An Infuriating New Online Game Asks: Would You Be Able To Immigrate to the U.S.?
Players can experience for themselves how difficult, expensive, and exhausting it is to come to the country legally.

Many critics of illegal immigration argue that foreigners should get in line if they want to move to the United States. It shouldn't be so hard or time-consuming, they argue, for a law-abiding foreigner simply to wait his turn to get a green card.
The reality of the U.S. immigration system is much more complicated and costly than that. To that effect, the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, has released The Green Card Game. Players must navigate the game's twists and turns in the hopes of securing a green card, which will allow them to live and work in the U.S. legally and eventually become a citizen.
Players start the game with no close family in the U.S. and no prior travel there. They can play with randomly generated backgrounds or fill in their own characteristics to see how they'd fare against the system. Each misstep pushes a player's arrival date later and immigration costs higher. At any point, players can ask for advice from an attorney (for a fee) or a bureaucrat (for a headache).
"The legal immigration system is extremely complicated," says David J. Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. (Bier and Alex Nowrasteh, vice president of economic and social policy studies at Cato, were responsible for game design.) "The game illustrates that even if you figure the rules out, getting a positive result still depends a great deal on luck and other factors outside your control."
The game starts off simple, asking a player whether he is fully vaccinated, has a criminal record, is a Communist, or "participate[d] in Nazi Germany persecution from 1933 to 1945." After answering those asks correctly, a player has to try to qualify for a green card under one of four categories: the refugee system, the Diversity Visa lottery, employer sponsorship, and self-sponsorship.
"The first choice a player will make in the game (your country of birth) could end up mattering more than a $100,000 job offer," explains Bier, noting that players will repeatedly have to grapple with the "Bureaucratic Wheel of Fortune." Many scenarios come down to pure chance: "Will a government adjudicator believe you? Will you win a lottery? Will a U.S. worker apply for the job before you get a green card? Will your paperwork get lost?"
I started the game with a randomized background: a 65-year-old Bhutanese therapist with a bachelor's degree and $11,130 in savings, married with six minor children, Buddhist, and hoping to reach Montana. I figured the Diversity Visa would be a good option, since it caters to "individuals who are from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States." But I quickly found out that there's no consulate or embassy in Bhutan processing immigrant visas. My chances further fell apart when I said I didn't have a job offer in the U.S. and the government didn't think I could financially support my family on my savings.
With all options exhausted, I was out $2,150 for required travel, translation, and medical costs. Round after round, different background after different background, I was unable to get into the country legally. I never even came close to the citizenship test. At one point, as a highly educated Afghan doctor fleeing religious persecution, I had no choice but to spend thousands on a journey from South America to the U.S.-Mexico border. My arrival date ticked up to 2045—only for a judge to reject my asylum case. (Unfortunately, that exact journey is a reality for many.)
The game relies heavily on Bier's June policy analysis, "Why Legal Immigration Is Nearly Impossible." The report noted that "fewer than 1 percent of people who want to move permanently to the United States can do so legally," thanks to factors such as low annual visa caps, a lack of U.S.-based sponsors, and application costs. "Legal immigration is less like waiting in line and more like winning the lottery," wrote Bier. "It happens, but it is so rare that it is irrational to expect it in any individual case."
"A lot of people might play and conclude that the game is biased," says Bier. "But the reality is that the game is easier than real life. In real life, you can't set your profile, pick your country of birth, and play as many times as it takes."
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
Make $9,000-$12,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And Choose Your Own Work Hours.
Thanks, A lot Start here
Open This Website........................>> https://www.dailypay7.com/
Google paid $95 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $51005 by working at home for 10 hours a day..... Everybody must try this job now by just use this
Click Here.... http://Www.Smartwork1.com
You think that's bad, try walking into a bank you're not a depositor at, and making a withdrawal. You practically have to point a gun at the teller to get money!
Yes, it can be hard to get things you're in no way entitled to.
Dang, you already said exactly what I was going to say. I guess we're on to the San Francisco model where if it's too difficult to get what you want legally you're justified in getting it illegally.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Well, Brett, if you are going to knee-jerk defend the status quo, then explain to us all why the wait time for an F3 visa, which is for married sons and daughters of permanent residents, for individuals from Mexico, should be 25 years. Explain to us why this long of a waiting time is just and correct.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2023/visa-bulletin-for-july-2023.html
Government. That’s why.
It is because the demand for these visas far outstrips the supply, and the supply is artificially constrained by quotas.
But according to Brett, making it easier to immigrate here is just being a whiny entitled brat. It *ought* to take 25 years for a young married couple to immigrate here! Right Brett?
It is because the demand for these visas far outstrips the supply, and the supply is artificially constrained by quotas.
So what? They're not entitled to entry or citizenship.
But according to Brett, making it easier to immigrate here is just being a whiny entitled brat. It *ought* to take 25 years for a young married couple to immigrate here! Right Brett?
Why oughtn’t it? Why should it be some other number? What number *should* it be?
Why do you think “25 years for a married couple to immigrate here” has any relation to Brett? His circumstance is definitely not that.
We need more legal immigrants. Our own population is stagnant and someone needs to pick the crops and do the jobs others won't. As long as there is some waiting period (3 to 5 years?) to be eligible for any federal or state benefits programs, I think increasing legal immigration while at the same time kicking out illegal immigrants would be good for the country overall.
That is justifying subservience. That is a bad thing.
I'm making no point about what our immigration policy 'ought' to be; It's nothing like the policy I'd personally favor.
I'm just pointing out that the OP's complaint is stupid. Yeah, a lot of people in the US would have trouble immigrating here if they weren't already citizens. That's because citizens have a right to be in the country they're citizens of, and non-citizens do NOT have a right to be in the countries they're NOT citizens of.
It's just a trivial observation that there's actually a difference between being a citizen of a country, and not being a citizen.
Simple. Mexicans themselves.
The USA imposes a 7% quota on visas for every nationality around the world to ensure fairness for everyone. Literally equality of opportunity. Only if there are leftover visas (which never happens) can these limits be breached.
The 25 year wait is because Mexicans (along with those from India and China) seek to immigrate to the USA at rates well above those typical immigration patterns from other comparable countries. A whole lot of people there want out to come here.
As a result, their own actions make the queue deeper because the 7% limit dictates how many can come in per year. The problem isn't the USA not letting them in; it is. The problem is them wanting out as major outliers. A stampede for the doors by those in the nation as a whole is the cause. The USA has nothing to do with it.
If Mexicans or Indians were trying to immigrate at numbers comparable to Canada, they'd be here in far less time. Ask yourself why they want out versus trying to improve home and you'll understand the issue.
Compared to India, Mexicans have it easy. They can immigrate in this lifetime rather than the next.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,800 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,800 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Simple. Mexicans themselves.
This answer implicitly presupposes that American immigration law is just and fair to begin with, specifically the quota system. Why should there even be a quota system in the first place?
Because we can’t handle an unlimited influx of largely indigent people, you morbidly obese idiot. This has been explained to you many times. Yet you continue to make the same retarded argument s as if no one ever told you that.
This is part of why you’re hated and located, Fatfuck. The only people here who really tolerate you are the raving drunk, the (other?) pedophile, and that other sea lion piece of shit.
Now fuck off.
Read--
Yes, it can be hard to get things you’re in no way entitled to.
It’s because of the people you relentlessly defend and support, Fatfuck.
I’m guessing you are probably a citizen of the United States because you were born here.
We’re you entitled to that privilege by some principle of natural law? Are you better than someone who wasn’t born in the United States? If the United States could trade you like a pro athlete could you make the case that you are producing more for the team than any possible trade?
Yes. That is how countries work.
If the United States could trade you like a pro athlete could you make the case that you are producing more for the team than any possible trade?
Actually, yes I could.
Are you better than someone who wasn’t born in the United States?
Yes.
If the United States could trade you like a pro athlete could you make the case that you are producing more for the team than any possible trade?
Yes. But the United States CAN'T do that. That's not how countries work.
Man, you are really bad at this whole intelligence thing.
Yes.
How so? Please explain.
I would trade you Marxist shitbags. Although we would have to pay another country to take trash like you.
Yes, he is entitled, that's how it works.
People of one tribe can have kids and they are automatically part of that tribe and gain rights that people outside that tribe don't have. Its not dumb luck, he was always going to be born to his parents in that tribe. The people in that tribe have agreed that kids of parents in that tribe inherit what the tribe has created.
Kids of people in other tribes get the same rights for that tribe. Just because they want to be in your tribe doesn't mean you somehow lose the right to have your tribe.
Fiona is just pissed because she played the game and she's not useful enough to qualify for entry.
Poor Koch-funded libertarians. 🙁
In a 2023 that has been otherwise terrific for billionaires, your sugar daddy Charles Koch has watched his inherited fortune decline by $3,700,000,000.
Is it because he can't import unlimited Ukrainians to work for poverty wages, Fiona? Yeah. It must be the Ukrainians. Better submit your 273rd variation of that column.
In any case Elon Musk is absolutely running laps around ol' Chuck. Musk has gained $105,000,000,000 in the past 7 months, substantially more than Fred Koch's son has managed to hoard in his 80-something years. It's just so unfair how some billionaires find ways to prosper even when Border Czar Kamala Harris isn't doing exactly what Reason staffers demand.
#HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer
Dang it. I was having a relatively good Monday and then Debbie-Downer comes along and reminds me that a billionaire lost some capital. I want billionaires on an endless upward trajectory, always and continuously.
Poor Charles...
How many live in your house, Fiona?
If the answer is still "zero", then shut the fuck up.
How many abused elephants, tigers, or orcas live in your house, Nazi?
If the answer is still “zero”, then shut the fuck up about abuse of captive animals, Nazi! (Assuming you have ANY capacity for empathy for ANYONE not of YOUR NAZI tribe!)
There's a big difference between "We shouldn't abuse captive animals", and "Someone (not me though) should feed, clothe, and house these random foreigners".
Your analogy is completely retarded
I was logged off and unfortunately read that. Good proof that this does deserve a gray box.
Lame-brained dipshits can NOT refute what I write, so they blather bullshit instead! What a surprise!
I can only imagine it was as retarded as everything the greyboxed shithead says. Fortunately, I only have to imagine it. You have my sympathy on having actually seen it.
More retarded, but less tedious than Pedo Jeffy.
“Someone (not me though) should feed, clothe, and house these random babies that are born on our own soil”. …
People who say such things are evil and greedy, so the FIX is for Government Almighty to micro-manage baby-making, right, right-wing wrong-nut? How about baby-makers take care of their own babies (most of whom will WORK eventually), and Nosenheimers, Buttinskies, and Government Almighty BUTT OUT? Immigrants just want to WORK here, but Nosenheimers, Buttinskies, and Government Almighty won’t let me hire them! Meanwhile, fruits and veggies ROT in the fields, for lack of workers!
How many newborn native babies are YOU paying for? Very few? Does that mean that the Government Almighty should command and control baby-making, then, logically? Both babies and immigrants consume goods and services, ya know, but also, most of them also produce goods and services eventually, in both case. Most immigrants will produce more quickly than most new-born babies, by the way! So Your Perfect Power-Pig arguments apply MORE to the babies, than to the immigrants!
How many Catholic priests, Native American Shamans, Methodist Ministers, Scientology “Leaders”, Jewish Rabbis, and Islamic and Hindu “Holy Men” are you inviting into YOUR house to stay with YOU? None, right? Since they are living “at large” in the territory of the Collective Hive of the USA, then with the Collective Hive of the USA being just EXACTLY like YOUR living room, the public (voters, through the Powers of Government Almighty) should decide which religious leaders are allowed to practice which religions in USA territory!!! Because the Collective Hive owns it ALL!!! …
Straight-through and honest analogy here… If this does NOT clarify to you, the collectivism inherent in your analogy, then you have a fossilized mind!
Last I checked, if you wanted to come to the US you only had to turn yourself in at a border crossing. You might get an order to appear, or you might not. If you cross in Texas, Abbott will give a free bus ride to the sanctuary city of your choice.
And the majority of asylum cases are denied.
For good reason
As they should be. If everyone claimed asylum, that would mean the whole world is at war.
To that effect, the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, has released The Green Card Game.
So, I think the the plus side is that if idea “Think tank-created protest video game” were at the top of their list, they would’ve tried it sooner.
Seriously, at this point, it really looks like some utter moron at Cato saw Gamergate and thought "We gotta get us some of that sweet, sweet unemployment action that Anita Sarkeesian is pulling down."
Yet around 1 million people obtain lawful permanent resident status every year.
This is the real question and the real number that should be discussed (and isn't. not now. not ever)
A million seems like it might be pretty low. 30 million seems way too high. Maybe somewhere between those numbers?
But instead the argument is "don't enforce immigration laws or borders because you are racist" and then whoever wants it the most can just sneak in illegally, obtain work illegally from unscrupulous employers and then whine about citizenship in a decade or two when there are 30-60 million "undocumented" (read illegal aliens) living and working in the country.
There are a lot of ways to handle the immigration debate. We are currently handling it in the absolute worst way possible.
And Reason/Cato are right in line with that - Weighing in on the "against" side of anything that would stop *illegal* immigration (and the worker exploitation that goes with it.)
But instead the argument is “don’t enforce immigration laws or borders because you are racist”
No, the argument is "don't make racist arguments in favor of enforcing immigration laws".
Literally zero people have held that position, ever.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2022/05/16/buffalo-shooting-replacement-theory-tucker-carlson-stefanik-gop-white-supremacy/9786209002/?gnt-cfr=1 Great Replacement Theory? Try language of death wielded by opportunistic right-wing figures
There is nothing subtle about the rhetoric we hear coming from Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, from Republican governors in states or even from Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the No. 3 House Republican.
Norway immigrants trump shithole
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880750/trump-immigrants-shithole-countries-norway
"Literally zero", huh?
Wanna bet that if I go to any Breitbart article on the topic of immigration, that I could find at least a few racist comments on the topic of immigration?
Hey Fatfuck. Are those commenters making immigration policy?
