Independent Media Crushes Mainstream Over So-Called “Muslim Ban”

The mainstream media yesterday discarded whatever credibility it had left in its coverage of an executive order from Donald Trump.

This is an editorial from IPR owner Warren Redlich. I am certainly not pro-Trump (currently suing three of his surrogates), nor do I agree with Trump’s policies, but I am pro-truth.

The media’s disregard of basic facts is stunning:

Major media outlets persistently refer to the executive order as a “Muslim ban”. The word Muslim does not appear in the order. It is a temporary hold on all immigrants – not just Muslims – from 7 specific countries. While those countries are majority Muslim, there are 51 Muslim-majority countries in the world and 72 countries with Muslim populations of 1 million or more.

Countless headlines note that the list does not include countries with whom Trump has business ties. These articles imply that Trump decided which countries would be on the list. The executive order refers to a list of “countries of concern” for terrorism determined by Congress, the Secretary of State and the Department of Homeland Security. The Obama administration maintained that list for the past eight years and Obama’s DHS added Libya, Somalia and Yemen to the list in 2016.

The media shed any sense of balanced reporting by ignoring Obama’s role in deciding who was on the list.

The Wall Street Journal took a different angle by referring to it as a “refugee ban.” This also appears grossly inaccurate since the order is far broader than just refugees:

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order

It is well worth noting in this venue that the libertarian Reason magazine chose accuracy:

Reason was also on top of this issue when the Obama administration was doing much the same, stopping a British-Iranian journalist working for the BBC from entering the US. Rana Rahimpour’s ordeal received far less attention from the mainstream media in the US.

Mother Jones did a little better than most by putting “Muslim ban” in quotes and was more accurate in its description of the order.

The Nation was similarly more accurate in its description but its headlines were unsurprisingly more biased.

The term “post-truth” is often applied accurately to President Trump. Sadly this disregard for the truth is growing and spreading.

52 thoughts on “Independent Media Crushes Mainstream Over So-Called “Muslim Ban”

  1. George Phillies

    That list appears to be a list of countries that were massively bombed by the Obama and Bush administrations and their puppet states. Several of these countries had substantial Christian populations, many of whom are among the refugees, a point that President Trump’s Christian supporters will eventually work out.

  2. Vg

    I’m not sure what to think about this policy but I do know that the media is spinning it and lying about it being a Muslim ban.

  3. George Phillies

    No, they;re basically telling the truth that it was intended as a ban on some Islamites.

  4. Antirevolutionary

    The American Solidarity Party has released an official critical statement against this policy on their Facebook page.

  5. William Saturn

    It doesn’t make much sense to exclude Saudi Arabia, a Sunni kingdom that funds the Sunni group ISIS. And why is Iran on the list? Iran is almost exclusively Shiite.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    My biggest personal issue right now is fighting # Fake News. I’m sick of it. We need to double down efforts to feature good alternative news until the liars go out of business.

    # Bye-bye CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post, and so on–.

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    It doesn’t make much sense to exclude Saudi Arabia, a Sunni kingdom that funds the Sunni group ISIS. And why is Iran on the list? Iran is almost exclusively Shiite

    I completely agree. We also need to stop poking a stick at Iran.

  8. Deran

    I thought the LP and Libertarians support open borders? And I didn’t think Libertarians were apologists for Mr Trump? Mr Trump’s use of the state to control travel seems contradictory in relation to what I know of Libertarian policies?

    And I reccomend ignoring the corporate media, liberal or conservative. I listen to Democracy Now every weekday morning. And The Intercept has just started a weekly podcast. Intercepted. Both DN and Intercepted take a critical view of both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

  9. wolfefan

    Some have wondered why Saudi Arabia was excluded. My understanding is that countries where the Trump Organization has business interests were not included in the ban. My understanding is also that these excluded countries are where the perpetrators of almost all terrorist attacks on US soil have come from.

  10. Andy

    “Deran
    January 30, 2017 at 00:57
    I thought the LP and Libertarians support open borders?”

    This is a long debated issue in libertarian circles. The true position is that libertarians believe that coercive government should not exist, therefore all land would be privately owned (with the exception of land that may be left unclaimed, but at this point in history, there probably would not be much unclaimed land left), and it would be up to individual land owners, or groups of land owners working in voluntary associations, as to who can go on what land. It is likely that under such a scenario, that some land owners would come up with very restrictive “immigration” or entrance polices, while other land owners would have less restrictive “immigration” or entrance policies.

