Donald Trump

Trump Will Probably Lie About Immigration Tonight

The president and his administration have a long track record of basing policy on dystopian falsehoods about terrorists and criminals streaming north.

|

||| K.C. Alfred/TNS/Newscom
K.C. Alfred/TNS/Newscom

In a press conference Friday about the border-wall funding he is demanding from Congress in return for reopening the federal government, President Donald Trump told reporters: "This should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me. And they all know it. Some of them have told me that we should have done it."

Unsurprisingly, given both the president's track record of non-veracity and the media's enthusiasm for documenting it, this anecdote has led to a flurry of headlines such as, "Every living president has refuted Trump's claim about supporting the wall."

Equally unsurprisingly, the president's underlings have embarrassed themselves trying to defend the lie. For instance, Vice President Mike Pence went on the Today show this morning to stammer, soften the initial claim ("I know that the president has said that that was his impression from previous administrations"), and then change the subject.

Yet as far as White House immigration lies go, this exchange was utterly inconsequential. Sure, it's unseemly when a president lies, it's degrading to all his willing defenders, and it expends the scarce resource of journalistic time and outrage (just kidding: this never runs out). But unlike other immigration-related fantasia, the other-presidents-support-me shaggy dog story has not translated into concrete policy action.

From illegal-immigrant voter fraud to the diversity lottery visa, from chain migration to sanctuary cities, immigrant-criminality to terrorist infiltration from the south, the Trump administration has spent two years basing policy and enforcement priorities on dystopian fables. Refugee intake has been slashed, asylum laws have been effectively rewritten via executive order and draconian enforcement changes, the legal immigration machinery has been gummed up with deliberately repellant bureaucracy, and families have been cruelly broken apart in the name of deterrence.

All of these changes affect lives more than some idle White House bluster; all are based on the repetition of lies, particularly regarding the alleged danger to Americans posed by those seeking to cross the US.-Mexico border. Now that candidate Trump's single biggest—and single most unattainable—campaign promise has collided against reality to the point of political impasse, a politically cornered president seeks to persuade a skeptical public tonight that extending and strengthening the existing 654 miles of barriers along the 1,954-mile border is a principle worth closing the federal government over.

What are the chances of Trump not lying while making his case tonight? Judging by his administration's track record on inflating the northbound threat-risk, not very high.

||| Reason
Reason

On Friday, White House Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders asserted on Fox News that "nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists that CPB picked up [in fiscal year 2017] came across our southern border." That assertion is both false and familiar.

During the pre-election migrant-caravan panic, Vice President Pence told a Washington Post forum that "in the last fiscal year we apprehended more than 10 terrorists or suspected terrorists per day at our southern border from countries that are referred to in the lexicon as 'other than Mexico'?that means from the Middle East region." That 10-a-day stat is a staple of administration propaganda about the southern border. And it's "eye-poppingly bogus," in the words of The Washington Post's Aaron Blake.

In fact, according to an NBC News report yesterday, "U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered only six immigrants at ports of entry on the U.S-Mexico border in the first half of fiscal year 2018 whose names were on a federal government list of known or suspected terrorists, according to CBP data provided to Congress in May 2018." More:

Overall, 41 people on the Terrorist Screening Database were encountered at the southern border from Oct. 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, but 35 of them were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Six were classified as non-U.S. persons.

On the northern border, CBP stopped 91 people listed in the database, including 41 who were not American citizens or residents.

Border patrol agents, separate from CBP officers, stopped five immigrants from the database between legal ports of entry over the same time period, but it was unclear from the data which ones were stopped at the northern border versus the southern border.

Further, the State Department concluded in July 2017 that there was "no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States." So where does that 10-a-day stat come from?

It seems to be the conflation of two separate numbers—the 3,755 people from the government's Known and Suspected Terrorist (KST) list who were stopped at all points of entry (mostly at airports) in fiscal 2017, and the 3,028 "special interest aliens" (SIAs) who were flagged at the southern border. So who are those eight (not 10) SIAs we're catching every day down south?

The Department of Homeland Security's own press release from yesterday trying to put the best possible gloss on recent numerical/classification controversies acknowledges that "the term SIA does not indicate any specific derogatory information about the individual," and that "[not] all SIAs are 'terrorists.'" What are they, then?

Generally, an SIA is a non-U.S. person who, based on an analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security risk to the United States or its interests. Often such individuals or groups are employing travel patterns known or evaluated to possibly have a nexus to terrorism. DHS analysis includes an examination of travel patterns, points of origin, and/or travel segments that are tied to current assessments of national and international threat environments.

As The Washington Post's Salvador Rizzo reported in a useful explainer yesterday:

Alan Bersin, an assistant homeland security secretary in the Obama administration, described them in 2016 as "unauthorized migrants who arrive in the United States from, or are citizens of, several Asian, Middle Eastern, and African countries." For example, a GAO report from 2010 lists "Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan" as special interest countries.

"While many citizens of these countries migrate for economic reasons or because they are fleeing persecution in their home countries, this group may include migrants who are affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, intelligence agencies, and organized criminal syndicates," Bersin testified in March 2016. (Emphasis ours.)

Bersin also testified that "the majority of individuals that are traveling, be they from special interest alien countries or other places, we found the large majority of these individuals are actually fleeing violence from other parts of the world[."]

So we've gone from 10 "known or suspected terrorists" caught on the southern border each day to eight people who show up on a not-necessarily-terrorist watchlist, a "large majority" of whom are "actually fleeing violence." No wonder Nielsen is backpedaling behind a cloud of authoritative-sounding vagueness:

The threat is real. The number of terror-watchlisted individuals encountered at our Southern Border has increased over the last two years. The exact number is sensitive and details about these cases are extremely sensitive. But I am sure all Americans would agree that even one terrorist reaching our borders is one too many.

Those italics, contained in the source material, are a useful reminder of what Trump and his administration have really been up to: trying to spin ghastly and all-too-real criminal anecdotes into stubbornly elusive data, in order to sell impossible-to-attain zero tolerance policies that remain popular (solely) among his core base of supporters despite sacrificing the rights of U.S. citizens. Trumpian conservatism, which is the type that currently holds sway in the national GOP, apparently requires vast presidential power grabs and the obliteration of private property rights in rural Texas in order to achieve its politically unpopular goals.

Exaggerating and lying is what the unscrupulous do when they lack confidence in the persuasive power of existing facts. There's no reason not to expect more of it tonight.

Advertisement

NEXT: U.S. Cancer Incidence and Death Rates Fall to a 25-Year Low

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. Trump Will Probably Lie About Immigration Tonight

    Oh, you’re so nice. So innocent.

    He WILL lie. Not ‘probably’. He HAS TO. Because his promise to his gullible, knuckle-draggin’ base was a wall to keep the brown horde out.

    1. Hey there foreign piece of shit. I see you have begun your shitposting again.

      1. Are you drinking on the job again?

        1. I actually don’t drink, except for rare occasions. I’ve just had enough of you and your idiot open borders friends. You fags start shitposting in the comments on every border article and make it impossible for the adults to have a rational conversation about border security and immigration policy,

          You and Mexifry aren’t getting open borders. So quit polluting the comments with your sophistry, and his snide inane shit. You’re both a drag on getting anything productive accomplished.

          And don’t you have homework? It IS a school night.

          1. Well, in the short term, we’re not going to get a lot of things. We’re not going to get an end to the welfare state, or an end to the surveillance state, or an end to the income tax, or an end to gun control laws, or an end to drug prohibition.

            If we just confined the conversation to things that were likely to happen in the next few years or so, it would be a very dull conversation.

            So evidently, you believe that a “rational conversation about border security and immigration policy” means talking about how many border guards to hire and how tall to build the wall and how intrusive to make regulations in order to stop the supposed scourge of illegal immigration. These aren’t rooted in liberty. They are authoritarian statist measures that compromise the liberty of ALL PEOPLE, both citizens and non-citizens alike. People like me are here, on a *libertarian forum*, to present an alternative way, rooted in individual liberty. If you don’t like libertarian-friendly solutions to immigration discussed on a libertarian forum, then maybe you should confine your immigration discussions to more friendly fora.

            1. Last of the Shitlords regularly calls for murdering or imprisoning his political opponents en masse. He doesn’t give a shit about liberty.

            2. “Well, in the short term, we’re not going to get a lot of things. We’re not going to get an end to the welfare state”

              Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes healthcare mandate, Medi-Cal expansion to more immigrants without legal status- LA Times

              Your open borders policy is going to make this country a great place to live. At least you got to virtue signal as the ship went down

              1. When you’re defending the president spending billions of dollars and seizing land via eminent domain to build a wall via unilateral executive action because he can’t get approval from Congress, stop pretending like you give a shit about having a free constitutional republic.

                1. Yes by attempting to fight the open socialists I’m the problem.

                  Libertarians for socialism!

              2. Well I”m opposed to what Gavin Newsom is doing. I’ve said all along that free migration should not be an open license to access the welfare state.

                1. Yea and they’re doing it anyway. Now what?

                  1. Don’t support Team Blue either?

                    1. They’re going to push socialism anyway. So your plan is to sit back and watch? I mean, I’ve got no say in this besides my vote, but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t go against the open socialists

                    2. I fully support not voting for collectivism, whether it is economic collectivism of the left or nationalist collectivism of the right. So kudos to you for not endorsing Democrats’ socialism.

              3. Yeah, because its open borders that will do that and not the continuing expansion of the welfare state. Because the latter won’t still bring the country down if we just wall ourselves in.

                1. How do you not see the cycle? It’s like you’re willfully blind to human nature. Democrats give people free shit in exchange for votes. It’s why the nations poor voted for Hillary, and Obama, and every other democrat promising hope and change via wealth redistribution

                  1. “Democrats give people free shit in exchange for votes.”

                    Do YOU vote for Democrats in exchange for free shit? No? Oh. So what makes you different from all those people who you claim only vote based on free shit?

            3. Migrant crisis: Illegal entries to EU at lowest level in five years
              “It highlighted a sharp fall in the numbers crossing the Mediterranean to Italy, where a populist government has refused to allow rescue boats to dock.”

