Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Nativists in the Trump Administration Are Demanding Ransom for Dreamers

Congress shouldn't hand it.

It was too much to hope for that President Trump would actually honor the informal deal that he cut with congressional Democrats to offer permanent legal Immigration ProtestFibonacci Blue via Foter.comstatus to DREAMers (named after the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) in exchange for some "reasonable" immigration enforcement measures. After all, these are immigrants who, through no fault of their own, were brought to this country without proper authorization as children. But the White House's 70-odd list of demands released over the weekend under the influence of ultra-restrictionist White House aide Stephen Miller reads more like a ransom note than a good-faith opening bid for an eventual compromise.

It'll criminalize far more immigrants than it'll legalize DREAMers, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise. Should President Trump not back down, Democrats will have little reason to continue to negotiate.

Last month, President Trump abruptly ended the Obama-era DACA (Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals) program that gave qualified DREAMers a reprieve from deportation and told Congress that it had six months to legalize them permanently before he starts deporting them in March when the first round of DACA protection expires. Basically, he set up a ticking time bomb to extract maximum leverage to negotiate tough border security measures. But the failure of Republicans to repeal and replace ObamaCare has made Trump desperate for a legislative victory so he had been showing a new willingness to negotiate with Democrats.

But Miller—the White House's sole remaining nativist after Breitbart chief Stephen Bannon was booted out—wants not just enhanced border security but to stop immigration of every kind: legal and illegal, employment and family-based, refugees and asylum seekers. The Daily Beast reports that he worked with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a fellow ultra-restrictionist, to put Trump on the spot by working up a sweeping anti-immigration demand list.

Expectedly, this list, that the White House had no choice but to embrace to avoid losing face with its nativist base, doubles down on the standard restrictionist demands such as more funding for a border wall—which Trump had indicated to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) he'd be willing to skip—and 10,000 more border patrol agents. In addition, Miller and Cotton want more "interior enforcement"—which includes not just hunting down and deporting unauthorized aliens in the country—but also mandatory E-verify that would require employers to check the work authorization status of every new employee, citizen and non-citizen, against a federal database.

But the big poison pill is this:

Of the 11 million unauthorized aliens in the country, about two million are DREAMers and 4.5 million are visa overstays who entered the country legally but whose visas expired (the rest entered the country without proper papers). Currently, these latter folks are guilty of a civil infraction akin to an unpaid parking ticket. They can be deported for it but can't be thrown in jail, which is a good thing since it is very easy for people to fall out of status given America's slow and screwed up immigration bureaucracy that makes the DMV look like a picture of efficiency.

But Miller and Cotton would make overstaying a visa a criminal offense and disbar visa overstays from any immigration "benefit" for three years if they overstayed for 180 days and 10 years if one year. This means that if these folks marry, say, an American citizen, they would still be barred from applying for a green card or even a fiancé or spouse visa. Ditto for a student, investor, or any other kind of visa.

Basically, in exchange for legalizing two million DREAMers, Miller and Cotton would consign twice as many visa overstays to permanent illegality by taking away practically every option for regaining their legal status, exacerbating the very problem that the current exercise is trying to solve.

But there's more.

Miller and Cotton would also criminalize "baseless" asylum claims to allegedly discourage people without provable claims of persecution from "abusing" America's asylum laws. But people fleeing gangs or state violence can't always amass documentary evidence before escaping. Yet judges would not only be able to reject their claims but also prosecute them and possibly fine them and throw them in jail. In other words, Miller and Cotton want to threaten people trying to escape tyrannical regimes with even more tyranny.

But to add insult to injury, the two also want to pair any relief to DREAMers with cuts in legal immigration and to bar Americans from sponsoring their parents, adult children, and siblings. They claim that they want to replace America's family-based system with a Canadian-style merit-based one. If that were the case, they'd accompany the cuts in family-based categories with increases in skills-based ones, but they don't. In fact, under Cotton's plan, legal immigration to the country would be slashed in half over 10 years.

All of this shows that restrictionist hardliners are holding DREAMers hostage to enact a draconian wish list to fundamentally—and comprehensively—reform America's immigration system. But that is precisely what a standalone DREAMer bill was intended to avoid doing in the first place. Its whole point was to focus on giving relief to a small subset of the undocumented population who have lived in this country practically their entire lives and whom virtually no one is in favor of deporting—while tabling all the other controversial immigration issues that have torpedoed virtually every reform effort over the last decade and a half.

So what should Democrats do if Trump can't control Miller and negotiate in good faith?

Well, they could take a page from some of their conservative colleagues. Restrictionist Republicans such as Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), leader of the increasingly misnamed Freedom Caucus, are threatening to shut down the government in December by refusing to raise the debt ceiling if their anti-immigration demands are not met. (It is ironic that a faction that used to threaten a government shutdown in the name of cutting spending and fiscal responsibility, something that I actually supported once, is now threatening to do so if billions of taxpayer dollars are not spent on a pointless wall.)

Democrats should follow suit and threaten a government shutdown of their own if Republicans don't pass a clean DREAMer bill. Their support has been crucial for the Trump administration to fund the government thus far.

Miller and his ilk want to negotiate while holding a gun to the heads of DREAMers. The only way Democrats will get them to back off is by sticking to theirs.

This column originally appeared in The Week

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.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Didn't I read this last week?

  • Kivlor||

    Yes, yes you did. And it was equally retarded when it was published then too.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Is that seriously your nickname for Shikha?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I sort of like how the -etta ending implies that Simple Mikey thinks Shikha is Italian.

  • mpercy||

    I'll just say I knew who wrote it before I finished the first sentence. Was pretty sure just from the title.

  • mpercy||

    My sympathy for illegals is pretty low. About 1M such good people successfully use the legal pathways to citizenship that the US provides each and every year.

    Anyone who just jumps a border or overstays a temporary visa has chosen from day one to give the middle finger to the laws of the US. If nothing else, they are simply line-cutters, and doesn't everyone despise line-cutters? And then they have the unmitigated gall to demand services and benefits from the taxpayers, not to mention repeated demands to just overlook the fact that they have broken dozens of federal and state laws, many on an almost daily basis.

    Charity and goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter. If instead the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, then me calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

  • MJBinAL||

    well said.

  • Devastator||

    Very backwards thinking on your part.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So we have to cut a deal for the privilege of e forcing longstanding federal law? That isn't a deal.

  • Careless||

    Really? You're ok with trespassing?

  • Careless||

    It's functionally identical. You were welcomed into a place and now you are no longer welcome there. If you remain, you're trespassing.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure that a wife is welcome in her husbands home.
    There are several million "illegals" who are now married to US citizens that cannot naturalize.

    So you are basically suggesting that the "majority" gets to veto allowing you to have your wife live with you in the same country.

  • damikesc||

    So you are basically suggesting that the "majority" gets to veto allowing you to have your wife live with you in the same country.

    Yes.

    Did you think a sob story was going to work?

  • ||

    Good, I just wanted to make sure you would establish the fact that you're an asshole who doesn't respect other people's individual rights.

    Whatever it is about America's immigration laws you think is so great, it must be pretty important to you.

  • BYODB||

    Still trying to stand on Natural Rights I see.

    Still maintain that Natural Rights are never in conflict with one another? I'll assume you haven't read anything else on the subject since last week.

  • ||

    I assume you're still a moron.

  • BYODB||

    Since you went straight for an insult rather than meaningfully addressing what was identified as a shortcoming in your knowledge last week, it's clear you did not read further into natural rights to discover why it is that others disagree with you. Including, notably, the very philosophers who came up with the notion of natural rights.

    I'm trying to encourage you to actually read up on the rhetorical points you try to stand on, but if you want to continue revealing yourself to be a sophist by all means continue. We're all a little sophistic, sometimes, but for you it seems to be standard operating procedure.

  • BYODB||


    So you would be ok with gun control if the majority wanted to ban all guns? Cause without natural rights, that's what you got.

    Is there such a majority in this nation, because it would appear such is not the case as there has been no formal amendment to the constitution to rid ourselves of the 2nd amendment. (And yes, I'm fully aware the right to self defense is not granted by said amendment merely codified by it.)

    The natural right to defend oneself is notably silent on the issue of the right to protect oneself with a firearm in particular, although any reading of the right to defend oneself would necessarily include a gun if it's reasonably expected that a firearm would be used on you by another.

    Notably there are exceptions to it, such as if you're a felon it's generally thought that you have surrendered your right to self defense as you have willfully violated someone else's right not to deprived of life or property.

    Natural rights can come into conflict. Pretending they're something like the ten commandments is simply false, even while they are derived from God.

  • damikesc||

    Good, I just wanted to make sure you would establish the fact that you're an asshole who doesn't respect other people's individual rights.

    What Constitutional rights does a non-citizen have? We CHOOSE to be kind, but if Congress passed a law tomorrow tossing all of them out immediately, there'd be no legal case against it.

    Whatever it is about America's immigration laws you think is so great, it must be pretty important to you.

    Well, I think American citizenship should have some value. You, clearly, disagree.

  • ||

    I think that American law should be just and should treat people who have been here since childhood humanely. Tearing people away from their friends and families and lives is inhumane.

  • BYODB||

    And yet, it is considered a kindness to those people to put off deporting them for so long that they grow up in said nation directly leading to this juncture.

    Tell me, have you heard the phrase that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'?

    Are you able to recognize that this is the very type of situation that phrase refers to?

    But no, continue pointing fingers at the people who are doing what DACA was always intended to do rather than at the people who used DACA as a political tool to attempt to achieve amnesty over immigration reform.

    I'm sure you'll convince no one that isn't already a hysteric.

    I'll note that you don't appear to lay any blame at the Democrats or Obama's feet for this mess, despite the fact this program could only lead to this very destination. In what universe did DACA mean 'you get to stay', one might ask, but I don't expect a cogent answer. Telling the truth is simply not an option for you, I understand what it would do to your emotional appeal to reject logic, accountability, and reason.

    We would all respect you more if you just came out and admitted that you don't believe in nations, states, sovereignty, or nationality. Those are harder arguments to make, so frankly I suspect they're beyond your capacity.

  • ||

    In order to qualify as a "dreamer" under the act they have to be age 12 and have been here at least 5 years.
    So it's not a matter of deferring action until AFTER they have grown up. For the most part they have already been here long enough to have spend a substantial portion of their childhood here.

    Children who have been here less than 5 years, or are under the age of 12 can still be deported with their parents.

  • ||

    And again, DACA is not an ideal solution. It is just a desperate measure to try to give these kids some kind of opportunity to pursue happiness, because that is the morally right thing to do.

    It's not a sinister attempt to import Democratic voters. it's not a plot to create a class of people dependent on Democratic power. It's just a way to let human beings live their lives, since asshole like you keep standing in the way of that.

  • Rhywun||

    What DACA actually was, was a way for Obama to kick the can down the road for his successor. That is all. All the crap about "happiness" and "morality" didn't have jack s--t to do with it.

  • ||

    Who gives a fuck what Obama's motive was? People pushed for a law to get the Dreamers legal status. They got blocked. Obama took some executive action.

    What I care about, and what you should care about, is what happens to the human beings who have lived here since childhood. I could not give two shits whether it benefits Democrats politically or not.

  • damikesc||

    Who gives a fuck what Obama's motive was? People pushed for a law to get the Dreamers legal status. They got blocked. Obama took some executive action.

    Which he legally could not do.

    You know, his party had an awful big majority for his first two years.

    Funny how these poor kids weren't a big deal then, right?

    What I care about, and what you should care about, is what happens to the human beings who have lived here since childhood.

    They get deported and can apply for a visa. You know, like everybody else who isn't a citizen.

  • ||

    They get deported and can apply for a visa. You know, like everybody else who isn't a citizen.

    Like I said, you are an evil person, who doesn't give a fuck about other people's human rights.

  • damikesc||

    Again, Hazel, U.S. citizenship is a human right?

  • Spinach Chin||

    "It's not a sinister attempt to import Democratic voters."

    Allowing illegal immigrants to stay and arguing for their legalization is a cynical plot by liberals to increase the Democrat voting base.

    Full stop.

    Anyone that thinks otherwise is a credulous dupe.

  • retiredfire||

    You lie!
    Importing more demoncrap voters, dependent on demoncrap power is EXACTLY what this is about for you commies.
    How very chauvinistic of you to claim that only through breaking our laws and being in this country can these law-breakers have "some kind of opportunity to pursue happiness".
    Meanwhile, you commies show disdain for what this country is about, constantly.
    So? What? In no other country can anyone become happy?
    You fools don't like it, here, that much. Why do you claim that someone coming here from abroad will?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I think that American law should be just and should treat people who have been here since childhood humanely. Tearing people away from their friends and families and lives is inhumane.

    Funny how Hispanics are all about La Raza and "WE DIDN'T CROSS THE BORDER THE BORDER CROSSED US", but when you send them back to their native land they have a conniption fit.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    By that standard you could never imprison any criminal who has a family for anything.

  • MJBinAL||

    You are wrong in just the first two words ... because clearly you do NOT think.

  • mpercy||

    Well, they could go live in the wife's home country. Assuming the husband can legally immigrate to her home country.

    Their situation is 100% one of their own making. And one for which my sympathy is tempered by that knowledge. I empathize with people arrested and jailed for illegal drug use, because they should be able to use those drugs if they want (in a safe way, I'm against their driving under the influence for example). But they *knew* it was illegal and they *knowingly* took the risk, so they gambled with their freedom and lost. That's on them.

  • MJBinAL||

    Every time I think you have reached the pinnacle of stupid, you prove me wrong by rising even further.

    Congratulations ..... I guess.

  • Devastator||

    Not it's not. It's false equivocation. Next you're going to use a car analogy to explain how I'm wrong.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Chipper, it is trespassing for them. Citizens are owners, so it isn't for us, or our invited guests. Those who are uninvited, or who overstay their invasion certainly are trespassing. And our federal govt. certainly has enumerated constituitonal authority to deal with it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Should I be able to give sanctuary to immigrants in my own home?

  • BYODB||


    Should I be able to give sanctuary to immigrants in my own home?

    You know, that's actually a pretty good question. I'd say yes, and I'll tell you why.

    It puts the onus of supporting them squarely on your own head rather than expecting your neighbors to pay for it.

    It's more complicated than that, but at the end of the day we'll see how many proponents of that type of system actually invite those illegal immigrants into their homes and how discerning they are of those immigrants foibles once it's their own property at stake.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is the core question I think about in regards to my views on open-border versus not. It's a difficult topic for me to fully come to a stance on it.

    As for your last point, I do fully agree that many of those who are fully for refugees and immigrants would be the first to be upset by being personally inconvenienced by them. Though that's a criticism of those people's hypocrisy rather than taking a stance against immigration.

  • ||

    Ok, so is it okay if I pay them to work for me while they live in my home?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're welcome to take as many Tlaxcalan gnomes into your home as you wish, Hazel. Just don't expect the rest of us to support spending a single penny of our taxes on providing them with services, especially since most of them are too fucking lazy to feed their own kids.

  • MJBinAL||

    no it is not okay for you to pay them to work for you while they live in your home.

    And it is completely wrong for you to even suggest it. By your own words they have a right to be there, and a right to anything they find there. They have a right to your checking account and credit cards and you have exposed your hard, evil, Nazi heart by even suggesting that they should have to earn what they are naturally entitled to.

  • retiredfire||

    "Should I be able to give sanctuary to immigrants in my own home?"
    Let's start with the fact that this argument ISN'T about "immigrants", who are people that go through the legal immigration system, but illegal invaders.
    Does someone escape the consequences of breaking other laws if done in your own home?
    I think not.
    So, the answer to the question of if you could give sanctuary to an illegal invader: A very big MAYBE, but only so long as they never step off your property.

  • Brandybuck||

    It's not trespassing. Look up the word. I mean seriously, look up the word.

  • ||

    That could apply to campus speech codes just as well as immigration laws.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Except it doesn't Hazel.

  • politicalmenace||

    You're joking right? I understand the joint part but the overstaying of a visa is binding contract that is signed by the visa holder before they enter the country. They sign it acknowledging the limitations and their willingness to abide by it. If you overstay your visa its a direct violation of our current immigration laws which is subject to a band from the US up to 10 years and if its your second violation it can serve as a permanent band. Smoking a joint and overstaying a visa are in totally different categories but I am sure you knew that before you used such a shortsighted analogy.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Then work to change those laws. Ignoring them leads to loss of respect for all laws.

  • steve walsh||

    And so Shikha reveals a complete misunderstanding of negotiating and deal making.

    Trump did not cut a deal with Pelosi and Schumer, they met and agreed that they wanted to do a deal on the issue of the Dreamers. They agreed this deal would be developed and passed as legislation in Congress (as opposed to through executive action). Miller and Cotton are Trump's primary negotiators (given this will be a Legislative deal). They have set out their list of demands following the tried and true method of "Start High to End High". They have likely included items they don't care about that the other side values very much. Thus they can give these things back in exchange for keeping the details most valuable to them and Trump. These are called "elegant negotiables".

    Nothing odd or unusual about any of this. Anyone that was convinced a deal was struck in the White House meeting is ignorant and naive. Deals don't work that way in business, nor in politics.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well said Steve.

  • mpercy||

    If we give DACA kids a break, can't we just deport their illegal parents when the kids turn 18 as part of the deal?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Why wait? If my Dad robbed a bank when I was 12,would the govt. wait 7ntil I was 18 to send him to prison as an accommodation towards me?

    Seriously, we coddle these people beyond belief.

  • retiredfire||

    If your dad robbed a bank and used the money to buy a house, you can bet the government wouldn't wait until you were 18 to seize that house as the fruits of illegal activity.
    This nation punishes the children for the "sins of the father", all the time - heck, they even do it when no charges are filed and there has been no "due process".
    "Coddling" doesn't go far enough in describing what happens to these people, or what the commies, hoping for their votes, want to give them.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's gonna be a great deal, the best. Believe me.

  • Cy||

    Yep. We'll have more laws and lots of people will get more government money and there will be more debt. It'll be AWESOME!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Apparently there was a deal made by the voices in Shika's head that Trump is supposed to abide by.

  • Cy||

    Shika clearly doesn't want to MAGA!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    She hates America. I'm sure she would much prefer we had Angela Merkel's immigration policies.

  • MJBinAL||

    That's Shitma for you.... all about those voices in her head.

  • Careless||

    Well obviously the side negotiating from a position of strength is supposed to give up more than the other side, right? She is dumb as a rock.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well, that appears to be how Ryan and McConnell are doing business with the democrats.

  • ||

    One side of this issue has the moral high ground, and it's not yours.

  • damikesc||

    One side of this issue has the moral high ground, and it's not yours.

    "Let's break laws I don't like" is something akin to the "moral high ground".

  • ||

    I don't laws that are evil.
    Breaking evil laws IS the moral high ground.

  • damikesc||

    Breaking evil laws IS the moral high ground.

    Obama's DACA was evil and cruel to the illegals who shouldn't have been lied to that they'd be allowed to stay. It was evil and heartless.

    The only plus is that it was illegal, so no law has to be broken to correct it.

  • ||

    You know what is even more evil and cruel? Deporting them to a foreign country they don't even remember and no longer have any ties to.

  • damikesc||

    You know what is even more evil and cruel? Deporting them to a foreign country they don't even remember and no longer have any ties to.

    I'm sorry...you're not explaining how this is MY problem.

    I didn't bring them here illegally.
    Nor did I lie to them and say "Well, you can stay"

    Perhaps you should stop being such an evil asshole to these people.

  • ||

    It's your problem because you are the one supporting having armed men come to their homes and forcibly take them away to a foreign country they don't remember and have no ties to.

    That action is on YOUR hands, not mine.

  • ||

    Why should someone "leave when asked" if they have a right to stay?
    One hopes that YOU would be civil and not make demands of people that you have no right to make.

  • ||

    They have a moral right to stay, as should anyone who has grown up in any country.

  • damikesc||

    Meade....what right do they have to stay?

    They're here illegally.

  • ||

    the same right that is described in the Declaration of Independence.

    ... thay they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that among these rights is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...

  • damikesc||

    the same right that is described in the Declaration of Independence.

    You're aware the Declaration of Independence has literally no relevance to a discussion of Constitutional rights, right?

    It's why I reference CONSTITUTIONAL rights (which exist) not DECLARATION OF INDEPENCAL rights (which do not exist).

  • damikesc||

    It's your problem because you are the one supporting having armed men come to their homes and forcibly take them away to a foreign country they don't remember and have no ties to.

    Perhaps you shouldn't have been lying to them for years that this is OK when plenty of people were saying "No, it really isn't"

    That action is on YOUR hands, not mine.

    "Hey, look, we did something stupid and fucked these kids over for years...but it's your fault!!!"

  • ||

    Those people don't have a right to say "No, it really isn't".

  • ||

    No, they don't.

  • damikesc||

    Those people don't have a right to say "No, it really isn't".

    Constitution and legal precedent say otherwise.

  • MJBinAL||

    Hmm, how evil is it to entice people to invade another country illegally thinking you will get them off the hook for the crime later? Should Hazel go to jail as an accomplice when the illegals are deported?

  • mpercy||

    Let's let the kids stay and deport their parents. The parents knew they were breaking the law.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yep, their parents sure shouldn't have come here and created this problem, should they? You sit there and act like we kidnapped these families at g7npoint and forced them to come here.

    We didn't. If you want to know who is truly evil for encouraging this delusion that they had some kind of right to break our laws and come here illegally, you need only look in a mirror Hazel.

    You have a lot of blood on you hands Haze. Are you going togo apologize to these people for cruelly aiding and abetting their lawbreaking? I doubt it. You should also pay them for their inconvenience. Seeing as how you are at least partially culpable. Better yet, you should offer to give up your citizenship and go off to 9ne of these wonderful countries these people came from in exchange for one of them getting citizenship.

    And no sneaking back once you're out.

  • retiredfire||

    But bringing them, and doing the same to yourself, to a foreign country that they don't know and have not ties to, isn't evil and cruel?
    Why do you want to reward evil and cruel behavior by the parents, accomplishing what they wanted, when they broke our laws?
    Letting people off the hook for breaking the law is bad enough, but giving them what they hoped to achieve, when they did it, is doubling-down on stupid.

  • BYODB||

    The so-called 'Dreamers' were never even lied to about being allowed to stay. They were told, point blank, that it was a deferred deportation. Unless...you don't know that DACA is an acronym.

    From Google:

    It stands for 'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals'. The program allows individuals who came to the United States as children and who meet certain qualifications to request deferred action against removal for two years.

    So to expect a different deal now reveals that it was a lie to the American people, and DACA was the pathway to amnesty based on the same spurious claims Hazel is making.

    In other words, because Obama told them they could stay for an unknown period of time before being deported the assumption was that later down the road they would be removed but the HOPE was that a Democrat would be in office to help push through an amnesty.

    There is no way to spin this that doesn't reveal it for what it always was: an attempt to get another amnesty through the door.

    Hazel, bless their heart, thinks reforming immigration is a bad idea because Hazel doesn't believe in nations or states. That's the argument they make. Since States and Nations don't exist, how can borders?

    Yeah, sorry, you'll have a really hard time convincing the rest of the planet on that point.

  • ||

    What is, and always has been, the morally right solution is for them to have a legal pathway to citizenship.

    If you want to call that "amnesty" fine. There should be amnesties for people who have done nothing wrong. There should be amnesties for ALL the victimless crimes. it's immoral to punish people for doing things that are objectively harmless, of which overstaying a visa or not getting one in the first place is an example.

    Hazel, bless their heart, thinks reforming immigration is a bad idea because Hazel doesn't believe in nations or states.

    No, actually I have been advocating immigration reform for a very, VERY long time. it's people like you who have been blocking such reform.

  • BYODB||


    What is, and always has been, the morally right solution is for them to have a legal pathway to citizenship.


    Stop lying Hazel, this already exists. What you propose is a system that turns away no one, which is not a 'legal pathway to citizenship' it is a wide open door.


    There should be amnesties for people who have done nothing wrong.

    So you're finally honest. You don't believe there should be an immigration system, you believe in wide open borders only for us here in the United States. Thus, we are the only nation on the face of the Earth who's borders can not be enforced. Tell me, what result do you foresee from such an action on the macro scale from other nations?

  • ||

    Stop lying Hazel, this already exists.

    No, it doesn't. You still don't understand immigration law.

  • BYODB||

    If there isn't a legal pathway to citizenship, than how do you explain legal immigrants.

    This is such a simple point that it's amazing you could get it wrong even if you're thinking purely in the abstract.

  • ||

    The problem is that once you have been in the country illegally, you cannot apply for a legal visa until AFTER you return to your home country for 3-10 years. (probably 10 for most illegals). Even if you have US citizen children or are married to a US citizen. And even then the US government could still deny you a visa.

    For many people, leaving the country for 10 years, taking that risk they they many never be allowed to return is not really an option. They would have to abandon their lives, often including small children, for all of those years. Forcing people to abandon their families for that length of time is inhumane.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Forcing people to abandon their families for that length of time is inhumane.

    Deport the rest of the family, too, so they can stay together.

  • retiredfire||

    That's called having consequences for your actions.
    A "moral" position is accepting those consequences.
    It is immoral to expect to not have to, when others have.

  • damikesc||

    The problem is that once you have been in the country illegally, you cannot apply for a legal visa until AFTER you return to your home country for 3-10 years. (probably 10 for most illegals). Even if you have US citizen children or are married to a US citizen. And even then the US government could still deny you a visa.

    Your complaint shows that you don't want an immigration policy.

    You want totally open borders.

    Because a policy specifically indicates some might fail to qualify.

    For many people, leaving the country for 10 years, taking that risk they they many never be allowed to return is not really an option. They would have to abandon their lives, often including small children, for all of those years. Forcing people to abandon their families for that length of time is inhumane.

    Which part of this is the fault of the government?

    They didn't have you come over illegally.
    Nor did they make you stay.

    You chose that. C'est la vie. Choose better next time.

  • mpercy||

    There *is* a legal pathway to citizenship and about 1 million people utilize these paths every year. The US is the most generous country in the world when it comes to granting citizenship.

    But illegal aliens scoff at following the law.

    There's lots of laws I disagree with, drug laws for one, but I still follow them even while advocating for them to be changed.

  • ||

    There is a legal pathway for legal immigrants, but NOT for many illegal aliens.

    DACA (and DAPA, never implemented) were explicitly meant to target the populaton of people who could not apply for a legal visa without leaving the country for 3-10 years. That's about 5.5 million people.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hazel, it's people like you who created this problem by sneaking them in and helping them stay, thereby creat8ng the problem. You made promises you couldn't keep, and now it's everyone else's fault.

    You should pay a steep price too.

  • MJBinAL||

    Sweet Pea, you don't get to decide what is moral. You might as well give that one up. NONE of us are willing to let to define those standards for us.

    Yes, we have been hoping to block eliminating our nationhood by eliminating our borders for a very long time. In fact, we as a nation have been doing that for hundreds of years now.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hazel, I think allowing progressives to,live in the US is evil. They are an existential threat to all individual rights, and in many cases our very lives. My personal feeling is they should be driven out, impisomed, or even eliminated for their Marxist practices that have already caused the deaths of over 100 million innocent people in the last century.

    However, our constitution, and other laws do not allow for that. I believe in the rule of law, and the cos tituion. Would you rather that those that believe as I do should gather together and just do whatever we feel like to stop this evil?

    In other words, be careful what you wish for. Without all those yucky laws, people like you wouldn't do very well.

  • MJBinAL||

    Progressives (like Hazel) count on everyone else following the rules while they ignore them. Been that way all my life at least.

  • ||

    People who have lived here their entire lives since childhood SHOULD be citizens. People who are married to US citizens and have US citizen children SHOULD be citizens.
    The fact that the law does not allow millions of people like that to become citizens is abhorrent.

  • ||

    If you're going to claim that there are no "shoulds" about anything, then you might as well just abandon any pretext of having any sort of moral standards as to what should be legal or not and just say you're going to vote for whatever you fucking feel like because FYTW.

  • ||

    But you think it's cool to rule brown people from foreign countries and tell them where and how they are allowed to live?

  • damikesc||

    But you think it's cool to rule brown people from foreign countries and tell them where and how they are allowed to live?

    Does the US have zero right to control their borders?

  • ||

    Because those other people's autonomy doesn't matter. The fact that those other people have lived within the borders of the US for almost their whole lives doesn't matter. They aren't really people to you, are they?

  • damikesc||

    Because those other people's autonomy doesn't matter. The fact that those other people have lived within the borders of the US for almost their whole lives doesn't matter. They aren't really people to you, are they?

    They're clearly people.

    Citizens? No, they are not that.

    Therefore, they have no right to be here.

    Being alive isn't enough to qualify for citizenship.

  • ||

    I see, only US citizens have human rights.

  • damikesc||

    I see, only US citizens have human rights.

    What version of Reason are you visiting? Because it is not this one.

  • ||

    Citizens? No, they are not that.

    Therefore, they have no right to be here.

    I'm just reading your comments, man.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Foreigners have no right to be here.

  • ||

    What do care about is that they respect my rights.

    What about coming here and getting a job violates your rights?

  • ||

    So you're in favor of reforming immigration laws so they can become US citizens? I.e. "amnesty"?

  • ||

    Why is reforming immigration law equated with amnesty

    Go ask the people who keep screeching "amnesty" any time someone tries to reform immigration law.

  • BYODB||


    Go ask the people who keep screeching "amnesty" any time someone tries to reform immigration law.

    We accuse you of being for amnesty rather than reform because you have explicitly come out in favor of amnesty over reform. Repeatedly. So it's hardly 'screeching' we're just pointing our your expressed preferred policy.

    I have tried really hard not to insult you today, but you're making it pretty tough. Your constant lying and moving of the goal posts is a direct response to the fact you have emoted your way through this issue rather than thinking it through.

  • retiredfire||

    People "screech" amnesty any time someone tries to reform immigration law, because said reform ALWAYS includes rewarding those who have broken the laws in place when they came, by giving them an amnesty.
    Will the newly reformed immigration law be such that it will no longer be illegal to be here, without having gone through the legal immigration process, as it is now?
    Or, do you think the reformed laws will have an open border?
    You claim not to want that.
    Then why should those, who violated the old law, be given a reward for such behavior, when the same thing would be illegal, under the reformed law?
    You are the typical commie in that you won't be honest about what you, really, want, because you know it is so unpopular that you will get nowhere. So, you come up with incremental moves, lying about the ultimate goal, hoping that no one will notice until it is too late.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Sparky, she just makes it up as she goes along. Can you 8nagone what a nightmare world this dumb bitch would create if she were in charge?

  • mpercy||

    Let the kids stay, and deport the illegal aliens who are their parents. Deport the illegal aliens who married US citizens, and let the US citizens move to the deportees country and apply for the necessary visa for their spouse to come back with them. They knew the laws and they broke them.

  • MJBinAL||

    If you are born here you are automatically a citizen in the US. Interestingly enough, that is NOT true of most countries, you need to be born to a citizen for that to happen.

    There is a special program that allows people to come to the United States to marry a citizen and automatically be a legal resident. It is called a Fiance/Fiancee Visa and if you follow the procedure it is a sure thing UNLESS your beloved fails a basic background check. The Islamist bitch that helped with the terror attack in the community center in California passed the basic background check and came here on a Fiance/Fiancee Visa.

    As usual, you lie like a log Hazel.

  • Careless||

    Apparently Shika wants 4 more years of Trump. What a moron.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    At this point he appears to be the best realistic option. If he is to be replaced in 2020, it needs to be with someone better, who can actually get the votes.

  • buybuydandavis||

    After all, these are immigrants illegal aliens who, through no fault of their own, were brought to this country without proper authorizationillegally as children.

    FTFY

    Reason declares the whole world US citizens, because no one was not born a US citizen through a fault of their own.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Is it also "no fault of their own" when they remain in the US illegally as adults?

  • ||

    Because they are morally obligated to go move to a country they don't even remember and abandon their lives, family, friends, dreams, and hopes. Because only people with the right pieces of paper are entitled to those things.

  • ||

    You're an idiot.

  • ||

    I have a concept of morality that is more sophisticated than "what the imaginary sky god said".

  • ||

    No, I just think you have a very unsophisticated idea of what the word "morality" means.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    'Sky God'.......

    Your concept of God is some guy in the sky? What a t8ny little mind you have. Probably filled with stunted, reta4ded dreams.

    My concept of God is an unkowable force that created all of time and space, existing even beyond any currently existing quantum reality. Also, my concept of morality is far beyond yours Hazel.

  • MJBinAL||

    And you, Hazel, have no morals.

  • ||

    No, like the government issued piece of paper with a number on it that says you are allowed to have a job and a life.

  • ||

    You don't have a social security card?

  • ||

    You don't even know what eVerify is do you?

  • ||

    I'm confused. My government issued deed is supposed to mean I AM allowed to decide who I invite to come live with me and/or work for me. Or are you argijng that government issued deed SHOULD allow the government to decide what you can do with your private property?

  • ||

    Weren't you the one who was just objecting to the use of the word "SHOULD" with respect to what laws ought to exist?

  • ||

    I didn't say that states "Shouldn't" exist. I said that states don't have rights .

  • ||

    Rocks exist. Do rocks have rights? You're not even thinking.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    According to our constitution, they do. Hazel, why did you immigrate here in the first place if you don't like how the government is put together? Did you really expect you would immigrate here and we would restructure the entire foundation of our society because of your feelz?

  • ||

    I liked that whole thing about the pursuit of happiness, not to mention all men are created equal.

  • damikesc||

    I liked that whole thing about the pursuit of happiness, not to mention all men are created equal.

    Why keep referencing the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE when the CONSTITUTION is what matters?

  • damikesc||

    I'm confused. My government issued deed is supposed to mean I AM allowed to decide who I invite to come live with me and/or work for me.

    Meade coming out against child labor laws....or else will have to admit that those rights are hardly absolute.

  • BYODB||

    I think I've shown multiple times that Hazel does not understand natural rights, they just like to stand on them to make emotional appeals.

  • ||

    Do Please demonstrate your superior understanding of natural rights ...

  • ||

    I have. I am consistently failing to find a philosophical treatise about the rights of man encapsulated therein.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You're not the only citizen of this country Hazel. You've got around 320 million roommates that get some say too. This is why you can't unilaterally decide who gets to c9me and stay here.

  • ||

    You might have noticed that libertarians aren't really that excited about "majority rule".
    We tend to think that individual liberty should enjoy certain protections, even from what the majority has to say about things/

  • MJBinAL||

    Allow me to suggest Hazel, you engage in some education.

    Just to start, try Plato's "The Republic" In it you will find ideas about government you should understand.

    But just as just start for you, the founders of this nation, set up checks and balances in our CONSTITUTION (not Declaration of Independence) and the mandated governmental structure, to provide for self-rule via representation, in the attempt the thwart the abuses of direct democracy.

    Those abuses, and the natural evolution of direct democracy to a tyrant, are discussed in the writings of Plato. You see, there is a purpose to this constitutional structure. Citizenship, borders, checks and balances, are all intended to make a place where the lofty ideals in the Declaration of Independence might, for the first time in recorded history, be possible.

    Perhaps if you understood how we got here and why, you might appreciate these structures more. In any case, at least you might be able to make arguments that make sense.

  • damikesc||

    Because they are morally obligated to go move to a country they don't even remember and abandon their lives, family, friends, dreams, and hopes. Because only people with the right pieces of paper are entitled to those things.

    It would happen in literally every country in human history.

    As I've said before, Andrew Fastow's kids couldn't keep the money he skimmed from Enron...

  • ||

    Having a job you aren't entitled to is just like STEALING!

  • damikesc||

    Having a job you aren't entitled to is just like STEALING!

    No, it's not like stealing.

    It is a violation of immigration law.

    You are really, really bad at this. Try using intellect. Using emotion is not working well for you.

  • ||

    The LAW is the LAW. Stuff is bad because it's against the LAW!

  • ||

    Laws are arbitrary, morality, is (theoretically) not. I'm not a moral relativist. I think it's possible to reach definitive conclusions about what is objectively moral and what is not. Conclusions that are based on reason rather than on religious faith.

  • BYODB||


    Laws are arbitrary, morality, is (theoretically) not. I'm not a moral relativist.

    It would be wise to act as if your moral precepts are the superior one's while holding only yourself to those standards. You might note that this is exactly what Christ did, and furthermore you might note he was literally murdered for it.

  • damikesc||

    Hazel, should abortion be outlawed? It's held by many to be morally abhorrent

  • damikesc||

    The LAW is the LAW. Stuff is bad because it's against the LAW!

    ITT Meade is all for treating jaywalking like murder.

    Both are illegal, right?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No Hazel, it's against the law because it's bad. As usual, you have things backwards. You honestly sound like a five year old having a tantrum because someone took your binky away.

  • ||

    What's "bad" about crossing a border and voluntarily exchanging money for labor?

  • MJBinAL||

    So, you don't believe in law?

    Everyone should operate without restraint of any sort?

    Be careful Hazel, in a might makes right world you might not do so well.

  • damikesc||

    Because they are legally obligated to go move to a country they don't even remember and abandon their lives, family, friends, dreams, and hopes. Because only people with the right pieces of paper are entitled to those things.

    FTFY.

    If some homeless squatter came into your house and refused to leave, it wouldn't be moral of you to toss them out, right?

    But you'd do it.

  • retiredfire||

    A moral person abides by the laws in effect, in the place they are.
    Thus, these "dreamers" ARE morally obligated to remove themselves from where they are, because IT IS the law that "only people with the right pieces of paper" may reside, here.
    If they were moral, they would insist that their parents accompany them.

  • Rhywun||

    Well, Obama encouraged them to do so and now it's all Trump's fault for picking up the mess he left.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Manifest Destiny, son.

  • Tony||

    I think you should be deported for that time your mommy went above the speed limit with you in the car.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you really enjoy showcasing your utter stupidity, don't you?

  • Tony||

    So what you're saying is you're a racist asshole.

  • Sam Haysom||

    No they are saying you are dumb.

  • MJBinAL||

    Actually, given a working definition of Stupid as "Ignorance that cannot be corrected", I believe Tony is technically stupid.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Triggered Tony doesn't have an argument. Sad.

  • Tony||

    Speeding is more of a crime than being in the country unlawfully.

    So, obviously that infraction must be punished for at least as many generations as you want to punish immigrants for.

  • Tony||

    Possessing weed is way, way more of a crime than being in the country unlawfully. But it's a law, so obviously you endorse keeping and enforcing it no matter the human cost.

  • MJBinAL||

    See what I mean? He continually keeps using individual state laws as examples for violations of federal law.

    He also does not seem to know (but should be VERY thankful) that although non-citizens do NOT have a "right" to US residence and may be deported, citizens can be prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, but CAN'T be deported.

    Many (most even) other countries not only deport non-citizens, they will revoke citizenship from even native-born citizens as punishment and will deport citizens.

  • damikesc||

    That isn't fair.

    UN-triggered Tony also has no arguments.

  • retiredfire||

    You know what? Dummy: if there was even a hint, anywhere in the recesses of legality, that deportation was a consequence of speeding, then it might be a possibility that somebody's mommy should be.
    But, in your abjectly stupid effort to bring a complete non-sequitur into the discussion, there is no such consequence - while deportation is the prescribed remedy for the situation of someone being here, illegally.
    Just can't help yourself, can you?
    Do you realize how stupid you make all your fellow commies look?

  • Bubba Jones||

    It was not hard to predict the author of this piece

  • buybuydandavis||

    ultra-restrictionist White House aide Stephen Miller

    Woo hoo! Ultra-Restrictionist! Sounds like a super hero!

    Just more shriek inflation. Shows that "Far-Right" is losing its punch.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And on White House cookie day, I'll bet Miller only allows one cookie per staffer.

  • damikesc||

    If Dalmia an ULTRA-OPEN BORDERS person?

    I'm betting she wouldn't label herself as one.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well, after you label everyone to the "right" of Karl Marx as "Far-Right", folks stop reacting in the desired way. So you need a new, more extreme label. Apparently the latest one Shitma heard at the last party meeting was "Ultra-Restrictionist".

    Pity, does not seem to be working as planned.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Comparing Trump to a hostage taker is better than comparing deportation to enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, but that's not saying much.

    Yes, it happened:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....is#comment

  • buybuydandavis||

    Should President Trump not back down, Democrats will have little reason to continue to negotiate.

    Good.

    No negotiations.
    No deals.
    Enforce immigration law.

  • Tony||

    We are enforcing them. What you mean is "Write new laws that magically make the Mexicans go away."

  • Tony||

    Is that the sound people with your condition make when attempting to say the word "did"?

  • Sam Haysom||

    A sad joke from a guy who never knew his dad.

    See tony that's how you burn someone.

  • Tony||

    You don't care about enforcing any law, you care about ethnically cleansing the country.

  • MJBinAL||

    Tony's kind of cute when he blusters like that isn't he?

  • ||

    To me it means "there's way too many assholes around who don't think that brown people are human beings".

  • Rhywun||

    LOL, the "brown people" thing again. Who's the racist here?

  • Azathoth!!||

    What about the white, black, yellow and red Mexicans?

    Do you only care about Mestizos?

    Are you saying that we should keep the white, black, yellow and red Mexicans out?

    Because that's pretty fucked up.

  • BYODB||


    Do you only care about Mestizos?

    Damn, dude, that's a historic burn.

    It's almost like there aren't naturally ginger-haired white Latinos.

    Sheesh. Do you even Univision bro?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The existing laws work pretty well when enforced.

  • ||

    They work pretty well at inflicting horrible suffering on innocent people.

  • ||

    Yes, technically innocent if they were brought here below the age of consent.

  • ||

    No, not even if they stayed.

  • BYODB||

    It's wrong philosophically as well because the 'age of innocence' ends and if they're still here after it does they are no longer innocent as they gain knowledge of their wrongdoing and choose to continue it.

    It's another thing entirely to declare that they realize that the law is immoral and they choose to break it, but that would be to ignore their blatant and clear conflict of interest in the matter. It is up to the citizenry if their desire for welfare programs and labor protections exceed their desire for more immigration. Thus far, we have chosen more labor protections, not less, so I'm afraid the choice has been made even if you dislike it.

    Sometimes a compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

  • ||

    Again, you're now saying that someone who was here since they were 3 years old has some sort of positive moral obligation to leave the country ... why? Because "the law is the law"? Fuck that.

    A person who has been here since they were a small child is not really an "immigrant" in any meaningful sense. We already spent the money educating them anyway, as if that was even a legitimate consideration. Human beings have a right to pursue happiness. They are not obliged to subordinate their basic human rights to the interests of people who just happen to have the right documentation. It's immoral for "US citizens" to demand that someone who has lived here since they were a child leave the country just so they don't have to compete with them for jobs. That is evil.

  • retiredfire||

    Well, you're right about one thing: the "dreamers" are not really immigrants in any meaningful, or ANY, sense.
    Immigrants have gone through the legal immigration process.
    "Dreamers", by definition, didn't go through any legal process and are, thus, illegal invaders, regardless of their age when it happened.

  • MJBinAL||

    So, your main point is that we failed to prosecute and jail the parents for violations of our human trafficing laws? Harsh Hazel!

  • Azathoth!!||

    Their parents inflicted horrible suffering on them by removing them from the country of their birth and forcing them to live a fugitive life in a country they can now never immigrate to legally, if that is what they wish.

    It's like using your kids Social Security numbers to get credit in their name so you can blow it on yourself while screwing up their lives in the process.

  • MJBinAL||

    "It's like using your kids Social Security numbers to get credit in their name so you can blow it on yourself while screwing up their lives in the process."

    Wait! What?

    Why would you do that when you can the government borrow it and make the little bastards pay it off in taxes later?

  • Tony||

    You xenophobic nuts are starting to give libertarianism a bad name.

  • Cy||

    HA! Libertarians worried about what everyone else thinks? You're a barrel of fucking monkeys.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony fucks monekys, as long as they're boy monkeys.

  • MJBinAL||

    Do you think Tony can get hard enough to do that? lol

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Showing Tony off is a great way to turn people in the middle against progressives.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Correct. Like you.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    No. You're one of Tony's socks.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    There's nothing incoherent about noting your long history of creating new handles to talk to yourself with in a bid to "make the puppets dance." It's all here for anyone to see.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    You also have a long history of accusing others of doing and being exactly what you are.

  • BYODB||

    Now now, guys, we are all Tulpa. It is known.

  • Tony||

    I could ask what's the point of a freedom-maximizing political philosophy that somehow justifies building walls to keep the brown people out, not for any reason other than you don't like being around brown people.

    You're going to have to work a lot harder mentally if you want to live in a world in which other people are as free as you want to be.

  • damikesc||

    I could ask what's the point of a freedom-maximizing political philosophy that somehow justifies building walls to keep the brown people out, not for any reason other than you don't like being around brown people.

    So, to have borders is to be oppressive.

    Intriguing theory.

    I'll make a deal: We'll give them the EXACT same rights as illegals as their home country does for illegals.

  • Tony||

    Borders aren't necessarily oppressive. The way you want US law to treat immigrants is, though.

  • damikesc||

    Borders aren't necessarily oppressive. The way you want US law to treat immigrants is, though.

    I'd ask if you're aware that your two comments are utterly contradictory --- but, no, you do not.

    Hint: enforcing immigration law is how one controls one's borders.

  • Tony||

    Make immigration less of an endless bureaucratic nightmare and fewer people will be trying to improperly cross your precious border.

  • Tony||

    Because racist fuckstains like yourself vote into office people who promise to continue demonizing brown people, which is convenient for them as it takes your small mind off of any real issues they can't handle.

  • BYODB||

    So, just to note this, but Tony appears to be more than willing to call any restrictions whatsoever upon immigration the result of 'racist fuckstains' while equating the libertarian notion of immigration as literally the same as the Republican position.

    Hmm...a winning strategy from a winning personality.

    It is one thing to espouse policy the way Trump does, which frankly I think a lot of us probably don't appreciate, but it's quite another to recognize that sometimes to dismantle something a certain order of operations is necessary.

    You want open immigration? Give up the Progressive notion of protectionist labor policies here in the United States like the minimum wage, welfare systems, single payer healthcare, etc. etc. that make this other policy untenable.

    If you can't do that, then it isn't us that are holding these people hostage. It's you, and you have the gun pointed at us too. You'll forgive us if we don't thank you for that.

  • damikesc||

    Make immigration less of an endless bureaucratic nightmare and fewer people will be trying to improperly cross your precious border.

    Do away with Constitutional protections and cops might not have to lie to get warrants so often.

    I was unaware that difficulty is now the "moral high ground"

  • Tony||

    You're really grasping.

  • Azathoth!!||

    What the hell is it with you people and this insistence on referring to Mexicans as 'brown people'?

    Mexico is a multi-ethnic European based nation, just like the US--it's just that the nation is Spain, not England.

  • Rat on a train||

    Aren't Mexicans a mix of red and white (pink?)? The brown people live in the Pacific.

  • MJBinAL||

    Tony, a hint, this is the kind of stuff that makes even your reasonable comments be discounted.

    You do realize that the majority of people immigrating here legally are from racial genotypes that might be considered "brown"?

    So, if the main point was to keep "brown" people out, why would the topic be illegal immigration only? It is as if, lacking a legitimate argument, you were resorting to yelling "racist!" at everyone who disagreed with you.

    It reminds me of the Federal Judge in Hawaii that says that stopping immigration for certain countries Trump consider security risks is unconstitutional because he is discriminating because they are Muslim majority countries even though there are 50 other majority Muslim countries that are not on the list.

    Agree with the policy or not, how does this logic work? Is it supposed that Trump decided that the 50 were not really Muslim? How does the judge know? It is clear that the judge just decided what result was desired and just made up a lame excuse to justify it.

  • Careless||

    Yep, at least Shika gets paid to make herself look like an idiot

  • ||

    You may have noticed that Reason writers are pretty much uniformly on one side of this issue.
    I think we can tell who represents libertarianism more.

  • Rhywun||

    Immigration isn't the only issue that lacks one "true" position.

    If Reason really wants to go full open-borders, which is what appears to be happening, they ought to be advocating for the repeal of various laws that prevent it right now. Until then, they're asking us to simply ignore everything that's currently on the books for the sake of their pet cause.

  • ||

    Libertarians have been advocating for liberalizing immigration laws for decades.
    The fact that xenophobes have been preventing reform for all of that time is not our fault.

  • damikesc||

    Libertarians have been advocating for liberalizing immigration laws for decades.

    OK, Meade --- why have ANY immigration laws?

    They're going to be "unfair" to somebody?

    Where does your preferred "liberalization" end?

    Give us an end point.

  • ||

    Why don't we just start with the proposition that people who have been here since they were 3 years old should be allowed to naturalize?
    Or the proposition that people who are married to US citizens and have US citizen children with them should be allowed to naturalize?

  • Tony||

    Because they will vote for Democrats. It's not necessarily racism, it's thought-policing. You know, for freedom.

  • Tony||

    Actually it's the taco trucks. I just fucking love tacos.

    I think it's hilarious that rather than try to do the normal political thing and work out how to appeal to voters, you just want to eject anyone who doesn't agree with you.

  • damikesc||

    And now you reveal why you want them. You don't care about them, you want them to win elections for you.

    You're using them.

    Basically.

    The Left didn't turn the South into the scourge of American society until Democrats could no longer win elections down here.

  • Tony||

    Democrats could no longer win elections there because their Southern faction really didn't like giving rights to black people, and they defected. I think that whole "We want to keep oppressing black people" thing is what contributes to the scourge image.

  • Rhywun||

    They just moved north and oppressed black people there by implementing policies to trap them in a life of poverty and government dependence. Yay Dems.

  • Tony||

    They became Republicans. The Republican party is who they used to be. Not a lot of them in the Northeast, huh?

  • damikesc||

    Tony, the GOP has won 4 governors seats in the NE in the last 2 yrs or so.

  • damikesc||

    Democrats could no longer win elections there because their Southern faction really didn't like giving rights to black people, and they defected.

    Know how many segregationists joined the GOP?

    Two. Thurmond and Helms.

    The rest all remained Democrats until the end of their careers.

    I think that whole "We want to keep oppressing black people" thing is what contributes to the scourge image.

    It's always amusing seeing Progressives, who work hard to never be near any minorities, mocking somebody who lives in a state with the 15th largest black population in the country (mind you, we're not a very big state). Funny, all of those race riots seemed to be focused in Democrat strongholds...not in my state.

    Weird, huh?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Democrats could no longer win elections there because their Southern faction really didn't like giving rights to black people, and they defected

    To where? To the party that had, by that time, been working for over a century to secure black people's civil rights?

    Riiiiight.

  • damikesc||

    Why don't we just start with the proposition that people who have been here since they were 3 years old should be allowed to naturalize?

    Why?

    What is the benefit?

    To encourage MORE people to come here and hide for a few years?

    Seems like a great idea.

    How about do the work and try to be allowed in. If you don't qualify, tough shit. American citizenship should mean something,

    Or the proposition that people who are married to US citizens and have US citizen children with them should be allowed to naturalize?

    See, people have abused that so hard that it is hard to say "Let's do it". Sorry. Other ruined it for the future.

  • ||

    What is the benefit?

    Not doing terrible things to innocent people isn't a benefit to you?

  • Rhywun||

    Look how well America solving the rest of the world's problems for them has worked out so far.

  • damikesc||

    Not doing terrible things to innocent people isn't a benefit to you?

    Not intervening in all kinds of horrible places overseas is doing a terrible thing to innocent people.

    Yet I don't want us to interfere in all kinds of horrible places overseas.

    I guess I'm a monster...

  • ||

    Ok, so now you are adopting the left's argument that inaction = action.

    I guess you're totally cool with the ACA's individual mandate now.

  • damikesc||

    Ok, so now you are adopting the left's argument that inaction = action.

    I guess you're totally cool with the ACA's individual mandate now.

    Mocking your thrashing attempt at an argument is not the same as actually agreeing with the argument.

  • BYODB||

    This doesn't address the simple question of where it ends because we already know the end point is no restrictions whatsoever (and we know this because you have explicitly said as much) which is as ludicrous of a position as you're likely to find. Even around here, which is saying something.

  • ||

    I dare you to find somewhere I have advocated no restrictions whatsoever.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ha!

    You said 'our'.

  • ||

    If you don't support the arguments of the vast majority of writers at libertarian institutions, you don't have to support those positions, but you might reconsider calling yourself a libertarian.

  • damikesc||

    Libertarian calls to authority are always baffling.

  • ||

    Libertarians get to decide what the definition of "libertarian" is.

  • damikesc||

    Libertarians get to decide what the definition of "libertarian" is.

    So ALL Libertarians agree? Every last one?

  • ||

    As I noted, it seems curious how virtually all the writers at libertarian institutions seem to be uniformly on the pro-immigration side.

    Curious indeed ....

  • Rhywun||

    I don't recall any recent Libertarian candidate for president calling for open borders. Oh wait a minute, pro-immigration and open borders are in fact not the same thing - despite your constant attempts at obfuscation.

  • ||

    Whose obfuscating? I haven't actually advocated "open borders" anywhere.
    The topic we are discussing is whether people who are already living here and have lived here since childhood should have a right to stay.
    If someone is claiming that's equivalent to "open borders" it's you, not me.

  • ||

    It's fascinating how right-wingers turn into moral relativists as soon as it's convenient.

  • MJBinAL||

    Or, we can tell that Progressives have largely taken over Reason.

  • mpercy||

    "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

    "If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

    Teddy Roosevelt

  • mpercy||

    Anyone, no matter what race or original nationality, who comes to this country legally; who strives for citizenship; who embraces our language & culture while respecting their own traditions; who wants to help keep this country a cut above the rest--I welcome him with open arms and call him a fellow American.

    Those who sneak into this country illegally; who break numerous laws on a daily basis; who reject our culture and retreat into barrios; who demand taxpayer-funded social services not even available to citizens in good standing--I have little sympathy for them and their "plight".

  • Tony||

    Who the fuck might you be anyway?

  • Tony||

    Oh yes, all of a sudden I have that tingly feeling that indicates taht some swarthy taco peddler is gonna rape my sister. Thank you for alerting me to the issue!

  • MJBinAL||

    Tony is just upset that the "swarthy taco peddler" is going to beat him to it.

  • BYODB||

    Notably, for some reason, those who label themselves as 'Progressives' say some of the most racist shit you're going to see around here. They think it's ok because it's supposed to parody what we're saying, when in reality it's a revelation of their inner most thoughts rather than a response to any actual argument. It's call projection and/or a strawman fallacy. Take your pick.

    'Swarthy taco peddler' indeed. Now that's some racism, and the irony is these are the people you say you want to help but you just can't help yourself to throw racial insults their way. You realize that if we were really racists, we would think you're a great guy because of this shit instead of shaking our heads at how juvenile you are, right?

    If you parrot racism back to racist...you're not being 'edgy' you tremendous retard.

  • Tony||

    If the arguments for why you want to deport millions of brown people are all hoaxes and bunk, then there remain precious few explanations for having that opinion, especially when it's so passionately held.

  • Cy||

    I've heard Weinstein's schedule is pretty open.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Last month, President Trump abruptly ended the Obama-era DACA (Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals) "'

    Didn't DACA get it's butt kick in court. Repeatedly.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Trump doesn't need to give the dems anything. All the polling puts a Trump's position squarely on the side of the public. It's a big part of why he got elected. He should absolutely not back down to the democrats.

  • Cy||

    BUT... but..... FEEEEEELZ!

    Something something RACISM!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yep, we're all a bunch of BIG MEANIES. Personally, I own and embrace it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Democrats should follow suit and threaten a government shutdown of their own if Republicans don't pass a clean DREAMer bill.

    Democrats holds gun to the head of Americans:

    We'll destroy the federal government unless you grant our demand for millions more Democratic voters.
    Illegal Aliens First!

    They should run on that in the 2018 election cycle. And forevermore. Pretty please.

  • Rhywun||

    Please. No. Don't shut the government down.

  • ||

    Yes. Allowing Spanish speaking Catholics to live here and have jobs is just like shooting Americans in the head.

  • damikesc||

    Yes. Allowing Spanish speaking Catholics to live here and have jobs is just like shooting Americans in the head.

    ITT, we learn that Meade assumes that anybody who speaks Spanish is illegal.

  • ||

    Ok, people without correct pieces of paper.
    Still, what about threatening to let people have jobs is equivalent to putting a gun to someone's head?

    What is so fucking terrifying about the idea that a bunch of people without visas might be allowed to get visas and stay?

  • Tony||

    He might have to press an extra button on his phone while trying to access customer service.

    Talk about oppression.

  • damikesc||

    Ok, people without correct pieces of paper.

    You mean a visa?

    It has a word for it.

    Try going anywhere else in the world with a visa. Tell me how that works out for you.

    Still, what about threatening to let people have jobs is equivalent to putting a gun to someone's head?

    Given that the only one discussing "guns to heads" are the pro-open borders crowd, maybe you can explain it.

    I'm just saying they're violating law and should be deported and forced to actually attempt to immigrate properly. Not all will qualify and that is the way the world works.

    What is so fucking terrifying about the idea that a bunch of people without visas might be allowed to get visas and stay?

    I have no problem with them getting visas.

    There is a procedure to go through.

    YOU are the one quite unhappy that they should be expected to do so.

    As a rule, if a person's FIRST act on entering a country is to break the law, I don't see them as being a useful addition to the country.

  • ||

    Let's do a simple comparison:

    A) A threat to have armed men come to your home, assert you, and transport you to a foreign country, thereby tearing you away from your friends, family, and the only life you've ever known.

    B) A threat to let someone else stay in America and have a job.

    Which one of these things is MORE LIKE putting a gun to someones' head?

    HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

  • damikesc||

    Let's do a simple comparison:

    A) A threat to have armed men come to your home, assert you, and transport you to a foreign country, thereby tearing you away from your friends, family, and the only life you've ever known.

    B) A threat to let someone else stay in America and have a job.

    Which one of these things is MORE LIKE putting a gun to someones' head?

    What in the blue hell are you going on about here? Is this an attempt at an argument?

  • ||

    As a rule, if a person's FIRST act on entering a country is to break the law, I don't see them as being a useful addition to the country.

    Again, we're talking about DACA here. None of these people actually broke any laws, since they couldn't consent to coming here.

  • damikesc||

    Again, we're talking about DACA here. None of these people actually broke any laws, since they couldn't consent to coming here.

    My child frequently doesn't consent to go to the doctor.

    Yet if he dies from an infection, I'd be up for child neglect.

    Damn the state violating my child's autonomy.

  • ||

    So ... if you don't take your child to the doctor, the child is guilty of something?

    Where in this equation does the child become the criminal?

  • Tony||

    Which is not that serious a crime, and their continued presence in the country isn't even a crime at all.
    But for *some* reason you're incredibly worked up over this one infraction among all others.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Which is why we don't throw them in prison forever or execute them. Also Tony, I'm guessing you wouldn't be too worked up over something minor, like someone having their dog shit in your yard. However, if a thousand people a day brought their dogs to shit in your yard, you might get 'incredibly worked up' about it.

    Same thing here. If it was a few thousand lei9ke a year illegally crossing the border or overstaying their VISAs, we wouldn't be talking about it. But itsmillions of people.

  • Tony||

    Millions of people whom the economy depends on. But I suppose it's about priorities. Normal people think a robust economy is what makes the country do well. You think having fewer brown people is what's important.

  • damikesc||

    Millions of people whom the economy depends on.

    I'll bite...how?

    What particular industries would be devastated if illegals were deported?

    You think having fewer brown people is what's important.

    Proggie still obsessed with race...

  • BYODB||

    The law should require mens rea, but that's absurdly simple to prove in this arena on the part of the parents for the simple fact that they snuck across. If they were unaware that crossing the border was illegal, they would not use Coyote to smuggle themselves across.

    A simple proof that it's a knowing breach of the law.

    Obviously, not every case will be that simple but for the vast majority it is fairly straight forward. And, regardless, the punishment of being sent home is rarely considered a 'harsh' punishment.

  • mpercy||

    Their parents did. We should focus on deporting them.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So you don't believe in the rule of law? Maybe you would be 8n favor of Negan running things?

  • Azathoth!!||

    I don't really understand the morality of letting you and yours import another slave class, Hazel. Didn't you fuck us all with that before?

    Those guys scrabbling for jobs outside big box hardware stores are getting screwed. Being your nannies and housemaids isn't a social plus--especially when you can pay them so much less than a citizen because they've got no legal standing to complain with.

    Between your desperate need for ersatz slavery and Shikha's fervent desire for some dalits to kick around, I'm really starting to get sickened at what's passing for 'libertarian' these days.

    The libertarian position is big wall, wide gates. Secure, and willing to share that security with many.

    The 'let's import brown people to do our menial labor on a black market basis' position you're advocating isn't it.

  • ||

    What the fuck are you talking about "slaves" for? I want them to be legal and eligible to become US citizens like everyone else. Your the one who wants to keep them in illegal status.
    The libertarian position is freedom - an absence of laws against people moving around and exchanging money for labor. They can compete in the same market as US citizens on an equal footing. There are literally ZERO writers on this libertarian website advocating a big wall. It might have occurred to you by now that when the are no prominent libertarians who agree with you, that you might have a misunderstanding about what the "libertarian" position is.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There aren't really any libertarian writers on this site anymore--only Libertarian ones. There IS, sadly, a difference. Much like establishment Republicans, establishment Libertarians have the taint of government upon them and lurch ever further leftward.

    Open borders is a position of international socialism--NOT libertarianism. Libertarianism respects property rights.

    The confusion arises because libertarians are violently against people being kept in place against their will--thus there is huge support for people being able to leave oppressive situations--and go wherever they will have them.

    And that's important. Libertarians don't believe anyone has the right to force themselves on anyone else. It's a violation of the NAP.

    So you have the right of egress--AND you have the right to contract for ingress elsewhere. But you don't have the right to trespass and hope for someone to contract with you for ingress. You have to be responsible and set up your ingress contract beforehand.

    THAT'S libertarian.

  • MJBinAL||

    lol

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Last month, President Trump abruptly ended the Obama-era DACA (Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals) program that gave qualified DREAMers a reprieve from deportation"

    You mean that Obama era program that Obama didn't actually have any authority to enact in the first place?

    Now there is the root of your problem right there.

  • TW||

    But the White House's 70-odd list of demands released over the weekend under the influence of ultra-restrictionist White House aide Stephen Miller reads more like a ransom note than a good-faith opening bid for an eventual compromise.


    For those who are interested (since it wasn't included in the article), here are the
    "demands"
    that the administration wants as a condition for legalizing the DACA aliens. I have to admit that to me, most of it reads less like a "ransom note" and more like "why aren't we doing these already?"
  • TW||

    But the White House's 70-odd list of demands released over the weekend under the influence of ultra-restrictionist White House aide Stephen Miller reads more like a ransom note than a good-faith opening bid for an eventual compromise.

    For those who are interested (since it wasn't included in the article), here are the
    "demands"
    that the administration wants as a condition for legalizing the DACA aliens. I have to admit that to me, most of it reads less like a "ransom note" and more like "why aren't we doing these already?"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Can you try once more?

  • MiraMichaels||

    It was also too much to ask if the Democrats voted for "Kate's Law." EVERY Democrat voted against it.

    What the taxpayers have paid because of illegal immigration is the real crime.What I find most interesting is the all out BLITZ by the Democrats, MSM, every faculty member at any university in the country fighting to the death for illegal aliens? they put a warm and fuzzy name on it "Dreamers." and no one seem to wonder why? future voters? can you imagine the Democrats ever being this interested or motivated in issues involving citizens! There is an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients in the US. That is 800,000 jobs American Citizens don't have or will be in competition for.

    The MSM and Democrats would have us believe that all 800 thousand are not taking jobs Americans want (we've heard that lie for many years now.) This is another falsehood told to the American people. Democrats have actually changed the language. It's not illegal alien its "Immigrant." (like the lie there just 'Kids") there not all picking strawberries they take great Jobs. Good enough jobs to buy homes put their kids through college.Why must the citizens of our country have competition for jobs, education in their own country from foreign nationals? Now Democrats and illegal alien activists admit DACA recipients have great jobs,are buying homes, paying taxes.

    (cont)

  • Tony||

    We're at pretty much full employment and people who traditionally employ migrant workers can't find any white people to stick around on the job for more than a couple days.

  • damikesc||

    Can I say I'm stunned that Progressives STILL support slave labor?

    It went from slavery to Communism (which is no better than slavery) to illegals they can threaten to have deported if they dare ask for a raise.

  • Tony||

    Look in the mirror dipshit. It's not Democrats who favor the status quo. Business interests (Republican party) like cheap labor, while nativist interests (also Republican party) don't want sensible immigration policy.

  • Rhywun||

    Business interests (Republican party)

    LOL. That's news to Apple, Google, Facebook, ...

  • Ron||

    many of those white workers have reported being threatened for being there and thus they left for fear of real harm

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "We're at pretty much full employment and people who traditionally employ migrant workers can't find any white people to stick around on the job for more than a couple days."

    So you favor ignoring existing law andethnically targeting Latinos to work at artificially low wages, thereby maintaining a de facto slave class? Tony, I knew you were a bigot, but I didn't know you fancied yourself a slave owner.

  • mpercy||

    We should probably get rid of all the labor laws.

  • BYODB||

    Full employment, is that a joke or are you looking at the U2?

  • MiraMichaels||

    The GOAL, motivation (Democrats just haven't figured this out yet) is for the American citizens to be employed, sending their kids to college, buying homes. It's not the responsibility of the citizens of this country to support, educate citizens from other country's.

    There is also an incredible public safety issues.

    Some" of the costs associated with illegal immigration.

    *The cost of educating illegal aliens children is staggering. From K-12 it costs taxpayers $122,000 for EACH illegal alien student.

    *Now city, and state officials are appropriating millions of taxpayer dollars for legal fees to to file law suits and in defense of illegal aliens being deported.

    *2012 illegal aliens sent home $62 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. This is why Mexico is getting involved in our politics.

    *30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Does not include local jails and State Prisons. At 21,000 per year expense per inmate in Federal Prison---U do the math.

    *$3Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens, I repeat 3 MILLION a DAY to process Illegals in the Criminal justice system.

    *$2.2Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as SNAP (food stamps),WIC, & free school lunches.

    http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

    http://www.illegalaliencrimereport.com/

  • damikesc||

    Sad I recognized the writer before I clicked.

    Those illegals still being here is Trump actually being nice to them,

    Legally, they should've been deported years ago.

  • ||

    Not kidnapping someone and forcibly shipping them to a country they don't ever remember is doing them a favor. Got that?

  • damikesc||

    Not kidnapping someone and forcibly shipping them to a country they don't ever remember is doing them a favor. Got that?

    I'm sorry --- why is it MY concern if their parents broke a law and idiots like you turned your head to it for years? "They might not qualify for green cards" is evidence enough that they aren't desperately needed.

    Your sob stories are bullshit because people like you have championed this nonsense for years so it'd be harder to toss them.

    Fuck that. Toss them. That they are here at all is an embarrassment.

  • ||

    The whole "dreamer" movement has been going on for a very long time. Nobody has been turning their heads to it. We've been advocating reforms which would legalize these people's status, via congressional legislation, for a long LONG time. We don't want to toss them because it would be morally abhorrent to do so.

  • ||

    Again, breaking laws is not morally abhorrent, if the laws themselves are immoral.

  • ||

    Jesus, one would think that is wouldn't be necessary:

    mo·ral·i·ty
    məˈralədē/Submit
    noun
    principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
    synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
    a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
    plural noun: moralities
    "a bourgeois morality"
    the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
    "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

  • ||

    All you people who are claiming I'm misusing the word never even bothered to do a five second Google.

  • MJBinAL||

    This is funny.

    As if the definition of "morality", somehow defined a base, inviolate set of universal morals, Hazel's.

  • ||

    So you think it's morally right to violently remove someone from their home and ship them to another country just because they don't have the correct pieces of paper?

  • MJBinAL||

    Folks, there is no point in debating Hazel.

    My father always told me never to wrestle with a pig. It is unpleasant, you will get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The laws aren't immoral Hazel. Using children as emotional blackmail for political gain is. Therefore you are the immoral one.

  • ||

    I don't give a shit about political gain. I give a shit about human beings and their inalienable right to pursue happiness.

  • damikesc||

    The whole "dreamer" movement has been going on for a very long time.

    What, calls for amnesty continued after our last amnesty?

    GET THE FUCK OUTTA TOWN!

    I bet if we do ANOTHER amnesty, this will never happen again...

    Nobody has been turning their heads to it.

    True, much like Hollywood didn't turn its head to Harvey Weinstein but, instead, enabled him, you're doing that here. Congrats.

    We've been advocating reforms which would legalize these people's status, via congressional legislation, for a long LONG time. We don't want to toss them because it would be morally abhorrent to do so.

    I think abortion is morally abhorrent. So, apparently, abhorrent morality is not a universally accepted thing.

  • ||

    Enabling people to stay in America and have jobs is JUST LIKE RAPE!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hazel, that's a bizarre thing to say. You should check yourself in somewhere and get the help you need.

  • MJBinAL||

    Enabling people who came her in violation of the law (that person in violation of the law thing usually being referred to as a "criminal") would be a CRIME. Allowing them to stay would be giving them AMNESTY for their VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

    Not like rape at all, a violation of STATE LAW.

    But who brought up "morally abhorrent"? Oh yeah, Shitma.

  • MJBinAL||

    REFORM
    (according to Hazel and Shitma)

    Give us whatever we want since we are always right.

  • MJBinAL||

    Toss Hazel and Shitma too.

  • mpercy||

    When we put people in jail for breaking other laws, we put their kids with other family who can be their legal guardians or even into foster care.

    We can let the kids stay with legal family or put them in foster care, but we can andshould deport the illegal alien parents.

  • MJBinAL||

    The claim is usually that they brought here by family too young to make their own choices. That is in fact a different crime. That means they were brought here in violation of our laws on human smuggling.

    So, let the DREAMERS decide, testify against their family so they can be jailed for human trafficing, or go back to where they came from with the family that brought them here.

  • ||

    testify against their family so they can be jailed for human trafficing

    nothing Orwellian about that.

  • MJBinAL||

    So, according to Hazel,
    anytime you arrest someone for a crime, it is kidnapping,
    deporting someone in the county illegally is "forcibly shipping them to a country they don't ever remember"

    See how Progressive work? They just redefine the terms until their insane ideas seem reasonable.

  • ||

    Arresting someone who has commited a victimless crime is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
    It's like you people haven't the slightest idea what libertarianism is about.

  • I can't even||

    "Congress shouldn't hand it"

    Eloquent as always.

  • damikesc||

    It'll criminalize far more immigrants than it'll legalize DREAMers, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise.

    We were told this wasn't an amnesty. But it seems you believe otherwise.

    Last month, President Trump abruptly ended the Obama-era DACA (Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals) program that gave qualified DREAMers a reprieve from deportation and told Congress that it had six months to legalize them permanently before he starts deporting them in March when the first round of DACA protection expires.

    You're aware the entire program is illegal, right?

    But Miller and Cotton would make overstaying a visa a criminal offense

    Why should it not be?

    You say you will be here for these dates and you lied about it. It absolutely should be a criminal offense.

    Miller and Cotton would also criminalize "baseless" asylum claims to allegedly discourage people without provable claims of persecution from "abusing" America's asylum laws.

    I'm supposed to be upset by this?

    Democrats should follow suit and threaten a government shutdown of their own if Republicans don't pass a clean DREAMer bill. Their support has been crucial for the Trump administration to fund the government thus far.

    PLEASE do this. I'm begging you Dems.

  • BYODB||

    The idea that Democrat support has been in any way, shape, or form useful to Trump is rather hilarious at face value.

    They are literally sharpening their knives while cackling in glee.

  • Tony||

    Miller and Cotton should team up with Trey Gowdy and do a lecture circuit: "Why the master race is actually people who look like Q-tips."

  • Cy||

    Are you insinuating that white people don't like Q tips?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    What an adorable attempt at wit. Tony's wit is like watching a student holiday musical performed by retarded kids.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No need to bring retarded kids into this.

  • MJBinAL||

    Are you saying Tony is NOT retarded? WELL THEN, explain the stuff he writes then!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Yes, white people really are the best. After all, you're living in a white-dominated nation, not a brown-dominated one.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well, there Shitma goes again.....

    "It was too much to hope for that President Trump would actually honor the informal deal that he cut with congressional Democrats to offer permanent legal Immigration ProtestFibonacci Blue via Foter.comstatus to DREAMers"

    An imaginary informal deal that immediately after Schumer told about the imaginary deal, Trump said it was incorrect. There was no deal, there was an attempt at negotiation. An apparently failed one.

    Apparently, Shitma believes that there should be no negotiation, and no compromise. Trump should not make the "Dreamers" part of a immigration reform package, but should just pass out residency and citizenship to all, knock down the border fences, and provide welfare to all.

    Why is this Progressive crap sandwich writing for Reason?

  • Nick W B||

    Do Trump's demands really matter? It seems I've heard enough Republicans voice support for the DREAM act to allow it to beat a veto.

  • MJBinAL||

    They only matter to Republicans that want to be re-elected. Because the people who vote for Republicans and getting pissed.

    Many have wondered how Roy Moore won the primary in Alabama. The easy answer is that Mitch McConnell endorsed Luther Strange and was known to have pumped millions into his campaign. The establishment GOP is the kiss of death in much of the country now. If they hope to be re-elected they are going to have to actually do some of what the base wants.

    I still don't think these folks realize how angry folks are getting. Even if they are ready to leave government, they are going to want private security for years if they pass this stuff. I believe that if folks decide that there is no point in voting because nothing will change, things are in real danger of getting violent.

  • Tony||

    There is only one possible answer to the question "Why did Roy Moore win?" and it involves the word "fucktarded."

  • ranrod||

    This writer along with REASON are open borders anarchist who are complicit
    with others who continue to undercut the numbers of amnesty that will be given....

  • Pat Hines||

    I am a nativist, all nativists should be the only people with ballot access. That's because we own the United States through the struggles of our pioneer ancestors.

    None of my ancestors were immigrants, all were pioneers that carved out our civilization from a howling wilderness.

    We've grown tired of immigrants claiming some sort of authority to tell us how the US should be.

    We nativists categorically reject that idea.

  • joejimtree||

    It's disingenuous to defend immigration policy, because, say, Switzerland has tougher laws. Like it or not, America is different than any other country, and its relationship to immigration is different than that of any other country too. It just is, and it's childish to pretend otherwise.

    Speaking of children, Stephen Miller, doesn't have the emotional or intellectual maturity to solve problems or make common sense. He loves to bicker and outsmart and better other arguments, he's petty and mean spirited, like a teenage boy who doesn't have any friends or hobbies. He has no place in making policy.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Trading amnesty for enforcement works about as well in America about as well as trading land for an end to rockets works for Israel.

    For a supposed moron, Trump is showing a significantly strong awareness of this fact. Shikha, on the other hand, either does not see it or does not care.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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