Donald Trump

A Real Wall Against a Fake Threat Won't Make America Safe Again

Give up your wall, Mr. President.


Border Wall
Jonathan McIntosh via

President Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) are locked in a battle of wills over the border wall. After declaring a "barrier…absolutely critical to border security" during his Oval Office address, Trump walked out of a meeting with Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer when they refused to budge on the wall money. This may well be a prelude to Trump acting on his threat to declare a national emergency and using unobligated Pentagon funds to get the military to build a wall.

That would be a terrible abuse of his power, because there is no wall-worthy national security threat at the border.

Contrary to Trump's claims, a wall won't do much to stanch the flow of drugs to this country. Why? As best as can be determined, most of the heroin and cocaine intercepted on its way to the U.S. comes through legal ports of entry. And even if the wall did substantially block smugglers, the same sorts of drugs—or close substitutes—would be instead generated domestically, as long as there is a demand for them.

As for the human beings coming across the southern border, they are increasingly asylum seekers, and their cases deserve to be heard and processed quickly—which means investing in more immigration judges, not misdirecting resources on a misguided wall.

No matter how many times it is pointed out to Trump, he simply won't admit that the flow of illegal immigration is rapidly trending downwards. In 2000, the authorities apprehended 1,643,679 unauthorized migrants. In 2017? 303,916. There was a slight uptick in 2018, but nothing approaching a "crisis"—a word that Trump used six times in his seven-minute national address earlier this week. So going by the sheer numbers, if there was ever a time for a wall, it has already passed.

If the quantity of immigrants doesn't justify a wall, their "quality" doesn't either.

The administration has already taken a walloping for its whopper that 4,000 terrorists were apprehended at the southern border in 2017, a figure that was off by 4,000. Yes, about 3,000 "special interest" people were flagged entering from that side, but that merely means that they hail from countries that are a potential source of terrorism, not that they are terrorists themselves. No one who has come in from the southern border has ever conducted a terrorist attack. Even the ultra-restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies acknowledges that the administration is vastly exaggerating the terrorist threat.

What about other kinds of criminals? Trump has never backed away from his statement that Mexico sends us "rapists" and "criminals" rather than its "best" people. In truth, Mexico no longer sends us very many people at all—unlike back in 2000, when Mexicans made up 98 percent of the total migrants and Central Americans about two percent. As Stephanie Leutert, director of the Mexico Security Initiative at the University of Texas at Austin, points out, the split is now close to 50-50.

And among those coming in, criminals are the rarest of rare exception.

Leutert notes:

Since the Trump administration took office, the Border Patrol has detected fewer gang members crossing irregularly than during the Obama administration. In FY2017, these detections amounted to 0.075 percent of the total number of migrants (228 MS-13 members out of 303,916 total migrants). When combined with MS-13's rival, the Barrio 18 gang, the number rises only slightly to 0.095 percent. This is far from the "infestation" of violent gang members described by the president.

Furthermore, unlike the immigrants coming from Mexico, 98 percent of who were working-age men looking for better economic opportunities, half of the apprehended immigrants from Central America are families, many of them not-so-threatening women and children without men, predominantly from three countries: Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Leutert notes that although the migrants from Guatemala tend to come from rural areas to escape extreme poverty (often mortgaging their farms to make the journey), those from Honduras and El Salvador are predominantly urban dwellers trying to get away from gangs. (Those gangs, in turn, formed after America started deporting criminal aliens back in droves.)

The previous unaccompanied minor "crisis" occurred not because Central American parents were acting irresponsibly, as many restrictionists claim. It was because they were trying to extricate their kids from the clutches of gangs trying to recruit them. "Boys of eleven years old (or younger) may be recruited as lookouts and teenage girls may be eyed for becoming members' 'girlfriends,'" Leutert says.

Families are now coming together to seek asylum. One would think that would gain them some brownie points from immigration hardliners who were slamming them for sending kids alone. But no! Now they are being accused of using kids as "pawns" to gain entry into the United States (because, per the Flores ruling, kids can't be kept in detention for longer than a few days so families who come with them are more likely to be "caught and released"). But that's not the case. Families are all fleeing together because gangs have started charging exorbitant extortions that are beyond the means of small mom-and-pop businesses to pay. And the price for failing to pay up, Leutert points out, is often death.

If there were lots of criminals and terrorists trying to sneak across the border undetected, a wall might help. But asylum seekers are actually trying to get caught because they want to live and work legally in the country. Indeed, as Vox's Dara Lind points out, they turn themselves in to the first border agent they encounter—at a port of entry if they can, but if those are too backed up, or if they're forced to languish for days and weeks because the Trump administration will only let a few in at a time (an illegal practice called metering), then between ports.

All a wall would do in that case is seal off access points between ports, creating bigger backups at ports of entry. Far from alleviating the brewing humanitarian situation at the border, as Trump claimed in his address, a wall would exacerbate it.

Restrictionists also claim that asylum-seeking families that are "caught and released" typically just disappear, never to be heard from again. But that's a highly dubious claim, to say the least. In one Obama-era program where asylum seekers were paired with case managers before being let go, the asylum seekers had a 100 percent attendance record at court hearings. They also had a 99 percent rate of check-ins and appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to a Department of Homeland Security report.

More generally, the immigration advocacy group American Immigration Council published a report four years ago that looked at studies from over the previous two decades examining how well asylum seekers fulfilled their legal obligations. It found "very high rates of compliance" among those "who were placed into alternatives to detention."

The report cited a 2000 U.S. government-commissioned study that found an "83 percent rate of compliance with court proceedings among asylum seekers who were found to have a credible fear in the expedited removal process." It also showed an 84 percent compliance rate among asylees under minimal supervision, and 78 percent among those who were unsupervised.

This makes sense: The penalty for living in the country without authorization—both legal (given that unauthorized people have a very hard time obtaining visas) and in lost wages—is so high that asylum seekers have a built-in incentive to do things by the book. That's why, far from wasting money on the wall, it would be better to invest in more judges and legal hearings for a speedy dispensation of asylum cases.

The real crisis will be if Trump declares a national emergency to deal with his fake threat.

NEXT: Kamala Harris Has Not Set a Date, Allegedly: Reason Roundup

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No need to even read this crap.

    1. I skipped it.

      1. Ditto. Nothing but drivel.

        1. Build Wall
          Expand wall, make it higher
          Implement eVerify
          Shutdown all companies who hire 1 illegal
          Prosecute all citizens who hire illegals under the table

          BTW, all of these things are already the law. Trump does not need congress for any of it. He just needs to do what has been on the books my entire life.

          1. Totally agree. If 10 – 20 illegal aliens are wandering around in our country, it’s a national emergency. Build a high wall with armed lookout posts every 1/2 mile, manned by military sharpshooters.

            1. Sorry, I meant 10 – 20 million.

              1. It is probably at least 20 or 30 million. Nobody really knows but I live in Virginia and we never saw any Hispanics here until about 15 years ago or so and now they are everywhere. Is it like that in all the other states?

          2. “BTW, all of these things are already the law.”

            Build the Will to Enforce the Law.

    2. Mostly because there will be no wall.

      Just plenty of wailing about it from clingers.

      1. Well you seem to be the worst wailing clinger of the entire forum. So I guess that makes you the SME.

      2. “Clingers” are Democrats, Kirkland.

        (Literally – that quite is about Democrats who didn’t vote Obama!)

      3. There already is some 700 miles of border wall/security obstacles.

    3. I am REALLY getting sick of these jerks at Reason (what an ill-fitting name).

      1. They couldnt even be bothered to listen to an 8 minute speech where trump directly mentions other measures, not just a wall. Reason journalism is turning into news for regards.

    4. Yep – classic libertarian wanker.

    5. Yes because half the people on here are complete morons who WANT to believe something even if it’s completely contradictory to facts and reality.

      Wallow in your ignorance then.

    6. Title, author, nothing of interest to see here, just move along people.

  2. So I guess 3rd world values streaming in creating crime, oppressing women and children, human trafficking, gang violence, and welfare leeches draining or hospitals, schools and neighborhoods are to be taken lightly and looked away from then?…

    1. Re: A Lady of Nonsense,

      So I guess 3rd world values streaming in creating crime […]

      Sure, only 3rd world people know how to create crime.


      1. No, but quite a few socialists and authoritarians. It’s the cultural and political pollution that is most problematic.

        1. This. Lots of working poor ready to switch one form of statism for a much more generous form of statism.

      2. They do seem to do RATHER well at it. Just why do you ‘consider’ what she said nonsense? Is there any reason other than the fact are left-wing media considers it ‘nonsense’?

      3. “X is doing Y here!”

        “Only Xs do Y, huh? You’re dumb!”

        See the problem with that?

        Now, you could argue – possibly convincingly – that the Xs in question are not doing Y, but you didn’t do that.

        You did a logical fallacy and a namecall.

      4. So we need more crime that we already have? Are you really that stupid?

      5. There are other cancer forming chemicals besides cigarettes, so stop regulating cigarettes. -old Mexican.

    2. there are Americans in this country with “3rd world values”. Immigrants commit less crime than natural born citizens. More Americans are in welfare than immigrants. Your kids can still go to school and live in neighborhoods when immigrants come in. Everything you just said is wrong.

