'Prevention Through Deterrence' Is How You Get 53 Dead Migrants in the Back of a Truck
The men, women, and children found dead in a tractor-trailer this week were just the latest casualties of an immigration approach that encourages dangerous journeys.

On Monday, dozens of bodies were found in a tractor-trailer outside San Antonio, Texas, in an incident that left 53 migrants dead. They included 27 Mexicans, 14 Hondurans, seven Guatemalans, and two Salvadorans who had been packed in stifling conditions. Some victims were as young as 13. The tragic episode is now thought to be the deadliest smuggling incident on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was quick to blame the Biden administration's "open border policies" for the incident. He and other immigration hardliners favor the "prevention through deterrence" enforcement strategy, which holds that unauthorized migration will dwindle or eventually stop if the act of migrating is simply made difficult enough.
But what they fail to mention is the black market created by a supposedly impenetrable border. Eliminating safe, legal, and predictable migration pathways doesn't stop immigration from happening. It just funnels migrants into more dangerous crossings and riskier methods of reaching American soil. Willing to attempt the passage no matter the cost, those migrants often look to smugglers as their best option.
That's exactly what happened earlier this week. The migrants found dead in the tractor-trailer perished because prohibition doesn't work, and bad actors are empowered to take advantage of the high profits that come with an illicit market.
Migrant-smuggling networks have become more sophisticated as immigration enforcement has ramped up. "In the past, smuggling organizations were mom and pop. Now they are organized and tied in with the cartels," Craig Larrabee, acting special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations San Antonio, told CNN. "So you have a criminal organization who has no regard for the safety of the migrants. They are treated like commodities rather than people."
Smuggling is a lucrative business. Migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador pay smugglers roughly $1.7 billion each year to reach the U.S., according to research from the Migration Policy Institute, World Food Programme, and Civic Data Design Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That's largely a result of high demand and the difficulties that smugglers navigate as they transport people north. As the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in 2014:
The price of smuggling is an indication of the effectiveness of immigration enforcement along the border. The first effect of increased enforcement is to decrease the supply of human smugglers. As the supply of human smugglers decreases, the price that remaining human smugglers can charge increases. Before border enforcement tightened in the early 1990s, migrants typically paid about $725 (2014 dollars). Currently, unauthorized migrants from Central America are paying around $7500.
By 2008, Nowrasteh writes, "18 percent of apprehended unlawful immigrants reported hiring a human smuggler"—a nearly six-fold increase compared to 1999. Now, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement calls human smuggling "a daily occurrence" on the southern border. As more people turn to smugglers—or cross into the U.S. on foot without their help—deadly events will only increase. The remains of over 550 migrants were found at the border in 2021, and 2022 is on track to be even worse.
The majority of migrants attempting to cross the southern border into the U.S. since the beginning of the pandemic have been expelled under Title 42, a public health measure that allows immigration officials to immediately turn away noncitizens and bar them from applying for asylum. Though "the number of encounters at the border fell by half in fiscal year 2020 compared to the previous year," writes The Marshall Project, "the number of encounters that required a rescue operation doubled to the highest rate in at least a decade." What's more, "the death rate also nearly doubled during the same period, from 35 to 62 migrants found dead for every 100,000 migrants encountered."
Simply clamping down the border further won't work. And some of the specific policy responses to this week's tragedy might not do much to solve the underlying issues that result in migrant deaths. Abbott has promised to step up truck inspections at the border, but several immigration experts interviewed by NPR, including a former Department of Homeland Security investigator, "believe the migrants were not likely brought over the border from Mexico in the truck." It isn't uncommon for migrants to first cross the border on foot, evading Border Patrol checkpoints, and later board a truck.
Research has shown that improving access to legal immigration pathways like temporary work visas helps reduce unauthorized migration. After spending so much time emphasizing the benefits of hardline immigration enforcement, policy makers would do well to remember that such an approach is as deadly as it is ineffective.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
there weren't thousands camping at the border until they were faux-vited
They weren't faux-vited. They were straight up invited.
Or more accurately, encouraging people to come here illegally is how you get them.
Don't commit crimes with stupid people.
No papers? Just clumps of cells. Nothing to see. Move along.
Not sure why you think this line is a winner.
I mean, compared to your normal output, better than usual. But it is still quite terrible.
Not very bright, but he loves to copy.
WithOut Papers.
WOPs. wops. whatevah.
You tell them big man
Watch out, criticize his "papers" rant and he'll accuse you of being obsessed with them.
He did that yesterday.
Hey retard!
That's not the actual etymology of "Wop".
"The Merriam-Webster dictionary states wop's first known use was in the United States in 1908, and that it originates from the Southern Italian dialectal term guappo, roughly meaning "dandy", or "swaggerer", derived from the Spanish term guapo, meaning "good-looking", "dandy", from Latin vappa for "sour wine", also "worthless fellow".[2][3][4]
One false etymology or backronym of wop is that it is an acronym for "without passport" or "without papers", implying that Italian immigrants entered the U.S. as undocumented or illegal immigrants.[9][10][11] The term has nothing to do with immigration documents, as these were not required by U.S. immigration officers until 1924,[12] after the slur had already come into use in the United States.[10]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wop
You're almost as reliably wrong on everything as White Mike.
Hatred of immigrants is a part of human history. ML doesn't have to worry about it though because nobody wants to live in Canada.
No.
One.
At.
All.
Not even the people who live there.
Sarc's not big on book learning but he makes up for it by saying retarded shit.
Canada has the eighth largest legal immigrant population in the world.
Legal immigrants make up about one-fifth (21% in 2019) of Canada’s population—one of the highest ratios for industrialized Western countries.
To contrast, immigrants compose 13.7% of the US’s population.
Citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/
Huffpo is over there sarcasmic ====>
You might find your intellectual tier more appreciated there.
So that's why they aren't flying any flags for Canada Day?
Canadian nationalism is weird, it comes from the left. It's very artificial.
Canada's five major regions don't have much in common, don't really rely on each other outside of transfer payments, and would be better off on their own. So Ottawa pushes nationalism to keep it from falling apart.
Who hates legal immigrants here?
Who hates wops?
*that's your cue to raise your hand*
Cite? Or are you making shit up yet again?
This is your statement:
Hatred of immigrants is a part of human history.
So who hates legal immigrants here?
If you want to talk about illegal immigrants, it isnt hatred of them but of their costs, legal violations, and ignoring agreed to judicial laws. Like when your daughter thought it was fun to key cars. That car owner didn't hate her for being her, but because of the costs she added to them.
Do you understand now?
You use the word "legal" as if it has magical properties.
You used immigrants as if there is no differentiation between legal and illegal. If people support legal immigrants but not illegal ones, it isnt their status as immigrants.
Try again buddy.
You're using the same argument leftists use to justify occupational licensing, high taxes, and such with "It was a pain in the ass for me. No way will I let you make it easier for newcomers! It's not fair!"
I made no statement regarding occupational licensing. Weird statement to make. Are you drunk?
I didn't even make a statement regarding employment at all. What the fuck?
Are you shit faced already?
What? That makes no sense.
