MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump’s Hostility to Immigration Goes Hand in Hand With His Embrace of Entitlements

Trump doesn't care about restraining the welfare state. He just wants to make sure the benefits go to the right people.

Andrew Harrer/dpa/picture-alliance/NewscomAndrew Harrer/dpa/picture-alliance/NewscomLooked at in isolation, President Trump's rush to enact executive orders restricting immigration reveals plenty about his administration's incompetence and willingness to engage in petty cruelty. But they are not isolated actions. And taken in context with Trump's other stated views—in particular his opposition to meaningful entitlement reforms—they reveal a frightening holistic worldview of America as an entitlement state that is hostile to immigrants and closed off to the world.

Although Trump's immigration order last week did not specifically ban Muslims from entering the country, it targeted majority Muslim nations, and also included an exception for religious minorities that Trump has said was intended to favor Christians rather than Muslims.

The religious favoritism embedded in the order makes clear that it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another—and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country. Indeed, Trump's own team has indicated that the initial order is likely to be a first step towards a far more consequential revision of America's relationship with immigrants and, implicitly, the rest of the world. As the Los Angeles Times reported this week, "Trump's top advisors on immigration, including chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior advisor Stephen Miller, see themselves as launching a radical experiment to fundamentally transform how the U.S. decides who is allowed into the country and to block a generation of people who, in their view, won't assimilate into American society."

Leaked drafts of two potential executive orders may provide a hint as to what the next steps in the new administration's project could look like. One of those orders would restrict foreign worker visas not found to be in "the national interest," and would require federal inspections of employers who rely on foreign workers, according to The Washington Post, which reported on the two draft orders yesterday. The order's explicit purpose is to reduce the number of foreign-born workers in order to prioritize American workers.

The other would deny entry into the country for immigrants who are deemed likely to use social welfare programs such as food stamps and Medicaid. It would also move toward setting up a system in which immigrants are deported for benefiting from those programs. As Dara Lind notes at Vox, which obtained and published a similar draft order last week, immigrants could be required to reimburse the federal government for the cost of providing those benefits.

At this point it is worth stopping to remember that Trump is on record as a defender of the country's major entitlement programs and a stern critic of those who seek to reform them. In a debate last year, he swore he would "do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is." Around the time he launched his campaign, he criticized Republicans for wanting to cut entitlement programs, saying "Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can't do that." Trump's tax reform plans, meanwhile, would blow a $10 trillion hole in the budget.

The combination of Trump's views on entitlements with the immigration orders that he has issued and the ones he appears to be considering is incredibly telling.

Trump is not concerned about runaway entitlement spending. He is not worried about the nation's dangerous fiscal trajectory. He is not focused on reducing the federal debt, or on maintaining even a pretense of fiscal responsibility.

Instead, Trump is worried strictly about entitlement spending on immigrants. He's worried about making sure that the benefits go to the right people—which is to say, the people who backed Donald Trump. Indeed, preserving the entitlement state, regardless of the fiscal consequences, is, like imposing new trade and border controls, central to Trump's project, because it provides him with a way to reward favored groups and exclude outsiders.

Trump has been in office for two full weeks. Yet it is hard to avoid the conclusion that we now have a president a president who sees America as an isolated ethno-nationalist welfare state in which immigrants and outsiders are dangers to the culture and drains to the system. And his rush to implement his executive orders suggests that he and his administration are fully intent on turning this dark worldview into our national reality.

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.

  • ||

    I want to make a comment both complaining about the amount of Trump immigration coverage, and complaining about my comment complaining about it. Schrödinger's comment, if you will.

  • ThomasD||

    At this point anything you say will be sucked into the giant black hole that is Peter Suderman Slayer of Entitlement Programs.

  • ThomasD||

    Next thing you know Reason authors will be celebrating Federal drug laws when they manage to gum up State run executions...

  • SugarFree||

    You want a comment that remains unread.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It is a comment that both excoriates Trump and refers to his enemies as cucks, until the comment is observed and its waveform collapses into one or the other.

  • ||

    Mandelbrot, not Schroedinger. Self-similarity.

  • Swiss Servator||

    So, does that mean I can let this really pissed off cat out of the box?

  • Private Chipperbot||

  • gaoxiaen||

    You have to shoot the box first.

  • John||

    You are at the same time both complaining and not complaining.

  • BambiB||

    Congratulations. You've succeeded.

    I think.

    As for immigration - I'm with Trump. I didn't expect to side with him on much of anything, but from my perspective, no other president in the past 150 years has accomplished so much for America in his first two weeks on the job. Immigrants used to be admitted based on what they could do for America. For at least the past 12 years, the question seems to have been, "What can America do for YOU?" Trump is putting an end to that - and I support him 100% in that regard. Flotsam from other countries have no claim on the work of American citizens. There have even been rumors that Trump may hold sponsors of immigrants pecuniarily liable for the use of government resources to support those sponsored. At which point the libtard railings for "open borders" will end.

  • Overt||

    Immigrants used to be admitted based on what they could do for America.

    Cite needed.

  • commodious rebrands||

    I feel like a kid waiting for the feature attraction to begin. All I need is popcorn.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    Yup, the fucking adverts never seem to end.

  • Drake||

    I hate when all the popcorn is eaten before the feature begins.

  • Don'tTreadOnMeChipper||

    I have recently joined the "Endless Popcorn Club" with double butter, no less.

  • UnCivilServant||

    it targeted majority Muslim nations, and also included an exception for religious minorities that Trump has said was intended to favor Christians rather than Muslims.

    The religious favoritism embedded in the order makes clear that it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another—and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country

    Could it possibly be that muslims are particularly brutal to non-muslims when there is not a moderating influence like the iron boot of a dictator keeping them in lockstep? There are more places closer to home that a muslim fleeing muslim sectarianism can find safety than a non-muslim can.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Could it possibly be that muslims are particularly brutal to non-muslims

    PARTICULARLY non-Muslims, but particularly Muslims.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or going off on another train of thought entirely.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Agreeing, but I forgot who I was responding to.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I know, I can be thick at times.

  • commodious rebrands||

    I was implying you don't enjoy The Simpsons.

  • ThomasD||

    " but particularly Muslims"

    Indeed Islamic civilization has become something of an oxymoron.

  • ||

    "it targeted majority Muslim nations"

    I think that was the point.

  • ||

    There is a reason he targeted some Muslim nations and not others, a reason he targeted those muslim nations and not Australia. It doesnt have anything to do with Islam and Pete knows that good and fucking well.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Then why is there a minority religious exemption in the order which, by definition for these countries, is only non-Muslims?

    Also there's this little phrase in the Constitution about no ex post facto laws. Those who already had valid green cards and those that had already been issued visa were legally cleared to come here. I may not like the blanket ban on new visas, but I wouldn't have been so totally PO'd about it if he hadn't retroactively applied his order. That part is just flat out wrong.

  • Just Say'n||

    Could it be that the previous administration's state department declared that Yazidis and Christians are facing genocide? But, that shouldn't give them preferential treatment, right?

  • ||

    I hear that ISIS is taking in yazidi girls and feeding and sheltering them. We should take in 18-40 yo muslim men instead of those girls who obviously don't need refugee status.

  • WTF||

    By "preferential treatment" he means that Trump is offering asylum to a persecuted minority. It's just that the persecuted minority happens to be Christians, and the left hates Christians.

  • ant1sthenes||

    And Reason is very nearly part of the left.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Look, everyone knows that when those Jews come over from Germany looking for refuge, we're supposed make sure that we don't favor them over native Germans fleeing political reprisals for their past association with violent left-wing extremists. That would be racist against Germans.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    Could it possibly be that muslims are particularly brutal to non-muslims when there is not a moderating influence like the iron boot of a dictator keeping them in lockstep?

    The iron boot of a dictator usually comes from the minority group of Islam (Sunni or Shia, depending upon country) who often is allied with the minority non-Muslim religions. They brutalize the majority group of Muslims. Then when the government shifts to the majority group of Muslims, they brutalize the minority group of Muslims and minority non-Muslim religions.

  • Delius||

    Could it possibly be that muslims are particularly brutal to non-muslims when there is not a moderating influence like the iron boot of a dictator keeping them in lockstep?

    "That's the problem with them darkies. Gotta keep an eye on 'em all the time or they'll go off stealin' stuff and rapin' women."

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    'As Dara Lind notes at Vox, ...'
    Well done Peter, have a cookie.

  • UnCivilServant||

    You have one yourself, you got further than I did.

    Seriously, Vox? Their motto is "People are surprised when we get something right".

  • ||

    Ok, seriously, are we quoting Vox now? How about some Salon or Jezzebel quotes? What about Slate? Oh fuck it, just repeat everything that Freidman and Bruni over at NYT says and throw in some CNN for good measure. Or just go all the way and start quoting Brian Beutler from New Republic. A new low has been achieved.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    /patiently waiting on Everyday Feminism link...

  • Lee Genes||

  • ||

    Is that parody? Because I can't even tell anymore.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I believe that everyday feminisim is four guys writing under dozen aliases, trying to outdo each other in instancing Poe's Law, while getting some pittance from donations and online advertising. That "make self Woke" course thing might argue against it, though.

  • ||

    You can be androgynous and curvy

    Like a sack of potatoes?

  • PapayaSF||

    Lena Dunham does it.

  • ||

    You have a more discriminating palate than I do. I never could tell.

  • ||

    Is that parody? Because I can't even tell anymore.

    You watch. Roku's basilisk will come to harvest all our libertarian souls and these people will be spared.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Apparently, androgyny looks like a red 2017 Nissan subcompact car. Who knew?

  • DOOMco||

    Have they been reading the comments?

  • Just Say'n||

    Seriously, just change the masthead to 'Woke as Hell', already.

    My God, you make New Gingrich look like Murray Rothbard.

  • ||

    Same as the Old Gingrich?

  • Just Say'n||

    A grammar queen.

    'Newt Gingrich'

  • ||

    You mean Classic Gingrich and no, flatter and far more acidic.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day :)

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Taken in context with Trump's other stated views—in particular his opposition to meaningful entitlement reforms—they reveal a frightening holistic worldview of America as an entitlement state that is hostile to immigrants and closed off to the world."

    Seems a little obsessive and paranoid. They make pharmaceuticals that can help with that.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Trump's Hostility to Immigration Goes Hand in Hand With His Embrace of Entitlements

    Finally, his hatred of immigrants (thesis) and his marriages to immigrants (antithesis) are reconciled by his entitlement to grab them by the pussy (synthesis).

    Excellent dialectic exercise!

  • John Titor||

    "I call this move The Hegel."

  • Rational Exuberance||

    This philosophical principle is known as "Hegel's Pussy". It's not quite as famous as Occam's razor though.

  • BearOdinson||

    WOW!

    I mean,

    WOW!

    Incompetence and petty cruelty. The man's been POTUS for 12 days.

    Suderman, please just take that job at Salon and be done with your faux libertarian persona.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Say what you like about Suderman, he's at least smart enough to work for an outfit that isn't trying to unionize itself out of existence.

  • BearOdinson||

    Required:

    Say what you want about National Socialism, at least its an ethos!

  • ||

    You aren't keeping up. Trump was Hitler a year before he ever served one day in elected office and the anti-Christ 4 days after taking office. It can only get worse from here.

  • DesigNate||

    Devil himself within 6 months?

  • JaimeRoberto||

    It's tough to have open borders and a welfare state.

  • DJF||

    And yet Reason does little to fight the welfare state

    They barely mention that their wonderful refugees are up to their necks in US welfare money.

    When they talk about the "Farm Bill" they barely mention that 80% of its is food stamps

  • PapayaSF||

    Yup.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Perhaps Trump's stances might make liberals/progressives re-think their support of the welfare state? Would they be willing to get government out of the welfare redistribution business, to get more immigration?

    Seems unlikely, but hey, anything that helps eliminate government welfare (an immoral endeavor because it starts with taking the fruits of people's labor from them, and doesn't help protect us from others who'd harm us) is a good thing IMHO.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Unless immigrants are unable to get welfare benefits. Of course no one should get government welfare benefits, but immigrants even more so.

    That doesn't even sound right, but yet it makes sense ... I think.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    He's worried about making sure that the benefits go to the right people—which is to say, the people who backed Donald Trump.

    Wouldn't it be great if the God-Emperor was able to stop all Democrats from getting welfare? At least with this EO he can stop some of them!

  • Drake||

    I was thinking about how awesome it would be if Congress controlled spending - including entitlements. And imagine if the supposedly fiscally conservative party was in control over there. Spending cuts and entitlement reform would be a slam dunk.

  • Diane Merriam||

    But he's not a sandworm.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Conservatives do love their welfare state.

  • ThomasD||

    "experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"

    Some Old White Guy

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    '...Trump has said was intended to favor Christians rather than Muslims.'
    Because they are suffering from genocidal persecution.
    Free Minds as in free of any sign of honesty or intelligence.

  • Delius||

    Because they are suffering from genocidal persecution.

    Then why not just say "people suffering from genocidal persecution"? Because that group includes a lot more people than Christians.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Uh, Trump's order does favor those other groups. It doesn't specifically single out Christians, just "minorities", which would also include Yazidis. Focusing on Christians just makes it easier to sound like you aren't promoting genocide (against real people, anyway) like a good prog.

  • Don'tTreadOnMeChipper||

    Tangential point but real world. I took care of a elderly Kurdish woman today. She has been in the US for three years. Her daughter who served as interpreter just finished her nursing degree in the US (she had to completely repeat her education even though she was already fully trained in Iraq). Her two brothers and father were killed fighting Saddam and then ISIS before they came here for a better life. Any life at all. She made a point to say that they were Christian several times. All I could do was tell them that I empathized with them and then thanked them for their personal sacrifice in the war against evil.

  • Diane Merriam||

    And we thought it was hard to get local help in the ME before...

  • Bronson, Missouri||

    Yeah Trump is never going to do anything about entitlements. He never ran on it. He never said he would. And he definitely won't. Entitlements are pretty popular both among Trump supporters and a lot of the people who despise him.

    There isn't going to be a politician who pro-actively addresses entitlements until fiscal collapse is imminent (like checks won't go out 2 months from now). Bush dabbled with some reasonable Social Security reforms and he was eviscerated for it.

    Obama, of all people, was the best hope we've ever had for entitlement reform. He was massively popular when he was elected, giving him the political capital to make some tough decisions. Some decent-sized chunk of his opposition may have supported these reforms. And his fans would support literally anything he did. Obviously he was nowhere near wanted to do anything about it, but in this narrow area, he really was The One.

  • ThomasD||

    How can Suderman support Trump so long as he refuses to auto-immolate?

  • Billy Bones||

    If, and it is a big if, SS survives long enough, it will get reformed. We just have to wait for all the baby boomers to die off. They are too huge of a voting block to piss off, and they basically control Florida, a perennial swing state.

  • Jgalt1975||

    If, and it is a big if, SS survives long enough

    Sorry to break it to you, but there's no "if" about Social Security surviving, let alone a "big if." Congress is not going to declare one day, "Well, we can't fund Social Security payments at 100% of current levels, so it's hereby abolished" -- they can extend Social Security's solvency effectively forever simply by reducing benefits, so it will survive, it will just decrease in value.

  • AlexInCT||

    Hers is your monthly SS check for $1.09 after taxes!

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    The cost of freedom. Coincidence?

  • Diane Merriam||

    Or as was said in the 80's "We'll give them every penny they're entitled to. It may not be worth anything, but they'll get it."

  • ||

    He reformed entitlements by undoing welfare to work policies of Bill Clinton in several states.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Trump did say Social Security Disability was a racket, and he wrote in a book that he supported privatizing Social Secuirty accounts:

    ontheissues.org/2016 /Donald_Trump_Social_Security.htm

    {space added in link due to 50 character limit}

  • commodious rebrands||

    Two words: carne guisada. I made a pot for dinner on Monday and two lunches later I still can't get over it. I'm probably a cultural exterminator for adding barley, but I wasn't serving it over rice.

  • BearOdinson||

    Barley should be reserved for three things:
    Cock-a-leeky soup
    Haggis
    Whisky

  • commodious rebrands||

    Cock-a-leeky

    *giggles like a schoolchild*

    Well, now I know what I'm making for dinner.

  • ||

    Beer, Bear. How could you forget beer?

  • BearOdinson||

    Yeah, I thought about that. Asks for a ruling:

    APPROVED. Beer is also an acceptable answer!!

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Hail ale!

  • bacon-magic||

    Skol a bowl, too!

  • Swiss Servator||

    Barleywine.

  • Don'tTreadOnMeChipper||

    BEER motherfucker!

  • ThomasD||

    At least you didn't use quinoa.

  • ||

    "I made a pot for dinner"

    Sessions is coming for you dopers.

  • Billy Bones||

    I'll be right over here waiting.

  • ||

    Nobody needs a pot for dinner. People who make pots for dinner aren't good people.

  • Free Society||

    The religious favoritism embedded in the order makes clear that it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another—and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country.

    Because that's certainly not what current law is doing...

    The other would deny entry into the country for immigrants who are deemed likely to use social welfare programs such as food stamps and Medicaid. It would also move toward setting up a system in which immigrants are deported for benefiting from those programs.

    GOOD. This makes for higher quality immigrants as it changes the perverse incentive structure. You want to go back to the "golden age" of largely unrestricted immigration like there was at the turn of the century? Well there wasn't a welfare state at the time and I don't know why this needs to be explained to economically savvy libertarians, but that actually fucking matters.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Maybe be like Canada and have local sponsors of immigrants on hook if immigrants use welfare.

