Bob Novak Calls Out Republicans on Immigration

Robert Novak went down to Georgia* and South Carolina and watched Republican activists shout down their pro-immigration senators. His take on the kerfuffles is well-sourced and, towards the end, pretty personal.

Many Republicans reach for an anti-immigration lifeline because of the party's plight. Burdened with an unpopular president and an unpopular war, the GOP cannot claim to be the party of limited government and controlled spending. But immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans. In a recent closed-door meeting of the House's conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina raised the danger of resembling South Africa's National Party advocating apartheid.

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, while probing for the compromise's weak spots in Senate debate Tuesday, warned of "cultural" change resulting from a flood of low-income immigrants. That recalls the 1911 report of the U.S. Immigration Commission asserting that the "proportion of the more serious crimes of homicide, blackmail and robbery . . . is greater among the foreign born," who also refuse to learn the English language.

In reading part of that report into the Senate record, Graham declared that these immigrants who were "ruining America" fathered the "greatest generation." That immigrant wave included my grandfather, a Russian Imperial army veteran working on the John Deere tractor assembly line in Moline, Ill., as an unskilled, undocumented alien who could not speak English. He was an American patriot proud of a son who fought with the U.S. infantry through Africa and Italy in World War II.

*obvious joke continued here

Reason's classic 2006 immigration issue available here  

Comments

[Brandybuck]

One thing I've noticed with most big government Republicans, is that they can't seem to tell the difference between legal and illegal immigration. IListening to a white cracker politician bitching about immigration is pure hypocrisy. Illegal immigration is a problem, but legal immigration is one of our nation's core traditions.

[Barakku]

Maybe if we focused on illegal imigrants only and stopped acting like we want to be isolationists again, people wouldn't be so devided.
And maybe if Mexico cleaned up it's act a little...

[Lamar]

It's a bit gamey to say that you favor legal immigration when you know that the path to legal immigration is insufficient to meet the needs on both sides of the border.

[MikeP]

Umm... You "illegal immigration is different from legal immigration" types fail to realize that the immigration debate is hot right now precisely because Congress is trying to figure out which immigrants will be legal and which will be illegal in the future.

The present conversation is about all immigrants and potential immigrants and about putting them in buckets with names such as "Z" and "Y" and "illegal". It is hard to hide your protectionist or nativist biases when you are trying to make that last bucket as big as you can.

[Cesar]

MikeP-

Try asking those who favor *legal* immigration why we don't just increase the number of visas for low-skilled workers to meet market demand, and the response you usually reveals how they really feel about legal immigrants. Its usually something along the lives of, ButTheMexicanGovernmentWillControlUs.

[carrick]

The only people that should be excluded from immigration are those with criminal records in their native countries.

The US desperately needs all the uneducated, non-English-speaking, rabble that it can get it's hands on.

-- carrick -- fourth generation descendant of those sub-human, catholic, irish emigres that risked their lives in the coffin ships in the mid 1800's.

[joe]

Cesar, I like to say something like this:

"When I support something, I try to expand it, or remove barriers to it. What exactly do you think we should to expand legal immigration, and remove barriers to it."

Admittedly, it doesn't get the same viscertal kick I get from asking people who want to make English the official language, "What is this, France?" but it's fun to watch ThemSquirm.

[John]

The underlying falacy of Novak's rant is that just becuase was good in the past that it is bound to be good in the future. Maybe maybe not. But the fact that the people who objected to immigration in 1911 were wrong then doesn't say anything about whether the objections to immigration are valid today. That is just sophistry on Novak's part.

[John]

"The only people that should be excluded from immigration are those with criminal records in their native countries."

Since we have absolutely no control over who comes over our Sothern border, how exactly do you plan to exclude those with criminal records? The honor system?

[MikeP]

Since we have absolutely no control over who comes over our Sothern border, how exactly do you plan to exclude those with criminal records? The honor system?

No. Background checks. Duh.

[Dan T.]

God is it fantastic to watch the Republican party implode over this issue.

When half the party wants to exploit poor people and the other half wants to discriminate against them, eventually something had to give.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.

[MikeP]

Although I would add to the border crossing exclusion list foreign armies, insurgents, and agents, terrorists, and carriers of highly communicable disease.

[thoreau]

I no longer see any need to participate in immigration threads, as MikeP consistently kicks so much ass that he needs no backup.

As always, good show, sir!

[carrick]

But the fact that the people who objected to immigration in 1911 were wrong then doesn't say anything about whether the objections to immigration are valid today.

The arguments then and now are remarkably similar. The burden of proof is on you to explain what make now different than then.

Since we have absolutely no control over who comes over our Sothern border, how exactly do you plan to exclude those with criminal records?

Gee wiz. If there actually was a process in place to allow anyone to apply for an immigration slot, then there would be a process to check backgrounds.

If the restrictions on immigration were so minimal as to make the burden on "good" people easily acceptable, then only "bad" people would try to bypass the system.

Then an undocumented alien would be a high probability of someone that should actually be deported. The system could then expend its limited resources on identifying and deporting bad people.

This government run system will, of course, work no better than any other government run program, but it would clearly be an improvement in my opinion.

[grylliade]

ButTheMexicanGovernmentWillControlUs

You forgot the "BoogahBoogahBoogah." That's key. It really wakes people up to the danger that IllegalAliens represent.

But the fact that the people who objected to immigration in 1911 were wrong then doesn't say anything about whether the objections to immigration are valid today.

When they use the same arguments, just changing the name of the group du jour, it's pretty indicative that the arguments are bad. Try these:

"If we allow [Irish | Mexicans] into this nation, the [Pope | MexicanGovernment] will control us!"

"[Irish | Italians | Poles | Mexicans] carry disease!"

"[Irish | Italians | Poles | Mexicans] will take jobs away from hard working [Americans | Irish | Italians | Poles]!"

"The [Irish | Italians | Poles | Mexicans] will irrevocably change our culture for the worse!"

"There are already too many [Irish | Italians | Poles | Mexicans] here!"

If all you've done is change the name of the despised group, and the argument was invalid before, there's only a slim chance that things have changed sufficiently to render the argument valid. Every reason given that Mexican immigration is somehow different from previous immigration is either wrong or irrelevant, so why should we give any weight to the arguments?

[joe]

"God is it fantastic to watch the Republican party implode over this issue.

When half the party wants to exploit poor people and the other half wants to discriminate against them, eventually something had to give."

Yeah. And the party elites can't even deploy the usual trick of shouting "9/11!" because that just makes the rank-and-file more anti-immigrant.

[joe]

"But the fact that the people who objected to immigration in 1911 were wrong then doesn't say anything about whether the objections to immigration are valid today."

I'd say it's a rebuttable presumption.

[Tommy Jefferson]

Right. The State Department can have Sudan fax over a well-done background check on the immigrants they found in the shipping container at the Port of Houston. What a brilliant solution.

America has an over-abundance of water, petroleum, and schools. We need more warm bodies here. American highways and emergency rooms are woefully vacant and underutilized. We need millions more people here to fill them.

What a beautiful day it will be when Dallas and Boston look just like Calcutta. The thriving beehive of bicycles, street meat, child prostitutes, and ghetto strongmen will be a multicultural paradise.

Hurry up!

[MikeP]

Thanks, thoreau. I pick my topics sparingly, and immigration is on the top of the list.

But backup is always good!

[Cesar]

"What a beautiful day it will be when Dallas and Boston look just like Calcutta. The thriving beehive of bicycles, street meat, child prostitutes, and ghetto strongmen will be a multicultural paradise."

Wow, sounds like you have lived in south Richmond, too.

[John]

"No. Background checks. Duh."

Mike are trying to be funny or are you really that stupid. Wait don't answer that. You can't have background checks unless you control the border. You can't control the border unless you are willing to enforce the laws, something that immigration proponents are compltely unwilling to do. Even if the U.S. agreed to adopt the entire population of Latin America, which is what a system like carrick is advocating would do, it would be virtually impossible to run background checks and issue visas to that many people. To give you an example, the immmigration service was still sending letters to Mahummad Atta after 9-11 granting him his visa. There is no way the government could ever process and conduct background checks on the number of immigrants who would want to come here if the U.S. really had open borders. Couldn't happen. What do you think there is some data base in the sky you can just run a search on? Do you think the members of the Mexican mafia all have mafia ID cards or tails that you can check for?

If you want open borders, fine. But don't insult people's intelligence by pretending that having open borders can somehow be tempered by background checks and the like.

[joe]

Yeah, man, can you imagine what Boston would be like if there were immigrants all over the place?

Uhhhhhhhh.........

[John]

I love it. Libertarians never saw a government program that wasn't incompetant, unless it is the immigration service running background checks on immigratns. Then it is all days of wine and roses. The government will be here conducting background checks to ensure that no undesirables get into the country. Yeah, that will work. You people kill me.

[carrick]

Right. The State Department can have Sudan fax over a well-done background check on the immigrants they found in the shipping container at the Port of Houston. What a brilliant solution.

That one was just too easy. An undocumented alien in a shipping container goes home.

America has an over-abundance of water, petroleum, and schools. We need more warm bodies here. American highways and emergency rooms are woefully vacant and underutilized. We need millions more people here to fill them.

There is a standard libertarian answer to that one. It has been repeated ad nauseum on this site. If you're a new-comer here, then read the archives. Otherwise, shove it.

What a beautiful day it will be when Dallas and Boston look just like Calcutta. The thriving beehive of bicycles, street meat, child prostitutes, and ghetto strongmen will be a multicultural paradise.

Just like the Italian ghettos in NY, or the Irish ghettos in NY, or the "take your pick" ghettos in NY that sprouted up and then grew into something else.

[Mike Espinoza]

Well, what do you know? Bob Novak actually gets it right. The Republicans can't win public support on the War On Iraq and have lost all credibility on limited government, so they reach for illegal immigration as their hot button issue, only to have it turn around and bite them. Classic.

[Pro Libertate]

Just who do you think is trying to tunnel their way out of Boston, poor, na?ve joe?

[John]

Tell me Carrick. How does the government bureaucracy run your system? The immigration service can't handle the number of applicants it gets now. What do you do, let everyone in pending the background check? In which case, why have a service at all? Keep them out until the checks are done? That won't work becuase the backlog would be so long peope would just say screw it and sneak in like they do now. How is this going to work?

[Dan T.]

"What a beautiful day it will be when Dallas and Boston look just like Calcutta. The thriving beehive of bicycles, street meat, child prostitutes, and ghetto strongmen will be a multicultural paradise."

Or a libertarian paradise, what with legalized child hookers and no pesky FDA to keep food safe. If anybody has a problem, forget the police, hire your own ghetto strongman.

[carrick]

So John, when did you ancestors climb on a boot and come over here? What makes them special?

And as I said earlier, the burden is on you to explain why a massive influx of uneducated, unskilled labor will destroy the economy and the culture of the US.

[joe]

"You can't control the border unless you are willing to enforce the laws,"

Willing and able to enforce the laws, more like.

And we will never be willing or able to enforce the laws as long as they run contrary to the natural, unavoidable process of migration between Mexico and the United States.

Any more than we were never going to be willing, or able, to enforce the laws prohibiting the importation of liquor in the 20s.

Anyone trying to come up with a solution to the problems we're facing has to get serious, and recognize that lots of people are going to immigrate to the United States. They always have, they always will, and our society and economy have, over the centuries, grown up around these patterns of activity.

Pretending there aren't going to be lots of immigrants in our country is like pretending there aren't going to be any guns. Even if you convince yourself it would be a good thing, you're living in fantasyland.

[John]

Way to no answer the quesiton Carrick. You throw out the "anyone without a criminal record should be able to come here." Fine, tell me how we do that? Like I said above, you want open borders then at least be honest about the consiquences of having them and stop pretending that you can magically keep those with crinimal records out.

[SugarFree]

I don't care about legal or illegal, immigration from Hispanic countries poses one clear danger in my mind that no one wants to deal with: an increased fan base for soccer.*

If they really want to come here, then let 'em sign an anti-soccer oath. Search them for balls and nets and shin guards at the border. Monitor their sporting event attendance and television habits for a reasonable time (say, ten years.) If they stay clean of the hideous scourge of soccerism, then they can become citizens.

*If they want to call it "football" then they can stay home. We already have "football," thank you very much.

[MikeP]

If you want open borders, fine. But don't insult people's intelligence by pretending that having open borders can somehow be tempered by background checks and the like.

