The Injustice of Demanding that Migrants Go Back and "Fix their Own Countries"

Trump's recent bigoted tweet is an opportunity to highlight the flaws of this oft-heard, but weak, argument.


The Statue of Liberty.

In a widely condemned recent tweet, Donald Trump demanded that four racial-minority Democratic members of Congress "who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe…" stop "loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States… how our government is to be run" and instead  "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." Most of the condemnations of the tweet understandably focus on the fact that the four representatives are all citizens of the United States, and three were not even born abroad. Trump is attempting to stigmatize them as somehow un-American merely because they are all non-white and had the temerity to attack his policies.

I have many concerns about these Democrats' positions, particularly their  advocacy of "democratic socialism." One of them has  even made bigoted statements of her own.  But attacking them—or anyone—based on ethnicity or supposed country of origin is rank bigotry at odds with the universal principles for which the United States is supposed to stand. Trump's tweet would be indefensible even if the four congresswomen really were all immigrants from "totally broken… places."

In addition to ethnic and racial prejudice, Trump's statement also channels the common trope that immigrants fleeing poverty and injustice have a duty to instead stay home and "fix their own countries." On this view, instead of coming to America, the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free"  should instead keep right on huddling in their homelands in order to improve conditions there.

Such sentiments are periodically advanced even by people who would never dream of expressing the sort of crude bigotry Trump often indulges in. I addressed the flaws in the "fix their own countries" argument in a November 2018 post, which I think remains relevant now. Here is an excerpt:

[T]he "fix your own country" argument implies that the ancestors of most Americans (and also many Canadians, Australians, and others) were wrong to emigrate. The Russians should have tried to fix the czar and (later) the communists; the Irish should have stayed home and worked to fix the British Empire. Donald Trump's grandfather should have stayed in Bavaria and worked to fix imperial Germany. And so on.

The fact that the "fix your own country" argument implies that the ancestors of most Americans were wrong to come here does not by itself disprove it. We should not automatically assume that every longstanding American practice was necessarily right….

The claim that immigrants fleeing poverty or oppression have a duty to stay home and "fix" their countries is wrong for several reasons. In most cases, these people have little or no responsibility for the injustice and poverty they are fleeing. Russian Jews… were not responsible for the Pale of Settlement and pogroms. Likewise, today's refuges from Venezuela, Syria, and other unjust and corrupt governments generally had no meaningful role in creating the awful conditions there. It is therefore wrong to claim they must risk lifelong privation in order to "fix" the unjust regimes in their home countries. That point applies with extra force in cases where efforts to "fix" the regime are likely to result in imprisonment or death at the hands of the state. We rightly honor brave dissidents who risk life and limb to oppose injustice. But such sacrifices are not morally obligatory, and no blame attaches to those who forego them—especially if they have family members to protect, as well as themselves.

In addition, most migrants have little if any chance of succeeding in "fixing" their home governments, even if they did stay to try to do so. In most such societies, the injustice and oppression is deeply embedded in the political system, and most would-be migrants lack the clout to fix it….

This point is especially strong when it comes to authoritarian states, where ordinary people have little or no influence on government policy. But constraint also applies, though with lesser force, to many dysfunctional countries that are democratic. Even in advanced democracies such as the US and Western Europe, many harmful and unjust government policies persist because of widespread voter ignorance and bias. The same is true (often to a much greater extent) in the corrupt and dysfunctional democratic governments migrants flee from….

The vast majority of potential migrants, however, are neither morally responsible for the injustices in their homelands nor in a position to do much about them. In many cases, they can actually do more to help their compatriots by leaving, earning higher wages abroad, and sending remittances to relatives who remain at home (a major source of income for some poor nations). It is therefore wrong to claim they have a duty to stay.

Perhaps Trump's remark can be construed to mean only that migrants have a duty go home and fix their own countries if they dare to criticize the policies of their new home. But that version of the argument is no better. It implies that your right to criticize the government is  contingent on your ethnicity or place of birth—or, in this case, that of your ancestors.


NEXT: New Symposium Piece About Cross-Country Innovation and IP

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Maybe Trump should go back to the nasty authoritarian state he came from. It would take a bit of time travel, but his arrival scene would make an above-average political cartoon.

    1. Man, you must feel Obama was like Stalin then, eh.

      Assassinating US Citizens without a trial, redefining the Senate’s own rules so he can “recess appointment” whoever he wants, blatantly violating US laws about redirecting military spending, in violating of the appropriations law, and redefining the entire immigration system by executive order.


      1. Working very, very, hard to ignore the issue at hand.

        We can argue about what Obama did, but Trump has made it quite clear what he is.

        1. Trump. Not anywhere near the authoritarian as Obama was.

          1. Not anything that’s argued in the OP. Picking a fight on some collateral issue so you don’t need to defend Trump and his bigotry, eh?

            1. Obama was plenty bigoted. Against religion. And his actions had far more effect than anything Trump has done.

              1. There is also Obama’s malice and bigotry towards the Jewish people, of course.

                1. Funny. I didn’t feel any malice from Obama, though I do from Trump.

                  1. Well, there’s a surprise…. That’s because you were imposing your political will on the less fortunate. Of course YOU weren’t feeling malice.

                    It’s not like you were a nun, who was being forced to violate their beliefs by the administrative state
                    It’s not like you were a “terrorist” who got assassinated by a US drone without a trial.
                    It’s not like you were a college student, unjustly accused of sexual abuse, and rushed through the system without due process
                    It’s not like you were a political group who was suddenly assaulted by the IRS, FBI, and every other federal organization, because you asked inconvenient questions
                    It’s not like you were a journalist that was being spied upon by the government

                    It’s easy not to “feel malice” when you’re the group doing the bullying.

                    But when things change, well, you realize…gosh…maybe the other side wants to investigate what I did. Now you feel scared.

                    1. Have any of the things you mentioned stopped under Trump?

                      Though you continue to post around the topic at hand, I see.

                    2. “Have any of these things stopped under Trump?”

                      Yes actually.

                      Due process has returned to our universities.
                      The IRS’s political targeting has stopped. The defense of private tax returns is of paramount concern.
                      Journalists suddenly are concerned about any “spying”….and haven’t noted any.
                      Respect for religious beliefs has returned in our administration.

                2. Still working so hard to not address the issue presented.

                  Telling. Very telling. It looks like you know it’s wrong, but can’t bring yourself to condemn it. Or Trump.
                  And so you keep trying to distract yourself and others with past anti-Democratic talking points.

                  Weak as hell.

                3. So basically you intend to defend Trump’s indefensible statements by trolling until you can start some unrelated fights?

            2. “Picking a fight on some collateral issue so you don’t need to defend Trump and his bigotry, eh?”

              There’s plenty of bigotry to go around. From Rep Ayanna Pressley: “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice…”

              But of course, nobody gives a crap if people on their team say bigoted things. Calling out bigotry is about policing the other side.

          2. Remember when Obama used the Espionage Act to spy on reporters?

            Remember when he just “waived” compliance with laws that were passed by Congress?

            Remember when he tried to use the power of the federal government to tell churches who would be their own pastors?

            1. Remember when, a few years from now, someone will be reminding you of all the racist, illegal shit Trump has done, and you will be complaining that they aren’t sticking to the topic of the current President that you’re upset about?

              If all you have to argue about DONALD J. TRUMP BEING A RACIST PIECE OF SHIT is to complain about Obama, STFU and never come back.

              1. I’m so old I remember spending many a night with friends playing the “Bu-bu-bu-but Buuuuuuush!” drinking game.

                1. If that was about blaming Obama about the economy in his first year, that was legit.

                  If it was about this kind of extreme attempts to distract, then it was as lame then as it is now.

              2. Remember when people used to have something to say rather than just to name-call and repeat buzzwords with no thought whatsoever?

    2. “Maybe Trump should go back to the nasty authoritarian state he came from. ”

      You mean New York?

  2. I don’t care if they fix their own nations or not, but they all have to go back. Nothing unjust about it. The wretched refuse of the world have no right to come to the United States or to live here.

    1. To whom do you refer, CaveMan, when contending ‘they all have to go back’?

      Rep. Omar . . . or Melania Trump?

      Rep. Pressley . . . or “Ted” Cruz?

      Rep. Octavio-Cortez . . . or Ivanka (or Ivana) Trump?

      Carry on, clingers. Until your betters decide to replace you.

      1. CaveMan is not worthy of a response, AK. He’s a standard issue ignorant Republican bigot.

        1. CaveMan’s positions are common among the Conspiracy’s followers.

          1. Regrettably true.

  3. Great post. Make America Great Again did not, I thought, include making us into a bigoted, authoritarian state. And if our right to criticize governments policies and vote on those principles is dependent on the origin of our citizenship then the slippery slope leads us to some groups being more preferred citizens than others. That is called fascism.
    And that kind of bias is in our history. In the USA, suffrage was not extended to all white males until about 1850 or so. Perhaps MAGA means going back to the days when the voting franchise was only allowed to white, male landowners and the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments did not exist.

    1. “That is called fascism.” You don’t know what fascism means.

      1. And that’s the important thing, eh?

      2. They just repeat buzzwords. They don’t know what any of them mean.

      3. Fascism (noun) an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization characterized by intolerant views or practices, oppression of political opposition and regimentation of society and of the economy. Close enough?

        1. “Close enough?”

          Only if you replace “right-wing” with “socialist.”

  4. It is not wrong for people to immigrate if they do not like the country they’re in. On the other had once you have immigrated to another country you generally need to accept the rules you find there or seek to legally change them.

    I realize some will say Europeans should have asked Native Americans if it was OK to move in and in some cases they did. But that ship has sailed.

    I don’t think, in the modern world, it is right for anyone to demand they be admitted to the country of their choice simply because they’d like it better than the one they are currently in or to lie to get in.

    Certainly Canada, Australia and New Zealand don’t just allow any one in who wants to come. Fortunately for them geographically they can enforce their wishes.

    Left out of this discussion of Mexico’s implicit encouragement of their citizens to enter the United States for many years without regard to US law. The Mexican economy and government benefits greatly to the remittances sent for Mexican Citizens and their descendants to relatives in Mexico. Mexican society and government benefits from the US absorbing excess workers that Mexico’s economy might not be able to absorb. I realize that currently Mexico is experiencing low unemployment, that has not always been the case and many Mexicans still feel they can do better in the US. If I remember correctly depending on the price of oil remittances from Mexican’s and Mexican-Americans in the US are either the first or second source of hard currency for the Mexican economy.