  • ||

    For legal immigrants we actually do have that. To live the good life in Murika, you gotta sneak in.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    The Wisdom of Government, ladies and gentlemen!
    Now excuse me, it looks like it's Scotch O'Clock.

  • Swiss Servator||

    The finest hour of the day!

  • Free Society||

    Sounds good.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Canada also has a skill based point system for immigrants, unlike the bizarre system we have in the US

  • PapayaSF||

    It is absolutely fucking amazing that a supposed libertarian would complain about denying immigration to likely welfare users. AFAIK, that is actually current law.

    What is Suderman's position, anyway? "If Americans get welfare, the entire world is also entitled to come here and get it!"...?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Suderman's position is at a failing magazine that mostly hates its audience (Gamergate, anyone?), which is why he would prefer it be at Vox.

  • CZmacure||

    That's about the reaction I had to that subhead, too.

    Further, I could assert that [2] might also be not-bad, because "the right people" can be defined as actual fair allocation, whatever that would look like. Who wants to make sure the benefits go to the wrong people?

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Instead, Trump is worried strictly about entitlement spending on immigrants. He's worried about making sure that the benefits go to the right people—which is to say, the people who backed Donald Trump. Indeed, preserving the entitlement state, regardless of the fiscal consequences, is, like imposing new trade and border controls, central to Trump's project, because it provides him with a way to reward favored groups and exclude outsiders.

    Did you not read that paragraph?

  • CZmacure||

    I didn't read any of the paragraphs. It's usually not worth it.

  • KDN||

    You read the articles? Fag.

  • Billy Bones||

    Welfare--The New White Privilege.

  • american socialist||

    The argument in paragraph here seems to suggest everyone should get welfare? Also im not sure how the entitlements that will cause the issue of debt (medicare, medicaid, ss) etc are going to trump voters as a preferred block

    There are old democrats and old non trump gop

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    I don't think it is.

    I also didn't read the piece that way. I read it as Trump weaponizing the welfare state. As in, he will pick and choose who gets the money that was stolen from you.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    He is no different, except now the welfare state would be anti-immigrant. It's America First, like his trade plan. Which, to my reading, was the idea behind the post.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    You're inserting morality into the issue. I object to almost anyone receiving welfare, but using welfare to further political goals is pretty shitty.

  • ThomasD||

    Welfare is shitty. But more importantly it is a limited resource. So it is entirely reasonable to limit it to people who didn't come here by choice.

    If others feel a personal moral obligation to tend to the needs of immigrants then that is on them. A good on them for being that caring and generous if they do.

  • Free Society||

    By that standard, there's no good reason not to ship welfare checks to every person on earth.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    By that standard, there's no good reason not to ship welfare checks to every person on earth.

    What standard?

  • Free Society||

    I was responding to this in particular, sorry I forgot to blockquote.

    I read it as Trump weaponizing the welfare state. As in, he will pick and choose who gets the money that was stolen from you.

    I'm not saying you agree with that, necessarily. Just saying that if it's Suderman's position that restricting immigrant welfare is weaponizing welfare, then it's kind of already weaponized owing to the fact that the gubmint picks and chooses residents over non-residents (setting aside foreign aid).

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    It is already weaponized. I am not saying the shitshow free-for-all we currently have is good - I think its a fucking disaster - but it seems like Trump is going to make the distinctions for who gets what even more explicit, similar to what he wants to do with trade. I don't see how that can possibly benefit the country.

  • Free Society||

    Better immigrants. The same way that welfare for single moms= more single moms, welfare for immigrants= more welfare dependent immigrants. Perhaps it might even clear the way for hard working immigrants to get in or at least get in easier and more quickly than they could previously while standing in line behind welfare shoppers.

  • King's Ransom||

    The welfare state was weaponized the moment our elected representatives realized votes could be bought with entitlements. It was further refined into Grade A plutonium when we started to borrow money to pay for said entitlements to buy said votes. It will be our doom.

  • Jury Nullification||

    It's morally upright because you rightfully resent the the grandiosity of the greedy thieves who will take your property by violence, if opportunity affords, and will much more likely be used to support the strangers who will work against your self interests, like keeping more of your own money, and diminish your natural rights. In short, you are more likely engaging in forced subsidization of your haters and that is offensive.

    Good instincts, Sparky.

  • DOOMco||

    OT. Checked facebook, and now I can't stop laughing. First, the supreme court nominee had a mom who ruined the epa. Her blood is in his veins-science.

    The other was a husband posting to his wifes wall. It was some article about devos.
    "Can we homeschool until she isnt ruing everything?"

  • Lee Genes||

    "Can we homeschool until she isnt ruing everything?"

    You just pegged my ironimeter

  • DOOMco||

    I was speechless, then cracked up.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Depending on where you live, you can answer with "Thanks to all the scary fundies, yes, you can! Isn't it great how you can hoist them by their own petard?"

  • DOOMco||

    They live in vt.

  • ||

    He must be trolling her.

  • DOOMco||

    You know, i hope thats true.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Off the charts.

  • bacon-magic||

    You just pegged my ironimeter


    These euphemisms...

  • Free Society||

    Ironically, if they had their own Top Man in the Dept of Ed, no one would be able to homeschool easily.

  • ||

    ^This, sorta. There is not really a lot the feds can do to stop homeschooling as much as progressives would like that.

  • Free Society||

    Yeah that's true. The "easily" bit was my ineffectual cop out.

  • kbolino||

    Oh ye of little imagination. Just tie some big source of funding to stricter rules on homeschooling. Hell, make it so every state is ineligible for a single Federal education dollar unless they impose some onerous burden on homeschoolers.

  • ||

    Shit set standards for avoiding intervention so high that private individuals can't meet them. Say... peer group sampling. To ensure homeschooling isn't disadvantaging inner city kids disproportionately, you have to either register and test as part of a standardized peer group or have one assigned to you.

    Put a 'left behind' at the end or just 'left' somewhere and call it a day. If anybody questions you, they're automatically an anti-science racist who hates children.

  • ||

    That is some priceless level cognitive dissonance there.

  • american socialist||

    Isnt this a horrible indictment of public schools if progs are worried people will choose to go private instead?

  • ||

    Maybe we could go back to where where this money was stolen from in the first place and start there?

  • ||

    ^This.

  • kbolino||

    If you unpack the numbers, it really puts paid to the lie that most education money gets spent on the students. Most voucher programs pay out a lot less than the amount spent per pupil by the school system. So you are taking students out of the system but taking less than their proportional share of spending out of the system, thus leaving on net more money per pupil who remains. The only way that doesn't work out to be a good deal for the students who remain in the public schools, from a financial perspective, is if you think it's necessary to have a fixed number of teachers and especially administrators and bureaucrats. In other words, it's more important to have phoney-baloney jobs than it is to teach.

  • commodious rebrands||

    In other words, it's more important to have phoney-baloney jobs than it is to teach.

    Teachers unions, properly defined.

  • PapayaSF||

    "But then the best students leave, and the public schools are left with the dregs! Not fair!"

  • King's Ransom||

    I love this argument. It essentially conceded the school choice/private school agenda will work and is working but creates a victim status for Public Schools as a protected class that can't be left behind. Fucking progs...

  • Billy Bones||

    And no mention from where the public schools steal their money. Color me shocked.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...President Trump's rush to enact executive orders restricting immigration reveals plenty about his administration's incompetence and willingness to engage in petty cruelty.

    Here's the thing: every bureaucracy is incompetent and willing to engage in petty cruelty. It's not unique to our current administration.

    I can't imagine many thought that Trump was going to be a serious curtailer of entitlements, beyond maybe trying to make a show of keeping them away from immigrants or trying to make NATO countries pay a little more for their own defense.

  • Free Society||

    Those are two shows worth seeing. The take away here shouldn't be "Trump fails to cut welfare", it should be "Trump improves the quality of immigration."

    In no universe do welfare benefits for immigrants make for higher quality immigrants.

  • PapayaSF||

    Free Society, you are becoming one of my favorite commenters. Come to San Francisco sometime and I'll buy you a beer.

  • Free Society||

    Ha ha glad to hear it, that'd be fun. Next time I find myself behind enemy lines, I'll look you up. You aren't so awful either :)

  • ThomasD||

    I'd say get a room. But since we are talking San Francisco...

  • Free Society||

    There's always room enough for one more...

  • King's Ransom||

    I could create a plan to improve the "quality"of immigrants through welfare but none of our wives would like it.

  • Free Society||

    Go on...

  • ||

    NO THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT AND EXTRA SPECIAL BAD BECAUSE HE MADE THAT IRAQI GRANDMA DIE!!!!

    NO OTHER ADMINISTRATION HAS HURT MUSLIMS THE WAY DONALD HAS DONE IN THE LAST 12 DAYS!!!

    THE WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME!!! EVER AND FOREVER!!!!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yet it is hard to avoid the conclusion

    It's true that predetermined conclusions are quite difficult to avoid.

  • DJF||

    They won't be invited on MSNBC if they do that

  • ||

    It's fucking depressing how true this is. With "libertarian" friends like these, who needs enemas?

  • Free Society||

    Is it just me or is it strange that the Reason staff still won't come right out and say that entitlements are necessarily a bad thing?

    Well they don't believe that. Or at least Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie doesn't believe that, that much is certain.

  • Rhywun||

    Mendacity overload.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I dunno, this is hardly going Full Suderman. At least the thesis is not "cutting entitlements is dangerous without a replacement plan!"

  • american socialist||

    Hmm. Why do these reason writers continue to act like the orders are no trade and no immigrantion what so ever?

    Withdrawing from tpp and tariffs do not equal no trade.

    Banning 7 countries for a few months and cracking down on illegal immigration does not equal closed off borders and no immigration

    This place is becoming huffpo, breitbart, salon tabloid journalism

    The quality of journalism sucks

  • CZmacure||

    Actually, it's about ethics in journalism?

  • kbolino||

    There is an important lesson to be learned here, but I have my doubts most of the current crop of Reason writers will learn it. Trump may be all the bad things you claim he will be, and more. He's got almost 4 years to prove you right. But he could just as well prove you wrong, and in some ways already has. Jumping on the mainstream bandwagon of hyperventilation and sweeping generalizations doesn't build credibility. Especially when many of us were around long enough to see your doe-eyed optimism about Obama, which also just coincidentally tracked the mainstream opinion. You don't have to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian, but you should generally offer an opinion that can be differentiated from the noise and that reflects some consideration of the facts and intellectual consistency.

  • bacon-magic||

    ^Thanks kbolino for the veteran commenter perspective

  • kbolino||

    I dunno about veteran. I've been commenting here for awhile but there's still lots of names much older than mine.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well said. The inability of Reason writers to see the upsides of Trump has been annoying to me for a year.

  • american socialist||

    Pete is moaning about immigrants not being able to come here and mooch off welfare? For god sakes

  • Free Society||

    That's right. The take away here is TRUMP FAILED TO CUT WELFARE. Nevermind that it's 12 days into the administration, never mind that immigrant welfare is detrimental to the sort of immigration libertarians claim to value.

  • american socialist||

    I really dont understand petes argument here with immigration and welfare. Are immigrants more entitled than actual americans?

    Id prefer welfare state be reformed and then diminished. However if going to have it i dont want tax dollars going to attract non americans. Might as well use it for citizens here. It is like he forgets there is finite resources

  • Free Society||

    Not only are resources finite, but incentives do matter. I can't fathom any way that immigrant welfare eligibility correlates with better immigrants.

  • GILMORE™||

    it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another—and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country

    1) The majority of refugees the US takes in happen to already be Christian

    From fiscal years 2002 to 2016, the U.S. admitted 399,677 Christian refugees and 279,339 Muslim refugees, meaning that 46% of all refugees who have entered the U.S. during this time have been Christian while 32% have been Muslim

    that number only flipped in 2016 to majority-muslim. so ... was the policy specifically racist for the prior 15 years before trump showed up?

    2) re: ""to reshape the demographic makeup of the country"" = are you fucking kidding me?

    In a "higher than average year" we take in 100,000 refugees. Normally its 50-70k. half those might be muslim. Do you honestly think that a variance in 10,000 here and there is a sincere effort to "reshape" anything?

    That's just idiotic, ignorant hyperbole.

    I think the EO was stupid, the problem it addresses 'not a problem' in the first place, and the way it included green-card holders and people in transit was moronic...

    ... but the rank stupidity & intellectual dishonesty pouring out of Reason writers on this topic is embarrassing. You can make the point without resorting to this crap.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    2) re: ""to reshape the demographic makeup of the country"" = are you fucking kidding me?

    You reshape the demographic by using government decree to keep the majority religion a majority, rather than using government decree to reduce the majority religion's majority (by a few decimals of a percent in either case)?
    That may not have been a good line of argument, no.

  • Free Society||

    It's okay for policies to drastically alter the demographics of the country away from the status quo, but it's Hitler reborn for policies to not drastically alter the demographics or at least alter them more slowly.

    This magazine is working hard to become a blight on libertarianism.

  • bacon-magic||

    It appears they are trying to embrace all the disaffected Democrats. Good luck with that.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well put.

  • DOOMco||

    Id like to be able to send people an article that isnt fucking crazy.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Anything by Shackford is good for that. And usually anything by Bailey that doesn't involve immortality.
    Oh, and sometimes they publish Brendan O'Neil, though his Spiked and The Spectator fare is usually more current.

  • kbolino||

    Every once in a while, Harsanyi gets something published in Reason. He was pretty solid outside of anything Trump-related.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's Tuccile? Chopped liver?

  • kbolino||

    Is he back?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Crap, why do I keep forgetting he's back?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Is he back? Or do they just bring him back occasionally like Johnny Carson would bring back Rickles.

  • Rhywun||

    I think he's back for reals. He had an article in this month's magazine.

  • bacon-magic||

    The one with taking his boy shootin'? Good article.

  • Rhywun||

    No, that was last month. This month there's a bit about preppin'. Kind of fluffy but hopefully he'll get to write some meatier things eventually.

  • american socialist||

    It is rather embarrassing how bad they are

    Sans ron and enb

  • american socialist||

    Embarrassing. Do these people even bother to research topics they write on? That part of piece makes no sense.

    How can you reshape demographics by bringing in more of the dominat religion? That expense of another didnt make sense.

  • Jerry on the sea||

    The scope of the EO is pretty innocuous, but maximizing media outrage at places like the NY Times and CNN is just brilliant. How do you think this resonates in fly-over country? It's free advertising for Trump.

    If people are really interested in making the Trump administration ineffective, they should simply stop reporting on him for 3 months.

  • GILMORE™||

    The scope of the EO is pretty innocuous,

    with the exception of the hideously stupid way it was applied to green-card holders and people in transit, etc... it was more or less the same sort of thing Obama did in 2011, despite the media's (and Obama's) protestations to the contrary

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Trump is not concerned about runaway entitlement spending. He is not worried about the nation's dangerous fiscal trajectory. He is not focused on reducing the federal debt, or on maintaining even a pretense of fiscal responsibility.

    Agreed.

  • Lee Genes||

    I'm with you.

    *stops, ponders life*

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Your next step: covertly finger a Denny's waitress as she takes your order.

  • KDN||

    That's a Crusty special? I thought it was the normal Denny's experience.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    A Crusty special involves pushing the rubber floor mat aside and rutting dangerously close to the fryolater.

  • Swiss Servator||

    *winces*

  • Pan Zagloba||

    It's fine if you remember to slip health inspector a $50 beforehand.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Trump's Hostility to Immigration Goes Hand in Hand With His Embrace of Entitlements
    Trump doesn't care about restraining the welfare state. He just wants to make sure the benefits go to the right people.

    This is exhibit A in how we're becoming (have become) like Europe-- certainly in our politics.

    When you dig really deeply into European politics you have the left & right parties, but both essentially embrace the state and the cradle-to-grave welfare state. They see immigrants as interlopers and Johnny-come-latelies who are horning in on the entitlements that the natives have paid into.

    This was something that we used to talk about here in the older days of Reason. That the worst thing that could happen is for both parties to essentially embrace the entitlement state.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Yep.

  • ||

    Trump is actually doing you guys (and them) a favor.

    Reason hasn't gotten around to seeing that angle yet.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    What favor is that? What angle is that?

  • ||

    The way I see it, this immigration order is hardly worth the hoopla it's getting. BUT it does change the trajectory how America discusses immigration. I don't see how what he's doing threatens the sanctity of American liberty and how it embraces immigrants.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    I thought you were going to refer to entitlements, which what I thought Suderman's piece was about, as well as Paul's comment.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    'When you dig really deeply into European politics you have the left & right parties, but both essentially embrace the state and the cradle-to-grave welfare state. They see immigrants as interlopers and Johnny-come-latelies who are horning in on the entitlements that the natives have paid into.
    Merkel just brought in a million immigrants to Germany, how does that fit your argument?

  • Gadfly||

    That the worst thing that could happen is for both parties to essentially embrace the entitlement state.

    That ship sailed with the FDR administration. The question for the past eighty years has been not if there should be a welfare state but what that welfare state should look like (who should get it, how much, how long).

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Instead, Trump is worried strictly about entitlement spending on immigrants.


    And as well he should, because it's so easy, considering it is a lie that immigrants are consumers of entitlements to any point close to what Americans use, once you ignore fraudulent statistics pushed by Heritage and the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies in which they conflate immigrants with American citizens under "households", just inflating the numbers in an effort to deceive idiots.

  • kbolino||

    If you have better stats, present them. There seems to be lots of conflating all around.

  • Free Society||

    So is it bad or good that immigrants should be able to get welfare?

  • KDN||

    inflating the numbers in an effort to deceive idiots.

    The pro-immigration groups do a lot of this as well. It's called politics.

  • american socialist||

    So this justifies non Americans receiving welfare because it may be less?

  • ||

    Keep this up Reason and you may have to change your name.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    *drink*

    I wish, I am all out and work won't let me keep a stocked mini-cellar.

  • DJF||

    Cosmopolitan was already taken

  • Just Say'n||

    "Although Trump's immigration order last week did not specifically ban Muslims from entering the country, it targeted majority Muslim nations, and also included an exception for religious minorities that Trump has said was intended to favor Christians rather than Muslims."

    Hmmm...I wonder if this has to do with the fact that the State Department, in the previous administration, concluded that genocide was being committed against Yazidis and Christians (grudgingly, they resisted this until shamed by Congress). Should those facing genocide receive preference over others?

  • ||

    Exactly.

    The world - yes, that world that everyone seems to care what their opinion is about Trump - closed a blind eye to Christians being persecuted and massacred. And the media certainly showed no interest in reporting it - especially in the last eight years.

  • Just Say'n||

    Reason could care less, because Christians are icky

  • Rational Exuberance||

    They are. Just less icky than most others.

  • cavalier973||

    The religious favoritism embedded in the order makes clear that it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another—and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country.


    The religious favoritism embedded in the order makes clear that it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another


    —and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country.


    America's dominant religion


    reshape the demographic makeup


    So...browner Christians, maybe?

  • GILMORE™||

    browner Christians, maybe?

    In fiscal 2016, the highest number of refugees from any nation came from the Democratic Republic of Congo 80% of Congolese are Christian.

    Clearly Obama was trying to racially-engineer a browner, more-christian America, according to Suderman logic

  • ||

    Question: In light of this you mention, can it be Obama was already doing what Trump is being accused of?

  • GILMORE™||

    can it be Obama was already doing what Trump is being accused of?

    only if, like Suderman, you believe "comparatively small changes in comparatively small numbers" (especially compared to immigrants overall)... equates to "demographic engineering"

    Also, especially considering that the President has no control over who actually applies for Refugee status - unless of course you count "bombing their countries"

    Given that our refugee program can only take in applicants from nations already eligible as approved sources ...(*which is why saudi arabia & pakistan were not on the list, fwiw; they're not "failed states" requiring humanitarian assistance like Syria, Libya, Somalia, etc)... one could better-argue that our Refugee program is biased TOWARDS muslims given the high proportion they represent. (we allocate 50% of our total refugee intake to ME nations)

    There's basically no angle from which Suderman's argument isn't painfully stupid

  • GILMORE™||

  • cavalier973||

    A non-denominational Christian dies and goes to heaven. Since he didn't pick a side on earth, St. Peter offers him a choice of which group to hang out with. He takes him first to a room where everyone is engaged in solemn worship, with an organ playing and stained- glass windows lining the room. "These are the Presbytarians," Peter says. He next goes to a room where all the people are smoking, drinking, and dancing. "This is Catholic heaven," Peter says. He then takes the man down an extremely long hallway and to a room where a group of people are enjoying a potluck supper.

    "So, you introduced me to the Presbytarians and the Catholics. Which denomination are these people?" the man asks.

    "Hush, child," the saint replied. "They are the Baptists, and they think they're the only ones up here."

  • ||

    Trump tells Turltehead, go nukular with SCOTUS nomination if needed

    See how this works? Once someone goes nukular, everybody gonna go nukular. Thanks, Obama!

  • ||

    I can't wait for Reason's article on this.

    "Donald Trump goes full on fascist, totally did not learn it from Democrats!"

  • esteve7||

    Remember the media circlejerk when the moderate gang of 8 republicans stopped the GOPs attempt to end the fillabuster under Bush? Why, they were heroes! Against the evil Republicans trying to blah blah blah blah

    Then democrats get in power and scrap the fillabuster, for everything but the supreme court, but only because that didn't help them at the time. No fucking media outrage as before, nothing to see here.

    They are a bunch of fucking hacks and deserve what they get.

  • Celexis||

    Immigration control has to go hand in hand with entitlements. You can have an entitlement state, or you can have open borders. You can't have both. At least, not for long.

    Sadly, we live in an entitlement state, and that's not going anywhere anytime soon, unless you're willing to let (some) old people starve and march troops into the cities to put down the welfare riots. It's a long, slow, and painful process to wean the population from the government teat, and we'll probably never see the end of it. We definitely won't if we let in people who want the entitlements faster than people can learn that they don't need them.

  • esteve7||

    even milton friedman said that. You can't have unchecked immigration and a welfare state. Those are incompatible

  • ||

    Yeah, well Merkel and Hollande are about to show you! Take that, right winger nut!

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Nah, Hollande never wanted more (he's beyond lame duck to boot), and Merkel is now all about controlling the numbers coming to Germany. And browbeating Poland and Hungary to take more.

  • PapayaSF||

    Celexis is more reasonable than Reason.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Oh look, everyone got what they wanted: a story about Trump and immigration that mentions welfare reform.

    And yet you're all whining. Weird.

  • commodious rebrands||

  • cavalier973||

    He's worried about making sure that the benefits go to the right people—which is to say, the people who backed Donald Trump.

    *Facepalm*

    *Rubs temples*

    *Through gritted teeth*: Stop enticing me to defend Trump, you grisly goblins!

  • MarconiDarwin||

    You did a splendid job already.

  • cavalier973||

    The heck you say.

    I never did...

    You can't prove that...

    It wasn't me

  • american socialist||

    The entitlements causing us problems medicaid, medicare and ss are not unique to trump voters.

    People who despise trump love these things as well.

    Saying he is dishing out favoritism in the form of entitlements to favored groups is a bit dishonest

    Trumps problem is he doesnt want to do anything about it

    The only entitlements he has proposed are paid maternity leave and childcare tax credits

  • american socialist||

    Which are more prog than anything

  • ||

    Is there something Reason can do to get rid of all these annoying white spaces between the comments?

  • Free Society||

    I don't feel safe in white spaces.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Racist.

  • hroark314||

    "Yet it is hard to avoid the conclusion that we now have a president a president who sees America as an isolated ethno-nationalist welfare state in which immigrants and outsiders are dangers to the culture and drains to the system."

    It's easy to avoid the conclusion that Trump is trying to favor one ethnicity of Americans over any other. He's never said he wants to do that; he's never implied he wants to do that; nor has he implemented any policies that would.

    I hate Suderman.

  • american socialist||

    Yep. He isnt banning all trade and all immigration

  • american socialist||

    So where are the bans on europeans, asians, most africans, indians, australians, south ameicans pete if trump wants an isolated US?

    Pete acts like these 7 countries and illegal immigrants are the only immigratiom in existence

  • Careless||

    Or even more than like 5% of the fucking Muslims in the world

  • Rational Exuberance||

    "It's easy to avoid the conclusion that Trump is trying to favor one ethnicity of Americans over any other"

    And even if he did, so what? That has been standard US immigration policy for as long as there has been US immigration policy at all.

  • grrizzly||

    Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both said they would not vote to support President Donald Trump's choice for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, the first two sitting Republican senators to publicly say they wouldn't back one of Trump's Cabinet nominees.

    "I simply cannot support her confirmation," Collins said on the Senate floor.

    Without Murkowski or Collins, DeVos would need the vote of Vice President Mike Pence to win approval if all Democrats voted against her.

    Why on earth are they against DeVos? Is it because of her donations to FIRE?

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Because she is unqualified. That's all.

  • John||

    Yeah, thats it. It has nothing to do with them being on the payroll of the teachers' unions or anything.

    Did you fall on your head or something?

  • ||

    I love the left's usage of the word 'unqualified'. Basically that means 'I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about, but this is what they told me to day'.

  • kbolino||

    They seem to think the Secretary of Education is the God-Emperor of the schools but schooling is still primarily a state matter and the DoEd's primary functions are to protect civil rights* and to hand out grants and loans for college.

    * = Allegedly

  • ||

    'say'

  • kbolino||

    Yeah, just look at the bang-up job the recent holders of the title have done...

  • ||

    Because it's Collins and Murkowski.

    They are about as conservative as Obama, which is to say not at all. When Dems go looking for Repubs to pick off those two are always at the top of the list.

  • ||

    The analysis I read says this all comes down to Sessions' nomination. If he is confirmed as AG before the DeVos vote, then he won't get to vote on her. I could see the left swallowing Sessions' nomination to block DeVos.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    After all that is what Republicans do.

    Democrats are at least responsible in that they tax and spend.
    Republicans borrow and spend.

    Only the beneficiary of the handouts changes. Republicans give it to the top 0.44%. Democrats to the top 10% and the bottom 20%

    And here, Drumpf is teasing to give it to "Americans"

  • kbolino||

    Republicans give it to the top 0.44%

    This is stupid even by your stupid standards. Medicare Part D alone gave double-digit percentages of the population a handout. And if Republicans only ever represented the interests of less than one-half of one percentage point of the population then they wouldn't be such a competitive party at the state and national levels.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    It is worth remembering that at the time the major criticism of Medicare Part D from the Democrats is that it wasn't generous enough - i.e it should have been an even bigger handout.

    Something to keep in mind whenever Dems/leftists start blathering about Bush's irresponsibility in creating that particular entitlement.

  • kbolino||

    The only time I have seen complaints by Democrats about Medicare Part D is in attempt to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans or libertarians. Of course they wanted it to be bigger and their only possible objection to it in the direction of "it shouldn't be" was that they would rather nationalize the drug companies instead.

  • kbolino||

    Moreover, one of Obama's notable achievements was to have even higher deficits than his predecessor, which is impressive since Bush 43 was the previous record-holder. And I've never seen a Democrat oppose the increase in the debt ceiling which makes it kinda hard to take the idea that they are the "responsible" party seriously.

  • kbolino||

    Also, if the Democrats are so keen on buying the favor of the top 10%, they have an odd way of showing it. Their "responsible" tax plans tend to hit that group pretty hard.

  • Rhywun||

    Germanophobe.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Hey, some of us have good reasons to be!

  • Rhywun||

  • Careless||

    Democrats are at least responsible in that they tax and spend.

    Well that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, coming off 8 years of Obama

  • The Fusionist||

    "The other [executive order] would deny entry into the country for immigrants who are deemed likely to use social welfare programs such as food stamps and Medicaid. It would also move toward setting up a system in which immigrants are deported for benefiting from those programs. As Dara Lind notes at Vox, which obtained and published a similar draft order last week, immigrants could be required to reimburse the federal government for the cost of providing those benefits."

    I'm always told that "aliens aren't entitled to welfare benefits, so that's totally a non-issue!"

    If that's the case, then this executive order is simply enforcing an existing law, by making sure that aliens don't get welfare benefits.

    Am I missing something?

    Do open-borders people get to simultaneously assert

    (a) aliens don't get welfare benefits, you ignorant haters!

    and

    (b) trying to prevent them from getting welfare benefits is wrong, you ignorant haters!

  • The Fusionist||

    I mean, can I, as an American, waltz over to a more "enlightened" country and start getting welfare?

    One of the links above says the Canadians don't want that sort of thing to happen - are the Canadians reactionary fascists?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Yes, yes we are. Go to CBC and see just how fascist Canadians are.

  • Bra Ket||

    I believe in some countries you can waltz in and apply for refugee status, then while waiting for a decision you can get a pension.

    Isn't Germany (and others perhaps) providing pensions and housing to their new wave of refugees? I recall stories where UK was kicking nationals out of publicly-owned housing to make room.

  • Rhywun||

    kicking nationals out of publicly-owned housing to make room

    Can you imagine the howls of rage if Obama had tried that? The various intersectionalities at play would cause a vortex to swallow the planet.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    If we can trust British tabloids, it was super-privileged cis shitlords who deserved it.

    Bettina Halbey, a 51-year-old nurse, has lived alone in her flat in the small western German town of Nieheim since her children grew up.


    Of course, it was only, like, twice, and Rule of Law was followed:

    Mario Schlafke, the mayor of Eschbach, says the town had no choice but to ask Ms Keller to leave.

    "The council hasn't taken a frivolous decision," he told Welt newspaper. "The alternative would have been to set up beds in the gym."
    The town of just 2,400 people is under pressure to find space for refugees, and Ms Keller's flat is one of only two owned by the local municipality. It is not social housing and Ms Keller is a rent-paying tenant.
  • Pan Zagloba||

    Oops, I dicked up. The Telegraph is not a tabloid. It's just burned into my brain to call it "Daily Telegraph".

  • Careless||

    I'm always told that "aliens aren't entitled to welfare benefits, so that's totally a non-issue!"

    Well, sure, by assholes conflating legal and illegal immigrants, and then lying about the ability of illegals to access them

  • Rational Exuberance||

    More than half of US immigrants on welfare...

    http://bit.ly/2kkdrdX

  • John||

    The religious favoritism embedded in the order makes clear that it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another—and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country

    That is dishonest even for Suderman. The country currently doesn't have many Muslims. Letting more of them in would change the demographic makeup of the country. Keeping them out keeps the makeup the same.

    Beyond that, the country seems to have turned out okay as a mostly Christian but largely secular country. And so have most other places with such a mix. Meanwhile, Muslim countries are as a general rule authoritarian hell holes that are brutal to nonMuslims. And allowing large Muslim minorities hasn't worked out so well for Europe. Perhaps maintaining our little secular Chritianish nation where our biggest fights are about abortion and gay wedding cakes isn't such a bad idea when you consider the alternative?

  • Just Say'n||

    Suderman is showing that he's a moron through and through. This shouldn't have to do with the make-up of the country. It is about the fact that genocide is being committed against Christians and Yazidi, as the previous administration grudgingly admitted. Of course they should receive preferential treatment. Just as we had preferential treatment for the people of Kosovo (primarily Muslim) who sought refugee status when they were being killed by Serbians (mainly Christian).

    It's high time that Leftists like Suderman just admit they are anti-Christian, rather than accusing others of being bigots.

  • John||

    He doesn't mention a single word about what is happening to Christians over there. It is all about how Muslims must be able to come to the country. The Christians can go get bent I guess.

    Sudderman is hitting Dalmia levels of disgraceful.

  • King's Ransom||

    Correct. It's also bizarre to note how many in the media fail to understand that immigration policy is largely part of the broader US Foriegn policy not domestic politics. Immigration policy should rightly be directed by the long-term interests of the US of A and is not limited by constitutional rights afforded to US citizens, at least until they actually complete the naturalization process. The POTUS is still defined and limited by the separation of powers inherent in Articles 1 and 2 of the constitution however. Trump (and Obama) may be proven wrong by history but both were well within their presidential powers to shape immigration policy in regards to deciding who can get through the gates.

  • Jerryskids||

    Well, say what you will about Trump, at least he's help us locate the near-mythical liberaltarian, the libertarian who loves big government as long as it's in the right hands.

  • Just Say'n||

    He has shown that Reason is a complete fraud. These next four years will show who the true hypocrites are

  • John||

    Hey nothing says being against the welfare state like demanding the government import more welfare recipients.

  • Tumulus||

    First of all, is anyone at Reason bothering to look at this massive investigative report on the FBI? http://preview.tinyurl.com/intercept-on-fbi

    And second, John Wetton (of King Crimson, Asia and others) died yesterday. Damn it.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    I looked through some of it, specifically the white supremacists in police departments. It looked like pretty weak sauce (there was a lot of SPLC mentions) to me, but I guess it is interesting that the FBI investigated all of it.

    The rest of it seemed a little too conspiratorial, but The Intercept posted all the docs online, so I do give them credit for doing that.

  • Tumulus||

    Ah, that wasn't the part that caught my attention. I was more interested in the stuff like, "the documents show that the FBI imposes few constraints on itself when it bypasses the requirement to go to court and obtain subpoenas or search warrants before accessing journalists' information."

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    You are right, that is far more important, but I guess I just assumed that happened, so the docs didn't surprise me.

  • ||

    Why sre you so worried aboit tje FBI using infared to peer into your homes without a warrant ?

    If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

    Also that is not the FDA approved method of inserting a tampon

  • Careless||

    Crusty never claimed he wasn't doing anything wrong, although I don't know if he ever hides it

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Point number two: When you're elected to lead a country, stating that you intend to put that country first is not necessarily a bad thing. You can argue whether Trump's immigration plan is good for America or not (which I doubt but I'm keeping an open mind in the context of point number one above - that all White Houses are terrible), but for the president to place American well-being above (rather than at the expense of) the well-being of other nations is not out of line.

    Protectionism, for example. Is it good for America? Yes, for a certain segment of Americans, probably. But you can very credibly make the argument that, for America on net, trade wars are terrible. Very few jobs saved or created up against higher costs for everyone. Those are facts that can be argued. We would benefit from a similar analysis of Trump's immigration policies (such as they are right now). In the context of America as a whole, can the argument be made that what he's doing hinders or helps his country in any way?

  • Password: pode$ta||

    It's absolutely not a bad thing and it's something that's been freaking me out. For an elected official to not say they're going to put the country first should be political suicide. For an elected official to say they are should be so common-sensical that nobody even questions it.

    Yet, when Trump says that, everyone freaks like Daffy Duck because "xenophobe" or some stupid horse shit.

    Putting your country first can mean absolutely anything. Do you think open borders and a massive welfare state are great for your country? Put your country first! Do you think the only important thing in the entire world is free birth control? Put your country first!

    It says way more about progs that they think 'putting the country first' is some kind of dog whistle, than it does about Trump for actually saying it.

  • ||

    I hired the bastard to look after America.

    I don't hire a lawn service to cut my neighbor's yard and I don't hire presidents to look after the interests of other nations. Advocating otherwise is some socialist bullshit.

  • Lord Rollingpin||

    +10^10 would read again.

  • ||

    No socialist per say but definately progressive world view they espouse.

  • King's Ransom||

    Agreed- but it's not socialist it's just common wimp think

  • ||

    Right out of the gate Suderman does not disappoint.

    Title: Hostility to immigration. Trump has said or done nothing to indicate he is hostile to immigration.

    First sentence: "Looked at in isolation, President Trump's rush to enact executive orders restricting immigration reveals plenty about his administration's incompetence and willingness to engage in petty cruelty."

    Rush to enact EO restricting immigration. That isnt what he did AT. ALL. Not even close.

    Restricting immigration. That is not his aim. Nor has Trump said or done anything that indicates he is anti-immigration.

    Willingness to engage in petty cruelty. That was not his motive or intention at all.

    At some point Pete I have to conclude that you are a worse shill than Chapman. Oh, and when should we expect the roving gangs of murder vigilantes?

    I am not going to read past the first sentence.

  • John||

    Say what you want about Chapman, he is honest about being a leftist. Suderman is the king of throat clearing, false equivalence and dishonest argument. He manages to always make the leftist argument without actually doing so directly.

    This article in particular for the reasons you mention and a lot of other things, is a new low. But remember, Sudderman by far among the reason staff was the most hysterical during the campaign. It was clear that he did not have control of all of his faculties on several occasions when raving about Trump. So, this should surprise no one.

  • ||

    I suppose he was always one foot out of the closet pinko unlike many others who are still in the closet. You are correct, he is mostly honest about it.

  • ||

    Crap. Last part got snipped.

    - He is honest about his leftism, but this article is one long string of lies and mischaracterizations. I guess that is redundant.

  • Bra Ket||

    I thought applicants for permanent residency were already required to prove they would not require public assistance and are generally prohibited from receiving it. Even SS and medicare requires them to pay into it for a decade or something first.

  • Free Society||

    I know for the K1 visa, you need to jump through hoops to show that the spouse and/or their children will not be welfare dependent. Letter from employer, tax returns and some other stuff I don't remember. I don't think there were any post hoc disqualifications for citizenship if it turns out that the spouse and/or children do turn out to be welfare dependent in the end. That might be changing though.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    That used to be the case. But given that illegals are eligible for all sorts of public benefits and assistance and won't be deported for it, I kind of doubt they deport legal immigrants either.

  • lap83||

    "the demographic makeup of the country"

    I swear Reason writers sound like progs sometimes.
    So the main consideration when deciding on which refugees to let in is to see how the demographics are affected? That is some superficial bullshit.

  • John||

    It is worse than that. He is claiming that anyone who tries to deny Muslims entry into the country is trying to "change the demographic makeup". So the demographic makeup changes unless there is a steady stream of Muslim immigrants?

    it is just appalling.

  • Free Society||

    Not changing the demographics is the sin apparently.

  • John||

    It would appear so. I have no doubt Sudderman thinks America would be a more tolerant and freer place if it had fewer white Christians and more Muslims from places like Syria and Somalia. He actually thinks that.

  • ||

    No, he doesnt think that at all. He just won't come out and say what he really thinks. It is a feature of all of the left.

    -Mankind is a blight on the earth.

    -White western civilization is the oppressor and must be destroyed.

    That is what they really think and now and then one will slip up and say so. At their core they are misanthropists.

    I don't have time now to find it, but the other day while watching Beekeeping instructional videos I saw one where the beekeeper was destroying a wild hive of africanized bees. The homeowner had called him after several grandchildren were stung. In the lead up to opening the hive the beekeeper was prattling on about why he was there and he said: "We have to destroy this hive. They are very aggressive to people and anything that attacks man should be eradicated."

    Several fruitloops showed up in the comments and freaked out. They advocated instead for the eradication of mankind. That is who they are. I am sure they meant the eradication of everyone but themselves.

  • Free Society||

    Like my wife's social justice weasel boss bitching about pot being illegal, her proposed solution was the death of all white people because previous generations instituted drug laws. She herself is white, her family is white, her friends are white, her bull dyke wife is white, her employees are white and the person she confided this to was white and yet she said so casually as though I wouldn't take umbrage with it. I'm not sure if she meant to exclude people she cares about. It certainly gave me the impression that SJW leftism is a death cult.

  • John||

    I don't think I have ever seen insanity quite like what you are describing. And its happening all over America. History is filled with genocide and people who wanted to exterminate some other group they saw as the other. But I can't think of another example in history where members of a group openly advocated for their own genocide. it is just fucking bizarre.

  • Free Society||

    But I can't think of another example in history where members of a group openly advocated for their own genocide. it is just fucking bizarre.

    You see how surprisingly wide spread these beliefs are and how little pushback there is when these views are articulated, it'll make you feel like you're the only sane person within thousand miles of wherever you are at any given time.

  • John||

    You wonder why people are buying into the alt right white pride bullshit. Well, when the alternative is openly advocating for own genocide, white pride sounds pretty good.

  • Free Society||

    Take some white people who have never been too invested in racial identity, and start telling them from grade school to university, government and pop culture that they're evil, that they deserve to be robbed and/or killed and suddenly your going to see white people investing in some notions of racial identity. They may not like to be put into a category in the first place, but when you get put there and everyone outside of the category is clamoring to knock you down a few pegs, you start to see the other people trapped in that category with you as your allies and everyone outside of it as potential enemies.

    I may not care about ethno-nationalism, but ethno-nationalism cares about me and that does worry me for the sake of my children and their children.

  • King's Ransom||

    Yep...picking teams is where it all starts, then finally one team wins or gets real comfortable with its own righteousness and sense of security thus forgetting everything that got it there in the first place and proceeds to tears itself to pieces. True story

  • Libertymike||

    This auto-genocidal phenomenon did not start yesterday, witness the 1965 immigration legislation.

  • Bra Ket||

    I'm suspicious that those commenters were bees.

  • ||

    But they just need a chance to arrive in America and become liberals! They'll cast off their burquas and become gender fluid multiculturals, just like us!

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    not changing is altering, and changing is not altering.

  • John Titor||

    It's more stupid than that. Suderman is arguing that this is an attempt to change the demography of the United States, implying that inherently negative because he provides no argument as to why it is so. Which, if consistently applied, would mean accepting any refugees whatsoever would be negative because 'demographic change'.

    The entire premise is stupid because even if the United States accepted every single displaced person from the Syrian conflict it wouldn't even equal 2% of the general population.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    It is axiomatic to people like Suderman that anything resulting in more white people/people with historically traditional western values is a bad thing. It doesn't need to be proven. It just is.

    Step two is to simply pervert language/project/pretend it's backwards day and accuse the other side of doing exactly what isn't happening and exactly what you'd like to do (only in reverse).

  • ||

    Look, America's never been great except for you whiteys. It's time to fundamentally change America and make it like the really advanced and enlightened countries that don't have any white people!

  • ||

    "Thank God my Grandaddy was on that boat"

    -Muhammed Ali on his arrival home after visiting Africa

  • Bra Ket||

    Yes but with modern medical and food production technology, coupled with compassionate incentives to never gain skills or education, we in the developed world are really good at spiking the reproductive rates of unassimilated populations. From that modest starting point we can grow ourselves a new chronically-alienated minority problem in no time.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I swear, Vox writers sound like progs sometimes.

  • Careless||

    lol

  • PapayaSF||

  • PapayaSF||

    "Trump wants to do some politically popular, and not something politically unpopular! More news as this story develops."

  • __Warren__||

    How about a Renfare state?

    You get the free money but you have to talk and dress in the manner of those from the Renaissance.

  • PapayaSF||

    The religious favoritism embedded in the order makes clear that it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another—and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country.

    Or maybe try to stop the reshaping of the demographic makeup of the country. Suderman... *shakes head*

  • PapayaSF||

  • Rhywun||

    It's not like there's 1000+ years of evidence of this process at work or anything.

  • John Titor||

    I was unaware that we had data on a thousand years of immigration.

    Oh, you're doing that thing everyone here seems to do where they conflate military expansion with immigration.

  • kbolino||

    Oh, you're doing that thing everyone here seems to do where they conflate military expansion with immigration.

    Also fun, conflating "Muslim" with "adherent of the most literal and violent interpretation of the Koran"

  • PapayaSF||

    A.k.a. an observant Muslim. It's foolish to rely of the less-observant members of an ideology. "Don't worry Miriam, our new neighbors are Nazis, but they disagree with the more violent parts of Mein Kampf."

  • kbolino||

    I don't much value religious interpretation made by non-adherents, and I judge actions when evaluating an adherent's interpretation. So I can both recognize that there are violent Muslims who can justify their behavior with the Koran and also that they don't speak for all Muslims, who won't care what some non-Muslim on the Internet says they're supposed to believe.

  • Free Society||

    I don't much value religious interpretation made by non-adherents

    Well then you're in luck because there's plenty of adherents to paint you a picture of their beliefs. Have you seen the opinion polling to come out of Muslim majority countries?

    World Public Opinion (2009): 30% of Palestinians support attacks on American civilians working in Muslim countries. 24% support the murder of Americans on U.S. soil.
    Only 74% of Turks and 55% of Pakistanis disapprove of terror attacks against civilians on U.S. soil.

    Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified

    Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified.
    37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target".

    World Public Opinion: Majorities in Egypt (63%) and Libya (61%) supported the 9/11/2012 attacks against American embassies, including Benghazi.

    The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the "global Jihad (64% disagree).

    Hurriyet Daily News / Metropoll (2015): 20% of Turks support the slaughter of Charlie Hebdo staffers and cartoonists.
  • kbolino||

    I don't think opinion polls really have much bearing on what I said. I never denied that a violent tendency exists nor did I say it was just a tiny minority.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Part of it is the weird bullshit where people who are culturally but not religiously Muslim are considered "Muslim" (like atheist Jews, but there is the excuse of ethnicity there), whereas a guy who celebrates Santa Day and Bunny Day and Spend Money on Chicks Day is not generally considered a Christian.

  • PapayaSF||

    Muslim immigration is slow, fourth-generation warfare. They don't need armies when their enemies let them waltz right in and colonize them.

  • John Titor||

    Getting information on Islam from you is like listening to a woman who's only read Jezebel, Everyday Feminism and PUA websites' view on men.

  • PapayaSF||

    I'll bet I've read more about Islam, both pro and con, that you have.

  • John Titor||

    Which is why, as Gilmore covered several days ago, your knowledge of it is so shallow.

  • Free Society||

    I have very little doubt that if the Moors thought they could conquer Spain through unarmed immigration, they would have done so. If the Turks thought they could take the place of the Byzantines through demographic change, they would have done so, and actually did so after the military phase of the conquest was over. People tend towards the path of least resistance.

  • PapayaSF||

    Muslims know they can't conquer us by force of arms. So, they do it by immigration, a strategy which is explicit in the Quran, etc.

  • Free Society||

    I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Muslims protesting in Europe where they openly proclaim their intentions for conquest and sharia. Or when Muslim migrants are being interviewed by journos and they openly claim that is their intention or that they regard welfare payments as a form of jizya. Or when Muslims accused of rape tell the court that they're allowed to rape European women because they're dhimmis and kafirs and the Koran tells them this is how to behave as an immigrant to infidel lands. It's not a vanishingly small proportion of Muslim migrants that hold those views. I don't know of any other immigrant groups with similar inclinations even in small proportions of the overall population.

  • Libertymike||

    They know that with immigration comes entitlements. They also know that Republican party politicians are too cockish to extirpate the welfare state. Now, they know that Donald Trump wants to expand the welfare state.

  • MikeP2||

    I think what we're seeing in Europe is the next phase. Immigration levels are so high now and such large enclaves exist in major European cities, that jihad is viable. Entire underground networks can exist, facilitating the same crap that has existing in the ME forever. Nice, Christmas market, Hegbo, etc, etc. This is just the start. Europe is on a pathway to an ethnic war and it is difficult to see how they avoid that.

    I think counter to the shrieking of the left, the USA has done a far far better job at assimilation that Europe. Outside a few regions, we see broad integration into communities. Heck, we're more segregated with some native-born populations than immigrant populations. I think this is why we have not yet seen anywhere near the issues Europe has had since 9/11. Americans are far more culturally accepting than Europeans in my experience.

  • Rhywun||

    conflate military expansion with immigration

    Some number of these "immigrants" are doing just that, if we take them at their word. Of course they won't succeed but that's no reason to make it any easier for them or to permit the mayhem they bring.

  • ||

    *Wringing hands and making exasperated gestures*

    You just don't get it, it hasn't been explained to you... in a way that you can understand... it's just our messaging. You see, those guys just say stuff like that because it also hasn't been explained to them in the right way either. If only they can come here to America and witness the glory of our coming progressive utopia, they'll instantly become liberals!

  • Homple||

    And set up Halal food trucks, thereby making our urban environments ever more vibrant.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The religious favoritism embedded in the order makes clear that it is intended to bolster America's dominant religion at the expense of another—and to reshape the demographic makeup of the country.

    Yes, of course. Trump's roundhead legions are coming for you, Suderman. Flee, before it's too late.

  • Bra Ket||

    And by the way, as for SS as "proof" that even the self-proclaimed non-socialists are socialists, this is a game of spin and half truths. For those of you too old to remember, it was sold as a contributory pension plan. We call the paycheck deductions "taxes" nowadays, but the govt calls them "contributions". We also get those periodical reports of how much we earned and would therefore get back. This is also the reason there is no means testing and even rich people get SS. Republicans, not democrats, tried to impose means testing during the last big SS crisis in the 90's and the Democrats opposed it precisely because it would make SS into an obvious welfare plan and ruin the facade. People at the median income (which is a pretty shitty income level in the 40s somewhere) on average get moderately more back than they put in I believe, but middle class and above are probably lucky if they live long enough to get their money back.

    Overall it's kind of a lame excuse to call people entitlement-lovers and hypocrites.

  • BearOdinson||

    I mean, I am a member of a TINY minority religion in the US. And I have no worries that a roving band of Christians is going to try to convert me by force.

    I wouldn't set foot in a fucking Muslim country today. (The fact that some of my ancestors actually were mercenaries in the pay of Muslims while being forced to convert to Christianity at the point of a sword, is pretty irrelevant. Since it happened over A THOUSAND YEARS AGO!)

    Although, I figure if a large enough band of some group tried to convert me by force and I took out most of them before killing me, I might just earn a place in Valhalla!

  • John Titor||

  • King's Ransom||

    God I miss that show.. I still use the term "hooplehead" regularly, usually when dealing with family or co-workers.

  • PapayaSF||

  • John||

    Its not fake news when it fits the narrative.

  • Libertymike||

    How doe we that the Imam is telling the truth?

  • John||

    What reason would he have to lie?

  • Libertymike||

    In order to support more divisiveness in the country? Does not the Quran encourage mendacity in service of jihad?

    John, I have no idea. Some days I just question everything and anything.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Some stories also said that a since-deleted Facebook post had memorialized her on the 22nd.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    *clears throat*

    PHAKE NUZZZZZZZ

    *returns to regularly scheduled activities*

  • Homple||

    "How do you solve a problem like Taqiyya?"

  • GeoffB1972||

    Now I'm going to be humming that the rest of the day. Argh.

  • Free Society||

    Just when you thought Anthony Fisher's credibility couldn't take any more of a shalacking in one single day. Not only was it a terrible example of Trump killing grandma, but it was a fictitious bad example to boot.

  • Lowen||

    Peter my God are you ever fundamentally clueless

  • Dan S.||

    It would also move toward setting up a system in which immigrants are deported for benefiting from those programs. As Dara Lind notes at Vox, which obtained and published a similar draft order last week, immigrants could be required to reimburse the federal government for the cost of providing those benefits.

    Couldn't they just be denied the benefits in the first place? How are they going to "be required to reimburse the federal government for the cost of providing those benefits" when they are in another country that is likely to have become hostile to Trump's U.S.A.?

  • Delius||

    He's worried about making sure that the benefits go to the right people—which is to say, the people who backed Donald Trump.

    I think he actually wants those benefits to go to Donald Trump. Why would he care about the people who backed him? He's president now, they are no longer useful to him.

  • L. Awn Dart||

    I don't get why journalists keep making these absolutist arguments. As if pausing intake from 7 countries out of... 130-some? equals a blanket policy of "Anti-immigration". There are still plenty of people allowed to come in from plenty of other countries. We still like and welcome plenty of immigrants. Hello?

  • buybuydandavis||

    He just wants to make sure the benefits go to the right people.

    It's almost as if he ran on a slogan like "America First".

    Isn't it just wacky?

    A government, of, by, and for the people.

    Racist! Nazi! Hitler!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Seems to me that if you're going to defend entitlements (pretty much a political necessity), cutting back on low skilled immigrants is consistent and rational.

    Note that historically, there is nothing unusual about preferring immigrants from developed Western nations and not admitting people with certain political ideologies or from countries that have politicalsupport or social systems very different from ours. Nor is there anything unusual about deporting people who have become a public charge.

  • mitch23||

    Republicans can't win on the politics of entitlement reform. Better to cut taxes and regulations and leave the hard stuff to the Democrats, who after all are the ones who make it so hard.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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