    The debate comes with how to best handle the situation in the present, where nation states exist, and where the government officials who control the nation state control much of the land, among other resources and public policy.

    Some libertarians believe that all land should be left open in with the existence of nation states, and regardless of what other polices exist (like a welfare state), and they believe that “freedom of movement” for all people overrides any existing public policies or market conditions, and that land that is held by government should be treated as if it is open for everyone on the planet.

    Other libertarians believe that while government exists, it should act as a steward of publicly held lands/common spaces, and protect the rights and interests of those within the boundaries of the nation state, and that existing policies and market conditions, such as the presence of a welfare state, or the ability and ease of an entrant to the land territory becoming a part of the body politic (as in becoming a “citizen” and being able to take part in the political process), or whether or not they are carrying a communicable disease, should be taken into account when decisions about entrance to the land territory are being made.

    Both sides frequently argue and accuse the other of not being “libertarian enough” or for not being “real libertarians” and lots of name calling frequently occurs in such arguments (like “racist” or xenophobe” or “socialist” or communist” or “globalist” or “statist” or etc…).

    Here is what the current Libertarian Party platform says about immigration: “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”

    Notice how it says that individuals should not be “unreasonably constrained” when crossing political boundaries. How does one define “unreasonably constrained”? This is open to interpretation.

    Some libertarians do not think that there should be any constraints, which means anyone can go wherever whenever they feel like it, although they may make an exception for private property that is not open to the public, but then you could question how the land was acquired and designated as private property.

    Other libertarians may say that there should be various checks before a person can enter a land territory, like checking to see if a person has a communicable disease, or checking to see if they have any criminal warrants, or to see if they come from a nation that is engaged in hostilities against their nation state.

    Now notice this part: “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”

    This would indicate that the Libertarian Party platform does in fact take into account that there could be reasons to keep people out if there was evidence that a person posed a threat to the people inside the land territory, by being a threat to security (like say a Jihadi), or a person who carried a communicable disease (like Ebola), or if a person held destructive political ideas, like being an advocate of Marxist wealth redistribution, which is a threat to the property of those being taxed and having their wealth redistributed.

    The question on the old version of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz put out by The Advocates for Self Government about immigration said, “Let peaceful people cross borders freely.” What about non-peaceful people, and how do you determine peaceful people from non-peaceful people? This is open for debate.

  11. Andy

    Nobody who claims to be a libertarian is able to refute that the true libertarian position on immigration is land privatization and the dismantling of the coercive state, and then leaving “immigration” policies to land owners or groups of land owners working in voluntary associations.

    We are not in a situation where the state has been dismantled and all land has been privatized, and we are not likely to be in situation any time soon, so then the question become how do you handle things in the interim.

    My take on the issue is this: We live in a democratic welfare/warfare state, so it does make a difference who enters the land territory we live in known as the USA.

    I do NOT think that cutting off all immigration is a good idea, but on the flip side, it should be recognized that there are immigrants who have a negative effect on society, and that the existence of the welfare state attracts these kind of immigrants like flies on fresh dog feces. So I propose an immigration policy that would tend to attract productive, freedom loving people, and that would weed out non-productive people who hold destructive ideas like support for socialism, communism, theocracy, etc…

    Steps I would implement (as interim measures until the real solution of land privatization and the dismantling of the coercive state could be accomplished) are as follows.

    1) End all welfare programs for immigrants, which would include repealing the tax payer funded Refugee Resettlement Act, This would also include the elimination of Affirmative Action programs. Forced integration laws would also be repealed. This would be like a return to the old days, where if you wanted to come to America, you had to come here on your own dime, and you had to make it on your own when you got here. Now to be clear, people could rely on charities, or family and friends that may be here, but there’d be no hand outs from the government.

    2) Known criminals (and yes, I mean real criminals, as in people who engage in various acts of coercive violence, theft, or destruction of property) and people with communicable diseases would be sent home.

