MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

DACA Immigrants Shouldn't Be Punished for Obama's Hubris

Obama was wrong to act alone, but these peaceful, educated, assimilated immigrants should be an easy sell.

When President Barack Obama pushed through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, he was wrong to have made such a dramatic change to U.S. immigration policy via executive fiat in a fit of pique (though the legality of the move is a thing about which reasonable Reasoners disagree).

At minimum, it was pretty clearly immoral for the Obama administration to collect the names of 800,000 people—to charge them $495 each every two years, even, for the privilege—in order to put their names on a list that every single person in the White House darn well knew might be used to round them up and deport them the next time a restrictionist came into power.

And lo and behold, here we are with Donald Trump casually dangling the sword of Damocles over the heads of these definitionally law-abiding residents (you're not eligible for DACA if you have committed a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or even several minor misdemeanors). He's promised to give Congress time to act, but his administration has also sent mixed messages about what enforcement looks like for DACA recipients in the meantime and has already cleared the way to use the DACA list itself to go after illegal immigrants if there's no new legislation.

But even though Obama's abuse of executive authority sucks and his willingness to imperil vulnerable immigrants in the long run for short term political gain is inexcusable, you've got admire the way he managed to gather together a cluster of humans who represent the least controversial group of immigrants you could possible imagine. Unless you are a full-scale hard-core restrictionist—that is to say, unless you think we should admit no new residents, citizens, or guest workers into the United States—you'd be awfully hard pressed to find a more politically palatable crowd the beneficiaries of DACA.

Dragged here by their parents or guardians, DACA beneficiaries are free of the original sin of illegality (for surely we are not so Old Testament as to hold children culpable for their sins of their fathers?). Because they were raised and educated in the United States—the median DACA recipient came here when she was 6 years old and attended public schools—they are already assimilated and likely proficient if not fluent in English. To be eligible for the program, applicants must have a high school degree or GED, or be currently enrolled in school.

DACA folks have all of the hallmarks of second-generation immigrants or H1-B visa recipients, where the cost-benefit analysis gets crystal clear on their payoff for the U.S. socially, economically, and culturally.

Unlike the DREAM Act, DACA contains no path to citizenship. Beneficiaries are not eligible for federal welfare or student aid payments, they can work but must have their permit renewed every two years. They cannot have been older than 16 when they entered the country (and no older than 31 in 2012) meaning that the DACA pool contains young workers with many years of tax-paying productivity ahead of them and is perfectly free of expensive sickly seniors.

In fact, could there be a recent move afoot to object to the DACA crowd because they're too good? Yesterday Andrew Kaczynski flagged this odd little vignette in which Fox's Todd Starnes and Kris Kobach complain "we had two Texas high schools were the valedictorians were [sic] illegal aliens." This kind of zero-sum thinking is also applied to the jobs the DACA beneficiaries are doing (the typical current DACA kid is now 22 and works for about $18/hour.)

To be clear, I think virtually any plan to expand the raw numbers of immigrants to the United States is good—I'll take chain migration, amnesties, quota increases, asylees, refugees, or any other way in. So I was an especially easy sell. But even congressmen far less enthusiastic than I about throwing open the golden door should be embracing DACA recipients. They are assets to the United States who don't deserve be punished for Obama's hubris and lack of foresight.

If Congress can't get it together in the next 6 months to preserve their status (and I say that with very little faith in the current Congress' ability to get it together in nearly any sense), then it may be time to concede that for now, at least, the restrictionists—or the forces of political dysfunction—have won.

For more, check me out on Tucker Carlson Tonight earlier this week:

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

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.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Because they were raised and education in the United States

    I believe you meant educated. If I see any more mistakes in this piece I shall start my own website and complain about you over there.

  • Katherine Mangu-Ward||

    Fixed. Thanks very much.

  • seahorsedan||

    In this country if a divorced parent (or any relative) sneaks off with a kid it is called child stealing. The kids are always returned to their rightful home. Stockholm syndrome not withstanding.

  • Idle Hands||

    lol.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    And get more comments.

  • seahorsedan||

    The SCOTUS ruled many decades ago that deportation is not a punishment. To me Obama's sympathetic deferral backfired. It is like bringing home an injured baby alligator. If you keep it too long it will eat your dog. If you keep them longer they will eat you. When they get big enough to make demands return them to the wild.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    here we are with Donald Trump casually dangling the sword of Damocles over the heads of these definitionally law-abiding residents (you're not eligible for DACA if you have committed a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or even several minor misdemeanors).

    Dragged here by their parents or guardians, DACA beneficiaries are free of the original sin of illegality (for surely we are not so Old Testament as to hold children culpable for their sins of their fathers?

    These two sections are not compatible: I don't care how old they were when they broke the LAW, they broke the LAW.

  • jcw||

    lol. Trolling?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Pathetically

  • seahorsedan||

    In this country if a divorced parent (or any relative) sneaks off with a kid it is called child stealing. The kids are always returned to their rightful home. Stockholm syndrome not withstanding.

  • Zeb||

    That's not what the Sword of Damocles means. Does that count as another mistake?

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    LAW!!!

    - Libertarian philosophy

  • Mitsima||

    Let he who has been defenstrated be liable for property damage! Truck, yeah!

  • Ron||

    there have been several cases where parents have used their kids for robbing stores etc. in these cases both the parent and child went to jail. so why are Illegal's children given cover that would not be given to any child of any other child parent crime?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Small children quite literally have no power over where their parents drag them to.

    When they're old enough to make their own decisions, they of course have the option to move "home" to a foreign country but it's obvious why they do not. Neither would you, if you found out tomorrow you were originally from Mexico.

  • Ron||

    many actually came here on their own under DACA rules so that they could bring their parents here later. this was a well documented practice after Obama created DACA. There are few who are actually babes in the woods

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The median age is 6, so I suspect that your use of the word "many" is an exaggeration.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    but yet, progtards love abortion.

  • Zeb||

    Being in the country without proper authorization is not criminal. Crossing the border illegally is, but I think it would be difficult to convict someone who was taken over the border by their parents as a young child of that.

  • retiredfire||

    It is not just against the law to cross the border or overstay a visa.
    It is an ongoing offense to be here, without having gone through the immigration process prescribed by law.
    That's why the president can't just give them a pardon, because they will be, once again, in violation the moment after he does.

  • colorblindkid||

    Can somebody just get their leaders to shut the hell up? I absolutely don't think we should kick any of them out, but most of these activists are insufferable whiny pretentious assholes, in the making of the worst advocate for illegal immigrants, Jose Antonio Vargas, who makes this pro-immigration guy get the urge to kick them all out.

  • damikesc||

    He also doctored a SSN card, which should get him booted post haste.

  • Rhywun||

    The whole Soros-funded SJW "rheeeeee!" brigade has lurched from Lee statues to Dreamers and they're giving it their full attention. Next week they'll pivot to whatever the next outrage is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Any bets on what that will be?

    Its sure won't be about North Korea and the real threat they are.

  • Rhywun||

    Trump only knows.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Makes sense. Trump is worse than Hitler and controls everything.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Can somebody just get their leaders to shut the hell up?

    Their leaders are the ones driving this. The Nazi LARPers at Charlottesville have nothing on Hispanic activists when it comes to displays of entitlement and ethnic chauvinism.

    Hell, Vicente Fox has all but admitted that Hispanic immigration the last 15 years or so is a blatant effort to become the dominant ethnic demographic in the US. When you have foreign leaders openly bragging that immigration from Central America is deliberately an invasion to make white people a minority, I really don't see why these people should engender much sympathy, especially when they happily shit all over the white people whose taxes provide them with a multitude of government benefits.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I think the use of the word "invasion" is incorrect here.

