Immigration

As Republicans Go Batshit on Immigration, Democrats Turn Into Sweet Angels

Both sides have pulled a switcheroo to play identity politics with their base

|

Matt Welch chronicled this week how Donald Trump has managed to bait even his relatively sane GOP rivals into saying something totally bonkers on immigration. (My personal favorite was Chris Christie's suggestion to bar code foreign tourists so that they could be tracked like Federal Express packages.) But in the world of competitive politics, one party's insanity is another's opportunity. Hence, Democrats, whose official platform not-too-long ago

Naive Immigrant
pamhule / Foter / CC BY-NC

could have been Sheriff Joe Arpaio's wet dream and whose pro-union proclivities have done more than anything to create the gaping wound that is the 11 million unauthorized immigrants by ending guest worker or bracero program with Mexico in mid '60s, are pulling a switcheroo. They are becoming the unabashed pro-immigration party if their presidential candidates are any indication.

First there is the (soon to be former) frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Her husband pledged to root out "drugs and illegal immigrants" and boasted that he had placed Border Patrol agents so close together in El Paso that they could see each other. Not to be outdone, she herself opposed even drivers' licenses for undocumented aliens. Yet, in a brilliant political move some weeks ago, she went whole hog amnesty. She promised to go much further than even President Obama's recent executive action and "defer" deportation proceedings against not just some illegal immigrants, but virtually all of them, while working toward comprehensive immigration reform that included citizenship for illegals. This might be a pipe dream, but it is clever because while Democrats' white and minority supporters are united on the issue of immigration (or at least not hopelessly divided), the GOP's are not, as I noted:

This means that the more Republicans question and condemn Clinton's support for "amnesty," the more they'll dig themselves in a hole with Latinos and make her more popular. On the other hand, it they stay mute—which is what most of them have done (with the exception of Lindsey Graham)—they'll risk alienating the anti-amnesty white base that they have spent the last decade riling up.

In other words, if Republicans fight Hillary's call for amnesty, they'll lose Latinos, which will benefit Hillary. But if they don't, they'll lose whites, which will also benefit Hillary.

In other words, she has constructed a perfect "heads I win, tails you lose" trap for Republicans IF she survives E-MailGate.

But even more pro-immigration than her is Maryland's former spendthrift-in-chief Governor Martin O'Malley. He left his state in a billion-plus hole and wants to accelerate the pace at which Social Security is bankrupting the country by expanding it but, on immigration, he is striking the most Reaganesque note of anyone left, right or center. While Republicans — contra Reagan — increasingly talk about immigrants as moochers who come to America to live off the welfare state rather than for economic opportunity, O'Malley talks about immigrants as assets rather than liabilities. He charmingly calls immigrants "New Americans" whom he wants to "welcome" because they can help "rebuild the American dream."

He also waxes Reaganesque when he says things like: "We are, and always have been, a nation of immigrants and our immigration laws must reflect our values." And: "The enduring symbol of our nation is the Statue of Liberty, not a barbed wire fence."

He has articulated the most extensive immigration reform agenda that delves deep into immigration law arcana to make it even easier than President Obama's executive order to bring unauthorized aliens out of the shadows. For example, even immigrants who have legal status sometimes must return to their home countries to obtain an a green card, but if they previously lived in the United States as undocumented immigrants, they are barred from reentering for 3 to 10 years. O'Malley says he would grant broad waivers to those immigrants.

As governor he extended in-state tuition to children of unauthorized immigrants. This might seem bananas in the current sulfurous anti-immigrant context. But just three short years ago, Rick Perry, who now wants to summon the National Guard to secure the border, was vociferously defending a similar policy in Texas against Mitt Romney — for the simple reason is that it is unfair to deny state residents access to colleges that they pay for through taxes.

Likewise, former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, the Republican-turned-Democrat whose announcement that he is running was so quiet it's unclear whether his wife heard him, is a long-standing softie on immigration (and dove on the Iraq War). He supported Sen. John McCain's comprehensive immigration reform  and opposes — or at least has opposed — a wall against Mexico as well as E-Verify. He is for legalization of unauthorized folks and access to in-state tuition.

His fellow rival Sen. Jim Webb, a conservative Democrat, is more of a "secure the border first" rather than a comprehensive reform guy. However, he too would create a path to citizenship and continue federal funding for "sanctuary cities" that defy ICE's unconstitutional detainer requests and refuse to keep undocumented aliens under lock and key pending deportation by Uncle Same without an arrest warrant.

The only Democrat in the presidential field sticking to the original party line on immigration is Bernie Sanders, an old-fashioned protectionist who still lives in a Malthusian universe where the economy is a zero-sum game. He says he'll go further than Obama in legalizing the unauthorized population but wants to shut the door on new immigrants because – bet you never saw this coming!—they threaten American wages and jobs (a line that, of all people, the union-buster Scott Walker has started regurgitating).

But if Sander's fellow-Democrats have changed their tune on immigration it isn't because they have suddenly grokked Adam Smith (after all they still believe that minimum wage mandates don't cost jobs), but because their political incentives have changed.