      1. While I agree a wall is mostly ineffective, I don’t want to see one more crime or one more person on welfare.
        Maybe if you advocated rolling back the welfare state, a lot of the clamor to keep immigrants out would subside.

        1. Why would you want to roll back the social safety net that’s there to help people in need? Have you no empathy for the least of these?

          1. Can’t we at least agree that there are some people who abuse the safety net? I think we all have some personal knowledge of someone who milked the unemployment benefits system or whose church finally decided to stop enabling a mooch or bilked the s.s. disability insurance.

            1. A fraction of people abuse it, but it’s not a severe enough issue to completely do away with welfare.

              1. Who cares if its being abused or not? Half our country gets welfare, that’s an abuse on the other half.

              2. Why do we have to get rid of the social safety net? Saying that we want government out of the business of welfare is not the same as saying we want no safety net at all.

                1. Great idea Leo, let’s privatize the social safety net. Now get the government the fuck out of my wallet

              3. Jay, do you have arguments that arent baseless assertions?

          2. I do believe we need a temporary social safety net for our own citizens. However, we should not provide these services to illegal aliens. The fact that we do is an enticement for more people to cross the border illegally. We should have the same standards that most of the world has for immigrants – if you can prove you have sufficient money/income or a needed skill and can support yourself and are not linked to terrorist groups, then you can immigrate here.

        2. “I don’t want to see one more crime or one more person on welfare.”

          Nobody’s making you leave your house.

          1. Buying a gun is an option, but to be frank, your typical violent would be criminal from Harlem who just got out of prison will avoid you after you publicize his desperate attempt to get you to suck his dick.

            1. Is this an anecdote involving Rev. Arty?

        3. Re: creech,

          While I agree a wall is mostly ineffective, I don’t want to see one more crime or one more person on welfare.

          And leftists don’t want to see one more instance of violence committed with a gun.

          If that’s the standard you want to live with – perfect security – you must be willing to give up all your liberties to achieve it.

          I can tell you right now: I am NOT willing. I don’t give a SHIT if there’s another person on welfare. Welfare is a political tool used by government. The problem is NOT immigrants.

          Maybe if you advocated rolling back the welfare state, a lot of the clamor to keep immigrants out would subside.

          That’s rich. Where do you think you are now, The New Republic? Please.

          1. The difference is gun control has actually proven to work.

            1. Lol.

            2. For sure. After all, during the gun explosion of the past 25 years crime has similarly exploded!

              Oh, wait….

            3. In what universe???

            4. In the UK it’s working for the knife and acid manufacturers.

            5. Gun control is almost universally a gigantic failure. Just like it’s proponents.

              1. “Gun control is almost universally a gigantic failure. Just like it’s proponents.”

                So are big beautiful walls!

            6. This is true, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot can testify that gun control works…………….just not to control criminals and guns

          2. I missed the amendment protecting the right of foreigners to enter the country. Why do open border advocates make the worst arguments?

            1. Me too. I also missed the one protecting their right to asylum here while still in another country.

          3. “The problem is NOT immigrants”

            Of course not. The probably is absolutely not immigrants.

            The problem is all the illegals here.

      2. Legal immigrants pass through a process that screens for criminal background. They will have less tendency to commit crimes due to the screening of active criminals. Only idiots make claims you attempted to make here.

      3. Jay, we’re talking about illegals, not immigrants. So don’t pull that shit here.

        1. Most “illegals” don’t cross the southern border, they overstayed their visas

          1. Your citation fell off troll.

          2. Non sequiter.

      4. You counter her concern about ILLEGAL aliens with facts about LEGAL aliens. (That is SO common with people on your side. Let us assume a school has 100 students and 5 classrooms, each containing 20 students. Fifty thousand Illegal aliens with 25,000 children sneak across our unguarded border. 100 come to that school district. You now have 200 students and each classroom contains 40 students. None of these new ‘students’ speak English. So the school has most of it’s budget soaked up hiring remedial teachers. Let’s assume 10 of the newcomers are members of one of the gangs so common in Central America. So now we have knife fights and shootings in the school. (Before you say anything, the study about alien committed crime refers ONLY to legal immigrants. Illegals seem to do very well in the crime department, remember?) Yeah, children can go still go to school and their parents live in a neighborhood — however, I suggest you buy a gun.

      5. “Immigrants commit less crime than natural born citizens”

        Since “immigrants” there includes legal immigrants, this is not surprising – since legal immigrants have to show that they have no criminal record of any seriousness.

        They’re pre-filtered for not being criminals!

      6. When you extract refugees from immigrants, a higher per capita are on welfare. Legal immigrants usually do not collect welfare because they could be deported if not self sufficient(self or sponsor). Illegals are not eligible for welfare if their status is checked.

      7. So we need more criminals, drugs and welfare recipients than we already have? Really?

      8. @Jay Swing –
        Immigrants commit less crime – That is a LIE.
        More Americans are on welfare than immigrants – That is a LIE.
        Your kids can still go to school and live in neighborhoods when immigrants come – That is True.

      9. Legal immigrants are prescreened for criminal activity. Your a fucking idiot Jay. This isn’t an argument about legal immigrants. And your welfare blurb is just wrong.

    3. 3rd world values, like working hard, and having a christian-based moral background? Are those the 3rd world values you’re worried about contaminating our culture with? The rest of your retarded rant has been disproven too many times to count but here’s one more.

      1. Barely have of DACA members will graduate high school… hard working?

        1. At least they can, most likely, form a sentence.

          1. You realize that you’re just being an asshole over an autocorrect error, right?

        2. Which leads me to the question, “did you graduate from high school?”

    4. Judging by the photos from the Vox link, I’d say “these aren’t the droids we’re looking for.” Shikha is gonna haveta choose better links to bolster claims that ALL (or even most, heck, even 10%) of the barbarians scrabbling at the gates are desirable assets by any stretch of the imagination. Which of them would YOU commit to sponsoring?

    5. “So I guess 3rd world values streaming in …”

      You forgot about the magic American dirt which instantly turns all immigrants into Thomas Paine.

  3. The wall will not bring on the millennium. The wall is bullshit! QED

  4. The wall is stupid and wasteful, and the fact that over half the country is against this abomination shows that it can never work. It’s way too easy to exploit weaknesses amongst Americans to subvert the wall. And then it will become a witch hunt against our own people. No thank you. Also if we don’t have the will to stop giving them rights and welfare and social services when they get here, then certainly we don’t have the will to build and staff a wall. We should spend the money on another moon shot or sending everyone to disney land. Something everyone could get behind. Plus it would stimulate the economy and the bad hombres would have work so they’d stay out of trouble and everyone would be safer.

    1. Re: Dajjal,

      Also if we don’t have the will to stop giving them rights and welfare and social services when they get here, then certainly we don’t have the will to build and staff a wall.

      Actually, immigrants are not eligible for welfare benefits or social security disability. Whatever social services they may use, most are local, paid with sales taxes that immigrants pay. Which makes the wall an even greater scam on the gullible xenophobes.

      1. Households led by immigrants have very high rates of welfare usage. It’s disingenuous to claim illegal immigrants don’t use any and ignore the fact their household’s are getting large subsidies for education, health care and food.

        1. The rate of welfare usage by immigrants is only slightly higher than the rate of welfare usage by native-born citizens, when compared to those of similar socioeconomic backgrounds.

          The reason why the rate of welfare usage by immigrants *overall* is higher is because immigrants tend to be disproportionately poorer.

          1. Jeff making the closed border argument finally.

          2. So we need more welfare takers than we already have? The statistics you mention do NOT matter, we have too many recipients of Welfare, schools, etc. None of this is “free”.

          3. Jeffy, we’re talking about the illegal problem here, not immigrants. I know you’re a easily confused little tyke, but the adults here are trying to have a discussion about things you can’t really understand.

            So get your footy pajamas on, it’s off to bed it’s you.

          4. “America needs lots more poor people! We don’t have enough of our own!”

      2. Most illegal immigrants make high levels of w2 exceptions and pay very little income tax. Many state programs do not screen for citizenship requirements or merely require a signature with no proof of citizenship.

        1. If they did require proof, some progtard activist organization would sue to prevent it.

      3. “Immigrants” are, assuming they paid in, no? People with green cards (and, hell, immigrants who are naturalized citizens) are required to participate in Social Security just like natural-born citizens are, as far as I know and can tell with a check. Likewise, as far as I know, “welfare” in general requires only being a legal resident, not a natural-born citizen.

        “Illegal immigrants” aren’t eligible.

        There’s a reason we have more than one term for the two legal classes of immigrants.

    2. A 2,000 mile wall is unnecessary, but there are places where it makes sense. See the beach on the Pacific.

      1. Trump is asking for 200 miles…

    3. Israel built a wall in the 2000s after a spate of terrorism in the country. Terrorism went down after. Hungary recently build a barn wired fence on its border after a surge of crossing by refugees against EU wishes, illegal entry to the country went down.

