Yes, immigrants usually vote Democrat — that's not a good reason to keep them out

John Moore/Getty Images

On July 12, news broke that the Trump administration is implementing a new asylum policy that gives greater weight to whether an asylum seeker crossed the border illegally and automatically rejects claims based on "fear of gang and domestic violence." The policy instructs officials to consider whether the seeker showed any "ulterior motives" while applying for asylum in the U.S. While not referenced in the order, many conservatives view a specific ulterior motive as an objection to liberal immigration policy: immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Some conservatives contend that opening the door to more people will lead to more Democratic policies and lawmakers over time as some immigrants will eventually earn the right to vote. As a result, they worry our constitutional liberties as Americans may suffer. Americans who truly believe in individual rights understand that when it comes to immigration, freedom takes precedence over this objection.

RELATED: Poll shows we agree on immigrant children issue. Then what's dividing us?

Noted immigration restrictionist Jason Richwine presented this opposing viewpoint in an article for National Review:

One need not be a partisan or a cynic to believe that the term "undocumented Democrat" is not merely a conservative epithet but in fact exactly the way Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders look on illegal immigrants in the U.S. today.

Later in the same article, Richwine called it a "suicide pact" to let in more potential Democrats. Fox News host Tucker Carlson spoke to a similar fear by arguing that immigration freedom is a way for Democrats to "obtain power and hold it forever." For some conservatives, preserving political power is reason enough to support barriers at the border.

However, this position doesn't reflect conservative principles or values — it's an argument explicitly about influence. Those who argue against immigration on these grounds ignore the important moral questions surrounding immigration restrictions, such as whether there is a fundamental human right of movement or whether national security or freedom should be a priority. For them, if fewer immigrants might prevent Democrats from winning elections, that's enough to make it a conservative policy.

The way in which an immigrant exercises their right to vote after earning it should not have an effect on their ability to enter this country.

Yet this argument merits a response. It's true immigrants are more likely to support Democrats. And Democratic policies often undermine conservative values: limited government, strict constitutionalism and individual rights. But freedom of movement between countries with minimal limits is a fundamental right which takes precedence over Republicans winning elections. The way in which an immigrant exercises their right to vote after earning it should not have an effect on their ability to enter this country.

One of the complaints directed at King George in the Declaration of Independence was that he was "obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners" in the colonies. Americans were upset that the British government was overriding state policies allowing relatively free immigration. This was because our Founding Fathers viewed freedom of movement not only as a boon to the colonial economy, but an individual, God-given right. Thomas Jefferson wrote that "nature has given to all men" a right "of departing from the country in which chance, not choice has placed them."

As Cato scholar Alex Nowrasteh pointed out, fresh off the ratification of the Constitution, the very first Congress passed an immigration law that set only nominal requirements for naturalization. The bill did not regulate immigration at all. It was not for several generations that the federal government began to place serious restrictions on who was allowed to enter. Even Richwine in National Review conceded that immigration freedom is "a persuasive argument for those who believe that foreigners have a fundamental right to immigrate to the United States." It sure seems like the drafters of our Constitution were persuaded by the idea that foreigners have a fundamental right to immigrate insofar as it was a part of their natural liberty, regardless of how they voted.

Freedom of movement is not only an individual right, but also an exercise of political rights. Law professor Ilya Somin has helped develop the idea of "voting with your feet." By moving to the United States from an authoritarian nation, you are exercising your right of choosing what kind of government you want to live under. All individuals are created with that right — even those who may end up supporting Democratic policies.

Freedom of movement is not only an individual right, but also an exercise of political rights.

It's a far cry from what President Reagan saw when he outlined America as a "shining city on a hill" whose walls should be "open to anyone" with the "heart" to arrive. Assuming you are not violating the rights of others, rights are not contingent on what you choose to do with them. This principle applies to immigration freedom in the same way that it applies to free speech. If someone calls for censorship of an idea they don't like, we should react with counter arguments — not with shutting down their right to express that idea.

While there are certainly legitimate conversations to be had on the limits of immigration, by denying immigrants the freedom to move to the U.S. for not embracing conservatism, conservatives will only dissuade newcomers from believing conservative ideas have merit. Take the advice of the Founding Fathers — putting a political litmus test on immigration is downright un-American.

Matt Liles is an International Relations student at the University of Texas at Austin and a writer for Young Voices. He was previously a Community Voices columnist with the Dallas Morning News.

We've finally heard some news on the migrant caravan. Some of the migrants have given up and gone back home, but some are still there waiting at the border. A leader representing the group has decided to step forward, and he's made out a list of... demands. Remember when I said back in October that this caravan was originally formed as a Leftist act against the Honduran government by people with ties to Venezuela and Cuba? Well what do you know… wait until you hear who this guy is.

RELATED: BOMBSHELL: Filmmaker Ami Horowitz blows the lid off media's deceit about the migrant caravan

Alfonso Guerrero personally walked into the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana, Mexico with a list of demands from the caravan. Get a load of this. The caravan is demanding that if they're not granted immediate asylum they want the following:

  1. Fifty thousand dollars in cash for every caravan member (which would be a total of tens of millions).
  2. The immediate removal of all U.S. economic and military assets in Honduras.

Failure to comply to these demands will result in the caravan continuing to try and penetrate the U.S. border.

I mean, if you're trying to appear like some grassroots movement for migrants that are just escaping the dangers of their own country, you might want to - oh I don't know - tone down the crazy Leftist freedom fighter schtick. I'm just saying. Demanding millions of dollars AND the removal of the U.S. military from Honduras kinda just screams, "Hey check me out. I'm a Marxist terrorist." It would have been basically the same thing if he just charged up to the embassy wearing a beret and shouted "Viva la Revolution!!" while firing off an RPG.