Restrictionism was a winning strategy when unions were a major force in moving votes and money of America's predominantly white working class in the Democratic direction. But unions are a declining force in America and whites will be a plurality before 2050 — by which time new minorities such as Hispanics and Asians, the product of recent waves of immigration will have doubled from their levels in 2010.

Hence it makes perfect sense for Democrats to not just abandon their former restrictionism but also make immigration — not welfare, environment, economy or jobs — the wedge issue in the upcoming election by countering every nasty anti-immigration statement that comes out of the mouth of their Republican rivals with something piously pro-immigration.

The upshot of all this will be that the two parties will test polar opposite electoral strategies in 2016 with Democrats trying to win by playing identity politics with old and new minorities and Republicans trying to win by playing identity politics with working-class whites. (It is not a coincidence that, along with restricitonism, protectionism is also rising among Republican politicos. Witness Donald Trump's populist jeremiads against "blood-sucking China" and traitorous automakers that move their plants to Mexico.)

Regardless of who prevails, the 180-degree shift by both parties on immigration shows that politics is where principles go to die.

(I addressed why a turn to restrictionism by Republicans ain't all that politically smart here and here. Actually, it is rather moronic.)

NEXT: A.M. Links: Hillary Staffer Subpoenaed Over Private Email Server, Kentucky Clerk Faces Contempt Charges for Refusing to License Gay Marriages, O'Malley Plans Protest Outside DNC

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. Now your just trolling us.

    1. The Democrooks don’t care about Hispanics, they just want their vote come election time. Besides, Hispanics need to come in an orderly fashion, and learn English. They are often so ignorant, that they refuse to speak English no matter what the circumstance. They think we need to roll out the red carpet and drop our English language and learn Spanish, just to make them happy. Many Hispanics also want American’s to drop their culture and adopt to theirs. I pledge that within 10 years the Democrooks in Congress, will have passed a Spanish only law. This will require that all government documents be printed in Spanish only, and that all street signs be printed in Spanish only. That way the Democrooks can control the federal government for decades to come!

      1. Who’s your dealer and how much does it cost to get as high as you are there?

        1. Mike Hihn,
          If you can’t see the hidden agenda behind the Democrat immigration agenda, you are already high.

    2. This is Dalmia explaining why it is “libertarian” to vote for Hillary.

      1. “As Republicans Go Batshit on Immigration, …”

        Well if there’s anyone who’s an expert of Batshit insanity about immigration, it’s got to be Shikha Dalmia.

      2. This is Dalmia explaining why it is “libertarian” to vote for Hillary.

        Careful, your drooling can damage your keyboard.

  2. so that they could be tracked like Foreign Express packages

    Dipshit manages to fuck up and make herself look a complete idiot even when she’s making a good point. Smh.

    1. You know who else tracked a segment of their population?

        1. In all seriousness, I think Democrats are always trying to live down the fact that FDR committed what is probably the worst act of racial discrimination in history behind slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. He’s regarded as a Team Blue hero to this day, but they conveniently skip over that part where he ordered people (including my father when he was three years old) to be rounded up and put in camps based on their race.

          And yet, if you oppose entitlement programs, or if you support voter ID laws, or if you make a comment with the slightest hint of insensitivity to racial issues, or if you suggest that there should be some limits or qualifications for immigration, or if you think Obama falls short of being a perfect president, or if you believe that black-on-black violence is a bigger threat to black people than “white privilege”… Well, if you do any of those things, you’re the worst racist in history, worse than Hitler himself.

          tl;dr: Democrats’ frantic effort to present themselves as anti-racists is just a compensation for their party’s horribly racist past.

          1. Well, let’s be honest. Asians aren’t “real” minorities, they earn way too much, get good grades, and do math. They are pretty much “white” so the whole internment thing can be whitewashed……literally.

      1. FDR?

      2. FDR, Hitler, Stalin, or Emperor Palpatine are all acceptable answers.

      3. Every government ever

      4. King Herrod, Palestine, circa 3 or 6 BC or some such…

  3. If you don’t feed it, it will eventually starve, or get fired.

    *Clicks on another story, post haste*

  4. damn, this gets tedious. It’s like Reason’s two minutes of hate.

    1. Xenophobic Nativist! /not serious

      1. RACIST for not taking this seriously!!111one!!

        /kidding

    2. Journolisters gonna journolist

  5. That guy in the picture is holding up what has to be the stupidest sign in the history of protesting.

    Responsible adults keep promises. Friends use your emotional investment to weasel out of promises.

    1. Man – your friends SUCK

  6. I’d like to start a petition.

    Can someone at Reason tell Shikha to fuck off?

    Thanks

  7. In other words… In other words

    Why don’t you just say what you mean the first time?

  8. Both sides have pulled a switcheroo

    I believe that’s more of a “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

    1. It’s a goose that’s had the old switcheroo pulled on it.

  9. Actually, it is rather moronic.

    By playing to the wackier segments of their base, they could be handing progressives the White House and both houses of Congress. A compulsion for suicide, and sucking up to goobers who’ve never influenced anything at all. As Trump follows Ron Paul’s playbook, say stupid stuff, make faces and growl a lot … while pissing on the Constitution.

      1. /hands Crusty a lighter and container of gasoline.

