Sanctuary Cities

Sanctuary Cities Should Hope That Stephen Miller Makes Good on His Threats

They should offer to pay for the transportation of asylum seekers.


Attorney General William Barr and White House aide Stephen Miller have come up with conflicting plans to deal with the rush of fleeing Central American migrants flocking the southern border. Barr wants to deny them bail and hold them in pens on taxpayer dime. Meanwhile, Miller wants to release them to sanctuary cities that are defying Trump's draconian interior enforcement designs to teach these cities a lesson.

Barr's plan is idiocy that is unlikely to accomplish anything. But if sanctuary cities play their cards right, Miller's plan could work out well for everyone and be instructive in ways that he doesn't even realize.

President Trump had campaigned on controlling the border but, embarrassingly, it's become an even bigger mess on his watch. Border apprehensions, although nowhere close to the 1.6 million high in 2000, are significantly up. In the last two months alone, about 190,000 asylum seekers have been apprehended compared to 310,000 in all of 2017, the year Trump assumed office.

Barr's bright idea to deal with the situation is to end the long-standing practice of releasing some asylum seekers who pass the initial "credible fear" screening if they are able to post a bond. The alternative is to hold them for years and years as their case wends its way through hopelessly backlogged asylum courts. The statutory minimum bond amount, which asylum seekers lose if they fail to show up for their hearings, is $1,500. However, last year the Trump administration set the rate at $7,500, an increase of 50 percent from the median bond rate over the last five years, and even $10,000.

He's giving border agencies 90 days to ramp up their processing and detention capacity. After that, he says that any asylum seeker caught outside of an official port of entry will no longer be eligible for bond. He'll exempt unaccompanied minors and families with children because they can't be detained for more than 20 days as per law (although an advisory plan that Trump had convened this week recommended that he pass an emergency regulation to overrule that law). But all singles and childless families will be denied bond.

Barr thinks this will end the so-called practice of catch-and-release and deter asylum seekers from making the schlep to the border. The more likely outcome is that he'll incentivize even more families to bring kids with them. Either way, it is highly unlikely that his proposal will pass legal muster given that Barr is essentially proposing to give people who've merely exercised their legal right to request asylum no option but to remain in indefinite detentions. That should be a relief to taxpayers given that otherwise, instead of gaining millions in bond revenues, they'll be spending tens of millions for detention since it costs $320 per day to detain just each migrant.

Miller's plan, on the other hand, which Trump gleefully endorses on a nearly daily basis for all the wrong reasons, is a great idea.

"Democrats must change the Immigration Laws FAST," Trump tweeted earlier this week. "If not, Sanctuary Cities must immediately ACT to take care of the Illegal Immigrants."

Asylum seekers are of course not illegal immigrants. But even if they were it would be no catastrophe given that contrary to Trump's assertions, undocumented migrants aren't gangbangers and criminals. The best evidence suggests that they commit fewer crimes than natives.

Asylum seekers, who are fleeing violence, are even more law abiding. Indeed, all they are looking for is a safe place where they can work hard and build a life for themselves and their families. That also makes them a major economic boon.

Therefore sanctuary cities should not just roll out the welcome mat, as many of them are pledging to do if Trump makes good on his threat. They should go a step further and offer to pick up the tab for transporting these migrants so long as the administration gives them work permits right off the bat, as I recently suggested, not after six months as is currently the case. The permits could confine the asylum seekers to working in the sponsoring city for a while, but that would be a whole lot better than being in a detention camp. They could, however, petition other participating jurisdictions for sponsorship if they wanted to move. If they skipped town, that could count against their asylum petition. But to minimize that eventuality, sanctuary cities can send emissaries to the border to inform asylum seekers of the kind of local work that is available and let them choose the place that best suits their skills and experience.

There are about 300 state and local governments that are considered sanctuary jurisdictions. Even if they had to absorb a million asylum seekers this year, that would work out to an average of 3,333 per jurisdiction. That should be manageable for any city. Florida took in 125,000 low-skilled Cuban convicts in 1980 without any discernible economic or other ill-effects when Cuban dictator Fidel Castro dumped them on the state during the notorious Mariel Boatlift episode.

Many mayors and governors who have for years been pleading with Uncle Sam to give them special visas to recruit immigrants to relieve labor shortages or to boost flagging population can jump in on the action. If they aren't already sanctuary jurisdictions, they can declare themselves such.

Some will object that this will turn amnesty into a guest worker program. But if a proper guest worker program with Central American countries existed and asylum seekers used it to gain entry to the United States, would they object to that? The fact is that even folks in the most dangerous countries have multiple motives for seeking a particular destination country. Central American migrants looking for work would no more move to Raqqa even if ISIS paid them handsomely than asylum seekers would move to poverty-stricken Lesotho just because it is safe. The only way to ensure purity of motive is to have both an adequate asylum program and a guest worker program. But America's guest worker program is worse than its asylum program, which is why Central Americans are trying to push their way through the latter. But asylum also taxes border resources more than any other admission route. So the best way to relieve pressure on the border and restore order is to create a proper guest worker program, exactly what Trump won't even consider.

For now, the beauty of the plan to let sanctuary jurisdictions sponsor asylum seekers is that it would be a mini-experiment in federalizing immigration policy, something that many immigration reform proponents, including me, have been recommending since before Trump became president. Those jurisdictions that feel that asylum seekers will strain their resources more than they contribute to the economy don't have to admit them. But those who believe the opposite don't have to be deterred by such objections. Whoever turns out to be right will become an example for others without the federal government having to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the whole country.