    3) There ought to be enforceable immigration contracts, which prohibit immigrants from taking part in any government welfare programs, and which would stipulate that they could face deportation if they commit a crime (as in acts of coercive violence, theft, or destruction of property). The contract would also prohibit working a lobbyist for a foreign government. I’d also consider adding a provision to the contract that prohibits advocating against the Bill Of Rights. If an immigrant violates their immigration contract, and refuses to leave the country, a bounty could go up on their head, and a bounty hunter could capture them and receive a reward. It would probably be best if the bounty is available to everyone, not just to professional bounty hunters. Perhaps the immigrants could post a bond themselves, which would be collected by bounty hunters if the immigrant violates their immigration contract. (FOR MORE ON THIS IDEA, SEE MY LIBERTARIAN ZONE CONCEPT. THE LIBERTARIAN ZONE IS AN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST CONTRACT BASED SOCIETY, BUT THERE ARE PARTS OF IT, LIKE THE ENFORCEABLE IMMIGRATION CONTRACT AND BOUNTY HUNTER IDEA THAT COULD BE ADOPTED IN OUR PRESENT SYSTEM. READ MORE ABOUT IT HERE: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ )

    4) Make it more difficult to become an American citizen Increase the amount of time one has to be here to become a citizen. Get rid of birthright citizenship. No more of this crap where people come here to have babies just so their children can become citizens, which means they can take the American tax payers for a ride. Overhaul the Naturalization process. Make the Naturalization class more difficult. Require a thorough understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and free market economics. I would also add a special class on the 2nd amendment, which would include the history of the right to keep and bear arms, historic examples of gun control leading to tyranny and genocide, and an examination of crime statistics, which show that more guns in the hands of regular people equals less crime. The class would include trips to a firing range where each immigrant would have to able to shoot different types of firearms, starting out with hand guns, then moving on to hunting rifles, and then military style assault rifles. If a person wants to claim to be a pacifist, so they will not shoot a gun, then can do this and get an exemption, however, they would still have to go to the firing range to watch other people in the class shoot the guns. Some of the people I’d consider calling to design the curriculum for the Naturalization class would be Michael Badnarik, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, or others like that. I think that one course requirement could be for each immigrant to be videoerecorded reciting the Bill Of Rights, and swearing an oath to, “protect and defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” No more of this horseshit of people being sworn in as “American citizens” who are clueless about the Constitution, and who do not understand economics.

  12. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . The media shed any sense of balanced reporting by ignoring Obama’s role in deciding who was on the list. . . . ”

    I don’t know what so-called “mainstream” news you were watching. President Obama’s role in choosing these countries was talked about all weekend. However, it was talked about accurately by staying President Obama declared a temporary travel ban TO these countries based on very specific intelligence. That is not similar to Dear Leader’s executive order at all.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    In the current situation, there is only one libertarian position. That position is generally referred to as “open borders.”

    People who call themselves “libertarians” and argue against the libertarian position (“open borders”) are either libertarians in massive error, or just not libertarians at all.

  14. Tony From Long Island

    TK – there’s one issue I am completely libertarian on. I am 100% for open borders with very limited exceptions. Of course, we should know who is coming and going, but I would have no quotas for immigration or travel.

  15. Tony From Long Island

    George Phillies ” . . . .No, they;re basically telling the truth that it was intended as a ban on some Islamites. . . . ”

    Yup. Let’s not beat around the bush. Who are really the people Darth Trump is trying to keep out? Stop lying to yourselves. On Friday he said ” . . . very very strict ban . . . ” was he talking about Coptic Christians? Can he point to one Syrian refugee who has committed an act of terrorism on U.S. soil? Neither can I.

  16. dL

    Nobody who claims to be a libertarian is able to refute that the true libertarian position on immigration is land privatization and the dismantling of the coercive state, and then leaving “immigration” policies to land owners or groups of land owners working in voluntary associations.

    The Hoppe claptrap is propertarian, not libertarian. Hoppe is not even a capitalist. And the HoppeBots are (bigot) invaders of libertarianism.

    The purpose of private property is not to create de facto immigration policy. Open borders simply means topological simple-connectedness between any two points. If a private property regime somehow managed to enact a de facto “immigration policy, then it would be a state and it would require a standing army to enforce. To the extent this state was in business of denying people travel, then prepare for war.

    Libertarianism is not merely property rights. Property is liberty, property is theft. if you want to turn property completely into an instrument of theft for whatever reason(in this instance to protect the culture of white bigots), then prepare for war. However, I wouldn’t put my money on the HoppeBots. I sincerely doubt HoppeBot utopia would be anything more than pockets of Amish-like society. When the strapping young offspring graduate from milking the cows on the farm to going in to town(land of heathens!) to get laid or just to find an internet connection, I’m not sure they would ever come back.