Were white folks who came here to the "New World" and stole the lands of the Native Americans legal or illegal? Are YOU ready to pack your bags and "go back to where you came from"?
Go back to where you came from, Goldilicks GorillaShit, Spawn of the Evil One!
(And I mean that in a GOOD way!)
Your Mom-Dad already made you... And couldn't get an abortion, despite their VERY best efforts!!!
Fuck off Sqrlsy, you retarded shit.
Yeah. I'm for open immigration, with job sponsorship, but not open borders (with severe punishment, such as one year of hard labor, for being illegally in the country. It's a misdemeanor now).
Let's strip criminals of their citizen status.
Thats a weird non libertarian ask. Not sure why you'd propose that.
He’s full on flailing today.
Look at the time. He must be three sheets to the wind by now.
This isn't 2015 anymore. We aren't going to fall for your bait and switch.
Remember when Trump wanted to remove TPS status from migrants who had come here after natural disasters? They were granted their status legally. Some of them had been here for 30 years or more. They were not a threat to the Republic. They had fully acculturated here. And you wanted to send them back.
Remember when Republicans proposed reducing LEGAL immigration via the RAISE act? You supported that.
Remember when Trump canceled the Medical Deferred Action program? That allowed migrants to stay here if an immediate family member was getting treated for life-threatening illnesses. He canceled it and you supported it.
Trump lowered the number of permitted refugees. These are people who come here LEGALLY.
When people like Tucker Carlson promote Great Replacement Theory nonsense, you don't condemn the racist bullshit, you say "well maybe he has a point".
Maybe in 2015 you could convince people that the people upset about illegal immigration are totally fine with legal immigration, they just don't want people breaking the law. But not anymore. Now it is much more obvious that this concern about illegal immigration is just a subset of a much larger anxiety about immigration more broadly, that they just don't want 'those people' here because they think they will come and take away their power and ruin America, REGARDLESS if they come here legally or illegally.
They do ruin America.
Mostly because they refuse to internalize the notion that socialism can't save them.
Tribalistic fighting over power (as compared to being the “servants” of one another in peaceful cooperation) is among the root causes of WHY the power pigs (“ethically challenged”) ones among us, resent the better ones among us, and sometimes even KILL the “prophets” (ethical teachers) of the modern-day era.
Please don’t think that the “ultimate” do-gooders who get killed for doing good, are (were, historically) the only ones punished for being righteous! Don’t just think of Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. … Think also, even today, of those punished for assisting so-called “illegal aliens” (“illegal sub-humans” in the minds of their haters). I’ll just show a link and leave it at that… https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/world/europe/greece-migrants.html He Saved 31 People at Sea. Then Got a 142-Year Prison Sentence. Hanad Abdi Mohammad is the hero here, and law enforcement and their anti-immigrant hateful supporters are the villains.
Hanad Abdi Mohammad... Say his name, people!
Can you cite me supporting anything up there? I've always supported migration work visas. I think 1 million permanent visas a year is good with pathways. Work visas with no pathway should be increased.
Why do you rely on false arguments so often?
Oh, Jesse wants to be treated like a special unique snowflake, while he insists on lumping me in with a collective that he hates, ignoring my actual views. How precious.
Cite?
I have never hated you for being a leftist. It is all you buddy. Your fake sophistry. Youre lies about being a libertarian.
You're a very hateable and fat person.
You call me a leftist BECAUSE you hate me.
Why should I treat you any better than you have treated me? Hmm?
You don't mind lumping me in with the craziest progressives. Why should I refrain from lumping you in with the Trump-humping knuckle-draggers?
"Remember when Trump wanted to remove TPS status from migrants who had come here after natural disasters? They were granted their status legally. Some of them had been here for 30 years or more."
Do you know what the "T" in TPS stands for?
Temporary, that's right. It IS NOT permanent. Never was permanent. Temporary is specifically in the name.
And Trump was trying to remove people who had been here on TPS status for 18 years. That is not temporary by any means.
"When people like Tucker Carlson promote Great Replacement Theory nonsense, you don't condemn the racist bullshit, you say "well maybe he has a point"."
Not his fault the Left has been bragging about doing it for years.
Canadians have no natural identity other than "We're not Americans."
That's it.
America is awesome! Fuck you Canada!
Amazing amount if ignorance for a country voted as a top 5 destination for legal migration.
Because of proximity to America, dumbass.
And doubles down on amazing ignorance. Sticks the landing.
The only reason to move to the frozen north is to have access to the rest of the continent.
Russian judge is even giving him a 10 for ignorance. A stunning development.
Canada's 20% legal immigrant, the US is 13%.
A two second Google search could have have prevented sarcasmic from looking like an idiot again, but the alcohol makes him impulsive.
Well, actually, also, in the Great Frozen North, you can ALSO learn how to field dress a moose, like Sarah Palin did!
Do you recall when the nation-wide media and public were entranced by Sarah Palin, who was UTTERLY amazing, 'cause she knew how to field dress a moose?
I would ask that you cast your eyes even yet further back into the past, and consider that Bill Clinton, even FAR more impressively, knew how to field UN-dress a moose!!!
Fuck off, retard.
Also because Lefties really do not like the darker skinned folk.
Apparently, the "migrants" have no agency and are compelled by instinct to enter the USA. They cannot help themselves.
No no no. The migrants have no agency and so if/when they do get here, they reflexively vote for socialism.
Cite?
http://www.fuckoffJesse.com
You've often said it is the impetus of hinest argumentation to cite ones evidence for their assertions.
So cite?
Here's your citation:
https://reason.com/2022/06/26/colombia-could-have-had-a-coke-legalizing-tiktok-famous-president-they-elected-a-socialist-instead/?comments=true#comment-9565248
That isn't a citation of people claiming immigrants have no self agency. It is of me informing you of why people ask you for cites.
Can you try again?
Sure Jesse. This is what I think of your request for citations.
https://reason.com/2022/06/26/colombia-could-have-had-a-coke-legalizing-tiktok-famous-president-they-elected-a-socialist-instead/?comments=true#comment-9565248
I'm saving these posts for the next time you sealion.
I'm no fan of chemjeff, but asking for a citation for something that is obviously just an opinion is lame.
Since collectivistjeff posted it, I have to assume that link is child porn.
Oh fuck you and fuck off. It's a tenet of the Conservative political religion that all immigrants vote against you. You pray to that religion. No "Cite" necessary.
Yes. A cite is necessary. Especially from all leftists like you and Jeff.
So cite?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kz01Uvt-i1E
I see you can't provide any citations. Typical. Argumentation from ignorance is the forte of you two.
You can't expect a sea otter to provide a cite
"sarc's chemjeff's sea otter"
Lol
Here's your citation:
https://reason.com/2022/06/26/colombia-could-have-had-a-coke-legalizing-tiktok-famous-president-they-elected-a-socialist-instead/?comments=true#comment-9565248
Again. That is me examining why people make fun of you. It doesn't prove any of the assertions you've made here.
Care to try again?
Explaining*
an immigration approach that encourages dangerous journeys.
It doesn't encourage dangerous journeys, you deceitful fucks. It explicitly forbids them.
This is like blaming armed robbery where a shopkeeper is shot on laws forbidding robbery.
