Calls To 'Close the Border' in Response to Fentanyl Deaths Are Misguided
As Biden mentioned fentanyl deaths in his State of the Union address, Republicans called on him to close the border. But "open borders" aren't to blame for overdoses.

Last night, as President Joe Biden gave his State of the Union address, he touched on the growing number of overdose deaths in the U.S. that involve fentanyl. "Fentanyl is killing more than 70,000 Americans a year," said Biden. House Republicans began to yell at the president, saying, "It's your fault." Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.) and other lawmakers shouted, "Close the border!"
That last comment echoes a sentiment now common on the right. "Joe Biden made a political decision to have open borders," said Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) on Fox News last night. "The result is the worst illegal immigration in the history of our country and the worst fentanyl crisis this country has ever faced." House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) also pinned fentanyl deaths on a porous southern border, tweeting, "Securing our southern border would help address this crisis and save lives."
But the actual mechanics of fentanyl coming over the U.S.-Mexico border are far more complex. According to immigration analysts and federal drug enforcement data, undocumented immigrants entering the U.S. aren't primarily to blame for incoming fentanyl—rather, it's mainly U.S. citizens carrying the drug through ports of entry. Calls to "close the border" strike at the wrong target, since these are American traffickers entering the country at legal crossings.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reported that in 2019, 1,208 kilograms of fentanyl were seized at the southwest border. Just 148 kilograms—or 12 percent—were seized between ports of entry, while the rest was seized at the ports. The "predominant method of transporting illicit opioids" into the U.S., according to the DEA, is "land transportation via the interstate system." A December 2021 to May 2022 analysis of Customs and Border Protection press releases and official Twitter posts carried out by American Immigration Council Policy Director Aaron Reichlin-Melnick found that just two fentanyl seizures were attributed to people crossing the border on foot between ports of entry.
According to David J. Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, "just 279 of 1.8 million arrests by Border Patrol of illegal border crossers resulted in a fentanyl seizure"—amounting to a scant 0.02 percent. "Most drug seizure events" from FY 2016 through FY 2020 at Border Patrol checkpoints "involved only U.S. citizens, and the majority of those U.S. citizen drug seizure events involved the seizure of marijuana and no other drugs," explained a Government Accountability Office report last year. Just 4 percent "involved one or more potentially removable people."
Critics point out that these statistics measure seizures—there could be untold amounts of fentanyl that simply goes undetected, smuggled between ports. In reality, it's easier for drug traffickers to evade scrutiny at the ports compared to between them. "Customs and Border Protection estimates that it caught 2 percent of cocaine at southwest land ports of entry in 2020 (the only drug it analyzed), while it estimated that its interdiction effectiveness rate for illegal crossers was about 83 percent in 2021," Bier has written. "This means that drugs coming at a port entry are about 97 percent less likely to be interdicted than a person coming between ports of entry."
Even so, critics worry that more fentanyl is entering the country as a result of higher migrant arrivals distracting immigration agents. An analysis by Reichlin-Melnick found no correlation between migration rates and opiate seizures. If immigration agents were distracted, then we would expect to see fewer drug seizures during times of higher migration—but the data don't bear this out.
Fentanyl overdoses are a pressing issue, but closing the border isn't the solution. Drug prohibition only exacerbates the negative effects of black markets and keeps treatment out of reach for addicts. And ultimately, scapegoating foreigners and painting the border with a broad brush obscures the true factors behind America's fentanyl deaths.
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
That's a lot of fentanyl. But I think this is generally right. You're not going to control drugs that way. Especially very compact and potent drugs like that. Even if illegal border crossings are stopped completely, there are plenty of other ways to smuggle drugs into the country.
Maybe we should have just let the degens have their oxycontin.
Yeah. I have problems with Biden's open border policies but people are going to get fentanyl if they want it in any case. The Republicans think this is a crowd pleaser but, like the "opioid crisis" it's got too much WOD going on for me.
