Visas

President Trump: Market-Based Visas Can Buy You a Lot of Border Security

Give up your quest for wall funding and fire Stephen Miller, please.

|

Twice in less than 14 months President Donald Trump shut down the government to obtain funding for his border wall — a key piece of the

Border Babies
kevin dietschup via Newscom

enforcement-first agenda that his hardline White House adviser Stephen Miller has pushed on him. He's lost badly both times.

If Trump were smart, he'd ditch Miller. And then he'd look for innovative strategies to advance border security that involve not slamming— but welcoming—immigrants and that he could sell to his base without alienating everyone else.

The good news for Trump is no one can accuse him of not trying hard enough to push his ultra-restrictionist plans—except for maybe Ann Coulter. He dialed up his anti-immigration rhetoric during his campaign—accusing immigrants of everything from raising crime to decimating native wages — to rally the American people. And once in office, he recruited Miller to help him plot his immigration strategy and work Capitol Hill given that Miller had vast experience on this issue when working for former Attorney General Jeff Sessions when Sessions was a senator.

Thanks partly to Miller, Trump instantly canceled both DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals), President Obama's programs to give a temporary reprieve from deportation for DREAMers and undocumented aliens without a criminal record. And then Trump used the prospect of deporting DREAMers as leverage to drive a tough immigration bargain with a Republican-controlled Congress.

This was a remarkable move for the simple reason that, until then, not even the most rabid anti-immigration hardliners such as Rush Limbaugh had in their wildest dreams imagined using DREAMers as pawns. All they had hoped for were policies that would first secure the border — by building a wall and aggressively prosecuting border jumpers—before handing a one-time "amnesty" to the 11 million undocumented aliens in the country. Miller, however, prodded Trump last January to shut down the government and strong-arm Congress into giving him not only $25 billion for a border wall but also a 40 percent cut in legal immigration in exchange for legalizing a mere 700,000 DREAMers.

This backfired spectacularly. Not only did Democratic Senators balk but key Republicans did too. More crucially, this move, along with Sessions' notorious zero-tolerance border enforcement approach that involved taking away kids from asylum seekers to deter them from coming, repelled Americans, helping cost Republicans the House in the midterms.

Still, Miller refused to let Trump give up. He was instrumental in prodding the president to walk away from a deal to sign a clean continuing resolution to fund the government during the lame duck session this past December and demand $5.7 billion in wall funding. Miller's hope was that the wall would prove so popular that the new Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would cave rather than withhold the money.

But the opposite happened. Pelosi's popularity inched up as the government shutdown dragged on while Trump's base, for the first time, started abandoning him, forcing him to agree to reopen the government for three weeks.

During this time a bipartisan group of lawmakers is supposed to hammer out a deal to fund his wall in exchange for legalizing DREAMers and other aliens whose visa status Trump has revoked. But the odds that they'll reach any kind of agreement aren't great given that Pelosi remains implacably opposed to handing him money for the wall, as Trump himself has acknowledged.

So the chances are Trump will once again find himself at crossroads: take the Miller path or a new path.

The Miller path would mean making good on this threat to declare a national emergency to raid some other government department to fund his wall. But the problem with that strategy is that it won't accomplish anything, given that courts will step in and stop him, just as they have done with his efforts to kill DACA and defund sanctuary cities. At the same time, it will irritate not just Democrats but also Republicans who fear what a Democratic president might do with the precedent Trump would set. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has already warned Trump against it.

The lesson here is that Miller's immigration ideas simply don't have widespread appeal and are both a political and moral loser.

Trump's other option would be to pull a Nixon-goes-to-China move and pivot hard on the issue. Just as Richard Nixon's famously hawkish foreign policy gave him street cred to sell a peace deal with China to his conservative base, Trump could do something similar on immigration policy.

The broad-brush strokes of what this might look like are not hard to figure out. Most of Trump's base is interested in enhancing border security—not necessarily tormenting immigrants. However, the enforcement-first approach they've been sold won't actually deliver security for the simple reason that walls and crackdowns don't address the root cause of the problem, namely the lack of legal avenues for working and living in the U.S., especially for South American migrants.

So the trick is to convince Trump voters that border security and legalization can occur in tandem and in fact prioritizing the first over the second is exactly backwards. There are various ways to do this.

Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh has proposed creating an additional visa category called the gold card that would give foreigners the option of working and living legally in the United States— but not citizenship—after paying a tariff. Congress could adjust tariff rates by age and education to guarantee that all immigrants make a net positive fiscal contribution. This would potentially cut back illegal flows and give the country much greater operational control over the border than physical barriers ever could. It would also generate additional funds to go after drug traffickers or criminals who pose a genuine security threat.