I will note that Abbott is called out negatively in two places in an article discussing management of the international borders. I know we're angry at Abbott because he disagrees, but he does not have much power here.
Him attempting to do more truck inspections is probably about as much as he could do, and if Texas state troopers discovered the immigrants in the truck, they would have to hand them into federal custody.
Trump was in charge of what happened at the border until January 6. After that, it's Greg Abbott. Before 2016, it was Newt Gingrich.
Out of all of those, the House majority leader probably has the most claim to actually being to blame since this is very much a legislative question.
I'll blame Obama for being the one to get a poison pill amendment despite agreements to shut down all amendments under Bush, killing expanded work visas.
Sure, congress hasn't reformed immigration.
But the US gets 1m+ immigrants per year through the legal method. Plenty of people do it the right way as is.
Is there any other country taking in that many or more?
I'm going to put some blame on activists, but more on the executive who stated his intent to not enforce border restrictions and promised all comers welfare benefits.
You get what you incentivize.
Oops, left out the important question in that first part: what reform to immigration is needed?
I will say there's one area congress needs to address because it's a glaring issue that encourages illegal immigration: birthright citizenship.
We're not doing it right. The current application/interpretation is explicitly unconstitutional. Birthright citizenship wasn't intended to include anyone born here; it was written to include former slaves and the children of citizens only. Look it up, read the congressional debates and explanations by the people who wrote the amendment. They directly state it would not include the children of non-citizen residents and visitors.
I think the biggest issue is that it is bureaucratic hell and relies on a bunch of mechanisms for things that weren't as intended.
It can take years for someone from India to get an employment-based visa, because they limits are implemented as a queue, rather than by ratcheting up the qualifications (New Zealand has a biweekly "auction", where they let in people from most qualified to least). For an employment-based visa, you need an employer sponsor. But what employer is going to hire someone with a start date of 8 years from now? Nobody. So, instead, they use temporary work visas. Those are given out by lottery at the 6 months after the annual application deadline. Okay, that is still a pain, but whatever. But it is a temporary visa. It really isn't designed for changing employers. So, now you have a perverse incentive. Who would employers prefer to hire? An American? Or someone who loses his visa if he quits? That isn't even getting into the obnoxiousness of creating a situation where someone could be in the nation for 6 years, working to get his green card, thinking this is going to be his new home, then he gets laid off and told to pack his bags and go home in 3 months.
In terms of reforms, from least to most radical:
1. Increase the per-country cap from 8% to 12%. Especially for countries that represent over 8% of the global population.
2. Facilitate changing jobs while on a work based visa. At the very least, any job allowed to sponsor should be able to pick up anyone already in the country with minimal fuss and not needing to start over the clock to permanent residency.
3. Create a formula for the desirability of immigrants. Ratchet up requirements when applications exceed supply. People on the bubble should be offered temporary visas, with objective criteria to convert to permanent.
4. Employers should be given a certain number of "freebies". For a given class of job (SW developer, pharmacutical researcher, managers, etc.) employers can bring in 1 or 2% of their American workforce without having to clear Department of Labor certification or anything like that. Just meet security requirements, and employer is responsible for debts. Temporary visa (for a long as employer wants; presumably they will eventually want the slot back), but if immigrant is qualified, they can apply on their own for a permanent visa. Mostly used for rotational assignments and embedded employees from vendors, but could also be used to being in employees that are truly special in a way that bureaucrats can't notice.
Germany passed us for a year in 2018. Otherwise still number 1.
It isn't the absolute number, it's the percentage. Slow changes make for stability. The USA has ~330,000,000 population, so a million legals is 1/3 of 1%. One percent is sustainable for slow cultural change, probably double that. What is the number of not-as-legal immigrants? Is that influx truly destabilizing society?
Seattle intellectuals have a new term for this.
"A congregate shelter".
Smugglers that don't give a fuck is how you end up with 53 dead migrants in the back of a trailer.
Coyotes might be the most evil human beings ever. They were bad enough before the cartels got hold of them, but now they're even worse.
This is just an observation from someone who has lived near the border with Mexico for half a century. This is not new, it has always been this way, and coyotes are scum.
You'd think that, at least, they cared about their nice tractor trailer.
Really depends on how much they make per trip and how often they get caught. The fact they use this method kinda proves how little actual enforcement gets done.
If you accept that the government had authority to shut down the economy and much of the other domestic policies that were obtrusive in response to the pandemic, the government shutting down immigration for the duration seems a small thing and well within the federal government's power.
Also, are all the foreign nationals looking to get in the US asylum seekers? Is the number who try that route remotely credible as being genuine?
I think the number exploded once it became an explicit tactic of activists and standard instruction.
Which means the asylum route is being abused, corrupted and thereby overwhelmed, leaving the legitimate asylum seekers unnerved while US immigration bureaucracy sorts through the chaff.
Correct
Likely worth bringing up the fact that if we'd scale back (or, even better, eliminate) the war on drugs, it might take some of the wind out of the sails of the drug cartels & help to make these central American nations more livable. There's a lot we could do in America to ease these problems through attrition
Absolutely. I bet that decriminalizing/legalizing drugs would do more to prevent dead migrants in trucks than any border wall would.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/fears-of-surge-in-deaths-as-migrants-flood-us-border-in-summer-heat/
Hmm. Nothing regarding drug legalization status.
Oh wait. You think everyone south of the border is a drug dealer. Forgot about your racism.
"Mexicans all love drugs!" - t. chemjeff
Yes, that’s what we need, more fentanyl laced coke, heroin, and knockoff pills, now that fentanyl overdose has surpassed car crash as the leading cause of death for those under 40
Agreed. It's worth working with them as allies as well. Though, it's messy. International relations always are.
This could be a really big step.
So a common refrain around here is that we can't have open borders before there is an end to the welfare state. Because the migrants presumably will come here and just lay around sucking up welfare when they're not stealing jobs.
However, of course, native-born citizens consume far more welfare than immigrants do. When it comes to the raw cost of the welfare state, native-born citizens are far more to blame than immigrants are.
So here is a 'modest proposal'*: The government should require parents to obtain a childbirth license before giving birth. The license could be obtained only if the parents could demonstrate that the kid would not be a net drain on the welfare state. After all, what is a baby other than a welfare moocher sucking off the teat of government largesse funded by hard-working taxpayers? As far as the welfare state is concerned, there is no difference between someone who immigrates here via a border crossing, and someone who 'immigrates' here via a vagina. In fact there is an even greater rationale to restrict childbirth, since babies are more expensive on the welfare state than immigrants - babies are on the dole for their entire K-12 education, unlike most immigrants who at least have some education before migrating here. Not to mention all of the health care costs associated with childbirth. It would save a TON of money on the welfare state.
So, let's institute this licensing scheme, then the welfare state should diminish greatly, to the extent that you would be comfortable enough with a more open-borders policy. What do you think?
* this has to be spelled out explicitly to people like Jesse, but a 'modest proposal' is not a serious one, but one that provokes thought.