  17. paulie

    Actually, it is a Muslim ban, which Trump explicitly promised when he campaigned, without the qualifiers. Now, it’s true that so far it includes only 7 of the many Muslim-majority nations, which makes it all the more weird, because there is nothing indicating that immigrants from these countries are any more of a terrorist threat than immigrants from other Muslim-majority countries. However, it’s worth noting, especially in the context of Trump’s campaign promises, that all seven nations so far included in the ban are majority-Muslim. We have no reason to assume that the ban won’t expand to other majority-Muslim nations. Furthermore, Trump has explicitly said that he will make exceptions for religious minorities from those countries in his interview with CBN and I think maybe a few other places. So, it is even more obviously intended as a Muslim ban (although not a ban on all Muslims, at least yet). It’s as close to an actual Muslim ban as he thinks he can get away with legally at this point in time, but give him time.

  18. paulie

    The Hoppe claptrap is propertarian, not libertarian. … And the HoppeBots are (bigot) invaders of libertarianism.

    Exactly.

  19. paulie

    Can he point to one Syrian refugee who has committed an act of terrorism on U.S. soil? Neither can I.

    Yep, the country selection is highly irrational. And cruel, especially given that some of these same refugees are refugees because they risked their lives and those of their families helping the US in its wars in those countries. These refugees undergo 2 or more years or very extensive multi-step vetting. Imagine going through all that, possibly already having your family in the US and then being denied entry, perhaps sent back to face torture and death by the country you risked your life to help out.

  20. paulie

    Of course, we should know who is coming and going

    I don’t particularly appreciate it when armed gangs detain me in my travels and question me as to who I am, where I am going, what business I have there, etc. Never have like that. Very unpleasant each and every time.

  21. paulie

    In the current situation, there is only one libertarian position. That position is generally referred to as “open borders.”

    People who call themselves “libertarians” and argue against the libertarian position (“open borders”) are either libertarians in massive error, or just not libertarians at all.

    I agree.

  22. paulie

    I thought the LP and Libertarians support open borders?

    We do. Unfortunately, there has been a long term failed experiment in “fusing” libertarianism with conservatism, an unnatural and highly unstable combination that is dangerous to libertarianism and ineffective at preventing conservatives from becoming authoritarians. This failed experiment should be ended as quickly and completely as possible. What’s even more disturbing is the linking of libertarianism with the racist far right through the oddly misnamed “paleolibertarianism,” which does nothing except tarnish libertarianism by association with outright fascists and full blown bigots.

    And I didn’t think Libertarians were apologists for Mr Trump?

    Real libertarians are not. But see above.

    Mr Trump’s use of the state to control travel seems contradictory in relation to what I know of Libertarian policies?

    It is.

  23. paulie

    Several of these countries had substantial Christian populations, many of whom are among the refugees, a point that President Trump’s Christian supporters will eventually work out.

    They already have. See Trump interview with CBN.

  24. dL

    This is a long debated issue in libertarian circles.

    No it’s not. I never even heard of a libertarian being for border control until Ron Paul came along. Milton Friedman famously had a nuanced position: legal immigration was incompatible w/ the welfare state but ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION was was a GOOD thing when you have a welfare state. Friedman certainly never supported border controls.

    Hans Herman Hoppe, someone who I had the displeasure of becoming familiar b/c of Paul’s 2008 run, stipulates the position that non-Europeans and non-European culture is incompatible w/ liberty. Really has nothing to do w/ the welfare state. It is simply about protecting white cultural, something that is (supposedly) existentially threatened by human travel, welfare state or not.

    The HoppeBots will usually start w/ the first half of the Friedman argument, though they will conveniently ignore his complete argument, However, when the chips are down, they will reach for the white robes. In the age of the Trumpist alt-right, they are starting to dispense with the pretenses altogether and go straight for the white robes as a fashion statement.

  25. Jim

    Paulie is exactly correct. This is a Muslim ban from 7 countries with more countries to be added later.

    The language from the EO several times refers to prioritizing religious minorities (anyone but Muslims) for admittance once the temporary ban is lifted. Example:

    “The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days… Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”

    “…the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.”

  26. Andy

    dL, all libertarians are for border control if they believe in private property, and if you do not believe in private property, they are not really libertarians.

