Immigration

What Donald Trump Should Say About Immigration in Tonight's State of the Union

We can fantasize, can't we?

|

President Donald Trump is set to address immigration during tonight's State of the Union address. His remarks will follow last week's rollout of a White House immigration proposal that would offer a path to citizenship to 1.5 million Dreamers—undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children—while reducing the overall flow of immigrants into the United States and providing $25 billion in new funding for a border wall. It's probable that the president will stick to the same basic outline during tonight's speech.

But what if Trump were somehow to give up on immigration restrictionism? What could he say? What should he? Such a transformation is unlikely, to say the least. But as an exercise in political fantasy, it's more than political comfort food. Imagining such remarks can help us understand not only what has already gone wrong when it comes to immigration, but the policy path that, in a better world, would lie ahead.

*

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, My Fellow Americans:

Everyone says I never admit I am wrong and never apologize.

Well, let me begin my Second State of the Union

Trump
DonkeyHoter via Foter.com

address tonight by doing both: You see, I woke up this morning thinking that I am married to an immigrant woman, who almost certainly modeled illegally for a while (she won't fess up lest Attorney General Sessions dispatch an ICE swat team to the White House to take her away) and I employ low-wage foreign labor in my hotels and golf courses.

Yet the policies I have advocated thus far would cutoff access to these workers by other businesses with far slimmer margins than my own over-priced facilities.

This is rank hypocrisy, and I am ashamed that I engaged in it just to exploit the anti-immigrant fervor of my economically ignorant base. Imperiling businesses is no way to MAGA and I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Going forward, my immigration policies will be humane and pro-growth just as the excellent 2013 Reason immigration e-reader suggested. I have read this compilation of Reason's best work cover-to-cover and committed it to memory because, as you all know, I have an incredible brain. And I am also ordering my entire staff to read it.

Speaking of my staff, to demonstrate with deeds that I have had a change of heart, I have decided to fire—effective immediately—both my White House aide Stephen Miller, a nativist stick-in-the-mud who has sabotaged my negotiations with Congress over the fate of Dreamers, and also my Chief of Staff, General John Kelly. He has been a great disappointment.

Instead of bringing out my better angels on this issue, as many had hoped, he has done the opposite. In addition, I am replacing Attorney General Sessions, a xenophobe who has forever been spreading malicious lies about immigrants, with Arizona's Republican Senator Jeff Flake, a decent man who understands the vital role that immigrants have played in making America an economic powerhouse.

Flake will call off Sessions' ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) workplace raids to round up unauthorized workers. Such tactics are more worthy of a police state than the United States. Bill Maher recently said that I may not be Hitler, but ICE is certainly the Gestapo, and he is right about that. ICE's reign of terror must end.

Hardworking foreigners busting their butts to put cheap food on the tables of Americans don't deserve to be deported. They deserve respect. We'd be poorer without them in a million different ways.

Hence, I am going to work with Congress to pass legislation to create a pathway to citizenship for all 11 million of them except actual criminals. These folks, who are entitled to no federal means-tested benefits, have already contributed $100 billion and counting to the Social Security Trust Fund through payroll taxes. Yet they won't collect a dime from it. It is time for us to stop milking them much less separating them from their loved ones.

No doubt Rush Limbaugh and his ilk will scream "amnesty" and rend their clothes that I am "rewarding law breakers" and "undermining the rule of law." All I can say is, bite me! The founder of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), Harvey Silverglate, has documented that Uncle Sam has criminalized so many victimless activities that literally every American commits three felonies a day. Should we incarcerate them all in the name of the sanctity of the rule of law?

Indeed, amnesty had a long an honorable history in this country until nativists turned it into a dirty word. We have handed amnesty to Confederates who fought against the Unionists and to tax scofflaws. The need for amnesty in the face of widespread non-compliance is a sign of the inefficacy and injustice of a law—that it is out-of-sync with the normal aspirations of a people. It suggests that we need to reform the law because enforcing it would be too costly: monetarily, morally, socially.

That would certainly be the case if I doubled down on my current immigration enforcement regime. In order to be effective, this regime will need to go after employers that hire undocumented workers, landlords who rent to them, use anti-harboring laws to go after humanitarian workers administering first aid (some of which my administration has shamefully started doing). In short, it will require a massive police state that would devour the rights and liberties not just of foreigners, but also ordinary Americans.

Also, trying to stop the future flow of undocumented aliens by throwing $25 billion to build the "big, beautiful wall" on the Southern border would be colossally wasteful and unwise, I have realized. It won't allow us to "control" the border as restrictionists claim. It would create an even bigger black market in labor that would only enrich human coyotes.

A far better option than a regime of labor prohibitionism would be to give these hardworking laborers legal avenues to work and live in the United States. How? By creating a new and improved version of the guest worker barcero program with Mexico that we scrapped in 1965, thanks to labor union pressure.

