Immigration

Legalize Immigration

It's time to focus on letting legal immigrants in.

|

A lot of Arizonans are upset about illegal immigration, and to learn why, you can't do better than the letter from Arizona State Sen. Sylvia Allen. Widely circulated on the Internet, it provides a pungent statement of the frustrations behind the new law stiffening enforcement—while confirming that it's the wrong remedy.

People on the border, she writes, "have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property." The migrants damage fences, scatter trash, and sometimes perish en route. "One rancher testified that 300 to 1,200 people a DAY come across his ranch," reports Allen.

The illegal entries, she believes, undermine our status as "a nation of laws." With a state budget deficit, "we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally," she says.

Hers are not the only complaints being heard. Among others: Illegals don't pay taxes. They steal Social Security numbers to get jobs. They drive down wages by working off the books.

All no doubt true. But the legislation assumes that tougher enforcement at the border and within the state will magically banish these problems. In fact, those options have already been tried, and all they have done is make things worse.

The supporters of the law, meanwhile, overlook the obvious. There is a simple way to stop the lawless stream, protect Americans living on the border, improve adherence to law, and reduce the costs of accommodating people who have no right to be here.

The solution? Stop focusing on trying to keep illegal immigrants out and start focusing on letting legal immigrants in.

Enforcement-only advocates often say they are not opposed to foreigners coming here as long as they follow the rules and obey the law. They should take a number and wait their turn, we are told, like the teeming masses of yore. It makes perfect sense until you discover that for most of those who want to come, legal admission is just about impossible.

"A peaceful, hardworking 24-year-old in Mexico or Central America who knows of a job in the United States for which no Americans are available simply has no legal means of entering the United States," writes policy analyst Daniel Griswold of the libertarian Cato Institute.

Foreigners with in-demand skills, like computer scientists, may get work visas. Close relatives of legal immigrants can also be admitted, though they often have to wait years. But if you don't fit in one of those slots—well, how do you say "fugheddaboutit" in Spanish?

Griswold suggests a big boost in the number of temporary worker visas, which would mean Mexicans and Nicaraguans would no longer have to undertake a death-defying trek across the Sonoran Desert, or squeeze into the trunk of a smuggler's car, for the privilege of working at a sweaty, low-wage job.

They wouldn't need to swipe Social Security numbers to get counterfeit documents. They would be far more likely to work on the books and pay taxes. They would come under the cover of federal and state labor regulations, so they would no longer undercut native employees.

They would stop enriching Mexican criminal organizations that make a business of human trafficking. They would gain more of a stake in participating in and preserving our way of life.

Xenophobes might fear that expanding legal immigration would produce a big jump in the foreign-born population. That's unlikely, because in this realm, the paradoxical often prevails.

Trying to lock down the border has not stanched the flow of unauthorized newcomers from the south, but it has made the trip much more dangerous and expensive. So illegal foreigners who once came and left now come and stay.

Thirty years ago, nearly half of undocumented arrivals departed within a year. Today, only one in 14 does.

If most of the 12 million illegal immigrants were to gain authorized status, many would feel free to return to their native countries, and some would remain there. Permitting more legal immigrants, oddly, could reduce the number of total immigrants.

If there is any lesson from recent experience, it's that foreigners are going to come here one way or another. The best option is to admit far more of them through wider legal channels. The alternative is to keep Arizona's southernmost ranches as the front line of a war the immigrants don't want and we can't win.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Good Deal

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.

  1. I think Chapman took one too many trips when he was in college and it messed up his brain.

    1. I can’t believe Reason.com published this. It’s got to be the most ridiculous post I’ve read here. No facts, nothing.

      1. Lyle, please observe posting protocols. The proper format for that complaint is For a magazine/site called “reason”…

        As for the rest of you, DRINK!

        1. I’ll write what I want to write. 🙂

          1. Fine. I’ll drink anyway.

            1. Someone was trying to stop you from drinking? Awful.

              1. lol slow down there ,
                nb: i agree with you the post is useless

                plaques cuisson

      2. Chapman could have saved a few electrons by replacing this article with this:

        Immigration: argue!

    2. Until Chapman and other open border idealists recognize the reality of the situation we will never make any progress.

      We have a welfare state system in this country. The sad fact is that a hospital is required to take a loss to treat an illegal immigrant. With such government imposed restriction on a hospital’s ability to make a profit, the rest of us will be required to pay for an illegal’s health-care.

      Ditto for public education system.

      How can open border idealists simply ignore the forcible theft of resources from current citizens to those that ignore our laws and enter the country illegally? Do they really expect others to blindly accept their premise that the restriction on an illegal’s ability to live/work wherever they want is more of a sin against freedom than the forcible theft of resources from existing citizens? Even if they are correct, there needs to be some discussion about it. The fact that they fail to even acknowledge these problems suggests that they are arguing more for the sake of sanctimony then for a realistic solution.

      If we were living in a libertarian utopia, yes open the borders. But we do not, and open border advocates need to address the issues I have mentioned before they will be respected by the average hard working American.

      What is it 60-70% of Americans are in favor of the new law? You all are losing the argument for a reason.

      1. So sorry about double post.

    3. Until Chapman and other open border idealists recognize the reality of the situation we will never make any progress.

      We have a welfare state system in this country. The sad fact is that a hospital is required to take a loss to treat an illegal immigrant. With such government imposed restriction on a hospital’s ability to make a profit, the rest of us will be required to pay for an illegal’s health-care.

      Ditto for public education system.

      How can open border idealists simply ignore the forcible theft of resources from current citizens to those that ignore our laws and enter the country illegally? Do they really expect others to blindly accept their premise that the restriction on an illegal’s ability to live/work wherever they want is more of a sin against freedom than the forcible theft of resources from existing citizens? Even if they are correct, there needs to be some discussion about it. The fact that they fail to even acknowledge these problems suggests that they are arguing more for the sake of sanctimony then for a realistic solution.

      If we were living in a libertarian utopia, yes open the borders. But we do not, and open border advocates need to address the issues I have mentioned before they will be respected by the average hard working American.

      What is it 60-70% of Americans are in favor of the new law? You all are losing the argument for a reason.

      1. if we eliminated the income tax and went to a VAT only then everybody would pay the same taxes and the boarders could be opened

        1. LMAO A VAT only tax would probably be in the 60-70% range if they did away with ALL the other hidden taxes and rolled it all into a VAT.

          1. this is true and hopefully then people will realize how much their taxed and start doing something about it.

          2. Try more like less than 30%. I’d be more than happy with that if it meant no tax on everything else!

      2. “Vinny”, I agree with your position whole-heartedly. The problem is that the US is no longer a country exhibiting rule of law–which is why the 60-70% of Americans in favor of the new law are losing the argument. The US is a country playing the game of privatized gains/socialized losses–not rule of law! Part of this game involves importation of illegals–the future voting bloc expected to legitimize the international Marxists in the US. (In order to enjoy wealth redistribution, one must go to where the “wealth” is. Illegals go to the US for the same reason that Willie Horton went to banks–robbery pays)! Americans are softies–they don’t have what it takes to stand up for their rights, so they no longer have any. In order to stop the illegal “immigration” (which countries other than the US refuse to tolerate), the US would have to pass laws involving the death penalty. That’s right–the entire world knows that the US is nothing but a joke!

  2. Last year the US made over one million immigrants into citizens. This is more then any other country in the world and probably at least equal to all other countries of the world when it comes to granting citizenship to immigrants

    This does not count the huge number of legal immigrants who get visas each year

    So once again the open borders propagandists ignore the reality and pretend that the US does not accept legal immigrants,

    1. Maybe you think one million a year is enough. I say it ain’t. I have good friends from Japan and Canada, who would make solid, productive American citizens, who can’t get in.

      1. Why don’t you move to Japan or Canada instead of living in the horrible USA which only has more then a million immigrants become citizens each year. Oh, wait, Japan and Canada have even more restrictive immigration laws then the USA. So why don’t you sneak in those countries so you can be with your productive friends, after all borders and immigration laws are mean.

        1. DJF,

          Point of curiosity: are you eight?

          1. Point of curiosity: Are you a retard?

        2. You’re right. As long as other countries are more stupid and counterproductive than we are, we’re fine. Also, just so you know, Canada has far less restrictive immigration laws than does the US.

          1. “Canada has far less restrictive immigration laws than does the US.”

            Unless you have ever gotten a DUI, then you are looked at as the scum of the Earth.

            1. Unless you have ever gotten a DUI, then you are looked at as the scum of the Earth.

              Is that comment related to Canada’s immigration policy, or just a general observation?

        3. Actually Canada has very loose immigration laws. Problem is, nobody wants to live on a frozen tundra.

          1. Just don’t try and get a job there. They may let you live there. Getting a job is a whole different animal.

        4. “Leave if you don’t like it here!”

          I love the idiots response to people that want to see the country that they love become better by throwing out stupid laws that cause more harm than good…

          It seems like the ones that truly don’t like the US are the ones that promote these shit laws.

      2. We already have about 300 million American citizens. I’m sure 2 or 3 of them might be solid and productive.

        Considering we’re always hearing about how much smarter, motivated, less criminal and more entrepreneurial immigrants are than Americans, you really have to wonder how we managed our greatest growth during a period when our population was 90% white Europeans, and we were allowing the least immigration in our history.

        1. Probably all those micks and krauts and wops and slavs that came in the 19th century to which there was endless bitching that their swarthiness and catholicism were ruining the good white anglo saxon stock of the continent.

          1. Slavs are swarthy?

        2. “…and we were allowing the least immigration in our history.”

          Assuming you talking about the early part of the last century there was actually little to no restriction on immigration.

          1. He’s talking WW2 and the immediate post-war period (up to ’65 or so). It’s true for some definitions of ‘managed our greatest growth’ but not all of them.

        3. You’re an ass. You perceive some theoretical harm to letting in too many people, even if they have jobs lined up, no criminal history, family, etc. Meanwhile, I have real friends who are going through real suffering because of imaginary lines between these granfalloon entities called “countries”.

          1. Why do they have jobs lined up when there are so many unemployed Americans?

            1. Because they are unique people with unique skills. Not just anybody can do any job. One of them is a skilled stop-action animator and competent filmmaker — they’d love to have him as an associate professor in the filmmaking department of our local community college, but can’t.

              1. There’s plenty of other avenues for talentless wannabe artistes to indulge their filmmaking desires. The country is loaded with unemployed (so-called, i.e. they got some degree) graphics designers, photographers, editors, etc. You might want to cite a more compelling example of the harm suffered by society.

        4. back when our population was 90% white europeans, American culture valued responsibility, self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and hard work.

          Today, American culture values mooching off the government, borrowing on credit, bitching about other people stealing your job, and claiming that you’re entitled to crade-to-grave welfare.

          1. There’s a solution to this. Recall that the cultural values of the Europeans who emigrated to the United States in the 19th century were hardly those of self-reliane, et cetera. They came from very statist and stratified cultures.

            But they turned into Americans, adopting the principles of Madison as well as any Virginia planter of 1790, indeed often better.

            We could do the same thing today. Let all who would come, come. But let us get serious about the restrictions on statism written into the Constitution. No more enabling of the nanny state by people already here because, for example, they want to use that to buy the votes of those newly arriving.

            1. They came FLEEING statist and stratified cultures. Similar to many of the immigrants coming to the US today.

              It’s not the immigrants changing American culture. It’s the native white population getting soft and comfortable and learning to feel entitled to greater wealth than the rest of the planet.

              1. To add. I think most immigrants today come here as hard-working and self-reliant as Americans 100 years ago.

                But by the second generation, they LEARN from the WHITE population that bitching and moaning about victimhood and oppression will get them priviledges they haven’t earned, which is a lot easier than busting your ass as a day laborer.

                In other words, they aren’t corrupting them. Our own already corrupt and entitled American culture destroys THEIR work ethic.

                1. It isn’t the white population that bitches most about victimhood and oppression. What kind of PC drivel is this? Blacks – “you owe us ’causeof slavery.” Hispanics – “you owe us because you stole our land.” What is this “white” oppression narrative you speak of?

                  1. Where is this entitled black/hispanic immigrant population YOU speak of? Please reference them, not high-profile, 4th generation politician/reverend/pundits, but immigrants.

                    Just because a statement isn’t bigoted, doesn’t automatically make it PC. The PC movement is a desperate and misguided idea resulting from people not wanting to hear drivel like yours. Unfortunately, hearing you spout is an acceptible annoyance in order to enjoy all the benefits provided by our First Ammendment.

              2. I think there is great wisdom here.

          2. Me not been alive forever. So nothing ever happened before I was a born.

            Nobody made money selling to government.

            Nobody borrowed money.

            Nobody complained about different or new people.

            Not like now.

            Me like it better before I was alive.

        5. Because we got the hard working motivated white European immigrants that wanted to risk it all and come here to make a better life. Then we exhausted the supply, and their ancestors are hard at work keeping out smart, motivated immigrants from various non-European countries who want to risk it all to make a better life. The ancestors of those older immigrants sure as hell don’t want to have to work hard to compete with those types of people for jobs.

          1. Descendants???

            1. The gene pool has been going down lately. Must be all this interbreeding of the idiots and undesirables.

            2. Yeah. It was right in my head, didn’t come out when typed.

      3. Why was it so easy for Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square car bomber (wannabe), to become a U.S. citizen in a very short time? He’s only 30.

        For some reason it seems the Muhammed al-Dickwad types have a much easier time of it than the Latin Americans, or those from just about anywhere else.

        1. For some reason = political correctness

        2. Political Asylum is a faster path to US residency than family or employment sponsorship.

        3. Me not notice what job incompetent bomb maker had. Me ignore his industry’s special rights.

          Me never follow power back to banks and finance.

          Only bad guy is government. Ever. Ever ever ever.

      4. I’m convinced that, within a few more years, the quality of life in the US will be so low that you’ll be begging your Japanese & Canadian friends to help you obtain residency/citizenship there! My standard of living declined as “my” neighborhood began speaking Spanish, and as “my” local newspapers began reporting machete murders.

    2. @DJF In proportion to the US population, 1 million legal immigrants per year is a pathetically small number of migrants, about 1/3 of 1 percent of the US population per year. Little old Australia currently has a legal migration quota of about 1.5 percent of population per year, even if you add in US government estimates of 500,000 net illegal immigrants per year, current US legal and illegal immigration has a miniscule effect on US demographics, and is less than one tenth as much as some other countries are seeing.

      @Slap the Enlightened! The US has not had a first generation, non-US born population over 10% in at least 200 years, but the two greatest immigration nadirs in that timeframe were the 1820s and the 1930s. How productive do you think those years were?

      [url]http://uspolitics.about.com/od/immigration/l/bl_immigration_population.htm[/url]

      [url]http://uspolitics.about.com/od/immigration/l/bl_immigration_decade.htm[/url]

      [url]http://mises.org/rothbard/panic1819.pdf[/url]

      1. Smaller populated countries will always have better percent of population stats than the U.S, cause they’ve got less people and therefore whatever numbers you throw out it looks more substantial relative to whatever the U.S. is doing (really, really cheap argument)… So not very valuable information or relevant.

        1. You might want to double-check how percentages work, because you’ve got it precisely wrong here.

          1. No Jake, in AUS and smaller populated countries, they use METRIC percentages. Who’s the dummy now?

        2. Wow. That’s some fancy math there.

      2. The 1930’s were also the first decade of the great depression.

        However, what you have chosen to ignore is that the identical immigration policy was in effect until 1965. If you consider the entire period that policy was in effect, rather than merely cherry-picking the one decade it coincided with unrelated economic influences, your argument falls apart, but fast.

    3. Last year the US made over one million immigrants into citizens. This is more then any other country in the world and probably at least equal to all other countries of the world when it comes to granting citizenship to immigrants

      You’re confusing absolute numbers with a more relevant statistic — immigrants relative to the existing populace. Based on 2006 numbers, Canada has about 10% of the population as the U.S., but double the ratio of immigrants to current residents. Spain has less than a quarter of the U.S. population, but about 2/3 of the number of immigrants — roughly TRIPLE the ratio of immigrants to current residents. Australia has double to ratio of immigrants to residents. Other countries have higher relative immigrant rates relative to the U.S.

      Now, Spain is kind of fucked up economically, but Canada and Australia? They don’t seem to be in danger of imminent collapse despite much higher ratios of immigrants relative to populace.

      1. That would be true unless you started to count all of the “new immigrants” who are trying to enforce sharia law in Australia and Canada. If Austalia gets a few million more of THAT kind of new immigrant then imminent collapse wont be too far off.

  3. What a steaming pile of mushy thought this is. Hey buddy…illegal immigration is a problem BECAUSE we don’t enforce our laws…not because they don’t work.

    1. No, the problem is that excess governmental control over anything is doomed to failure. Ban or tighly control anything, whether immigration, guns, drugs, tobacco, and a black market springs up. Focusing on illegal immigration is just another in a long string of mistakes in public policy where the basic laws of economics are ignored, with predictable consequences.