Between Barr and Miller, Miller is the implacable foe of immigration. Barr had no particular record of hostility toward immigrants before joining the White House. It would be delicious irony if Miller is the one who gets the ball rolling on something remotely good for immigrants.

This column originally appeared in The Week

NEXT: Matt Welch Interviews C.J. Ciaramella About Pot Politics on Sirius XM Insight

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

  1. “Many mayors and governors who have for years been pleading with Uncle Sam to give them special visas to recruit immigrants to relieve labor shortages or to boost flagging population can jump in on the action.”

    That could work! Finally, rural areas that need fruits and veggies picked, would have willing and able workers!! Woo-Hoo!!!

    Sad to say, right on the heels of these workers, we’d have hordes of Arizona-border-style right-wing nut-job self-appointed militias show up to hold all of the workers prisoners, at gunpoint, and you know darn well the militia is NOT going to pick the veggies, so we’ll go right back to letting the veggies rot in the fields!

    The right wingers need some other, replacement scapegoats to hate… Maybe we should all start voting for Bernie Sanders, and they could get off on hating him (and our Bernie-destroyed economy) instead…

    1. so we’ll go right back to letting the veggies rot in the fields!

      Yet another year of plague visited on us by the unwashed Arizona-border-style right-wing nut-jobs? At this rate, in a couple of years, we’ll be forced to subsist on actual veggies rather than ginseng, kale, and almond milk.

    2. These people are literally arriving with their hands out – they are not “workers” and many have the golden ticket to long-term welfare (aka children).

    3. Now I have been a Libertarian for most of my life. I understand the balance we need in this issue. But cheering for slave labor to get your avocados picked is disgusting. Your devaluing of human life and suffering to “we needs them slaves to picks our cotton” argument is vile. Your attitude is actually worse than the gun totters because all you really want is cheap labor and have no real concern for the immigrants, or the people dealing with them in rural areas.

      I live in Deming NM. Right now our local hospital is filled (thanks to the CBP) with kids suffering from things US kids are normally vaccinated for. From smallpox to antibiotic resistant TB. The hospital is also sending van loads of people who are mentally ill to the point of being a public danger to Santa Fe and Albuquerque for treatment.

      The hospital is overloaded and is having a hard time dealing with the county residents because of so much quarantining.

      Add to that the killing of stock and massive thefts that the county sheriff is to the point of just shrugging and taking our game camera footage.

      From listening to some immigrants they are needing to get in because family, including children are being held hostage till they western union enough money back. There are labor managers who get people jobs, and then collect the checks from them. You have no idea what is going on. Please come back when you have actual, real knowledge about hings rather than waiting for your slave boat to come in.

  2. But if sanctuary cities play their cards right, Miller’s plan could work out well for everyone and be instructive in ways that he doesn’t even realize.

    Amen – – most of these sanctuary cities are woke and have $15 minimum wage. Their small businesses are hurting for some off the book help who are happy to work for $9 an hour. Maybe the slaughter houses will move back in the city where they can find some below rate knockers, stickers, bleeders, tail rippers, flankers, gutters, sawers, or plate boners.

    1. I’d love to see any journalist ask any Democrat how they plan on enforcing their $15 minimum wage without enforcing immigration and legal employment laws. If you actually enforced a $15 minimum wage (or even the current one), demand for illegal workers would plummet, and we’d instantly have millions more uneducated, non-English speaking impoverished undocumented people.

      Also, there are strict rules of asylum and refugee status. Not every poor person in the world is asylum. Not everybody from a country full of murders deserves asylum. They are abusing the system, and everybody knows it.

      I do think we need large scale immigration, and we should make it as easy as humanly possible to immigrate here legally, but along with that we would need strict enforcement and deportations for those who still choose to do it illegally.

      1. If you actually enforced a $15 minimum wage (or even the current one), demand for illegal workers would plummet, and we’d instantly have millions more uneducated, non-English speaking impoverished undocumented people.

        Even if this scenario were to actually come to pass, these millions of people would not just stand around and do nothing. They would pursue their economic interests as best as they could. Maybe they start their own businesses. Maybe they migrate back home. Maybe some go on welfare, sure. But they are going to be doing something, and most likely something productive.

        1. But they are going to be doing something, and most likely something productive.

          Just like they did in the countries where they came from! Because only Americans get a little wealth and prosperity and then become unproductive. There’s no way to explain how an immigrant would be immune to laziness or anti-productive work while a native wouldn’t be. It’s just magic that exists in the soil of one’s birth.

          1. “Just like they did in the countries where they came from!”

            This is flippant and you’ve likely not thought through this much further than “sh!thole country bad!” Assuming, for the moment, that you’re being honest with this comment, I think you should consider the requirements for being productive in a failed Latin American state versus the United States. We have a massively complex economic infrastructure that makes being productive easy and it’s protected by a lawful society. Not having to worry about corrupt officials raiding your belongings or drug cartels stealing your children for labor goes a long way to freeing up your time to consider more productive activities. And when these immigrants arrive in the US, they are statistically more law abiding than born Americans and very productive. They appreciate what the rest of us take for granted because they’ve lived in the alternative. Further, rather than suffer under that alternative, they had the energy and bravery to trek, often by foot, 2000 miles or more to make a better life for themselves. That kind of person is not, by any stretch of the imagination, lazy.