Right. The problem is a legalization problem and not a border control problem. People die from fentanyl because they aren't buying it legally. There's no proper checks for fentanyl concentrations and you can't sue your drug dealer for giving you something dangerous.
Legalize heroine and restrict it to 21-and-up. And for fuck's sake don't regulate it like California did weed, which just allows the black market to continue anyway.
And when I say legalize, I don't mean destigmatize (looking at you, ENB). People who ruin their lives because they're abusing alcohol or opioids or ritalin or Elmer's glue should always be stigmatized and judged. It's not glamorous or desirable and society needs to continue to do everything it can to make recreational drug use undesirable without outright banning it.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
Better, how about removing "getting high" from the list of illegitimate uses for drugs.
Then drug regulators can look at weed and say "does not pose serious risks" and make it fully legal to sell. No more dispensary licenses. No more restrictions on growing your own.
And opioids can split into pain management and recreational products.
Recreational products will have serious side-effedt hurdles to overcome, particularly with regard to addiction. But manufacturers will be able to work towards short acting, overdose resistant and non-addictive ways to get high.
Safe and effective as a standard, instead of "whatever we can sneak around the legal system".
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,300 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Except, of course, no such stigmatization will happen. Instead, about 15 minutes after the drugs get legalized, they'll be promoted to a "human right", and we'll all be enjoying "Celebrate Addiction Month" and the mayor of NYC will be leading the Junkie Pride Parade through Times Square.
When somebody tries to tell me legalizing drugs will in any way mitigate the destructive side effects, I have to wonder where they've been for the last 50 years. When has a legalization effort ever worked out in any such way?
Ever heard of Portugal?
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart
OPEN>> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
And when they do and become dysfunctional because of it, we need some way of forcing them into treatment in order to help them.
The mechanism for doing that is the legal system. Without making drug use illegal, we can't actually force people whose life is being destroyed by drug addiction to do anything.
Without making drug use illegal, we can’t actually force people whose life is being destroyed by drug addiction to do anything.
Good. If they destroy their lives, they are going to suffer the consequences. Their families and friends can exert pressure over them to reform, to stop destroying themselves, but the state should not. It should be completely legal to bankrupt yourself due to your opioid habit, even if it's utterly undesirable.
But right now, taxpayers are forced to subsidize the consequences of drug use. We are forced to pay for treatment, counseling, housing, disability, cleanup, and healthcare.
Abolish the social welfare state and you can legalize drugs. As long as we have the social welfare state, people can’t have individual liberty.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM
If you are going to set an impossible standard for having individual liberty, why even value it at all?
The social welfare state is an impossibility. It’s not sustainable. Either it reverts to a small government libertarian state, or it turns into authoritarian socialism. You get to pick between those two, you can’t have the “the status quo, but with legal drugs”.
What makes you think it would be worse than what we have now? It's not like drugs being illegal has been effective at reducing use. And we already pay for a lot of the consequences of drug use, plus the consequences of prohibition and enforcement thereof. Maybe it still doesn't work out to a net benefit, but you do need to consider more than drugs/no drugs since we're going to have drug use subsidized by the welfare state either way.
What "we have now" is a social welfare state pyramid scheme that is running out of money and out of people; so, no matter what we do, we won't "have" it for much longer. The only choice is whether we return to a more frontier kind of society with a limited social safety net and small government, or an impoverished socialist shithole.
Most of those costs would continue if we legalized drugs: disability, homelessness, medical care, drug-associated crime, organized crime, etc.
OK, now you are making a cost-benefit analysis, not a libertarian argument. You have your opinion on how that "cost-benefit analysis" falls out, but your opinion isn't the same as the conclusion policy makers will reach. Policy makers may well look at places like Singapore, perhaps after briefly legalizing drugs and realizing that it doesn't yield the promised benefits. Or they may decide to use "legalized drugs" for even more nefarious purposes, like Brave New World.
I'm sorry, but if you care about liberty, the only option is to abolish the social welfare state (at least at the federal level) and legalize drugs. Legalizing drugs while keeping the social welfare state simply isn't workable, and it certainly isn't a libertarian choice.
