Donald Trump

If Trump Is Going To Start Deporting Immigrants Who Broke the Law, Will He Start with Melania?

A lot of evidence suggests the First Lady broke the law in her early days in the United States. Which is an argument to CHANGE THE LAWS.

|

Sgt. Gabriela Garcia, public domain

For me, the single most repellent element of Donald Trump's legislative agenda involves immigration policy. His protectionist trade policy is awful and will beggar us as a nation, but to demonize the "wretched refuse" of the world that comes to America "yearning to be free" goes beyond mere stupidity. Illegals commit fewer crimes than natives and make America greater by paying taxes and by lowering prices and doing jobs Americans won't do. As Ronald Reagan, who legalized millions with the stroke of a pen in the late 1980s, could tell you, their legal status is arbitrary, too. If your only crime is to "break into" America because you want a better life for yourself or your kids, I refuse to call you a criminal. Like a lot of Americans, I'm more likely to call you Grandma or Grandpa.

As Shikha Dalmia reports, today Trump will announce plans to start building, rebuilding, and expanding a wall along the United States' southern border. If the past is any indication, it will be massively expensive and totally useless, and not simply because 40 percent or more of illegals come here legally and fewer and fewer migrants in general are coming from down Mexico way. It's because governments don't ultimately control migration flows any more than they control the flow of illegal drugs. Prohibition, whether in liquor, pot, or people can cause a huge amount of damage and bring violence, but it ultimately doesn't work, except for brief periods of time in totalitarian circumstances.

FFS, if you can still can get every illegal drug known to man in supermax prisons, how the hell do you think you're going to keep out poor people motivated to leave behind a rotten situation in a third-world country? The short answer is: You can't. Especially with a fence along 2,000 miles of desert. If the American economy is strong, people will come whether they can enter the country legally or not. If the economy is soft, especially when an immigrant's home-country economy is OK, they will stop coming. Which is exactly why Mexicans stopped coming to the United States eight or more years ago. The only proven deterrents to immigrants, legal or illegal, is a shit economy, global depression, or world war. None of those are preferable to having to hit a button indicating what language your prefer at your local ATM.

But if President Trump is in fact dead-set on deporting and boxing out ilegal immigrants, he should consider first the case of his third wife, Melania. Back in November, the AP reported that it discovered documents which

show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country. The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa.

In other words—words that anti-immigrant activists constantly invoke—she broke the law and thus should be bounced from ever being able to become an American (she became a citizen in 2006). What part of illegal doesn't she understand? Questions remain about the conditions under which she received her first green card in 2001, but if she lied at any point during her immigration process, she could theoretically be booted out of the country.

Brookings

I raise this not to paint the former Melania Knaus as some sort of criminal or her husband as a hypocrite but simply to humanize other immigrants. One of the major problems with the reactionary nature of the media today and many Trump opponents is that they are blinded by rage and just want to score cheap points to diminish the billionaire. That type of response gets in the way of serious, substantive policy discussions that are about more than whether the Democrats will pick up a seat in the Senate or be able to humiliate Ben Carson during confirmation hearing. Public policy and politics are ultimately is about flesh-and-blood people and when it comes to subjects such as drug policy, school choice, and immigration, we should never be overly concerned with tribal allegiance or making an elected official or public figure look like a POS. We should focus on the lives helped or hurt.

So why did the first lady want to come to America from her native Slovenia? She's quite eloquent on the topic:

"I wanted to follow my dream to a place where freedom and opportunity were in abundance. So of course, I came here," she said. "Living and working in America was a true blessing, but I wanted something more. I wanted to be an American."

The United States government has every right to reject immigrants who have criminal records, or who have communicable diseases or otherwise present serious public health concerns. Yes, immigrants should not be eligible for means-tested welfare benefits (they haven't been for decades now). Yes, they should pay full taxes (most illegals already pay large amounts of income and FICA taxes, which they will never collect in the form of Social Security or Medicare benefits). Beyond that, the best way forward—from a moral position as well as an economic one and a cultural one, too—is to let them all in. Contrary to restrictionists, not everyone in the world will move here. Migration flows are pretty self-regulating actually, but it's actually pretty tough to grow an economy when population is flat or declining (go ask Japan about that). Virtually all of the problems associated with illegal immigration stem not from the immigration part but from the illegal part, just like most of the problems associated with illegal drugs stem from prohibition, not the substances themselves.

Donald Trump wants to Make America Great Again, but his vision of our country is stuck in 1970s New York, a time when his city was ravaged by crime and bankruptcy and, not uncoincidentally, the percentage of the population that was foreign-born was near a historic low. His Great America was one in which the masses yearning to be free were either stuck behind Iron and Bamboo Curtains or were busy making coin in post-war Europe and Asia. Nobody, least of all relatively poor people who are still magnificent enough to think of America as the Land of Opportunity, should have to pay the freight for his dark nostalgia.

NEXT: Scientifically Absurd Proposed FDA Regulations on Genetically Improved Livestock Should Be Withdrawn Immediately

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. Question how can you fairly count proportionality of crime between illegal immigrants and legal residents of the United States, if the former is much harder to force to stand trial when they already don’t have a legal residence?

    1. 100% of illegals are committing a crime.

      1. I think Nick’s response to that criticism is right there in paragraph 1:

        As Ronald Reagan, who legalized millions with the stroke of a pen in the late 1980s, could tell you, their legal status is arbitrary, too. If your only crime is to “break into” America because you want a better life for yourself or your kids, I refuse to call you a criminal. Like a lot of Americans, I’m more likely to call you Grandma or Grandpa.

        1. It is not up to you nor Nick Gillespie nor the president to determine the laws of the country.

          And we have seen the executive branch engaged in unprecedented power grab of the executive branch from the legislative branch. That should concern all Americans but especially those that call themselves libertarians.

