Border wall

The Great Wall of Trump Is Fighting the Last War

More Mexicans are leaving than coming to America.

|

Mexico was never going to pay for Donald Trump's 2,000-mile construction project—aka wall—along the Rio Grande. So he has taken

Border Wall
Jonathan McIntosh via Foter.com

Dreamers hostage to try and extract $20 billion from American taxpayers. (Dreamers are folks who were brought to this country as minors illegally but have grown up as Americans whose temporary protected status Trump will phase out in March, when they will be up for deportation unless Congress acts.)

It's unclear if he'll succeed in securing funding for this monstrosity given that after initially caving, Democrats retracted their offer after it failed to produce much reciprocity from the administration, only an escalation of restrictionist demands.

But erecting a giant barrier between two friendly nations would be profoundly sad; even mortal enemies like India and Pakistan don't have such structures between them. And it would be tantamount to fighting the last war, given that illegal immigrant flows from Mexico have dropped sharply, and aren't likely to go back up.

Net migration flows between America and Mexico dropped to zero in the recession's immediate aftermath, because as many Mexicans left the country as entered. But since then, these flows have reversed from their recent historic norms, with more Mexicans now leaving the United States than coming in.

During the peak years of Mexican migration, between 1995 and 2000, about 3 million Mexicans came to the United States. That number was slashed in half in the five years that followed, and then another half — or 870,000 — between 2009 and 2014. At the same time, 1.4 million Mexicans returned home.

The upshot is that America's unauthorized Mexican population — the big restrictionist boogeyman — shrank from 6.9 million in 2007 to 5.6 million in 2014. Border hawks like to take credit for this shrinkage, attributing it to stepped-up enforcement at the border and deportations from the interior. But that's just not the case.

The number of border apprehensions in any given year is a fair proxy for how many people are trying to jump across. But even as President Barack Obama was busy doubling the number of border patrol agents, the overall apprehension rate continued to fall. Indeed, in the mid-1980s, when flows were high, each agent caught 400 people per year. In 2016, each agent nabbed fewer than 17, Cato Institute's David Bier estimated.

It is true that deportations shot up on President Obama's watch. But of the 1 million Mexicans who returned between 2009 and 2014, only 14 percent were due to deportations. The rest returned voluntarily, the vast majority (61 percent) to be reunited with their family and friends.

None of this ought to come as a huge surprise. The couple of decades of high immigration from Mexico that America experienced were the result of a unique convergence of events. Mexico was undergoing a "demographic transition" — meaning that its infant mortality rates had fallen, thanks to advances in modern medicine, but its fertility rates hadn't because parents hadn't quite absorbed the fact that their children were more likely to survive, leading to a population explosion. Every modernizing country has gone through this phase. Meanwhile, the Mexican economy of the 1980s was in a freefall after a decade of government profligacy, and the American economy was taking off. Is it any wonder that America became a magnet for young Mexican men searching for jobs to feed their fast-growing families?

But this is no longer our reality. Mexico's birth rates have plummeted from 7.3 children per woman in the 1960s to 2.4 per woman now. That's just above replacement level. Mexico's economy, thanks to NAFTA (which Trump is hell-bent on destroying), has been growing at a nice clip, creating jobs at home. Mexico simply doesn't have the labor surplus anymore to send America's way.

All of this is borne out by Mexico's emigration data. In 2006, 144 out of every 10,000 Mexicans were leaving the country for better climes. In 2015, that number had dropped to 39 per 10,000.

This is nothing to celebrate. America's economy over the last several decades has been built on the backs of Hispanic migrants willing to work their tails off in jobs that Americans simply don't want to do. In a rational world, the president wouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars on militarizing the southern border to repel peaceful workers from a friendly neighbor. He would be sending them invitation cards to come north and help him Make America Great Again.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week

NEXT: Regulations Prevent Some People from Using Google Arts & Culture's Portrait-Matching Feature

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. “America’s economy over the last several decades has been built on the backs of Hispanic migrants willing to work their tails off in jobs that Americans simply don’t want to do.”

    Yeah, Silicon Valley had nothing to do with it. We all enjoy the highest standard of living because strawberry pickers.

    1. Re: Don’t look at me,

      Yeah, Silicon Valley had nothing to do with it.

      That’s not even implied. Stop making stuff up.

      Immigrants were there to harvest the vegetables and pluck the chickens that Silicon Valley ate, and built their homes and landscaped their lawns, cleaned their toilets, and many other things that Americans didn’t have to do themselves. That FREES the more productive American labor to do more profitable endeavors.

      But keep showcasing your economic ignorance. It’s entertaining.

      1. Again, arguing that slavery is a Libertarian principle seems baffling, but the LP is a joke for many, many reasons.

        1. No, no, no. OM is opposed to slavery because white people. He’s fine with serfdom though. Because that’s totally not against the NAP.

        2. Re: damikesc,

          Again, arguing that slavery is a Libertarian principle seems baffling

          What’s baffling is that you would hallucinate like that. Who even mentioned slavery?

          1. Apparently, doing low-skilled labor for someone for pay so that someone can more profitably use their time elsewhere = slavery now.

            Comparative advantage is ebul.

            1. Apparently underpaying somebody who has no actual ability to complain or seek just compensation is the same thing, exactly, as the free market. Same damned thing, honestly.

              1. No ability to seek compensation – despite receiving compensation? These guys aren’t working for free you know.

                As for ability to complain – I assume you mean use the courts? That’s because people who don’t want them here don’t want them costing *more* money using these services.

                1. You could say the same thing about prostitutes or drug dealers right now – the problem is the laws that prevent these people from accessing the judicial system, not these people’s existence.

                2. No ability to seek compensation – despite receiving compensation?

                  “I’ll pay you what I want. If I choose to. And if you complain, well, I can get you deported easily. That is the free market”

                  As for ability to complain – I assume you mean use the courts? That’s because people who don’t want them here don’t want them costing *more* money using these services.

                  So the “Libertarian” solution is more government spending on them?

          2. The work visa system is not as bad as slavery, but it is disturbing to have a government document that says you are allowed to come to the country and stay here provided you maintain an economic relationship with the corporation that applied for that document.

            Let us switch to a lottery system that is open to all countries and results in citizenship within 2 years of arriving in America.

      2. OM, where have you been? Chickens are plucked by machines

      3. There’s no way I would’ve been successful if I didn’t have Jose cleaning my toilets and mowing my grass. SpaceX would’ve never taken off had Elon Musk been busy with plucking his chickens all day. Goddamn you’re stupid.

        1. SpaceX wouldn’t have ever taken off without the 5+ billion it’s founder has received in government handouts. Sounds like a good argument for taxation and corporate welfare. Kind of funny to hear that from someone labeling themselves Anarchist

      4. It really doesn’t free up labor. If the price of landscaping goes up, home owners can pick a simpler landscape design that requires less maintenance. If people follow local occupancy restrictions instead of housing 9 people in a 3 bedroom home, they only need to clean the house once a week instead of every day to avoid a bed bug contagion. If you bring your own food from the cash register to the table at a fast food restaurant instead of having a waiter making below minimum wage bring it to you, you save labor.

        Having 100 immigrants with limited job opportunities kiss your feet for $8 per hour makes the GDP go up, but it doesn’t make life better. Plenty of immigrants have the brains and education to work in high paying jobs, but cannot because the colleges in their home countries aren’t part of America’s education cartel. I am not impressed with the economic arguments for immigration.

      5. There are lots of jobs Americans, and pretty much everyone else, don’t want to do.
        The OM argument seems to be that we should be grateful that people come into the country, contrary to the law, while being willing to degrade themselves doing these tasks. After all, if people don’t want to do it, then it must be something universally degrading…and you’re happy that your countrymen do that to themselves.
        The real fact is that these aren’t the ludicrously titled “jobs that Americans won’t do” but jobs that those, able to access the welfare system, which pays them more than working at certain jobs, take a pass on.
        OM is fine with his people living illegally, unable to complain, while taking advantage of everything the taxpaying citizens provide. A pack of leeches.
        And then we get the idiot Shikha, with a laughable claim that they are sneaking back.
        Maybe OM and Shikha belong together, back, outside this country of laws.

    2. Silicon Valley engineers gotta eat strawberries too.

      1. Trumpistas want expensive food, Brandybuck.

        They also get off on the idea of pushing hundreds of thousands of migrant workers into boxcars and ship them out to the Sonora desert.

        1. They also get off on the idea of pushing hundreds of thousands of migrant workers into boxcars and ship them out to the Sonora desert.

          “That’s not even implied. Stop making stuff up.”

          You’re approaching Tony levels of idiocy.

          1. Re: mad.casual,

            Oh, hit a nerve there.

            Trumpista?

            1. What happened to you man?

              1. Re: DesigNate,

                Have you READ what people say about immigrants (and how to deal with them) in conservative blogs and Facebook pages?

                You would be scared shitless. Don’t ask me “what happened to me.” What happened was Donald “Stormfront” Trump.

                1. Yes. But most of the people posting here aren’t saying the frankly asinine and horrible things being said there and calling people here bigots and Trumpista for disagreeing with you on open borders smacks of emotionalism, not rationality.

            2. Oh, hit a nerve there.

              Yes. The one(s) I use to detect oxy-moronic fantasies. That’s why I brought it up.

              I know plenty of out-and-out racists, nativists, and xenophobes who want to ship them back to wherever they came from (some of them didn’t vote for Trump if you can believe it). You bring up shipping people around in boxcars way more often and much more… matter-of-factually than they do.

        2. So it’s good to pay substandard wages for food pickers?

          1. Re: Don’t Look At Me.

            So it’s good to pay substandard wages for food pickers?

            Aren’t they so cute when they get into Economics with such naive faces, full of innocence? Oh, you schnookums!

            There’s NO such thing as a “substandard” wage. Wages are what the two parties agreed ex ante. Idiot.

            1. Oh Really then why do these slaves um serfs um pickers think its substandard otherwise why to they complain about the wages all the time and demand health care and housing, yes in California its required to provide your pickers with housing.

              1. Re: Ron,

                If they REALLY thought it is “substandard” then they wouldn’t be working picking up strawberries.

                Economics is based on aprioristic logic, Ron. Whether YOU like it or not, people are fucking LIARS. People like to TALK, but ACTION speaks louder than words. And if they hold those jobs is because they found it PROFITABLE to work for those wages.

            2. I went to the session by our state agriculture department about agriculture visas back when my friend in Egypt wanted to immigrate here so I could tell him about it. It turns out that migrant workers can make below minimum wage. It’s a loophole in the minimum wage law. Their visa depends on them working on the farm owned by the guy who applied for the visa. So, this is not a free market system. The government allows select business owners to hand out permission to stay in the country legally as a job benefit, and those business owners pay below what they would need to pay if they had to attract a worker without that benefit.

              Compensation = benefits + cash

          2. So we’re part of ‘Fight For Fifteen’ now?

        3. No. Most would rather they leave on their own.

          But if they do not wish to leave, then things might have to happen to expedite the process.

          1. “No. Most would rather they leave on their own”

            Most don’t understand the benefits of the free flow of labor in a market based economy. Even more lamentable that this has to be defended in a libertarian commentariat.

            1. They’re the red-team Tonys. Except much worse. At least, the Tonys of the world don’t treat people that don’t share their skin tone as subhumans.

              1. Haha classic. Call everyone who disagrees with you a racist.

                1. Not every immigration restrictionist is a racist, no. There are plenty of nonracist reasons to support strict border security. I am thinking of a guy like Andy McCarthy at NRO who makes reasoned, logical, nonracist arguments why it’s important to build the wall.

                  But when you read comments over and over from restrictionists, like “we can’t allow Mexicans in because they are shithole people from a shithole country” and “it’s better for us if illegal immigrants die in the desert” then you start to realize that yeah, there are an *awful lot* of restrictionists who really don’t recognize the basic humanity of illegal immigrants, and it’s fair to label that accurately as bigotry.

                  1. You use that word, but I don’t think you know what it means.

                2. If it wasn’t for that argument then Old Mexican’s Speedos, and most progs, would have no argument.

              2. At least, the Tonys of the world don’t treat people that don’t share their skin tone as subhumans.

                True. They use economic status to discriminate and denigrate. Seeing someone as subhuman because of their net worth is totally better.

                1. But paying them less because of skin color is ok. In fact, I learned here that is the basis of a robust economy.

                  1. But paying them less because of skin color is ok. In fact, I learned here that is the basis of a robust economy.

                    That’s what we call “free market” these days.

                    Even better if they don’t really have a means to actually do anything about being underpaid, amirite guys?

                    1. “Even better if they don’t really have a means to actually do anything about being underpaid, amirite guys?”

                      Concern trolling?

              3. Who’s more of an asshole that treats people as “subhumans”: the person that says that maybe they should come here through the proper channels* OR the person that insists on creating a permanent underclass of immigrants by never compromising their open borders position**?

                *It shouldn’t be so damn hard or long to get legal work status to come into the country. If (and I believe this to be true) these immigrants are a net positive to our economy, all they should have to do is pass a background check and a health screen to enter the country to work.

                **You’re being willfully ignorant if you completely ignore that many “illegal” immigrants live in shitty conditions to satisfy our need for cheep labor (thanks minimum wage laws). That’s not to say we shouldn’t strive for as open a border as possible, but last I checked most people aren’t really down with anarchy and no borders so you’re gonna get a mixed bag there.

                1. Re: DesigNate,

                  Who’s more of an asshole that treats people as “subhumans”: the person that says that maybe they should come here through the proper channels* OR the person that insists on creating a permanent underclass of immigrants by never compromising their open borders position**?

                  Are you CRAZY? Who is the one creating that “underclass” if not the Government itself, by imposing this “Papieren, bitte!” environment?

                  Get your head out of your ass for once.

                  1. I see you ignored the rest of my post.

                  2. Well, YOU’RE the one who wants an underclass to mow your lawn and clean your toilet–

                    “Immigrants were there to harvest the vegetables and pluck the chickens that Silicon Valley ate, and built their homes and landscaped their lawns, cleaned their toilets”.

                    When you come legally you don’t have to slave for OM, you have options.

                    But people like OM and Dalmia want to keep those borders open–so they can have peons and untouchables around to kick–just like in the old country.

              4. Actually you and Tony do see people different by skin color as subhuman.

                Poor, poor, poor tan/brown light skinned people are victims. They don’t make any choices on their own. Only victims of the mean white people.

                Again, you Tony and Shikha, why people who come illegally get preference? Why, we don’t get to chose who we invite in…like very other country in this world? Last, I checked Mexico has armed guards that shot on their southern boarder.

                My girlfriend came here legally. She had to jump thought the hoops. She had to attend english classes and work hard to be a citizen. Why do people south of us get a preference since that is your argument?

                See OMS and Tony, it’s not about immigration – people like legal immigration. It’s about people coming here that couldn’t care less about the US. That wave their flags for their country and spit on ours. You talk about the strawberry pickers, and yes it’s a better job than he their country – no doubt. But they don’t learn English. They don’t care at all about this country.

                Yes, there are racists on the Right – agreed. Explain why libertarians and dems what to import a slave class? (Besides votes).

              5. They’re the red-team Tonys. Except much worse. At least, the Tonys of the world don’t treat people that don’t share their skin tone as subhumans.

                Didn’t you advocate deporting Americans in this very same post?

              6. OMS,

                I assume your town doesn’t have any immigrants from Poland. It’s probably not as diverse and my town.

            2. Most don’t understand the benefits of the free flow of labor in a market based economy. Even more lamentable that this has to be defended in a libertarian commentariat.

              If the “benefit” is exceeded by the cost — then it is not a benefit.

              You want to underpay a gardener? Go ahead. Don’t ask ME to pay for his kids’ schooling and the like.

          2. Helicopter rides? I hope you’re talking about helicopter rides. I love helicopters.

    3. Strawberry pickers do have a lot to do with it.

      One thing – its why strawberries are plentiful and cheap.

    4. Yeah, Silicon Valley had nothing to do with it. We all enjoy the highest standard of living because strawberry pickers.

      Baffling comment. Actually, yes, we enjoy low cost food and goods exactly because of cheap labor.

      Aside from that, a global economy is a reality that the U.S. can either adjust to and improve, or be left on the sidelines. The “economic nationalists” apparently prefer the latter, and the high price of goods that come with it.

      1. What is so baffling about it? Silicon Valley creates more wealth and drives the economy further than picking fruit ever could. Which activity would you build your economy on ? Why would the author think that the economy is built on the backs of fruit pickers?

      2. So, why are we to be the only ones, who are to accept the “reality of the global market”?
        No other country, presumably on the globe, opens their borders to whomever wants to enter, contrary to their laws, and get paid less than their citizens.
        The country most associated with illegal border crossing, whose government encourages that our laws be broken in such a way, has very strict laws against what you advocate. If the US government advocated that our unemployed flood Mexico, all you progressives would be screaming bloody murder.
        Why not just admit that you want the borders open because the ones who come here will vote for progressive candidates and propositions, because the “native” population has begun to figure out how destructive those are?

    5. About 1% of illegal immigrants are in the agriculture sector per the Federal Government BLS.

    6. Well, Americans are spending more on restaurants instead of groceries. Maybe they think food tastes better when an immigrant brings it from the kitchen to the table. Maybe they can’t imagine saving time and money by putting extra pasta in the pot and microwaving the leftovers later in the week.

      My ex-roommate was an immigrant who waited on tables at a fancy restaurant. He had a masters degree in physical therapy that saddled him with a huge student debt. The licensing requirements prevented him from being a physical therapist until he passed the New York State test in English. English isn’t his native language. Earning requirements for immigrants on visas forced him to work nights at a restaurant in addition his job as an assistant at a local physical therapy office. That meant he never had time to study for the test. At one point, he was holding down those two jobs in addition to being a garbage collector in the mornings. He basically slaved away for 3 years at low paying jobs that he was way over qualified to do, because he believed the he might some day be allowed to work as a physical therapist in America. He gave up and went back to Europe after he got assaulted and the cops didn’t want to bother deciding who threw the first punch.

      1. Elsewhere in town, there was a lady born and raised in America who spent years not working (but baby sitting under the table a few hours a week) in the hopes that a judge would decide that she cannot work due to her depression and put her on disability payments. Granted, she did feel sad ever since her common law husband killed himself with a heroin overdose. Medicaid paid for her psychiatry visits and anti-depressants … because we care.

        This all looks great for the economy. Her doctor makes a good income, locals got someone with a masters degree to bring food to their table for below minimum wage, and the only one who might complain about it is out of the country now.

    7. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    8. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    9. ………I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    10. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

      This is what I do… http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. It’s only a matter of time before Mueller’s investigation removes Drumpf from power. Then we’ll never have to hear about this ridiculous wall idea again. With any luck, the next President will support a sane, rational (IOW, open borders) immigration policy and abolish ICE.

    #NoBanNoWall

    1. Yep. The next president will round up the Drumpfkins. And put them in the detention centers originally intended for the illegals. Of course, I will speak out against this. But I don’t know if Reason will ban me again……

  3. If Dalmia is going to keep saying the same things over and over, I might as well too. Anyway, this deserves a reprise.

    http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=12739

  4. whose temporary protected status>

    The word “illegal” fits in there somewhere, but executive fiat is totes cool when it does something you like.

    1. There’s no such thing as “illegal people”, scum.

      1. “That dude who is living in your house. He isn’t illegally there. He just doesn’t have the proper documents. Don’t ask us to remove him, you bigot”

        1. Don’t you understand that there’s a difference? These people crossed an imaginary line, and it’s wrong to punish them. It’s totally cool to punish them for crossing the imaginary line that supposedly marks your personal property though, because Non-Aggression.

          1. Um…right? Unless you’re claiming some kind of ownership of other people’s property and telling them they can’t invite someone to live or work on it.

            1. This has been extensively discussed in every other Dalmia thread.

              People have the right to associate and form groups yes?

            2. Um…right? Unless you’re claiming some kind of ownership of other people’s property and telling them they can’t invite someone to live or work on it.

              You using helicopters to take them from the border to your specific piece of property?

              I’m betting not.

              1. You using helicopters to take them from the border to your specific piece of property

                That still wouldn’t qualify. They have to cross the border. Short of a teleportation device, whether they do it on the ground, underground, across the water, or in the air, they would still be violating the “imaginary line” that the ancaps disingenuously complain about.

                1. the “imaginary line” that the some ancaps disingenuously complain about

                  Don’t lump all of us in, I think that’s a dumb argument as well for the same reason you do. There can only be so much denial of reality.

                  1. Sparky, you are right. I shouldn’t paint all ancaps with that brush. But it is a peculiarity pretty much limited to anarchists, I think. Certainly there are more reasonable ancaps who have much better ideas and arguments than the few very vocal folks hyperventilating here.

            3. So basically, anyone who owns real estate is a king of his own micro-kingdom and anyone who does not is stateless? A third of Americans do not own a home. Do they have to leave the country if they cannot find someone willing to rent to them or sell to them at a price they can afford?

          2. When governments, on both sides of the line, agree that it exists, it isn’t “imaginary”.
            That’s one of the stupidest arguments ever made.

      2. There’s no such thing as “illegal people”, scum.

        Wow, I may not like them much but I at least recognize that they have a right to exist.

      3. “illegal people”

        I was thinking more along the lines of “whose illegal temporary status”, you know, because it was an e.o. that violated existing law. Trump throws it back to congress for them to make it legal, and HE’s the bad guy…

        1. Additionally, people can do illegal things, like cross national borders in a manner inconsistent with a country’s law.

      4. He’s referring to Obama’s executive order being illegal.

        1. He’s referring to Obama’s executive order being illegal.

          Indeed. OM’s rationality is replaced with emotion when talking immigration.

      5. illegal aliens

      6. You totally missed his point OM.

        But really, no one is saying that “people are illegal” when they use the term “illegal” to describe an immigrant / alien. They are describing the act of their immigration being an illegal act. You know this. You just can’t have a reasonable discussion about this because you can’t contain your natural urge to destroy your host nation. The way your people destroyed their own homeland.

  5. If only there was a wall between the US and India.

    1. I would take a one Indian employee over ten lazy welfare ‘Muricans any day.

      1. I would take ANYONE over a lazy ‘Murican who prefers to shield his mediocrity behind unjustified hubris.

      2. I would take ten lazy anybodies over another Dalmia.

        1. Re: damikesc,

          Whatever gets you off, D. Whatever gets you off.

          1. You know what doesn’t get me off?

            Dalmia.

            Well, it gets me to get up and get some aspirin due to headaches caused by serious eye-rolling.

      3. I would take a one Indian employee over ten lazy welfare ‘Muricans any day.

        I’d be interested to hear about your non-racist selection process.

        Otherwise, I wholly expect you to wind up with an Indian employee that doesn’t speak any language spoken outside India and a “ten lazy welfare ‘Muricans” composed of 2 white guys too old to work, 2 white guys young enough to work, two black guys generally younger than the whites, three hispanics also generally younger than the whites, and an odd asian, native american, or other to make up the difference. Which hardly bodes well for any sort of ‘drowning in lazy, racist white people’ narrative.

        Being clear, I’m not advancing my specific outcome as an ironclad fact as much as pointing out that your “Indian employee vs. ten lazy welfare ‘Muricans” contest either doesn’t make any sort of sense or has passed through some pretty racially-biased filters in your head on it’s way to any sort of sensible fruition.

        1. There is some pretty serious hatred for white people in these immigration threads. It would be amusing if it weren’t just so damn sad.

          Welfare breakdown by race:
          16.8% White (11,405,000)
          39.6% Black (26,844,000)
          21.2% Hispanic (14,392,000
          18% Asian (12,200,000)
          4.4% Other (2,987,000)

          As it turns out, he’s as likely to run into some Indian (dot not feather) immigrants he loves so much who are on welfare than he is whites. And that’s despite the fact that they make up such a small percent of the populace in comparison.

    2. “If only there was a wall between the US and India.”

      Why? We’ve benefited enormously from their brain-trust. And Indians assimilate wonderfully in our society, and make great friends and neighbors.

      1. Plus curry is the shit.

        1. Plus curry is the shit

          FTFY

  6. So he has taken Dreamers hostage to try and extract $20 billion

    1. Try to not try and
    2. I wonder if it’s possible to make this point without being a hyperventilating cunt.

    1. hyperventilating cunt.

      Reminds me of an incident during basic training: Our drill sergeant stop us during march, across from the WAF dorm. The WAF Sergeant(a female) said “When I say attention, I want to hear 50 pussies sucking up wind.” Needless to say, we laughed, which got us another week of KP.

  7. There are an awful lot of non-Mexicans coming across the Southern border, a fact that Shikha ignores.

    I will also point out that Israel completed it’s border barrier across the Sinai and the result was ZERO illegal immigration.

    Hungary also built a fence and the number of illegals crossing that border dropped 99 percent.

    There may be many reasons to oppose the wall, but the idea that it would be ineffective is not one of them.

    1. 39 per 10,000 is equal to 507,000 of 130 million.

  8. A border wall or fence doesn’t have to stop 100% of border crossers to be effective. Israel implemented an effective border fence that has diminished its suicide bomber infiltration to almost zero. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ectiveness

    It is difficult to smuggle human beings compared to drugs, guns or contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can’t be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, weigh 130 lbs or more and take up a lot of space.

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

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

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

    1. Or maybe we just get rid of the welfare that everyone on your side says is a magnet. .

      1. Sure, THAT seems like a much easier fix than a wall. I bet the Democrats will side with a massive cut of welfare and none for illegals with no problems at all.

        1. So, the problem is welfare – a problem created by government.

          And now we’re going to give the government more money and power – to build, maintain, and patrol the wall – to fix the problem caused by government in the first place?

          1. It’s called limiting the damage. Bringing in MORE to use the “safety net” and LATER expecting to restrict it is foolish.

            1. So, let’s end the safety net *now* instead of fighting for a stupid wall that will cost us more, not stop anyone, *and still have to be paying for welfare*.

              Hell, I’ll compromise – get rid of welfare and I’ll be willing to pay for the wall anyway.

              1. Same people who vigorously oppose the wall…also oppose any cuts to welfare.

                So, feel free and work with them.

                Remember, the writers here preferred their candidate over Trump.

              2. I’d love to end welfare too. When you get the Democrats to agree to it, let us know.

      2. Isn’t that the argument that the reasonoids rejected when it came to same-sex marriage.

        The “True Libertarian” solution was to separate marriage and state. But Matt Welch and others argued that this was not achievable, so they adopted the less-libertarian, state-recognized gay marriage with all the attendant free association problems.

        Since there is no way in the current climate to repeal the welfare state (True Libertarian solution) we have to go to half-measures and build the wall.

      3. Many illegals work, so taking away welfare will not keep them from coming.

        The smartest thing open border people could do is let this go. Americans will have their wall and deport as many illegals as we can. After a few years of feeling like our laws are being respected again, Americans will loosen immigration restrictions.

        1. “Many illegals work, so taking away welfare will not keep them from coming.”

          If they work and aren’t on welfare, then why keep them from coming in the first place?

          1. Because they would corrupt the Purity of Essence of America, or something.

            1. Also MAGA

    2. Re: KevinP,

      A border wall or fence doesn’t have to stop 100% of border crossers to be effective

      Israel has a border MUCH shorter than the US-Mexico border.

      then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced[…]

      It’s only a “problem” because anti-immigrant zealots say it is a problem. There’s NO evidence it is a problem. The economy has grown at a great pace thanks to the fact that labor shortages are covered with immigrant workers.

      every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education

      They’re not “entitled”. It’s mandatory, as in “armed agents banging on the door” mandatory. And education is paid by the State through taxes most immigrants pay already.

      An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school.

      You can use that statistic to argue against population growth, for abortion or mass sterilization. I can make the case that immigrants should be spared because they already come willing and able to work, whereas ‘Murican welfare queens spew out children at a HIGHER rate and which taxpayers have to pay for no matter if they go to school or not. The only people making the case for that write for Stormfront, by the way, which I considered to be much less hypocritical than… well, than YOU.

      1. “It’s only a “problem” because anti-immigrant zealots say it is a problem. There’s NO evidence it is a problem. The economy has grown at a great pace thanks to the fact that labor shortages are covered with immigrant workers.”

