Donald Trump

A Border Wall Is a Bad Idea, but So Is the "Border Security" Democrats Say They Want

Until we fundamentally reframe the immigration debate in terms of human freedom rather than fear, we're not going to see real reform.

|

Georgetown Book Shop

We all know that leading Democrats such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are explicitly against President Trump's demand for $5.7 billion in funding for a wall or some other form of fencing or barrier on the U.S. border with Mexico. Yet Schumer, Pelosi, and other members of their party are all in favor of "border security" in the form of increasing crackdowns on employers of illegals, installing "new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming into our nation," and funding "more innovation to detect unauthorized crossings."

As news is breaking of a possible deal to avoid another government shutdown at week's end—one that includes $1.375 billion for "physical barriers" on the border—it's worth asking whether the Democratic position is really that different than Trump's. They say no to a wall but yes to the basic immigration status quo, one that harshly limits the number of legal migrants from Mexico and other Central American countries, forces employers into the role of checking papers of potential employees, and underwrites a system of internal checkpoints that routinely deports American citizens in immigration sweeps. On immigration, as on many other issues, it turns out that the differences between Republicans and Democrats is more about semantics and small details rather than contrasting principles.

In a smart New York Times op-ed, Daniel Denvir makes the case against "border security" that both Trump and the Democrats are insisting on.

There is plainly no need for more security on the border. Illegal entries to the United States (as measured by Border Patrol apprehensions, which the government has long used as a proxy) began to fall at the turn of the century, and have plummeted since 2006. They remain at historic lows today. Those who are coming to the country are often Central Americans fleeing violence that United States policy in the region helped foment.

And when it comes to drugs — a favorite justification of Mr. Trump's for his wall — evidence shows that more "border security" does not stop trafficking. From the 1970s on, every crackdown on a drug-smuggling route, whether it was heroin via the French Connection or cocaine through the Caribbean, has only led to new innovations in the trade that have empowered murderous Mexican cartels. Some scholars even argue that the rise of fentanyl can be traced to drug interdiction.

Denvir notes that back in the 1990s, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party campaigned hard on the supposed ills associated with illegal immigration. As Reason's Matt Welch has pointed out, the 1996 Democratic Party platform sounds uncannily like Donald Trump today on a wide variety of law-and-order issues, none more so than immigration ("We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent," crows the document. "In El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other").

Gallup

What has happened under Trump is a wholesale reversal of attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. As I noted last fall, a record number of Americans—Republicans along with Democrats—have positive views about immigration and its effects on the country. Denvir is correct to argue that it's time to stop talking about "border security" and to start talking about how to craft an immigration policy that is in step with how the majority of us feel about newcomers.

The border must be demilitarized, which would include demolishing the already-existing wall and dramatically downsizing the Border Patrol. Criminal sanctions on illegal entry and re-entry must be repealed. Opportunities for legal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, must be expanded. The right to asylum must be honored. And citizenship for those who reside here must be a stand-alone cause, unencumbered by compromises that are not only distasteful but also politically ineffectual — and that today would provoke opposition from the nativist right and the grass-roots left.

We can quibble over some of this, but he is, I think, right that we can never get to a good point on immigration policy until the argument is reframed away from questions of "border security." There are a number of powerful arguments in favor of opening the borders, including pragmatic ones (the U.S. economy needs more workers and immigration is the only way to make that happen), comparative ones ("America's share of the foreign born ranks 34th among 50 wealthy countries with a per capita gross domestic product of over $20,000″), and moral ones (law-abiding individuals do not necessarily have a right to welfare but they do have a right of movement; allowing migrants to cross the border fantastically increases their well-being).

Denvir writes from the left (he hosts a podcast for the socialist magazine Jacobin) and the one place where his analysis falters is that he thinks most Democratic politicians "have for far too long let their political opponents define the terms of debate." In fact, they're totally willing accomplices (go read that '96 campaign platform again), partly because they are beholden to organized labor, which has historically argued against more immigration, which is seen (incorrectly) as a threat to native workers' wages. That's also true of Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist senator from Vermont, who has called open borders "a Koch brothers proposal…[that] would make everybody in America poorer… [and do away] with the concept of a nation state."

There's no question that Donald Trump, virtually out of sheer will, made immigration and a border wall a top policy concern when he entered presidential politics in 2015. His positions on immigration are blissfully fact-free (for instance, despite his statements that we are being overrun down Mexico way, apprehensions on the southern border are one-quarter of what they were in 2000), but they also track with longstanding gripes from fellow Republicans and partisan Democrats. We need a fundamentally different conversation about immigration, one that doesn't see the free movement of people as a problem that must be fixed. And that's going to take a change of heart among both the right and the left.

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Rep. Omar was accused of indulging in anti-Semitic rhetoric

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. Nick, from your link:

    At the same time, the number of immigrants entering the country has slowed considerably, thanks in part to the Great Recession of 2007?09. Not only do these trends put enormous pressure on the country’s entitlement system, they are already causing a drag on the economy. And this problem will only get more serious in the decades to come. Unless the U.S. finds a way to welcome more foreigners, and quickly, it is headed for a demographic crisis.

    If we can’t fill the bottom of the pyramid with enough workers to sustain the top of the “entitlement” pyramid scheme, the problem isn’t lack of immigration or even fertility rates, the problem is with the “entitlement” pyramid scheme.

    Again, note Milton Friedman’s comments on unrestricted immigration when your country becomes one big fat entitlement pyramid scheme.

    1. And for those who don’t click through to Nick’s link, here’s a little more in the quote I should have included:

      The U.S. birth rate hit an all-time low in 2017: 1.7 children per woman, well below the “replacement rate” of 2.1.

      1. When jobs are being replaced by robots, should we really be so concerned about a falling birth rate?

        1. All we have to do is start making robots pay FICA.

        2. Nick and Koch’s are worried about running out of consumers. Doesn’t matter if they have great jobs or if they are buying with their welfare EBT cards – as long as they keep spending.

      2. Those birth rates probably bounce back up with increased financial ability to start families. Higher wages, more job security, cheaper homes, more infrastructure per capita.

        All things harmed by importing more human widgets for the Koch’s to squeeze money out of.

        1. “Those birth rates probably bounce back up with increased financial ability to start families.”

          No they won’t. As nations become wealthier their fertility rate decreases. Many countries are already below the 2.1 replacement rate and most, if not all, of the countries on Earth have experienced a declining fertility rate.

          People in poor rural areas have lots of children because they know some will die, and, extra bodies are needed for labor. But as the world becomes wealthier, more urban and child mortality rates decline, extra children are a financial burden.

          And most women don’t want a lot of children. It detracts from their careers (or at the least, their ability to make money) and it takes a toll on their bodies.

          1. How many of them are wealthy enough to raise secure families on one income per family?

            Lots of career women choose to leave their jobs and raise a family if their husbands have secure income that can support their family in comfort.

            Lots of husbands would be happy to swap those roles (though few wives would be).

            Most people don’t have careers. They have jobs.

  2. We need a fundamentally different conversation about immigration, one that doesn’t see the free movement of people as a problem that must be fixed.

    So what you’re saying is that we the voters need to create an incentive for politicians of either party (or whatever) to discuss a policy issue on clear analysis based on cold facts rather than on heated rhetoric based on existing political considerations? I refuse.

    1. Reason just wants open borders. Period. Everything else is just the excuses for it.

      Build the wall.

      No more illegals.

      1. #DestroyAmericaFirst

        Do it for the Plutocrats!

      2. For a country to maintain its population, it needs a fertility rate of 2.1. The US fertility rate is 1.9. Without immigration the US will suffer the same fate as the rest of the industrialized world; a declining and aging population, fewer workers which means a shrinking economy and smaller tax base. And less assistance for the elderly.

        The only advanced nations that will avoid that fate are the US, Canada and Australia because of their immigration policies bring in more young workers. The US will still be the strongest, wealthiest nation in 2100 because of immigrants. Cut them off and we’ll end up being a second-rate power.

        Legal or Illegal, we need immigrants to maintain our strength and wealth.

        Why do you hate America?

