Donald Trump

Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Block the Drug ‘Pipeline’

The president's Oval Office address was misleading.

|

Polaris/Newscom

During his nationally televised Oval Office address Tuesday night, President Donald Trump made the case for more immigration control. Central to his argument was that drugs are flowing into the United States across the southern border. His favored solution: Build the wall.

There's just one problem. Building a wall would do very little to stop drugs from coming into the country. "Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl," Trump said. "Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border."

He's not completely wrong: As The New York Times notes (citing a 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment), most of the heroin smuggled into the country does come in via the southern border with Mexico.

But it's not coming in the knapsacks of border jumpers. "For the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year, 90 percent of the heroin intercepted at the border and 88 percent of the cocaine, was captured at a legal port of entry rather than between those ports," USA Today explains, citing Customs and Border Protection data.

Even if the wall gets built, legal ports of entry aren't going away. Most smugglers aren't trying to hop across in the first place; they're trying to sneak contraband by manned border posts. A border wall likely won't change this.

It's also worth noting that, according to the Times, most black market fentanyl comes into the U.S. from China. As Trump's own opioid commission reported in November 2017: "We are losing this fight [against fentanyl] predominately through China."

Trump's attempt to rally support for his border wall by warning of the drugs flowing into the country isn't anything new. He famously kicked off his 2016 campaign by claiming Mexican immigrants were "bringing drugs" into the country.

Conflating the war on illegal immigration with the war on drugs creates a perfect storm for the violation of civil liberties and the expenditure of huge amounts of money, and all for very little gain. Building a wall would involve, among other things, spending tens of billions of dollars and seizing private property. Yet it's an ineffective solution for keeping out both the illegal immigrants and the drugs the president hopes to block.

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.

146 responses to “Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Block the Drug ‘Pipeline’

  1. What, no ideas? Just complaining.p

    1. Exactly. Reason fucking blows…

      “Yet it’s an ineffective solution for keeping out both the illegal immigrants and the drugs the president hopes to block.”

      So what IS an effective strategy at doing those, reason?!

      Or is that why you put the “president hopes to block” part? Because libertarians aren’t supposed to think this way, or that borders even exist, except on our own private property?

      PROPOSE A FUCKING SOLUTION REASON, QUIT YOUR BITCHING AND PROPOSE SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE.

      Honestly i dont know why i continue to read your whining drivel. No wonder lbertarianism can’t take hold, our power players in the movement are too good at bitching and too piss poor at solving problems to try anything else it seems.

      1. If a burgler really wants in locked doors are not much of an impediment, so why lock them?

        1. The wall is just a part of the solution. The $5.6 billion is for more than the wall. Technology and personnel to detect drug smuggling at the ports of entry are part of the package. The better job you do of detecting drugs at the port of entry the more they will try to smuggle elsewhere. The reduction in cost to the US from the humans crossing the border will more than pay for the wall. The wall is only part of the solution but a very very critical part. Current cost of illegal immigration is over $100 billion per year!

    2. The status quo is a better idea than the wall.

      If those who advocated for the wall actually gave a shit about actual illegal migration (or legal migration for that matter), then they would see that – AND come up with at least a ton of better ideas than both the wall or the status quo.

      But what has become clear is that the wall ain’t about migration at all. It’s about kicking poor brown people around and pretending that that is a defense of America. I hated that easy lazy BS accusation of racism for the last couple decades because all it did was stifle discussion of immigration. But the last couple years – it’s become very clear that racism is the core of that wall obsession.

      1. You could not be more wrong.
        “Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.”

        https://n.pr/2M0XwPw

        A wall is a very important component of blocking illegal immigration. Leaving the border open has caused a major humanitarian crisis. The annual cost of illegal immigration to the US is over $100 billion.

      2. Lol. No, i just value my brown, educated, hard working, went about their immigration and naturalization the proper way, want to live, work, and pay taxes in America, Argentinian relatives over a bunch of uneducated, ignorant, don’t want to pay taxes here Latin Americans who are just looking for a free hand out or to engage in criminal activity.

        And every illegal who comes/came STEALS resources and time from people like my relatives who are trying to do it properly, by the law.

        So fuck off with your racism bullshit. You’re ignorance is fucking astounding.

    3. A: “I’ve got hair growing out of my ears. I need to cut my nose off.”

      B: “Cutting your nose off will not help.”

      A: “You’ve got no ideas. Just complaining.”

    4. Conflating the war on illegal immigration with the war on drugs creates a perfect storm for the violation of civil liberties and the expenditure of huge amounts of money, and all for very little gain.

      What “civil liberties”?
      Criminal invaders don’t have any “civil liberties”. They may have a right not to be shot with hollow-point bullets, or gassed with mustard gas (Geneva Convention), but aside from that – they have NO rights.

      So use FMJ rounds in those machine guns. Make sure the bombs you drop on them aren’t “cluster bombs”. And the minefields you put down for them? Make sure you can deactivate them later.

      That’s all.

      Outside of that – KILL THEM ALL!

  2. Trump’s speech was amazing! To the point, and addressed the tough issues head on! I only wish it were longer and more in depth… The wall won’t stop everything, but nothing can. For now though, it’s our best shot at putting this country first.

    1. Or at the least, providing job opportunities for bricklayers

      1. You know who’s real good at laying bricks?

        1. Pink Floyd?

        2. Tony, when he bangs a rough trick named ‘Brick’?

    2. It was never claimed that the wall would solve every problem. That’s just a straw man that the looney left likes to beat off to.

      But if it solves 25% of the criminal invader problem, that means we break even in one year. (A $25 billion wall versus the cost to America of $100 billion+ for criminal invaders.)

  3. “Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Block the Drug ‘Pipeline'”

    Of course not. But it will make an appreciable marginal difference.

    1. Obviously I think drugs should be legalized anyway… But with respect to drugs AND illegal immigrants, what many autistic libertarians seem to miss is that something doesn’t have to be 100% effective TO BE WORTH IT.

      If building a wall cuts down on illegal immigration by 5-10% even, it will pay for itself in a matter of a few years view taxpayer savings, since low skill immigrants never contribute enough to cover their fair share of schools, roads, etc.

      1. low skill immigrants never contribute enough to cover their fair share of schools, roads, etc

        Even if they don’t have kids or cars, as many don’t? The numbers for what illegal immigrants cost taxpayers, net, are still in dispute, but I don’t think anyone who has looked at them at all seriously claims that a 10% to 15% reduction would fully pay for the wall.

        1. Run through the math dude. I’m not talking any random individual. There is probably some illegal immigrant out there who makes 1 million bucks a year, and pays a ton of taxes with a fake SSN. HE IS NOT THE NORM.

          Using all averages, we know what the average income is. We know the average number of children. If you want to keep it really simple, simply consider that the average American is a net negative tax payer until they earn $50-60K a year in income… This is a widely known guesstimate based on typical taxes, deductions, and usage of services. That is about DOUBLE what the average illegal immigrant household makes. AND they have MORE kids on average than Americans to boot.

          Autistic focusing on individuals makes many libertarians miss the point that when one is dealing with large scale issues, sometimes the averages are the only sensible way to fly.

          And on average, illegals are a big net loser, just as all native born poor are.

          Which is why I say let in as many Mexican doctors and engineers as want to come here! But not so much with the dish washers that barely passed 6th grade, in a foreign language to boot. THAT is the way to take the libertarian, case by case, judge an individual on their merits route.

          Anybody who doesn’t make $50-60K a year WILL be a burden on native born Americans.

      2. Trump is holding everything hostage for at best this at “marginal” bullshit waste and massive disruption of landowners on the border. You don’t negotiate with dishonest hostage takers especially after you had negotiated a deal which had been accepted. Even if Trump was right the way he went about it makes it impossible to accept.

        1. “If building a wall cuts down on illegal immigration by 5-10% even, it will pay for itself in a matter of a few years view taxpayer savings, since low skill immigrants never contribute enough to cover their fair share of schools, roads, etc.”

