DACA

Trump and GOP Nativists Are Preparing to Screw Dreamers

Their poison pill demands are making a deal nearly impossible.

|

The only thing bleaker than the Michigan winter right now is the prospect of Congress actually agreeing on a fix for Dreamers before the current

Dreamer Protest
LUCY NICHOLSON/REUTERS/Newscom

government-funding bill that the Senate passed last weekend expires in two weeks. Republican nativists are gearing to demand several pounds of immigrant flesh in exchange for leaving Dreamers unmolested, which will make a deal neither tenable—nor desirable.

To say that this administration has been a nightmare on immigration would be an understatement. Trump has escalated America's War on Immigration on every front. He declared open season on millions of undocumented workers right off the bat when he scrapped, without much political hue and cry, the Obama-era policy of limiting deportation action to criminal aliens while leaving others alone. Since then, ICE has been rounding up folks on the flimsiest of pretexts—and sometimes without any pretext at all—whenever and wherever it can lay hands on them, even in "sensitive locations" such as hospitals and courts, something that no president has ever done before.

Last week, Trump raided about a hundred 7-11 stores to round up illegals. And Derek N. Benner, acting head of ICE's Homeland Security Investigations has assured that this is only the beginning. "This is what we're gearing up for this year and what you're going to see more and more of is these large-scale compliance inspections, just for starters," he declared.

In addition, in recent days, ICE has stopped Greyhound buses in Miami and demanded to see the passports of all the passengers, Americans and others alike. (Miami falls within the 100-mile Constitution-free zone where ICE has virtual carte blanche to set up checkpoints at will.) The agency has arrested, pending deportation, a 39-year-old Polish doctor with a valid green card who has lived in Michigan for 30 years and is married to an American woman and has American kids. Why? For acts of "moral turpitude" committed when he was 17, one of which has already been expunged from his record! And it's not just immigrants ICE is going after. It is dusting off anti-harboring laws, rarely ever used except in instances of human smuggling, to target Americans who have the temerity to offer help to undocumented aliens. (As I argued in a recent Reason feature, a full-blown War on Immigration will inevitably swallow the rights and liberties of Americans as well.)

Given this all-out assault, it is hard to imagine that the administration will do right by Dreamers.

Trump last night said he would support handing citizenship to Dreamers. That would make sense given that these people are essentially Americans without papers. They have grown up here, speak English, hold jobs (generating nearly $40 billion for the economy annually), pay taxes, have American families and, above all, have zero to little contact with their birth-land.

But it is hard to take Trump seriously, not only because he has said conciliatory stuff many times only to walk it back when Chief of Staff John Kelly gives him the eye, but also because he is a fan of Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte's Securing America's Future Act. The bill is the stuff of nativist wet dreams and yet—or perhaps that's why—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen's has offered it a ringing endorsement. She declared that it "reflects many of the policy principles and priorities" of this administration.

The bill doubles down on funding for Trump's idiotic wall, enhanced border security and defunding of sanctuary jurisdictions. It also wants a 40 percent cut in legal family-based immigration that Trump berates as "chain migration." It would end the diversity visa program, implement a biometric exit and entry system, and mandate E-verify of all employers.

As if all of this is not devilish enough, consider its other details:

And what exactly would it offer in return?

A path to citizenship or at least permanent residency for all undocumented workers? Nope. A path to citizenship or permanent residency for all Dreamers? Nope. A path to citizenship or permanent residency for at least all those who have DACA? Nope.

It will offer non-immigrant status on a renewable basis to a small slice of DACA recipients who can meet its onerous eligibility criteria. Excluded will be: Dreamers who have already lost DACA. And those who were under 15 years of age and therefore never covered by DACA. And those who were over the age of 31 on June 2012. And those who entered after 2007. All in all, two-thirds of all Dreamers wouldn't qualify—not even if they are veterans.

But the real kicker is that Dreamers who do qualify would have to maintain income levels 125 percent of the poverty line or they would be subject to deportation. In effect, the bill would criminalize poverty in this sweet land of liberty!

Even if this monstrosity doesn't get enacted in toto, it offers a chilling glimpse into the extreme lengths that nativists are prepared to go in order to cleanse this country of immigrants.

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) claimed on The Rachel Maddow Show that Democrats are in a much stronger position to get something sans such Goodlatte-style nativist poison pills after they voted to end the government shutdown last weekend. He claims that Democrats need only a handful more of Republican votes to get the 60 they need for a relatively clean Dreamer fix along the lines of what the bipartisan Gang of Six worked out. (That effort isn't perfect because it does not go far enough but it is admittedly much better than anything else around.) Schumer believes that since Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, went on the Senate floor and declared in front of 10 million TV viewers that he would allow a vote on the bill before February 8, when the current government-funding bill expires, the prospects of getting it through the Senate are good.

But Schumer seems to have forgotten that for a bill to become law, it needs to pass not just in the Senate but also the House. And Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) has already declared that House Republicans won't be "bound" by any Senate bill. Many members of the misnamed Freedom Caucus are also opposed to a clean Dreamer fix. If Schumer and other immigration doves vote for a permanent spending bill and their Dreamer bill gets slammed in the House, they'll have lost crucial leverage without rescuing Dreamers from the tender mercies of GOP nativists.

The only way they can ensure that this won't happen is by demanding that the House pass an acceptable Dreamer fix that does not cut legal immigration or demand E-verify etc before February 8. For that, Trump will have to take on Goodlatte, Scalise and the rest of the merry band of House nativists since they aren't listening to House Speaker Paul Ryan anymore. Despite Trump's promising statement that he favors a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, there is as much chance he'll push these nativists to agree to an "amnesty" deal as he'll give up tweeting.

So there is every reason to expect that come March 5 there will be no deal and Dreamers will be screwed. If you hear any sound at the Southern border, it'll be the sobs of families as ICE agents forcibly remove their loved ones from this land of the free and home of the brave.

Advertisement

NEXT: Having Failed at Making Edible Burgers, Burger King Tries To Explain Net Neutrality

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. I always know it’s Shikha from the headline.

    1. ………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

    2. She was hired to get the most comments.

    3. Shikha is the poster child for why not all immigration is good immigration. So is Bieber.

    4. Yeah, but this time it was the best news she’s ever delivered! For a moment, I thought Trump might actually accept an(other) amnesty deal. Here’s hoping he fucks the “Dreamers” with a barbed-wire dildo!

      Shikha terminology:

      “…he scrapped, without much political hue and cry, the Obama-era policy of limiting deportation action to criminal aliens…”

      If they’re here illegally, they’re ALL CRIMINAL ALIENS!

      I am disappointed in the 40% cut in chain immigration. I hope for something more like 100%.

      Just because Obozo was lax in enforcing the law doesn’t mean Trump has to be.

      The renewable “non-immigrant” status sounds reasonable. As for the boo-fucking-hoo throwaway line of “Dreamers” not qualifying, “even if they are veterans“, only about 900 “Dreamers” are even in the military. You’d be far more likely to find them in PRISON!

      And Shikha – it’s, “extreme lengths that nativists Americans are prepared to go in order to cleanse this country of immigrants criminals.” I’m all for a reasonable level of LEGAL immigration – fewer than half a million a year – based on what’s best for AMERICA.

      Personally, I think we should give all the criminal aliens 6 months to get the fuck out. After that, put a bounty on them – dead or alive. Issue Weback hunting permits along the border. Yes. Shoot them. Leave them for the coyotes and the buzzards to eat. I’m sick of the alien invasion.

      1. Just because Obozo was lax in enforcing the law doesn’t mean Trump has to be.

        He set a record number of deportations.. Don’t be so easily brainwahed

        1. Uh, yeah, no, he did not. He merely played fast and loose with the terminology. The Obama administration counted as deportations those who were stopped and turned around at the border, something that had never before been included in the deportation numbers. It allowed Obama to have it both ways: get credit for being tough on illegals (“Deporter in Chief” some called him), while publicly expressing empathy for the plight of those in the U.S. illegally. So, yeah: don’t be so brainwashed.

      2. Here’s hoping he fucks the “Dreamers” with a barbed-wire dildo!

        Bigoted, half-educated, disaffected, superstitious, authoritarian, backwaters-inhabiting, economically inadequate, whining right-wing goobers are my favorite faux libertarians.

      3. I might not be quite as hard-line on this topic as you BambiB, BUT you are exactly correct about Shikha’s terminology. I could not make it past that first paragraph before the saccharine-laden euphemism “Dreamers” made me very nearly ill to my stomach. If one is going to offer an honest analysis on this issue, one cannot use such blatantly manipulative and one-sided terms as Obama’s wistful portrayal of those who were brought or came to the U.S. as children as earnest “Dreamers.” There is a legal term for them: illegal aliens. If that phrase proves too inflammatory for Shikha’s very tender sympathies, I would suggest using “DACA recipients.” But it is utterly impossible to take anyone seriously who uses the contrived code word “Dreamers.”

    5. And Shikha – I want to see 8 U.S. Code ? 1324 strictly enforced against politicians in “sanctuary” cities. I figure the mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles and members of the city councils are looking at somewhere near a trillion dollars in fines and a billion years in prison. Hang them out to dry and the rest of the “sanctuary cities” will fold.

      Go after the agricultural businesses in Kalifornia and it might be possible to get that economy to implode. Then they can all go back and vote for Hitlery again.

    6. 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. Exclusions sound reasonable, actually, unless your perspective is that those here non-compliantly are entitled to XYZ.

  3. “Given this all-out assault, it is hard to imagine that the administration will do right by Dreamers.”

    What is “right by Dreamers” ?
    And why is it different from “right by illegal immigrants” in general ?

    I want principles here – not emotional statements !

    1. And what ARE your principles? Hatred of illegal humans? Or worship of the written words of the law, as opposed to the spirit of the law? Does the spirit of FREEDOM mean jack squat to you?

      1. There are no ‘illegal humans’. That’s emotionalist claptrap used in the hope of shaming people.

        There are people who have immigrated illegally. This is shortened to ‘illegal’ because it is the fact that they committed an illegal act that is the problem.

        It is not illegal to be an alien. It is not illegal to be an immigrant. It is not illegal to drive a car or own a gun. But all of these things can be done in an illegal fashion.

        And principles? How about the golden rule?

        The Mexican government expects us to respect their immigration policies–demands it, in fact in ways much more stringent than we do. All we ask is the same respect in return.

        The spirit of freedom means a great deal–those of you who have perverted the idea of freedom into a creeping ‘everyone owns everything together’ ideology do nothing but spit upon the idea.

        1. Wait, so the US is supposed to emulate the immigration policies of ‘shithole’ countries like Mexico?

          1. Yep, totally misconstruing your opponents argument is the best way to win.

            Best.

          2. What do you think of Mexican immigration policies? And what do you think of Mexicans who illegally move here and demand that we legalize them?

            Mexico has stricter immigration laws than the United States of America

            Quotes (but read the whole article):
            Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony.
            Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society.
            The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.
            The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
            The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
            The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
            The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.

            1. Maybe we can learn a few things from Mexico!

            2. And what do you think of Mexicans who illegally move here and demand that we legalize them?

              1) This is about Dreamers. Doesn’t apply.
              2) How many others dso what you claim? Maybe a dozen?

              1. 1) When they moved here. it was done illegally – the reasons don’t matter.
                2) You can find hundreds of examples of “dreamers” demanding that they be rewarded for their illegal existence.

                1. Non-responsive to the issue. #2 is laughable. 83% of Americans disagree with you, support a path to citizenship for Dreamers.. And your proclamations have no value at all;

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano trying his sockpuppet out for size this time.

          3. Wait, so the US is supposed to emulate the immigration policies of ‘shithole’ countries like Mexico?

            Here, let me make this simple enough for the person who wipes the drool from your chin to explain to you.

            Respect

            : an act of giving particular attention : consideration

            Emulate

            : to try to equal or excel; imitate with effort to equal or surpass

          4. How about countries like Mexico acting in a consistent manner, and respecting our sovereign borders? Jeff, if you don’t believe in America’s sovereignty, why do you hate America so much? And since you do hate America, why don’t you just get out?

            See how your bullshit works?

            1. How about countries like Mexico acting in a consistent manner, and respecting our sovereign borders?

              How does that country do that?

              And since you do hate America, why don’t you just get out?

              83% of Americans should get out???

              See how your bullshit works?

              See how you made a fool of yourself, again?

              1. How does that country do that?

                By not having a government policy that encourages people to break the laws of other countries.

                83% of Americans should get out???

                83% of Americans don’t hate America. The question was aimed at those, who don’t believe in America’s sovereignty, like those who want to reward law-breakers, who thumb their nose at our sovereignty.

                See how you made a fool of yourself, again?

                You should be asking that of yourself.

                1. Umm, ever hear of Fox News? This is THEIR poll.
                  Connect the spaces for the link, which is too long for here.

                  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/28 fox-news-poll-83-percent-support-pathway-to- citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants.html

                  See the title? “Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.”
                  The text clarifies that they polled about Dreamers, not all illegals.

                  Anything else I can teach you?

          5. Yes, to the extent that WE enforce the LAWS relating to entry and lawful permanent residence that are NOW in force, just the same as do Mexico, Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Columbia, France, Switzerland…. ALL these nations have laws, rules, requirements.. The USA are about the only ones who are expected (thanks to the previous “chief executive”, an illegal squatter himself, to look the other way on the matter. Remember the US Marine who took a wrong turn newr Tijuana, spend some several weeks in a Cockroach Haven in Mexico, and who was only released after a squall arose about his over the top incarceration, AND the convenient fact he had gotten very sick and the Mexican government fools preferred to have him die north of the 37th parallel than south of it. WHERE was the fuss over Mexico’s “illegal immigratioin policy” back then? They were too busy trying to make the kinyun look like a hardnose for even thinking of returning a few criminal illegal aliens up this way causing havoc amongst OUR people

            1. thanks to the previous “chief executive”, an illegal squatter himself,

              Which says your rant is bullshit, Which it was anyhow.

      2. Hatred of illegal humans?

        No, hatred of being forced, potentially by AR-15 toting government goons, to pay for the education, food, and other necessities of third world migrants.

        Or worship of the written words of the law, as opposed to the spirit of the law?

        Both the letter and the spirit of US immigration law are clear: you must respect US borders, you must leave when your visa runs out, you can only work with a work visa, you must not become a public charge or hurt other people in order to remain in the US, and in order to immigrate and naturalize, you need a green card.

        Does the spirit of FREEDOM mean jack squat to you?

        It means a lot to me, which is why I would like to continue living in a country where people respect the letter and the spirit of immigration law, and where immigrants generally also respect the spirit of freedom.

        1. “No, hatred of being forced, potentially by AR-15 toting government goons, to pay for the education, food, and other necessities of third world migrants.”