I don't follow your argument. If the only things you needed to check was a person's health, whether they were on a terrorist watch list, and whether they had a felony record in their home country, this would be pretty damn easy. It would take a day or two for countries with which we had a data exchange relationship. In other cases it might take a week or two, in which case the recommendation would be to get your entry visa at a local consulate before coming to the border.

No I have no idea why ICE has such a backlog on visas for, e.g., spouses. I would argue that only proves that they are spending their time checking something besides criminal history.

[joe]

Pro Libertate,

Huh?

[neilpaul]

John,

undesireables will come in and they will be dealt with. Ever hear of the mafia? Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the sweet. I'm the descendant of Irish immigrants. Is everyone in my family tree perfectly respectable and law-abiding? Nope. Am I still glad my ancestors were allowed in? Hell yes! On balance I think America did ok with my family. I don't see any reason to believe we can't work with these new immigrants too. Unless its the fact that I hate spics. Usually I don't feel comfortable advancing that kind of reasoning in a public forum.

[John]

"And we will never be willing or able to enforce the laws as long as they run contrary to the natural, unavoidable process of migration between Mexico and the United States."

Why just Mexico? What is so special about Mexicans? A lot of people from other parts of the world want to come here to, yet don't get to. That doesn't strike me as fair. I like our chances of enforcing the immigration laws a lot better than our chances of running background checks on anyone and everyone who wants to immigrate here.

[How we\'re going to block it]

This is so sad.

First, they aren't "pro-immigration senators" (Weigel). They're CorruptPoliticians who support IllegalActivity.

Turning to Novak:

Opposing IllegalImmigration is neither "anti-immigration" nor "immigrant-bashing".

As for "apartheid", that's a laugh. That's similar to the current situation and the "GuestWorker" program that the Sens support. And, back in 2003 a RazaRadical used the same word to refer to the current situation.

If you want a more in-depth comment on what Novak actually has to say, please don't include so many obvious false and misleading statements so close to the top of the post.

[Pro Libertate]

joe,

Big Dig humor. Forget it, not funny.

[carrick]

How does the government bureaucracy run your system?

The federal government expends trillions of dollars on tasks that would be better left up to the free market (according to us crazy libertarians anyway).

These expenditures drain resources (both money and people) away from the legitimate functions of the federal government (like controlling the borders).

With the execption of the Mexican border, it is very hard for an undocumented alien to enter the country. So the problem of controlling the border should be manageable.

Getting back to the question you keep ignoring. What are the consequence of a massive influx of uneducated, unskilled labor that you so clearly worry about.

[joe]

John,

Any system is going to be imperfect. I daresay that the experience of West Berlin demonstrates that the walls-and-guards strategy will have its own flaws and failures.

You're proposing an even bigger-government program than MikeP, so no, you don't get to count the imperfection of government programs as point for your side.

[Cesar]

Lone Wacko?

WhyDo YouContinue ToType LikeThis?

CouldYou PleaseFor TheLove OfGod ExplainThis?

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

John: "The underlying falacy of Novak's rant is that just becuase was good in the past that it is bound to be good in the future."

One underlying fallacy is that the quote(s) from 1911 (actually 1910) are out of context:

http://lhs.loswego.k12.or.us/z-foxc/US%20Hist%20Lessons/Quater%20Two/Immigration%20Progressive%20Era/The%20Immigration%20Commission%20Report.htm

Immigration and Crime
"It is impossible from existing data to determine whether the immigrant population in this country is relatively more or less criminal than the native-born population. Statistics show that the proportion of convictions of crimes according to the population is greater among the foreign-born than among native-born. It must be remembered, however, that the proportion of persons of what may be termed the criminal age is greater among the foreign-born than among natives, and when due allowance is made for this fact it appears that criminality, judged by convictions, is about equally prevalent in each class.
...
In large cities a part of the apparent criminality of the foreign-born consists merely of violations of ordinances, which are offenses only because the persons who commit them are not naturalized. Prominent in this class of offenses is street peddling without a license in cities where such licenses are granted only to citizens.

The proportion of the more serious crimes of homicide, blackmail and robbery, as well as the least serious offenses, is greater among the foreign-born. The disproportion in this regard is due principally to the prevalence of homicides and other crimes of personal violence among Italians and the violation of city ordinances previously mentioned?"

It's not much of a "they were delusional, therefore so are you" soundbite when it's in context.

[Brandybuck]

There's a difference between legal and illegal immigration that's remarkable similar to the difference between legal and illegal drugs: one causes crime the other doesn't. When you break the law to engage in an otherwise peaceful activity, you become a scofflaw, and that breeds crime.

Let's make legal immigration easier! It's actually easier, cheaper and less risky to cross the border illegally than to do it right way. That needs to change.

[Fluffy]

Although libertarians may be unrealistic about the risks and costs of an "open door" policy on immigration, I think immigration opponents are equally unrealistic about the risks and costs of attempting to deport 15 million illegal immigrants.

Do you know what it would cost to hold that many people in detention and process their cases judicially? And that's after you spend the money to catch them.

[XaabaZu]

Perhaps the borders can be managed by a private company. Just sayin...

Perhaps Blackwater will need work after the Iraq thing is over with. 😀

[joe]

"Why just Mexico? What is so special about Mexicans?"

Because Mexico, at this time, produces (or at least conveys) the lion's share of immigrants to the US, and because the lion's share of immigration comes across our southern border.

"A lot of people from other parts of the world want to come here to, yet don't get to. That doesn't strike me as fair." Yes, me too. We should scrap the unfair national quotas.

[Brian24]

John, it sounds to me like you're just as worried about legal immigrants as you are about illegal immigrants, which would at least make you honest.

Most of the people I talk about say their only problem is with people breaking the law to get there. Obvious solution: if you increase legal immigration to the point that people feel they have a reasonable shot at getting in, they're not going to risk their lives traversing the border. Problem solved.

[John]

"I don't follow your argument. If the only things you needed to check was a person's health, whether they were on a terrorist watch list, and whether they had a felony record in their home country, this would be pretty damn easy. It would take a day or two for countries with which we had a data exchange relationship."

It is not that easy. Not every country keeps good records. Further, some of those countries might I don't know want the terrorists to get in the country. It is a monunmental job. If the government could accomplish doing background checks on literally 10s and probably 100s of millions of immigrants, it would be the greatest bureaucratic feat in world history.

"undesireables will come in and they will be dealt with. Ever hear of the mafia?"