    I’d appreciate a reasoned explanation of what you think US immigration policy should be.

    1. On the other had once you have immigrated to another country you generally need to accept the rules you find there or seek to legally change them.

      Isn’t running for, and getting elected to, Congress, precisely seeking to change the rules by legal means. Isn’t criticizing certain policies the same thing?

      1. Getting elected to Congress loses a bit of its gravitas when you are voted in by people from your homeland, concentrated in your district, who took advantage of the same lax immigration policies you’re campaigning to erode further. The more accurate term for this is “puppet government”.

        1. you are voted in by people from your homeland, concentrated in your district, who took advantage of the same lax immigration policies

          Americans. Those people are called Americans.

          1. Holding a US passport doesn’t make you an American any more than being admitted to a hospital makes you a doctor.

            This country didn’t materialize out of the ether; it was forged from wilderness through blood, sweat, and tears. This is a fact that was appreciated by immigrants to the country up until two generations ago. They previously came to add the fruits of their labor to the American project; they now come to extract wealth from it, all the while calling the descendants of those who spilled the blood, sweat, and tears every name in the book.

            Nations require work to create and maintain, in spite of the best efforts of leftists and their open-borders libertarian stooges to pretend otherwise. You may be able to come here and enjoy the rights of a citizen (as well as benefits paid for by citizens who don’t even get them themselves, if the Democratic panderers get their way) but unless you are contributing to the project then you aren’t American. You’re a parasite and regrettably that label applies to the leftist descendants of nation-builders as well.

            1. Only by agreeing with mysmartstuffs can you truly be American.

              In a Republic, my dude, you need to deal with some disparate points of view. If you think we can’t deal with people departing from your vision for this country, it is you who don’t believe in the merit and appeal of your ideals.

              That’s what Democracy is – getting the government we collectively deserve. And yes, that includes Trump.

              Your arbitrary cuttoff of 2 generations ago is another example of how pinched your worldview is. ‘Sure, it used to be great, but THIS time immigration is bad!’

              And if you don’t think liberals realize America requires work to maintain, you need to get out more. Just not your work.

              1. Its pretty rich in an era of shutting down “hate speech” to be told to deal with disparate points of view.

                As far as two generations, this exists in a continuum from its founding through the Ellis Island era on to today. When it consisted of nothing but wilderness and hostile Indians the only people willing to come here were the ones who wanted the opportunity and the adventure of building a nation. When it was expanding across the continent it attracted those who wanted to make their own way in a new society. Today it has the highest standard of living in the world, aided by a robust welfare state, and a near-constant clamoring for even more handouts, from health care to college, some of which are explicitly intended to benefit immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. What sort of people are you going to attract when you advertise easy living and free benefits?

                And of course leftists know that America requires work to maintain; the point is that the work is supposed to be carried on by the hosts and not their voting base.

                1. First, I’m not one of those yelling about hate speech.
                  Second, even those that do are talking about acts; you’re talking about people.

                  America doesn’t advertise easy living and free benefits. Illegals don’t get the vast majority of benefits.
                  The life of an illegal is not an easy one.

                  As a liberal, I believe that measures should check the ability of wealth to draw additional wealth to itself and distort the system while starving the lower classes.
                  That does not make me a parasite, any more than it makes you one for defending our current system of stagnant class mobility and continued wealth disparity.

                  1. You’re not yelling about it but you tolerate those who do. I’m told that is just as bad. Resist!

                    And how do we not advertise free benefits for illegals when we have the Mean Girls Committee and their beta orbiters clamoring for free health care and college tuition for them? You must not have seen the Democrat presidential candidates in their “debate”. This is to say nothing of the various NGOs camping out in Latin America to “provide aid” to migrants, I’m positive they are telling them that life up here is very hard and they shouldn’t expect any help from the government. That’s why they’re arriving in record numbers, after all.

                    I enjoyed your liberal elevator pitch though, I’m sure it got all the likes on Facebook. Fight the power!

                    1. Mean Girls Committee and their beta orbiters oh, are you one of those Mens Rights guys? Neato.

                      You think there’s a secret propaganda network getting people from Latin America to think America is easy-street and to come here? That’s kinda crazy, dude.

                      As I noted, you’re attacking a class of people so comparisons to hate speech are inapt. Though I see why you’d rather try and argue about my putative hypocrisy than your own more evident issues.

                    2. Men’s rights activists are whiny weenies. Let’s act like feminists! No thanks.

                      The presence of organizations funneling funds and providing assistance to migrants south of the border is well-documented; many of them are bragging about it on their own. It’s not secret. Let’s put on our critical thinking hats here. They are providing assistance to people whose expressed mission is to enter the US illegally, either outright or through phony asylum claims. Do you honestly believe that they are not encouraging this behavior? “Here’s some money to help you get to the US border, by the way don’t go there, you need to go through the proper channels.” Sure thing buddy.

                      And free speech is free speech. You along with your leftist brethren have zero problem attacking whites, Americans, conservatives (or anyone who doesn’t have this week’s progressive marching orders), etc. so spare me your rationalization about why it’s OK when you do it but not OK when people with whom you disagree do it. It may get you likes in the self-righteous Twitter circles but in the real world it does indeed make you a hypocrite.

            2. They previously came to add the fruits of their labor to the American project; they now come to extract wealth from it,


              I thought they were “stealing American jobs.” In your addled brain any and all criticisms of immigrants make sense, no matter how contradictory.

              1. You may have me confused with another right-wing nut job. Unemployment is at generational lows; the number you should be looking at is percent not in labor force.

                It was almost a pretty good take-down though. If you want to tell your Twitter friends about it I won’t object.

          2. They’re also called Somalis.

            1. Only one is Somali.

              She came here as a child and is a naturalized American citizen and an elected Member of Congress.

              If you’re going to claim that telling her she should go back to Somalia is not racist you’re full of it.

    2. Left out of this discussion of Mexico’s implicit encouragement of their citizens to enter the United States for many years without regard to US law.

      It’s left out because that’s not what we’re talking about.

      1. It is the the thing that started this whole thing rolling. Mexico has to a large extent got their economy in order if not their civil society, but others in Central America have emulated their example.

      2. It’s left out because that’s not what we’re talking about.

        And imaginary.

    3. I’d appreciate a reasoned explanation of what you think US immigration policy should be.

      I’d appreciate a thoughtful discussion of what the post AI economy will look like in 50 years.

      But this isn’t the place for that discussion.

      This discussion is about Trump telling elected politicians who were born in the US to go back and fix their own countries.

      1. Hey aluchko,

        Perhaps you can show us where Trump said country. Typical Progressive Ignorati, continually trying to redefine what was said by others. IOW creating a non-existent controversy.

        BTW: What about Rep. Pressley’s bigoted and racist comments at the NutKooks?

        1. You think Trump just meant go back to your Congressional districts? That’s what you’re going to try for?!

          1. They will say anything, Sarcastro, no matter how idiotic.

            We’ve had ample evidence here that the Trumpists will defend anything Trump does or says.

    4. You must be new here, Ilya Somin’s position on immigration policy is OPEN BORDERS. And there’s nothing “reasoned” about it.

  5. I think Charles Cooke had the best response here. It went something along the following lines…

    Some of these people (or their very recent ancestors) came from countries which were war-torn, violent, with governments of minimal rights and a whole lot of abuse. And the United States took them (or their parents) in. And in just about every way, the life they have now is much better than the country they were from (or their parents). And what is happening, is these people are turning around and are severely criticizing the country that took them in, in dozens to hundreds of ways.

    Do they have the legal right to? Yes. This is a free country, and they can say what they want, as they want, unlike the places they left. However….it seems ungrateful. To use an analogy, it’s as if a good person saw a starving beggar on the street, took them into their house, and fed them a nourishing meal of bread and cheese and meat. And the beggar turned around and criticized the good person, because the meat was overdone, and the cheese was just store bought, and not imported, and how dare they feed such poor quality food to the beggar, who was starving.

    1. For just how many generations does this obligation exist?

      And what if the immigrant, or the immigrant’s descendants honestly believe certain policies are unwise or immoral? It hardly seems sensible to say they shouldn’t speak up.

      What if the beggar was in fact a good cook, and suggested a way to improve the quality of the food for everyone?

      In short, Cooke’s argument is BS. The analogy is nonsense.

      1. How about 0 generations. Or perhaps one. And we’re not saying they shouldn’t speak up.

        But criticizing and hating America on certain policies, when America took you or your parents, and the country they took them in from was far, far, worse in those policies….Seems unwise. I’ve spoken with people from the old Soviet Bloc, and they know just how bad communism was, and why we should never go back.

        And, those doing the criticizing aren’t actually fixing things, but just criticizing. Less a “good cook” and more of a “food critic”.

        1. Most of the people criticizing modern America are right-wingers. They just can’t abide all of the damned progress, and pine for illusory good old days.

          1. And yet….The right wingers aren’t the ones taking down American Flags and replacing them with Mexican ones…

            1. The right’s flag choices are maybe not the bastion of loyal America you think they are.

              1. When your people are replacing the American Flag at American Institutions with those of other countries….

                Ya got to wonder. Are you really “supporting America”?

                1. Your goal posts and attempts to change the subject continue unabated.
                  Now you’re arguing that the Democratic Party is full of disloyal Americans in an attempt to not talk about how the head of the Republican Party seems to be as bigoted as they come.

                  1. I’m just responding to your comment. If you changed the subject, you have no one to blame, but yourself.

                    1. Yeah, I bit on your bait.

                      But hard to resist when your you still moved the goal posts from ‘whose flags support America’ to ‘only flags at American Institutions count!’ which is pretty amusingly clumsy.

            2. Right-wingers prefer Confederate flags.

              But they’re totally not racist . . .

              1. Nah. But how do you feel about the Betsy Ross, 13 stars flag? That racist too?

            3. They’re the ones putting up Confederate flags and monuments to traitors.

              Love America, do they?

        2. And we’re not saying they shouldn’t speak up.

          That’s exactly what you are doing.

