Donald Trump

Even Republicans Don't Support Donald Trump's Call to Deport Millions of Illegal Immigrants

Trump's nativist stance is hitting a nerve, but it's not connected to electoral or economic reality.

|

Todd Krainin, Reason

So leading Republican candidate Donald Trump has released his first campaign white paper and it's all about his immigration plan (read Robby Soave's take here).

His three core principles?

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

He reiterated these points on an interview yesterday aboard his private jet with Meet The Press's Chuck Todd, stressing his love of the Mexicans he famously denounced as crime- and rape-prone, that he would get the Mexican government to pay for the wall, and that there was no alternative to deporting all illegals in the country. The good ones, he said, could come back in after vetting. Kids who are U.S. citizens and whose parents are illegal wouldn't be separated—they can just move out with their parents.

The white paper underscores Trump's support for all sorts of surveillance-state measures that are implied by such a policy. He wants to triple the number of ICE agents responsible for keeping illegals out, he will speed up and mandate E-Verify, a program that will force all employers to vet prospective hires through a government database, and he wants the feds to "cooperate with local gang task forces," among other things. This is all being done in the name of being a nation of laws, of course. If we're already commiting three felonies a day, just wait until you start adding on additional crimes related to giving aid and comfort to Mexicans.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives and Republicans were flipped out by surveillance-state measures such as E-Verify and large numbers of immigration cops asking folks for their papers (remember, if immigrants need to show papers, then we all do). Immigration hysteria is where such worries go to die. A vast and always beefed-up bureaucracy that will have control over whether you can work and when you need to show proof of U.S. citizenship is preferable to living in a country with a limited government. Because, you know, Mexicans. And keep in mind that it's often the very same people who complain that the government can't do ANYTHING right and who hate racial bean-counters that are expecting the government to secure thousands of miles of border while also perfectly titrating the exact ethnic and professional makeup of the U.S. population. 

Let's forget simple facts like the reality that immigrants, especially illegals, go to where unemployment is lowest; that immigration, whether legal or not, is a boon to the larger economy; that illegals are already barred from virtually all sorts of budget-busting welfare and that they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born folks. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine the parts of the country that are worst-off economically. Now go check out whether they are destinations for migrants of any kind, whether legal, illegal, or from other parts of the United States. Without exception, you will find that the hardest-luck parts of the nation are those without high levels of in-migration. 

And let's not even bother with the moral case that individuals should have the right to move where they want. You don't have to hire them and you don't have to give them candy, but FFS is there a more basic human right than freedom of movement?

Perhaps anti-immigrationists in the conservative and Republican movements can be swayed by the idea that being anti-immigrant is unpopular, even among Republicans. Writing in The New York Post, a paper founded by the immigrant bastard Alexander Hamilton, Republican strategist Liz Mair marshalls a strong pile of evidence that giving illegals a path to legal status ("amnesty!") is kinda big among Republicans. To wit:

…a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted July 26-30…showed 53 percent of Republicans surveyed support "amnesty" as it's defined by anti-immigration groups like FAIR, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies: 36 percent support a pathway to citizenship itself, and 17 percent prefer a pathway to legal status. A minority, albeit a significant one — 43 percent — supports identification and deportation of unauthorized immigrants.

A Pew Research Center poll from early June 2015 shows that 56 percent of Republicans support allowing unauthorized immigrants a pathway to staying in the country.

A CNN/ORC poll last year showed that 72 percent of Republicans favor allowing unauthorized immigrants to stay and become eligible for citizenship.

A Public Religion Research Institute poll from June 2014 shows that 51 percent of Republicans support a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.

Read the whole thing here.

Trump is this early electoral season's phenomenon, no doubt about it. But his anti-immigration stances—which are not so different than Bernie Sanders, incidentally—aren't just far from popular with Americans. They are not even popular with Republicans.

Which is kind of interesting and well worth noting.

It is also apparently lost on most of the other Republican candidates, who are doggedly trying to follow in his footsteps when it comes to immigration:

What's most worrisome is that other candidates who are more likely to actually succeed in 2016 will try to win over Trump's…supporters by co-opting [his] Fortress America mentality. All of the GOP contenders except Jeb Bush have called for some type of impenetrable border with Mexico as a precondition for discussing any changes in immigration numbers. By and large, they have also signed on to mandatory use of E-Verify, a national database that would effectively turn work into a government-granted privilege while increasing the reach of the surveillance state.

Related: Read Robby Soave's take on Trump's plan, which calls for at least 10,000 new federal agents.

Advertisement

NEXT: Donald Trump's Insane Immigration Plan Would Add 10,000 Federal Employees

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. He really knows how to troll libs.

    1. It’s good to see the progressive republicans have got Reason on their side. Now go out there and obliterate Trump like a good little soldier.

      Roger Ailes would be proud of you. O’Reilly too.

      1. When the progs, socialist democrats, corporate republicans and anti-social libertarians all agree on an issue – you know that they’re all wrong.

      2. You know, I’m really starting to regret having ever donated to Reason.

        Since I’ve been coming to this site (~2 years), I’ve seen it pretty steadily get more and more progressive. Where there used to be interesting and thought provoking articles, now it’s either some bullshit “Murderous child-raping muslims are somehow good guys” crap from Richman or it’s garbage from pretend libertarians, trying to rationalize why the progressive stance is somehow not a violation on freedom at all. Remember Nick’s article on the gay marriage bakery case? I remember a commenter saying that Nick just fakes all this to be different, and that he always has some leftist slant so he can still hang out with progs at parties. And I believe it.

        This site now gets linked to on the politics reddit. You know, that place that routinely has posts voted to the top that are blatant advertisements for the Rachel Maddow Show? Or that just recently had a 50/50 split on links either attacking republican candidates or promoting Bernie Sanders as the great savior (and, conveniently enough, every single article postulated that he would definitely win no matter what, so clearly not biased at all). That’s how far this site has come. It is now endorsed by socialists.

        1. It’s fine if you want to argue that Trump wouldn’t do a good job, or that you disagree with his positions on stuff, but this is just pathetic. Instead of having some stupid music video that absolutely no one listens to, how about writing an article about how the MSM got their asses handed to them by Trump, after their failed attacks actually increased his poll numbers? Reason is acting exactly like the cable news networks did. Hell, Fox got so much backlash after the debate that Megyn Kelly has taken a sudden 1.5 week vacation (which we all know is a suspension).

          Why does this site even have movie reviews? Who the hell cares? Hey Nick, how about you write something other than “Is the Libertarian Moment Over, Or is It?” 20 Different variations of that have already been done, and it’s always the same thing: Absolutely No One Cares. It’s no wonder people won’t identify themselves as libertarians; it’s nothing but hacks like you pretending to somehow be different. Trump is doing well precisely because of how much you and your friends in the media and government (you know, the people you used to pretend were your enemies) hate him. If all you elitist media members don’t like him, that’s a pretty damn good sign that he should be elected.

          I will absolutely never donate to Reason again, and I regret having ever done it in the first place.

          1. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

            http://www.incomereport.tk

      3. Indeed.

        When it comes to the invasion of criminal aliens, “Reason”… isn’t.

        The way to get rid of the criminal aliens is:

        1) Shoot them at the border,
        2) Deny them EVERY benefit of government (no education, welfare, police or fire protection – nothing!)
        3) Fine employers who employ them and landlords who rent to them.
        4) Imprison any caught for two years in a tent prison with loss of all property.

        1. And you would know they are criminal aliens how? For shooting purposes, I mean.

          And, if their home is burning should the fire department not come? And, how would they know the house belongs to an illegal immigrant?

          If I’m a landlord and the place is rented and the tenant shows me fake ID should I be fined?

    2. Trolling operates under the assumption that there is in fact nothing the person can do about it besides react… hence the reason this is not something politicians do a great deal. A politician can troll all the people they like… just not the ones they actually want to vote for them. AND therein lies the problem. You know there is a reason GOP election bean-counters were desperate to build bridges with Latinos. But I suppose the more die-hard elements of the party will have to learn these things the hard way.

  2. John Oliver can’t stand that there is freedom of religion and speech in America.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

    Irony.

    Of course the solution is more oversight from the IRS to get rid of those “loopholes”.

    1. I pulled the plug on his show months ago. It’s a tire fire this season.

      1. I pulled the plug on his show about halfway through one episode. The smug righteousness about something he’s wrong about was unfunny.

        1. Yeah, I’m done as well. He supposedly does some good monologues from time to time that aren’t proggie mutual masturbation fests, but meh, whatever, Life’s too short.

