DACA

Republicans Who Think Trump Has Gone Soft Have a Plan: Criminalize Dreamers, Slash Legal Immigration, and Invade Americans' Privacy

The Securing America's Future Act is a nativist nightmare.

|

The White House outlined a proposal yesterday that would crack down on unauthorized immigrants and cut legal immigration in exchange for giving 1.5 million or so Dreamers—some of whom are beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—an eventual pathway to citizenship. It is a restrictionist effort masquerading as a fix. But for the nativists at the Center for Immigration Studies such as Mark Krikorian, it isn't mean enough. They are accusing the president of choking!

They much prefer Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte's Securing America's Future Act, a 414-page wish list of far-right demands with virtually no concessions on the other side. This bill, which has 77 cosponsors, has many similarities with the White House plan.

It would ban 38 percent of all legal immigrants coming to the country. In 2019 alone, it would exclude 423,000 legal immigrants—the largest single-year cut since the 1920s when Congress decided that Italians, Eastern Europeans, and Jews were destroying America.

By 2028, nearly half as many legal immigrants would be entering the United States as now, if Krikorian and his fellow congressional nativists have their way.

Like the White House plan, the bill would eliminate the right of Americans to sponsor most types of immediate family members—adult children, parents, and siblings—and end the diversity visa lottery. Attorney General Jeff Sessions labeled these immigrants "illiterates" last week. But the fact is that they are much more educated than Americans, and nearly half have college degrees.

Banning the employment of some 4.4 million people would be one of the largest labor shocks in history. An University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business analysis of a substantially similar proposal found that cutting immigration to this level would lower GDP by 2 percent between 2018 and 2040. This bill would basically nullify the economic growth projected from Donald Trump's tax cuts.

Moreover, according to the National Academy of Sciences in 2016, the average recent immigrant will contribute, in net present value, between $92,000 and $173,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits over their lifetimes. Family-sponsored immigrants and diversity visa lottery winners are better educated than the average, so their tax contributions would be even higher.

But Goodlatte and his supporters, who otherwise masquerade as fiscal conservatives, evidently don't care much about depleting the federal fisc. Otherwise, they wouldn't require nearly twice as much spending on Border Patrol in the next five years than the agency has spent over the last five decades. Overall, they would require a funding increase of almost $130 billion over five years—virtually none of it paid for through fees or taxes—five times more than what the White House is demanding.

Some of this money would go toward building Donald Trump's worthless vanity wall. But much of it would also go toward implementing a biometric exit surveillance system that would track Americans and foreigners alike when they leave the country. This boondoggle won't improve security, but it will unleash a massive invasion of our privacy by basically turning our faces into our papers! Consider it a high-tech "Papers Please" policy.

To add insult to injury, the bill also mandates America's first electronic national ID system, E-Verify, for all workers—legal and illegal—in the United States, something that the Trump plan actually refrained from doing. The flawed E-Verify system doesn't prevent illegal employment. But its database errors would eliminate more than 430,000 jobs and delay 1.2 million jobs for legal workers.

Given how it treats legal workers, it is no surprise that it has some draconian notions on how to deal with unauthorized immigrants that might even make Trump blush. Currently, overstaying a visa is a civil offense. But for the first time in America's history, this bill would make that a federal crime punishable not just by deportation but jail! This will once again swell the federal prison population, reversing the gains of recent years.

But the thing that really warms the cockles of nativists is Goodlatte's designs for Dreamers. The bill would give a mere 10 percent of them permission to live in the United States—not permanent legal residency or citizenship, mind you. Then it would treat them like criminals on parole, not like free Americans.

On top of the normal fees, Dreamers would have to pay $1,000 in fine for the privilege of living in America. And if they wanted to travel abroad, they'd have to first take permission from Uncle Sam, just as Soviet citizens had to do from communist authorities. They couldn't be away for more than two weeks at a time. Every three years, they would have to pay another $1,000 in fees to undergo background checks and in-person interviews in order to receive another extension of their "parole."

Dreamers would also be required to maintain an income of 125 percent of the poverty line for the rest of the lives—no staying at home with their children and no retirement for people who grew up in this country. In other words, this bill would essentially criminalize Dreamer poverty.

The good news is that this exercise in nastiness has little chance of being enacted in its entirety. The bad news is that it's an aspirational document for nativists that offers a roadmap for a step-by-step march toward their vision. That many House Republicans are coalescing around it exposes the lie that they only object to "illegal" immigration. They are just anti-immigration. Period.

NEXT: Is Immortality Gendered?

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. “The Trump plan would give 1.8 million an eventual path to citizenship in exchange for deporting their parents now.”

    Am I to understand that you oppose amnesty for 1.8 million people because it would leave their parents open to deportation–when their parents are already illegal aliens anyway?

    1. Am I to understand that …

      How on earth could you ask such a thing?

    2. We can’t punish the kids for what the parents have done. But we can’t punish the parents either because reasons?

    3. Re: Ken Shultz,

      Am I to understand that you oppose amnesty for 1.8 million people because it would leave their parents open to deportation–when their parents are already illegal aliens anyway?

      So much for “We Want To Deport Only The Hardened Criminals! Honest!”

      1. I’m not surprised, but you’re also a failure at basic logic.

      2. Crossing the border illegally is, um, illegal…

      3. I never said that

        All illegals have to go back

    4. “illegal aliens”

      How dare you use the legal term to describe these people and their crime! #JoyReid

    5. 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.

      The conservatards be twisting in the breeze, all alone. Again.

      1. Yes, let’s live by the polls.

        Like this one–

        The poll Hihn won’t talk about

        1. Ooohhh……and it’s brand new too. I think Michael is outpolled n this one.

      2. A push poll where poll respondents aren’t informed that any specific DREAMer bill is just one agenda item on an agenda of amnesty for all and open borders for unlimited immigration by the world’s 7 billion ‘cuz infantile Libertarian absolutists don’t want gubmint regulation of ANYTHING.

      3. A push poll where poll respondents aren’t informed that any specific DREAMer bill is just one agenda item on an agenda of amnesty for all and open borders for unlimited immigration by the world’s 7 billion ‘cuz infantile Libertarian absolutists don’t want gubmint regulation of ANYTHING.

    6. Any plan that leaves anyone in the world not an American citizen is evil and heartless!

      1. So what your saying is that America should take over the world then? Sounds like a plan to me.

        1. It’s mean and heartless to make them have to travel all the way to the US

          Manifest Destiny for the World!
          Everyone has been declared a US citizen!

          The tanks roll tomorrow morning.

    7. 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

    8. ………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. I’ll give you the Dreamers are certainly in a shitty position. If my parents had put me in that position, I’d be pretty pissed at them.

    1. Your parents couldn’t have put you in any other position. If they had, you wouldn’t be you, you’d be someone else.

      1. that makes some sort of sense when you’re talking about pre-conception issues, but DACA people are, by definition, people who were born in other countries

        1. It’s telling that the only place that shitlibs are arguing that these people can “dream” is in the US and not the country of their birth.

  3. DACA didn’t even change the status of the Dreamers’ parents–and that was by executive order, anyway, right?

    Why would we expect Trump’s immigration policy to be even more generous than Obama’s executive order?

    1. Well, because!

      1. Ya know!

        If it wasn’t an outrage that Obama didn’t save the Dreamers’ parents, too, why is it suddenly an outrage now?

        At some point, we should start to suspect that this is all about principals rather than principles.

        Can I get an “amen”?

        1. Re: Ken Shultz,

          If it wasn’t an outrage that Obama didn’t save the Dreamers’ parents, too, why is it suddenly an outrage now?

          Because two wrongs don’t make a right. Perhaps in Trumpista wet-dreams they do.

          1. And no wrongs make nothing, which is what this is.

          2. Correcting a wrong is not in turn another wrong, OM. It’s in fact called justice.

            1. Since it was wrong for the parents of those kids to come here illegally in the first place then we should bring justice by removing them? Ok.

          3. Sure it does. It just requires redefining a wrong as a 135 degree turn to the left.

            You’re welcome.

          4. Why was it not a wrong when Obama did it in 2012?

            Isn’t the reason because Obama was giving these people something they didn’t have before?

            People seem to have moved the baseline for judgement to something it never was.

            Now that Trump is not only giving these people a reprieve but also offering to make them citizens, suddenly Trump is the bad guy for doing something that no one–including Obama–has ever done before?

            They’re crying wolf again.

            This is why people don’t take criticism of Trump seriously.

            Do you know what a pain in the ass it is to debunk all the stupid stuff to average people–before I can gain back the credibility necessary to tell them why they should really support more legal immigration?

