Borders

A Losing Immigration Strategy

To say we need more enforcement to seal the border is like saying we should re-invade Iraq.

|

Everyone in Washington is showing new interest in immigration reform. President Barack Obama needs to do something to cement the loyalty of Hispanics, who did so much to re-elect him. Republicans seem to grasp that they had better soften their hard line unless they want to forfeit any hope with Latinos and Asian-Americans.

Both sides also agree that a balanced, two-part approach is in order: stricter enforcement and improved border security on one hand and a pathway to legalization on the other. It's an excellent plan—except for that first part.

To say we need more enforcement to seal the border is like saying we should re-invade Iraq. In the first place, we've already ramped up enforcement in every way imaginable. In the second place, it hasn't solved the problem—and in fact has largely backfired.

We don't need "comprehensive" legislation. What we need is realism: Accept that millions of foreigners are living here illegally and are not going to "self-deport"—and that we (and they) will be better off if they gain the protection of the law.

The draconian measures needed to get rid of them all are no longer politically possible, if they ever were. And they probably wouldn't work anyway.

G.K. Chesterton wrote that "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." Enforcement enthusiasts think the same is true of their preferred option. From them, you would think every migrant sneaking across the Arizona border only had to get by an unarmed attendant sitting in a folding chair and playing Angry Birds on an iPhone.

In fact, the southern border increasingly resembles the Berlin Wall. Border security has become the poster child of big government programs that conservatives typically abhor. It never succeeds, and every failure becomes the rationale for additional funding.

Since 2001, the U.S. Border Patrol budget has tripled. The number of agents, which was about 4,000 in 1992, has ballooned to some 21,000 today. But the number of apprehensions has fallen by two-thirds in the past five years.

Latino voters broke heavily for Obama even though he set records for deporting undocumented migrants. Under him, deportations per month have been more than 50 percent higher than under George W. Bush—and three times higher than under Bill Clinton.

If we haven't solved the illegal immigration problem, it's not for lack of enforcement. We've already done that part of the "comprehensive" approach.

What's it gotten us? The number of undocumented foreigners living here rose steadily until 2008, when the busted economy made America a less alluring destination. It's not fair to say that the illegal population grew in spite of our sternest efforts to reduce it. It's more accurate to say it happened because of those efforts.

In the old days, most people who came illegally didn't stay for long. They showed up, worked for a while and returned home. But when border crossings became more difficult, perilous and expensive, many of them chose to remain in this country permanently rather than leave and risk not being able to get back.

"It was thus a sharp decline in the outflow of undocumented migrants, not an increase in the inflow of undocumented migrants, that was responsible for the acceleration of undocumented population growth during the 1990s and early 2000s, and this decline in return migration was to a great extent a product of U.S. enforcement efforts," wrote Princeton scholars Douglas Massey and Karen Pren in a recent issue of Population and Development Review.

Why we should be reluctant to accept these striving newcomers, who almost invariably work hard and stay out of trouble, is a puzzle. The punitive approach is particularly unfair in the case of those who were brought here as children and have become Americans in all the customary ways, through no fault of their own.

But maybe all the talk about tougher enforcement is just a way for our leaders to cover their shift to an overdue accommodation of the illegal immigrants in our midst.

The choice is not between letting them stay and making them leave: We have already proved that we can't force them out. The choice is between adjusting the law to fit the stubborn facts of life and persisting in measures to make their lives miserable. The latter is a proven loser, in more ways than one.

NEXT: David Petraeus Retains a Lawyer

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. Isn’t Roger Waters quoted as saying The Wall is a metaphor for the need for open borders?

    1. I thought it was a metaphor for shutting up inside after your dirty whore wife screws around, and then something about losing pop to WW2 makes you do heroin and embrace fascism.

      1. Pedantic Alert: They titled it Dark Side of the Moon, but what they really meant was Far Side of the Moon.

        1. “There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it’s all dark.”

  2. We are told there is this RACE problem. We are told this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

    We are told the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    1. The best solution is to have all of your white wymins breed with Asians, blacks, Eskimos and Hispanics. You realize when two recessive genes meet one another in the embrace of miscegenation of two mulattoes the quadroon that results is a ultra-white hybrid who would make a Nazi racialist scientist envious by the resulting aesthetic perfection, and resistance to cancer strains in the subject.

      Embrace hybrid vigor, you stupid mancunt KKKlucker.

