Donald Trump

Unemployment Is 3.8%, So Feds Raid Ohio Landscape Company, Arrest 114 Illegal Immigrants

We should be increasing legal immigration and making it easier than ever to work here.

|

Judge

Like any president, Donald Trump likes to brag about low, low unemployment rates. Who can blame him? Even his least-favorite paper—what Trump habitually calls "the failing New York Times"—says it literally "Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are." In May national unemployment stood at just 3.8 percent, the lowest figure in more than a decade.

That tight labor market makes it particularly unnerving to read this AP story from Sandusky, a resort town in the northeast corner of Ohio:

More than 100 workers at an Ohio gardening and landscaping company were arrested Tuesday when about 200 federal officers descended on the business and carried out one of the largest workplace immigration raids in recent years….

The 114 arrests occurred at two locations of Corso's Flower & Garden Center, one in Sandusky, a resort city on Lake Erie, and another in nearby Castalia. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it expected criminal charges including identity theft and tax evasion.

The Sandusky raid wasn't a one-off. It's part of an explicit strategy to crack down on businesses suspected of hiring workers with phony documents. Workplace raids are not distinctively Trumpian, of course; they were conducted under both Barack Obama and George W. Bush. What's different is the rapid increase in the number of business and document audits taking place. More audits mean more raids. More raids mean more prisoners, more family separations, and so on.

But it doesn't necessarily mean less immigrants. That's because migrants, especially those willing to operate outside the law, are more motivated by economic opportunity than by fear of punishment. Except in highly authoritarian countries—which are usually trying to keep people from leaving, not from coming in—it has proven nearly impossible to tightly control borders. If we have a good economy, people will want to move here by any means necessary. (That's the point of the magnet image above. Taken from an early-20th-century issue of Judge, it laments that immigrants are "the only bad feature of our prosperity.")

The AP continues:

Immigration officials have sharply increased audits of companies to verify their employees are authorized to work in the country. There were 2,282 employer audits opened between Oct. 1 and May 4, nearly a 60 percent jump from the 1,360 audits opened between October 2016 and September 2017. Many of those reviews were launched after audits began at 100 7-Eleven franchises in 17 states in January.

The audit that preceded the Sandusky raid was based on squeezing a vendor who sells fake documents. Here, according to the AP, is what the feds found:

Of the 313 employees whose records were examined, 123 were found suspicious and targeted for arrest and criminal charges of identity theft and, in nearly all cases, tax evasion. [Steve Francis, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations unit in Detroit] said the identity theft targeted U.S. citizens who had no idea their information was being used at the Ohio business.

Opponents of illegal immigration will seize on ubiquitous charges of identity theft and tax evasion as signs that illegal immigrants are criminals and thus should be kicked out of the country for breaking the law. And indeed, they are breaking the law.

But there's a better way to resolve this situation, especially in an economy that is everywhere starved for workers, particularly when it comes to manual labor. If more people were allowed to come here legally, that would shred the whole reason for identity theft and cut down on tax evasion too. (It's noting, incidentally, that even illegal immigrants pay FICA taxes and sales taxes.)

American employers have already used up this year's quotas for H-1B and H-2B visas (for skilled and unskilled workers in short supply). Our birth rate is falling and our average age is rising. Our unemployment is at record lows, there are more job openings than job seekers, and small businesses say finding workers is a bigger concern to them than taxes and regulations. And the response is to round up 114 people at work?

That's not going to make America great again. It's not even going to stop immigrants desperate for work from coming here. There's a simpler, pragmatic solution that allows the economy to grow, reduces identity theft, and tosses more coins into public coffers: Allow more people to legally enter and work in the United States. This is the immigration issue we need to be debating, not whether all immigrants are animals or just the members of MS-13 (many of whom are actually American citizens).

Related: The 5 Best Arguments Against Immigration—and Why They're Wrong!

For text and links, go here.

NEXT: The U.S. Military Says It Killed About 500 Civilians Last Year. Outside Groups Put the Count Far Higher.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m absolutely sickened by this. I cannot believe how the Drumpf regime violates the fundamental human rights of undocumented Americans by kicking them out of the country.

    #AbolishICE

    1. Too bad for you that the Constitution, Article I, Sections 8 & 9 give the government authority to regulate immigration and naturalization.

      1. *Congress*

        It gives *congress* that authority. Everyone seemed to forget about that after they got hella woke and started to defend executive power grabs because it was popular

        1. The Executive Branch execute’s the laws that Congress creates.

          1. People around here appear to want it both ways. Congress has laws on the books, so people are basically saying the President should enforce the law when they agree with a particular law and not do so when they disagree with the law I.E. fuck the rule of law.

            Laws can be unjust, for sure. There are lots of examples of that, in America and abroad, but since the U.S. is one of the most immigrant friendly places on planet Earth that accepts over a million immigrants a year for a nation of roughly 320 million…I’m really not sure why people choose this as the hill to die upon.

            1. But the President also has discretion when it comes to prioritizing law enforcement. Congress hasn’t appropriated enough resources to fully enforce every law they’ve written, so the President has to do the best he can with what he’s got. Deporting productive illegal immigrants should be a very low priority.

              1. So, in short, you wish the king was someone else. Much like the rest of America, so I’m not under any illusions that I’m in the minority on this.

                It’s laughable that Congress can pass laws while simultaneously not budgeting for any of the laws they just passed to be enforced. I’m aware this is a thing, but it’s an incredibly fucking stupid thing and is one more argument in favor of automatic sunset clauses on all legislation.

              2. No no no you have it all wrong. Those landscapers are just the tip of the spear of the ILLEGAL MEXICAN INVASION!!! LA RAZA!!!! RECONQUISTA!!!

                1. Chemjeff, Because Mexicans cannot do anything but landscaping.

                  RACIST!

                  1. They can also work in restaurants.

              3. Trump is using that discretion only *minimally* in the way he promised voters in the election campaign, and still the squawking is endless.

                Deport. Them. All.

                They have to go.

              4. On the other hand, shooting criminal invaders at the border should be a very HIGH priority. For a few dollars worth of ammunition, they could basically stop the invasion in its tracks. They just need to show the .300-WinMag round penetrating the invader’s skull, their brains blowing out the back of their heads – all in slow-motion – with the tag line underneath, “This is what criminals who try to invade America can expect” – in English and Spanish and several other languages, of course.

                Then transmit the loop 24/7/365 to South of the Border.

                Hell, if they’d just sign my letters of Marque and Reprisal, I’d do the job FOR FREE!

                1. Dude, it’s not an invasion. Words mean things.

                  1. Dude, it is an invasion. Article 4 section 4 of the constitution guarantees that the federal government will take steps to prevent foreign invasion of its respective states. Otherwise, they’re welcome to get in line and emigrate here…..LEGALLY.

      2. Well if the Constitution says the federal government is in charge of regulating immigration, that proves all libertarians should want Democrats controlling it. Unlike the GOP, the Democrats have not been taken over by white nationalist Putin puppets. Part of the reason I voted for Hillary Clinton is I knew her administration would not pursue the draconian deportation policies that Drumpf’s would.

        #BlueWave
        #StillWithHer

        1. That’s hilarious! I almost Peed my pants when I read that one!

        2. I got to say, it must take a lot of cognitive dissonance to ignore Obama’s deportation numbers

          1. Obama’s deportation numbers were manufactured bullshit, and remain so to this day. Changing the definition of deportation tends to have that effect.

            1. Leftists Lie

              1. They know no other way.

        3. Bwahhahahhahahahaha!!!!!!!!! thank you for the laugh, “OpenBordersLiberal-tarian.”

        4. How you stay in character I’ll never know.

          /raises glass of Aperol.

        5. That is some A+ trolling.

        6. Well if the Constitution says the federal government is in charge of regulating immigration

          It doesn’t though.

          1. 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.
            It is well past 1808.

        7. Where does it say in the Constitution about regulating immigration? Naturalization is all I’m seeing.

          1. Article I Section 9

          2. Enforcing borders are an inherent function of a nation state. The Supreme Court so ruled 150 years ago.

            I know this offends anarchists, but realize you’re alone in this one.

      3. What a cute little closet authoritarian you are kiddo!

        1. Enforcing immigration law sure is authoritarian even though its in the Constitution.

          1. Much like collecting the income tax.

            Carry on, clingers. More faux libertarianism, please.

            1. The income tax is in the constitution? That’s a curious claim to make. Can you point it out?

              1. Yeah he shit the bed on that one.

              2. Funny, I did a CTRL+F on “Immigration” and got no hits.

                1. So, Leo, I’m curious about something. If we rename ‘The Press’ as ‘National Truthsayers’ does that mean we can regulate them since they’re no longer called ‘The Press’?

                  By your reading, this would appear to be perfectly constitutional.

                2. It’s a subset of naturalization.

              3. Amendment 16

                The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

                Hate on it all you want, and with damn good cause, but it is in there.

                1. My fault, I was thinking of originally rather than later amended.

              4. The income tax is in the constitution?

                Um, yes?

      4. Why? Why do you respond to OBL. Its a troll. Not even subtle one.

        1. Satire account, not troll. He’s making fun of Reason writers.

          1. Can’t help trying to take a little credit for your work, can you, Tulpa?

      5. Get Trump’s cock out of your ass, LoveC.

        1. Get Obama’s dick out of your mouth, No Yards. I cannot understand you.

          1. What does it say about this guy that he worries about Obama’s imposition on No Yards instead of Trump’s imposition on him?

            1. What does it say about you that you think income tax is in the Constitution

              1. That he’s right and you are an idiot? There is an amendment specifically to allow income tax, so yeah, it’s in there.

        2. NYP is obsessed with Trump’s cock. I think he wants Trump deep inside him. To make him feel more like a woman.

      6. Naturalization is in section 8 granting Congress authority over it, true. And is required to be a “uniform rule” which probably cannot be reasonably applied as a descriptor for the current regime’s framework.

        Immigration WITHOUT seeking naturalization is nowhere in section 8 or in section 9, except that section 9 states that there can’t be federal rules on migration/importation of persons before 1808 other than a less than or equal to ten dollar tax per person imported. Nowhere does it say there CAN be rules on immigration (other than said tax) thereafter, at least federal rules– “such persons as the States think proper to admit” implies there’s a STATE power to admit migrants

        You’re going to have to try again if you want to seek authorization for our current federal border contro schemel, cause neither section 8 nor section 9 will do the job.

        1. The States were also understood to be where most of the power in the United States resided until post-Civil War so…that’s one possible interpretation. I might even think the better interpretation. The other being that the States would decide immigration power for all the States via Congress and the Senate, which is the interpretation that seems to stand today.

          The Civil War ruined a lot, and then most of the rest was ruined during the early 1900’s. We’re trying our best to ruin all of it today.

        2. Where is Social Security in the Constitution?

          1. Where did he say it was?

    2. You missed the obvious: This is a good argument for raising the minimum wage. These greedy corporations hire undocumented immigrants because they can exploit them, expropriate their labor, by paying wages below which privileged white people will willingly work. Raise the minimum wage to a living wage* and these greedy employers will find plenty of willing workers without resorting to more criminal behavior than that in which they normally engage.

      *A living wage is what the median family lives on, therefore the minimum wage must be set at a point where all workers will receive an income equal to or above the average income.


      1. *A living wage is what the median family lives on, therefore the minimum wage must be set at a point where all workers will receive an income equal to or above the average income.

        I’m going to assume this was an intentional joke, because it’s hilarious. That’s gold, Jerry!

      2. Actually, if you read some of the comments on the *conservative* web sites discussing this raid, that is the type of tack that they take. According to them, the undocumented immigrants aren’t “doing jobs that Americans won’t do”, they are doing jobs that Americans can’t afford to do because the employers pay so little. So they view immigration enforcement as a way to drive up their own wages. So in a sense, both the left and the right are in favor of the state dictating employee wages, it’s just that the left is more direct in wanting to do so. The Trumpian right wants the state to dictate wages by using ICE as a means to set wages.

        1. Congrats Jeff, you just described the last 150+ years of American, and more especially Union, history.

          1. Oh I didn’t claim that it was some new sentiment. But it wasn’t all that long ago when those people who wanted to use the state to drive up wages were called “socialists”. Now, they call themselves “patriotic Republicans”.

            1. Yes, both parties are veering to the left. Congrats on noticing that trend far too late.

              It’s literally why a 1995 Democrat like Trump had to run on the Republican ticket.

            2. And you show your idiocy by not acknowledging the difference between government forcing the raising of wages, versus the free market doing so through the economic law of supply and demand.
              You proggies want the government to set how much people are paid, while conservatives want the market to decide.
              One side is socialist, the other capitalist.
              Get it?
              P.S. The whole process is distorted by the government paying citizens to not work at a rate higher than these “jobs Americans won’t do” pay – another one of your prog initiatives.

        2. Jeff always finds a twisted up way to be an idiot about the border.

      3. Makes the case for…imagine that instead of illegals, this had been a raid on a landscaping company that paid white citizens less than minimum wage and/or paid cash to avoid payroll and income taxes withholding and reporting.

        Progressives would be peeing themselves in ecstasy at the enforcement effort.

        But press the same action against illegal aliens, most of whom are non-white, and the progressives rage cannot be contained.

        I am intentionally ignoring the question of whether the illegal aliens needed to be raided in the first place.

        1. I’m sure those progressives want to see the immigrants paid a high minimum wage, too.

      4. *A living wage is what the median family lives on, therefore the minimum wage must be set at a point where all workers will receive an income equal to or above the average income.

        You realize that by definition it’s not mathematically possible for the minimum wage to be at or above the average wage, or the minimum wage to produce an income that is equal to or above the average income? That is, of course, unless the minimum wage is the only wage; then the minimum could also be the average.

        I ask this rhetorically, of course, because what you’ve said is a) the bottom should be the middle, and b) the bottom should also be the mean (q.v. “median”, and “average”). You’ve confused so many things.

        It is theoretically possible (but extremely unlikely) for the minimum wage to produce an income that would be = or > the median income, but in the US as of 2017, the median household income is a little over $59k (which could be one, or more workers), and at 2080 working hours per year (50 weeks/40 hrs per week), that’s a little over $28/hr, or $14/hr for two parents working). However, it would also require that a lot of other people make significantly more money (or significantly less) than they already do for the minimum wage to produce an income that would remain the middle number. (con’t)

        1. (con’t)

          But, a minimum wage can never, ever, produce an income that is the average income, since the average is the sum of the all of the incomes, divided by the number of people making income, which will ALWAYS be greater than the minimum. Also, the true minimum wage is $0. Perhaps not legislatively, but definitely economically.

          However, all of this becomes moot relatively quickly because as soon as you raise the minimum wage to $14/hr (or $28 or whatever), prices rise thereafter (at different rates, depending upon the sector), and the minimum wage no longer is a living wage.

          The bottom line is, the minimum wage has never been a “living” wage, and even if FDR meant it to be one, it’s not economically possible.

        2. THAT’S THE JOKE.

    3. Yeah identity theft should be ignored because DRUMPF! Why do ppl think using the German origin of the Trump name is a clever retort?

      1. Because the left are retards?

    4. I’m absolutely Thrilled by this. I love how the Trump Administration regime is up holding out immigration laws and kicking out Illegal Aliens out of the country.

      The original poster does not seem to understand the concept of the Rule of Law and that we even have laws…. I mean how ignorant is this person to call them “undocumented Americans” we also have rules in place that define what it means to be a US citizen,,,, These rules by the way are documented.

    5. These raids just show what a failure our immigration laws are. Just think, if they’d shot all these criminal invaders at the border, there would have been no need for raids.

    6. These raids just show what a failure our immigration laws are. Just think, if they’d shot all these criminal invaders at the border, there would have been no need for raids.

  2. Are we really sure we want to get rid of people industrious enough to do raping, MS13 thuggery, and landscaping?

    1. That’s not going to make America great again.

      It’s already Making America Great Again!

      1. Why do I hear white when you say great?

        1. Because you are racist?

          1. No I don’t think it’s me.

            1. No, it’s you.

              1. Narrator: “It wasn’t.”

            2. I think it is.

              One day, when you leave the DNC plantation, you’ll understand. And then maybe we could go for that drink I know we’d enjoy together.

              1. If you’re trying to get me to understand how all the racists are actually brown people or their white liberal allies, while true nonracists “don’t see color,” I don’t think it’s going to work.

                1. all the racists are actually brown people or their white liberal allies, while true nonracists “don’t see color,”

                  It’s not that. You only think it’s that because you’re a bit racist.

                  1. Tony does not realize that by him saying that white people are worse than brown or black people, he is literally being a racist.

                    Tony just does not know how to sew or he would have made that white hood years ago.

                  2. A “bit” racist? Tony’s full-on 1920 eugenics-racist.

        2. Well Tony, that’s probably because that’s how you like your little boys.

          1. And how do you like your kids? That is, small goats?

            1. I’m too busy with adult human women. But then, you couldn’t possibly understand that.

          2. Tony’s an idiot, lacks any capacity for introspection, and is a full-on racist.

            Calling him a pedophile (apparently just because he’s gay) is reprehensible.

            1. Tony is a chickenhawk. It’s very common in his circles.

        3. Tony is a racist, so he thinks all other people are racist too.

          1. Projection is often a substitute for empathy. It’s how control freaks rationalize their behavior.

            1. And sociopaths. Progressivism attracts sociopaths in droves.

    2. Hey, I’m willing to put up with a little raping and murdering if I can get my lawn taken care of.

  3. What’s different is the rapid increase in the number of business and document audits taking place. More audits mean more raids. More raids mean more prisoners, more family separations, and so on.

    Easy solution: Illegal leave the USA and apply legally for work permits and/or citizenship.

    1. Well, I don’t know about easy. And it’s not as if they come illegally because they can’t be bothered to do it the legal way. As mentioned in the article, work visas are in short supply and can’t nearly meet demand.

      1. I am sure Congress and Americans would be much more receptive to increasing work visas and making them easier to get if we didn’t have illegals flagrantly ignoring American immigration law and entering/staying in the US illegally.

        1. I don’t really think that’s fair given American history. Immigrants are rarely received very well, but they also inevitably Americanize. Importing, say, 20 million people a year might cause problems though, of course Reason would never admit it.

          What Reason appears incapable of understanding is that there are probably over 20-50 million people that would love to move to the U.S. every year.

          1. I would bet a lot of money that hundreds of millions of people would move to the USA if given a chance.

            If there USA’s policy was “get here and you’re in”, immigrants would come by the tens of millions.

            1. Far more than hundreds of millions would move to America if given the chance, and if cost or transport wasn’t an issue. Try billions.

              1. Yes, and billions of people would also live in floating golden palaces with harems and unicorns and Scotch Whisky fountains if cost were no obstacle.

      2. The market isn’t ALWAYS in the favor of business.

        In times of tight labor, business has to incentivize labor for them.

        It’s not the job of the government to insure the market benefits businesses every single time. It does not and will not.

    2. Try reading the whole thing next time:

      American employers have already used up this year’s quotas for H-1B and H-2B visasIs that how well you read the Constitution too?

      1. I proofread about as well as you read too.

      2. Then apply earlier next year.

        1. Then they will just run out earlier.

  4. Nick: Son-of-a-bitch!

    KMW: What’s the matter?

    Nick: The unemployment numbers are so low that even the NYT had to praise them. Fuck. How am I suppose to #resist with this crap?

    KMW: That’s a lot of nonsense right there

    Nick: *epiphany* That’s it. Of course.

    https://www.reason.com/blog/2018/06/06…..ds-raid-oh

  5. Fox Butterfield now is writing for reason.

    1. James Tarantano would be proud of this reference

      1. Thanks for both Butterfield and Taranto references.

    1. Shouldn’t the math symbol be a ‘fewer than’ sign rather than a ‘less than’ sign?

      1. No. For numbers it’s less than. For quantities it’s fewer than.

        1. Three people is fewer than five people.
          Three people is fewer than five people.
          Three is fewer than five.

          Mathematical proof!

          1. This is still dealing with counts, not values. Proof failed.

            If I were to say: “The number three is less than the number five,” then crossed out the words “the number” (I have no idea how you cross out words here) it would reduce to three is less than five and be correct. It’s all about context.

            1. It always makes me smile to see people take the dumbest things so seriously. A bunch of bad joke wreckers is what you are.

              1. Never explain sarcasm to people who don’t understand sarcasm.

              2. A bunch of bad joke wreckers is what you are.

                This has to be one of the best descriptions of most big L libertarian commenter around here I’ve ever seen (and an apt description for myself, though not sure I’m big L libertarian :)).

                It’s just perfect, short: easily understood, and uniquely applicable.

          2. Just divide both sides by people. You know who else wanted to divide people on both sides?

      2. math isn’t grammar

  6. If more people were allowed to come here legally, that would shred the whole reason for identity theft and cut down on tax evasion too.

    So now libertarians are for income taxes? Now I’ve seen everything.

    1. Do you even woketarian, bruh? Mexicans are in the trifecta-based platform; the remaining issues are very flexible and can be formed to fit.

      1. If being here illegally means you don’t have to pay taxes and can steal someone’s identity, why would you want to come here legally at all?

        And reason always claims that illegal immigrants pay taxes and never steal anyone’s identity or do anything but work and drive old ladies to the grocery store, but somehow allowing more legal immigration will cut down on identity theft and tax evasion.

        1. That’s actually a really good point. I can see Nick waving it away with, “well, none of them would EVER do that if Trump wasn’t literally forcing them to. See? Still his fault!”

        2. So do you favor punishing private-sector employers who incentivize this or is it only the poor and desperate people you want to punish for the crime of trying to make a living?

          1. So do you favor punishing private-sector employers who incentivize this

            Yes. Just as I’d support punishing them if they intentionally polluted major bodies of water and the like.

            the poor and desperate people you want to punish for the crime of trying to make a living?

            “Trying to make a living” and “identity theft” aren’t synonymous.

            Desperate people can murder others. I wouldn’t justify that, either.

            1. I thought you people were against punishing victimless crime.

              1. Identity theft is victimless?

                1. PLEASE steal my ID and pay more SSN taxes into my SS account! I will NOT feel victimized!

                  Another way to put this is, bear with me?
                  The illegal humans are paying for your and my Social Security paychecks when we retire, is the actual facts. They pay in, but have virtual zero chance of getting paid back. See?

                  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/

                  Illegal humans can support SS, but not get bennies from SS, and all that is swell, ’cause they can’t vote. So all the illegal-human-haters go off feeling smug and superior, while they RIP OFF the illegal humans!


                  1. The illegal humans are paying for your and my Social Security paychecks when we retire, is the actual facts.

                    Then they’re doing a shitty job since no one but retards think that social security is solvent. I think you hit it on the nose on why some segments of our political class want a hell of a lot more under-class immigration though.

                    They want these people to shore up the system, but not to draw benefits. Yeah, that seems like ‘freedom’ to some idiots I guess.

                    1. ” I think you hit it on the nose on why some segments of our political class want a hell of a lot more under-class immigration though.”

                      Winner-winner, chicken differ!

                      The feds want to shore up SS with illegal humans… They only make a SHOW of stopping the illegal immigration.

                      The LOCALS and the STATES pay the un-funded mandates at schools and at emergency rooms… A partial fix at the emergency room would be, allow those of us who want to pay LESS, to go and see a veterinarian instead! I, for one, would like to be legally declared to be a dog! WHERE do I go for that?

                    2. Oooops!!!

                      Winner-winner, chicken diNNer!

                    3. In today’s world, I think you simply need to say that you identify as a dog.

                  2. It’s also really neat when they apply for your tax refund, and shitloads of other fraud.

        3. If being here illegally means you don’t have to pay taxes and can steal someone’s identity, why would you want to come here legally at all?

          Well, let me put it this way.

          If driving on public roads illegally means you don’t have to pay for vehicle registration or car insurance or driver’s licenses, why would anyone want to get the registration and insurance and license at all?

          1. You wouldn’t if you could get away with it, which is exactly what reason wants.

            1. But I have gotten away with it, and I’m willing to bet so have you. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has occasionally left the house without my driver’s license or car insurance card, and driven all over public roads. But I don’t do it as a matter of habit, and I doubt you do either. Why is that, John? Think hard. Why might that be?

              1. My insurance number is on my phone and I memorized by DL number.

                1. Have you ever driven on public roads without your driver’s license or your insurance card? The answer is going to be “yes” for any normal human being. So why don’t you do it all the time? Didn’t you get away with it before?

                  1. It’s a stupid comparison, since in your example the punishment for driving without those things would amount to no fine, no jail time, but simply being returned to your home and being told ‘don’t do that again’.

                    In fact, since that’s the punishment every time you do the same action the biggest downside is the inconvenience unless you’re saying that after being deported it’s impossible to get back.

                    Now, I won’t dissemble and claim this ‘inconvenience’ isn’t really, really fucking inconvenient since it involves hundreds, or sometimes thousands, of miles of movement but it’s the most we can do ethically. These people aren’t put in jail, they aren’t fined, they are returned to their home nation that they never bothered to renounce or legally remove themselves from. And that’s if they actually show up to their hearing, which virtually none of them do.

                    Tell me this, Jeff, are people responsible for their own actions?

                    1. No it is a very apt comparison, in this sense: For most people, the risk of not carrying a license and being punished by the police – even though the risk is not all that great, since the chances of being stopped is low, and even if stopped, the punishment is not all that severe – is not worth the reward of avoiding the cost of a license. So with many undocumented immigrants, the risk of being caught stealing identities is not worth the reward, since the potential punishment – this time a felony – is much more severe. John’s whole question implicitly assumed that stealing identities and avoiding taxes are risk-free activities when in reality they are not. So in John’s world, there is no downside to coming here illegally and stealing an identity to conduct business, because doing things legally is nothing more than a bigger paperwork hassle with no greater rewards attached to them. John’s premise is fundamentally flawed, as I showed.


                    2. …even though the risk is not all that great, since the chances of being stopped is low, and even if stopped, the punishment is not all that severe…

                      This is false, it’s a jailable offense for a citizen as is all other non-compliance in America.

                      In fact, the sentence for any illegal immigrant for crimes that would, for a citizen, land them in jail for years might result in nothing more than being driven home (Admittedly, with a strong possibility of being in jail for some period of time but the incentive is to get them out fast since detention costs money.)

                      John’s whole question implicitly assumed that stealing identities and avoiding taxes are risk-free activities when in reality they are not.

                      They’re not risk free, as you point out it’s low risk since the punishment for an illegal alien is deportation instead of years of jail time as it would be for a citizen. That is because, notably, they are not American citizens and thus do not fall under our jurisdiction. That doesn’t stop the U.S. sometimes, but if Mexico cared they’d do something about it.

                2. Plus, cops have laptops on their cruisers now. They can look that shit up. All these arguments favoring illegals are total bullshit. Every one of them.

  7. Opponents of illegal immigration will seize on ubiquitous charges of identity theft and tax evasion as signs that illegal immigrants are criminals and thus should be kicked out of the country for breaking the law. And indeed, they are breaking the law.

    But there’s a better way to resolve this situation, especially in an economy that is everywhere starved for workers, particularly when it comes to manual labor. If more people were allowed to come here legally, that would shred the whole reason for identity theft and cut down on tax evasion too

    Exactly, Nick, strong borders, wide gate. Isn’t it better to want the libertarian solution instead of adhering to the revolutionary leftist dogma?

    1. It should also be noted that a “strong border and wide gate” is also a more fair policy for immigrants in other parts of the world. Southeast Asians have to wait over a decade to get a green card and I doubt they think it’s fair that Mexican immigrants can just walk across the border without any vetting and be given permanent residency.

      But, I guess Mexicans are higher on the libertarian pyramid of oppression or something that’s just been made-up

      1. But, I guess Mexicans are higher on the libertarian pyramid of oppression or something that’s just been made-up

        Why, no, in fact. Libertarians favor the ‘strong border/wide gates approach’. The people who have ‘pyramids of oppression’ or who favor insane leftist things like ‘open borders’ aren’t actually libertarian. They’re leftists. Leftists actively working to subvert liberty.

        Or morons.

        Why ‘morons’ you say? Isn’t that a bit harsh? No, not really. Only a moron could look at a policy, see that it reduces overall liberty or violates the NAP, and think that they were supporting liberty.

        So it’s not harsh at all, just properly descriptive.

        1. If an undocumented immigrant steps across the border onto public land in this country, whose liberty has been subverted?

          1. Do you believe that it’s illegal for a Mexican to go on vacation in the United States? Honestly curious.

            1. No. Why would I?

              1. Because you think crossing the border is illegal for Mexicans, and it’s patently not illegal at all.

                Unless, wait for it, you’re making a sophist argument because you have the intellectual depth of a goldfish pond.

                1. I said an undocumented immigrant. To the best of my knowledge, it is currently illegal for an immigrant to cross the border without the correct papers.

                  1. And those papers are called a ‘passport’ genius.

                    1. To be marginally less rude, notably Americans need those same papers to go to Mexico or literally anywhere else in the world you’d want to go.

                    2. Geez, and now I’m stupid. Right as I said this I recalled that this is not strictly correct anymore and hasn’t been for some time.


                      U.S. citizens do not need a passport to enter Mexico by land or sea and they do not need one to return home. Mexican citizens need a “WHTI-compliant document” to enter the U.S. and they may enter Mexico with nothing. The Mexican officials at the border do not ask for any identification from anyone.

                      What is a WHTI-compliant document, you might ask?


                      WHTI is the joint Department of State (DOS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plan to implement a key 9/11 Commission recommendation and the statutory mandates of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). IRTPA, in part, required the DHS and DOS to develop and implement a plan to require all travelers, U.S. citizens and foreign nationals alike, to present a passport or other acceptable document that denotes identity and citizenship when entering the United States.

                      So, even a U.S. citizen can’t get back into the U.S. without a passport. 9/11 ruined a lot of shit.

                  2. It’s illegal to cross every international border without papers. Do you think this is somehow different elsewhere?

          2. If an undocumented immigrant steps across the border onto public land in this country, they violate the will of the majority of Americans.

            1. And if I burn an American flag, I also violate the will of the majority of Americans. Boo hoo for them.

              You didn’t answer my question though. Whose liberty is being violated?

              1. It’s a stupid question that’s more a fallacy than anything else, but in answer to your question they have trespassed since you’re literally using ‘public land’ as your example which is land that is at least theoretically owned by the collective people of the nation who has explicitly made it illegal for people to come into the United States to live and work without authorization.

                You can argue the policy, but that’s the answer to your sophomoric and intellectually lazy question.

                1. you’re literally using ‘public land’ as your example which is land that is at least theoretically owned by the collective people of the nation

                  No. The land is not owned by any collective. The land is owned by the government. I know this because I have no legal property rights with regards to any public land. For instance I cannot sell or transfer or bequeath my property interest to anyone else.

                  And a just government holds public land, and all public property, *in trust* to further its legitimate aims of protecting the liberty of all the people. That is why it may legitimately have the monopoly on the use of force in the first place. This obligation is different than the obligations that a private property owner may have – a private property owner is not a government, so a private property owner may act however he/she wishes with regards to property that he/she owns.

                  By this measure, the “collective people” have no legitimate claim to demand that public property may be used to deny liberty to people.

                  If you disagree, then consider the hypothetical situation where a gun control law is passed, supported by the majority, which makes it illegal to transport guns on public roads. Would this be a just law in your view? I would argue no – the state may not justly abuse its stewardship of public lands in order to deny liberty to people. Same goes for migration.


                  1. No. The land is not owned by any collective. The land is owned by the government.

                    And the government represents…

                    …the collective. As you proceeded to explain, in part.

                    In theory, at the very least. Notably, what I’d wager you consider ‘legal property rights’ are things you don’t have with actual legal property that you own either.

                    If you disagree, then consider the hypothetical situation where a gun control law is passed, supported by the majority, which makes it illegal to transport guns on public roads. Would this be a just law in your view?

                    Maybe not a just law, but very few laws have anything to do with justice or what is just. I wouldn’t even say it was necessarily an illegitimate law if passed via constitutional amendment but I would argue that it’s opposed to natural law and individual rights.

                  2. Jeff, you ask the same stupid fallacious questions all the time, as if you’re going to get a ‘gotcha’ out of it. You’re not, so just stop. You might as well go away, as you re unwilling to have a serious discussion about the subject.

          3. What’s liberty got to do with anything?
            The 14th amendment, as interpreted since the 60’s, has basically said liberty is not a concern of government, at least as far as laws need to have an overriding public interest in denying it.
            Now, it is up to the courts do come up with whatever cockamamie reasoning they can, to call a law “equal”, for it to be justified.
            And the courts have been consistent that immigration laws are a power of Congress.
            If I commit all kinds of crimes, it could be argued that no one’s liberty has been subverted? Yet they are against the law and can get me thrown in jail, or fined.
            Shit, at least the “punishment” for illegal invaders is only to be sent home, not fined or jailed.

  8. From your very own A.M. links, sorry, “roundup”:

    McDonalds plans to introduce self-order kiosks at every location by 2020.

    There’s a bunch more jobs predominantly populated by immigrants today that are going to disappear right there.

    1. “If you like your papitas, you can keep them!”

    2. Movie theaters and Panera have had self-order kiosks for some time now, and I find that I use them almost exclusively.

    3. While I hate to agree with this notion, it is becoming obvious that a lot of low level jobs that qualify as low skill labor are disappearing. The primary reason is also pretty obvious, in that humans are being priced out of those markets as technology becomes cheaper (thanks, China?).

      Reason, and plenty of economists, will tell you these people will become computer programmers and robotics specialists if their McDonalds job disappears but lets just say I’m skeptical of that.

      1. Reason, and plenty of economists, will tell you these people will become computer programmers and robotics specialists if their McDonalds job disappears but lets just say I’m skeptical of that.

        Yeah, this is a goofy notion that gets put forth in lots of places.

        1. The other option they inevitably put forward is UBI, which is really just a fancy way of saying that labor protections are more important that letting people earn a living and/or labor regulations are more important than people having a job or, even better, starting a business. (Also, note that business creation is literally dying in the United States.)

          UBI is one of the most retarded idea’s I’ve ever heard, but I try to avoid utilitarianism and so far every argument I’ve heard for a UBI is…utilitarian rather than libertarian. That doesn’t mean I don’t sometimes examine things using utilitarianism, who doesn’t, but as a guiding principle it leads to some pretty terrible things.

      2. It makes no sense from a purely logical standpoint to argue both that low-level job losses are primarily taking place due to technology and automation and to simultaneously argue that we need higher levels of unskilled, illiterate immigration.

        It’s almost as if there’s a hidden agenda or ulterior motive here that has nothing to do with the real needs to the greater economy or something.

        1. Sheesh, you’re really making sense today. Maybe I should drink some bleach. ^_-

          On a more serious note, it’s indeed pretty confusing that we need more low-level unskilled labor while simultaneously saying that automation is axing those jobs almost across the board.

          That said, I will give at least some of the writers at Reason credit in that if labor regulations were axed some of their other ideas could work but notably no one at all in America thinks labor should be unregulated. That’s…a pretty big fly in the ointment.

          Can you force people to be free? The obvious answer is ‘no’.

          1. I have neither seen, nor heard of any, competent, affordable robotic landscapers. I call bullshit on that one totally! Ditto child-care workers, waiters and waitresses, and on and on…

            We NEED these illegal humans a LOT more than we need lazy American welfare recipients!

            1. So you’ve never heard of an electric riding lawnmower or a touch-screen menu, weird.

              I guess slavery is pretty convenient for jobs that pre-teens were capable of doing just a short 20 years ago. Importing a ton of people with less education than a pre-teen seems like a great idea if you’re into caste societies.

    4. So can we blame Facebook and Google?
      They have forced every person under 60 years of age to become addicted to touchscreens, and to shun actual interpersonal contact wherever possible. Hence kiosks and touchscreens instead of humans. It has nothing to do with labor costs.

      1. Not true, there are people over 60 who are addicted to their devices too.

      2. If you are an idiot you could blame Facebook and Google.

      3. Is there anyone who isn’t a victim?

  9. DEYTERKURJERBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!11

    1. DERKADER!!!!!!

  10. Set aside the whole entry to the country, do “true libertarians”, Reason-types think we do away with identity theft and tax fraud statutes because… markets or something?

    1. Remember when social security was implemented and it was promised that your social security number wouldn’t be used for tracking or identification purposes?

      That’s ok, neither does anyone else.

