Immigration

Obama's Immigration Action: Probably Legal but Also Unprecedented, Productive Policy but Troublesome Politics

|

Whitehouse.gov

In a primetime announcement this evening, President Obama will explain and defend the details of a sweeping executive action designed to keep roughly four to five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation and provide them with legal status to work.

Some of the particulars remain unclear, but the basic outlines of the plan have been known for months: Obama will use enforcement discretion to redirect law enforcement activities, prioritizing deportation of unauthorized immigrants who have additional criminal records. (You can read the White House's talking points here.) Republicans have called the move unprecedented and illegal, while the administration, which seems to be prodding Republicans with the move, has argued that it is well within political norms.

As a supporter of expanded immigration and also someone who worries about executive overreach, I think there are partial truths in the arguments made by both sides. And while it seems to me that there are some policy advantages in the executive maneuver, there may also be longer-term political and practical disadvantages to consider as well. 

Obama's move would probably be legal. For the last several months, conservatives and Republicans have issued increasingly apocalyptic denouncements of the Obama's proposed action, describing it as a massive legal overreach by the executive. The most compelling comments to this effect, however, came not from the right but from Obama himself, who for years has repeatedly insisted that the sort of enforcement-related order he is expected to announce tonight would be beyond his authority. The White House is now suggesting that Obama has not changed his position, just his emphasis, but as The Wahington Post's Glenn Kessler lays out in great detail, the record is quite clear: Obama said on multiple occasions that the president did not have the power to unilaterally legalize entire populations of immigrants who are not at risk due to unusual circumstances.

But if the last few years have proven anything it's that the law isn't necessarily what Obama says it is. As Reason's Shikha Dalmia and Case Western Reserve University Law Professor Jonathan Adler have noted, the president has a great deal of authority to set enforcement priorities and exercise discretion when it comes to immigration law. Even some of the loudest critics of Obama's action have come around to the idea that, at least technically, it would not exceed the president's discretionary power, even if it would constitute an unusual and strained use of it. 

It would also be unprecedented. The administration and some of its supporters are arguing that various presidents, including Republicans, have taken comparable steps before, limiting deportations through executive order, and that makes this well within political norms. This argument leaves out crucial details about congressional involvement and support for those previous presidential orders. 

In 1987, under President Ronald Reagan, the immigration commissioner announced that children of parents who had been granted amnesty under a 1986 immigration law would be granted protection from deportation. A few years later, President George H.W. Bush granted protection to entire families, a move that followed action in the Senate, and that was passed by the entire Congress the following year. 

Supporters of the president note specifically that Bush, Sr.'s move offered protection to about 40 percent of the nation's undocumented immigrants at the time, roughly the same percentage as Obama's move is expected to legalize. But in raw numbers, Obama's move is expected to have a much bigger impact, granting legal status to about 4 million immigrants instead of the 1.5 million protected under Bush. 

And politically, the actions by Bush, Sr. and Reagan just aren't equal, because both came in the context of clear congressional support for action on immigration. Reagan's followed a large-scale amnesty law, and Bush's followed Senate action that would soon become passed by the full Congress.

It would represent a further expansion of executive power, and norms around using it. Just because an executive action is technically legal does not mean that it falls within legal norms, and executive power can be expanded not only through explicit assertions of previously off-limits authority, but by making use of powers that existed but were never used, or never used to such an extent. This strikes me as a case of the latter, especially given the president's multitude of statements indicating that the power to legalize so many immigrants is beyond his office, and the stated reasoning for his change of heart: that Congress has not acted. When Congress declines to pass a law that the president would like to see passed, that does not give him an excuse to act. As President Obama himself declared in 2011, his job is to "enforce and implement" the laws that Congress makes, not to use his authority to circumvent those laws when he sees fit. Anyone who worries about executive overreach, even those supportive of expanded immigration, ought to be wary of the precedent this move, and the thin line of reasoning behind it, could set.

On a strictly policy basis, Obama's executive action might be preferable to a big reform bill. If you favor making immigration easier and more straightforward, and think that draconian enforcement efforts are both wasteful and counterproductive, then there are real upsides to executive action when compared to a big congressional overhaul. A major reform bill would massively increase funding for border patrols, despite years of increased funding for border security and little to show for it and the fact that close to half of illegal immigrants came here legally and then overstayed their visas. A comprehensive immigration reform plan would almost certainly include some sort of E-Verify system, an incredibly invasive form of workplace nannying which would create huge hassles for workers and employers, as well as large numbers of false positives—making hiring, and finding employment, an even harder process than it already is.

But unilateral executive action could poison support for broader, more stable reform. There's no question that the immediate political consequence would be to further outrage Republicans, and turn a party that has long had a mix of views about the virtues of expanding immigration into one dominated by opposition. In fact, this seems to be part of what the administration wants—to provoke Republicans into a frothing rage, in hopes that they will do something politically stupid as a result. (They might oblige.) 

But the backlash might not just be the immediate consequence, and it might not just be limited to the congressional GOP and its core supporters; unilateral action might result in a deepened long-term opposition to greater immigration as well.

One only need to look at the political dynamic in the years since the passage of Obamacare, another ambitious policy passed with no opposition party support and a wary public. Democrats hoped it would provide a path to political victory, but the actual result was a deep and enduring public opposition that has cost Democrats in multiple elections.

Similar to Obamacare, about 48 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's proposed action, while just 38 percent say they support the move. And similar to Obamacare, the president's actions are making some Democrats nervous too. And just as before, supporters are arguing that opposition will blow over quickly

I wouldn't bet on it. Unprecedented, unpopular, large-scale, unilateral policy changes are nearly certain to produce a backlash—against the president, against his party, and against the ideas at the heart of the policy change itself.

To me, this is the most significant risk of Obama's plan—that it will create a backlash, not only amongst congressional Republicans, but within the public at large, a backlash that makes it more difficult to achieve a stable, legal, and politically viable system of expanded and simplified immigration, one that is not dependent on a sympathetic executive or enforcement discretion, but that is codified in law and agreed upon by enough of the country's residents and legislators.

This is not to simply condemn Obama's plan, but instead to warn enthusiastic supporters that the choice to act at this time, in this way, without legislative backing or public support, might be satisfying in the moment, but also stands a real chance of closing off opportunities for a better, more lasting solution at some point in the future. Consensus is hard, and sometimes it seems impossible, but in politics, it's also important. 

NEXT: Cops Throw Smoke Grenade Into Room With 2-Year-Old, Family Says They Warned Police in Apparent Wrong Door Raid

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 you are right about the effects of this. Understand that from now on, anyone who supports immigration reform is going to have to answer for this and will be tarred with it. Thanks to Obama doing this, everyone left or right who supports open borders will be distrusted by the public and associated with Obama on this issue. I can’t see that working out well.

    1. If you came here on green card lottery or H1B visa or asylum and followed all of the legal processes, filled out the paperwork, and paid the appropriate government and legal fees, Obama has just one thing to say to you – suckers!

      To Obama, ILLEGAL ALIENS are far more important than people who tried to play by the rules? ESPECIALLY tax-paying law-abiding American citizens.

      Already tens of millions who can’t afford to live. We must now purchase health insurance we cannot afford and do not want or need (mine is $450/month? contrast this to my $25/month auto insurance from Insurance Panda? or my $15/month renters insurance from Eagle? both private-enterprise!)

      Border-hopping, law-breaking ILLEGAL ALIENS – that’s what Obama wants as his legacy.

      He will weaken the Democrat party for years if he tries this.

      What a traitor – taking away jobs from US CITIZENS and giving them to ILLEGAL ALIENS.

      1. COOL STORY, bro.

      2. DEY TUK ER JERBS!!!11!!!!!

    2. “Open Borders” is a contradiction in terms. One cannot have a border and have it “open”.
      Also no state in the history of the world has succeeded with “open borders”. When a government cannot control who is in its country it cannot maintain law and order -which is entirely the case with modern day California which is a failed state.

      Illegal immigration undermines the basic rule of law and makes it impossible to have a orderly society.
      Without an orderly society, most of the Libertarian ideals that we espouse cannot exist.

      1. You know who had completely open orders? The indigenous people of the Americas. 🙂

        1. Tell it to the Pawnee caught walking around in Cheyenne territory.

          1. exactly…. or how well it went when the Indians were overrun with illegal(white european) immigrants – didn’t go so well for them did it?

              1. I don’t know. Does your extended family (aka “tribe”) own a fucking casino?

                Yes, because the measure of a tribe’s well-being is how many casinos they own.

                That’s a fucking stupid argument by any standard.

        2. They (the American Indians) also had no state “government” just a collection of semi autonomous tribes fighting each other over territory. In order to have a state you must have a codified set of laws and a social contract between the government and the people. Since the Indians lacked a written language they also lacked a “state”.

          Also see how well they survived open borders (their illegal immigration was white settlers). Didn’t turn out very well for them did it. Nor will it for the average american citizen.

          1. social contract

            I’m sorry I ever took anything you said seriously.

            1. Its Ok go back to your kindergarten – its time for juice and cookies.

              yes social contract – like the constitution that guarantees the rights of citizens and dictates the limits of governmental power. Perhaps you have heard of it. It is what keeps the country from sliding into tyranny or lawless anarchy.

              Nap time for you Zeb. this is a website for intelligent adults.

              1. In no other instance in the English language, US law, or common law does the word ‘contract’ ever describe an involuntary, unilateral mandate enforced by violence, entered into with no knowledge, consent, or remedy and for one of the parties.
                ‘Social contract’ is a propagandist term that obfuscates reality.
                Since no one alive signed the US Constitution, it is not applicable, nor binding, to anyone currently living.
                Further, it has NOT guaranteed ANY rights and has not constrained the government from violating nearly every enumerated prohibition therein.
                Perhaps that’s what Zeb was getting at.
                And if so, he’s 100% correct and is due an apology.

      2. no state in the history of the world has succeeded with “open borders”.

        I didn’t know pre-1924 America was such a failure.

        Illegal immigration undermines the basic rule of law and makes it impossible to have a orderly society.

        Yeah, look at what a terrible hellhole El Paso and the rest of Southern Texas is.

        1. “””I didn’t know pre-1924 America was such a failure.””‘

          Pre-1924 America did not have open borders.

          1. Yes it did, with the exception of a few bad laws. Anyone could come here after a brief hold over at Ellis Island.

            1. “”””a brief hold over at Ellis Island””‘

              You mean the one which kept out the sick, the poor, the crazies, the Asians, the Africans and most of the Hispanics?

              1. The poor? Did not keep them out. The poor Irish came over in boatloads.

                From 1790-1875 the federal government placed almost no restrictions on immigration. At the time, states imposed restrictions on the immigration of free blacks and likely indigents through outright bars, taxes, passenger regulations, and bonds. Many of those restrictions weren’t enforced by state governments and were lifted in the 1840s after Supreme

                http://www.cato.org/blog/natio…..compatible

                1. No, the poor who could not provide for themselves died. Ellis Island weeded out the obvious poor. The people who could provide for themselves were not truly poor

            2. the problem, Cytotoxic, would seem to be that you keep writing about things you know nothing about.

            3. Anyone could come here after a brief hold over at Ellis Island.

              Talk about historically ignorant.

        2. Here’s the pdf of the 1891 Immigration Act, to dispel the notion that borders were open back in the good old days.

          Yes, I know that the great majority of people who showed up were admitted, but the fact that the law was, you know, enforced and the unqualified were unceremoniously sent back home discouraged the unqualified from trying.

          1. Where’s the PDF?

            1. Ok, here’s the link compressed

              http://tinyurl.com/o9vuakm

              1. Yes, American immigration started becoming less free in 1875, but it wasn’t until much later that much worse legislation was not only passed but enforced. Until 1875, we had border freedom. See link above.

      3. You misunderstood. It’s “Open Boarders”. As in all are welcome to board here.

      4. “Open Borders” is a contradiction in terms. One cannot have a border and have it “open”.

        Uh, no, that is utterly false. It may or may not be impractical, but it is most certainly not a contradiction.

        I’m pretty sure US states have open borders.

        Anyway, most “open borders” people don’t actually want completely open borders with no control or checks at all. Just open immigration.

        Illegal immigration undermines the basic rule of law and makes it impossible to have a orderly society.

        That is true. And illegal immigration exists mostly because we let too few in legally. Illegal drug use also undermines the rule of law and social order, but the solution to that isn’t to crack down harder on drug users, it is to make the law more reasonable.

        1. the borders between states are not “open”
          in the sense that you are making it out to be. Both Georgia and Alabama have individual governments who’s juridiction ends at the border. In state tuition ends at the border as does other privileges and rights of residents.
          Furthermore we are discussing national borders.
          Too bad you aren’t intelligent enough to understand the distinction

          1. What the fuck are you talking about? States have open borders in exactly the sense I am talking about. Anyone can cross them at any time and live or work in a different state without asking anyone’s permission. It even leads to changes in states’ demographics and voting patterns sometimes. What did you think that I think that the laws of Mexico should apply in the US?

            Even limiting the discussion to national borders, there is still no contradiction to open borders. It would work pretty much like it does between US states. If you are on one side of the line you are subject to the laws of one government if you are on the other side you are subject to a different one. How is that an impossible and contradictory situation?

            Too bad you aren’t intelligent enough to understand the distinction

            People who live in glass houses…

            1. not open in the sense that most of the people that advocate “open borders” are talking about.

              what they are advocating is a reality where people can move anywhere at any time and live as if there is no restrictions on them at all. this is of course a complete fantasy land.

              Even in our own country there are state borders and the laws change in each area. Privileges like in-State tuition and here in Georgia the hope scholarship do not apply to out of state residences. So do professional licenses.The ability to practice Law or Medicine in one state does not apply in another.
              Although we are all US citizens state residency changes our status when in another state.

              The open border model would abolish all controls that the governments have which would also abolish the rule of law. When you abolish the rule of law the ability to have a free and orderly society is also lost.

              I know it takes an educated brain to understand this but it is painfully obvious that is the way that society functions.

              Borders=rule of law= orderly society, private property+freedom.

              No borders = No rule of law= no orderly society, no protection of freedom or property.

              1. JRS, I have never understood “open borders” to imply “suspension of sovereign law.” Like Zeb, I’ve always taken it to mean that one is subjected to the rules of nation within whose borders one resides, but crossing borders is not restricted.

                Of course I could be wrong. Could you please cite some references that demonstrate that “open borders” includes suspension of sovereign law?

                1. laws are written for a specific group of people(citizens). those people collectively decide through referendums and elections what the laws are that govern not only a territory but citizens of that territory. Having a constantly changing group of people migrating in and out of an area makes it impossible to effectively govern the territory using the laws. This is what is happening here in the US. It is becoming impossible to run a criminal justice system when the defendants are given bail and simply disappear.

                  Society is built upon structure and order and you cannot have either when people can simply walk in and out of a country with no checks on their movement. I know some of you who are borderline anarchists don’t like the idea anything resembling a government having any control or authority but in REALITY if you don’t, you end up with a situation like Somalia.

                  1. Last I checked, our individual States set bail based on whether or not an individual is a flight risk (which, in turn, is usually based on the seriousness of the charge, ie a candybar shoplifter suspect is going to have a far smaller bail than a millionaire murder suspect).

                    Additionally, States (and even countries–imagine that!) even have extradition agreements. If I commit a crime in Utah, and then move to Georgia, the police in Georgia will still arrest me and send me to Utah.

                    But, seriously, since when have we had checks on our movement, when travelling from State to State? I have literally driven from Utah to New York State and back, and although I crossed several States, the only time I had any sort of “check” on my movement, was when I went to Canada for a little bit. Even then, my family, my friends and I didn’t need any passports or documentation, and I stayed there for three weeks!

                    Incidentally, one of the specific purposes of the European Union is to make it possible for Europeans to travel between countries, the way we travel between States, yet Europe hasn’t ended up like Somalia yet, any more than the United States has, even when our borders between Canada and Mexico were more open than they are now.

      5. As a libertarian, I am for more open borders and freer trade. However, unchecked immigration is not compatible with a welfare state (which as a libertarian, I also oppose). Since we have a welfare state, at this point I concluded that I have to oppose unchecked (illegal) immigration.

        I would most certainly be in favor of a rational legal route for workers, even including unskilled workers, to come here and work. During that time, however, they would not be eligible for welfare benefits of any kind nor would any children of visa-holders become citizens (even if born here during the visa-holder’s time here).

        However, any action that results in amnesty for criminals (as all illegal aliens are certainly criminals almost by definition) is to be soundly opposed.

    3. Nope. Immigration reform will not have the deleterious effects on peoples’ lives that Ocare had. It will blow over or even be beneficial.

      1. Abortion and gay marriage have little effect on most people’s lives. Regardless of actual effects, Obama’s decision here could intensify the culture war around immigration.

        1. Gay marriage is increasingly accepted. The faster gay marriage is shoved down people’s throats, the sooner it is accepted. Abortion is different, I’ll grant. I think it is just unique.

          1. The faster gay marriage is shoved down people’s throats, the sooner it is accepted.

            Uh, no. The law cannot radically change the culture without a lot of violence behind it. People were already trending towards acceptance of gay marriage, but if it’s “shoved down their throats” too forcefully that trend could reverse.

            1. Cytoxic loves government and loves tyranny. Nothing makes him happier than forcing his views on everyone else by the power of the gun.

      2. Have you considered the long lines of people waiting to legally enter the US from other countries? How is it beneficial to allow criminals in while the law abiding wait?

        1. You and your quaint notions of Rule of Law!

        2. We’re not talking about actual criminals, just lawbreakers. Anyone who breaks stupid laws such as America’s immigration restrictions should be rewarded!

        3. I think you are asking the wrong questions. It’s pointless to ask “why don’t these people just obey the law”. The question should be why the fuck are the lines so long for legal immigration? I really don’t give a shit that people who cross the border illegally with no ill intent are technically criminals any more than I care that someone who smokes pot is a criminal. There is no moral reason to obey bad laws.
          I feel kind of bad for the people who tried to play by the rules, but that is no reason to stick with bad policies.

          1. Because there is no right to immigration or movement outside of your own property.

            1. Sure, that applies equally to citizens and says nothing in particular about immigration, though (and I would question whether that can be true. Would someone who owns no property and has no permission to be on anyone else’s be obliged to kill himself, or what?). And it only really matters in libertopia where everything is private property. As it is now, there are lots of places where immigrants are permitted to be and lots of people who want to allow them on their property, so the point is moot unless you think that all citizens (or worse the government) collectively own the whole country, which is just stupid. There is indeed no absolute right to immigration, but so what?

              1. And it only really matters in libertopia where everything is private property.

                Libertopia has no frontiers to homestead?

                1. Do you see any land on the planet that is not already claimed? And in particular any land that can be used to get your immigrants you want to and from your property?

