Libertarian magazine run by Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie; former employer of Dave Weigel. Theirs is the Frat Boy, very Beltway-friendly variety of libertarianism. They or their affiliated Foundation have received money from the Koch family, and they're a key part of the "Kochtopus".
I've repeatedly challenged their contributors over several years to defend their very strong support for illegal/massive immigration and in some cases literal open borders, and they've repeatedly refused. Instead, almost all of the hundreds of comments I left there were simply met with vile ad hominems, and I may take legal action against at least one commenter at that site. Neither their contributors nor those who comment there are capable of making a valid, logical argument for what they support; in fact, I appended the following to many of my comments there:
P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians. Dozens of comments here have shown that the phrase "fascist libertarian" isn't an oxymoron.
In almost all cases, that was followed by exactly what I predicted and nothing more.
Other staff members include:
* Shikha Dalmia
* Ed Krayewski
* Mike Riggs
* Adrian Moore (see this)
* Dave Kopel
* Alex Tabarrok
* Steven Greenhut
* Tim Cavanaugh
* Kerry Howley
* Steve Chapman
* David Harsanyi
* Cathy Young
* Michael Young
* Gene Callahan
* Jonathan Rauch
* Jeremy Lott
* Wendy Kaminer
* Greg Beato
* Sara Rimensnyder
* Virginia Postrel
Ed Morrissey of HotAir will grasp at any straw to support amnesty, and the latest is "Reason-Rupe poll shows majority approves path to citizenship, oppose targeted drone killings of Americans"  referring to a poll by Reason Magazine .
That poll obtains its result by misleading; here's the question that was asked with the results:
In this post, I'll show why Ed Krayewski - an associate editor at Reason Magazine's "Reason 24/7" - isn't credible and isn't patriotic. The last is a serious charge, but keep reading because I'll make it stick.
Krayewski offers "5 Reasons to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants/It's time to get serious and implement the only immigration reform that will work" .
One of his reasons is this:
Kim Severson of NYT, John Ross of Reason, Matt Yglesias scaremonger Georgia professional licensing to enable illegal immigration - 10/09/12
For decades, the media has printed "crops rotting in the fields" articles which scaremonger non-existent food shortages in order to help growers get as much cheap, illegal labor as they want.
Reason Magazine offers the misleading video "Tilting at Wind Turbines: Should the Government Subsidize Renewable Energy?" attached below:
1. One of those chosen to represent the Voice of the People is an attractive blonde who says "I don't know much about green jobs, but I'm for it." This is a cheap technique designed to prejudice viewers against such jobs.
Billionaire David Koch (see Koch family) joined with George Soros, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation to each give the American Civil Liberties Union $10 million to fight the PATRIOT Act . Reasonable people can disagree on the PATRIOT Act, but fighting it or trying to reform it was probably the correct thing to do.
Whatever the merits of opposing the PATRIOT Act, giving money to the ACLU is never the correct thing to do.
The ACLU is a far-left group that strongly supports and enables illegal immigration and that's even collaborating with the Mexican government in furtherance of illegal activity. Giving the ACLU money to fight the PATRIOT Act frees up resources for other areas, such as litigation designed to enable illegal immigration. Reasonable people can disagree with various other issues the ACLU involves themselves in, but there really should be no debate about them joining with a foreign government in order to enable illegal activity inside the U.S.
And, it's not like David Koch didn't have other options: there are groups like the ACLU on his side of the fence. Instead, he gave money to a far-left group that's collaborating with the Mexican government, joining with Soros, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefellers. Someone has to fill the gap left by David Gelbaum, right?
That links to the undated lasocialdiary.com/node/125921 which says:
I think [David Koch has] committed more than $440 million to various philanthropies and projects asides from high culture. He’s politically conservative. He and his brother Charles, along with George Soros, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation each contributed $10 million to the ACLU to defeat parts of the USA Patriot Act.
That's undated but it also says "Last Tuesday night the New York City Ballet launched its 2008-2009 season".
Gillespie's post also links to a post at "Faces of Philanthropy" (facesofphilanthropy.com/david-h-koch; their site is down at post time) dated April 1, 2010 containing this:
David Koch has remained an advocate of libertarian ideology of minimizing government role and maximizing private involvement in the economy. He has contributed hefty sums to Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the Institute for Justice, the Reason Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Libertarian Party, the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, and the George Mason University.
* David Koch has also contributed to the development of the arts and communications. He pledged over $100 million for the renovation of the New York State Theater. He is also one of the biggest corporate donors for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova.
* David Koch has also contributed $10 million to the ACLU in relation to crushing Parts 15, 16 and 17 of the US Patriot Act.
What Koch defenders aren't telling you (Reddit, Reason, Glenn Reynolds, Powerline, Weigel) - 02/24/11
It used to be that only a small number of people had heard about the billionaire Koch family and the "Kochtopus" (those persons and groups funded by or otherwise linked to them). Now, because of the standoff between Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and public employee unions in that state, that's all changed and the Kochs are fast assuming the role that George W Bush played for the Left (and George Soros plays for the right).
