Republicans Are Preparing to Shut Down the Government Out of Anti-Immigrant Spite

The GOP is declaring war on Dreamers.


There is basically one thing the GOP needs to do to avoid a government shutdown tonight when the temporary funding

Immigrant Rally
Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/Newscom

bill is set to expire: Offer a clean path to permanent legalization for Dreamers—individuals who have grown up as Americans even though they were brought to this country as minors illegally—and make them off-limits to this administration's deportation designs.

But that seems beyond the party's capacity.

The House just passed a stopgap funding bill that does nothing about Dreamers but it does extend CHIP, a health insurance program for children that Republicans have never liked, demonstrating that the only principle that animates their party in the Age of Trump is saving this land of immigrants from immigrants.

The ball now is in the Senate's court where the GOP Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky will have to try and scrap together 60 votes to pass the bill and avoid a government shutdown. That's going to be a hard sell for what the House just passed given that many of the reluctant lawmakers who went along with the December stopgap bill did so with the aim of not disturbing their Christmas break and attaching an acceptable alternative to DACA in this round.

DACA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is an Obama-era program that handed a two-year (renewable) reprieve from deportation to about 690,000 Dreamers. But President Trump scrapped the program in September. And now if Congress does not legalize these folks by March, when the DACA phase out is set to begin, many of them will be up for deportation to countries where they practically know no one, leaving their lives and loved ones in America.

Clear majorities of Americans don't want that this to happen. Indeed, according to a poll by Fox News, an outfit no one would accuse of having any love lost for immigrants, 86 percent of Americans favor permanent legal status for Dreamers and 79 percent a path to citizenship. And clear majorities in both houses of Congress want the same thing. Indeed, as I wrote in December, 232 Congressmen and 55 Senators are prepared to vote for a clean Dreamer fix with no further changes to the immigration system.

Of course, hewing to this majority sentiment won't sit well with the one group of voters that matters most to Republicans: President Trump's hardline restrictionist base for whom anything short of mass deportations to eject every last unauthorized weed-puller is "amnesty." He wants to appease these folks by using Dreamers as leverage to push a nativist version of comprehensive immigration reform whose least draconian feature is a $20 billion border wall. In addition, he wants to mandate that all employers use E-verify to check the authorization status of new recruits against a federal database, end diversity visas for denizens of underrepresented countries, and, above all, cut legal immigration by taking away the ability of Americans and legal permanent residents to sponsor their siblings and parents, a process that Trump, borrowing nativist parlance, berates as "chain migration."

A bipartisan Gang of Six senators led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was trying to hammer out a less odious plan that, among other things, would have provided funding for border security but not a border wall and diverted the existing diversity visas to Haitians, El Salvadorians, and other asylum seekers from "shithole" countries whose Temporary Protected Status Trump has also revoked. But after initially responding to these efforts warmly, Trump backtracked when, reportedly, some hardliners in his administration such as Chief of Staff John Kelly, who many once thought would be a voice of moderation on this issue, told him to knock it off.

But forcing Senate Democrats—and moderate Republicans—to swallow what Sen. Graham has described as a "shitshow" wasn't going to be easy. That's why they have attached a six-year extension of CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) that covers 9 million kids to the House government spending bill sans a DACA fix to force Democrats to swallow it. It's unclear if conservative fiscal hardliners in the Senate will go along with this bargain. But even if McConnell manages to convince all Republicans to stick together, he'll still need nine Democratic votes to pass the bill given that Sen. John McCain (R-Az) is absent for health reasons.

If enough Democrats do play along, their party will effectively lose serious leverage to negotiate a clean DACA fix as the March deadline for the deportation of Dreamers approaches. If they don't, Republicans will blame them for shutting down the government and jeopardizing children's health care. (Imagine Republican ads in swing states where vulnerable Democrats such as Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri are up for re-election this year: "McCaskill put illegal immigrants ahead of your child's health.")

In other words, Republicans have tried to construct a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario. This is a deeply cynical strategy in the service of draconian ends, and it has a serious potential to backfire.

Republicans control all three branches of government, so it is not clear that they will be able to deflect blame on Democrats if the government does shut down. Furthermore, Republicans have never been fans of CHIP so convincing voters that they are actually acting in the interest of the program—rather than trying to trap Democrats—isn't going to be easy. Also, they are vastly underestimating the moral revulsion that's likely to sweep through the country when footage of Dreamers getting torn away from their families by deportation agents hits the boob tube. Already, the heart-wrenching deportation to Mexico this week of a 39-year-old Dreamer in Michigan, who had lived in America for 30 years and had an American wife and kids, sent shock-waves through the country.

We'll see tonight if Democrats, whose own president's lopsided priorities are responsible for putting Dreamers and their parents in harms way, stand up to this odious strategy. And if they do, we'll see if they—or Republicans—pay the price for it in the mid-term elections in December.

But one thing is already clear: The GOP is now fully Trump's party. There is no limit to what principles it'll abandon just to keep immigrants out of the country. Maybe it will deport the Statue of Liberty next.

NEXT: Brickbat: That's Crap

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. Screw the “Dreamers.” When Obama announced DACA, the general response from “Dreamers” was “Obama you’re so awesome! I’ma go play XBOX now.” DACA was an open invitation to “Dreamers” to start the citizenship process, and if most of them didn’t take the invitation, the fault is ENTIRELY on them.

    1. Agreed. If Democrats want to shut down the government over this, LET THEM.

    2. Fully agree.

    3. Agreed.

    4. Agreed.

    5. That should go for all the dumbfucks on the TPS program, some of whom have been here decades. I’m supposed to weep for Salvadorans because they had 17 years to complete a process that takes about five? Who gives a shit if “they’re starting businesses and hustling” if they can’t be bothered to do the one thing that will keep their dumb asses from getting deported? Were they thinking the YASSSSS QUEEN would wave her broomstick and grant amnesty so they didn’t have to bother?

      1. The guy mentioned by the author had *30 years* to take some action and become legal. This wouldn’t happen in any other country on earth – including Mexico.

    6. Dalmia is such a stupid, shrill bitch. I hope this brigs her great pain.

    7. Dreamers didn’t start the immigration process because there was no means to start it, other than marriage to a citizen or PR. They were/are in legal limbo.

      1. They could have started it by going to the country of their citizenship and applying.
        Why is that not considered a course they could take, once they became aware that their parents had put them in a condition of illegal existence?
        A person with any amount of honor or personal responsibility would do that.
        Instead these DACAsses whine and tell us they are entitled to citizenship, because their parents broke our laws.
        If a bank robber buys a house with the illegal gains from their crime, we don’t let the kids keep the house, because they didn’t know it was illegally obtained.
        Sorry, life is hard for everyone.
        Accept that you have probably received a better education than you would have, that your parents didn’t pay for, go to the country they came from and wait for your turn as is fair to those waiting but didn’t jump the line. You got a long period of illegally obtained living where you didn’t deserve. Be happy with that.

        1. Applying on what basis? There’s effectively no route for an application.

          So, say you’re 16 years old, and you want to get your drivers license. At that point, your parents tell you, “Sorry, son. You’re actually not a citizen. We brought you here as an infant, and even though you don’t remember Mexico at all, that’s where your a citizen.”

          You seriously think that “any person with honor” at this age is going to pack up, move to foreign place they don’t know at all, and proceed to fill out a dead end application to return to the only country they know? If you, as a teenager (or even as an18 year old) honestly think you’d do this, I salute you on your heroic qualities.

          If a kid lives in a house bought by illegal gains, we don’t punish the kids for the parent’s crimes. We punish the parents, not the kids.

          If you want to bring in other legal comparisons, how about a statute of limitations? Does that figure into your calculus at all?

          1. The problem is you’re using logic. Most people aren’t.

            The situation could be fixed by realistic solutions but people are too mad apparently to think rationally.

      2. Not really true, they had the option of joining the military for a hitch.

  2. Good grief…..the shrieking, the squalling.

    1. Yes, but there is a certain satisfaction seeing someone remain so true to type.

      Even if the type is hyperbolic and mendacious.

      1. +1, bullseye

  3. And if Republicans had control of all three branches, they’d be able to pass anything they want. Bit since they do not have a 60-seat majority in the Senate, they do not have control of it, just a slim majority.

    1. Facts are soooo patriarchal.

    2. Republicans don’t even have 50 votes for this bill so they couldn’t even pass it if they needed a simple majority.

      1. Republicans will be changing Senate rules soon, you can bet on that.

        The GOP changes Senate rules to only need majority votes for anything. Then if Republicans are going to lose their majority in the Senate, change the Senate rules to require 75 Senator majority for all legislation and 100 Senator votes to change Senate rules.

        1. No matter what Republicans changed the rules to, Democrats would ignore it and change the rules to what they want anyways the microsecond they get the majority again.

          1. Of course they will. democrats are marxist traitors. And that’s what a marxist traitor does.

          2. And that’s why they should abolish the filibuster, should have abolished it early last year. Democrats were already talking Oct of 2016 about how THEY were going to abolish the filibuster if the Republicans used it after they took the Senate.

            There’s approximately zero chance the filibuster isn’t dead the moment there’s a Democratic majority in the Senate. They’ve already stated they won’t let Republicans filibuster again.

            I think the only reason McConnell didn’t get rid of it last year, is that he liked having an excuse for failing to do things he’d lied about intending to do.

    3. True

  4. …showing that the only principle that animates their party now is saving this land of immigrants from immigrants.

    Some might say it shows one party willing to compromise and the other not.

    …Republicans have tried to construct a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario.

    I have a feeling the national news media reporting will be on par with this article.

    1. If Shakia cannot see the insult in that, she shouldn’t be on REASON.

      Well, SOMEBODY shouldn’t be on REASON. Maybe it’s me. *shrugs*

      1. If you subscribe to the Trumpian position on immigration, then it definitely isn’t you. But then I’m always amazed at the number of people who agree with Trump on immigration, trade and social policies but still call themselves Libertarians.

    2. Makes sense; Shikha is a card-carrying member of the MSM (she writes for The Week, which is essentially a left-ish version of US News & World Report).

      She obviously got the Media-Dem talking points at the last Beltway cocktail party.

      1. The question is, why is she published HERE?

        Or maybe why are WE here?

        Or maybe some of us need to start a libertarian site to frequent since REASON seems to be becoming a progressive one.

