^^Yes. Unfortunately-uncommon common sense.

"I don't see crossing as "skyrocking". We need numbers."

From what I have heard the numbers are increasing, but with all the hype who knows. A flow across the border does increase the accumulation, and we observe a political trend to create more illegal crossings with the "caravans", etc.

"we should liberalize immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally because a) it's a good policy and b) it's impractical to remove everyone here illegally. "

Legal immigration is good policy under the proper standards of what to exclude, and within numbers that are practical without changing the mindset of the country into a foreign mindset of statism and collectivism taken for granted. That wouldn't taken much with billions around the world who would like to come, encouraged by increasing statism and collectivism already here.

People (other than criminals, terrorists, welfare-seekers and the diseased) have a right to immigrate to a free society but not to overwhelm it with its opposite, thereby destroying it. "Assimilation" into American individualist culture is a requirement (though I don't like the word 'assimilation' -- we're not the Borg).

Bureaucratic obstructionism should be removed, but laws should not be changed to accommodate those who defy them. We don't make more crime legal because criminals make enforcement difficult, which would only encourage the worst.

Yes. I basically see it that way too.

I don't see crossing as "skyrocking". We need numbers. I think it's blip in a long-term trend of fewer illegal crossings. We should keep doing what we've been doing, building walls in places of high crossings, and ignore the "high-frequency noise" component to the data.

The real problem is looking the other way after someone's here, either through illegal crossing or overstaying after entering legally. This creates disrespect for the law and an underclass.

IMHO we should liberalize immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally because a) it's a good policy and b) it's impractical to remove everyone here illegally. This is not part of the national discourse. Instead it's for or against "the wall", which does not even mean anything.

Illegal crossings are worsening, the net accumulation is skyrocketing, and those on the front lines of enforcement are pleading that more is required, including more physical barrier.

Attempts to solve it are being obstructed with everything from "sanctuaries" to "catch and release" to open-ended "asylum" to "drivers licenses" for illegals and local election fraud -- while gangs are still uncontrolled and "caravans" are openly promoted in defiance of what is left of policies trying to control the problem.

Adding insult to injury is the propaganda from the supporters of the illegals claiming that there is no problem (for them). The Trump sales pitch is now calling anything a "wall" in order to claim progress, and the pro-illegals are taking him up on it to claim nothing else is required.

A more contiguous and robust wall, or some equivalent on the border, is required but isn't enough to contend with our own laws and policies allowing illegals to enter and stay, obstructing enforcement.

The whole mess is further disintegrating into its own self-generating emergency as it distracts from any discussion at all of rational immigration policy about what should be allowed and protected.

"An 82% decrease at a new wall is not a meaningful statistic because most go around it to somewhere else that is easier."
I meant they have been building wall at places of high illegal crossings. As you say, the illegal crossing then moves to another location, and they build wall there. This has been going on for decades and over 25 years and has resulted in an 82% drop in total illegal crossings. The policy we've been pursuing is working. It's amazing and freak-show-like that they've misrepresented it as something to argue about.

I wonder who “she” voted for?
https://goo.gl/images/FWTkLe

Instead of a defense of capitalism we are getting more defense of more extensive welfare statism in the name of capitalism -- by conservatives. The wrong side has been promoted even on this forum. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

What did Trump say "in the debate he bragging that he could get the government to break the law"?

How is the wall a freak show? An 82% decrease at a new wall is not a meaningful statistic because most go around it to somewhere else that is easier.

We could use less "wall" slogans and more rational discussion of what kind of wall where in contrast to what other less effective barriers, what other border security policy changes implemented along the border, and above all what kind of reforms to immigration law based on what principles. Mostly we are only getting hysteria from all sides.

"Worse for the trend is that while denouncing socialism he did not defend capitalism"
Can you imagine if a politician could appeal to most people who are open to some collectivism? I'm thinking of a mixture of President Trump, Ocasio-Cortez, and the Marlboro Man.