    By every possible libertarian philosophical sticking point, it is entirely within a group's right to try to become a majority. If every black American decided to move to New England in attempt to make it an overwhelming majority, it would be impossible to argue that this should be illegal. Yet an exception is made when we talk about immigrants because of documentation.

    Making the argument that this should be illegal is a perfect example of circular logic.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    By every possible libertarian philosophical sticking point, it is entirely within a group's right to try to become a majority.

    Then it should also be the right of opposing groups to resist them at every turn, especially when the former group is openly advocating for non-libertarian economic policies.

  • Nuwanda||

    By every possible libertarian philosophical sticking point, it is entirely within a group's right to try to become a majority.

    Well that's an interesting statement. From a libertarian point of view, what's the point of trying to become a majority? There can only be one meaningful reason and that's so your group can exert political power through the vote. That's fundamentally illiberal as libertarians advocate a severely limited state constrained by a constitution. To a libertarian, majority rule = mob rule.

    Then it should also be the right of opposing groups to resist them at every turn, especially when the former group is openly advocating for non-libertarian economic policies

    This gets to the heart of the matter and goes to my above. The goal is to gain a majority and vote for policies that favor the new majority. That is, the immigrants, and their tendency to vote for candidates that favor interventionist policies.

    Reason-style, no border libertarians can't quite explain why illegals aren't voting en masse for the Libertarian Party, when it's that party (and Reason, et al.) that have the most immigrant-friendly (illegal, undocumented, all-comers.) platform. They overwhelmingly vote for statists. Yet the no borders libertarian crowd, in their useful idiocy, smile as they flood in and vote liberty out of existence.

  • Nuwanda||

    By every possible libertarian philosophical sticking point, it is entirely within a group's right to try to become a majority.

    Well that's an interesting statement. From a libertarian point of view, what's the point of trying to become a majority? There can only be one meaningful reason and that's so your group can exert political power through the vote. That's fundamentally illiberal as libertarians advocate a severely limited state constrained by a constitution. To a libertarian, majority rule = mob rule.

    Then it should also be the right of opposing groups to resist them at every turn, especially when the former group is openly advocating for non-libertarian economic policies

    This gets to the heart of the matter and goes to my above. The goal is to gain a majority and vote for policies that favor the new majority. That is, the immigrants, and their tendency to vote for candidates that favor interventionist policies.

    Reason-style, no border libertarians can't quite explain why illegals aren't voting en masse for the Libertarian Party, when it's that party (and Reason, et al.) that have the most immigrant-friendly (illegal, undocumented, all-comers.) platform. They overwhelmingly vote for statists. Yet the no borders libertarian crowd, in their useful idiocy, smile as they flood in and vote liberty out of existence.

  • Pepe||

    The fact is that every nation reserves the right to decide who comes in and who does not- and anyone violating that law is to be prosecuted as any other lawbreaker is.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    When I think of the cost to civil liberties of setting up an enforcement regime for immigration, e.g. 100-mile constitution-free zone around the borders, ICE agents prowling through neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, hurricane relief shelters, the possibility of formal national identity cards, the government monitoring employers and employees for compliance, controlling who can and can't get/provide a job, and all of the other associated nightmares, it seems as though it would be better to just open the borders, and let everyone in.

    From a practical civil-liberty-maximizing perspective it seems like a clear choice: submit to the panopticon of surveillance, enforcement, and control, or just take the hit on the budget for the services these folks require. I'd much rather fork out the cash than have my civil liberties curtailed to the point where they're a meaningless sham.

  • Africanis||

    You would have neither civil liberties or your money by the time the politicians were through with you. Those new populations could eventually just vote themselves onto your property and kick you off it. These people bring the idea of big government Santa Claus with them and will vote accordingly.

  • Zeb||

    These people bring the idea of big government Santa Claus with them and will vote accordingly.

    I'm not convinced that's true. The countries they come from aren't exactly socialist success stories.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Their socialist countries don't have to be success stories for them to vote that way.

    Besides, incrementalism allows fly-by-night socialists to vote in a few socialist schemes here and there and not burn the Constitution directly.

  • Mitsima||

    Which is why you'd think they'd go out of their way to vote against Democrats, but Santa is just too good a story to give up.

  • Zeb||

    I think it would help if more conservatives and libertarians would reach out to immigrants, encourage them to make the most of the relative economic freedom of the US and stop being so hostile to poor immigrants as a class.

    Now, some will say that they aren't hostile to all immigrants, just illegals, but if you are arguing that it's their ideological orientation that is the problem, that doesn't really hold up.

  • BYODB||

    Yes, because it is unreasonable to expect them to follow the law in coming to the United States. Those laws specifically exist because we don't want poor immigrants coming to the United States because we already have plenty of poor American's born here naturally.

    What we want are highly skilled immigrants: Doctors, I.T. Specialists, Etc.

    Why would one of the most advanced economies on the planet want more low-skilled labor from Mexico? So they can work at McDonalds serving Doctors from India?

    Note that skilled labor from Mexico comes over legally by-and-large because we actually do want them.

  • Zeb||

    it is unreasonable to expect them to follow the law in coming to the United States

    Well, in a sense it is, since they continue not doing that.

    I don't think "we" is meaningful here. A country cannot collectively want or not want something. Some Americans want poor immigrants to come and work for them. Some would rather they didn't come at all. Some don't care and/or don't think it's any of their business.

  • ||

    The unskilled labor also comes because we want them. Farms in CA go through periods where they depend absolutely on migrant labor from Mexico - this was the dynamic that killed Pete Wilson and the CA Republican Party in the 90s.

    When there's no work in Northern Mexico, and there are jobs available in CA that no one wants, Mexicans cross the border and take those jobs. No one has yet alighted upon a way to stop them.

  • BYODB||

    In that scenario what you are saying is that the government has distorted that market so much that the only people who will take those jobs are people who don't need or want to follow American labor law.

    So, again, we're talking about a failure of our government not a failure of the market. Making those people 'legal' just removed the once incentive to use that labor in the first place.

    Seems obvious, yes?

  • ||

    In that scenario what you are saying is that the government has distorted that market

    Yes. But nothing about that changes the fact that the berries need to be picked when the berries need to be picked, and they're not going to be left to rot in a passive aggressive gesture about labor law.

    Making those people 'legal' just removed the once incentive to use that labor in the first place.

    Which then corrects some of that government distortion of the market place.

    Seems obvious, no?

  • BYODB||

    ...it doesn't correct shit because then you need more illegal immigrants to do the picking because the newly legal people just got kicked out of that line of work by virtue of becoming citizens.

    No way you're that dense.

  • ||

    ...it doesn't correct shit because then you need more illegal immigrants to do the picking because the newly legal people just got kicked out of that line of work by virtue of becoming citizens.

    No way you're that dense.

    I'm talking about open borders, not just legalizing a few select chunks, because obviously that would be no change.

    Do me a solid and try to understand what I'm saying before deciding I'm being stupid.

  • BYODB||

    So effectively you have just moved the goal posts, or you're not saying what you mean here.

    You mention migrant workers doing work no one wants to do, I point out that our governments expansive labor laws are at fault for why American workers might not want to be involved, thus American business wants to use illegal labor or labor with less of a legal overhead cost that must be paid because of the high cost of American labor to make that job attractive, and you respond by saying you're talking about open borders and not legalizing certain chunks.

    Maybe we're just talking past each other, but I try to read your posts fairly carefully even if I'm failing at it here.

  • ||

    Maybe we're just talking past each other

    I think we are. I view immigration law as being very like drug prohibition - a pointless pipe dream, and having some people be "legal" and some not is fundamental to the problem, and is specifically what I would change. Some people being "illegal" means there is a black market for people.

