Border Crossings

A Costless and Humane Fix to the Border Crisis

Give the asylum seekers work visas, but attach a condition.

|

Border babies
Kevin Dietschupine via Newscom

President Donald Trump has cried wolf so many times on the "crisis" at the border that one could be forgiven for dismissing his latest warnings. But even if the situation at the border is not a full-fledged crisis, as his administration claims, there's no denying that a new rush of Central American asylum seekers has created a serious problem there.

Trump's proposed remedies—shutting down the border and/or forcing Mexico to warehouse the desperate families—will cost America dearly, both in dollars and in a national sense of humanity. There is, however, an innovative and simple fix that won't cost American taxpayers a dime, will ensure that these folks won't just disappear into the dark night if allowed in, and will give authorities more time to investigate their asylum claims: Hand migrants temporary work visas right off the bat, but make renewal dependent on them showing up for scheduled asylum hearings.

Call this the MASHA (Make America Secure and Humane Again) visa solution.

Border apprehensions reached a high of 1.6 million in 2000 and have been falling ever since. Last year, apprehensions hit a grand total of 400,000—about 90,000 more than the previous year to be sure, but nowhere close to "crisis" levels. And yet, Trump upped his rhetoric of a wall and started taking children away from migrant moms, some of whom have yet to be reunited.

But this year the uptick is significant. About 70,000 migrants were apprehended in February and around 100,000 in March alone. The vast majority are from Honduras, El Salvador, or Guatemala, where gang-related crime has reached epic proportions.

This rush is straining border facilities. In El Paso, border stations are 300 to 400 percent overcapacity, forcing authorities to cram migrants, chattel like, in makeshift holding pens, without beds or blankets. One pen was located under a bridge and constructed of barbed wire.

If Trump had used the billions of dollars he wants to spend on a useless border wall on personnel and immigration judges instead, things would not be so bad right now. But Trump is blaming the situation on "liberal courts" that last year, after the hue and cry over his child separation policy, barred his administration from keeping parents with kids in detention for more than 20 days. Hence, the administration argues, kids have become a "free ticket" into America for parents, and this is the main reason why more families — rather than single men or unaccompanied minors—are now showing up at the border.

To the extent that this is true, it's the administration's own fault. If it had not overplayed its hand and snatched infants from moms as a deterrence measure, the courts would never have had to step in. It's always been easier for parents with kids to gain admission in America. But the court ruling didn't just remove all ambiguity about the policy, it also publicized it.

However, the far bigger factor driving the rush isn't the greater ease of admission, but Trump's repeated threats to shutdown the border and scrap asylum. Although he can't do the latter without Congressional authorization, Central Americans are panicking that if they don't flee right now while they still have a chance, they'll get trapped in a dangerous situation without any exit options.

Whatever the cause of the problem, the question now is: How do we fix it?

For his part, Trump, after doubling down on his threat to shut down the border, has now postponed that option till next year if Mexico doesn't seal its border with Central America. In other words, he wants to use America's economic muscle to turn Mexico into a fortress.

But what would "closing the border" entail? Basically, closing official border crossings and redeploying personnel along the border. But this would be insanity given that Mexico is America's third largest trading partner. Those crossings process half a trillion dollars worth of trade annually. About 6.3 million trucks go back-and-forth between the two countries every year, transporting everything from auto parts to fresh produce. Mexico sends over $26 billion in intermediate goods for final assembly to America every year. If these parts can't come, many American factories will have to shutter, jeopardizing nearly 5 million jobs. American consumers everywhere will face higher food prices. The country will run out of avocados in three weeks. He's also threatening to impose tariffs on Mexican cars, which would essentially be a tax on American drivers!

None of this would even deter Central Americans. These migrants aren't trying to sneak in illegally. They look for border agents to turn themselves in to and request asylum, something they have a legal right to do under U.S. and international law. They'll go wherever the agents are. If there are more agents at ports, the migrants will go to the ports. If there are more between ports, then that's where they'll head.

Trump's other solution is to force migrants to wait in Mexico after filing their asylum claims, instead of releasing them into America. Mexico has been cooperating so far and is housing some 250 migrants in camps in Juarez and elsewhere. This is mainly because the number of migrants it is holding is not that large, and the country doesn't want to jeopardize ongoing trade negotiations. However, it's hard to imagine that it'll scale up the program without major bribes.

The Trump administration argues that when migrants are released, they disappear, never to be heard from again. But the Department of Justice's own figures show that 90 percent of asylum seekers do, in fact, show up for their asylum hearings for the very good reason that if they don't, they could lose their shot at ever gaining legal status.

If we want to boost compliance even more, creating MASHA visas could help.

This isn't a radical idea given how the asylum process already works. Right now, border patrol hands over anyone it apprehends who requests asylum to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE asks them if they have a "credible fear" of persecution, and if they answer in the affirmative, they are released but required to return in 45 days to a court for further questioning. Those whose fates aren't settled in 180 days, which is often the case given that right now there is a 855,000-immigration court backlog, can apply for a work permit pending a final resolution.

The administration claims that the border surge has overwhelmed the system so badly that border patrol is "catching and releasing" families and singles alike without any processing or a "credible fear" assessment by ICE. (Never mind that it evidently still has enough resources to fit these migrants with ankle monitors before release.) But restrictionists consider this a scandal and demand longer detentions even though it costs close to $319 per day to keep each migrant in semi-humane conditions.

The better strategy would be to hand the asylum seekers work permits right away—not 180 days later—and release them with the proviso that if they don't return for their hearing, they'd lose their visas. But if they do return, their visas would be renewed until the next hearing, and so on, until their cases are settled. It takes two years for the asylum process to play out right now, but so long as migrants keep showing up, even if takes longer to thoroughly investigate their situations, it wouldn't matter. At the end of it, if their petition is denied, they'll be deported, just as they are right now. But at least in the interim their upkeep wouldn't be taxpayers' headache.

This will no doubt irritate restrictionists who dislike immigrants on principle. They will argue that MASHA visas will turn asylum into even more of a guest worker program than it already is. Given that more guest worker programs for low-skilled migrants are the only real solution to unauthorized immigration, that would hardly be a bad thing. But this shouldn't bother those who merely want to boost compliance—not stick it to immigrants.

Everything Trump has tried in order to control the border has so far backfired. He equates more draconian measures with greater effectiveness. But there is no contradiction between humane immigration policies and workable border solutions.

A version of this column appeared in The Week.

Advertisement

NEXT: DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Is Leaving Wednesday. Will Her Replacement Be Worse?: Reason Roundup

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

  1. “this isn’t a crisis. BUT the situation is straining the resources of frontline border agencies that are running out of space to process and house these migrants,”

    Define “crisis.” You are usually good at that Shika. What you are articulating is an open border; why don’t you just come out and say it.

    1. She won’t say she’s for an open border because, it appears, she isn’t.

      You won’t admit you’re an authoritarian and bigot because you are a politically correct coward.

      1. Fuck off troll

      2. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
        Check For info Here,
        CLICK HERE???????? http://xurl.es/m7biw

      3. Ah, name calling. The first and last resort of the classic liberal. That’s a bit pathetic, do’t you think?

      4. Revile Arthur, grow a neocortex before making posts.

        By the way, are you truly of legal age to be posting here at all? You always come across as an 11-year-old girl, pretending to be a man, locked in her bedroom with her children’s tablet.