          Instead you prefer that they are potentially forced by the goons to not freely associate with employers who wish to employ them, with landowners who wish to rent to them, with merchants who wish to exchange goods with them.

          You are saying that your rights are better than their rights.

          1. No I’d prefer the be forced to leave the country since they are violating our laws.

            1. “they are violating our laws” is perhaps the worst argument ever on a libertarian site. Principles apparently have no meaning…

              1. And neither do any laws, when you’re Leo, right? Rule of men over rule law, that’s what Leo says.

                1. “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
                  Thomas Jefferson

                  1. Laws Of Nature:
                    If you violate territory, you are subject to punishment. Says the cat to the mouse, says the puma to the deer, says the Penacook to the Pocumtuk, says Athenians to Persians.

                  2. What you’re basically advocating is that the US government impose increasingly socialist/progressive policies on the population and that people ignore them when it suits them. I’ve lived in countries like that, and they are shitholes. All I can do is warn people not to go down that road. If they choose to, well, there are lots of other countries to move to.

                    1. What you’re basically advocating is that the US government impose increasingly socialist/progressive policies on the population

                      Chill, Dude, frothing at the mouth is messy.

                    2. Hillary and most of the Democratic party leadership are describing themselves as “progressives”, and Sanders describes himself as a “socialist”. Are you saying it is “frothing at the mouth” to call a political movement and ideology by the name that it currently chooses for itself?

                    3. It’s frothing at the mouth, now with a LAME excuse.
                      How is that any worse to liberty than imposing an extreme socon agenda?

                      Are you saying it is “frothing at the mouth” to call a political movement and ideology by the name that it currently chooses for itself?

                      You lied about Bernie, then generalized from two individuals. Your ignorance of the left as appalling.
                      But hysteria rules both left and right, as they both collapse.

                      Left – Right = Zero

          2. Borders are bad, m’kay?

            1. even the borders formed by the lot lines of the property upon which you dwell, and the physical walls of the building or tent you occupy? How many homeless vagabums do YOU allow to squat upon YOUR property, and/or within YOUR house, not contributing, in fact, using YOU things like food, heat, lights, water, in whatever way THEY decide is “appropriate”? That all sounds like a certainpathway to one status we’ve not yet acheived.. that of “shithole country”. No thanks,

              1. You’re free to emigrate if you shit on the will of over 80% of Americans … while claiming Obama to be “an illegal squatter.”

                1. Using a phony stat, like “over 80% of Americans favor rewarding law-breakers” says your rant is bullshit, which it usually is, anyhow.

                  1. You’re a fucking liar on what he said Shame on you.
                    How many times will you make a fool of yourself on the survey by FOX NEWS?
                    I’ve given you the link five times already, on this page. One more time
                    Connect the spaces AGAIN to see the proof

                    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/28/ fox-news-poll-83-percent-support-pathway-to-
                    citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants.html

                    EVERY major poll shows a large majority wanting legal residence and/or a path to citizenship.
                    Count them all in these search RESULTS
                    https://www.bing.com/search?q=dreamers+poll+stay

                    says your rant is bullshit, which it usually is, anyhow.

                    (lol)

          3. So is the United States a country, or a job fair?

            1. It’s a pen of labor cattle

            2. It’s a nation founded on Consent of the Governed and Will of the People. The clearly expressed will of the people — over 80% of them — that the Dreamers be granted a path to citizenship.

              If it’s that unacceptable to you, your alternatives is to emigrate.
              We Americans long ago rejected the ruling elite you seek to impose.
              And no ruling elite has ever been established by no more than bellowing.
              Buh-bye

              1. America is sunk if “over 80%” say the laws should be ignored.
                I’ll guarantee that figure was drawn from using emotional arguments and promises of hoops the “nightmares” will jump through, that sane people know will never happen.

                1. America is sunk if “over 80%” say the laws should be ignored.

                  That’s not what they say. And shame on you for twisting it.

                  I’ll guarantee

                  VERY bad bluff.

                  that figure was drawn from using emotional arguments and promises of hoops the “nightmares” will jump through, that sane people know will never happen.

                  It’s a poll by those fucking emotional commies at … Fox News! Ever hear of them?

                  Says 83% of Americans favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers. DO NOT lie about that again.
                  Your personal guarantee is … useless.

              2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his sockpuppet has all the answers.

                Change out your colostomy bag, you retarded dimwit.

          4. My rights, as an American citizen, are better than their rights, as non-citizens, within the confines of the borders of the United States of America. Yes.

            1. Did God say that about God-given rights?
              In the New Testament or the Old?

              1. When God comes and tells me what rights he says he would give – as if you commies believe in Him, anyway – I’ll think about abiding by that.
                Until then, the nation was formed around the Constitution and that says that immigration is the purview of Congress and Congress has said that the “nightmares” are here, contrary to our laws and that the resolution of that is for them to leave, voluntarily, or by force.
                It is not, even, punishment, unless it is considered punishment to live outside of this country.
                Are you saying that everyone, who doesn’t live here, is being punished?

                1. You ignored his question.

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his multiple personalities.

          5. LMAO. I almost pity people like you that want to cherry-pick which laws to follow. It is truly sad that you believe the Progressive propaganda from your Elitist Masters.

            Why do you hate poor citizens?
            Why do you hate poor legal foreign nationals?
            Why do you hate children?

        2. “No, hatred of being forced, potentially by AR-15 toting government goons, to pay for the education, food, and other necessities of third world migrants.”

          Hysteria. The Secret State. The link says no such thing, but the You-Know-Whos will swallow any such link without reading it. Because Obama is Muslim.
          And Benghazi.

      3. Why even have laws? All we really need to know if what “spirit” they would have been otherwise written in. Our flawless leaders can make up the rest.

        1. Trump just did that — for nearly three times as many Dreamers as Obama registered.

    2. Then go read a different author

    3. Yes.

      Compassion is not a sound basis for public policy.

      1. (shudder) What’s your alternative?

        1. “Compassion is not a sound basis for public policy.”
          What’s your alternative?
          Laws, written and rigorously adhered to, by representatives, who we have elected and are acting in a manner that they believe is in the best interests of those who vote for them – legal citizens.
          There is no legitimate argument, that bringing in millions of low-educated, low-skilled people, benefits the citizens of the country, especially if their first act, on our soil, is to thumb their nose at our laws..
          “Compassion” is an undefined concept. See: Giving a hungry man a fish, versus teaching him to fish.
          Both of those could be thought of as a “compassionate” response to his hunger.

          1. “Compassion” is an undefined concept.

            That’s my point!
            And you have no point, since even a Fox News polo says 83% of Americans favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers.

            There is no legitimate argument, that bringing in millions of low-educated, low-skilled people, benefits the citizens of the country

            Doesn’t have to be. Perhaps in your own dictatorship.

            especially if their first act, on our soil, is to thumb their nose at our laws..

            They were mostly 1 and 2 years old.

  4. And then the GOP wonders why they can’t garner many Hispanic votes…

    1. Central Americans are big gov’t types. They didn’t reward the GOP after the ’86 amnesty. Everyone likes to point to 1994 and Prop 187, but the fact is California went blue for Clinton in ’92 and never looked back.

      1. Because people’s political opinions are immutable and unbreakable, determined at the moment of birth and can never be changed afterwards.

        1. Next you’ll say that the polls are lying…

          Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

          Quote:
          Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

          1. “Facts are a tool of the cisheteronormative white supremacist patriarchy to silence marginalized peoples”

          2. The poll YOU lie about says that 83% Americans want the Dreamers to have a path to citizenship
            Which of the two polls represents the governing majority in America — while you are less than 20%?
            Inconvenient?

            1. Numbers from the poll he refers to are accurate, while your claim that it says that “83% Americans want the dreamers to have a path to citizenship” is a lie.
              It is a poll of Hispanics/Latinos and doesn’t ask that question.

              1. while your claim that it says that “83% Americans want the dreamers to have a path to citizenship” is a lie.

                I cited a Fox News Poll. Which is now the poll YOU lied about!

                Headline in large, bold type, Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants (The text clarifies that the poll asked about Dreamers, not illegals in general)

                Ever hear of Fox News?
                This is America. Who are you to piss all over 83% of Americans,

                The Hispanic poll is totally useless. Even Soviet Russia did not mandate political beliefs. Only bigots do that.

    2. No, they don’t actually. The GOP wonders why so many people think it’s just dandy to toss principles by the wayside in the pursuit of votes.

      As do the libertarians who watch, sadly, as all the principles of libertarianism get flushed as the cosmos jerk the handle over, and over again.

      1. One more time. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal since the late 50s.
        That’s when it became obvious that Left – Right = Zero.

        1. No, Michael. Libertarians have been libertarian since their inception.

          Leftists infiltrating the movement have stressed the “fiscally conservative and socially liberal ” angle since there were enough of them that their innate anti-liberty stances could be rationalized away.

          1. David Nolan was a leftist? (lol)

            1. No, he’s one of your sockpuppets.

              1. He was a co-founder of the Libertarian Party. Why do you say he was a leftist?

                If you can tolerate a libertarian web site, this one can educate you. See the lengthy list of his accomplishments for liberty, hardly as leftist!!.

                What have you done for liberty?

                1. From your own link, Nolan must have been against illegal immigration, since he belonged to a group that wanted to “get the federal government out of all activities not specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution.”
                  The Constitution, specifically authorizes the Congress “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, which includes categorizing those eligible for same, and making it illegal to be in the country if not under that guide. Those not following our naturalization rules, within our borders, are categorized as illegal aliens and subject to deportation.
                  P.S. That “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” is asking for simple answers to complicated questions. Only simpletons would think it definitive.

                  1. From your own link, Nolan must have been against illegal immigration

                    He wasn’t. Try again

                    Those not following our naturalization rules, within our borders, are categorized as illegal aliens and subject to deportation

                    Nobody said otherwise.
                    Again, you seem totally uninformed on this issue.

        2. ‘Left-right=zero’…….

          No.

          Far too simplistic. Michael, you’re capable of deeper analayssi than that. That’s a jingle or a slogan. Reality is never so tow dimensional or simplistic.

          They’re different things, and often there is no equivalence.

          1. Zero is a number.
            Their VALUE is identical.
            That’s been a libertarian conclusion for over 40 years

            It’s roughly related to this, also well over 40 years

            Democrats want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
            Republicans want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom

            THAT is akin to
            “There have been only two purposes for government. To defend individual liberty. Or to impose one’s values by force.”

            See, for us it’s about liberty. On that scale, the two are identical (just different victims).
            Thus Left-Right=Zero

            Well over 40 years.
            Anything else?

          2. They’re different things, and often there is no equivalence.

            Zero is a value, a number. Their two VALUES are the same — on the liberty scale, which libertarians apply.
            These three go back well over 40 years

            1) “Republicans want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom”
            “Democrats want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.”

            THAT is tied to this

            2) “Governments have had only two purposes. To defend individual liberty. Or to impose one set of values by force.”

            THAT is the liberty scale. And THAT is where the two have the same value. That’s a bit lengthy. So
            3) Left – Right = Zero

            Your words tell me that you know precisely what I meant. But your real issue is that you disagree, with snark. But now you know what it means, why it’s been in use for well over 40 years … and is even more true today.

            There’s also the World’s Smallest Political Quiz .. and over 60% of Americans would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

            Long enough now?

            1. Sorry for the dupes. The posting is acting strange

        3. One more time. Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal since the late 50s.

          It’s obvious you and other faux libertarians misunderstand libertarianism as a collection of policies picked from the left and the right; that’s probably why you have been so unsuccessful.

          1. David Nolan= Faux libertarian
            Cato Institute= Faux libertarian
            Unsuccessful = 60% of Americans self-identify as fiscally conservative and socially liberal

            1. Thanks, Hihn. That guy or gal is quite a gasbag.

            2. Unsuccessful = 60% of Americans self-identify as fiscally conservative and socially liberal

              Hence you are proving my point: “it’s obvious you and other faux libertarians misunderstand libertarianism as a collection of policies picked from the left and the right.” That is, those 60% of Americans are, in fact, not libertarians, they are people who want the benefits of libertarianism without paying the price.

              1. Hence you are proving my point:

                I made a fool out of you.
                And shall do so again/

                That is, those 60% of Americans are, in fact, not libertarians,

                A top independent pollster says you’re full of shit. It;;s not true that the entire universe disappears if you refuse to open your eyes.

                they are people who want the benefits of libertarianism without paying the price.

                Nobody’s offering them.. The libertarian establishment is now driven by the anti-gubmint mentality — the same mentality that killed conservatism — well, plus the extreme socons that Goldtwater said were a menace to liberty.

        4. What is fiscally conservative about wanting more people, who access “the safety-net”, on a scale greater than those born, here?
          In fact it is impossible to be “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”, since those “socially liberal” policies are costly, thus inherently fiscally unconservative.

          1. What is fiscally conservative about wanting more people, who access “the safety-net”, on a scale greater than those born, here?

            We call your question ,… bullshit.

            In fact it is impossible to be “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”, since those “socially liberal” policies are costly, thus inherently fiscally unconservative.

            Now you’ve confused socially liberal with fiscally liberal. Socially liberal costs … not a dime
            Now if you want to deny equal rights … to save money, that would be facsist. We assume … within American values, of course.

            And your logic sucks. how can anything be both fiscally conservative AND unconservative?

            Anything else?

    3. Ive seen polls of hispanics lawfully here, as either permanent residents or full citizens, who strongly OPPOSE the whole open borders, let anyone come in, fly planeloads of hispanic invaders to the US and give them green cards philosophy. Fact is, THEY complied with the relative laws and are here legally and ethically. They belive two things: first, if THEY could and did do it lawfully, there is no reason Jorge, Guillermo, Carlos, Raul, and Miguel can’t or shouldn’t as well, and second, that those invading outside the established legal pathways threaten their own (the legal ones) and their status, as well. They dilute the worker pool with ilegals, compete for jobs and other work, raid the public assistance agencies thus diminishing what is then available to the truly needy, and give the legals a bad reputation, as in the eyes of most they are all lumped together as being of the same kind. The kids illegally here drag down the others who want, and are able, to learn in the government funded schools.

        1. A clear push-poll.
          Beginning with approval/disapproval of Trump sets the tone for the entire poll and only asks the skewed/emotional-appeal question about illegals “under the age of 30, who were brought to the United States as children, provided they pass a background check?”
          If you put the question in its proper terms: Should we enforce our laws on those who are in violation of them, especially when they know it to be the case? You would get a far different answer.

          1. LAME. AND A FUCKING LIAR.. YOU DIDN’T EVEN LOOK.
            THERE ARE HUGE GRAPHICS SHOWING RESULTS FOR *BOTH* DREAMERS AND ILLEGALS OVERALL — where the results are even more humiliating for you.
            And you know NOTHING about polling. Typical Trumpster in denial. of reality.
            And shame on you for the liies.

            ,.

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks like a bitch.

  5. If I sell you a car that later turns out to have been stolen, your innocent purchase isn’t going to allow you to keep the car. Sure, it’s not these people’s fault that they were brought here illegally as children, but they’re still here illegally. Shall we talk about compassion? Sure, but we’re not talking about some moral obligation for compassion, we’re talking about a legal obligation. “Entitlement” programs rarely hint at the flip side, a necessary obligation on the part of everybody else to support the recipients of this largesse. And that’s my biggest bitch about welfare programs, they’re sold as a right rather than as the charity they are and for which you damn well better be grateful.

    1. I agree with your analogy, although I think it’s even worse than that. It’s like someone stole a car and sold it to their handicapped grandmother for the express purpose of being able to accuse anyone who called them out on it of being evil and uncaring. That’s basically what the Obama administration did with this act. They could have at least tried find a way to give the immigrants a more permanent, legitimate status. But they are community organizing assholes. Why would I buy grandma a car when I can give her a stolen one and blame everyone else for it.

    2. They cannot be sold as charity because the element of compulsion renders it not charitable

      Forcing someone to commit a good act does not make them (nor you) a good person. All you have done is removed someone else’s choice.

      1. And it is never charity to donate other people’s resources without their consent or involvement.

        1. Relevance?

    3. Entitlements like the MASSIVE subsidy of middle-class income taxes by the rich. You’ll keep slobbering at Melinda Gates’ teat unless or until you pay a 71% tax increase (the average increase required for the core middle-class overall).

      IRS income and taxes by income level

  6. Last week, Trump raided about a hundred 7-11 stores to round up illegals

    Wow. People were mocking Trump’s fitness, but it sounds like he really is in good shape.

    1. No kidding. I could maybe do 15-20, but 100 is a lot of running around.

      1. Y’all are correct! Trump does it all personally, and does NOT delegate, because ICE agents are busy doing other things that are even more super-human! For proof, see the below…

        http://www.theonion.com/ice-ag…..1822307567

        ICE Agents Hurl Pregnant Immigrant Over Mexican Border To Prevent Birth On U.S. Soil

        With photo! PROOF!!!

        1. I had a sneaking suspicion you were a dope. Thanks for confirming.

          1. I had a sneaking suspicion that you were a humorless old constipated sourpuss. Thanks for confirming.

  7. Oh, yes, I know, the illegal humans are polluting our freedom-loving culture, and they will vote socialist, so screw them!

    Well, this is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy… Non-socialists (libertarians) too often (as we have seen in these pages here), sad to say, evidently hate immigrants (or at least their friends and family who are illegal humans). So Hispanic votes might not want to vote Libertarian. Not-usually-as -socialist-as-the-Demoblicans (Republicrats & Trumpistas) evidently hate illegal humans with a passion. Who else are they (legal Hispanic citizens / voters who have friends and family who are illegal humans) going to vote, for, then, other than the more-socialist Demoblicans? Demoblicans are the “last man standing” here that apparently might, from time to time, think that illegal humans are worthy of living…

    1. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:

      Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

      Quote:
      About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households? Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

      1. Please re-post with the break out by legal immigrants .vs illegal border crossers.

      2. You can’t have open borders with countries where people don’t believe in freedom if you want to preserve yours

        1. I was always under the impression that most people immigrate to the United States because they like our freedom and the opportunities that it provides.

          1. Um, no

            Now I see why you’re so deluded on border policy

            See the PEW research data and link above

            People like the peace and prosperity here. They like the *effects* of freedom. Preference for freedom itself is the exception and not the rule in the world.

            Freedom is a culture. That culture is far from universal.

            1. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to vote for my party. Everyone else need not apply.

              1. GODDAMN YOU! Quoting Lady Liberty on a libertarian web site. Outrageous
                /sarc

              2. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to vote for my party. Everyone else need not apply.

                Quoting a poem that was tacked on to the statue years after the fact is surely the greatest appeal to authority.

          2. I was always under the impression that most people immigrate to the United States because they like our freedom and the opportunities that it provides

            They do, but they don’t like the risks and consequences that go along with freedom and opportunity. They are really behaving like any good crony capitalist and rent seeker.

            1. Same as you?

              1. No, same as you, Hihn.

      3. Those school lunches will getcha every time.

    2. Oh, yes, I know, the illegal humans are polluting our freedom-loving culture, and they will vote socialist, so screw them!

      “Sure, the last time we had mass migration of radicalized socialists, we ended up with the New Deal, but it will be totally different this time, guys!! The fact that Central Americans are mostly Catholic means they’re natural libertarians!”

      1. “Natural conservatives”

      2. Sure, the last time we had mass migration of radicalized socialists, we ended up with the New Deal

        They came from Russia?

    3. We don’t base citizenship on one’s political ideology. This is America.

  8. It would end the diversity visa program,

    OK, I get that Open Borders Libertarian types are for any and all immigration, but can anyone make a case for this program other than we can’t violate the NAP. Google, Stanford and the NE Patriots don’t have a lottery program to see who can work, study or play for them.

    1. “Google, Stanford and the NE Patriots don’t have a lottery program to see who can work, study or play for them.”

      That’s very true. Open borders supporters are claiming that anybody willing to try out for the team should have a chance. The anti-immigration camp is saying that Americans by default are the only ones that get to try out for the team. If you’re saying (at least by implication) that Americans are more deserving of being on the team, then why are you afraid of inviting them to the tryouts?

      1. The lottery IS the tryout!

        Open borders types are saying anyone who manages to fill out some form and then is lucky enough to win should be allowed to enter the country regardless of whether they have anything to contribute.

        The equivalent would be Stanford, Google and The Patriots holding a lottery and the winners regardless of their ability are now enrolled, working or playing for them.

        1. I’m not trying to defend the visa lottery. I think it’s dumb. I don’t claim to know what point Shikha is trying to make.

          My point is that if you’re having a tryout you should invite anybody that’s willing to try. That’s the argument for open borders, at least in this analogy.

          The anti-immigration people would have this tryout limited by who was lucky enough to be born on the lucky side of the imaginary line. I say that Google, Stanford, and the Patriots are better if they have a larger pool of candidates to pull from, not just those that are luckily within some boundary.

          1. “My point is that if you’re having a tryout you should invite anybody that’s willing to try. That’s the argument for open borders, at least in this analogy.”

            You don’t even understand your own analogy.

            “open borders” = no tryout, everyone accepted
            “controlled borders” = tryout, only some selected per lottery/criteria/whim
            “no immigration” = no tryout

            There is no tryout in the “open borders” philosophy. As long as you enter, your are entitled to everything. There are extremely few aspects of human existence, where there isn’t some sort of tryout or initiation. Really the only one is religion, but even then there are oaths and commitments for most.

            “open borders” philosophy argues against even the oaths or commitment, but would prefer open anarchy with no borders.

            1. My comment was not about Open Borders, but the Diversity Lottery.

              I want someone to defend that program. I figure OBLs are in favor of it, because they are in favor anything that allows more free movement.

              I want to hear a non-OBL argument for this program.

            2. It’s your analogy… I thought the “tryout” was who gets to work for Google or the Patriots, or go to Stanford.

              You’re limiting the talent pool that Google/Patriots/Stanford gets to play for by limiting them to citizens or visa holders. No immigration limits them to citizens. I say they get to determine who are the best and the brightest in the world, and they don’t have to pay and beg the government to allow them to be here (visa system).

              I’m for giving private enterprise the freedom to chose from whomever is willing to work with them…. that’s the “tryout” that I’m interested it. You’re for the government limiting who gets to try.

              Your tryout seems to be who gets invited to the tryout that matters.

              In case you haven’t noticed, I’m using your very own analogy to show you that you’re taking the statist position in this argument. But maybe I’m doing a poor job explaining it, or maybe you just don’t want to see the other side.

              1. I’m for giving private enterprise the freedom to chose from whomever is willing to work with them…. that’s the “tryout” that I’m interested it.

                Anyone who’s stupid enough to think that people are simply cogs in an economic system rather than the products of the culture that produced them really aren’t worth taking seriously.

                And lest anyone think that these Tlaxcalan turds aren’t all about La Raza, a bunch of them decided to excoriate Marco Rubio in his office a couple days ago for being “white-passing” and “racist against his own kind”.

                1. I don’t think that people are either one.

              2. It’s a good thing then, that the number of people who are for “NO immigration” is so close to zero as to be entirely irrelevant.

                1. True. But all of those doofusses seem to have come here to comment.

                2. Maybe, but a recent Harvard poll had a majority saying they wanted legal immigration reduced and illegal immigration eliminated.
                  In a democracy, that means that should be the policy of the country.

                  1. (lol) THAT poll is irrelevant to the issue of Dreamers. Here, a poll by Fox News found that 83% of Americans want a path to citizenship for Dreamers. You’ll need to connect the spaces to see the proof

                    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/28/fox- news-poll-83-percent-support-pathway-to-
                    citizenship-for-illegal-immigrants.html

                    EVERY major poll finds the same thing for Dreamers … and for the PARTIAL polling by Harvard .. if it even exists. 83% of Americans see a difference that you people refuse to see,

                    In a democracy, that means that should be the policy of the country.

                    I’m glad you agree with me.
                    For now.

          2. “Anti-immigration”? That’s a small (but admittedly vocal) minority. Most people are certainly anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. Of course, you wouldn’t be dishonest enough to conflate legal and illegal.

            1. That’s a small (but admittedly vocal) minority

              Yeah, but he’s the fucking President. Trump STILL wants a 50% reduction in legal immigration, in his proposal released yesterday. It’s kinda scary how many commenters here seem to never follow the news at all. About anything.

      2. “Americans are more deserving of being on the team”

        No, civil war to purge those who fall away from the team has been a worse alternative than just dealing with the friction between the less liberty loving and the more.

        Nothing says it has to remain that way forever. Or that it will.

        1. the friction between the less liberty loving and the more.

          The difference is that liberty lovers practice tolerance. Your tribe does not.

    2. The case for the diversity visa program is that there are too many Chinese and Indian immigrants who are not always reliable Democratic voters (Shikha notwithstanding) and we need more of the “right kind” of people

  9. Given this all-out assault, it is hard to imagine that the administration will do right by Dreamers.

    Leaving the US after living and working here for a couple of decades is a hard thing to do. Believe me, I had to do it, as do many law abiding foreigners who came to the US to grow up, live here, and work.

    The bill doubles down on funding for Trump’s idiotic wall, enhanced border security and defunding of sanctuary jurisdictions. It also wants a 40 percent cut in legal family-based immigration that Trump berates as “chain migration.” It would end the diversity visa program, implement a biometric exit and entry system, and mandate E-verify of all employers.

    So it basically is still more open and lenient than other Western nations.

    1. “Leaving the US after living and working here for a couple of decades is a hard thing to do.”

      Hence the desirability of enforcing immigration law diligently.

    2. So it basically is still more open and lenient than other Western nations

      We call it American exceptionalism. It’s not about to morph into your statist paradise.

      1. The founder of the Libertarian Party, David F. Nolan, believed in the Constitution and wanted Congress confined to those powers granted by it, to them.
        Immigration is one of those powers.
        Do you claim David Nolan wanted a “statist paradise”?

        1. No, but I can see you have been TOTALLY brainwashed. Alex Jones?
          Tell us when the Constitution was violated here. It wasn’t.

          1. Opening borders doesn’t violate the Constitution, but closing borders doesn’t violate the Constitution either.

            Immigration policy and border enforcement are both proper functions of the federal government, and they are compatible with libertarian principles.

            1. Tell us when the Constitution was violated here. It wasn’t.

              Where do I send your trophy?

  10. It would make it a criminal offense for legal permanent residents to not have their green cards on them at all times

    Green card holders have been required to have their cards on them at all times since the 1940s.

    1. Because when I think of an era in American history when liberty flourished, I immediately think “middle of 20th century”.

      1. Before the 1950s which era had more liberty than the 1950s? Before the 1800s which era had more liberty than the 1800s?

        You can even go globally or by country if you like.

      2. yeh, pretty much.
        personal liberty was at its highest point in the US in the 50s, 60s, 70s, then began to decline with the advent of the information revolution and connectivity revolution when the government realized in could start putting the screws to its citizens.

        But you’re probably being sarcastic, which is just laughable as it demonstrates a lack of historic understanding.

      3. Too many German immigrants helped the Progressive Era which was a big setback for liberty.

        1. Great satire! They were overwhelmingly conservative and center-right

      4. Too many German immigrants helped the Progressive Era which was a big setback for liberty.

  11. @Shikha, I grew up in a border state, so I know better than most that debates over legal immigration are messy. Let’s acknowledge that it’s a hard question with no comfortable, easy, ideologically perfect answers. The problem is, I don’t see any attempt to ground your opinion on reason, just your feelings expressed in political hyperbole. Not a powerful argument.

    1. You must be new here and not familiar with Shikha. She is a true believer in unrestricted immigration, and her true heroes are illegals. Any anyone who disagrees with her is a monster.

      1. A racist monster.

        1. A honky racist monster who hates children

            1. David Nolan would have disagreed with her.

              1. Your lie has been demolished.twice. Stop being such a coward and answer the challenge. WHERE was the Constitution violated?.
                Now three times.

  12. I know this makes me a “hater”, but why am I responsible for fulfilling someone else’s dreams? Don’t try to pretend that there is no cost to meeting all of their demands.

    1. Our tax dollars go to educate these “dreamers”, then when they graduate, they’re not allowed to work! If they follow the Sacred Laws, that is…

      If we are going to treat them as sub-humans, forever, then WHY are we bothering to spend tax dollars to educate them? We apparently need a “papers please” policy everywhere, before tax dollars are spent on you. At school, in the emergency room, when the bad guys are shooting at you, and the cops wonder if they should shoot back, to protect you…

      1. If we are going to treat them as sub-humans, forever, then WHY are we bothering to spend tax dollars to educate them?

        Because people like you have been trying to push us down this slippery slope for decades: “hey, if we give them free schooling and let them integrate into our communities and give them government services, then later, they’ll be much harder to deport”.

        So, your observation is correct: individuals (children or adults) who are not legally present in the US should not receive free government education, or government services, or be able to open accounts, rent apartments, buy real estate, enlist in the military, or work. Most countries implement this by issuing national identity cards to every citizen that are used in all those transactions. It’s an easy and cheap way of enforcing the letter and spirit of immigration laws.