          1. In other words, the rule of law matters.

            This is essentially the difference between a small-l libertarian and an anarchist: the libertarian believes in the rule of law (and tries to keep gov’t at the bare minimum necessary to achieve liberty, which is not the same as freedom) while the anarchist does not believe in the rule of law (and tries to keep gov’t at zero so as to maximize his/her own freedom, which is not the same as liberty).

          2. “It is not up to you nor Nick Gillespie nor the president to determine the laws of the country.”

            actually i think, one way or another, we all have a voice in doing exactly that.

      2. No, it is a civil offense. The remedy for that offense is removal.

        1. The suggestions made about the First Lady in this article are highly inappropriate and unpresidented; I would remind Mr. Gillespie that his proper, and narrowly confined, duty as a journalist is to present our national leader and his family in the most flattering manner possible, and to inform the public of any alternative facts that the President chooses to promulgate in his important tweets. Soon, hopefully, we will begin to establish certain limitations with respect to the “expressive” capacities of those who do not understand how this works. Surely no one here would dare to defend the outrageous “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

          http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. And the other leftist meme of this piece is that the illegals are taking the jobs that no one wants. The majority of illegals are in jobs where they are a minority: waitressing, construction, auto body mechanic, etc. Obviously if they are a minority in these job sectors, they are taking jobs from legals. The fruit picker that is working a job that no legal wants is, by far, the exception.

      1. Obviously if they are a minority in these job sectors, they are taking jobs from legals

        Does not follow. If my company hired one black person for our location he would be the only one and would be in the minority. That would not mean that he “took a job” from a white person.

        1. From: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/f…..ns-5-1.pdf
          —-
          This analysis tests the often-made argument that immigrants do only jobs Americans don’t want. If the argument is correct, there should be occupations comprised entirely or almost entirely of immigrants (legal
          and illegal). But Census Bureau data collected from 2009 to 2011, which allows for detailed analysis of all
          472 separate occupations, shows that there were only a handful of majority-immigrant occupations. Thus, there really are no jobs that Americans won’t do. Further, we estimated the share of occupations that are comprised of illegal immigrants, and found that there are no occupations in which the majority of workers are illegally in the country.

          Janitors are 73% native born.

          Illegal immigrants work mostly in construction, cleaning, maintenance, food service, garment manufacturing, and agricultural occupations. However, the overwhelming majority of workers even in these areas are native-born or legal immigrants.

          Finally, if ag workers are needed, make a LEGAL guest worker program. It is not up to Nick Gillespie to determine what is legal or not.

      2. The governor of Alabama was so efficient at driving illegal immigrants from the state in 2011 that crops rotted in the trees and the fields. Farmers lost $140 million.

        1. was there anything that stopped farmers from hiring locals? It’s Alabama, not like the whites and blacks know nothing about crops and picking them.

      3. And the reason nobody wants to become a fruit picker is because welfare pays better. Rewarding sloth is bad policy.

        That said, at the $2b development going on at the waterfront in Washington, DC, (the one with the developer-owned marina that was funded ~90% by local and federal tax dollars), fully 75% of the workers are Spanish speakers. A while after they showed up when the work first began, there was a cattle call for more help…and a biiiig line formed of what appeared to be hundreds of black applicants (DC is, after all, a near majority black city). I seriously doubt that all comers got jobs.

        Gillespie and the rest of the open borders gang are full of crap if they think building hundreds of medium-rise luxury condos are jobs Americans won’t do. And I’d bet a dollar that most of the Spanish speakers came here illegally.

        1. Welfare pays A LOT BETTER, at least in the state of Illinois, where according to a study done by the Illinois Policy Institute, a person must make ~$38/hr net income before it makes sense to get completely off of all welfare assistance. Below that hourly wage, they can maximize their income by being on some sort of welfare.

          $38/hr. is a lot more than the poverty line, and it is a lot more than the bulk of the middle class makes (it is up in the upper-middle-class). I know well-educated, male, US-born, white, IT workers (supposedly the privileged class) that just barely make that much.

          Although I too am in theory an open-borders guy, Nick’s one big blindness in his position on illegal immigration is that welfare can be overlooked. It can’t.

          1. Any immigrant who can come into this country and immediately make $38/hr. net income would not come here illegally. They would not want the hassle of being illegal, nor would such high-paying jobs hire them.

            It has been pointed out before that Mexico’s higher-earning citizens don’t leave Mexico because they are already doing quite well there, so it is safe to say that nearly all illegal immigrants to the USA, be it from Latin American or Asia or Africa or wherever, are not coming here with the skills to immediately earn enough to not need welfare.

            They might, out of dignity or fear, refuse to go on welfare–bless those folks. But the welfare system strongly incentivizes them to get on welfare ASAP. And we know from interviews with the recent illegal immigrants into Europe from Muslim countries that they are choosing which European countries to enter primarily based on the generosity of those countries’ welfare systems.

  2. Open Borders is a pipe dream.

    1. Letting people go back and forth across our borders so long as they can show ID and and we can check it isn’t a pipe dream at all.

      1. True. But that is not the core concept of Open Borders, is it? I thought the whole concept is that all people can move freely around the world without government interference…which is a pipe dream and literal nightmare.

        1. Open borders was never about letting every terrorist cross the border without checking their passports.

            1. Read it again.

              “A border may be an open border due to a lack of legal controls or intentional legislation allowing free movement of people across the border (de jure), or a border may be an open border due to lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border (de facto).”

              People who are arguing for open borders–as an official policy per some kind of law or treaty–are not arguing for letting any terrorist or foreign nation march across our borders unchecked.

              If you can dig up some small state libertarian somewhere who made such an outrageous argument, that isn’t typical of what open borders is about. Check your ID, make sure you’re a Mexican citizen, aren’t a convicted felon, not wanted for some crime, you’re inoculated against certain diseases, etc., then you’re free to go back and forth across the border per treaty or U.S. policy.

              That’s what most open borders people are talking about when we’re talking about open borders.

              1. So it’s not about letting people immigrate freely between countries? Don’t get me wrong here, I am for legal immigration. I am just asking because there seems to be an underlying theme on Open Borders that there should be no such thing as illegal immigration. Enlighten me, sir.