        1. As far as i know, Reason has not set any minimum age for people to post comments. Nor should it. But Rev. A. L. Kirkland’s comments overall do form a somewhat confusing collection: sometimes they are clearly satirical, and sometimes they seem quite serious.

      5. Do you admit your desire to destroy America?

    2. @Quo Usque Tandem

      Every argument I’ve heard against open borders boils down to either “they’ll use our welfare services” or “they’ll vote for the same bad policies that wrecked their home country.”

      Giving people temporary work visas will not make them eligible for many welfare services and will not give them the right to vote. So even if it is open borders, it’s consequence-free open borders. None of the bad stuff that open borders is supposed to cause will be caused by MASHA.

      1. So you are advocating for the minimally restricted entry of millions of person seeking economic opportunities? Do you honestly believe persons who leave Central America and cross Mexico to present themselves as refugees are just going to do their work on go back home? And no need for hospitals or other emergency services? And their children, education, health, and other welfare services?

        And how reliable will persons be, once they are in the US, to present themselves as required in order to maintain their non residency status? The vast majority of illegal immigrants now living in the US came here legally and chose to stay illegally.

        Your notion is simplistic and a road to hell paved with good intentions.

        1. Asylum is NOT supposed to be for economic reasons, but for political & safety reasons…i.e for political dissidents, freedom fighters & those threatened by gangs & the mafioso-like brutes!

      2. Open borders with laws to match is one thing. Open borders with laws to the contrary, that various authorities can enforce at will, is immoral and unethical. It sticks those who enter without the formalities into a legal and social limbo where they can be exploited and extorted. And, as the recent past shows, getting the laws changed is unlikely to happen so long as the current laws aren’t being enforced; there’s simply no motive for those who benefit from the grey market in labor to agitate for a change.

        1. It’s a little sad how those who want open borders are perfectly happy with destroying the law in order to get it. This is more an anarchist philosophy than any reasonable kind of libertarianism.

      3. “So even if it is open borders, it’s consequence-free open borders. None of the bad stuff that open borders is supposed to cause will be caused by MASHA.”

        Thank you for presenting such a cogent and powerful argument.
        My mind is changed!
        We’re going to need a lot more bodies to herd our expanding herds of unicorns.

      4. Temp work visas is avoiding the actual problem here. The elites in those three countries are using outmigration as a safety-valve to avoid actually reforming their own economies and letting their own people succeed. We have supported those elites – financially, militarily, and every other way – and continue to refuse to force them to deal with their own problems. They have used that leeway to turn their states into corrupt narco-states. We excused that failure during the Cold War cuz we found it easier to stuff the peasants then talking about land reform into an ‘ooh their commies’ pigeonhole. Not really a surprise that the one country that isn’t sending a ton of peasants here is – drumroll – Nicaragua.

        Trump is on the right path in pointing to cutting off the foreign aid. But he has got to go a hell of a lot further than that cuz we are on the wrong fucking side in those countries. We should stop mollycoddling those elites. Because their sending tons of people here is as hostile as Cuba doing the same.

      5. This will never fly. I would be fine with it, but what the OP failed to mention was that while living and working in the U.S., the asylum seekers can have babies, who will be American citizens. Border closers won’t like that. It isn’t just the criminal immigrants they don’t want, it’s their criminal infants too.

        1. Yep. Giving illegals a two-year window to have a child on American soil doesn’t seem like the “win-win” it’s being presented as in this article.

        2. Right: not because there are reasons to control our borders and vet those who come in, and regulate how many gain entry; no, it is simply because anyone who advocates for this security must be a hate mongering white nationalist, right?

          Fact is those of you who advocate for such mainly want to change our demographics and whom we elect.

      6. So you dont understand people on work visas can have kids in country. You also dont understand we are required to school kids of illegal immigrants either. So what do you understand?

    3. We have a border crises. People are violating our immigration laws. Reason has the solution. Ignore the immigration laws.

      Shikha, you ignorant slut.

      1. Owl,

        Why are you insulting sluts by comparing them to her?

  2. Hand migrants temporary work visas right off the bat, but make renewal dependent on them showing up for scheduled asylum hearings.

    This is by no means a certain incentive, but as far as compromises go I don’t hate the idea.

    1. The solution is to make it super easy to immigrate here legally and to renew visas and green cards but then to strictly enforce deportations for those who still choose to do it illegally.

      1. But the romanticization of Ellis Island and past periods of mass immigration is historical revisionism. People with possibly communicable diseases were quarantined and held in places far worse than the “cages” at the border, or simply turned around and separated from their families. People with suspected mental disabilities were regularly rejected and shipped back to Europe. At the time of unrestricted large scale mass immigration in the early 20th century, we had few labor or environmental laws or minimum wages and the middle class lived in what would now be considered abject poverty.

        I have yet to see anybody explain how we are going to enforce a higher minimum wage without cracking down on companies hiring illegal workers, and if we do enforce a higher minimum wage, the demand for illegal immigrants will dry up, leaving millions of unemployed, uneducated, non-English speaking people in this country.

        I’m all for making it super easy for all immigrants to come here, but it will be difficult, and there will absolutely be downsides. Ignoring the potential bad effects of this influx of impoverished immigrants is as bad as overplaying them, and only hurts the cause.

        I just believe the benefits outweigh the negatives, but that is an opinion.

        1. In any case, it’s clear from recent history that the current laws will not change until they are enforced. And that simply isn’t just. Having a sizable population of illegals means A) they can be exploited and B) they form a subculture innwhch worse things can hide. I understand that many Libertarians loathe Trump, but building a Wall and enfrcing the immigration laws is not merely good politics for him – pleasing his populist base – but the right thing to do.

          Looser laws, tighter laws, open borders, or isolationsm…enforcing the laws we have should be the first step. If the lawswork, fine. If they don’t work, enforcing them will agitate enough people to get them changed.

          1. And most Americans agree with this. Yes, most Americans want leniency for illegal immigrants already here, but most Americans also want the laws enforced and for illegal immigration to be halted. Neither side will acknowledge both of these things, and the entire press only focuses on the former and ignores the latter.

            1. “most Americans want leniency for illegal immigrants already here”

              Only if leniency extends just so far as: “we will not imprison you for your activities. You are free to self-deport, apply for legal immigration status, and wait until such time as that is granted. So long as you go now and don’t come back until you’re properly invited, we’ll overlook your previous illegal entry and concomitant crimes.”

              Above and beyond that–allowing them to stay–would be amnesty. And me an a lot of others would not support that.

              Similarly, I support some sort of DACA solution that doesn’t punish the *kids* (who were innocent), so long as it deports the *parents* (who were guilty and knew what they were doing).

          2. We already spend between $20-$30B annually enforcing the current laws. How much do you want to spend?

            1. Enough to make them sufficiently burdensome that those who presently exploit illegals will want them to change.

          3. And that simply isn’t just.

            You’re being generous. In lots of minds reparations are owed for white patriarchy and enforcing laws selectively is a feature, not a bug.

            1. People tend to forget that the character whose theme song was “The Word Owes Me A Living” was Goofy.

              So, your ancestors ween’t treated nicely, and mine got ahead of yours. Boo Hoo. Tell ya what I’m gonna do; I ‘ll refrain from pretending that some towering Socialist State run by (mostly White) Intellectuals is going too give you everything you want. Instead I’ll encourage you to follow the path my ancestors did to prosperity; education, opportunism, and work.

              You’re welcome. We all get richer that way.

