DACA

The White House's Proposed Dreamer Fix Is an Abomination

It'll throw millions more immigrants under the bus than it'll save.

|

Immigrant Rally
Eric McGregor Pacific News via Newscom

White House nativist-in-residence Steve Miller outlined a framework for an immigration deal yesterday. It pretends to sweeten the deal for the Dreamers—a nickname for people who have grown up as Americans but were brought to this country as minors without proper authorization—while making life even more difficult for other immigrants.

Miller's framework, laid out as a take-it-or-leave-it deal, would offer all 1.5 million Dreamers a path to citizenship in 12 years if they maintain clean records and don't become "public charges." That's all of them, not just the 690,000 who applied for temporary legal status under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that Trump will begin abolishing in March. Characterizing this as "extremely generous," Miller demanded that Congress, in return, must

  • create a $25 billion trust fund for a "wall system" that includes not just the Southern border but also parts of the North.
  • appropriate additional funds to hire more Homeland Security personnel, immigration judges, and other staffers to crack down on the other 10 million or so undocumented immigrants.
  • allow citizens to sponsor only their spouses and minor children while disbarring "extended family" such as adult children, parents, and siblings. (In an interesting bit of Orwellian double-speak, Miller calls this "protect[ing] the nuclear family.")
  • make America's immigration system more "merit"-based by ending not just so-called chain migration but the Diversity Visa lottery program.

In other words, in exchange for handing Dreamers their citizenship 12 years hence, Miller wants to deport their parents now—and to cut legal family-based immigration too. And all of that without increasing employer-based immigration, unskilled or skilled. In short, he's setting up a Sophie's Choice: protect Dreamers or protect other immigrants.

This will hurt millions more immigrants than it will save. But President Trump's designs for undocumented parents are not the only troubling aspect of this proposal. The proposed changes to family-based immigration are terrible too.

Nativists have popularized the notion that letting citizens and immigrants bring in anyone other than immediate family privileges connections over skills, which they say works to the economy's disadvantage. But immigrants have always been coming to this country, establishing themselves, and then bringing in other family members. Trump himself wouldn't be in the country if his German grandfather, who spoke little English, hadn't came to the United States at the age of 16 in 1885 to join his older sister. Indeed, thanks to decades-long backlogs in various family-based categories, there is less chain migration to the United States now than when Trump's grandfather came. (Only about a third of the relatives admitted under these categories currently are non-nuclear family members.) Had the system worked then the way it works now, he might never have been admitted to America and his grandson would now be tormenting poor Angela Merkel for her refugee policies instead.

Chain migration worked to America's advantage then, and it does so now. Only a third of the immigrants admitted under the family-based immigration system currently would even count as "chain migrants"—and that's by the nativists' loose definition of the term. And those chain migrants do spectacularly well. A study by College of William and Mary's Harriet Duleep and formerly of the National Science Foundation's Mark Regets examined three decades of census data and found no difference in the final earnings of foreigners sponsored by family members versus those sponsored by employers. Though the former make less money than the latter initially, they make bigger income gains subsequently.

Why? Because foreigners who come on family visas aren't tied to specific jobs or occupations. They are therefore far more open to acquiring new skills to go into fields where they expect the best returns. Also, since they don't have jobs lined up when they arrive, they have a lower opportunity cost for starting businesses—especially since they can count on family support. Finally, the "best and brightest" immigrants, who have many options, often pick America as their destination because they have family here.

The White House plan is a clever ploy to use the Dreamers as leverage to advance a nativist agenda. (It's propsed cuts in legal immigration alone could add up to 40 percent.) If Democrats balk at betraying other immigrants to save this one group, Trump can turn around and blame them when he starts deporting the DACA recipients. If they do embrace the deal, Trump can position himself as the great savior of Dreamers while cracking down on other immigrants. It's a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose offer.

Saner lawmakers on both sides of the aisle should hammer out a more tenable alternative, one that focuses mainly on protecting Dreamers without throwing anyone else under the bus. And then they should tell the White House to take it or leave it. Broader reforms can wait til Trump and Trumpism have been relegated to the dustbin of history.

Advertisement

NEXT: Georgia's Campus Free Speech Bill Protects Some Students' Rights, May Threaten Others

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. make America’s immigration system more “merit”-based by ending not just so-called chain migration but the Diversity Visa lottery program.

    Doesn’t this just make illegal immigration more attractive? If it’s outright impossible for you to legally immigrate, there’s really no cost to coming illegally and getting caught.

    1. Yeah just look at history. Making things illegal, harder, costlier, whatever… that NEVER leads to more black market activity. /sarc

      1. We already have that. Now we need to get rid of the illegals.

        1. “We already have that. Now we need to get rid of the illegals.”

          How did that work for alcohol? How is it working for drugs?

          1. Those are things people enjoy and want…

            ?

            1. And who the hell wants illegals? Leo is the master of false equivalency.

              1. Nobody wants to be illegal, but, if the only way you can legally rejoin family is closed off, the illegal method becomes attractive.

                1. The whole family could be reunited in their home country.

          2. People will start making illegal aliens in their back yards if this passes. It must be stopped.

            1. I have already planted a patch of illegals in my back yard and plan on getting row lights.

          3. people aren’t contraband. Star shooting a few people at the border and they will get the idea.

          4. Easy, put a bullet through whiskey and you still have whiskey. Put a bullet through an illegal and no illegal. Make sense?

          5. We aren’t discussing personal liberty, behavior, but something obvious and easy to stop. E-Verify, and a couple years bar time for employers for each Illegal they employ, would have stopped Illegals years ago. Illegals are NOT entitled the liberty to come to US and work, but H2-As are to harvest crops and return home.

      2. Black market only work when people want what is prohibited.

        Most Americans don’t want illegals in the USA.

        1. Tell that to the people hiring them

          1. Ok, so I was kidding, but Leo apparently doesn’t understand what the word most means.

          2. If E-Verify became universal, the employers wouldn’t want them either.

      3. “Yeah just look at history. Making things illegal, harder, costlier, whatever… that NEVER leads to more black market activity. /sarc”

        Yeah, those pesky murder, rape and assault laws just result in more murder, rape and assault.

        Typically mindless context-dropping from the open borders crowd.

    2. i find it telling that you immediately go there, instead of going to the idea that one must increase one’s merit to get in legally.

    3. ” there’s really no cost to coming illegally and getting caught.”

      Good point!
      Fines and jail time for illegals.

    4. 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. Reason’s very own one-trick pony crowing again. How original.

    1. Seriously. She is so freaking bad. Weak take after weak take. You can read the headline and know the author.

      1. Pretty much. We need to start a ‘deport Shikha’ movement.

        1. That’s what she is scared of.

          Shikha is a naturalized citizen not a native born American.

