We brought together Ann Coulter, Sohrab Ahmari, Nick Gillespie, and Cenk Uygur to discuss the No. 1 issue for American voters. Now paid subscribers can watch.
It's interesting that Nick Gillespie essentially argued for legal immigration - people get vetted in their own countries - where he was supposed to argue against the illegal immigration.
I bet every single one of those who vote to shut the border has hired an illegal immigrant to save a dollar. Small minded people with small minded actions. Now, the question itself is loaded. There is a lot of nuance with the broken immigration system that is painted over with one broad brush. But still, closing the border if it represents the principle of stopping or reducing immigration, then that is the worst thing we can do. It will be a blessing to so many other countries that will attract them instead.
I was at the debate live. I came up from Austin. On the drive home I couldn't stop thinking that the biggest argument was omitted... What do US citizens want? The "vote" before and after the debate was overwhelmingly in favor or closing the border. The audience was undoubtedly not a representative sample and, as many have commented, it is not a very nuanced question but I believe Americans, when they hear the actual numbers of illegal and legal migration into the US, they think it is too much. The debate is then, why should "the system," our government, be allowed to permit these levels of immigration over the wishes of "We, the people"? Shouldn't we be allowed to close our doors... I mean, even if we are "wrong" for wanting that?
Should have had Mark Krikorian instead of Ann Coulter. Ann's great entertainment, but if you wanted to prioritize serious debate over theater, Krikorian is all about seriousness.
When you think about it, it's like a bunch of hippies from the '70's just said: Heck, we are in charge now...let's forgive 488 Billion in loans and let anyone walk into the country, man! It's like THE DUDE is running the country today.... Well, shame on us for losing to him...
I wish I could have gotten past Ann Coulter's usual performative antics. Although I largely disagree with her politics, I suspect she might have something to offer if she wasn't so deeply dedicated to behaving like an engagement farming troll. She says racist things out loud, but I can't even take *that* seriously as I can't pretend to understand the sentiments of a clown. Was there really no one else with a similar position to hers who could have taken that spot? I suppose I'm only this disappointed because TFP has held a high bar... until now.
Well done. A debate that made me think every speaker was right in their own way. I wish there could have been a breakdown afterwards where instead of trying to "win" they tried to focus on common ground.
Your last point is a great one. I would like to see a forum where the first half is a debate and the 2nd half is a dialectic. The idea is to argue and "win" in the first half and the 2nd half is to determine what conclusions, if any, are supported by both participants. Perhaps people don't want to participate in both a debate and dialectic and they would have to be separated.
Bari, my ancestors also came from Hungary and Poland.
I support DACA as long as they have not committed any crimes. I even support parents of citizens remaining if they have not committed crimes. The border needs to be shut down and men coming illegally should be turned away at once.
What a ludicrous avalanche of confabulation, hyperbole, and (especially) logical fallacies. I'd say Cenk Uygur was the worst, but only by degree. Performative debates are useless. Give me the written word any day of the week.
I have not watched it yet but I am tempted to not bother based on your comment about "performative debates". I know exactly what you are referring to which is why debates are rarely worthwhile exchanges unless they are rigidly controlled.
A decade ago, I would have dismissed Ann Coulter; now I want to give her a smooch and a box of Little Debbie Swiss Rolls. I admire her for saying out loud what a lot of us think but recognize as impolitic. On the other side, Nick Gillespie was likeable and funny; I especially liked his idea of vetting immigrants in their home countries. l was most impressed, however, with Sohrab Ahmari. I found him the best prepared and most persuasive of all.
Thanks so much, The Free Press and FIRE, for hosting this illuminating panel!
I think the Free Press framed the question incorrectly -- the question was "black/white," "all or none." But it felt like the debaters were debating 2 different issues. The question was about completely closing the border -- yes or no, with no in-between.. But the "no" debaters kept debating we should have legal immigration. -- which wasn't the question. The question forced an either yes or no, not "let's make it legal, the middle ground." The issue today is the massive illegal immigration and our country having no idea who is coming in. The FP should have framed the question differently, such as "Are you for the illegal immigration being allowed today?" or "How can legal immigration be enforced in our country?" Because the "yes" debaters were allowed to answer a different question than the one being asked, I did not find the debate helpful. I think the current polling of +70% of Americans being opposed to the current situation is about legal vs. illegal immigration, not about "all or none" immigration, which is what the FP debate question asked. I was disappointed in the debate content for this reason.
