Obama So Loves Immigrants He's Spending Record Amounts of Money to Keep Them Out!

A new study from the Migration Policy Institute documents a shocking amount of money being devoted to keeping immigrants out of the U.S. How much money?

The U.S. government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, with the nearly $18 billion spent in fiscal 2012 approximately 24 percent higher than collective spending for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

And then there's this:

The nation’s main immigration enforcement agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), refer more cases for federal prosecution than all Justice Department law enforcement agencies.

And a larger number of individuals are detained each year in the immigration detention system (just under 430,000 in fiscal 2011) than are serving sentences in federal Bureau of Prisons facilities for all other federal crimes.

Read the whole report, which shows massive increases in spending and manpower devoted to keeping goddamn immigrants out of the country's kitchens, poolhouses, and backyards. And by massive, we're talking not just about the fact that we devote more tax dollars to immigration enforcement than all other federal law enforcement agences. We're talking about 15 times the spending since Ronald Reagan provided a path to citizenship for millions of illegals back in the late 1980s.

For those who think of the GOP as the anti-immigrant party, chew on this:

The ranks of the U.S. Border Patrol have more than doubled during the past seven years, to more than 21,000 in the 2012 fiscal year. At the same time, the government ramped up criminal prosecutions of illegal immigrants, with CBP and ICE referring more cases for prosecution than all Justice Department agencies combined, the report found.

Arrests along the border fluctuated for decades, but dropped sharply with the 2008 recession and the stepped-up enforcement, reaching a 40-year low in 2012. Deportations from America's interior have swelled, with removals growing from 30,000 in 1990 to a record-setting 409,000 last year.

Put more prosaically, President Barack Obama so loves immigrants, especially illegal ones, that he has set "the record for the highest number of removals" during a single presidential term. And true to form, Obama isn't just walking Mexicans back across the border; he's raiding record numbers of U.S. businesses that may or may not employ such willing workers.

Truth be told, the GOP does pretty much suck when it comes to immigrants. The more complete truth is: So do the Democrats, especially the guy at the top of that particular club.

The Migration Policy Institute report quantifies just how much money we're flushing down the toilet to try and keep out people desperate enough for a better life that they're literally and figuratively willing to clean our toilets. As Obama continues to say that comprehensive immigration reform is one of the top priorities of his second term (along with tax reform, spending reform, infrastructure reform, educational reform, health care reform, and the creation of a light beer that actually tastes great and is less filling), this report is essential reading for anyone who cares about the issue.

Why do immigrants come here anyway? Here's a reminder from 2010:

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.

  • ||

    Obama isn't Bush's third and fourth terms, he's fucking Bush squared. I guess he just felt that if he was going to be a terrible president, he wasn't going to let Bush out-terrible him. I wonder what abject lows the next scumbag will aspire to (assuming the 22nd Amendment isn't repealed).

  • John||

    He just appointed John Brennen to be head of the CIA. You know John Brennen, the guy who pretty much authored "enhanced interrogation" for the Bush administration. He might as well have come over and taken a piss on the ACLU's front lawn. Will liberals ever get tired of tasting this guy's ass?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    John, you know the answer. They will dig their own graves if he asks them to and put the bullet in their own heads.

  • Sudden||

    As long as he kills many, many of TEH RICH with us, that is fine.

    /chony

  • ||

    He has to John, to keep the obstructionists rethuglicans from having any issues to beat him over the head with. If he didn't, he'd be painted as "soft on terror" and it would hurt his reelection chances for his third term!

  • ||

    No, because tasting his ass means being part of the TEAM. If there is anyone, anywhere, who still thinks these people have even the tiniest integrity or principles, that person must have an extra chromosome.

  • John||

    It is more than that. Liberals turned on Clinton and voted for Nader in 2000. I have never seen a worse cult of personality than this.

  • ||

    Liberals turned on Clinton Gore and voted for Nader in 2000.

    Fixed. Gore is not Clinton. If he were, he would have been elected in a landslide. But, unfortunately for him, (a) he was distancing himself from a recent philanderer and impeachee, and (b) he was Al Gore.

  • BakedPenguin||

    In 1989, the Politburo of East Germany had a surprise no confidence vote against Erich Hoeneker, the Gen Sec. All the members of the Politburo slowly raised their hands, until only Hoeneker was left. Finally, he raised his hand to vote against himself, so they would have a unanimous vote - as always.

  • John||

    That is awesome. I had never heard that. Everyone ought to have to read Darkness at Noon. People really did go to their deaths knowing they were innocent but willingly doing so because they thought that their convictions and deaths would help the Party. It is just sick.

  • John||

    Hiring more government workers and pandering the unions is a lot more important to Obama than open borders. And how long is it going to take Reason to finally admit, Hispanics who are not Cubans don't give a shit about immigration. They want their big daddy in the White House to take care of them. Why does Reason refuse to admit this? Face it Libertarians, Hispanics just are not that into you.

  • ||

    Maybe libertarians and Reason support immigration on principle rather than to pander to a specific group?

  • John||

    I am not saying they should stop supporting open borders. I am saying they should stop pretending doing so is going to get them any Hispanic votes and acting surprised that Hispanics keep voting D despite the fact that the Ds really don't favor open boarders.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hispanics keep voting D despite the fact that the Ds really don't favor open boarders.

    Well the GOP doesn't favor open boarders either. The 3rd Amendment and all...

  • John||

    Well the GOP doesn't favor open boarders either.

    John McCain favored open boarders and actually paid a political price to do so. What good did that do him?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    open boarders

    John. Spell check. Use it. Then you'll understand the joke @2:00

  • ||

    I LOL'd. Very clever and wry of you, HM.-)

  • Killazontherun||

    Except, McCain had changed his tune on that song by the time the '08 nomination process rolled around.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Heh heh. Classic John. :)

  • JW||

    Dey tuk are flophouses!

  • Cytotoxic||

    They're no less into us than anybody else. And it's high-time the GOP and conservative movement stopped digging this hole.

  • John||

    But how are they digging this hole? That is the whole point. Both parties are equally bad and in some ways the Ds are worse. Yet Hispanics keep voting Democrat. That tells me they don't care about immigration. If that is true, then how is not supporting open borders digging a hole?

  • Cytotoxic||

    PERCEPTION John. The GOP are perceived and portrayed as xenophobic cranks and their insane anti-immigrant stance vindicates that. Dems are seen as tolerant facts be damned. I'm not saying a rational immigration policy will cure the GOP of its Hispanic problems but it won't get better until they quit digging!

  • John||

    So you are telling me Hispanics are stupid and don't realize that Obama is screwing them? Maybe but I doubt it. I think it is much more likely they don't care. What, you don't think they haven't noticed Obama didn't even try to get amnesty through or do anything to stop deportations?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    So you are telling me Hispanics are stupid

    No more so than the rest of the voters.

  • AlexInCT||

    I don't think it is even close to being that complicated. It's about the free shit. Democrats out 'free shit" everybody else. Immigration be damned. Typical donkey voter profile is all about getting handed free shit, often so they can go to the nudie bar and have some fun with that.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    John, your comments are not only an insult to every commentator of Hispanic origin on this board, they are also an insult to organizations like the Hispanic American Center for Economic Research. An organization that has, collectively, done more to advance the cause of liberty than anything you might have done personally in your life.

  • John||

    No more of an insult than people who rightly say that Republicans who voted for George Bush don't care about the deficit. I am sorry, Hispanics don't give a shit about immigration. If they did, they would have voted for McCain, who was very pro open boarders or at least staid home in 2012 after Obama put up a worse record on the issue than Bush.

    I am sorry, but your vote matters. In the same way liberals who voted for Obama after he drone striked and renditioned his way through a first time can claim to care about civil liberties, Hispanics who voted for him can no longer claim to care about immigration.

    If you are not willing to vote on the issue, it is just not that important to you. Big government was more important to Hispanics than immigration.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If you are not willing to vote on the issue, it is just not that important to you. Big government was more important to Hispanics than immigration.

    Or could it be that many Hispanics are victims of a media that explicitly and intentionally misrepresents the platforms of both the GOP and the Libertarian party? Could it be that the Democrats' political machine is assisted not only by the media but also by modern-day kapos within the Hispanic community that work to maintain said misrepresentations? Furthermore, could it also be that collective condemnation, such as yours, along with a knee-jerk nativism from some on the Right only plays into the Democrats' misinformation campaign?

  • John||

    I am sorry HM, I don't think Hispanics are victims of anything. I think they are just as smart and aware as anyone else. They know what Obama's record was. They just liked it. I will take their votes at their face value.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You're just jealous that DeeDee Garcia Blase won't go out with you.

  • pmains||

    She's married with kids. I don't think she'll be going out with anybody.

  • ||

    Please get her out of my town.

  • Killazontherun||

    I suspect at least one trick is being used to advance a certain narrative by the media. Those of us who are classified as White Hispanics, the basis of scaremongery about the end of a white majority btw, are counted as simply white for the election results. You inflate one number for population purposes, and then deflate that number for the polls, you get a number more useful for the purpose of badgering Republicans about their need to face demographic destiny and become welfare state loving democrats. My local media sampling reported no Hispanic votes for Gary Johnson in my precinct results, but I assure you in matter consistent with the Census defined demographic there was at least one.

  • nicole||

    My local media sampling reported no Hispanic votes for Gary Johnson in my precinct results, but I assure you in matter consistent with the Census defined demographic there was at least one.

    Yeah, but that could mean nothing to your local exit-pollsters, unless they talked to you yourself (I don't imagine that many people total voted for Gary Johnson, and it wouldn't be surprising if they didn't speak to any Hispanics who did). And unless you know that they are using the same choices for race/ethnicity as the Census, it's a whole other story.

    I feel like the "white Hispanic" thing is very misunderstood. I don't think it's like, great or something, but what it really means doesn't mesh with what you're suggesting. For the Census, "Hispanic" is a binary category that is overlaid on your choice of race, so you pick "white," "black," "Pacific Islander," etc., and then in a separate question, yes/no to "Hispanic." So there is no only-Hispanic group; there are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, etc. Hispanics can be of any race, but they don't exist on their own.

    So what you're suggesting, "deflat[ing] that number for the polls," would imply that there were zero Hispanic voters of any kind--because you can't take a white Hispanic and make him some other type of Hispanic. You can call him just "white," but then you also call the black Hispanics black, and then you're left with no Hispanics.

  • Killazontherun||

    Don't be thrown by the word 'inflated'. I should have used 'overemphasized' as it was in the media for the purposes of 'fear your demographic destiny, whitey' reports. They exist, I've read them, and I've seen the more convincing rebuts. Including one here abouts I recall.

    As to the other point, the deflated number. Do you doubt the media uses a less well defined metric than the Census? The one you describe came about during the Clinton administration. Before then, Hispanic was more ambiguously defined. I remember those forms, and I didn't know where the Hell I belonged! Now it's much easier, and overall, an improvement. But I doubt if the questioners from the media are as rigorous, and I've never known them to NOT serve an agenda.

  • nicole||

    Do you doubt the media uses a less well defined metric than the Census?

    No, of course not, I'm sure their polling methods are pretty sloppy in general.

  • Zeb||

    No, I think that, like most voters, most Hispanics probably didn't know much about what either candidate did or stood for and voted for the guy who made them feel good. I don't think victim is the right word, but most voters don't bother to look past the irrelevant bullshit that makes up the campaigns and which the media repeats without questioning.

  • Killazontherun||

    Also, take the official results of the election with a grain of salt. I frankly do not trust them this time around. The system we have is easily hacked and fraud is too easily committed. In such a system without any real, substantial checks and where the results matter in terms of billions for some interested parties, fraud is inevitable.

  • wareagle||

    hm,
    if Hispanics are "victims" it is the result of choice. People can choose to be massively uninformed; plenty of whites and blacks do so.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    People can choose to be massively uninformed; plenty of whites and blacks do so.

    I agree wholeheartedly. That's my point to John. It has nothing to do with Hispanic cultural values per se, if it were, we wouldn't see a similar trend with White women, Blacks and Asians.

  • wareagle||

    maybe I am missing something, but the point of the argument between you two escapes. John seems to be saying Hispanics know who and what Obama is, and they have decided his immigration stance either doesn't matter or is outweighed by other things. What are you saying that is substantively different?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Perhaps I'm misreading John, but others on here have argued that Hispanics voted for Obama cum Big Government because they believe that Hispanic/Latino cultural values lean toward collectivism and socialism.

    I don't believe that there is enough evidence to support that thesis.

    Now, do I believe that many Hispanics are cutting off their nose to spite their face when they can't bring themselves to support someone who belongs the same party as Sheriff Joe? Certainly.

  • John||

    I don't know if it is cultural values HM. I am just saying that Hispanics like big government and vote that way. Why that is, I will leave up to the sociologists.

  • J_L_B||

    I am just saying that Hispanics like big government and vote that way

    You've probably heard a left-wing politician or two say something like, "the real question is how do that party's policies affect the [black, hispanic, etc.] community?"

    What this implies is that those communities cannot survive without government benefits. Hence any politicians that promises to sustain or increase those benefits "understands" the needs of the community, while any other politician is viewed as having policies that "hurt" the community.

  • wareagle||

    I don't believe that there is enough evidence to support that thesis.

    maybe they are not supportive of socialism, per se, but doesn't Hispanic culture lean toward the collectivist? It may not do so on an Asian scale but it might be difficult say that the culture puts the individual first.

    Maybe a good part of it is what I see as THE gap between the US and most Latino countries - the presence of a large and thriving middle class. Impression I get of most Hispanic nations is there are some rich folks, a whole lotta not rich, and a matter in the middle. The US has more of a bell curve and for someone who has never lived in that construct, it can be tough to explain.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    maybe they are not supportive of socialism, per se, but doesn't Hispanic culture lean toward the collectivist? It may not do so on an Asian scale but it might be difficult say that the culture puts the individual first.

    Well, sure. If you want to get your Geert Hofstede on, from an American point of view, every culture leans collectivist as American culture is the most individualistic in the world.

    the presence of a large and thriving middle class.

    Absolutely. That's why the powers that be are doing their best to eliminate the middle class.

  • wareagle||

    That's why the powers that be are doing their best to eliminate the middle class.

    ...which is the irony of ironies, since all either Team does is sputter about how it wants to save the middle class. Socialism cannot abide such and that brings us back to the massively uninformed. The statists are pretty good at frog-boiling.

  • Killazontherun||

    Distrust of the state is strong in Hispanic cultures. Until recently, immigration patterns have always been about getting as far from authority as you can. We don't need no fucking papers is the other side of the coin to we don't need no stinking badges. Law has always been the law of man and anything else being mere sugar coating, as far as Hispanic cultures in general are concerned.

  • Killazontherun||

    The demographic concentration in California skews the results more than any other factor though you definitely saw weakening in Texas, Arizona and Florida where Bush did quite well. California is now a one party state and the prevailing sentiment feeds on itself. However, when they finally succeed from the rest of us to form a union with a more copacetic soul mate North Korea then you'll see the tide turn.

  • Killazontherun||

    sucede -- fucking autocorrect. Had it right the first time.

  • Zeb||

    secede

  • Killazontherun||

    Well, double crap. No wonder it corrected with an incorrect answer. I fedit the wrong vowel.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    WE - I had a message for you here http://reason.com/blog/2013/01.....nt_3471784

  • wareagle||

    LT,
    I will give it a look. Thanks for the heads up.

  • johnl||

    Mexican immigrants are anti-immigration. Especially the ones who were amnestied. Amnesty might be good policy, but new voters will punish the party that enfranchises them.

  • Zeb||

    I think that most Hispanic immigrants come to work. The problem is the rich, liberal, do-gooder twats who thinks that this "vulnerable population" needs "services".

  • T o n y||

    What an unsurprisingly racist thing to say.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    For Obama so loved the Hispanics, that He gave His only begotten ICE, that whosoever believeth in Him and is brown should not stay home on Election Day, but give everlasting votes.

    Matthews 3:16

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Do you have a reading from the Old Testimonial for us too?

  • ||

    article title is complete crap

    "Obama So Loves Immigrants He's Spending Record Amounts of Money to Keep Them Out!"

    no, he's spending record amounts of money to (try to) keep ILLEGAL immigrants out. there is a very substantial qualitative difference, no matter how much it is ignored

  • ||

    Yep, cause it's only "illegal" immigrants that get caught up in all of this shit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THE LAW IS THE LAW

  • ||

    Yes I know Cyto, all deference towards the LAW and the federal government that enforces it (as long as it's against furners).

  • wareagle||

    most of the legal immigrants that get caught in the system tend to be things other than hispanic.

  • The Derider||

    And true to form, Obama isn't just walking Mexicans back across the border; he's raiding record numbers of U.S. businesses that may or may not employ such willing workers.

    The Migration Policy Institute study concludes exactly the opposite, on page 6.

    "[DHS] has shifted to targeting employers for their hiring practices...rather than launching large scale raids and arrests of unauthorized workers"

    Make sure you read the whole report, right Nick?

  • John||

    "[DHS] has shifted to targeting employers for their hiring practices...rather than launching large scale raids and arrests of unauthorized workers"

    I guess that is why deportations are down under Obama, except they are not. Is there any piece of government propaganda that you won't believe? Did you tell your parents when you were a kid that you wanted to grow up to be a brown shirt hack?

  • The Derider||

    It's the study that Gillespie told you to read. Now it's government brownshirt propaganda?

    Get a grip dude.

  • John||

    Is believing that DHS claims that it changed its targeting mean anything when deportations are up believing government propaganda? Yes it is.

    Get a brain dude.

  • The Derider||

    Ok, so what you're saying is not only is Nick Gillespie a believer in government propaganda (your argument) but Nick Gillespie has completely misread that government propaganda (my argument)?

  • ||

    joe's so fucking stupid that I told him I was reading a book by Homer and he asked if I had anything written by Bart.

  • SugarFree||

    joe's so stupid, that when he broke his leg stupid came out.

  • ||

    Oh joe, how does it feel to be an utterly integrity free partisan shill? Does it feel like being a pedophile, or more like a rapist?

  • ||

    Either way, I'm sure Christmas or England is involved somehow.

  • ||

    Sometimes I wonder if joe is really this stupid or if he's just playing retard for our entertainment.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure it's 90% former and latter. Which is worse: a 0 certifiable moron or one who has just enough intellect to be dangerous?

  • ||

    " latter". Fuck you, skvirrels!

  • ||

    "10%". User error. DERP!

  • Tim||

    In the words of Bart Simpson; "Aye Caramba"!

  • Jeff||

    He does love immigrants, but he loves spending record amounts of money even more.

  • db||

    with the nearly $18 billion spent in fiscal 2012 approximately 24 percent higher than collective spending for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    See, Shriek is right! Obama totally respects the rights to bear arms and use drugs! Look how little he spends on those agencies.

  • The Derider||

    Read the whole report, which shows massive increases in spending and manpower devoted to keeping goddamn immigrants out of the country's kitchens, poolhouses, and backyards.

    On Page 17 of the report, the graph makes clear that those massive increases in spending came during the Bush administration, where funding tripled between 2001 and 2007. I'm not sure whether you read the whole report, but didn't understand it, or read the whole report and just decided to write an anti-obama hack article anyway.

  • ||

    Where you been, joe, you pathetic midget fuck? Please tell me it was face down in a gutter on a binge.

  • John||

    So what if they were tripled during the Bush Administration? Obama took that already high level and increased it even higher than it was. It is not like he decreased it or even tried to decrease it.

    So Obama continuing the worst of Bush's policies somehow excuses Obama? Joe just because you are stupid, doesn't mean the readers of this forum are. So do yourself and all of us a favor and stop writing idiotic shit and pretending that we are.

  • ||

    joe's too stupid to understand just how fucking stupid he is, John. It's like asking a dog to understand that it isn't sentient. WOOF

  • The Derider||

    If you're trying to make the case that Obama is worse than Bush on immigration, and your evidence is that Bush increased immigration enforcement spending far more than Obama did, your argument is stupid.

    The study does not support the assertions Gillespie makes in this article.

  • ||

    joe's so fucking stupid that he tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the basement window.

  • John||

    If you're trying to make the case that Obama is worse than Bush on immigration, and your evidence is that Bush increased immigration enforcement spending far more than Obama did, your argument is stupid.

    It is only stupid because you are a moron incapable of understanding an honest argument.

    Suppose that we take spending as an accurate measure of one's immigration policy. And also suppose that we take spending in 2003, when the Bush incease began to be 100.

    So lets say Bush did this massive increase and put spending to 150 by 2007. So he increased it by 50%. Then Obama got that 150 rate and increased it again to 165 on our scale.

    Now it is true that Bush increased spending by a staggering 50% and Obama only 10%. But Obama, since he inherited a much higher baseline spending than Bush did, objectively spent more money and has a worse record. The measure is not what percentage he increased it.

    You have lied to yourself for so long Joe, I think you seem to have deprived yourself of the ability to understand or make an honest argument. It is just sad.

  • The Derider||

    What you posted makes no sense whatsoever.

    Gillespie asserts the article says things it simply does not say. Please prove me wrong. Look at the graph on page 17.

  • The Derider||

    Specifically:

    "Read the whole report, which shows massive increases in spending ... we're talking not just about the fact that we devote more tax dollars to immigration enforcement than all other federal law enforcement agences. We're talking about 15 times the spending since Ronald Reagan provided a path to citizenship for millions of illegals back in the late 1980s."

    He says specifically "15 times the spending", not "X more than when Obama took office". He's obviously conflating massive immigration spending increases during the bush administration with small increases and REDUCTIONS during Obama's presidency.

  • Jordan||

    Not sure if dishonest, or just stupid. Here's the part of the article you apparently didn't read:

    Deportations from America's interior have swelled, with removals growing from 30,000 in 1990 to a record-setting 409,000 last year.

    Also, "spending record amounts of money" != "increased spending by record levels".

  • T o n y||

    "The study does not support the assertions Gillespie makes in this article."

    What else is new?

  • wareagle||

    derider's echo is here.

  • ||

    God Tony, you really AREN'T trying anymore.

  • JW||

    Hey joe, how many kids did your vote kill today?

  • The Derider||

    I have no idea what this means.

  • Ray||

    I'm afraid, Nick, that your analysis is over-simplistic. Obama is simply killing three birds with one stone - increasing the number of government employees as much as he possibly can (especially in areas where he can get a Republican congress to vote for it), telling said employees that, unlike those nasty Republicans, he's not going to actually make them work for a living, and welcoming millions of future (or, quite likely, present) Democrats across the newly-porous border.

    I'm a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson voter who thinks immigration laws should be abolished, btw.

  • wareagle||

    I don't get the sentiment to abolish immigration laws. It's a country, not a theme park. Citizenship carries privileges; it must seem a quaint construct to you, but look it up. In many ways, this is the easiest nation to move to.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In many ways, this is the easiest nation to move to.

    Depends on who you are. For example, for your average European or North American, getting permanent residency in Thailand is very easy. It's just a matter of being gainfully employed for 5 years and paying the required fees. There isn't even a language requirement. Add to that the fact that most citizens European and North American countries get a 30 or 90 day visa-on-arrival, and it's extremely simple to move there.

    In my experience, modern-day immigration law, around the world, is designed to keep the poor out. Compare this to the "golden age" of immigration during the Ellis Island period.

  • ||

    This is true of UKR as well, HM. However, there are caveats, the most onerous known as "The 180 Day Rule" and this is strictly enforced and has to do specifically with benefit allocation and payment of income and VAT taxes. (Though they do issue 90 day VISAS for migrant workers from other parts of Euro-landia. Anything below that, no biggie.)

    Stays under 180 days (by law 183, same as Russia, by the by) are subject to a flat 30% income tax (and 20% VAT if applicable). Past 183 days, 15% (or 17% if one earns 10x the base living wage). Which is very handy for corporations. Getting a temporary VISA for tax residents is either easy or difficult depending on the reason for your stay (mine was very easy). Permanent residency does take some time, and I am in the process of doing so already, and will probably take a few months (I already hold a "type D". No language requirement (but highly advised).

    The basic gist: they love moneyed immigrants and investment, but don't want teat suckers.

    A fairly comprehensive look at UKR immigration reform. The USA could probably use a couple of ideas from this.

  • wareagle||

    The basic gist: they love moneyed immigrants and investment, but don't want teat suckers.

    I believe Costa Rica has the same approach -- you must be able to demonstrate the means on which to live for five years. Entrepreneurs are welcome; people seeking jobs in the economy, not so much.

  • ||

    It should also be noted, HM, at the time of Ellis Island immigration, the modern welfare state was not anywhere near the Leviathan it is today.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's true, but Tammany Hall still had it's share of goodies to hand out.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *its

  • ||

    "Boss" Tweed was quite scoundrel, no? Also, thanks for not othering me.

  • John Henry||

    It should also be noted, HM, at the time of Ellis Island immigration, the modern welfare state was not anywhere near the Leviathan it is today.

    I think we have found the true source of the problem. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state.

  • ||

    You can if you remove the fence from the border and put the fence on the welfare state.

  • MWG||

    You also cannot have low taxes, right JH?

    Should we also limit the right of single women to have children? They're also a burden on the welfare state.

  • John Henry||

    Should we also limit the right of single women to have children? They're also a burden on the welfare state.

    WTF are you talking about?

  • ||

    Should we also limit the right of single women to have children? They're also a burden on the welfare state.

    Nope. The public paying for their well being is a different story, and ObamneyCare has also taken care of those who wish to prevent that with the Contraception Insurance Mandate.

  • Jeff||

    It's a country, not a theme park.

    Of course, and the open border libertarians would fight to the death to uphold your right to deny people entry to your privately-owned theme park. But a nation-state has no vested interest in restricting entry... because racism.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But a nation-state has no vested interest in restricting entry... because racism.

    In your attempt at sarcasm, you've stumbled upon the truth. Any honest review of the history of American immigration law will note that race and racism are central concepts.

  • Jeff||

    Some immigration laws are explicitly racist =/= there is no legitimate reason to have any immigration laws.

  • Zeb||

    Sure there are legitimate reasons. To keep out disease and known criminals. But that's about it.

  • Jeff||

    So what if I want to hire someone with AIDS to mow my lawn? That's none of the collective's business.

  • ||

    So what if I want to hire someone with AIDS to mow my lawn? That's none of the collective's business.

    Wrong. Infectious disease is very much under the purview of immigration, ESPECIALLY if said immigrant (illegal or otherwise) is accepting public assistance.

    Or tuberculosis. Or any other infectious, chronic, and incurable disease. Coming to the US for medical TX is one thing and then exiting is one thing; coming with a communicable, infectious disease (particularly illegally) is different story.

    For UKR, and Euro-landia in general, since all the countries have socialized medicine, they have every moral, legal, and fiduciary responsibility to keep out disease. UKR has enough of an HIV problem and doesn't need more of it; if you have certain conditions and diseases, you ain't getting in legally.

  • pmains||

    TX is also code for transmit. That puts a different spin on your post.

    Get in. Infect. Get out.

  • Zeb||

    Here's something I have often wondered. Why do so many medical abbreviations take the form of the first letter of the thing being abbreviated followed by an X?

  • wareagle||

    but surely, HM, we have moved beyond that. Whereas the melting pot was different nationalities with a European base, that has expanded to include all comers. Along the way, the concept of the melting pot gave way to a salad bowl, with some people expecting the US to assimilate to them rather than the other way around.

    I believe, as Jeff put it, a nation has a vested interest in restricting entry, mostly due to a scarcity of resources for the provision of public services. The race angle has diminished over time; my wife and I used to joke how every new doctor hired by the hospital where we used to live was named Patel.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    but surely, HM, we have moved beyond that.

    You'd think. What we've done is slyly replaced explicit quotas by country of origin with differing financial requirements based on country of origin and consular officer's fiat.

    Along the way, the concept of the melting pot gave way to a salad bowl, with some people expecting the US to assimilate to them rather than the other way around.

    It's always been a salad bowl. You've never heard of Little Italy, Chinatown, the Lower East Side, Harlem (Spanish or otherwise), Little Havana, Little Odessa, and all the other ethnic enclaves found in any big American city?

    I believe, as Jeff put it, a nation has a vested interest in restricting entry, mostly due to a scarcity of resources for the provision of public services.

    You know what the answer to that would be in Libertopia. However, putting aside the discussion about the legitimacy of public services, I believe the value immigrants add with their labor, skilled or not, is a net positive.

  • wareagle||

    You've never heard of Little Italy, Chinatown, the Lower East Side, Harlem (Spanish or otherwise), Little Havana, Little Odessa, and all the other ethnic enclaves found in any big American city?

    sure I have and they are among the things that make America unique. However, when those folks went to work or to stores, they understood that learning English was part of the deal, that they had to change to fit their new surroundings rather than expect the surroundings to adapt to them.

    I am hardly against immigrants; I am a child of them. Both folks naturalized, like most of their contemporaries, and I believe in the need for a system to keep up with who's coming in, are they here for good or the short haul, and so forth.

  • MWG||

    That's probably because private property and the nation state are not at all synonomous... at least not in any libertarian/individual rights sense.

  • wareagle||

    wouldn't the nation-state be the guarantor and protector of those rights? The terms may not be synonymous but they appear to be in the same ballpark.

  • MWG||

    The nation state and more specifically, the US, exists to protect the rights of the individual, including the right to free movement and free association.

    The collective has no right to decide who I can and cannot hire to mow my lawn.

  • wareagle||

    the US protects the rights of its citizens, just like any other nation-state does. The lawn guy who snuck in is not entitled to that protection, and even so, the collective isn't stopping you from hiring him.

  • Jeff||

    But the nation-state is a reality, and I dunno about you, but I'm pretty fond of the concept of self-determination. It would seem to be a logical outgrowth of individual rights. If not, then I suppose from a libertarian point of view there is nothing in the world objectionable about the sinicization of Tibet.

  • Homple||

    Reason's posts about immigration, or at least comments thereto, seem to conflate "immigrants" with "hispanics". There are other areas of he world (Europe, especially Eastern Europe) with many trained, educated people willing to work here and assimilate. Treatment of these folks seems never come into the discussion.

    We have a curious hostility to people who arrive on airplanes. If you've ever gone through US Customs and Immigration at an airport, you will have noticed that foreign airline passengers get a serious screening before they are turned loose. Squawks from Reason are noticeable by their absence. Wade across the Rio Grande, however, and, according to the prevailing commenters at Reason, you're golden. What is it about wading that makes for better immigrants?

  • wareagle||

    by and large, hispanics are synonymous with illegal immigration. No one is up in arms over a rash of Swedes rushing into the country unaccounted for, with the subsequent drain on public resources that follows. Some at Reason are open borders types who draw no distinction among newcomers.

    Eastern Europeans and Indians tend to follow the system, often to their detriment though - to generalize a bit - that has as much to do with occupation as anything else. Those across the Atlantic tend to be degreed, have sponsors, and are much easier to track. Those south of the border are often seasonal or work in occupations where paperwork is less strict.

  • Homple||

    Of course, I think you're right.

    What seems odd to me is that "open borders" l(L)ibertarians bellyache about citizens getting loads of taxpayer-funded freebies but are hot to let in immigrants to gobble up the more of the same freebies.

  • MWG||

    If you've read an article here at Reason defending the welfare state, I'd love to see a link.

  • Homple||

    I didn't say Reason defends the welfare state, I merely wonder why the non-defenders of the welfare state who favor open borders are oblivious to, or accepting of, the addition of illegal immigrants to the welfare system above and beyond he citizens already on it.

  • wareagle||

    I think Homple makes a good case that advocating for open borders is a de facto means of defending the welfare state, at least the portion of it accessed by illegals.

    Terms like anchor baby didn't invent themselves. They were born, pardon the pun, of calculated risks.

  • pmains||

    No, the term didn't invent itself. I'm not sure who was arguing that, but good job on debunking that claim.

    Nevertheless, it's a largely unfounded fear, as a little Googling could have shown you.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    It is the difficult thing to balance principle with the current, practical effect of such a policy. I think most folks here who want quasi to fully open borders are certainly not in favor of moar free stuff....despite that being what is most likely to be the result of such a policy in the immediate term

  • Jeff||

    Because to such libertarians, it doesn't matter in which order you do things. Legalizing drugs before ditching socialized health care and throwing open the borders before dismantling the welfare state may well be disastrous, but we've got dogma to uphold, consequences be damned!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    hot to let in immigrants to gobble up the more of the same freebies.

    Ha! Before I could return to the States with my non-citizen wife, I had to sign an affidavit of support and supply evidence that I had the means to support her. By signing the affidavit, my wife and I are forever ineligible for SSI and other welfare and unemployment goodies.

  • Homple||

    Your problem is, you followed the law. The problem for the rest of us is: the illegals don't.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That's Homple's point. We treat legal immigrants who are complying with the law like shit.

  • Zeb||

    That's mostly because the people arguing for tighter immigration controls, or railing against illegal immigrants are usually talking about Hispanic immigrants from points south. I think you can safely assume that people arguing for more or less open borders would argue for the same for people arriving by other routes as well.

  • Homple||

    "I think you can safely assume that people arguing for more or less open borders would argue for the same for people arriving by other routes as well."

    I don't see much evidence to bolster that assumption.

  • ||

    Where have you been looking?

  • Homple||

    Obviously nowhere with the volume of words on non-hispanic immigration within an order of magnitude on those of the hispanic kind.

    Links, rather than questions when someone wishes to inform me, are always appreciated. But keep in mind the relative frequencies if you want to convince me that Reason and its commenters seem vastly more interested in hispanic immigrants than non-hispanic.

  • Homple||

    Should read

    "But keep in mind the relative frequencies if you want to convince me that Reason and its commenters are not vastly more interested in hispanic immigrants than non-hispanic.

  • Zeb||

    What does it matter what they are interested in. All of the open borders advocates will argue just as strongly for open airports as well. It just doesn't come up as often. Are you really this stupid? You really think that there are libertarians who think that the southern border should be open, but all of the restrictions on Europeans and others that arrive by air are A-OK? If not, what the fuck is your point? Are we secret Mexican commuists or something?

  • Homple||

    I see only Hispanics mentioned, therefore I wonder if some open borders libertarians are interested only in Hispanics.

  • Zeb||

    Well, your question has been answered. Do you know what libertarian even means?

  • Homple||

    I read stuff here to try to figure out what libertarian means and make the occasional comment to try to tease out more information.

    My mileage varies.

  • waaminn||

    Dude jsut loves his people man!

    www.Anon-Big.tk

  • Brother Ken||

  • lgjhere||

    This is just one aspect of a larger issue. A new book/ebook explains the role, struggles, and contributions of immigrants and minorities: "What Foreigners Need To Know About America From A To Z: How to understand crazy American culture, people, government, business, language and more." Endorsed by ambassadors, educators, and editors, it paints a revealing picture of America on numerous subjects for those who will benefit from a better understanding. Immigrants and the children they bear account for 60 percent of our nation's population growth and are 60 percent more likely to start a new business than native-born Americans. It identifies "foreigners" who became successful in the US and contributed to our society. However, most struggle in their efforts and need guidance. Perhaps intelligent immigration reform, concerned citizens and books like this can extend a helping hand.
    Here's a closing quote from the book's Intro: "With all of our cultural differences though, you'll be surprised to learn how much our countries—and we as human beings—have in common on this little third rock from the sun. After all, the song played at our Disneyland parks around the world is 'It's A Small World After All.' Peace." www.AmericaAtoZ.com

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