              So you mean to tell me you can deter illegal immigration? WHO WOULDA THUNK.

              1. Ok Also from your link:

                “In September, UNHCR said that while the number of people arriving in Europe had fallen, the number of deaths had risen sharply.

                International Organization for Migration (IOM) data says that more than 2,000 people died or went missing making crossings last year.”

                TANSTAAFL

                1. So you do not dispute that a wall and policies to deter illegal immigration might actually do just that, deter illegal immigration?

          2. You and Mexifry aren’t getting open borders.

            Right-wingers will get what the liberal-libertarian mainstream prefers in America. It has been that was throughout your lifetime. It will be that way for the rest of your life. You should be accustomed to it, and to have learned to embrace America’s improvement.

            1. Just like when Russia turned into the USSR, it was an “improvement”.
              What substitutes for your mind, is really fucked up, Artie.

          3. God what an idiot you are. But hey, keep living in your fantasy world where vast amounts of people want open borders instead of just trying to have a sane conversation about illegal immigration and the best way to fight it.

      2. Open your heart, shitlord. Let some love in for once.

        1. I HAVE developed some love for AOC, since I saw her boobs bouncing around. In fact, I would like to put some some love INTO her. Maybe several times, over a coke and booze fueled weekend in a luxury hotel suite. That would be an adult holiday right there.

          1. Like you’d have a shot.

    2. He WILL lie. Not ‘probably’. He HAS TO. Because his promise to his gullible, knuckle-draggin’ base was a wall to keep the brown horde out.

      I don’t disagree. He HAS TO lie. Does that make him better or worse than other former Presidents and media types who knowingly and voluntarily choose to do so? Personally, I think it gives him a bit of an excuse, but I’d be willing to call it a wash as long as everybody came by it honestly rather than pretending like Trump is absolutely, positively going to lie for 8 min. so bad that he absolutely, positively needs to be rebutted by other politicians under the guise that the media broadcasts nothing but God’s honest truth the other 99.9999% of the time.

      1. Trump is the worst! His lies are more untrue than the lies of any other politician!

        1. Many people have told me that Trump’s lies are the best. Fantastic lies, tremendous lies. Nobody lies like Trump, anywhere, ever in history.

          1. Believe me, you’re gonna love his lies.

  2. So, all the illegals who killed US citizens are a “fantasy”? All the 3rd world crime streaming it along with values better suited to the dog eat dog lifestyle of the 3rd world? And even if some are honest people, we can’t make room for all of them while we have countless Americans in need. Resources only stretch so far. Sad, but we do need to prioritize who gets our limited resources, schooling, housing, medical care etc… Charity is not a “right”, our resources and goodwill are not entitlements for just anyone to leech off of! The “Asylum” laws also state the first safe country, not the cushiest, and refugees don’t demand a ransom to leave! Trump needs to address the matter head on and frankly.

    1. If one is going to talk about all the violent crime that illegal immigrants commit, maybe one should also talk about some of the benefits that illegal immigrants bestow.

      Study: Illegal Immigrants contribute 3% of GDP

      No one ought to be arguing that illegal immigrants as a group are inherently bad people, or inherently good people. They are just people – some good, some bad, like every other population of people.

      1. Stop your lying Jeffy. Illegals are a drain on the economy. Criminals usually are. You are too, I’m sure. The amount of formula you require is very costly.

        1. Illegals are a drain on the economy.

          They are? Where is your citation that undocumented labor represents a net drain on the economy?

          I’m willing to be persuaded by evidence, but you have to have some evidence to present first.

          Also, you seem to have some anger issues. I would suggest laying off the steroids for a while. Not only have they shrunk your balls, they seem to have shrunk your brain as well.

          1. The fuck you are. Plenty of evidence posted over dozens of articles here. The mere cost of illegals in the prison population, the cost of educating illegal children, plus the healthcare they consume is more Han enough to offset any meager benefit they provide. They also suppress wages in many industries.

            All of this has been covered ad nauseum here dozens of times over. You just either lie or are delusional and pretend it never happened.

            Another reason it’s impossible to have an adult discussion with you.

            1. Then go ahead, if it’s so easily proved, go ahead and post your evidence that shows that undocumented labor represents a net drain on the economy. As far as I’m aware, there has not been anything definitive that shows that this is true one way or the other. But please, let’s see your evidence.

              1. Here’s your evidence – Medicaid Welfare Recipients at birth

                30% White
                66% Black
                67% AIAN
                60% Hispanic
                https://www.cdc.gov /nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_01.pdf

                70% of Hispanic votes Democratic vs 40% White
                https://nationalvanguard .org/2016/10/non -whites-of-every-stripe-vote-democrat/

                Public Housing
                81% of Democrats are on Public Housing
                74% Receive Medicaid
                67% Receive Food Stamps

                ONLY 54% work full time
                https://wallstreetpit.com/89671- are-welfare-recipients- mostly-republican/

                This article pretty much says it best — Democrat’s Ideal Voter: Illegal Alien, Single Mother, and Convicted Felon.
                http://www.anncoulter.com /columns/2012-07-18.html

            2. Actually, the articles here contain facts. Simple facts like illegal immigrants commit far fewer crimes than native born.

              You listed a bunch of costs, but you didn’t include all the taxes they also pay. Income and payroll tax that they will never collect on, property taxes paid by their rents, sales tax, etc.

              All the evidence is on the side of reason and Chemjeff. (not “lady of reason” who finally made clear is a fucking stupid cunt)

              You were asked for evidence and you responded with insane yelling. You lose sir.

              1. Sure, illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes once you add in legal immigrants like CATO did for their study. At least, I assume that’s the study you’re citing since it’s the only one I know that makes that claim.

                1. BYODB, that’s why I’m careful to refer to the problem people as illegals. I have no problem with people who followed the rules when they came here. In fact, as I write this, I am patronizing the establishment of a restaurant that is half owned by a Guatemalan woman. She is a legitimate immigrant who followed the rules and is a legal citizen now.

                  This was after my morning gym workout at a fitness center owned by a family friend who is a permanent resident alien who came here LEGALLY, from Italy. He has also been a family friend for over thirty years.

                  Immigrants are often great people who really make things better. Illegals are not immigrants, and legal immigrants should not be lumped in with illegals.

                  1. That is interesting. So you view “obeying the law” as what makes one a moral and upright person. So legal immigrants are okay because they obeyed the law. Illegal immigrants are bad people because they didn’t obey the law.

                    I wonder, do you take the same view when it comes to, say, pot smokers? Or people who speed on the highway?

                2. No, there is a more recent study that also takes illegals into account. And yes, they still commit fewer crimes, and far fewer serious crimes like rape and murder.


                  1. No, there is a more recent study that also takes illegals into account. And yes, they still commit fewer crimes, and far fewer serious crimes like rape and murder.

                    Which study? Honestly curious.

              2. You listed a bunch of costs, but you didn’t include all the taxes they also pay.

                Of course. It is a part of his dishonest argumentation. He lists all the ways that illegal immigrants might have a net negative impact, and then declares “case closed, time to kick them out!” as if that’s the end of the argument.

              3. Murray, I’ve heard that line before. It’s bullshit. Jeffy has been beaten down so many times that arguing with him is a waste of time. So don’t you come in here now and stick your nose in and make some pronouncement. And I’m not the only one to call Jeffy out on this. Probably a dozen others have too.

                Your arguments are also tired discredited bullshit covered in the comments by so many people here. If you expect me to waste time on disproven pro illegal propaganda, maybe I should also explain to you why phrenology is bullshit too?

                Illegals are criminals, and a drain on the economy. Proven fact. Case closed. So peddle your open borders offal elsewhere.

                1. You keep asserting it and asserting it, but you present no evidence to support your contention that undocumented labor represents a *net* drain on the economy. Hmm I wonder why that might be. Could it be that you don’t have any evidence to support this claim?

                2. I’ll agree with you that illegals are criminals. I mean tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. I thought we might be smart enough to discuss right and wrong instead of legal and illegal, add the first requires thought while the latter simply requires reading.

                  Your second claim, that illegals are a strain on the economy, is patently false. If you want to convince me, link some evidence. The fact that they keep getting hired is my evidence that they are doing productive things for the economy. It’s pretty simple.

                3. Actually, Jeff consistently responds in a reasoned manner with facts while you spew vile emotionally-laden hatred. Like I said above, open your heart, shitlord.

                  1. Jeff responds with facts long discredited. As if he keeps posting the same lies they will become true, This is a big part of why he is so detested, and by many, many people other than me.

                    It’s also why I don’t engage his sophistry, or show him respect. He exhausted all goodwill long ago. That he pretends to be polite with his shit doesn’t make it any better.

                    1. Shithead, you are the one who keeps posting lies hoping that they will become true. Like this assertion that “illegals are a net drain on the economy”. That hasn’t been definitively been shown to be true one way or another. But you keep repeating it. I ask for citations but all I get are insults. Why don’t you actually post some data to back up your claims for a change.

              4. This is simple logic: Yeah the illegals might commit a lower rate of crimes than native born, but, their crimes add to the list of total crimes committed….So, in others words if they did not come here, there would be less crime!

              5. Actually, the articles here contain facts. Simple facts like illegal immigrants commit far fewer crimes than native born.

                Since the survey questionnaire does not ask immigration status and the only indication would be if the prisoner was held for ICE. The numbers can be skewed.

                You listed a bunch of costs, but you didn’t include all the taxes they also pay. Income and payroll tax that they will never collect on, property taxes paid by their rents, sales tax, etc.

                Being stated unskilled uneducated earn low wages their income and payroll taxes would be low as well if paid at all. Everybody pays prop tax and sales tax, again low wage earners pay less.

                There are 12 million or more illegals in the U.S. that would be three cities the size of Chicago, How much would it cost to operate Chicago X 3?

              6. Illegal immigrants are nearly a third of the federal prison population dumbfuck. They do not commit less crime.

                1. link

                  Weird how the biggest study on prison populations shows a 142% discrepancy in illegal immigrants over citizens. Then you have the federal numbers showing the same type.

