Immigration

Get Ready for the 'Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens'

President Trump orders new government entities to keep track of everything from petty crimes to 'honor killings' committed by undocumented immigrants.

|

More like East Germany every day
Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/Newscom

President Trump's executive orders came so fast and furious in his first week in office, causing so much chaos and constitutional strife, that some fairly chilling details buried in the orders were drowned out in all the rabble.

In last Wednesday's executive order on "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," section 9 dealing with sanctuary cities called for a "public…comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens."

Despite ample documentation showing native-born Americans commit more crime than immigrants (including undocumented immigrants), and that since 1990 increased immigration has coincided with an overall drop in crime nationwide, and that sanctuary cities have better economies and lower crime rates than their non-sanctuary counterparts, President Trump shows every intention of following through with his campaign promises to crack down on illegal immigration using any means possible. The supposedly anti-regulation president also wants to create some new federal bureaucracies to aid those efforts.

As Reason's Damon Root noted, the order's threat to deny federal funds to sanctuary cities is unconstitutional for a number of reasons. And even though the language of the order was specifically designed to appease police unions by exempting federal funds "deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes," in Los Angeles—a metropolis where one in every ten residents is an undocumented immigrant—both the police chief and the rank-and-file want no part of the Trump administration's plan to use local law enforcement to round up people for deportation.

The police's primary reason: it makes their job fighting crime (real crime, not imagined crime) harder if "you create a shadow population…that fears any interaction" with police, as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Times.

Section 13 of last Wednesday's executive order also calls for the creation of an "Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens," which according to the order will "provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens and the family members of such victims. This office shall provide quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States."

The language in this section is so broad it is difficult to discern what level of crime would qualify for action by this proposed office. Would shoplifting by an undocumented immigrant lead to federal action for the "victims"? How about an undocumented immigrant driving without a license, or holding down a job? Considering immigration hard-liners consider every thing an "illegal" does in this country to be a crime, how many "victims" are we talking about? And how much will this office cost taxpayers?

Moving on to last Friday's executive order, "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States"—which will likely always best be remembered as Trump's "Muslim travel ban"—there is some curious language regarding the collection of "information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings."

To be sure, domestic violence and abuse of women are serious problems afflicting the United States, and "honor killings"—where a family member kills another to restore honor to the family after the violation some religious code—occur approximately 5,000 times a year worldwide, according to the United Nations. But in the U.S., that figure is "between 23 and 27" annually, according to a 2014 report commissioned by the Department of Justice.

For some context on how "honor killings" compare with other violent crimes in the United States, the report says, "Expressed as a rate, honor killing occurs approximately 0.008 offenses per 100,000 persons…compared with 4.7 for homicide, 27 for rape/sexual assault, and 113 for robbery…"

While even one "honor killing" is one too many, these numbers lay bare the exaggerated threat to the nation posed by the despicable practice in Trump's executive order. And while it's true that some undocumented immigrants do commit crime, the creation of new federal bureaucracies whose primary function appears to be to make the public absolutely terrified by the scourge of "Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens" is both a waste of time and a prime example of the "big government" the GOP once at least pretended to oppose.

Watch Reason TV's doc "The GOP is Wrong About Sanctuary Cities" below:

Advertisement

NEXT: Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Misconduct Can't Defend Himself—It Would 'Impose Psychological Trauma' on Accuser

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. Trump is obviously spending his time getting done that which is truly important.

    1. Important to the people who voted him into office, anyway.

      1. I’m not even sure that this is important to the majority of people that voted for him. A lot of folks assumed Trump to be secretly rational.

        1. Umm, you know if millions of taxpayers decided to creatively interpret tax law and not pay taxes, the government would make lists of that.

          Or if farmers started farming land that may have held a small puddle on it, the fricken EPA would know because they had a list of that.

          This is literally a list of consequences that arose because law enforcement agencies refused to enforce the LAW. I’m ok with knowing who isn’t following the law. I’m ok with not giving them Federal funds.

          The right way to fix bad laws is to repeal them or change them, not to ignore them.

          I don’t see any fucking cities that were allowed to ignore OBAMACARE, why the fuck couldn’t they. Oh, wait yeah thats it Obamacare is an enlightened Progressive law, thats why.

          Either the fucking laws matter or the laws don’t matter.

          If you really want laws to matter, we can play it like that….. But its going to get fucking ugly….

          1. Great post. Might want to add a footnote indicating that all of your information was sourced at Fox News. In fact, include it at the beginning of your posts so that people can skip the content.

            1. That changes the fact that we should either not have a law on the book or enforce it properly how? You do realize that when laws are applied willy-nilly, what you end up with is tyranny?

              1. I can’t claim to be a proponent of enforcing laws simply because they exist. If there’s a law I find the be unjust, I’d prefer it not be enforced until the time is reached that it no longer exists. Maybe I’m for fewer laws in general.

            2. Here we go with the Fox News.

              How about you remove the smug ‘Fox News’ preface before making an argument?

              1. Why would I? I would say the same of anyone getting their talking points from CNN.

                1. I can’t claim to be a proponent of enforcing laws simply because they exist. If there’s a law I find the be unjust, I’d prefer it not be enforced until the time is reached that it no longer exists.

                  I for one never trust people that say they will simply ignore the law (they don’t like), because they will be the first to do that to benefit themselves and their buddies, while suddenly embracing said law to fuck over their enemies.

                  That’s how we get a ton people being hammered by the law and doing jail time for violating national security rules about the need to maintain secrecy of sensitive government data, while Clinton got to avoid jail for doing far worse.

                  If the law shouldn’t apply, then it shouldn’t be there.

                  1. The founders were for only enforcing laws which were just. Jury nullification comes to mind. I’m of the same opinion. Of course, the laws are speak of are those laws against actions that do not cause direct harm to another individual.

                2. Whatever. My point is it’s stupid to say it either way. You have no idea where people get their info and how they form their opinions.

                  It’s presumptuous bull shit and I see enough of it; particularly from the most ignorant bunch of them all: Progressives.

                  1. Except that some people make it very conspicuous where they get their ideas and opinions from. It’s not stupid to say something truthful and factual.

                3. How about not using talking points at all, but actually say what you yourself think along with why?

            3. Tulpa! You’ve been missed. But no worries, I’m reloading.

          2. I don’t see any fucking cities that were allowed to ignore OBAMACARE, why the fuck couldn’t they.

            Because it was the states that were empowered to ignore it and not set up exchanges.