If you had truly open borders, the number of immigrants would be unimaginable. Much larger than anything we have experienced in the past. The population would go up by a third or more in just a few years, without the western frontier to absorb them. The example of the mafia doesn't work. Furhter, the only thing that would stop the flow would be wages and living standards in host countries rising to U.S. levels or wages and living standards in the U.S. falling to their level. The latter is much more likly. Yes, the lives of the immigrants would improve, but that would be at the exepense of the quality of life for millions of Americans already here. I don't know why you hate Americans so much. That kind of bigotry is ussually not tolerated in a public forum.

[Pleus\'s Grandpop]

Back in 33 we came over on a boat. Was hard times back then. But I got meself a hum dinger job as a taint-lice remover.

Worked my way up the ladder. After three years, they gave me some tweezers to work with.

After five years, they told me that I was actually part of a grand military experiment. I got mated with a Lone Wolf. Since they were going to raise the whelp catholic, I could not rightly object. But the Lone Whelp had this problem, see. He had fused pinkies. And remained a Solitary, Off-kilter type.

Now, since I'm created in the lord's image and them other folks from... places where they don't talk English... well, they came from the trees. And they smell like it.

So... where was I?

DAMMIT, KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!!! IT'S MY SOCCER BALL NOW. Vamoose.

Oh yes English first.

[Harry]

"No. Background checks. Duh."

You actually think the Mexican government----the most corrupt one in the Americas----would actually cooperaste in an honest manner with background checks? Illegal immigration is Mexico's safety valve; it drains away people who might otherwise aggitate for internal reforms within Mexico.

Do most liberatarians take a stupid pill every morning??

[joe]

Deporting 15 million people would be the largest forced migration in the history of the Western Hemisphere. And we're not even talking about some population that lives in a specified georgraphic area, or that can otherwise be easily identified and rounded up. We're talking about going into communities, using law-enforcement tactics to identify "illegals," and then going into their homes and taking them away. Sometimes, mistakes will be made.

Even if you postulate that America would be better if there were no illegal immigrants, and even if you think that simply legalizing the undocumented already here is a bad idea, the practical aspect of deporting the illegal immigrants that are already here would require not just a big bureacracy, but a police state.

[Question]

What was Milton Freedman's position?

[John]

"Most of the people I talk about say their only problem is with people breaking the law to get there. Obvious solution: if you increase legal immigration to the point that people feel they have a reasonable shot at getting in, they're not going to risk their lives traversing the border. Problem solved."

There is nothing wrong with increasing legal immigration. Further, we ought to be letting in more people from different parts of the world so that we dont' have one dominant immigrant culture. But legal immigration only has meaning if you do something to stop illegal immigration. My objection is to the polyannish view that having totally open borders would be positive for the country. It wouldnt' be. It would be a disaster. Just because you don't want completely open borders and just because you think that perhaps people should come here legally and that other people besides Mexicans should have a chance to come here, doesn't mean you are a nativist.

[John]

"What was Milton Freedman's position?"

That open borders are great, as long as you don't have a welfare state. Since our welfare state isn't going anywhere anytime soon, Friedman would not support open borders.

[carrick]

There are three major groups of complaints against wide open immigration of uneducated, unskilled people into the US. In no particular order they are:

1) They will change the nature of the culture of the US. Note that this charge has been leveled against every "undesirable" immigrant since the beginning of the country.

2) They will pull the rug out from underneath skilled labor and will destroy the economy. This compliant is closely tied to, but not exclusive to, union labor. This carries some truth to it. But in a free market, competition within the labor pool is good for society as a whole even if some members find themselves out-competed.

3) They will overwhelm the welfare system. Again, the carries some truth to it. But the libertarian answer is to ramp down the welfare system not to block immigration.

So John, which of these groups do you fall into?

[John]

Joe,

You wouldn't have to deport 15 million people. Just clamp down on the people who hire them and the jobs would dry up and the people would go home themselves. You don't have to round them up. No jobs, no public assistance no illegal immigrants. You wouldnn't end it but you would stop the growth and lower the number. Combine that with a real loosening of the legal immigration process and you could solve the problem and still keep control of the border.

[carrick]

Yes, the lives of the immigrants would improve, but that would be at the exepense of the quality of life for millions of Americans already here. I don't know why you hate Americans so much. That kind of bigotry is ussually not tolerated in a public forum.

Anything you say from this point forward is of no value what so ever.

[John]

Carrick. Two and three are undenably true. The welfare system is going nowhere. You might as well tell me that the tooth fairy is coming to make it all better as tell me that the welfare system is going to end. As far as two goes, look at the plight of high school drop outs and compare it to the rise of illegal immigration. Greater supply causes lower wages. Basically we are screwing our own poor so that rich people can get their lawns mowed cheaply. It sucks.

[StupendousMan]

"What are the consequence of a massive influx of uneducated, unskilled labor that you so clearly worry about."

Apparently there is no downside. I've asked repeatedly: under what conditions would unrestrained immigration be a negative? Never heard an answer.

I've also never heard even a ballpark estimate of how many people we can absorb over time. Well I guess I've heard "the market will regulate the flow back and forth"- and my response is- how quickly can it react? What are the costs if it reacts very slowly?

[Brian24]

John,

Well, now you're talking. Of course, the increase in legal immigration would have to be greatest for Mexicans, since they have the lowest barrier to entry (being next door and all). And to really accomplish the goal of creating a society where the vast majority are legal, we should create a reasonable path to citizenship for those who are already here (reasonable = not having to return to one's own country and reapply, or paying an exorbitant fine).

[John]

"Anything you say from this point forward is of no value what so ever."

"That is pig Latin for "I don't have an answer to what you are saying so I will just dismiss you and feign superiority."

[Fluffy]

Carrick -

I think there is a #4 - people who would support mass immigration if the population of the country was 100 million, but who don't support it at 300 million.

One of the good things about capitalism is that increasing wealth for some reason tends to lower the birth rate, so you don't end up with Malthusian outcomes, or even just the unpleasantness of a place that is too damn full even if it's well-fed. That doesn't work, however, if you have a continual source of new population from outside the system.