                  1. Not really, no. Not any land where one could practically live anyway. Unless you count the roads that lead from the Mexican border to here. Or the ocean.

                    I may be missing your point. If indeed you are responding to me.

                2. Sure why not. But you are still fucked if you are without property and surrounded by people who won’t let you on theirs. How do you get to the frontier?

              2. So who owns the government roads, if not the people of the US?

                1. So who owns the government roads, if not the people of the US?

                  The government, of course. Accordingly, the government can set the rules on the use of said property. However, by virtue of being the government, it is limited in terms of what rules it can set. Although I don’t think immigration status is one of the categories with limitations.

                  Of course, I’d rather the government sell off the roads and only own property for statehouses, courthouses, and military bases. Just because they have a power doesn’t mean they have to exercise it. The same goes for waterways and airspace.

                  Given the situation we have, sure the government can remove people from the roads, waterways, and airspace for being non-citizens. That is the extent of their power in that regard, though.

                2. The government does. I don’t think it’s an ideal situation, but it is silly to pretend that government property belongs to “the people”. I don’t consider that I actually own anything if I can’t sell it.

                  In any case, why should people who don’t want immigrants get to decide who uses roads?

            2. Yes.

              There.

              Is.

              Can I encircle your property and keep you from leaving, DJF?

          2. “The question should be why the fuck are the lines so long for legal immigration”

            Different question altogether. Has NOTHING to do with Obama’s willful disregard for the rule of law and his Constitutional obligation to enforce law and not unilaterally rewrite it. That is the point of contention here.

      3. Since the last amnesty worked out so well.

      4. question is for who. It may be beneficial to the illegals but not for the citizens that the Constitution was written to protect.
        There are just as many citizens unemployed as there are people going to be added to this special class.
        Also who is going to pay for all of the processing that is going to be required to make the changes that Obama has put in place.

    4. Ah, so he should wait 4,5,6, 7, 8 years or FOREVER until the do-nothing Republicans in Congress decide to actually do some work???

      Fantastic!

      He is inviting them to get to work now. If they want to legislate, I’m sure he will deep six this and go along with a decent bipartisan plan.

      But they have made it clear they don’t want to do the nation’s work.

      Kudo’s to Big O for taking some action. I wish I could say the GOP will pick up on it and get to work. But they won’t – of course!

      Why? Well, because many folks here will keep supporting and voting for them (the GOP) even if and when they do nothing.

      1. I wish I could say the GOP will pick up on it and get to work. But they won’t – of course!

        As long as Harry Reid and the Dems block any legislative efforts on the part of the Republicans, why should they bother to try?

        As to how long Obama should wait? He should wait forever, because it isn’t his job to make law in the first place.

      2. He could have done anything he wanted when the Democrats controlled BOTH houses of Congress and the Presidency but it would have come at too high of a political price. Now he has no elections to worry about so he has chosen now to play political chicken with the republicans to knock them down a bit after his terrible loss in the last elections.

  2. Somebody should point out that these people, if they’re given a path to citizenship, will eventually be allowed to vote.

    Right?

    Isn’t that part of what this is really about?

    1. That is correct.

    2. That’s entirely what this is about. You’re gonna have 12 million people here with all the obligations but none of the privileges of citizenship? That’s slavery, you second-class-creating, Hispanic-hating, language-supremacy-lording bigots.

      1. That’s slavery,”

        That’s laughable.

        Slaves aren’t allowed to go back home. If these people don’t like the situation they find themselves in the can go back to their country of origin.

        That’s not slavery, Mr. Hyperbole.

        1. That’s not the correct response. You were supposed to berate me for not including trigger warnings.

        2. Somehow, that argument didn’t play very well in South Africa.

          1. I don’t think it would have done that badly with the illegal immigrants there. The people born into it who had nowhere to go, well, that’s a different story.

    3. I’ve got a Pew research report that says 31% of immigrants self-identify as Democrats while only 4% self-identify as Republicans.

      If these immigrants support Democrats over Republicans like that–by an almost 8-1 margin–I’m sure that has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama and the Democrats wanting to get them legal and voting as quickly as possible.

      …because that would be playing partisan politics with the immigration system, and Barack Obama just wouldn’t do something like that.

      1. This time with the link:

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/

        1. It started with Ted Kennedy, I believe. If you can’t get the electorate to behave the way you want, change the electorate.

          1. Yup. And back then, we were assured that “immigration reform” would not change the demographic mix of the country.

            1. I am shocked, shocked that a politican would lie, especially a Kennedy.

      2. I think some of this may have to do with the fact that Republicans constantly talk about deporting them.

        1. I’m sure that’s true.

          Regardless, …

          Let’s not pretend that this is some kind of principled stance Obama is taking here.

          I’m in favor of open borders. So long as we find a way to verify people’s identities, that they don’t have felony records or a communicable disease, etc. I think we should let labor back and forth across the border just like they were any other kind of economic input.

          But I don’t have to pretend I’m so stupid that I don’t see straight through Obama. And none of the rest of us should either.

          Obama wants to turn Texas blue. If these immigrants were disproportionately Republican, he’d lock down the border with the national guard if he could. He’d be calling them a bunch of terrorists.

          1. That may very well be the case, but it isn’t going to fundamentally change my views on immigration.

            I will remain in favor of less restrictive immigration laws and path to citizenship for many already here.

            1. I hope it fundamentally changes some people’s views about Barack Obama.

              He’s an imperious jackass, who governs for the benefit of his own party…

              I’m not going to pretend that isn’t what he is–even if he’s doing something I like.

              1. If they don’t already see that then they probably never will. Many politicians are the same though.

                1. You’re going with equivalency here?

                  Barack Obama is a political hack–but tu quoque you, that’s why?

                  Nothing any president has ever done before justifies Obama willfully acting like an imperious asswipe.

                  And nothing Obama does now will ever justify anything the next asswipe willfully does either.

              2. Agreed – he is a narcissistic jackass.

            2. “path to citizenship for many already here.”
              ——————–
              The incentive to millions of prospective border-crashers puts me off.

              1. I’m for less restrictive immigration laws in general, so we likely won’t see eye to eye

                1. Is there anything you wouldn’t approve of in the pursuit of less restrictive immigration laws?

                  1. I don’t support Obama’s executive action

                    1. As far as I can see, none of the regulars here who support more open immigration, except maybe cytotoxic, are for the executive action.

                    2. I’m on the fence.

            3. There has been and always was a path to citizenship. Not easy, and not everyone gets a pass, true. Illegal aliens willfully ignored it, broke many laws (many with multi-year criminal penalties and 4 or 5-figure fines attached) doing so and expect to be rewarded.

              I feel sorry for the good people who have waited patiently only to see these line-jumping lawbreakers being handed everything they demand.

        2. I think some of this may have to do with the fact that Republicans constantly talk about deporting them.

          I think some of the Visigoth dislike of Rome may have had to do with the fact that Romans constantly talked about deporting them.

          1. Your paranoia about the invading hordes of Mexican immigrants–such that you compare them to fucking Visigoth raiders–is absolutely hilarious. You just can’t help pants-shitting, can you? It’s just your nature. You could really use some D-Pants.

            1. I’m on board with the idea that native born Americans living like parasites on my tax dollars are a much greater burden than immigrants, but I don’t see why we should pretend that spending taxpayer dollars on non-citizens isn’t a problem at all.

              1. Then we should stop spending taxpayer dollars on non-citizens.

                The way I see it, there is no way to stop immigration from points south without implementing policies that would be far worse for American’s liberties than whatever problems immigrants might cause. Just look at the danger people are wiling to expose themselves to to cross the border. You aren’t going to stop that without trampling the rights of everyone who owns property or has business near the border. So let them all in legally. At least then you know who is here and they don’t have to steal peoples SSNs to work.

                1. A migrant/temporary worker program would be a good start. But I’m convinced that Obama and the democrats are most interested in the votes.

              2. About a third of people on welfare are Hispanic. I don’t know what portion of them are illegal immigrants or are descended from them, but it’s substantial.

                The day when it reaches half is not all that far away.

              3. agreed- they both suck!

            2. Sure, Epi, it’s just paranoia to worry about tens of millions of poor anti-libertarians coming into a country with a bankrupt welfare state. Nothing to worry about!

              1. Our debt problems are not yet insurmountable and it remains to be seen how durable their political views are. For instance, it’d be interesting to see how their views would change if Republicans softened their stance and fought for less restrictive immigration? I’d figure there is some literature on this as well.

                1. It is noteworthy that Bush had pretty good standings with Hispanics both in texas and around the country during the 2004 elections. And I think that was largely because he promised Immigration reform during that campaign.

                2. Yeah, if only Republicans pushed for amnesty, they’d win Hispanics like Bush I did. Or they’d get Bush II’s huge almost 40% of their vote! They’ll lose their vote, but make it up on volume.

              2. Anti-libertarians?

                1. They’re extremely pro-big government.

                  1. Actually, many Mexicans distrust government and the police because they’re use to endemic corruption.

              3. Gotta love that xenophobia and collectivism combined with pants-shitting and laughable comparisons to Visigoths.

                1. Its actually historically accurate. Rome fell from within because it accepted so many people into its borders that had little or no allegiance to Rome. The borders became “open” and the foreign population refused to fight for Rome so the empire fell away in chunks. Eventually the Italian peninsula itself became indefensible and all that was left was Constantinople that eventually fell to the Muslims.

                  If the US continues to allow people into the country who do not identify with the US or support our system of Government then it will be “fundamentally changed” in the way that most of us who grew up here aren’t going to like very much.

                  1. Thank you, JRS1001.

                  2. I don’t have a horse in this race, but that is a profoundly oversimplified interpretation of over a thousand years of history.

                    1. It’s simplified, but for a nutshell version it’s pretty damned accurate.

                    2. did you really expect me to write a 1000 page thesis on the fall of the Roman Empire. Someone already did -its called ” The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” you should read it, I did.

      3. I’ve got a Pew research report that says 31% of immigrants self-identify as Democrats while only 4% self-identify as Republicans.

        I wonder why that is?

        1. I don’t really see a point in making the Progressive’s case for them.

          If Obama is making public policy on a strictly partisan basis, then we should point that out.

          Maybe next time it won’t be something we like.

          Right?

          If Obama doesn’t give a shit about what’s best for the country–only what will help the Democrats win more elections–why wouldn’t I point out that he’s governing like a partisan hack?

        2. Because they are immigrants from countries which are screwed up in part because their official political ideologies and education systems give a lot of lip service to socialism. This is “Californication” on an international scale: “Our ideology has made this place unlivable, so let’s move somewhere better and vote the same way!”

          1. Yeah, because all immigrants are mindless faceless robots with no individual will or drive of their own, and will therefore–every single one of them–vote the way you don’t want.

            Shit those pants!

            1. No. They are not. And Hispanics tend to intermarry and are not the political monolith that blacks are.

              That said, culture does matter. Do you honestly think if we imported the entire population of Ryiad into the US, the culture and the politics of where they settled wouldn’t change? Other places are different because the people who live there are different. Move the people and the new place will become like the old.

              1. Immigrants have never permanently changed America into their host country. Ever.

                1. mmigrants have never permanently changed America into their host country. Ever.

                  America is totally the same culture and country in 1900 as it was in 1789. They don’t have to turn it into home. They just have to change it.

                  Just stop it Cytoxic. Your historical ignorance and logical fallacies make my head hurt.

                  1. DERP. John doesn’t know the difference between correlation and causation. He also doesn’t know that ‘chaining America’ isn’t the same ‘changing America into your home country’. Christ is everyone in the army this fucking dumb?

                    1. Christ is everyone in the army this fucking dumb?

                      Yes, sadly.

                    2. But surely Canada’s army is smarter! Smart enough maybe to give me a job!

                    3. Don’t know about Canuckistani Army, but I thought the USAF was dumber than dirt, until I deployed with the US Army. They make stupid people look smart.

                    4. You are dumber than shreek Cytoxic. Shreek is just a comedy act. You are legitimately dumb. You actually don’t think that immigration changed the country in the 19th Century. That is so fucking stupid it is unworthy of responding too.

                    5. Case in point.

                      Note the US Army’s ability to comprehend what they read.

                2. Ask and immigrant if he wants to become an American citizen. Probably says yes. Ask him who he will root for in the World Cup, USA or his home country?

                  If he doesn’t say Team USA, why did he bother becoming a citizen?

                  “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

                  But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.” [Teddy Roosevelt]

                3. Cytotoxic|11.20.14 @ 2:47PM|#

                  Immigrants have never permanently changed America into their host country. Ever.

                  The original European immigrants got about as close as anyone could get – especially and including the ones who moved into Canada.

              2. That said, culture does matter. Do you honestly think if we imported the entire population of Ryiad into the US, the culture and the politics of where they settled wouldn’t change?

                It would. But we’re not talking about importing anyone. We’re talking about letting people that self-select and voluntarily want to come to America to do so. So I’d say their likelihood of valuing some of the same things Americans do (to the extent you can define such things) is higher than for your average Mexican/Columbian/Guatemalan/etc.

                But to get them to vote for a particular party or ideology, it helps to actually be welcoming.

                1. It would. But we’re not talking about importing anyone. We’re talking about letting people that self-select and voluntarily want to come to America to do so.

                  Go take a look around the Somalie population of Minniapolis. It might cause you to reconsider your faith in all of these millions of Libertarians from these places self selecting to come here. Self selection doesn’t make it any more or less likely that the people who come will have any interest in freedom or not demand that the country cater to them. And remember, we have an entire multi cultural left who run the schools and social services agency ready to tell them to demand that the country cater to them. It is not 1880 anymore. We don’t have a confident culture that demands assimilation. We have a victim culture that is run by the left and demands victim hood and non assimilation.

                  1. Immigrants are being assimilated into America perfectly fine, your fantasies aside.

                  2. I doubt the Twin Cities are in danger of turning into a Muslim theocracy.

                    millions of Libertarians from these places self selecting to come here

                    I don’t think they are libertarians. Hell, most Americans aren’t libertarians, and this is supposedly the land of liberty.

                    But people shouldn’t have to pass an ideological purity test before coming here, either as individuals or as a collective group. These are people we are talking about, not pawns in some ideological war. Maybe that’s not what the Democrats or Republicans view them as, but we are supposed to be better than that.

                    1. I am not saying they should. You want to let them in, have fun. But stop blowing smoke up everyone’s ass and pretending there is no risk of the culture changing or the country becoming less free as a result.

                    2. You’re not saying, you’re just saying…

                      I’m not saying the culture won’t change. I’m saying who the fuck cares? Cultures change, it’s what they do. What’s the big deal if we start celebrating Dia de Muertos and Cinco de Mayo in addition to that all-American holiday of St. Patrick’s day?

                      And the country has been getting less free without any help from Central American immigrants. To act like these people are ideologically committed to socialism is just stupid. If you don’t want them to vote for progressives, then don’t associate being a dick towards immigrants with liberty.

                    3. Why? They’re immigrants we’re letting in. It’s up to us to decide if they can come in or not. Why not choose the ones we want?

                    4. All this talk about Somalis makes me miss the Twin Cities, where I grew up. Those guys can cook!

                2. Charity and welcoming goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter.

                  If the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, then my calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

                  It behooves us all to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal border-jumpers. Anyone, no matter what race or original nationality, who comes to this country legally; who strives for citizenship; who embraces our language & culture while respecting their own traditions; who wants to help keep this country great–I welcome him with open arms and call him a fellow American.

                  Those who sneak into this country illegally; who break immigration, employment, tax, zoning and even basic traffic laws on a daily basis; who reject our culture and retreat into barrios; who demand taxpayer-funded social services not even available to citizens in good standing–I have little sympathy for them and their “plight”.

                  1. If the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, then my calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

                    Last I checked, you didn’t own America and neither did I. So if the people that own a business and want to employ an immigrant, or that own a home and want to rent it to them, or who own a grocery store and want to sell to them, are cool with it, then you and I have no basis for telling them they can’t. A libertarian-inspired government has a duty to protect the country from invaders, criminals, and people with communicable diseases. It doesn’t have any business protecting culture, or language, or your job.

                    As for your last paragraph, well, I’m sorry but it’s just not very well informed about the immigration system or immigrants.

                    1. So if the people that own a business and want to employ an immigrant, or that own a home and want to rent it to them, or who own a grocery store and want to sell to them, are cool with it, then you and I have no basis for telling them they can’t.

                      Last I checked neither did the business or apartment owner so who the fuck should they get to decide immigration law for the rest of us?

                    2. “Last I checked, you didn’t own America and neither did I”

                      But you and I and 300 million other Americans together do own the country. That’s what a country is. Our club.

            2. The self-identify as Democrat (rather than Republican) by a ratio of 8-1.

              http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/

              Why should anyone pretend otherwise?

              1. The self-identify as Democrat (rather than Republican) by a ratio of 8-1.

                Whew! Good thing I’m not a Republican.

                1. Good thing Fransisco because we all knowing that voting Democrat is great for Liberarians.

                  Are you trying to make sure that Cytoxic isn’t the dumbest person on here? You are making a hell of a run at it if you are.

                  1. You, like Shreeek, seem to be under the delusion that libertarians are simply Republicans who want to smoke dope.

                    If you think I give a flying fuck how immigration impacts the Republican party then you are even dumber than Shreeek. The Republicans can dry up and blow away and I’ll be a happy man. You are equally bad for liberty.

                    If sumthin bad happenz to teh Republikenz, there will be no onez to stand up to teh Demokratzez…herpity, derpity dooz. /John

              2. But most don’t identify as either.

                Anyway, if I cared about practical politics I wouldn’t be libertarian. I think it is funny when libertarians get all practical on something like this. Because all the other things we want are going to happen too.

            3. Beat that straw man! Obviously, they are individuals and not all the same. But it’s undeniable that on average, what I say is true. Unless you don’t believe in that funny “statistics” thing.

              A thought experiment: if our illegal immigrants were all refugees from Communism who hated statism, do you think Obama and the Democrats would be so accommodating to them? Of course not.

              1. Papaya, I see no reason to assume that immigrant political opinions are fixed in some way. They change, they evolve. The Irish Americans who once were reliable Democrats later supported Reagan in a big way.

                1. Latinos vote for Democrats by a 2-1 margin.

                  Those include the former immigrants, their children, everyone Latino.

                  People who have been here for a long time.

                  Advantage Democrat by 2-1.

                  Why pretend otherwise?

                  http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-election/

                  1. How much of that has to do with Republican antagonizing of them?

                    1. How much of that has to do with Republican antagonizing of them?

                      WOW. Same with how Republicans antagonize the Blacks, huh?

                    2. “WOW. Same with how Republicans antagonize the Blacks, huh?”

                      Yep, damn confederate conservatives are still at it…..