Sure as night follows day, various sources are rushing to defend the Kochs. But, oddly enough, all those defenses fail to point out two key items on the Koch's agenda:
1. In the 90s, the Kochs were one of the major forces behind NAFTA (link), and today the Kochtopus advocates for other free trade agreements and for free trade in general. The base of the tea parties might not take too kindly to knowing about that.
2. If the Kochs supporting NAFTA wouldn't make the teaparty base happy, then make sure they never find out that various members of the Kochtopus support loose and even open borders. See the entries on the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, and Dan Griswold (from CATO) pages for starters. In fact, Griswold was the "inspiration" (per Margaret Spellings) for George W Bush's anti- and un-American guest worker scheme.
Bush wanted to open the U.S. labor market to the world in a massive H1B-style scheme that would have sent formerly middle-class wages closer to world levels, and Spellings specifically named teachers and nurses as those who would have to compete against low-wage workers brought in from abroad.
Nowadays, the Kochtopus' support for loose/open borders no doubt plays a major role in why the teaparties have largely ignored the immigration issue despite how it's more vital and more fundamental than spending and most other issues.
Immigration is also the issue where the leaders of the Democratic Party, the far-left, and union leaders are weakest and could easiest be discredited. In fact, the Service Employees International Union even paid someone linked to the Mexican government to agitate illegal aliens inside the U.S. Yet, no doubt because of the Kochs and those like FreedomWorks (also part of the Kochtopus), the whole wider issue of immigration is off the table.
Here are some of the Koch defenders who've ignored those two issues:
1. Someone using the name "epistemicfail" posted "STOP THE KOCH BROTHERS. They are trying to end the War on Drugs and increase civil liberties" at Reddit (redd . it/frrth). Whether the author is a pothead or someone linked into the "Kochtopus" isn't clear, but I suspect the latter. It's a cute attempt at a bribe, like a lawyer trying to engender support for a criminal by highlighting how they like cats. It's probably just a coincidence, but a former Reason Magazine employee named Julian Sanchez used the phrase "epistemic closure" to refer to closed-minded rightwingers.
2. The Reddit post linked approvingly by Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine who says, "I don't know who epistemicfail is, but the whole thing is totally worth reading".
3. Doug Mataconis of Outside the Beltway links to both of the above, adding little:
For more on Doug Mataconis, see the link (vulgar language warning).
4. Glenn Reynolds links to Gillespie:
5. John Hinderaker of Powerline hasn't linked to the Reddit piece yet (there's still time). However, he offers several pro-Koch posts in his stock pompous-but-empty style:
A day doesn't go by--hardly an hour goes by--without some new attack being launched against these two lonely libertarians... Why? Simply because they are rich--their company is one of the best-run and most successful in the world--and conservative. The Left is trying to drive them out of politics and, more important, to deter any other people of means from daring to support conservative politicians or causes.
He does have a point about the Left only liking the rich donating to political causes when they're on the liberal side, and he does have a point that people shouldn't be dissuaded from donating to political causes. However, he doesn't point out why everything isn't gravy and why some of his readers shouldn't be so fond of the Koch agenda.
6. Dave Weigel offers his own fan post to the Koch brothers:
He fails to note that he used to work for the Kochtopus' own Reason Magazine, he pretends that concerns about Koch influence only started recently (rather than having existed for decades and involving both the brothers and their father), and, of course, he highlights only the liberal-friendly aspects of the Koch agenda:
They have, for decades, bankrolled libertarian think tanks and programs, and they help put on conferences where conservative ideas are spread. Among the ideas they end up spreading are drug legalization and opposition to the Patriot Act. The Tea Party was the first movement funded in part by the Kochs that really took off.
UPDATE: Powerline gets a reply from the New York Times' Eric Lipton: powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028470.php It boils down to how you define "showdown"; wouldn't trying to restrict union power necessarily involve a confrontation of some kind?
And, others defending the Kochs include:
* Mark Steyn: steynonline.com/content/view/3767
What's happening in Wisconsin is all about money: budgets, shortfalls, obligations, perks, pensions, privileges - and the burdens of the beleaguered productive class that pays for it. In a story awash with money, the Koch brothers are the least of it. They're certainly billionaires, and that's a lot of dough. Of it, what they inject into the political process is little more than a rounding error.
I don't know whether Steyn is part of the Kochtopus, but that "rounding error" certainly seems to have bought the Kochs a lot of friends.
* Sean Parnell (not the Alaska governor) from the Center for Competitive Politics offers a fan post at Washington Examiner (owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz):
Parnell's blub "Sean Parnell is the president of the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group dedicated to protecting First Amendment political rights") fails to note that he used to work for the Heartland Institute which is part of, you guessed it, the Kochtopus. There's that rounding error again.
* David Harsanyi offers his own version of the "rounding error" (denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17476151):
The libertarian Kochs are super rich and gave less than $2 million to Republicans in the last election cycle, which mathematically speaking amounts to nothing.
