Immigration

It's Up to Congress to Save the Dreamers Donald Trump Just Threw Under the Bus

Scrapping DACA is a callous act that'll hurt the country.

|

President Donald Trump's decision to scrap DACA six months from now—DACA being Barack Obama's deferred deportation program for

Trump Pinnochio
DonkeyHoter via Foter.com

"Dreamers," immigrants brought to this country without authorization as minors—is fiscally dumb, economically counterproductive, and morally reprehensible. The only upside of his move, which Trump didn't even have the cojones to announce himself, is that it might finally prod Congress to get off its derrière and create a path for permanent legal status for Dreamers instead of leaving their fates to presidential whims. But it's by no means certain that Congress can do this cleanly, if at all.

Congress has given the president immense statutory discretion in enforcing immigration law. And just as Obama had the legal authority to create the DACA program, Trump has the authority to scrap it, regardless of Attorney General Jeff Sessions claims that the Obama action was illegal.

Obama gave qualified Dreamers with clean records a two-year reprieve ("parole") from deportation and temporary work authorization—not permanent green cards, mind you. After that, if they had remained in school or gainfully employed and if they generally kept out of trouble, they could apply for renewal. About 800,000 people obtained DACA status out of an estimated Dreamer population of a million-plus.

Up until now, the Trump administration had not only continued to renew the status of existing DACAs but also extended it to new Dreamers, all of which was "illegal" if AG Sessions is to be believed. This had raised hopes that Trump would preserve at least this program even as his Department of Homeland Security cracked down on the rest of the undocumented population. (Indeed, among former DHS Secretary John Kelly's first acts upon assuming office was to end the late Obama-era policy of limiting deportation action to criminal aliens and making all undocumented aliens, even those with no criminal records, fair game for removal.) Trump did, after all, say he has a "big heart" and would "take care" of Dreamers.

Apparently, he overestimated the size of his heart.

The vast majority of Dreamers have lived in America practically their entire lives, with little to no contact with their birthland. Many of them work, have served in the military, volunteered in relief efforts after Hurricane Harvey. So exiling them from a country where they have family, friends, and community ties to one where they have no roots at all is beyond cruel. To add insult to injury, the Dreamers who obtained deferred action status under DACA are especially vulnerable to deportation, because the government now has all their contact information.

Not only is there no harm in letting them stay, but there is a major upside to keeping them around.

Dreamers are 12.5 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives with the same socioeconomic characteristics. The average DACA beneficiary is 22 years old, is employed, and earns about $17 an hour. Projecting from that, Ike Brannon calculates that they contribute $215 billion to the economy annually. Meanwhile, their fiscal costs are comparable to the fiscal costs of H-1B workers, which are minimal. Under current law, DACA beneficiaries are ineligible for means-tested welfare benefits that are provided by the federal government or funded through federal matching grants to the states. And few states extend welfare benefits to DACA Dreamers on their own. As a result, DACA beneficiaries contribute $60 billion more to taxes than they consume in benefits. All of that works out to about $275 billion in economic and fiscal contributions. And given that it costs Uncle Sam $10,000 to deport a Dreamer, the total deportation cost of all of them would be about $10 billion, adding up to over a quarter trillion total hit to America.

So even if you buy the idea that Dreamers are "lawbreakers," if there is any group worthy of a presidential "pardon," it's them. After all, over the last 50 years, almost every president has used his prosecutorial discretion to offer a reprieve to entire groups of unauthorized foreigners.

And yet Donald Trump, the man who had no compunctions pardoning a rogue cop like former Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio, couldn't find it in his "big heart" to pardon the Dreamers. The White House is spinning this decision as an "emotional struggle" that was forced on the president by a group of red state legislators threatening to sue the program if he didn't scrap it by today. This would have put the president in the untenable position of having to defend the program, they claim, that the Supreme Court was likely to rule against given that a tied decision last year let a lower court ruling against DACA stand.

But the president doesn't know that. The fact of the matter is Trump put himself in a bad position with his harsh anti-immigration rhetoric that left him little wiggle room to manuver without losing face with his base. Otherwise, he could have taken the wind out of the lawsuit by declaring support in advance for a myriad bills—some by his own party—to protect the Dreamers. For example, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) recently dusted off the DREAM Act, which would hand green cards to illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children so long as they (1) graduate from high school or serve in the military, (2) pass a background check, (3) speak English, (4) demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history, and (5) pay a fee.

Likewise, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fl.) and 10 other Republicans have introduced the Recognizing America's Children Act, which would grant five-year conditional permanent status to immigrants who arrived before the age of 16; have been in the U.S. since January 1, 2012; have graduated high school; and have been accepted in college or vocational school, have applied to enlist in the military, or have existing valid work authorization. Their conditional status would be cancelled if they go on welfare, are dishonorably discharged from the military, or are unemployed for more than a year. The bill is arguably too harsh, since it leaves Dreamers so little margin for error.

Trump's move today seems designed to give the immigration hardliners in Congress vital ammunition to hold the fate of Dreamers hostage in order to extract concessions on enforcement action—funding to build the Great Wall of Trump, more appropriations for border patrol agents, etc. Indeed, immigration advocates who've been approaching Congressional Republicans for legislative action are finding little wllingness among them to move anything Dreamer-related unless it's tied to enforcement. The question is whether they'll settle for a modest or a large "pound" of flesh.

Maybe this will change now that the legislators actually have the Dreamers' fate in their hands. It's up to Congress to avert the humanitarian train wreck that this administration has set in motion.

NEXT: Democrats Blame Trump for Disappearing Sexual-Assault Report...That Was Archived by Obama Administration

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. Who wins the pool?

  2. Live by the pen, die by the pen.

    1. Yup, pretty much everyone here pointed out that the program could be scrapped just as easily as it was created. Obama created the mess, something Shikha pretty much ignores completely. Trump is throwing it to Congress, where it should have been in the first place, and which really was a brilliant political move. Now the Republicans have a bargaining chip in the immigration debate.

      1. What was stopping Congress before?

        1. Democrats had both Houses and the Presidency. They spent most of their political capital blowing up our healthcare system. So maybe that?

          1. Not to mention that neither party was the least bit interested in opening up this can of worms. The status quo (legal limbo, cheap labor) benefits enough people that they will continue kicking the can down the road as long as possible.

          2. Now Republicans do. They’ve accomplished fuck all.

            1. Tony|9.5.17 @ 12:26PM|#
              “Now Republicans do. They’ve accomplished fuck all.”

              Which quite a few of us find to be a good start.

          3. I thought we had the best health care system in the world.

            Oh, I get it. Now that the government runs some overpriced web site health insurance market for less than 10% of us it has been “blown up”.

            1. Not even you can be that retarded. Wait…yes you can.

            2. Right, 10,000 pages of law to run a website. Fuck off.

              1. You’re not on Obamacare so STFU. You still have what you had a decade ago with historically commensurate cost increases.

                Why don’t you conservatives ever bitch about Medicare Part D? It costs more than Obamacare netting out taxes.

                Face it, neither party is small government.

                1. You’re the one claiming that the ACA was a simple website. Also ignoring we were promised costs would go down. Also, not historically commensurate cost increases; you can’t pretend what the government is spending does not exist. I find it hard to believe that even if you ignored the vast amounts of money the government is spending that insurance costs have gone up at the same rate in the past 8 years as they did the previous 50+.

                2. “You’re not on Obamacare so STFU. ”

                  So, what do you call making non-compliant plans illegal?


                3. You’re not on Obamacare so STFU. You still have what you had a decade ago with historically commensurate cost increases.

                  Laughable. And no one has what they had before the ACA, because those plans were made illegal. Duh, McFly.

                4. Palin’s Buttplug|9.5.17 @ 12:42PM|#
                  “Face it, neither party is small government.”

                  PUSH them goalposts turd! It’s about all you’re good for.

                5. Historically commensurate? Not even close…

                  Conservatives DO bitch about Medicare Part D. Don’t fall into the liberal trap of “I’m pretty sure I’m not supposed to like conservatism, and I don’t like Trump, therefore Trump ,must be a conservative.” Hell the man wasn’t even a Republican until it became convenient to declare himself one.

            3. It screwed up many more of our plans with higher deductibles and co pays.

            4. Maybe it was the largest Medicaid expansion in history that was billed as affordable care that wasn’t affordable, but was actually more expensive. Maybe it was the keep your insurance/doctor lies. Maybe it was and entire political party passing a bill that affects so many lives that none of them read.

              Maybe that is why some are a little touchy about the Unaffordable Lie Act.

          4. And before anyone’s IQ takes too big of a ding, it is a myth that Democrats had some substantial period of time of total control of Congress. They had 60 Senate votes for a combined two or three months during Obama’s 8 years, much of that with Ted Kennedy out sick. And those were the days of Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, who were barely Democrats.

            1. If we’re talking immigration, I’m sure they could have found the Republicans, especially Senators, that would have gone right along with it.

            2. That’s horseshit that both parties spew. You can’t cry FILIBUSTER unless the procedure was actually ability to legislation in progress.

            3. They had a majority of both houses and the Presidency for 2 years. The ACA passed in the House with 51% and in the Senate with 60 votes, all democrats and 2 IINOs

            4. blah blah blah, so on and so forth, therefore……….

            5. And before anyone’s IQ takes too big of a ding, it is a myth that Democrats had some substantial period of time of total control of Congress. They had 60 Senate votes for a combined two or three months during Obama’s 8 years, much of that with Ted Kennedy out sick. And those were the days of Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, who were barely Democrats.

              The Republicans have, what, 53 seats? And that’s with plenty of squishes. Do you want to argue that Nelson and Lieberman were more out of touch with the base than Snowe, McCain, Murkowski, et al?

          5. Yes. I always wondered if immigration was so important, then why didn’t Democrats do anything with they had the power. It would have been much easier to do than the ACA. It’s like they only care about it as a political issue come election time.

        2. There was nothing stopping Congress.

          But, like Congress’ ten million meaningless votes to repeal ObamaCare, they weren’t actually serious about doing anything.

          1. Immigration reform had just taken a big hit at the tail end of the Bush presidency. And that was with Bush, McCain and somewhat strong bipartisan support.

            WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate dealt a fatal blow on Thursday to President George W. Bush’s overhaul of immigration policy — an emotional issue that has divided Americans in the run-up to next year’s presidential election.

            Dashing the hopes of millions of immigrants seeking legal status and exposing a deep lack of support among Bush’s own Republicans, the bill fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed in the 100-member Senate to advance toward a final vote.

            1. You’re not talking about immigration reform, you’re talking about the wildly unpopular amnesty push by McCain in 2007. It failed because the American public didn’t want that, and still doesn’t.

              1. So the lesson is that voters don’t want immigration reform.

                1. No.

                  The lesson is that voters don’t want 30 million illegals already here made legal, they want them to be deported.

                  The lesson is that the voters want legal immigration REFORMED and illegal immigration STOPPED.

        3. The fact that every immigration reform they hacked up was virulently unpopular and sure to get them all primaried. A number lost their seats, mostly Democrats and immigration positions were on every honest poll, and a few of the faked polls. One of our state’s reps was vaguely pro-amnesty until he got shellacked at a Lion’s club dinner by donors to his campaigns. He sounded out a few other clubs he was scheduled to speak at and released a decent mea culpa.

      2. Deven you hit the nail right on the head. This is how it should go. And If Dalmia’s assertion that the ‘dreamers’ are being ‘thrown under the bus’ were true, Trump wouldn’t have delayed things for six months.

      3. If it was legal, how come Obummy kept saying over & over for 2 years that he could not do it via ex. order?…Then, when he was dropping in the polls amongst Hispanics before the 2012 election, he all of a sudden decided to do it!!

        Phony Progressive BS!!!

      4. I agree. People would bitch if Trump extended DACCA by Executive Order (the way Obama crested it) and they are now bitching he will let it expire unless CON-gress actually does it’s job. The Chickens in CON-gress will not do anything so as not to piss anyone off and let Trump take all the blame.

        The Republicans never wanted Trump won’t lift a finger to help him. The Democrats hate him for switching parties. The guy will be scapegoated for everything CON-gress fails to do.

      5. absolutely correct, Shikha let emotions run away, not a very Libertarian position to take,

        The Courts are ready to follow precedent and declare Obama’s Executive order Unconstitutional, as they did others. He incessantly ignored congress, showing what a lousy statesman he was/is.

      6. Nothing Trump has done can be described as a “brilliant political move”

  3. Actually I think it was one of the NRO guys who said that Trump postponing the elimination of DACA for 6 months is actually an opportunity to find a proper solution for the plight of the DREAMers, one that doesn’t rely on executive fiat, while providing ample notice to those who will be affected if Congress doesn’t come up with a solution. I actually think this is the correct solution here. I’m not thrilled with the idea of these DREAMers being deported to a country that they have never known, but it is Congress’ call to deal with it.

    1. Actually I think it’s a move to make immigration an issue in the Republican primaries, where it will favor Trump supporters.

      1. Well then Trump is in trouble.

        http://americasvoice.org/press…..portation/

        1. And Hillary was up by 50.

  4. It always was up to Congress – Obama tried to let Congress off the hook. Trump said no, Congress makes laws (subject to the constitution, and like his opponents, Trump believes Congress can regulate immigration – only some ultra-libertarian or constitutionalist right-wing eccentrics will challenge immigration regulation on 10th Amendment grounds).

    So I guess you can say Trump is being humbler than Obama by saying that (unlike Obama) he doesn’t claim the power to set aside statutes just because he dislikes them.

    1. By the way, I presume that the columnists who love talking about the importance of Presidential humility will run editorials praising Trump? /sarc

      1. “Presidential humility” has to be judged on a very different scale than your run-of-the-mill humility.

    2. I’d believe this was his reasoning if, at the same time he announced the end of the program, he said he was eager for Congress to pass a stand-alone bill legislatively authorizing the program that he could sign. Sending Sessions out to do the “we’re just enforcing our laws” meme shows that he’s just a piece of sh*t who wants to play politics will the livelihoods of millions of people.

      1. Pretty much everything the fed government does is playing politics with the livelihood of millions of people.

      2. I agree that it was more Machiavellian.

        “I can get what I want and put it at the feet of Congress”

    3. Yep, DACA was not within Obama’s constitutional power and continuing it is not within Trump’s. At least Trump has given notice he intends to stop this unconstitutional administrative fiat, and gave Congress 6 months notice.

    4. Yeah he’s Buddha like in his humbleness. I want to know who your crack dealer is.

  5. It’s sad that we have to resort to pithy euphamisms like being “thrown under the bus” to describe armed goons coming to someone’s door, arresting them, and deporting them to a foreign country they have never known.

    1. There’s a 10th Amendment case against the feds deporting someone because they engaged in illegal foreign commerce a few decades ago – but the #Resist people aren’t making that case.

    2. Nobody could possibly be as serious about it as you are, Hazel.

    3. “I’m a libertarian but… [brown people, precious ‘Murican gene pool].”

      1. Re: Tony,

        In this very case, you’re right. Exclusionists, those who would have the State exclude people they don’t like, were never libertarian to begin with, nevertheless pretended to put a libertarian veneer on their statism.

        1. If a libertarian state has no borders, then there is no such thing as a libertarian state.

          If that’s libertarianism, perhaps it would explain the less than 5% support for it.

          1. Once you purge Libertopia of all the heretics, do you enforce some sort of indoctrination program on new children being born, or do you wait and see if they become true believers by a certain age, and then decide whether to keep them or throw them out?

            1. Define the difference between Libertopia and Anarchistan, please.

            2. You can’t purge Libertopia of heretics. There are none–you’ve got to buy in. And so do your kids once they become adults–until then YOU pay for them and their transit into and or through places you don’t own. Once they’re adults they can buy in or leave.

              You don’t get a vote unless you’ve bought in.

              You can hire anyone from anywhere you want, you can have them live with you–or whatever you want, but as long as they’re under contract with you, you pay for them, for all transit issues, for all issues dealing with others property.

              No borders.

              Property lines. Libertopians own Libertopia because they bought in.

          2. Because it’s totally not ironic that you’re admitting that a market-based political system can’t succeed in the marketplace of ideas without a bunch of top-down help.

            1. A market is a state with borders?

              What’s not ironic is you condesceding.

          3. Problem is the anarchists think they are pure libertarians. They are not, they are anarchists. We have many things in common, but an anarchic state is just as ridiculous and against human nature as a Marxist state.

            1. ^^^THIS^^^

              I get tired of anarchist who claim they are libertarian. The elimination of the nation-state is anarchism, not libertarian.

              Nation-states require borders in order to protect their societies. For example, we have free-trade WITHIN the United States because it is within the nation and the same basic laws and regulations apply. “Free trade” between nations is a chimera because free trade can only exist in a unified market.

          4. perhaps it would explain the less than 5% support for it.

            The low support for libertarianism is because it requires thought. It lacks emotional appeal. You’ve got to think about it. You can’t toss out a few slogans and get an emotional reaction.
            George Carlin said that making your audience think is the kiss of death. Well, libertarianism is smooching with death.
            Funny thing is that it’s really simple. Yet so many people, like Tony for example, cannot understand it. Again, because it is cognitive, not emotive.

            1. Not really, there are libertarians who are just as likely to base their politics on emotions rather than thought as non-libertarians.

              1. Sure, there are some. But we don’t claim a Hippo is the same as a fish just because it swims sometimes.

            2. It is because women want a government safety net for the children.

              My wife is very free market but she will NEVER vote for a reduction in federal grants for children.

            3. Haha, no that’s definitely not it. The ‘no borders’ crowd prove that false at face value, as there has never been and likely never will be such a thing. So that’s a track record of lets say 5,000 years where it hasn’t worked or been a thing. Even when considering tribes of people rather than states.

              The irony of those types of people talking down to Marxists about wishful thinking and faulty reasoning has never been lost on me, but I’m sure many here would disagree with me.

              This is, in just my opinion, the difference between a ‘libertarian’ and an ‘anarchist’. The necessary condition for many of those so-called policies is a failed state overall, but I hate to tell them that something always comes after anarchy. Always. It’s a transition state, not a state of being.

        2. Take your ‘no true Scotsman’ and fuck off. Brain drain to the US is causing a lot of these countries to stay 3rd world. Your version of Libertarianism completely ignores property rights and also openly encourages foreign invasion through naivety. Read up on what happened in Serbia. California is quickly becoming a prime example of why your version is dangerous.

          A bunch of people move from one place to another and whether intentionally or unintentionally take it over through voting powers. They then begin turning it into the same type of shitty place they just fled.

          Take your bleeding heart and go live in East LA for few years.

        3. Constitution > than my libertarian beliefs.

          The ends do not justify the means. I think DACA is good policy. Giving the President nearly unlimited power with immigration is an insult to the Constitution, republicanism, democracy and self government. Having a changing immigration policy every 4-8 years based on a President’s wishes is banana republic garbage. Collectivists throw out the rule of law for preferred policies. Libertarians value the rule of law and federalism more than their individually preferred policies. You are a collectivists if you want to keep DACA.

          1. ^ All of this.

      2. Tony’s angry. All Dreamers can say at Tony’s cool pad.. for free.

      3. I am libertarian and as such had a yuuuge problem with the constitutionality of DACA even though I agreed with the policy. Trump is right here, it is up to Congress to make immigration laws. I do not want immigration laws being decided every four years based on who is president. That hurts everyone much more than a full repeal of DACA would (even though I disagree with that a lot).

        “I am libertarian but I am really a collectivists where the ends ALWAYS justify the means, Constitution be damned!”
        -Tony

      4. I like that there part about paying less taxes. Sounds like I’m a libertarian.

    4. No one is going door to door. Sorry, but Trump ain’t Hitler.

      1. Some people that support Trump call themselves Nationalists, because they love what America stands for. Freedom, liberty, individualism, all that jazz.

        Hitler was a Nationalist. He wanted the people to worship the state, which was indistinguishable from his party, which was the government.

        Therefore Trump is Hitler.

        Logic 101.

        1. “Hitler was a Nationalist. He wanted the people to worship the state, which was indistinguishable from his party, which was the government.”

          I think you’ve misconstrued Nazism. It was the Fuhrer that people were expected to worship. That was what all that heil hitlering was about. The relationship between the state, the party and the government was never clearly demarkated, as I understand, leading to endless bureaucratic squabbles. Such as the troubles that surrounded ‘the committee of three.’

          1. That was really my point, ineloquently.

            The Fuhrer was the state, was the Party, was Germany, whether clearly demarcated or not. That was the point of German Nationalism. Power.

            Contrast that with American Nationalism, and you see how ludicrous the whole idea is. It is like claiming that American Conservatives are the same as Pakistani Conservatives. What each is trying to conserve makes all the difference.

          2. Trump wants worship too. That’s why he has all these “rallies” after he’s been elected. That’s why he expects absolute “loyalty” out of all his appointees. If you don’t think Trump wants worship you haven’t been paying attention.

            1. I can’t recall a President in my lifetime (with the possible exceptions of Truman and Eisenhower) who didn’t want worship, up to and including Obama himself.

            2. I can’t recall a President in my lifetime (with the possible exceptions of Truman and Eisenhower) who didn’t want worship, up to and including Obama himself.

        2. No one will ever be Hitler for a long time, but Sessions is definitely up for some Stazi tactics.

      2. I don’t think anyone’s trying to insult Hitler by comparing him to the illiterate Trump.

        1. However I have seen people insult retards by calling you one.

        2. Tony’s still butt hurt that Hillary Clinton, the blood thirsty war monger and sworn enemy of individual liberty, was defeated by === Donald Trump!

          Rachel Maddow Crying As Trump Wins

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_U-oomP9E

        3. You give stupid a bad name.

      3. Even if someone *is* going door to door, it’s door to door *once again* or to more doors. Like throwing them in local jails for drug abuse or tax evasion (or even refusing to draw blood or just shooting them to death in the street) is somehow a better situation or lesser issue than NeoHitler’s Ethnic Cleansing II: As Good As the First, Honest!

        1. Or throwing them in local jails for not having permission slips to have jobs.
          Nothing like fascism at all. They aren’t even speaking German.

          1. We throw English-speaking natives in jail for lacking permission slips and do/did well before DACA. So, tell me HazelMeade, who has the greater right to a job? Would you feel better about Hitler if he’d just let undesirables starve jobless in the street like Mao or Stalin?

            1. We throw English-speaking natives in jail for lacking permission slips

              Oh, ho. I was unaware of this national job distribution program, requiring everyone to obtain a license before having a job.
              Do please fill me in.

              1. Do please fill me in.

                There’s a niche news outlet who repeatedly draws attention to this issue. I figured you would’ve heard of them.

                Or is it only an important job distribution program when it applies across the country and/or to Mexicans/Immigrants? That we should worry more about illegal Mexicans and cutting grass than we should about legal Mexicans and Americans being forced to pay for shitty healthcare because of nation-wide, but varied(!!!), protectionist schemes?

                1. Yes indeed, it is unacceptable that you should have to prove you are in the country legally to get a job in that country. Oh wait!

                  I start out feeling like we should be nice to illegals and take time to deport them, give them opportunity to apply to come here legally. Then I come here and read the stupid anarchist blathering and get so disgusted I wonder if we should not just shoot them and deport the dead bodies.

                  In short, your blathering does not persuade people, it make them lose patience. Idiot

              2. You’re kidding, right? I believe mine was a combination of birth certificate and SS card.

                1. You’re kidding, right? I believe mine was a combination of birth certificate and SS card.

                  Your what?

                  Born and raised here and I’ve had plenty of property confiscated because it was illegal to own it and/or I didn’t have the proper paperwork. On countless occasions, I’ve had work stoppages for both immigrant (of all colors) and non-immigrant workers alike because the job site didn’t have the proper paperwork. By Hazel’s reckoning, the police state is okay as long as it doesn’t have any borders. That some oppression is okay as long as everyone gets oppressed equally.

                  1. I’m talking about permission to hold any job AT ALL.
                    The government can’t legally deny a US citizen a birth certificate or a social security card.
                    Aliens can’t get those things, so they have to get additional permissions to hold any kind of job whatsoever, legally.

                    Having a job is a victimless crime. It is a voluntary exchange of money for labor which every human being has a right to engage in. To say that allowing people to have jobs without special permission is equivalent to anarchy is just absurd.

                    1. “The government can’t legally deny a US citizen a birth certificate or a social security card.
                      Aliens can’t get those things, so they have to get additional permissions to hold any kind of job whatsoever, legally.”

                      They can absolutely get those things… in their own country! You know, where they were born? I’ve spent time with many illegals who come here, get rich and then move back. Why can they freely move back to that country? Hmm… maybe because they were born there?

                      You’re perfectly OK with handing out dual citizenship as long as it helps out the person invading a foreign country. How can you be so naive?

                    2. This. Absolutely this.

                    3. “The government can’t legally deny a US citizen a birth certificate or a social security card.
                      Aliens can’t get those things, so they have to get additional permissions to hold any kind of job whatsoever, legally.”

                      They can absolutely get those things… in their own country! You know, where they were born? I’ve spent time with many illegals who come here, get rich and then move back. Why can they freely move back to that country? Hmm… maybe because they were born there?

                      You’re perfectly OK with handing out dual citizenship as long as it helps out the person invading a foreign country. How can you be so naive?

                    4. “Having a job is a victimless crime.”

                      Not if the reason you have that job is because you’re working for half the pay, cash under the table, and neither you or your boss is paying the proper taxes on your employment. When there’s a thumb on the free-market scale, the guy who plays by the rules is likely to be a victim.

                    5. Yes indeed, it is unacceptable that you should have to prove you are in the country legally to get a job in that country. Oh wait!

                      I start out feeling like we should be nice to illegals and take time to deport them, give them opportunity to apply to come here legally. Then I come here and read the stupid anarchist blathering and get so disgusted I wonder if we should not just shoot them and deport the dead bodies.

                      In short, your blathering does not persuade people, it make them lose patience. Idiot

                  2. Your what?

                    My “license to obtain a job”. Thread fail.

          2. kind of like government business licensing you progtards love so much. What do you think happens if you are running a business without a government license?

      4. No one is going door to door.

        Really? How far off does that seem right now? Are you quite certain it is beyond the realm of possibility?

        1. My understanding is that plenty of these immigrants fled countries where they already literally go door to door recruiting/murdering. Kinda makes it seem like at least parts of their country have a greater Hitler problem than ours does/we do.

          1. Imagine the irony then if we turned out to be no better than the places they fled.

            1. Oh fuck off. You say the most idiotic hyperbolic things. Are you really this soft headed? Or are you just off/on your meds?

            2. You mean like before DACA when their parents fled from there to here?

              Either these people are colossal morons, you’re rounding off logical corners in your extrapolation from Trump to Hitler, or both.

              In any event, not doing a very good job of refuting the notion that open borders is some manner of panacea or even a very good idea, if only because it makes native libertarians inherently stupid/inconsistent/SJW-y.

              History doesn’t provide prescience. In the hysteria to describe Trump as Hitler, it’s just as likely that you could be describing/shaming him as President Ebert or von Hindenberg.

              1. Before DACA we didn’t have a President who was a mentally ill clown who literally ran on the premise that he would deport 11 million illegal aliens.

                1. I’m glad you clarified that with the person’s signature issue, because otherwise the number of possibilities was just too high.

                2. Trump’s win: Top media meltdowns

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oZpTzTL9cU

                  Very funny, check it out. Hillary Clinton will NEVER be president !!!f Fuckin AAA!!!

                3. Before DACA we didn’t have a President who was a mentally ill clown who literally ran on the premise that he would deport 11 million illegal aliens.

                  He actually said he’d deport 11M?

                  Where?

                  And the President who created DACA was a mentally ill clown who said his election would cause the seas to stop rising and would bring the country together.

                4. Well, as an expert in mental illness, I am sure we can trust your evaluation.

            3. I. Don’t. Care

              1. Yes. We’re aware of you total disregard for other people’s basic human rights.

                1. “Yes. We’re aware of you total disregard for other people’s basic human rights.”

                  You mean, like the right to citizenship in my own country and the constant dilution of it by a bunch of SJW idiots who think it’s ok to break the law as long as it feeeeeeels good?

                  It’s our country, we should absolutely get to choose who enters it. We created laws specifically to address this. Those laws were broken.

                  1. You created those laws to stop other people from competing with you for jobs.
                    And to control who your fellow citizens were allowed to employ in the process.

                    1. You utterly and repeatedly fail to understand that what you are literally saying is that American workers should get paid less. Considering those are the people who vote, yeah, I’d say the entire electorate has a vested interesting in restricting that flow of immigration hence the laws doing expressly that.

                      Now, if you can somehow magically dismantle our entire society and magically put it back together again in a different shape you would be disappointed to discover that those millions or billions of people who come over here probably won’t agree with you on the finer points of your vaulted ‘human rights’.

                      If you wanted to, say, restrict immigration to only nations that respect the idea’s of natural rights and constitutionalism we can have a conversation but just take a long slow gander at how well that shit is working out for Europe and ask yourself ‘do we want to import that shit show’.

                    2. Know any Economics? Apparently not. Perhaps you could next tell us your intuitions about submolecular physics ?

                    3. You created those laws to stop other people from competing with you for jobs.
                      And to control who your fellow citizens were allowed to employ in the process.

                      And?

                      Hazel is in favor of slavery, it appears. Sorry, not slavery — perhaps indentured servitude. That’d be cool.

                    4. So, a law is only legitimate if you agree with the motivation behind it? If you disagree, then it’s fine to ignore it. And you honestly can’t figure out where this kind of thinking would lead?

                    5. EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS THESE LAWS.

                      Are you upset enough to commit suicide yet ….. I hope?

                      PLEASE?

            4. Yes, imagine the irony. Or should we say “cruel joke.” (This is what happens when you believe propaganda regarding “best nation in the world.”)

            5. Imagine the irony then if we turned out to be no better than the places they fled.

              It’d be a non-irony as they’d just leave and go back home.

              But they will not. You and I know it.

              And we also both know why.

        2. Honestly?

          It seems very far off right now.

    5. It’s too bad their illegal parents put them in that position, and put our president in the position to be seen as the bad guy. Maybe they should have come here legally.

    6. I don’t give a fuck about these parasites. Take it up with their parents

    7. It sad that we send armed goons to someone’s door to recover stolen money from children whose parents stole the money. It not fair that they should have to give back that illegally gained stuff. And further, how can you send the parents to jail for robbery? You know that you will be breaking up a family don’t you?

      Idiot

      The fault for the “Dreamers” not growing up in and feeling at home in the country they are legal citizens of is their parents. Parents that should be jailed for human trafficing, since they smuggled underage children across the border.

    8. I agree, you are sad.

  6. This is what happens with coercive government; it coerces people into doing things that other people deem necessary.

    The fault here lies not with Trump, nor Congress, nor anybody in particular. It lies with having a coercive government.

    Yes it’s ethically dubious to deport people who weren’t responsible for being brought here as kids. The evil is not in deporting them by law, but in having a government with the kinds of police powers that make such actions legal.

    Any government which can force you to eat broccoli at pain of going to jail, or fine your for having the wrong kind of kitchen curtains, or rescind your business license becase you don’t cater to the right kind of people or do cater to the wrong kind of people … well, it can do pretty much anything under color of law.

    Whining about the people “elected” to run that government and make those kind of arbitrary decisions … a waste of time. You will be whining until the cows come home, like Sisyphus and his rock.

    Try whining about the root of evil here, the coercive government. I will have more sympathy.

    1. Yes it’s ethically dubious to deport people who weren’t responsible for being brought here as kids.

      It’s ethically dubious to let them stay, and reap the benefits of their parent’s crimes.

      Moral hazard.

      1. Moral hazard may apply, but in what other case do we punish individuals for the actions of their parents?

        1. You know who else punished children for the actions of their parents?

            1. Who knew that Trump was the Deity. Oh, that’s right, he did.

          1. Quite a number of rather unsavory individuals through history. Since most people will do just about anything to keep their children from harm, it’s an unfortunately very effective way of controlling people. However, it’s not the sort of thing that we consider to be legal in the US.

          2. Kim Jong Un?

        2. No one’s “punishing” them – they simply will no longer be allowed to keep the fruits of their parents’ crimes by staying in a country that they never had any right to be in in the first place.

          1. They should have a right to be in it.
            Nothing they are doing is violating anyone else’s rights. they are simply engaging in peaceful voluntary trade with other humans, like everyone else. All they lack is a few arbitrary pieces of paper.

            1. No, they shouldn’t. And more importantly, they don’t.

              1. Why not? What are they doing that is so wrong that they shouldn’t have a right to do it? Exchanging money for labor is a terrible thing that some people shouldn’t have a right to do?

              2. They have the same rights as you do. Rights come from nature, not from the government.

            2. These non-Americans are violating American law that Americans had their elected representative enact by a majority.

              That is why the majority of Americans are pissed that there are subversives trying to undermine American Rule of Law.

          2. I suppose that the same could be said of the descendants of slaves. Legally their ancestors were the property of someone, that someone was deprived of ownership without due compensation. So we Jews had just better turn ourselves into the Egyptians. (The term “we” is being used grammatically, not factually, since I sure hope that you’re not a Jew.)

            1. Sigh, YEP! Hurry up and get it done. At least we won’t have to put up with you any more.

          3. I think sometime in the next few months you will be crying yourself softly to sleep in your pillow as Congress passes a bipartisan visa program for the Dreamers. Make sure to stock up on kleenex, there’s no one Congress will send those kids back to those hell holes.

        3. Well, we could let the kids stay and deport the parents, who knowingly violated immigration and a lot of other laws in their selfish line-cutting actions.

          The 1M people who immigrate and become naturalized citizens legally every year certainly should have a better standing in my mind than someone who sneaks across the border and petulantly demands special considerations.

          1. Let’s extend that argument. People who want to start a business without a government permits should be treated like criminals because the people who started a business legally have a better standing in your mind than someone who sneakily engages in voluntary commerce and petulantly demands special considerations.

            Crime requires harm. The only “harm” illegal immigrants have committed is making legal immigrants look like patsies.

            Where is the victim?

            1. Constitution

            2. “Where is the victim?”

              Are you serious? There is no crime in East LA? Longbeach? Look up the crime statistics in Yakima, WA. You’re an idiot to think that criminals don’t flee their countries to come to the US because here they don’t have a wrap sheet and there are a bunch of naive idiots like you throwing yourselves in front of them with your bullshit, white guilt, SJW crap.

              Don’t kid yourself. There are really good reasons to screen immigrants and refugees from war zones and banana republics. But your virtue signalling, Victim Olympics, martyr hunting brain doesn’t seem to comprehend that.

              1. We were talking about the non-crime of crossing a border, not the crimes of theft and assault. Please do keep up.

                1. “We were talking about the non-crime of crossing a border, not the crimes of theft and assault. Please do keep up.”

                  Apparently I need to repeat myself. I understand, a couple of you are a little special:

                  Don’t kid yourself. There are really good reasons to screen immigrants and refugees from war zones and banana republics. But your virtue signalling, Victim Olympics, martyr hunting brain doesn’t seem to comprehend that.

              2. What part of “Dreamers are 12.5 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives with the same socioeconomic characteristics” in the article didn’t you understand?

                1. The argument here is ‘Open borders’ for everybody. Using the ‘Dreamers’ they are taking an elite few from that massive group and then equating them with the rest of the illegal invaders. That’s what’s going on here. This is bait and switch debate. The answer to all illegal invaders is to punish them accordingly for illegally invading a sovereign nation.

                  I suppose all of those Russian illegal invaders into the Crimean Penninsula recently were just “undocumented immigrants” or better yet, elite “dreamers.’

                  Open border policy would make them exactly that. This is dangerous and stupid and to reward these people for invading our country in anyway, including giving their children citizenship, ahead of legal immigrants going through legal channels and screening is a horrible precedent.

                  1. There will never be open borders, that’s a libertarian purist’s wet dream. You choose your battles or you always lose every battle.

            3. That is not an extension of the argument, it is an entirely different, and stupid, one.

          2. Let the children stay. Deport the parents when the children reaches 18 years old.

            Also, we need a new category. People think the only option is among “citizen”, “permanent resident” with eventual citizenship, “visa holder” (temporary), or “deported” as if we are too stupid to come up with another one (maybe we are). We can have a “red card” (or pick another color), a green card with fewer privileges. No path to citizenship, so this would be a permanent status. Many don’t even want it anyway and it’s not needed. No ability to bring in family members. (There may be special exceptions, but children are generally not going to have any spouses or children of their own.)

            1. Deport the parents as soon as they are discovered. The kids can stay in foster care or go home with their parents if they are under 18.

        4. How about every American kid who goes into the system because their parents committed some felony and went to prison? For some reason that’s ok, but when some fucking foreigner breaks our laws and their brats don’t get everything handed to them its the crime of the century.

        5. What do you think our running up 20 trillion in debt is doing?

        6. Abortion

        7. Moral hazard may apply, but in what other case do we punish individuals for the actions of their parents?

          Andrew Fastow’s kids lost a lot of money when he and their mom were convicted of wire fraud and the like for stealing tons of money in regards to Enron.

          So, there’s that.

          Kids are ROUTINELY “punished” due to the actions of their parents, if you view “the kids lose the money their parents stole” as “punishment”.

        8. “[I]n what other case do we punish individuals for the actions of their parents?”

          And in what other crime do we let the parent off the hook simply because HIS punishment will also affect the “child”? If a guy robs a bank, you don’t let the kids keep the money because taking it away would be “punishing” them too.

          And you sure as hell don’t let the guy avoid going to jail because it would “divide a family.” Even if you let the DREAMers stay, on the argument that they had no choice, why the parent who sure as hell knew he was entering illegally also remain here? Why should a guy who has stolen U.S. residency for his family get to stay via chain migration linked to THEIR temporary legal status?

          1. The Dreamers will get to stay. The details will get worked out, it is tangential to the real porous border and ending incentives to cross the border in the first place, like requiring all employers to use e-verify and fining/jail time for employers that don’t legitimately try to figure out if their workers are illegal aliens or not.

        9. Really?

          So, if Daddy embezzles money that buys the house and cars, and gets caught … we let the kids keep the house and cars?

        10. Not giving a foreign national citizenship is not “punishing” them.

          Letting them cut in front of people who obeyed the law in the line for immigration to the US because their parents broke US immigration laws is punishing those who obeyed the law.

      2. Re: buybuydandavis,

        It’s ethically dubious to let them stay, and reap the benefits of their parent’s crimes.

        Just what the fuck are you talking about? What “crimes”? Where’s the victim? No one is. What property was taken? None! So don’t come here and say undocumented immigrants are “criminals” just by being here.

        1. WTF? What do you think this is, some sort of libertarian rag?

        2. What property was taken?

          My property in the form of tax dollars that go to pay for public education and infrastructure and go to subsidize mandatory emergency room care, driver’s license administration in those states that allow illegals to get licenses, law enforcement, in-state tuition subsidies in the states that provide in-state tuition to illegals and on and on with other public services and benefits provided to illegals. We do not live in Libertopia, so applying a libertarian border policy to a large, collectivist welfare state is simply nonsensical.

          1. They didn’t take those things from you. The fact that someone throws cash in my window doesn’t mean that I stole the cash from you.

            1. I rely on the government agencies that disburse my tax dollars to set limits on how they distribute it and who they distribute it to. Not distributing it to non-citizens seems like a reasonable limitation.

              1. Fine. Don’t distribute it to non-citizens. Just let them have jobs.

            2. Go home Hazel, you’re drunk.

              1. Hazel is an emotional reactionary that is too stupid to think clearly. It makes me cringe that someone like that can vote.

                1. Believing that Hispanics are human beings who have the same right to engage in voluntary commerce with other humans makes me an emotional reactionary, I guess.

                  1. Who the fuck is questioning their humanity, Hazel? Stop shoving these fucktarded SJWisms into things.

                    You’re an emotional reactionary because you seem to think it’s okay for them to break the rules everyone else had to follow because their parents bwought dem heah, poow bebes.

                    The rules may be stupid. The rules may be wrong. Fight those rules in ways that don’t hurt citizens. Don’t just demand that the rules can be abridged anytime someones case strikes the right chord with people in power–that way lies the autocracy you claim to abhor.

                    1. What makes you think I’m not fighting for more liberal immigration laws?
                      I just don’t think that the fact that the laws are stupid and inhumane justifies doing stupid and inhumane things to people.

                      Fight those rules in ways that don’t hurt citizens.

                      How are citizens being hurt by allowing people to have jobs?

                    2. Not real conversant on labor economics, are you Hazel?

                    3. “How are citizens being hurt by allowing people to have jobs?”

                      They are not in the country legally. They should be caught and deported because they are in violation of the law. They should not be encouraged to come here by being allowed to obtain jobs, welfare, healthcare at the hospital emergency room, or anything else.

                      Allowing them to do, and obtain, these things encourages them to break the law and come here illegally.

            3. About 1M such good people successfully use the pathways to citizenship that the US provides each and every year.

              Anyone who just jumps a border or overstays a temporary visa has chosen from day one to give the middle finger to the laws of the US (and Hazel, I suggest you read 8 U.S. Code ? 1324 and a few other sections).

              And then they have the unmitigated gall to demand services and benefits from the taxpayers, not to mention repeated demands to just overlook the fact that they have broken dozens of federal and state laws, many on an almost daily basis.

              Charity and goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter. If instead the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, my calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

              1. About 1M such good people successfully use the pathways to citizenship that the US provides each and every year.

                If you knew anything about immigration law, you would know that those pathways are effectively non-existent for the vast majority of illegal aliens, including the Dreamers.

                1. If you knew anything about immigration law, you would know that those pathways are effectively non-existent for the vast majority of illegal aliens, including the Dreamers.

                  Guess they should have taken that into account before crossing the border.

                  The irony of this “we need these workers!” argument from the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republicans and cosmos is that these same people would shit themselves if those same workers tried to unionize or demand $15/hr in minimum wage.

                  1. Guess they should have taken that into account before crossing the border.

                    Why did that three year old not think about immigration laws before his parents carried him here? What an idiot.

                    1. Why did that three year old not think about immigration laws before his parents carried him here? What an idiot.

                      Pretty shitty of their parents to put that kind of burden on them, huh?

                    2. And I am about tired of the “3 year old” argument too. Most of the “Dreamers” came here old enough to walk the long distances required and not burden their criminal parents who were smuggling them in here. Lots, probably most, of them were teens.

                      But the “3 year old” thing really tugs at the heart strings doesn’t it Hazel?

                2. So what? It’s what Congress decided. Don’t like it change the law through Congress.

                3. GOOD!

                  We want people to come here and assimulate into our culture and society. If they come in too quickly and over a long period of time they do not assimulate, they form a sustainable subculture based on where they came from.

                  Imagine if we had 50 million hard core socialists come in quickly, and we followed the rest of your idiot ideas and let them vote. Forget your “libertarian moment”, you will have Marxist revolt instead. When they come here, they bring the ideas and culture they came from. That does not make them bad people, but it means that taking too many at one time is disruptive to OUR culture and values.

            4. They didn’t take those things from you.

              Bullshit, you dumb bitch. I’m paying for the schools to give illegal immigrant kids breakfast, lunch, and dinner now because these “hard-working immigrants just looking for work” are too fucking lazy and worthless to act like responsible adults and feed their own kids instead of the government.

              1. If you’re so worried about them collecting welfare, why don’t you make it easier for them to legally work?

                1. If you’re so worried about them collecting welfare, why don’t you make it easier for them to legally work?

                  I thought they were already “working the jobs that Americans won’t do”? Make up your mind, or at least try not to be so blatant that you don’t see them as anything other than labor mules.

                  1. Many of the people were are talking about – kids brought here as children – would love to be something other than a labor mule. They would like to be able to go to college, get professional degrees and then go to work in professional occupations.

                    Why are you standing in their way?

                    1. Why are you standing in their way?

                      Because the country doesn’t need more progressives or selective ethnic chauvinists.

                2. Or, make them get the fuck out.

            5. If you don’t like the law, fine, then ask Congress to change the law – because the president shouldn’t be allowed to change the law all by himself.

              If Obama can issue EO’s that contradict the law, then so can Trump. You might not like the new rules when they are used against you.

            6. They didn’t take those things from you. The fact that someone throws cash in my window doesn’t mean that I stole the cash from you.

              Good to know that fraud is impossible in government spending.

            7. If I buy a hamburger for my daughter and someone comes along and snatches it off the tray before I get it to her, is that not theft?

              American government services (education, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc.) and welfare benefits (food stamps, subsidized housing, health care, etc.) are paid for by American taxpayers for the benefit of American citizens and (in some cases) legal residents. Illegal STEAL from the American taxpayer when they take things not intended for them.

            8. They DID take those things, in many case fraudulently by claiming to be here legally.

          2. We do not live in Libertopia, so applying a libertarian DRUG policy to a large, collectivist welfare state is simply nonsensical.

            We do not live in Libertopia, so applying a libertarian GUN policy to a large, collectivist welfare state is simply nonsensical.

            We do not live in Libertopia, so applying a libertarian FREE MARKET policy to a large, collectivist welfare state is simply nonsensical.

            We do not live in Libertopia, so applying a libertarian TAX policy to a large, collectivist welfare state is simply nonsensical.

            1. Glad you figured that out.

              1. For a second there, I thought he was thinking. But alas, I fear not.

            2. Anarchy ? Libertarian

              Try again. Having and enforcing immigration laws isn’t Anti-Liberty, unless you’re a really really dumb person who supports globalism. Because I’m sure backing the globalist will lead to a Libertarian Utopia.

              1. You literally can’t get more globalist than to say borders don’t exist. That particular brand of Libertarianism would be the first against the wall if they got their way.

                1. Perhaps one day there will be effectively no borders. That day is a very long way off and it’s foolish to pretend reality will be different if you just wish it hard enough. We still have borders between the different states within the USA or the different provinces in Canada, etc.

            3. I think what you mean is that a large, collectivist welfare state is simply nonsensical. none of us want to live there, and we’ll keep fighting the migration of the USA further toward that awful situation.

        3. What property was taken?

          My property in the form of tax dollars that go to pay for public education and infrastructure and go to subsidize mandatory emergency room care, driver’s license administration in those states that allow illegals to get licenses, law enforcement, in-state tuition subsidies in the states that provide in-state tuition to illegals and on and on with other public services and benefits provided to illegals. We do not live in Libertopia, so applying a libertarian border policy to a large, collectivist welfare state is simply nonsensical.

          1. Re: Cloudbuster,

            My property in the form of tax dollars

            Liar.

        4. So, if the parent used a false SSN to get a job, would you be on board with rounding them up and shipping the family off?

          Identity theft is hardly a victimless crime.

        5. It is illegal to enter the United States (or any other country) without being a citizen of the United States, or having obtained permission from the government.

          Coming to the United States without being approved my immigration is ILLEGAL (ie, you are a criminal)
          Smuggling minors across national border is human trafficing and is ILLEGAL (ie, you are a criminal)

          “Undocumented” immigrants are CRIMINALS. The parents of Dreamers are CRIMINALS.

        6. If you’re an anarchist, you don’t believe in governments, don’t believe in borders, and don’t see anything wrong with violating immigration law.

          I’m not an anarchist.

      3. Ahh, right, the “benefits” of being able to exercise human rights like exchanging money for labor.

        1. It’s telling that for all your screeching about “human rights,” you clearly don’t see Hispanics as anything other than labor mules.

          Mow your own lawn and clean your own house, you lazy dope.

          1. I’m a professional and several of my colleagues are Hispanic.
            I have co-workers with names like Saca, Alvarez, and Solarzano. Nobody thinks twice about their ethnic background.

            We clean our own house and mow our own lawn, but guess who replaced our air conditioner during 90+ degree weather last summer ? Three Hispanic guys who spoke only spanish and worked from 8AM until 11PM in blazing heat.

            I wonder how many of Trump’s midwestern union-labor douche-bag supporters would have done that.

            1. I’m a professional and several of my colleagues are Hispanic

              My dad’s side of the family is Hispanic and lived in a Hispanic neighborhood in north Denver, and I’ve had the “pleasure” of seeing up close what society would be like with more of them living here.

              I wonder how many of Trump’s midwestern union-labor douche-bag supporters would have done that.

              Unlike your pampered upper middle-class ass, they could probably do it themselves.

            2. The funniest part of your post was that it took three Hispanic guys 15 hours to install a damn air conditioner. I had a team of three white guys do the same thing to our house last year, in the same conditions, and it took them six.

              Sounds like you got suckered.

              1. Great so you should have no problem competing with Hispanic immigrant labor, right?

                1. Great so you should have no problem competing with Hispanic immigrant labor, right?

                  As long as you have no problem cutting off their access to welfare programs.

                2. As long as affirmative action doesn’t get in the way.

              2. Less than 5 at my house. And I’m in the DEEP South. And it was in July.

              3. Well, it’s tougher when you can’t read the installation manual…

            3. My uncle spent 40 years as a union steel worker outside Chicago who is now also a Democrat precinct chairman. Guys like that worked around a blast furnace or shoveled coal a thousand feet under ground. They were the backbone of the Democrat party. He gladly voted for Trump.

            4. We clean our own house and mow our own lawn, but guess who replaced our air conditioner during 90+ degree weather last summer ? Three Hispanic guys who spoke only spanish and worked from 8AM until 11PM in blazing heat.

              I wonder how many of Trump’s midwestern union-labor douche-bag supporters would have done that.

              Let me guess, you paid them the going market rate and not a lower one, right?

              Because you gotta get yours.

              You’re aware the modern Left would have ZERO problems with slavery today, right? They ALREADY view illegals as their modern day house slaves.

            5. Why does it matter?

            6. You can come to my warehouse and hump 5 tons of glass off a trailer in 95 degree heat- not one illegal involved…

            7. I have friends who are “Hispanic”(by the way they all HATE that label). ALL of them came here legally and want illegal immigration stopped and illegals here deported.

              This is not necessarily a racial thing.

      4. Well shiiiiiit…. I agree with both of these points. It is ethically dubious to let them stay and it is ethically dubious to deport them. It is almost like *GASP* it is a complicated issue that when I think through the more murky it becomes.

    2. The evil is not in deporting them by law

      Well, yes, it is. The evil is in the violation of the individual’s basic human rights. The fact that the system results in evil things happening to people does not detract from the evilness of those things happening.

      1. There is no basic human right to come live in the US.

      2. What is the “basic human right” being violated?

      3. You do not have the right to enter a nation without permission. If you did, there would no longer be such a thing as nations.

    3. Try whining about the root of evil here, the coercive government. I will have more sympathy.

      They want to eat their cake and have it too: they want coercive government and they want to be the ones wearing the shiny boots and wielding the whip. It’s horrible now simply because the “wrong” person has the whip.

  7. It’s almost as if congress has the power to change immigration laws.

    1. Really? After DACA was passed, I was told Article One of the Constitution states “The President will have dictatorial powers over immigration policy.” Maybe it is a better idea to have Congress make laws rather than have them change every 4-8 years.

  8. Trump is not throwing them under a bus, he is putting them on a bus.

    1. Not before Soros puts them on protest buses to DC.

      1. Re: Rwywun,

        It’s not like El Jefe Cheeto-man is pushing them to Soros’ arms… Right?

        This morning, crazy Fascist Laura Ingraham quipped that Paul Ryan should not expect the DACA people to become Republican. I would answer: I don’t know if they would otherwise but this is the surest way to push them towards the willing arms of the Demo-rats. If your trust for your ideals only goes as far as trusting only a SET of people would embrace them, then either the problem is with the ideas or the problem is YOU. In this case, the problem is with people like Ingraham, Coulter and the other ethno-centrists and nativists who only see enemies everywhere. They’re not for liberty but only pay lip service to it.

        1. El Jefe Cheeto-man

          Someone is movin in on Double Dummy’s turf.

          1. Yeah, I don’t know if I’m supposed to give a serious answer to that.

          2. I’m not the only one who noticed I guess.

        2. Paul Ryan should not expect the DACA people to become Republican.

          Well of course not. And it has nothing to do with their ethnicity or heritage or ideology. It is because Republicans have, for years and years, insisting that they ought to be deported, along with their entire families. I don’t care who you are or what you believe, you aren’t going to vote for the guy who thinks you don’t belong here.

        3. ‘That crazy fascist Laura Ingraham’……

          Ok, first, you lose any credibility you ever might have had with that statement. You clearly have no understanding what fascism means, and your analysis of her and Coulter is laughable at best. You also sound extremely bigoted.

          1. Re: Land of the Shitlords,

            Do YOU understand what faacism means or entails? What that woman has proposed in her radio program and Fox News: tariffs, economic nationalism, getting rid of scores of working people for not having the proper transit papers from government… all of that, is so far removed from free market economics that one could perfectly conpared it to right-wing socialism. Ergo: she’s a Fascist.

            1. Lets look at Bernie Sanders preferred polices.
              a) Tariffs: supports tariffs, especially to protect American workers
              b) Economic nationalism: wants to end NAFTA and other trade agreements because he thinks they “steal” jobs from American workers
              c) He was for deporting people and stricter immigration laws as recently as 2013. He has since loosened his policy, I wonder why?

              “[A]ll of that, is so far removed from free market economics that one could perfectly conpared it to right-wing socialism.” Ergo: Bernie is a fascist.

              I only write this to show how stupid your point is. Does anyone thing Bernie is a fascist?

            2. I needed the “proper papers” to get into Canada simply for a fishing vacation with my uncle. I made the mistake of admitting to a DUI 8 years before then, and was denied entry- and I wasn’t even driving.

              I told my uncle to go on, and walked 7 miles to the nearest bus station to get back home.

              America is the worst

  9. “Unless you’re for open borders, you’re the Devil!”

    1. No. Unless you’re for open borders, then you’re an anti-market ideologue. And I would be right.

      Now, say it ain’t so. I DARE YOU.

      1. Question: how much would it cost to completely open our borders and offer domestic aid programs to anyone who’s able to show up?

        Or are you saying no more social safety net programs, period? Because that’s about as likely to happen as the Earth falling into the sun tomorrow.

        1. Re: BYODB,

          Question: how much would it cost to completely open our borders and offer domestic aid programs to anyone who’s able to show up?

          You mean with your own money? Because what you propose is removed from reality.

        2. Re: BYODB,

          Or are you saying no more social safety net programs, period?

          What, are you new here?

      2. Now, say it ain’t so. I DARE YOU.

        I’m curious, who decides what is/isn’t (private) property and/or what is/isn’t a free market? You?

        If my neighbor and I decide to trade amongst ourselves and not allow anyone else to compete is that a free market? If one market is entirely white, by it’s own decisions/internal logic, another market is brown by its own decisions/internal logic, and trade flows freely between them as they see fit is that not a free market? How do you know?

        You assume diversity or ethnically mixed markets are somehow naturally preferred or superior despite the market(s) presumably not demonstrating that to be the case or even, ideally, caring.

        1. “I’m curious, who decides what is/isn’t (private) property and/or what is/isn’t a free market?”

          Certainly not the government through blocking competition in labor.

          1. Certainly not the government through blocking competition in labor.

            Does public education count as blocking competition in labor?

            1. You answered your own question.

        2. Re: mad.casual,

          If my neighbor and I decide to trade amongst ourselves and not allow anyone else to compete is that a free market?

          You answered your own question.

          1. You answered your own question.

            Sure did. Gotta love the FYTW “libertarianism” that explicitly forbids neighbors trading amongst themselves as they see fit.

      3. Old Mexican, so you’re against the constitution? Because if you’re for open borders, you’re against the constitution, which specifically empowers the federal government to regulate our sovereign borders.

        1. It also enumerates the power of Congress to regulate (im)migrants after 1808.

          Article I, Sec. 9:
          The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

        2. Re: Last of the Shitlords,

          Because if you’re for open borders, you’re against the constitution,

          Liar.

      4. I’m not for Open Borders, crazy person. Feel free to throw a pants shitting fit over the fact.

    2. “Unless you’re for open borders, you’re the Devil!”

      Unless you’re for open borders, you’re a NAZI!

      FTFY

      Welcome to modern politics.

      1. I like to give the Devil his due.

  10. I guess it’s kinda positive that the executive can undo orders by the previous. Though the fact that the executive can legislate by diktat is troubling.

    1. it’s not a fact. it’s an unConstitutional overreach by an imperial President, that is being eliminated by another imperial President. it is up to Congress to a) restore checks and balances by not supporting these overreaching moves, and b) pass legislation that provides a path to legal status to these largely productive members of our society who did nothing wrong.

  11. DACA was unconstitutional. Whether you think it’s a good thing or not. Congress needs to fix it.

    1. I think you mean “end it.”

      1. Doesn’t matter, they won’t do either.

  12. As I understand it this was an Obama memo or EO, correct? It didn’t go through Congress therefore was unconstitutional.

    By Trump scrapping it, doesn’t it mean it goes to Congress as it should have IN THE FIRST PLACE? Trump, wittingly or otherwise, just did the the Constitution a favor.

    The fact a President is undoing a previous President’s EO’s should be a teachable moment. If you want to pass something go through Congress. Don’t act like an arrogant punk and bypass them ‘just because’ you think it’s right. Otherwise, why have laws or Congress? Follow the rules.

    1. I don’t think you really want enforcement discretion to be declared unconstitutional.

      1. Let’s just call laws suggestions from now on. That’s all they really are anyway.

        1. There is a definite difference between law and legislation. Law is emergent within society, while legislation is words enforced by government violence. Not the same thing. Take away legislation against murder and it would still be against the laws of society, and society doesn’t really give a shit about legislation against marijuana.

          So with that said, I will agree that legislation is little more than suggestions. Law is different.

          1. Law is emergent within society

            I’m not sure that this is as true as you believe it to be.

            1. Passing legislation does not make law, and there are things that are against the law that aren’t legislated.

              Here is a really good talk on the subject.

              I know you won’t watch it. You already know everything and have nothing to learn. But others might.

              1. I wasn’t really disagreeing with your overall point, only with the fact that some things called “laws” (not talking legislation) aren’t really as solidly founded as people believe.

      2. The enforcement discretion wasn’t the constitutional issue. It was the issuing of work permits which effectively created a new category of immigration visa that only Congress has the power to create.

        1. Who would have thought that a Congress paralyzed by corruption and gerrymandering would lead to executive overreach in response.

          1. How does a Congress get paralyzed by gerrymandering? Legitimate question.

          2. You. Apparently that is standard thinking for you. And it’s also preferred. As long as the right people are in charge, anyway.

          3. Well, now you are moving the goalposts.

            If some issue is Congress’ sole jurisdiction, and Congress chooses not to act on that issue *for whatever reason*, then that’s the end of the story. Or at least ought to be.

          4. “Government of laws, not men” – some dead white slaveowner

          5. Tony, out of curiosity, is Congress ever allowed to NOT do what the President wants?

        2. Exactly, if Obama had merely ordered the DOJ or ICE to prioritize immigration cases in a manner that excluded the illegal aliens who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of DACA, it would have been a simple case of prosecutorial discretion. It was trying to create a new class of immigrants without going through Congress that crossed the line.

          1. But Ms. Dalmia’s feelz are hurt! That must take precedence over any stupid piece of paper written by dead white slaveowners! And the Lightbringer said it must be so!

      3. If DACA had only been “enforcement discretion” you’d have a point.

        But DACA did a lot more than that. It provided work authorizations, travel authorizations (allowing illegal aliens to reenter the country), and created a self-funded agency without Congressional authorization. It was shot through with Constitutional problems. That DACA for Parents order was enjoined for just those reasons and the various States threatening to go to court over DACA would have based their arguments on the same reasons and likely would prevail on the same grounds.

        DACA as a program, had it been done as an act of Congress, would almost certainly be all the good things people want it to be. But as a whim of Obama’s pen, it was always suspect and subject to being undone at the whim of some other President. Indeed, Obama is seeing all his legacy being unwound simply because he spent so much effort bypassing Congress that he built his house on sand.

      4. Enforcement discretion is to deal with how best to enforce the law. It is not about writing law.

    2. Interesting reaction. Could you now comment on the dozens of Executive Orders signed by Trump in the first six months of his Presidency?

  13. Meanwhile, their fiscal costs are comparable to the fiscal costs of H-1B workers, which are minimal.

    Uh, my local school district spends U$12,000+ per kid, not counting debt service or contributions to the teachers’ pension fund. So, no, the costs are not minimal.

    1. What does that have to do with anything? Do you really believe immigrants don’t pay taxes?

      1. Not $12,000/kid worth of taxes.

        1. So lets make it illegal for all poor Americans to have children.
          Lots of people draw more in services than they pay in taxes.

          1. So you’re for socialism?

            1. Of course she is.

              1. Letting people legally have jobs = socialism.

          2. You think it’s fiscally responsible to increase the percentage of the population that receives more in benefits than it pays in taxes?

            1. No need to import poverty.

          3. So lets make it illegal for all poor Americans to have children.
            Lots of people draw more in services than they pay in taxes.

            They’re also here legally. Why don’t we just give every single child on Earth $12,000 a year?

          4. Can we just make it illegal for YOU to have children? I mean, just keeping YOU out of the gene pool would be a win.

      2. OK, yeah, I am sure these kids’ parents paid some small amount in sales tax. But when you consider the top 4 items they are spending their money on: rent, food, clothes and remittances are tax free, it’s not a lot. Same with the property tax on the apartment they are renting. Not even close to $12,000/yr. And that’s just for one kid. And that’s just schooling.

        You have to be in at least the 70 percentile of income in this country before you start “paying you way”, but that want stop Open Borders Libertarians from importing the world.

        1. Yeah so, maybe we should start rounding up and deporting American born welfare cases.
          From where I sit Hispanic immigrants seem to be far more hardworking than some of the white trash I see waving their confederate flags and guns around.

          1. When did you turn into an hysterical Shikha clone? I seem to remember you being somewhat clear-headed in the past.

            1. That’s generous at best.

          2. Some of them are, but some of them aren’t! I think it would be a better solution to reduce the welfare and welfare entitlement in this country then worry about specifically Hispanic illegal immigrants who should be making their countries a better place to live. We have our slackers and we don’t need more. It is better we change the attitudes of ours than import people who vote for more free stuff.

          3. May your namesake show up and beat the snot out of you for using the term “white trash”.

          4. Hazel, no one gives a fuck where you sit, or what you think. As every bit of it is hyperbolic, emotional, bigoted bullshit.

            1. Cutting a bit too close to home, eh?

              1. I thought he summed it up pretty well.

          5. I hate to point out the obvious, but those rampant, racist, unemployed white trash citizens are still at the end of the day, legal american citizens who do have rights which come before those who are not legally living in the U.S. Having a great work ethic and a good heart does not equal doing whatever the fuck you want.

            Lets protect illegal immigrants by enacting a program illegally. Did Obama really think DACA was going to stand the test of time? Well it earned him his 2nd pair of Beyonce wings so everyone clapped, felt progressive, and moved onto solving more world problems by screaming and protesting while offering papier mache solutions.

            I live in Texas, half of my family is hispanic. I get it. I’d want to live in the US, too. But there are laws which have been in place for a lonnnnggg, longgg time and just because America is the land of free McDonalds and beanie babies does not mean that our laws deserve any less respect or enforcement than any other country.

            Furthermore, my sister in law is a French immigrant, she has had her green card for several years now and is working her way towards citizenship. A lot of her friends are European immigrants. The green card discussion comes up fairly often at parties. From what I have heard so far, if the US deems you to be an immigrant with a true purpose to work and no real criminal background (having a work permit first is helpful), it’s relatively simple* to get your green card.

            1. legal american citizens who do have rights which come before those who are not legally living in the U.S

              So Americans have more human rights than non-Americans? Why?

              From what I have heard so far, if the US deems you to be an immigrant with a true purpose to work and no real criminal background (having a work permit first is helpful), it’s relatively simple* to get your green card.

              LOL. Nonsense. It’s nearly impossible to get one via work sponsorship with at least a Bachelor of science in a STEM field, or an advanced degree.
              It takes about 3-5 years and anywhere from 15K-50K US dollars (paid by your employer).
              Part of the process involves proving to the Department of Labor that no American could possibly do your job.

              1. No, Americans don’t have more human rights than non-Americans. Americans can’t just stroll into Canada and get that free health care action, or fly into Saudi Arabia and start working in their oil fields, or wander into New Zealand and do whatever it is they do in New Zealand. Neither do other countries’ citizens have the right to just come into the U.S. and exercise the privileges that come with US citizenship.

                You seem to be under the impression that just because a thing is *nice* or *good*, the US government should be obligated to do it. But that’s not the way our system was designed to work. The US government is obligated to follow the Constitution in order to implement *nice* and *good* things. It would be excellent for Congress (which is granted the power to regulate immigration) to be *nice* and create a legal structure under which these hard-working, productive non-citizens have a way to stay in the country and enjoy the rights which we reserve to our citizens. It is not excellent for the President to unilaterally do a *nice* thing in contravention of the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

                1. Don’t feed the trolls, they tend to loiter.

              2. So Americans have more human rights than non-Americans? Why?

                The Constitution for starters. Our Constitution doesn’t, you know, cover other countries.

                Part of the process involves proving to the Department of Labor that no American could possibly do your job.

                Yup, making the Americans training their replacements laugh when they see that.

            2. I hate to point out the obvious, but those rampant, racist, unemployed white trash citizens are still at the end of the day, legal american citizens who do have rights which come before those who are not legally living in the U.S.

              Not if you’re an anarchist.

              Anarchists don’t believe in states and citizenship.

              That’s why many here are so useless for this discussion.

          6. Leave the house then.

          7. Yeah so, maybe we should start rounding up and deporting American born welfare cases.
            From where I sit Hispanic immigrants seem to be far more hardworking than some of the white trash I see waving their confederate flags and guns around.

            Dunno. I’ve seen some lazy-ass Hispanics. Are there OTHER stereotypes you wish to dredge up to support your alleged point?

      3. The irony of all this is that the immigration laws are mainly aimed at preventing people from having legal jobs. And then the anti-immigrant people complain about their using of welfare.
        If you’re so worried about how much welfare they are consumning, how about liberalizing immigration laws so they can WORK?

        What? That would be bad for working class white guys, who are entitled to those jobs? Speak up man, I can’t hear you.

        1. Why do we have 1M and more naturalized citizens from all over the world every year? Why do we have a H-1B visa that is almost 100% fulfilled by Asian immigrants?

          There’s no reason why we should reward people for cutting in line and giving the US their collective middle finger vis-a-vis legally being here, while at the same time demanding special treatment. STFU and stop demanding we reward your ability to flout the law.

        2. Its American’s fault that we are not allowing non-Americans from having legal jobs here in the USA and then cannot complain when they are violating federal immigration law and then taking our taxpayer dollars via welfare?

          Yeah, you’re a socialist.

        3. Hazel, American citizenship is not a fucking jobs program for every indigent foreigner who can sneak in here.

          1. Yeah, I get it. All the jobs are owned by the government, which is entitled to distribute them to US citizens only.

            1. Citizenship =/= a job, genius. You’re even shit at trolling, I hope you aren’t getting paid for this.

        4. I know several immigrants who are working in the US legally and trust me, if the working class white guys had a true issue with immigrants taking their jobs, they’d make it much harder for these immigrants to take the higher paying, management type positions from them – which are the positions a lot of them (immigrant friends) are holding.

          Everyone acts like no immigrants – ever – are allowed in the US to legally work or live. This simply isn’t true. It’s just that so many of them managed to come in illegally, knowing they were breaking laws, that now it’s created a real cluster-fuck.

        5. The irony of all this is that the immigration laws are mainly aimed at preventing people from having legal jobs. And then the anti-immigrant people complain about their using of welfare.

          How would they use welfare is they weren’t here?

          Just asking for a friend.

          If you’re so worried about how much welfare they are consumning, how about liberalizing immigration laws so they can WORK?

          OR we can choose to not import more poverty. Can you explain why your way is “better”, outside of your insane belief that borders violate human rights?

          What? That would be bad for working class white guys, who are entitled to those jobs? Speak up man, I can’t hear you.

          Yes, preventing those working class white guys from being paid less than minimum wage while permitting the Hispanics to be treated as such is the apex of humanity.

    2. There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $11,000 per year (2014 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

      So a $15 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters about 120,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

      If we can reduce the 500,00 illegal border crossers by 95% to (say) 25,000 per year, then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced. At that point, the public will be willing to be more generous with the illegals already in the country, especially if criminal aliens are deported.

    3. In California, Dreamers get free college education something people legally born here don’t get thats a lot of money

  14. More hate for the hate machine.

  15. Oh, it’s Dalmia. Nevermind.

  16. I fully expect that if it were Social Security being scrapped we’d have Reason explaining that it is a callous act that’ll hurt the country.

    1. Letting people have jobs is JUST LIKE writing them a check from the public treasury!

      1. It’s just two different types of welfre, so yeah.

        1. Being allowed to have a job is a form of welfare! Those jobs belong to working class white people like me!

          1. Being allowed to have a job is a form of welfare! Those jobs belong to working class white people like me!

            While I’m thrilled you seem to think that ONLY white folks want jobs (let me guess, black folks just don’t have those concerns, amirite?), I don’t think you recognize what a fucking racist you come across as here.

            1. Hazel IS a racist, and pretty stupid too. The sad part is that it does not get better. Hazel never gets smarter, never gives up the racist rants, and always goes for the emotional argument. Very sad.

      2. Fuck, we’ve been one Social Security policy away from libertopia the whole time and we didn’t realize it!

        All the other overreach, scope creep, and FYTW deficit spending would all just vaporize if only we let in all the immigrants who can drive a car or walk across the border and repeal Soc. Sec. in that order!

        1. Until we repeal the welfare state, we can’t let brown people have basic human rights!

          1. Argumentum ad “brown people” is so catchy – I never would have thought of that.

            1. So, do they or don’t they have human rights?
              Do human rights apply to everyone universally, or are they only for US citizens?

              1. US citizens are entitled to US citizen rights, upon non-US citizens lawfully following the process of becoming a US citizen, they too can enjoy the rights guaranteed to a US citizen…It’s really not that hard.

              2. So, do they or don’t they have human rights?
                Do human rights apply to everyone universally, or are they only for US citizens?

                Oh my God.

                Hazel is calling for nation building.

                She wants US to go out and make sure EVERYBODY has our rights.

                Sure, it’ll cost trillions and require a MASSIVE military…but fuck it, our resident racist Hazel has to have her feelz fixed.

                Let me guess, Iraq wasn’t a mistake. We just didn’t try hard enough to give them our human rights.

          2. YEAH! Because if they can’t get a job in the US, they can’t get a job ANYWHERE! And if they can’t live in the US, they can’t live ANYWHERE!

            1. If they can get a job in the US, what right have you to deny it to them? Or deny their employer the right to hire them?

              1. Because the welfare state still exists. Get rid of that and I can agree with you. You have the cart square wheeled before the horse.

          3. Because ALL illegals are brown! None of the US citizens are brown! It is all about BROWN!

            or UPS! LOL

  17. Rouge cop!

    1. Partnered with the mascara cop and the eyeliner cop?

  18. “Congress has given the president immense statutory discretion in enforcing immigration law. And just as Obama had the legal authority to create the DACA program, Trump has the authority to scrap it, regardless of Attorney General Jeff Sessions claims that the Obama action was illegal.”
    They are illegals and their parents were illegals. Deport them all.

    Inform them that if they leave the USA now, they can reapply for US citizenship without any penalty.

    1. Exactly! Give them 6 months to get out. At the same time, start prosecuting employers and landlords who hire or rent to criminal aliens under 8 U.S.C. ? 1324 and whack them for the full $250,000 and the full 5-10 years in prison.

      No place to live. No jobs.

      Watch the rats flee!

  19. Shika Shika, sounds so cute when you say it, other than that the chick writes like a bitter presumptuous lib hag with all the fake news talking points. We are not sending them to exile, we are sending them to their home countries! Their parents made a bad choice knowing this could be a possibility and proceeded anyway. Trump is not responsible for this, the parents are.

  20. This was in my email today from the Daily Kos:

    This version of the bill improves upon previous legislation. It expands eligibility and raises the age of entry requirement to 18 years of age?allowing more undocumented youth to qualify. It also works with current DACA recipients to reduce some barriers as they work towards citizenship. Without legislation like the Dream Act, there is no pathway to citizenship for undocumented youth living in the U.S.

    [I love this bald-faced lie. There has *always* been a legal pathway for people to come to the US and, if they wat, to become citizens.]

    This is not a perfect bill. Language requirements are xenophobic and Black and Brown communities are policed more so than white communities, increasing the likelihood of having a criminal record. And we’ll have to fight nativists every step of the way as they attempt to add border enforcement and aim to criminalize the parents of the youth the bill protects. But when we win, we’ll be protecting hundreds of thousands of youth who, as citizens, will continue to fight for everyone left behind.

    [Maybe we should just annex Mexico and bypass the whole thing!]

  21. Yes, abiding by the Constitution is quite a bitch, ain’t it?

  22. Fuck daca. Where is my free tuition for breaking the law. Fuck you Shula. And fuck u Reason

    1. Forgot to add…. I volunteer to drive these parasite back where they belong

      1. If you shoot them first they stack up in the truck bed better.


  23. “Young illegals who served in the military” is generally bogus:


    Few Undocumented Immigrants Qualify for Military Exception Under New Rules

    Quote:
    When President Barack Obama spoke in the Rose Garden announcing a new immigration policy last month, he referred to young undocumented immigrants who “are already making contributions,” such as “serving in our military, protecting us and our freedom.”

    But few, if any, immigrants fall into this group.

    In order to enlist, a person needs to be a citizen of the United States or a green card holder, according to a spokeswoman for the Department of Defense. The military rigorously checks immigration and naturalization documents, she added, and if it discovers “that an enlistee has presented false documents, he/she is discharged for fraudulent enlistment.”

    1. Bah, Reason’s worthless commenting system has mangled the URL again:

      http://www.wnyc.org/story/2201…..-new-rules

    2. You can take your facts and logic and get the heck out of here! When it comes to immigration, libertarians melt into snow flakes. And this is coming from someone who wants Congress to pass a bill that mirrors DACA. But I do not want to live in a country where one man (or woman, but not Hillary) sets immigration policy. If I wanted an authoritarian to have control of immigration, I’d move to North Korea.

      1. Yeah. Obozo was fucking AWFUL that way. Just ignored the law and set policy the way he wanted.

        Sure glad we have Trump to at least steer America back in the general direction of Rule of Law.

        1. He didn’t ignore the law, he can sign whatever executive order he likes and then let the courts figure out if it’s legal or not and all challenges to DACA failed so it was legal at the time. QED.

  24. Obama shielded non citizens from deportation and gave them work permits. If every single president after Obama just renewed his DACA EO endlessly (within their powers), that would be effectively creating a loophole around the nation’s laws and unfairly creating a protected class while others have to go through all the proper channels to be come citizens.

    It’s better for congress to just pass amnesty or come up with a permanent solution. It’s what we’re paying them to do. It’s how laws should be passed, instead of presidents ordering stopgap solutions because “you guys are taking too long to do what I want to do” which is exactly what Obama said. And he already authorized ACA subsidies by bypassing congress altogether.

    Trump did the right thing here (unlike the Arpaio pardon), although he should have fast tracked existing DACA kids to legalization as a compromise.

    1. Who’s to say that won’t be part of the compromise? All he did was to put the matter back into the hands of Congress (where it should have been) while simultaneously giving those who want to enforce immigration laws a very strong card to play. Cynical, but no more than opposite obama’s action in the first place; less so, in fact, since obama loved to brag that he was a professor of Constitutional law.

  25. An improper executive action posing as law. Now it’s time for the cowardly politicians to address the issue as it should have always been. Had Trump just declared he was ending it because it was unconstitutional overreach he would be getting praised in articles here.

  26. Play it again, Sam: you can have mass immigration, a massive welfare state but you can’t have both. Do Not tell me illegals aren’t on the dole. It’s north of 50% in my hood.

    1. Then why don’t you report them?

    2. You can’t have both open borders and a free country.

      Choose.

  27. Sheik Dalmia is so stupid and anti-American, he should not be writing for Reason. It is a waste of time for anyone to read this crap. The grotesque picture of Trump is bad enough, and I dare say the sheik looks worse in a real photo.

  28. “So exiling them from a country where they have family, friends, and community ties to one where they have no roots at all is beyond cruel.”

    Any less cruel than when their parents ripped them out of their home and illegally brought them to a country where they had no family, friends or roots? For the so called DACA kids the blame needs to be redirected to where it belongs, with the parents. They are to blame for this problem.

    “So even if you buy the idea that Dreamers are “lawbreakers,” if there is any group worthy of a presidential “pardon,” it’s them. ”

    Sure, the kids get to stay, but kick the parents out. If families insist on staying together, send them all out of here.

    1. I agree with her to a certain extent. BUT, for her to ignore how DACA was instituted by a pseudo-authoritarian without authorization from Congress drives me NUTS! I drifted toward the libertarian right because I am a Constitutionalist, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, about in that order. So even if it is policy I like such as DACA, if it is implemented in an Unconstitutional way such as illegal executive orders, it needs to go.

      Thanks for the comment. The kids can stay if Congress lets them. If not, the President cannot say they can stay and the rule of law must be enforced and they should go.

      1. What specific, incontrovertible grant of power was Congress given to make law regarding immigration? Not naturalization, but immigration.

        Remember, the proponents of the filthy rag argued that if the power is not specifically set forth, Congress has no power to act.

        Remember, the proponents of the filthy rag did not argue, pre-ratification, that Congress had a treasure trove of implied powers.

        1. Well if Congress has no power to act on immigration, then the president certainly has no power to act on it. “What specific, incontrovertible grant of power was the [President] given to make law regarding immigration? Not naturalization, but immigration.” (My question to you, and I am looking for the answer for president and Congress, and not coming up with much).

          If the President cannot act, and congress cannot act, then we are in a situation where no one can act. To be honest, I do not hate it. I am now going into rabbit holes of why Congress/Pres can regulate immigration and it is interesting. Thanks for the comment and making me think more, Libertymike.

          I do like Reason because the commentators are legit smarter than me and challenge my views.

      2. DACA was as legal as Trump’s pardoning Arapaio, in the eyes of the law they were perfectly legal.

  29. “Obama had the legal authority to create the DACA program.” Weird, I remember when Reason cared about the Constitution. Many sections of DACA have already been declared unconstitional by courts and what was left of DACA was already a shell of what Obama originally wanted. It is sad to season Reason become more goal oriented (DACA must stay and Trump is a heathen for reversing it), rather than focused on the means (i.e. I like DACA as policy, but as put into practice by Obama is unconstitutional and illegal).

    Shika Dalmia writes like most collectivist. Step one: find policy goal. Step two: implement policy goal by any means necessary. Step three: ignore how it is unconstitutional and how an unconstitutional law today will create chaos and misery in the future.

  30. Sorry to disagree with you, Shikha. I believe the President did exactly the correct thing with the mess Obama left us with. Now it’s up to Congress to deal with Immigration Reform, which has for a long time been a convenient little shell game with the American people.

    The Democrats pretended to want reform, but not really. Instead they wanted to use the issue to beat up on the Republicans, over and over, in every campaign. They were happy to keep it exactly that way.

    And the Republicans also could not admit that they were unwilling to go against the current situation where people cross the border and overstay their visa at will. All the better for their friends at the US Chamber of Commerce and their large donors. They couldn’t even support George W. Bush’s reform plan which included guest workers.

    Now it’s right back in legislators’ laps where Immigration Reform belongs. That’s if anyone in Congress truly believes in the Constitution anymore.

    1. Shikha wants an authoritarian. She only cares about policy, not process. I agree with DACA as policy, but my god! How can anyone who cares about the Constitution or rule of law or democracy or republicanism accept DACA as Obama implemented it?

  31. A nonsensical article, which unfortunately is all too common for Dalmia.

    DACA was unconstitutional as being beyond the president’s authority; two federal court have already ruled so. And if Obama lacked the authority to issue it, Trump equally lacks the authority to continue it. The issue has to be resolved legislatively. But Paul Ryan, who a mere 3 years ago was ranting about DACA’s unconstitutionality, now wants it to continue simply because he lacks the courage to deal with the issue. Well, now it’s squarely in his lap and he can no longer evade the problem.

    And this could be supremely easy to resolve. If Ryan and McConnell (and a large number of equally cowardly Republicans) really want DACA to continue, as they’re now saying. it would a simple matter to convert the text of that Executive Order into a bill (that should take about an hour; I’d do it for them if they were to ask me) and get Congress to pass it. I have no doubt that Trump would sign it. So, Ryan and McConnell, Trump has called you out. It’s time to do what you’re paid to do: work out a solution which is acceptable to majorities in both Houses. Stop whining and do your job.

    1. I agree with this 100% and I actually do support DACA as policy. Congress needs to either end DACA or make it law. Obama didn’t have the authority to start DACA (many parts of which were ruled Unconstitutional).

      The author of this article must be a progressive, collectivist or something because for him/her, the ends justified the means, i.e. an Unconstitutional executive order is not a problem if it meets their individual policy goals. Is he/she cool with new immigration policy every 4-8 years? That would be even more dumb than deporting dreamers.

      1. Dead right. The attitude seems to be, if an order is unconstitutional we’ll fight it on that basis, but if it’s unconstitutional and it furthers our own no-borders policy stance, we’ll demand the order stand with the fig leaf that Congress should act.

        But if Congress doesn’t act, we are happy with the unconstitutional order.

    2. I agree completely. Well said.

      Unfortunately Reason uses issues like DACA as the thin end of the wedge when it comes to their Liberal immigration policies. They and others have attempted to redefine Libertarianism as a no-borders philosophy. It isn’t, but in doing so they’ve antagonised a huge percentage of actual libertarians and forced them into the arms of the alt-right (a fuzzy term at best).

      I have no problem with DACA if passed as law. I have a problem with Reason using a pretty simple matter–namely the unconstitutionality of the DACA order versus an Act of Congress–as another weapon in its crusade for no borders.

      1. Reason treats DACA (which I personally support as policy) and near endless immigration (which I do not hate but other things have to happen first) the same way progressives treat any cause. The ends ALWAYS justify the means for progressives, and for some reason, immigration is like that for Reason Libertarians (big “L” because the small “l” would debate the policy on this issue, but never agree with the means that it took to pass DACA).

        1. Precisely.

          I’ve long-wondered why this is the case. It seems to me that for Reason types (and it’s not just Reason) the no-borders stance has become the sine qua non of libertarian politics.

          The Libertarian Party policy is:

          “Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense.

          Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals. Our current immigration system is an embarrassment. People who would like to follow the legal procedures are unable to because these procedures are so complex and expensive and lengthy. If Americans want immigrants to enter through legal channels, we need to make those channels fair, reasonable, and accessible.”

          But that’s a fig leaf, and a mess.

          Someone turns up at the border and has made no application to enter that can prove who they are, how can even the most simple determination be made? It can’t. So you turn them away. This amounts to the current policy.

          So the policy allows them to jump the border and de facto give them residency since they are now undocumented. Yet this, according to the Lib policy doesn’t subject them to any sanction. They are in and it’s up to the state to show they should be removed. That’s as clear a no-borders policy as you could have.

      2. “They and others have attempted to redefine Libertarianism as a no-borders philosophy.”

        Yes, no-borders is an anarchism philosophy. It is also the road to authoritarianism as historically the disasters that come with anarchy make any alternative look good. An authoritarian that promises to bring order to chaos nearly always follows.

  32. The sooner the Defending Alien Criminals Act is scrapped, and the criminals protected by it are deported, the better off we’ll *all* be.

  33. I was surprised to discover that Shikha is identified as a “Senior Analyst” at Reason. How did that happen? Based on this article alone I’d say someone at Human Resources must have confused Shikha with a Libertarian with the same name.

  34. America is either, quite Reasonably, a Nation of Laws or it is a state of feelings – of mass hysteria.

    So, what part of “Criminal Alien” is hardest for you to grasp.

    1. Well said and I actually think DACA is good policy. I also know that it was implemented in an authoritarian and un-democratic manner. I prefer the constitution and rule of law even if it means I do not get my policy preferences than the authoritarian alternative. So I want DACA to pass in Congress and also wished the courts ruled more of it was Unconstitutional. As you can imagine, I have a hard time making political friends lol

  35. They had seven years. That’s SEVEN years to work around this, even Obama said it wasn’t and couldn’t be permanent. It is up to the citizens of THIS country to accept immigrants and not up to people who wish to crash the borders illegally of their own volition!

  36. It won’t. Grow up.

  37. I don’t like Trump, and now that we’ve gone down this road, I support a simple legislative solution. Put the framework of DACA into a bill and vote on it. But Congress has to do it. The defense of keeping it, to the extent that people bother to make one beyond emotional appeals, is that this is simply an exercise in prosecutorial discretion. This doesn’t hold up primarily because you don’t then allow them to continue doing the very thing you used your discretion to ignore. Immigration is unique in that these individuals would continue to live in this country illegally, and that amounts to simply ignoring the law altogether.

    I’m not sure I buy that it’s simply unconstitutional because of how large a program it is though. That’s perhaps the weakest argument. Personally, I might’ve simply removed the benefits, and allowed the standard for discretion to stand until the courts ruled one way or another. That seems to be a reasonable political and constitutional solution. I might think it’s unconstitutional anyway, but you can make the argument the courts should have the last word in some definitive way before you do this to millions of people. Of course, it’s easy to think that way until a court rules it’s unlawful, and then all you did is string millions of people along who are now screwed.

    1. “I’m not sure I buy that it’s simply unconstitutional because of how large a program it is though.”

      Good, since no one is arguing that. It’s unconstitutional because it amounted to obama making law without to the trouble of getting Congress to first send him a bill to sign. The “too large” argument is not a reference to DACA itself, but to the lame “prosecutorial discretion” justification that was made for it.

    2. It’s one thing for the president to say “we have X million people in the country illegally and I only have enough resources to deport Y thousands of them, so I’m going to prioritize those resources to go after those cases that meet criteria A, B and C.” That’s prosecutorial discretion and even if means you’re not going to go after a majority of cases (which could be in the millions because of the size of the problem), I don’t think it’s unconstitutional.

      But it’s an entirely different thing to say “the law says that the ‘Dreamers’ are in the country illegally and therefore not entitled to certain benefits like work visas and travel permits, I’ve asked Congress to change the law but because Congress hasn’t done that, I’m going to do it myself with my phone and my pen and give the ‘Dreamers’ benefits that they’re legally ineligible for.” If Congress refuses or fails to act to change the law, the President doesn’t get to change it on their own. That’s what DACA did and why it’s unconstitutional.

      1. Gridlock is good; that’s why the Founders wrote the Constitution in such a way as to build it into our system of government. Congress refusing to pass a law is every bit as valid an action as passing one. Often moreso.

  38. Dreamers are not “lawbreakers” if they were brought here by their parents at an age where they were not responsible for the choice to enter the U.S.
    They may not have the legal right to stay but they didn’t enter illegally if it was not their choice.

    People who love freedom – their own and that of other people – make great Americans. People who would deny others their freedom, including the freedom to live in America, should just leave.

    1. Do you think “Dreamers” really help their narrative by waving Mexican flags and carrying signs in Spanish..?

    2. Yeah yeah, “we don’t punish children for their parents’ lawbreaking.” But you know what? We don’t let them benefit from it either.

      Illegal aliens who brought their kids over the border with them have “stolen” U.S. residency for their families. DACA lets not only the kids stay, but the parent who everyone admits BROKE THE FUCKING LAW when he came across. If someone breaks into Best Buy and steals a Playstation for his kids, the kids don’t get to keep it when Padre gets busted. Nor does Padre get to stay out of prison and play Grand Theft Auto with them simply because sending him to prison would “divide a family.”

    3. “People who would deny others… the freedom to live in America, should just leave.”

      “People” don’t HAVE the freedom to live in America! Only Americans have that right. Yes, other people have the right to ASK for it by applying to come here legally, but it is not up to them to decide they are entitled to American residency or citizenship.

      It is for the American people, acting through their legislative representatives, to decide who comes in. The fact that it is still illegal for people to just stroll across the border means that a MAJORITY of the American electorate are satisfied with the laws as they are (though perhaps not with the lack of enforcement.)

      If you don’t like the law as it is, then work to get new representatives who will do ask you want. Don’t try to blow off the system and have it done via an imperial executive or judiciary.

  39. What the fuck’s happened to this website? All the cascading stylesheets have gone to shit.

  40. Newsflash – just because Congress is inefficient and/or ineffective does not mean the POTUS gets to pass his own laws…

    1. Wasn’t that the epitome of the last 8 years?

    2. The reason Congress doesn’t address this is simple.

      They WANT to legalize them and find a way to let lots more in because the Chamber of Commerce wants them to. BUT, the majority of voters want them deported, a tall wall built to keep them out, and legal immigration reformed in a reasonable way.

      Congress is afraid to do what the voters want because they are afraid of the Chamber and afraid to do what the Chamber wants because they fear the voters.

  41. Nothing like letting the Pharisees take control of the argument. Whatever the status of the law, throwing the “dreamers” into limbo, hurting their educational and job prospects for no reason by insisting that a Congress that is already snowed under with deadlines, must reaffirm their right to remain in a country they have called home for most of their lives is just mean and counter productive. If the President really thinks he needs Congressional authorization why not wait until after the September rush and spell out what will happen to the “Dreamers” in the interim? Will the information they provided to the government to secure their status remain secure? Can new applications be processed and will all the old ones expire in 6 months. As usual, the minority president acted without a plan leaving countless loose ends for others to resolve while putting millions of young people in limbo. Isn’t this just “great?”

    1. The person who put them into limbo was President Obama by creating what he clearly said was a temporary status. It was an illegal EO and he left the mess for someone to clean up. I note that Americans move to other countries all the time and since all these DACA types are valedictorians geniuses salt of the earth types I am not worried if they are repatriated. They will adapt. We are wasting our tax dollars dealing with this mess.

  42. Nothing like letting the Pharisees take control of the argument. Whatever the status of the law, throwing the “dreamers” into limbo, hurting their educational and job prospects for no reason by insisting that a Congress that is already snowed under with deadlines, must reaffirm their right to remain in a country they have called home for most of their lives is just mean and counter productive. If the President really thinks he needs Congressional authorization why not wait until after the September rush and spell out what will happen to the “Dreamers” in the interim? Will the information they provided to the government to secure their status remain secure? Can new applications be processed and will all the old ones expire in 6 months. As usual, the minority president acted without a plan leaving countless loose ends for others to resolve while putting millions of young people in limbo. Isn’t this just “great?”

    1. By “the minority president acted without a plan leaving countless loose ends for others to resolve while putting millions of young people in limbo”, you mean Obama, right?

  43. I fail to understand why the United States of America, out of the 169 sovereign nations recognized by the United Nations, is the only one that has no right to police its own borders and regulate immigration. This is a power inherent in a political sovereignty. What are all these “free immigration” people thinking?

    1. It’s only racist when Whitey does it.

  44. Any DREAMer who has honorably served in the military should be given permanent residence. I would also add any DREAMer who teaches at an “underprivileged” school.

    After this, though, they need to get in line with everyone else. Their fluency in English should give them a big leg up.

    1. As a former military officer I say, “Bullshit” to that.

      Today’s military is half sausage factory, half welfare program. I might consider permanent residency for someone who has earned a bronze star or better AFTER they pay back the money they’ve stolen (about $150K for K-12 education – plus whatever welfare bennies they sucked up.)

      For those who came to America to suck up social welfare money and followed that trail into a do-nothing job in the military – Hasta la vista baby! Pi?rdase!

      1. BambiB… where have you been all my life? I fear there’s too few of us that care about our fragile country, anymore.

  45. As soon as I read the headline I thought, “Shikha again?”

    Yup.

    I didn’t vote for Trump. But if he follows through and runs for reelection, I’ll vote for him next time.

    Deport ALL those nasty thieving criminal invaders. Those who won’t go – shoot them.

  46. If Congress were to pass Trump’s proposed immigration reforms, the Dreamers could apply for immigrant visas in the countries of their birth and find themselves at the top of the list owing to their English language skills, outstanding work ethic, and general aptitude. Of course, that is assuming this article did not exaggerate how wonderful the Dreamers are.

    1. That’s not an unwarranted assumption. The claims about how much the “Dreamers” contribute to the economy seems to be based on a Cato study that is actually looking at immigrants who were admitted under the H1-B visa program who were gainfully employed (often in a higher-paying STEM field) and assuming that the “Dreamers” would be just as productive. Also the claims about how much more they pay in taxes versus use in benefits curiously omits the cost of publication education (average cost in the United States is $12,509 per K-12 student per year). It’s all well and good that they may not be eligible for things like TANF and SNAP (at least not right away) but education is usually the largest single expense in State budgets and taxpayers have to foot the bill for that as well.

  47. Shikha contributes nothing to this conversation other than hatred for President Trump….Obama established DACA by merely sending a memo to the DoJ to not enforce existing immigration law, passed by Congress, in direct violation of the separation of powers embodied within the Constitution…Either we are a nation of laws or we are not..Making exceptions to the law, without congressional approval, opens the door to any and all laws…If a law is flawed then change it by following the Constitution, not as an emotional response to public sentiment…
    President Trump’s administration has brilliantly followed the Constitution by putting the DACA question back into the hands of congress, where it belonged in the first place….

    1. Bingo. Better analysis and you could have saved Reason Shikha’s salary amount by 100%.

    2. How would the left react if a Republican president decided that it would no longer be a “priority” to enforce the laws against bombing abortion clinics? I mean, there’s a helluva lot of crime, you can’t spend so much money on chasing down the few people who do that, right?

  48. The courts have already ruled (twice) that obama was right when he said he had no authority to implement DACA on his own (before doing so.) While there are reasoned arguments to be made for allowing the “Dreamers” to stay (though fewer for letting the parents who brought them remain), the Constitution clearly states that those arguments, and enshrining the outcome of the debate in law, are the responsibility of CONGRESS, not the president. It’s his job to implement whatever they come up with, whether he likes it or not.

    That’s not to say that Trump has taken any reasoned stand here, or even understands what the stand is. He has been threatening to withhold Obamacare reimbursement payments from insurance companies, in the apparent belief that he can simply choose to continue or end THAT obama overreach, too. He doesn’t recognize limits to presidential authority any more than his predecessor, and it’s only hit-or-miss whether his actions happen to go (for now) in a direction that more closely aligns with Constitutionality.

    I somewhat prefer the policies of Emperor Donald over Emperor Barack, but I would have preferred a president to either.

  49. First, DACA likely would have failed in court for the same reasons as DAPA did; the president has prosecutorial discretion, he does not have the right to effectively create new immigration law.

    Second, and more importantly, DACA was never intended as a permanent solution; Obama himself stated that it was intended to give Congress another chance to act, not as a permanent change to immigration policy.

    Finally, in order for legalization of status not to become another inducement to breaking our immigration laws, there needs to be a price to pay: granting legal residence to adult children of illegal immigrants should be tied to identification and deportation of the individuals who brought the children to the US, because those people did not just violate US law, they acted irresponsibly by placing these children in legal limbo.

  50. Didn’t the parents throw the children under the bus?

  51. Shikha Dalmia engages in the same legal and policy failure that the Democratic party has been encouraging for more than 10 years; namely, that it doesn’t matter if a government decree is constitutional or legally implemented. It only matters if I support the measure or not. This dangerous push is becoming increasingly acceptable to more and more Americans. We can’t expect those uninitiated in American civics or government to understand. Sadly more of our voters are in this category than ever before.
    When informed and intelligent people like Dalmia fall into line with this policy over government support, our country’s ability to withstand horrors such as those presented by Trump and previously by Obama (who himself knew better but was going to push his imperial will through no matter what) become less practiced and useful. This is what leads to civil insurrection and a mindset of ideology unwilling to accept the ideas of other Americans. Think harder, Dalmia. Think harder.

    1. When informed and intelligent people like Dalmia fall into line with this policy over government support, our country’s ability to withstand horrors such as those presented by Trump and previously by Obama

      I didn’t vote for Trump and I don’t particularly like him. But what kinds of “horrors” has Trump actually “presented”?

      1. Having to back to whatever Failistan they’re escaping.

        1. Rescuing people from their failing, usually self-inflicted, totalitarian regimes isn’t America’s obligation.

    2. Well said, and I believe most libertarian minded people agree with you. Even the most ardent open borders libertarian agrees there must be security first and some sort of screening before it would even be possible… which can only happen in fairy-tale land at this point.

      So isn’t the real question is why is she writing for Reason? Why is she being promoted? Her ideas are neither libertarian nor constitutional… so why are we listening to her? When you compare what she writes to one of these Stossel short videos Reason is putting out you can clearly see his libertarian roots.. while you have to squint and strain and imagine some sort of coherent libertarian policy coming from her writing.

      1. Even the most ardent open borders libertarian agrees there must be security first and some sort of screening before it would even be possible…

        I wouldn’t be so sure. No Borders Libertarians advocate just that, no borders. They are as disingenuous on immigration policy as Liberals are on gun policy, and they flatter to deceive. To the Reason-style libs, a sound immigration policy is where no border exists.

        Oh, sure, they talk about infectious diseases and those with violent intent but (wink, wink) how do you vet someone who turns up at the border without verifiable documentation? You can’t. So is their policy to simply turn them away? Not on your life, because that’s the same policy we have now, and we know they think that’s wrong.

        1. Again, “No Borders Libertarians” are not libertarians, they are anarchists. Borders are the definition of the nation-state. Either they believe in one-world-government, or no government at all. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and calling them anarchists.

          1. It’s more interesting to realise that libertarianism has always had a strong anarchist tendency, or faction. Mises.org, and similar, with the Rothbardian influence, lean that way. But they’re sure not alone.

            It seems to me this tendency has grown recently and infected the likes of Reason. The no borders policy has therefore come to the fore and good old Minarchism is considered passe.

            Their conceit is the idea that because small government is better, no government must be best. Like the rejection of borders, the negation of the state as a logical extension of Minarchism is a fundamental intellectual mistake.

  52. if there is any group worthy of a presidential “pardon,” it’s them.

    That “pardon” was given in the 80s, on the promise of, “We’ll totally enforce after this, super cereal this time!”.

    What happened? Recidivism.

    1. We can pardon them all today for their past crimes, but that wouldn’t make the US citizens or give them the legal right to be in the US.

  53. So the MSM and Dalmia prefer rule by person, i.e. a dictatorship, instead of rule by law, i.e. a constitutional republic. Revealing!

  54. Why does Reason give this unreconstructed liberal shriek-meister a leading voice on its pages?

    I’m no fan of the man, but Trump hasn’t thrown anyone under the bus. Period. What he has done is throw down the gauntlet to Congress to get it together and come up with a rational program, something Congress was not doing before DACA and what Congress took DACA as an excuse not to do after. If in 6 months Congress can’t put something together then it is Congress throwing the “Dreamers” under the bus, not Trump. Of course, Congress couldn’t put an alternative to ACA together after 6 years, so let’s not expect much if anything from that overfed band of poseurs

  55. Why would we want to legalize low-IQ, big government voters?
    That sounds like suicide to freedom loving people.
    Demographics are destiny.

    (((Libertarians))): the people must serve the market.
    Nationalists: the market must serve the folk.

  56. the problem with this entire article is that it was always up to Congress. contrary to the flat, unsupported statement in the article, President Obama never had the authority to make these grand exemptions. it was always Congress’ job. now we need to push our Congress critters to DO THEIR JOB, and pass legislation with a proper path to legal status for these folks who are productive members of our society, and had no responsibility for their undocumented status.

  57. Total nonsense Trump smartly, wisely, compassionately threw the issue back to the only people who can solve it in regard to the constitution. And when Trump finally signs the bill legalizing most of these people, he’ll be to thank.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.