                    3. That’s some impressive cowardice there craiginmass, commenting 5 hours after the fact.

                2. Of course it’s not “fixed,” but how long did it take the Irish to go from Democrat to Republican? 100, 150 years? You’re OK with making US more like Central America (in terms of general political attitudes) for 100 years, in the hopes that it’ll eventually change? I’m not.

                  1. Did we become ‘more like Ireland’ during that 100 years?

                    1. Maybe, but it’s hard to tell. Irish culture and American culture are pretty close. Honduran culture is not so close. Plus, the Irish spoke English, and we’ve only recently acquired the disease of multiculturalism with it’s anti-assimilation message.

                    2. The children of immigrant parents almost always become fluent in English. The grandchildren of immigrants tend to barely speak their grandparents native tongue.

                      Your language fears are unfounded.

                3. “””The Irish Americans who once were reliable Democrats later supported Reagan in a big way.””

                  And Reagan was a Roosevelt supporter. He did not shut down a single Roosvelt program, he went deep into debt to boost the economy. He even had his overseas enemy, the communists while Roosvelt had the Nazis. Reagan also did not like government employee unions and so did Roosevelt.

                  The Irish Americans did not change, its just that the Democratic party moved left

                4. Exactly how many generations do you expect it to take? The US has had a sizable Hispanic population for over a century. They haven’t assimilated to white averages in education, politics, criminality, etc. People weren’t saying “just give the Irish a chance” in freaking 1980

                  1. “They haven’t assimilated to white averages in education, politics,”

                    You need to travel the country a bit more, look at the CEO’s of major companies and check the names of the politicians in many places!

                    1. “I’ll see your facts and counter with vague suggestions at possible anecdotes!”

              2. Isn’t the whole point of libertarianism to treat people as individuals and not as representatives of some group they belong to?

                1. Well, maybe not the whole point, but I’d say that is an essential part of it.

                  People here complain quite rightly about how most politicians, particularly those to the left, have no principles. Why do principles go out the window as soon as immigration comes up?

                2. Libertarianism is about treating people as individuals. Except for Minneapolis Somalis in their cooking abilities. I will treat them as a homogeneous whole in that regard.

                3. nope. The point of libertarianism is to establish a state in which people are able to exercise the maximum amount of personal and economic freedom by conducting themselves in a responsible manner. In order to do so there must be a n equitable and responsible limited government to establish a rule of law in order to protect the rights of all citizens. Without the government to carry out this function you either have tyranny- unjust rule of government or anarchy- the lack of government protection for individual and property rights.
                  What libertarians do is debate about the proper role and amount of government in our lives.

                  “Isn’t the whole point of libertarianism to treat people as individuals and not as representatives of some group they belong to?”
                  That is a very narrow point of what Libertarians debate. The concept if much broader.

        3. because the democrats are like the socialist governments many of these people had at home. Also – the Democrats are giving them stuff to buy their votes.
          Republicans expect them to stand on their own and not join the perpetual welfare class.

      4. If using the IRS to bully people from supporting your political opponents doesn’t work, using the immigration system to ferry in more votes will.

        1. IOW, packing the electorate.

          1. democrats have been doing it all along. Jackson did it in the 1820’s with the southern Scots-Irish, Tammany hall did it with the Irish and the Democrats did it in the 1960s with the blacks and the Great Society giveaways.

            Now they are trying to do it with the Hispanics by giving citizenship to Illegals

      5. HM has posted a study debunking this. Actual voting patterns of Hispanic immigrants aren’t so dire.

        1. They’re dire enough to change the balance of the electorate in a statist direction, which is Obama’s intent.

          1. Not happening.

            1. Already did happen, you twit.

    4. If it is, Obama is even dumber than I think he is. This isn’t a path to citizenship. Even Obama can’t do that. It is just a deferred status. At best it means any kids they have here while they stay are citizens but it gets the actual people no closer to citizenship.

      1. I just thought Ken was talking about reform in general, but I see your interpretation is probably correct.

        1. This is the first incremental step.

          After they’ve been here quasi-legally a few years, we’ll be hearing all about how their legal limbo is a horrible thing, and how we just have to give them a fast track to citizenship.

          Besides, its not like you need to be a citizen to vote, anyway.

          http://www.npr.org/2013/06/17/…..oting-rule

          The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a state-mandated requirement that prospective voters in Arizona provide proof of citizenship to be able to register to vote in national elections.

          1. I don’t agree with Obama’s approach, but a path to citizenship is ultimately what I would like to see included in a reform bill.

          2. Here is the problem with that RC. The Democrats, even though they would love to have the votes, won’t want them out of legal limbo. If they get citizenship, the Democrats no longer have any leverage over them and can’t threaten them with the specter of the evil Republicans deporting them if they ever get in office.

            So politically this is going to be a dead end. The Democrats are going to be too dependent on threatening the Hispanic community with their family members getting deported to ever get rid of it.

            1. Democrats don’t need legal leverage over people who will vote Democrat the minute they’re able.

              1. Not every Hispanic is a mindless Democrat. That is a nice fantasy that makes Progs feel good about future and white Conservatives feel superior, but it is just not true.

                Hispanics are not blacks and are not going to forever break Democrat the way blacks do. Also, Hipsanics intermarry with whites. So the race hate machine Democrats use on blacks wont’ work nearly as well with Hispanics.

                Lastly, most of the Hispanic illegals don’t really give a fuck about citizenship. They just want work here for a few years make their money and go back home.

                So at best the Democrats are going to be able to threaten the friends and family of illegals into voting Democrat. But they are unlikely to accomplish much more.

                1. I would love to believe it. Latin America has a few hopeful spots such as Chile, Columbia, and Honduras – from which few of these immigrants originated. And a bunch of leftist disasters.

                  I’m betting that the majority of them will vote straight-line Democrat for at least a generation. If not, this wouldn’t be happening.

                  1. No love for Costa Rica?

                    1. We’re keeping it secret, Bo. Pretend Costa Rica is Lucy.

                    2. DON’T TALK ABOUT LUC…, ER, COSTA RICA!

                  2. Drake,

                    If that were true and doing this would have guaranteed Democratic socialism forever, why didn’t the Democrats do real amnesty and give citizenship and voting rights to these people when they had the chance and controlled both houses of Congress in 09? They could have had amnesty and path to citizenship in a heartbeat and with the support of a few Republicans. They wouldn’t have even had to shove it down the country’s throat. But they didn’t do it.

                    Maybe they just felt sorry for the Republicans and wanted to go easy on them. Or maybe open borders is political poison that won’t endanger support in the Hispanic community and will just produce a huge backlash against anyone who does it?

                    1. Incompetence and fear of local backlash. Now, Dem Reps can claim they had nothing to do with it, while future Dems reap the benefits.

                    2. Except that THIS IS NOT CITIZENSHIP and gives none of these people the right to vote. So they don’t get any votes and all of the backlash.

                      And sorry, incompetence is not always the answer. The Democrats do know how to win elections and do know how to create majorities.

                    3. John, they will get votes out of this.

                      Non-citizens vote in non-trivial numbers now.

                      States are prohibited from asking for proof of citizenship.

                      They will start reaping votes immediately, and more over time. I bet the Dems even have a top-secret memo somewhere discussing the electoral impact of this proposal.

                    4. Non-citizens vote in non-trivial numbers now.

                      Assumes facts not in evidence.

                    5. Perhaps.

                      Without a robust voter-id requirement to ensure or at least make an effort to ensure that only legal residents of the district in which the ballot is being cast can actually vote.

                      And I mean people who are not legally citizens of the district in which they are casting a ballot, which includes a US citizen who is legally a resident in another place. For example, if you are a “snowbird” living in both Florida and Minnesota, say, you’re legally a resident in only one or the other. Vote there. And certainly non-citizens ought to be excluded from the voting process.

                    6. Argh.

                      Without a robust voter-id requirement to ensure or at least make an effort to ensure that only legal residents of the district in which the ballot is being cast can actually vote, we’ll never know.

                  3. Most of Latin America is heading towards freer markets.

                    1. Most of Latin America is heading towards freer markets.

                      Won’t be long before we are sneaking across their borders.

                2. Not every Hispanic is a mindless Democrat

                  But enough of them are to swing the balance of the electorate toward Democrats, to some degree.

                  1. Never has happened, never will happen. Keep shitting those pants.

                    1. You need to read up on history, bub.

                    2. You need to read actual history and not Breitbart/MadeUpNumbersUSA bullshit talking points.

                    3. How does Cyto manage to breathe with his head so far up his own ass?

          3. I’m for eventual citizenship for any immigrants that want it, and for work permits for those who want them. I also want, but don’t expect tonight, that all of those who’ve been doing it “by the book” and waiting for years for their applications to be processed, be put at the very front of the line and be expedited. I don’t think that’s asking too much, but I bet the Prez does.

      2. Oh, I think once they get some legal status for their presence here, getting them out of the country will be practically impossible. Once you can’t deport people, their citizenship status becomes a foregone conclusion.

        If Obama is dumb about this, it’s because the unions are going to shit. Maybe not the government employees unions, maybe not the service unions, but there are a still a lot of unions that see cheap labor as a serious threat.

        1. It will be much easier to start deporting people than you think. And moreover, citizenship is not a foregone conclusion at all. There is nothing to say the country won’t be happy to let them stay here and not get citizenship. If the Republicans can’t deport them, they can at least keep them from voting. And since most people just want to work here and don’t give a shit about politics, there won’t be much of a push by the immigrants themselves to get citizenship. Why would they want it? So the IRS can hound them for the rest of their lives if they ever choose to go back home?

          1. Yes, deportations aren’t that hard. Self-deportations are even easier. Just cut off the welfare at the federal/state/local level. Just those two things would make a huge dent in the problem.

            1. A lot of the immigrants just come here to work for a few years and go back home. While they don’t want to get deported, most of them don’t give a shit about becoming citizens.

            2. We already tried treating them differently under the law–with a constitutional amendment in California.

              There wasn’t much precedent on that before. Now they’ve got rulings that say discriminating against people because of their national origin is unconstitutional.

              You go state by state for Prop 187 type solutions, and you’re going to end up in a one party Democratic Party state–just like California and for all the same reasons.

              1. Ken you are mixing apples and oranges here. We are talking about citizenship and voting not welfare and schools. They are going to come here and suck the welfare down like crazy, which is going to make them even more unpopular and more likely to be deported.

                There is nothing that says we have to grant anyone citizenship who is not born here.

                1. “Self-deportations are even easier. Just cut off the welfare at the federal/state/local level. Just those two things would make a huge dent in the problem.”

                  My comment was in response to that, John.

                  Don’t try to cut off the welfare state for just immigrants. It won’t make a dent in the problem.

                  It will turn you into California.

                  That way lies destruction.

                2. “They are going to come here and suck the welfare down like crazy, which is going to make them even more unpopular”
                  ——————
                  That’s not how it’s happened in California. The more they suck down, the more sympathy they get. I don’t understand the mechanism, but I’ve observed it first-hand.

                  1. Facless Comenter.

                    The US is not California. This is the same debate we had over Obamacare. The Left and many on the right are convinced that America is just full of lazy retards worried about not being called racists and when the next welfare check is coming from.

                    It makes you guys feel good about yourselves but it is not true. If you guys think that it is and the country is so irredeemably stupid, then stop worrying about it or leave because you can’t have an intelligent or interesting debate about politics when the assumption about every policy is “of course it is stupid but the voters are so stupid they will love it”

                    1. It isn’t about being lazy retards.

                      It’s about subjecting yourself to ads about depriving cute little Mexican children the chance to learn to read, write, eat food, and have a place to live.

                      Just kick puppies instead. Believe me, you’ll suffer less for it. Instead of trying to deprive immigrants of the same welfare access as everyone else, just line up a bunch of puppies and kick them to death.

                      What are we talking–a ten percent margin in most elections? Puppies don’t organize and vote the same way. Puppies have short memories. People will forgive you for kicking puppies much, much sooner.

                    2. It isn’t about being lazy retards.

                      It’s about subjecting yourself to ads about depriving cute little Mexican children the chance to learn to read, write, eat food, and have a place to live.

                      Yes Ken. it is about you thinking America is stupid and will fall for that no matter what. You of course are smarter and can see through the lie. But big dumb America isn’t.

                      Go smell each others’ farts elsewhere. It is just boring.

                    3. I’m talking about what actually happened, John.

                      Up until Prop 187, we had Republican governors. California was just as much in play for the Republicans as any other state.

                      After Prop 187, you can forget about it.

                      That’s not my opinion. Those are the facts.

                      …and in terms of demographics, the rest of the country is becoming more and more like California was in 1994–every day.

                    4. America is not California Ken. If it were, we wouldn’t be having this debate because we would already have granted these people citizenship.

                    5. America is not California Ken.

                      California didn’t use to be California either, John. “The fundamental transformation of America” is a gradual process.

                    6. Blaming Prop 187 is Bullshit. Reagan’s amnesty just finally came home to roost. Those Mexicans were never going to vote Democrat no matter what happened. They are part of the underclass. We also got a huge influx of coastal liberals during the boom in high tech.

                    7. Yes Ken. it is about you thinking America is stupid and will fall for that no matter what. You of course are smarter and can see through the lie. But big dumb America isn’t.

                      It sure worked in Cali 2005 for the nurse, teacher, and firefighter unions when they ran ads showing ragged, pathetic, well-meaning, hard-working public servants who were going to be starved and driven into the streets by Schwarzenegger’s attempts to take away tenure for Kindergarten teachers (kicked in at two years) and restricted political spending by public employee unions.

                    8. Facless Comenter.

                      The US is not California.

                      Give it time, John.

                  2. It’s residual from Prop 187.

                    It was a poison pill.

                    After they passed Prop 187, the only Republican we could get elected in California was himself an immigrant.

                    1. No, after a judge overturned Prop 187, the only Republican we could get elected in California was himself an immigrant

                    2. It was the substance of the law that the voters all over California were reacting to–not the judgement against 187.

                      Believe me, they would have thought it was racist against them and mean–regardless of whether that judge had ruled it unconstitutional.

                      And by the way? I don’t really have a problem with them overturning 187. If we’re going to slash welfare, we should slash it for everybody–and I wish we’d do that.

                      I wish we’d done that in 1994, which was a huge year for Republicans everywhere else in the country. If only we’re sought to slash welfare instead of welfare for immigrants, California might be a reasonably well governed place today!

            3. Illegal immigrants use welfare at a lower rate than natives.

              1. Why should we have any immigrants, legal or illegal, who use welfare? The country is broke. This argument is entirely illogical. It’s like saying “American citizens commit more murders, so why do you object to importing foreign murderers?”

                1. Why should we have anyone on welfare? Kind of makes your focus on immigrants RETARDED, no?

              2. You mean they use welfare at a lower rate than natives–of the same socioeconomic status in the same area.

                Poor immigrants do not sue welfare at lower rates than the average middle class American living in suburbia.

                New immigrants also commit less crime than native born Americans of the same income level in the same areas, but all those things start to break down over the generations.

                The grand children have the same rate as the native born of the same income level.

                There are other things I consider welfare that other people don’t. I consider public schools to be welfare. Immigrants have a much higher birth rate than native born Americans, and they have children at younger ages, too.

                If it weren’t for immigration, right now, the birth rate in the United States would be below replacement level, and our population would be shrinking.

                1. If it weren’t for immigration, right now, the birth rate in the United States would be below replacement level, and our population would be shrinking.

                  Thank God for immigration then.

                  You know that immigration tends to push people up the socio-economic ladder right? So that’s how they reduce welfarism and crime.

                  1. Yeah, labor is a resource, and having more of a resource is better.

                    That being said, if we’re talking about public spending on things like education? Saying that illegal immigrants use welfare at a lower rate than natives doesn’t really wash.

                    Like I said, I consider public schools to be welfare.

              3. Since illegal immigrants would have to use false identity to use welfare that means that nobody has real numbers on how many use welfare.

              4. And we know this, how? Since so many illegals also indulge in a little identify theft, that is.

              5. That’s because for the most part it’s illegal for them do do so!

                Nevertheless, why should we be importing more people, legal or illegal, who require welfare?

              6. In 1995, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyzed data from the March 1994 CPS (the first CPS to ask participants about their citizenship status) that indicated that the foreign born (both naturalized and noncitizen) were significantly more likely to use SSI, but were not significantly more likely to use AFDC or food stamps. In AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid, noncitizens had higher participation rates than the native born, but naturalized citizens had lower participation rates than the native born. However, in the SSI program both noncitizens and naturalized citizens had higher participation rates than native-born citizens. This finding was especially true among the aged population.

              7. Duh. Getting welfare benefits fraudulently would be yet another law they broke.

                Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends [Congressional Research Organization]

                Unauthorized aliens (often referred to as illegal aliens) are not eligible for most federal benefits, regardless of whether they are means tested.

                PRWORA sought further to prevent unauthorized aliens from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) by also requiring that the social security numbers (SSN) of recipients (and spouses) be valid for employment in the United States.

                Unlike earlier federal law, P.L. 104-193 expressly bars unauthorized aliens from most state and locally funded benefits. The restrictions on these benefits parallel the restrictions on federal
                benefits.

    5. Yes. This is the literal (in the true sense of the word) embodiment of the old joke about the government getting themselves a new people.

    6. Yep. it is about creating as many Democratic voters as possible. Having taken the black vote away from the Republicans by buying their votes with the welfare state, the Democrats wish to corner the Hispanic vote by giving away the most precious thing on the planet – American citizenship. What they aren’t telling the American people – is that they are selling their future away to maintain political power.

      Millions of low skilled, low education workers highly dependent on the state will not only bankrupt the government but also undermine low end wages for Americans already here struggling to get by. There hasn’t been an effective increase in wages in nearly 30 years yet the cost of living has almost doubled.

      1. Dey took our jurbs!

        1. In the case of the black community it is true. Seriously, don’t you think it is kind of racist to make fun of the economic concerns of people who have spent the entire history of the country on the bottom? You don’t have to agree with them. But it seems in pretty poor taste to just ridicule blacks and whites who are going to lose out because of this.

          1. The jobs don’t belong to the blacks or whites who ‘are going to lose out’ because of this. Of course, I don’t think they are ‘going to lose out’ because overall free movement of labor makes for a better economy.

            1. John, doubtless many people who have been at or near the bottom of our economy who oppose free trade in goods might say they are ‘going to lose out’ if more free trade is allowed. Should we then oppose free trade?

            2. You disagree with them. That doesn’t make you any less of a douche for responding to people acting in their own interests with redicule.

              And even if “overall” the markets give the most efficient result, individual results may vary. Individuals often get fucked by the markets. Such is the price of the market. But Market advocates do themselves no favors by pretending that is not true or that anyone who is the fuckee and doesn’t like it is just some moron.