  3. (remember, if immigrants need to show papers, then we all do).

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..mark-steyn

    Re Arizona’s supposed crackdown on illegal immigration, President Obama just said he objected to asking people for ID because he wouldn’t want somebody asking his daughter for her papers just because they thought she might not be a citizen. Very touching, I’m sure. My own daughter is required by federal law to have her Green Card on her at all times, even when she’s walking in the woods behind our house. Indeed, only the other month, a snotty twerp of a Customs officer at Derby Line, Vt., threatened me that, if ICE agents came to my daughter’s school and she didn’t have her Green Card on her, they could deport her. But then she’s merely a legal immigrant, rather than one of the sainted “undocumented.” President Obama doesn’t seem to be aware of his own laws ? even when, as in this case, they were enacted by a Democrat (FDR).

    1. somebody asking his daughter for her papers just because they thought she might not be a citizen.

      Oh, she’d just refer them to her Secret Service guardian.

    2. threatened me that, if ICE agents came to my daughter’s school and she didn’t have her Green Card on her, they could deport her.

      “Oh, we’re exchanging threats, now? Here’s one [makes point of jotting down agent’s name]: If my daughter is kidnapped by anyone, I’m coming to you first. You seem like a guy with all the answers, and I’m going to want all the answers.”

      1. I don’t have money,but,I have a certain set of skills,if you leave her alone I will leave you alone.If not ,I will hunt you down,and kill you.

        1. To the NSA,it’s a joke about a movie

      2. “Oh, we’re exchanging threats, now? Here’s one [makes point of jotting down agent’s name]: If my daughter is kidnapped by anyone, I’m coming to you first. You seem like a guy with all the answers, and I’m going to want all the answers.”

        *radio squelch noise* Adam-one-twelve, reporting ‘terroristic threats’ against a peace officer. Shots have been fired. Requesting backup. Adam-one-twelve. Suspect is down. Repeat, Suspect is down. *radio squelch noise*

        1. What threats? The ICE agent seems knowledgable, and I’d rather try to get information from somebody I know.

    3. That’s insane. I remember tromping around the streets of East Germany in the mid-80s with my passport not on me.

      1. You too, comrade?

    4. So this guy’s point is that we should all be subject to this arbitrary harassment?

      1. No. Nick’s claim was that if we made if we make immigrants show papers, we’d all have to show papers.

        But the reality is that Green Card Holders already have to carry proof of who they are and their status. So Nick is just wrong.

        1. So… the fact that I am not carrying proof means I am a citizen. Makes sense.

        2. Honestly, if we just enforced existing laws and used technology to streamline system procedures, immigration would be so much less a problem.

        3. Nick isn’t just wrong, he is lying. He knows that green card holders are expected to carry them at all times. He is just establishing his Leftard street cred for when he pulls a Weigel.

      2. or maybe we shouldn’t have a double standard where law breakers get special dispensation vs. those who take the legal route.

        I know – crazy talk.

        1. I’m not sure where anyone is proposing that law breakers get special dispensation. The guy didn’t link to the actual Obama quote, but from his description it appears Obama was saying that people shouldn’t have to show their papers to the government just because some official thinks maybe they’re illegal. That sounds like a reasonable position to me.

          1. With the mess we’re in currently, involving 30 million or so illegals, it is not reasonable. And lawbreakers are getting special dispensation in the form of shielding from existing laws and receipt of federal benefits at my fucking expense. They get healthcare the minute they cross the border but shitass Obamacare costs me over $ 700 per month compared to under $ 250 just two years ago on my private Assurant policy.

            My own fucking city of Spokane is now a sanctuary city. This is the sort of shit that drives my assertion that progressives need to be removed from America by an means necessary. And while we’re at it, drive as many illegals out as humanly possible.

            1. I’m sick of the anti-immigrant garbage that I hear all the time. I don’t care if they’re legal, illegal, undocumented, whatever. As far as I’m concerned, anybody should be able to come here anytime, from anywhere, without needing any special permission from anybody. I’m in favor of completely open borders. Too many people have forgotten that we all have immigrants in our families, even if we have to go back several generations to find them.

              And before you call me a “leftist” or a “progressive,” I’ll mention that I’m one of those Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Religious Right Conservatives that so many people here like to ridicule. I just happen to disagree with the Republicans on so many things that I vote Libertarian when I have the opportunity (that is, when I can find a pro-life Libertarian candidate).

    5. I’m very conservative and have been my whole life – pushing the big six-oh.
      I agree with most on here about fiscal matters but disagree, whole heartedly about social issues.
      That being said: I never recall conservatives being against “having to show your papers”. In fact, a national ID card is a very well supported conservative position.
      It has always been the left that was against the “Gestapo” tactics of proving one’s right to be here, for the obvious reason of their zeal to have the nation overrun by escapees from socialism, who bring that socialist ideology right along with them, only to find a way to get them to vote – in greater numbers than they have managed to, so far.

    6. For a lawyer he doesn’t seem to know shit about the law. Then again, my prog cousin, who is over 50 and has practiced law for over 25 years doesn’t seem to know jack shit about the constitution or much in the way of law outside of labor practices (her specialty). On her recent visit I was discussing the Reason kerfuffle with the DoJ subpoena. In her mind the DoJ was perfectly reasonable and she seemed almost confused when I broke down the legal deficiencies about the commentary not constituting an illegal threat.

      It is disturbing to me that I can out argue an experienced attorney on a fairly basic point of criminal law. Even if it is not her specialty, and even if I am demonstrably more intelligent.

    7. I would love to report Obama anywhere but here. If we both his wife and kids, oh well. Let his family suffer for a change. Seems reasonable after all the misery he has inflicted on millions.

  4. 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

    “Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.”

  5. Is there a more basic freedom than freedom of movement? How about freedom from slavery. Abolish the welfare state and we’ll talk.

    1. What is freedom of self-defense, chopped liver?

    2. I say you’re right, but only when there is reciprocity to the acknowledgement of those freedoms. When the freedom of movement is strictly one-way, then you’re going to achieve overload.

      1. Two wrongs don’t make a right, you know.

        1. And a penny saved is a penny earned!

          1. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

            1. A stitch in time saves nine.

              1. A wet bird never flies at night.

                1. CHUG! CHUG! CHUG! CHUG!

                2. Never clean your grill with muriatic acid.

              2. Snitches get stitches.

                1. Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead.

                  1. You can shove your head up a butcher’s ass, or you can just take him at his word.

        2. Foreseen consequences are not unintended. Don’t pretend that this is a simplistic good vs. bad. Like most things it’s mixed.

          I blame lead.

          1. If freedom of movement is an important and fundamental right, then it shouldn’t be restricted on the basis that some tangentially related policy also violates an important right.
            And unless you are going to go full-anarchist, the “taxation is slavery” argument is one you should we wary of. If taxation for a welfare state is slavery, then taxation for a night-watchman state is too. I’ve always thought that an extortion racket is a better parallel to taxation.

            1. Yeah, this sort of logic is the same that people like Bloomberg apply in talking about banning soda: well, I would support your right to drink as much soda as you like, but since I might have to pay for your healthcare…

            2. Since when does your freedom of movement trump My freedom of property rights? You are only unconditionally allowed your rights as long as they don’t interfere with anyone else’s.
              As usual civil rights trump fiscal rights.

              1. Since when does your freedom of movement trump My freedom of property rights?

                You don’t own the entire country.

                1. ….Yet.

              2. You talk as if every immigrant gets welfare. The problem with this reasoning is it can literally be used to justify almost any restriction on liberty.

                “Yes, you have a right to drink soda, but not when I have to pay for your health care.”

                “We need drug laws because drug users commit crime, go on welfare, and rack up health care costs” etc.

              3. Freedom of movement doesn’t trump your property rights. The welfare state is what is stealing your property. Last i checked, illegal immigrants had zero influence on the US welfare state and how it is funded. You don’t get to curtail the rights of one group of people because a completely separate group of people is violating your rights.

                1. What a simple world you live in. It’s amazing how generous you are with my money. It’s touching, truly it is. Since you supposedly don’t have a problem with fixing the welfare state, then so so. Instead every trade you are willing to make expands it. Just more liberaltarian bullshit.

                  Please present me with another false choice like implanted GPS trasceivers. Because we all know that is the only choice possible!

                  1. What the fuck are you on about? I didn’t take any of your money. Other people did. Take it up with them. Or find a way to avoid paying taxes.

                    I want the welfare state gone. What makes you think I am somehow empowered to do anything about it? I don’t get to make the choice. I can only say what I think is right.