"But right now, taxpayers are forced to subsidize the consequences of drug use. We are forced to pay for treatment, counseling, housing, disability, cleanup, and healthcare.
You forgot police surveillance, bloated state and federal police agencies, arrests, court costs, imprisonment and parole.
Those costs don’t go away when you legalize drugs.
As far as all those things go toward drug law enforcement, they do.
And the costs of drug use don't go away when you criminalize drugs.
Arresting homeless drug users and forcing them into residential treatment or minimal-security prisons is a lot cheaper and arguably more compassionate than letting them die on the street while also letting them commit petty crimes and destroy our neighborhoods.
For practical purposes, drug use is already decriminalized across much of the country, and that's actually the problem: non-enforcement of the existing drug laws.
“Abolish the social welfare state and you can legalize drugs. As long as we have the social welfare state, people can’t have individual liberty.”
Hey! This works as a great defense for mask and vaccine mandates too. Get your flu shots and your colonoscopy, we don't want to pay for your illnesses.
Might as well ban alcohol too…oh and tobacco, sugar, anything with trans fats…maybe motorcycles…gas stoves…anything that causes cancer in California…
Correct. And that is why trying to get rid of these mandates without getting rid of the social welfare state is an impossibility. Glad you finally realize it!
OK. I get what you're saying now.
wow
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do, .for more information simply.
Open this link thank you……>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
The crackdown on legitimate opiate prescriptions just punishes everyone. Unfortunately, Pandora’s box is open, and there is a market for fentanyl now that is not interested in going back to oxy. But at least everyone else would be able to get their goddamned pain meds when needed.
I don’t know about ‘closing’ the border, but maybe getting it under control would be advisable. Oh, and build the fucking wall.
Most users don't want fentanyl. They only use it because that's what's available. It's popular with dealers because it's easier to smuggle, just like prohibition era bootleggers sold whiskey instead of beer. The War on (Some) Drugs actually created the problem.
Yeah, legalize morphine or hydromorphone for recreational use and very few people would choose to take fentanyl.
Decriminalize all non-narcotics and offer no-questions-asked exchange of already-confiscated cocaine and psychedelics for fentanyl and opiates. Banning something makes it cost 4 times as much. Politicians and police then organize gangs to cash in on the windfall while demanding harsher enforcement to crush competitors. Taxing something gets you less of it, but ban something and government officials promptly organize crime to exploit the subsidy.
We get it, you want cheaper drugs. Don’t you think you’re a crazy enough old coot as it is?
How much fentanyl could you fit into a balloon cargo hold the size of three busses?
At least a dozen shitloads.
Observation 1. Reason.com is funded by a silver spoon billionaire who realizes importing cheap labor to drive down wages is a low-effort way to inflate his inherited fortune.
Observation 2. A typical Reason.com article on border issues follows one of two templates: (a) "This thing that's happening in the world proves the US should open its borders" (see anything Fiona writes about Ukraine), or (b) "This thing that's happening in the world doesn't prove the US should close its borders."
The second observation might be related to the first.
To be fair in this case, Fiona is correct that fentanyl doesn’t prove the US should close its borders. Also doesn't prove the US shouldn't close it's borders. It's not particularly relevant. I guess that kinda proves your point now that I think about it.
"A typical Reason.com article on border issues follows one of two templates: (a) “This thing that’s happening in the world proves the US should open its borders” (see anything Fiona writes about Ukraine), or (b) “This thing that’s happening in the world doesn’t prove the US should close its borders."
OPEN BORDERS CURED MY CANCER!
Thanks Reason!
And very few people want to "close" the borders. There are some of us just raising our hand and saying, "Can we get the tens... hundreds of thousands end-zone diving across the border a little more under control, and someone get on the phone to Mexico and ask them why they're hustling them through their country since they, you know, already sprechen ze"
Open borders is a desirable end goal once entitlements are removed. When we have entire hospitals that are filled with people who are getting treatment, funded by the taxpayers, while they're not paying taxes, it exerts a growing burden on the rest of the country. If they had to pay their own way, pay for their own doctors, pay for their own travel, and pay for their own accommodations while here, I don't think any of us would have a problem with letting them come in.