              The “they took our jerbs” routine is absolutely one of the most douchey and offensive things Libertarians do and a good example of why so many people hate them even though they are often correct about things.

              1. Rhino made a good point and I think another aspect of this situation you are overlooking is that many of the individuals you are sympathizing with likely don’t do the same for the undocumented migrants that come to the US looking for a better life. Too often they are demonized.

              2. And even if “overall” the markets give the most efficient result, individual results may vary. Individuals often get fucked by the markets. Such is the price of the market. But Market advocates do themselves no favors by pretending that is not true or that anyone who is the fuckee and doesn’t like it is just some moron.

                Good point, John.

            3. It’s protectionism. If the influx of hispanic immigrants depresses wages, that’s just what happens when there is market competition. So you create protectionist laws to give one group of people more of a monopoly to bolster their pocketbooks, but it is, on net, inefficient, so they higher prices means they lose out even if they earn higher wages. Ultimately, if you favor property rights, you must favor free immigration.

              1. It is protectionism except for the welfare state. Ultimately no one who is in favor of open borders can be so unless getting rid of the welfare state is a condition of that. Otherwise, you are just pushing natives to give free shit to anyone who wants it.

                Since I don’t see anyone, even on here, demanding an end to the welfare state as a condition of open borders, I don’t see how they have any standing to make fun of people who want to keep their jobs or don’t want to pay for free shit for people so Libertarians can feel good about themselves.

                1. Agreed.

                  The so called protectionist argument is absolutely fallacious. US citizens pay taxes and have a right to be in this country. Illegals do not. So the people that support the country have the right to work here, the illegals do not.
                  An expansion of labor by illegals undermines the price of labor which upsets the natural balance of labor relations. No only does this rob citizens the ability to work for reasonable wages but because the illegals send the money back to their home countries it reduces the churning effect of money to produce secondary employment for second and third party services that rely on American workers spending their money in the US economy not sending it to Mexico.

                  If you cannot understand the detrimental effect this has on the US economy then you are probably not intelligent or educated enough to be a Libertarian which requires a higher level of thought than being a Liberal.

                  1. Even if there were no welfare state the effect of illegals undermines the society because so much of our commerce is based on debt and the ability of people to service it.

                    Your need a mortgage to buy a house. Once you have made that commitment you cannot just take a pay cut even if prices fall because illegals have overun whole industries. Your house will still be foreclosed. You will still lose everything you have worked for up to this point and your family will still be out on the street.

                    If everything was based on cash and nobody bought anything on credit falling wages wouldn’t be such a big problem.

                    I would still be against importing people who don’t belong here but a debt based economy doesn’t gain by falling wages, unless you are also in favor of those at the top buying up the foreclosed houses at fire sale prices.

              2. Couldn’t have said it better.

              3. Rhino, you have the same sort of impractical, idealistic view that left-wing One World Government types have. It won’t work. Borders can increase liberty. I don’t want our wages to become more like average world wages. Having secure borders is not “protectionism.” Welfare states can’t have open borders, or they go broke. First end the welfare state, and then get back to me on open borders.

                1. For the time being, I don’t see any serious legislative proposals calling for completely open borders, so this all may be irrelevant. However, I don’t necessarily see a conflict with less restrictive immigration laws and a welfare state. The problems we are experiencing with welfare/social insurance programs in the US are not primarily the result of parasitical immigrants. They are structural in nature.

                  Furthermore, why relentlessly push for the free flow of capital and not make similar efforts to do the same for labor?

                  1. I don’t see any serious legislative proposals calling for completely open borders,

                    No we just have an EO that says we are no longer going to enforce immigration law.

              4. If you oppose the welfare state, you must favor restrictions on immigration when those potential immigrants would increase the demands of the welfare state.

                Eliminate the welfare state and I’m singing a different tune.

                I don’t think it’s racist or xenophobic to expect (and demand) that people coming to this country be able to do so without sucking at the welfare teat. Of course, I expect citizens to do the same (which is why the analogous instance of people on welfare breeding more children and adding them to the welfare roles is similarly infuriating).

                If you can come here and be productive and self-supporting, welcome! Otherwise…

  3. http://www.slate.com/articles/…..ation.html

    Congress has given nearly full legal rights to legal immigrants and passed tough laws to keep everyone else out?while appropriating far too little money to enforce them. This throws to the executive the task of deciding whom to enforce the laws against. Because Congress appropriates only enough money to deport 400,000 people per year out of 11 million, the president by necessity must pick and choose whom to deport. It’s no surprise that for decades every president has deported mainly criminals while leaving most everyone else alone.

    For example, in 2014, immigration authorities deported 368,644 people, which may sound like a lot. But 98 percent of them were criminals, were caught just after entering, or had engaged in various serious forms of immigration fraud. The probability of a noncriminal undocumented alien living in the interior being deported is less than 1 in 1,000.

    1. So Obama’s press announcement doesn’t actually change a fucking thing.

      The score card reads:

      1) Obama makes a public announcement that makes him feel important.

      2) Republican get pissed off because they hate the president’s message.

      3) Democrats on the street scream “huzzah!” because the chosen one is making a difference in spite of Republican obstruction.

      4) Nothing in the real world actually changes, but . . .

      5) The Democratic Party gets fucked in the ass in the next election.

      1. 6) President Jeb does it all legally anyway with the 2017 Act of Love.

      2. There is one thing Obama’s announcement does: It extends a big invitation and hope to those who haven’t gotten here yet.

    2. Interesting. So, if Obama announces that he will deport as many people, roughly, as Congress has given him money to deport, and here are his priorities, that’s good. Seriously, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

      But, that is not the same thing, at all, as announcing that, based solely on his own authority, he is going to order that the immigration laws be suspended for large classes of lawbreakers.

      You see the difference, right? The first announcement is based entirely on Congressional action and is an appropriate exercise of delegated authority.

      The other is a usurpation of authority.

      1. To be fair, the US government has a history of letting lawbreakers get off easy. This is especially true if you have power. The last two administrations are cases in point.

      2. So the question is what is Obama actually going to fucking announce.

        I suspect it will be basic marketing bullshit. The truth told in a misleading way to convince people the opposite of what he actually will do.

        1. Sheesh, kinnath, didn’t you read the talking points? [T]he President will detail action … ensuring everyone plays by the same set of rules.

      3. if Obama announces that he will deport as many people, roughly, as Congress has given him money to deport, and here are his priorities, that’s good.

        Emphasis added. I trust the President, as a good steward of the taxpayer’s money, would prioritize the *cheapest* badasses.

        1. There is no need to deport anyone – just stop making it so easy for them to stay.
          *Stop giving citizenship to the children of illegals born here – no other nation on the planet does that.
          *Stop educating these children at taxpayer expense
          *seize and auction off any vehicle driven by an illegal.
          *Strengthen enforcement of penalties for employing illegals.
          *Make it harder for illegals to wire money to Mexico.

          If these measures and other common sense one’s are done, the illegals will go home on their own.

          1. *seize and auction off any vehicle driven by an illegal.
            *Strengthen enforcement of penalties for employing illegals.
            *Make it harder for illegals to wire money to Mexico.

            Man, I just can’t understand why so many libertarians think “border security” is just a backdoor for fascism.

            1. perhaps you can tell me what is Fascist – about that.
              First of all FASCISM is national socialism where the means of production are controlled but not owned by the state.
              What I proposed is perfectly within the rights of the state. A person in the country ILLEGALLY driving a car ILLEGAllY, breaking a traffic law and not having the proper paperwork (drivers license and proof of citizenship) can be forced to surrender the vehicle after due process of law.

              There is nothing remotely”fascist” or Statist about that policy. The illegal alien shouldn’t even be in country at all much less diving a car or owning property in the country.

              1. So businesses and capital are not among the means of production?

                What kind of economics are you familiar with, exactly?

                1. personal vehicles are neither businesses or capital. If they are used as such the owners must pay taxes which is highly unlikely if the owners are illegal immigrants.

                  Furthermore, the government is empowered to seize the assets of businesses that are operating illegally or fail to pay their taxes.
                  Since the illegals are here illegally then I would have to say that they are operating in an illegal fashion and are subject legal action by the state.

                  Pretty simple or do you not believe that the government has any power to enforce the law – which would make you an anarchist NOT a libertarian.

                  1. Taxation is an instrument of control.

            2. Someone driving around with illegal aliens in their car is by definition guilty of human trafficking, which is bad, right?

              U.S. Code ? Title 8 ? Chapter 12 ? Subchapter II ? Part VIII ? ? 1323

              (A) Any person who?
              (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry…
              (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise…
              (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
              (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
              (v)
              (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
              (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

              1. Oops, make that Section 1324, not 1323.

                (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs?
                (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
                (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
                (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
                (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

                1. Someone driving around with illegal aliens in their car is by definition guilty of human trafficking, which is bad, right?

                  Kidnapping is bad. Transporting someone voluntarily by car is not.

          2. Keep us out of your fascistic fantasies please.

            1. You don’t even know what fascism is, so refrain from throwing that term around until you do.

              People in a country illegally have no “rights” that is what it means to be illegal – the state has the right to use whatever statutes that are legally passed to enforce the immigration law.

              1. States don’t have rights, they only have powers. And the only power they have here is deportation.

                1. “States don’t have rights, they only have powers. And the only power they have here is deportation”

                  Correct – states don’t have rights citizens do.

                  And wrong – the state has powers to do many things not just deportation.

                  1. It has no particular powers with regard to illegal immigration other than deportation.

      4. executive action designed to keep roughly 4 million unauthorized immigrants from deportation and provide them with legal status to work.

        This is where he moves from marketing bullshit into truly illegal actions.

      5. “Interesting. So, if Obama announces that he will deport as many people, roughly, as Congress has given him money to deport, and here are his priorities, that’s good. Seriously, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.”

        Yes, and then let’s assume that a Republican Congress doubles the budget for deportations next year. What happens?

        I can’t imagine any scenario whereby Obama suddenly decides to deport all those illegal aliens that he de-prioritized this year.

        1. let’s assume that a Republican Congress doubles the budget for deportations next year. What happens?

          The President, in his faithful execution of the law, will just work twice as far down his priority list of deportations.

          I can’t imagine any scenario whereby Obama suddenly decides to deport all those illegal aliens that he de-prioritized this year.

          Then you grasp the difference between using discretion in the exercise of delegated authority, and usurping authority.

          1. Agreed. The smart Republican counter to this should be to double the deportation budget next year as a stand alone bill and send it to the President.

            Obama would be forced to Veto it or pass it and then deal with the fall out. My guess is he would go with the Veto, because that’s a perfectly legal action. However, it’s going to be terrible PR.

  4. How can a decision NOT to do somethig constitute an expansion of executive power? You’re basically arguing that nativists have some sort of positive right to exclude people from the country that is being infringed by Obama’s refusual to deport more people.

    1. How can a decision NOT to do somethig constitute an expansion of executive power?

      The same reason that your decision NOT to stop at a red light is a violation of the traffic laws.

      1. Perhaps, but is it “an unprecedented expansion of driver power”?

        1. It does when the president declares that millions don’t need to stop at red lights.

        2. If you decide to never stop at any red light ever, yes.

        3. Perhaps, but is it “an unprecedented expansion of driver power”?

          If its the first time you’ve done it, then yes.

    2. the obvious irony with the decision to NOT buy health insurance must be noted.

    3. First of all, the term is not “nativist” it is citizen- perhaps that concept is not something that you cannot comprehend. and if you cannot comprehend the concept of citizenship then you cannot understand the concept of private property which is nearly the same concept.

      Second, the illegals coming here are here merely to exploit the resources that rightfully belong to the citizens of the United States who worked for those resources. They have no allegiance to the United States.

      1. I though it was to enter into a voluntary agreement to work for American citizens?

      2. Amnesty/Open Borders does seem to cheapen the concept of citizenship. ie, the state conferring rights ane benefits willy-nilly. That tends to stick in the “nativists” craw.

        1. The only things that citizenship confers are political privileges. This means voting, consular services, and redress through the courts.

          Rights are not granted by the government and have nothing to do with citizenship. Life, liberty, and property are not the government’s to take without proving a crime of equal magnitude to the punishment.

          Illegal presence is a violation not a crime and the only remedy to it is removal.

          1. That list was not meant to be exhaustive. There are other privileges of citizenship, such as running for elected office, obtaining a passport for international travel, etc.

          2. actually Illegal presence is a crime and it is successfully prosecuted at the federal level.

            The constitution confers no rights on illegals so they do not have rights.

            1. No, it is a civil offense. It is not “prosecuted”, it is administratively resolved by deportation. You have a hearing, at which you can either show the administration has erred, or else apply for special dispensation (such as asylum), but it is not a criminal trial, there is no burden of proof, and the “sentence” is automatic.

              The constitution confers no rights …

              Period. The rights are inherent, the Constitution either recognizes them or does not. Only a handful of things in the Constitution are distinguished on the basis of citizenship.

          3. Eliminate the welfare state (including public schools, “free” emergency rooms, and all other sorts of things that libertarians generally expect people to pay for of their own accord) and you’re onto something.

            Bringing millions of unskilled laborers into the welfare state is just a bad idea.

            Rewarding millions of lawbreakers is just a bad idea.

            1. That has nothing to do with what I said.

          4. Citizenship also confers responsibilities such as the ability to be drafted in time of war. Illegals and green card holders don’t have those responsibilities and should not get the privileges.

            1. Illegals and green card holders don’t have those responsibilities and should not get the privileges.

              This point does not seem to be in dispute.

            2. There is no military draft in effect at this time. But when there was, I assure you that green card holders and other non-citizens were most definitely subject to it.

              1. But when there was, I assure you that green card holders and other non-citizens were most definitely subject to it.

                Best Answer: People who were here legally & in the process of getting their citizenship were subject to the draft. The average tour of duty in Vietnam was 1 year.

                Maybe you forgot the instances where we send planes and boats to get our people out of war zones when war is declared. Other countries do the same. Anybody who isn’t a citizen would be free to go and the government couldn’t do a thing.

                Green card holders with the intent to be citizens. Plenty of green card holders do not want to be citizens. Any green-card holder who doesn’t want to fight can just leave or declare he doesn’t want to be a citizen. No non-citizens.

                We fought a war over British press gangs kidnapping our sailors.

        2. It not only cheapens the concept of citizenship but also undermines the concept of rule of law.
          Rule of law is essential for a free and orderly society. Without citizenship and rule of law there can be no personal responsibility which is the basis for the Social Contract.

          Did none of you take civics in college or even high school?

          1. The “social contract” is bullshit. Show me the document and where I signed it.

            What we have is a concentration of laws and their enforcers in a single body (well, technically closer to a cartel, since there are state and local governments in addition to the federal government).

            Citizenship is about politics. I explained the distinction above. Call me Heinleinian if you wish, but the idea is pretty straightforward. Rights belong to all men; citizenship is about who can obtain special privileges from the government.

            1. The “social contract” is bullshit.

              Really, try living in a country without one…See how much peace, liberty and freedom you will have.

              kbolino – another moron living in fantasy land

              1. kbolino – another moron living in fantasy land

                People in glass houses should not throw stones. Where is this mythical contract and when did I sign it?

            2. Your parents signed it for you. You can renounce your citizenship and move to another country if they will take you.

              1. Your parents signed it for you. You can renounce your citizenship and move to another country if they will take you.

                Was this nonsense supposed to be serious?

                What did they sign? Where is it? How is it actionable? Who is the other party? How can I amend it?

                The “bend over and take it” theory of government is supposed to be persuasive how, exactly?

                1. They signed your birth certificate.

                  You can renounce your citizenship and move somewhere else not that you are ab adult.

                  1. My birth certificate is the social contract? WTF?

                    I don’t believe in birthright citizenship, but even so saying that my birth certificate (which establishes only where I was born and when) constitutes some binding and explicit agreement between me and the government is nonsense.

                    1. You are not subject to the responsibilities of the social contract until you are an adult. Once you are an adult you can renounce your citizenship and leave the country. You staying in the country and not renouncing your citizenship is you agreeing to it’s terms.

                    2. Are you going to answer any of my questions or are you just going to spout more bullshit?

      3. Citizenship is a political status that confers certain privileges. Natural rights like property have nothing to do with citizenship.

        You do not own your neighbor’s land or the fruit of his labor just because you’re both citizens. If he chooses to engage in commerce or other association with a non-citizen, tough shit.

        Your only claim to redress is for direct and provable harm to yourself.

        1. And you don’t own your neighbors land so how is your immigrant or your imported goods going to get to your property without your nighbors permission.

          1. And you don’t own your neighbors land so how is your immigrant or your imported goods going to get to your property without your nighbors permission.

            It won’t. What is your point?

            1. My point there is no right of movement. That what government does is not to create borders but to consoldate borders from the real 7 billion number down to 200 or so. That getting rid of government borders does not give a right of movement since the people inside the government borders can and will erect their own borders. The individuals borders have been supressed by government force.

              So all this talk about open borders has nothing to do with a market based world but a government system put in place by force.

              1. “Up is down” /djf

              2. Nobody is arguing about getting rid of government borders. I doubt most people in the US want to be subject to Canada’s government, never mind Mexico’s.

                The border is the line at which a particular government stops having authority to enforce its laws. In practice, of course, the situation is more nuanced than that, but that is the basic concept.

                The US wasn’t founded arbitrarily to keep the numbers down, it was founded to foster and protect liberty.

                Yeah, if you’re going to trample all over your neighbor’s rights, then he gets to do the same to you. I don’t understand why some sort of global tu quoque should be the new guiding principle of government, though.

                Some of your neighbors will associate with non-citizens and some won’t. You have no right to force either of them to change.

                1. So you want just enough government to force others to associate with your immigrants but not enough government to stop you from associateing with your immigrants.

                  “”””The US wasn’t founded arbitrarily to keep the numbers down, it was founded to foster and protect liberty.””

                  And that includes the liberty of the people to decide who they want in the US

                  1. So you want just enough government to force others to associate with your immigrants but not enough government to stop you from associateing with your immigrants.

                    Yes, that’s exactly what I want, as clearly evidenced by this sentence in the post you responded to:

                    Some of your neighbors will associate with non-citizens and some won’t. You have no right to force either of them to change.

                    And that includes the liberty of the people to decide who they want in the US

                    That is not “liberty”. You get to say how your own property is used. You get to elect people to make decisions about how government property is used. But you don’t get to say what other people do with their own property. Your liberty ends at your neighbor’s doorstop, just as his ends at yours.

                    If you want to live around like-minded people, then you need to develop a covenant-based community. But first you have to convince people without coercion.

                    1. If you want to live around like-minded people, then you need to develop a covenant-based community.

                      We did, It is called the United States of America. We have been fine with it. If you want to have a state based on no borders, go start your own country built on that principal. good luck.