Another related proposal developed by investor and immigration reform group founder Steve Kuhn (full disclosure: He is temporarily renting my house) is called IDEAL (Immigration Designed to Enhance Immigration Lives). This would involve handing out around two million new visas annually — a mix of five-year visas at $25,000 each and one-year visas at $2,500 each. The former would appeal to employers who want high-tech workers and the latter to those who use low-skilled seasonal help. The fees might seem high but are actually quite reasonable compared to the astronomical legal fees that high-tech employers have to pony up to obtain H-1B visas for foreign techies and, alternatively, the bureaucratic hoops that, say, developers and landscape companies have to jump through to obtain seasonal workers. Kuhn estimates that IDEAL would generate up to $70 billion in annual revenues for the U.S. treasury that could be used to enhance border security, prop up the welfare safety net, or otherwise mitigate any negative impact of immigration.

No doubt these proposals would have to be finessed and developed more but the point is that they offer the kind of win-win that should not be hard to sell to Trump's base.

To keep doing the same thing over and over again in the face of failure is the definition of insanity. It's time Trump tried something different.

This column was originally published in The Week

Advertisement

NEXT: 'Price Gouging' Is Supply and Demand at Work, Even in a Polar Vortex

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

  1. Build the Fence!

    Build the Wall!

    Build it all!

    1. Build the Wall

      Deport Them All!

      1. They have to go back.

    2. MAGA baby! (Smirk)

  2. If market based VISAs are so great and the wall just a useless symbol, then funding the wall in return for market based VISAs sounds like a great deal. Funny that none of the open borders fanatics see it that way.

    1. Because they dont want to make a deal. They want their way or else. Except they dont have any leverage.

      Trump is not caving to those threats and that sends them into a rage. It also sends them to Reason comments to troll as Never-Trumpers.

      1. What rage? Trump wants to waste billions of dollars on a vanity exercise in branding; Pelosi says no. Trump will threaten to shut the government down again; Pelosi will say no. Trump will declare a “national emergency” and the courts will say no way. Remember : This “national emergency” is a transparent lie, just like every other word from Trump’s mouth.

        There’ll be only token support for Trump from the GOP leadership because (a) They were just burned by DJT’s moronic shutdown and won’t abide that crap again, (b) Like everyone else, they know the wall is nonsense, and (c) The public doesn’t support the wall either.

        The whole farce will be shut-down by court order immediately after the “national emergency” is declared. Even Trump knows that, he’s just looking for a way out. Better make sure your popcorn is at hand, because the spectacle will be over in the blink of an eye. This will be more comedy than drama; I suspect the only “rage” will come from you….

        1. Keep thinking that Trump needs to cave to the Left.

          You people don’t even see what’s coming.

          Makes sense since you wont admit the great things that Trump has owned the Lefties with.

          1. Trump doesn’t “need” to do anything. This whole farce is on rails.

            1. Pelosi won’t give Trump money for his jokey wall.
            2. The government will be shut down briefly at most. The GOP won’t stand for anything more.
            3. Trump will declare a “national emergency”
            4. The courts will declare Trump full of it.

            Don’t bother straining yourself to “see what’s coming”.

            I just told you.

            1. Poor Lefties didnt see the longest federal shutdown in US history coming either. They knew trump would cave in days.

              Trump already has money for the border fence. He got stupid Democrats to vote for the bloated 2019 defense budget.

              Wait until federal employees are laid off. It will be glorious!

              1. (1) Given Trump caved, I’m surprised you wanna go there.
                (2) The defense budget is not DJT’s private stash. See comment about courts above.
                (3) So your “glorious” fantasy is federal employees laid off. Good to know. Irrelevant to reality.

                1. He has a phone and a pen. Funny how you assholes don’t like that so much when it isn’t one of your fellow travelers occupying the Oval Office.

        2. Trump had all the authority he needed on day one to build the wall and deport the invaders.

          The Constitution obligates Trump to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, including immigration laws.

          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”

          The Constitution obligates the federal government to prevent invasion.

          Trump has specific statutory authority to build a wall on the border.
          10 U.S. Code ? 284 – Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime http://bit.ly/2GaJDxb
          (7) Construction of roads and fences … to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.

        3. “Pelosi says so”

          So? That stupid commie bitch says a lot of things most of them stupid, and all of them to further democrat Marxism.

          Walls work, and we’re talking about something far more sophisticated than a single layer impediment. The fact that it will work is the real problem for the Marxist traitors……democrats.

