How Immigration Crackdowns Backfire

The trouble with Arizona's draconian new law

Arizona legislators are fed up with being terrorized by illegal immigrants, and they have passed a law to get tough. Under the measure, passed this week and sent to the governor, police would have to stop and question anyone they suspect of being in this country without legal authorization.

The bill passed after the fatal shooting of Robert Krentz, a 58-year-old rancher whose killer apparently entered illegally from Mexico. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says police are also under siege: "We've had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona."

Even Sen. John McCain, once a supporter of immigration reform, has called for the immediate placement of 3,000 National Guard soldiers along the border.

It's no surprise that Arizonans resent the recent influx of unauthorized foreigners, some of them criminals. But there is less here than meets the eye.

The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. But contrary to myth, they have not brought an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. Surprise of surprises, the state has gotten safer.

Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona.

Babeu's claim about police killings came as news to me. When I called his office to get a list of victims, I learned there has been only one since the beginning of 2008—deeply regrettable, but not exactly a trend.

Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Most come here to work, and in their desire to stay, they are generally afraid to do anything that might draw the attention of armed people wearing badges.

El Paso, Texas, is next door to the exceptionally violent Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and easily accessible to illegal entry. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the United States.

In 2007, scholars Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing investigated the issue for the Immigration Policy Center and concluded that "if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase."

That's not to say Arizonans don't have a right to be upset when Mexicans trespass across private land on a regular basis. But you could solve that problem by making it easier for them to immigrate legally.

It's also worth remembering that this used to be a rare phenomenon. What made it common was not a new avalanche of people coming to the United States without permission. It was a federal offensive to intercept them in major border cities where they used to arrive.

"Closing the old entry points diverted them into places which didn't have many undocumented immigrants before," Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey told me. Instead of sneaking into San Diego or El Paso, they are prone to entering somewhere else—often in the Arizona desert, where the chance of being caught is lower.

Turning the border into a 2,000-mile replica of the Berlin Wall may sound like a simple cure for the problem. But besides being hugely expensive, it would have effects the advocates would not relish.

How so? Massey says the number of people coming illegally has not risen appreciably in the last couple of decades. But the number staying has climbed, because anyone who leaves faces a harder task returning.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Untermensch||

    Who cares what the actual results are? Anti-immigrant hysteria keeps folks like Joe Arpaio elected and serves as a circus for the masses to distract them from real issues and allow our glorious leaders to continue fleecing the plebs.

  • ||

    Amen! Nothing like a hot hatred of the left to keep people from noticing the harm being done to them by the right.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    Fuckin' Arizona! You do something awesome like the no permit needed to carry concealed and then you do something stupid like this. Damnit.

    One step forward and two steps back. (Nobody gets to far like that.)

  • Yawn||

    Yeah, nothing like a state that represents it's constituents, is there?

  • jk||

    Illegal immigrant populations seem to rise in proportion to Americans on social assistance.
    Correlation or causation?
    I figure that illegal immigrants are only doing the work that Americans on social assistance are too proud to do.

    Want to do something about illegal immigrants?
    Make poverty unpleasant so people will choose to work instead of soak off the government.
    Then, when illegals can't find work, they will find somewhere else to go.

  • ||

    Make poverty unpleasant so people will choose to work instead of soak off the government.

    Word to this^.

    We are starting to see the consequences of enacting a European style welfare state here.

    The amount of entitlements available remove the incentive to work. When someone is taking a cut in income when they get off the dole and get a job, something is terribly wrong. Also, Americans present sense of entitlement far outweighs their sense of pride, as hard as it is to believe there used to be a stigma attached to relying on the state.

    I'm just not bashing the poor here either, the amount of crony capitalism and corporate welfare/subsidies is also a symptom of the entitlement disease.

  • Untermensch||

    I just made a similar point. A few years back I realized that if I went on the dole I would make more than I did staying off it. I didn’t consider myself poor, but by Federal guidelines I was impoverished. We actually qualified for various governmental programs that we didn't use and my wife used WIC for about nine months before going in to tell the folks there that she didn't want it anymore (and no, not because we were suddenly wealthy, but because she couldn't stand being a sponge off society any more).

    When you read about hipster grifters who use foodstamps to subsidize a pretty comfortable lifestyle, it's clear that we've gone too far.

  • ||

    Yeah, I just scrolled down to see your comment and you basically assert the same thing.

    I think that hand-outs are but one facet of the new American way, which is "you deserve it because you are you".

    Right now I work in a restaurant, everyday the news tells more stories of unemployment and financial woes, and guess what? We can't find people to work and are always short staffed. Others in the industry tell me the same thing. So I asked myself; Shouldn't we be getting tons of resumes and applications? Why aren't we?

    My question was answered by something that happened to a buddy of mine. He's a cook and his wife works in academia, she got laid off and he still had a job. The owner of the restaurant he works at offered her a job, and even though they were short on cash she refused because she felt the job was below her.

    You see she felt entitled to a job with benefits and easy hours, just because she was she.

    Anecdotes are not evidence, but this type of scenario has played itself out in front of me many times, and has shaped my viewpoint.

  • ||

    I took a trip to Germany while I was in undergrad in '95 and Germany was having this very problem with their immigrants, particularly from Turkey. Turkish families would immigrate and essentially do the "welfare queen" thing: establish benefits and have more children to increase their benefits. And IIRC, the benefits they gave were very generous. Eventually austerity measures were employed and the problem eventually corrected itself.

  • Robert||

    But you're not being a sponge off society. You're just getting back a tiny fraction of what was sponged off you. Why should you be the sucker (or rather, suckee) forever?

  • ||

    On the subject of the decline of shame, on 4/20 I saw a report on TV about folks upside down on their mortgages in FL. One young guy bought a condo in 2005 for $210,000, put down $20,000 and took an interest-only loan for the rest. He paid for about 24 months, then stopped. It has now been about 28 months since he last paid, because the identical condo across the street can be purchased today for $45,000. But he continues to reside in the place, so he has lived in effect rent free for more than two years. The report characterized what he did as economically rational, which it certainly seems to be, at least on a micro scale. He seems to feel that he is square with the bank because he paid, between down payment and interest, roughly what the condo is now worth, a notion which no one pointed out to him is nonsensical rationalizing.
    What occurred to me was that the young man had done precisely what everyone is so incensed at Wall Street for doing: privatizing profit and socializing loss. In this instance, he has personally profited by the use of a dwelling for a couple of years; were he a renter, he would be paying 800/month or so, so his squatting is a drag on the rental market, too. He also enjoyed the benefit a tax deduction for the interest, so his wager was underwritten by those who pay tax without benefit of an interest deduction. And he enjoyed the benefit of having a bet down in the big casino. In this case, he lost, but it might have turned out differently. Every gambler would like to have his losing wager back after the wheel stops spinning.
    The loss, as was pointed out later in the report, is socialized, borne by you and me and widows and orphans and those whose pension funds invested in his promise to repay, now rationalized away as uneconomical by a young man who might once have been a productive citizen, but now is just a grifter, a scam artist on a small scale. He has broken his word and has not only got away with it, but has been rewarded for it, has lived rent free for a long time, has even been on TV, and feels no remorse for his current behavior. His mother may have tried to teach him that cheaters never prosper, but now he knows better; and that will color his decisions going forward. His behavior is in a sense a scale model of what went wrong, an illustration of how bad decisions don’t have to have unpleasant consequences, of how Wall Street cheated and got away with it, of how the government meddled with the best of intentions and unwittingly distorted the markets with tragic consequences. It is a view on how all the actors think about what they have done, why they seem to think it is OK and not shameful; and most of all how corrosive it is, how readily it pervades our culture.

  • ||

    What a lot of these deadbeats don't realize is that they will get a 1099 for all the principle which the bank writes off and then they will have a big fat federal tax bill.

  • ||

    I suspect that all of the current US "european-style welfare" will collapse, along with the US financial/economic system, shortly. However, I think you've missed one of the BIG reasons for collecting welfare, while allowing illegals to take the work--COSTS OF ACCOUNTING! Those illegals don't pay 15% self-employment tax; 10% income tax; 10% tithe to the church; $$hundreds for annual income tax preparation; $$thousands for auto insurance, etc, in order to live modestly on the remainder after they mow your lawns.

  • ||

    No, it's illegal for them to work at a wage competitive with illegal aliens due to minimum wage laws. Of course, cushy welfare state benefits are probably better than a minimum wage job anyway, so your point stands.

  • The Great Chicago Squirrel||

    What you fail to understand is that the jobs illegals are taking in AZ are primarily farming jobs, and only get paid $50 a week, because they're illegal. Can you survive on $50 a week? I didn't think so, case and point.

  • ||

    im from the heart of agriculture in AZ...YUMA! i'd like to know where these workers are only getting $50 a week because that is pure BS!

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    People on this site often make up numbers. Or at least half of them do...

  • Mikel L||

    74% of all statistics are made up on the spot ;)

  • ||

    Poverty IS unpleasant, dipshit.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    There are only two courses of action:

    1) Make it extremely easy for immigrants to get citizenship,

    or

    2) Use the military to make it impossible to get across the border.

    If the politicians were concerned with illegal immigration, if they wanted to put a stop to it, and in full knowledge of their spending habits when taxpayers are footing the bill, you'd be crazy to think that they wouldn't have the military down there on the border and the world's longest DMZ there as well.