        See man this is the thing… labor shortages and how to handle them are for citizens to decide in elections. It is not for politicians or bureaucrats to tell people how they need to deal with something, it is not for the UN to tell the United States how to act, is not for Mexico to complain about, they only party that has a right to decide these things are the voters. It cannot be forced, if they decide they do not care if their economy contracts because of labor shortages that is their choice. Japan has done this and it is their prerogative, no other country has the authority to tell Japan they need to take Filipinos or Indonesians or whoever in to fix their labor shortage.

        You believe in theory anyone can and should be able to move and work wherever they want, that borders do not exist. Well, they do and the world you want does not exist at this time. Telling people they have to accept your worldview because it is morally righteous is so anti-democratic I cannot even understand how you can pretend your position is consistent with democracy.

        1. “labor shortages and how to handle them are for citizens to decide in elections.”

          No. Labor shortages and how to handle them are for private employers and private employees to decide upon freely.

          1. “No. Labor shortages and how to handle them are for private employers and private employees to decide upon freely.”

            This is fair. But when borders exist and governments control them, the voting public also has a say in who is available for employers to hire based on who has legal residency. Do you deny the voting public has a right to petition the government to control their nations borders and to decide who is legally allowed to be in their nation?

          2. No. Labor shortages and how to handle them are for private employers and private employees to decide upon freely.

            And the illegal is able to equally make the decision their employer?

            Say their employer decides to not pay them.

            Not sure what they will be able to do to resolve this, given that there will be zero evidence they worked in the first place and all.

            1. Did you forget to switch to your “Tony” handle or what?

              1. damikesc, buybuydan, kivlor, and the rest are nationalist-collectivists. They are all in favor of liberty, but only in pursuit of the greater glory of the Volk. Not sure what they think they will accomplish on a libertarian site.

                1. I think you get me backwards chemjeff. It’s not about the greater glory of the bill for me. It’s about recognizing reality. Different populations have different tendencies and inclinations.

                  I don’t think there is any reason to expect liberty to grow if you replace a (relatively) pro liberty people with a violent pro corruption anti liberty people.

                  I want liberty for my children. Turning America into Mexico or South Africa is not going to advance that for them.

                  1. “I don’t think there is any reason to expect liberty to grow if you replace a (relatively) pro liberty people with a violent pro corruption anti liberty people.”

                    You know what? You’re right. What do you think would happen to this country if we ‘imported’ millions of people from a nation mired in poverty, known for corruption, perpetually on the brink of failure, always fighting with its neighbors, with people who are barely living hand to mouth, in a neo-fedual society? I mean it would be a disaster, right?

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy

                    1. I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Are you implying that I’m in favor of importing millions of Italians?

                  2. That is only partially true.

                    Remember that immigrants self-select. They choose to come to America, because they like something about America.

                2. Keep forgetting that opposing illegal immigration is ACTUALLY akin to the Holocaust.

                  Can’t figure out why Libertarianism is viewed as a mentality for clowns by so many.

                3. Government of, by, and for the people

                  “The people” are citizens of the country, not everyone in the whole damn world.

        2. “Telling people they have to accept your worldview because it is morally righteous is so anti-democratic”

          So are free markets.

          The blue-nose prohibitionist says “My word, you mean I have to tolerate people drinking alcohol on the Sabbath? This must end! End I say! Let’s hold a vote and ban it!”

          1. “The blue-nose prohibitionist says “My word, you mean I have to tolerate people drinking alcohol on the Sabbath? This must end! End I say! Let’s hold a vote and ban it!””

            Yes this is called democracy. It is not a perfect system. You petition for change, you vote, and things happen. Some of them good, some of them bad.

            It is funny you bring this up because we did just this in America, banned alcohol. Luckily DEMOCRACY allowed us to change course and get rid of prohibition, just like democracy in action right now is slowly eroding the marijuana prohibition.

        3. Fuck democracy.

          1. What do you propose we replace it with?

      2. I’m all for a generous immigration policy based on a lottery system open to all countries, but I question the economic necessity of immigration. This article says that Mexico’s economy grew greatly in recent years. Less than 1% of Mexico’s population is foreign born. It’s possible to have a growing economy without immigration. Immigration is a moral good, not an economic necessity.

    3. you also left out the healthcare required to be provided to all illegals regardless of age.

      1. Re: Ron,

        you also left out the healthcare required to be provided to all illegals regardless of age.

        Required? Please. You cannot have government-provided healthcare without a SSN. If you’re talking about EMTALA, that’s the hospitals problem. Besides that, the issue of healthcare costs for immigrants is a red herring because it’s a drop in the bucket. The HIGHEST healthcare costs the taxpayer has to pay for are still generated by the elderly, who have been and always will be the most formidable voting block of all.

        1. Required? Please. You cannot have government-provided healthcare without a SSN.

          Thrilled that none of the illegals have ever stolen SSN cards or used forged ones.

        2. Ever go to the ER? Guess that’s not considered health care right?

          1. That’s DIFFERENT.

            For reasons.

            Also why cities with lots of illegals seem to have a lack of ER capacity.

            More reasons.

          2. But that’s the hospitals problem, don’t you see?
            Those hospitals, complying with federal law, don’t have to recover those costs, because..er, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t have to, except that it is just another, dim-witted, argument from Old Mexican Speedos.
            There needs to be a corollary to Godwin’s Law that covers the first use of racism.
            We could call it the Old Mexican Speedos Law.

        3. You are wrong hospitals are required to take care of anyone who comes to them and that includes illegals, its the law and should be counted since it is a real world expense that cost everyone

  9. Oh, it’s Dalmia. I can safely just read the comments and ignore her “thoughts”

    1. Very entertaining.

  10. Blah, blah, blah, . . .

    Wolf! Wolf!

    One of the advantages of securing our border is that it’s likely to make more people sign on for more open and more legal immigration.

    A critical mass of the American people will only support open and legal immigration at the expense of illegal immigration. If you stayed up all night trying to think of new and better ways to undermine the cause of open and legal immigration, I doubt you could come up with anything more effective than convincing Americans that the border can’t be secured.

    Convince a critical mass of American swing voters that background checks don’t work, and it doesn’t make them want to get rid of background checks. It makes them want to impose gun control on everybody.

    Convince a critical mass of American swing voters that legalized, recreational cannabis shops won’t or can’t eschew sales to minors, and it doesn’t make them want to get rid of the age limit. It makes them want to keep recreational marijuana illegal for everybody.

    Convince a critical mass of American swing voters in crucial swing states that we can’t keep bad apples from coming across our border, and it doesn’t make them decide we shouldn’t even bother trying to secure the border. It makes them want to throw every illegal alien out of the country indiscriminately.

    Try to convince people that securing our border is unpossible (sic), and you might as well be carrying water for the racists.

    P.S. And good intentions don’t count for shit.

    1. But according to the dudes above, it’s important to have undocumented workers to pick strawberries at slave wages to support the high tech industry.

      1. Labor is a resource (like oil only more so) and having more of it available at lower prices is good for economic growth.

        If an abundance of cheap labor were bad for economic growth, then the slowest growing economy over the last 20 years would be China’s.

        My point is that securing the border won’t have the anti-immigration impact most people think. In fact, securing the border is probably a necessary condition before the critical mass of American voters support opening up free and legal immigration.

        It may sound counterintuitive, but it’s true: Achieving the political support necessary for an open borders treaty with Mexico probably depends on securing the border. Open borders means Mexican citizens can cross without a visa–not that we can’t reject wanted criminals, convicted felons, etc. at the border. If the American voters won’t support such a treaty until our border can keep out those that we reject, then the solution isn’t to call them racists.

        The solution is to secure the border.

        1. Re: Ken Shultz

          it’s true: Achieving the political support necessary for an open borders treaty with Mexico probably depends on securing the border.

          It won’t work, and you’re misreading the political motivations behind the support for the wall, which ain’t any remaining love for legal immigrants the recalcitrant may harbor. The motives were clear from the beginning:

          “Mexico sends us people with a lot of problems. They don’t send you, or you. They bring drugs, they bring crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”

          There’s NO question that the politics of the wall are based on simple bigotry. Where’s the proposal for the wall across the US-Canadian border?

          Read what characters like Steven Miller or Tom Cotton are saying. They couldn’t care less about immigrants and the demand for immigrant labor. They want economic autarky.

          1. “you’re misreading the political motivations behind the support for the wall”

            To the extent that people support deporting illegal aliens, it is in part due to their illegal status and the fact that our border isn’t secure.

            Because average people have no control over the border through the government, they try to control immigration through deportation. When background checks fail to stop mass shootings, more people support gun control. How many examples of the same general principle have I given?

            Notice, I’m not saying everyone who opposes illegal immigration does so for the same reasons. Some of them will continue to oppose all immigration regardless of whether the border is secure. Some people support gun control regardless of mass shootings.

            If we’re going to sell an open borders treaty with Mexico to enough Americans that it gets the support of two-thirds of the senate, we’ll need the support of those whose concerns are more about issues that can be addressed by securing the border–at the very least. That’s the easiest fruit to pick! How do you plan to get the necessary support without even getting the easy pickin’s?

            1. “If we’re going to sell an open borders treaty with Mexico to enough Americans that it gets the support of two-thirds of the senate, we’ll need the support of those whose concerns are more about issues that can be addressed by securing the border–at the very least.”

              But that’s not how it’s going to work in practice. You can’t tell me that Trump or the majority of Republicans are for an open southern border as you describe.

              1. Ken’s not talking about convincing Trump. He’s talking about convincing the electorate. And, if you poll most Republican legislators, they will tell you they are for MORE legal immigration. And up until Trump, they were constantly acting on that, trying to increase the number of savages brought in.

                1. Actually, a poll was taken that showed most Americans- Democrats, Independents and those evil Republicans want a cut in legal immigration.

