Immigration

Jeff Sessions' Handbook of Immigration Lies

Sessions' anti-immigration narrative has little basis in the economic literature

|

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has declared an all-out jihad against any immigration reform that does not involve bouncing off immigrants of all varieties — skilled or unskilled — at the border. One glance at his newly

Jeff Sessions
Gage Skidmore / Foter / CC BY-SA

released 25-page immigration memo – which he grandiosely dubs a "handbook" — makes it abundantly clear that as far as he's concerned, immigrants are the Number One bane of this land of immigrants.  Why? Because, apparently, they increase "income inequality and joblessness by expanding the labor supply in excess of demand" and undercut American wages.

He naturally pours invective against President Obama's alleged "executive amnesty" — the restrictionist term of art for a three-year reprieve from deportation of undocumented workers that doesn't even involve a path to legalization let alone citizenship. But he doesn't stop there. He also goes after legal immigration of all kinds. "Large scale immigration" he claims, has contributed to a "typical 18- to 34-year-old earning about $2,000 less per year (adjusted for inflation) than their counterpart in 1980" etc. etc.

"What sense does it make to continue legally importing millions of low-wage workers to fill jobs while sustaining millions of current residents on welfare?" he concludes.

And it's not merely "low wage workers" he finds distasteful. He calls the high-tech industry's pleas to expand the cap on H-1B visas, which is reached within a few weeks after becoming available in boom years, the "Silicon Valley Stem Hoax."

"[T]here is no shortage of qualified Americans ready, able and eager to fill these jobs" he declares. And Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, whose chicanery he singles out by name, are hoaxsters for claiming that there is.

Sessions is marketing his memo as the "best academic evidence" on the subject – which apparently includes such august sources as the Center for Immigration Studies whose most original contribution to the immigration debate is that immigration raises global greenhouse gas emissions.

Be that as it may, the truth of the matter is that the "best academic evidence" couldn't lend a bigger lie to almost everything Sessions claims in his handbook.

There are few areas on which most economists agree about anything. But one of them is that immigrants on the whole are an incredible economic boon.

Let's take the high-skilled variety:

A 2011 study by Madeline Zavodny for the American Enterprise Institute examining data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that between 2000 and 2007 every additional 100 immigrants with advanced degrees in STEM fields from American universities created 262 new native jobs.

As for low-skilled workers, even Harvard's George Borjas, the darling of the restrictionist right, admits that immigration results in overall gains to the tune of $22 billion annually for natives. Borjas, however, claims that these gains are not evenly distributed and immigrant labor causes the wages of comparably employed natives to drop by 2 to 8 percent.

But George Mason University's Bryan Caplan dug up stats from Borjas' own paper showing that the actual, long-term drop in native wages of all affected workers was much, much smaller. (Check out the table on page 12 of this paper where I actually do summarize the "best academic evidence" on the economic impact of immigration.) Subsequent research has failed to corroborate even this small harm because, as it turns out, Borjas over-estimated the substitutability of immigrants and natives and therefore ignored the comparative advantage that native skills bestowed upon them in the wake of greater immigration.

None of this of course accounts for the overwhelming benefits of immigration to American consumers whose real wages go up because immigrants lower the prices of goods and services for them. Reason.tv's video on five ways that low-skilled immigrants help the American economy go here.

For an excellent point-by-point debunking of literally every Sessions' claim, which he has been hawking long before he decided to compile them all in his handbook of lies, check out this post by Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh.

Excerpt:

Claim:  The last 40 years has been a period of record immigration to the United States.

Fact:  About 13 percent of America's population is foreign born, below the all time peak of 14.7 percent in 1910. The average percent of the population that was foreign born between 1860 and 1920 was about 14 percent – higher than it is today. As a percentage of the U.S.-born population, yearly immigrant flows to the U.S. are half of what they were during the 19th century and early 20th centuries.  Rich countries like Canada, Australia, and Switzerland all let in far more immigrants as a percentage of their population every year and have far larger immigrant populations. Switzerland, for instance, lets in about five times as many immigrants as the U.S. does every year as a percentage of their population. The percent of the U.S. population that is foreign born is also below the OECD average. In and of itself, that is not an argument for opening lawful immigration but it should damper the notion that the U.S. has the most immigrant friendly policies in the world. The numerical numbers of immigrants who come here yearly is large, about the same annual number as a hundred years ago, the U.S. has the third largest population in the world to absorb them.     

Claim:  Immigrants take American jobs.

Fact:  Immigrants come when the\re are jobs available and leave when there aren't many. There has been a slow-down in unauthorized immigration since the beginning of the Great Recession because many of the jobs immigrants used to work evaporated during the housing collapse. The collapse in new housing construction tracks very closely with the decrease in unauthorized immigrant crossings. Throughout American history, immigration increases during times of economic prosperity or decreases and sometimes reverses during bad times. More guest workers and lawful immigrants will ensure that when the economy recovers, Americans will be able to find enough workers to fill positions and enough customers for new goods and services.  But due to the economics of immigration, we will not be overwhelmed by immigrants when there are no jobs for them.   

Word has it that Sessions lost his bid to become chair of the Senate Budget Committee partly because his seriously fact-challenged, anti-immigration crusade did not sit well with many senior Republicans. Let's hope that they ignore his "handbook" and move forward piecemeal with the kind of rational immigration reforms that I laid out in the latest issue of Reason here.

If Sessions wants a job as a border bouncer, Kim Jong Un no doubt could use a pair of extra hands.

Advertisement

NEXT: Measles Outbreak Among Unvaccinated Disneyland Visitors

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. So is Sessions trying not to cry in that photo, or is he trying not to poop himself?

    1. I think he’s politely trying not to laugh at Shikha the one trick pony.

      Sorry, that was unfair. She does have another trick: bitching about Muslims.

      1. She does have another trick: bitching about Muslims.

        I really think Shikha needs to start commenting on European affairs, thereby forcing her to reconcile her two competing narratives: immigrants are teh good and mooslumz are teh bad.

        1. Her head asplode.

        2. Those aren’t competing narratives.

          1. In a European context, you’re damn right they are.

            1. No they’re not. Europe can fix its immigration problem by 1) stop being socialist and 2) stop legal discrimination against immigrants.

      2. I don’t think he’s in a position to do that after getting demolished by Shikha.

      3. She does have another trick: bitching about Muslims

        Shikha bitches about Hindus. She says Hindu nationalists are worse than Hitler.

        1. I know! What kind of libertarian writer can’t appreciate nationalism, amirite?

      4. Shikha appears to be rabidly in favor of flooding America with workers from India… almost like she’s from India or something and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about America…

        1. I’ve noticed that.

          I wonder what number of invaders from India would most suit Shikha.

