Bryan

Globalist

Individualist

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@notwhenmotion @kenzietuff @bryan_caplan You think immigrants are to blame for your struggles and not the government’s awful economic policies?

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@kenzietuff @bryan_caplan Why didn’t your ancestors stay in their countries to fix them instead of coming here?

[Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @ReichlinMelnick]

Absolutely laughable to suggest that our immigration laws are as simple as “introduce yourself and ask to enter.”

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@2ndAlbion @wil_da_beast630 @instapundit No the libertarian position is legalize fentanyl so there’s no need for someone to have to be a mule and have to deal with all the dangers that come with it. Black markets are bad.

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@TheGentlem2119 @wil_da_beast630 No, what turned California blue was Pete Wilson’s insane anti-immigration laws and the backlash to it

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@Haunted_Backlog @ohroyko @wil_da_beast630 Why didn’t your ancestors do that then?

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@JonahDispatch @atrupar And then he posed for photo ops with the victim’s relatives at Arlington.

And people still voted for him.

[Jeremiah Johnson 🌐 @JeremiahDJohns]

Democrats need to be able to make a forceful case that trade is good. Trading with other countries makes us better off. Trade is not zero sum.

You can't beat the king of idiot slop by trying to do a weaker version of his idiot slop. Just embrace trade. It's good!

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@reggiebblue lol the desperate things these people will promote just to avoid immigrants

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

“Governments all do it” doesn’t answer the moral argument. Governments have all done plenty of unjust things. And you jumped from “passport requirements exist” to “otherwise society collapses” without supplying a single reason why that follows. Also, much of Europe has abolished routine border checks between countries. Still waiting on the societal collapse.

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

“Borders are arbitrary political lines” does not mean “the land inside them has no moral right to exist.” Land and people can exist without the government having a moral right to exclude peaceful people from crossing an imaginary line.

And “you’ll be shot on the spot in literally any other country” is just comically false. Millions of people cross international borders every day without being shot. The fact that governments enforce borders doesn’t prove that every restriction they impose is morally justified.

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@wizard_mint @SvenHaugenX @RobProvince @CatoInstitute @David_J_Bier “I like living here” isn’t an argument that everyone born somewhere else has fewer moral rights than I do. You’re just changing the subject from “why is this boundary morally decisive?” to “then move.”

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

People have died defending monarchs, empires, religions, and territorial claims too. Sacrifice doesn’t magically prove the thing being defended is morally justified. The line is still a political boundary created by human beings, and being born on one side of it rather than the other is still an accident of birth.

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

You’re confusing sovereignty with property ownership. I never said “the world owns America.” I said you don’t personally own the country, and the government’s authority over a territory is not the same thing as your property right in your house. Calling that “collectivism”doesn’t fix the category error.

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

Sure, the government can set immigration law. That still doesn’t answer the point. If you make legal immigration extremely difficult while people still have strong reasons to come, you predictably create more illegal immigration. Saying “don’t come illegally” doesn’t make that incentive disappear.

And “it’s OUR country” still doesn’t turn 330 million people into co-owners of one giant private house.

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

If your definition of “Western civilization” is so fragile that allowing peaceful foreigners to live and work here destroys it, you’re making a much stronger case against your civilization than I am.

Also, foreigners absolutely have rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. “Not a citizen” does not mean “rightless.”

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

Yes, generally. I think peaceful people have a moral claim to freedom of movement, including the freedom to live and work in another country, subject to genuine capacity, security, and administrative constraints. National borders don’t magically erase basic liberty.

That doesn’t mean “everyone on Earth moves here tomorrow.” It means the starting presumption should be liberty, and restrictions need justification. Your position seems to reverse that: exclusion is the default, and the foreigner has to justify why he deserves freedom.

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

Of course you have the right to advocate and vote for lower immigration. That was never disputed. What you haven’t established is that you possess a personal right to demographic exclusivity that immigration violates.

And “something is more valuable when fewer people have access to it” is not universally true. Rights, citizenship, education, markets, infrastructure and economic opportunity are not luxury handbags. Their value does not automatically depend on keeping other people out.

You’re still moving between two very different claims: “I prefer less immigration” and “immigration violates my rights.” The first is a political preference. The second still hasn’t been demonstrated.

[Bryan @BryanS3586]

@_ZachFoster Did that agreement end up saving the lives of the Jews who were part of it?

[Mark Mitchell, Honest Pollster @honestpollster]

8 years later and now MAGA is being savaged for being NPCs.

Memes don't die. They just change.