            3. If freedom of movement is an important and fundamental right, then it shouldn’t be restricted on the basis …. of some imaginary lines.

              Great, let me know where you live so I can freely move onto your property and homestead it.

              1. Bullshit argument which has been amply refuted here. The whole country is not someone’s private property, nor is it owned collectively by the majority of voters. I pay for the roads too and have just as much right to allow an immigrant access to my property as you have to exclude one from yours.

                1. The whole country is not someone’s private property, nor is it owned collectively by the majority of voters.

                  Well, yes. But incomplete.

                  The national borders of the country are subject to the control of the federal government, including immigration restrictions, etc. The feds have the authority to restrict who crosses those borders, just as you have authority to restrict who crosses onto your private property.

                  It would be a pretty novel proposition that a nation-state has no authority over its own borders. Or that its authority is limited strictly to repelling a Westphalian armed invasion by another sovereign.

                  If you don’t think any government should exercise any control over who crosses its borders, then I think you are talking about redefining sovereignty. Which isn’t to deny that a productive conversation can’t be had, but its a pretty fundamental issue.

                  I, personally, see value in sovereignty under something like the usual definition. But, I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist, mostly because I don’t think anarchy is sustainable over a society of any scale (meaning, bigger than a few hundred people).

                  That means I see value in borders. Others may not, but if not I think we aren’t really talking about immigration policy any more, but about how to set up and sustain an anarchist society.

                  1. Lack of border controls != anarchy

                  2. Even if he wants to argue about sovereignty and territorial control, he needs to acknowledge that such is the default position.

                    Instead, he just asserts that it is not so.

                2. The whole country is not someone’s private property, nor is it owned collectively by the majority of voters.

                  Says who?

                  I could claim a moral aversion to Exxon’s collective ownership of property, with my retaining a right to homestead such property.

                  My assertion doesn’t mean shit.

                  And neither does yours about the country.

                  1. Says who?

                    And you were lecturing libertarians about being progressives on this issue? If you believe that the entire country is somebody’s property, then you have no moral basis for objecting to gun bans, book bans, political party bans, segregation, and any other number of rights violations. You advocate for a government of unlimited power.

                    1. Yes, there is no middle ground between complete anarchy and absolute totalitarianism.

                    2. Which is way everyone becomes a slave the moment that they step foot on someone’s property.

                    3. Do you not believe that property owners have the right to prevent people from bringing guns on their property? Books? Do you not believe that property owners have the right to restrict access to their property based on political ideology? Do you not believe that property owners have the right to restrict access to their property based on race?

                    4. No, I’m a libertarian anarchist and reject the concept of property borders completely.

                      Why should your delusions prevent my right to free movement and other aspects of self ownership?

                    5. Comparing property boundaries to national borders is just fucking stupid.

                  2. Says who?

                    Uh, anyone who believes that there is such a thing as private property? I don’t quite see how anyone with any libertarian inclinations could disagree with the notion that the whole country is not collectively owned by it’s citizens. Are you some kind of communist or something?

                    If you are happy to have your property rights appropriated by a majority vote, then we don’t have much to discuss as you are a complete fucking tool.
                    If my assertion about the country means nothing, then we are already totally fucked and there is no point worrying about any of it. Private property has been abolished and no one seems to care.

            4. If taxation for a welfare state is slavery, then taxation for a night-watchman state is too. I’ve always thought that an extortion racket is a better parallel to taxation.

              Taxation is fractional slavery, as is an extortion racket, and doing it for a night-watchman state doesn’t make it any less slave-y, it just lowers the fractional amount.

        3. Two wrongs don’t make a right, you know.

          So you will be refusing to take wealth transferred as a result of Social Security? Good to know that at least you will not be saying “I paid in” and believing that stealing from the next generation is OK because this generation was robbed.

      2. Have you had a hard time getting into Mexico?

        1. Getting into Mexico and Canada is easy,getting back ,not so much.

          1. I was answering dbw’s idiocy.

          2. So its easy to get a work visa in Canada?

            If I were to illegally work in Canada or Mexico would they just give me citizenship after a few years?

            Would they release me after I committed multiple felonies?

          3. I saw a comedian in Vancouver, from America. He said ‘the big difference between our two countries is when I cross the border into Canada they ask me if I have any guns. When I cross back into the US they ask me if I have any vegetables.”

          4. I can’t get into Canada without a specific Gov’t waver- I had a DUI 15 years ago.

            And, they enforce their laws.

    3. While I agree that welfare is a form of slavery, it is a voluntary relationship the welfare recipient enters into, so far as I am aware. A bad program that fosters dependence, to be sure, but not one that mandates participation a la Obamacare.

      Besides, I don’t see any evidence that a great number of illegals are collecting welfare, and I have no problem with requiring proof of one’s legal immigration status from every single applicant. I’d rather that than require a national ID for everyone, including native-born citizens.

      Abolish welfare? SURE!! I just don’t have a ton of confidence it will happen in my lifetime, and I don’t want to have the Berlin Wall rebuilt along the southern border in the meantime. The “abolish this first, and then we’ll negotiate” mentality is a dangerous one. Should we also wait for medications that can 100% cure addiction issues before ending the war on drugs? Should we wait until terrorism is as outmoded a method of warfare as chariots before we end all the domestic surveillance? What other liberty-loving principals am I supposed to docilely put on the perpetual back burner while I wait for the perfect conditions to arise before we can honor them?

      1. Welfare isn’t slavery for the beneficiaries, it’s slavery to the tax-paying dogs who have to support it.

      2. “Besides, I don’t see any evidence that a great number of illegals are collecting welfare”

        http://thelawdictionary.org/ar…..-no-taxes/

        The most common non-fraudulent way that illegals get benefits is that they have children. As soon as they have their first child in the US, the household qualifies for WIC and food stamps for the entire household.

        1. Okay, well, then let’s become East Germany if it will save us from WIC and food stamps. We already have the Stasi-style spying and limits on speech and free association. Can’t have guns of course because we can’t have cops feeling unsafe while they kill us and or dogs for no particular reason. Might as well have a big wall around everything, too. It will just tie the whole 1984-themed society together.

          Oh, and let’s not forget to limit interior paint colors to a choice between hospital green and military beige, just like they did in East Germany. After all, since Bernie feels we have way too many deodorant choices, we obviously have far, far too many choices for paint.

          1. The wall was designed to keep people from leaving East Germany.

            Also, if you offer me the deal to have no welfare state and open borders, I take that in a heart beat.

            So, while you attempt to insinuate that I would prefer statism, its not the case.

            Let me know when the immigration activists are ready to make common cause: no welfare and open borders…why not? They’d get all the Latinos they want into America! they should jump at that deal, right?

          2. Yep, it’s either WIC or EAST GERMANY.

            I’m fine with limiting benefits for illegal immigrants. It appears I am in the minority.

            THEREFORE, I DEMAND WELFARE! PAY UP. BIOTCHES!

        2. What Nick and others never mention is that some states (NJ being one) don’t ask about the legal status of those applying for EBT or other benefits. I know this because I’ve navigated the system as a volunteer helping people access “benefits” at a homeless shelter. There are many, many illegals receiving some type of entitlement payment because the state they live in doesn’t require a status check and some even encourage enrollment. Those states typically don’t keep track of “illegals receiving benefits”. It’s not a data point they collect. So, basically, Nick is full of shit when he claims they’re not using welfare services. We don’t know if they are.

          1. Obama’s auntie in Boston didn’t have any kids here, but still got housing help even though she was illegal.

            Just for an example. People are willfully believing that bureaucracies are enforcing laws as written and not as they see fit instead.

          2. What Nick and others never mention is that some states (NJ being one) don’t ask about the legal status of those applying for EBT or other benefits.

            Strictly speaking, that’s New Jersey’s problem. I live in Maryland, another state that doesn’t ask too many questions before doling out other people’s money. It’s not right, but it’s not a national issue, either.

            If New Jersey doesn’t keep track, then just discount their residents from the statistics. But even so, it shouldn’t matter. Federal immigration policy should not be based on protecting New Jerseyites or Marylanders or anyone else from the stupidity of their own political choices.

      3. Just another version of utilitarianism. Empirically more dangerous is the bird in the hand mentality. I’m tired of trying to kick that football. Prove that your serious about welfare reform first, because immigration just makes the problem harder to solve.

        1. “A bird in the hand kicks a football in the horse’s mouth every blue moon.”

          superb 🙂

        2. Bryan Caplan makes the opposite argument. Culturally, ethnically, and linguistically homogeneous populations tend to have larger welfare states because there’s a greater degree of social trust. In other words, people like ME deserve it and wouldn’t abuse the system.