          A million a year? Ten million? Wait! Wait! We’re getting close to 1% of the Indian population!

          Is there ANY limit, Shikha? Or do you just want to flood the United States with people from India?

      5. Sessions is right.

        Shikha is wrong.

  2. He naturally pours invective against President Obama’s alleged “executive amnesty” ? the restrictionist term of art for a three-year reprieve from deportation of undocumented workers illegal aliens that doesn’t even involve a path to legalization let alone citizenship.

    Say, I seem to remember hearing that there really wasn’t an executive order for this soi-disant amnesty. What is the official word on it, anyway? Is there even a memo? Or is this just word-of-mouth enforcement policy?

    1. Oops. Meant to clarify:

      “Undocumented workers” is an inaccurate term for people who come into this country without the right paper.

      Often, especially now, they do have a paper trail, at least, with immigration. So they are documented to at least that extent. They also often have falsified documents. “Undocumented” doesn’t seem to describe their status at all.

      And “workers” seems to assume that they are all, in fact, working. Even though we just imported, what, 40,000 that are legally prohibited from working due to their age.

      Really, time for a new euphemism.

      1. Legally prohibited =/= not working

        Illegallity =/= something libertarians care about

        1. That’s a good point cyto. Some percentage of those legally prohibited from work will be working. Orders of magnitude more who are perfectly allowed to work will instead pop out multiple chilrunz and go on the dole.

          1. That’s a lie. There is no evidence supporting that contention.

      2. ^This.

        But RC and I are clearly just mouth-breathing racists and will never get a cocktail party invite.

        1. Paleo whines are so yummy.

          1. Bitchy elitist troll is a bitchy elitist.

            1. He isn’t elite he just apes their political point view to compensate for low status and if I had to guess baldness and short man’s syndrome.

            2. “elitist”

              Wow, you’re an actual caricature.

      3. Fair point, Cyto, on legally prohibited =/= not working.

        However, labeling every single illegal alien as an “undocumented worker” is also not accurate. Many work, some do not. As illustrated by my reference to the tens of thousands of teenagers and children that we imported and put in foster homes. You can be sure that the vast majority of those illegal aliens are not working.

        So, if “illegal alien”, which at least has the virtue of being technically accurate, isn’t your choice.

        And “undocumented worker” is, as noted above, comprehensively inaccurate and misleading.

        How should we refer to/describe these folks?

        1. Howsabout “creatively-documented maybe-worker”? Sound about right?

          1. ‘Non-traditionally documented ally of progress.’

            1. ‘Document-fluid vanguard of the revolution’

        2. I still use ‘illegal alien’. Works for me.

          1. ‘Illegal alien’ is even better than ‘illegal immigrant’ because ‘immigrant’ has a character of permanence that may not be desired by the alien.

      4. Suggested new euphemism: Criminal Invader.

        Clearly they’re breaking the law, hence: Criminal.

        When 12-20 million people illegally cross from one country to another, that’s not “immigration”. It’s invasion.

        Therefore: CRIMINAL INVADERS.

        Oh wait. You wanted something that made them seem less of a problem?

        Can’t help you there.

  3. DET TRK R JERBS

    Another excellent column from Shikhia and thanks to the Cato guy’s awesome smack-down. If it’s true that Sessions lost the committee chair because of his retarded talking points then we’re winning, very slowly.

    1. If it’s true that Sessions lost the committee chair because of his retarded talking points then we’re winning, very slowly.

      Whatever else most Americans disagree about, they’re pretty much in agreement the country is slowly circling the drain. I think it’s mighty big of you libertarians to step up to the plate and take credit.

      1. Cytotoxic isn’t an American or a libertarian. He’s a 15 y/o home schooled Canadian Objectivist.

        1. I see. Idiots Without Borders, eh?

        2. ITT, touchy nativists and xenophobes.

      2. they’re pretty much in agreement the country is slowly circling the drain. I think it’s mighty big of you libertarians to step up to the plate and take credit.

        Yeah, it’s a result of the libertarians being in power and enacting all of their libertarian policy and stuff.

        1. Hey, am I the one who said, “We’re winning” and am I the one who keeps going on about “The Libertarian Moment”? If you really want to own the moment, it’s all yours! Take it and welcome?. and don’t get caught too close to any lampposts by any angry peasants!

          1. The “moment”, if and when it arrives, will be all about fixing the fucking mess left to us by retards such as yourself. You dipshits broke it, step aside and we’ll gladly clean it up for you.

            1. Yep. And when I’m quarterbacking for the Bears, they’ll win their next Super Bowl. Go get ’em, tiger!

              1. they’re pretty much in agreement the country is slowly circling the drain.

                So…moar of teh same, pleez! /Rorschach Carlyle

                Retard!

                1. More of the same? Yeah, we could use an alternative to gay marriage, mass third world immigration, political correctness?.

                  ?just wait until the libertarians get in! They’ll show ya what an alternative looks like!

                  1. Yeah, gay marriage, how awful. It really is the end.

            2. Though interestingly enough, that degenerative mess the U.S. is currently mired in appears to have gotten exponentially worse during the era where the U.S. has been importing a permenant Oaxacan underclass to man the fast food drive-thrus and clog the emergency rooms without bearing any cost.

              Funny that.

              1. I welcome it… The faster the house of Cards they call the welfare state falls, the better

                1. If you earnestly think collapse will cause an end to the existing system rather than a doubling down of statism, your rose-colored glasses are more tinted than mine at the start of a Chiefs season

                  1. There is one stable state and one unstable state of a nation. Either the nation experiences incremental growth of statism, or it is subject to rebellion.

              2. If you think that the US has gotten exponentially worse more so lately than in say the ’30s or you think that worsening is due to a (entirely fictional) imported permanent underclass then you’re a moron.

        2. Did we miss the libertarian moment?

          1. Gah, rookie mistake. Always refresh after taking a piss break!

    2. Legal and illegal immigrants can have all the jerbs they care to work at as long as they stay off welfare.

      1. A) They’re not. Even where they have jobs, they lack verifiable income due to lack of legal status. They then have kids, not to milk money off the system, but simply because they’re more family oriented and traditional in that way.

        B) But lacking verifiable income and having dependents results in them qualifying for all the delicious govt bennies that you and I are paying for. So that $1.99 Yumbo Yack and Yack in the Box has a real cost to you, John Q. Prole-Taxpayer, of $2.99.

        1. Not to mention the job at McDs taken by one such immigrant is a job no longer being manned by a citizen of the republic. Of course, our welfare state making it more advantageous to dither idly as a layabout and collect subsidy than clean fast food restrooms doesn’t help.

          Thankfully most immigrants don’t realize that until second or third generacion.