Yet another example of Teaparty being useful idiots for the Koch brothers? (Madison union protests) - 02/19/11
Are the tea parties useful idiots for an attempt by the billionaire Koch family to fight unionization in order to increase their profits? The latest example of the Koch family pushing an agenda that helps their bottom line and getting help from the teapartiers in that endeavor comes from the protests between public sector unions and Republican governor Scott Walker in Madison, Wisconsin. I haven't been closely following the issue, but at the very least it's clear that the Kochs are attempting to take advantage of the issue to push their agenda. And, pushing that agenda would help the bottom line of their energy and resources empire.
The Kochs helped elect Walker , and their Americans for Prosperity has now created a site to support him and opposing at the least collective bargaining by public sector unions. However, it might also be an attempt to oppose collective bargaining in general . Meanwhile, the Kochs have a financial interest in reducing labor costs in Wisconsin (as they do in other states) .
Today, the tea parties held a counter-protest featuring luminaries such as Andrew Breitbart ( National Review interview: peekurl.com/v9LhdhK ), Gateway Pundit, and Herman Cain ( peekURL.com/vhZ64cs ). Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds is going all out (instapundit.com/115329, instapundit.com/115324, instapundit.com/115278 and probably more).
On the one hand, unions are somewhat of a negative force in the U.S. because most of them support illegal immigration, with groups like the Service Employees International Union getting a good part of their dues from money that was earned illegally. The SEIU even paid someone linked to the Mexican government to organize immigration marches inside the U.S. And, allies of the unions also support mass/illegal immigration. And, excessive demands by public sector unions might in fact lead to budget shortfalls.
On the other hand, the billionaire Koch brothers are at the least taking advantage of this issue to push an agenda that would help their bottom line. And, the teapartiers are being useful idiots for them. And, the same types of people who harp on public sector unions in regards to California's problems (while ignoring the impact of the massive immigration they support on the state) are now involved in the Madison counterprotests.
So, there doesn't appear to be a good way out on this issue. The last thing we should want is a victory for the teaparties and their Koch stringpullers. But, another last thing we should want is for a victory by Barack Obama and groups that support illegal immigration.
UPDATE: Via this, part of gov. Walker's "Budget Repair Bill" (PDF link, excerpt at ) would allow Wisconsin state energy assets ("heating, cooling, and power plants") to be sold to private companies or their operations transfered to private companies. Surely it's a coincidence that the Koch family is in the energy business and that the sales would be done "with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state".
UPDATE 2: Yet another questionable, possibly Koch-friendly action by Walker happened last month (link):
A plan to spend $100 million on a boiler that would burn plant-based fuels at UW-Madison's Charter Street power plant was axed Thursday by Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch... Cullen Werwie, a spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker, said Huebsch halted spending on the boiler based on Walker's wishes... According to a 2008 university study, converting the plant to burn biofuel was the most expensive of the options considered and would be about twice as expensive as using other coal-burning technologies or natural gas... University officials credited the strong support of former Gov. Jim Doyle for the plan to burn biofuels. Doyle and state environmentalists praised the switch to biofuels because such fuels can be grown in Wisconsin and would, in the long run, be more reliable and less expensive than natural gas, which must be purchased and piped in from out of state.
The source for the claim that biofuels would save money long-term isn't given, but at least from that article it doesn't sound like Walker was taking exception to that claim. Instead, it at least sounds like he was being penny wise and pound foolish. And, coincidence or not, the Kochs are in the natural gas business and even have a pipeline network in Wisconsin. Hopefully someone will ask him for an explanation.
UPDATE 3: Instead of pressing Walker for an explanation, dim Democrat/union supporters are doing what they tend to do: play games. The latest example is Ian Murphy from the Buffalo Beast (free weekly) calling Walker and pretending to be David Koch from the Koch family (link). On the call, Walker says nothing in any way incriminating; the call (unless Walker was waiting for the "secret code" or knew it was a prank) makes clear that Walker had not been previously coordinating with the Kochs. And, the idea that a politician would rush to take a call from a major donor is only shocking to those who are completely naive.
The stupidity highlight of the call is this:
[A Walker assistant] was eager to help. “I was really hoping to talk directly to Scott,” I said. He said that could be arranged and that I should just leave my number. I explained to Gilkes, “My goddamn maid, Maria, put my phone in the washer. I’d have her deported, but she works for next to nothing.” Gilkes found this amusing. “I’m calling from the VOID—with the VOID, or whatever it’s called. You know, the Snype!”
If I said that, it would be with the recognition that the Kochs fund loose borders groups and support mass immigration. However, Ian Murphy doesn't have that excuse: it's doubtful whether he knows that the Dems/far-left/unions and the Kochs support the same basic immigration policy.
 Per this:
According to Wisconsin campaign finance filings, Walker's gubernatorial campaign received $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC during the 2010 election. That donation was his campaign's second-highest, behind $43,125 in contributions from housing and realtor groups in Wisconsin... The [Koch] PAC gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn spent $65,000 on independent expenditures to support Walker. The RGA also spent a whopping $3.4 million on TV ads and mailers attacking Walker's opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett...