No worries. Those same billionaires have no intention of defying their John Birch Society roots. Let the cheap labor in, but give them no rights.
You know what they say, a poor migrant doing back-breaking work has no time to impregnate your precious porcelain daughter.
Tony, you think and behave like a Nazi.
I've given you countless outs from your position by explaining the basic math and reality of the situation. Nevertheless, you persist in arguing for draconian immigration laws. What am I supposed to assume? Merely that you don't listen?
I have explained the basic math and reality of the situation to you again and again. All you do is revert to your mindset of racism and socialism.
No, Tony. Every position you take is disingenuous and every position you accuse others of taking is also disingenuous.
The only thing in question is whether you actually believe your disingenuousness, or whether you're just a troll.
Based on some of the most ridiculous and monstrous things you've written fairly recently, I've actually come to the conclusion that you are just a troll.
Tony, you’re not capable of contributing to the understanding of any word or idea in all creation. You are the product of an inferior intellect, and a regrettable sociopolitical philosophy ,meant to appeal to a stunted, sociopathic mind.
If Observation 1 is important, then beware the Ludwig von Mises corporation of Alabama being funded by the same actual Nazi billionaires funding the mystical neo-Trumpanzee Alternative für Germany party. This gang has since Trump took office been fined for campaign financing irregularities all over Germany in reportage specifically naming Von Mises and Hayek fronts. It's as though laissez-faire liberalism were all of a sudden a patented export of Hitler's Germany.
Observation 1 is true, but the Libertarian Party platform is pretty consistent with Reason.com's stance on the issue. You're right to question the intention, but Reason.com being a nominally libertarian publication we should be more surprised to find them against freedom of movement.
Observation 2a, I tend to agree. They should just come out and say that people shouldn't need a permission slip from the government to move about. After all freedom is the end itself, not some means for some other end.
But surely you're not implying that "this thing that is happening," ie Fentanyl overdoses, proves that we should close our borders? If so, doesn't that make you equally guilty of observation #2?
Ignoring the costs of open borders is misguided.
All zero of the Reason editors have “adopted” an illegal dreamer.
As Biden mentioned fentanyl deaths in his State of the Union address, Republicans called on him to close the border. But "open borders" aren't to blame for overdoses.
this is correct. Blaming fentanyl overdoses on "open borders" is ridiculous. There is a reason... or at least a set of reasons for it, but we don't want to talk about those either, because it usually ends with some soros-funded DA getting recalled or something.
Oh, I see this picture of MTG giving the Prez a 'thumbs down' is the most popular image to describe the SOTU I'm catching in the rando media reports.
Stop the methican Americans.
My wife has a problem with fentanyl.
A problem with fentanyl deez nutz in her mouth.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acct. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
More information..........................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
“Calls To 'Close the Border' in Response to Fentanyl Deaths Are Misguided”
True. Closing the border should be done to enforce the rule of law.
You close the border (to illegals) because that is what borders are supposed to be. Closed.
Um, no, only the ones between societies in conflict. Are we in conflict with Mexico?
Yes. We need a declaration of war against the Mexican crime cartels.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
That's silly. Border control doesn't mean closed borders. Having international frontiers that are fairly easy to cross has been a great boon to wealth and prosperity.
Open borders may be untenable, but closed borders would be shooting ourselves in the dick.
No, we wouldn't expect that, since drug smugglers are so much more effective than illegal border crossers. You wouldn't expect a decrease in drug smuggling until you have brought most of the illegal border crossing under control.
Illegal border crossers also exacerbate the drug epidemic in the US by taking away low skill jobs from Americans and driving up housing prices.
You have failed to make an argument to that effect. Furthermore, closing the border to illegal migrants is a question of the rule of law.
