Donald Trump

Trump's Morally Retarded Plan to "Make America Great Again" Through Operation Wetback and the Trump Wall

He'll kill everything exceptional about America

|

Donald Trump Mouth
The Great Todd Krainin

Just when you think that Donald Trump couldn't sink lower, he does—this time during last night's debate when he touted Dwight Eisenhower's Operation Wetback as a model for dealing with America's undocumented population.

This operation ranks among the darkest chapters in 20th-century American history along with the 1920 Palmer Raids (when in the heyday of the Red Scare the Justice Department tried to round up foreign nationals, dissident leaders, and anarchists and deport them) and FDR's World War II Japanese internment (when the federal government confiscated the homes and property of 100,000 Japanese Americans and put them away in camps lest one of them turn out to be a traitor).

It involved a massive mobilization of the police state with patrol officers rounding up and dumping one million Mexicans in the most obscure areas from where they would have a hard time returning. Carried out in peak summer months when temperatures touched 125 degrees, the mass deportation program resulted in nearly a hundred deaths from heat stroke — not to mention massive abuses of human rights.

Trump wants to scale up this program more than 10-fold to deport 11 million Latinos. But he says he'll do it "humanely" because he's a "very nice" person. How you send SWAT teams to "humanely" separate families is anyone's guess. The terror that this will strike in Latino communities will dwarf anything experienced by Japanese Americans. But will it succeed in diminishing the undocumented population over time?

Not according to the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh. He points out that the evidence and statements by border patrol and INS officials in the 1950s and afterward suggest that mobilizing the border police state did not reduce unauthorized immigration, legal migration did in the 1950s when the so-called Barcero Program was deregulated.

During the early, more regulated, and thus restricted phase of the program, he notes, unauthorized immigrants continued to cross the border which resulted in almost two million of them living in the United States by the early 1950s. In 1946, the year after the war ended, an INS report recorded a massive increase in unauthorized entries that was "riddling the country of aliens illegally in the United States" with more illegal entries than any previous year. Government reports described the large increase in unauthorized immigration after World War II as "virtually an invasion." He writes:

The government responded to the increased illegal immigration with two interrelated and coordinated actions.  The first and more important action (to say nothing of its humanity), was a legal reform and expansion of the Bracero guest worker visa program in 1951. The second was called Operation Wetback, a nasty immigration enforcement operation begun in 1954 (it expanded on earlier program) that altogether removed almost two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1953-1954. 

What Mr. Trump and other supporters of harsh enforcement actions like Operation Wetback won't tell you is that increased enforcement was combined with an increase in legal migration opportunities.  Many of the migrants rounded up in the enforcement buildup to Operation Wetback were legalized on the spot, a long-standing process derogatively referred to as "drying out" illegal migrant workers, and given a bracero work visa.  "Drying out" was not invented during Operation Wetback; it had been common practice beginning in 1947 and was made law in 1951. Although data is sparse on the number of unlawful migrants who underwent "drying out," in 1950, 96,239 migrant workers were legalized in that process and the Department of Labor actually gave preference to legalizing unlawful migrants over admitting new braceros.

Other unlawful migrants were driven down the border and made to take one step across the border and come back in as a legal bracero worker, a process referred to as "a walk-around statute." The combination of a legal migration pathway with consequences for breaking immigration laws incentivized Mexican migrants to come legally.  As a result, the number of removals in 1955 was barely three percent of the previous year's numbers.  Those who previously would have entered unlawfully instead signed up to become braceros, which was the intended purpose of the reforms.

The government did not tolerate unlawful entry but the INS made it very easy for migrants to get a guest worker visa and used the Border Patrol to funnel unauthorized migrants and potential unauthorized migrants into the legal system – sometimes simplifying the system beyond what Congress intended. Increased lawful migration, flexibility, and enforcement funneled migrant workers into the bracero Program and reduced unauthorized immigration by an estimated 90 percent. The existence of a legal visa for lower skilled Mexican migrants was essential to the decrease in unlawful immigration. 

May be when Trump says he'll deport 11 million people and then let them return, he has in mind something like the "drying out" policies described above. But that can't happen without a guest worker program with Mexico.  And if you enact such a program, then deportations become a mere formality, an abusive redundancy, that only someone who cares neither about the size nor scope of government—nor taxpayer dollars nor human rights abuses, for that matter—would recommend. But setting that aside, Trump has said not a word about creating such a program—likely because that'll cause him to lose the white, nativist, working class support he's courting. In other words, the straight-talker is being just as cagey as the rest of them.