That program, which was not perfect, at least allowed Mexican laborers to easily and cheaply acquire work visas to come and go with the seasons. Taking away that option without offering usable substitutes while simultaneously cracking down on the border made it difficult for these workers to go back and forth. So once they managed to sneak in, they stayed put and brought their families here too or found American mates. What was a cyclical population turned into a permanent underclass.

President Ronald Reagan blundered mightily when he failed to combine his amnesty with a guest worker program. This sowed the seeds of our current predicament over undocumented aliens that is eating away at America's soul and truncating its humanity. I will not repeat that mistake.

But even as we create a new guest worker program for low skilled migrants not just from Mexico but all of Latin America, we have to improve the H-1B program for foreign tech workers. Without these techies there would be no Silicon Valley and no IT industry. Foreigners are involved in the founding of literally half of all IT startups in this country valued at billion of dollars. Each H-1B supports four native jobs. I lied when I claimed that foreign workers threaten native wages and jobs.

And while I'm fessing up, let me also admit that the immigration reforms I've been demanding in exchange for legalizing Dreamers would not make our immigration system more "merit based." They would simply take away the ability of Americans to legally sponsor their parents, adult children and siblings, not make it easier for us to admit high-skilled worker. In fact, the ransom I want to extract in exchange for Dreamers would cut legal immigration by 40 percent. It's nativism dressed up as immigration liberalism. It would make America's immigration system more "merit-based" just as Obamacare made it possible for you "keep your health plan, if you liked it."

In order to truly liberalize our immigration system, the first thing we need to do is cut the red tape. I can't call myself the great deregulator while setting Department of Labor inspectors loose on companies that hire foreign workers. Currently, any company that wants to sponsor a foreign techie for an H-1B visa needs to first prove to the DOL that it could not find qualified Americans to do the job. And then if it hires too many H-1Bs—becomes "H-1B dependent" in bureaucratic parlance—all hell can break loose. The company has to be prepared to justify to labor inspectors the discharge of any American worker 90 days before or after hiring an H-1B. A company that is found to be willfully violating the law can be barred for three years from hiring foreign workers and slapped with serious fines.

This is nothing more than affirmative action for natives meant to shield them from competition. Such protectionism has never made any country great. Ever.

So I entreat Congress to scrap the ridiculously low 85,000 annual H-1B cap and let high-tech companies hire however many workers they need from wherever they want. This won't cost American jobs it will protect them. As Steve Jobs told President Obama, another great liar, that the reason he employed 700,000 workers in China was that he could not find 30,000 engineers in the United States.

That is madness. We need markets to decide the mix of our labor pool, not Beltway bureaucrats. Talk about draining the swamp.

All of the policies I have outlined so far will make America's immigration system more pro-growth. To make it more humane, I am going to end my assaults on America's refugee program and withdraw my Muslim travel ban (yes, that is what it is, even though I have thrown in countries like North Korea to cover my ass in court). Our policies in the Middle East are at least partly responsible for destabilizing the region and creating the current mess. So it is only right we do our part to bring as many people to safety as we possibly can.

Immigrants have made America great and will do so again. Letting them in would be the best way to MAGA. It's time to reaffirm our commitment to who we are: A land of immigrants.

Advertisement

NEXT: 'Booze Equality' Bill Inches Forward for Virginia Craft Distilleries

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. You were part of the lowest caste weren’t you Shikha?

    1. Anyone else notice how the trumptards responses to Dalmia are increasingly focused purely on her race?

      1. Nope.

        But that’s because I know what castes are.

      2. What race would that be?

        1. Is she Martian?

      3. Disappointing, but not surprising, since opposition to open borders is motivated entirely by racism and white supremacy.

        (BTW try not to use “tard” in the future. It’s a slur.)

        1. 1) Thank you for saying so about the use of the term “tard.” Please continue to hammer the liberals on this site who consistently do so. I’m reasonably sure that Buttplug is the most common offender. I appreciate your advocacy.

          2) I think you should rethink the term “motivated entirely.” That … just isn’t true. In fact, if ONE person EVER even ONE time in a single conversation has had a concern about open borders that isn’t motivated by white supremacy your statement is false. And, frankly, it makes you look foolish, which I am sure you are not. Even if SOME opposition to “open borders” is motivated by white supremacy (no doubt it is) that doesn’t remove ALL of the arguments.

          1. I’m actually 100% positive he is foolish.

        2. If Reason authors exepended 1/10th of the pixels they devote to open borders on reducing or eliminating the welfare state I might be more respectful of their arguments.

          Absent that, they really are empty suits.

          1. “If Reason authors exepended 1/10th of the pixels they devote to open borders on reducing or eliminating the welfare state I might be more respectful of their arguments.”

            Why though? Decreasing the welfare state is basically preaching to the choir. Those in favor of welfare aren’t likely to be swayed by a principled position in support of reducing or eliminating it.

            It’s clear that there are many libertarian leaning conservatives that don’t agree with open borders (the predominant position among libertarians). I suspect Reason is trying to reach these people. I will agree though, that Shikha should refrain from name calling and focus more on laying out the libertarian position in terms of facts and principles.