            My ancestors did the very same thing but they came by boat. They were the refuse of Europe–barely considered civil. They arrived to a new country that didn’t want them or their strange religion. It was so bad people put signs on their shops specifically saying they weren’t welcome within. They took basic service and physical labor jobs and ate the cheapest food they could acquire. What makes them different than the current set of immigrants? Only the color of their skin. But back when the Irish arrived, they weren’t considered “white” either.

            1. I’ve been in more shithole countries than you have. They’re shitholes for a reason. The shit that occupy them are the reason.

            2. And they turned into Tammany Hall handwashers and then into Kennedy’s and Richard Daley’s.
              Bill the Butcher was right.

      2. This has never been hard to do, unfortunately. For example, in California, you are required to e-file your payroll information quarterly if you have a business ID- even if it is to say that you employed nobody. It is not hard for a sufficiently motivated person to compare revenues of established industries to their payroll information to uncover a hint that the company has more labor than it is reporting. And if a business tries to “hide” illegal work force among legal employees, they run the risk that one of those legal employees will rat them out, or be charged with conspiracy.

        1. You do know that most E-Verify violators simply get around it by using past tax ID numbers right? The system is overloaded and the ability to actually compare balances is remote in the best of cases. Not to mention the IRS and the SS people don’t compare notes anymore. There is just too much fraud to keep track of. Actually talk to a CBP agent or two and they can tell you how the violators are getting away with this on a daily basis, and there isn’t a single thing they can do about it.

    2. Just watch out for the vats where they boil down the sausage meat … the catwalks around those can be slippery!

  3. Well said.

    As a Koch / Reason libertarian, I’m generally in favor of government spending less money. When it comes to immigrants, however, I want governments to pay for their transportation, ESL classes (if necessary), and job training programs.

    1. You need to step up your game tremendously if you want to parody Shikha. Otherwise, you just come off sounding like a more reasonable moderate version of her

      1. Winner!

      2. I don’t know. Insanity is the new sanity.

    2. Cher begs to differ.

    3. I’m a Bill F. Buckley Libertarian. Open the doors as soon as there is no social welfare. Otherwise your simply overtaxing an already overloaded system and growing government at an unsustainable rate. Right now many states have ways for immigrants to collect public funds, when that is gone then we can have a open discussion about reopening the migrant worker programs we used to have before the Union protectionists created the current immigration system.

      1. What if immigrants actually bolstered the welfare state rather than drained it? Would your argument change?

  4. President Trump had campaigned on controlling the border but, embarrassingly, it’s become an even bigger mess on his watch. Border apprehensions, although nowhere close to the 1.6 million high in 2000, are significantly up. In the last two months alone, about 190,000 asylum seekers have been apprehended compared to 310,000 in all of 2017, the year Trump assumed office.

    How is that proof that it is a mess? Not arguing for against tighter border controls here, but isn’t that proof that Trump wanting a tighter border is working? These are the numbers apprehended. not the numbers of people who got through.

    1. That paragraph and, as usual, the article may be the biggest mess of all.

      So we had 1.6M in 2000, didn’t really do anything about it, and now 600K represents a ‘mess’? And the proposed solution to the mess is to sweep it under the various city and municipal rugs?

      It’s been pretty well argued that Chicago would place a significant portion of these people directly in it’s gang database, violate their rights as citizens, and continue to call themselves a sanctuary city.

  5. The threat has already done it’s work, by demonstrating that even the people running the “sanctuary cities” think illegal immigrants are harmful to the community. They just don’t mind that harm as long as it’s to somebody else.

    1. Are you suggesting the left operates on a “Not In My Back Yard” philosophy?

  6. “Florida took in 125,000 low-skilled Cuban convicts in 1980 without any discernible economic or other ill-effects when Cuban dictator Fidel Castro dumped them on the state during the notorious Mariel Boatlift episode.”

    No ill effects, the BS just keeps piling up.

    1. Well, those Cubans and their descendants have become reliable GOP voters so some might consider that an “ill effect.” 😉

      1. Oh, I suppose you’ve forgotten about little Elian Gonzales?!?

  7. The fact of the matter is, the migrants are going to come here whether we want them to or not. The only way they are not going to come here is if here is worse than there, which is something no one wants and isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

    So if they are going to come here anyway, we could either continue with the fiction that they are refugees seeking asylum, when we know most of them aren’t, or we could recognize this majority as who they really are – economic migrants who want to come here to work at a job to support themselves and their families. And a portion of that support is remitted home to their extended family in their native countries, serving as a type of completely voluntary foreign aid.

    Or, we could lock them up, evidently indefinitely if Barr had his way, costing us all money for their imprisonment, making America worse by not taking advantage of the labor that they freely wish to contribute here, as well as making America worse by condoning this form of incarceration. And that voluntary foreign aid goes away, so the ‘shithole’ countries that they came from remain shithole countries.

    1. “The fact of the matter is, the migrants are going to come here whether we want them to or not. ”



      1. Well, you can either accept reality, or live in fantasy land.

        The thought that if we just enforced the immigration laws harder, the migrants wouldn’t come here, makes about as much sense as the thought that if we just enforced the drug laws harder, people wouldn’t get drugs anymore.

