Free Immigration Is a Core American Value
Just consider the policies that the Founding Fathers embraced.
It's become fashionable among the national conservative right to oppose immigration, both legal and illegal. Various primers and mission statements for the movement call for the United States to "drastically reduce legal immigration from its current levels" via a "temporary full immigration moratorium," citing contemporary immigration as "a source of weakness and instability."
National conservatives invoke heritage and tradition when they speak of what they want to conserve. But what they often fail to mention—or, at the very least, fail to accurately represent—is how intertwined immigration is in American heritage and traditions. For all their invocations of the Founding Fathers, they offer an incomplete view of what the Founders actually said about immigration.
One of the grievances behind the Declaration of Independence itself centered on immigration. King George III, the Declaration charged, had "endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither." Volokh Conspiracy contributor Ilya Somin has noted this complaint "was aimed at a series of royal orders" that, among other things, "forbade the colonies from naturalizing aliens" and passing laws to promote migration. The regulations directly contributed to "the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States," the Declaration explained.
No wonder—in the colonial days, immigration was both a boon to the young America and a headache for the distant Britain. In 1700, the British Parliament "limited the colonies' ability to grant naturalization and other group rights because it believed that colonial naturalization policies weakened English citizens' trading positions," according to a 2021 Cato Institute paper. After a period of liberalization, Britain cracked down on certain colonial settlement and naturalization authorities. By the beginning of the Revolutionary War, about 2.2 million people were living in the colonies—"much of that growth fueled by the 346,000 European immigrants and their descendants," the Cato paper noted.
The Founding Fathers turned to questions of citizenship and naturalization soon after the Revolution was won. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates worried that overly harsh barriers to citizenship could prevent deserving immigrants from coming to the nation. Gouverneur Morris had proposed an amendment that would require someone to have been a citizen for 14 years before being able to serve as a senator.
It sparked a vigorous debate: James Madison said he "could never agree" to the amendment since it would "give a tincture of illiberality to the Constitution" and "discourage the most desirable class of people from emigrating to the U.S." James Wilson, himself a nonnative, lamented that he might be "incapacitated from holding a place under the very Constitution which he had shared in the trust of making." The delegates eventually adopted a nine-year minimum as their standard.
When Congress addressed naturalization in 1790, it established what the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh has called "the most open naturalization law in the world at the time." The Naturalization Act of 1790 was imperfect by today's standards—it did not offer citizenship to Native Americans, indentured servants, or free black people—but it provided a straightforward and relatively open pathway to citizenship to many. Free white people of "good character" could naturalize after living in the country for just two years.
Beyond those political machinations, the Founding Fathers spilled much ink detailing their hope that America would become a safe haven. In correspondence with a Dutch minister and emigrant, George Washington wrote that he'd "always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong." In a 1783 letter concerning Irish arrivals, Washington stressed that America was "open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions." He once again praised America's promise "to afford a capacious asylum for the poor & persecuted" in a 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson at times wrote skeptically about immigrants, particularly their ability to assimilate. In 1785, he worried about the "heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass" of a population that might result from "as great importations of foreigners as possible." In 1801, in his first State of the Union address as president, Jefferson took on a different tone. Congress had raised the minimum residency requirement for citizenship to 14 years, prompting the president to request that the body revise its naturalization laws.
"Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?" Jefferson asked. The Constitution provided that "residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design," he explained. "But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?"
Of course, the Founders were no monolith on immigration. Jefferson would continue to have reservations about assimilation. Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1751 that he would prefer immigrants to be "the lovely white" and not "all blacks and tawneys." He worried that Pennsylvania would "become a Colony of Aliens"; if it were to welcome Germans, he reasoned that they could "shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of us Anglifying them." As with issues of slavery and suffrage, prejudices of the time often permeated the Founders' views. They could fail to live up to their promises of equality for all, showing a clear preference for some immigrant groups over others. Black immigrants couldn't receive citizenship until 1870, and other racist restrictions on naturalization would last far longer.