Literally zero people have held that position, ever.
That's not true.
The Democrats passed laws limiting the amount of Asians, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Italians every chance they got.
The only people who never got a ban were black people --because Democrats counted them as 'livestock'.
1 million is about three tenths of a percent of the total population. 3.3 million would be a full percent. 33 million would be ten percent. Ten seems like a lot to deal with every year. One seems integrable.
And yet somehow the USA still takes on more immigrants than any other developed nation on the planet most (80%+) of which will identify as treasonous traitors trying to conquer and consume the USA with socialist (Gov-Guns make stuff) ideology. Most seem to think the USA is a pot-of-gold just waiting to be robbed as most will milk the cow (taxpayers) to their death.
End the socialist BS and demand for immigration won’t attract the socialist “Gov will save me” mentality. As well stated many times; end the welfare state or the welfare state will end us all via a bankrupt nation.
I am sure this game is as accurate a model of American immigration as Monopoly is of capitalist economics.
It’s a pretty accurate model of how well Cato understands gaming, immigration, Americans, or people.
Principal Harrigan: Learning about illegal immigration can be fun! For instance you could make a game of it and see how many illegal immigrants you can let in in an hour, and then try to break that record!
Does the game include working to pay for the illegal Immigration?
.
the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, has released The Green Card Game
Cool. So as a free market think tank are they going to market the game so that people can actually learn whatever lesson while they are enjoying themselves? Otherwise, this seems more like what Omega Theta Pi would play
“Spin the Diversity Lottery Wheel”
Always lands exactly on the same spot. Yeah, nothing like noble lies to forward the agenda.
Also, the 6 pre-fab identities are all "terrorist" listed countries. It's one thing to advocate for changes, but holy partisan batman, trying to get empathy by showing that it's harder for North Koreans to get into the US? Crazy.
Oh come on stupid Reason. Don't you understand that the word "illegal" is a noun? When it comes to illegals, illegal is what they are. It's not some attribute or consequence of not having papers. It means they're not people. They're illegal. They deserve no sympathy or empathy because they're not human. They're illegal. Get that through those leftist heads of yours.
Of all of the stupid versions of this argument, this is absolutely the most idiotic and mendacious. Redefining words and deciding words are offensive ads absolutely nothing to any argument - and in this case it intentionally subtracts.
Plus, 1996 called, it wants it's PC trope back.
Oh, bull. People who recognize the unjustness of the drug war, asset forfeiture and other laws, tend to hide behind "the law is the law is the law" or "you just want open borders" whenever the subject comes up. I've never seen an honest conversation about immigration in the comments.
that is a non-sequitur. You made a stupid rant about terminology. It was stupid 30 years ago. It is stupid now.
Calling them "dreamers" is an obvious spin, but it is also a lie. It carries no useful information other than the spin.
There is zero "honest conversation" in your comment. It is 100% stupid tilting at straw windmills. And your non-sequitur rejoinder is even less about substance - there is always plenty of substance in the comments... much more than in a stupid sales pitch for a propaganda "game" that supposedly teaches a conservative estimate of immigration into the US.
There is zero “honest conversation” in your comment.
The point was the dehumanization of these people by referring to them as illegal. It's so much easier to treat people like animals when they aren't human beings.
Think also of those punished for assisting so-called “illegal aliens” (“illegal sub-humans” in the minds of their haters). I’ll just show some links 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." (He piloted a ship to shore, when the assigned pilots abandoned ship).
And it happens in the USA as well! https://reason.com/2019/01/15/trial-begins-for-aid-workers-accused-of/ Trial Begins for Aid Workers Accused of Leaving Food, Water in Desert for Migrants https://reason.com/2017/11/12/how-immigration-crackdowns-scr/ How Immigration Crackdowns Screw Up Americans' Lives
^THIS here is leftard narrative at work.
Oh boo-hoo.... I can't TRESPASS/STEAL/TAKE whatever I want... So unfair and discriminating. /s
Yeah; This whole "but I'm human" so therefore am entitled to whatever I want is complete and utter BS.
Why don't you HONESTLY address it and explain why invaders have a right to invade any place they want to stomp on?
If immigration is trespassing as you put it, yet you don’t hear landlords, employers and shopkeepers complaining, then that means the government must own everything. Think about it. Who else could immigrants be trespassing against? The people who own the places where they live, work and shop don't think they're trespassing. But the government does. So when you call immigrants trespassers, and government the victim, then you're denying all private property.
Plenty of border towns and ranchers complain. NYC is complaining. Even Maine residents are complaining of the costs.
How ignorant are you?
Stop paying your property taxes tomorrow.
Government gets to arbitrarily ignore property rights and the will of the people because it really owns the property. Good to know. Do we all work for the government too?
The border, not the land immediately adjacent to it, but the actual border is not private property but a national jurisdiction. It has always been recognized as this. You can own a ranch on both sides of the border but you don't own the border, ergo you don't have the property right to allow someone to cross the border without national, e.g. government permission. This concept predates the US by millennia. The Romans were enforcing it against Germanic and Celtic tribesman before Julius Caesar was a tickle in his daddy's balls. The Greek city states also recognized this. Borders were less strenuously enforced but the concept of a border definitely existed as an area controlled by the state not the private property owner adjacent to the border. It isn't necessarily a physical border, i.e. measurable, but it is still recognized as a collective, e.g. state, creation and jurisdiction not an individual prerogative. Thus the trespassing argument is sophomoric trope not based in any understanding of long standing definition of international borders.
Only if you define employment as "being paid more than being taxed".
Look into history a little and you'll find the first immigration law in this country was The Chinese Exclusion Act. It's only gotten better since.
The government doesn't OWN all the property - The government ensures OWNERSHIP rights of its citizens by protecting it from being invaded by self-entitled scheme's like you compulsively pitch.
Spin spin spin a load of complete BS.
And ?who? says private property exists in the USA? Mexico?
The USA has land borders which within it US citizens own private property solely by the patent laws of the US. That's what establishes private property ownership.
Yet here you all down your next BS path of idiocy trying to say if a nation exists it owns all the land within it's borders. Bloody stupid and pathetic.
So when the landlord, employer and shopkeeper are all happy with that person living here, but the government is not, then the will of the people means shit?
The will of the people created that EXACT immigration law you alone want to change to your own benefit. The only time it acts as it's own entity is by Executive Fiat (hut hum; Obama's BS DACA order).
And that's exactly why Republicans are against this so called 'immigration' reform by leftards. They've been jumping around immigration law for decades. Throwing away border security. Executive over-reach of allowing invasion. Etc, etc, etc..... They don't GET THE PEOPLE'S WILL to change it.
"The will of the people created that EXACT immigration law you alone want to change to your own benefit."
Not sure what you are accusing me of here. Looks like a strawman to me. The rest of your post is word salad without any dressing.
I want to hire Jose to pick fruits and veggies for me, the consumers want the produce, and Jose wants to do productive WORK (for pay)! The INVADERS here are the goons from Government Almighty, who, at the behest of the hate-filled troglodytes, come tromping across my fields, trampling my crops with their jackboots, chasing "illegal sub-humans", to prevent this productive work that native-born Americans won't do!
Typical leftard believing the US Government when it comes to securing the national borders (prevent invasion) are "invaders" while they compulsively push for a Nazi-Empire.
100% Treasonous to the US Constitution (the very definition of the USA) from both sides of the Supreme Law. i.e. The government shouldn't do anything the Constitution says it should do and do everything it says it shouldn't do.
Calling them “dreamers” is an obvious spin, but it is also a lie. It carries no useful information other than the spin.
Do you recall who the word "dreamer" referred to? It referred to children of those icky illegals who were raised in this country through no fault of their own. They speak English with American accents because, for all intents and purposes, they are Americans.
Except that to you they're not. They're not even human. They're born and bred socialists who will vote for Democrats because that's what their animal instincts tell them to do, and it's better to ruin lives than to allow them to vote for Democrats.
And how is that the problem of the United States for a situation the parents put their children in? Seems you're assigning blame to the wrong party. The parents may have intended well for "wanting a better life" but they don't get to decide the laws don't apply to them, lie to their children for 20 years and expect the country whose rules they deliberately broke to fix the problem for them out of some sense of manipulated compassion.
In any other context we would call this "child abuse". Convincing your children of a truth that never was and making them live with the consequences of your bad act starts at home. We don't give criminal parents clemency due to the effects of their crimes on their unknowing families. Why should it be entertained in reverse? You don't reward bad behavior by one part by more to assuage feelings elsewhere.
Who are the victims of these abominable criminals?
Whose life, liberty and/or property did they harm?
You talk of them as if they're murderers or worse.
One more question, how many generations would you like to see punished?
They willingly chose to violate the laws of this country and then lived that lie for decades.
I am a victim. It cheapens and denigrates the 17 years of time, money and effort I went through to immigrate legally to this country. Your attitude of "well no one is getting harmed" treats people like me as chumps for daring to follow the rules.
The more people try to game the system, the more restrictive the system will become in response. At a minimum, such folks have availed themselves of taxpayer-funded benefits like public education, like committed identity theft (I doubt most have ITINs and file taxes under their real names), are definitely violating US labor laws employee and employer alike and are more than likely not following legal requirements for things like insurance in day-to-day life like driving. Shall I continue? Those are just the obvious highlights.
They aren't murderers but they lack clean hands. They aren't innocent people being victimized by the US government. They made deliberate choices to put themselves into this position and, eventually, consequences come knocking. I'm sure it is easier to blame the bad US government when you explain to your 18 year old kid that they've been living a lie and now they can't work, can't attend college and, most likely, will be deported because of their parents bad decision-making.
The children are the victims of these criminals. And they are living right next to them everyday.
My punishing generations has nothing to do with it. If Congress wants to grant them status, pass a law! I may disagree but it is the right way to deal with it. Congress doesn't do this so until they decide to reward law-breaking by those who don't obviously care about the law that has existed for DECADES, the answer is "For as many as it takes for people to learn you don't get rewards for a sob story and flouting the law of another country."
Try living illegally in Canada. See what happens to you. We wouldn't even be having this conversation because there is zero tolerance for Dreamer-like behavior in Canada. None. Zero.
They willingly chose to violate the laws of this country and then lived that lie for decades.
That's the fallacy used by drug warriors who want to lock up any drug user because "If they don't respect drug laws then they don't respect any laws. Lock them up before the murder someone."
I am a victim. It cheapens and denigrates the 17 years of time, money and effort I went through to immigrate legally to this country.
You're a victim of an unjust system, not of people who cross political borders without permission.
The children are the victims of these criminals. And they are living right next to them everyday.
No, they are victims of an unjust system.
If Congress wants to grant them status, pass a law!
That I can agree with.
Try living illegally in Canada. See what happens to you.
Back to the "Two wrongs make a right" argument.
So what’s the end game? Mexico dying because we poached all their young people to pick crops? How fucking selfish is that?
We don’t have to figure out how to accommodate them. They have to figure out how to make life better at home.
Of course your white savior, cost free virtue signaling pose presumes that they are incapable of this, but they gotta do it, or this status quo never ends. Perpetual dependency is not fair to them.
https://reason.com/2023/06/28/canada-is-poaching-americas-high-skilled-foreign-workers/
Canada Is Poaching America's High-Skilled Foreign Workers
It’s an entirely predictable consequence of an inhospitable immigration system. (USA's stupid fault. Our loss; Canada's gain.)
The harm is in grazing other people’s greener pasture. If immigrants original nation/pasture isn’t green enough for them they have no-one to blame but themselves in any democratic nation. The USA doesn’t need to look just like Mexico and importing all of Mexico will make the USA
…….. JUST …………. LIKE …………… MEXICO…………
Maybe the question U(2) should be asking is WHY do all these people want to immigrate and what should they change about themselves to make that a reality EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE????? US Citizens created the USA and US citizens have every right to set the who’s “Welcome” laws.
Foreigners don’t get to invade it just because they want to or just because their own pasture is dried up (which unsurprisingly is the doing of themselves). Running from their own national creation in search of what SOMEONE ELSE set up.
...and frankly the only reason for it is to milk the makings of someone else. It's exactly why 8 out of 10 support the socialist party. They're not after Liberty and Justice for all; They are after taking/stealing/cheating from others creations and that mentality they bring to the USA is part of the very problem the USA faces right now with it's ever growing UN-Constitutional Nazi-Empire building.
The DACAsses' fault laid when they were of age to leave home, and didn't return to their country of origin.
At that point, they joined their criminal parents, as being illegal aliens and subject to the deportation, that a law-abiding country would ensure would happen.
And, except for the totally moronic, "illegal" is just shorthand for illegal alien. The word is an adjective describing what category of alien they are, not a noun.
“Their country of origin” that they have no history with.
Oh common... Mexico's Constitution specifically lists housing and food as part of governments job. Something 80%+ of immigrants also willfully support. History or not; the mentality is a dead on hit.
Cyto, when are you going to call out anyone on your team using the word "illegal" as a noun to refer to undocumented migrants, as a redefinition of a word that adds nothing to the argument?
*snort*
Jeffy makes retarded riposte, sarc decides alcohol isn't enough and adds cocaine.
What a
n unsurprising turn of events.Cocaine? I fucking wish.
Illegal IS the proper term. This "undocumented" nonsense is the attempt to redefine.
We fixed this problem 30 years ago.
The solution was passed into law. It became illegal to hire people who are not legally allowed to work in the US. That is why you have to do the "column A, Column B" paperwork thing.
At the same time, we established an amnesty for anyone already here. Those already here illegally could apply for a 1 time amnesty and get legal status and eventually become citizens.
Anyone remaining in the country illegally would then be deported. Any new arrivals would be intercepted. There would be no magnet for illegal immigration, because work would be illegal and anyone hiring illegal workers would be arrested.
Problem solved.
Then, going forward, immigration numbers could be adjusted legally to adapt to needs for more workers (or less).