        1. Provide historical examples proving your theory.
          Specifically:
          1) sub “replacement rate” birthrates led to economic decline
          2) replacement via immigration sustained or reinvigorated economic development

          It’s possible this academically accepted theory is correct, but I’ve yet to see any substance to it beyond asserted wisdom.

          And generally speaking, most of the conventional wisdom regarding development of the modern economy beyond the now are based on a rather small sample size. Some rules are more likely than others to be correct, but even experts are dealing with fairly uncharted territory

          1. A lot of beliefs about future economic processes amount to and are based on little more than faith

          2. “Provide historical examples proving your theory.”

            An aging and declining population has no historical examples. Nations have never had low death rates and declining birth rates. They’ve never had advanced medical technology and equality for women like we have today.

            And: America has been a nation of immigrants since it’s beginning and has been the greatest nation on Earth for the past 150 years.

            “And generally speaking, most of the conventional wisdom regarding development of the modern economy beyond the now are based on a rather small sample size.”

            No it hasn’t’. It’s been based on national economies and the global economy. We have Petabytes of data on which to base our theories. And you have? A keyboard and an agenda.

          3. “1) sub “replacement rate” birthrates led to economic decline”

            Japan seems to be one data point.

            1. Japan is a country with no crime and continually growing PPP per capita, even with an aging population.

              Japan’s model of sustaining their society looks much more successful than Europe’s delusion that they were going to turn Middle East and African emigrants into the BMW engineers they couldn’t be bothered to have themselves.

              1. Additionally, Japan is ahead of the curve in creating robots instead of importing low skilled, low iq third worlders who will require a lifetime of taxpayer support for them and their offspring.

  3. I’m sorry but the “Libertarians must be in favor of open borders’ meme is one reason I do not describe myself as Libertarian. I do believe that much about our immigration laws needs to change, but I also don’t believe we will know what parts until the laws we have are enforced, or the attempt is at least made.

    A barrier at the border with Mexico is probably a cost effective way of assuaging the irritation of those who feel that their self-nominated ‘betters’ have been ignoring their concerns on this issue, as well.

    Of course, the root of this issue is that Mexico (and most points south) is a failed State. Probably the only way to really remedy that would be conquest and we aren’t mentally ready.

    1. A barrier at the border with Mexico is probably a cost effective way of assuaging the irritation of those who feel that their self-nominated ‘betters’ have been ignoring their concerns on this issue, as well.

      Well if assuaging irritation is the goal, maybe $50 payments directly to the irritated is a better means than a wall.

      1. The Wall is a hell of a lot cheaper than that on an annual basis. A $50 payment to 100 million Americans is $5 billion per year, recurring.

      2. Yep, just build the wall.

    2. I’ve read several articles and have talked to people who say that open borders is the one issue that Libertarians cannot agree on. You shouldn’t turn your back on Libertarianism for that reason alone. I vehemently appose open boarders. Freedom is the basis for our country, but without borders, there can’t be a country.

      I believe that a wall and immigration reform is needed to resolve the current problems.

      1. “Freedom is the basis for our country, but without borders, there can’t be a country.”

        An open border is still a border.

        1. No, McJizz, not really.

          1. Yes, little Shitty it is. Just because you don’t like the idea, doesn’t mean it’s not true.

              1. Yes, and I can declare my property a Western Dependency of Kekistan and decleare a border as well…that won’t stop Reason magazine staff from trying to force me to house 200 Mexicans in my little home.

                An “imaginary” or “nominal” border may still be a border, but it’s also meaningless.

          2. Yes, LotS, it is.

            If you continue these declarations, I will have to once again trot out the story of my *perfectly legal* crossing via a dirt road in a potato field back before bin Laden goaded the US into trying to behave like the USSR.

            1. I’ll comtiu because I am exactly right. Anyone who wants porous, or open borders is a fucking traitor. And I don’t give a duck ablut your story.

              Build the wall.

              No more illegals

              1. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha…….triggered.

        2. What a load of nonsense. Open borders is a scourge to what freedoms we have left in this once-great country now afflicted with socialist decay. I don’t care if the wall adds a trillion dollars to the budget deficit. I don’t even care if the police state multiplies ten fold to keep the illegals out. Higher taxes and restricted liberties are worth it for preserving the NATION. Our freedoms as natural-born Americans cannot be protected if people of other skin colors are coming into the country to adulterate our purity.

          1. Fuck off you commie slaver peace of ofal.

          2. -1 troll, eyeroll level 5

      2. Freedom is the basis for our country, but without borders, there can’t be a country.

        Freedom is the basis of our country. If our country were dying for overwhelming freedom outside her borders, I’d absolutely stand with libertarians that the borders be torn down. Instead, freedom is scarcely found with her borders and open borders carries explicit means for it’s demise.

        Freedom before country, but limited freedom within the country is better than no freedom without borders.

        1. Countries are people.

          Import people who believe in less liberty. Get less liberty.

          Big government voters aren’t going to build Libertopia. More like Venezuela.

          Who else is loving that “Green New Deal”? Brought to you by the same people who cheered on Maduro’s destruction of Venezuela a decade ago.

    3. A barrier at the border with Mexico is probably a cost effective way of assuaging the irritation of those who feel that their self-nominated ‘betters’ have been ignoring their concerns on this issue, as well.

      I too would like $5 billion from the federal government to spend on masturbation aids.

    4. “Probably the only way to really remedy that would be conquest and we aren’t mentally ready.”

      Mexico can invade us in the tens of millions. But heaven forfend we destroy the narco state on our southern border.

      1. Its the white man’s burden to be colonized by noble savages.
        The beliefs of modern open border advocates are little changed from those of 19th century imperialists: they’re just inverted

        1. Whiteness is the new original sin.

  4. In before… dang it, too late.

  5. “We can quibble over some of this, but he is, I think, right that we can never get to a good point on immigration policy until the argument is reframed away from questions of “border security.” ”

    No, this is basically the extreme libertarian position. Extreme as in held by a small minority of people but not the general population. Without border security, you effectively have an Open border.

    1. “Given the choice between “open borders” ? a position that no mainstream political leaders are proposing ? and a “secure border,” which is current U.S. policy, 79 percent of Americans agreed that the U.S. needs “secure borders.””

      So Nick is arguing a position held by 21% of the voting public. That’s a fringe position.

      1. So Nick is arguing a position held by 21% of the voting public.

        And, I’m not entirely sure where your 21% number is coming from, but it’s entirely likely that Nick’s version of open borders is only a part of that minority ‘consensus’. It’s entirely possible that Nick’s position is as fringe or even in with the same group that doesn’t want stronger borders in order to set up a N. American-based socialist hegemony.

        1. Sorry, I should have left a link. The number comes from a Harris poll from last year.

          https://goo.gl/LFnGjR

  6. Your idea of “Human Freedom” will run completely counter to my own individual freedom. No thanks.

    1. + 1,000,000

      1. Americans don’t count toward “human freedom”. Everyone else in the world gets whatever they want first.

        1. No kidding.

        2. Americans last.

          Because that’s what government of the people, by the people, and for the people means.

          1. It really sucks being treated like an extremist because I want a secure border, an end to government mission creep, and an end to Marxist, slaver agendas in the US.

            And God forbid I’m ready to fight for my convictions.

            1. It sucks that so many Americans hate America.

              1. Whaa whaa whaa… you guys want some cheese with your whine? Go through yourselves a fucking pity party elsewhere.

                1. Seems like their comments hit a bit too close to home, mcgoo

                2. And note the irony:

                  “Go through yourselves a fucking pity party elsewhere.”

                  You tell them to go elsewhere.
                  Interesting demand.
                  Why do you want them to go elsewhere?
                  Do you feel justified telling them to do so – that is, to go elsewhere?
                  Do you think it’s right, or your right, to tell them to go elsewhere?
                  What do you base that upon?

                  1. “elsewhere” was the nicest place I could think of telling them where to go.

  7. So the guy makes a good point about immigrants fleeing cartel violence and then says the solution is to defeat the Republicans not to, you know, end drug prohibition to stop that violence.