        1. YEAH! STOMP OUT CONTRARY VIEWS
          (it’s the libertarian thing to do – for the Paulista cult)

          1. /takes lighter and gasoline away from Crusty. Gives them to cry baby Hinh.

            You will do a better job at destroying any decent conversation then Crusty ever could Hinh. Flame away.

            1. Not that you destroy decent conversation Crusty. You cool. =)

            2. You will do a better job at destroying any decent conversation

              (laughing) This conversation (thread) was started by me.

              1. Who are you again ?

                1. I don’t no man ? I just got here myself.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_pc0BJ33cQ

                2. Who are you again ?

                  You must be new online.
                  Like I said, the one who started the thread, followed by a clusterfuck of bullies and thugs who are too fucking stupid to deal with the issue.

                  1. Ladies and Gentlemen.

                    I present to you. His true nature.

                    Cry Baby Hinh.

                    1. Anyone else dumbfuck enough to confuse ridicule with crying, as Pyrate … whines? (snicker)

  10. Marvelous article. Thanks for noticing that Reagan was the polar opposite of the clowns dominating the party these days. I was very proud to call myself a Republican in the 1980s, but with the ascendancy of Trump, forget it. I’m ashamed to be called an American, much less a Republican.

    1. I’m ashamed to call myself “Princess” after seeing what a whore Diana was.

      1. Being a whore is nothing to be ashamed of.

        1. … unless you are a whore for the State, that is… Serving the State with your body, rather than your conscience… Henry David Thoreau said something along those lines, but he cleaned it up a bit. Roughly, “The vast majority of men serve the state with their bodies (editorial comment, think cops and soldiers), as a beast of burden serves the farmer (editorial comment: No whores for the state mentioned here), while the REAL “menschen” serve the state, with their conscience, and so, for the most part, oppose the state.”

        2. Don’t push your morality on us Almighty…

      2. I’m ashamed of….nothing, really.

        And I support you, Princess!! We know you’re different than that English hag!

      3. Nonsense. I’m sure you’re the belle of the ball.

    2. Reagan’s deal was – we’ll give this lot citizenship AND stop letting more come here illegally. Since the second half of that bargain was never upheld, the Right is unwilling to repeat the first half.

      1. It was 1986, and Regan was getting fucked all around — like that year’s tax “reform” — as Democrats campaigned on having “repealed Reaganomics,” which they largely did, but also repealed Kennedy’s industrial stimulus — in a bill authored by Democrats, Bradley in the Senate, Gephart in he House.

        Since the second half of that bargain was never upheld, the Right is unwilling to repeat the first half.

        The same Right that did NOTHING to enforce the second half for over a quarter-century? THAT right?

  11. related: Low-Income Workers See Biggest Drop in Paychecks
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09…..hecks.html

  12. While Republicans ? contra Reagan ? increasingly talk about immigrants as moochers who come to America to live off the welfare state

    Yeah, where would anybody get an idea like that?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../71517072/

    1. Hey, Reason has a narrative and is sticking to it.

      1. Facts are counter-revolutionary and must be supressed for the good of the peoples’ party.

    2. “Households,” which most people don’t know the difference. Like see how it’s mostly children — and many are citizens — as the video clarifies. It’s a study by an anti-immigrant group. Every other study says the opposite.

      Learn how the “welfare” works. For example, two illegals with a citizen child — get food stamps for only the child. Same with Medicaid. Don’t forget that immigrants — legal or illegal — pay the same taxes as native born and citizens — but are explicitly denied most benefits,

      And birthright citizenship has been the rule since before our revolution.

      1. Right, And if these parents had stayed in Guatemala, Ghana or Burma then the kid wouldn’t be a US Citizen and wouldn’t be collecting benefits

        1. the kid wouldn’t be a US Citizen and wouldn’t be collecting benefits

          Those parents pay taxes, so they’re subsidizing you!

          1. Only if they are not getting paid under the table.

            1. Only if they are not getting paid under the table.

              The business would lose the tax deduction, which means …. wait for it … the employer would pay the tax! At a higher tax rate.

              So they are indeed subsidizing you.
              Didn’t we fight s revolution over “taxation without representation?”

              1. They also don’t have to pay a legal or prevailing wage, or pay all those employer side costs. Care to try that again?

                1. You actually said that
                  a) In public
                  b) Defending taxes on a libertarian website .
                  c) Has absolutely nothing to do with any part of the thread,

                  But you do have that compulsion for fucking up.

          2. No, they’re not. Are you really serious with statements like that? You know that’s really nonsensical bullshit right?

            1. Those parents pay taxes, so they’re subsidizing you!

              No, they’re not

              (laughing)

              Are you really serious with statements like that?

              And so much smarter than you!

              You know that’s really nonsensical bullshit right?

              I assumed it would be, when I saw you are the commenter.
              I’ll assume you’re eager to be brainwashed.

      2. Well the big benefits are health care and K-12 schooling both which immigrants get. Those that do pay taxes don’t pay nearly enough to cover their costs. My school district spend $12,000 a year per pupil. Medicaid can pay up to $40,000 for maternity services.