Still, the policies the Founders embraced are telling: They laid the groundwork for a nation that would have essentially open borders for much of its history. Those policies extended America's promise not just to those with the fortune to be born on its soil, but those who sought refuge on its shores.
As Abraham Lincoln put it, immigrants and their descendants are bound to the nation, if not through blood. "When they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men," he said in 1858. "They have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood…of the men who wrote that Declaration."
"That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I agree that it’s very libertarian to look to the founding fathers for guidance on the shape, scope and role of the government. Perhaps the Libertarian Flagship might do this on a wide-ranging group of topics such as the cradle-to-grave Welfare state we’ve currently deployed, the broad taxation of natural citizens, the right to bear arms, section 230, hemp and food trucks.
There’s better be sex workers operating out of those food trucks, there’s just better be!!!
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $100 however I see the way it works now. I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website.. http://www.Payathome7.com
I’ve thought about opening a food truck and sticking it out at the local Air Force base. If I do, the plan is to hire a hot blonde with big tits to run it. So there you go.
The author makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigration, instead alluding that illegal immigration is contemporary. The constitution certainly doesn’t support that fallacy.
The nation is currently broken and divided at its core, its cultural values. Immigrants particularly illegal ones bring the cultural elements that they don’t realize led to the oppression they’re fleeing. Making the situation worse. Do they care?
How can we expect immigrants to share the values guaranteed as inalienable rights when the fact that we don’t value them ourselves is evident in our divided nation?
At the core of all values is truth, aka reality. We all rationally share truth in peace. All behaviour not meeting that standard is corrupt.
Criminalizing lying will bring the nation together against the enemy, irrational coercion.
I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it.
HERE☛ https://salarybez4.blogspot.com
The true American point of view is to bull-whip the scum all the way back across the border.
Founding Fathers didn’t govern a Socialist Welfare State . Those who immigrated worked or starved . Later immigrants were screened for their ability to contribute .
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Do I need to upgrade my Reason subscription? I’m not receiving all these great articles by Mike.
Still, the policies the Founders embraced are telling: They laid the groundwork for a nation that would have essentially open borders for much of its history. Those policies extended America’s promise not just to those with the fortune to be born on its soil, but those who sought refuge on its shores.
They laid the groundwork for a lot of things that aren’t happening, babydoll…
Ever notice the only time we ever hear about the Founders and the Constitution any more is when the latter is getting used to beat up the descendants of the former?
No. Because that’s grievance, not a real thing.
“They laid the groundwork for a lot of things that aren’t happening, babydoll…”
So if their aims haven’t been 100% successful, we should reject them all? Legal immigration has been a huge boon to America throughout our history.
There’s no reason to reject those who are fleeing persecutions, limit it to those who have means and education, or deny those who aren’t already from a country that’s culturally and religiously like us.
Most of the people making asylum c,aims aren’t fleeing persecution. They just want to make more money.
The only time we had free immigration was with europe. America has NEVER had open immigration with anyone else; certainly not africa, east asia, or the middle east. We fought a war with Mexico over land.
In today’s episode of reason’s saga: “How can we tie in open borders with literally anything at all?”
Yeah, totally crazy to write an article about what the Founding Fathers had to say on a libertarian issue.
They were slave holders.
And? What’s your point?
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…
AND GOOD LUCK HERE……………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Manifest Destiny laughs in your fucking face.
As do most people with integrity and a 3 digit IQ
End the welfare state. Open the borders. In that order.
Better repeal the 19th, or the welfare state will be back.
Non dependency on federal welfare was also a key aspect. Oddly not talked about here.
When you can make an argument on the face of the billions spent on illegal immigrants, maybe we can have a discussion.
But this entire narrative of zero cost illegal immigration is idiotic.
Immigrants are by and large ineligible for a slew of federal benefits.
Studies also back up that they contribute far more than they take.
But go on with your bigoted narrative Jesse. Wouldn’t want to pop that balloon of bullshit you believe in.