          I wonder if she lied on her immigration application?

          1. I would contribute to a fund to hire a private investigator.

      2. I read the headline and thought it got to be her. I fucking can’t stand her.

    2. It’s more like a way to get all the xenophobes to show their true colors, actually.

  3. The White House’s Proposed Dreamer Fix Is an Abomination

    Trump proposes a reasonable concession (i.e. put the dreamers on a path to citizenship) while requesting that the border be secured (i have my doubts about a wall, but still…) and Dalmia calls it an abomination. Um, ok…

    White House nativist-in-residence Steve Miller

    The only times I have heard Miller speak, he sounded knowledgeable about immigration and in no way sounded like a “nativist”. For instance.

    1. I have this theory that Shikha actually works for a secret White House false-flag operation intended to discredit opponents of border security by writing insulting, over-the-top screeds like this and making Amnesty proponents look like frothing America-hating radicals.

      As proof, I offer any one of the dozen or so angry columns she has written on immigration over the past six months.

      1. I think it more likely that she is just an idiot zealot.

      2. Marxists don’t have a lock on the concept of useful idiots.

  4. How about offering Eli?n Gonz?lez a “path to citizenship”?

    1. From what I understand, he wouldn’t want it these days.

      1. From what I understand, that counter-revolutionary desire has been tortured out of him.

        FTFY

    2. That would be even more childish than you suggesting it

    3. Ah, the ultimate straw man. It doesn’t even have anything to do with this. I mean not even a smidge.

  5. since they don’t have jobs lined up when they arrive, they have a lower opportunity cost for starting businesses

    Holy Fuck. Please let us know which economics school you graduated from so we can burn it to the ground. Jesus.

    1. No, don’t you see? That also explains how the Jews became a cabal that runs everything. Having been liberated from a death camp your opportunity costs are about as low as possible.

  6. Under current law every single illegal immigrant is supposed to be deported. So yeah, this is a pretty generous proposal. Current legal immigrants are not affected at all.

    1. Under current law, every single person who has possessed marijuana is supposed to serve one year in federal prison. That would be approximately 52% of the US adult population. Why is Trump soft on drug crime?

      1. The point is that the Congress makes the laws. If they don’t want a law enforced, they are free to alter or repeal it, rather than whine about how the executive branch is threatening to enforce their laws.

        1. Why isn’t Trump enforcing the drug laws then? The law’s the law.

          1. Because he isn’t the Hitler some people make him out to be?

            1. Why would it be like Hitler to just enforce the laws Congress wrote? If you don’t like the drug laws, you should get Congress to change them. Relying on some kind of non-enforcement policy is basically amnesty.

              1. He is dealing with the priorities his constituents have chosen.

                1. Awesome. I don’t want to hear any more complaints about Obama’s DACA policy then. And when the next Democratic president rolls in and rolls back on immigration enforcement. They’re just making decisions about priorities based on what their constituents want.

                  1. Yes, that is how it works. Glad we could do for you what schoolhouse rock did for everyone else.

                  2. DACA wasnt law it was executive fiat.

              2. You’re still missing the point. If CONGRESS didn’t like the drug laws, they could change them. It would make no sense for Congress to complain to the executive branch about them enforcing Congress’s laws. Yet, that’s just what they are doing over immigration.

                1. “Congress” isn’t complaining. Certain members of Congress who are the minority party and thus cannot control floor votes are complaining.

            2. Hitler didn’t enforce all the laws either; he had other plans for using the law to his advantage and gaining more dictatorial powers by inciting hate for a subgroup of people. Sound familiar?

              1. Sound familiar?

                Yeah, Robert Mugabe was a real monster.

                1. Trump emulates Mugabe TOO?

                  How many of Mugabe’s supporters stood to proudly bellow, “white privilege.”
                  Give Alex Jones a hug when he gives you your cookie.

                  1. #DumbfuckHihnsano employs his multiple personalities.

          2. So you think federal marijuana laws and immigration are in any way equivalent? Ok, you’re not to be taken seriously then.

            1. They’re both ill-conceived and sporadically enforced.

              1. Well then, let’s all pretend they’re the same in that case.

              2. immigrations laws have been historically not enforced. What is so ill conceived about them?

              3. immigrations laws have been historically not enforced. What is so ill conceived about them?

            2. They’e both abuses of state power, and both promoted by the authoritarian right. If you don’t understand the ethos of a libertarian web site, then you’re not to be taken seriously,

          3. They would have to be caught be Federal Law Enforcement Officers/Agents and tried by Federal Prosecutors in Federal Courts in front of Federal Judges and go to Federal Prisons. Not State or Local.

            Trump can not control what State and Local Governments and Courts do or don’t do. Blame them for what they do or don’t do. Trump’s Government through the DOJ Secretary and it’s Prosecutors are not who are now without OBama’s Lax Prosecutors Discretion.

            1. Because Kenya

        2. But whining is so much more emotionally fulfilling.

          1. Awww, but getting a voting majority into Congress is haaaard. It’s so much easier to persuade a single liberal judge to ban enforcement of the law, or even to elect a President who will call ignoring the law “prosecutorial discretion.”

        3. Awww but getting a voting majority in Congress is

      2. Would you consider a federal law legalizing medical marijuana to be an “abomination” because it doesn’t offer protection to recreational users?

        btw, the figure is probably much lower than 52% of the population considering statute of limitations.

        1. If it was combined with $25B to start going after all those recreational users, I certainly would.

          1. Not sure how the wall is going to go after illegal immigrants. But it would make a great sci fi movie.

            A better analogy would be spending $25B to prevent MJ from entering the country. Which I don’t think would sour the deal enough to make it unwelcome, let alone an abomination.

            Leaving aside the fact that MJ doesn’t harm our country while IllImm does.

            1. The proposal is calling for “appropriating additional funds to hire DHS personnel, ICE attorneys, immigration judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals.”

              “Leaving aside the fact that MJ doesn’t harm our country while IllImm does.”

              You’re not allowed to consider priorities- the law’s the law.

              1. There go the goalposts!

                The $25B you threw out was for the wall. The amount for the other stuff is considerably smaller.

                1. There’s no separate number put on the personnel. The point isn’t the particular amount of the money, but that they are pairing it with an increase in enforcement.

                  1. Because, again, that is what his constituents sent him to do.

                    1. “You’re not allowed to consider priorities”

                      This is just plain fucking moronic. Of course you can consider priorities, resources and political capital are not limitless.

                    2. I see: so you just want the president to pick and choose what laws he wants to enforce based on the desires of his base? I presume you had no complaints about DACA when Obama did it then….

                    3. It’s called representing the people who elected you. I’m sorry you’re butthurt about how our system works.

                    4. “I presume you had no complaints about DACA when Obama did it then…. ”

                      I didn’t bitch about it like you are.

                    5. Many of your fellow travelers did.

                    6. Is that supposed to be some kind of point?

                    7. That the “law’s the law” argument is just a cop out.

                    8. See, I thought it was just a lame attempt to paint other people as hypocrites.

                    9. It’s called representing the people who elected you. Read the Constitution.

                      I’m sorry you’re butthurt about how our system works.

                      (lo) Read the Constitution.

                    10. “based on the desires of his base? ”

                      And the amount of money and people and political capital that is available. What, you think he’s some kind of dictator, who can decree shit and make it so?

                    11. He has limited dictatorial powers, yes. He has been using them. Some make sense like limiting regulations. Others that treat honest people like human garbage, yeah those suck pretty hard and are very much in the spirit of past dictators pointing fingers at population groups and calling them criminals as a result of their very existence.

                    12. yeah those suck pretty hard and are very much in the spirit of past dictators pointing fingers at population groups and calling them criminals as a result of their very existence.

                      ^^^Doesn’t live in a barrio.

                    13. “^^^Doesn’t live in a barrio”

                      ^^^Neither did Hiltler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot and all the others.
                      And they rarely, if ever, stood to proudly bellow, “White Privilege.”

                    14. #DumbfuckHihnsano never lived in a barrio, either, hence he is Hitler.

                    15. Election season have consequences.

                    16. Damn auto correct

              2. So you’re ok with cartel smuggling? As opposed to homegrown quality bud?

        2. You can’t smoke illegal immigrants. You might as well be using a car metaphor, it would be more accurate.

          1. You can’t smoke illegal immigrants.

            Au contraire.

            1. Au contraire.

              You should have actually read that link, befoe copy-pasting from Infowars. It defends your White Privilege, but says nothing about smoking illegal immigrants … nothing about illegal …. nor about immigrants. Nothing at all.

              If you’re compelled to troll, why not link us to the web site that helped you “make $6,000 on Friday mornings, before getting out of bed!”

              1. You should have actually read that link, befoe copy-pasting from Infowars. It defends your White Privilege, but says nothing about smoking illegal immigrants … nothing about illegal …. nor about immigrants. Nothing at all.

                Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the Albuquerque Journal is Infowars, also can’t read because he’s a crybaby bitch.

                The documents released Thursday provide the most detailed account of the attack on Jan. 12, 2017, by a former member of the Mexican federal police who was in the United States illegally, according to investigators.

                Dumbfuck Hihnsano BTFO. (giggles)

  7. OT: Nancy Pelosi is a nasty woman.

    “There’s a cartoon that I just love,” Pelosi said, according to the Washington Free Beacon. “There’s a little mouse trap who’s got a little piece of cheese on there, and there’s a mouse about to take it and that’s called the middle class ? And around it are fat cats.”…”In terms of the bonus that corporate America received versus the crumbs that they are giving workers to kind of put the schmooze on is so pathetic,”

    Insulting middle and lower income people is a good strategy. Stick to it.

    1. And then there’s Bill Kristol:

      Write $1,000 checks to people? Wasn’t the whole point of the tax cut to free up money for investment? I mean, the government can just write checks to people. It doesn’t have to go through a middleman, you know. Give ’em to everyone, not just the people who work for certain favored companies.

      I found it slightly creepy ? sucking up to Trump and to the Trump administration in hope of favors. This is the classic limited government, Hayek, et cetera, argument for why you don’t want protectionism. You don’t want government meddling and interfering everywhere, picking winners and picking companies.

      I don’t think words mean what he thinks they mean. There’s a middleman when a company keeps more of its own money and gives it to its employees? The corporate cuts were targeted to specific companies? O_o

      1. The IRS is not a middleman. Or something.

      2. Wow he’s incoherent.

    2. Class warfare is pretty much all they have. And anything that helps people move up a class messes with that strategy.

      1. All they have: “Insulting middle and lower income people is a good strategy”.

    3. She’s getting a massive tax break. I’m sure she’s not insulting her help staff by giving them crumbs though.

    4. Insulting middle and lower income people is a good strategy. Stick to it.

      It’s worked for them so far.

      1. That’s deplorable.

    5. But she’s not insulting the middle class because she thinks they shouldn’t have those bonuses, see?

  8. If you accept the notion – and I know some do not – that a country cannot allow everyone who wants to immigrate do so, then there has to be a rationing system. So the next question is what criteria to use. Is random chance fair? And also to determine the best system to give the least incentive for those wanting to immigrate to do so outside the established system, avoiding the need in a few years to repeat the entire amnesty debate.

    1. a country cannot allow everyone who wants to immigrate do so

      It’s not who wants to immigrate. It’s who wants to immigrate and is able to.

    2. First come first serve.

      1. Its first come, first serve(d). With a “d”.

        1. Jeff is used to having no d.

      2. That’s idiotic.

    3. Yeah, random chance is best. Let’s open the diversity lottery to people from all countries and hand out half a million to a million diversity lottery visas each year.

      1. I would hand out 10,000 diversity visas to random people, and station them at equal intervals along the southern border. If they let anyone get by them, they get deported and replaced with another lottery winner. Sort of like a French Foreign Legion approach to border security.

        1. Ah yes, the “Red Rover” immigration policy.

          1. Sort of, but with replacement.

      2. Fuck ‘diversity’. We bring people here strictly for the sake of having a complete set? No matter what?

        No, just no.

        1. We bring people here

          Nah, they come through their own volition and on their own dime.

          1. Really? What about all those refugees from Syria and other places? We not only pay to bing them here, we also give them all kinds of freebies.

            Fuck diversity.

      3. how about no-one gets in for a few years.

        1. I favor a ‘hot chicks only’ approach to legal immigration. Our current immigration policy is a sausage fest. Time to change that. Gotta watch the ratio.

    4. Actually the first question is how many should you allow in. The second question is how to allocate them. While this proposal is lacking any numbers, it seems Trump wants to severely decrease the total number allowed in in the first place.

    5. It doesn’t have to be a rationing system. It could be open market based. Rather than giving a fixed number for immigration, just let anyone in who has a solid job waiting for them, while levying an extra 10% (TBR) payroll tax on those employing such a legal immigrant. We’d figure out real quick which jobs employers really can’t find Americans to do. Of course you’d have to toughen enforcement of laws against employing illegals to keep them from evading the tax.

      1. Sounds like freedom to me!

        1. With freedom comes responsibility.

          1. Immigrants are irresponsible?

        2. Sounds freer and more equitable to everyone than the current system.

        3. US citizenship has value. Only an imbecile would give it away.

          1. I didn’t say anything about citizenship.

            In that area I support a Terran Federation model.

            1. I wasn’t talking to you.

            2. Citizenship by assassination?

          2. Why did you get it simply by being born here then? It is free.

  9. Yeah, no compromise in Shikha’s world.

    If Trump doesn’t offer unfettered immigration to anyone who wants to come here, he’s a totalitarian, fascist nativist!

    1. Why would they come here anyways? I mean, in the Trump era, they’ll just be herded into cattle cars and sent to the camps, right?

      1. fingers crossed…

        That was sarcasm, in case the aspies don’t get it.

        1. The lefties are all for putting people in concentration camps. They have done it before.

          That’s why they are dead serious about saying Trump will do it. Lefties would do it.

          1. That’s a lie. Autocrats put people in concentration camps, it doesn’t matter where they’re left or right. Open up a history book sometime.

        2. I’m an aspy, and that was clearly sarcasm. Although you normies should be careful. One day we will take over, and you will beg us for mercy. We will consider it.

          1. Shut up weirdo.

            Also sarcasm.

          2. “I’m an aspy”

            Whatever.

  10. Yup I basically agree except fine by me if they end chain migration. We need to do a better job of exporting our values to other parts of the world as opposed to importing their people. But yes, any dreamer who supports this ‘compromise’ is a kapo. Trump will use it as a pretext to round up their families and detain them indefinitely and say, “We can’t deport them yet – the wall isn’t built yet you idiot!” (When will the wall be finished? HAHAHAHA.)

  11. From an open-borders-ish type of guy, I actually think Trump’s compromise is somewhat tolerable, for the moment of time that we find ourselves in. The Great Wall of Trump will of course be useless and a giant waste of money, but it is a waste of money that we will have to put up with given who is in charge, and of all the imagined wastes of money, I would prefer it spent on a useless wall than on giving ICE more MRAPs for patrolling civilian neighborhoods. It will give actual amnesty, not just second-class legal status, to a fair number of Dreamers. It will end the visa lottery, which is kinda silly even from an open borders perspective – if you favor the free flow of labor across borders, why should the government be picking random people in a lottery to be beneficiaries of that? It is nonsensical. I’m uncomfortable with all the rhetoric surrounding ‘chain migration’, as if it is some sinister plan to destroy America when it is really just family reunification, I’m not a big fan of the state telling people *already living here* that they can’t bring their own family in because reasons. That is still rather objectionable.

    What I wish could come out of all this is a genuine reform of the legal immigration system. It is full of so many crappy bizarre byzantine rules, so many categories of visas demanded by so many interest groups, with arbitrary quotas based on nationality rather than based on any rational standard. But I guess we aren’t going to get that anytime soon.

    1. I’m uncomfortable with all the rhetoric surrounding ‘chain migration’, as if it is some sinister plan to destroy America when it is really just family reunification, I’m not a big fan of the state telling people *already living here* that they can’t bring their own family in because reasons. That is still rather objectionable.

      The family was only “disunited” because one of them chose to emigrate from their homeland. That’s not America’s problem. If they want to keep their family together they can stay where they are, or the entire family can find a way to get in on their own merits.

      1. That’s not America’s problem.

        Right. It’s not a problem.

        1. Thanks for agreeing with me.

        2. “Not America’s problem” means “America” (the country, not the band) has no obligation to solve it. It is not the same as “not a problem”. Literacy is hard.

          1. Exactly. I’m a property owner decides guy (not really anti -immigration or open borders)… BUT, given the system and context chain migration is like saying because I let you into my home you get to bring your relatives into my home even if I don’t want them.

            Plus, as mentioned above, the division of the family happened because of the family’s choice. That places literally zero obligation on us to let in anyone else.

    2. Chem, there already is a wall. Trump just wants a more secure wall/border zone between the USA and Mexico.

      1. Trump wants to keep his 1/3 of the population’s support because he feeds off their ignorance. He doesn’t give a fuck one way or another about immigrants.

  12. “In other words, in exchange for handing Dreamers their citizenship 12 years hence, Miller wants to deport their parents now?and to cut legal family-based immigration too. And all of that without increasing employer-based immigration, unskilled or skilled. In short, he’s setting up a Sophie’s Choice: protect Dreamers or protect other immigrants.

    1. Two points:

      1) Once again, your comparison of deporting people to Mexico to baking children in the ovens of Auschwitz is inaccurate, probably offensive (to the Mexican people, among others), and morally disgraceful. If you want to argue that the due process rights of illegal immigrants are being violated, make the case for that–but that will only reinforce the fact that deporting people to Mexico isn’t at all like sending people to Auschwitz.

      You comparison is a feeble attempt at argumentum ad misericordiam, and, quite frankly, it’s indefensible.

      2) You’re comparing the status of Dreamers under Trump’s proposal unfavorably to some hypothetical status that doesn’t exist. The proper comparison is the status quo.

      Dreamers have no basis to remain legal residents as things stand now. Trump offers to make them legal, and you complain that this somehow makes their situation worse?

      I get the impression that you think that congress setting immigration law and the executive branch enforcing it is like the morally unconscionable, and anything short of congress and the president totally abdicating their constitutional roles in setting naturalization policy is comparable to the holocaust.

      You’re hurting the cause of free and legal immigration, Ms. Dalmia. Please stop.

      1. Ken, I agree completely with your assessment. I’ll mention that calling people names, implying racism, etc doesn’t help the situation either.

        I think someone mentioned in one of the other threads that Reason hasn’t laid out a very good principled support for free immigration, open borders, whatever you want to call it. I would agree with that assessment. The argument is pretty clear in my mind, but many of the recent conservative “converts” could use a basic understanding of the libertarian case for immigration.

        I’ll offer two reasonable, principles-based arguments:
        Link
        Link

        1. From your first link:

          Today’s immigrants are much more Democratic than natives, but if you ever thought that Democrats were dramatically worse for freedom than Republicans, I hope the last year has changed your mind.

          At least he admits that Haiti is a shithole.

        2. Open borders isn’t libertarian, it’s just lawless anarchy. And not good for anyone here. Helpful hint: if you end up opposing the constitution, in favor of said lawlessness, you’re the bad guy.

            1. you should probably read the whole thing….especially the last sentence:

              If Americans want immigrants to enter through legal channels, we need to make those channels fair, reasonable, and accessible.

              1. You should probably learn to comprehend what you read, in the context of what’s around it.

                Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals. Our current immigration system is an embarrassment. People who would like to follow the legal procedures are unable to because these procedures are so complex and expensive and lengthy. If Americans want immigrants to enter through legal channels, we need to make those channels fair, reasonable, and accessible.”

                I certainly don’t speak for the LP, but I think the point they’re trying to make is that the channels aren’t currently fair, reasonable, or accessible, and thus hinder the rights of people to “to travel freely as long as they are peaceful.”

              2. Chips, I agree with that. We need tot eat The Who,e ting under control. Then we can modernize the system and streamline a lot of the bureaucratic nonsense. ‘Legal’ doesn’t have to mean miserable or onerous.

            2. The Libertarian Party does represent all Libertarians after all.

              3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
              The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens….

              3.4 Free Trade and Migration
              We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

              Never really read the LP platform before. A lot of contradictory wishes. Plus a bunch of anti-Constitutional language.

              I’ll remain a non-Libertarian Party Libertarian thanks.

              1. I don’t think anybody is arguing that we should have absolutely no screening of people crossing the border. There’s a legitimate role of government to protect the citizens from threats against their life, liberty, and property.

                The argument is a red herring. The vast majority of people crossing our southern border aren’t coming to commit acts of terror or spread communicable diseases. They’re coming to engage in commerce by working.

          1. “Helpful hint: if you end up opposing the constitution”

            Except that it’s not explicitly in the Constitution, but don’t take my word for it, take it from a staunch lefty like Andrew Napolitano.

            You must be all for a living constitution then if you think fed gov can regulate immigration.

            1. Article I, Section 9 as has been explained to you before.

              The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

              1. Except that everybody knowledgeable of the Constitution, except for you and Charles Pinckney apparently, believe that A1S9C1 is a restriction of Congress to interfere with the slave trade.

                You instead list it as an enumerated power, despite no case law supporting this position nor its relevance on the subject of immigration.

                I’m not having this debate again, because it’s a dead end.

                1. Bullshit. US v Arizona from just a couple of years ago says that immigration enforcement is a federal power.

                  You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. You demand plain text proof from your opponents, but when they present it you demand case law support. No doubt now being presented with case law you will claim it is not supported by the text.

                2. Leo it is a dead end, and you refuse to admit your argument is flawed and completely wrong. LovCon has gone out of his way to straighten you out, and do you finally concede your horribly flawed argument, admit he’s completely right, thank him, and beg his forgiveness? No! You continue your blind ingnorant failed argument.

                  Such a lack of gratitude.

        3. I’ll offer two reasonable, principles-based arguments:

          The first two arguments in your link are “economic benefits” and “institutional benefits”. Those are not “principle-based”, they are utilitarian arguments (and bad ones at that, but that’s a separate discussion). The last point is “freedom of association”.

          It is true that national borders infringe on freedom of association, but so do many other laws; that’s the country we live in. You haven’t made any principled argument why this infringement on freedom of association should be singled out for abolishment, while keeping the others in place.

          You naively assume that increasing freedom for some group increases freedom overall on average, but that’s false. Increasing the freedom of movement and freedom of association of Mexican citizens does not increase my freedoms as an American citizen, it decreases them. And as a practical, political matter, I vote for people who protect my freedoms. Mexican citizens have their own government to protect theirs.

          1. The first two arguments in your link are “economic benefits” and “institutional benefits”. Those are not “principle-based”, they are utilitarian arguments

            There are no economic principles? Freedom to trade in a marketplace unfettered by governments (and their imaginary lines) isn’t a principle? HUH??

            You naively assume that increasing freedom for some group increases freedom overall on average, but that’s false. Increasing the freedom of movement and freedom of association of Mexican citizens does not increase my freedoms as an American citizen, it decreases them.

            What freedoms have you lost again? And don’t give me some BS answer like the freedom from taxation or funding social programs. That was all happening long before illegal immigration was much of a thing.

            You naively assume that your freedom comes from your location of birth. You also naively assume that it comes from your government.

            1. There are no economic principles? Freedom to trade in a marketplace unfettered by governments (and their imaginary lines) isn’t a principle? HUH??

              “We should open borders because it delivers the following benefits” is not an argument based on principles, it is an argument based on utility.

              And don’t give me some BS answer like the freedom from taxation or funding social programs. That was all happening long before illegal immigration was much of a thing.

              And increasing the population of low skill workers increases the problem, and hence increases the degree to which my property rights and freedom of association are infringed.

              You naively assume that your freedom comes from your location of birth.

              Being an immigrant from an oppressive shithole country, I assure you I am not at all “naive” about the consequences of one’s birthplace for one’s freedom.

        4. One obvious principle is to allow people from very un-libertarian cultures to influence the current government even more against libertarian principles than it is now. It may be counter-intuitive and make no sense, but that’s only superficially. Of course, some might say it’s just a general self-destructive impulse in libertarianism.

          1. But to follow this line of reasoning, then we should stifle speech that doesn’t fit our political agenda, because it might influence the government to be even more against liberty?

  13. Before reading Reason, I never would have considered the concept of an Immigrant Supremacist. Yet here we are.

  14. Shikha Dalmia on Donald Trump:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXgyRYojwtQ

    1. I’ll bet Shikha secretly plows herself with a 10 inch dildo while bitterly staring at an 8×10 glossy of Trump. Much the way Tony and PB do.

  15. Dreamers should forswear any public benefits (they don’t need them – they are young, healthy and industrious) and demand a clean DACA bill.

    1. I wish we all had the ability to receive something of value to forswear any public benefits.

    2. “Dreamers should forswear any public benefits (they don’t need them – they are young, healthy and industrious) and demand a clean DACA bill.”

      There you have the crux of the open border arguments – Illegals demand Congress give them citizenship.

      You open border people should listen to Ken Schultz and stop making these types of arguments. All you do is piss off Americans like myself because it seems like you’re saying fuck American Rule of Law. Since, Americans are the majority in America, we tell our representatives to deport illegals and secure the border.

      1. “Americans are the majority in America, we tell our representatives to deport illegals and secure the border.”

        American majorities have been for 90+% tax brackets on the rich in the past as well. American majorities have been in favor of slavery. American majorities have supported welfare, social security, medicare, and medicaid. American majorities have supported the drug war, prohibition of alcohol, and gun control.

        1. Americans controlling what America does rather than non-Americans controlling it, is the point.

          There were more people in northern non-slaves state than southern slaves states. No majority there.

          1. Ok, I’ll give you slavery, for the sake of argument. So you’ll agree that all of those other things I mentioned are good because Americans implemented those things? I mean, the will of the people and all…

            1. I’m not sure but I think his argument isn’t that Americans made good choices, BUT there was something to the fact that they were their choices. Immigrants, as I understand his argument, should have no voice in a differenr group of people (Americans) making a decision for themselves on how they wish to interact with other people… even if we may look at their decision and judge it as poor.

              Now… Do the numbers back up the idea that Americans don’t want immigrants or not? Irrelevant to what I believe his argument is. The numbers would simply dictate what the American decision is… not on if others should have a voice in that decision.

              And so… for the things you mentioned, those were self-chosen policies rather than imposes or influences by an outside, non-citizen group even if they may be bad policies.

              I could have gotten him wrong though.

        2. So any law Leo might disagree with is tantamount to slavery so need not be obeyed. Based solely on his say so.

  16. Perhaps Dalmia could for once spell out for us ignorant readers what a moral immigration policy would look like, rather than calling every single immigration policy and proposal morally reprehensible?

    Do you just want no borders at all? Is that the only moral choice here? Anybody who wants to come here is free to with no restrictions whatsoever. Is that what you want? Should that apply to every country in the world too?

    1. “No borders” and to reach that state, ignore any laws you don’t like. Don’t give a thought that ignoring one law makes it more easily justifiable to ignore others until we get to the point where laws are more like suggestions. Government can then just do whatever they those in power might find useful at the time. Laws can be reinterpreted or ignored and enforced at a whim. That’s a ways in the future, buy why go in that direction if you don’t want to reach that destination?

  17. We tried amnesty in the 1980’s and got over 10 million more illegal immigrants after that. It is difficult for a young person to leave the land he knows when the government forces him out, but this guy managed to face the experience. It’s a sad situation, but not the end of the world.

  18. Back in the 1980’s crossing the border into the USA illegally was easier than the rush hour commute from NJ to the city.

    😉

  19. I like Dalmia’s articles not necessarily for the content, but for the state it puts a bunch of commentators. Feelz everywhere.

    1. Its great for letting the open border types that they are losing and will lose on this issue.

      Deport illegals!

      1. Indeed. No more illegals.

      2. I have no doubt that we will lose on this issue. MAGAs gonna MAGA and all…

        1. Don’t worry. After Americans feel like their rules are being taken seriously by immigrants wanting to come here, things will settle down.

          Sorry, you don’t want America to be great again.

          1. “Sorry, you don’t want America to be great again.”

            I strive for nothing more than greatness. It’s too bad that saying it doesn’t make it so, because it would be great. Hugely, and bigly great.

  20. *sees Dalmia’s name on the article*
    *skips article and heads to comments*

    1. I would read what she has to say, but experience has taught me that I’m a little dumber for having read her drivel.

    2. She’s too predictable. There’s not much point in reading the article.

      1. All her articles are so ridiculously shrill and hyperbolic with wackadoo assertions and conclusions that she could simultaneously have them published by ‘The Onion’ and no one would notice.

  21. The proposal is actually way too generous for people that care about our immigration problems and I doubt Miller himself even supports it. The reason Trump floated this paper was to trap the Left. He correctly anticipated that the Left would go crazy over it and in so doing it would prove to Independents and Moderates that the Left has gone completely insane on the issue. Trump now has the political capital end DACA for good and all come March.

    1. It’s 9th-dimensional underwater chess!

      1. To a dullard it would seem that. But giving an opponent what they claim to want but really don’t, in order to paint them as unreasonable, is pretty basic political strategy.

      2. Billions in free publicity!

    2. our immigration problems

      Not enough Norwegians?

      1. Not enough big titted hot chicks.

    3. Even if this is not by Trump’s design, that’s how things will roll. Someone find a mainstream Democrat that has admitted on record there might be some benefits to ANY curtailing of immigration. Can’t find it. They talk a good game of “common sense” and “reasonable.” But when it comes to the slightest rollback in actual immigration numbers to our inflated levels, they dig in.

      1. see also control, gun.

        1. Yup. Once you try and be nice and compromise, they move on to take all rights away.

          We Americans should have never gave one inch on guns. No background checks, waiting periods, nor machine gun registration.

    4. Trump has made numerous claims to wanting to treat the dreamers fairly.

      This isn’t some master plan. He wants funding for his #1 campaign promise, which was to build a wall. DACA was a bargaining chip for him.

      1. The illegals are getting deported and that’s a good thing. Bye bye illegals.

        Trump is getting you people to focus on one thing while he gets other stuff done. Some of what needs to be done only Congress can do. Tax reform was one of those things.

        1. The illegals were getting deported under Obama. What’s your point?

          I don’t know who “you people” are or who you think I am, but I fully supported the tax reform, and I fully support Trumps war on regulation.

          He can be right on some things and wrong on others. That’s the beauty of not being a party loyalist, I don’t have to like everything that my team does.

          1. And I fully support Trump’s push of immigration to a real discussion rather than having all these immigration rules and not enforcing them.

            The USA will be better from it.

          2. “You people” = open border types. Sorry, I thought we were talking about borders and immigration.

            1. You brought up taxes. I thought you were implying that I wasn’t for tax cuts.

              Most people assume that open borders supporters are lefties by default, I’m sorry if that wasn’t what you were implying. They often don’t understand there’s another axis to the political equation, because that makes them realize that both parties are extremely authoritarian on that axis.

  22. A modest proposal.

    Set immigration numbers at 0.1% of current US population, about 300,000
    Initiate a ‘merit system’ that includes points for existing US citizen relatives, country or region of origin (roughly proportional to population of said region), health status, education, etc. and subtractions for criminal records
    Enter current illegals into same system – with extra points for years paying taxes or other contributions

    Make it first come, first served within each ‘merit point band’

    1. Personally I’ve come to the point where reasoning with the immigration absolutists is impossible. I have yet to find a situation in a debate where they cede any ground on the costs of immigration. It’s all benefits, no costs. And more immigration regardless of source is always better. You keep pushing your idea–which is very good–you basically just have to count to 10 before your motivations are due not to good policy, but hatred of brown people. Harsh, but seems true. Too many people get too much money off the status quo, and you are a threat, period.

      1. Big biz wants cheap labor and big govt wants cheap votes. Shilling for that duo is always going to be profitable.

        1. Luckily Americans have their guy as President and he is containing both crony business and big government.

          1. Or ‘n’th Dimension checking them if you will.

  23. “Only about a third of the relatives admitted under these categories currently are non-nuclear family members.”

    You use this as an argument against ending a certain form of chain migration, i.e. it is a small number so let them keep coming. That also undermines your argument that it is really important to keep this certain form of chain migration, you know, it is only a small number of immigrants so why fight this point if it is not important in the grand scheme of things. I think this is what you would call Orwellian double speak.

    1. I wonder whether that figure includes parents of the immigrant as “non-nuclear family members”. Dalmia doesn’t provide a cite for her claim, so it’s impossible to check the criteria.

  24. Oh the comparison of today to 100 years ago. Apparently Reason has forgotten about this little soup-to-nuts welfare system that sprung up in meantime? And the insistence on how awesome these 2nd cousins, etc do when coming here? Well, if that’s the case, what’s wrong with a skills test? If they are as skilled as advertised, what’s the problem?

    And take a step back. I have yet to see ANY restriction on today’s level of immigration that is not attacked by the other side. The song is the same: more and more immigration is always and everywhere an unqualified good thing. There are easily 1 billion people that want to come here. If your no-limits immigration logic holds, why not allow them all this calendar year? Yes this is extreme but the immigration absolutists have ceded ZERO ground on any immigration restrictions. So yeah, defend bringing in 1 billion people. Of course you can’t, but maybe would start to point to you why 1 million+ immigrants a year also causes problem. And that reducing immigration levels to more historic levels might not be racist, etc, but smart policy. But start with that billion as opening bid. Defend that number.

  25. In scanning the article (reading would hurt too much), I didn’t understand the statement where part of the deal was that parents would be deported. Can someone ‘splain me please.

  26. The only thing Dalmia’s articles convince me of is that letting anyone in at all was one big fucking mistake. If you don’t like the way we run our country, for fuck’s sake, GO THE FUCK HOME!!

    1. How are they supposed to make the USA worse is if they cannot get in?

      1. “How are they supposed to make the USA worse is if they cannot get in?”

        That’s probably a good assumption… Make something illegal, staff a government agency to enforce the rules, put up barriers to enforce your laws. I’m sure that will stop people from breaking the law.

        In fact, I can’t think of a single example where this doesn’t work already!

  27. The running joke about the 3 pillars of “Reason Libertarianism” isn’t really a joke, is it?

  28. It’s time for Shika to go. Stop publishing this bullshit

    1. Normally I would say if you don’t like it don’t read it. But reality is Shikha having a writer position means that a true libertarian writer doesn’t. She should take a job more suited to her talents, like a clown. Though I’ve never seen an Indian clown — discrimination?

      1. India Shriner clowns?

    2. She is here to get a bunch of comments and web traffic.

      Reason is feeling a turn down. You can tell by the articles and how they fluff up donation time around here.

      1. Meh, the $$ they get from the foundation (which Dalmia is very much a creature of) is far greater than ad revenue. My guess is the ideological makeup of the foundation donors has severely changed.

        1. “My guess is the ideological makeup of the foundation donors has severely changed.”

          You realize that Reason is not nominally a Conservative publication right? You realize that libertarians have argued for the natural rights of people, including freedom of movement and association, for a long long time, right? You realize open borders are a plank of the Libertarian Party?

          1. 1. The LP is not the arbiter of libertarianism. Rather it is a pathetic joke. Note that the few electorally successful libertarians have been against open borders.

            2. For a minarchist, which is most libertarians, the freedom of movement and association only holds sway within the territory controlled by the government. Otherwise we would have to stand idly by while 50,000 Chinese troops disembarked from western ports with rifles and artillery because freedom of movement and right to bear arms.

            3. Reason is going pedal to the metal against all things Trump, but especially immigration reform. If Obama had proposed this deal in 2015, Reason would have been smooching his backside for months.

    3. I like Having Shika publish because it just shows how brain dead people of her thinking are and unfortunately there are plenty of them

  29. People like Dalmia wanted a King issuing decrees, well they got one. Now it appears that what people like Dalmia really want is a permanent King.

    That this is being suggested by an immigrant makes this almost a lampoon.

  30. In other words, in exchange for handing Dreamers their citizenship 12 years hence, Miller wants to deport their parents now?and to cut legal family-based immigration too. And all of that without increasing employer-based immigration, unskilled or skilled.

    If Shikha hates it, maybe it’s actually reasonable. I have to give Trump’s proposal a second look.

    Broader reforms can wait til Trump and Trumpism have been relegated to the dustbin of history.

    Trump’s immigration proposal is still liberal compared to what other nations have. I expect in the long term, that will be relegated to the dustbin of history and the US will adopt immigration laws similar to those adopted in Europe and elsewhere.

  31. The White House’s Proposed Dreamer Fix Is an Abomination

    As a libertarian, I am firmly of the belief that any government proposal to fix any problem is going to result in an abomination. Take Obamacare, for example. Was its net effect to make things better or make things worse? Was the problem that the mechanism of Obamacare somehow didn’t meet the goal of making healthcare better and cheaper and more widely available and a sufficient amount of tinkering with it can fix it – or was the problem that allowing politicians to come up with a plan for making healthcare better and cheaper and more widely available is doomed to failure right from the get-go? If the answer to that is as self-evident as it seems to me, there’s really no point in arguing over what the government “should” do to fix the problem. Advocating for waving a magic wand is just as valid a proposal as any proposal that requires shitweasel politicians to stop acting like shitweasel politicians. Nobody’s going to do the right thing simply for the sake of doing the right thing and you’re a fucking retard if you think they’re going to adopt some common-sense proposal just because it’s common sense.

  32. “Broader reforms can wait til [sic] Trump and Trumpism have been relegated to the dustbin of history.”

    It has been nearly two years and the Trump-Haters still haven’t figured out why he won.

    I’ll help Shikha out here: Trump is living in the White House today because for the past 30 years our so-called leaders turned a blind eye to millions of foreign nationals crossing our borders and flouting our laws with impunity.

    And when Americans complained about the negative effects of this flood of humanity, politicians of both parties along with the Media (including Reason) smeared them as inbred racist Nazi Klansmen who hate brown people. That’s a great way to get people to support your viewpoint, Dalmia.

    Trump will leave Washington someday, but Trumpism is here to stay. The border WILL be secured; the overwhelming majority of Americans demands it.

    You can do it now while we are relatively reasonable about the issue. Or you can do it later when we are even more pissed. Your choice.

  33. “It’ll throw millions more immigrants under the bus than it’ll save.”

    Ahhh Shitha, since when is it the job of the federal government, taxpayers, and or citizens to ‘save’ illegal immigrants?
    Fuck’s sakes when is reason going to get rid if you?

    1. The automatic assumption that America is obligated to accept anyone and everyone who comes here is the most striking thing about Shikha’s columns.

      She simply cannot imagine anyone could disagree with this, and if you, then you must be a member of the Einsatzgruppen or something.

    2. “…when is reason going to get rid if you?”

      I was under the impression that open borders was the official Reason position on immigration. Why would they get rid of their foremost mouthpiece for that policy?

  34. Our all-time record high levels of immigration have decimated working class Americans and kept their wages flat for decades.

    Of course, that is the main reason for it. Opening the floodgates for mass immigration boosts GDP and Wall St profits — but more importantly for anyone who actually cares about the American people, mass immigration tanks GDP per capita.

    At the same time, this policy is on the cusp of securing a permanent majority voting bloc in favor of indefinitely increasing socialism, racial and other subgroup identity politics, and deepening cultural division. That’s the other side of why this policy stubbornly persists.