But while we are on the subject of Trump's cageyness, consider this: He insists that he'll make Mexico pay for the Great Wall of Trump—and Make America Great Again—through the country's $50 billion-plus trade imbalance with the United States. It is not clear what the hell he means by this, but the only way this makes any sense is if Trump thinks that the imbalance represents excess payment for things we've purchased from Mexico that America can withhold. But that is emphatically not what a trade imbalance is. It means that we have bought more goods from Mexico than sold to them. (I have a 100 percent trade imbalance with my grocery store because I only buy goods from it and never sell it any thing.) Thus, applying the imbalance toward the wall would mean buying goods from Mexico without paying for them. (If H&R readers have any other way of interpreting Trump's remarks, please speak up.)

Now, this is apparently a standard business practice with Trump as his vendors will tell you. But does he seriously think that Mexican businesses will continue to send goods to Americans knowing that their government will confiscate payment? Odds are, the Mexican government will retaliate on behalf of its businesses and withhold payment to American businesses, unleashing a full-blown balance-of-payment war. A Trump presidency will mean returning to the days when countries thought that the way to get rich was by beggaring the other through extractive wars—not through peaceful trade and voluntary exchange.

Trump is a moral neanderthal wrapped in a crazy mind. That he's drawing the allegiance of a quarter if the GOP base suggests that American exceptionalism— the notion that the American people have a special relationship with Lady Liberty, as I wrote once—is not what it used to be. If he gets elected, that relationship will be dead.

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.

183 responses to “Trump's Morally Retarded Plan to "Make America Great Again" Through Operation Wetback and the Trump Wall

  1. Everything?

    I favor open borders and I find Dalmia insane on this issue.

    1. If Trump actually managed to enact his plan he’d do his best to choke off immigration and free trade across borders, both of which would require a massive regulatory and police state in order to accomplish. What else would be left that’s exceptional about America? HBO?

      1. HBO’s going to purchase the CBC after Trudeau bankrupts America’s Hat. It will then invert to Canada.

      2. Of course Trump doesn’t plan on doing any of these things. I mean, he doesn’t even sound serious when he’s saying it, people who take him seriously are retarded.

        ‘We’re going to do that, we’re going to do it’

        Sure we are, Trump, sure we are.

        1. Yeah, does anyone *actually* take anything he says seriously? If they do, they should be checked for an extra chromosome. And a tail.

          1. What if you have both of those but still don’t take Trump seriously? Asking for a friend.

            1. Well, Hugh, as you know, we’re doing the best we can, but some are these retards are extremely clever.

            1. Mine is in the front..

          2. Dumb ass. Wearing a hat is the dead giveaway. Bacon is always good secondary evidence.

            Wait, doesn’t Trump wear a hat….HEY!

          3. Anyone who takes any of these idiots, ceptin maybe Paul, seriously are themselves idiots. The established types have proven they will say anything to get the vote then do the same when they get in. So if one says they will vote for rubio, or cruz over clinton, my question is why? What will rubio or cruz do that will be ultimately different than clinton. Will either stop the growth of gov’t? Will either stop the spying on US citizens? Will either believe that we cannot keep interfering in other countries? Will either cut spending?

            I was very impressed with Rand Paul in the debate. Sadly though, the next debates will want the candidates to go at each other and not give him the time to articulate his views.

        2. The way he is going to make Mexico pay for the wall is to tax remittances from Mexican ( actually all ) illegals who wire money home.

          It’s brilliant. He IS going to make Mexico pay because he is going to take it out of their “paycheck” that most all illegals send home to Mexico. That removes that amount of money from the Mexican economy thereby “making them pay for it “.

          BRILLIANT !1!!11!! * takes a slug of Guiness*

          I’m too busy to google it but it is an immense amount of money leaving our economy on a regual basis.

      3. Free speech, firearms rights, and if I’m not mistaken we donate far more to charity individually than other Western nations.

        1. Our labor unions aren’t avowedly socialist. We use English measurements.

      4. Also, our alcohol laws and college students are exceptionally pathetic.

        1. No official language.

      5. both of which would require a massive regulatory and police state in order to accomplish. What else would be left that’s exceptional about America?

        From where I sit, we already have a massive regulatory and police state, and America stopped being exceptional some time ago.

  2. I could only get three words into the headline before I had to stop reading. Seeing the “r” word was one microaggression too far. I’ll try again after some time in my safe space.

  3. Please, Reason, that picture of Trumps mouth is quite disturbing. Please stop.

    1. No, i’m still pretty sure that’s a plecostomus.

      1. Whatever it is, it’s disturbing.

        1. Would you like to help me test market my new invention ?

          I am working on a self inflating backpack size MOBILE SAFE ROOM tm.

          Yank the cord once and POOF you’re safely enconsed in your own personal safe space where no one can threaten you with hateful words.

          My biggest hurdle is how to keep the puppy alive between activations.

    2. Reminds me of some of the sarlac pit.

      1. I was going to post a pic of the lips from the casino billboard in Super Troopers for a joke, but couldn’t really find one.

        Thought that’d be more…pleasant.