                  Washington Times – 1/22/18 by Harvard

                  The survey asked respondents what level of overall legal immigration they would like to see.

                  A stunning 35 percent said the level should be fewer than 250,000 a year, while another 19 percent said it should be 250,000 to 500,000. Combined, they make up a majority looking for a cut of at least 50 percent over current annual levels. Another 18 percent said they want to see 500,000 to 1 million.

                  Just 19 percent of respondents said they want an increase over 1 million.

                  Mr. Trump hasn’t said recently what legal immigration number he wants to see, but he has been vocal on changing the way the U.S. picks immigrants. He said skills and ability to assimilate in the U.S. should be weighted over extended family ties.

                  The poll says voters agree by a 79 percent to 21 percent margin.

                  That is even bigger than the 77 percent to 23 percent margin that supports legalization for Dreamers.

                  More than 60 percent of voters said current border security is inadequate, and 54 percent said they support “building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border.”

                  1. It isn’t about surveys, though. It’s about elections. It’s about democracy.

                    We elect representatives and send them to congress to do things like set the rules of naturalization, vote on how to spend our tax money, declare wars or not, ratify treaties or not, etc.

                    Immigration is a perfectly legitimate subject for democracy. Not everything is!

                    The First Amendment isn’t subject to democracy. It’s right there in the beginning, “Congress shall make no law . . . ”

                    Immigration isn’t like that. It’s supposed to be voted on by our representatives. And we vote for our representatives depending on where they stand on certain issues–like immigration.

                    1. It isn’t about whether large majorities in California, New York, and Massachusetts have more people who like immigration than people in Arizona and Ohio.

                      We have a bicameral congress, an electoral college predicated on the way those seats are doled out, and we’ve been setting these policies this way for more than 200 years. The “popularity” based on opinion polls is meaningless. The only popularity that does or should matter is the popularity that shows up on election day. If people don’t care enough one way or the other to change their vote over the issue of immigration, then that’s part of it, too.

                      Lots of people say they care about things over the phone–but wouldn’t take the time or effort to send a dollar or show up to vote for one representative or another on election day. If people don’t care enough to vote, that’s part of democracy, too. It doesn’t show up in phone polls.

              2. No, big changes like this don’t happen overnight.

                Neither did GATT, NAFTA, gay marriage, the end of segregation, marijuana legalization, women’s suffrage, the Reformation, or the movement to declare our independence in 1776.

                Jesus of Nazareth'[s ideas dominated the Roman empire, and all he started off with was 12 guys, one of which was a traitor.

                It may not happen while Trump is president, but that doesn’t mean it happening won’t require secure borders. Presidents often don’t foresee the ultimate consequences of their actions.

          2. Again, you will never get the support you need by trying to inflict an unpopular immigration policy on the American people. It would be like when they imposed an unpopular carbon tax on the Australian people. The next election, they got rid of the government that imposed the tax, and the first thing the new government did was get rid of the carbon tax.

            We live in a democracy, this is an issue that’s well within the proper purview of democracy; it’s even enumerated to congress in the Constitution. The Supreme Court isn’t about to declare immigration law fundamentally unconstitutional. There is no getting around winning the hearts and minds of the people around you, and those probably can’t be won without addressing their concerns.

        2. “””then the slowest growing economy over the last 20 years would be China’s.”””

          Yeah the Communist Party of China shows us how it is done!!!!

          If only the US had at least 1/3 of its economy directly owned by the Communist Government and another 1/3 owned by by family and friends of the Communist Government

          Plus having a secret police to keep unions and workers from protesting.

          1. If China’s economy has out grown the rest of the world economy over the past 20 years, it isn’t because of planning by the Chinese Communist Party.

            It’s because they had an abundance of cheap labor.

            For the time being, I’ll continue to assume you can make these associations without my help.

            1. That and free market works if you let it.

              The CCP relaxation of certain parts of their economy was because even commies know that free market makes everyone rich.

        3. Importing cheap labor is good for those who purchase labor and bad for those who sell their labor.

          Not rocket science.

          Why should immigration policy be used to harm the mass of workers to benefit the mass of employers?

        4. Umm…..we don’t really know what the Chinese economy is like.

          We do know that most of the people live like peasants though.

          I’m not sure the economy of a communist slave-state, however rhetorically prettied up, is a valid comparison.

      2. Yes, so much better for these people to have no work at all. Very Marxian of you – to be able to see so clearly what is in their best interests (and with no thought to what benefits you) better than they can.

    2. Re: Ken Shultz,

      A critical mass of the American people will only support open and legal immigration at the expense of illegal immigration.

      That’s like saying they will support open bars at the expense of illegal booze. Why is there illegal booze to begin with?

      The reason why there’s “illegal” immigration is precisely because there’s a virtual prohibition on immigration which has gotten worse over the years, as more border enforcement with LESS access to legal pathways and an increase in artificial hurdles and complications raises the cost for an immigrant to the point where the risk of “jumping the fence” becomes less onerous. That’s called a BLACK MARKET, in Economics.

      And securing the border IS impossible. It was impossible when it came to alcohol, it is impossible when it comes to drugs and it will certainly be impossible when it comes to people. It is just going to be increasingly MORE violent, that’s all.

      1. “That’s like saying they will support open bars at the expense of illegal booze. Why is there illegal booze to begin with?

        If bars and liquor stores sold alcohol to minors with impunity, the support for opening more bars and liquor stores in your area would fall off.

        I’ve seen occupancy permits and conditional use permits rejected by local governments based on such concerns.

        I made my point about why that relationship is what it is, now with, what, four different examples?

        An open borders treaty with Mexico would require two-thirds of the senate for ratification. To achieve that kind of political support from voters, we’ll need a hell of a lot more support than we have now.

        . . . even if you wanted to avoid the whole treaty process and simply change the rules of naturalization, to get a simple majority and a president who will stick his neck out and sign those rules, you need more political support than you have now.

        That immigration, naturalization, etc is within the proper purview of democracy seems a hard thing for you to accept. Even if you can’t accept that, you should at least accept that a critical mass of Americans resent having an unpopular immigration policy imposed on them by the federal government, and the more you insist on cutting them out of the process, the more they will resist your push for open and legal immigration.

        1. Whether you want the relationship between illegal and legal immigration to be a trade off is, of course, different from whether that’s what it is. We don’t generally oppose the legalization of marijuana because it hurts the freedom of the black market–in part because we recognize that it’s a trade off. If you want people to stop being deported for being illegal, then you want more legal immigration.

          1. Ken,
            It’s talking to Old Mex off his Meds is like trying to teach a baby otter not to rape…not possible sir.

    3. So sayeth Trump’s libertarian press officer: Ken Huckabee Shultz.

      1. Reading my argument for open borders and concluding that I’m anti-immigration like Trump makes you look especially stoopid.

        1. You are articulate, thoughtful and project an air of nuance. You are also willing to go to great lengths to polish a turd. He really should hire you (if he hasn’t already).

      2. Ken articulates this issue pretty well. IIRC he is for more open borders anyway.

        Trump is good for the USA right now. Deal with it.

        1. I defend Trump’s policies to the extent that they are libertarian and capitalist.

          I condemn his policies to the extent that they are anti-libertarian and anti-capitalist.

          Trump has done some amazingly pro-libertarian things over the past year–and I give him a lot of credit for that.

          For someone to win my endorsement for president over Trump, they’ll just need to show that they’re more libertarian than trump on various issues.

          Rand Paul disappointed me mightily when he voted against cutting $1.022 trillion in entitlement spending–after Trump promised to sign that bill, too.

          I can’t imagine anyone from the Democrats being more libertarian than Trump–I expect the contenders to run to the left of Bernie Sanders for the nomination, by which I mean socialist as hell.

          Any libertarian who opposes cutting the corporate tax by 40% or deregulation so long as Trump is the one doing it is failing a number of tests for rationality. My objection to being accused of supporting Trump because he’s Trump is that the accusation is fundamentally false. To the extent I support him, it’s because the things he’s done are libertarian and capitalist.

          1. Re: Ken Shultz,

            I defend Trump’s policies to the extent that they are libertarian and capitalist.

            So far the only libertarian thing he has done is cut regulation. Not even his much touted “tax cuts” are something to shout about, but regulation cutting is indeed the greatest improvement in government this country has seen in many decades since Jimmy Carter.

            His other policies, on the other hand, do the exact contrary to further the cause of liberty and only serves to give the left more anti-Capitalist pabulum. All thanks to the p…y-grabber and Racial Expert-in-chief. His protectionist policies are based on economic idiocy; his immigration views are founded on a racial-preference bedrock and his views on trade are so way off the mark that one would not be faulted for guessing he’s insane. Not to mention the Stormy Daniels-in-a-tea cup he created for himself.

            Any libertarian who opposes cutting the corporate tax by 40% or deregulation so long as Trump is the one doing it is failing a number of tests for rationality.

            I am in agreement with that but I dare you find one libertarian who is against reducing the Corporate Rate *only* because the p…y-grabber and Racial Expert-in-chief promoted it.

            1. I can think of a whole list of things he’s done that are pro-libertarian.

              He got rid of the individual insurance mandate and the employer mandate.

              What about his position on net neutrality?

              He’s gutted the enforcement division at the Department of Education, which oversees the implementation of Title IX.

              Signing a bill that cuts the corporate tax rate by 40% is a biggy, even if the bill wasn’t perfect.

              I disagree with Trump on immigration and free trade, especially.

              He’s wrong on some issues.

              He’s done things that are amazingly pro-libertarian on other issues.

              For instance, I think Trump is right to work to secure the border. I think he’s wrong to secure the border in hope of stopping immigration.

