Immigration criteria that don’t rig elections will protect freedom

Percent of youth under 18 in state who were children of immigrants as of 2008 helps show that immigration criteria favor big government

Percent of youth under 18 in state who were children of immigrants as of 2008 [1]

Immigration criteria bring in people who favor big government

…Pew researchers asked if respondents completely agreed, mostly agreed, mostly disagreed, or completely disagreed with the following statements:

  1. There need to be stricter laws and regulations to pro­tect the environment.
  2. It is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves.
  3. The government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper in debt.
  4. Poor people have become too dependent on govern­ment assistance programs.

Responses to these four items form a single factor or scale score, higher values in this case indicating greater approval of increased regulation and redistribution, or opposition to limited government. What explains where respondents score on these questions once they are combined and scaled? Democrats are far more likely to favor an activist role for govern­ment than Republicans — and the difference is about a 42-point gap separating “Strong Democrats” from “Strong Republicans”.[2]

…there is a significant negative correlation between the growth in the immigrant share of the population and the Republican vote share in elections for the House.

Change in Republican vote share vs. change in immigrant population share shows that immigration criteria favor big government

Increasing the immigrant fraction by 1.00% increases the big-government vote fraction by 0.72% [3]

Immigration criteria favor big government for at least 2 generations

About eight-in-ten (83%) first-generation Hispanics say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services. While still a clear majority, the share opting for an activist government is lower (71%) among second-generation Hispanics.

Among Asian Americans, more of the first generation (57%) than the second generation (47%) prefer a bigger government that provides more services. Second-generation Asian Americans hold views more similar to those of the general public on this issue.

Hispanics and Asian Americans favor big government, showing that immigration criteria favor big government

Hispanics and Asian Americans favor big government [4]

The majority of both Muslim Americans… and the general public… favor increased federal government spending to help the needy (73 percent and 63 percent, respectively)…

American Muslims favor big government, showing that immigration criteria favor big government

American Muslims favor big government [5]

Immigration criteria threaten citizens’ freedom

Overall, the share of immigrants steadily increased over time. The nationwide average share of immigrants in the total population was 9.1 percent in 1994, rising to 17 percent in 2012.

Immigrant fraction per state in 1994 shows effect of immigration criteria

Immigrant fraction per state in 1994

Immigrant fraction per state in 2012 shows effect of immigration criteria

Immigrant fraction per state in 2012 [3]

Immigration criteria swing the vote, rigging elections

Demography is destiny
The past: California
The present: Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia
The future, near term: Arizona, North Carolina
The future, long term: Georgia, Texas [6]

Using standard statistical methods, this research has estimated the impact of the rising percentage of immigrants across U.S. counties on Republican presidential voting in the presidential elections from 1980 to 2012. Across all U.S. counties, including the many smaller counties, the estimated effect of immigration is to drop Republican vote share about two percentage points. Even in seemingly remote locations with negligible immigrant populations, the effect is sufficient to move a 51 percent county to a 49 percent county. Aggregated over the large number of counties and viewed through the template of the Electoral College’s winner-take-all system of elections, the impact of immigration is easily suf­ficient, by itself, to decide upcoming presidential elections.[2]


  1. Passel, Jeffrey S. “Demography of immigrant youth: Past, present, and future.” The Future of Children1 (2011): 19-41; 28.
  2. Gimpel, James G. Immigration’s Impact on Republican Political Prospects, 1980 to 2012.Center for Immigration Studies, 2014, pp. 4-5, 11.
  3. Mayda, Anna Maria, Giovanni Peri, and Walter Steingress. Immigration to the US: A problem for the Republicans or the Democrats? w21941. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016, pp. 12, 13, 46, 48.
  4. Second-Generation Americans. A portrait of the adult children of immigrants.Pew Research Center, 2013, p. 73.
  5. Read, Jen’nan Ghazal. “muslims in america.” Contexts4 (2008): 39-43; 41.
  6. Wolgin, Philip, and Ann Garcia. Immigration Is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States. Center for American Progress, 2013, p. 2.

Touch in infancy and adolescence teaches our brain networks what we value

Brain networks have patternmatching layers that make predictions and sense prediction errors. The anatomy shown here for vision has a counterpart for touch.

…the hierarchical neuronal message passing that underlies predictive coding.

…neuronal activity encodes expectations about the causes of sensory input, where these expectations minimize prediction error. Prediction error is the difference between (ascending) sensory input and (descending) predictions of that input.

On the left: this schematic shows a simple cortical hierarchy with ascending prediction errors and descending predictions.