      1. Unpossible!
        Walls don’t work because ladders!

    4. Show us that more then half the country does not want a wall. Did you watch the video news clips of Obama, Schumer and Pelosi back in 2009 allocating 25 billion for a wall? If you haven’t seen those clips yet, you really need to. They were all over the conspiracy news media promoting A WALL. The news videos can be seen on you tube. If you were following this type of news back then, where was your outrage over that? Where was the outrage over that by the conspiracy news media? Do you understand what is going on??? 10 years ago the 2 big mouths against a wall are the ones that were saying the exact same things that Trump is saying about illegals. WOW, you idiots can’t see when you are being jerked around.

      1. They have been brainwashed by the current propaganda.

  5. Wait….so Mexico isn’t going to pay for the wall? How about the other Central American shitholes? Won’t they pony up? Poor Trumpty Dumpty can’t catch a break sitting on his wall.

    1. Trumpty Dumpty, He’s quite off-the-wall,
      Trumpty Dumpty won’t stay in His toilet stall
      He just goes ahead and takes His shits,
      Totally regardless of whereever He sits
      Whenever He simply, no way, can sleep,
      He Twits us His thoughts, they’re all SOOO deep!
      He simply must, He MUST, Twit us His bird,
      No matter the words, however absurd!
      He sits and snorts His coke with a spoon,
      Then He brazenly shoots us His moon!
      They say He’ll be impeached by June,
      Man, oh man, June cannot come too soon!
      So He sits and jiggles His balls,
      Then He Twitters upon the walls
      “Some come here to sit and think,
      Some come here to shit and stink
      But I come here to scratch my balls,
      And read the writings on the walls
      Here I sit, My cheeks a-flexin’
      Giving birth to another Texan!
      Here I sit, on the pooper,
      Giving birth to another state trooper!
      He who writes these lines of wit,
      Wraps His Trump in little balls,
      He who reads these lines of wit,
      Eats those loser’s balls of shit!”

      1. I couldn’t have said it better myself. You, sir, have a rare talent!

        1. Great. Now why don’t you two fags go fuck each other and leave the rest of us alone.

          1. Oh…poor little Shitferbrains was triggered by a poem.

    2. Mexico isnt part of the appropriations process dumb fuck. They were never going to directly pay. Only idiots took this statement literally.

      1. But the Grifter in Chief TOLD us that Mexico would pay for the wall!!! He PROMISED!!! Only now do we learn it was all a big joke…

        Oh, wait, the Grifter in Chief is Himself “LITERALLY” One Giant Big Joke, I get it now…

        1. A tax on remittances would be possible AND would be “Mexico paying for the wall” in practice.

          But, hey, namecalling is better.

          (Remember – I’m not on Team Trump and I think he’s a shit. But I’m not f*cking deranged about him.)

      2. “Only idiots took this statement literally.”

        Do yourself a favor, next time someone calls you a fucking prick, don’t raise your fists in anger and don’t respond with the same because you are smart enough to know that they were not being literal. Fucking moron!

    3. Sure. They are paying in an indirect way with the new trade agreement, reduced remittances, more jobs at higher pay for actual tax paying Americans.

      If you expected it in pesos then fuck off.

  6. “That would be a terrible abuse of his power, because there is no wall-worthy national security threat at the border.”

    Whether hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens coming across the border represents a wall-worthy national security threat is a determination that might properly be made at the ballot box.

    If it were a terrible abuse of his power, however, it would be because it’s unconstitutional.

    1. Re: Ken Shultz,

      Whether hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens coming across the border represents a wall-worthy national security threat is a determination that might properly be made at the ballot box.

      That already happened, which is why Pelosi is Talk-Shit of the House again.

      1. Um, no. Trump openly and vociferously campaigned on this issue and WON. Pelosi et al merely said they hate Trump, and got slightly more than average gains.

        Try again.

      2. So if this is a libertarian mag site, and the wall-defenders commenting claim to be libertarian, where were they when one infiltrating lobbyist convinced the LP platform committee to delete: “However, we support control over the entry into our country offoreign nationals individuals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.” That change shatters the forlorn hope of getting thinking republicans to bolt ranks and vote Libertarian. It is unlikely that communists or econazis will suddenly abandon the Dems and vote Libertarian because of that baseless deletion. Not an iota of factual data was called upon, yet party officials rushed to make this suicidal change immediately after the 2016 platform took 4 million law-changing spoiler votes from both looter parties, more than covering the gap in national elections for the first time in history!

    2. It was pretty much resolved at the ballot box in 2018. In spite of a booming economy, the Dems gained nearly 40 seats and took back the House. And, no, “history” didn’t vote – no one went in the polling place thinking their vote had to somehow conform with the history of mid-term elections. It was largely a referendum on Trump, his behavior and his policies and they were found wanting. A “Ronald Reagan awh shucks there you go again” Republican president would have had extremely long coattails in 2018 given the economy even with most of the msm against him.

      1. The midterm elections weren’t a referendum on the wall, and, yes, Trump performed somewhere around the middle of the pack in terms of historical first midterms. Hell, you might say that the issue was determined at the ballot box in 2016, when Trump campaigned on building a wall and was elected president.

        Regardless, the point was that abuses of power are not determined by way of a popularity contest. If Trump invoking emergency powers to build a wall is a terrible abuse of power, it’s a terrible abuse of power–regardless of whether it’s popular. Terrible abuses of power are unconstitutional–regardless of whether they’re popular.

        I hope this clarifies things.

        Whether hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants coming into the country represents a wall-worthy national security threat isn’t like that. That’s determined by voters and will be. We’ll either vote for politicians who want to authorize the money to build a wall in the future or we won’t.

      2. Nearly a third of those seats were due to ballot harvesting measures which are very prone to corruption.

      3. The guy who ran on a platform of “Build the Wall” was elected in 2016. He won’t be on the ballot again until 2020.

        1. I think he actually said he was going to “build the wall and have Mexico pay for it.”

    3. “Whether hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens coming across the border represents a wall-worthy national security threat is a determination that might properly be made at the ballot box.”

      and the ballot box has already chosen the wall when it voted for Trump

      1. Try telling that to my new congresscritter, who says Trump is “manufacturing a border crisis.” My old congresscritter demanded tough border security. About 20% of the voters in the congressional district changed their minds from 2016 to 2018.

      2. The wall was in the Gee-Oh-Pee platform, and he appointed Beauregard to get cops to shoot hippies and blacks to suit the platform, and Trump also took down the econazi anti-electricity grafitti from the White House website. Now Beauregard is fired, so the LP spoiler votes can rack up a victory there. Electricity is still save and legal with no carbon tax, which is OK by libertarian lights. The LP (except one infiltrator) was neutral on the wall, militant against prohibition, and still pro-energy for 46 years in a row. It says a lot that the looters squabble most where we say the least, and repeal fastest where we take a stand–as is observed these past 46 years.

      3. and the ballot box has already chosen the wall when it voted for Trump

        If that were the case then we’d already have the wall. It’s Congress who authorizes funding. If you want to argue that the ballot box wanted the wall when they continued Republican majorities in 2016, then you might want to ask yourself why we didn’t have funding for the wall last year.

        1. Remember when Obama claimed he was elected so he and all media claimed all congress men need to tow his line? Life is ficle that way Leo

          1. I disagreed with it then, and also today. What’s your excuse?

    4. Unconstitutional? Tricky.

      I mean, there’s no specific enumerated power, so it’s not trivial.

      But if the wall is unconstitutional (as opposed to “bad policy”), it’s hard to say how, say, any border enforcement is not also unconstitutional, since I don’t see any enumerated power for “borders”, either?

      And as much as I think much of our border/immigration policy is STUPID, I’m not sure I want – or the Founders intended – that the Federal Government should have No Power Over The Borders.

      (For once, arguably the Commerce Clause might work; “commerce with foreign nations” is something a border patrol and border wall are actually directly useful for, and much of what CBP does – thus “Customs”.

      I’d sort of like to live in a world where the Constitution was taken so seriously that even “obvious powers any government should have, not in violation of any protections of the Constitution” were viewed as Not Being Powers Until Specified By Amendment … but we don’t live in that world, and no Court’s ever going to say the Federal government doesn’t have nearly plenary power over the Border.

      “Defining and defending its borders” is a power, as I understand it, generally held to flow from the very fact of being a State.

      AFAIK the Supreme Court is completely in agreement that it’s a fundamental power of the State, in general – they might be “wrong”, but you’d die on that hill.)

      1. Specific enumerated federal *obligation*.

        Article IV, Section 4
        “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion”

        *shall* protect

    5. That determination is properly made by the President.

  7. If Johnny Longstorso and LC1789 and John and all of the other border-wall fanatics are going to be posting every lurid story of an undocumented immigrant behaving badly, here are a few stories of undocumented immigrants behaving not so badly.

    An undocumented immigrant who was valedictorian of her high school and is attending Yale

    An undocumented immigrant who eventually became a brain surgeon at Johns Hopkins

    An undocumented immigrant who couldn’t find a job, so he started his own transportation company with a six-figure income and 9 employees. But, the story has a sad ending: he was stopped for running a red light, and ultimately deported, losing his business and those employees lost their livelihoods.

    Of course not *all* illegal immigrants are brain surgeons or valedictorians or successful entrepreneurs. They also aren’t *all* murderers or rapists. They represent the two extremes of the spectrum. Overall, undocumented immigrants are just people, like all people. Some are good, some are bad. It would be nice if we could not try to turn them into scapegoats of what’s wrong in America.