      1. That’s like saying the drug war is good, we’re just not throwing enough people in jail yet. Or maybe we should just poke the Middle east with a stick some more and then maybe they’ll start to like us.

    2. You’re right gonzo, and while we’re increasing our enforcement of our brilliant immigration laws, lets double down on the drug war…

  4. Oh, give me a good goddamn break. What a whiny pile of bleeding heart dribble.

  5. Are you guys going to post something about the latest Israel/ Peace protester thing on the waters?

  6. Are you guys going to post something about the latest Israel thing on the waters?

  7. i actually know a fair amount of libertarians who are not for open borders around my way. so while i don’t agree with them, i actually don’t just automatically brand them as racists like a lot of liberals and libertarians do. however both sides of the immigration debate don’t want to admit the other side has any point. There are more criminals who come over for bad reasons then open borders folks want to admit to and there are more decent people who just want to work and make money for their families then border advocates want to admit too. i think we should have more border security and make it a lot easier for people to come here (because there are too many good people coming over illegally to say it’s easy to do it the legal way) so that mostly criminals are the ones sneaking across the border. if that was the case i would get behind the “deport ’em!” crowd more then i am. the only reason i’m not for complete open borders is for natioal security reasons. i think if we put more attention to security in all avenues we could get out of occupying so many countries.

    1. Yeah, what we really need is tens of millions of poor low skilled people.

      1. Can we send all the humanities department professors and all the Obama czars in the US to China in exchange for some low skilled workers from there?

        I know which group I think will be more valuable.

      2. Well, actually, our economy does require a lot of low-skilled people.

        1. Which is why their unemployment rate is triple that of educated people

          1. Our low-skilled people prefer collecting welfare checks, and/or doing/selling drugs to honest work.

            1. Me think it take a lot of skill to run business where me no have to pay people much.

              Me think that is honest work and is very very very very hard.

              1. Me not bother to reply to retards.

              2. Me not bother to reply to retards.

              3. Well, EMp think that is part and parcel of why various chambers of commerce want open borders. Also – La Raza, LULAC, etc. want legalization to further entrench their own political futures, no matter if their own backyards become more and more like a ‘Banana Republic’ – i.e., California. Arizonans’ see the writing on the wall and are taking measures to ensure they do not meet the same fate.

          2. I didn’t say that, comparatively, more low-skilled people are needed than higher-skilled people. I just said that we have lots of jobs for low-skilled people. That’s a pretty straightforward truth that you’re trying to spin extra meaning into.

            1. Untrue, that the US has lots of jobs for low-skilled people. US minimum-wage laws ensure that this is not the case. The unemployement rate for high-school-aged US citizens is extremely high…and these are low-skilled people. (Granted, most of them won’t work off-the-books, like illegals will…but the tax$$$ your govts don’t collect don’t increase your well-being, unless these tax$$$ would otherwise leave your own pockets. You pay all of the welfare/education costs the unskilled illegals run up for themselves & their families).

        2. Considering libertarians are always telling us that off-shoring our manufacturing isn’t a problem because we’ll all be earning our livings selling each other esoteric financial instruments, exactly what are these low-skilled people gonna do? Get jobs as bond-traders?

          1. Yea, you’re right… lets get all those welfare queens out there doing our yard work and cleaning our hotel rooms…

            1. There’s always street cleaning. Fuckers.

            2. Tell them they can keep any drugs they find hidden in the mattresses. Or any weed they find in the yards they clean.

          2. The reason why libertarians can’t tell you what jobs we will take in the future is because nobody can tell you what jobs will be available in the future. If that were possible, then the Soviets would have succeeded marvelously with their big brains and their 5 year plans.

            All of the great dictators played on the fear of joblessness that comes with economic and social change. They promised the illusory stability that comes with a strong hand. Remember, Stalin means, roughly, “man of steel.” He was going to increase manufacturing and put everyone to work. This movie never ends well.

          3. Umm, here’s some pretty common low-skill jobs: stockroom worker, gardener, dishwasher, waiter, nanny, janitor, painter. You’ve not seen these people around or something?

    2. In a corporatist mixed economy where everyone invited into the country gets to vote and support a regime that loots and enslaves me, the “right” of someone to join the US polity is extremely dubious.

      This would be really obvious if it were a former Gestapo or KGB agent immigrating to America who is consciously evil. Why I should accept people who are impoverished, illiterate, and intended to be pawns for the tax predator ruling class just because they are innocent (usually) in their intentions, but will still be manipulated into supporting the ruling regime, is something I don’t think many libertarians can answer.

      1. Why I should accept people who are impoverished, illiterate, and intended to be pawns for the tax predator ruling class just because they are innocent (usually) in their intentions, but will still be manipulated into supporting the ruling regime, is something I don’t think many libertarians can answer.

        Probably because a question so full of flimsy suppositions and dubious hypotheticals is enough of a challenge to take seriously, let alone provide a reasonable response to.

        1. It is not a flimsy supposition to assume that folks with below average IQs will never become libertarians. In fact, assuming the opposite is the height of self-delusion. One needs an IQ in the low 90s for functional literacy — good luck getting them to read Reason.

      2. Why I should accept people who are impoverished, illiterate, and intended to be pawns for the tax predator ruling class just because they are innocent (usually) in their intentions, but will still be manipulated into supporting the ruling regime, is something I don’t think many libertarians can answer.

        So essentially, you want to violate people’s rights because there’s a good change they might vote for Democrats & Republicans?

        1. Who knew foreigners had Constitutional rights? Do dogs, too? What about broccoli?

          1. No. Only “persons” or “people” have Constitutional rights. This of course extends beyond citizens because the framers had no problem saying “citizens” when they meant citizens.

            Of course, every person has certain unalienable rights regardless of what constitutions or laws say.

            1. So right to US citizenship was the founders’ intent? Care to provide evidence for this interesting idea, or is this one of those “absence of evidence to the contrary, so it must be true” arguments?

              1. I didn’t say that a right to US citizenship was the founders’ intent.

                I said that the rights the founders believed in and that they aimed to secure through the Constitution applied to everyone — citizen or not.

                Read the Constitution. Note where it says “person” or “people”. Note where it says “citizen”. Realize that they meant what they wrote.

              2. Uhh, JB, he just did. If you object to the word “citizen”, you can certainly make up another word, because you are right, the framers didn’t directly address citizenship. What they did do was grant “people” Constitutional rights.

            2. “MikeP”, ObamaCare made it obvious that corporations have more rights than “persons”, “people”, and “citizens”, combined!

        2. So essentially, you want to violate people’s rights because there’s a good change they might vote for Democrats & Republicans?

          As long as we’re doing this, I don’t see why we should give the citizens a free pass. At least the immigrants aren’t guilty yet…

      3. “…where everyone invited into the country gets to vote…”

        ???

      4. unless you become a citizen, you can’t vote, dumbass

        1. Only in Canada

        2. I can still vote, though, right?

          1. Only in Chicago.

      5. That is exactly the problem with Canada’s immigration policy. We let in 200-300K every year from every sh!thole nation on earth, they mostly end up in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, and they vote for statist parties such as the Liberals or NDP.

      6. Have to agree with JoshINHB totally – awesome insight, Bruce.

  8. i’m also for immigration for practical political purposes. with people thinking libertarians are selfish or even racist for their stances on issues like welfare, affirmative action and things like that, i’m sorry but libertarians need to stay pro-brown people in the eyes of the left on SOMETHING, to put it bluntly. liberals are annoying but they do control the media and how the debate is portrayed so the ex-republican wing of libertarians shouldn’t just say “fuck em” like they usually do.

    1. Libertarians should go beyond be pro-brown people to be pro-browning people. Oppose the Obama regime tax on sun tanning beds!

    2. i’m also for immigration for practical political purposes. with people thinking libertarians are selfish or even racist for their stances on issues like welfare, affirmative action and things like that, i’m sorry but libertarians need to stay pro-brown people in the eyes of the left on SOMETHING, to put it bluntly. liberals are annoying but they do control the media and how the debate is portrayed so the ex-republican wing of libertarians shouldn’t just say “fuck em” like they usually do.

      And these new immigrants will vote Libertarian, right ?

      1. This is a good reason why I think anyone attempting to justify immigration on an economic basis deserves a fast punch in the face as a response.

        Notice that all of the economic arguments assume that cultural and political institutions are stationary. The idea that the immigration might adversely affect the institutions that make the free market possible goes unmentioned.

        I’m sure that’s the same song and dance the economists gave Europe about letting in foreign labor. Now the question has become, “How many cars have to be burned in Paris to offset the economic benefit of cheap Muslim labor?”. Somehow, I notice most pro-immigration economists are silent on that issue.

        1. I don’t argue that free immigration will benefit the economy much.

          Problem is most of the arguments *against* it on economic grounds, amount to priviledged whiny entitled white Americans bitching about the Mexicans taking their jobs, by being willing to work harder, for longer hours, for less money.

          Basically, they are people who want to create a closed market so that employers are forced to hire them at inflated wages, and so they can get away with being slackers and not have to work about employment competition.

          1. Well, not to defend autarky, but you make it sound as if a tighter labor market causing a rise in wages is a bad thing to be avoided at all costs.

            1. If it’s done by discriminating against a bunch of poor people who just happen to have been born in the wrong place, then it’s a bad thing.

              Americans aren’t entitled to higher wages for the virtue have having been American.

              1. Wanna bet, bitch? Shame if something happened to them kneecaps of yours….

                1. HA-Ha-haaa!!

          2. Problem is most of the arguments *against* it on economic grounds, amount to priviledged whiny entitled white Americans bitching about the Mexicans taking their jobs, by being willing to work harder, for longer hours, for less money.

            It is not about what jobs they would take, but how they would vote.

          3. Problem is most of the arguments *against* it on economic grounds, amount to priviledged whiny entitled white Americans bitching about the Mexicans taking their jobs, by being willing to work harder, for longer hours, for less money.

            It is not about what jobs they would take, but how they would vote.

          4. Problem is most of the arguments *against* it on economic grounds, amount to priviledged whiny entitled white Americans bitching about the Mexicans taking their jobs, by being willing to work harder, for longer hours, for less money.

            It is not about what jobs they would take, but how they would vote.

        2. What you stated here, Slap, is the greatest sense of unease about illegal immigration among most Americans – not thinly veiled racism (as a lot of cosmo-tarians are shamelessly using this ‘progressive’ tactic to quelch debate about) towards ‘brown people’. A fundamental change in the foundation of this nation – a whole slew of people that would vote in closet Socialist-Marxist type politicians who would ignore the Constitution. To wit – the Republic of California is becoming a third world fiefdom, and is now effectively ran by Union Democrats, ethno-centric populism and a lame-duck ‘Vichy’ Republican Governor. “We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us” – Vladimir Lenin(noted Marxist).

    3. We’re pretty universally anti-racial profiling.

      1. And I know I am, and I think most of us are, pro-Native American sovereignty. They should have complete control over their own land. I think they should count as their own semi-autonomous entities.

    4. Haha, so much for those vaunted libertarian “principles”. PC uber alles, future of US be damned.

  9. Fuck who?
    Illegals or the legacy media?

  10. Does Chapman think there should be any restrictions on legal immigration? Under what circumstances? Who should not be allowed to immigrate? How should immigration laws be enforced, if at all?

    Chapman waxes greatly on the benefits of increased legal immigration, he is bit fuzzy on what the legal structure we would see under that circumstance.

    1. I don’t know about Chapman, but here are my suggested reforms.

      1) No anchor babies. Kids born in the US to two non-US citizens is a citizen of the parents’ country.

      2) Issue a crap load of temporary work visas. Like the H1B’s. But for low skilled workers who want to work for a year or so.

      3) The temporary workers will contribute to a fund that covers uninsured medical care to illegal aliens. The percentage of money taken from the paychecks of temp workers will be sufficient to cover all these visits. This hopefully will incentify temp workers to report illegal aliens.

      4) Temp worker visa is only good for the temp worker. If they bring their family along, none of them will qualify for any sort of public assistance. If kids want to go to US schools they need to pay tuition. (even for K-12)

      5) Once a fair and workable plan is in place we need to lower the boom on any business that still employs illegal aliens.

      Basically my rules are set to allow hard workers to come to the US to fill the jobs that the illegals are currently doing. They should also make it economically unattractive to anyone trying to come here to take advantage of our welfare state. Workers good, deadbeats bad.

      1. 5) Once a fair and workable plan is in place we need to lower the boom on any business that still employs illegal aliens.

        Nice of you to decide who I can or can’t do business with. Whiel you’re at it, why don’t you tell me whom I am allowed to marry?

        1. Why should you be allowed to be an enabler for someone who has committed an illegal act?

          1. Oh! That’s right! The government passed a law making it illegal for me to do business with a black person… oh I’m sorry, a brown person!

            How terrible I am for aiding and abetting an illegal act!

            Illegal immigration is as much a crime as illegally marrying someone of another race.

            1. There are no brown skinned American citizens or legal residents?

              The crime would be knowingly hiring an illegal alien. The alien’s skin color is irrelevant.

              If you are ccompletely against the USA having any kind of immigration restrictions, fine, but be honest about it and odn’t unnecessarily cast rcial aspersions.

              1. Way to miss the point MJ…

        2. Tarran,

          OK, hit me with your ideas for reform. I pretty much think that a workable solution lies somewhere between “Don’t let anyone one in and deport them all” and “Eliminate the border guard and just let in everyone”.

          Hence, my suggestion to increase the supply of foreign workers that are allowed in legally and restriction on the demand for illegal workers.

          I think it is a legitimate function of government to police its borders and control who can enter. I think the reasons for denying entry should be very limited, but there should be limits.

          You should also notice that I conditioned implementation of enforcement upon the reform of our other immigration policies. At this point in time, I sympathize with businesses who might run afoul of immigration law.

          1. I think it is a legitimate function of government to police its borders and control who can enter. I think the reasons for denying entry should be very limited, but there should be limits.

            Why?

            Everybody says that as if it’s obvious, but to me it’s about as obvious as some 16th century theorist explaining that

            I think it is a legitimate function of government to police its churches and control what they teach.

            Two guys rent homes next to me. One is from San Diego, one is from Tijuana.

            What magically makes it OK for the government to scrutinize the guy from Tijuana and to prevent me from doing business with him, and the San Diegoan a safe guy to ignore?

            1. Would you have any objections if one of your neighbors built a garage that crossed your property line?

              Property lines, state lines, borders. They are pretty much all the same thing. Legal fictions that delineate property rights. In the case of an international border it is a line the defines where “we the people” of the US get to set the rules.

              Don’t get me wrong, I want more immigration from Mexico. A lot more. I just think that having it occur in an orderly manner is preferable to a) our current system or b) a more restrictive version of our current system.

              1. Re: “Property lines, state lines, borders: They are all pretty much the same thing.”

                The subject of claiming land has always been very interesting to me. How you conflate a private party procuring a plot of land for their own use and a group of self-appointed individuals claiming a larger group of individual’s land for governance is beyond me.

                In many areas rain water is ‘owned’ by the State. Because they said so. Seems quite dubious to me.

                1. Unless it’s a state park, all the government is doing is protecting the property rights of individuals. You know, the individuals who own private property that borders Mexico and don’t want trespassers.

                  1. You know, the individuals who own private property that borders Mexico and don’t want trespassers.

                    Oh! That’s why the govenrment won’t allow them to buy a ticket on a greyhound bus! To protect the rights of private property owners like the bus company!

                    That’s why they wont allow “illegals” to rent property, it protects the rights of private property owners like the landlords!

                    That’s why they won’t allow a factory to employ them. It protects the rights of private property owners like the owners of the factory!

                2. Seems dubious to you? Any “deed” to real property is bestowed by the State…how can you argue that rainwater is different?

              2. Property lines, state lines, borders. They are pretty much all the same thing. Legal fictions that delineate property rights. In the case of an international border it is a line the defines where “we the people” of the US get to set the rules.

                I notice you ignored my question. So, IMI Two guys rent homes next to me. One is from San Diego, one is from Tijuana.

                What magically makes it OK for the government to scrutinize the guy from Tijuana and to prevent me from doing business with him, and the San Diegoan a safe guy to ignore?

                1. What magically makes it OK for the government to scrutinize the guy from Tijuana and to prevent me from doing business with him, and the San Diegoan a safe guy to ignore?

                  Because we know about the guy from San Diego!

                  1. Yeah, we “know” that the guy from San Diego has a tunnel under his property, that runs underground into Mexico!

          2. The central problem with our immigration system is that immigration is restricted at the behest of domestic labor interests, in an effort to keep foreigners from competing for jobs.

            Eliminate all labor certifications, remove the Department of Labor entirely from any role in the immigration system, and let any immigrant with a ligitimate job offer get a work visa, and you would see illegal immigration vanish overnight.