I smell bullshit
So did the National Academies.
raspberrydinners hey fuckturd eat shit and die.
https://news.yahoo.com/hospitals-stuck-illegal-immigrant-uninsured-permanent-patients-massive-223110870.html
Since you obviously suffer from a brain damaged memory you may want to Google about the illegal alien who was under 16 and caught by the INS who then used tax dollars to pay for her abortion.
Look at this one case of an illegal immgrant! And she got an abortion! Paid for by the state! Every other illegal immigrant is exactly like her!
Hopefully I’ve ouraged you enough that you miss the fact that my example is completely unconnected to the issue of legal immigration.
This is a false talking point that has been refuted so many times only retards repeat it. Illegal immigrants now qualify for free Healthcare and legal care in many states. They qualify for housing assistance and food stamps of they have a child born here.
This tired false narrative is boring.
Shitlunches might be the dumbest fifty center they send. Unless you count buttplug.
The illegal immigrants get more benefits from the taxpayers than do Social Security retirement beneficiaries.
His Miss Fiona given up her job, home, and banking account funds to any illegal immigrants yet? Why not? Has her town’s hospitals been overrun with illegal immigrants who are not required to pay the costs? Is Fentanyl destroying the young ones in her gated community. Have illegal gang members raped, robbed, or murdered any of her relatives? No. That’s just for those border states to contend with. FH will safely stay in her well-secured home and do her virtue-signaling by writing articles telling those border towns to suck it up and do more!
Washington State is now moving to have Medicaid cover illegals.
You understand there’s a difference between legal immigration (the subject at hand) and illegal immigration (what you just talked about), right?
It is possible to be in favor of legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration.
Immigration is what peopled this country [in addition to slavery…, never mind the depopulation of the native inhabitants] in the beginning and up to the 20th Century. We do not need masses, Fiona, we need people who will do the work that is needed to be done, and who are qualified to fill necessary positions. immigrants should be screened and processed, not just let in. Not come one and all because it sucks in the shithole you would be leaving. I can think of no better way than to screw your country than to have open and unlimited immigration.
“we need people who will do the work that is needed to be done”
We create enough white collar workers with citizens to fill the positions available, so the “work that is needed to be done” isn’t highly educated, technocratic jobs. It’s low-skill, manual labor like harvesting produce.
Granted, companies want to bring in high-skill workers who will work for mid-skill salaries, but we don’t need those workers.
Agriculture, on the other hand, employs huge numbers of illegal immigrants for a reason. No one will take those jobs and we don’t have a sensible seasonal worker program to fill the labor needs legally.
“who are qualified to fill necessary positions”
The positions that don’t already get filled legally don’t have a lot of qualifications. “Can you pick lettuce for 12 hours a day?” is pretty easy to qualify for. Any healthy immigrant can do it.
“immigrants should be screened and processed, not just let in”
Screened for what? Moral character? The right beliefs? An acceptable level of melan … I mean cultural similarity to America? Would people fleeing persecution pass the screening? Is there a minimum bank account necessary? Do tired people qualify? Poor people? Huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
Should we be a beacon of liberty and freedom*? Or an actual beacon of liberty and freedom.
*Credit check necessary for liberty and freedom
“It’s low-skill, manual labor like harvesting produce.”
Public schools have entered the chat.
I can think of no better way than to screw your country than to have open and unlimited immigration.
Both/all countries. The native country needs people to stand and fight for freedom (take your pick of the boxes of liberty), win, and pass the values and ability to overcome such adversity to their children. Admittedly, I can’t really fault anyone for not sacrificing their children to the gangs of their homeland or whatever, but no country really needs people to just run away in the face of adversity.
Just look at how America, and our government, has developed since the 60s.
Going great…
the first sentence of this article is a lie so I quit reading. Conservatives are all in favor of legal immigration. Reason really is a shit site these days.
Pity. The rest of the article is quite moving.
Are you open to broadening what is legal?