    Even President Trump’s apparent efforts to go against the grain have failed miserably before even getting off the ground. He has now offered a proposal that gives amnesty, and citizenship, to upwards of 2 million entitled and unassimilated illegal whiners, with no effective fix for the massive continuing problem of illegal immigration (such as e-verify), and zero cutbacks to immigration other than a pipe dream ten years out.

    1/2

    1. 2/2

      Funny, it appears the U.S. government is no longer by, for, or even remotely tethered to the People. The disconnect is illustrated by a number of recent polls, wherein more than 80% of Americans favor major cuts to immigration levels, including 85% of African Americans and 72% of Democrats and Clinton voters (but remember — these folks must all be racist white supremacists according what the hateful media blares over its channels of influence thousands of times daily). Similarly strong public support is shown for other measures such as ending chain migration in favor of merit- or skills-based selection, ending visa lotteries, mandating e-verify, etc.

  35. In other words, in exchange for handing Dreamers their citizenship 12 years hence, Miller wants to deport their parents now?

    And?

    Isn’t the whole argument for “Dreamers” getting a pass on immigration laws that they’re innocent of anything, because they were notionally brought here as children?

    Their parents were, equally presumably, adults who knew they were illegals.

    Why do they get to stay, exactly?

    (Want more legal immigration? So do I!

    But argue for that, not peddle sob stories about “deporting their poor, innocent parents”, who were never not in risk of deportation, were they?

    Unless the position is going to be “purely open borders forever!!!”, you end up having to deport people who enter illegally, so you not?

    There is no “the libertarian position” on immigration or borders; there are multiple ones. How about Reason spend some time discussing them, rather than asserting one because reasons?)

    1. You must not read here often.
      Or know much about libertarianism (as opposed to individual libertarians, which is irrelevant.)

      1. Why did you change your name? It is dishonest.

        1. YOU were born with that handle?

          1. You were born with your head up your ass, Hihnsano, so what are you complaining about?

  36. If this “abomination” of a deal passed, America would be Canada lite – at worst. The non extended family members could still apply for citizenship on their own, or they could just come together.

    I don’t like the idea of just ending chain migration, because grandmas and uncles could have deep ties with the families. Extended families (aunts, grandmas or cousins living with a family in the same house) is common in Asia, maybe more than Latin America.

    But you can see why no compromise on immigration is ever possible in America. Because hardliners on both sides will are just so entrenched in their own positions. Most undocumented aliens don’t care how much money is spent on walls of HS personnel – if they’re allowed to stay in the country legally. They didn’t care that Obama superseded congress to enact his own immigration policy.

    Undocumented aliens do not have a civil right to stay in this country. It simply does NOT exist. Not in the USA, and not in Canada, where the prospect of a refugee Tsunami compelled their government to assert that “we’re a nation of laws”. So how can the dreamers make blanket demands? The loudmouths should not be the face of illegal immigration. I think it’s time for more fair minded advocates to work directly with moderates like Lindesy Graham and see if he can convince Trump to go along with a compromise.

  37. REASON is a site full of open borders anarchists and UNconstitutional TRADE DEALS

  38. You’re right, the deal sucks!

    It should be modified as follows:

    (1) a “dreamer” who came here age 16 or more should not be a “dreamer”

    (2) there should be no path other than military or other extraordinary service for a “dreamer” to attain citizenship

  39. “This will hurt millions more immigrants than it will save. But President Trump’s designs for undocumented parents are not the only troubling aspect of this proposal. The proposed changes to family-based immigration are terrible too.”

    I am starting to not care about this debate at all because of stuff like this, the goalposts ever change and no one will specify what their goals are. Undocumented parents were never even on the board and now it is unethical they will still be illegal too? When did this become an issue.

    Do borders exist?
    Does the American government have the authority to legislate immigration requirements?
    What exactly is the end goal here?

  40. Double speak: The author leaving out 11 instances of the word ‘illegal’ before using the word “immigrants”

    Send all of them back. Give them an application and let them get in line like everybody else. That is the law. You don’t even need a wall.

    This is Obama’s mess. He has his chance and blew it.

  41. $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. Are you and that other moron sharing drugs? It must be some party. Other countries have walls and we have a partial fence that isn’t effective and yet you claim there isn’t a problem. Border patrols are in constant danger and yet you claim there is no problem. Amazing. I hope you’re not breeding.

  42. Hey where were all these Trumptards when Drumpfy signed the new Fisa act? The number of comments on those articles didnt past 50. So much for trying to keep america from becoming a 1984 dystopia.

  43. 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

  44. “The White House’s Proposed Dreamer Fix Is an Abomination”

    Right you are!
    No Deal!
    No rewards for criminal aliens over law abiding aliens!
    Out! Out! Out!

    “It’ll throw millions more immigrants under the bus than it’ll save.”

    Now that is mean. And inefficient too. They should *all* be put on the buses out of the country, not under the buses. Putting them under the buses will slow them down.

  45. I say give all current DACAs and future DACAs < 13 a path to citizenship, e.g. live in America for contiguous 10 years without crime or welfare. Give no preferences or haven to their parents, who seek to exploit their children for their own selfish purpose.

  46. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    HERE? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homework5.com

  47. The “dreamers”, (For the record, I despise cutesy names like that.) deserve some consideration because, although their presence in America is illegal, it’s the result of their parents’ criminality, not their own.

    All other illegal immigrants? Deport their asses, they knew what they were doing was illegal, they deserve nothing but minimally civil treatment on their way out of the country, and a prison cell if they ever come back.

  48. DACA parents are the poison that created this mess, and should never have any chance of staying in this country. The spat on our laws, in immigration and employment. They have no respect for the rule of law, which is an underpinning of our national ethos.

    If the DACA folks want to stay, their parent have to go.

  49. DIDnt even have to read it to know who wrote this screed.

  50. The author of this essay is a far-Leftist Radical. Stop printing this crap on Reason.

  51. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  52. And this is where I stopped reading, “In other words, in exchange for handing Dreamers their citizenship 12 years hence, Miller wants to deport their parents now.” This writer is a moron. The parents are illegally here and they are the ones who put their little dreamers in the position they are in. They are not the victims – they are the perps. God, I hate stupid people.

  53. I won’t say that I support Trump or immigration law enforcement. Not to anyone. Pay no attention to polls. The USA is my home in The Western Tradition and the Judaeo-Christian culture. I always ask the “open borders” advocates to print their home addresses so that I can invite folks to stay with them.

  54. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    HERE? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homework5.com

  55. Obama’s policies that allowed illegal immigrants to flow into the country unchecked WAS THE REAL ABOMINATION, Shitka.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.