          Care to include any data to support your claim?

          1. Meant in response to vek

          2. Care to use any common sense?

          3. See average cost to educate a child in the USA. $156K from K-12. They say around 300K a year cross via the border. If that went down 30K a year, it will be 300K over a decade. From average family size, that may be slightly over 50% children at the end of the day. That’s about 23.4 BILLION to educate those children from K-12.

            Let’s not get into the fact that 73% of Hispanic headed households in America use some form of welfare… Which is far higher than any group, other than blacks.

            I could go on for ages. The bottom line is these people shouldn’t be coming here. We don’t need millions more illiterate dish washers in a post industrial economy.

            As I said above, ALL people who make less than $50-60K a year are net negative tax payers, including legal immigrants, and native born. So why in fucks name should a tax paying American want to allow in people that are guaranteed to pay in less in taxes than their share of government spending?

            It is lunacy. We wonder why our taxes keep going up, yet things seem to fall apart more… It is this right here. The number of net payers to net users has dramatically shifted over the last few decades. Low skilled immigration is a large part of this.

            Immigrants in general are more likely to use welfare than native born people. It is a MASSIVE difference if you look at the subsets by ethnicity too… European and Asians of course being the lowest use, blacks and Hispanics being the 2 with the most use. Reality isn’t prog friendly… Sorry.

        2. “You don’t negotiate with dishonest hostage takers especially after you had negotiated a deal which had been accepted”

          Correct. In the same way the dems deserved huge punishment for the way they conducted themselves during the Kavanaugh hearings (honestly, they deserved worse than losing a couple senate seats for how they acted and so close to the election), Trump deserves the same for the erratic and frankly embarrassing negotiating he has attempted on the wall/immigration endeavor.

          No one in any business or transaction would do business with someone that conducted themselves in this manner. Going back on agreements, claiming you will take responsibility (on both immigration reform and the govt shutdown) and then immediately blaming the opposing party as soon as something goes south, and supporting your argument with mostly lies. Most people get this kind of behavior out of their system in early childhood. It has to be scolded appropriately. Taking one of his toys away will have to be a start.

    2. I suspect that it will not make a marginal difference — drug smugglers will simply shift that 10% and rely on the major means they currently use instead. Trump’s logic is a bit odd. If there is a crisis of drug smuggling, it makes more sense to devise ways of tackling the major means of smuggling, not investing billions in a 10+ year wall project to create a “marginal difference.”

  4. Never going to stop the drugs with wall or anything else. Even the stuff you find is no indication that you are doing anything. The cartels don’t care if they lose some product along the way.

    The only solution is to reduce the demand.

    Most of the fentalyl is delivered by the USPS.

  5. Mr Setyon, you work for Reason, which I would hope means that you are at least capable of debating at a high school level. You are rebutting Trump’s claim that the wall will stem the traffic of drugs into this country by saying most drugs that we seize are discovered at legal points of entry (i.e. manned border crossings, ports, airports, etc).

    Well. No. Shit.

    The place where we are able to force people to go through heightened scrutiny is the place where we find people smuggling drugs. I often catch my kids trying to take extra desert at the dinner table. Not in a million years would I assume that this means the only place my kids get sugar bombs is at the dinner table. They have far more opportunities to get sugar at school, or other times when I am not watching them.

    The obvious rejoinder to Setyon’s facts about drug seizure is “Great! Supervised crossings make it easier to discover smugglers. Let’s make it harder for drug traffickers to bypass those control points by building a wall that impedes their ability to enter unsupervised!”

    Setyon, you could have taken issue with the drug war in general. You could have looked for examples of how a 2000+ mile border wall can still be bypassed by tunnels, drones, water delivery and other mechanisms. Instead you use a factoid that is a non-sequitur at best and ammunition for wall builders at worst. Don’t let the Hit and Run format tempt you to lazy debating. It does everyone a disservice.

    1. A wall will stem drugs, not because it’s impenetrable, but because traffickers (and the migrants who hire them) are running a business.

      A wall makes it harder and more costly to cross in the wilderness. Traffickers will have to resort to more port of entry crossings, where we have more Border Patrol agents. That means less border crossings in the desert, less sick migrants and kids, less people stuffed in box trucks. And it’ll decrease harmful, hard-core drugs from getting through.

      1. That means less border crossings in the desert

        There aren’t many border crossings in the deep desert (like far from roads) any more. How do we know? Because we already have sensors there. But hey let’s build wall there cuz nothing makes stupid people jump up and down more vigorously than the thought of building a useless fucking wall in remote places and god knows Americans sure need the exercise.

      2. “A wall makes it harder and more costly to cross in the wilderness. Traffickers will have to resort to more port of entry crossings, where we have more Border Patrol agents.”

        Except you don’t need people to cross, just the drugs. All you need is a water balloon launcher and someone to catch the drugs on the other side. Your wall will do nothing to stop the influx of drugs arcoss the border. Probably actually make it easier.

    2. I of course favor legalizing drugs anyway… But

      “You could have looked for examples of how a 2000+ mile border wall can still be bypassed by tunnels, drones, water delivery and other mechanisms.”

      This is the whole point. If you make it more of a pain in the ass, more expensive, more time consuming… This will have the obvious effect of discouraging SOME PERCENT of people from doing it. If it is even a few percent it will pay for itself money wise in no time at all. If, god forbid, it cut it down some large amount, like 40-50%, it would be enough to radically transform how a lot of things are going in this country for the better.

      1. This will have the obvious effect of discouraging SOME PERCENT of people from doing it. If it is even a few percent it will pay for itself money wise in no time at all

        This is not a given. The wall costs a lot per mile to build, and to maintain. There is no guarantee that any savings (In what? Police enforcement? Drug deaths?) will outweigh those costs.

        Indeed, this has been the argument for sending military “advisors” to places like Columbia in the past, and yet we still have illegal drugs in the US upwards of 3 decades later. These “investments” of supply side drug interdiction have surely cost the suppliers some, but eventually they move to other areas or do something else to bypass the interdiction, while we continue to pay those costs. In such scenarios, we continue paying the costs of interdiction long after the suppliers move on. Where there is demand, drug trafficking always finds a way when the black market makes it lucrative. And any impact to supply just makes the market that much more lucrative.

        I appreciate the points though. My complaint was Setyon’s bad debating. Like you, I would prefer an end to drug prohibition.

        1. Well, I’m not concerned about the drugs. But in terms of the PEOPLE coming over, see some of my posts above.

          Just the cost of educating the children of illegals alone could more than pay for the wall, since we spend such insane amounts on education. Throw in all the other stuff they’re too poor to be covering, and it’s a no brainer. The same is true for all native born poor, the difference being we are stuck with the native born poor.

          To me it is a lot like this: You might be born with a kid that ends up being a blow it case drug addict loser. You’re stuck with them. That DOES NOT morally mean you are obligated to go out and ADOPT, and then bear the burden of parenting some random drug addict.

          We’re stuck with our native born problems, but why import more? I’m part beaner myself, and this is 110% my outlook on the whole thing. Let the Mexican doctors in, but not the illiterate dish washers.

  6. Drones though

    1. I think we could all agree on drones.

      My Border Collie idea has not been met with much enthusiasm.

  7. 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.Mesalary.com

    1. For just small pesos Mesalary will adjust lifestyle of 64 bit high spamwall guarding borders of Reason.

    2. For just small pesos Mesalary will adjust lifestyle of 64 bit high spamwall guarding borders of Reason.

  8. Amazing, isn’t it. Its hard to think of any duty a government has more fundamental than securing the border yet its Armageddon to even try to get this relative pittance. If only the so called libertarians could apply the same energy they have opposing this to the hundreds of other far more wasteful and expensive programs they pretend to oppose.