I'm not old enough to know personally, but all the photographic evidence I've seen leads me to believe that the country looks pretty shitty compared to the way it did when the population was 150 million. Certainly southern California and the north coast of Hawaii have been ruined beyond what can be repaired in our lifetimes. Adding another 100 million immigrants on top would not, I think, have a salutary effect. I've been told this makes me a misanthrope, and I guess maybe it does.

[John]

I agree with you Brian. Guest worker programs are a terrible idea. The last thing we need is group of unassimilated people who have no hope of being citizens. That is what guest slave I mean worker programs would create. There is no question that this country can and should take significant numbers of legal immigrants. I am just saying a totally open border is really bad idea.

[Jim Walsh]

Opposing Illegal Immigration is neither "anti-immigration" nor "immigrant-bashing".

It is if you don't work out a reasonable criterion for what constitues "legal" vs. "illegal." I swear, some of you guys sound like Michael Constantine's character in My Big Fat Greek Wedding:

"I want to come into your country."

"Only if you ask permission."

"Can I come into your country?"

"No."

[Cesar]

Why do so many people think of Latin America as some kind of demographic time bomb? The fertility rates of Latin American countries have been falling since the 1960s and are now only slightly higher than those in the United States.

[highnumber]

How about, from now on in immigration threads, all the regulars just check in like this:

highnumber | Month XX, 2007, X:XX xm | #

Still in favor of open borders.

or "Still against..." No more comment than that.

MikeP will be exempt. He can take on the renegades and non-regular commenters.
This system will save all much time and aggravation.

(Sorry, MikeP, but you have been nominated by no less than thoreau.)

[Brian24]

Fluffy--

It does.

Photographic evidence? You don't get out much?

Well, I live in NYC, and I happen to think it's beautiful. I'd say the same for Southern California and Hawaii. Why do you hate human habitation so much?

For the record, forested land has been increasing in the United States for some time, as our population has become more concentrated in urban areas (http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/32179/en/). There is plenty of room in the US for more people, particularly relative to many other countries.

[carrick]

"That is pig Latin for "I don't have an answer to what you are saying so I will just dismiss you and feign superiority."

You said that proponent of open immigration hate Americans and are bigots.

I repeatedly asked you to answer questions to engage in a rational discussion on immigration. You just devolved into name calling.

So yes, I am going to dismiss you.

[carrick]

With the exception of the Irish, who almost never went home to Ireland, many emigres go someplace, work for a while, save their money, then go home. It's not a majority that returns home, but is a large percentage.

Before the US tightened the border, many Mexican men came the US, saved some money, then went home. They frequently repeated this process.

After the crackdown, mexican men brought their families with them to avoid having to cross the border repeatedly.

If you really want to clean up Mexico, then you need to bring large numbers of ambitious young men here, let then make and save money, then return home to become affluent members of Mexican society that expect the civil order of the US economy.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

What was Milton Freedman's position?
His opinion doesn't count because he was a racist.

Do most liberatarians take a stupid pill every morning??
Most don't need to do so.

If you want open borders, fine. But don't insult people's intelligence by pretending that having open borders can somehow be tempered by background checks and the like.
Background checks = not open borders.

If you had truly open borders, the number of immigrants would be unimaginable. Much larger than anything we have experienced in the past. The population would go up by a third or more in just a few years, without the western frontier to absorb them.
Quite true, but think along the lines of 50 or 100 or 200 years. Travel is a lot easier now than at any time in the past, and will probably just get easier and cheaper in the future, so how about a few million, say 100 million at least, supporters of Sharia law? Why not? They have the oil money to buy one-way plane tickets, and they'd get rid of that pesky ole Constitution and it's horrible 'n' barbaric restraints on immigration, resulting in a multiculty love-fest for all.

I don't know why you hate Americans so much. That kind of bigotry is ussually not tolerated in a public forum.
It's all the rage among the kids.

[highnumber]

By the way, Fluffy, I think you dismissed Malthus and warned of Malthusian outcomes at the same time.
Look out for a break in the space-time continuum in your immediate vicinity.

[Brian24]

John--

Totally with you on guest workers. The last thing we need is an explicit, legally-sanctioned underclass with no hope of citizenship.

With the exception of the Irish, who almost never went home to Ireland

If you're talking about the Irish of the late 19th/early 20th century, or during the Depression, that's also true of every other immigrant group of the time. It was prohibitively expensive to travel across the ocean at the time; many spent everything they had just to get here.

My own grandparents came over in the '20s and '30s, along with many of their siblings. Most never returned to Ireland until at least the '70s, when the cost of travel came down.

[Cesar]

Mr. F. Le Mur-

Explain to me why an oil billionaire who is a Islamic fundamentalist would move to the United States?

And we don't "Bring" anybody here, so that should extinguish the old strawman of "why don't we bring (x outrageous number) of (y group) here?

[carrick]

highnumber, it may just be semantics, but I don't think "open" immigration equates to "open" borders.

Today, there is no legal process for an unskilled worker to immigrate to the US. But there is definitely a market demand for their services. Therefore, black market in unskilled, immigrant labor.

I suggest that this should be changed to allow pretty much anyone with the resources to get the US to have a chance to come to the US. That does not mean that I want to see millions of people walking across the southwest desert.

[carrick]

If you're talking about the Irish of the late 19th/early 20th century, or during the Depression, that's also true of every other immigrant group of the time. It was prohibitively expensive to travel across the ocean at the time; many spent everything they had just to get here.

Sorry I have been mixing time frames. In the late 1800's to early 1900's, perhaps 1/4th to 1/3rd of the immigrants to the US returned home at some point. For the Irish at that time, it was almost none.

In today's economy, the Irish are well known for going anywhere at the drop of a hat to find work.

[MikeP]

Background checks = not open borders.

This is a strawman. Everyone I know who argues for open borders believes that people can be excluded for cause. Even an anarchist would say that, if you have a government anyway, one of its legitimate functions is controlling the border against entry of persons or material that is actually dangerous to the public.

A terrorist is dangerous to the public. A gardener is not.

[joe]

"If you really want to clean up Mexico, then you need to bring large numbers of ambitious young men here, let then make and save money, then return home to become affluent members of Mexican society that expect the civil order of the US economy."

Wow, An original thought! Bravo, carrick. Good point.

As opposed to the racist lemur's theory that immigrants remain culturally untouched by the society they enter. If only the grandchildren of people who came here from Iran in 1995 weren't going to be passionately committed to instituting sharia law!