        1. There needs to be an ultimatum to management from the readers to 86 Dalmia once and for all. There is nothing libertarian about her or her writing. She is a propagandist of the worst kind. Malignant and disingenuous.

        2. Go to the Glibertarians site. It’s where most of the talented commentariat from this site went a few months ago who were fed up with the crap published here. I come back now and then just to confirm what a waste of time this place has become. Gives me the sadz because this used to be a great place and now it’s turned to shit.

          1. Robby’s shitposting was my limit. I’ve been reading and commenting here literally since he was in fifth grade or early junior high. Along he comes to cover the Millennial beat, drooling smug, pissing woke, shitting truth to power, JUST SO WITH IT, and that was it. I’m a young guy, but I wanted to chase his bony woke ass off of my digital lawn with mean prejudice, and wash his soul clean with my fists.

            I also started to miss Cavanaugh*, which was the Bat Signal for “take a break.”

            *TC is fucking awesome, though!

      2. Bingo!

  5. That’s the trouble with temporary laws, they expire.

    1. Everything is temporary.

    2. Sunset clauses on all laws are a great thing.

      Automatically ends the public suffering after a short period of time.

      1. It was awesome to see the look on DiFi’s face in 2004 when her beloved Assault Weapons ban went the way of the dodo.

      2. Yep. There would be a certain point where all their time was spent renewing old laws, which would either keep new laws from being created or force useless laws to be dropped.


  6. And I don’t really have a problem with people who come here to work having worked for years with quite a few Mexicans guys.Hard working cats who were good eggs for the most part. I’m sorry, but the open borders histrionics are not a good way to persuade people, they will just dig their heels in. We have a permanent class that exists on free cheese from uncle sugar and we can’t afford to add to the rolls.

    1. The people are already persuaded and they want to see a path to citizenship. It’s psychopaths who comment at Breitbart who are out of touch. Go read their comments. The top ones threaten violence, lynching, civil war and straight up if DACA recipient are helped. Pure scumbags.

      1. Like the psychopaths who comment that all Americans are racist for wanting to control their borders and have an actual say in what the American government does for Americans?

        Did you know that the Founding Fathers advocated violence, lynching, and civil war when the US government got out of control of the People?

        I would argue America has long past the tyranny requirement the Founders would have supported open rebellion.

      2. No, most people want illegal immigration ended and legal immigration limited.

        Most people do feel sympathy for these “Dreamers” based on the false descriptions they have been given. I seem to remember discussion about 600,000 “Dreamers” and then this week it came out that the description being used would cover more like 3,000,000.

        Pointing at Breitbart is a cheap shot and demonstrates that you already know that your claim is false.

        1. Geez, every picture I see, they look like sad puppies. Somehow, their sadness is my fault. I get that, but years of using logic and facts to understand things keeps me from following the “True Narrative”. Sorry.

      3. At one time, it was just “legalization”. Now it’s a “path to citizenship”. What’s next?

        The government of the United States (or any other country) should place a priority on the welfare of its citizens over that of the welfare of non-citizens. That would seem like common sense.

        1. +1, common sense
          -2, common sense.

          (This is tougher than it looks…)

      4. Chipper II: Projection. You’re a vile, fascist POS.

      5. There’s always been a “path to citizenship”. About 1 million people use it every year to become American citizens.

        What you’re referring to is a reward for lawlessness, an amnesty-based citizenship for illegal aliens.

        Fuck that.

    2. If someone is insisting that 2+2=5, telling him he’s wrong will just make him dig his heels in. You should start adding differently instead.

      1. If someone is insisting that 2+2=5

        Based on the test scores, that’s most immigrant-majority schools.




    1. I say shut it down until we pay off the public debt. Then reduce taxes to about 5% of everyone’s income. Once that happens, pass a balanced budget amendment.

      Then we can finally start talking about reducing the size and scope of government to something a little more reasonable than consuming 5% of everything.

      1. Yup. Lets shut it down after ObamaCare is repealed and most government agencies are cut to the bone.

        The USA might need a national defense apparatus still running though.

        1. Monster trucks, loads of liquor, and unrestricted armament will suffice

  8. Politics would be yugely more entertaining if it didn’t mess with real people. Why don’t these clowns just go play Civilization IC or something constructive?

    I bet this universe is some bored PhD candidate’s Civilization IMMMC thesis experiment. I hope his professors tell him to get real.

    1. Can you tell him to delete all the illegal units?

  9. showing that the only principle that animates their party now is saving this land of immigrants from immigrants.

    Or, you know, enforcing the law. If you don’t like the law, call your congresscritter.

    Republicans control all three branches of government, so it is not clear that they will be able to deflect blame on Democrats if the government does shut down.

    Does not this whole fiasco put Team Blue firmly in the “obstructionist” role this time? I await your article of praise when DT does not close open air parks and monuments during the “shutdown”.

    Maybe it will deport the Statue of Liberty next.

    **Face desk**

    This place is such a shithole…

    1. Shikha is so certain of the moral superiority of her position on immigration that she simply cannot comprehend there could be any opposition which is not motivated by pure racial hatred; her anti-immigration strawmen all wear Klan hoods and goose-step to “Die Walkure”.

      It’s ironic because such an absolutist attitude coming from Trump would goad Gillespie into writing another long screed full of indignation. When Shikha does it he probably pumps his fist and yells ” Preach it, Sister!!!”

      1. Shikha was not born in the USA, so why would she want Americans to have a say with immigration policy.

        1. Just think if she had put the same effort into saving her county of origin as she does in saving this one.

      2. Shikha is a libertarian and Trump isn’t.

        1. Trump never said that he was a Libertarian. He’s doing a few things that are Libertarian-ish though.

        2. Making the most libertarian country in the world less libertarian ain’t libertarian

        3. Shikha is in no way a libertarian.

  10. Has Dalmia ever made a serious case for what she actually wants (presumably full open borders)? Or is it just calling people racist all the time? Has anyone at Reason made a serious case for open borders with a real analysis of pros and cons?

    Most (all?) of the stuff they write on this topic seems to be MSM caliber “reporting” – a superficial “analysis”, a few out of context “facts”, loads of accusations and a handful of gossip.

    1. You must be joking. The case has been made innumerable times. The only possible conclusion is that you don’t think any argument for open borders can be serious, and reject them all out of hand. Anyone who can’t describe an opposing view has no business arguing his own view.

      1. Open borders is the easiest thing in the world to describe. Free movement of people is on of our basic rights, period. [This is probably enough for some principled people, but it’s not very persuasive].

        Then you could make some cases on top of that about why immigration is good – it’s not hard to do. Then, if you’re serious, you acknowledge that your reasonable opponents have some valid points. And that your own point of view isn’t 100% positive all the time. Then you con

        Are you implying that Reason has described their opponents view? With anything beyond hysterical shrieking about racism?

        BTW – I know you’re not google, but do you have a link to an article where Reason lays out their point of view (what they actually want)? And they seriously address the pros and cons of their preferred policies? Because I could find 50 “articles” of this caliber.

        1. “Free movement of people is on of our basic rights, period.”
          No its not. You cannot move onto other people’s property. You cannot go wherever you want.

          That idea was left behind with the enforcement of property rights. Congress was given the enumerated power to enforce US property rights on its territory, including protecting American from foreign aggressors and migrating persons after 1808.

          1. This concept has been debunked by me before. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 is about the importation and transport of slaves. The only powers enumerated to Congress under Article 1 that the Supreme Court of the US has determined through case law to apply to immigration of free persons are the Naturalization Clause and (loosely) the Commerce Clause.

            I’ll ask you again, as someone who “loves” the constitution to point to case law where A1S9C1 is invoked for immigration of free persons.

            1. You not liking that clause does not debunk it. Slaves don’t migrate, immigrants do. That is why the clause discusses slaves being imported and a tax levied. Migration of persons and importation of slaves into states was not to be regulated by Congress until 1808.

              Art. I, Section 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.

              1. Show me where this has ever been used as a defense of immigration reforms. I’ve asked that and quoting the language is not enough. Every article I’ve ever read on immigration and the Constitution mentions this clause only as pertaining to the slave trade.

                Even Judge Napolitano says that you’re wrong.

                This link. furthers my point that it’s section 8 language (Naturalization Clause primarily) from which the power has been derived through judicial fiat.

                Even Wikipedia is on my side:

                The first clause in this section prevents Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States prior to 1808

                1. From your link:The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

            2. Leo, you have debunked nothing. And wishing really hard won’t make it so.

          2. “Free movement of people is on of our basic rights, period.”
            No its not. You cannot move onto other people’s property. You cannot go wherever you want.

            That idea was left behind with the enforcement of property rights

            That idea was left behind the fist time a life form attacked another for coming onto it’s territory–and THAT happened when lifeforms still only had one cell.

            Humans created ‘property rights’ to make the transfer of property less murdery.

            Though, to be truly honest, murder is STILL a valid way to transfer property.

        2. Do you own land?

          Mind if I go camp on your land whether you give me permission or not?

          Why not? It’s one of my basic rights, you racist you.

          1. It’s MY lawn. Also, is it legal to shoot people who are on it?
            Asking for a friend.

      2. Get back to me after the welfare state has ended. Then we can talk about fully open borders.

        1. We also need the rest of the world to. Be a lot less dangerous. Given the number of organizations like Al Queen, ISIS, and so on, out there it’s still going to be a good idea not to have pourous borders.

      3. No one at Reason has addressed the consequentialist argument that importing big government voters makes the country less free.

        Shikha tried to make the case once. As one would expect, the result was idiotic.

        “Since Trump is Hitler, importing more Trump hating voters makes the country less Hitlery, therefore more libertarian”

        Reason should be intellectually honest and be open about their Cucktarianism.
        “Muh principles say borders are bad, m’kay? Damn the consequences. Muh Moral Purity First! If the US turns into one big Gulag, so be it!”

        That’s at least honest. Sheldon would probably sign up.

        1. Shikha s a raving idiot.

          1. Paid troll. Great gig if you can get it.

            1. Except she doesn’t think she’s trolling. That’s the sad part. She believes every bit of her pathetic bullshit, and so much more. I’m not and open borders booster, but even if that what Nick wants for immigration articles, surely he can do better than this loony scatterbrained bitch.

              She’s just fucking awful. It’s like giving Tony a paid gig writing articles.

    2. “Has anyone at Reason made a serious case for open borders with a real analysis of pros and cons?”

      Refer to the NAP and tell me how you restrict the free movement of free peoples without violating it. Either you believe that the government has the power to invoke force against someone for crimes not involving denying life, liberty, or property or you do not. That is all.

      Conversely, can you tell us all what the downside is to allowing people into this country without resorting to “dey terk er jerbs” or some such other nonsense? Hint… refer to the paragraph above if confused, and explain how immigration affects your life, liberty, or property.

      1. You are basically saying the NAP disallows the existence of “nations”. Which is fine as a result of abstract reasoning. Good luck with implementing it IRL, though.

        1. I disagree. Immigration does not imply citizenship. Citizens are afforded certain privileges under our current form of government that shouldn’t be extended to immigrants necessarily. Welfare, social security, unemployment benefits, etc. You can say what you want about the legitimacy of these programs in an ideal libertarian world, but the fact remains that they exist today and I think libertarians and conservatives can agree that they shouldn’t apply to immigrants. That doesn’t violate the NAP, by NOT granting these privileges to immigrants.

          However, barring a person from freely traveling, working or otherwise engaging in free market commerce, etc does require the initiation of force and therefore should be restricted.

          1. However, barring a person from freely traveling, working or otherwise engaging in free market commerce, etc does require the initiation of force and therefore should be restricted.

            Property is not yours but someone else’s. The owner of the property says “you shall not pass” completely in keeping with the NAP. But because that owner is a foreign government it violates the NAP. Because Libertarianism.

            1. This is something I notice with surprising regularity among libertarians, the idea that preventing someone from accessing your property (and by extension, nation) is somehow inherently unjust.

              It’s as if their idea of private property came from that idiotic song “Signs” by Five Man Electrical Band (or Tesla, for you whippersnappers).

              1. It is my guess–and it’s just a guess–that this idea originates from our history as an undeveloped pioneer nation. There is no pioneering left to be done. All of the land is owned. Some of their ideas would have more traction/validity if applied to colonizing Mars or something similar where land is truly up for grabs and boundaries are not really delineated.

                1. Property is “owned” and you have rights to control it ultimately because you have the power to enforce this. As a society, we surrender this power to the government for reasons I shouldn’t have to go into. As far as the nation as a whole, who “own” that property that is owned by private parties. We have military bases and national parks, for example. As far as I know, these are owned by the government. Are there any examples where any land is not owned by either a private party or the government? Government is representative of the people. Property owned by government is owned by the people in common, though that ownership does not include control. (Try walking into someplace the government doesn’t want you to go.) Any illegal immigration is trespassing, either on private property or public (government owned) property. The only question is whether the “owner” is willing to do anything about it.

                  We are not a developed nation. There is no wilderness and there is nothing that is not owned by someone even if it happens to be the government. Immigration laws suitable 200 years ago are not suitable for today.

                  1. “Any illegal immigration is trespassing, either on private property or public (government owned) property.”

                    It’s trespassing because you say it is? Nobody asked the private land owner his opinion… instead majority rules I guess. That doesn’t sound very libertarian or limited government to me.

                    I’m not arguing that a private land owner can’t do what he wants and allow access to whomever he wants on his property. You’re the one actually arguing that he can’t because the government has limited who may access his property legally through immigration laws.

              2. Wasn’t that “Three Dong Knight”? Name taken from an unusual suit of armor?

            2. You imply that the federal government “owns” the entirety of the United States. What about individual states claims on the land? What about the private land owners?

              You are showing a preference for federal power over the state/local government and the land owner, and have the audacity to do so under the guise of libertarianism. Interesting. I suspect you also claim to be for limited government when it suits your ideology?

              1. Just as you disingenuously claim that immigration is independent of citizenship. You and I both know that is not the case, but let’s pretend it is. Since you believe this you have zero problem with reforming birthright citizenship, right?

                1. “Since you believe this you have zero problem with reforming birthright citizenship, right?”

                  I have zero problem with reforming birthright citizenship. Article V of the Constitution has shown you how to achieve that.

              2. You imply that the federal government “owns” the entirety of the United States

                Try not paying taxes and let us know if you’re owned or not.

            3. Leo, I imply nothing of the sort. I imply that they own the borders delineating the bounds of their authority/jurisdiction.

              I show a preference for Federal power where it is warranted, nothing more. The bounds of the nation fall under Federal authority.

              Also, I am not a libertarian because I understand the ideology of it, and I diverge in key areas. That does not preclude me from holding someone to their own supposed standards. I want smaller government in many respects, so we may be co-belligerents. We aren’t allies and we don’t fight under the same banner.

              1. The states gave up some of their property rights (sovereignty) to the federal government to form the United States.

                The federal government has sovereignty over all US territory and was created to be a protector of said territory. The federal government is very limited in what powers they hold over that territory against people inside the USA.

                The states are the next lower jurisdiction and their property rights extend to their state lines. States have power over all lower jurisdictions like counties, cities, and private property. States are limited by the US Constitution and respective state constitution. Citizens of these states gave up some rights to form these states first.

                Citizens have natural rights which some of these were given up to form the USA. In return, the USA protects many of said natural rights and is limited in what government can do. Mainly to further the shared rights of the People. An example is property rights of the people to be protected except in a few limited circumstances and one being search and seizure via warrant based upon probable cause.

          2. Realistically there is zero chance immigrants coming here would not receive welfare, medical aid, schooling, etc. that all citizens receive. Furthermore, it is almost guaranteed that after some time there would be some expectation of citizenship. Look at what is happening to DACA and TPS people now, the goalposts are ever moving. First it was temporary, now it needs to be permanent, next will be calls for citizenship.

            This is the exact reason I believe most gun rights people are absolutists, when the goalposts move (even in a more rational manner, like calling for bump stocks to be banned or something else that is a rather pointless accessory like a silencer) then the goalposts will be moved forward again. People may not watch things like a hawk but they are not retarded, they know when they are getting sold a fake bill of goods. That is what is going on with this, they are being told “Hey just give us this little bit, we wont ask for more” and that is a lie. We all know it.

            1. JB123-
              Suppressors are quite useful, thank you.

              1. I have had these same arguments with my gun friends. I know why they can be useful and understand why they like them, but as a person who did not grow up with guns and doesnt really care about them, the arguments do not resonate with me. I am not saying I am right, the arguments just do not resonate with me personally.

                That being said, I am all for people making up their own minds on the matter and I personally do not care to restrict what others want to do with their guns.

          3. Of course the Supreme Court has ruled that we still have to provide healthcare and schooling to those non citizens and that’s a HUGE expenditure.

            Not to mention their kids born here become auto citizens.

      2. Explain to me how the NAP is not violated by our existing welfare state?

        1. It’s violated by all kinds of programs, that doesn’t mean we should pile on more.

          1. You’re halfway there, but that last step is an uncomfortable one.

        2. It is. However, one NAP violation does not justify another one.

          1. That the welfare state is an insult to the NAP that also happens to block the exercise of other liberties is exactly my point.

            You want open borders? So do I. But not until we get rid of the welfare state.

      3. Refer to the NAP and tell me how you restrict the free movement of free peoples without violating it. Either you believe that the government has the power to invoke force against someone for crimes not involving denying life, liberty, or property or you do not. That is all.

        Well, since any “right of free movement” as you demand would necessarily mean that these people can freely cross and utilize property that is not theirs and that they have no right to nor interest in I would say it is you who has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.

        1. No, it does not “necessarily mean” that at all. Examples: public roads, waterways, and private property open to immigrants by the owners.

          1. Chipper, if the property is owned, you don’t have a right to cross it unless invited, correct?

          2. The Founding Fathers gave up certain limited rights when creating the Constitution and Congress was given the enumerated power to regulate migration of persons after 1808. (Art. I, sec. 9)

            You have the right to control who enters your property with some exceptions like law enforcement with warrants.

            The federal government has the enumerated power to control who enters the United States territory after all the states gave up a bit of power to control their own state borders, by becoming the USA.

            1. You could, perhaps, draw the limitation of the immigration on federal public lands as being an enumerated power under some context, but it certainly involves some level of revisionist interpretation of the Constitution. However, the US Congress has no authority to limit free movement of peoples on state and private lands.

              A1S9C1 pertains to slavery and migration and importation of slaves. Please stop using that in this context, or provide some evidence through case law that says that it applies more broadly than the slave trade.

              The Founding Fathers gave up certain limited rights when creating the Constitution and Congress was given the enumerated power to regulate migration of persons after 1808. (Art. I, sec. 9)

              Additionally, a Constitutional scholar would likely point out that A1 Section 8 lists enumerated powers. Section 9 lists limitations of power, yet you conflate the two… Is that only when it fits your agenda?

              1. A Constitutional scholar would be wrong then as the Constitution has many examples of enumerated powers and limitation on powers in the same section.

                Art. I, Section 6 discusses Congressional compensation and attendance privileges with the next clause prohibiting emoluments.

                Art.I, Sec 9 was added as the great compromise and even if Section 9 was only for limitations of government powers, that would illustrate that the Founders assumed the government always had the power to protect its sovereignty (borders). This clause would then limit government from regulation that implied power until 1808.

                As I said before, slaves don’t migrate but free people’s do. The slave states did not want any federal funny business trying to end slavery by calling slaves people who could migrate or whatever, so that clause was to keep Congress from doing anything about states bringing in slaves or allowing immigrants into the USA before 1808.

              2. The term, or word, migration, applies wholly to free whites; in its Constitutional sense, as intended by the Convention, it means “voluntary change of servitude”, from one country to another. The reasons of its being adopted and used in the Constitution, as far as I can recollect, were these; that the Constitution being a frame of government, consisting wholly of delegated powers, all power, not expressly delegated, being reserved to the people or the States, it was supposed, that, without some express grant to them of power on the subject, Congress would not be authorized ever to touch the question of migration hither, or emigration to this country, …; and that, from the year 1808, Congress should possess the complete power to stop either or both, as they might suppose the public interest required; the article, therefore, is a negative pregnant, restraining for twenty years, and giving the power after. – Charles Pinckney, House of Representatives 14 Feb. 1820
                Art I, sec 9

                1. I asked to show me any case law where A1S9C1 is invoked in terms of immigration. You can’t, because as far as I can tell, it’s not relevant from a legal basis. Instead you quote a governor from 30 years after the signing?

                  Another good read on immigration regulation and US case law

                  Four justices concluded that such taxes usurped congressional power to regu?late commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution..A few years later, in 1884, with a decision in the Head Money Cases, the Court for the first time upheld a federal regulation of immigration, also on Com?merce Clause grounds.

                  As Justice Kennedy wrote in the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States:
                  The Government of the Unit?ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi?gration and the status of aliens. ? This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con?stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, ?8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations?.

                  1. Oh Leo. So you are not going to give any deference to a Founding Father because its a statement made 30 years after he signed the Constitution but you find the American Bar association and Kennedy absolutely compelling to you position that immigration was never mentioned in the Constitution? The idea that these justice over the decades have contorted the “law” to fit their idea of Constitutionality, doesn’t strike you as bad law?

                    I thought your position was weak before now its just sad.

                  2. Leo, the federal government has the enumerated power to regulate naturalization and immigration as a subset of that authority. You may blather on against that, but it doesn’t make it any less so, just because you make some arcane semantical argument.

                    Case closed.

                    1. So you agree that it’s not a strict constructionist argument, but rather requires a “living document” and the stretching of the Naturalization and Commerce Clause to cover immigration regulation?

                      If that’s the case, then why not say that and quit hiding behind your revisionist preferences.

              3. Charles Pinckney was Governor of South Carolina and signer of the US Constitution. Pinckney and fellow South Carolinian Pierce Butler introduced the Fugitive Slave Act and had some knowledge of there difference between the importation of slaves and migration of free persons.

                The compromise he agree to was Congress not being able to regulate slaves and immigrants for 20 years, until 1808 in exchange for South Carolina joining the United States.

              4. A1S9C1 may not. but A1S8C4 does.
                From your earlier link: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
                If you don’t accept the Constitution, then you aren’t really a Libertarian, just an anarchist. Good luck with that.

                1. That was my point the entire discussion, thanks for pointing it out for me.

                  Immigration control requires Judicial overreach to apply the Naturalization Clause to control who can cross a border, much like the Commerce Claus is stretched to allow for regulation of intrastate commerce.

                  Immigration and Naturalization in fact are not the same thing, and all of those arguing on here know it. In fact they generally prefer strict constructionism when it fits their agenda, and a more loose interpretation of the Constitution when it doesn’t.

          3. Public roads, waterways, etc., are owned by the government (of one level or another). Just because something is owned by the government, does not mean it is open to everyone.

            1. I am a regular visitor at Strategic Air Command’s various missile launch centers.

          4. ‘Public’ roads are roads that are paid for with the tax dollars of the citizenry.

            They are the ‘public’ property of that citizenry.

            As is anything deemed ‘public’ within the borders of the US.

            Non-citizens use them with the permission of the government that the citizens elect to represent them in issues like this.

            Illegal aliens are using them without permission.

      4. This conversation here is significantly better than what the actual Reason writers offer on the subject.

        1. It’s why I keep coming back.

        2. Bronson, thanks for starting this thread. I’ll agree that this isn’t an easy issue, but I’ll always try to apply NAP and limiting government power whenever I consider any issue. I appreciate the civil (although often tongue-in-cheek) debate.

          1. Expecting the NAP to be an absolute is a pipe-dream.
            American Libertarians are supposed to want a government limited by the document that created the United States, not one completely limited. That is anarchy.
            Rail all you want about what government has done that is not supported by the powers granted in Section 8, or that outright go against Sections 9 and 10, but the argument that Congress doesn’t have the power to regulate immigration, through the “naturalization clause” is simply untrue.
            Think of it this way: if immigration was a 10th Amendment, states right, wouldn’t that put a burden solely on the border and coastal states and create a situation where they would be forced to provide for separate legislation and enforcement from which the rest would be able to escape? That it would set up conflicts between states, that the Constitution was intending to avoid?

        3. It’s better than anything Shikha could offer with her tiny mind and meager sack of writing talent.

      5. The NAP is crap. If national borders are a violation of the NAP, so are all property boundaries. You can’t say one “arbitrary imaginary line” is sacred and then turn around and dismiss another one because it’s inconvenient to your desires. Either arbitrary imaginary lines are legitimate boundaries or they aren’t. You can’t have it both ways.

        1. From an admittedly not-libertarian I think this is more of a criticism of Anarchists than one of the NAP. And this is why AnarchoCapitalism is really just a joke.
          Anarchists: “But it’s just an imaginary line drawn on a map”.
          Rational Humans: “So are my property boundaries, doofus.”

          1. From an admittedly not-libertarian I think this is more of a criticism of Anarchists than one of the NAP. And this is why AnarchoCapitalism is really just a joke.

            Anarchocaptialism doesn’t deny the existence of imaginary lines or your right to enforce them; it simply says that those lines should be enforced privately.

        2. National borders are perfectly in keeping with Libertarian fundamentals.

          Its about maximum liberty not absolute liberty. Absolute liberty is anarchy. You can do whatever you want because there is no government nor any government law to abide by so other people’s rights are not extinguished.

        3. The NAP itself is not crap. It’s just being abused here. If property means anything, then national boundaries must also mean something.

      6. explain how immigration affects your life, liberty, or property

        My state and city shower them with free education, free health care, and free cash benefits?

        1. That sounds like you have a problem with the welfare state, not the rights of people to move and interact with each other freely.

          I say you take it up with the welfare laws, not the immigration ones.

          1. There’s that sweet, sweet “two separate things” purity. Funny how quickly that got dumped for the pragmatic solution of gay marriage.

          2. Leo, that statement is as divorced from reality as it is nonsensical.

            No open border.
            No more illegals.
            Limited immigration.

          3. That sounds like you have a problem with the welfare state, not the rights of people to move and interact with each other freely.

            And as soon as you get rid of the welfare state, we can enact open borders.

            Or, if you want a policy right now, allow open borders for anybody who pays at least the average US per capita government spending in taxes. That is, anybody can come to the US as long as they pay at least $25000/year in taxes. The nice thing about that rule is that as government spending goes to zero, it converges towards an open borders policy.

        2. That sounds like you have problems with representative government, not immigration itself.

      7. “Refer to the NAP ”

        Muh deontology

        Some of us actually care about what happens in the real world when you import big government voters

    3. “Has Dalmia ever made a serious case for what she actually wants”

      Libertarians believe in the free movement of goods, people and ideas.

      1. Conserva-tarians, not so much. They claim to believe in limited government unless the jackboots are at the throats of non-citizens.

        1. The conservatives here fear change. Outsiders bring change.

        2. You’re welcome to have a serious discussion with someone like me about it any time Leo. I promise to do my best not to straw man your arguments.

          Most “conserva-tarians” believe in limited government. They just don’t believe in no government.

        3. Well, Leo Kovalensky, your position of open borders in the presence of government redistribution of wealth certainly is not libertarian; it is, in fact, socialist. You want jackboots at the throats of citizens.

          1. “your position of open borders in the presence of government redistribution of wealth certainly is not libertarian”

            Support of free speech is not libertarian either, given all the redistributing of wealth that’s going on.

          2. Well, Leo Kovalensky, your position of open borders in the presence of government redistribution of wealth certainly is not libertarian; it is, in fact, socialist. You want jackboots at the throats of citizens.

            It certainly isn’t. There’s no doubt that by all accounts immigrants are using welfare benefits at an alarming rate. That has to be fixed in any immigration package. I’ve never once said that anybody has a right to be a citizen of the US and therefore reap all of the privileges that go along with it.

            You don’t deny thought that you’re for jackboots at the throats of immigrants who simply want to move to where work is available.

            Also the implication that rights to travel freely and associate freely with other people are somehow only for citizens (as many are implying in this very thread), is admitting that you believe rights come from the government and aren’t natural for all people.

      2. Libertarians believe in the free movement of goods, people and ideas.

        Libertarians also believe in protection of private property and freedom of association.

        Those rights are not severable.

        That is, enacting freedom of movement without enacting protection of private property and freedom of association is not a libertarian position (in fact, the ideology that takes that position is socialism).

  11. I’m continually perplexed why a government shut down is supposed to be a bad thing.

    What’s with the name “dreamers” anyway? The name itself seems inherently manipulative. I would like to give these people the benefit of the doubt, but why all the emotional appeals? And why weren’t these so called dreamers able to make efforts toward citizenship or legal residence since the last unilateral executive decree granting them protection from deportation?

    1. I’ve learned to distrust the side of a debate that uses the most manipulative language, the most hyperbole and the most hysteria. They are ALWAYS the weaker side of the argument.

      Interestingly, this perception was first noted by me in high school civics classes, in relation to appeals to patriotism.

      Yes, civics classes used to be a thing. I rebelled against it back then, but now I wouldn’t mind seeing them in schools as a small attempt to counterbalance the current indoctrination, which I’d like to think I would also rebel against.

      1. Teaching kids how American government works is important. You can leave off the patriotism part, but the facts about the Constitution and the inner workings of government give kids, who pay attention, a leg up on the Sheeple.

        1. No, the sheeple who bleat the modern orthodoxy find their shepherds in college. And the bleating gains syllables, deconstructive lines of thought, and harmony, as 30-50 years of explanatory effort goes toward the mighty bleat: “SEE? It all fits together!”. No more thinking required. And that, in a society where HR departments are similarly trained, where companies have invested in departments to ensure lockstep adherence to goodthing, that is a “leg up”.

          Which, IIRC, is kind of how the “patriotism-based” civics classes worked back in the day.

          1. No, it isn’t. See my comment below.

        2. Patriotism is a good thing. Appreciation for our constitutional republic, the constitution itself, and the sacrifices real people made throughout our history to provide these things is important.

  12. This kind of stupid apologetics makes me sick, and makes me hope that Reason’s funders find better places to put their money. The headline should instead read something like “Democrats Are Preparing To Shut Down Government To Help Criminals”. The only thing Democrats in Congress have to do to fund government is let it enforce the laws that Congress writes.

    If people in Congress don’t like those laws, you know, they could change them. You can bet that if Democrats force a government shutdown, the Senate will consider changing its cloture rules for budgeting bills.

  13. Well, now we know why libertarianism hasn’t caught on. Because once people get a close look at it, they realize it sucks.

    1. Dalmia is not libertarian.

      1. Nor much of a journalist. But she gives Gillespie a chubby when she proselytizes the open borders tripe, hence our agony.

      2. That’s what I said, but apparently REASON believes she is. So now the question to be considered, is REASON libertarian or just another Progressive online rag?

        I used to love coming here and reading pretty much everything. Now I think it is just a habit. Maybe it is a habit I need to consider breaking.

        1. You could always join the Insurrectionists who launched the Glibenning. =/

          1. And leave all of those fake libertarians here posting socialist and anarchy stuff?

            1. It’s not a good solution. I obviously didn’t take that option myself lol. I should probably be glad of that. I’ve heard tell that they ban people they don’t agree with, and so I’d have just been forced to come back here to proselytize.

    2. Except Shikha is NOT a Libertarian.

      Just remind those who want to know more about Libertarianism that there are fakes out there – LINOs if you will.

      Anarchy is not Libertarianism. Forced foregoing of the Constitution, property rights, and rule of law is not American Libertarianism.

      1. Well said.

      2. LINOs

        You Asians and your difficulty pronouncing the “R” sound always make me laugh.

        1. There’s RINOs too. Non-conservatives hiding as Republicans to get elected in non-Democrat areas.

          I guess there could be DINOs but why would anyone want to be a Democrat for any reason.

          1. My lame attempt at a joke failed.

            1. +1, tried

    3. Every ideology has its problems.

  14. Republicans Are Preparing to Shut Down the Government

    Very little is going to shut down. Otherwise I’d be more excited about this.

    1. Preach it, brother!

    2. Not only that, any “shutdown” will just cost more in the long run. Because nobody’s losing any pay, plus we have to pay the costs associated with ramping down the national parks and libraries and petting zoos and ramping them back up again when the farce is over.

      In short, we should avoid a shutdown, but not for the reasons they claim.

      1. Federal employees should not be paid for days they don’t work. They are only rewarded as they are loyal lapdogs of the democrats.

  15. Wow. REASON has reached the point where I don’t have to read the articles, just look at the headlines. From the title of this article, I deduced, before ever clicking on it:
    a) It was by Shakia, who despite having only one subject, still produces about half of REASON content nowdays.
    b) Only the failure to compromise by those with an (R) by their name would be considered ‘unreasonable’. Dems “stand their ground” so failure to pass a bill is on the Rs.
    c) Any mention of Trump, Fox News or Republicans will come with snotty qualifiers. To be sure.
    d) Polling will be used to determine the ‘will of the people’, which should be followed, a position Shakia cannot be accused of consistently holding.

    Sadly, not only were all these true, but it did not require a Holmesian level of deductive ability to predict them. Just change the name of the magazine to “Open Borders NOW!” and be done with it.

    1. Looks like you have the spec for Shikhabot all worked out.

  16. There is basically one thing the GOP needs to do to avoid a government shutdown tonight when the temporary funding bill is set to expire:

    Vote the way the Democrats tell them to. Give the Democrats what they want now in return for a promise that later the Democrats might consider possibly giving the Republicans what they want. It’s the GOP’s continuing irresolution that’s kept DC operating for years and years and years – why can’t those spineless shitweasels just keep caving in like they always have?

    1. If they weren’t so terrified at the prospect of Trump getting to their right on the issue they already would have caved.

    2. I’ve seen speeches by Presidents Clinton and Obama as well as Senator Feinstein saying that illegal immigration is bad. So are we now to assume that the people who are here in an illegal status, whether it be the parents or the kids, should warrant special treatment?

      Basically, I want to know what the fuck the democrats want before I would “vote the way they tell me to”. They don’t know what they want, so their promises are pretty much meaningless.

      1. We have always been at war with East Asia.

      2. They don’t know what they want, so their promises are pretty much meaningless.

        That’s easy. Power.

      3. I’ll tell you what the demoncraps want: new voters, that are beholden to big government programs.
        They have seen their base become eroded, due to a rejection of identity politics, and they need to replace their former voters with a new set, whose identity, for a time, will be as “immigrants” to whom the demoncrap party gave citizenship.
        Immigrants, who rarely come from nations freer than ours, will default to voting for a government that provides them benefits, just as “minorities” did but, since they have have moved on to a more middle-class status and want the freedom that this nation can provide, have rejected the redistributionist ideal. That is an anathema to demoncrap ideology.
        You can be sure, if the demoncraps didn’t think they would get the majority of the votes from their newly legalized “citizens” they wouldn’t be going to the mat to gain whatever amnesty they could.

  17. Dammit, how did I end up on DU?

    1. The libertarians thought that they could keep ownership of the domain by demonstrating continuous usage, in some ancap / Locke dream. DU then bought the rights to the Domain. But we should definitely applaud the libertarians for standing by their principles.

      1. Sometimes. When it’s convenient.

  18. The libertarian angle to this article is that a federal shutdown should not be inconvenient.

    We need a sequester and anything important that we can’t tolerate giving up for 6 months should be either 1) defense or 2) managed by the states.

  19. I think it was fair to say that the Republican (especially the Tea Party types) shut the government down when Obama was in the White House over spending, etc. If the president wants to sign a spending bill, but the Republicans won’t send it to him for signature, then it’s probably fair to say that the Republicans shut the government down.

    Likewise, if Trump wants to sign a spending bill, but the Democrats won’t send it to him because of their objections, it’s probably fair to say that the Democrats shut the government down–rather than send a bill to the president.

    Back in the 90s, when congress sent a spending bill to President Clinton, but the president refused to sign it–I think it’s fair to say that the president shut the government down.

    So, let’s recap. If the Democrats refuse to send a bill to the president, then the Democrats shut the government down. If the Republicans refuse to send a bill to the president, then the Republicans in congress shut the government down. If the president refuses to sign a spending bill, then the president shut the government down. That’s the way it works.

    The way it works is not that we should blame whomever we hate the most because the issue is immigration. The issue in question doesn’t have anything to do with whom deserves the blame (or credit).

    And that calculation doesn’t change one bit if the issue in question is your favorite bunny with big, sad eyes.

    1. I’m so old I can remember when the Republicans were evil obstructionists for using a Senate minority position to block an up-or-down vote on a “clean bill” in the form of a continuing resolution.

    2. what you wrote is True Ken but in all cases the republicans have been blamed and the media is already blaming the republicans for this making it Fake news that so many are blind to

      1. The MSM will always blame the Right
        They don’t care about the truth
        They only care about Leftist power

    3. Ken, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your comments here. You’re one of the few regulars that I actively enjoy to read, even when we disagree.

      1. I’d rather read Ken than any of the writers here

    4. I sometimes wish the Senate didn’t have those rules that required a 60-vote super-majority. It would make it obvious who was at fault. I’m sure Democrats will ditch that the next time they have to to get something they want through (and it would make a difference).

  20. It’s silly to get so emotional and weepy about this. This is nothing more than one of the political parties–the Democrats–trying to play what they figure is their strongest hand. Remember, this is NOT an immigration bill. The Democrats are just sticking this issue into something that must pass, a standard trick that both parties play. The Republicans likewise are resisting, not because of some evil hatred but simply because they don’t want to lose. They want the issue decided in a separate immigration bill not out of principle but because they’ll have a stronger set of cards to play.

    Sorry. I just don’t buy this “noble heroes vs. evil villains” comic book you’re trying to sell. I think they’re all just a bunch of low-life grifters who don’t have the talent or work ethic to get real jobs.

    1. Yuuuup.

    2. I’m not sure Democrats really want any kind of legalization of “dreamers”. This would eliminate an issue for campaigning. Republicans do the same thing with other issues (“repealing” Obamacare for one). However, there’s a point where they (either party) can’t get away with it.

      1. IT’s like legalizing pot. It makes a nice wedge issue, just like this. The democrats don’t actually possess empathy (They lack human souls) so the fate of the ‘dreamers’ is meaningless to them.

  21. Stupid question – what do Dreamers have to do with the budget? Are we supposed to accept any random, completely unrelated demand the Democrats shove in there just because it aligns with one’s pet cause?

    President Trump’s hardline restrictionist base for whom anything short of mass deportations to eject every last unauthorized weed-puller is “amnesty.”

    It’s this kind of hysteria that’s giving this place a bad reputation. I mean, it’s delusional.

    1. Because the republicans promised the democrats in december that they’d do the immigration thing right away in 2018. It’s now clear they have no such plans, so the democrats are using the only leverage they have to hold them to the promise.

      1. Oh, they promised, did they? Well, that settles it.

        1. Yes, they did. And they also promised that to Flake in return for his vote on the tax bill. They’re now reneging on that promise too, which is why he says he’s voting against the funding. This is how promises get enforced in Congress. You can’t go sue in court. Instead, you block what the other party wants to do when they don’t follow through.

          1. I’m aware of how the power dynamic operates among a large group of children.

            1. Hahahaha. Good stuff.

            2. I don’t think it’s childish to expect others to keep their promises and to punish them when they don’t. It’s certainly unfortunate that the tools for punishing republicans are limited here, but the democrats have the hand they have. But apparently you disagree.

              1. Apparently you think democrats are honest brokers.

                1. Trump just last week said “I will say, when this group comes back ? hopefully with an agreement ? this group and others from the Senate, from the House, comes back with an agreement, I’m signing it. I mean, I will be signing it. I’m not going to say, “Oh, gee, I want this or I want that.” I’ll be signing it, because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room that they’re going to come up with something really good.” Since then he’s been presented with two bipartisan deals. He rejected them both for reasons that aren’t clear to anyone, including McConnell. There’s definitely a dishonest broker here, and its trump.

                  1. You can keep your health plan, you can keep your doctor. Obviously you didn’t keep either and lost your prescriptions as well.

                    Deals between a handful of bullshitters with the same taste in bullshit, is not legislation. So Trump didn’t renege. It is what progressive do all the time. Progs are experts in shell games.

                  2. Oh bullshit. It was very clear that ANY bill that did not eliminate chain migration and provide funding for the border war would be unacceptable.

              2. I agree with the first part. Where you said “I don’t think”.

      2. I seems to me they have been trying to do exactly that and the Democrats have refused to compromise in any fashion. I seem to recall a large televised meeting with the GOP, Democrats and Trump focused on just that.

        So your position is that the GOP promised to do an immigration bill, and so the Democrats are perfectly fine to demand everything they want and none of what the GOP wants? Seems to me the Democrats bargain in bad faith.