    No, the politicans don't care about it. They are not going to "secure" the border. Thus, the only option which makes sense for America is to make citizenship quick and easy to obtain.

  • ||

    Why make citizenship quick and easy to obtain?

    Right of residence and the right to work is all that illegal immigrants want. Why not just give them that?

  • ||

    Agree, anybody who can support themselves and does not commit violent crimes should be able to stay.

    I'll take a hard working immigrant, legal or not, over a self-important, sense of entitlement feeling, American blockhead any day.

  • ||

    That's what I was going to say.

    I'm constantly amazed that some people do not know that there are millions of foreigners living perfectly legally in this country who have absolutely no interest in becoming citizens, just as there are millions of Americans in foreign countries who feel the same way.

    As for the social services argument, if it were easier to go back and forth across the border, most Mexican immigrants would be going back to Mexico for things like family visits and non-emergency medical and dental treatment.

  • Joe||

    Because if they don't become citizens they can't become they good little Democratic voters they are supposed to be.

  • ||

    Uh ... they can do that in their own country ...

  • ||

    What did you do to get yours?

  • JohnD||

    You forgot one:
    3) make it difficult on people that hiire them... as in fines and legal penalties.

  • ||

    Yep, just what the county needs. Even more governemnt interference in trade and commerce.

    What, you want to make America just like France? Fucking cheese eating surrender monkey, why don't you just fucking move there.

  • Yawn||

    Better France than Mexico, thank you.

  • MWG||

    Ah yes, Mexico: The land of limited government...

  • The Flame||

    Really? I thought Mexico isn't the land of limited government. Have you heard what did Mexico do to illegal aliens?

  • ||

    Yeah JohnD, because it is your right as an American to pick lettuce for $12 an hour with full benefits.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Gotta love cosmotarians. These are the people that are willing to sell out their countrymen to save 25¢ on a head of lettuce, but then get on their moral high-horse over the possibility an old man made some off-color racial remarks in a decade old newsletter.

  • ||

    What the fuck are you talking about "newsletter", did I fucking say newsletter?

    Also, "my countrymen" what the hell do I owe a guy cause he happens to live on my side of the river. If you want to pay more for food to support entitled fucks who think the world owes them a goddamn living go ahead and do so, but don't come down on me because I think people should be paid what the market will bear, not what some union of "vicitmized" countrymen says it should be.

    Also, would you please define "cosmotarian" so everyone can see the assumptions behind your comment.

    In conclusion, go fuck yourself, and while your at it shove your useless, meaningless pejorative up you ass.

  • ||

    I'd agree with you, were the US still a free country. However, it is not. Illegals are financially subsidized--in fact, most of them hold Marxist views & consider themselves as entitled to "your" property as you! Your tax payments will pay for their ObamaCare subsidies, since giving them a "legal path to citizenship" has become politically correct. (Meanwhile, I,...who am not hispanic and who is a US citizen..., was detained by a border control agent who asked my citizenship & required that I present my I.D...miles from border & without any probable cause! So much for any of MY constitutional rights)!

  • jacob||

    I'll give a 1+, but I have to admit that capitol l didn't make any comments about Ron Paul.

  • Dave Pinsen||

    There are more than two courses of action. Here's a third: enforce our current immigration laws at the workplace. If businesses get heavily fined for hiring illegal immigrants, most of them will stop hiring them. And if illegal immigrants can't find work here, most of them will go home.

  • John Rohan||

    Make it quick and easy to obtain? Are you serious?

    Citizenship in the United States shouldn't be doled out like candy. Don't you want people here who actually share our values?

    Moreover, our population has already passed 300 million, and there are a LOT of people in the world who would like to move here. Would you prefer 1 billion instead? What would be your upper limit and what would you do about the problem then?

  • ed||

    Make poverty unpleasant

    You mean it's pleasant now? Where can I get some of that?

  • Untermensch||

    Not to pee on your parade, but compared to most of history, even our impoverished folks have it pretty good. Although it's politically incorrect to point it out because obesity is now a “disease,” just how impoverished are people really if they can afford to be fat, which was historically the symbol of wealth? I say that not to belittle poverty, but rather to point out that poverty today for those with government assistance seldom carries the very real risks associated with poverty in the past.

    A single mother with five kids by different unknown fathers who lives off food stamps will receive better medical care than I get and a host of benefits I don't get. Heck, they can even get coupons to go buy stuff from the local farmers’ market that I don’t get because I actually pay for what I get.

    I was stunned once about eight years ago to read a breakdown of all the benefits that someone on welfare who knows how to work the system can obtain. At the time the effective income of such an individual was actually higher than my income was since I made enough not to qualify for those benefits.

    In other words, I could have quit work and done better than I did by working (although I'd have had to have moved into a rent-controlled apartment instead of a single-family home).

    Such an experience may not be typical for the “poor”, but it is possible to live off welfare without facing any serious privation (starvation, untreated disease) of the sort that would have been common for many, many people just a century ago. The fact that people still do face these things is often a result of the fact that they don’t avail themselves of the programs that are there. Now if people can’t even be bothered to take advantage of “free” stuff that’s there for them, that doesn’t say anything about the nature of their situation.

  • ||

    A single mother with five kids by different unknown fathers who lives off food stamps will receive better medical care than I get and a host of benefits I don't get.

    Where I practice, I know it is getting harder and harder to find physicians that will accept Medicaid. Majority of those patients are being referred to teaching hospitals with satellite clinics, which is not a bad thing at all, but the idea that they get non-emergent care on demand without waits and restrictions is not accurate.

    I have a little over two months left before I am out of CMH. And I am counting the days.

  • ||

    I have a little over two months left before I am out of CMH.

    Party! at GM's house in 2 months!

    I'll bring the donkey.

  • ||

    LOL OK, cap l. Don't forget the women! Let there be Cheetos and hand jobs for all my men!

  • Wash your hands first||

    that cheetos dust stains everything orange ;-) NTTAWWT

  • 267 B||

    Bonjour ami

  • ||

    I agree, except that obesity is not a sign that one has a lot of money to spend on food. Calorie for calorie the cheapest foods are refined starches and sugars, along with vegetable oils (franken-fats). These 3 ingredients in various interations were almost unheard of until around 100 years ago when they became much cheaper to amke. Now they make up most of the food that poor people eat, which is why they tend to be fat. We all know it costs more to get fresh meat, seafood, and produce.

  • ||

    We all know it costs more to get fresh meat, seafood, and produce.

    "We all know..." is not good enough, when I go to the store the most expensive things I see are the crappy processed foods.

  • ||

    When I go to the store the LEAST expensive things I see are the crappy processed foods. What the hell store do you go to?

  • St. V||

    Lmao I know right? The unhealthy p.o.s. foodage costs half the price of anything with even remote nutritional value.

  • Mike L||

    Homemade baked beans are fairly nutritious and cheap. Or, if obesity is the problem, one could buy the more nutritious food but simply buy less of it...novel idea?

  • ||

    I go to regular grocery store, though it is a bit ghetto. The people that I see with their access cards are usually buying pre-made crap.

    They sell those already cooked chicken fingers for about $12-$13 for a lb, when a bag of frozen chicken 2lb goes for about $6-$8. A bag of pre-made fries is around $5 for 1.5lb whereas you can get 10lbs of potatoes for that price. Coke is $2.50 for a 2 liter and water is free.

    Speaking of frozen pizza, yes they sell that for $5, if you want the small size store brand. The regular sized pizzas go for $7-$12.

    With fruits and veggies if you are smart and buy at the right time there are deals to be had, today they had strawberries buy one get one, for instance.

    I'm sure that if you compare price per calorie, then the junk is going to win. But, if one is obese then they really didn't need the calories anyways. It's their choice, but I believe the argument that you can't eat well if your poor to be a bit disingenuous.

  • ||

    Dont take my word, just get out a calculator and look at the cost per calorie, not the cost per item. A frozen pizza costs more than a head of lettuce or a few apples but the lettuce has only about 30-40 calories, the apples are about 80 each, as opposed to God knows how many in the pizza.

  • Kroneborge||

    2000 to 3000. So for $5 you can get over 2000 calories in a frozen pissa,

  • ||

    A bag of chips/junk = at least 1400 calories, probably under $3.

  • ||

    Food selection is part of it, which is why subsidies of any foodstuff are inherently bad and this illustrates perfectly why these policies hurt the very people they are supposed to protect.

    It is also how much intake (though I would never suggest a diet consisting totally of refined carbs and partially hydrogenated oils) is being ingested. Obesity, barring genetic factors (yes, ethnicity plays a large role in likelihood of developing an obese condition), is also marked by a sedentary lifestyle.

  • Untermensch||

    I didn't say that one has a lot of money to spend on food. But inadequate nutrition (in terms of calories) is not a sign of poverty in this country or in Europe, unlike in the rest of the world and history. The victims of the Irish Famine (a really interesting study of a government-created disaster since Ireland was a food exporter during the Famine but the native Irish weren’t allowed to own land or utilize resources by law, so all this food was protected by law and sold elsewhere) would have loved access to the diet that even the poorest people here in the U.S. have. When was the last time that large numbers of poor were dying of hunger here? Even if the cupboard is bare, there are lots of options for them. Instead the poor are often the fattest segment of the population, which tells me that any comparison of their lot to that of poor people in the past is pretty stupid. Maybe they’re eating junk, but they are still eating

  • Robert||

    Here in NYC the limiting factor is housing. Food you can get, but they have only a $215/mo. housing allowance, and that's if you do no work at all; it's reduced steeply if you have income. The only way to get housing otherwise is Section 8, and there's a long waiting list for that, so you'd have to in effect commit to living in shelters for a couple of years to qualify.