Illegal immigrants can't get welfare. Hell, legal immigrants can't get welfare. Their kids can, but they themselves cannot. But most still pay taxes, even the illegal immigrants are paying sales taxes and gas taxes and shit. So immigrants are net tax payers, and NOT net tax takers. It's native citizens who are the tax takers.
Illegal immigrants are massive net takers. That's because they never earn enough to pay just for existing in this country.
On average, welfare is a small expense for the average American. Most of the government related expenses are for education, social spending, government services, transportation, etc. Those expenses occur for every person in the country, legally or illegally.
About 50% of native citizens are, like nearly 100% of illegal aliens. And every illegal alien you admit, and every low skilled legal immigrant you admit, makes the problem worse.
I provided links for brandy below. But he chose ignorance like jeff and sarc.
I'd guess the little trust fund bitch has never known any actual illegal immigrants
He moved to an all white neighborhood but wishes more minorities would move there for cuisine reasons.
Not like on his street or anything, just to the area to set up some strip mall bistros
What an idiot. “Welfare” isn’t the problem, services are. Like ER visits, schools (paid w property tax), not to mention making everything bilingual
Thank you for all the well cited links to all your assertions.
In a prior analysis, we estimated that the average net fiscal cost (taxes paid minus services used) of an illegal immigrant was $65,292 during their lifetime — excluding their U.S.-born children. This came to $65.3 billion per million illegal immigrants. The figures were expressed in 2016 dollars. Adjusted to 2018 dollars, it would be $69,570 per illegal immigrant, or $69.6 billion per million illegal immigrants.
https://cis.org/Camarota/Enforcing-Immigration-Law-Cost-Effective
In 2017, FAIR's "The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers" report put the total cost of illegal immigration at $135 billion a year, while claiming undocumented immigrants paid only $19 billion a year in taxes. That leaves a net cost to local, state and federal governments of $116 billion a year.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2018/06/26/paul-gosar-how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-cost-economy/691997002/
Illegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-but-illegal-aliens-cost-the-u-s-plenty/
Societal impact from illegal immigrant crimes.
https://www.fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/criminal-aliens
Costs on the education system.
https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion/educating-illegal-immigrants-costly/Iafsqvt6ydowmSvgX9C4TM/
None of your links actually address the proposal above.
In fact, this proposal concedes everything you have been saying about the burden that immigrants have on the welfare state. It simply points out that the burden from native-born citizens is much, much higher, and if one is to be serious about addressing the financial cost of the welfare state, one must tackle the biggest driver of that cost, which are native-born citizens. That is why this proposal seeks to regulate which families may give birth. Only those families who can demonstrate that they will be net producers should be permitted to give birth. The others should not, since they would just be net drains. That is the essence of the proposal.
It actually counters your initial assertions for which you provided zero citations for.
You know, explaining why your basis of proposal is bullshit.
We know how much you deeply care about the issue of citations:
https://reason.com/2022/06/26/colombia-could-have-had-a-coke-legalizing-tiktok-famous-president-they-elected-a-socialist-instead/?comments=true#comment-9565248
But the welfare state exists for the benefit of native born citizens. You are creating a false equivalence. Illegals are a drain on a system that exists for legal citizens. Trying to frame it like you are is straining credulity
You're confusing "the social welfare state" with just "a state that provides welfare payments". Social welfare spending is mostly not welfare payments, it is the massive federal and state spending on services, infrastructure, etc. Almost 100% of illegal aliens consume more of those services than they will ever pay in taxes. For native born Americans, the number is more like 50%.
Well, yes, that kind of thing is the logical consequence of massive social welfare spending: eugenics, euthanasia, etc. That is, in fact, the reason why Democrats and progressives push so hard for abortion "rights".
But the only feasible solution is to massively cut back the social welfare state.
Until we can do that, we should do whatever we can to avoid making the problem worse under the legal system we have. We cannot prevent Americans from having kids, and we wouldn't want to. But we can legally and constitutionally keep illegal migrants and legal immigrants who are insufficiently skilled out of the country.
No, the welfare state would not "diminish greatly" because the tax base would decline even more rapidly than the spending.
What does help is not flooding the country with low skilled third world peasants, who are guaranteed to make the problem worse, and meanwhile working to fix our fiscal mess and reduce our spending.
Until we can do that, we should do whatever we can to avoid making the problem worse under the legal system we have. We cannot prevent Americans from having kids, and we wouldn't want to. But we can legally and constitutionally keep illegal migrants and legal immigrants who are insufficiently skilled out of the country.
But that's the point of the modest proposal. It's to avoid making the welfare state problem worse by actually addressing the main driver of its costs - native-born citizens. Assuming for the sake of argument that your percentages are correct, that 50% of native-born citizens who consume social welfare spending are more numerous than the 100% of immigrants who do. If you really want to chop down the welfare state, you need to go where the real costs are. And it's not the immigrants. They are a drop in the bucket.
Yes, Jeff, I understand that you want to "address the 50% of native-born citizens who consume social welfare spending are more numerous". But they are American citizens. You can't sterilize them, segregate them, euthanize them, deport them, abort them, or murder them, though Democrats certainly have tried to do that in the past. It's illegal. Do you understand that?
Furthermore, the other 50% of those American citizens do make a net fiscal contribution to the country. That is how the country functions. For every net taker there is a net producer among the US population.
However, 100% of illegal migrants have no right to be in the country and they are all net takers. We can keep them out, and if they manage to slip in, we can deport them, legally, humanely, safely, quickly, easily, and cheaply.
Deporting those 100% of illegal migrants won't fix the fiscal problem we already have, but it will keep the problem from getting rapidly worse.
You can't sterilize them, segregate them, euthanize them, deport them, abort them, or murder them, though Democrats certainly have tried to do that in the past. It's illegal. Do you understand that?
This proposal does not suggest any of those things. Simply to require a license to procreate. That's all.
Well, Jeff, your proposal is still eugenics, and it is still unconstitutional. And for the reasons I explained, it is also ineffective and unnecessary.
We have a straightforward way of preventing the cost associated with illegal migrants: we deport them, quickly, safely, and without fuss.
your proposal is still eugenics
It is a "modest proposal". And it is not eugenics. Eugenics is about selective breeding of humans to create desirable, or eliminate undesirable, genetic qualities. There is no genetic component to this proposal at all. Getting a license to procreate has nothing to do with the couple's genetics. A couple that wants to give birth to a baby that is genetically defective would have every right to do so as long as that baby wasn't a net drain on the taxpayer.
and it is still unconstitutional
Just like there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, there is no right to procreate in the Constitution as well.
And for the reasons I explained, it is also ineffective and unnecessary.
Oh but it, or something like it, is very much necessary if one is truly serious about reducing the welfare state. Open vaginas are simply incompatible with a welfare state. In fact it is absolutely libertarian to support licenses for procreation because it would reduce the welfare state, thereby reducing the tax burden for everyone and restoring liberty to where it belongs, the taxpayer.
If you think this idea would be ineffective, then let's hear your idea for controlling vaginas.
We have a straightforward way of preventing the cost associated with illegal migrants: we deport them, quickly, safely, and without fuss.
Under this proposal, both could happen at the same time: border security, AND vagina security. So go ahead and build your border wall. In terms of reducing the welfare state, it won't do much. Vagina security is WAY more important because it represents a much greater cost.