        2. Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens

          http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..-rate-poor

          1. Yes, so because of inability to qualify for the full dazzling array of graft and subsidy, their utilization rates for traditional dole programs are lesser to a trivial degree than the temporarily-lowest income citizens who’ve theoretically paid into the system for their entire lives and the permenant-layabouts that have made a career of ciphoning off every last sweet delicious drop of govt cheese fondue. Because of that we should welcome them with open arms because their lower incidence to theft is proof of their unmitigated virtue.

            1. If you have a population which is n% thieves and you start importing into it a group which is % smaller, over time doesn’t that lower the overall %?

              1. Not when the importation creates more thieves by depriving the existing population with no alternative course of action to get by short of theivery.

                1. “creates more thieves by depriving the existing population with no alternative course of action to get by short of theivery.”

                  Huh?

                  1. The immigrant guy with the job may not be on the dole, but his having taken that job may have contributed to a native-born citizen being on the dole (whether through direct competition-caused unemployment or, more likely, through having so depressed the wages available to the citizen for low-skilled labor that welfare becomes an attractive alternative).

                    Incentives matter.

              2. If you have a population which is n% thieves and you start importing into it a group which is % smaller, over time doesn’t that lower the overall %?

                Actually, no. You’re getting the math wrong. You have a population that is n% thieves. But the demographic you’re importing has a native population of n+x% (where x0) thieves. The imported population has a proportion of thieves of n+y% (where xy0). That means you’re still increasing the proportion of thieves.

                Put more concretely, the imported population includes more poor people. Poor people consume more welfare than non-poor people. Even if they’re less inclined to consume welfare than native poor people, they still consume more welfare than average.

                I’m not knee-jerk anti-immigration. But, bullshitting by comparing apples and oranges isn’t going to do much to convince anyone.

          2. Not to mention that their very presence and competition in the labor market with those low-income native-born citizens drives said citizens out of the workforce and onto the dole.

            1. More lies and bullshit contradicted by the very existence of Singapore.

              1. Singapore’s welfare system is very much narrower in scope and less generous than that of the USA. One should take that into account when comparing the labor and immigration economics of the two countries.

  4. Claim: Immigrants take American jobs.

    Fact: Immigrants come when the\re are jobs available and leave when there aren’t many.

    That’s not the correct answer to the assertion. Whether immigrants take jobs available and leave at the point when there aren’t, that does not per s? invalidate the assertion.

    The correct answer to the assertion is that JOBS DO NOT BELONG TO “AMERICANS”, THEY BELONG TO THE EMPLOYER.

    An employer has NO obligation to give away his or her money to someone just because that person happens to have a certain nationality. An employer IS free to give his money or her money to whoever he or she wants. The assertion is contradictory because it would imply that ANYONE who does not post a job is depriving an American from “his” or “her” job, simply by omission. This means every American man, woman or child who does NOT invest in jobs is ipso facto depriving Americans from “their” jobs. This is obvious nonsense.

    1. Don’t disrupt the collectivist nativist wankfest, OM. It just feels way too good, I guess.

      THEY TOOK UR JERBS AND HAD BABEEZ AND PARKED ON THE LAWNZ

      1. Where’s the like button? I want to like this comment so hard!

    2. If an employer intended for a position to be “under the table”, then that job was never available to an “American.” There are Mexican dishwashers all over Koreatown who never had to compete with Americans for that job.

      But if we’re talking about thousands of undocumented aliens who are granted the right to work, then yeah, some Americans will lose out on opportunities. Most immigrants don’t work in fields and factories. I’ll go out on a limb and guess that 5 times as many immigrants work in offices, retail, or service sector. Americans work there.

      Immigrants also compete among themselves for jobs, as strange as that sounds. Many Asians are having second thoughts about facilitating visas for foreign workers. They spent a lot of money on their degrees, you know. The UCs reserve spaces for more foreign students ever year.

      1. Americans can’t work under the table?

        1. Some of them work at Reason. One is left with the impression “under the table” is the defining feature of the job.

      2. It goes beyond that.

        We could have free-flow of labor libertopia without it being a tidal wave of peasant humanity if we’d only get our own house in order. So many of these jobs that “americans won’t take” are jobs they won’t take because a cushy existence provided via the dole is readily available.

        1. There’s no data to support this and even if it were true there’s nothing wrong with a tidal wave of humanity, your xenophobia notwithstanding.

    3. Of course, the idea that immigrants driving down the price of labor is a bad thing when driving down the price of anything else is a good thing is sort of odd.

      If you can’t get a job mowing my lawn for $80 because I’m hiring some illegal alien to mow my lawn for $40, it may be bad for you, but it’s great for me and the illegal immigrant and the hooker I’m going to spend the $40 I saved on.

      It reminds me of the economic analysis of drug use where they always tell you illegal drugs cost the economy umpty-billions of dollars – because they don’t put a price on the enjoyment drug users gain from their drug use. If I’m spending $400 a week on blow, that’s not a $400 loss to the economy any more than if I’d spent the $400 on veal cutlets. I got $400 worth of enjoyment out of it, didn’t I? That’s a net gain for me in my book.

      For everybody harmed by the use of illegal drugs or illegal immigrants there’s somebody else who came out ahead on the deal, so how is it always just a cost?

      1. If you can’t get a job mowing my lawn for $80 because I’m hiring some illegal alien to mow my lawn for $40

        It’s generally not so great for you when the job still costs $80, but only $40 is being paid the guy doing the job while the other $40 is the unseen cost of subsidizing the life of the bloke who was priced out of doing the job.

        Amazing how quickly people who generally understand the notion of recognizing things unseen put blinders up the second any recognition of the unseen might result in the shrill cries of teh racist/nativist/xenophobe.

        1. “might result in the shrill cries of teh racist/nativist/xenophobe.”

          You’ve really got a robust victim complex going there. You realize you’re bringing up people calling you these things more than, you know, anyone is actually calling you these things.

          1. Thankfully the tendency to engage in such ad hominem is notably less on the libertarian side (though still at times present, I’ll not name names). But I nevertheless think it’s the fear of such name-calling that causes many libertarians to adopt the progressive position. Sort of like not running Mohammed cartoons doesn’t make on an Islamist or Islamist sympathizer, but can indicate their deep islamophobia*.

            *term used in a deliberately ironic way of its literal meaning.

            1. I think some people who oppose immigration do so on what could be called xenophobic grounds (those who complain about ‘press 2 for Spanish’ and such), but certainly one can be against it for non-xenophobic grounds. You don’t have to keep harping on that.

              1. Xenophobic is one of those terms I reserve the most derision for as it tends to lack clarity. The implication of the term is generally racial, but more often than not I think many who could be rightly labeled xenophobic have more cultural concerns at play.