                  Also if you want costs look at FAIR or heritage which show about 20 billion a year in net costs. But you open border fucks dont care to educate yourselves. Weird how you can believe that american poor are a net drain through services yet believe illegals are a magical multiplier. Low wage workers will never be a net gain on the economy.

          2. https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-95-133

            Here are the first two bullet points from the GAO report linked above:

            “GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion”

            I have seen numbers that are all over the place, the one that has everyone crying “BS” was President Trump’s “$200 billion a year, the wall will pay for itself in two months” line which every fact check site slammed as false. It’s also false to say that the wall is a waste of money, it will lower illegal immigration and eventually pay for itself. What isn’t known is by how much and how long.

            Sometimes you have to ditch your ideology for pragmatism, I believe border security to be one of those times.

            1. Well finally, some actual data. I skimmed through it and I would just point out:

              1. That study is 20 years old, so it could use some updating
              2. That study AFAIK does not take into account the effects of economic growth. For example, if undocumented labor helps me to be more productive and generate higher economic activity, then that would not be reflected in that study.

              But it is actually some data, so that is a plus.

              1. There are more “studies” to read through if you google it, recent studies, but like all politically controversial issues the numbers seem to represent the bias of the organization performing the study so I won’t bother posting them. I didn’t see any data that says illegals are paying more in taxes than they are receiving in social programs. So, fiscally, stopping illegal immigration seems to be a positive.

              2. On top of that, the report lists several reasons why the estimates are highly uncertain. You also have to compare any cost to the cost of the enforcement measures enacted and proposed to combat it (which go beyond the wall obviously, and additionally assumes that they’ll be effective). Lastly, having a net negative impact on the budget isn’t the same thing as having a net negative impact on the economy.

                1. “…impact on the economy” is a good point. I’m no economist but off the top of my head…Illegal immigration puts a downward pressure on wages for low skilled workers, puts a downward pressure on prices for goods produced by said labor, increases profits, upward pressure on local, state, and federal taxes, wear and tear and need to expand public infrastructure, upward pressure on low income housing prices, and downward pressure on employment…and… this is just my opinion, short circuits the market by providing a constant source of low cost labor so that wages for the working poor and middle class stagnate in an environment of inflation and rising cost of living.

              3. if undocumented labor helps me to be more productive and generate higher economic activity

                So what if it did? So what if it didn’t? It doesn’t matter.

            2. I don’t know how much money the wall will save. That is a complicated notion. As the wall will be built over years, and incrementally. So any dividend reaped for the added security provided will also increase incrementally.

              Like any construction project, the costs will likely be paid out in a large number of draws over the multi year construction period. So how the wall pays for itself depends on how you analyze that. I’m not sure anyone is really sure how that will work in the short run. But if it allows us to start thinning out the massive herd of illegals in CA. And other states jails and state penitentiaries, that will make a big difference right there.

              But $200 billion per year? Possibly, once it’s largely complete.

          3. “Citation on undocumented labor”

            Good one.

          4. Where is your citation that undocumented labor represents a net drain on the economy?

            It’s irrelevant whether it is or not. Is cannabis legalization a boon or a drain on the economy? How about gun confiscation or legal ass sex? All of these questions are irrelevant to the question of legality.

          5. https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration

            Highlights…

            “The ISD report found that total Los Angeles County expenditures in 1991-92 for county services to these three sub-populations were $947 million, while the total revenues and fees paid to the county were $139 million, for a net fiscal deficit of $808 million for the county (p.56). The per capita deficit at the county level for this population was $351. Moreover, the study population of immigrants and the citizen children of illegal aliens ran up public education costs in Los Angeles County schools of an additional $1.5 billion, not more than one quarter of which was offset by property taxes immigrants paid to the school districts.”

            “George Borjas. “Immigration Research in the 1980s: A Turbulent Decade.” (Unpublished) Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, 1993.
            Borjas finds that immigrants migrating to the United States in the period 1975-1980 will generate welfare costs of $87 billion over their lifetimes, while contributing only $29 billion to the funding of welfare programs. The net lifetime deficit for immigrants on public assistance accounts would be $58 billion, or a net cost of $3.2 billion per year. Moreover, this estimate did not include the costs of other components of the welfare state, particularly health care (pp. 28-30, Table 10).”

        2. Flat out lie. Study after study has shown that immigrants, whether all, just legal, or just illegal, are a benefit to society.

          You xenophobes are just haters who have a new champion to tart up your hatred. You’d rather the country were worse off without brown people than better off with brown people.

          You just can’t stand the idea that their competition might show you for the lazy slob you undoubtedtly are.

          1. You mean only the studies that reinforce your bullshit. The reality is that illegals, the only thing we’re concerned about here,cost far more than then any benefit provided. The studies to the contrary are largely discredited, or haven’t been analyzed yet.

            1. Proven wrong Self admitted shitlord just doubles down on the invective. Asked for counter proof all he says is it’s already been proven so he doesn’t have to. Case closed, like he’s the judge and everyone else just obeys.

              Just shut up already and go post on some conservative site.

          2. Can you back up your statement with examples of the actual studies you are referring to?

            I would love to have the facts to back up your insults of me being a xenophobic, lazy, racist, hater because I believe that illegal immigration should be curtailed and legal immigration controlled.

      2. Or one could talk about the violent crime native-born Americans commit. Let’s hear about Lady of Reason’s scheme for childbirth licensure. Resources are scarce, after all.

        1. I just wish that we could get to a place where we discuss illegal immigrants as just people. Not some inferior caste of sub-humans, and not some angelic class of diversity prophets. Just ordinary people. Some good, some bad, like everybody else.

          1. Just ordinary people.

            What makes you think ordinary people aren’t a sub-human caste to begin with?

            I wouldn’t show up in France or Iraq or Japan or Iceland and expect a job, no taxes, no documentation, and free healthcare. Not that I advocate jail time, just that the expectation seems akin to wish fulfillment.

            1. Nor do immigrants here. Only yahoos from the Ozarks do that.

        2. Let’s hear about Lady of Reason’s scheme for childbirth licensure.

          Why, so you can troll for dates?

        3. Fuck you Cathy, you treasonous piece of shit. You don’t like America? Then GTFO bitch.

        4. It’s just plain racism, accusing a whole group of violent crime. Crimes are committed by individuals. You can’t hold another person accountable for someone else’s crime.

          1. ‘Illegals’ aren’t a group defined by race, but by actions. Try again.

            1. The term “racism” does not refer only to race in common parlance. For example, if someone hates Latinos, they would still be called racist. And we all know you mean Latinos, when you refer to illegals.

              1. “The term “racism” does not refer only to race in common parlance. For example, if someone hates Latinos, they would still be called racist”

                So you like using the wrong words for things?

                1. Words evolve, homey. You should too.

              2. Never mind that a ‘Latino’ can be a white as an Irishman, I suppose.

          2. Yea, MS-13 isn’t the problem, the problem is me thinking they’re a problem

        5. We produce plenty of violent criminals domestically so we don’t need to import more.

        6. “Or one could talk about the violent crime native-born Americans commit”

          We could, but I can’t see why in an immgration thread.

      3. Migrant crisis: Illegal entries to EU at lowest level in five years
        “It highlighted a sharp fall in the numbers crossing the Mediterranean to Italy, where a populist government has refused to allow rescue boats to dock.”

        So you mean to tell me you can deter illegal immigration? WHO WOULDA THUNK.

    2. Resources only stretch so far. Sad, but we do need to prioritize who gets our limited resources, schooling, housing, medical care etc…

      And only government can decide who gets our resources? You do realize, that’s what your side is arguing.

  3. “Every president lies. Therefore Trump’s lies are okay.”

    1. By lies, do you mean the true things he says that you don’t like?

  4. “It’s all a part of a complex 99-dimensional negotiating strategy with the Dems. Therefore Trump’s lies are okay.”

    1. Jeffy, does your daddy beat you? If not, he’s doing it wrong. You need the shit beat out of you by your parents, probably several times a day.

      1. That’s the sign of losing an argument – advocating violence against one’s interlocutor.

        1. No Jeffy, I amd many others have destroyed your arguments twenty times over. You pretend like it never happened and shitposting the same discredited garbage. I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself because you’re so fucking stupid. We’ve also had this conversation a number of times.

          Also, you made no argument to refute, other than ‘Trump is a big lying meanie’. So yes, I really do,hope your parents beat you. Or better yet, run afoul of some violent criminal illegalS.

          1. And by “destroyed my arguments”, what you really mean is, “fail to argue against the argument presented, argue instead against a strawman, and then proceed with more insults and gaslighting”. Yes, you have done that probably at least 20 times.

            And for what it’s worth, while you wish for physical violence to befall me, I don’t want violence to come to you.

            1. No Jeffy, all your bullshit has been addressed many times. Just for you to come back and repeat your exact same bullshit, like a bad parody of Memento. I’m not the only one to say this.

              You are noting more a stupid little kid who shitposts. Go away.

              1. You haven’t “destroyed” any argument. You just troll and name-call and advocate for violence against people you don’t like. You have a bad case of roid rage and should lay off the drugs and pills and booze and get help.

              2. “You are noting more a stupid little kid who shitposts. Go away.”

                I nominate this for “least self-aware comment of 2019”.

                I know it’s early. But it might hold up anyways.

                1. Sadly, it will not hold up for long.

            2. https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration

              Please read. You’re so effing wrong its ridiculous

              1. The Center of Immigration Studies is an anti-immigration group that massages data so it fits their agenda. Cato did a nice takedown of them which I am too lazy to link to.

  5. “You have to take him seriously but not literally. Therefore Trump’s lies are okay.”

    1. Yup. Kind of like reading the Bible.

  6. Trump is going to have a tough time topping Welch s column’s lie count.

    1. Indeed. Matt really sold his soul, and integrity, to go all in for open borders no matter what.

      1. to go all in for open borders no matter what.

        As he clearly states in the article.

      2. Being a 100% consistent libertarian is the simplest approach, at least on paper.

  7. “Every living president has refuted Trump’s claim about supporting the wall.”

    While I’m sure Trump is lying about this, I could also find it believable that the former Misters President had expressed some affinity for the idea at one point and are eager now to distance themselves from the notion considering the current climate. Just because our current president is unsubtle in his public fabrications doesn’t mean his unique in them.

      1. It wasn’t a lie because he believed it. Oh wait, that’s not true either.

      2. Those quotes were taken out of context.

        Like, “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.

        Like “I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified”.

        Like, “I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski”.

        All of it was taken out of context.

        1. Oh, you.

      3. Look, they’re racists so…wait a minute…*head explodes*

        Wall spending is the one kind of spending that Democrats balk at. Possibly because they simply can not stomach paying their housekeepers and nanny’s minimum wage? You know, exactly like the Republicans?

        Trump is the biggest asshole in the room because he, shockingly, is attempting to do exactly what he said he would.

        If he had lied about it just to get elected, well, that’s ok according to most people.

        Don’t get me wrong, a wall is stupid in my view but it’s not my view that’s being discussed.

    1. Bush signed the border wall bill so not sure how he can refute it, except to say he’s changed his mind.

      1. That bill also didn’t entail building a wall across the entire Southern border as Trump proposes, so it’s not the same thing either.

    2. “I could also find it believable that the former Misters President had expressed some affinity for the idea at one point and are eager now to distance themselves from the notion considering the current climate. ”

      Of course they did.

      The Narrative is that Trump Lies.
      Welch faithfully produces The Narrative.
      Reason faithfully produces The Narrative.

  8. How can you tell if a politician is lying?

    1. Is that a joke? If so, punch line, please!

      1. Their lips are moving!

        1. Bingo:)

        2. I said he was a politician didn’t I?

        3. So if AOC is dancing, she is lying?

  9. “From illegal-immigrant voter fraud to the diversity lottery visa, from chain migration to sanctuary cities, immigrant-criminality to terrorist infiltration from the south, the Trump administration has spent two years basing policy and enforcement priorities on dystopian fables”

    Specifically, in regards to the dystopian fables about terrorist infiltration, I suspect that’s about more than fearmongering.

    When the courts struck down his travel ban based on his campaign rhetoric (rather than what the actual text of the EO said), they opened up a can full of worms. When whatever Trump does gets challenged, it’ll presumably go through the same appellate channels as the travel ban, and the same justices may be sitting on the case. Regardless of how we feel about the wall, it’ll be poetic justice if we see the same judges who shot down the travel ban on the basis of his campaign speeches and advertising forced to explain why Trump’s claims about terrorism on camera shouldn’t enter into the discussion.

    1. Perhaps the most important point that should be made of this is that it’s time to sunset the AUMF already. Regardless of whether we think Al Qaeda is a threat to come across our southern border, the AUMF says it doesn’t matter what we think. The AUMF says that the president determines whether someone is or isn’t associated with Al Qaeda, and once he makes that determination, he’s free to pretty much whatever he wants anywhere in the world to stop them. Barack Obama famously* used this excuse to kill more innocent children with drone strikes than Adam Lanza, but maybe not so famous was when the Obama administration used the AUMF as an excuse to do all that warrantless wiretapping.

      In other words, Trump is doing the same awful thing with that terrorism rhetoric that Bush Jr. and Obama did before him, and if seeing that excuse used to justify acts of war without congressional approval, used to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of 300 million Americans, and used as an unnecessary and ridiculous excuse to build a wall, then how bad does it have to get before Congress finally sunsets the AUMF already?

      1. …it’s time to sunset the AUMF already.

        Yes, please. Way overdue.

  10. Matt Welch is afraid, very afraid…

    1. Yep, because he knows that he and his fellow lefties can’t possibly win this debate and don’t even want to have the debate at all! A huge majority of the American people have had enough and want the border secured and illegal immigration reduced.

      1. There ya go – appeal to populism, as I predicted below

        What makes the majority right in this case?

        1. Because they don’t hurt anyone by being right.

          1. Because they don’t hurt anyone by being right.

            Umm, yeah they do. How do you think illegal immigration gets reduced as a practical matter? Answer: by hassling and depriving liberty of citizens as well as non-citizens.

            And it’s more than a bit telling that you don’t regard the migrants themselves as “anyone” whose concerns ought to be heeded.

            1. Just like every other law.

            2. Wanting a secure border doesn’t hurt anyone, Jeff.

              That’s what I’m talking about, just that.

              The harassment you’re talking about is a by-product of an INSECURE border. As is what happens to those who try to immigrate illegally.

              The migrants can have all the concerns they want. About the security of the borders of THEIR nation. And those concerns matter, to THEM. But I have no right to dictate what other people do with their countries.

              And neither do you, no matter what you think. .

              1. The harassment you’re talking about is a by-product of an INSECURE border.

                You’re kidding, right? The harrassment of citizens is HOW THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO MAKE A SECURE BORDER. That is literally part of “securing the border”.

                There is no realistic way to have a “secure border” in a manner that you wish to have it, that doesn’t involve hassling and depriving liberty OF CITIZENS.

                1. Minor inconvenience of living in a Constitutional Democratic Republic to be checked at the border.

                  1. I’m not talking about travelers being checked at a port of entry. I’m talking about citizens all over the country who are hassled in one way or another by a desire for a secure border. Such as, every time an employer has to use e-Verify or every time a potential employee has to fill out an I-9 form.

                2. Late, but I have to respond.

                  You’re kidding, right? The harrassment of citizens is HOW THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO MAKE A SECURE BORDER. That is literally part of “securing the border”.

                  We are saying the same thing.

                  BECAUSE the border is insecure, the government tries to do things to make it secure. Since we HAVE an influx of illegals the government harasses people to try to uncover then and send them home.

                  If we had a border that was more secure, one that did force migrants to legal entry points, the government wouldn’t have to put on the security show you’re decrying.

                  There is no realistic way to have a “secure border” in a manner that you wish to have it, that doesn’t involve hassling and depriving liberty OF CITIZENS.

        2. Another Little Jeffy sophist argument…….

          The rule of law dumbass. Federal laws, backed up by the constitution.

          Cue Jeffy to scream “collectivist”, like he does for any laws he finds inconvenient.

          1. The rule of law is not the same as majority approval. Surely even you know that.

            1. The rule of law only matters when it comes to immigrants violating immigration law, it doesn’t matter when Trump tries to ignore asylum laws or spend billions of dollars (including seizing property via eminent domain) to build a border wall without the approval of Congress.

            2. When Rule of Law is back by a Constitution like ours, populism is still not able to run rough shot over everyone and everything.

              Its why lefties hate our Constitutional Democratic Republic. Even with all the undermining that has taken place, the Constitutional process still limits government.

      2. Mikey is another that needs to open his heart and hug someone. When was the last time you received a hug, Mikey?

      3. Can you please cite the evidence that a huge majority of Americans support Trump’s plan to build a wall across the entire Southern border? Or that they support his position in this showdown?

        I also don’t know how you can accuse your opponents of not wanting a debate on this when you’re supporting a president attempting to do this by unilateral executive action without the consent of Congress.

        1. America has not changed the US Constitution. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate migrants and defend the USA.

          Since we have a Constitutional Democratic Republic, millions more people in NYC and Commifornia don’t dictate what national border policy is.

    2. ENB’s morning links title was, “Eight Minutes of Televised Trump Tonight Could Cause Chaos”, and I’m not sure she was joking.

      Whatever happened to the term “pants shitting”?

      We think of pants shitting as something that happens once, so maybe the term lost currency because people had a hard time imagining that there are people out there who are still shitting their pants on a regular basis since November of 2016. But they are!

      Trump still makes them shit their pants!

      They’re pants shitters. That’s what they do. That’s who they are.

      1. Disagree, progressives are the end product of pants shitting.

  11. Re: The border wall…

    Don’t the Democrats, when talking about gun control, say “If it saves only one life?”

    Just sayin’.

    1. That’s not a very good argument for why the Republicans should do the same thing with respect to immigration.

      1. Not saying anything about the Republicans, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats.

        1. Democrats need to wear blue shirts that say “it’s ok when we do it”.

    2. There is a certain amount of symmetry between the arguments of the wall-worshippers, and the arguments of the gun-grabbers.

      Both groups will exaggerate individual crimes that are shocking, in lieu of broad statistical behavior.

      Both groups are hostile to claims of individual liberty, perfectly willing to subsume the individual’s liberty in favor of some assertion of collective rights.

      Both groups advocate ‘solutions’ that are more about advancing a particular agenda, and less about solving the actual problems.

      Both groups will treat the behavior of foreign governments as normative.

      Both groups appeal to populism to try to bolster their arguments.

      1. Also sharing this symmetry – pretty much anything, including reason’s articles on abuses of police power.

        1. Not really. For instance, complaints about abuses of police power are more about asserting individual rights over the rights of any collective.

      2. There is a certain amount of symmetry between the arguments of the wall-worshippers, and the arguments of the gun-grabbers.

        Is there?

        Both groups will exaggerate individual crimes that are shocking, in lieu of broad statistical behavior.

        Both groups WILL harp on individual crimes, but one group will also bring statistics to bear–in both instances.

        Both groups are hostile to claims of individual liberty, perfectly willing to subsume the individual’s liberty in favor of some assertion of collective rights.

        Only one group is hostile to liberty–and that group has been deluded into thinking that borderless internationalism is a liberty. And they are perfectly willing to destroy the idea of individuality itself to advance that agenda.

        Both groups advocate ‘solutions’ that are more about advancing a particular agenda, and less about solving the actual problems.

        One group is advancing an agenda. One is supporting a natural right that stems from an instinctive behavior.

        con’t

        1. con’t

          Both groups will treat the behavior of foreign governments as normative.

          You do not comprehend this argument. No amount of discussion will enlighten you because it is a point of doublethink for you. You believe two incorrect things simultaneously. You are doublypluswrong

          Both groups appeal to populism to try to bolster their arguments.

          Likewise with this. Democracy becomes ‘populism’ to you when it favors ideas you disagree with. Doublepluswrong again!

          1. Umm, yes it’s a fairly common border restrictionist argument that “the US should have the same immigration rules as, say, Mexico or Canada” and “the US should secure the border because the people want it that way”, just like how the gun-grabbers want to defer to having gun laws like those that exist in Mexico or Canada, and defer to polls showing large majorities in favor of things like ‘assault weapon’ bans to justify their positions.

            1. Umm, yes it’s a fairly common border restrictionist argument that “the US should have the same immigration rules as, say, Mexico or Canada” and “the US should secure the border because the people want it that way”, just like how the gun-grabbers want to defer to having gun laws like those that exist in Mexico or Canada, and defer to polls showing large majorities in favor of things like ‘assault weapon’ bans to justify their positions.

              And the prime example. Doublepluswrong.

              People pointing out the discrepancy is not necessarily desiring that the policies be normative. Very often they are noting the discrepancy itself–or demanding reciprosity–or pointing out that those demanding that WE have open borders, and that open borders are just the bestest good there ever was never seem to chide anyone else for their much more severely closed borders.

              But you can’t see that. Because you are perfectly willing to subsume the individual’s liberty in favor of some assertion of collective rights.

        2. Only one group is hostile to liberty–and that group has been deluded into thinking that borderless internationalism is a liberty. And they are perfectly willing to destroy the idea of individuality itself to advance that agenda.

          This is gaslighting on a supreme level. Congratulations, I guess.

          Individualism is letting *INDIVIDUALS* decide on their own where they may wish to migrate to. It is anti-individualist to erect arbitrary barriers and rules against free migration of free people.

          1. So, you don’t know what ‘gaslighting’ means either?

            The depths of your incomprehension are vast.

            Individualism is letting *INDIVIDUALS* decide on their own where they may wish to migrate to.

            Is it? And the individual who owns the land some other individual has decided to migrate to, what is THAT individual to do?

            Oh–wait–you’ve already answered….

            It is anti-individualist to erect arbitrary barriers and rules against free migration of free people.

            So, it’s anti individualist to claim territory? Fascinating.

            But my noticing that your version of ‘individualism’ is freakishly similar to mountains of collectivist garbage is probably ‘gaslighting’ as well–because, like most, I’ve noticed that people tend to use the term to refers to others exposing truths the speaker prefers to keep unseen.

            Say–I know, you can call your version ‘Social Individualism’

  12. Lying about immigration? That’s what Reason does brazenly, along with the mainstream media, on a DAILY BASIS

    1. RE: Reason authors using an obviously and factually flawed CATO study to make some token attempt to say that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lesser rate than citizens. When you conflate legal and illegal immigrants, one must assume your intent is to lie or that the person making the claim is ignorant.

      1. Of course Reason lies. Every single illegal immigrant violates at least one American law.

        Reason cannot truthfully say that Illegal immigrants commit less crimes than Americans. Not every American commits a crime a day. Every Illegal commits a crime every day.

        1. Every single legal citizen violates at least three federal statutes a day, so that doesn’t carry any water with me whatsoever.

  13. Immigration lowers American wages. Fact.

    1. Illegals definitely do.

      1. Progress lowers everyone’s wages. And the cost of all the goods we use. Progress is naturally deflationary. Unfortunately everyone is so economically illiterate that they expect prices and wages to rise all the time. The Fed uses this fallacy to constantly inflate currency and tax everyone without their knowledge.

        To be extra clear: wages and process going down is awesome. It means we are winning.

        1. No, not necessarily. And it’s all bullshit when a bunch of progtards and Chaner of Commerce corporatists use a one way system of illegal border crossings to suppress wages to their benefit, on everyone else’s dime.

          Nothing libertarian about that, at all.

          1. Maybe not necessarily, but that’s assuming an economies natural tenancies aren’t bent out of shape by policy or other factors. In that they are correct, and they are also correct in the Fed taxing us by devaluing our savings (or at least I assume that’s what they are referring to).

            I don’t necessarily agree that wages going down mean’s we are winning, though. It is indeed an assumption in lots of economic theory and I get why it’s there, but that matters very little in real terms to the individual.

        2. Murray — Progress?

          Not sure if you’re one of the economic illiterates yourself, but unfortunately, prices have not gone down. On the things that Americans need to spend the vast majority of their money on, prices have gone up, up, up dramatically — housing, health care, education, etc. Immigration both lowers wages and drives up prices of these things.

          Yes, we can save 5 cents on an apple. And under “free trade” we can get cheaper junk electronics from China that are bad for mental health and designed for very rapid planned obsolescence. None of that is worth the devastating costs of wrecking domestic industry and creating the rise of a Communist superpower globally.

          1. Murray — Progress?

            Not sure if you’re one of the economic illiterates yourself, but unfortunately, prices have not gone down.

            Jesus. Where to begin?

            Hey, did you read this part? “The Fed uses this fallacy to constantly inflate currency and tax everyone without their knowledge.”

          2. Also a good point. Notably, illegal immigrants need to live somewhere and they complete with American’s for homes. That’s not just a Latin American thing either, it’s perhaps doubly true of land speculation for foreign investors or just foreign buyers writ large.

            Most nations don’t let foreign nationals do that for what I would hope are fairly obvious reasons, although I’ve heard some good reasons to allow it too. The reasons for it don’t matter much to the people searching for homes, though, I should note.

    2. What I have read, is that the overall impact of undocumented labor on American wages, is not definitive, and the estimates range from a small positive effect to a small negative effect. Either way it is not gigantic.

      1. Increase the supply of labor and wages remain static. Why question it?

        1. It’s not that simple. Increased cheap labor on one end of the labor spectrum can increase savings and productivity at the other end of the spectrum, increasing their wages over time. Of course increased cheap labor will put downward pressure on wages among under-educated laborers. But what the net effect is, to the best of my knowledge, is not completely certain.

          1. Except that you have tossed the notion of immigration controls out the window, which means your assumption that only ‘under educated’ labor would come to the U.S. is a fallacy or at the very least an assumption with no underpinning whatsoever.

            You’re cute when you try to reason, but you’re terrible at it.

            1. He’s pretty stupid, yet keeps going. Sadly.

            2. I am discussing *what I have read*, not about what I would like to see happen. Please try to keep up.

              1. Then what you’re reading is dog shit, as is your ability to reason. If you can’t understand the house of cards you’re building, why are you continually so surprised when it falls over?

                1. Jeffy has no learning curve and is only interested in things that give him happy feelz.

                2. If you would like to discuss what is happening now based on the circumstances that exist now, then let’s do so.

                  If you would like to discuss what might happen based on what I would like to see occur, then we can do that too.

                  But let’s not mix and match the two conversations. It is a comparison of apples and oranges. OF COURSE if borders were more open, there would be more wage pressure for ALL groups of workers, not just low-wage workers. I never said anything otherwise. But, based on the *status quo*, where immigration tends to favor more low-wage migration, the wage pressure is more towards the lower end of the spectrum. Get it now?

                  1. Jeff, you have never been able to actually discuss what is happening right now today. You’re an idealist and don’t have a pragmatic bone in your body. Also, you don’t seem to believe in god which makes your supreme reliance on natural rights something of a curiosity since without god there are no natural rights.

                    Then again, I’ve never accused you of being educated. Half-educated, maybe, but close only counts in horseshoe’s and hand grenades.

                    If you were going to argue on the status quo, you’d have to admit that it already is the pragmatic solution. RE: Milton Friedman, dumbass.

                    1. Good heavens. You keep judging me by continually shifting goalposts so I don’t even know where to begin. Yes I am an idealist on this issue. I don’t need to make statist arguments on behalf of the statists; they are perfectly capable of making those arguments on their own behalf. I am not arguing ON BEHALF of the status quo. I am perfectly willing to have a discussion ABOUT the status quo. But what I will not do is be badgered into defending some mashup between my idealistic beliefs and the status quo that I don’t even agree with myself.

                      And no, natural rights do not come from God. They are inherent in every living human being because we exist by virtue of our birth.


                    2. And no, natural rights do not come from God. They are inherent in every living human being because we exist by virtue of our birth.

                      Oops, someone didn’t read a single thing about natural law before basing their whole world view on it. It’s sort of the underpinning of the whole thing, but you being you I doubt such a massive flaw in reasoning would stop you.

                      After all, it hasn’t stopped you any of the other dozen times I’ve pointed out that nature doesn’t give a fuck about natural law.

                      You didn’t even read Wikipedia, let alone the Constitution.

                    3. I said natural rights, not natural law.

        2. When a city grows in population size, does the number of jobs go up or down?

          1. Neither by necessity, population size does not predict the number of available jobs.

      2. It’s only “not definitive” if you’re going to look at the “overall impact” to GDP and multinational corporate profits, and you’re going to pretend that every dollar there is just as meaningful as dollars in wages to the vast majority of Americans in the middle and working class.

        1. How am I supposed to assign “meaning” to dollars? This is starting to sound very Bernie-bro-ish. Is money earned by a rich person “less meaningful” than money earned by a middle-class person?

          1. Let me explain it very simply for you. Immigration policy has very pronounced and specific effects on the distribution of wealth among Americans. There are differences between admitting 250,000; 500,000; 1MM; 1.5MM; 3MM; 6MM and so on number of immigrants annually. There are also differences depending on the skills, abilities, and backgrounds of the individuals composing these groups of aliens.

            So, it would seem that a policy which is fairly neutral as to its distributional effects on Americans (individual citizens, that is; no double counting corporate assets) would be most fair and also most politically preferred. Currently, Borjas and others have calculated that immigration is a wash as to the net wealth gain to Americans when discounting for taxpayer burdens. This means that while the benefits of immigration accrue to a relatively small group, the burdens fall to the taxpayer.

            That’s what you call privatized gains, socialized losses.

            But the much more significant economic effect that remains is $500 billion in annual redistribution of wealth among Americans as a result of immigration (generally, from poorer Americans to very rich Americans). So, the reality is a very unfair and skewed policy preference by the U.S. government and its politicians and donors, which is entirely at odds with the policy preference of the American people.

      3. Either way it is not gigantic.

        Either way it’s irrelevant to the question of whether it’s moral to restrict a person’s voluntary and peaceful migration from one place to another.

        1. you can’t peacefully invade the territory of another.

    3. How long before M.L. is calling for an increase in the minimum wage?

      1. I’m for zero minimum wage. But the fact is that a nation is much like a corporation, and its duty should be to maximize shareholder value, which means maximize the value of citizenship. Right now the shareholders are being bamboozled as the executives and board of directors siphon off everything.

        I’m a staunch supporter of free markets and liberty generally, but I also recognize that markets are a construct. My support for that construct ends at the American border. I’m against any sort of international construct for markets to operate within, beyond negotiated and strategic trade agreements which should be an ongoing and very political process with broad based political support. Beyond that any type of international market construct is essentially supranational global government, in a matter of degrees up to a one-world dictatorship.

      2. Theres a difference between mandating wages and exploiting a distortion to suppress wages.

        Hint: Both are very unlibertarian.

  14. Meanwhile, reason seems oblivious to this.

    There’s a huge, devastating threat brewing to our south, and anarcho-libertarianism will let it run roughshod over us.

    1. So what is your proposed solution?

    2. I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but you may find that a lot of anarcho-capitalists are to the right of Trump on immigration.

      Are you using “anarcho-libertarianism” as a descriptive term for people who don’t think there should be any law in regards to the border? Is some pundit somewhere using the term that way?

    3. Anarchism and Libertarianism are not compatible.

      Anarchists dont want any Constitutional Democratic Republic and certainly no rule of law from a tiny and limited government.

      Libertarians are okay with tiny and limited government.

    4. Criminal Networks Profit From Smuggling Migrants Marijuana

      How’s that going for them now?

    5. Of course, large-scale drug-trafficking and human smuggling are two different things.

      Different commodities. Same basic black market process.

  15. Erick Prince was on CNN last night arguing for the border wall and he mentioned synthetic opioids deaths as one cost of not having this wall. What he fails to realize is that shit comes here in the mail because I believe it’s odorless and difficult to detect. It’s another example of bullshit fearmongering.

    1. Prince, the silver-spooned mercenary, superstitious kook, and big-government teat-sucker?

    2. Yes, the fact that enough synthetic heroin to kill every american citizen crossed the border last year is just fearmongering. Who cares if the poor white people die, the poor brown people made a bunch of money so its all good

  16. Matt, would John Bolton still return your calls? In a few years, he’ll probably be lucky to get invited back on Kennedy–and I bet he knows it!

    Maybe you should call him up and ask him, “Hey John, just between you and me, what do you know about terrorist infiltration of the migrant caravan?”

    I bet he can drum something up. Didn’t he once pull yellowcake from Niger out of his ass? Didn’t he once supply Colin Powell with phony photos of mobile WMD labs?

    Terrorists infiltrating a migrant caravan? Photoshop is even better now. That should be easy by comparison!

  17. So who is going to employ all this unskilled labor?

    1. If a large supply of cheap labor were bad for economic growth, then the slowest growing economy over the last 20 years would be China’s.

      Labor is a resource. It’s valuable. And having more of valuable resources is better.

      What are we going to do with all this cheap energy?

      1. And having more of valuable resources is better.

        What are we going to do with all this cheap energy?

        More Facebook?


      2. If a large supply of cheap labor were bad for economic growth, then the slowest growing economy over the last 20 years would be China’s.

        Well, yes, but in this case it would also be wise to consider that all those Chinese laborers were mostly producing goods for sale here in the U.S. at a much higher price than they could have possibly sold it for in China. (Ah, comparative advantage!)

        Labor is valuable, obviously, hence why slavery was a thing for a few thousand years. It would still exist, too, if not for automation. As it turns out, slave labor is still cheaper than automation in places that haven’t heavily propped up their domestic wages. It’s truly a curious thing, NIMBYism.

      3. We aren’t China. The same in
        It’s here can have amerkedly differemt effect on our economy versus theirs. Especially since they are a command economy and we aren’t.

        1. ‘Inputs’


        2. Especially since they are a command economy and we aren’t.

          I’d invite you to take another gander at that there assumption, because all our markets are heavily regulated to the point where in some cases it’s a command economy in all but name. We’re obviously not China yet, not by a long shot, but we are also no longer a very free economy.

          We’re seriously discussing nationalizing a huge portion of our GDP and no one on the left really bats an eye, and half the right is starting to come around to the notion of vocational slavery of the medical profession.

        3. Having lived in Mexico for a long time, one of the things I can tell you that was really fantastic was the cheap labor.

          It isn’t just that just about everyone can afford to hire someone to cook, clean the house, do the gardening, etc. It’s also the kind of service you get.

          Imagine if every single store delivered. They can afford to hire people to do that. There wasn’t a shop anywhere so small that they couldn’t afford to hire someone to deliver whatever was being sold. Talk about a service economy!

          I’m old enough to remember when you used to pull into a gas station, tell them how much gas you wanted pumped, and the guy would pump it while someone else checked the air pressure in your tires and the oil level in your engine.

          Cheap labor is not the problem with our economy, and people wanting to come here and work hard for very little money isn’t the problem either.

          The problem is the welfare state, government spending, and taxes, and we need to free ourselves of that regardless of what happens with immigration.


          1. The problem is the welfare state, government spending, and taxes, and we need to free ourselves of that regardless of what happens with immigration.

            Agreed. If you solve that list, immigration ceases to be an issue. People want to work the problem the other way around, but that way lies madness and destruction.

      4. Labor is a cost.

        It is what you pay to get the product you want.

    2. Illegals come to do the jobs Americans won’t do.

      Low level jobs are being automated; these jobs aren’t coming back.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.

      1. Hard manual labor at $5 per hour only works if you have illegal labor.

        1. Pssh, why pay a Mexican or Guatemalan $5 when you can buy a Somali for $2? I’m sorry, did I say buy? I meant indenture where they need to work for 30 years to pay off their life debt to you.

  18. First Question: should we, or should we not, secure our borders?

    All subsequent Q&A hinge on this. Of course the majority of “illegals” become so when they overstay their visa and get lost in the population. A wall will not do much about that. Unless you inject a chip into them…

    1. should we, or should we not, secure our borders?

      It depends entirely on what is meant by “secure our borders”.

      If it means “have an army to defend against military invasion by a foreign power”, then yes.

      If it means “have an elaborate bureaucratic system to try to keep track of every single person who enters and leaves the country”, then no.

      1. Let’s first rule out the Democrat’s “let anybody in who manages to drag a child with them” policy as “securing the border”, shall we?

        1. No, let’s not.

        2. Schafer, Jeffy is a sophist shitposter who can’t learn anything to advance an argument or discussion. So you’re wasting your time engaging him.

  19. Every time I saw Barack Obama speak I thought he distorted the truth yet the media never soiled their diapers over it because they agreed with him.

    1. Every time I saw Barack Obama speak I thought he distorted the truth

      . . . especially with respect to that birth certificate.

      Carry on, clingers.

      1. Yes, that was quite a trick Hillary pulled on him, wasn’t it progtard?

        1. The joke was on all of the bigots — a substantial fraction of conservatives and Republican Party members — whose reprehensible character was revealed.

          1. Remind me again how Obama ended up with a recycled Social Security number?

            1. And why he sealed his college application and transcripts?

              1. Dumbasses who circulate right-wing conspiracy theories are among my favorite downscale, marginalized, irrelevant, faux libertarian bigots.

  20. who’s lies should we believe one report says illegal crossing are surging and another says they are decreasing. The Truth is lost in politics

  21. What the fuck Welch.

    Now that candidate Trump’s single biggest?and single most unattainable?campaign promise has collided against reality to the point of political impasse, a politically cornered president seeks to persuade a skeptical public tonight that extending and strengthening the existing 654 miles of barriers along the 1,954-mile border is a principle worth closing the federal government over.

    The takeaway here should be that he has “closed” the federal government, which is certainly better than the alternative (growing the government). I don’t really care about his wall. The amount he is demanding, while exorbitant, is small potatoes compared to the real disaster in this country (entitlements). And there is the small matter that illegal immigrants, here illegally, do not have a right to be here.

    That the wall won’t stop illegal immigration is beside the point. It’s one man’s vanity project. But unlike the last guy’s vanity project, this one won’t disrupt the lives of hundreds of millions of taxpayers.

    If Reason really thinks we need the government open for business 24/7, maybe they should urge their liberal friends at the next cocktail party to support Trump’s bid for a wall.

  22. Whether we need a wall or not stem the tide of illegal immigrants–you’d think we could come up with something cheaper and more technology-driven–I do think there is a valid concern about people getting paid to come here illegally. Without the welfare state, the issue would be much less of a problem.

    1. Is there any evidence that undocumented migrants come here *just to go on welfare*? Even in that CIS study which had that shocking statistic of “63% of immigrants on welfare”, if you dig into it, it also shows that *93%* of those households had someone with a job. That certainly doesn’t sound like “come here to live on the dole”.

      1. It hardly matters. Whether or not illegals are a drain or a boon to the economy is separate from the issue that illegals are here illegally.

        Plenty of people, both citizens and aliens, are on the dole and are a net drain on the economy. The one at fault for that is the government and it’s generous welfare state (and it is generous). Why would an unemployed person work for a wage that is less than they receive in unemployment? Where is it the government’s job to prop up an unemployed person in the first place?

        FWIW I have never taken government assistance, because I would like to go to the grave knowing I did not need handouts from the government for anything. What benefits of a large government I do enjoy are thrust upon me, whether I wish for them for not. But I would probably survive without them, and I expect that is true of most people.

        1. illegals are here illegally

          And pot smokers smoke pot illegally. In either case I don’t really care. It isn’t enough to say “they broke the law”. One has to argue why the law itself is valid and just.

          1. One has to argue why the law itself is valid and just.

            I think the law about not crossing the border illegally is fairly self-evident. A nation has a right to be secure in it’s borders. A nation has no right to dictate what it’s citizens put into their bodies (not a land committed to freedom, at any rate.)

            Legal migration is in dire need of reform, no doubt. Still, I have little sympathy for people who overstay their visas or cross the border. I would expect no clemency if I tried to enter a country illegally, or hung around with an expired visa. The only difference is I had the good fortune to be born in the best country in the world, a thing I an endlessly grateful for. And I would like this country to remain the best and not start turning into Europe.