On the right: this provides a schematic example in the visual system.[1]

Touch is crucial to emotion

Affective touch may… convey information about available social resources…[2]

interoception… refers to the perception and integration of autonomic, hormonal, visceral and immunological signals…—or more informally as the sense of the body ‘from within’.

…we propose that emotional content is determined by beliefs (i.e. posterior expectations) about the causes of interoceptive signals across multiple hierarchical levels.

Emotion produces conscious experience

It is tempting to speculate that deep expectations at higher levels of the neuronal hierarchy are candidates for—or correlates of—conscious experience, largely because their predictions are domain general and can therefore be articulated (through autonomic or motor reflexes).

…interoceptive predictions can perform physiological homoeostasis by enlisting autonomic reflexes… More specifically, descending predictions provide a homoeostatic set-point against which primary (interoceptive) afferents can be compared. The resulting prediction error then drives sympathetic or parasympathetic effector systems to ensure homoeostasis or allostasis, for example, sympathetic smooth-muscle vasodilatation as a reflexive response to the predicted interoceptive consequences of ‘blushing with embarrassment’.

Touch is central to selfhood and boundaries

…experiences of selfhood unfold across many partially independent and partially overlapping levels of description… A simple classification, from ‘low’ to ‘high’ levels, would range

  • from experiences of being and having a body…,
  • through to the experience of perceiving the world from a particular point of view (a first person perspective, …),
  • to experiences of intention and agency…,
  • and at higher levels the experience of being a continuous self over time (a ‘narrative’ self or ‘I’ that depends on episodic autobiographical memory,… )
  • and finally, a social self, in which my experience of being ‘me’ is shaped by how I perceive others’ perceptions of me…

In this putative classification, interoception plays a key role in structuring experiences of ‘being and having a body’ (i.e. embodied selfhood) and may also shape selfhood at other, hierarchically higher levels.[1]

The emotions we feel are largely predictions based on past experiences

…interoceptive inference involves hierarchically cascading top-down interoceptive predictions that counterflow with bottom-up interoceptive prediction errors. Subjective feeling states – experienced emotions – are hypothesized to depend on the integrated content of these predictive representations across multiple levels…[3]

Intuition suggests that perception follows sensation and therefore bodily feelings originate in the body. However, recent evidence goes against this logic: interoceptive experience may largely reflect limbic predictions about the expected state of the body that are constrained by ascending visceral sensations.[4]

Reward and motivation are predicted, based on emotions that are predicted, based on touch that was experienced previously

Reward is a complex construct comprised of a feeling and an action. Components of reward include the hedonic aspects, i.e. the degree to which a stimulus is associated with pleasure, and the incentive motivational aspects, i.e. the degree to which a stimulus induces an action towards obtaining it… Typically, the feeling is described as “pleasurable” or “positive” and the actions comprise behavior aimed to approach the stimulus that is associated with reward.[5]

…the representation of self is constructed from early development through continuous integrative representation of biological data from the body, to form the basis for those aspects of conscious awareness grounded on the subjective sense of being a unique individual.

Interoception refers to the sensing of the internal state of one’s body. …interoception… is proposed to be fundamental to motivation, emotion (affective feelings and behaviours), social cognition and self-awareness.[6]


  1. Seth, Anil K., and Karl J. Friston. “Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain.”  Trans. R. Soc. B 371.1708 (2016): 20160007.
  2. Krahé, Charlotte, et al. “Affective touch and attachment style modulate pain: a laser-evoked potentials study.”  Trans. R. Soc. B 371.1708 (2016): 20160009.
  3. Seth, Anil K. “Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self.” Trends in cognitive sciences 17.11 (2013): 565-573.
  4. Barrett, Lisa Feldman, and W. Kyle Simmons. “Interoceptive predictions in the brain.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16.7 (2015): 419-429.
  5. Paulus, Martin P., and Jennifer L. Stewart. “Interoception and drug addiction.” Neuropharmacology 76 (2014): 342-350.
  6. Tsakiris, Manos, and Hugo Critchley. “Interoception beyond homeostasis: affect, cognition and mental health.Philosophical Transactions B: Biological Sciences 371.1708 (2016): 20160002.

Political parties need designs that are structures like the Constitution

Current political parties don't follow the Constitution. Conservative Review Liberty Score for Paul Ryan is F - 52%.      Current political parties don't folllow the Constitution. Conservative Review Liberty Score for Mitch McConnell is F - 40%.
[1]

Political parties weren’t designed by the founders, and don’t have structures like the Constitution

In those days, political “parties” were considered evil. Just as the term democracy had the same valence that the term demagogue has today, the term party had the valence of partisan.[2, p. 87.]