      1. Every one remembers. We also remember “If you like your Doctor, you can keep him”. We also remember a certain party saying they would cut the size of government. We remember a politician trying to redefine “is”.
        We remember a lot of things, but they all seem to fall into a category called “political lies”.

        1. *hands Longtobefree a medium-sized teddy bear from the rack*

          Congrats, you got the ring over the bottle!

      2. Remember when the military used your SSN as your service number and printed it on documents posted on bulletin boards?

      3. No, I don’t – can you provide a link to someone making that promise?

    2. “true libertarians” / “Reason-types”
      Based on the comments section, that is two distinct groups – – – – – – – –

  11. “We should be increasing legal immigration and making it easier than ever to work here.”

    INCREASING LEGAL IMMIGRATION HOW MUCH??

    Saying “as many as the market wants” is not the right answer. There are business owners who will flood this country with as much cheap labor as they can find.

    The United States already takes in about 1 million immigrants per year, which is more than any other country on Earth. This is equal to the brief height of the immigration surge just after the turn of the century, and now it’s become the norm year after year. So I ask again, what is the right number then? I think 1 million is more than we can absorb per year, but even if we can take more, there is a limit.

    1. The open border people will never answer the question of “how many immigrants is enough or too many”?

      1. That’s because if you’ve been paying attention they believe the market should decide, which actually is internally consistent with their logic.

        It’s just that they ignore that a nation without an immigration system loses it’s sovereignty almost instantly, I.E. the rest of the world doesn’t become more like America, America becomes more like Central America.

        In fact, it’s more likely that Mexico would simply annex the U.S. and then what for those ‘open borders’ that functionally only recognizes the ‘rights’ of non-citizens.

        You’ll note that emigration is never once mentioned by Reason. Gee, I wonder why? Oh, right, because to get an ‘open border’ you’d need to go to war with Mexico and annex them. Golly.

        1. a nation without an immigration system loses it’s sovereignty

          This is not true. Sovereignty simply means jurisdiction. A state does not need to micromanage the whereabouts of every visitor in order to exercise jurisdiction over its territory.

          1. sov?er?eign?ty
            ?s?v(?)r?n(t)?/
            noun: sovereignty
            1) supreme power or authority.
            2) domination, authority, control, influence
            3) a self-governing state.

          2. Are you actually retarded? Where, pray tell, would jurisdiction end or begin without a border which is literally the representation of jurisdiction lines.

            1. I’m not arguing to abolish borders.

              I am arguing that it is not necessary to track the movements of everyone crossing the border in order to exercise sovereignty.

              Think of a public park. For most parks, there is no one monitoring who comes and goes. And yet the municipal authority is still able to enforce its rules on the park.

              1. It may not be necessary, but it’s a valid exercise of sovereignty when it’s supported by the majority of voters in a democratic republic. Unless, of course, you believe in god in which case ‘rights’ become a totally different animal.

                Also, I see that you have not been to a public park since 9/11. They absolutely track who comes and goes, and you must pay them for the privilege of using those very ‘public lands’.

                In fairness, I am thinking of national parks whereas for all I know you’re talking about the local playground. Totally different things, but once again your sophist nature combined with your lack of knowledge about things in general causes you to make really poor arguments.

                I know I bash on you a lot Jeff, but I do at least think you care about the plight of your fellow man so I can’t fault you there. I just wish you used your brain a little more.

                1. Your problem is that you leap to too many conclusions.

                  When I argue “open borders” you leap to the conclusion that it means erasing borders entirely or abolishing sovereignty. That is not the case and I showed this. And yes I am referring to a local park (or ‘playground’ if you wish), not necessarily a national park, as an analogy for how sovereignty may be exercised without strict border controls.

                  Of course tracking everyone’s movements *may be* a valid exercise of sovereignty, but it is not a necessary precondition of sovereignty. That is my point and it looks like we agree on this point.

                  1. It’s not leaping to conclusions when they are predictable outcomes of ‘open borders’ policy, as it is generally understood. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended consequences.

                    Using your example, the obvious conclusion is that ICE is completely legal and is able to enforce immigration law and perform deporations precisely because they’re the cops that show up to carry out ‘municipal authority’ in our ‘public parks’. Notably, local police spend a lot of time patrolling public parks, like it or not.

                    If your only argument is that there shouldn’t be border agents, I could get behind that (especially the TSA) but that isn’t the law of our ‘municipality’. At least in the case of the TSA, there is a constitutional argument to be made that they are a violation of said documents search and seizure requirements.

                    I’m also still unclear on how your opinion of what ‘open borders’ means vs. what other people mean when they say ‘open borders’, because you seem to be claiming a distinction there.

              2. Yeah…….that’s the same.


  12. If more people were allowed to come here legally, that would shred the whole reason for identity theft and cut down on tax evasion too.

    Except those stolen identifies also make them eligible for an expansive welfare state and lets them vote, but hey I’m sure Mexicans in particular are so honest and forthright that they would never abuse a welfare system that has systematic abuse issues.

    I wouldn’t say that border jumpers are especially unlawful either, but let us not pretend that human nature magically changes based on nationality or color. Let us also not pretend that there aren’t financial and political incentives to steal an American identity, shall we?

    1. And, follow up, is Reason now taking the unemployment numbers at face value? I don’t recall them being so kind to Obama, oddly enough. The employment numbers the government uses are objectively a terrible measure, so citing them is understandable for a government stooge but less rational for a publication literally titled Reason.

    2. Except those stolen identifies also make them eligible for an expansive welfare state and lets them vote…

      Neither of which an illegal is ever likely to do as it draws more attention to themselves making detection by the state much more likely.

      Side note: Firefox or something auto-capitalized state isn’t the phrase the state. Had to manually change it. F%*kers!

      1. Except for all those cases where they have done exactly that, not to mention that having a citizen child born on one side of the fence automatically means that family gains access to the welfare state by perfectly legal means and thus would not be included in any theoretical statistic measuring illegal alien welfare fraud.

        Not to mention, well, it’s not like we know who is committing all of the fraud we already know exists within said system.

        Personally, I think the welfare state should be burned down before we start talking about unlimited immigration but that’s just me.

  13. “Unemployment Is 3.8%, So Feds Raid Ohio Landscape Company, Arrest 114 Illegal Immigrants”

    One of the 7 *worst* arguments to support immigration.
    And I’m on the ‘open borders’ side of the discussion.

  14. The Sandusky raid wasn’t a one-off. It’s part of an explicit strategy to crack down on businesses suspected of hiring workers with phony documents.

    Oh, so identity fraud is not really a crime EITHER, is it Nick?

    Opponents of illegal immigration will seize on ubiquitous charges of identity theft and tax evasion as signs that illegal immigrants are criminals and thus should be kicked out of the country for breaking the law. And indeed, they are breaking the law.

    But there’s a better way to resolve this situation, especially in an economy that is everywhere starved for workers, particularly when it comes to manual labor. If more people were allowed to come here legally, that would shred the whole reason for identity theft and cut down on tax evasion too. (It’s noting, incidentally, that even illegal immigrants pay FICA taxes and sales taxes.)

    Yes, people committing identity fraud are the VICTIMS.

  15. The Sandusky raid wasn’t a one-off. It’s part of an explicit strategy to crack down on businesses suspected of hiring workers with phony documents.

    Oh, so identity fraud is not really a crime EITHER, is it Nick?

    Opponents of illegal immigration will seize on ubiquitous charges of identity theft and tax evasion as signs that illegal immigrants are criminals and thus should be kicked out of the country for breaking the law. And indeed, they are breaking the law.