...Walker's plan to eviscerate collective bargaining rights for public employees is right out of the Koch brothers' playbook. Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation (see Reason Magazine) have long taken a very antagonistic view toward public-sector unions. Several of these groups have urged the eradication of these unions. The Kochs also invited (PDF) Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an anti-union outfit, to a June 2010 confab in Aspen, Colorado; Mix said in a recent interview that he supports Governor Walker's collective-bargaining bill. In Wisconsin, this conservative, anti-union view is being placed into action by lawmakers in sync with the deep-pocketed donors who helped them obtain power. (Walker also opposes the state's Clean Energy Job Act, which would compel the state to increase its use of alternative energy.) At this moment - even with the Wisconsin uprising unresolved - the Koch brothers' investment in Walker appears to be paying off.
 AFP created standwithwalker.com, which just redirects to americansforprosperity.org/walker. The petition there says:
Union dues should be voluntary, and the state should not be in the business of collecting them. Union certification should require a secret ballot. Collective bargaining should not be used to force extravagant pension and health benefits that cripple state budgets... These common-sense reforms have made the union bosses desperate to disrupt Wisconsin government and overturn an election. They must not be allowed to succeed. In fact, every state should adopt Governor Scott Walker's common sense reforms.
Koch owns a coal company subsidiary with facilities in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan; six timber plants throughout the state; and a large network of pipelines in Wisconsin. While Koch controls much of the infrastructure in the state, they have laid off workers to boost profits. At a time when Koch Industries owners David and Charles Koch awarded themselves an extra $11 billion of income from the company, Koch slashed jobs at their Green Bay plant
16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
Reason Magazine offers the deceptive video "The Week in Stupid: Cable Pundits on the Gifford Shooting" (below). If you trust anything Reason tells you, keep reading.
Anti-science, anti-American: Reason TV misleads, sticks up for illegal immigration (Delta Smelt, Paul Feine) - 01/13/11
Reason Magazine's TV unit offers the misleading, anti-science, and anti-American video "Delta Smelt & Undocumented Farm Workers: How Federal Policy Is Failing CA's Central Valley" (below and at peekURL.com/vfqmkCZ ). It begins with a sub-Sean Hannity discussion of the endangered Delta Smelt, but quickly becomes a plea for looser immigration policy and amnesty. As could be expected, Reason is either too intellectually dishonest or too dim to understand and admit the roles of externalities in what they promote.
For an example, they interview Robert Silva, the mayor of Mendota and allow him to say the following unchallenged:
Why do the feds worry about a fish, than a person that's human, that contributes to society and works out in the fields... contributes to the world and yet the fish is more important ...I've had people from europe ask me the same thing, and they say, 'you know what, where we come from we don't worry about a stupid little fish'.
One obvious problem is that the Smelt is part of the food chain, and making it extinct might affect people and other animals in unforeseeable ways. Another obvious issue is the huge costs (health, remediation, etc.) associated with doing things the way they were done, for instance, in Eastern Europe under Soviet occupation (start here: articles.latimes.com/keyword/pollution-eastern-europe). This is California, not the DDR. And, of course, the whole issue of the Delta Smelt is much more complicated than the mayor lets on (economist.com/node/14699639). Nothing in Reason's report even hints at the level of complexity involved in that issue.
Another person Reason uses to say the things they'd like to say is Chris Collins of the Sacramento Bee; he makes the outrageous claim that 98% of farmworks are immigrants. It's highly doubtful whether that's even true of Central Valley field workers, and according to the Labor Department at least one quarter of farmworkers were born in the U.S.He also references conservative growers who are lifelong Republicans who differ with the GOP on the issue of immigration, imagining them saying "I really feel like we can't take a just deport them all stance". First, no one who has any political power supports mass deportations; see the deportations false choice page. Second, just because I've heard that propaganda before doesn't mean what Collins said is a propaganda attempt. More likely, he's probably just not enough of a reporter to do things like follow the money.
Later, the producer/writer of the video, Paul Feine states "the Central Valley has always attracted self-reliant immigrants willing to work hard to pursue their dreams". That's to a certain extent accurate, but Reason is failing to note that the "cheap" labor used by growers is in fact not that cheap: it's heavily publicly-subsidized including for those workers and also their (potentially U.S. citizen) children. No one in the U.S. is "self-reliant", all depend on various levels of government in various ways. And, low-wage workers are the least "self-reliant" of all. Reason - a supposed libertarian magazine - is doing what they've been doing for years: supporting huge subsidies.
The unspecified form of comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty) that Reason supports on the video would have other huge costs such as by reducing the political power of U.S. citizens, giving even more power inside the U.S. to the Mexican government, and giving even power to the far-left. Reason would electorally help the very people who'd fervently work against them politically, and they're too dim to notice or too corrupt to care.
Reason's video is also anti-American in that many of those unemployed in the Central Valley are actually citizens of other countries. The pro-American solution would be to encourage immigration enforcement in order to free up scarce jobs for Americans, as I proposed almost two years ago. Reason is, of course, promoting the opposite: they'd make the situation in the area even worse for American workers. Their loyalty isn't to their fellow Americans but something else.