        1. Yes, that meeting was supposed to be to advance that promise. And it seemed promising since Trump said: “”I will say, when this group comes back ? hopefully with an agreement ? this group and others from the Senate, from the House, comes back with an agreement, I’m signing it. I mean, I will be signing it. I’m not going to say, “Oh, gee, I want this or I want that.” I’ll be signing it, because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room that they’re going to come up with something really good.”

          But you seem to have forgotten that just days after that meeting a bipartisan group presented an immigration deal to Trump and he rejected it for reasons that remain unclear. He then started a tweet campaign announcing that DACA’s dead. It’s clear there’s a majority in both houses to vote for a DACA deal, but McConnell and Ryan don’t want to push anything through until they know Trump will sign it and Trump has been all over the place on what he wants. Just yesterday, McConnell himself said he had no idea what Trump actually wants on DACA.

          1. The reasons are very clear.

      3. What do “plans” have to do with anything? Plans change. Also, “right away” is relative. This is only January.

    2. “to eject every last unauthorized weed-puller”

      Shikha’s true globalist motivations are showing

      1. “to eject every last unauthorized weed-puller”

        Sounds racist.

  22. “But that seems beyond the party’s capacity.”
    The GOP doesn’t work for you Shikha.

    The Republicans that vote for the GOP politicians are pro-secure the borders and limiting immigration, especially illegal immigration. The Republican politicians work for them – or at least their votes which get them elected.

    You are on the wrong side of the issue as the majority of Americans are pro-American rather than pro-foreigner.

    1. Foreigners First!

  23. Shouldn’t Libertarians want the government shut down?

    1. Libertarians are for limited government not shut down government.

      In this political environment, Trump is limiting government so a shutdown keeps the bloated government in a suspended state. When Democrats run the government, shutting down government keeps the government from getting bigger.

      Just look at why lefties are doing what they are doing. If they want government to shut down, its not good for Americans. If lefties want government to stay operating, its not good for Americans.

      1. Libertarians are for limited government not shut down government.

        Agreed! Now, who is on the right side of the limited government aspect of immigration: those claiming people have natural rights to freely move and interact with each other? or those who claim the federal government should tell everyone where they can and can’t go?

        Think about that for a minute and tell me how you’re for limited government again…

        1. Limit the government’s power to extract nearly half the contents of my wallet and give it to people not of my choosing and then we’ll talk.

          1. Well that’s two totally different things, and we’ll get around to fixing that other one after just one more amnesty. Pinky swear.

          2. AKA: The old two wrongs make a right argument. That’s a principled stance you’ve taken there.

            1. No, it’s the ‘how about we put out this raging house fire before we bring in the contractors to add an extension’ argument.

        2. People moving about without regard to national borders is not libertarianism, it is anarchy. It is a direct challenge the very concept of a nation.

          People moving about and freely interacting with each other within a nation is libertarian, It is also consistent with the founding structure of our nation.

          1. Yup. Its why states cannot regulate interstate travel but the federal government can regulate international travel into the USA.

        3. Limited government being the key words. Not zero government.

          One of those limitations not being government protecting the border of the USA. Its a fine trade off.

          The People gave the power to states who in turn gave power to the federal government to say which non-Americans can enter the USA. As with me giving some of my rights up to have government throw an uninvited guest off my land.

        4. Leo, just fucking stop. Really. Your argument reminds me of some shrill, semantical college freshman’s myopic premise that is divorced from both reality and any practical considerations. It didn’t work there, and it doesn’t work here.

          The fact is that in any argument, like with LoveCon above, you will ignore any point, however relevant, that doesn’t support your argument.

          This makes you either extraordinarily disingenuous, a myopic zealot, or some unfortunate combination of the two.

          1. Principals before principles, amirite?

        5. Limited government is not no government.
          Government was created by a limiting document – the Constitution – but it granted government certain powers, one of which was naturalization, which has, with the assent of the Supreme Court, include who may enter the country and become citizens.
          It is the law that those, who are here, outside of way allowed by those laws are illegal aliens and subject to deportation, regardless of how they came to be that way.
          The whole “dreamer” category doesn’t exist in law. It has no standing, except for the feelz crowd.
          Congress has the right to make immigration law. All the claims about “free movement” don’t exist in the law. Living without laws is anarchy.

      2. The so called shut down happens every afternoon Monday thru Friday. And every Saturday and Sunday and Holiday Mondays. In my small city the SS office is closed Wednesdays at noon. Shut down is no big deal.

        1. Bingo.

  24. Wow. This chick gives ignorant twats a bad name.

  25. If gummit shuts down, who will tell me what to do?

    Should I come here and Shikha will give me instructions?

    1. I’m pretty sure she would, and you wouldn’t even have to ask.

    2. You will have to bring you own lube.

  26. Hmmm…legal protection for those who could have already started the process to get legal but haven’t, or medical coverage for poor American children? Do you really think that the average American parent is going to even know or care that Repubs didn’t support CHIP in the past if they are protecting it now? I don’t want Dreamers deported, either, but Dems efforts to protect them at all costs are foolish and will backfire. It’s too easy to put out the very sound bite from your article, and that’s all parents will hear and know about this. Dems had years to fix the Dreamer problem, and they refused to offer Repubs enough to get a compromise, so they punted. Which tells me that they don’t actually care about individual Dreamers as much as the political points they scored back then. Stop blaming this situation on Trump and the Repubs. Just like so much else, this is an Obama-era mess left for the adults to clean up.

    1. Democrats did absolutely nothing when they controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. They don’t really care about “dreamers” except as a campaign issue.

  27. Oh, come off it!

    Both the House and Senate are Republican, and Trump is a Republican, and if the government shuts down, it will only be because Democrats filibustered the bill to keep it running.

    If you can’t admit it’s the Democrats shutting down the government, you’re never going to be able to admit it.

    1. Shitma isn’t going to admit the Democrats are at fault, because she IS a Democrat and a Progressive. The real question is why she gets published here.

      1. Website visit hits?

        She does elicit many hits calling her a hack from a country where many people literally shit in the streets.

        1. C’mon. They don’t really shit in the streets. They shit into their rivers.

          1. What about the HOLES?? The SHITHOLES.

            1. Im not sure they go to that much effort with their sanitation.

      2. She’s Nick’s side action.

        1. Too bad he can’t afford Stormy Daniels.

  28. No matter where you stand on what to do with the so-called “Dreamers”, why exactly should budget legislation be held hostage to their disposition? What does that issue have to do with the overall budget of the federal government?

    I thpught thrse types of power plays were something corrupting to the political process and should be discouraged?

    1. I thpught thrse types of power plays were something corrupting to the political process and should be discouraged?

      Not if you don’t have any principles.

  29. Oh come on! It’s like you’re not even trying anymore.

    Yes Republicans are loathesome in general, but if you’re able to look at the situation logically, it’s obvious that Democrats are the ones threatening to “shut down the government,” holding it hostage to a separate totally unrelated bill.

  30. Shikha Dalmia is responsible for the shut down of Reason.

    1. It is looking headed that way.

      This is why they got no money from me this year, and unless things get better, won’t get any next year. I WILL give to things I support, but REASON is headed the wrong way … fast.

    2. Shikha is one of the reasons that I will never give Reason a cent.

    3. Chapman sucks too.

      1. Hs he written anything lately? I haven’t seen one of his literary abortions in awhile now.

  31. I’ll take To Be Sure for 300 Alex.

    The answer is, “a deeply cynical strategy in the service of draconian ends, and it has a serious potential to backfire.”

    What is any article by Shikha Dalmia?

    1. +1, to be sure

  32. Shitka Dalmia, a third of Reason’s atrciles, with topics ranging from “Immigration is good” to “Borders are Bad”, and sme pieces of governement control such as “Abolish ICE”.

    Looks like Reason failed at recruiting libertarian journalists.

    1. I was curious what exactly is “libertarianish” about this article when I read it also. It seems to be a rather bland, hyperbolic editorial that could be in nearly any rag. I am not saying there are not libertarian arguments that can and should be made for open borders, but this did not really attempt that. Just a bunch of malarkey that appears to be rooting for Team Dem with all typical talking points included.

      1. I am not saying there are not libertarian arguments that can and should be made for open borders,

        There are non. No society in the history of man has survived open borders. You can compare the idea of libertarian open borders with the Marxist workers paradise.

  33. I think the media trope that it’s always the Republicans fault that government gets shut down is going to go differently this time.

    Trump has more twitter followers than all the major media outlets have subscribers (at least an off the cuff estimate seems to indicate that). I realize 80% of the electorate is incredibly mired in their tribal swamps, but there is always some movement and Trump’s fake news is having a pretty large impact on the Democrat’s messaging machine.

    1. Bingo

  34. Nice that Reason highlights one letter in their name to show which part of the political spectrum they serve.

  35. So, the Democrats refusal to pass a spending bill that doesn’t include an extraneous immigration provision constitutes a Republican shutdown of the government? Oooookay.

  36. Another round of shit from Shitma. My take is that Democrats care more about grandstanding and holding the government hostage to get a bunch of illegals made legal than they care about the consequences of shutting down the non-essential functions of government.

    After all, the program from Obama was pretty much unconstitutional.
    Trump gave them six months to negotiate a solution.
    Democrats had plenty of opportunity to make them legal when they had control of Congress and Obama was in office.

    Shitma is not a libertarian, she is a progressive. Why the hell is she published here? Is it too late to get her ass deported?

    1. The SCOTUS deemed “minor” lies on your naturalization forms okay. You also cannot be deported for committing serious crimes after being naturalized.

      If you’re unlucky enough to be forced into the SS to eat during WWII though – good bye US citizenship… because Nazis are not the same as socialists. Except Werner Von Braun…because space race.

  37. Oh, my, let’s trot out Reason’s open border obsession one more time, and the hell with the facts.
    Some points;

    So far what I have seen Donald Trump doing (or trying to do) is push a bunch of people who were let in through questionable loopholes to either move to a legitimate citizenship process, or go home. Granted that ‘home’ is often a authoritarian/Anarchistic hellhole, but letting these people stay like distant cousins sleeping on the couch isn’t going to change that. You want to solve that problem, send in the marines and restart the whole Colonialism process again. It can’t be worse than what we have now.

    Republicans are not preparing to shut down the government out of spite. They are preparing to shut sown the government because they are well aware of what their base wants. Maybe the base is in the wrong, but this is a representative democracy. If you are a politician you either move the agenda of your base forward or you are an elitist jerk.