            This was actually one of the better articles from her in terms of employing facts, but she continues to belittle Trump supporters, which is counter-productive. She has yet to lay out a principled argument for open borders as far as I can tell.

            1. Why?

              Because absent the substantial reduction, if not outright elimination of the welfare state open borders are a ruinous abomination and further affront to the liberty of everyone who will bear the greater burden associated with increased welfare rolls.

              That you cannot see this leads me to question your membership in ‘the choir.’

              1. If Congress offered a proposal to allow for open borders, yet required proof of citizenship (birth certificate + SSN) to vote, get welfare, medicaid, and public education would you be for that proposal?

                I would. Nobody has a “right” to get those things. Everybody has a right to move freely and freely associate with whomever will associate with them.

                1. Except courts will overrule that as discriminatory.

                  And we know they would.

                2. “If Congress offered a proposal to allow for open borders, yet required proof of citizenship (birth certificate + SSN) to vote, get welfare, medicaid, and public education would you be for that proposal?”

                  Homey please.

                  We are currently engaged in a debate about building a wall in order to hinder people attempting to violate existing law. What chance do you think that your proposed legislation would matter?

                  So, tell me another one.

                  Look, encouraging people to jump into the pool is one thing.

                  Failing to also tell them that the pool is empty is something else entirely.

                  1. You didn’t answer my hypothetical. I wonder if that’s because your motivation against open borders isn’t just because of access to the welfare state.

                    Presumably the wall would have some doors. Maybe that wasn’t your intention?

            2. I wonder if China would have had good luck with open borders in 1937?

            3. This was actually one of the better articles

              Her best articles correspond exactly to the lengths of the articles in reverse order. Her best article ever will be the one that consists of:

        3. Opposition to open borders is motivated by understanding that “open borders” is a contradiction in terms.

        4. You mean “libtard”?

          If they stop acting like they’re retarded, I’ll stop calling them libtards… And then hell will freeze over, pigs will fly and Shikha will hold an opinion that isn’t anti-American.

      4. Tony and Buttplug need to home school you stormfront dragon.

      5. What Trump SHOULD have said in the SOTU address:

        Shikha…. YOU’RE FIRED!!!

    2. A Shikha article with only 30 butthurt yokel comments? I am disappoint.

      1. As was I when I found out you thought Clovis people were the first ones here, that has been wrong for 20 years.

        1. It’s been obvious you’re fake for some time.

  2. I knew if I waited long enough I would find a libertarian voice at this website.

    1. Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I’ll be glad to mail you a hanky. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

      1. I do not seeks gifts from right-wing authoritarians, especially not those who embrace or appease bigotry, and in particular not at an ostensibly libertarian website.

        Thank you for the offer, however.

        Carry on, clingers.

        1. Perhaps you should move to a society more compatible with your marxist beliefs. I’m sure you would enjoy the ‘comradrey’ in Venezuela.

          1. My preferences — reason, education, tolerance, science, progress, inclusivity — have been advancing in America throughout my lifetime, despite the efforts and preferences — intolerance, superstition, dogma, ignorance, backwardness, insularity — of conservatives.

            Right-wingers are not going to like America’s future, much as they are disaffected today.

            1. If the future will be something “right wingers” won’t like, then there’s something else it won’t be – America.
              Go peddle your shit in Cuba or Venezuela, where they want that stuff and leave America to what it was designed to be.

            2. Seems to be several classes of “right-wingers”.

              One is the stereotypical mouth-breathing, xenophobic racist half-wit that does exist, but is pretty much an endangered species.

              Another is the “bomb them to hell” group, that doesn’t much seem to care who America kills, so long as they can make money off munitions. They are likely the group that has the most in common with today’s liberals (i.e. “libtards”).

              Then there’s the largest group – those with statistically-normal intelligence who are concerned for the safety and welfare of their families, who believe rewards come from hard work (not government handouts) and who may or may not share a belief in a deity.

              Some of the latter group are also capable of mathematical analysis that informs them that almost everything the left proposes is impossible and ultimately destructive to the foundational ideals of America.

              It is the first group the left would like to believe is the entirety of the right. But it is the last group the left will never engage on a logical basis. To do so would be the death of the libtard dream of something for nothing.

              Among libertarians, the idea of “open borders” is the single most perverse and asinine characteristic that rightly makes “right-wing” Americans of all types – vomit.

        2. Bigotry? You guys really are at a loss for arguments, aren’t you? Next you’ll be screaming about fairness.

          1. Clueless right-wngers totally ignorant that libertarians have been fiscally conservatives and socially liberal for nearly 50 years now,

            Left and right are obsolete. Your time has expired, which may take a while to be known inside the deep tribal cave where you seek solace from reality..

            1. And libertarians are just getting elected by leaps and bounds, right?
              God, you’re stupid!

              1. If a libertarian is trying to win an election, they’re either lying to you about trying to win the election or they’re lying about being a libertarian. . . or they’re painfully ignorant.