Shikha Dalmia of Forbes and Reason Magazine is misleading about immigration yet again, this time about the anti-American DREAM Act ("DA"). That bill was recently blocked in the Senate, but if passed it would have allowed those current illegal aliens covered by it to take college educations away from U.S. citizens. Needless to say, Dalmia strongly supports that anti-American bill and is willing to mislead to do it.
She writes :
[Republicans] called the Dream Act – yawn! – amnesty, an accusation that Democrats deny. They shouldn’t. The Act, which would give children of illegal aliens who sign up for military service or obtain a college education a shot at citizenship, is amnesty. And there is nothing wrong with it.
1. The DA isn't for the "children of illegal aliens" as she states. It's for "children" who are themselves illegal aliens, irrespective of the status(es) of their parents.
2. The DA covers "children" as old as 35 years old; Shika Dalmia didn't tell her readers that.
3. If someone thinks there's "nothing wrong" with a bill that lets the current illegal aliens covered by it take college away from U.S. citizens, then they're siding with foreign citizens against the best interests of their fellow citizens.
In an age when everyone is vying for victimhood status, the Dream Act youth are among the few who are genuine victims. Their predicament is truly not their fault. They had no say in being brought to this country illegally. Many of them have no ties left to their home country, don’t speak its language, and don’t know its ways. They are in a legal no-man’s land, having built a hearth in a country where they don’t have an official home. Giving them legal status would be an easy call for anyone of goodwill - even those who want to slam the door shut on everyone else. Indeed, extending amnesty to children of undocumented aliens is not all that different from extending it to people fleeing persecution, something that our – and every free – country does.
1. She's misleading about the specifics of the bill, because some or most of those who would be covered would in fact have had knowledge of and perhaps control over being brought to the U.S. From this: "under the DREAM Act an illegal alien simply must claim that he or she entered the United States sometime before reaching the age of 16; the standard of proof required by the government is unclear and it should raise concerns of fraud as most illegal aliens enter clandestinely and off the record".
2. Dalmia misleads again: those would would be covered aren't in a "legal no-man’s land". They're citizens of their home countries, and simply being brought to the U.S. illegally doesn't change that. She's implying their stateless, when that's not the case.
3. And, of course, there's a huge difference between almost all illegal aliens and true refugees. Mexico and Central America have not yet reached the level of war-torn African countries.
But restrictionists have blinded themselves to all humanitarian considerations, regurgitating bogus talking points till they acquire an air of plausability. For example, they point out that the Dream Act would allow these children to pay in-state tuition in college, something that out-of-state American kids don’t get. But the reason that it is fair to extend the in-state rate to these kids and not others is that their parents for years have contributed to their state’s public colleges through sales, property and even income taxes.
Dalmia is being openly anti-American with this paragraph. She's stating that it's acceptable to give illegal aliens a better rate than citizens. That undercuts the very idea of citizenship itself. Next to that, the fact that the parents of those covered by the DA will have most likely paid minimal taxes is a minor matter.
Even more fallacious is the restrictionist argument that legalizing these kids will only encourage more illegal immigration. This sounds like an open admission that they have no intention of fixing the country’s broken immigration system, the root cause of the problem. The reason poor, unskilled aliens have to sneak into this country is that there are very few visas available for them to enter legally. And if they are lucky enough to get one, it doesn’t allow them to work in the country while applying for a green card or legal residency — unlike H1-B visas that high skilled workers use. The idea that there is some kind of line that unskilled workers could stand in and wait their turn to gain legal residency is a complete figment of the restrictionist imagination.
1. The DA could cover one million or even more than two million people, and they'll eventually be able to sponsor their other relatives to come to the U.S. All of that will contribute to the network effect where those who are unable to obtain visas come illegally to join friends and family in the U.S.
2. The DA will send the message - as have other amnesties - that we don't really enforce our immigration laws and that all someone has to do is stay here long enough and they'll get their own amnesty. That will in fact encourage more illegal immigration.
3. There's a reason why we limit immigration by low-skilled workers, and that's something that most Americans support. Instead of respecting the wishes of most Americans, Dalmia supports illegal work-arounds.
4. There are in fact H1B-style programs for farmworkers.
Nor is it the case that denying amnesty would make an iota of difference to future rates of illegal immigration. People come here to escape their economic destitution. It is far more preferable to them to eke out a living in this country illegally - than face slow starvation in their own. That their children will be denied legal status at some point in the future will make no palpable difference to folks confronting a life-and-death situation now.
The great majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are from Mexico, a country that's at the top of the Third World. Very few illegal aliens in the U.S. were facing starvation at home. Most illegal aliens have to pay thousands or tens of thousands to smugglers, yet Dalmia thinks they were starving.
The bottom line here is that Dalmia is willing to mislead in order to support massive immigration. But, it goes deeper than that: like many libertarians, she has little loyalty to those unlucky enough to share citizenship with her. Selling out her fellow citizens and letting illegal aliens take their college educations just isn't that big of a deal to those like her.
