Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Abolish ICE

America's immigration roundup squad must go.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was created in the panicked days after 9/11 to enhance national security. But its primary purpose has become hunting down and ejecting people whose main "crime" often is that they can't obtain a piece of paper from the government authorizing them to live and work in the United States.

America got along just fine for 225 years before ICE, the monstrous child of the wars on drugs and terrorism, was spawned. It can do so again.

After 9/11, at the behest of the George W. Bush administration, lawmakers voted to consolidate 22 federal agencies and 170,000 employees under the Department of Homeland Security. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (previously part of the Justice Department) and the U.S. Customs Service (previously part of the Treasury Department) were swept into this newly created behemoth and then re-divided into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and ICE.

But ensconcing immigration in a department focused on national security resulted in a mentality shift. Immigrants came to be regarded not as friends but as foes—potential terrorists or criminals. (This, even though cities with large immigrant populations have lower crime rates than cities with fewer immigrants.)

To be clear, the criminalization of immigrants long predates 9/11. Bill Clinton got the ball rolling after his senior adviser, Rahm Emanuel, urged him to wrest the crime issue from Republicans by "achiev[ing] record deportations of criminal aliens."

To do that, Clinton dusted off a 1988 law that—borrowing a page from the mandatory minimum sentences that were statutorily imposed on drug crimes in that decade—required the mandatory detention and "expedited removal" of criminal aliens without so much as a hearing or any consideration of circumstances.

Before that point, "criminal aliens" referred to immigrants, whether in the country legally or not, who had committed violent offenses or serious property crimes. But Clinton worked with Congress to pass two more laws—the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act—to vastly expand the definition of what counts as an "aggravated felony" for which an immigrant may be deported, and to apply it retroactively to crimes committed many years ago. Murder and rape were included, of course. But so were misdemeanors such as minor drug possession, driving under the influence, and illegal re-entry.

In effect, Clinton created a two-track justice system—one for immigrants and one for citizens.

All of this meant that when ICE was created, it already had sweeping legal powers to engage in mass deportations. Yet only under Barack Obama did it acquire the capacity to do so as well. Indeed, as Marisa Franco and Carlos Garcia put it in a 2016 article for The Nation, instead of "reversing" the deportation architecture he inherited, the 44th president "turbocharged it." According to Detention Watch Network, the annual detained population soared to 363,000 in 2010, a 500 percent increase since 1996. Thanks to ICE and its sister agencies, Uncle Sam now spends more on immigration enforcement than on the FBI, the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and all other federal criminal law enforcement agencies, combined.

On Obama's watch, Congress mandated the maintenance of 34,000 detention beds daily, which ICE has interpreted as a requirement to hold at least that many immigrants at all times. It also appropriated funds to create a sprawling nationwide complex of over 200 detention warehouses, contractually guaranteeing operators a minimum "lockup quota" payment to protect their bottom lines. Coupled with a lack of oversight and an erosion of due process rights for those in the agency's charge, this has resulted in abysmal living conditions and even abuse. An April Intercept investigation found 1,224 formal, documented complaints of sexual assault in ICE detention centers between 2010 and 2017, half of them by ICE agents themselves.

Obama apologists argue that the Republican-controlled Congress is to blame for these developments. But Obama actually expanded the Bush-era Secure Communities program, which enlisted municipal governments into the business of immigration enforcement by having them check the fingerprints of every person they detain against federal databases to determine if he or she is here legally. (Under Bush, just 14 counties were involved in the program; by 2014, it was active in some 3,181 jurisdictions.)

Obama eventually discontinued Secure Communities after complaints of widespread racial profiling and other problems. Trump has had no similar compunction. His threats to defund so-called sanctuary cities and target them with enforcement actions are calculated to pressure them to rejoin the program. He also restarted the notorious 287(g) program, which gives communities a financial incentive to assist federal immigration enforcement activity, effectively turning local police into ICE agents.

What's more, the 45th president is eroding institutional norms that used to temper how ICE agents deployed their awesome deportation powers and machinery. In a particularly disturbing recent development, Homeland Security, ICE's parent agency, has taken to separating kids from parents seeking refugee status at the border in order to deter families from trying to enter. According to a New York Times investigation, approximately 700 children have been handed over to shelters and given little to no access to their parents as their cases wend through the bureaucracy.

No previous administration has targeted immigrants in sensitive locations such as hospitals, but Trump's agents have gone after aliens in almost every conceivable venue, from schools in New Jersey and courthouses in New York to a surgery ward in Texas and just outside a church in Arizona. Hospitals in Los Angeles are now training their staffs to handle ICE raids just as they do active shooters and earthquakes. Medical professionals are preparing to form a three-layer human chain in an attempt to stop ICE from hauling away undocumented patients.

Whereas ICE used to limit enforcement actions to those falling within the "criminal alien" category, now anyone without proper documents or with a minor infraction on his record is fair game for deportation—even otherwise model residents who have lived in America for years and developed deep roots. A green card–holding Polish doctor and father of two who has been here for four decades is fighting deportation for a misdemeanor conviction he received in high school.

"You should look over your shoulder and you need to be worried," Acting Director Thomas Homan declared during congressional testimony last June.

True to its word, the agency is sparing no one. Undocumented parents with American kids are not off limits. In spite of a directive from Defense Secretary James Mattis to leave veterans alone, the agency is seeking removal proceedings against a Chinese immigrant who was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army. Agents are even going after victims of domestic violence who try to file police reports.

Much of this was hardly imaginable two years ago, and there's every reason to believe the problem will continue to get worse. But there is no need for a dedicated entity that only goes after immigrants in the first place. The 1980 Libertarian Party platform demanded the abolition of several of ICE's less draconian predecessor agencies. It's time to renew that call. Regular law enforcement can handle the truly bad hombres. Congress should dismantle ICE and thoughtfully reassign its legitimate functions.

Except for capital punishment, a government has no more awesome a power than to pluck people from their homes, tear them away from their loved ones, and send them into exile. President Trump identified 22 agencies for elimination in his budget. Most of them represent the soft tyranny of the administrative state. ICE embodies the hard tyranny of the police state.

It deserves to go.

Photo Credit: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

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.

  • Rat on a train||

    Too early for this. Couldn't you wait until the afternoon?

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    +1

  • Cy||

    +1

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +2

  • BambiB||

    Actually, I think Shikha has a point (the top of her head). We really don't need ICE. What we need is to station the military on the border and vaporize anyone trying to invade. Men. Women. Children. I don't care. KILL THEM ALL. Keep killing them until they stop coming. Give the ones already here 6 months to get the fuck out. Any who remain, hunt them down and execute them. Make it clear that's what will happen at the end of 6 months so all will be properly motivated to leave.

    Oh... and end legal immigration.

    There. Now we don't need ICE.

  • BambiB||

    Actually, I think Shikha has a point (the top of her head). We really don't need ICE. What we need is to station the military on the border and vaporize anyone trying to invade. Men. Women. Children. I don't care. KILL THEM ALL. Keep killing them until they stop coming. Give the ones already here 6 months to get the fuck out. Any who remain, hunt them down and execute them. Make it clear that's what will happen at the end of 6 months so all will be properly motivated to leave.

    Oh... and end legal immigration.

    There. Now we don't need ICE.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I made it this far whose main "crime" often is that they can't obtain a piece of paper from the government authorizing them to live and work in the United States.

    Can anyone top that?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    "Whose main "crime" often is they can't obtain simple consent from a partner authorizing them to perform the perfectly natural act of sexual reproduction."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Of course! Not getting the right papers from the state is exactly equivalent to rape!

    And people accuse Shikha of being hysterical.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I wasn't trying to make an equivalency, I was challenged to top her level of histrionics.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    Rape, home invasion, and illegal entry are all crimes of invasion. All must be prosecuted. No one has a right to any of them. Not a question of a "missing piece of paper", but a crime against any and all citizens.

  • Mark22||

    I conclude that your inability to reason is the likely cause of your hateful, bigoted beliefs.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's like "not getting the right papers from the bank" is exactly equivalent to bank robbery. They don't have the right papers because they took illegally what the papers merely confirm you came by legally.

  • BigT||

    Property rights enforcement requires a paper trail.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If an undocumented immigrant crosses the border onto public land in this country, whose rights have been violated?

  • BigT||

    All citizens

  • Juice||

    All citizens

    Just like when you don't get a hair braiding license or a lemonade sales permit you've violated everyone's rights.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    How specifically does it violate my rights?

  • damikesc||

    Given that the public land isn't yours specifically, it is controlled by the majority.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Try again. How many ICE raids happen on public lands?

  • damikesc||

    People seem upset about actions in court houses.

    And if you are harboring a fugitive, my empathy is basically zero

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All American citizens who vote for elected representatives to enforce their constitutional power to regulate immigrants.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    So "all American citizens" have the power to vote who can use my property? They have the power to vote who I can employ in my business?

    Yay! Individual liberty!

  • BigT||

    No. Voters representatives have the authority to set the terms for who can be in the country. You have the authority to decide whom you hire. If you hire someone who is here illegally you are taking a chance they will be deported. As an employer you have an obligation to follow tax laws and report their earnings etc.

  • PG23COLO||

    Voters don't have the right to violate the rights of others. Rights come from nature, not from voters and not from legislative bodies. The right to live freely, where you choose, is a universal and natural right. Exercising the power to deny that right is a crime against natural rights.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The right to live 'where you choose' is far from unlimited. And as a citizens of this country, we DO get a say in who comes here and who doesn't.

  • jm15xy||

    Rights come from laws, not nature.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Leo Kovalensky II|6.11.18 @ 9:32AM|#
    So "all American citizens" have the power to vote who can use my property? They have the power to vote who I can employ in my business?
    Yay! Individual liberty!

    You want anarchy, I see.

    The Constitution was founded after states gave up some power to the federal government. One of those powers was immigration (after 1808) and who gets naturalized. The Constitution protects most of the property rights of Americans and protecting the national borders.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'm perfectly fine with Congress defining naturalization. I'm not fine with Congress defining who can come onto my private property. Those are not evenly remotely connected things.

  • BYODB||

    Fun Fact: If you don't pay taxes on 'your lands' they revert to the government so ask yourself how much your private property rights really mean before getting all up in umbrage over immigration and naturalization.

    Basically, you're assuming you have a set of rights that functionally you do not have and extrapolating from there. While I might agree with the sentiment, one would think you'd be more pissed off over the fact you functionally can never actually own property vs. your ability to dictate who may or may not be allowed onto said property.

    This is one of those issues where no matter who you are, or what you say, you're probably going to sound like an idiot. You do, however, get bonus points for the extra retardation of specifically using 'public lands' as the example. You think you'd have more individual rights regarding public lands than you have over lands you actually own? Good luck with that.

  • Tionico||

    and the second of them has naught to do with the immigration/illegal alien invasion issue. Congress indeed DO have authority to regulate who can lawfully enter and/or remain in this country. WE gave it them when we ratified the Constitutoni, or remained here as adults knowing that is the law of the land.

    Now, if one of those illegally y here enters your property, the fact he is ON your property does not affect his unlawful presence within these United States. IF he is here contrary to law, he is on your property contrary to law because he should not even BE within the US. So in that instance, yes, Congress DO hav authority to decide he cannot be on YOUR property... along with not being on ANYONE"S property within the US.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    CRI, "undocumented" is a lie. Illegal alien is factually correct. Don't lie.

  • JoeB||

    They become recipients of taxpayer-funded benefits. They vote Democrat to continue this. They bankrupt the state. Abolish benefits first. Otherwise, wake the f up.

  • Whorton||

    Well lets see.

    26.1 Billion Dollars worth of Remittances sent to Mexico last year (2017). That is 26 Billion dollars just taken right out of the American economy. All untaxed. . . just gone. Where as it could have gone for raises, or to hire real employees, it is gone.

    Every time some illegal alien applies for welfare and gets anything, it takes it away from American citizens.

    Every time an illegal alien has a car wreck and runs away becasue they have no license, and no insurance, or goes home to avoid responsibility for his or her actions, the American Taxpayer picks up the bill.

    Everytime one is arrested and we have to pay to jail the bastard the Taxpayers pay.

    Everytime an illegal attends American schools, it takes resources from other Americans.

    Everytime one goes to the ER, (they never pay) it increases the healthcare costs for everyone. The doctors get stiffed for their bill, the hospital gets shifted for the nurses to care for the bum, the janitors to clean up after them. . . many smaller rural hospitals have already closed. . .

    Oh, and lets talk about the hugh amounts of illegal opiates and other drugs that come in FROM MEXICO. . . the overdoses that have to be treated, and the deaths from those overdoses. . .

    Billions of dollars in illegal drugs:

    www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/us/.....ation.html

    Who gets hurt chemjeff? Everyone in some way.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff doesn't care because it doesn't pull at his little heartstrings.

  • Brendan||

    Same as the people whose rights were violated when the Bundys grazed their cattle on public land.

  • buybuydandavis||

    No means no

  • oscar||

    Yeah I couldn't read beyond that. Considering the author I shouldn't have even read that far.

  • Cy||

    I just skip to the comments. If I feel the need to read a brainwashed, narrow minded, propagandist's writing, I can always pull up a CNN opinion piece.

  • Longtobefree||

    Or a CNN news piece - - - - -

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I thought it was the best line in the entire piece to be quite honest.

    You know who else required people to walk around with their "papers"?

  • Rhywun||

    You know who else required people to walk around with their "papers"?

    There goes that conflating citizens with non-citizens again. I had to have "papers" when I lived in a foreign country. I didn't bitch and moan about it, either.

  • damikesc||

    But we're America and we are held to a standard literally nobody on else is.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's only bad when Whitey does it"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No me! I demand that the Germans cater their complete government policy to this American who crossed their border.

  • Rat on a train||

    They should cater even to those that haven't.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yup, heading off to Germany on a business trip next week. I'll have my passport on me the whole time. My wife was a legal immigrant here in America, legally required to carry her green card everywhere she went. Now she's naturalized, and doesn't need to.

    Because she's a citizen.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To some, rules are for suckers.

  • FlameCCT||

    Every State in the USA. It's called a drivers license or ID card. Not to mention every country in the world. Try entering Mexico or Canada with no ID or permission.

  • BYODB||

    Mexico doesn't give a shit if you come in without papers, but notably they're not as happy when you try to do anything after you're there other than shop.

  • commentator||

    Where exatly is the state that requires everyone to have an id card on them at all times, even when they're not driving or entering an age-restricted establishment?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Government run schools? Did you hear about the undocumented social studies teacher who spent 5 years teaching at a high school before that mean principal deported him from the campus?

  • damikesc||

    "The only thing that the home invader did was to go in a house they didn't have a piece of paper from the government authorizing them to reside there."

  • Brendan||

    A burglar's main "crime" is that they didn't obtain permission before entering the structure.

    That guy over there accused of grand theft auto? Main "crime" is that he didn't obtain a piece of paper authorizing him to have that rental car.

    I'm not a a stowaway, my main "crime" is that I didn't obtain a piece of paper authorizing me to board this ship (or aircraft).

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Looks like we found the one police agency that Reason Republicans still like.

  • Cy||

    I don't like it. But the Federal government does have jurisdiction to control our borders. Do you think ICE should just be a division of the Federal military?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's not a military matter.
    We should have a customs agency to deal with customs issues.
    We should have police forces to deal with crimes that violate people's liberties.
    We do not need a separate police force to deal with the 'crime' of lacking proper papers.

  • damikesc||

    We don't need police to police the 'crime' of just breeding, whether wanted or otherwise, amirite?

  • buybuydandavis||

    The crime is invasion

  • hello.||

    We do not need a separate police force to deal with the 'crime' of lacking proper papers.

    There goes the ATF right crypto-commie? Oops, there goes the IRS too right crypto-commie? Hey, there goes the FBI right crypto-commie? What's that? You actually love you some gestapo shit when the victims are hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens instead of the underage Honduran girl who gives you the 5 dollar handies? Weird. It's almost like the kind of thing a boot-licking crypto-commie piece of shit might say.

  • XM||

    "We do not need a separate police force to deal with the 'crime' of lacking proper papers"

    Then you would have just a bunch of disparate federal agencies enforce immigration laws? States and local levels can't do that.

  • MoreFreedom||

    "We do not need a separate police force to deal with the 'crime' of lacking proper papers."

    It's not a crime of "lacking proper papers", it's being here illegally. Should we let prison escapees go free even though they have a US birth certificate and drivers license?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Our borders are actually a military matter.

  • Juice||

    our borders

    They're not patrolling my borders. How'd you get them to patrol yours?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Got non-Democrats elected to have a majority in Congress.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I voted for Trump

  • BYODB||

    They patrol down here in Texas, but frankly they'll never be able to 'catch them all' let alone a significant fraction. There are literal highways into the U.S. through Federal parks and land, and you don't want to go camping there anymore either.

  • Mark22||

    ICE would be unnecessary if we simply denied all government services to illegal aliens and if regular police enforced immigration law, like it does in other countries.

  • Cy||

    Ha! Good luck with that. Outside of rob/rape vs enforcement of a law that police will turn it into, there're sanctuary cities and states now that would just allow a continuous flow of illegal immigrants into our borders.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The only way you're going to get regular police enforcing immigration laws, is if you stop counting illegals when apportioning Congress and making funding decisions.

    As it stands, "sanctuary" jurisdictions find that accumulating large numbers of illegal aliens boosts their political power by apportionment, and their finances due to counting in distributing funds. California, for instance, would lose several seats in Congress if they didn't have so many illegal aliens present and being counted.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, go further. Illegals REDUCE representation. You have 10M illegals? Then your representation is based on your legal population minus an additional 10M.

  • BYODB||

    And this is why back in the day they counted slaves as partial people as a compromise: Because they were non-voting non-citizens who were still being counted for representation.

    I'd say it's amusing this issue has reared up it's head once again, since it's been 'solved' for over a hundred years, except that one should probably be concerned with slavery-era issues coming back to the forefront of politics.

    I'd be curious how it's ethical or smart to grant an American vote to, say, citizens of Russia but then again 'libertarians' and their open borders policy has always been one of abject idiocy more akin to simple anarchy than any cohesive view of government.

  • Mark22||

    And this is why back in the day they counted slaves as partial people as a compromise: Because they were non-voting non-citizens who were still being counted for representation.

    And now, as then, benefiting the Democrats

    'libertarians' and their open borders policy has always been one of abject idiocy more akin to simple anarchy than any cohesive view of government.

    Libertarians only favor "open borders" within the context of a libertarian society on both sides of the border.

    What Shikha and Robby advocate is Marxist foolishness, not libertarianism.

  • BYODB||


    Libertarians only favor "open borders" within the context of a libertarian society on both sides of the border.


    That's the way I used to read it, but lately I've come to the conclusion 'so fucking what' since we're so far from a 'libertarian' society that talking about what it might be like seems like wishful thinking at best. It certainly has little to do with current reality and, worse, little to do with what is likely to come.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Exactly. When I was active in the libertarian movement, we understood "path dependence". Open borders were the LAST thing you'd go for, after you'd already achieved a nightwatchman state.

    Opening the borders when you're still a welfare state is insane, unless your purpose is to attract as many people who want to a welfare state as possible.

    Open borders 'libertarians' are just reciting the lines without understanding the plot. They don't actually understand the thinking behind libertarianism.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Ruling Reptiles told the peasants to go fuck themselves when they passed prop 187

  • Mickey Rat||

    Except you have the courts ruling that local law enforcement cannot enforce federal law. As well as the fact thst other countries do not necessarily have have the distinction between local and federal law enforcement in the first place.

  • hello.||

    Looks like we found the only police agency the crypto-communist doesn't like.

    Tell us more about how the IRS literally did nothing wrong you boot licking authoritarian cum bucket.

  • sarcasmic||

    All agencies created in response to 9/11 should be abolished. Homeland Security, TSA, and ICE. Any others I am forgetting?

  • King's Ransom||

    I don't think we should limit ourselves to 9/11 originated agencies...that leaves all the oldies but goodies like the FBI, ATF, DEA in good standing.

  • Griffin3||

    Baby steps, Ransom.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    ICE was already agencies in the the US government. They were called Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), US Customs Service (US Customs), and Border Patrol.

  • sarcasmic||

    Fatherland Security also existed in the form of many agencies.

  • hello.||

    The Border Patrol is not a part of ICE. It is under U.S. Customs and Border Protection which is an independent agency within the Department of Homeland Security.

  • sarcasmic||

    ICE embodies the hard tyranny of the police state.

    They don't have their Papiere!

  • I can't even||

    A Monday morning Chapman and Shikha back-to-back. You really must hate us.

  • Mark22||

    I fully agree: ICE should go. Instead, we should simply deny all public services to illegal aliens: no schooling, no police services, no government-backed mortgages, no subsidized public transportation, no Obamacare, no use of public roads or parks, etc. Any such use should be considered trespassing or theft. Furthermore, all government issued IDs (driver's licenses, social security cards, etc.) should indicate citizenship so that regular police can enforce this since, after all, it is simply trespassing or theft.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "I favor unlimited state power until the abolition of the state occurs!"

  • Mark22||

    In what possible way does denying government services to illegal aliens amount to "unlimited state power"?

    But, you're right, "chemjeff", you do favor "unlimited state power".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You have just declared every single resident in the country to be a thief who should be prosecuted. I don't think there are enough jails to hold the entire population.

    Furthermore, you evidently want to throw away the Fourth Amendment by requiring us all to carry around proof of citizenship wherever we go.

    You really are a jackbooted thug, you know that?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No moron, he's not. You're just an idiot.

  • damikesc||

    I'd settle for us to adopt Mexico's illegal immigration policies.

  • Rhywun||

    So ship everyone that arrives from the south to the next country north? Sorry, Canada.

  • damikesc||

    Oh imprison any illegal who utters a word about political issues at all.

    And, yes, ship them to Canada. Virtue signalling needs to stop.

  • Longtobefree||

    Maybe if they went to an American Embassy and asked for that piece of paper, they wouldn't be criminals and wouldn't be hunted down? Oh, yeah, right. You have to be an actual refugee to get that piece of paper.
    Pieces of paper are important, even in this electronic age.
    Only a piece of paper keeps you from being arrested for:
    Crossing the border .vs legally entering the country
    stealing a car .vs buying a car
    trespassing .vs buying a house
    illegal parking .vs handicapped parking
    gun law violations .vs constitutional carry
    etc

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Libertarians for government permission slips!

  • BigT||

    Libertarians for property rights.

    FIFY

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay then. If I want to invite an undocumented immigrant onto my property, why should the state have the power to deny this invitation? You're in favor of property rights, aren't you?

  • BigT||

    Sure, as long as he doesn't trespass on the way there, and doesn't leave.

    See Assange, Julian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The same document that protects your property rights (US Constitution) also grants your elected representatives the power to regulate migration (Article I, section 9) and naturalization (Article, Section 8).

  • Juice||

    The same document that protects your property rights (US Constitution)

    You mean the document that says the government can take your property at will as long as it gives you what it thinks is fair in return? That document?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. That one. The US Constitution.
    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Government has to give just compensation for property taken for public use.

    This clause also should make civil forfeiture unconstitutional, if people would make sure their politicians follow the Constitution.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff you've like Doug this same question many times before. It's beem answered by me, and several others.

    So fuck off now.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Libertarians for property rights"

    If you believe that then you must believe in collective property rights over roads, parks, etc. What are you, a collectivist?

  • BigT||

    Collective property rights like the house my wife and I own together. Or like the country club the members own. Or Exxon-Mobil that the stockholders own. Free association in property ownership.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    But those people aren't allowed to exercise their rights in this specific situation. Government almighty controls, through permission slips only it can grant, who has access to the property that you just described.

    Government almighty has no ownership of the land in which it performs its raids in the vast majority of cases. Maybe you should step back and ask yourself just who has control over the vast majority of property where people live and work. Hint, it's not the federal government. You're advocating collectivization of that property with the federal government being ultimate arbiters of who can legally be there.

  • BigT||

    "Government almighty has no ownership of the land in which it performs its raids in the vast majority of cases. "

    I'm not a fan of ICE raids because they are wastes of resources. Only need to go after the illegals who commit other crimes or who use govt facilities w/o paying. In those cases it is no different than chasing a rapist onto private property.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I suspect that you and I aren't too far off on our beliefs on this issue.

    "Only need to go after the illegals who commit other crimes"
    This is why we have police. We don't need special police to protect our rights against non-citizens as we do against citizens. That's essentially the argument against ICE.

    "Only need to go after the illegals...use govt facilities w/o paying"
    I tend to agree in principle. But certainly you can see that welfare is almost always given to people who aren't paying, whether they are citizens or not. Any compromise on immigration that gets Republican support will almost have to include welfare reform. If the R's were smart, they would be the ones to offer it.

  • Mark22||

    tend to agree in principle. But certainly you can see that welfare is almost always given to people who aren't paying, whether they are citizens or not.

    So you are saying that if I get raped once, getting raped more doesn't matter?

    But welfare is small potatoes compared to all the other government expenses anyway: defense, roads, schools, universities, mortgages, etc. Even if you did away with welfare entirely, all of those would remain.

  • Juice||

    Collective property rights like the house my wife and I own together.

    By choice.

  • Mark22||

    I "believe in" Social Security in that I believe it is the law of the land, but I don't approve of it. Nevertheless, I am forced to pay into it, and I intend to take every cent that I am legally entitled to.

    It's the same with "collective property" in the US: it exists, I don't approve of it, I'm forced to pay for it, and I intend to exercise my legal rights over it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You don't have any legal property rights over public property.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "If you believe that then you must believe in collective property rights over roads, parks, etc. What are you, a collectivist?"

    Like stockholders in a corporation, or partners in a partnership? Sure. Do you think ownership may only be vested in a single person?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Regulations are terrible, except when imposed on immigrants. Then, regulations are totally justified!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's worse than that. The same people who purport to believe in "property rights" and "freedom of association" would like to impose E-verify on every single business owner in the US.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No American should be forced by government to beg the government to work.

    With that being said, private companies can choose to use the E-Verify system to determine if their workers are US Citizens.

  • hello.||

    Using e-verify is a lot cheaper than paying the fines and other penalties for hiring illegal immigrants. Except that there actually aren't any.

  • Mark22||

    It would be sufficient if we simply required E-verify for all government interactions: school enrollment, government backed mortgages, bank accounts, home sales, welfare, taxes, etc. The government simply refuses to interact with people who can't prove citizenship (except when they break laws). That automatically leads to massive tax-related penalties for people who work illegally or employers who employ illegals, since as illegals, they can't fulfill the obligations that come with legal status.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It would be sufficient if we simply required E-verify for all government interactions: school enrollment, government backed mortgages, bank accounts, home sales,

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oops tag fail.

    It would be sufficient if we simply required E-verify for all government interactions: school enrollment, government backed mortgages, bank accounts, home sales, welfare, taxes, etc.

    Transactions with banks and real estate agents are private, not with the government.

  • Mark22||

    Transactions with banks and real estate agents are private, not with the government.

    No, they are not. Transactions are reportable, require identification, and are monitored.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So according to Jeff we can't have any laws or regulation at all. We just do what he feels is correct.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    This, even though cities with large immigrant populations have lower crime rates than cities with fewer immigrants

    This argument gets made a lot and I wonder if it's actually true. Much fuss was made over adding the immigration status question to the census. The common belief was that it would lead to immigrants not reporting. Given this, is it not possible that crime rates are not actually lower but only appear that way because of a lack of reporting?

  • Mark22||

    There are a couple of studies.

    As far as I can tell, they conflate legal immigration and illegal presence; they conflate different kinds of immigrants; and they are likely subject to Simpson's paradox, where you can find a negative correlation in a group even though the actual correlation is positive.

  • XM||

    Large cities with high immigrant population could be something like Santa Ana or Irvine, where there are lots of wealthy Asians, the demographic least likely to commit crimes. I'm not sure they're apples to apples comparison to places like Chicago or St. Louis. The African Americans and whites (the "natives") who commit crime there can't afford to move to places like Irvine.

    I googled "safest cities" and the top winners are some random ass places from New Jersey, New York, Michigan, North Dakota, etc. All with populations around 3000 - 7000 and unlikely to have many immigrants.

    I'm certain that most immigrants do not commit crime at a higher level than natives. But Irvine has 45% Asian population and is home to a bunch of investments and revenue flow from wealthy Chinese and Koreans. Places like Baltimore are home to African Americans and even some whites trapped in perpetual poverty and violence. Are they really representative as "natives vs immigrants"?

  • BigT||

    Legal immigrants generally have lower crime rates, illegals, not so much.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Basically the way it works is that legal immigrants are really, REALLY law abiding. While the illegal immigrants are very much not law abiding. Mix them together and you get a composite group that's slightly more law abiding than the average American.

    But there's no excuse to mix them together like that.

  • damikesc||

    Yes there is.

    It's just a bad one.

  • Rhywun||

    Yeah, counterexamples are not difficult to come by.

  • KevinP||

    The studies proving that "immigrants are law abiding" willfully conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.

    Legal immigrants have been fingerprinted and have been through criminal background checks many times before becoming permanent residents, so it is not surprising that they are more law abiding than average. Something as small as shoplifting is enough to reject an application.

    Illegal aliens have not been vetted by anyone, and in many cases don't even possess traceable documents issued by their own home country. Sure, there are many farm worker illegal aliens who are not criminals, but there are large numbers of illegals who are criminals, usually preying upon their own ethnicities. In Texas alone, in a four year period, 39% of murders were committed by illegal aliens.

  • KevinP||

    Example: Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona


    Quotes:
    Using newly released detailed data on the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.
    ...
    Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

    If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.
  • BigT||

    "Medical professionals are preparing to form a three-layer human chain in an attempt to stop ICE from hauling away undocumented patients."

    Obstruction of justice, or aiding and abetting?

  • damikesc||

    Take their tax returns to pay for the cost of dealing with it. Remove every penny of federal funding from said hospital.

    You want your morality? Then you do it on your own dime.

  • buybuydandavis||

    There are specific laws statutes against aiding and abetting illegal aliens
    We need to start enforcing them

    8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens http://bit.ly/2ErBBNQ

  • sarcasmic||

    More like a three-layer human speed bump of unconscious or dead employees that the federal agents will step over so they can put that brown person in cuffs and separate them from their family.

  • hello.||

    Only in Trump's 'murica amirite?

    M-m-muh brown babies!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was created in the panicked days after 9/11 to enhance national security. But its primary purpose has become hunting down and ejecting people whose main "crime" often is that they can't obtain a piece of paper from the government authorizing them to live and work in the United States."

    And I'm cool with their doing that. Maybe instead of abolishing them, we could double or triple their staffing levels?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The best libertarian writer on the planet delivers yet another thoughtful critique of US immigration policies. This is why I started visiting Reason.com in the first place.

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #Resist

  • buybuydandavis||

    Ok, now I've got the giggles

    Pitch perfect

  • loveconstitution1789||

    NOPE. Expand ICE and deport every last illegal in the USA.

    Non-Americans don't get to run policy in the United States of America.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Republicans have always been the party of small government! Hooray!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Republicans have always been the party of smaller government! Hooray!"

    FTFY.

    Libertarians and Classic Liberals have been of the position for small government.

  • BigT||

    Not necessary or wise. Unless illegals are committing crimes, or taking govt handouts, leave them alone. Many are hard working and benefit the country. Don't provide citizenship privileges, and charge them for using public schools etc. Chasing down every illegal is a misuse of resources, like ticketing everyone going 1 mph over the limit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Enforcing US law is very wise. Its what sets us apart from corrupt third world countries that use deals, bribes, and corruption to selectively enforce laws for the benefit of elites.

  • BigT||

    Would you support enforcing Fed drug laws? Arrest every med mj or rec mj participant in 29 states where it is legal? Every person going 26 in a 25 zone?

    The law is so complex and arbitrary that 3 Felonies a Day is a reality.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    We need to repeal a lot of existing laws.

  • sarcasmic||

    You think laws aren't selectively enforced here? I've been on both sides of selective enforcement. I've had cops be told to go easy on me because I was living with someone with influence, and the sergeant in charge recognized the address when my info was radioed in. I should have been arrested but wasn't. And I've had cops tell me I deserved to get mugged and burglarized because I had a record. They laughed at me when I told them their job was to help crime victims.

    Our political class is a criminal class that routinely breaks the law and nothing else happens.

    Poor people are routinely overcharged because they can't afford to defend themselves in court, and are ignored when crimes are committed against them.

    There is no rule of law in this country, or anywhere else. Law is always selectively enforced.

  • Rhywun||

    Chasing down every illegal is a misuse of resources

    I agree. But politicians like to use them as props which is why one side is doing exactly that while the other side is taking the opposite extreme of "sanctuary cities" and similar nonsense. Ain't politics swell?

  • Rhywun||

    Chasing down every illegal is a misuse of resources

    I agree. But politicians like to use them as props which is why one side is doing exactly that while the other side is taking the opposite extreme of "sanctuary cities" and similar nonsense. Ain't politics swell?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Call me when we stop enforcing building permit requirements.

  • Mark22||

    Unless illegals are committing crimes, or taking govt handouts, leave them alone.

    Unless they make substantially more than median income, they are taking government handouts.

  • Snuffleluffagus||

    It really is a conundrum. On the one hand, ICE clearly is an over reach of federal authority, but what we all ignore is that immigration is not a two way street. We don't have millions of Americans going to Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela to work every year. Yet, we do have over a million central and south Americans coming to work here illegally every year. That inherently has negative effects on the economy pushing down labor costs, something that we have struggled with since 2000. There is also an added strain on infrastructure such as hospitals, schools (which if you find any article here on charter schools you will realize are failing us), and yes even social safety nets in the form of charity and some limited abuse of welfare.

    So while ICE is certainly reprehensible and by no means the lesser of two evils, I don't see open borders as a solution.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Enforcing immigration law is not an over reach of federal authority.

    The US Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to regulate immigration and naturalization (Article I, Sections 8 & 9).

  • hello.||

    That inherently has negative effects on the economy pushing down labor costs, something that we have struggled with since 2000. There is also an added strain on infrastructure such as hospitals, schools (which if you find any article here on charter schools you will realize are failing us), and yes even social safety nets in the form of charity and some limited abuse of welfare.

    Suppressing wages is beneficial to the business class (guess who is the sole financial provider for this shit hole?) and the costs are all socialized. Not hard to figure out the set of incentives at work.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Abolish America"

  • Ed Grinberg||

    What do leftists hate more than anything else? Freedom. What's the beacon of liberty in the world? America. This is why leftists hate America and will stop at nothing to destroy it.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Man, guessing Dalmia from the headline wasn't even a challenge that time. I can't believe Reasons pays her for this crap.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I will not donate a penny to Reason as long as they publish her drivel, or Chapman's for that matter.

  • FlameCCT||

    I see Shakha didn't pay attention in school or don't they teach basic US History/Civics? I also note she has trouble researching material for her article too. We've had Immigration and Custom Enforcement for ~100 years; perhaps by a different name but the same duties. Even the Border Patrol has been around since May 28, 1924.

  • sarcasmic||

    Even the Border Patrol has been around since May 28, 1924.

    1924... So it's a Prohibition era agency. That makes it sooooo much better.

  • FlameCCT||

    Ah yes, prohibition brought to you by the same Progressive Democrats that segregated the federal government!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Oh no! It was established during the period the 19th amendment was in force! Even though the two things are unrelated that has to make it bad!

    Idiot.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Looks like Shikha got out of the attic again. Can't you guys remember to keep the door locked?

  • dwshelf||

    Any writer who combines legal immigration with illegal immigration loses their credibility to say anything further about immigration.

  • FlameCCT||

    In the words of that great philosopher, Forrest Gump:
    Progressive is as Progressive does!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    In related news, a New York Times letter to the editor argues that we need more beds for detained psych patients.

    Indefinite detention is horrible. Let us hire more judges so we can process each deportation case in a month or two.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    ICE, you say? Yes, I'll take a 12 pound bag.

  • shortviking||

    Abolish TSA IRS DEA FBATFE first. Then we'll talk about abolishing ICE.

  • gphx||

    The border of a nation is effectively the fence around the collective yard.
    People who say we should effectively have no border or control of it and who have a fence around their yard or a front door to keep others from entering and leaving whenever they see fit is a total hypocrite.
    The sole legitimate purposes of government are the defense of life, liberty, and property.
    Over half a million illegals have been arrested on the property of just one family. And that was a small percentage of the human traffic whose footprints destroy vegetation and turn it into a lunar landscape.
    People who only care about their property and don't want to protect the property of others are as bad as those who only want to spend other people's money.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You conflate private property with "collective" property.

    By your analogy I can build a fence around my property and a gate to allow people I choose to come in and out. Yet you would allow the federal government to build a fence around my gate with its own gate controlled by majority vote of Congress. Don't you see how this is problematic for my individual liberty and property rights?

  • hello.||

    It's not problematic at all as long you own every piece of real estate your mail order bride, er sorry "immigrant friend", passes through on their way. If you are arguing that there should be no collectively owned property then power to you. I hope you saved a whole fuckload of money paying that Honduran to cut your grass because you're going to need it when you have to buy your way past your pretty gate.

  • Mark22||

    You conflate private property with "collective" property.

    Collective property often comes with restrictions; just read most CC&Rs.

    Yet you would allow the federal government to build a fence around my gate with its own gate controlled by majority vote of Congress. Don't you see how this is problematic for my individual liberty and property rights?

    No. That's how our government operates.

    And in a libertarian world, it's your HOA and the private road owners that would impose those restrictions on you; you'd likely have less choice in who comes onto your property than you do now.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In a libertarian world, I'd be free to select the HOA that best suits my tastes, and/or negotiate directly with the other HOA participants to come to some reasonable compromise where all are concerned. You know, work through our differences via consensual negotiation and cooperation.

    In your world, the only say I get is one vote out of millions. If I'm on the losing end - too bad so sad!

    You can't have it both ways. You can't claim you are in favor of property rights when you want to prohibit me from using my property as I see fit when it comes to undocumented immigrants. Fundamentally you place collective rights of the majority ahead of individual rights of the citizens.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Leo, by your reasoning, the Chinese army could march in and engage in military maneuvers on American soil at will.

    The land does belong to the citizens of this country. Period.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Public land belongs to the government, and NOT to individual citizens.
    Can I sell my share of public land? Can I monetize my share of public land? No and no.

    We the people accept the state's theft of this land, only on the condition that the state uses it for its only legitimate mission, to protect everyone's liberty. The state using its ownership rights over public land in order to restrict liberty is a violation of its mission and the state should be restrained from doing so.

    If we were to adopt your point of view, then the state would legitimately have the power to use its ownership rights over public lands to engage in a whole host of illiberal activities. If the majority wanted to ban free speech on public land, or ban gun possession on public land, or ban any display of religious devotion whatsoever on public land, those would all be legitimate state powers in your view provided the majority agreed with it. This is fundamentally why your argument fails. We don't have a majoritarian democracy, we have a republic, and we have a theory of public ownership of land to go along with it.

  • Rebel Scum||

    criminalization of immigrants

    Interesting phrasing. People who cross the US border in a way inconsistent with US law are not immigrants, they are "illegal aliens". And, yes, they are criminals because they broke the law in the manner in which they entered the country. The end.

  • RCCA||

    Article provides sots of excellent information applicable to the argument for increased security measures, like e-verify and the border wall. If the immigration laws were enforced and people could not enter so easily there wouldn't be a need for ICE.

  • Ricke||

    Spot on.

  • Ricke||

    The law is the law, President Trump is enforcing it as it is written, quite whining. If you come here illegally, then expect to be deported, period. NO amnesty for any illegal alien, period. We are a sovereign nation and if you can't follow our immigration laws, then out you go, immediately. That means where ever we catch you, too bad for you, but home you go.

  • Dana||

    "...a government has no more awesome a power than to pluck people from their homes, tear them away from their loved ones, and send them into exile."

    They still cannot do it to citizens and legal, law abiding residents. Dalmia may not like the law or agree with borders (which negates the 'let them and let them pay taxes' argument because if there are no borders, to whom would the immigrants pay their taxes?) but it is still the law that one must enter this country legally and is subject to the law if they choose to break it.

    I ask many of my libertarian friends to return to reality land.

  • TJM||

    But of course it won't, because government created it.

  • swampwiz||

    Wow, even the most libertarian of libertarians usually say that one of the State's duties is to enforce the border. Has the libertarian movement crossed the foofy-land rubicon?

  • ||

    "...ejecting people whose main "crime" often is that they can't obtain a piece of paper from the government authorizing them to live and work in the United States."

    Why is crime in scare quotes? Is it a crime to be in the US without the right documentation?

    Even when I agree with Shikha overall point, her writing style is so Orwellian. Make your argument, leave out the hyperbole and newspeak and let the reader decide if he or she agrees with it or not.

  • Rockabilly||

    But how will I make a Mint Julep if you abolish ice?

    Seems fucked up for a libertarian.

  • texexpatriate||

    The nation could well do without ICE providing that employers could not employ illegal aliens. Jail the ones who do employ illegal aliens, bankrupt them, and very soon no one will be crossing the borders except genuine terrorists. Border Patrol and the U.S. Army can deal with them.

    Will that happen? No. Not until the Democrat Party is eradicated and the Republican Party grows a spine. In other words, never. The nation will collapse from bankruptcy first.

  • Tionico||

    In effect, Clinton created a two-track justice system—one for immigrants and one for citizens.

    as should be. Read the 14th Article of Ammendment. It makes a clear distinctioin between full citizens and others here "subject to the jurisdiction of the government of their state of residence and the United States government" and those here Illegally who have no right to be here and thus are NOT in that category.

    Don;t forget, as well, the Constitutioni does not protect anyone who has broken the law to get or remain here contrary to law.

    Stop the bleeding heart nonsense.

    Look deeper at your claim of separating families as they arrive without proper documentation. The REASON that is done is two fold: first, they have learned that a HUGE perentage of children accomanying adults are NOT related to those adults, despite the fact most claim they are family members. Second, children do NOT belong in the facilities holding all the adults. Until PROOF the alledged families are indeed families, they separate the children in good part for their own protection.
    You seem to hold the positioni thatanyone who wanders across that dotted line in the sand of New Mexico has a RIGHT to be here, and to obtain "justice" as if they were full legal residents. Neither of these are true.

  • Tionico||

    Ever try and sneak unlawfully into any foreign nation? What about that Marine who took a wrong turn near ijuana and inadvertently ended up IN Mexico? HE was imprisoned for months by Mexico's oh so friendly and understanding government. Meanwhile we tear into the very government agency tasked with locating and expelling they who oughtn't be here at all, and catch flak for that. No one can deny the rapidly increasing issues with illegal invaders causing trouble of various sorts wherever they are.

    Yes, there needs to be a minor adjustment for non-residents legally married to American citizens... that has needed overhaul for decades. It should be a quick and painelss process to at least get temp status for a specified period of time. But the wholesale tear the door off the hinges and lay down the welcome mat for anyone who saunters across the sand or parking lot has got to end. Learn how much those invaders actually cost us annually in free medical care, food, housing, education, transportation.....

  • vek||

    Oh my God how is she still alive with her HEART BLEEDING LIKE THAT! LOL This whole article pretty much just gave me a boner!

    These people are here illegally. They KNOW what the law says. They KNOW they can be deported. If they come here knowing that, and they get deported, it is no surprise to them or anybody else. They SHOULD be deported because they're breaking the law.

    My home state of California has turned into a shit hole largely because of illegal immigration... You think it is a coincidence that Cali went Blue and never returned just a few years after the Reagan amnesty? Republicans are pretty garbage on a lot of things, but at least they aren't outright Socialists like the Democrats are nowadays.

    We should be making things as harsh, and as terrifying as possible for illegal immigrants. That is the only thing that will finally dissuade them from coming here. The fact that we were so lax for decades is why it became such a massive problem in the first place. No other country on earth has millions and millions of illegals like here, because they all enforce their immigration laws more stringently. So should we.

    I say deport them all, ESPECIALLY the Dreamers! We have to make examples of these people so they stop pouring over the border. Keep in mind this is all from somebody who is part Mexican! Fuck these people.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We should be making things as harsh, and as terrifying as possible for illegal immigrants. That is the only thing that will finally dissuade them from coming here.

    Because it's not like they are actually *people* or anything.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So were Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. What does that have to do with it?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Your entire comment treats undocumented immigrants as if they were unruly pets who need to be disciplined.
    You certainly don't regard them as being on the same moral plane as yourself.
    This is why you all are tagged with the label of racism based on your views. Not because anyone actually believes "it's racist to enforce the border". But your complete attitude towards undocumented immigrants is one of condescension and inferiority.

  • vek||

    I'm just speaking practical reality here. As I said above if you noticed I'm part beaner myself on my moms side! AND part Native on my dads side. I tan, and I can't grow a proper beard for shit! So I'm not exactly Waffen SS material here buddy.

    I don't think the USA needs millions, and millions more low/no skill workers. The average education level of a Mexican illegal immigrant is 8th grade! And politicians harp on native born people who graduated high school as not being educated enough! We have the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, with millions of mostly low skill Americans out of work and/or mooching off the system.

    I'm totally down with HIGH SKILL immigrants who are actually a net positive for the country. If we're going to let in a million people a year, what do you think is better... A million people with no education that will earn 25K a year on average washing dishes, sweeping floors, etc and be net negative tax drain on higher income natives... OR A million people with advanced degrees in engineering, medicine, chemistry, etc who earn 100K a year on average and pay in more in taxes than they use in services?

    What one will benefit the native born population more??? Don't lie. You know it ain't the illegal Mexican. I don't give a shit if the engineer comes from Mexico, India, or Germany... Likewise I wouldn't want a German high school drop out either!

  • vek||

    Mexicans are people, but so what? We don't need them here, and it's illegal. They bring a host of issues with them that I would rather not have to worry about, so they need to go. How to do that? Well throw the ones here out, and don't be nice about it. We've been too lax about enforcement for decades, which just encouraged more to come here because they knew it was a very small risk.

    If it becomes more likely you'll get busted, and the whole situation will be a lot harsher in terms of how you're dealt with, it will discourage people from doing it in the first place.

    As an extreme example to make a point: What if we simply told Border Patrol to shoot any man, woman, or child seen crossing the border illegally? After all of about a dozen people getting capped at the border the number of crossings would drop 99.999% overnight. Now I don't think we should do this, but doing other less brutal, but still kinda tough, things will have the same effect to a lesser degree.

    I grew up in California, and Mexicans CAN integrate okay... But it takes time. As a thought experiment, how well do you think Italian Americans would have integrated if there was a never ending flood of fresh Italians coming in every single year? Not nearly as well as they did when we slowed down immigration.

  • vek||

    You ever wonder why the best time for the working/middle class, the time when the nation was the most united, our "golden age" was when we had the lowest immigration figures in our history? AKA the 50s and 60s. It's because massive immigration, especially of low skilled folks, suppresses wages and causes a bunch of social tension. In the 50s/60s everybody had been here for a few decades, everybody integrated, and we found our stride.

    If you're cooking a stew you throw the ingredients in and let it cook down until the flavor melds, you don't keep throwing in a little of this and a little of that forever endlessly because it will constantly taste like crap.

    We don't NEED 100 million more people crammed into the country. Sheer population numbers are not a positive for any given citizen. If we allow in only people that are above and beyond even the current national average for income/education it will in fact pull the whole country up... If we let in tons of low skill people it will pull the whole countries average down. I'd prefer a wealthier more educated society personally. I could go on forever but there's no point.

    I'm libertarian on most things, but immigration is one area where I'm fine with having limits and reasonable rules. When you add up the social tension, the wage suppression, that they all vote left compared to natives, etc etc etc I'd rather have zero immigration than let in tons of unskilled people, but letting in only high skill would be the best.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I'm libertarian on most things

    Abortion?

    Gay marriage (before the goobers lost the war -- belated conversion doesn't count)?

    Slashing military spending?

    God on the dollar bill?

    Legalization of marijuana?

    God in the pledge of allegiance?

    Trump's position on the anthem?

    Legalization of cocaine and ecstasy?

    Transgenders' choice of bathroom?

    Legalization of heroin?

    If you take the libertarian side on eight or more of those, I will salute your libertarianism and respect your principled consistency.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Arty, you are in no way a libertarian. You are a slaver. That being the case, you have no business involving yourself in a discussion on libertarianism.

    So fuck off.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I don't find the musings of right-wing authoritarians persuasive on issues involving libertarianism, Elias. That right-wingers tend to be bigoted as well as stale-thinking (or, at least, to appease intolerance and ignorance in an effort to prop up an electoral coalition) also disinclines me to take pointers on libertarianism from conservatives or Republicans.

  • vek||

    To answer: Abortion? It should be legal.

    Gay marriage (before the goobers lost the war -- belated conversion doesn't count)? Should be legal, although you can argue gov should just get out of it for everybody!

    Slashing military spending? HELL YEAH. Excessive military spending has been one of the worst things for the country in recent decades.

    God on the dollar bill? I don't care if it's there because of tradition, but I wouldn't care if it weren't there either.

    Legalization of marijuana? DUH.

    God in the pledge of allegiance? Same as God on the money.

    Trump's position on the anthem? I agree with Trump bashing on them, but I also agree the NFL should be able to do as they please. This is the REAL libertarian position, not just knee jerk being in favor/against

    Legalization of cocaine and ecstasy? Yup.

    Transgenders' choice of bathroom? In government buildings I'm torn, but personally lean towards them using the one that they were biologically born as. This is as a matter of policy. I PERSONALLY don't care about using a bathroom with a tranny, but can understand how some people do, hence going the more modest direction as policy. Private businesses should be able to make their own call.

    Legalization of heroin? Yup.


    SO, all of those are quite libertarian. I have personal opinions on lots of things, they tend to lean conservative on a lot of subjects, but not all. But as policy I still usually prefer the libertarian position of letting shit be crazy/wild/free.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you genuinely supported gay marriage before the cultural tide overwhelmed the conservatives, I see you moving past "libertarianish" and toward genuine libertarian (rather than a standard-issue right-winger who embraces libertarianism when and only so far as is congruent with conservatism).

    Your right-wing leanings tug at you, though -- that's why you can't accept the libertarian positions with respect to transgendered people and are sympathetic to Trump's hollow nationalism.

    If you can't support the Republican Party, for whom do you vote?

  • vek||

    You know Rev, these may be the first real, genuine posts I think I have seen from you!

    I did support gay marriage long before the Republicans caved on it, and long before the Democrats embraced it too! 15 years ago my suggestion was to legalize civil unions because then it's not "technically" marriage, which would have been a concession to Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever other faiths. But with how stuff has gone down I'm fine with it being called marriage, as I always was personally, I just thought civil unions was a nice compromise for all parties.

    I've always been a pretty legit libertarian, with only a few exceptions according to modern Cosmotarian sorts. I believe in borders and having standards for immigrants. I don't think this is a real violation of libertarianism for various reasons, but some do. I also believe moral values are good things to have, BUT they should not be enshrined in laws. This is technically the proper L position, but many nowadays seem to be against even having any moral standards at all for hot button issues, even when it's simply private opinions.

    Usually I vote for Big L Libertarians when they're on the ballot out of spite, and because I agree with their positions more. If there aren't any I will vote Republican 99% of the time... But that's mostly because Seattle (where I live) doesn't really have any sane/moderate Democrats that ever run anymore...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What one will benefit the native born population more???

    What will benefit the native population:

    Get an education. At a strong, liberal-libertarian college or university. Backwater religious schooling and homeschooling do not count.

    Develop marketable skills.

    Choose reason. Every time. Live in the reality-based world. In particular, reside in a modern, successful community. If you are unlucky enough to have losers for parents or to find yourself in a shambling backwater, move to a community that offers education, modernity, and opportunity.

    Work and earn. Inheritance is not work or earning.

    Prefer progress. Don't pine for good old days that never existed.

  • vek||

    Sure, getting educated is good. Like a real education... STEM, accounting, even marketing or something else practical. I myself make my 6 figures and am doing just fine.

    None of that answers the question of what types of immigrants will be better for the country though... If we say that our own low education (low IQ usually, or perhaps just slackers) population needs to step it up... And I believe this is a smart thing... Then how does it then logically follow that it is good for us to import foreigners with FAR LOWER education levels than our own native born, that are already not educated/skilled enough for the modern economy???

    There is no logic to it. The fact is that it is a feelz argument. Some people feelz that we should let in sub-par people out of the goodness of our hearts... I have sympathy for people from crap countries, I really do. However we can't take in the whole world. If we can't solve everybodies problems, then why should we pick and choose random people to come here that will be sub-standard in all ways, and drag native born people down... Just because it's good for the immigrant? I don't believe in compelled altruism. Hence I favor high skill immigration that WILL benefit natives and immigrants alike.

  • vek||

    IF we had no welfare state, and didn't have all the socialized costs that high earners like myself pay for, I would be more open to it. But there would still be the issue of voting rights (immigrants vote for more government and less freedom), them changing the culture for the worse (we're the most libertarian leaning society on earth, therefore anybody we let in makes it less libertarian in the short term, even if we can eventually convert them), etc.

    So even in Libertopia there would be downsides I would not be keen on. You said to live in reality... THAT is all the reality of the situation. Low skill immigrants don't cover their own government service use in taxes, they vote for more government, they make the culture less libertarian leaning, crime is an issue for some groups in the 2nd/3rd generations especially, they are often antagonistic towards the majority population, etc. I could go on for days.

    You can stand by the principle of open borders while still admitting it has downsides, if that is your preferences. That's honest. But you can't just lie and pretend the downsides don't exist. That's dishonest. That's what Reason and many other libertarians try to do. I appreciate the principle of freedom of movement, but I do not support it in practice in the world as it presently exists. In a hypothetical future world I might, but not this one.

  • vek||

    And finally, back to your bleeding heart comment. Yes they're people. But they're people who are here illegally, who KNOW they broke the law. Should we also be super nice and accommodating for drunk drivers? Or car thieves? Or murderers?

    Maybe their crime isn't as bad, but they still knew what they did was illegal and carries consequences. I got busted for underage drinking in high school on multiple occasions. It was bullshit, and shouldn't have been illegal. But it was, and I knew it. I still did it. So I knew what the possible repercussions were. Illegal immigrants know too. There's no reason we need to coddle them. If we do then they will simply continue to come, which I am not in favor of for 1 million practical reasons.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    By that reasoning, we should lock up millions of parasitic, uneducated, economically inadequate yahoos who gobble street pills, work off the grid, and game the system in our depleted southern and rural backwaters.

    I do not favor imprisoning those losers.

  • vek||

    There is a difference few seem to like to admit.

    I will be the first to admit that our ghetto born minority dirt bags, and our white trash trailer park dirt bags, are useless human beings... But here's the thing: We're stuck with them!

    We can't simply banish them to another country, because that's not how shit works. The British DID do this when they had colonies to ship them off to! The fact is if we COULD banish ghetto thugs and white trash meth heads we would be creating a better society. But we can't, it's just not practical.

    HOWEVER we have no legal or moral obligation to accept in low value people from abroad... Hence we should sure as shit NOT let them in, and if they come in we should send them back. Because WE CAN.

    An analogy I like is this: Let's say you have children. One of them ends up being a heroin junkie who lies, cheats, steals, etc. As a parent you're stuck with them to a degree. You can cut them off in limited ways, but really you're always tied together to a point. So you deal with it. However no person has an obligation to go out an intentionally adopt somebody who is already a known heroin junkie who steals, lies etc.

    I think the distinction there is pretty obvious, and this is how I see immigration. We're stuck with native flunkies, but why import more? It is counter productive.

  • DrHubert||

    Its not ICE that has to go

    But the U.S. Senate/House that has to go

    Why?

    They make the laws ICE must follow

    The TRUTH hurts DEMS & LIBERALS

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The truth hurts Dems and liberals.

    And Republicans and conservatives cling to superstition and dreams of good old days that never existed.

    Where is the hope for America, DrHubert?

  • PG23COLO||

    ICE is a shameful organization, dedicated to the extinguishment of the rights of persons who entered the United States without written permission from the government to exercise their rights. ICE is an enemy of liberty and their ruthless efforts to harm immigrants cannot be justified by laws. It is time for ICE to go.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Illegals have no rights to exercise here. You are confused and deluded.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    When your betters eliminate most or all immigration restrictions, you won't have to worry about that "illegals" argument any more, goober.

    You will still have pure, unalloyed bigotry, though.

  • Lucius Junius Brutus||

    People who cross the border outside of due process aren't immigrants, they are invaders. They should be dealt with accordingly.

    If the invaders choose to involve children in their enterprise, the fault and blame is with them.

    If I ignored passport control when I, a U.S. citizen, re-enter the country, I would be set upon by the officers there, if not shot. Why should I, the U.S. citizen, be subject to rules when non-citizens are allowed to freely flout the rules.

    We do not have open borders. To be a libertarian/objectivist/capitalist is not say you are for open borders, especially while the semi-socialist U.S. seizes my property to redistribute to those invaders. To be against illegal entry is not to be against legal immigration. Reason should stop following the Left's Open Borders construct of issues which after all is designed to bring in as many poor peasants as possible so as to undermine freedom and private property as possible.

    Remember admittance to Galt's Gulch is by invitation only.

  • vek||

    YUP. I don't understand how so many libertarians have bought into the lefts plan on this subject. Even if you think IN THEORY open borders are a good idea, as practiced in our current system it is anything but. It is entirely designed to selectively enforce and only bring in poor/uneducated people to help the left destroy America.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    America's right-wing authoritarians don't see it coming, but drug warriors and border agents are destined to be compelled by our better elements to try to find decent livelihoods when the drug war ends and restrictive, bigoted immigration rules are tossed aside.

    The yahoos didn't see desegregated schools, gay marriage, legal contraception and abortion, or a ban on prayer in schools coming, either.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    We let mostly brown people in from south of the border already. How is that 'bigoted'?

  • vek||

    DEA is good... But we need borders dude.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This has been another wonderful, instructive meeting of Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Policies.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Arty, you are far more 'bigoted' than anyone else here. Just like the rest of progressivekind. I'm sure you would be the first in line to lead the lynch mob against any minority that dares leave the progressive plantation. Or express their own opinions. Just like what you tried to do to Kanye West recently.

    I'm sure the res of your Klavern was proud of you, oh Grand Dragon.

  • aajax||

    That these policies have been initiated, shame on Obama, Trump, Kelly, Miller, Sessions and Kirstjen Nielsen. If they are allowed to continue, shame on all of us.

  • thesafesurfer||

    NUTS!

  • BunkerBill||

    "..send them into exile." You can not exile someone from a county that they are not a native or legal resident of. Look up exile in the dictionary.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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