    1. “reframing” the immigration debate is a perfectly noble goal. But the problem is, there are dozens of debates that need to be reframed along with it: Drug prohibition, the massive entitlement and wealth transfer system, minimum wage laws, occupational licensing, burdensome regulations, taxes, and so on.

    2. Clearly it’s the US’s responsibility to help poor immigrants fleeing cartel violence just like it’s the responsibility of Wealthy Americans to help poor American’s. {sarcasm}

      1. If it’s the responsibility of Americans to save the world from their crappy governments, I’d rather invade than be invaded.

  8. ” As I noted last fall, a record number of Americans?Republicans along with Democrats?have positive views about immigration and its effects on the country. Denvir is correct to argue that it’s time to stop talking about “border security” and to start talking about how to craft an immigration policy that is in step with how the majority of us feel about newcomers.”

    Nick is transparently conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration.

    I wonder what his reaction would be to someone conflating illegal gun use with legal gun use? Or maybe a better analogy would be illegal gun running with legal gun importation.

    1. I hate how the ‘where should we set the bar on immigration’ argument is somehow relative to ‘building the wall.’

      It doesn’t matter where you set your limits on immigration if everyone below those limits can just walk right in anyways!

      DERPPITY… DERP DERP…. DERPA DERP? DERPPITTY something, something immigration magicgood. MUH FEELZ!

      1. Nick wants full open borders. He says in so many words coming here illegally should not be sanctioned. If you don’t punish people who come here illegally and get rid of any border security, which Nick also wants, why would anyone even bother to try to come here through the legal system?

    2. I wonder what his reaction would be to someone conflating illegal gun use with legal gun use? Or maybe a better analogy would be illegal gun running with legal gun importation.

      Why do I feel like libertarians would not think “illegal gun running” should be illegal?

      1. Smuggling? That’s illegal.

        1. Do you think libertarians think such a crime as “smuggling” should exist?

          1. Well according to this, the answer would seem to be yes.

            “War on Drugs leads to gun smuggling nightmare”

            “Libertarian Party chair Mark Hinkle issued this statement today:

            “This is another sad chapter in the long story of the terribly destructive War on Drugs. Now our own government is apparently involved in smuggling weapons to drug lords in Mexico. This story is as bizarre as it is depressing.”

            https://goo.gl/18s2nW

            Is the Libertarian Party chair Libertarian enough for you?

            1. If you don’t think gun smuggling is wrong then why is he complaining about smuggling weapons?

          2. Yes, if you believe in the constitution. Only traitors don’t.

        2. Hell no. It can be overdone, but made ILLEGAL?

          Oh, wait, I thought you said “snuggling”…

    3. Illegal gun use is not a thing because the Second Amendment protects OUR RIGHTS to bear arms. Our libertarian freedoms are important and must not be undermined by the progressive, deep-state agenda. But does the Second Amendment protect the rights to cut the line and jump over the border? I don’t think so!

      1. Which commie faggot are you?

  9. >>>”new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming into our nation,”

    in. in our nation, not coming into …

  10. The border must be demilitarized, which would include demolishing the already-existing wall and dramatically downsizing the Border Patrol. Criminal sanctions on illegal entry and re-entry must be repealed. Opportunities for legal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, must be expanded. The right to asylum must be honored. And citizenship for those who reside here must be a stand-alone cause

    Hey! You forgot to demand the same from every other nation on the planet!

    1. Criminal sanctions on illegal entry and re-entry must be repealed. Opportunities for legal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, must be expanded.

      If the former is repealed, the latter won’t exist.

      1. True. And if there is no sanction for entering the country, you have completely open borders meaning everyone who wants to gets in.

        But Reason Libertarians inform me at least once a week that no one is for “open borders”. Really? Nick seems to be. If you put the policies he is advoating in place, the country would end up denying entry to no one.

        1. Yeah, just like Merkel only was going to let in refugees, women and children fleeing abuse, torture and possible death.

          (NOT single men 18-34 who come ashore having learned all the native language they’ll need: “Where’s mah monee??”)

          But somehow, the former is NOT what was done but OOPS! too late now! lolz. Fuck you Gillespie.

    2. “You forgot to demand the same from every other nation on the planet!”

      Like everything else, borders are only bad when Whitey does it.

  11. My school district spends $17,000 (I used to post $12,000, but I misread the spreadsheet) per student on K-12 education. And that doesn’t include teacher’s pensions, capital expenses and interest on debt.

    Illegal alien minors get a free education. Yes, their parents do pay “some” taxes but nowhere enough to cover their expense.

    When I bring this up, the OBC points out that there are plenty of US Citizens children who get a free education, who US Citizen parents pay “some” taxes but not enough to cover the expense. And for some reason this is supposed to mean we can’t exclude the illegal kids from school.

    So my question to the OBC crowd is: Why aren’t Illegal Aliens entitled to all other gov’t programs? Shouldn’t they also be allowed to enroll/participate in Section 8/Food Stamps/LIHEAP/MediCaid/WIC/etc?

    1. The “cost” of educating a child who doesn’t speak English as a first language is much higher than one who does. Resources are limited. So every resource that goes to getting some Salvadorean kid up to speed is a resource that can’t be spent on the children of natives. But according to Nick those people have no moral standing to complain about the negative effects on their kids’ education. It is as it always is their job to suffer for Nick’s principles. I mean it is not like his kids, if he had any, would be going to school with the children of illegal immigrants.

      1. And regardless, it’s one thing to pay for our own citizens, as opposed to some asshole who snuck in with his or her litter of pups. Dumping them on us.

        1. No, it’s the exact same thing. Why would I care where someone’s kid was born?

          1. Because you might not be an idiot who thinks that the US can take in every down on their luck person in the world?

            1. Great, let me know when you support parental licenses and mandatory abortions for native-born pregnant women.

              1. Let me know when you are not a raving moron and are able to make sensible responses to arguments.

                You don’t even understand your own position much less the opposing one.

              2. Cathy, you are one dumb leftist cunt.

              3. That retort was at a level of stupidity worthy of an accomplished progtard.

                Were you ever able to logic or has the ability been ruined over the last few years?

              4. I support Prima Noctae (well, when I’m in charge)

          2. Citizens have a stake in this country. Don’t like it? Then GTFO bitch.

            America for Americans. Not any foreigner that feels like sneaking in.

      2. “The “cost” of educating a child who doesn’t speak English as a first language is much higher than one who does”

        Last time I looked, sometime last year, it ranged between 6k and 9k depending on the state.

      3. The “cost” of educating a child who doesn’t speak English as a first language is much higher than one who does.

        This also assumes that the only hurdle is linguistic. That seeing family and community members murdered by cartels, spending days and weeks in isolation potentially without family or parents, and learning human trafficking skills first hand from coyotes doesn’t interfere with cognitive, social, and/or emotional development.

      4. Nonsense. A five year old from anywhere will be up to speed quickly with little or no help. Less help the better. Give her an iPad and TV and she will figure it out fast. Gets more difficult as you get older but even a teen will catch on in no time.

        Her parents might have to work harder at it but even as an adult not that difficult. I have no gift for languages. Having been to Hebrew school which doesn’t teach the spoken modern language I noticed that after just a few weeks visiting in Israel I could almost carry on a conversation, or at least order food and get directions in Hebrew which is much more different from English than Spanish is.

        When I was a kid on the base in Germany I could not speak any more than a few words of German. When we played with the kids from the town we were able to have fun and communicate with no supervision.

        We can make libertarian arguments about public education. Place of origin and language have little to do with it.

        1. Yes everyone is just like you. Kids from some of the most disfunctional and violent societies in the world are not going to be different. And all of them will be five or younger. None will be teenagers or anything.

          Jesus Christ on a crutch what the hell is wrong with you people?

          1. oh there you go bringing Jesus into it.

            I am not a Christian. He was a very wise man and had many things to say we can all learn from.

            Start there.

