Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Long Nightmare of the Dreamers

Immigration reform is desperately needed.

A lot has happened in America since April 25, 2001—the 9/11 attacks, two major wars, the Great Recession, the first black president, the iPhone, a Cubs World Series title, and Donald Trump. That was the day the Dream Act, to protect young immigrants brought here illegally as children, was first introduced in Congress. Seventeen years later, they are still waiting for protection.

The fate of those immigrants, known as Dreamers, is stark evidence of the mind-numbing irrationality and dysfunction of our system of government. They did nothing wrong; they have contributed to American society; and they can be accommodated without harmful side effects.

The great majority of Americans reject this treatment. A January ABC News/Washington Post poll found that when asked if they supported a "program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States if they arrived here as a child, completed high school or military service and have not been convicted of a serious crime," a staggering 87 percent of Americans said yes.

Yet year after year, the simple, sensible, humane solution has remained on the shelf. President George W. Bush failed to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill with this included. President Barack Obama was also unsuccessful.

In 2012, Obama finally elected to shield many of these young people with an executive order called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Some 800,000 immigrants who qualified got permits to stay here and work. But the program was of uncertain legality, and Donald Trump decided last year to end it.

DACA is now in the hands of the federal courts, some of which have blocked its termination. It is also in the hands of Congress, which could approve the Dream Act in some form. But despite broad public sentiment for letting the Dreamers stay, nothing has been enacted and nothing is likely to be.

Granting them a path to citizenship is more than anti-immigration Republicans can tolerate. In closing down the program, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said DACA has "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs."

This is a hard argument to make at a time when the unemployment rate is 3.9 percent, the lowest since 2000. As economists universally agree, immigrants (documented or not) not only fill jobs but create them. Since Obama announced the program, the economy has added more than 12 million jobs.

Trump, whose understanding of the policy is close to nil, recently claimed that "caravans" of Central Americans marching through Mexico to cross the border were "trying to take advantage of DACA." But DACA applied only to youngsters who arrived by June 2007. Even the Dream Act would cover only people who came at least four years before its enactment.

Critics regard any accommodation as "amnesty," the term used for the legal status offered to some 3 million unauthorized foreigners in legislation signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Granting refuge to the dreamers, we are told, would stimulate unauthorized immigration by rewarding those who violated the law.

This is wrong for two main reasons. The first is that the foreigners it helps didn't choose to break the law: They were brought by their parents. Many have no memory of or acquaintance with their native lands. Most come from Mexico or Central America, but some don't speak Spanish. Some grew up thinking they were citizens.

To banish them to unfamiliar foreign countries would punish them for the transgressions of their parents. Those known to be dangerous—like the MS-13 "animals" Trump denounces—would not be eligible.

The second fallacy is the notion that the Dream Act would be a magnet pulling in hordes of undocumented migrants. The potential beneficiaries have waited 17 years for a law offering them protection. If it were passed, the typical recipient would have to wait another 13 years to apply for citizenship.

Even if such legislation were enacted into law, there can't be many foreigners who would bet their lives that another version will be adopted decades from now. Not to mention that the foreigners pondering that wager would know that in the best scenario, they would never gain legal status; only their children would. Some incentive.

As it happens, though, there is hardly any chance Congress and the president will act to protect these innocents from the threat of bitter exile. Unable to muster wisdom and resolve, our policymakers will default to cruelty.

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.

  • DajjaI||

    Of course they should be granted citizenship. They are healthy and productive like you say, so they should forswear health and food benefits. This would undermine the excuse to deport them. Also if they supported free speech and gun rights, it would be a slam dunk. And before you call me 'racist', I say the same thing for the Palestinians (as well as the Zionists), not to mention Europe and every part of the world actually. #proclaimlibertythruoutthelands

  • Mark22||

    As it happens, though, there is hardly any chance Congress and the president will act to protect these innocents from the threat of bitter exile.

    Steve, if you cared about "protecting the innocents", you would have worried about all the kids who came to the US legally and found themselves in the same situation as DACA recipients over the last several decades. Like myself for example. Except we obeyed the law and left when we were supposed to, bitter as that was (I eventually managed to get an immigrant visa and return).

    But you and people like you don't give a f*ck about protecting anyone, all you really care about is self-aggrandizement and scoring political points.

  • Freedom Loving Republican||

    You poor fucking immigrant. You're dead wrong if you think we want you here. Legal immigration is worse than illegal because at least the illegals know their fucking place. You're taking our jobs and changing our culture.

  • Mark22||

    You're dead wrong if you think we want you here. ... You're taking our jobs and changing our culture.

    As a legal, skill-based immigrant, I had to prove to the US government that the US does want me here and that I don't take anybody's job. It's a lengthy process, a tax audit of your entire life. After a few decades, both the US and I made a binding, permanent commitment when I became naturalized. It's a reasonable system and set of requirements, something that should be applied uniformly to everybody intending to stay in the US.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Pretty sure FLR is an open borders asswipe pretending to be his opponent, and failing.

  • Mark22||

    Indeed. I was assuming he was trying to mock what he thinks is Republican xenophobia. That's what I was responding to.

  • Freedom Loving Republican||

    You're a fucking liar and you did take that job from an American. Big money wanted you here so they could depress the price of labor. Go home!!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    D- trolling

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Freedom Loving Republican"

    New troll? Is this OBL pretending to be what he thinks is a republican now? Pretty weak so far.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How would granting amnesty to DACA children harm you?

  • Ecoli||

    Where does it end?

    Have you been to southern California lately?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How do the people of southern California harm you?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    By creating socialists and then exporting them to other states to vote.

  • Ecoli||

    How do they help California? Does their presence make SoCal a better place?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How do they help California? Does their presence make SoCal a better place?

    I'm sure some do, and some don't. Why is this even a relevant question?

    Should a person's liberty only be recognized if the result of that liberty "makes the world a better place"? Or should liberty be defended for liberty's sake alone?

  • Ecoli||

    I am all for allowing non-US citizens the liberty to make their own countries a better place. I am not trying to make "the world" a better place, I am just trying to keep the US a moderately good place.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Should a person's liberty to associate with whom they choose only be recognized by the state if that association is "good for America" as measured by some arbitrary standard? Or should a person's liberty to associate with whom they choose be recognized as an end unto itself?

  • Mark22||

    Should a person's liberty to associate with whom they choose only be recognized by the state if that association is "good for America" as measured by some arbitrary standard?

    There is no such "liberty" to recognize. It's not a constitutional right, and it's not a human right as such rights are internationally recognized. And under libertarianism, you only have a right to act if you don't violate the rights of other people, which is also not the case in the case of violating national borders.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one's rights are violated by walking across an imaginary line.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    chemjeff isn't big on property rights, apparently.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    An imaginary INTERNATIONAL BORDER. Sheesh.

    If I walk onto someone else's private property, THAT would be a violation of property rights.

    If I walk onto public property, that does not violate anyone's rights.

    Glad I could clarify that for you.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    An imaginary INTERNATIONAL BORDER. Sheesh.

    You're skilled with the motte and bailey arguing tactic. Make an obvious sounding but broad statement, then when it's pointed out that statement is not consistent with your position, you pretend you were making a narrower statement that is consistent.

    So some imaginary lines are more imaginary than others? Why is an international border more imaginary than a property line?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeff is a disingenuous piece of shit.

  • Mark22||

    If I walk onto public property, that does not violate anyone's rights.

    The use of public property is restricted based on laws voters pass; if you violate those restrictions, you are violating the rights of all US citizens and you get fined or put in jail for it.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    Jeff thinks property rights are imaginary.

  • Mark22||

    No one's rights are violated by walking across an imaginary line.

    That's a communist belief; it most certainly isn't a libertarian belief.

  • Mark22||

    How do the people of southern California harm you?

    By the massive taxes I am forced to pay to deal with their social problems.

  • Ecoli||

    Exactly.

  • Ecoli||

    There is also the transformation of American culture to that of Mexico, Central and South America. The reason we have a flood of illegals is because the countries the illegals are fleeing are "shit holes". That is a crude but accurate description of those countries. Those fleeing are culpable in making those countries the shit holes that they are.

    I don't want America to become a shit hole. Does that make me a bad person?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The problem is that you seem to view protection of liberty as conditional on how it is exercised. You want migration of people but only if they act in a manner that you approve of. That isn't really how liberty works.

  • Ecoli||

    I don't approve of descent into shit hole status. I don't allow my ne're do well cousins move into my home because I want my family to be secure and prosperous. I view protection of my family as a high priority, and as a direct result of liberty.

    You seem to have a deformed view of liberty.

    Again, I ask: have you been to SoCal lately?

  • Mark22||

    The problem is that you seem to view protection of liberty as conditional on how it is exercised.

    Most certainly I do: protection of liberty is conditional on acceptance of personal responsibility. And from a libertarian perspective, your kind of "open borders" are unacceptable because they are asymmetric: they give liberties to non-Americans that Americans don't enjoy.

    But that's not even the issue. The US realistically has a political system that does not protect liberty unconditionally. That is, it violates my liberties, and as a voter and a citizen, I insist that those violations be addressed first.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes it is dumbass. Importing a bunch of totalitarians, or any other group with beliefs and customs antithetical to a free society is destructive to liberty.

  • Mark22||

    How would granting amnesty to DACA children harm you?

    First, I was pointing the hypocrisy of DACA advcoates, not making an argument about what to do with DACA recipients.

    But since you ask, as a group, the DACA adults (and they are adults) are net recipients of government transfers; therefore, letting the entire group stay in the country would be a drain on government budgets and harms all Americans.

    I have no problem letting people in the DACA group stay who don't harm the country; that means people who pay more in taxes than average per capita government spending, and people who assimilate. For people in the DACA group, that should be easy to determine, since they presumably have paid taxes and we can determine how they live, including whether they speak English. They should go to the back of the line for an immigrant visa, and if they use any government services while they are here, they should be deported, same as the rule used to be for legal immigrants.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But since you ask, as a group, the DACA adults (and they are adults) are net recipients of government transfers

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....d_Arrivals

    To be eligible, recipients must have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. The program does not currently provide permanent lawful status or a path to citizenship,[43] nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.[7]

  • Mark22||

    The program does not currently provide permanent lawful status or a path to citizenship,[43] nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.

    So you are saying that the only forms of government transfers in the US are "federal welfare and student aid"? Your ignorance is truly astounding.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Nope. But you are going to have to be more explicit in your claim that DACA recipients are "net recipients of government transfers". They aren't eligible for federal student loans or federal welfare. So what is it then? Are you regarding driving on a public road to be a "recipient of government transfer"?

  • Mark22||

    Are you regarding driving on a public road to be a "recipient of government transfer"?

    Government spends about $21000/person/year, and that amount is proportional to population: for every million people you add, you add another $21 billion. In order not to be a net drain on public budgets, an immigrant has to pay more than that in taxes (income, sales, etc.). At current tax rates, that means incomes far above the median; everybody else is a net drain on public finances. It's basic accounting.

    But if accounting is too hard for you, you can reach similar conclusions when you look at specific services and expenditures.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    Boom.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As I explain below, government spending on public infrastructure, and government spending on transfer payments, are quite different. One is for the furtherance of liberty, one is an infringement upon liberty. Just lumping it all together into one figure is disingenuous.

    Furthermore, even by your own citation, an undocumented immigrant costs the government about $10,000 per year, not $21,000. And preposterously, they charge the cost of law enforcement at the border as a cost incurred by the undocumented immigrant! That is not a cost that he causes to be incurred upon us, that is a cost that citizens choose to impose *upon themselves* for the policy that they have chosen of strict border enforcement.

    Finally, if you are willing to deprive undocumented immigrants of their liberty out of concern that they will wind up costing you money, then why are these deprivations of liberty limited only to undocumented immigrants? Why are native-born citizens receiving transfer payments, and thus harming you, more tolerable than if it's done by undocumented immigrants?

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    Why are native-born citizens receiving transfer payments, and thus harming you, more tolerable than if it's done by undocumented immigrants?

    They aren't. But relying on this trope is basically the sum total of your argument, so you refuse to listen to that when you are told.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you all exerted 1/10th the passion against the welfare state being consumed by native-born citizens, as you do against the much smaller portion of the welfare state being consumed by undocumented immigrants, then we might actually get somewhere.

  • Mark22||

    As I explain below, government spending on public infrastructure, and government spending on transfer payments, are quite different

    It is a simple accounting fact that government spends $21000/person/year, and it needs to take in at least $21000/person/year in order to make up for that. If you admit people who pay less in taxes every year, then that deficit gets worse. How you categorize the spending makes no difference.

    Furthermore, even by your own citation, an undocumented immigrant costs the government about $10,000 per year, not $21,000.

    Correct. As I was saying, I gave that link as an example of expenses, not as the totality of expenses.

    Why are native-born citizens receiving transfer payments, and thus harming you, more tolerable than if it's done by undocumented immigrants?

    What makes you think it is "more tolerable" to me? I strongly oppose those transfer payments as well.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is a simple accounting fact that government spends $21000/person/year, and it needs to take in at least $21000/person/year in order to make up for that. If you admit people who pay less in taxes every year, then that deficit gets worse. How you categorize the spending makes no difference.

    Yes it does. YOUR argument seems to be that the government spending $21,000 per person represents an awful deprivation of your liberty. That isn't true, for the entirety of that sum. Some of that money is spent *securing* your liberty, such as with national defense (at least part of the military budget is devoted to that, anyway), courts, police, public roads, things like that. It is disingenuous to characterize THIS spending as depriving you of liberty in the same manner as, say, government transfer payments. You're deliberately obscuring the issue when you lump the whole thing together into one figure. Moreover, there is no a priori reason why the government expenditures spent to *secure* liberty should be paid for per capita. Maybe it should be a progressive income tax. Maybe it should be a flat sales tax or flat income tax. Maybe it should be tariffs. Maybe it should all be based on user fees. You are just assuming that the correct state of affairs should be that the cost should be divided equally among all people. Sure that's one way to do things but it is by no means obvious that it ought to be that way.