      2. What rage? Trump wants to waste billions of dollars on a vanity exercise in branding; Pelosi says no. Trump will threaten to shut the government down again; Pelosi will say no. Trump will declare a “national emergency” and the courts will say no way. Remember : This “national emergency” is a transparent lie, just like every other word from Trump’s mouth.

        There’ll be only token support for Trump from the GOP leadership because (a) They were just burned by DJT’s moronic shutdown and won’t abide that crap again, (b) Like everyone else, they know the wall is nonsense, and (c) The public doesn’t support the wall either.

        The whole farce will be shut-down by court order immediately after the “national emergency” is declared. Even Trump knows that, he’s just looking for a way out. Better make sure your popcorn is at hand, because the spectacle will be over in the blink of an eye. This will be more comedy than drama; I suspect the only “rage” will come from you….

        1. (Sorry ’bout the double post. Isn’t it possible to write software for this kind of thing which prevents that?)

          1. learn to code?

            1. Well, yeah.

              But I assume a paid expert in this kind of code could prevent an inadvertent glitch-of-a-click while a message is mid-submission from producing a duplicate. Programming is not my shtick, but why isn’t that easily doable?

              1. Everything is easy when someone else is doing it.

              2. We don’t even have an edit button.

    2. I’d be for a deal like that in principle. I’d replace the proposed tariff scheme with disallowing the “Gold Card” visa holders from access to public assistance (welfare, medicaid, disability, unemployment, etc).

      The Dems won’t go for anything like that, though. So it’s a bit of a moot argument.

    3. Bot only that, but weren’t we just hearing from the left how the wall is pointless because the great majority of illegal immigrants overstay visas, and that’s where we really need to focus? So the solution is ….more visas?

      1. Yup. Trump is awesome because America is finding out the truth about immigration and discussing it.

        Democrats want more visas because they know that most illegals over stay visas.

        The 2020 Census is also a big deal and involve illegals because without illegals, Blue states like Commifornia lose more House seats to red states like Georgia.

        Colorado is another state that will pick up House seats and the lefties can be gerrymandered into little districts turning Colorado Red again.

        1. Good. We need to take as much away from the socialist traitors as possible.

  3. Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh has proposed creating an additional visa category called the gold card that would give foreigners the option of working and living legally in the United States? but not citizenship?after paying a tariff. Congress could adjust tariff rates by age and education to guarantee that all immigrants make a net positive fiscal contribution. This would potentially cut back illegal flows and give the country much greater operational control over the border than physical barriers ever could. It would also generate additional funds to go after drug traffickers or criminals who pose a genuine security threat.

    I suppose this is a good idea mathematically, but operationally, it’s pretty terrible. Because one reason why illegal immigration is such a thing is because the legal immigration system is not only complex and long, but expensive. Making the legal immigration process MORE expensive by adding on this additional tariff is only going to make illegal immigration worse.

    1. It’s kind of like legalizing MJ, and then taxing it such that it doesn’t compete with current black market prices. Why can’t freedom just be enough, and not yet another revenue stream for the already bloated government?

    2. Congress could adjust tariff rates by age and education to guarantee that all immigrants make a net positive fiscal contribution.

      Why apply this technique only to immigrants? To be fair, shouldn’t *all* residents be “guaranteed” to make “a net positive fiscal contribution”?

      1. Yes, and all residents citizens who do not make a positive fiscal contribution, should be deported. The IRS can be given new authority to generate annual net fiscal impact reports for each citizen.

        The government should decide who should be allowed to live in America!

        Shikha, this is a terrible idea!!!

        P.S. Please re-read the Declaration of Independence. All men [and women} are endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights –

        These rights don’t come from governments and the right to exercise them cannot be subject to ransom payments – no matter where a person is born.

  4. The cheap labor, open borders lobby has almost all of the politicians and the media and the deep state bureaucrats in their pocket. But not Donald Trump!

    If the GOP fails to address working class concerns, then full blown socialist, government monopoly health care WILL win in the near future.

    Build the Wall & Reduce Immigration Levels.

    1. If the GOP fails to address working class concerns, then full blown socialist, government monopoly health care WILL win in the near future.

      Aren’t the “working class concerns” that you’re describing just full blown socialist, government central planning of wages?

      1. “We need central planning of labor migration in order to avoid central planning of health care!”

        1. Americans don’t want central planning of health care, making them largely unique in the world.

          Import Not Americans, become Not America.

          And despite “muh anarchy”, the purpose of the Federal Government was to centrally plan *some* things. Like national defense and immigration control.

