Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Irrational Immigration Crackdown

The president fulfills his xenophobic campaign promises.

Give Donald Trump credit where it's due: He promised an irrational crackdown on immigrants, and he delivered it the first week of his administration.

Trump began his presidential campaign with a speech in which he described most Mexican immigrants as rapists, drug dealers, and other criminals, adding that "some, I assume, are good people." During his campaign, he repeatedly said that as president he would deport all 11 million people who live in the United States without the government's permission.

Last August, Trump signaled what he described as a "softening" of that position. "We are not looking to hurt people," he told Sean Hannity on Fox News. "We have some great people in this country."

Trump suggested he was open to legalizing unauthorized immigrants, a policy supported by most Americans. If they "pay back taxes," he said, he would be willing to "work with them," although there would be "no citizenship" and "no amnesty as such."

Less than a week after he was elected president, Trump again indicated he did not plan to carry out the sort of mass deportation he had advocated during the campaign. "After the border is secured and after everything gets normalized," he told Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes, "we're going to make a determination on the people that you're talking about, who are terrific people."

An executive order that Trump signed last week contradicts these assurances. The order instructs the Department of Homeland Security to "prioritize for removal" not only unauthorized residents who "have been convicted of any criminal offense" (including misdemeanors and nonviolent drug offenses) but also those who "have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense" (meaning a conviction is not required) and those who "have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency."

That last category includes anyone who has falsely claimed to be a legal resident on an official form or used a fake Social Security number to obtain a job. For good measure, the order also approves removal of anyone else whom an immigration officer deems "a risk to public safety or national security."

The order thus lays the ground for ejecting virtually all illegal residents, regardless of how long they have lived in the United States, how peaceful and productive they have been, or how much they have paid in taxes. Trump seems bent on deporting millions of "terrific people."

Another immigration-related executive order that Trump signed last week suspended admission of all refugees for 120 days, blocked Syrian refugees indefinitely, cut this year's refugee cap in half, and banned travelers with passports from any of seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days. It fell short of Trump's 2015 recommendation urging "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

But what the order lacked in scope it made up for in casual cruelty, arbitrarily disrupting and endangering thousands of lives. It separated parents from children, kept students from returning to school, put the kibosh to new jobs, stopped patients from obtaining treatment, and blocked war refugees from settling in the United States. It even prevented legal permanent residents from returning to their homes, until the Trump administration reversed that part of the policy.

The official justification for Trump's half-baked order—protecting Americans from terrorists—is hard to take seriously. Refugees and green-card holders are already subject to extensive screening, refugees very rarely carry out terrorist attacks in the United States, and since 2001 no American has been killed in the U.S. by a terrorist from any of the seven countries covered by Trump's order.

As in the speech that launched his presidential bid, Trump is scapegoating people based on their national origin (and, implicitly, their religion). Given the weakness of the security rationale for his order, it has to be understood in symbolic terms, and the symbolism is not pretty.

© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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

  • ImJackingOffToAynRand||

    quick, here come the libertarians to defend statist authoritarian bullshit

  • vek||

    It's all a question of IF he's going to do any of this shit for the right reasons, or reasons that make the situation better at the end of the day. If he does:

    1. Kick out criminal illegal aliens.

    2. Secure the border.

    3. Reform immigration laws/work visas laws to be more sensible.

    4. Decides what present illegals get to stay.

    5. Now that we have more reasonable immigration laws ENFORCE THEM.

    Then it's not so bad. If he just boots everybody out, doesn't fix immigration rules, only half way secures the border, then it's just a big multi billion dollar game of whack a mole. Pointless AND cruel AND counterproductive. If you're going to do mean shit there needs to be an end game that MAY be worth it.

    The only real problem with the Reagan amnesty is that they didn't fix immigration laws or secure the border. If a nation state exists it has the rights to control its borders. I don't believe any nation owes anybody freedom of travel to their nation with no strings or rules attached. Too many real world reasons why that causes problems (religious tension, ethnic tension, etc), that's why all nations have always controlled their borders, or at least attempted to.

  • vek||

    Why should I be entitled to move to Norway (if I wanted to, which BTW OH HELL NO!) and become a citizen of their country with all the rights and privileges Norwegian citizens get? I'm not from there, I didn't pay into their socialist system to earn whatever benefits they have, etc It's BS. Same with anybody coming here. I think we should have a reasonably open immigration policy, but I don't think it needs to be ANYBODY from ANYWHERE at ANYTIME they want with no strings/requirements attached. Limited work visas on that type of a basis with the ability to throw them out easily if they cause any trouble, MAYBE. But not full citizenship.

    If he sticks to convicted criminals as far as who he actually boots out I think it will be a huge "win" for him. If he starts tearing up families of mixed citizenship status (parents no, kids born here),and others who are not trouble makers I think it will blow up in his face.

  • ||

    Because muh feelz, duh!

  • Dan S.||

    all nations have always controlled their borders, or at least attempted to.

    Is this really true? The modern nation-state is usually regarded as dating to 1648. But border control as we know it today is pretty much a 20th century phenomenon. AFIK, the first attempt by the U.S. to keep people out was the Chinese Exclusion Act of the late 19th century. How did things work in the days before universal IDs existed or were possible? Ancient city-states generally had defensive walls, but there were not sharply defined borders in the countryside between them. A history of this subject would make interesting reading. Anyone know of one?

  • vek||

    I don't know of a strict history of the subject... But how is Babylon not a nation state? How are ANY of the major empires of the past not nation states? I supposed if you defined the term in a very specific (modern legalese) way maybe you could argue they weren't, but I'm pretty sure the Caesar's of Rome would have begged to differ. They were nations. And I'm preeetty suuure ancient Rome had borders they enforced too. OUR land here, YOUR land there. There's the line. Ancient Egypt had borders too, as did ancient Babylon and on and on. What do you think they fought over??? To change the border lines, just like everybody else has in history.

    It wasn't that they necessarily had border patrols on them at all times like might happen now, but when/if shit went down they definitely did send in troops and control them as needed. Germanic migrations caused many issues along Roman borders. The Romans built Hadrian's Wall to keep the Picts out of their newly conquered Roman Britain. The Chinese built that wonderful Great Wall Of China for the same reason.

  • John Titor||

    I don't know of a strict history of the subject... But how is Babylon not a nation state? How are ANY of the major empires of the past not nation states? I supposed if you defined the term in a very specific (modern legalese)

    Nope, they don't operate in the same way. Different institutional structures, lack of nationalism, lack of centralization, lack of well-defined borders, lack of sovereignty concept until Westphalia, etc.

    Nation states are a product of the past four hundred years. Previous systems tended to be far more decentralized or even simple "you pay us tribute and we defend you/don't burn your city to the ground" deals. People like to pretend Rome was some solid monoculture but the reality is that even in Italy they constantly had to deal with the decentralized power and motives of the Samnites and other Italian groups.

  • vek||

    Well as I said preemptively about using "modern legalese" to define "nation state," you're largely projecting modern highly evolved and highly specific concepts onto the past. We've definitely complicated/refined many concepts, no argument there, but they existed in more primitive forms in the past. Similar enough to count often times IMO.

    When one is defining words/phrases one can technically argue these things... But to not consider Rome a nation is quite silly IMO. It's like saying they didn't have "education" in the ancient world because they didn't have a system of publicly funded schools that taught children for free from age 5 until age 18, and then optionally another 4-8 years if they seemed smart. They didn't have that, but they did have education. The had academies, they had tutors. Peopled learned things. But NO it wasn't like modern education exactly.

    Ones earlier than them were indeed more primitive still. I would say a bunch of hunter gathers in pre-historic Europe were not a nation, even though they had their rough "territory" in their heads. You could possibly argue some of the very early city states weren't either maybe. But ROME? They had a senate which ran things until Caesar. They had rule of law (more or less). They had by then some fairly complex ideas about rights and privileges baked into those laws. Hell they even had lawyers! Now that's modern and fancy. LOL

  • vek||

    In many ways they were more evolved than most European powers of the 1600s/1700s, that's why we looked to them for inspiration. To say not a nation... It's a stretch IMO, and you have to be very specific with definitions to come to that conclusion.

    I know history. I know Rome wasn't a big monoculture even in Italy, and especially not elsewhere in the empire. But who is??? Are Bavarians not different than Prussians in Germany in many ways? Did Normans not have their own way of thinking about things vs the Parisians in France? Do southerners in the USA not have issues with northerners in the USA? Again it's looking for arbitrary reasons to define them as not a nation.

    Rome had these differences, and Rome had power struggles between different levels of power, like EVERY OTHER NATION EVER. Rome also had complex legal and institutional structures that divided up power and controlled this. Just like our concept of Federal and State they had defined provincial powers with defined provincial governors roles. As I said hunter gatherers, not really nations... Rome Yes. Babylon? Probably yes, even though they were far less evolved than Rome. Egypt? Same. I would also consider medieval European feudal kingdoms nations too. So what if their division of power was king/lower lords vs Feds/State. I'd say they largely count based on size and complexity if not modern legal definitions.Call them de facto nations if you like vs legally defined nations.

  • John Titor||

    And I'm preeetty suuure ancient Rome had borders they enforced too. OUR land here, YOUR land there. There's the line. Ancient Egypt had borders too, as did ancient Babylon and on and on.

    Also nope, you're projecting modern concepts of random lines indicating territory into the past. Borders were primarily defined by geographical features, the Alps and deserts and rivers and what not, and were far more flexible than modern nation states. Those maps of Roman control lines we have? Yeah, they weren't so well refined in those days, and Romans did not exert centralized political authority over their entirety. Hell, they often couldn't even get provincial borders to be consistent.

    What do you think they fought over???

    You're also projecting the idea of territorial control equating immigration control into the past. If Babylon tried to control their borders in the same way a modern nation does they would have collapsed economically.

  • vek||

    Yes they were sometimes fuzzy. I literally already said this above. Again I say "So what?" OUR borders were fuzzy in the 1800s with Mexico. We had a theoretical line, but no effective control. So we didn't have ANY border concept then at all just because it wasn't strongly enforced?

    Likewise with natural boundaries. These types of geographic features STILL make up half the worlds borders. But no, they didn't use latitude and longitude to define borders. Maybe that's because they hadn't been invented yet... So they defined their treaties off of "at XXX river" because it was the main practical means they had for definitively slicing up territory, which they did consider to be THEIRS.

    As I already said, it varied. Sometimes it was just "Yeah we own this shit. Somewhere to the north before we hit the mountain range it becomes XXX's land, but south of this set of hills is definitely ours." Other times it was Hadrian's Wall and a very strict line.

  • vek||

    With enforcement I already said they often just let people flow as they wanted. Other times they didn't. Like when they were worried about being overrun by my Germanic barbarian ancestors they sometimes said "NO. You can't come in." Maybe they wouldn't have been messed with 5 miles over the theoretical "this is our land" line, but if they were 100 miles in in a large group they surely would have during periods where Rome was worried about them.

    As with many things ancient nations just didn't have the resources to enforce concepts to such insane levels as we can in the modern world. If Rome could have afforded to control their borders better I bet they would have at some points in history, but not all. I think border control is one of those things where it often doesn't matter, but when it seemingly does due to the particulars of the world situation then nations do step in. They didn't care when it was a few Krauts coming over to trade, but when there were hundreds of thousands trying to move in permanently they paid attention.

    As for it killing Babylons economy if they had tried to control immigration. Maybe? I'd say it's entirely possible. But we'll never know. Whatever the case you can't equate the system/situation we have now with one where anybody who could farm was a guaranteed productive member of society.

  • vek||

    Some borders have been fuzzy in history to be sure. Think Rome's borders at the southern fringes of their North African territories, effective Roman control fizzled out at some point in the south, but where exactly was anybody's guess. But other borders have been strict. Like the border with the Picts. Varying situations have happened. In fact at that border with the Picts they made everybody go through... Wait for it... Checkpoints! Because they distrusted the Picts that much at first. Things got more lax over time, but you had to cross at forts in the wall.

    And as far as people getting through borders it was hard to control in practical terms since they didn't have IDs and databases, but have you never heard of being banished to exile? They did that kind of shit. People were disallowed from entering certain territories. Might have been easier to get away with cheating pre finger print and photo ID era, but they did what they could. I know the Romans forbid certain Germanic tribes from mass immigrating on numerous occasions, but allowed it at other times as they thought were prudent. So I imagine a band of 100 Krauts trying to cross a border would have been turned away by the legion stationed there if they tried.

    But in any event it is NOT new. It wasn't always needed or always enforced super strictly but when it seemed apt they certainly did.

  • ||

    In the North the line was called the 'limes'.

    And Rome enforced it and it only began to slowly disintegrate when they stopped or became more lax for a variety of reasons.

  • vek||

    Yup. Because that was a border they considered being worth enforcing, even if they didn't do it for all of them.

    Sound a bit like the difference between Canada and Mexico for us today? One country is friendly and doing perfectly fine in all respects. Another is very mildly hostile (the reconquista movement etc), but is definitely a cluster fuck, so people are inclined to want to control that border but not the other. Doesn't seem ENTIRELY unreasonable to me personally.

    I'm 110% sure if Syria shared a border with us people would be 110% in favor of guarding that border. So why should it be a surprise that 50% +/- want an in between level of sketchy country guarded?

  • Illocust||

    It should be pointed out that freedom of movement as we know it today is also relatively new. Before cars and airplanes a lot of people never even visited the town ten miles over for their entire lives. It's a lot easier to move from the middle east to America now days than it used to be to move from one side of Germany to the other.

  • BambiB||

    #1: if they're here illegally, they're criminal aliens. Kick them out.

    Recall the military from the middle east and put them on OUR border (your #2 above). This would free up thousands of border patrol agents who could run down "DREAM"ers for deportation.

    Enforce 8 USC §1324 against the majors and city councils of every "sanctuary city" in America. Send the major of Los Angeles or New York to prison for a thousand years and fine them $50 million and the rest will get the message.

    Appoint Sheriff Arpaio to run a tent prison in the Arizona desert for criminal aliens pending their deportation hearing.

    Make it a criminal offense punishable by a year in prison and a $1000/day fine to negligently employ or rent property to a criminal alien. "Negligence" would be defined as "failure to use E-Verify".

    Enact legislation making it a death-penalty offense for any of the deported criminals to re-enter the United States.

    No jobs. No place to live. Risk death by trying to cross against the military. Spend a few years in the desert wearing pink uniforms and eating cheese sandwiches 3x a day in tents with no air conditioning and no heat, followed by deportation and the promise of a death sentence if they ever return... Problem SOLVED.

  • Pat (PM)||

    I was wondering if anyone at Reason was ever going to write about this.

  • Captain Malthus Reynolds||

    And such a fresh perspective!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Shikha does a much better job.

  • ||

    Apparently, Trump has triggered Shikha into speechlessness. See how he kills free speech?

  • WTF||

    Yeah, nobody does "XENOPHOBIA, NO BORDERS ARGLE BARGLE!!111!!!" like Shikha.

  • lafe.long||

    Trump's Irrational Immigration Crackdown: New at Reason

    LMFAO!!!!!

  • american socialist||

    I dont know why reason keeps using the past as a metric for the ban. You can agree wit it in part full or none. However it does not make sense to put it up to 15 years ago as ya cant back in time.

    It has to be based on the here and now. Those countries except iran are highly unstable with significant isis presence. Iran we havent been friends with at all.

  • The Other Kevin||

    I agree with this. The point is to prevent problems in the future. It doesn't seem logical to assume that just because something never happened in the past, means it will never happen in the future. You can also look at Europe, and see that they are having a lot of problems due to open borders, and use that as an argument.

    I'm not 100% for or against the EO. I do see that there are valid arguments on both sides.

  • Virginian1969||

    Conveniently leaving the Saudis off the list was a grave mistake.

  • vek||

    Technically yes... But obviously the politics of banning the Saudi's or other "friendly" states which are just as sketch would be too rough. I think Trump knows it is more grand standing than practical anyway, so why piss of the few countries that are remotely friendly in the region.

  • ||

    Yeah, but doing it would have been a worse mistake. I'm sure Trump doesn't have a problem with doing it, but the global politics of that just don't work, at least not right away.

  • MikeP2||

    I don't think you have much factual support for that statement.

    Sure, many 9/11 hijackers were from SA, and Wahhabism is a problem, but things have changed significantly in the last 15 years.
    By all accounts, SA has been absolutely brutal to extremists. I can't imagine many have gotten through their internal secret police and managed to get visas to the US of all places. If you want an example of "extreme vetting" look to SA as a leading example.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Jake, thanks for this handy summary of all of Trump's ugliness.

  • WTF||

    Someone misspelled your name, Anal.

  • Captain Malthus Reynolds||

    You're right: a society has no right to control it's borders or determine who it is that's coming in. Even if someone has nothing but disdain for democracy, gays, Jews, Christians, and Americans generally, they have every right to come to the United States as long as they pay taxes! After all, an individual is only important insofar as they serve the state.

  • Captain Malthus Reynolds||

    *its. It drives me nuts when other people do it

  • vek||

    I haven't read thoroughly on it, but I have heard in passing that Switzerland will literally not allow people citizenship, including people who have lived there for DECADES on work visas, simply because they do not conform to very minor Swiss social or political norms.

    AKA In America in the good old days it might have been "You have to hate communism, be a hard working family man, be against high taxes, and love guns and the constitution!" type of thing on top of just all the normal stuff of not being a criminal etc.

    As controlling and horrible as it really is in some respects... It's kind of a great idea in practical terms. Imagine if the only immigrants we allowed in were people who loved the constitution, low taxes, small government etc. I can see the practical side of why the Swiss do it that way. It will actually maintain social order, for good or ill, without shit devolving to the mess of confusion like we have here!

    Of course in America we no longer have sufficient social cohesion to even craft such a set of rules anyway sooo moot point. LOL

  • Captain Malthus Reynolds||

    I'm not really a stickler for "social norms" as such. I would ask that every new entry to the country sign off on the constitution and bill of rights. That doesn't seem like a whole lot to ask, and it would have been just as applicable in the 50's as it is now.

  • vek||

    Yeah at least something like that would be nice. I guess the point in Switzerland is to REALLY make sure you don't let in anyone who will rock the boat. They must have trouble makers born there, but the idea of a mostly ideologically homogeneous nation has many practical upsides. I think it's a good idea really. Imagine if there were a libertarian country that didn't let anyone in who wasn't at least 95% on board with the general tenants? It could actually STAY libertarian with such a system in place.

    I'm not an open borders guy and I think it's reasonable for a society to want to protect their traditional norms, right or wrong, if they want to.

    Honestly I think the best way for the world to deal with all the disagreement in the world is to stop forcing people to deal with each other and let people self segregate if they really want to. As I've said before multi ethnic nations can be fine... Multicultural nations usually seem to be a cluster fuck and have a lot of strife. If California wants to secede I say let them! Then they'd be out of our hair. It'd be better for everybody since people could get closer to what they want out of their government/society. Until Cali went BK of course. But that would be a learning experience too, and well worth it :)

  • straffinrun||

    IIRC there are some villages in Switzerland that will hold a vote to see if someone can get a visa.

  • Swiss Servator||

    NEXT TIME FOR SURE!!!!

    *sulks*

  • Drake||

    As I said last night, Reason puts zero value on

  • Swiss Servator||

    squirrelz?

  • Drake||

    No - they love them.

    I was going to say Citizenship.

  • John Titor||

    To hell with demanding someone check off certain cultural opinion boxes. Take the better part of the Swiss system. Go back to classical democracy with some modifications. Voting and citizenship determined by military service.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    As I understand it, the major difference is that the Swiss national government leaves the decision to quite local authority. Nd in the case I read about, the local authority denied the applicant because she has spent the last decade or more being a persistent pain in the ass (she's, I seem to recall, a proselytizing vegan and opposes cowbells) in ways that reject Swiss heritage.

    Put bluntly, if I was asked if somebody who regularly decried the American Flag as a symbol of oppression, wanted to ban meat, and simply would not make any effort to get along with his neighbors should be granted American Citizenship, I would tend to say "No."

  • vek||

    And despite the potential for "abuse" by not letting some reasonable people through for being disliked on petty grounds... What's wrong with that?

    I'd vote no for anybody that thought welfare should exist. I'd also vote down the vegan! Also NO fat chicks. LOL Honestly though I think it would usually end up being reasonable-ish.

    My biggest thing is why should any PERFECT candidate for gaining citizenship be allowed either? I don't think anybody is owed the right to move anywhere where they didn't inherit the right by random chance of birth... So if there are even petty reasons the locals don't like them then it's too bad. It's not their land. It's all arbitrary and unfair and whatever, but so what.

    Liberals are such douches. If the Swiss want to keep Switzerland Swiss what's so wrong with that? Right or wrong, backwards thinking or not? I think it's fine if they want to do it, and I can appreciate their reasoning. I'd rather have kept America America too, but that boat sailed a bit ago. The big cities liberals just can't stand anybody who doesn't agree 100% with their perfect vision of the world, and I say fuck that. I'd be fine with some sort of checklist for moving here, including major fundamental ideological points at least.

  • ||

    In case that anyone is curious and wants to really understand libertarian values, it's a good thing that everyone who comes here only reads the comments.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "unauthorized residents"

    "illegal residents"

  • ||

    Undocumented invaders? That term applies just as well.

  • WTF||

    STEVE SMITH is just an unauthorized boyfriend.

  • ||

    There's nothing irrational about trying to make sure that people who immigrate or visit here are not out to kill us and destroy our way of life. It is sad that Reason has decided to drop even any pretense of being objective when something concerns Donald Trump and just instead going to full on pants shitting mode. Just about as much logic and reason as the progs are showing right now.

  • mortiscrum||

    That's true in the abstract sense, but it doesn't hold up in the context of "no one from any of these countries has killed an American on American soil, ever."

    Our current immigration laws and restrictions are extensive, prohibiting, and do a really good job at stopping people from getting here - especially if they mean us harm. Making an safety-based argument for even more immigration restrictions is silly, when we're already extremely safe.

  • ||

    "That's true in the abstract sense, but it doesn't hold up in the context of "no one from any of these countries has killed an American on American soil, ever."

    Not from lack of trying.

  • mortiscrum||

    Really? I don't remember even a single failed terrorist plot perpetrated by a national from one of these countries on American soil.

    And even if there was, the fact that they failed is proof of the effectiveness of our current measures.

  • ||

    I truly don't see the problem with any of this. To me it's all coming off as hysterical. Countries have every right to enforce laws as they see fit. I keep reading and all I can but think is 'sheesh, this is all standard crap with Canada'.

    Jesus, the thing is TEMPORARY.

    What am I missing? Enlighten.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You're not missing anything. The pants shooting continues. Be interesting to see how long they can keep it up though. If your hate boner last for more than four years you go blind I've heard.

  • ||

    The thing that I don't get, is that the globalists, who are the people driving the push for open borders, want global socialism. I'd prefer sovereign nations where at least their is a choice over socialism, at least to some degree, thank you. I also don't really like the idea of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels or wherever the capital of Progtopia would be, ruling over every minutia of everyone's life on the planet. That sounds really bad to me.

  • Drake||

    Another explanation why Reason seems totally disconnected from the commetariot.
    We don't want to be ruled by strangers.
    We don't want socialism or any of the other isms - all of which mean less freedom.
    We actually can see what's happening in Europe and want none of it.

    Nick and the rest seem to have set themselves up high-priests of their brand of libertarianism. Like Quakers who refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their pacifism, they simply refuse to believe bad things will happen if we swing open the doors to the Third World.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Oh, yes, Canada, the progressive paradise:

    http://www.canadaduientrylaw.com/

    Having insufficient funds is one of the more frequent reasons why people are denied entry into Canada, so it is very important for people to take extra steps to be able to prove they can afford their trip, and obviously the longer the scheduled visit, the more money an individual will be required to have. Even if you will be "getting paid" or "receiving money" in the near future, if your bank account is depleted when you attempt to cross the border you risk being refused entry. It might sound ridiculous that Canada requires residents of a country as rich as the United States to prove they can afford a trip. The Canadian government is simply trying to prevent certain foreigners from entering the country that they deem are likely to either work illegally or strain the country's social programs (such as homeless or unemployed Americans potentially attracted to Canada's socialism or oil money). It is also important to have health insurance coverage valid in Canada, also called Canadian travel insurance, before attempting to visit the country, and border officers will often ask about this. A lot of traditional American health insurance plans do not cover out of country medical expenses.

    And forget about getting in if you've committed a crime, and that includes a single DUI. Even if you've been acquitted of a crime, you may not get through.

  • ||

    But that won't stop Canadians ignorant of their own immigration policies from imparting their shallow views or partaking in stupid protests.

    That's my point.

  • RG||

    As they experience more immigration, attitudes of Canadiens seem to be shifting. Which is what happened in Europe.

  • John Titor||

    Canadian immigration is a hell of a lot more restrictive than the United States. Probably less of a bureaucratic labyrinth, but we tend to make damn sure the person immigrating serves some kind of economic function (mostly through a points system that rewards speaking English or French, having certain degrees, etc.).

  • Gene||

  • Tronald_Dump||

    Rufus, we already had a system in place for vetting. Blanket bans are just fucking stupid. All immigration gettin his done on a case by case basis, not by country. He's playing the jihadis game.

  • John Titor||

    Know how we look at voter ID law debates in the United States and think they're goddamn insane? Same deal here.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't think a 90 day travel ban from jihadiville is exactly the Holocaust. More thought certainly should have been given to those in transit. Unless of coursethere is some threat information the president has. We don't know because no one in the media bothers to ask why, they go straight to racism charges.

  • ||

    Dude, listen, Trump stopped a grandma from coming here. A grandma! Do you know what the means! It is the TRUMPOCALYPSE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh Noes!

  • DJF||

    """"Trump signed last week suspended admission of all refugees for 120 days, blocked Syrian refugees indefinitely, cut this year's refugee cap in half,""""

    Another Reason writer who think that a taxpayer paid for refugee program = Freedom

  • ||

    Is does equal freedom, for the refugees. Not so much for us poor Murikan wage slaves paying for it.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Look, if you don't believe in bringing people from halfway around the world to live here on the taxpayer dime, then you can't call yourself a true libertarian.

  • The Fusionist||

    Look, ask the Trump fanboys here - I'm a cosmo cuck who irrationally asserts that not every part of Trump's order is strictly legal. Imagine my audacity!

    But the basic idea seems fine - develop new security procedures and, while those new procedures are being developed, hold off on admitting people from certain problem countries under the old procedures. Also, keep admitting refugees, just not as many as before. And prioritize the admission of oppressed religious minorities.

    And according to the order, they're trying to weed out people who want to, for instance, mutilate women's genitals and brutalize gay people. This is not only sensible from a security perspective, but given the link between immigration and naturalization in our law, it's the first screening to weed out people who would not necessarily be good citizens or produce good citizen-children.

    We may expect a great degree of bureaucratic bungling, of course. And some tweaking of the policy, especially if we agree with Scott Adams' position that Trump's initiatives are actually negotiating positions rather than set in stone.

    But bottom line - no, it's not xenophobic to prefer immigrants who aren't into oppressing minorities and women.

  • ||

    Tsk, tsk, oh unenlightened one. When immigrants come here from those barbarous lands, they instantly become 'liberals' when they get their Democratic vote me free stuff card. Duh! Get an edumencation!

  • Jerryskids||

    You just hate Trump because he's winning and you're a sad pathetic loser.

    Look, every policy Trump proposes is, was, and always will be a great success. You know how you can tell? Because all his enemies will oppose him and criticize his policies and disagree with him and all his friends will support him and applaud his policies and agree with him. And note: nobody who disagrees with him has an opinion worth respecting, they're all stupid dumb losers nobody likes. Everybody who agrees with him, though, you should respect their opinions because they're very smart, successful, popular people.

    Note also that, by definition, anybody who disagrees with Trump is his enemy and everybody who agrees with him is his friend but that doesn't mean that it's some kind of tautology or circular reasoning to point out that it's only his enemies that disagree with him and his friends all agree with him.

  • KevinP||


    We may expect a great degree of bureaucratic bungling, of course.

    And the bungling will happen in both directions.

    Somebody's innocent grandmother will be stuck overseas due to an overzealous officer.

    A politically correct liberal working in a consulate overseas or at CBP here will admit another Tashfeen Malik.

    http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/.....ge-169.jpg

  • ||

    I hate to be the one to break it to everyone, but there were overzealous officers before the Trumpocalypse. I once had to ask one of them if he was going to allow me back into my own country and start to get really pissed off before I was finally waved on. Over nothing.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yes, these two statements are totally unrelated.

    "Sex trafficking cases on the rise in Ohio, report shows"

    "Where they once might have just seen a prostitute, now they see a victim of human trafficking."

    http://nbc4i.com/2017/01/31/se.....ort-shows/

  • ||

    If I remember correctly he said "A temporary halt until we can figure out what is going on". Given the horrible mess that immigration is now that doesnt seem irrational, mean spirited, or xenophobic. It's temporary.

    Why don't you wait and see what he comes up with before you start freaking out? Screaming and tearing your hair every time the man takes a breath because TRUMP! is making an ass of yourself.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    Jesus, Reason has jumped the shark.

  • R C Dean||

    Finally, Reason breaks its long silence on this order. I'm just waiting for the rest of the media to chime in.

    Ya know what else he's done, on immigration, even? Issued an order on H1Bs.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/...../97240588/

    Arguably much more consequential than the temporary ban on visas from dysfunctional states. Howsabout doing something THAT EVERYBODY ELSE ISN'T ALREADY DOING, Reason, and taking a gander at that.

  • MWG||

    Holy hell.

  • ||

    This is a surprise? All of my current clients have already stopped hiring H1-Bs and for all intents, only hire non-citizen residents as last resort.

    My take on it is this. It's a mixed bag. For one thing, tech companies love hiring H1-Bs because you can get them about 20% or more cheaper than an American citizen. That being said, it's a lot more difficult to hire American citizens with good tech skills because all of them who have updated skills already have good paying jobs.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No changes, just an order to evaluate the program. But something to definitely keep an eye on.

  • ||

    That is something to keep an eye on, possibly be concerned about, but we don't know yet what it is.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Ah, another Full Throttle Immigration Day....sigh.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I'm almost - almost - looking forward to see Dalmia's take. It may be the first time she's no worse than other writers!

  • Sumio Mondo, Jr.||

    "You Hate Us Cause You Ain't Us"

    Who put you up to that? Father or brother?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Hey, REASON! This constant harping on Trump acting on the Immigration question AS HE SAID HE WOULD is making you look an awful lot like the hysterical idiot Democrat/Liberal/Proggies who are throwing tantrums all over the country. OK; you favor open borders. We get it. But the electorate didn't agree with you. The electorate appears to have gotten sick to the teeth of the Political Left ignoring their concerns about who is getting into the country. And maybe the electorate is dead wrong, but the problem with any sovereign is the King may be wrong ... but he's still he King. I don't expect, or even WANT, you to change your minds, but you really need to give it a rest for a few days. Maybe a week. Seriously; write the articles. Print one every couple of days. Starting, say, five days from now. This two-or-three 'Trump's Immigration Policy Comes Straight From Beelzebub' stories every frickin' day business gets OLD goddamned fast.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    But what the order lacked in scope it made up for in casual cruelty, arbitrarily disrupting and endangering thousands of lives. It separated parents from children, kept students from returning to school, put the kibosh to new jobs, stopped patients from obtaining treatment, and blocked war refugees from settling in the United States. It even prevented legal permanent residents from returning to their homes, until the Trump administration reversed that part of the policy.

    The only part of this that isn't pantywadding is that last sentence. I dare anybody to explain any immigration action that isn't going to arbitrarily disrupt and "endanger" thousands of lives. I though libertarians were better than "won't anybody think about the chidren!?!?!?!?!" schtick, but there it is, plain as day.

    This EO has plenty to criticize. Let's start by explaining which parts are the bad parts, and why. So far, Reason seems to have said that the entire thing is bad because Trump. Perhaps people would take the histrionics more seriously if y'all explained why this is bad between pathetic sobs.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    apologies for the broken English... my brain is fried.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Trump began his presidential campaign with a speech in which he described most Mexican immigrants as rapists, drug dealers, and other criminals, adding that "some, I assume, are good people."


    Thank you! Finally, someone other than me recognizes the logical implication of El Trumpo's clumsily consgructed assertion.

    I read in Bloomberg yesterday that El Señor Presidente Bananero Trumpo is going to sign a new executive order that will look to place more severe restrictions on immigrant visas not only H1B but also L1, E2 and for some reason, B1 (i.e. tourist visa). Which means that Trumpistas were lying when they claimed that El Señor Presidente Bananero Trumpo is only against illegal immigration.

  • zombietimeshare||

    They aren't immigrants. They are migrants illegally in the US. Immigrants come here legally.

  • Lawman45||

    What part of LIMITED duration and LIMITED application do you not understand ???

  • Jr12||

    Some Americans rape, murder and steal. Did I just write that most Americans are murderous, thieving rapists. According to Jacob, Reason's polarization pushing tribalist, yes. If there were no favorable stereotypes with which to lionize immigrants, how would Jacob support his ego as a caring, sharing humanitarian.

    The _libertarian_ perspective is not which tribal identities must receive government enforced favoritism/ tax funding. Rather the USA divide is tax payers vs. tax dependent, just as it is in every welfare state. Immigration is beneficial only to a country in which all are expected to work for a living, while effortlessly sucking taxes proves moral inferiority. No matter how good about themselves directing the flow of the loot makes the media feel.

  • DonHonda||

    Trump is enforcing current law.

    The seven nations named in Trump's executive order are drawn from the
    Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015. The 2015 "Visa Waiver Program
    Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" named Iraq,
    Iran, Sudan, and Syria, while its 2016 update added Libya, Somalia, and
    Yemen.

    He's using Obama's list. He will create better vetting that will then impact other countries.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Presence in a country only becomes a right once you are granted citizenship and you accept it.

    Trump's justification for this order isn't that he wants to ban certain groups anyway, but simply that they want to work out how to vet better from these countries. As far as justifications go, that's actually fairly simple and straightforward.

    Even if Trump decided to ban immigration from Muslim nations and favor immigration from Christian nations, that would be in line with past US immigration policies as well; it would also be legal and acceptable under international law.

  • Travel Center||

    quick, here come the libertarians to defend statist authoritarian bullshit

  • Rational Exuberance||

    And by "statist authoritarian bullshit" you mean that the federal government tries to impose the presence of homophobic, illiberal, illiterate migrants on me and tries to force me to pay for them?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online