            1. “The central problem with our immigration system is that immigration is restricted at the behest of domestic labor interests, in an effort to keep foreigners from competing for jobs.”

              Me never seen inside kitchen of any restaurant anywhere in country.

              Me think Italian union cooks work at 5000 Olive Gardens across country, not Mexicans. Or at any restaurant.

              Me think millions of underpaid illegal workers not make their illegal employers any money at all. They just come here.

              Me not notice what happens when cheap workers are everywhere but price of Denny’s Grand Slam Breakfast not any lower.

              Me not own boat. Never invited to go sailing. But me like freedom, not like union.

        3. You are told who you can and cannot do business with, silly. Or do you think that if you buy iPods for $5 from the back of a guy’s car in clearly suspicious cirx you can’t be nailed for conversion of stolen property?

          Have you noticed you’re not allowed to buy a slave, too? Or sell a handgun to a 13-year-old? Or sell the photos you took through your new lens of your cute neighbor sunbathing nude in her back yard?

          Also, you’re not allowed to marry your sister, nor are you allowed to marry anyone at all if you’re already married.

          And so forth. I probably can figure out what you meant, but what you actually said is garbage, and you should try to have the mental discipline required to turn easy (and inaccurate) lazy snark into carefully reasoned argument.

          1. Oh, I’m sorry oh glorius Carl Pham, next time I make a comment, I’ll include a fucking book length essay explaining why rape, slavery, murder, and theft are wrong. I’ll explain why the Nazi’s were bastards as were the Leninists, Stalinists, Lincoln-era Republicans, Maoists, pro-slavery Democrats. I’ll point out that terrorism is bad as is genocide. I’ll include in my essay an explanation of why courts should be very leery of contracts involving children since they lack the ability to comprehend contractual agreements.

            I’ll also include in my essay a chapter on why anti-trust law is a bad idea since, hey, why not attack me on that rather than actually write a on point response as to why immigration itself is a bad thing!

            Of course, if I did what you’re asking me to do, of mighty carl, you’d probably start whining about walls of text that you didn’t bother to read.

            1. I like tarran

          2. So you want us to footnote all our comments for your next edition of Reason Comments: Unabridged.
            Tool (1)

            (1) Tool is vernacular for an excessively pedantic commenter who insists every comment include marginalia, sources, and footnotes.

        4. OK, you can’t marry your sister. Happy now?

        5. Nice of you to tell me I must pay taxes to provide benefits for anyone who crawl across the border. Get your hand out of my pocket.

      2. Interesting suggestions, Pope Jimbo. I’d appreciate your thoughts on why No anchor babies has not yet been implemented.

        1. Because, you probably will need a constitutional amendment to change that.

          1. Amending the Constitution is hard.

            1. Amending the Constitution is easy if there is a public consensus. It’s only hard if there is not an agreement. Witness the fact that amendments tend to come close together and deal with related issues,

          2. No, not really. It’s not like the 14th amendment says ” All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States…”

            There is another condition in there about being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

        2. Rich,

          I think MJ nailed it. To get it implemented you would probably need to amend the constitution.

          Another reason is suggested by Hugh. All it would take is one kid born here to become stateless and you’d be bombarded by compassion pleas about teh children.

          1. Well, I obviously didn’t phrase my question correctly. Given that No anchor babies is important to Comprehensive Immigration Reform?, why isn’t there a move afoot to amend the Constitution? A journey of a thousand miles …

            Wrt “stateless” children: I haven’t thought through the repercussions; however, it’s hard for me to see compassion pleas being greater than those on behalf of poverty-stricken war-torn children who are in effect stateless already. That is, some other country not towing the lion is relatively insignificant in the global scheme of things.

            1. Rich,

              I don’t know. Because politicians don’t ever want to be for a law that could potentially harm kids? Or that it doesn’t fall into the binary world of Team Red vs Team Blue and thus no one understands how to spin it? Or because it is a sensible half measure?

              1. Thanks for the analysis, however cynical. 😉 I don’t know either. My take: This “problem” falls into the same category as fixing the marriage tax penalty (yes, I realize congress has screwed around some with that) — never mind the tax code itself –, the cocaine-crack sentencing disparity — never mind the WOD itself, etc. This category is all the stuff congresscreatures deem not cost-effective for their careers.

                1. They’ll be rethinking this category after November 2.

            2. I tried towing a lion once. It didn’t end well.

      3. 1) No anchor babies. Kids born in the US to two non-US citizens is a citizen of the parents’ country.

        And on those rare occasions that the country in question doesn’t tow the lion on US policy, the child could grow up without any kind of citizenship. I’m sure that’ll turn out fine.

        1. Wow, “towing the lion” must be a lot harder than than “toeing the line.”

    2. Here are my suggested reforms:

      1) Issue a new unlimited visa that allows indefinite entry, exit, residence, and employment for anyone who passes a background check that they are not terrorists, foreign agents, violent felons, or public health risks.

      2) Holders of this visa have no claims to any path to citizenship, though they can apply for other, citizenship-track visas while they hold the unlimited residence visa.

      3) No immigrants get any targeted welfare.

      4) Citizen children of immigrants are on the welfare schedule of their parents.

      1. This is an intelligent, reasonable, well-thought-out proposal, which is why we’ll never see anything remotely like this come out of Congress.

        As in every immigration thread, I agree with MikeP.

      2. A sane reasonable proposal that will have millions of Americans screaming about immigrants stealing their jobs.

        1. I love when people get all “They took our jorbs!”

          Because then I get to say, “If some illegal who can’t speak English and only went to school until 2nd grade can do your job just as well or better for less money, then the problem isn’t with the illegal immigrant.”

          1. Word.

            Some Americans are just in denial about the reality that they are getting overpaid for a job that any illiterate with a grade school education could do.

            1. Er, an illiterate OR a person with a grade school education.

          2. Like who? You?

        2. Say you and other pricks

          1. @Hazel Meade|5.31.10 @ 6:32PM

      3. 1) Good idea
        2) Good idea
        3, 4)Are the workers in the unlimited visa paying the same tax as citizens? Or are they are not required to pay into the welfare system since they cannot get anything out from it?

        1. Depending what you consider welfare, welfare is like 1% of the budget.

          If you count Social Security and Medicare as welfare, then visa-holder banned by law from getting benefits are in a barely-different situation than anyone under 30, anyway. They might as well pay the same taxes as us.

          1. What about Social Security Disability? According to your example a 29 yr old disabled citizen can get the benefits but a 29 yr old on the unlimited visa will not.

            P.S. I agree with your 2129 comment.

            1. If they were disabled on the job, I’d be fine with giving them the same benefits as a citizen.

        2. Having them not pay into the system is a great idea.

          Since welfare is such a small part of the immigration problem and pales in comparison to the rights abrogation of restricted migration, I throw welfare reform in there mostly to appease the “got to end the welfare state first” crowd. But the more wrenches that can be thrown into the welfare system, the better. And having entire classes of people who neither contribute to nor receive welfare is an excellent wrench.

  11. Try dealing with the INS (or ICE now) before you condemn Chapman for these ideas.

    I met my wife while we were in college and despite the fact that we got married, were both college educated and I had a good job, it was hell trying to get her permanent resident card.

    In fact most of the troubles we ran into were caused by following the advice of INS folks. They would tell us what to do, then 5 months later the same people would tell us that we had broken the law and needed to pay $100 to get a waiver.

    Other people who have gone through the process tell us that we were lucky they offered us the waiver. They could have just sent my wife home and barred her from entry in the future.

    And we were a legitimate couple. Just celebrated our 18th anniversary this month. I can’t imagine how hard it must be to go through the process as a poor manual laborer with no relatives in the US.

    1. It is very easy to believe that INS gave you a run around when your situation is completely above board. And you aren’t even a gay couple trying to live in the same country.

      I am also willing to believe that if we had a rational, liberal, free market, open border policy, that allowed for the free movement of students and job seekers and entrepreneurs, the INS would still be incompetent at weeding out terrorists, criminals, people fraudulently adopting deceased American’s IDs to get passports, scholarships, benefits, etc.

      I don’t think that issue weighs much on the scales of what our immigration policy should be.

      I am sorry they gave you so much trouble.

      1. I’m just trying to point out that the folks who are crying and whining about how poor mexicans are not “getting in line” like they should don’t realize that the INS is the DMV on steroids.

        Before I got involved with the INS, I probably would have been pro-enforcement of immigration laws because I believe in the rule of law.

        I never would have guessed how malignant the INS department was if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes.

        Now, I am much more in favor of opening the system up and simply having ICE document the workers coming here and stripping them of their enforcement powers.

        1. +1 My wife and I adopted two kids from Korea in the 90’s. Since then I’ve heard the citizenship process foreign adoptions has changed completely but it was a nightmare for us – especially dealing with the Chicago INS office. Calling it “the DMV on steriods” is being polite.

    2. Things have only gotten worse since you went through the process.

      My wife and I went through the fiance visa process and it was hell. We’ve tried to get her sister a tourist visa a couple times without success. During the last attempt, the interviewer told her was being denied because of her age and he was afraid she “might get married and stay if she were allowed into the US.”

    3. I can’t imagine how hard it must be to go through the process as a poor manual laborer with no relatives in the US.

      Not hard. Impossible. You could never get the labor certification that is required for an employment sponsorship.

  12. “”A peaceful, hardworking 24-year-old in Mexico or Central America who knows of a job in the United States for which no Americans are available simply has no legal means of entering the United States,” writes policy analyst Daniel Griswold of the libertarian Cato Institute.”

    Did Daniel bother to list any such jobs? With unemployment near 10% nationally, I wonder just how many of those kinds of jobs actually exist. If we got rid of the welfare state and stopped making it viable for able-bodied workers to suckle endlessly off the government teat, then there’d be far fewer jobs that Americans are supposedly too proud to take.

    1. In this economy, the assumption has to be the job is so low-paying that an US citizen would consider it demeaning to work, or that the employer is offering compensation under the table to avoid other employment overhead costs, and few Americans want to be paid illegally.

      1. If it’s the latter, it’s hard to see why the low-skilled legal immgrant would be scrupulous in being law-abiding.

        1. With the way college educations are virtually insisted upon by the government, many people who serve their time in college because ‘its’ important’ or whatever find themselves saddled with loads of debt and a B.A. in Nothing Substantive. Then they realize that they are ill-qualified for most of the jobs that really do require higher education, and overqualified (at least in their minds) for low-paying, labor-intensive positions.

    2. What a wonderful idea! here in Massachusetts, we have 10% unemployment, and every day tens of thousands of New Hampshire citizens drive across our open border and take jobs away from us. Let’s slam that border shut too!

      And what’s the unemployment rate in New York city? Better slam the border shut to its suburbs! Can’t have all those suburbanites taking jobs away from hard working New Yorkers!

      I’ll give you a hint… the problems cause by government pouring sugar in the gas tank of the economy is not going to be solved by attacking the basic human right that permits one man to do business with any other man who wants to do business with him.

      1. Except the USA is a freetrade zone across the member states. That is one of the purposes of the Constitution. If New Hampshire and Massachusetts were separate nation states there could be immigration restrictions between them. Mexico, for instance, is not a member state of the USA.

        1. Well, if free trade is so bad that we can’t have it with Mexicans, free trade with other states or towns must also be harming us as well, don’t you think?

          1. Is Mexico wnting to become part of the USA and accept the Constitution as the law of the land?

            My point is that making a direct comparision between people from states in the USA and people from foreign countries is a category error. There is no direct camparsion possible.

            1. Is Mexico wnting to become part of the USA and accept the Constitution as the law of the land?

              So free trade only is a benefit if the U.S. government is in charge?

              My point is that making a direct comparision between people from states in the USA and people from foreign countries is a category error. There is no direct camparsion possible.

              Ahhh! I see, they’re not like us.

              MJ, let’s get away from arguing from authority for a second, and try a thought experiment.

              A man leaves Juarez. He pays $2,000 to a coyote to get to Georgia, and get’s a job packing chicken breasts at a Tyson factory.

              In our thought experiment, who has he harmed?

              It’s pretty obvious for crimes like murder and robbery and trespassing to point to the injured person.

              So, in our little thought experiment, who is the victim?

              1. There is no inherent right for a person to reside and hence do business in a country they are not a resident of.

                Your illegal immigrant has harmed the person who is going through the legal immigration process. He has harmed whoever identity has has stolen and assumed to work in the plant. or perhaps he has harmed the legal residents who do not wish to be in a labor black market.

                1. “There is no inherent right for a person to reside and hence do business in a country they are not a [citizen] of.”

                2. Your illegal immigrant has harmed the person who is going through the legal immigration process.

                  [Citation needed.]

                  1. Remember you needed a citation next time someone cuts ahead of you in line at Six Flags.

                    1. Oh, you mean that the illegal immigrant is delaying the legal one?

                      That’d be an excellent point… if it were true.

                    2. That’s all illegal immigrants needed to do? Where is this magical “line” you speak of? My sister-in-law has tried 3 times to go through the legal process of obtaining a mere tourist visa… maybe she’s getting in the wrong “line”.

                3. Your illegal immigrant has harmed the person who is going through the legal immigration process

                  HHow so? What’s the mechanism?

                  He has harmed whoever identity has has stolen and assumed to work in the plant

                  Well that’s easily fixed; let’s stop having the government dictate whose allowed to sell their labor and who isn’t.

                  erhaps he has harmed the legal residents who do not wish to be in a labor black market.

                  I’m sorry, what? Black markets are created when the govenrment outlaws soemthing. If people are in a black market labor market, then the problems is the government making labor illegal. and the solution is to remove the prohibition.

                  So far, I’m not seeing injuries. Certainly all the ‘problems’ you cite are the fallout of government restrictions on free movement of people not because of the act of immigration itself.

              2. So free trade only is a benefit if the U.S. government is in charge?”

                If you’d rather dissolve the USA and have the 50 states join Mexico, the point I’m making still stands. I suspect you’d like that even less.

                1. Dude, that’s not a point.

                  All you are doing is claiming that people from different political divisions cannot move freely as if its self evident. Saying the same thing over and over again without explaining why is not going to convert anyone.

        2. You do of course realize that for the first 130 years after the Constitution was ratified, pretty much anyone who wanted to could come and go across the national border as they pleased.

          1. So what? Because the US had an unrestricted immgration regime then, it cannot have a more restrictive one now? How does that work?

            1. It demonstrates that it is not a category error to compare free migration between states free migration between nations.

              It is completely within the power of the US to have unilateral free migration, just as it is completely within the power of the US to have unilateral free trade. Thus arguments that compare international migration with interstate migration are perfectly logical.

              1. Yes it is illogical. The Constitution is a mutual agreement between the States, a unilateral policy towards foreign nationals is not mutual with the governing authority of a foreign state. That is an argument as to practical pros and cons of such a policy, but a recognition that they are not same type of thing.

                1. “That is [not] an argument as to practical pros and cons

                2. The Constitution is a mutual agreement between the States, a unilateral policy towards foreign nationals is not mutual with the governing authority of a foreign state.

                  So you’re claiming that we can’t compare the effects of immigration from Mexico to the US with the effects of immigration from New Hampshire to Massachusetts because… the government of Mexico didn’t agree to a treaty with the US?

                  That is a complete and utter non sequitur. You might as well say it’s illogical to compare them because Mexico has a more arid climate than New Hampshire, which makes them totally different.

                  1. So you’re saying that the regulation of commerce and migration is outside the constitutional scope of government?

                    Just curious.

                    1. reading comprehension fail. What I & mikep, who actually disagree on the subject of immigration, are saying is that if you want to restrict immigration, you have to come up with an actual rationale that isn’t a non-sequitur, and appeal to authority or a unsupported claim that to believe otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

                      So far, mj’s claim that people moving into my neighborhood from San Diego warants different legal treatment than people moving in from Tijuana has consisted of claiming that they are different because Tijuana is not government by a state that is part of the United States. Full stop.

                      When asked to expound further on his line of reasoning, he says “just cause”.

                      Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s OK for govenrments to restrict immigration, just like it is OK for regulators to outlaw toothbrushes or cigarettes. So, make your case, why would a free labor market be bad?

                  2. It’s a false analogy to compare immigration between states within one nation to immigration between separate nations. Even **between** states, there are laws to immigration and trade.

                    I live in Washington state which borders Oregon. OR has zero sales tax, while WA has sales tax that hovers around 10%. It is illegal for me to make the 2 hour drive into OR to purchase a car, boat, or any other large ticket item.
                    Also, if I moved to OR, I would be required to get an OR driver’s license, and register my car in that state. Granted, it’s much easier to “immigrate” from one state to the next, but there are still laws to be followed.

                    So you favor open borders for immigration into the US….that I can understand. (even if I don’t agree) That you seem to believe you’ve got some kind of “gotcha” with this inter-state nonsense is easily dismissed as sophistry.