[highnumber]

carrick,

I have not heard anyone talk about "open immigration." I'm not quite sure where you're going with that.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Explain to me why an oil billionaire who is a Islamic fundamentalist would move to the United States?

Who, besides you, said anything about billionares? Why did 10-20 million Sharia law supporters (all billionaires!) move to Europe in the past 30 or so years?

[Cesar]

Mr. F. Le Mur-

Well, you said they would have the "oil money" to pay for plane tickets. So, I figured you meant people from Gulf States, who are usually very wealthy.

"Who, besides you, said anything about billionares? Why did 10-20 million Sharia law supporters (all billionaires!) move to Europe in the past 30 or so years?"

Yes LeMur. Every single Arab, Turkish, Persian, and Kurd in Europe believes 100% in Shariah law. It will be TEH EURABIA!

Fuck off.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Background checks = not open borders.
This is a strawman.
Not at all. Many people equate "open borders" with the borders between the various US states: no background checks, no searches, no paperwork, etc.: IOW, actual open borders.

As opposed to the racist lemur's theory that immigrants remain culturally untouched by the society they enter.

Joe, you're a liar, and a crummy one at that.

[MikeP]

Many people equate "open borders" with the borders between the various US states: no background checks, no searches, no paperwork, etc.: IOW, actual open borders.

Name one.

[How we\'re going to block it]

Fluffy says: I think immigration opponents are equally unrealistic about the risks and costs of attempting to deport 15 million illegal immigrants.

I'm surprised that people are still willing to offer this talking point. Yet, even today, you have MichaelChertoff offering the same old FalseChoice between MassiveAmnesty and MassDeportations, together with smear sites like ThinkProgress claiming that someone supports MassDeportations right after quoting her as supporting AttritionOverTime.

Harry says: Do most liberatarians take a stupid pill every morning??

I'm tempted to say yes, but some libertarian ideas aren't that bad. It's just that - like pacifists and similar - they're completely unable to adjust to the reality that the rest of us share. I think their pill is more of the alternate universe variety.

BTW, JohnDerbyshire eviscerates RobertNovak's column here.

[Sauron]

A terrorist is dangerous to the public. A gardener is not.

Not true. A gardener crossed my border with his friend and destroyed some very valuable property of mine! Some jewelry, to be specific.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Yes LeMur. Every single Arab, Turkish, Persian, and Kurd in Europe believes 100% in Shariah law.

Another rather silly liar. Phase of the moon pulling you guys out of your burrows today...?

[carrick]

I have not heard anyone talk about "open immigration." I'm not quite sure where you're going with that.

I started out by saying anyone without a criminal record should be allowed to come here. MikeP then followed up with the "complete list" of those that should be excluded.

I went on to say that the US needs to establish an infrastructure to verify that undesirables can't enter the US implying the need to "control the border". John then poo-pooed the whole idea as being unworkable.

I believe that the US will benefit in both the near term and the long term from an influx of people that want to make better lives for themselves by coming to the US. That does not mean that would should just abandon all the checkpoints at points of entry into the US.

[joe]

"how about a few million, say 100 million at least, supporters of Sharia law? Why not? They have the oil money to buy one-way plane tickets, and they'd get rid of that pesky ole Constitution and it's horrible 'n' barbaric restraints on immigration, resulting in a multiculty love-fest for all."

No, lemur, calling you on your description of Muslim immigrants as "supporters of sharia law," who will lobby to get rid of the Constitution, is not a lie. You asserted that these immigrants are "supporters of sharia law" and will remain so long enough to undo our political order, rather than acclimiate themselves to it.

[MikeP]

It is surprising this needs clarification, but maybe opponents of greater immigration really don't know...

Those who want open borders, open immigration, liberalized immigration -- whatever you want to call it -- simply want to remove all immigration restrictions based on worries about jobs, population, culture, language, etc.

People should be restricted from crossing the border only if they pose an actual risk to the people of the country. Merely being one of several million other immigrants does not a risk make.

[carrick]

Thoreau was right, I will defer to MikeP.

[StupendousMan]

"People should be restricted from crossing the border only if they pose an actual risk to the people of the country"

So you support a wall on our border with Mexico?

[Mr. F. Le MUr]

No, lemur, calling you on your description of Muslim immigrants as "supporters of sharia law," who will lobby to get rid of the Constitution, is not a lie.

Yes, it is a lie, joe; either that and/or you're just too damned stupid to see that I didn't use the word "Muslim" anywhere in the post.

Besides:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
"Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today."

I already feel a bit guilty about wasting this much time on idiots who can't read and understand simple statements (ESL, maybe?) - 'ta!

[highnumber]

wheeeeee!

[MikeP]

So you support a wall on our border with Mexico?

No, I don't. It is expensive, manpower intensive, and sends an awful message of militarization on what is an entirely peaceful border.

But if it was the political price for liberalized immigration, I would probably find the compromise worth it.

[R C Dean]

Once you say we will let in anyone except ______ (fill in the blank - criminals, the diseased, whatever), you are well on your way to recreating the current system, because you will need some method to separate those who are allowed in from those who aren't, and some way to keep out those who aren't allowed in.

In other words, you will need to be able to identify and validate immigrants and control the borders. Since we can't do either now, I think its a valid question how those who think we should have open borders except plan to enforce the except.

[Fluffy]

Oh, right. "Attrition over time". Otherwise known as "Do nothing, but pretend we're doing something."

Hey, I'm OK with "do nothing". I'm not the one bitching about the present situation.

But if your brilliant plan to make all the illegal immigrants walk home on their own is "get rid of the shadow market for labor" I have to reply: BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

[carrick]

Once you say we will let in anyone except ______ (fill in the blank - criminals, the diseased, whatever), you are well on your way to recreating the current system

Not really. Today, an engineer from India can come and work in the US with some possibility of getting a green card and a possible road to citizenship. A gardener from Mexico can't.

Some will argue that we need the engineer but not the gardener. The market argues that we need both.

[joe]

f"Yes, it is a lie, joe; either that and/or you're just too damned stupid to see that I didn't use the word "Muslim" anywhere in the post."

LOL! You refered to them as "supporters of sharia law," and now you're pretending you weren't talking about Muslims? You reference "oil money," and you're pretending you aren't talking about people from the Middle East?

Nice quote about British MUSLIMS being supporters of sharia law.

What are you, kidding? Who do you think is going to be fooled by that?