        Many jurisdictions by law prohibit asking the status of the recipient, so while the law may not allow illegals to access benefits, if you don’t know they are illegal then they can collect.

        Why does Maine’s governor want to cut aid to cities that give benefits to illegal aliens, if illegal aliens can’t get benefits?

        http://toprightnews.com/maine-…..al-aliens/

        1. Well the big benefits are health care and K-12 schooling both which immigrants get.

          Totally wrong on healthcare.

          Those that do pay taxes don’t pay nearly enough to cover their costs.

          Neither do you, nor the entire middle class. The pay the same taxes you do, but …. one more time … are denied most of the benefits. They literally subsidize Social Security.

          My school district spend $12,000 a year per pupil.

          How many parents paid $12,000 in local property taxes and state income and sales taxes? Do you not know that commercial real estate taxes are a major subsidy to public schools in most states?

          Medicaid can pay up to $40,000 for maternity services.

          Only for citizens.

          Why does Maine’s governor want to cut aid to cities that give benefits to illegal aliens, if illegal aliens can’t get benefits?

          Describe what benefits are provided by cities? How does that compare with the denied benefits? Cities receive taxes from illegals. Read your own link!

          1. Many illegal aliens get paid in cash. They don’t “literally” subsidize Social Security. And if you legalized most of them, they would get back way more than what they put in, just like the citizen. So your point is pretty much dead end.

            You’re living in some fantasy if you think illegal aliens don’t and wont get benefits. Maybe not federally ran programs, but for some others, its as easy as pretending to live with some other family. Many LEGAL immigrants obscure their countable income to qualify for benefits. The tricks of the trade are well known, and I speak from experience as formerly illegal alien.

            I’ve lived in this country for over 20 years, and received thousands of dollars in state aid before I put in a cent. My parents even got driver’s license without even a green card. I made enough income to pay SOME income tax maybe 2,3 years of my life. This is pretty much true for all of my immigrants friends, and the wealthy ones are heavily in debt and work their butts off to get their deductions.

            You ever been to a American thanksgiving dinner where smiling American teens say “I work for Mr. Chang’s soy sauce company and I earn 20 dollars an hour?” Because it doesn’t happen. The wealthy immigrants become part of the elite class and rarely give back to their community. You ain’t gonna work for some Asian tech company. You would think that immigrants are either homogeneous or organic as a group. Most of the time, they ain’t.

            1. Many illegal aliens get paid in cash.

              So? Many people get paid in cash. A “pay envelope” which also includes a statement of taxes and other withholding.

              They don’t “literally” subsidize Social Security.

              IRS estimates the very literal subsidy every year.

              And if you legalized most of them, they would get back way more than what they put in, just like the citizen.

              I keep rooting for you to get SOMETHING right. Their benefits begin AFTER they are naturalized, so everything before that is the subsidy.

              So your point is pretty much dead end.

              You just said they get way more than they pay in … same as citizens. (gasp)

              You’re living in some fantasy if you think illegal aliens don’t and won’t get benefits.

              Or I’m smarter than you.

              its as easy as pretending to live with some other family

              Which does what?

              and received thousands of dollars in state aid before I put in a cent.

              What program? How did you avoid taxes?

              I made enough income to pay SOME income tax…

              How about sales and property taxes? How many personal exemptions?

              1. What? You think illegal aliens get paid in cash and get statement of tax in an envelope? Never happened to me, or anyone I know. I had friends worked for 5 bucks at stationary stores, any tax information they get serves no purpose.

                Obviously illegal aliens will get SS or medicare after they’re naturalized. But welfare recipients receive more than they put in. So in the end, the result will be eventually negative.

                You’re an American who obviously did some reading on this subject. I on the other hand, I am an immigrant, and WAS an illegal alien, so I know things about this subject more than you do.

                As I type, a member at my church is pretending to live with someone else to receive health benefits. At least one family member is illegal. I’m not gonna fill in the blanks for you, do the research. I didn’t have to pay taxes in my childhood years, and if you don’t earn enough money, you don’t pay income tax. This is elementary stuff.

                As for benefits I got, let’s see – free healthcare, optometry service, state funded grants, driver’s license (back when illegals couldn’t get one in CA), etc. You just have to find the programs, and this was BEFORE the internet age.

                You think I’m making up stuff to talk shit about my own people? You can play around with the construct of immigrants that’s been fed to you by bloggers all your life. But any intellectually honest immigrant can tell you that they cost the state money. By how much, that’s where some debate can be had.

                  1. ugh. liar

                    ugh. brainwashed tool of the political class.

                1. You think illegal aliens get paid in cash and get statement of tax in an envelope?

                  “Many people get paid in cash.”

                  Never happened to me, or anyone I know.

                  Relevance?

                  any tax information they get serves no purpose.

                  (lol) You just said it never happens!

                  Obviously illegal aliens will get SS or medicare after they’re naturalized.

                  You keep lying about what I said. Coverup?

                  But welfare recipients receive more than they put in. So in the end, the result will be eventually negative.

                  Same as citizens, so the same screwup.

                  I am an immigrant, and WAS an illegal alien, so I know things about this subject more than you do.