          This may be one reason this country has always been more reluctant to expand the welfare state. Just look how much people begrudge the welfare state when the “wrong” sort collect.

          So a more open immigration system may have the opposite effect of weakening public support for entitlements and transfer payments.

    4. See, I always get stuck at freedom of movement being a right.

      I would say that freedom to abandon one’s territory is a right–but there’s no right to move from that territory into anyone elses without invitation.

      See?

      I’ve pointed out before that even animals recognise property rights if one considers territorial ranges as property.

      To date, no one has explained how libertarianism, which is all about property rights, got saddled with an extreme open borders ideal that undermines property rights.

      1. I don’t think you realize it, but your argument is essentially that the sovereign or the collective have control over individual property rights. I can’t hire someone without government permission, I can’t rent to someone, I can’t sell to someone. I can’t do what I want with my own property.

        So if you believe in individual property rights over the power of the sovereign to exclude foreigners from his territory, then that’s how you get to free migration.

  6. Oh – more Trump news.

    Joy.

    1. Two at once. You could call it a trump dump.

      1. Hey, I took a dump in a Trump hotel once.

  7. I would be cautious about using polls to judge positions on this because the activists and media have done a stellar job in insinuating being against illegal aliens is racist.

    I also cannot see any objection to the rule of law and the concept of enforcing the law. If the law is bad, then change it. We’ve tried several times but it cannot get passed.

    Why?

    Because not enough concessions have been made to allow for a final compromise.

    If we can make concessions to the Iranians, who fund terrorists, I think a few concessions to pass immigration reform would be acceptable.

    Things like putting border security first.

    Alternatively, I would be fine with negotiations for open borders with the elimination of the welfare state, for example, being the compromise.

    The claim that its nasty nativists blocking these poor law-abiding illegals is only partly true.

    In my open borders case, who is blocking that? We know who. Those who want a welfare state.

    Its disingenuous to claim its all on one side. A deal could be made, but serious concessions like ending welfare aren’t acceptable to the re-distributionists. I guess they hate immigrants otherwise they’d give up on the welfare state to get them in.

    Finally, the popularity of an idea is not really an argument for it.

    We could find several popular ideas that are not libertarian. Would Gillespie be arguing for those ideas because 55% of Americans support it? No.

    1. I also cannot see any objection to the rule of law and the concept of enforcing the law.

      Bad laws are bad and no good comes from obeying or enforcing them. Rule of law is only a good when the laws are moral.

      1. But which is worse, Zeb? [And this is a serious question:]

        Bad laws consistently enforced, or

        Bad laws selectively enforced?

        1. Bad laws are never consistently enforced.

        2. That is a good question to seriously ask. I don’t have a very good answer. I’d like to think that if really bad laws were consistently enforced, people would do something about the laws. But I don’t have a huge amount of confidence that people will actually do anything (look at the war on drugs) and just learn to accept the terrible laws.
          Most laws are selectively enforced and there are a lot of bad laws on the books. Selective enforcement is problematic and creates lots of opportunity for abuse, but so many people are apparently OK with their rights being abused that I’m not at all confident that more consistent enforcement of existing laws would improve the situation at all.

      2. Well that’s not subjective!

        1. I didn’t say it was easy to get right.

          1. But here is why libertarianism makes sense. It is very difficult to write a good law, that is, to infringe upon the inherrent freedom of a citizen, as well as enforce it both consistenly and fairly.

            It seems then that the solution is to take a bit of humility and give people more say in their own lives without the state’s control.

      3. So, its okay that those county clerks who view gay marriage as immoral, don’t offer licenses?

        1. If they quit their jobs, sure.

          1. Why should they by your reasoning?

            If anything under your reasoning, they are helping restore balance by refusing to enforce bad laws and preventing others from doing so by occupying the choke point.

            Or is it your position that only you get to decide which laws should be enforced and which should be ignored?

            1. What are you talking about? Are you promoting moral relativism here? I don’t get to decide any of it, but I do have a good idea of what is moral and what is not, as most people do.

              See what I say above in response to RC Dean. It’s a difficult question. Ideally there should be good laws, consistently enforced. But I have little hope of ever seeing that situation come about. So it is difficult to say what would be preferable.

              1. What are you talking about?

                What you said upthread, that I responded to:

                Bad laws are bad and no good comes from obeying or enforcing them. Rule of law is only a good when the laws are moral.

                I love the way that libertarians turn into progressive morons when they talk about immigration. Only their feelzzz matters cause RIGHTS!

                1. Libertarians are perfectly consistent on this and other topics. The purpose of laws is to protect peoples’ rights. Any law which goes against that purpose is not valid.

                  It’s conservatives – who fancy themselves as champions of limited government – who turn into fire-breathing THE LAW IS THE LAW statists on this issue.

                  1. . The purpose of laws is to protect peoples’ rights

                    So US laws should be used to protect the rights of people anywhere in the world?

                    Libertarian Imperialism.

                    Is Genius.

                    1. You seem very confused. We’re talking about what happens when people reach U.S. territory.

                    2. So there is some territorial limits to the government’s power.

                      Just not one that prevents people from entering that territory?

                    3. Well done. You’re catching on.

                    4. That’s a fine theory.

                      I’m sure that eventually one percent of the population will agree with it.

                    5. Argumentum ad populum: the Tony special. You were doing so well until then.

                    6. The popularity of a proposal does matter when discussing public policy in a democracy,

                      Oh, that’s right. You’re talking about your superior morality, that is shared by a tiny fraction of the population. In other words, you’re a cult member.

                    7. BTW, your world view is based on a moralistic fallacy

                    8. So there is some territorial limits to the government’s power.

                      Just not one that prevents people from entering that territory?

                      Having a power doesn’t mean one ought to use it. The government also has the power to restrict immigration only to terrorists infected with ebola, or to simply shoot everyone who crosses the border in the back of the head.

      4. good thing moral relativism never really caught on….

      5. Exactly.

        Bad laws lack in legitimacy and so they become routinely violated.

        If we value the rule of law, we should seek moral, just, and reasonable laws because they are more likely to have legitimacy and be followed.

    2. Yeah, we tore this poll apart last week already.

    3. I would be cautious about using polls to judge positions on this because the activists and media have done a stellar job in insinuating being against illegal aliens is racist.

      That may be part of it. But as far as I can see, those efforts haven’t done much to make people shy about expressing their views on immigration.
      I hope that it has more to do with at least some Republicans being smart enough to see that massive deportations of illegal immigrants would require a massive police state and massive invasions of the privacy and rights on citizens and legal residents.

      1. I hope that it has more to do with at least some Republicans being smart enough to see that massive deportations of illegal immigrants would require a massive police state and massive invasions of the privacy and rights on citizens and legal residents.

        Some of them already trying to run with this line, but they’re being called out on it because 1) we already have a massive police state that executes massive invasions of privacy and rights of citizens and legal residents, and 2) many of them were the ones who supported those things in place to begin with. So the argument gets undermined by their own special pleading.

        Personally, I suspect most of the people who don’t support open borders but would be queasy about seeing mass deportations, either out of conscience/principle or simple awareness of how the media would portray it, would be willing to live with the ones already here if there was a ten-year moratorium on all immigration in order to enable a process of assimilation to take place. But most polls tend to not drill down that far.

    4. I would be cautious about using polls

      Especially since no one’s polled the millenials specifically on this. I don’t know what to think until someone polls The Most Important Generaration Evah.

  8. that illegals are already barred from virtually all sorts of budget-busting welfare

    Here’s the situation in Maine where the governor tried to stop assistance to illegal aliens:

    http://www.wcsh6.com/story/new…../11797171/

    Nick also ignores that fact that plenty of states and municipalities have enacted laws to prohibit asking if assistance seekers are legally in the country. so they don’t know or even care if illegal aliens are getting assistance.

    Plus thanks to Plyer v Doe, all illegal alien kids get free K-12 education. That’s 12k per kid per year in my school district.

    And don’t forget the $40,000 bill for maternity services that MediCaid will pay when an illegal pops out an anchor baby.

    1. And, as always, don’t forget that many illegals have fake IDs that flag them as citizens. As citizens, of course, they can get all the welfare there is.

      It would be interesting to see the amount of tax money spent on illegals, just in schools and hospitals. Having worked in hospitals within a 90 minute drive of the border, I can assure you that the amount of money (some of it tax money) spent on health care for illegals isn’t small. Some of it was more or less voluntary “mission-driven” charity care, but some of it wasn’t.