    1. Everything you say is true.

      So what? What is wrong with maintaining American culture, and allowing only as much immigration as we can absorb without becoming the third-world place those immigrants are fleeing? The US has about 30 million illegal aliens already. We are long past the crisis point.

      1. What is wrong with maintaining American culture, and allowing only as much immigration as we can absorb without becoming the third-world place those immigrants are fleeing?

        There is nothing wrong with maintaining American culture.

        The problem is, there is no single definition for “American culture” and basing a national immigration policy on such a nebulous term is fraught with peril.

        What standard would you use for how “American culture” is being maintained?

        1. Rule of law, government of narrow, defined powers, free speech (and bias towards liberty), free markets, no religious bias, limited and defensive military actions, free trade, etc.

          Nothing you would understand.

          1. That sounds like a wish list of what you would like America to be, instead of what “American culture” actually is today.

            For example: “government of narrow, defined powers”. For better or for worse (mostly worse), that is not the government we have today. It’s the government I think most here on these forums would LIKE to have. But it’s not what we’ve got. So IMO it’s not appropriate to call that “American culture” at least as far as the modern day is concerned.

            Similarly for “free trade” or “free markets” or “limited and defensive military actions”.

            Also I notice that you left off your list, “obnoxious chest-thumping displays of patriotism”.

            1. Yes, we have fallen a long way from our founding values. More socialists and authoritarians will make it worse.

              Patriotism is ok, jingoism not so much.

              1. Okay, so if we are going to talk about “American culture”, are we going to discuss it as it exists today, or as it existed in the past? Or, as we would like it to exist?

                The truth of the matter is, taking welfare bennies isn’t exactly contrary to “American culture” anymore, as much as we all would lament that.

          2. That asshole will never agree with these truths BigT. The truth is that if the US continues down the road we have been traveling the last couple of decades we will be a third world country and Chemjeff will not enjoy the life that will result from leaving the doors open to anyone and everyone from everywhere. Our hard working, tax paying, rule of law, no religious bias, free trade and defensive military that have freed many millions are what has made America great. If not for our forefathers making sure our Great Constitution was very difficult to change we would have be ruined years ago by people like this person and their idiotic beliefs.

        2. Following the USA Constitution. That was the entire point of putting it in writing.

      2. You know who else advocated for not diluting their culture?

        1. Everyone at all times.

        2. Zimbabwe’s leader. Cases like Zimbabwe that escape criticism make it more difficult to advocate for open borders across the board, but reciprocity visas could be acceptable to reluctant Americans.

          1. Wrong and wrongerer. The correct answer was Louis Pasteur, but thanks for playing.

        3. Trolls like mcgoo?

      3. Re: Ecoli,

        So what? What is wrong with maintaining American culture[…]

        Oh, sure, a culture so fragile it needs to be ENCAPSULATED behind a fucking wall.

        PLEASE!!! American culture is perhaps the most successful in history. Movies, literature, language, food, IDEALS. It is also constantly ENRICHED by the addition of traditions and pleasures from other countries and cultures. It is *not* diminished.

        The call to protect American culture always seemed to me as stemming from stupidity and ignorance. You validate my suspicion.

        1. That is the quite sad part of this entire debate.

          The border wall fanatics, and the border restrictionists, think America is so incredibly fragile that a few penniless Guatemalans will mean the end of the Republic.

          It is nothing but fear and anxiety and insecurity. It’s quite sad really.

          1. The US has had a steady, relentless slide towards more centralized power and government interference in our lives for at least 120 years. Adding millions who do not understand or embrace our founding values will only accelerate the process.

            Be careful what you wish for. A demagogue strongman could emerge and destroy our system. (Think Trump with great political skills and charisma and collectivist beliefs) Not a Hitler, but a Duterte or Peron.

        2. It is also constantly ENRICHED by the addition of traditions and pleasures from other countries and cultures.

          I generally agree. (“Thanks for the Pho, guys. Sorry about throwing your country to the wolves in ’75.”)

          But it’s not a Universal Law, either, that All Additions Always Make Everything Better.

          (Import 300 million Islamists [not just Muslims, note] to the US, with votes*.

          Do you think the New America will be enriched by that new majority?

          * I don’t know that there are that many, but this is a thought-experiment.

          Heck, more realistically, are people still gonna think immigration is Awesome And Enriching if the flood is Catholics who oppose abortion?

          Remember, not every tradition and “pleasure” is a positive, necessarily; the world is full of traditions that are AWFUL and that we SHOULDN’T import, no matter our politics.

          [I don’t want to import Sinn Fein, either, eh? The Puritans, equally, did lots of lovely awfulness that we’ve moved past. “Immigrants good always!!” is as foolish as “Immigrants bad always!!”])

          1. Surely you don’t expect central planning to be able to differentiate the “good immigrants” from the “bad immigrants” and good for whom/bad for whom?

            1. Good/bad for Americans.

              If you don’t want to let any in, because it’s too hard to identify ones that won’t be a problem, I’m fine with that.

      4. They don’t care about culture, leftists believe all cultures are created equally. And if brown people’s cultures show high rates of violent gangs and starvation, its the white mans fault. And they could care less about assimilation rates, they’d rather virtue signal from the bread line than acknowledge America has a right to pick and choose who comes here

        1. Then perhaps you could define precisely what constitutes “American culture” to which all good immigrants ought to adhere.

          1. I don’t even need to come up with my own, Wikipedia does it for me:

            The culture of the United States of America is primarily of Western culture (European) origin and form, but is influenced by a multicultural ethos that includes African, Native American, Asian, Polynesian, and Latin American people and their cultures.

            Note the words primarily, and influenced. Please also note that primarily is followed by western culture

        2. And they could care less about assimilation rates

          Do you have any evidence that current immigrants are not assimilating as fast as previous cohorts of immigrants?

            1. America’s assimilation problem: (Dis)united we stumble- Chicago Tribune

              What matters, of course, isn’t the pledge itself, but the ideals that it stands for. Today’s immigrants are encouraged to think, act and identify as a separate group, not to identify proudly as Americans.

              Leftists push other-ism and anti-american policies, then call patriotism racism.

        3. America has a right to pick and choose who comes here

          And by “America” what you really mean is “the majority” in some way.

          Why should 51% of Americans have the authority to decide upon the association preferences for all 100%?

          1. Because 100% of Americans will be obligated to keep immigrants safe with our military and justice system and live by the laws passed by politicians they elect.

          2. Because they happen to agree with the OP at this specific point in time… duh.

          3. Not 51 percent, the electoral college

            If it were 51 percent we’d be just like the other shitholes driving people to come here. Poor and in breadlines, running from gangs, begging for our healthcare

        4. “leftists believe all cultures are created equally.”

          They think that all cultures are created equal, except American culture, which is uniquely evil, and must be destroyed.

      5. The US has about 30 million illegal aliens already.

        Cite – you lying piece of shit.

        1. “The illegal immigrant population is as high as 29.5 million, far more than…”

          A study by Yale University. Widely cited by multiple sources. You ignorant piece of shit.

          1. I’ve seen that study. Their estimate is 22-23 million. And their model has a serious flaw re seasonal labor close to the border (picking lettuce in Imperial Valley, tomatoes in AZ, TX grapefruit, etc). They assume that that seasonal labor near the border has the same outflow rates as seasonal labor illegals who show up in GA or OH which is based on the outflow rates of H2 visa (seasonal labor who have usually incurred a form of debt-servitude in order to get that visa and thus are financially motivated to overstay to pay off the debt) overstayers. That’s just prima facie wrong.

            I’ll assume their 40% overstay rates for H2 seasonal labor are accurate. IDK what the real overstay numbers are for illegals who made it to GA or OH is – but the seasonal labor near the border was absolutely seasonal. Those employers didn’t give a shit about H2’s during the 1990’s and they were able to get away with that by making sure the CBP didn’t stop Mexican labor from getting to their area then. They didn’t get raided then either. Which is exactly why the border crossing numbers were so high during the 90’s – because Mexicans were going back-and-forth for near-border employment.

            Their model basically calculates that about 8 million more Mexicans permanently arrived in the US than left Mexico – cuz they assume that during the 90’s everyone who left Mexico left permanently rather than going back-and-forth.

            1. So the 10 million estimate has held constant for 25 years?

              1. No – everyone estimates there were about 4 million illegals in the early 1990’s after the 86 amnesty. The uncorrected Yale model calcs that grew to about 22 million by 2006 or so – and has remained roughly constant since. The govt/census/Pew calcs that grew to about 12 million or so by 2006 – and has remained constant since. And the corrected Yale model would calc that at about 14-15 million by 2006 – and constant since.

                All the models/methods agree the numbers have been constant for a decade or more because the number of Mexicans who returned home post-2006 (whether cuz of post-2006 border enforcement or 2008 recession doesn’t matter – they left) have offset the number of other nationalities who overstay. What USED TO BE a mainly Mexican problem is much less so now. Not that that matters to those who want to make this about racial politics.