                1. This is what I was talking about before, and I think Gillespie could make this clearer himself.

                  Because we think immigration restrictions should be minimal doesn’t necessarily mean we think that there should be no restrictions.

                  The border should be open to average Mexican citizens who want to come here to shop, look for work, tourism, or for any other reason–so long as they’re aren’t an apparent threat to anyone’s rights.

                  Incidentally, I also believe in the Second Amendment, that everyone should be free to own a gun. If you’re a convicted felon, then that’s a different story–after you’ve been convicted of bank robbery, you probably shouldn’t be free to take your gun to prison with you. So, yes, you can forfeit your right to own a gun, but generally speaking, yeah, everyone should be free to own a gun.

                  People should be free to cross our borders legally, as well, just because they want to. If they’re a threat to our rights, well, that’s like a bank robber and his Second Amendment rights.

                  I’m still in favor of open borders. It’s just that one side of the immigration debate has taken that phrase and made something ridiculous out of it–that it never really was.

                  1. Thanks Ken.

                  2. The main problem is an overly powerful Federal government. It affects people’s live way too much, which makes it a prize for those wanting to impose their own values on everyone else, which is the majority of the population. Immigration (illegal or otherwise) is made to be in service to the goal of obtaining power. (Whether it actually works out like this is a different question.) It can’t be viewed in isolation.

                  3. Look for work?
                    Big negatory on that one.
                    American jobs are for Americans. Trying to fit all the worker regulations into a framework of a foreign citizen would be a nightmare. They wouldn’t be eligible for SS, or SSDI, but they would have the payroll taxes and employer share deducted, unless there would be a whole new set of accounting regulations implemented. What about the worker’s compensation of a foreigner? The minimum wage requirements? Earn your money but take it to Mexico?
                    Come, visit, be a tourist, but go back for your employment. If you want to work, here, apply for legal residency.

                2. Immigrants have never been totally, 100% free, to enter the US. If they came off the ship with a serious communicable disease, they were sent back. If they had a criminal history where they came from, they weren’t allowed in either. Ellis Island, the poster child for “open” border entry, wasn’t just to fill out paperwork and then ride the ferry into the city.

            2. Taken from something I wrote below:

              We should be careful not to conflate two different questions.

              Question 1) Should we have an immigration policy?

              Question 2) What should our immigration policy be?

              Open borders people are not simply people who don’t want to have any immigration policy.

              They may simply believe that our immigration policy should be expansive.

              Hell, they may believe both, like Milton Friedman talking about the Fed: I don’t think we should have a Fed, but if you’re going to have one over my objections anyway, then here’s what I think we should do . . .

            1. From your link:

              “Libertarians assert that: “Efforts by the government to manage the labor market are as apt to fail as similar efforts to protect domestic industries or orchestrate industrial policy. […] If an immigrant seeks to engage in peaceful, voluntary transactions that do not threaten the freedom or security of the native-born, the government should not interfere.”

              That is not about letting terrorists across the border or foreign armies to march across our border unchecked.

              That is not about letting known felons across our border either.

              That is not about letting people with active communicable diseases across our border.

              1. The government should interfere in anything that threatens the freedom or security of the native born–because that’s the government’s legitimate responsibility in protecting our rights.

                We have police to protect our rights from criminals.

                Courts to protect our rights from the police.

                We have a military to protect our rights from foreign threats.

                And we have border security to protect our rights from threats that want to come across our borders.

                None of that is incompatible with open borders. Saying that criminals, terrorists, and other threats to our security are incompatible with open borders is like saying that police arresting criminals is incompatible with protecting our rights. It simply isn’t so.

                Looks like you’ve been sold a bill of goods. Don’t believe the hype.

                1. But Ken, what you’re saying sounds level-headed and reasonable. Wouldn’t it be easier to ignore what you’re saying and continue arguing against the cartoon strawman version of your argument to flatter my own prejudices?

              2. Taking a job, that would otherwise go to the citizen, or legal alien, is a threat to their freedom and security, thus the government should interfere.

            2. And if you look up open borders on Wikipedia, the very first sentence is (bolding added) “An open border is a border that enables free movement of people between different jurisdictions with [b]limited[/b] or no restrictions on movement, that is to say lacking substantive border control.” Nobody defines open borders as ONLY counting if you have NO controls whatsoever. An ID check at the border but not requiring any special visas to get a job isn’t an open borders policy.

              Meanwhile Schengen is considered an open border region yet just because I can fly to France and then hop over to Germany without having show my passport a second time doesn’t mean that Germany isn’t going to check whether I’m an EU citizen before letting me get a job.

              1. Oops, I guess reason either doesn’t allow markup or I used the wrong markup. Also, here’s the Wikipedia page on open borders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

                1. Wrong “markup” <> instead of [ ].

        2. If we had truly open borders, we’d have a few billion new residents from the 3rd world in about a month. It’s not doable by any means, especially with tax payer dollars being handed out to new arrivals IF they came illegally. And that is happening, at least in some states. I don’t know if any of that is coming from the feds, but I know with 100% certainty that it’s happening.

          1. Yeah, I’m pretty sure NYC is showering them with all kinds of goodies.

            1. It doesn’t have to be paradise, just much better than where they come from.

          2. Open borders requires a few things that typical open borders proponents refuse to accept.

            1) national ID
            2) ID required for all interactions with government and public authorities (voting, welfare, benefits, hospital, hotels, etc)
            3) Immediate deportation of felonious law breaking visitors

            1. I would add that it also requires the ability to keep some people out, and if you can’t effectively exclude the people you reject, then you can’t really have effective open borders. In other words, having open borders stick may require that you have secure borders.

              It should also be noted that opening the borders dose a lot for securing them. If anybody with a legitimate ID could simply drive across a checkpoint, then they wouldn’t walk dozens of miles through the desert at night. The only people out there would be the bad guys–and that would make them much easier to catch without millions of job seekers to hide behind.

              I should say that the ID requirements could be detailed in a treaty with Mexico, too.

              IF IF IF you standardize your ID system so that we can confirm who these people are independently–that they’ve been inoculated against certain diseases, that they aren’t convicted felons, etc.–then and only then can they come across our borders by simply having their IDs scanned.

              1. Standardized and reliable ID seems tall order given the corruption and messiness in Mexico and some parts of Latin America.

                I largely agree with your stance on borders, particularly that the ability to enforce some sort of control is necessary even with relative openness. Whether there’s a cost-effective system that can cover most of the bases and is tenable politically is pretty questionable though.

            2. The only one of those I would disagree with is the first. If the second is in place then there’s no need for the first and it would be a dangerous precedent to set.

        1. Not for being able to drive or getting on a plane. Only for voting. And when it comes to driving, the illegals have it made, at least here in MD. All of them have at least 3 aliases they use and all of them have several fake SSNs. They all buy these old beater cars and they sell them to each other and exchange the plates, something which is a big no no for us poor overly regulated citizens. If they get pulled over for whatever and get their car impounded, they don’t show up for court. Not that I care, fuck the government, just saying. But they are totally operating outside the norms and doing stuff that will get any of us poor citizen schmucks in a heap of trouble. Yet they get away with it and nothing happens.

          You don’t need any documentation to get a driver’s license here, IF you are here illegally. But if you are a legal immigrant, you’re going to need a truck to haul in all the stacks of documents you’re going to have to show. When my wife went in to get her license, one of the things we needed was a marriage certificate showing she’s married to me. They tried to reject it by saying it’s not the official copy, which it is, it has the seal stamped on it straight from the courthouse. I finally got angry enough with them that they admitted they were wrong and let us proceed.

          1. What proof do you need that you’re illegal? Can I get one?

            1. Just announce it to the proper TOP. MAN. They’ll take care of the rest.

            2. I just want to be treated like an illegal…EBT cards (multiple) WIC , AFDC, Subsidized Housing, my native language (mandatory translations in all documents), no cultural appropriation…and I’ll come up with some more in a minute…you can’t get that as a citizen

          2. I have to wonder what a survey of those the Left claims have trouble obtaining IDs would turn up. I suspect everyone is capable of getting one. You practically need one to exist in the modern economy. I’m sure there are people who don’t have them, but it’s also doubtful they vote then.

      2. You aren’t getting the left behind any such deal. The only reason they want anyone immigrating here is so that they can vote for Democrats. They could care less about how this affects the country, good or bad. It’s all about them and getting more votes. We all saw what Obama did to the Cubans after they voted for the wrong party.

        1. If there were a treaty under consideration that let Mexican citizens stay here and work here and go back and forth across the border, I suspect many of them would get behind it.

          1. Well I’m for it. But I’m also for voter ID, so they aren’t going to compromise on that. No other fucking country on the planet that I know of will let non-citizens vote in their elections, let alone encouraging them to do it.

            1. “We need to be more like Europe, unless doing so might reduce our power.”

          2. I don’t think so. That’s essentially what Bush proposed, and the Democrats weren’t interested. They want voters, not workers.

            1. Which is shortsighted. They need workers to make the money they’ll redistribute to their other voters.

              1. But the problem is as soon as the voters realize the Democrats are redistruting their money the ones with an iq higher than 20 stop voting for them.

          3. Already happens in both Brownsville and El Paso TX. Our landscaper (corporate) has all legal and holding cards crew, supplemented from time to time with a few he’s allowed to add BY LAW.

            Democrats are not interested in ‘guest’ workers who won’t illegally vote Democrat.

        2. The only reason they want anyone immigrating here is so that they can vote for Democrats.

          Well, that + affordable lawn and child care.

        3. As a general rule, immigrants are the best of the bunch. It takes a lot of gumption to leave everyone and everything you know to come to a new country with a strange language with no guarantees of any results. Those are exactly the kind of people who start new businesses, are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead and make a better life for themselves which also, not coincidentally, improves the economy for everyone else as well.

          Nor do they tend to be the types that are gimme, gimme, gimmes. I have no problem with immigrants being ineligible for welfare benefits. Personally I wish a lot more people were ineligible for welfare benefits, not just immigrants.

      3. I also don’t think it’s necessary to turn large swaths of America into a civil liberties dead zone ruled with an iron fist by the Border Patrol.

      4. The United States government has every right to reject immigrants who have criminal records, communicable diseases, or otherwise present serious public-health concerns.

        That’s a bit more than just, “…checking ID.” And that’s Gillespie’s words. And he’s consistent: I heard his own, very nasally, and pretentious voice on Jerry Doyle (RIP Ivanova’s lift stalker – the world is worse without you) repeat that very line umpteen times for years whenever Br. Doyle pinned him down for specifics on this topic.

        1. ^HTML FAIL! Just bold & italicize the Gillespie quote.

        2. The United States government has every right

          This is what H&R libertarians actually believe

          1. Sadly, there are not that many actual libertarians among the commenters. If you support government restrictions on the market, you are not a libertarian. If I want to hire someone from Mexico to pick my apple trees, and you want the government to stop me, you are not a libertarian.

            1. I don’t know any libertarians, outside of the anarchists, who don’t acknowledge that a country has not only a right, but a duty to defend their citizens from outside dangers. The question is what constitutes the limit of those dangers. A felonious criminal history is one. Dangerous communicable disease is another. Promulgating direct violence is a third. That’s about all I can come up with.

              1. I don’t have a problem with those three exceptions.

            2. it’s not the hiring of the Mexican that becomes a problem; it’s when he starts bringing in his family members and they access this benefit or that. If all that happened was the equivalent of a commute, fine. But that’s not it.

      5. Letting people go back and forth across our borders so long as they can show ID and and we can check it…

        What you mean “we” kemo-sabe?
        The people checking it won’t be libertarians.
        Open borders is no pipe dream, it’s how the world worked for most of human history.

        1. Open borders is no pipe dream, it’s how the world worked for most of human history.

          Indeed. Those Yazidis and other tribes must have really appreciated all those peaceful ISIS types who scoffed at the notion of borders. To say nothing of other Native Populations decimated by murder, disease, rape, and slavery all throughout most of human history.

        2. Open borders is no pipe dream, it’s how the world worked for most of human history.

          Of course, that was a world where you walked anywhere you went and there was no welfare, but other than that, sure.

          1. ^This^

          2. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

          3. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

          4. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

          5. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

          6. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

          7. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

          8. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

          9. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

          10. Ok, good, so your problem is with welfare and not free movement of labor.

            1. WTF, is this some kind of record? I guess the squirrels really support open borders.

      6. Right. We just need to implement an effective police state to manage all this.

  3. Nice strawman you have there.

  4. Did Obama deport himself?

    1. No but his dad was.

      1. Frank Marshal Davis was an American citizen, to our shame.

  5. Again – the purpose of The Great Wall of Trump isn’t to keep out illegals. The purpose is to provide a pretext to imprison them indefinitely – “We can’t send them back, the wall isn’t built yet you idiot!”

    At this point it’s up to millenials and gen-y to speak out against their frumpled uncle Trumpkins’ sadistic fantasy. Whether they will is anyone’s guess.

    1. How far out into the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico will the wall extend?

      Where’s the northern wall to keep out illegals from Canada?

      1. Where’s the northern wall to keep out illegals from Canada?

        It’s called the Icy Tundra and it blows, natures implacable wall.

      2. Canadians are too complacent and well behaved to worry about. “Mostly harmless”.

        1. (Also white.)

    2. It sounds more like it’s your fantasy.

  6. It’s probably time for Trump to trade in Melania for a new model anyway. I’m sure the Secret Service can arrange a little “accident” for Jared Kushner too, so then nothing will be left standing in Trump’s way.

    1. trump needs a year or two to get to work on this idea…he’s an egomaniac with impure thoughts, but he hasn’t reached the point where he thinks anything is fair game quite yet.

  7. Donald Trump wants to Make America Great Again, but his vision of our country is stuck in 1970s’ New York, a time when his city was ravaged by crime and bankruptcy and, not uncoincidentally, the percentage of the population that was foreign-born was near a historic low.

    Maybe that was the last time he went out on the street unescorted.

    1. Oh no, I think he likes the police state reforms Giuliani and others have used to reduce the NYC crime rate since then. And by “police state reforms” I mean “making the police state more effective”.

  8. The United States government has every right to reject immigrants who have criminal records, communicable diseases, or otherwise present serious public-health concerns…

    You so kind of alt-right bitter-clinger who doesn’t believe in sanctuary cities?

  9. We should be careful not to conflate two different questions.

    Question 1) Should we have an immigration policy?

    Question 2) What should our immigration policy be?

    When people who are unfamiliar with libertarians and what open borders is really about are asking Question 2, it’s really confusing for them to get the answer to Question 1.

    1. Look, there is no gray areas here, no nuances, nothing like that. It’s a black and white issue. Either you are pro totally 100% open borders and everyone can just walk right in AND get free shit. Or you’re a racist Nazi bigot monster who hates all immigrants and wants women and colored folk back in chains.

      /the left

      1. I will go with option two.

  10. So someone in the fake news reported something about Melania. Are we supposed to care?

  11. Could be wrong but wasnt it deport illegal immigrants who have criminal records which he changed the stance to?

    Not all illegals anymore

    1. You forget – millions have ‘violated our laws’ by committing voting felonies.

      1. Why don’t you two douchebags shut up and go jerk each other off? Then all you have to do is figure out which one gets to be the bottom.

  12. Also if you really wanted to restrict immigration, just fine/tax employers who hire them. Win-win for everyone. Not politically popular you say? Well try rounding them up and see how well that works out for you.

  13. OK let’s make a deal:

    Millenials you stop playing video games and get dressed and get out of your parents’ basement and confront the Trumpkins and in return we won’t round up millions of illegals which will only raise prices on everything, and we won’t build a wall, which you will have to pay for. What say you?

  14. most illegals already pay large amounts of income and FICA taxes

    [citation needed]

    I have known quite a few illegals and many were being paid under the table. Anecdotal, sure but I’m not taking stats without any evidence.

    1. Some of them do using their fake SSNs. Other’s don’t and get paid in cash. Of course they all pay sales tax just like everyone else. I’m not really sure what ‘most’ means in this case or how that information is being collected since these people are undocumented and all have at least 3 aliases along with a fake SSN to match. Are we saying that state, local, and federal governments know the SSNs are fake and that’s how they’re calculating this?

    2. I’m sure they pay large amounts in some absolute value. Just to make-up numbers 5 million working illegal immigrants paying $1000 in taxes annually would be $5 billion. However, if they should have paid $3000 each but don’t because they’re working under the table.

      “Most Illegals already pay large amounts of income and FICA taxes” seems like a number that would actually be unprovable without knowing which of the tens of millions of people paying taxes are legal and which are not. And some slice of the government has tried very hard to not actually have an accurate idea who is who.

      1. “And some slice of the government has tried very hard to not actually have an accurate idea who is who.”

        Well, that makes sense. One thing they don’t want to screw with, is revenue, regardless of where it comes from. In my opinion, no one really has a clue what percentage of illegals are paying taxes or not. I’d like to see some statistics on that, but I don’t expect to. And really, I don’t care. The only things that concerns me about illegals are them getting tax payer money and them voting in our elections. Outside of that, besides radical Muslims trying to blow us up, I don’t give a shit about illegals.

        1. Just to add, they aren’t really taking any jerbz I care about. Here in MD, yes they are working, but not in any jobs that most Americans will even take. All the good jobs I’ve known about use E-verify anyway. So people walking across the border from Mexico are not getting high level tech or management jobs. They’re working for landscaping crews or doing laundry at a hotel chain. Who cares? And most businesses I’ve been involved with have even stopped hiring H1Bs and the majority will hire a citizen first, which makes it tough for even qualified legal residents to get the best jobs.

          1. So people walking across the border from Mexico are not getting high level tech or management jobs. They’re working for landscaping crews or doing laundry at a hotel chain. Who cares?

            I don’t necessarily object to the premise, but most of my family comes from a blue collar background in the building trades, so I can tell you exactly who cares. You guys don’t seem to have any trouble empathizing with the plight of the abused foreigner, I’m always a little gobsmacked that you can’t even get your heads around the idea that there are Americans who work in industries that don’t require a undergrad degree or higher. Doesn’t mean you have to make policy to suit them or even give a fuck about them. But you literally live in such a fucking bubble you don’t even think they exist.

            1. ^This

              Those crap jobs that Americans won’t do used to be done by Americans. The ones who are unable or unwilling to find something better get by on that “safety net” that all of us are sick and tired of paying for.

              1. Mostly not wanting those jobs because the fucking illegals artificially depress wages to the point that welfare is a better deal. Which sounds like a progressive’s goal. Not a libertarian one.

                1. Mostly not wanting those jobs because the fucking illegals artificially depress wages to the point that welfare is a better deal.

                  Except that there isn’t a price ceiling on wages, there is a price floor. Illegals don’t artificially depress wages. The government artificially inflates wages of legal workers. Illegal employment just reveals that artificiality, whether it be of illegal workers or simply outside the prying eyes of the government (under the table).

                  1. Minimum wage laws (and others that have the same effect) will incentivise certain employers to pay under the table. Plus they would prefer the people they pay to also be illegal as it gives them a little leverage on them; makes it less likely they’ll be reported to the IRS. Is this about right?

    3. It’s an estimate extrapolated from taxes paid under SSNs that don’t match. Some of which already belong to people. Because ID fraud is no biggie as long as Nick can get a Guatemalan to shine his shoes for a dime less. It’s your duty as a good ‘murican to donate your SSN though – after all, these poor immigrants are paying all these taxes for you, and they never even see a penny of it come back to them. Unless they file a return and receive a huge refund, because the IRS doesn’t share immigration data lest they discourage people from paying.

      1. I don’t even know if they file returns. I do know about a lot of things that they do, but that’s not one of them.

      2. My SSN number was used by an illegal immigrant working for a landscaping company one year. Created a mess for me when I tried to apply for unemployment benefits.

        1. Identity Theft, like Credit, Medical, and Health Insurance Fraud, is a myth. Clearly, you must be mistaken.

      3. guatemalan aren’t the best shoe shiners. nick’s not an idiot.

    4. Plus, illegals with face documents are typically low-income and qualify for EIC.

  15. How about we start with open borders for women only? I think we could sell Trump on that.

    1. We need them to do the things Americans won’t.

    2. But only the cute ones, no muffin tops.

      1. John hit hardest.

        (Sorry John, juvenile old jokes never die)

        1. Those Hot Cross Buns, they are but a heavy burden he bears…

      2. Yep, only hot chicks. No fatties or uggos. And especially no fatty uggos.

      3. We may as well set the bar high and work our way down, hmmm I think I could stand to see a bunch more Mexican 8s in my neighborhood.

    3. Not fair!!! Why should I have to compete with some immigrant? There are plenty of American women who will marry just about anyone. Just because they’re prettier shouldn’t make a difference.

      /sarc

  16. make America greater by paying taxes

    This is a tell

  17. I think there is a bit of (maybe willful) conflation happening on both sides when it comes to legal residents and illegal immigrants.

    The law seems quite clear on how these two classes of immigrants are treated. Legal immigrants are to be treated mostly like citizens, while people who enter illegally or overstay their welcome might get booted for their crimes, including the crime of entering/staying illegally.

    We can discuss what should be a crime, and how easy it should be to enter and stay in the United States, but how controversial is it really to demand immigrants adhere to some kind of process? And it seems reasonable to have consequences for not doing so. Maybe I’m ill-informed, but this is really all I’ve heard the President say on immigration.

    1. The truly pure libertarians believe in open borders no matter what. So everything you said is just a bunch of blasphemy to them. Heretic!

      1. I’d like to think most libertarians also have some kind of practical sense of what is achievable.

        In the interest of ultimate personal freedom, completely open borders should be the gold standard. But at the same time that really isn’t realistic, especially since it relies on a ton of other things being squarely libertarian first. A lot of libertarians pretend that any item on their wish list can be implemented in a vacuum.

    2. The process to get in legally can take decades just to be allowed in and cost a bloody fortune, much less initiate any citizenship steps. Even the allowance for immediate family members has been cut way back.

      It might have been good enough in the “olden” days, but not any more. Now it’s just “We don’t want their types here.” Whatever that type happens to be … generally anyone who isn’t already an American citizen and has no political pull.

      1. I happen to be an immigrant..

        1. Sorry that may have been too brief. I know what it takes to navigate the immigration system, and we can talk about how to reform it.

          But it really isn’t a big leap to have some kind of vetting and process, and consequences for failing it. Particularly while the rest of the system provides tax payer funded services that can be misused.

  18. I raise this not to paint the former Melania Knaus as some sort of criminal or her husband as a hypocrite but simply to humanize other immigrants.

    Am I supposed to believe this? I don’t really care if you used Melania and accused Trump of hypocrisy; if the charges are true that’s fair enough.

    But don’t goddamn pretend out of millions of illegals (Melania doesn’t even sound like she was illegal, just violated the terms of her visa) you picked her as your “human face” and didn’t want to make a point to/about her husband.

    1. Hey, Nick never bends the truth to suit his own ends. He’s like George Washington crossed with Jesus.

      1. I thought that was Froot Sooshi. He certainly acts like a martyr with every, “To be sure,” and, “Clearly, we can conclude we know BadWrongThink when we see it,” and, “Of course, we can’t never truly know others’ motives,” yes?