          But criticizing and hating America on certain policies, when America took you or your parents, and the country they took them in from was far, far, worse in those policies….Seems unwise. I’ve spoken with people from the old Soviet Bloc, and they know just how bad communism was, and why we should never go back.

          Go back?

          And, those doing the criticizing aren’t actually fixing things, but just criticizing.

          So what? They have that right. What are you “real Americans” afraid of?

          1. Actually it is Rep. Pressley that is saying black people, brown people, asian people, and queer people should shut up if they don’t agree with her!

        3. It’s less a food critic than someone pulling a scam to get freebies.

          They want onboard the grievance gravy train.

      2. Nobody is preventing them from speaking out. Trump is suggesting that if they are that ungrateful, they should leave. He isn’t making them leave – he is just making an argument.

        He is right.

        1. Ungrateful? WTF?

    2. ^This

      But I will add my own gripe with the “progressives” . They have made identity politics their calling card. They throw around terms like “POC” and “brown” when the entire history of the USA has been to move away from racial labels and be more inclusive. Yes racism still exists in America but you don’t fight it with more racism.

      1. When the President is trafficking in full-on racist tropes like telling American Citizens to go back where you came from, complaining about how the problem is Dems are talking about race, which is racist

        1. Perhaps you should work on getting rid of Racist Pelosi too.

          1. Perhaps you should stop trying to throw out irrelevancies and deal with the issue being discussed.

            1. We are. We’re discussing racism. And Pelosi is now Racist, according the the Squad.

              1. Your comments are much more enjoyable when I recall that you will be replaced.

                1. Sometimes, I think you and Restore Western Hegemony should get a room together.

                  1. RWH is your guy, not ours.

                    1. I’ll take RAK for all his roughness over RHW any day.

                    2. “I’ll take RAK for all his roughness over RHW any day.”

                      Of course you would. RAK is your bigot. But I’m not convinced that they are not the same person.

                    3. TIP, do you believe AJK and RWH are equally bigoted? Equally objectionable?

                    4. TiP, call me when RAK calls for helicopter rides for judges he doesn’t like.

                      And deal with reality as it is, don’t make up conspiracy theories to keep your side’s monopoly on virtue.

                    5. RWH is certainly not “my” guy.

                    6. You sure sound a lot like him.

      2. Identity politics?

        Seems to me that the right is the group engaging in identity politics. What else is white supremacy?

        1. It’s 99% imaginary. Bringing it up without irony marks you as very likely either a liar or a fool. It’s hard to guess which.

          1. Ben, read this blog and you’ll see far more discussion of correlatives to whiteness than makes a lot of sense given your statement.

            1. You seem to have been fooled.

              1. Ah yes, none are true scottsmen.

                1. Of all people, you should know when you’re being trolled. If you’re pretending not to notice, that’s the other alternative — dishonest.

                  They’re 1% not imaginary. The other 99% are either trolling you or just regular people who are falsely accused.

                  1. Ben, you seem to be assuming without evidence that anyone on your side that you think has gone too far is just trolling.

                    That’s a great way to never confront the rot in your own party.

                    1. Is “too far” some (dishonest) pearl-clutching in this comment? Or do you think [one sort of people] should be protected from being offended — with (of course) no reciprocal obligation for them?

                      I wonder who you think “[my] side” is? I’m not in favor of sides.

                      The number of people who express hatred of non-whites is a very small fraction of the number of people who express hatred of non-leftists. My side is the side that tells haters to stop the hate, grifters to stop stealing from their neighbors and go do honest work, and liars to stop pretending and faking and making up stories.

                2. IIRC Rep Pressley agrees with that statement with a few modifications:
                  None are true brown faces…
                  None are true black faces…
                  None are true asian faces…
                  None are true queer faces…

                  1. Talking about anything but Trump, I see.

      3. The whole Trumpist movement is a giant exercise in identity politics.

        How blind can you be?

    3. Some of these people (or their very recent ancestors) came from countries which were war-torn, violent, with governments of minimal rights and a whole lot of abuse. And the United States took them (or their parents) in.

      So rather than trying to “drain the swamp” should we tell Donald Jr, Ivanka, and Eric to go back to the Czech Republic or Germany?

    4. The flaw in your “took them into their house” analogy is that once someone is a citizen, the U.S. is their house every bit as much as yours. No one is “more citizen” than another (“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”). So, to the extent they owe gratitude to the U.S., they owe it to themselves as much as to you, since they’re the U.S. as much as you. Second flaw is that, unlike the beggar in your example, citizens aren’t just takers; they assume obligations towards the U.S. (e.g. agree to be drafted in case of war). So granting of citizenship isn’t just charity. And surely elected Congresswomen aren’t just takers; they’re clearly contributing the U.S., more than most. And criticizing the government is what they were elected to do.

  6. There’s no conflict between noting that people have no obligation to stay in a bad situation, and noticing that if everybody who thinks it bad flees, it’s never getting better.

    But, mainly, I’m really tired of the overuse of accusations of “racism”. Ethnic prejudice? Quite possibly. But, what evidence have you of racial prejudice?

    It’s bad enough that the left has made “racist!” their all purpose, content free epithet. Don’t join them in that abuse.

    1. If your defense of the President is that ethnic prejudice isn’t technically racism, you’re in a bad way.

      Won’t someone please think of the semantics?

      1. Yeah! No fair shuffling the buzzword deck! This name-calling is focus-tested.

        Brett B needs to learn to follow the script, like the Dems did with Mitt Romney in 2012. Can you imagine if Mitt were elected? He’d be winding down his 2nd term right now.

    2. Let’s shelve ‘racist’ and use ‘bigot.’

      But the bigots won’t like that, either, because one of the great achievements of the liberal-libertarian mainstream is that our conservative bigots don’t want to be known as bigots any more, at least not publicly.

    3. Ethnic prejudice? Quite possibly. But, what evidence have you of racial prejudice?

      Boy. That wins the prize for lamest excuse of the century.

      1. Riiight. It’s “lame” to insist that people not pick words at random, but instead use the right word.

        Using the worst accusation you’ve got available, even if it’s not what the target is actually guilty of, and even if you’ve overused it to the point where half the population ignore it, is the new hotness. Precision is lame.

        1. It’s easy to call President Trump a racist or a bigot or whatever.

          The fact is that he is an ignorant buffoon who looks down only at . . . everyone.

        2. Brett,

          I said it was a lame excuse, which it is.

          I mean, if you want to criticize Trump for his blatant ethnic prejudices go ahead, but I haven’t seen you do it. Mostly you slither around making every excuse you can think of for the asshole, all the while claiming you don’t really like him. Sure.

          Regardless, given what we actually know about “race,” ethnic prejudices of some kinds, like Trump’s, can fairly be called racist.

    4. I think that Trump’s disparagement of such places as Somalia is cultural, not ethnic. Ethnic can be thought to include a racial component and I see no evidence that Trump’s criticism is racially based. Why should we assume it is racial rather than cultural?

      1. Because only one of the four is from Somalia?

        And do you honestly believe Trump knows a damn thing about Somalia?

        And do you honestly believe that someone who came here from Somalia as a child is somehow “infected” with whatever bad features Somalia has?

        1. Is this intended to be evidence that Trump’s criticism is racially based? Could you clarify it for me? What is the evidence?

          1. It’s intended to point out that whatever you think of Somalia and its culture, it is only applicable to one of the four.

            Do you think he’s criticizing them for their ideas? Funny, he hasn’t told Bernie Sanders to go back where he came from.

            1. So you think that a fair reading of Trump’s tweets is that people of color who appear not to love this country should leave, but whites who appear not to love this country should stay?

              1. He didn’t say “leave.” He said go back where they came from.

                1. And you think that a fair reading of his tweets is that he would say that to persons of color but not to whites?

                  1. I think that it would take willful blindness of both the history of that attack line and Trump’s personal history to think otherwise.

  7. The irony that this is being posted by Ilya, an outspoken advocate for open borders, is palpable.

    1. IDGI. I disagree with him, but this post is exactly in line with his general thesis.

  8. Yes, it’s about time for ppl who have been here all of a minute to leave. For the most part, they have had no investment in this country, their families have shed no blood defending this country, and they have built absolutely squat, and relatively contributed nothing but grief and crime. Rather they stole across our borders, violated our laws, mooched off the American taxpayer, denigrated our heritage and demanded that we emulate their sh*thole countries. And they have the audacity to school us on what “America” is. Guess what, it’s not them! there is no magic dust that makes this country special. Rather it is the ppl who built it. And these squad of 4 and ilk, -those who hate our country, hate our heritage, hate our struggles, are ashamed of America- are the very kind of ppl who have made their countries intolerable sh*holes. So yes, clean your own house. and that has nothing to do with color of their skin, rather it has to do with what is lacking in their very character. They are not pioneers, they are not innovators, they are not self sufficient. (And most likely never will be given the IQ disparities). They are not builders – they are rocks in our pockets, they are whiners, they are perpetually offended children that will sink this country. We are not your mamas honey, and you did not build this house. I agree, go home!

    1. ppl who have been here all of a minute
      shed no blood defending this country
      mooched off the American taxpayer
      they have the audacity to school us on what “America” is

      These are members of Congress.

      who hate our country, hate our heritage, hate our struggles, are ashamed of America
      Pointing out flaws isn’t hate.

      they are rocks in our pockets
      Nice phrase for undesirable citizens. How does that sound in the original German?

      1. The ‘squad’ certainly seems to hate this place. There is a fine line between criticism and complete rejection (just as there is a fine line between clever and stupid), but all of this talk of white supremacy and the inherent racism of the whole damn country, etc. sounds a lot more like just flat out rejection than considered criticism at all.

        And I’m still waiting on the loopy left to settle on some intelligible conception of ‘racism’, but it becomes more and more clear every day that the term ‘racism’, like the term ‘fascism’, just means anything that our little tinpot Maoists don’t like.

        1. So your thesis is that 4 members of Congress have completely rejected America?!

          I like how you’re abusing what a Maoist is in order to show how racism is being abused.

          Anyhow, for all your bellyaching you have skipped over an important point. What Trump tweeted? Explain to me why it’s not racist.

          1. Did Trump even say anything about their race? (Answer – no). Liberals are reading heavily into it and screaming “racism” because they want to deflect from the fact that this squad of liberal losers just straight up hate America.