    Meanwhile if you collect a fairly trivial cash assistance, their demands on your time are as great as they would be for a job.

  • Chris||

    I currently rent a house under Section 8 in KY (though I'll be selling it as soon as the lease is up - don't feel right about taking government money anymore and being a landlord sucks), and not only is the subsidy much larger than $215, but it's much larger than my tenant's portion of the rent.

  • fo||

    jk - I think you are on to something there. Why work if you can sit on the sofa, watch Oprah and wait for the welfare check in the mail? Take away the free ride and see how many unwanted jobs there are in this country

  • ||

    Well Said!

  • ¢||

    Right of residence and the right to work is all that illegal immigrants want. Why not just give them that?

    It's not a good trade (

  • ¢||

    Well, shit.

    It's not a good trade for 20% black unemployment (which is really more like 50%) and eternal internal race wars (by other means), I say. Twice.

  • ||

    Keep importing the peon and we will soon lose what liberties we have left.

  • Vinny Victor||

    Stop importing the peon and we will soon lose what liberties we have left.

  • ||

    I think I have made a 180 on this issue, which was identical to Milton Friedman's: allowing immigration is impossible with the current welfare state.

    On John Stossel's show, I can't remember the name of the guy, but he suggested that Milton Friedman may have gotten it backwards for once. Instead he suggested legalize immigration as fast as possible and completely undermine the welfare state, forcing austerity measures to be taken.

  • ||

    Was the guy on Stossel's show Milton's son David Friedman? He made that argument some time ago in Liberty.

  • ||

    Incidentally, Milton Friedman's actual position was...

    Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.

    That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off.

    In other words, legalizing illegal immigrants may be expensive with the current welfare state. But a policy of tolerating illegal immigrants is far better than prohibiting them.

    I would prefer an unlimited residence and work visa so the US can identify the immigrants who have passed their background check, but that visa would grant no individualized welfare and would not put one on a track toward citizenship.

  • ||

    One of Friedman's premsies seems to be mistaken. Perhaps it was correct when he wrote the quoted material but it has long since ceased to be: "...they don't qualify for the myriad of other benefits..." CA pays for education at all levels and social services of every kind.

  • ||

    More open boarders claptrap from Reason magazine. I've lived in southern California nearly my whole life; and I've witnessed first-hand the deleterious societal impact of allowing millions of unskilled and impoverished persons to relocate within our boarders. Entire cities than once were middle-class havens are now economically anemic slums. These communities will never be restored--their tax base is decimated. Also, and more insidious, I've watched the populist Latino political movement in L.A. spawn politicians with a social-welfare, open boarders agenda. These politicians promise impoverished, immigrant Latinos their "fair share" of their foreign host's welfare, schools, and infrastructure. (Here, our own law as to birthright citizenship is used against us.) These socio-ethnic interests are likewise partnered with the public unions that have abetted in ruining California's balance sheet. Sorry guys--go ahead and use the ad hominem "racist" if you want (it's always the rebuttal of last resort around here); but, enough really is enough. I'd love to argue the merits of the methods involved; but one way or another, this human flood must end. Personally, I'll be voting with my feet soon; and my white-collar salary will go with it. Thus reinforcing the cycle.

  • ||

    No Shawn I think your concerns are well reasoned and definitely legitimate; especially with first hand observation of the scumbag politicians that feed off the new "community minded" voters.

    I too share your concern with reason and many fellow libertarians that let their idealism get the better of them when it comes to immigration. In modern America, votes = federal money, and this effect is amplified if the target population is either very wealthy and can influence politicians directly, or very poor and easy to buy off by throwing a little cash their way.

    I was wondering if you think Chapman's claim that immigrants are more law-abiding than Americans is accurate. Personally the argument seems weakly supported and counter intuitive.

  • ||

    I think the crime statistics debate is largely a misdirect (intentionally so) from the real point: We cannot continue to assimilate millions of undereducated and otherwise unskilled human beings within the borders of the United States. This notion is elegantly simple in its premise. Wealth creation is a relative game; in the U.S., unskilled workers simply cannot contribute to NET wealth creation, after considering transfer payments, public education, public services, and infrastructure requirements. Call it the Law of Finite Resources--but the turnip in California lost all its blood a long time ago. And by the way, this same inability to create net wealth applies to our own citizens, who drop-out of high school. Most high school drop-outs will NEVER create net wealth for the U.S. As such, we vigorously need to tackle the drop-out issue. The affect is the same, whether the unskilled person comes from outside, or from within, our borders.

  • Robert||

    Tbe drop-out issue? Where are you, in the 1950s or 1960s? Dropping out of school doesn't make them unproductive; it's just a sorting machine to separate the unproductive from the productive.

  • ||

    Where are you, Robert? In the domain of cynicism and misapprehension of causal inference? Is a 14 year-old predestined to be productive/unproductive? In some instances owing to life circumstances, maybe. But on the whole, graduating high school in the U.S. can actually CAUSE someone to be more productive--by affording them the skill set to engage in higher-return enterprises, activities and business endeavors. Or, if you want to be an epistemological purest, we'll say that graduating high school dramatically enhances the likelihood (probabilist casual inference) that one will become a net producer. Regardless, when someone drops-out of high school, we see the same affect as rampant immigration: an augmented unskilled, uneducated workforce.

  • ||

    I think the skilled vs unskilled argument is a strawman. What skills do any of the commenters here really have? Unless you are a doctor, nurse or engineer, exactly none. Most jobs, even well paying ones require no special skills except those you learn while doing the job. I sell insurance, have for ten years and no skills are required for it. My sixth grader could sell insurance if he wanted to.

  • ||

    I actually do have a master's degree in electrical engineering; but this misses the point entirely. I didn't say one has to be college educated; I have plenty of friends who are more wealthy than me: plumbers, real estate agents, and serial fast-food entrepreneurs. But, without a doubt, we have to have a population that graduates high school; period, end-of-story. With a HS education, one can make decisions re voting, personal finances, further self-education, etc. However, I read in the LA Times last year that the average Latino illegal immigrant has a 6th grade education. As a nation, what can we hope to accomplish with this person? He benefits from being here; on a net basis, we do not.

  • ||

    I said nothing about money. I refer to skills required for work. For ninety percent of the entry level jobs in any industry no skills are required. Employers typically teach the skills they need. You say "With a HS education, one can make decisions re voting, personal finances, further self-education, etc." A high school education is un-necessary for any of those things. The proof is that nearly all non-high school graduates can do those things as can most latino immigrants wiht a 6th grade education.

  • Mike||

    So Shawn, your issue is with an 'underedumacated' populace, and not immigration. I agree.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, I must disagree. The US economy has been altered, irrevocably, as the direct result of the fiat currency game begun in 1913. Outsourcing will continue, until the US standard of living is equivalent to that of the 3rd world. SURPRISE, that will not end the matter--the US is destined, now, to become the mother of all LOW WAGE ECONOMIES! To succeed, our children will emigrate or continue embracing the politically correct, "dumbed down", approach to life.

  • jacob||

    Hey! No fair! Milton Friedman said illegal immigration was a good thing!

  • J_L_B||

    Legalizing the illegals won't accomplish much. Their whole draw is the fact that they're able to undercut the minimum wage wherever they work. They want to remove the threat of deportation, but still be able to undercut the regular worker. Legalizing them only means the next round of illegals can undercut their wages, until those illegals are legalized, and the next round comes over and undercuts the previous round and so on and so on.

  • ||

    Good point.

    Restore our right to the Freedom of Association by repealing the minimum wage laws. It is currently illegal for me to voluntarily enter into a contract that is competitive with an ILLEGAL alien. How messed up is that?

  • J_L_B||

    Practically impossible as the left would fear the creation of a third-world underclass that earns maybe 10 dollars a day or less.

    The minimum wage seems to be a tool whereby the higher classes essentially eliminate the presence of very low-end labor whom they view as nuisances.

  • ||

    Drop outs reproduce, rely on the Nanny State - and feed into this system - repeat cycle ... A few go into service industries. But I don't need to frequent McDonalds that much - trying to stay healthy so I can work long into my 70s so I can pay the taxes that feed the drop out parasites who become members of the IWW Union (I Won't Work).

  • MWG||

    "...trying to stay healthy so I can work long into my 70s so I can pay the taxes that feed the drop out parasites who become members of the IWW Union (I Won't Work)."

    Welfare programs for the IWW union are an extremely small % of the federal budget. Paying for SS and medicare OTOH will keep you working into your 80s. Ironic that they're both programs many illegal immigrants pay into without ever benefiting from.

  • The Flame||

    Hey dipshit, please go kill yourself.

  • ||

    "Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans."

    Is there not a problem with this statement? Simply by arriving in this country illegally, they are breaking the law -- even if it's a silly or ineffectual one. Therefore, isn't the crime rate amongst illegals, by definition, 100%?

  • Ron||

    lets not forget that if they are paying taxes thru their employer, as the left always claims, then they are using a stolen ID and s.s. No., which if I did as a citizen I would be arrested for identity theft. Also if their employer is not paying their taxes, but paying under the table then it's a different crime for both of them. So the only taxes they pay is sales tax which would make for a good reason to have a VAT, but get rid of the income tax at the same time, then illiegals would be paying just like the rest of us and maybe they won't want to stay then.