          1. Yes, those are reasonable functions. Not deciding who gets what medical treatment.

      2. Nope. The number of immigrants in the U.S. is at an all-time historical high, and mass immigration at a level which is extreme by any global historical measure continues apace.

        The government decides how many and which immigrants to let in. It is one of those few areas that is more or less “centrally planned,” like national security and roads. If you object to that, then what you are really objecting to is the very existence of nation states, as opposed to some sort of global order.

        Of course, a more sensible immigration policy would take labor demands into account, rather than blindly continuing massive immigration levels through chain migration and diversity lotteries. So, I agree with the general concept of market-based visas.

        This principle only serves to illustrate why the current policy of unreasonably high immigration levels is a very interventionist policy. Immigration currently results in a $500 billion wealth transfer among Americans, mostly from the working and middle class to a privileged few. And the net gains to Americans from immigration? They are a wash, with about $50 billion in net gains accruing mostly to a privileged few, but offset by $50 billion in taxpayer cost (privatized gains at socialized expense).

        1/2

        1. 2/2

          The purpose of this interventionist policy is simple: to centrally plan the U.S. economy as a low-wage welfare state for the masses. And the policy is very effective at achieving its purpose. Part of the purpose and effect is to create permanent electoral majorities for Democrats and socialists, and to splinter any societal cohesion that may have otherwise allowed Americans to act in their national interest. Again the policy is very effective.

          The less interventionist policy would be a drastic reduction in immigration, bringing the number and rate of immigration to historically reasonable levels, and thus implementing a more market-based and demand-based immigration policy that does not amount to such a drastic redistribution of wealth among Americans.

          1. The purpose of this interventionist policy is simple: to centrally plan the U.S. economy as a low-wage welfare state for the masses.

            And this is where you really go off the rails. Because the free choices of free people result in outcomes you don’t like, you concoct that it must be the result of some diabolical central plan, by some cabal of evildoers, to destroy America.

            Can’t you see how some might fairly conclude that this line of reasoning is bonkers?

            1. No, this is where you really go off the rails. Who says this policy is “diabolical” or will “destroy America”? Those who favor this policy think it will make America and the world better. There is nothing secret or conspiratorial about any of this — the purposes of this policy are frequently, openly and publicly stated without pretense.

              You know that you’re losing an argument when you have to retreat from and go into denial about the explicitly stated purpose and proven effect of your own policy, and instead try to distract with handwaving about “diabolical cabals.”

              1. Who says this policy is “diabolical” or will “destroy America”?

                You do, when you claim the real purposes are:

                to create permanent electoral majorities for Democrats and socialists, and to splinter any societal cohesion

                I’m presuming you think that these are negatives, no?

                And OF COURSE the comic book villain always has some rationale for why he thinks his diabolical plot will make things better. But he’s still just a comic book villain. That is what you’ve turned “socialists and Democrats” into.

                Once again: you can’t handle that free people making free choices produces some outcome that you don’t like absent any grand central plan. There MUST be some conspiracy at work to undermine America! This type of thinking is nuts.

                1. Once again: you can’t handle that free people making free choices produces some outcome that you don’t like absent any grand central plan.

                  To be fair, you have the same problem from time to time. You just call those people bigots rather than central planners.

                2. “Dont believe your lying eyes”

                3. “I’m presuming you think that these are negatives, no?”

                  I do. And others disagree. This is a policy disagreement whose purposes and effects are discussed openly in the public discourse and in the pages of mainstream media outlets. The left celebrates unlimited immigration because it is “diversity” for its own sake, or because it furthers “globalization” and the reduction of nationalist loyalties and sovereignties in favor of ostensibly cooperative supranational bodies. They see all of this as a good thing.

                  The left also openly celebrates the demographic change that is being engineered precisely because it will create a permanent electoral majority in favor of Democrats and their socialist wing. They see this as a good thing.

                  Meanwhile a number of groups such as Zuckerberg’s FWD.us, Koch-funded lobbying groups, the Chamber of Commerce and so on, openly celebrate and tirelessly advocate for high levels of immigration specifically for labor market purposes. And a very small number of libertarians celebrate it supposedly for the “liberty interests” of immigrants themselves and those Americans who are the beneficiaries of a $500 billion redistribution of wealth due to immigration.

                4. FFS you’re just stuck on stupid, aren’t you? So many of us have straightened you out over and over. Yet you persist. Shitposting the same discredited arguments over and over, like they’re suddenly good.

                  They’re not.

                  1. That was directed towards Little Jeffy.

              2. M.L. Chemjeff and SparkY as some of the people you refer to as “If you object to that, then what you are really objecting to is the very existence of nation states, as opposed to some sort of global order.”

