–>Are you lusting after a few (or even more) Ugg boots and if so, you're in good company, as girls and women of all ages, especially with the simple, slipper-like design of these sheepskin ugg boots sale , which are relatively easy and very comfortable to wear. And they appear to be affected. Some men are also jumping on the trend and luxury UGGs? Australia, the brand also offers a range of contemporary styles for them.

Try this one on for size: my family and I have decided we'd like to have a Bengal tiger. No one should have the right to tell us whether or not we should be able to keep a tiger on our private property.

One small thing: as we are very busy, my family and I will be keeping the tiger on our property between the hours of 9:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday. The remainder of the time, the tiger will be allowed to roam through the city, where everyone else can enjoy it. Or not.

Also, I think Tim misreads the evidence at least in respect to gay rights. My recollection is that support for gay marriage, for example, goes down when gay folks go the courts to plead for their rights (or at least when people hear about such cases).

Where are you going to put them when they get here?

Excluding and hurting brown people (and most of the fear is brown i.e. Hispanic or Arab or S. Asian) is going to be a feature not a bug to a bigger number of people than you think.

First of all let me say that I currently sponsor a newly legal immigrant from a Muslim country yet and Im quite proud to do it. To that end I've become much more familiar with the inefficiencies in our current immigration system than I'd like to be and as such we would probably agree on any number of specific immigration reforms.

But Will isn't talking about reforms, he's asserting, albeit stealthily, that national borders are inherently illegitimate viz-a-viz individual rights and that citizens of a given country have no standing to manage immigration regardless of how sound their policies may be. Now I disagree with that on the merits but beyond that the idea that this approach is going to move immigration reform towards a new and benighted day is stunningly shortsighted.

I say this as a legal immigrant to the US who is very happy to be allowed to live here, but well aware of the facts that the grounds on which it is allowed (special abilties, since you ask) are frankly spurious. The guy who mows my lawn has skills that are valuable to far more people that mine are. Mine just have higher social status. The whole thing is shameful.

Rather than my reading 150 pages of PDFs with no table of contents or index, how 'bout you boil it down for me? Or at least give me a page number or relevant chapter. Because a cursory glance at your “rebuttal” doesn't reveal any discussion of capital mobility whatsoever. Immigration liberalization is all well and good (I'm a big fan, actually), but there's no reason to think that it's the best way to alleviate global poverty.

But it is refreshing to hear a self-styled classical liberal call comparative advantage junk economics.

I argued that democratic sovereignty over national territory is not analogous to an individual or firms ownership of property here:

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/06/...

Other thoughts about that here:

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/02/...

Equal protection of the law for citizens is a value we can all happily agree on. That people have legitimate and illegitimate concerns, legitimate and illegitimate interests ditto. Keeping Jim Crow was not a legitimate interest or concern.

But the notion that a country, such as the US is just a bunch of citizens on a piece of territory is deeply silly. The US is a polity, with all that implies. Including keeping the thing functioning, taking on obligations of mutual defense, etc. The libertarian notion that it is outrageous the US worry about defending folk elsewhere but they all have the right to move to the US and be defended in the US, that there is no issue about the rate that newcomers can be absorbed successfully into the polity, etc is using narrow theory to overwhelm broad sense.

And yes, a low income worker has every right to worry about what is being denied him or her, and what costs are being imposed on him or her, by whatever public policy is adopted. Including whatever immigration policy. Having a say is actually really important.

Your suspicion of collective interests seems merely reflexive and the examples you provide ( Jim Crow, “majority of bigots”) in arguing against its expression seem overly broad and reactionary. I get that you don't acknowledge the legitimacy of collective interests in this case but Im frankly not hearing you assert a positive basis for your position.

Thanks for clarifying the civil rights/human rights thing.