I like to tell the lying xenophobes “Hey look, illegal sub-human immigrunts BAD, legal immigrunts GOOD? Then GIVE the illegals their “philosopher’s stones” in the form of “magic papers”, and transform bad into good!”
Win-win magical fix here, folks!
Yes. Are you open to the idea that governments necessitate borders which means there has to be some kind of immigration system which will stop people from trying to sneak in?
I assume you didn’t bother following the link in the first sentence, which backs up the claim made.
So if I link a Bernie comment regarding immigration you’ll shut the fuck up? I can find random comments from either side.
Just read the citation. It calls for a temporary pause until immigration is reformed. Lol. Wasnt even anti immigration. It is pro reform.
Ah yes a temporary pause, because the government does “temporary” so well.
What a retarded non sequitur.
So temporarily halt all immigration until it is “reformed”?
I’m 100% certain that the standard for “reform” will be completely reasonable, attainable, based on the needs of the country, and not political at all.
I’m also 100% certain that all politicians are pure of heart and motivation, only doing the work they do for the betterment of the country.
100% certain may be misleading. Let’s say I’m equally confident in the truthfullness of those statements.
“The cited statement doesn’t say what the author says it does, so obviously the person making said statement is lying.”
Is this a tactic they teach you at the fifty cent factory or did you come up with this all by yourself?
Conservatives support legal immigration the same way progressives support legal guns.
You mean we can have illegal immigrants as long as they’re safely locked up?
No, they need serial numbers.
American-style with one serial number on just the torso/lower or pretty-much-everywhere-else-outside-our-borders with serial numbers on pretty much any part that can be wholly removed or swapped out? Serializing livers is going to get interesting.
“You mean we can have illegal immigrants as long as they’re safely locked up?”
I see what you did there. And it made me laugh out loud. Inappropriate, but clever. Well done, sir!
Leftists aren’t people; they’re literally cancer.
This is a *libertarian* publication, not a conservative one. We libertarians don’t believe in arbitrary government rules limiting the free movement of individuals. There should be no such thing as “legal” immigration. Come on in if you want.
Fuck off you leftist cunt, a libertarian site would at least address the trillions stolen annually for the all encompassing government and the welfare state within it.
“…We…”
Is that a turd in your pocket?
“There should be no such thing as “legal” immigration. Come on in if you want.”
That’s one of the dumbest applications of the “pure ideals only” nonsense that people try to use to marginalize anyone who believes the real world is almost entirely shades of grey.
Nations need defined borders and standards of citizenship. The idea of abolishing borders and allowing unfettered, unregulated immigration is, being as kind as possible, completely unworkable and completely insane.
You’re not a libertarian.
You sound like Groomer Jeffy.
“Conservatives are all in favor of legal immigration.”
You may want to read some of the posts from the paleocons here before you make such a bold statement. And read some quotes from Steven Miller. And maybe check out the legal immigration policies and proposals of the Trump administration. Then get back to us.
Reason’s previous chief open borders fanatic, Shikha Dalmia, was so bad at her job that she didn’t even attempt to disguise the fact that Koch-funded libertarians demand open borders because their sugar daddy wants cheap labor: A country that committed the original sin of slavery to forcibly bring foreign labor to America should not be going to such draconian lengths to throw voluntary foreign labor out of America.
Fiona may be tedious and repetitive (go ahead, look up how many times she’s submitted essentially the same column about Ukraine) but she’s not quite as inept as her predecessor. She has the self-awareness to dress up her sugar daddy’s #CheapLaborAboveAll agenda as some lofty principle by appealing to patriotism.
You know what else is a “core American value” while we’re on the subject? Representative government. The idea that voters should have some degree of influence over policy.
One of my main themes is that Democrats can get away with quite a bit (like running an obviously unfit stroke victim for US Senate) because the media is mostly on their side. But they can’t get away with absolutely anything. I bet whoever Democrats run for President in 2024, that candidate won’t admit to supporting open borders.