    2. You’ve done one DACA recipient out of 200k. Now do the rest.

  8. 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……

    1. It’s sort of telling that this spam is probably more interesting than most of the real commentary.

  9. End birth right citizenship, then reevaluate. No wall necessary after that.

    1. What are your reasons for wanting to end birthright citizenship?

      1. 1. It is a huge magnet for illegal immigration. If mama can just get into the US she can birth her child (at tax payer expense) and baby is a US citizen. Then the hand wringing can begin, “what kind of heartless bastard are you that you would deport mama and separate her from her innocent baby? Oh, by the way the baby is a US citizen. You heartless bastard”. Baby is entitled to full welfare benefits at tax payer expense. Mama keeps popping out babies, all US citizens. Chain migration kicks in. It is a conveyor belt.

        2. It is used by prosperous pregnant women from countries that want to destroy the US (China, Russia). Why would the US intentionally create a cadre of future spies that have the advantage of US citizenship?

        3. The purpose of birth right citizenship was to enfranchise slaves freed after the civil war. That purpose has long since been completely satisfied.

        4. What are your reasons for keeping birth right citizenship?

        1. 1. It is a huge magnet for illegal immigration.

          Is there actual evidence or statistics for how many people purposefully come here in order to give birth to an American citizen?

          2. It is used by prosperous pregnant women from countries that want to destroy the US (China, Russia). Why would the US intentionally create a cadre of future spies that have the advantage of US citizenship?

          Oh come on. Babies are not spies.

          3. The purpose of birth right citizenship was to enfranchise slaves freed after the civil war. That purpose has long since been completely satisfied.

          Actually, jus soli has been around far longer than that.

          4. What are your reasons for keeping birth right citizenship?

          I am not necessarily in favor of it, but I don’t find your reasons for ending it convincing.

          1. “Birth tourism brings Russian baby boom to Miami”- NBC News

            America is wealthy and treats its citizens better than any other place on the planet. People come from all over the world trying to get their kids to be citizens, it grants unbelievable amounts of welfare, and single mothers get to marry daddy government even when they aren’t citizens. And the more this happens, the more dependent people become, and the more free shit they vote for.

            But you know all this, you choose to ignore it.

            1. From your story:

              Ekaterina was one of dozens of Russian birth tourists NBC News spoke to over the past four months

              Oh no. Dozens. Quick, let’s amend the Constitution in order to stop these dozens of women from giving birth! Maybe Trump will declare it to be a “national emergency” and amend the Constitution by fiat!

              But seriously – I have no doubt that there are some people who do choose to come here specifically to give birth. Your article doesn’t give any hint at how large this number really is.

              it grants unbelievable amounts of welfare

              How much welfare do you imagine is available to the immigrant parents of a native-born child by virtue of the child’s citizenship? Do you have any figures for this?

              1. “Feds Raid ‘Maternity Hotels’ Where Tourists Paid Up to $80K to Give Birth in U.S.”

                1. Once again. I don’t doubt that there are some “birth tourists”. I”m looking for some idea of the magnitude of the birth tourism industry. Posting lurid articles from one-off events is not that helpful. Furthermore, if birth tourists are paying $80,000 to give birth in the US, that doesn’t sound like the type of family that needs to rely on welfare via their citizen child.

                  1. Jeff,

                    How many future Chinese spies are the right amount?

                    In the case of “birth tourists”, the problem is not welfare leeches. They pop out the baby then return to China/Russia with their newly minted US citizens swaddled in US citizenship. Baby is raised in China/Russia and groomed from birth to be an ambassador of Chinese/Russian ambitions.

                    The “lurid article” is from News Week. There were hotels filled with these birth tourists. It is not a one-off event.

                    End birth right citizenship. It has no useful purpose, and only injures the US.

                    1. “How many future Chinese spies are the right amount?”

                      To Jeffy, as many as possible. Can’t have too many undesirable or dangerous foreigners here. The more the merrier.

            2. Russians coming here because they think America is rich and awesome are … not likely to want to be breeding spies for the GRU?

              Birth tourism is a thing, though I don’t think it’s actually that huge in real terms.

              But the spies thing [which you didn’t directly reference, but … Russians?] is just stupid and untenable.

              1. China engages in espionage and economic theft on a daily basis. There is nothing untenable about China continuing their theft and aggression. Chinese adults, raised in China, but with US citizenship, and steeped in their culture of theft, espionage and aggression would be immeasurably valuable to China and detrimental to the US. The Chinese are legendary for “playing the long game”. There is nothing at all stupid about wanting to prevent that.

                Same goes for Russia, although in my mind China is the real threat.

        2. Re: Ecoli,

          1. It is a huge magnet for illegal immigration.

          That’s a lie. Illegal immigration is the result of PROHIBITION, not birthright citizenship.

          Chain migration kicks in. It is a conveyor belt.

          Statements like the above can only come from idiots who don’t bother to understand their own immigration laws. So-called “anchor babies” cannot sponsor a parent until the “baby” is 21 years of age. The intention of a “mamma” to have a child in the US is to give the child an opportunity to prosper and thrive in a country where chances for growth are greater, not to migrate immediately. Sad stories are not going to keep the mother inside the US. It doesn’t happen. It’s a myth, perpetuated by ignorant Trumpistas.

          2. It is used by prosperous pregnant women from countries that want to destroy the US (China, Russia).

          Yes! Those dastardly Russkies!

          3. The purpose of birth right citizenship was to enfranchise slaves freed after the civil war.

          Sure, and the 2nd Amendment is for militias only.

          Your knowledge of constitutional history is lacking.

          4. What are your reasons for keeping birth right citizenship?

          To keep power AWAY from the State.

          You’re quite useless, Ecoli.

          1. To keep power AWAY from the State

            Nothing says “take away state power” like adding hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses on everyone else.

            1. Re: Ryan,

              Nothing says “take away state power” like adding hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses on everyone else.

              If you were really serious about that worry (which I trust you’re not because it’s instead a ridiculous quip) then you would advocate for mass sterilization of everyone who doesn’t make enough money to have a child.

              1. I believe in the family system that properly plans and cares for children. I don’t believe in eugenics, like progressives.

                1. Ryan, you’re wasting your time trying to reason with that snarky, disingenuous piece of shit.

        3. You mean that is why my boyfriend was so egar to try to get me pregnant?

          Since you present yourself as an expert on family matters, you can explain why I still do not have a bun in the oven.

          1. Maybe try the other hole?

          2. Don’t spit. Swallow. It still won’t work but your boyfriend will be amused.

    2. Re: Ecoli,

      End birth right citizenship

      a) Birth right citizenship stands over a long tradition going back to English Common Law.
      b) Denying a person’s citizenship is not going to make things better for American citizens, since it’ll provide the State thepower to deny a person’s rights on a FUCKING WHIM. But maybe that’s what you want: Omnipotent State. be honest and say so.

      1. Ha ha ha! Liar.

          1. You’re just a smarmy, smug moron. Your arguments are buklshit amd your only desire to destroy my country.

      2. OM,

        See my reply to Jeff.

        You are useless.

        1. OM, I’ll save you the trouble. He basically said brown people were diluting the pure american culture and impeding the progress of an american 4th reich.

          1. American culture, is it better than other cultures? How’d we get so wealthy?

            1. How’d we get so wealthy?

              I suppose the answer you are looking for is, “because Americans are inherently superior to everyone else”?

              But the real reason is quite complex. A big reason is because America didn’t share any land borders with the major belligerents of WW2. Therefore we didn’t have bombed out cities and factories the way France, Britain, China, Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc., all did. We were the only major industrial power still standing mostly intact after the war. And so after the war we were able to export and sell everything to the world, the way China does now. That is a big reason why we are wealthy today, basically due to our geography.

              1. “I suppose the answer you are looking for is, “because Americans are inherently superior to everyone else”?”

                I am. Our constitution made it that way. Western civilization made it that way. We have better ideas.

              2. “. A big reason is because America didn’t share any land borders with the major belligerents of WW2.”

                Partly true. The US was already the worlds most prosperous country in the 1870’s. The Ww’s accelerated that.

                You might note the contrast between Detroit and Hiroshima today, however. So sometimes non-creative destruction ends up clearing the way for growth much like a forest fire does.

              3. Britain does not shares borders with major beligerants and they share some of our fundamental free market principles. Or they used to.

                Afghanistan does not share its borders with major WWII belligerents.

                Japan was a major beligerant in WWII and they have a top end economy now.

                South Korea was devestated in WWII and during the early 1950s. They now have a top tier economy.

                As usualy Chemjeff has no idea what he is talking about.

            2. “How’d we get so wealthy?”

              Um…by hard working immigrants?

              1. documented and planned for or nah?

                1. nah. Here’s an interesting quote from the history books of the United States of America: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Yea, sorry to break it to you, but this country rose to prominence mostly through the hard work of what would be considered today to be illegal immigrants.

                  1. That’s half. In full:
                    “Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

                    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

                    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

                    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

                    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

                    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

                    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

                    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

                    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

                    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

                    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

                    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

                    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

                    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

                    1. Not illegal immigrants who built the country in the 1800’s.

                      “In the 35 years before Ellis Island opened, more than eight million immigrants arriving in New York City had been processed by officials at Castle Garden Immigration Depot in Lower Manhattan, just across the bay.[33] The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890, and Congress appropriated $75,000 to construct America’s first federal immigration station on Ellis Island.”