      1. interesting that you take the time to analyze but dont listen.

        your solution meets your agenda of “hybrid vigor”, while his goal was continuation of his genes and that of related specimens.

        you project eugenics on someone else, and then pretend it was their idea to begin with.

        wanting your genes (and genes you consider your “in group”) to have a future on this planet is a reasonable desire.

        is there any race which would accept extinction if you volunteered that plan? how about if you presented the offer on a personal level, and not race-wide fate? who is going to take you up on your offer to bang their wife, so you populate her ovum with chromosomes instead of his chromosomes?

        granting each race an inheretance in the future is the fair thing to do.

        The OP has a point about asking all the white nations to be overrun with browns, on an altruistic level. We are not overrunning brown nations and banging all their wimmyn.

        The current influx is not fair to whites. its giving up future for “altruistic” reasons that sacrifice whites own interests.

        its immoral to ask that of someone. cannibalize yourself so that i might live.

      2. would you fault africa for opposing neanderthals invading (“legally”) and impregnated all their women?

        its interesting that we fault a white racist, yet dance on the graves of neanderthals, and would murder a million aliens as if they didnt matter.

        our perception of in-group authorizes us to wage genocide. your in group is just a tad larger to include all known variations within homo sapiens, while his is only white homo sapiens.

        We have neaderthal DNA, i volunteer your wife to be the first vessel of a cloned neanderthals sperm (and phallus). its the altruistic thing to do bro.

    2. You copied/pasted this from a thread yesterday, which is probably copied/pasted from someone’s lame-ass racist blog. Fuck you white rat.

      1. “White Rabbit” was the line of code Dennis Nedry used to disable Jurassic Park’s security systems.

        Quick, somebody check Reason‘s cryogenic stores of dinosaur embryos! HURRY!

        1. Argh – get the backup generators working!

    3. Western governments subsidize the third world governments that ruin their own economies. And we also subsidize city governments in our own counry that ruin thier local economies. We need to stop foreign aid and HUD and then those economies will greatly improve and there will be less for people like you to panic about.

    4. Hasn’t this planet suffered enough at the hands of Northern Europeans and their descendants?

      Look on the bright side. When the white race disappears, nobody will give a shit, because, you know, nobody will be white.

      1. “the white race”

        You believe a melanin level is a “race”?

        Science!

        1. Race is much more than a melanin level. Trained athropologists will be able to tell the race of a skeleton.

      2. Re: Tony,

        Hasn’t this planet suffered enough at the hands of Northern Europeans and their descendants?

        There are no more Norsemen raiding parties, Tony. Get over it.

      3. ‘Cause everyone knows it was Blacks and Mexicans who enabled everyday people to live past age 35.

    5. Re: White Rabbit,

      The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded [sic] than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this [sic] RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders [sic] and quote [sic] assimilating unquote [sic] with [sic] them.

      By the way, what’s a race problem? Is that like Ted Striker’s drinking problem?

      1. Yep. Every time he tries to run a race, he just trips over his own shoelaces.

  3. This past winter I hired my usual contractor to plant 40 acres of tough terrain with pine and wild pecan. He complained to me about the difficulty of getting quality planters because of labor certification and background checks, and that the foreign workers cant have significant family already here ( I think I remember that correctly ). He feared that he would not be able to continue in that business.

    After the saplings were ready he and a dozen workers from Guatamala and El Salvador hit it hard. They planted the 40 in 6 hours. They were tramping up and down steep hills, wading through swampy creek bottoms and plowing through chest high briars. This is all done on foot, by hand, swinging a planters tool that closely resembles a pick axe and carrying bundles of seedlings on their backs, some weighing nearly 100 lbs.. I used to be able to do it myself, but as you might have already guessed, it is not an old man’s game. None of the planters were over 30, and you almost never see one that is.

    1. Between the cost of the trees, the contractors price, and a hefty tip for each planter the whole job cost me around 5k. That was the third time I had hired that contractor, and if he stays in the business I will continue to use him. He is affordable, wastes no trees, and as far as I can tell every planted sapling lives.

      Some time back I was pumping gas and noticed a truck with a tree planter’s sign on it. I found the guy inside buying an icee and chatted him up. He is a local, an american, and all of his planters are locals. I gave him a rough description of what I needed tree-wise and planting-wise. I asked for a rough estimate on the price.
      He wanted 10k for the trees and 10k for the planting. He also assured me that he and his planters could finish the job in under 3 weeks with good weather. He gave me his card and a price list for trees. I thanked him very much and took off. A few hundred yards down the road I tossed his card out of the window.

    2. This Summer is the first one where I had a third party do major work this time roofing on one of my properties. I’m in great shape still, but I’m now at the age where, fuck it, let someone else do it. The contractor was a second generation American whose parents had moved here in the late fifties, and had him later in the mid seventies. Did such a good job at a reasonable price I bought mum a roof as well. If I’m counting correctly, I’m about an 11th generation white Hispanic, myself.