        2. Depends, is the prefix ‘a’ meaning “not” as in ‘asocial’ or “on” as in ‘afoot’. Either way you have to be careful these days as someone will call it sexist so perhaps it’s best avoided. Certainly “aperson” is a bit clunky and when spoken it’s almost a given that most folk will confuse the question and think you’re asking to get a slave or something. Likewise, “apeople” will have folk accusing you of wanting to enslave an entire segment of the the world’s population. In today’s socio-political climate I’m almost certain it’s a non-starter.

          1. Poe’s Law

            1. semicolon (hyphen optional) close paren

              better?

        3. Apparently it works like spending “cuts”.

        4. “why is it suddenly an outrage now?”

          Because Trump?

    2. Because much like there is no response to “you’re a racist” that is ever enough, there is no immigration policy that is ever open enough.

  4. “Dreamers would also be required to maintain an income of 125 percent of the poverty line for the rest of the lives?no staying at home with their children and no retirement for people who grew up in this country. In other words, this bill would essentially criminalize Dreamer poverty.”

    I have a number of questions about this statement, starting with the part I bolded.

    Isn’t it true that the this requirement would disappear–once the Dreamer became an American citizen? They get residency and work eligibility for ten to twelve years, and if they manage not to do x, y, or z, then after that time period, they can become U.S. citizens.

    Once they become U.S. citizens, they aren’t required to maintain income above 125% of the poverty line or be deported. U.S. citizens can’t be denied social security on the basis of once having been a Dreamer, and they can’t be deported for being poor either.

    And if all that’s so–and I believe it is–then we’re not talking about maintaining 125% of the poverty line “for the rest of their lives”. We’re talking about ten to twelve years. They should be able to retire without fear of deportation, no problem–because by then, they’ll either be U.S. citizens or incredibly stupid.

    1. P.S. Dreamers who are married and filing jointly shouldn’t have any trouble avoiding deportation because they stayed home with the kids either–if their income is above 125% of the poverty line. I don’t feel sorry for native born Americans who have to work for a living to stay off welfare,so why would I feel sorry for Dreamers for having to do the same?

      I maintain that much of the opposition to immigration in this country is about social services. Whether it should be this way is another question–the fact is that the more people are forced to pay for each other, the pickier they get about who’s getting paid for. You want a more tolerant society? Stop forcing people to pay for each other.

      Meanwhile, if you came here illegally and you don’t want to be deported for having children out of wedlock and going on welfare, there’s a pretty easy way to avoid that–can you guess what it is?

      1. Re: Ken Shultz,

        I maintain that much of the opposition to immigration in this country is about social services.

        What you maintain is pure fantasy. Opposition to immigration in this country is based on jealousy (“Dem Immigruntz Takum Er Jebz!” and “We Want e-Verify!”) and a deep-seated hatred for people of a different skin tone (“Illiterates!”, “Rapists!”, “Shithole Country People!”, “They Come Chock-Full-O-AIDS!”.)

        You can obfuscate all you want. If it were really about social services, then that would have been fixed already. It’s an easy fix.

        1. I do love how Libertarians who constantly get called racist for their principled opposition to the private accommodations sections of the Civil Rights Act aren’t at all reluctant to throw around the “Racist” title when they disagree with someone on Open Borders.

          1. Speedo is a progtard, nto a libertarian. Nothing but a race baiting poverty pimping piece ofcrap, dealing from the bottom of the deck.

        2. a deep-seated hatred for people of a different skin tone

          Like the open borders proponents who constantly denigrate “citizens-of-color” as being lazy and unwilling to work?

        3. Meanwhile, Democrats are successfully gradually getting illegals to be able to access more services. you are a pile of shit.

        4. No doubt, some people would oppose immigration even if we didn’t have rent subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, using public schools, and other forms of welfare.

          Many more don’t give a shit about anything that doesn’t impact them directly, and whether illegal immigrants are clogging up the ERs or not, the perception that they’re using an ever growing array of public services is one of the reasons why so many people are opposed to more immigration.

          Even here in the comments section at Hit & Run, people often tell me that I can have open borders just as soon as their taxes aren’t going to pay for immigrants. Whether that’s a legitimate concern or not, it’s one of the concerns I see most often cited by people who oppose more immigration.