                And I do think a desire to preserve the continuity of the cultural ideals that a political unit has created and fostered over time is a legitimate concern.

                1. If we’re talking about people that are upset because the signs at Lowe’s are, in addition to being English, in Spanish, or because the people around them are ‘talkin’ Mexican’ or such, then I’d say that kind of thing is an indicator of some xenophobia.

                  Saying that you think a foreign group is going to come in a subvert our national values is too, often, but not necessarily I guess. We’ve had a pretty silly and ugly history with that, and that explains a lot of the presumptions about such approaches.

        2. You should work for MadeUpNumbersUSA. You’ve got the ‘make shit up’ and ‘blame foreigners for taking welfare in spite of all data to the contrary’ qualifications down pat.

          1. NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS, mentioned in the article) along with the Social Contract Press, US, Inc., Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), U.S. English and Pro English (groups advocating making English the official language of the US) were founded by John Tanton.

      2. The point is the non-lazy/ able to get sex without paying for it segment doesn’t really care what you think and is thankfully resoundingly voting for rational, adult-like controls on immigration. But do not despair a little exercise mowing your lawn is sure to shave a few pound off your gut. Won’t make your hair grow back or make you tall but the lost weight might mean that the hooker no longer throws up afterwards and that’s got to be worth a ten dollar discount. 40 dollar hookers for 30 bucks for you restricted immigrarion for me and all the other adults–everyone wins.

        1. And this one, really stuck on the baldness thing. A traumatic case of MPB do that to you?

  5. “If Sessions wants a job as a border bouncer, Kim Jong Un no doubt could use a pair or (sic) extra hands.”

    Kim Jon Un?

    Do bouncers keep people in the club too now?

  6. As for low-skilled workers, even Harvard’s George Borjas, the darling of the restrictionist right, admits that immigration boosts native wages overall by $22 billion annually. Borjas, however, claims that these gains are not evenly distributed and immigrant labor causes the wages of comparably employed natives to drop by 2 to 8 percent.

    Maybe it is true that immigration of low-skill labor tends to lower the wages for native-born Americans doing the same jobs, but that would be true for every new native-born American who enters the job market to compete with the current pool of native-born labor. The argument could be used to advocate a policy of low fertility so to keep the wages of low-skill Americans high. But let’s not expect logical consistency from statist conservatives, or should we?

    1. Maybe it is true that immigration of low-skill labor tends to lower the wages for native-born Americans doing the same jobs,

      Basic supply-and-demand would lead me to believe there’s no “maybe” about it.

      1. Well that is basic, but it’s wrong.

        By filling in gaps in the labor force, more wealth can be produced, leading to higher wages. See ‘Singapore’ for further reference.

        1. Why can’t it be both?

    2. If you believe that “natives” won’t take certain jobs, then natives from a new generation won’t be competing with the older generation for those jobs. Because they never took those jobs in the first place.

      The breakdown – Natives and MANY immigrants will not work in some farm where the owner may not provide bathroom breaks and basic protections for workers. You might as well apply for a job at Walmart.

      If natives don’t take these sort of jobs, then the employer has three options (1) raise the wage and benefits to attract workers (2) hire workers through guest worker program, like in Canada (3) hire illegal immigrants willing to take those jobs for obvious reasons. The USA model.

    3. // but that would be true for every new native-born American who enters the job market to compete with the current pool of native-born labor.

      except that people being born and taking 18 years to enter the job market is way way slower than the millions of immigrants we import in

    4. If reducing the labor pool by deporting immigrants resulted in increased wages, just think of the increased wages from reducing the labor pool by banning women and blacks from working!

  7. it is employers wish whom he can employ, as does people buy from where they want, but employers should give first preference to Americans.

    1. And consumers should give first preference to American goods I guess…

    2. If you care about the business, you’ll hope they hire those with the best skill sets for the best price. Doing anything otherwise means not being in business.

  8. Jeff Sessions Rebuttal =

    “well aint that nice for Sheeka Deeka Durka”

    1. Why try any harder? Shiska’s arguments aren’t even compelling to most of the cosmotards that comment here.

      1. “the cosmotards that comment here.”

        i think that’s a very unkind thing to say about Bo.

        1. You have to like that Gilmore’s angry obsession with me can lead him to ally with even the more obvious actual trolls as long as it involves taking a shot on me.

          Oh Gilmore, I’m no threat to your critical-to-your-self-image role on, say, the Independents thread, no need to obsess like that.

  9. Sounds like one heck of a plan dude.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

  10. Competition is good everywhere but in the job market.

    /The Stupid Party

  11. Jeff should have just pointed to the crime/dependency problem. It’s really not difficult for a Republican to make a case for immigration restrictions, they just don’t want to state the obvious.

    1. It’s not that he has an aversion to stating the obvious. It’s that the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are waiting to pounce on the tiniest thing that can be construed as racist. Since both crime and welfare are “dog whistles” now, Sessions is smartly making the case from an economically left perspective that they can’t really say boo about.

      1. You’ll be shocked at how quickly the left will adopt free market arguments if it hammers their political rival. Just look at abortion debates and how quickly they suddenly understand regulatory capture.

        1. Oh, I’m well aware of how inconsistent and unprincipled they are. I just think he’s playing the only card he can when the media gatekeepers have ruled every other criticism of mass immigration to be racissss and thus illegitimate.

          1. He’s loved in AL, – and is line with public opinion for the most part – it might be the best time for him to just be a straightforward… and let the media hellstorm rain down upon him. Rather than rely on poorly articulated, contentious boring economic memos.

        2. Just look at abortion debates and how quickly they suddenly understand regulatory capture.

          Or how quick they are to talk about how over-regulation causes abortion clinics to shut down.

          Gee, if overregulation causes abortion clinics to shut down and results in fewer clinics, then is there anywhere else in the economy where we can apply that lesson?

          1. Bingo.

            They aren’t stupid, on the contrary, they’re so smart they can pick and choose arguments as they’re needed and get away with it.

    2. You mean the total lack of a correlation between illegal immigration and crime?

  12. apparently, [immigrants] increase “income inequality and joblessness by expanding the labor supply in excess of demand” and undercut American wages.

    In a market with a given equilibria, a price subsidy will lower the price for consumers (e.g., firms) and increase the quantity past its natural equilibrium. In a welfare state, the state is a purchaser of labor and in practice acts as a subsidy for labor, artificially increasing quantity and lowering price, e.g., wages. I could get into how price stickiness and such play into joblessness, but I’ll leave it at that and simply say that, even if Jeff Sessions is a thundering idiot, there’s absolutely nothing wrong about his statement in the context of actual labor markets as they function in any welfare state country.