      2. but with a cooler jacket, right?

    2. It’s all a bunch of BS. By all reports, Melania went through various hoops to obey immigration law, and….”may” have not followed the letter of the law.

      So therefore, it is acceptable to compare those actions to the millions of people consciously choosing to ignore the law and live here illegally.

      yeh, apples to apples

      1. It’s a great point: all libertarians should be emphasizing how ridiculous the current mesh of regulation is in the first place. For everyone, and not just Melania.

        1. I’m all for borders and keeping out the illegals. I’m also for streaming lining the entire immigration system to bring in the people we need here. Especially if they are hot chicks.

  19. Who is she glaring at?

    1. It’s a Slavic Wimminz thing. My wife does it all the time.

      1. How do you know whether you should get an erection or run for your life?

        1. Do both. If she catches up with you and doesn’t beat you about the head, neck, and shoulders, assume it was the first one.

  20. It’s OK when Melania does it. We are still doing double standards right ?

    1. You’re forgetting the carve out for hot chicks who are glamor models as it relates to the Ratio Doctrine. Gotta keep an eye out on the ratio. Or this country turns into a sausage fest.

  21. ~. Holds Shikha for ICE

  22. Melania Birthers? I’m liking this.

    1. From a certain angle, there’s a sort of symmetry to it.

  23. Yes, immigrants should not be eligible for means-tested welfare benefits (they haven’t been for decades now). Yes, they should pay full taxes (most illegals already pay large amounts of income and FICA taxes, which they will never collect in the form of Social Security or Medicare benefits)

    Assimilation. Possession is 90% of the law and this is our country, for the time being. So be they Mexican, Asian, Arab, European, or anything else, they adopt to our culture if they want to be here. “Vibrant diversity” my ass.

  24. Alcohol prohibition worked. Drug prohibition worked. There’s nothing that tells us people prohibition won’t work just as well.

    1. Human beings are, indeed, fungible goods, so it makes sense.

    2. Actually, alcohol prohibition was very effective. Alcohol consumption and related morbidity declined sharply during Prohibition.

      1. This is your brain on Trump.

        1. He’s factually correct in that alcohol consumption did decline dramatically due to prohibition and took about a decade after it ended to return to pre-prohibition levels (historical consumption chart – interesting side-note, the 1970s/80s were the drunkest decades in US history). Government prohibitions do generally tend to reduce whatever they are prohibiting (the chart in this very article demonstrates that fact on immigration, since 1924-1965 were the most restrictive years). They never eliminate their target, but they do reduce it due to the fact that incentives matter. To argue against a prohibition one must argue on cost/benefit analysis or philosophical/moral merits, not effectiveness.

          1. Fuck utilitarianism.

          2. Those stats are paywalled but I have serious doubts as to their accuracy during Prohibition. It’s kind of hard to legally measure an illegal activity.

            Destroying the identifiable production sources is not the same as destroying production. Alcoholic beverages are quite possibly the single oldest commodity known to mankind. I’d bet dollars to donuts that the incidence of health problems that could be attributed to methanol consumption increased drastically during Prohibition, because people started brewing their own alcohol. Whether or not alcohol consumption actually declined during Prohibition would be a very difficult proposition to test.

            1. Because alcohol consumption has consistent and predictable effects, the rate of consumption can be estimated from those effects, such as associated crimes and hospitalizations.

              1. If they were so consistent and predictable, then they would have been factors the police would have used to catch people drinking, and thus suffered from under-reporting during Prohibition.

                1. uh…no

          3. “To argue against a prohibition one must argue on cost/benefit analysis or philosophical/moral merits, not effectiveness.”

            Exactly. That applies to arguments for liberty in general. We know who made the trains run on time.

            1. We know who made the trains run on time.

              Nobody, ever?

      2. Lead poisoning went way up though, right?

        1. Don’t know. Why don’t you look that up for us?

  25. This article has horrendous editing, with several blatant spelling errors that would even be caught if it was typed up in Chrome.

  26. “As Ronald Reagan, who legalized millions with the stroke of a pen in the late 1980s, could tell you”

    Out of curiosity, I looked up President Reagan’s Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 .

    There was language about getting illegals out of the shadows, but there was also this:

    “In 1981 this administration asked the Congress to pass a comprehensive legislative package, including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws, and legalization. The act provides these three essential components. The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here….

    “…Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.”

    So the point was to amnesty many of those who had illegally arrived in the past while securing the borders and applying employer sanctions so that we don’t get another influx of illegals.

    It didn’t seem to work, on Reagan’s own terms. So we can hardly say with assurance that he’d want to do something like that again.

    1. The democrats in congress reneged on the border security provisions of the deal. Just like they reneged on the spending cuts they agreed to in return for tax hikes. Democrats are just a bunch of lousy renegers.

  27. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Trump deported Melania. Time to trade her in for something with lower mileage.

  28. Great fucking article, Nick. Really enjoyed this one, going to pass it along to my friends.

    I’ll bait ’em in with the anti-Trump stuff then hook ’em with the display of Libertarian virtues.

    1. Don’t encourage him. Every time he’s paid for one of these low effort articles, he just wastes it all on junk food.

      Sad, he can’t even zip up the jacket anymore.

      1. All that junk food went to his gut. Time for a bigger jacket.

  29. I would prefer that immigration law allowed American citizens to bring their *first* spouses here, and if the first spouse dies (for innocent causes), then they can bring their second spouse, etc.

    But until that’s changed, it’s my understanding that American citizen divorc?s can apply for immigration status for their new spouses, and Trump could have done that if immigrating as a model didn’t work out for Melania.

    Apparently, she and Trump “lived together” for a few years before getting married…I suppose if the immigration people had started asking questions during that period they could have expedited the wedding.

  30. Fake news, being peddled by Reason:

    Back in November, the AP reported that it discovered documents which

    show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country. The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa.

    This story was debunked during the campaign:

    Based on his review of the records, Wildes wrote, allegations that she worked illegally “are not supported by the record and are therefore completely without merit.”

    http://www.latimes.com/politic…..story.html

    1. A lawyer hired by the campaign said there was nothing there, but the Trumps won’t release the full report.

      Did you also trust when the Obama administration said there was nothing in his school records, but they weren’t going to release them anyway?

      1. I read the whole article, which seemed to cover the allegations being made.

        Nobody in the media was going to investigate the fake news, so the campaign had to hire somebody to do it. There’s some fluff in there about Melania being totes law-abiding, but on the whole, the response was more than adequate given the quality of the accusations.

        1. “I read the whole article…”

          God, you people are unteachable.

          1. Does anyone actually read the WHOLE article anymore? Or just skim to get the hist of it and head straight to the comments?

            1. You really just need to read the headline. After all, the editor read the article and summarized it there, so there’s not need to read it ourselves. In fact, I don’t know why anyone even bothers to write articles. We all trust editors, right?

            2. Uh, yes … even the more scholastic ones.

    2. Thanks for posting, I noticed that Reason failed to provide a link to the AP “report”. I guess they like to peddle fake news too.

  31. Illegals commit less crime than others.

    Um, Nick. 100% of the illegals are committing a crime.

    1. No silly, he’s talking about Crime crime.

    2. So if you ever ran a red light, does that mean you *are* committing a crime right now?

      1. If I ever ran a red light by mistake, or forgot to turn on my headlights in the rain for 5 minutes (here in CA) then I broke minor traffic that cannot be regulated and watched 24/7 by anybody.

        If I broke into a house up for sale and currently live there as if I own it, then I’m actively breaking the law. So apples and oranges, both in terms of scope and application of the law.

        Yes, by the laws of the land, if you’re living here without papers, you are breaking the law. If an illegal alien beats up his girlfriend and gets caught, ICE may deport him. That will not happen to a legal citizen. No, obviously your legal status isn’t comparable to violent crimes like murder or rape.

        The libertarian vision of the world is free trade of all things. And you’re against 90% of that. A rich person has every right to move his wealth outside of the country to avoid taxes or spend how much he wants on political ads. It’s all legal. A foreign national does not have a constitutional right to be here. We can recognize the gray area in the country and come up with a humane solution, but your selective moralizing falls on deaf ears.

  32. “…..Illegals commit fewer crimes than natives and make America greater by paying taxes and by lowering prices and doing jobs Americans won’t do.”

    Bullshit. Nick is so obsessed with Open Borders No Matter what, he peddles this discredited line of garbage.

  33. Nick takes the assumption that all immigrants are here for a better life. that may have been true in the past but many today are here for purely illegal reasons now.

    And all the studies about the net benefits of illegal immigrants always ignore their negative actions. no one is going to report to anyone that they are paying illegals under the table which is the benefit of using illegals, and they are not paying taxes but are garnering welfare support for their illegal children which is not accounted for in those studies.
    But the writer know this but choses to ignore for some reason

  34. Credit where credit is due Nick. Your tone is reasonable, not hysterical, and you do present a good argument. I don’t agree with all of your premises but this is an immigration argument I can see as rational. We agree in conclusion; that immigration is good for the country. We probably don’t agree with the solution, mine being to fix the absurd immigration system. Immigration is good if done right.

  35. If Reason wants to die on the “we shouldn’t deport illegal aliens even if they commit a crime” hill, I wish them luck. Is it really Nick’s position that someone can come here illegally from another country and commit a crime and still be allowed to stay? That is retarded if is.

    1. From the article at the top of this very page:

      The United States government has every right to reject immigrants who have criminal records…

  36. Let’s start by making ‘illegal’ an adjective again, not a noun.

  37. Without going through the comments, I’m gonna take a guess that this conversation is a happy celebration of human freedom and dignity, as is the libertarian way.

    1. You make ?37/h that’s great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online , seriously I couldn’t be haappier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in ?35/h and sometimes even as much as ?85/h?Heres a good example of what I’m doing,,,,,,, ??.>>>>>

      ====== http://www.JobBiz5.com

  38. I refuse to call someone who breaks into your house because they want a better life for them and their kids a criminal.

  39. As Carville and Begala note many times in their political travels…..
    This is OLD NEWS!

  40. Journolist rises again!

  41. Let’s see now, the reason presented here goes like this: We can’t keep drugs out of prisons, how can we hope to keep people out of our country? Right? To abstract, if it is difficult and not always successful, don’t even try.

    Please, Nick, apply that logic to your next infectious disease. Antibiotics don’t always work, so we shouldn’t even try. Is that it?

    And what is this ‘jobs Americans won’t do’ business. I went to Utah recently. Not a lot of minorities in sight. My car was parked, and washed, and my lawn was mowed, by blond white guys, who seemed happy to do it.I myself have picked vegetables – zucchinis – in fact, and it was hard work, but I was happy to have the job.

  42. Trump hasn’t advocated for some retroactive deportation, so I don’t see how Melania comes into play here. Her visa situation isn’t really analogous to most illegal aliens, who may have been arrived here while bypassing all channels. She might have violated a condition of her stay.

    If America only had a 5% immigration population who mostly came on visas, then we wouldn’t be having this divisive discussion. As it is, immigrants and their amnesty cause in this country are part of the “establishment” – they have huge numbers in Hollywood, government, business, education, etc. They can often engage in PC culture sermonizing that turns off the voters. Have you seen “immigrants” beat up a homeless person protecting Trump’s Star at the walk of Hollywood?

    A welfare state with an open border is a disaster waiting to happen. If all the illegals are legalized, then they’ll take in 3 times what they paid in FICA by the time they hit 65. If they can get on medicaid, then it numbers will go up even more. It’s nonsensical to say “let’s address the medicare and SS crisis by bringing in more people who can pay for them”. That’s like ordering 10 more buckets of water to fill up a bathtub with holes in them.

  43. Killing, drugs, and recruiting militants against the U.S. is breaking the law NOT being a peaceful illegal on the way to citizenship.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.