          We’re talking about millions of people here all over the country. Saying they all think the same things for the same reasons is to ignore individuality–along with the fact that I can’t get five people in the office to agree on where we should go to lunch.

          Large groups of people are actually a collection of individuals, and individual people make the same choices for different reasons.

        5. This is fantastic Old Mexican’s Speedos has figured out this debate and cleared it up for all of us! I was really confused, but his hyperbole, vitriol, and assertion of opinion as fact certainly convinced me. You can usually tell someone is rational and evenhanded and correct when you observe all of these traits together at once, it is usually how I decide who is right.

          This is also the same reason I believe everything Donald Trump says, he says things with a lot of oomph which means he is correct. #GoingWithMyGut

          1. I suspect few here are more racist than Speedo. I’ll bet he hates non-latinos with a passion.

  5. Like the White House plan, the bill would eliminate the right of Americans to sponsor most types of immediate family members?adult children, parents, and siblings?

    So much for the idea that “chain migration” meant bringing in cousins and aunts and uncles, like ignorant Trumpistas were claiming.

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions labeled these immigrants “illiterates” last week.

    I guess that’s a step up. The p…y-grabber and Racial Expert-in-chief called them “rapists” and “drug dealers” not too long ago.

    The flawed E-Verify system doesn’t prevent illegal employment. But its database errors would eliminate more than 430,000 jobs and delay 1.2 million jobs for legal workers.

    Not too long ago, red Tony ?we call him John? made the assertion that such would be but a small price to pay just to keep businessmen “honest”.

    1. Yes, because no illegal alien has ever committed rape. Only blonde-haired UVA frat boys do that.

    2. Speedo, i certainly don’t accept anything you have to say as fact. I take it on faith that you’re a dirty orogtard liar that is largely incapable of telling the truth.

    3. I suspect you’re not concerned at all that E-Verify might temporarily block some citizens from employment, but
      that it might permanently block lots of illegal ones who you value more.

  6. But for the nativists at the Center for Immigration Studies such as Mark Krikorian, it isn’t mean enough. They are accusing the president of choking!

    Mark Krikorkian is just another statist who pretends his idelogical fight for a pure America is based on liberty and helping the American Worker(R), but fools only Trumpistas who don’t understand statistics.

    1. The only people being fooled by statistics are the suckers people like you are able to convince that letting in the third world will magically make American better and totally not make us more like the third world.

  7. Moreover, according to the National Academy of Sciences in 2016, the average recent immigrant will contribute, in net present value, between $92,000 and $173,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits over their lifetimes.

    BUt since “Dem Immigruntz Takum Er Jebz”, which merely showcases the mediocrity of the average ‘Murican, why, those immigrants should not be here!

    The C.I.S., which is an anti-immigrant ‘think tank’, pretends to hide the benefit that immigrants bring to the economy by conflating American citizens with immigrants under what they call “households” to then calculate how much in ‘benefits’ those “households” headed by “immigrants” (another clever statistical trick) receive per year, as if households received ‘benefits’ instead of individuals. Of course this skews the numbers considerably, not unlike how GDP numbers hide true economic growth by aggregating it with government spending. But Trumpistas love to cite those numbers despite the obvious trickery behind them.

    1. Because the illegal aliens have US born kids who are eligible for these benefits.

      If the aliens hadn’t crossed the border the kids would be born somewhere else and not our problem.

    2. As a sanity check, the illegal workforce has, at best, about the same wage, tax, and social service situation as the WalMart workforce. So it seems to me that whatever Social Justice Warriors have to say about WalMart’s negative impact on local economies and public budgets applies to the illegals.

      The only difference is WalMart doesn’t service a progressive’s diversity fetish like illegals do.

  8. That many House Republicans are coalescing around it exposes the lie that they only object to “illegal” immigration.

    They made that very clear a long time ago when nativists objected to H1B visas and their preference for e-Verify, which turns every business into an unpaid immigration enforcement agency.

    Some years ago I had a discussion on line with a proto-Trumpista who claimed that there was NO cost associated with filling e-Verify documents and that businesses should be required to fill the e-Verify forms for all their employees. I told the person that it is very easy for someone whose money is not on the line to make assertions like that. He’s not the one doing payroll; he’s not the one looking at the P&L. It takes time to fill those records – I know, an HR person showed me the requirements. I calculated that the HR person required about 10 to 15 minutes to fill and review the form (on line) to make sure there were NO mistakes, PLUS about 4 to 5 minutes of required distraction for the employee to sign the form, digitally. That’s time the two employees could be using for more productive endeavors. The company is not compensated for keeping e-Verify updated. And mistakes can be VERY costly. But, again, Trumpistas get off on such things.