Of course, except for the amnesty (multiple amnesties), none of that actually happened. Sure, I have to provide my paperwork for every job.... but enforcement is such that tens of millions of "undocumented workers" are on the job in the US illegally. The border is not in fact secure. And deporting people seems to be more of a show for the rubes and maybe a jobs program for the mules, rather than an actual method for removing illegal aliens.
So, why is reason running this now? Because Amnesty is on the table again and people who like them some low wage, low skill workers (and what they hope are democrat party voters) are lining up to lie about what their reforms are all about.
Here is their best sales pitch
https://lindasanchez.house.gov/uscitizenshipact
You will notice that most of the sales pitch for this round of amnesty is identical to all of the prior rounds.
The only real immigration reform attempt (other than the first try at amnesty) in any of our lifetimes was the Bush plan, which included guest workers. Nobody from the democrat side signed on to help, despite it offering everything they were asking for, except unlimited new immigrant citizens. So, that puts the lie to the democrat side of the ledger. They want newly minted citizens who were illegal immigrants (not legal immigrants - intentionally not legal immigrants). They think they will build a permanent majority for them and will also revitalize the Unions, who pay their bills.
So that is what this is all about. Everything else is salesmanship.
They think they will build a permanent majority for them and will also revitalize the Unions, who pay their bills.
That’s the closest thing I’ve seen to an honest comment about immigration from a conservative. It all comes down to politics. Keep those dirty socialists out because they breed more socialists and they’ll all vote for Democrats. Because politics is genetic. Right?
Maybe conservatives could treat them like human beings instead of animals. Might win some votes.
Where have you been for the last 35 years? Nobody has ever not said that, ever.
And No, not a conservative. Not even a little bit.
Well... I suppose from one angle I am far more conservative than most conservatives. But I am also way, way, way more liberal than most liberals.
Where have you been for the last 35 years? Nobody has ever not said that, ever.
You kidding? Ever listen to talk radio? Ever watch FOX News? Ever read the comments?
Illegal immigrants, especially the brown ones, are all socialists! Every single one of them votes for Democrats. Not only that, but like birds that instinctually sing a certain song, their offspring are also Democrats. Democrats want immigrants because that means votes to give them, as you put it, "a permanent majority."
That could only happen if they're animals, not human beings.
In fact, Cyto should read this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/
It's a Bloomberg interview with Steve Bannon, all the way back in 2015 when he was running Breitbart. In that article, he was BRAGGING about how he was using Breitbart and various right-wing media sources to push certain narratives that would lead people to supporting Trump. And one of those was obviously immigration. He would purposefully and deceptively highlight every negative story he could find about immigrants to scare people into supporting Trump. So when that one migrant murdered the cute Iowa coed, that was 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage. You'd think there was an army of migrants murdering Iowa coeds day and night. And one of those narratives was OF COURSE every study they could find that showed that migrants mooched off welfare and voted for Democrats. It was not even all that subtly racist.
Like how the mendacious left does 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage of shootings to make it look like they're happening every day and night, and can't do a weather report without mentioning climate change?
No, conservatives would never stoop to that level.
Haaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha! Hooooo ho ho ho ho ho! Haaaaa ha ha ha ha!
Now you get it. Tucker Carlson is a "truth teller" but Rachel Maddow is a lying bitch.
People in these comments still defend Tucker Carlson's lies about voting machines because the companies never proved there wasn't fraud, which means he was telling the truth. Switching the burden of proof isn't just a leftist fallacy. Conservatives have embraced it as well.
Carlson never lied about voting machines, you idiot. This has been debunked for you over and over
Debunked by whom? I don't read posts made by liars like JA and ML.
It so funny you think calling anything a LIE makes it so.
The IP Logs are still there to be debunked but you're that special kind of liar who while holding a smoking gun will call anyone a liar who accuses you of shooting anything. "Prove it" you'll say over and over and over again. So the bullet from the murder matches your smoking gun. No one else's finger prints are present but you'll just keep claiming the accusation of shooting is a LIE.
Typical leftard; No amount of evidence will be persuasive it's all just a LIE until the non 'icky' party supports it. The very foundation of the left. [WE] gangsters RULE ideology. It's all about affiliation.
Damn, you guys are stupid.
If you think that is what "immigration reform" is all about, you are irredeemably stupid. I suppose your only purpose is to gum up any serious debate with DNC shill deflections designed to prevent legitimate discussion... but what a terrible way to go through life.
Yeah.... Steve Bannon invented immigration as an issue. That's why I was writing about it in 1996. Because I knew Trump would show up and exploit the same issue 20 years later.
God help, of all the stupid shill, gum-up-the-works spin tactics you idiots try, this has to be the dumbest one yet.
Dur-hur! Some guy nobody likes saw this was an issue he could use! Therefore that is what the issue is!!!
Democrats were writing position papers on this 20 years before Bannon ever edited an article. This issue goes back to at least the early 70s (as far as my knowledge goes) and was supposed to be resolved by the big compromise in the 80s.
It hasn't moved an inch since.
that aint because of Trump. Or Bannon. Or Maddow. Or Carleson.
Or Fox News.
Reason has been writing open borders screeds for ... well... I suppose since before I started subscribing 30 years ago. Yet somehow they never come around to "enforce the border laws as they exist and expand the quotas". I wonder why a magazine (and associated think tank) primarily funded by a large industrial interest would have a position that eschews a liberal immigration compromise in favor of maintaining the status quo?
We know you two doofuses want people to come here illegally and eventually get magnanimous grants of amnesty. We know the DNC thinks that is keen. We know the populists want just less immigration overall - because populists rarely think things all the way through... But why doesn't anyone want easy-to-get middle ground that solves the entire problem in one stroke? I'm pretty sure I know why. And it ain't because racism.... at least, not on the right.
It's all about votes. Must block immigration reform because it will mean more votes for Democrats. Why? Those animals instinctually support the left. That's your argument. Claiming Democrats made it first doesn't make the argument any less despicable, dehumanizing and racist.
So... the Democrats opposed immigration reform every single time it came up - because republicans are racist?
I think maybe your binary name-calling meter needs some fine-tuning.
Screaming "racist" is always a bad tactic... It is exceptionally stupid on a libertarian site.
I'm not the one claiming that all immigrants will vote for Democrats and all their offspring will vote for Democrats (because they're not humans with agency, they're animals acting on instinct) giving Democrats a permanent electoral advantage.
I'm sure there are plenty here in favor of immigration from Non-Treasonous immigrants. Course you'll never acknowledge or address that part of the equation.
I suppose your only purpose is to gum up any serious debate with DNC shill deflections designed to prevent legitimate discussion...
Which is why I just mute the stupid fuckers. Not because I "can't refute their arguments" (though in one sense it is impossible to refute their quicksand morass of bullshit, because it's incoherent and exists only to trip actual discussion) but because they're not actually making any arguments. They're throwing shit at the wall to see what might stick this particular second. They're shitty organic LLM AI doing word salad in order to prevent conversation.
Mute them and let them drown in their circlejerks of loneliness and solitude.
That and they keep shifting the goals.
Yeah…. Steve Bannon invented immigration as an issue.
No, he didn't. But Steve Bannon deliberately demagogued the issue. He stoked the fires up to eleventy by casting as many illegal immigrants as he could find as either dangerous criminals or layabout moochers.