    But there’s a better way to resolve this situation, especially in an economy that is everywhere starved for workers, particularly when it comes to manual labor. If more people were allowed to come here legally, that would shred the whole reason for identity theft and cut down on tax evasion too. (It’s noting, incidentally, that even illegal immigrants pay FICA taxes and sales taxes.)

    Yes, people committing identity fraud are the VICTIMS.

  16. If there are so many unfilled jobs why is anyone still on welfare?

    1. Because requiring welfare recipients to work is racist and besides those are jobs Americans won’t do anyway.

      1. And don’t forget, transfer payment recipients aren’t listed in the unemployment number being used. Golly, I wonder why?

        1. But they sure are counted as “the poor”.

        2. But they sure are counted as “the poor”.

      2. They are “jobs Americans won’t do” because the welfare system pays better and the working conditions are so much less rigorous.
        Low paying employers shouldn’t have to compete with Uncle Stupid for workers.

  17. And the labor force participation rate is 62%. Your point being?

    God forbid wages start rising…

  18. Unemployment Is 3.8%, So Feds Raid Ohio Landscape Company, Arrest 114 Illegal Immigrants

    WTF?
    Totally unrelated items. Like a headline “Dow breaks new record; Dunkin announces new flavor.

    1. The connection is… “Pro Business” Trumpster-to-the-Dumpster KNOWS (or should know) that finding qualified, hard-working workers is a tough row to hoe for business owners…

      …And so his administration goes and deprives businesses of what few hard-working workers they have been able to find! WHERE is the “pro-business” business in THAT?!?!?

      1. “Pro Business” Trumpster-to-the-Dumpster KNOWS (or should know) that finding qualified, hard-working workers is a tough row to hoe for business owners…

        …who want to continue paying third world wages in a first world country.

        I finished that sentence for you.

        1. …who want to continue paying third world wages in a first world country.

          So what you’re saying is, businesses in a first-world country have an obligation to pay “first world wages” to every employee? Maybe this obligation could be enforce with something like a minimum wage… amirite?

          1. No, you’re not right. You never are. You make the stupidest sophist arguments, like some dumb college kid in his first semester, mostly based on bad analogies or stupid ideas. The fact is that if you let everyone come here that feels like it, without any kind of vetting system or limits, that we will be flooded with criminals and terrorists. The honest people that just want to work will artificially depress our wages and quality of life. As wages will move to the lowest denominator, relative to the third world.

            This will make America for more dangerous and violent than your stunted little mind can imagine. It will also destroy our standard of living as well. All because we will be an aberration, unlike any other functional country on earth.

            We have restricted borders for a reason. However, you are incapable of understanding that.

          2. No, you’re not right. You never are. You make the stupidest sophist arguments, like some dumb college kid in his first semester, mostly based on bad analogies or stupid ideas. The fact is that if you let everyone come here that feels like it, without any kind of vetting system or limits, that we will be flooded with criminals and terrorists. The honest people that just want to work will artificially depress our wages and quality of life. As wages will move to the lowest denominator, relative to the third world.

            This will make America for more dangerous and violent than your stunted little mind can imagine. It will also destroy our standard of living as well. All because we will be an aberration, unlike any other functional country on earth.

            We have restricted borders for a reason. However, you are incapable of understanding that.

  19. So pay people more if you can’t find legal workers. That’s how supply and demand works.

  20. Left-Wing: We want the state to force employers to pay their employees more, by raising the minimum wage!

    Right-Wing: We want the state to give employers no other choice but to pay their employees more, by driving away everyone else who is willing to work for lower wages!

    Either way, it’s using the state to manipulate the labor market. It’s just that one side is more direct in their approach.

    1. Huge difference: Raising the minimum wage raises unemployment, reducing the supply of potential laborers reduces unemployment.

      1. That’s not true. Your plan increases unemployment too, it’s just that in your case, the unemployed are shipped off to another country and so they aren’t counted in the national statistics.

        1. Should we include, say, Somalia in American employment statistics?

          I doubt you’d say yes, but either way I think we’d agree that the number being peddled in this article is patent bullshit.

        2. Yes, while I have a general desire that the unemployement rate in Mexico be low, I don’t regard that as an important goal of American policy.

          Our government is supposed to work to the benefit of Americans, with the interests of all others just a side constraint.

          Deport them, and they won’t count towards the unemployment rate HERE, and that’s what I’m concerned with.

      2. Even accepting that this is true, is the implication that reducing unemployment is necessarily good?

        Obviously, lots of policies can reduce unemployment…

        There are two sides to every market, and jeff’s point is that both policies will distort the labor market and reduce growth.

        1. You know, I don’t actually care about the size of the US economy. We could add a million people, each making $10k a year, and the economy would “grow”, but on average we’d all be poorer.

          That’s the sort of “growth” ejecting illegal aliens would “reduce”, and I’m fine with that.

    2. Piling in foreigners from shithole countries isn’t ‘the free market’.

  21. I would like us to give more diversity lottery visas and open that program to people from all countries. I also like the idea of a reciprocity visa program where we give, say, 5,000 extra immigration visas to any country ready to return the favor. But the best solution to a labor shortage in an industry is higher wages and automation. There is fat we could trim if finacial incentives encouraged it.

  22. Do people not mow their own lawns? Or hire neighborhood kids? Wouldn’t only companies and government hire landscapers, and wouldn’t they have indemnity issues?

  23. Despite record-low unemployment and a tight labor market, labor participation is still near record lows. Remember when Obama’s unemployment progress was dismissed as low labor participation? It’s been essentially flat for four years.

    1. Yup, truly a strange argument being made here compared to what was said about Obama’s labor force participation rate.

      I guess it’s not convenient to Nick’s narrative in this case.

    2. Labor participation is much higher this past year.

  24. Another confused author who seems not to klnow the difference between a Immigrant and an Illegal Alien. This idiot does not know that we have rules that outline who is an American and how to become one and none of these rules includes coming in to the country illegally.

    1. How do you figure? Was he claiming that all immigrants are illegal aliens? Illegal aliens (why do you capitalize that?) are a subset of immigrants. Immigrants are just people who came from another country.

    2. Another confused author who seems not to klnow the difference between a Immigrant and an Illegal Alien.

      He also doesn’t seem to understand the difference between unemployment rate and labor participation rate.

  25. open border reason.com loves open borders so much they will use the phony unemployment numbers!

    this country is still 21,000,000,000,000 in debt

    1. Great. Let’s collect more taxes from illegals who won’t file returns.

  26. Good. Take away illegals and wages will go up.

  27. We should be increasing legal immigration and making it easier than ever to work here.

    We should be decreasing illegal immigration and allowing wages to rise for all citizens and legal immigrants.

    1. Preserving liberty for ourselves and our posterity should be the main concern of our immigration policy, not economics, either pro labor or pro corporate.

      Importing people from more statist cultures makes our culture more statist.

      1. Which is more important, individual liberty, or “preserving the culture”?

        1. Our culture IS individual liberty. You understand so little. It definitely isn’t “whatever gives Jeff the good feelz”.

  28. Perhaps if Planned Parenthood would stop killing millions of babies, the US would have an increase in population…

    1. Millions of black babies in particular. I’m sure somewhere. Margaret Sanger is looking up and smiling.

  29. “That tight labor market makes it particularly unnerving to read this AP story from Sandusky”

    Why is Reason all of a sudden worried about market conditions? Isn’t the market always right?