                    1. So WHY IS IMMIGRATION BAD?????

                      Getting you immigration-restrictors to explain why you want these laws is like nailing jello to a wall.

                    2. Immigration is not bad.
                      I even believe we should allow more permanent immigrants in legally than we do now.
                      I think a guest worker program would help alleviate many of the problems on our southern boders.
                      All of this would need to be done within some type of parameters in mind. A clean bill of health, and a job in our country could be all one needs.
                      Notice I didn’t mention pass a criminal background check.
                      I’m not interested in welcoming terrorists, serial murderers, or child rapists, and I doubt anyone else would favor that either. But with the WOD in full rage, a person who sells some MJ is put in the very same catagory with all those other cretins, so legalizing it is the solution.**

                      **yea, I know I entered rainbow and puppies land, but it’s just as feasible as our country implementing a guest worker program….

                    3. OK, I’ll bite. First, of course immigration has many positive effects, as you know. But it’s always possible to have too much of a good thing. 1) Too much can cause too much downward pressure on wages. 2) In these multi-culti, diversity-obsessed times, traditional libertarian/American virtues of liberty, the Constitution, etc. are considered “obsolete.” It’s harder to counter those ideas if a large portion of the population comes from cultures without those traditions, and was taught socialist ideas in whatever schooling they had. 3) Social cohesion: changing ethnic/social balances is a strain on a society, and best not done too quickly, or backlash results. Hence increased black/Latino violence, etc. Keeping immigrants a small minority speeds assimilation, because the bigger the immigrant group, the less pressure there is to assimilate.

                    4. I think it’s a good analogy.

                      Vancouver essentially only exists because people want to live in WA to escape OR’s property taxes, but close enough to Portland that they can do all their shopping without WA’s sales tax. The arrangement works fine enough. Closing the border would deeply hurt sales here in Portland, though with a huge suburb cut from the metro area, there would be a lot more job openings. Residents of “the ‘couve” would be screwed by that deal and might have to start sneaking across the border and accepting work for less money because they would be breaking the law. Vancouverians with fewer opportunities available to them might turn to other black-market trades and Portland might need to respond by militarizing the border, a very costly project but not hard to get popular support for, since it would keep out the Couvers.

                      Immigration between national or provincial borders is all the same. In either case, border militarization and travel prohibition create at least as many problems as they solve. In the end freedom is good for business, and prohibition is good for the government cartel.

                    5. It’s a great analogy if you are arguing that there are legal hoops one must jump through even *within* our own country when moving from state to state.
                      But you’re arguing just the opposite, so it doesn’t work.
                      I thought about Vancouver when writing my post, and I also know many people who travel the short distance from Seattle to Portland to do a bit of shopping tax free. I’ve never done it, but I believe the state of WA asks us to voluntarily submit the proper tax on our purchases….good luck with that.
                      I’m talking about big ticket items anyway.
                      I just bought a new car, and I wanted to avoid the nearly 3 grand in taxes by buying in OR. To do that, I would have to use a phony OR address, and register the car in OR. I would be just fine, and nobody would be the wiser until I got pulled over for talking on my cell, and the nice officer asked for my license and registration…..HEY! That’s kinda like the new AZ law. NOT FAIR!

                    6. tarran – It seems that you are the one with a reading comprehension problem.

                      It is you, along with many, who ask how the government should have any say in the migration of people.

                      My answer was that it is you who needs to explain why the government should have no say in the regulation of commerce or migration when they are cited in the constitution as legitimate powers.

                      Artice 1, section 8:

                      The Congress shall have Power To…

                      To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

                      To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

                      And in Section 9:

                      The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight…

                      (Notice the end date of 1808 – why a sunset clause?)
                      To those who ask “Why should illegal immigration be illegal?” – the answer is in the wording of the constitution.

                      The founding fathers didn’t think that there should be no controls over who enters or leaves the national borders, as well as who gets to stay or go.

                      It’s okay to think differently, but please refrain from asking such inanities as “why is immigration bad?” – when no one is making that argument.

                      Getting you no-border-controllers to answer why you want to repeal parts of the constitution is like nailing jello to the wall.

                    7. Artice 1, section 8:

                      Naturalization is neither migration, immigration, nor denization.

                      And in Section 9:

                      You must be kidding. This Section 9 clause is exclusively about importing slaves. There’s an expiration because that was the compromise reached between the free states and the slave states.

                      The evidence is in Tucker’s Blackstone, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, and Federalist 42 by James Madison himself that supports the point that the framers never intended the federal government to have the power over immigration.

                      But all that is beside the point. Even if the federal government does constitutionally have the power to restrict migration, that does not at all imply that it should use that power!

                      The normative argument is whether limiting migration is good or bad, not whether the government has the power to limit migration.

                      By the way, Congress has the explicit and unquestioned constitutional power to declare war on every nation on the planet. Does that mean it should?

                      To those who ask “Why should illegal immigration be illegal we be at war with every nation on the planet?” – the answer is in the wording of the constitution.

                    8. You must be kidding. This Section 9 clause is exclusively about importing slaves. There’s an expiration because that was the compromise reached between the free states and the slave states.

                      Yes, of course, as evidenced by the nullification and repeal of this section in the 13th amendment – or maybe not.

                      Regardless of the reason for its origins, this part of the constitution has not been nullified. The expiration specifies an end to the restriction of congress’ power to regulate migration. If it were simply an affirmation of slavery, one would think that the 13th would have specifically mentioned and invalidated it. Perhaps the authors of the 13th amendment didn’t pay much attention.

                      In fact, the section would conceivably restrict human trafficking, as well as affirming the ability of congress to determine what section 9 mentions: Migration.

                      It is in the constitution and it deals with congress controlling migration.

                      Even if the federal government does constitutionally have the power to restrict migration, that does not at all imply that it should use that power! The normative argument is whether limiting migration is good or bad, not whether the government has the power to limit migration.

                      The focus then shifts to whether limiting migration is good or bad.

                      So someone is really suggesting that there be no limit to migration?

                      Really?

                      Should there be any security measures? If so, how would such measures be implemented? Like they are now, with the TSA security theater?

                      Does anyone really think that even a few successful Times Square type events might just alter the migration outlook to a far worse extent than simply allowing the government to have control of migrant flow?

                      As for the specter of the ‘brown’ people. Please.

                      This isn’t a racial argument. In fact, an argument could be made that, due to its position occupying the entire southern border of the US, it is Mexico (a Nation) that is practicing restrictions on other South American nations, to its own favor, by restricting passage through Mexico using their own immigration laws, brutality and criminal acts as a deterrent.

                      Why should people from Mexico get a favored position in migration due to a geographic reason? Is excessive immigration from one nation actually detrimental to immigrants (who may be just as hard working and eager) from nations without a geographic benefit?

                      Maybe it doesn’t mean anything if people from one country are ultimately superior in numbers. But if its just about finding work, then the statements of Calderon, whose country’s remittances make up their #2 export, might have emphasized something other than ‘discrimination’ in their focus.

                      There’s a lot of positions on the immigration issue, and it seems that most of them are not consistent in many ways. I believe in immigration, and agree that the federal system sucks.

                      But fixing that may make a lot of interest groups very unhappy, and their involvement in this process belies it being simply about mobility and hard work.

                    9. Here is the same Section 9 clause as rewritten in the CSA Constitution:

                      The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

                      Say what you will about their utterly atrocious view of individual rights, at least the CSA government didn’t hide the importation of slaves behind the epithets “migration” and “such persons”.

                      And here is Madison in Federalist 42:

                      Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.

                    10. Yes, the CSA was a disgusting government – from almost a century later. But then again we weren’t talking about them.

                      I specifically pointed out a portion of The Current US Constitution. If we’re going to discard that functional and relevant legal document and give preference to Madison, then by all means, we should not “prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.

                      Unless you then want to go a step further and tell me what Madison really meant.

                      You belittle Article 1, section 9 because of it’s original intent, and then bring up Madison, who’s original intent has nothing to do with Emigration from South America.

                      Look, I’m not against immigration, but the current problems with the immigration procedures in this country are due to a major extent to the shifting and vague nature with which they are addressed. Unarmed troops, restrictions of ICE, Virtual fences, draconian immigrant marriage and partnership laws, welfare fraud, education entitlements, visa allocations, etc. are still problematic. As we’ve seen, legitimate foreign spouses and higher end job seekers are put through paperwork wringers while both parties give the nudge-nudge, wink-wink to millions who simply break the law.

                      And many American citizens are tired of that ‘run around’. That goes for those trying to emigrate legally, as well as those who simply want a better life.

                      “Opening the borders” is not something that Americans are comfortable with, and that is primarily due to the inability of government to effectively fix multiple broken systems.

                      If there wasn’t a corresponding security problem (as evidenced by the 9/11 attacks, etc.), along with concerted efforts by both parties to mold themselves a cake of bribed immigrant voters, then a relaxation of the borders would be in order.

                      But it’s not. There are simply too many groups planning on selling our liberties out for a profit by keeping the status quo of confusion.

                      That is what needs to be fixed first.

                    11. So someone is really suggesting that there be no limit to migration?

                      When I say “limit migration”, I don’t mean preventing the entry of provably harmful persons — terrorists, foreign agents, violent felons, carriers of contagion. I mean limiting migration by quota or other arbitrary requirement not applied to an individual for specific cause in the compelling public interest.

                      So, yes, I would issue every entrant a visa. And, yes, passing a background check would be a requirement. But it’s the sole requirement.

                      Note that such an immigration system is completely within the power of the US to implement today. Thus the argument isn’t “can the government declare immigration illegal”: the argument is “should the government declare immigration illegal”. Or, restated, “Why is immigration bad?”

                    12. Agreed. But have one question:

                      Would avoidance of the entry visa and background check render such immigration “illegal”?

                    13. Technically it would. And anyone who avoided such a wide open gate to enter could be considered prima facie dangerous. But I would hope that the avoidance itself was a simple civil offense, as most illegal immigration offenses are today.

                      Of course the difference between 99% of non-employment, non-relative immigration being illegal and 1% of non-employment, non-relative immigration being illegal is mighty large.

                    14. Personally I think your percentages are off, but neither one of us has the crystal ball to make that specific annotation.

                      One point I think is salient to this discussion is that the federal government is doing a crappy job now with security.

                      My concern (and of many others, I think), is that the ‘problem’ of immigration isn’t simply the restriction of willing and mobile immigrants. It’s also an entitlement, political and security problem that comes at a time when we are (as Matt Welch puts it) out of money.

                      The obscenity of the Obamacare bill, and its post adoption revelations of budgetary and supply estimate inaccuracies should legitimately sour any even semi-intelligent American as to the forthright nature of the government’s plans.

                      I’m sorry Mike, but I just don’t trust the federal government to ‘solve’ any of the problems associated with immigration. I believe, from recent and past experience, that they’ll just lie about supposed ‘solutions’.

                      Notice Madison’s emphasis – “voluntary and beneficial emigration”. Beneficial to who? To America.

                      The border with Mexico needs to be sealed – specifically to even the opportunities of all immigrants. The legal pathways to citizenship need to be streamlined, along with additional security elements in place for new legal immigrants and elimination of PC entitlements. Only after those corrections will I consider adopting a more open border policy.

                      Somebody needs to hold the government accountable.

                    15. You are misconstruing Madison’s argument. He is citing opponents of the Constitution who suggest that clause is “calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.” Those are not his words. And of course those in opposition are not suggesting the maximum extent of voluntary and beneficial migration, but the most egregious in the eyes of the public to limit.

                      And then Madison makes fun of them by saying they are utterly misconstruing a clause that has nothing to do with voluntary and beneficial migrations — it has to do with importing slaves.

                    16. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.

                      Madison’s argument was that the clause was a ‘great point gained in favor of humanity’ – in that it would, in 20 years, ‘terminate forever’ the practice of slavery. You are correct in that he dismisses the argument against the section that it could be used to prevent beneficial and voluntary emigration from Europe to America.

                      But Madison mentions voluntary and beneficial for a reason, and it is not because he is against it, nor were the opponents. The use of the term ‘beneficial’ denotes what Madison (and the opponents) see as obvious: It is a qualifier that, by its very use, accedes the idea that some migration could be non-beneficial.

                      Additionally, the section’s (and Madison’s ) intent was eventually completely inverted in practice, which, unfortunately, perfectly illustrates my point. Slavery was not abolished after the 20 year time frame, and the clause was utilized to give congress control of migration, simply because it did just that – give control of migration to congress.

                      The reality of what transpired answers the question “hey, what could go wrong with an open border?”

                      It also comes full circle back to my original point, in that any open borders policy ultimately falls under the control of congress, unless the Constitution is amended.

                    17. He mentions “voluntary and beneficial” because it is exactly the worry about controlling “voluntary and beneficial” migration that the Constitution’s opponents found profitable to parade around in objection to the Constitution. Of course both Madison and his opponents were for voluntary and beneficial migration. Madison’s point is that this clause is not about voluntary migration at all!

                      Isn’t all this utterly obvious from the context? What part of “these misconstructions don’t deserve an answer” is hard to understand?

                    18. And in fact few but the most hopeful thought that slavery would be eliminated by 1808 — only that Congress would have the power to end the slave trade by 1808. But Congress never acted at all on this power because every state had illegalized slave import before 1808.

                      As Tucker’s Blackstone notes

                      This article, at the time the constitution was framed, was deemed necessary to prevent an opposition, on that ground, to it’s adoption in those states which still permitted the importation of slaves from Africa, and other foreign parts. A more liberal policy has since prevailed, so far as to render it probable that congress will never have occasion to exert the right of prohibiting the importation of slaves, such being now prohibited by the laws of all the states in the union. But should any of them shew an inclination to rescind the present prohibitions, congress, after the year 1808, will be able to interpose it’s authority to prevent it, and impose some partial restraint upon the farther extension of the miseries of mankind. How to remove the calamities of slavery from among us, is left to the wisdom of the state government; the federal government can only prevent the further importation of slaves after the period limited.

                    19. Personally I think your percentages are off, but neither one of us has the crystal ball to make that specific annotation.

                      The 99% is derived from the 5,000 general visas available per year versus the 500,000 thousand illegal immigrants per year in economically healthier years.

                      The 1% is derived from averaging the Ellis Island rejection percentages of 0% for first and second class travelers and 2% for lower class travelers. Furthermore, if economic demand is filled by legal immigrants, people who don’t or wouldn’t pass background checks would be in very short supply in the US. So while the proportion of violent felons might be as high as 2% or 3%, they simply aren’t demanded by interests in the US, so they have little to gain from illegally immigrating.

                      The border with Mexico needs to be sealed – specifically to even the opportunities of all immigrants.

                      I would say the border with Mexico needs to be opened — specifically to even the opportunities of all immigrants and not just those who can be transported by coyotes across the border.

                    20. So while the proportion of violent felons might be as high as 2% or 3%, they simply aren’t demanded by interests in the US

                      I think you underestimate criminal interests by failing to realize that criminal activity is often a form of employment. Illegal, yes, but employment the same. Why rob banks?
                      “Because that’s where the money is.”

                      I would say the border with Mexico needs to be opened — specifically to even the opportunities of all immigrants and not just those who can be transported by coyotes across the border.

                      Surely you jest. You say all immigrants, but you really mean all Mexican immigrants, as I’ve previously outlined how unencumbered passage through Mexico is all but impossible to anyone other than Mexicans due to that country’s use of their immigration laws.

                      Opening the Mexican border essentially rewards Mexico a monopoly to US emigration. You’re just moving the black market from the coyotes to the ‘official’ Mexican government (or the Cartels – sometimes the same thing) which I’m sure you’ll assert, has no corruption problems of their own.

                      Forcing emigrants through a gauntlet of corruption and violence to gain entrance to the US doesn’t do them any favors.

                    21. I’ve previously outlined how unencumbered passage through Mexico is all but impossible to anyone other than Mexicans due to that country’s use of their immigration laws.

                      Does Mexico’s anti-migration reach close their airspace to commercial flights? Can they prevent ship traffic from El Salvador to San Diego or Brownsville?

                    22. Does Mexico’s anti-migration reach close their airspace to commercial flights? Can they prevent ship traffic from El Salvador to San Diego or Brownsville?

                      No, and none of that would be restricted if the land border with Mexico were closed.

                      The only difference would be that with actual restrictions on the Mexican border (unlike the open border now), emigration would cease to favor a single country with a corrupt government and a geographic advantage.

                    23. Also, your background checks mean nothing when the border is open.

                      Why, if the border is open, would anybody who couldn’t pass a background check even hesitate to drive across? Who would stop them?

                    24. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the standard vocabulary. Most people who support open borders do not have big issues with border checkpoints — only with using those checkpoints to prohibit entry of people who are not individually proven harmful.

                      I certainly would call the border between Nevada and California an open border, but I still get asked if I have any fresh fruit in the car when I drive across it.