      1. Only 11th? Damn furrener.

        1. But, but, dad only spoke Spanish when he was drunk which was a lot of the time, but surely not the worst way to learn it.

          I even slur my own last name because of his influence!

          More seriously, the few remaining older Isle?os speak a Spanish accent that is archaic and more dead than Brahmin Boston. So when I’m asked why I don’t speak Spanish, I answer, well I did, but it sounded weird to any native speaker I spoke to, so I’ve pretty much lost it altogether.

          1. Islenos sounded familiar….so I looked it up. A bunch settled in louisiana. I ran across a family of them once. I heard them speaking to each other and could not for the life of me recognize the language. I asked about it but they only said it was their language…they didnt know where it came from. It wasnt indian, spanish, or french, but probably a combination of all of those. They live in the swamps south of Krotz Springs in the atchafalaya basin, which is a BIG fucking swamp. The community is scattered and very isolated so over time I am sure their language has evolved.

            For many years I have puzzled over who they were and what language they were speaking. I think you just solved the mystery for me. Thanks Killaz.

          2. Killaz, to clarify, are you of Canarian descent?

            1. Yup.

              1. Direct, or did your ancestors make a stop in Latin America along the way?

      2. “mum”?

        You can’t possibly be American… or hispanic for that matter.

        1. That’s short for Mumsie Woo Woo. I have mentioned before the woman is crazy and she thinks she is a dragon lady of Asian decent.

          1. Best. Mum. Ever.

    3. Once we get rid of all these dirty illegals we can put hard working low skilled americans to work in your field… them and those lazy single mother welfare queens.

      1. “…..them and those lazy single mother welfare queens.”

        Dont forget their children as well. I can sit in my ATV polishing my monocle and yell commands for faster work at the children with a loudspeaker.

        1. Plus, their tiny fingers and short bodies are great for planting saving you money by not having to by needless tools.

          1. True. Once the work is done, just throw the dirt in on top of them. No fertilizer or other monetary expenses needed.

    4. Why do you want your terrain planted with trees?

      I should think cleared land area is more useful to both build on and farm.

      Unless you are planning to harvest it for lumber, but I can’t see pecan being a great wood for that.

  4. As a general rule of thumb, whatever Chapman blathers on about, I’m vehemently opposed to.

    1. Great. Now scurry away.

      1. Is someone still a little butthurt from the immigration thread over the weekend?

        1. Not at all. Immigration threads are the ones I usually participate on the most having firsthand knowledge of the subject myself.

          Now, did you have an argument against anything Chapman said in this article or are you here just to look like an ass?

          1. So you are butthurt. I weep for you.

            1. I should be butthurt by your arguments that “teh illegalz are voting fer democratz”?

          2. Where’s the comment you made relevant to the article or are you here just to have an ass contest with UBOR?

            1. You’re just sad you only made runner-up to UBOR.

              1. Feel like all those years of training have been wasted.

              2. As a wise man once told me: practice, practice, practice.

                On second thought, he wasn’t that wise.

    2. Chapman is NOT a libertarian, just look at his prior articles, like the one about how culture has nothing to do with economic growth, it’s all free-markets.[1] Or the one about how the fed should pursue inflationary policies.[2]
      1. https://reason.com/archives/201…..me-culture
      2. https://reason.com/archives/201…..ight-money

      1. I think we all agree that at best he is the cosmopolitan libertarian version of Meghan McCain.

        1. maybe cosmopolitan-drinking.

  5. On the front page the man is holding a sighn that reads “We work hard, we pay taxes”. To be honest, sir, I wish you did NOT pay taxes to the criminals who oppress us. The less money our oppressors who claim to represent us in Washington, DC have, the better. But I do support your right to cross an incisible line to find a better paying job.

  6. We don’t need “comprehensive” legislation. What we need is realism: Accept that millions of foreigners are living here illegally and are not going to “self-deport”?and that we (and they) will be better off if they gain the protection of the law.

    The draconian measures needed to get rid of them all are no longer politically possible, if they ever were. And they probably wouldn’t work anyway.

    Fuck off, Chapman. Importing millions of third worlders worsesns life for the average American in every way possible.

    1. Importing? Like they are chattle? How does having someone who is actually willing to do jobs that most Americans are unwilling to do in the country “worsesn life for the average American in every way possible.” How much are you willing to pay for a bottle of ketchup or orange juice?

      1. “How much are you willing to pay for a bottle of ketchup or orange juice?”

        Not to mention blow jobs down at motel.

