Mhmm!

“Open borders is right-wing” is a deeply flawed opinion. Open borders is a liberal goal, not a conservative one; the business right maybe wishes for it, but that’s just a subtle tone of liberalism.

There’s nothing about conservatism that would welcome open borders. It is an affront to all of them, traditionalists, nationalists, and those who would subject us to unimpeachable authority alike. Even those who might suffer free motion of goods would still prefer those goods made “over there” - an arbitrage opportunity to exercise, not a diversity of skill or a source of efficiency to permanently acquire.

That one sentence wraps up Sanders’ political opinions perfectly: a social democrat, who wants to limit nothing but the most intoletable excesses of the bourgeoisie, who seeks to tar the right wing with the brush of liberalism because it’s politically and personally convenient for him. No socialist would make that mistake.

For the record, I think that libertarian / self-identified "classical liberals" (Ron Paul, Milton Friedman) will proffer open borders as a sort of utopian mirage that they say can only be achieved once we completely eliminate what they chastise as the "welfare state".

In other words, they only will be OK with letting people into the country once they've eliminated any reason for them to want to come here in the first place. And presumably by creating such a crass society the homeless and poor will voluntarily leave as well.

Which I guess leaves you with a barren wasteland of ultra-rich ranchers with a backyard the size of Yosemite, with Amazon drones going back and forth between Mexico to fetch them all the stuff that the rest of us have built for them.

Kind of puts an interesting spin on the whole notion of Trump's wall, when you realize which side of it you'll likely be able to afford to live on.

Mark my words, the same people who are telling the young folk not to go to college will one day be telling them as well about the virtues of starting from scratch in Mexico.

If you can read this Koobie, maybe that's a good plot for a dystopian science fiction novel!

(With apologies to SF_Gold.)

The wall isn’t to keep Mexicans out, it’s to keep the Starbucks baristas in.

Then again, who the heck would want to leave

WARNING: Nazi alert, Nazi alert, Nazi alert

[quote=Time Magazine]
The U.S. Navy is preparing plans to construct sprawling detention centers for tens of thousands of immigrants on remote bases in California, Alabama and Arizona, escalating the military’s task in implementing President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy for people caught crossing the Southern border, according to a copy of a draft memo obtained by TIME.

The internal document, drafted for the Navy Secretary’s approval, signals how the military is anticipating its role in Trump’s immigration crackdown. The planning document indicates a potential growing military responsibility in an administration caught flat-footed in having to house waves of migrants awaiting civilian criminal proceedings.

The Navy memo outlines plans to build “temporary and austere” tent cities to house 25,000 migrants at abandoned airfields just outside the Florida panhandle near Mobile, Alabama, at Navy Outlying Field Wolf in Orange Beach, Alabama, and nearby Navy Outlying Field Silverhill.

The memo also proposes a camp for as many as 47,000 people at former Naval Weapons Station Concord, near San Francisco; and another facility that could house as many as 47,000 people at Camp Pendleton, the Marines’ largest training facility located along the Southern California coast. The planning memo proposes further study of housing an undetermined number of migrants at the Marine Corps Air Station near Yuma, Arizona.

The planning document estimates that the Navy would spend about $233 million to construct and operate a facility for 25,000 people for a six-month time period. The proposal suggests these tent cities be built to last between six months and one year.

Capt. Greg Hicks, Navy’s chief spokesman, declined to provide details on the matter. “It would be inappropriate to discuss internal deliberative planning documents,” he told TIME.

Although the military has not yet been ordered to construct these new detention facilities, it is clear it bracing to join a policy challenge that is ricocheting throughout the whole of government. What began as a crackdown on immigrants crossing the border illegally has now spread to the departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Defense and Health and Human Services.

In the Navy document, military officials propose a 60-day timeline to build the first temporary tent facility for 5,000 adults. After that, military officials suggest they could add room for 10,000 additional individuals each month.

The memo was written by Phyllis L. Bayer, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment, in anticipation for a request from the Department of Homeland Security. It recommends Navy Secretary Richard Spencer sign off on the plan, which allocates roughly 450 square feet per immigrant held for housing, support staff and security, and send it to Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Mattis’ office declined to comment on the proposed plan obtained by TIME.

Trump on Wednesday ordered the Pentagon to work with the Department of Homeland Security to house the tens of thousands of immigrants currently being held awaiting criminal proceedings for crossing the U.S.-Mexican border illegally. Under the administration’s so-called “zero-tolerance” immigration policy, current facilities are at their breaking point and the immigration courts face deep backlogs. At the same time, children who previously had been separated from their parents are now going to be held with the adults, further straining the system.

The Pentagon has been asked make preparations on military bases to house as many as 20,000 house immigrant children who are apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border without an adult relative or separated from parents, U.S. military officials said. Department of Health and Human Services completed assessments this week at Goodfellow Air Force Base, Dyess Air Force Base, Fort Bliss in Texas and Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas for potential use for the Unaccompanied Alien Children program.

“While four bases (3 in Texas and 1 in Arkansas) have been visited by HHS for possible housing, it doesn’t mean any or all children would be housed there,” Army Lt. Col. Jaime Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement.

Earlier this week, Mattis deferred questions on the matter to the Department of Homeland Security but did acknowledge the military’s willingness to help with the Trump Administration’s latest crisis. “We have housed refugees,” he told reporters Wednesday at the Pentagon. “We have housed people thrown out of their homes by earthquakes and hurricanes. We do whatever is in the best interest of the country.”

Currently, migrant children are being held in facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. One facility, a converted Walmart in Texas, was recently opened to reporters, igniting a media firestorm.

Using military bases in this way is not new. In 2014, the Obama Administration placed around 7,700 migrant children on bases in Texas, California and Oklahoma. The temporary shelters were shuttered after four months.
[/quote]

http://time.com/5319334/navy-detainment-centers-zerol-tolerance-immigration-family-separation-policy/

Yeah but Trump didn't do nothing. He exacerbated the problem. So he does deserve blame.

Many elements of the right are liberal in the United States. I don't think an open borders immigration policy is nearly as incompatible with the right's other commitments as you're making it out to be. After all, in the 80s and 90s, it was the Democrats who were restrictionists, and Republicans who advocated a more open immigration policy.

I think it's fairly clear what he means: the right wants to continue importing a low skill work force in order to flood the job market will low skill labor and keep wages low, to their benefit while harming low skill workers who already live here. It's an anti-capitalist position, at least in intention.

> Trump
> "dindu"

Oh, you meant it grammatically. Nevermind.

This is how England dealt with overpopulation in the mid-19th century. Many arguments for Imperialism in the mid-19th century pitched imperial expansion as a solution to overpopulation.

Trumpler literally did nothing wrong

Interesting.

Well, I'm sure there is still a chance for me to make it to the off-world colonies, if we allow Elon Musk to achieve his vision.

https://www.unicornriot.ninja/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ice-undercover-operations.pdf

That said, neither of the US parties were meaningfully liberal until Reagan’s. Liberals spent decades grooming the GOP to become liberal, and the Democrats followed them to keep up with their popularity (Clinton’s triangulation).

I get what he means, obviously. But it still ain’t a right wing policy, it’s a liberal one.

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/393550-6-months-in-gop-tax-bill-an-utter-flop

In news to exactly nobody except working class GOP voters, ~supply doesn’t create its own demand~

What happens when your party is based in invented economics that runs contra to the evidence.

I ran contra to the evidence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/subtle-and-insidious-technology-is-designed-to-addict-us/2017/03/02/5b983ef4-fcee-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.b8de42ac49bc

Remember to log off.

Thank you based Eversor for introducing us to Tim Wu hundreds of pages ago!

I think I read ad the first few chapters of that book, it was interesting. Especially about just how artificial the world of advertising is: it had to be invented before finally reaching its present obnoxiously intrusive state, and the early history of ad-supported 'penny papers' explained in that book is quite interesting.

And now I have to finish his book recommendation to read Remains of the Day....

Techmology... what is it? What is it all about?

That's... really not true. Rockefeller Republicans (also called Liberal Republicans at the time) dominated the Republican party through the middle decades of the 20th century: they were the establishment wing of the party through the 70s. Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles -- both Republicans -- were key figures in establishing the multilateral institutions that have been the backbone of American global leadership since WWII. (One reason for this is because of business ties between the Republican party and the American industry. The Republican party had close links with industry effectively since Lincoln, and had generally been fairly protectionist, because that served the interests of the American business class. But with America ascendent and American industry globally competitive in the mid-20th century, it became an American interest -- or at least an interest of American industry -- to champion more open trade. But there were also ideological reasons that had to do with maintaining peace and stability after WWII -- and others that were rooted in American the universalist vision of mid-20th century modernist/mainline Protestantism). Even during the FDR-Truman years, liberal internationalists were generally Republican, and FDR and Truman had to contend with the isolationist elements within their own party in order to establish NATO, the UN, etc.