                    2. We did, It is called the United States of America

                      WTF? Who is this “we”, motherfucker? I’m squinting real hard, but I don’t see your name or mine on the document.

                      Never mind that the document is a dead letter, and the government that exists can hardly be said to be a faithful interpretation of it.

                      Also, where is the dissolution clause? “If you don’t like it, leave!” But be sure to give up all your property on the way out!

                    3. “The document” in this case being the Constitution.

                  2. “”””The US wasn’t founded arbitrarily to keep the numbers down, it was founded to foster and protect liberty.””

                    And that includes the liberty of the people to decide who they want in the US

                    Holy God. WOW. They merely have to “decide” they want in.

                2. your arguments are circular.

                  In order to have the freedom you have to have government that protects your rights.

                  Without a skeleton the body collapses into a blob.
                  without a skin the body cannot protect itself from pathogens

                  1. In order to have the freedom you have to have government that protects your rights.

                    “… endowed by their Creator …”

                    The USG is my creator, now?

        2. here is your harm

          The state collects taxes for the schools hospitals and other infrastructure. Illegals are using them without paying for them.

          1. The agent causing that harm is the state.

            1. wrong again. you really must obtain a brain otherwise refrain from commenting.

              1. The state collects taxes …

                Are you unable to read your own comments?

      4. Keep us out of your fascistic fantasies please.

  5. Probably Legal but also Unprecedented, Productive Policy but Troublesome Politics, but run-on sentence, or something

    1. I tried to unravel that title myself. Looks like Common Core English.

    2. There were also numerous typos in the article. Maybe I’m just a grammar Nazi but I find it bothers me.

    3. Its not legal. Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution and enforce the law.
      By this decree he will openly and willfully neglect to enforce the law as it is written, which violates his oath of office.
      By changing the immigration status of millions of illegals he will have effectively changed the immigration laws without the consent of congress which is highly unconstitutional.
      Imagine if you will, if it was election law that was being “bent” by Obama in the same manner – say he extended his term by a decade by suspending presidential elections. Not the same thing – actually it would have the same precedent – that the president may change or ignore constitutional statues without the consent of congress, the states or the people.

      1. Unless compelled by the Congress to act, the President has prerogative in pursuing the interests of the United States.

        This is not illegal (to my knowledge) but it is unprecedented, hypocritical, counterproductive, spiteful, and ultimately disrespectful of the office he holds and to the citizens of this country.

        Congress can pass a law compelling him to act, but it is ultimately up to Congress to give the law some teeth. If they aren’t willing to impeach the President, any of his officials, or any of the judges over it, then it doesn’t really matter.

        The Constitution grants the government many powers but stipulates very few duties.

        1. the law itself compels him to act – that is what being the “chief EXECUTIVE officer” is all about.
          Your state Governor has the same title in the state – he cannot ignore law or fail to act as the law requires. If he does it is unconstitutional and he may be subject to impeachment.

          1. There is a difference between outlawing something and compelling the executive to act some way in enforcement of that law.

            It’s the difference between making DUI a crime and setting up a DUI checkpoint. The law may establish the former but not mandate the latter. In that case, you have no cause of action against the sheriff for failing to set up checkpoints.

            I will confess to some ignorance of the particular law in this case. Does it compel the President or one of the cabinet heads to act? If so, in what ways and under what circumstances?

  6. Suderman takes it on. Off the ACA beat and on to immigration policy just like that. Where’s Shikha? I don’t like her but still I hope she’s not chained to water pipe in a basement.

    1. why is Reason publishing this Progressive? I thought this is a libertarian website.

      1. I agree that a lot of Suderman’s articles are more Left wing than Libertarian, but I think this is a pretty good analysis of the situation. And clearly Suderman is just speculating on what is going to happen not cheering it on.

        Suderman – “And while it seems to me that there are some policy advantages in the maneuver, there may also be longer-term political and practical disadvantages to consider as well. “

  7. Over here in my line of work, there are real world consequences for President Not My Fault’s executive actions, and none are the positive kind.

    A White House mass pardon for identity thieves

    Two years ago, when Obama launched his first administrative amnesty known as “DACA” (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the White House gave aid and comfort to illegal alien applicants who were concerned that their previous felony identity theft and fraud crimes would preclude them from the new non-deportation benefits. The Department of Homeland (In)security made clear that illegal workers who wanted coveted employment documents would not have to disclose to the feds whether they used stolen Social Security numbers.

    This is the WORST possible outcome for the millions (yes MILLIONS) of people who have had their SS# used for employment without their authorization. It’s absolutely disgusting and affront to the rule of law.

    1. If someone uses your SSN# for employment purposes, how exactly are you harmed?

      1. Because they are also, of necessity, going to be using it for all the other things that turn into real harm to you through identity fraud.

        Credit cards, banking, loans, criminal histories, etc. ad nauseum will all have your SocSec on them.

        Even without that, what do you think is going to happen when you get ready to retire? What if the identity thief has already started cashing your checks, or filed for disability, or otherwise used your identity to defraud the federal government. You think none of that is going to be a problem for you?

        1. Because they are also, of necessity, going to be using it for all the other things that turn into real harm to you through identity fraud.

          At the point they use it for things that cause actual harm to me, then yes it’s a problem. But merely using it for work identification does not necessarily lead to all of those other things.

          1. Yes it does. Once you use it “for work identification” it goes to the IRS and you get a W2 and the other person’s taxes are fucked beyond all repair.

            1. Yes, but why does the responsibility for that fall on the illegal worker and not on the IRS?

              1. Are you really that stupid?!!!
                Its called identity theft. All sorts of damage can be done by this. Your employment history can be destroyed, and the IRS can come and audit the shit out of you.

              2. How the hell does the IRS know that he and not you are the illegal? You have to go prove it to them. It is a fucking nightmare.

              3. “Yes, but why does the responsibility for that fall on the illegal worker and not on the IRS?”

                Quickly raises hand. Because the IRS are run by statist thugs who put the burden of proof on the accused.

              4. The illegal worker has committed fraud. He has lied on his employment documentation. He has been dishonest with his employer. He has subjected his employer to sanctions, fines, and more.

            2. Let me say, I get that as a practical matter you don’t want someone using your SSN. But as an abstract moral principle: if we agree that SSN should exist and that you should have to get government approval to work a particular job, do you have an obligation to comply with the beauracracy they entail? And if you don’t, are you now responsible for the third party actions the government may later take as a result of your failure to comply?

              1. Agree that SSN SHOULDN’T exist, even.

              2. “But as an abstract moral principle: if we agree that SSN should exist and that you should have to get government approval to work a particular job, do you have an obligation to comply with the beauracracy they entail? And if you don’t, are you now responsible for the third party actions the government may later take as a result of your failure to comply?”

                This reads a little bit like a physics question: Assume a spherical chicken in a vacuum…

                Practically speaking an illegal alien using your SSN harms you. In some cases the harm may be small, but in many cases it’s large and real.

      2. You don’t think that might, at the very least, complicate your relationship with the IRS? And what if they get your tax refund? And what about your credit score? Think about it, Stormy.

      3. When you try and file your taxes and your return gets kicked back because they already filed for you, you are harmed in a big way. Good luck convincing the IRS the first return wasn’t yours. And good luck convincing the SS administration of your real income as opposed to whatever that guys’ was. It is a fucking mess.

      4. Don’t be obtuse, dude. Come on. Your SSN floating around out there being used for who knows what? Even at the most benign level, you don’t want employment history attributed to you that you didn’t do, or have the IRS come after you because someone else didn’t pay taxes under your SSN.

      5. If someone uses your SSN# for employment purposes:

        A.)Your reported wages are now higher, and you are now in a higher tax bracket. Expecting a tax return this year? Minimum wait times to get this resolved at the IRS are currently at 6 months. Oh, but they still want the money until YOU get it fixed with them.

        B.) Employment history verification through E-verify is inaccurate. Trying to get a new job? Employment checks will list fraudulent info which can impact your hiring potential.

        C.)If you are on disability or receive some kind of welfare, the reporting of wages will interfere with this and you may lose access to these funds.

        This is a partial list from an employment standpoint. RC also touched on some of the other problems, of which are almost unlimited.

      6. If someone uses your SSN# for employment purposes, how exactly are you harmed?

        Strictly speaking, you are not. It is other people (the IRS, the SSA, the banks, the credit agencies, etc.) who may be causing you harm.

        However, the law does not always permit those people from doing more to prove identity and it also indemnifies them from a lot of liability (especially the government agencies). Furthermore, the government is empowered to take action against you without having to prove your guilt first.

        All of this should be remedied, but the DHS is a representative of the very same institution that is creating all of these problems in the first place. This is a giant middle finger to people who have been fucked by identity theft precisely because it is coming from the enablers.

      7. I suggest then that you offer your SS# to everyone who needs to use it, you know, just so they can commit fraud for employment purposes.

  8. Let me guess, the ones in Florida can stay, the ones in Cali have to go.

  9. Next, Reason will post 5 more immigration articles, making it impossible to have a good comments thread about this topic.

    1. Didn’t they just do that in the past hour?

    2. But will they have time for ass sex and prostitutes? Come on ENB don’t let us down today.

      1. They can tie that in with illegal immigration pretty easily.

      2. They’re not prostitutes. If they enjoy the work, they’re “sex workers”. If they don’t enjoy the work, they’re “human trafficking victims”. Get the nomenclature right.

        1. Except when they are dead, then they are just hookers.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW0NtG7X8Ys

    3. As if that were ever a possibility.

      You nativist scum!!1

  10. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. But, if he suspends enforcement of law through executive order. Can’t the next guy that comes into office just resend that order and continue to deport all the people Obama is promising “Amnesty” to? Sounds like another empty promise to me. “If you like your amnesty, you can keep your amnesty”. D’oh!

    1. Yes, but then the next guy is an evil, uncaring racist.

      1. Politically, I can see that angle. But, it’s a pretty big gamble. He’s runs a huge risk of another broken promise. And, that could really do damage to any trust left in the Democrat brand. Not that that is a bad thing from my perspective. But, I don’t really see the risk being worth the reward.

        1. Actually it is precisely what is supposed to happen. The president and the Attorney General are charged with the enforcement of the law as it is written not as they think it should be written. So a President who follows the rule of law(not Obama and Holder of course) must enforce it whether he agrees with it or not. If the President doesn’t like the law he must work with Congress to draft a law that both of them can agree with.
          Obama is undermining that system. The next president must change the policy back in order to be in compliance with existing stature otherwise he is acting unconstitutionally as well.

        2. I suppose it depends on how long you push the Cynicism button.

          Democrats give brown people work permits.

          Republicans take them away.

          That’s enough math for the entitlement crowd.

          1. agreed. – your entitlement crowd operates at a third grade level of reasoning.

        3. It’s a huge gamble, yes, but Obama is clearly desperate.

          1. I’m sure you are right. I just hope it blows up in his face like pretty much everything else he has done has.

    2. That’s what I’ve read. But who’s gonna have the guts to take away what government hath bestowed? Aside from John’s Captain President.

  11. This is a nice piece. As someone who voted against Obama the second time around, I don’t have much sympathy for him, but I do have sympathy for the millions of “illegal” immigrants who contribute greatly to our country and basically get treated like shit, Marx’s international proletariat reborn.

    As for the political ramifications, it’s a bit rich of Pete to pretend to give the Pres “dispassionate” advice on the subject. Hey, dude, I’m only trying to help! As for Pete’s notion that “There’s no question that the immediate political consequence would be to further outrage Republicans, and turn a party that has long had a mix of views about the virtues of expanding immigration into one dominated by opposition”, well, why should Obama give a fuck? The Republicans have been trying to destroy Obama for 6 years, and all of a sudden it’s illegal for him to play hardball?

    1. He should give a fuck if he actually cares about reaching a consensus on this issue that will be able to stand over time. Most Republicans are wrong, but it does not mean Obama should make an unprecedented decision that will have long-term consequences.

    2. The Republicans have been trying to destroy Obama for 6 years, and all of a sudden it’s illegal for him to play hardball?

      Well maybe because the discussion is not about Obama playing hardball and is about his potentially illegal actions?

    3. “hardball” – I think you spelled Anal wrong.

    4. Oh really – you mean the millions of illegals who-
      1.broke the law to come here.
      2.children are being educated at taxpayer’s expense.
      3.are using our health care systems for free.
      4. that make up 60% of California’s prison population.
      5. who take money out of our economy and send it back to Mexico effectively draining our economy
      6 who undermine wages for low end workers to the point that Americans cannot get those jobs (remember, all of those landscaping construction food service jobs were done by poor whites and blacks not too long ago.
      7. who bring drugs, gangs and violent crime to our cities,

      No the illegals have been a NET LOSS for the country – it is one of the reasons the country has been in a perpetual recession for the vast number of citizens for the past 10 years.

      1. Lies and misdirection.

        1. “Lies and misdirection.”

          WTF? What a stupid response. Indeed, I think your response is a better example of misdirection than his original post.

          I would agree that some of his points are probably insignificant in their own right, but some of them are very large issues. And none of them can be fairly characterizes as “lies”.

          1. It would be much more accurate to say that most of the original points involve unfounded assumptions (of collective ownership, zero-sum economics, etc.) and misdirected blame (away from the government creating the incentives and enabling the problems).

            1. would LOVE to see how you explain that any the “assumptions” are unfounded.

              1 broke the law -absolutely true
              2 educated at taxpayers expense – again absolutely true except if enrolled in private schools. Expense is enormous because many do not speak English and must be educated by teachers who speak whatever language the kids speak
              3 using our health system – absolutely true. – one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive is the free healthcare we give illegals.
              4 absolutely true. They are an added burden to our criminal justice system
              5 absolutely true . Mexico calls the illegals “heroes” for keeping mexico’s economy afloat. Meanwhile, Americans lose tax dollars and secondary jobs from loss of money.
              6 absolutely true – who do you think will fill those jobs if the illegals left – yep lower class blacks and whites at higher wages than illegals.
              its easier to work for $10 per hour when you have NO TAXES TAKEN OUT!
              7 do you really think that the Mexican drug cartels haven’t already established gangs as a distribution outlet in cities across the USA. You honestly don’t think that the prison population in California is not filled up with illegal immigrant gangs.

              In other words -everything I stated is absolutely true in my previous remark and anyone who denies has their head up their ass

              1. 1. Not in dispute, although begging the question.

                2. Public schools shouldn’t exist.

                3. Public healthcare shouldn’t exist.

                4. Canes and bullets are pretty cheap.

                5. Taxation is theft; employers are not slaves.

                6. Minimum wage shouldn’t exist.

                7. Drug prohibition shouldn’t exist.

        2. It is certainly true that many of the illegal aliens have been in this country for some time, working hard and trying to be a respectable part of the community. But the fact remains that they are constantly violating any number of laws and an amnesty for illegal aliens implicitly forgives these violations. If I violated the same laws, I’d be fined thousands of dollars and put into prison for several years. But many people (and politicians) seem to want to grant them eventual citizenship and all the benefits thereof instead.

          First they knowingly and with forethought violate any of several immigration laws when they enter this country: they come without visas, they do not come through a legal port-of-entry, they bypass customs, they are not registered and fingerprinted as required by Title 8 of Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR). That is, there is little or no presumption of lawful admission as required by 8 CFR.

          Once they are here, they are likely to continue to violate other laws. Fraudulent papers are used to obtain work. This may include Social Security numbers and related documentation, falsified work visas, and so on. In this case, it seems that Title 18 Section 1028 “Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information” should come into play.

          1. If they bypass the fraudulent paperwork and simply work for cash “under-the-table” they are certainly involved in some level of tax evasion. In this country, even people who earn income by illegal means are required by the Internal Revenue Code to report this income when filing annual tax returns. But they usually don’t claim this income, let alone file the required return, because doing so would serve as an admission of guilt. They are also more likely to be working at less than the minimum wage, facilitating their employer’s choice to bypass Title 29 Section 206 “Minimum wage” as well as requirements to withhold and pay their portions of the FICA and Medicare payroll taxes [conspiracy to commit, on both the illegal immigrant and the employer; perhaps RICO could even be applied to the employers].

            When illegal aliens drive a car, they are doing so without a valid license and probably without insurance (a requirement in most states). Not to mention violating U.S. Code ? Title 8 ? Chapter 12 ? Subchapter II ? Part VIII ? ? 1324.

            It is not uncommon for many unrelated illegal aliens to share a single house or apartment, in violation of local codes. The list of violations could go on and on.

      2. “No the illegals have been a NET LOSS for the country – it is one of the reasons the country has been in a perpetual recession for the vast number of citizens for the past 10 years.”

        What a bunch of BS.

        They build our cities and our houses. They pick our food and process it. They clean our houses, hotel rooms and restaurants and much more.

        If you want to see a real loss, get rid of them all and try to make the White or Black Slackers who are currently sitting around getting high and playing video games do the same jobs. Some farmers down south already tried this and the “americans” walked off the job the first day.

        be Real.

        I love immigrants. Really. I love them. They are not scared of work and they appreciate America.

        1. Let the farmers pay what it takes to get a good crew. If you want a PhD in chemical engineering you have to compete with everybody else for this scare resource. If you want a good field hand pay for it – but not with illegals whose cost is passed on to society.

          All those wonderful things you think they do are also done by Americans, just for more money.

        2. I love immigrants. Really. I love them

          Yeah you love them as long as they stay in their neighborhoods when they aren’t working for nothing for you.

    5. The Republicans have been trying to destroy Obama for 6 years, and all of a sudden it’s illegal for him to play hardball?

      I, uh, I, umm, what the fucking fuck???

      1. It’s easier and a lot more fun just to make fun of his name.

      2. And Obama and the Democrats haven’t tried to destroy the Republicans.
        Remember how the Democrats did everything in their power to destroy Bush2.

        Are you really that naive?

        Politics is a struggle of ideas and power – both sides play to win.

        If Obama didn’t want the scrutiny of his ideas and policy then he should have stayed in Chicago and stayed out of politics.

        1. he should have stayed in Chicago and stayed out of politics

          Chicago, land of the apolitical!

  12. Article I, Section 8 (Enumerated Powers): The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

    Article II, Section 3 (Clause 5): [The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

    Selective enforcement and selective prosecution seem to fly in the face of Article II, Section 3, Clause 5.

    1. The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

      And as the article points out, the uniform rule the so established grants the President the power to do this.

      It should also be noted that naturalization != immigration. Congress may have the power to determine when people become citizens, but nothing in the Constitution grants them the power to limit people from travelling here.

      1. So, if Congress has no power to limit people from travelling here, then the entire immigration apparatus is unconstitutional.

        Is that your position, Stormy?

        1. Yes. Point to the clause that grants Congress the power to limit people from travelling here.

          1. So, immigration is one of those powers reserved to the states, I suppose?

            1. Or to the people. If it is going to be a government function, it seems like something more within the state’s police power.