  3. What should he say?

    Well, literally nothing Dalmia would agree with is a solid start.

    1. She’s like a retard on steroids.

      1. I am an occasional visitor to Reason, so I am unclear of why Dalmia has a column here. She seems to be entirely un-Libertarian.

        What am I missing about her?

        1. Nothing. Reason’s policy is open borders. She’s the main mouthpiece for that policy. Makes sense doesn’t it?

          1. Actually, numb nuts, that’s been libertarian principle for several decades now.
            But you people seem to revel in your ignorance.

            1. Actually, numbnuts, the question was why Dalmia has a column at Reason. My answer was, why shouldn’t she? Reason’s policy is open borders and so is hers.

              Next time, see what you can learn by reading.

            2. No, that’s an anarchist principle.
              Real libertarians are supposed to want Constitutional laws obeyed – and control of immigration, by Congress, is written into the Constitution.

      2. I was thinking more like a retard on LSD.

  4. What Donald Trump Should Say About Immigration In Tonight’s State of the Union

    “You have to go back!”

    1. “Kate, we have to go back!!!”

      1. I still don’t understand it. Clovis people weren’t the first ones here. And yet, you were a total bitch when you found out you were wrong for thinking they were.

        1. No, the Cletus people were the first ones here.

          1. Holy shit, I forgot, you’re the same asshole who thinks glyphosate kills gut bacteria!

            My bad for expecting you to know anything about science or be rational, I’ll let you get back to your homeopathy.

            1. ^^^Multiple vaccinations victim

              1. How much feces do you have with your water?

                1. You don’t know anything about homeopathy, do you?

                  1. I’m sure you do!

                    1. it’s been obvious that you’re fake for some time

                  2. “You don’t know anything about homeopathy, do you?”

                    It’s water. What else is their to know?

                    1. there not their

                  3. Why, it’s o-pathy at home, right Mr. Wilson?

                2. It’s been obvious that you’re fake for quite some time now.

            2. Dude, if you’re going to accuse people of not knowing anything about science or being rational, perhaps you should educate yourself first. Holy shit indeed.

            3. It’s been obvious that you’re fake for quite some time now.

          2. Also please note that the WHOLE Animal Kingdom of vertebrates first evolved in the oceans, and are un-invited INVADERS of the land masses!!! Cast them all BACK into the seas, I say!!!

            1. No no no no no!!!!

              Oxygen is a pollutant. The earth belongs to the anaerobic.

        2. It’s been obvious you’re fake for some time.

        3. it’s been obvious that you’re fake for some time

  5. Instead of bringing out my better angels on this issue, as many had hoped, he has done the opposite. In addition, I am replacing Attorney General Sessions, a xenophobe who has forever been spreading malicious lies about immigrants, with Arizona’s Republican Senator Jeff Flake, a decent man who understands the vital role that immigrants have played in making America an economic powerhouse.

    How adorable. I am often impressed with how profoundly ignorant Dalmia is on most issues…yet she always shines her light on it in ways I never imagined possible.

    Yeah, Jeff Flake. Solid choice. *snicker*

    Indeed, amnesty had a long an honorable history in this country untill nativists turned it into a dirty word.

    I dunno…perhaps is dullards like you didn’t fuck the country over with PRIOR amnesties (see Reagan, Ronald), we’d take you more seriously. But you solution is ALWAYS “more amnesty”. Nah, son. You have to bring more to the table than that. We fix the border COMPLETELY and we can then discuss your desires. Until then, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

    As Steve Jobs told President Obama, another great liar, that the reason he employed 700,000 workers in China was that he could not find 30,000 engineers in the United States.

    There aren’t 30,000 engineers in the US? You’re ACTUALLY making that argument?

    1. Ahem. He “could not find” them.

    2. I don’t understand what Jobs was trying to say. What do 700,000 Chinese laborers have to do with engineers in the US? How would having 30,000 engineers eliminate the need for people to actually fabricate Apple products? Designing equipment to automate it? Yeah, because Apple’s going to dump billions of dollars into assembly lines for a product they’ll sell for a year. Re-tooling is expensive and takes forever. Humans are far more versatile.

    3. “We fix the border COMPLETELY”

      This is not possible. You know it is not possible. So your make impossible demands before agreeing to any sort of deal? That is called negotiating in bad faith.

      1. “‘We fix the border COMPLETELY’

        This is not possible”

        Have we defined what fix means here, because you seem to think so, and have made a declaration based on that.

        In other words, you cannot possibly claim it is impossible without defining what fix entails. That hasn’t been done here.

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

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

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

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

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

        1. Oh, Good Lord; I think you need to go back to school. There is no illegal immigration problem. Immigrants coming from Mexico and south of there have been on a net outflux. You don’t represent the public. You need to go away, and take Mark Krikorian with you.

          Thanks, A REAL Conservative.

      3. This is not possible. You know it is not possible. So your make impossible demands before agreeing to any sort of deal? That is called negotiating in bad faith.

        As opposed to your “amnesty followed by some work on the border that we will half-ass anyway”?

        Nah. We’ve tried it your way.

        Odd that ONLY the USA cannot possibly control its border.

        A wall isn’t going to resolve the issue. It is a step, but hardly the fix. Far more strict controls of visas (i.e visa holders have to be easily found at ALL times and be tossed if they are here more than 3 days beyond the end of their visa, given that over-staying visas is a massive problem). No chain migration. No diversity lottery. If “charitable groups” want to bring over immigrants, that group alone is responsible for all living expenses for the immigrants indefinitely. The vote will never be provided to anybody not here legally.

        Do all this and we can discuss amnesty for some people.

        1. The funny thing is that if we knocked out the illegal problem, then we could focus on having a decent legal immigration policy. Which is what should happen.

          1. Indeed. It’s like they don’t get the basics of how you fix a problem. If you are shot in the chest, the first thing you do is to stem the bleeding and close the wound. THEN you worry about that nasty hang nail…

          2. Sure! Maybe Prohibition will work *this* time!

        2. “(i.e visa holders have to be easily found at ALL times”

          How exactly do you propose implementing this without also at the same time creating a police state? Have ICE spy on visa holders 24/7? (Kinda like what the Soviets did to visitors there, eh?)

          1. No the conservatives want to enforce all these laws with small government, because they said so. What part of that don’t you understand?

            1. What we can’t understand is how you became such an idiot.
              Real conservatives want the government to be as small as the Constitution determines and that the only laws be the ones it gave them power over.
              Immigration is just one of those powers.
              What you advocate is anarchy.
              Go try Somalia if you want a lawless existence. I hear you can freely associate to your heart’s content.

  6. What Donald Trump Should Will Say About Immigration In Tonight’s State of the Union

    “Immigrants are great, unbelievable, special people.”

    1. We love the immigrants.

      1. I had one for breakfast!

      2. I love immigrant hot chicks with big tits.

  7. My wife’s dad (from China) had to sign an agreement form stating that his family would not take or apply for public assistance. That was 1968, not a million years ago.

    The reason for the wall is that unelected judges have made that gateway ‘unconstitutional’ out of thin air. The wall is big ‘fuck you’ to judges. I don’t think Shitka understands that.

    1. The wall is also a big ‘fuck you’ to jaguars.

      1. Hey look, it’s that idiot who insisted repeatedly that he was correct about a fact even after he was proven wrong, even throwing a tantrum in response.

        Yeah, why would anyone expect you to have any shame.

        1. God, you are a bore. It’s not even fun to troll you. Till we meet again, after you get banned and come back under a yet different, yet equally lame username.

          1. Don’t have any glyphosate til then.

            1. It’s been obvious that you’re fake for quite some time now.

        2. It’s been obvious that you’re fake for quite some time now.

        3. It’s been obvious that you’re fake for quite some time now.

    2. “I don’t think Shitka understands that.”

      Which is part of a list longer than you can imagine.

  8. I had no idea who authored this before reading the article, making my way about 1/3 of the way through with a “wtf?” grimace on my face. I race down to the comments section to post

    “This must be a Dalmia article”

    and, sure enough, there she is!

    “Hardworking foreigners busting their butts to put cheap food on the tables of Americans don’t deserve to be deported. ”

    Nobody is proposing that this happens, lest of course those people DO INDEED deserved to be deported because they also happen to be violent criminals or otherwise have abjectly refused to “get in line” for the last 30 years.

    Sophist tripe.

    1. I love that it’s not racist to say we need more illegals to pick our fruits.

      Apparently, to progs like Dalmia, dark-skinned folks are only good for hard labor and for token jobs at “libertarian” institutions.

      1. That’s the “go-to” argument for nearly all Criminal Trespasser Apologists.
        Criminal Trespassers “do the jobs Americans won’t do” for the crappy wages that Criminal Trespassers are paid (and that we’re all now expected to work for).

        “ERMAHGERDLETTUCEWILLBETENDOLLARSAHEAD!!1ONEONE!1” said nobody who has ever spent a year or more working in Ag.
        For example, on 1/14/2018, the farm price for iceberg lettuce was $0.33.
        Average retail in Los Angeles, $1.24. . .375.76 percent of the farm price.
        Let’s double the farm cost to account for a huge wage increase, from $0.33 to $0.66
        375.76% of $0.66. . . is $2.480016

  9. What Donald Trump Should Say About Immigration In Tonight’s State of the Union

    The same thing he already offered: amnesty to the “dreamers” with a concession of wall funding to attempt to secure the border. It is not ideal* in my view, but seems to be a fair compromise.

    *I think countries should secure their borders, but I think a fence/wall will just be another expensive boondoggle that will ultimately be ineffective.

  10. “Our policies in the Middle East are at least partly responsible for destabilizing the region and creating the current mess. So it is only right we do our part to bring as many people to safety as we possibly can.”

    Yeah… no.

    1. We did our part to resolve that.

      Hillary didn’t win.