  • St. V||

    Bless you for being pedantic.

  • ||

    "... if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase."

    Ah, yes, if only we could get rid of all these pesky native-born Americans, the world would be wonderful. Everyone knows that the mere presence of illegal-immigrants reduces crime, look at Mexico it's virtually crime free. Only a genius, like Steve Chapman, could have ferreted out the real reasons behind America's suffering. It makes one wonder why Steve and his ilk just don't emigrate to those far more peaceful and prosperous lands south of our border.

  • Susan Sontag||

    The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Balanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.

  • ||

    And you are the hemorrhoid of whatever race you belong to.

  • ||

    The dead race, thankfully.

  • ||

    I live by the Border and believe me it's a war zone down here and it's got NOTHING to do with immigrants. It's about drugs, drug runners, security and sovereignty.
    We live in a rural area and routinely have "mules", which are young Mexican drug runners come through the property. I am armed whenever I leave the property. There is trash EVERYWHERE.
    We pass Border Patrol check points every time we drive.
    As far as not being able to return...bullshit! Being apprehended means a free ride back to the Border. Once the mules drop their load they simply walk to a Border Patrol check point. They literally stroll past our house and saunter down the road until a van from BP picks them up.
    America, learn to separate the two issues, Immigrants looking for work and armed Undocumented Aliens invading our Borders and killing our citizens. What part of Illegal don't you understand? We need help down here! Follow these stories in the Tucson Daily Star.

  • ||

    Make that the Arizona Daily Star (or, the "Red Star" as some here would call it).

  • ||

    Agree; If you don't live in Southern AZ you don't know what it is like. Home invasions in Tucson are occuring at 2 or more a week. Sometimes they hit the correct drug house, lots of times they miss and kill off an innocent family.
    The trash and filth and sometimes forest fires from these illegals needs stopped now.
    If you don't live here you just don't know.

  • ||

    the home invasions are even occurring right by U of A's campus these days. remember year back or so the ex army college student who capped two home invaders in his apartment at around 2 am or so?

  • ||

    Shawn said:

    "I've lived in southern California nearly my whole life; and I've witnessed first-hand the deleterious societal impact of allowing millions of unskilled and impoverished persons to relocate within our boarders."

    Shawn, don't trouble the Libertarians' pretty little heads with actual empirical realities. They prefer living on the planet that only exists in their utopian theories, just like the Marxists.

  • MWG||

    Well I live in Arizona and have seen "first-hand" the kind of decent, hardworking, and skilled people that these people are. That work hard at jobs most Americans are unwilling to take and for a wage that in many cases is still well above the minimum wage.

    How's that for "actual empirical reality" dumbass?

  • ||

    i dont remember when in history there was an official statement by society that said such and such jobs were no longer suitable for americans to perform and we need a large influx of migrant labor to fill the gap.

    however i do remember large companies in cahoots with government trying to nickel and dime their way to wealth by turning a head and not paying attention to a problem that swelled and displaced once decent jobs to embarrasing labor.

  • ||

    can you tell me why as a scientist with a B.S. im only worth $12/hr for my job???

    could it be because certain privelaged children with bottomless bank accounts from around the world are allowed to come to this country and "play" while they fullfill the minimum requirements of their H1B

  • Timmy Roid||

    Because you're a total prick and everyone you have ever worked with hates you.

  • ||

    Gee, more evidence that libertarianism is irrelevant to real life! What airy nonsense.

    Stick to worrying about marijuana, boys. You might actually make some progress there.

  • ||

    if we didn't insist on having that pesky border there wouldn't be any "illegal" in illegal immigration.

    Jesus H. Christ! just when I thought libertarians were ok, you start spouting this nonsense.

    Rule of Law you idiots!

  • ||

    "Susan Sontag|4.22.10 @ 11:23AM|#

    The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Balanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history."

    omg! is this a libertarian site or Van Jones's personal blog?

  • ||

    Sick racist twit!

  • ||

    do you have any proof i'm a racist? or are you just a child that lashes out at something they don't like with anything they can think of?

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Well, intelligent people can recognize a gag post, so even though we can't know if you're a racist we CAN tell that you're stupid.

    On second thought, maybe you're just new here and don't know any better.

  • EMp||

    I have a question - why can't Mexico get it's own act together and become a properous society? They have natural resources (oil, produce, real-estate, etc.). Could it be that it is run by a corrupt to the bone political and business oligarchy that benefits from having a huge and replaceable under-educated class of worker-drones that take what work they can get and then the cycle is constantly repeated? Hmmm.....

  • John Rohan||

    Very good point. And by exporting its disgruntled population to the United States to send remittances back home, it allows the corrupt political machine to stay in place. If the border were completely sealed off, then Mexicans might decide that it's finally time to do something about fixing their own country.

  • EMp||

    Bingo and thanks for the follow-up, John. :-)

  • automata||

    Add in that the insatiable U.S. appetite for drugs is turning their country into a war zone.

  • ||

    Really? Illegals commit fewer crimes than Native Americans? Come visit my jail. Look at the statistics up here in northern Arizona where the Native Americans live. You'll find 1/3 of the jail population is illegal aliens. You'll also find approximately half of all the drug traffickers of pot, meth and heroin are illegal aliens in this jail. So tell me again about those numbers YOU quote. Where did you get them?

  • ||

    I think by "native Americans", Chapman meant people born in the US, not American Indians.

  • ||

    So, I understand what you wrote, the illegal immigration problem was caused by America making an attempt (half-hearted though it was) to enforce the laws regarding illegal immigration. How ridiculous is that???
    By the way, I live in a town of 3,000 in North Texas. In the last few years 1 young lady from this town, a senior in college, who was engaged to be married was killed in a traffic accident where an inebriated illigal hit the car in which she was a passenger from behind. Her car exploded in flames. She had a closed casket because her body was unrecognizable. Another older resident was killed in another accident when a car driven by an illegal hit him head on. That is 2 fatalities in a tiny town. Police officers in Dallas and Fort Worth have been killed by illegals.
    The right thing to do is for the federal government to enforce the laws on the books. It is clear that the federal government won't so states are taking extreme measures because of the federal governments impotence.

  • ||

    if libertarianism is going to lead us down the same moronic path as social democracy (marxism) then what good is it?

    Steve Chapman and his ilk must be called out and repudiated by real libertarians.

  • ||

    Good call!

  • ||

    sorry Mark, I thought you were calling me a racist, but you weren't, my apologies.

  • EMp||

    Keep on preachin' on, Shoey! :-)

  • ||

    +1

  • St. V||

    In order to be a "real" libertarian, we have to agree with your conservative views. Interesting mindset...

  • ||

    since when is enforcing the law a "conservative" view?

  • ||

    When the law is wrong.

  • ||

    when the law is wrong you change the law not disregard it.

  • ||

    I can't change the law. What do I do now?

  • ||

    don't be a whiner, try harder

  • ||

    Would this have been your advice to those violating fugitive slave laws int he 1850s?

  • MWG||

    or the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 and Sedition Act of 1918?

  • ||

    nice try

  • ||

    being a libertarian does not equal being an anarchist, the rules should be few but strictly enforced and punishment for breaking them should be swift.

  • ||

    being a libertarian is not about being all warm and fuzzy, or "social justice", it's about individual freedom, responsiblity and equality before the law, not equality of outcome.

  • ||

    Don't you find it odd then to advocate a set of laws that violate individual freedoms and make people unequal before the law based on where the hell they were born?

  • ||

    I find it odd that you are attempting to use libertarian philosophy to justify the nullification of our national border.

  • ||

    I do not advocate nullification of the national border. I advocate the government actually living up to the relationship between itself and inalienable individual rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

    Certainly the government has the power to prevent anyone it wants to from crossing the border. It also has the power to execute anyone whose last name starts with the letter 'B'.

    I simply ask that the government use its powers to secure individual rights rather than violate them.

  • ||

    Our Founding Documents do not apply to the citizens of Mexico or any other country, they were written for application to U.S. citizens, Natural Law may be universal morally and ethically but only our Founding Documents create a system that forces the our Government to apply it to it's citizens.

  • MWG||

    Um... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

  • ||

    yes, all men are created equal, but our government is only charged with protecting the rights of our citizens, not the citizens of other countries.

  • MWG||

    Kill an non citizen and see what happens.

  • ||

    The founding documents apply to the government, not to the citizens.

    Egad.

  • ||

    our Founding documents charge the government with the protection of our rights, the citizens of this countries rights, not the citizens of other countries.

  • ||

    The word "citizen" is rare in the Constitution. Much more common are the words "person" or "people" -- words that clearly apply to noncitizens because the founders had no problem using the word "citizen" when they meant "citizen".

  • ||

    that's one interperation, yours, not mine

  • ||

    Wayyyyyyy too much to ask of our corrupt, fascist/marxist govt! (Where were YOU when Almighty Fat Federal Govt was enabled, in 1913, by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act)?

  • Dr. Q||

    Borders are gang-turf boundaries.

  • jacob||

    If it was my desire to break into your house and take whatever I wanted, wouldn't any law that stopped me violate my freedoms?

  • jacob||

    If it was my desire to break into your house and take whatever I wanted, wouldn't any law that stopped me violate my freedoms?

  • EMp||

    Great rhetorical, Jacob....

  • ||

    Only if you don't believe in the right of property.

    It is true that you can develop a consistent theory of rights that includes an absolute right to property or one that includes an absolute right to no property. It is also true that only one of those works.

  • ||

    the rules should be few...

    ...and consistent with government's mandate to secure individual rights.

    Discriminating against people's right to associate and work wherever they can find agreeable terms, based solely on a condition of their birth, is not.

  • ||

    borders are created for a reason, because ppl want to group together and create rules that are benefical for themselves, if you want to join that group you have to play by their rules.

  • ||

    That's why clubs are created. Borders are created because some government has determined the extent to which it can push its own dominion without causing some other government to forceably resist it.

    Dominion is not property, and the citizenry of a dominion does not have property rights to the dominion. If I wish to house or employ a foreigner on my property, you are violating both my rights and his rights by prohibiting that association without compelling cause.

  • ||

    you speak of Dominion, but no where in the Constitution is the Government given that power, it is given certain sovereign powers by the consent of the governed, it is the governed who make the decisions and the governed evidently desire borders and want them enforced. there is no such thing as a "citizen of the world" you may choose to call yourself that, but it has no meaning.

  • ||

    Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the power to regulate immigration. Yet you seem to think that it has it.

  • ||

    the government is charged with securing the border.

  • ||

    Against invasion. Not against migration.

  • ||

    uncontrolled immigration is invasion.

  • MWG||

    Immigration is heavily controlled in the US, thus you have a large flow of immigrants subverting that control.

    Sorta like alcohol in the 1920s. Heavily controlled to the point of prohibition, thus you had a large amount illegal drinkers.

  • ||

    Article 1 Section 8
    (paragraph 4)
    "To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization"

  • ||

    Naturalization is not immigration.

  • ||

    In it's power to secure the borders the government may make law that considers crossing our border a crime.
    In it's power to make law concerning the naturalization it may make breaking the law grounds for denial of naturalization.
    In it's power to enforce the law it may deport you.

  • ||

    In it's power to secure the borders the government may make law that considers crossing our border a crime.

    Not according to the Constitution.

    Incidentally, one of the usurpations of the rights of the colonists cited in the Declaration of Independence is exactly the power you ascribe to the federal government here: controlling migration.

  • ||

    "Incidentally, one of the usurpations of the rights of the colonists cited in the Declaration of Independence is exactly the power you ascribe to the federal government here: controlling migration."

    ok, you got me, the Federal Government does not have the power to bar immigration, you're correct.

    that means that the power to do so then goes to the individual State, which means Arizona got it exactly right, it has the power to regulate immigration across it's border.

  • ||

    i'm glad we can finally agree on something.

  • ||

    boxed ya right in there... now thank me for your call.

  • ||

    and don't forget to record your time here otherwise La Raza won't pay you in full.

  • ||

    Sorry. I stepped out to get a burrito.

  • ||

    I am okay devolving the authority over immigration to the several states.

    Of course, I missed the federal government's absolving itself of immigration control. When did that happen?

    Also, I would prefer that the federal government still control the background checks and issue a general unlimited residence visa at the border. That way the federal government ensures that those entering and passing between states are not dangerous while each state can decide what immigration regime it places on top of that.

  • ||

    "I missed the federal government's absolving itself of immigration control. When did that happen?"

    you called that one...

    "Also, I would prefer that the federal government still control the background checks and issue a general unlimited residence visa at the border. That way the federal government ensures that those entering and passing between states are not dangerous while each state can decide what immigration regime it places on top of that."

    I see, you're all for government control of it, as long as they control it the way you want them to... my isn't that convenient?

  • ||

    I would be all for a Constitutional amendment that gave the federal government exactly those limited powers over immigration.

    Would you?

  • ||

    it's not legal immigration that worries me, it's what happens to the ones not here legally, I say they are criminals and should be deported, I have no problem with anyone coming here as long as they follow the rules established for getting here.

  • ||

    the question remains, do we the ppl, thur our government have a right to control who comes here and how many.

  • ||

    do we have to let anyone who shows up at the door in? if we don't let them in, and they find a way in anyway should we allow them to stay?

  • ||

    the public, in general and by large margins, say no.

  • ||

    Your rulers say yes--and that is all that counts, currently

  • MWG||

    No. If I want to have my sister-in-law immigrate to the US that's none of your damn business.

  • MWG||

    That was a response to your 4.22.10 @ 6:15PM post.

  • ||

    hope she doesn't come to Arizona, she'll likely be deported.

  • MWG||

    I thought you were for legal immigration...

  • The Flame||

    Hey dipshit, what country you born in?

  • MWG||

    Have you ever been through the legal immigration process? I have (my wife is a foreigner) and can tell you the rules are many.

  • The Flame||

    pics or it didn't happen, dipshit.

  • MWG||

    +1

  • Kroneborge||

    Also living in CA, I have seen the rise in crime associated with illegals. However, I would be that at least some of that would disapear if you legalized drugs. After all, a lot of the crime is related to the drug trade.

    Anyway, I think part of the problem is the sheer numbers of illegal immigrants. This has slowed down the need for them to assimilate (why bother to learn English if everthing is in Spanish?).

    I think if you can slow the numbers down, you could get back towards a sensible immigration policy.

    Yes immigration "can" be a good thing. But it's our country, it's our terms.

  • EMp||

    Exactly - Hear, hear Kroneborge!

  • ||

    Its NOT your terms that count--it is your rulers' terms.

  • ||

    How 'bout this....why don't we DEPORT the welfare free loaders to Mexico and KEEP the illegals.

    I'm dead serious. These people leave their homes behind to come here for a better life...just like our forefathers. They take menial jobs and live 4 to a room, just like my white trash cotton mill relatives did in North Carolina 70 years ago.

    They are who WE used to be before we became a bunch of whiny pu**ies.

    Plus hispanic chicks are hot and the food is excellent!

  • St. V||

    Hell yes about the food. Some Latinas are cute too. Pshaw!

  • The Flame||

    Are you saying that illegal aliens don't free-loading like white trashes?

    Fucking moron!

    Fucking morons!

    I am sick of hearing fucking morons talking about which white chicks is better, hispanic chicks is better, or black chicks is better!

    That foods is better or this foods is better! Whatever the fuck is better!

    That is fucking pathetic!

    I thought I was pathetic because I have a shitty english.

  • Joe C||

    So, what we're seeing is prohibition and regulation making something less safe? Weird.

  • ||

    I'm serious. Most immigrants just want to be left alone to make a buck...just like me. Sure, there are plenty of bad ones and they should get the boot. I'm all for that. But remember, we let them in when we needed the cheap labor. We looked the other way WRT the law when it suited our purpose. Now they're here and there is no way in hell we're going to round them up and bus them back. I know that, you know that, everybody knows that. They're usually more libertarian than we are. We may as well get them voting right before it's too late and they become part of the leftist borg collective.

  • St. V||

    So how many people here have had "good" interactions with those here illegally? Aside from one twit in high school, every single person here illegally that I've met are hard working, peaceful individuals. I don't mean "hard working" as in the mop a good floor, I mean they're acing their medical, engineering or psychology classes, and are volunteering for charitable causes. "Uneducated" and "unskilled" my ass. Aside from a language barrier among the older generations that sneak over here, both are overhyped bullshit in their own unique way.

  • MWG||

    Working at a bank while in college I worked with many hispanics (Few with a valid US driver's license) here in Arizona. I found them to be both hardworking and easy to work with. OTOH, it was the white customers who gave me the most grief...

    As a former conservative republican, nothing would give me more satisfaction than to see the party crash and burn as a result of its stance on immigration.

  • The Flame||

    pics or it didn't happen, dipshit.

  • yojimbo||

    probably because your have such a heavy accent that they couldn't understand you.

  • ||

    It occurs to me that someone could want serious immigration control and still be opposed to this Arizona law.

    After all, do you really want local police "stop[ping] and question[ning] anyone they suspect of being in this country without legal authorization."

    Good go, on what reasonable grounds could you even suspect someone of being in this country without legal authorization?

    Because they look Mexican? In Arizona?

    You don't need to be some La Raza supporter to see the potential for just downright error let alone abuse here.

  • MWG||

    You'll find very few conservative/republicans against giving the police greater power.

  • The Flame||

    Like who, dipshit?

  • Sirithil||

    If a cop is found to be stopping and questioning random individual hispanics on the street then there is obviously a problem, and that cop should be disciplined, harshly.

    But if there's six or seven hispanics standing around in a 7-11 parking lot where day laborers are frequently picked up, that would be valid suspicion, IMO.

  • Vaccine||

    You're a fucking idiot, and should be disciplined harshly.

  • ||

    I'm not hispanic; I don't appear hispanic; I'm a US citizen...and I was detained by a US border control agent (miles from the border) WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SUSPICION. Was forced to provide my citizenship & fork over ID document. The "potential for just downright error let alone abuse here" is all about the current tyranny!

  • ||

    We don't need no steeenking aliens, illegal or terrestial. The women are cute until 40 when they all get fat and grow a moustache. And the men...don't get me going on the men.

  • ||

    Well duh. Just like all white women get fat. Men too for that matter.

  • AL||

    This article seems to follow the usual line of argument against immigration enforcement: it's costly, and it doesn't work perfectly, so let's just scrap the whole idea. Couldn't the same be said of the military, or any other legitimate function of government?

    Also, the author asserts that illegals are less criminal than Americans. But is it true that the offspring of illegal Mexican immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than other Americans? This question must also be answered to estimate the cost of illegal immigration.

    Further, the claim that the number of illegals entering has not "risen appreciably" is completely irrelevant. It was a problem then and it's a problem now. Let's solve it.

  • MWG||

    You can be for solving "it", and against the police having the power "to stop and question anyone they suspect of being in this country without legal authorization."

  • ||

    Agreed; being for immigration enforcement does not mean I think due process goes out the window.

  • Vero||

    Bingo. How could anyone who calls themselves a conservative and be currently rallying against Barack Obama's government takeover be ok with the police state that AZ will create if the gov signs this law.

  • ||

    The author is wrong.
    The fastest growing group of illegals is not Hispanics but Indians and Chinese overstaying their tourist and student visas.
    The increased security on the border does not keep illegal Indians, Chinese or Mexicans from going back. What keeps illegals from going back is the promise of one more amnesty like the one in 1986 which keeps millions here illegally hoping they will strike the jackpot.

    As long as any country has higher wages and benefits it will draw in immigrants, as long as those that benefit from massive immigration and pocket the profits and pass social costs onto the community can continue to keep the laws from being enforced and smear opponents of massive immigration as racists then immigration will continue.

    Immigration is at the very least a tax on the working poor here now, and at the most ethnic cleansing of native populations over time.

  • ||

    The author cherry picks his data. Firts generation Hispanic immgrants have less amounts of criminal activity than the general population but second and third show much higher. Why pick El Paso as low crime immigrant area, because it is an anomaly, go to almost any other heavily populated immigrant area and your crime rate will soar, example would be the 50 percent rate of previous crimes commited by illegasls apprehended in Washington DC.
    The spread of MS13 and other immigrant gangs is massively under reported for PC reasons. The author need sto get out more and away from his gated community and go live in an urban area being colonized by illgal immigrants. also, Legal immigreation is gutting the middle class with millions of mostly fraudulent visa holders taking the few decent paying jobs left for AMERICANS. The companies are nit using visa programs to hire the best and brightest, but the younger and cheaper. Go to any IT company and see for yourself.
    if there was such a shortage of IT workers why do the companies bringing in millins of foreign workers not see and increase in IT wages, instead it goes down every year. Americans are getting scewed by immigration and those that benefit from it.

  • ||

    I have, with my own eyes, witnessed a violent crime perpetrated right here on H&R.

    We all know the victim, and shall mourn the loss. For on this day I saw a man named Delmar murder the English language.

  • EMp||

    Grammatical errors however,do not take away from Delmars' central and valid point, capitol l...

  • ||

    Wow, I didn't know that there was more than one Delmar, that's kinda scary.

    I would love to know what the Delmars central and valid point is. I just can't seem to find it in that rambling, and incoherent mess of a comment.

  • EMp||

    Capitol, the stats and data that Delmar have put forth is well documented, if you want to be coy and ignore his point, go ahead. The jobs that illegal immigrants are now doing used to be done, for the most part, by teenagers, apprentices, and college age students. Now -this is just my opinion- but most Americans are OK with legal and controlled immigration. What they are instinctively against is a rapid dissolution of neighborhoods, schools having to alter the curriculum to placate grievance groups, tax dollars being drained up and living standards being compromised as well as wages being driven down. The laws Mexico has concerning immigrants are extremely strict - I've read that unless you are a born and native Mexican you cannot vote nor even own land there.(I'm sure Warren Buffet could change some minds with some of his pocket money, of course.) Illegal Immigration is happening because 'scruples free' business lobbies want the cheap labor and Left wing utopians want the expanded voter base in order to perpetuate their re-elections and cush government jobs. If men were angels, there would be no need for a government or rules - but alas, we are not. Our governments role should be minimal - but, the basic laws we have in order to maintain a civil society should be adhered to, especially when it comes to immigration.

  • John Rohan||

    "Firts [sic] generation Hispanic immgrants have less amounts of criminal activity than the general population"

    Supposedly that's true, but it's a trick of statistics. First generation immigrants have spent far less time in this country than a citizen from birth. The only way to compare them fairly would be to compare the amount of crimes they committed before and after immigrating.

  • Dave Pinsen||

    "Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans."

    How about their American-born kids?

  • ||

    It depends. If their kids grow up in ghettofied areas then they tend to mirror the crime rate of the locals. If they grow up in civilized areas then they tend to be ok. Big clue there.

  • ||

    "Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona."

    C'mon Reason: you should know better about making "before-and-after" comparisons without comment. Crime would have dropped faster in AZ if there had not been as much illegal immigration.

    Check out the FBI stats - a bit old, but you still get the idea.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....8432/posts

  • ||

    As a Constitutional Federalist I can find nothing to bitch about in the Arizona Law. They are exercising their 10th amendment rights which is the way it should be.
    Also the author must know nothing of El Paso. I lived there for 25 years and El Paso is low per capita in violent crime only. When it comes to theft and non-violent crime it is a cesspool. I have been then victim of 2 burgluries, 1 auto theft, had the hose stolen off of my yard spigot 4 times and had my 5' rock wall jumped and my lawn furniture and grill stolen(which I found at the flee market repainted in front of a Front. Chihuahua vehicle)and I lived in an upper middle class neighborhood. The reason El Paso has low violent crime is that it has a high level of naturally occuring Lithium in its drinking water. The entire population is pacified to an extent by this. Google it!
    There are special taxi services that drive pregnant women from Mexico to the county hospital in El Paso and even people who help induce labor. There is a whole anchor baby industry.

    The cost is friggin huge!!

  • ||

    As a Constitutional Federalist, you should know that Arizona is exercising its 10th amendment powers, not rights.

  • ||

    True Mike misnomer on my part.

  • Ayn R. Key||

    I know I'm being nit-picky, but the sentence "Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans" can easily leave a wrong impression in peoples minds. Perhaps you should use "citizens" or some such, because they might over look that "native" isn't capitalized and will think you are referring to Amerinds.

  • ||

    "Citizen" and "native" aren't exactly synonyms, as there is, of course, such a thing as foreign-born citizens. "Native-born" might be closer to what you're getting at.

  • Khatre||

    How aboout a different question. What percentage of immigrants commit crimes? What percentage of Mexican immigrants commit crimes? What percentage of Chinese immigrants commit crimes? etc... Is those numbers any higher or lower than the percentage of natural born american citizens who commit crimes?

  • ||

    Easier immigration along with harsh enforcement may be the best combination. Unfortunately the years of lax enforcement have generated a backlash which demands the harsh enforcement first. Most people are for easy legal immigration, but demand illegal immigration be stopped. If something is not done soon a national ID card will be coming, and I don't want that.

  • ||

    Most people are for easy legal immigration...

    The best and easiest approach then is to make any prospective immigrant who is not a terrorist, felon, foreign agent, or carrier of contagion a legal immigrant who can enter, exit, reside, and work without quota or restriction.

    Under such rules illegal immigration would be much easier to stop, and no one would mind harsh enforcement since the only people who would be illegal immigrants would be proven as harmful.

  • Sirithil||

    There's a very long list of reasons why this is a strong and beneficial bill for Arizona, including the much higher rates of use of government programs and welfare among illegal immigrants, the higher rates of defaulting on medical bills, the fact seven of ten Arizonans want this done, and the obvious problems of the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, where any child born in America is an American, regardless of the status of his parents. But instead, I'm just going to attack your premise directly, because it's pretty flawed.

    "Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans."

    Illegal immigration is, by definition, a crime. Therefore, every single illegal immigrant is, by definition, a criminal, a point you yourself concede in your very next sentence:

    "Most come here to work, and in their desire to stay, they are generally afraid to do anything that might draw the attention of armed people wearing badges."

    Gee, I wonder why they would feel that way? Maybe it's because they broke the law in coming at all? Moreover, if the reason they commit less crimes than native-born citizens is because they're afraid of being deported, who's to say that would remain the case if they were legalized -- which would, by definition, remove what is in your own stated opinion their primary deterrent to committing crime?

    "Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona."

    This is something of a statistical sleight of hand. You actually fail to demonstrate any cause and effect here between 'more illegal immigration' and 'less crime'. As a note, Arpaio's been Maricopa County Sheriff all that time, and his department is significantly tougher than almost any other in America. One could easily use this same statistic to make the exact opposite point -- that tough police departments that crack down on illegals reduce crime as compared to softer ones in so-called 'sanctuary cities' elsewhere in the country. Further, I don't think I need to elaborate on the obvious fallacy of the implication that the solution to lowering crime rates is to pad the numbers with hundreds of thousands of people who are afraid of the police because they have no right to be in the country.

    I agree with you that the immigration system -- the legal one, that is -- in the United States is deeply, deeply flawed and desperately needs reform. However, the fact it's really hard to legally immigrate to the United States (especially if you're an underqualified, undereducated person who doesn't speak English, and let's face it, how many people like that do we need?) does not justify illegal immigration, even if you're 'here to work', any more than the credit crunch would justify robbing your local Citibank. The notion you really really really needed the money to start a business is not going to impress a judge, nor should it.

    I suspect most Americans would welcome an honest and open debate on the idea of reforming the legal immigration system provided it is premised on the very simple notion of, oh I don't know, not rewarding criminal behavior. However, 'comprehensive immigration reform' has become a codeword for amnesty. That's a non-starter. It's often said that the definition of insanity is continually trying the same thing even after it is shown not to work. Amnesty didn't solve the problem in the 1980's and it isn't going to do so now, either.

  • ||

    my problem with the influx of illegals from south of the border (which is where the majority come from) is that they bring with them the social revolutionary big government thinking, aka social justice, big entitlements, free service for this, free service for that and they expect that here. Im sorry but this is America where our once proud idea of "being a self made man" is being broken at its legs.

    Half of my family is from Mexico and they are what you would consider well to do people and they are also big time social justice libs (members of the PRD) and they are the laziest people ever! They wouldnt change the light bulb in their home if it went out because it would be beneath them to do so.

    Everywhere in Latin America they believe in the two class system of poverty and wealth and I will be damned if this country is going to be transformed into that type of system. God bless America and our 3rd class, the middle class! We are blessed to be able to have that 3rd class but it will be destroyed if open this pathway for illegals and government spending.

  • A Recovering Libertarian||

    Wow, the Reason comments section has become even more xenophobic. It seems the Conservative dismantling has sent some of the "too-ashamed-to-call-myself-a-republican" Republicans over here to infect the site. They even managed to turn the discussion into an anti-tax rant. God love 'em.

    This is what you get when you pander to the Bircher types.

    Ron Paul 3012!

    Sincerely,
    A Recovering Libertarian

  • Belly||

    Why do you think that's the case? All the Reason attacks on Obama's policies have drawn all the far-right types. Back when Bush was president, Reason criticized him so the Freepers stayed away.

  • Sirithil||

    "Ron Paul 3012!"

    That's about when he'll have a chance at winning the general election, too.

  • The Flame||

    Are you saying that everybody who is against illegal immigration is racists or right wings?

    What's up with these fucking retards and their xenophobic bullshits.

  • Larry-bob Roberts||

    The premise in the lede that "Arizona legislators are... being terrorized by illegal immigrants" is ridiculous. The majority of immigrants are (with the exception of immigration laws) law-abiding. In fact, immigrants (from all ethnic groups) have lower incarceration rates than US-born. See the sociology article "The Myth of Immigrant Criminality"

  • ||

    well yeah. Immigrants probably DO have lower incarceration rates that the US-born -- because immigrants are carefully screened before being allowed to migrate. Illegal aliens on the other hand (which is actually what the euphamistically named 'immigration reform' addresses) are demonstrably MORE criminal minded than immigrants or the US-born.

    How can I say that? Well consider this. Their first act is illegal entry. Then they aquire a false ID, either stolen or forged. Then they use that ID to falsely complete documents like credit and employment applications (remember that part at the bottom that says "I swear this information is true, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW"?). They use the false documents to fraudulently aquire housing and services. They also use those false documents to fool prospective employers or to conspire with unscupulous bosses to undermine federal wage, labor, and safety regulations. And a great many of them drive without license or insurance, unconcerned that their ignorance might endanger others.

    Every illegal alien is a criminal and a serial fraudster, but the statistics seldom reflect this fact because most studies are done using data on *violent* crime and incarceration numbers. Most illegals are deported instead of incarcerated.

    It's offensive that the pro-criminal lobby is pushing the idea that ordinary Americans are more criminal minded than someone who is, by definition, engaged in illegal activities every minute of every day.

  • ||

    I lived on the border for 12 years in the 50's and 60's, we never had trouble like this before until the late Senator Kennedy and a coalition of liberals did away with the "Bracero Program" which let Mexican citizens come across and work in the seasonal produce business. Millions came across and then went back when the work was over for the season, they used the money made to buy farmland in Mexico primarily and became land owners and farmers themselves. We never had this problem before Kennedy and the Democrats did away with the "Bracero Program" for political reasons, they wanted the vote of the fledging United Farm Workers Union. Want to stop the the problem now, start something like the "Bracero Program" it worked then and will work again now that Kennedy is dead. Lots and lots on Google about the "Bracero Program." Its probably impossible to get the old program back as the Democrats are yearning yet for that Mexican vote even if it ruins the United States, it would be enough to turn this country into a Democrat Marxist/Socialist state forever.

  • Moe||

    This issue is the fundamental schism between the nativists and free-marketeers. The cultural nationalists have every right to demand that users of public resources be law-abiding visitors. At the same time, the Chamber of Commerce crowd have every right to arbitrage labor costs to the most optimal level available in their area. The day laborer on the corner didn't get up in the morning and decide to take your job, but because some employer doesn't want the hassle of Social Security/Medicare/etc. taxes. The American dream of a middle class lifestyle gives me a warm patriotic feeling, but don't blame the trespasser, blame your progressive neighbors for voting in progressive leaders. Illegal immigrants do impose external costs on the public sector but why is there such a large public sector to begin with? If the cultural nativist are concerned with an encroaching population of useless eaters, the optimal solution is to private the public space upon which they travel; perhaps overlapping gated communities with private security on private roads that can screen out undocumented trespassers without the civil rights dilemmas that public law enforcement have. Crime can be drastically reduced by unrestricted concealed firearms in the short term and in the long term, generous incentive program for birth control and encouraging destructive dietary and drug consumption habits to accelerate the mortality of non-desirable populations. The so-called War on Drugs radically distorts the market for mind-altering chemicals and is simply a rent-seeking measure favoring the pharmaceutical industry whose more expensive products induce the same effects anyway. Complete decriminalization will lead to a period of chaos for sure, but those who rationally reject its use will have proven themselves most fit to take the jobs that their weaker-willed peers have failed to earn.

  • TheCheeseStandsAlone||

    Arizona GOP legislators are
    blaming the Federal Government
    for not intervening
    to deter illegals(?)...

    I thought that defying federal
    intervention (at the state level)
    is a basic tenet of conservative
    ideology...

  • Sirithil||

    No, sorry, you're wrong. Defiance of federal authority for the sake of being defiant is not a conservative tenet, nor is it particularly intelligent. Conservatives (at least, proper conservatives) hold that the federal government has specific powers enumerated for it in the Constitution and that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do *anything* outside those powers.

    It was James Madison himself, the principal author of the Constitution, who said, during debate on an appropriations measure to aid refugees, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." And he was right.

    That said, the Arizona law doesn't defy the federal government's authority in the least, whether over a constitutional issue or not. Rather, the Arizona law simply provides for the enforcement of existing federal law -- in an area that has always been a federal responsibility, no less -- by state and local authorities, since apparently the federal government doesn't want to do what actually *is* its job. There is no substantive difference between this law and any number of state laws across the country on any number of issues that were passed to mirror federal law.

  • TheCheeseStandsAlone||

    Your statement: "conservatives (at least, proper conservatives) hold that the federal government has specific powers" is interesting, considering
    that contemporary conservatives perpetually emphasize that the
    federal government, more or less,
    has no worth, value, or place in
    the affairs of men...?

  • Sirithil||

    Perpetually? Really. Interesting.

    Since they perpetually emphasize this, I'm sure you can link me to a quote or a youtube video of at least *one* prominent conservative saying "The federal government, more or less, has no worth, value, or place in the affairs of men."

    Take your time.

  • ||

    Rather, the Arizona law simply provides for the enforcement of existing federal law -- in an area that has always been a federal responsibility, no less -- by state and local authorities, since apparently the federal government doesn't want to do what actually *is* its job.

    The fact that Madison couldn't lay his finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of regulating immigration doesn't faze you at all?

  • Sirithil||

    Madison couldn't lay his finger on that article of the Constitution that granted a right to Congress to appropriate funds for refugees. My point was that there are specifically enumerated powers of the federal government and it shouldn't be going outside them.

  • ||

    Yet you imply that immigration is one of those specifically enumerated powers when it isn't.

  • Sirithil||

    I was discussing enumerated powers with TheCheeseStandsAlone to set his record straight on the conservative principle regarding the role of the federal government, which he erroneously believed to be that there shouldn't be a federal government. I'll address your point, though, because I did mention in my post the relation between the federal government and the Arizona law.

    You're right that the word 'immigration' does not explicitly appear in Article 1, Section 8, however a 'uniform rule of naturalization' does. Ergo, the federal government has the power to regulate citizenship and thus the process regulating how one may become a citizen. The 1976 Supreme Court decision Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong affirmed this principle.

    That said, even if you're seriously making the argument that the federal government, despite its enumerated power to regulate citizenship, does *not* have the power to regulate immigration, it makes no difference to the subject matter. Even if I grant you this point, Arizona is a state, and thus Article 1, Section 8 obviously does not invalidate the law. ;)

  • The Flame||

    MikeP, Can I ask you a couple questions?

  • ||

    Sure.

  • The Flame||

    Do you know anythings about South America and their immigration laws?

  • ||

    Nope.

  • Sirithil||

    I know you didn't ask me, but a brief overview of Mexico's immigration laws can be found here.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

  • EMp||

    HA-haa!! LOVE it!! :-D

  • ||

    Quoting the article...

    Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

    * in the country legally;

    That's easy. Legalize all immigration except for specific cause for specific harmful individuals.

    * have the means to sustain themselves economically;

    * not destined to be burdens on society;

    * of economic and social benefit to society;

    * of good character and have no criminal records; and

    * contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

    And all these five are easy too. Anyone who is not receiving government assistance is sustaining themselves economically, are not burdening society, are benefiting society, and contribute to the general well-being of the nation. Disallow entry by violent felons and deport criminals, and you've got it all.

    So why aren't more people for open borders if they meet Mexico's immigration standards so well?

  • Sirithil||

    The difference is that Mexico vigorously enforces its own immigration laws, while actively lobbying the American government not to do the same.

    I have not said, nor will I say, that America's immigration laws don't need to be changed -- they do. But they do need to be vigorously enforced.

  • ||

    Only if they are vigorously restrictive.

    In the days of Ellis Island, they weren't.

  • Sirithil||

    I remain curious as to the rationale for your argument that existing laws shouldn't be enforced while they remain on the books, thus, ipso facto, rewarding people for breaking American laws. I also remain curious as to how a demonstrated willingness to break the law shows that one is 'of good character'.

  • Sirithil||

    Ugh, ignore that. I misread your post and it seems you weren't actually arguing the point.

    Having seen some of your earlier posts, I agree quite entirely with your proposal of a new category of no-cap, non-citizenship-track visa someone can use to live and work in the US, especially if it could be used while waiting for a concurrent citizen-track visa application (i.e. a family visa) to go through.

  • ||

    Cool.

    It does seem awfully sensible. Far too many people conflate residence with citizenship and fear the former because of the implications on the latter. Yet the harder they make residence the more permanent the residents must become to avoid getting caught at the border.

  • ||

    Do you know anythings about South America and their immigration laws?

    Maybe this was a trick question...

    South America is a continent, not a country, so it has 15 different sets of immigration laws!

  • The Flame||

    I know that, dipshit

    I wonder when you condemn Mexico's, South America's (I know it isn't a fucking country), Canada's, and most of countrys' immigration law?

  • ||

    I condemn all restrictions of free migration that does not serve an actual, real-life compelling public interest.

    Prohibiting the migration, residence, and employment of economic migrants in fact runs directly counter to the public interest as well as all the private interests concerned.

    I have precious little control over US immigration law, and it is the law that most affects me. I have even less control over Mexico's. I find problems with them both but, to the extent that the US's is not enforced and Mexico's is enforced, Mexico's is indeed worse.

  • The Flame||

    Oh good! I'm glad that you condemn them all. Too bad, they aren't like you.

    Prohibiting the migration, residence, and employment of economic migrants in fact runs directly counter to the public interest as well as all the private interests concerned.

    Nice excuse, that is really good one.

    it is the law that most affects me.
    Really? Why it did affects you most?

    Why USA kept getting so much shits over immigration laws while other countries don't?

  • ||

    I've read some of Massey's work, and he never, ever, has tried to control for two huge changes in immigration law: Pleyler v. Doe and and the 1986 amnesty. The latter made it easier for illegals to stay, as it made legal a huge number of relatives, fellow villagers etc. The former was an inducement, saying basically we will educate your children if you bring them here -- leading to more child and female illegal immigration. Both these changes took place not too much earlier than San Diego's Operation Gate Keeper, and in the case of Amnesty, its effects hit maximum a few years after Gatekeeper started.

    As counter argument, in recent years some school disctricts in California have gone to 4 even 6 weeks of Xmas vacation, because so many Mexicans go back to their villages for extended holidays. Surely many of these are illegal, and have no worries about getting back across the border.

  • ||

    "At the same time, the Chamber of Commerce crowd have every right to arbitrage labor costs to the most optimal level available in their area. "

    No, they don't. The legal and cultural matrix in which their business takes place is a commons, constructed by the people of the place and their ancestors. And it adds value -- that's why a 1 bed oceanview condo in San Diego sells in the 500,000s, while an equivalent in TJ sells for 100,000.

    Moreover all your libertarian sacred cows -- private property, the 'right' to 'contract' -- are social constructs. I certainly didn't give my consent for immigrant importer and employer 'American' Apparel to occupy the land where their factories are located, nor did I give my consent to the so-called 'owner' of that land to dispose of it by renting it to American apparel. Generally, 'private property' is a salutary myth which promotes well-being. But when businesses break the social contract by importing millions of people, all bets are off.

  • ||

    "At the same time, the Chamber of Commerce crowd have every right to arbitrage labor costs to the most optimal level available in their area. "

    No, they don't. The legal and cultural matrix in which their business takes place is a commons, constructed by the people of the place and their ancestors. And it adds value -- that's why a 1 bed oceanview condo in San Diego sells in the 500,000s, while an equivalent in TJ sells for 100,000.

    Moreover all your libertarian sacred cows -- private property, the 'right' to 'contract' -- are social constructs. I certainly didn't give my consent for immigrant importer and employer 'American' Apparel to occupy the land where their factories are located, nor did I give my consent to the so-called 'owner' of that land to dispose of it by renting it to American apparel. Generally, 'private property' is a salutary myth which promotes well-being. But when businesses break the social contract by importing millions of people, all bets are off.

  • Public Service Announcement.||

    Jesus, you guys are about as in touch with reality, as what's left of the Republican party.

    Talking about tilting at windmills.

    Why do you guys do this to yourselves? Is it loneliness?

  • TruthOffering||

    I'm glad to see so many against this anti-immigration law for the RIGHT reason, which is the fact that big government is at fault, not immigrants. MOST immigrants come here in search of a better life; is it their fault our government gives handouts? We need to end our socialist/communist ways.

    Here's a GREAT article about exactly why BIG government is to blame:

    http://www.truthoffering.com/p.....blame.html

  • ||

    Seems Arizona's law is a logical next step; it follows a crackdown on the border which makes it more difficult for illegals to cross back and forth. One guesses they could just ask those here illegally to leave.

  • Sandy Seafloor||

    Steve, exactly when and with what wording did you ask about the police-killings statistic you quote "only one since the beginning of 2008"? The AP ran an article just a couple of days ago about ANOTHER police killing by the aggressive, well-armed Mexican drug mob. This is what they're really fighting, and people's polemics about all the nice, hard-working illegals doesn't begin to address the real issue. Mexico's government has been partially decapitated by a coordinated strategy of aggressive expansion by the Mexican drug mob. They are also moving into the USA. Arizonans are resolved to stop this. HOW can you blame them? Do you read the news about all the kidnappings and murders in Mexico? Well, Phoenix is the kidnapping capitol of the USA right now (source: a radio broadcast news announcer). I applaud Arizonans for being brave enough to take on the blood-thirsty Mexican mafia.

    Here's another sound-bite statistic I heard on a radio broadcast today: 80% of all juveniles in the detention system of San Jose are illegal Mexican youths. This costs San Jose legal residents tax money and also limits places available for their own troubled youths. It also illustrates that people who will premeditatedly plan and scheme to enter the country illegally, fully aware that they are breaking our laws, will continue to break laws as it suits them.

    A final note: while I support the Libertarian ideal of open borders, we must first secure our property rights. Here in the USA, we now have very tenuous hold on our own property. Open borders won't work until we redress this grievance.

  • political forum||

    The Chinese built the Great Wall of China and we can build our own too. They built it by hand and we have construction equipment and factories. There is just no logical reason to have the border be open to anyone (be they illegal immigrants or terrorists) who want to come in. Especially in economic times like these, we don't need any more unskilled labor.

    Reggie's political forum

  • ||

    I disagree with the argument that americans refuse to do manual labor, and hence we need illegals to do it for us. I would argue, rather, that because so many illegals have been doing this work for so long, many Americans perceive that you have to be exceptionally poor to accept such jobs. But if there were no illegal immigrants to do the jobs, americans would have to do them, and the paradigm would shift back. --Proud eb-5 green card holder

  • ปลวก||

    I took a trip to Germany while I was in undergrad in '95 and Germany was having this very problem with their immigrants, particularly from Turkey.

  • RAN||

    They built it by hand and we have construction equipment and factories. | ran แรน |

  • a-chat.org||

    nice article

  • a-ll.info||

    nice to read you

  • a-nd.info||

    Wonderful article

  • a-re.info||

    I need some time to think about this!

  • b-est.info||

    Gotta love engineers ;-)

  • blo-g.com||

    The faculty of reason, rationality, or the faculty of discursive reason

  • b-ook.info||

    The reasoning for the black box is to document what exactly happens in a crash.

  • b-uy.info||

    I agree with most of what you wrote down below

  • b-uy.info||

    ast update?

  • c-hat.info||

    do you wanna be my leader ?

  • d-vd.info||

    si on ne mélange pas les torchons et les serviettes

  • f-ilm.info||

    Join us now to get access to all our features.

  • f-ood.info||

    Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics

  • f-orum.info||

    You don’t need to add your email if you are already subscribed by email to Reason

  • f-ree.info||

    next try, but thanks

  • f-un.info||

    Something like this may be what you're looking for

  • g-ame.info||

    get your own private messenger, and so, so much more

  • g-et.info||

    It's also quick and totally free

  • h-elp.info||

    so what are you waiting for?

  • h-ere.info||

    There are lots of links on reason

  • 7m.cn||

    InRe: the alt text on the internment camp photo

    Ouch.

  • 7m.cn||

    InRe: the alt text on the internment camp photo

    Ouch.

  • sbo||

    get your own private messenger, and so, so much more

  • sbo||

    Thank you for your comments and good information. Useful to me.

  • 3m||

    Its hard to feel too sorry for insurance companies. Believe me they are making their money.

  • หนังใหม่ dvd||

    Sweet blog! I found it while surfing around on Yahoo News. Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Thanks

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • sd||

    sd

  • sbobet||

    You comment?

  • baansbo||

    thank you for sharing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement