Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Immigration

J.D. Vance Says Immigrants Will 'Bankrupt' the Federal Government. The Opposite Is True.

Vance cast the tie-breaking vote for a bill that will add $4 trillion to the debt. Meanwhile, immigrants are helping to keep the federal government's fiscal house of cards propped up.

Eric Boehm | 7.2.2025 10:15 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
J.D. Vance speaks into a microphone | Michael Brochstein/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(Michael Brochstein/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

Hours before he cast the tie-breaking vote on a major tax and spending bill in the Senate, Vice President J.D. Vance attempted to reframe the debate over the legislation.

Instead of thinking about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) as a matter of fiscal policy that's primarily aimed at extending the 2017 personal income tax cuts, Vance said lawmakers should see it as a crucial piece of the Trump administration's ongoing immigration enforcement efforts.

The fiscal policy debate—including big details like how much the bill adds to the deficit and how Republicans are trying to hide those consequences—is "immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions," Vance wrote on X. "The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits. The OBBB fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."

Vance's claim is factually wrong—more on that in just a moment—but it is also telling.

The debate over the OBBBA has revealed (once again) that the uniting principle in Republican politics is not fiscal responsibility. The bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, with Vance as the tie-breaking vote, will add nearly $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. It is not, under any circumstances, a fiscally responsible piece of legislation.

Instead, the fulcrum for conservative politics is—and for quite some time has been, even before Vance and President Donald Trump rose to prominence—immigration. If you want to keep the GOP coalition together for a tough vote, it makes more sense to pitch the bill as an immigration measure.

Vance understands this. He also understands that the facts don't really matter when conservatives are talking about immigration within their own tribe.

Indeed, he's completely wrong about "the thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy."

It's not immigrants who are doing that. It's Congress.

It is Congress that has approved omnibus bill after cromnibus bill for the past two decades, without regard for deficits, borrowing, and the huge pile of national debt that has resulted from them. It is Congress that has repeatedly kicked the can down on the road when it comes to America's old-age entitlement programs, which are the fastest-growing part of the budget and are facing a reckoning. And it is Congress that is passing this new tax and spending bill that will continue the cycle of reckless borrowing to fund political priorities instead of giving Americans as much government as they are willing to pay for.

Immigrants, on the other hand, are helping to keep this whole fiscal house of cards propped up.

Higher levels of immigration boost America's economy and help reduce long-term budget deficits. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office reported that "higher net immigration" would help create $7 trillion in greater economic output over the next decade, resulting in tax revenues that "will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise."

As I wrote at the time, this isn't exactly rocket science. More workers equals more economic output and more growth, which in turn leads to more tax revenue to help offset some of the federal government's seemingly insatiable appetite for spending. That's in line with what other studies have found too. More legal immigration grows the economy, helps fund government programs, and doesn't strain entitlement or welfare programs.

When it comes to Social Security, in particular, illegal immigrants contribute but do not benefit from the program. "In 2022, people without a documented status paid an estimated $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes," reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration is costly in more ways than one. The government is spending more on immigration enforcement—including the $168 billion in new spending in the bill the Senate just passed, which Vance apparently sees as the most important component of the package. And booting immigrants, even illegal ones, out of the country will have other fiscal consequences. Social Security could go insolvent even more quickly, for example.

If you want to be serious about fiscal responsibility, kicking immigrants out of the country is not the way to do it. Instead, lawmakers should be focused on providing more legal pathways for immigrants to come to America, earn a living, and pay taxes to support the federal government's wobbly finances.

Vance's false claims about immigration and the budget deficit might work as a matter of practical politics, but they really only demonstrate how fundamentally unserious Republicans have become about fiscal responsibility and the consequences of their own immigration crackdown.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Republican Holdouts

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

ImmigrationJ.D. VanceSenateFiscal policyTrump AdministrationTaxes
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (192)

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.

  1. Zeb   2 months ago

    The federal government is quite capable of bankrupting itself with or without immigrants. I'm certainly opposed to subsidies for immigrants, and favor rules against that. But I don't think it's what's going to put things over the edge.

    1. Rick James   2 months ago

      The question isn't even about "subsidies for immigrants", it's about "subsidies for illegal immigrants".

      1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

        You guys always say to look at what Trump does, not what he says. What he says is that he's only going after illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes. What he is doing is creating illegal immigrants by revoking visas and parole of legal immigrants, as well as adding further restrictions to legal immigration.

        So this is not about harmful illegal immigrants. It's about immigration as a whole.

        1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

          Fuck off Drunky. We know you want open borders at all costs. So you come here and start raving.

          1. NM Dave   2 months ago

            And we all know that you want to deport anyone who isn't white. This defines the chasm between you and decent people.

        2. VULGAR MADMAN   2 months ago

          Our lawncare based economy can’t be stopped!

        3. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

          Cite?

        4. DesigNate   2 months ago

          I don’t think we necessarily need to make it harder to legally immigrate here.

          Those people on “parole” weren’t all legal though, but even if they were, my understanding of that system is basically that their allowance to be brought into/stay in the country is at the whim of the government. Which, as we all know, is fickle at best. (It could be argued that the Biden Admin should have never paroled them to begin with, but that is a different conversation.)

      2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        Yes, this is a common democrat lie, and one Boehm and the open borders gang here employ frequently.

      3. Zeb   2 months ago

        Right. Which makes it an even smaller part of the budget than if we consider immigrants in general.
        In case it's not clear, I'm not saying this as an argument that no one should care about illegal immigration.

      4. mad.casual   2 months ago

        Even at that, the idea of fixing your gambling problem by taking in more boarders and homeless isn't really a good idea and just guarantees you'll screw over more people than locking yourself in your home or apartment until you've got your gambling problem sorted out.

        And that assumes a pretty favorable view of the 'gambling problem' and the process of 'taking in boarders and homeless', that it's not really more of a compulsive-lying-and-kleptomania problem in a brackish sea of rent-seekers and grifters.

      5. Widhalm19   2 months ago

        Amen!

  2. Ajsloss   2 months ago

    Wrong again, J.D.!

    1. Dillinger   2 months ago

      JDVIW!

  3. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

    Not surprised you conflate illegal and legal immigration to make your point.

    1. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

      And only looks to the benefits while ignoring the costs at every level of society.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        That's a big one. If I produce $1M in economic output but cost $2M in expenses, I am not a net benefit.