                      So, from 1855 the immigrants were legal in NY. Elsewhere, dunno.

                      And before 1855 if there was no law, all were legal.

                  2. Thanks for the quote from a statue Jim Acosta

      3. a. You’re wrong.

        b. You’re ridiculous

        c. Stick to calling people racists. Though ridiculous, it is your only argument.

  10. Were you this outraged when Democrats (Hillary included) called for a barrier, Dalmia?

    Asking for a friend.

    1. Shikha owes the Democrats for her citizenship.

      Its not that she owes her citizenship to Americans who allowed her to come here.

    2. Or when the Obama administration paid for a wall on the border of Jordan?

      1. $50 dollars per Jordanian for their wall.

        Trump is asking for about $15 dollars per American for our wall.

        But, you know, it’s Foreigners First with the Dems.

        1. Amd apparently, with real libertarians, like Jeffy.

  11. If Trump declares a national emergency for this be prepared for the next President to declare a national emergency on climate change, health care, and college education. Every policy want can bypass congress.

    1. Climate change, health care, and college education are not enumerated powers of the federal government.

      National security and regulation of immigrants are.

      1. For someone who claims to love the constitution you don’t seem familiar with it’s contents. The word “immigration” does not appear even once in the document.

        1. It says in that document the Supreme court ruled immigration an exclusive federal responsibility. That pretty much makes it part of the constitution.

          1. Sssshhh……I knew he wouldn’t read the link. Although, by that logic, the ACA is also part of the constitution.

            1. Immigration is a subset of naturalization. This is universal,y recognized. Your semantically argument is bullshit.

              Now apologize to LC.

                1. Yes, I can see where you get an idea like that. You’re probably thinking about a who,e haunch of beef, aren’t you? I’m sure the idea makes you hot.

                  The fact is you’re usually wrong, and rude to those of us who are historically correct. LC is just trying to straighten you out, and you don’t even show him the slightest gratitude.

          2. Now do the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.

            1. Are we playing the name game?

              1. Leo and mcgoo are all about ignoring article I, section 9 clause 1, which takes regulation power of migrants away from states and gives to congress in 1808.

                1. They’re both idiots.

                2. “Leo and mcgoo are all about ignoring article I, section 9 clause 1, which takes regulation power of migrants away from states and gives to congress in 1808.”

                  Figures that an idiot like you would cite the section of the constitution that deals with the importation of slaves and somehow think it deals with immigration.

                  1. McJizz, this has been covered. You act like you have discovered some special ‘gotcha’. You have not. No one follows your erroneous interpretation of the constitution.

                    Especially not the government.

        2. Mcgoo needs to go back to the optometrist.

          The USC says this — “Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, “? To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ?” — Just another way of saying immigration without using that exact word.

        3. Poor mcgood the troll cannot read, so Article I, section 9 of the US Constitution giving congress the authority to regulate migrants on 1808 is baffling to it.

      2. Who gives a fuck, it’s an emergency! Climate change is national security, health care is national security. Easy.

    2. “If Trump declares a national emergency for this be prepared for the next President to declare a national emergency on climate change, health care, and college education. Every policy want can bypass congress”

      +1, Trump declaring a national emergency on this will set a very bad precedent.

      1. They would do it anyway. So fuck it. The best way to deal with the left is to dispose of them.

    3. Actually, there is specific legislation that allows the president to declare a national emergency on this issue.

      Maybe Congress should have listened when libertarians warned that ceding vast amounts of power to the executive branch was be a bad idea?

      1. Was it in the 70s? Under Ford?

        But yeh.

      2. Exactly. But both parties find it irresistible to grab more power when they have the chance.

        How do we stop that, and reverse the damage? Dunno

        1. Torches, pitchforks, and ropes.

          Metaphorically speaking.

          1. Yes…….metaphorically………….

    4. “be prepared for the next President to declare a national emergency on climate change, ”

      I’m sure Trump won’t do that.

  12. Mexico finds 20 bodies, 17 of them burned, near U.S. border

    Yeah, nothing to see on the Mexico side of the border. NOTHING!

    We definitely need more people that think of life as so cheap that 20 dead bodies with 17 of them burned, is not a crisis

    1. How would a wall have stopped this?

      1. Hello, Jay!

        A wall would not stop that but lovecons…. (oh, I can’t lie, he’s a Fascist) thinks that burned people is evidence that immigrants are body burners, plus rapists and drug dealers. Especially the brown-skinned ones.

        1. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think LC is implying that Mexico is a shithole run by cartels, and they get wealthy selling drugs to the US. And the people of Mexico allow it to be said shithole..

          1. Yup. That and many south american nations dont have nor want a law abiding populace that follows a Rule of Law under a limiting constitution.

            Its a sad fact of why nearly every south and central American nation is a 3rd World nation.

            Most of these people are okay with socialism and bring those voting habits to the USA. Its why Lefties want them here so bad.

            1. Correct. And you cannot bring all of there here, without here becoming there.

              Which defeats the purpose of migration.

    2. It is difficult to find parking in Chicago, and many Cicago residents are moving to other parts of the USA. Just say’n.

    3. Let’s import more of that!

  13. The open border to our south is a very, very real and substantial threat, which only fools and zealots minimize. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

    1. There is no “open border to our south”.

      1. Trumpistas think that it is, because it lets in some people. If the southern border is not impermeable, then it’s open, in their mind.

        Of course there’s a much more open border to the NORTH, which is much bigger and is a veritable sieve, ha been the favorite entrance for actual terrorists, but since brown people don’t come from the north, well….

  14. How often are we going to keep repeating the lie that most drugs are coming in through Ports of Entry?

    1. What are you talking about? Why is that a lie? What information do you possess to the contrary?

    2. You’re correct. A substantial amount of Fentanyl is coming in through Canada.

      1. So we need two walls, then?

        1. SNOW WALLS!

          1. Winter really IS COMING!!

  15. More Shecky/Old Baner clickbait. Reason’s reason for being. Build the wall.

      1. As well to you, disingenuous, one trick pony shitstain. Walls have gates. Traffic flows, human and vehicular. I can’t enter Mexico legally without a flashlight shined up my ass and understandably so. Your game is obvious, to advantage Mexicans at any cost. Better you return and put YOUR money where your mouth is. Stay the fuck out of my wallet, I’ll cut my own lawn.

        1. Hahahaha…that was funny. Looks like someone got triggered….hahahahahaha. “I’ll cut my own lawn,” sick burn.

          1. Mcgoo is one of troll socks.

            At this point, trolls are sent to Reason to keep web traffic high. Articles by shikha are ignored otherwise.

  16. Given the facts from Dalmia, I agree that we should set up more courts to process assylum claims. Perhaps, we should also set up “assylum entry points” between ports of entry to make it safer and easier for refugees to surrender to border agents.

    1. we should set up more courts to process assylum claims”

      the republicans already proposed that but the democrats said no so that the crisis of to many families would continue

    2. More courts to process deportations.

  17. No one loves you, Dalmia.

  18. This debate over a wall has got to be close to the dumbest debate that has ever occurred. It brings out all of what is terrible about political discourse in this country: false studies, urban myths, professed experts, denials of the obvious, epic intellectually dishonest spin, false equivalencies, goal post moving, and pure tribal behavior.

    The solution to all of this is to find out what the border patrol needs to secure the border and attempt to provide them with it within reason. Simple as that. But no, instead we actually argue whether there is an illegal immigration problem on the southern border, which there obviously is. We argue whether walls are actually capable of keeping people out, which of course they are. We argue that something needs to be done, but never in the specific, but we somehow do know it doesn’t involve a wall. We argue the idea of whether something is worth doing even if it isn’t 100% effective, which of course is a terrible metric. And these arguments are all conducted by people who are all of a sudden experts on immigration even though 99.9% of them couldn’t even tell us the basics of how immigration works in this country.

    In the end, there is no dumber issue debated in this country than illegal immigration as it is something that could easily be addressed, but its value as a political tool is much more important than actually addressing the problem.

    1. The solution is shutting down the welfare state and stopping the war on drugs. But since this isn’t Libertopia, and never will be, using a wall to shuffle people towards a port is a decent option.

    2. “This debate over a wall has got to be close to the dumbest debate that has ever occurred.”

      Miss the flag burning ‘debate’ did you?

      1. No, I caught that one. And yeah, that was a dumb debate, too. But the wall debate I think is even dumber because of how intricate the idiocy of the debate has become. The flag was a fairly straightforward dumb debate. The wall debate has sparked much more passion, media coverage, and over-analysis while also bringing in other topics to add to the painfulness.

      2. Then you have not been watching. This debate at its core is a battle of two opposing views:

        1) That representatives should heed the directives of the voters thru voting and act on those desires.
        2) That representation is a popularity contest only and that representatives are free to ignore voter directives without consequence.

    3. So the exportation of superstitious prohibition based on pure pseudoscience yet intensified by asset forfeiture backed by deadly force has nothing to do with the collapsing economies in the People’s States down south? Republican nationalsocialist prohibitionism is every bit as effective as communism at wrecking economies. That much became evident in 1929-32, 1970, 1974, 1987-91, 2000 and 2007-09. Exporting the same goons-with-guns sumptuary laws destroys other economies–but their victims beat a trail to the borders of These once-Sovereign States! Export coercive garbage, and you import its consequences.