    1. I don’t believe a single thing you say. You’re not trustworthy.

    2. Yeah, we’re opposed to illegal and some legal immigration

      We want immigrants that benefit existing Americans.

      We want a government of, by, and for the people. The people being US citizens, not everyone in the whole goddamn world.

    3. These days businesses do all sorts of online checking anyway and E-Verify is a trivial addition to that. It’s even a partial substitution for some of it.

      As a general rule, any time an immigration lobbyist says a proposed enforcement tactic is too costly, cumbersome or ineffective that advocate is a calculating liar afraid it will be cost effective and just trying to BS its implementation.

  9. Currently, overstaying a visa is a civil offense.

    It’s important to clarify that you don’t overstay your visa. What is a civil offense is to overstay your permit. When you get into the country with any visa, DHS issues you an I-94 permit which can last longer than your visa’s expiration date or it may last LESS than your visa’s expiration date, so you may have a 10-year visa but if your permit is for 6 months and you don’t leave within those six months, you could be punished by DHS and stripped of your visa and any possibility of obtaining a new one for at least 10 years.

    Now the ante is being raised because Trumpistas get off on seeing foreigners treated like animals. It’s like their porn.

    1. “It’s like their porn.”

      Wooo-Hooo, you nailed it!

      Now they are going to watch (and enjoy) videos of DACAs turning in their parents to be shipped away in cattle cars, on The Donald’s PROMISE that then they can EVENTUALLY stay here legally… If the rules are not changed later, for example, because Congress didn’t cough up $25 billion for walls, AND adjust it upwards every year for inflation!

      The “illegal human porn” watchers will especially get off on the wailing and lamentations of the elders… “WHY didn’t I raise them better?”

      1. Now they are going to watch (and enjoy) videos of DACAs turning in their parents to be shipped away in cattle cars

        I’d settle for throwing open-borders anarchists out this way.

    2. Yup, immigration is a permit system, just like camping in Yosemite. Those permits are tough to get, sometimes tougher than an immigration visa. Guess what happens to illegal campers in Yosemite. They get deported from Yosemite, even if it’s a really nice family and the kids are blameless.

  10. I’m certainly glad there’s one political party that supports open immigration. Thank God for Nick Sarwark and the Libertarians who push open border policies in the LP.

    1. Well said policy is certainly ensuring tat the Lp remains far out on the fringe with no possibility of becoming a major national party.

    2. And when a Georgia chicken processor named Crider lost most of its workforce in a 2007 raid it was forced to raise wages to get rural-poor citizens to go pluck chickens.

  11. I will ask again because I still am confused about this whole debate.

    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. Yes to both. But just like laws against cannabis use and speed limits, if the immigration laws are completely out of kilter with what is practical and beneficial for the country, then you can hardly be surprised if people break them. A lot of industries depend on immigrants because natives aren’t willing to do dirty and exhausting work. Georgia cracked down on immigrant farm labor and caused $140 million in agricultural losses when fruit rotted on the trees.

      So sure, you can have immigration laws. If you write stupid ones then there are many good reasons for people to ingnore them

      1. I appreciate the answer.

        I understand people ignoring laws they find inconvenient. I also understand why this can lead you to being arrested and do not feel particularly bad for people who are arrested for breaking laws in most cases. I understand people wanting to escape dangerous places and live in better places, to provide for their families. I also understand if, to do this, you have to break laws and are eventually deported. If you make choices you have to be ready to accept the consequences for them.

        People get too caught up in all this shit, it is not immoral to enforce a law that itself is not illegal, unconstitutional, or evil in any single way whatsoever. The open borders crowd keep making these moral arguments that it is evil, bad, racist, etc. and never seem to say why or concede that enforcing immigration standards is accepted by every nation and people on the globe.

      2. Georgia cracked down on immigrant farm labor and caused $140 million in agricultural losses when fruit rotted on the trees.

        It’s not particularly consistent to imply that society is incapable of adapting to fewer Central American peasant laborers, but then claim it will be able to adapt to unceasing immigration from the entire third world.