Steve Bannon demonized and villainized penniless Guatemalans into horrible monsters for the purposes of acquiring power. And you are totally cool with that.
Meanwhile, Democrats and their allies sanctified all Guatemalans into innocent babes for the purposes of changing the country's demographics to acquire voting power. And you are totally cool with that.
“Illegal immigrants, especially the brown ones, are all socialists!”
8:10 are…… Adding the 3:10 who won’t say so.
And welfare recipients run about the same statistics.
Just because they are “human” doesn’t mean they get to conquer and consume via socialism the USA.
about half of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants either identify with (31%) or lean towards (23%) the Democratic Party, while about two-in-ten identify with (4%) or lean towards (15%) the Republican Party.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/
Instead of demanding they aren't socialist maybe you should be pitching for *ONLY* NON-SOCIALIST immigration. Actual border defense of the socialist mentality / invasion. Heck just demanding an end to the socialist empire here would be a positive. But nope; The open-borders crowd will just keep insisting that being 'human' automatically grants ENTITLEMENT to whatever people want to conquer and consume -- The socialist leftard mentality.
I'm sure you can provide some citations. It is always about the costs retard. Funny you and Jeff never mention costs.
By the way, since when did libertarians promote asking permission from the government to work?
They don't. They promote asking permission before entering another nation. Your spinning is getting lame and old.
The Democrats have never pretended that this wasn't their end game (beyond some rhetoric when trapped). They have repeatedly put out position papers about it. They have entire strategy documents about "the browning of america" that discus their path to hegemony by creating a majority minority country.
Pretending that this is a "conservative boogieman" is silly, since it is an openly stated goal.
For nearly 40 years that has been the libertarian analysis of this unholy mess. The confluence of democrat racial divide politics with republican "big business" desire for an underclass of exploitable workers. It explains why neither party wants to fix the "illegal" part of illegal immigration by just enforcing the law and adjusting quotas.
You can go back 20 years on Reason and see me saying the same thing. You can find me saying the same thing on Slashdot back into the 90s when it started. This debate has not changed one tiny little bit since Reagan did the first round of immigration reform in 1986. Everyone pretends like the Democrats are all for immigrants and the republicans are all xenophobic... but they are both 100% behind a level of illegal immigration that supports certain industries and supplies an exploitable underclass.
Immigrants have no agency and will always vote for Democrats because they're not humans, they're animals acting on instinct. Gotcha.
Immigrants have no agency and will always vote for Democrats because they’re not humans, they’re animals acting on instinct. Gotcha.
And then they claim they are not making racist bigoted arguments in favor of enforcing immigration laws.
That is the democrat party line. Not mine. 100%, for 40 years that has been their driving philosophy.
So if you are copping to your own racism and the racism of your fellow travelers... well, good for you. But if you are so stupid that you think that anyone else is so stupid as to buy your idiotic projection in the face of words that explicitly say the opposite? What is even the point of showing up?
Democrats were racist first so that makes it ok? Is that a variation of The Trump Defense?
Do you really think that is a winning argument?
Or even an argument?
Even if I was a Trump supporter, that is a non-argument.
Your argument is that immigrants must be kicked out because they’ll all vote for Democrats if given a chance. When I point out the dehumanizing nature of that argument you respond with “Democrats have been saying it for decades” as if that makes it ok (The Trump Defense: “They did it first so whatever I did is ok!”).
He never made that argument dumbass. Such dishonesty.
You truly are retarded sarc. Notice how you can't honestly speak about democrats without trying to attack the right.
What is even the point of showing up?
To get you to do this. Waste your time, get in the way of actual discussion, and shit in the punchbowl along the way.
The people who collectivize immigrants, particularly the ones from the south, into a single bloc of people who all act and behave the exact same way, are a bunch of bigots who refuse to acknowledge and respect the dignity of each individual migrant. And both Democrats and Republicans do it. Democrats do it when they collectivize immigrants as all hopeless wretches who need the support of a loving caring state. And Republicans do it when they demonize immigrants as being a threat to the nation, a bunch of welfare moochers, a bunch of reflexive socialists, or whatever is the right-wing talking point of the day, to justify keeping them all out.
"Demographics is destiny" was not a right-wing take.
And, you know, we did see the UK where Labour ADMITTED to importing illegals in to replace the voters they did not much like.
So, what would have happened if we followed the law?
Well, we have a couple of examples to guide us. A couple of states decided to strictly enforce employment laws. They very quickly found out that certain industries rely heavily on illegal workers and cannot function without them. They changed course as a result.
What does that mean? That means that if we had just stayed the course and enforced existing laws, quotas for *legal* immigration would have to have been adjusted. (or a guest worker program created).
But nobody wanted that. So we just didn't enforce the law, and everyone got what they wanted... loads of illegal immigration, loads of exploitable workers, loads of political favors to be handed out, loads of power for bureaucrats who either turn a blind eye or don't (and maybe get compensated for that).....
We could fix this today. In less than a year, actual enforcement at a national level would create the political will needed to change the quotas. Immigration would cease to be forced into illegal swarms of exploitable workers. There would be no more market for coyotes.... or NGO advocates paid on the DL to keep the status quo while fighting for "immigration rights" for illegal aliens.
It would 100% work, but only if they enforce the law as written and then respond by adjusting quotas as needed. It doesn't sound all that hard. But for some reason, everyone on both sides of the aisle (and at libertarian think tanks) prefers millions of illegal immigrants working illegally and periodic mass amnesties.
What does that mean? That means that if we had just stayed the course and enforced existing laws, quotas for *legal* immigration would have to have been adjusted. (or a guest worker program created).
Even if we accept your version of events, it is not a given that strictly enforcing immigration laws would have necessarily led to increasing quotas for legal immigration. It is just as likely that, say, that those same companies who rely on foreign labor would have gone to the government, hat in hand, asking for subsidies for hiring domestic labor. And a quasi-fascist Team Blue government or a Trumpist-nationalist Team Red government would have happily given them the subsidies. OR, those same companies would have simply moved offshore, which a lot of them did. OR, those same companies would have automated away the need for all that labor, to the extent that they could.
Your view is naive, and misses the fundamental *moral* argument for immigration reform: most of the current immigration laws that we currently have represent an infringement of all of our liberty.
We in fact do know what actually happened.
What happened is precisely what happened in Alabama. They started enforcing the law, labor dried up... and then they stopped enforcing the law. Almost immediately.
But only in places that were not served by unions or high skilled, high pay jobs.
So no illegals working at the Ford plant. No illegals working in Silicon Valley. But tons of illegals picking vegetables, butchering chickens, and later putting up drywall, laying roofing tiles, cooking in restaurants.
Not operating fork lifts in Teamster ports. Not running high tension power lines. Not doing the accounting.
But cutting grass. Somehow enforcement never managed to reach certain areas of the economy.
It took less than a year for this to shake out. I was there. We all watched it happen. For a short while there were raids on jobsites in certain parts of the country.... but that went away. A detant was quickly reached. You may have these jobs and live here.... but you can't work in those jobs.