            1. Telling nonwhites to go back to their home countries when they are citizens is pretty blatant, Jimmy.

              He’s not saying that to Pelosi.

              Dude, don’t play obtuse.

              1. You’re deliberately evading the difference between, “telling non-whites”, which is to say, people chosen on the basis of not being white., and “telling people who happen to be non-white”, which is to say, people chosen on some other basis that are non-white by coincidence.

                These people weren’t chosen on the basis of their “race”; They were chosen on the basis of national origin and their own rhetoric.

                I’m willing to criticize Trump on this, because Trump talks as though they were themselves immigrants, when 3 of the 4 were born in the US. And that is, while not “racism”, at least in some degree bigotry.

                But the criticism is over the top, due to the false and malicious accusation of racism where none is evidenced, and due to ignoring the underlying point about people who have only complaints about the US, even though they’ve actually got it pretty good.

                That’s what really pisses me off about the tweet on reflection. There WAS a valid underlying point, and he had to go make some stupid mistake that aided in it being attacked. (I say “aiding” because it was going to be attacked regardless.) That’s an own goal.

                1. You think this is a coincidence? Brett, this is getting ridiculous.

                  I never get told to ‘go back where I came from.’ My Latino co-workers have. I haven’t asked my black co-workers, but I’d guess I’d find a smattering of ‘go back to Africa.’ That’s what this is; that’s why it’s racist.

                  The underlying point seems to be about who is a real American. (whites and also people who support Trump of any color). It’s not lost on me, and I’m pretty sure for all your semantic gymnastics it’s not lost on you.

                2. Tell us Brett. What is the moral difference between attacking someone because of their “race” and attacking them because of their national origin? Assuming there is some meaningful difference, a point you are bizarrely hung up on, what makes one worse than the other, exactly?

                  1. Who the heck said there was a moral difference? Is that what this is about, I point out you’re using the wrong term, and you think I’m making a moral point?

                    1. Yes, Brett, I do.

                      This is your standard, “I wasn’t in the delivery room” move. “Oh, I just meant…”

                      Bullshit. You were defending Trump against charges of racism and stumbled into the ethnic business. If you thought the ethnic prejudice was wrongful you would have said so and maybe pointed out whatever difference you think there is between the two terms.

                      Instead you make a big deal about nothing.

                  2. Well hang on a minute. Why does it matter what arbitrary economic zone they originate from? Nations are just legal constructs, after all. That’s why an American whose family has been here for centuries and an American who arrived last week are equally American. I mean it sounds like you’re implying that people who live in a given nation have more in common than just where they happen to live and that’s extremely bigoted.

          2. You certainly haven’t addressed my point about whether there is or is not a distinction between criticism and rejection. Civil rights protesters who asked for equality before the law were criticizing American institutions from within the tradition of American politics. Radical organizations, like the Black Panthers, were rejecting the American polity. It seems to me that the so-called ‘Squad’ and many of their sympathizers are a lot closer to the latter than the former.

            In terms of defending Mr. Trump, I didn’t make the statements so I don’t have to defend them. Trump made no reference to race, and so you need to explain why it is racist, but also what racism is, since it is clear that calling people names is merely a reflexive action on the part of the you and yours. I have no problem at all, however, with the argument that immigrants to this country who whine and stamp their feet like toddlers about not getting a good swig at the teat of government should be told to take a hike.

            My reference to tinpot Maoists apparently suits you well, so I’ll leave that as it is.

            1. Running for Congress rather shows you haven’t rejected America.

              The Black Panthers were radical, but did not reject America. No more so than people on this blog did when Obama was President and they were highly critical.

              Why it’s racist to tell women of color who were born here or naturalized citizens to go back to their home countries? I think you know.

              Calling me a Maoist because I disagree with you on an Internet web forum? Way to devalue that horrific philosophy, you tool.

            2. How are they “rejecting the American polity?” Because they don’t agree with you on everything.

              Guess what. You don’t get to define what it means to be American. Nor does Trump, or RWH or anyone else.

        2. So there’s probably a lot of things I’d consider “racist” that you wouldn’t.

          But singling out 4 members of ethnic minorities, 3 of whom were born in the US, and telling them to go back to their own countries. An attack he’s never used on one of his white opponents (some of whom were born in other countries).

          How is that statement not racist?

          1. It’s not racist because, trivially, “ethnicity” isn’t “race”.

            1. You manage to be both pedantic and wrong here, Brett.

              Do you think Trump would have said ‘go back where you came from’ to white Congresswomen?

              Then it’s about race, not ethnicity.

              1. I think he would have said it in a heartbeat. And Occasional Cortex IS white.

                1. You’ve got your foibles, but you’re above lame nicknames.

                  No one tells white people to go back where they came from, Brett, that’s silly.
                  And why don’t you ask some of the neo-phrenologists on this thread whether AOC is white? The purity of Latin blood seems a matter of some dispute.

                  1. Yeahnope. She’s earned that one, and it’s a lot easier to remember than her real name.

                    And, yes, I think Trump would be perfectly willing to tell a non-Hispanic white (There’s a reason that’s a thing, rather than redundant.) immigrant to go back where they come from.

                    You take him for a racist, you make assumptions about what he’d do if he were a racist, and then you treat those assumptions as confirming your take on him.

                    It doesn’t work that way, Sarcastro, even if it is a common way for people on the left to ‘reason’ about their foes.

                    1. Not all those Congresswomen are immigrants. They share two things – not being white and being outspoken foes of Trump.

                      I don’t see what assumptions I’m making – what he said is pretty clear, hence the furor.

            2. It’s not racist because, trivially, “ethnicity” isn’t “race”.

              What exactly is “race,” Brett? Skin color? National origin? Ancestry?

              Ethnicity and “race” as it’s popularly (mis)understood are pretty tightly intertwined.

              1. ‘I am a bigot, but don’t call me racist because my ugliness derives from more than precise racial classification.’

                That ought to work for Republicans about as well as everything else they’ve tried in the culture war during our lifetimes.

      2. The Manchurian candidate? Pls, are you trying to convince me that Congress acts in the best interest not the American ppl. Well, bless your heart.

        And they are not “pointing out flaws,” they are tearing down our statutes, denigrating our founding fathers, erasing our history, and silencing our voices with their ever growing control of our media, tech communications, and schools. They are advocating violence, sniper shooting our police, and rioting (vandalizing and burning as opposed to peaceful protesting) in the streets.

        And hey, what’s with the removal of the American flag and the hoisting of the Mexican flag.

        Yeah, just criticizing.

        1. Wow. That’s quite a list.

        2. Guys like you are going to hate the next 10, 20, and 50 years of American progress.

          This calls for a celebration.

  9. I sympathize with a poor person coming from a failed state like El Salvador. About one third of al Salvadorians now live in the US.
    Put yourself in the place of a young man in a third world country. Because of global capitalism he now makes much more than he his father dreamed of, and his income increases every year. In fact, he now has a cell phone with internet access and the ability to amass enough cash to travel to the US, where he will not just make ten per cent more next year as at home, but four to six times more. He knows this because of information gotten online, and he knows how to claim asylum. He also knows how to disappear before any hearing, which he knows he will lose.
    There are well over a billion like him, able and encouraged to make the trip.
    How many can the US take in in a year? A million? Ten million? Fifty million? There are no real physical barriers to any of these numbers, so what is your limit, and how will you enforce that limit?
    In the end, it is not about open borders being good, and border enforcement evil, but about practical limits of what we can do, and are willing to accept.

    1. It would be nothing short of genocide to prevent all seven-billion-plus humans on this planet from migrating to North America and Western Europe to take advantage of the magic dirt that makes countries in these locations so prosperous.

      1. Yes having a successful civilization has absolutely NOTHING to do with culture or heritage. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You just need some magic beans and dirt and there is no reason why any successful people should keep all those magic beans and dirt to themselves.

  10. “If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man.”

    ― Mark Twain

    1. That sounds like speciesism to me. Off with Twain’s head.

  11. I fail to see what is wrong with calling out those who flee their own shitty countries to come here and then complain about not getting enough free stuff here. Perhaps they should spend their time fixing their own countries and I don’t see how we are helping out the world by depriving those countries of citizens who are reform minded enough to help their homelands.

    1. I eagerly await the day of your replacement, Jimmy. By your betters. For the betterment of America.

      Until then . . . carry on, clingers.

      1. So you are endorsing genocide?

        1. Silly goose, it’s perfectly OK to endorse genocide when the group being genocided is on Facebook’s list of hateful organizations.

          1. Yes silly me I forgot that calling for the mass extinction of people the left doesn’t like is A OK in liberal la-la land. And it is totally NOT racist when that implication is white people for some reason.

          2. “Do not post:
            Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s), where threat is defined as any of the following:

            Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organisation or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Policy)”

            Who counts as a “dangerous individual,” according to Facebook? The list includes InfoWars host Alex Jones, populist pundit Paul Joseph Watson, conservative activist Laura Loomer, Louis Farrakhan, and Milo Yiannopoulos.

            Facebook also maintains a list of high-profile political figures who it monitors for potential designation as “hate agents.” The list includes black conservative star Candace Owens, author and think tank founder Brigitte Gabriel, and British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne-Marie Waters. They have not been designated as “dangerous individuals” yet — but everyone has been designated as such was once on the “hate agents” review list.

    2. These Congresspeople have plenty; they’re not fighting for themselves.

      And America is their homeland. That’s how citizenship works.

      1. Seems to be THEY don’t identify America as their homeland. The are all about their hyphenated status. If they care so much about their roots perhaps they should go back to their country of origin and explore those roots further.

        1. THEY don’t identify America as their homeland.

          Why? Because they don’t agree with morons like you about everything?

          You guys are so stupid you can’t even tell what moronic bigots you are.

        2. Running for Congress is a pretty strong indicator you’re not rejecting America.

          1. It is when you campaign on platforms that are antithetical to American ideals, to pander to those who openly express hate for America.

            1. ‘antithetical to American ideals.’

              As defined by you.

              By that logic, are all Democrats rejecting America because you don’t like their policies?

              1. It’s not defined by me, it’s defined by the entire history of this country (including its founding documents) up until this decade. You seem to have a poor grasp of just how hard the Overton window has turned left, my friend.