    1. And the statement that immigrants increase income inequality is provably true in every case in every country. If you bring in million upon millions of poorly educated people from a third world country, they’re not going to make as much money as the average American. In fact, they’ll overwhelmingly fall at the bottom of the income scale, thus causing income inequality.

      Of course, this doesn’t matter because income inequality is a meaningless specter used by idiots to justify their envy and has no actual bearing upon the well-being of individuals. However, his statement about income inequality is 100% true and should be brought up repeatedly when progressive idiots attempt to shriek about income inequality which their preferred immigration policy is actually causing.

      1. Of course, this doesn’t matter because income inequality is a meaningless specter used by idiots to justify their envy and has no actual bearing upon the well-being of individuals.

        While I generally agree, it is possible to arrive at a level of wealth concentration so narrow that it becomes a threat to the existing stability of the social order.

        We are, thankfully, lightyears away from such a point.

        1. That’s impossible in a market environment. What you’re talking about can only occur if people basically use the state to rob on their own behalf. It’s the kind of thing you see in third-world dictatorships where the ruling family is extraordinarily rich while everyone else is starving.

          That has never and will never happen in a free capitalist country so it isn’t really a malady of income inequality, it’s a symptom of violent state oppression.

          1. I agree.

            That has never and will never happen in a free capitalist country

            That doesn’t mean it won’t eventually happen here.

            1. Agreed which is why we need open borders to maintain free market capitalism.

              1. Cyto, you really think places like LA will be swimming in money if they took in another 5 million immigrants next year? Keep in mind that the immigrants usually go the same 5,6 states.

                Economic benefits from immigration is like a college education. It’s certainly there, but the numbers are bound to be inflated, because it probably include numbers from the top tier that are atypical for most immigrants. It’s just how the government compiles and interprets data.

                If it was common for 20 year old Americans to earn 15 dollars an hour working at a soy sauce factory and high end trading companies, everyone would be clamoring for more immigration. But in at least 40 states, that won’t be true.

                And in states like CA, you’ll see a lot of immigrants earning no more than Americans. The successful ones either came from rich families or earned professional degrees. There are many who might be working for law firms founded by immigrants.

      2. Well that wouldn’t be a problem if the evil capitalists didn’t create the inequality in the first place. What we need is a Hugo Chavez to show us the way.

      3. “that immigrants increase income inequality is provably true in every case in every country”

        It appears at least for the US that effect might be modest-to-small.

        http://www.nber.org/papers/w14683

    2. Wait, the state by purchasing X and subsidizing X lowers the price of X?

      1. A subsidy lowers the price of X for the consumer (which in the case of labor is the firm). This is pretty basic economics, Bo. We aren’t even talking reservation wage or anything specific to labor economics, do keep up.

        1. Like with college costs?

  13. This is a better link for speculation about the reasons why Sessions didn’t get the chairmanship:

    http://www.al.com/opinion/inde…..still.html

    The TPM link doesn’t really back up the “Word has it…” claim.

  14. Speaking of Hispanics stealing our Kulture…

    …The El Camino I’ve Always Wanted

    Needs moar fuzzy dice

  15. Random idea on immigration:

    Why not allow prospective immigrants to bid against each other for a yearly stay visa (which will then be the same price for renewal of yearly contract)? Put a price floor on the visa market to ensure that prices are never lower than basic amount needed to account for operating costs and let it run. Seems to me that this immediately has a number of benefits:

    1) It places a value on a valuable and scarce good (residence in the country) using price mechanisms. Even assuming a libertarian preference for open entry, the time that it takes to process each immigrant, cost of employing workers to check for disease, etc are scarce resources, as is use of the commons and such. Why not use the price system?

    2) This allows for flexibility dependent on demand. An immigrant can rationally ascertain how much she is willing to pay for a visa based on how much she will make in America as opposed to her other options.

    3) Highly transparent and predictable system. The current system is obscure and it is unclear what the process is or how one qualifies. With a price-based system, one simply has to pay the cost borne by the market.

    4) More humanitarian. Rather than having to wait years for a bureaucracy to assign your group refugee status, you can pay for a ticket out of dodge. Hell, one could track emerging crises by regional bids and have information to act! How Hayekian is that?!

    5) More immune to politics, and potentially more capable of being privatized

    1. Because that commits the heresay of believing that a nation should be run in such a way to maximize the benefit to existing citizens. Can’t have that. Sure businesses are run solely in order to maximize shareholder value, but for some reason that doesn’t apply to the nation state.

      1. That’s because nation-states aren’t clubs or corporations and only exist to defend the rights of citizens not fatten their pockets.

        1. Says who, some canadian dufus?

          That and ten buck will get you a latte at starbucks.

      2. This just in: protectionism is great, value is objective and commensurable.

  16. The issue that, if the anti-immigration folks had any brains at all would light the fuse on all this, is the importation and secret distribution of illegals all over the country without health screening.

    Followed immediately by a mysterious outbreak of a new strain of enterovirus.

    Could be a coincidence, but its pretty clear the CDC and the grant-funded epidemiology community are following their marching orders to not investigate exactly how a new strain of enterovirus suddenly pops up all over the country.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a…..-contd.php

    Particularly appalling is the quote by one epidemiologist that it would not be “helpful” to know where these new strains actually originated, or how they got here, or any of those totally basic epidemiology questions.

    1. One other quote:

      When CDC officials were asked by TheDC to explain this multi-city, multi-strain anomaly, they waffled: “There is no evidence that unaccompanied children brought EV-D68 to the United States; we are not aware of any of these children testing positive for the virus,” Oberste replied.

      Well, since they weren’t tested for the virus, its no surprise they didn’t positive for the virus, is it?

      1. If that summary is accurate the deflection is the answer – in that they were not specifically asked those questions.

    2. OMG suggesting that these vibrant Mestizos who contribute to our diverse tapestry eventhough we’re really not different at all might be petri dishes of infestation and disease is TEH RACISSSTTT!!1!!1!1!!

      /progcosmoderp

    3. “if the anti-immigration folks had any brains at all would light the fuse on all this, is the importation and secret distribution of illegals all over the country without health screening.”

      Er, isn’t this more of a problem for restrictionists (think about where the ills of ‘illegal drugs’ come from, the free flow or the restrictions)?

    4. There’s no evidence that the EV68 outbreak is linked to immigration we have it in BC too.

  17. undocumented workers

    That phrase itself is a blatant lie.

    Why do you expect anyone to believe you after telling a whopper like that?

    1. I was walking through a public park a few months ago where there was a documentary that was going to be shown on migrant workers. A person handed me the flier and told me to come back at 7:30 for the “film about undocumented workers.” I responded by asking if the irony was noticed. Crickets.