      2. How does having someone who is actually willing to do jobs that most Americans are unwilling to do in the country

        Are libertarians this simple minded? For stewards of the FREE MARKET, you sure don’t really understand how this stuff works. The free market would adjust wages and working conditions upward until Americans were willing to work those jobs, and/or technology would be developed to automate the process. It’s like arguing that we need slaves because THAT COTTON AIN’T GONNA PICK ITSELF.

        How much are you willing to pay for a bottle of ketchup or orange juice?

        If we only had slave labor, we could have those goods for even cheaper. Tell me more, libertarian-san. (OR MAYBE THE MARKET’S SELF-CORRECTING MECHANISMS WOULD ADJUST PRICES TO FIT SUPPLY AND DEMAND AS NECESSARY.)

        1. “The free market would adjust wages and working conditions upward until Americans were willing to work those jobs, and/or technology would be developed to automate the process.”

          If you restrict who may or may not be employed you don’t even have a free market. And these people would be better able to leave their jobs and complain about working conditions if they did not have to worry about being deported.

          “If we only had slave labor, we could have those goods for even cheaper.”

          Slavery is a violation of the non-aggression principle and is thus anathema to libertarians. But slavery-like conditions can exist if people are afraid of leaving or complaining because they fear deportation.

          1. If you restrict who may or may not be employed you don’t even have a free market.

            Nice sidestep, bro.

            And these people would be better able to leave their jobs and complain about working conditions if they did not have to worry about being deported.

            But you just said that the ability to pay them low, low wages was one of the benefits.

            1. “Nice sidestep, bro.”

              Do you disagree with my statement that restricting who or may not be employed violates free market principles?

              “But you just said that the ability to pay them low, low wages was one of the benefits.”

              No, that is NOT what I said. Being able to pay them what the market will bear is one of the benefits. Again, how much are you willing to pay for ketchup or orange juice? This is an important question for someone producing ketchup or orange juice.

              1. Do you disagree with my statement that restricting who or may not be employed violates free market principles?

                Do you or do you not disagree that the free market–or even the not-entirely-but-relatively-free market–automatically increases wages and working conditions in order to attract labor, yes or no?

                1. “Do you or do you not disagree that the free market–or even the not-entirely-but-relatively-free market–automatically increases wages and working conditions in order to attract labor, yes or no?”

                  That depends upon how much relative freedom there is left. Right now, we have very little freedom in our country. In the medical field your question would be phrased thusly: “Do you or do you not disagree that the human body ?even a human body suffering from both cancer and AIDS–automatically tries to repair itself and bring itself back to health, yes or no?”

              2. Yes, I do disagree. A free market merely means prices are allowed to fluctuate in response to supply and demand. It’s not a guarantee any particular commodity will be made available to you.

                1. Wrong. Seriously, you thought you’d be able to pull that definition out of your ass and nobody would call you on it?

                  “A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where BUYERS AND SELLERS ARE ALLOWED TO TRANSACT FREELY (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or REGULATION.”

                  http://www.investopedia.com/te…..z2CgTQUDO0

                  1. That still doesn’t guarantee a specific commodity will be available. In your definition of a free market, will I be able to buy slaves? If not, it’s not really a free market, is it?

                    1. Of course it doesn’t. It doesn’t guarentee time machines, but the availability for goods in existence so long as there is a demand for it.

                      Slaves? Really? That’s the best you got? Buying and selling slaves involves COERSION of… human slaves. Something that is obviously against the free market, but of course you already knew that, right?

                    2. Horseshit. Your definition only states an agreement needs to be reached by the buyer and the seller. The consent of the commodity itself isn’t required.

                    3. “The consent of the commodity itself isn’t required.”

                      What the hell does this even mean?

                      The free market requires the free movement of goods, services, and labor your moron. It’s not ‘my’ definition. It’s THE definition.

                      If the US government restricts or bans trading a good, service, or (in this case) labor, you cannot have a free market in said good, service, or labor as it has been restricted or banned by the government.

                    4. The only way your argument pans out is in the paradoxical situation where a person voluntarily sells himself into slavery, in which case it’s difficult to determine whether what transacted actually constituted slavery or not.

              3. The problem here is that Question of auban is applying free-market theory to the legitimacy of illegals being here.

                We dont want to apply free-market principles to foreign nationals. we want to create a system that functions for us. which means we have to dictate the rules.

                anything that operates outside our jurisdiction is something we must accept we cannot control. we cant worry about how much tea is consumed in china per capita.

                its corollary is that we cant let rogues invade and break up our systems. we must have sovereignty and self determination.

                give me the strength to change what i can and serenity to accept the things i cannot change.

                illegal immigration destroys that.

                end illegal immigration, and THEN apply free-market.

                free-market with porous borders is like cell osmosis in biology. everything will balance out. standard of living, liberty, happiness, crime. when you have a porous border with a dictatorship neighbor, you are importing tyranny and exporting liberty by having an open border with them.