        1. SQRLSY   2 months ago

          Learn to READ, tribalistic, hyper-partisan moron!

          When it comes to Social Security, in particular, illegal immigrants contribute but do not benefit from the program. "In 2022, people without a documented status paid an estimated $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes," reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

          1. freedomwriter   2 months ago

            Need to know what their total tax contribution is. House Committe on the Budget estimated 117 billion in costs for illegals in 2024.

        2. mad.casual   2 months ago

          And one layer deeper, flagrantly assumes the economic playing field to be level (in several dimensions of native vs. migrant, blue collar vs. white collar, low income vs. high income, etc.) and to start from 0.

          It's long and well been understood that "living wages", open borders, and equality are a "pick 2" issue at best. Reason, by advocating one while specifically avoiding the others pretty openly displays their, at best, complete lack of seriousness of about all of them one way or the other. Minimum wage advocates will advocate that minimum wage should be $50/hr. idiotically unaware of the arbitrary and futile nature of that position. Reason, fully aware of the $50/hr. advocates and minimum wage laws, advocates that everyone should be able to come here and effectively earn it without qualification or proviso and pretends it will all be fine because of democracy or economics.

      2. Moderation4ever   2 months ago

        No Boehm is looking at the fact that the benefits out weigh the costs.

        1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, and a host of others would like to voice their disagreement. But they can't...

    2. operagost   2 months ago

      Indeed. The article is intellectually dishonest. It changes the focus from illegal immigrants to "immigrants" AND ignores the bottomless welfare state that is bad enough when used for citizens who pay taxes, but disastrous when used for those who do not.

      1. SQRLSY   2 months ago

        PLEASE learn to READ, tribalistic, hyper-partisan moron!

        "When it comes to Social Security, in particular, illegal immigrants contribute but do not benefit from the program. "In 2022, people without a documented status paid an estimated $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes," reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities."

        YOU are PervFectly intellectually dishonest!

        1. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

          That study is DisFLUTed...

      2. Marshal   2 months ago

        Boehm did the same thing with Vance's quote which is "bankrupting the country" but his response which is the "federal government". Boehm does this because the system stressers by illegal immigration are schools and healthcare which are state and local expenses.

        It's MSNBC level misdirection.

        1. freedomwriter   2 months ago

          IF they're paying taxes how are they an expense?!?

          1. mad.casual   2 months ago

            Seriously, this is a sub-80-IQ, "You fail HS Home Economics" question. There are relatively dim-witted immigrants who don't speak English that would be insulted by you asking this question in their defense. The overwhelming majority of people opposed to open/illegal immigration would gladly trade you in exchange for someone who didn't intentionally shit all over the discussion the way you do. There are people on both sides of the issue who would welcome a flock of noisy, shitty sea gulls into the discussion over you. It's a shame AI is only able to convince lonely cosplayers to remove themselves from any/all discussions rather than people like you.

          2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

            Do they receive more benefits than their taxes would pay for? If so, then they are net negative.

  4. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

    Holy crap. What’s happened to this rag?

    1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

      Charles Koch.

      1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        Cato took the same turn after soros started bluffing them up in 2015.

        1. Dillinger   2 months ago

          ^^^ that creepy little Alex Soros runs this place now. we feed the trolls because the trolls are the authors.

          1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

            Maybe Israel could do us a favor after finished off the Iranian nuclear program for them and send Mossad in to eliminate the Soros family. Then their assets could be seized and the treasonous organizations they fund can be shut down.

            1. Dillinger   2 months ago

              I'm forever hopeful Alex will take his own path ... if Huma is any fun naked he may soften on the Lex Luthor ideas

              1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

                I’m sure she knows a few tricks. She was married to Anthony Weiner.

  5. Rick James   2 months ago

    J.D. Vance Says Immigrants Will 'Bankrupt' the Federal Government. The Opposite Is True.

    Vance cast the tie-breaking vote for a bill that will add $4 trillion to the debt. Meanwhile, immigrants are helping to keep the federal government's fiscal house of cards propped up.

    Wow, you could have not lied in the headline and the first sentence, but you couldn't help yourself could you.

    1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

      It's not a lie. It's factually correct. However the facts contradict the Trumpian narrative and that makes them leftist. Because the facts are facts, the correct thing to do is to attack the messenger by calling them a hypocrite, a leftist, a Democrat, and a bunch of other names. This way you discredit the source, which is the equivalent of discrediting the facts to Trumpians who, like the leftists they hate, judge information by the source, not merit.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

        You have a citation with links, Sarc, to actual evidence and not Democrat propaganda?

        1. freedomwriter   2 months ago

          Do you live under a rock?

      2. Rick James   2 months ago

        It is not factually correct, it is a lie, by Boehm's admission in what...*looks at article* the third paragraph?

        1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

          There's a difference between something causing you to have an emotional reaction, and something being factually incorrect. In this case it's the former, not the latter.

          1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

            They are a cost. That is a fact. One you refuse to admit.

          2. Rick James   2 months ago

            Boehm is the one having an emotional reaction by writing a panic headline claiming Vance said something he never fucking said. But unfortunately, Reason has a history of this.

            1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

              Boehm is the one having an emotional reaction by writing a panic headline claiming Vance said something he never fucking said.

              You're getting emotional.

              "The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits. The OBBB fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."

              Looks to me like he's saying that immigrants are going to bankrupt the country unless this massive, deficit increasing, spending bill is passed. Like literally.

              1. Rick James   2 months ago

                Man your reading comprehension is shit.

                1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

                  Sarc blew all his reading comprehension on bottles of Colt 45 malt liquor.

                2. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  Speak for yourself.

                  1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

                    Thanks, Peewee Herman.

                  2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

                    Based on your unwarranted, and unneeded comment history, we can speak for you too. You’re a retarded drunk.

                    Just ratchet up your drinking and kill yourself.

                    1. freedomwriter   2 months ago

                      Relax snowflake

              2. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

                I sincerely doubt Rick James is getting emotional here or appealing to emotion. That’s something you do, dingbat.

                Again, got any actual evidence for your assertions? Or are you just being an ass, as usual?

              3. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

                flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits

                Looks to me like he is saying the bill fixes this problem.

              4. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

                Not making the tax cuts permanent will bankrupt the country. All this other garbage spewed is garbage and not factual.

                Economists who review the whole picture are saying this bill will bring a 750 billion dollar surplus.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                  Where does this $750 billion figure come from?

                  1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

                    Fiscal analysis. Not Marxist open borders propaganda.

              5. operagost   2 months ago

                I mean, it literally says "ILLEGAL immigration" (emphasis mine) in there, and you skip over it like we're a bunch of rubes. What is wrong with you?

          3. Rick James   2 months ago

            Higher levels of immigration boost America's economy and help reduce long-term budget deficits. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office reported that "higher net immigration" would help create $7 trillion in greater economic output over the next decade, resulting in tax revenues that "will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise."

            As I wrote at the time, this isn't exactly rocket science. More workers equals more economic output and more growth, which in turn leads to more tax revenue to help offset some of the federal government's seemingly insatiable appetite for spending. That's in line with what other studies have found too. More legal immigration grows the economy, helps fund government programs, and doesn't strain entitlement or welfare programs.

            And so not only does Boehm lie, he continues to double, triple and quadruple down on his lie by pushing the conflation cart further down the road.

            If you were say, a physician and you advised, "When you're already cold, drinking ice water increases the risks of hypothermia" and then I turned around and said, "Sarcasmic is a total tard, he thinks drinking water causes hypothermia" you would be well within reason to accuse me of lying.

            For the record, I strongly doubt that even illegal immigration will brankrupt the federal government any time soon. But Boehm has not only lied, but lied mendaciously when he repeats studies which are based on legal immigration.

            The State of California admitted that it spent over $9 billion on healthcare just for illegal immigrants alone. And as of 2024, Illegal Immigrants are eligible for MEDI-Cal... which is receives federal funding.

            As Milton Friedman said, open borders are a disaster when you have a vast welfare state. Reason would do well to listen to Friedman.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

              Don’t fret too much, Sarc has already put his fingers in his ears and is saying “la la la, I can’t hear you”.

            2. sarcasmic   2 months ago

              Nothing he said is incorrect. You are starting out with a bunch of false premises, so you're reaching false conclusions. The chief of which is the fallacy of composition, which is where someone attributes aspects of a part to the whole. For example some immigrants use welfare, therefore all immigrants use welfare. Some immigrants are criminals, therefore all immigrants are criminals. Some immigrants don't work, therefore all immigrants don't work. Any argument based upon false premises and fallacies is fallacious.

              1. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

                $9 Billion for healthcare in California is hardly 'some'. Spend some time living in a border state. And no one is stupidly saying some means all except you. What we are saying, and have been saying all along is 'some' (quite a lot it seems) are taking advantage of a flawed system. The net, for that, is loss. Big loss. To pretend that is not happening is ridiculous.

                Look no further than your own back yard where the influx of just a small portion of border state illegals killed your ME budget.

                Your premise of some means all is the false premise here.

                1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  Higher levels of immigration boost America's economy and help reduce long-term budget deficits.

                  What that means is that in the short-term, yes immigration costs. But in the long-term immigration boosts the economy. You're ignoring the long-term and pretending it doesn't exist.
                  The point of the article was that the costs of immigration are dwarfed by entitlements and other spending, which this OBBA does nothing about. It's like yelling about how the cost of buying a coffee on the way to way to work is making you go broke while you pay your mortgage with a credit card.

                  1. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

                    Except when illegals are taking jobs that Americans would be taking themselves and no extra jobs are created. Then there is no long term anything except for less jobs for Americans at proper wages paying proper taxes.

                    What is with people constantly trying to use hypotheticals as fact? It seems there's an attempted bleed over from the fake climate change fear mongering into every day life now.

                    1. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

                      Housing cost and availability too.

              2. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

                Here's a simpler example for you.

                One family moves to your little town in ME. They have 3, school-age children, two in lower grades, one in high school. No one speaks English. Your schools don't have an interpretation program.

                They arrive on foot. There is no public transportation in your little village.

                They have no housing either, and no sponsor. Your little village provides emergency housing.

                The father and mother work hard, maybe under the table, maybe with special working permits, and they pay some taxes. They don't make much and so their children are on the Breakfast and Lunch programs at the school too. Even though they get both meals one of the children never eats lunch. She throws it away.

                The father is hurt on the job. He goes to the emergency room, which also doesn't have an interpreter. He has no medical insurance.

                Is this likely a net gain or net loss for your little town?
                Now multiply by millions.

                1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  Statistically speaking, those three children are much more likely to start a business than native born children. Parents of immigrants tend to have higher standards than native born parents. So in the short term yes, that family is a cost. But in the long run that family will certainly contribute more to society and more in taxes than you or anyone else at your trailer park. Now multiply that by millions.

                  1. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

                    Johnny Carson did a far better job with his predictions.

                  2. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

                    Cite?

                  3. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

                    Yeah, i'd like to see that stat.
                    My trailer park. Clever.

                    1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

                      Those are Sarc’s “ideas!”.

            3. freedomwriter   2 months ago

              How much did they pay in taxes? NET cost is all that matters.

          4. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

            Yes Sarc, this is your drunken emotional reaction.

      3. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        Immigrants over all use resources from welfare and programs at a higher rate than citizens.

        Illegals cost us 100B a year.

        No actual data shows them as a profit despite your ignorance.

        1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

          And that’s just government spending. Not counting the secondary costs related to their wrongdoing. Like the rampant identity theft.

      4. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

        Poor sarcbot.

      5. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

        LOL 4 trillion is factually correct? Pfft according to someone using incomplete data to come to this false conclusion.

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

      Oh shut up. We aren't playing your team's game anymore. The real issue has ALWAYS been about immigration as a whole, not just specifically illegal immigration.

      Your pal Stephen Miller:

      https://x.com/StephenM/status/1937861469431079401

      NYC is the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration.

      Your pal Charlie Kirk:

      https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1937864307901157675

      The lesson from New York City is that BOTH illegal and legal immigration can ruin your country. It’s not just the open border, it’s also our suicidal mass LEGAL migration policies bringing in over 1 million people a year: green cards, chain migration, refugee resettlement, anchor babies, and asylum scams. This all needs to be ended.

      Your team skillfully used the issue of illegal immigration to shift the Overton window in your direction and to permit more people to question the wisdom of immigration generally. That was the entire point. Kicking out illegal immigrants is just one part of your team's broader agenda of reducing all immigration.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

        Your team has conflated legal and illegal immigration for decades now. You’ve no room to talk.

      2. Rick James   2 months ago

        Oh shut up. Your pal Milton Friedman.

        Admit you're wrong and Boehm lied. There's more dignity in it.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          Boehm didn't lie about your team's broader agenda. Why don't you just admit the truth of what I wrote above.

          1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

            I would give him the benefit of the doubt here. Trump is certainly against all immigration. He's creating illegals by revoking visas and parole status of otherwise law abiding legal immigrants. He's doing everything he can to restrict the number of legal immigrants who can enter the country. All the while he's spouting lies about only going after criminals who hurt people. I think his disciples who normally say "Look at what he does, not what he says!" are not taking their own advice. Instead they're hearing what they want to hear, and not seeing what they don't want to see.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              It's not even "benefit of the doubt". It's the plain truth, because the rest of us are not going to pretend anymore that the MAGA obsession with illegal immigration was anything but just one part of a broader push against all immigration. Boehm is simply stating out loud what has been plainly obvious for a while now. The MAGA defenders here are just upset that their pretense is being torn down.

              1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                My point is that MAGAs are so reflexively obtuse that when you point out how Trump's actions don't match the rhetoric that they parrot, instead of listening and looking at the facts in good faith, they get mad and call you names. In other words, it's just another Wednesday.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                  Oh of course. To them Trump is infallible and any criticism of him is automatically diagnosed as TDS or automatically defended with a whataboutism, no matter how justified the criticism. It's a cult.

                  1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                    Remember when Obama was president?

                    To them Trump Obama is was infallible and any criticism of him is was automatically diagnosed as TDS racism or automatically defended with a whataboutism.

                    Trump defenders are exactly like the leftists they hate.

                    1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

                      Can you two go get a room, please?

                    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

                      Or at least go behind the dumpster.

                    3. freedomwriter   2 months ago

                      They are worse. You will get banned from truth social in a finger snap. They make becoming legal impossible. ONE immigrants file seeking legal status is the size of a novel. A thick 500-800 page novel.

                    4. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

                      You two deserve each other.

                2. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

                  reflexively obtuse
                  sarcbot calling sarc a kettle...

              2. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

                Your hate keeps blinding you. You predict the worst and nefarious when reality is Trump and the GOP are trying to turn the corner for effective legal immigration and protect the borders.

                Cite the evidence Trump intends to completely eliminate immigration.

                Enough of the fear mongering fake doom predictions. They just make you look desperate.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                  I never said that Team MAGA wants to completely end immigration. I do think that they want much less of ALL types of immigration, both legal and illegal. And that the continued emphasis by Team MAGA on illegal immigration served a deeper purpose, as a gateway to permit more people to question all immigration more broadly. Which is what they really want.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAISE_Act

                  1. Marshal   2 months ago

                    I do think that they want much less of ALL types of immigration, both legal and illegal. And that the continued emphasis by Team MAGA on illegal immigration served a deeper purpose, as a gateway to permit more people to question all immigration more broadly. Which is what they really want.

                    It is true they want to question people more broadly, but it's wrong to say that means they want less legal immigration. They want our immigration process to keep out problem immigrants. The conflict comes because those problem immigrants (Anti-Americans, socialists, Anti-Semites, people completely without skills or resources) are exactly who the left desires to immigrate because they are natural political allies. So no matter what the law says the good leftists running things will always come up with whatever excuse they need to let them / keep them here. If your kids like chicken nuggets that's good enough.

                    So that has to change and that's why Jeffsarc is so furious. They can't win without those voters.

                2. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

                  Just an fyi: you’re trying to have an honest debate with a lying psychopath.

            2. Sir Chips Alot   2 months ago

              "Trump is certainly against all immigration."

              where do you low IQ far left brainwashed Democrat cultists come up with your fantasies?

        2. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

          Jeffy, take an L? He’s like the fucking Black Knight. You can cut off his arms and legs, and he’ll still never admit defeat.

      3. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        No Fatfuck, ILLEGALS ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS. You’re flailing again, and right out of the gate.

        It’s over for you. You lost big, and lose more every day.

        Seethe harder you fat, pedophilic bitch.

        1. Zeb   2 months ago

          Of course they are immigrants. An immigrant is just someone who came from outside the country. That's why they are called "illegal immigrants".

          1. Marshal   2 months ago

            That's wrong, they are illegal aliens. Since an immigrant is by definition a permanent resident someone with illegal status cannot be an immigrant since they will not be here permanently.

      4. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

        Hey Lying Jeffy, last night you equated illegally crossing the border with breathing, after equating deporting people to Marxism a couple weeks ago.

        Do you stand by those comments?

        1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

          Jacking off on somebody isn't rape. Men who demand to have little kids sit on their laps while dressed as women aren't predators. Bears in trunks. Pedojeffy is a bigger gaff machine than Biden.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

      And let's just be real clear here.

      Your team wants to kick out illegal immigrants not because they broke the law. Your team wants to kick out illegal immigrants because they are bad people, and their illegal behavior is *evidence* of their supposedly bad character. The distinction is crucial.

      That is why your team also fights tooth and nail against any kind of amnesty. Because amnesty means letting the bad people stay here, and we can't have that.

      That is why your team itself conflates legal and illegal immigration when it comes to people here legally as TPS refugees, or people legally pursuing asylum claims. Because no matter what legal forms they fill out, they are still bad people who don't belong here.

      That is why your team will never do anything to fix the legal immigration system - your team wants an unjust and broken system, because the more dysfunctional the system is, the greater the chance that the bad people will fail to make it through.

      That is why your team also excuses the clearly illegal behavior of the Jan. 6 rioters, even the ones who committed violent crimes, because in your team's perspective, they aren't bad people. Therefore they deserve the benefit of the doubt. The migrants, on the other hand, if they should get as much as even one parking ticket, then they should be shown the door.

      Your team's objection to BOTH legal and illegal immigration has always been about the perceived character and identity of the migrants. Not about their actions.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        do you get nosebleeds and migraines when you read everyone's thoughts like that?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          It's not mindreading. It's logical deduction from the totality of the evidence.