      1. It would be interesting to see those numbers. I’d also like to see them compared to how much illegal immigrants pay in taxes. I’d guess that it comes out pretty close, but i haven’t seen any reliable numbers.

        1. i haven’t seen any reliable numbers.

          Inconceivable!

        2. “It would be interesting to see those numbers. I’d also like to see them compared to how much illegal immigrants pay in taxes. I’d guess that it comes out pretty close, but i haven’t seen any reliable numbers.”

          There’s no way illegal immigrants come out close as a household. Think about it. The median tax payer is going to be higher than the median income, because we have a progressive tax structure. Illegal immigrant households are well below the median household income.

          Any “study” that tries to show you otherwise is showing you cherry picked data.

          1. I have no idea what that means. Can you take another crack at your second paragraph?

            1. Sorry, that was bad.

              Just ignore it. I was trying to make a simple statement about a complex subject, so my statement was probably wrong.

        3. The most favorable study I’ve seen shows illegals paying a combined 18% of their income in taxes.

          So if one illegal makes $70k a year, the taxes will cover one kid in school in my district and nothing else.

          Of course the illegal isn’t making $70k, he’s got more than one kid in schoo,l and his wife just had a third kid paid for by Medicaid.

          1. The most favorable study I’ve seen shows illegals paying a combined 18% of their income in taxes.

            So poor people are paying 18% of their income in taxes?

            Sounds like utter bullshit to me.

            1. Including their share of SocSec and Medicare, and sales taxes?

              Seems plausible to me.

              If you want to include “indirect” taxes (like property taxes they pay via their rent, and the employer’s share of payroll taxes), its low.

              Assuming we are only talking about the legal economy, that is.

            2. Until I started making grown-folk money, I remember being on the hook for about – per paycheck. FICA’s a bitch. Not to mention sales tax, fuel tax, etc.

        4. It would be interesting to see those numbers. I’d also like to see them compared to how much illegal immigrants pay in taxes.

          What on earth makes you think that they are paying much tax at all?

          The 47% of the population being net takers is accepted as a given around here. Except the part of that 47% that are illegal immigrants, because everyone knows that illegals working in the gray market pay a huge marginal tax rate – or something.

          1. 47% of the population pays no federal income taxes != 47% of the population are net takers

            The key word here is “net”. If you take in $5k in welfare benefits or the equivalent but paid $6k across all forms of taxation, you are not a net taker (roughly speaking).

            There are undoubtedly large numbers of “net takers”. I wouldn’t bat an eye at 10% and I’d only be mildly surprised if it was 20%, but it is very unlikely to be close to 50%.

    2. See, this is one of the things that is really damaging. If we pass laws that say no immigrants can get welfare, or time limit that, but then its immediately ignored, it becomes very hard to make any legislative compromise, when the other side will know that their concerns will be ignored.

    3. Nick also ignores that fact that plenty of states and municipalities have enacted laws to prohibit asking if assistance seekers are legally in the country. so they don’t know or even care if illegal aliens are getting assistance.

      The only purpose for rules like that is to expand welfare to illegals. So they do care in that they want to do it. They’re just typically dishonest about it.

      1. In NJ, there are actually different standards when applying for assistance. Citizens must provide certain ID information. This information is typical “waived” for illegals. It’s a double standard and it is unfucking believable.

        1. Also, standards differ when applying for a driver license or enrolling in a public school.

        2. That shit has been going on in CA for at least 3 decades now. And yet, the open boarders idiots always parrot the lie about illegals not getting welfare.

          Hell, the much reviled prop 187 was all about ending welfare for illegal immigrants, and was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in the mid 90s.

  9. Also, for those who find it ludicrous that illegals might have to go home first before coming back for their amnesty visa, this is exactly how many countries handle work visas handed to foreigners.

    Taiwan used to make you do this if you arrived on a student or tourist visa but then got a job. They may have reformed this, but it was the system.

    I’d suggest with the illegals we could do this at consulates which are technically Mexican territory or have a bus quickly enter Mexico and then re-enter.

    Make this symbolic, like baptism.

    1. Sounds like an expensive, burdensome and risky symbol.

      1. We have citizenship ceremonies. Are they expensive and burdensome?

        Yes. We still do them.

        Just combine these – a symbolic step off the consulate to the USA as a sign of repentance and legality.

        I’m sure Soros and the activists can do the organizing and pay for this.

        p.s. Ever helped someone with a green card? Yeah, its expensive and burdensome. Why should I have to endure that but illegals can’t? I guess they are special citizens with more rights than me and my wife. They deserve an easier road.

  10. Trump de trump. Trump de trumptiy trumpy trump. Until one day, the trumpa trumpa trumpatrump. Trump de trump. Da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Donald Trump is Da Trump Dee Trump Da Teetley Trumpee Trumpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

    1. don’t hold it against them. we hadn’t had an article all morning. It was a bit of a Trump slump…

      1. Then came the Trump Dump. I heard “WHUMP”! It was a Lump of Trump. we’ll get past this Bump – Hump it on down the road. I won’t be a Grump.

        1. +1

          When does your book of poetry/rap album come out?

          1. “FRUMP and CLUMP” is available from Jump Street Publishing. I’m Pumped. Gotta run – I got the Mumps – mumblin’ like Forrest Gump.

  11. “1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

    “2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

    “3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.”

    Well, I agree. I’d love to see a philosophical argument against this.

    And of course E-Verify is an abomination. But it’s not a monopoly of xenophobic Mexico-baiters. I generally see discussion of E-Verify as part of a “comprehensive” immigration reform package, i.e., grant large-scale amnesty in exchange for pretending to care about illegal immigration.

    Many of the same people who pretend to be outraged at the idea of a border fence are willing to make the employment rights of American citizens (and legal immigrants) depend on the whims of a computer program and of lazy clerks who by mistyping your Social Security number will drive you out of the legal labor market.

    Oh, look, the xenophobes at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support “A national employment verification system that is workable for employers.”

    https://www.uschamber.com/immigration?tab=position

    There’s a growing consensus on *both sides* to screw over the privacy rights of citizens and allow Skynet to dictate their employment rights.

    So let’s not single out Trump here.

    1. I loved when Californians were aghast that Arizona wanted a fence.

      There is a huge fence between Mexico and California, at least near San Diego.

      We should tear it down if it does nothing.

      1. The best way to find out if someone in the immigration debate is lying or stupid is to see if they mock the effectiveness of a border fence or say, “well, herp de derp, it won’t stop *all* illegal border crossings, it’s not a panacea, derp de derp,” as if *anyone* thinks a fence is a cure-all which will totally solve the immigration problem.

        1. I love that argument, almost as much as I love being accused of being an immigrant-hating racist if I don’t want arbitrarily enforced borders

          1. It’s an intellectually weak argument to just defend consistency in the enforcement of the laws rather than defending the content of those laws. That’s what people are responding to – how you’re glossing over how terrible the laws are in your zeal to just be super serial about consistency.

        2. I think it’ll cost a fortune because the government is incompetent (waste) and pays the prevailing wage (often union). I think it’ll take forever. I think in many cases it’ll be easily circumvented. I think it won’t be maintained properly.

      2. There is a bit of difference between the San Diego border area and hundreds of miles of unpopulated desert. A fence just might be more effective in one of those places than the other.

        1. Except illegals switched to Arizona because of that fence.

    2. One is a non-sequitur (how many borders have walls?), three’s premise is debatable. I think some would also argue the constitutional authority for immigration laws, but I don’t know enough to defend that.

      1. “how many borders have walls?”

        Those borders which people are trying to cross illegally?

        Eg, the border between the sidewalk and the store which has closed for the night. There’s generally a wall there to prevent people illegally entering the store.

        1. Have we not been a nation until the wall is finally built? What about the border with Canada?

          What national border out there hasn’t been crossed “illegally”?

          1. The quote says a nation without borders isn’t a nation. The wall part was a separate sentence.

            If the border isn’t being enforced, then of course it needs more security measures.

            I bet the open-borders organizations leave their office doors open and unlocked at all hours of the day or night, because really, a locked door isn’t a *complete* protection against intruders!

            1. The country isn’t a store or a home or office. Those comparisons are not good.

              The whole notion is silly. Whatever laws there are and how they are enforced, the country has borders. Very well defined ones. Not preventing large numbers of people from crossing a border doesn’t make it any less a border. If you are on one side, you pay your taxes to one government and are subject to their laws. If you are on the other side, you are subject to a different one. That’s a border.

              1. If you are on one side, you pay your taxes to one government and are subject to their laws. If you are on the other side, you are subject to a different one. That’s a border.