  • Mark22||

    You're deliberately obscuring the issue when you lump the whole thing together into one figure.

    No, I'm saying that if you admit people into the country who pay less than $21000/capita/year in taxes, then other people are forced to pay more. It's a basic accounting fact; it doesn't matter what the money is spent on or how the taxes are raised or how you account for the spending.

    You are just assuming that the correct state of affairs should be that the cost should be divided equally among all people.

    No, I'm not assuming that. I'm saying that if you admit people into the country who pay less than $21000/capita/year in taxes, then other people are forced to make up the difference. It's elementary math. You could have a flat tax, or a sales tax, or a Georgian land tax, and conclusion would be the same.

  • Mark22||

    Yes it does. YOUR argument seems to be that the government spending $21,000 per person represents an awful deprivation of your liberty. Some of that money is spent *securing* your liberty,

    No, not at all. My argument is that government taxing me beyond what it takes to secure my liberty is an infringement on my liberty. But, in fact, I pay many times $21000 in taxes that is my share of national spending. There are many people in the US who already pay less, and I am forced to make up for their share of national spending; that's it's a compromise I made when I came to the US.

    But I certainly have every right to oppose you when you propose policies that further increase redistribution from me to others, and to call you a fool when you try to justify such policies in the name of liberty.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Once again you are assuming that government expenses must be paid on a per capita basis. That is not necessarily the case.

    And I do think that, in the aggregate, liberty is expanded.

    But here is a compromise. Suppose the government recognizes free migration of labor, but charges a "migration tax" on every employer for the cost of each employee's "redistributive costs" to the government. The government would then presumably lower our individual taxes, since we wouldn't be paying for this redistribution anymore. Sound reasonable?

  • Mark22||

    Once again you are assuming that government expenses must be paid on a per capita basis. That is not necessarily the case.

    Are you trying to say "you are assuming that government expenses are proportional to population"? Yes, I'm assuming that because that's both reasonable based on what the money is being used for, and it's consistent with the data. In fact, if anything, data suggests that government spending rises faster than population.

    And I do think that, in the aggregate, liberty is expanded.

    And that's the traditional argument of fascists and communists.

    But here is a compromise. Suppose the government recognizes free migration of labor, but charges a "migration tax" on every employer for the cost of each employee's "redistributive costs" to the government. The government would then presumably lower our individual taxes, since we wouldn't be paying for this redistribution anymore. Sound reasonable?

    So you're saying that the government should put a $X head tax on every employee payable by the employer, and reduce everybody's income tax by $X, while also getting rid of the EITC? (Where $X is somewhere between $10000-$20000.) Sounds like a good compromise to me.

  • mpercy||

    Undocumented immigrant?

    Is a car thief an undocumented driver?

    Is a drug dealer an undocumented pharmacist?

    If the illegal alien presented false documents, is he still an "undocumented immigrant"?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeff doesn't believe in the rule of law. If you bring it up he will respond with some bullshit about how the Nazis followed their laws. He just thinks everything should work based n how he feels. He is not a libertarian, but a progressive.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    That article is about DACA, not the DREAM act that Chapman is advocating. The DREAM act would give them lawful status.

  • Ecoli||

    What about the children of illegals born in America? The birth right citizenship clause of 14A makes them US citizens with all of the social costs associated with those children.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am fine with reconsidering the premise of jus soli, as long as you can provide some libertarian-based arguments against it, and not just "they're icky people that I don't like".

  • Ecoli||

    The financial cost as well as the transformation of our culture to a less desirable culture.

    Western culture is superior to others. Do you agree with that assertion?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Western culture is superior to others. Do you agree with that assertion?

    I think it strongly depends on how one chooses to assess superiority/inferiority. By what metric?

  • Ecoli||

    By the net demand for emigration to Western countries?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Citizenship is a government benefit, not a right. There don't need to be libertarian arguments for restricting government benefits.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    If you reward something, you get more of it.

    We cannot allow there to be an expectation of periodic amnesty. It has to be a one time thing, or else the messed-up situation that the amnesty was supposed to remedy just keeps coming back. And that one time was back in the 1980s. You open borders pushers had your chance and you blew it.

  • retiredfire||

    Granting amnesty to any illegal alien undermines the rule of law.
    Unless you are an anarchist, laws are to be enforced, regardless of whether they, in your opinion, are just, or not.
    To grant any kind of amnesty, especially such a blanket one as for the DACAsses, says our laws may be ignored and will encourage others to do so.
    It, also sends a signal that the ones who are doing it the right way should also break the law, lest they be thought fools for obeying this nations laws.
    If those laws can be broken, with impunity, then why would you, or anyone be confident that the laws that protect you won't be similarly ignored?

  • JoeBlow123||

    *sigh* another immigration article. Disappointing.

    I really like the people who comment down here, they really have made me think even if I do not agree with them and may think their opinions are misguided. Many probably think the same of me. But I think I am becoming less a fan of Reason which is disappointing, the opinions recycled here are nearly identical to what I can find in the New York Times or Economist already. I previously had canceled my subscription to the Economist because I grew tired of the continual Trump bitch fits the Economist would throw. The hectoring and moralizing are a little heavy handed here too, it gets tiresome.

    I really am starting to wonder where the place for middle of the road boring people like myself is nowadays. Certainly not in Trump's party, not in the socialist left, apparently not among libertarians either. The last revelation is disappointing because when I rediscovered this website I was pretty excited. Was this finally a political something I could get behind? Guess not.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Does anyone come for the articles anymore? I come for the commenters.

    A couple of years ago, by my reckoning, a Progressitarian invasion started at Reason. Increasingly, it's clown show articles.

    They hired one guy, edkrayewski, who I was actually impressed with. When he wrote an article, it looked like journalism. Facts. Analysis. A clear point of view, but honest discussion of the alternatives.

    Maybe a month ago, he told me he was sacked. And I was not surprised. He didn't fit in with the All New, All Narrative, All The Time Reason. Honest journalism has no place here anymore. And SJWs are nothing if not ruthless about in group preference and out group attack.

    Bailey is the only guy I don't expect SJW propaganda out of anymore. I wonder how long he can hang on. White, with penis, and not relentlessly SJW. Sounds like 3 strikes to me. He's probably only saved because SJWs have a visceral aversion to articles about science - all that "correspondence to reality" jazz just isn't their bag.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh good, another immigration article.

  • Ken Shultz||

    One upon a time there was a big-eyed bunny with sad, droopy ears.

    And everybody hated him.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Seriously, y'all. Life isn't about finding the most pathetic victim and loving him with all of our hearts. Objectivists may be silly, and Ayn Rand certainly wasn't right about everything--but she was right about some things!

    If you can't write a narrative about how immigration benefits America and Americans, then you have a big hole in your knowledge of free markets and capitalism.

    We've heard the same violin music before on . . . let's see . . . every fucking issue. It doesn't make people feel sad anymore. It just puts them to sleep.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Compassion has been weaponized into a club to beat us into submission.

    Works on most people. The West likely won't survive it.

  • Rich||

    Unable to muster wisdom and resolve, our policymakers will default to cruelty.

    Just wait until the Dreamers get the last laugh by voting those clowns out!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A Memorial Day Tribute to Our Fallen

    (One day in 2004)

    Mr President, the sectarian violence in Iraq is far worse than I thought it would be when I, err "we", decided to conquer the region. Sunnis and Shia' are fighting for dominance in the Muslim world and the absence of Saddam has made the situation worse.

    43 - YOU MEAN THEY IS TWO KINDS OF MUSLIMS?

    Yes, Mr President. But don't worry. We have four years to win. The American people are behind you. Luckily, we convinced them that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. Our puppet was elected and soon that Hydrocarbon Law will be signed and we will own all that sweet crude oil.

    43 - Okay. You're the expert Cheney. Just make su

    Cut to 2008.

    43 - Cheney, we have lost 4500 of our best soldiers and we still ain't got that oil! Now it looks like the Saudi/Jew/US alliance will have to take out Iran to git 'r done!

    Mr President, things look bad now. That socialist Obama has been elected. We have a plan to run the clock out on him and get Bolton and our guys back in office. You know, someone who wants to take that oil back for us!

    43 - Well, goddammit Cheney. I trusted you. And now my approval rating is only 22%.

    Don't worry Mr President, The American people have lousy memories. Those 4500 dead soldiers will soon be forgotten and the GOP will rise again.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, turd!

    "The Death Toll Does Not Lie — Afghanistan Is Obama's War"
    Guess where that headline came from.

  • Ecoli||

    Shorter PB: Why can't we have Saddam running things. Sure, he murdered, tortured, raped, stole, genocided at will, but he was the Democrat's guy.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Just killing Saddam would have been fine.

    See "The Libya Model"

  • Ecoli||

    Yeah, Libya is definitely a role model for Mid East enlightenment.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|5.28.18 @ 10:24AM|#

    So you're fine with Obo owning Afghanistan, turd?

  • perlchpr||

    All of that is true, but... why was it our problem?

  • Ecoli||

    It wasn't our problem. Leaving Saddam in power probably would have been more advantageous for the US, although when you advocate for that you must accept that you willingly accept (not condone) the things Saddam did.

    I was just putting the stink back on PB. The tired, "we wanted the oil" crap is tired, so I figured nobody would mind hearing some other tired crap.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I wish we did take enough oil to at least cover our costs.

  • Ecoli||

    "The second fallacy is the notion that the Dream Act would be a magnet pulling in hordes of undocumented migrants."

    WHy is that a fallacy? Why is it unreasonable to believe that an amnesty for several million illegal immigrants would cause others considering entering the country illegally to think "all I have to do is get across the border and lay low and wait for the next grant of amnesty"?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "WHy is that a fallacy?"

    The same reason that the Law of Supply and Demand has been repealed for imported immigrant labor - because it fits The Narrative.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Immigration is different from naturalization.

    Immigration should be regarded, from a liberty perspective, as nothing more than the free movement of people and labor in order for them to associate with whom they choose. From this point of view, the state's role should be very minimal in restricting this movement of people.

    Naturalization, on the other hand, is akin to membership in a club. It's the prerogative of fellow members (citizens) to decide who may join the club and who may not. But it isn't a question of liberty. If the people want to set arbitrary rules for membership, they have the right to do so.

    If viewed in this way, I would have no problems with recognizing the liberty of DACA kids to be in this country, because they have always had that liberty in the first place. But the question of citizenship is another matter. Personally I would tend to support the position that they would be worthy candidates for citizenship, since they have demonstrated (by their approval to be in the DACA program in the first place) that they have mostly stayed out of trouble, have obtained at least a high school diploma or GED, and have continuously lived in this country for quite a while already, they are not transients. But if others have different perspectives, those are certainly worth hearing from.

    But IMO what shouldn't be up for debate, is whether their liberty to peacefully be in this country should be recognized. It should.

  • Mark22||

    Immigration is different from naturalization.

    Immigration means "come to live permanently in a foreign country"; it isn't just the "moving across a border".

    [Movement across borders] should be regarded, from a liberty perspective, as nothing more than the free movement of people and labor in order for them to associate with whom they choose.

    When foreigners come to the US, it certainly increases their liberty. But under current US law, it decreases the liberty of Americans, because Americans are forced to pay for, insure, and associate with anybody who comes to the US.

    If viewed in this way, I would have no problems with recognizing the liberty of DACA kids to be in this country, because they have always had that liberty in the first place. But the question of citizenship is another matter.

    I don't see in what sense you believe that "they have always had that liberty". They certainly don't have that liberty under US law or under international law. And legal immigrants don't have that liberty either. That "liberty" doesn't exist because nation states generally impose taxes on citizens which is used to pay for services and infrastructure; that gives citizens the right to restrict who benefits from those services and infrastructure.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That "liberty" doesn't exist because nation states generally impose taxes on citizens which is used to pay for services and infrastructure; that gives citizens the right to restrict who benefits from those services and infrastructure.

    You keep coming back to this argument of "I pay for the infrastructure therefore I have a right to decide who gets to use it". Okay then, consider this:

    Suppose in an alternate universe, President Hillary Clinton and a Democrat supermajority Congress passes gun control legislation that bans the transport of guns on public roads. You would still have a right to buy a gun, but you just wouldn't have a legal means to transport it home.

    Based on your argument, would such a law be a legitimate exercise of the government's power? After all, it's what "the people" want (as decided upon by their representatives in the government). Based on your own argument, you would have to answer "yes" to this question.

    An alternative view, is to posit that the state owns public lands and public infrastructure, in trust, to further its legitimate aim of preserving the liberty of all the people. If the government were to use its position as owner of public lands to start denying liberty to people, as in the gun control example above, then that would be a violation of its trustee obligation to use its land to preserve liberty, EVEN IF it was what the people demanded.

  • Mark22||

    Suppose in an alternate universe, President Hillary Clinton and a Democrat supermajority Congress passes gun control legislation that bans the transport of guns on public roads. You would still have a right to buy a gun, but you just wouldn't have a legal means to transport it home. Based on your argument, would such a law be a legitimate exercise of the government's power?

    It would be a legitimate (if harmful) exercise of government power in a liberal democracy or a nation state. In the US, it would likely also be unconstitutional, so they would have to push through a constitutional amendment.

    After all, it's what "the people" want (as decided upon by their representatives in the government). Based on your own argument, you would have to answer "yes" to this question.

    The federal government can restrict entrance into the country because that is both a power granted to it by the US Constitution and because it is recognized international law for it to do so. It also happens to be good policy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It would be a legitimate (if harmful) exercise of government power in a liberal democracy or a nation state.

    And this is where we fundamentally disagree. A government action that violates fundamental liberties is not legitimate, even if the people demand it. But I do commend you for your consistency.

  • Mark22||

    And this is where we fundamentally disagree. A government action that violates fundamental liberties is not legitimate

    "Legitimate" means "conforming to laws and rules". There are many government actions in a liberal democracy that violate fundamental liberties yet are clearly "legitimate". Observing that is not a matter of consistency, it's a matter of basic logic.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is not what I mean by "legitimate". Of course a coercive state can define its deprivations of liberty as "legitimate" by just passing a law declaring it so. But that does not mean its deprivations of liberty are justified, nor legitimate in any moral sense of the word.

    If the government passed a law that said "torture is now legal", would that make government's use of torture "legitimate"?

    You have a huge status quo bias, you know that?

  • Mark22||

    That is not what I mean by "legitimate".

    Obviously not. But in order to have a meaningful discussion, you can't just make up meanings for words.

    But that does not mean its deprivations of liberty are justified, nor legitimate in any moral sense of the word.

    So what you are actually trying to say, it seems, is that immigration restrictions are immoral. Great, make an argument supporting that view. I was subject to immigration restrictions much of my life and I never considered them immoral. So convince me that I was wrong.

    If the government passed a law that said "torture is now legal", would that make government's use of torture "legitimate"?

    It's easy to argue that a law legalizing torture is both illegitimate and immoral. But immigration restrictions are different from torture, so those arguments don't carry over.

    You have a huge status quo bias, you know that?

    Not at all: I strongly favor libertarian reforms. The policies you propose are not libertarian.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No no no, by your definition of "legitimate", whatever the government declares is, ipso facto, legitimate. So if the government passed a law legalizing torture, then torture is therefore legitimate according to you.

    In my view, a legitimate government is one that preserves liberty. An illegitimate government is one that does not. REGARDLESS of how many laws they pass declaring their actions to be 'legitimate'. Would you agree with this characterization?

  • Mark22||

    No no no, by your definition of "legitimate"

    It's not "my" definition of "legitimate", it is the actual definition of "legitimate": "conforming to the law or to rules."

    whatever the government declares is, ipso facto, legitimate. So if the government passed a law legalizing torture, then torture is therefore legitimate according to you.

    Governments can violate international law and rules; torture violates both, that is why it is "not legitimate". I know of no laws or rules that are violated by immigration restrictions.

  • Mark22||

    An alternative view, is to posit that the state owns public lands and public infrastructure, in trust, to further its legitimate aim of preserving the liberty of all the people.

    At most, you might say that the state owns public lands and public infrastructure, in trust, to further its legitimate aim of preserving the liberty of all citizens. It is not the function or responsibility of nation states or their citizens to advance the interests of non-citizens.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    At most, you might say that the state owns public lands and public infrastructure, in trust, to further its legitimate aim of preserving the liberty of all citizens

    So in your view, the government may legitimately deprive non-citizens of their liberty?

  • Nardz||

    I love Jeff's point of view here. It's so clever. Despite the unique geographic advantages the US has, two giant oceans protecting our eastern and western flanks, we're really easy to invade. Just walk across the border, because as Jeff knows, defending a border (imaginary! line) deprives people of liberty.

  • Mark22||

    So in your view, the government may legitimately deprive non-citizens of their liberty?

    Under the US Constitution, the US government may legitimately deprive both citizens and non-citizens of fundamental liberties, and it does so all the time.

    Now, I'd like to reduce those violations of liberty, but that requires careful planning if we don't want to self-destruct in the process. We can have open borders with Mexico after we have largely eliminated the US welfare state and when opening borders goes both ways. Until then, your position is folly.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You are using the status quo to justify the status quo. I do not accept the status quo as a normative state. You are going to have to come up with a better reason than "because we do it that way right now" to justify why the government ought to have the power to deprive citizens of their liberty.

  • Mark22||

    You are using the status quo to justify the status quo.

    Which part of this was to hard for you to understand? I'd like to reduce those violations of liberty, but that requires careful planning if we don't want to self-destruct in the process. We can have open borders with Mexico after we have largely eliminated the US welfare state and when opening borders goes both ways. Until then, your position is folly.

    I'm not objecting to the end goal of getting rid of national borders and creating a libertarian world, I am objecting to the approach you advocate for doing it. Your approach is self-destructive and doomed to failure. Under your approach, the US ends up a totalitarian shithole.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is nonsense. According to the logic of the restrictionists, Latin Americans are pre-programmed to support a welfare state. So if we could wave a magic wand and cause the welfare state to vanish tomorrow, and then allowed them to come in, wouldn't they just go right ahead and vote to reimpose the welfare state?

    If you are open to free migration at all, you have to reject the premise that Latin Americans are pre-programmed to be hostile to liberty. And if that's the case, then why wait?

  • Mark22||

    This is nonsense. According to the logic of the restrictionists, Latin Americans are pre-programmed to support a welfare state.

    No, that is your racist logic. Us restrictionists merely believe that there is a high proportion of Latin Americans who want the welfare state, not that all do.

    So if we could wave a magic wand and cause the welfare state to vanish tomorrow, and then allowed them to come in, wouldn't they just go right ahead and vote to reimpose the welfare state?

    Because if we get rid of the welfare state, then the only people who could actually come to the US and not starve are people who don't depend on the welfare state. That is, by getting rid of the welfare state, we attract a different population of immigrants.

    Furthermore, when did we go from "they can come and work in the US" to "they can come and vote in the US"?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Immigration should be regarded, from a liberty perspective, as nothing more than the free movement of people and labor in order for them to associate with whom they choose.

    Immigration is what it is, regardless of perspective. At this point in time, a great deal of immigration is driven by a desire for welfare benefits and otherwise leeching off the better quality of life generations of Americans have worked hard and paid through the nose in taxes to create here. Illegals are not randomly taking jobs in various locations in the world, some of which happen to be in the US. They are very intentionally targeting the US because they want what we have here.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    At this point in time, a great deal of immigration is driven by a desire for welfare benefits

    To the extent that this is true, let's reduce the welfare state.

    and otherwise leeching off the better quality of life generations of Americans have worked hard and paid through the nose in taxes to create here.

    We have a high quality of life here not really because of taxes, but in spite of them. We have a high quality of life because of capitalism and free enterprise, which creates economic prosperity, which draws other people here who wish to take part in the economic opportunities that we have here.

    They are very intentionally targeting the US because they want what we have here.

    Because they want economic opportunities. That's right. But really even that is besides the point.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    To the extent that this is true, let's reduce the welfare state.

    No argument there -- it makes sense to do this regardless of immigration laws. So let's do that first.

    We have a high quality of life because of capitalism and free enterprise

    Yes, but capitalism and free enterprise depend on stable institutions and a tolerant yet cohesive culture (including tolerance of intolerance and differences of opinion in general). Those things are very difficult to instantiate in a country if they're not already there. People have been trying to create free markets in every country on earth, and it has only worked very rarely.

    Also some regulations are necessary due to externalities, such as reasonable environmental, financial, and labor regulation. Not sure if you've experienced countries where they treat the air, water, and land as a dump.

    Because they want economic opportunities.

    No, they want money. If they can get it for free they'll take it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, but capitalism and free enterprise depend on stable institutions and a tolerant yet cohesive culture (including tolerance of intolerance and differences of opinion in general).

    Stable institutions like a well functioning justice system to adjudicate disputes, sure.

    As far as "tolerant yet cohesive culture"... you are going to have to be more specific. Do you regard modern America to be a "tolerant yet cohesive culture"?

    No, they want money. If they can get it for free they'll take it.

    Do YOU want merely money, or do you want economic opportunity? Why do you posit that "they" are an inferior type of lifeform compared to you?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    As far as "tolerant yet cohesive culture"... you are going to have to be more specific.

    No, I'm not. That's as specific as the rule gets.

    Do you regard modern America to be a "tolerant yet cohesive culture"?

    It was until recently. While this is due to several factors, massive immigration is a big one.

    Do YOU want merely money, or do you want economic opportunity?

    I'm not an immigrant, so it's not relevant. There's nothing wrong with wanting money. But we have to be clear on their motivations, rather than polishing their halos as you are attempting to do.

    Why do you posit that "they" are an inferior type of lifeform compared to you?

    I'm doing no such thing. Preferentially taking care of your own people does not require a belief that others are inferior.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    The only reason anyone wants economic liberty is to get money.

    And with that, I'm going to enjoy my day. I have had quite enough of the tired regurgitations of weak arguments about opening the doors to a flood of expensive problems.

  • Mark22||

    To the extent that this is true, let's reduce the welfare state.

    Yes, let's! And once we do, we can then open borders. Doing it in the reverse order is suicidal.

    We have a high quality of life because of capitalism and free enterprise, which creates economic prosperity

    Well, yes, economic prosperity which is massively redistributed between groups of people via the government. And you want to increase the group of people who are recipients of that redistribution.

    Because they want economic opportunities. That's right.

    Unless they make substantially more than median income, what they are getting is massive government benefits and redistribution, however, not an opportunity for economic success.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, let's! And once we do, we can then open borders. Doing it in the reverse order is suicidal.

    How about, we advance the cause of liberty where we can? How about, using one injustice to justify another injustice is wrong?

  • Kevin47||

    If the presence of one injustice compels an action, said action is then just.

    There are plenty of folks who would like to adopt/foster a few kids, but are limited to one, since adoption is taxing, financially and emotionally, largely on account of the red tape needlessly imposed by our government. The family has not committed an injustice for that reason.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Permitting free migration is not charity. It is defending the cause of liberty. The two are quite different.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    It is defending the cause of liberty

    Unless you're a property owner I guess.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't favor trespassing onto private property.
    But on public roads? There is no such thing really as trespassing.

  • Nardz||

    Define public.
    Hell, define private while you're at it

  • Mark22||

    How about, we advance the cause of liberty where we can?

    Opening the borders in one direction while maintaining a social welfare state in the US is not "advancing the cause of liberty".

    How about, using one injustice to justify another injustice is wrong?

    Immigration restrictions are not an injustice.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Because they want economic opportunities.

    For most, there ain't any. As the Automation Revolution ramps up, the value of "a willingness to work hard" is going to be worth jack shit, unless accompanied by skills that can't be programmed into a computer. Which there are going to be fewer and fewer of as time goes on.

  • Kevin47||

    "To the extent that this is true, let's reduce the welfare state."

    Perfect. Let's do that first. It's a much larger problem, anyway.

    Part of our welfare state comprises a promise to publicly educate every student. ESL students from poor backgrounds (which is pretty much every illegal immigrant) cost nearly twice as much to educate. The average student costs $12k per pupil, so we're looking at upwards of $20k per year per child.

    Estimates of the number of DACA dreamers alone put the number at 1-2 million. But that number hardly comprises every child who has entered illegally. At $250k for a k-12 education for every kid, we are looking at a cost of $250B in educational expenses alone for every million children who arrive.

    If we simply open the borders, how many immigrant children could we expect? 8 million? That's $2 Trillion in education.

    The obvious solution would be to tell parents they are required to educate their own kids, but an influx of millions of soon-to-be-homeschooled Catholics is going to be a non-starter for Dems. So we already have one arbitrary rule impacting the feasibility of open borders, and it's a doozy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perfect. Let's do that first. It's a much larger problem, anyway.

    No reason we can't advance the cause of liberty in any way that we can.

  • Kevin47||

    Compelling one set of Americans to pay trillions to another constricts the liberty of the former.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There's plenty of injustice to go around.

    So, let's alleviate the injustices where we can, where we find them.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    The cost is actually a reason. Defaulting to platitudes doesn't make the reality any different.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Naturalization, on the other hand, is akin to membership in a club. It's the prerogative of fellow members (citizens) to decide who may join the club and who may not.

    Membership in this club seems pretty pointless, when anybody can go there and hang out as long as they want, doing all the same things members can, regardless of whether they're a member.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    doing all the same things members can

    No one here is advocating for this to be the case.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    What specific activity would you disallow non-naturalized immigrants from doing?

    If your answer is "voting", explain how you will prevent them from voting.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not just voting, but all other rights and privileges that are restricted only to citizens. Voting, serving on juries, serving in (certain) public offices, working for (certain) government agencies, receiving (certain) wealth transfer payments, etc.

    As far as voting goes, I favor rigorous identity verification systems for voting so that the right to vote is restricted only to citizens.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Immigration should be regarded, from a liberty perspective, as nothing more than the free movement of people and labor in order for them to associate with whom they choose."

    The world should be my utopian fantasies of it. It *should* be!

    In grown up land, where reality matters, a permanently disenfranchised population within a polity is considered undesirable to those who actually like freedom.

    Also, in grown up land, where not everyone is a libertarian, inviting a statist population to join you in your polity with full voting rights means that your polity gets *less* libertarian.

    The Cuckterians will still feel all warm and fuzzy about how libertarian they were by letting the statists move in and institute the death camps, but the only thing for actual libertarians to hope for is that they get to see the Cucktarians thrown into the woodchippers before they are.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Immigration is a subset of naturalization. You don't understand any of this.

  • Ecoli||

    "If the people want to set arbitrary rules for membership, they have the right to do so."

    What if the people want to make an arbitrary rule that prohibits undersirable people from entering the country at all?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What if the people want to make an arbitrary rule that prohibits undersirable people from entering the country at all?

    No. Just like if the people want to make an arbitrary rule that prohibits 'hate speech'. Questions of fundamental liberty shouldn't be left up to a majority vote.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Movement across national borders is very different from speech.

    I'm guessing you don't favor restricting the speech of a terrorist or a person with Ebola.

  • Kevin47||

    "Questions of fundamental liberty shouldn't be left up to a majority vote."

    They aren't.

  • Mark22||

    No. Just like if the people want to make an arbitrary rule that prohibits 'hate speech'.

    I can't figure out where you think those "liberties" you postulate for migration come from. They don't come from the US Constitution, international law, or democracy.

    Almost every nation on the planet has such arbitrary rules, so it is clearly a common exercise of government power even in so-called "liberal democracies".

    What you seem to be saying is that in a libertarian world, people would have the right to move wherever they want, without government interference. True! I fully support that. But in a libertarian world that right would apply to everybody and it wouldn't infringe on other people's rights. You want Mexicans to be able to move to the US freely without Americans being able to move to Mexico freely. And you want American tax payers to pick up the tab for paying for the education of poor migrants. Neither of those is even remotely libertarian.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I can't figure out where you think those "liberties" you postulate for migration come from. They don't come from the US Constitution, international law, or democracy.

    Same place where free speech rights come from - they are natural rights, inherent in all human beings just by virtue of existing.

    Almost every nation on the planet has such arbitrary rules, so it is clearly a common exercise of government power even in so-called "liberal democracies".

    Using the status quo to justify the status quo is what's known as a "circular argument".

    What you seem to be saying is that in a libertarian world, people would have the right to move wherever they want, without government interference. True! I fully support that.

    Glad we agree on something!

    You want Mexicans to be able to move to the US freely without Americans being able to move to Mexico freely.

    That is not true. I favor free migration of people in any direction.

    And you want American tax payers to pick up the tab for paying for the education of poor migrants.

    That is not true either. I favor fully privatizing education.

  • Mark22||

    Same place where free speech rights come from - they are natural rights, inherent in all human beings just by virtue of existing.

    I don't recognize a "natural right" to cross arbitrary imaginary lines; other than communism, I don't know any political ideology that does.

    That is not true. I favor free migration of people in any direction.

    But what you actually advocate is the unilateral opening of US borders while US citizens are forced to pick up the tab for illegal migrants. So, what you "favor" and what you actually "advocate" are not consistent.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not "arbitrary" imaginary lines. Lines that divide nations. Suppose you and I are neighbors, owning parcels of land separated by a national border. If I invite you onto my property, or vice-versa, should we have the right to do so unimpeded by the state? If yes, then explain where this right comes from. If no, then explain clearly why not.

    But what you actually advocate is the unilateral opening of US borders while US citizens are forced to pick up the tab for illegal migrants. So, what you "favor" and what you actually "advocate" are not consistent.

    You are straining to try to find some inconsistency. I have never argued, advocated, or favored for anything other than free migration of people in either direction across any border. Of course current events are consumed with the idea of people migrating TO here FROM elsewhere, but nothing that I have ever written argues against the opposite occurring.

  • Nardz||

    Then maybe... get the fuck out?
    And take your fellow progressives.

  • Mark22||

    I have never argued, advocated, or favored for anything other than free migration of people in either direction across any border.

    Well, great, so we should strongly consider open borders with any nation that is willing to open their borders with us one equal terms. So opening our borders unilaterally to Mexicans, South Americans, or Middle Easterners is off the table then. Great that we settled that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Why is this reciprocity necessary? Recognizing the liberty of the people is its own reward. Don't hold liberty hostage because other nations don't recognize it either.

  • Mark22||

    Why is this reciprocity necessary?

    Equality under the law is an essential part of libertarianism and classical liberalism. If you give 125 million people the right to move freely between Mexico and the US and deny the same right to another 330 million people, that's not an increase in liberty, that's creating a special privilege for a minority.

    Apart from being unjust and unlibertarian, it's also bad economic and social policy.

  • Rich||

    *** shrugs shoulders ***

    Well, it *is* a free country.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The problem is who gets to decide who is undesirable?

  • Ecoli||

    US citizens as represented by their elected representatives.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Self government is so raycist!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Reason libertarians surely recognize the problem with Massholes moving into NH, overpowering the porcupines, and turning it statist. Similarly with Marylanders moving to VA, Californians moving to Colorado and Montana, etc.

    But somehow noting the same phenomenon would occur with Mexicans moving to the US is racist. Mexico isn't exactly a libertarian paradise these days.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Blasphemer!
    Stop those #HateFacts!

  • Kevin47||

    "The second fallacy is the notion that the Dream Act would be a magnet pulling in hordes of undocumented migrants. The potential beneficiaries have waited 17 years for a law offering them protection. If it were passed, the typical recipient would have to wait another 13 years to apply for citizenship."

    The Dream Act expressly protects the children of migrants. How would a guarantee those children will have citizenship as adults not be a magnet pulling in hordes of migrants with children? This is a tragedy of historic proportions, we are told, but that won't compel folks like Chapman to figure out how to address basic arguments.

    I mean, it's enough my Facebook feed is full of lazy posts of kids in cages from the Obama administration, accusing Trump of running concentration camps. But those people are just hardcore Team-D folks see politics as a sporting event. They feign outrage on the internet, but mostly just live their lives.

    Chapman is literally in a paid position whereby he has the opportunity to change the dialogue, but he dispenses the same prattle about how Congress won't act and how we are just being cruel. He and his ilk are an easy foil for Trump, but I guess it's an easier living than actually demonstrating careful thought of any kind.

  • Mark22||

    The Dream Act expressly protects the children of migrants. How would a guarantee those children will have citizenship as adults not be a magnet pulling in hordes of migrants with children?

    The Dream Act doesn't even protect children, it protects people who came as children; these people are adults now.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Apparently Chapman thinks that the prospect of a benefit 13 years down the road doesn't motivate people to act now, even if it requires a small sacrifice and/or risk.

    I wonder if he's saving for retirement?

  • Mark22||

    He is a geezer from a formerly privileged profession; he is both wealthy and has a pension.

  • buybuydandavis||

    If they had a real argument, they'd give it.

    It's all phony baloney emotional rhetoric because that's all they've got.

    And they're all auditioning for Salon these days.

  • Ecoli||

    Why would anybody want to immigrate to America? I am constantly told by the left that America is a terrible place. The most racist, sexist, xenophobic place on the planet. A truly horrible place. Are these immigrants just stupid?

    Maybe Tony and Palins butt plug can explain this?

  • Freedom Loving Republican||

    You're asking the wrong question. Why woukd anyone want to import foreigners? To cheat the native born out of money by rigging the lsbor market.

  • Ecoli||

    Businesses certainly are interested in depressing labor costs.

    I know you are a troll. Even trolls are sometimes correct.

  • leninsmummy||

    No more special exceptions to the law.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The exceptions are the rare times we enforce immigration law.

  • creech||

    Couple of anecdotes. I carried the National Colors in a parade this morning. In a town with a strong Hispanic presence. Saw lots of apparent Hispanics waving little American flags and acting respectful as the flag passed. Only one glaring disrespect was noted: guy in a red MAGA hat, licking a popsicle...no removing his hat, no hand over heart. Let's look at folks as individuals and stop making generalizations about classes, groups, races, gender, etc. etc.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You can be certain that this story won't appear on Breitbart.

    However, I'm sure they will go to great lengths to popularize a (hypothetical) story about one disrespectful Hispanic jerk who brought a Mexican flag to a Memorial Day parade.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    "Let's look at folks as individuals and stop making generalizations"

    "You can be certain that this story won't appear on Breitbart."

    I loled.

  • buybuydandavis||

    And then everyone stood up and booed the Trumpster!

  • Tony||

    Jesus fuck there are a lot of people here who are really paranoid about the brown menace.

  • Mark22||

    Tony: your racist views are not welcome here.

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    A lot of the posts here deal with the logistical problems that mass immigration causes and the legal hurdles of the same issue. It really only seems to be you that's focused on the racial aspect of it Tony.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony is a huge racist.

  • Ecoli||

    I dropped a brown menace about ten minutes ago. I would have deported it, but no country would take it.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    The brown menace does have a habit of turning places where they live into shit holes.

  • Tony||

    By that do you mean being unprepared for the white menace's imperial looting of the places they live?

  • CA_is_doomed||

    Americans who break the law can and do lose their freedom and often forfeit some of their rights. And yet, aliens who illegally enter the U.S. are rewarded with additional rights and benefits, such as the ability to work in the U.S.

    How is that fair to American citizens?

  • Flinch||

    ...and that's why the left puts an adjective in front of 'justice'. Whatever is used [social, racial, evironmental, etc.] isn't the point - they aim to put their fat thumbs on the scale and rip the blindfold off lady justice. In other words, unequal application of the law is their fond pursuit. It's the same mindset that gave us jim crow laws, and it's just the latest evolution of alleged elitism.

  • Echospinner||

    So the idea is "ability to work" is a privilege, no a "right" to be granted by the politicians.

    You want fairness in the work environment. First day or what. Nobody gives you fairness.

    Over 300 jobs lost at Harley Davidson this week. Why did that happen you can decide for yourself.

    In business always have a plan B. Every individual is responsible for themselves.

  • Ecoli||

    Speaking of citizenship as a birth right, here is an interesting story in the daily mail about just that topic in Canada:

    "Sons of Russian secret agents who spied on the US and inspired 'The Americans' TV show fight to keep Canadian citizenship after it was revealed their parents were gathering intelligence for Moscow under fake identities for thirty years"

  • Flinch||

    Not now, we don't need reform: this congress is too stupid to get it right. It would work something like this: Lindsey will take dictation from Chuck, then go to McConnell as if he could think for himself. Lobbyists will carry the same water to corroborate the errors in play, with an inside/outside move. The senate then stakes out a position foreign to anything the people ever asked for, and when Ryan conferences with senate leadership to see what will pass, the house bill will be formed as a turkey, soon to become complete and total mush.
    The best we can get right now is for house and senate to gavel out and give up on this term of congress. It's a lost cause.

  • ThoughtMarauder||

    Putting Americans First..Finally

    www.thoughtmarauder.com

    The ThoughtMarauder opposes Illegal immigration because he favors Americans – white ones, black ones, asian ones, straight ones, gay ones, tall ones, short ones, progressive ones and conservative ones. All of them!

    As the economy continues to improve, I expect to see many, many more of these types of feel-good stories – along with the subsequent increase in wages that come from reductions in the illegal workforce.

    America First – For Every American!

  • Echospinner||

    Exept analysis of immigration contradicts the idea that immigration reduces economic growth. The opposite actually. In the US there was also an internal migration when women and minority workers entered the workforce and produced another gain. That is over as a source of more growth.

    More workers with a broad skill level produce wealth (it is not just our wages) and grow the economy. More jobs, more opportunities for you and I.

    Nobody can make the thing I am typing on. It is amazing and affordable to near everyone. Nobody can make a pencil as Milton Friedman wrote. (Ok millenials don't know what a pencil is but the 3 year old in my family knows how to operate an iPhone and by the time she is my age will think it was a pencil compared to what she has)

    So wealth is not money. Gain and advancement depend on free markets, exchange of ideas, goods, services and people who make that happen.

  • vek||

    In a post industrial economy it is the high skilled, high wage jobs that are pulling along all the menial jobs. The low level people mostly service the needs of the people with the skills our economy actually relies upon. That's just the way it is nowadays. The programmer creates the job the barista has, the barista doesn't really create much more need for programmers.

    A 1st world country needs high wage workers, not unskilled people. If you import 100 million people who have zero skills, the average income in the country would go down, hence making the average income lower. Lower per capita income is bad. People want higher per capita incomes, not higher overall GDP, as that is what leads to actual prosperity. Low skill immigration increase overall GDP, not per capita.

    Therefore fuck low skill immigrants.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Diversity + Proximity = War

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another great meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, Big-Government Immigration Practices!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Watch us cling bitterly!

    MAGA

  • buybuydandavis||

    "they can be accommodated without harmful side effects"

    I know, right?

    The character of a country is determined by its GPS coordinates, not by the people who live there.

    We could just shoot all Americans in the head, officially open the southern border to unlimited immigration, and US Magic Dirt would keep everything just the way it is now.

    Magic Dirt is so dreamy.

  • Rennata Wilson||

    The long nightmare of foreign nationals smuggled into the United States would quickly dissipate were they to return home.

  • JonFrum||

    When your headline starts with a propaganda term - dreamers - I see no reason - get it? - to read the article.

  • mpercy||

    I would tend to be in the 87% would would opt for giving dreamers a chance. But the poll questions do not continue into the rest of the opinion space. Such as, yeah, I'd give kids brought here a chance, but I'd deport their parents as part of the deal, and make sure their parents could never be granted a family unifying green-card.

    As for "there can't be many foreigners who would bet their lives that another version will be adopted decades from now" that's already been demonstrated as fallacy. After the Reagan amnesty, we've continued to have a steady stream of illegal aliens coming here, many of whom certainly believe that a future amnesty will be granted to them. We can expect that if dreamers are given their amnesty, then kids coming here after that will come to expect the same; and parents will bring kids with them expecting their kids will get the same.

    Finally, Congress took up the DREAM act or legislation substantially similar many times in the last 3 decades. They rejected it each and every time under both D and R presidents and D and R congresses. Congress can certainly change their mind, but stop treating it like there's some unanswered question. It has been debated and debated, and rejected, rejected, rejected.

  • vek||

    As someone originally from California, whose family had to flee to escape the hell hole it has turned into, who is also part Mexican in heritage... I say deport every single last one of those fuckers. The nice thing we could offer them is a chance to reapply for citizenship, which usually people deported as illegals are not allowed to do. THAT could be our kindness. Then we can choose to let in the small percentage that actually did achieve anything.

    The stats for the so called Dreamers are horrible. Lower high school graduation rates than average, same for college, etc. They're NOT especially impressive folks. It's not my fault their parents committed crimes and brought them here. Their parents and them should all have to go back to their home country though. Fuck 'em.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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