          If I am wrong, then please explain the following inconsistencies:

          Explain why the same people, who insist that they want to kick out illegal immigrants because "they broke the law", also want to kick out individuals who are here LEGALLY pursuing asylum claims.

          Explain why the same people, who insist that they have so much respect for the law and that is why they want to kick out illegal immigrants, spent months and months cheering and defending the very obvious illegal deportation of Garcia to the one place he was not legally permitted to be deported.

          Explain why, if the crusade against illegal immigration is really only about the migrants' ACTIONS to cross the border illegally, the crusaders routinely cite arguments in their favor that have nothing to do with that initial illegal act. Such as, "they vote for Democrats", "they sit around on welfare", etc. Why would any of that matter? Would their illegal immigration be any less illegal if they "voted for Republicans" or never took any welfare?

          I guess an alternative explanation is that they are all a bunch of giant stupid hypocrites. Does that make you feel better?

          1. Dillinger   2 months ago

            well yeah, they are all hypocrites but that's not important here

            >>the crusaders routinely cite arguments in their favor that have nothing to do with that initial illegal act. Such as, "they vote for Democrats", "they sit around on welfare"

            idk who the crusaders are ... Charlie Kirk & Steve Miller? can't be the masses ... the masses literally could drive the immigrants out but Americans don't act like that

            1. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

              When Lying Jeffy places everyone else on one “team” he’s projecting.

              He’s on the “Open borders uber alles” team and there’s no limit to his dishonesty to fight for his team.

          2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

            Nope. It's projection. Top to bottom, it's projection.

      2. damikesc   2 months ago

        "Your team wants to kick out illegal immigrants not because they broke the law. Your team wants to kick out illegal immigrants because they are bad people, and their illegal behavior is *evidence* of their supposedly bad character. The distinction is crucial."

        That strawman has been suitably defeated. Good job.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          Not a strawman. It's a truth that your team is only now openly acknowledging.

          1. damikesc   2 months ago

            Not humoring your idiocy is not acknowledging.

            You are terrible at reading comprehension.

      3. damikesc   2 months ago

        "That is why your team itself conflates legal and illegal immigration when it comes to people here legally as TPS refugees"

        What does the "T" stand for in TPS?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          Oh I know this one! T stands for Temporary!

          Now, according to the law, who gets to decide how long is "temporary"?

          Those Haitian immigrants in Springfield who were supposedly eating cats, if I go back and look at past comments from last year, will I find that you ever called them "illegals"? Hmm?

          1. damikesc   2 months ago

            You are free to do so. Knock yourself out.

            And the Sec of Homeland Security determines when the "T" runs out.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              Lots and lots of people, probably including you, DID call them "illegals" even though they were all here LEGALLY. Actually, a bunch of them were completely legal immigrants - not even TPS refugess - that moved there from Miami. But hey, your team is all about obeying legal technicalities, right?

              Here's JD Vance calling them "illegal":

              https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-checking-jd-vances-claims-haitian-migrants-springfield/story?id=113844705

              Discussing the pathways under which many Haitian migrants have been brought to the U.S or allowed to stay temporarily -- a humanitarian parole program known as CHNV and Temporary Protected Status -- Vance claimed Harris "used two programs to wave a wand and to say, we're not going to deport those people here."

              "Well, if Kamala Harris waves the wand illegally and says, these people are now here legally, I'm still going to call them an illegal alien," Vance said.

              Guess what, that "magic wand" is called the legal authority of the executive branch to grant TPS status. But he doesn't care. Because it is not about the legal technicality of their immigration status. It is, and always has been, about WHO THEY ARE. They're all just shithole people who practice voodoo and eat cats on the side! Right? Isn't that what we were all perpetually told?

              No one is playing your games anymore.

              1. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

                Lying Jeffy says as he continues to play the game.

      4. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        So you have no real argument, so you make up false motives in a desperate, flailing attempt to shame us.

        It isn’t working, Fatfuck.

        Next you will try and deflect somehow. Making some false comparisons, or employing a ridiculous strawman. Since you have no argument other than you really, really want open borders.

      5. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

        They want to remove the criminals doing harm to Americans.

        They want to kick out the illegals who are essentially stealing from tax payers pockets because they are receiving benefits not available to citizens or legal residents. Free housing, free food, free health care, free education and free transportation. All of which is a drain on American tax payers, the economy and the job market.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          Do you want to know what is a much bigger drain? All of the welfare that CITIZENS get. And yet Trump has repeatedly promised not to touch the two biggest welfare programs in existence, Social Security and Medicare. Huh.

          It's almost as if the welfare that some illegal immigrants get isn't the REASON to kick them out, but rather it is the EVIDENCE of their supposedly flawed moral character which JUSTIFIES kicking them out. That is the key distinction here.

          That is why the same people who insist with a straight face that they want to kick out illegal immigrants "because welfare", will go to the mat to defend welfare in the form of Social Security and Medicare. Because THAT welfare goes to "deserving" people with "good character".

          1. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

            Why does your argument always devolve into how actual citizens of the country get welfare and that is somehow comparable to an illegal migrant family doing the same thing? In what universe is that reasoning sound?

            1. DesigNate   2 months ago

              Because he knows he’s wrong and can’t admit?

              1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

                Because he wants to import poverty.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              Why is welfare wrong?

              Is it wrong because the welfare money represents tax dollars stolen from taxpayers? If so, then this is true whether or not the recipient is a citizen or an immigrant.

              Is it wrong because welfare fosters dependency on government? If so, then this is true whether or not the recipient is a citizen or an immigrant.

              Is it wrong because welfare fuels the growth of government generally? If so, then this is true whether or not the recipient is a citizen or an immigrant.

              You know the reason why welfare might be wrong that DOES depend on whether the recipient is a citizen or an immigrant? If one believes that welfare is only wrong if it goes to the "wrong people". But welfare going to the "right people" is, at a minimum, tolerable.

              That's why.

              1. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

                No. It's wrong because the argument isn't about welfare, it's about citizenship.

                An illegal immigrant has no right to the welfare, period. You can hate on welfare all you want, but it is part of our system and our citizens have a right to avail themselves of that welfare. An illegal immigrant should not have welfare at all, so everything above 0% is a negative.

                Lastly, there are more citizens in the US than illegal immigrants, so if the citizens are taking from the system there will be more of them doing it than illegals.