I think the risk of this is more because things are changing fast and return-on-investment has been going up while cost of labor stagnates. It makes people susceptible to scapegoats. Hopefully the change will cut the other way, though, and give people more time to think about freedom and tools to be prosperous.

"But whatever else Trump has said and done, he hasn't "scoffed at the law"
I mean verbally. Even in the debate he bragged that he could get the government to break the law. OTOH sometimes he says the opposite. I don't think he remembers. It's whatever gets a reaction.

Time will tell if this is the future: politicians acting as a circus freak show for the masses, the role talk radio and fringe magazines played all my life until now, and we console ourselves that behind the scenes they're appointing normal people who do a good job.

"For all the protest over the "wall" in particular, he is acting fully in accordance with laws passed by Congress and used by presidents for decades."
The "wall" is part of the freak show. We've been building barriers at points of high illegal crossings, and it resulted in an 82% decrease. Politicians can somehow convince people continuing the policy is radical new initiative to argue about.

Worse for the trend is that while denouncing socialism he did not defend capitalism, which has been the case for conservatives for decades. Recall Ayn Rand's article "The Obliteration of Capitalism" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Government is growing but it does make a difference who is running the agencies. A president could not possibly know or influence most of what the agencies are doing, but does have an enormous influence through whom he chooses or approves to run them, who in turn influence who is picked for the thousands of positions below them.

The conservatives he appointed, and those selected under them, are in many cases making an enormous difference in comparison with the ideological leftists who would be appointed under any conceivable Democrat president, and to a lesser but still significant extent under a 'moderate' Republican.

It hasn't made the government smaller over all, but has made it less intolerable for those citizens are directly impacted by Federal agencies.

But whatever else Trump has said and done, he hasn't "scoffed at the law". For all the protest over the "wall" in particular, he is acting fully in accordance with laws passed by Congress and used by presidents for decades.

Yes. The fact that he even needed to say it and his going on to promote collectivist programs are both bad. I am concerned about the socialism. There has been great wealth creation but in the language I hear commonly used "much of that value has been captured by top earners and by owners in the form of return on equity." I am concerned, not about what happens in 2020, but over the next decade or two.

"Trump is always a risk, but has not been expanding government the way Obama did and Clinton would have. "
Government has expanded and keeps expanding. To what extent individuals contribute
is debatable, but it's fact that it's growing.

"Most of the controversy has been either manufactured by the leftist media or directly from Trump's mouth."
When the president scoffs at the law, it matters. In some ways, President Trump doing it openly and ineptly is good in that it makes it obvious. It makes people take note and question how much power the executive branch and esp one person should have. We got to this point partly b/c of the need for someone who could respond to a nuclear attack that could devastate the country within minutes of detection. Having a clownish president makes me think the military leaders controlling those weapons might have come up with an informal understanding that they will disregard the president if he goes over the edge. I hope that hasn't happened. It's the type of thing that could buy a few minutes indecision that an enemy could take advantage of. I do not think this has happened, but I want a clearly competent president to be sure it doesn't happen. A crisis with an attention-seeking president could lead to reforms, but I am always against letting a crisis starts in the hopes it will lead to reforms.

If only Trump's 61,949 per year represented pages packed with nothing but rescission. One indicator of the state of politics is that we consider "only" 60,000 new pages of regulations per year to be welcome after Obama. It reminds me of the Reagan administration, which is said to have cut thousands of regulations, but at the end of which the government was bigger, more powerful, spending more, and taking in more taxes. How much more of such "victory" can we tolerate?

It probably does, but it probably takes less space. I will admit reading 61 thousand pages is fairly far down my to-do list.

Does rescinding a regulation count as a "regulation" in the page count?

I had a bit of a revelation in 1976 that things were going off the rails. I was wandering through the library when I came upon the shelf where they kept copies of the Federal Register. I noticed a shocking trend in the number of pages:
1970 - 20,036
1971 - 25,447
1972 - 28,924
1973 - 35,592
1974 - 45.422
1975 - 60,221

Within 6 years we had tripled the number of pages of regulations per year. It had been mostly in the 'teens since 1950. This was a graphic display of a major governmental shift sitting on the shelf in front of me.