Both political parties started as coalitions – Democrats defending slavery, Republicans opposing slavery 

Above all, the new Democratic Party was founded on the idea of states’ rights in defense of slavery.[2, p. 89.]

After the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed Congress over bitter opposition, “popular sovereignty” led to gruesome violence that engulfed the Kansas Territory, as warring factions vied to control the content of its new constitution.

…the Whig party collapsed. In its place rose a new party committed to a different conception of the Constitution than that of the Democrats.

Though the Republican platform conceded the constitutional power of states to preserve slavery (“slavery local”), it advocated a national antislavery program in which slavery would be abolished in the District of Columbia, in the territories, and in federal enclaves (“freedom national”). So threatening was this program to the Slave Power that the southern states seceded even before the Republicans could take power to implement it.[2, p. 98.]

Both political parties have long failed to follow the Constitution

…the rise of progressivism in both political parties led to… the concepts of “judicial restraint” and “deference” to the majoritarian branches, along with the concept of “a living constitution.”[2, p. 81.]

“In state after state, progressives… urged adoption of the secret ballot, direct primaries, the initiative, the referendum, and direct election of senators.“[2, p. 124.]

All of these tropes were devised to evade the constraints on their progressive legislative agenda imposed by our Republican Constitution.[2, p. 81.]

…the more important the issue, the more likely it will engender a political war of all against all to avoid having another’s social policy imposed on you. So, the more important the issue, the less it is fit to be decided at the national level.[2, pp. 183-184.]

“In state after state, progressives… urged… regulating railroads and utilities, restricting lobbying, limiting monopoly, and raising corporate taxes. …workers’ compensation, child labor laws, minimum wage and maximum hours legislation (especially for women workers), and widows’ pensions.“[2, p. 124.]

The Constitution can’t limit the national government until a major party has a structure like the Constitution, and follows the Constitution

… a system of voting does not allow the sovereign people to “rule,” and it is a pernicious myth to claim that they do. For a variety of reasons, ours is generally a two-party system. The best voters can do is discipline the “in“ duopoly party by shifting their electoral support to the “out” duopoly party and hope for some marginal improvement.[2, p. 177.]

Our Republican Constitution will not be restored in our two-party system until one of the two major political parties embraces it as a central plank of its political platform.[2, p. 252.]

Then the electorate will be faced with a true choice, rather than an echo of the Democratic Party.[2, p. 253.]


  1. “Representative Paul D. Ryan.” ConservativeReview.com, 10 Dec. 2016, www.conservativereview.com/members/paul-ryan/liberty-card/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2016.
    “Senator Mitch McConnell.” ConservativeReview.com, 10 Dec. 2016, www.conservativereview.com/members/mitch-mcconnell/liberty-card/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2016.
  2. Barnett, Randy E. Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People. HarperCollins, 2016.

Constitution design is a structure to limit the national government

James Madison stops Barack Obama from relighting the Constitution, illustrating the Constitution design in Article I that All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in congress.
[1]

Constitution design controls the people in the national government

…the Declaration of Independence tells us, it is “to secure these rights” that “Governments are instituted among Men.”

The… Constitution, then, provides the law that governs those who govern us

Those servants or agents who swear the oath to “this Constitution”—the written one—can no more change the “law that governs them” than we can change the speed limits that are imposed on us.[2, pp. 23-24.]

Constitution design uses structure to limit the national government

Federalism at the founding can… best be described as “Enumerated Powers Federalism.” …expressed in the first words of Article I, which created Congress: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” …reinforced by the words of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”[2, p. 190.]

…the more important the issue, the more likely it will engender a political war of all against all to avoid having another’s social policy imposed on you. So, the more important the issue, the less it is fit to be decided at the national level.[2, pp. 183-184.]

In Constitution design, structure is primary protection for individual rights

The U.S. Constitution is primarily a structure that was intended to protect the individual sovereignty of the people.

Only secondarily, and incompletely, does it expressly protect any particular rights retained by the people. In this sense, the few rights that are enumerated in the text of the Constitution are like the lifeboats on a ship. The fact that today our legal system pays so much attention to the few rights that are contained in the Constitution—such as the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and the free exercise of religion—is a bad sign. It is a sign that the structural protections of the Constitution have been breached, and we are now all in the lifeboats.[2, pp. 167-168.]