BTW, the exact same arguments were made at the time. "you can't do that... we won't be able to have an agriculture industry!" So they just declined to enforce the law, lest the food rot in the fields.
For some reason, the serious answer was never seriously considered. They could easily have increased legal quotas, or create work visas. But democrats didn't want that any more than republicans did. Still don't.
Somehow enforcement never managed to reach certain areas of the economy.
Kinda like the War on Drugs.
No matter how many DEA agents the government hired, somehow, the stoners selling dime bags out of broken down vans somehow were always able to outsmart them.
Maybe, like the War on Drugs, the War on Labor is FUTILE and it's time for a different approach.
That is just stupid. Intentionally stupid.
Everyone knows where the Tyson Foods chicken processing plant is. Government inspectors visit regularly.
It is absolutely nothing like sneaking a dime bag into middle school to sell.
They could enforce it. Easily. They have done so in the past. It highlighted exactly the problems anyone who pauses to think about it for even a minute expected it would highlight.
In fact, they recently *did* exactly that in Alabama on a state level. And quickly realized that it won't work at such a scale - since they have no control over immigration quotas to obtain the workers legally.
Nobody is this dumb. Stop with the counterproductive thought process of "let me find something to post in opposition". You aren't smart enough to do it well, and it is never a good intellectual exercise anyway.
They could enforce it. Easily.
You said it yourself: they enforced the law against the chicken processing plants, but they didn't enforce the law against the guys cutting grass. You seem to think that it's because they didn't WANT to. But instead, I submit it's because they CAN'T. For the same reason that the DEA could not possibly arrest every single stoner selling dime bags, ICE cannot possibly arrest every single Mexican with a lawnmower. There are simply too many of them, law enforcement does not have the resources, and the resources needed to create THAT level of enforcement would create a police state that absolutely no one would want.
Not even the biggest Trump supporter is going to tolerate for very long having to show proof of citizenship to walk into any store to buy anything, for fear that you might be a Mexican buying a lawnmower to run an illegal lawnmowing service. Not to mention, it violates the Fourth Amendment.
Yes the government can enforce the law against the big 'easy' targets like big factories. They cannot possibly shut down every entrepreneur running an illegal lawnmowing service. And as libertarians WE DON'T WANT THE STATE HAVING THAT LEVEL OF POWER.
Lol. Just stop, Jeff. You’re getting destroyed. All caps will not save you.
And no, the moral component is what you completely ignore. I have probably written this screed 50 times over the last 20 years here on HnR. Our current system is the MOST immoral version. It intentionally creates an underclass.
And no, that isn't because of racist republicans. It is probably 70-30 the fault of democrats. They have never offered a solution that didn't involve maintaining the status quo of illegal status for millions. Meanwhile, Bush actually put forward a proposal that would 100% have ended all illegal immigration and illegal worker status by creating a guest worker program (like many countries in Europe and elsewhere have). People can come here for work, but it is not a path to permanent residence or citizenship. He had a lot of democrat support... but when the actual bill hit the congress, the democrat leadership whipped them all in line and they opposed it on party lines, killing it.
That was the Arafat peace deal moment. Democrats had everything they publicly asked for - except for millions of new minority voters - and they fought tooth and nail against it. Just like Arafat did when Israel offered him everything he asked for - except control of Jerusalem.
The problem with a guest worker program is the 'guest' part. Guests don't stay forever, and if they do we call them something else. So at some point the guest worker has to go home for a period, and that's when we're treated to paroxysms and fainting spells about unfair everything is, so why can't they just stay forever and be treated to free healthcare forever and ever, amen, offered by a party that singularly believes that their single-payer healthcare plan should be extended globally at taxpayer expense.
Which is the problem that the Dems have with it. They don't want to solve the underclass problem, they want to import a pile of voters.
Our current system is the MOST immoral version.
Oh no, there are versions that are more immoral. North Korea's version comes to mind. But the US's is pretty bad.
Meanwhile, Bush actually put forward a proposal that would 100% have ended all illegal immigration and illegal worker status by creating a guest worker program (like many countries in Europe and elsewhere have). People can come here for work, but it is not a path to permanent residence or citizenship. He had a lot of democrat support… but when the actual bill hit the congress, the democrat leadership whipped them all in line and they opposed it on party lines, killing it.
I think your memory is clouded on the matter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070705193655/http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002527366.html
And it was right-wing talk radio which was the big factor that sank the bill, not Democrat leadership whipping votes.
https://www.politico.com/story/2007/08/talk-radio-helped-sink-immigration-reform-005449
Will they do Canada next?
https://reason.com/2023/06/28/canada-is-poaching-americas-high-skilled-foreign-workers/
Canada Is Poaching America's High-Skilled Foreign Workers
It’s an entirely predictable consequence of an inhospitable immigration system. (USA's stupid fault. Our loss; Canada's gain.)
The cato institute stopped being libritarian/free market during covid
I don't think they lasted even that long. Cato has been statist bullshit for a long while. Just another lefty irg wearing a skin suit.
Many critics of illegal immigration argue that foreigners should get in line if they want to move to the United States. It shouldn't be so hard or time-consuming, they argue, for a law-abiding foreigner simply to wait his turn to get a green card.
Yep, that's the total sum of the argument. That's it. Get in line! Now, let me go back to polishing my monocle.
Did you have anything of substance to add?
Google 'Ceasar Chavez immigration border patrol'.
You will be treated to a shit-ton of throat-clearing articles from the media using watch-words like "complicated" and "unfortunate" and "nuanced".
Well, if union organizer, Cesar Chavez, took a restrictionist, anti-competitive position we libertarians should definitely dump our belief in freedom to work, and line up behind him.
I wonder if Cato will do a Canadian edition of this game? Or a Japanese one? Then we can talk about immigration challenges. The USA, despite its somewhat byzantine behavior and numerous paths has, well, numerous paths. More than many countries offer.
People seem to forget one thing: We live in a world with borders and international movement controls. Not the one Reason believes should exist. The real one. One where every single country in the world has the sovereign ability to control who comes into its borders by any rules it chooses to devise. From none at all (i.e. North Korea) to open borders (EU) and anything in-between.
Immigration was never meant to be a fair process. By design. It is deliberately unfair to serve national interest. Whatever interest that may be. Treating the USA like it is some kind of monstrous outlier that won't let a Bangladeshi chicken farmer have a shot at the American Dream as some form of cosmic injustice fails to even examine the basis for immigration laws. When we live under a one-world government with no countries, then we can talk about free movement.
Until then, we have this world. I think the Cato Institute is trying to push a narrative for some kind of immigration change or conversation that will flop like a lead balloon. No disputing there is luck and circumstance involved. I lived it. That's just called "life".
Oh, boy. We are selling “national interest” now?
The words, “national interest”, should make any libertarian cringe.
Well, that’s reality. No matter how much a libertarian may desire otherwise. I’m not going to put a bag over my head and pretend otherwise.
Big-L Libertarianism of free movement can’t exist in the world we have today. Doesn’t matter if the words “national interest” will make them cringe. Better the cringe than the fantasy being sold here.