 "ObamaCare’s First Major Casualties: Gays and Aliens", blogs.forbes.com/shikhadalmia/2010/09/22/obamacares-first-major-casualties-gays-and-aliens/
The video at peekurl.com/virmhi2 provides yet another in the long line of examples of how the tea parties are helping their opponents.
The city of Bell, California has been in the news lately due to exorbitant salaries that city officials voted to give themselves. Most of those using Bell as an example of failed policies have failed to note that they themselves support failed policies, and those failed policies have played a role in Bell's situation. Two examples will be provided below, and the reader is encouraged to add more in comments.
Next year, Reason Magazine will be conducting a week-long cruise, complete with some of the "star" contributors of their publication on board and ready to dispense their "wisdom" (ad here: peekurl.com/v3dli5l).
Megan McArdle of The Atlantic is on her honeymoon, leaving her blog in the hands of libertarians even more extremist and lunatic than she is . One of those is Katherine Mangu Ward of Reason Magazine who, referring to a U.S. ironing board factory that was propped up with tariffs, says :
Econ 101 aside, though, there's a more compelling moral reason to condemn this kind of tariff that should help break deadlocks like Matt's: Jobs lost at home are usually jobs created elsewhere, typically in poorer countries. If anything, jobs are likely to be gained when an industry moves to China, where more aspects of the manufacturing and assembly process are done by hand. They just won't be created here. If that's your focus, you have to make the case that American jobs are intrinsically better or more valuable than Chinese jobs.
Libertarians - at least of the Beltway variety - are globalists. They have little or no loyalty to their fellow citizens. For the ideologues among them, their loyalty is to their aberrant ideology and their skewed vision of the market. For others, it's simply to whoever cuts their checks such as the Koch family. Note that even some libertarians call Mangu-Ward on her statement, but try finding a libertarian leader doing the same.
At Forbes, Shikha Dalmia of Reason Magazine offers "Obama Can't Handle Immigration Reform/The leading proposal will curtail liberties without making life better for immigrants" . The article shows yet again why she isn't a credible source on this issue, at least for patriotic Americans. Those who put libertarian ideology or corporate profits ahead of the interests of U.S. citizens are quite welcome to consider her a credible source.
In the article she comes out against the Graham-Schumer amnesty plan due to, among other things, its national ID card component.  She also suggests waiting a few years before beginning the push for comprehensive immigration reform. That's good, but for the rest she shows that her loyalties don't lie with U.S. citizens but with her globalist ideology or something else:
...The fundamental problem with America's immigration system is that it forces Americans to justify to their government why they want to bring someone into the country, instead of requiring the government to justify to them why they can't. Uncle Sam is less gatekeeper, more social engineer. Instead of focusing on keeping out those who pose a genuine security or public health risk -- the only immigration policy consistent with ideals of limited government -- it is driven, among other things, by a need to manage labor market flows and the national demographic makeup... And Uncle Sam gives each country an annual quota for green cards, because, otherwise, who knows, America could be overrun by colored hordes from China and India, upsetting its white, Anglo-Saxon character...
The U.S. doesn't really have a "white" character, and it certainly doesn't have an "Anglo-Saxon" character unless that's Dalmia's description for everyone who's white. Dalmia - just like those on the far-left - would invite the world to come here in part in order to show that we aren't a racist country. Her implied definition of whether someone is a risk is highly flawed and would allow foreign countries - Mexico, China, India and some others - to in effect colonize parts of the U.S.: sending us millions of people in order to gain or just coincidentally gaining political power inside the U.S. Dalmia - the supposed libertarian - would use force (deception and trickery) to take political power away from U.S. citizens.
Any reform bill worthy of the name therefore has to fundamentally shift the orientation of America's immigration policy so that it is driven less by arbitrary bureaucratic fiat and more by the genuine needs of the American economy and people.
The American people have spoken out in poll after poll that they want immigration either kept at the same level or reduced. Perhaps Shika Dalmia used "genuine" in the sense that those dummies don't know what they need, and libertarians just need to impose the correct way on them.
...in order to appease Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the anti-amnesty crowd, the [Schumer-Graham] bill will not only impose onerous fines on them for breaking an anti-freedom, irrational law; it will also force them to stand in the back of the green-card-line that for many categories has a decades-long wait.
It's unclear whether she thinks just our immigration laws that prevent millions of low-skill workers from coming here are "irrational" or whether she's against immigration laws in general. The great majority of Americans would disagree with the former, and almost every American would disagree with the latter. What Dalmia wants would go against the wishes of the great majority of Americans; her libertarian scheme would have to be imposed through force of one kind or another, whether physical force or just deception.
She is however right about the "decades-long" part, but what she isn't mentioning is discussed on the immigration line page: there really isn't a "back" to the line since new people are joining it all the time. That means that illegal aliens would make it more difficult for future legal immigrants. Since we can only process so many people at a time - and the USCIS is unable to deal with their workload as it is - one wonders what Dalmia would have us do: do little or no checking at all of whether illegal aliens are a security risk? Since illegal aliens would have to be processed in some way, the only logical explanation is that Skihia Dalmia wants us to simply wave them through. Needless to say, that would allow thousands of criminals to get on the path to citizenship. No doubt a fair number of potential terrorists would take advantage of her plan since they tend to follow our immigration plans and be adaptive.
