Immigration

Left, Right, and Center Call on Congress to Save DACA

Trump's rescinding of DACA has produced widespread condemnation and a demand that Congress act to reform immigration.

|

Jeff Sessions
MIKE THEILER/UPI/Newscom

The response has been swift and furious to today's announcement that in six months the Trump administration will rescind the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, which deferred deportations and granted work permits to some 800,000 individuals who'd been brought illegally to the United States by their parents.

As you'd expect, the move has received unconditional condemnation from civil liberties groups. The American Civil Liberties Union's Gabriela Melendez, for example, issued a statement saying that "there is no humane way to end DACA before having a permanent legislative fix in place. President Trump just threw the lives and futures of 800,000 Dreamers and their families, including my own, into fearful disarray, and injected chaos and uncertainty into thousands of workplaces and communities across America." Elected Democrats struck a similar tone, with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeting: "Turning our backs on Dreamers makes us weaker, makes us less safe, & betrays our values."

It's not just lefties opposing the change. Right-leaning business groups have come out against Trump's plan as well, saying the move would be bad for businesses, workers, and the economy. "Terminating their [DACA recipients] employment eligibility runs contrary to the president's goal of growing the U.S. economy," said Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Neil Bradley, adding that the his organization wants Trump and Congress to "work together to quickly find a legislative solution before the program expires."

The decision has critics within the GOP as well. Arizona Sen. John McCain—a frequent Trump critic—called it "the wrong approach to immigration policy at a time when both sides of the aisle need to come together to fix our broken immigration system and secure the border." McCain promised to work with Democrats to pass a legislative fix, saying that the proposed DREAM Act, which would give DACA recipients permeant legal status, is on the table for him.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul offered a somewhat similar sentiment, though he declined to call out Trump by name. "President Obama's executive order [DACA] was illegal," he tweeted. "However, this is a real problem we should solve in a bipartisan fashion." He also said that "There are ways to make sure people who have been here for many years since childhood are allowed to stay," adding that any legislative action on DACA should include efforts to "reduce and reform immigration in other areas."

House Speaker Paul Ryan, a necessary participant in any immigration reform, said he hoped for "a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country."

Running through all these reactions is a seemingly widespread consensus that immigrants brought here illegally by their parents should not be the targets of immigration enforcement, and that the ball is in Congress' court to protect DACA recipients.

Trump himself has said as much, and in a Tuesday morning tweet urged Congress to act: "Congress, get ready to do your job—DACA!"

NEXT: Utah Nurse's Abuse by Police Detective Goes Viral; Does the Outrage Actually Mean Anything?

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. But they don’t want to do anything.

    1. Good. Let DACA sink.

      1. Nah! Don’t just let it sink. TORPEDO IT!

        Supporters of DACA should be required to explain to the long-suffering American taxpayer why it is that when BANK ROBBERS are caught their kids don’t get to keep the money. That’s all DACA is. Criminal invaders come to American accompanied by their spawn. The cost of K-12 schooling for each of those progeny is on the order of $150,000. So a family of 5 criminal invaders costs the American people close to half a million dollars – and that’s without the expenditure of a single dollar in welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing or any other government program. That money is stolen.

        Tell the DACA crowd that after they pay it back, we’ll be happy to accept their application for citizenship and process it – at the end of all the applications that are already pending. Until they pony up the cash, though, they can’t stay here – unless they want to spend their time in prison.

        1. Absolutely wonderful post!

  2. It can’t be that hard to translate DACA language into statute, can it? Maybe I’m being na?ve.

    And who didn’t think that legislating by executive order was a really dumb idea in the first place?

    1. Congress couldn’t pass a resolution stating that the sky is blue.

      1. No but they can sure virtue signal like nobody’s business.

      2. Well, sometimes it’s not.

      3. Let’s hope that’s true. It means that, assuming Trump follows through, DACA is DEAD in 6 months time.

        If he’d held off for another two months, we could have made it part of the Cinco de Mayo celebrations!

    2. And who didn’t think that legislating by executive order was a really dumb idea in the first place?

      It’s only a dumb idea when the other side’s guy is issuing the orders.

      1. Typical American politics. SAD

    3. Only those nutty libertarian kooks. And nobody takes them seriously.

    4. And who didn’t think that legislating by executive order was a really dumb idea in the first place?
      No one. People just felt that doing nothing was even worse.

    5. “And who didn’t think that legislating by executive order was a really dumb idea in the first place?”

      Obo, Pelosi, Bernie, Fuaxcahantus, all those lefties who were absolutely certain that anyone other than them would never have use of dictatorial powers again.
      Something, something, petard, lefty imbeciles.

  3. “there is no humane way to end DACA before having a permanent legislative fix in place.”

    Well, Chili, what makes you think a permanent fix would be forthcoming if not for an imminent cancellation?

  4. Wait, Trump doing something incredibly unpopular, for the right reason, and I’m agreeing with it? Trump is following the Constitution? He’s doing something that has good chance of forcing Congress to pass a reasonable immigration law?

    The End Of Time is near.

    1. I hope it does work to encourage congress to pass a reasonable immigration law. But I’m not sure that the president is constitutionally obliged to enforce every law to the greatest extent possible. If that were the case, we would need a much larger and more oppressive federal law enforcement apparatus.

      1. The court was already poised to end the DACA program. That’s why there was a deadline for this decision. DACA was not merely the executive refusing to enforce the law to the fullest extent, it was an entire scheme complete with temporary work visas. It went well beyond mere enforcement and politically it probably would have been more wise for the president to just allow the courts to overturn the program.

        You can’t complain about an expansive executive and then say, but this expansive abuse by the executive is OK.

        1. Well, I can. But you make a fair point.

          This is something I am somewhat torn over. I don’t know if it’s better to have unjust laws enforced consistently, or to have laws enforced unevenly, and perhaps “creatively”, but more justly. Whether an action is legal or constitutional, and whether it is the right thing to do morally are separate questions.

          Hopefully this will encourage congress to enact a similar policy in a proper law. I agree that that is far preferable to having an EO that can be changed at any time (and is likely outside of the proper powers of the president).

          1. Are immigration laws inherently unjust? Meaning, is the whole notion of having new immigrants undergo a background check unfair? Are borders inherently unfair?

            Serious question.

            1. I think we have some of the most lenient immigration law in the world. No?

              I have a friend that is trying to get dual Italian citizen ship. He’s having to prove his family is from there.

            2. Every nation has the right to control its borders. Mexico certainly does it. Name me a country that does not? There is no inherent “justice” in throwing open the doors to whomever wants to come in, whenever and however.

              DACA was unconstitutional and a plain ploy to garner votes in 2016. Why wait for the courts? There is certainly no guarantee that our federal courts will step up to defend the Constitution.

              Trump has put the ball squarely in Congress’ court, where it belongs. If they do nothing, DACA is dead. If they manage to figure out a rational policy (what are the odds?), so much the better. I expect a majority of Republicans will be on board; it will be Democrats who will find it hard to do any more than pitch to their constituency on this one, and DACA will die.

            3. I think justice is to be found in specific actions, not in laws. Good laws will lead to just (or mostly just, nothing is perfect) actions.

              I can’t really answer whether immigration laws are inherently unjust. Maybe they are necessary or inevitable. I think they are bound to treat some people unjustly if they are significantly restrictive.

              I think that any government will act unjustly in at least some cases. Laws can never consider every possible circumstance, and they will always be enforced by human beings with all of their biases and moral failures.

              In a sense, I do think that immigration restrictions and borders are inherently unfair. In a more perfect world, they would not be necessary or justifiable. It’s only because the world is a messy and nasty place that they are necessary or desirable at all. I do think that as a matter of natural rights, people have a right to go anywhere they are welcome (and I reject the notion that an entire country can make someone unwelcome by majority vote, it’s up to individual property owners), and also that people have the right to employ or house anyone they choose to. Practically, I think that immigration restrictions are inevitable and probably desirable. But that’s an unfortunate consequence of the state of the world, not something inherently good about immigration laws.

              1. I think you’re right, Zeb.

          2. I imagine being a victim of a particularly disruptive unjust law would provide clarity here.

            1. What do you want? I’m being diplomatic.

        2. You can’t complain about an expansive executive and then say, but this expansive abuse by the executive is OK.
          Sure you can. You just argue that in a given context, not doing so is a greater injustice.

          Just because you argue against/complain about something doesn’t mean that concern trumps all other possible concerns.

          1. Are we in the business of determining what is and isn’t ‘just’ now? I always thought that is what separated libertarians from the moralizing religious right and the social justice obsessed Left.

            1. This is getting ridiculous. Libertarians are in the business of justice – the old fashioned kind. The entire concept of individual rights, equal justice under law, limits on constitutional power, is about justice.
              Property rights are about justice. Tort law is about justice. The NAP is about justice. It’s all justice all the time in libertopia. The whole problem with “social” justice is that it is an attempt to justify doing unjust things to people in the name of some other kind of justice. As I’ve said elsewhere, the problem with “social justice” is that it implies that there is something wrong with the regular kind.

              1. This is a nonsensical position. If ‘justice’ is what should be furthered through law then public accommodation laws should not be revoked. You confuse natural rights with law. Natural rights are not ‘justice’, they are self-evident preexisting conditions. If you want to moralize, you should rethink what you believe in.

                1. Come back after you’ve taken a class in moral philosophy. I’m too tired to deal with this bullshit at the moment.

                  1. Pretty dumb remark. I immediately regret defending you after Sparky called you a ‘moron’. He was right. I was wrong.

        3. You can’t complain about an expansive executive and then say, but this expansive abuse by the executive is OK.

          If “expansive” means that the executive chooses not to enforce certain laws that harm people, then yeah, that’s OK.

          1. That is not what occurred. An entire new scheme with temporary work visas were created. The courts were already poised to overturn the order. Pretend as you might, this was not merely prioritizing methods of enforcement. Very disingenuous.

            1. An entire new scheme with temporary work visas were created.

              Unless you want to stop requiring visas to get a job, which would be my choice, then the only way to keep these people from being harmed by the law is to issue them a visa. Kinda like gay marriage. It sucks that there is a government license involved, but if that’s how marriage is going to be done legally, then you issue marriage permits/licenses to people who want to get married.

              1. Right, but the executive cannot unilaterally create visas. Which was done.

                1. So what?

                  What’s more important to you? Would you rather hear and believe that the executive is faithfully and thoroughly executing the law as written and thousands of kids and young adults are in danger of losing their schooling or their job or maybe even being deported, or that these people are safe to go about their lives as they have been, but that the law wasn’t properly enforced?

                  1. Pick your position here, because you’re all over the place. First you said, the executive was merely choosing enforcement priority. Then you conceded that the executive had created its own scheme to distribute visas. And now you go back to the executive is merely choosing enforcement priority.

                    What the executive was doing was illegal. It had not congressional authorization. The courts were already poised to end it. I believe in a restrained executive. I’m sorry that this is no longer in vogue with the people who yammer endlessly about ‘principles’.

                    1. I don’t know why you think I was shifting positions. My position is that enforcing immigration laws on these people would be harmful to them and I would rather that not happen. If the way to prevent that sort of harm from coming to them means issuing them some piece of paper, then so be it. Big deal.

                      I don’t know if I’ve ever yammered about principles, but anyway, my principles as a libertarian just aren’t the same as yours as an obvious conservative.

                    2. Yeah, there use to be a time when libertarians use to complain about something being illegal because it wasn’t authorized by Congress, like subsidies for the healthcare system. Hell, that was two weeks ago.

                      Most people who claim be libertarian now, though, just believe in virtue signalling and cowardice in the face of virtue signalling. You, being an obvious progressive, have different priorities than myself.

                    3. You’re the one who keeps yammering about principles here, sweetcakes. And the core of the misunderstanding looks to be that some of us have different principles than you (or [insert Reason writer here]). That doesn’t make us unprincipled.

                  2. They are not “losing” anything to which they are entitled. They are stealing all of those things.
                    The bank robber is not “losing” the loot if he has to give it back.
                    Deportation is not punishment – it is returning the situation to what it was before the law was broken.
                    I’ll bet a lot of criminals would take that as their “punishment”.

                  3. What’s more important to you? Would you rather hear and believe that the executive is faithfully and thoroughly executing the law as written and thousands of kids and young adults are in danger of losing their schooling or their job or maybe even being deported, or that these people are safe to go about their lives as they have been, but that the law wasn’t properly enforced?

                    List all crimes that should be utterly ignored because it might hurt the criminals’ kids. I’ll be waiting.

      2. The Pres can only enforce the law to the extent Congress gives him the money to do it.

        So he has the right to focus on the more egregious violations until he runs out of money. And if that means overlooking some violations, *temporarily,* that’s the way it is, it’s Congress’s fault.

        But for the Pres to say categorically he *will not* enforce the law in certain situations (even while accepting the law’s constitutionality), regardless of how much money Congress gives him – that’s a whole other kettle of fish.

        1. Of course, one man’s “egregious violations” is another man’s “important humanitarian exception” – and the President is the guy who gets to decide. Not surprisingly, some people are going to disagree about priorities.

          1. OK, but Obama took the next step and tried to set aside the law. Even if a so-called Dreamer gift-wrapped himself and handed over a dossier about his violations, the executive was still supposed to ignore it. That goes beyond lack of funds or setting spending priorities.

            1. “” the executive was still supposed to ignore it.”‘

              The executive was Obama, but he’s no longer in office. It does not necessarily apply to the next president. Trump can honor it, or not.

              If it’s important enough to keep it away from EO ping pong, then do it right the first time by working with Congress to pass a law. If Congress isn’t interested, the respectful thing to do is not give false hope that is dependent on one person (president).

              1. Hmmm…isn’t that sort of what I said?

      3. Doesn’t need to enforce every law to the greatest extent possible, but the President is supposed to (according to the Constitution) “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

        There is discretion, but he’s supposed to work within the intended framework provided by Congress to “faithfully execute”–which I take to mean he’s supposed to do the best he can with the resources Congress provides.

        It certainly means he’s not just supposed to ignore swaths of the law, or write new “law” via executive orders when Congress has already provided different laws. And in the case of the Dreamers/DACA, Congress’s “failure” to provide relief for them was not an oversight, as DREAM Act was proposed and voted down repeatedly over the years. So Congress acted and by its express refusal (votes against) to modify/expand existing immigration laws, there was no right for the executive to create a program that provides work permits to any sort of illegal alien, including DACA kids–it wasn’t just “we won’t deport you”.

        Right or wrong, to create that program was Congress job, not Obama’s.

    2. And he had enough nuance to give 6 months notice!

    3. for the right reason

      Which is…?

      1. The Pres does not (or should not, anyway) have the ability to make sweeping changes to any law – that’s Congress’ job. I agree with the premise that someone would was brought here as child should be able to continue live here. I believe this is the majority opinion. However, present immigration law apparently states otherwise.

        Changing this with an Execute Order decree smacks of a dictatorship. Anyone who agrees this EO is proper has no room to complain when they disagree with a future EO. Legislation by Execute Order is disturbing.

        1. No, present immigration law does not say otherwise. DACA was an executive policy create by Obama that is in direct conflict with duly authorized laws passed by Congress. Trump’s action here simply undoes an executive policy with a new executive policy.

