A large part of my family died in the Nazi camps or had to endure unseakable torture for many years in the Nazi and Jap camps.

Most Jews at the time had their hopes up to be allowed to flee to te USA, the only moral country in the world. They expected that the Americans would live what they preach: that the right to one’s life and one’s property, so freedom from government intervention, is a natural right of any human being. Instead the US citizens slammed teh door in their faces with their anti-immigration laws and fundamentally denied them the right to travel and reside freely where they wanted.

Then as today many Americans depicted such immigrants as undesirable for they would be expected to bring crime and sickness. Nothing was further from the truth.

If any of you know of someone who wrote (a book?) about these infamous 1924 anti-immigration laws, I would be interested to learn about it. It is high time that someone told about this obfuscation of such an important historical fact so it never happens again (it seems many Americans are trying once more).

So all it is, then, is a matter of degree. That’s what all your Nazi namecalling was about?

It’s a short – and reasonable – step from concerns about “life and liberty” to concerns about “quality of life.”

Immigration policy is first about serving the best interests of Americans. It needs to serve those interests environmentally, culturally, politically, and economically.

To blame Americans for Frank’s death is cruel and absurd on so many levels. It is not funny. First, we fought Germany. 400,000 Americans died in World War II, and countless families were devastated. Second, Jews have never been persecuted in America. Occassional inconvenience (”my grandpa couldn’t go to Harvard, WAAAAH!”) is not the same thing. Third, the 1924 act that reduced immigration was a result of an America fed up with being overrun by excessive immigration. Then as now, a lot of the support for immigration was about greed, as when John D Rockefeller imported thousands of Eastern Europeans to break strikes at mines. Our desires to keep the doors closed wasn’t about anti-Semitism, it was about not re-opening the flood gates.

The world is a miserable place. At any point in time – even right now – there are millions of people whose lives are threatened. With every single one of them you could say: “See, if we had let them come here they could live.” But if we do that, where does it stop? Who do we not let in, and why?

It’s not callousness that keeps me from agreeing – it’s simple logic.

Americans didn’t make those 19 hijackers feel ostracized to the point of going home. They didn’t assimilate them, either.

Because they were here as visitors and on various visitor visas and they concealed their jihadist sympathies and identities. Hell, they even went to stripclubs, gambled, and drank alcohol. When they overstayed their tourist and student visas, law enforcement had every right to pick them up and deport them. They would have gotten in here anyway, regardless of any changes in immigration policy.

See Craig, I don’t believe in 100% open borders, that’s absurd and unrealistic. We need to have a screening process and border entry points (like Ellis Island in the 19th century) to screen out those with dangerous diseases, terrorists, criminals, and nationals of countries the U.S. is at war with. We also need to have a visa program for those who want to just visit and work here for a limited amount of time and strictly enforce the program’s rules, requirements, and expiration periods.

What I am opposed to are quotas or any other limits based on geography on legal immigration. So yes, while I am opposed to very few restrictions on legal immigration and entry into the United States, I do recognize that some modest limits of freedom of movement are necessary in order to protect life and liberty of Americans.

Well, you’re argument stinks. Americans didn’t make those 19 hijackers feel ostracized to the point of going home. They didn’t assimilate them, either.

And your open immigration scheme would mean they could overrun us in a week.

Here’s your problem, Kevin: you’re majoring in history and pol sci – what those of us who majored in REAL science called the soft sciences. To you a law is simply a construct that can easily be altered by the will of man.

In science and engineering a law is no construct, no choice. Like the God of Moses, it booms down from the heavens “I AM.” It can’t be altered because we don’t like the results.

There are facts in this world, Kevin, that won’t be altered by your ideals. Step out of your social science ghetto and see that.

What if 100 million jihadists moved their families to the United States and set up shop?

They would have to do a very good job of concealing their identity because most Americans would make them welcome here. See, part of the success of the American experiment is that we’ve made those immigrants who came here and expoused anti-American ideologies very unwelcome. Just ask those Germans who came expousing Nazism or Eastern Europeans or Jews who came expousing Communism. They ostracized by American society at large who refused to employ them, associate with them, or welcome them into American society. The Nazis and Communists either changed their views or went home.

So my arguement is the jihadists won’t be able to take hold in this country.

Because you can’t argue with valid points you call people names. You’ll make a great politician after finishing your studies at Southeastern Louisiana University.

While you’re there, try to find out why it is that libertarians. election after election, manage only to win all of 1% in the polls. I’m sure you think you’re a bold adventurer on the vanguard of truth. You’re ahead of all the rest of us – and maybe one day society will catch up with you.

Or maybe it’s just the fact that everyone knows that libertarians are frickin’ cuckoo.

So tell me, then: our society grants the vote equally to all citizens. What if 100 million jihadists moved their families to the United States and set up shop? Would the political impact be good or bad?

Please, elaborate. And don’t tell me I’m just a guy who hates Mohammedans, papists, and Jews.

What’s meant by assimilation anyway?

Speaking English in the public square, participating in the American economy, embracing aspects of American culture, and building a better life for their children and grandchildren, among other things.

There were political consequences to the last great wave of immigration. Things that once were legal are no longer.

It was once perfectly legal, for example (and Constitutional) to teach Christian beliefs (more specifically Protestant beliefs) in public schools. Now it is no longer. The biggest reason for that was the wave of immigration that brought millions of immigrants to America who weren’t Protestant.

Those damn Papists and Jews demaning that tax money not be used to indoctrinate their children in government schools to accept a religion they don’t believe in. What a tragedy.

The point is that mass immigration has political consequences.