  • BYODB||

    I agree with most of your points, honestly, I think the point at which we diverge is that I expect certain steps to happen before we can get there or else it will be disaster for everyone.

    I can't support open borders with the mess of current domestic law that's on the books. It needs more than just a spring cleaning, it probably needs to be burned to the ground.

    Since America's love their labor protections in general, they pretty much by definition have made open immigration functionally impossible without disaster. In other words Democrats and Republicans need to choose which one is more important, but since only one of those groups votes...well they're in quite the pickle.

    Just kidding, there's no problem. They'll just endorse another amnesty. And another one in twenty years. And another after that.

  • Reverend Draco||

    And there was nobody to pick the cotton after the slaves were freed, either.

    Let me fix this for you. . .

    "...there are jobs available in CA that no one wants, for the crap wages paid to Criminal Trespassers."

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Along those lines, why not just ship poor Americans to another country?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Along those lines, why not just ship poor Americans to another country?

    if you don't believe national borders should exist, this makes sense, but this is the real world, not some anarchist fantasy.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "I think it would help if more conservatives and libertarians would reach out to immigrants"

    Jacob Hornberger did this for quite a number of years. A great start is to tell them that they've done nothing wrong, because many of them have been told that isn't the case.

  • Pepe||

    Why does that not hold up? The confusion here is that immigration is viewed as a right that all of the rest of world has to enter our nation- and they do not have that right unless granted by our law.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    These people are dumber than a box of rocks...just like the native Democrats here. It does not matter their preferred form of government will turn the USA into the next Venezuela....there are better Top Men in the USA so it will work this time.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    These people are dumber than a box of rocks...just like the native Democrats here. It does not matter their preferred form of government will turn the USA into the next Venezuela....there are better Top Men in the USA so it will work this time.

  • BYODB||

    I actually agree, in that our current law demands a certain level of enforcement that I'm not really comfortable with because of the very fact it violates citizen's rights and it requires an expansive police state.

    I don't know if there's a way to structure immigration where enforcement isn't by definition a violation of our civil liberties, but just not enforcing the law as we have done for over two fucking decades is absolutely god damn ridiculous. It absolutely needs a constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court.

    But what argument does Reason make? Amnesty. Fucking kids and their idiot opinions. KMW is as a child in her imaginings of how these things work. Incentives; how do they fucking work?

    Sorry, 'real libertarians', if we're going to keep our huge and bloated welfare state you can fuck right off on wide open immigration.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Sorry, 'real libertarians', if we're going to keep our huge and bloated welfare state you can fuck right off on interracial marriages.

    Because if we don't have the full society we imagine in our heads, principles are no longer valid!

  • Mitsima||

    "... you can fuck right off on interracial marriages."

    I did nazi that coming!

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    I did nazi that coming!

    I obviously picked the example for emotional response, but the arguments are EXACTLY the same, even separated by 4 decades of cultural evolution.

    I support the free movement of people because that's a principle my belief system is built on. I oppose the welfare state because that's a principle my belief system is built on.

    I'm not willing to trade in on my principles just because other people are. If others have less spine, so be it, but they can keep their judgments to themselves. Their lack of a nutsack does not oblige me to be a spineless statist, too.

  • BYODB||

    You don't seem to understand that even bedrock principles of natural law can be in opposition to one another. This is one of those situations.

    If you 'can't get' welfare abolition/reform, but 'can get' wide open immigration without limits, is it good to institute the one you can get without the other when that particular order of implementation destroys the entire system? Or is it better to acknowledge them both as worthy goals while also acknowledging that you need to get A before B or both fail?

    Or are we saying that what we want is essentially anarchy and destruction of the United States through debt accumulation, and damn the consequences? Because that should be a harder sell than it appears to be to thinking adults.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    You don't seem to understand that even bedrock principles of natural law can be in opposition to one another.

    Yep - when you have complex problems with multiple competing priorities, any solution is bound to upset a lot of interested parties, especially those unwilling to face the priorities which compete with theirs.

    It's similar to Madison's conundrum when he asked, "How do we create a government that is weak enough as to truly be free, but strong enough to protect itself from destruction?"

  • Zeb||

    "How do we create a government that is weak enough as to truly be free, but strong enough to protect itself from destruction?"

    Which, as it turns out, is something he failed to figure out. I suspect it is probably impossible. Which is why I often call myself an anarchist even though I don't think that anarchy is a viable or sustainable state of affairs.

  • BYODB||

    Why limit American welfare programs only to the Mexicans who can cross that 'imaginary line' that so many Libertarians don't believe exists? Why are you so hateful as to deny them their basic natural rights to American welfare programs? You racist.

    /sarc

  • Rat on a train||

    As a good humanitarian gesture, we should open our welfare programs to everyone regardless of residence. The Norks could really use some help, but aren't allowed to emigrate.

  • Zeb||

    Seems to me that there are 3 possibilities besides much more open immigration:

    Amnesty of some kind, serious crackdown that will encroach on everyone's civil liberties, or keep doing what's been happening and tolerating a large illegal alien population.

  • BYODB||

    It will be amnesty, as it always has been before.

  • SirAntonyFisher||

    Why such a potty mouth? It takes away rather than adds to your position. A position that is otherwise mostly logical except that it misses a key point. There was little immigration law in the 1800s & the growth rate was phenomenal, both in the value of the US dollar (wealth) and in real wages (wages adjusted for inflation). Key research shows that immigrants assimilate far more than drastically changing the fabric. Regulating immigration only makes it harder for rule followers to enter & puts someone less qualified in their stead. (Same with gun regulation) Are there no laws you might disagree with and rebel? Didn't drink before 21? Never done a single drug? No sex before 18? Never watched a movie you didn't pay for? Never snuck in a sip at segregated fountains? If govt were to make it illegal to breathe, we'd all be rebellious enemies of the state. Your other point is absolutely correct that entitlements are the issue and it's the main issue here. But should we stop immigration while we wait for that to get fixed? Or stop taking taxis while we waited for Uber to arrive and break the regulated monopoly? Your point is practical but it just invites more moral hazard and doesn't improve the situation. Ultimately, open immigration + absolutely zero entitlements + impenetrable 2nd amendment = amazing prosperity. PS nice job on Tucker Carlson @Katherine Mangu-Ward. Tucker has the classic right-leaning protectionist view...which is just wrong.

  • BYODB||


    There was little immigration law in the 1800s & the growth rate was phenomenal, both in the value of the US dollar (wealth) and in real wages (wages adjusted for inflation).

    Yeah, there wasn't an expansive welfare state or a whole shit ton of labor law dictating what people had to do either. So please, tell me more about how we should go back to the law of the early 1800's. I'll probably fucking agree with you beyond issues like straight up slavery. (Not that I'm trying to imply you're 'for' that, more like I'm preemptively saying it so some other moron doesn't go there.)


    Your other point is absolutely correct that entitlements are the issue and it's the main issue here. But should we stop immigration while we wait for that to get fixed?

    Yes, because if we don't debt is going to spiral upwards a whole lot faster than it has since Bush 1, which is an unsustainable trajectory of massive proportions. Just opening the gate wide and saying 'hey, lets collapse our social institutions' is one of the dumbest idea's I've ever heard and I'll never go along with it.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Ask yourself this:

    Option #1 requires very significant government intervention. Option #2 does not.

    You have quite an uphill climb to try to demonstrate that option #1 is the "real" libertarian perspective.

  • Ron||

    If you go to a value added tax and eliminate all other taxes including SS then you can have open borders since everyone will be paying their fair share per their use.