    In a just and logical world, open borders would be a fine idea. We have a failed State to our south. Living next to Mexico is increasingly like living next to a biker bar. Is the attitude of the police and the ICE helpful? I doubt it. But open borders will not work, unless (once again) you are advocating conquest and governance. I’m game. It doesn’t take too many decades of post-colonial misgovernance, kleptocracy, genocide, and famine to make Colonial Paternalism look awfully good.

    1. Republicans are not preparing to shut down the government out of spite.

      Republicans are not preparing to shut down the government at all; they have something they agree on to go forward and they are in the majority.

      It’s Democrats because they want to legalize illegal US residents in hopes of grabbing some more votes next election.

      Don’t let jerks like Shikha reframe the debate in this appallingly dishonest way.

      1. Was showing that I could accept the fram I was given and STILL demolish the argument.

        1. I appreciate the effort.

    2. “You want to solve that problem, send in the marines and restart the whole Colonialism process again.”

      US invading foreign countries bad!
      Foreign countries invading US good!

    3. Citation? Neither the LP platform nor Reason push “open borders”. The expletive is just another GO-Pee “n-word” shibboleth like “free trade” for a revenue tariff or “legalizing beer” for not shooting and robbing people over superstitious pseudoscience, or “baby killing” for the very idea of women having self-ownership and individual rights. There’s a Mexican worldview if ever I saw one!

  38. What a bunch of bullshit. A fix for the dreamers should be paired with real immigration reform. End chain migration, end the visa lottery, and ideally implement e-verify.

    Why give up the one piece of leverage on DACA? That just insurers that no real reform will happen, and our country slides further into a welfare/statist future.

    How is this libertarian again?

    1. Open borders in spite of current law is not Libertarian because it puts outrage before the Constitution, the rule of law and property rights.

  39. The war happened when past administrations did not enforce immigration laws. Why not eliminate the statute of limitations on illegal immigration?

  40. Republicans Are Preparing to Shut Down the Government Out of Anti-Immigrant Spite

    It’s the minority party that “shuts down the government” because they aren’t getting their way. And in this case it’s:

    “Democrats are preparing to shut down the government because of their attempts to shield illegal conduct in return for votes.”

    And as a legal immigrant, I have a lot of “spite” for people who want to give “amnesty” to illegal migrants. I think it is deplorable that the US should prefer unskilled people who violated immigration law over people like me who played by the rules, left the country when required, and often took decades to become naturalized.

    Here’s something I support, though: any American should be allowed to trade their US citizenship with any illegal immigrant you choose. This would be great for you, Shikha: you hate the US anyway, and it would give you an opportunity to go back to your tolerant, libertarian, multi-cultural society in India, where you were probably a member of the privileged class to begin with.

    1. Thanks for your efforts, and welcome (not sure how long you’ve been here, but I want anyone who’s done things the right way to feel welcome). Virtually every single naturalized citizen I’ve ever talked with about this seems to feel the same way…why are they going to get rewarded for breaking the law?

  41. By the way, people were hyperventilating on NPR about all the consequences of a government shutdown. They all ultimately came down to: people will like working for the federal government less and people will like doing business with the federal government less. Both of those sound good to me; good, solid libertarian objectives.

    So: thank you Democrats, for shutting down the government.

  42. …showing that the only principle that animates their party now is saving this land of immigrants from immigrants

    Well, I for one, immigrated to get away from the people who made my life so miserable growing up and who put into power an oppressive, totalitarian government. As an immigrant, I most certainly will object strongly to making it easy for those jerks to immigrate to the US.

  43. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do


    ………………………. http://www.homework5.com

  44. When did this site become Daily Kos ?

    1. Progs have been working on penetrating the LP for quite some time in search of critical mass. Does that surprise you? It is the one thing they do well: from the Ford Foundation, to the NYT etc., it’s quite the accomplishment – and done primarily using the horizontal structure that springs from Marxism [its godfather]. You’ll miss them every time if you are busy looking for the ‘head of the snake’: they don’t need one, as their community is consensus driven. Compare the tenor of NYT columns in the 20’s and 30’s to today and be amazed that Pinchy even bothered to keep the original name. I hope Reason survives their efforts: it’s one of the last bastions of actual liberal thought left, to wit I can only offer one notion. Allowing different voices is American; letting them steamroll you and shut you up [with any argument or artifice] is not. Stand, just stand… it’s sometimes all it takes to win in the long run.

      1. Entryism

        Progs will infest any org that lets them in
        Once they get in, it’s all in group preference to drive out unbelievers until they burn the place down
        That’s why they particularly like orgs where you can’t be fired with compelled funding
        The bonfire never ends

      2. This country will not survive unless the number of progressives is reduced to a manageable level, preferably zero.

  45. I dream of open borders and welfare for life…because…

  46. Let’s get things right – when it comes to DC: democrats are the party of the mean, and republicans are the party of the stupid. Now that formalities are out of the way, please don’t pick on the short bus kids: Lindsey has and always will be out of his league no matter the issue at hand, and he’s definitely got it wrong if he’s teaming up with Durbin. So bring on the Schumer Shutdown. Reagan suffered several, and the branch of service I was in during that time never missed a beat. Does anyone even remember the “shutdown” during Newts tenure? The only part I can remember was the pitiable John Lewis lying his ass off saying “…they’re coming for the sick. They’re coming for the poor. They’re coming for the elderly..” in the face of [swallow hard now]… budget increases. His whine-a-thon was all about him wanting to preserve increases that were double the rate of inflation and not simply edging past it by a fraction. Somebody tie a string to Shikha: she is going to need to find her way back from the ether…

    1. I remember the Progressive agents in the Park Service advising local units to make the “shutdown” as painful and unpleasant for the public as possible. Also rejected locally-generated plans to minimize the impact on visitors to our National Parks.*

      So, if there is any pain from the “shutdown” it’s pretty obvious where it’s coming from.

      *-no federal employee was fired or punched in the nuts for this travesty. Sadly…

      1. Aren’t those the parks in which federal prohibitionists leap out and rob/bully anyone who lights up the wrong brand of spliff? or unwraps the wrong kind of candy bar?
        What a shame if they shut those looters down!

        1. Are you capable of writing a sentence that doesn’t use the words ‘looter’, or ‘prohibitionist’?

  47. This is truly pathetic. The Democrats are prepared to shutdown the U.S. government because they care more about illegals than Americans. Obama said he didn’t have the legal authority to hand out Amnesty. Then he changed his mind. The courts made it clear that Obama was right the first time. Obama’s efforts to protect illegals were in violation of U.S. law. Now the Democrats want to blackmail the American people to get what they couldn’t get at the ballot box.

    If the Democrats want to use blackmail because they care more about illegals than Americans, let them suffer the consequences.

    1. Foreigners First!

  48. What part of #SchumerShutdown don’t you understand?
    The voters want no part of amnesty, and there is no serious proposal to gracefully exit from the unconstitutional DACA executive order by Obama.
    What part of American taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill for people who won’t assimilate and might kill us don’t you get?
    Free markets do not include government theft and subsidies to the 3rd world, whether over there, or over here.

    You, Ma-am are a socialist globalist, not a libertarian.

  49. This writer is an open borders Anarchist

    1. Hardly. If her “arguments” actually contained elements of anarchy or minarchy or anarcho-capitalism the articles she spews out would be more tolerable. But there is nothing like that. She’s a straight up WashingtonPost/HuffPo/NYT progressive and has stopped even pretending to salt her production with any semblance of libertarian principles.

      Too much work, maybe, and really why bother? She is not editorially enjoined to actually BE a libertarian as long as the sacred, good v. evil principle of open borders is promoted.

    2. Here’s a handy reference:

      open borders + welfare state = socialist

      closed borders + welfare state = fascist

      open borders + free market + property rights + freedom of association = libertarian

      open borders + maybe free market eventually = socialist masquerading as a libertarian

      1. Ok, I’ll play along, but this is how I see the world:
        Welfare state = socialist
        Closed borders = fascist
        Open borders = libertarian
        Free market = libertarian
        Property rights = libertarian
        Freedom of association = libertarian

        Your implication that principles are a package deal is fundamentally wrong. You wouldn’t be for limiting property rights or freedom of association in the absence of a free market (or vice versa). Why advocate for government control of movement in the absence of a free market then?

  50. Of course it is the Democrats who are refusing to agree to a continuing resolution, not the Republicans.

    And equally of course, the government isn’t going to shut down. Only those functions that actually provide services that anyone wants will be shut down, e.g., the National Park Service.

    And the “Dreamers” should get green cards. That’s it.

    Other than that, the article is about what I expected: pathetic.

    1. Illegal aliens should get bus rides to the border
      That’s it

      Breaking immigration law shouldn’t be a ticket to cutting in line in front of people who obeyed immigration law
      They probably shouldn’t be allowed to re enter the country

      Take biometrics of those we have to deport, and they are *never* allowed back in

  51. “… a 39-year-old Dreamer in Michigan, who had lived in America for 30 years and had an American wife and kids ..”

    Seriously? In this country for 30 years and he made no effort to become a citizen or rectify the situation? How do you think a citizen of the U.S. would be treated by any other country on the planet (including Mexico) if he/she snuck into the country and was discovered 30 years later? My capacity for sympathy is limited.

    Also, as others point out, the government is NOT going to shut down – any more than the other times this has happened. Essential services including delivery of social security checks will go on — but that won’t stop the left from making political hay from the “shut down”.

    Is the author of this article a leftist? I didn’t realized Reason had become a left-wing rag. #countmepissedoff

    1. ” I didn’t realized Reason had become a left-wing rag.”

      Progressitarians catering to TDS sufferers

      I only come to Reason for the comments section, Ed, and Ron

  52. In 2013 SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER: “No. The one time that it was really done in this kind of way, not just, well, it was a deadline and you have to decide abortion or something else, was in 2011. We went right up to the deadline. The stock market lost 2,000 points, $18 billion was lost by the American people. And in that case, the markets didn’t believe it was true. Now, they are, because of their brinksmanship on federal spending and because of the kind of language Speaker Boehner used. …. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say we’re shutting down the government, we’re not going to raise the debt ceiling until you pass immigration reform. It would be governmental chaos.”

    It’s okay to do it now, though because Trump, right Chuck?