        1. There is no free schooling, even though Obama is a Muslim and those space aliens in Roswell, NM. But …
          THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

          Fucking phonies. Only white can protest taxation without representation.
          Gimme a break.

          1. Public schools require tuition payments now?

            How do you square “the middle class is subsidized by the rich” with “poor people pay taxes too”? You think that poor, illegal immigrants pay an appreciable amount of property taxes? Or otherwise contribute to the tax base that is used to subsidize public schools?

            1. Public schools require tuition payments now?

              Taxes.

              How do you square “the middle class is subsidized by the rich” with “poor people pay taxes too”?

              Why would I have to? The middle class pays the income tax, but only 60% of their share. The poor pay taxes, too. Problem?

              You think that poor, illegal immigrants pay an appreciable amount of property taxes?

              Same as citizens!!!
              How much are you being subsidized?

              Or otherwise contribute to the tax base that is used to subsidize public schools?

              Same as citizens!

              How do you reconcile this with … anything?

              1. Taxes

                California spends about $10000 per K-12 student per year. How is an illegal migrant agricultural worker going to pay that in state taxes per year?

                1. Same as citizens. (smirk)

                  1. Yes, “same as citizens”, you’re absolutely right: through massive public debt and through massive taxation of the top 20% of income earners. Meaning, open borders make an existing, serious problem even worse and massively violate property rights.

                    Open borders advocates are basically saying “we have overdrawn our credit card with holding big parties for our neighbors and friends, but don’t worry, we’re keeping the credit card company happy with regular muggings; so, let’s just hold even bigger parties!”

                    1. You have failed to show any difference with citizens.
                      You’re also wrong on who pays the taxes — likely to deny your own massive subsidy.
                      I won’t ask your income, but for the core middle class overall ($40,000-99,999) They’s need a 71% tax INCREASE to pay their own share. That’s on reported income, much higher of we also include the massive exemptions and loopholes targeted to the middle class — for unreported income.

                      massive taxation of the top 20% of income earners.

                      That too is how you’re totally brainwashed. The top 5% subsidizes EVERYONE below them.

                2. Michael lives in his own world.

      2. Well, I’m not on board with the idea of having to shell out to educate anybody’s kids, wherever they were born. Yeah I know, that makes me evil.

        I remember when I was a teenager my father warned me that if I got some girl knocked up I would be financially responsible for the resulting baby. Parents were considered responsible for the babies they made, can you believe that? It’s like my father wasn’t even reading The Social Contract (or maybe his copy was outdated).

        I know how it is nowadays. If I have two dimes to rub together in my pocket, both of those dimes belong to The Collective, “you didn’t built that” and so on. I’m just old and having trouble adjusting.

        1. See, I can’t even spell “build” correctly.

        2. Well, I’m not on board with the idea of having to shell out to educate anybody’s kids, wherever they were born.

          You don’t.
          Next …

          1. I don’t know how it is where you live, but in my country the schools are funded via property taxes.

            1. Sorry, I meant “county” not “country”.

            2. Sorry, my sloppy reading. I missed “wherever they were born.”
              Consent of the governed and will of the people.

            3. No, they are probably funded by more than your county’s property taxes.
              States contribute to school districts as do the feds, through various means.
              That’s how states and the feds control what is taught.
              They threaten to remove that funding if the district doesn’t comply.

              1. Granted. But the need to educate more children because the children of illegals have to be educated too leads to the county trying to get the property tax increased.

              2. They threaten to remove that funding if the district doesn’t comply.

                Bullshit on that part. I’ve served on a school boar. and am still an activist.

    2. We’ve already paid for their schooling.

      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.

      1. Why do you hate children and learning?

      2. What about the MUCH larger subsidies for the our citizens — especially the middle class.
        Or are you afraid your own gravy train dry up?

        1. Yes, the wealthy, who pay the vast majority of the taxes, subsidize the education of the middle and lower income brackets, but it is part of the social contract.
          However that contract is supposed to be for citizens of this country, and those, legally permitted to reside, here.
          Making citizen taxpayers provide for anything that an illegal alien gets is outside the obligation of the contract.
          Why are you opposed to contracts being honored?

          1. Subsidizing YOU is part of the social contract!!!!
            Says the entitlement mentality, sucking on the teat of Bill Gates

    3. Because you can successfully be forced to do so.

    4. Don’t try to pretend that there is no cost to meeting all of their demands.

      You don’t pay it. Unless you’re the top 3% or so. The Middle class doesn’t pay for much of anything.

      1. Wow, so those tax bills I’m getting are just an illusion, eh? Good to know! I’ll throw them in the wastecan from now on.

        1. Wow, not what I said.
          THINK. What does “it” refer to?
          Hint: NOT taxes
          Try. You CAN do it!.

          Anything else?

  13. Yeah, it would be “devilish” for the GOP to actually get something in exchange for this amnesty… Don’t they know they’re supposed to just surrender?!?

    1. Is it surrender to do what 86% of Americans want them to do? (Fox News Poll)

  14. Trump raided about a hundred 7-11 stores to round up illegals.

    Honest question. If you run a convenience store and obey all the laws, pay employees on the books and a legal wage, while your competitor, brings in illegals who will work 70, 80 hours a week for half what you are paying, what are your options?

    Should you just go out of business, and while Libertarians celebrate the growth of the black market and underground economy?

    1. “Libertarians celebrate the growth of the black market and underground economy?”

      I thought libertarians did support unfettered markets. Are you making the case that governments should set rules for how consenting adults wish to interact with each other? What salaries are reasonable? Etc?

      1. Yeah, I am on board with abolishing the FLSA and the minimum wage.

        My question is: Before Libertopia is enacted and we still have these laws, how is the law-abiding convenience store owner supposed to compete with the 7-11 staffed by illegals making 1/2 the minimum and wokring 80 hours?

        Is the answer is”too bad,” or “go out of business”, or “find some other way to compete?”

        1. The answer certainly isn’t more government as you propose. As a libertarian, more government is almost never a principled answer.

          Maybe not the most pragmatic solution for the lone 7-11 owner, but if businesses everywhere demanded that government stopped regulating wages, for instance, I think you would see a positive response from government. Maybe the “black labor market” as you describe it is a means to an end?

          In reality, the public interest is best served by the 7-11 staffed with “illegals.” Prices are lower, that helps everyone. The immigrants are employed, that helps everyone. The store owner has a grievance, he should petition the government to redress his grievance. You would have us believe that the right redress is government force. I’m arguing that they should allow more liberty.

          1. 1. I am not proposing more gov’t I am asking a question

            2. What more gov’t am I proposing?

            3. Is the public interest best served with a 7-11 staffed with illegals? Sure the customers of the store get lower prices, but what about the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill when the illegals kids head off to school, or the when the illegal is hurt on the job and goes to the ER and sticks the hospital with the bill because he’s off the books and there’s no workmans’ comp. Isn’t this just another example of privatize the profits and socialize the costs?

            1. 2. You imply that the government come in and shut down the 7-11 with illegals. I don’t know your actual position in this analogy, so maybe you could clarify that. Meanwhile the store owner or the immigrant worker has committed no acts of aggression against anybody’s life, liberty, or property (the basis of libertarian laws).

              3. It sounds like you have a problem with the welfare state and public education. That we can all agree on. In the meantime, why not allow the immigrant to work “above the board” so that they’re contributing with tax dollars to fund the welfare-state that we’re currently forced to live under?

              1. 2. That’s not MORE gov’t, that’s the gov’t we currently have.

                3. The problem is low-wage, low-skill may pay some taxes (but then again with the refundable EITC, the may not), but that is no where close to covering what they cost. Schools alone in my neck of the woods are $12k/year/per kid not counting capital expenditures, debt service and pension contributions.

              2. “Meanwhile the store owner or the immigrant worker has committed no acts of aggression against anybody’s life, liberty, or property (the basis of libertarian laws).”

                That is a fallacy, as there is an unbalanced relationship in taxes and use of public services.
                That is a theft from the public coffers for personal gain.

                Milo’s point is valid. A law-abiding store owner has a higher cost-of-doing-business, in no small part to regulation and taxes. Perhaps in an ideal world those regulations and taxes go away, but that world does not yet exist. So in the REAL world, the only viable solution is to enforce the premise of those regulations and taxes, which require law enforcement action on those doing business illegally. Yeh, its not a libertarian ideal, but it is utter BS to screw over the store owner that is playing by the rules for some juvenile utopic fantasy.

            2. “Is the public interest best served with a 7-11 staffed with illegals?”

              In what other context would libertarians even THINK to ask such a question?

              “Is the public interest served with a 7-11 staffed by minimum wage flunkies?”
              “Is the public interest served with a 7-11 without transgender-friendly bathrooms?”
              “Is the public interest served with a 7-11 full of sugary sodas?”
              “Is the public interest served with a 7-11 that sells deadly tobacco products?”

              The answer to ALL of these “Is the public interest served…” questions is: Screw the ‘public interest’. Free people should be free to conduct business however they like and in whatever manner they like, even if blue-nose prohibitionists of all stripes disagree with their choices.

              1. “Is the public interest served with a 7-11 staffed by twelve year olds?”

                “Is the public interest served with a 7-11 staffed by chattel slaves?”

                So long as it is law, the law must be enforced, and enforced equally. Anything else is a form of tyranny.

                Allowing people not legally present in the country to compete for employment – ie. violate existing law – is an insult to liberty.

              2. Then you are not a libertarian, like the founder of the Libertarian Party, David Nolan, who believed in the Constitution, but an anarchist.
                At least admit it.

                1. The founder of the Libertarian Party as NOT A LIBERTARIAN!!
                  You’re also clueless about libertarian anarchy. Tell us about the Dallas Accord.

          2. Actually more government is a very principled answer to human beings who spent most of their history attacking neighboring tribes and eating them.

        2. The answer is go on the dole, like all the other Americans who have been priced out of the labor market.

        3. how is the law-abiding convenience store owner supposed to compete with the 7-11 staffed by illegals making 1/2 the minimum and wokring 80 hours? … Is the answer is”too bad,” or “go out of business”, or “find some other way to compete?”

          The proper answer is … stop drooling.

    2. By not having to pay FICA, the illegal alien worker is immediately cheaper by 7.5% If you add up all the other expenses for legal workers, the benefit can be as high as 18%.

      1. Yet your immigration policy supports this “black market” of labor. If you prohibit something, you drive it underground.

        Much like prohibiting drugs/alcohol created organized crime, prohibiting access to labor creates below the board employment. If you want to even the playing field, allow the workers to come and be taxed at whatever level your government deems appropriate.

        1. So you don’t believe the US should be a nation of laws?

          1. So you don’t believe the US should be a nation of laws?

            He just prefers different laws than you do. It’s allowed/ This is still America. Thouih snowflakes, both left and right, shout down any and all differing views. As if this was a gulag or something.

          2. Absolutely we should have laws. Those laws should be rooted in the NAP.

            Example: If a person comes onto your private property you have the right to expel them (by force if necessary). If a person comes onto your private property and you’ve invited him, the government goons don’t have the right to expel him no matter what class of human they’ve pre-determined him to be.

            Why is this such a hard concept to fathom?

            1. What if the one you want out of your private property is too big for you to expel?
              My guess is that you would want government to do it for you.
              What if your reason for expelling them is simply because you don’t want them there or because they are using the resources you would want for yourself but aren’t using, now? Isn’t that violating the NAP? Sounds pretty aggressive, to me.
              Government is just an extension of the people it represents. Shouldn’t government have the same rights?
              Laws don’t cease to exist because you are on your private property. To think so is just stupid.
              I don’t see government officials voted out because their position is one of wanting those not invited, to be removed. And that is the criteria for whether government is acting in the interests of the voters.
              Why is this such a hard concept to fathom?

            2. Absolutely we should have laws. Those laws should be rooted in the NAP.

              Not alone, since it allows all sorts of abuses.

              Why is this such a hard concept to fathom?

              I cannot imagine your confusion on this. Who’s been demanding that Dreamers have trespass rights on private property — except people who don’t know what private property even means … or why NAP alone has been used by the worst bigots in America.

              NAP would permit denial of marriage equality, inter-racial marriage. women’s suffrage, slavery and countless other moral atrocities.

              Anything else?

  15. Children under 15 with illlegal.immigrant parebts should not be subject to deportation? Um, so you want to separate them from their parents ir should their parents not be subject to deportation either?

    What Dalmia wants created are essentially a concept of squatters rights in immigration policy to create a loophole that makes most of it unenfircable.

    The Trump administration was elected in large part of the electorate’s discontent over the current state of immigration policy and the lack of enforcement of what we have. They are doing what their voters asked them to do, in large part because of the dishonest tactics of the open borders side. You helped create this climate, Dalmia, and have made rhem numb to the emotional appeals and insults that are your rhetoric’s bread and butter.

    1. Exactly this. What she’s really pushing for is no border controls whatsoever. Which is a reasonable thought experiment to pursue, or it would be if expressed in less hysteric and condescending language, but pretty clearly contrary to what most Americans want.

    2. What Dalmia wants …

      (lol) Along with 83% of Americans.
      Your time has expired.

      1. If 83% of Americans agreed with Dalmia on immigration in general , Trump would not be President.

        Denying that your ideas are controversial at best is a foolish way to approach a decision where a consensus needs to be reached and your side does not have the votes get everything it wants.

        1. If 83% of Americans agreed with Dalmia on immigration in general , Trump would not be President.

          Only of you think that;’s the only issue people voted on. Why do you.

          Denying that your ideas are controversial at best is a foolish way to approach a decision needs to be reached

          So why do you do it?

          The 83% is a poll by FOX NEWS. All polls show the consensus you cannot accept.

          1. It was the major issue the people who voted for him decided to vote him on.

            Your link appears to be broken, but I believe that it references a question on a very narrow immigation issue whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep. My comment referenced Dalmia’s comprehensive ideology on immigration.

            Furthermore, this article is her whingeing about Trump doing anything on immigration she disapproves of.

            1. It was the major issue the people who voted for him decided to vote him on.

              Then you’re obviously wrong on the poll … as now proven. You may be conflating immigration overall with DACA — which a large majority of Americans agree are separate issues.
              They SEEM to see immigration as meaning NEW entries — which is what it means.

              Might that be why the President TOTALLY caved on DACA?

    3. But 83% of Americans oppose Trump on Dreamers.
      And less than 40% support his wall (thinking it’s not necessary, when MUCH cheaper ways would suffice.)

      Trump may think he was elected Emperor or something. and he certainly has contempt for out form of government..
      But he’s merely President/

  16. All of this hysteria continues to forget one thing.

    Economics is all that matters in our country. Everything else is fodder for the sheep that do what they are told, on both sides of the isle. Like Tony and the Reverend. and everyone that thinks Hannity and Rush are not full of shit.

    All of the black and white people that I know are not willing to take the jobs that these immigrants are willing to take. All of the black people and white people that I have worked with in the blue collar force are not willing to take these jobs nor are they reliable enough to perform, without complaint and punctually.
    construction, yard maintenance, agriculture, plus obviously many more are populated almost exclusively by cheaper immigrant labor who take these jobs and are not forced to work.
    Limiting low skilled labor immigration is bad for the us economy.

    1. “All of the black and white people that I know are not willing to take the jobs that these immigrants are willing to take”

      People say this, but is it really true?

      Entry level positions in construction, in the restaurant industry, and in great swathes of manufacturing are gone. Filled by illegal immigrants who have no recourse in matters of wages and working condition–just the same as with low level ag jobs.

      Why?

      American workers come with a buttload of regulations. Minimum wage, benefits, required breaks, required hours, OSHA, labor laws and on and on.

      High artificial labor costs and government regulation make American workers unprofitable.

      There used to be American migrant workers–hell, there are movies and books about it. Now? Nope.

      1. Almost all American businesses that employ illegal immigrants do not deprive them of safe working conditions nor do they offer them sub-minimum wage work. Entry level construction pays well above minimum wage.
        These are foolish arguments that claim immigrant workers are exploited. They are offered a wage and they have a choice to accept. Most do so gladly and willingly.

        If you have ever worked in construction or known anyone who owns lawn maintenance companies, they will tell you the these immigrant laborers are the only ones that will take the work and also are the best workers they have ever had.
        Why, because they are not lazy, spoiled, complacent americans who have been brainwashed by leftist government schools that they are worth a free education to become social angry workers.

        1. I am for rule of law and legal immigration by inviting workers in via worker visas and they should pay taxes like the rest of us get extorted.
          I think it is folly to not go out and seek unskilled labor is all. It is especially foolish to think these people would not benefit society over time. A strong work ethic and good family values is essential to a strong economy which is all that matters in America.

          Everything else benefits from a strong capitalist economy to include the parasites and the idiots who think the rich should have their money stolen to give to said parasites.
          Without capitalism, you have a dysfunctional, disintegrating Europe.

          1. they should pay taxes like the rest of us get extorted.

            They do!
            Ignore Alex Jones and Breitbart, who are just the other side of Bernie’s statist coin.

        2. Yes, they are spoiled by generous welfare benefits. Who the f–k would do a hard job when it’s more profitable to let the government pay for you to sit on your ass all day.

          1. You actually swallowed that they’re even eligible?
            God save America, PLEASE.

            1. No, stupid.
              What Rhywin is saying is that American citizens won’t do those jobs because they can access the overly-generous welfare system, and make a reasonable living, by not doing them.

          2. I apologize to Rhywun for misreading his point.

        3. If you have ever worked in construction or known anyone who owns lawn maintenance companies, they will tell you the these immigrant laborers are the only ones that will take the work and also are the best workers they have ever had.

          The statistics don’t bear this out. Americans will and are doing these jobs. Illegal aliens are only 26% of the ag work force and 15% of the construction work force.

          http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..t-workers/

          1. More:

            The occupations where at least one-quarter of workers are unauthorized immigrants include drywall installers (31% in 2014), miscellaneous agricultural workers (30%), roofers (29%), construction painters (26%) and brick masons (25%).

            1. Damn you, Milo, providing facts and data to a Shikha article!

              1. There are plenty of legal amercians in these fields too,. That is not the point of my generalization. The point is the jobs where most illegals land(labor) are not as sought after by American citizens black and white.
                Employers are greatly served by low skilled labor in the form of illegal and legal immigrants because they are willing to take the work and they excel at it; likely because it is better than the prospects of their home country.

                We should not be vilifying low skilled labor under the illusion that without, amercians will swoop in and do this work well.
                Because so many americans are spoiled and lazy and brainwashed. just ask anyone who operates a temp agency. Unless you have experience in this, citing studies by idiot college professors who have never worked for profit is to take the word of people not in the know.

                1. That is not the point of my generalization.

                  That makes it a stupid generalization, because it’s exactly what you were claiming–that no white or black people will do these jobs. What’s particularly telling is that when the actual data is right in your face, you play dumb and pretend that your stupid generalization is still fact.

          2. The statistics don’t bear this out

            They did until you lied about them.

    2. “Economics is all that matters in our country.”

      Humans are more than economic units, Marxists imply the same exact thing and it similarly blinds them to some of the messier parts of human existence.

      I cannot tell if this is a parody or not by how simpleminded it is.

      1. In economics, labor is an input. humans can either take advantage of their labor opportunity to make their lives better or not(hard work or not). Capitalism offers the opportunity to make your life better or do nothing. If you do nothing, you can live under a bridge.

        Capitalism does not take opportunity and give it to someone else. That is what protectionism, cronyism, and socialism does.

    3. “All of the black and white people that I know are not willing to take the jobs that these immigrants are willing to take.”

      Not at the depressed wage levels caused by 10s of millions of imported foreign workers.

      1. The old “Dey terk er jerbs” argument. It was bound to happen sooner or later!

        1. Why should immigration policy cater to those who purchase labor and not those who supply it?

          1. Why should immigration policy favor anyone? Why is there a policy in the first place? You imply that you’re for picking winners and losers. I say let the market decide unfettered.

            I assume from your response that you’re for a minimum wage as well? That certainly favors the supply side of labor (at least in principle).

            1. Immigration is not a market decision, it is a political one.

              Not an anarchist. Sorry not sorry.

              1. “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
                Thomas Jefferson

                You’re a statist. And you should be sorry.

                1. When you get that Anarchotopia thing working, give me a call

                2. No, he shouldn’t, most of us believe in limited government based on constitutional limits. This includes the federal government regulating naturalization, and immigration as a subset of that.

                  You apparently believe in a nation of men, not laws. Or possibly no sovereign national identity whatsoever. Instead of living in the US, which will not become what you want, perhaps you should travel to a part of the world that has no government, and no laws. Perhaps Somalia or something like that.

                  1. “This includes the federal government regulating naturalization, and immigration as a subset of that.”

                    You admit that you believe in a living Constitution then, because you’ve endorsed a position not found in the words of the document. Judge Andrew Napolitano agrees with this position:

                    “But the Constitution itself ? from which all federal powers derive ? does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.”

  17. It will offer non-immigrant status on a renewable basis to a small slice of DACA recipients who can meet its onerous eligibility criteria.

    Open borders advocates have been telling us about how productive, educated, and law abiding Dreamer “children” are, and how there really aren’t so many of them. Sounds like Republicans are calling the bluff and propaganda by actually applying those criteria. Veterans, of course, already have their own path to citizenship; however, anybody who is illegally present in the country and enlists in the military must have lied and violated the law in order to enlist. The bill doesn’t “criminalize poverty”, it criminalizes extended, massive, deliberate violations of US immigration law.

    I also suspect that Republicans are just taking a page from the Democratic playbook and trying to shift the Overton window. The final bill will likely be somewhat less punitive. But the Overton window needs shifting, because positions like Dalmia’s are so far removed from how normal Western democracies function that people need a dose of reality.

    1. Open borders advocates have been telling us about how productive, educated, and law abiding Dreamer “children” are,

      How come all of the ones we see on the evening news are some sort of “activist”? I thought they were all doctors and software engineers.

  18. What is particularly deplorable about Dalmia’s position is that she keeps lumping together people illegally present in the US with law abiding aliens. Children of legal immigrants don’t get a deal under the Democratic Dreamer proposals. If you or your parents complied with US immigration law, Democrats and Dalmia obviously don’t give a f*ck about you and you can be screwed by the full might of the US immigration system.

    I had to leave the US after coming here as a child legally because my visa ran out, and it took me more than a decade outside the country to get an immigration visa.

    1. “I had to leave the US after coming here as a child legally because my visa ran out, and it took me more than a decade outside the country to get an immigration visa.”

      Sounds like an argument for open borders.

    2. So your argument is basically “I had to follow a bunch of bullshit rules in order to get a green card therefore everyone else should too”. Is that it?

      1. Yes, that is the vindictive mindset that I have heard, in person, from green-card holders, and from immigrants who have married natives… They (the latter) get run through the wringer as well.

        “Well, in my day we had to settle for eating raw mammoth meat, so you should have to live the same way.”

        I don’t know how any progress gets made, with this kind of mentality in charge…

        1. My brother has been patiently waiting in line – for more than 10 years now – for an immigrant visa. The Democrats would rather have everyone else jump ahead of him in line.

          But feel free to tell him and me that we have a vindictive mindset.

          1. “The Democrats would rather have everyone else jump ahead of him in line.”

            Really? The Democrat Party has your brother personally named, in their party platform, as being preferred to be the very last? Really and truly?

            1. Sure, keep snarking. Would you like a beer with your sneer?

            2. And the 1st place award for dodging an answer because to stupid to come up with one goes to…

              Why don’t you give the man an answer to is question? Why does someone that is following the law and doing it the right way – no matter how crappy that way maybe – gets skipped by people who didn’t want to follow any laws?

              1. Just because I refuse to follow one totally stupid law… Or because I would if I could, in less than 10 or 20 years of needless bureaucratic delay… Then does that make me one of these “…people who didn’t want to follow any laws?”

                I follow good and just laws, and the rest, I ignore, while being fully aware of the risk. There are a LOT of stupid and unjust laws on the books! Google “three felonies a day”.

      2. Nowhere did I say that the rules were “bullshit”. I respected those rules, I consider them reasonable and just, and I expect others to respect those rules as well.

    3. What is particularly deplorable about Dalmia’s position is …

      That she DARES disagree with you and your tiny band of bigots … …along with 83% of Americans … and a majority of the Republicans. But FUCK the will of the people and consent of the governed in your Brave New World.

      1. I’d be fine with putting the question of the disposition of illegal aliens to a plebiscite of citizens.
        Would you be?

        1. Umm, wrong issue. The 83% for DREAMERS is a poll by ………….. FOX NEWS!

          This link is the RESULTS of a search for polling on Dreamers. You lose every single one. Bigly. Anything else?

          1. Not an answer to the question

            And we all know why

            1. Not an answer to the question And we all know why

              “WRONG ISSUE.”
              Do you hear me NOW?

              1. Awww everyone is a bigot because they don’t agree with you. You are a bot around you? Do you get paid by the comment?

                1. I merely corrected his fuckup of the facts.
                  Then his fuckup on my answer.
                  Now YOUR fuckup.

    4. DACA rewards those who broke the law and punishes those who obeyed it.

      Rewarding the criminal and punishing the lawful is a really bad way to run a country or select people to join the country.

      The line for admittance to the US starts outside the country. If you have to be deported, you should never be allowed in the line. Ever.

      Get out. Get in line. Get behind the foreigners who respected our laws in the first place.

      The amnesty is forgetting that you’ve been breaking the law up until now if you get out of your own accord. No *rewards* for breaking the law.

      1. Even Donald Trump disagrees with you,
        Plus you said you’d accept the a plebiscite of citizens, where you’d lose in a landslide. Feeling lonely?
        https://reason.com/blog/2018/01…..nt_7107545

        Anything else?

        1. Do you ever have any actual ideas of your own, or do you always self justify by referring to the opinions of others?

          1. Do you ever have any actual ideas of your own, or do you always self justify by referring to the opinions of others?

            THE FOX NEWS POLL THAT PROVED YOU WRONG IS CALLED FACT … NOT OPINION.
            Apparently a very inconvenient fact for you

            TRUMP’S DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU IS ALSO FACT, NOT OPINION.
            Also inconvenient?

            1. Facts about *other people’s opinions*, you dullard

              1. Facts about *other people’s opinions*

                Thanks for the retraction, It’s the fact (singular) I quoted. Its called documenting a statement (instead of blowing smoke).. The opinions would exceed the 1500 character limit here.
                What’s wrong with citing a survey on public opinion, as PROOF of … public opinion?

                Trump/s disagreement with you is also a fact.

    5. What is particularly deplorable about Dalmia’s position

      YOU are the deplorable here

      Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

      86% want citizenship for dreamers
      83%f for ALL illegals working here.
      ****63% of even TRUMP voters favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers,

      Where’s your source? (lol)

    6. Mark22
      I had to leave the US after coming here as a child legally because my visa ran out

      Really? 45% of all the illegals here are on expired visas. How come you had to leave but 4 million others did not?

  19. Unintended consequences are a pain in the ass.

    I remember when anti-immigration people were big on ending birthright citizenship–why should you become a citizen just because you were born here?

    The end of birthright citizenship doesn’t look like what they expected. They wanted to stop “anchor babies” from becoming citizens, but getting rid of birthright citizenship actually looks more like dreamers legislation, where you don’t have to be born here to become a citizen anymore.

    Now they’re effectively saying that dreamers shouldn’t be allowed to become citizens because they weren’t born here.

    Likewise, the pro-immigration fetishists had it all backwards, also. Taking birthright citizenship out of the equation probably doesn’t mean fewer immigrants will be eligible for citizenship. It probably means millions more will become eligible for citizenship in the future–regardless of where they were born–with the dreamers being the vanguard.

    1. I think what the diehard immigration restrictionists really want, with regards to birthright citizenship, is to get rid of it, and replace it with a loyalty and ideology test for citizenship. For all, natives and immigrants alike.

      1. I guess if you are an Open Borders type who doesn’t care about birthright citizenship you have no problem with birth tourists like the Chinese in Saipan or the Russians at South Beach

        But for the rest of the country, probably doesn’t like having one put over on them by some nouveau riche foreigners.

        1. I’m not sure there’s ever been a bigger straw man built than what some people think of as “open borders”.

          Open borders is not about citizenship. It’s about crossing the border of Mexico without a visa.

          In practice, we have more or less open borders with Canada. That doesn’t mean Canadians suddenly become American citizens when they cross the Canadian border.

          Here’s a primer on what open borders is really about:

          “A policy of borders without visas would in fact be more restrictive and formal than the system that applied through much of American history because it would depend on proper identification — either a passport or some other recognized papers — to cross from one country into the other.”

          —-Tim Cavanaugh, Los Angeles Times

          http://articles.latimes.com/20…..avanaugh23

          If you plan on arguing with open borders people effectively, you should address those ideas rather than the straw man in your head.

          For instance, how do you answer the contention that an open border as described above would be more secure?

          . . . or have you never really thought about that before because your favorite straw man never said that before?

      2. Do you have some kind of link for that, or are you just . . . speculating?

        1. If you were asking me…

          https://tinyurl.com/ybwyt4hp

          1. The question wasn’t about whether anti-immigration people wanted to end birthright citizenship.

            The question was about your “loyalty and ideology test for citizenship. For all, natives and immigrants alike”.

            Do you have a link for that?

