Shikha Dalmia In the Washington Examiner on GOP's Border Obsession

The comprehensive immigration reform bill that the Senate passed a week ago with plans to spend a whopping $46 billion on "securing the border" over 10 years is now before the House where Republicans remain committed to torpedoing it after they return from recess on Monday. As far as they are concerned, the bill doesn't go far enough in shooing away Mexicans who break their backs so that Americans can eat cheap apples and poultry and live in McMansions. They want proof positive that the border is "fully secure" before they will agree to anything resembling "amnesty" for unauthorized workers in the country.

But Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia says in the Washington Examiner today that the Republican obsession with total border security, regardless of cost, resembles the liberal obsession with a totally pristine environment, money no object. However, she notes:

In a world of finite resources, spending more on harmless unauthorized workers means spending less on genuine criminals, hardly a recipe for making America safe. This is the same illogic that enviros deploy when they waste billions to scrub superfund sites to make the dirt edible by children — instead of prioritizing cleanup dollars to fight genuine health threats.

Go here to read the whole thing.

Comments

[SIV]

The comprehensive immigration reform bill that the Senate passed a week ago with plans to spend a whopping $46 billion on "securing the border" over 10 years is now before the House where Republicans remain committed to torpedoing it

Those evil House Republicans don't want to spend $46 billion.

Progressive-Shikha is sad.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Did you actually read the article or does your knee jerk at the mere sight of Shikha's name in the byline?

The comprehensive immigration reform that the Senate passed last week would, thanks to Republican insistence, increase border security spending by a whopping $46.3 billion over the next 10 years.

This is nine times more than originally proposed. And coming on top of the $90 billion already spent on border security in the last decade, it mocks Republican calls for austerity.

[SIV]

Every Senator, Democrat or Republican who voted for the bill supported the $46.3 in border security. Most Republican Senators opposed the bill.

How is that "Republican insistence"?
The fucking Democrats control the Senate.

[Heroic Mulatto]

So you're arguing that the impetus for the increased border security (with requisite payola to the arms industry) came from the Democrats?

What parallel Earth do you hail from and what is Superman's origin story there?

[SIV]

The Democrats and a few token Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake.

Are you seriously arguing the Democrats oppose spending an extra $46 Billion and creating a bunch of new federal jobs but allowed it in the bill anyways in order to get 2 less Republican votes than they expected?

Shikha is blaming the Republicans who opposed the bill for what is in it. By that logic Obamacare is "all the Republicans" fault too.

[Heroic Mulatto]

I don't see where in the article Dalmia advocates for the passage of this law, much less blaming the Republicans for opposing it. What she's arguing is that the Republicans criticisms of the bill are the wrong argument against it, and instead of focusing on the border security problems that the bill doesn't address, the Republicans should be focusing their criticism on Big Union inspired nonsense in the bill, like E-Verify and lack of a meaningful guest worker program.

Again, I have to ask, did you read the article?

[Cytotoxic]

Why even ask? You know monkey-AIUDS just sees Dalmia and/or immigration and immediately goes into HUR DUR overdrive.

[SIV]

If you don't realize Shikha is fully supporting the current comprehensive reform effort you haven't been following the story.

[Pro Libertate]

I dunno, seems pretty simple to me. The Democrats want more people to vote for them. The Republicans want more people to vote for them. Both want cheap labor, end of the day, regardless of what they say.

[Pro Libertate]

Which is why the Democrats want them all to be voters, since they're either low or total shit income, for the most part, and the Republicans want them just to stay illegal and cheap. At some point, we stopped really going after illegals, and that's been true regardless of which party was in power.

The security stuff is nonsense, as our huge border and very large, free-moving population makes any security of that nature unobtainable. If I recall correctly, every single one of the 9/11 hijackers was here legally.

[Heroic Mulatto]

If I recall correctly, every single one of the 9/11 hijackers was here legally.

Yes, but they weren't here taking American Jobs (TM), and that's what matters.

[Pro Libertate]

That's another red herring. We all want them to do our shit labor, like picking strawberries and watermelons for Mr. Majestyk.

The obvious solution to this is robots. Lots and lots of robots to do shit labor, 24/7/365.

[Hash Brown]

But what happens when some Proggie decides that robots have rights?

[Pro Libertate]

Easily avoided by programming robots to think libertarian.

[Heroic Mulatto]

The obvious solution to this is robots. Lots and lots of robots to do shit labor, 24/7/365

I have to say, it works for Japan (kinda).

[Pro Libertate]

Sure, in factories. But what we need are field robots and construction robots.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Great! Just what we need, a return to that Field Robot/House Robot shit.

[Pro Libertate]

I've figured out how to keep robots happy in their servitude. In the real world, the robot does the work. However, they are programmed to think they are doing something else entirely, so that their sentient brain is happy. So to speak. So when you see your robot washing the dishes, the robot sees itself fucking two hot young robots.

Win, win.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Which Wachowski sibling are you?

[Pro Libertate]

I'm not talking about a movie. I'm talking about happy robots. Hapbots.

[Fatty Bolger]

Pretty much. They all entered legally, a few overstayed on expired visas.