            2. “In lots of minds reparations are owed for white patriarchy…”

              In lots of minds there sits an obscenely huge amount of garbage. Those minds cannot be taken as authoritative.

        2. “I’m all for making it super easy for all immigrants to come here”

          Out of curiosity,
          – What do you think the yearly immigration rate would be, according to the criteria you have in mind?
          – Is there an upper limit to the numbers you’d find acceptable? For example, easy immigration would be ok until it surpasses x# immigrants per year?
          – If so, what would that # or % be? How would hitting that mark be prevented, or, how would surpassing that mark be dealt with?

        3. The Ellis Island narrative is much more complicated than people on either side of the debate depict it. People don’t realize that the last wave (1900-1920) did the worst in terms of initial outcome (i.e. vs native or 2nd gen immigrants of same age and career), probably due to saturation. The second half of the 19th century was a time of massive economic growth due to industrialization, the collapse of slavery, and the opening of the Western plains to farming. America essentially had an unending demand for labor along with increased productivity, lower costs for essential goods and services, and little regulation.

    2. “Hand migrants temporary work visas right off the bat, but make renewal dependent on them showing up for scheduled asylum hearings.

      This is by no means a certain incentive, but as far as compromises go I don’t hate the idea.”

      Each migrant should have a US person who is their sponsor, and who puts up a bond for their return to the hearing. Failure to report would forfeit the bond, and if some time goes by, then the sponsor also gets a severe fine, maybe $5,000.

    3. Nothing is “costless.” You’ve just switched the cost-payers from the government to the American workers who will have to compete in a wage race to the bottom with third world labor. But hey, what kind of effect could driving your middle class into poverty have? Certainly not the rise of populism and the election of a real estate mogul!

  3. Why is it so important to import poor people?

    1. Good question

    2. Good question

    3. I missed the part where the US is “importing” them. But to answer your question, it’s to work in jobs Americans refuse to do, especially during times of economic prosperity.

      1. It’s work Americans refuse to do “for less than minimum wage”. If Democrats actually raise the minimum wage and intend on enforcing it, they will completely eliminate the vast majority of illegal immigrants’ jobs.

        1. Maybe. Depends upon the labor pool. I’d pick flipping burgers at McDonalds to picking lettuce in the San Joaquin Valley any day. Find me modern Americans who want to do back breaking labor for $15 an hour…or find me those same Americans that want to pay double for the price of food.

          1. I used to pick strawberries for spending money when I was a kid, my back aches now just thinking about it! There were always people from other countries that worked on local farms, and this was in Canada. I doubt they’d get many locals to work there these days. My daughter got a job at McDonald’s, they actually treat their employees pretty well, and my son does programming part time. Different times!

          2. For what crops do you suppose the cost of labor constitutes more than 10?20% of the retail cost? I doubt there are many where it’s even that high. I’m not saying mandating a big minimum wage increase wouldn’t be met opportunistically, with big price increases. I’m just saying any extra money added to prices will go mainly into profits for middle men and retailers.

            1. I don’t know about lettuce or California, but 50 years ago when my family had a cherry orchard in Michigan, the labor just to pick the crop was often 50% of the farmers’ gross receipts. That is, migrant workers got about $1.00 per 25-pound boxes of cherries. That’s 4 cents a pound, and in most years the canneries paid 8 cents a pound. Fertilizer, pesticides, and all the work required the rest of the year came out of the 4 cents the farmer had left after paying the pickers.

              Now, there was one heck of a markup somewhere between the intake side of the cannery and the grocery store shelves…

          3. It wouldn’t double the price of anything. As if the cost of that labor is somehow 100% of the cost of bringing food to market. In reality ost around ten percent. So a head of lettuce costing $2 might rise to $2.20.

        2. More precisely, work Americans refuse to do for less than minimum wage or for less than the combined amount of money they can make off welfare benefits.

          Immigration is supposed to be the safety valve of the economy – increase it when times are good, decrease when times are bad so that the population already in the country can stay employed at as close to ‘full’ employment as possible.

      2. I missed the part where the US is “importing” them.

        Of course you missed it. You’re the idiot that sees a broken window and, without any clue or even a deliberate disregard as to how it was broken, thinks “Oh, good! The glaziers will have work!”

        1. Way to go fuckhead. Do I get to accuse you of being the racist that sees a dusky hued male and think “Oh no, another jazz-man with eyes for muh daughter!”?

          1. Calling a bigot a bigot is my job. Others are free to wallow in political correctness. I now call a half-educated, unskilled, superstitious, stale-thinking yahoo a half-educated, unskilled, superstitious, stale-thinking yahoo . . . and a slack-jawed, disaffected, deplorable Trump supporter.

            Carry on, clingers.

            1. Your name-calling is particularly effective. Everyone here is shamed and embarrassed, and will soon come over to your way of thinking. Keep it up! You are clearly a superior intellect!

              (Not needed for others, but just for you. >Sarc)

            2. Hey Arty, you do know that Eric is a lefty, don’t you? Are you really this stupid?

              Of course you are.

          2. You’re the one that ‘missed’ the drug war that’s driving a lot of people away from their countries of origins. You’re the one that ‘missed’ occupational licensing and price controls that are preventing natives of any hue from taking jobs at any given wage they please.

            Sure, selectively importing them via jet airliner would probably be more safe and efficient than making them march across C. America and it would almost certainly be less expensive than managed healthcare, minimum wages, *and* the drug war, but you go ahead and continue to be hung up on stupid virtue-signalling semantics like a moron.

            Blame me and call me a racist all you like, it’s not going to stop the facts from whizzing past your head or help you snatch and ogle the most ephemeral of them any less selectively.

            1. At least this is an argument I can engage in MC. You assume a lot and steal tons of bases, but…

              To sum up. All of those things (occupational licencing, drug war, healthcare, etc) are, to me, ancillary to the fact that the U.S. is increasingly prosperous, with a home-grown labor force that is less interested in manual labor than previous generations. There is a vacuum at the bottom that is being filled by opportunistic individuals from less prosperous countries.

              The illegal labor flow we’re experiencing is the result of a portion of the free market that has as yet to be controlled. You and the others arguing against immigration are actually arguing for labor controls to “fix” inefficiencies in the market caused by regulation. And you’re hoping that that control will change the wage equilibrium. This is the same kind of engineering done on the left. And you deserve to be called out for that on a libertarian website.

              1. At least this is an argument I can engage in MC. You assume a lot and steal tons of bases, but…

                I didn’t want to engage you in an argument. I knew, prior to you saying so, that you would dismiss occupational licensing, the drug war, healthcare, etc. out of hand. You don’t give two shits whether these people are being driven from their homes by force. You care that they’re poor and brown and that you can use that to make natives, whether they’re white or not, look like racist oppressors. It’s not mind reading if you’re opposition is a mindless, single-message, sock puppet.

                The illegal labor flow we’re experiencing is the result of a portion of the free market that has as yet to be controlled.

                The ever increasing debt? Oh! You mean the border. Like the nation hasn’t had a border since its inception and that the controls have been in place and varyingly enforced since the founding and well before.

              2. And you’re hoping that that control will change the wage equilibrium.

                No, I’m not. I’m not ignoring the control that’s actively exerted and will continue to be expanded and exerted whether borders exist or not. The control you freely admit that you’re ignoring and under blatantly false pretenses (Everybody’s rich so why *wouldn’t* we have a drug war?)

                And you deserve to be called out for that on a libertarian website.

                I’ll take my just desserts in this regard any time. You can continue to peddle your Mott-and-Bailey “borders mean what I mean when I say they mean it” slight of hand. Nobody, right, left, or center buys it and it’s getting to be sad that you continue to try.

              3. I think you are right that it’s mostly economic opportunity that is drawing people from poorer countries to the US, as shown by the fact that they go right through Mexico without stopping.

                However, I believe that the drug war (and shooting wars in other parts of the world) play a significant part in driving people from their homes. It’s hard to get people to leave their home country, even for opportunity. I think the two phenomena work hand in hand, you wouldn’t have nearly as many refugees without something driving them away.

                My 2 cents!

      3. You don’t think those caravans put themselves together, do you? They’re being organized and funded.

        1. Please tell us who is doing it, Brett. I want to get in touch, and suggest they can get a lot more political bang for the buck by organizing and funding Puerto Ricans?to move to Texas and Georgia, where they can vote as soon as they arrive.

          1. That’s the interesting part. People blame Soros and the Koch Brothers, but to me it could just as easily be an anti-immigration group. The attention garnished only makes the people paying for this nonsense all the angrier.

      4. That just brings us back to take away welfare and see how many Americans will then HAVE to work in these jobs.

    4. Exactly. Why are these open-borders people so eager to import poverty? Worse, import poverty into an already over-burdened welfare state?

  4. LOL. Satire. Right?

  5. Or end drug prohibition to stop the cartel violence and require their countries to respect their human right to liberty in return for aid and they will stay there. Also get rid of birthright citizenship.

    1. Birthright citizenship is one of the greatest scams of the liberal era that unfortunately made its way into the Constitution by laissez faire losers like Madison and Jefferson. Conservative patriots understand the harm that can be done when civil liberties for the many take priority over the good of the NATION.

      Real libertarianism means rugged individualism based in the most Hooverian traditions. Close up the borders. Let the economy suffer for a few years or a decade to cleanse it from lefty influence while taxing the rich who unjustly gained from previous corrupt administrations. Then watch America prosper as it rebuilds its own industry from the ground up.

      1. Setting aside that you’re a shit parody, birthright citizenship has nothing to do with Jefferson or Madison.
        It’s been a deliberate misreading of the 14th amendment, a misreading that was explicitly argued against by the writers of that amendment at the time of its proposal.

        1. “It’s been a deliberate misreading of the 14th amendment,”

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

          It’s virtually impossible to misread that. Plain English is plain English. I mean, Shikha is a zealot kook, but there’s still no way to misread the 14th.

          1. “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

            http://www.14thamendment.us/ar…..ality.html
            http://www.heritage.org/the-co…..fourteenth

                1. “In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

                  The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

                  1. “In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.”

                    1. “This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

                      What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States ? just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth; those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

                      Sen. Trumbull further restates the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens?” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but “completely within our jurisdiction”.”

                    2. Hell, even NBC has to admit it:

                      http://www.nbcnews.com/politic…..-s-n926501

                  2. I don’t read that as capaciously as you do, Nardz. I don’t think most folks “owe” allegiance anywhere. Exceptions come with certain kinds of jobs, which require loyalty oaths, as in the military, or among diplomats.

                    1. Good for you.
                      Meanwhile, the real world continues to exist

      2. Poor troll hates me so much.

      3. Birthright citizenship is one of the greatest scams of the liberal era that unfortunately made its way into the Constitution by laissez faire losers like Madison and Jefferson.

        That 14th Article of Ammendment was ratified 9 July 1868, decades after both Madison and Jefferson were dead and buried.

        Most folks take a quick glance and misread it. STUDY the meaning of the words… particularly the ones here:
        “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

        Is a guy visiting here in the US for a World’s Fair “subject……”? No, of course not. He is UNDER, that means, if he’ds driving too fast or shoots a guy with a stolen gun, there are legal consequences for his act. Can he vote? Hold public ofice? Get a SSS card? LEgally work? Possess a firearm? Enlist in the military? Become a law enforcement officer? Get food stamps or medicare? No, none of those. WHY? Because he is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the state where he is at the time. He remains SUBJECT to the laws, rules, policies, etc, of his HOME country…. where he can, in most cases, do all the above things. And because of THAT, if he sires a child whilst here, that child is NOT a US citizen by birth.
        Despite all this, Congress need to step up and make it crystal clear no ambiguity, that this “birthright citizenship” is bogus.

  6. “There is, however, an innovative and simple fix that won’t cost American taxpayers a dime”

    You’re going to ban them from the ER?

    1. +1

    2. I can tell you how to do that, easy. Just declare anyone in the country illegally is ineligible for protection under US law, and let the citizenry take care of the rest. Won’t cost the taxpayers a dime, and I guarantee this problem will be history in about two weeks.

      1. What a humanitarian!!

      2. If Shikha actually went there I could somewhat respect her argument. Seeing as all of her immigration arguments are half baked leftist unicorn-ville nonsense, I can’t see that happening.

      3. Charge a fee for a permit that authorizes the vigilantes, and you’d make money at it.

  7. Trump has failed because our immigration laws suck. They are filled with loopholes that are being exploited.

    He also has zero cooperation with congress so the laws are not going to change anytime soon. So he os doing the best he can withing the powers of the executive.

    1. Not just Congress but political judges.

    2. Recalcitrant progressives in Congress need to be taught a lesson in 2020 by grassroots conservative libertarians who understand the groundwork for sustaining freedom. America needs smart government now to pave the way for small government in the future. How are Cuck Gillespie and leftist-tarians like Ron Paul who oppose securing our borders going to feel when hordes of socialist welfare queens divert valuable tax revenue toward their own selfish gains through social distribution schemes like WIC, SNAP, TANF, UNICEF, and green energy programs?

      If there is no wall soon our institutions will erode by the incoming hordes of progressivism. There will be no hope for liberty and small government if illegal aliens take over this country and vote for big government socialism for generations to come.

      1. Barbarians at the gate?

      2. This is good stuff. But you’re way too eloquent. LC has more of a “dropped out of high-school to play video games in mom’s basement” charm to him. Think Pajama-boy meets Eastern Kentucky.

        1. Poor Eric troll. Trolls love trolls.

          1. Are you saying you love me LC? Bless your little heart.

      3. You know you got Lefties upset when they need to create a troll account to try to sabotage Libertarianism.

        1. Indeed.

    3. They are filled with loopholes that are being exploited.

      If it wasn’t a loophole when the law was written then it isn’t a loophole now.

  8. Thanks for the funny article. With all the seriousness around the illegals and the southern border, we needed this laugh.

    It’s sort of like fixing drug abuse with free needles. You’re pretty good. Do you write for the Daily Show?

    1. Or fighting poverty by making it easier not to work

  9. It takes a special level of ignorance to think 1 million a year caught, not crossing but caught, isnt a crisis in border management.

    1. Not necessarily. This is all part of the progtard plan to destroy the constitutional republic. So in their case ‘ignorance’ isn’t really the right word. I just think of it as evil. Same as I consider die hard true believing progressives to be evil. The same kind that allowed Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot,Hitler, etc. to come to power.

  10. I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence her “solution” is her preferred policy open borders.

  11. Well, the first thing we should do is – actually patrol the border.

    These 10’s of 1,000’s of people aren’t sneaking thru the checkpoints hidden in the engine compartment.