  • SirAntonyFisher||

    Eliminate VAT too. Starve the state. Privatize everything the state does instead. Roads, streams, bridges, police...everything. Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto is a roadmap.

  • BYODB||

    Anarchy isn't a state of being, it's a transitory state between other forms of government.

  • SirAntonyFisher||

    I saw that video too. Democracy vs Republic right? On YouTube? It's not a world without rules, just without rulers. The free market rules.

  • BYODB||

    I was actually referring to the Tytler Cycle. Are you familiar with it?

  • DJF||

    """"dangling the sword of Damocles over the heads""""

    So Trump is executing them? I thought he was just deporting them.

  • DJF||

    I should not have said executing, just threatening with death

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Here's some video of the Presiden'ts actual remarks.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its even funnier because Mr./Mrs. Garrison fucked a slave- Mr. Slave to be exact.

    Democrats have been boning black people for years.

  • SIV||

    So any net increase in immigration, even centrally planned and heavily subsidized, certain to remain a public charge, disabled, diseased, criminal, or whatever is a "good thing", KM-W ?

    How many are you personally going to house and support?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    If they're allowed to contribute to the economy (and through taxation), how many Americans are THEY going to house and support?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    None. We're primarily talking low skilled/low income individuals to begin with so supporting their children through the existing state support will wipe out any and all contributions they may make.

  • SirAntonyFisher||

    If they weren't getting subsidized by the state, would you otherwise be ok with immigration?

  • LeftandRightareWrong||

    People plan and live their lives based on the "hubris" of public policy makers everyday.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Trump is making congress do it's job.

    When did dismantling the imperial presidency become an anti-libertarian goal?

    Congress has six months to work something out. Do your jobs.

  • GILMORE™||

    Obama was wrong to act alone, but ....

    YAY CONSEQUENTIALISM

    DIE, ACTUAL RULE OF LAW, DIE

  • damikesc||

    That's what I'm getting out of this piece.

    "Who needs the rule of law? We have the BEST MEN!!!"

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Yep. The law is the fucking law.

  • GILMORE™||

    actually, EO's aren't which is why they are so easily undone

    crying about it is fucking stupid. its begging for a better king, which is fucking gay, because it pretends that the country should be ruled by personal fiat rather than process

    or fine, whatever, treat the constitution like toilet paper and be woker-than-thou

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    or fine, whatever, treat the constitution like toilet paper and be woker-than-thou

    I know right - the snowflakes can't virtue signal their way out of this one.

  • GILMORE™||

    No, its just fucking stupid.

    You can't make a better argument into yokel-moaning by pretending that's what you're hearing.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    It's probably the TDS.

  • BYODB||

    It's not because of TDS, it's because you look like a retard when you say that decree's from the king are groovy in sitautions where it makes you feel good.

    You want to argue for more legal immigration, make those arguments. Arguing for blanket amnesty, again, is doing exactly what we've done before. Why do we expect different results this time?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Crusty's trying to be witty. Failed as usual.

  • GILMORE™||

    Your argument:

    "We should skip the whole 'making laws' bit, and just elect popular leaders who will wave their hands and give us happy-feels"

    My argument:

    "you fucking idiot, other people will just elect someone to unilaterally undo those things via the same method"

    Your argument:

    "WAAAA WAAAAA YOU THINK LAW MATTERS"

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    The triggered snowflake nailed it.

  • GILMORE™||

    "I LIKE DESPOTS WITH GOOD OPINIONS"
    - real libertarian

  • GILMORE™||

    "YOU LIKE DESPOTS WITH BAD OPINION! WE NEED A NEW GOOD DESPOT TO MAKE YOU SHUT UP AND STOP DISAGREEING"

  • ||

    Isn't electing a popular leader who gives them happy-feels exactly what Trump's supporters just did?

    Weren't they arguing just 6 months ago that the executive branch has absolute authority over immigration according to established constitutional law?

  • Rat on a train||

    You are woke, Highlander. You will always be woker than I.

  • SirAntonyFisher||

    All law?

  • Zeb||

    Has actual rule of law ever actually been a real thing?

  • GILMORE™||

    insofar as people pretend to believe its what governs a country, it is.

    when people start to abandon it, it tends to be a bad sign; it just makes everything into "who has the better-dictator"

  • Ron||

    rule of law only applies to those who are caught, the rest of us are just taking chances

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    So a fiction is more useful than reality?

    You might be right about that. Bastiat should have shut the f up.

  • GILMORE™||

    I don't think my point has anything to do w/ undermining bastiat

    i think the notion that there is no legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens is something he'd consider a perversion of law.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It was attempted here in the US of A in 1776. The idea being that theocracies and Monarchies are not good for wealth creation and individual rights.

    Rule of law, allowed the people to have a say in what laws were created and keep TOP MEN in check. Effectively this is still the case as evidenced by politicians still trying to get rid of the last vestiges of this Republic's checks and balances. There are so many laws and so many TOP MEN that the rule of law is kind of a punchline.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Deport the illegals.... all of them.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    They are illegal, so duh.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You would think, duh. But the rule of law is a joke to you if you don't like the law being enforced.

  • SirAntonyFisher||

    But you agree with and want *all* law to be enforced to the fullest extent?

  • damikesc||

    And lo and behold, here we are with Donald Trump casually dangling the sword of Damocles over the heads of these definitionally law-abiding residents (you're not eligible for DACA if you have committed a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or even several minor misdemeanors).

    ...provided we overlook that whole "being here illegally" thing.

    To be clear, I think virtually any plan to expand the raw numbers of immigrants to the United States is good—I'll take chain migration, amnesties, quota increases, asylees, refugees, or any other way in. So I was an especially easy sell.

    And I am not. So, I'll stick with "I'd prefer the President ABIDE by the Constitution".

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    This guy gets it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You don't get it.

  • Mitsima||

    I get it, you don't get that he get's it, but you should try to get it because if you don't get it, you will get it, but good*. Get it?

    * I said _nothing_ about woodchippers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Get what?

  • SirAntonyFisher||

    It!

  • Cy||

    God I hate clowns....

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    The irony of all the hand-wringing over DACA is that it was an open-ended program that provided NO actual path to citizenship for the participants. You remained classed as an illegal immigrant and had to pay $500 every two years in perpetuity to not get kicked out of the country.

    Obama literally set up a program where DREAMERs had to bribe the government not to kick them out, and Trump's the cruel one for ending this farce? These people are a hell of a lot more likely to be provided an actual chance at citizenship for his actions, but because they're mostly left-wing agitators and ethnic chauvinists, they're chimping out as usual because it's not a Democrat doing this.

  • lap83||

    You remained classed as an illegal immigrant and had to pay $500 every two years in perpetuity to not get kicked out of the country.

    But the important thing is they get to keep dreaming about being a citizen... maybe, if they are good little Democrat voters. We'll see.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    "Well, Donelly, let's put you on the road to citizenship. We'll get you working--and get you voting when the time comes. See how the system works here, lad?"

    Democrat political tactics haven't changed in 140 years, and yet cosmos and Chamber of Commerce Republicans remain baffled at how the government never shrinks.

  • Africanis||

    "Donald Trump casually dangling the sword of Damocles over the heads of these definitionally law-abiding residents"

    Really you mean Obama didn't hang that sword by creating an illegal EO that would be struck down in court???
    I heard they were all valedictorian doctor nurse firefighters serving in the military too and Trump just hates brown people. We can't deport them and if you say follow the law you are just a lousy racist white supremacist.

  • BYODB||

    This just in:


    Reason throws the rule of law under the bus and believes in expansive welfare benefits for non-citizens as long as they can get here.


    Seems legit. As a follow up, if they are allowed to stay but we kick out their parents and the rest of their family who do they stay with? I guess they just get thrown into our welfare system and/or foster homes. Or, wait, are we saying that because they had a baby when they came to the United States that they get a free pass on the law? That's a pretty good deal for them. I see no potential consequences.


    The implication here is that the law doesn't matter, do what feels good. No reform is necessary, just let them stay by fiat from the king. Yep, that's where we've arrived at. She even explicity says that she's for amnesty.


    To be clear, I think virtually any plan to expand the raw numbers of immigrants to the United States is good—I'll take chain migration, amnesties, quota increases, asylees, refugees, or any other way in. So I was an especially easy sell. But even people far less enthusiastic than I about throwing open the golden door should be embracing DACA


    Why does she call it a golden door? Probably because we have expansive welfare programs. Honest question: Why don't we just give our social welfare programs to the entire planet, or at least every citizen of Mexico? Do we think that if we did that, we would have the same level of immigration into the United States?

  • BYODB||

    And also, no one appears at all interested in how it is that the child of illegal immigrants has managed to be in the country for, what, twenty fucking years? Long enough to grow up entirely in America?

    Gee, it's like we've been not enforcing the law for two decades and have kicked the can down the road until we can get another amnesty which has been the Democrat plan since basically before I was born, and that was definitely not twenty years ago.

    Democrats don't want to reform the law because they don't know what they want beyond MOAR IMMIGRANTS even though they know that's a generally unpopular thing. Thus, they go around the law and have done so for longer that Mrs. Mangu-Ward has been alive.

  • Zeb||

    Some laws are unenforceable (or can't be enforced without unacceptable costs, either financial or to individual liberty) and complaining about such laws not being enforced is pretty pointless. And without a much bigger police state, mandatory IDs for citizens, etc. I don't think that current immigration law can really be fully enforced. So I don't really think that "enforce the existing law fully" is a real, practical option. What's needed, I think, is to change both the immigration rules and the welfare rules to something more realistic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unfortunately, you cannot change welfare rules without getting rid of some of the freebee mentality in the USA. Allowing illegals to stay here so blatantly is part of that freebee mentality.

    Part of the deportation movement is to say no more ignoring our laws.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think that's an unreasonable argument. But my point above is that sometimes laws need to be changed before you can stop ignoring (or really not fully enforcing, immigration laws are enforced plenty, just not completely) them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some of us are arguing that ignoring any law is a slippery slope and should not be done.

    One good result is that because everyone is effected by the crappy laws fully enforced is that they will be less inclined to vote for so many laws. Its that "I will just ignore that law" mentality that really hurts the rule of law.

  • Zeb||

    You appear to have a lot more confidence in the rationality of voters than I.

  • ||

    Some of us are arguing that ignoring any law is a slippery slope and should not be done.

    But when you have a set of laws that are pointless and destructive and continue to exist only out of legislative inertia and cowardice (like the Drug War), "The Law is The Law" becomes a simplistic and not overly useful approach.

  • BYODB||

    I think you misunderstand why it is that the law is the way it is.

    It doesn't continue to exist because of 'legislative intertia' it continues to exist in it's current form because it's a useful division issue and because Democrats actually like the law being the way it is. That way, they can use it as a bludgeon to attack Republicans while also using their preferred method of immigration which is executive fiat and amnesty every few decades.

    They are fully aware of the fact that people get their heart-strings pulled by 'poor defenseless Mexicans' being attacked for the 'crime' of illegally emigrating from Mexico, and they get to say to those same Mexicans 'Look, we saved you guys with an amnesty but if you don't keep voting for us those evil Republicans will try to kick you or your family out of America later down the road'.

    It's a no-fail plan for Democrats, and this is because they literally do not care how much debt the United States ends up with, how fast it grows, or what the inevitable consequences of too much debt will be. Those are not within their world-view of 'things that matter'.

    Thus Democrats can promise free ponies to everyone while completely lying about the feasibility and consequences of such a policy mix.

  • ||

    Thus Democrats can promise free ponies to everyone while completely lying about the feasibility and consequences of such a policy mix.

    Which changes nothing about what I said.

    As you say, it's a wedge issue - like abortion. Neither party is interested in a "solution," as a wedge issue has two sides - the other on this one is that Republicans get to hyperventilate over their fever-dreams of foreign invasion and THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!

    The fact is that our "system" for immigration is fucked up, has been fucked up for decades, and neither party wants to do anything about it. Thus, the only "solution" is for various localities to enforce or ignore the laws as they see fit.

    Nothing is served by pretending that the state of the current law is workable.

  • BYODB||


    Nothing is served by pretending that the state of the current law is workable.


    This I agree with. I just don't think that anyone is really willing to do what needs to be done to open up immigration. The conversation is and always has been 'look at these poor immigrants being stomped on' instead of 'our labor regulations and welfare state have created a vast unmet need for low skill labor'.


    I mean, Libertarians are quick as lightening to talk about low-skill labor being crowded out of a market due to labor and wage laws then they forget about those things completely when immigration comes up.


    sheesh.

  • BYODB||

    The whole subject, in a nutshell, is that immigration isn't a fix for unsustainable and wrong-headed labor, wage, and social welfare legislation.

    Pretending it is, or that they have no relation to one another, is one of the dumbest god damn things Reason authors seem to believe.

  • ||

    I just don't think that anyone is really willing to do what needs to be done to open up immigration.

    That's in no small part because there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for the whole country.

    This is why the "laboratories of Democracy" concept of states' rights is so important. We keep trying, on every issue, to find the Federal policy solution that will work for every place in the whole country.

    That's the drive that is itself fundamentally misguided, but it serves the political purposes of both parties because it's always the other party that doesn't get it and wants to do the wrong thing.

    Bring every damn thing at least down to the state level as much as humanly possible, and a lot of these conflicts go away. If CA wants to open its doors to all comers (which includes homeless hillbillies from OK as much as it does "illegal" Mexican immigrants) then as long as TX doesn't have to kick in to pay for it, what's the problem?

  • BYODB||


    This is why the "laboratories of Democracy" concept of states' rights is so important. We keep trying, on every issue, to find the Federal policy solution that will work for every place in the whole country.

    That is because things like OSHA and the EEOC (just to name two out of hundreds) are Federal law so there isn't a damn thing a state can do about it meaningfully.

    That, and you're going to need a Convention of the States to alter the constitution in order for the power of immigration to moved somewhere other than the Federal Congress. I don't think we really want that, though, since I don't think it will end the way most of it's proponents envision.

  • ||

    Which is another way of saying that there aren't federal solutions to our problems. That in no way carries as a corollary that the Federal Government will be willing to give up its status as "only possible solution to every problem."

  • BYODB||

    Again, we agree. If anything, I'm arguing that the Federal rules need to be slashed and burned to the ground. Since that isn't going to happen, mainly because people like those things more than immigrants, they won't get their 'feel good' immigration reform from me.

    It's because they want their cake, and they want to eat it too. None of the political class are at all willing to do the adult thing to meet the needs of more immigration, RE: slashing protectionist labor policy that was originally specifically meant to make it harder for immigrants to get jobs.

    So, fuck them, in short. They invite disaster to appeal to a demographic that isn't even a citizen and those citizens that want free ponies. No, no, and no.

  • BYODB||

    Note that I actually agree with most of this, yet no one seems to acknowledge the fact that the remedy is to change the law rather than to simply not enforce it.

    I would also note that many of the things you list are things we already have yet none of those have apparently been effective. This is a sign that the law is a bad law, yet the conversation never shifts to what it should be. No one appears to have a plan beyond 'ignore the law, and amnesty'. That includes Reason authors and the commentariat.