                While I think this is a very good definition of a border, the underlying issue is about whether “illegals” are paying their taxes and following the laws on this side of the border. The “build a fence and keep them out” strategy likely has appeal because it is a logically consistent solution to the problem (if you have no illegals, then you have no illegals not paying taxes and not following the laws).

                Yet if the world were so easily susceptible to such solutions, there wouldn’t be problems in the first place.

    3. Well, I agree. I’d love to see a philosophical argument against this.

      The only bit that struck me as being not a trivial truism was the leap from “border” to “wall”.

      Now, its how you apply these trivial truisms that gets interesting.

      1. Like I said, E-Verify is just part of our transition to a “papier, bitte” society, and Trump is totally wrong to endorse it.

        A citizen doesn’t need a computer program to “verify” his right to work.

        That’s my one non-negotiable point. If I thought that I was forced to choose between E-Verify and becoming part of Mexico, I’d say let’s join Mexico.

        Fortunately, I think there are choices in between.

        1. That’s my one non-negotiable point. If I thought that I was forced to choose between E-Verify and becoming part of Mexico, I’d say let’s join Mexico.

          +1. E-verify is flat-out evil.

          1. you do realize you have to show ID and a SS card to get a job already unless you are part of the underground economy.

            1. E-Verify is the jackbooted frosting on the fascist cake.

            2. Well, that’s evil too. Employers should not be forced to enforce immigration or tax laws.

        2. If I thought that I was forced to choose between E-Verify and becoming part of Mexico, I’d say let’s join Mexico.

          I wonder what the ID requirements are for Mexicans in Mexico.

          1. Like I said, I don’t think the choice is that stark.

            At least Mexico’s laws are mitigated by a good dose of corruption.

    4. 1. A nation without borders is not a nation.

      Were the disapora-era Jews a nation prior to the establishment of the State of Israel?
      And the corollary, have the Palestinians ceased to be a nation?
      Can a Palestinian, a Jew, and a Druze all marry one another?
      If not, why not?

      1. I think he means “country” and not “nation”.

        What religion is the Palestinian?

    5. I can argue with #1. Borders are not inherently weakened and diminished because of free migration, so a border wall does not logically flow from that premise.

      What matters more than a fortressed, militarized border is rule of law in the territory. Rule of law can only thrive when laws are just and reasonable. Immigration laws as they are fail both tests.

  12. It’s like the Reason editors don’t read their comments section, or they don’t care. They’ve decided that open borders is THE libertarian position, and they’ll cherry-pick the justification for it. No one is for open borders if it actually affects them. But liberals (and liberaltarians) in their gated enclaves love their cheap illegal nannies, as long as they don’t have to live next to them and their families.

    1. Open borders is THE libertarian position. Libertarians care about liberty, and freedom of movement and freedom of contract are integral parts of liberty.

      1. It’s the anarchist position

        1. Open borders is clearly the anarchist position and maybe even the minarchist position (even that’s debatable). It’s not “THE” libertarian position.

          1. At the very least, libertarians should start from the presumption of liberty and need really, really good reasons for depriving people of it.

            The welfarez and borderz are insufficient.

        2. It’s the anarchist position

          Exactly. Which is fine if you’re an anarchist.

        3. I don’t really understand how you can be a libertarian and not an anarchist.

          Please note that I think you can be an anarchist and not believe that anarchy is possible or practical as a stable political system. You just have to notice that government and laws aren’t anything special, they are just another group of violent assholes trying to get their way.

          That said, as a practical matter “open borders” won’t ever really be a thing. And as a practical matter, i don’t really have any problem with some basic checks at the border to keep out diseases and criminals and such. But I think that using immigration policy as a means of social engineering is wrong. At the very least, anyone with an offer of employment should be given a work visa and allowed in.

          1. “I don’t really understand how you can be a libertarian and not an anarchist.”

            The main difference as I see it is that a libertarian thinks that it’s possible to have someone worse in power than who we have at present. If I didn’t think that, I’d be an anarchist in a heartbeat.

            1. That said, I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Anarchy is not possible, someone else will always replace the guy in charge. And, yeah, open borders is not possible either.

      2. Open borders is THE position of people who have no understanding of human nature. I thought Libertarians were better than that.

        1. Non hominem? Ad Sequitur? Seriously, did you think that was an effective argument? “Boy, I support open borders on the principle that liberty is preferable to arbitrary rules, but if some asshole who makes a living off of being a member of the tax cartel will think I have an understanding of human nature, well, screw it. Close those borders!”

          1. “Non hominem? Ad Sequitur?”

            That, sadly, actually confused me for a minute.

            Need to cut back on the bourbon. Or not.

        2. Don’t worry, Dave. No matter what else happens, whatever you think of libertarians (L or l) we will always, ALWAYS disapoint you. Just get used to it. Just a big pile of disapointment because we don’t all 100% agree with each other, let alone you, all the time. Hope that isn’t to bitter a pill.

    2. But, what does Hihn say the libertarian position is?
      Also, you know who else crossed borders without being invited?

  13. Spoken like a true cuckservative, am I right?

    But seriously, fuck Trump and whoever wrote this stupid proposal.

  14. “Without exception, you will find that the hardest-luck parts of the nation are those without high levels of in-migration. ”

    Wow, that’s a really bad argument. Sure, immigrants aren’t flocking to areas with poor economies, but that’s hardly an argument in favor of more immigration. I assume you’re trying to make some kind point that immigrants help growth and the reason these areas are poor is that they don’t have immigration, but the facts don’t support it. It’s pretty clear that immigrants migrate to areas with jobs and avoid areas without jobs. So the existence of poor economies without high immigration is tangential to the whole argument.

    1. Actually, the very facts he cited do support it. You are the one making assertions supported only by your own ass.

      1. “You are the one making assertions supported only by your own ass.”

        From the same paragraph in this very article: “Let’s forget simple facts like the reality that immigrants, especially illegals, go to where unemployment is lowest

      2. No, the facts don’t support it because it’s a stupid argument. Here is what he said in full:

        “Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the parts of the country that are worst-off economically. Now go check out whether they are destinations for migrants of any kind, whether legal, illegal, or from other parts of the United States. Without exception, you will find that the hardest-luck parts of the nation are those without high levels of in-migration. ”

        No, what this proves is that immigrants don’t go to places that already suck, which we know. What it doesn’t prove is that those places are hard-luck areas because they don’t have enough immigration.

        The fact that poor parts of this country don’t get in-migration doesn’t prove the wondrous economic benefits of immigration, it proves that people don’t go places that are already shitty.

        1. +1. Correlation does not equal causation.

        2. exactly otherwise why would migrants leave their home countries in the first place. if being in a location made a place better then their home countries would be utopias.

        3. Except that CA has a crappy economy and high levels of legal and illegal immigrants.

          1. CA also has rich welfare benefits available to immigrants, legal and illegal alike, and a well-established reputation as an immigration non-enforcement zone.

            Incentives matter. Including ones other than “Can I get a good job”.

            California has a crappy economy “in the middle” – for small businesses and middle-class people. It has a good economy if you are rich, or are doing menial work for the rich (guess what a lot of illegals do?).

            Those parts of the country with “bad” economies don’t have rich welfare benefits, and I would expect their low-paying jobs aren’t doing menial work for the rich, but doing work for small businesses who have less appetite for risking a visit from ICE.

            1. CA also has rich welfare benefits available to immigrants, legal and illegal alike,

              Open border advocates say that is a lie, so it must be one.

        4. California has more immigrants than any other state.
          California is home to more than 10 million immigrants?one in four of the foreign-born population nationwide. In 2011, 27% of California’s population was foreign-born, about twice the U.S. percentage. Foreign-born residents represented more than 30% of the population of seven California counties: Santa Clara, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Mateo, Imperial, Alameda, and Orange. And half of the children in California had at least one immigrant parent.

    2. Hmmmm. Good point.

      Except we could look at California. We have a lot of illegals but not that many blue collar jobs being created.

      We also have a lot of welfare, much of it available or soon to be to illegals.

      And we have sanctuary cities that attract illegals.

  15. Protectionists gonna protect.

  16. Argumentum ad populum? Come on, Gillespie, there are thousands of legitimate arguments against Trump’s idiocy, you don’t need to stoop to this.

  17. Those bastards are gonna come over here, make sweetheart deals with cronyist local governments, abuse bankruptcy laws to screw over their creditors and avoid the consequences of their bad decisions, and lower the level of political discourse in this country! IOW, they’re gonna take Trump’s job!