    They are walking across a thousand miles of unprotected border.

    Get the BP out of the interior and actually make them walk the fence line to keep the people out. If they can’t get in then they can’t be part of catch and release.

    Of course a real fence would help that in a lot of places.

    But the BP checkpoints on interior highways are not going to stop the problem.

    Too bad Trump isn’t a really good manager. If he was he would tell the BP to change their tactics. Stop the people from coming in.

    The system isn’t “broken”, it is over-whelmed. And the Dems, Reps, Trump, and the BP mgt are all at fault.

    The BP mgt doesn’t want to solve the problem either because that would mean they could hire fewer agents and have a smaller budget.

    Some of this problem is simply due to greed and incompetence on the part of the BP.

  12. “If Trump had used the billions of dollars he wants to spend on a useless border wall on personnel and immigration judges instead, things would not be so bad right now. ”

    I’m going to assume you know that’s illegal, that Congress has deliberately limited the available manpower on the border by statute, to make sure that it will be grossly inadequate to process the flood of illegals.

    If there were enough manpower to give them all due process, virtually all of them would be denied entry. Shorting manpower mandates their release into the population, instead.

  13. Oh, boy, a repeat post of the column that notes a correlation between wet pavement and rain, and therefore suggests we can costlessly make it rain by pissing on the sidewalk.

  14. The idea that we should kowtow to the demands of illegal immigrants simply because there are enough of them that they cause a massive problem for us is absurd and the primary reason why cuck sticks as such a powerful insult. Who the hell gives in just because you hurt someone’s feelings if you stand up for yourself? You’re not in the wrong for defending your borders and don’t let any sort of pity party nonsense convince you otherwise.

    1. You’re absolutely right. It’s about pride. Pride in America means kicking out the invaders and building huge walls to keep them out. Because nothing says “I Love America” than building a Fortress America to keep out all the baddies.

      1. Borders aren’t just physical boundaries. They divide ideology and open borders means open ideology which is code for anti-American incursions.

        1. That’s right! The only way to preserve the essence of American purity is with a fortress mentality. Build walls, keep them out, repel the incursions, kick out the invaders, nothing short of 100% security will make America great!

      2. Actually Pedo Jeffy, ts about stopping morns like you from letting violent rapist illegals into America. In your sick mind, too many Maerican children remain untapped by your illegal friends.

        Sick fucking child predator.

  15. Funny, isn’t it, that a generation ago the Left was trying to close the border. Cesar Chavez was railing against illegal immigrants coming in to compete unfairly against his farm workers, which just allowed farm owners to lower working conditions because illegals couldn’t complain. Chavez was joined by such icons as Ralph Abernathy, MLK’s right hand man, and Sen. Walter Mondale.

    1. Funny that you might expect consistency or morality from collectivists.

      Why must illegals be given hearings? Just ship em back.

      1. You’re absolutely right. Illegals don’t deserve hearings. Only Americans deserve due process. Illegals are invader scum who barely deserve the air that they breathe.

  16. The solution is the dissolution of the state and allow the free market (property owners) determine who gets to go on their property.

    There is no other solution.

    1. And exactly who is going to be enforcing those property rights? Santa Claus?

      1. If there is a demand, and the technology exists, there will be a supply. The proof that there will be a supply is that there is a demand.

        Your question is as ridiculous as:

        And exactly who is going to be building those roads? Corporations?
        And exactly who is going to be negotiating contracts? Lawyers?
        And exactly who is going to be protecting you from muggers? Smith and Wesson?
        And exactly who is going to be manufacturing shoes? Nike?
        And exactly who is going to be selling books? Amazon?

        Need I go on?

        Or do I need to point out that there are more private “police” than public police?

    2. Re: ace_m82,

      The solution is the dissolution of the state and allow the free market (property owners) determine who gets to go on their property.

      Just to be clear, that’s not what Orange Potatoman’s administration is doing. With full support from his brown people-hating base, the conceit under which the administration is operating is that you don’t have a say regarding who you CAN invite over from other countries even if you wanted to. It’s one thing if you don’t want to hire an immigrant or invite one to your home but you don’t have the right to tell me or others who we can or can’t hire or can’t invite. Your property boundaries don’t end at the political border.

      1. Oh, believe me, I know that.

        Statists of all types do evil. They covet, steal, and murder so they can enforce their monopoly on the use of violence.

        1. “They covet, steal, and murder so they can enforce their monopoly on the use of violence.”

          Sounds a lot like MS-13

          Carry on, cucks

          1. Isn’t that what the state is? Cartels that decided to go “legit” (get recognized by other cartels)?

            1. This is true.
              Government is fundamentally organized crime, aka, the dominant warlord.
              That’s why they went after the mob so hard.
              But governments, specifically the US, at least nominally have codified limits and roles.
              Whereas in anarchy, you just get competing warlords with no restraints but force of arms.
              The difference between consent and submission can be mighty thin, but it’s an important difference nonetheless.

              1. “But governments, specifically the US, at least nominally have codified limits and roles.”

                Ha!

                “Whereas in anarchy, you just get competing warlords with no restraints but force of arms.”

                Why? Why would you get that? Do you have any evidence of this?

                Are people unable to make justice happen for themselves?

                https://ammo.com/ articles/american-old-west- hollywood-wild-west -money-gun-control

                Also, I don’t consent.

                1. Sure. You submit.

                  1. If by that you mean I don’t kill them all, then yes, I don’t.

                    If you mean I consent, no I don’t.

                    A woman being raped doesn’t consent because she’s unable (or unwilling) to kill her attacker.

                    That word must mean a much different thing to you as it does everyone else…

                    I suppose, though, if I did attempt to kill them all you’d decry me as a “murderer” or “terrorist”, right?

                    So, you’re saying I can’t win. I “consent” to evil or become evil.

                    Boys and girls, that’s why Statists are wrong!

                    1. If you’re going for violent revolution, count me in.
                      But anarchy isn’t going to last much beyond it.
                      At some point, very quickly, either the anarchist community will come together to create a set of governing rules and people will have the responsibility to enforce breaches of those rules, or another group of people will come along to conquer that anarchist community.
                      The US constitution is the best government design for liberty yet. Creating the will to vigilantly guard it’s limitations on government and remain faithful to that contract may be difficult and daunting, but it’s a better bet than anarchy.

                    2. “But anarchy isn’t going to last much beyond it.”

                      Why?

                      “the anarchist community will come together to create a set of governing rules and people will have the responsibility to enforce breaches of those rules”

                      That doesn’t imply the state. As long as there is no taxation and no monopoly of force, then there is no state. Those who enforce these rules can be private, and there can be several or them.

                      “The US constitution is the best government design for liberty yet.”

                      Utterly wrong. The Articles of Confederation were much better, but you’ve been told they “wouldn’t work” and if you’ll note, you’ve never been told WHY excepting that they weren’t “strong enough”.

                      The best design for liberty is “do unto others”, “love your neighbor as yourself”, or simply “don’t do evil to others” if the previous 2 are too hard.

      2. Tell us something, Simple Mex, do you really think ‘orange potatoman’ sounds any more intelligent that ‘block insane yomamma’.

        Maybe it sounds better in the language you aped from your conquerors, Spanish?

        I hope so.

        Because, in English, you’ve become a tiresome, dull troll, endlessly screeching your inane demand that America must impoverish itself for Mexico.