  • BYODB||

    And, I would be remiss in mentioning that the reason why no one has a conversation about what should be done is because the things that need to happen are politically unpopular (I.E. we love our welfare state but also love the idea we're saving people from Mexico by letting them come here.)

    What is the appropriate limit on the number of immigrants each year? A million? Two million? A billion? None whatsoever? There is a very real limit to how many people institutions can serve, exploding those might appear to be noble but a planned retraction of those programs would be better for everyone.

    Pretending we already have a libertarian state and thus we could survive a libertarian version of immigration is disingenuous in the extreme. Lets get our house in order before inviting unlimited numbers of people in. If we can't do that, oh well, we don't get the other. There is an order of operations that must happen or it can and will be disastrous.

  • Zeb||

    I think you are pretty much right there. Which is why I don't expect to see much besides some more mostly symbolic border fortifications and continued kicking of the can down the road.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    One thing Trump is know for is doing what all other presidents have done before him.

    Congress on the other hand...

  • BYODB||

    Agreed, but it pisses me off that it will certainly come with an amnesty. Again. Make no mistake that is the Democrat goal, and it always has been. They don't want to reform the law because if they did they couldn't use it to beat Republicans about the head and neck with. Much like Republicans with the ACA etc.

    That said, the Democrats are far worse on this front because they are manufacturing foreign born voters and indebting them to their party in particular. That is by design. And there is literally nothing Republicans can do about it without playing into the hands of Democrats by becoming more Progressive, more Authoritarian, and appearing to be even bigger meanie heads.

    If it can be wielded as a political baseball bat, no reform is possible.

  • ||

    yet no one seems to acknowledge the fact that the remedy is to change the law rather than to simply not enforce it

    Au contraire, mon frère, everyone gets that. We just don't agree on what the law should be.

    More and more I'm convinced that much of the current disharmony in national politics has to do with the demographic shift in concentration from the NE to TX and CA.

    CA wants low-skilled immigrants from Mexico. Our farms depend on them. TX seems to have an opposite attitude, and national politicians have to choose whether they're going to appeal to CA or TX, and thus, stalemate.

    What is the appropriate limit on the number of immigrants each year? A million? Two million? A billion?

    I think a lot "anti-immigrant" sentiment is driven by an unwarranted assumption that the only reason we don't have a billion immigrants is that the government is keeping them out.

    My money says you could lift all restrictions on immigration today and you would see very little practical effect. Those who want to come here do so, by and large, in just the same way that people who want to take cocaine do so, by and large, all law-enforcement efforts aside.

  • BYODB||

    You might get it, but this thread and the others like it are rife with people who obviously do not.

    Tell me, do you ever ask yourself why it is that California in particular needs those immigrants while other farming states don't seem to need them as much?

    My money says you could lift all restrictions on immigration today and you would see very little practical effect.

    This is wishful thinking in the extreme, assuming that while you're doing away with those restrictions you're also creating a simple and fast path to citizenship. You're not wrong that it will be your money that you lose, though.

    The reason why there is so much illegal immigration in the United States is because we have fucked our labor regulations up so badly that we need a black market in labor to get around those laws. Is there any other rational way to interpret this? Do we honestly think that Americans are going to be 'ok' with removing those labor laws and welfare nets as a trade-off for more immigration?

    I would not take that bet.

    This is the exact reason why this argument comes up about once every ten to twenty years. It's because after those immigrants are legalized, we don't need them anymore. Their illegal status is the exact thing that makes them appealing.

  • ||

    Tell me, do you ever ask yourself why it is that California in particular needs those immigrants while other farming states don't seem to need them as much?

    Sheer geographic isolation is a big part of it. Most people don't realize how much space is in between Denver and Reno.

    "Labor Laws" is a simplistic answer. "Illegal immigrants" are quasi-legal in CA, and the people picking fruit in the fields don't make as little as you think they do, and aren't as exempt from labor law as you think they are.

    If I were to make a race-based observation about construction work I have observed, it would be that native-born white guys are unbelievably lazy and entitled, where you average fresh-off-boat immigrant of whatever legal status will work his ass off and be happy as fuck to even have a job.

    That's all it is, really, in the end.

    It's because after those immigrants are legalized, we don't need them anymore. Their illegal status is the exact thing that makes them appealing.

    Wouldn't that then be an argument that legalizing them would be the exact way to get rid of them?

  • BYODB||


    Wouldn't that then be an argument that legalizing them would be the exact way to get rid of them?

    What, specifically, have I said that leads you to believe that my goal is to 'get rid of them' in the first place? That is not, and has never been, my goal.

    I want real reform instead of everlasting amnesty and division politics, and for the rule of law to be restored. I don't give two shits about the racial mix of the United States, I give a shit about it's long term survival and a return to what made it an engine for freedom and wealth creation in the past. And yes, more open immigration is in service of that goal.

    BUT as long as the conversation isn't focused on labor law and welfare reform, you just aren't serious about the subject in my opinion. Talking about it without talking about those things is pure feelz based politics.

    If we need illegal labor, our labor system is clearly fucked. Not fixing it means we're not fixing any other damn thing either we're just fiddling about the edges because real reform is impossible. As long as people are talking about the feel-good bits, it won't be fixed we're just going to break it even more with even more undesirable second order consequences.

    I'm being as blunt as possible because too many people want to hide behind Mexican human shields and strawmen to talk about what actually needs to happen to realistically reach their end-goal.

  • BYODB||

    And, if someone believes that fully open immigration without reforming labor, wage, welfare, etc. is a good plan because it will implode the United States welfare state via immigration they should make that claim because it's a predictable outcome of that order of operations.

    I suspect that's what many of our more anarchist libertarians have in mind. Since no one is interested in reforming those things, they plan to overload them at a rapid pace to destroy the United States through debt. Well, ok, that's one way to do things but why lie about it?

  • ||

    BUT as long as the conversation isn't focused on labor law and welfare reform, you just aren't serious about the subject in my opinion. Talking about it without talking about those things is pure feelz based politics.

    I see what you mean, but I think a lot us, as libertarians, assume that we don't have to add those disclaimers every time the subject comes up.

    if someone believes that fully open immigration without reforming labor, wage, welfare, etc. is a good plan because it will implode the United States welfare state via immigration they should make that claim because it's a predictable outcome of that order of operations.

    Okay - I'll make that claim.

    Back in the 80s CA Republicans opposed CA's generous social services not because of illegal immigrants, but because of the way it drew welfare cases from other states. The cliché was the toothless OK hillbilly who packs up all his possessions and thirteen kids into his 1972 Chevy Malibu and comes and lives under an overpass in LA and collects CA benefits without paying taxes.

    This is in many ways another CA-specific issues. Those of us in CA have a sneaking feeling that the welfare system isn't going to be challenged until it's obviously unsustainable.

    As libertarians we tend to get stuck in a sort of vapor-lock where we don't want this until we can get that as everything moves incrementally away from us.

  • ||

    Actually, technically speaking, the cliché was the toothless single mother from OK with 13 kids and a Pinto. I lifted the Malibu from Beverly Hills Cop.

  • Lester224||

    The welfare that the DACA population can get is somewhat limited. They can't get food stamps or Medicaid or subsidized housing. They can contribute to their own Social Security, available after retirement if they manage to stay that long (depends on how the legislation goes) and get public K-12 schooling (I think that's state-controlled).

  • ||

    public K-12 schooling (I think that's state-controlled).

    The funding is, typically, but there's little that the state can do to control who is admitted by local districts.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Good point. Hopefully Sessions also enforces the rule of law and steps up prosecution of weed.