          1. I may have misread your comment. My bad.

    4. Here’s hoping they pass NOTHING and ICE starts rounding up the criminals.

      1. Too bad they don’t have up-votes on this site.
        You’d get plenty from the honorable, law-respecting people.

  5. Have the paleocons issued a press release yet?

    1. Did Trump say something bad about their diet?

      Oh, wait, paleo *cons.* Never mind.

  6. So this is how you light a fire under Congress’ ass? Maybe Trump should issue an executive order that Obamacare doesn’t cover illegal immigrant children and they’ll do something about that. too.

  7. Of course, this will go nowhere like it has every single other time before. They’ll fiddle around the edges, and declare mission accomplished for another decade.

    At worst it’ll be just another amnesty, like each of the one’s that came before.

    You want to know why immigration isn’t ‘fixed’? Because no one has any fucking idea what it’s meant to accomplish in the first place. No goal, no plan, no action.

    1. Because illegal immigrants can’t vote. And their relatives and potential employers are outnumbered by domestic labor, which has a vested interest in keeping out competition. No matter what evil inhumane things happen to other people as a result.

      1. Because illegal immigrants can’t vote.

        Don’t worry, someone’s working on a “fix” for that.

        1. “Because illegal immigrants can’t vote.”

          Sure they can. They’re not supposed to, but they do. Not in the numbers Trump cried about, to be sure, but the number of illegal aliens voting in elections for federal office is also not zero.

          Illegal aliens are allowed to vote for local offices in a number of places, too.

      2. Well, when the ‘competition’ doesn’t actually need to meet any of the same onerous regulations that domestic business must follow it becomes pretty clear why a domestic workforce of under-the-radar workers would be great for employers. You don’t even have to pay them minimum wage! Fight for $15 is making the case for more illegal immigration every day.

        1. So you support liberalizing immigration law so people can come here and work legally, right?

          1. We already have a million people coming here legally every year. How much more liberalized would satisfy you?

            1. How about no more visa quotas and everyone who can make it through a background check gets in (like legal immigrants already have to do)? That would be ideal.

              Illegal immigration would evaporate over night (except those who couldn’t pass a background check) and there wouldn’t be seven year visa wait times in places like the Philippines.

              1. I think letting in likely tens of millions of newcomers every year would be a tough sell to most Americans.

                1. It would work out just fine. The US does a remarkable job at assimilation.

                2. Like Hazel cares about most Americans. Hazel hates whites except for herself. Despite Hazel being one of the worst whites I’ve ever encountered.

              2. This.

                Illegal immigration is a direct result of an artificial prohibition imposed by government. Day laborers and vegetable pickers are NOT among that 1 million people, but Rhywun and others who cite that number probably don’t know that as that would make their argument somewhat disingenuous.

                1. Ugh. That was a response to WAKA above.

                2. “”Illegal immigration is a direct result of an artificial prohibition imposed by government””

                  Which nation does not do this?

                  1. The US for pretty much it’s first 100 years. Then again, I’m not even sure why the question is relevant. Most of what most countries do I assume we as libertarians disagree with, right?

                    I mean, most countries have some form of universal healthcare, so what’s your point?

                    1. The US for pretty much it’s first 100 years.

                      So the model you wish to emulate is the US during it’s first hundred years……when ‘immigration’ consisted of importing people from Europe to help conquer and occupy the country?

                      Manifest Destiny is what you want?

                      It’s very interesting to see what these advocates want when pressed–Zach’s anti alt-right piece exposed his desire for massive white immigration–and this here exposes a desire for that massive white immigration to go forth and take all the land they want.

                      Of course, after they get what they want they’ll revert to vilifying anyone who does such horrible things–provided of course that the largesse from doing those things keeps flowing to them.

      3. Um, do you really think that letting illegal immigrants vote is a great idea Hazel? I mean, I’d love to vote in Russian elections but I’m told it’s inconsiderate.

        1. No I’m saying the political dynamics is driven by the nature of democracy. Majority rule is not always a recipe for human policies. This is why we have constitutional limits on government. Unfortunately, such constitutional limits do not yet apply to economic liberties.

          1. “do not yet apply to economic liberties”

            Like Christian bakers who don’t want to make gay wedding cakes? Or is economic liberty only reserved for immigration?

            1. Christian bakers should not have to bake cakes for gay weddings, and Gay bakers should not have to bake cakes for Christian weddings.
              Nobody should have to bake cakes for anyone.

              1. What about an American refusing to let an Mexican rent an apartment?

                1. How about an American refusing to let another American rent an apartment to a Mexican?

          2. This is why we have constitutional limits on government. Unfortunately, such constitutional limits do not yet apply to economic liberties.

            This is hilarious. Not only because xenophobic old white guys explicitly gave the government these powers constitutionally, but the opposition to it has been undertaken explicitly in violation of the constitution and/or by people with an admitted interest and habit in destroying democratic, constitutional, and economic liberty.

            Like the choice was Trump or economic liberty and all the fools chose Trump and, having chose Trump, all the “legitimate” opposition to him evaporated in a puff of smoke.

            1. opposition to it has been undertaken explicitly in violation of the constitution and/or by people with an admitted interest and habit in destroying democratic, constitutional, and economic liberty.

              I get it. Being in favor of human rights is unconstitutional and anti-American, and most of those people are socialists anyways, so fuck immigrants, including those who were brought here as children and don’t even remember the country they were born in.

              People have no human rights because I hate leftists.

              1. People have no human rights because I hate leftists.

                You complain so much about “basic human rights” that at this point the only safe assumption is that you’re a moron.

                1. That’s not fair. People ignore basic human decency all the time, because of politics. You can’t just label Hazel a moron for asserting that point.

                2. Are you questioning whether the right to exchange money for labor is a basic human right, or whether having armed men come to your door and drag you away to another country for no crime other than not having permission to work is a violation of you human rights?

                  1. If only the United States decided to completely do away with all immigration law you would quickly find out that it would be the death knell of the United States.

                    Fortunately, that will never happen so it’s nothing more than a tell that someone is bat shit crazy.

                    Notably I don’t have a problem with a ‘more open’ system, what I have a problem with is the idea that immigration law itself is somehow not a valid exercise of political power by Congress.

                  2. It is not a ‘basic’ human right to exchange money for labor.

                    You have the right to attempt to contract with another. Attempt. You cannot have a right that requires action other than your own.

                    If that attempt or that contract infringes on the rights of others, those infringements must be provided for.

                    The crime is not failing to have permission to work. The crime is that the infringements upon others rights are being ignored. From the rights of citizens to primacy in the eyes of the government they fund, to the rights of persons seeking to immigrate legally.

              2. I’ve got nothing against people who were brought here illegally as kids staying. But their parents, on the other hand…they’re technically human traffickers on top of their myriad other offenses.

                1. Consider just 8 U.S. Code ? 1324…

                  Any person who?
                  (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry…, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
                  (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
                  (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
                  (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
                  (v) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

                  1. (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs?
                    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
                    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
                    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
                    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

      4. Right, like gerrymandering and other forms of voter fraud would never happen.

        I don’t like all of Trump’s policies and think the wall is a pretty dumb idea, even back when it was Bill Clinton’s idea, but, again, the notion that people should just mill about freely and vote or take jobs as they see fit is fraught with all manner of obvious moral failing that are just as, if not more egregious than the status quo.

        California and New York and wealthy interested invested therein would eat the rest of the country alive well within a decade and the issue isn’t exactly up for debate or as baseless as the Russian investigations, except that we can’t hang an albatross around Soros’, Jerry Browne’s, or Michael Bloomberg’s neck and/or Russians are icky enough that it’s okay to be against them.

        I don’t know that immigrants, legal or otherwise, would enact one team or the other’s policies. I do think, judging by varying countries of origin, libertarianism would by-and-large, fair worse rather than better.

      5. Yeah Hazel, fuck American citizens, and everything free for the illegals, right? Why don’t you vacate your home and give it and all your belongings to some illegals. Clearly they are more deserving, right? Or is it just others that need to stop their complaining and lose their standard of living to a bunch of interlopers that shit on our laws?

        1. Being allowed to have a job is just free shit. They are stealing from Americans who are entitled to those jobs.

          1. Give your home to the illegals. Out your money where your mouth is.

        2. What are illegals going to do with 1994 Toyota Corolla? Hazel is classic lower middle class striver trying to social signal her way up the class ladder.

        3. Shitting on laws is a great American tradition, and therefore I declare all illegals more American than this poser.

  8. Arizona Sen. John McCain?a frequent Trump critic?called it “the wrong approach to immigration policy at a time when both sides of the aisle need to come together to fix our broken immigration system and secure the border.” McCain promised to work with Democrats to pass a legislative fix, saying that the proposed DREAM Act, which would give DACA recipients permeant legal status, is on the table for him.

    Remember that brief period of time when “Maverick” McCain, the guy beloved by the media as a “good” Republican, one known for his willingness to reach across the aisle and attack Republicans in a bi-partisan manner, was literally Hitler?

  9. I can understand why some people are nervous about entrusting anything of importance to Congress; watching them work is like watching a monkey trying to fuck a football. But we really do need to get away from this idea that the President can just create programs like this by decree. Someday a President is going to do that to create something really horrible, and waiting until then to say “ok, NOW we’ll enforce the Constitution” will only make him laugh.

  10. Perhaps Congress should consider taking some authority back from the executive.

    1. AND THE VOTER ACCOUNTABILITY WITH IT?

      1. Yeah, pretty sure they’d rather just have the authority-on-paper and leave everything up to the President so when shit goes sideways they can just point fingers and whine.

        I mean, what, you’d trust the labyrinth of political power to a bunch of random guys picked in a popularity contest? Much, much safer to go with one guy picked in a popularity contest.

        /sarc

    2. I suspect it’s hard to garner support for a more open immigration policy, on the one hand, and argue for lax enforcement on the other.

      It’s sort of like tough on criminals laws–three strikes, etc. One of the reasons people support that sort of thing is because they don’t trust our justice system to lock up the criminals. Give people more faith that you’re going to lock up criminals, and people may stop supporting things like mandatory minimums and three strikes.

      Likewise with the popular support for immigration reform. The less people have faith that policy is being adequately enforced, the more support there is for keeping the policy as punitive and strict as possible.

      After sexually assaulting a 65 year old woman, this guy was found to have been arrested 20 times and was deported eight times in the last ten years.

      http://tinyurl.com/y8rk78sd

      No matter what the polls say, middle America will remain unlikely to support Congress lowering eligibility requirements for naturalization so long as they believe sanctuary cities elsewhere in the country refuse to help enforce immigration law.

      1. The polling on the RAISE act has already made it clear that deep pools of support exist for steeply reducing immigration in this country. Even democrats don’t think immigration levels should be increased.

        1. Nor should it. At least not for awhile. Once the current crop of immigrants is better assimilated, we can look at opening the spigot further.

          1. …and once we have every American, who can, working.
            For every illegal alien with a job, an American must live off the toil of others, usually taxpayers.

    3. Perhaps Congress should consider taking some authority back from the executive.

      It seems to me that voters would first have to replace the majority of Congresspersons. The current (and in many cases long-term) Congresspersons seem quite comfortable insulating themselves with legislation such as the decade and a half old Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    4. YOU CONSTITUTION BELIEVER. WHAT A NAZI

      1. You know who else was a nazi?

        1. Every conservative and libertarian in the world?

  11. We’re against rule by executive order . . . unless it’s an executive order we like–do I have that right?

    Are we still supposed to oppose wars we’d approve of otherwise–because they’re unconstitutional?

    You know, setting the rules for naturalization is, actually, an enumerated power of Congress–just like the power to declare war. That’s for good reason, too. Imposing an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like imposing an unpopular war. Democracy has its proper place in our republic, and setting immigration policy is one of those places.

    I guess this is better than arguing about statues of Robert E. Lee.

    But all this cosmo stuff can be really confusing. Is the cosmo principle really: “Gays, marijuana, and immigrants all good. Anything that gets in their way is bad–Constitution be damned”?

    “Trump’s rescinding of DACA has produced widespread condemnation and a demand that Congress act to reform immigration

    Condemnation in the press? Condemnation by whom?

    We’re taking Liz Warren’s tweets seriously now? I didn’t know we were taking Liz Warren’s arguments seriously, much less her tweets.

    Did she include a picture of what she’s having for brunch?

    1. Broke: The President cannot continue to issue payments to the healthcare market, because Congress hasn’t authorized it

      Woke: The President is worse than Hitler for rescinding an expansion of executive authority that the courts have found to be unconstitutional

      1. Is there a person you know of who is saying both of those things? I’m not sure what the point is (like with most of your posts).

        1. We can’t all be as clever as an android

        2. I tried to rewrite what Waka said in simpler terms, so that you could understand the point, but I failed because the meaning is so obviously clear that I can’t find a simpler way to say it.

    2. We’re against rule by executive order . . . unless it’s an executive order we like–do I have that right?

      Yes. It’s the best we can hope for.

      1. So then it is Top Men, but my Top Man

        1. No it’s not.

          If there is a Top Man, rather it be mine than someone else’s.

          1. I rather it be mine than yours

              1. No, I think it’s more accurate to say “If they aren’t *our* guys, they aren’t actually Top Men, so I don’t want your so-called Top Men screwing things up.”

    3. Not everyone sees rule of law as a good in and of itself. Good government will always depend on individuals choosing to behave in certain ways. There is no magic formula of rule of law that will change that.

      Consistent and even-handed enforcement of laws is certainly desirable assuming that the laws are just and realistic. But in a case like immigration, where millions of mostly innocent (by the standard of not having done harm to anyone) people are potentially subject to enforcement actions, the government will do better to prioritize enforcement against people who actually are dangerous or criminal, and not enforcing it against people who are not dangerous and are likely to be good contributors to American society seems pretty reasonable and rational.

      Perhaps DACA goes beyond simply prioritizing enforcement, I don’t know. But it seems like a pretty decent use of executive discretion to me.

      1. Creating a whole system and then issuing temporary visas, without the approval of congress is a pretty egregious expansion of executive authority. You can’t complain about executive expansion in one area and then defend it in another area. You can, of course, but then you’re being a hypocrite.

        Try asking a legal immigrant what their opinions are on illegal immigration. I assure you it won’t be ‘woke’. They followed the rules that existed and yet, someone else gets to cut them in line.

        1. It’s not hypocritical if your objection to the expansion is an objection of the substance of that expansion, and not the expansion itself.

          1. So then absolute power does not corrupt absolutely? A gollum can be tamed if he is the ‘right gollum’?

            That seems like a pretty good opening for totalitarianism.

            1. Most folks are OK with totalitarianism, if the totalitarians they *like* are the ones in charge. What they consistently fail to realize is that there’s no guarantee that the folks they like are going to always be the ones in charge.

            2. Power does corrupt, which is why I’m fine with the executive (or legislature, or judiciary, or law enforcement, or the people at large) using its power to stem the corruption as I see it.

              I’m a fan of the division and rivalry of power as described by Madison, that doesn’t mean I must abide by his particular parameters circa 1787. Especially since that document has clearly failed to constrain power.

      2. Except that DACA wasn’t just prioritizing enforcement.
        It was giving out work permits to illegals, who by actual law, were prohibited from having a job.
        If you believe the “prosecutorial discretion” excuse, you are either really dumb or just obtuse.

      3. “Perhaps DACA goes beyond simply prioritizing enforcement, I don’t know…”

        Many here have pointed out that DACA is *not* just prioritizing enforcement against illegal aliens who came here as children. It created a whole new class of work visa (controlling immigration, including defining who gets work visas, is a Congressional power). It created an administrative agency and claimed it is not subject to Congressional authority that is self-funded through fees in an attempt to bypass the Constitutional requirement that “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”.

    4. A demand that congress reform immigration?

      So, Trump is right?

    5. “Gays, marijuana, and immigrants FREEDOM all good. Anything that gets in their its way is bad–Constitution be damned”?

      Why is this so hard for some, um, “libertarians” to understand?

      1. Did you include the “Constitution be damned” part by accident or was that on purpose?

        Because the separation of powers is a big part of what I’m talking about when I talk about “freedom” and democracy, too.

        Some things are properly democratic, and declaring wars and setting immigration policy are two of those things. Inflicting wars, taxes, immigration policy, etc. on an unwilling populace is exactly the kind of things we want to avoid by way of democracy. Like I said up top, the government has no business violating the First or Fourteenth Amendment rights or immigrants. Apart from that, if you’re against democracy, say so. Don’t hide your light under a bushel.

        Tell people you want a pro-immigration emperor who doesn’t have to worry about what the American people or their elected representatives want and be done with it.

  12. Why can’t the Great Deal Maker and Negotiator just make a deal and fix things up?

    1. Because there are fine people among those White Supremacists.

      That’s why.

      1. A real white supremacist would extend illegal immigrants 3/5ths of a vote and have them under our thumb for the next two centuries.

        1. The South wanted to both keep slaves *and* have them counted for representation purposes. So, the South’s position was “They may be slaves and have no rights, but they need to be counted as full people” (not unlike Democrats who today want illegal aliens counted for representation purposes)

          The North wanted to end slavery, sure, but in the meantime demanded that slaves held must not be counted for representation purposes. The North’s position was “We don’t want them to be slaves, but since they are slaves they are not full people.” It was the North that proposed the 3/5 count for slaves.

      2. White supremacy is letting illegals in and getting them to work for less than half what a citizen would ave to be paid, knowing the illegal doesn’t dare come,aim. Turning them into a defacto slave class.

        Does that help you fucking racist asshole?

        1. That was intended for Old Mexican, not Mad Casual.

    2. That is exactly what he did.

  13. Unfortunately, Congress probably will NOT act.
    The problem is Trump has basically given them cover for doing nothing, and blaming it on him.
    They can point the finger at someone else and say they aren’t morally responsible for what happens next.

    1. Ummmm…the court forced everyone’s hand here. We should blame the rule of law and that stupid separation of powers.

      When Congress doesn’t act- it has in fact acted

      1. Dude, they get away with not acting and blaming someone else all the time, on all sorts of things. Why do you think they handed over warmaking power to the executive?

        1. Hence: “when congress doesn’t act- it has in fact acted”

          1. Alert me the day the voters understand that.

            1. I think they understand that pretty well, when they re-elect the same congressmen.

              1. I think you might assume too much rationality in voters.

            2. Here is a voter who understands Congressional inaction as a form of action. I am sure most voters do understand it.

              If voters are outraged by the inaction of Congress on this issue, there is a mechanism to remedy that. If voters are not interested, then that is OK too.

              1. Yes, many voters do not give a shit when inhumane things happen to non-Americans.

                1. It is not within human nature to give a shit about stuff that doesn’t affect you personally. Examples of forcing people to do so abound – it never ends well.

                  1. Cool. Let’s just excise all that stuff in the constitution about rights. it never ends well.
                    Majority rule for everything!

                    1. Cool. Let’s just excise all that stuff in the constitution about rights. it never ends well.
                      Majority rule for everything!

                      I’m impressed by your ability to completely fail to understand two simple sentences.

                2. I think it’s inhumane that legal immigrants must wait seven years for a visa by following the rules, while someone else can just sneak in. Try finding a legal immigrant than supports illegal immigration

                  1. *raises hand*

                3. There is nothing inhumane about our immigration policy.

                  Apparently the failure to enforce it has some unfortunate consequences. But that was the intent. Use the downtrodden as political leverage.

                  1. There is nothing inhumane about our immigration policy.

                    Including the part which states that if you are in the US illegally, you aren’t even allowed to apply for legal status unless you go home and wait at least two years – even if you are married to an American citizen and have US citizen children?

                    1. Well, we could start with those children should not be US citizens.
                      Dropping them on US soil should not be a qualification for citizenship, nor has it been ruled as such by the courts.
                      Are “marriages” legal if one participant isn’t a legal resident? They shouldn’t be.
                      If you have come here, illegally, or overstayed a visa, then there should be some hoops to jump through, like having to wait two years, before you can apply, from your home country. It is to discourage the initial illegal entry/overstay.
                      You make your bed, you should have to lie in it.

                    2. Well, we could start with those children should not be US citizens.

                      You mean that if a US CITIZEN marries an illegal alien, their kids won’t be US citizens?
                      You mean that a person born and raised on American soil, who has commited no crime other than nbeing born to the WRONG PERSON, would be considered an alien subject to deportation.

                      I will restate this – if your ideas result in horrible, evil, inhumane things happening to innocent people like children – you have made an error in your moral reasoning. Stop, Go back to square one, and rethink your entire philosophy.

              2. My rep is Cathy McMorris Rodgers. She as ok when she started out, but now is more concerned about her position than being a good conservative. A lot of us want her gone and are working to have her out in the next primary. We will probably not succeed. At least not this time. She has too much money behind her. Maybe in 2020 we can get rid of her.

                In WA we have no hope of getting rid of our Senators. The Seattle area guarantees a progressive democrat will fill both seats, and these assholes vote in lockstep,for whomever they are told to vote for.

                So that’s it, I’m stuck with two communist traitor senators, and an establishment RINO hack.

              3. Congress did act – when they passed the laws on the books, now.
                The problem has been the laws have not been enforced.
                So, the solution is to pass more laws to replace the ones no one is enforcing, because these ones will be more law-like, or something?

    2. Not acting is an acting too.

    3. Congress HAS acted, several times in fact. The DREAM Act has been voted down in Congress a number of times. Congress has explicitly chosen to NOT implement the DREAM Act.

  14. Right-leaning business groups… Sure they are.

  15. Hurts to say, but I think Trump is making a great move. He’s going to FORCE congress to work together. DACA will be turned into law, not executive order. A rare constitutional move for Trump.

    1. Just like he did on Obamacare. When something works stick with it.

      1. But enough about you and your sybian machine.

    2. Welcome to H&R, PeterYoung4LP – I hope you have “thick skin”.

  16. Another excellent decision by Trump. This EO never should have been put in place. It is the job of Congress to make law.

    DACA is yet another unlawful over reach by Obama.

    This should be a simple task for Congress “fix”. If Congress does nothing then that is a valid decision as well.

    1. Welcome to H&R, Ecoli – I hope you have “thick skin”.

      1. I have lurked here for years. I am sorry that a lot of the interesting commenters abandoned H&R. I do have thick skin.

        1. I have lurked here for years…. I do have thick skin.

          In that case, I should think that you can fare well on H&R.

          I am sorry that a lot of the interesting commenters abandoned H&R.

          As am I, despite understanding many of their stated reasons.

          Perhaps you yourself will prove an interesting commentator.

  17. But what I ultimately cannot understand is, WHY do so many on the right (and many on the libertarian right as well) go absolutely apeshit when the topic of immigration comes up?