        If it can adapt to the latter, there’s no logic in claiming that it won’t adapt to the former; a one-season die-off is not something to base immigration policy off of. I suspect what most cosmos are afraid of is that they’ll have to do some real, actual work for a change instead of sitting in an office jerking off on someone else’s dime.

      3. Georgia cracked down on immigrant farm labor and caused $140 million in agricultural losses when fruit rotted on the trees.

        [citation needed]

        And even if that is true, the proposal that legal immigrants be subject to an extra 20% payroll tax paid by the employer would solve the problem. But you’re not going to see Reason or Cato chirping for that because the point of open borders isn’t freedom of movement, it’s cheap labor for their donors.

        1. Like that idea. There are some jobs like seasonal agricultural labor (not construction), that pay such low wages for such backbreaking work that they can only get illegal immigrant labor. We’d have to pay more for food with such a payroll tax, but it would be a way to pay for any social services support needed for immigrant labor.

          Construction jobs and landscaping jobs would have to boost wages to attract more Americans if the labor pool did not include undocumented immigrants. That would be good for poor Americans. Also, if you are going to limit immigration to skilled labor to some extent you should include documented skilled labor in the trades (CNC machines, welding etc.), not only white collar workers with college degrees. We also need focus on training for the trades for Americans.

      4. “if the immigration laws are completely out of kilter with what is practical and beneficial for the country, then you can hardly be surprised if people break them. ”

        Illegal aliens are not part of the country. They break our laws because it is beneficial to *them*, not us.

  12. The good news is that this exercise in nastiness has little chance of being enacted in its entirety. The bad news is that it’s an aspirational document for nativists that offers a roadmap for a step-by-step march toward their vision.

    I wasn’t born in the US. I don’t see anything “nativist” or “anti-immigrant” in this proposal. To the contrary, as a legal immigrant, I welcome it.

    1. 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.

      The conservatards be twisting in the breeze, all alone. Again.

      1. “I got a poll that validates me!”

        The poll that mattered happened in Nov 2016
        MAGA

  13. $25 billion to build a wall to address a problem that isnt there. If this plan actually gets approved and completed we Americans will be the laughing stock of the whole world.

    1. Every single word of that statement is wrong. Except for “The”.

  14. Banning the employment of some 4.4 million people would be one of the largest labor shocks in history.

    Wait, I’m confused. Exactly how are 4.4 million people being banned from employment? Aren’t illegal immigrants already banned from employment? Isn’t that why I have to dig out all those forms of ID when I take a new job?

    What are we talking about here?

    1. You only have to fill out those forms if you are a legal resident of the USA.

      1. Citizens of the USA are the worst people to live i the USA. Just ask Nancy Pelosi.

        1. Foreigners First!

    2. The Cato douchebag is pulling an old sophistry trick: assuming his preferred policy is the status quo and every proposal is to be judged against it.

    3. A “labor shock”? Meaning wages would rise substantially for working-poor and poor citizens, a group a lot of “libertarians” and “progressives” don’t seem to care about much.

      Incidentally, there’s a lot of AI-based automation coming to do those jobs open-borders advocates claim Americans
      won’t do.

  15. So, Dalmia has competition…

    1. Competition? There’s plenty of money in shilling for open borders. Big biz needs cheap labor and big govt needs cheap votes.

      1. 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.

        The conservatards be twisting in the breeze, all alone. Again.

  16. “David Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.”

    David Bier also needs to fckng relax. Is this HuffPo? My browser can’t handle the number of “”, italics, and non-sequitors, like this gem:

    “The bill would give a mere 10 percent of them permission to live in the United States?not permanent legal residency or citizenship, mind you. Then it would treat them like criminals on parole, not like free Americans.”

    There is not a drop of altruism among open borders advocates: people either want to get onto the dole or want others to get onto the dole so that they vote (D), because they see the world as their basement train set and government a live-action movie.

    To the quasi-point of the article, the “Securing America’s Future Act” like most all legislation is, indeed, mostly a wish list that through negotiation gets reduced to something only sufficiently acceptable by everyone to be enacted. If Republicans were generally as professional is their tribal politics as Democrats, we’d have 45 amendments by now, one of which would hopefully ban the author from keyboard Shift buttons.

  17. I am finding it difficult to become alarmed about this.

    The bigoted, the backward, the belligerently ignorant seem unlikely to be steering America’s course for long.