    4. The solution to all of this is to find out what the border patrol needs to secure the border”

      Border patrol has already said a wall would help

      1. Exactly.

    5. “The solution to all of this is to find out what the border patrol needs to secure the border and attempt to provide them with it within reason.”

      I suspect the answer would be “larger pensions”.

      We elect representatives so they can represent us. I like that better than being ruled by unelected apparatchiks.

      1. You seem a little ignorant on how that elected representation works. Yes, you elect representative to make the decisions, but in order to determine what the proper decision is that needs to be made, representatives consult with experts and conduct hearings. Thus, the representative should ask the experts on the matter what is needed in order to make a decision. I don’t want representatives making decisions on things they have no idea about.

      2. You seem a little ignorant on how that elected representation works. Yes, you elect representative to make the decisions, but in order to determine what the proper decision is that needs to be made, representatives consult with experts and conduct hearings. Thus, the representative should ask the experts on the matter what is needed in order to make a decision. I don’t want representatives making decisions on things they have no idea about.

  19. what is inverse of tilting @ windmills?

    1. Sucking at windblows?

      1. no. putting up the wall is the tilting part and the immigants would be the windmills. i’m somewhat on your team here just not posting 4 billion times about it

  20. Re: “Give up your wall, Mr. President.”

    Better to say “Address your President, Senator McConnell”. In the end, Senator McConnell will have to deal with the problem created by the President. I don’t understand his reluctance to pass the spending bills and let the President veto those bills. It is unlikely there is enough votes for an override and that passes the problem back to the Democrats. They will have to find a compromise or keep the government shut down.

    1. I think the Turtle doesn’t want Trump to get upset, and he has said he won’t have a vote on something Trump won’t sign. Weak sauce.

  21. A real wall would take the ‘nothing is being done and nobody is listening to me’ that a lot of angry Trump supporters feel off the table, which (to my mind) is worth 5 billion right there.

    I’m not even going to address the “fake threat” assumption, save to point out that the feeling that enough people to elect Trump have that it ISN’T fake has to be taken into account as a political reality. Their concerns have been put off with airy perciflage for DECADES. There’s a big head of steam built up there, and if we don’t want a lot of innocent people scalded some pressure needs to be bled off.

    They don’t believe that there is no threat. They have ample reason to believe otherwise, if only because a large class of morons who always lie to them claim there is no threat.

    I don’t include the Reason staff in that class, but when a bunch of notorious liars, like the Progressive Left, shout the truth, it brings the truth into disrepute.

    1. All of this plus (1) $5 billion is relatively a quite small amount, and (2) unlike other solutions, a wall won’t disappear when power changes hands and funds are reallocated.

      1. That, too.

        The Democrats have their eyes fixed so firmly on something they want out of open borders (and I have pungent opinions about what that is) that they are ignoring a lot of very angry people. That ain’t gonna end well. You think Trump is a reactionary? Wait ’til you see what gets elected if Trump doesn’t address some of the free floating anger the Progressives cannot or will not ackowledge.

      2. Unless they are reallocated to the wall removal fund. Or just no funds for maintainence, or no patrols and people with just breach it themselves.

        There are arguments for the wall but fear of democrats is pretty thin ice to base it on.

    2. The Wall is much more fundamental than causes. The case for the Wall gets down to who thinks they run this place. A majority of Americans believe it is their directives (aka votes) are what count. They elected a man who put The Wall as a platform choice that it should be built. The Democrats think they know better and otherwise and votes are not directives.

      Its a battle of those two beliefs.

      1. So the democrats were appointed?

  22. Here in the ICE Report for 2018 are data in charts, tables and graphs that can serve to strengthen or weaken many of the shrill assertions above, starting with the article itself:
    It is high time some facts entered the balance. Curbside observations, hearsay, and apocrypha have seriously damaged our platform, costing us votes and funneling the money we contribute down the toilet. Much of this information can be filtered to reflect libertarian values and attract voters to our banner. But whining alone will not accomplish that.

    1. Thx for the link.

  23. sorry, can’t go down this crazy train.

    Every place that has a wall, the wall works. Yes we need judges, yes we need sensors, yes we need guards, yes we need, yes we need, yes we need.

    Walls are, unquestionably, the most effective bang for the buck.

    Build the damn thing, and move on.

    1. since walls need to be manned i’d be fine with hiring enough border patrol agents to have one every 150 yards for 3 shifts a day. it would employ a lot of people and be just as effective if not more effective than a wall.

      1. Except employees can be bribed, walls cannot.

        1. How do you think the Mongols got through the Great Wall of China?

          Bribing your way past fortifications is as old as history.

    2. The real truth is, the reason they’re so opposed to the wall is that it would work. if they really thought it wouldn’t, it would have been treated as just another opportunity to skim some graft, and been built decades ago.

      1. +1000

  24. A Real Wall Against a Fake Threat Won’t Make America Safe Again

    And venting with an incoherent screed will not make Dalmia sane again.

  25. Personally, I don’t care about the wall. My preference is no wall. What I want is a meaningful and effective way to slow illegal immigration to a trickle. Nothing will stop it entirely, not even a wall. The Democratic party’s approach is “problem, what problem”, therefore do nothing. That is how we have ended up with 30 million illegal aliens in the country.

    The Republicans are not innocent in this either. Both party’s have fully embraced what amounts to an open borders policy, and thumbed their noses at the American people. The wall is mostly a symbol to show that this endless flow of poverty must end. If it takes a wall to make that statement, then so be it.

    End birth right citizenship.

    1. Hell, ‘problem, what problem?’ from the Left is how we got President Donald Trump.

      Of course, the REASON we have so many illegal aliens in the US is that so many other countries are Failed States that anyone with the sense God gave a gerbil wants out of. And the way out of that is TERRIBLY unfashionable; admit that some cultures are better than others, and strongly promote them

      This is known as Colonial Paternalism, and it doesn’t take all that many dacades of post-colonial chaos to make it lood goddamned good.

  26. The debate is no longer about the wall itself. It is a symbol and political tool at this point.

    Almost all of us have our minds made up one way or the other about the issue.

    Histrionics, shutdown, national addresses, national emergency, Trump is going there today, none of that seems to convince the public one way or the other. The reality show is going on inside the beltway, the rest of us are watching Netflix.

    Finally did watch the TV speeches. What a painfull experience. The Pelosi and Schumer holograms are almost lifelike, Trump is reading off that Teleprompter like a third grader squirming in his seat hoping someone else gets called on.

  27. This is where ideology fails. Yes the GOP is exaggerating the problems at the border to get the wall. Yes the Dems. are wacko for promoting tax payer funded compassion and promoting border security as a moral issue to resist President Trump.
    I guess the question is 1) can we live with unrestricted immigration where immigrants, legal or not, have the right to social services, employment, and voting. or 2) Curtail illegal immigration and restrict legal immigration to where its a benefit to the US and its citizens and not simply a benefit to the immigrant?

    i am sure there are other options but between these two obvious choices I choose #2. Why? Well, we don’t live in a libertarian utopia where everyone that comes across the border is self reliant, honest, and hard working. We live in an expanding welfare state with ever decreasing individual rights and an increasing population of wanna be altruists (I call it altruism by proxy).

    More immigrants = larger welfare state = more government…This is reality.

    So, if we wish to curtail illegal immigration and control legal immigration (understanding that the US doesn’t owe any refugee, asylum seeker, or poor fella wanting a better job ANYTHING) then we need to have secure borders to stop those trying to get around our nation’s laws. The border control agents that I have heard from all say a wall will help them with security, why shouldn’t we listen to them?

  28. Over 5,000 “immigrants” from Honduras most of them 20 something, young males, storming our border last month is ….NOT A FAKE THREAT!! Or did you conveniently forget about that?! The real question is why is it you libs don’t want a Wall? Could it be it will be harder for your dope to get in, harder for your criminal comrades to get in, harder for your illegal voters to get in??! Most likely all of the above!

  29. It’s deja vu again….

  30. Brilliant insight. We have been building border fencing since before this shill was even born. Come on Reason.

    1. There is “fencing” and then there is “fencing”. A couple strands of barbed wire is a fence, but not much of an effective fence.

  31. A porous border against a real threat is no security.

    Thousands of unvetted people entering and staying in our country is an unknown quantity that may be a threat, but we’ll not know that until the threat materializes in the form of, say, women and police officers being killed by those who have a criminal past which is unknown until it is too late.

  32. Brilliant insight. We have been building border fencing since before this shill was even born. Come on Reason.

  33. The first thing to get out of the way is, just because you show up at the border does not make you and ‘immigrant’. At best it makes you a ‘refugee’ at worst an attempted ‘illegal alien’. Words matter and those I just used are the legal definitions used in a deportation hearing. The activists and the press have contorted that use of that word to meet their own agenda.

    The ‘drug flow’ argument is a distraction away from the reason against the Wall. Building it is not a matter of numbers of illegals either. Majority of Americans are for doing so. If we are masters of our government then our desires for its construction are reason enough to do it.