                    25. Border checkpoints don’t mean shit when you have miles of open desert.

                      Your assumption is that those coming here legally (those who can pass background checks) would cross at the checkpoint. That’s true.

                      And if smuggling fruit into Nevada made you 100K, then you might be tempted to cross somewhere else. And if there was no extradition treaty between California and Nevada, and no Federal Oversight covering both of them, then your analogy might make sense.

                      You hope criminals don’t come over here, and pretend to not understand the ‘demand’ of a concentration of wealth, but you really have no solution other than the shrug of the shoulders and talk of ‘checkpoints’.

                      I have some news: Drugs are still illegal, and by extension, very profitable.

                      You may not have issues with border checkpoints, but if the border with Mexico is wide open right now, how much effort do you think will be made once a free labor market is established?

                      Answer: None.

                      You talk of ‘background checks’ and ‘work permits’, but in reality, you don’t seem to give a rat’s ass about actually doing anything to secure the border, because you believe that there’s no reason to.

                      One of the fundamental duties that most people – R’s, D’s, and L’s can agree on is the job of the government to protect the citizens of the country.

                      How can you say the government is performing that duty when they can’t even control who comes into the country?

                    26. Are you saying that for 221 years the government hasn’t been performing its duty to protect the citizens of the country?

                      Do you realize how hard it is to stop everybody from crossing 5000 miles of border and 5000 miles of coastline? And, once you’ve accepted that 98%+ of the people who wish to cross will be allowed in through the gate, what is the point of paying the huge opportunity cost for a zero-permeability fence?

                    27. Do you realize how hard it is to stop everybody from crossing 5000 miles of border and 5000 miles of coastline?

                      Probably a lot less hard than keeping ahead of the rest of the world militarily – but we manage to do that.

                      In fact, since we’re dealing with immigrant laborers, a wall along the southern border would do a pretty good job.

                      Would it keep out people with a lot of money and connections? No, but the locks on your front door and your alarm system won’t either – yet you have them – and you have them to keep out the low level criminals. Look, if the Mossad or the Revolutionary Guard wants to off you, you have a problem. But a high meth addict with a knife? Now you have a deterrent.

                      Right now our government is working as hard as possible to do nothing.

                      As for the “huge opportunity cost” of walking across open desert – desert that would be virtually unguarded with an open labor policy – it sure beats being caught re-entering after you’ve been convicted of rape or murder the first time. Also, the drugs you’re carrying are frowned upon at that big ‘turnstyle.’

                      People are repeatedly deported after committing crimes – rape, assault, sometimes even murder. Yet they gain entrance again. How? Because there’s an effort to not protect the border, and many Americans know it.

                      You won’t get any argument from me that our immigration system is screwed up, but I’m always curious as to what the opposition is to securing the southern border.

                      Also, I’m not as concerned with all those Canadians. In order for Canada to have as many immigrants enter America as Mexico already has, they would have to import 10 million people. And then there wouldn’t be anybody left.

                      Secure the border.
                      Fix the WOD.
                      Fix the Welfare state.
                      Fix the path to citizenship.

                      Then we can talk about an open labor market.

                    28. Why don’t you go tell Mexico to open their border and allow immigrants to have a right to get a jobs?

      2. “What a wonderful idea! here in Massachusetts, we have 10% unemployment, and every day tens of thousands of New Hampshire citizens drive across our open border and take jobs away from us. Let’s slam that border shut too!”

        I’ll just ignore the enormous fallacy that cutting off illegal immigration while supporting the highest legal immigration rate in the country is tantamount to ‘slamming borders shut.’

        Rather I’ll make the conjecture that considering the state of Massachusetts has tried to make out-of-state businesses collect their income taxes for them and has sent their state law enforcement officers across the state line into New Hampshire to spy on the citizens of MA who choose to shop here in NH and take advantage of the lack of a sales tax, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the MA legislature come up with a way to restrict the movements of the residents of our respective states.

        1. highest legal immigration rate in the country world.

      3. I want to shut the border to Northern Virginia. Damn Yankees keep moving further South.

    3. Yep, that leaped out at me too.

      I was shocked to hear a disciple of free market economics argue that there are jobs which Americans are not available to fill. That crap actually lends credence to the charge that libertarians are whores for business interests.

      If we are going have a more open policy based on economic needs – then let’s be straight about it. We implement an updated bracero program. That still isn’t unfettered borders, no path to citizenship/permanent residency and no excuse for hiring off the books.

    4. If we got rid of the welfare state and stopped making it viable for able-bodied workers to suckle endlessly off the government teat, then there’d be far fewer jobs that Americans are supposedly too proud to take.

      Valid point. Welfare might provide a lower income than hard, dirty, manual labor. But it doesn’t involve hard dirty, manual labor. It’s easier to sit on the couch munching on pork rinds than it is to bust your ass to get past entry level manual labor.

    5. “…job in the United States for which no Americans are available” simply means job for which no US citizens will be hired, since employer deems that any US citizen wouldn’t “fit in” with the current workforce. “Teamwork”, and “schmoozing”, are all-important!

  13. Permitting more legal immigrants, oddly, could reduce the number of total immigrants.

    So could an Executive Order proclaiming illegals are not protected by U.S. law.

    1. Or just making it grounds for immediate deportation and barring them from ever getting a green card, refugee status, or citizenship if they apply for public benefits or register to vote.

    2. “So could an Executive Order proclaiming illegals are not protected by U.S. law.”

      How about extending it to the states (Governors can pass executive orders proclaiming that illegals are not protected by state law)?

  14. Another libertarian writes about illegal immigration out of context, as if the Demwits were not using the issue to stoke racial division, to create an impoverished class of illiterate insta-voters, and to bankrupt states and localities so there will be a call for a federal bailout.

    I am fairly sure I know people who live in DC who are staying here indefinitely on student visas (by continuing to study massage therapy or para-legal studies etc), who have driver’s licenses and taxpayer ID numbers, who work or are self-employed, and who register to vote and vote in presidential elections.

    I do not want them deciding how my livelihood should be disposed of.

    1. So I take it you’re perfectly cool with letting the other 300 million native-born Americans decide how your livelihood should be disposed of?

      1. Of course he is, until he eventually realizes they don’t all look and sound like him.

        Yo, Bruce – you really should’ve gone with Pat Buchanan as your nom-de-net.

      2. Jake, go try getting job in Mexico.

  15. Did Daniel bother to list any such jobs? With unemployment near 10% nationally, I wonder just how many of those kinds of jobs actually exist.

    If you assume black men aren’t Americans, it makes sense. I can’t think of another way to get to the emergent official Libertarian? position. No-borders types are consistent, and so are the DEY TUK R JOBS law-and-order guys. The Kochtopus has a hidden premise.

    I guess it might not be “black dudes don’t count.” It could be “yay fascism (and black dudes don’t count).”

    1. If you assume black men aren’t Americans, it makes sense. I can’t think of another way to get to the emergent official Libertarian? position.

      I will be happy to explain it to you:

      I have a right to do business with whomever I want so long as they are willing and able to do business with me. So long as that person does not trespass on someone else’s property or steal anyone else’s property in order to do business with me, no one else has the right to physically restrain me from doing business with them.

      when confronted with a person who desires to leave Mexico, purchase a plane ticket from an airline, fly to Atlanta, rent an apartment from a property owner, find employment in a factory, all of which are peaceful transactions that any individual should be free to do … They want armed men to prevent him from stepping off the aircraft, from being allowed to rent the property, from being allowed to enter an employment contract with the factory, from driving on public roads, etc.

      When a person considers how limits on immigration are put into effect, one immediately can see that liberty is destroyed, not enhanced by such restrictions. The armed man preventing an airline from permitting a paying customer from boarding, preventing a man from renting an apartment, or from selling his labor services to a factory is attacking not only the man whom they are trying to keep out of the country, but those with whom that man wishes to do business. These restrictions inherently involve attacks on liberty.

      1. Sweet, so according to your argument it is completely Libertarian to want to hire children as long as they want to work for you? Cool. I will hire some Indian orphans for minimum wage to do really dangerous work others would want to be paid more for and if they complain I will fire them and hire some more.
        I really like the ideals but honestly, reality does not work that way. Pure Libertarianism can never work just as pure Communism would never work. People do not fit into nice tidy molds.

        1. So if these Indian orphans are in such desperate straits that a dangerous job is an improvement to their condition, you would have the law trap them in their even worse circumstances?

          Oh yeah, I’m the heartless one.

          1. Ummm…. yeah. That you would be.

            1. Hey, it’s not my laws that force children running away from abusive households to take up trades like prostitution or to join violent drug smuggling gangs (another creation of state prohibition) to survive.

        2. Remember the core of libertarian philosophy: Making a fast buck is absolution for any sin.

          Capitalist philosophy in general demands that labor be cheap and disposable. If a worker dies in unsafe (but correctable) conditions, well it’s the workers own damn fault and time to find another stiff. An ignorant, desperate and fearful immigrant fills this need and helps perpetuate the current system.

          It’s funny that Capitalism treats people the same way as Communism and yet libertarians defend the one and fight the other.

          1. You’re so wrong, I don’t even know where to start. Have you ever done any research about “libertarian philosophy”, or do you just parrot whatever you hear from apologists for the major parties?

            What you’ve posted is as true as “The core of conservative philosophy is hating poor people” and “The core of liberal philosophy is the love of terrorism”.

            I.e. not at all true. Please go burn your straw elsewhere.

          2. Capitalism treats people the same way as Communism

            Wrong.
            It’s all capitalism, the question is who owns the capital.

            On the other hand, the Free Market gives people a choice, where communism does not. Get it, yet?

            Also, a free market allows for the filing of legal grievances by the family and co-workers of the killed worker. If, as you say, the conditions were unsafe and correctable, then by all means Libertarians would applaud the legal victory that assesses damages to the mining operator for those conditions.

            Of course, we all have to worry about the abuse of government authority by the courts (bribes, payoffs, political favors), but that doesn’t weigh against the Libertarian ideal – it supports the notion that it is government, not the Free Market, that ultimately becomes the problem.

            Unchecked by any authority, it is governments (see J. Stalin, etc.) that have reduced workers to cheap and disposable drones. It is your philosophy that reduces individuals to disposable slaves – all for the good of the collective, of course.

            1. And Big Business, unchecked by authority, will skip around tossing gumdrops to all the girls and boys?

              Really, how do you see an average laborer (or their families) in the 1920’s fairing against Ford or Rockefeller? Are you dishonest or simply stupid enough to think that that family would get their day in court?

              It is my philosophy that brought about vast improvements in the lot of ordinary workers. It is your philosophy that wants to roll those improvements back or offshore U.S. industry to any country where human rights are ignored. Deal with it.

              1. Communism brought about vast improvements in the lot of ordinary workers?

                Barf for the Barfman.

              2. HP#9 – And Big Business, unchecked by authority…how do you see an average laborer (or their families) in the 1920’s fairing against Ford or Rockefeller?
                You seem to not be able to recognize how you back up my point.

                It is the failure of government, due to a corrupt and unaccountable court system, that is violating the rights of the injured party.

                And it is you who wishes to ignore that corruption and pretend that the problem can be solved by adding additional layers of government, without acknowledging the corruption problem in the first place.

                And we know the reason for that…
                People like yourself need the corruption and injustice to add further layers of government corruption. If the courts and legal system were fixed, and that family could get it’s day in court, there would be an actual leveling of the playing field, and no need for unchecked power by additional unaccountable bureaucrats.

                But then how would scumbags like yourself steal money?

                It is your philosophy that brought about the murder of 100 Million + in the 20th century – all due to unaccountable governments.

                Deal with it.

      2. You don’t HAVE to explain it to me…the illegal renting next door is “hard working”. She sells “her” trash collection services…the pick-up trucks from who-knows-where roll by & dump off garbage, for curb-side municipal collection. The “hard working” male illegals who sub-lease rooms from her congregate daily on the sidewalk across the street, waiting for off-the-books day-labor “employers” to fetch them away to the jobsite. ETC; ETC!

    2. DEY TUK R JOBS

      You know who else ‘tuk yer jobs’…
      Robots.

      The economy has changed, but immigrants follow the same pattern. I see illegals working all the time as maids, carpenters and bartenders. The latter has very poor english skills but usually are quite attractive and do well. None ran over the southern border. Are these considered a big problem? No, they’re just not brown.
      We’ve heard this same BS nativism back to the mid 19th centery ‘Know Nothings’ who were afraid of high reproduction catholics.
      Oddly enough even when Kennedy got elected the vatican didn’t wield undue influence in DC.
      As soon as the economy improves the problem will go away, except for dyed in the wool xenophobes.

    3. That’s a valid point. I don’t see black men really being considered for these hard low-wage jobs, even though they are most likely willing to take them.

      This may be part racism, but also may be part chip-on-shoulder having. Is the black guy really going to be as much of a team player as the Hispanic laborer? Is he going to work his ass off to get ahead, or is he going to just enough to avoid being fired?

      1. “I don’t see black men really being considered for these hard low-wage jobs,”

        Hispanics are being given preferential treatment over blacks? What are you basing this comment on?

        1. Cursory Observation. Do you have any statistics showing otherwise?

          It does seem that at one time much manual labor (Ex. maids, farm labor, janitors) was black. Now, these jobs are largely filled by hispanics. And it’s obviously not because the economic fortunes of blacks have improved.

          1. Yo! Back the fuck up bitch! I gots my money! I’m gettin’ paid!

            Yo! Fuck the Black Underclass!

          2. Actually, the economic fortunes of blacks have improved.
            Meanwhile, immigrants are more likely to work in conditions that are dangerous or violate labor laws, and less likely to complain to any regulatory agencies, report illegal activity, or put up legal fight if they get injured or fired unfairly, especially if they aren’t legal residents.

            1. You’re right about them being unwilling to go to the police. Which is a good reason to make immigration legal.

              That said, we don’t need labor laws. We just need courts willing to enforce fair contracts and allow liability suits.

  16. WIhAhen I look at my basic living expenses, I’m like, fugeddaboudit. It’s gonna take me years to pay for the car that I really need to get to work (btw, how are there not Americans available to take a job with our current unemployment rate?) So I don’t understand why I should be held accountable for breaking into your house and taking your stuff. You’re kinda forcing me to steal your car too. It’s not fair that you get to live a nicer home just because you have good credit. That’s why I think you should let me live in your guest bedroom for
    free. No? How about your garage. C’mon

    1. So I don’t understand why I should be held accountable for breaking into your house and taking your stuff.

      Which has fuck all to do with immigration. If a guy rents an apartment next to my house and gets a job at the local Kwiki mart, he ain’t injuring anyone. Changing his birth place from San Diego to Tijuana does not change that fact.

      1. it has “fuck all” to do with the idea that the laws are just too hard to follow, that’s why people have to break them. Like we are to blame for all the illegals. I really don’t even know what the “fuck all” your response had to do with my post. Sounded like parrot talk that you tried to stretch in order to be relevant. good day

  17. I am all for greater ease of immigration. Your article does not address a central tenant of illegal immigration. The economics of illegal activity shows as the rewards for chosing illegal activity grows, so does the number of people willing to engage in the illegal activities. Using the Canada-Mexico scenario; illegal activity between the US and these two countries reflects the variance of real wages. With a greater variance, the higher the chance of illegal immigration. The variance between the US and Canada is low. Illegal immigraton between these two countries is based more on other factors as a result. The real wage variance between the US and Mexico is very high. With the US on the upper end of the Real Wage scale, the flow of illegal immigrants is to US.

    To allow for a freer flow of immigration from Central America would put tremenedous downward pressure on real wages in the US. This is not necessarily a bad thing if oocurring over a reasoned period of time.

    Before opening our borders, we need to reduce the effect of minimum wages on the real wage variance; and we need to address the issue of instant citizenship for being the first born of illegal immigrants.

  18. So how do you propose to stop the illegal immigrants from coming over once you open the borders to everyone except for a small subsection of violent criminals or some such? I mean, you must have really looked into this since you previously said you didn’t want a Border Fence. So how do you propose to protect the border from the people you say you do not want getting in?

    1. If everyone wanting to go from Mexico to Gerogia to work in a poultry slaughterhouse was buying a $49.00 Greyhound ticket, it would be very easy for the cops to stake out a bus station when looking for fugitives on the lam.

      And absent the smuggling trades such as people, drug, alcohol & cigarette smuggling that are created by government prohibitions, violent people would have a very hard time making enough money from criminal activity to pose much of a threat.

      It’s prohibition that makes gangs dangerous, and freedom that saps them of their strength.

      1. That still did not answer the question. How do you propose to stop the few people you do not want to get across the border from crossing the border?

        1. The same way we keep dangerous people who want to go from California to New York from doing it…

          1. Wow. Ok. Well considering how easy it is to do just that even when you have a police record in the US, I can just imagine how easy it will be when your record is in another country.

            1. Yet, somehow with this surfeit of freedom, society does not collapse!

              Odd that.