Why not? Because even with the media spinning for them, running on an open borders platform would be political malpractice. Most voters don’t like the idea.
But Koch-funded libertarianism doesn’t care about “most voters.” It cares about enacting any policy, no matter how unpopular, that will inflate the inherited fortune of its silver spoon billionaire sugar daddy.
Fiona may be tedious and repetitive (go ahead, look up how many times she’s submitted essentially the same column about Ukraine) but she’s not quite as inept as her predecessor.
This really seems like just a matter of time on both counts.
Bash that strawman, Fiona. Oh, and FYI—this isn’t 1789.
“It’s become fashionable among the national conservative right to oppose immigration, both legal and illegal.”
Did I miss specific citations?
Because that is not at all what the republican platform says.
Yes, there is a link right on the word “fashionable” in the sentence you quoted.
There is a provided link that references one person’s thought on an immigration moratorium while reform occurs. Apparently, this one person’s position is somehow applicable to all conservatives on a national scale and also morphs into total opposition to immigration even though that one person’s position isn’t to oppose immigration.
Read the paleocon posts here. There is a huge hostility to immigration (see: Replacement Theory and Tucker Carlson) in the conservative coalition (especially the hard right). It’s not even particularly hidden.
The conservative consensus seems to be that people with the right education, from the right places, with the right religion, and who hold similar cultural beliefs as conservatives are good. Everyone else is questionable.
Yet that’s just not true. You all on the left have to be the world’s best villain creators on the planet. You impart completely contrived narratives to generate a bad guy that you can righteously slay. It’s just getting so tired anymore.
Well, there’s also the conflation of legal and illegal immigration (examples are all over these comments), quotes and policies supported by people like Steven Miller, and the policies and proposals of the Trump Administration attempting to severely limit legal immigration.
Hard right conservatives in particular are hostile to legal immigration, but many more moderate Rs are on board as well.
If those cultural beliefs are individualism, liberty, and limited government, I don’t see the downside to expecting immigrants (of any variety) to adhere to them.
Might be useful to track the amount of immigration and growth of government.
“(see: Replacement Theory and Tucker Carlson)”
Yeah, Tucker needs to stop reporting on what progressives have admitted to trying to do.
So many strawmen, so little time.
The Libertarian’s Lament: “They told me I’d be able to shoot my six-guns while snorting blow off a hooker’s tits, but all I got was refugees pissing on my lawn.”
Suckers!
“….shoot my six-guns while snorting blow off a hooker’s tits”
You’ve given me an excellent idea for future competitions. Compared to that 3 gun [competitively shooting an AR, shotgun, and SA pistol] is so dull and boring.
“You’ve given me an excellent idea for future competitions.”
but what will the range officer say.
SA pistol is so dull and boring.
Found your problem. Tell me you use a shitty Glock without telling me you use a shitty Glock. 🙂
Hey, that’s not cool. Don’t gun-shame. Glock people are people, too.
Lol.
Sorry Glock guys but pistol whipping someone with a hunk of plastic just does not get your message across.
Lefty shit’s comment
STRAWMAN!
Fuck off and dies, asshole.
Really? National conservatives hide their bigotry saying they just want to “fix” the immigration problems? No, say it ain’t so…
Funny how the ire is usually directed at darker skinned immigrants. Imagine that.
Funny how you specifically want to change the ethnic and cultural demographic to achieve your political goals and have the chutzpah to use the old dead white founding fathers you hate to do so.
“change the ethnic and cultural demographic to achieve your political goals”
Because brown-skinned people have something in their genes that makes them vote Democrat?
No, but minorities tend to vote Democratic. That’s the reason Dems support open borders and Repubs don’t. If illegal immigrants voted Repub, then you would see Dems against open borders and Repubs for open borders.
It’s kind of the other way around. Minorities vote Democrat because the Republicans (or a vocal portion of them) sound like they are anti-immigration. The main group of immigrants that conservatives seem to worry about are from Mexico, and lean heavily Christian (Catholic), pro-family, and pro-life, and many of them are willing to work very hard, if only to send money back home.)