  18. Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..nter-fatwa

  19. Personally, I’ve got no problem with immigration (provided they don’t all become trapped in welfare dependency, which is depressingly common in Western societies) but I have to agree with everyone mocking the phrase ‘undocumented workers.’

    It’s a wildly dishonest euphemism that only exists so that progs and open borders libertarians can make immigrants seem like an unmitigated boon rather than complex human beings who react based on the incentives provided to them.

    When you provide a recent immigrant with more money in welfare than he ever could have made working in the old country, of course most of them are never going to work and will end up in multi-generational dependency. That’s actually a rational choice in the short term, even if it has incredibly bad consequences in the long term. Unfortunately, calling them ‘undocumented workers’ serves to obfuscate the potential negative consequences of importing tens of millions of poor people into a gigantic welfare state.

    1. My issue isn’t how immigrants live their own lives. There’s no doubt in my mind that they’re a net economic benefit to the country through their collective work. My issue is with their voting habits which enable maintaining and expanding the welfare state even though that welfare is spent on native born instead of immigrants. Give me protections from an expanding state first and I’ll lend full support to open borders. But the order in which we do things matters. And the ends don’t justify the means.

      Is it a bit unfair to generalize? Sure, but those are the odds. Will Bo and toxic invoke their pathetic “well they might change!” arguments? Yes, and I might win the lottery tomorrow. My confidence in either is low. Will they change their attitudes if the republicans just stop being mean to them? Multiple amnesties and even fluent candidates give lie to that notion being true any time soon.

      1. By pathetic I guess you mean ‘in line with our actual history?’ Because everyone knows Irish-Americans are the Democrats most reliable voter base these days!

        1. Stop that pipeline before they use ED, Bo! Chickens are people too!!! And again, if you’re so sure that they’re going to change, then you’ve got no problem indemnifying me against any tax increases, right? Tell you what, I’ll only make it for the next 15 years. That should be plenty of time for them to change their voting preferences.

          Same crappy arguments.

          1. I’ve given you a counter example gutting your generalization and you respond with a meaningless internet bluff.

      2. Right, and any day now Texas will turn blue.

        1. Will Bo and toxic invoke their pathetic “well they might change!” arguments?

        2. Will California turn red, though?

          Do illegals choose the state they want to go to?

          Do they do a little self-selection?

          That would be interesting to know.

    2. …I have to agree with everyone mocking the phrase ‘undocumented workers.’

      It’s a wildly dishonest euphemism that only exists so that progs and open borders libertarians can make immigrants seem like an unmitigated boon rather than complex human beings who react based on the incentives provided to them.

      Well this particular open borders libertarian much prefers ‘illegal immigrants’. That term puts the fault where it belongs — on the law — and does not carry the implication that documentation of workers is a legitimate power of government.

  20. “of course most of them are never going to work and will end up in multi-generational dependency”

    Is that what has and is happening, as an empirical matter?

    1. Pretty much has in CA.

  21. The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the student march that night;
    The quads were filled with rent-a-cops and not a picket sign in sight;
    With Cooney busted for possession, and Barrows, the riot laws;
    A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.

    A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
    Clung to that hope which “springs eternal in the human breast;”
    They thought, If only Gay Bo Cara could be rallying that mob,
    We’d put up even money now, with Bo Cara at the quads.

    But Flynn preceded Bo Cara, as did also Jimmy Blake,
    And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
    Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
    For there seemed but little chance of Bo Cara’s getting to the quads.

    But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
    And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
    And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
    Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library burned.

    Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
    It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
    A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the sod,
    And Bo Cara, Gay Bo Cara, was advancing through the quads.

    There was ease in Bo Cara’s manner as he wheeled into his place;
    There was pride in Bo Cara’s bearing and a smile on Bo Cara’s face,
    And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
    No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Gay Bo Cara at the quads.

    1. Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
      Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
      And while the nervous officers grabbed the night sticks from their hips,
      Defiance gleamed in Bo Cara’s eye, a sneer curled Bo Cara’s lip.

      And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
      And Bo Cara stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,
      Close by the haughty Bo Cara , the can unheeded sped —
      “That ain’t my style,” said Bo Cara . “Break it up!” the coppers said.

      From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
      Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.
      “Kill them; kill the pigs!” shouted someone from the mob;–
      And Bo Cara guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.

      With a fist of protest shaking, Bo Cara’s visage shone;
      He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
      The Harley takes off through the quads, ’till it hits a vicious bump;
      And Bo Cara sails through the air, landing smack upon his rump.

      1. “Fascists!” he screeched, “Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist pigs!”
        “If I must I’ll ride a tricycle, but we’ll have this march – you dig?”
        They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles strain,
        And they knew that Gay Bo Cara wouldn’t lose that bike again!

        The sneer is gone from Bo Cara’s lip; his teeth are clenched in hate;
        He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
        And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets go,
        And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off – alone.

        Oh! somewhere there’s a campus town where they drum and chant all night.
        They protest for the rain forest, and demand the polar bear’s rights.
        And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout;
        But there is no joy at Old State U — Gay Bo Cara has Wiped Out!

        1. Wow, you’re really pretty sad there.

          I mean, think about what you did here. You were so mad about a person on a discussion board saying things you didn’t like, you actually decided you’d ‘get him’ by coming up with, what I’m sure for you, would be a devilishly clever and in no way sad ‘I don’t have much of a life with venues for actual intellectual and creative accomplishments’ long mock-poem. Then you went and wrote it up and posted it (and posted, and posted it).

          That’s really sad guy.

          1. Especially since he’s not getting paid to post like you.

            1. You just throw it all on the wall hoping something might stick. Typical troll.

  22. I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask a fairly recurring question here: given that Reason is pretty across the board in favor of lower immigration restrictions and that that’s a position they’ve had for a long time now, a position that is adopted by a lot, if not most, national, longstanding libertarian organizations, then why in the world are the comment sections on articles like this one like what we have here, with half or more of the commenters for immigration restrictions? Is there any better indicator of something I’ve been saying for a long time, that for some unknown cause Reason’s comment section has become a hang out for an unusual amount of people that at the least represent a different, more ‘paleo’ strain of libertarianism, and at most are essentially conservatives? It’s pretty clear.

    1. Little Bo Blue, come blow your horn. I’ve given my reason and you continue to fail to address it.

    2. I think it’s fair to say that the Reason comment section is more “paleo” or “traditional” or even “conservative” than Reason’s editorial position. It’s not true merely on immigration, but also on abortion and sometimes foreign policy (i.e. if Sheldon Richman is the author)

    3. Reason’s staffers work in the business, journalism, that’s very hostile to anyone who doesn’t share some basic liberal ideas. That’s why there’s an advantage in maintaining some left-libertarian creed — just look where Radley Balko is now. The commenters, on the other hand, are private individuals who are generally not affected by this upside.