    1. Many people who,oppose the wall are against it because they love illegal immigration, and don’t want it to stop.

      1. thats the real reason..all this collective wasted gas across the media over effectiveness or cost or pretty much anything else is just cover. Heck they’d love something that wasn’t effective

      2. Yup.

        If these lunatics win, and America continues on its current trajectory immigration wise… These people are going to be feeling REALLY fucking stupid when America is a socialist third world country in a few decades. Not to mention that all the non whites are rabidly racist against white people, which proggy whites tend to be the loudest voices in favor of open borders, and that little tid bit ain’t gonna do them any favors when whites are a hated minority.

        If these assholes win, I hope they get murdered in a dark alley by one of their oh so great half illiterate immigrants. This issue, probably more than any other, will decide the future of this nation.

        1. Fuck off racist. If you think Mexicans coming here to work are going to turn this country into a third world socialist country then you better just stay home clutching your AR. You’re nothing more than a fear peddler.

          1. Mexicans? If it were only Mexicans it wouldn’t be much of an issue.

            1. Okay, primarily Mexicans and maybe some people from other central american countries. Why does it make a difference? MS-13? It’s a bunch fearmongering, perl clutching, bullshit, but feel free to fear for your life and stay at home. The fact is, mexican and latin america people are not our enemies (yet), despite your best attempts. However, keep trying and you might become successful.

          2. Firs off, LOL. You stupid fucking cunt… I’m part Mexican myself retard! I’m also part Native on the other side of my family. I tan bro.

            The fact is, if I could lock you in a basement for a week, and show you some small fraction of the videos I’ve watched, statistics I have read, etc I could convince you I am right. But you’re too terrified to actually look at a lot of the real world evidence, and instead cling to utopian dreams of what SHOULD happen, versus what DOES happen.

            NO ethnic group in the USA holds either majority conservative OR libertarian views, except white people. They never have, and show no signs of ever doing so. It is a HOPE that they will, but there is no evidence to back it. It’s wishful thinking, or perhaps delusion, on your part. Demographically we’re destined to go to the left with current trends.

            This is the socialism.

            The ethnic strife bit comes from the fact that whites dominate all areas of importance, sharing that perch with the small Jewish and Asian ethnic groups. This makes all the other ethnic groups envious. They outright hate white people. If you don’t believe me, go look up black power groups, La Raza… Or hell, just follow some leftists on Twitter. They’re coming out and publicly saying they hate white people already, and we’re still the majority population!

            If you think it will get BETTER when we’re a minority, that we’ll be treated nicely by these groups that hate us all of a sudden… LOL

            1. See Africa, and everywhere else after decolonization. They either strongly dislike whites, and have passed tons of laws to specifically fuck them, or they outright hate them, and often times kill them.

              In South Africa they have affirmative action FOR THE MAJORITY BLACK POPULATION! And the black on white crime rate is through the roof, so bad they stopped collecting statistics on a lot of crimes.

              The intentional fleecing and tribal ethnic warfare will only escalate as the number of non whites increases. The rainbow coalition will fall apart too, having blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc at each others throats before long too. With no one group calling the shots, it will be everybody for themselves. South Africa has this with whites, Indians, mulattos, and full on black people all fighting with each other politically.

              NO multi cultural society has ever had shit all of stability. At least not without forcing it at the point of a spear, and even then it’s a constant problem, and usually causes them to collapse. You’re living in fantasy land.

            2. 3rd world country in general… Well the ethnic strife/socialism will help put us there, but the low quality of many of immigrants will do the rest. Especially if we ever get anything even close to true open borders. With the current trajectory, we might end up merely being 2nd world… Like Mexico is now.

              believe if we only let in educated ( not bitter lower class) immigrants things might go differently. But as is we’re not. With illegals it’s basically getting the equivalent of if some country was ONLY getting trailer park trash moving in from the USA… Which is to say, not the cream of the crop. Middle class, educated Mexicans mostly stay in Mexico.

              Average illegal from Mexico has an 8th grade education. Central America is even lower. Legal immigrants are better, but we still allow in a lot of sub par family members that are not adding anything to the country.

              So how you expect to have a 1st world nation, when you have massive numbers of uneducated 3rd worlders is beyond me… In a best case scenario, we will have generations of trouble, that eventually works itself out on the education front. In a worst case scenario, these cultures within the US remain dysfunctional indefinitely, like the black community. Either way is a shit show that could be avoided by only allowing in educated immigrants.

              Now please go fuck yourself.

    2. Always focus on the individual.

    3. If libertarians more forcefully opposed green energy loans and government-backed student loans during the Obama years, we’d now have the money ($4 billion +$36 billion) to build several border walls, along with lower tuition costs for all.

      But many would rather argue against the one thing that government is supposed to do in libertarian philosophy: provide for a national defense.

      1. Don’t you love it when conservatives try to lecture libertarians about libertarian philosophy?

      2. “But many would rather argue against the one thing that government is supposed to do in libertarian philosophy: provide for a national defense.”

        Except it does…and the for the rest of the world too. Where have you been for the past 80 years?

    4. “Securing the border” doesn’t mean “Have an elaborate bureaucracy dedicated to keeping track of everyone moving in and out”. It just means having a military which is equipped enough to repel a military invasion from a foreign power. And we have that, many times over.

      1. But you’re okay with having open borders? Which means you are okay with allowing every 1st world country on earth cease to exist… Because 1st world nations with open borders cannot continue to exist in a world where the vast majority of people have elementary school educations, and low economic value. Period.

        Anybody who advocates open borders is advocating turning the USA/Europe/etc into a nation that resembles Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, etc. Those nations all have a small elite with lots of wealth, a modest middle class with FAR less wealth than in American/Europe now, and a shit ton of poor people. That is the only possible outcome of open borders in the world today.

        That’s not even counting the cultural and ethnic strife true open borders would cause. NEWS FLASH: Everybody BUT white people is still suuuuuper into doing what is best for THEIR people, and not giving a fuck about other groups. Endless ethnic infighting, as we already have, and which Japan has completely avoided, will be the order of the day.

        1. But you’re okay with having open borders? Which means you are okay with allowing every 1st world country on earth cease to exist…

          But you’re okay with having closed borders? Which means you are okay with immiserating the entire rest of the planet while a Western elite exploits them all….

          See I can come up with hyperbolic hypotheticals too!

          I am in favor of free people exercising their liberty to do what they believe in their own best interests, consistent with the NAP.

          1. But you’re okay with having closed borders? Which means you are okay with immiserating the entire rest of the planet while a Western elite exploits them all

            Thank you for admitting you think brown people are more easily exploitable and therefore entitled to free shit from whitey. Your soft bigotry of low expectations is just as racist as anyone with a white hood

          2. The difference is Jeff, I don’t give a fuck about the NAP in this instance. In 99% of cases the NAP creates a clearly positive real world result. Open borders is one where the practical, real world outcome will be fucking garbage for people in 1st world nations. It will be great for illiterate people from 3rd world countries, but I say fuck them.

            America built itself up on its own merits. My ancestors (the white ones!) conquered this land from my other ancestors (the native ones!), and then built the most prosperous civilization in world history via blood, sweat, and tears.

            So has Japan, Korea, and now China, and a number of other nations. Let the ones that are still shitholes get their own act together. I feel no moral obligation to ruin my own life, the lives of my posterity, and all the other current citizens, just so some people in 3rd world countries can avoid having to do the hard work of making their own countries nice.

            I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE NAP. And neither does anybody else, other than a few dogmatic libertarians.

            Progs want this because they know it will fuck up the country, but believe in the original sin doctrine that whites need to atone for being more badass than everybody else. They think we OWE making our lives worse to these people, because it will help them out. To which I say fuck that shit. Forced altruism is bullshit.