[The Schumer-Graham bill] will step up interior enforcement -- code for raiding employers and cracking down on their workforce to round up undocumented workers, a shameful Bush era policy that this administration has continued.
Workforce enforcement has been going on for decades; it wasn't invented by George W Bush. And, one wonders what form of immigration enforcement Shikkia Dalmmia would support. Would she even allow us to have border enforcement? She basically wants everyone in the world to be able to come to the U.S., against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.
If I haven't shown to the reader that Shika Dalmia can't be trusted on immigration matters, please leave a detailed comment explaining why you think that and I'll go into more depth.
UPDATE: Not surprisingly, Glenn Reynolds links her article, adding nothing (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/97228). That would seem to indicate that he agrees, and that's also not surprising.
 Oddly enough Bob Barr also today comes out against that plan due to the ID card; is there a Journ-o-List for libertarian hacks?
The attached video is from October, 2007 and features Dick Armey of FreedomWorks (also a tea parties organizer) sticking up for illegal aliens. He claims "I don't like illegal immigration", but then engages in indirect baby-waving in order to in effect support it. While the video is a recent upload to Youtube, it's been available for a while at Reason Magazine (including a couple comments from me: reason.com/blog/show/125183.html). Not only that, but FreedomWorks hasn't been trying to hide his comments and has Reason's post re-printed at their site:
John Stossel /ABC: "Bailouts, Big Spending, and Bull" (TV, libertarian, Drew Carey, Reason, cosmos, rainbows...) - 03/13/09
Briefly emerging from Galt's Gulch, ABC News host John Stossel will offer a segment called "Bailouts, Big Spending, and Bull" on tonight's 20/20 TV show airing at 10:00PM Eastern and Pacific. During the show he'll discuss various topics of interest to libertarians, such as pot, the stimulus plan, pot, did I mention pot?, and so on. And, he'll be joined by washed-up TV host Drew Carey. Carey will discuss his dramatic political enlightenment thanks to Reason Magazine. Yes, that's right: the "cosmotarian" publication that helped block the Ron Paul movement is having their big TV break.
If you want to strike back a bit, go to reason.com/blog and other sites that discuss the segment and point out all the ways it was wrong. For instance, here's the bit about the border (link):
Run for the Border: Do you sleep better at night knowing there's an expensive fence on America's southern border? Will a giant wall really secure our country? So far, those wanting to come here just go around the wall, or climb over it, or cut holes in it. If we further reinforce the entire southern border, then what about Canada? And what about the miles of east and west coast beaches? Will we patrol our coastline with machine guns? In fact, half the illegals in America entered legally by using tourist or student visas, then staying after their visas expired.
The border fence is effective where it's used, the reason it's not that effective in some areas is because there's no fence there. Duh. And, if there had been a fence all along the southern border - or at least where necessary - millions of people would not have been able to enter the U.S. illegally. Fixing the problems with illegal crossings and illegal overstays are two separate issues. And, obviously, it would be much more difficult for large numbers of people to enter the U.S. illegally through the coasts. And, there's a problem with possible infiltration of terrorists and the like from Canada but, since they aren't a failed state we don't have to worry about millions of Canadians streaming over the border. Double duh.
Glenn Reynolds (instapundit.com) currently gets almost 400,000 visits per day, and he's posted several anti-stimulus plan blurbs. But, as with his election coverage in which he supposedly opposed Barack Obama, the fire just doesn't seem to be there (see "Instapundit, or The Strange Case of the GOP Hack Who Didn't Shill During the Election").
Penn Jillette - one of the only two (2) Celebrity Libertarians to ever exist - draws (reason.com/blog/show/131559.html) our attention to a ludicrous website called "What's the Harm" (whatstheharm.net) which attempts to show the harm in beliefs and activities that most people - in their ignorance - would consider harmless. They say it "does not pursue any hidden agenda, other than promoting critical thinking" (whatstheharm.net/faq.html).
The "libertarians" at Reason Magazine offer a list of their recent coverage of Barack Obama (reason.com/news/show/129922.html), and from that list those who don't read their Hit and Run blog frequently might think they actually opposed him. In fact, they served as a bit of a cheerleader for him and almost always showed a clear bias towards him and against McCain (as pretty much every visitor to their site knows, their editor Matt Welch wrote an anti-McCain book).
A lot of people aren't content to simply sit back and wait for Obama to win. Instead, they want to get involved and help him finally seal the deal.
Here's a list of ways that you can help:
1. Simply bringing a stuffed monkey bedecked with Obama stickers to the next McCain/Palin rally isn't enough. Make sure that CBS News gets it on tape.
2. On your website or TV show, just keep asking, "why won't the MSM cover this?" Because, eventually someone from the MSM is going to come along and do something. Just wait, they'll be there eventually.
Notice anything interesting about this libertarian-themed "American Voices" feature from The Onion?