            Or were you speculating?

            I wouldn’t let Robbie or ENB off the hook for writing something like that without a link. And if there’s a semi-mainstream group of anti-immigrant activists arguing for such a thing, I’d like to know about it.

            1. That wasn’t me talking about “loyalty tests” , that was chemjeff.

              I will ask who wants to defend birth tourism (and by extension Birthright Citizenship) from a non-OBL perspective.

          2. If you were asking me…

            You’d post a link to the Mariana Islands!

            1. You’d post a link to the Mariana Islands!

              Where a bunch of well-to-do Chinese are traveling in order to have a natural-born US Citizen.

              Outside of OBL-ideology, how does this make sense for US?

              1. It’s not relevant to the topic.

      3. I think what the diehard immigration restrictionists really want, with regards to birthright citizenship, is to get rid of it, and replace it with a loyalty and ideology test for citizenship.

        Actually, we’d like a US immigration policy comparable to other Western nations; that kind of policy is more strict than what you list.

        You acquire citizenship either from your parents or by naturalization; you do not acquire it based on your place of birth.

        The conditions for naturalization should certainly be that you are loyal to the country you’re immigrating to and do not follow totalitarian or illiberal ideologies; that’s already a requirement in the US. In addition, there should also be the requirement that you have demonstrated that you are capable of making a far above average contribution to the US economy and will not become a public charge.

    2. “The end of birthright citizenship doesn’t look like what they expected.” -what does this mean? Birthright citizenship is alive and well and protected by the 14th Amendment. Are you under the impression that it somehow ended?

      1. Are you unfamiliar with the term “anchor baby”?

        If you don’t need to be born here anymore in order to qualify for citizenship, then birthright citizenship is no longer a consideration.

        Again, the anti-immigrant lobby has been so successful in selling birthright citizenship as an expansion of those who are eligible for immigration that it’s affected our understanding of the term.

        However, in reality, being born here isn’t just a guarantee of citizenship; it’s also a minimum requirement in reference to immigration.

        In reality, because of birthright citizenship, you can be denied citizenship if you weren’t born here. Dreamers legislation will make people eligible for citizenship by taking away the ability to deny citizenship based on whether people were born here.

        Why isn’t that obvious to more people?

        Again, it’s mostly marketing.

        Shika is telling us that everything Trump does is anti-immigration, so we think he can’t be caving on the issue of birthright citizenship.

        The anti-immigrant people have been telling us that taking birthright citizenship away will limit the number of immigrants eligible for citizenship–when, in fact, it’s effectively amnesty.

        1. I think you are arguing with yourself here. No one is arguing about birthright citizenship, including the “anti-immigrant lobby”.

          1. Trump is. Frequently. How he enflames his goobers.

          2. And you seem to be willfully ignoring that dreamers legislation is all about making illegal immigrants eligible for citizenship despite the fact that they weren’t born here.

            1. You changed your own topic..

        2. “If you don’t need to be born here anymore in order to qualify for citizenship, then birthright citizenship is no longer a consideration.”

          Nope.
          Birthright citizenship is
          If born here, then citizen

          That does not preclude other possible ways of getting citizenship.

          Like some people want to reward people with citizenship for their parents breaking immigration law and bringing them here as children.

          DACA is basically an *expanded* birthright citizenship.

          Birthright: you’re a citizen if you’re here at day 0
          DACA: you’re a citizen if you’re here at day 0 to 16 years

          1. “That does not preclude other possible ways of getting citizenship.”

            Jesus Christ, why is this so hard for people to understand?

            Birthright citizenship may mean that you’re a citizen if you’re born here, but it also means that people can be deported because they weren’t born here.

            Sure, there are other ways of obtaining citizenship, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is about when it’s alright to deny citizenship and deport people.

            Dreamers legislation means that millions of people can’t be deported or denied citizenship just because they weren’t born here.

            That is a massive expansion of citizenship eligibility–and it’s the beginning of the end birthright citizenship as a factor in deciding whether someone can be deported.

            To the anti-immigration lobby who thought “anchor babies” were a problem, why would they cheer Trump removing being born here as a requirement for citizenship for those illegal immigrants? No need to come across the border when you’re pregnant to have an American baby anymore? Just bring the kids you’ve already had! They can’t be denied citizenship just because they weren’t born here–since that will no longer be a determining factor in whether they can be denied citizenship and deported.

    3. ” They wanted to stop “anchor babies” from becoming citizens, but getting rid of birthright citizenship actually looks more like dreamers legislation”

      Only when open borders types are writing the legislation

      And yes, let’s get rid of birthright citizenship
      And electoral apportionment for illegals

  20. Yes! Prohibition will totally work THIS time! Build bigger walls, pass more laws, spend more money, abridge more liberties, give cops more guns and more money, what could go wrong?

    1. “Japan is a totalitarian hellhole”

    2. Yes! Prohibition will totally work

      Having been on the undesirable side of various borders and walls for part of my life, I assure you that border control, unlike prohibition, works just fine.

  21. After wading through Dalmia’s article about the Trump administration enforcing immigration law, you might not know what Trump said about dreamers yesterday.

    “President Donald Trump for the first time said publicly that he supported a pathway to citizenship for young, undocumented immigrants brought to the country by their parents, moving a step closer to bipartisan group seeking a way around an immigration-policy impasse but taking a position at odds with some conservatives.

    “We’re going to morph into it?it’s going to happen,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House. “It’s a nice thing to have the incentive after a period of years, being able to become a citizen.”

    Mr. Trump cited a time frame of 10 to 12 years for the young immigrants, dubbed Dreamers, to become citizens.

    —-Wall Street Journal, January 25

    https://tinyurl.com/y9m2r8a9

    We’ll see what he actually does, but I don’t think there’s any question that Trump is using dreamers as a bargaining chip to get what he wants.

    If Trump gets anything less than a secure border (rather than funding for a wall), then the anti-immigration folks will have been screwed by the end of birthright citizenship–whether they realize it or not.

    1. “the end of birthright citizenship” – what are you referring to? This is not part of the current debate.

      1. It’s the center of the debate. It’s just not being debated in those terms.

        Dreamers are people they’re going to make citizens despite the fact that they weren’t born here.

        How could that not be part of the current debate?

        Dreamers aren’t “anchor babies” because they weren’t born here to non-citizens. Making dreamers citizens is all about the end of birthright citizenship.

        The problem is that the anti-immigration people made the argument for so many years as if birthright citizenship were an expansion of citizenship without consideration of whether it’s a minimum requirement. They’re a victim of their own marketing!

        Born Here = Citizenship We can Reject you if you were born here.

        Get rid of one, and guess what happens to the other?

        Anti-immigration people used to complain about “anchor babies”. In the future, children don’t even need to be born here anymore. If they were brought here as children, they can become citizens.

        How could that not be about the end of birthright citizenship–at least as far as naturalization goes?

        1. My symbols in the middle were eaten as invisible HTML

          Born Here = Citizenship [means] We can Reject you if you were [not] born here.

          That’s the way it should read.

          And the question that follows is just like it appears: Get rid of Born Here = Citizenship and what happens to the part that says “We can Reject you if you were NOT born here”?

          If they can’t reject you just because you weren’t born here anymore, then how is that a victory for anti-immigrant people? The only thing that might be worth trading for to them is a totally secure border. If the wall they’re pushing for isn’t totally secure, then they’re getting screwed in this trade.

        2. Ken, a path to citizenship for ‘dreamers’ has no impact whatsoever on birthright citizenship.

          Every legal immigrant is a person who is made into a citizen “even though” they weren’t born here.

          And birthright citizenship should be looked into. It should be ‘you are an American citizen if one or more of your parents is an American citizen’ instead of this territorial thing that makes the border a goal line.

  22. Re: this devilish detail: It also wants a 40 percent cut in legal family-based immigration that Trump berates as “chain migration.”

    The current immigration system issues about one million immigrant visas / green cards every year. Less than 200,000 go to immigrants with advanced degrees or skills, the kind we should be encouraging.

    Trump’s plan will reduce the annual number of immigrant visas from 1 million to 500,000, but most of those would go to immigrants with advanced degrees or skills. This is a win for us. We are under no obligation to open the door to just anyone who wants to immigrate, especially if their incoming economic status makes them likely to be a net burden rather than a net contributor.

  23. For all of you law-worshippers out there? A “dreamer” came here as a one-year-old, with no real volition at all? Said dreamer should be punished?

    What about a newborn baby with (non-prescribed) opiates in his blood? It is “de facto” illegal to have (non-prescribed) opiates in your blood (even if the laws aren’t quite written in that exact way). Get busted (for anything) and try to explain your way out of your piss-test or blood-test results with, “Well, someone injected me without my consent”. Just TRY that!

    Well anyway, with the vindictive “logic” of the illegal-human-haters, that newborn baby should be hauled off to jail!

    1. Are you saying newborn babies are being busted for crimes and piss tested and then speaking to explain their crimes? Impressive babies.

    2. ?

      If you’re talking about a “dreamer”, it’s not a one-year-old baby any more.

      If you’re talking about an actual baby, I assume it would be deported together with its parents?

      1. OK, so then wait 20 years after being a criminal for being a doped-up newborn baby, and THEN punish them, and NOW we have the proper analogy to the vindictiveness of the illegal-human-haters! Is that better or more clear?

        1. You are correct, they should have been deported together immediately.

      2. If you’re talking about a “dreamer”, it’s not a one-year-old baby any more.

        ?
        He or she did not say otherwise.

    3. For all you dreamer advocates…. A “dreamer” walks across the border (not brought by his parents) on the day before his 16th birthday? Should said dreamer be entitled to stay just because he managed to sneak across the border.

      I know the answer OBL’s will give. But what’s the non-OBL argument?

    4. “Said dreamer should be punished?”

      The world has roughly 7 billion people equally NotAmericans through “no fault of their own”. We are not *punishing* them.

      We are setting our immigration policy according to our interests, not the interests of the 7 billion NotAmericans.

      1. Get raised from 2 years old somewhere, get tied into the community, and learn the community’s language…

        And then get kicked out to a foreign-to-you nation, where you know no one, and don’t speak the language, and tell me that you are not getting punished!

        1. , therefore destroy your country

          no thanks

        2. Markup problem above

          (sad face), therefore destroy your country

          no thanks

    5. Does the baby have brown skin? Yer outta here!

      It’s so fun pretending this is about the rule of law, especially among people who don’t respect the rule of law in most cases, especially when the infractions harm no one.

      1. “Submit, or I will call you a racist again”

        Have you noticed that isn’t working so well these days?

    6. A “dreamer” came here as a one-year-old, with no real volition at all? Said dreamer should be punished?

      They aren’t being “punished”, they are simply returned to their country of citizenship.

      Well anyway, with the vindictive “logic” of the illegal-human-haters, that newborn baby should be hauled off to jail!

      Nothing “vindictive” about it. The parents should be punished and hauled off to prison. As a result, the baby will then need to be placed into foster care. We don’t stop enforcing the law because it inconveniences the children of lawbreakers (and in this case, the adult children of lawbreakers).

      1. But 83% of Americans disagree with you blatantly authoritarian mentality.
        And it’s punishment even if you refuse to admit it.

  24. Speaking of Dreamers, the best and brightest:

    Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona

    Quotes:
    Using newly released detailed data on all prisoners who entered the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.

    Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

    If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.

    1. This is obviously fake news. Nick Gillespie routinely reminds me that illegal aliens are the most law-abiding folks in the country.

        1. Worthless Dumbfuck Hihnsano

    2. So much criminal enrichment!

  25. Serious questions:

    1) Do national borders exist?
    2) Do nations (by extension their voting public) have a right to decide who may legally enter a country and on what terms they may stay?

    1. 1. Yes
      2. Yes
      Now, question 3 (Multiple choice):
      3. How should the government exercise its authority to decide who may legally enter a country?

      A. The government should submit to the will of the mob, whatever the mob says – if the mob says “keep out the brown people” or “keep out the Muslims”, then the government should execute the public will regardless.

      B. The government should submit to the opinions of panels of experts, Top Men, and various other central planners who attempt to decide what parts of a $20 trillion economy “need” which specific types of labor, and allocate permissions accordingly.

      C. The government should use its authority to promote the liberty of all people, both for citizens and for immigrants, to the largest extent possible.

      1. D The government should use its authority to promote the liberty of all of it’s citizens because it has no right to speak or act for adults who have not had the liberty to approve or disapprove of it’s representation.

        1. Government has no rights. Only people do. Governmens have powers, delegated by the people, which is one of our rights to do so.

          The people delegated that power in something I like to call the Constitution

      2. 3. A.

        The government needs to act in accordance with their people’s desires unless it is unconstitutional or illegal. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about enforcing immigration. Furthermore, not a single nation on the globe disputes this inherent right of nations to police their borders.

        You clearly believe C but I note you do not indicate how this should be carried out. Are the same Top Men you posit in B supposed to also decide how liberty is to be promoted if the public prefers a program that is not in accordance with heTop Men’s understanding of liberty? You see how this could be contentious, yes? You and me clearly have different conceptions of liberty, would you want me dictating to you our national immigration policy with you having no recourse to change the policy at the ballot box?

      3. C. The government should use its authority to promote the liberty of all people, both for citizens and for immigrants, to the largest extent possible.

        It should! And that means not letting in large numbers of low skill workers: while letting them in certainly improves their liberty relative to the shitholes they usually come from, it infringes strongly on the liberty of those Americans who actually have to pay for their schooling, social services, etc.

  26. It looks like the “GOP nativists” are in tune with the country as a whole.


    Shock poll: Americans want massive cuts to legal immigration: Cutting chain migration even more popular than legalizing Dreamers

    Quotes:
    …the latest polling suggests President Trump’s bargaining position may be strong.

    A Harvard-Harris poll taken in the run-up to the shutdown found Americans strongly support granting citizenship rights to illegal immigrant Dreamers. But they also back Mr. Trump’s three demands for a border wall, limits to the chain of family migration and an end to the Diversity Visa Lottery.

    Most striking of all is the public’s demand for lower overall legal immigration ? a position that has little traction on Capitol Hill but one that is overwhelmingly popular across the country.

    The poll found that most Americans want annual legal immigration capped at 500,000 a year or less ? far lower than the current annual rate of 1.3 million.

    Those findings challenge what many lawmakers say is the bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that while illegal immigration is to be discouraged, high levels of legal immigration are necessary for the nation’s image and its economy.

    1. Americans be uninformed. We’ve had negative population growth for several years. Without immigration, we’d have a declining population, which speaks to the hysteria on this. Who pays for the Trumpsters’ future Social Security And Medicare? Two options
      1) They won’t have any.
      2) Their kids and grandkids will pay nearly double today’s taxes.