  • Cy||

    It's weird, she keeps saying 'immigrant,' last I checked, all of the 'dreamers' were illegal invaders. This wouldn't be another "Feelz good puff piece" would it? I mean, Reason wouldn't be FOR the dilution of US Citizen's rights, liberty, resources and safety would they? All so they can feel good about some foreign invaders?

    Nah....

  • Mitsima||

    Ah yes, the Toddler Brigade; a classic in military invasion strategy. Good catch.

    Ignoring them is one of the classic blunders of the world; right there with getting involved in a land war in Asia and going against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We face each other as God intended - sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone.
    You mean... You'll put down your rock, I'll put down my sword, and... Try and kill each other like civilized people?

    We have put down our sword and they have not put down their rock. If you cannot destroy the USA via military action, invade with voters to destroy the USA from the inside out.

  • ||

    If you cannot destroy the USA via military action, invade with voters to destroy the USA from the inside out.

    A devious tactic that has worked in countless historical struggles.

  • BYODB||

    Well...I mean the entire Middle East isn't just peanuts. ^_-

    I do disagree that it's some kind of plot by Mexico though. Although it's hard to deny that one of Mexico's largest sources of money is due to illegal and legal Mexican immigrants sending money home to their families. I think that's just emergent order from chaos though.

  • damikesc||

    I don't get why Trump doesn't just tax the living hell out of those remittances.

  • BYODB||

    Well, for one because that would be a dip shit thing to do and two because they already are.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Invasion doesn't mean what you think it means.

  • ||

    SHOW US ON THE DOLL WHERE THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TOUCHED YOU.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    "The law is no place to find your morality - unless it keeps Mexicans out. Everything changes if it means we can keep Mexicans out."

  • damikesc||

    Once you advocate ignoring the law for things you like, you will have no right to bitch when people decide to do the same in ways you do not like.

  • Cy||

    I thought we were talking about illegal invaders.

    To be clear, you're ok with people breaking the law, as long as they're a particular race or from a particular country?

    Also, this is justifiable, because it makes you feel better about yourself?

    Also, what limits specifically are we going to put on foreign nationals illegally entering our country and using our welfare systems?

    Again, does this make you feel good?

    Now, tell me why your feelings are more important than my rights and the rights of all other US citizens. Explain in depth why your little social experiment is justifiable, regardless of the proven and potentially massive negative affect it has on the US population.

    Why are we still discussing how to reward these people for breaking the law? For stealing from our public funds? For making our poor class larger? For undercutting wages? For using our healthcare system?

  • Zeb||

    Yes, everything will be better if we use more hyperbolic and hysterical language.

    I don't think that people crossing a border to find work is really a common definition of "invader".

  • Cy||

    "I don't think"

    Clearly. Dictionaries are tough for some. Just because the bleeding hearts have managed to label these people 'dreamers' and constantly refer to them as immigrant, illegal invader is a far more accurate title.

    If we are just going to refer to them as illegal immigrants, than who are we to point fingers at Russia who recently annexed the Crimean Peninsula using a bunch of you so called 'illegal immigrants.'

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Yeah, I remember when they came to my neighborhood and killed all the men, while taking the women as sex slaves. I do appreciate the provisional government they left in charge, though.

    You Berlinwallertarians are such overwrought clowns.

  • Cy||

    "You Berlinwallertarians are such overwrought clowns."

    Apparently you've missed the recent calls in California for succession? I suppose when the USG declares war on a succeeding state you'll be the first one to volunteer in the fight. I'm positive the recent calls for California's succession has nothing to do with 50 years of illegal invasion.

    So, it's ok for foreign populations to invade countries and declare independence as long as it's generational?

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    That's some authentic frontier gibberish, right there.

  • Cy||

    *secession
    *seceding

    Derp...

  • ||

    Es verdad! Todos nos viviendos in California estamos Zapatistas en Guerra Perptua con Liberdad!

    Es sabido.

  • Lester224||

    The people calling for seccession in California are higher-income educated white people. They are just pissed off at the Trump voters and want to rub their faces in the fact that California is one of the worlds largest economies.

  • Zeb||

    "I don't think"

    Clearly.

    Ooh, clever.

    You are right, people crossing a border illegally so they can find work is exactly like an army invading a country and taking control of territory. I guess you told me.

  • Cy||

  • ||

    Los illegales estamos haciendos uno gubierno tiranico y son estan viniendo por ti.

    Tener miedo. Tener mucho miedo.

  • Zeb||

    Which is a masturbatory fantasy that's never going to happen. And the idea has been around for a very long time.

  • ||

    Pero sólo ha sido parte de la trama Mexicana por un corto tiempo. Esta vez tendrá éxito, y no hay nada que puedas hacer al respecto, Gringo.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    To be clear, you're ok with people breaking the law, as long as they're a particular race or from a particular country?

    Also, this is justifiable, because it makes you feel better about yourself?

    Actually, I AM OK with people breaking the law. I know people who smoke pot (violation of FEDERAL LAW!!!!!), others who are a little shady on NLRB overtime rules, still others who drive over 70 mph. And I don't think they should be deported to a country where they have never lived and don't speak the language.

    I'm a libertarian, and believe governments exist to protect my inalienable human rights, not to kick out kick out people whose parents brought them here before they were old enough to be consulted. Those people don't threaten my rights any more than the average (legal) citizen in New York City--most of whom vote Democrat too.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Why are you making a Libertarian argument in the reason.com comments? This is Trump country, love it or leave it beaner!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "beaner"
    Figures. A lefty being as racist as usual.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    I'm in no way a lefty. I'm making the Libertarian argument, you are making the lefty argument.

    And obvious satire isn't racist. I would actually need to have some sort of race-based belief to qualify as racist. Words do have meanings, you know.

    No surprise you're as shitty at vocab as you are at logic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Eek: You need to try harder for that to be satire.

    You are upset that some commenters here speak out against open borders and explain why. You then call them Trump supporters and I'm sure called them Obama haters when they argued for deportations under Obama.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Yeah, because Obama was such an open borders guy.

    Why do you support Bernie so much?

    /stupidpartisanbinarylogic

  • BYODB||

    Obama was more or less a pretty open borders guy.

    They hid that by changing the way they report deportations though, so that it made him look like he was 'tough on immigration' while being nothing of the sort.

  • ||

  • BYODB||

  • BYODB||

    Hey now, if Carlos Mencia (and no, he's not funny) can use the term all the time on national television I sure as hell can say 'beaner' if I want. I don't even find it that derogatory, personally, but then again I'm of Irish decent. I don't find 'mick' or 'cracker' particularly insulting either.

  • damikesc||

    I'm a libertarian, and believe governments exist to protect my inalienable human rights

  • damikesc||

    Fuck these comments. Unless the argument is that every person on Earth has an inalienable right to be here, this is meaningless.

  • ||

    Does being taken from your home by armed men and transported to a place you don't even remember a violation of your inalienable rights?

    And if not, what is?

  • damikesc||

    Does being taken from your home by armed men and transported to a place you don't even remember a violation of your inalienable rights?

    If your parents committed a crime and brought you along, it is not the fault of the state for what your parents did.

  • seahorsedan||

    In this country if a divorced parent (or any relative) sneaks off with a kid it is called child stealing. The kids are always returned to their rightful home. Stockholm syndrome not withstanding.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "To be clear, you're ok with people breaking the law"

    Mostly, yes. This is because most laws restrict freedom.

    And yes, I meant "most" literally.

  • GroundTruth||

  • GILMORE™||

    ....most recently as the director of immigration policy at the Niskanen Center.

    *dreamy woke*

  • GILMORE™||

  • GroundTruth||

    You don't like the statistics he uses, or just question Bier's commitment to limited government?