              If I say I opposed Barack Obama, it’s because I can only think of one issue I agreed with him on. Apart from that, Obama wasn’t a mixed bag at all. Even a broken clock tells perfect time twice a day. Obama only did it twice in eight years.

              Even then, I could only give him high marks for some things and low marks for others. He raided state legal medical marijuana dispensaries hundreds of times during his first term. He later implemented an order to not prosecute distributors if they were complying with state law. He gets good marks for some things. Bad marks for others. That’s the way intellectual honesty works.

              Intellectually honest people recognize and address the good things about the politicians and issues they oppose . . . even when it’s Trump.

    4. Yeah, I think we might get a better, more generous immigration policy after there is a wall to make the average voter feel more secure. Most voters do not decide on an issue by starting with first principles.

  11. This is hilarious, top five favorite blatant distortion of the truth moment in recent memory.

    “even mortal enemies like India and Pakistan don’t have such structures between them.”

    That is because they have much more effective ways to deter rando Pakistanis or Indians from entering their rival countries to include but not limited too:
    – Terrorist group proxies such as Lakshar-e-Taiba
    – Border Rangers
    – Artillery bombardments of border cities
    – Lynchings
    – Random murders
    – Intermittent shootouts between border forces
    – The Himalayas
    – Judicial branches happy to execute people suspected of spying

  12. If you want an orderly influx of humanity we need a secure border and the wall will help with that.

    Ever try to fill a bucket with water at full speed it never fills it only spills and leaves a mess you must let the water in slowly or else you only create waste and problems

    1. Re: Ron,

      If you want an orderly influx of humanity we need a secure border and the wall will help with that.

      That’s not even close to what’s going on, Ron. The wall is not going to deter immigrants, except the meeker ones. And you have a woefully distorted notion of what the legal immigration system looks like. Byzantine is but putting it mildly.

      Immigration should be something the Market can regulate perfectly, just like everything else. The problem of undocumented immigrants would disappear very quickly, as people would only come if they have a guaranteed invitation. Since employers and renters are precluded from ADVERTISING their needs, you then have such an information asymmetry that encourages the creation of a black market. If immigrants knew before hand that they can get the job, or NOT get the job, the situation would be much different.

      1. That’s not even close to what’s going on, Ron. The wall is not going to deter immigrants, except the meeker ones. And you have a woefully distorted notion of what the legal immigration system looks like. Byzantine is but putting it mildly.

        “Palestinians” are pretty determined to attack Israel. Walls seemed to stop that quite effectively.

      2. Byzantine maybe but its not an excuse to not have a wall to temper the movements and once a wall is built then real legal immigration reform can begin because without control you will only continue to have larger illegal immigration problem. make the problem small and it becomes easier to deal with on all levels from the legal to illegal and it will never happen without control and that control is a gate with walls with actual people monitoring it.

  13. Strict border security is a type of prohibition, on labor. Prohibitions never work in the long run. Isn’t that one of the Libertarian Party’s signature issues?

    Alcohol prohibition didn’t make the booze go away.
    Drug prohibition doesn’t make the pot go away.
    And labor prohibition doesn’t make the migrants go away.

    1. Prohibitions do not work, so teach people why and petition the government for change. This does not mean ignore law and order and actively promote illegal activity just because you do not personally agree with the law.

    2. Unfortunately for you, rule of law and property rights more fundamental principles of Libertarianism than some of your international labor pool is not allowed into the sovereign USA. You can still hire any American you would like to.

      Guess what you also cannot do under Libertarianism? Steal a truck to drive your laborers over someone else’s property because you want to build a giant hotel on a vacant lot for your Mexican workers.

      Threatening to put up a wall sure did put a dent in illegal labor, huh? Haha.

      1. Re: loveconstitution1789,

        Unfortunately for you, rule of law and property rights more fundamental principles of Libertarianism

        Borders have nothing to do with Private Property rights. Borders are imaginary lines on a map placed there by conquerors. Border protection is merely the projection of State power over the territory it purports to control, not unlike mobster families.

        And “Rule of Law” means something different to Trumpistas than it does to libertarians. The only law *I* recognize is Natural Law, individual rights, gifts from God if you will. You’re talking about using the State to further YOUR agenda.

        1. Go walk across the “imaginary” line of Mexico without permission. Tell me how that works out for you. #penpalfromthehoosegow

          1. Re: Bacon-Magic glib reasonoind,

            Go walk across the “imaginary” line of Mexico without permission.

            Without WHOSE permission?

            If you’re talking about the government’s, then let me tell you that government force legitimizes that border as much as a mobster family’s threats legitimizes their territorial claim.

            You should really stop showcasing your penchant for red herrings and Non Sequiturs, whoeveryouare.

            1. So, not going to just walk across the border without permission?

              Hell, go there and PROTEST their immigration policy.

              It’s your “natural right” and all, so surely, they cannot stop you.

              Right?

              1. Re: damikesc,

                So, not going to just walk across the border without permission?

                WHOSE PERMISSION?

                they cannot stop you.

                You mean the government? The government acts above the law always. That’s a given.

                1. But its your RIGHT!

                  Lofty rhetoric trumps reality, amirite?

                  Hint: Natural rights mean shit if your government doesn’t protect them. And only one government is pretty solid about protecting them.

                  It’s not Mexico.

                  1. Seriously, did you forget which handle was which? Because these really sound like Tony comments.

                    Also, fuck off.

                    1. The lefty sock puppets are having a real tough time lately.

                    2. Are you…pretending I don’t know you’re one of their fellow sockpuppets?

                    3. Seriously, did you forget which handle was which? Because these really sound like Tony comments.

                      Also, fuck off.

                      Nah, I have your mom for that.

                      America is special because we do respect (imperfectly, but still) natural rights as the rest of humanity is anxious to do away with them.

                      And if you’re in a country that doesn’t respect them, natural rights don’t do a damned thing for you. Sorry if reality is a bitch.

                      Government doesn’t give you rights. But it is astonishingly effective at suppressing them.

          2. It works pretty well. Except for the American Border Patrol hassling you in Mexico because they don’t know where the border actually ends.

            I can step south across that line in the desert and the only people who would freak out about it are the *American* police forces.

            1. Re: Agammamon,

              I can step south across that line in the desert and the only people who would freak out about it are the *American* police forces.

              Mexican Federales do harass people at the southern border whenever they can but they’re as scarce as a hooker with a heart of gold. Only in the US do government-dwellers obsess about people wanting to enter the US to seek opportunities, work, be productive and provide for their families, and so they keep a veritable army of thuggish tax-consumers who commit even more offenses against individual rights than police officers who couldn’t care less about what BlackLivesMatter think of them.

              1. “Only in the US do government-dwellers obsess about people wanting to enter the US to seek opportunities, work, be productive and provide for their families”

                LOL. Yeah I am sure the Germans are sure pro-unlimited immigration, it must be why Alternative For Duetschland is now the third biggest party in the Bundestag, why Hungary/Romania/Poland have absolutely refused to accept any refugees or migrants, why Austria just elected a 31 year old politician who has zero interest in accepting any migrant, why Italy complains incessantly about their huge problem with North African migrants, why Brexit happened, why Japan is 99.999999% Japanese with no openings for immigrants, why Australia puts their migrants in an offshore island and refuses to let them come to Australia. Yes, this is uniquely an American problem, definitely.

                Which country on Earth do you think wants open borders, unlimited immigration, and no control over who comes in? Name me a single one. Please.

                1. So funny how no one ever mentions this in their arguments! Go to Europe and turn on the t.v. –
                  it’s nothing but the crisis of Syrian refugees. People think it’s all about the big, bad U.S. keeping the ‘people wanting to enter the US to seek opportunities, work, be productive and provide for their families’ out. Someone has clearly seen too many single mother migrant worker vs the overweight redneck memes.

              2. BlackLivesMatter is a racist organization. Stupid Mexifuck.

        2. Aw Mexican, if you have not read the multiple Libertarian comments about the United States have sovereign property rights over all its territory which Congress drafts legislation for and the Executive enforces, not sure how people are going to stop laughing at you.

          I dare you to strut your Natural law on my property with a gun and see what happens.

          The Libertarian agenda is to use a small and limited state to further the US Constitution and protect your rights. Unfortunately for you the Constitution limits your imagined right to go wherever and do whatever you want, so Congress can regulate naturalization and immigration into the USA. Article I, Sec 8 & 9.

          1. Re: loveconstitution1789,

            Aw Mexican, if you have not read the multiple Libertarian comments about the United States have sovereign property rights[…]

            Ah, Trumpista, if you have not realized that there are NO such things as Collective rights and thus the United States own nothing.

            Unless you want to tell me that you’re a Communist. Are you, Trumpista? A Communist?

            Because I’m not. And so, I don’t recognize sovereign property rights of any nation. Only individual humans of will possess property.

            I dare you to strut your Natural law on my property with a gun and see what happens.

            Your property is not the same as this “sovereign property” you claim the US has. Your property is yours, an individual. My property is mine, an individual. “WE” don’t own shit *together*, so fuck you.

            1. “Your property is not the same as this “sovereign property” you claim the US has. Your property is yours, an individual.”

              What’s more, the conservatives in libertarian clothing would have the government define who you can freely associate with on your own individual property. Ain’t that a statist kick in the head.

              1. You can do whatever you want on your property. As long as the illegal is only on YOUR property. Which makes GETTING to your property a challenge, to be sure.

                1. I own the roads, as part of this so-called collective property that you guys keep bringing up. Can’t I grant my illegal immigrant friend access to my portion of the roads? Oh, I’m sorry, I meant “muh roadz”.