Of course through much of the 19th century, it was the Democrats who opposed tariffs and advocated free trade -- and that was because at the time the Democratic party was chiefly the party of the south, and the southern economy depended on exporting cotton.

But using tariffs to protect American industry ultimately is an idea that (in American politics) goes back to Alexander Hamilton and his vision for the United States, and his belief that it was important for there to be close ties between industry and government (which goes back to the point you made about Morse, who was Hamilton's friend and colleague).

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/clinton-campaign-may-have-been-too-smart-to-win.html

I can't even. Someone, somewhere, there exists a person who actually thinks this.

That does sound remarkably good. I might have to steal a copy.

Actually, speaking of advertising, I love living in an area with pretty strong restrictions on billboards. Many areas in Southern California didn't, and huge billboards are ugly blight. Especially since Charlottesville is one of the prettiest areas I could hope to live in.

It's always weird when I click on some random tweet and unexpectedly see a bunch of GIFs that lionize Hillary as a hero. I'm reminded that... oh yeah, those people do exist. There are still people out there who are beating themselves up over the Comey letter.

That makes me happy. I haven't really spent that much time in the South (assuming VA is still considered "the South"). But I was in Atlanta once, and I was stunned by all of the corporate advertising. There was something shameless about it that was deeply off-putting -- and I'm from New York! (Which perhaps only made it more surprising: I couldn't imagine a city that had more corporate advertising than NY.) I'm glad that all of the South isn't like that.

Socially they were liberal, yes, but they were economic interventionists. They were the EPA people. In Canadian terms you might call them Red Tories.

Several hundred pages ago I talked about the backdoor influence the Chicago school monetarists were trying to get in the Republican Party. Those were right liberals, the Barry Goldwaters and Miltons Friedman. The school of thought didn’t exist until the latter half of the 20th century.

Yeah, sure, but they also had foreign policy ideas to which there isn't really any correlate in a Canadian context because Canada doesn't occupy the the same position as the United States in global politics.

It's true that Rockefeller liberals were economic interventionists -- perhaps even more interventionist than Democrats are today. They were also socially liberal, as you say. But the liberal tradition isn't hitched entirely to laissez-faire economics. There's an economically interventionist strain in the liberal tradition that goes back to the final decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century. This goes back to the "New Liberals" that I've talked about in previous posts: people like L.T. Hobhouse, J.A. Hobson or T.H. Green, who provided the intellectual muscle that coincided with the establishment of the British welfare state in the 1900s. John Dewey was an especially prominent American figure who brought some of the "New Liberal" ideas that originated in England over into an American context, but there were others, too.

The conservative politics that arose in the wake of Barry Goldwater's failed presidential bid don't have any sort of exclusive claim to the label "liberal" (to the extent that they'd claim it or deserve it).

It's not some kind of misnomer, for instance, that the New Deal and New Deal Democrats were called liberal, despite the economic interventionism that both entailed. There'd been an Anglo-American tradition of economically interventionist liberalism that had been in development for decades by the time FDR came onto the scene.

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/fox-news-north-korean-state-tv-mashup-shows-scary-similarities-in-coverage_us_5b2cfa4fe4b00295f15bd71a

nervous lol

Woah, neat. Teddy Roosevelt's platform in his 1912, which he called "New Nationalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Nationalism_(Theodore_Roosevelt)

Yeah... I mean, one thing about authoritarian regimes is that the people who live under them and are exposed to embellishment like this recognize it for what it is. It's not nearly as coercive within the context of a so-called free society, where it looks very silly. It's very different when there's a secret police that snatches up political dissidents: it forces people to live a double life, outwardly displaying their loyalty to the regime and acting as if they believe all the hyperbole while inwardly knowing that it's all nonesense.

Maybe there is a secret police in the United States, but if there is, it's because *we* are the willing members of it. This little episode is truly the height of decadence: snitching on someone who's snitching on someone else by publicly shaming them and turning them into a pariah for the pettiest of actions. We live under constant surveillance. It should be terrifying. We should be constantly screaming all the time about this: we're all less free because of it.

No, mom, playing Fortnite for 15 hours is what TYPICAL 22 YEAR OLDS DO. No, I did NOT get a job. I TOLD YOU mom, the SJWs have taken over McDonald's. GOD.

At 4:15, what the ****?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1010900865602019329?s=12

It's disturbing that Trump believes enforcing law means no civil rights, due process or rule of law. Law and Order basically means authoritarian rule to him.