            2. I’d specifically note:

              Article 1, 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, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

              And Article V:

              provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article

              Suggests to me that an ammendment is necessary for Congress to block migration.

              1. I’m pretty sure we’re past 1808, also, that clause was about the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

                1. Yes, but it doesn’t say what happens after 1808. The assumption that congress can do whatever it wants from then on doesn’t seem very limited government to me.

                  1. Typically, Stormy, when you put an expiration date on something, like “shall not be prohibited prior to 1808”, the implication is that it may be prohibited after 1808. Otherwise, the expiration date has no meaning or purpose.

                    1. Again, which clause does the power for such a prohibition derive from? Why did they go with a clunky phrase “shall not be prohibited prior to 1808” and not “may be prohibited after 1808”?

                      The Article V clause makes it seem to me that proper interpretation is “congress does not have this power, and may not be given that power until after 1808”. We are now in the phase where congress could be given the power to restrict migration, but we have not actually have done so as of yet.

              2. An amendment would have been necessary prior to 1808. After 1808, not so much.

            3. Its an interesting issue. Nice article here:

              http://openborders.info/blog/i…..stitution/

      2. BS – you are massively misinformed. that power is precisely what the Constitution states.

        1. Stormy is right about what the Constitution says, but I’m fairly certain that the doctrine of “implied powers” established by McCulloch v. Maryland would be read by virtually every court to grant the government some power of controlling migration at the border in order to enforce its “uniform rule of naturalization”.

          Of course, it would be better to have an amendment clearly spelling out what the power is (as in every case of “implied powers”) but Stormy’s reading of the constitution is quite correct.

          1. Then again, RC Dean makes a good point about another clause of the Constitution. It would seem that in the same way habeas corpus exists except during rebellion or insurrection, the Congress may prohibit the migration or importation of persons except prior to 1808 in any of the original states.

  13. I’m pulling my hair out right now explaining to a friend that executive orders to reform work permits and deportation protocols has nothing to do with legal citizenship.

    He’s Bulgarian and reeceived his citizenship while in high school, but his mom is still working on obtaining hers. He legitamely thinks her struggle will be over after tonight. I’m getting drowned out in his FB post comments by a bunch of PB types who are washing Obama’s balls and validating his misunderstanding of it all.

    1. Its okay. Six months from now, he’ll be as disillusioned as you are with the Hope and Change.

    2. Funny. Where is his mom geographically located right now? Unless Obama is also waiving all visa requirements, it will be kind of sad when all her household possessions are sold and she’s bought her one-way ticket to the U.S. and is told she’s good for a three-week temporary stay. Our Central American carpenters and maids would laugh at a restriction like that, but something tells me relief for white Europeans isn’t what Obama has in mind.

    3. Many legal immigrants or potential immigrants imagine all sorts of things in Obama’s executive order. For example, Chinese and Indians hope that their priority dates will immediately become current.

  14. Peter, I’m baffled by why you think leaving millions of people in legal limbo, and effectively creating an attractive nuisance to lure in millions more, who are all still subject to mass imprisonment and deportation at the whim the President, is good policy.

    1. Because libertarians think borders are meaningless, arbitrary lines scratched in Mother Gaia.

      1. At a 50,000 foot perspective of the relationships that people have with one another, yes, borders are fairly meaningless. Human beings have inherent rights. I’m still a human being whether I stand on this side of the line, or that side of the line.

        From the perspective that governments do exist and have an influence on how people live their lives, they do matter.

        1. Human beings have inherent rights.

          I suspect an argument can be constructed that borders and border enforcement can be derived from a combination of the natural right to free association and property rights.

          I’m not saying that current borders and governments would line up with that argument very well.

          I just happen to have observed that, in nature, certain animals (including many primates) are territorial, and will evict intruders from their territory. IOW, what we call immigration enforcement is actually something that arises at times in nature.

          Just something to ponder.

          1. Ha, I was going to add that there are different kinds of borders. The kind of borders that are formed “organically” through cultural conflict tend to last the longest and make the most sense. When borders are drawn by committee, it’s going to cause problems.

            The best example I can think of is Bosnia. After WWII, a committee re-drew all the borders so that different social and cultural populations were set up to clash with each other.

            1. Another good example is the entire Middle East.

            2. It wasn’t just in Bosnia.

              1. Of course. Bosnia’s just a very bold example and most people are aware of the violence and ethnic cleansing that happened there.

    2. Yes, an excellent question. From my POV this looks like horrible policy, but with the best of intentions of course.

      1. That’s how the road to hell is paved.

        1. With shiny gold bricks and “This way to Emerald City” signs.

    3. Their legal limbo will be lessened, and more of them is not a bad thing. More immigrants = more labor = higher employment.

      1. Their legal limbo will be lessened

        Not really.

        More immigrants = more labor = higher employment.

        Is there any upper bound to this? Seriously, what is our economies capacity to absorb unskilled or semiskilled labor?

        1. More immigrants = more labor = higher employment.

          Supply and demand does not work that way.

          1. The labor market is not homogenous. You don’t understand how the economy works.

            1. I understand that in an economy dominated by rent seekers and red tape that the incentive for successful businesses to expand is low and the barriers to start UPS are insurmountable for many. Therefore, the economy may not be able to expand adequately to include more labor.

              1. Technology is a big driver of business expansion. However although there is always advancement that pace sometime slows down or the advantages cannot be capitalized in the form of new products. In addition the new technology may simply reduce the amount of low skill employees without any other gains that might increase employment.

                A car manufacturer may employ an automatic welding station for the sole purpose of better quality and uniformity. The yearly cost is the same as a welder but the welder is expendable because the quality of his work is inconsistent compared to the robot.

                There are many reasons besides “rent seekers” and “red tape” for why an economy won’t produce new jobs.

            2. A) “The labor market is not homogenous. ”

              Correct!

              B) ” More immigrants = more labor = higher employment”

              Wrong, see point A.

              The labor market is not homogeneous and one of those aspects is that it’s a complement of low skilled and high skilled employment. Adding low skilled employees at a faster rate than high skilled employees will not necessarily result in per capita economic growth even in cases where the absolute size of the economy grows.

              1. It’s completely possible to have high amounts of low skilled immigration end up in a situation whereby the US economy convergences with the developing economies at a lower standard of living.

                The American economy could start from the current bases of:
                $16 trillion
                160 million workers/300 million total
                Government Expenditures of $5.6 T ($18,700 per capita).
                Non-Government per capita income = $34,700

                Assuming 40 million low skilled immigrants and ignoring current population growth & each low skilled worker’s average contribution is $30K worth of value per year the net contribution would be $1.2 Trillion.

                Then,
                $17.2 trillion
                200 million workers/340 million total
                Government expenditures of $6.4 T ($18,700 per capita).
                Non-Government per capita income = $31,800

                Assuming that the low skilled immigrants aren’t paying an average share of taxes (which would be nearly impossible at low wages), the actual tax burden goes up on everyone else.

                1. Shorter version:

                  US government spending: $18,700 per capita

                  Any low skilled immigrant who is paying less than $18,700 per year in taxes is a net negative.

                  Granted, you could assume flat Defense spending and it would lower the marginal cost by roughly 13%. So, the number would be $16,500 per year.

                  1. Of course, assuming flat spending overall, per capita spending goes down with more heads.

                    The real problem is that US government spending is $18k per capita.

      2. Why then, let’s start sending boats to Africa and bringing as many of them here as we possibly can. Then send the boats to China and India. Once all the unskilled people from the entire world are in the US and on our welfare roles, we’ll really be able to heat up the economy!

        1. “Once all the unskilled people from the entire world are in the US and on our welfare roles, we’ll really be able to heat up the economy!”

          So are you telling me all the folks building the concrete high rises in Florida, NYC and everywhere else are the unskilled dregs of the world? I’ve walked into the sites and heard them speaking spanish.

          I guess you should stay out of concrete buildings – they are likely to fall on you, being the product of the dregs of the world….

    4. Peter isn’t “leaving them in legal limbo” they did that when they decided to come here illegally. They have no rights under the constitution and are subject to deportation at anytime. The only thing that is stopping that from happening is the political pressure of the Hispanic vote on the Democrats and the sheer number of illegals in the country.

      1. They didn’t do that. That was the government’s fault for trying to keep them out.

        1. actually they did. They violated the law as clearly as when I drove 100 mph on I-85.
          If you undermine the right of the Federal Government to establish a sovereign border then you undermine the entire rule of law in general.

          Without borders you have no states.
          Without states you have no laws or rule of law.
          Without Rule of law and laws you have no private property or freedom which is the primary focus of Libertarian-ism.

  15. I understand how Obama can issue this executive order. What I don’t understand is what would prevent the next President from undoing it — from saying “turns out you’re all still here illegally, so I’m revoking all your work permits and, since you were nice enough to supply addresses, rounding you up for deportation”.

    1. Theoretically, nothing. Realistically, these two things:

      1 – The impossibility of taking away what government has bestowed

      2 – Republican primary voters, who will nominate “Act of Love” Jeb as surely as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

      1. 2 – Republican primary voters, who will nominate “Act of Love” Jeb as surely as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

        Jeb has no shot at the nomination. And the GOP primary voters are completely anti open borders and are likely to be even more so after this. If you think JEB is going to get the nomination running on “let the illegals stay” after this, you must be on whatever meds Shreek is taking.

        1. Check the polls, John.

          http://elections.huffingtonpos…..op-primary

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..bRhKwoE4jQ

          And plenty others, but Reason limits me to two links per post.

          Meds? I’ve taken my daily reality pill. It’s also called the first photon of morning light.

          1. None of those polls show him above 17%. All they say is that people know his name.

            And which meme are you going with here that the Republicans are evil racist nativists who hate immigrants or that they are “party of love” who want to vote for JEB?

            The whole thing is fucking retarded. If the GOP base did anything but loath amnesty and didn’t spend nearly all of its efforts threatening the GOP Establishment with death over it, we would have had Amnesty under Bush. But now you are just so sure that same base is going to vote for JEB because he loves the immigrants.

            1. All those polls show him in the lead over other well-known names.

              The meme I’m going with is “Republicans are insane, self-defeating schizophrenics who always obey the machine in the end, no matter what they say they’ll do.” They scream about limited government and then nominate daddy-knows-best McCain followed by technocrat Romney. Yeah, NEXT TIME they’ll get a true limited government type. They’re warning you!

              1. Yeah, they totally obey the machine. That is why the establishment got amnesty under Bush.

                How about this “you just want to say whatever criticism comes into your head regardless of if it makes any sense or is consistent with your last criticism”

                And yes of course Republicans are stupid. All Americans but you are stupid retards. You are just so fucking special .

              2. If Obama goes through with this and Jeb keeps pushing the CoC plan on immigration his presidential aspirations will Ho in the tank quicker than Michael Dukakis.

          2. I agree with John. Those are effectively name recognition polls at this point. Jeb Bush was governor of Florida for 8 years and is the brother/son of two recent Presidents. He really has no national standing or popular support.

            He’s got about as much chance as Mike Huckabee does of winning the nomination. That could change with a lot of diligent work, of course.

          3. Check the polls, John.

            The first poll shows Bush in a statistical tie with other candidates. The second shows that the most common “winner” of these polls over the last half-year is Rand Paul, followed by “undecided”, with Bush tied with Christie for third place.

            What both polls show is that declaring a front-runner at this point is idiotic. At this point the “front-runner” is polling about as well as Ron Paul did last time he ran.

    2. Absolutely nothing. The bet is that the media and the Democrats will be able to use the race card to keep a big mean Republican from doing that.

  16. Tweet of the week, from Iowahawk:

    American voters repudiated in historic landslide 1-0 vote

    1. Woot! Obama wins by an infinite ratio. Take that you dirty, rotten Teathuglicans.

      1. Democracy for the Win! /derp

    2. Ya know, if I wasn’t destined to be so totally overshadowed by Iowahawk, I might have given tweetering a try.

      But fuck it, nothing I can do will ever improve on his stuff, so what’s the point?

    3. Iowahawk is a national treasure.

    4. He thinks voters undid the 2012 presidential election? He is not very bright then.

      1. “He is not very bright then.”

        Well, I’d have to defer to your expertise on that topic.

      2. And shreek knows “not very bright”.

      3. The voters in 2012 did not want amnesty for illegals, so yes, it’s a repudiation of voters.

  17. OT

    http://www.rollingstone.com/cu…..s-20141119

    Rolling Stone just published an account of a very violent gang rape at UVA in 2012. UVA’s administration presented the accuser with options but did not report it to police. Now local law enforcement are investigating.

    a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face.

    When Jackie came to, she was alone. It was after 3 a.m. She painfully rose from the floor and ran shoeless from the room. She emerged to discover the Phi Psi party still surreally under way, but if anyone noticed the barefoot, disheveled girl hurrying down a side staircase, face beaten, dress spattered with blood, they said nothing.

    1. wtf? So now campuses are so peremptory in their conduct codes that they’ve assumed the power of law and enforcement EVEN IN CASES OF UNDENIABLE VIOLENT ASSAULT?

      1. This violent assault is very much deniable, as there’s zero evidence that it bothered to happen.

        1. face beaten, dress spattered with blood is evidence.

          1. It would be, if she had bothered to show that to anyone.

            1. Her “friends” saw it that morning. They may have turned down RS but they can’t fight a subpoena.

              1. If they testify, that will be evidence. As of now, all we have is a story told to a RS reporter two years after the fact.

                This story sounds like bullshit for the same reason as Duke lacrosse. The probability of there being so many violent psychopaths in one place is just tiny compared to there being a single liar.

    2. Their other two friends, however, weren’t convinced. “Is that such a good idea?” she recalls Cindy asking. “Her reputation will be shot for the next four years.” Andy seconded the opinion, adding that since he and Randall both planned to rush fraternities, they ought to think this through. The three friends launched into a heated discussion about the social price of reporting Jackie’s rape, while Jackie stood beside them, mute in her bloody dress, wishing only to go back to her dorm room and fall into a deep, forgetful sleep. Detached, Jackie listened as Cindy prevailed over the group: “She’s gonna be the girl who cried ‘rape,’ and we’ll never be allowed into any frat party again.”

      I’ll be the asshole to point out a lot of that dialogue sounds like fantastic bullshit. Was the RS writer taken for a ride?

      1. There was a lot of plausible-sounding stuff about creepy fratbro rapists and UVA elitism. The Jacky story sounds like total bullshit.

    3. Umm, why didn’t she go right to the police? And why didn’t the hospital report a rape/beating to the police department?

      The article makes it seem like her friends just decided not to take her to the hospital or report it because it might make them miss some Frat parties.

      At the very least, if true, that would make them probably the worst friends on the planet.

      I’m sorry, but this should be a police investigation. It’s the responsibility of the victim to file charges. It’s certainly not UVA’s fault that some crime might have happened off campus.

  18. What happened to the hourly doses of Ebola and ISIS for fucks sake?

    1. America is being crushed in an endless, nightmarish tidal wave of awful news that’s going faster than even the 24-7-365 news cycle can keep up with now.

      That’s why your buddies got their teeth knocked out of their heads a couple of weeks ago, in case you forgot.

      1. Yeah. Its almost like the economy is collapsing and we are pissing away trillions in Iraq.

        Except that was 2007-08.

        1. Give it a rest already, cretinous Dave Weigel. Your fake unemployment numbers and Federal Reserve inflated Dow Jones didn’t fool the country. Weren’t you paying attention?

        2. “Yeah. Its almost like the economy is collapsing and we are pissing away trillions in Iraq.

          Except that was 2007-08.”

          But BUUUSSSSHHHHHHH!

  19. Wow. I made the first comment on this thread and it got moderated away. Testing 1.2.3.4 Hot topic.

  20. How close did i come to prognosticating Suderman’s summary? I give myself about 75%

  21. I appreciate these points but, most important, what’s being proposed doesn’t fix _immigration_ as such. Tinkering around with the status of those already in the country illegally — whether done by the Executive or the Legislature — doesn’t address systemic issues.

    1. Government doesn’t fix problems created by government. It makes them worse.

      1. +1 review board that reports to Valerie Jarrett

  22. I see there’s a whole lot of pants-shitting going on.

    1. EBOLA! BENGHAZI!! GRUBER!! BROWN PEOPLE!

      1. FATAL COMMUNICABLE DISEASES! AMBASSADORS SLAUGHTERED IN THE STREETS! MASSIVE TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE BASED ON FRAUD!

        Fake scanduls, amirite?

        1. PB, sounds a little more desperate than normal. I thinking he’s still stinging from the Elections. And obviously still in denial.

          Granted, President Obama also seems to be denial, but he’s doing a better job in covering up the hurt.

        2. “Fake scanduls, amirite?”

          Yep, all of them……

          Iran-Contra? Now there is a good scandal.

          1. Turd.Burglar.

    2. I wore a diaper today. And i brought a spare!

  23. Seems like atvthis point may as well just annex Mexico. At least maybe I could get some cheap beachfront property out of the deal.

    1. It seems to be a race as to which country annexes the other, at this point.

      /kidding!

  24. I will support just about anything that can help prevent or reduce the likelihood of E-verify ever happening. E-verify is vile and makes a joke of conservative’s claim to support ‘limited government’.

    Unprecedented, large-scale, unilateral policy changes are nearly certain to produce a backlash?against the president, against his party, and against the ideas at the heart of the policy change itself

    The Obamacare – Immigration Reform by Executive comparison has a serious flaw: Obamacare doesn’t work and makes peoples’ lives worse, that is why the blowback is sustained. Immigration reform can not harm America-it will without a doubt be good for the economy. The outrage will pass. The GOP will damage itself by pounding its head into this wall.

    1. yes, there is no such thing as mass migrations. Just go away. The adults are talking.

      1. WTF straw man are you pounding on now?

    2. Immigration reform can not harm America-it will without a doubt be good for the economy.

      You realize he is legalizing residency for millions of people whether or not they have a job, right? Unlike current immigration law, which basically requires immigrants to have a job (or be an immediate family member of somebody who does).

      At best, its an open question whether doing so is good for the economy.

      1. It’s not an open question. This will make it easier for those immigrants to…do stuff for lack of better term. They can be more productive.

        1. “They can be more productive.”

          Yes, Obama’s actions are pretty terrible public policy, but this is a good point.

          If this were to have no external effects it would even be decent public policy. Unfortunately, you would have to be dumb as a brick to ignore the likely consequences. It’s virtually certain that the US will see a substantial uptick in illegal immigrants coming into the country over the next decade.

          If we didn’t live in a welfare state, none of this would really matter. But illegal immigrants (as a group) pay less taxes than they consume (as a group). More illegal immigrants (assuming our current level of welfare policies) means either higher taxes and/or higher deficits.