      You’re welcome, Middle East.

      1. Trump has already killed more civilians in the ME than Obama did in his entire term in office.

        Just as he promised during the campaign.

        1. Trump didn’t cause a global refugee crisis.

          That was Obama’s baby.

          Own it.

        2. Tony’s right, you know.

          [jumps in the shower and scrubs vigorously]

          1. You mean you right?

            1. It’s been obvious that you’re fake for quite some time now.

          2. Those millions of misplaced Libyans and Africans?

            Obama and Clinton policy.

            That Libya turned into a violent hellhole? That was Clinton’s policy. All those deaths? Her.

            I mean, Bush was correctly blamed for the hellhole Iraq turned into.

            1. And even Iraq was sorted out until Obama went out of his way to pull every last one of our troops, out. Destabilizing the country and leaving it ripe for ISIS to come in.

              Progressives have so much blood o their hands. In a perfect world they would all take stock of that and come to the correct conclusion that their lives are so toxic that they should all commit suicide immediately.

    2. If we’re partly responsible, shouldn’t we take only part of the refugees?

  11. Just tell the truth. We don’t want immigrants importing their Mexican socialism to America. What we want is Norwegian socialism.

    1. What if I don’t want either?

      Heaven help us if Northern Europeans mass migrant here again. I’ll take my chances with Mexicans, thank you very much, if that’s the false choice.

    2. No, no, and no. For the last time get it through your thick head, its the SWEDISH BIKINI team that we want to import.

      1. A ‘hot chicks only’ immigration policy makes sense. They won’t need any welfare, as there will be no shortage of prospective male sponsors ( I would certainly be ok with sponsoring a couple of hot 18-25 year olds entirely on my dime), and it would totally improve the ratio.

        Gotta watch the ratio, or it’s all just a sausage fest. Like our current immigration policy.

  12. “So I entreat Congress to scrap the ridiculously low 85,000 annual H-1B cap and let high-tech companies hire however many workers they need from wherever they want.” > Trump says it this way: “I, as President, want people coming […] in through a system based on MERIT. No more Lotteries!” 🙂 Trump tweeted it about a billion times or so. FYI.

    1. I wonder how many folks that are here on H-1B go into academia. Most of my professors were foreign. I can get used to the accents, but they have so much disdain for undergraduates. Having to teach us idiots that will go out and actually boost the economy is a waste of their precious time. That $300million research grant won’t spend itself!

      In principle I don’t mind the H-1Bs, but higher education is utterly broken. It’s a microcosm of the inefficiency and incompetence of government bureaucracies.

      1. You are right, I think.

      2. Also, the 85000 H1-B quota applies to for-profit entities. All H-1B non-immigrants who work for universities, non-profit research facilities associated with universities, and government research facilities are not concerned by these quotas. This skews things and gives credence to your point.

        1. That certainly suggests that there are probably hundreds of thousands in universities and other not-for-profit entities. On one hand, the US university system discovers a lot of useful stuff, but I’m glad at least 85,000 are in the private sector. The propensity for my school to prefer researchers over teachers is a confounding factor in my anecdotal evidence. When I graduated we needed at least a dozen professors-it was a pretty major crisis, and I saw a PR blurb about how the school had hired 10 new ones, 9 of which were doing full-time research with no contact hours.

          Thanks for sharing your expertise.

  13. These folks, who are entitled to no federal means-tested benefits, have already contributed $100 billion and counting to the Social Security Trust Fund through payroll taxes. Yet they won’t collect a dime from it. It is time for us to stop milking them much less separating them from their loved ones.

    To be fair, all of us under the age of 40 won’t collect a dime from it, and we’ll also have Uncle Sam trying to stick his fingers into our individual retirement funds. Also, how are they paying SS if they’re being paid in cash? Not being contentious, seriously asking.

    1. Well, some of them (more regular jobs, not “under the table” jobs) do pay into SS, w/ very-very little chance of ever-ever getting anything back.

      As usual, tax codes are way-way too confusing! Some do this, some do that… It is hard to make categorical statements, that have no exceptions.

      If you really do want more details, then check out…

      See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/bus…..es/499604/

      1. Excellent, thank you.

      2. Fake SSNs.. I think the country has a general consensus that the feds are utterly incompetent, but folks still want them to manage our health care?

        Yet instead of destroying the underground labor market, this new law just made it more sophisticated, producing a thriving market for fake U.S. birth certificates, IDs and social security cards..

        Another lesson here is that the black market loves restrictive laws. Capitalism will, uh, find a way.

      3. Also good reading:

        Economist George Borjas: Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers

        Quote (but read the whole article):
        … it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers – the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans – sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

        Once we understand immigration this way, it’s clear why the issue splits Americans – why many low-skilled native workers are taking one side, and why immigrants and businesses are taking another.