                It's a tired argument from you and a lazy way to try to conflate citizen's rights with illegal immigrant's rights.

              2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

                And it's why I've been consistent: end the welfare state and then I'll be far more supportive of a more open immigration process.

                I'll also accept draconian enforcement of laws that prevent illegal aliens from ever accessing one dime of public welfare state, including emergency room visits and public school for their illegal alien children along with draconian enforcement of employment laws. And draconian proof-of-citizenship for voting. Obviously said laws would also be aimed at making sure that ONLY eligible people access them (that is to say, that illegals accessing programs is just one type of welfare fraud, and illegals using identity theft to get jobs is just one type of identity theft).

                Of course, none of the illegal aliens in Jeff's vision would be harmed by draconian enforcement, because they would NEVER even attempt to do such things.

          2. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

            A migrant goes through the motions and pays the fees and then is provided legal entry into the country, legally. They can't obtain welfare or support by the state, they were sponsored by a citizen who declared they would support said migrant.

            The illegal immigrant does not go through the motions, does not pay the fees and simply steps into America most likely knowing they do not qualify for asylum (over 80% are denied) is given food housing medical education and transportation that not even citizens are entitled too and gives nothing, pays nothing.

            You do see the difference? You do see the problem? You do see why illegal immigrants given the treatment that the DNC and Biden provided essentially eliminates the benefits of legally applying or of being a citizen?

            1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

              "They can't obtain welfare or support by the state"

              Not SUPPOSED to obtain welfare or support by the state.

      6. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

        “And let's just be real clear here.”

        When Lying Jeffy starts a post with this, you can bet the rest of the post is going to be a bunch of made up bullshit.

        1. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

          Should have scrolled a bit further before posting the same thought. haha

        2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          Trying to be like Obama who said the same thing before he pissed on people and told them it was raining.

      7. Outlaw Josey Wales   2 months ago

        And let's just be real clear here

        Boy, could you have a more elitist phrase to start your oh so predictable diatribe.

        translation please, let me tell you what you believe and how that is just wrong, and I know, because!

      8. DesigNate   2 months ago

        You’ve literally conflated the two for as long as you’ve been posting here.

      9. Marshal   2 months ago

        That is why your team will never do anything to fix the legal immigration system - your team wants an unjust and broken system, because the more dysfunctional the system is, the greater the chance that the bad people will fail to make it through.

        Interesting. There's a tactic called DARVO in psychological manipulation. The important aspect is RVO = Reverse Victim and Offender. In reality our immigration program was developed and completely controlled by the far left for decades until the left few months. They desired a screwed up system because it allowed them to make whatever exceptions they wanted in a completely opaque environment.

        But now that their system is no longer working for the far left he blames its failure on those who had no input in its development or evolution. But he hates them and as we've seen Jeffsarc assigns blame based solely on their political Team.

  6. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

    More workers equals more tax revenue only applies if, first, all the immigrants are workers, and the supply of workers is not meeting the demand for them. If not, a supply that outstrips demand only serves to drive wages down. Are we at full employment?

    And, seriously, illegal immigration is a net benefit because immigrants pay in but do not receive benefits? That is dubious factually and ethically. It is essentially saying that black or grey market jobs are a greater boon to the economy than legitimate work. That seems to be bad situation for workers who are born American.

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      Under Biden nearly all new jobs went to non citizens while citizens on social programs increases. Reason refuses to recognize this.

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        Koch won’t let ‘em! And screeching gargoyles like Fiona likely ensure obedience to the open borders narrative.

      2. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

        *all new non-government jobs

    2. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

      Slavery was almost pure profit!

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

        Part of the reason the South was so poor for so long was that free labor just wasn’t valued and could not compete with the slave labor. Hence, industries that developed in the South tended to be smaller than their northern counterparts. We see much the same today with the urban elites playing the role of the plantation owners.

        1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

          Slavery was never particularly efficient.

    3. Nobartium   2 months ago

      It's even worse than that. The entire concept of civilization itself is that crime (or wrongdoing) must not pay more than being civilized.

  7. Winston in Wonderland   2 months ago

    They are here illegally. They broke the law. I really don't care what idiotic economic arguments Reason thinks-up to promote their no-borders agenda. We need to enforce the law.

    1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

      Really? How about against the J6 attackers? A former President who steals and refuses to give back classified information" A current President who spearheaded an attempted coup? A current President who conducts insider trading? How about following spending laws passed by Congress?

      We all know that your version of enforcing the law only applies to people you don't like.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

        You have cites for those assertions, Molly, or are you just pulling Democrat propaganda out of your ass again?

      2. damikesc   2 months ago

        "How about against the J6 attackers?"

        The people Biden violated the human rights of by keeping them in very extended solitary confinement?

        "A former President who steals and refuses to give back classified information"

        Umm, Biden had secret docs for decades when he had zero right to have ANY of them (neither Senators nor VPs have any declassification authority and Obama nor prior Presidents declassified any of what he had.)

        He was not prosecuted solely because he was a vegetable at the time he was caught.

        "A current President who spearheaded an attempted coup?"

        Obama initiating the government spying on a campaign AND on the incoming admin for a while was terrible...but I bet that is not what you reference here, Tony.

        "A current President who conducts insider trading?"

        You're confusing Congress for the WH here, sparkles. And Trump never engaged in influence. Can our former vegetable-in-chief say the same?

        "How about following spending laws passed by Congress?"

        "Oh no, he's not spending enough" is an odd complaint. Especially for Trump who has few problems spending tons of money.

      3. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        Everything you said after ‘really’ was complete bullshit. And we all know you won’t and can’t back up a single thing you say.

        Now fuck off Tony.

      4. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

        "Really? How about against the J6 attackers?..."

        That's spelled "protesters", you slimy pile of lying lefty shit. Fuck off and die.

  8. Fats of Fury   2 months ago

    It's an immigrant that will bestow a Socialist Utopia in NYC.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

      Rick James wants to know why you are conflating legal and illegal immigration.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Muting Sarc like he mutes us)   2 months ago

        Do you ever tire of being a pedantic fat fuck?

      2. damikesc   2 months ago

        He did not say "illegal", so I do not see where he conflated anything. Maybe you have poor reading comprehension.

        1. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

          His reading comprehension is just fine. He’s a lying psychopath.