      Hysteria always has a downside.

        1. Try doing the math.

          Try making sense. That has nothing at all to do with declining birthrates

          1. Yeah, but it has a lot to do with your assertion that these immigrants are going to be of any use paying for Social Security and Medicare.

            1. Yeah, but it has a lot to do with your assertion

              How does the case of ONE criminal apply to ANY of it?

              that these immigrants are going to be of any use paying for Social Security and Medicare.

              Illegals currently subsidize BOTH. Pay the tax, denied the benefits.
              And you ducked the issue entirely. Again

              Who pays for the Trumpsters’ future Social Security And Medicare? Two options
              1) They won’t have any.
              2) Their kids and grandkids will pay nearly double today’s taxes.

              Who WOULD pay those FICA taxes?? If you’re under 40 or so, YOUR Medicare and Social Security will case HUGE tax increase on your own children and grandchildren. How is THAT responsible, Dad?

        2. Try doing the math.

          You lose.
          That has nothing to do with negative population growth — which is ACTUAL math.

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano cites his “83%” stat as an appeal to authority, sees a stat that contradicts his stupidity and says “Americans be stupid.”

        1. 83% is public opinion — the exact opposite of appeal to authority.
          The stats IS my intelligence.

          Who pays for the Trumpsters’ future Social Security And Medicare?

        2. 83% is public opinion — the exact opposite of appeal to authority.
          The stats IS my intelligence.

          Who pays for the Trumpsters’ future Social Security And Medicare?

        3. 83% is public opinion — the exact opposite of appeal to authority.
          The stats IS my intelligence.

          Who pays for the Trumpsters’ future Social Security And Medicare?

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends only his stats matter.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano ignores his own double-standard.

      2. Ha! Remember your comment lauding the will of the people when you were talking about DACA amnesty?

        1. Ha! remember your comment lauding the will of the people when you were talking about DACA amnesty?

          Ha! Read it again

          Americans strongly support granting citizenship rights to illegal immigrant Dreamers

          Dreamers refers to DACA

        2. Ha! Remember your comment lauding the will of the people when you were talking about DACA amnesty?

          HA! That poll AGREES with what I said on DACA!!!

          Americans strongly support granting citizenship rights to illegal immigrant Dreamers

          Dreamers are DACA.

          1. Polls agree with me! Yay!

            1. And with me. But you were proven wrong about me.

      3. Hihn doesn’t appear to be capable of remembering his own previous comments. But other people’s comments that have hurt his feelings? Those get copied into his ‘journal of meanies’ to be recalled at a later date with copious, eye-bleeding amounts of terrible formatting and hilariously inept emphases.

        1. Hihn doesn’t appear to be capable of remembering his own previous comments.

          You don’t appear capable of reading. Or it’s you who are incapable of remembering by previous comments. Perhaps both.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s senility pops up in real time.

      4. One … Two … Three
        Three readers have all concluded that I somehow reversed my position stated elsewhere on this page. Go figure.
        1) Red Rocks
        2) buybuydandavis
        3) VinniUSMC

        (so far).

        1. 83% of us have concluded you’re cat shit crazy

          1. 83% of us have concluded you’re cat shit crazy

            On a Fox News Poll?

            Where’s your link?

        2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano claims he dismissed stats that didn’t conform with his opinion.

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano still lying that he didn’t display a double standard.

      5. We’ve had negative population growth for several years. Without immigration, we’d have a declining population,

        Gosh, you don’t say! Who would have thought that progressive social policies (free birth control, free abortions, encouragement of recreational sex, subsidies for single motherhood, etc.) would lead to a declining population!

        which speaks to the hysteria on this. Who pays for the Trumpsters’ future Social Security And Medicare?

        Low skill immigrants are a net drain on Social Security and Medicare. Even if they were not, they are pyramid schemes, and adding more people into a pyramid scheme only delays the inevitable collapse, and it makes the eventual collapse worse.

        1. Who would have thought that progressive social policies (free birth control, free abortions, encouragement of recreational sex, subsidies for single motherhood, etc.) would lead to a declining population!

          Family size has been a function of wealth, for several hundred years, as we learned in high school Birthrates are falling worldwide as wealth increases. At current rates, the entire world will have a negative birthrates within 25 … caused by none of your rightwing hysteria.

          which speaks to the hysteria on this. Who pays for the Trumpsters’ future Social Security And Medicare?

          Low skill immigrants are a net drain on Social Security and Medicare.

          Non-responsive

  27. “Last week, Trump raided about a hundred 7-11 stores to round up illegals.”

    Trump himself did the raids? During the Obama years, when businesses were raided, did you say “Obama rounded up illegals”?

    I happen to work with DHS. And ICE and CBP are professionals who do their job regardless of who is in the White House.

    “In addition, in recent days, ICE has stopped Greyhound buses in Miami and demanded to see the passports of all the passengers, Americans and others alike. (Miami falls within the 100-mile Constitution-free zone where ICE has virtual carte blanche to set up checkpoints at will.”

    That was CBP, not ICE.

  28. Trump and GOP Nativists Are Preparing to Screw Dreamers

    Bullshit. It wasn’t Trump and the GOP who screwed the Dreamers, it was their parents, who screwed them by putting them in a compromising situation. I understand it’s a shitty position to be in, but their parents put them in it by illegally bringing them here. If they have any legitimate grounds for recourse, it’s with the people who put them in that position, not the country who’s laws they broke. We don’t owe them a god damned thing.

    1. Obama didn’t do them any favors either, by promising something he couldn’t deliver. Creating the program via executive order–which any successor could undo with his own pen and phone–rather than by the legislative process set them up for this situation. They trusted him…big mistake.

      1. “Obama didn’t do them any favors either”

        Screwed foreigners, screwed Americans, screwed most everybody.

        1. And he’s black.

  29. My 4,593rd reminder to what’s her name; there is a difference between legal immigration, and illegal border crossing. Please identify which you are referring to in your rants.

    1. Your rant was the silliest of all.

      1. Don’t be so modest

  30. Sorry I’m one of the many millions that don’t want a clean DACA bill. Any bill needs to end chain migration, the visa lottery, and mandate e-verify

  31. Daily I am reminded what a good decision years ago to end donations to Reason.

  32. Oh look, more ignoring the difference between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

    1. Oh look, more ignoring the difference between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

      Some. But are you sure? Considering your major gaffe here: https://reason.com/blog/2018/01…..nt_7107534

  33. Donald Trump is one evil son of a bitch.

    1. Every single elected official in dc is.
      Every. Single. One.

  34. i guess the writer just left out the fact that trump has deported less people then king barry in his first year.

    1. TDS

  35. ‘Dreamers’ is a propaganda term. When you start with propaganda, there’s nowhere to go.

    When Ronald Reagan signed the amnesty bill – back when people were honest enough to actually call an amnesty bill an amnesty bill – he added ‘and never again.’ He allowed the logic that you couldn’t deport those who had been here for years, but he stated the intent to not allow the same situation to arise again. And then everyone looked the other way – and allowed it to happen again. Democrats to get new voters, and Republicans to get new slave labor to increase profits and stock values.

    The logical outcome was the Trump presidency.

    DACA is not a federal law, passed by Congress. It was an executive action – essentially a law passed by one man. As such, it can be revoked by one man. Richard Nixon never dreamed of an Imperial Presidency the likes of the one Barak Obama has given us. On that basis alone, DACA should be ended. If it’s a good idea, let Congress pass it, and the President sign it. If not, not.

    1. ‘Dreamers’ is a propaganda term

      Another sad victim of alt-right t mind control
      They’re called Dreamers because the were the subject of the Dream Act, first submitted in 2001, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Hatch (R) and .Durbin (D)

      Learn here

      DACA is not a federal law, passed by Congress. It was an executive action – essentially a law passed by one manYou really need to be more careful on the brainwashing. He used his discretion on HOW the law would be enforced, increased spending and manpower and set a new high in deportation, I’m sure you;re NOT one of those shameful goobers who defends Trump’s executive actions but not the black guy’s

  36. ‘Dreamers’ is a propaganda term. When you start with propaganda, there’s nowhere to go.

    When Ronald Reagan signed the amnesty bill – back when people were honest enough to actually call an amnesty bill an amnesty bill – he added ‘and never again.’ He allowed the logic that you couldn’t deport those who had been here for years, but he stated the intent to not allow the same situation to arise again. And then everyone looked the other way – and allowed it to happen again. Democrats to get new voters, and Republicans to get new slave labor to increase profits and stock values.

    The logical outcome was the Trump presidency.

    DACA is not a federal law, passed by Congress. It was an executive action – essentially a law passed by one man. As such, it can be revoked by one man. Richard Nixon never dreamed of an Imperial Presidency the likes of the one Barak Obama has given us. On that basis alone, DACA should be ended. If it’s a good idea, let Congress pass it, and the President sign it. If not, not.

    1. Bingo!

      1. Bingo!

        You spelled bullshit wrong. https://reason.com/blog/2018/01…..nt_7109798

    2. Perez, of Buda, Texas, was convicted anyway on one count of continuous traffic of a person and jailed for 25 years, the site said. DACA is the Democrat code word for international trafficking of children for indentured servitude. It is Globalist corporate welfare at U.S. taxpayer expense wrapped up for sale to Madison Avenue pigeons to sellout our sovereignty with open borders and free trade. Where is a prosecutor when you really need one?

  37. So many libertarians positively obsessed with ensuring that the jackboot of the state comes down on the necks of people who commit a minor civil infraction.

    1. They aren’t libertarians. Most seem to be alt-right and/or or Ron Paul cultists

    2. So many libertarians positively obsessed with ensuring that the jackboot of the state comes down on the necks of people who commit a minor civil infraction.

      I don’t see anybody asking for punishing these people; all we are asking is that they return to their country of citizenship.

      But if you like, we could make overstaying one’s visa a serious criminal offense, like other nations actually do.

      1. That is punishment. Denial is not an argument.

        And “we” is a tiny minority of Americans.

  38. Libertarians should take heart from the prospect that the half-educated, bigoted, authoritarian, stale-thinking, disaffected right-wing yahoos seem destined to be ejected from positions of power soon enough.

    Americans have encountered successive waves of intolerance, often related to religion, immigration, or skin color — Irish, blacks, Jews, Muslims, gays, Italians, eastern Europeans, Asians, Hispanics — and we have beaten the voices of backwardness, superstition, and bigotry every time, at least over the long term. This latest batch of bigots seems nothing special, it reliance on the insights, charms, and reliability of Donald J. Trump notwithstanding.

    The great liberal-libertarian alliance seems destined to continue to chart and forge America’s progress while conservatives mutter bitterly at the sideline, pining for good old days that never existed. In America, the bigots bluster but fail.

    1. I hope and pray that you are correct!

      However, a people (“Ein Volk”) can change over time. In the days of the depredations of Napoleon, the French were known as savage warmongers, and the Germans? They were a peaceful, cultured folk! Folks of song and dance and beer-drinking, merry-making people of poetry and the arts.

      1. You confuse reality with propaganda. Where do you suppose such a story would arise? Perhaps the Brits?

        The Austrian HRE peaceful? Prussians peaceful? Napoleon studied the battle plans of Fredrick the Great, the great peaceful monarch of the authoritarian, serf filled, backwards Prussia.

        Revolutionary France was continually on the offensive because everyone declared war on them after they executed their monarch and the collective monarchs of Europe united as one to crush the threat to their aristocratic rule of Europe. France was then forced to continually invade and crush other nations armies to protect their non-aristocratic government.

        1. Yes, you’re correct, the Prussians were assholes. I have this from deeply-studied learners of German history. They were but a small fragment of what later unified to become Germany. Other parts of Germany were quite broad-minded. They came to settle in Texas, where they were VERY non-religious (no churches in their towns), and they detested slavery, and were on the side of the Union, VERY clearly. For that, they were persecuted, and many of them killed.

          “France was then forced to continually invade and crush other nations…” Ha-ha-ha! Just like us in the USA today, he could have retreated to within the nation’s borders, and fought TRULY defensive wars ONLY! In other words, he could have put his dick back in his pants, and stopped imposing HIS will on everyone, via violence! Free and prosperous France could have stood far longer, that way… If only the USA today could learn lessons from history…

          1. Other nations declared war on France. France then invaded them and destroyed armies one by one instead of waiting for 500,000 Russians, Austrians, Prussians, and Brits to unite as one and crush them.

            This is pretty much Napoleon and the French Revolutionary military to a T. Would you wait for a massive military force to build up on the other side of your borders so they can invade you and establish a monarch on your government? Because this is exactly what happened when Napoleon was finally crushed.

            Yes Napoleon became a megalomaniac. But he was continually provoked to war, the UK kept forming coalitions against him with the intent of marshaling overwhelming force against him with the intent of crushing him. Eventually they did.

            1. Thanks for the history lesson… I was not aware of some of it…

              1. I know Napoleon tried to install his own monarchy and aristocratic systems throughout Europe when he took over and for that he can be rightly judged, but he is by far my favorite person in history. No one has put the boot to more aristocratic faces than Napoleon in the history of the world and in the process of booting he managed to destroy the Holy Roman Empire, brought Austria and the Hapsburgs to their knees multiple times, crushed alliances of anti-revolutionary aristocrats scared of sharing power with the proles, humbled the Hohenzollerns of Prussia, liberated Italy, defeated Russian aristocrats, demolished the last vestiges of feudalism in Europe, and allowed modernity to finally seep into some of the most backward shitholes in the world like Prussia.

                No one has had their reputation more negatively propagandized in history than Napoleon has by the Brits. I used to think he was equivalent to an 18th Century Hitler or something like that. Far from it.

    2. Seven More Years

    3. Stupid is as stupid does. Dream on douche bag.

    4. What “progress”? Progressives and “liberals” have been complaining for years about the “stagnating middle class”, “racism and misogyny”, and “plutocracy” in the US. And they are right. And they created these problems, which is why people are increasingly looking for alternatives.

  39. 83% of the people on this site want Hihn to stop eating cat poop and goobers.

    1. I was in the minority

      I want him to eat more cat poop

  40. Take the whole lot of them and dump them in Mexico. Then build the stupid wall. That will fix the DACA nightmare.

    1. Trump just kicked you to the curb.
      “White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people”

      Schumer kicked the shit out of him.

      1. From the link, at the top…

        “President Donald Trump is proposing giving 1.8 million young undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship in exchange for $25 billion for his long-promised wall and a host of other strict immigration cuts, according to a framework proposed Thursday.”

        Holy Jesus titty-fucking Christ Almighty!!! We can let SOME selected few of the illegal humans stay here, who are young and full of many long years of taxpaying duties, after many long years of studying at school, thanks to American (and illegal-human) taxes, to sponsor their studies… But ONLY if American taxpayers cough up $25 billion for more worthless walls!!!