  17. Hand migrants temporary work visas right off the bat, but make renewal dependent on them showing up for scheduled asylum hearings.

    I am literally laughing out loud right now.

    1. You could put an ankle bracelet on each one along with their work permit.

      1. Up next in the news: “Discarded ankle bracelets create Southwest trash crisis!”

  18. Shikha Dalmia, the crybaby who is alway calling for open borders.

    Boo hoo hoo

  19. It’s bad enough that this article appeared here last week, but why pester us with it again?
    I really don’t see the point in Reason publishing Shikha aside from “outrage clicks.” She uses such terrible rationales that it actually hurts the open borders/freedom of movement agenda.

    1. She uses such terrible rationales that it actually hurts the open borders/freedom of movement agenda.

      You’re not giving her enough credit. She does a decent job of fucking up race relations as well as shitting on free speech, free assembly, and the private practice of religion too.

      In her defense, she could rhetorically construct and endorse a nationally-sanctioned model for enslaving immigrants and her fan club would reveal themselves by clapping like trained seals.

      1. If by fan club you mean The Old Mexican and Chemjeff you just insulted trained seals.

  20. Hand migrants temporary work visas right off the bat, but make renewal dependent on them showing up for scheduled asylum hearings.

    You can’t Make America White Grating Again by handing off visas to whoever wants them, Shikha. Trump’s ‘base’ (old white coots who scare easily or just plainly hate brown people) are afraid of being replaced, so they’ve said (you are already familiar with their dog whistles: “Kulture Matters!” and “Dem Immigruntz Make ‘Our’ Country Dirty and Poopy!”). They’ll be chanting in the streets with their tikki torches and malevolent chants if the administration does a 180? like that.

    1. Trump’s ‘base’ (old white coots who scare easily or just plainly hate brown people)

      Look, I know it’s easier for you to lump all brown people immigrants into one monolithic group and ignore their actual diversity of their motivations and desires but, turns out, plenty of immigrants voted for Trump and an even larger share are opposed to just opening the borders, consequences be damned.

    2. Make Mexico browner and dumber by heading back.

  21. Asylum seekers currently enter the US. They are apprehended and released with their asylum claim scheduled for hearing, and their claim is dependent on them showing up for asylum hearings. How is that working out right now?

    1. Re: Ecoli,

      How is that working out right now?

      Badly if Orange Potatoman decides not to hire more judges. Around 77% of immigrants DO appear for their court dates and asylum seekers appear 89.9% but the issue is that the white supremacists you want to call with a sick sense of humor “The current administration” don’t want to put additional judges to hear their cases and either accept them or send them home. Instead, Orange Potatoman wants to get rid of judges, in his completely deranged and unhinged mind.

      1. God are you fucking dumb. Why is Mexico and its neighbors shit-holes? Because of the residents and dumb asses like yourself.

        If you hate white folks so much why they fuck are you here? Go back to brown land where all is wonderful. Oh wait its a shit hole.

        1. Why is Mexico and its neighbors shit-holes?

          Because history started yesterday and the decisions of the past had zero impact on the conditions of today.

          1. Mexico’s condition today is their fault no one else.

            Mexico became a country in 1810. Same way we did in 1776 by fighting a war with the motherland.

            So what happened?

            1. Mexico’s condition today is their fault no one else.

              You’re right! From 1810 to this day, no outside power has ever tried to interfere in Mexican politics or Mexican affairs in any way whatsoever. Not one single solitary time. That is why they celebrate Cinco de Mayo.

              1. So you are blaming their present condition on wars from the 1800’s.

                That’s it what a genius you are because no other countries have EVER had to deal with that. Not the horrors that Mexico has had to endure

                Well lets see there have been a few attempts at outside powers interfering the USA also.

                1. I think there is a continuum between “history has zero role on the present condition of Mexico today” and “history explains entirely the present condition of Mexico today”.

            2. And who cares anyway. The condition of Mexico today is 100% the fault of the current residents of Mexico. The past is meaningless.

            3. Just like the problems with America are 100% the fault of the current residents of America. For example, America is over $20 trillion in debt because the current residents of America approved of every single dollar of that debt. Isn’t that right?

              1. Yes, wow, great circular argument, NOT, how many USA citizens are trying to sneak into Mexico? ZERO you dumbshit, God

                1. No no, this is your argument. Mexico is a shithole because Mexicans today made it that way. That’s your argument. Well, America is deeply in debt because Americans today made it that way. Right? So every dollar of debt is just as much your fault as it is anyone else’s.

                  1. “So every dollar of debt is just as much your fault as it is anyone else’s”

                    Considering the fact that it doubled the past ten years that seems on point to me. Now that I’ve taken responsibility, and you admitted Mexico is a shithole, can I close the border?

                    1. Hmm. Since the last time the US government was debt-free was sometime before 1850, it’s not humanly possible for you to claim responsibility for that debt.

      2. “”but the issue is that the white supremacists “”

        And this is why no one takes you serious. Even Obama has come out saying you can’t label everyone against illegal immigration as racist.

        It’s counterproductive and not a valid premise since it applies a generalization fallacy, much less a truthful claim.

        1. used to be everything was Russia’s fault, now its white supremacists. Who will be it be next week?

          1. When has it not been white man’s fault? Seriously, when’s the last time the left blames anyone else?

        2. You’re exactly right of course. Just because a person gets 100x more upset when an illegal immigrant uses welfare, than if a native-born citizen uses welfare, that doesn’t necessarily mean that person is a racist. That person is probably just opposed to illegal immigration.

          And if a person gets 100x more upset when an illegal immigrant murders a cute blond coed than if a native-born citizen murders a cute blond coed, again, that is just being concerned about illegal immigraiton.

          And if a person gets so outraged over illegal immigration that he decides to vote for a stammering idiot with no experience and no platform other than “build a wall”, well, then that person is probably just really upset over illegal immigration.

          1. Foreign nationals do not have a right to enter or remain within the US.
            Native US citizens do have a right to dwell within the US.
            That being the case, any misbehavior by a foreign national within the US is more egregious than that same misbehavior by a US citizen.
            The misbehavior of a foreign national could’ve been easily prevented if that person had not been allowed the privilege to enter and remain within the US.
            That fact, not “race”, is what makes the latter more outrageous than the former to rational people.

            1. Where do rights come from, government or something else?

            2. Huh. So illegal immigrants are like uninvited guests (onto your property, which isn’t really yours, but whatevs), and when uninvited guests do something bad, you get more upset at them than when invited guests do something bad. Okay then, I can follow this. At least based on the assumptions that you state, which I don’t accept.

              So what if some of those uninvited guests actually do something positive for you? Suppose an “uninvited guest” cleans the street in front of your property. He isn’t trespassing, he isn’t causing you any harm, he is actually providing a service to you, for free! Wouldn’t that be a positive thing?

              1. About 1M good people successfully use the pathways to citizenship that the US provides each and every year (far more than any other country).

                Charity and goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter. If instead the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, then my calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

                Anyone who just jumps a border or overstays a temporary visa has chosen from day one to give the middle finger to the laws of the US. And then they have the unmitigated gall to demand services and benefits from the taxpayers, not to mention repeated demands to just overlook the fact that they have broken dozens of federal and state laws, many on an almost daily basis.

                1. So to you, illegal immigration is like Original Sin. It is a stain that cannot be rubbed off of the human soul unless a rite of atonement is performed. Got it.