                1. The entire history of America and it’s founding documents as interpreted by you. Adding sophistry to your prideful grasping at being arbiter of Americanness is not helping your case.

                  Yeah, America sure has changed since the 1770s. And if you think you’ve defined those changes into our modern left-right political spectrum, that just means you’ve gotten way too reductive.

                  1. I’d love to hear what interpretation of the Constitution makes you believe that Americans are beholden to throw open their borders for anyone and everyone who wants a piece of the pie in the world’s richest country, much less where we are supposed to shower them with benefits at our expense.

                    (Protip: The New Colossus is not a founding document or in fact a document at all)

                    I bet they ran out of space on the parchment when they were writing the Constitution, and it was really supposed to say “For ourselves and our posterity (plus everyone else! Hit like if you agree!!1)”

      2. Claiming that anyone with a US passport is equally American is like saying the Queen of England is equally as British as the immigrant arriving on the last Eurostar.

        1. That you would invoke Britain as an example of how heritage works says a lot about how you view America.

          That you would conflate immigrant residents with citizens is also telling.

          1. That you, Somin, Progressives, etc. would conflate illegal foreign nationals with legal foreigners and permanent residents (let alone with citizens) is also telling.

            Why do you prefer illegal foreigners over legal foreigners and citizens?

            1. Illegal foreigners are a lot more tolerant of corruption in government and destructive leftist policy than heritage American stock.

              1. heritage American stock?! FFS.

                1. Shocking, I know. How can anyone be so racist and bigoted to suggest that people whose families have lived in a nation for centuries might have a greater interest in the well-being and future of that nation than the person who arrived last week?

            2. the immigrant arriving on the last Eurostar is not about illegals. If anyone is conflating, it’s mysmartstuffs.

              1. I’d love to hear what distinction leftists are making between immigrant residents and citizens. If anything, once the resident gains citizenship he loses the free health care and college tuition.

      3. Sarcastro,
        Actually, if you think back 8 months, AOC was whining that she could not afford to live in DC. Of course, she could have gotten a loan, but was it pride, stubbornness or principle that made her feel that it was better to complain loudly about her fate.? The calendar flipped and now she answers the question: freebies for all paid for by confiscating the wealth of the “wealthy” without real due process.
        That is how leftwing fascism works. What else is M4A, the Green New Deal, free education (including room and board) from state controlled colleges and universities but the Corporate State in action?

        1. Yeah, she wants better Congressional pay, and laid out a pretty good case as to why.

          But that’s not the social safety net she’s fighting for.

          I’m not her biggest fan; I think she’s hazy on how to pay for her policies. And kinda hazy about her policies.

          But your explaining that what looks like fighting for those with less means then her is actually fascist?! That’s just libertarian melodrama.

          Especially when Trump is kinda getting white nationalist up in here.

          1. There’s no good reason why Congressmen should be paid enough to buy a house in DC. They’re not supposed to have their residences there, and at least nominally, it’s not a job with long term security.

            There’s a good argument for a Congressional dormitory somewhere fairly close to DC, because it really is true that people who somehow manage to get elected without already being wealthy DO have trouble affording housing. I’ve heard of members of modest means sleeping in their offices.

            1. We need to face up to reality, not what we wish Congress was.
              In reality it is a longer term job and pretending it’s not just prices non wealthy people out. Or at least punishes them for no good reason.

              1. Hey, what did I suggest? A Congressional dormitory.

                And getting paid more than 97% of the population is not “punishment”.

                1. As the job is long term, a Congressional dorm is still punishing and unrealistic for how the job operates.

                  Though IMO really more money for good staff would be the better fix.

          2. What is a fascist tendency is not the rhetoric of Ms. AOC and associates, but the proposal of Corporate State enterprises to remedy all perceived societal issues as government monopolies enforced by the police power of the state. That is not melodrama; it is Mussolini’s historical model.

            1. That’s not Mussolini’s historical model, not is it fascism as currently understood. Where did you get your understanding of what fascism was/stands for?

  12. So far, one Conspirator declines to appease Republican-conservative bigotry. It figures that it’s the libertarian.

    Thank you, Prof. Somin.

    I encourage you to find a better class of political playmates.

    1. According to you, he’ll have to wait until the great white genocide is finished to find his true countrymen (oh, sorry for that, I meant of course countrytheypeople).

      1. No genocide. Just old, cranky, obsolete clingers taking their stale thinking to the grave in the natural course and being replaced in our electorate, just as naturally, by younger, better, less bigoted American voters. American greatness, beauty, and progress in action.

        1. I am happy in the knowledge that I will be long dead before your wish to Haitianize the country is complete. I only hope that you are still alive when your cultural suicide mission is done, so that you can see your relatives reduced to begging for scraps, scratching their scabs, while you welcome the new dark ages.

          1. The problem with your satisfaction is that it rests in the assumption that these people will one day recognize the folly of their actions. This is not the case. When they reduce the nation to squalor, they’ll blame it on you. Then they’ll leave to find another host elsewhere having learned nothing from their experience.

            1. You one of those ‘we gotta kill all the liberal’ types, then?

              1. Of course not! The nice thing about leftists is that they are herd animals. All we need to do is make it plain that their behavior will no longer be tolerated, then the vast majority will return to normal. If we play our cards right we should not have to make an example of anyone, and even if we did exile to a third-world leftist country of their choice is always on the table. There’s no need for your eliminationist rhetoric.

                1. Exiling liberals is still elimination, you crazy zealot.

                  1. No it’s fine, I have you on my list of Dangerous Organizations and Individuals so I can assure you it’s all quite above water.

            2. “When they reduce the nation to squalor”

              My side favors and builds our strongest universities and research institutions. Your side prefers backwater religious schooling (fourth-tier, science-disdaining, censorship-shackled goober factories) and downscale homeschooling.

              My side favors and builds modern, successful, educated, taxpaying communities. Your side constitutes the depleted human residue that remains in our desolate, subsidized, can’t-keep-up backwaters after generations of bright flight.

              My side contributes the technological and scientific advancement that benefits American the world. Your side opposes research, fights for “intelligent design,” and pines for good old days that never existed.

              Other than that, great comment!

              1. Oh no! You got me there, I have no response. I am ashamed of myself and I feel I should be punished. I think the appropriate response here is for you enlightened folks to leave me and my bigoted, hateful, backwards brethren to rot alone in our own nation, so that we can wallow in our own stupidity while you show us the blinding light of a progressive future. There’s probably just enough of us to fit in Idaho, Montana, and western Washington and Oregon; I don’t think you guys really need those places to establish your diverse utopia anyway. I’ll pack my bags.

  13. How soon till someone starts talking about blood and soil?

    1. That’s the constant undercurrent among the Conspiracy’s carefully cultivated conservative following.

    2. You mean like how liberals show up in America demanding earth and water like a Persian messenger?

    3. Sarcastr0,
      From what I’ve read above, they already are.

    4. Did you know that the Trump political movement fervently embraces various individuals of every conceivable race and ancestry who agree with their core values? Hundreds of them have become minor political celebrities.

  14. Let’s be clear, this is not mere criticism of the government.

    This is a sizable contingent of people who demand that anyone and everyone who crosses the border be provided with a wealth of free benefits for which Americans whose families have been here for generations foot the bill.

    This is a drastic remaking of the American government into a socialist state that has no basis in the Constitution or any part of the legal tradition of this country up until the people who demand it came here.

    If your libertarian principles insist that any person should be allowed free movement into a country and then change it for their benefit at the expense of those who already reside there, then damn your principles.

  15. If someone comes to your house and can only complain, all day, every day, you’d ask them to leave.

    If they started making bigoted comments about your people and refused to stop or apologize, you’d ask them to leave.

    If they continued to make demands of you while offering nothing themselves, not even a thank you for your hospitality, you’d ask them to leave.

    These congresswomen don’t seem to like America or Americans very much. Why don’t they want to leave?

    There’s no duty for us to be welcoming to jerks and grifters and bigots.

    1. Why would they want to leave? They have the opportunity to extract all the wealth they could possibly want from the world’s richest country and no matter how much they denigrate their host population, how many lies they tell, or how ridiculously brazen their policy proposals become, they’ll be showered with praise by half the country.

    2. These people hold elected office. Like it or not, they represent a bunch of Americans.

      Telling these citizens to go back where they came from, when some of them were born here? That’s not calling them rude, that’s being a bigot. Cut it out.

      1. Hospitality has been answered with ingratitude and spitefulness. Hospitality withdrawn. It’s long past time we put up an “***holes not welcome” sign.

        1. You will be replaced, Ben. America will continue to improve against your preferences and efforts. Losing a culture war to your betters has consequences.

          1. And who are these betters, again? The last I looked they were a galimaufry of deadbeats, criminals, perverts, and self-loathing white people. That’s an interesting melange, and I’m happy not to be a part of it.

            1. Don’t feed the trolls

            2. “And who are these betters, again? ”

              The betters are those who prefer education (all of our strongest universities) to ignorance (backwater homeschooling and religious schools).

              Reason to superstition.

              Education to ignorance.

              Modernity and progress to backwardness.

              Tolerance and inclusivity to bigotry and insularity.

              The betters are the liberal-libertarian mainstream that has shaped America’s progress and won the culture war.

              The voters who register as Democrats rather than as Republicans.

              The residents of modern, educated, successful communities rather than those who inhabit the left-behind, desolate backwaters.

    3. Uh, Ben, it’s their house as much as it is yours.

      1. They should solve a problem and contribute to society instead of complaining endlessly and trying to tear it down.

        But your proposition should be clarified:

        If they are the same as me, that must mean it is open season to treat them as badly as they would treat me, right? You are endorsing we treat them with endless derision, aren’t you? Because that’s how they treat us.

        1. Just because you don’t like what they’re advocating for doesn’t mean it’s not a contribution.

          Justifying your own bad behavior based on your perception of the other side’s oppression of you is a standard rationalization.

        2. What do you mean “us”? I’m a libertarian; I treat both you and them with with endless derision.

  16. is the difference that the immigrants of our ancestors came legally through Ellis Island and had family to take care of them?

  17. Ilya seems to think it racist to suggest immigrants go home. Racist? This is not about race.

    He thinks it reeks of ethnic prejudice? Oh?

    Ilya hardly has a leg to stand on, since he favors the most possible extreme position on immigration – let anyone, from anywhere, in for any reason whatsoever.

    But instead of recognizing the inherent contradictions in that view – that actually letting it happen would end the very liberty he cherishes – he lectures Trump and throws epithets at him.


    1. This is the crux of the issue, and why no one takes libertarianism seriously.

      The United States is by far the most libertarian country on Earth; it has the largest population of libertarians, arguably the only significant population of libertarians, of any country.

      This is as good as it gets, there are no oppressed libertarians elsewhere in the world, no people who only need to feel the sweet breath of liberty to open their eyes to it. If there were, we would see libertarian societies or movements outside the US, of which there are none.

      By extension, there’s no one outside the US who is interested in coming to the US to further the cause of libertarianism; in fact, the opposite is true, virtually everyone who comes here wants more government programs, more speech control, etc. and has no practical or academic interest in the libertarian concepts that are intertwined with this country’s history.

      A normal person would acknowledge this reality and understand that for libertarianism to work the people who believe in it must be able to organize and insulate their society from being co-opted by non-libertarians. Instead, in pursuit of a philosophical consistency that no one but themselves honor, libertarians insist on throwing open the borders to allow themselves to constantly be swallowed up by a majority of statists.

      This is why libertarianism is inherently unworkable as anything but a passive and self-defeating thought exercise, and why the so-called alt-right is populated by former libertarians.

      You can’t create a libertarian society through the wholesale import of people who are not and will never, ever be libertarian.

      And yet the people who are most aware of this critical fact, who are in the best position to keep libertarian principles alive, are called racists and bigots by people like Ilya Somin.

      1. I think it needs to be remembered that the libertarian movement wasn’t always relentlessly open border. I suspect that, even now, most libertarians aren’t.

        When I was an activist in the party and movement, starting back in the late 70’s, though the mid 90’s, it was clearly understood that, while open borders might be an eventual goal for a libertarian world, it would have to be the LAST thing achieved, not the first. Because it IS suicidal for a welfare state to have open borders.

        We understood path dependence, that sometimes it’s important what order you do things in.

        The LP is an institution, and the “march through the institutions” is a real thing. Basically, organized libertarianism isn’t controlled by libertarians anymore. It’s controlled by “liberalitarians”, people who like to call themselves libertarians, but whose fundamental instincts are left wing, not libertarian.

      2. A stirring call to order of another meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Cruel, Bigoted Immigration Policies And Practices.

        Conducted jointly with Libertarians For Tariffs, of course.

        And Libertarians For Statist Womb Management.

        And Libertarians For The Death Penalty.

        And Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

        And Libertarians For Ted Cruz.

        And Libertarians For Torture And Endless Detention Without Trial.

        And Libertarians For Donald Trump.

        And Libertarians For Government Funding Of Schools That Teach Nonsense.

        Carry on, clingers.

        1. One of the most open bigots on the board decrying bigotry from other people. Priceless……

  18. And here is what a 19th century German immigrant, and later Republican senator from Missouri, had to say about criticizing one’s adopted country: “The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

  19. Trumps point is that why come here if you hate this country and it’s flag?

    In any case, the irony is that all these comments about how the migrants can’t fix their countries is blatant racism. Only white countries can be prosperous? And just where will all these migrants go, once there are no countries that are majority white?

    1. Trumps point is that why come here if you hate this country and it’s flag?

      Then why did he direct it at people who didn’t come here, but were born here?

      1. He didn’t direct it at anyone specifically. Like most tweets, it was a shotgun blast.

    2. “Trumps point is that why come here if you hate this country and it’s flag?”

      Why do you hate standard English, John Rohan.

      (If your background includes backwater religious schooling, or homeschooling conducted by right-wing rubes, or a fourth-tier or unranked conservative-controlled college campus, that would suffice as an explanation.)

      1. My background includes private education and an elite graduate school. If you have to resort to ad hominems using my grammar as a figleaf (which, not that it matters, but is really the result of my mobile device making punctuation decisions for me), then you have already lost the argument.

  20. If you don’t like America you are free to leave and go to another one of those glorious countries in the World that you always tell us we should be emulating. Oh wait…those countries don’t want you. In fact, they don’t really take immigrants. They might warehouse them for short period of time, but they really really don’t want them to become citizens or permanent residents. It is only here, in America, where we are expected to throw open the doors to just about anyone and even let them stay if they are actively breaking our laws.

  21. I think it’s worth pointing out that often the most effective way for people to ‘fix’ a repressive and backward country is exactly by emigrating to a free state like the US, gaining the skills and making the connections necessary to direct assistance to their home country and/or apply international pressure.

    Not that immigrants have any more responsibility to assist their home country than any of us do (though, if one has special knowledge/ability regarding some way to improve the world one should exercise it).

  22. He wasn’t talking about all migrants, just those trying to destroy this country’s values, borders, culture and form of government.

    1. Since one definition of liberty is, “the power or scope to act as one pleases,” I guess you’re really not a lover of liberty since you’re criticizing other people’s choices and motivations.

      Or do you mean liberty – but only on your terms?

      1. So in other words we have the power or scope to act as we please until the rest of the world notices that we have nice stuff and moves in to take it.

  23. Pres. Trump has it wrong.

    Folks from shithole countries aren’t supposed to go back and fix them.

    We (the United States) are supposed to go and fix them, by throwing money at them. And no military involvement please, or we’d be imperialists.

    1. We “fix” them by dropping bombs, invading, killing, etc. In addition to throwing ridiculous sums of money at them and building fences and walls for them, while our own border is left to suffer invasion at the current rate of 1.8 million annually.

      “We came, we saw, he died”

  24. I know I am coming late to this comment thread, so I did a search and I am suprised find that nobody mentions the closest Democrat comparison to Trump’s tweet. One that Democrats didn’t care about, but Republicans did. The shoe is on the other foot I guess.

    Everybody forget when the Gov of NY, Cuomo, told all conservatives to “go home”. He said the same thing, telling half the country, and his state for that matter, to get out of NY.

    “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” – Andrew Cuomo 2014

    1. I mean, that’s pretty dumb, but telling your political opposition to get out of a city is not quite the same as telling a group of your nonwhite political opposition to get out of the country.

      Plus, of course, Cuomo is not the head of the national Democratic Party.

      And, it was 5 years ago and that’s the best you got.

      1. “telling your political opposition to get out of a city is not quite the same as telling a group of your nonwhite political opposition to get out of the country”

        Its exactly the same. The fact that two of the four Trump criticized are “nonwhite” means nothing.

        1. Unless you want to reach back to the Greek polis, Cities don’t occupy the same cultural space as nations. No one ever talked about the blood and soil of Cincinnati.

          1. Trump told his political opponents to get out of his jurisdiction, Cuomo told his political opponents to get out of his jurisdiction.

            Cuomo, btw, is not mayor of NYC.

            1. I’ll just let you leave that argument that cities are just like countries right there.

              1. “they have no place in the state of New York”

                Cuomo was telling people to get out of his STATE.

                1. Bah. Fair enough. I’m from there and still screw it up.

                  But states? Still not like countries. Not since like the Civil War. Plus, of course, I’m under no obligation to defend Cuomo whereas you guys can’t seem to help but defend Trump.

      2. It wasn’t a city, Cuomo is a Gov of NY state. How would you feel had the the gov of Texas strawmanned liberal positions and told them the don’t belong is Texas, explicitly so.

        Yea, it is whataboutism, but the point is to note the hypocrisy going on here. Hannity made lots of hay with that Cuomo quote, today he is still pro pro pro Trump.

        Granted, I think Trump was a step to far, as they are citizens, even though he is right that they hate America. How’s this, he is factually wrong but morally right 🙂

        1. Cuomo sucks. This is a very small bit of the many, many reasons why.

          Trump sucks way more because nations are not states.

          And you don’t run for Congress if you hate America. You and I have extremely different ideas of what America should be, but neither of us hates America. So quit with the attempts to delegitimize the policy proposals of the other side.

          1. “And you don’t run for Congress if you hate America. ”

            Assertion without evidence. How else do you takeover the country’s government in a democracy except running for office?

            O-Cortez, for instance, compares the US to Nazi Germany just about every day. Don’t seem much like love.

            Iman won’t even condemn Al-Queda which killed 300 Americans. Also don’t seem much like love.

            1. Takeover the government by winning elections? That’s actually believing in America, Bob.

              We have concentration camps – that’s a fact. With all the historical baggage that implies. Pointing it out doesn’t mean you hate America; it means you believe in it’s promise enough to try and reform it’s sometimes very deep issues.

              Iman isn’t condoning AQ, dude. That talking point lasted maybe a day before it faded away for being too much of a stretch for just about everyone but you, it seems.

              1. “We have concentration camps – that’s a fact. ”

                No we don’t. Its not a fact. Its insulting to the victims of real concentration camps.

                Unless all jails and prisons are “concentration camps”, which would make the term meaningless.

                The people under detention are awaiting legal process, they are not being worked to death and there are no shootings or gas chambers.

              2. “We have concentration camps – that’s a fact. With all the historical baggage that implies.”

                And we’re stretching for peak idiocy here. There is no commonality between the detention camps and, say, Dachau. Or Ravensbruk. Or Auschwitz 1. Other than the fact that they all had fences. You bust on Trump because he has no shame (correctly) but then demonstrate that you don’t either.

                1. Concentration camps are not death camps.

                  1. We’ve come to the point again where you are arguing against the dictionary for his version of reality.

                    From the Encyclopedia Britannica: Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons.

                    1. We are literally concentrating a bunch of people into specific fenced locations, all from a particular ethnic subgroup. Their conditions are harsh, at least partially as a policy choice.

                      They don’t get due process; they don’t get access to lawyers. They don’t necessarily get access to their families.

                      And the conditions they are held in have killed some of them.

                      No one is lawfully convicted, no one is a prisoner of war, no one is a refugee or displaced person. So…don’t know what you were trying to prove there.

                    2. Arguing the technicalities of what’s a concentration camp to avoid talking about how racist Trump is.

                    3. “don’t get due process”

                      A lie.

                      “killed some of them.”

                      Who? How many? Were they sick before they were arrested?

                      “some” is doing a lot of lifting as well.

                    4. They get picked up and put into the camps; there is no trial. Then they stay there, in the camps. You can say ‘that’s all they deserve’ but it’s not a lie to say there is no due process.

                      I’ll leave it to you to search up the examples of adults and children who have died due to lack of care in the camps, and whose stories have managed to get out.

                    5. Who will I side with as to what is a “concentration camp” Sarcastro or Encyclopedia Britannica? I think I will go with the encyclopedia on this one, as will anybody without cognitive dissonance getting in the way.

                      Note, the official definition says a concentration camp is “distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons.”

                    6. These are not refugee camps or detention and relocation centers. Nor are these people temporarily displaced.

                      It fits the definition.

                    7. “It fits the definition.”

                      Says you, but not the encyclopedia, which makes a distinction. Appeal to authority fallacy, sure, but when it comes to word meanings, I’ll go with the encyclopedia.

                    8. You seem to cede that the definition body is on point by looking to the exceptions. Except none of the exceptions apply, as I noted above. So could you point to where you’re finding a departure?

                  2. “Concentration camps are not death camps.”

                    Alright, Auschwitz is out then.

                    So, Dachau.

                    “Number of inmates Over 188,000 (estimated)[2]
                    Killed 41,500 (per Dachau website)”

                    Or Ravensbruk

                    “Number of inmates 130,000[1] to 132,000[2]”
                    Killed 45,000–50,000[3] to 117,000[2]”

                    [both from wikipedia]

                    What Border Patrol or DHS facility in the US has those death rates?

                    Let’s not mention the treatment that the survivors of Dachau or Ravensbruk had to endure.

                    1. Oh, thank goodness our death rates in our concentration camps are below those of the Nazis!

                    2. “Oh, thank goodness our death rates in our concentration camps are below those of the Nazis!”

                      Those people were murdered by the Nazis, they didn’t just die.

                      No one is being murdered in any Border Patrol center.

                  3. “Concentration camps are not death camps.”

                    Dachau, Ravensbruk, and Auschwitz 1 were not so-called death camps. They were run of the mill work camps (you know, slave labor).

                    Are the people in the detention centers put there for their political views, in addition to their ancestry?
                    Are they forced to perform slave labor for 12+ hours a day on barely sustenance diets?
                    If one member of a cell block escapes, are 10 randomly selected prisoners taken out and executed to make an example?
                    If one of the prisoners expresses a political view opposed by the state are they executed on the spot?
                    Is there a morning roll call every morning during which examples are made of prisoners who violated trivial camp rules by hanging them in front of the entire camp?
                    Are medical experiments being done on the inmates?

                    Oh, and you talk about “particular ethnic subgroups”, but sorry, the Jews didn’t start showing up in concentration camps in large numbers until several years after the system started. Initially it was mostly political opponents of the Nazis. They started with the Jews by herding them into ghettos.

                    You know, there are books and documentaries and all kind of ways to learn about this shit, but you don’t care about actually accuracy. You insult the memory of the people who had to live/die in those camps, but bleating out political bullshit matters more to you than their memory. And honestly, you don’t really care about the immigrants either, because if you did you’d have been complaining about “concentration camps” during the term of our last president when he was doing the same fucking thing.

                    This isn’t defending Trump, it’s defending the recognition of the suffering the people did back in the ’30s and ’40s, along with defending common sense. I actually thought you might be a serious person, but it turns out you’re just another political zealot using bullshit to tarnish the other side while promulgating the idiocy of your own. Wasting my time here…..

                    1. You seem to think I’m saying we have Nazi camps. I’m not saying we have Nazi camps.
                      But we sure do have concentration camps, as America created for the Native Americans, and continued with the Japanese, and as Germany innovated on in such horrible fashion.

                    2. “You seem to think I’m saying we have Nazi camps. I’m not saying we have Nazi camps.”

                      Oh, bullshit. AOC used the phrase “never forget”. You yourself said “with all the historical baggage that implies”. All the historical baggage. We can all see what the hell you’re trying to say, lame attempt to walk it back to the contrary.

                      Minimizing the conduct of the SS to make political points. You should be ashamed, but like Trump and AOC you don’t appear to be able to feel shame.

                    3. Yeah, our momentum has some troubling historical echoes. Doesn’t mean our position is the same.

                  4. This part of the thread is not worth responding to anymore. Your quibble is not with me, but with the majority’s understanding of the phrase “concentration camp” as expressed in a highly reliable source.

                    If you want to change the meaning of a word, you can try. That’s how slang is created, but you’ve got a long way to go, and a lot of other people to convince.

              3. “We have concentration camps – that’s a fact. ”

                No, it is an insulting rhetorical device that mocks the real historical victims of concentration camps. Be ashamed.

                But then again, you are someone who is not sure whether Farrakhan is an anti-semite.

                So let me give you a hint: when someone calls an ethnic group “termites” he is calling for their extermination. That is what most people think of when you use that term — if my neighbor said, “We have termites in our house” I would say “Hey buddy, better call an exterminator.”

                1. I am quite sure Farrakhan is an anti-semite. I’m not sure he’s liberal.

              4. “We are literally concentrating a bunch of people into specific fenced locations, all from a particular ethnic subgroup. Their conditions are harsh, at least partially as a policy choice.”

                What a bit of rhetorical dishonesty. They are interred because they have broken the law and entered the country en masse. Their ethnicity has nothing to do with why they are there. If 2 millions whites from Canada entered New York, they would also be interred.

                And, of course, and of them can simply leave by agreeing to return to their home countries. The US govt will happily deport them. I don’t know of any historical concentration camp about which you could say the same.

                1. Do not blame the victim here.
                  They way these people are interred is a policy decision this administration has made in an attempt to deter others.

                  The very fact that they don’t leave (almost as though they don’t have the choice you put on them) puts the lie to the people claiming they’re just coming here out of greed.

          2. Apparently, though, you can run for gov of a state and hate the opinions of half of them.

            Liberals like yourself (and the Suicide Squad of Congresscritters) have a different idea of what America *should* be. Yes. But if you want to fundamentally change America (like Obama and these Congresscritters), that means you dislike America. That you want to fundamentally change America means a priori that you don’t like America because you want to change it from the way it is now, and how it was founded. This is simple logic.

            Put aside the blurry line between hate and dislike, and that they are very, very close. How does one go about convincing fellow citizens to fundamentally change America? You have to convince them that they dislike America as founded as well. That, Sarcastro, is also delegitimization of the policy decisions of current citizens, and their ancestors.

            1. Thanks for explaining to me that actually I totally do hate America.

              You’re pretty radical yourself in what you want for America. Does that mean you hate it as well?

              1. You’re close to a breakthough, don’t stop now. Do you want to fundamentally transform America? Then that means you strongly dislike it, some might say “hate” as a synonym.

                You’ve claimed to be a status quo kind of guy, but again and again, your pretty close to unwavering support goes to those who want to fundamentally transform America. That is the irony of those who claim to love America, but want to significantly alter it and not just tinker at the margins of more or less regulation or some such.

                What have I called for that is radical? If anything, I’ve called for a colorblind society. I suppose many would see that at reactionary.

                1. Do you want to fundamentally transform America? Then that means you strongly dislike it

                  You’re making a rhetorical choice into a substantive one. Did FDR fundamentally transform America? Did Reagan? They both talked like it.

                  1. I am charitably gonna say you’re pettifogging, as I think you don’t understand.

                    FDR and Reagan changed American significantly, so did Jackson killing the bank for that matter. Do you not understand the difference between “significant change” and “fundamental change”? Significant just means “a lot” while “fundamental” means the basis for the existence.

                    What FDR, and Jackson, and Reagan didn’t do, was undermine the legitimacy of the country itself, which is what “fundamental change” is.

                    1. You’re caught up in semantics now. ‘See, HE was making a significant change, but SHE wants fundamental change!’

                      That’s in the eye of the beholder. What you see as fundamental isn’t obvious or objective to me.
                      Taxing the rich isn’t some assault on America’s fundamentals. Neither is a more robust safety net. Neither is beefing up our environmental efforts.

                    2. I’m no Socrates, but he would have made you rage quit like Thrasymachus, because when it comes down to it, you can’t understand the difference between (and can’t be bothered to consult a dictionary) on how “significant” and “fundamental” have different meanings. And I did mention how we are not talking about things at the margin, like more or less regulation.

                      Someone who debates on a law blog should that words have meanings, and that matters.

                    3. I’m not saying they don’t have different meanings, but rather that the distinction you’re making is arbitrary and idiosyncratic.

                    4. It seems obtuse because you don’t care how leftist radicals undermine the founding of the country in order to facilitate change.

                      Fundamental change means changing the reason behind, and for, and mutual understanding of, the existence of the thing itself.

                      Significant just mean big. Big change doesn’t have change the reason for the country existing.

                      Perhaps you need a concrete example. Student loan forgiveness, although dumb, is not fundamental change, though it is significant. The Green New Deal? Fundamental change of the country from capitalist to socialist.

    2. Whatever else, m_k, he wasn’t making a racial – oh, excuse me, Brett, ethnic – attack.

      Besides WTF does any of the have to do with Trump. Is that really all you can say in Trump’s defense?


      1. Is the tweet worse that it was racial?

        Note, I’m not agreeing that it was racial because you and CNN say it was racial. Race was never mentioned. You both WANT to make it racial. Two of the four women are white.

        And if you are able to take your partisan blinders off, I said that Trump was factually wrong (because they are citizens) but morally correct (because they hate America). That’s hardly a ringing defense of Trump. I’m pointing out “your side’s” hypocrisy, as well as that of the strongly pro-Trump crowd like Hannity. Again, hardly a ringing defense.

        I guess a tepid “whatever” (which is what the whole kerfuffle deserves) is pathetic to you. You know what is also pathetic? Your frothing righteous indignation.

  25. I think it’s important to make a sharp distinction between saying that illegal immigrants should go back to other countries, and saying members of Congress should. The first, agree with the policy or not, is consistent with the rule of law. Our constitution permits restrictions, even draconian one’s, on immigration, Congress, like it or not, has enacted such restrictions. The constitution permits vigorous enforcement. It is no stain on the character of a President to conscientiously enforce a valid, duly enacted law just because one happens to disagree with it.

    The second, statement, however, represents a defiance of the rule of law. Members of Congress are entitled to respect by a coordinate branch of government. To ignore cotizen’s status as such is to ignore, indeed to defy, the very rule of law a President has sworn to uphold. And that speaks very badly about a President’s character.

    I would, regarding this incident, limit what I say to speaking in defense of the rule of law, rather than my preferred policy. Attempts, even rhetorical ones, to stigmatize citizens, to undermine their right to be citizens, to deny them the privileges and immunities of citizens, is an attack on the constitution. And it is the constitution that I would focus, in this incident, on defending.

    Mr. Trump’s shameful remarks about duly elected members of our own government has nothing to do with immigrants, legal or otherwise. I would emphasize the point. I would leave discussions of immigration policy for another day.

    1. “The second, statement, however, represents a defiance of the rule of law.”

      It would, if he attempted to deport them. If he restricts himself to non-binding advice, not so much. He’s as much entitled to freedom of speech as anyone.

      “Members of Congress are entitled to respect by a coordinate branch of government.”

      Members of Congress get too much respect as it is. It swells their heads. Sure, ideally relationships between the branches would be civil. I don’t see Trump as having some obligation to remain civil while members of Congress are calling him a monster and would-be dictator.

      1. So, when they go low, I go lower.

        Got it.

      2. Brett, this isn’t a question of civility.

        This evinces Trump’s worldview, and it’s not pretty.

  26. I’d like to see ol Donny Trump wriggle his way out of this jam!

    1. It is remarkable how Trump seems to keep confirming the ridiculous picture the left paints of him!

      1. Trump wriggles his way out of the jam easily.

        1. Yes, of course. No point in criticizing or scrutinizing the man for anything but actual impeachment.

          1. Ah! Well. Nevertheless,

            1. Did you ever criticize Obama? Maybe even for being biased?

              Wonder why you ever did anything so pointless as that.

              1. “Wonder why you ever did anything so pointless as that.”

                IDK either. It was pointless.

                I am sad however you don’t recognize the greatest tweet ever.

        2. He does with you, and Brett, and some of the other Trump idolators here.

      2. “It is remarkable how Trump seems to keep confirming the ridiculous picture the left paints of him!”

        We’re watching an astounding spiral of idiocy between Trump and the progressive “resistance”. Every time one of them out-stupids the other side, I think that surely we’re at the bottom, but then the other side easily manages to show stupendous ignorance that transcends what their opponents did. This shit is breathtaking.

  27. Beginning with recorded history (probably before) diversity has been a consistent source of bitter strife and ruthless slaughter. The written record is one of desperate, deadly, struggles between racial, ethnic, tribal, religious and national groups attempting to manipulate, undermine, dominate, and destroy each other. For evidence of the continuing battle there is no need to look beyond remarks here, and no, it is not different this time merely because Judeo – Christian Western Culture prevails in America at this juncture.

    Simply put, from a historical perspective, strife has been shown to be baked into the diversity cake.

    1. Are you arguing we get rid of all nonwhites for a more united America?

      1. Humpty in control today?

        1. Then please lay out the thesis that your above argument about the woes brought on by diversity is in service to.

      2. No. But whites should assert themselves as the majority, and make it clear that the choices are to follow our rules or leave.

    2. And yet…here we are.

      The absolute greatest country with everyone else a distant second.

      I’d say you’re wrong and dead wrong at that.

      Diversity is our strength.

      It allows us to expand, try new things, and also (and maybe most importantly) allows us to swing left and right.

      Since The People are in control, and The People change (their priorities, their opinions, their goals, their procedures, their mores, etc.), diverse system allows us to be flexible which in turn prevents us from breaking (as we’ve seen in other societies).

      Diversity is our strength.

      1. LOL. How is America more strong now than it was in 1960?

        1. Our bigots no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not in public.

          Our public schools no longer impose state-structured prayer on students, or teach childish nonsense to flatter superstition.

          Women are not longer an oddity in graduate schools.

          Gays are no longer mocked everywhere, beaten in alleys by police, or jailed for being gay.

          America’s betters have largely wrung Jim Crow from our southern states.

          Our rivers are no longer industrial sewers, our air is cleaner.

          Our consumer protections are stronger.

          Our liberal-libertarian mainstream has won the culture war against backward and intolerant conservatives.

          Did I mention that our bigots are on the defensive?

          1. You’re a moron.

  28. My favorite part of these comments are the people defending Trump telling four American citizens — three natural-born, one naturalized — to go back where they come from by explaining how telling illegal immigrants, which was not said, to “go home” makes perfect sense. Second place, of course, are all the typical “whadabout…” bits.

  29. Trump’s tweets seem to be nothing more than a different version of “America, love it or leave it” which was popular among some groups in the 60s. His targets can reply that they do love the country and that the criticisms they have made should not be interpreted otherwise, but instead they are taking the tack that such remarks can be called racist if those addressed are people of color. Because charges of racism have become indiscriminate (e.g. Pelosi, Biden) people no longer take them seriously. It’s just human nature that falsely crying wolf causes such cries in the future to be discounted and ignored.

    1. If you think the bigotry label isn’t hurting Republicans and conservatism, you must be living in a hollowing-out community with dying industries, declining population, substandard education, plenty of elderly voters, and huge problems involving bright flight, street pills, and goofy red hats.

      1. Certainly businesses in particular bend over backward to avoid being labelled as racist. But my point is that when such charges are made indiscriminately it can only result in their losing their force. When Biden and Pelosi are called racist the word has lost its original meaning, and along with that its power to influence public opinion.

  30. Except they don’t want to “breathe free.” Most non-white immigrants come here to take our goodies while making America LESS free than it was before.

  31. Mad_Kalak, you will never understand the recipe for orderly society until you’ve watched Rollerball (1975).

    1. Are you the guy that suggested it some months ago on one of these threads. I’ve not gotten around to yet. The trailer looked fun.

  32. Andrew McCarthy’s reaction ( is closest to my own. Here is a highlight:

    Is it “racist” to tell people who have contempt for the country — who abhor the common culture that makes us American — that they ought to go back to where they came from? It has nativist and reactionary overtones, but I don’t think it is racist. . . .

    It would be racist to tell the progressive “Squad” that they don’t belong in our country because of their race or ethnic roots. I don’t understand Trump to have done that. He is attacking their radicalism, which they wear like a badge of honor.

    I would add two points:

    (1) In the early 20th century, there were white people who came from certain parts of Europe that made similarly radical statements about American society, and were met with similar rhetoric. So there is nothing racist about it. If any of the four Congresswomen had said “America is a great country, I am proud to be an America, but I want to work to improve it” then Trump would not have said what he said.

    (2) Too many of the commentators here seek to downplay what the Gang of Four (saw that appellation somewhere about these four) said as mere criticism. Wrong. It is radical contempt for America and American institution. If you think that America is, not merely flawed (and what human institution is not flawed), but rotten from its conception, then you should leave. Whether you are an immigrant or your family came over on the Mayflower.

    1. Do the other conspirators have a problem with wrapping pseudo-legal reasoning around DNC talking points?

    2. They don’t hate America, Brett. They don’t think it’s rotten to the core. They don’t have contempt for it.

      They’re struggling within the system to make it better as they define it. You don’t do that with something you think is beyond saving.

      1. “They don’t hate America, Brett. They don’t think it’s rotten to the core. They don’t have contempt for it.”

        Riiight — Not all of America. They just hate and have contempt for those who oppose their agenda to fundamentally transform the country and dissolve the borders.

    3. Is it “racist” to tell people who have contempt for the country — who abhor the common culture that makes us American — that they ought to go back to where they came from? It has nativist and reactionary overtones, but I don’t think it is racist. . . .

      Uh, you and Andy “I prosecuted the blind sheik and I’ll never let anyone forget it” McCarthy are not really helping your case. It would perhaps merely be nativist and reactionary if it were directed to immigrants. But it was directed at people who mostly are also natives. Seeing someone as a foreigner because of her race is, you know, what’s the word? Oh yeah: racist.

      Too many of the commentators here seek to downplay what the Gang of Four (saw that appellation somewhere about these four) said as mere criticism. Wrong. It is radical contempt for America and American institution.

      Donald Trump shows more radical contempt for America and American institutions on a daily basis than the four of them combined have done in their lives.

  33. Trump supporters have consistently been the targets of brutal violence by the left since 2016, whenever they dare to engage in street-level political expression within arm’s reach of leftist activists.

    This massive semi-coordinated campaign of violence and suppression of civil rights started right at the top of the Democrat party, which hired thugs to attend Trump rallies to instigate violence so that a false media narrative could be created smearing Trump supporters.

    But that specific story was just one of thousands and thousands in the larger pattern, where the media engages in very transparent efforts to cover up, minimize, deny, shove down the memory hole. The bigger the story, the more brazen the subsequent lies and cover up. Meanwhile, every similar type of event where the roles are reversed receives front page coverage for days or weeks. Or even non-events that are made up, like the Covington boys. On the other hand CNN repeatedly defends violent fascist organization Antifa.

    This is just part of what makes it so ironic when the liars claim President Trump is corrupt, suppressing rights, or “attacking” people with supposedly violent words. This current brouhaha is just a continuation of the same campaign of hate and gaslighting against the people of the United States.

    1. Justifying your own bad behavior based on your perception of the other side’s oppression of you is a standard rationalization.

      massive semi-coordinated campaign of violence and suppression
      Mainlining paranoia like this will do nothing good for you.

  34. Americans have all this freedom and socialist systems in place because they’ve fought and died for it against their own people and they were just as poor and most were very uneducated too. Child labor was once a problem in america but the people put a stop to that and blood was spilled doing it. Women couldn’t vote either, but guess what? They fought for it. Blacks are mistreated, but guess what? They fought against it. So go back and fix your own country! You lazy, cowards!

  35. Ilya’s closet no-Trumpism is showing again

  36. Some guy said some things.

  37. Rep. Ayanna Pressley said “If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.” Seriously?

    So Trump is a bigot for calling out bigotry, seriously?

    Do you understand how efing stupid you sound?

  38. I have a theory, maybe Trump misspelled “counties”.
    Anywhoose, Trump is Trump. I don’t think he’s a racist, but I don’t really care, either. We’ve had many, many presidents that were much more racist than Trump. Did you know, being a racist isn’t even illegal?!? I also don’t see anything about it in the Ten Commandments.

Please to post comments