    They are rightly opposed to prohibition on alcohol (and drugs), but then they support the biggest prohibition of them all, prohibition on labor.
    They are rightly suspicious of government spying on citizens, but then they support trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the name of rooting out the pesky illegals.
    They complain about burdensome government regulations on business, but then they happily support burdensome government regulations on business if it means getting rid of those damn illegals.

    On this one topic, they seem to throw all of their principles out the window. It honestly makes no rational sense to me.

    I went to a few conservative forums today to see how people were reacting to this DACA news. On one forum, a commenter advocated for ICE to go to kindergartens and round up all the kids of illegals, because that would be an easy place to find them. On another, a commenter advocated for kids of illegals to snitch on their parents and turn them in to ICE so that they may be deported. Are these people mad? Do they really think that Mexican day laborers are such a threat to America that these Stasi-esque tactics are somehow morally justified on some utilitarian level? I cannot comprehend this. I really can’t.

      1. I’m not saying the comments are representative of every single immigration restrictionist. But those comments were so beyond the pale that even if they represent an outlier, it’s a pretty reprehensible one. IMO it would be like coming to Reason and finding a commenter saying “you know, I generally support liberty, but when it comes to pot possession, I think that should be a felony.” It would be like, WTF?

      2. I’m not saying the comments are representative of every single immigration restrictionist. But those comments were so beyond the pale that even if they represent an outlier, it’s a pretty reprehensible one. IMO it would be like coming to Reason and finding a commenter saying “you know, I generally support liberty, but when it comes to pot possession, I think that should be a felony.” It would be like, WTF?

    1. From my perspective, DACA was a rather egregious expansion of presidential authority and anyone who believes that you can expand the executive in some part and restrain it in others is being purposely dense.

      I don’t think most people oppose immigration, so long as it is done through the proper channels (with background checks and visas). If we eliminated the quotas that are imposed on various countries, all eligible immigrants would be allowed entry in the proper channels. Most of the country (and libertarians) would support such a move. But, that is never what is advocated. What is advocated, instead, is to maintain the status quo except that all those who did not follow the rules should automatically be granted residency and, of course, all future illegal entrants should receive the same leg-up.

      I fail to see what is racist or illiberal about believing in the rule of law with regards to immigration and limiting the president’s authority. A better question is why do certain libertarians believe in separation of powers and a limited executive, except when it hinders their objectives? That seems like the opposite of principles

      1. “I fail to see what is racist or illiberal about believing in the rule of law with regards to immigration and limiting the president’s authority.”

        Wanting kids to snitch on their parents and have them deported goes way beyond simply a respect for the rule of law.

        I understand that there are people who think all illegals should be deported. I don’t agree with that position, but I can understand the logic of that position. What I cannot understand is those who push the issue of illegal immigration to the absolute top of the threat assessment and advocate for measures to stop it that are extremely disproportionate. You would be hard pressed to find a rule-of-law hardass who would argue that “kids should snitch on their parents when they cheat on their taxes”. So why is it the case with illegal immigration?

        1. “Wanting kids to snitch on their parents and have them deported goes way beyond simply a respect for the rule of law.”

          I don’t know what this refers to or how it is relevant to rescinding DACA. I think too many people are looking at this emotionally than through dispassionate logic.

          1. I think many people are looking at this and seeing gross violations of human rights.
            The ultimate basis of justice is in our natural intuitions about human rights. When people see evil and inhumane things happening to other people, they aren’t wrong to think there is some moral error in the laws that led to those things happening.

            1. You cannot make-up your subjective notion of ‘human rights’. This is why you Leftists are so sad. You make-up rights. Natural rights have a basis in reality. You just don’t like something and declare that there is a right against that thing. That is not how reality works. And, no, Canada is not reality. It is soft statism based on nonsense

              1. I’m not a leftist, I’m a pro-immigration anti-racist libertarian.

                You’re not even capable of understanding natural rights theory, so there is no point in arguing with you about this.

                1. I’m not a leftist, I’m a pro-immigration anti-racist libertarian.

                  Actually, you’re an anti-immigration, pro-illegal immigration racist who seeks to perpetuate an underclass of brown people who work at below market wages in horrifying conditions because they have no alternative.

                  That’s pretty fucked up. You probably are a leftist–they’re really into intimidated labor forces cowering before them.

                  You sound a lot like Shikha–who demands the right to have dalits around to wipe her ass for her–and hopes to create new dalits in the form of illegal Latin Americans.

                  1. I’m in favor of allowing more legal immigration precisely BECAUSE if it was legal, they wouldn’t have to work for below market wages in horrifying conditions.

                    Also, is there something about immigration policy that turns right wingers into insane sputtering racist psychopaths or something? You spittle-flecked rant makes me wonder if you are off your meds.

        2. “”You would be hard pressed to find a rule-of-law hardass who would argue that “kids should snitch on their parents when they cheat on their taxes”.””

          You would not be hard pressed to find rule-of-law hardasses that think kids should snitch on their parents when they do drugs.

      2. And I agree with you that DACA was an egregious violation of the Constitution. I actually support Trump’s decision today to slowly unwind the program and putting Congress on notice that they need to act. But I don’t support deporting the Dreamers and I don’t support taking the deportation talk to eleventy.

      3. A better question is why do certain libertarians believe in separation of powers and a limited executive, except when it hinders their objectives? That seems like the opposite of principles

        The driving principles aren’t separation of powers, limited executives, or rule of law. These can be a means to the real end and the real driving principle, which is maximizing freedom. If there is a law on the books that limits freedom and everyone ignores it, that’s great. That’s not rule of law, but it’s better for individual freedom. If a legislature enacts a bad law that’s bad for freedom and it’s upheld by the courts, but the executive refuses to enforce it, this is a bad thing? No, it’s a good thing. Thank you, rogue executive. Sure, it would be better if the bad laws were not written down and if politicians and bureaucrats didn’t think that it’s in force, but simply not enforcing a bad law has the same effect (at least temporarily).

        1. “The driving principles aren’t separation of powers, limited executives, or rule of law. These can be a means to the real end and the real driving principle, which is maximizing freedom.”\

          They are, though, the best way to limit tyranny. Ignoring the process of how something is achieved versus only basking in the end result is the danger posed by utilitarianism.

          1. They are, though, the best way to limit tyranny.

            Oh, they’ve done such a bang up job so far!

            Ignoring the process of how something is achieved versus only basking in the end result is the danger posed by utilitarianism.

            So the ignoring “the process” is itself the danger? I just want to make sure I parsed the sentence correctly. It’s its own danger?

            One might think, though, that constantly worrying about following “the process” and ignoring its results is the bigger danger. Besides, I never said that ANY means to increase freedom is justified, only those where no one was harmed and everyone’s rights were respected. Just because some liars and thieves got together and voted to write some words on pieces of paper doesn’t mean that another liar and thief ignoring it is some kind of path to tyranny.

            Anyway, there is no “end result.” It’s just a constant churning of human power and priorities.

            1. “They are, though, the best way to limit tyranny.

              Oh, they’ve done such a bang up job so far!”

              Actually, it has worked pretty well. Are we living in the same country? Are you in Canada?

              1. Actually, it has worked pretty well. Are we living in the same country? Are you in Canada?

                I guess we live in the same country, but not the same world.

                1. Man, that was a weird remark. But, cheers. Here’s hoping that your benevolent despot dream becomes reality, Hans Hoppe.

            2. THE JUICE IS LOOSE

              with insight.

      4. If we eliminated the quotas that are imposed on various countries, all eligible immigrants would be allowed entry in the proper channels.