The evidence that decriminalizing drugs leads to better outcomes is at best mixed and better described as "wishful thinking".
Drugs ought to be legal in a libertarian society; but in a libertarian society, others ought not to be obligated to pay for the healthcare, drug treatment, disability, unemployment, and retirement benefits of drug addicts, like in the US. If you want to legalize drugs in the US, you need to eliminate the welfare state first. And the libertarian justification for drug legalization is not that it will lead to better outcomes, but that people have a right to die in the gutter if they so choose.
Nobody is "scapegoating foreigners". We are accusing people who violate US laws of violating US laws, and we want to see the law enforced as written, period.
If you don't like the law, propose changes and get them through the legislative process.
The idea that we that have an open border is ridiculous and so is the idea of closing the border. In the end they are simply political slogans that have little to do with reality. The amount of legal crossing for trade, work, and tourism at the border would preclude any attempt to completely close the border. As Reason points out regularly there is little change in the rules for those that cross. What is happening is condition in central and south America are driving people to our border. Add to that that Congress cannot get its act together to better address those coming here both legally and illegally.
"Closing the border" means "closing it to illegal migrants".
That's bullshit. There has always been economic hardship and political turmoil in Central and South America; if anything, conditions have generally improved. Many of the illegal migrants don't even come from Central and South America, they come from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia and just enter across the Southern border because the US lets them.
What's driving illegal migration into the US is that the US fails to enforce its immigration laws and that cartels and smugglers are permitted to operate. If illegal migrants were deported quickly and employers punished according to the law, illegal migration would stop.
Yes, you want to make it so shitty in the United States that parents choose to raise their children in the shitholes they're fleeing. Sounds like good policy. Just make everything shitty.
You'd think it'd be simpler and more humane and more pro-freedom to simply make immigration easy.
I want immigration to be easy for skilled individuals who will have above average earnings in the US. The US should admit around 1 million such immigrants per year. I want such immigration to be easy and race blind.
I want illegal migrants and their employers to be punished for breaking US law.
Fine. I happen to be a libertarian on this issue, if only because I can't pragmatically or ethically justify forcing people to stay behind borders they had no choice in drawing or being on the wrong side of. But I'm all ears if you have some sort of argument.
I do see a flaw in your own attempts to socially engineer the population of the United States (though why it's appearing on a libertarian board I don't know). The supposed economic greatness of America has always seemed to rely on a liberal immigration policy, one that admitted the poor and downtrodden who were given an opportunity to become the prosperous, often only a generation later.
One can scarcely name a great American achievement that wasn't done by the sons and daughters of poor people from elsewhere.
Well, Tony, your understanding of US history is as flawed as your understanding of economics.
Tony is a fundamentally flawed creature. Devoid of intellect, and lacking a soul.
Tony and Biden's party--to say nothing of Nixon's--will not admit that the exportation of fanatical prohibitionism and asset-forfeiture robbery to the rest of the world created the laws against trade and production that make those places miserable Hoovervilles from which anyone would flee.
Well Hank, you certainly are acquainted with fanaticism.
That is just stupid. Nobody is advocating for zero people crossing the border. Perhaps you have been duped by intentional conflation of issues by the progressives, but "fixing the border", "build the wall" and close the border are all referring to stopping people from crossing the border illegally, away from controlled border crossing points.
It is perfectly possible to completely close the border to illegal border crossings without doing anything to limit legal border crossings.
It is also perfectly possible to simultaneously increase or decrease legal immigration quotas and work permits and perminant resident cards......
They are not the same issue.
Anyone advocating in favor of *illegal* immigration and *illegal* border crossing should explain why this is preferable to simply increasing legal immigration through any of the various means that have been proposed or are already available.
"It is perfectly possible to completely close the border to illegal border crossings without doing anything to limit legal border crossings."
If this was the case, it likely would have been done already. Remember all you hear is "close the border" no real plans to accomplish what you call for. Who is putting forth a real plan to accomplish what you are suggesting?
Nah. It's too good a wedge issue to actually resolve.
Where have you been? Are you under 15?
I mean, Trump wanted to build a border wall that could be properly patrolled. That clearly would work pretty well.
But before that we had Bush, who proposed meeting demand for farm workers and other laborers with a temporary worker program and increased immigration quotas. Democrats refused to join him and celebrated his defeat.
We have laws in place as a result of the last bout of mass migration that make hiring illegals… illegal. If you have ever had a job, you had to comply with this. Yet some 30 million illegals work here. And the feds have blocked other levels of government from enforcing these laws.
What kind of ludicrous question is “where is the plan”? That debate has literally been front and center continuously for 7 or 8 years.
How anyone can miss the fact that the democrats fight hard to increase *illegal* immigration is beyond me.
The border wall is malarky. It is a prop not a policy. It does nothing about visa overstays. It does nothing about people showing up and requesting asylum. As the article notes it is not illegals smuggling the drugs it is Americans.
There is plenty of room to craft a better border policy, but little incentive, and until that happens expect little change.
it is not illegals smuggling the drugs it is Americans.
Slowing down the drugs will require going on offense against the crime lords. Border enforcement would help, but not that much.
Problem is, with drugs like fentanyl which are very compact, there are any number of ways to get it across the border. Just mail it. Even if half of it gets confiscated, they'll still get as much into the country as they want. I think the article gets it right that the state of the border is pretty much irrelevant to the drug smuggling question.
You have touched on an important point as illegal drugs become more concentrated per volume, the ability to smuggle the drugs increases dramatically. This necessitates alternate strategies which in my mind means dropping demand.
As I said, interdiction will have a limited effect. We need to go on offense against the source.
The distinction is between inspected and uninspected entry. People who obtain visas from consular officials are welcomed. Anarco-fascists who sneak across borders or paddle ashore from enemy U-boats by moonlight, not so much. I doubt even Fiona can name three countries that welcome invaders and don't ask men in suicide vests to show a passport.
There is a certain irony to James Carville accusing the GOP of being white trash and disrespecting the presidency, given that Carville brought Clinton into the White House, a man who pretty much meets the definition of “white trash”: an alcoholic philanderer and rapist who used state troopers to procure women for sex and who had sex in the Oval Office. The era of any respect for the institution of the presidency ended with Bill Clinton.
Work for 2-3 hours in your spare time and get paid $1000 on your bank account every Make everyone ( £26,000 __ £38,000 ) A Month Online Making nb money online more than £20k just by doing simple work With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Thanks a lot just.Open this link……………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
I just learned that if you want to be part of the studio audience or the Colbert show you have to show proof of vaccine and wear a mask. The fucking fuck is going on over there?
To have a chance at enjoying oneself, you’d also need welders goggles and some ear plugs.
The eternal mystery. Do the Republican hoi polloi, who constitute much of Congress itself at this point, believe a) that this is actually the real problem because that's simply what they hear on FOX News, period; or b) know that their real goal is to protect the precious white gene pool, and are all lying each time they blame migrants on the problem du jour?
Presumably there's some demarcation on the stupid-evil spectrum where the common rabble who believe literally everything Tucker Carlson says become DC insiders stroking their swastika brooches.
South Americans are white, so your insinuations of racism are b.s.
And illegal migration is a real problem for a nation that is coming apart at the seams and that is 30 trillion dollars in debt.
But immigrants are a net boon to the federal budget, as I'm sure I've explained to you countless times.
As for coming apart at the seams, that sounds like a personal problem. Because if you're suggesting that importing more of the brown menace might make people like you angry, I think you're capitulating to my point.
Illegal migrants are a a net drain on federal, state, and local budgets. Worse, they decrease per capita GDP and make the country poorer.
As for “brown people”, I have nothing against minorities. In fact, I would close the borders to Western Europeans entirely, regardless of skill, since they are overwhelmingly the same kind of leftist assholes as you, and since they are responsible for the crappy ideologies that have taken over the Democrats. Skilled conservative Christian Asians and Africans are a much better group of people than almost any white European, or you for that matter.
How are illegal immigrants possibly a drain on government resources? How does the math even make sense?
And if that really is your priority, why aren't we doing anything to the citizens who drain federal resources with as much gleeful abandon as they vote Republican? Too late, already here? Sure sounds like you have an imagination. Come up with a plan for the actual parasites.
Because they require police, healthcare, infrastructure, childcare, defense, government services, etc., yet they pay far below average taxes because they earn far below the American average.
The population of "citizens who drain federal resources" has been created by progressives and their government and immigration programs. We should very much do something about it: cut social welfare spending, stop illegal immigration, limit legal immigration to highly skilled workers, apply strict limits to disability and unemployment benefits, stop subsidizing single motherhood, etc.
No, Tony, people who drain government resources vote overwhelmingly Democrats; that is why Democrats attempt to grow this population.
Tony's argument could be put to good use in Germany, where a recent paper on racial collectivism since the importation of Saracen rapists, stabbers and gunmen points up by discernible nativist questioning of how many undocumented rapists are really needed. Like Americans, Germans prefer people who ring the doorbell and ask to be let in over masked burglars jimmying open windows and invading in the dead of night.
Can we stop advocating illegal immigration? Do we really need 30 million people who are not allowed to work legally? Is it really a good idea?
We don't advocate keeping drugs illegal. Nobody says "let all the drug dealers sell all they want, but keep drugs illegal so you can't have any legal protections as a consumer.
So why are we pretending that controlling the border is a bad thing? It is a silly argument. You can have millions of legal immigrants *and* control the border. This eliminates all those people getting exploited as illegal labor. It eliminates the spectre of illegals acting as cover for the drug trade, and drug gangs controlling a lucrative coyote trade.
Why do Democrats, Progressives and Libertarian(?) Writers for Reason want people to come here illegally? Why do they insist that having them cross in dangerous conditions and then live an underground life only to later demand amnesty and citizenship is a desirable fate?
Biden had total control for 2 years. He did not do anything to alter immigration quotas. He did move to make illegal border crossings easier and to ensure that illegal immigrants believe that they would not be deported and that they would eventually be granted citizenship (while doing nothing to actually accomplish that)
Nobody can seriously pretend that the democrats want these people to come here legally. Obama didn't change legal immigration. He facilitated *illegal* immigration. This, even though it is much easier to handle legal immigration than it is to handle illegal immigration.
Why does a libertarian magazine refuse to address this? Why are we advocating for an exploitable underclass? This seems like the most unlibertarian possible to handle this issue.
I totally get that Reason has to pay girl-bullying bigots, fanatical christianofascists, card-carrying communists and rednecks with green teeth to appease Kleptocracy LeffAnDrite morons flocking here for a cheap soapbox. But Fiona is who Hitler would have put in front of the microphone to demand the Roosevelt Administration welcome Nazi commandos beached on the East coast with money, explosives and orders to blow stuff up. You can almost hear her pleading they be handed bouquets and jobs at defense plants.
Closing border because epidemic: science.
Closing border because drug epidemic: racism.
This isn’t hard, people.
Not to mention that closing the border is impossible. One of the worst totalitarian states in the history of world was unable to close their borders despite the best efforts of the Pogranichnyie Voiska and the KGB. As always, we should let anyone into the country for however long they wish to stay after a simple background check and let them do anything they want to do while here as long as they support themselves. Of course, this would mean an end to welfare state handouts (except for emergency medical care) but - oh, well!
That would obviously require securing the border.
That is bullshit. The iron curtain worked: it was very hard to either enter or exit communist states. Believe me, my family tried.
No, we shouldn't. The wealth of a nation is determined by the average productivity, education level, and culture of its population. And government spends most of its money on citizens not on welfare but on services. Flooding the country with any "self-supporting" third level peasant is a prescription for turning the US into a third world shithole.
Not mentioned in this article is that Fentanyl overdoses have nothing whatsoever to do with Fentanyl imports! I found no evidence of correlation between the amount of Fentanyl coming into the country and the number of deaths due to overdose. The cause of deaths from opiate and opioid overdose is almost one hundred percent due to the war on drugs. Every time some grieving mother demands that illegal drugs remain illegal, she totally ignores the point that the drug her child overdosed on was ALREADY ILLEGAL when they died. Far from preventing deaths, the war on drugs causes them.
Fentanyl overdoses have nothing whatsoever to do with Fentanyl imports!
So, illicit Fentanyl is just magically appearing out of nowhere in the US?
Of course it has something to do with it at least in the sense that some of those ODs were on illegally imported fentanyl. But I don't think that the imports are a primary reason for the present situation. More of a second order effect. Seems like the big crackdown on prescription narcotics was a bigger factor in the present high rate of ODs.
Of course, if somehow we could control all illegal drugs, then there wouldn't be any drugs for people to OD on. But the prohibitionists have been operating on that premise for decades and it hasn't worked out that well.
For practical purposes, our legal system is tolerating drug use.
If we actually prohibited drug use, 95% of the homeless in places like San Francisco and LA would be forced to go into rehab and/or minimum-security prisons. Instead, officials are handwringing over whether they are permitted to even remove their tents while spending $150000 per homeless person per year in homeless services alone. And Hunter Biden would have been charged and imprisoned as well.
What you call "prohibitionist" means going after drug dealers while being tolerant of drug use, and that indeed isn't working.
Some day you may come to realize, Vernon, that heaping scorn on an opinion does nothing whatever to refute the opinion. But since you brought it up: No, I don't think that Fentanyl is just magically appearing out of nowhere in the US. I think some of it is being manufactured here in the US both legally and illegally and some of it is being imported across the southern (and other) borders. The question as to whether the increase in deaths from ODs on Fentanyl is due to "open borders" is not addressed by either your sarcasm or your implication that deaths due to OD on Fentanyl would not have happened if the Fentanyl had not been imported.
Obviously deaths due to imported Fentanyl would not have occurred if Fentanyl were not imported. Obviously most Fentanyl obtained illicitly is imported. The skyrocketing of Fentanyl seizures at the border happened at approximately the same time as the skyrocketing of overdose deaths. It couldn't be more clear what's going on.
So, to your mind 'skyrocketing seizures' resulting in 'skyrocketing death rates' means the Drug War is working? Shouldn't deaths decrease as seizures increase?
No, because only a very small percentage of imported drugs are interdicted. That makes drug seizures a good way to estimate total drug importation.
For practical purposes, drug use is in the US is currently tolerated, and that's the problem. If we wanted to make a difference, we'd have to consistently identify and force drug users into treatment using the legal system.
In a libertarian society, drug use would be technically legal, but it would be so discriminated against and the consequences so dire that people wouldn't engage in it.
A world in which drug use is widespread and has no severe negative consequences is not a libertarian world, it is a fantasy world.
Work for 2-3 hours in your spare time and get paid $1000 on your bank account every Make everyone ( £26,000 __ £38,000 ) A Month Online Making nb money online more than £20k just by doing simple work With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Thanks a lot just.Open this link……………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The only thing that the borders should be open for is commerce between countries, not people other than for visitation or legal immigration. Otherwise, they should be closed. In fact, I'd prefer the US close its borders to immigration for at least 20 years. Why? We need a settling of people in this country to allow people to migrate, assimilate, and ingratiate themselves to the areas where they live. Constant influxes of illegals and legal immigrants are creating a level of chaos that is unsettling for states, localities, and the nation as a whole. Will it happen? No. Why? Because it would be the prudent thing to do? No, because there is an entire ideological apparatus that is praying for a larger voter base of leftists and democrats to initiate a takeover by said illegals to somehow assuage guilt for the whites to have taken over whole swaths of Mexico and to bow down at the altar of white guilt. It's nonsense.