    3. I guess I’d better return that fleshlight I got you for Christmas.

      1. Don’t lie, Hugh. You’ll just keep it for yourself. How often do you wear one out again? Every two weeks or so?

        1. What Hugh lacks in length, he makes up for in girth and pointiness. Your mom remains unimpressed, but some ladies are into the Hershey Kiss look.

  4. Didn’t Trump say he’s going to create a new Department of Deportation?

    1. Department of Talking Out Your Ass

      1. I think we already have several of those.

        1. We need a Blowhard Czar.

          1. He’ll be HUUUUUUUUUUGE.

        1. I thought that was Ace Ventura that taught his ass to talk.

          1. Nope. Stole it from Burroughs.

  5. We need to stop taking Trump so seriously.

    In the last poll, Trump may still be coming in second or first–but his negatives within the Republican Party are so high, he’ll never win.

    We should also remember that if Trump loses in Iowa and New Hampshire, he’s going to have to think seriously about how much of his own money he wants to spend on Super Tuesday.

    For now, he mostly just cruising on saying outrageous things and having journalists like Dalmia give him free publicity.

    With all respect, Shikha Dalmia, none of your readers take Trump as seriously as you do–and that’s a good thing. Trump isn’t even seen positively by a majority of registered Republicans! He has no chance of winning in the general election.

    1. We need to stop taking Trump so seriously

      I think you’re preaching to the choir here, bro. It’s hard to stop something you were never doing to begin with.

      I’ll only take him seriously if he deports Shikha.

    2. A ton of people ‘take him seriously’, which means we kind of have to. We certainly have to take The Retard Army seriously. They are an ongoing threat to our freedoms.

      1. Not a ton of people.

        25% of registered Republican is not a ton of people.

        It’s less than 12.5%.

        .25 * x, where x < 50% =

        1. Wow, it cut that out and made it invisible as if it were a tag, what with the less than, greater than signs…

          25 percent times x, where x is less than 50 percent, is equal to less than 12.5 percent.

          I’m just sayin’.

      2. You don’t have freedoms, Canadian.

  6. Carried out in peak summer months when temperatures touched 125 degrees, the mass deportation program resulted in nearly a hundred deaths from heat stroke and massive abuses of human rights.

    But since no one knows that, and everyone knows the slogan “I like Ike,” it doesn’t matter.

  7. It is not clear what the hell he means by this, but the only way this makes any sense is if Trump thinks that the imbalance represents excess payment for things we’ve purchased from Mexico that America can withhold.

    Since he seems to think trade imbalances result from some kind of failure of deal-making, this seems like as reasonable an assumption as any.

  8. You could build a fence on the Southern border for the price of one Ford-class Aircraft Carrier or about 18 months of foreign aid to Israel and Egypt.

    1. Sweet! A fence.

      What’s the cost of patrolling thousands of miles of fence?

    2. Using one boondoggle to justify another = classic statist ruse.

      You forgot about the maintenance and staffing costs. Oh and the cost to freedom.

      1. Unless you are an ancap, you are a statist, too.

        Hungary built a fence in a couple of months and it worked.

        You are right I am interfering with the rights of business owners to privatize the profits and then then socialize the costs by sticking the rest of us for the bill for the illegal’s welfare, education, health care and prison costs.

        1. You’re socializing the costs of your fucking fence that I don’t want, buddy. Amazing how it’s OK when you do it.

          1. If you offer to cover all the social spending on illegals, then I would be okay with no fence. Deal?

            1. I don’t want social spending of any kind. Do you have a fucking point?

              1. My point is that a fence (and the staff to monitor it) will cost less than social spending spent on illegals.

                We’re not in Libertopia. We’re going to have to pay for one or the other.

                In the long term, we might be able to get rid of the social spending, if we have a fence.

                Without one, we’re going to end up like California.

                1. As Hyperion says below, a fence is fascist level insanity. It’s abjectly insane to think that it would even work, that it wouldn’t be absurdly expensive, and the further body blow it would deliver to civil liberties is horrifying.

                  Frankly, if you actually want one and think it would work, there is something seriously wrong with you. I can’t stress that enough. It’s like saying “we should build a bridge to Antarctica!” If someone actually proposes it, you avoid eye contact and move away slowly with no sudden movement, because buddy, you are animal crackers.

                  Enjoy your fantasy world, since you’ll never live in it anyway.

                  1. Israel also had a border fence and it seems to be working rather well.

                    1. Yes, that’s *exactly* like the US-Mexico border. Even more so than Hungary. And Israel: my dream example of how I’d like to live.

                      How’s the weather in Fantasyland?

                    2. Yes, that’s *exactly* like the US-Mexico border. Even more so than Hungary

                      Demographics is not his forte. It’s sort of proglodyte like in it’s naivete.

                    3. I can build a fence.

                      Anyone who hires an illegal without previous due diligence to try and prevent that goes to jail.

                      My fence would also only work one way unlike physical fences which fence me in as well as fence others out.

                      There is an old cowboy song that goes ” don’t fence me in”

                      Sing it with me boys, ” don’t fence me in”.

            2. I for one, don’t want to give tax payer funded benefits to new immigrants and I’d take it away from most of the lazy people born here who are already gaming the system to get it.

              That being said, a wall is a batshit insane idea. It’s fascism level stuff.

              1. Right, because the fence necessitates armed guards. And our border is much larger than Hungary’s. The armed guards seem to think they can violate citizens’ rights hundreds of miles in-country from the border now, too.

                1. Also, Hungary’s fence is only effective, to the extent that it is effective, because it is only serving to divert the flow of migrants along the path of least resistance. There is no other border for people coming to Mexico to cross.

                  1. And now Slovenia is building a fence on the border with Croatia.

                    We will see. Perhaps the Europeans have the will to keep the migrants out, perhaps they don’t.

                    1. Perhaps the Europeans have the will to keep the migrants out

                      Won’t that depend on the strength of that will?

                    2. Won’t that depend on the strength of that will?

                      Maybe their will will triumph.

                2. Hungary is smaller than the state of VA, about 10,000 sq miles smaller. They are also facing a fulll scale invasion which they cannot possibly accommodate, with many of the invaders being possible Islamic terror recruits.

                  It’s a complete different scenario.

            3. I offer to abolish all social spending on everybody and keep the immigrants.

              1. I’ll take that deal, too. Who do I have to vote for to get that implemented?

            4. I a lot more worried about all of the social spending on American citizens.

              1. There are only 300+ American Citizens.

                There are 5.8 billion people who live in countries poorer than Mexico.

                1. And they are all going to move to the US?

                  Point is, I’m not sure why American citizens have any more right to stolen money than anyone else. And at the moment they use a hell of a lot more of it than immigrants do.

                  1. All of them don’t have to move to the US to wreck this country forever and destroy and hope we have for a Libertarian country.

                    As posted below 13-15 millioin people apply for the green card lottery each year.

                    Here’s one poll that says 165 million would like to move to the US

                    http://www.gallup.com/poll/124…..ently.aspx

                    Then add in their kids and relatives, and before you know it the country is transformed beyond recognition

                    1. before you know it the country is transformed beyond recognition

                      That could be good or bad. In any case, I don’t like social engineering.

                    2. Your post made me think of a question. How many here believe and open door policy concerning immigration will better this country’s chances of becoming more libertarian?

              2. No kidding. Most of the illegal immigrants are willing to work. Americans on welfare, not so much.

                1. Unfortunately we can’t deport the US Citizens on welfare.

                  The working illegal immigrants still get welfare benefits, and no one seems very interested in cutting them off.

                  1. We can’t deport them, but we can stop letting them live off other people when a majority of them are perfectly capable of work. We’ve made government assisted living so attractive that a very large percentage of people have just done the math and made the logical decision. They are not as much to blame as the enabler, the government that is. This is what buying votes leads to, a growing lack of incentive to do anything productive. I also blame illegal immigrants getting government assistance on the government, not the migrants. Most of these people are very willing to work, but when the government just tells them they’re entitled to all this free stuff, they naturally think they are supposed to take it, they don’t see it as they are doing anything wrong. Blame the government for this shit, not the migrants.

                    1. I blame both.

                      Government provides the opportunity (and in fact is advertising it to illegals), but its the immigrants who choose to sign up.

                      We are a long way from Peak Blame.

                    2. I blame the Natives more than the illegals. Hell most don’t speak English nor have they grown up in a culture where living off of welfare is supposed to be something to be ashamed of.

                      The Natives that is..

                  2. If one believes it is a good idea to have an open door policy in a welfare state then those same people cannot complain about the freebies and exemptions illegals get. In a welfare state, you can’t have one without the other.

                    1. Retraction: In a welfare state you cannot have open borders with those coming in partake of the welfare benefits.

        2. Because the Hungarian border is so similar to the US-Mexico border.

          There is fence along lots of the US border already and people keep cutting holes in it.

          1. Or tunneling under, next up human catapults.

            1. I like the idea of human catapults. A form of skeet shooting

              https://youtu.be/dk47saogI8o

        3. There is also the big problem of fuking over people who own land along the border.

          1. Most of them would probably welcome the fence compared to the problems they face without it.

          2. Most of them would probably welcome the fence compared to the problems they face without it.

            1. Most of the landowners along the border in Texas aren’t small holders.

              They own hundreds and often thousands of acres and most would probably donate a few hundred acres to solve their other problems related to people regularly tresspassing their property and trashing it, breaking onto houses and outbuildings as they head north. You should google the problem. The problems are real and serious. Shots fired at them, coming home to find people in their house, and the list goes on..

              Of course it won’t work that way they will extract as much as they can for it and should. I;m saying that if there were no other way to solve their problems they would donate the land needed for a fence.

              1. You should google the problem. The problems are real and serious. Shots fired at them, coming home to find people in their house, and the list goes on..

                It’s ended up with at least one rancher losing his ranch in a civil suit by said illegals. And Morris Dees of the SPLC. I want to say there’ve been others.

                Good luck getting CBP to do anything about it. Hell, the ranchers would pay to have a fence/wall for their property.

              2. That’s good. You’re saying that those coming over illegally, trespassing, trashing the land, breaking into houses and outbuildings should be given land some of the land from those they are trespassing on. Maybe they should demand some of that land, after all, it’s not there fault the land, houses and outbuildings are in their way on their illegal trek up north. These people need to be appeased, it’s their right.

    3. What about Trebuchets? How do you keep those dirty Mexkins from just using trebuchets to shoot themselves over the wall? Do we set up two turrets, one with Lindsey Graham and one with John McCain to shoot down the Mexkins?

  9. Grrr anti open border libertarians failing to make cogent arguments against open border grrr grrr john arguing against open borders on the basis of wage depression and somehow calling himself a libertarian grrr grrr

    1. John doesn’t call himself a libertarian.

      1. He is a conservative?

        1. He’s definitely libertarian on most issues. Foreign policy and immigration, maybe not as much as most here.

          1. I can understand the deviation on foreign policy. I am more hawkish than most libertarians, but I havent heard a cogent argument against open borders yet

            1. Depends on what you mean by open borders. I might not be all in for that either.

              1. “Open Borders” is a near-meaningless catch phrase.

                Unless you are an anarchist, you really don’t mean open-open borders. You probably still want to screen criminals and infectious diseases. So, not open borders – immigrants are stopped, screened, some turned back, etc.

                If you want to screen out welfare cases, then you need to confirm that they have a job waiting for them. That’s the purpose a lot of our current immigration foofaraw.

                I suspect most Open Borders talk is mostly about reducing to some degree our current restrictions, but not actually doing away altogether with most of them.

            2. An argument against open borders? Well, how about some practical issues when, say, 100 million people will arrive in the US in the first year of open borders? You think I’m exaggerating? In the last three years between 13 and 15 million people participated in the green card lottery every year. The chances to win a green card in this lottery are infinitesimal. Many more people would come if the legal admission to the US was guaranteed.

              1. If you just completely opened up the borders and sent out invitations, I’m thinking you would get more than 100 million takers the first year. That would go upwards towards a billion in no time at all. Imagine the USA with the population of India. It’s doable, but I have no idea what effects that would have on our country. Not sure anyone could predict it. I don’t much care for the idea of it, but apparently a lot of people think it would be fine.

                1. I think some sort of equilibrium would be reached before the US had the population of India. At some point a massive influx of immigrants is going to change how attractive a place is to immigrate to. When there are no jobs and no places to live, it has to slow down.

                  I don’t know that I care much for the idea either. But it’s not mine to decide.

                  1. Since most people migrate these days for free shit, I think stopping all free shit would basically counter the appeal for all but the people that are looking for something else?

                    1. Since most people migrate these days for free shit

                      That may be the case in Europe. But I think it is far from true for the US.

                2. It would be like india. Maybe we could force compulsory service of all college graduates to help with immigrants like what Eckhardt Rehberg wants to do in Germany.

              2. That’s why my compromise position is to let anyone in who has a job offer or sponsor in the US. If someone is willing to employ or house you, I don’t see any justification for keeping someone out other than contagious disease or a history of criminality.

                1. Sounds reasonable, plus no chance of any type of government assistance. It sounds a good place to start to me.

                  I was also thinking about a Visa system similar to the tourist visa, in which you could gain a sort of migrant worker status. So you could some in and work for 6 months of the year, but you can’t set up permanent residence. That would probably satisfy a majority of the Mexicans who come here for work now. As it is, once they’re in, they’re scared to leave and they should be. But with this program, they’d be free to come and go (on a limited basis). Maybe once you’ve been on this visa for 5 years and you’ve demonstrated good behavior and no overstays, you can work year round if you want. It’s sort of pathway to permanent residence.

                  1. The migrant worker visa idea seems like a good one too. From what I have heard, a lot of Mexicans in particular would like to work seasonally in the US, but return home every year. Makes sense. The money you make in the US goes further in Mexico. I have also been given reason to belileve that when the Mexican border was less tightly controlled, a lot more people would come to the US to work temporarily and then return home. But tighter border controls make it too risky, so more people stay illegally.

              3. I forgot to mention that natives of the countries below are not allowed to participate in the green card lottery.

                Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.

                1. South Korea? They’re practically out 51st state. WTF?

                  That list seems more than a little esoteric, what is the reasoning behind it?

                  1. Wait, let me guess, we already have a lot of immigrants each year from each of those countries?

                  2. Because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years.

                    So, the list includes every populous country in the world and every country that has already sent a lot of immigrants here.

                    The official name of the lottery is the diversity immigrant visa program.

                    1. Not sure about the others, but i know that Filipinos have an easier immigration track than other nationalities.

                    2. I thinks South Korea has one of the easiest. We even have a drivers license agreement with them. They can just exchange their license for one here, like you can when you move to another state.

              4. This is flawed reasoning.

                13 to 15 million people participate in the lottery every year but only about 600,000 are issued which means that there are only about 600k to 1.5 million new applicants every year. So if you opened up the borders completely you’d get 15 million immigrants who have been waiting for green cards and maybe another 15 million who hadn’t previously applied who take advantage of the opportunity. After that initial influx it is likely that immigration would quickly fall into the 2 – 3 million a year range and given the massive housing and job shortages a rapid influx of 30 million people would create it is a fair bet that a third to a half of those immigrants would leave almost as quickly as they came

                1. That’s a point I try to make too. As more people immigrate, conditions will change. Most immigrants to the US are coming for opportunities to work and when there are fewer such opportunities people will still come. It’s like predictions of peak-everything and global warming that assume that human behaviors will not change in the face of changing conditions, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.

                  1. As more people immigrate, conditions will change.

                    So, if I understand it, the big migration to America provided by open borders will stop when America is pretty much on the same plane as the shitholes people are trying to leave?

                    I’ll pass, thanks.

                    1. I don’t think it even has to be to that extent. When the economy was more shitty, immigration slowed way down. Immigrants aren’t a mindless swarm, they come because there is something for them.

                      If I were the god-king of the world, I’d pass too. But I’m not, so it’s not up to me. I have no claim on the entire country.

                2. Only 50,000 immigrant visas are issued every year. And don’t forget that natives of China, India, Mexico and many other countries (the full list is upthread) are not allowed to participate in the lottery.

                  1. Only 50,000 immigrant visas are issued every year through the green card lottery.

                3. “After that initial influx it is likely that immigration would quickly fall into the 2 – 3 million a year range ”

                  and you base this wisdom on what ?

                  ” given the massive housing and job shortages a rapid influx of 30 million people would create it is a fair bet that a third to a half of those immigrants would leave almost as quickly as they came”

                  Just like in Europe ?

                  BRILLIANT !11!! * takes a slug of Guiness*

                  1. RC‘s succinct point above really bears repeating:

                    So, if I understand it, the big migration to America provided by open borders will stop when America is pretty much on the same plane as the shitholes people are trying to leave?

                    I mean, that is the mechanism that Open Borders folks state will slow immigration to the U.S, right? You may claim that you have no claim on the country, but I’m pretty sure that someone will step up with one, if the alternative is turning into Latin America before immigration slows.

      2. John is more libertarian than he used to be, and he’s becoming more libertarian all the time.

        You can’t come here every day for years, think about issues in libertarian terms and it not have any effect on you–unless you’re as dense as Tony.

        http://www.politicsforum.org/i…..ame_62.php

        And John certainly is not that.

    2. Step 1) End Welfarism
      Step 2) End Warfarism
      Step 3) End the War on Drugs
      Step 4) Go ahead and open borders because there’d likely few people compelled to come here if their homelands weren’t smoking piles of rubble, and if they still really wanted to come here they knew weren’t getting a big bucket of free stuff.

      If we didn’t out free stuff to all comers, bomb the shit of every hectare where brown, olive, and yellow people live, and didn’t make Mexico an unlivable Thug State, there’d be a lot less takers. And those that wanted to come here would come for a legitimate opportunity to be free and productive and peaceful.

      I certainly wouldn’t to throw open the borders while was are fully engaged in 1-3.

  10. There’s no need to resort to name calling, Dalmia.

    1. I had never heard of Operation Wetback before had a “what the hell…” moment reading that subtitle.

      1. It was a sequel of sorts to Operation Keelhaul.

  11. Truth starts with Tr Trump starts with Tr and TR was our greatest president!

    How do you people not see it!

    1. If you can use those two letters to predict the end of the world and then write a book, you might get rich.

  12. So who else has an urge to listen to some King Crimson right now?

    1. Nice. And now I do. Thanks a lot.

  13. rounding up and dumping one million Mexicans in the most obscure areas from where they would have a hard time returning. Carried out in peak summer months when temperatures touched 125 degrees, the mass deportation program resulted in nearly a hundred deaths from heat stroke and massive abuses of human rights.

    I could give two shits either way, but I find that 100 deaths out of 1 million relocations amazing. Could it have been that physically horrible for so few people to die?

    1. Hard to say. Depends on how the people who didn’t die fared.

    2. How many people out of a million would you expect to die over a 3 month period in normal circumtances?

      1. US death rate is 8 per 1000 annually. So ~2500 or so per million over 3 months if I’m doing the math right. Of course, that includes all of the old and sick people, who are probably underrepresented among immigrants being deported. So I guess I still have no idea.