  34. WADR Shikha: You’re a moron!

  35. This is a fake news conspiracy article. There is a multitude of dangerous people coming across the border. Why don’t you tell people to go to the DHS web site and check out the stats? No, you won’t do that because then you wouldn’t be able to lie to us. Where was your outrage when in 2012 Obama asked for and got 25 billion dollars for A WALL? Where was your outrage when in 2012 Schumer and Pelosi were claiming how badly we need a wall on our Mexican border? Those of you who are not too lazy, go to you tube and watch the news videos from that time. This is all BS and the ONLY reason these idiot Democrats don’t agree with Trump is because they don’t want to give Trump what they call “A WIN”. Sorry to deflate your BS but this has nothing to do with Trump, Schumer, Pelosi or anyone else in government, this has to do with the security of the US. That was the same reason that Obama and the other 2 idiots wanted a wall in 2012. That has not changed.

    1. Shikha is against the wall because it would disrupt her satiety for low cost sex slaves. Chapman just isn’t enough.

  36. (Those gangs, in turn, formed after America started deporting criminal aliens back in droves.)

    Reason prefers they stay here!

    Furthermore, what harm could the wall create?

  37. How accurate and representative is “One Obama era program”? The link she provides actually says there’s a fair amount of migrant no shows at court. We still had to find guardians for hundreds of kids whose “parents” ditched them. Then some of the guardians were suspected to be illegals themselves and never called the government back on their request for a followup.

    The migrants surrender at the border as a calculated move. Many of them have kids and pose and families knowing that how American society is obligated to handle their situation. Even Obama had to separate families once they detected human trafficking activities. “If they were criminals why would they give themselves up” doesn’t make much sense to me. Criminals flee to other nations all the time, you’re saying criminals in Honduras have NO incentive to blend inside the caravan?

    At worst, they get to hang around at Mexico and try to cross in the near future.

  38. C’mon, guys. writing an article based on a cite from your site that’s based on another cite from your site isn’t really convincing.

  39. Good thing it’s not a fake threat, then, isn’t it.

    Look. . . just come out and admit that you don’t gaf about America and be done with it.

    Fucking dipshits.

  40. 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 of up to 38 million..
    2016 – Coulter writes of 60 million invaders already here

  41. 8 U.S. Code ? 1325 – Improper entry by alien | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
    Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both

  42. Before an illegal alien receives his/her first paycheck or cash payment, they have committed some
    26 Federal, State and Local laws.

    1. They conspire to cross the border illegally. (1 count)
    2. They hire a coyote or are provided passage by a Drug Cartel in exchange for guided passage
    into the USA. (1 count)
    3. They cross the Border with a coyote and in many cases smuggle drugs. (1 count)
    4. They travel, illegally, to their destination or to a destination determined by their “smuggler.” (1 count)
    5. They obtain fraudulent documents via identity theft, or via manufactured documents?.
    driver license, green card, social security card, birth certificate (each count a felony). (4 counts)
    6. They look for work using these documents. (1 count)
    7. They fill out work documents falsely, i.e., Federal and State IRS forms, SSN forms,
    Immigration forms, Workers comp. forms (each a separate felony. (6 counts)
    8. They drive on our roads without a legal license, registration, insurance. (3 counts)
    9. They get paid via check or under the table, thus conspiring with the employer to defraud the
    government(s) via the use of false documents. (2 counts)
    10. They open bank accounts via the use of false documents in violation of Federal Law and the
    Patriot Act. (2 counts)

    1. 11. They obtain housing via the use of false documents. (1 count)
      12. They obtain a car or truck via the use of false documents. (1 count)
      13. They obtain healthcare via the use of false documents. (1 count)
      14. They secure public service benefits via the use of false documents ? food, housing, healthcare, etc.
      (3 + counts)
      At a minimum this list shows that they commit at least 28 crimes of identity theft, conspiracy, obtaining false documents making false statements, fraud, violation of Federal and State and Local laws, etc.


      The above list correctly demonstrates that they are not simply in violation of our laws just for crossing the Border, they are in violation for multiple misdemeanor and criminal acts in just a very short period of time and they continue to compound their violations via the passage of time, via falsification of documents, false statements, perjury and the list goes on.

  43. Aztlan – the cancer of racial hatred…

  44. A fake threat? So no criminals or drugs come over our Southern border? BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!

  45. Another article fit to run in “the Nation” , Mother Jones or In these Times. When I need leftist idiot talk I read these rags. Now I can get the same tripe from reason…………………….so sad

  46. If all of Mexico immigrates to the U.S. then what is the U.S. then? Its Mexico.

    81% of Democrats are living on Public Housing Assistance ( Welfare )
    70% of Hispanics vote Democrat ( The Welfare Party )

    3,105,000 Votes for U.S. Constitution (30% @ 18% U.S. Hispanic Population)
    10,350,000 Votes for Communism (70% @ 18% U.S. Hispanic Population)
    In 1970 the Hispanic population was 9.6 Million in 2016 its now 57.5 Million or
    In 1970 Hispanics were 5% of the entire U.S. Population in 2016 its now 18%. fact-tank /2017/09/18/ how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/ 89671-are-welfare-recipients-mostly-republican/

    1. Countries are people.

      Import Not Americans. Become Not America.

  47. “A Real Wall Against a Fake Threat Won’t Make America Safe Again
    Give up your wall, Mr. President.”

    I think Shikha senses the Wall is Coming.

  48. Wall work, build it already. Just ask Berlin, Israel or your local bank. Walls deter bad people from doing bad things. Next?

  49. Do the fucking dumbass writers at reason actually listen to speeches or do research? Trump flatly says it is not solely a wall. It was an 8 minute speech for fucks sake. Listen to it reason writers. He mentions rug scanning technology and other measures aside from the wall. How fucking stupid are journalists?!?

    1. Further up on the comments you stated that “Only idiots took this statement literally” that Mexico would pay for the wall. The next time someone calls you a fucking prick, don’t raise your fists in anger and don’t reply in the same fashion back because you know your a smart individual that know they were not being literal. And yes, your still a fucking moron!

  50. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work -online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by -sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link….

  51. Not fulfilling a major plank in his election campaign is a real threat and emergency to Trump supporters.

    The promise was clear. When Mexico is paying for it who cares how effective it is.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that lying is not supported by the first amendment – unless you’re a politician.

    Still, lying seems to be the reason for most presidential impeachments.

  52. Wait until you get rear-ended by someone driving without a license or insurance, who has been deported three times for wife-beating but always returns within weeks, and who was skunky drunk when he slammed into you. Maybe that doesn’t happen much in elitist neighborhoods, but it happens in mine, to my wife and daughter (same incident) who are both still in physical therapy from the effects after more than a decade.

    Build the wall. It was an emergency two decades ago and even Dems acknowledged it. Today it is time to look Dems in the eye and tell them that if they aren’t part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

    I didn’t even get to the drug epidemic problem. The British in the 17th century had a gin epidemic. They didn’t cure the epidemic, but eventually they manage to make gin sufficiently expensive that the majority of the population couldn’t be drunk all day!

    Sometimes in this world that is the best you can hope for, and you have to take it.

  53. Tells you all you need to know about the article’s bias

  54. Whatever this lying communist writes is anti-liberty and has no business being on Stop publishing this Marxist shit head.

  55. No wall-worthy threat at the border? In whose judgment? The judgment of Dalmia? What are his special qualifications? Is this guy a Democrat (i.e., a fascist type of socialist) or a libertarian? He writes like a Democrat, citing no evidence and basing his views on feelings. If he is a legal immigarnt himself he should know better. Now, me, I have lived on the border and near it for twenty years, and seen the damage. I know the border and know how hard it is to prevent illegal aliens from crossing. I have also kept up with the data on crime caused by illegal aliens, the data on the types of jobs they are hired to do, and the data on costs to the taxpayers. A barrier is fully justified! I do imagine Trump misspoke when he he first used the term wall because other types of barriers would definitely be better. Best would be a double row of 10 or 12 foot cyclone fence topped with razor wire, with a road between the fences that is patrolled very often by a large force empowered to shoot illegal aliens found to be crossing or across the border. The shame of it is that the U.S. government, which now is a federal tyranny, could have solved this problem any time in the past fifty years by tightening laws so that illegal aliens could not profit by coming here.

  56. Just because a previous admin ignored a problem when it was FUCKING INSANELY HORRIBLE, doesn’t mean that a saner person should ignore it when it is still REALLY FUCKING AWFUL. Which is our situation with illegal immigration.

    When a country has damn near as many illegal immigrants as legal, you have a fucking problem.

    This is the defining issue of the coming era. The 1st world nations can either decide to tell the SJWs to go fuck themselves, and save 1st world nations… Or all industrialized countries can be overrun by hordes of illiterates, and turn into shitholes.

    If sane people, like Trump, don’t win the argument in the near term… We’re going to end up with blood baths and massive expulsions of people in a few decades when the problem becomes too massive for anyone to ignore. So take your pick: Sane and reasonably nice immigration standards, that are actually enforced now… Or a brutal bloodbath in 10, 20, 30 years.

    Either way, I want Shikha deported back to her shithole country. 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.