                  That makes even less sense. And doesn’t explain your bullshit on Social Security, Medicare, and everything else.

                  do the research.

                  That’s how I spot bullshitters.

                  I didn’t have to pay taxes in my childhood years, and if you don’t earn enough money, you don’t pay income tax. This is elementary stuff.

                  The “childhood” comment is shameful.

                  As for benefits I got, let’s see – free healthcare, optometry service ? (yada yada) You just have to find the programs, and this was BEFORE the internet age.

                  I just googled “full of shit”
                  I’m a cocker spaniel. woof woof

          2. Mike Hihn,

            Obama raised my health insurance premiums by 200%. And I get no vision or dental. You teachers get free healthcare, vision, and dental for life. So stop complaining!

            1. jrom|9.4.15 @ 4:56PM|#
              Mike Hihn,
              Obama raised my health insurance premiums by 200%.

              What on eath are you babbling about?

              And I get no vision or dental. You teachers get free healthcare, vision, and dental for life. So stop complaining!

              (laughing) I’m no teacher. You have no SANE reason to assume so, which makes you the dumbfuck of the month … (also irrelevant to the,umm, issue.)

              Not one of your better days, eh? 🙂

      3. You’re wrong about “birthright citizenship”, and I’m not going to take the time to point you to the sources of what “natural born citizen” meant at the time the Constitution was ratified and the 14th amendment was passed (which is what matters).

        You’re an idiot with an agenda, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Go read a book and learn something, please.

        1. CIS exaggerates welfare use by immigrants — yet again!

          http://www.cato.org/blog/cente…..elfare-use

          1. So CATO’s arguments are

            1. Immigrants have bigger families so it’s not a fair comparison.
            2. Immigrants are poorer so it’s not a fair comparison.
            3. What about Social Security and MediCare?

            I would say for #1 and #2 that is the point. Bigger, poorer families are going to use more welfare, and that’s a reason to keep them out.

            As for #3 (nice to see CATO sticking up for SS and MediCare) CATO neglect to factor in the EITC. Sure they immigrants pay payroll taxes, but then they get back the refundable EITC so it’s all a wash.

            Additionally, counting on low-skilled, third world immigrants to save the welfare state seems like a poor strategy for a libertarian organization to promote.

            1. So CATO’s arguments are

              Uhhhh, no.

              Additionally, counting on low-skilled, third world immigrants to save the welfare state seems like a poor strategy for a libertarian organization to promote.

              Who did that?

              1. You DID !!!

                1. (Who counted on third world immigrants to save the welkfare state?)

                  You DID !!!

                  Bullies keep attacking, no matter how blatant their bullshit. It’s some sort of compulsion.

          2. tl;dr Immigrants use less welfare once you control for all the reasons they use more welfare.

            1. tl;dr Immigrants use less welfare once you control for all the reasons they use more welfare.

              Great satire!!

              1. Cunt Knuckles !!!!!!

                1. Cunt Knuckles !!!!!!

                  I’d probably be lonely if you hadn’t been stalking me for months … because I humiliated one of your wacko statements.

          3. I’m not so sure about that.

            Some benefits are intended for the household in general or take household size into account. If a family of 6 had one native born wife and one “anchor” baby, it’s not likely only the wife or the kid will be awarded benefits. And since we’re not talking exclusively about (if I understand the study) illegal immigrants, the birth origin of the household is a moot point.

            I’m an immigrant and an American citizen born in Asia. If I marry an American born white woman and I make enough money, then we may not qualify benefits, especially if we don’t have kids. If we’re both dead broke and only my wife gets food stamps (in reality, we’ll both get it), I’ll still eat on the government’s dime.

            It’s unlikely that an “immigrant” of the household would refuse benefits that’s coming to him or her while only the native born members agree to get it. If the family members are illegal, then the natives would have to get welfare on their behalf. And an illegal who marries a citizen is halfway there to becoming a citizen.

            1. If a family of 6 had one native born wife and one “anchor” baby, it’s not likely only the wife or the kid will be awarded benefits.

              That’s exactly what happens.

              I’ll still eat on the government’s dime.

              But you’re legal.

              If the family members are illegal, then the natives would have to get welfare on their behalf.

              Not true. Imagine a household of 12 people, only one is legal — an anchor baby. That’s the only one who gets the benefits.

              1. So what’s the objection? We’re not talking about JUST illegals here, are we?

                Anchor babies can’t apply for benefits themselves, and they’ve taken steps to be citizens just for being born US soil. If the kid’s parents apply for welfare that benefits the kid, then that “immigrant household” is on welfare. Legally, yes. But it’s on welfare. But the study took families with kids into account anyways.

                If I’m legal immigrant born elsewhere, I qualify for benefits (pending income requirements and such). If my spouse is American born, she also qualifies for one. Cato seems to suggest that “If only the wife gets welfare, then that household doesn’t count as an immigrant family on welfare”. Maybe, but this scenario is unlikely. Unless one of them makes a wad of cash, both will get welfare. Cash benefits and housing programs essentially benefit the whole household.

                1. So what’s the objection? We’re not talking about JUST illegals here, are we?

                  NOW he gets it!

                  Anchor babies can’t apply for benefits themselves,

                  (laughing) Nor change their own diapers. Or feed themselves. Or …

                  and they’ve taken steps to be citizens just for being born US soil.

                  How does a fetus do that?

                  If the kid’s parents apply for welfare that benefits the kid, then that “immigrant household” is on welfare.

                  But ONLY for the kid.

                  If I’m legal immigrant born elsewhere, I qualify for benefits (pending income requirements and such).

                  Why do you KEEP refusing to list them? And (shamelessly) denying they pay the same taxes.

                  Cato seems to suggest that “If only the wife gets welfare, then that household doesn’t count as an immigrant family on welfare”.

                  Whooooshed right over your head, what they said?

                  Cash benefits and housing programs essentially benefit the whole household.

                  Umm, if the anchor baby gets food stamps and Medicaid, then the household saves those expenses. (gasp)

                  But I’m sure The Donald will give you a cookie.

        2. You’re wrong about “birthright citizenship”,

          You screwed up AGAIN.

          “natural born citizen” meant at the time the Constitution was ratified and the 14th amendment was passed (which is what matters).

          No, it does NOT matter … not in the slightest. Birthright entered the common law in 1608. The 14th Amendment ADDED ex-slaves, because everybody else already had it (Indians added much later).

          You’re an idiot with an agenda,

          Pay attention

          United States v Rhodes (1866)
          “…All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866)” (my emphasis)

          and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Go read a book and learn something, please.

          Leave your partisan cave and learn about the common law
          (my tone is in defense of aggression)
          (walks away laughing)

    3. Some folks are eager to be brainwashed.

  13. Why is everyone so mad over this article?

    1. Why is everyone so mad over this article?

      massive brainwashing, as shown in the many factual errors.

  14. Well now, if the Democrats are now the “sweet angels” on immigration, are turning their backs on the unions, and believe that “newcomers” only make America stronger, I assume that they will now support repeal of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. This law, enacted in the 1980s and signed by that pro-immigration President, Ronald Reagan, makes it a federal crime for me to hire any one of these hard-working Dreamers who only want help make our economy strong. Worse yet, it turns every employer into an enforcement agency, and requires every American who takes a job to “prove” that he or she is “authorized to work.”

    I can only assume that with their new found love for hard-working immigrants, the Democrats will certainly seek to repeal this moronic, stupid law. Am I right?

  15. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was
    some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start??????????www.online-jobs9.com

  16. This might be a pipe dream, but it is clever because while Democrats’ white and minority supporters are united on the issue of immigration (or at least not hopelessly divided), the GOP’s are not

    Eh, I don’t think so.

    There’s a rather large segment of the democrat party which a luddite/xenophobe combo: “The technology’s gonna steal our JERBS, along with the im’grants! Vote union! Derp!” These are the people very much in touch with self-interest democracy, framing themselves as the poor victims, even if it comes at the expense of even poorer victims. Because helping the poor and unfortunate is only supposed to go so far.

    Unfortunately for them, their political masters figured out a long time ago that theirs is a collection of special interest groups, and immigrants is one of the biggest of all. Hell, the latino vote is much more important for victory than the black vote. So, every democrat politician will be happy to entertain luddites, but not xenophobes, and these democrats only have a voice as far as their union rep goes. And, really, who listens to those people anymore?

    1. Bernie sanders is listening to unions

      1. Yeah, it’s like there’s a certain democrat demographic that wants wealth redistribution to the poor, because they’re so kind hearted, but, at the same time, is only in it for the relatively poor US citizens. The actual poor, that live in foreign countries? Eh, who cares?

        It’s like they have socialist leanings, with a blend of nationalism. Perhaps it should be called …. national… socialism?

        1. Id like to pretend to be a bernie sanders supporter on his fb or something and say

          I support bernie for he is a socialist that understands the importance of maintaining our national identity whose party can be considered that of all the workers while we take down those select few that are destroying the country

  17. 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

  18. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:


    Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

    Quote:
    About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households? Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

    1. Link doesn’t work

    2. KevinP
      It talks about immigrants, not illegal ones. which is just part of their bullshit.
      They also count households because their low-information readers don’t know that can mean a native-born child — but the illegal parents get virtually nothing. The citizen/child receives, for example, food stamps and Medicaid, so it’s dishonest the way they did it, as Cato demonstrates so well.

      Plus, they pay taxes!

    3. “You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:”

      Sure you can. You may not like the results, but the Progressive Theocracy does.

      1. So … Progressives are the Theocrats.
        And America was founded as a Christian nation, despite what the founders say about that.

  19. Here goes Shikma the progressive again.

    While I consider myself a libertarian, have voted libertarian, and even sent them checks (making me a Libertarian I guess), I think I am about done with Reason. I expect wacky stuff in the comments, trolls, progressives, and fascists alike. The steady diet of progressive policies from the staff of Reason has finally made me wonder why I come here. I can see progressive nonsense nearly anywhere.

    This is too bad because I used to send people here to learn about libertarian ideas. Not a good course any more, and that is a shame.

    1. Question I raise is, why has REASON suddenly jumped on the immigration bandwagon? What is this gaining for the libertarian movement? We certainly do not see immigrants signing up with the LP en masse. Are they subscribing to REASON magazine?

      Some thoughts:
      * Open borders if a trendy issue and REASON is jumping on the bandwagon.
      * REASON hopes to cash in on corporate grants for organizations which want open borders to obtain cheap labor.
      * Members of REASON’s staff want to bring in their relatives from third world countries.

      1. Because pot is not the issue that it once was.

        1. It is if Mexicans and ass sex are involved. Apparently.

      2. Not as effective an issue. Democrats are becoming the majority party, and the libertarian crowd can’t offer nearly as much free stuff as Dems. I keep reading now and then libertarian prevarication over a “minimum income”, so perhaps they’re going to attract disaffected Dems one day.

      3. Question I raise is, why has REASON suddenly jumped on the immigration bandwagon?

        30 or so years ago.

        Are they subscribing to REASON magazine?

        People who value principles do.

        Some thoughts:

        Thoughts?

        * Open borders if a trendy issue and REASON is jumping on the bandwagon.

        30 years ago, and it’s Trump who made it an issue now, or you’d read maybe 3 articles per year.

        * REASON hopes to cash in on corporate grants for organizations which want open borders to obtain cheap labor.

        You just revealed your bias.

        * Members of REASON’s staff want to bring in their relatives from third world countries.

        Where are the thoughts?

  20. Yeah, let’s allow those multitudes to invade our country, overload our schools and requires scheools to teach in twolanguages, add more plice because the ilegals are increasing our crime rate 30% and killings lots of Americans, all the while taking jobs from Blacks and 50% on welfare.
    Anyone who defends illegal immigration is a total ass.

  21. I’d like to hear Shikha say “batshit”.

  22. Be libertarian, and bow to your new latino overlords.

  23. “My personal favorite was Chris Christie’s suggestion to bar code foreign tourists”

    Quote? I betcha a nickel that didn’t happen.

    But, since it’s Open Border’s time, I know that truth is irrelevant. Carry on with the hysterical pants shitting.

  24. “This means that the more Republicans question and condemn Clinton’s support for “amnesty,” the more they’ll dig themselves in a hole with Latinos and make her more popular.”

    Republicans are already unpopular with Latinos. They gain nothing by making more of those Latinos into voters.

    Since La Raza is unlikely to be voting enthusiastically Republican regardless of how much they bend over on illegal immigration.

    1. Like there is any benefit to American citizens to confer citizenship on tens of millions of illegals anyway. Might as well hand them our wallets and slit our own throats.

      1. Yeah, they’d be entitled to find the jobs white people do, such as playing around on the Internet all day. Keeping them illegal gets our produce to us cheap. Why mess with that system? And they can’t even vote! How perfect is that?

        1. Well if people like you Tony did not try to fuck over small businesses that the “Brown People” start in their own communities, maybe the paint chips that you eat like a bowl of maypo would not kill the chipmunks in the numbers of Dwarf Star Vagina Yogurt !!!

          1. …..Dwarf Star Vagina Yogurt

            Is that a sentient being? (lol)

            Well if people like you Tony did not try to fuck over small businesses

            “How?” he dared to ask.

        2. And Tony twists this into race. Tony, you’re the most racist poster here. Advocating for swarms of illegals allows employers to lay sub market wages and also depresses legitimate market wages through artificially high demand for said jobs. Ergo you have helped create a defects space class to do your menial work for substandard wages.

          Do you ever get tired of being for every evil thing in the world? Or is there some limit to your love of Marxism?

          1. Suicidy,

            You are right on the money on this issue! We need to end this illegal immigration invasion of our country. Those Latin American countries would not allow us to come in illegally. So, we must not let them come either.

      2. Like there is any benefit to American citizens to confer citizenship on tens of millions of illegals anyway.

        How does your citizenship benefit Americans?

        Might as well hand them our wallets and slit our own throats.

        “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
        -Chicken Little

        1. You’re an idiot. You ask nonsensical questions or make false/distorted statements. I get the impression you actually believe your bullshit. All the really honest analysis of the socioeconomic impact of mass illegal immigration shows a net nagative to our country and its actual citizens. Your open borders obsession won’t change that. Wishing REALLY hard also will not help your case.

          Stop going full retard on this.

          1. DUMBFUCK: Like there is any benefit to American citizens to confer citizenship on tens of millions of illegals anyway.

            SMART ONE:How does your citizenship benefit Americans?

            You’re an idiot.

            I called him out. Exposed his bullshit. He throws a hissy fit.

            You ask nonsensical questions or make false/distorted statements.

            (smirk) You’re the one who said citizenship had to benefit Americans.
            Are you now admitting you had no fucking idea what you said?

            I get the impression you actually believe your bullshit.

            That was a question, Sparky.

            All the really honest analysis of the socioeconomic impact of mass illegal immigration shows a net nagative to our country and its actual citizens.

            1) Bullshit
            2) You’re desperate to change the subject.

            Note to readers: “really honest analysis” agrees with his brainwashed realty.

            Your open borders obsession won’t change that. Wishing REALLY hard also will not help your case.

            How does your citizenship benefit Americans?

            Stop going full retard on this.