        1. In what you call “fantasy land”, walls work. A physical barrier slows the progress of migrants, and would greatly stop the flow of women and children who can’t climb 50 foot walls. In “fantasy land” physics is law. And I don’t even want a wall, I just can’t help but speak up when people are so stupid they can’t see how deterrence reduces the problem.

          If we really wanted to we could secure the border. Ask any of the countries we’ve occupied

          1. There already are walls. There are border patrol agents, ICE agents, etc., patrolling all the time. The budget for immigration enforcement has only grown and grown and grown. Just saying “if we only tried harder, we could stop it this time” is the il-logic of prohibitionism, of all sorts. At some point, the prohibitionists of all stripes have to accept reality and realize that brute government force ultimately cannot stop people who are not harming anyone else.

            How much more deterrence will it take? We’ve tried all of those things in various other contexts before. Passing more laws, hiring more cops, throwing more money at the budgets, won’t stop it.

            1. It is also noteworthy that both sides of this sickening debate are having it both ways. Back when the number of illegals had dipped down, people were crowing “See!? Deterrence works!” Now they are saying “See, enforcement works! We are catching more of them”. And of course, we have people like Shikha doing the same. When the number goes down “See!? It isn’t a big problem” and when it goes up, “See? It isn’t fixing anything!” Whether the number of illegals detained goes up or down, it is evidence that their policy works or doesn’t work.

              1. Great point

            2. There are walls over a tiny fraction of the border, and there’s a budget for immigration enforcement which is deliberately kept at a fraction of what is obviously necessary to do the job; For example, explicitly limiting available cots to less than the number of people being caught, so that most have to be released.

              I’m not saying it could ever be 100% effective, what is? But it’s painfully clear that Congress intends that the border enforcement be ineffective, and they have hobbled it to that end.

              They just don’t dare come out and say that they want the border to be a sieve. But that’s the result of their legislation, and it’s the intended result.

              1. There will never be enough walls, or laws, or cops, or prisons, to satiate the prohibitionist.

                1. But there would eventually be enough to slow illegal immigration to manageable levels. Just because the effort outweighs the benefit doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

                  1. But there would eventually be enough to slow illegal immigration to manageable levels.

                    Not if the lessons from all of the other prohibitionist schemes are to be learned.

                    Just look at the drug war. When the state started to get tough on “hard” drugs, people just shifted to other drugs. When the state cracked down on opioids, people just shifted to heroin. Etc., etc. And in all of that, the state consumed a vast amount of resources and destroyed liberty in order to pursue a goal that was ultimately unobtainable. It’s destructive and wrong.

                    There IS no “end”. The War on Drugs can never be won. The War on Immigration similarly can never be won either. The prohibition becomes an end unto itself, its own self-justifying self-perpetuating scheme. I say enough.

                    1. The biggest problem with the war on drugs from a libertarian standpoint, (Setting aside that it’s unconstitutional at the federal level, of course!) is that it’s a restriction on a person’s liberty that’s supposedly justified for their own benefit, and unless somebody is incompetent or a minor, that’s not a valid reason to restrict their liberty.

                      Immigration is restricted for the benefit of existing citizens, others, NOT the immigrants themselves, so it’s not invalid in that regard.

                      Viewing the only conceivable justification for government from a libertarian standpoint being protecting the welfare of the citizens of that government, if the immigration of a person not already a citizen is viewed as harmful, prohibiting their entry is justifiable.

                      Now, is that prohibition less harmful than the person’s entry? There you have something of an argument. But I think it is compromised by the fact that for decades our immigration enforcement has been deliberately hobbled, so we’re not looking at what a serious effort to control immigration would look like, either in terms of costs or results.

                      Inadequate data to perform the cost/benefit analysis, IOW.

                    2. It is disingenuous to concern troll someone else’s point of view rather than argue your own point. “That will never work 100%.” is a strawman.

                      With modern technology, it is reasonable (What’s that word we were all using during the Kavanaugh trial? Plausible?) to assume that we could significantly reduce immigration if we used our resources smarter. Moreover, we could easily track immigrants in our country if Congress had the will to act. The obvious implication is that Congress does not want to limit immigration.

                      Along with that, consider the financial debt in this country due to the welfare state compared to border security. Eliminate the welfare state and immigration will plummet and we won’t even have to tighten down on restrictions. No one wants to talk about that because that’s MY free stuff.

            3. The third largest group of illegal immigrants come from China. Exactly where would you build that wall to stop them? What magic do they use to get over the existing barriers?

              Hint: The Wright Brothers had a hand in it…

              1. Why don’t we worry about that when it’s the largest group? Tell me about the fifth largest group. what about the tenth?

            4. Most of the “Walls” are literally garden walls and wire fence.

              Real walls work.

              There was actually a retarded article (more than this one) by some dumb cunt who boasts a PhD in construction, insisting that walls don’t actually do anything about anything.

              So, she’s admitting her degree is bullshit?

              If you let third world shit from third world shitholes into the US without hindrance, the US will be a third world shithole in a decade.

              You’re arguing that pumping water out of a flooded basement only delays the flooding. But with enough pumps, it doesn’t flood, and even with fewer, the flow of water doesn’t last forever, when you sandbag and ditch outside.

              But how many “Asylum seekers” (none of whom meet the international legal definition) can we put in your house right now?