            2. ” Because the free choices of free people result in outcomes you don’t like, you concoct that it must be the result of some diabolical central plan, by some cabal of evildoers, to destroy America.”

              Someone’s never heard of communism

            3. And this is where you really go off the rails. Because the free choices of free people result in outcomes you don’t like, you concoct that it must be the result of some diabolical central plan, by some cabal of evildoers, to destroy America.

              It doesn’t have to be concocted or planned. Power hungry opportunists and morality-fueled warriors of righteous will take care of any/all planning and concocting automatically.

              Nobody has to be behind the opium epidemic causing Americans to OD while spending money to simultaneously enrich S. Amercian drug lords and drive their citizens here in order for some people to want it to stay that way.

            4. “Bonkers”

              More airtight dialectic from racebaiterjeff.

        2. The government decides how many and which immigrants to let in. It is one of those few areas that is more or less “centrally planned,” like national security and roads. If you object to that, then what you are really objecting to is the very existence of nation states, as opposed to some sort of global order.

          Sorry, but your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise.

          The territory of a nation-state is defined by the extent of jurisdiction of the government. It is NOT defined by keeping tabs of who comes and who goes.

          Take the example of a municipal park. In many municipal parks, there are no walls or “border agents” keeping track of who comes and goes. And yet the municipal government still is able to exert authority over the rules of behavior in the park.

          If your conclusion was correct, then the United States was not a “nation state” for the first 100 years of its existence, as there was no centralized control of immigration for that period of time. Is that really what you are arguing?

          1. Wrong. A nation is primarily a group of actual living, breathing people — its citizens. A nation is only secondarily a geographical territory or legal jurisdiction.

            You have acknowledged this yourself implicitly by saying “the territory of a nation-state is defined . . .” Yes. The territory is not the nation-state, it belongs to the nation-state.

            1. EVEN IF we accept your definition of a nation as “its citizens”, how would permitting free migration of people deny the existence of “the nation”? No one here is suggesting granting instant citizenship to all migrants.

              If a nation has 100 citizens, and 10 migrants are allowed to migrate into the nation without becoming citizens, then the nation – by your definition – hasn’t changed at all. It is still composed of those 100 citizens. And this doesn’t change even if there are no restrictions on which migrants are allowed to migrate, or if the nation’s government doesn’t keep track of who comes and who goes.

              1. “EVEN IF we accept your definition of a nation as “its citizens”, how would permitting free migration of people deny the existence of “the nation”?”

                It wouldn’t. You misunderstood my point. My point was that the inherent characteristics of a nation-state are such that the decisions about immigration and naturalization policy, as well as anything crossing the border, rest with the government of that nation state.

                You can make the argument for why open borders is better. Go right ahead. What you can’t do is pretend that it’s not even a government policy — and a radical one at that.

                1. My point was that the inherent characteristics of a nation-state are such that the decisions about immigration and naturalization policy, as well as anything crossing the border, rest with the government of that nation state.

                  And I disagree that an “inherent characteristic” of a nation-state is having a government keeping tabs of who comes and who goes. Even according to YOUR definition, a nation-state is composed of the citizens of that nation. Where in that definition does it mandate that those citizens must have power to decide who comes and goes, separate from any decision of who joins the nation as a citizen?

                  1. “And I disagree that an “inherent characteristic” of a nation-state is having a government keeping tabs of who comes and who goes.”

                    I disagree with that too. A nation may choose not to “keep tabs” on who comes and goes — as ours has done to large extent. We are no less a nation because of that choice. But it’s inherently characteristic of a nation that our government makes that choice, one way or the other.

                    1. But it’s inherently characteristic of a nation that our government makes that choice, one way or the other.

                      Why? Why is this a defining characteristic of a nation?

                      Remember, YOU defined a nation as a collection of citizens, NOT in terms of a centralized authority. So according to your definition, there is nothing inherently contradictory with having a completely anarchic nation. In this hypothetical nation of Anarchotopia, there is no government at all to make a choice of whether to keep immigrants in or out. Is this nation not a “real nation” in your view?

                    2. “Why? Why is this a defining characteristic of a nation? . . YOU defined a nation as a collection of citizens, NOT in terms of a centralized authority.”

                      What I said was that a nation is primarily the People. Secondarily, a nation is a territory and legal jurisdiction, over which the People exercise sovereignty by the government.

                      The primary impetus for instituting said government is to provide for national security and international affairs, which include borders and immigration policy. So, border security and international matters are a fundamental function of a national government, as is amply demonstrated by history and the current state of our federal government’s dysfunction on the issue.