      3. Its the logic of cartelization. If you want to control the price of a good/commodity/service, including of an hour’s labor, you have to control the whole market and not allow any competitors to undercut you.

      4. Doubling the cost of farm labor would only add about a dime to the cost of produce. Paying a wage than an American can actually live on like an American is the right thing to do. bringing in hordes of 3rd world savages to live 15 to a house is harmful to all Americans.

        1. “Doubling the cost of farm labor would only add about a dime to the cost of produce.”

          And just think about how little that is when you divide that dime by every produce buying American. We can certainly do this one.

        2. Doubling the cost of farm labor would only add about a dime to the cost of produce.

          I’m sure no lolberts will contest this.

        3. Paying a wage than an American can actually live on like an American is the right thing to do.

          That’s right. The “Living American Wage” requires enough money to budget for Cheetos and Budweiser and at least weekly pizza delivery.

          Plus you have to take into account that Americans need a certain amount of leisure time to surf the internet and watch reality TV, so no weekend hours and it has to include a budget for basic cable and internet.

          1. Why does anyone want a living wage, anyway? The working class should live in hovels so that the glorious master investment class can prosper.

          2. That American wages are inflated to a point where Americans are priced out of certain segments of the job market is an indictment of price controls and distortion in the labor market. Illegal immigrants being illegal is rather the point of the entire exercise – it’s a way of dodging those distortions. It’s not particularly useful to say that Americans are lazy cunts or immigrants are hard working taxpayers. Neither is really true, at least not in the universal emotional sense that the people offering such conjecture convey. Rather it’s merely an economic reality resulting from poor policy.

    2. Fuck off, shit-head. Reality doesn’t mold itself to your inane chatter.

      1. Reality doesn’t mold itself to lolbertarianism, either.

        1. Please tell me when you finally understand what libertarianism actually is.

          1. Applied autism.

            1. Obvious troll is obvious, and yet still gets fed.

              And some people think libertarians are selfish. Is it selfish to feed a hungry troll?

              1. Playing with trolls can be fun. This one is a barrell of monkeys

            2. So in other words you have no clue.

    3. Re: Rick Santorum,

      Importing millions of third worlders worsesns life for the average American in every way possible.

      Yes, Chapman, heed Satorum’s warning! Just look what happened from 1870 to 1910! I mean, all those European 3rd worlders just made the US much poorer! Why, if it weren’t for them, the U.S. would’ve had enough money to squander in WWI and we would have cars and trains and buildings….

      … Oh, wait….

      1. Bacause everyone knows we have a shortage of unskilled labor. We need to build cars and trains and buildings, and we don’t have machines to do those things. We also have a desperate shortage of welfare recipients.

        … Oh, wait….

        1. How do you know when you have a shortage or what you have a shortage of? That’s the primary failure of central planning – the information problem.

          The only thing that makes our current immigration predicament much different than from 1870 to 1910 is that from 1870 to 1910 we had no welfare state. The welfare state introduces such massive market distortions that the labor market becomes dysfunctional. Otherwise though, you can’t have too many or too few immigrants – the market will figure out what to do with the excess labor.

          1. “the market will figure out what to do with the excess labor.”
            Bullshit. The market won’t have use for these people anymore, that is the future. Just imagine when we have self-driving cars, how many people that will put out of work. And it is easy to tell if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, it’s called the wage. If there is a shortage of unskilled labor than the wage would be rising. It’s not.

  7. Why we should be reluctant to accept these striving newcomers, who almost invariably work hard and stay out of trouble, is a puzzle.

    Because these “striving newcomers” are what made California the basketcase that it is today.

    No thanks.

    1. As someone who actually lives in California, I’m just gonna say you’re a moron if you think Hispanics are solely to blame for the mess our current state is in. And while our state deserves the flack it gets, I think way too many people in other states need to get off their high horses. You guys (and the country itself) are not too far behind

      1. “solely to blame”
        This is why you’re an Stupid-Head. Whenever someone points out something bad, you assume that they think said bad thing is responsible for every wrong imaginable, and then you think you’ve won the arguement when you point out that it’s not. Fuck you.

        1. He didn’t say Hispanics are only partly to blame. He said they are the ones who made California the basket case that it is. And it’s mostly not true. Latinos were 22% of the electorate in California this year and that’s an all time high.