      1. Perfectly distilled

    4. I would say the opposite.

      Reason editor and such represent the so called ”
      Cosmotarian”, while Reason commenters represent the average libertarian

      1. Except that where a Reason and the commentariat split it’s Reason that’s closer to the LP line.

        1. The LP has trended more cosmo for some time now. Like the GOP elite, it’s out of touch with its’ base.

    5. Torq Bo Cara the ever vigilant SoCon hunter is on the prowl for heretics. The only thing he hates more than crypto con libertarians is teh Jooos.

      1. Throw it all, Rev Al!

  23. It’s not surprising to see Reason deny that the gummint should look after the interests of citizens over foreigners. If you’re an anarchist, the gummint shouldn’t exist, and citizenship should mean nothing.

    What is disappointing is to see the dishonesty in denying basic supply and demand economics. Importing disposable human widgets really does increase supply of human widgets, thereby decreasing the price they can command.

    Fine, hop up on your anarchist soap box, but stop lying while you’re up there.

    1. Singapore exists and therefore your are wrong and your economics are worthless.

  24. Immigration has never ever been bad for a country ever. Singapore and Canada exist and thrive with more immigration than America, so no repeating ‘BUT SUPPLY AND DEMAND’ is just you not understanding economics.

    1. Large scale immigration, the kind being witnessed across the entire Western world, is a fairly recent phenomenon. Most of the historical benefits of immigration are largely observed through European immigrants into the U.S. around the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That immigration largely occurred from immigrants coming from places with a somewhat common cultural parent in broad Western Civ/Enlightenment thinking. And even then it was not without its negatives, whether the growth of ethnic criminal organizations or odd communist-led assassination plots.

      Importing a signficant population from a wholly foreign culture is another thing that there isn’t a real significant long term examination of. Europe and Canada are importing increasing numbers of people from the Islamic world, and while you may not have noticed the recent news, there are some signs that it’s not exactly going hunky-dory. Not to mention that because of the largesse of the Euro-Canadian welfare model, its far costlier for them in treasure (again, not mentioning the blood).

      I think the U.S. rather fortunate that its primary immigrants are hispanic, since that culture has less actively hostile views towards its host culture. But the support for state-socialism is generally fairly high among that contingent and that could be worrisome in the future.

      1. I have to say, on the culture issue, I do actually suspect that the 19th and early 20th century mass immigration led to the fucked up social sphere we now have in America, where we’re balkanized to the point of atomization, and everybody from every weird little ethnic enclave fears and hates everyone outside their little enclave.

        Or maybe that’s just my growing up in New Jersey. It seems everyone thinks themselves and the 10 siblings/cousins they know are the best people in the world and everyone else is shit, and they all hate black people for some reason, even if they came rather recently to this country when blacks have been here for decades

        1. oh, and also that plays into how stupid modern Americans are

      2. Also, back in the day, you couldn’t tune into your “old country” TV, radio, etc.

        And returning was very expensive, so you would make a strong effort to assimilate.

        Now, its often the opposite. Its better to keep some ties to the old country – what if you get a better job offer? And your kids should definitely speak the old country language, too…they may want to move back.

        Now, this is not bad but it is different. Heck, maybe its better!

        And I should note this often is the wish of the 1st generation. The rich Asians bring their kids to America for jr. high school and high school, so they can get into American university.

        They assume the kid will want to go back to China after that.

        Ooops. The kid hates China. He just wants to be a surfer or a social worker. WTFFFFF! angry parents return to China.

        (No, srsly, know one kid who’s dad worked his butt off in restaurants and the kid is majoring in sociology and wants to be a social worker.)

        So probably, assimilation still happens.

    2. Really? Ask the American Indians how it worked out for them. Or the First nations people in Canada.

      Go to Scotland and ask the Picts.

      Go to England and ask the Celts how that Anglo-Saxon thing worked out. Or the Anglo-Saxons how that Norman thing did.

      Go to Japan and ask the Ainu.

      How about Persia? Iraq? Egypt? All at one time, greatest civilization in the world. Now, not so much thanks to Islam being forced on them.

      Sure, immigration works out great for the people who come in and take over. But not so much for the people already there.

      Maybe in some cases, like England, you end up with a great civilization. But even England isn’t a great example, since so much of the common people (ie, those already there) were essentially enslaved one way or the other until the 20th century. From serfdom to work houses and press gangs for the Navy.

      I

    3. And Canada is hardly a great example.

      Who is immigrating there? Middle class people, mostly from Asia, most of who speak English.

      To get to Canada, you need a plane ticket.

      To get to the US, you need to cross a river. People come here from Mexico and various other Latin America countries who go through Mexico.

      1. Have you thought about what it actually takes to come to the US illegally?

        It’s not just crossing a river. Mexican illegals here in the US aren’t just from Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, or Baja California popping over the border to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California. These are people coming from rural states like Oaxaca, Michoacan, Jalisco, Zacatecas, etc., to New York, Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Washington, etc. They’re not just walking from Puebla to New York ? it’s 4,184 miles or 41+hrs by car from the city of Puebla to New York City. At 20 mpg (for simplicity but trucks don’t get that great of gas mileage), that’s 209.2 gallons of gas ? that costs money. Then you’ve got to eat. That’s if you can get across the border legally. If you’ve got to pay coyotes, then you’re talking hundreds of dollars. In reality, many Mexicans are coming here legally (often flying!) under tourist visas or student visas and overstaying their visas.

      2. Mexicans coming here aren’t the poor. They’re the middle or upper class but below the Carlos Slim level. Being less than the wealthiest in Mexico sucks. Being upper class without being part of the 1% is like being lower middle class in the US (or worse). Being poor? that’s just awful. Do you know how much minimum wage is in Mexico? It’s 0.61 USD? 8.4% of US minimum wage. So Mexicans dream of leaving Mexico to work for minimum wage, saving up dollars to come home, build a nice house for the family, and return to being a husband and father. It’s used to be that only married men would come to the US, without their families, but now, with the US clamping down on illegal immigration from Mexico, it’s harder and harder to go back and forth across the border, so they are coming and staying rather than trying to cross the border repeatedly.