            Says the bellowing blowhard when he’s been called out.

            Like there is any benefit to American citizens to confer citizenship on tens of millions of illegals anyway.

            How does your citizenship benefit Americans

            :”The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
            -Chicken Little

        2. Mike Hihn,

          You won’t be laughing when your the only gringo left in your neighborhood. I have lived in a community that was about 85% Latino, and they make you feel like your living in another country! They refuse to speak English, even when they can. And if you want them to speak English, they give you a dirty look.

          1. jrom|9.4.15 @ 5:02PM|#
            You won’t be laughing when your the only gringo left in your neighborhood.

            I’ll be laughing at that statement forever, regardless of my neighborhood.

            I have lived in a community that was about 85% Latino, and they make you feel like your living in another country! They refuse to speak English, even when they can. And if you want them to speak English, they give you a dirty look.

            They give you a dirty look because you’re a fucking bigot, wanting (not asking) them to speak English. What kind of retard is shocked … SHOCKED…. that an 85% Latino speaks Spanish?

            Who the fuck are you telling anyone what language to speak?
            (now laughing even harder)

            1. Michael Hihn,

              Listen you fuck! You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. If they come to an English speaking country, they must learn English. If your that stupid; then, I cannot reason with you.

    2. Republicans are already unpopular with Latinos. They gain nothing by making more of those Latinos into voters

      So fuck them over and deny them the vote. Simple enough!

      1. Illegals don’t get to vote. Or maybe we should just send ballots to every living person on the planet, since you see no value or disntomction in being a citizen.

        1. The Democrooks, would love to let illegals vote, and that is what they are trying to do as we speak! They only care about holding on to their power. They could care less about the future of our country in D.C. And many Republicans are just as bad.

          1. The Democrooks, would love to let illegals vote,

            This topic is NOT illegals.

        2. (emphasis added for the mentally challenged)

          buybuydandavis: Republicans are already unpopular with Latinos. They gain nothing by making more of those Latinos into voters

          ME: So fuck them over and deny them the vote. Simple enough!

          Suicidy: “Illegals don’t get to vote”

          Latino voters are the fucking topic. “La Raza” was your clue … if you even read before launching another hissy fit.

          Or maybe we should just send ballots to every living person on the planet, since you see no value or disntomction in being a citizen.

          OMG You’re the one ignoring citizenship in this thread!
          Anyone may see for themselves the extent of this (latest) Suicidy fuckup.

          https://reason.com/blog/2015/09…..nt_5565859

          Cyber-bullies (sigh)

  25. 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

  26. The biggest turn of events is that the Dems that are pushing for immigration in the hopes that these illegals will gratefully become stalwart Dem voters – otherwise the Dems should be throwing the wetbacks over the fence with the greatest enthusiasnm. Why? Because their true loyal subjects, the African-Americans, are getting reamed and screwed by the illegals, as are the legal Hispanics, who are threatened by slave labor wages offered by the illegals. Now we see where that is leading, and it has nothing to do with the silly theories expressed by this author. That Black woman who loudly objected to the LA Council installing a couple of illegals (presumable they could enunciate a few English word, or appropriate grunts) then proclaimed that she was “All for Trump”, the only pol who was protecting Blacks and legal Hispanics from the deluge of welfare sucking, major felony criminals who are infesting out country. Now we see this reflected in polls: for the first time probably since Abe Lincoln, over 25% of Blacks are for the GOP -Trump, plus who knows how many for Carson. The Dems CANNOT WIN WITHOUT MOST OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICANS. Also,surprisingly, over 32% of legal Hispanics are for Trump, That is another group that the Demshave screwed but expect them to remain on the old plantation.

  27. You’re wrong about “birthright citizenship”, and I’m not going to take the time to point you to the sources of what “natural born citizen” meant at the time the Constitution was ratified and the 14th amendment was passed (which is what matters).

    You’re an idiot with an agenda, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Go read a book and learn something, please.

  28. There are so many reasons that make me wantto slap pro-immigration assholes in the mouth.
    We can start with the fact that practically all of the new low level jobs are going to the below minimum wage illegals, not to resident Hispnics nor African-Ameicans. Next comes the criminality factor – almost 4,0000 Texans (just texans) murdered by illegals over the past several years. Illegals responsible for 30% of serious crimes in many states. 3/4th of illeags on welfare, or food stamps. Enormous increases in funds for education. I need go no further – anyonewho supports Mexican illegals should have his ass kicked, good and hard. Hopefully by the Blacks whose jobs he is stealing

  29. There are so many reasons that make me wantto slap pro-immigration assholes in the mouth.
    We can start with the fact that practically all of the new low level jobs are going to the below minimum wage illegals, not to resident Hispnics nor African-Ameicans. Next comes the criminality factor – almost 4,0000 Texans (just texans) murdered by illegals over the past several years. Illegals responsible for 30% of serious crimes in many states. 3/4th of illeags on welfare, or food stamps. Enormous increases in funds for education. I need go no further – anyonewho supports Mexican illegals should have his ass kicked, good and hard. Hopefully by the Blacks whose jobs he is stealing

  30. Michael Hihn, is a fool!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.