                  What if the guy comes into this country, and DOESN’T trash your home or harm you? What if he actually provides a service to you, like cleaning the street outside of your home? Is he still irredeemible in your eyes?

                  Anyone who just jumps a border or overstays a temporary visa has chosen from day one to give the middle finger to the laws of the US.

                  Unlike conservatives, I don’t worship the law. In fact every time I drive on the highway, I “give a middle finger to the laws of the US”, and I’m willing to bet you do too. I’m less interested in all of the laws that a person has broken, and more interested in if a person has actually violated anyone’s rights. Aren’t you?

                  1. Well, I don’t like it when people cut in front of me in line at the movies either.

                    I’ve got nothing against 99% of them–I don’t care that they “take our jobs”, provided they don’t soak up welfare state benefits (including schools for their kids and emergency rooms)–but they could have the common decency to stand in line with everyone else in the world who wants to come here. The US naturalizes 1M+ people every year!

                    When an illegal alien has managed to steal your identity, claim EITC credits for non-existent kids, causing IRS problems when you file your own legitimate tax returns, screwed up your credit, etc. maybe you’ll see the light.

  22. The real fix to the border crisis is to build huge walls so that no one can come in. Just like in the Walking Dead TV show. The best strategy is paranoia and fear about the foreigners who might come in here and then bite someone and spread the zombie plague. Except the plague is really socialism. Amirite?

    1. Your always wrong

    2. Chem Jeff, my advise is for you to get a FACEBOOK account, put your address there and welcome all foreign freeloaders to stay with you.

      Have a nice day.

  23. Shikha’s Solution–

    There is, however, an innovative and simple fix that won’t cost American taxpayers a dime, will ensure that these folks won’t just disappear into the dark night if allowed in, and will give authorities more time to investigate their asylum claims: Hand migrants temporary work visas right off the bat, but make renewal dependent on them showing up for scheduled asylum hearings.

    Which is…. drumroll….

    Open Borders..

  24. “”There is, however, a costless fix: Hand these migrants a work permit right off the bat, but with a condition. “”

    Anytime someone says a “costless fix”, I move on. There is no such thing as costless. It’s just another way of saying you are willing to ignore the costs of your proposal. Same with the free healthcare crowd.

    1. Azathoth!!, you know, if someone calls every liberal a commie, that makes it hard to take him seriously. Same principle applies on other topics, like this immigration debate.

      1. How does that apply to that post?

        Perhaps you meant that to go up thread?

        But yeah, the use of generalization fallacy does not make for a valid premise on any topic.

  25. So in the “latin world” the shining stars are Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. So that tells you a lot because they are also shit holes.

  26. There is a premise in the OP that I wonder about. It takes as gospel that there actually is a huge surge of immigrants looking for asylum. There are all kinds of good explanations for why that could be true. But if I were an enterprising publisher covering immigration issues, I would take a long shot and send some good investigators to find out whether it’s just theater. Consider:

    The transition from declining immigration to overwhelmed-at-the-border was very fast, and apparently unexpected.

    Has anyone seen any information about the size of the increase that comes from any source other than the Trump administration?

    Trump lies every day, about all sorts of stuff.

    Trump is a skilled subject changer, and he needed a quick switch of subject when these claims first appeared (which, admittedly, may not distinguish that moment from many others).

    It wouldn’t take much effort to stage the kinds of “evidence” of a border surge which we have seen in the headlines. A few hundred people show up for a day or two under a bridge, and then they disappear? What does it mean?

    I’m definitely not saying this is all fake. I am saying my how-do-you-know-that-checker is showing up off kilter. Of course it’s unlikely. But if you had that kind of hunch, and it proved out, it would be a pretty big story. Maybe worth the investment.

    1. I would like to see more investigative reporting on the issue too. I did find this on Snopes. For what it’s worth.

      “”Caravan organizer Georgina Dearivo told Guatemalan outlet Rep?blica that the major motivating factors for participants were fleeing political and military violence, as well as the ever-present threat of gang violence in their home countries. In a 3 April 2018 press release, the Latin American Working Group (a nonprofit organization dedicated to Latin American issues) provided further context for these regularly occurring events, the intention of which was to highlight the broader issue of migrant’s rights as well as the more specific incidence of increasing political repression in Honduras:”

      It sounds believable. Military, political, and gang violence is a reason to seek a better place.

      1. Yeah, that is certainly plausible, TrickyVic.

        What’s troubling me, though, is accounting for the scale of what has been claimed. When there was one ~ 4,000-person caravan?a giant caravan, we were told?on the way north, that was leading news, day after day. Now, we’re told border crossings are up to 76,000 per month. That’s 19 such caravans, more than one arriving at the border every 2 days. Shouldn’t we be able to see them in progress, or something? Shouldn’t that kind of input to the system make some visible difference at facilities in the U.S., a difference that can be seen and reported upon? Shouldn’t it leave some kind of statistical tracks journalists could follow, with regard to food, housing, transport, etc.? How is it that with such an enormous upheaval under way, the most striking evidence anyone has seen is a few hundred people under a bridge?

        Once again, if it were me detailing reporters to go out and track this story down, I would expect all that evidence to actually turn up, and expect that the story would be a bust. But until then, where’s the evidence, other than the Trump administration’s say-so?

  27. Chem Jeff, my advise is for you to get a FACEBOOK account, put your address there and welcome all foreign freeloaders to stay with you.

    Have a nice day.

  28. Couple of questions not being asked: Who is telling these people that if they trek hundred of miles to the US border they will be welcomed in? Why are the Democrats pushing so hard to give them citizenship rights when they were all for keeping people out and building the wall when Obama was in office?

    Also, if we want to discourage them from coming here illegally, maybe we should loosen some of the immigration standards but at the same time toughen others, such as preventing all forms of welfare to non-citizens, requiring all immigrants to have a sponsor who will be responsible for their welfare, and requiring the immigrants to hold a job. Minimum wage should also be repealed as most of these people don’t have the level of skills to produce the value of minimum wage.

    1. “preventing all forms of welfare to non-citizens”

      Would have to include not providing emergency-room services on taxpayer dime, not educating their children on taxpayer dime, and not conveying citizenship to their children just because they birthed the kid onto US dirt.

      Like many, my primary objections to illegal immigration are a) that it’s illegal immigration and b) that we have a welfare state into which illegal immigrants will insert themselves legally (schools, emergency rooms) or illegally (identity theft or fraud for welfare benefits).

      Making it easier to legally come here–knowing that they would never be able to get welfare of any sort nor their kids get automatic citzenship just for being born here–combined with draconian anti-fraud enforcement of welfare benefits fraud (expedited deportation and permanent exclusion from US would have to be part of penalties for non-citizens) would do fine.

      Or, just get rid of the welfare state in it’s entirety (and I means in it’s entirety!) and I’d be pretty close to an open-borders guy myself.

  29. This is funny because its so silly. Even immigrants who are given radio ankles show up for their final removal proceeding less than 50% of the time. Sure, lots of them show up the first few times, but when it becomes obvious they are losing the case…they suddenly follow other incentives.

  30. The problem at the southern border is a political problem just like most of the other problems facing this nation. There will not be a fix for this problem until the politicians (of both parties plus independence) puts the benefit of nation a head of the benefit of themselves or their party. None of the politicians willing to take a more extreme position and then settle somewhat closer to what the other party has, some where in the middle of the two positions. The parties don’t want a solution unless it gives them the advantage in their own eyes over the persons on in the other parties.