Which are mostly good. The urban immigrants revitalized our cities, which the Hispanic immigrants are doing today. The rural immigrants have revolutionalized agriculture historically; however, I’ll grant a downside that the availability of cheap Mexican farm workers are preventing the development of new technologies in the long term to reduce the cost of growing truck crops, however they keep the price of produce down in the short term.

It’s a matter of self-determination. There were political consequences to the last great wave of immigration. Things that once were legal are no longer.

It was once perfectly legal, for example (and Constitutional) to teach Christian beliefs (more specifically Protestant beliefs) in public schools. Now it is no longer. The biggest reason for that was the wave of immigration that brought millions of immigrants to America who weren’t Protestant.

I’m not commenting on whether I’d like to return to that day. That’s irrelevant. The point is that mass immigration has political consequences. If the Americans of 1880 could look into the future and see the results of the next 40 years of immigration, would they agree or would they alter the course of history?

(And don’t argue that because you agree with the political ramifications then that therfore the political ramifications 40 years hence will be fine, too.)

Assuming that all cultures are equally compatible is like assuming that you could randomly pick a woman’s name off a list and be happy with her in marriage.

The immigrants that have come to this country, while keeping their separate cultural idenities in their communities, have assimilated into American culture and we have taken from them as well. American culture is the one culture that transcends race and national origin. The Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Eastern Europeans, and Vietmanese assimilated eventually into our culture. The Hispanics are assimilating just fine, the only ones who aren’t assimilating are the radical agitators who were mostly born here anyway.

Then go, Kevin, please.

I invite you to try that one out. Assuming you’re American, there is a pleasant little Spanish speaking country to our south that is easily accessible. Go there illegally and tell me how it works out.

It would be nice to think that we could in fact go wherever we please. History has not been kind to such assumptions, however. That’s we we have nations – to at least guarantee our rights within certain boundaries. The truth is that Americans don’t have that right to go wherever we please, so we must ensure that we retain that right for us somewhere.

Just because we grant the right for everyone to come here doesn’t mean we’ll have the right to go everywhere. In fact, I can assure you that would not happen. And the results would be bad for us.

The point is that government property – all of it – was either purchased (Alaska, the Gadsden Purchase, & the Louisiana Purchase) or killed for (most of the Southwest). People bled for that land – American people. Who owns it now? Well, in many cases the federal government. I don’t recall exact figures, but it owns something like 80% of Nevada, 60% of Utah, etc.

That land has value, as does everything else we pay for with our taxes – trillions of dollars in roads, public parks, mineral rights, government offices, schools, military hardware, prisons, ad infinitum. Even though I do not hold a proper title to that land, it is part of my estate, and part of the estate I will bequeath to my children. Immigration reduces the value of that estate just as surely as your net worth would decline if you had to divide your home between 3 other families who never paid for it.

I would like to buy your stake in that public property.

I find it ironic that you probably consider it sinful and appalling that we tax the estate of someone who made millions running casinos or selling porn but think its perfectly OK to tax the largest part of most Americans’ estates – their citizenship.

Just like the Irish, German, Jewish, Russian, Italilan, Eastern European, Japanese, and Chinese immigrants did in the 19th century.

Neither India, Japan, Mexico, Israel, nor any other country have to apologize for their immigration policies. The USA shouldn’t have to apologize for ours.

Assuming that all cultures are equally compatible is like assuming that you could randomly pick a woman’s name off a list and be happy with her in marriage. You certainly wouldn’t pick your wife that way, why would you pick your fellow countrymen that way? Even dating websites allow you to specify your preferences in a mate.

There is no right to immigrate.

Yes there is. As an individual, I have the right to go whereever I please, as long as I do not violate the private property rights of another person. In addition, I have the right to contract with another person in order to provide my labor for a price we agree upon. These rights do not end at abstract concepts like national boundaries. The state must demonstrate a harm to the individual rights of its citizens whenever it choosing to infringe upon the rights to freely move and freely associate with whomever I please.

Who cares about the 14th Amendment?

Because it’s in the Constitution.

“White nationalism” is perfectly moral. It’s an expression of the principle of freedom of association and self-ownership.

But the United States is a multi-racial nation. White nationalists have the right to set up their own communities on their own compounds, but they do not have the right to infringe upon the rights of members of other races. Basing an immigration policy based upon race is a violation of the rights of those who wish to immigrate here.

And while you may think that you have some claim to “public” property, it is not your property and it is not something you built.

No, it is not something I “built.” Who in the hell “builds” land, besides the Dutch?

The point is that government property – all of it – was either purchased (Alaska, the Gadsden Purchase, & the Louisiana Purchase) or killed for (most of the Southwest). People bled for that land – American people. Who owns it now? Well, in many cases the federal government. I don’t recall exact figures, but it owns something like 80% of Nevada, 60% of Utah, etc.

That land has value, as does everything else we pay for with our taxes – trillions of dollars in roads, public parks, mineral rights, government offices, schools, military hardware, prisons, ad infinitum. Even though I do not hold a proper title to that land, it is part of my estate, and part of the estate I will bequeath to my children. Immigration reduces the value of that estate just as surely as your net worth would decline if you had to divide your home between 3 other families who never paid for it.

I find it ironic that you probably consider it sinful and appalling that we tax the estate of someone who made millions running casinos or selling porn but think its perfectly OK to tax the largest part of most Americans’ estates – their citizenship.

I’m sure that in your self-righteous thoughtlessness and ideological fanaticism you’re laughing at that argument. Laugh away. You’ll have plenty of time to do so while commuting two hours to work.