        1. Another article worth bookmarking, thanks! Immigration reform is probably the hottest topic on this site right now, and I was wondering what all the fuss was about. I’ve learned a lot about the nuances of this issue. I’ve never been an advocate totally open borders because of how the welfare state in the UK got slammed by people coming from their former colonies. I think the pure libertarian standpoint of unlimited immigration is not pragmatic at this time, so we’ve got to draw lines in the grey area. Trump is way off mark, but his rhetoric is stirring the general sense of anger in this country. Both sides are doing too much screaming and not enough talking.

          And many of the libertarians who obsessively advocate for open borders will surely balk at such a huge expansion of government. To make this work, Clinton and her supporters will have to acknowledge that our current immigration policy has indeed left some Americans behind. And Trump and his supporters will have to acknowledge that a well-designed immigration plan can be beneficial. All this is probably not going to happen.

          ^^^ pretty much this.

          1. “Both sides are doing too much screaming and not enough talking.”

            Amen! Hi-Ho, Silver!!!

  14. *Pops popcorn* This should be interesting…

  15. It’s been obvious you’re fake for some time.

  16. “the anti-immigrant fervor of my economically ignorant base”

    This must be some of that “acting more presidential” that the author and many others keep going on about.

  17. Once more, this time with feeling:

    Immigration restrictionism is just another form of Prohibition.

    Prohibitions don’t work; they fuel black markets, generate violent crime, and destroy our liberties.

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

    The only way to “fix” our immigration problem is to acknowledge reality and let people come here who want to work here, despite the costs, because the costs of stopping them are even higher.

    1. So is it impossible to fix the order or not? Make up your idiot mind.

      1. It’s been obvious you’re fake for some time.

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

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

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

      1. Sounds like we have a welfare state problem.

        1. That’s exactly the problem.

          I don’t think any politician is going to suicide their career to fix it, though. Free stuff pulls votes.

        2. …con’t from above…

          In legislating Civil War pensions, Congress followed the same pattern it had established in expanding Revolutionary War pensions. In doing so, Congress reaffirmed and hardened the earlier legislative precedents but on a much grander scale. Along with this legislation came an important and powerful discovery by the Congress and the executive branch: broadly distributing cash benefits directly to a large segment of the voting population could produce significant electoral benefits?. This discovery ensured that future Congresses would address entitlement legislation with electoral benefits firmly in mind.

          One would think the consistent re-election of Ron and Rand Paul might signal that voting, “nay,” on spending bills won’t automatically alienate constituents.

      2. Yeah I read that article, and the underlying study. The study’s authors make a lot of generalizations and assumptions about the costs of illegal immigration, IMO with an attempt to high-ball the estimate.

        But let’s assume for a moment that the figure is correct. What are the costs of maintaining or increasing the prohibition on labor? Costs of the wall? Costs of ICE? Costs of more expensive goods produced by higher-priced labor? And – most importantly – the costs to all of our liberties? There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    3. Once more.

      Workplace safety laws are just another form of prohibition.

      1. And before you have a conniption let’s make it explicit.

        Workplace safety laws specifically restrict people from paying others to engage in certain restricted or otherwise prohibited acts.

        So yes, a form of prohibition. One that directly interferes with right of contract.

      2. Workplace safety and child labor laws and such cause serious cognitive dissonance as a libertarian. On principal I oppose them, but I know damn well that some folks would neglect the safety of their employees for a few pennies.

        OSHA is a shitshow, though. Ideally we’d squash poor safety at a cultural level, and I think a lot of companies take it pretty seriously because getting sued all the time is even more expensive. Of course on this site we all know that truly “common sense” laws only lead to greater and greater restrictions; I don’t know how to keep them in check.

        1. I think there was a time when workplace safety and child labor laws were necessary. But that time has passed. The ability of the little man to have a voice through the local news or internet or whatever is so high now, that no company would dare not still prioritize safety.

    4. I had a similar thought about restrictions being ineffective. Humans are enormously adaptable. They will find a way into our country. Of course, progress can be impeded, and maybe the ones that can maneuver around a wall are better equipped to become productive citizens.

  18. Will Shikha ever STFU? She just rearranges the same words over and over into different articles that say exactly the same thing.

    1. Yes, but then where would Gillespie go for his back rubs?

  19. ” work with Congress to pass legislation to create a pathway to citizenship for all 11 million of them except actual criminals”

    1. There is already a pathway to citizenship. A pathway that is utilized by some 1 million fine people every year. The 11M *chose* to bypass the legal pathway to citizenship, came here illegally, flouted numerous laws on a daily basis, and now are DEMANDING amnesty and the ability to cut in line in front of those who have been and continue to pursue the existing legal pathway to citizenship.

    2. If we’d care to delve into the daily activities of an illegal alien, it would be clear that the sheer volume of potential criminal counts against them would boggle the mind.

    For example, 8 U.S. Code ? 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens provides fairly sever criminal penalties (nominally 5 years for each count, up to 10 years if done for financial gain or such harboring results in death). Consider an illegal alien who encourages family to come illegally, then houses them. How many counts is that?

    Add counts for transporting (driving an illegal friend across town meets the definition).