Many other groups of immigrants from Asia (Japan/Korea/Taiwan/India) are similarly pro-family and pro-traditional values, and many of them are small business owners who aren’t overly enthused about high taxes. A lot of immigrants could conceivably vote Republican, if made to feel welcome.
This. I’ve never been into collectivist strategizing, but I feel like Republicans could really clean up with the Hispanic vote (which, as you state, is a natural fit for a lot of them). Hell, they could possibly even become competitive in places like California.
That’s why democrats have ballot fortification programs. To prevent that kind of thing.
Many of us in actual border states see the costs associated with unchecked immigration. 30% increase costs for ESL education. Destroyed hospitals and social charities. Trash and destruction of public properties.
When a handful wind up in dem cities they cry like little bitches regarding cost. Which side is being honest here?
Libertarianism doesn’t mean mindlessly ignoring costs to taxpayers.
Republicans (or a vocal portion of them) sound like they are anti-immigration
You mean the way they sound like Putin assets? The way they selectively sound like vaccine and mask deniers when it’s convenient for the narrative that they sound like vaccine and mask deniers? The way they sound like they’re obsessed with Hunter Biden’s laptop because of the dick picks?
No. Conservatives, including the same immigrants you named, recognize that you can have free handouts, and you can accept all comers, but you can’t have progressively more and more free handouts to all comers. Just because you continue to perpetuate the the false narrative that rooftop-Koreans are racist, anti-immigrant Conservatives doesn’t make it true.
Rooftop Koreans are some of my favorite Americans.
Amen.
‘Rooftop Koreans’ could be a great name for a K Pop band.
I completely agree. That’s one of the biggest ironies on the right. Most immigrants are conservative and would vote Repub if they simply welcomed them in.
LOL
Sure, buddy.
Has nothing to do with mass propaganda or socialist (aka nanny state) beliefs. Definitely nothing to do with handouts or NGOs…
The DNC wishes.
So a bunch of rich old white slave owners were keen to import more rich old white men to… like buy their slaves or something? Did I get that right? I’m pro immigration and we’ve seen a lot of it lately. I’m also pro assimilation and pro rule of law. That’s the part that seems to be missing here.
Worked out great for the American Indians.
By free do you mean no cost? By free do you mean free to disobey our countries immigration laws?
If one is free to disobey immigration laws what other laws are they free to disobey?
If a sizable population keeps breaking a particular law over and over again, is it ever worth considering changing the law to accommodate the people?
Depends on the change and the outcome. Just because lots of people choose to break laws doesn’t negate the need for those laws.
Does the law prohibit imposing on others by force or by fraud? Does it prohibit violating others’ rights? If so, then, no, it is never appropriate to tolerate that behavior. If not, then that law should probably be repealed, even if only a very small number of people are violating it.
What a retarded question.
If millions keep committing robbery, just make robbery legal!
Mike is retarded.
Democrats are now doing just that in many cities they control.
Sorry – no free immigration of citizens from other countries unless I also have the right to freely emigrate to THEIR country.
I checked the Googles, and it looks like it’s pretty easy to emigrate to Mexico. I assume it’s probably the same for most Central American countries as well.
Guess I’m in the minority, but I’d love it if the company I work for had a larger labor pool to hire from. I’ve worked with a few Mexicans throughout the years; those hombres get after it.
There’s ways to accommodate that without the disastrous chaos on the border we have now.
Word. Open it up for more work visas.
Doubt anything changes though. Wedge issues are vote getters.
What kinda shit are you trying to pull. From official Mexican source.
“To qualify for the temporary visa, you must show a monthly income of 300 times the minimum daily wage in Mexico (which was 80.04 pesos a day using 2017 figures). To qualify for the permanent visa you must show a monthly income of 500 times the minimum wage. In both cases, your income must be documented with six months of bank statements.”
I would be overjoyed if this condition was imposed on all the both legal and illegal aliens trying to enter the US.