      2. Wow. It’s clear you’ve taken Econ 101.

        Obviously, nobody else here has done THAT!

        1. Fuck. This was supposed to be a reply to Evolved_Economics.

        2. That is not taught in Econ 101. It is usually taught in Intermediate Microeconomic Theory. I am sure you took that class, too.

  19. Before opening our borders, we need to reduce the effect of minimum wages on the real wage variance;

    Before I stop hitting myself on the face, I need to stop sitting on a tack?

    we need to address the issue of instant citizenship for being the first born of illegal immigrants.

    Why? What issue? Why is a person becoming a citizen a bad thing?

    Talk about your non-sequiturs.

    1. Since my comments focused on the economics of illegal activity, I assumed (incorrectly) any readers would link the separate points back to that principle.

      So, to clarify, for you and any others, there is economic advantage create by the variance in real wages and in the ability for a child born in the US to be an instant citizen. To reduce these advantages would require the elimination of instant citizenship and the disparity between real wages.

      Once those two items are accomplished, the volume of illegal immigration will be reduced and make any enforcement and/or allowance for legal immigration much more manageable by any governmental agency.

      If you need any more clarification from that, you need to the DNC reassign your duties to the Huff Post.

      1. Since my comments focused on the economics of illegal activity,

        No they didn’t…. Your comments focused on how wage differentials drive people to migrate. Then you start talking about it as if it is a bad thing.

        Since oyu style yourself an economist, I’ll explain it in economic terms.

        1) When one sees a variation in the price of some good, it i signaling the areas in the economy where the good is in the greatest demand, or the area of the economy where the good would best help satisfy consumer demand.

        2) When the good or service in question is redirected to the area where it commands higher prices, it results in the economy better supplying human needs.

        3) Thus, when a subsistance farmer in Ontario throws down his hoe, hops a bus and starts waiting tables in Schenectady, everyone is better off. The people in Schenectady, who are desperate for labor and are willing to pay for it, the farmer since he has higher wages to support his family with.

        The only ‘loser’ is not a loser at all, someone who was demanding a higher price than the former subsistence farmer who loses the custom of the restaurant. If he wants a higher wage, this ‘loser’ has to identify a line of work where his activities were ‘worth’ this higher wage.

        That is applying economic analysis to the question of the migration. If you wanted to examine the economic effects of illegal activity, then it is even a bigger slam dunk, smugglers introduce massive dead weight losses to an economy, although to be fair to the smugglers, the harm they cause is far outweighed by the harm caused by their absence.

        make any enforcement and/or allowance for legal immigration much more manageable by any governmental agency.

        Ahh! I see where you’re coming from. You just want to improve Obama’s ability to control things things.

        Dude, I know freedom is scary, but contrary to what your parents, teachers and coaches have been telling you, you don’t need some leader to tell you what to do.

        1. You are free to return to the Huff Post.

          1. You’re calling tarran a lefty? You must be new here.

            And is saying “you are free to return to the Huff Post” really the best refutation of tarran’s argument you can come up with?

            (This is the part where you claim that you do have a thorough and undeniable refutation, but that you aren’t going to post it because it would just be lost on all of us muddle-headed bleeding-heart liberals.)

            1. ‘sigh’
              tarran is not a lefty. Once tarran exhibited a lack of desire or ignorance to even try to intreprete my words accurately, tarran is better off in the realm (Huu Post) set aside for those wanting to ridicule and defame.

              tarran’s response ignores the influence of government in his analysis. The subsistence farmer only migrates after taking in consideration all know benefits and costs compared to he/her’s current condition. My analysis points out how there is a greater wage benefit for a Central American to migrate versus a Canadian. In addition, the Central American has a greater benefit to this migration should a child be porn in the US and becomes an instant citizen.

              My analysis is pertinent to the article and more indepth and detailed than tarran’s analysis. tarran’s effort to ridicule me is without basis and deserves the response I gave.

              1. Evolved_Economics,

                I think you are confusing pompousness with substance. You made some very obvious points about people from Central America having a greater incentive to move to the U.S. than people from Canada.

                Then, at the very end, you come up with a non sequitur – that we needed to come up with a way to reduce the incentive before liberalizing the movement or people.

                The only justification you’ve come up with is a claim that that would allow the government to better “manage” this movement.

                Now, I should point out that at the Huffington Post, the notion that the govenrment should regulate everything under the sun might be taken as a given. But over here, if you are going to argue that, you really should make the effort to explain why.

                And, yes, the cracks about me going back to the Huffington Post are quite amusing coming from a guy with your views.

                1. tarran,
                  The first sentence of my original post was; ‘I am all for greater ease of immigration.’

                  The first sentence of the second paragraph was; ‘To allow for a freer flow of immigration from Central America would put tremenedous downward pressure on real wages in the US.’

                  Your ‘non-sequitur’ was my lack of link to the reduction of incentives before liberalizing immigration. The link would be a reduction in financial incentives to illegal immigration (reduction of minimum wage and elimination of instant citienship) would reduce the volume of illegal immigrants.

                  Since this whole article was written from the stand point of the benefits to liberalizing immigration rules now, my comments were on point.

                  1. EE, it’s not that tarran didn’t get your point. It’s that your point is so obvious and simplistic that it’s taken for granted by everyone here.

                    It’s like you’ve just discovered the concept of an economic incentive or something.

                    People migrate to where they have higher wages. Fucking duh, already.

                    Then you leave the issue of what to do about the wage differential vaguely unanswered. Hmm, the government must do something about that! I have no idea what, but clearly, incentives are involved.

                    This is like saying “Damn. people do drugs because they are pleasurable. If only the government could find some way to reduce the pleasurableness of drugs. i have no idea what they would be, but I do think before we legalize drugs, the government should find some way to make them less fun.”

                    1. vague?

                      How vague is the elimination of the minimum wage? How vague is the elimination of instant citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizens.

                      All is vague to the clueless.

                    2. This may not have occurred to you, but illegal aliens don’t get paid minimum wage. Hence lowering the minimum wage will not have a significant effect on their incentives.

                    3. you are so fricking stupid….

                      You claim to see the obvious, but can not see at all. You should have taken Econ 102.

                2. Tarran,

                  you obviously live in a fantasy world where illegal immigrants are heroic worker-entrepneuers. Risking all to toil long hours at crappy jobs in the hope that their childern will have a better future.

                  In the real world, a lot of them, maybe most, aspire to become parasites supported by the welfare state.

                  1. Well, that’s a broad and sweeping claim that I’m just sure you can back up with solid evidence, right, Josh?

                    In fact, you’re probably already gathering your evidence to prove that you’re not just making wild claims ex rectum. I, for one, will be waiting with bated breath for your triumphant links, which I’m certain you’re about to post.

                  2. “In the real world, a lot of them, maybe most, aspire to become parasites supported by the welfare state.”

                    Wow, that’s a huge [citation needed]. Most of the illegal immigrants I’ve met and worked with (and here in AZ I’ve met and worked with many) they were just like you perceived “fantasy world”.

                    1. Right,
                      Like I said, to you people they are some kind of heroic cartoon characters.

                      Not real people that respond to the perverse incentives of the welfare state the same way that other poor people do.

                      I mean it’s not like there are whole cities in CA and AZ where spanish speeking childern are a majority of the students in public schools. Or where a multi-generationl underclass exists.

                    2. Still waiting for those links, Josh.

                    3. Jake Boone
                      Hey my maid and gardener work hard and so does the garbage colletor.

                      So I just know they’re not interested in welfare or any government handouts. Libertopia would be at hand, if only we could get replace our lazy shiftless poor with these illegal paragons of the work ethic.

                      Jackass

                    4. Jackass

                      Just a side note: You don’t have to append a signature to your posts. Your name already appears just above them, so we already know it’s you.

                    5. Yeah Josh baby – double down on stupid and don’t back it up. Woo hoo!

                    6. Juris, what’s stupid about observing that illegals are humans and will respon to the same incentives as the native born.

                      It’s stupid to believe that they are somehow immune to the temptation of the welfare state.

                    7. It’s stupid to believe that they are somehow immune to the temptation of the welfare state.

                      Nobody’s saying they are.

                      So where are those links, Josh? You seem to have forgotten to post them.

                    8. @MWG

                      Nice bullshit you got there, retard.

                  3. Not that I am a fan of tarran’s insipid rhetoric, I will rise to defend the culture of Mexicans and all Central Americans. Their culture is steeped in devotion to family. Most all of those illegally immigrating are doing so to provide for their families. A truly honorable endeavor.

                  4. Not that I am a fan of tarran’s insipid rhetoric, I will rise to defend the culture of Mexicans and all Central Americans. Their culture is steeped in devotion to family. Most all of those illegally immigrating are doing so to provide for their families. A truly honorable endeavor.

                  5. The lazy ones stay home. It’s a lot of work to migrate.

              2. Should a child be porn in the US and become an instant citizen?

                An excellent question.

      2. It’s clear you’ve taken Econ 101.

        Nobody else here has done THAT!

        1. lol…
          So you understand, perfectly, from Econ 101 the microeconomic effects should tarran’s full open border’s concept occur? I doubt that, but prove me wrong and give me you understanding of the economic ramifications.

          1. It means that wages for manual labor will drop to something near third-world levels. Yes, I am aware of that.
            I don’t think that that justifies immigration laws effectively barring entry of manual laborers.

            The fact is that wages for such labor have been falling in the US over the long term, anyway. Various stopgap efforts by labor unions and government to try to force business to hire American at higher wages have only resulted in manufacturers closing shop and moving to Mexico. (With the further stopgap of labor unions trying to throw up trade barriers to prevent THAT from happening too).

            I believe the long term trend towards wage equalization is mostly a good thing. I don’t believe that Americans are somehow morally entitled to earn more money than a Nicaraguan for doing the same job. I don’t believe Americans are morally obligated to buy from Americans so that Americans can earn more money either.

            1. The minimum wage is another structural element creating variance between US real wages and real wages in other countries, like Mexico and other conutries in central America. To keep our wage structure from collapsing, I propose the minumum wage be eliminated in the US over the period of a decade or more. This does two things, it reduces the volume of illegal immigration to the US and weakens to tshock to the US economy when our borders can be openned with Mexico. I support open borders with Mexico. We must reduce the desire of illegal immigration, first.

  20. Totally, I’m thinking it’s a good thing you’re not a Soldier. You are not a Soldier, right?

  21. Welch: *scratches chin*

    “Let’s see- a post by Chapman, about immigration: that should keep those monkeys occupied for a while.”

  22. Well, its pretty clear that something needs to be done.

    Lou
    http://www.anon-posting.at.tc

    1. Are you running for office anon-bot?

      1. Well, he would have my vote!

        LOL

        1. It’s that or Goldwater’s corpse.

        2. As an anonymity bot, it clearly supports full privacy rights. That alone makes it better than the majority of politicians.

  23. Would we also give out temporary visas to the narcos and terrorists?

    1. By “narcos” I assume you mean narcotics officers in police departments. So no, their citizenship would be revoked and they would be immediately deported to Afghanistan.

      And the US has been giving visas to terrorists for years. There was a score or so of guys who flew some airplanes into some buildings a few years ago that were all here on student or work visas. I guess that was before INS had the “are you a terrorist?” question on the application.

    2. I notice you didn’t mention child molesters RJ.

      Why? Are you a child molester?

      1. I presume we gave a visa to Roman Polanski many years ago….

    3. Equal Opportunity

      you can’t discriminate against someone on the basis of their chosen profession.

      1. Oh no? Watch me!

  24. Meanwhile,

    Israel had vowed to intercept the boats, by force if necessary, and tow them to the Israeli port of Ashdod, where passengers would be arrested or deported.

    According to an Israeli commando, speaking on condition of anonymity, he and other Israeli soldiers who rappelled onto the boat from a helicopter were immediately attacked by about 30 people on board.

    1. Don’t leave out the fact that the raid occurred in international waters, which is completely in violation of the law of the sea. Of course, the Teleprompter-in-Chief will bend over and take it for fear of pissing off the Israel lobby, which he’s almost as beholden to as the Mexico lobby, in an election year.

      1. Obama has been antagonistic toward Israel since he entered office.

    2. Of the six boats, 5 surrendered peacefully. The people on the sixth boat attacked the IDF soldiers with knives and metal poles. The soldiers fought back.

      FYI, Israel offered to send the goods in the boats to Gaza over land routes, but the protesters refused. They were more interested in starting a confrontation than in getting the supplies to Gazans.

      1. They have every right to fight an IDF boarding party in international waters. Israel has absolutely no right to board ships 40 miles from the shore of Gaza.

        Also, “FYI”, Israel is only allowing certain types of supplies to be transferred to Gaza. Building supplies in particular are not being allowed into the occupied territory, and you can imagine that those supplies are needed with IDF leveling neighborhoods every once in a while.

        1. The building supplies that Israel does not allow into Gaza are the materials used to make the thousands of Kasam rockets that Gazans launched into Israel. A Kasam rocket is made of pipes and cement.

      2. Of course, it’s to be expected — Israel has engaged in gross violations of international law on and off for decades, simply because they can. The powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US keeps us from playing hardball with them, the surrounding Arab countries and the EU are too weak to deal with them, and the UN is toothless.

        1. “Israel has engaged in gross violations of international law”

          International what?

          That not freedom.

          Hands off Israels freedom.

          Freedom good.

          1. Libertarianism ends at the water’s edge.

            1. And my police forces’ shiny badges, tazers, guns and night sticks! Do you own a dog, by chance? And don’t even think of trying to record my activities, Bub!

        2. Are you suggesting the the USA be a policeman to the World? Can you name other countries where you think the USA should send troops, or do you just have an ax to grind against Israel?

          1. jtuf, you may not realize it, but without the substantial support the Israeli state gets that is extorted from U.S. taxpayers by the U.S. government, it would not be able to fund its more egregious endeavors.

            Much of the problem is being driven by the efforts of the Israeli government to support the Judeification of the West Bank. The settlement program is dependent on massive subsidies & huge military expenditures that can only be paid with the money coming from the U.S. government.

            Of course, simply ending the foreign aid wouldn’t be a panacea; I think that there is a good chance of a bloodbath as the settlement program is wound down. However, its the only solution that has a chance of long term ending the conflict.

            Otherwise, you get an indefinite siege of Gaza & as well as lots of displaced people from the West Banks nursing a grudge.

            1. I favor eliminating all USA government to government foreign aid. Tarran, you may not realize it, but the USA gives close to a billion dollars a year to the PA. The EU and UN also chip in a substantial sum to the PA. Without these subsidies, Abass would have to stop drumming up hate against Israel and focus on making a viable country. As things stand, the PA is in no rush to reach a peace agreement, because the longer the PA keeps the status quo, the longer the PA can milk the West for aid.

              1. I favor eliminating all USA government to government foreign aid. Tarran, you may not realize it, but the USA gives close to a billion dollars a year to the PA. The EU and UN also chip in a substantial sum to the PA.

                Yep. Although to be fair, without the money the residents of Gaza would still be fighting; the siege ensures that.

                The U.S. govt also funds the Egyptian government as well. That funding (and the awful uses of it) is why the Islamic Brotherhood (which was fighting to make Egypt an Islamic state) agreed to merge with Osama bin Laden’s group to form Al Queda.

                However, if you knew about the “aid”, I am curious why you thought that that Tulpa’s comment meant that he was advocating war rather than merely advocating using that money and the threat of cutting it off as leverage?

                1. Because Tulpa also complained that the EU, the Arab countries, and the UN were not confronting Israel. None of them give aid to Israel, which suggests that Tulpa had military action in mind.

      3. What the hell is Israel trying to accomplish with this blockade?

        1. Israel is trying to stop the thousands of rockets that Gazans have launched at them. Israel sends humanitarian aid over land routes into Gaza on a regular basis, but prevents rockets and materials used to build rockets from going into Gaza.

  25. Military aircraft forced a private Cessna aircraft to land near Chicago after it flew into a temporary restricted zone established for President Barack Obama’s weekend visit to his home there.

    Hail, CAESAR!

  26. 5) Once a fair and workable plan is in place we need to lower the boom on any business that still employs illegal aliens.

    The feds don’t really like that approach at all

  27. Trying to lock down the border has not stanched the flow of unauthorized newcomers from the south, but it has made the trip much more dangerous and expensive. So illegal foreigners who once came and left now come and stay. Thirty years ago, nearly half of undocumented arrivals departed within a year. Today, only one in 14 does

    Permitting more legal immigrants, oddly, could reduce the number of total immigrants.

    Thank you Mr. Chapman. I’ve been arguing the same thing for years

  28. I say we just get rid of welfare and then we can just let everyone in. Borders are just an imaginary creation of the state. The US is just as much ours as it is the mexicans, chinese, french…

    1. Cool.

  29. Overlook the obvious? Haha. No more American citizenship… the whole world is American. Just come on in and do as you please, just fucking pay your taxes.