      3. Do you want to end Mexican immigration? Here’s how, and it ironically means opening up the border:
        1. Establish a guest worker program. They want to come here, work for a while to earn enough money to support themselves and their families for a while (maybe just the harvest season even!), and then return home. When the money runs out, they’ll return here, stay for a while to save up, and then go back. (This is called “sojourning”.)
        2. Let that continue until the sojourning brings in enough dollars to Mexico that US dollars in Mexico start to improve the economy and allow a middle class to develop to demand corruption reform. People in the 1920’s used to think that Puerto Rico would empty out from all of the Puerto Ricans coming to the US. That didn’t happen. When Puerto Rican sojounrers brought back enough dollars so that Puerto Rico’s economy was ? that of the US’s, the flow stopped and Puerto Rico began to develop its own economy. Mexico will likely follow the same path ? once US dollars bring up Mexico’s wealth to a certain point, Mexico’s own economy will develop and Mexicans will no longer come to the US for work and many Mexicans will return home. And while it is true that American companies will still take advantage of a growing Mexican economy and move there, Mexicans will demand more and more US goods and our economic relationship with Mexico will be more like our economic relationship with Canada.

    4. Singapore is a city state which is the regional finance hub.

      Canada is a better example.

      I’d like to know about France and the Arab enclaves. Truly, is France better off? Probably, overall, they are. But its not like some problems occur.

      And what about countries like Sweden which had models built on homogenous societies. Will those successful models survive when its 30% Somali?

      We shall see. I think its impossible to stop anyways.

    5. So anyone can move to Canada?

      They have completely open borders?

      They don’t have rules about who can come, perhaps a system where they decide who is valuable and who is not?

      Why, indeed they do.

      Yes, grabbing every rich person in Hong Kong is not a bad idea.

      Now take 50 million Pakistanis. Come on, Canada, show us how awesome that would be. 50 million Pakistanis.

      Can’t wait for the first blasphemy laws to be passed.

  25. At its core I fucking hate the immigrant trope trotted out by establishment Republicans. Mexicans are not fucking inherently evil. These people are seeking a fucking better life which is goddamn EXACTLY why THIS country was initiated in the first place and a lot of fucking horrible travesties rolled down the pike that no one should be proud of and a fuckton of mistakes were made but here we are…

    A nation of immigrants who essentially slaughtered and displaced an entire geographical slew of indigenous tribes and yet fucking somehow we are so superior to the fucking Mexicans who were as the pioneers.

    Finding peace and sustenance for their offspring. Nothing else can be said.

    We as humans make babies and no matter the color, divide, ethnicity, gender, or poverty level… we want the best for our children.

    1. republicans never even remotely implied Mexicans are evil

      people coming in to a country to make a better life is admirable on a personal level but that doesn’t mean immigration isn’t still a concern

    2. Are you a child? Every group seeks its own benefit. Mexicans are not inherently evil. They are not inherently noble, either. They are people.

      People who, generally speaking, hold political views that, if they belonged to white, native born Americans, would cause libertarians to say, “Fuck off, slavers!” But because they’re not so white, about half of libertarians suddenly turn into leftists and scream at anyone who has concerns about mass immigration, “Ya’ll just racist! What about the Indians?!”

  26. I love these immigration threads because it guarantees the super libertarian cytotoxic will come in and collectivize anyone who disagrees with him on immigration as xenophobic. There can be no other reason people would have differing opinions on this issue. They MUST be racists.

  27. Please enough with the lies about H1B1 visas.

    This is a video of a law firm thats teaches companies how to get H1B1 applicants into the USA.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

    They admit that their clients don’t actually want to hire Americans.

    We can stop the charade.

    I am actually pro-immigration, but I don’t like being lied to.

    Just have a points based system like Canada and Australia for immigration, and a work-visa system for laborers. Heck, have a decent path to citizenship for the work-visa guys if they decide they want to stay, too.

  28. I like when you quote a “point by point debunking” that doesn’t even disagree with what it’s supposed to be debunking. Layers and layers of hacks.

  29. Just before I saw the paycheck which was of $9215 , I did not believe that my brothers friend was really making money part time from their computer. . there sisters neighbor has done this 4 only about seven months and recently paid for the loans on their home and purchased a great Fiat Panda .
    all visit this page ******** http://www.jobsfish.com

  30. Reason was wrong in at least some of its criticism of Jeff Sessions . The full ‘fact’ behind the following makes no reference to hi tech legal immigration in which Jeff Sessions is also making claims that these take jobs from Americans. In fact, these hi tech guestworker visa holders routinely displace american IT workers by the thousands.

    REASON article: “Claim: Immigrants take American jobs.

    “Fact: Immigrants come when the\re are jobs available and leave when there aren’t many…. “

  31. If we really had the shortage of American IT talent then a few things would follow, but they do not obtain.

    *avg IT wages would be going up as a smaller smaller of this commodity would force employers to pay more. BUT BLS shows that wages are flat like the rest of other industries.

    *there would not be any significant layoffs of IT labor. This would be like choosing not to to eat McDonalds when you are starving because MacD’s was ‘not nutritional’. HOWEVER, there have been indeed many mass layoffs of American IT labor the last several years. I and a 1,000 of my work mates at a fortune 100 Insurance company were among these mass layoffs, making the claim of a shortage a complete fiction that is serving the companies’ desire to use cheap overseas labor.

    “The Silicon Valley Tech Worker Shortage Hoax
    By CHQ Staff | 1/14/2015”

    “Senator Sessions cites recent data from the Census Bureau confirmed that a stunning 3 in 4 Americans with a STEM degree do not hold a job in a STEM field?that’s a pool of more than 11 million Americans with STEM qualifications who lack STEM employment.

    This is a constantly growing number notes Sessions. Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman, a top national expert on STEM labor markets, estimates that “U.S. colleges produce twice the number of STEM graduates annually as find jobs in those fields.” ”

    http://www.conservativehq.com/…..rtage-hoax

  32. What seems to be missed, here, is that our founding document lists as a power of Congress “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization….” and that they have done so.
    Unless libertarians consider the Constitution as too limiting, then deference should be given to the fact that “illegals” are just that, and are here in violation of the fundamental laws of the nation.
    These laws include how those who have violated them should be dealt with, neither of which are being done.
    Should libertarians accept the premise that some laws are justified, while others aren’t, then intellectual honesty demands they support the ones that are.

  33. Please don’t use the word jihad to refer to a determined effort. I doubt sessions is acting on a Muslim inspired directive.

  34. A 2011 study by Madeline Zavodny for the American Enterprise Institute examining data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that between 2000 and 2007 every additional 100 immigrants with advanced degrees in STEM fields from American universities created 262 new native jobs

    How many of those 262 jobs would be created if we filled the 100 jobs with Americans instead of foreigners? 262. How many Americans would be put to work if we limited the H-1B, L-1 and other outsourcing importing visas? 362… the 262 “created” jobs and the 100 Americans working in the STEM fields. Are Americans available to do this kind of work? YES THEY ARE! But industry can save a few dollars (in the short term) by hiring foreigners. So Americans are being screwed by their government at the behest of people like Bill Gates, Orrin Hatch and Charles Schumer… self-serving traitors who want to sell out Americans almost as badly as does Reason…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.