    Reason, where “Free Market” means “US immigration policy should cater to corporate profits”.

  30. If an illegal immigrant steals my identity for the purpose of getting a job, and pays FICA taxes at that job, that will increase my earning history and therefore increase my social security check someday. I’m tempted to just give out my SS number…but not just yet.

    1. Have fun when that illegal, or his buddy files a phony tax return. fraidulemtly collecting on all your excess withholding.

    2. Ha, ha. No, not really. The SS administration carefully segregates such funds, in case the illegal some day is the subject of an amnesty, and then qualifies to get SS.

      So, no, an illegal immigrant using your SS number doesn’t help you any. They make sure it doesn’t.

    3. therefore increase my social security check someday

      That is a fallacy that has been dunked over and over. SS already checks concurrence — none of the amnestied illegals from the prior round of amnesty contributions went ot the stolen/false SS original holders.

      If an illegal has your SSN you wont get more money, but there is a good chance you will take many hits on your credit costing you time and money, that the jurisdiction you are in will lose your tax money in relative increased benefits fraud, and that you will also take third party ID fraud loses as well.

  31. The unemployment rate has nothing to do with the arrest of these illegal immigrants. The reason that they were arrested they are in this country ILLEGALLY. Now if you don’t like the way immigration laws are being enforced then change the immigration laws, but don’t disregard them. When laws are disregarded it makes all laws weaker. It is only laws that keeps us free and then only when the citizenry supports the enforcement of these laws.

  32. Unemployment Is 3.8%, So Feds Raid Ohio Landscape Company, Arrest 114 Illegal Immigrants. We should be increasing legal immigration and making it easier than ever to work here.

    Because heaven forbid that unskilled Americans who have dropped out of the labor force should ever reenter it!

    Because heaven forbid that low unemployment causes wages to rise!

    Gillespie’s views are just deplorable.

    1. Are Americans entitled to jobs before anyone else?

      1. Yes, it’s our fucking country dumbass. You appear to have an unlimited amount of softheaded idiotic ideas, much like a college freshman, in some crap ass 100 level philosophy class that thinks he has all these great novel ideas and arguments.

        You don’t.

        1. Gee that’s funny, I could have sworn that above you wrote that “our culture IS individual liberty”. And yet you don’t seem to want to recognize the liberty of property owners to hire whom they choose, if those potential employees are not Americans.

          So let me ask you the question again:
          Which is more important to you, that American employers hire American employees, or that American employers have the liberty to hire whom they wish?

          1. Gee that’s funny, I could have sworn that above you wrote that “our culture IS individual liberty”.

            Yes.

            And yet you don’t seem to want to recognize the liberty of property owners to hire whom they choose, if those potential employees are not Americans.

            Correct.

            Which is more important to you, that American employers hire American employees, or that American employers have the liberty to hire whom they wish?

            The former.

            1. Well at least we’ve dispensed with the idea that border restrictionism is in any way a libertarian idea. It fundamentally violates not just freedom of association, but freedom of contract, and that’s totally cool with you.

              1. Well at least we’ve dispensed with the idea that border restrictionism is in any way

                I never claimed it was a libertarian idea. We don’t live in a libertarian society. Haphazardly adopting bits and pieces of libertarian ideology doesn’t make our society more libertarian.

            2. Furthermore, if you are willing to toss freedom of association under the bus for the purpose of immigration restrictionism, why should anyone take you seriously when you scream “freedom of association!” when it comes to, say, businesses being forced to bake gay wedding cakes? Since you don’t support freedom of association *in principle*, seems to me that these arguments against being forced to bake gay wedding cakes, made by those who would happily restrict freedom of association in other cases, are just arguments of convenience and not sincerely held.

              That is the great thing about sticking up for liberty in all ways – it allows you to sincerely and authentically defend liberty when you really need to.

              1. Furthermore, if you are willing to toss freedom of association under the bus for the purpose of immigration restrictionism, why should anyone take you seriously when you scream “freedom of association!” when it comes to, say, businesses being forced to bake gay wedding cakes?

                Why should anybody take you seriously if you’re willing to adopt policies that grant freedom of association to some groups but not others?

                That is the great thing about sticking up for liberty in all ways

                Which is precisely what you are not doing. You are saying that is would represent progress to grant freedom of association to some people but keep denying it to others.

                I’m saying that I believe that freedom of association and private property rights need to be restored simultaneously for all groups.

          2. Jeff, you’re perfectly welcome to hire all the fucking foreigners you want. However, some of them may have a problem showing up to work if your business is located in the US. If you would prefer to hire people unable or unwilling to come here legally, then perhaps you should open a location in their country.

      2. Are Americans entitled to jobs before anyone else?

        Yes.

      3. Are Americans entitled to jobs before anyone else?

        the idea that its xenophobic to hire a citizen or legal resident over an illegal is the latest nonsense form the open orders side.

  33. Astounding, a Reason article actually prepended the word “illegal” to the word “immigrant.” That never happens.

  34. The lefties on here want us to just ignore all those that violate our laws and come here illegally which really makes no sense at all to rational people. If we NEED more workers from south of the border we can get all the legal workers we want and we get to know who they are, where they are and what work they are performing. It is not that most of us want to stop legal immigration but we just do not want to reward those that do NOT wait their turn to come here. To believe in open borders is to not believe in countries at all, it is just NOT rational.

  35. “Like any president, Donald Trump likes to brag about low, low unemployment rates. Who can blame him? Even his least-favorite paper?what Trump habitually calls “the failing New York Times”” the difference between Donald Trump and any other politician is the fortune . This man want to collect money more and more by having the politic postion of a president, so he can change a low or having facilities. So we should pay attention because many people want to aim an object and they do it , when ther can; This man should return to his business life because politic life is very hard for a man having a lot of money. http://www.medpasteur.com

  36. E mail
    aplus_independent_financial AT hotmail . com

    http://aplusindependentfinancial.mw.lt/ Copy and paste their website to your browser to review more about them/Apply
    +1 347 450 3342 call, text, or add on WhatsApp for fundraising n debt pAy Off . business looan

  37. We’ve solved world hunger and cured AIDS, so Nick Gillespie is whining about enforcing the law.

  38. Nick still hasn’t been able to comprehend the meaning of ILLEGAL.

  39. My 16 year old babysits. She asked for a raise from a couple she has been babysitting for a a few years that had never changed for the rate of years earlier.

    These two (very left wing) professionals promptly told her that they had a fried who had an u pair and the au pair rate was lower. The au pari is working illegally if babysitting for other than the host family, this is explicit in the specific visa they have. She was working illegally.

    The claim that illegals don’t depress wages of US citizens, legal immigrants or green car holders is 100% false, illegals and people illegally working on visas that they are breaking terms of, depress wages all the time.

  40. Must read! my names are Doris carter! from US Austin Texas for a year now i have been living with this virus called HERPES All thanks to Dr Abaka for changing my HERPES Positive to Negative, i do not have much to say, but with all my life i will for ever be grateful to him and God Almighty for using Dr Abaka to reach me when i thought it is all over, today i am a happy man after the medical doctor have confirmed my status Negative,i have never in my life believed that HERPES could be cure by any herbal medicine. so i want to use this medium to reach other persons who have this disease by testifying the wonderful herbs and power of Dr Abaka that all is not lost yet, try and contact him by any means with his email:drabakaspelltemple@gmail.com or contact him on whats app +2349063230051 website:https://drabakaspelltemple.blogspot.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.