    1. Trump: “They took muh JERB!”

      1. If they took his jerb, that would be uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

  18. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  19. “Invisible hand. . . something something . . . will produce Utopia.”

    I agree with the concept of systems having internal forces and balances that in theory produce ideal outcomes, unfortunately the “Libertarian” suggestions I hear are pretty much devoid of the component of systems that controls for selfish douches exploiting a naive understanding of corruption potential within a system. The theory isn’t usually sophisticated enough to control for exploitation. And bad-shit happening is a natural outcome.

    Bottom line – If you aren’t here legally – please go home. If you are hiring people who are here not here legally – please stop. It’s not that hard.

    1. Bottom line: who somebody else hires is not your concern.

      1. “Bottom line: who somebody else hires is not your concern.”

        If they (or their household) is getting a benefit that is greater than the taxes they are paying, then it becomes my concern. Granted, I’d prefer to reduce the benefits so that I could go back to not giving a shit. But that hasn’t happened yet.

        1. This is literally a justification for any government intrusion you could imagine.

      2. Quite right. It is a contract made between two private entities. Why the fuck should I care? Two people wanna contract to work for $.50 an hour? Fine. Have a good time. Sex work? Great. Drugs? Cool, grand, brilliant. Any sort of marriage you can come up with with however many participants you want? Right-o.

        I support two individual making contracts for all sorts of stuff — why should I care about this when I don’t care about so many other issues going into contracts.

        1. Because immigration (both legal an illegal) isn’t just about work.

          1. Yep. You are correct.

            It is about language and culture and attitutdes and voting and welfare and statism and hundreds and hundreds of other important points. So let’s not pretend, even for a moment, that we can deal with those things at the same time as we discuss immigration.

            I was responding, for what it is worth, to Jordan, who wrote “Bottom line: who somebody else hires is not your concern.” This, it seems, IS primarily about work.

            1. It is about work. It is also about supply and demand, which effects wages as surely as it effects any other price.
              It is also about local school systems, like here in Denver, that are so overwhelmed with students who do not speak English as a primary language that the education offered to other students suffers.
              It is also about some neighborhoods becoming so third world that the property values plummet, even in a housing market as tight as Denver’s.

              1. So economic protectionism?

      3. That which is or is not my concern, is not your concern.

    2. “Please” with a threat of jail time is not “please”, it’s “or else”.

      1. Please first . . . or else second. It often works.
        One of the confusing things for me about libertarian ideas is that they never seem to acknowledge that force is occasionally necessary.
        I’m a parent and I very rarely us force (if ever) but my kid KNOWS it’s gonna happen if she crosses the boundary. I don’t mean physical force, I usually use economic power and 99% of the time “please” works just fine to get her to do what I want that she doesn’t.
        Power is not bad, just like anger isn’t bad or drugs aren’t bad . . . it’s very dependent on context. But for it to work, people have to know you;re serious. As best I can figure, beyond lip service to rare use of force, it’s always treated as illegitimate. It’s a tool you would prefer not to use, but have in case you need it.
        The popular culture is becoming like the parent that lets their kid run all over them offering nothing but empty threats. That DOESN’T mean you have to beat the shit out of someone every night before dinner, just that force is a real option.

        1. First off, I take issue with government compared to child rearing. The government is not my mother or my father, nor is the job of government the same as the job of parenting. This assumption, that the government is to me as a parent to a child, is what leads to so much progressivism. Second, if I parented only to the extent I want the government interacting in my life, I would be neglectful and not fit to be a parent.

          Second, power is not always treated as illegitimate among libertarians. In fact, most libertarians would believe that government has every legitimate right to enforce contracts, protect citizens from force and fraud, and a few other things.

          You are correct, “please” often does work. And it works BECAUSE it is backed up by force, because that is the stock and trade of this and every government ever. And you are also right that “Please” without the potential of coersion is hollow.

          But that doesn’t make Kbolino’s comment empty.

          It is “Or else” from every government. It always is and it always will be. “Please” from the a government employee, who has the power to use force and coersion when necessary, is an empty please. It is filler, or, at best, politeness. But it still an “Or else.”

  20. Is it just me or are some of you also more annoyed by pro-amnesty politicians more than actual illegal immigrants?

    I know actual people who would be helped by it, and who really could already get green cards, but they are lazy/scared/worried about the hassle. I really don’t find them objectionable more than the guy who didn’t file taxes for 10 years.

    There is just something venal about the politicians wanting it. Like when Obama said they would have to pay back taxes, but then later we found out that of course this actually meant checks would be cut for the back EITC and child tax credit.

    Or the claim they will pay fines and fees. Right. There won’t be hardship clauses?

    Or when he said they’d have to learn English. Right. How is that going to be done? I’m not even for that: you don’t have to learn English. Yes, I’d like them to, but forcing 80 years olds? Not going to happen.

    Or waiting at the back of the line. Sure.

    Or that after amnesty honest-injun we’ll worry about border security. We all know that the Democratic Party wants this to be the gift that keeps on giving. There will be no final reform that make a high wall with a super wide gate. They will keep it porous and weird, and convoluted because they gain from being the munificent granter of amnesty every 20-30 years. And like McCaullife, they can sell green cards for cash.

    1. It’s not just you. I would love to make it easier for immigrants who want to work here to do so, but I don’t think that is what pro-amnesty politicians want to accomplish

      1. Its also a quandary. The ideal is to let anyone come because everyone has that right. (Open borders ideal.)

        But in this case, the politicians sell this to the immigrants as a gift to them, and are eagerly expecting votes in return for larger government and more re-distribution.

        And that is also against my ideals. So…do I chose the first ideal or do I oppose the first to stop the second ideal from being ruined?

        Its like choosing which kid to save, and the lefties keep saying “save Susie.” Which makes my spidie sense tingle.

  21. I’d take arguments like the above more seriously, if people would stop mixing anti-immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant up. Once those two ideas are conflated, you lose me.

    1. Yes. Also, we could do a straight reform of our normal, legal immigration system while ignoring illegals and it would help things, and reduce some illegal immigration (as they could come legally.)

      But guess who holds that hostage for a comprehensive deal?

      1. Comprehensive, probably my most hated word with regard to legislation.

        How about bills be simple, necessary, and targeted at exactly the problem needing to be addressed, and nothing else…

        1. That’s all well and good, but the two main problems for the political class are:

          (1) Retaining power

          (2) Monetizing that power.

      2. “But guess who holds that hostage for a comprehensive deal?”

        Yeah, someone who offers border enforcement or intelligent legal-immigration policies as a *concession* to be granted *only* if they get their other demands (like amnesty) met, is not exactly coming off as someone who wants to enforce our immigration laws or make things easier for legitimate immigrants. One would think think that better enforcement and a getting better class of legal immigrants would be good things in themselves – policies to be adopted on their own merits.

      3. Also, we could do a straight reform of our normal, legal immigration system while ignoring illegals and it would help things, and reduce some illegal immigration (as they could come legally.)

        What part of legal immigration don’t you understand?

        Bottom left corner has the path those 11M illegals have to take.

    2. It’s a matter of paperwork. No one wants rampant lawbreaking, but rampant lawbreaking in response to a ridiculous, draconian, and unjust set of laws? That is hardly worth the anger that illegal immigrants receive. Are these two types of immigration so different because one followed the outlined procedure and the other didn’t? Is there a fundamental moral difference because illegal immigrants didn’t get government permission to move and work in its territory? I’m sorry, but I can’t work up the outrage over these differences.

  22. While I am completely opposed to the politicization of the federal bureaucracy, I really wouldn’t shed too many tears if ICE were to do a thorough inspection of the Trump Organization. Somehow, I can’t help but wonder how Donald Trump remains the only guy in the construction and hotel business who doesn’t have illegal immigrants on the books.

    1. Libertarians for tyrannical anarchy.

      Excellent.

      1. I LOLed. The other pub patrons are looking at me strangely…

    2. Back when Trump Tower was built, controversy broke out (particularly with the NYC unions) when it came to light that the demolition work was mainly done under-the-table by undocumented Poles. The executive in the Trump organization responsible for hiring the illegals spent a good chunk of time in jail.

      Trump Says He Didn’t Know He Employed Illegal Aliens (NYT 7/13/90)

  23. I just caught an infovert by some Republican flunky lauding Trump for calling attention to the illegals “pillaging our economy” and “murdering their countrymen.”

    Albatross, thy name is Donald.

    1. “ALLLLLLLLLBATROSS!! ALLLLLLBATROSS!!!”

      “I’ll take two, please!”

      “I’ve only got one, ya cocksucker!”