  31. The problem at the southern border is a political problem just like most of the other problems facing this nation. There will not be a fix for this problem until the politicians (of both parties plus independence) puts the benefit of nation a head of the benefit of themselves or their party. None of the politicians willing to take a more extreme position and then settle somewhat closer to what the other party has, some where in the middle of the two positions. The parties don’t want a solution unless it gives them the advantage in their own eyes over the persons on in the other parties.

  32. If a wall discouraged 30 illegals a year from entry, it would stand for the next 20 years discouraging 600 undocumented aliens from entering the nation. For a one time cost of 4 billion and maybe maintenance. Personnel and judges earn salary and pension and any resources on housing and medical treatment will start to pile up if migrant caravan becomes an annual thing.

    Shikha’s solution amounts to kicking the can down the road. It’s basically “let them in first and ask questions later”. This is unlibertarian thinking, especially because it completely ignores unintended consequences. Best case scenario – the caravan stays home but we’re hit with millions of temp work visa requests from two nations. And everyone’s hunky dory about the US making exceptions for those countries while making everyone else adhere to asylum standards.

    Without SOME level of enforcement, there’s no scenario in which these people aren’t a significant imposition on our resources, or even Mexico’s. There clearly is a problem at the border, and Shikha had to realize certain realities. Some people are apparently nitpicking whether this is a “crisis”. It drives you nuts.

    1. When it comes to “common sense gun control” it doesn’t matter how invasive and abusive of Constitutional rights a law might be, so long as it “saves even a single life”.

  33. I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it. http://Www.home.jobs89.com

  34. “legal right to do under U.S. and international law”

    Under international law, there is the concept of first country of asylum. Mexico is a “safe country” and indeed has offered asylum, for Guatemalans, Hondurans, etc. to pass though Mexico to try to reach the US flies in the face of the first country of asylum dictates. The US is within its rights to reject such requests and send the back to Mexico, which is the first country of asylum for them.

    Further, when interviewed very very many of these “asylum seekers” are self-admitted economic migrants who plan to make a false asylum claim in order to try to game the system and not because they’re truly seeking asylum from a dangerous government.

    For example, CNN’s Chris Cuomo had a conversation with an illegal alien, with the help of a translator, about why the man decided to come to the United States.

    “Is he here to work or is he here for asylum?” Cuomo asked the translator.

    “He wants to work but if he gets asylum he’s willing to get asylum,” the translator told Cuomo.

    “Why did he take his kid with him to come here if it’s just to work?” Cuomo asked.

    “It’s what you and I were talking about. He says that if he comes here with his son then he’s allowed to stay,” the translator responded.

  35. Well I’m late to the bris on a Shikharticle two-pager I haven’t even read yet.

    Can the wall be paid for with sponsorship?

    The Camping World Mexican Border Wall is brought to you in partnership with Camping World your destination for everything RV, Fuddruckers; the world’s greatest burgers, and BMW; the ultimate driving machine. I’m Deconstructed Potato alongside your co-host Shikha Dalmia, and we’ll be right back after these messages.

  36. Band aids on a brain tumor.

    The problem is in these places. If you want to cure then you have to address the root causes.

    We are looking at stopping bleeding without finding or addressing the cause.

    I am pro immigration, close to open borders. I understand that this migration is abnormal.

    These countries are breaking down. If the US does not address that the problem will get worse.

  37. Right, Trump started separating children from their parents is a lie! It is how incarceration always works, you are separated from your kids. If you get arrested with your kids I guarantee you will be separated. Why lie and pretend it started with Trump.

    This author almost never has a good idea, but I think the idea of work visas while they are being processed makes sense. Even a broken cock is right twice a day……………maybe this is the case here…………………

  38. the instand temp work visa may have merit… but not the way SHE lays it out.

    REQUIRE them to report every three months to their local Social Security Office.. yup, go online, make an appointment, slog on down there, wait with the rest of us peons, and be seen face to face and give a quick account of where you live and what you are doing, contact info, and a list of all the public assistance bennies they’re getting. Would take less than ten minutes. Every three months. Miss any reporting period, app for assylum denied, temp work visa cancelled, subject to deportation when/where found. They’d get a temp SSS number, any work they find will be taxed, etc.

    1. Before that, though, the routine as described for appying for assylum is needing a minor but critical tweak.

      At present, the CBP officer asks them THIS question: “Are you afraid of./……..?”” And they’ve ALL been primed on the trip north to say OH YES…….

      Change that question to “describe in detail WHY you think you are qualified to apply for assylum”. And let THEM supply the information. Then bring that written answer (dictated and transcribed/translated if necessary) before a review judge who will read it, look for the salient points, and make a determination THEN AND THERE whether there seems to be probable grounds for granting assylum. If yes, then move to the temp work visa programme, as modified above. If no, then pack them off into the holding room and wait there until there are enough to put on the next southbound bus. Record their name, DOB, home address, city of birth, etc, and file it. If they show up again, instant nope, back ya go again.

      Most of these applications are about as thin as a bowl of Politician Soup”, so thin you can see a politician right through it. END the charade.

  39. lol it’s hilarious how you people keep hammering on the fact that the “border wall is useless.” Then what’s the problem with allowing him to build it and then you can laugh at him for wasting his time? You”d think that you’d WANT him to build it just so you could gloat over his failure, yet for some reason you just don’t want to do that. Oh, it MUST be your humility right? LOL, yea…that’s it.

  40. “Hand migrants temporary work visas right off the bat, but make renewal dependent on them showing up for scheduled asylum hearings.”

    So the difference from the current situation is that for a limited time the person will be legally allowed to work in the US. When that ends they go back to the regular thing which is not to turn up for their court date. But in the meantime they’ve more easily established themselves in country with the aid of that handy work visa.

    Not only is this dumb, it’s transparently disingenuous.

  41. “But the Department of Justice’s own figures show that 90 percent of asylum seekers do, in fact, show up for their asylum hearings”

    99% in fact, under the Family Case Management Program which accomplished this for $36/day per case, way cheaper than what a private prison profiteer would demand.

    I fear it is precisely _because_ it worked that the Sessions DOJ canceled it.

    https://preview.tinyurl.com/yctu4pgv

    “Everything Trump has tried in order to control the border has so far backfired. ”

    You know the old cowboy who said “Don’t be sayin’ as how I missed, less’n ya know what I was aimin’ at”? Making the situation worse energizes his base. Cancel humanitarian aid that might help stabilize the countries people flee from, cancel the program that makes them show up in court, and you’ve got a bigger crisis to “save” everybody from.

  42. Shikha’s solution is to let everyone in and make them pinky swear that they’ll keep showing up for hearings.

    Totally not Open Borders.

  43. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  44. Man Dalmia is a genius. Who would have ever though that the solution to the problem of people who won’t play by the rules is a reward and a new set of rules?

  45. Daniel. true that Esther`s storry is surprising… on tuesday I got a great Smart ForTwo since getting a check for $5857 this last 5 weeks and a little over ten grand this past-month. this is actually the nicest work I have ever had. I actually started 9-months ago and straight away started to bring in over $73.. per-hour. I follow the details here,

  46. Here’s a better idea: Deport them immediately to wherever they came from.

    Make it a 30 year mandatory minimum sentence crime if they’re ever found illegally in the USA after this initial deportation. Nobody will want to risk it, and if anybody does we can get 30 years of free slave labor out of them making license plates!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.