Many of us are frustrated by the frequent juxtaposition of questions concerning illegal immigration and border control alongside the issue of legal immigration. I see them as completely different issues altogether. I am starting to see, however, in polling and argumentation that I am in the minority of those who want strong border enforcement alongside generous legal immigration policy. TO my chagrin, my profile is just not that popular in the US. If it was, Trump would have no chance of even winning the GOP primary net alone a general election.
On the subject of immigration, please remind me of any country, anywhere on this planet that has been improved by Muslim immigration? Would that be Britain, France, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Lebanon, United States, Canada... ? Surely the advocates of Islamic immigration, especially those now seeking to import displaced Gazans, can name at least a few sterling examples of how Muslim immigration has been a force for progress and tolerance. Okay, give me ONE! No? I think that is all you need to know.
Wasn't a big fan of this debate. Not a lot of talk about economic impacts and not a single mention of the general degradation of agricultural towns when illegal immigrants move in. I think everyone in this debate should go to the small ag towns in the Central Valley of California that are mostly illegals and see what they've turned into. Run down town, run down houses, very few businesses, no supermarkets except a single Walmart, garbage everywhere, lots of homeless, and lots of quality of life crime. The majority of the central and southern Central Valley is like this now and if you keep letting them in it will be the same all over the country. Overall, I felt Coulter made the most good points (e.g. that the laws at the border are already in place but Democrats just don't enforce the law) but she comes off so rigid I think her ideas turn most people off. The other close the border guy makes some good points (e.g. that 'Americans don't want to do these jobs' being completely incorrect) but he came off extremely snarky. The libertarian was making factually incorrect statements about the workforce, and the progressive guy sounds like a first year college student that just took their first poli sci class. I think Bari's podcasts where she simply has a discussion with one or two people are much more effective.
If you take an honest look at this issue you recognize that members of both parties have relied on immigration as an effective wedge issue to drive voters to the polls and to raise donations. You also recognize that decades of American foreign policy, and current issues like sanctions, are major drivers of the migrant crisis. In a way, members of Congress have a disincentive for working in a bipartisan way towards reforming US immigration policy. They'd be taking away a reliable wedge issue.
Trump's latest move to persuade his party to vote against measures that border control advocates have been screaming about for the last 12 years is a strong data point to support your comment that immigration has become a "wedge issue" rather than a problem to be solved.
It's interesting that Nick Gillespie essentially argued for legal immigration - people get vetted in their own countries - where he was supposed to argue against the illegal immigration.
I bet every single one of those who vote to shut the border has hired an illegal immigrant to save a dollar. Small minded people with small minded actions. Now, the question itself is loaded. There is a lot of nuance with the broken immigration system that is painted over with one broad brush. But still, closing the border if it represents the principle of stopping or reducing immigration, then that is the worst thing we can do. It will be a blessing to so many other countries that will attract them instead.
I was at the debate live. I came up from Austin. On the drive home I couldn't stop thinking that the biggest argument was omitted... What do US citizens want? The "vote" before and after the debate was overwhelmingly in favor or closing the border. The audience was undoubtedly not a representative sample and, as many have commented, it is not a very nuanced question but I believe Americans, when they hear the actual numbers of illegal and legal migration into the US, they think it is too much. The debate is then, why should "the system," our government, be allowed to permit these levels of immigration over the wishes of "We, the people"? Shouldn't we be allowed to close our doors... I mean, even if we are "wrong" for wanting that?
Should have had Mark Krikorian instead of Ann Coulter. Ann's great entertainment, but if you wanted to prioritize serious debate over theater, Krikorian is all about seriousness.
When you think about it, it's like a bunch of hippies from the '70's just said: Heck, we are in charge now...let's forgive 488 Billion in loans and let anyone walk into the country, man! It's like THE DUDE is running the country today.... Well, shame on us for losing to him...
The anti-war hippies of the 1960s and 1970s had a slogan: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" We're finding out.
I wish I could have gotten past Ann Coulter's usual performative antics. Although I largely disagree with her politics, I suspect she might have something to offer if she wasn't so deeply dedicated to behaving like an engagement farming troll. She says racist things out loud, but I can't even take *that* seriously as I can't pretend to understand the sentiments of a clown. Was there really no one else with a similar position to hers who could have taken that spot? I suppose I'm only this disappointed because TFP has held a high bar... until now.
Mark Krikorian. Read anything by him.
It's going to be okay. Don't forget to take all your medications... all of them. Now go mix yourself a nice G&T, THE VIEW is on soon...
What a vile comment - not at all surprising. Booze & The View... you're telling on yourself, lol.
Loved the debate!
Well done. A debate that made me think every speaker was right in their own way. I wish there could have been a breakdown afterwards where instead of trying to "win" they tried to focus on common ground.