            1. I think the law about not crossing the border illegally is fairly self-evident. A nation has a right to be secure in it’s borders.

              Well a little bit of inspection reveals that it’s not as self-evident as it may seem. Why does it necessarily follow that a nation, in order to be “secure in its borders”, requires a government bureaucracy to keep track of everyone entering and leaving?

              The example I like to give is that of a municipal park. Many municipal parks don’t have walls or fences or gates. They don’t have border agents keeping track of who comes and goes from the park. Yet the municipal authority still sets the rules for the park, those in the park are required to abide by those rules, and the borders of that park are still well defined. Why can’t an analogous type of solution be devised for international migration? I don’t think the *exact* same idea would be feasible, but it illustrates the point that having an elaborate system of border walls and guards and checkpoints just isn’t necessary to have “secure borders”.

              Imagine I throw a wild house party and I invite everyone in my neighborhood to attend. During the party I may have no idea who is on my property at any given time, and yet I still am owner of my house and the rules for my house still apply to everyone on my property.

              1. Jeffy, we’re a sovereign nation, not a park. This is what I’m talking about. Pure sophistry, and you’ve already been slapped down on this one more than a dozen times over.

                1. we’re a sovereign nation, not a park

                  So? Explain with arguments, not insults, on why that analogy could not work on a national level. Here is a hint: It can work, since that is how the early republic functioned when it came to immigration. There were few if any rules about who could come and go, and those who showed up were nonetheless subjected to the jurisdiction of this government. Was the US “not secure” in its borders until the 1880’s?

                  1. For most of this nation’s history, showing up here was no guarantee. You had to work at it to make it work for you. Now there is an elaborate welfare state, and an entire political party who’s premise is “free shit for everyone”. They are also the party most gung-ho about opening up the borders. Do you think that’s a coincidence?

                    The reality on the ground today is not the reality of the 1880s, or the 1700s. Or even the early 20th century.

                    1. I agree that today is different than the 1880’s. But that is a bit of goalpost-shifting. Did the nation have “secure borders” before the 1880’s, when there were virtually no immigration restrictions? If the answer is “yes”, then having a vast bureaucracy to keep track of who comes and goes is not a necessary requirement for having “secure borders”. Agreed?

                    2. I have no idea how secure the border was before the 1880s. I am guessing it wasn’t, at all. The government can barely manage to keep up with illegals now that everyone has a fucking ID number, and there are computer databases tracking everyone’s movements. How could they hope to screen people with a criminal history, when criminal histories were weeks of travel away and easily doctored or lost?

                      I don’t like the police state any more than you do. Still, I don’t have a problem with the country keeping tabs on who is here and who isn’t. That is government prerogative, and intelligence alone is neither good nor bad. it is how it is used that matters.

                    3. So you define “secure borders” as meaning the status quo of an immigration bureaucracy. That IMO isn’t very helpful. I define “secure” as the dictionary does: not subject to threat. If there is an Army that is sufficiently equipped to repel an enemy military invasion, then I would say that the borders are secure. It isn’t necessary to keep track of everyone coming and going to have secure borders.

                      I don’t like the police state any more than you do. Still, I don’t have a problem with the country keeping tabs on who is here and who isn’t.

                      These two statements are diametrically opposite. You can’t believe in both in any consistent way.

                      So, if you had to pick one, which one would you pick?

                    4. These two statements are diametrically opposite. You can’t believe in both in any consistent way.

                      Sure I can. I don’t like the police state, but I still accept the reality they will keep tabs on people. It’s not an endorsement of what they do.

                      So, if you had to pick one, which one would you pick?

                      If it’s a choice between the Republic or anarchy, I will go with the Republic. I don’t like the idea of people being rounded up and deported, but again, they are here illegally. That’s part of the risk of being here illegally. if you want to be here for good, go the legal route. And by all means let’s make it easier for people without criminal history to come here legally, at a port of entry, after declaring themselves.

                  2. So? Explain with arguments, not insults, on why that analogy could not work on a national level

                    People ignore park rules, Jeff. ‘Park Closes At Dusk”, ‘Keep off the Grass’, ‘No Alcoholic Beverages’, ‘No Loitering’, ‘No Sleeping in Park’.

                    And that is NOT how the early republic functioned when it came to immigration.

                    The truth is, there was a time when people WEREN’T breaking down the doors to get in. The US was an empty dangerous wilderness with vengeful natives for a LOOONG time. It was torn asunder by war.

                    There was a time, Jeff, when people were SENT to America, when it was a sentence, not a privilege.

                    People FLED.

            2. A nation has a right

              Nope. Unless you believe in collective rights.

              1. It would be better worded as an obligation.

                1. That is what I meant.

              2. A nation has a right

                Nope. Unless you believe in collective rights.

                You have to word it like this–

                ‘People have a right to freely associate and cooperatively protect their territory.’

      2. Hard data about people here illegally is pretty hard to get. Still, if someone is eligible for assistance–which very likely most illegal immigrants are–the question is, are they getting it? That’s certainly not legal, so something needs to change.

        1. I agree, good data is hard to get.

          All of the studies that I have seen don’t show anything that is outrageously alarming one way or another. Undocumented migrants aren’t this huge malevolent force, and they aren’t this angelic class either. They are *just people*.

          1. No, I’m not making Trump’s argument.

            1. I didn’t say that you were, sorry if I came across that way.

              1. I meant I agreed with that part.

      3. Amd once again Jeffy confuses immigrants with illegals. On purpose? Or just that stupid?

    2. Whether we need a wall or not stem the tide of illegal immigrants–you’d think we could come up with something cheaper and more technology-driven

      *still underwhelmed by the gross lack of cattle-cars*

      1. I was thinking something a bit more benign.

  23. Dear Matt: Politicians lie.

  24. Trump haters are claiming the ‘many presidents told me they wish they had built walls’ and ‘other presidents told me I should build a wall’ comments to be lies, but they are just being Trump haters and overlooking the point that plenty of presidents could have said that — President Duterte, President Putin, President Assad, President Mugabe, President Franco, maybe even President Pinochet. There is rarely a shortage of brutal, intolerant, backward, authoritarian presidents.

    1. Arty, you do know that over sixty countries have built border walls in just the last thirty years right? With success.

      You’re only against it because that’s what you’ve been ordered to think.

      1. “over sixty countries have built border walls in just the last thirty years”

        This sounds like a very Trumpian statistic. Got some evidence for this claim?

      2. Whatever happened to American exceptionalism?

      3. Also, here we have yet again another example of border restrictionists deferring to the examples of other countries as a model for how America ought to operate.

        1. Also, here we have yet again another example of border restrictionists deferring to the examples of other countries as a model for how America ought to operate.

          True, America shouldn’t act like trash-infested shitholes of Central America.

          1. trash-infested shitholes

            And it’s comments like these why people hurl around the accusations of racism, bigotry and xenophobia.

          2. True, America shouldn’t act like trash-infested shitholes of Central America.

            Mississippi . . . West Virginia . . . Idaho . . . Wyoming . . . Alabama . . . North Dakota . . . South Dakota . . . Utah . . . Oklahoma . . .

            1. I know you’re just a troll, but it’s still a shame you get such a joy out of hating America

  25. *looks around*

    Meh.

    In fact, according to an NBC News report yesterday, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered only six immigrants at ports of entry on the U.S-Mexico border in the first half of fiscal year 2018 whose names were on a federal government list of known or suspected terrorists

    He Welched and he squelched and he gave us information immaterial to a physical border barrier. I am not a wall supporter (primarily because I think it would be ineffective and be a federal spending boondoggle), but dood…your argument is wanting.

  26. And all of this caterwauling about the wall really begs a question:

    Is something like the Berlin Wall *really* something that this country ought to aspire to?

    1. something something keep people in keep people out. Nilreb Wall.

    2. Well, who was fenced in, then?

    3. You should aspire to be less disingenuous.

    4. The Nerlin Wallkept it’s own citizens in. This wall is to keep illegals out who won’t respect our sovereignty.

      Of course, Little Jeffy can’t understamd how those things are differemt. He thinks it’s like letting citizens into a park.

  27. There is an old saying, “how do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving!”
    So why is Trump’s lying different than any other politicians?
    Obama never lied? GW Bush never lied? Clinton never lied? (LOL) Reagan ever lied?

  28. If you’re OK with politicians lying, you can’t be taken seriously.

    If you don’t value truth, what could you possibly have to say that anyone needs to hear.

    1. If it were up to me, impeachment would happen at least once a month. And that’s only at the federal level.

      1. Imagine if the political class were treated like ordinary mortals.

      2. love this.

        1. In the old days of Hit & Run, I used to advocate a fourth branch for sole purpose of removing bad actors from the federal government–the Censor. Not sure how that would work, but more checks on power would be a good thing, I deem.

          1. once-a-month Saturday appointment for all 535. oversight. nobody would want the jobs then, oh wait

            1. Do it remotely, by random lot.

              1. I like it. The odds of voting out an Amash or a Massie are fairly low. There are just so many old fucks cluttering the halls of Congress, that it can only improve the situation.

  29. I WONT DO WHAT YOU DO AND CALL YOU LIARS BUT

    This is a site of Leftist OPEN BORDERS Anarchists!!

    Illegal alien numbers – Youve been lied to for decades!
    ALL media sources repeat the same old media/political lie of only 11-12 illegal aliens in the USA!! Whenever these politicians and their media regurgitate these numbers you will know them for their cover up!!
    2008 – Univision(Spanish) boasted 50 million
    2010 – Retired INS M. Cutler writes of 40-50 million would receive amnesty if granted..
    2012 – Debbie Schlussel writes of 40 million..
    CAPS Study 2007 reports 20 – 38 million..
    2016 – Coulter writes of 60 million invaders already here

    1. +100

    2. 60 million invaders already here

      And at any minute the President of Mexico will go on all US TV channels and hold up the Queen of Diamonds, triggering them to complete their mission.

      1. Cost America more money and effort to deal with these illegal non-Americans?

        Mission…Check.