[StupendousMan]

I've been commenting on this subject for a while and it seems that those who are for open immigration on this board are now advocating(willing to compromise) policies that got me and others categorized as bigots and racists for merely suggesting before.

[MikeP]

Since we can't do either now, I think its a valid question how those who think we should have open borders except plan to enforce the except.

The difference between controlling a border that has allowed in 12 million people to date and half a million more each year, and controlling a border through which 98% of those could pass freely while the balance, if intercepted, are prima facie troublemakers, is enormous.

The background checks aren't going to be perfect. The border outside the legal gateways won't be perfect. But any solution proposed by those wanting greater restriction on immigration won't be perfect either. And the illegal immigrant problem is so, so much smaller in the former case than the latter.

The difficulty of enforcement is not an argument against open borders: It's an argument against closed borders.

[TLB]

Fluffy: it would work, and small instances show it would work. The problem is PoliticalCorruption prevents it from being tried on a national scale.

MikeP says: People should be restricted from crossing the border only if they pose an actual risk to the people of the country.

If 30 million more Mexicans come here, and that gives the MexicanGovernment even more PoliticalPower inside the U.S. - so much power that they have effective co-dominion over parts of our territory - isn't that a "risk"? I'm $ure that'$ a ri$k $ome are willing to take, but they don't have the country's best interests at heart.

Note: unlike Weigel, MikeP, and the rest, I actually follow this issue quite closely and I'm quite familiar with all the ways that the MexicanGovernment has PoliticalPower inside the U.S., via MexicanPartisans such as FabianNunez, maintaining constant contact with those behind the SenateAmnesty (Mexico said that a few days ago), having links to FarLeft organizations, having links to those who helped organize the IllegalImmigrationMarches, and on and on.

If you don't consider that a "risk" or you consider it a risk worth taking, please go to Somalia and enjoy the libertarian paradise there.

[TLB]

The last link should be this.

[joe]

RC Dean,

"Once you say we will let in anyone except ______ (fill in the blank - criminals, the diseased, whatever), you are well on your way to recreating the current system, because you will need some method to separate those who are allowed in from those who aren't, and some way to keep out those who aren't allowed in."

I'll point out that the prohibition on absinthe managed to hold up a lot better than the prohibition on all alcoholic beverages.

Just reducing the scope of law enforcement's duties would go a long way towards solving the enforcement/black market problem.

"Criminals and terrorists" is a much smaller category then "everyone who couldn't get legal documents."

Estimates are upwards of a million immigrants per annum. How many of those are felons or terrorists? 100? 1000?

[Rhywun]

Primus?! I must be out of touch. Those turds couldn't scrape the tobacco juice off Charlie Daniels' boots.

OK, back to the post. What's it about? Ah, immigration. (rolls up sleeves, kicks back)

[obsessed]

TLB, I beg you, please tell us why YouType LikeThis. PrettyPlease?

[VM]

*passes Rhywun the bottle. Probst!

[nebby]

"Some will argue that we need the engineer but not the gardener. The market argues that we need both."

If we needed both than wages would be swiftly rising for unskilled labor even with the illegal immigration. The collapse of these wages (construction alone is a damning example) shows these immigrants are not needed, they are just being used to lower wages for the working class. Black Americans are acutely aware of this and are largely anti-illegal immigration. White affluent people don't feel threatened and they want to save a few bucks on a hotel room so they support mass immigration, whether it be legal or not.

[Cesar]

"TLB, I beg you, please tell us why YouType LikeThis. PrettyPleases?"

Obsessed, ISecond ThatMotion.

[highnumber]

He's been asked about TheFunnyWayHeCombinesWords before and never answered. Someone suggested that he does it to make it easier to search for his own comments. That sounds plausible to me. I could also believe that he does it because he thinks it gives his comments some pop. Whenever I try it, people act like I'm nuts. Hmmm...

[Single Issue Voter]

So if you are an Indian engineer or computer scientist who has overstayed your visa here in the USA will these new z-visas allow you to fully enter the American labor market, bypassing the H1b, or will one be limited to framing, painting,chicken gutting,drywall hanging agriculture and other "menial" jobs?

[MORE AMERICAN THAN JOE OR LEMU]

YALL ARE ALL JUST MASS-DEBATING

IF YOU ARENT AMERICAN THAN YOU DONT NEED TO BE HERE THERE ARE SIMPLE TESTS FOR AMERICANISM THEY ARE IF YOU FIGHT WAR HATE TAXES AND GOT HERE AND HELPED KILL INDIANS SO THAT THE PLACE WOULD BE SAFE FOR AMERICANS WHY DONT ALL YOU PROIMMIGRANTS JUST TELL THE TRUTH AND SAY YOU WANT TO GIVE THE COUNTRY BACK TO THE INDIANS WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME GETTING INTO THEIR CASINOS AND LEARNING TO MIX DRINKS PROPERLY DOESNT ANYONE KNOW WHAT ILLEGAL MEANS? ITS LIKE LEGAL BUT SICK AND WRONG SO WHEN THEY ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THEY HAVE TO BE SENT BACK SOMEWHERE ELSE WE DONT NEED THEIR JOBS BECAUSE MANY AMERICANS WOULD RATHER MOW LAWNS AND WASH DISHES AND HAMMER NAILS AND IF THAT MEANS A HOUSE COSTS 50% MORE THEN AMERICANS HAVE TO LEARN TO SUCK IT UP AND PAY FOR A MORE AMERICAN AMERICA

[Andythebrit]

Help!! I just agreed with Bob Novak!

[GILMORE]

highnumber =

RealTruth is a brand, and MexicanPower is a force of nature, just as Capitalising suggeststs that your Ideas arent just, ideas and shit, but rather Brandable & Unique Commodities that are Monolithic and Simplified into SimpleTruth where nothing is complicated by by nuance or any hint of complicating fact.

I think maybe the guy reads a lot of bullshit Self Empowerment books that use this kind of rhetorical/grammatical/GermanicLinguistic word-mashing to elevate simple language into some kind of SuperCredibility via Branding

I have had to slap down many people in the business world who throw this shit around and remind them that only 1 in 10 dont immediately think they are idiots - they sort of convince themselves that most people dont really read any better than they do, and that Ad-Agency language actually plays in real discourse

it doesnt always end well. The retort is that having a degree in english, or having internalized Elements of Style (8th grade) guidelines, or referring to the bedford handbook to correct them, is some form of cultural snobbery which is pedantic and not really part of 'real life'. In 'real life', according to them, people are allowed to develop their own rhetorical code language for ideas that they can't actually discuss in any real detail. Branding your point gives the impression more is beneath the surface, when in fact, thats usually the extent of their understanding of the matter.