            1. If I have to choose between open borders and being a 3rd world country, and limited immigration and being a 1st world country… I say fuck open borders. So do most people. The only reason half the people that support low skilled immigration are in favor of it is because they’ve been systematically lied to about the effects it has had, and the long term implications. But I think a lot of people are beginning to really visualize what the future will look like if we stay on this trajectory. Hopefully we’ll turn it around.

              If not, at least it looks like Japan and some parts of Europe have said “Fuck this shit!” and will remain cohesive socities. I may well have to move to one of those places someday if America goes down the tubes.

              And white elites aren’t keeping the foreigners down anymore… That’s been their own ineptitude for the last several decades. See South Korea for the way to do things right.

  9. 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

  10. The wall purpose should be to block the thousands of people coming to seek jobs that do not qualify for asylum. This influx is hurting America. Illegals take jobs from tax payers, cost money in benefits and schooling costs while contributing little or nothing. Another thing never mentioned is they send a lot of money out of the country, hurting our economy. If the wall can slow down or stop these illegals it will be worth the costs.

    We have to decide if we are a nation of laws or not. If not, we can save a lot of money by just opening the border and having no border security at all, just let everyone and anyone enter.

    1. Indeed, I wish he’d left out the drug war BS, and just focused like a laser on that point.

    2. So let me ask you something. If I’m an American employer, do I have an obligation to hire only other Americans at my firm? If so, from where does this obligation arise?

      1. In the real world, there are LAWS that cover this. You can hire foreigners, provided they can legally work here.

        It’s not the purist libertarian position… But it is the reality. I think we should majorly revamp work visas, allowing far more people with skilled professions to work here.

        The thing is, we don’t need more half illiterate foreigners washing dishes. We have the lowest labor force participation rate in decades still. Wages have been suppressed all the way up into middle class job territory, especially blue collar middle class jobs.

        Open borders nonsense may make sense in a purist libertarian context, but in the real world it has a whole fuck ton of results that 95% of people consider negative. Frankly, I don’t give a shit what the purist position is, since in the REAL WORLD my taxes are jacked up by importing more low wage illiterates. Fuck these people. We should deport 100% of them, including those DACA fucks. Let them go fix their own shit hole countries.

        1. So your position is that Americans’ rights should not be respected, if those Americans foolishly choose to exercise them associating with undesirable people like “low wage illiterates”. Is that it?

        2. I think I could probably find plenty of anti-fa activists who would happily agree with you that Americans’ rights to associate with “undesirable” people should be suppressed by the state.

        3. I mean, we don’t really NEED white nationalist/alt-right/Nazi marches and protests and demonstrations. Why should WE permit them? They are undesirable people who don’t deserve protections like freedom of association with other Americans. Why not just shut the whole thing down?

        4. It’s not the purist libertarian position at all.

        5. You’re ignoring the fundamental difference here: Nation states exist. There are citizens of such states, and those that aren’t.

          Basically 100% of political units, be it families, tribes, clans, city states, empires, republics, etc have ALL distinguished between those people in the group, and others. That’s because others frequently have different goals, different traditions, different opinions, and often want to do things that are good for THEIR group, but bad for YOUR group. This is simply human nature at work, like it or not.

          In the modern world citizenship is a really big fucking thing. When it makes the difference between making $2,000 a year, and $30,000 a year, even if doing beater jobs in both instances, it matters.

          You’re trying to argue this shit from some absolutist moral perspective… You’re technically right from an absolutist perspective! But I don’t give a shit. I simply don’t see the right to international freedom of movement as being that important a right. It’s not more important than the right to not be enslaved, or to not be murdered or whatever. By not letting people in, we’re not committing a major moral crime. It’s a very, very small one. But if we DO let people in en masse, it will have major negative repercussions.

          1. I don’t care about the absolutist morality of it. It is VERY easy to have situational ethics in some instances, because it is easy to make distinctions like the difference between travel rights, and slavery. One I find acceptable to limit with enough practical benefits, the other not so much. Trying to say that all wrongs are equally wrong is absurd.

            Calling somebody a jerk isn’t as bad a thing as raping somebody to death with a baseball bat, even though both are wrong. If a huge practical good can come from calling somebody a jerk, I might be for it. But there are few practical goods that are enough to offset raping somebody to death with a baseball bat.

            See how that works? If you’re not a deontological faggot, it’s not hard to understand things.

      2. You certainly have such a legal obligation. (Excepting legal aliens of some sorts.)

        1. Is that my only obligation? Just the law itself?

          Do you think I have any higher obligation than that?

          1. I always try to keep in mind the “is/ought” distinction. It’s easily demonstrable that you have a legal obligation in that regard. That you have a moral obligation is contingent on premises that people aren’t logically required to agree on.

            1. you have a legal obligation

              Person A being threatened with physical violence by person B does not create a legitimate obligation for person A.

      3. I think you could make an argument from the idea of duty of citizenship, given that the idea of an sense of duty doesn’t play well in libertarian circles (much to its detriment).

        Of course, you are free to disregard any such obligation to be a benefactor to your fellow citizens, likewise, your fellow citizens are free to disregard any ill-effects of policy against you.

        Play it as you see fit.

  11. ” “For the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year, 90 percent of the heroin intercepted at the border and 88 percent of the cocaine, was captured at a legal port of entry rather than between those ports,””

    And in one truck! The real key isn’t building a wall, it’s identifying that one truck that 90% of the heroin and 88% of the cocaine is carried in. If we could identify the other truck, we’d reduce drug smuggling to negligible levels.

    Do I need to comment on the difference between 90% of the heroin smuggled, and 90% of the heroin crossing the border? No, probably not, you’ve been adequately mocked above.

    Seriously, of course the border wall isn’t going to significantly effect the illegal drug trade. But you’re “Reason”, not “Sophistry”, try to act like it.

  12. “But it’s not coming in the knapsacks of border jumpers”. I think you mean CAPTURED border jumpers. It’s impossible to know the percentage of an unknown number. A physical barrier works, just look to banks for a classic example. Banks have multiple walls to protect their assets, if they just contained a table with some red velvet rope, protecting their capital from nefarious persons then there would be a lot more bank robberies. Build the wall and funnel all traffic to bona fide ports of entry. Next?

  13. Odd to see erstwhile libertarians essentially arguing that doing something might not work but doing something is better than doing nothing. All of libertarian political philosophy is essentially just the opposite – don’t just do something, stand there.

    1. They’ll go back to wanting less useless govt interventions and spending when a D is calling for them. Until then, they will follow their party line.

      Also, even if drugs are flowing in due to the lack of a wall, who the fuck cares. People need to take some personal responsibility. Oh you died because your heroine was laced with fentanyl; maybe stop shoving a needle in your arm? Or do it and be better at it? If your life sucks so bad that you can’t get off the opioids, well sorry. And if you just really like opioids/cocaine/marijuana then more power to you, go to town. Probably the weakest argument for a border wall.

      1. The better argument would be if they are consuming entitlements that American’s are paying for in a higher amount than what they are taxed (though some of the R’s on the forum have assured us that illegals are net payers into system, so there’s that weird counter argument?), and the best solution to that would be to cut the shit out of said entitlements.

      2. It is a simple matter of math to see that illegal immigrants are net negative tax payers.

        In the US you need to make $50-60K a year before you become a net positive tax payer… Virtually zero illegal immigrant households make this much money. It’s as simple as that.

        With the income levels most illegals have, they’re MASSIVELY in the hole in terms of taxes paid versus services used. Especially since they tend to have more kids than natives, and schooling is one of the largest expenses we pay taxes for.

  14. But it’s not coming in the knapsacks of border jumpers. “For the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year, 90 percent of the heroin intercepted at the border and 88 percent of the cocaine, was captured at a legal port of entry rather than between those ports,” USA Today explains, citing Customs and Border Protection data.

    And the award for the “Most Ridiculous Thing Written in 2019” goes to… Seriously, this passes for a reasonable argument?

  15. This has NEVER been about “securing the border”.
    The US has a gigantic “unsecured border” with Canada. What is Trump’s plan to deal with it? Nothing.
    The US has multiple “unsecured border” points of entry at every airport and seaport and beach in this country. What is Trump’s plan to deal with it? Perhaps something, but not some batshit “build huge walls around every beach” nonsense. In fact it’s probably more TSA security theater nonsense which is worse than useless.

    This stupid wall fantasy has been about one and only one thing from the start: stopping a SPECIFIC class of presumed shithole people from certain countries from coming here and polluting the essence of American purity. That is it. It is not about general principles of border security. It is not about “keeping America safe” per se (most of the problem of illegal immigration isn’t even at the physical border anyway). It is about “stopping those undesirables” specifically.

    If the Trumpists here really insist that a wall is an absolutely necessary prerequisite for border security, then they should be demanding that a wall be built everywhere around every border and every possible point of entry. It’s time to create Fortress America then, I suppose.

    But they don’t, because they don’t really believe that – they just want to keep the icky people out, and by “icky” they don’t mean the Ph.D. graduate in women’s studies from the University of Toronto.

  16. This has NEVER been about “securing the border”.
    The US has a gigantic “unsecured border” with Canada. What is Trump’s plan to deal with it? Nothing.
    The US has multiple “unsecured border” points of entry at every airport and seaport and beach in this country. What is Trump’s plan to deal with it? Perhaps something, but not some batshit “build huge walls around every beach” nonsense. In fact it’s probably more TSA security theater nonsense which is worse than useless.

    This stupid wall fantasy has been about one and only one thing from the start: stopping a SPECIFIC class of presumed shithole people from certain countries from coming here and polluting the essence of American purity. That is it. It is not about general principles of border security. It is not about “keeping America safe” per se (most of the problem of illegal immigration isn’t even at the physical border anyway). It is about “stopping those undesirables” specifically.

    If the Trumpists here really insist that a wall is an absolutely necessary prerequisite for border security, then they should be demanding that a wall be built everywhere around every border and every possible point of entry. It’s time to create Fortress America then, I suppose.

    But they don’t, because they don’t really believe that – they just want to keep the icky people out, and by “icky” they don’t mean the Ph.D. graduate in women’s studies from the University of Toronto.

    1. Whoops sorry for the double post.

      1. Then erase one of them, you’re taking up space.

        1. He’s just taking up space even if he erases one of them

    2. No, it’s not about “securing the border”, it’s about “securing the border a lot of illiterate criminals are walking across”. We don’t have a big problem with our border with Canada, because it’s very difficult to walk into the US from Honduras by way of Canada.

      Yes, it’s about stopping undesirables from entering the country. Now, do you want to make a reasoned argument that there isn’t any such thing as “undesirables”? That the MS 13 are basically just the Boy Scouts with tattoos?

      Have at it then. I say there are undesirables, and the only you can separate them from the desirables is to have a secure border. Let’s hear the counter-argument.

      1. “securing the border a lot of illiterate criminals are walking across”

        But hey the literate criminals overstaying their visas from Canada are totally not a problem then I suppose.

        And the “undesirables” that you are referring to – actual violent criminals – are far different than the “undesirables” that people like vek refer to, i.e., “illiterate dishwashers”. So no I don’t want MS-13 in this country either, but I am totally fine with illiterate dishwashers in this country. But why is it that no one seems to worry about violent Canadian gangs coming to this country? Or Canadian criminal elements? I’m sure they exist, don’t you? But no one goes nuts with outrage if a Canadian criminal murders an American citizen. Yes it’s sad and it’s a crime and it should be punished, but you won’t ever see a primetime TV address from a president with a case like that specifically mentioned. Why do you think that is, Brett?

        1. “But hey the literate criminals overstaying their visas from Canada are totally not a problem then I suppose.”

          They’re less of a problem, anyway. Just to get visas they had to pass at least a little vetting, while there’s no vetting at all for walking across the border.

          “So no I don’t want MS-13 in this country either, but I am totally fine with illiterate dishwashers in this country.”

          I’m fine with Americans who happen to be illiterate washing dishes. I’m not fine with importing extra illiterates.

          The thing is, if you set up to block the MS-13, you’re automatically taking care of the illiterate dishwashers. If you leave a hole for the illiterate dishwashers, MS-13 walks through it.

          Once you secure the border, you can debate who to allow across it. If you don’t secure it, the answer is “anybody”. “Anybody” is not a good answer when MS-13 is on the other side of the border.

          1. “Anybody” is not a good answer when MS-13 is on the other side of the border.

            See below. “Anybody” is the functional answer that we have for migration from Canada. Why can it not work, in principle, with a place like Mexico?

            1. Because Canada isn’t Mexico. Canada is a 1st world country with stricter immigration controls than the US, and their only land border is with the US. Mexico is a 2nd or 3rd world keleptocracy with an ongoing low grade civil war, and a track record of letting anybody who wants to cross from their southern border to ours.

              I have no patience for any argument that starts from the premise that Canada and Mexico are interchangeable. They’re not.

              1. Why can the same answer that we have now for Canada, not work *in principle* for Mexico? No one freaks out about criminals from Canada. Maybe the solution is to create conditions in Mexico where we don’t freak out about criminals from Mexico either.

                1. The USA cannot turn Mexico into Canada, just as the USA could not turn Iraq and Afghanistan into Germany.

                  We have to consider policy based on current conditions, not on how we would like things to be.

                  1. Jeff, the fact is I’m pretty sure if you asked ANYBODY in the USA if we should deport known Canadian criminals, the answer would be YES.

                    So your argument is fucking retarded, as usual. The reality of it is that we don’t have 11-22 MILLION illegal Canadians here, for one. We also DO NOT have organized Canadian gangs operating in basically every major US city now. We DO have those things happening for Mexicans and other Hispanics.

                    If Canadians gangsters were pouring across the border and building organized crime syndicates, you can bet your ass law enforcement would be on top of it. Keep in mind the Russian mob, Yakuza, and some other groups other than “brown people” DO have criminal groups here, and ARE gone after by the feds.

                    As for illiterates, we just don’t need them. I’ve said a million times, let as many Mexican doctors and engineers move here as want to come. If we ever eliminate the socialized costs in our society I will even entertain the idea of letting in illiterate dishwashers… But as long as they can vote to take away my rights, and get subsidized by my tax dollars, they can fuck right off.

          2. The thing is, if you set up to block the MS-13, you’re automatically taking care of the illiterate dishwashers. If you leave a hole for the illiterate dishwashers, MS-13 walks through it.

            And based on your comments below, now your strategy make sense. Stoke unjustified fears of illegal immigrants, get people to believe that they’re full of criminals and MS-13 gang members, and then when the people vote to approve these immigration restrictions based on fear, you get what you *really* want, which is to stop the illiterate dishwashers.

            It is cynical and disgusting and the lowest form of demagoguery.

            1. Which is, by the way, the same playbook used for how we got the Patriot Act. Congratulations! George W. Bush would be proud.

            2. Hey Jeff, explain to me how Hispanics are 35% of the murders in the US every year, but only 16% of the population? Ohhhh, because they’re the second most criminal ethnic group in the US. Okay, that’s cool.

              Not all Hispanics are criminal, but they have made a very dysfunctional showing of things in the USA compared to every other ethnic group in the country, other than native born blacks. They’re actually worse than some subsets of foreign born blacks in terms of welfare use and crime!

              So the question is, how much more dysfunction do you want to import?

              We have a choice, if you’re willing to drop an absolutist NAP position on the subject. The USA could allow in ONLY immigrants who are MORE valuable economically than the average American, EASE the tax burden on Americans, have LOWER crime rates than Americans… And NOBODY ELSE.

              In other words actively making the country better one immigrant at a time… OR we can let in people that are worse than your average American on all counts.

              Since nobody outside of 2% of libertarians gives any fucks about the NAP, it is on YOU to explain why we should pursue an immigration policy that actively makes the country worse than it is now. So explain away!

      2. More to the point – how is it that we can have an immigration system that tolerates an “unsecured border” where Canadian criminals can traipse across it virtually unchallenged by the authorities? Answer: Because the event is relatively rare, and the cost of more immigration enforcement is not worth the potential benefits. Okay, then this points to the potential solution with the southern border: instead of pouring more money on building a stupid wall, maybe instead the question ought to be, “What should be done in order to make the criminal element emanating from places like Mexico and Central America as rare as it is right now from Canada so that there is no longer an orgy of collective outrage every time some Mexican criminal commits a crime against an American, just like there isn’t right now an orgy of outrage every time a Canadian criminal commits a crime against an American?” And I think the answer to this question, from a libertarian perspective, can take many answers:

        1. The truth is Jeff, you basically just asked:

          “How can we magically make the world utopia?”

          The answer is “We can’t!”

          Those countries are dysfunctional shit holes because of their own doing. We can’t fix Mexico any more than we can fix Iraq. Any small things we do around the edges will make little difference until they make their own radical internal changes. You’re just getting lost in delusional fantasy land shit.

          You might as well have asked why we can’t make Sudan as prosperous, efficient, and peaceful as Germany… All we need to do is change 3 random arbitrary things ON OUR END, and somehow that will make THEM be perfect!

          LOL

      3. 1. END the drug war, and eliminate the funding for the criminal element that thrives on the illegal drug trade.

        2. STOP meddling in the affairs of those countries. Every time the US tries to intervene in those countries, it inevitably makes things worse.

        3. PERMIT free migration from those countries, who then come here to work; they send remittances back to their families, which then serves to improve their economic well being and raises the economic tide of those countries. Moreover, if the migration is free, then the workers in this country aren’t compelled to try to hide from the authorities and furtively get work here; they can come and go as they please, they can go back to their home in Guatemala or Honduras, where they would more likely prefer to be anyway, without the pressure of trying to remain here because if they leave they stand a low chance of returning.

        1. “End the drug war”. What exactly does that mean? Every drug, up to including meth, heroin, etc is legal?

          Has even one Congressional candidate, run on that and won elected office anywhere?

          So if we stop “meddling” in the affairs of other countries, does that mean they get to do whatever they want against our interests/morals, etc. and we let them?

          How is it in America’s interest to have millions of unskilled individuals here working, thus driving down wages and the standard of living of legal resident? Why are Americans obligated to pay for the health care, education, roads and everything else, for anyone who decides to walk over the border and find a “job”?

          1. “End the drug war”. What exactly does that mean? Every drug, up to including meth, heroin, etc is legal?

            Yes.

            Has even one Congressional candidate, run on that and won elected office anywhere?

            Not yet. Hopefully soon they will.

            So if we stop “meddling” in the affairs of other countries, does that mean they get to do whatever they want against our interests/morals, etc. and we let them?

            Yes. Or does national sovereignty only flow in one direction?

            How is it in America’s interest to have…

            It’s in America’s interests to defend and protect the liberties of all people within its jurisdiction. That includes both non-citizens and citizens, but especially citizens. Particularly, the liberty of citizens to associate with whom they please, even if that includes foreigners; and the liberty of citizens to use their private property as they please, even if that means using private property with foreigners. (All consistent with the NAP, of course.)

        2. 1. Sure, of course. Drug war is pointless.

          2. We HAVE. We haven’t meddled in their affairs in decades… And the last several times we did, it prevented ruthless communist dictators from taking over… So I’m not sure that is such a bad thing. The difference is in how they handled their shit afterwards. We saved Korea from the commie, and they didn’t bitch and moan about it… They went on to turn themselves into a 1st world country. So what is the excuse for Latin America? They’re not handling their shit right, it ain’t our fault.

          3. Yeah, because if we just screw ourselves over enough… Hurt our own wages enough… It will raise up these foreign citizens, who can’t be assed to straighten out their own countries…

          You do realize the countless billions sent abroad by these people may help THOSE countries… But if those jobs were done by people who intended to stay here, that money would remain here, and do better for OUR country, right?

          You’re basically preaching that we should be altruistic towards these foreigners, because they’re a bunch of fucks who can’t get their shit together. Fuck that. Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries in the world per capita. Them DEMANDING to come here is a lot like somebody who makes $75K a year DEMANDING they get a raise to $150K a year, just because they deserve it. Mexico doesn’t need help, they’re better off than most people on earth. Central Americans should move there if they want a leg up, not here.

      4. But I would be happy to hear your reasoned answers to this question as well.

        1. I’m on board with points 1 and 2. Not 3.

          Look, we’re not a nightwatchman state. We’re a welfare state. In a welfare state, importing poor people makes everybody else poorer. It’s an artificial externality, but it’s still an externality.

          But, like I said, if we secure the border, we can debate who we should allow across it. If we don’t secure it, we have automatically settled that question: Anybody who feels like it.

          And that’s not an answer people should be comfortable with.

          1. Can we stop it with the “import” rhetoric please? Nobody is “importing” anyone. It’s insulting as it compares free migrants to just pieces of cargo.

            As I mentioned, “securing the border” in the manner that you want to see it secured, will in many ways make the situation worse in places like Central America. Now the Guatemalan who wants to come here has to pay a premium with human smugglers to sneak across the border, thereby enriching more of the criminal element that both of us want to go away. Guatemalans who can’t come here to work cannot send remittances back home to their own families, making their economic situations worse, and that is not a trivial problem. For Haiti, remittances constitute 30% of total GDP. For El Salvador, it is 20% of GDP. How much worse would these countries get if their economy did not have these remittances? This is a type of foreign aid to those countries that doesn’t rely on any government taxation or coercion at all! Why would we as libertarians NOT be in favor of this?

            1. No, we can’t stop the “import” rhetoric, because that’s exactly what is going on, which is why building a wall is so contraversial.

              If the left weren’t absolutely determined to keep illegal immigrants flooding across the border, as part of their program of forced demographic change in America, they’d view the wall as just another “shovel ready” infrastructure program to skim graft off of. The only reason it’s a big freaking deal is they WANT those people to come here. It’s not indifference, they actively want them.

              They’re being imported to accelerate America’s demographic change in directions the left thinks favorable.

              1. And it’s all being funded by George Soros, right? *rolls eyes*

                I thought we were having an intelligent conversation but then you devolve into this conspiratorial nonsense.

                Like vek, you view the “undesirables” as far more than just MS-13, it’s all of them.

                At what point do you recognize the agency of the migrants themselves? They are human beings you know. Don’t dehumanize them by treating them as just pieces of cargo.

            2. MAYBE those countries should develop real economies, instead of DEPENDING on handouts and foreign remittance to survive? Welfare dependency isn’t a good thing you know…

              And libertarians should be AGAINST forced altruism, which is essentially what you’re trying to sell.

              As for importing them… It is what it is. The Dems, and big business have reduced them to a voting block and economic units, so I see no reason everybody else shouldn’t discuss them in such terms. Of COURSE they want to come here individually, but Soros and other leftists donors ARE actively promoting and funding it. This is NOT a theory, it is a know fact. You can literally just look up the fact that some of the big non profits Soros funds out the ass are public supporters of organizations that encourage people to come here.

          2. But, like I said, if we secure the border, we can debate who we should allow across it. If we don’t secure it, we have automatically settled that question: Anybody who feels like it.

            And that’s not an answer people should be comfortable with.

            Right now, as far as I know, there are no huge walls or fences around Central Park in New York. Just short stone walls that can be easily jumped over. For all intents and purposes, anyone is free to go into Central Park. Does that bother you? Does that make you uncomfortable? If so, why?