      3. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        Mamdani isn’t an illegal. He is, however, a hardcore communist, and Islamist, and a Jew hater. His family are also communists, and have a lot of money. So all of them are lying hypocrites.

        Just like you, Fatfuck.

  9. John Rohan   2 months ago

    More workers equals more economic output and more growth, which in turn leads to more tax revenue to help offset some of the federal government's seemingly insatiable appetite for spending

    That's true the same way it's true that a pyramid scheme makes money. Sure, you do well for awhile by bringing in more and more workers, but eventually the supply dries up and the system crashes. We can't increase our population forever, even today many of our major water reservoirs are at record lows. An economy that depends on a constantly increasing population is just not sustainable.

    When it comes to Social Security, in particular, illegal immigrants contribute but do not benefit from the program. "In 2022, people without a documented status paid an estimated $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes," reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

    That's true as long as they remain illegal. But Reason.com wants to legalize them all, which would strip away that benefit.

  10. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

    As you can clearly see here in this chart i made based on cherry picked data and various assumptions, your government is so irresponsible with money that you must import Uganda to your neighborhood or go broke.

  11. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

    Net contribution to the economy from migrants in European countries is a study that has been done over and over.

    Go head and look it up. It's not favorable to your argument.

    1. Homer Thompson   2 months ago

      it's a shame this article is behind a pay wall

      Germany Opened Its Doors to Migrants. Now It’s Struggling to Cope.

      https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/germany-immigration-struggles-election-8dfd4b65?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAjB23aqpzAdQrfSRM9-9m8AwusSkjrW68CS9n5mpzDNLpwBAzQk2RYkAjj1Kac%3D&gaa_ts=68656afe&gaa_sig=IzVTCzjwWwxQ8C6ccT1N13TBuB1vBysieMvot11HBdThNX5OyOfo8S0P2wLw9unJZH-LOyPvXK7v56URTFsAAA%3D%3D

  12. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

    Okay you don't like Trump. You can't ignore the platform Trump campaigned on and that his promises included tax cuts. regardless if you were for or against them, he won the election and the American people voted for these tax cuts.

    Elected officials are representing the people and that means their will. Get on board.

    1. JasonT20   2 months ago

      Elected officials are representing the people and that means their will. Get on board.

      Elections have consequences. Those consequences do not fucking include everyone having to "Get on board," if they don't like what the elected government is doing.

      1. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

        If you don't like what the elected government is doing you can work toward the next election and getting someone elected who you like or run yourself for election.

        This does not include the media blatantly lying or constantly trying to undermine reality with false narratives and distortions or blatant omissions of fact.

        This does not include violence, destruction or assault.

        1. JasonT20   2 months ago

          This does not include the media blatantly lying or constantly trying to undermine reality with false narratives and distortions or blatant omissions of fact.

          But it's okay when the people that won the last election do that? It is like you don't understand that so many of us that oppose Trump see the MAGA politicians as the ones blatantly lying and constantly trying to undermine reality. We see that as an intentional feature of how they operate.

          This does not include violence, destruction or assault.

          We agree on something, at least.

          Just something else to note: People that voted for the winners can change their mind at any time they want as to whether they express continued support. My whole point here is that the "will of people" is not only about the results of elections.

          1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

            ^ This steaming pile of lefty shit supports random murder by government agents:

            JasonT20
            February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
            “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

            Fuck off and die, you pathetic excuse for a human being.

      2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

        ^ This assholic pile of lefty shit supports random murder by government agents:

        JasonT20
        February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
        “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

        Fuck off and die, you pathetic excuse for a human being.

  13. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    "The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits.

    Nah, the thing that will bankrupt the country is SS and Medicare/aid, with or without illegals. And printing trillions dollars to be spent locking down the economy, that really didn't help.

  14. Uncle Jay   2 months ago

    "J.D. Vance Says Immigrants Will 'Bankrupt' the Federal Government. The Opposite Is True."

    Not really.
    If illegals are entitled to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, attendance in public schools, then the illegals would accelerate the economic collapse of the US, but would not be the sole reason for our financial demise.
    What is really killing the US, is the runaway spending by democrats and republicans in the District of Corruption for the past two and a half decades.

    1. JohnZ   2 months ago

      America is already bankrupt. Even the interest on the debt surpasses the GDP.
      Be prepared for what's coming.

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

        Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.

  15. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

    "The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits. The OBBB fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."

    Of course, this is the same JD Vance who continued to insist that the Haitian immigrants in Springfield who were supposedly eating cats, were still "illegals" even though their status here was completely legal.

    When JD Vance refers to an "illegal immigrant", he is actually referring to "immigrants he doesn't like". Which, evidently, means every immigrant except his wife.

    1. I, Woodchipper   2 months ago

      They were technically 'legal' but their entire presence was a scam by the Biden administration. They should not be there, and they all need to go home.

    2. XM   2 months ago

      They were made legal by a braindead man who radically expanded a narrow program on his own. Some of these Haitians were driving without a license or insurance. Do you think any sort of a due diligence was done in the background check?

      Of course you, the famed non partisan objectivist would posit that someone's opposition to illegals is actually him disliking brown people, without offering single proof.

      It's "legal" for us to deport undocumented personnel. That makes no difference to you, so why make legal status an issue?

      1. JohnZ   2 months ago

        an even worse situation is that some of these illegals are driving 80,000 lb. semis without a CDL, cannot read and barely speak English, hired by fly by night trucking operations using phony addresses.
        There have been several accidents caused by these illegal drivers with multiple fatalities.
        Everyone should be aware of this situation when you are on the freeways.
        Just think, an 80,000Lb. semi barreling down the freeway, driven by an illiterate no English speaking illegal alien driver.
        WHAT COULD BE ANYMORE DANGEROUS?

        1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

          Nazi shitbags like you.

    3. spec24   2 months ago

      How do you get this retarded?

      1. DesigNate   2 months ago

        I would call Jeff many things, retarded isn’t one of them.

  16. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    Shorter Reason articles:

    OPEN BORDERS UBER ALLES!

  17. JasonT20   2 months ago

    Grifters gonna grift. Nothing new under the Sun.

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      ^ This slimy pile of lefty shit supports random murder by government agents:

      JasonT20
      February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
      “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

      Fuck off and die, you pathetic excuse for a human being.

  18. XM   2 months ago

    The comedy here is Reason thinking that millions of illegals live in freakishly expensive states like CA and NY with ZERO government support.

    CA alone spends 22 billion on illegals per year. Schools and hospitals cannot turn them down. Many of them get paid in cash, meaning we're supporting them NOT to pay tax.

    At best, immigration is like tax cuts. They're a boon to the economy, but they add to the deficit. Their contribution to SS and medicare amounts to Joe Biden paying someone 100 dollars so they can contribute 50 dollars to his retirement account.

    Of course, reason does not frame it this way. With immigration, they're more than glad to reason like statists - counting the visible reward without counting the cost. It would be as illogical as MAGA praising BBB for increasing revenue without mentioning all the future borrowing.

  19. spec24   2 months ago

    Notice Reason's dishonest slight of hand. They go from illegal immigrants to "immigrants " I've decided that Reason is probably too stupid to keep existing. These illegal immigrants that want to come over here and jump in front of the line and ignore our laws are not freedom loving people who are going to vote for smaller government, you f****** retards. They are people who will vote for left-wing policies. And you know God damned well that it is left-wing policies that are bankrupting this country! And I get it, conservatives aren't really doing much to push back on the socialist programs. Of course, when they do, they're called Nazis and Reason writess hit pieces about them.

  20. TJJ2000   2 months ago

    Welfare Use.....
    59 percent for non-citizen households
    39 percent for U.S.-born households
    https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-USBorn

    But the real teller is 75%+ of immigrants when given the chance will vote for the SOCIALIST party.

    You didn't think immigrants were immigrating for the fun of it did you? They immigrated because they sucked their own nation dry.

    FFS... If they're such an asset how come they'd want to move here and not stay in the bountiful and plentiful nation they came from??? Retarded Reason Writers.

  21. JohnZ   2 months ago

    It won't be the illegal aliens whop bankrupt America it will be trump's BBB) Big Beautiful Bankruptcy).
    The White House is an insane asylum with Trump running the place like a hackneyed mule driver.
    The real TRUTH is that America is already bankrupt to the tune of $36+ trillion and with another $4 trillion added to that which will put America's debt by 2040 at $50 trillion.
    You'd better be prepared for what's coming next. It won't be pretty and it will make the Great Depression of the 1930s and 1940s look like a mild recession.

    1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

      It's soooooooo BIG ... It's actually less than last years.

      Course you are right though. When it comes to spending there isn't anyone who can out-spend Democrats and that's an awfully low-bar to be setting.

  22. Spock   2 months ago

    Quite a lot of wordsmithing to dance around the fact that Vance is in principle right.

    If you leave out the words "illegal" and "immigrant" from his tirade you would have the principle: giving away money from the public treasury is the fastest way to bankrupt any country. And the USA is not exempt from the "any" category.

  23. JohnZ   2 months ago

    Maybe something else around here sucks....like the public...
    George Carlin/ Why I Don't Vote: https://youtu.be/qxsQ7jJJcEA

    It's a big club and you ain't in it!

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      Maybe Nazi cocksuckers should fuck off and die, Nazi cocksucker.

  24. AT   2 months ago

    Immigrants, on the other hand, are helping to keep this whole fiscal house of cards propped up.

    I'll just leave this right here.

    https://x.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1940407921881546786

  25. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

    "Vance cast the tie-breaking vote for a bill that will add $4 trillion to the debt. Meanwhile, immigrants are helping to keep the federal government's fiscal house of cards propped up."
    TDS is almost as bad a syndrome as anti-sedentism, but you and JohnZ get to discuss that, shitbag.

  26. The Radical Individualist   2 months ago

    Sometimes Reason distinguishes itself. Mot of the time it publishes tripe like this.
    Here is this whole big, long article that does not ONCE use the term 'illegal'.
    Various news organization forbid their ';journalists' to use the term 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant'. Those same news organizations expect us to think that they're impartial, and that they are a reliable source of information.

    1. Dale   2 months ago

      I was about to write a comment, then I read yours and thought you had stated the issue well.

  27. Saint Sabazius   2 months ago

    In times when people at large were more economically sensible, countries even offered free land and subsidies to immigrants.
    But it's very much mainstream economic science that having more people in your nation improves you economically *ceteris paribus*, and given a *more or less free market like most Western countries have*.

    Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource" has sealed the debate on immigration and population growth decades ago.

    The economic argument against mass-migration is even more morally and economically decrepit than the 1970s whining about overpopulation, because at least the people who bitchmoaned about overpopulation applied the logic equally to people born domestically and those coming in from abroad.

    Modern anti-immigration advocates want us to pretend, by magic, that the arguments about "consuming our taxes and raising housing prices" do not apply to a child born in Chicago but do apply to one born in Mexico.

    1. SQRLSY   2 months ago

      Agreed, thank you!

      We ARE being inundated with underage invaders coming through native birth canals!!! Send them ALL back UP their invasive birth canals, dammit!!!
      (Foreign-born invaders who invade, cross-borders, at later stages of development, are usually able to produce goods and services (if we would only GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO DO SO) for us FAR more quickly than native-borns, so THIS is the logical thing to do!!!!)

  28. Liberty Yeti   2 months ago

    Well, if states making their own decisions are the opposite of a federal leviathan, illegal immigrants actually ARE bankrupting my state, with its colossally stupid sanctuary and subsidy policies.

    Thus, I'll give the author a "your headline is technically correct, but not for anything in the ridiculous dissembling you vomited." 🙂

  29. Widhalm19   2 months ago

    Dear Collectivist.com ~ They are ILLEGAL ALIENS not "immigrants".

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

GAO Report Finds 'Shrinkflation' Was Fake News

Eric Boehm | 9.2.2025 3:40 PM

The Rationale for the Federal Circuit's 'Radical Left' Tariff Decision Is Fundamentally Conservative

Jacob Sullum | 9.2.2025 1:55 PM

Trump Says America Would Be 'Destroyed' if Americans Don't Pay His Tariffs

Joe Lancaster | 9.2.2025 1:00 PM

The Weird Law That Keeps the NFL Off (Most) Friday Nights

Jason Russell | 9.2.2025 11:00 AM

The Trump Administration's Fake Housing Emergency

Christian Britschgi | 9.2.2025 10:10 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300