Well, it turns out this isn't the first time Mr Guerrero has tried to claim asylum. Back in 1987 he claimed asylum in Mexico after being suspected by the Honduran and U.S. government for - wait for it - left wing terrorism… Jeez, you know you really can't make this stuff up. This is INSANE. Here's the story…

This is ridiculous. Can we all now agree that this entire charade is a fraudulent scam?

In 1987 Honduras was ground zero for U.S. and Soviet proxy forces fighting the Cold War. The Contra rebels were actually based there, and leftists terrorists would sometimes carry out operations in the country in response. On August 8th a bomb was thrown into the China Palace restaurant, just a few miles from the U.S. military base in Honduras. Six American soldiers were injured in the blast. Alfonso Guerrero was the primary suspect. He escaped to Mexico and claimed asylum. The Reagan Administration charged the Mexican government for quote "harboring a terrorist" for granting Guerrero protection.

But all the caravan wants is a better life in the United States… oh and millions of dollars AND a list of political demands for their home country. This is ridiculous. Can we all now agree that this entire charade is a fraudulent scam? This is a Leftist political stunt. It has been since the very beginning.

TRANS-INSANITY: Not everyone is bowing down to the PC culture

DOMINIQUE FAGET/AFP/Getty Images

Here's an incident that you won't hear about anywhere else. It doesn't fit the mainstream media's transgender narrative, their fairy tale of infinite genders, where any criticism is viewed as transphobic and taboo and certainly not something that the majority of Americans think or feel.

Last week, in West Point, Virginia, a high school French teacher named Peter Vlaming was fired after a five-and-a-half hour hearing that centered on his refusal to use a transgender student's specific gender pronouns. Vlaming said that doing so violated his religious beliefs.

RELATED: There is no truth anymore

Vlaming's lawyer Shawn Voyles told reporters:

Tolerance is a two-way street. Unfortunately, tolerance on the part of the school division has been noticeably absent. It chose to impose its own orthodoxy on Mr. Vlaming and fired him because he didn't relinquish his rights protected by the First Amendment.

School administrators fired Vlaming "due to this insubordination and repeated refusal to comply with directives made to him by multiple WPPS administrators."

The school justified the firing by pointing to a set of policies aimed at curbing misgendering of transgender students.

Vlaming's lawyer disputed this, saying that the policies include no such mention of transgenderism, adding that:

My client respects the rights of all students, including this student's rights; he simply asked that his rights be respected as well. Unfortunately, the school division refused to consider any solutions that would respect the freedoms of everyone involved.

There is a ray of hope in all of this, though. The students. A group of students from the school immediately staged a walkout in protest of Vlaming's firing.

One student told reporters:

I feel like everyone should have the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion as well.

Students lined up outside the school with signs that said, "Free Vlam." Another included a quote from Ben Shapiro: "Facts don't care about your feelings." Another read "You can't impose delusion onto us."

You can sigh a sigh of relief. There's hope for the future yet.

Whether it's a 'War on Christmas' or just progressivism run amok, the song 'Baby It's Cold Outside' has been firmly in the crosshairs this holiday season. Here are just a few of the headlines making the rounds:

Should radio stations stop playing 'Baby, It's Cold Outside'?

They range from the previous as questioning and then roll right into the following and assume facts not in evidence.

'Baby, It's Cold Outside,' Seen As Sexist, Frozen Out by Radio Stations

It may be seen as sexist but according to one radio stations polling, only about 5% do. Then they go from saying it's sexist to straight up claiming it as a rape song.

Radio Bans 'Baby It's Cold Outside' Over Claims It's A Rape Song, English Teacher Explains Its Real Meaning

And then they just flat out call for its retirement.

Is it time to retire 'Baby, It's Cold Outside'?

The left might think they are woke and on the right side of history in the wake of the #MeToo movement — but how shocked do you think they'd be if they knew Glenn beat them to the punch over a decade ago? Don't believe me? Take a listen to this clip from our audio vault from 2008.

Christmas has arrived early for mainstream media. They have their first sentencing of a major player in President Trump's inner circle. Yesterday, Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced by a federal judge in Manhattan. How did it come to this and how did Cohen explain himself to the judge? We start there next…

President Trump's former attorney, 52-year-old Michael Cohen, is going to jail. Well, it will probably be one of those federal prison camps with a dorm that's more like a college campus. But he's going to be locked up. A federal judge sentenced him to three years in prison for financial crimes, and two months for lying to Congress. He also ordered Cohen to pay $2 million in financial penalties. The judge called Cohen's misdeeds a "veritable smorgasbord of criminal conduct."

RELATED: Michael Cohen's plea deal won't lessen Trump's support. Here's why.

The judge said:

As a lawyer, Mr. Cohen should have known better. While Mr. Cohen is taking steps to mitigate his criminal conduct by pleading guilty and volunteering useful information to prosecutors, that does not wipe the slate clean.

Cohen pled guilty in August to eight criminal charges in two different cases. One brought by special counsel Robert Muller for Cohen's lying to Congress about a potential Trump Tower project in Moscow. The second was for bank-fraud, tax, and campaign finance violations brought by federal prosecutors in New York.

President Trump said recently that Cohen has simply been lying to get a reduced sentence for crimes that have nothing to do with him. Cohen was very emotional as he apologized to the judge, saying:

It was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man that led me to choose a path of darkness over light. Time and time again I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds rather than to listen to my own inner voice and my moral compass.

The left thinks that Cohen's sentencing marks the beginning of the end for Trump's presidency. They may be ultimately disappointed in that regard. But this does intensify the long national nightmare of the Muller investigation that seems to have no end in sight.