      2. The Quesadilla Candidates?

    3. “This is a site of Leftist OPEN BORDERS Anarchists!!”

      I don’t know what idiot pundit is linking to this site, but there has been more than one stranger who’s wandered into this thread and talked about open borders in terms of anarchism–seemingly as if “anarcho-capitalist” were synonymous with “pro-open borders”.

      Whoever is using the word “anarchists” or “libertarian-anarchists” or “anarcho-capitalists” as if the terms were interchangeable with “open borders” is way off. Plenty of anarcho-capitalists are far to the right of Donald Trump on immigration. If you don’t understand that, it’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about when you’re talking about anarcho-capitalism.

      1. Here’s an example of what one anarcho-capitalist thinks about open borders:

        “Left-libertarians are typically ardent advocates in particular of a policy of ‘free and non-discriminatory’ immigration. If they criticize the State’s immigration policy, it is not for the fact that its entry restrictions are the wrong restrictions, i.e., that they do not serve to protect the property rights of domestic citizens, but for the fact that it imposes any restrictions on immigration at all.

        But on what grounds should there be a right to un-restricted, “free” immigration? No one has a right to move to a place already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by the present occupant. And if all places are already occupied, all migration is migration by invitation only.

        http://www.lewrockwell.com/201…..tarianism/

        I am neither an anarchist nor an anarcho-capitalist. I just don’t play progressive word games. You certainly won’t get anywhere calling people names when they aren’t what you say they are–and libertarian anarchists clearly are not what you’ve been told.

        1. I used to describe bands like Electric Wizard as being “more Black Sabbath than Black Sabbath”.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaMbKZPBruU

          In terms of immigration, Anarcho-Capitalists on the right are more Donald Trump than Donald Trump.

  30. Just looking at the title of “Trump will probably lie” is like pundits and pols saying they don’t know if he is a criminal, or not. I understand hesitancy to state the obvious, a political caution. But, and Trump’s head jester says :”Truth isn’t truth” and Donny doesn’t care about the truth. (Nor the teachings of Jesus; but that’s another story, no?). Probably? I predict a good laugh. Hurts too much to cry.

  31. New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio Announces ‘Health Care For All’ Program In New York City- Daily Wire

    Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes healthcare mandate, Medi-Cal expansion to more immigrants without legal status- LA Times

    Fatten them up on welfare, grant them amnesty and $15 an hour wages, and you’ve got your next batch of democrat voters. Just like the low IQ, fat, impoverished losers who voted disproportionately for Clinton.

    Keep ignoring reality you open borders morons. You’ll get taxed out the ass by democrats whether your heads in the sand or not. And I’ll be here, also taxed out the ass, to say I told you so.

    1. Fatten them up on welfare, grant them amnesty and $15 an hour wages, and you’ve got your next batch of democrat voters. Just like the low IQ, fat, impoverished losers who voted disproportionately for Clinton.

      Democrats have been running the same GIBSMEDAT playbook for 150 years, while the open borders crowd pretends it never happened.

  32. Trump using executive order to build the wall is no different than the way Obama pushed through ACA. It’s an abuse of power and one of the problems with the Executive Branch. Congress has abdicated it’s responsibilities and allowed the office of the Presidency to do whatever it wishes. Unfortunately, the only concern Congress has is it’s own existence.

    1. The ACA was a law passed by Congress.

      1. In violation of the US Constitution.

        1. And upheld by the SC on the thinnest of rationales: semantics.

          1. While the ACA was an example of hyper partisan politics, and Obama ruled much like a dictator for years, it is also true that declaring things emergencies and going around Congress already has a long and storied American tradition that Trump is no more inventing today than Obama invented executive orders yesterday.

          2. It was not upheld on a rational basis. It was unconstitutionally upheld on a lie.

            1. Like I said, it was semantics; or, when a tax is not a tax (but actually is a tax). We have Roberts to blame, if memory serves.

  33. Matt Welch and the other hacks in the media will lie.

    Fight fire with fire.

  34. Open borders into welfare states= rationing=feudal corporatism. See Californias ‘rolling blackouts’ and the latest extending cali medicaid to illegal immigrants.

    If the American taxpayer doesn’t deserve security then wealthy Democrats (Hollywood, Silicon Valley, looking at you) should be banned from putting up fences around their estates. No secret service for politicians. No airport security. No armed guards. No elevator cards in expensive high rises in big cities. No iron fences that come down after dark in NYC. The same virtue signaling NIMBYs that have the yard signs “you’re welcome in my $3million and up neighborhood.

    Why is it controversial to want security?

    1. Open border types will gladly allow democrats to remove their individual rights via welfare and amnesty than fight for the individual rights of the citizenry. They will fight for non-americans as if the people who live here mean jack shit. They refuse to acknowledge, given welfare and open borders, the certain death of western civilization. They’ll say I’m crazy, despite democrats openly loving socialism.

      Republicans are the only hope to keep this system alive, but Trump says mean things so he must be stopped.

      The good news for them is that there will be plenty of time to virtue signal while standing in the bread line

  35. You mad bro? What numbers would you prefer him use? Yours? Exactly.

    Obama would never have twisted numbers to fit his narrative.

    1. No shit.

      Weird play by Matt.

  36. No reasonable person can conclude we do not need much better control of illegal immigrants in this country.

    1. Reason staffers would disagree.

    2. Good to hear those old fashioned conservative arguments for bigger government.

      1. What, you never heard that it’s Democrats job to pass pie-in-the-sky legislation and it’s Republicans job to make them work?

        You might spend a moment recalling the original architects of the modern state were…the same Wilsonian-styled progressives that reside in the Democrat party today. Not to mention the one’s in the Republican party, of course, where they are only around half the party.

    3. control is strong word.

  37. Trump Will Probably Lie About Immigration Tonight

    Presumably this means you’ll be offering him an editorial position? He’ll fit right in!

  38. Wow, open border globalist libertarians have TDS just as bad as the Liberals. OK, in recent times which President has reduced the size of the regulatory state? Which one speaks (and tries) to reduce the size of the military and the commitments? And the amazing Karnak knows the future, predicting a President will lie. Which President has kept the most campaign promises?

  39. I guess Ron Singh was killed by one of those lies.
    So even lies can be dangerous.
    But not as dangerous as yet another open borders schill for the Koch Bros.

    And regarding immigrant’s use of “social services,” even the liberal Politifact ranked the claim that “55 percent of immigrants in California on welfare” as HALF TRUE before grudgingly admitting that “The Current Population Survey found a lower amount, that 41 percent of immigrant households in California relied on welfare.”
    If you’re going to claim to be truly libertarian, then you CANNOT push for open borders without ALSO requiring ZERO BENEFITS.

  40. The fact is that illegals and other border dealings are a much bigger cost to the society than 4 plane-crash lendings in 2001. Even if the motivation is not the same, I admit, the damage is recurrent, permanent and always costlier.

  41. And let’s borrow from the left’s argument about the 2nd and desired abolition; if that wall can save one life, only one life, it’s worth it.

  42. At least someone is concerned about the National Security implications of an open-borders policy.

  43. One thing you have to give Trump credit for, he makes his political enemies dance on puppet strings. He hasn’t even given his speech yet, and already reason declares him a liar. And almost 300 comments, on a speech not yet given. Admittedly, half are from someone named chemjeffradicalindividualist, presumably, the chief puppet. But still . . .

  44. Schumer and Pelosi look like they’re being propped up by mops.

    Weird looking duo.

    1. Pelosi mentioned “border infrastructure”… what does she mean by that? you mean like a wall? oh, you mean gateways to entry? What’s on both sides of the gate?

      1. Pelosi mentioned “border infrastructure”… what does she mean by that?

        WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

        you mean like a wall?

        A wall is only one of many parts, in a total infrastructure!

        oh, you mean gateways to entry?

        Goober ADMITS being dumber than even Pelosi!
        Obviously a Trumpster. LOL

  45. it began within the first 20 seconds, and got crazier …. (yawn)

  46. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you …….

    http://www.geosalary.com

  47. As many have said, and many ignored..we are talking illegal immigration (i.e. crossing our border without going through the proper channels). Should that be controlled? Yes, we are a country after all and have borders. As a country we can’t afford to have fully open borders. Really what affect would having several million maybe 10’s of million more people here have on our economy? Not enough jobs already.

    The real fight in Washington about this, isn’t that it is a wall on our boarder, it is that Trump wants to do it. Most Dem leaders argued for close to the same thing in the past. But, because Trump, they are against it.

    I’m not a Trump fan but I find the level of hypocrisy being shown as funny/sad.

  48. Ya know, this would come across with a lot more oomph if Reason didn’t constantly outright lie and distort the numbers THEY use when talking up certain subjects they support, like open borders.

    It is usually lies of omission, or only telling half a truth, that sort of thing. Or sometimes just not putting things in proper context, because if they did it would sound a lot less appealing.

    For instance, lumping all immigrants, legal and illegal, together when talking about crime rates. Also, since there is that one study or whatever that showed even illegals were lower crime than your “average American,” in that case what they don’t say says it all. That “average American” figure of course includes native born blacks and Hispanics. Native born blacks far and away have the highest crime rates. 50% of murders and only 12% of the population! Impressive! Hispanics are ~16% of the population, and 35% of murders.

    Thing is, what any sensible person means by “illegals moved in, and crime went up” is that it got worse than before. Which is ABSOLUTELY true. Unless illegals are displacing a black ghetto, which they did just that by running most of the blacks out of Compton and other parts of SoCal, the truth is crime WILL skyrocket when they move in. I’m part Mexican myself and from California, I’ve seen it first hand. Hispanics are the 2nd worst crime group in America! FACT.

    1. They’ve said illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they use… An obvious lie. They MAY contribute more in SSI, MAYBE, if using a false social. Maybe. But it is a well known fact that in the USA you need to make $50-60K a year to be a net positive tax payer on average, and almost no illegal immigrant households make that money. Selective use of facts, to give an impression totally contrary to what looking at ALL the facts would.

      Or endless other similar distortions or outright lies. If you can’t trot out even the down sides of your argument, properly rebut them, and still have a convincing argument… YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT.

      Such is the case for open borders.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.