    The debate comes down to how do you handle borders in the context of a government that controls much of the land, and which has a welfare state.

    I take a transitionalist stance, as in eliminate the welfare state and figure out the fairest way to privatize government held land and infrastructure, and as you are doing this, you can transition from government controlled borders to private property borders.

    This is the only rational approach to the issue, as declaring “open borders” without doing anything about the welfare state and the other issues I brought up is a sure way to commit suicide.

  27. Jim

    Andy “dL, all libertarians are for border control if they believe in private property….”

    We’re not socialists. Government doesn’t own any private property. It’s the government’s border that immigration restrictions are meant to defend.

    Immigration restrictions are an explicit denial of private property. You’re trying to tell me who I can and can’t invite onto my property.

  28. Andy

    If you ate living inside government borders, who you invite on to your land impacts everyone else. How? They can get on welfare, and if they become citizens they can register to vote and therefore gain political power. They also use government funded infrastructure (roads, etc..) even if they stay on your property.

    All of the government owned land and infrastructure is rightfully owned by the American tax payers. The government is supposed to act as a steward of these lands and infrastructure.

    Ideally the government held land and infrastructure should be privatized, but this is easier said than done.

  29. dL

    If you ate living inside government borders, who you invite on to your land impacts everyone else. How?

    well, that’s called socialism, HoppeBot.

  30. Mark

    “If you ate living inside government borders, who you invite on to your land impacts everyone else.”

    Likewise, who you invite into your womb impacts everyone else, because of all the reasons you state. So if the welfare state justifies immigration control, it also justifies the government controlling who can have children, when, and how many, for the exact same reasons.

    But wait, that’s not all you get. You also get restrictions on drug use, because you may end up on welfare or taking more than your share of government healthcare money if you use drugs. You get restrictions on food intake, again for the same reasons. You get restrictions on guns, cars, machinery … virtually anything at all, because an accident can leave you dependent on welfare and using the medical system beyond your ability to pay.

    Before you know it, you’ve allowed the unfortunate existence of the welfare state Stockholm you right into advocacy of a full blown police state arm in arm with a cradle to grave nanny state.

    You may as well be cutting off the head of Lady Liberty with a scimitar, as Herr Donald von der Drumpfenfuehrer is seen doing on the latest covers of Der Spiegel and the NY Daily News.

    “well, that’s called socialism, HoppeBot.”

    Let’s be fair to Hoppe, Andy, et al: they are not exactly advocating full socialism. Perhaps, fascism today and feudalism forever?

  31. Jim

    Andy “If you ate living inside government borders, who you invite on to your land impacts everyone else. How? They can get on welfare, and if they become citizens they can register to vote and therefore gain political power. They also use government funded infrastructure (roads, etc..) even if they stay on your property. ”

    There are no government roads on my property. But even if they used government roads, are all these illegals driving unregistered electric cars? How are they avoiding gas taxes and tolls? Illegals also pay sales taxes, property taxes, and an estimated 50% – 75% of them pay income taxes. Illegals pay about $11 billion a year in state and local taxes. They even pay about $13 billion a year into Social Security and only manage to collect about $1 billion from it.

    “They can get on welfare….”

    Illegals can pretty much only get welfare if they have US born children.

    “if they become citizens they can register to vote…”

    I have no objection to citizenship restrictions. I’m fine with what the founders set up when they had an open borders policy: stay in one place for a couple of years, don’t be a public burden and stay out of jail during that time, and then go see a local judge to sign you up.

  32. Andy

    It is not true that immigrants, legal or illegal, can only get welfare if they have children, but even if it was, a lot of them do have children.

    Let’s saying everyone in the USA did what you are suggesting, and invited one foreign person to move in with them. The population of the USA would go from about 325 million up to 650 million. That would be quite an increase in a short period of time. Going from 325 million people to 650 million people in a short time frame is hard to fathom. Could you imagine the present day USA with 650 million people? I thought traffic jams were bad now.

    So these foreign people you are iinviting to your land are not going to leave your land? They will never use any of the taxpayer financed roads, or the sewage system, or anything else that is paid for and provided via government? I seriously doubt this.

  33. Andy

    The current naturalization process required new citizens to swear an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign or domestic.” This is nice, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these people have no idea what this means, or they know and just do not care. Lying under oath is perjury, which ought to invalidate their citizenship.