It has generally stayed in the 60K range since then but in late 1990's it crept up into the 80K range, jumping dramatically to 97,110 in 2016 Under Obama.

The first year under Trump 61,949 is the lowest it's been since 1990.

It's just one metric, but one I've been watching for a long time.

You would think -- without contemporary experience -- that rejecting socialism would be routine, yet when Trump did so in his State of Union speech, what stood out was the fact that he did. The contrast was more stark when he contradicted himself as he went on in the rest of his speech to promote more collectivist programs, no doubt oblivious to the conflicting principles behind both.

Why would you want a "strong, intrusive, and expensive central gov't run well"?

Trump is always a risk, but has not been expanding government the way Obama did and Clinton would have. In terms of preventing the worst, the Trump administration has been "running it well" in the sense of political appointees doing things in the agencies that you don't see or hear about that would otherwise be much worse for us when left up to the entrenched bureaucrats. Most of the controversy has been either manufactured by the leftist media or directly from Trump's mouth.

"Some find [President Trump's style] "refreshing" because the sales pitch doesn't try to hide behind the usual obscure "acceptable" style of dishonesty that is no better. "
I think this is exactly right. Politicians try hard to be likable, and I can see why people find it refreshing for someone who appears to be himself, even in ways that are really boorish.

"The problems caused by government are real, not scapegoats."
Unfortunately almost no mainstream candidates make reducing government intrusiveness and spending a key part of their pitch.

"That there are always some who blame their own problems on
someone else is secondary to the worsening statism."
Finding scapegoats is a very common strategy tell sell statism.

"Would you have rather had Hillary? "
Absolutely, without any hesitation. If we must have a strong, intrusive, and expensive central gov't, I want it run well. The only benefit of electing a clown is the clownishness lays bare to all observers how the executive branch has become more powerful. Hillary Clinton would have used executive power the same way, just as President Obama did, in a tricky politician way that makes it sound like responsible consensus building. If President Trump's antics lead people to question the increase in gov't power and executive overreach, he will unwittingly be the best president of my lifetime. My prediction, though, is people like Trump and like Bernie sanders will split the unsophisticated people looking to for a scapegoat for their problems, leaving room for moderate leaders along the lines of Clinton or Romney. That unfortunately means the post WWII trend of big gov't and strong exec branch continues.

People do not lose their rights when they join a voluntary association. There are no "artificial persons": Doing something in the name of an organization does not make its supporters "artificial persons". That is why organizations are recognized as having rights of persons. Understanding that requires understanding the meaning of the abstract concepts. It does not mean that there are "artificial persons" running around as reified floating abstractions.

It has nothing to do with a "convention of states", which mantra does not recognize the nature of the problem in bad ideas widely accepted. This has been discussed here previously. Repeating the slogan is not helpful.

You would still see it from Peru, and most likely be worse off there. Might as well stay here and live the best you can while it's still possible, probably not in CA.

Can you refute any of the facts I listed above? I heard you mention, "Trumps supporters love facts and hate lies".

Today we are 4 days from his declaration of national emergency, though he did not actually issue one.
◦ Has there been any 'action' on this national emergency? Other than 16 states threatening to sue his administration, what has the Trump administration done to curb this national emergency?
◦ What is the basis of his national emergency declaration? Are we being invaded? -- if so, where is the declaration of war request to Congress? if we are not being invaded, what is the emergency?
◦ Today, it appears that world-wide acceptance of homosexuality is of utmost importance. Why do I care whether Mr. Muslim in Pick-a-stan or the African continent treats gays equally? What's it to common Americans?
◦ Trump took time to tweet sweet nothings to Bernie Sanders, wishing him well on his bid for 2020. Where's the urgency for this "national emergency" ? Empty threat? 53-D Chess?

..oh wait, that's right, you're ignoring me. Nevermind.