Steve Sailer is harder to argue with on this stuff. He's smart. And a bit nuts. Different animal. But I think the simple economic truth is that the US needs every warm body we can get, for our own interests, not 'helping anyone out'.

[Mike Espinoza]

Primus sucks! Primus sucks! Primus sucks!

[R C Dean]

Just reducing the scope of law enforcement's duties would go a long way towards solving the enforcement/black market problem.

True, but I don't see how that applies in this case. You will still need to check the bona fides of every single would-be immigrant, and close the borders against those who don't qualify. The fact that you are changing the criteria for who qualifies and who doesn't, doesn't change the fundamental requirements of controlled immigration.

Which we (apparently) can't manage now. it makes me wonder just how disingenuous the proponents of amnesty/opener borders, but not open borders, no sir, really are.

[carrick]

If we needed both than wages would be swiftly rising for unskilled labor even with the illegal immigration. The collapse of these wages (construction alone is a damning example) shows these immigrants are not needed, they are just being used to lower wages for the working class.

The collapse of construction wages shows that the overall economy is evolving. The industrial revolution destroyed the livelihoods of many, many people. That is the consequence of progress.

No one gets a guaranteed rate of pay for life. Factory workers lose jobs when they go overseas. Engineers lose jobs when they go overseas. Tradesmen need to upgrade their skills, move to a location where they can earn more money, or accept the lowered wages. That's the way the world works.

[smartass sob]

No one gets a guaranteed rate of pay for life.

Government employees usually do, hotshot.

[nebby]

Carrick, that is one dishonest answer

"The collapse of construction wages shows that the overall economy is evolving. The industrial revolution destroyed the livelihoods of many, many people."

Those construction jobs were not taken over by robots, they were taken by largely illegal immigrants. These jobs have not disappeared, they are just being shielded from a tightening of demand and the wage increases that follow.

"Tradesmen need to upgrade their skills, move to a location where they can earn more money, or accept the lowered wages."

Yeah, those tradesman should move to..to..

Not one country in the EU would take a drywall installer through their immigration program. Mexico would not, nor Japan or any other country. This one way open border policy stiffs the working poor plain and simple.

[MikeP]

Those construction jobs were not taken over by robots, they were taken by largely illegal immigrants.

And what if they were taken over by robots? Should the government outlaw robots? Whatever the reason production costs go down, the economy is better off: There is more construction for less money.

Not one country in the EU would take a drywall installer through their immigration program.

Perhaps you should take a look at Spain. From a BusinessWeek article...

To fill jobs, Spain looked abroad. Immigration rose from 57,000 in 1998 to more than 600,000 for each of the past two years. The biggest influx, about 800,000 since the mid-1990s, came from Ecuador, followed by Morocco and Romania. Spain, unlike France and Germany, places no restrictions on immigration from the EU's new members in the old Soviet Bloc. Many from other countries arrived under the radar: An estimated 25% to 35% of the current immigrant population is illegal. But Spain has been generous with amnesty, granting legal status since 2000 to more than 1 million who could prove that they were employed.

Many found work in the booming construction sector. Across the suburbs of Madrid, armies of hard-hatted workers speaking a Babel of languages are building row upon row of apartment high-rises on freshly bulldozed hillsides. "If you work well, you always have work," says Constantin Nitu, a Romanian who arrived in Spain in 1999 to work as a day laborer and now runs his own small construction business, employing other Romanian immigrants.

[carrick]

Carrick, that is one dishonest answer

I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I object to being called dishonest.

"The collapse of construction wages shows that the overall economy is evolving. The industrial revolution destroyed the livelihoods of many, many people."

Sorry it was late, and I left out a line . .

"Globalization is destroying the livelihoods of many, many people today. Those are the consequences of progress."

[nebby]

MikeP,

"Whatever the reason production costs go down, the economy is better off:"

Someone is better off, just not the American working class. You are saying "well the wealthy will make more money, that is progress". Less purchasing power for the most vulnerable is one kind of progress I guess.

Carrick,

Your addendum moves you from dishonest to wrong.

The construction workers you mention either come from within the EU (like coming from another state in the US) or were amnesty recipients after illegal immigration.

Can a US drywaller legally immigrate to Spain? I know they can not (sans marriage) because I can not immigrate to the EU and I have three advanced degrees. A high school graduate with general construction skills has no chance.

[StupendousMan]

"the economy is better off: There is more construction for less money..."

If developers can build for less many will- they don't seem to get the whole supply and demand thing- increasing inventory- which drives down prices. Add in the fools who got specialty mortgages and you got the mess we're just starting to see the effects of now.

I'm thinking if labor hadn't been so cheap(and in many cases sub-par) inventory wouldn't be so high.

[carrick]

Carrick,

Your addendum moves you from dishonest to wrong.

Which statement?

The collapse of construction wages shows that the overall economy is evolving.

The industrial revolution destroyed the livelihoods of many, many people.

Globalization is destroying the livelihoods of many, many people today.

Those are the consequences of progress.

[joe]

RC Dean,

"True, but I don't see how that applies in this case. You will still need to check the bona fides of every single would-be immigrant, and close the borders against those who don't qualify. The fact that you are changing the criteria for who qualifies and who doesn't, doesn't change the fundamental requirements of controlled immigration."

Running background checks on 1,000,000 people who line up and hand you their documents each year and trying to find, capture, hold, try, and deport 2000 who sneak over the border is a much smaller job than trying to find, capture, hold, try, and deport 1,002,000 people who sneak over the border.

Ask yourself, what has the government done more successfully - stop the importation of liquor entirely during Prohibition, or require Seagrams et al. to abide by our consumer protection, labelling, tax, and age laws?

[Isaac Bartram]

All I can say is that it's a goddamn good thing construction wages have been depressed.

It means it'll be all the cheaper to build that wall.

Of course I'm holding out for the canal the whole length of the border. With mutant sharks to stop the swimmers.

[GILMORE]

..With mutant sharks to stop the swimmers.

With fricken lazer beams