                  1. I own the roads, as part of this so-called collective property that you guys keep bringing up.

                    Ah, so there’s no ‘collective’ property when its inconvenient for your case, but there IS ‘collective’ property when it works in your favor.

                    Right there is the formulation that tells you that you’re in the wrong. Without any need to even get to specifics.

            2. Corporations are merely collectives of individuals. Apparently in OMS’s mind companies can’t own property because reasons.

              Dude, you are a like a living talking meme in support of the alt right. “I am become non-aggression therefore more Immigrants”

          2. “Congress can regulate naturalization and immigration into the USA. Article I, Sec 8 & 9.”

            Once again, you’re at least partially right, but I won’t beat that dead horse anymore.

        3. “The only law *I* recognize is Natural Law, individual rights, gifts from God if you will.”

          You could legitimately substitute the words “Natural Law” for sharia or the Ten Commandments or any other absolutist tripe people believe in. I am fairly certain Roy Moore said something almost word for word the same you said about the Bible and God’s Law.

        4. “Borders have nothing to do with Private Property rights. Borders are imaginary lines on a map placed there by conquerors. ”

          Ah, you’re all about principals, not principles. Got it.

    3. Border security is a travel restriction. Possibly also a residency restriction. It may impede the free flow of labor, but so do things like driver licenses, employment taxation, and workplace safety laws.

      Your argument is one big red herring that only applies in the most absolutist terms.

      1. Or, can we now accept that you reject all workplace safety law in the interests of libertarianism?

      2. Re: ThomasD,

        Border security is a travel restriction.

        You don’t even know your own laws….

        Border security is not mear “travel restriction”. Even a person with the ‘right’ paper to come in is not allowed to seek employment. It is in essence a Labor Prohibition, whether you want to think otherwise or not.

        workplace safety laws

        Do you like to look like a nitwit? Workplace safety laws are NOT labor restrictions and they do NOT apply to all places where labor is used.

        Nor is employment taxation. And driver licenses only restrict the use of public roads, not private roads. It’s only a restriction to operate a machine. Instead, Immigration Laws impose a *prohibition* on people.

        1. Workplace safety laws are not employment restrictions???

          And it’s darn tough to be a UPS driver without a CDL…

          You may not like the argument but your silly hand waving and insults won’t make any of it go away.

          1. Explaining how taxation is a disincentive is probably beyond your capacity for understanding.

    4. Alcohol prohibition didn’t make the booze go away.

      It dropped to 30% of its pre-prohibition levels nearly immediately and, even with prohibition effectively ignored in large cities, remained at 70% at highest of its pre-prohibition levels until repeal.

      For its faults, one cannot claim that prohibition didn’t significantly curtail alcohol usage.

      1. So why aren’t you in favor of alcohol prohibition then? Think of all the lives which would be saved from no more DUI’s! Think of all the victims of alcohol-related crime who would no longer be victims! And you said yourself, alcohol consumption did decrease when we had Prohibition! So, bring it all back then? Maybe with different Top Men in charge?

        1. So why aren’t you in favor of alcohol prohibition then?

          Noting a terrible policy was effective doesn’t negate it being an effective policy.

          Please, tell me why I’d support it. I don’t drink personally, but freedom isn’t “whatever Mike does”.

          Think of all the lives which would be saved from no more DUI’s!

          It’d be lovely, wouldn’t it? Not having them die. But, for the same reason I oppose banning abortion, I oppose this.

          Think of all the victims of alcohol-related crime who would no longer be victims! And you said yourself, alcohol consumption did decrease when we had Prohibition! So, bring it all back then? Maybe with different Top Men in charge?

          Seriously, were you born a fucking idiot or did you have to work at it?

    5. It is difficult to smuggle human beings compared to drugs, guns or contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can’t be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, weigh 130 lbs or more and take up a lot of space.

  14. Only a very tall border wall can save us from undocumented alien asteroids

    https://tinyurl.com/y96sdvdj

    1. That or Uranus.

  15. All of this is borne out by Mexico’s emigration data. In 2006, 144 out of every 10,000 Mexicans were leaving the country for better climes. In 2015, that number had dropped to 39 per 10,000.

    Maybe you could address the following points in a follow-up article.

    1. That’s still 39 out of 10,000 – when American immigration policy allows roughly 1 out of 1,000,000 to enter legally. Those opposed are still going to want the wall because that’s still almost half a million immigrants per year.

    2. And they’re going to want to know about more than just Mexican immigration. Sure, life in Mexico is looking up. What about life in Honduras? Guatemala? What about ‘through-country’ immigration where people from further south are sneaking in to Mexico and then moving north to the US? Those opposed are still going to want the wall to stop *these* people.

    3. That demographic change – is it country-wide? Or is it in the urbanized? Life (and families) can be very different between the cities and the rancho. City dwellers might be only having 1 child per couple while the rural dwellers might still be having that 7. And the rural kids will then still feel pressure to move – either to the city (if there’s work for them) or north.

  16. “More Mexicans are leaving than coming to America.”

    Great. DACA illegals should have plenty of company on the bus ride out.

    1. Some here want to provide that people who want illegal immigrants to leave are not all racist assholes and you went ahead and shot down that notion, B.

      Clap. Clap. Clap. Bravo.

      Not all DACA people are from Mexico. Idiot.

      1. Most are, so the laugh works.

        1. “Being able to count is so racist”

      2. ‘Mexican’ is not a race.

        You’d think someone who posts under the name ‘Old Mexican’ would know that.

  17. “Dreamers are folks who were brought to this country as minors illegally but have grown up as Americans”

    An empirical claim.

    What does “grown up as Americans” mean to you, and how have you verified that all these illegal aliens satisfy that standard?

    How many of these illegal aliens can tell me about Thomas Paine’s books?

    America is more than a set of longitudes and latitudes.

    1. Re: buybuydandavis,

      What does “grown up as Americans” mean to you

      It means going to school, to college, work and be productive or join the military. Unlike some ‘Muricans who insist that their mediocrity is the result of “Dem Immigruntz Who Takum Er Jebz!”

      1. It means going to school, to college, work and be productive or join the military.

        So, toss all who don’t do that?

        What other “Dreamers” do not qualify?

        1. Re: damikesc,

          So, toss all who don’t do that?

          That would be cruel. What will other countries do with all those ‘Muricans?

          1. So, you advocate deporting citizens en masse?

            So, your issue isn’t the unfairness of immigration policy…it’s just that Mexicans might be caught up in it. Interesting.

      2. “It means going to school, to college, work and be productive or join the military”

        They do that sort of thing in a lot of countries around the world.

        But thanks for playing.

    2. How many of these illegal aliens can tell me about Thomas Paine’s books?

      How many Americans would know *the name* Thomas Paine, let alone that he wrote a book.

      If anything, its *you*, by being able to do this, that are out of step with America!

      1. The Wall in exchange for deporting dumbfuck white people! Compromise!

        1. Naw. The left is not in charge…..so….no deal.

        2. The Wall in exchange for deporting dumbfuck white people! Compromise!

          Should we buy a good-bye gift for Tony?

      2. How many Americans would know *the name* Thomas Paine, let alone that he wrote a book.

        More to the point: How many (natural-born) Americans know who Thomas Paine is, have read his work, and reject it? Are they not “real Americans” because they disagree ideologically with you?

        1. You’re the only one with the “ideology” (or should I say, “idiotology”) in your echochamber, ChemJeff.

          You can’t be an American and reject someone such as Thomas Paine and not want this nation that you take for granted destroyed. Dumbfuck.

          Paine helped articulate not some “ideology”, but a philosophy.

          1. “The United States should be an asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty.”
            Thomas Paine

            “Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular.”
            Thomas Jefferson

            “I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”
            George Washington

            1. An asylum for the lovers of liberty. I’m all for it.

              And how many of the DACA illegals are “lovers of liberty”?

              That’s the problem. The tradition of liberty is strongest in the US. Bring in people from other countries, and that tradition is diluted.

              We have no magic dirt to turn people into lovers of liberty.

              When people immigrate, their politics immigrate with them. Import politics from shitholes, make the US more like a shithole.

            2. “The United States should be an asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty.”
              Thomas Paine

              Absolutely–and it should be a fortress walled against the lovers of collectivism and statism.

              “Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular.”
              Thomas Jefferson

              And understanding that neither you, nor we, shall be happy if you come here, welcomed by us, with the intent of undermining all that we hold dear, of imposing upon us, a free people, the strictures of the horrific place you left in your wake

              “I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”
              George Washington

              And an armed and dangerous castle to preserve freedom against those whose disdain for it takes the form of invasion

              1. “Absolutely–and it should be a fortress walled against the lovers of collectivism and statism.”

                Bingo.

                People always gloss over the liberty part of these quotes.

                Even the Statue of Liberty poem, which is not law and selected by some committee, still *qualifies* those teaming masses as “yearning to breathe free”.

                If you’re not yearning to breathe free, stay the hell out.

      3. Which is to say that the Anglosphere tradition of Liberty is dying in the US.

        Which is true enough.

        Love “libertarians” who want to put a stake through it’s heart.

  18. If anybody is holding the “dreamers” hostage, it’s the Democrats. If they were willing to agree to a bill that combines DACA with real border security, it would pass in a heartbeat. The latest polling shows that Americans want DACA AND border security.

    But they’re using the “dreamers” as hostages to block border security, because they’re counting on the flood of illegal immigrants to eventually give them demographic victory over the pesky people who already live here.

    The “dreamers” are expendable, so long as they can keep the border porous.

    1. There is no such thing as ‘real border security’ short of a wall, armed guards authorized to use lethal force against immigration crimes, internal borders and checkpoints, internal visas, travel permission, mandatory ID.