    Worked a job without authorization? 8 U.S. Code ? 1324a – Unlawful employment of aliens. Criminal penalties include fines and up to 6 months in prison.

    Falsified documents or committed identity theft or fraud? 8 U.S. Code ? 1324c – Penalties for document fraud. Criminal penalties include fines and up to 5 years in prison.

    And so on

    1. I would have expected authoritarian wingnuts to shelve the “fine people” line after Trump’s bigoted performance concerning Charlottesville, but apparently right-wingers lack self-awareness as well as education and character.

  20. What Trump should do tonight on immigration is hit the Democrats over the head with it.

    Trump should point out that he offered a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers, but Chuck Schumer would rather play political football than help these poor children the Democrats claim to care about.

    1. ^^This is what Trump should do.

  21. Trump should start by tackling the immigration process. It should take 2 to 3 years to get citizenship after arriving legally in the USA. Republicans need to streamline the process permanently and offer a one time opportunity for residents who have been here legally for at least 3 years to get their interviews and citizenship this spring. I would also like to see us hand out half a million to a million diversity visas each year and open the program to people from all countries, but my biggest concern is streamlining the process.

    The process for converting to Reform Judaism is relatively quick. It’s free for a woman (and a bit more expensive for a man). After 3 years of living as a Jew in a Jewish community, a convert qualifies for citizenship in Israel. Even an Orthodox Jewish conversion in the USA only takes a couple of years. Getting Israeli citizenship is quicker than getting American citizenship.

  22. I really don’t care what Reason thinks he should say….. didn’t read the article. It probably was something to the effect of free marijuana and stuff.

    I think he should say, “Stop being a bunch of bitches and enjoy this new economy! #MAGA (mike drop)”. Shortest best speech ever!!!

    1. Man, it seems that folks outside of the movement really think marijuana is our only issue.

      We have a serious PR problem.

      1. Man, it seems that folks within the movement really think open borders is our only issue.

        We have a serious PR problem.

  23. Here is my advance review of tonight’s SoU :

    “It is a tale,
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”

    Shakespeare is still relevant in 2018.

    1. Ummm. . . you do know that Bernie Sanders didn’t give the SOU, right?

    1. Gee. Thanks for that.

    2. Shots fired.

  24. This reminds me of the dopes who wrote inauguration addresses for Hillary. Keep jerking off into the wind…

    1. I haven’t tried that yet. Does it somehow enhance the experience, or just lengthen the cleanup?

      1. Similar to pissing into the wind, but oh-so-much better.

  25. Once again, readers are subjected to a giant crock of Shikha. Illegal immigrants are not undocumented immigrants as they have plenty of fake or stolen documents that got them into the country to steal our jobs and resources. Since, Shikha cannot seem to grasp what “Illegal” means, let me lay it out for her. If you came into this country by sneaking across the border, you have committed a crime regardless of the reasons why in the same way that someone stealing your car did so because they had to get to work.

    Members of familieds who commit crimes and are convicted of them get sent to prison. They don’t get to take their families with them to the Big House (not that they would go if they had the chance) and the result is having the family split apart. If Car Thief Daddy is caught, convicted and sentenced to prison for 10 years, then his kids will suffer because of his foolish acts and not because of laws that the government established to deter grand theft.

  26. We can ‘dream’ that the folks booing the Black & Hispanic Family members who had their minor [actual children] killed by MS13 Other Than Mexican adults [called Defered Action ‘Children’] or “dreamers” stop getting fuel from the author of this, and ‘Reason’, but that requires the showing of Equality under the Law…

    In the Reason published version of “ALL immigrants are equal, but El Salvador’s most viscous rapist, murdering gang members most of ALL!”” that will never – NEVER! – happen!!!

  27. You write ” Currently, any company that wants to sponsor a foreign techie for an H-1B visa needs to first prove to the DOL that it could not find qualified Americans to do the job.”

    Please check the statute more closely. Any company can IN FACT REPLACE ANY American worker (citizen or green card holder) with a foreign worker on an H-1b. If that company is willing to pay that H-1b worker at least 60/yr. There is no requirement to prove you could not hire an American.

    In fact more than half of the H-1b visas go to Offshore Outsourcing companies, that do nothing but replace Americans, after the American trains the H-1b replacement.

    H-1b is really bad for the U.S. economy, it enabled the wholesale removal of entire departments from the U.S. economy. The Offshore Outsourcing companies don’t sponsor anyone for a Green Card, as a result half of the citizen making potential of the H-1b program is lost because of these loopholes.

    If we instead gave the H-1b visa only to companies that originated technology, far more people would have a chance at citizenship, more domestic (U.S.) companies have would have better access to those visa (maybe we would never run out of them), and more jobs would be created by the program, instead of being lost.

    The H-1b visa has been great for India. The H-1b visa made the entire 200 billion$/year Indian IT industry. But we need to fully realize that H-1b is a U.S. Government program and should be working for (not against) the U.S. economy.

    1. 60/yr = 60k$/yr

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.