            1. It’s an expression. Would you prefer he referenced Buddha, or Kali, or Baal. Maybe Landru, who is of the Body?

        2. wrong. Federal law mandates that children must be taught in their native language as well as learn English. Here in Texas, Native Spanish speakers are taught in Spanish until they enter middle school which is 6th grade. Sadly when they make the transition, the majority of them have weak English reading and writing skills and therefore struggle in middle and high school. They still live in homes where Spanish is the first language so there is no incentive to learn English. Throw in the Pro-Nativist/Anti-US mentality which promotes rejecting English and “Anglicization” in preference for maintaining their native language and culture. and you have an entirely different set of problems.

      5. “The “cost” of educating a child who doesn’t speak English as a first language is much higher than one who does”

        Not in towns with Spanish speaking majorities. There are plenty. The US is being colonized by Latin America.

    2. Why is it that so many people just use average cost when marginal cost is the relevant information.

      There may well be some districts that actually need to shut down existing schools because there just aren’t enough kids to fill existing facilities – but they can’t shut down the facility cuz of some new kid of illegals. Others where even one additional kid requires a lot of new capital infrastructure. But mostly the marginal cost of adding one kid to a class is basically near zero (books/supplies and that’s it).

      1. Why is it that so many people restrict their economic analyses to out-of-pocket spending and ignore opportunity costs? More students means either more teachers or less time spent on other students. Also, everything is marginal over time. Maybe today no new schools have to be built to accommodate more students. But eventually schools have to be replaced.

      2. “Incremental costs can be ignored because they can never amount to anything”

    3. “Yes, their parents do pay “some” taxes but nowhere enough to cover their expense.”

      So if their parents pay income tax, sales tax and property tax should they be allowed to go to school? Which taxes are they not paying that upsets you because I’m pretty sure the majority of them pay the same taxes as you.

      1. Is it your position that expecting a school to handle large numbers of kids who don’t speak English and lack any educational background doesn’t reduce the quality of education it can probide to other students? I would think it would, wouldn’t you?

        If we lived in Libertopia and there were no such thing as public services and no welfare, immigration would largely solve itself since no one who couldn’t support themselves would ever come or couldn’t stay long if they did. But we don’t live in Libertopia and never will. So, immigration isn’t a problem that solves itself and letting anyoen and everyone in creates all kinds of harms.

        1. Education? You misspelled “warehousing.”

          1. I would love to get rid of public education. But I get to make that choice. And as long as we have public education, we have to make choices about who gets into the country and gets access to it.

            1. So then my choice is that no one gets in and no one gets access, including native-born children.

              That works, right?

              1. That is called getting rid of public education, which would work. Good luck with that. Really. But until you accomplish that, the rest of us can’t pretend public education doesn’t exist or that we somehow don’t have to pay for it.

                1. And I won’t pretend that it’s immigrants causing a significant share of my problems.

                  1. Nor will you do anything to solve the “cost of educating immigrants in government schools” issue, but you will continue to bang the open border drum.

              2. So then my choice is that no one gets in and no one gets access, including native-born children.

                That works, right?

                It’s like you weren’t even paying attention the first 30 times we went over this.

                Seriously, is it some sort of cognitive buffer overrun where, the next time we have an immigration conversation, you’ll try to bluff again with “Well, what if we *did* dismantle the welfare state then, huh?” You’re so sold on the statism that it doesn’t even register that people you’ve interacted with and have flat out told you “I’m that crazy.” could possibly be that “crazy”.

                1. Oh, I was paying attention, and I noticed you’re a bunch of xenophobes who don’t care about freedom of contract.

                  1. Lolololol it’s so fucking sad how you hide then sneak into dead threads to take potshots.

        2. My position is that any school district in an area with lots of spanish speaking children can probably find teachers to teach them English quite easily. Plus there are enough charter schools around these days that you can probably find a school to put your children in that doesn’t have the dirty, unclean illegal kids that will corrupt your little snowflakes. I’m not in favor of totally open borders and I think there should be a legal way to come here and work. However, if you pay taxes, you should be able to send your child to tax-payer funded schools.

          1. “My position is that any school district in an area with lots of spanish speaking children can probably find teachers to teach them English quite easily”

            Your position is wrong.

            “In 2016, the U.S. Department of Education reported that at least 32 states have a shortage of teachers to work with English-learners, but the problem is not new. School districts have struggled for decades to find qualified bilingual teachers, especially in communities where English is not the first language for many students.”

            1. And yet, it’s been done in border states for decades….

              1. I don’t see any evidence of that and you haven’t provided any.

            2. Also, Plus there are enough charter schools around these days that you can probably find a school to put your children in that doesn’t have the dirty, unclean illegal kids that will corrupt your little snowflakes.

              Ignores the not-widely-publicized fact that charter schools in some places are being effectively neutered by the same Teachers’ Union that neutered the public schools. It’s a plain-as-day way for Chicago/IL to get out from under its pension obligations and they fucked it up.

              1. “Ignores the not-widely-publicized fact that charter schools in some places are being effectively neutered by the same Teachers’ Union that neutered the public schools. It’s a plain-as-day way for Chicago/IL to get out from under its pension obligations and they fucked it up.”

                So basically, the education system is a completly, fucked-up, mis-managed debacle in nearly every state. How convenient to just blame-shift illegal workers and their children for it. MAGA

                1. “How convenient to just blame-shift illegal workers and their children for it. MAGA”

                  It would be I guess if either of us had done it.

                  But he actually talked about the mismanagement and corruption, which you seemed to either not understand or ignore, and I talked aboit how you are demonstrably wrong about the ease of finding teachers.

                  So, stop making shit up.

                  1. Yea….. well it’s not easy to find teachers to teach anything anymore.

                    1. “Mcgoo95|2.12.19 @ 12:11PM|#

                      My position is that any school district in an area with lots of spanish speaking children can probably find teachers to teach them English quite easily”

                      Lololololol

                2. I didn’t blame shift shit. You falsely asserted that there are, unequivocally and without evidence, enough charter schools for everyone while ignoring the fact that, in many places, the distinction between charter schools and public schools is non-existent.

                  Even if I wanted to blame shift, it would be hard to convincingly blame anyone else for your stupidity.

                  1. “I didn’t blame shift shit.” No you didn’t. The comment was pointed to John’s argument.

        3. Why should Americans pay to educate foreign countries’ children at all? It’s not a matter of which child’s education costs more. Even demanding we pay $1 for foreign countries’ children is unjust.

          If you want to run a charity to provide foreign countries’ children with a free education, pay for it with your own money.

          1. Then they shouldn’t pay taxes when they are working here.

      2. McJizz, you’re making a weasel semantical argument. All this shit is just icing on the turd cake that is being an illegal.

        Illegals need to GTFO, period.

        1. Then you better get to work rounding ’em up, cowboy.

          1. Ok Jizz. While we’re at it, let’s get rid of the Marxian subversives, such as yourself.

            1. You’re the one that wants to raise the iron curtain across the US.

              1. “A wall between two territories that have been separate nation states for 160ish years is the same as a wall built by an occupying force that bisects what had previously been a contiguous city territory for hundreds of years”

      3. Hey McJizz, if they have the cash to spare, and some time, maybe they could just immigrate here instead of being illegals?

        I know, crazy thought, right?

        1. “Hey McJizz, if they have the cash to spare, and some time,”….

          We’re not all as fortunate as you, little Shitty. Also I prefer McSpooge or McSplooge, if you don’t mind.

          1. Too bad so sad. Not everyone gets to come here, and some, such as yourself, need to go.

            1. If the majority of the population of this country becomes as dim-witted and fear-possessed as you, I’ll be happy to go.

              1. If the majority of the population of this country becomes as dim-witted and fear-possessed as you, I’ll be happy to go.

                Spoken like someone who doesn’t actually live anywhere near a barrio.

                (We already know you’ll never procreate, so the dysfunction of majority immigrant schools will also be lost on you)

    4. When I bring this up, the OBC points out that there are plenty of US Citizens children who get a free education, who US Citizen parents pay “some” taxes but not enough to cover the expense. And for some reason this is supposed to mean we can’t exclude the illegal kids from school.

      No, it’s supposed to mean it’s well past time to shut down government schools and this is no excuse for preferring native-born over non-native-born people.

      1. You mean citizens over illegals.

        1. You know there’s a whole other category, right?

          And no, there’s really no reason to care at all whether someone has a government permission slip to live somewhere.

          1. Goddamn you’re obtus. Is it willful, or are you really this stupid?

            1. Am I supposed to be stupid because I know there is such a thing as resident aliens, or because I don’t think the location of someone’s birth is meaningful?

              Btw, lolololol it’s so fucking sad how you hide then sneak into dead threads to take potshots.

              1. Resident aliens? You mean people here LEGALLY? No one has a problem with them, and that’s not what we’re talking about here.

                And by legally, I mean the people with ‘a government permission slip’. Which is actually a constitutional function of the federal govt..

                If you can’t understand the difference, then yes, file that under the multitude of reasons why you are stupid.

              2. “I don’t think the location of someone’s birth is meaningful”

                Then you’re an ignorant moron, Cathy.
                You apparently believe that people are created ex nihilo, a spontaneous and random act of the universe.
                People are the products of other people and their circumstances the culmination of their ancestors actions.
                Place of birth is quite meaningful, though what one does with that meaning varies.
                I get the distinct impression that you resent the hell out of your parents – but even more, yourself

      2. “No, it’s supposed to mean it’s well past time to shut down government schools”

        Ok, get that handled then.

        1. I assume I’ll have the help of the entire MAGA crowd, right?

          Or are they just full of shit?

          1. Why are you posting questions that don’t realte to me and that I can’t answer when you should be shutting down government schools?

            Get to work.

            1. Oh right, you only want to bitch about Trump detractors, and never his supporters.

              At least, with this handle.

              I see you have a new hyphen character in your screen name. Did the previous soft hyphen get banned?

              1. So wait, you’re bitching that I don’t bitch enough?

                Yes, that sounds like something you’d do.

                You do it to avoid working on the government schools issue.

              2. “I see you have a new hyphen character in your screen name.”

                More meds or less, your current dose is making you hallucinate.

                1. Tulpa you need to remember, stupid lefty bitch is a stupid lefty bitch.

          2. I assume I’ll have the help of the entire MAGA crowd, right?

            Yes. Longest government shutdown in history and it barely dented his base. Most prolific teachers union strikes in history and they’re cheering for Betsey DeVos, blissfully unaware. If you don’t get the help of the MAGA crowd you certainly aren’t going to get the help of any other crowd and if you can’t do it without the help of the MAGA crowd’s active participation, it kinda fucks your whole “Open borders or cut spending as I see fit.” false flag/bait-and-switch routine doesn’t it?

            1. I can only assume that you are this dumb because of government schools.

              1. Is that also your excuse?

  12. There’s no question that Donald Trump, virtually out of sheer will, made immigration and a border wall a top policy concern when he entered presidential politics in 2015.

    It is interesting that the Jacket considers Trump to be some kind of Nitschean Super Man but I think he gives Trump a bit too much credit here. Illegal immigration is a top policy concern of the public. Trump just took advantage of that by beying the only politician willing to take up the cause. Open borders are not popular in this country no matter how hard Nick tries to gaslight himself into believing otherwise.

    1. Immigration made Trump. Trump didn’t make immigration.

  13. Yes by all means let import more illegal aliens and give them voting rights so they can elect people like AOC and Ilhan Omar to enslave us. #goodidea

    1. Oh right.

      I am not enslaved. The Dajjal is the Islamic version of the Satan. The root word is deception.

      Perhaps you could explain that.

    2. Countries are people.

      Import Not Americans. Become Not America.

  14. I predict these comments will be a paragon of reason and enlightenment!

    1. You mean you will be on here lying and begging the question? Sure.

      1. Don’t forget his love affair with straw-men.

        1. I hear his last strawman took him from behind and gave him a reacharound. Or maybe it was just Tony. He does like them young.

    2. Well, Gillespie’s article sure as hell wasn’t.

    3. Oh, look! Little Jeffy is up and about. I’m sure his tiny little stunted mind will have all kinds of pithy commentary that hasn’t been discredited a dozen times over.

    4. I predict racebaiterjeff with race bait.

  15. The border must be demilitarized, which would include demolishing the already-existing wall and dramatically downsizing the Border Patrol. Criminal sanctions on illegal entry and re-entry must be repealed. Opportunities for legal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, must be expanded. The right to asylum must be honored. And citizenship for those who reside here must be a stand-alone cause

    Unless you plan to let everyone in, you still need border security. No matter how many opportunities there are for legal immigration, there will always be people who don’t get in but want to. And without border security, those people will get in anyway.

    If you don’t want the border securied you are not for legal immigration. You are for all immigration under any circumstances by anyone regardless of their intentions or the desirability of them being here. Nick is for completely open borders but just isn’t honest enough to admit it openly.

    1. What part of “borders are bad, m’kay?” don’t you understand?

      1. But…but…I thought “proof by repeated assertion” was a logical fallacy of the leftardz.

        Guess this libertarian point is too important to argue ethically.

  16. underwrites a system of internal checkpoints that routinely deports American citizens in immigration sweeps

    Gotta love it. When a Katie Steinle or Molly Tibbets gets murdered, it’s an outlier to be ignored, but if JUST ONE AMERICAN is inconvenienced in the process of enforcing immigration law, THAT IS AN INJUSTICE THAT CANNOT STAND! Fuck libertarians.

    1. And I call bullshit on the CPB routinely deporting American citizens. There is no way that happens. To deport an American citizen, you would have to do it before they provided proof that they were a citizen. The only way to do that is through expidited removal. And you couldn’t do expidited removal of someone making a claim to be a citizen. That is just a flat out lie on Nick’s part.

      1. Keep not reading the news, John.

        1. Keep talking out of your ass without any citations Cathy. If this is true, give a link showing it to be. Otherwise, stop wasting our time lying.

          1. I don’t even understand why the person running that sock even busts it out. It lit all the crediblity it had on fire a long time ago.

            1. I think they’ve gotten dumber.

              It used to be like Tony; only on rare occasion nakedly advocating its oxymoronic ideology, but anymore it’s just plain dumb.

          2. Here’s a story from almost three years ago because it’s not a new problem.

            And more from more recently about how easy it is for US citizens to be detained–potentially for thousands of days.

            But it’s all worth it, right.

            1. Lol I love that the graphs show the number of detentions has declined since a high point in the Obama administration.

              Step on your dick more!

            2. Detained is not deported you half wit. Nick said

              underwrites a system of internal checkpoints that routinely deports American citizens in immigration sweeps

              And I said bullshit there is no way they reoutinely deport citizens. Claiming but they detain citizens is not a sensible response to my point. Even if they do, that is not deporting them.

              1. Some small fraction of a percent isn’t routine, it’s an outlier.

              2. Claiming but they detain citizens is not a sensible response to my point.

                The first link includes both, but thanks for lying some more.

                1. Go back to hiding from my points.

              3. But, but John! If this is true, then clearly the solution is open borders…….because!

                At least for what passes for Cathy’s mind.

      2. People who hold discredited positions tend to lie.

  17. “are explicitly against President Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion in funding for a wall or some other form of fencing ”

    Nick accidentally gets something right. The key words in this snippet are “President Trump’s”.

    1. Nick is convinced that the wall is unpopular. Yet, somehow the Democrats gave in and partially funded the wall. Unless they did that out of kindness, it appears people who actually have to win elections don’t think the wall is so unpopular.

  18. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started….>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  19. It’s kind of like saying there’s no sense putting your money in a safe unless you have sound fiscal policy.

  20. i am doing online google work at home and earn $7800 very month at home easily just spend 2 to 3 hours daily on internet without any investment.if you i want to introduce its to my all friend,s to get start online working and earn money at home without any investment.if you interested look at this site…..? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  21. Nick: Keep it up!

    In spite of Reason also providing this digital playground for those who want to parse liberty into “my liberty” vs “their liberty”, this is why I’m pleased to send you folks my bankable support each year at Christmastime.

    1. those who want to parse liberty into “my liberty” vs “their liberty”

      Would you prefer “my liberty” *and* “your liberty” or just “our liberty”? Because, even in the US a full outer join of liberties virtually never occurs and inner joins are the norm.

    2. Constitution: “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

      Not the whole damn world.

      Not the welfare state to the world.
      Not the police state to the world.

      I wish the rest of the world luck in preserving their liberty, but few of them want it in the first place.

  22. Reason chooses posturing and pretending over improvements for Americans.

    Reason sets up yet another barrier to Americans’ ever having a prosperous future, and then wonders why we are having fewer children. When we have to pay for an unlimited number of unproductive refugees, each with their own personal government bureaucrat, how is there any money left over for our families? I wonder why Americans don’t look forward to their children living desperate lives in a banana republic ruled by imported voters?

    Cartoon principals don’t solve real world problems. Pretending makes real world problems worse. But at least you guys get to keep cashing Billionaires’ donor checks.

    1. “Reason chooses posturing and pretending over improvements for Americans.”

      Americans Last, Plutocrats and Foreigners First.

  23. Is the urban sombrero available in black leather? Asking for a friend.

  24. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time… Read more here…

    So I started….>>>>>>>> http://www.Mesalary.com

  25. Wrong again.

    Evidence shows that walls work. They’re very effective and efficient, but of course legal reforms are needed as well.

    Illegal immigrants are at an all-time high, some estimates are as high as 25-30M. Of course, Nick wants to talk about reduced border apprehensions compared to previously, but that’s irrelevant.

    Ending illegal immigration would be relatively simple, and doing so is in the best interest of Americans, but open borders nuts like Nick explicitly want illegal immigration to continue because they like it.

    Reducing legal immigration is also in the best interest of the average American. This is indisputable.

  26. “Illegal immigrants are at an all-time high, some estimates are as high as 25-30M.”

    If the facts don’t fit your narrative, change the facts. https://tinyurl.com/y9yhsq97

    1. Not clicking your link Jizzboy. Probably get stuck with some malware.

      Wouldn’t put it past a subversive like you.

  27. Nick and the OBC crowd,

    So your talking point was that immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives. So if we take the legal immigrants out we have –

    “Nearly 3 percent of illegal immigrants in Arizona end up in state prison or jail during the course of a year ? four times the rate of U.S. citizens and legal residents, according to a study that uses federal reimbursements for prisons and jails to try to calculate one of the most important yet elusive statistics in the immigration debate.

    In New Jersey, illegal immigrants are incarcerated five times more often, and rates on the West Coast are triple that of legal residents and citizens, according to the study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.”

    What’s your argument now that studies don’t fit your talking points? Again, illegal immigrants are not a plus to the system. Sorry, they aren’t.

    My financee is a legal immigrant from Russia (No she didn’t work for Trump). She worked hard, learned English, waited in line, took the test and is a citizen. No where did anyone cater to her for not speaking English. Yet it’s ok to cater to one group. So when we finally have push 4 for Korean, 5 for Klingon, I don’t want to hear your crap.

    1. ” 4 for Korean, 5 for Klingon,”

      I draw the line at Romulans…..and Ferengis, they stink.

    2. Got to keep the spoonheads out. Fucking Cardies. Except Garak, he’s delightful.

  28. Are you really this dense Nick? Not a good look.

    1. He lost a bet with Shikha, so he had to make the idiot argument today.

  29. I’m not even sure I understand this guy. Is he literally advocating for no boundaries between countries? Does he not think that a country has the duty, let alone responsibility, to stop people from who knows where from just walking in. This is really an apology for anarchy, not libertarianism.

    1. It’s even an enumerated power of the federal govt..

      1. “It’s even an enumerated power of the federal govt..”

        Um…you seem to be operating under the assumption that if you repeat a lie long enough, it will become true. If you were to Google “is immigration an enumerated power of the federal government” and click the first link from Cato and you will see that at best, the constitution only vaguely implies regulation or banning immigration. The constitution only specifies requirements for immigrants to become citizens.

        1. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
          The *migration* or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

          It’s well after 1808. Feds have explicit authority to limit migration.

          1. We’ve gone over this. This is not saying what you think it says…. unless the slave trade is legal again.

            1. “I don’t understand how ‘or’ works.”

              1. You don’t understand any of the other words either, apparently.

                1. “I don’t understand how quotation marks work either.”

        2. Open borders cato is not a good source.
          Among the powers assigned to Congress are “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…”
          It is not possible to do this without establishing categories of those to be potentially naturalized – naturalization being the process of granting citizenship.
          One of those categories is those, whom the government decides are not eligible – everyone, who has not made the initial step in the process of getting naturalized. Those, who fit into this category, by the powers vested in Congress, are subject to being stopped from entering.
          It is absolutely within the powers of Congress to limit who may enter, and the courts, at every level, have agreed that it does.
          It is sophistry to claim otherwise.

          1. No. What you just did is the very definition of sophistry. I’m not arguing government lacks the authority to limit and control immigration, it’s just not specifically enumerated in the constitution and people that say it is have to go through similar contortions, as you just did, to say it is.

    2. muh anarchy. borders are bad, m’kay?

  30. There is no Libertarian support for open borders, nor even “more open borders.”

    On the other hand Nationalism…ever more localized and smaller governmental units pursuing their own interest independently IS very much consistent with Libertarian principles of individualism, self determination and private property rights.

    The profit is and always has been in human conflict. Those profits maintain the structure of the world we all live in.

    1. You seem to be confusing libertarian ism and fascism. What an absurd thing to say, nationalism=libertarianism. Ya got yer -isms in a schism. Your last sentence doesn’t even make sense. Do you mean “the Prophet”?

    2. “There is no Libertarian support for open borders”

      Charles Murray on Immigration

      For all his ranting about Trump, Charles Murray may be to the right of Ann Coulter on immigration.

      4. Immigration reform must begin first with enforcement of existing immigration law. If it takes a wall, so be it.
      5. And while I’m at it, I’ll mention that English should be the only language in which public school classes are taught

      But Milton Friedman was right: You can’t have both open immigration and a welfare state.

      I would get rid of reuniting-families provisions,
      get rid of the you’re-a-citizen-if-you’re-born-here rule,
      and make immigrants ineligible for all benefits and social services except public education for their children.
      Everybody who immigrates has to be on a citizenship track (no guest workers). And I would endorse a literacy requirement.

      But, to go back to basics: None of this works unless illegal immigration is effectively ended.

  31. This article shows libertarianism as merely the vanguard for internationalist communism.

    1. That’s what it shows Reason to be.

      I’m no longer surprised. Nick went full “No True Communism” a while back.
      “Totalitarians professing communism killed millions of people, but this analogy is flawed. Hitler was the leader of Nazism, Stalin the leader of…Stalinism, not communism.”

      https://goo.gl/xnJ8CT

      1. Holy shit, I thought you were exaggerating. Gillespie really did tweet that.

        What is it with Twitter and editors of this site using it to completely undermine any association with libertarianism!? You have Dalmia tweeting a year or so ago that using force to stop alt-right speech was A-OK in her book, and now I read of Gillespie making excuses for Communism. Probably feels that Mao wasn’t a true communist either, with the 10s if not 100s of millions he killed.

        What’s next, KMW tweeting defenses of protectionism?

        1. Even after the shit show around here for the last couple of years, I was still surprised with Nick going “No True Communist”. After that one, I expect the worst at all times.

        2. Shikha is a self proclaimed “progressive libertarian”.

  32. “Until we fundamentally reframe the immigration debate in terms of human freedom rather than fear, we’re not going to see real reform.”
    i.e.
    “Until we resolve that we care more about virtue signaling a commitment to liberty than actually preserving liberty, we won’t fully commit to destroying the US as fast as possible.”

    1. “Only liberty for Americans matters. Liberty for foreigners doesn’t matter. And even then, destroying some American liberty in order to keep out the dirty furriners is totally justified! So libertarian!”

      1. “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

        What part of “ourselves and our Posterity” do you struggle to understand?