              Thought so.

          2. You are right in the sense that building more walls, higher walls, hiring more agents, levying more taxes, etc., will stop some migrants from coming. But all of the examples from prohibitionist schemes just tell us that people will simply find a way around these new barriers in their way. And then the demand from your side of the debate will just be “we need more walls! more cops! stricter enforcement! if the politicians only had the will, they could solve this problem right now!” And it just goes on and on. You can’t coerce people into liberty.

            1. My demand has and will continue to be a vast reduction in the welfare state, changing immigration laws, and ending the drug war. Until those things happen I’ll continue to look for ways to reduce the damages caused by excess immigration. And I will never feel sorry or apologize for bettering lives for Americans over anyone else

            2. Why lock your door? It can be kicked in. Why have an alarm? They’ll just rob fast. Why bother with a gun? You can’t be home all the time.

              Everything is a cost-benefit analysis, as any actual libertarian knows. Make crossing the entirety of Mexico painful enough, with low odds at the end, and they’ll stop wasting their time.

              NONE of them are legally “Asylum seekers.” Legally, asylum seekers must stop in the first nation that will protect them. That’s Mexico.

              Otherwise, I’m in favor of channeling them through to Canada.

        2. E-Verify and actually enforce laws against illegal employers. No possible way we could do that, is there?

          1. There’s a cost/benefit analysis to this on whether the state expends more than they currently do to enforce these laws and whether the potential increase in employment taxes will cover that cost. The undocumented immigrants also create a net positive economic value which needs to be taken into consideration. The law of diminishing returns applies here.

        3. It is not possible to secure our southern border???
          Over the years, there were literally millions of East Germans who wanted to cross to the border to West Germany. The East German and Soviet police and military effectively closed that border from 1962 to 1988. Only 40K people successfully crossed that border without authorization in 27 years – roughly 1500 persons per year. Granted, the US Mexico border is about twice as long as the internal German border was and there are about three times as many people in Central America as there were in East Germany, but we could probably live with 3000, 5000 or even 10,000 successful unauthorized border crossings via Mexico each year.

          I am not weighing in on whether or not it is optimal for the US to secure its southern border. I am just calling BS on the argument that it is not possible.

    2. ” The only way they are not going to come here is if here is worse than there, which is something no one wants and isn’t going to happen anytime soon. ”

      If here is worse than there for them. Which we can certainly arrange. It doesn’t have to be worse than there for anybody else.

      1. Well, Barr certainly seems to agree with you, in wanting indefinite detention for migrants. At some point you make all of America worse off by condoning that type of behavior.

        1. Barr doesn’t want indefinite detention for illegal immigrants. (I reject your effort to ignore any distinction between legal and illegal “migrants”.) He wants their speedy deportation. The long detentions are a product of Congress deliberately under-staffing the immigration courts, in order to prevent them from being able to process all those arriving at the border in a timely manner, so that they’ll have to be released rather than deported.

          As most of them would be after any fair hearing, as their asylum applications are normally frivolous, just a tactic illegal aliens have been coached to resort to if caught.

          The current situation is one neither restrictionists nor open borders advocates want. Immigration restrictions want quick deportations for anybody caught trying to enter illegally, and a quick and skeptical resolution of asylum claims.

          Open borders advocates want people to just be able to walk into the country without any impediment, and stay here without any obstacle. But they’re a tiny minority, with no political clout.

          The real opposition to immigration restrictionists are those who want massive and specifically illegal immigration, because illegal immigrants who are still subject to deportation if they become troublesome provide a cheap and vulnerable workforce.

  8. Wherever you fall on this issue, I think you’re going to have to accept that neither party has the slightest interest in solving this problem. In fact, they would regard a genuine solution as detrimental to their interests.

    1. Are you talking about immigration, or social security?

      1. I think he means healthcare

  9. FINALLY, it’s only been two weeks…

    Ok Shikha, a million immigrants… what about two million? What about 20 million? How about 66,000 immigrants, most of which have no money, flood each sanctuary? What about yours resources then?

    Using such a small figure, and only using math one time to make your point, says everything I need to know about the open borders agenda

    1. There we go. The demagogue’s playbook – stoke fear of the other, in order to push an agenda.

      1. That’s not at all what I did. I suggested that the original idea presented was not well thought out, and then made a completely reasonable revision to the math. 20 million would immigrate here if the could, per pew polls. Who is going to handle that Jeff, how will the 300 sanctuaries absorb 66,000 immigrants each?

        If my math and facts bring you fear then perhaps your the one pushing an agenda

        1. There aren’t going to be 20 million migrants showing up all at once, and you know it. But you are happy to use that scary thought in order to inspire a little bit of fear.

          1. Where does he say “at once”?

            1. How about 66,000 immigrants, most of which have no money, flood each sanctuary?

              1. I never said at once, but okay, over a 5 year period. Now what?

                You think developers will build houses for people with nothing to put down? Where are they going to live? Most sanctuaries won’t even let developers build.

                Where are they going to live? Tents?

                1. Where are they going to live?

                  We have this thing called a “market”, in which the demands of consumers can be met without some central bureau planning and organizing it all ahead of time.

                  1. 13,000 people immigrating per year into a city with 3 – 4 million people is a rounding error. If they cannot house, employ or otherwise deal with these immigrants, then it is a problem that immigration isn’t causing.

                    1. If they cannot house, employ or otherwise deal with these immigrants, then it is a problem that immigration isn’t causing.

                      I’ve never once said that immigrants or immigration caused the welfare state. I think it’s fairly reasonable to assume they could exacerbate it (especially when portions of it rely on census data that didn’t account for unchecked immigration) and I’m certain about the fact that they won’t alleviate it.

                      As usual, there isn’t much of a problem with immigrants competing in a free or fair market. The problem is that lying halfwits like to pretend our market is free or fair and then act like, in a free or fair market, their explicitly pro-immigrant solution is the only or even most reasonable one.

                    2. They’re a rounding error if they’re statistically indistinguishable from the people already there.

                      If they’re criminally inclined, they’re a horrific burden.

                      The horror at Trump’s threat is due to the recognition that the illegal immigrants aren’t, on average, nearly as harmless as they’re made out to be.

              2. BTW, Shikha made that argument, not me. I simply added people that reflects global desire to immigrate.

      2. You may have missed that this is a libertarian paper.

        I don’t know where the socialist cocksucker pages are, but there are plenty of them.

        Now once again: How many “asylum seekers” can I bring to your house right now?

  10. The 22nd century will be great. Everyone will talk about Citizen Flight from the cities and then the autonomous Hispanic territories will complain of Americanification as if it were a genocide of their superior culture.

  11. “Barr thinks this will end the so-called practice of catch-and-release and deter asylum seekers from making the schlep to the border. The more likely outcome is that he’ll incentivize even more families to bring kids with them.”

    Of course, nowhere in here does Shikha mention that this problem of incentives is caused by people on her side of this debate. If Barr does anything punitive to discourage families from immigrating, she and her like will wail and moan that Barr is abusing poor children. If he treats these families with deference, he is incentivizing more families to come. She should at least argue in good faith. These people are so incentivized precisely because of the actions of her and her side in this debate.

    I’m pretty much on the open borders side here, but Shikha is a perfect example of the perfidy on display by pundits in this debate. She is not interested in compromise or even solving the problem. Just endless condemnation and demonization that keeps both sides entrenched in this philosophical battle.

    1. What is Shikha supposed to say? “It’s reasonable to lock up people indefinitely”?

      1. She could easily have said something like, “To be sure, Barr is in an untenable position here. The mass incarceration of families will be seen by many as unacceptable and cruel. And this reality actually encourages immigrants to bring children on their long trek.”

        Instead she phrases the entire policy as if Barr just made up this whole policy on his own, without realizing the realities of economic incentives.

        Frankly, Jeff, I think your argument starts from a better place- these people are going to come here no matter what, so let’s deal with that.

        It took me about 20 years to really internalize that point. These people are coming here no matter what. Just like people are going to do drugs, no matter what. So if we are going to have government intervention, what can be done to reduce the harm? In my mind, for migrant workers, it is to absolutely restrict their ability to use social programs or vote, until they have demonstrated key desirable behaviors.

        Instead, Shikha just points at the latest conflaguration and acts like it just appeared due to the policy prescriptions of Barr. And that isn’t true.

      2. No, how about, “We should fund more immigration judges so that frivolous applications for asylum can be resolved rapidly and the people making them be deported.”

        1. All that will result in is people coming through some other mechanism. They are not here because they can claim asylum. They are claiming asylum because they want to come and work here. Addressing the asylum issue is merely going to cause these people to go in some other direction, likely further into the shadows. As Jeff noted above, the only way to reduce their desire to earn money here is to make this country as bad a place to live in as the shitholes they are leaving. I don’t think any american wants to live in that country.

          I sympathize with the argument that mass immigration will result in political changes to this country that we do not want. That is why anyone trying to solve that problem should be focused on policies that encourage assimilation and decrease the ability for these workers to vote in socialists and welfare. Get these people out of the shadows, where the only social structures they have discourage engagement with the country. Get them into a guest worker program where they earn wages, pay taxes, and ultimately go home.

          1. “They are not here because they can claim asylum. ”

            It think you need to consider this a bit more. The root cause of the migration isn’t how great America is but how terrible things are in certain Latin American countries. And we can’t have an honest conversation about the disfunction in those countries without considering how US policy, both military and corporate (looking at you Dole Food Company) played a role in this outcome. Hondurans wouldn’t be so eager to leave their country for ours if theirs was safe. These families come here to avoid a terrible situation in their home country–so terrible that it qualifies them for asylum. For whatever reason, we don’t refer to them as what they really are: refugees. Why do we assume that these people have so little pride in country that they’d just toss it aside to come to the United States for the hope of a minimum wage agricultural or janitorial job?

            1. The badness of their countries do NOT qualify them for asylum. There are 5 specific criteria for asylum, plus a 6th from international treaties against torture. However, illiterate televangelists with no notion of economics use income from tithes to buy seats in Banana Republic legislatures. The first thing they try to do is make trade and production illegal. Their opposition are the dregs of Stalinista-style kleptocracy with equally bad agendas. Look at the GOP and Dems, now imagine libertarian parties are illegal and you get the picture.

          2. The inevitability of abuse of our goodwill isn’t justification for permitting abuse to occur. If we were really serious about border security, there would be an insurmountable wall, underground barriers, and a minefield.

            Encouraging assimilation doesn’t work because we’re fundamentally misunderstanding why people come here. America is better and that’s why they come. Nothing much else matters. It’s the same reason millions of Muslims have invaded Western Europe. It doesn’t have to be home fresh off the boat; it’s better than home and it can be transformed. Try as hard as you like, but consider that it took us savage Europeans thousands of years to develop these ideas and America is still extremely radical in terms of its (relative) support for individual freedom and liberty. You really want to chance that for taco trucks?

      3. It’s no more unreasonable than letting millions enter with no repercussions.

      4. That does seem reasonable. I fully support minefields and machine guns.

        Locking them up indefinitely is an inferior solution, but I’m willing to compromise. As long as we never build another facility, and just keep shoving them in. With a trash compactor if necessary.

      5. The judges generally do a good job, and anyone who wants to can be deported at no charge. The most hopelessly illiterate and superstitious make up pathetic lies and spend months in tax-funded detention hoping some judge will believe nonsense manufactured out of whole cloth. The root problem is the subsidized superstitious, force-initiating governments they are fleeing. Picture a legislature packed with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marco Rubio clones…

  12. “Five years ago today , Cuban President Fidel Castro closed the harbor of Mariel, ending a five-month boatlift that dramatically changed the face of South Florida.

    Most of the 125,000 Mariel refugees who sailed into Key West in the “Freedom Flotilla” have managed to adapt to American life, starting businesses, marketing their skills and raising families.

    But their successes have been overshadowed by the actions of an estimated 16,000 to 20,000 criminals and other misfits who have contributed to an alarming increase in South Florida crime.

    On any given day, there are 350 to 400 Mariel Cubans in Dade County jails, according to a recent report by the Dade-Miami Criminal Justice Council.

    This year alone, the county will spend more than $6 million to house those criminals. The state Department of Corrections will shell out another $6 million to house Mariels convicted of felonies in Dade, the report revealed.

    Mariel criminals in Florida jails have an average of nine years of prison time left, bringing the cost to state taxpayers to nearly $72 million by the time they are released, the report says.

    The cost isn’t the only thing worrying Florida officials. The steady influx of new inmates is putting a squeeze on overcrowded prisons already under pressure from a federal court order capping their populations.

    “The whole situation has presented tremendous problems to the safety and health of the community,” said Perry Rivkind, Miami district director of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.”

    1. IOW: No discernible ill effects

  13. This article is Peak Shikha. I don’t even know where to begin to pick out the plum quotes to dissect and mock.
    From mischaracterizing “asylum” by not noting the fact that they would technically all need need to apply in Mexico, and despite the fact that 90%+ of those interviewed freely admit they are economic migrants, to her Disneyfied view of the so-called asylum seekers and the type of super-human saints they are…. they are better than the “natives” don’t you know (Fine Print: “natives” also include their children and grandchildren born here, which are one of the most violent subsets of citizens), to her idiotic assertion that immigration can be “federalized” and immigrants somehow confined to the localities that ‘want’ them….I guess we will now need papers and permits to no longer freely travel inside the US? Or we just won’t bother enforcing that, either….

    Let’s start here, with the idea many towns need immigrants for the population and economic boom they provide. Why don’t we do the same for some of the other non-latino Homeless? Which jurisdictions should line up to pay for their bus fare?

    1. Immigration is going to happen whether you want it or not. You aren’t going to turn the 40 – 60% of the American citizens who support more immigration into hard-line restrictionists like yourself. And so illegal immigrants are going to continue to find soft spots in the country where they can hide in the shadows.

      If you are really concerned about the crime of first and second generation immigrants, and you cannot shut off immigration, then the next best way of dealing with the crime is to 1) reduce the number of immigrant kids with a guest worker program that encourages people to work here and remit money to families back home and 2) encourage any kids here to engage with functional society, rather than existing in some quasi legal situation where they are constantly in contact with un-regulated black markets.

      If you keep coming back to “Fuck you, restrict immigration” then you are going to be angry and disappointed for the foreseeable future. *shrug* You just aren’t going to make headway against the many other American citizens that disagree with you.

      1. Well, guess what, I’m not a hard line restrictionist. Not at all.

        What I am is pro-reality and against rank mendaciousness (on either side) and insulting my intelligence, like with every Shikha article

        I am all for strict enforcement AND border barriers AND a guest worker program AND amnesty for Dreamers AND increased legal immigration based on merit/skills AND increasing true refugees getting amnesty (Syrian Christians, Kurds, etc) AND against Sanctuary Cities

        So, fcvk you, dumbassss

      2. 40-60% of leftist cocksuckers support it, but when actual human beings were polled, it was below 10%.

        And stop conflating immigration with illegal border crossing.

        What other crimes are “going to happen anyway” that we should cease trying to stop? Rape? Murder? Armed robbery?

        1. We should lay back and try to enjoy it….the immigration….into us

  14. Its a very interesting economic theory that booming economies are created by people just showing up. If you add a few tens of thousands of people, you will get more car washes, used car lots, mercadostaquerias, laundromats, and check cashing/payday lending stores, Thus, your economic BOOM.
    The same thing happened in Williston ND. Tens of thousands of people just showed up, and suddenly there were all these high-paying jobs. And rents skyrocketed. And inflation, (and opportunities in sex work). All it took was enough random arrivals.

    Which kinda makes the case for staying in less developed countries and booming those economies…

    1. Events in the sixth largest town in North Dakota, population two cats and a meth head, inflated the currency of the United States. Holy crap.

  15. Since California is an open borders state, why doesn’t the state let everyone in who wants to enter.

    If they run out of room, they can always fly the overflow to open border cities like Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Chicago, IL, etc.

  16. If we let the Germans come and go as they please, what’s to stop the Chinese, Irish, Italians and Jews from coming here and marrying our womenfolk and diluting our vital nationalist juices?

    1. But not the Irish.

    2. Citation needed on them “coming as they pleased” without documentation and clearance.

  17. I literally scrolled back at the top of this article looking for the Onion logo or a “sarc” reference.

  18. I think the author is spot one with one cavoite, I would make the Trump Administration pony up the money for transport and logistical support. Take the money Trump would waste on a wall and use it to directly support the asylum programs in the cities.

    1. I would make the Trump Administration pony up the money for transport and logistical support.

      I would make the open border state of California pony up the money for transport and logistical support since they support open immigration.

      1. Even straw men can pick vegetables!

  19. All the migrants coming across the border should be put in liberal enclaves like Beverly Hills, the Hampdens, Cape Cod, Brentwood, Bel Air, and San Francisco.
    I’m sure the open borders people would welcome them with open hearts, open minds and most importantly, open wallets.

    1. Who do you think cleans the houses and does the gardens in those places?

  20. This rag increasingly is socialist cocksuckery, not libertarianism.

  21. […] a post today at Reason, “Sanctuary Cities Should Hope that Stephen Miller Makes Good on His Threats,” Shikha Dalmia makes the argument better than I did in my head. Instead of discussing […]

  22. It’s a genius plan.

    I agree, send ’em all, and sure, let the taxpayers of those cities foot the bill for transport. With $15 minimum wage and other Liberal worker policies in place, sanctuary cities will crash even sooner.

    That’s the goal, right: crash the system?

  23. […] a post today at Reason, “Sanctuary Cities Should Hope that Stephen Miller Makes Good on His Threats,” Shikha Dalmia makes the argument better than I did in my head. Instead of discussing illegal […]

  24. Dalmia needs to meet the asylum seekers I’ve been dealing with these past 21 years. Nine out of ten are as illiterate, superstitious and incompetent as nine of the ten along the fence separating Pakistan and India. Not understanding a word they say makes it easy to imagine the wretched refuse are something they aren’t. I’d guess 99% are victims of the superstitious mixed-economy prohibitionism These United States export to the rulers of bandana kleptocracies via the FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN and EAG.

  25. […] a post today at Reason, “Sanctuary Cities Should Hope that Stephen Miller Makes Good on His Threats,” Shikha Dalmia makes the argument better than I did in my head. Instead of discussing illegal […]

  26. Y’all are a bunch of racist scaredypants faggots. Get a fucking life. You’re not fooling anyone. You cling to the “they’re terking er welfare” despite repeatedly being told that the opposite is true. You make cynical arguments about how unjust cheap labor is while you are the first people in line to argue against a minimum wage. Then there’s the whole “let’s have the federal government take people’s land to build a barrier to human freedom that’s actually no more than a giant monument to an insane ridiculous government strongman” thing. Is it that hard to be a libertarian?

    1. “despite repeatedly being told that the opposite is true.”

      Because the opposite is not true ya dumb mother fucker

      1. Yup. If the average American has to make $60K a year to be a net positive tax payer, explain to me how an illiterate peasant with 4 kids making $20K a year is a net positive tax payer!

        This shit is ridiculous.

  27. “Miller’s plan could work out well for everyone and be instructive in ways that he doesn’t even realize.”

    Just like every other prog dream, the reality is going to be much worse than portrayed on television. But it will be instructive.

    1. Why do you think half the prog mayors came out against it? Because they know if they get a disproportionate amount of the hurt sent their way it will be a disaster! Illegals pretty evenly distribute now, but concentrate them and the problems will be even more obvious than it is now.

  28. If we, as a species, decided to dissolve all states and not recognize authority as legitimate, then turned around to mind our own business and go about our lives we would be in a far better place then we are.

  29. Jesus. Shitma sure is an idiot.

    How is it that any human being with an IQ above 60 cannot comprehend that there is a difference between an immigrant that graduated from 4th grade, doesn’t speak English, etc… And saaay a Chinese PHD who speaks English? It’s very simple.

    These people are essentially the equivalent of ONLY allowing immigration from trailer parks and ghettos, vs a broad cross section of the country. With respect to Mexicans, they have a large and perfectly fine middle class… Who doesn’t ever come here illegally. We’re getting nothing but their lower middle class on down. A class of people where even our native born is in piss poor shape right now I might add.

    This pathological altruism shit is getting old. The American people can’t allow our standard of living to be dragged down by allowing in any illiterate dirt farmer or dish washer. It won’t save the world, because there are too many poor people, but it CAN destroy our country as a nice place to live. Skilled immigrants only please!

  30. I can tell you that in the 30 years I’ve lived here, LA has become a veritable workers’ paradise as we’ve been overrun by functionally illiterate Central American immigrants. They never enclave in ghettos or take their dysfunctional cultures with them. Their kids don’t join gangs or get pregnant as teens at an alarming rate. Nope, it’s prosperity all the way down!

  31. […] Here’s Shikha Dalmia on the current political dust-up over sanctuary cities. […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.