      2. From Wikipedia, the death rate in the USA in 2014 was 8.15 per 1,000 per 12 months, so for a million people in 3 months it would be 2,037.5.

        1. For some reason I was thinking 3 months was 1/3 of a year.

          1. “For some reason I was thinking 3 months was 1/3 of a year.

            Teacher?

  14. How you send SWAT teams to “humanely” separate families is anyone’s guess.

    Come on, Shikha. Like this.

  15. Shiksa,

    Do you think Trump’s position is all that different from the rest of his Republican colleagues? On a scale of 1-to-10, with 1 being the Dutch-Belgian border and 10 being the Berlin Wall it seems like Trump is at a 9, while his the views of his counterparts average 8.1 with a standard deviation of 1.2. Maybe he’s getting a bad rap?

    1. Shikha… Damn spell checker.

        1. That’s what I say. You guys hate the War on Drugs and military spending. I hate the War on Drugs and military spending. Can’t we all just come to some mutually beneficial agreement?

        2. Insanity later.

          1. Why don’t we let the military sell drugs to fund itself. Beats the hell out of girl scout cookies.

    2. I’d go with the Belgian-Luxembourger border. I got strip searched on the Belgian Dutch border once.

      1. The border guards must’ve overheard you talking about how you think waffles are a highly overrated breakfast food.

        1. A dog thought I smelled like weed on a train. Which I probably did having just come from Amsterdam. I think they get a lot of pressure from France and Germany to keep too much drugs from getting out. Belgians don’t give a shit.

      2. Also, how funny is it that american socialist’s spellchecker is apparently Jewish?

      3. I carried a big bag of weed on a bicycle across that border. I guess your experience may be different.

    3. Bernie sanders is about at a 4 since he acknowledges a complicated relationship between wages and immigration. To me, this makes him an unapologetic fascist. He probably likes to torture counter-revolutionaries in his single-deodorant-containing slave pit in his hell-hole in Burlington.

      1. “Open borders is a Koch brothers plot” = “complicated”?

        1. You don’t think that having more workers willing to do a job would lower the cost of labor?

          1. You don’t think more consumers demanding goods and services would increase the demand for labor?

            1. Sure. I also think that having a pool of relatively young immigrants who pay taxes make it easier to fund retirement programs like Social Security. Do you think that opening the borders to unrestricted immigration might have un intended consequences and that a politician that says we might want to think about those consequences is as guilty as someone saying that we need to deport 11 million people?

            2. As long as they’relate paying for the goods and services without using taxpayer money I’m all for it.

              Otherwise it’s the proggie logic of the Stimulus.

              1. ‘they’re paying”

        2. You think what bernie sanders is proposing is anywhere near what the rest of the RP is proposing with regard to immigration? Why don’t you guys stop fucking equivocating and making excuses for a political party whose policy options on immigration range from crypto-fascist to out-and-out fascist?

      2. So you’re voting for Hilliary ?

  16. MOAR DAHLMIA!!!1111!!!!!111!!

    1. And guess what the topic is? You’ll never guess.

      1. Hindu nationalism?

        …Hitler?

        1. Fun fact: The swastika it’s a holy symbol in Hinduism!

          1. In Native American art as well. Arizona used to mark their highways with it. The 45th Infantry Division, out of Oklahoma originally, used to have it as their symbol on their divisional patch, before they switched to a thunderbird.

          2. Actually the Hindu swastika is the mirror image of the Nazi swastika.

  17. We’re fortunate that Europe is giving us a laboratory right now to see who is right about mass migration and open borders.

    I suspect that, whatever lessons are to be learned from this, we aren’t going to learn them. Hell, we haven’t learned from their catastrophic experiment with socialism, why would we learn from their experiment with open borders?

    1. Do you mean the internal borders of the Schengen zone? Because Europe (or the EU) definitely doesn’t have open borders to the outside.

      In any case, I don’t think the situation is all that comparable. Most of their immigrants are culturally very different from ours, for one thing. And they have much more generous benefits that they give to immigrants. The fact that so many are trying to get to Germany or Sweden shows that they really are coming for the free stuff. I don’t think that is the case in the US for the most part.

      1. Because Europe (or the EU) definitely doesn’t have open borders to the outside.

        Not de jure, but the ongoing wave of migrants gives us the opportunity to study mass migration over de facto borders in a real-world setting.

        There are definitely differences, like you list. However, if we did go to a much more open borders policy (“Come to the US if you aren’t a convicted criminal or have an infectious disease”), I think those differences would diminish.

        They are definitely coming for free stuff. You’re kidding yourself, though, if you don’t think people would come to the US for free stuff. And, hey, if they have to commit a little fraud to get it, why not?

      2. The predicted costs for Germany in 2015 are somewhere north of 21 billion (ifo institute; currently headed by Sinn). Naturally the left still extols the economic benefits to Germany. Apparently just giving money to people for showing up is the best investment strategy yet conceived. (Right now they’re arguing about whether letting all tolerated migrants/refugees bring in their family members too is the non-neanderthal thing to do. For 2015 that’d be something like 1,2 million times 3-5.)

  18. When did libertarians start to believe this American exceptionalism stuff?

    1. I am a libertarian. I’m not a Libertarian.

      So, I have always believed in American exceptionalism because America is exceptional.

      America is the only country in the history of histories that was founded on a principal, and idea.

      That principal is individual liberty. Not natural geographical borders, or tribalism , nor historical Kingdoms, nor religions.

      The sanctity of the individual is superior to the power of the government.

      That was the way it was supposed to be.

      1. “Founded on a principal”? Do you mean the principal of a school? How do you found a nation on a principal of a school? Or do you perhaps mean a PRINCIPLE?

        And Israel was founded on a principle, an idea.

  19. “… did not reduce unauthorized immigration, legal migration did in the 1950s when the so-called Barcero Program was deregulated.”

    Who would’ve thought that authorizing immigration reduces illegal immigration. Oh my. Try it with stealing, too: authorizing theft reduces illiegal theft. Anyway, your article makes it look like thorough deportation has not been practiced, but rather a scheme relying on legal form. Then you complain that Trump may try the same. What if he will try it without the walk-around part, meaning without circumventing the spirit of the law? Apparently that hasn’t been tried. Regardless of you calling it prehistoric (morally), that might largely work.

  20. Trump is 100% right on illegal immigration. If we don’t put a stop to illegal immigration now – through a wall, mass deportation, end of anchor babies, sanctuary cities, and respect for the rule of law – the USA will cease to exist in a very short time. The Civil War was necessary to end slavery and “preserve the Union”. And closing our borders and deporting those here illegally, is just as necessary if we are to remain a Union.

    A nation that is not able to secure it’s borders, is not a nation. A nation that allows 12 million illegals to reside here, who have no allegiance to America, do not share our common culture or respect for our laws, is allowing itself to be invaded by a hostile force.

    And we see this happening now – in hyperdrive- in Europe – as they scramble to deal with a mass invasion of refugees, illegal immigrants who are threatening to overwhelm and subvert the sovereignty of those European states. (Many of whom BTW are talking about building walls now)

    GO TRUMP 2016

    1. The purpose of the civil war was not to end slavery. I love revisionist history. The purpose of the civil war (which was not a civil war per se since the south wanted to leave the union, it’s right to do so, not to take control of the north) was to solidify federal powers over the states. Preserving the Union was latin for subjugating sovereign state powers to the federal gov’t. I have not problem with and open door policy but not in a welfare state. Those in control of the welfare will use that to manipulate those who want the benefits of that state.

      1. ok. whatever. and the emancipation proclamation never happened, right? You must be one of those people who hated Lincoln for expanding the powers of the fed? – I guess you would support each state having its own currency again too, right?

        Earth to moron. The South seceded over Slavery – and ending slavery was a non-negotiable issue for the North – so the choice was to either allow the South to secede essentially ending the American experiment – or to fight to preserve the union that had been established in 1776 and codified a few years later in the Constitution.

        And frankly, an “open door policy” is also idiotic – so unless you have an “open door” policy at your own home where anyone can just walk in and stay if they like – then you are nothing but a hypcrite.

  21. Here’s how you solve the illegal immigration problem – put a $100 bounty on them. Bring in a wetback’s scalp and collect the reward. Use the money to build the fence.

    Preferably a nice white picket fence.

  22. RE: [Trump] insists that he’ll make Mexico pay for the Great Wall of Trump?and Make America Great Again?through the country’s $50 billion-plus trade imbalance with the United States. It is not clear what the hell he means by this,” On the contrary, there is only one thing he can mean by it: he will threaten to impose large tariffs on products made in Mexico. In other words, a giant tax hike on Americans.

    1. I believe tariffs would be one way – I think he also suggested a tax on all money sent out of the country to mexico(such as on wire transfers). Quite an ironic twist – so that even those who are here illegally and sending monies back to Mexico, would end up actually paying for the Wall.

  23. I believe tariffs would be one way – I think he also suggested a tax on all money sent out of the country to mexico(such as on wire transfers). Quite an ironic twist – so that even those who are here illegally and sending monies back to Mexico, would end up actually paying for the Wall.

  24. 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.HomeJobs90.com

  25. Trump’s military would be used as leverage to strong arm the world into doing America’s bidding?whether that means forcing Mexico to build a wall on the Rio Grande, forcibly taking Iraqi oil as payment for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, imposing massive tariffs on companies that shift operations abroad, stopping China from “manipulating” its currency, or forcing South Korea and Europe to pay for America’s security guarantee. In his universe, there is no win-win. It is either exploit or be exploited.

    moschino sweater

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.