  33. “There are a number of powerful arguments in favor of opening the borders, including pragmatic ones
    1) (the U.S. economy needs more workers and immigration is the only way to make that happen),
    2) comparative ones (“America’s share of the foreign born ranks 34th among 50 wealthy countries with a per capita gross domestic product of over $20,000″),
    3) and moral ones (law-abiding individuals do not necessarily have a right to welfare but they do have a right of movement; allowing migrants to cross the border fantastically increases their well-being).”

    1) The plutocrats could use a greater supply of human widgets. And democracy is all about making the plutocrats some quick bucks.

    2) We’ve got a new fraudulent stat to show how the plutocrats have not been selling off the birthright of Americans to make quick bucks. You’ll be seeing this bullshit trotted out for years.

    3) We’re going to declare that government of the people, by the people, and for the people meant the plutocrats and not Americans, and Americans who want to preserve liberty for themselves and their posterity are obviously evil racity racist Nazis, because muh anarchy, borders are bad, m’kay?

  34. I dont care what the analysis is as to WHY we restrict immigration, or what the “cost” is from doing so. I just want fewer humans around mucking things up and creating mountains of garbage. The US got along fine with half our current population, and should do so again.

  35. No Borders, No Country.
    Nick, you should find a place that meets your requirements, and move there.
    Some of us just won’t miss you, evah.

    1. The border will still be there even if swarthy heathens cross it. It’s a thing that exists on maps.

      1. A border *functions* as border or it is nothing but a line on a map.

        Our border does not function as a border.

        Build the Wall.

        1. Sorry, but a border has been, and still is, just a line on map. It defines the areas where a country’s laws apply. What are they teaching you little cock-biters in school these days?

          1. Apparently mcgoos teachers didn’t teach him how to make a consistent argument, as he failed to avoid contradicting himself in just two sentences

          2. Wrong, jerkoff.

            The map is not the territory. Where men with guns *enforce* laws is where a country’s laws apply. Drawing a line on a map doesn’t enforce anything.

  36. The comments section is full of weird stuff. I’ll just say this; if it was our northern border that was the problem the political conversation would be a lot different.

    1. Canada is not Mexico.

      Anglo American countries are decidedly different than Latin American countries. Better, as attested to people voting with their feet.

      Canadians don’t need to invade America because they’ve got a decent country of their own to live in.

  37. Basically, the question is if the government should have the authority to control its own borders. Under Article I Section 9 Congress is denied the power to prohibit the states from allowing “Migration or Importation” as they decide to, but only until the year 1808. Clearly, states have this constitutional authority, and it would seem that Congress is no longer prohibited from making immigration laws.

    1. No dipshit, Article 1 Section 9 deals with the slave trade and not immigration, at least not immigration from foreign countries. It’s irrelevant since abolition.

      1. Wrong again, dipshit.

        What do “migration” mean?

        US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
        The *migration* or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit…

  38. THIS SITE CONTINUES TO PROVE THEY ARE OPEN BORDERS ANARCHISTS….

    1. “Muh anarchy!”

  39. Personally, I don’t care too much if the wall is built or not. But it will cost an extreme amount of money to do it. And I personally think it’s a waste. But the thing that really bothers me is the fact that eminent domain will be used to build it. And that, I am totally 100% against. All of us here (except those of Native American decent) were once considered immigrants. I don’t know about everyone here. But I’ve always thought if a man or group of men decided it was a good idea to take any of my property for what they considered a good idea. Then i would think that putting a bullet through their head is also a good ideal. I’ve worked pretty hard for what I have and I damn sure ain’t gonna let someone just take it from me.

    Perhaps there should be a vote on building the wall. But only those who own property on the border will be allowed to vote. If those who vote are willing to bow down and allow the POTUS to have their land. Then the wall should be built. If the vote no, then no wall should be built. I’m pretty sure all of those land owners have put a lot of hard work into their land, so they should decide. Although the rest of the country may not be able to cope with their decision.

    Just sayin

    1. You’ll get no argument from me.

    2. “But it will cost an extreme amount of money to do it.”

      It will cost nothing compared to what we spend on illegals each year.

    3. Where do you live? Do you live in a border state where the realities of illegal immigration are a problem every day? Or do you live hundreds or thousands of miles away in area where the debate is merely theoretical? A waste is continuing to pour money into “solutions” that do not work and everything we are doing now does not work. More agents is meaningless because people can only be at one place at any given time. They are limited in how far they can patrol by the limitations of their equipment. In addition, people need sleep, food, they get sick, need vacations and burn out. Static barriers are not affected by any of theses issues and once in place, they only need to be monitored periodically. What you suggest is we do nothing which means the problem only gets worse. If you really think there is no problem, come live in far south Texas for 6 months or a year. I can guarantee your entire view on the issue with change dramatically.

      1. I live in a border state and my family owned restaurants and employed many legal and non-legal workers that I grew up working with. My experience is that these people want to come here to cook your lunch, pick your lettuce and cut your lawn. They could give a fuck about your imaginary culture war. They aren’t your enemy….yet. Maybe Texas needs to get it’s shit together. I hear Sheriff Joe is looking for a new job.

        1. The “imaginary” culture war is be waged primarily in California by their kids and grandkids. The ones who carry Mexican flags at every event/protest and talk about Reconquista and La Raza

          1. I agree with you to some extent. However, California also encourages this type of behavior. California’s problems are subcutaneous at this point and a wall isn’t going to fix any of it.

        2. “I live in a border state and my family owned restaurants and employed many legal and non-legal workers that I grew up working with. ”
          i.e.
          “My family business is a criminal enterprise violating US immigration law.”

          8 U.S. Code ? – 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a

          (2) Continuing employment
          It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

      2. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. So while I’m not on the border watching people running across the border or down the highway. But I have been down there and have seen the caution signs. You know, the ones with the dad pulling the mom behind him and the mom pulling the kid behind her as they run. But, I have seen my fair share of illegals here in the bay area.

        What you say misses the point I was making with my original post. Does the end justify the means? I don’t think so. See my other comment below.

    4. I don’t think anyone other than Mcgoo95 understands the point I am making. It doesn’t matter if your desire for the wall is based on fear or the desire to have an open border. Unfortunately, at this time we have a president who is a huge fear mongerer. I guess that’s part of his “The art of the deal” ( Which, by the way. He totally got played on the Foxconn deal. But that’s another story.) process. So he spreads his fear amongst his followers to gain support for what he wants. I guess that’s cool to some. I don’t really agree with that approach, but that’s just me.

      But the point I was making is that there will be land seized to build this wall. Land that will be taken from US citizens. I have a big problem with that. So in my opinion, this is up to the land owners on the border. If they are willing to give up their land to build the wall, then so be it. Trump can have his little wall. But if a US citizen is unwilling to give up his land for the wall, then the wall don’t get built. Would anyone here give up their home and land for an idea that they do not support? I know I sure as hell would not.

      So before you go and stand behind our president and say that he is doing what’s best for us. Or before you go standing behind your liberal beliefs, think about what you are asking our own citizens to give up before you do whatever it is that you will do.

      Just sayin

      1. ” we have a president who is a huge fear mongerer”

        Is it fear mongering if the fear is justified?
        Is there anything to fear from the US becoming more and more like our failed narco state neighbor on our southern border?

        Import Not Americans. Become Not America.

        1. You see. His rhetoric worked on you I guess. Are you an American and wasn’t your family immigrants at some point? Mine were. This country will never “Become not America.” Unless you think non white Americans are not American. I’m sure there are even some who consider non English speaking people when they immigrated here to be non American.

          1. ‘ This country will never “Become not America.” ‘

            If all Americans were raptured tomorrow, and the Chinese moved in half a billion Chinese from mainland China, would that still be America?

  40. Now now, Mr. Gillespie. You know “real” libertarianism means that only Americans deserve liberty. Because Americans are the Chosen People. Americans are entitled to freedom because we’re Americans. Not other people, because they’re not Americans. So real libertarians say “screw them!” The Declaration of Independence, which stated “all men are created equal” with certain inalienable rights, was based on a lie. All people are not created equal. Americans are created superior. Guatemalans are created inferior. That’s just the way it is. So suck it up Nick and get with the Trumpian program to build a wall. Stop pandering to the inferior foreigners and get on with the business of making America great for Americans. USA! USA! USA!