    Somebody may bring up that lots of Americans swear this same oath, and either do not understand it, or they understand it but do not care. This is a problem, especially with people who work in government, but this is a separate issue which I have already addressed in other threads.

  34. dL

    Let’s be fair to Hoppe, Andy, et al: they are not exactly advocating full socialism. Perhaps, fascism today and feudalism forever?

    Give it time…To paraphrase “The Architect,” there are levels of private property they are prepared to accept to preserve the survival of the white race..

  35. Mark

    “there are levels of private property they are prepared to accept to preserve the survival of the white race..”

    Interesting. So you believe their ultimate goal is anarcho-racialist communal tribal socialism, with groupthink and inbreeding for all?

  36. dL

    Interesting. So you believe their ultimate goal is anarcho-racialist communal tribal socialism, with groupthink and inbreeding for all?

    No, it just means the only thing not on the table ==the white robes.

  37. Andy

    If there were a free society, people could live in any type of voluntary community that they desire, be it based on race, ethnicity, religion, life style choices, hobbies, etc… There could also be voluntary communities based on multiculturalism.

    Real liberty would have something for everybody (with the exception of those who do not want a free society).

  38. John

    “There could also be voluntary communities based on multiculturalism.”

    But until then, we need government to use massive amounts of force to discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion and nationality/ethnicity. Makes total sense.

  39. Andy

    OK, there are over 5.6 billion people in this world who are living in poverty.

    The population of the USA is about 325 million.

    How many people should come to the USA? How many should be able to come here and sign up for welfare?

    The welfare state is not going away anytime soon, so saying, “Get rid of the welfare state.” as if it is going yo magically disappear is not an acceptable answer.

    So the borders are completely open, but everything else remains the same.

    Say 10 million people come in over the next year. How about 20 million? More?

    How about 150 million over the next 10 years? So it is 2027 (assume the USA has not been in any major wars)? Say that the population of the USA has gone from 325 million to 510 million in just 10 years.

    Now I understand that improvements in technology can sustain more people, but even so, this would be a population shift and explosion like never before seen in history.

    Do you really believe that this would have a positive outcome? Remember, under this scenario there would be no other changes in the laws beyond completely opening the borders.

    So you’d have your “completely open borders” never mind any other policies or conditions.

    Follow up question: Would you also favor getting rid of health screenings? Say a boat full of people infected with the Ebola virus showed up in the docks of say New York City? Would there be a health screener there, or would they just waltz in with no questions asked? If there was a health screener, could he/she block the people with Ebola from entering the country?

  40. Andy

    I understand that government is not the best way to do these things, and that there could be free market health screeners, but for the sake of this discussion, say the only reform you all were able to get passed was completely opening the borders and removing any caps on the number of immigrants.

  41. Andy

    There is no cognitive dissonance. Some people are not good prospects for liberty, and that has been my experience with most Muslims. There are exceptions to every rule.

    Surveys indicate that 80% of Asians do not support gun rights. You could wave around Libertarian Lily Tang, but that does not change this. Could a lot of Asians be turned on this issue? Maybe, but good luck trying to reach enough of them to make a significant impact any time soon.

    Just imagine if completely open borders were declared right now, and say 5 million Chinese people jumped on ships or planes and started coming here (China had over 1.3 billion people, so 5 million is not that much for them). How are you going to ensure that this tsunami of immigrants from China all support the right to keep and bear arms? A lot of them may not even speak English. Many are going to go to big cities where they will be surrounded by lefty liberal types. China has no gun right culture. If they hear anything about guns, it is likely to be negative.

    So what are the odds that a high percentage of these 5 million Chinese immigrants will be gun rights supporters by the time they become American citizens and can vote? Not too good, in my opinion.

    Here is another thing to consider: the Libertarian Party sucks at doing outreach. Most Libertarians are too lazy to do it. The last 3 LP presidential tickets have been philosophically very weak by the standards of most in the party and movement, and even some of their supporters admit this.

    So which group is going to go out and educate all of these foreign people about liberty, when the Libertarian Party has a hard time reaching Americans who speak English.

    There are lots of immigrants here right now who do not have a clue about why government should be limited (or eliminated), the benefits of a free market, and the right to keep and bear arms.

    Open up the floodgates for more people to come in without changing anything else and watch this problem get a whole lot worse.

  42. John

    “There is no cognitive dissonance. ”

    I don’t believe you.

    But I would like to see you explain why your arguments for immigration control would not also serve as arguments for mass sterilization. Using the exact same logic, if you can call it that.

  43. dL

    There could also be voluntary communities based on multiculturalism.

    Cultural expropriation is core component of liberalism. Another way to put it would be “melting pot.” This doesn’t happen by force or law. It happens naturally through exchange and trade. When you exchange goods and services you also invariably end up exchanging culture, be at music, art, religion, culinary, fashion, etc.

    Unfortunately, there is the romantic philosophic tradition(much if it inheriting from Hegel) that doesn’t see it that way. Cultural expropriation is either a form of cultural domination(or genocide) or makes self identity impossible(self identity being possible only through a group identity). Critical theory and communitarianism(they are not the same things, but both can be sourced to Hegel) .

    Someone like Hoppe comes directly from the Frankfurt critical theory tradition. He is an adherent of it. His program is to merge Misean praxeology with critical theory. What does that mean? It means that Mises’ conception of human action can only rationally proceed from a shared cultural commitment. In other words, culture matters. It matters the most. This is the basis of his “race realistic libertarianism.” The program in practice uses libertarian property rights as a means to protect the shared cultural commitment. And this what I mean by something like “the only thing not on the table for the Hoppeans is the shared cultural commitment.”

    Another thing to consider is that “victim identity politics” has been a core attribute of modern conservatism from the very beginning. Victim identity politics is much more central to the right than to the left. For example, starting with Buckley’s 1951 “God and Man at Yale,” the first bible of modern conservatism. Christianity, traditional values are under constant attack from the system be it the media, the universities, culture, TV, movies, Hollywood. These themes have dominated the right-wing alt press, talk radio for decades. Then in the 90s, the right-wing press became a dominant part of the mainstream press. But the victimhood only intensified. Is there anything more absurd than some tool on Fox News externalizing victimhood at the hands of “mainstream media.” News Corp is the the world’s largest media organization. Fox News is the mainstream media.

    For the longest time, when the right-wing press was the alt-press, much of the victimhood religiously centered around the evil conspiracy of “secular humanism.” When the right-wing alt-press became more mainstream, the evil conspiracy shifted more to the values threat of immigration. 9-11 only threw gasoline on that. Kind of amazing how Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Matt Drudge have shaped the conservative gutter.

  44. Jim

    Andy –

    Your argument about open borders not working because, in your scenario, we would only open the borders and not change the welfare state makes about as much sense as saying we can’t get rid of the income tax because then we couldn’t pay for the military. Ideally we would get rid of the income tax, but we can’t do it until after we get rid of the military, or otherwise we couldn’t pay for it.

  45. Andy

    Jim, I have already debunked that argument. What you are suggesting is like saying let’s repeal all funding for the military BEFORE you figured out what to do with all of the military forces that are stationed in other countries. The only sane thing to do would be to bring them home, and to ship the military equipment home as well, and this would cost money.

    What you are saying would be like advocating cutting off taxpayer funding to prison and releasing all prisoners, BEFORE you figured out what to do with all of the dangerous criminals that are currently locked up (murders, rapist, child molesters, etc…).

    Yes, the order you do things does make a difference. Opening up the borders without addressing the welfare state and the other problems I brought up is a TERRIBLE idea. It would lead to massive increases in government with the flood of people who would rush in to take advantage of all of the welfare programs.

  46. Andy

    Hey, let’s end Social Security without addressing the problem of how to pay all of the people who are currently dependent on Social Security. This would be a good idea….NOT!

  47. Jim

    The overseas military personnel can sell the equipment to pay for their travel home. Prisons can be sold. And SS/M IS going to collapse without a plan to pay for the people on it when it does. There are no politically acceptable solutions to that problem that are actually large enough to fix the problem.

    And if there are suddenly an extra 10 or 20 million people demanding welfare and the system collapses… I have no problem with that.

    I am completely in favor of a step by step withdrawal of state intervention – when it is possible. The drug war, for example. You can look at the demographic trends and know for a virtual certainty that marijuana will be legal nationwide inside of 20 years and all other drugs will experience some form of decriminalization to the point that there will be no jail time.

    But there is zero chance of eliminating the military, SS, or welfare without a catastrophic event. The best we can hope for is a few tweaks here and there. And you know it, which is why you feel safe saying hold off on open borders until after welfare is eliminated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *