Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Myth that Won't Die: Undocumented Aliens are Criminals

Mollie Tibbetts murder has given it a whole new lease on life, thanks to Trump and his restrictionist acolytes

The murder of University of Iowa sophomore Mollie Tibbetts by an immigrant farm worker was abominable and tragic. But it is absolutely shameful thatUndocumented RallyJEFF TOPPING/REUTERS/Newscom President Trump and other restrictionists have seized on this incident to justify the collective punishment and demonization of all unauthorized immigrants.

Using horrific incidents to push preferred policies has become a depressing political ritual in this country. Trump, of course, is among our most egregious offenders. He routinely draws attention to the families of Americans killed by illegal immigrants to rally the public around his draconian immigration policies.

For 34 days, investigators searched for 20-year-old Mollie Tibbetts. Yesterday, an illegal alien, now charged with first-degree murder, led police to the cornfield where her body was found.

This time, he and the GOP have gone to a whole new low.

The police had barely recovered Tibbetts' body from the cornfields where Christian Bahena Rivera, her alleged murderer, had dumped her that Trump demanded that Americans elect more Republicans to fix America's immigration laws, which he called a "disgrace." The GOP's Virginia Senate nominee, Corey Stewart, a known friend of white supremacists, condemned "weak politicians" who are "afraid" to enforce the nation's immigration laws. Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott stoked popular outrage against sanctuary jurisdictions that he insinuated jeopardized public safety (never mind that this murder had nothing to do with sanctuary policies since Iowa does not embrace them). But the prize for crassness might go to National Review, for whom immigration restriction has been a signature issue for a long time. It ran an article insinuating that this incident somehow made it illicit to criticize the administration's cruel family separation border policies.

The speed with which restrictionists politicized Tibbetts' story — disregarding pleas by her family members not to do so — is surprising, but the script is not. This is exactly what they did after the San Francisco murder of Katie Steinle by a deranged illegal immigrant. And although Democrats are now making abolishing ICE a rallying cry, their august leaders, such as Hillary Clinton and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, at the time happily went along with demonizing unauthorized immigrants as criminals.

The reality, however, is the exact opposite.

FBI statistics show that border towns like San Diego and El Paso, which have large unauthorized populations, have some of the lowest crime rates in the country — and conversely cities like Detroit and Baltimore that have few immigrants have among the highest. Correlation is not causation, and it is possible that undocumented immigrants move to cities with low crime rates rather than actually lowering these rates — although this would still show that undocumented immigrants don't lead to a rise in crime. However, there is other evidence that suggests that in fact they do indeed lead to a drop in crime rates.

Between 1991 and 2008, California added an unprecedented 3.7 million foreigners — about a third of them unauthorized. And what happened to the Golden State's crime rate? It dropped an eye-popping 55 percent.

What's true for California is also true for the rest of the country. Multiple studies attribute the precipitous drop in the national crime rate in the 1990s to a growth in immigration, specifically undocumented immigration. University of Wisconsin's Michael Light found earlier this year that the undocumented population in the United States has tripled since 1990, but the violent crime rate has halved.

These national trends dovetail nicely with state prison stats. A 2008 study by the University of California's Ruben Rumbaut found that American-born men between 18 and 39 are five times more likely to be incarcerated than foreign born men of the same age, including undocumented ones. His findings are totally consistent with those of the Federal Reserve's Kristin Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl. They looked at the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census data and found that the incarceration rates in the same 18-to-40 male cohort were far lower for immigrants than native-born men even though the former had lower wages and far worse health outcomes. What's more, this gap widened every year so that by 2000, native-born men were five times more likely to be incarcerated than immigrant men.

The most recent evidence confirming all this comes from Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh, who examined the incarceration data of Texas, the only state in the country that tracks convictions by immigration status. He found that in 2015, the rate of convictions per 100,000 undocumented immigrants was 16 percent lower than that of the native-born. What's more, the illegal immigrant conviction rate for homicide was 56 percent below that of the native born, the restrictionist hype about Tibbetts' murder notwithstanding.

The evidence is so compelling that even the ultra-restrictionists at the Center for Immigration Studies have been forced to admit that a "lot of data does suggest immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime." But they claim that this might be due to aggressive interior enforcement and deportation policies.

However, there is little proof of that too. Butcher and Piehl explicitly examined that possibility and found little evidence for it. The far more plausible explanation is that in complete contradiction to Trump's claim that Mexico and other countries dump anti-social "bad hombres" on us, "good hombres" self select to come to the United States. Yes, they have to break the law to live and work in this country because our broken immigration system offers few legal options for them to do so. But they are here to improve their lives and provide for their loved ones. The last thing they want to do is cause — or get — into trouble.

None of this matters to Trump and his restrictionist acolytes, of course. They are happy to use the sins of single individuals to collectively punish an entire community through draconian enforcement. But this is unfair and un-American. It is also an abuse of law enforcement resources that would be much better directed at genuine threats.

This column originally appeared in The Week

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

  • rocks||

    100% of illegal aliens have committed a federal crime. 100%

  • sarcasmic||

    And here I thought libertarians didn't consider something to be an actual crime unless there was an identifiable victim.

    Silly me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Perjury is a crime.

    The victim is the state (The People).

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perjury is a crime.

    The victim is the state (The People).

    No, the victim is the person defrauded by the perjurer's lies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not all perjury involve fraud.

    Its why there is a crime for fraud and a crime for perjury.

  • MarioLanza||

    The cost of illegal immigration is staggering. The state of California refuses to release information on how many prisoners are illegal immigrants. The Obama administration did the same with federal prisoners.

    Now why would they do that? Hide the statistics and then make claims that illegals commit less crime. Hmmm.

    Fortunately, Trump has released information on federal prisoners. 26% of federal prisoners are illegal immigrants. This screams out that the meme put forth by the leftists that illegal immigrants commit less crime is a ribald lie.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Dafuq you talkin'bout.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ask a different lawyer.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians support perjury being a crime.

    When you swear in, you agree to tell the truth. Its a contract.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't remember signing a contract when I was born a citizen. Did you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You take advantage of the protections of the Constitution but you dont want the limitations?

    At least with America, you can back out of your part of the contract at any time. See ya.

    FYI: swearing in under oath or affirmation is a new contract each time. Dont want to commit Perjury, dont agree to swear in or dont violate the perjury law.

  • FDCROWE||

    What limitations are those? On the people?
    The Constitution limits the government not the people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution limits the power of groups to violate the rights of others.

    The Constitution limits slavery and involuntary servitude.

    Its why you can sue other people for violations of your Constitutional rights.

    The US Constitution limits and enumerates the power of the federal government; limits, enumerates, and protects rights of the states; and limits, enumerates, and protects the rights the People.

  • Juice||

    The US Constitution limits ... the rights the People.

    You got that part right.

  • TxJack 112||

    The rights of the "people" as indicated in the Constitution means US Citizens.

  • Longtobefree||

    To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
    That oath?
    Well, you might pay attention to the lawyers in the courtroom whose sole job it is to control the truths and parts of the truth that they do not want heard. And the judge that will rule on their motions to suppress the truth if it does not fit the rules as the judge sees them.

    So if they ever try to administer that oath, the only correct answer is "no".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A lot of government paperwork has expanded perjury agreements because as you say, lawyers are shady and use the grey area of truth.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, I'd love to see the judge's face if, administering that oath, the witness responded, "I"m only too glad to tell the truth, and only the truth. But if I try to tell the whole truth, you'll shut me up!"

    I predict a furious judge declaring the witness in contempt of court.

  • Juice||

    When you swear in, you agree to tell the truth. Its a contract.

    If you don't swear, they hold you in contempt of court, no?

  • SwampBoy||

    Dude, do libertarian minded people go on Right Wing news sites and shit on every article? Get your republican ass out of Reason article comments.

  • ||

    And here I thought libertarians didn't consider something to be an actual crime unless there was an identifiable victim.

    America. America is the victim. /s

  • sarcasmic||

    And here I thought libertarians weren't collectivists. Silly me.

  • ||

    And here I thought libertarians weren't collectivists. Silly me.

    Individualists aren't collectivists. Libertarians, OTOH, recognize peoples' liberty to voluntarily collectivize as they see fit. Even at that, you can be an individualist without being anti-collectivist. I figured that a libertarian would understand, if not just assume, that other people's definition of liberty may not precisely conform to their own.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Silly me, I thought libertarians weren't anarchists.

  • MJBinAL||

    ^THIS^

  • loveconstitution1789||

    America is a volunteer state.

  • Presskh||

    The victims are 1) everyone who pays taxes and, in many cases, has to help support these illegal aliens and 2) potential immigrants who have chosen to abide by our immigration laws and applied through legal channels,

  • VOTE MILES||

    in a nutshell.

  • MarioLanza||

    Illegal immigration hurts the poor the most, driving down salaries.

    But I thought conservatives hate the poor and were heartless bastards.

  • BCarter||

    I am a victim due to the forcible taxation imposed on me by their presence.

  • Azathoth!!||

    This right here.^^^

    One Hundred Percent.

    Every single one of them.

    Please stop this. It's just sad now.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    So? You've probably committed several felonies today. Victimless crimes are not crimes according to libertarians.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    As a taxpayer, am I a victim?

  • sarcasmic||

    Only if you believe the conservative myth that every illegal is on welfare, and even then no more so than you are a victim of white trailer trash.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    So illegal immigrants have no cost, and are a net boon? I don't think that has been firmly established. Also, welfare isn't the only cost (EMTALA) so I'm not sure why the "conservative myth" of welfare is even an issue here. Then of course there is all the aid that is welfare in spirit but not name. That trick gets a lot of people. Then there are costs associated with educating the children that come here.

    As to the white trailer trash argument, that infuriates me as well, but I don't see it as a reason to increase costs, or ignore when others in reas costs, instead it strikes me as an attempt to sidestep the issue of the cost of immigration.

    Keep in mind, I was sincerely asking my question. I am allowed to ask what the cost will be, and as "taxation is theft" any money, even a single cent taken without my permission and given to aid an illegal alien would technically make me a victim.

  • sarcasmic||

    So illegal immigrants have no cost, and are a net boon? I don't think that has been firmly established.

    Agreed in that it has not been firmly established, either way.

    I am allowed to ask what the cost will be, and as "taxation is theft" any money, even a single cent taken without my permission and given to aid an illegal alien would technically make me a victim.

    Any involuntary charity of any kind makes the taxpayer a victim. What makes illegals so special?

    Thing is, illegals do in fact work. Lots and lots of them work. That's why most of them come here.

    How's this for a sincere question: Why would people who are trying to stay under the radar draw attention to themselves by applying for state assistance?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I love hiring illegals and then calling ICE on them at the end of the day.

  • sarcasmic||

    I love hiring illegals and then calling ICE on them at the end of the day.

    Most us aren't sociopaths.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    sarcasmic|8.29.18 @ 2:09PM|#
    I love hiring illegals and then calling ICE on them at the end of the day.
    Most us aren't sociopaths.

    I love it when Anarchists call me a sociopath. Its like Hillary calling Trump a racist.

  • sarcasmic||

    People who aren't sociopaths wouldn't hire illegals and then call ICE at the end of the day.

    *shrug*

    Figures your response is to trot out your anarchist shtick. Get some new material, it's getting old.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're an anarchist and a sociopath who calls other people sociopaths to cover for your abusive and violent personality.

  • Paloma||

    Because if you hire an illegal and call ICE on them, you as an employer wouldn't face any penalties, right?

    You're too stupid to have a business that hires anyone.

  • ||

    Most us aren't sociopaths.

    Well, sociopaths in that you oppose people collectivizing in any way, shape, or form. Just not, you know *drags thumb across neck*, the bad kind of sociopaths.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I love hiring illegals and then calling ICE on them at the end of the day.

    This is a strong example of why libertarians, liberals, moderates, RINOs, and decent people in general find your positions objectionable.

    It also is a telling point with respect to why America has been rejecting your preferences and vindicating mine for more than a half-century.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Silent Majority loves making sure that America is run by Americans.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Silent Majority loves making sure that America is run by Americans.

    The Silent Majority is a dim-witted, deplorable, disaffected minority that benefits from the American system's structural amplification of yahoo voices.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, you are just a barely literate, low information, Marxist buffoon.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "I love hiring illegals and then calling ICE on them at the end of the day."

    So, you like putting them on ICE?

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    I don't think illegals are special, just an additional cost. I'm sorry, I thought I made that clear when I said white trash on welfare infuriates me. I'm all for cost cutting in other areas as well. At least we have agreed that, technically at least, I am a victim.

    As to your sincere question, not all aid will get them tossed if they apply for it, and some of it is easily worth the risk of getting tossed, because the advantages are enormous and the risk is small, and the consequences are not severe.

    An example, giving birth in a US hospital.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you are a victim of poor people, again what makes illegals so special?

    I'd bet that as a group illegals work more than white trailer trash.

    Why focus on illegals? Why not round up the poor and deport them too?

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    The focus on illegals is because that is what this article is about. I have said repeatedly that I agree with you regarding white trash on welfare.

  • sarcasmic||

    If this is your justification for saying illegals are indeed criminals with victims, then isn't every piece of white trash equally criminal?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    sarcasmic|8.29.18 @ 2:27PM|#
    "...piece of white trash equally criminal"?

    Which race are Americans again?

    Funny, your racism just accidentally showed itself.

  • sarcasmic||

    Butt out lc, the adults are talking.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh anarchist, you're not an adult. You're a drunkard who abuses women.

  • sarcasmic||

    lc is a Tulpa sock. Jeez, it all makes sense now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    OH sarcasmic lost already? He's accusing me of being a sock when he knows otherwise.

    Its okay Sarcasmic, get back to work. You're safe space, evidently.

    See ya drunkard.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    By the definition of "takes my money without my consent?"

    I think I covered this already.

    I am allowed to ask what the cost will be, and as "taxation is theft" any money, even a single cent taken without my permission and given to aid an illegal alien would technically make me a victim.

    It doesn't change anything because it's a trash family living on welfare.

    Taxation is theft. You saId it yourself "Any involuntary charity of any kind makes the taxpayer a victim"

    Listen, I appreciate the coversation, I have to get back to work.

  • sarcasmic||

    Listen, I appreciate the coversation, I have to get back to work.

    Likewise. ttyl

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic, we await your return as your one of your sockpuppets.

  • Happy Chandler||

    What about the money taken without your permission to empower an agency tasked with locking up people whose infractions have no identifiable victim?

  • VinniUSMC||

    Because only 1 of them is in the country illegally?

  • jrd||

    "white trash"

    What other colors of "trash" are there?

  • ||

    I have said repeatedly that I agree with you regarding white trash on welfare.

    Moreover, the white trash issue is a bogus racist argument that's as bankrupt here as it is anywhere else it's applied.

    If we find that illegals are more productive and consume less welfare than black people are we going to spend less or more on welfare for black people?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The poor are citizens. Not trespassers on US soil. You may not believe in the concept of sovereign borders, or citizenship, but the rest of the world does.

    Maybe you should go live in one of the borderless countries which has no government or citizenship.

  • Whorton||

    Because they know that most states, such as California make it a point to NOT inquire about the status as a citizen or non citizen.

    Sure, many work. But many come here knocked up to have an anchor baby and get lots of free goodies from the stupid gringos who think it they are being "compassionate."

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    So illegal immigrants have no cost, and are a net boon?

    Reason had an article on this about two months ago. The answer is yes.

  • Whorton||

    Well there you go, lets just round up and deport all the gringos. Let Mexico take over and everything will be grand. We already have the startup MS-13 members to be the drug lords over the new found latino country.

    I guess it would take maybe 10 years to turn it into the shithole that Mexico is now.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The answer is yes

    Right. That's why libertarians won't leave their whiteopias to live in the same neighborhoods and send their kids to school with them.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    That's the part I have a hard time with. I've seen it with my own eyes in the neighborhood I grew up in, the neighborhood I bought my first house in, and in the entirety of the area I live in. Every time illegals have moved in, depressed and destroyed the local businesses that already existed, moved into tenements designed for only for a small family in great numbers to reduce tax revenue for school per capita, and degraded the safety of the area so as to instill fear in those around them.

    Now, of course I'll be labeled as some racist just because I've had my own experiences, and I am not afraid to state them. I'll be told my white privilege is what caused my fear. The fact that actual danger was verified by police statistics year over year in previously well to do areas will be dismissed.

    But forgive me if my own experiences over a fair number of years and areas leads me to disbelieve a study was performed with rigor it deserved. If you expect me to remove my bias then you also expect me to disregard the frequency of study via frequently proved.

  • MJBinAL||

    Not to mention that free health care, including child birth, is not considered "welfare". But the high costs of providing it to illegals (required by federal law) has bankrupted several large hospitals in Texas.

  • damikesc||

    Only if you believe the conservative myth that every illegal is on welfare

    If ONE is, that is bad enough.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Only if you believe the conservative myth that every illegal is on welfare\

    If my tax dollars are going to feed their kids three meals a day, then yeah, they're on welfare.

  • MJBinAL||

    Or two meal a day, at the tax supported school they attend.

  • BCarter||

    So, at what percentage of illegal immigrants magically turn it into a crime against taxpaying citizens?

    As far as white trailer trash, they are citizens.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "As a taxpayer, am I a victim?"

    Indeed you are.

    The illegal aliens tend to reside in those blue states like California where they pump up the census number of residents that is used to apportion representation in Congress.

    So even if they cannot legally vote they help pump of the voting power of leftist legal residents in those states who do vote relative to voting power of everyone else in the country and we get more big gubmit pocket picking laws and regulations as a result.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Our system structurally amplifies the yahoo votes, which (with gerrymandering) explains the persistence of backwardness, superstition, ignorance, and bigotry in American politics.

    Goobers seem unfamiliar with our American system, as reflected by Gilbert Martin's comment. I blame backwater education.

  • Christian Sisk||

    It seems like he is very familiar with it, as evidenced by your visceral need to initiate an attack on him.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Mentioning California, but not Wyoming or Utah, with respect to relative voting power says more about homeschooling and backwater religious schools than it says about America's political system.

    Other than that, great comment!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    In other words, you are incapable of refuting my point.

    Thanks for playing.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The states with the highest reported density of undocumented residents are Texas and Nevada.
    California is third. States at 3.5 percent or greater include Washington, Virginia, New York, New Mexico, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, and Arizona.

  • mpercy||

    "undocumented residents"

    Why the euphemism?

    Also, if an illegal alien uses fraudulent papers, or has stolen an identity, is he or she still "undocumented"? Are they really residents or just transients?

    If I steal your car, am I an "undocumented driver"?

    Or drug dealers must be "undocumented pharmacists"...

  • MJBinAL||

    Interesting ... "undocumented"

    So, if I go to the bank and make the teller give me money I don't have on deposit, will it be ok and virtuous if we call it an "undocumented withdrawl"?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Mentioning California, but not Wyoming or Utah, with respect to relative voting power

    Count Arthur L. Hicklib as another inbred striver yahoo that doesn't know how the government is organized.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    What is hilarious is that you portend that gerrymandering only plays one way and your so called yahoo votes are likewise single sided. Your lack of being able to see hypocrisy is a continual source of comedy.

  • jrd||

    Rev. Arthur, you go, girl!

  • D-Pizzle||

    I wish Libertarians could understand that the road to serfdom is paved with open borders.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    As a taxpayer, you are a victim of the State.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    The state isn't forcing people to come here and incur costs.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    No one's forcing the state to take people's money.

  • Christian Sisk||

    The best case scenario then is that they both have culpability.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Victimless drug crimes are not crimes.

    In fact the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional as there is zero authority for the state to ban any product or service without a Constitutional amendment, like with the Prohibition.

    Drug crimes can be ignored because they are void on their face. In fact, non-crimes as they have zero legal authority.

  • MJBinAL||

    No, Libertarians are different from anarcists.

    We have immigration laws for a variety of reasons. Some of them.
    .
    To control the rate of immigration to a level that allows new arrivals to to acclimate and not to overwhelm communities where they settle.
    .
    To require medical examinations and immunizations to prevent reimmergence of diseases already "irradicated" in the US. (as a DIRECT result of illegal immigration we now have Polio, TB, Measles, and Whooping Cough again)
    .
    There are many other reasons that apply primarily because we have a welfare state. Of course, you can (and some asshats here have) claim that we should encourage as many illegals as possible so as be "break" the welfare state. Unrealistic view but it is a view.
    .
    Many immigrants coming here come from socialist nations and are believers in socialism. (despite the fact the came here to escape the consequences of socialism) An unrestrained flood of immigrants proceeding to the ability to vote simply guarantees that socialist policies will get more support. (a cynic would point out that this "libertarian" open borders policy actual acts to defeat the spread of libertarian policies.)
    .

  • RoninX||

    If they believed in socialism, they would stay in their socialist countries. The people I know who emigrated from the USSR are some of the most anti-Communist, anti-Marxist people I know.

  • Ron||

    of course as usual the data ignores many factors to prove a bias

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Which ones?

  • BillyG||

    Given that local police are forbiden from checking immigration status, and California has explicit laws against it, the data is suspect. How can you analze when it is not monitored? Additionally, how do you know what the rates are unless you have the population count? How accurate are your estimated for the number of illegals in the country?

    Finally, by definition, every illegal alien is breaking the law.

  • Dillinger||

    >>> there is little proof of that too

    there is little proof of much here.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Aside from numbers.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Numbers that are provably worthless.

  • Ben_||

    I guess we should just accept people sneaking across the border to commit crimes as long as it's only a few crimes.

    Because keeping them on their own side of the border to commit crimes in their homeland is unfair or something.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Here we go again!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    You aren't convincing anybody with this line of discourse. Why not? A) by definition, all illegal immigrants are criminals, and arguments that sweep that aside only irritate the anti-illegal immigrant faction. The Unwashed have been patted on the head and told, condescendingly, "we don't call them 'illegal immigrants' anymore. We call them 'undocumented'" for too goddamned long, and that's a significant part of what got us Trump.

    B) The people up in arms about this kind of incident argue that if the illegal immigrant who killed the girl had been kept out of the country, she would be alive. Now, there are legitimate quibbles with that. She might have been struck by lightnig. Or, far more likely, he might have gotten in the country no matter how big a wall and how many border agents. But saying 'illegal immigrants commit far less VIOLENT CRIME (see that distinction? Use it!) than legal residents' doesn't address the basic point; illegal immigrant criminals shouldn't have been here in the first place. Don't like immigration policy? Fine. Get the laws changed. But stopp advocating (or seeming to advocate) not enforcing the laws we have.

  • Michael D. McAuley||

    Very well put. I'd also say it this way:

    What is it about the Editors at Reason and libertarians like Alex Nowrasteh of Cato that you don't understand that we have immigration laws because we're a nation and we get to choose whom we admit to our country? So what if "undocumented" (let's drop the euphemism: they're illegal under the law) immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than U.S. citizens? Why should we be willing to have them commit any crimes at all? Why shouldn't we want to screen out the ones that we know have committed crimes before admitting them to the U.S? Why shouldn't we be able to choose the immigrants that we as society deem to be the most beneficial to our society?

    Using Alex's and the Editors' logic, since whites commit fewer homicides than blacks per capita, we should stop enforcing crimes for embezzlement against whites.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Why shouldn't we be able to choose the immigrants that we as society deem to be the most beneficial to our society?

    Because that's a collectivist approach. Who is the "we" in your question? The majority? Legislators? Bureaucrats? Trump/Obama/Bush? Judges?

    Libertarians already have a method for how to make decisions when there is no consensus: use market-based mechanisms. No need to have a majority vote on whether "we" should drink Coke or Pepsi. Let each individual decide for him/herself. Same deal with immigration. No need to have any sort of consensus among "society" about which individual immigrant is considered "beneficial" or not. Let individuals decide on their own.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The People.

    Article I, Section 8 & 9 specifically give authority for government to regulate immigration and set rules for their naturalization.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The People.

    Does that mean we take a vote? Or does that mean that the people *individually* decide, as I proposed?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    When you take advantage of the benefits of the Constitution, you agree.

    Your options are to leave the USA, get an amendment to the Constitution ratified, or convince your representatives to lightly regulate immigration.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When you take advantage of the benefits of the Constitution, you agree.

    What does this even mean?

  • MJBinAL||

    It means you are stupid Jeff.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Or do nothing and talk about it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I don't understand how self government works"

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Article I, Section 8 & 9 specifically give authority for government to regulate immigration"

    False

    "Article I, Section 8 & 9 specifically give authority for government to... set rules for their naturalization."

    True

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Article I, Section 8 & 9 specifically give authority for government to regulate immigration"

    Article I, Section 9: The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    True.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Beyond the fact that this has never been cited in any precedents for why Congress can control immigration (those precedents rely on a "living document" view of the naturalization the commerce clauses *LOL*)...

    Anybody who has ever studied the Constitution can tell you that Article 1, Section 8 contains enumerated powers and Article 1, Section 9 contains specific limits. If the Founders thought that Congress should have any power to regulate immigration, then why wouldn't they put that in the enumerated powers section right there along with Naturalization?

    What other powers does section 9 enumerate to Congress? Only this one?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Additionally, if your interpretation is correct, then why include this specific language in Article V about amending the Constitution?

    provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article;

    It seems that the founders thought that IF Congress wanted to be able to control the flow of the slave trade (ie the migration referenced in A1S9C1), they would need to amend the Constitution to do so.

    So... FALSE.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If Congress never had the power to regulate immigration and slaves, then why add a limit?

    In other words, if government was limit to enumerated powers and no such power to regulate immigrants and slaves was mentioned, then why ban it until 1808?

    Because the ban for congress to regulate immigrants and slaves until 1808 was to prevent Congress from preventing slave states from importing slaves. Additionally, to prevent Congress from calling slaves "migrants" and regulating them.

    Slaves states did not want the federal government messing with slaves until the agreed upon year of 1808.

    So... TRUE. Congress can regulate immigration.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "If Congress never had the power to regulate immigration and slaves, then why add a limit?"

    The limit was added to say that Congress can't even grant themselves this power, thus the tie into Article V.

  • MJBinAL||

    This is correct. The language that specifically prohibits congress from regulating immigrants and slaves until 1808, implicitely empowers congress to regulate immigrants after 1808. If this were not so, the entire clause would have no point.

    Another way of stating this, is that this language is written to limit a power congress has, and therefore confirms the existence of that power.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution has numerous clauses that are mix of different things.

    Article I, Section 8: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    Naturalization and bankruptcy have nothing to do with one another yet they are in the same clause.

    The "migration or importation clause" is a limit of Congressional power until 1808. So it makes sense to starts in Section 9. There is not reason to have the enumerated power then listed somewhere else in the Constitution. Section 9 is not a limiting power section only. It includes limits and powers.

    A1S9C8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. There is a limit on all government employees to not accept title nor nobility or gifts and an enumerated power for Congress to consent to foreign gifts being acceptable.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""If the Founders thought that Congress should have any power to regulate immigration, then why wouldn't they put that in the enumerated powers section right there along with Naturalization?"'

    That can be said about a lot of things the feds now regulate.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    That can be said about a lot of things the feds now regulate.

    And we should be arguing against those abuses of power as well. The Conservatives should own this piece of judicial activism if they think it's so important.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The Conservatives should own this piece of judicial activism if they think it's so important.""

    I don't disagree, but I have to ask why? Unless the other team starts owing their judicial activism I does see a reason for that team to do it either.

    I've said it for years. Politics in America will be better when political parties start cleaning their own back yards before they point the finger at their neighbor.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The left flat out admits that they believe in a living Constitution.

    The right attempts to be for limited constitutional government until issues like this come up. Then they scramble to find justification for their overreach.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    And would rewrite the Declaration as

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should be changed for light and transient causes.

  • retiredfire||

    Immigration laws are not "overreach".
    They are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", one of which is establishing "an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
    The Founders included the ability to make such laws as immigration, so that their establishment of naturalization laws weren't limited to just granting citizenship, when circumstances changed and there became a need to regulate the number, and category of those seeking such.
    Funny how the open borders crowd doesn't decry such things as the category of "green card" holders, that aren't actually naturalized, but a step towards it for legal immigrants. "Illegal alien" is another such category and the legislation says they should be deported, which, by the way, is not punishment, but simply returning the situation to what it was before the law was broken.

  • MJBinAL||

    And,
    .
    The language that specifically prohibits congress from regulating immigrants and slaves until 1808, implicitely empowers congress to regulate immigrants after 1808. If this were not so, the entire clause would have no point.
    .
    Another way of stating this, is that this language is written to limit a power congress has, and therefore confirms the existence of that power.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Wrong Leo. The federal government may absolutely regulate I'm igration as a subset of naturalization. You open borders nuts drag out this tired old canard all the time like some sort of gotcha wordplay.

    I would say 'nice try', but it really isn't.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The federal government may absolutely regulate I'm igration as a subset of naturalization.

    That's the opinion of the courts, no doubt.

    It's kind of like saying that the federal government can regulate any commerce, because it can regulate interstate commerce. That's also the opinion of the courts. But at least the lefties who believe that are truthful with their intention of the Constitution as a living document.

    Which libertarian is saying that they want to grant citizenship to anyone that comes?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I found an interesting article late last night. The author makes the contention, with links, that:

    federal regulation of immigration is a power both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison maintained was "no where delegated to the federal government."
    ...
    Both Jefferson and Madison were obviously aware of the 1808 clause in Article 9 and still maintained the federal government wasn't delegated power to regulate immigration. Jefferson cited the clause directly, stating it was "inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution," not as a grant of power after 1808. Jefferson made his position clear, writing that "alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens."


    Source

  • damikesc||

    Same deal with immigration. No need to have any sort of consensus among "society" about which individual immigrant is considered "beneficial" or not. Let individuals decide on their own.

    Given that at least .00001 of my tax money goes to illegals...I get a seat at the table. Sorry if you don't like it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well then, damikesc, since you undoubtedly used public roads this morning, and 0.00001 of my tax money went to pay for those public roads that you used, that means i get a vote on how you live your life. Sorry if you don't like it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Same-same. NOT

  • damikesc||

    Yeah, you do. That's called Congress. I'm not the one saying "Well, nobody should decide who is allowed here legally"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, Congress, the courts, and various state legislatures have decided that certain immigrants qualify for welfare even if they are here illegally. And yet you don't seem content with that. Hmm.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That should be "certain forms of welfare" anyway. Not all welfare is available for undocumented immigrants. Most is not.

  • damikesc||

    Well, Congress, the courts, and various state legislatures have decided that certain immigrants qualify for welfare even if they are here illegally. And yet you don't seem content with that. Hmm.

    Libertarians for illegals taking welfare. Nice.

    Shockingly, one can try and change a bad system.

    Maybe you should try that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Little Jeffy is puking out his feeble little thoughts since this crap ass article tugs in his widdle heartstrings.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But just give it up. We all know that even if the undocumented immigrants didn't consume a cent of welfare, you'd want them gone anyway. So this "they consume welfare!!" schtick is just a rationalization.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That is only one of many arguments against illegal immigration.

    The main one is that Americans get to decide American immigration policy, not foreigners.

  • LynchPin1477||

    The main one is that Americans get to decide American immigration policy, not foreigners.

    I don't see mainstream support for letting foreigners decide American immigration policy. I see competing ideas *from Americans* about what immigration policy should be. One of the arguments for restricting immigration and taking a hard line on illegal immigration is that immigrations, particularly illegal immigrants from Central and South America, pose too great a risk of violent crime. The statistics cited in the article cast doubt on that assertion.

  • damikesc||

    I want them gone because they're here illegally.

    You're pulling the "Well, what if I want them here"

    Great. YOU ALONE support them. You ALONE pay every cent of their expenses, including schooling et al.

    You don't do that. You want ME to do that so YOU can feel better.

    Well fuck your feelings.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I want them gone because they're here illegally.

    That's right. It doesn't matter how much of any public service they consume. You'd want them gone regardless.

    Great. YOU ALONE support them. You ALONE pay every cent of their expenses, including schooling et al.

    Sounds like a good idea.

    Would you permit me to do that even if they were here illegally?

    Answer: no. So this whole "public services" discussion is a giant red herring.

    You don't do that. You want ME to do that so YOU can feel better.

    Well fuck your feelings.

    Glad you got that temper-tantrum out of your system. Feel better?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I suspect the real reason that we are discussing illegal immigrants consuming welfare is that in your eyes, it is evidence that they are "bad people". Am I wrong?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I suspect the real reason that we are discussing illegal immigrants consuming welfare is that in your eyes, it is evidence that they are "bad people".

    No, people like you who enable that consumption while hiding behind "individual liberty" are the bad ones.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Deflect deflect deflect.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's not my fault you think it's peachy keen to keep giving immigrants welfare.

  • damikesc||

    That's right. It doesn't matter how much of any public service they consume. You'd want them gone regardless.

    Their consumption is just one of many reasons to kick them out.

    Would you permit me to do that even if they were here illegally?

    Answer: no. So this whole "public services" discussion is a giant red herring.

    Given it'd require MY time to insure you live up to it? Probably not. You'd have to not only support the illegal, but compensate me to make sure you do so.

    Glad you got that temper-tantrum out of your system. Feel better?

    Is an illegal here? Then no.

    Fuck, Dalmia being here is irritating enough.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah, you're not serious. Didn't think so.

    How in the world did the issue of illegal immigration loom so large in your consciousness? Out of all the issues in this country, how did this one become so goddamned important to you?

  • damikesc||

    Im not writing repeated terrible articles on it.

  • retiredfire||

    It is "so goddamned important", because liars, like you, want to give the 10, to 30, million foreigners, illegally in the country, the franchise, that will turn this nation into another socialist shit hole, like they came from.
    You're wanting them to be made legal, not out of some altruistic libertarian free association desire, but to see America turn into the northern version of Venezuela. Probably, because you think you'll get all kinds of free stuff at the expense of "the rich".

  • MJBinAL||

    Jeff, you are an idiot.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    We all know that even if the undocumented immigrants didn't consume a cent of welfare,

    Since they do consume welfare, and in large quantities, your hypothetical is irrelevant.

  • SwampBoy||

    Get the fuck out of the Reason comments. Your fucking over Silicon Valley with your immigration policies.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Isn't the market collectivist in that we all agree to play by its rules? How far does this rabbit hole of individualism go? I am having a hard time visualizing this reality where there is no collectivism, and how individuals can stop collectivists without they themselves being a collective.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Volunteerism is where you agree to pool resources for the benefit of society without force.

    In the USA, income changed that potentially forever if you did not want to voluntarily pay your taxes.

  • Here for the outrage||

    thanks for the reply.. I'll have to let that soak in a bit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No problem. Anarchists that hang around use 'collectivist' to denounce Libertarians that are not anarchists.

    Anarchy is 100% volunteerism and zero collectivism because there can be no state force.

    Libertarianism is a measured balance of tiny and limited government for things like national defense and this means that you give up the right to absolute property rights. Under Libertarianism, a state can eminent domain your land but there must be strict Rule of Law to protect the property owner's property rights and there must be good reason for the seizure. Building a bigger military base would be such a reason.

    Libertarianism functions on the idea that government is usually harmful, so the people will keep it tiny and limited to prevent abuse as much as possible. Nobody is above the law and some duties will be voluntarily pooled to further a free market society.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Libertarianism is a measured balance of tiny and limited government . . .


    Taking pointers on libertarianism from this young lady resembles soliciting advice on veganism from a butcher, opinions on morality from a serial killer who roots for Penn State, or tips on sex from a priest.

    Scratch that last one . . .
  • MJBinAL||

    ^THIS^

    Is well thought out and well written. Much of the "libertarian" silliness here is actually written by anarchists.

    If there is no difference between libertarian and anarchist, why use the name libertarian at all?

  • Here for the outrage||

    no collectivism in the (now former) USA, while the rest of the world does its collectivist thing

  • mpercy||

    Are they really immigrants?

    A family member just moved from Georgia to South Carolina. To make a legal transition was quite a chore:

    If you have an out-of-state driver's license, you will need to transfer it for a South Carolina license within 90 days of your move. You will need to visit your local SC DMV office in person and pass the vision exam. In some circumstances you may be required to pass the written and driving tests.

    When you become a resident of South Carolina, you have 45 days to register your out-of-state car.

    When you visit the SC DMV office to register your car, you will be asked to provide the name of your auto insurance provider. Make sure you've updated your address with your insurance company so the DMV can find your information.

    Before you can vote in any upcoming elections, you'll need to register to vote in SC. This applies even if you were a registered voter at your last out-of-state address.

    Did these "immigrants" do any of these? Probably not. They're not undocumented immigrants or even illegal immigrants, they're illegal aliens.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Responding to some of your specific points:

    So what if "undocumented" (let's drop the euphemism: they're illegal under the law) immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than U.S. citizens?

    Immigrants, and particularly illegal immigrants (which you are correct in calling them) have been painted pretty explicitly by Trump and other immigration skeptics as being a net drag on well being in the US, in part because many of them are supposedly criminals and violent. Citing evidence that suggests that they may actually lower crime rates overall counters that narrative.

    Why should we be willing to have them commit any crimes at all?

    Sometimes people with no criminal record end up committing crimes. So it's impossible to prevent all crimes being committed by immigrants, illegal or otherwise, other than to try and end all immigration, which would be hugely expensive (if even possible at all) and would come with tons of negative consequences. So you have to choose whether a relatively small percentage committing crimes is worth the sacrificing the practical benefit and commitment to certain ideals (which I respect that you might not share)? There is no practical way to end all crime committed by immigrants.

  • LynchPin1477||

    (cont.)

    Why shouldn't we want to screen out the ones that we know have committed crimes before admitting them to the U.S?

    We absolutely should - I 100% agree with you on this. And right now that is impossible because our immigration system is too restrictive, which leads to millions of people entering illegally (and therefore evading any kind of screening). A less restrictive immigration system that made it easier for people to come here legally would facilitate better and more complete screening.

    Why shouldn't we be able to choose the immigrants that we as society deem to be the most beneficial to our society?

    Because there is no single definition of who or what is beneficial to society. That isn't he kind of decision that should be centralized, save for basic checks like criminal history and threats to public health, and maybe some basic financial means (though I think there are better ways of taking care of that by limiting access to welfare programs that immigrants aren't otherwise contributing to).

  • mpercy||

    "And right now that is impossible because our immigration system is too restrictive"

    And yet, about one million people every every manage get citizenship!

    The US has about 1M legal immigrants each year through various visa programs. Some of them end up getting citizenship, too.

    Is it too restrictive? Perhaps, but not overwhelmingly so or there wouldn't be 1M doing it legally every year. You're just trying to justify the line-cutters, the people who simply ignore the laws.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Immigrants, and particularly illegal immigrants (which you are correct in calling them) have been painted pretty explicitly by Trump and other immigration skeptics as being a net drag on well being in the US"

    Import people with a greater preference for bigger government, get bigger government. Duh.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    arguments that sweep that aside only irritate the anti-illegal immigrant faction


    Why try to make irritating whiny, authoritarian, half-educated bigots sound like a bad thing?
  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    A) by definition, all illegal immigrants are criminals

    Circular logic. By definition.

  • Kivlor||

    Blame Shikha. She's the one who wrote "criminals are actually less criminal than non-criminals"

  • MJBinAL||

    In addition, there have been dozens of studies that show that illegal aliens commit more crime than citizens, and more violent crime. They often commit those violent crimes against other illegals, but commit it non the less.

    As usual, Shitma advocates progressive policies and either flat out lies or cherry picks studies or data to support her position.

  • Starting Lineup||

    My dog shits on my lawn more than any other dog does.

  • LamarPye||

    I put up a no dog shit sign in my yard

  • General_Tso||

    Same Shikha, different week.

  • Rockabilly||

    It's deja vu = again

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Every illegal inside the USA is a criminal.

    More lies from Shikha.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Every supporter of bigoted, authoritarian immigration policies is an enemy of libertarianism, modernity, and decency.

    As a libertarian, I disdain these statist jerks and paltry slavers.

  • Kivlor||

    Some of us are glad to be enemies of the heresy that is modernity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, as one who is vastly superior to you, it is amusing to see your unearned sense of entitlement and arrogance.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " I disdain these statist jerks and paltry slavers."

    Meh

    In case my not announcing it every five seconds like you feel the need to somehow gave you the wrong impression, I disdain you and your faux libertarianism bent on destroying America

    Why do you feel the need to endless emote your hatred at us and much of America with every post? We get it.

    Does it give you a chubby to do it all day? I can't imagine it's anything but boring even to the people who agree with your policy preferences and share your hatred of Americans.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yep, Rev, you and Karl Marx are libertarians from WAY back!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    My
    Associates
    Giving
    Allocutions!

  • dxh@yahoo.com||

    Sorry. But you have to use some far out crazy twisted logic to come to the conclusion that people that break the law are not criminals.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its par for the course around Reason staff HQ these days:

    Trump is a criminal for non-crimes.
    Illegal immigrants are not criminals because we call them 'undocumented immigrants'.
    Re-negotiating trade agreements cannot work even when it does.
    As of August 25, 2018 McCain is the greatest hero and politician of a generation!

  • sarcasmic||

    You have to have some far out crazy twisted logic to simultaneously be a libertarian who is against victimless actions being considered to be crimes, and say people without permission slips are criminals.

  • John Galt Jr||

    That's not libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You want Anarchy-land. Absolute liberty.

    American Libertarians are for minimal government and rule of law under the Constitution. In the USA, Americans control who comes over the borders.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is how I know I've won an argument with you. When you stick your fingers in your ears and should "Anarchist la la la I can't hear you Anarchist la la laaaa!" Grow up man, you're embarrassing yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    should shout

    My kingdom for an edit button!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You want absolute liberty which is not what Libertarian support. Anarchists do.

    Take your sticky fingers out of ears, so you can hear the adults discussing things. It will do you wonders.

    Or you can stick to your safe space.

  • ||

    You want absolute liberty which is not what Libertarian support. Anarchists do.

    Even when Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The 'essential liberty' is defense of the Pennsylvania frontier.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In other words, the "essential liberty" to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

    What's more the "purchase [of] a little temporary safety" of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin's letter, the word "purchase" does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes--and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier--as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family's lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance--and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.
    'Essential Liberty'

  • loveconstitution1789||

    (contd) In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned.

    That does not mean what YOU think it means.

    The Founders were fine with small limited government formed from volunteers for security, knowing full well that some Liberty would be given up.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Anarchists are communists. I've infiltrated them and found no exceptions to that rule. Google news archives also confirm that an anarchist is simply a communist caught with a smoking gun.

  • retiredfire||

    But, in order to maintain a communist society, because it goes against human nature, totalitarian rule must be maintained. Thus the only ones, who are able to remain anarchists are the ones at the top, who are free to do as they please, while keeping everyone else to strict compliance, especially in not being able to leave.
    That is the experience of every place that has tried it.
    The ones, who say it hasn't been implemented properly, in the past, are the ones, who want to be at the top.

  • MJBinAL||

    Nope, he has called you out accurately. You are an anarchist. If you believe the things you say, you should be happy to be accurately labeled as an anarchist.

  • damikesc||

    Reason is quite upset over Trump committing, still, zero apparent crimes.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Well that can't be true. Reason assumes he commits three felonies a day.

  • Bearded Spock||

    You'd have to have some far out crazy twisted logic to believe that Open Borders is a politically-viable issue, but then if you did believe that you'd be a Libertarian Party member.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is middle ground between open borders and xenophobia. A lot, actually.

  • Bearded Spock||

    So why then is it so hard for libertarians to admit that nations, especially the US, have the right to police their own borders?

    There are tens of millions of Americans who don't mind immigrants as long as they obey the law and learn English and become Americans. This has been the rule for almost all of our history.

    But what infuriates them is to see the law flouted on a massive scale, and then the collective reaction from their elected leaders be "LOL, whatever" even when the illegals commit heinous crimes (fun fact: 10 of the 20 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visas).

    What makes them even madder is to be lectured by snooty elites who tell them their opposition to immigration is just a manifestation of their latent racism.

    Sanctimonious talking heads like Shikha have done more to sabotage reasonable immigration reform than StormFront or Richard Spencer. It's the reason millions of otherwise open-minded Americans pulled the lever for Donald Trump.

  • sarcasmic||

    So why then is it so hard for libertarians to admit that nations, especially the US, have the right to police their own borders?

    I don't think that's the argument. Maybe I'm wrong. I see libertarians saying we don't need more restrictions on immigration. That's not saying that the current system is grand, which it isn't, or that there should be no system at all, it's saying that we don't need more restrictions. We don't need a wall. That doesn't mean totally open borders. It means no wall. The hyperbole and straw men on both sides really hinder any attempts at rational debate.

  • Qsl||

    The hyperbole and straw men on both sides really hinder any attempts at rational debate.

    Ya don't say?

    "Illegal immigrant"- well, no. Not until they have had their day in court (due process and all that).

    And as someone else pointed out the projected number of "illegals" is nearly three time the current prison population. That is a fuck ton of new prisons, court hearings, appeals, etc. For all the whining about the welfare costs of illegals, try the costs of a prison state.

    Of course it is sanctified in the libertarian view as a "just" function of the state, even though I sure as hell don't want to pay for that kind of enforcement (much like how others don't want to pay for welfare), somehow forcing taxation is a-okay as long as it is for stuff they agree with.

    And then the costs for the wall (I have yet to see this "volunteerism" manifest in private funding by those concerned), and we have ventured into the truly absurd.

    It is disgusting to see libertarians wrap themselves in the flag and country, as if they are the sole arbiters of what immigration policy should be. Much of the open borders talk (which is just as absurd) was backlash against the build the wall rhetoric.

    If it is up to the "nation" to decide how immigration policy should be manifest, don't be surprised when people become sick of the rhetoric and leave the hardliners in the dust.

    High stakes poker. Call.

  • MJBinAL||

    So your position is that we can have restrictions, so long as we don't do anything to enforce them?

  • MWG||

    "So why then is it so hard for libertarians to admit that nations, especially the US, have the right to police their own borders?"

    Probably because nations don't have 'rights'. Only individuals do.

  • MJBinAL||

    And if this is your position, without any limits or reservations, you are an anarchist. This is not a slam against you, just an observation of fact. Because you have effectively made the nation-state not exist.

    The nation-state can't control borders, can't raise a military, can levy any taxes, nothing. It can't exist except in name.

    It is the Confederacy that preceeded the Constitutional Government we have, except even weaker (if that is possible). I will note that the Confederacy of United States failed and was replaced.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    So why then is it so hard for libertarians to admit that nations, especially the US, have the right to police their own borders?

    Wrong https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

    The platform says free movement of people is a component of free markets. But here's how finishes,

    ...Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense.

    Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals. Our current immigration system is an embarrassment. People who would like to follow the legal procedures are unable to because these procedures are so complex and expensive and lengthy. If Americans want immigrants to enter through legal channels, we need to make those channels fair, reasonable, and accessible.

    It's Trump the authoritarian who says "fuck what most Americans want."

    This is actually much better than when I was on the Platform Committee.. Paraphrased: These are our principles. But if Americans want legal channels, simpfy the stupidity we have now.

    What's your problem with that?

  • retiredfire||

    If people wanting to immigrate were "unable to because these procedures are so complex and expensive and lengthy", then we wouldn't see more than a million granted resident immigrant status, and citizenship, each year.
    The U.S. allows the greatest number of legal immigrants, by a long shot, than any other nation.
    The question, that obviously follows, and is never answered, is: So, how many should be allowed to come here?
    Because the number, worldwide, could be in excess of what we have, here, now.
    The "it's too hard" claim is a canard that is used by those, who support free migration into the nation, something that no other country allows.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans want to decide American law.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    More hysteria by Trumpsters

    Americans want to decide American law.

    Nobody says otherwise. And you responded to another lie, about Open Borders
    Shameful

  • Hank Phillips||

    Not so fast! The LP has in previous decades been targeted by infiltrators pudhing a "legalize pederasty" plank designed to repel voters and contributors. That one is still not entirely erased. Just now a gaggle of similar goons mutilated the Migration plank to remove the constitutionally sensible part. Only the glittering generalities remain as the bloody stump. This was not done by "libertarian party members" but rather, a tiny clique of hostile plants. The LP is a growing menace to the most powerful organized crime family on the planet. Concerted attacks through mimesis, force and fraud are exactly what we should expect from looter stakeholders.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    That is THE funnest satire I've seen all year!. The Trumpsters may even swallow it, since you phrased it as a conspiracy

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You've been lied to, Libertarian Party is not Open Borders, The Platform section is posted below, with a link.

  • retiredfire||

    Funny how that "platform" seems to morph the NAP into the NVP.
    Using the "if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently" as the determining factor ignores that, even when done non-violently, invasion is an aggressive act, and in violation of the, supposed, bedrock of libertarianism - The NAP.
    Someone, who non-violently walks into your house and sets up their existence, there, is committing an aggressive act, that, rightly would produce the equally aggressive, and excusedly violent, act of removing them. No "market based" efforts would work to restore your private property to your exclusive control.
    People, coming from a foreign country are doing the same thing, but to the nation, not just your piece of it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    sarc, you have to have some crazy twisted logic to be simultaneously a libertarian who is against utter lawlessness and simultaneously against the US constitution.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Libertarianism is not a suicide pact.

    Americans scratched out a little dirt on the planet for a more libertarian society. It's not libertarian to give up that dirt to those who impose more statism on it.

  • Azathoth!!||

    YOU and yours have decided that the crime is victimless.

    You have proclaimed that one cannot be a victim because one is not permitted to claim ownership of their own nation and thus has no direct interest in who comes or goes.

    And, having done this, you speak as if your opinion is the word of God.

    But many of us are libertarians who believe in property rights, who understand that this country was initially very focused on that--with the franchise limited to those who owned land. Who understand that the laws of this nation were made by the people who, very literally, owned it.

    And it is from this point that all else proceeds.

    Thus, to you, this is simply land that can belong to anyone. To me, and those who share a similar train of thought, this is our land, our property.

    And, yes, if a person is here without the permission of the owners, then they are criminals. Particularly when their first action is to do their best to avoid those who could give permission because they might get told 'no'--or 'get in line'.

    Stealing what they could be given freely if they played by the rules of the nation they claim to want to be a part of is preferable to them.

    Thus, their criminality is pretty well established.

  • chesterthecat78||

    It is impossible to know whether illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes. Since many of the crimes committed by illegals are perpetrated against other illegals, many crimes probably go unreported. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

  • damikesc||

    FBI statistics show that border towns like San Diego and El Paso, which have large unauthorized populations, have some of the lowest crime rates in the country — and conversely cities like Detroit and Baltimore that have few immigrants have among the highest. Correlation is not causation

    So, Dalmia admits she writes pointless dreck.

  • Benitacanova||

    She's got in for blacks. Whyd she choose 2 black cities? There's a word for that kind of thinking. Wait, it will come to me...

  • John Galt Jr||

    The myth never dies, because so many miss a fairly obvious point.
    Illegals keep very low profiles. And their punishment for a crime is much worse than legals and native born,
    Libertarians understand incentives ... and disincentives.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Of the several million illegals deported since the 1990s over whom Reason likes to shed a tear, the great majority of them have been criminals who had been arrested for crimes in the US.

    I can guarantee if Baltimore or Detroit could deport their criminal citizens to Mexico or Honduras their crime rates would miraculously drop, too.

  • David Nolan||

    Non-responsive. Diversion. Even if true, if EVERY deportation was a criminal, that says NOTHING about illegals overall. Hypothetical -- 1 million illegals. Three are deported for crimes. So they were ALL deported for crimes, but that's 0.0003% of the illegals

    Of the several million illegals deported since the 1990s over whom Reason likes to shed a tear, the great majority of them have been criminals who had been arrested for crimes in the US.

    That's even worse than your false assertion about the Libertarian Party Platform elsewhwere on tis page

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I can guarantee if Baltimore or Detroit could deport their criminal citizens to Mexico or Honduras their crime rates would miraculously drop, too."

    Further, if we *stopped* deporting criminal illegal aliens, as the open borders crowd would like our criminal rates would miraculously rise.

  • Ron||

    false. In California even before sanctuary laws were in place if an illegal had no License or insurance the cops often left them alone since they never show up in court anyway and that is also how it happens even when arrested they get bail and never show up. Can't count a crime if its not processed

  • MJBinAL||

    ^Good Point

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano jumping in again with his sockpuppets.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How can a brain dead dick puppet like Hihn have sock puppets?

  • Rockabilly||

    Here we go again.....

    I have my bong, some pretzels, and a refreshing Mint Julep.....

    Fire away - I'm here to read your comments....

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    It won't die because Trumptards swallow anything the Orange God says. The tribal mentality. And they scurry like cockroaches to shout down "blasphemiy" against The Exalted One.

    Remember, these are Birthers, White Nationalists and neo-Nazis, who finally have somebody defending their moral perversions. Like Bernie-bots, just a different agenda.,

  • JoeB||

    Exalted One = Obama. Get with the program.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    They both are.

    Left - Right =Zero

    American voters have moved on. You can still catch up.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ = Zero

    *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter to be named twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano's Enemies List*

  • Palooka_Joe||

    Detroit and Baltimore? Surprised Shikha didn't mention Compton as well and go for the racist trifeca.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's only racist when Whitey does it"

  • VinniUSMC||

    Wait, so is he officially an illegal alien now? I've read conflicting stories.

    This reminds me of the Monty Python witch sketch. Although, as in the sketch, the "witch" really was a witch.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Yes. He used a fake ID to get his job. Not that the dairy really cared; they were just going through the motions.

    Identity theft is another crime Shikha and libertarians are willing to overlook in order to protect the precious Unwashed Masses Yearning To Breathe Free.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "Huddled masses" that is.

  • sarcasmic||

    The upside of identity theft is that the illegal pays payroll taxes that they will never withdraw.

  • mpercy||

    Except when they file fraudulent tax returns and claim refundable child tax credits and EITC, which may more than offset the payroll taxes.

    Except when they work under-the-table cash-only jobs where no taxes are withheld.

    Of course, these are not limited to illegal aliens, but it's bad enough when we have domestic criminals of this nature, but now we're supposed to import them too?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I heard a stat the other day on Andrew Wilkow's show that 76% of illegals use stolen SS numbers. It was also asserted that ID theft would be almost nonexistent without all the illegals.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "border towns ... and conversely cities"

    Seriously, you're comparing crime rates between "towns" and "cities", and ignoring the factor of population density?

  • Bearded Spock||

    There are many, many, many things Shikha is willing to ignore in order to support her argument that opponents of illegal immigration are nothing but toothless cousin-humping Klansmen.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    opponents of illegal immigration are nothing but toothless cousin-humping Klansmen.

    Well gee, a great many of you try to have it both ways.

    On one hand, opposing immigration based on bigoted generalizations about foreigners.

    And then in the very next breath, getting indignant about being called a racist.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Didn't you exclaim a few days ago that you never called anyone racist?

  • mpercy||

    Eliminate all the vestiges of the welfare state and I'll vote for 100% open borders. It's not about "foreigners" or racism or xenophobia.

    It's bad enough to have domestic poverty, I see no reason to import it. It's doubly bad to be taxed to pay for the welfare state for citizens, but oh so much worse to be taxed even more to feed and house, apparently, the whole world (should they manage to somehow put boots on the ground here).

    But we're told we have to pay property taxes to increase schools because illegal alien kids. Gotta pay for illegal aliens using the emergency room (why can't they get their healthcare back in their socialist homelands?). They're not SUPPOSED to get in-kind benefits, but since we can't really police them...it's a guess as to what percentage of illegal aliens get them anyway, but my guess is it's non-trivial. Do they pay for legally-required car insurance or do they drive anyway and raise our collective rates? Have they passed the basic driving test?

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Mollie Tibbetts murder has given it a whole new lease on life, thanks to Trump and his restrictionist acolytes

    We seem to have a new "incident" giving the "myth" a new lease on life every time I read the news. There might be a lesson in there somewhere.

  • bvandyke||

    As stated above...Entering the U.S. without going through Customs and Immigration is illegal...so anyone doing it is by definition a criminal.

    We may not like the current set of immigration laws, drug laws, etc. But, if we (anyone) are caught breaking them, we are still, by definition a criminal (yes, as long as we are found guilty). We have to work with our system to get the laws changed. We just can't ignore them because we don't like them.

    I agree, using "undocumented" makes the matter worse over all.

    Let's also be a little realistic here. Countries have borders for a reason and they are not ever going to go away. Having a border means you want to control who comes (and goes). Yes, not libertarian at its core but that is the way it is.

    Our laws (not just immigration) need work and that will take conversation and team work. Sadly conversation and team work in our currently environment is a pipe dream.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I agree, using "undocumented" makes the matter worse over all.

    Honestly, why?

    There are those who wish to use the word "illegal" to describe these immigrants as a purely descriptive term.

    But I think there's a lot more who wish to use the word "illegal" to describe these immigrants purely as a form of stigmatization.

  • damikesc||

    I know. Facts are unpleasant.

  • bvandyke||

    I saw it makes it worse because the connotation of "undocumented" makes it look like a mistake not an intentional act.

    Undocumented - I lost my passport, not I entered illegally and tried not to get noticed.

    I think our immigration policy sucks but I also think we need to be honest in how we approach the conversation.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is no conversation.

    Some people want open borders no matter what. They refuse to acknowledge constitutional authority to regulate immigrants, American Rule of Law, international custom of national sovereignty....

  • sarcasmic||

    In a conversation people actually listen to the other side instead of telling the other side what they think and then sticking their fingers in their ears like children.

    So yeah, there indeed is no conversation. Not when you're involved.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Like "illegal" drugs, comrade individualist?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Umm, I don't support the drug war.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They are illegal. And many aren't immigrants Little Jeffy. They're interlopers who sneak in for work and other activities and then head home periodically.

  • mpercy||

    A less perjorative but still accurate term is simply "alien".

    A general summary of U.S. immigration terminology follows. Any references below to USCIS refer to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

    Alien
    An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.

    U.S. National
    An individual who owes his sole allegiance to the United States, including all U.S. citizens, and including some individuals who are not U.S. citizens. For tax purposes the term "U.S. national" refers to individuals who were born in American Samoa or were born in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who have chosen to be U.S. nationals instead of U.S. citizens.

    U.S. Citizen

    An individual born in the United States.
    An individual whose parent is a U.S. citizen. (NOTE: There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18. For more information, refer to the USCIS Citizenship Through Parents.
    A former alien who has been naturalized as a U.S. citizen
    An individual born in Puerto Rico
    An individual born in Guam
    An individual born in the U.S. Virgin Islands

  • mpercy||

    Immigrant
    An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Such an individual is also known known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien's LPR status. LPR's who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.

    Nonimmigrant

    An alien who has been granted the right to reside temporarily in the United States. Each nonimmigrant is admitted into the U.S. in the nonimmigrant status which corresponds to the type of visa issued.

    Each nonimmigrant status has rules and guidelines. A nonimmigrant who violates one of these rules or guidelines will fall "out of status." A nonimmigrant who remains "out of status" for at least 180 days is deportable and if deported will be unable to re-enter the United States for 3 years. A nonimmigrant who remains "out of status" for at least 365 days is deportable and if deported will be unable to re-enter the United States for 10 years.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Countries have borders for a reason and they are not ever going to go away."

    Buh buh buh ... muh anarchytopia!

  • All Seeing Eye||

    This is dumb. We have a country and the Rule of Law requires enforcement of immigration laws. These Illegal Aliens, to use the correct terminology, have committed crimes by entering the country. It doesn't matter that they commit "less crimes" it is that they shouldn't be here to commit crimes in the first place. Reason is losing it with articles like this. You are silly for assuming that the country has no right or obligation to manage immigration but of course Reason is being taken over by regressive liberals who do not care for having a country.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    "This is dumb."

    That nicely sums up a lot of recent articles on Reason

  • bvandyke||

    Just has a thought (or part of one).

    Question for those that think our boarder should be open.

    Would you move to another country and ignore their border requirements to get in? Would you knowing break their laws then get mad when your were caught?

    No animosity with the question, just looking for thoughts on it.

  • Bearded Spock||

    "The rise in immigration in this country has coincided with a massive drop in crime rates"

    The rapid increase in the number of concealed-carry permits has also coincided with a massive drop in crime rates. Heck, the increase in popularity of AR-type rifles has coincided with a massive drop in crime rates.

    I would argue either of those factors had far more effect on crime rates than immigration.

    But there are plenty of other things that coincide with the drop in crime over the past 25 years. Environmentalists like to point out the drop in blood lead levels in American children has coincided with a massive drop in crime rates.

    Per the CDC, the steady increase in the number chlamydia cases has coincided with a massive drop in crime rates. I'd believe that one over Shikha's tenuous illegal immigration connection.

    "Some myths, it seems, are too politically useful to die."

    And that would include the myth that illegal immigrants are model citizens. What's funny is that Shikha probably wrote this with a straight face.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The rise of color television ownership has coincided with the drop in crime rates too.

  • Sigivald||

    They looked at the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census data and found that the incarceration rates in the same 18-to-40 male cohort were far lower for immigrants than native-born men even though the former had lower wages and far worse health outcomes

    Considering that illegals who commit crimes are often deported instead, that's not a great comparison; I see this mentioned, but it, unlike the active claims presented, is noted as having "little proof" - is there disproof, or is the magnitude unknown?

    I was saddened, but not surprised, to see no really serious analysis or good numbers in Dalmia's article.

    ("We got more illegals as crime rates went down overall" is not a disproof, as good as the latter is, whether or not you think the President's claims have any truth in 'em at all; for it to be a disproof, the claim would have to be that most crime is done by illegals.

    What little attention I've paid to the President's babblings suggests that he's more annoyed that the ones that do commit awful crimes get revolving-door'd rather than imprisoned.

    This is a farrago of half-baked arguments and handwaving - and I'm not even a "Close The Borders!!!" guy.

    There's a reason my subscription is long-lapsed, and it's this kind of godawful clickbait laxity of analysis.)

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason imported Woketarians.

    Import Woketarians, get Woketarian articles, complete with Woketarian standards of reason, evidence, logic, and honesty.

  • Gary in Texas||

    Because we have a welfare state and because the leftists are using Democrat-leaning immigrants to try to change the political balance of power, I believe immigration needs to be restricted for now in the interest of preserving freedom in the country. But I see nothing good or fair in demagogic attacks on illegals as a class of vicious thugs and nothing reasonable in desiring to tar all of them with the crimes of a few of them. Of course illegal aliens commit all sorts of crimes. There are several million of them, and some are criminals. They may commit some crimes at higher rates than legal immigrants or native born Americans. Statistics on many things vary among cultures. However the crime committed by one illegal alien in Iowa says nothing against non-criminal illegal aliens just as the crime committed by one lunatic with a gun in Florida says nothing against the millions of non-criminal gun owners in this country. The principle is the same in each case.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I believe immigration needs to be restricted for now in the interest of preserving freedom in the country

    I disagree with the statement above.

    BUT, I do greatly respect your ability to see the underlying principle that arguing against the natural rights of an entire group of people by pointing out the individual actions of a few is an affront to individual liberty. As opposed to most people on the left and right who would rather score political points for their cause du jour than rely on any principled view.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So the best one can do is cast a law-changing libertarian spoiler vote worth ten times its weight in clout and thereby help abolish the welfare state brought about by socialist spoiler votes that never elected more than a handful of minor officials, right?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    WTF are you babbling about?

  • Benitacanova||

    Shiksa thinks repeating this BS will change minds instead of setting them more firmly where they rest: in the obvious-to-a-four-year-old truth.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I rejoice that Shikha is Reason's standard bearer for Open Borders Uber Alles. She does great work every day in discrediting the Open Borders Crowd.

    Keep up the good work, Shikha!

  • tinwhistler||

    Restrictionists? Wanting to keep criminals, and all illegal aliens are criminals, out of our country is something I would expect every American to want. There should be collective punishment and demonization of all unauthorized immigrants because they are violating our laws and not punishing them encourages more to come.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Hell yeah! In Dred Scott's day people took the Fugitive Slave Act seriously. Nowadays the GOP exports prohibitionist fascism and--surprise!--we're hip-deep in refugees from U.S.-backed christianofascist satrapies to the South.

  • John Rohan||

    Here we go again. Another article blurring the major distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

    Legal immigrants generally have lower crime rates, but that's not surprising considering they all are vetted and required to have a criminal background check before coming here. Illegal immigrants have no such requirement. Now, it's nearly impossible to study illegal immigrants, but since illegal immigration is intimately intertwined with drug trafficking, human trafficking, and identity theft, it's unlikely their crime rates are lower.

    All the studies that Shikha mentions about crime rates being lower in border areas, etc - don't look at illegal immigrants directly, but instead looked at areas in which illegal immigration was up and crime was down, and so concluded illegal immigration doesn't increase crime. That's two many degrees of separation for me to feel confident of the results. More importantly, crime has generally gone down for the entire nation over the past several decades, so that's not a good comparison. Moreover, certain crimes like identity theft occur in cyberspace and aren't tied to a specific location anyway.

    I'm also skeptical about manipulation of the numbers. How can you count illegal immigrant crimes when so many "sanctuary" cities and states prohibit even asking about a person's immigration status?

  • John Rohan||

    Oh, and I should mention - when you look at inmate data, keep in mind that many illegal immigrants are deported for crimes, while a US citizen convicted of the same crime would do jail time instead.

  • Kenneth Kelly||

    The Texas Department of Public Safety collected data on arrest and conviction rates of illegal and legal immigrants in 2015, categorized by crime. Summary per CATO:
    "In Texas in 2015, the criminal conviction and arrest rates for immigrants were well below those of native-born Americans. Moreover, the conviction and arrest rates for illegal immigrants were lower than those for native-born Americans. This result holds for most crimes."
    Criminal Immigrants in Texas: Illegal Immigrant Conviction and Arrest Rates for Homicide, Sexual Assault, Larceny, and Other Crimes

  • retiredfire||

    CATO, as an open borders advocate is not a reliable source.
    We always look for ways for crimes to be prevented.
    Every crime committed by an illegal alien is one that would be prevented by enforcing immigration laws.
    Regardless of the rates of the various categories of residents, the immigration laws were not created because of a desire to avoid illegal immigrants committing crimes. That is a distraction from the fact that they have broken the laws, by entering, or overstaying legal entry, and, by law should be removed.
    The bottom line in the Mollie Tibbets case is that the murder would have been prevented if the murderer was not present, as the law requires.

  • Lachowsky||

    "Multiple studies attribute the precipitous drop in the national crime rate in the 1990s to a growth in immigration, specifically undocumented immigration."

    Show me the studies.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Republican party is laughing all the way to the voting booth. The GOP platform closely copied planks 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24 and 25 from the 25 Points in Hitler's 1920 Nationalsocialist party platform. That verbiage has been a hit with U.S. evilvangelists just as it was with their German counterparts from 1928 to 1945--and even today, as towns are evacuated to defuse WW2 bombs. The Dem platform offers to demonize and if possible ban electric power, and the Nixon Campaign Funding law pays the media to ignore the LP. By calling socialists "liberals," many Reason writers help antichoice prohibitionists tarbrush us as "extreme right," which to Altrurian socialists means "the same thing as Republicans."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You are a ranting, raving, weirdo.

  • mpercy||

    The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

    The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

  • mpercy||

    The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

    Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

  • mpercy||

    These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

    Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

  • Rat on a train||

    Can Reason IT link the recurring posts to a fixed comment section to save time?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "FBI statistics show that border towns like San Diego and El Paso, which have large unauthorized populations, have some of the lowest crime rates in the country — and conversely cities like Detroit and Baltimore that have few immigrants have among the highest."

    Once again, comparing the crime rates of suburban America is . . . um . . . not full of truthiness.

    The median home price in San Diego is $530,000. The median home price in Detroit is $145,000.

    http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/...../index.php

    You think the crime rate in San Diego should be higher because of illegal immigration? If Illegal immigration doesn't have much to do with the crime rate in San Diego, maybe it's because illegal immigrants can't afford to live there. Hell, average Americans can't afford to live in San Diego. It's just too expensive.

    If illegal immigrants aren't flocking to Detroit, I don't think that has anything to do with the crime rate there either. The crime rates in both cities are largely a function of the poverty rate. Comparing San Diego and Detroit is preposterous--because San Diego is one of the wealthiest cities in America and Detroit is one of the poorest.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Which leads us to the real question: Why are we comparing average crime rates in major cities with large, native born, poor urban populations to the crime rate of illegal aliens?Middle class Americans don't care if illegal aliens migrate in and marginally lower the crime rate in our urban ghettos. They don't live in our urban ghettos. Why is comparing the crime rate of native born Americans in our urban ghettos to illegal aliens of any significance to middle class voters?

    Middle class Americans in San Diego want to know if illegal aliens are bringing more crime in absolute terms than there would be otherwise--not whether illegal aliens are committing crimes at lower rates than the ghettos of Detroit. Because illegal aliens commit crime at a lower rate than they suffer from native born criminals in Detroit, that's supposed to make middle class voters in San Diego feel better about immigration?!

    What kind of shithead logic is that?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Shikha logic!

  • zombietimeshare||

    "San Diego and El Paso, which have large unauthorized populations, have some of the lowest crime rates in the country"

    Lower or just unreported crime? Sure, and a bank robber is merely taking out an undocumented, zero interest, no-payback loan.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I spend a good amount of time in San Diego. I learned to surf in San Diego. I have family in San Diego. I know San Diego.

    Tell anybody in San Diego that immigration is okay because the crime rate of illegal aliens is better than the crime rate in Detroit, and there isn't anybody that's about to support more immigration because of that.

    Being "better than Detroit" is about the faintest praise I can imagine.

    Didn't South Park have a joke about how when you die in hell, your punishment is that you have to go live in Detroit?

    Why would anybody--in their right mind--compare anything favorably to Detroit?!

    I'm trying to think of something that's worse than Detroit. Off the top of my head--testicular cancer?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Bone cancer

  • CDRSchafer||

    I've had testicular cancer and I happened to visit Detroit last week. Visiting Detroit was better I must say. Good brewpubs and hummus. Tiger Stadium is nice. The city is a shithole though, Baltimore is a garden spot in comparison. The bottom line if progressives and Democrats suck.

  • JoeB||

    Again with the mixing of "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant". 35% of CA prison population is illegal, having done crimes after arriving here. Just go home, Shikha.

  • buybuydandavis||

    What percentage legal immigrants?

    What percentage dirt right citizens of illegal aliens?

  • ranrod||

    AND YOURE JUST ANOTHER OPEN BORDERS ANARCHIST

    8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
    Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Anyone who aids them is also a criminal.

    Sanctuary cities are illegal, and the officials responsible should be prosecuted.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Progressives have become the party of Anarchy and High Taxes. No law enforcement at all except rich white males, so anarchy in the streets. And massive income redistribution to benefit those rioting and begging in the street. Utopia.

  • Chute_Me||

    Well, I agree with Trump on at least one thing: our immigration laws are a "disgrace".

  • ||

    This article's headline is a blatant lie. Every single undocumented immigrant has committed at least one felony that natural citizens and legal immigrants have not -- they have violated 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien.

    The maximum sentence for such a violation is 2 years in prison, and any law with a prison sentence of more than a year for breaking it is a felony.

  • Think It Through||

    Likes, damn lies, and statistics. Every violent crime committed by an illegal alien is a violent crime that would not have occurred in the US if that illegal alien were not here.

  • Mindscape||

    Dalmia is such a joke. Column after column with sympathetic anecdotal stories about illegal aliens, but then "Don't use anecdotal evidence to judge the population!"

    Crimes every illegal alien commits:
    1. Illegal entry/overstay of visa
    2. Tax fraud (either not paying taxes on income or paying taxes under someone else's name)

    Illegal aliens commit murder at triple the rate of citizens. Murder rates are among the most reliable because there needs to be a body and a conviction (not historically easy to obtain). But look, CA imported lots of illegals and crime went down in the '90s! It went down in the rest of the country also. Border towns have low crime! If you sample only the wealthy ones, yes. Immigrant communities are better than Baltimore! Way to set the bar as low as possible.

    This is the last Dalmia article I ever click on. I suggest you do the same. The only thing that's going to stop Dalia from writing this shit and Reason from posting it is if we stop clicking. Vote with your mouse.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Shikha serves the useful purpose of discrediting and demoralizing the Open Borders Crowd.

    She is a treasure.

  • Frank Thorn||

    I stopped reading at "Shikha Dalmia".

  • mpercy||

    You could stop reading after the headline, knowing that with that would come a Shikha Dalmia byline.

  • BlondeJustice||

    So if I steal from this writer, I'm just an unauthorized borrower, right? Illegals break the law when they cross or borders without going through the proper channels. Then 4 of them drove without a license when their car hit mine and they were at fault. 3 of the 4 were hit and run. So they do commit other crimes, the worst being murder and rape. Then, if they are caught, we taxpayers get to pay for prosecution and incarceration costs and in most cases an interpreter.

    All crime cost society, but people who shouldn't be here do while here illegally.

  • BlondeJustice||

    So if I steal from this writer, I'm just an unauthorized borrower, right? Illegals break the law when they cross or borders without going through the proper channels. Then 4 of them drove without a license when their car hit mine and they were at fault. 3 of the 4 were hit and run. So they do commit other crimes, the worst being murder and rape. Then, if they are caught, we taxpayers get to pay for prosecution and incarceration costs and in most cases an interpreter.

    All crime cost society, but people who shouldn't be here do while here illegally.

  • mpercy||

    Yes, but why would you want to steal from this writer?

  • mpercy||

    It may be true that illegal aliens commit fewer crimes, except for all the crimes they commit on a daily basis being illegal aliens. Browse the US Code for a host of criminal offenses committed by illegal aliens.

    For "real" crimes (murder, rape), it's no better or worse when an illegal alien does it than had the same crime a legal resident may commit, but it is avoidable if the illegal alien had not been here in the first place (e.g., been deported on first contact rather than "catch and release").

    When their first foray into American life is to break the law, when they chose to break multiple federal, state, and local laws on a daily basis, Reason is just fluffing for them by trying to present them as law-abiding positive members of society.

    If we need a change in visa policy to allow a few million low-skilled people to come here and work, fine. Let's do that--provided those visas 100% exclude welfare-state benefits. In the meantime, stop demanding a reward for the lawbreakers, and deport them in favor of these new visa holders who will come here legally.

    It's not racism, xenophobia, or anything like that. And don't make the open-borders argument until the welfare-state issues are resolved: no free school for their kids, no welfare (ed. foodstamps), child tax credits, EITC, no emergency room freebies...

  • mpercy||

    Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

    Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

    Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

    Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

  • mpercy||

    Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years.

  • Mark22||

    But it is absolutely shameful that President Trump and other restrictionists have seized on this incident to justify the collective punishment and demonization of all unauthorized immigrants.

    The vast majority of illegal aliens are criminals simply because of the immigration laws they have broken. On top of that, the majority consumes far more in public resources than they pay in taxes, which makes their unlawful presence in the US a form of theft, amounting to thousands of dollars per person per year.

    The evidence is so compelling that even the ultra-restrictionists at the Center for Immigration Studies have been forced to admit that a "lot of data does suggest immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime.

    You are deliberately misrepresenting "illegal aliens" as being "immigrants"; they are different populations. Studies on immigrants don't apply to illegal aliens. It's the kind of reprehensible lies you engage in over and over again.

  • JBSparks||

    Illegal aliens are like impaired drivers. Maybe most never hurt anyone but, when was the last time an impaired driver had leniency advocates like Kamala Harris and most other ridiculous Democrats urging us to let it slide?

    Build the friggin wall. Doesn't anyone care about all the children left in struggling Latin American nations left behind by all the "good" illegal aliens who've fled to The US?

  • TxJack 112||

    If you enter this country illegally, you have committed a crime. If it were not a crime, it would not be called, "ILLEGAL entry". Second, the claim that illegal immigration does not have a cost, is total crap. In Texas, the cost for providing healthcare to uninsured illegal aliens is bore by taxpayers because Federal law prohibits denying them care. The go to county hospitals, receive care and the taxpayers pick up the bills. When they have children, those children are US citizens and therefore eligible for welfare benefits such as TANF even though their parents are here illegally. When the reach school age, school districts are forced to establish entire programs in Spanish to teach children who do not understand or speak English. Many of these programs continue until the children reach High School. Pretending that illegal immigration has no cost does not make it true and 99,9% of the time is the actual "myth" pushed by those living in states least affected by the issue.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Lily white states who then sneer at Texas because our test scores are brought down because we educate a large percentage of kids whose parents do not speak English at home. How many of those kids does New Hampshire or Vermont have to educate?

  • SwampBoy||

    If we kicked all the illegal immigrants out, we wouldn't get our taxes back from the welfare system. It would just be given to unemployed american citizens.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It would just be given to unemployed american citizens.

    It's already being given to them now, the overall costs would simply be less.

  • Harvard||

    I miss the days when Old Beaner would visit these Schecky screeds, call the non globalists names and lecture us that borders are meaningless because hummingbirds can piss over them. Think I'll ignore it all and jet off to Cancun where the weather is nice and it's safe and ..... wait....what?

  • Jerry B.||

    "FBI statistics show that border towns like San Diego and El Paso, which have large unauthorized populations, have some of the lowest crime rates in the country."

    So, if you want it hard enough, sometimes correlation DOES imply causation?

  • BCarter||

    I rarely post but jeesh this is a ridiculous headline. Undocumented immigrants ARE criminals. They are breaking immigration law by being here.

  • Tony||

    Hey everyone look at this invaluable and unique insight that nobody's ever had before!

    Libertarianism: treating minor infractions with maximum force, because the US isn't like Saudi Arabia enough.

  • Think It Through||

    Minor? What could be more fundamental (i.e. major) than whether you have a right to be here or not?

  • Tony||

    Illegal entry is a misdemeanor and being in the country without proper authorization is a civil infraction. Also, there are no victims.

  • Harvard||

    Are there victims to a bloodless coup? Surrendering to an invasion force before the bombing commences? Rubbing elbows with unvaccinated people? Being taxed to support dangerous behavior? You're exceedingly full of shit.

  • Mark22||

    Illegal entry is a misdemeanor and being in the country without proper authorization is a civil infraction

    Illegal reentry is a crime, as is lying about your immigration status, and identity theft. Almost any illegal alien who works in the US commits one or more of those.

    Also, there are no victims.

    As someone who actually pays taxes, I strongly disagree.

  • RoninX||

    Are jaywalkers criminals? Are people who drive 60 in a 55 zone criminals?

  • Otto Didact||

    Ms Dalmia fails to mention that merely BEING HERE absent lawful authorization is itself a crime - albeit an misdemeanor. That on its face would appear to argue against the illegals being criminals. Another fact that she fails to mention is that illegal immigrants are also multiple, repeat, habitual felons. In order to work here one is required to have certain official documents. Being illegals, they have no - lawful - way to obtain those documents so they have to procure bogus documents. Unfortunately for Ms Dalmia's premise, obtaining such bogus official documents is a felony - namely forgery - and is considered to be one count per document. Moreover, having obtained said documents, using them to benefit financially is also usually a felony namely fraud. In this instance, I am given to understand that the fraud is charged at one count per document PER USE. So using 3 forged official documents in 5 separate transactions would appear to amount to FIFTEEN counts of fraud.

    I submit to you readers that honest people do not live by virtue of multiple repeat felonies. Please note that I am NOT in any wise against immigration. I would simply like immigrants (when did "migrant" and "immigrant" become synonymous?) to come here lawfully; entering by the front door as opposed to slipping under or climbing over the back fence. Legal immigration was good enough for my ancestors; including the ones who arrived before the Revolutionary War. Why is it not also good enough immigrants today?

  • swampwiz||

    All I know is that when a group of Mexicans moved in next door, during a long trip, my washer/dryer got stolen. It's to the point that I have to board up my windows from the inside whenever I go away.

  • Sandyfeet101||

    I don't see where they argued or explained the border crossers are not illegal. Regardless of our broken immigration system, it is a system of law and it is being compromised each time a person comes over without going through proper channels. I still believe they are illegal, however I don't blame the people, I blame the corruption from where they had to escape in the first place.

  • No Longer Amused||

    "undocumented" is merely semantics for "not legally in the country" - by definition they are criminals.

  • poppavein||

    The studies have been done, the science is settled. You can't cherry pick your data to suit your agenda.

    Legal immigrants are under represented in crime statistics. The followed to law to immigrate, naturally they are more law-abiding people than the general populace.

    Illegal Aliens are over represented in crime statistics. Which isn't surprising since they break the law to get into the country and don't care about following the legal process.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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