            2. So, a nation-state is a citizenry, and it always exercises a choice to set policy over who is allowed to join the citizenry, and who is allowed to reside within the territory.

              One option is to say “Anyone in the world can come and reside here.” And such a policy would seem sensible in the very different world of centuries past, the wild frontier “New World” America. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a nation, it just means that was the choice they made.

              Note, however, that at this time they also exercised stricter control over who would be a citizen and who would be allowed to vote.

              Note also, that at the time of zero immigration restrictions, they still had far less immigration than we do today, despite the policy. Today, now, is the real era of massive amounts of immigration — not then.

              1. Luckily, there are still plenty of us Americans willing to fight for our nation.

          2. Little Jeffy, a nation is not a fucking park. You keep trying that, and you keep getting slapped down.

            You must be an incredibly annoying person.

    2. And by the way.
      A nontrivial number of people are opposed to centrally planned health care precisely because they fear that illegal immigrants would take advantage of it. Take away the illegal immigrants, and the likelihood for more people supporting centrally planned health care becomes HIGHER, not lower. Because they would know with more certainty that the health care money would go to those who “deserve” it (Americans) rather than those rascally furriners.

      1. Your citation fell off.

        1. Jeffy will do anything to get an unlimited amount of illegals here. Stupid little shit that he is.

      2. Some facts for racebaiterjeff.
        Hispanics, and in particular hispanic immigrants favor bigger government handing out more goodies. Same with immigration generally.

        Import Not Americans, become Not America.

        PEW Research on Hispanic Americans, breakdowns by immigration and foreign birth
        https://goo.gl/WBi1BV
        Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
        https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
        Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

        1. Dan, you make an excellent point. You cannot bring there here without making here there.

  5. Here’s another idea along the same lines of addressing the root causes of illegal immigration:

    The state can give a tax credit for remittances that individuals make by working in the US to family members in certain other Latin American countries (e.g. Guatemala, El Salvador)

    Because these remittances represent a form of foreign aid to these countries that is absent any coercion. No tax money is stolen by the state, which is then handed over to corrupt bureaucrats in foreign nations to waste on their own corrupt projects. It’s money that is fairly earned, and delivered directly to the people who most need it, i.e., the family members themselves. We ought to be ENCOURAGING this type of foreign aid. It is exactly what the border restrictionist crowd demands that immigrants do – making their own countries better. If their countries are better, then the economic conditions won’t be so dire, there will be more opportunities to gain employment in their native country and less of an economic need to migrate here just to make a living.

    Plus, as an added bonus, it’s less money stolen by the state in this country to fund its own corrupt spending projects.

    1. The root cause of illegal immigration to the US is that Americans have made a more free, wealthy, and productive society than the countries the immigrants made.

      But countries are people. Wherever you go, there you are.

      Import Not Americans, Become Not America.

  6. Where does the affordable housing come from? The water assistance for low skill immigration or poor immigration? The energy assistance for low skill immigration? The property taxes for schools, immigration? The never ending expansion of the immigration legal system?

    It comes from American taxpayers and property owners. BTW, I’m in the Intermountain West and our small town recently had a trailer dig into a water line (traffickers?), oh yeah, and our water bills have tripled in 5 years.

    Corporate Welfare Kings for Open Borders!!

    1. our water bills have tripled in 5 years

      And you blame this on illegal immigration?

      1. Yes. The town basically put out a warning of rate increases due to water assistance to low income residents. The low income residents are basically immigrants working for big corporations (Kroger, Starbucks, Fast Food)

        1. Huh. So maybe the water company being forced to subsidize low income individuals, immigrants or not, is the real problem here.

          1. Government is always the problem. Paying non-living wages while in collusion with the Government is another problem.

          2. “All the problems with immigration are the fault of government. Muh Anarchy NOW!”

    2. our small town recently had a trailer dig into a water line (traffickers?)

      And you know that this water line rupture is due to human traffickers how?

      See this is part of the problem with discussing this issue. For a certain segment, everything bad in the world is blamed on immigrants.

      1. Its a small town with a local newspaper-thats how I know.

        I’m coming at this from my own perspective. I’ve owned a medium sized business for 22 years. If I do not pay my employees a living wage, I go out of business.

        Corporations that do not pay a living wage and then push the cost onto the local and federal taxpayer is called corporatism or crony capitalism or my word corporate welfare. If Kroger needs more employees (even if they are immigrants, thats fine with me) they need to pay them a wage that pays for water, energy, food and rent. And oh yeah, FUCKING HEALTHCARE TOO.

        I thought Reason was about completely free markets?

        1. Actually, corporations that pay the market wage for their employees is called the free market in action.

          1. In collusion with government for all of their living costs. It doesn’t work this way for us small-medium peeps.

            1. You don’t get to pay market wages for your employees?

              1. I get it chemjeff. The stocks I purchase are directly related to the expansion of the welfare state. Centrally planned economy- the China Model. Enjoy California.

  7. charge immigrants who want to come to America to work a fee to raise funds to catch genuinely dangerous aliens.

    “Then, in a gesture of compromise, charge those genuinely dangerous aliens a fee to raise funds to build the wall.”

  8. Every time I comments about having to pay for the K-12 education of illegal aliens, the response from the Open Borders crowd is: 1) Illegals pay taxes, too 2) You’re paying for the schooling of citizens as well.

    So my question to the OBC is: if it’s wrong to deny K-12 education to illegal aliens, isn’t also wrong to deny any other government benefit that they’d be entitled to if they were citizens?

    What is the OBC/Libertarian principled position on denying the extension of Food Stamps, Section 8, SSDI, MediCaid, Pell Grants, LIHEAP, WIC, etc. to people not in the country legally?

    1. Reason = LINOs.

    2. Add…Massive expansion of the federal court system and growing government, energy assistance, affordable housing or public housing. Public Transportation.

    3. It’s wrong to call them ‘open borders’, they are selective borders people.

      Sell a gun from private citizen to private citizen across state lines *within the same country that has private ownership and gun rights enshrined in the constitution*? Federal firearms regulations are just a burden we all have to deal with. The most ardent of libertarians who support open borders don’t even salute that flag any more. The hill is so lost it’s not even worth thinking about.

      Every month since the separation policy was rescinded, the various child services agencies have separated more children from their parents than CBP ever did. Again, even the most ardent of open borders libertarians will tell you it’s hard to sort out the good parents from the bad and kids in social services is just how things are done.

      It’s plainly evident that, even among many libertarians, they don’t want Americans to be more free and for more people to immigrate here to enjoy those freedoms and take them back to their country or integrate them into their culture as much as they want to keep Americans and their freedom restrained and facilitate the transfer of wealth and labor to as many foreign nationals as possible.

    4. Police State to the World
      Welfare State to the World

      “Libertarian Moment”

  9. Why does every single one of Dipshit Scumbagetta’s garbage Newsweek editorials have to appear here two or three times? Most of these sprays of thought diarrhea aren’t worthy of appearing once!

  10. Shiksa. Shiksa, Shiksa, Shiksa.

  11. Get freaking over it. If Trump doesn’t build a wall, or something that looks a good deal like one, what gets elected next is going to make Trump look like Jerry Brown. Trump got elected, in lare part, because a lot of middle class middle of the country people felt that their cOncerns about immigration were dismissed by a group of elitist political whores. Now, they may be wrong, or their concerns may be way off base. That’s the rub with Representative government. The concerns of the voters have to be met, even if they are insane.

    It’s still better than flat out government by elites, because the elites are almost ALWAYS insane.

    1. Or, the other side of that coin is someone that makes Jerry Brown look like Ronald Reagan (which is the current state of events in CA and D.C.).

      1. That was my thought.

        Trump was a miracle. The country was *done* if Hillary won.

        Good chance Trump only delayed the inevitable.

        1. No, the inevitable will become a civil war. Them the progtards will be dealt with in a massive cleansing.

  12. Get rid of H-1B visas. If the people getting these jobs have skills that are so crucial to this country’s economy, it is immoral for them to be trapped at a single company and be unable to go elsewhere. Let them (or a sponsor) purchase their visa and let them be free to seek employment anywhere. Allow a sponsor to recoup only the cost of the visa if the person leaves for another employer (only fair, and only if the sponsor paid for it).

    1. Agreed, it’s just the modern indentured servitude.

      1. Makes the Koch’s money, makes Reason happy.

        1. Gives little Jeffy something to stroke his little boy boner to.

  13. I am creating an honest wage from home 2500 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started…..
    ????COPY THIS WEBSITE????

    HERE? http://www.briskgold.com

  14. “not even the most rabid anti-immigration hardliners such as Rush Limbaugh had in their wildest dreams imagined using DREAMers as pawns”

    Obama unavailable for comment

  15. “Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh has proposed creating an additional visa category called the gold card that would give foreigners the option of working and living legally in the United States? but not citizenship?after paying a tariff. ”

    You clowns are still naive enough to believe democrats won’t call this racism in 5-years and demand full citizenship. It must be so nice to be so smug yet so stupid. This game of importing/ giving amnesty has been playing out for decades and you think people are suddenly going to play fair?