Your last point is a great one. I would like to see a forum where the first half is a debate and the 2nd half is a dialectic. The idea is to argue and "win" in the first half and the 2nd half is to determine what conclusions, if any, are supported by both participants. Perhaps people don't want to participate in both a debate and dialectic and they would have to be separated.
Bari, my ancestors also came from Hungary and Poland.
I support DACA as long as they have not committed any crimes. I even support parents of citizens remaining if they have not committed crimes. The border needs to be shut down and men coming illegally should be turned away at once.
What a ludicrous avalanche of confabulation, hyperbole, and (especially) logical fallacies. I'd say Cenk Uygur was the worst, but only by degree. Performative debates are useless. Give me the written word any day of the week.
I have not watched it yet but I am tempted to not bother based on your comment about "performative debates". I know exactly what you are referring to which is why debates are rarely worthwhile exchanges unless they are rigidly controlled.
A decade ago, I would have dismissed Ann Coulter; now I want to give her a smooch and a box of Little Debbie Swiss Rolls. I admire her for saying out loud what a lot of us think but recognize as impolitic. On the other side, Nick Gillespie was likeable and funny; I especially liked his idea of vetting immigrants in their home countries. l was most impressed, however, with Sohrab Ahmari. I found him the best prepared and most persuasive of all.
Thanks so much, The Free Press and FIRE, for hosting this illuminating panel!
I think the Free Press framed the question incorrectly -- the question was "black/white," "all or none." But it felt like the debaters were debating 2 different issues. The question was about completely closing the border -- yes or no, with no in-between.. But the "no" debaters kept debating we should have legal immigration. -- which wasn't the question. The question forced an either yes or no, not "let's make it legal, the middle ground." The issue today is the massive illegal immigration and our country having no idea who is coming in. The FP should have framed the question differently, such as "Are you for the illegal immigration being allowed today?" or "How can legal immigration be enforced in our country?" Because the "yes" debaters were allowed to answer a different question than the one being asked, I did not find the debate helpful. I think the current polling of +70% of Americans being opposed to the current situation is about legal vs. illegal immigration, not about "all or none" immigration, which is what the FP debate question asked. I was disappointed in the debate content for this reason.
Many of us are frustrated by the frequent juxtaposition of questions concerning illegal immigration and border control alongside the issue of legal immigration. I see them as completely different issues altogether. I am starting to see, however, in polling and argumentation that I am in the minority of those who want strong border enforcement alongside generous legal immigration policy. TO my chagrin, my profile is just not that popular in the US. If it was, Trump would have no chance of even winning the GOP primary net alone a general election.
On the subject of immigration, please remind me of any country, anywhere on this planet that has been improved by Muslim immigration? Would that be Britain, France, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Lebanon, United States, Canada... ? Surely the advocates of Islamic immigration, especially those now seeking to import displaced Gazans, can name at least a few sterling examples of how Muslim immigration has been a force for progress and tolerance. Okay, give me ONE! No? I think that is all you need to know.
Wasn't a big fan of this debate. Not a lot of talk about economic impacts and not a single mention of the general degradation of agricultural towns when illegal immigrants move in. I think everyone in this debate should go to the small ag towns in the Central Valley of California that are mostly illegals and see what they've turned into. Run down town, run down houses, very few businesses, no supermarkets except a single Walmart, garbage everywhere, lots of homeless, and lots of quality of life crime. The majority of the central and southern Central Valley is like this now and if you keep letting them in it will be the same all over the country. Overall, I felt Coulter made the most good points (e.g. that the laws at the border are already in place but Democrats just don't enforce the law) but she comes off so rigid I think her ideas turn most people off. The other close the border guy makes some good points (e.g. that 'Americans don't want to do these jobs' being completely incorrect) but he came off extremely snarky. The libertarian was making factually incorrect statements about the workforce, and the progressive guy sounds like a first year college student that just took their first poli sci class. I think Bari's podcasts where she simply has a discussion with one or two people are much more effective.
If you take an honest look at this issue you recognize that members of both parties have relied on immigration as an effective wedge issue to drive voters to the polls and to raise donations. You also recognize that decades of American foreign policy, and current issues like sanctions, are major drivers of the migrant crisis. In a way, members of Congress have a disincentive for working in a bipartisan way towards reforming US immigration policy. They'd be taking away a reliable wedge issue.
Trump's latest move to persuade his party to vote against measures that border control advocates have been screaming about for the last 12 years is a strong data point to support your comment that immigration has become a "wedge issue" rather than a problem to be solved.
Why is it that Bari is the only person on the stage who uttered “Darien Gap”? And no mention of Chinese invaders or Michael Yon’s work?