of course there are many areas humans cannot even access along the southern border so no need for a fence in those areas. We built the Guadalcanal, when the French gave up. It's amazing what Americans say Americans can't or won't do anymore. Having a condition that immigrants coming in speak a certain level of English is better for the immigrant and the US. We've blown up all the standards for assimilation making immigrants perpetual 2nd class citizens. Learning English will make them more money, enable them to communicate with law enforcement, our court systems, they will be less likely to get ripped off, and probably the most important thing, they'll be able to communicate with other Americans. We have areas in every city where immigrants speak only their native tongue never leaving that area. Doesn't having a common language bring us together. We are looking to interact with immigrants aren't we. In times of crisis whether it's a town, city, state or the whole country I would like to think we could all feel unified, and down for one another. We might look different, but we all share the same American identity.
"We built the Guadalcanal..." ???
I see nothing wrong with locating the 40% that came legally. I don't advocate throwing all of them out, of course, but it stretches credulity to believe all are upstanding (kinda) citizens. And those that are in good social standing; productive contributors during their incog years, should feel free to step forward without fear of reprisal. It seems to me that getting a handle on 40% of the problem, in a relatively short period and at reasonable cost, is a good start and would allow everyone to take a deep breath and solve the rest.
I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
http://www.HomeJobs90.Com