[Pro Libertate]

Point is, no wall would've stopped them. Not even one with flamethrowers.

[Hawk Spitui]

In a sane world that might open the question of how much we really need even legal immigration. Somehow I'm not holding my breath for topic to be put on the table.

[Cytotoxic]

In a sane world anyone who tried to use TERROR as a point of argument for limiting immigration would be shouted down and ostracised.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Who the hell are you to tell me that I (or anyone else) can't live with my foreign-born wife here?

In a sane world, petty tyrants who attempt to curb my liberty, such as who I can choose to be my mate, would die by my hand, from two slugs to the chest and one to the forehead.

[Hawk Spitui]

Perhaps your time might be more productively spent teaching your strawman to sing "If I Only Had A Brain".

Nobody is telling you who you can choose for a mate. But the right to choose a mate and the right to preempt a country's immigrration laws are not the same thing. You have a right to any mate you want. You don't necessarily have the right to bring them here. This isn't exactly an unprecedented situation.

[Calidissident]

"You have a right to any mate you want. You don't necessarily have the right to bring them here."

Um, what right do you have to tell him he can't?

[tarran]

Ah yes, the Tulpa argument.

I believe it's called argumentum a stultitia.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Umm...no. If you say you can marry anyone you wish, but certain spouses are not allowed to live with you in this country, you're creating a disincentive to foreign marriage.

Again, what right do you have to determine who can live in my household or not?

[Hawk Spitui]

Since when is it the government's obligation to facilitate foreign marriages? You wanting to get married in no way obligates government to relax or suspend other laws to facilitate it. If you want to marry a convicted felon, knock yourself out. But that doesn't obligate government to release your spouse from prison for your convenience.

If you were planning to keep your spouse in your household then it isn't anyone else's business. Unfortunately, your spouse isn't likely to stay in your house all the time, and that being the case, it's very much a public concern whether your imported spouse is going to be an additional burden on the public fisc, or is carrying an infectious disease, or is a threat to public safety. Like it or not, when your private choices have public impacts, they legitimately become objects of public concern. Deal.

[tarran]

My Gad!

Hawk's right!

Last week some dirty New Mexicans moved in next door! What infectious diseases might they have brought over from Albuquerque?

You truly are a man of dazzling intellect sir!

[MWG]

EXTERNALITIES!!!!11!!!

[Calidissident]

Where did he say the government has an obligation to facilitate foreign marriage? Wanting the government to stay out of the way is not the same thing as wanting them to facilitate it

[Brandon]

In a world of finite resources, spending more on harmless unauthorized workers means spending less on genuine criminals, hardly a recipe for making America safe.

It's the "Finite resources" part that both R's and D's refuse to acknowledge. There are still proles out there with money, so the government is not out of resources yet. For safety!

[Heroic Mulatto]

In a world of finite resources,

Uh oh, Bailey and his Kornucopian Krew are going to have to have a little talk with Ms. Dalmia.

[SIV]

The amendment, attached at the last minute to buy wavering Republican votes

Please, tell me which Republican votes did it buy?

The bill had all the "Republican votes" it needed. If anything Corker-Hoeven cost them two votes.

[Cytotoxic]

None. It was intended to buy GOP votes but it wasn't asinine enough for the restrictionists.

[SIV]

It wasn't intended to buy a single vote.
Throwing a bunch of money at DHS and the border isn't what the "hardliners" want.

[Hawk Spitui]

Peter Schaefer schools Tyler Cowen on immigration economics

Pay attention Shikha, you might learn something. But somehow I doubt it.

[Calidissident]

He didn't school anybody. He simply displayed a profound ignorance of economics. Much like yourself, American

[darius404]

Pretty sure he's not Merkin. HS has been commenting under that handle for awhile, and there's not much overlap between him and Merkin, who probably has no idea who either of those people are.

[Hawk Spitui]

If he were as ignorant as you claim, surely someone would certainly been able to offer a rebuttal. So far none are forthcoming.

Given that you are apparently in a position to pronounce him ignorant of his profession, would you care to a crack at it?

[Acosmist]

Anything resembling the word "amnesty"?

Huh?!

[DRM]

As long as you don't provide a path to citizenship, they are indeed harmless workers, and you don't need a secured border.

If you do provide a path to citizenship, they're people who have a demonstrated record of voting for the PRI and PAN.

[Cytotoxic]

...PAN and PRI are moving Mexico in the right direction.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Not really, especially not PRI -- the party which ruled Mexico for 80 years running and which in that time established an ineffecient state monopoly on oil, incredibly burdensome regulations, plenty of redistributive schemes, and during which it presided over a series of civil rights violations as well.

[lap83]

Maybe the GOP objects to the fact that amnesty is a big joke. I don't care what you think the immigration policy SHOULD be, you can't have a law and retroactively decide that it was cool when some people broke it. That makes a mockery of law and order, especially when you continue to say that the law is in place. Either get rid of the law or enforce it. The end.

[tarran]

In the GOP's defense they *are* a big joke. Consider the fact that they suck so much that many people will consider voting for Democrats! They are like a Yugo to the Democratic Party's Fiat.