        The quotas aren’t really the problem. The problem is that the employment status category requires potential employers to prove that they could not possibly have hired an American for the job. Even if the immigrant is the most qualified candidate. This has been the case since the 1960s – the law was basically written by the labor unions to keep out unskilled laborers. This is why 20 years later, we had a big problem with illegal immigrants – which Reagan granted amnesty to without fixing the law, and it’s why we have the same problem again, 30 years later. There IS NO legal pathway for unskilled laborers that don’t have a direct US relative. Whether the quotas were lifted or not wouldn’t change the fact that there is no way they would qualify to get a visa. Whenever you try to make some sort of victimless economic activity illegal, you have a black market. Just as you aren’t going to make the drug trade go away with stricter enforcement of the law, you aren’t going to make illegal immigration go away with stricter enforcement of the law.

        1. “The problem is that the employment status category requires potential employers to prove that they could not possibly have hired an American for the job.”

          That is not true at all. You obviously are not an immigrant, or you are here on a work visa. Most immigrants to this country (the vast majority of the one million annually) are not sponsored through work. Most are through family chain migration. You need to learn what you are arguing.

          1. I immigrated from Canada in 2009 via a brother sister sponsorship and naturalized in 2014. You’re correct that MOST immigration is via family sponsorship. That is BECAUSE the work sponsorship route is so difficult.

            I know exactly what I’m talking about.

            1. So, you’re saying we should prioritize skills based immigration, Mr. Trump?

              If we eliminated the quotas on countries you wouldn’t have legal immigrants waiting years to get a visa to enter this country. That would solve 90% of the problem.

              1. No, I’m saying we need to create a legal pathway for UNskilled immigrants to come here to work. At least on a temporary basis. Bush was talking about a guest worker program way back in 2000. Again, this went nowhere because domestic labor has completely captured immigration policy, since the 1960s.

                1. No, I’m saying we need to create a legal pathway for UNskilled immigrants to come here to work

                  For what possible reason? Unskilled foreign workers are nothing more than a subsidy of US tax payers to inefficient, labor-intensive industries.

                  Companies that need large numbers of unskilled workers ought to automate and modernize, not import those workers and have the taxpayer pick up the tab for all the government services that those workers need but are never going to pay for.

                  1. It’s not a “subsidy” to allow employers to hire who they want to hire.

                    This is the same logic that claims that it’s a “subsidy” to allow oil companies to deduct expenses for exploration – like everyone else get’s to deduct expenses for internal investment.

                    They can’t control what government services workers use any more than you can. Same logic that says that because you health care is paid for by the government they should be allowed to control what you eat.

        2. There IS NO legal pathway for unskilled laborers that don’t have a direct US relative.

          Well, and there probably should be “no legal pathway for unskilled laborers” period.

          Whenever you try to make some sort of victimless economic activity illegal

          This isn’t “victimless economic activity”. Unskilled laborers and their children consume government services but never pay enough in taxes to make up for that. That is, the victims are tax payers. It’s a case of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.

          Just as you aren’t going to make the drug trade go away with stricter enforcement of the law, you aren’t going to make illegal immigration go away with stricter enforcement of the law.

          Requiring proof of legal residency for any government interactions (public schools, DMV, public benefits, ACA, Medicare/Medicaid, taxes, public utilities, etc.) would take care of most of the problem. Requiring landlords and employers to obtain verification of legal residency would also help. With such simple rules, most illegals would self-deport. It’s the way most civilized countries handle immigration enforcement.

    2. One of the differences is that immigration law is properly a function of democracy. The government has no business violating the First or Fourteenth Amendment rights of immigrants–not even if dong so were popular. However, that being said, setting immigration policy, otherwise, is an enumerated power of Congress–enumerated in the same place as the power to declare war and for he same reasons.

      Anyone who wants the President to override Congress on immigration has no business arguing against wars because they’re unconstitutional. If otherwise supportable wars are unacceptable because Congress hasn’t declared them, then the President unilaterally changing immigration policy violates the same section of the Constitution, and it’s unconstitutional for all the same reasons.

      The Drug War isn’t like that. The Drug War rests on an absurd interpretation of the Constitution–including the belief that individuals don’t have the right to grow crops on their own property for their own consumption. I contend that the government has no legitimate standing on the drug war–certainly not between adults.

    3. Immigration law isn’t like that. I want the government to embrace more open, legal immigration, but there’s a difference between disagreeing with immigration policy and saying that Congress has no business setting immigration policy–just like because I oppose any particular war doesn’t mean I have to pretend that Congress shouldn’t have the power to declare war.

      Yes, I can oppose a war even if Congress declares it constitutionally–just like I can oppose a closed immigration policy without pretending that the popular vote and democracy shouldn’t have anything to do with immigration. If you can’t think of a way to support open immigration without advocating violating the separation of powers, think harder.

      1. My complaint really isn’t about the constitutionality of DACA. I agree that it is unconstitutional and that in its present form, it has to go. My complaint is about those who respond to the termination of DACA with something along the lines of “Yes! It’s about time! Now we can finally deport the illegals by rounding them up at kindergartens!” I mean, WTF? What motivates a person to go there?

        1. Mostly, it’s a reaction elitism, political correctness, and straight up bullying and demonization on every issue under the sun. Haven’t you heard that the First Amendment is racist insofar as it protects speech, that the First Amendment is homophobic insofar as it protects religious people from associating with LGBTQI+, etc.?

          People are sick of it. The whole pitch has become nauseating to a huge chunk of the American people, and so they end up throwing babies out with the bathwater.

        2. Those are egregious statements, but I doubt they are very common.

        3. My complaint is about those who respond to the termination of DACA with something along the lines of “Yes! It’s about time! Now we can finally deport the illegals by rounding them up at kindergartens!

          That’s merely your straw man, not an argument.

    4. But what I ultimately cannot understand is, WHY do so many on the right (and many on the libertarian right as well) go absolutely apeshit when the topic of immigration comes up?

      Because mass immigration benefits the ruling class and foreigners instead of the bulk of the American people, and is used by the Left to swamp the voting booth with foreign big government voters.

      Libertarians who actually want to preserve the limited liberty we have in the US should be the first to go apeshit.

    5. As a libertarian, I am for more open borders and freer trade. However, unchecked immigration is not compatible with a welfare state (which as a libertarian, I also oppose). Since we have a welfare state, at this point I concluded that I have to oppose unchecked (illegal) immigration.

      I see no need to import poverty, but I would most certainly be in favor of a rational legal route for workers, even including unskilled workers, to come here and work. My own feeling is to put into place a one-time 5-year work-permitted visa that allows a non-citizen to come here and work here for that period of time.

      During that time, however, they would not be eligible for welfare benefits of any kind nor would any children of visa-holders become citizens (even if born here during the visa-holder’s time here). Any felony and certain classes of misdemeanors would invalidate the visa, and overstaying the visa would be a felony.

      During the visa period, though, they would obviously be free to apply for citizenship. But unless they attained citizenship, when their visa expires, they must return to their country-of-origin (any pending applications would still be considered, but would clearly not be granted if the applicant commits the felony of overstaying their visa).

    6. It’s because a ‘nation’ should be viewed as the owned property of it’s inhabitants.

      The inhabitants pay for all the procedures they’ve decided are a general expense–in much the same way that housemates split utility and rent costs.

      Each successive generation distant from the inception of the nation loses more and more sight of this–eventually you get to a generation who sees the ownership as naught but theory–particularly when you have a competing political principle that fails at everything it touches except propaganda consistently undermining the very concept of ownership at all.

      But it is, in fact, just that–private property. Our private property. We hire people to take care of it. We call that ‘government’ and there are things we pay it to do, and things it has taken liberties with. We pay it to keep the perimeter secure. We do not pay it to decree what we do with our bodies. We do not pay it to spy on us.

      See?