I say that as a small-L libertarian who had to go through that whole “national interest” thing to immigrate. There’s idealism and then there’s pragmatism. Idealism didn’t get me into the United States.
Ah yes. The "I went through it so it's not fair if others don't" argument. The same argument leftists make when they get angry at people who want to lower taxes. "I paid my fair share so it's not fair if they get their taxes cut."
Another way to put it: two wrongs make a right.
It’s odd you went with Canada as an example, since they are known to be favorable toward immigration and to have a fairly rational immigration system:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-canadas-immigration-policy
Actually, I went with it very deliberately as that is where I am from originally. Canadian immigration sounds awesome to a lot of would-be immigrants on the surface. Objective process, no mish-mash of different approaches, no strong emphasis on family, no DV Lottery, no national quotas.
Right up until you try it. Then you find out something about it. One is 70% of those who apply will be rejected. Constantly. Canada makes no bones about the fact they want young, skilled workers to fill their tax coffers.
Then they construct a system of points-based immigration to achieve their own quota targets and let the would-be immigrants themselves compete against each other, Survivor-style, to figure out where Canada will draw the line through that top-third on every draw. If you are one point off from the draw, no begging an IRCC officer. No subjective reasoning. You are in or you are out. Too many immigrants in a given job code? Remove the job code or reduce its weighting. Oh, and plenty of ageism to boot. Over 45 years old? Forget it. You’re not getting in even with Canadian education and work experience. As a natural-born Canadian with every one of those advantages on paper I wouldn’t qualify to immigrate there now!
This is that whole “national interest” thing you cringe about above. Funny, you say that then try to hold up Canada as a rational model!
Those from oversubscribed countries love Canadian immigration as an ideal. Then they try it and find out it is much harsher overall than US immigration. It works for Canada but applied here in the USA, it would slam even more doors shut. If there was one part of Canadian immigration I wish they would adopt in the USA, which would go a long, long way towards solving the problem through market forces, is fining employers who employ those present illegally. No fake SIN numbers in Canada and they do check them. You get caught paying someone under the table or illegally up there and you get fined massively. Not slap-on-the-wrist, massive fines up to and including percentage of earnings. Personal jail time if the violations are known and egregious. The Canadian government does not screw around with this.
Do not confuse "rational" with "fair" or "open". Canada is neither of those things. Downright draconian in immigration policy, actually.
As usual, Liarson shows how little he knows about anything. He asked Siri "How great is Canada's immigration policy?" and posted the first link he could find, without even reading it.
https://reason.com/2023/06/28/canada-is-poaching-americas-high-skilled-foreign-workers/
Canada Is Poaching America's High-Skilled Foreign Workers
It’s an entirely predictable consequence of an inhospitable immigration system. (USA's stupid fault. Our loss = Canada's gain.)
Genuinely, thank you for sharing your insights on Canadian immigration.
Still, your argument is, “Other countries do it! Why should we do any better?!”
No, that wasn't his argument at all.
Instead of trying to spin your rhetorical loss into a "but actually" claim, maybe just nod, understand you were over your skis, and move on.
Study up, willya?!?!
https://reason.com/2023/06/28/canada-is-poaching-americas-high-skilled-foreign-workers/
Canada Is Poaching America's High-Skilled Foreign Workers
It’s an entirely predictable consequence of an inhospitable immigration system. (USA's stupid fault. Our loss and Canada's gain!)
That has to be one of the best tautological fallacies I've seen in a while.
I live in a world full of jungle beasts, so it is totally OK that I should behave just like another jungle beast!
THIS, at the root, is one of the BIGGEST (and most harmful) tautological fallacies that we all have to deal with!
Why does you car have four wheels instead of three? Because through trial and error and operation, we have all determined that four wheels are better than three.
Tautological fallacy!
Anyone notice the most staunch open border activists here (jeff sarc and Mike) live in low illegal immigration areas and are the most anti shipping of illegals to those areas?
I've noticed that lots of times, not just here. But I have also noticed it here.
I’ve noticed your Nazism here and there, and everywhere, Nazi-I-am! But I would not bless your twisted logic, twisted morality, or twisted flag ANYWHERE, Nazi-I-am!
Fiona has the mind of a child.
Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!
So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…
Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:
Hi Fantastically Talented Author:
Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.
At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
Thank You! -Reason Staff
What does "...answers the asks correctly" even mean? Maybe Fiona couldn't win at the game because she doesn't understand basic English.
Oh and speaking English used to be standard for immigrants, e.g. expected to learn English. My Great-grandmother was born Sossan Andersdottir, but registered for Kindergarten as Susan Ericson because her dad was Anders Ericson.
Whatever. It's not hard enough.
Hard countries to immigrate to: North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and even Australia. The US is not one of them.
The real reason the US is hard to LEGALLY immigrate to is that we favor illegal immigrants over legal immigrants. Strict immigration laws like Australia’s ensure newcomers have means to stay in the country without government subsidies until they can find a job in their NEEDED skill and support themselves. It makes sense, you want good productive people to immigrate.
It should infuriate every Libertarian that elected officials from the legacy parties and their bureaucrat hangers-on get to set random arbitrary quotas and make life-or-death decisions. I say, if you want to come to the USA, then come on in. The more the merrier!
The only nice thing I can say about the Reason comment section is that Reason is the only place that has an “anything goes” policy.
The bad thing is that the comments section is a cesspool of xenophobic Trumpers needing an outlet.
Friend of mie went to Brasil for an ext4ended stretch of mission work. Met a man there, they married, legitimately. He came back with her to visit her folks etc. Once here they applied for his visa as married to American citizen. After three years of stupid stuff, trying to find sponsors they would approve, etc, and having kicked him back home to Brasil upn expiry of his tourist visa despite being legitmately married to am American citizen, they deported him. Sjhe and family tried for two years go get them to allow him to come back as a resident, married to American citizen.
She finally gave u and moved to Brasil. What is fair rightm just, in this case? The fact that Brasil had no issue with allowing her to immigrate so she and her hiusband could live together as the man and wife they are. They just had to do it in Brasil. Cux Unka Stoopid refused to allow my friend's HUSBAND tto live here with him.
Yet they allow millions of all sorts of scallawags, misfits, ne'er[do[wells to come in by the millions. No restrictions.
Would you agree with: making it easier to immigrate to the USA, while punishing those who just arrive illegally?
This is a *Libertarian* publication, dear. "Legally" and "Illegally" are bogus concepts created by the legacy party politicians and their bureaucrat hangers-on.
It's also really difficult for the average person to move into Beverly Hills! Sometimes it takes many years. Sometimes they never make it at all. You wouldn't believe how difficult it is.
Should the government simply open the land and allow everyone to move into Beverly Hills for free?
Did you know that in the early 20th century there was no passport requirement? People traveled freely. Then with World War I, passports were instituted. It was supposed to be a temporary measure.
So people traveled freely, but there was little in the way of government entitlements. But there were mutual aid societies of various ethnic and affinity groups. The entitlements are an "attractive nuisance."
In real life, you can't set your profile, pick your country of birth, and play as many times as it takes.
Maybe you aren't aware of what the term 'undocumented' means?