          Btw, stupid head? Really? And go fuck yourself you racist piece of shit. Take your “Real American” act to Stormfront

          1. You think it’s “mostly not true that hispanics made California the way it is.” And you live there? The hispanics, along blacks and Asians make up the majority of democratic voters in that fine state. No, their not the SOLE REASON why California sucks. The GOP in that state was very incopetent, and many whites also vote democrat. To give you an example of why you’re a Stupid-Head, say you were to say that smoking causes lung cancer. Then I said that because lung cancer can happen to people who don’t smoke, that proves that smoking is harmless. See the logical fallacy there? Take your “all races are the same in every way” act back to The Nation.

      2. Giving away this great nation, which is our birthright, to foreign invaders is not the legacy our children deserve.

        altruism should never squelch duty, nor deprive a person of their fair pursuit of happiness.

        letting illegals invade is a major strain on our own poor, who cant negotiate to do unpleasant jobs, cuz they are getting undercut by ppl who are basically refugees.

        stop asking your fellow countrymen to compete with slaves.

        stop putting the interests of foreign national slaves ahead of your fellow americans.

        your sense of loyalty is astounding. why should anyone care if your life is taken or rights deprived? you dont give a fuck about the rest of us. it would be just if you were robbed and beaten to death while a minimum wage security guard, instead of paying attention and helping, ate a popsicle he purchased with food stamps.

        dont be an asshole and sell out the poor to foreign invaders. i guess they do deserve it tho, they vote for freebies. but was the egg first or the chicken?

  8. “almost invariably work hard”

    It feels like we’re almost halfway to invariably working hard.

  9. This past winter I hired my usual contractor to plant 40 acres of tough terrain with pine and wild pecan. He complained to me about the difficulty of getting quality planters because of labor certification and background checks, and that the foreign workers cant have significant family already here ( I think I remember that correctly ). He feared that he would not be able to continue in that business.

    I’m certain there a thousands of out-of-work mortgage brokers who would leap at the chance to do this work. And Twinkie bakers.

    1. “I’m certain there a thousands of out-of-work mortgage brokers who would leap at the chance to do this work. And Twinkie bakers.”

      Not given the option of never ending unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other welfare goodies you’d probably find former mortgage brokers and Twinkie bakers to be “almost invariably” working hard at whatever they can get also.

      1. absent endless govt bennies and reasonable pay for the work, staffing is much less difficult than some want to pretend.

      2. ^This^

        The reason no Americans work these jobs is that we’ll pay them to sit at home instead.

    2. What and give up their place in the dole queue? I doubt it.

      If the Hostess unionistas were willing to take a reasonable wage, they’d still be employeed. Luckily for them, you’re still willing to pay them to do nothing.

      1. I Am. Not. Willing!

        /shakes fist in impotent rage

    3. “I’m certain there a thousands of out-of-work mortgage brokers who would leap at the chance to do this work. And Twinkie bakers.”

      I forgot to mention, the hill country in louisiana is rife with rattlers, especially where the land is cleared of trees and brush has grown up. Doubly especially in the fall when the grass/brush seeds provide ample food for rats and mice and rabbits, you know, tree planting season. Not rattlers like any of you who are westerners are used to, but eastern diamondbacks that get up to 9 feet long.
      Try googling ‘giant rattlesnake’ to see what I mean. When it is cool they can be grouchy bastards too. (They are also quite delicious )

      Yes, I am sure the twinkie bakers would leap at the chance.

      1. No thanks – time at Fort Polk had me swear off LA countryside. Forever.

        Oh, and the snakes and large … things that scared the shite out of a couple of our soldiers when down for Katrina.

  10. sure Steve,
    let’s accept that immigration law is meaningless. What other laws would you like to ignore, since things happen and all?

    1. Like, say, drug laws?

      1. The fugitive slave act would probably have gone on the list as well.

    2. Re: wareagle,

      What other laws would you like to ignore, since things happen and all?

      How about:

      Gun ownership restriction laws?
      Income tax laws?
      All laws derived from the so-called “interstate commerce clause”?
      Speed limit laws?
      Licensing laws?
      Zoning laws?
      Drug use prohibition laws?
      Blue code laws?

      I mean, the list of stupid laws can be quite big. Do you have any to contribute yourself, or do you want to give the work to Chapman only?

      1. I think the point was that you don’t generally see libertarians lobbying to have tax scofflaws given an amnesty or ticketed speeders having their penalties thrown out.

        One other intricacy of immigration that makes it somewhat different from the other laws you mention is that it DOES have a legitimate function – namely, keeping criminals, folks with communicable diseases, and terrorist assholes out of the country so that they don’t endanger people and violate their rights. Just saying “Fuck it, make ’em legal!” and foregoing that traditional process opens up the field to a lot of dudes you probably don’t want as your next door neighbor.

  11. In the old days, most people who came illegally didn’t stay for long. They showed up, worked for a while and returned home. But when border crossings became more difficult, perilous and expensive, many of them chose to remain in this country permanently rather than leave and risk not being able to get back.

    Thisis the exact same thing I have been saying for not enough times. Immigrant workers do not really want to stay in the U.S. because they miss the flavor of their native country. Those that stay, usually do after forming a family here (“would you want your daughter to be married to one?”).

    But with the siege mentality driving immigration policy today, almost as if the result was intended, immigrants now found it necessary to risk bringing their entire family into the U.S., exacerbating the cultural divide between immigrants and regular Americans who have assimilated by marriage or partnering.

    Whose fault is this? BOTH PARTIES. The Repubs want to be seen as tough on immigration and the Dems love the restrictive policies because a) they can fool the new immigrants into believing the Dems are their only friends and b) they keep the Unions happy.

    1. “they miss the flavor of their native country”
      Nothing like 50,000 dead civilians, a shitty education system, a corrupt police force, and no free food stamps.

  12. “The number of agents, which was about 4,000 in 1992, has ballooned to some 21,000 today. But the number of apprehensions has fallen by two-thirds in the past five years.”
    You would think that if it would be totally successfull, the number of aprehensions would fall to 0. This is the logical equivilant of measuring the success of a long-term policing strategy by the number of people arrested.
    “In the old days, most people who came illegally didn’t stay for long. They showed up, worked for a while and returned home.”
    Or were focrefully sent home. In the fifties, millions of immigrants were deported. In addition, those “old days” were before the welfare state offered a these goodies to illegal women and children. Who wouldn’t take the opportunities offered by food stamps, American education, subsidized housing, American police, ect.
    “who almost invariably work hard and stay out of trouble, is a puzzle”
    Actually, immigrants are more likely to commit crime and be on welfare than the native born.(Anyone seriously going to challenge me on this?) Someone needs to look up the definition of “invariably.”
    “has ballooned to some 21,000 today”
    That doesn’t sound like much compared to the 70,000 troops we have in europe. After all are we a nation or not? Doesn’t a nation have borders? We have 300,000,000 people. (cont in reply)

  13. “We have already proved that we can’t force them out.”
    No, we haven’t. We haven’t done nearly what we could to force them out. One thing would make a great deal of them self-deport, actually punishing companies that hire them.
    Now we have to ask ourselves why we are the one of the last free-market nations in the world. Why are we one of the richst countries in the world. Why are we one of the last bastions of free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms? Is it something about our unique culture? And is that culture worth preserving? Most other nations in the world are socialist, should we just give these other nation’s our land, our government, our selves? Why is Mexico so corrupt? Why will Mexico transplanted to America look any different? These are questions open borders libertarians need to answer.

    1. Why is Mexico so corrupt? Why will Mexico transplanted to America look any different?

      This needs to be branded onto the skulls of every single open borders advocate.

  14. Hey, Tony, you there? I need your help. Could you please explain to these people how advocacy of the free market is racist? You know, how it perpetuates white privilage, it enables racist employers to discriminate, it creates inequality which is responsible for racism. You do it better than me. I’m just so sick of hearing these people repeat your arguements against me when I protest mass immigration of third-world socialists.

    1. All good bullet points. The main problem is a laissez-faire government does nothing to solve entrenched social inequities, which will simply perpetuate themselves generation after generation.

      In our society economic power is divided along racial lines, creating a vicious cycle of minority poverty and white resentment of minorities who blame them for their poverty and the resulting social ills.

      1. The main problem is a laissez-faire government does nothing to solve entrenched social inequities

        You’re a shithead. It’s not the government’s duty to bully whites into conforming to your social attitudes.

        In our society economic power is divided along racial lines, creating a vicious cycle of minority poverty and white resentment of minorities who blame them for their poverty and the resulting social ills.

        Fuck off. The free market creates opportunities for everyone to succeed. Your social programs have created an entitlement mentality among minorities and have resulted in vast social decay. Do you think that perhaps a 70% illegitimacy rate among blacks might have something to do with their poverty? Or is it just those racist white privilege-havers?

        1. “Entitlement mentality”

          What does this mean exactly? What about being black or Latino makes one inherently more likely to want to be a layabout moocher?

          See you can’t explain the racial disparity in economic power without invoking either my argument or a racist argument, as you have done. It’s not generational disadvantage that causes the social ills and current inequity, it’s something within their moral character or genes.