Yes, that's right: by an odd coincidence, those last names are the same as the last names of several cherished staffers from Reason Magazine: reason.com/staff
Washed-up TV comic Drew Carey is now working on a joint venture with the pseudo-libertarians at Reason Magazine . In various video segments he presents the "libertarian" view of things, and the latest is called "The Cost of Securing Our Southern Border" (reason.tv/video/show/434.html). Like everyone else, I didn't bother to watch it, but I feel safe in asserting that there are many things he forgot to mention.
Immigrant assimilation study: low scores for Mexicans; other results mixed (N.C. Aizenman/WaPo, Yglesias, Drezner, Atrios, Weigel) - 05/13/08
The gap between today's foreign-born and native populations remains far wider than it was in the early 1900s and is particularly large in the case of Mexican immigrants, the report said.And, Howard Husock, vice president for Policy Research at the Manhattan Institute, says:
It turns out there is plenty of assimilation going on. Cubans and Vietnamese, for instance, are economically indistinguishable from natives. Germans are indistinguishable both culturally and economically. Some cities are doing better than others at assimilating newcomers. Houston, where Mexican and Central Americans predominate, has an assimilation index of just 19. New York, where no one group predominates, has a score of 31.On the same theme, Eunice Moscoso offers "Immigrants less integrated than before, study finds" (link).
But the most striking finding is much less positive. The current overall assimilation level for all immigrant groups combined, measured on a scale of zero to 100, is, at 28, lower now than it was during the great immigration wave of the early 20th century, when it never went below 32. What’s more, the immigrant group that is by far the largest is also the least assimilated. On the zero-to-100 scale, Mexicans — 11 million emigrated to America between 1980 and 2006 — score only 13.
Although Mexican assimilation does occur, it’s extremely slow. Mexicans who arrived in 1995 started out with Index scores around five — and increased only to around 10 by 2005. In other words, our largest immigrant group arrived with little education and even less knowledge of English, and they have stayed that way for an extended period.
Oddly enough, those hacks who support massive and/or illegal immigration only seem to have read the headline of the WaPo piece.
They include David Weigel of Reason Magazine ("The Washington Post reports on a new study revealing the quicker and quicker adaptation of immigrants to American norms."; reason.com/blog/show/126477.html). He's taken to task here.
Someone else weighing in is Duncan Black (aka Atrios) under the title "Paging Lou Dobbs" (eschatonblog.com/2008_05_11_archive.html#7247266138416718020):
Haven't looked at the study myself, so put this in the category of "confirms what I already thought," but as someone who lives in a city which still has plenty of white ethnic enclaves I've long been puzzled by the widespread belief that today's immigrants are somehow "different," aside from the skin color of some of them.That's not only sleazy race-baiting, but it contains two logical fallacies: he's drawing a false conclusion based on a small sample size (i.e., his limited experiences) and based on past behavior despite the underlying conditions having changed.
Next up is Matt Yglesias, who links approvingly to both the WaPo and Atrios in "Assimilation Then and Now" (matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/assimilation_then_and_now.php).
Last and least at least as far as traffic is concerned, Daniel Drezner takes a content-free swipe at both Lou Dobbs and Mickey Kaus (http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003815.html)
UPDATE: Looking at the study (manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_53.htm), here's what "cultural assimilation" means to the author the study:
* Ability to speak English
* Intermarriage (whether an individual’s spouse is native-born)
* Number of children
* Marital status
One will note a few things missing, such as whether they buy in to our laws (or think they don't apply to them) and whether they support our borders (or think they have a Blut und Boden-style right to move anywhere within the Americas).
An intellectually honest index would take those into account. The civic index has similar issues as well, one of which the author acknowledges (military service being a fast-track to citizenship).
One of those trying to retail the idea of a NAU is Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute, who, speaking on the radio show Marketplace, says:
There are some who believe a grave threat
Apparently, Riverside, New Jersey has suffered economically after enacting an anti-illegal immigration ordinance (which they recently rescinded), and the NYT offers the most dire portrait they can:
With the dep
11: I'm going to go practice my track-standing. Back later...
10: Three minutes with Larry King commence now...
9: Hunter mentioned pardoning Ramos-Compean, and even bringing back the Reagan Democrats.
8: John McCain warns that having 12 million illegal aliens - 2 million of them being criminals - is dangerous. His solution is his bill, which would give them a wave-of-the-wand legalization, with the government having only 24 hours to deny an application.
7: Ron Paul is pointing out that massive illegal immigration is subsidized...
On a recent Reason Magazine thread (reason.com/blog/show/119840.html), Andrew Levy (Andy) of FOX's Red Eye TV program and dailygut.com made an off-hand, ad hominem comment about my Libertarian Quiz. I posted a comment asking him whether he could provide an actual argument, to which he replied, "nope".
...the mainstream media are complicit in advancing this thinly veiled blanket amnesty.
I have a feeling that it won't be too very long before even more truth comes out about the case of the two Border Patrol agents (Ramos/Compean) who strongly appear to have been railroaded by their own government. So, let's take a look at the short, select list of some of those who've supported the Bush administration's side of things: