Your performance and civility on tonight’s broadcast of “The O’Reilly Factor” (because I don’t watch “American Idol”) has led me to let my subscription to Reason magazine lapse for good.
Let me know when Virginia Postrel or another common-sense libertarian takes the helm, and my subscription money will be in the mail again.
Quite honestly, Reason has been tilting far too leftward for my taste, especially on the illegal immigration issue.
I support immigration reform (but I do NOT support blanket amnesty for those who willfully break our laws), but any attempt at reform won’t mean a damn thing until the government starts enforcing immigration laws currently on the books, demand that Mexico enacts market-based economic reforms and stamp out corruption (before the Socialists “do” it for them). Also, America needs to secure the southern border in order to regulate the flow of LEGAL immigration. NOW.
Update: All comments to this post have been approved, which proves that I can take criticism just as well as I can dish it out. Even libertarians can disagree among each other.
I’ll deal with some of the comments, though:
I think I’ve made it clear that I do support legal immigration. For the record, I also favor drug legalization (which is another topic of discussion).
I welcome immigration reform. However, I do not believe in open borders. Securing our borders does not mean locking immigrants out. The moment we kiss our sovereignty good-bye and let anybody come and go whenever the hell they want (which is currently happening), anarchy sets in.
Apparently, some believe that every country except the United States should enforce their immigration laws.
If our government (of both political parties and many philosophical persuasions) is unwilling to uphold the rule of law, then what good is it? Try going to another country and say “Screw you and your laws. I’ll come and go whenever I please.” Report back your findings.
Should we enact wasteful, feel-good legislation? Of course not! I know what Nick Gillespie said on the “Factor”. I was more annoyed by his condescending attitude than by what he said. Just because I respect his right to speak freely doesn’t mean that I have to agree with everything he says. I guess that’s grounds enough for revoking my libertarian credentials nowadays. How dare I not drink my cup of Kool-Aid and like it!
If I were to emigrate to another country, I would be subject to the immigration laws of that country. I would have to apply for citizenship, meet their requirements for citizenship, learn their common language, and assimilate into their common culture (which doesn’t necessarily mean forsaking my native toungue and heritage). If other countries demand such for their immigrants, why can’t the U.S. require the same?
Yes, we are a nation built by immigrants. We are also a nation founded upon the rule of law. We are not an anarchist state, but a republic of 50 states joined together by a national constitution. The moment we let those from foreign lands blatantly disrespect our laws and ride roughshod over our sovereignty by telling us what to do is the moment we cease being a free republic.
Update 2: I should note that “La Bandera de Las Estrellas”, the Spanish translation of “The Star Spangled Banner” has existed in print since 1919. I do feel, however that the lyrics shouldn’t be “enhanced” to promote a political agenda, as is the case with “Nuestro Himno”. The pop-tinged tune recorded to accompany the pro-amnesty/open-borders movement is not worthy of recognition.
Again, special “feel-good” legislation to shun expressions that we don’t like isn’t necessary, as the Senate has better things to do (which aren’t being done, BTW). I will agree with Gillespie in that regard.
Reason Magazine?
Tilting LEFT?
Libertarians advocating open borders?! Who’da thunk it?! Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that they advocate marijuana legalization.
The libertarian perspective on illegal immigration is exactly the same as on illegal drugs. Take away the illegal part and it ceases to be a problem.
Sorry to hear that freedom is too leftward an idea for you.
cool off there
Nick never said anything about immigration reform. He never said anyhing remotely close to endorsing ” blanket amnesty for those who willfully break our laws)” Quote him if you’re going to make this straw-man claim.
He said that meaningless non-binding initiatives in Congress are:
“a completely inane and asinine issue. To be talking about passing resolutions in a way even, especially if they’re nonbinding about what language people should be able to sing the national anthem or say the pledge after allegiance is ludicrous beyond belief”
I think his view is the same view most libertarians had about ‘baseball hearings’ and the ‘$100 gas rebate’ - that they were self-promoting efforts by politicians that had absolutely no value as far as policy, and as such should be held in total contempt.
I suppose you feel differently? That we SHOULD enact pointless and wasteful feel-good legislation?
I agree. The whole freedom thing has gotten old.
We need more walls and military patrols. And national ID’s. If we hadn’t had a bunch of pinkos for founding fathers we would have that already. Good thing our current batch of politicians have more common sense.
Actually, Nick missed the brilliant minarchist move by Lamar!. By tying the Senate up with proposals like “Anthem in English Day” or “No Whites on Labor Day” or the “Make it Illegal to Break Laws Resolution,” he has stood athwart history, yelling “Lamar!”
Now, to paraphrase:
“The moment we let those from Tennessee blatantly disrespect our laws and ride roughshod over our sovereignty by telling us what language to sing the Anthem in is the moment we cease being a free republic.”
Couldn’t agree more.