    1. Birthright citizenship -> “You can’t deport Daddy!”

      They have to go back.

      1. Yep. No more illegals.

  16. “This backfired spectacularly. Not only did Democratic Senators balk but key Republicans did too.”

    Let’s be real here: “Key” Republicans balked because they were as opposed to border security as your average Democrat.

    1. Bingo.

      The Deep State Globalist Uniparty is all in on open borders.

  17. A tip from Genghis Khan, build your wall out of the skulls of your enemies.

    1. Gives new meaning to the phrase: The Wall just got 10 feet higher!

  18. To keep doing the same thing over and over again in the face of failure is the definition of insanity

    And yet you keep writing this same article, over and over and over, with only the slightest variations. Like a madwoman decorating her cell with words written in her own feces…

    Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad ……

    1. When I say “yes”, I simply mean it’s a good start. A good start to keeping the goddamneocrats at bay. At least for a while.

  19. “This was a remarkable move for the simple reason that, until then, not even the most rabid anti-immigration hardliners such as Rush Limbaugh had in their wildest dreams imagined using DREAMers as pawns. All they had hoped for were policies that would first secure the border ? by building a wall and aggressively prosecuting border jumpers?before handing a one-time “amnesty” to the 11 million undocumented aliens in the country. ”

    They have to go back. All of them.

    — The Deplorables

    1. “The good news for Trump is no one can accuse him of not trying hard enough to push his ultra-restrictionist plans?except for maybe Ann Coulter. ”

      His base does blame him for not doing it.
      Trump had all the authority he needed on day one to build the wall and deport the invaders.

      The Constitution obligates Trump to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, including immigration laws.

      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”

      The Constitution obligates the federal government to prevent invasion.

      Trump has specific statutory authority to build a wall on the border.
      10 U.S. Code ? 284 – Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime http://bit.ly/2GaJDxb
      (7) Construction of roads and fences … to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.

      Trump ran on BuildTheWall and DrainTheSwamp
      That’s what his base supported. Not tax cuts for the Kochs.
      If he doesn’t govern on them, he opens himself up to a Republican challenge by someone who will.

      Percentage of new Border Wall Completed: 0%
      Percentage of Deep State Drained: 0%
      Tic Toc
      Percentage of Trump’s Term Used Up: 50%

      1. He tried to work with traitor like Paul Ryan. That was a mistake. Running roughshod over the opposition party, especially a treasonous ome like the democrats is easier in many ways.

  20. The ‘double taxation’ argument has always been wrong on two levels.
    First, in many cases and particularly in the case of most billionaires, the money has ever been taxed. When Bezos, Zuckerberg, et. al., started their companies the owned shares which, for the most part, they never sold. Usually some are diluted to raise capital early on, but this mostly goes to the company expenses and development, not to the original owner. So if Zuckerberg dies and leaves his shares to his kids, the value has never been taxed. Nobody ‘earned’ a billion dollars in salary. They may have invested and paid capital gains when they sold, but also may still hold investments that have multiplied many times over the years and decades, and this increase in value has also never been taxed.
    Secondly, money is generally taxed when it changes hands. As such all money is not only double taxed, but infinitely taxed. If I earn money, it is taxed. If I then buy a car with what’s left, the car company pays that money to its employees which are taxed again. If some is left over (profit) that is also taxed. If the employee buys a cheeseburger the money is taxed again, ad infinitum. Taxation occurs on (most) transactions in which money changes hands. Inheritance should not be viewed as a special case because the two parties are family members. Should my son be exempt from taxes if I hire him? I mean, I’ve already paid taxes on the money I pay him….

  21. “Pelosi’s popularity inched up as the government shutdown dragged on while Trump’s base, for the first time, started abandoning him”

    Talk about extreme bias, this report is NOT TRUE – actually lies, see: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/2…..ews-718532

    “Pelosi’s approval rating dropped 6 points while the president experienced ratings that had changed little since November. There was a significant 19-point difference in Pelosi’s favorability, with only 28 percent of Americans rating the California Democrat as favorable

    Trump’s overall 43-percent approval rating is, according to Gallup Poll, roughly on par with President Barack Obama’s 49 approval rating during the same week just two years into his presidency. This comes after a Rasmussen Poll also showed that 40 percent of Americans actually blamed congressional Democrats for the shutdown.”

    1. Can you imagine how popular Trump would be if the media were not all communist traitors bent on destroying him?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.