        Meanwhile, the illegal space-alien quasi-humanoids continue to invade via the skies, where we have NO wall at ALL! “All in all, you’re just another… Brick in the Wall!”

        1. Trump is indeed an asshole. Here’s his problem. 80% of Americans support the Dreamers staying here. 35% support his wall (don’t think necessary to curb immigration) He HAS to continue his authoritarian bullying, which is all he has, now that we see how badly he sucks as a deal maker..

          1. quote VALID trustworthy sources for your claim on the 80% figure. SOME of us are OPEN to some means of qualifying SOME of them to stay here…..WITH checks and safeguards. So far, its been all er nuthin… either they ALL stay here no conditions no restrictiois, or they ALL go, now.

            But so far no one has made a solid move to “vet” them.. criminal background checks, work/welfare history, etc.

            1. quote VALID trustworthy sources for your claim on the 80% figure

              Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

              So far, its been all er nuthin… either they ALL stay here no conditions no restrictiois, or they ALL go, now.

              False. Obama’s action and current Democrat proposals had included ONLY the registered Dreamers, prox 800,000 .. NOT the “eligible” 1.8 million proposed by Trump.. Estimates vary for non-registered eligibles, as high as 3.6 million.

              TRUMP proposed 1.8 million (estimated)

              “White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people”

              But so far no one has made a solid move to “vet” them.. criminal background checks, work/welfare history,

              Also False.
              Registered Dreamers are vetted – the only ones included by Obama.
              It’s Trump who included all the potential ones, when Schumer forced his hand, the only way Trump could get the wall he demanded(if his proposal passes).

              The original Dream Act was proposed in 2001 by Senators Durbin (D) and Hatch (R).

              Anything else?

  41. HR 4760 by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) would:

    eliminate the visa lottery
    cut chain migration
    add mandatory E-Verify
    increase border security
    end sanctuary cities
    provide the 700,000 DACA recipients with a three-year renewable legal status
    no automatic paths to citizenship

    I urge you to support American workers by supporting this legislation!

    The last bipartisan Congressional commission on immigration, led by the late Barbara Jordan, recommended reducing legal immigration to 550,000 by eliminating the immigration of non-nuclear family members and the visa lottery. The HR 4760 would accomplish both of those goals.

    Further, HR 4760 would transform the current employment-based green card system to a merit-based points system, like Canada’s and Australia’s, that would ensure that new immigrants have the necessary skills to benefit American workers and their wages.

    Excessive population, driven by excessive immigration, has severely damaged the American middle class via high rents, high prices for homes, high property taxes to pay for K12 education and welfare for immigrant families whose taxes don’t cover their costs. Hundreds of billions in medicare fraud is committed by immigrants.

    Please spare me the misleading response that immigrants contribute to the economy. Of course, more people will increase the GDP, but as one of your own said, long ago, GPD: ‘measures everything except that which is worthwhile.

    1. Trump just abandoned you on DACA, plus more. He’s that way.

    2. HR 4760 by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) would:

      eliminate the visa lottery
      cut chain migration
      add mandatory E-Verify
      increase border security
      end sanctuary cities
      provide the 700,000 DACA recipients with a three-year renewable legal status
      no automatic paths to citizenship

      I’m glad we gave the limited govt party more power. Adding *mandatory* regulations on private businesses, adding more federal goons to the border, giving the federal government more power over local governments and local law enforcement… But don’t worry, the Republicans told you they were for small government, so they must be.

  42. Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the United States middle class through higher housing (land) costs, competition for jobs, low wages, greater poverty, mortgage fraud, medicare fraud, crime, disease, cost of public schools, cost of college, depletion of resources, burden on the taxpayer and overall congestion than the INCREASE of and change in the nature (more poor, more criminals, e pluribus multum) of the POPULATION since 1965, driven almost entirely by entry of alien migrants their families and descendants (immigrants, h1b visa holders, visa overstays, refugees, etc)

    1. Prove it. You (or Alex Jones) has just about everything backwards.

      Illegals are LESS likely to be in jail, per Cato, for reasons which SHOULD be self-evident.

      1. and less likely BECAUSE certain jurisdictions refuse to hold them, releasing mutiple felony charged illegals onto the public streets where they have a nasty habit of perpetrating signficant harm upon innocent productive Americans lawfully here.

        1. ALSO False … like your false claim here:
          https://reason.com/blog/2018/01…..nt_7108299

  43. “Trump has escalated America’s War on Immigration on every front.”

    You mean … “on ILLEGAL Immigration” …

          1. FOLLOW THE NEWS

            CALL THE NURSES TO CHANGE YOUR DEPENDS

            1. I was going to say dosage.

              1. Trump’s proposal would cause a 50% cut in LEGAL immigration.

  44. this writer is an OPEN BORDERS ANARCHIST

  45. The Dreamer’s parents brought them here, and can blame them for their current situation.

    If the Dems want them and the other Illegals to stay, first comes a fully funded wall, next end to chain migration and visa lottery. Next make English the official national language, then deny them Affirmative Action like Whites, Chinese, Chinese ethnics, Japanese, Indies, and Packies.

    1. Seig Heil!
      Trump has already caved on you,

      1. These are all pretty basic demands.

        1. English language is by the grossly ignorant,, with no clue of history or realty.
          Like all authoritarians (see Trump) you see things as demands, and he says he’s a great deal maker!!!

          For at least 100 years. immigrants have used their native language, slowly adopting English as their sole language in the third generation. None of our business what language what anyone speaks.
          Current youngsters, ignorant of history, are easily manipulated by the political elites.

  46. WHY do you rail on Mr. Trump for upholding his oath of office, whereby he swore to “faithfully execute the Constitution and the laws enacted PERSUANT THERETO….”? And WHERE was your animus against the previous administration which FAILED to faithfully uphold that same oath?

    There are, and have been for generations, requirements, conditions, restictions, qualifications, for those who are NOT citizens or lawful residents of the United States to come here, short term or long term. WHY, of sudden, does none of this matter any more? It was the kinyun who broke the laws in place at the time, establishing a “pathway” to citizenship never enacted into law by COngress, whose job description grants that body of elected representatives the ONY authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalisation for non-citizens.

    If the speed limit on the nearest freeway is posted at 60 MPH, and 95% of motorists regularly travel at 90 MPH, and there are no tickets, arrest, or accidents, what’s the fuss? Fine.. not much of a one. BUT.. new sheriff in town, of sudden he’s got his Boys out there writing felony reckless for 20+ above posted, and everyone rails at the sheriff? Even though he’s given90 days warning that at the first of January he will begin enforcing the POSTED limit?

    THIS is what you’re doing.

    1. NOW< let's see YOU try and cross into Mexico or Canada, on whatever pretext, and decide to take up residence, finding work, buying a car, home, etc....... and just see what happens when officialdom finds you out. It WILL NOT be pretty.I went through the whole year long process to lawfully immigrate into Canada some years back. I had to establish a high likelihood that I would not just be self-supporting but that I had the ability, intent, and resources to ALSO provide work/income for others already there. I was also warned straightly that, should things not work out, and I became dependent upon government services for my continued presence in that country I'd benpolitely but firmly escorted to the international boundary and given a gentle push to the southward, with strict orders not to attempt to return under any pretext.I understand things are now more restrictive for gaining permanent resident status in Canada.

      1. I also know for a fact that no one can lawfully take up residence wihtin Mexico unless they have money enough to support themselves fully. They catch you working, even running a business, without going through proper channels for approval, you’ll find out just how many cockroaches you can count in a night. Remembe the US Marine who took a wrong turn at the border near Tijuana a couple years back (I’ve been there, speak good spanish, and was confused myself…) and ended up INSIDE Mexico. He spent some months in prison, and it was only when some began to fuss about it the government decided to release him… not to mention for motive that he became quite sick and the government was loath to have him die in THEIR custody. Let him return to the US and die there. Not our problem.

        And you want to holler about the raids on the 7-11 stores?

        1. also know for a fact that no one can lawfully take up residence wihtin Mexico

          Your falsehood on Canada leaves you zero credibility. And that’s your fifth falsehood, all identified in this thread.

          Six if we count, separately, your bat-shit crazy claim that Obama is “an illegal squatter.”
          How large is your Klavern?

      2. I was a “landed immigrant” in Canada. None of what you say is true.
        So this is your fourth falsehood, Counting the there atop this thread.

        Tell us why non-citizens have the right to vote in Canada.

    2. And WHERE was your animus against the previous administration which FAILED to faithfully uphold that same oath?

      That’s either a lie .. or ignorant. Like your other claims,

      https://reason.com/blog/2018/01…..nt_7108470

      https://reason.com/blog/2018/01…..nt_7108299

      Despite the shameful lies of your puppet (and other) masters.
      1) Obama is not “an illegal squatter”
      2) Presidents, under the Constitution have the discretion of how to best enforce the laws, within the money allocated by Congress.
      3) Within that discretion, Obama set new records in deportations.

  47. I guess the American Dream has been replaced by the Criminal Trespasser Dream. . .

    Nobody but the parents of these (government/opposite named) “dreamers” screwed them. Nobody.

    They have no legal standing in the US and it’s past time for them to return to the jurisdictions to which they are subject.

    1. Even Trump stands against you. Plus:
      Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

      So … you’re presumably a citizen, but you defy and reject our Constitution, Consent of the Governed and Will of the People. You might be happier in North Korea.

  48. Shikha is just (another) lying liar who lies. What else is new? There is no such thing as an “undocumented immigrant”. They are illegal aliens. The “undocumented immigration” lie is just PC BS. It tells you how far the so-called “libertarian” movement has sunk, that Shikha starts with a lie and then goes downhill.

  49. For Reason magazine, this is a surprisingly biased and inflammatory piece.

  50. I can not see how this bogus claim of 80% support for DACA has any basis in fact.
    Passage of Proposition 187 reflected CA state residents’ concerns about illegal immigration into the United States. California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum. Passage of Proposition 187 reflected state residents’ concerns about illegal immigration into the United States. It passed; Proposition 187 was approved by for 58.93% to against 41.07%, that is a fact.
    The day after Proposition 187 was approved by the state’s voters, several groups filed federal lawsuits against it, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the ACLU. Three days after Proposition 187 was approved. The law was challenged in a legal suit and found unconstitutional by a liberal rubber stamp CA federal district court. The fact is: Governor Gray Davis halted state appeals of this ruling. I look forward to a SCOTUS ruling about canceling DACA and Schumer’s desperate government shut down to resurrect it.
    Gas up the busses.

    1. I can not see how this bogus claim of 80% support for DACA has any basis in fact.

      Open your eyes!
      Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

      I look forward to a SCOTUS ruling about canceling DACA and Schumer’s desperate government shut down to resurrect it.

      You lose there, also. Schumer had kicked the shit out of Trump on this, roughly 12 hours before you posted all your errors.

      “White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people”
      Schumer kicked the shit out of him.m.

  51. The truth is neither side, maybe for the exception of Trump, want this to be actually dealt with and “solved”. Those people who say, “why aren’t you libertarian on open borders!?”, well geniuses, the entire structure of the welfare state depends on non-libertarian principles. Get rid of the massive welfare state and I’m much more open to freer immigration.
    Libertarians aren’t anti-law, and with illegal immigration people are coming into the country on false pretenses or knowingly breaking the laws. How can you possibly accept someone on that? Of course we all feel for them, but right now they have been used as political pawns/patsies to which having a peaceful resolution can never happen, by those within both parties. Democrats and Republicans love themselves illegals.

  52. this is not the position i was expecting shikha to take at all!

  53. I am a libertarian who does not share Reason Magazine’s open borders wet dreams. If we don’t control our borders, it’s only a matter of time before the whole nation is on a destructive and unaffordable socialist course (aka California, Illinois and New York) . If we don’t reform chain migration, all those great taxes immigrants pay are more than sucked up by the safety net dependents they tend to bring with them. The country has a great capacity to absorb reasonable numbers of huddled masses. It is not a bottomless sink for all the cheap labor the world can pass off on us.

    1. That’s because you are as poor in libertarian principles as Reason is.
      Take away government and Americans would STILL support everyone, as we always have, with private charity.
      Shame on today’s libertarian establishment now dominated by anti-gubmint goobers, no longer proposing privatization on ANYTHING.

      Consider the asshats who would repeal Medicaid. Americans have ALWAYS provided health care to the uninsured, regardless income. That means a TRANSITION back to private charities and charity hospitals. If WE refuse to do that, as we do, then Bernie has the ONLY option Americans want, and are willing to pay for. Libertarians opposing free market OUTCOMES. Insane/

      Shame on the libertarian establishment for being such a fucking failure at defending liberty. People WANT 90% of what government provides. All “we” have to do is show a better way to get it done. If” WE” can’t do that, then “we” have no reason to exist. Because “we” have NO CLUE how a society would function without government Pathetic..

  54. There are quite a few of us who are 100% on board with this policy. This sort of thing is long overdue.

  55. Just for the record, I did not read Dalmia’s article and won’t be reading her stuff on immigration any more. She is completely biased and her writing so slanted and tendentious as to make what she produces not worth the energy it takes to produce the pixels it requires to make it visible on screen. Her repeated and ignorant use of the term “Nativist” is insulting and should be beneath a magazine that calls itself “Reason”. Her unabashed shilling for the immigrant and DREAMer point of view is more appropriate to a left-wing handbill than to a libertarian publication of any sort.

    1. She should be unbiased like you?

      Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for near;y a half-century.

      Left – Right =Zero.

  56. So here is the situation. These “Dreamers”, who are here illegally, were given a temporary pass by Obama and the Democrats. These “Dreamers” were never born here. They are citizens of other countries. The old rules dictated that if you were born here, you were a citizen. That meant that if your parents (or at least your mother) were here illegally, and gave birth, the child was considered a citizen. Now the ante has been upped. If you manage to get across the border, you are granted citizenship. No other country does this. This whole issue is being emotion driven with no consideration for the ramifications. This will be a drain on our resources. Does this sound selfish? Maybe. I am not anti immigrant. My Grandparents came here from Europe in the first decade of the 20th century. They were sponsored. They did not sneak across the border. It was done legally. What DACA is proposing will result in immigration chaos.

    1. Does this sound selfish

      You tell me. 83% of Americans favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers. Where does that leave you?

  57. 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.homework5.com

  58. We (the People of the United States) did not invite them in, and FTMP we don’t wish them to be here (like Summer guests that just drop in and stay….and stay….and stay). If they have a gripe about the way they’re being treated, they should address it to the people that created this situation: Their Parents!

  59. Dreamers are essentially Americans – just like Bruce Jenner is essentially a woman.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.