  53. Senator Schumer In 2013: “It was a hard line saying, unless I get my way, I’m going to shut the government down, I’m going to risk default for the nation. Now, anyone can do that. I believe in immigration reform. What if I persuaded my caucus to say, I’m going to shut the government down, I am going to not pay our bills unless I get my way? It’s a politics of idiocy, of confrontation, of paralysis. And so finally what happened, Barack Obama and Democrats said, we’re not going to give in to this kind of brinksmanship, where basically a gun is put to your head.”

    But it’s ok now, because Trump, right Chuck?

    1. You’re expecting anything less than complete disingenuous hypocrisy from Schumer?

  54. In 2015, Senator Schumer Criticized The Practice Of Tying Immigration Reform To A Funding Bill

    SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “We would welcome a debate on immigration policies. Leader McConnell, he runs the Senate, He can start a debate on immigration on the floor, and in the — on the floor of the Senate with the snap of his fingers. Let’s vote on a clean bill. And then Senator McConnell, being the leader of the Senate, can put an immigration bill on the floor of the Senate. And we welcome that debate. We think we have the high ground on that debate. But we’re not going to do it with a gun held to the head of the American people and say, you do this or we’re going to shut down the government. Do not, we say to our Republican friends, do not hold hostage the funding of the Department of Homeland Security that keeps us safe over an unrelated fight on immigration.”

    But it’s OK now, because Trump, right chuck?

    1. Chuck . . . to think that people voted for him.

      1. People vote for what they imagine must surely be in the 35,000-word platform they never read.

  55. Can Sikha write any other article than simpering over illegal aliens?

    1. Muh open borders

  56. I skipped the byline but knew after the first paragraph that this was a Shikha Dalmia special. An analyst with any sense of history or balance would at least know that Dems have played this game every time the budget comes up for vote: make some demand that they know Republicans will reject in the context of the budget, threaten shutdown (which never happens), then blame Dems for not accepting their demands. One year they were blaming Paul Ryan who they said wanted to push granny off the cliff. Now they seize on DACA. Same song, different tune.

    Assuming for the sake of discussion that DACA should be preserved in some form (highly debatable), then the forum for working that out is not the budget hothouse. The better approach would be a bipartisan committee dedicated to a mutually acceptable solution. However, that would require both parties to sit down at the table in good faith, something about as likely as genuine Mideast peace talks.

  57. You know what’s so stupid – Trump was actually willing to reach a DACA compromise. He said it would be a “deal of love” and even called Lindsey Graham (forever a RINO in the eyes of the conservative rank) his new best friend.

    And then some resistance asshole on Durbin’s side leaked the “shithole” comment, which just isn’t that big a deal knowing who Trump is. He calls Kim Jong Un a Rocketman and Rosie O’donnell a fat pig. He talks like a talk radio shock jock.

    It’s in Dem interests for DACA kids to remain in limbo, where they can be used as ammunition in the political game. Pelosi and and Chuckster could have given Trump his wall 2 months ago and the DACA kids would have celebrated Christmas with no worries. “But the wall is racist” God these people are so stupid. They already waste more money on stupider things.

    1. “You know what’s so stupid – Trump was actually willing to reach a DACA compromise.”

      I’m not sure he was. 5-d chess and all.

      Was the shithole comment just bait to get the Democrats to scuttle hopes of a deal? If that didn’t do it, would there been another sabotaging comment?

      What we *observe* is that the shithole comment (or whatever the comment actually was) threw the Left into another outrage tizzy that derailed the negotiations.

      Trump fans were apoplectic over Trump’s talk of a deal. And now there is still no deal. We got what we wanted, at least for now.

    2. “You know what’s so stupid – Trump was actually willing to reach a DACA compromise.”

      I’m not sure he was. 5-d chess and all.

      Was the shithole comment just bait to get the Democrats to scuttle hopes of a deal? If that didn’t do it, would there been another sabotaging comment?

      What we *observe* is that the shithole comment (or whatever the comment actually was) threw the Left into another outrage tizzy that derailed the negotiations.

      Trump fans were apoplectic over Trump’s talk of a deal. And now there is still no deal. We got what we wanted, at least for now.

    3. Not stupid – evil.

  58. Real Libertarians are getting ready to celebrate another government shut down. It’s like Festival when the Betans are released from the will of Landru.

  59. “The GOP is declaring war on Dreamers.”

    They’re declaring war on no one

    They’ve just refused to sign off on sacrificing American Dreamers for Open Borders

    Trump was elected on the motto America First

    If you want open borders, elect someone one the motto Foreigners First

    1. Yes.

    2. This GOP sockpuppet uses the verb “elect” as though LP spoiler votes carried no law-changing clout. That’s fine. I like the look on their faces when the Dokuro-chan cricket bat finally gets their attention.

  60. “There is basically one thing the GOP needs to do to avoid a government shutdown tonight when the temporary fundingImmigrant RallyErik McGregor/Pacific Press/Newscom bill is set to expire: Offer a clean path to permanent legalization for Dreamers?”

    Where is the logic in that statement? There is no logical connection between the budget and DACA.

    If there is something in the budget bill that is objectionable, then deal with that.

  61. Republican are ready to pass a budget . . . there is nothing in their bill that the Democrats object to. So pass it, keep it open, and deal with DACA later.

  62. Which open borders proponents have open homes? Addresses please.

    1. I’d settle for open liquor cabinets.

  63. Gosh, it’d sure be a shame if friends and relatives of those 690,000 young people were to vote libertarian instead of supporting the prohibitionist Deportation Kleptocracy. Both the Dems and GOP use possession of plant leaves as proof of “moral turpitude” and grounds for deportation without bond. If the LP were to pick up another half million votes on a platform that is more attractive to victims of the alien-hunter bureaucracy, we might end up swinging a extra 20 electoral votes with plain old spoiler votes. Those regular votes are even more susceptible to LP spoiler vote clout in an off-year election.

    1. Gosh, it’d sure be a shame if friends and relatives of those 690,000 young people were to vote libertarian instead of supporting the prohibitionist Deportation Kleptocracy

      These “young people” are in their late 30’s. And their relatives are in their 50’s and 60’s. And you’re deluding yourself that they are ever going to vote libertarian. They are going to vote Democratic, because that’s the party that promises them ever increasing government handouts and validation of their delusions.

  64. You aren’t a libertarian, why are you here. You are an open borders schill. Libertarians believe in national sovereignty, you believe that it is nativism to enforce the law and have an individual merit based system without regards to country or family ties. You are a demagogue who attributes the worst motivations to people who disagree with you. DACA is unconstitutional, illegals have no right to be here, let alone demand anything from our gov’t, democrats are shutting down the gov’t, and central americans have abused the TEMPORARY protected status. Bottom line is you are a progressive statist and why reason is printing your trash is beyond me.

  65. Dalmia, the GOP isn’t shutting down government, the DEMs are. And you know it.

  66. Imagine this… if the government were to shut down, what if we the people no longer get extorted via this act of theft known as taxation?

  67. This article is indistinguishable from random, casual, and emotionally-driven internet commentary. I don’t see why it would be granted a space on a respectable website that tries to be a serious contender in political commentary.

    The fact of the matter is that most of the GOP supports amnesty for the Dreamers and have offered it to the Democrats in exchange for a border wall and changes to immigration policy: policy updates that would include an end to chain migration and the lottery in favor of an immigration system that would presumably fit the economic requirements of the country.

    The Democrats rejected this. They want the status quo of a broken immigration system that encourages lawlessness and largely benefits the interests of big business and the political fortunes of the Statists.

    You are correct in saying that the vast majority of the public supports accommodation of the ‘Dreamers’, but then again the GOP supports this, so you are railing against the wrong party. Also, it would be highly doubtful that there wouldn’t be similar level of public support to the proposals to end chain migration and move to a merit based system proposed by the GOP. But did you cover that angle?

    the “nation of immigrants” trope is a tired, fallacy riddled talking point. Stop pretending it is an argument. Our immigrant history does not require us to always be open to future immigration, and in fact our history is one of waves of immigration followed by periods of restraint.

  68. I’m no big fan of the Republican majority not cutting spending and fixing the deficit, but on this article – really I have to call bullshit.

    Democrat’s arms are not fucking broken. They can propose a singular bill that fixes DACA and let Republicans act on it or not. It doesn’t have to be part of the continuing resolution mess – so how much do the Democrats care about DACA?

    It has been pointed out in these comments that Republicans DON’T control the all three branches of government. They cannot pass whatever the hell they want because they don’t have 60 seats in the Senate. It irks the fuck out of me every time a news story does not point that out, let alone call bullshit on the Dems for their culpability.

    It’s been a year since Trump took office, yet the bulk of news stories from Reason really don’t point out the dearth lack of positive effort from the Democrats – again, their fucking arms are not broken. They can propose cutting spending, they can propose deficit reduction, they can propose bills that align to some degree with Libertarian ideas. They’re not. And I don’t see Reason giving them shit about it, just Republicans. And, if Reason were genuine in the blame game, you’d give Democrats equal or greater shit until Republicans have 60 or more seats in the Senate.

  69. The Democrats want to hold all of the American people hostage on behalf of illegals and Open Borders. Shikha supports the Democrats. No surprise there. Kidnappers and blackmailers are evil people. Shikha supports them. No surprise there.

  70. Shitcake is going full retard several times a week in the name of clickbait.

  71. 1 – Reason is SUPPOSED to be actively seeking Lawful & MINIMUM Government; NOT conflating Obama’s Illegal, Illegal Aliens Amnesty Unconstitutional Power Grabbing ‘Phone & Pen’ Parliamentary crap over US Constitution…

    2 – Illegal “Dreamers” have no Legitimate area within funding the DOD.

    3 – Ciminal Adult “Children” MS-13 from El Salvador have 0 to do with US Citizens.

    4 – STOP trying to claim Illegal, UnConstitutional Acts of Uber-Liberalism has anything to do with Reason, Logic, Libertarian Values!

  72. Wrong. Republicans are trying to stop the government shutting down, but the author glosses over the fact that it’s the Democrats who are refusing to support the government continuation bill passing.

    I can’t remember ever seeing such a biased mis-reporting of an issue in Reason before. Shame on you Shikha Dalmia

  73. This is awesome. Trump must hold the DACA “Trump Card” if he’s to get anything reasonable from the Dems on immigration. I will be jumping for joy if he slashes legal immigration by 50%, but makes it all skills based, and ends the retarded diversity lottery.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.