          Someone’s got to pay the overhead.

          1. Even in a functional welfare state, there’s many net takers. The question is: does the economy need more? With black male employment around a quarter IIRC, that’s a hard case to make.

          2. It’s virtually certain that the US will see a substantial uptick in illegal immigrants coming into the country over the next decade.

            1) Good. 2) Not if Mexico keeps reforming.

            But illegal immigrants (as a group) pay less taxes than they consume (as a group).

            I am calling 1-800-BS. Immigration has never bankrupted a welfare state.

            1. “I am calling 1-800-BS. Immigration has never bankrupted a welfare state.”

              There haven’t been any mass migrations to modern welfare states, because modern welfare states (government provided retirement, medical care, university education, etc) didn’t come into being until the 1960s. So your point is kind of idiotic.

        2. They can be more productive.

          The gap between “can be” and “will be” is vast. Especially in a country with a welfare state and no longer any meaningful requirement to work if you want to stay.

    3. We shall see, but the positive effects that will result from this action will likely be dispersed widely and not readily apparent. I think the risk posed by a backlash is much higher.

    4. Obamacare is not a threat to America.

      1. It’s a threat to our freedoms and economy-just like immigration restrictions.

        1. Neither Obamacare nor immigration restrictions are a threat to America. Quit shitting your pants.

          1. Will Obamacare bring the country to its knees? No. But I think it’s a step in the wrong direction and the precedent shouldn’t be allowed to be set.

            The US is resilient and we can probably weather a lot of shit, but I’d rather not find out exactly where the breaking point is. We’ll probably recover from whatever mistakes are made, but it won’t always be peaceful and pleasant.

            1. I was trolling Cyto. “Threat to America” (in the existential sense) is his standard for stopping any immigration.

  25. I am in favor of anything that lets human beings live and work in a place of their choosing, for willing employers, without being kidnapped and shipped to a foreign country by men with guns.
    Especially if it involves people that are actually married to US citizens and have children.

    1. I am in favor of anything…

      Really?

      Are you in favor of an imperious presidency?

      How ’bout some lebensraum?

      Anything?

      You don’t really mean anything, do you?

    2. I’m not in favor of any U.S. law that addresses the rights of “human beings” not currently under U.S. jurisdiction. Maybe some narrow exceptions, but “the right to enter U.S. territory for purposes of employment” is bogus as far as I’m concerned.

      1. It isn’t. It is MY RIGHT to employ them in my home country. Government’s only have the right to keep out dangerous people. They are vastly exceeding that mandate.

        1. Does your definition of dangerous include unemployed, sick, unable to speak English, and unable to provide for themselves?

          1. It would be a pretty fucked up definition of “dangerous” if it did.

            1. Indeed. Dangerously transmissible diseases would make someone dangerous i.e. TB.

        2. One of the many uncomfortable fits in the immigration debate is the one between “My right to employ immigrants” and “Immigrants’ right to come to this country regardless of employment.”

          One way around this is to link immigration to employment, of course. But that is both (a) not open borders and (b) not what Obama is going to announce, I’m sure.

          1. “One way around this is to link immigration to employment, of course.”

            I’d amend this to employment and paying a per capita share of governmental costs.

            I don’t want my taxes to go up to fund Cytotoxic’s labor force.

      2. So, why the scare quotes around human beings?

        1. Because I’m QUOTING Hazel.

    3. Yes Hazel, you will embrace any form of tyranny as long as you get the results that you like. If the results work, fuck the law, fuck the constitution, fuck democratic legitimacy or consent of the govern, fuck restraints on the executive, you are for it.

      You are self identifying here as someone who is too stupid to understand that without the rule of law your liberties are left to the charity of whatever top man you put in charge. Good luck with that.

      1. Tyranny = letting people live here. Wow.

        1. Red Tony is on a roll.

          1. You are a mystery sarcasmic. Cytoxic is just dumb. I expect him not to understand and say something stupid. But you are not stupid. You say smart things sometimes. Then you out of no where yell Red Tony and miss an obvious point. It is like you just can’t help yourself from being stupid sometimes.

            1. I expect him not to understand and say something stupid.

              No one can understand your fuckbrain logic John. You’re a fruitcake.

              1. You are just dumb Cytoxic. You have a completely bizarre understanding of history. You think in buzzwords. You are a Libertarian Tony. Even when you are right it is nearly always for the wrong reasons.

        2. Tyranny is giving the President the power to not enforce any law he doesn’t like. Just because you happen to agree with him this time, doesn’t make it less tyrannical.

          1. Does he not have the power to prioritize laws?

            Note that I am on the fence about this EO.

            1. NO

              He does not have the power to read entire code sections out of the law because he can’t get them repealed by congress. If he had that power, he could just stop enforcing laws against his political friends and only against his enemies.

              1. ” If he had that power, he could just stop enforcing laws against his political friends”

                That’s pretty much exactly what he’s doing here. He’s carving out a very large special exemption to the current law that favors a specific political group.

  26. My take: Having millions of people live here who are entirely outside the law is not a healthy situation. The only sane choices are to round them up and throw them back to Mexico, with all the brutality that entails, or to extend them the protection of the law.

    Obama is apparently doing this more to piss off his political enemies than out of any genuine concern for Mexicans, and fuck him for that, but it can’t be denied that the status quo is untenable.

    1. That’s probably the best pro-Executive Order position here.

      But it still amounts to fucking over the Constitution; with the best of intentions of course.

  27. There’s some issues outside of political orientation that should be considered.

    After the 1986 amnesty million of new Mexican American citizens celebrated by bringing their kin along and having babies. If you lived near LA you would know this. High school football programs were stopped, no high school bands. The playgrounds were filled with make-shift trailers to be used as temporary classrooms. The traffic jammed, wastewater plants and the electrical infrastructure needed immediate expansion. But that doesn’t happen immediately. There were brown-outs and spills during this time. Rent skyrocketed and a housing bubble followed.

    So there’s that.

    While mexicans and blacks vote about the same way, mexicans don’t like blacks. Mexican gangs kicked blacks out of LA neighborhood that they’d been living in for generations. For the blacks that stayed it became very difficult for their
    kids to get an entry level job without being bilingual.

    So there’s that too.

    The most recent immigration wave are not mexicans. Most of the mexicans who wanted to live here are already here. This current wave is asians, here in LA, anyway. This is when you sit back with a bag of popcorn. Asians have limited tolerance for identity politics. While Texas turns blue, California will turn red.

    1. The traffic jammed, wastewater plants and the electrical infrastructure needed immediate expansion. But that doesn’t happen immediately. There were brown-outs and spills during this time. Rent skyrocketed and a housing bubble followed.

      All due to prig policies i.e. lack of road investment, excessive regulation, zoning restrictions. And it had zero to do with immigration.

      Texas isn’t turning blue.

      1. It takes about 2 years for a major construction project to designed and vetted, another 2 or 3 for construction. Regulations will slow it down but there’s a certain amount of work that just has to done.

        Immigration doesn’t happen instantly either. But immigration can happen at a pace that engineers and contractor cannot keep up with, and taxpayers cannot fund.

  28. Before : law wasn’t enforced because : FYTW and/or wasn’t really possible anyways.

    After : law not enforced, because its now oficially super-duper low priority.

    I’m having a hard time getting worked up over this.

  29. It will be awesome to see and read Suderman’s reaction when future President Libertarian “re-prioritizes” enforcement of IRS laws and rules on taxing of income.

    Quick question: will Obama’s action result in more or fewer illegal aliens in and headed for the USA?

    1. There’s a flood coming.

  30. For those of you who think that the executive choosing not to enforce whatever laws it doesn’t like, consider the Weimar Republic. There, the government stopped enforcing the criminal laws against the brown shirt gangs. So the gangs were free to show up and beat the shit out of and terrorize any political opponent. And if the opponent fought back, it was the opponent who got arrested.

    If the exectutive is free to say “I am not enforcing the immigration laws on people who meet this criteria”, why could he not also say he is not enforcing say the securities laws against his political cronies. Or the election fraud laws against states where his party runs the election? Nothing. It is the same principle. The only difference is the result is less appealing to libertarians. Well tough shit. If the law doesn’t mean anything when you like the results of that, well it can not mean anything when other people like the results too.

    The only thing keeping the government from completely taking our liberties is some semblance of a commitment to the rule of law. Take that away and we are sheep left to the wolves. Anyone who supports this is a tyrant or a fucking moron.

    1. If Republicans really think this is an abuse of power, they should impeach the president.

      1. They should. But thanks to tyrannical morons like you and Hazel, he would not be removed from office. So it would be rather pointless to try.

        Tony, I am fully aware that you are in the Hazel, Cytoxic “give me my pony at any cost and punish my enemies by any means necessary” camp. I was speaking to people who would like to think themselves better than that.

        1. I recommend this article for the question of whether this is an abuse of power and for other aspects of the immigration issue. It’s good.

          And if you thought impeachment would be good for the GOP you’d be all for it, even symbolically. The blind partisan tribalism that has become of that once great political party is truly a major, and sad, story of our time.

          1. Yes Tony, you don’t think it is an abuse. There is nothing that you would consider an abuse of power as long as Obama is doing it. We already knew that.

            And your article doesn’t answer my basic point. That is because there is no answer to it and this is tyranny. Anyone who claims otherwise is either an idiot or likes it that way.

            1. Only intelligent people think this move by Obama is the inevitable precursor to Hitler. Gotcha.

              1. Yes Tony, allowing the President to pick and choose what laws he can enforce leads to tyranny and is tyranny in itself.

                Tony you are the most simple minded person I have ever seen. You honestly are incapable of seeing anything other than the crude results of something. You cannot understand principles or precedent or anything. Its just sad.

          2. “I recommend this article for the question of whether this is an abuse of power and for other aspects of the immigration issue. It’s good.”

            That article if fucking hilarious. It doesn’t even attempt to rationally justify the issue. Instead it says this:

            “But it’s certainly jarring to many people who ask, reasonably: If the president can refuse to enforce immigration law, what stops a future president from refusing to enforce tax, environmental, or health laws? Immigration law is special, and it is worth explaining why.”

            I guess this is Good in a Tony/Slate kind of way.

      2. I am OK with President Joe Biden.

    2. So John,

      What if president thinks a law is unconstitutional, but the other 2 branches disagree? I think he should stil not enforce it. But not sure if that places it in different category, which renders it moot for this discussion.

      Also I think there is also a difference between deciding you aren’t going to enforce a law, period, and selectively enforcing only against certain people.

      1. What if president thinks a law is unconstitutional, but the other 2 branches disagree?

        He should enforce it. He doesn’t get the final say on what is constitutional and if the law is on the books and the courts say it is, he should enforce it and argue to change it.

        Also I think there is also a difference between deciding you aren’t going to enforce a law, period, and selectively enforcing only against certain people.

        Sure there is and selective enforcement is even worse and what is going on here. Understand, we still will deport people and still have immigration laws. We just won’t deport people Obama has decided are worthy of staying. He is deciding that with no basis in law. He is just doing it.

        It is tyranny. There is no other way to spin it.

        1. I disagree with John, here. I think each branch of government has the authority to act on its conclusion about unconstitutionality.

          Congress can repeal or not pass unconstitutional laws.

          The President can veto or not enforce unconstitutional laws.

          SCOTUS can overturn them.

          None of them should defer to the others on their conclusion about whether a law is unconstitutional. They all have a direct, non-delegable duty to defend and support the Constitution.

          1. Yes, but at some point the the debate has to be settled. And it is settled by the courts.

            What you are saying is that the President is under no obligation to follow the decisions of the courts. What is so special about the Constitution? It is the highest law of the land but it still a law. If the President is free to ignore the courts when he disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution, he should be just as free to ignore them when he disagrees with their interpretation of any other laws. He doesn’t just swear to uphold the Constitution. He swears to uphold and defend the laws on the US. So your argument works just as well with any law.

            Your interpretation makes the President a tyrant and destroys the separation of powers.

            1. Nah, I like it where any branch can render a law null and void, at least temporarily, so all three have to agree it’s Constitutional for it to stay in force. I find your argument that this constitutes “tyranny” unconvincing.

              1. Nah, I like it where any branch can render a law null and void, at least temporarily, so all three have to agree it’s Constitutional for it to stay in force.

                That means that our rule of law is subject to the vagaries of Presidential elections. And it doesn’t mean all three branches. It means one branch. The Congress can’t void a law. Only the President can do that. And the courts can’t enforce anything if the President refuses to enforce their orders.

                You find it unconvincing because you don’t understand how the Constitution was structured. It wasn’t structured to give the President that much power. The power is in the Congress. The President is supposed to “enforce the law” and the law is written by the Congress. You guys are basically making every law on the books only as good as the President’s will to enforce it. And that is tyranny and not what the document intended.

                The biggest problem you have is that you think that just because the President says that it is unconstitutional it is that. No. If you give the President that power, it will just mean “unconstitutional” is anything he doesn’t like.

                1. You find it unconvincing because you don’t understand how the Constitution was structured

                  Damn John. I thought we were having a decent conversation. Then you have to pull this out.

                  You don’t agree with me because you are a stupid poopy head. There, I made the rest of the conversation nice and short. Have a nice day.

                  1. Because it is just not true. The document was designed to place the power in Congress not the President. Congress can override vetoes and defund shit and rewrite the laws and impeach judges and Presidents. The President can’t.

                    The reason for that is simple, ultimately any law can be undone. So, any system has to account for that and give someone the power to do that. Our system gives that to the Congress. The reason for that is that there are 535 of them and they are unlikely to ever agree on something enough to really be tyrants the way a single man or nine member court could.

                    I am sorry to be a prick but what you and RC are saying is just wrong and against the entire structure of the Government.

          2. Congress can repeal or not pass unconstitutional laws.

            Or not provide funds for it, even in the face of veto.

            1. They can do that. But they have that power. The power to nullify laws lies with Congress not the President. The President was never intended to have that power.

  31. John,

    Immigrants are on average about 15 years younger than citizens, so rather than draining the welfare state, more immigrants actually means more payers into it. Taking everything into account, immigrants contribute a net gain to the US economy.

    So whether the argument that immigrants drain the coffers is about making an excuse for opposing immigration or for dismantling the welfare state, it doesn’t fly.

    1. Only if they work and don’t come here to be on welfare. The problem is that if you have real open borders, plenty come here to be on welfare. The other problem is that people who make low wages take more than they give when it comes to things like schools. The immigrant family sending two kids to school while making minimum wage does not pay anything close to enough in taxes to pay for that.

      Since we have a mandatory public school system, high wage individuals subsidize low wage ones. So importing a ton of low wage workers creates a burden. Life is just easier and cheaper in a place where there are fewer low wage workers. Life in a place like Mexico city, sucks unless you are really rich and can just be totally away from the general population.

    2. Immigrants are on average about 15 years younger than citizens

      And thanks to American exceptionalism they’ll stay 15 years younger.

    3. Personally, I think it’s pretty selfish and heartless to look at a bunch of immigrants trying to trying to come here peacefully and do honest work to make a better life for themselves, and tell them that, perhaps we’ll let you, if we all vote and decide that it works out to our benefit.

      So, I’m not really that concerned about the net gain or loss to the US economy. By definition, any increase in the population introduces new labor supply and consumption, so, yeah, the economy grows. The real question is who pays for who. It’s sad that people are tempted to build a Berlin Wall that keeps people out just because they’re afraid they may be forced to take care of them.

      1. It’s sad that people are tempted to build a Berlin Wall that keeps people out just because they’re afraid they may be forced to take care of them.

        If you are that concerned, go take care of them yourself. You the fuck gave you the right to force other people to do so?

        1. Well, let’s take that thought experiment further. Let’s say Bill Gates builds a factory and decides he only wants it to be staffed by immigrants. Would you support that? Let’s say Gates will even fully pay for their transportation here and their food, medical, and housing when they are here. Would you support that? Let’s say that even when they stop working for him, Gates will provide them with a generous pension in perpetuity. Would you support that? And if not, why not?

          1. I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But if other people did and managed to get the government to stop it, I wouldn’t have a problem with that either.

            The two sides always talk past each other in these debates. The open borders people reject the concept of sovereignty. They don’t think that the people of the United States have any right to stop people from moving here for any reason.

            And that is just a fundamental assumption that they make. You really can’t debate that. It is a value. If you don’t share it, it seems insane, if you do, it is the only thing that matters. I don’t share it.

            Let me ask you this. Is there any circumstance or result no matter how dire that would cause you to think that the US government has the right to tell someone who wants to come here they can’t? If so, then what is so compelling about your reason that makes it okay but “I don’t want wages to go down or the place to be crowded with poor people” not?

          2. Let’s try another thought experiment.

            I think all but the most extreme statist trolls on this site would agree that the drug war is bad. I think many would support non-enforcement of drug laws since that is a net increase in liberty. Bo certainly has no problem with selective enforcement, for instance. Now, would you support non-enforcement for just white perpetrators? Although it’s not equal protection, it is still a clear improvement in liberty. Now let’s say that there is no reduction in funding for the drug war, but we won’t enforce it against whites. That means that more money will be spent enforcing it against blacks, hispanics, etc. But since whites are a majority in this country and a majority of drug offenders, it is still a net improvement in liberty. Would you support that?

            1. Back to immigration. There are basically two camps here with a third dimension involving the rule of law. One camp believes that immigrants will not significantly increase the size of the state by voting for Democrats or believes that the trade-off is worth the likely risk. A subset believes that because it’s possible for immigrants to change their voting habits over time that we should perform the calculus as if they already have, or assumes that if Republicans would just stop being meanies (excepting previous amnesties and even Spanish fluency in their candidates), then everything will all work out. History has so far not been kind to that last belief. Yes, broad brush. Yes, people can change. I get it, but I’ve got revealed preferences on my side.

              The other camp believes that immigrants will help expand the state either through direct consumption or by voting for more socialist policies. A subset of this camp believes that immigrants will make us all poorer by their direct criminal actions and will steal all sorts of jobs. History hasn’t been kind to this subset either. The data is pretty clear that immigrants themselves are a net positive for the country. The irony is that they vote for policies that increase welfare for natives far more than themselves.

              The immorality of denying people access to this country who have a high likelihood of enhancing that taxationtheft is easily balanced by the immorality of the theft itself.

          3. What about the costs to the infrastructure for these people? Did Gates pay them so low that they tax contributions were far less than what it takes to support them? What about the effect on the wages of other tech workers and the lost taxes due to the lower wages?

            Are you sure gates captured all the costs?

        2. Hey, I totally understand that I don’t have the right to force people to take care of other people, nor do I support such policies, nor do I benefit from such policies, nor am I one of the deluded people in this country that claps their hands and thinks that I’m doing anything when the government forces people to take care of other people, other than paying taxes.