Or, in dollars:
“You may obtain a temporary resident visa in Mexico, if you prove that during the last year you had an overall bank balance of over US$27,000 or during the last 6 months you had a monthly income of over US$1,620.”
Seems pretty easy to me. Pero yo soy un gringo rico.
Americans cannot buy property in Mexico. You can buy a 99 year lease.
Seems pretty easy to me. Pero yo soy un gringo rico
I bet it’s real difficult for those people fleeing dire poverty in Venezuela and all the other South American countries they’re passing through Mexico from.
Oh most definitely, but I’d take some suramericanos out in our shop or on our construction crews as well.
I don’t know if they work as hard as Mexicans, but I’m sure most of them have a better work ethic than the average American. (And yes, I’m all for cutting state “benefits”, which would help with that problem)
I’m sure most of them have a better work ethic than the average American.
More and more often anymore, I find this phrase says more about the speaker than the actual facts on the ground. I mean, Cesar Chavez died in 1993. Mexicans and S. Americans have been every bit as much and progressively more a part of union labor, worker’s rights, and minimum wage efforts for the last 50 yrs. as Americans. At some point it should be obvious to you that you’re just another Progressive, Anti-American crypto-racist.
That’s not to say Mexicans or S. Americans aren’t hard working but it, as I said, speaks more to your racist ideologies. Are you saying you wouldn’t hire an East Asian to roof your house or work your crew because you don’t see a lot of them mowing lawns? You wouldn’t hire an East Indian carpenter because you don’t see a lot of East Indians tossing limbs into wood chippers? You wouldn’t hire a Ukrainian mason because you don’t see a lot of them (re)tarring driveways? I see plenty of all white or nearly all white labor crews. Usually, they’re just not the ones working for pseudo-progressive morons like you who needs a warm body with no experience on payroll and will hire their friends cheap if they have any.
I mean, it should be clear that I’m no fan of Unions or credentialism, but you realize you’re effectively advertising the quality of your work as on par with “Able to be completed by illiterate laborers with zero documented experience.”, right? Even if you only hire fully naturalized and duly trained/certified immigrants, that slurs your whole stupid, “Americans expect too much for the skills they (don’t) have.” narrative. You aren’t paying for just any immigrants who cross the border, you’re paying for the ones who get their union cards and/or operator’s licenses and demand more pay, just like their white co-workers.
Ha, you really kicked it up to 11 there.
I’m not in HR or personnel management, but yeah I’d hire any of those people as long as they had the soft skills to not completely blow the interview. We’re pretty desperate for new hires. Not a union shop, though. So don’t have to worry about that.
You do realize why people normalize statistics right? If you did you would understand your error.
Slight disagreement, this only contributes to Reason’s stupidity about “Borders are just imaginary lines.” Sorry, self-retarding dumbfucks but everywhere from the curb in front of your building to the sidelines at the Superbowl people draw “Imaginary” lines. The point isn’t the lines, the point is the limits of protections and liberties. Most kids who aren’t retarded learn this on the playground by the time they’re 6.
The only way the lines *don’t* matter is if there’s a full or nearly full reciprocity of most/all rights across the border. As long as I can buy a gun in TX and not in Mexico and California’s emissions standards apply outside CA, anyone proclaiming the “Borders are a figment of imagination.” bullshit is just them announcing their need to go fuck themselves.
There have been many, many groups of people throughout history who were happy to move people across borders without any regard for the rights of people moving across one way or the other. The most well-known and… successful were in no way libertarian.
Fucking Fiona. Like a demented bot, she churns out the same asinine open-borders pitch for every premise. Any chance she is a Koch family spawn, working at her first “real job”?
You can have a nation of shared ideals or “multiculturalism” and tribal rights which is where we are going. The start of this insanity was allowing millions of socialist and secularists into the country 120 years ago. What is America today? BLM? LBTGXUYZ?