      You want to stop illegal immigration then you need to be willing to submit to a police state to do it.

      And even the historical police states couldn’t eliminate it fully.

      1. Would you call Australia a police state? They used to stick their illegal aliens in offshore islands, not let a single one set foot in Australia to try and dis-incentivize illegal immigration.

        They sure must hate foreigners, must be why the stick immigrants in Nauru and Manus. Oh wait it is ILLEGAL immigrants they put in Nauru and Manus. Shit. My bad guys. They are the worst kind of xenophobes, just like them piece of shit Americans.

        Fun fact: Australia is 28.2% foreign born. Fucking xenophobes.

        1. Are you from that island nation, you pile of shit kangaroo cock sucker?

          Fun fact: The United States of America isn’t Australia. Bitchtard.

        2. How many illegal immigrants drive, swim, or walk to Australia?

          You’ve got a moat. We don’t.

      2. “Japan is such a hellhole”

  19. The Wall was always a retarded child’s solution to the alleged problem of over-immigration, assuming retarded children can’t understand the concept of overstayed visas and only see immigration in terms of swarthy men running across desert borders.

    But immigration rhetoric stays the same regardless of rates of immigration, the economic situation, or any other factor. It only increases in hysteria, finding totally unobjectionable policies that might treat brown people with a modicum of decency and putting them in the “amnesty” bucket. (Amnesty is bad, you see.) That’s how you know it’s about ace-ray and absolutely nothing else.

    1. Aw Tony. I know its been rough lately with all the good news for Trump and all the bad news for lefties.

      Buck up little camper.

    2. Well, since the last estimate I saw said ~60% didn’t overstay their visa, that is a non-trivial, majority percentage that are illegally crossing.

      Don’t get me wrong, it won’t fix the 40%. And that needs fixed too.

    3. Re: Tony,

      But immigration rhetoric stays the same regardless of rates of immigration, the economic situation, or any other factor.

      The latest trope that anti-immigrant zealots bring up is this urgency to “Protect Our Precious Bodily Culture, commander Mandrake!”, looking as equally deranged as General Jack D. Ripper when saying it. It is but a canard, self-contradictory at best. If the culture is as fragile as they think, then what’s the point of protecting it? If instead they trust the culture is robust, then what the fuck are the worrying about?

      You can add that one to the list of well-worn justifications for their hatred towards immigrants, along with “Dem Immigruntz Takum Er Jebz!” and “Dem Immigruntz Takum Er Welfare!”.

      1. Oh, I had no idea Dalmia posted in the comments so much.

        1. Sad how calling a commenter one of the staff writers is an insult at Reason.

      2. But what about rational responses to the concept, explicit or implicit, of “open borders” that you’re advocating? That’s not hatred. Unless you mean your own hatred of truthful and intelligent responses to the subject at hand.

      3. What we need are incentives to get Americans to move to Mexico en masse.

        That way we can de-shitholeize the country by swamping their distorted version of Spanish culture with our, American culturophagic ideals.

        Give us ten years and there won’t be an illegal immigration problem because the Mexicans will be glad to stay in an Americanized Mexico–particularly if we can assure them that we’ll keep Mexican politicians away from the levers of power.

    4. Amnesty which leads to illegal (oh, sorry, “undocumented”) immigrants is, in fact, very bad, you see.

    5. As a good li’l Democrat, you’re not allowed to use the phrase “retarded child(ren)”, Tony.

    6. “Walls don’t work. I live in a pasture. Moo.”

    7. “only see immigration in terms of swarthy men running across desert borders.”

      Um … That is like calling opponents of the Iraq War racist because they never complain about Indonesian troops in Iraq. About half the illegal immigrants in America are from Mexico. A wall on the border with Mexico is worth considering given that statistic.

  20. “America’s economy over the last several decades has been built on the backs of Hispanic migrants” who consistently voted to expand the size and scope of government power at every opportunity. The United States would be much more libertarian in outlook today if, rather than importing millions of unskilled, uneducated laborers to do “jobs that Americans simply don’t want to do,” we instead had pared back the welfare state so that millions of unskilled, uneducated Americans would have an incentive to do those jobs.

    1. Big thumbs-up, Martiandawn.

    2. True.

  21. To all of those that believe in open borders:

    If you truly believe in open borders, then remove all of the locks you have on your personal residence, eliminate the need for keys to our car, unsecure EVERYTHING you have and own. Then, and only then will I take your seriously.

  22. “More Mexicans are leaving than coming to America.”

    THANK GOD!

  23. People who believe in open borders are like people who believe that their body’s skin is worthless. A nation’s borders are a nation’s skin. Imagine your body without its skin: regardless of its color, your dead within minutes.

    1. They’re anarchists

      Government is bad, m’kay?

  24. *…you’re dead…

    Sorry for the typo.

  25. Oh look, a brown person writes about how stupid the wall is. Imagine the look of shock on my face.

  26. ” In a rational world, the president wouldn’t be wasting…” assumes that there is no rational reason for Trump’s rhetoric (if not yet actions). But I have an acquaintance who wholeheartedly believes in this nonsense. To outward appearances he is seemingly intelligent. I don’t know the reason for his mistaken belief, but there is no arguing with him.

    He and other fools like him are Trump’s targets; the Donald obviously believes that they will put him back in the White House. More than likely, as other people who naively hoped that Trump would indeed “drain the swamp” and supported him, will not be fooled again.

    I, BTW, wasn’t one of those but my favorite, Gary Johnson, didn’t stand a chance in the rigged game.

    1. Just say that you voted for Hillary. It’s okay.

    2. Speaking of Gary Johnson, those anarchists near Aleppo made the elimination of borders a core principle in their revolution.

  27. The Mexicans should build the wall, with gates every couple of miles or so, and about 10 feet into Mexico. That way they can control who they let through the wall and when they let them through, and Mr. Trump can go beat on his drum.

    1. That’d be fine.

    2. I would accept that plan.

    3. “and Mexico will pay for it”

  28. ” in jobs that Americans simply don’t want to do”. What was food stamp, TANF, Medicaid, and Social Security Disability enrollment doing at this time?
    Stupid white people used to do those jobs. What changed?
    Harry Browne advocated open borders if you took down the “Free Lunch” sign.

    1. What is a “Restrictionist”? Someone who is willing to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”?[

    2. Then he was foolish

      Let them in, let them vote, and they’ll put the sign back up. And lots of other signs contrary to freedom.

      1. Vote? Who said vote?

  29. Record $135 billion a year for illegal immigration, average $8,075 each, $25,000 in NY

    Quote:
    The swelling population of illegal immigrants and their kids is costing American taxpayers $135 billion a year, the highest ever, driven by free medical care, education and a huge law enforcement bill, according to the the most authoritative report on the issue yet.

    And despite claims from pro-illegal immigration advocates that the aliens pay significant off-setting taxes back to federal, state and local treasuries, the Federation for American Immigration Reform report tallied just $19 billion, making the final hit to taxpayers about $116 billion.

  30. The USA accepts more LEGAL immigrants than all other nations of the world, combined. From 1923 to 1965 only a tiny trickle of legal immigration was allowed and illegals were regularly deported. It was thought in that period that America needed a respite to absorb and assimilate massive immigration which occurred pre-1923.

    Allowing massive illegal immigration (Obama’s effectively open borders policy) relieves pressure on nations which export people to (1) make necessary economic reforms in order that their nation become more like the USA and other first world nations, and (2) increase their own social welfare spending. Why should they, when they can export their needy ones to the USA?

    More than anything, THE WALL has become a political symbol. Symbols are useful memes. This symbol will say that Trump delivers what he promises. It may arrive with some modifications and unexpected features, but you look around one day and there it is, whatever it may be.

  31. Spend a winter in Erie, PA, and you’ll look upon moving to Mexico as an escape to paradise. Roofs caved in under 6′ of snow and ice.

  32. DACA numbers presently exceed 3.5 Million, that’s quite an increase from the original 800,000 claimed

  33. This article is based upon an obsolete 2012 PEW Research study.

    Mexican illegal immigration downturn was strongly suspected to be from US economic downturn beginning in 2007. Obama-level illegal immigration is occurring again on the border; half are from Mexico and the rest from Central and South America, China, Pakistan, India and others. Fewer Mexicans are coming because they used to account for 75% of illegal border immigration; however, total numbers are the same. Our economy is again a big draw, including for terrorists.

    Cartels control illegal immigration. They charge all coyotes to cross, who in turn charge each illegal more. They rape girls and women and kidnap the most beautiful. They force able-bodied men into becoming drug mules. Illegals are assaulted unmercifully on all levels and oftentimes left to die..

    Cartels control 20 miles into the US in many areas (per Border Patrol). Over 200,00 people have been murdered south of the border and more than 30,000 missing since the start of 2007. That’s more than war deaths that have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan during the same period. There is a world-class war on our border!

    Drugs pour across the border. Every Border Patrol officer will tell you that wherever we’ve constructed a portion of wall, drug smuggling and illegal crossings dropped tremendously. The wall works – ask our Border Patrol and Israel.

  34. Only about 1/3 of the border jumpers are from Mexico. This article is deceptive.

  35. The reason.com comment section:

    Where white nationalists, half-educated goobers, superstitious yahoos, authoritarian prudes, economically inadequate rubes, rural losers, and other right-wingers congregate to call themselves libertarians.

  36. Spoken like a true Democrat that doesn’t live in California. You also haven’t listened to him about what kind of a wall and surveillance he talked about. It seems you also know nothing about making deals.

  37. Everyone keeps saying that, but experience “on the street” begs the question: Is It True?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.