      /Monty Python

  24. Having to e-verify to start a job is a lot different then having to carry papers everywhere to show who you are at a moments notice. Oh wait thats already required, its called a drivers license or personal ID.

    1. Not quite required yet. But pretty close.

      I actually make a point of not carrying ID when I’m not driving or doing anything else likely to require it.

    2. Except that the employer is a private actor and the workplace is private property. That you can be forced to present identification on a government road or when receiving government services (in some states, anyway) does not remotely justify abridging the rights of property and association.

      Treating all jobs as belonging to the government is the textbook definition of economic fascism.

  25. anti-immigration groups like FAIR, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies

    I’m not sure it’s fair to call them “groups” since they’re all part of the John Tanton network.

  26. the best way to stop illegal immigration is to make America a place not worth going to. Obama’s done a great job on this front so far.

  27. Poor Nick; he just don’t get it.

  28. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  29. If it’s legal controlled immigration, then ok. If it’s illegal rush the door immigration no and if you did then Git!

  30. Conflating a call for strict enforcement of immigration laws to force the return to the back of the line in their countries of origin to opposition to immigration is a hallmark of libertarians its appears.

    There is a distinction between the two distinct groups. One that has shown the respect for the rule of law and followed the process and those that bypassed it. Libertarians apparently say piss on those stupid enough to wait in line till their number is called. That says a lot think.

    And frankly I don’t think many people know that much about the demographic differences between of the illegals and the legal immigration population leading them to conclude they are identical. I doubt it but we really don’t know since the only population that we’re getting accurate personal histories on health, education and criminal conduct is the legal population. The rest are just a big question mark. Until they enforce the Alien Registration Act and get a head count they won’t know much, including whether its a net cost or benefit to take one position over another. I advocate mandatory compliance with an updated version of the Alien Registration Act of 1942 and then we’ll have something we can rely on with greater confidence.

  31. Please point out where in the Trump doctrine does it address deporting ALL the illegal aliens..
    I am only seeing so-called criminals will be deported….

    well they are ALL criminals…………

  32. The government has only 3 basic tasks to fulfill.

    1. Protect the sovereign right of the individual

    2. Protect property rights

    3. Defend the country from foreign invasion.

    This are libertarian values, so what part of “Defend the country from foreign invasion” do you not understand?

    1. People moving to work are not invaders. You’re conflating immigration with war. Unless you’re saying they’re trying to overthrow the US government, they’re not true invaders.

  33. “Let’s forget simple facts like the reality that immigrants, especially illegals, go to where unemployment is lowest; that immigration, whether legal or not, is a boon to the larger economy; that illegals are already barred from virtually all sorts of budget-busting welfare and that they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born folks.”

    1. Canada showed all sorts of benefits form immigration. But, after a few generations, these same benefits stopped showing up. The first wave is often the best wave.

    2. France, had great effects from immigration from one Arab country, not so much from others.

    3. Canada has great benefits from People’s Republic of China immigration, but not so good from Somalia. Legal, or illegal.

    4. You make the ridiculous claim that illegal immigration is a boon to the general economy. Really? Can you cite any evidence of that?

    Your facts are definitely ‘simple facts’. Stupidly so.

    1. And, I know in California a lot of health care goes to illegal immigrants. I know people in the industry in San Diego who say people cross the border, go to an ER get treated, pay nothing, give a false address and head back to TJ when it is all done.

      1. CA pays billions to incarcerate illegals in massive numbers. and for a lot more than possession.

  34. Nick and Co. need to get out of the intellectual “beltway” they inhabit and talk to people at county, and country, fairs.

  35. Let’s forget simple facts like the reality that immigrants, especially illegals, go to where unemployment is lowest; that immigration, whether legal or not, is a boon to the larger economy; that illegals are already barred from virtually all sorts of budget-busting welfare and that they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born folks.

    But they have somewhat more melanin.

  36. In oddly-related news from this weekend…

    “I am Batman,” Trump tells boy on helicopter ride

    Despite the all caterwauling* in the press about this, the comment seems to fit perfectly with his Dark Knight Returns-style reasons for entering the presidential race…

    (*a common media thread seems to be that Trump is more like Lex Luthor, but the boy asked the billionaire who puts his own logo on everything if he was was Batman, and, well, “when someone asks you if you’re a god…”)

  37. THis article is rather stupid – most all Republican candidates endorse building the border wall
    Tossing the illegals back where they came from is also something the GOP should endorse, since most of those would vote for the Dems, the only reason the Dems want the illegals here, since they will take jobs from their loyal Black voters.

  38. Jesus, I get it. Reason thinks Trump is an obnoxious, fascist blowhard. I agree. Now shut up about it, for chrissakes!

    Are you aware that of the two leading Dem candidates one is an ex-Sec of State who’s about to lose her security clearance and the other is an actual, dyed-in-the-fuckin’-wool Socialist?

    Reason’s turned into the Weekly World News, for fuck’s sake. This is why I cancelled my subscription, incidentally.

    1. The irony is that, contrary to the assumption that it should be a surprise that Republicans don’t support particular ideas from Donald Trump just because he has the highest individual polling 5-? months before any votes, there’s no particular lockstep agreement on Trump or immigration or anything else between Republicans, conservatives of any particular stripe, or the wider American Right. Gillespie and others seem oddly compelled to paint a picture of some unified doctrine on issues (which is a nice change from seeing the “REPUBLICAN CIVIL WAR!” headlines), but it’s not the case. Especially on like Trump, it’s five minutes worth of looking to see how different websites and/or pundits vary completely on him as either the utter buffoon he is or somehow the the next Flash Gordon (SAVED EVERY ONE OF US!).

      When I look at the discussion here for example, both as pointing out the problems in this document and the steps that should be taken from a non-Open Borders point of view, I’m reminded of a National Review editorial just last week that enunciated all those very points (NR and its writers, by the way, are being swamped by the Trumpkins in their comment areas and on Twitter for their “RINO” and “GOPe” attempts at pointing out how The Donald is a crony capitalist with no consistent policies nor any sense of conservative or constitutional ideology). I have the odd feeling that Reason’s research of the Republican Party begins and ends at Breitbart.com most days…

  39. This is one of those issues where libertarians lose me, and a lot of other people. Libertarianism within the borders of a country governed by popular sovereignty, with the rule of law, is entirely defensible. Libertarianism that rejects the existence of nations and advocates an international free-for-all is lunacy. Or more accurately, anarchism.

    But that’s only talking about principled, wrong-headed libertarians. I’ve increasingly come to the conclusion that a lot of people calling themselves libertarians, especially in the media, are actually just corporate shills, hiding a baseline drive for cheap labor at all costs behind a phony, philosophical-sounding mask.

    1. I’m so fucking tired of people confusing borders with immigration restriction. You can have geographically defined borders and rule of law and very open immigration at the same time. This is a false premise and intellectually dishonest position. If we liberalized immigration laws and let people travel more or less freely, that would be perfectly in keeping with the rule of law.

      Rule of law is no defense for any law on the books. You have to separately justify why the law is good and moral. Then, and only then, can you defend enforcement of it. Simply saying “rule of law” would be a blank check to any law, no matter how terrible. And it’s hardly an argument for the immigration laws we have, as we could hypothetically change them tomorrow and be enforcing the rule of law all the same.

  40. strange article, Nick seems to think Trump is winning the primary despite the fact that most Republicans are pro-Amnesty …yet it is actually his anti-immigration stance which is the reason he is leading in the current polls.

    Trump’s immigration stand is more nuanced than his critics give him credit for….His goal of building a wall is typical of many Republicans running for office, even John Mccain claimed he would push congress to build a Wall to keep out illegal immigrants.

    In reality the green card lottery does more harm to Americans than illegal immigration, as we reward residency based on luck on the country one was born in (Canadians and British are prohibited from applying for this program)….Why give away green cards when we could easily sell them for $100,000 each….the money collected could be used to reduce our deficits ….we could have collected 195 billion dollars over the last 10 years if we charged $50,000 for a green card application

  41. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.homejobs90.com

  42. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  43. “I’m old enough to remember when conservatives and Republicans were flipped out by surveillance-state measures such as E-Verify and large numbers of immigration cops asking folks for their papers (remember, if immigrants need to show papers, then we all do).”

    It’s funny, that you think Republican voters today are remotely small government. They’d generally trade nearly all liberty for an imaginary security, and favor big government whenever it backs their interests. As dismal as the Democratic party is, the right are political imbeciles. “Keep your big gummint hands off my Medicaid” isn’t just one example of the right’s ignorance, it can reasonably serve as their next candidate’s main slogan.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.