            1. and…. the other sock drops.

    2. Yeah, but unfortunately, he is making good on all his shitty campaign promises, and not his couple of decent campaign promises. He did sign the EO cancelling 2 regs for every new one, but I have serious reservations of how enforceable/well enforced this EO will be.

      1. What’s Betsy DeVos, chopped liver?

  2. President Trump’s executive orders came so fast and furious in his first week in office, causing so much chaos and constitutional strife, that some fairly chilling details buried in the orders were drowned out in all the rabble.

    What a pity that we’re exhausted by the outrage wank, and now the media has to work harder to get our attention when someone finally reads their homework and discovers chilling details.

    A/N: Not directed at you, Fisher. You’re lovely, keep being sensible.

  3. I’m baaack in the U.S.S.R.
    You don’t know how lucky you are
    Baaack in the U.S.S.R

    1. Fuck off slaver…..

      If we really were the USSR you’d be celebrating like a pig rolling in shit.

  4. Despite ample documentation showing native-born Americans commit more crime than immigrants (including undocumented immigrants), and that since 1990 increased immigration has coincided with an overall drop in crime nationwide, and that sanctuary cities have better economies and lower crime rates than their non-sanctuary counterparts, President Trump shows every intention of following through with his campaign promises to crack down on illegal immigration using any means possible. The supposedly anti-regulation president also wants to create some new federal bureaucracies to aid those efforts.

    Massive amounts of correlation with no proof of causation.

    Also Chicago is a shit hole and a sanctuary city….but again i am not going to jump and blame illegals for Chicago’s issues or say they have helped it.

    1. reason is seriously stretching to the moon like stretch armstrong on this topic.

      http://tinyurl.com/zggby9g

      1. anyone remember the stretch armstrong cartoon? It was in the 90s IIRC. I ccan’t find any reference to it or pictures online :/

        1. I think that was Plasticman. Easily confused since they’re the same premise.

          I believe you’re thinking of this guy, no?

          1. nopee they made a modern one in the 90s. The bad guy was red orange and they made toys.

              1. lol no. It was animated with the guys in the pictures above. They had a product line of those those from the show. It wasn’t on very long

                1. bah i cant find one reference to the TV show :/ It was super short lived and i only saw like 2 episodes as a kid.

                  1. there’s a new movie, so you’re in luck. If you liked it, that is.

          2. It shames me to admit that, yes, I ‘member Plasticman.

    2. I don’t think it was intended to show causation; merely that Trump is expanding his power (at the expense of everyone else’s liberty) by tackling problems that can’t be shown to actually exist.

      1. Kate Steinle was killed by an illegal immigrant that was deported 5 times.

        I know that only represents one case, but one case proves that a problem does exist….

        Logic is a bitch. The statement “there is no X” is ridiculously difficult to definitively prove.

        1. We yell at the FDA when they take isolated anecdotes of bad outcome and leverage that into massive regulatory power and pensions for the FDA.

          Principles, not principals.

          Yes, there were some crimes, and yes, the legal system did not address them appropriately. But then, that’s pretty much our legal system and it surprises no one that reforms are needed.

          I think it’d be more efficient to start there. We don’t need extra laws, more government agencies, increased funding for safety and the children! There’s troubles enough on that front.

          1. I think it’d be more efficient to start there. We don’t need extra laws, more government agencies, increased funding for safety and the children!

            That’s crazy anarchist talk! MOAR BIGGER GUB’MINT, as long as it only hurts people I don’t like! /Statist Derp

          2. That’s kind of the point though – to admit the tradeoffs. The Gillespie article yesterday, for example, was an abomination. Reason should be better than torturing statistics to build a flimsy case for their preferred outcomes.

            The FDA is a great example. The FDA should be massively scaled back for both freedom and net outcome-based reasons. But you have to admit that there are tradeoffs – we would lose something without the FDA, but we would gain more. If we say that it’s all gains with no losses, 1) we’re lying, 2) our argument is easily destroyed and we lose credibility

            1. The Gillespie article yesterday, for example, was an abomination. Reason should be better than torturing statistics to build a flimsy case for their preferred outcomes.

              Gawds, yes. That was embarrassing. Helping or hurting, Nick? And Sullum and, and, and…. ugh. I hope today is better than yesterday.

              I’m going to get shouted at for disassociation with reality again, but I persist in my theory that a free-market government is the inevitable answer, if we want this whole “society” thing to work. There must be robust price discovery and the consequences of markets, it’s what serves to keep entities out of disastrous feedback loops and inefficiency.

              1. I… don’t know that the above reads as addressing your essential point, so let me take a second bite at this apple.

                We do need to acknowledge the valid points. It’s going to be crucial. People often have, or at least firmly believe they have, reasonable underpinnings and if we invalidate those from the get-go, this is far more complicated. It’s short term thinking that wins the internet fight but loses the war.

              2. If I pay my taxes to House of Gates, and people from House of Musk violate my rights, how do I get redress?

                What happens when House of Musk allows you to ignore traffic laws provided you’re in a Tesla and I blast through a neighborhood (causing no actual damage or fatalities but scaring the shit out of a bunch of soccer moms) full of people belonging to House Bezos?

                I just don’t see how the interactions are going to work without geography.

        2. Logic is a bitch. The statement “there is no X” is ridiculously difficult to definitively prove.

          It’s incredibly disingenuous to interpret my post as saying no crimes are committed by immigrants anywhere. I’m saying there’s no rational basis for treating them as a really scary class of super-crimes that need vast new federal resources to tackle.

          I can acknowledge that women get raped on college campuses without conceding that evidence standards need to be lowered to tackle the “problem”.

          I can acknowledge that people who sell drugs sometimes commit other crimes without conceding that hundreds of billions of dollars needs to be spent locking people in cages to tackle the “problem”.

          And I can acknowledge that some people who commit crimes are also immigrants without conceding that a new federal bureaucracy devoted to political grandstanding and anti-immigrant propaganda needs to be established to tackle the “problem”.

          1. And I can acknowledge that some people who commit crimes are also immigrants without conceding that a new federal bureaucracy devoted to political grandstanding and anti-immigrant propaganda needs to be established to tackle the “problem”.

            As we have learned, everything is now binary: immigration good or bad. CHOOSE ONE AND STICK WITH IT!

            1. Such dichotomy. Much division. All the Manichean thinking.

        3. Kate Steinle is a statistic. The right of Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez to be in any country he wants is at the foundation of a great moral principle.

          How can you be so insensitive to the needs of people like Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez?

          Fascist!

    3. At least correlation exists. That’s a starting point. It’s better than doing what Trump is doing, with no evidence of correlation OR causation, thusly rendering his proposals illogical.

      I assume that you have some ideas behind why there’s no causal link, right?

    4. The crime comparisons compare all immigrants (not just illegals, which skews the stats since legals may tend to be more law-abiding) with the same socio-economic cohort for native-born Americans. In other words, since illegals tend to be dirt-poor, they are comparing them to the crime rates of the worst inner-city shit-holes of places like Detroit and Baltimore.

      1. the other problem is you can’t use national statistics. It is far too large to come up with anything meaningful. Crime has to be broken down to cities, neighborhoods, groups, types of crimes, and so on for any meaningful data to be gained or any meaning understanding to be had.

        1. lets also not forget an illegal is a felon from the beginning :/

          Also that they skirt just about everything and drain society as a whole.

          1. Don’t think that people haven’t noticed that illegals who commit crimes are released to the wind, where citizens released after serving time for a crime have the state essentially monitoring them for the rest of their lives….

          2. How many times has this been debunked? Wasn’t this debunked 30 years ago? How do these memes persist?

          3. lets also not forget an illegal is a felon from the beginning

            This is getting ridiculous. It’s not a crime so it can’t possibly be a felony. It is a civil offense to stay in this country without being a citizen, permanent resident, or unexpired visa holder. The remedy for that offense is removal. The only thing directly related to immigration that is a crime is to employ someone who is not authorized to work here, but that is a crime for the employer not the employee.

            Maybe you don’t like this reality, but that’s what it is.

            1. Correction: There are many things directly related to immigration that are crimes. Fraudulent use of identity, human trafficking, etc. But the act of being here illegally is itself a civil, not criminal, offense.

              1. so Fraud is not criminal? Trespassing is not criminal? I could go on like being in a country illegally is also theft in many ways. Is theft not a crime?

                Yea you are out of your mind thinking it is civil and not criminal. It is plainly both.

                1. If a felon speeds down the highway, does speeding become a felony? The act of being in this country against the immigration laws is a civil offense. Additional acts, like stealing an identity, or squatting on private property, or whatever other crimes that an illegal immigrant might commit don’t change the fact that being here illegally is not itself a crime.

                  1. The act of being in the country is theft. You drain the system by using services you do not contribute to which is fraud/theft. Do i really need to break this down barney style for you? Or are you being intentionally difficult in order to be a troll?

                    Trespassing is a crime and being here without proper papers and permission is trespassing and a crime.

                    Being here is fraud since you do not have proper papers or permission and fraud is a crime.

                    Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
                    Trespassing: enter the owner’s land or property without permission.
                    Theft: the action or crime of stealing.

                    http://tinyurl.com/jmy577q
                    http://tinyurl.com/j9ne8zs

                    I could go on but i dont need to waste my time because you are patently wrong.

                    1. Immigration is covered under 8 U.S.C. ? 1220?1232. Those sections includes the definition of deportable alien and the procedures for removal.

                      It is probably true that most illegal immigrants are engaged in some kind of fraud in order to obtain jobs, etc. But the mere act of being here without permission is not fraud. Trespass requires the violation of property as defined by the owner. I doubt most illegal immigrants are squatting on Federal lands.

                    2. The United States is the whole fucking country….are they in the air space? Wait thats US territory too so still trespassing and again as i said. Being here is theft. They gain services they are not entitled to or pay for. That is theft and fraud as i stated several times so keep ignoring it.

                      Just because you ignore the basic facts doesnt change them.

                      Being here illegally results in theft and fraud automatically. Do they use the road? Yes? theft/fraud because they dont pay taxes and are here without permission.

                      If you have permission to be here than it isn;t theft/fraud to use the roads. The act of being here costs us money and is fraud.

                      When i go to japan i use services that cost Japanese money. I am not stealing or commiting fraud because i am there legally with permission. If i was there illegally using various services i do not have permission or pay for is theft and fraud…..holy shit man you are dense on this.

                    3. Roads are owned by the states. Many states, mine included, do not forbid the use of roads by illegal immigrants. Also, they are mostly funded by sales and excise taxes, which everybody pays.

                      Look, I get it, you want them deported. That doesn’t make every law in the books apply to them.

                    4. i listed numerous services besides roads and roads are funded by federal government and numerous non excise taxes. You still are patently wrong on trespassing, fraud, and theft all and all.

                    5. You still are patently wrong on trespassing, fraud, and theft all and all.

                      I’m not sure there’s any point in continuing to argue with you on this as you seem to use whatever definitions you want.

                      Yes, some roads are funded by Federal taxes. That doesn’t make driving on them without paying those taxes a crime.

                    6. you are patently wrong.

                      What I am saying may be beside the point, it may even be practically irrelevant, but it is not wrong. Someone whose only offense is illegal immigration is not a criminal. Period. Maybe such a case is a unicorn and no such individuals actually exist. But then argue that point.

            2. Ok – dug into it a bit more. Improper entry is a crime – i.e. sneaking over the border. Unlawful presence, such as overstaying a visa or the like is a civil offense.

              http://blogs.findlaw.com/blott…..sence.html

          4. Not quite … the first time someone is caught here that “shouldn’t” be, it’s a misdemeanor. Second or subsequent it’s a felony.

    5. Despite ample documentation showing native-born Americans commit more crime than immigrants (including undocumented immigrants), and that since 1990 increased immigration has coincided with an overall drop in crime nationwide, and that sanctuary cities have better economies and lower crime rates than their non-sanctuary counterparts,

      That’s a whole lot of [citation needed]. I’ll take the drop in crime since 1990 at face value, but the rest is more controversial.

      1. that was my quote from reasons article…too lazy to google HTML codes for what you did lol

      2. Not to mention that the ‘Chicago Outlier’ renders any sort of real technical analysis to be more like pointing at some data and going ‘SEE! eh? Eh?’.

        Regardless of whether you think illegal immigrants cause crime or not, IL is flat broke and can’t pay for the infrastructure it currently has. Moreover, the legislature is knowingly and permanently bent in at an exceedingly crooked angle and seems entirely unable to take even basic stabs at reform. Offering sanctuary to more people there is anti-thetic. The boat’s full of holes and you don’t have the plans or materials to patch them but inviting people into your ‘sanctuary’ is somehow virtuous and not some blatant token signalling gesture.

        Even if you accept that increased immigration coincided with a drop in violent crime, you must acknowledge locking people up is associated with the drop also. At which point, free immigration for some and cages for others becomes the libertarian wash or status quo you’re advocating.

    6. Despite ample documentation showing native-born Americans commit more crime than immigrants (including undocumented immigrants)

      Immigrants are generally fine people just trying to make a buck to either bring or send back home. The common problems attributed to immigrants are generally caused by their idiot American children. The rage directed at immigration and immigrants would be better directed against birthright citizenship as it currently exists, but that’s a much more difficult nut to crack.

      sanctuary cities have better economies and lower crime rates than their non-sanctuary counterparts

      Provided that you ignore the constant hiring of illegal immigrants in violation of federal law.

      If you’re going to compare victimless crimes, include all of them.

  5. And this is important either way? Reason has their narrative and Trump has his. I’m pretty skeptical of both these days.

    1. Why rely on either narrative? You have a mind, you have the internet. Why would you simply buy into any narrative? I would err on the side of assuming everything that Trump says is bullshit, though. This is a man that writes magazine editors letters assuring them that his hands are the appropriate size.

  6. The police’s primary reason: it makes their job fighting crime (real crime, not imagined crime) harder if “you create a shadow population…that fears any interaction” with police, as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Times.

    Can’t see how hard it is to SWAT some no-knock warrants, sex up prostitutes and market the contents of the evidence room.

    1. Cops are conscientious professionals. They want to make sure they’re throwing a flashbang into the right crib.

    2. total fucking bullshit

  7. Any study that measures crimes committed by illegal aliens should be disregarded since the way police officers in many municipalities handle illegal aliens differently in most situations short of the most violent crimes.

    Ask any cop if they are going to treat an illegal the same on something they know they are unlikely to show up at trial for.

    1. That was supposed to be in response to SomeGuy upthread.

    2. this is also highly true! I have taken many criminal justice classes just to know some laws and how cops work and it is very true they treat illegals very differently. Just like on fox news this morning an illegal murdered a kid and was released in 24 hours…wtf!

      1. Cops treat illegal immigrants like kings, right? Maybe the Black Lives Matter movement should advocate revoking the citizenship of all black people as a remedy.

        1. Actually, the likely scenario is that cops, realizing that doing work to hold an illegal is meaningless, simply do no work. It’s not to hard to make the connection that spending a shit ton of time working on something that will make no difference will lead to a lot of doing nothing.

          1. The wouldn’t the answer be to close whatever loophole exists in our legal system which allows these scenarios, however infrequent, to occur? Would that not be more simple than building a wall which will ultimately to little to deter those who want to get here even if it is finished?

            1. The wouldn’t the answer be to close whatever loophole exists in our legal system which allows these scenarios, however infrequent, to occur?

              1. Get rid of the law or enforce it. There is no “loophole” that can be addressed when you are told nothing will come from trying to follow it in specific cases by the people that hold the power to fire you, and it is disingenuous to pretend that is what is going on…

                1. You’ve become incoherent.

                  *then

      2. Holy shit, really? I was thinking more along the lines of DUI, petty property crimes and minor assaults. I also know I’m only offering anecdotal evidence but I think it’s widely accepted a lot of jurisdictions end up not charging people for crimes they know they’ll never appear for, seeing as they can simply get a new fake SSN and keep on trucking, after they give them their “real” punishment (during the arrest, ride to jail and booking).

        1. There are perverse incentives at work, as well. Having lived in cities close to the border, there is no question illegals are treated differently because the only way to get them to show up for a hearing or trial is to lock them up.

          So, for relatively minor crimes, they might not even be charged, because that fucks up the prosecutor’s clearance rate. Those illegals are more likely to be sent to DHS for deportation (assuming you aren’t in a sanctuary city). That affects the crime stats.

        2. as jaded as national review is they did some great writing in the past about the actual damages illegals cause like closing of hospitals due to never paying bills and feds only pick up 10% of the bill, accidents, car insurance, and numerous other aspects like fraud, welfare, tax returns (5 billion or something to one address..reason reported on that one). National review is like the only media that has ever really published articles on the negative effects and it was staggering when i wrote a paper in highschool and this was 2003-2007 time frame when we had 4-10 mil vs 14-20 million illegals.

          Very little research has been done but if you do basic math and look at the available data and use some logic illegal immigrants are a very large net drain.

          Also that BS they do jobs american wont do is a insult to the free market. No one would care if food prices increased to pay actual Americans to do the work.

          1. No one would care if food prices increased to pay actual Americans to do the work.

            Oh, no. Nobody at all. They also wouldn’t care about paying more for new houses and home repair, or meals at restaurants and almost certainly would be more than happy to invest more of their time on basic home upkeep and maintenance rather than doing something more productive with it.

            Illegal immigrants and their families are a clear drain on public services, but they are a boon to the economy as any worker in a relatively free labor market is (and the illegal immigrants’ labor market is much more free than the equivalent native’s, which might be the primary source of the problem).

            You want to make it a crime for me to hire the worker or supplier of my choosing. I have a huge problem with that.

            1. You can hire a citizen in this country and pay them a wage given the labor market in this country and charge product prices comparable to your expenses like everyone else does in every fucking industry.

              1. If hiring Americans causes your prices to go up and then supply and demand kicks in. Your argument is what slavers used and sweat shop owners used. Your argument is stupid.

                Follow the laws and hire the labor pool you have access to.

                1. You can hire a citizen in this country and pay them a wage given the labor market in this country and charge product prices comparable to your expenses like everyone else does in every fucking industry.

                  If hiring Americans causes your prices to go up and then supply and demand kicks in.

                  Jesus Christ, this is like trying to explain integral calculus to a toddler. Your understanding of the subject matter at hand is the very definition of shallow.

                  Your argument is what slavers used and sweat shop owners used. Your argument is stupid.

                  Ain’t nothing wrong with sweat shops – it’s the first step in industrialization. There is no moral imperative for me to pay someone a higher wage than they are willing to accept.

                  It’s you who is taking the slaver’s mantle here by applying force of arms to my hiring practices. My commercial decisions are none of your concern.

                  Follow the laws and hire the labor pool you have access to.

                  The laws are stupid, that’s the problem that causes illegal immigrants to be more attractive. You want tighter immigration controls? Fine, I want a labor market where natives aren’t subject to the minimum wage, FICA, OSHA, etc. You can’t even grok that this is the problem because you’re so upset that the wrong people are being hired by free people that are finding ways around the restrictions you’re happy to impose.

                  1. The laws are stupid, that’s the problem that causes illegal immigrants to be more attractive. You want tighter immigration controls? Fine, I want a labor market where natives aren’t subject to the minimum wage, FICA, OSHA, etc.

                    Everybody who talks about how we had stricter immigration controls and higher tariffs in the past elides over this fact; the domestic regulatory bureaucracy was practically nonexistent at the time. Even Operation Wetback in the 1950s under Eisenhower was far less consequential than a similar mass deportation would be today because there was no minimum wage, no worker’s compensation, no unemployment insurance, etc. in the 1950s. The costs of employment today are practically incomparable to the costs of employment then.

                    In the absolute best-case fantasy, Trump rolls back the regulatory state to 1980s levels. That would be awesome but the government burden was still massive in the 1980s compared to the 1950s, never mind the 1920s or the 1880s. Freer trade and immigration are necessary conceits to the regulatory-welfare state*. The states that have succeeded without those elements across national borders nevertheless depended on them existing within their national borders.

                    * = Up to the point where immigrants start collecting welfare themselves which inverts the relationship

                2. If hiring Americans causes your prices to go up and then supply and demand kicks in.

                  Supply and demand exists at all times and in all places. It is an immutable law of economics, second only to the existence of scarcity. It serves no particular end.

                  Supply and demand operates right now. It operated yesterday. It will operate tomorrow regardless of what the government does. It never “kicks in” because it never “kicked out” in the first place.

                  Yes, people will adapt to higher prices. Sometimes those adaptations are minor. Sometimes they are major. However it manifests for each individual, raising a price forces a change; whether it be a dollar or ten or a hundred or a thousand taken out of their pocket or a demand or two or five left unfilled.

                  At the very least, any action undertaken by the government for which the direct and undeniable foreseeable outcome is the raising of a price or two or ten or all of them should be matched by some action which (preferably indirectly) offsets the burden.

                  1. jesus do i have to spell it out? I figured you guys could understand this basic shit without me spelling it out.

                    Cost of labor goes up

                    Cost of good goes up

                    supply and demand says demand goes down due to increase pricing and the market self rights itself.

                    jesus

                    1. and the world keeps going around and Americans have jobs and our society functions like it always has.

                    2. and the world keeps going around and Americans have jobs and our society functions like it always has.

                      The same could be said of every regulation ever enacted by the government. So what? The costs don’t go away just because people aren’t dying in the streets.

                    3. You used a logical fallacy to distract from the point here that economics and the labor pool in the US does not need or has ever needed illegals.

                      DO NOTE: This is overly simple just to make a point. There are a plethora of assumptions and calculations not in this but gives you a general point.

                      No comprehensive study has ever proven there is a net gain to illegals because it is factually impossible if you look at the math of labor and how that would affect pricing.

                    4. Lets just take a single small example here.

                      First note that large sums of cost comes from government burdens and those burdens are paid one way or another. So the “$6” dollars saved in government burdens on the farmer is just absorbed by another American so that savings doesn’t actually exist in the overall picture. It is really a transfer of burden and one person coming a head at another expense by “cheating” the system.

                      Price to hire an illegal to work is $4.
                      Price of an American is $15

                      We all know poorer people gain more from public services. So lets use IL.

                      Assuming 40 hours x50 weeks of work

                      ~$11 billion in general fund expense
                      12.88 mil people
                      ~44 cents an hour for the state in benefits

                      US Federal Government
                      $3.54T
                      319 mil people
                      $5.54 per hour

                      So an Illegal enjoys $6 an hour of free benefits

                      These are just the tip of the Ice berg of benefits an illegal gains for free.

                      Now there are tons of assumptions like sunk/fixed costs and various variable costs and so on. This is by no means perfect but meant to make a clear point of the cost of illegals

                      There are also economical burdens they cause with hospitals, health care, police, local governments, insurance, unemployed Americans, welfare and more that i am not going to get into.

                    5. Already the illegal costs $10 an hour vs $15 for the American and I am being extremely generous with assuming an illegal only makes 4 dollars. They tend to make minimum wage at least on these farms. I used to live on one and knew people who hired likely illegals (paid under the table).

                      Now taxes. With the American not working the job a total of 3 or 4 dollars an hour of taxes are not collected from Local, State, and Federal. (someone here can give a better number i bet.)

                      We now have a $13-14 an hour illegal vs a $15 American and I started off with a horrible generous figure from the get go and there are misc untold costs and damages with hiring an illegal like moving money/wealth out of the US and other burdens caused by him/her directly and indirectly.

                      I don’t feel like going into more depth but here are some of the most basic examples of how illegals dont actually boost our economy and national review has posted numerous examples and studies about how they cost us in other ways i have stated before.

                      Again i started off with a grossly exaggerated example of 4 vs 15 dollars an hour.

                      Again this is not meant to be spot on. I am just making a point that there are huge costs to hiring illegals that no one bothers to think about. I would love to see a real study into this and i would wager it would show illegals are a net loss at the end of the day.

                    6. additionally labor is generally not a large amount of cost for many goods. Illegals generally just grease the owns pockets like they did back in the days of sweat shops.

                      for an example hay, which is something i used to farm. It is very low in labor costs but many places hire illegals just to save a few bucks, which hurts the US economy overall. Especially in the case of stuff like hay bailing. Now more labor intensive stuff is a bit different but it is more than likely a net loss in the grans scheme of things.

                    7. http://tinyurl.com/zk75bn3

                      worse case is 40% for the most labor intensive foods and these are not stables…its generally fruit which is already not frequently bought as a stable food.

                      So you could see a 20-40% increase in food at worse case but large benefits in society as a whole as i explained above.

                      Again poor people dont buy labor intensive food as is so this wouldnt greatly affect the poor and if it did they are probably already on government hand outs. Also our government rigs pricing and destroys tons of food as is so i find this a moot point.

                      illegal works suck enough said

                    8. illegal workers* suck enough said

                    9. additionally we all bitch about handouts to farmers so why the fuck are we okay with illegals but not okay with government handouts to farmers? Hypocritical much?

                      I just want a fair market that keeps illegals out. You want a legal green card for works to work farms fine…stupid but fine. But allowing complete dodging of taxes and breaking rule of law is ridiculous here.

                    10. But allowing complete dodging of taxes and breaking rule of law is ridiculous here.

                      … which has nothing to do with what I thought was the original topic of discussion, reducing legal immigration and increasing tariffs.

                    11. First of all, I was not even talking about illegal immigrants. The context I thought we were arguing in was about legal immigration and trade.

                      Second, the economics of it as you just calculated don’t make sense. An illegal worker pays no SS tax but also will never collect SS (unless the law changes). So there’s about one-third of Federal spending that doesn’t go to an illegal immigrant. Throw in Medicare too and now about half of Federal spending doesn’t apply. That reduces the cost per hour to $3.

                      Third, somebody who costs $15/hr to the employer takes home $12/hr, which puts their income in the $24,000-30,000/year range, depending on overtime and seasonal flux. The income tax bracket for that range is 15% but the std deduction will reduce AGI by at least $6,300. Let’s throw in another $2,000 for EITC. That leaves about $22,000 in AGI, with $10,000 at taxed at 10% and $12,000 taxed at 15% for a total tax payment of about $2,800. Factor in payroll taxes on the unadjusted income at about 15% (employer+employee) and there’s about $4,600. So the total tax paid to the Fedgov for this “average legal worker” is about $7,400/year or about $3.60/hr.

                      Fourth, that legal worker will collect SS and Medicare so all of Federal spending applies, leaving a net cost of $2.40/hr.

                      So the legal worker “costs” about $17-18/hr while the illegal worker “costs” about $7-8/hr, by the same sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation.

                    12. again the numbers work because if an illegal didn’t work it an American would which would result in more taxable revenue and less of a drain on services.

                      Again i never said it was perfect i was making a simple point that there is vast amount of loss when an illegal takes a job from a citizen/legal worker.

                      The American will collect SSI/SS no matter he works or not just payout is different.

                      Also i was point to benefits gained and taxes paid/unpaid.

                      You are ignoring numerous calcs i properly explained. so i am not going to reexplain them to you since you either are purposely ignoring or just dense as fuck today for some reason.

                      You are not adding properly for numereous reasons as i said. An American working or not working uses services so his cost does not go to 18 an hour. Jesus you are dishonest on this

                    13. Jesus you are dishonest on this

                      WTF? I’m not being dishonest. You don’t give much to go on. I’m arguing on the same ground here.

                      You want something dishonest? Saying every job taken by an illegal is taken from an American. Even if the cost differential were small, it’s still there. While labor may not be the sole or even majority cost for a particular type of business, it’s still a cost. Never mind that a lot of those other costs (like transporation) have labor built into them. If I have $1 million to spend on labor and each laborer costs $30,000 if legal and $20,000 if illegal then I can hire about 33 legal workers but 50 illegal ones. If I have 20 legal workers and 20 illegal workers, then by the pigeonhole principle 7 of the illegals cannot possibly have taken a job from a legal worker.

                      An American working or not working uses services so his cost does not go to 18 an hour

                      If he’s using the services, then how does the cost not add? Maybe you’re complaining that taxes and use of services are being double counted. Fine, that’s fair. So subtract out the taxes paid, that’s $15 ? $3.60 = $11.40 then add in the net cost, that’s $11.40 + $2.40 = $13.80 compared against $4 illegal wage + $3 in government services = $7. Still almost twice as much.

                    14. You are ignoring numerous calcs i properly explained

                      No, I am not ignoring any calcs you properly explained. I am ignoring the ones you did not properly explain, however. Give a fuller explanation and I will account for them.

                      I will agree with you that I would like to see some realistic study on this but I highly doubt anyone would produce a study that doesn’t reflect some kind of bias. Deciding which side of the ledger a dollar amount falls on is very much subject to gaming.

                    15. Even if you add the full $6 to the illegal worker’s wage, you get to $10 against almost $14. That still means more labor can be hired if some of it is illegal than if all of it is legal.

          2. >No one would care if food prices increased to pay actual Americans to do the work.

            Says who? You must have spent your life living high off the hog with similar friends if you think no one cares about prices for food going up.

            Whenever I read someone talking about how no one can live on $7 a day for food I have to laugh … right after I cry. $7 a day would be a good $200 a month. I haven’t had that much to spend on food in years. Usually run about half that. Yeah – food prices going up again would be a very *bad* thing that I would care very deeply about.

  8. domestic violence and abuse of women are serious problems afflicting the United States

    A statement with which the commentariat will agree only on this post.

    1. You heading to Houston sometime soon, fuckface?

      1. I told you I was sorry you were so hurt by being confronted with your own words.

        1. You’ve insulted my honor. And I want satisfaction.

          I’m serious.

          1. Boys, boys – don’t fight. I have enough LilyWhiteGoodness? for both of you. 🙂

          2. If you’re this insecure, you’re never going to be satisfied.

            Which, of course, just backs up my original point, doesn’t it.

            Sad!

            1. Or you could just be less of an unpleasant human being?

          3. Get me a plane ticket and I’ll be your second.

            What say you, Hail? Are you a cowardly dog unwilling to back your words in personal combat?

    2. domestic violence and abuse of women

      total fucking bullshit!

      I am divorced and i will tell you that’s a shame. A woman can cry anything and as a guy you are fucked. She can delete court records, steal your identity twice, perjury herself, and countless other things and no one gives a shit even with logs and eye witnesses all because you have a penis.

      domestic violence and abuse of women is a shame. It is not a serious issue because any guy who does it gets dragged to hell and back.

      Abuse of men is a serious issue but guys aren’t bitches about it and no one cares so woman continue to do as they please.

      here. this transgender person (whatever he it she is) talks about why male victims are always screwed and why it is actually a serious issue and why it wont change any time soon

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgKsniZ4N9k

  9. The previous administration deliberately changed definitions and reporting rules to minimise the appearance of illegal immigrant crime – or at least, I suspect so. A more hostile examination might bring us closer to the truth.

    1. Start by asking the border agents if they were allowed to border agent. You can assume the same applied to all the other agents of the state.

  10. ‘Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens’

    Is it bad that I immediately thought “Sweet, Trump’s making XCOM!”

  11. Obviously a waste of money and an unecessary increase in the size in government. Shouldn’t he be getting rid of two departments when he creates a new one? On the bright side this tracking should put to bed the notion that illegals are all a bunch of rapists pretty quickly. I will say though that this is no more idiotic than hate crime tracking. That doesn’t make it a good idea. I guess we do collect stats on everything though.

    1. If the government sponsors the tracking of something, do you really think that they will allow the results to run counter to the narrative that they are trying to advance?

      1. For example, “correcting” the “climate change” temperature data.

        1. ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

          Cause the solution to this “man mad calamity” is more government and wealth redistribution.

          /progs

      2. Good point

  12. Anybody have any recommendations for decent libertarian websites? I love the comments here and maybe 1 out 10 of the articles. The other 9 out of 10 are basically mashups of CAIR and La Raza with a HuffPo seasoning at this point.

    Maybe from a click-bait business perspective it makes sense to write this stuff – they do generate commeing – but it’s not very good. It would be interesting to hear different perspectives on these issues as well. There are some issues where libertarianism can be a medium sized tent. Muslim refugees and sanctuary cities is a rather narrow slice of the libertarian pie.

    1. Try Breitbart.

    2. Not really libertarian, but far more insightful about what’s actually going on – and my favorite read these days:

      http://thezman.com/wordpress/

      1. I read his stuff too and it really is an interesting way to view current events. *Definitely* not libertarian. He’s actually called Reason out a couple times by name. Mainly for the open-borders stuff.

        1. So, he called Reason out for having a libertarian stance.

          1. I’m not really that interested into getting into a debate about it, but i think there’s a difference between,

            The principle of the Free Movement of Labor“, which is a libertarian concept

            and

            Open Borders” as it exists in practice, which isn’t

            The principle distinction being that the former does not necessarily require the latter.

            European countries, when they formed the EU, did not entirely dissolve their own border enforcement infrastructure and simply throw up their hands and stop checking people’s passports. They agreed on free movement of labor between their states, which required identifying who was actually a participating member in those agreements (citizens of member states)

            The libertarian concept of free movement of labor doesn’t *only* exist in a world with “zero border enforcement”, any more than a libertarian would demand that “free markets” can only be 100% unregulated, and any single regulatory mechanism instantly makes it ‘unfree’.

            Most libertarians would argue for a “Free(r)” economy that still retained some minor regulatory structures and call it an improvement over the status quo. But the attitude re: Borders seems very different, where we are barred from debating “improvements” to the status quo because ‘any regulations at all are too many/too much” and therefore verbotten.

            Its Ok if you don’t agree, or understand.

            1. I’m sure that you think you had a salient point, or were pointing out a distinction that I am unaware of.

              1. pointing out a distinction that I am unaware of

                Nobody gives a shit about your awareness. Either you demonstrate understanding of what is being said and argue in good faith, or you do not. Whatever you are “aware” only matters if it shapes what you say.

                1. If the purpose of his post was to inform me of a distinction that I am supposed to be unaware of, it failed. Maybe I don’t give a shit about what you believe I am required to demonstrate.

                  1. Maybe I don’t give a shit about what you believe I am required to demonstrate.

                    Put up or shut up. Gilmore has contributed more in one comment than you’ve contributed in your entire commenting history, which admittedly is not very long but is filled with arrogance. You deserve nothing but scorn if you offer nothing but bad faith.

    3. What’s remotely libertarian about the newly created “Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens?”

      1. America is for Americans, faggot.

      2. This article isn’t that bad, but I’m not available for comment on every article.

      3. Not much.

        But then again accepting refugees does not come without massive government involvement and a correspondingly massive price tag.

        Funny how only one is seen as being a problem for liberty…

    4. IIRC, meatspin.com have changed their format to be more left- libertarian if that helps.

      Note: DO NOT GO TO THAT SITE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. It was a joke.

      1. Yeah, but their content was pretty repetitive…

          1. “You are totally gay!!!!”

    5. CAIR and La Raza with a HuffPo seasoning

      the recipe for an incompetent reconquista against the infidel?

    6. they do generate commeing

      Two things:

      1. That’s not how you spell “cumming” and
      2. That’s not a clever euphemism.

    7. If you’re into economics at all, try mises.org and fee.org

  13. An 18 year-old nerd pinches a 16 year-old fuckface in the ass and forfeits his life and career to a goddamn sex offender list and somehow its blasphemous to list an illegal alien for beating the turd out of an old lady.

    “How about an undocumented immigrant driving without a license..?”

    How about fucking scribe boy Anthony Fisher driving without a license? Try that more than once as an actual citizen of this country and you’ll get your ass janked.

    What is your devotion to treating people here illegally as if they have been formed from platinum molecules and marvelously planted here by magical super-deity fingers? Nothing is owed them. NOTHING.

    1. mumble mumble two wrongs mumble mumble

    2. Not even basic human dignity and considerations like presumption of innocence?

    3. Aside:

      Fuck licensing. It’s a perfected right.

      As you were. Don’t mind me. Can’t help myself.

      1. Quiet you. Can’t you see we’re trying to build a better world where people are free to go about their business so long as they are vetted, registered, and licensed by the benevolent state?

      2. Licensing is foolproof bureaucracy… and the existential narrowness of modern America has proven to be over-bearing bullshit.

        However, as intellectually-deprived the current system is it exists as the steel trappings of reality imposed on everyday Americans which is being bent to meet the disparate needs of those outside the system.

        The fucking governing baseline with all its pockmarks and pits is being rebuilt and adapted in ways never witnessed for ordinary Americans.

  14. Welcome to New Somalia. Make yourselves comfortable, we might be here a while. 🙂

  15. The biggest problem with this is that last time I checked, crime was supposed to be a local law enforcement issue, not a federal issue.

    Oh wait, that’s right, I forgot: this is not longer a republic with clearly delineated separation of powers and responsibilities between the Federal, State, and local levels of governments. We got rid of that, like, 100 year old document written by white slave owning men and replaced it with an elected monarchy. Nevermind, my bad.

    1. crime was supposed to be a local law enforcement issue, not a federal issue.

      And what is public education, chopped liver?

    2. And immigration was supposed to be a federal issue. They should both stick to their knitting.

    3. “crime was supposed to be a local law enforcement issue”

      Only in the hazy land where Pollyanna shuffles a snappy jig.

      What is ideal is rarely material for any number of valid reasons.

      On one hand lies industry requiring cheap uneducated labor and a political party fabricated from collectivist doctrines and hysteria desperate for lost, malleable, and voting souls while on the other hand exists the devotees of enshrined liberty who grasp the historically-proven reality that entire nations can be rebuilt on the whims of anti-conceptualists.

      The gulf between thunders with provocation, deception, and the misappropriation of truth.

      Whereas those who thrive on the ethos of American liberty are generally frank and honest and hold to a reality-based apprehension toward powerful external ideologies those with whom Reason swings present their doctrines through the fragmented glimmers of altruism and repurposed hope cleverly braided with a plodding conjoined dismay of those who ‘resist the needy.’

  16. Denying funds is the easy and possibly impermissible thing, but progressives have developed plenty of tools for fucking over their enemies that are now Trump’s to use as he sees fit.

    He can start by taking the poorest and most crime-prone demographics of immigrants and move them into upscale limosine liberal neighborhoods to crater their home values and make sure their nice public schools have to spend time and money on ESL kids from rough backgrounds.

    A lot of sanctuary cities are also fairly corrupt, so he can pretty much aggressively prosecute politicans in those areas for bribery and whatnot. And I shudder to think what will happen if they let the IRS loose on Hollywood accountants.

    Ideally, Trump will make sure to employ every favorite tool of the progressive technocracy as a weapon, to force them to break their own toys in order to impede him and set their accumulation of power back a decade or two.

    1. They spent 8 years weaponizing government under Obama, thinking he would hand it over to Hillary to then really stick it to the other tribes, and then they got stuck with Trump.

      You would think the progs would figure out why sane and smart people advocate for the smallest government possible, but they only see this stuff as a problem if the other side gets to use it too.

      I find it quite telling that the people most pissed at Trump’s people’s ineptitude and that EO temporarily halting refugees from Syria, are the ones that wanted Hillary in office.She, instead of wasting time with stupid paperwork, like Obama did, would be bombing these people. And I suspect we would be hearing nary a peep from the snowflakes all pissed about what Trumpkins did.

      1. should be:

        She, instead of wasting time with stupid paperwork, would be bombing these people, like Obama did.

  17. ‘Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens’

    “In the criminal justice system, sexually-based offenses like so-called ‘honor killings’ are considered especially heinous.”

      1. *** face turns red ***

        1. I turn red when I watch this.

          TW: sexay.

  18. Breitbartarians:

    “Bar the CDC from tracking gun crimes because they can’t be trusted!”

    “Create a brand new bureaucracy to track crimes committed by illegal immigrants!”

    1. One of those is a protected constitutional right

      The other enjoys no protections.

      Me and my aresenal first and fuck people who from other countries.

    2. That analogy would work better if Trump was assigning the CDC to track the, ah, “epidemic” of immigrant crime. IOW, the agenda is only part of the reason that bothers people.

  19. Get Ready for the ‘Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens’

    Why, this seems almost as insane as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Except, you know, the people reporting crimes to this one will be actual victims instead of people too stupid or lazy to read the fine print. (With a budget of $605.9 MILLION by the way)

  20. More like east-Germany every day

    **face-palm**

    1. Weren’t the soviet bloc nations pretty open for people coming in? It was letting people leave they were notoriously stingy about.

  21. Breitbartarians, part 2:

    “Your chance of being killed by an assault weapon is pretty much zero.”

    “OMG TEH TERRORISTS AND IMMIGRANT RAPISTS! SAVE US BIG GOVERNMENT!”

    1. Then: “Ugh, that Obama is reprehensible, standing on the bodies of shooting victims to make policy arguments.”

      Now: “Have you heard about how Trump is finally going to get justice for Kate Steinle after she was killed by the filthy savage immigrant hordes?”

    2. Wow. You’re actually, no shit, saying the bitches in Cologne had it coming. Or were they asking for it? Yikes.

  22. Not sure why we need a new bureaucracy for this, but other than that.

    Deportables that commit crimes are a failure of the government to do its job. Its a little odd to me that people are opposed to the government trying to monitor its own effectiveness by tracking data that makes it look bad.

    1. Yes, it really is a mystery why government would push the myth that it needs more power and money to keep us safe.

      A real headscratcher, that one.

      1. Where is the powerif this is just “reporting” (the money is obvious – GS 9s and 12s don’t work for free!)?

        1. “Oh look at all these immigrant criminals. You won’t be safe unless you let us crack down on them!”

  23. “While even one “honor killing” is one too many, these numbers lay bare the exaggerated threat to the nation posed by the despicable practice in Trump’s executive order.”

    Isn’t one more than there should be? If the government had done its job than that death would have never occurred. I don’t see why the victim shouldn’t be allowed to sue the federal government for failure to control immigration. Seems like shaming governments for violating federal law is the least egregious thing that could be done.

    Wait, am I on Vox.com?

    1. Isn’t one more than there should be?

      Isn’t one victim killed by an AR-15 one more than there should be?

      1. Fair retort. However, I don’t think the US Constitution states ‘the right of the people to keep and bear refugees shall not be infringed’.

        1. Or substitute ‘refugee’ for ‘illegal alien’

  24. This argument is very weak.

    The people who succeeded at making it through America’s vetting process for immigrants legally are less likely to commit crimes than natives. They’re more likely to start businesses. They’re more likely to integrate into society. That is an argument that vetting and legal immigration works. Your argument is deeply flawed because it relies on a logical fallacy: survivorship bias. You look only at the survivors of some process, and then project that experience onto everyone else who were rejected by it.

    Why do they start more businesses? Because we chose them as most likely to do so. Why do they commit less crime on average? Because we looked into the history and rejected criminals. Why do they integrate? Because we determined that they had a better likelihood of succeeding at it.

    We can do better than this. We should be rejecting these shitty arguments as proggy nonsense, but we don’t. Let’s just overwhelm Reason with bad arguments. Those will convince people for sure.

    1. In essence, Fisher’s argument is for semi-open borders, not completely open borders. Which is what we already have.

  25. “it makes their job fighting crime (real crime, not imagined crime) harder if “you create a shadow population…that fears any interaction” with police,”

    I’m not so certain that a new law can create something that already exists.

  26. The police’s primary reason: it makes their job fighting crime (real crime, not imagined crime) harder if “you create a shadow population…that fears any interaction” with police, as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Times.

    Wouldn’t that be anyone with common sense?

  27. I’m more interested in accurate and transparent crime data in general. The entirety of the issue is still so ambiguous that Red and Blue could fight over it for years with plenty of sources to cite.

  28. “In last Wednesday’s executive order on “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” …

    Writing off the coasts eh? Yeah they’re probably too far gone.

  29. Since an overwhelming majority of residents are NOT immigrants, it wouldn’t be too surprising that they commit more crimes overall. The crime rate among them is likely a different matter. What’s wrong with knowing the facts?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.