    Americans have encountered successive waves of know-nothing intolerance, often related to skin color, religion, or immigration — Irish, eastern Europeans, Jews, blacks, gays, Catholics, Italians, Asians, Latinos — throughout our history, and the close-minded yahoos have never prevailed over the long term.

    We have weathered the cultural assaults of linguini, pierogis, collard greens, fish frys, egg rolls, tacos, Jamesons, bagels and emerged with our country intact, and better.

    This latest batch of bigots seems nothing special, its reliance on the charms, insights, character, and reliability of Donald J. Trump notwithstanding.

    I expect America to steer away from intolerance, ignorance, superstition, and backwardness soon enough, as it always has.

    1. The bigoted were kicked out of office in 2016. bigots these days call themselves ‘democrats’.

    2. The Irish and the Italians didn’t move here from the country next door with the entitled attitude they were resettling stolen land. Nor was America ruled by self-loathing multiculturalist elites who revered immigrant Muslim culture precisely because it is anti-Christian, anti-Western, and anti-American.

  18. Republican attempts to restrict legal immigration are a shame. The hardliners will probably realize this in a few weeks.

    If they were wise, Republicans would table the debate on immigration levels and focus on streamlining the immigration process. Left-leaning cities and industries benefit greatly from the labor of residents who cannot vote. Libertarians and humanitarians support a quick path to citizenship. Republicans should past a one time bill that lets anyone who was in American legally for the past 2 or 3 years apply for citizenship and get it a month after they apply. Imagine the effect on this year’s elections if all the green card holders suddenly get the right to change jobs and vote. The bill should also create a 2 or 3 year process for legal immigrants who arrived more recently to get citizenship.

    A convert to Judaism who has lived in a Jewish community for 3 years can movie to Israel and get instant citizenship. It’s embarrassing for America to have a relatively onerous immigration process.

    1. Is this supposed to be some kind of parody?

    2. “Republican attempts to restrict legal immigration are a shame. The hardliners will probably realize this in a few weeks.”

      The Establishment has done everything they can to keep the American people from discussing immigration. The only acceptable position is “open borders and pretend they aren’t open”. The longer the debate goes on, the more Republicans will win.

      The Overton window will just get bigger and bigger.

      The Repubs should make the 2018 election cycle all about immigration.

  19. between $92,000 and $173,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits over their lifetimes

    Am I supposed to be impressed by this number? Is it already adjusted for inflation? I could do much, much better with my tax money. Maybe even afford an extra kid.

  20. “that cutting immigration to this level would lower GDP by 2 percent between 2018 and 2040. This bill would basically nullify the economic growth projected from Donald Trump’s tax cuts.”

    And what would be the effect on GDP *per capita*?

    Obviously, you bring in fewer people, you’d expect aggregate GDP to go down as long as some of them actually work.

    More to the point for the mass of people, what is the difference between median incomes in the two scenarios?

  21. If the “dreamers” were occupying my property instead of “our” property with my fellow citizens feel all guilty ridden and refused to kick them off of my property?

    Even if we don’t want to use a legal argument because it might offend our sensibilities, we can use logic. America is a finite space and at some point we have to bring immigration rates to zero. Why not do it now instead of when land and resource depletion force us to?

    1. “If the “dreamers” were occupying my property instead of “our” property with my fellow citizens feel all guilty ridden and refused to kick them off of my property?”

      You’re posting this on a libertarian website. If they’re occupying your property without your permission, call the cops. If they’re renting property from someone else or buying it from someone else, it’s not really any of your damn business.

  22. So much of this article is the same lies about immigration and those in this country illegally. In most states, illegal aliens do not pay taxes because they cannot prove their identity or resident status. I agree the “dreamers” should not be punished because they had no choice to come to US since they were children. However, their parents knew they were violating US law when the entered illegally, they continue to violate US law by staying and it they are using fake documents to work, they are breaking even more laws. Ending chain migration will not impact employment except at the lowest levels since many of the people entering as part of extended families do not have advanced job skills. The immigration system proposed is no different than that of Canada or Australia which requires people emigrating to have the ability to support themselves. Libertarian means following the Constitution and therefore limiting the influence and control of the Government. It does not mean be an idiot and champion the ideology of Democrats who are simply attempting to develop a new voting base since they have lost the middle class and entire center of the US.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.