  18. I went to a few conservative forums today to see how people were reacting to this DACA news. On one forum, a commenter advocated for ICE to go to kindergartens and round up all the kids of illegals, because that would be an easy place to find them. On another, a commenter advocated for kids of illegals to snitch on their parents and turn them in to ICE so that they may be deported.

    And some people think the comparisons to fascism are overwrought.

    1. ^ This here is what the comment section at Vox looks like.

    2. But see, outside of the hardcore alt-right types, I don’t think they are fascists. They do earnestly complain about government overreach when it comes to, say, environmental regulation. But they have a complete blind spot to government overreach when it comes to immigration. I don’t know what motivates this blind spot. The easy answer is “racism”. But I don’t think it is racism per se. They really do perceive illegal immigration as a very profound level of threat. Like, if the government doesn’t take drastic measures to stop illegals, measures that they would never support under other circumstances, “America will be lost” or some such. For the life of me I cannot understand how even a million Mexican day laborers represent a more profound threat to the future of America than, say, a $20 trillion debt, or failing schools, or an imperial executive, or any number of more important topics. But there you have it. We got Trump because voters care far more about deporting illegals than about anything else.

      1. What can I say? People suck and are mostly evil and stupid.

      2. I think you’re right, chemjeff, that the ‘racism’ route is a cop-out. I can see how blue collar workers view immigrants as a threat to their employment. And they’re not entirely wrong. I’m certain that if the roles were reversed and if the US was importing skills based immigrants we would see a loud uproar from white collar workers (in fact, we did when the president proposed such a scheme).

        I may not agree with their desire to restrict immigration, but it is not irrational, nor is it driven by racism.

        1. So you’re suggesting that at best they’re woefully misinformed about the economics of the situation?

          1. I think they are as misinformed about economics as the open borders crowd is disingenuous about the economic impact of unchecked immigration

            1. Unchecked immigration is a straw man.

        2. ” but it is not irrational”

          I think the irrational part is elevating illegal immigration to the top of the issues list and declaring it to be the new litmus test for the modern Republican Party. I don’t get that at all.

        3. The irony is that because they can’t admit they are threatened by labor competition they have to invent absurd, racist, rationales for keeping out immigrants, like claiming they are all genetically socialist or they will undermine American culture, etc.

          1. Hazel, how many of us here do you think are in unskilled fields?

      3. They do earnestly complain about government overreach when it comes to, say, environmental regulation. But they have a complete blind spot to government overreach when it comes to immigration.

        I complain about government overreach, but I comply with the regulations as they are and want them enforced as written for as long as they are the law of the land. That is true for immigration as much as it is for environmental regulations, taxes, or any other law.

        And I am very much for a liberal immigration policy: anybody with significant skills and who can be expected to make net contributions in taxes should be allowed to come to the US, regardless of ethnicity. You seem to want immigration policy that admits large numbers of people that will pay less to the government than they take in services, and as a tax payer, I object to that.

        For the life of me I cannot understand how even a million Mexican day laborers represent a more profound threat to the future of America than, say, a $20 trillion debt, or failing schools, or an imperial executive, or any number of more important topics

        Well, that’s because these issues are actually closely connected, meaning, you won’t be able to address these other “more important topics” if we follow your preferences on immigration.

    3. Heavens!
      Conservatives want laws enforced!
      I’ve never heard of such a thing before!

    4. We don’t need any draconian immigration enforcement; simply making legal residency a requirement for any and all government services (school, preschool, taxes, social security, driver’s licenses, public benefits, etc.), plus strict enforcement against employers, would take care of the problem, as people would self-deport.

  19. DACA was an unconstitutional expansion of presidential power; two different federal courts have already ruled so. And if it was unconstitutional for Obama to issue that executive order it would have been equally unconstitutional for Trump to continue it. He did exactly the right thing by forcing this back into Congress’ lap.

    This issue has to be resolved legislatively. But the cowardly Republicans in Congress (who were screaming about Obama’s unconstitutional order only 3 years ago) now don’t want it rescinded because they don’t want to have to deal with the issue. If Trump hadn’t announced that he will be rescinding it they would have been happy to do nothing and allow the issue to fester. Now they will have to do something. And it could be so easy, too: if they really want DACA to continue (which Ryan is now saying), it’s a simple matter to convert the Executive Order into a bill (that should take about an hour) and pass it. I have no doubt that Trump would sign it. Just takes a little political courage, which unfortunately is sadly lacking in Washington these days.

    1. Yeah, you right!

  20. …. seemingly widespread consensus that immigrants brought here illegally by their parents should not be the targets of immigration enforcement ….

    Which “seemingly widespread consensus” may be seen as a measure, perhaps, of the kind of mass hysteria common in those countries (AKA “democracies”) that are ruled by The Mob — and that makes every actual American forever grateful ours is a constitutional republic!

    And is ruled by LAW.

  21. whatinhell is wrong with Rand Paul? reform, yes, but ‘reduce immigration’?? wtf??? we should be embracing the best and brightest and hard-working, from whatever source.

    1. whatinhell is wrong with Rand Paul? reform, yes, but ‘reduce immigration’?? wtf??? we should be embracing the best and brightest and hard-working, from whatever source.

      Given that most immigration into the US is family based right now, changing to a skill-based immigration system like most other developed nations have probably would end up “reducing immigration”. There simply aren’t that many high skill workers in the world, and everybody is competing for them. And the US has made itself less and less attractive over the last half century.

  22. “Left, Right, and Center Call on Congress to Save DACA
    Trump’s rescinding of DACA has produced widespread condemnation and a demand that Congress act to reform immigration.”

    If this is true, why, there’s no problem at all. Shame on Obo for instituting such an illegal process to begin with; now maybe Congress will act as it should have.

  23. Let’s see how much of a consensus there is in Congress when it comes time to override a presidential veto.

  24. I find it hilarious that Trump gets heat for ending illegal programs. When he stops illegally funding insurance companies, Reason will bitch about that as well.

    Why Congress is getting no heat for not doing its damned job for over a year is a question for others to ponder.

    1. Why Congress is getting no heat for not doing its damned job for over a year is a question for others to ponder.

      Because the unconstitutional executive authoritarianism served the powers that be.

      For over a year?

      Congress and the entire ruling class has failed to fulfill the law of the original amnesty back in the 80s, and immigration laws generally. We got the amnesty and never got the border enforcement. We got the opposite of enforcement – more benefits for illegal aliens, and more restrictions enforcement of immigration law.

      And then the mighty Fuck You to the voters of CA on Prop 187, and the resulting Mexifornication of CA and much of the Southwest.

      1. Basically. Congress doesn’t want to do anything about anything.

        Though, Obama seemed oblivious to the reality that Congress has the power to not act just as much as it has the power to act.

  25. The decision has critics within the GOP as well. Arizona Sen. John McCain?a frequent Trump critic?called it “the wrong approach to immigration policy at a time when both sides of the aisle need to come together to fix our broken immigration system and secure the border.”

    The problem is that “both sides of the aisle” haven’t been coming together. We have been sailing by on presidential directives on immigration because people like John McCain haven’t been doing their job. People like McCain are cowards, stuck between their corporate paymasters and the will of the voters.

    Trump’s decision on DACA tells jerks like McCain to stop their posturing and instead do their job.

  26. Reason writers love imperial presidency when the executive is legislating through diktat for things they want.

    Why am I not shocked at all.

    1. I was disappointed by this as well. Their response should have been very clear: we support [fill in the blanks on immigration policy] BUT we agree with Trump sending it to the Congress, where it belongs.

  27. DACA is rule by person, i.e. dictatorship. I wonder what fraction of Americans actually prefer a dictatorship to rule by law, i.e. a constitutional republic . . . like America was founded as.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.