“We have too long abrogated our duty to enforce the separation of powers required by our Constitution. We have overseen and sanctioned the growth of an administrative system that concentrates the power to make laws and the power to enforce them in the hands of a vast and unaccountable administrative apparatus that finds no comfortable home in our constitutional structure. The end result may be trains that run on time (although I doubt it), but the cost is to our Constitution and the individual liberty it protects.”

Instead, Justice Thomas urged us to “return to the original meaning of the Constitution: The Government may create generally applicable rules of private conduct only through the proper exercise of legislative power.”[2, pp. 213-214.]


  1. Romano, Robert. “Momentum Builds for Article 1 Supplemental.” conservativereview.com, 7 Feb. 2016, www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/momentum-builds-for-article-1-supplemental. Accessed 10 Dec. 2016.
  2. Barnett, Randy E. Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People. HarperCollins, 2016.

Property rights start with an individual having secure title to his own labor

Merchant and scribe in painting show property rights developing first for elites.
[1, Cover]

Property rights were secured by elites, then by individuals

All of human history has had but three social orders.

The first was the foraging order: small social groups characteristic of hunter–gatherer societies.

The limited access order or natural state emerged in the first social revolution. Personal relationships, who one is and who one knows, form the basis for social organization…, particularly personal relationships among powerful individuals.[2, p. 2] The natural state reduces the problem of endemic violence through the formation of a dominant coalition whose members possess special privileges. Elites – members of the dominant coalition – agree to respect each other’s privileges, including property rights…[2, p. 18]

In the open access orders that emerged in the second social revolution, …impersonal categories of individuals, often called citizens, interact over wide areas…[2, p. 2] Open access orders control violence through a different logic than the natural state. These societies create powerful, consolidated military and police organizations subservient to the political system.[2, p. 21] …these countries developed new economic and political institutions that… secured open access to legal enforcement of rights…[2, p. 27]

Property rights are ownership of yourself and your labor

…every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.[3]

…each individual, as a natural fact, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. The “human” rights of the person that are defended in the purely free-market society are, in effect, each man’s property right in his own being, and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced.[1, p. 291]

…not only are property rights also human rights, but in the most profound sense there are no rights but property rights… Seizing the results of someone’s labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. If people force you to do certain work, or unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purposes your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This process whereby they take this decision from you makes them a part-owner of you; it gives them a property right in you. Just as having such partial control and power of decision, by right, over an animal or inanimate object would be to have a property right in it.[4]


  1. Rothbard, Murray Newton. Power and market: government and the economy. 4th ed., Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006, Cover and p. 291.
  2. North, Douglass C., John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast. Violence and social orders: a conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 2, 18, 21, 27.
  3. Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. 3rd ed. with corrections and improvements, 1764. Chapter 5, Section 27.
  4. Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic books, 1974. p. 172.

Boundaries are defined by thinking, feelings, and actions

Boundaries are displayed by two dogs that touch noses as each dog looks into the other dog's eyes.
[1]

Boundaries are defined by thinking—
including talents, values, attitudes, and conviction

Our talents are clearly within our boundaries and are our responsibility.

What we value is what we love and assign importance to.

We need to own our attitudes and convictions... They play a big part in the map of who we are and how we operate. We are the ones who feel their effect, and the only ones who can change them. The tough thing about attitudes is that we learn them very early in life. 

We must own our own thoughts. We must clarify distorted thinking.

Boundaries are defined by feelings—
including desires and delight

your feelings are your responsibility and you must own them and see them as your problem…

Our desires lie within our boundaries. “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Ps. 37:4).

Our ability to give and respond to love is our greatest gift.

We need to realize that we are in control of our choices, no matter how we feel.

Boundaries are defined by actions—
including behaviors, study, exercise, loving, and limits

Behaviors have consequences. As Paul says, “A man reaps what he sows” (Gal. 6:7–8). If we study, we will reap good grades. If we go to work, we will get a paycheck. If we exercise, we will be in better health. If we act lovingly toward others, we will have closer relationships. On the negative side, if we sow idleness, irresponsibility, or out-of-control behavior, we can expect to reap poverty, failure, and the effects of loose living. These are natural consequences of our behavior. 

we can… set limits on our own exposure to people who are behaving poorly…[2]


  1. Davenport, Barrie. “10 Ways to Establish Personal Boundaries.” LiveBoldAndBloom, 7 Nov. 2016, liveboldandbloom.com/08/life-coaching/want-to-boost-your-self-esteem-10-ways-to-establish-personal-boundaries.
  2. Cloud, Henry, and John Townsend. Boundaries: When To Say Yes, How to Say No. Zondervan, 2008. Chapter 2.