    Hahaha.

  30. Illegal foreigners who once left now stay… really? That’s not grounded in fact at all I think. People go back and forth all the time.

    1. No, it makes sense. Look at it from the immigrant’s point of view. If it’s tougher to get across the border, do you keep risking going back and forth, or are you more likely to simply stay once you’re in?

      1. What Jake said. Plus now it’s worth it to try and bring the whole family over, rather than just work here for a couple of years.

        1. Not only is the pay better but your kids don’t get free school, food and medical care if they’re born in Mexico.

          1. Before the border was locked down,Illegals would work here a couple of years,send money home,and travel back a few times a year during the holidays. Now thats just not possible.

            Do I have links to support this? No. I just have 30 years of living near the border to know this is true.

            1. Actually, people still go back. Some guy was arrested in Houston or somewhere who had been back and forth over the border 9 times.

              And because of the economic downturn, a lot of people have gone back home (wherever that is).

            2. Do I have links to support this? No. I just have 30 years of living near the border to know this is true.

              Well I don’t have statistics either but I live a few miles from a hell of a lot of crowded Mexican bus stations in Chamblee and Doraville GA.I say you are wrong.

              1. Thats cool. I won’t argue with you. My experience is on the border here in AZ & in TX.

                My handle has a real e-mail attached to it. I’ve always offered a jeep rides along the line for anyone who wants to go

                1. No problem. My handle has a real website attached to it that I invite everyone to check out. My experience is one of living in an area with one of the most diverse immigrant populations on Planet Earth.

      2. Right, but then why do the in fact go back and forth? And why have lots of illegal immigrants gone back to wherever once the economy tilted south?

        1. Right, but then why do the in fact go back and forth?

          Some still do. Just fewer of them.

          And why have lots of illegal immigrants gone back to wherever once the economy tilted south?

          You answer your own question. When jobs go away, so does much of the draw to cross the border.

          This is, by the way, an effect we wouldn’t expect to see if the reason people crossed into the U.S. was really to have “anchor babies” or to sponge off of welfare.

          1. Right but some still do cross to have their babies. And if it’s more difficult to come back, why go back at all if its better to be unemployed in the U.S. than employed or unemployed in Mexico?

            I actually know a guy who’s a border baby. Great guy.

  31. Borders are just an imaginary creation of the state.

    So, when Hitler invaded France he really wasn’t committing a crime? If borders are “just an imaginary creation of the state” then why don’t you live on the other side ours for a while? Why is that you “citizens of the world” assholes never exercise your franchise in Myanmar or Liberia?

    1. yeah that’s right, the guy moving across a border to earn a living is just like a guy commanding an army to cross a border, tear up farmers’ fields with their tanks, flatten their orchards, knock down buildings inside towns and cities with bombs and murder anyone who looked at them funny or whose nose had too pronounced a hook.

      Dude, your ass is for sitting on, not thinking with, and that hole in the middle is not for talking.

      1. The Arizona rancher recently murdered… how was he killed again?

        1. So when thousands die every year as a result of the drug war, you don’t say “lets end the drug war”, instead you use those deaths as justification for an escalation of the drug war?

          1. I’m against the drug war. I’m just saying the rancher who was murdered wasn’t murdered by well intentioned Mexicans. It was a Mexican coyote convoy, with machine guns.

            1. I call bullshit. Linky?

              1. Bullshit about what?

                1. about who killed him and how.

            2. Put drug lords outta business by legalizing drugs.

              Put “Mexican coyote convoy” (with machine guns) outta business by increasing (drastically) the number of immigrants who are allowed to come here legally.

            3. Oh damn, a rancher was murdered by a coyote convoy. Too bad government prohibition makes people with guns the easiest way to immigrate.

              1. People With Guns Moving Company, LLC
                “The easiest way to move since government prohibited free border crossing”

        2. The nine-year-old in the car wreck in the Arizona desert… how was he saved again?

          http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..6135.shtml

          1. Yeah, that acts nullifies the ranchers murder how?

            1. “Yeah, that acts nullifies the ranchers murder how?”

              It doesn’t.

              So here’s a question: what were you trying to accomplish by bringing up Krentz in this context?

              Once you can answer that, you’ll know why I countered with Cordova.

              1. I’m not to going to play games with you. Either say you what you have to say, or don’t.

                So make your point or don’t. Understand?

                1. Me not play games.

                  Especially game where I say brown people bad and you say they not bad.

                  Games take away freedom.

                  Freedom good.

                  1. Who has said brown people are bad?

                2. Okay, Lyle, I’ll connect the dots for you.

                  1) You brought up the murder of Rob Krentz to try and smear all illegal immigrants as dangerous criminals.

                  2) I brought up the rescue of a nine-year-old boy by Jesus Cordova to counter that smear. Do I think Cordova’s example means that all illegal immigrants are good and upstanding people? No. It was a counterexample to highlight the idiocy of your implicit claim that all (or most, or even a statistically significant fraction) of the illegal immigrant population consists of murderous criminals.

                  3) I didn’t even bother pointing out that police don’t know the nationality of the person or persons who killed Krentz, and despite the initial assumptions made by some pundits that it must have been an illegal immigrant (due to some reported footprints leading off to the border), police are currently seeking a suspect inside the United States.

                  So, in short, my point is that you’re arguing dishonestly, and that you don’t even know the facts behind your own arguments.

                  I suggest you read up a bit before you embarrass yourself further.

                  1. No, I didn’t you imbecile. You’re ignorantly projecting that argument on to me. I brought it up as a fact. It is a fact he was murdered by Mexican smugglers. Not all illegal. Don’t put words in mouth you fucking idiot.

                    How fucking illiterate are you? Huh. You fucking stupid cunt. He was murdered, do you agree that or not?

                    You don’t get to pick and choose what to believe or not to believe. This shit happened. Are you saying illegals don’t ever commit crime? Some do, most don’t. That is what it is.

                    I’m not against immigration, but this blase, they’re all racist, Arizona is racist, let everyone in is a fucking farce stupidity.

                    Don’t you EVER put fucking words in my again ignorant cunt.

                    1. but you still brought up the murdering of Krentz out of context so….

                    2. No, actually I didn’t.

                    3. Fact???? I live here and nobody is talking fact

                    4. LyLe-“You don’t get to pick and choose what to believe or not to believe. This shit happened.

                      In Jake Boone’s mind illegals never do anything wrong, how could they? Since they are the paragon of libertarian virtue? In fact Jake wants poor Americans to be slaughtered and replaced with poor Mexicans. Its kind of a libertarian final solution to the welfare state.

                    5. Hey, Josh! Long time no see!

                      Planning on posting those links any time soon?

                    6. You’re either stupid or lying, Lyle. I suspect you’re both.

                      I gave you every opportunity to explain why you felt the Krentz murder was germane to the discussion, but you refused. This strongly suggests that you knew it wasn’t germane at all. (Hint: it isn’t.)

                      Now you’re claiming to have knowledge about the identity of Krentz’ killer(s)… knowledge nobody else — including the police — seems to have. Are you claiming that you witnessed the killing? Where did you get this intriguingly specific information about Mexican coyotes and machine guns, Lyle?

                      I think you’re full of shit on this, and I think you know it… thus your amusing shift into tantrum mode.

                  2. I’ve smeared no one you stupid child. Oh my God… I stated a fact, and now I’m saying they are all murderers. Are you stupid? Huh. Do you know how to read? You’re the embarrassment. Suck my cock you racist, ignorant shit.

                    1. To recap, Che is dead compared Mexican illegals to invading Nazis. tarran criticized that as being a gross over-simplification. Lyle reacted by pointing out that a rancher may have killed by an illegal immigrant.

                      Now, Lyle, if you weren’t implying that all or most or an inordinate number of Mexicans are invading murderers, then your comment doesn’t have a point. tarran gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you did. You responded with a profane, unhinged over-reaction. Let’s face it — if you weren’t a cornered rat, you wouldn’t be reacting so hysterically.

                    2. My comments have nothing to do with anybody elses comments, but to the comment I responded to. Not that difficult to understand. My name isn’t their name. Oh. My. God.

                    3. You’re an idiot. Learn how to read. You’re a racist too. Oh yeah, giving one example of illegal immigrant committing murder means they’re all murderers. Where did you to go school man/girl?

                    4. So your defense is that you were taking tarran‘s comment out of context (i.e. not in light of the comment he was responding to), and thus having a very different discussion than the rest of us. Then you accuse me of not being able to read a thread.

                      Again, the point of disagreement between tarran and Che was whether illegal immigration was comparable to the invasion of the Nazis. If your comment was not meant to imply that it was, then it’s a non sequitor.

              2. I live here. No one knows who killed Krentz.
                Got proof?

                1. Oh, how convenient, the guy/s who did it got away… so it like never happened. Very smart.

                  1. No, Krentz was killed. No doubt about it. Was it an Illegal? Maybe.Who has proof? You?

                    1. No, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t. Who else could it have been? Any ideas?

                    2. Again, why bring it up? What point are you trying to make? Instead of lashing out at everyone, think about what it is you’re trying to say. That will save you a lot of confusion — not just in this thread, but in life in general.

                    3. “No, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t. Who else could it have been? Any ideas?”

                      So you’re saying that since you don’t have any idea who did it, it must have been Mexican coyotes with machine guns? I don’t know that I’ve ever seen an argumentum ad ignorantiam phrased in such a breathtakingly bald-faced way.

                      So well done there, I guess.

        3. Lyle,

          Two months ago, the local PD here in my hometown arrested a gang that specialized in violent home invasions. They would burst in to a home with guns drawn, coralle the occupants, tie them up, brutalize them, ransack the house and make off with whatever valuables they could. They were from South Carolina, and had relocated to MA.

          Now, like Hitler and the guy who murdered that rancher, these guys were aiming to injure people and violate their rights.

          However, the fact that they came from South Carolina had no bearing on whether or not they were injuring people. Their activities were crimes because to the injuries, thefts & trespasses they engaged in.

          The ranchers along the border who have to deal with some pretty unacceptable tresspasses & property destruction at the hands of illegally migrating people are victims of a crime. Yes.

          However, it is stupid to ignore the fact that the tesspasses occur because the government has told a bunch of guys if you want to go rent a place up north and work there, you can’t buy a bus ticket, you have to hoof it through the desert.

          Hitler drove his tanks into Poland because he wanted to engage in murder and theft. The guys paying the coyotes are not interested in that stuff. Yes, occasionally a murderer hire s a coyote to get him from point A to point B, just as murderers also buy tickets on Continental airlines. We don’t ground all the non-murderers who fly to prevent the occasional murderer who travels among them.

          All the criminality & negative social issues are the products of the government prohibitions on free migration. And, just as no crackdown made prohibition less violent, and its repeal made the beer industry change overnight from one rife with murder & theft to one where the biggest issue is an argument over “Tastes Great” vs. “Less Filling”, only the end of this prohibition on migrant buying a ticket from greyhound will end the criminal activities that systematically victimize people.

          1. Lyle doesn’t want to admit that he shot his mouth off without understanding the point of your earlier comment. He’s not going to back down and concede the point.

  32. I don’t know about allowing unfettered immigration. I certainly don’t want to share a country with this guy or any ItaloDisco fan for that matter.

    1. I thought I was for anyone who wants to come here legally to work or become a citizen should be able to. That clip makes me rethink that position.

  33. I am not sure this is the correct approach, and I am a bit surprised reason.com has taken this position. We all know the intent of the law and if anything, it was a warning shot to the Federal Government to finally address the matter. However, the real problems with illegal immigration seem to lie with the activities of the criminal element of the immigrants. Allowing in more immigrants legally, will not stop those with an existing criminal record. Those individuals will continue to take the illegal path and entre the US in anyway they can muster. And its these individuals that have created the problems. Laws are always created for the tiny portion of the population that egregiously commit crimes, not the law abiding contingent. Furthermore, with an unemployment rate as high we now have, I don’t subscribe to the argument that they are filling jobs that Americans won’t do – that just doesn’t hold water. Perhaps our continual extension of unemployment benefits is, in a way, an underlying cause for the current illegal immigration issue.

    Entering the USA without pursuing the proper channels is an illegal activity. Remaining here is also illegal. Your article does little to address this. Furthermore, anyone entering the country in pursuit of citizenship must undergo a comprehensive background check. And there still needs to be a limitation on the number entering the country. And do we hold a similar standard for anyone from anywhere in the world that wishes to enter the US? Does anyone truly believe that the Federal Goverment could “optimize” this process in order to make it more efficient and less restricitive? Really….please.

    Your article was pure speculation and should be re-thought….it ain’t that easy.

  34. Mr. Chapman needs to address the issue of temporary workers accessing government welfare. Will they get the earned income tax credit (so they government sends them a check since they didn’t earn enough), will they be able to force hospitals to pay for their health care, will they be liable for harm they cause to others and be required to carry liability insurance or can they just retreat to Mexico for awhile, can they access unemployment pay, will they pay into social security and be eligible for it, how about social security disability, etc.

    If Mr. Chapman addressed these issues, so that temporary immigrant workers don’t benefit from government welfare, then I’d completely agree with him. In fact, I’d like much more immigration, but not until government isn’t providing welfare to Pablo at Paul’s expense.

    1. Bracero progam

      The program mandated a certain level of wages, housing, food and medical care for the workers (to be paid for by the employers) that kept the standard of living above what many had in Mexico.

      This program was not without problems but could serve as a good foundation to create a new one

      1. And what happened to the Bracero program? Was it torpedoed by evil racist conservatives?

        Labor unions which tried to organize agricultural workers after WWII targeted the Bracero program as a key impediment to improving the wages of domestic farm workers. These unions included the National Farm Laborers Union (NFLU), later called the National Agricultural Workers Union (NAWU), headed by Ernesto Galarza, and the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), AFL-CIO. During his tenure with the Community Service Organization, C?sar Ch?vez was given a grant by the AWOC to organize in Oxnard, California which culminated in a protest of domestic U.S. agricultural workers of the U.S. Department of Labor’s administration of the program. In January of 1961, in an effort to publicize the effects of bracero labor on labor standards, the AWOC led a strike of lettuce workers at 18 farms in the Imperial Valley, an agricultural region on the California-Mexico border and a major destination for braceros.

        1. Was it torpedoed by evil racist conservatives?
          that would be evil racist unions.

          The same unions that are blocking this

          So all ideas are subject to union approval?

          1. I think you know the answer to that.

          2. Indeed one of the biggest lies of the whole immigration argument.

            It is NOT primarily racist conservatives who have been *actually* keeping out immigrants. Their effect on policy has been, at best, marginal, and in fact Bush made a strong early effort to loosen immigration laws.

            The truth is that the more effective opposition to immigration laws has always come from the labor unions and other domestic labor interests primarily represented by the Democrats.

            This is evidenced by the fact that the single biggest thing making it impossible to immigrate legally, is the labor certification process, wherein employers must prove to the satisfaction of the Labor Department that there are no Americans available for the work.

            If you removed or loosened the labor certification provision, the floodgates would open. But that won’t happen. The labor unions have an iron grip on that.

            1. Hazel, I may be wrong here but I think Tupla and I agreed

              1. I just broke with the advent of the Sixth Sign. Only one more to go people! There may be something to 2012 after all!

    2. As always, the existence of the welfare state is the root of the problem. If there were no public assistance to pull on, then would the outcry be as large?

      The criminality aspect has more to do with the WOD than anything else.

      1. Me no run business.

        That means me unaware that illegal labor is cheap.

        Me think the only cost that matters is taxes.

        I know this is true because business owner told me.

        He no lie. Not ever ever ever ever ever ever.

        1. Cute. And how do you keep people employed during deflation? The minimum wage doesn’t really consider that one.

          1. That would be more a problem with a minimum wage in general, no?

            1. Yes. I was trying to point out that the previous commenter’s post, besides being dull, assumes that wages shouldn’t go lower, ever. In an inflationary environment, this is true, but in a deflationary environment, we should be throwing these assumptions out the window. If the only way people can get employment is to be paid less than minimum wage, it’s still better than unemployment.

  35. I live in the NJ suburbs of New York City. The Democrats on my board of county freeholders all voted for a resolution condemning the Arizona immigration law. I told them that their resolution was a bad idea, because Arizona is outside their jurisdiction. I said that they should send a letter to our representatives on Capital Hill to urge them to raise the immigration quotas. Of course, the Democrat freeholders didn’t bother sending any such letter. They were just out for political grandstanding. They had no interest in actually making it easier for people to immigrate here.

    1. Of course they wouldn’t be for fairer immigration laws, unless of course it bolsters union ranks.

      1. Which it wouldn’t, because the whole point of unions is to reduce the supply of labor.

    2. Exactly, The Democrats can blow hot air about racism all day, but at the end of that day, are they willing to give up the whole concept of labor certifications? Cause it ain’t racism that is keeping immigrants out, as a practical matter. Legally, any of these people could get a visa if it weren’t for the retarded labor certifications that are required, and no Democrat is proposing to change that.