            1. Why would it bother me? Central park doesn’t border on a 3rd world hellhole with an ongoing civil war.

              1. All sorts of people get to use Central Park. There’s rapists and murderers in there. And some, I presume, are good people. You aren’t the least bit concerned that innocent lives are put at risk because there is virtually no border security in Central Park?

              2. Central park doesn’t border on a 3rd world hellhole with an ongoing civil war.

                Citation needed….

    3. You’re a retard.

      If we were having tens of millions of people pouring in from Canada, or onto California beaches, then it would be up for discussion. Especially if the average education level of those Canadians was the 8th grade, which is the average for illegal Mexicans. It’s even lower for Central Americans. Nobody worries about Canada because it is not an active problem.

      As I’ve said many times before, I’m part Mexican myself. From California. That state went from being a middle-middle class paradise when my dad was growing up there, to a clearly falling apart place when I was growing up there… To damn near third world country status now. The main thing that has changed there is the demographics. It was flooded by illegal immigrants, almost none of which have shit all of education, or capability of earning decent income.

      Illegal immigrants commit more crimes than any sub group of native born Americans, OTHER THAN native born blacks and Hispanics. If black crime rates are where you set the acceptable bar, you need new standards. I’ve seen this shit with my own eyes dude, it has not been an improvement.

      Libertarians like to pretend that the QUALITY of the people coming in has no bearing… Except that statistics show it does. You let in high education/low crime immigrants, and they instantly produce high education/low crime children. You let in unskilled and problematic immigrants, and you end up with unskilled and problematic children. It’s that simple.

      1. If it fixes itself at all, it takes multiple generations to do so, and saddles you with massive problems the whole time in between

        If you want to make the autistic libertarian argument that international open borders are the only moral thing to do… Fine. Make that argument. The problem is that history and statistics show that it will fuck your shit up in practical ways. In the past American immigrants were coming from countries with comparable levels of education, that were probably only behind us economically because of socialist policies. They slid right in and did well.

        Since the west has opened up to uneducated 3rd world immigration, nothing but problems have been observed. See America AND Europe, where all these groups have failed to assimilate, failed to economically come up to snuff. Yet, somehow, if you only let in educated people from the same countries… You avoid all these problems.

        I say let in as many Mexican doctors and engineers as want to move here… But countless millions of dish washers, lawn guys, etc has only fucked this country up. The fact that it has created an entire new grievance group, which is tearing the country apart, is not something to be dismissed either. Hispanics were ~2% of the population in the 60s. The other ~14% that are here are almost entirely illegals or children of illegals. In another few years 20% of our population will be illegals or children of illegals.

        This shit cannot be tolerated any longer.

        1. The problem is that history and statistics show that it will fuck your shit up in practical ways… In the past American immigrants were coming from countries with comparable levels of education, that were probably only behind us economically because of socialist policies. They slid right in and did well…Since the west has opened up to uneducated 3rd world immigration, nothing but problems have been observed. See America AND Europe, where all these groups have failed to assimilate, failed to economically come up to snuff.

          Citations please? Millions of Asians immigrated over the last 50 years, from countries where the level of education was far below the US. Parents coming from China, Japan and Vietnam were often peasants in their home country. Their children are now largely college educated and driving a significant portion of our economy.

          Indeed, the largest swaths of poverty in this country are not among immigrants (though many are poor) but among urban blacks and whites who have been in this country for generations. There are 20 million of these poor, compared to about 10 million Hispanics (some native, some immigrant) in poverty.

          I am sympathetic to the notion that immigration makes it harder for the native poor to get a good paying job, but that problem pales in comparison to many other problems that already set those americans at a disadvantage- largely broken families and a terrible government.

          1. “Millions of Asians immigrated over the last 50 years, from countries where the level of education was far below the US.”

            Yeah, my wife was one of them. And, while the average level of education in the Philippines, like much of Asia, isn’t anything to write home about, she was still an English literate college graduate.

            You shouldn’t confuse the people who come here legally with the average people in their home countries. They’re a highly curated subset of those people.

            1. Thanks for adding nothing but distractions to the debate. Vek specifically said that immigration in the past worked because people immigrating were around the same level of education as natives, and that allowing uneducated immigrants today simply cannot work.

              He was wrong. In fact we have a rich history of lesser (and non-) educated people coming to this country and integrating just fine. And the vast majority from China, Vietnam and Japan did not speak english. Hell, I interact with several people each day whose parents still cannot speak English. Historically significant numbers settled in enclaves like Chinatown, Little Saigon, etc. And now their children are doing fine, and our economy is better off for it- much to the dismay of nativists back then who were making the exact same incorrect predictions that nativists spout today.

              The fact remains that the problems of poverty in this country are not caused by millions of uneducated immigrants (illegal or otherwise). It is caused by the destruction of communities and families largely wrought by a terrible government, drug prohibition and cultural rot.

              1. You’re actually right and wrong.

                I was mostly talking about the ACTUAL mass immigration of Europeans… Even Italy and the like was comparable to the US, as much as people liked to bitch about Italians back in the day. My point was largely that MOST people, including natives were less educated back then, and immigrants were comparable to us, not leaps and bounds lower.

                But yeah, we have had SMALL NUMBERS of Asian immigrants. We didn’t have large numbers of anybody but whites until after 1965. But the modest numbers of Asians before then did do well.

                There is a simple explanation, that IMO explains 100% of the unexplainable… It’s called IQ.

                Whether you like it or not, there is an IQ hierarchy that shows up everywhere across the globe. Cultural factors don’t seem to make shit all of difference, as it doesn’t matter what nation the ethnicities are in, they always come out in the same order. Jews, Asians, then whites, score the highest in not only IQ tests, but ALL types of academic tests. There are even consistent differences within those broad groups, like southern Asians doing less well than northern, and eastern Europeans less well than western. Other ethnicities do less well to varying degrees. This stuff is all known and well studied.

                1. You can argue all day long that it isn’t genetic, which is fine. I personally hope it isn’t, but have my doubts since all current evidence points to it being between 50-80% genetic…

                  But if it is 100% environmental as progs like to think, then find the environmental cause, and close the gaps. Because IQ is the best determinate for life success ever discovered. Everything from income to crime rates are predicted very accurately. Black people have EXACTLY the same wages, crime rates, divorce rates, etc one would expect in the US based on their IQ scores, since whites with those IQs have almost identical life outcomes. Dittos with Hispanics, Asians, Jews, and everybody else. The IQ scores correlate perfectly with observed outcomes for all ethnic groups.

                  East Asians do BETTER than whites everywhere in the world, so it is no surprise they’re the ONE non white ethnic group that has done well in the west. It ain’t PC, but it is probably the correct answer. Also, outside of Europe and the USA THIS IS THE ACCEPTED WISDOM. In China they outright brag about how Asians have the highest IQs scores of any major ethnic group, and say that IQ explains why much of the world is a shithole.

                  Europeans are the only ones who deny the clear and obvious science on the subject, out of guilt of being merely Bronze medal holders, yet still conquering most of the world I guess?

      2. As I’ve said many times before, I’m part Mexican myself. From California. That state went from being a middle-middle class paradise when my dad was growing up there, to a clearly falling apart place when I was growing up there… To damn near third world country status now. The main thing that has changed there is the demographics. It was flooded by illegal immigrants, almost none of which have shit all of education, or capability of earning decent income.

        As a resident of California, I find this absurd. California isn’t in any stretch of the imagination a third world country. It continues to be a place of innovation, industry and finance. It is one of the largest economies in the world.

        It is also populated with leftist idiots who have over-regulated its schools, taken on massive liabilities via public worker pensions, while carving out Corporatist niches at the expense of small entrepreneurs. None of that is caused by illegal immigrants, though it is exacerbated by them.

        1. You tell yourself what you need to hear buddy. The last time I visited my home town in the Bay Area, it looked like I was in a shitty foreign country. It WAS NOT even close to as nice a place as it was when I was growing up there, let alone when my dad did. That’s because the TYPE of people living there changed. It was a middle class place… Now it is filled with a few wealthy, and a shit ton of uneducated foreigners.

          Infrastructure is crumbling, crime is out in the open, etc etc etc. Much of that IS the fault of the leftist idiots… But you DO realize that the leftists idiots didn’t have free reign of the state until after the demographics shifted right? Look at how white Californians vote, even to this day, even after all the lefty self sorting to moving there. They’re not leftists. The reason California is so left is because of all the ethnic votes, it is literally all in voting patterns. Sorry.

          Whether libertarians like it or not, ethnic voting blocks ARE A THING. They always have been. Every single ethnic group other than whites gets this, and explicitly uses it to get perks for THEIR group in the USA. The reason white identity politics is becoming a thing now is because we’re on the verge of becoming a minority ourselves… And we’re essentially going to be forced to have white identity politics whether we like it or not just to survive. That is one more great thing brought on by mass immigration!

      3. If we were having tens of millions of people pouring in from Canada, or onto California beaches, then it would be up for discussion.

        That’s a lie and you know it.

        Do you know which country is the single biggest offender of illegal immigration via visa overstays? Hint: It isn’t Mexico.

        1. If it is a lie, then why do you quote from an article on a report that only covers land and sea ports of entry, and does not include land crossings for either Canada nor Mexico? Your source does not back up your claim.

          1. Obviously that should read “air and sea ports of entry”.

        2. Did you even read that whole article?

          More Canadians visit the US legally than any other nation… And as a percentage it is very small as far as overstays. AND they EVENTUALLY GO HOME.

          Alternatively, Hispanics are far and away the largest group overall by orders of magnitude, AND they stay here for extended periods. AND they have the 2nd highest crime rate in the US after blacks.

          But just so ya know, they DO go after people who overstay visas from other places too. I knew a Russian chick who got nabbed and forced to go back when her visa ran out and she tried to over stay. I’m sure the same happens for Canucks.

  17. I enjoy smoking un taxed and un regulated marijuana with a pipe.

  18. I have an 11 year old and we talk about drugs and he knows exactly the risks and the resaons why people are attracted to them. We talk about everything. I laid it out. Marijuana may mess with your developing brain I tell him and inhaling smoke isn’t a great idea. He tells me everything so I know some of his older friends are already vaping and drinking hard alcohol. These kids who are vaping and making mixed drinks are all freshmen at the best private Catholic high school in my state. So don’t fucking tell me they start with marijuana because it’s not true now and wasn’t true when I was a kid. It was tobacco and alcohol. It’s culture that lies to their children and doesn’t teach their children critical thinking skills. I’m not saying my boy won’t succumb to peer pressure but he’s well equipped to deal with it because I’m teaching everything.

    1. So we watched some YouTube videos about people addicted to opiates and my boy couldn’ understand t why people would torture themselves like this so I explained it starts innocently with maybe drinking on the weekends. Maybe one night you’re drunk and you try some marijuana then maybe you try a pill. Before you know it you’re now habitually drinking on weekends and using pills. It’s the same way people get fat. They make small bad choices and over time it adds up to some belly fat. Now you’re a little fat with bad habits so you’re even more susceptible to gaining weight.

      1. Most people with opioid addictions started for truly benign reasons- not a gateway drug. They were in the hospital for surgery, or they went to their doctor with some sort of chronic pain. And the real sad fact is that even people addicted to opioids can live a relatively stable life by working with their doctor. Some doctors will just endlessly write prescriptions, while others might try to wean them off. Either way, there are millions of people who were simply managing their addiction.

        That all stopped around 2010 when the government decided that it was unacceptable for people to be addicted to opioids under the care of doctors. The fed started prosecuting these doctors, and creating all sorts of heavy handed regulations requiring pharmacies and health care providers to essentially shut off the flow of opioids. Rather than stop addictions, they just chased these people into the black market where they shit that causes their hearts to stop.

        I am glad you are warning your kids to stay off drugs, and hope it works. Obviously, having no addiction or vice is the best outcome. Yet people metabolize opioids differently. They don’t work for my wife, whereas I get an immediate high that ends in half the expected dosage time. This has lead me to steer clear of them wherever possible, because I know that they are heavily addictive to me. But others can’t or won’t manage to steer clear, and chasing them into the black market is not going to save them.

  19. Once upon a time, writers at Reason could be expected to understand “that which is not seen”, and that the sample of drugs intercepted where the border is manned is not at all representative of the statistical population of drugs coming across the border unhindered.
    This new columnist is yet to exhibit any knowledge of such basic concepts.

  20. Enlightened progressive elites insist that if only they are given adequate (read total) power over the lifestyles and livelihoods of Americans, they can change the climate! They insist they must be given such awesome powers because otherwise there will be global disaster and national catastrophe, soon!

    They insist they have irrefutable evidence to prove the urgency of all that. Skeptics who bring up the voluminous amounts of contrary evidence get personally vilified and their evidence gets stonewalled, not counter-argued in neutral venues because that would go against ground rules of fashionable hysterias, which rely on mass media muscle (by some very unimpressive thinkers who pretend to be journalists) to blitzkrieg, bully, and bulldoze all opposition.

    Yes, changing the climate can be done, like snapping your fingers don’t you know. But NO NO NO we can’t stop a drug and crime epidemic borne chiefly by waves of illegal intruders walking, running, climbing fences across the border.

    That type of worldly power can’t be justified and isn’t even necessary, don’t you know. Just ask the favorite experts and sources of progressive leftist globalist socialist information. They are very good at credentialism gamesmanship so the Left always has confident, smiling experts who can argue anything with a straight face.

  21. All you need to get drugs across a wall is some hairspray, a potato canon and someone to catch the goods on the other side.

    1. Or a water balloon launcher.

  22. 90 percent of the heroin intercepted at the border and 88 percent of the cocaine, was captured at a legal port of entry rather than between those ports,”

    You can’t know how much goes around the ports when you can’t or won’t bother catching them and we dam well know there is far more going around the ports than through the ports. If you refuse to study an issue you can’t come up with a number just like when the GOP study on voter fraud found nothing when you can google it all day long and find thousands of cases

    1. and to continue with the analogy few if any thefts are ever solved that does not mean there are no thefts

  23. Most of the fentanyl may come from China, but I thought it came from China through Mexico? I may have thought wrong.

  24. Is that what your dealer told you?

  25. The wall is just a part of the solution. The $5.6 billion is for more than the wall. Technology and personnel to detect drug smuggling at the ports of entry are part of the package. The better job you do of detecting drugs at the port of entry the more they will try to smuggle elsewhere. The reduction in cost to the US from the humans crossing the border will more than pay for the wall. The wall is only part of the solution but a very very critical part. Current cost of illegal immigration is over $100 billion per year!

  26. As I thumb through these comments, especially the pro-wall comments, it’s clear to me that many continue to be completely ok with someone lying directly to their face, ok with someone giving you the run around, ok with getting you to buy it to something without being upfront about the details. You can continue to push the Drumpf clan bullshit talking point that he is playing 3D, 4D or whatever other #D chess game while the rest continue to play checkers but the promise still remains, Mexico is supposed to be paying for it! You people are pathetic!

    1. Obama lied directly to our face, so did GWB, and lets not get started on the meaning of the word ‘is’.

      I understand the establishment trying to make the bad orange man out to be something worse than what has come before, but he is not.

      The sheeple that parrot the establishment line are “pathetic”.

      From a libertarian perspective, there are a lot of bad policies from Trump, but his worst policies are reversible (immigration, tarriffs). They are not a long term threat to the Republic like the Affordable Care Act.

  27. Why even write this article? Of course it will not stop it but will make it more difficult. We should do this and other things to make it as hard as possible.

  28. Why even write this article? Of course it will not stop it but will make it more difficult. We should do this and other things to make it as hard as possible.

  29. 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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.