Handing out government licenses to procreate depending on the economic success of the parents is indeed eugenics; the fact that you are deluded about genetics doesn't change that.
I don't want to control vaginas at all, you do.
I want to control borders, deport illegal migrants, and bring to justice people who aid and abet illegal immigration. You know, the stuff that is constitutional and that we actually have laws against.
Totally NOT a stalinist
It's called a 'modest proposal'. Surely you have heard of this idea before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
No, the welfare state would not "diminish greatly" because the tax base would decline even more rapidly than the spending.
But that makes no sense. Under this proposal, that 50% of native-born families who are net producers and not net moochers would be permitted to have kids. It's just the other 50% who wouldn't. So net tax revenue should actually rise quite dramatically.
What does help is not flooding the country with low skilled third world peasants
What is the difference between 'flooding the country with low skilled third world peasants', and 'flooding the country with ghetto babies who have no hope of ever being net producers in society'?
Do you realize that ever dollar spent on someone not here is a dollar spent in violation of agreements made by citizens in the country? Cause you seem ignorant to that fact. Under your doctrine all 6.6 billion could move here at a loss to the tax base and no big deal.
Your ideas are retarded.
Well, Jeff, there are two problems with your plan. First, you cannot legally restrict the ability of American citizens to have kids. Oh, progressives have tried during the eugenics era. But that is reprehensible and unconstitutional. Second, we do not know in advance which of those kids will make contributions anyway, we just know that statistically it works out.
Well, first of all, the third world peasants are not babies, so their future is for the most part written in stone. Furthermore, most of them will experience many generations of poverty, a problem compounded by the fact that progressives have done everything they can to prevent their assimilation into mainstream US culture.
In other words, illegal third world migrants are statistically a different population with different outcomes from native born Americans.
First, you cannot legally restrict the ability of American citizens to have kids.
This proposal does not propose changing anyone's ABILITY to have kids. Only to change the law to require a license before having a kid. Again the point is so we can be choosy in who we allow to become future citizens. We don't want the ones who will wind up losers on welfare. We want the ones who will be net producers. Don't we? Why should we want the ones to come here who are not going to contribute anything worthwhile?
In other words, illegal third world migrants are statistically a different population with different outcomes from native born Americans.
Are they? Why is an illiterate third-world peasant the way he is? Because he grew up in a corrupt dysfunctional society with no sense of personal responsibility and advocating for socialism, right? How is this any different meaningfully from ghetto losers in the inner cities? Were you not around in 2020 when so many of those losers marched on behalf of BLM Marxism and burned down their own cities? Let's face it, from the point of view of the welfare state, the illiterate third world peasant is just the ghetto loser baby of today, many years into the future. And those many years are EXPENSIVE. And this proposal aims to stop that expense. We just can't afford to have these welfare drains. It would be nice to live in a world where everyone could be born and taken care of with no expense to anyone else, but that is not the world that currently exists. There must come a time to make difficult, yet eminently reasonable, choices about who are permitted to 'immigrate' here via vagina.
Honey, dearest, that is what "restricting the ability to do X" means. And it is unconstitutional. It is also ineffective.
That's part of it. But another part is his culture. This wouldn't be a problem if third world peasants assimilated quickly, but they don't, thanks to our "progressive" and "multicultural" policies.
It isn't. But those suffering inner city minorities are the result of progressive policy failures, and it will be very costly to educate them, assimilate them, and fix the social problems they have. It will take a lot of time and labor, and the US economy can only absorb a limited number them. They do have a human and constitutional right to be in this country, and that's why our society is required to do this work.
You want to deliberately double or triple the magnitude of that problem by inviting millions more third world peasants, which is simply utterly insane. And we have no constitutional obligations towards third world peasants. If you want to help them, you are welcome to volunteer in their countries.
Honey, dearest, that is what "restricting the ability to do X" means.
No - under this proposal, couples can go ahead and fuck all they want. This proposal does not at all contemplate taking away anyone's ABILITY to fuck. There is enough cheap and easy birth control out there that of course fucking does not automatically lead to pregnancy. So couples really have no excuse not to wind up "accidentally" pregnant. It's called "personal responsibility". If this proposal instills more personal responsibility in the wayward youth of the nation, how is that a bad thing?
That's part of it. But another part is his culture. This wouldn't be a problem if third world peasants assimilated quickly, but they don't, thanks to our "progressive" and "multicultural" policies.
Hmm. So the illiterate third world peasant becomes a parasite on the American taxpayer because he doesn't assimilate into American culture due to "progressive" and "multicultural" policies. But it's precisely those "progressive" and "multicultural" policies which are dominant in the ghetto loser parts of the country which produce ghetto loser babies that are parasites on the taxpayers as well. Seems to me, they are more similar than they are different.
And so just to be clear. You are totally fine with mass importation of ghetto loser babies via an open vagina policy that will ultimately destroy the nation under a crushing burden of cultural idiocy and an out-of-control welfare state. Is that it?
It isn't. But those suffering inner city minorities are the result of progressive policy failures, and it will be very costly to educate them, assimilate them, and fix the social problems they have.
Gee, maybe if this country had adopted a common-sense vagina control policy decades ago, the nation wouldn't be in this mess.
It will take a lot of time and labor, and the US economy can only absorb a limited number them. They do have a human and constitutional right to be in this country, and that's why our society is required to do this work.
As I note above, the Constitution is silent on a supposed 'right to procreate'.
But you claim that these ghetto loser babies have a human right to be here? Really? What about the human rights of the taxpayers who have to foot their bill? Hmm? What gave anyone the right to give birth to a parasite on MY paycheck?
You want to deliberately double or triple the magnitude of that problem by inviting millions more third world peasants,
Not under this proposal. Under this proposal, go ahead and build your wall. Even install machine guns if you want. This policy is strictly about getting the welfare state under control by attacking the biggest driver of welfare state costs, and that is ghetto loser babies produced by native-born citizens who think they have some right to import leeches and parasites freely into the nation without regards to the well-being of anyone else.
As taxpayers, don't you think we at least have a right to decide how our tax money is spent? Shouldn't we at least be permitted to vote on whether a common-sense vagina policy ought to be adopted?
Chemjeff, your language is dehumanizing, offensive, and dripping with sarcasm. Yet, it is assholes like you who are responsible for the suffering of millions of Americans in ghettos, and you want to compound their suffering by adding millions more to those ghettos. You are a morally reprehensible human being, and obviously, you have nothing meaningful to contribute to this discussion.
"You are totally fine with mass importation of ghetto loser babies via an open vagina policy that will ultimately destroy the nation under a crushing burden of cultural idiocy and an out-of-control welfare state. Is that it?"
Idiocracy was only a movie, Jeff. And it is not my concern what citizens do with themselves.
We are so efficient at producing welfare cases domestically that we have no need to import any.
It is precisely because the status quo generates a seemingly infinite welfare state that will inevitably bankrupt the nation that this nation desperately needs some common-sense vagina control. Again, from the point of view of the welfare state, the illiterate third-world peasant crossing the border is no different than a ghetto loser baby passing through a vagina. And it's the ghetto loser babies who are BY FAR the biggest drain on the welfare state. If we are serious about getting the welfare state under control, we need common-sense vagina control.
> Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was quick to blame the Biden administration's "open border policies" for the incident.
If it there were open border policies then there wouldn't be any smuggling of immigrants. Duh.
Telling the world that we won’t do anything to stop them from coming across the border illegally is a de facto open borders policy.
If the US were not stopping them there would be no need to smuggle. Something wrong in your logic.
Except every country has borders and immigration enforcement. Having actual open borders is so moronic it's amazing that anyone with the slightest intelligence would advocate for such a thing.
Until the government declares them to be alive they're just clumps of cells.
Show me your papers!
Youre really pushing this retarded talking point today.
It's all he's got ever since his false etymology for "Wop" was shown to be bullshit.
No giving people false hopes so they put their lives in the hand of cartels is how you get 53 Dead Migrants in the Back of a Truck. When they know they have no chance like under Trump they stayed home.
Yet the US is responsible, both parties war on drugs have made these countries misery and dangerous to live in and they are fleeing. The problem is what is happening now is enriching the drug cartels which will only make the problems worse. Reason as a propaganda arm of the Democratic party won't talk about that.
Do tell Fiona, how handing out cell phones to illegals is a deterrence?
Those migrants came to the US because they knew once they managed to cross the border, they could stay. If we had reasonable immigration enforcement and didn't hand out money and citizenship like candy, there would be no reason for migrants to come.
Even if temporary work visas would reduce those numbers somewhat, they wouldn't fix the problem. That's because Americans are (rightfully) never going to give out enough temporary work visas to make a difference.
Assholes like you, Fiona, are why we get 53 dead migrants in the back of a truck. You really are heartless, ignorant, and utterly deplorable.
Expect a new surge.
https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/houston-texas-news/content/2022-04-11-bidens-hidden-amnesty-is-already-underway/
So how much more border enforcement do you think we need?
It is already illegal to cross the border without papers. It is already illegal to get a job without papers. It is already illegal to get a bank account or get a loan without papers. Do you want to make them more illegal?
How many more agents should we hire?
I think it would be prudent and fairly cheap to complete the border wall (less than what we gave to Ukraine).
But most immigration enforcement should be in the country: every commercial transaction that requires an official identifcation should require citizenship or proof of legal residence: opening a bank account, marriage, getting on an airplane, employment, etc. Private companies that do business with illegals should face stiff fines and other penalties. RealID makes this easy.
Individuals or government officials who forge or sell forged documentation should face lengthy prison sentences.
And if you drive with neither your RealID nor your greencard/visa, police can and should arrest you (note that immigrants and visitors have always been required to carry their greencard/visa at all times).
This is how citizenship and immigration works in pretty much every country other than the US. The current US system is absurd.
I think it would be prudent and fairly cheap to complete the border wall (less than what we gave to Ukraine).
The real cost of the border wall is not the initial construction. It is the patrols and the upkeep. The Israeli wall and the Berlin Wall only "worked" because they were continually manned 24/7, and because they were relatively small and easy to maintain. A 2000-mile border wall is not short, and not cheap to continually patrol. Electronic surveillance can only go so far, at some point human beings will be required to catch those breaching the wall.
But most immigration enforcement should be in the country: every commercial transaction that requires an official identifcation should require citizenship or proof of legal residence: opening a bank account, marriage, getting on an airplane, employment, etc. Private companies that do business with illegals should face stiff fines and other penalties. RealID makes this easy.
Individuals or government officials who forge or sell forged documentation should face lengthy prison sentences.
These are all already the case, and yet here we are. It is not good enough for you. So what more do you want beyond this? Make them all more illegal?
And if you drive with neither your RealID nor your greencard/visa, police can and should arrest you
This is flatly unconstitutional - the Fourth Amendment protects our right to walk around without official papers.
So your proposed solutions so far are to: build a giant wall, do what we're already doing, and violate the Constitution.
It should also be noted that your proposals overwhelmingly involve hassling law-abiding citizens in order to 'root out' the troublemakers. This is the same 'logic' as the TSA: everyone must take off their shoes on the off-chance that 0.000000000001% of the travelers might blow up an airplane with a shoe.
It should ALSO be noted that your proposals involve citizens transmitting large quantities of personal data to the government in the name of stopping illegal immigration. Can the government really be trusted with that data? Isn't that the argument against gun registration - that data will inevitably wind up being abused? Why would this be any different?
Do the math on that one and get back on us. We don't need additional patrols; the wall itself just exists whatever level of patrols we choose to have. It's a deterrent, it doesn't have to be perfect.
No, they are not "all already the case", not even close. And the executive branch is refusing to enforce the laws we have.
I'm not suggesting anything else. I'm saying in situations where police are permitted to check your RealID (traffic stops, certain public and private venues, reasonable suspicion, etc.), they should detain people who are in the country illegally. This is obviously also voluntary on the part of each jurisdiction, since the federal government can't force the states to do it, but many border states would do it.
Not at all. Everything I listed are situations where you already have to show your identification.
Again, that is false. You already have your RealID driver's license or identification card, and if you don't, you can get one. There is no personal information being transmitted to anyone that isn't already available.
When Democrats propose gun registries, they are actually talking about keeping a central register. Applying the immigration approach above to guns would mean that you get holographic stickers for your permitted guns and an ID showing that you have passed whatever background check the state requires; there would be no central registry of either the gun or your ID. Just having the sticker or the ID would be proof in itself, like a RealID for citizenship.
Do the math on that one and get back on us. We don't need additional patrols; the wall itself just exists whatever level of patrols we choose to have. It's a deterrent, it doesn't have to be perfect.
Uh huh. And when that happens, in 10 years you will come back to us and say "the government just isn't serious about border security, they won't even patrol the border wall! This country is being FLOODED with illegals! Time for more funding for more border agents to patrol the wall!"
No, they are not "all already the case", not even close. And the executive branch is refusing to enforce the laws we have.
The commenting software limits the number of URLs I can put in a message, but if you go to tsa.gov or uscis.gov you'll see that to fly on an airplane or to get a job, both require ID that constitutes proof of citizenship or legal residency.
For a marriage license, it varies county by county, but they generally all require a birth certificate or some other proof of citizenship. (Incidentally, when did support for government licensure of marriage become libertarian?)
You are right that to open a bank account does not necessarily require one to be a citizen or permanent resident (although it's way easier if you are). Interestingly, however:
Of course, if the government makes it illegal to have a bank account without citizenship, it will just make it easier for unscrupulous people to take advantage of them, such as payday loan places. I doubt this is of concern to you however.
I'm saying in situations where police are permitted to check your RealID (traffic stops, certain public and private venues, reasonable suspicion, etc.), they should detain people who are in the country illegally.
That is not what you said initially. You said:
And if you drive with neither your RealID nor your greencard/visa, police can and should arrest you
So make up your mind. In either case, you want to either completely violate the Fourth Amendment, or tiptoe right up to the line to make it incredibly easy for the police to violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is already barely hanging on, on life support, why do you want to make things worse?
Not at all. Everything I listed are situations where you already have to show your identification.
THOSE ARE THE HASSLES I'M TALKING ABOUT. We have too many of those already! You want to not only normalize those hassles but add more.
There is no personal information being transmitted to anyone that isn't already available.
How would the government enforce these proposals? Hmm? You want to make it illegal to open a bank account without the proper papers. So the bank will require those papers before opening an account. And the government will then audit the bank to look at all those new accounts to verify that they are all opened by legal citizens, right? How would they know unless they also had access to the papers that the bank used to open the account?
And maybe - just maybe - the government shouldn't have access to all the information that it already currently does!
When Democrats propose gun registries, they are actually talking about keeping a central register.
Have you heard of E-Verify? You want to take the same idea and put it on steroids. Right now, the requirements for marriage licenses are a state-by-state or even county-by-county matter. Of course there will be some city in California (there probably already is) that will welcome all the illegals to get married there. And people like you will throw a fit and demand that they be coerced to stop doing that. Blue areas can't be trusted, immigration is a federal government matter, ergo, applications for marriage licenses must be checked by an E-Verify-style national database. That is exactly how this would go.
And of course all of this would be run by the same federal government that is incompetent at best and evil at worst.
This entire argument is extremely reminiscent of the arguments regarding the Drug War. The Drug Warriors continually insist that if only there were one more law, one more 'drug task force', one more 'drug court', one more government program, that drugs could finally be brought under control. That doesn't happen and never will. Because it is a fundamentally futile task in a free society for any government to prohibit substances or activities that are inherently victimless. And the attempts to try to enforce these laws don't actually work and only serve to make society less free.
They wouldn't be able to get payday loans either, or for that matter a job, or housing, or anything else. That isn't a concern, that is the objective: remove the economic incentive to come to the US in the first place.
Well, the situations are not analogous. As many free, democratic nations around the world demonstrate, enforcement is effective against illegal immigration, using the mechanisms I described above.
We don't actually need new laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have the way they were written and intended.
Crossing the border illegally is...Illegal. The Border Patrol isn't supposed to make it easy.
The United States is not going to adopt open borders, because the great mass of the American people simply will not tolerate several percent of the world's population moving here. Believing otherwise is the mark of a half-wit.
The United States also is not going to adopt effective deterrence measures (say, five years' hard labor followed by deportation for being caught illegally in the US, a ten-year prison sentence for the strict-liability offense of hiring an illegal without clearing them through E-Verify, and 20 years in prison for smuggling people into the US) because even if the great mass of the American people would tolerate it, the gentry class would not. Believing otherwise is the matching mark of a half-wit.
say, five years' hard labor followed by deportation for being caught illegally in the US
I would hope that this wouldn't be adopted in the US not because of any gentry class, but because most people would recognize that the punishment is way disproportionate to the 'crime'.
For practical reasons, illegals should be deported quickly, after biometric registration. They should be barred for 10 years or permanently from reentering the US if they ever attempted to enter illegally.
But in terms of magnitude of the crime, any illegal is attempting to steal tens of thousands of dollars from US tax payers. Yes, that is pretty serious.
any illegal is attempting to steal tens of thousands of dollars from US tax payers.
Sounds like 'pre-crime'.
Not at all. Crossing the border illegally is the crime; the reason it's a crime is because if you had succeeded, you would have potentially stolen tens of thousands of dollars from US tax payers. It's just like an attempted bank robbery.
The crime is, at best, trespassing. It is not 'bank robbery'. Your argument ASSUMES that the trespasser will then go on to rob a bank and therefore should be prosecuted for robbing a bank when he is picked up for trespassing. That is 'pre-crime'.
If someone trespassed into my home, or jumped into my mother's room through the window, I'm not going to hesitate to call the police or even grab a nearby weapon reasoning that "maybe he'll do nothing or commit a more minor crime".
The guy's point is that illegal aliens will end up costing the taxpayers money, and he used an (perhaps inelegant) analogy to a bank robbery, and you went off on an tangent about precrime. Illegal aliens do commit murder, and a small percentage of them have either committed crimes. No one who supports 2A argues against ALL background checks, but that's essentially your position in immigration.
I made an analogy between attempted illegal entry and attempted bank robbery. I wasn't saying that some illegal migrants became bank robbers. Geez, how stupid can you be?
If you're talking at all about "punishments" being "disproportionate", you're simply refusing to think at all about actual deterrence. And unthinking rejection of deterrence is a marker of gentry-class values, formed by living a life sufficiently isolated from the consequences of an evil that you do not ever seriously consider the value of successful deterrence of the behaviors that lead to that evil.
Like, for example, living a life where the death of the people in that tractor-trailer is just a thing you saw in the media that you can virtue-signal over. Rather than a tragedy that you actually feel, actually care about stopping from a repeat, and causes you to actually think through what policies would actually prevent a repeat.
The logic of deterrence is that you work out when an evil can actually be eliminated by applying a sufficient disincentive, and you accordingly ratchet up the disincentive to be sufficient. Sure, some things are built too deep into humans for anything to successfully deter (adultery, for example), but the desire to move to the part of the Earth between the Rio Grande and the 49th Parallel is not one of them. The only reason people try to illegally enter the US through dangerous means is they expect their life to be better in the US, and it's really not that hard to adopt a legal regime such that anyone remotely sane would figure out it wouldn't.
You'd just need a country where people are more willing to be "disproportionate" rather than read about another truckload of migrants dying next year. America isn't such a country, and you, sir, are one of the reasons why.
Those are not 'gentry-class values', those are humanitarian values. Extreme punishments for the sake of "por encourage les autres" is fundamentally unjust to those who are punished. A person convicted for a crime should be punished *for that crime*, not punished for the sake of everyone else who *might* be thinking about committing that crime in the future.
The only reason people try to illegally enter the US through dangerous means is they expect their life to be better in the US, and it's really not that hard to adopt a legal regime such that anyone remotely sane would figure out it wouldn't.
Well sure - if the US government would adopt an official policy of violence and torture against undocumented migrants, that would work. It would also be fundamentally cruel and inhumane. I am very glad that America is not a country that adopts this position. Guilty as charged.
No, dumbass, having powerful criminal cartels in Mexico, backed by hostile foreign interests, waging war against our country and not fighting back at all is how we get this. It's way past time for some "Patriot Games" against the Mexican gangsters. A few cruise missiles on the haciendas of the crime lords would do more to reduce illegal border crossings than more fences or border guards.
Holy smokes, Fiona! The air gauge on your head must be up around 120 psi today. You need to stop thinking, or stop whatever it is you do that passes for thinking, else you're going to blow a seal.
Ah, the Munich position. Why don't you ask Neville Chamberlain how well that worked out? What will it take for the likes of you and Neville to understand that appeasement -- the "maybe if we're nice to them and just do what they want, they'll ignore us" fantasy -- never works? Not to mention the moral cowardice of saying "if we don't call it a crime, there won't be any criminals." Same argument as Munich, just different terms. Enjoy your tightly-wrapped umbrella while you can, Fiona. What good will cheap gardeners do you after your bleeding heart turns all of America into Santa Ana, CA?
"The men, women, and children found dead in a tractor-trailer this week were just the latest casualties of an immigration approach that encourages dangerous journeys."
That is a claim which would take a far longer article than you offered to support.
Just going to assume you are full of shit, and I'm firmly on the pro-immigration side of the argument.
Meanwhile
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1542684948519419908?t=n8G5kkuaGoFQrOpqr5uaaQ&s=19
CNN: "What do you say to those families that say, 'listen, we can't afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years?’"
BIDEN ADVISOR BRIAN DEESE: "This is about the future of the Liberal World Order and we have to stand firm."
[Link]
Amazing how I can tell who the author is by the headline
Fiona is Shikha Dalmis 2.0
"Shikha Dalmis 2.0 - More Ignorant, More Privileged, More Entitled!"
Well of course a white, native Shikha Dalmia would be better on immigration! /OBL
I think the solution is twofold.
First you need to set up legal entry points where you can vet people and give out work visas. If they're able to hold down a job for 5 years (or something similar) and don't commit any crimes then they can become citizens. If they commit a crime or fail to keep employment they're deported. A ton of people coming over are hard working and just want to have an opportunity at a better life for their family. And people are happy to hire them. They're cheap labor, work hard and do jobs many Americans don't want to do. It's a win win.
Second, you need to have extremely strict enforcement outside of these entry points. Anyone trying to get in outside of that legal filter is obviously a bad hombre.
So how many millions more do you want to let in, with an incredibly easy and accelerated path to citizenship?
Is 20m/year enough for you?
50m?
I've got a better solution. Deport every illegal in this country and automate the jobs of the '...ton of people...' who are coming over. Long term goals of America should be 250 million or less total population and 20 hour work weeks that pays 150 to 200% more of what people were earning in the Lochner era i.e. 60 to 100 hours a week under horrible conditions.
To take an extreme example:
How many people are caught sneaking into North Korea? Truck-fulls?
So when you have the opposite situation...dire economic circumstances with a good chance the govt there will jail or kill you...then almost no one tries to sneak in.
And we have the opposite situation...an economy people want to participate in (with govt goodies) and somehow we are to believe that making things at the border LESS STRICT are going to keep this from happening? On what fucking planet can you make this argument. The looser you make the penalties, the more you can guarantee people take extremely dangerous attempts to get here.
Oh unless...you are advocating we just let everyone in and be completely unsovereign and over-run with immigrants.
Yes, that is what they are advocating.
Furthermore, these fucking weasels need to put up or shut up about immigration. All this whinging about "our current system is just too hard to get in!!! Wah!!" Fuck off and put a policy forward then.
Because without that, and just stating how unfair it is that these poor people had to die because of our meanie-pants immigration policies, you are essentially just giving the OK to people to continue this behavior. "Well its not their fault, the US makes it too hard so they had to cheat"...No its YOUR fucking fault if you think immigration policy is unfair. Put a "fair" policy forward and lets vote on it. Otherwise, you are just advocating for open borders
You've got it. There are no real proposals put forward because they want completely open borders.
Remember when the words, "voluntary assumption of risk", were part of the libertarian vocabulary?
Some numbskull claims in this article. It isn't enforcement that caused this - something we didn't seen under President Trump. It is the BP being overwhelmed by the sheer number of illegals coming after Biden invited them. This means they don't catch these kinds of smugglers.
Oh, and there is a legal way to immigrate. We don't exist to take in every other country's poor.
Actually, there are not viable legal ways to immigrate. That is by design. The power elite prefer illegal immigrants.
When I read this I see '53 people died during the commission of a crime'
It's sad. And horrible.
But it doesn't mean that I did anything wrong.
It doesn't mean that some law was wrong for existing.
It means that crime doesn't pay and sometimes the universe needs to show the stupid this fact in a lethal fashion.
Don't break into America, there's a good chance you'll die.
Go in through the door. Yes, there's a line, America is better than the rest of the world, of course there's a line. Wait your turn and everything will be fine.
What?
Yes, of course there's a Speed Pass. And a VIP pass. And a special needs pass. There's even a lottery that gets you to the head of the line.
But don't break in. There's a good chance that you'll die.
Open borders won't kill human trafficking, but it will activate the European, Asian, and African divisions. The downtrodden will require lodging, transportation, food to reach here. It's going to be easier for them to connect victims to illegal operations inside America. Remember, state legalization did not stop the cartel from growing their own supply in CA. There will always be SOME taxes and regulations, so the black market has an upper hand.
Most of Asia and Europe have more restrictive immigration standards. Many require language proficiency. When was the last time you heard 54 people dying on their migration to Estonia and Japan? That's right - America is not only a superpower, but they actively cater to illegal aliens. Only the screening process is burdensome. If you bypass that, you slip into a more stable, dynamic society where millions of people already speak your language and state leaders who are sympathetic to your cause. If you encourage illegal activity, you get it.
The whole article is a tragedy. It's a gateway into the minds of usually astute people who would nevertheless cause the downfall of society by adhering to ideas (on one issue) in the abstract without ever considering real life application. The libertarians here would exist in a world where millions of unverified outsiders can stream in at their pleasure and cops can get sued to oblivion by civilians.
The Mises takeover wasn't a coup. It was an inevitability.
Yes, the premise of this article is either incredibly stupid or unforgivably dishonest.
The lesson of the dead migrants is precisely the opposite - lack of deterrence incentivizes greater numbers of people to take risks.
Fiona is a truly evil person.
Simply fine any business $100K for any illegal given work. This will all end overnight. Show some balls GOP and get it done. Then after say six months of calm, allow work visas if the employer shows they offered the job to three Americans who turned it down. The whole problem would be solved.
incredibly stupid or unforgivably dishonest.
I wouldn't have chosen the word "or" here.
He broke last weekend lol.
I was going to add 'undeniably evil' as an option but he circles around to it.
Is standing on the corpses of 53 dead immigrants to advocate for your immigration policy more or less ghoulish than standing on the corpses of 19 dead children to advocate your gun control policy? Yes!
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-50) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home.
Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> http://payout11.tk
How well do you expect that approach to work, in a nuclear-armed era? Can this last for another 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 or 100,000 years? Power-pig much, oh servant of the Evil One?
Right, I'm sure that system won't be corrupted, abused, and applied arbitrarily.
Yes, yes, let's totes give the totalitarian left another weapon for their federal bureaucrats to wield.
So businesses should do the job the federal government refuses to do? That's some real libertarianism right there.
That is already the case in some places, but you are "off the hook" if the immigrant shows a green card.
I'm not disagreeing with the theory, but enforcement will become a big problem.
The current system IS "corrupted, abused and applied arbitrarily". A co-worker emigrated to the US from Canada legally. A few years later he wanted to bring his wife here. You should have seen the hurdles that he had to go through. A lawyer for this, a lawyer for that, hearing after hearing for a woman who was educated, had family in the Country and wouldn't need any type of handout. When they were done, it cost over $100,000. I've said "fix the system", but there are those who don't want to fix it and most of them have a "D" behind their name. If they fix it, they lose the support and contributions from Immigration Lawyers.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money
on-line visiting this website.... https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Do you think it is easier to legally move to Canada? I don't see legal hurdles as a bad thing.