“allowing millions of socialist and secularists into the country 120 years ago”
If the Immigration Act of 1924 and other restrictions that stemmed that flood had not been put in place, the result would have been catastrophic.
You really think the socialists and secularists moved here? Plenty are homegrown, and polished up at finishing schools (i.e. universities).
You should read some history about early 20th century America
At least Reason continues to make the case against the national conservative menace. Even if it’s like the neighbor’s mean kid down the street, while they have little to say against the gang of hoodlums running the neighborhood.
That gang of hoodlums might be running for office in 2032, so that’s what we’re going to spend all our energy talking about. What’s passed is past.
https://reason.com/tag/biden-administration/
Little to say:
https://reason.com/tag/biden-administration/
One of my ancestors had to take a loyalty oath early in the Civil War in order to get his steamboat pilot license renewed. From a drunken German who was a recent immigrant and not yet a citizen.
It’s a significant reason he joined the Confederacy instead.
So when’s the movie coming out?
(They might have to switch the sides so make him a Union pilot, and maybe a few other changes like sex scense, but otherwise it would be historically authentic.)
Did s/he have to swear that a minor illness was GONNA KILL US ALL, like you did, asshole?
Inquiring minds want to know.
https://twitter.com/gelderbailey/status/1625204723916673053
Seems like a relevant, progressive question:
Bullshit…. What country can exist with everyone different colors…. nothing in common…. Salvadoran barbeque anyone? This country is going to die….. thank the gutless white politicians for not saving our civilization.
Skin color is the most important thing
“Salvadoran barbeque anyone?”
Go on…
Upon further review, outside of carne asada, I’m not seeing anything about bbq in Salvadoran cooking.
Why did you tease me like that jbrennan the 2nd?
Just consider the policies that the Founding Fathers embraced.
Somehow, I don’t think Fiona’s ill-considered “Repeal the 14A.” stance is going to go over as well in Progressive circles, or as poor in Conservative circles as she thinks it is.
I mean, I’m not opposed to common law, blood-lineage citizenship and giving the Natives the right to opt out of taxation *and* representation and eliminating the 14A, I just don’t think Fiona is bright enough to have the slightest clue what she’s saying.
Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, And Cruel Immigration Policies And Practices, convened at a website popular among intolerant, antisocial, disaffected wingnuts and faux libertarians.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, and only until replacement.
Fuck off and die, asshole bigot.
Replacement? Who are you, Tucker Carlson?
He will be replaced. He’s not very useful, and obviously broken.
The USA has MORE immigrants than any other nation in the world.
Yet; Invasion pushers just can’t find any comfort in that.
Sure, immigration was great for Europeans. But today, the more relevant question to ask is, was it also a “boon” to the natives that were already here? I’m guessing not! Well, we are the natives now.
It was much easier to have an open immigration policy in 1790 – when the Americas had abundant wide open land for the taking, and the world population overall was still less than a billion people. But times have changed. Now it’s 8 billion, and the US alone has 320 million people, and not even enough fresh water for everyone.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1627868907473186816?t=pX6WgXOqTNVMQRelCMWTYA&s=19
National divorce won’t happen but we should still talk about it
The conversation reveals difficult truths about the American political dynamic that most are unwilling to face
I’ll probably do an episode on this soon
[Pic]
the founding plutocrats were evil and the Constitution was illegally installed and should be declared null and void… if anyone here can read a book from end to end, which I doubt, you should read Dr Woody holton’s book entitled unruly Americans
“if anyone here can read a book from end to end, which I doubt,”
This is the first time I’ve ever seen a book recommended here, because none of us read books!
That Constitution is what is suppose to ensure Human Liberty and Justice for all. How about YOU are evil and illegally installed and should be void in US politics? If you hate the USA (defined by the US Constitution) so much maybe it’s time to EXIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1627792427296620546?t=ylX0dlULnTztIflftzWmJg&s=19
This is a sentiment shared by all English people at heart. We know we’re being taken advantage of by foreigners but the government won’t do anything about it except raise our taxes.
[Video]