    1. MAGA! you forgot that one

    2. Real libertarianism is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

      Not the police state to the world.
      Not the welfare state to the world.

      Countries are people. People vote with their feet for which countries they think are superior. We’re doing well in that vote.
      People want to come to America because of what Americans have made it.

      On the flip side, Import Not Americans. Become Not America.

      If you think Guatemalans make as good a society as Americans, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    3. Dumbfuck chemjeff thinks importing socialist immigrants will increase libertarianism.

      1. More libertarian for them.
        Less libertarian for us.

  41. “Americans are created superior. Guatemalans are created inferior. ”

    Ah, that progressive belief in birth ex nihilo.
    Goes hand in hand with your magic soil fantasies.
    Each moment the present, a completely random situation, the circumstances of which are completely without connection to anything previous…

    1. You’re absolutely right!

      All people are NOT created equal with certain inalienable rights. Some people are so inferior that they just don’t deserve liberty. Screw ’em. Let ’em suffer in their shithole countries. They don’t deserve nothin’. Build the wall to keep out the vermin and the riffraff. Amirite?

      1. Equal? You can sing like Pavarotti and dance like Baryshnikov? I’d like to see that.

      2. Not the government’s job or mandate to sacrifice the liberty of Americans in a vain hope to save the world from the politics they support.

        A Government of the People, by the People, and for the People, to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

        “Ourselves and our Posterity”

      3. How many third worlders are living in your home and are you supporting cradle to grave? If you won’t spend your money putting your money where your mouth is, what gives you the right to take ours and put our lives at risk?

        Charity begins at home. There are enough US citizens to occupy your time before you insist on importing 5 billion from other countries.

      4. Just because you don’t live in the real world, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to share your ignorance.

  42. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time… Read more here…

    So I started….>>>>>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  43. Reagan: America is a beacon of hope and liberty, the shining city on the hill
    Trump: America is a fortress of fear and insecurity, that needs bigger and bigger walls

    1. A shining city on a hill serves as an *example* to others, not an invitation.

      And the wall just got 10 feet higher. Trump is making noise to scrounge up 23 billion for the wall.

      MAGA

      1. “Tear down that wall Mr. Gorbachev!” For sure Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

        1. Reagan is turning over in his grave because we never got the wall, employment enforcement, or immigration enforcement that was part of the 1986 immigration deal.

          That deal is the biggest stain on Reagan’s legacy.

      2. “23 billion for the wall”. What’s that, the down payment?

    2. cities have borders

      How else to know where the shine stops

  44. Build an eight foot tall chain link fence with lights so no one crosses the border accidentally.
    Shoot anyone who crosses the fence deliberately.
    Cost effective.

    1. Solar powered laser turrets!
      pew!
      pew!
      pew!

  45. This has to be the most transparently idiotic article ever written on Reason.

    Under what theory is opening your home to squatters who will invite their friends and family to be supported, fed, housed, educated and provided medical care by you for a lifetime a good and sane idea?

    In whose “best interest” is 25 million illegal squatters 65% of whom are public welfare, all of whom are draining more from public resources than contributing, whose education attainment declines with each generation and who refuse to assimilate (press 9 for Spanish).

    This is just absurd.

    1. Are you familiar with Shikha?
      How about Lew “The Jews did it” Rockwell?

      Fonzie is a close 3rd these days

      1. D’OH!

        Lew Sheldon “The Jews did it” Rockwell Richman

        My apologies to Mr Rockwell

    2. “Under what theory”

      muh anarchy. borders are bad, m’kay?

  46. So if a recession reduces illegal immigration, then a resurgence in employment would surely encourage the increase in illegal immigration.
    Considering America’s unemployment is at almost record lows, then surely this will encourage far more immigrants.
    I really don’t understand why it is in any way immoral to prevent illegal immigration, and I don’t believe for one second that a border wall is ineffective, especially considering every border guard interviewed states that it is.
    Trump has stated many times that he has no problem with legal immigration, and there is also a correct procedure for claiming asylum and that is also at the correct border crossings.
    Crossing the border illegally is instantly breaking the law and result in instant detainment.
    Immigrants have to be discouraged from crossing the border at any other point than an official border crossing, it is that simple.

  47. I agree we need border security but a wall is a bad idea. If you look at Google Earth along the Mexican border you will quickly see why cartels smuggle people and drugs through current border crossings, there are no roads most places.

    If we build a wall we will need to build roads to these very remote areas. Trust me cartels will be building roads on their side of the border to be able to use the new roads we built on the US side.

    We need border security, but not a wall….

    1. Why would you need a road? The BP currently drives the areas without any road. Is it better to do nothing and leave the areas open and unsecure? A wall never gets sick, does not need sleep or food and never needs a vacation.

  48. The only question I would like to ask the author is where do you live? I always find it laughable how the experts on the situation at the border are always people who live hundreds and thousands of miles from it. They love to cite statistics and make claims about what is and is not happening as well as what will and will not happen, but they do not actually live in a state dealing with the issue daily. I live in Texas and have lived here my entire life. In every area, illegal immigration has a huge impact on the local economy, education, healthcare and job markets. People act as if the drug cartels are a Mexican problem and have no impact on Texas or other border states. Many of the people crossing the border illegally are not coming into the US looking for work or a better life, but are being forced by the cartels to act a mules hauling in drugs. If they refuse, they and their families will be killed. Why do you think an 80 yr. old grandmother gets caught with 35 kilos of cocaine? I wish all of you living far from the border would step down off your high horse and come live in one of the cities or towns where the problem exists for 6 months or a year. I would then I dare you to write another article claiming there is no problem. The only real problem is the arrogance of people who have never set foot in a border state pretending they are experts on the situation at the border

    1. ” I always find it laughable how the experts on the situation at the border are always people who live hundreds and thousands of miles from it.”

      The ruling class profits from illegal immigration. The criminal class as well.

  49. In my opinion, this is the biggest blind spot in libertarian thinking. On the subject of immigration, dogma still prevails. Of course, in an ideal world, the government would have no constraints on people traveling or moving across national borders. But there are a few practical issues:

    1. As long as the welfare state exists, and is growing, if we don’t look at immigrants based on likely dependency, we’re just increasing our national insolvency.

    2. The question of how many human bodies the American landmass can support is NEVER discussed by libertarians. There were 150M people in America when I was a kid, and there are 320M now. Most of our population growth is from immigration. So what’s the right number, long-term? 500M? 1B? 2B?

    1. 3. In democracies most, countries are people. Not Americans are significantly less libertarian than Americans. Import Not Americans, have a less libertarian polity, elect less libertarian pols, Make America Less Libertarian.

      America is America because Americans make it that way.
      Import Not Americans. Become Not America.

      They have to go back.

    2. On drugs and immigration, the libertarians are as dogmatic as the left and the right.

      It makes no sense for the country to reduce existing border security in the era of annual migrant surges. The recession (along with some post 9/11 security measures) was the real deterrent on southern crossing. With the economy improving and parts of South America becoming unstable, we may have to deal with multiple coordinated movement approaching the border.

      Most typical immigrants have no real impact on the economy. Only about 2% of the immigrant population work in farms. Retail and brick and mortar model continue to decline, even if hundreds of immigrants want to work there. Libertarians rightfully discount the earning power of the college degree (a figure inflated by super high earners) but they won’t apply that logic to immigrants.

  50. “The U.S. economy needs more workers and immigration is the only way to make that happen.” Bull Shit. Instead of hiring cheap Indian labor (Disney) hire American citizens first. Hell. In some areas of the country, illegals are hired over legal citizens because they speak Spanish, Polish or fill in the blank. Open borders and unrestrained immigration will continue to balkanize the country beyond the tipping point.

    No to an open border.

    1. “The Economy” needs nothing.

      Importing labor enriches those who hire at the expense of those who labor, even under the assumption that you’re getting workers instead of welfare recipients.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.