          1. What does this mean exactly? What about being black or Latino makes one inherently more likely to want to be a layabout moocher?

            I already told you: your terrible Great Society programs have enabled this mindset. It’s why OBAMA’S GONNA PAY MY MORTGAGE exists.

            See you can’t explain the racial disparity in economic power without invoking…a racist argument.

            See you can’t explain why Obama is a bad president without invoking a racist argument. Checkmate, bigots.

            1. Obama created the Great Society programs?

              Why is poverty higher among blacks? Answer that without invoking racism, if you can.

          2. What about being black or Latino makes one inherently more likely to want to be a layabout moocher?

            Nothing. The problem is that our entrenched social inequalities mean that blacks are more likely to rely on welfare, (latinos I don’t think so), which means they’re more likely to grow up with an entitlement mentality.

            If the whites were poor and the blacks were rich, the situation would be reversed.

            The point is that the entitlement society does nothing to address inequalities, rather, it reinforces them by disincentivizing the kind of behaviors that would lead to greater social mobility.

            Once a person is on welfare or disability for any length of time they start to lose work habits and skills. Nevermind if they grow up in a family where nobody has adequate social skills or work habits in the first place.

            It take a lot of hard work to go from poverty to relative welath, and if you give people an easy path to just having a minimal income that doesn’t require any work, a lot of people will opt in favor of that.

            it’s just EASIER to be on welfare than it is to spent years working on a degree, developing social skills, learning how to behave as a professional, building social and business contacts and saving and scrimping money to acquire property and build capital.

            Why bother if you can just get a monthly check and live in a project and watch TV all day?

          3. Remember the experiment someone did about the children being unable to resist eating a marshmallow now, when they were promised 3 marshmallows in the future if they waited 15 minutes?

            When oyu are poor, it becomes very hard to put off spending in the now in order to save money for the future. Yes, being poor sucks, which is why so many poor people immediately blow every paycheck on booze. You have to do something to enjoy life.

            It’s HARD to put away money that you could be spending to improve your shitty life RIGHT NOW. Even if your shitty life will be improved much more by saving up to buy a reliable vehicle so you can get to a job on time. Likewise saving up money for a down payment on a house, so you don’t have to rent, or studying on your homework now, instead of playing a video game.

            A lot of people need that threat of death behind them to get them to make the leap to self-sufficiency. Cause it’s just easier to not try too hard if you know that there’s a safety net waiting to catch you. it gives people an excuse to fail, when they already are inclined to think they are destined to fail, so why spend the time money and heartache on a doomed effort?

            1. Your theory is not inherently racist, at least, but it does need some proving. I’m not inclined to believe people choose to be on welfare in lieu of other opportunities, but that the opportunities don’t exist enough (a four-year degree in this country is out of most people’s price range).

              1. Yes, your theory needs proving because Tony doesn’t instinctively believe it to be true. Tony’s theory, of course, is self-evidently true, because Tony instinctively believes it to be true.

            2. i think its highly unlikely to stumble across a human who starved to death, sitting next to his food storage.

              If you are dead you cant spend your $. If you think you might die soon, you will blow your $.

              i think its human genius to not save $, not wastefulness.

              it only becomes wastefulness when the social structure becomes so stable that you can plan in advance. A necessity in the winter in white europe.

              what black civilization has ever had an environmental factor that molded evolution towards self-discipline, forecasting, self-restraint? why does aids blow up in africa?

  15. what is often left out of any kind of comprehensive immigration reform is the need to reform legal immigration, and give those people who would otherwise come into this country illegally more options. otherwise, even if you dod a mass amnesty or whatever, it’s just a matter of time before you’re right back where you started.

    1. *i’m pretty sure “dod” isn’t a word. ignore the second “d” and let’s move on with our lives.

    2. it’s just a matter of time before you’re right back where you started.

      This is pretty easily confirmed by observing the results of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the accompanying amnesty of ~3 million illegal immigrants, compared to the estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants present today, a mere 26 years later.

  16. What does it say about a policy when its experiencing ad hominem attacks itself?

    This article doesnt say its wrong to close the borders and enforce the law, it says the policy is a losing strategy.

    Since when does a leftist feel put out when their opponents run unpopular platforms? Are we to assume chapman is outed and this is a full-on faux machination?

    republicans want slave workers, dems want slave voters. chapman is pushing establishment by favoring immigration. the middle class, and patriots in general, want the law enforced. the variations on how strict are the only disagreements. establishment WONT do what is agreed on by the vast majority, cuz they want their modern day slaves.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.