          Rather, it’s sad that welfare programs that are supposed to take care of the poor end up taking care of people in the US who are most likely in the top 95% wealthiest people on the planet, while keeping much, much poorer people sitting in hell holes. But, apparently, that’s all about compassion. Or democracy. Or some shit.

          1. wealthiest people on the planet, while keeping much, much poorer people sitting in hell holes.

            Why is that my problem? Maybe they should fix their hell holes rather than making where I live one as well.

            1. They’re making your life better at their own relative expense. They do necessary jobs for cheaper than our labor laws allow, meaning the crap you buy is cheaper than it should be. And you return the favor by bitching about having to put up with their presence.

              1. They’re making your life better at their own relative expense

                Maybe. What makes my life better is up to me to judge. And there is nothing to say them coming here will do that. And indeed most people think it won’t and that is their right. You don’t think it is because you are a fascist asshole. But I do.

            2. Maybe they have about as much power to fix where they live as we do to fix where we live?

              1. Maybe they don’t Brian. I really don’t fucking care. It is not my job to save the world. If you think it is your job, knock yourself out.

                1. I don’t think it’s my job to save the world, but I also don’t think it’s my job to save unskilled workers from market competition.

                  And, I don’t think it’s my job to force other people to take care of other people.

                  And I don’t think it’s my job to tell other people that they have to work over on this side of an imaginary line on a map, but not the other side.

                  If other people disagree and want to create bizarre systems such that they’re taking care of this group, while pointing guns at another group, and telling people where they can go and what they can do, then they shouldn’t be surprised when they encounter some issues. But, I’ll be damned if I’m going to join the fight over how we point the guns of the state at people, given pretty fucked up starting premises.

                  1. I don’t think it’s my job to save the world, but I also don’t think it’s my job to save unskilled workers from market competition.

                    Then don’t. The point is that they have a say in government too and the government has the power to control the borders. See my comment above. This is a policy issue not a moral one. There is nothing wrong with people saying no. If you don’t like it, well too bad sometimes life is like that. But you have no right to say they can’t do it if they can elect enough representatives to make it happen.

                    1. But, now it’s like your making the democracy argument.

                      This is a Tony argument.

                      I mean it’s great an all that Tony thinks that immigrants are a net positive. I assume that if they were a net negative, he’d be completely OK going Berlin Wall on them. After all, democracy democracy herpy derp.

                    2. No Brian. It is not a democracy argument. It is a sovereignty issue. I think people have a right to sovereignty and are under no moral obligation to let people move here if they don’t want to. You are just assuming they don’t. Good for you. But that is not an argument it is an assumption on your part. I don’t share your assumption.

                      so I am not making a Tony argument.

                    3. At what point during the history of this country (which is a history of genocide followed by constant immigration) should we have pulled up the ladder?

                    4. before the genocide

                    5. I’m pretty sure Tony makes the “states have power. they can do what they want. they don’t have to consider morality, only democracy” argument pretty much all the time.

                      if you want to go down that road, fine. But you’re not exactly making a moral argument yourself, or avoiding assumptions yourself, just by claiming that we can decide where other people can and cannot live.

                    6. Brian,

                      I don’t consider controlling borders to be immoral. The people who pay taxes in this country have a right to expect their government to look out for their interests and not others. If they want to instead think of other people’s interests over their own, they can. But they don’t have to.

                      Again, we are just arguing assumptions and you think yours are right and I am just Tony because God damn it you are a Libertarian and Libertarians have a monopoly on morality.

                      If anyone is being tony here, it is you.

                    7. You can fit a lot of sins into “people pay taxes, and have the right for the government to do what’s in their best interest, not others.”

                      I don’t think I have monopoly on morality, but I’d certainly want some good, moral reasons for going Berlin Wall on someone, and “it’s in my best economic interest” doesn’t really count for me.

                    8. I don’t think he’s trying to make a moral argument about immigration per se. Rather, he’s stating that sovereign nations have the right to set their own immigration policy. What that policy should be is an entirely different discussion.

                    9. Well, he just said that he doesn’t consider controlling borders to be immoral. That’s definitely a statement about the moral nature of controlling borders.

                    10. Brian, whether it is moral or immoral is a value judgement. And even if it were “immoral” however you define it, it is not so immoral that it is no longer legitimate government action.

                      Like I say above, people just talk past each other in these debates. You think you are right, I get it. I just don’t agree with you.

                    11. Controlling borders per se is not immoral, its amoral. Similarly, when I make a decision of who to allow on my property its neither moral or immoral. My decisions may be unwise, or even stupid, but I do have the right to make that decision.

                    12. But the minute you say you have the “right to make that decision”, you’re making a moral claim (probably, if you mean it the way I read it). You’re saying that it’s totally, morally permissible to decide who you allow on your own property, or not. And that’s based on the moral argument for property rights.

                      Based on property rights, I would conclude that border enforcement is immoral, since I own property, I should have every right to invite anyone to live on it that I want. And they should be able to work on my property, too. Why do I need permission from a bunch of people who don’t own my property?

                    13. Are these hypothetical people going to get to your property via star trek transporters, or do they have to cross someone else’s property?

                    14. Well, let’s assume my property is right on the border. They can just walk right on it.

                      Do you conclude that, in this case, there should actually be no border enforcement?

                      OK. Let’s assume it’s not on the border, there’s other people’s property, all along the way.

                      Why does everyone get to vote on this, instead of the individual property owners involved?

                      Borders and airspace and territorial waters are all defined by the state, according to state power. They have nothing to do with property rights, and I would think someone would have to have some moral justification for setting them up, just the same as they do with property rights. Assuming that they work just like property rights seems like question begging, since they’re not the same thing.

                    15. I think it’s also kinda telling that we talk about it as “controlling borders.”

                      We’re not controlling imaginary lines drawn on a map. We’re controlling people.

                    16. Your scenarios illustrate the problem very well. Who owns the land? If its you’re property then you have every right to decide who may use it. OTOH, if its “government property” (public roads etc) then I would argue that the true owners are the taxpayers, and that they are the ones who may decide who can and cannot use that property.

        3. The principal factor here is supply and demand. The American economy depends on cheap (off-the-books) labor, and Mexican immigrants are looking to make more money than they can in Mexico. If the jobs are here, they will come, and you’d have to institute a really unacceptably draconian border enforcement policy and infrastructure to change that.

          That combined with what I said, that immigrants actually are actually a net benefit for the economy and the welfare state, is part of why reform is so difficult. The status quo is actually pretty good for non-immigrants in America.

          1. The American economy depends on cheap (off-the-books) labor

            LOL Sure, if by the “American economy”, you mean gardening, roofing, and selling fruit by the off ramp.

          2. Automation is removing these low-skill jobs by the truckloads and you want to import more of them. All this does is slow down the automation process.

            How many stupid articles are there about Japan and it demographic “death spiral” yet Japan keeps right on going with its businesses and engineers making progress on doing more with less people.

      2. Increasing consumption doesn’t grow the economy, unless you’re a keynesian. In which case you also believe in mysterious spirits that drive markets. Increasing production grows the economy, but there’s some question as to whether government regulations will stifle production regardless of the labor supply. We’ve got a sizeable idle labor supply already which isn’t being put to productive uses.

        1. I think that if people are actually consuming more, this implies that more is being produced to consume, which implies that production has grown, which implies that the economy has grown, probably.

          I thought the main feature of Keynesians as the desire to have government come in and consume when private consumption drops, in order to keep prices and employment up and to prevent the economy from contracting when private consumption falls.

          Whether or not that’s a smart move depends on what your values are. I’m not a big fan of it.

          1. I think that if people are actually consuming more, this implies that more is being produced to consume, which implies that production has grown, which implies that the economy has grown, probably.

            It has grown in terms of it being larger but it hasn’t grown in a meaningful way. What is meaningful is your per capita wealth and standard of living. Having more poor people doesn’t make your economy better even if it does in real terms make it “larger”.

            1. Right. I think that’s a good point. We could grow the economy by having the government go another trillion dollars in debt and dropping it into the economy by buying a bunch of shit. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s an awesome idea, or that everyone is better off. But, GDP would go up.

              GDP never takes debt into account. It’s similar to a family measuring their economic prosperity by how much money they spend and their income, never mind the fact that they’re leveraged up to their eyeballs in debt.

          2. I think that if people are actually consuming more, this implies that more is being produced to consume, which implies that production has grown, which implies that the economy has grown, probably.

            It really hasn’t. It’s true that the integral of consumption can never exceed the integral of production in a closed system–you can’t consume what doesn’t exist–but “consuming” is a transient phenomenon. At any given point in time my consumption can be greater than my production. And my first statement isn’t true if I import goods from somewhere else. In that case I can consume more than I have produced.

            Example: I grow a crop of corn and harvest it in the fall. During the winter I am producing no corn but I consume my harvest. For at least half the year I am consuming more than I am producing.

            1. So, where did the food come from that you consumed in the fall, summer, and spring?

              I get the idea. A person can produce more than they consume. And there’s trade, I know that factors in.

              But, in general, the simplified idea is that the population grows, more and more people consume, more and more people produce, and the economy grows, and some of the new production is due to the new people, and the new, added consumption, and the subsequent increase in demand.

              Now, whether or not any single person consumes more than they produce is a different matter.

        2. WE are in a technology plateau. The 80s had the PC the 90s the internet. What new product is out there that everybody wants or needs that requires a lot of manpower to build?

          WE need less labor all the time. We don;t need to import any more. Even road building is heavily automated.

          1. Keyboard fumbling about the WEs nothing meant there.

          2. Nonsense. Labor is a valuable resource for a country, and the more you have, the better off you are, because you can produce more goods and produce them more cheaply.

            If the labor doesn’t come here, they simply compete with us and contribute to other societies.

            Now, there are social and cultural reasons we don’t want totally open borders or too many people entering the country at once. But economically, immigration is a good thing.

        3. You criticize the left but you reason just like them. In fact, it’s neither about production or consumption in the US.

          In practice, we have a global labor market. Keeping people out only means that they will be doing the same jobs for less elsewhere.

          And no matter how much labor we have, labor is always scarce and a valuable resource.

      3. “Personally, I think it’s pretty selfish and heartless to look at a bunch of immigrants trying to trying to come here peacefully and do honest work to make a better life for themselves”

        It is pretty selfish. Just like it’s pretty selfish when I take my kids to the park and out for ice cream afterwards. There are literally millions of kid in the world that are starving, and it’s incredibly selfish for me to give my kids (who are reasonably well fed) ice cream when I could send that money to Africa for food.

        1. I think pointing guns at a bunch of people and telling them that they have to live on one side of imaginary line, but not another, is more selfish than buying your kids ice cream. It’s certainly more wrong.

          1. We are creating a functioning society here by keeping them out. The high wages created by keeping out the flood of low skill labor means everybody is seemingly self sufficient.

            That has a value that cannot be measured but it is there. Dad makes enough to pay for the family without needing welfare. The kids see their proud Dad and respect him for the provider he is. He has enough free time to nurture his family because of the scarcity of labor and him not worrying about the next paycheck all the time. The kids develop their talents and are less likely to join things like gangs.

            Yes, I do want us to go back to the 50s when anybody could get a good paying job and the wife could stay at home and people had toys and vacations. It won’t happen with a flooded labor market.

    4. Immigrants of the low skill third world type of which are the vast majority are a net drain while they are working due to them qualifying for welfare and using services like hospitals without paying.

      I addition the Social security benefit is heavily weighted towards low income people and also benefits those with less than 35 working years on the books. They will drain the SS fund at a higher rate than the higher income native born.

  32. Regardless of how you feel about immigration, you should all fear this move by the POTUS. Ordering gov’t employees to arbitrarily enforce Congressional laws is worse than a slippery slope. Many liberals fully support this executive action. Well what if the next POTUS stops enforcing all gun laws? What if the next POTUS infuses the education curriculum with lessons about Jesus. Congress is there for a reason. The main reason is that we don’t want a dictator.

  33. if he can do it, then the next GOP President can undo it.

  34. I don’t think it is anywhere near clear to me her in Houston that most of the folks we are talking about give a damn about a path to citizenship. While some have laid down some pretty deep roots in this country the vast majority of them are here because they have nowhere else to be economically. This is their best option and they fear deportation or retaliation, but if they were granted outright citizenship tomorrow morning most of them would shrug their shoulders and think, “I don’t need that to receive entitlement spending, I was getting what I needed before this anyway”. They don’t identify with many Americans or their politics. They do seem to like money and are willing to hold down multiple means of employment and income to make themselves as comfortable as possible, but they don’t really see themselves having to stay here 10 years from now.

    1. I think that is about right. The whole “they are going to demand citizenship” fears are overblown. Most of them don’t give a shit about voting or citizenship.

      1. Well, they aren’t going to demand citizenship, but really influential and powerful white people (and Shikha) are.

      2. But up until very recently Democrats haven’t been all that interested in supporting more guest workers. They have pushed for full immigration and naturalization, and since we’ve all agreed that the only significant difference between a permanent alien and a citizen is the right to vote, well, is it really hard to see the true goal here?

  35. “To Obama, ILLEGAL ALIENS are far more important than people who tried to play by the rules? ESPECIALLY tax-paying law-abiding American citizens.”

    Yes — because if the People won’t vote for Obama, rather than change himself and his policies to be more appealing to the People, he’s trying to change the People by importing millions of low information voters who will form the core of new dependent class that Obama and the Democrats will cynically farm for votes and power, and the nation be damned.

    1. I’ve been skeptical of the theory that our government is trying to elect a new people. But after a big election shift the timing of this sure has that smell.

    2. Yes — because if the People won’t vote for Obama, rather than change himself and his policies to be more appealing to the People, he’s trying to change the People by importing millions of low information voters who will form the core of new dependent class that Obama and the Democrats will cynically farm for votes and power, and the nation be damned.

      This is the case.

      How many of these “undocumented immigrants” will be signing up for the Libertarian Party? Will they show gratitude for Reason’s advocacy of their cause that they will vote for less government, the end of the welfare state, or the dismantling of affirmative action?

      Will the “undocumented” even register 50-50 Republican-Democrat? Right now, the LP has a tactical edge because it can be a tie breaker in elections. So the GOP and Dems often have to court the libertarian vote. But if the balance is skewed 60-40% Democrat-Republican, then the libertarian vote will be rendered irrelevant. If anything, small government advocates might see their only hope in defecting from the LP and to the GOP.

      Be interesting to see how all this plays out over the next couple elections.

  36. As much as I am for the free flow of workers without restriction (notwithstanding a government welfare system), I do not think executive orders should be the mechanism to acheive those goals. In essence, Obama is choosing not to enforce federal laws of issues he supports.

    But I ask, What will the response be if a Republican President refuses to enforce laws for public corruption, privacy issues, or a whole host of other factors?

    Will the MSM be writing supportive legalistic peices, then?

  37. Obama’s anticipated actions are in line with the general trend towards globalization. Corporations operation globally, NGOs operate globally, law enforcement operates globally, certainly the government operates globally–so why worry about “outmoded” concepts like patriotism?

    By opening the frontiers, the value of American citizenship is eroded. If anyone can enter the country and de facto gain the benefits of being a citizen, then there is little that is unique in being a citizen. You end up with a mass of consumer-producers with no stake in a nation or homeland–and all the more easy for global elites to rule.

    Another trend is for the feds to bring in “refugees” from failed states such as Haiti, Congo and Somalia. These will gain the benefits of affirmative action, minorities-only contracts, and the victimization industries found on any campus. They’ll become a po-statist voting bloc which will further undermine the Libertarian Party.

    Tell us why Reason is supporting all this?

    1. Today marks the end of my financial support for The Reason Foundation.

    2. It’s sad. It’s a problem of idealism, and ideological purity. Libertarians want to see everything in terms of individual rights, and see people as economic units. Things like language and culture don’t really fit neatly into the equation, so they ignore or dismiss them. Apparently it wouldn’t matter to a libertarian purist if immigration (“the free movement of people”) suddenly tripled the population of a libertarian country, with the newcomers all being statists. To those purists, libertarianism really can be a suicide pact. But at least they’re pure!

    3. “You end up with a mass of consumer-producers with no stake in a nation or homeland”

      Pretty much the modern deal in a sentence. You must have not gotten the memo that most Americans rejected the status quo of “stake” in the 1960’s.

      Realistically, it probably started before that – maybe with the Korean War when most Americans certainly didn’t want to go and figured out they were dying for….well, for the profit of arms makers and for some philosophy (anti-communism) that they really didn’t buy into.

      This, IMHO, is a good thing. It’s more libertarian. The last thing I would want is a population who loved the nation-state for the same reasons!

  38. Harry Browne said “TAKE DOWN THE FREE LUNCH SIGN AND ABOLISH THE MINIMUM WAGE” before opening the border. THIS IS ESSENTIAL!

    1. We all about the free market, right?

      1. I can understand the tactical argument, but the economic and social fallacies are still bullshit. There is no social contract, there is no collective ownership, and economics is not zero-sum.

        It doesn’t help that all this momentum seems to dry up real fast when it comes time to actually abolishing the welfare state.

        1. It doesn’t help that all this momentum seems to dry up real fast when it comes time to actually abolishing the welfare state.

          Eh, that’s not really fair. Still, there is a sizeable class of posters who come out of the woodwork on this issue with a hard-on for regulation and a soft spot for welfare. Granted, I think 90% of them are just Tulpa’s sockpuppets, but it can still be infuriating.

  39. I would prefer to hear arguments about the legality of Obama’s actions from legal experts on the Constitution, not from some guy named Suderman.

  40. my friend’s mother makes $64 /hr on the internet . She has been out of work for ten months but last month her income was $18244 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to website….

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  41. It’s truly frightening to see otherwise intelligent people on Reason defending this because “the ends justify the means.”

    Whether borders should exist is irrelevant in deciding the appropriateness of Obama’s behavior. This sets a precedent. If you support it because you like the outcome, you’ll have no right to complain when Bush 4.0 behaves the same way and rules on anything you dislike by executive fiat.

    (Well, I guess not having principles means you’ll think you have the right to complain, but don’t expect to be taken seriously by the adults.)

    1. I think you, like many others, are assigning more importance to Obama’s actions that they have: USCIS, DHS, etc. are incompetent and they simply can’t deport all the people they should deport, so the pick a reasonable subset.

      The real problem here is that Obama has failed to do his job in terms of fixing the problems of the executive branch with border security and immigration processing USCIS, DHS, etc. That doesn’t require new legislation, it requires Obama doing his real job, which is chief administrator.

  42. my neighbor’s aunt makes $75 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18092 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read the article………. http://www.payflame.com

  43. my neighbor’s aunt makes $75 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18092 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read the article………. http://www.payflame.com

  44. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    ??????? http://www.payflame.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.