      1. We’ll make it up to them by letting them vote for us to change it!

  36. Here’s my big problem with this article. Arizona’s challenges to the problems of illegal immigration are addressed at the beginning of the article (which is a nice change over all of the articles that pretend all is well, it’s just that Arizonians are racist) but then their solution is chastised because the real solution should be an improvement in the FEDERAL immigration system. Problem is that the feds have shown no interest in the problem until the ruckus over this law. Also, Arizona can’t fix federal immigration law. So while your proposal may well be a good solution, it does nothing to help Arizona. If Obama doesn’t like Arizona trying to take charge of this problem, then he should does his damn job and fix this problem at the federal level.

    1. A fair criticism.

    2. Bullshit. Arizona didn’t have to enforce federal immigration policies. Now, because of the new state law, it does.

      1. So your solution is for Arizona to ignore the problem like the feds?

  37. I’m cool with your plan – but first you’ll have to drop the Welfare State. I happy to let millions come and try to compete with me, as long as I’m not required to allow my income to be ‘redistributed’ to them in the form of educaction, welfare payments, medical payments, etc.

    1. You don’t have to drop the welfare state. You simply need to make legal immigrants and their citizen children ineligible for welfare, just as illegal immigrants are today.

      1. “You don’t have to drop the welfare state. You simply need to make legal immigrants and their citizen children ineligible for welfare, just as illegal immigrants are today.”

        Do Legal immigrants pay less taxes than citizens (if so I can understand the above position. Or maybe you are just in favour of wealth transfers from one class of people to another)?

        1. Free migration is an excellent thing for everyone involved, but only so long as the migration is for positive sum reasons, not, in particular, for welfare.

          1. Just so that I am clear are you proposing that people should contribute more to the system than they can take out of it?

            1. Actually, I would gladly let those ruled ineligible for welfare opt out of paying taxes for welfare.

              1. Not that I’m necessarily opposed, but doesn’t that potentially create an incentive structure where people in high income tax brackets would renounce their citizenship and assume legal immigrant status in order to forfeit a claim to welfare they’d never so they could significantly reduce tax liability?

                1. that they’d never need*

                  1. Man, these exceptions to keep people from receiving welfare just keep getting better and better.

                    Today, people have to renounce their citizenship and move to another country to get out of their onerous tax liability. By the construct you propose, people could renounce their citizenship and stay, meaning the benefits of their productivity remain in the US.

                    1. Sounds good to me. Of course, since we like it I think it’s safe to assume no politician will ever get near it.

      2. You don’t have to drop the welfare state. You simply need to make legal immigrants and their citizen children ineligible for welfare, just as illegal immigrants are today.

        This approach was tried in CA in the early 90s and rejected by the political class as inherantly racist and found unconstitutional by the courts.

        The ultimate outcome?
        Now it is not only against the law to check the immigration status of welfare applicants, but the state has outreach programs to enroll more of them.

    2. This always comes up. They ain’t coming for welfare. Being on welfare isn’t that great. The vast majority of U.S. entitlement spending goes to middle-class, elderly people.

      1. Well if welfare isn’t that great, then nobody will mind when we eliminate it.

        1. Go ahead and eliminate it. It just isn’t going to factor in to a Mexican’s decision to sneak across the border to get a job.

  38. This is what is wrong with the US immigration system.
    http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/perm.cfm

    A permanent labor certification issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) allows an employer to hire a foreign worker to work permanently in the United States. In most instances, before the U.S. employer can submit an immigration petition to the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the the employer must obtain an approved labor certification request from the DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA). The DOL must certify to the USCIS that there are no qualified U.S. workers able, willing, qualified and available to accept the job at the prevailing wage for that occupation in the area of intended employment and that employment of the alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
    http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-1b.cfm


    To hire a foreign worker on an H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 visa, the job must be a professional position that requires, at a minimum, a bachelor’s degree in the field of specialization. The occupation for which the H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 classification is sought must also normally require a bachelor’s degree as a minimum for entry into the occupation. Fashion models of distinguished merit or ability may also apply for the H-1B program.

    Each employer seeking an H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 nonimmigrant has several responsibilities:

    1. The employer shall submit a completed Labor Condition Application (LCA) on Form ETA 9035E or Form ETA 9035 (if special permission is granted) in the manner prescribed by the regulations. By completing and signing the LCA, the employer agrees to several attestations regarding an employer’s responsibilities, including the wages and benefits and working conditions provided to US workers and the nonimmigrant workers.

    1. Note also that it is the Department of Labor which gets to decide if “here are no qualified U.S. workers able, willing, qualified and available to accept the job at the prevailing wage for that occupation in the area of intended employment and that employment of the alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.”.

      So basically you put a government agency whose primary responsibility is protecting the interests of US Labor in charge of deciding who gets to immigrate. Whose side do you think they are going to take????

      For this blindingly obvious reason, it is in fact extremely difficult to get labor certifications approved. It takes YEARS, and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the DOL to approve a labor certification. This make employment sponsorship effectively impossible for all but a very small number of highly skilled workers.

      1. Having navigated this process before, I can tell you that is expensive, mind-numbing, and soul-killing.

        We wanted to bring Costa Rican engineers from our plant in Central America to work long-term (2 years) in our CA facilities for training purposes. The H1-B process was excruciating. Additionally, it really becomes a race to the gate because of the limited number available.

    2. Where do I apply for the Dept of Labor job where you evaluate the “distinguished merit or ability” of fashion models? I assume all the Euro porn stars who work in the Valley also fall under this classification, so that too.

      1. Yeah, I know. It’s sort of like an “Oh and hot chicks can come too” amendment.

        1. Hey! We work long hard hours, bitch! Can you suck chrome offa tailpipe? Do you have endurance to have sex with ugly men who make these laws? We deserve VISAS!

          We think you are envious, plain, dowdy, sexually repressed man and woman!

          1. I wonder which congressman had to be “persuaded” insert that special fashion model provision.

            1. Why does have to be man Congress member? We don’t care who we fuck or lick! But was once one ugly man with nostrils like pig….

  39. Sweet aborted baby Jesus, when the hell did Libertarians turn into “Only racists disagree with me!” zombies? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

    1. These assholes are largely from NYC.

      Which is why they think bailing out wall street is completely libertarian.

      1. Hah!

        God, you are as ignorant as a pack of rocks.

        The vast majority of people here are opposed to the bailouts. In fact, other than Tony, chad and Edward (all of whom are progressive Democrats slumming here), I can’t think of any regulars who actually supported them.

        Keep up with the fact free commentary JoshINHB. It’s really helping us get your true measure.

    2. Don’t worry, WRX. Lyle (the one throwing around the majority of “racist” accusations) isn’t a libertarian, so far as I can tell.

  40. The problems with immigration have all been caused by government.

    First you have the vast amount of money being spent on the welfare state, without keeping such largess for citizens.

    Second, you have massive voting fraud, as laws have encouraged non-citizens to register and vote . . .for the people who keep giving them welfare.

    Third, there is a huge, entrenched bureaucracy whose whole rice bowl comes from the bottlenecks they put in place, making it harder for the people to come here who SHOULD.

    As a result, there are a lot of people who want to come here, most of whom are people we would let in, but their only way to get into the US is to pay coyotes to bring them in.

    If we eliminated the bottlenecks, those people would get visas, and the coyotes would go out of business. The Border Patrol would have few people to try to catch, and most of those would be criminals, smugglers, etc., who couldn’t get visas.

    Myself, I would be happy to swap those other countries, one guy like Freddie Phelps for one guy who wants to feed his family, be productive, and make America stronger.

    The bottom line: We need a STRONG BORDER, with lots of TURNSTILES!

    BTW, Canada sucks. ANY arrest is enough to keep you out, not just a DUI — and their computers list all arrests, but doesn’t mention when there was no prosecution, or an acquittal. Canada assumes that you wouldn’t have been arrested if you weren’t guilty.

    . . .and have you seen the way their truckers drive . . ? I’ve never seen a Mexican trucker drive as bad as the average Canadian . . !

    1. I’m not sure what felony arrest got you barred from Canuckistan, but it’s generally regarded up here that we let pretty much any scuzzbag into Canada. Or if one sneaks in, we can’t get rid of him.

    2. BTW, Canada sucks. ANY arrest is enough to keep you out, not just a DUI — and their computers list all arrests, but doesn’t mention when there was no prosecution, or an acquittal. Canada assumes that you wouldn’t have been arrested if you weren’t guilty.

      Perhaps similar laws should be adopted in the U.S.

  41. ,Second, you have massive voting fraud, as laws have encouraged non-citizens to register and vote . . .for the people who keep giving them welfare

    I’m a cynical son of a bitch but I really don’t think that this is the biggest problem

  42. I’m a cynical son of a bitch but I really don’t think that this is the biggest problem

    I’m glad you can get past your racist blinders, citizen!

    I’m gonna need every vote I can get if My Administration keeps going the way it has been!

  43. This article is absolutly on target. Bravo!

    -Hipertarian in Arizona.

  44. “How DARE you call me a racist!?!”

    “He meant xenophobic *to Brett* you meant xenophobic Brett.”

  45. And then there’s the undocumented money.

    Where are the FICA and Medicare payroll taxes for illegal/undocumented agricultural workers going? Farms are not, in general, cash businesses. Farm owners have to be sending W2’s or 1099’s to the IRS for most of their payroll expenses. Those forms need SSN’s for the payroll recipients.

    Someday there’s going to be a march in Washington DC with 1000’s of people ‘named’ Juan Gomez and Maria Sanchez, with the same SSN, demanding their denied entitlements. They would have a valid complaint.

    I have mixed thoughts about immigration. But it seems clear that the US gov’t is kicking some fundamental accounting down the road to avoid setting a clear immigration policy.

  46. The truth about the origin of Arizona’s racist law – and how it creates a racket for anti-immigration groups’ legal divisions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilKUxWbGQj4

  47. I am Canadian and I worked illegally in California for more than 10 years. I paid all my taxes, as punishing as they were, because I had an old ssn from when I was in college and wanted to do things somewhat legally.

    I went to college in the us, but was not able to get sponsorship to stay and work ? us companies don’t want to go thru the punishing process to sponsor people. So I worked for a few years in Canada and then came back illegally because unfortunately there is no realistic way for a college educated business major to get a work visa for America. Unless you’re a scientist you’re sol.

    Fast forward a few years ? I started a company employing 10 american citizens. I’d say I was doing more than my fair share to help the economy and reduce unemployment. I ended up getting caught, and was deported. So now I have moved my company to singapore, putting Americans out of work. Same thing happened to a friend from Australia, although his issue was a paperwork snafu. The ins screwed up and kicked him out, causing the firing of 20 americans.

    I’m not upset about what happened as I made my decisions and now I have to deal with the consequences. My point is just that the immigration issue is more complex than simply a bunch of brown people running across the border to steal jobs in the kitchens of America. Some of us even create jobs, start companies, and pay taxes (which are a hell of a lot lower in Singapore).

    1. Why aren’t you upset? You should be.

  48. It’s high time to get a handle on illegal immigration. SB 1070 is not about race but the rule of law.
    However we need to hear your opinion at http://immigration.civiltalks.com
    Cast your vote – each comment counts.

  49. It’s high time to get a handle on illegal immigration. SB 1070 is not about race but the rule of law.
    However we need to hear your opinion at http://immigration.civiltalks.com
    Cast your vote – each comment counts.

  50. My problem with this article and with most of the comments is that they ignore the fact that opening our borders and more strictly enforcing the law are not mutually exclusive. Why can’t the feds make it easier to come here legally at the same time that the states crack down on coming here illegally?

    1. Because that would be obvious.

      1. Perhaps if Arizona started a weekly bus convoy to transport illegal’s to wealthy suburbs outside of Washington DC, we might see some solutions. I’m guessing the conversation would change a great deal. It’s one thing to call Arizona lawmakers racist. It’s a whole different ballgame to have thousands of non-English speaking peoples just show up on your doorstep. I’m not anti-immigration but there has to be a more efficient solution then to let the people of Arizona to single handedly pay the enormous costs of what amounts to a refugee situation.

  51. This writer is offering exactly the same solution for illegal immigration that is being STRONGLY offered for the solving of the drug wars/drug problems. Make pot legal=stop associated crimes and

  52. Barack Hussein Obama chuckles at AMERICA
    If YOU PASS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YRS HARD LABOR, YOU PASS THE Barack Hussein Obama AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET SHOT. Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison,Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminalsThere is no immigration allowed in China, India, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey and MOST other countries YOU PASS THE AMERICAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, DRIVER’S LICENSE, ALLOWANCE FOR A PLACE TO LIVE, HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT SO YOU CAN READ A DOCUMENT. WE CARRY PASSPORTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES OR FACE JAIL TIME. REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE!! ((STOP COMMUNIST OBAMA)) THE COMMANDER

    1. Quit spamming, you prick!

  53. TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets ////Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led.” “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.” “All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.” “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise. //////”pelosi don’t see much future for the Americans … it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social hate …obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance … everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it’s half LIES, and the other half RACIAL. How can one expect THE USA to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries… Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit? The media’s justification is apparently “because it’s out there”, truth be damned., GOD OPEN YOUR EYES, Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to enemies INPEACH OBAMA THE COMMUNIST ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT .THE COMMANDER REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE

    1. Your tinfoil hat is showing.

  54. Assuming that you believe the primary sources (the CBO, the SSA, and the NYT) by some estimates up to 75% of illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes and 50%+ pay social security tax. [Even better, if the SSN is stolen, then they pay but don’t withdraw.] Obviously they all pay sales tax.

    Kinda weird to be reading about increasing tax revenue on Reason, but whatever.

  55. The entire illegal immigration issue is the fault of our government. The fact that we’re a welfare-warfare state is to blame. If we got rid of the Federal Reserve, the federal progressive income tax and the war on drug, the polarization between citizens and immigrants would disappear.

    Check out this article from TruthOfering.com for some great info about why the government is to blame:

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

    1. You gotta admit, the logic of blaming the Federal Reserve Act of 1912, the 16th Amendment of 1913, and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 for the subsequent immigration acts of 1917, 1921, and 1924 is pretty convincing!

  56. Without mexican immigration, we are toast. We are not procreating fast enough to sustain our population. Mexicans do. We need them. Let’s get a program going to bring in those with skills and teach them English, while still enforcing immigration laws. Most mexicans are family-loving, Christian, hard working. Let’s get over the bigotry and get on with it.

    1. LOL. Where is your outrage at Mexico’s bigotry and immigration law.

  57. Before I will listen to the argument of anyone on this subject, that person will first have to show me that he or she has a job that is endangered by the fact that an illegal immigrant can come in and do the same job for 1/2 the wage. I don’t believe this writer is in that position.

  58. TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets.///// VERY QUIETLY Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT ;;;GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.
    Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama
    AP – WASHINGTON D.C. –
    In a move certain to fuel the debate over Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that , underMmslim Barack Hussein Obama, the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
    This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama Eligibility Questioned,”Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of citizenshMmslim Barack Hussein Obama,citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…

    LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !

    Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

    While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

    So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

    And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over citizensh Mmslim Barack Hussein Obamaip a rather short and simple one.

    Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

    Conclusion: When Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

    If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

    Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

    Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

    If you Don’t care that Your President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

    If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! the commander

  59. TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets.///// VERY QUIETLY Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT ;;;GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.
    Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama
    AP – WASHINGTON D.C. –
    In a move certain to fuel the debate over Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that , underMmslim Barack Hussein Obama, the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
    This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama Eligibility Questioned,”Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama, dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of citizenshMmslim Barack Hussein Obama,citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…

    LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !

    Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

    While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

    So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

    And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over citizensh Mmslim Barack Hussein Obamaip a rather short and simple one.

    Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

    Conclusion: When Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

    If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

    Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

    Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

    If you Don’t care that Your President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

    If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! the commander

  60. Customer Service – What is it worth to you? You can email us 24×7! Our represnetative. will reply you in 24 hours. You can check our tracking page, and seehttp://www.suprashoesfans.com hundreds of orders which we have delivered.Now you can Google most of http://www.suprashoesfans.comthese other places and see they have histories of not providing products or having terrible customer service.

  61. Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://www.a6rbna.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://www.m-arabi.com

  62. I agree with your position whole-heartedly. The problem is that the US is no longer a country exhibiting rule of law–which is why the 60-70% of Americans in favor of the new law are losing the argument.

  63. There is no reason let illegal immigrants into our country. If they want to live here, then they need to follow the rules just like everone else. Do it leagally.

    motorcycle flag mounts

  64. Your President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff. | ran ??? |

  65. Thank you for sharing your admin would get ready a severely beneficial write-up I congratulate.Great articles Nice postings i really appreciate on your hard workings. Well!! keep going on and try more best as you can really impressive post that you have been done here..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.