Donald Trump: My Immigration Plans Would Have Prevented 9/11

Donald Trump says that if he had been president in 2001, his immigration policies would have kept terrorists from attacking the World Trade Center on September 11.

"I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I'm extremely tough on people coming into this country," Trump said on Fox News Sunday. "I believe that if I were running things, I doubt those families would have -- I doubt that those people would have been in the country."

"Jeb {Bush] said 'we were safe with my brother.' 'We were safe.' Well, the World Trade Center just fell down," Trump continued. "Now, am I trying to blame him? I'm not blaming anybody. But the World Trade Center came down. So when he said, 'we were safe' -- that's not safe. We lost 3,000 people."

"I don't know why he keeps bringing this up," Bush told CNN Sunday. "It doesn't show that he's a serious person as it relates to being commander-in-chief and being the architect of a foreign policy."

Bush said that Trump talks "as though he's still on 'The Apprentice,'"

"I mean, literally, talking about Syria saying 'ISIS should take out Assad, then Russia should take out ISIS' as though it was some kind of board game and not a serious approach is just - this is just another example of the lack of seriousness," Bush said.

Next week Jeb added, "Mr. Trump is probably going to say that FDR was around when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor."

Of course, they both think the United States and the world are board games. The only difference is that Bush thinks he should be the lead central planner and Trump thinks it should be him.

They are both megalomaniacs. The only difference between them is personal style and whose lives they want to interfere with.

Trump is better on taxes, but, overall, he scares me more.

 -RW

Left Libertarians Act as Viagra to the State

 Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Immigration and Libertarianism:

Left-libertarians profess to apply libertarian principles more consistently than other libertarians. In fact, their role is to serve as Viagra to the State. This becomes apparent when one considers their position on the increasingly virulent question of migration. Left-libertarians are typically ardent advocates in particular of a policy of ‘free and non-discriminatory’ immigration. If they criticize the State’s immigration policy, it is not for the fact that its entry restrictions are the wrong restrictions, i.e., that they do not serve to protect the property rights of domestic citizens, but for the fact that it imposes any restrictions on immigration at all.

But on what grounds should there be a right to un-restricted, “free” immigration? No one has a right to move to a place already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by the present occupant. And if all places are already occupied, all migration is migration by invitation only. A right to “free” immigration exists only for virgin country, for the open frontier.

The above originally appeared as part of a longer essay at LewRockwell.com.