  • GILMORE™||

    I only glanced at his case. I don't think explaining the "myths" of non-law shoved through via unconstitutional process does much to defend its raison d'etre. he only deals with the whole question of its dubious legal standing in the last few paragraphs.

  • creech||

    I'm amused that many pro-immigrant folks always point out that "immigrants commit less crimes than do native Americans." So what? If natives commit, say, 100 crimes per 10,000 pop. and immigrants only commit 50 crimes per 10,000 then that is still 50 more crimes being committed than if there were no immigrants at all. Or are the immigrants "taking our jobs" from our native cooks? Or confining their depredations to fellow immigrants? Where's the protests by unemployed criminals complaining that they can't burgle a house or mug an old lady because immigrants are unfairly competing?

  • Rhywun||

    Or are the immigrants "taking our jobs" from our native cooks?

    Cooking is another job Americans won't do.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I cook. I clean too. I am an American.

    Keep up with the lefty open border narrative.

  • Rhywun||

    Wow, tough crowd. Try the waitress.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Men commit something like 95% of violent crime, so we could easily get rid of nearly all violent crime if we just killed all of the men.

    If it saves just one child!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    White men are also more likely to be serial killers than other groups. And white men with mustaches are more likely to be power hungry despots.

    So let's start by sending white men with mustaches somewhere else. I don't know. Australia maybe.

  • damikesc||

    These days, the most likely to group to own slaves are Africans.

    The biggest killer in history was a Chinese man.

    ...just sayin'.

  • damikesc||

    I'm amused that many pro-immigrant folks always point out that "immigrants commit less crimes than do native Americans."

    They love to conflate legal and illegal immigration.

    The crime rate of illegals is still, stubbornly, stuck at 100%.

  • ||

    The crime rate of illegals is still, stubbornly, stuck at 100%.

    So is the crime rate of pot smokers, using your "logic." What should be done about that scourge?

  • damikesc||

    To claim that no crime was committed is inherently silly.

    "I don't like the law" doesn't make the law illegal.

    Using your logic, we should be applauding the few people who killed abortion providers. They felt they were protecting the innocent from unjust laws.

  • jerryg1018||

    Obama allowed the Dreamer s to enter the country illegally. Why should they be allowed to stay and eventually vote for the Democrats who permitted this?

  • Zeb||

    I think most of them actually entered the country when Bush was president.

  • BYODB||

    Or under Clinton, if we're being honest.

  • Jericho||

    Last I checked, you still had to be a citizen to vote. Let the "Dreamers" try. Then their asses get deported for impersonation of a US Citizen.

  • damikesc||

    Given the uproar over any law requiring photo ID, it is naïve to assume illegals are not voting. Democrats have little interest in limiting it.

  • ||

    Given the uproar over any law requiring photo ID, it is naïve to assume illegals are not voting.

    So - they're voting using other people's registrations? What happens when those people go to vote?

  • damikesc||

    Finding dead folks on voting rolls isn't a challenge, you realize. Almost all states have quite a few and little to no interest in fixing it. And given the lack of photo ID, the ability to match an EARLIER ballot claiming to be somebody to a later ballot claiming to be from somebody is impossible.

  • Cy||

    Voter Fraud.

    Sorry for the ZH.

  • ||

    Este artículo es una prueba de nuestros exitosos planes para tomar el control del estado. Esta información debe ser suprimida y debes ser asesinado por lo que sabes.

  • Rhywun||

    I'll let the Dreamers stay if they stop turning every USMNT match into a home game for Mexico.

  • Ron||

    let the dreamers take up their problems with their parents not U.S. law. Dreamers are not all innocents and many were sent here without their parents by their parents during the O administration just to be a part of his DACA so that once here they can bring their parents here and once here the parents of the "legal citizen" can get benifits to support those same children. Reason knows this but ignores it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its not like were are imprisoning these illegals or lining them up against a wall and shooting them. We are kicking them out of the USA.

    We deport them on a nice bus or airplane with modern American amenities like a flushing toilet. They get stuck in detention centers if they fight deportation and waste our taxpayer dollars.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Its not like were are imprisoning these illegals or lining them up against a wall and shooting them. We are kicking them out of the USA."

    Oh is that all?

  • Mark22||

    Oh is that all?

    Yeah, that's all. You know, like tens of thousands of people every year whose student visas, work visas, business visas, or exchange visas run out. You know, like me, who had to leave the US after more than a decade growing up in the US. None of the posturing progressive pricks have ever given a rat's ass about this.

    But for some reason, something that is a completely normal, uncontroversial process for law abiding foreigners becomes the ultimate injustice when it happens to people who violate US law and borders.

  • Zeb||

    just to be a part of his DACA so that once here they can bring their parents here and once here the parents of the "legal citizen" can get benifits to support those same children

    I don't think that's how it actually works. For one thing, DACA doesn't grant immediate citizenship. And I don't think that minor children can sponsor their parents (or anyone) for immigration.

  • Mark22||

    DACA recipients were minors when they came to the US; they are not minors anymore.

  • Mark22||

    let the dreamers take up their problems with their parents not U.S. law

    I think a reasonable compromise on DACA recipients is to let them stay if and only if the DACA recipients identify the people who brought them here (usually the parents or other relatives), and those people are permanently removed and banned from the US, since they violated US immigration law.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Of the dinks on Fox News, Tucker Carlson might just be the biggest.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Shorter KMW: "Constitution Shmonstitution. What are laws?"

    Did we forget that Trump is delaying ending an unconstitutional executive order by the previous admin. in an attempt to get congress to make it legal?

  • XM||

    Some of these kids could actually have criminal records (on some minor crimes).

    http://www.lifezette.com/poliz.....wont-tell/

    If I was president I would ended DACA but grandfathered in the existing recipients. I'll even wink at the democrats and say "I'll put the current DACA kids onto pathway to citizenship if you give me my walls and tax reform"

    It's kinda stupid for democrats to not give Trump his wall to speed up DACA negotiations. A wall is always going to be there, it won't be more "hateful" because you add on to it. They should draw a line on a electric fence or a moat but otherwise give in to save their kids.

  • Ron||

    What I haven't seen discussed yet or I missed it. the question becomes if we were to even deport dreamers would their origin country even accept them, those countries may claim that they are not nationals and not their problem and how would we disprove their accusations. Face it Dreamer aren't going anywhere but DACa was bad and did leave them in a whole where they are of no country and it is up to congress to get their shit together and their are ways to solve the issue without sending kids back.

  • Sevo||

    "What I haven't seen discussed yet or I missed it. the question becomes if we were to even deport dreamers would their origin country even accept them, those countries may claim that they are not nationals and not their problem and how would we disprove their accusations."

    Pretty sure the claims are that the 'dreamers' were born somewhere else, so birth certificates should be available.

  • Mark22||

    What I haven't seen discussed yet or I missed it. the question becomes if we were to even deport dreamers would their origin country even accept them, those countries may claim that they are not nationals and not their problem and how would we disprove their accusations.

    Registration for DACA required proof of origin (passport, national identity document, birth certificate, etc.).

  • Sevo||

    "DACA Immigrants Shouldn't Be Punished for Obama's Hubris"

    I suggest they be allowed to take out their anger on the guy who caused the problem: Obama.

  • colorblindkid||

    Once again, I don't think these people should go, but stop waving your damn signs in Spanish and waving the Mexican flag. We're basically the only country in the world, and that includes Mexico, that wouldn't have already kicked their asses out years ago.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Aha, sounds like she's qualifying her pro-amnesty position somewhat.

  • Reverend Draco||

    True, that they shouldn't be punished for Obama's hubris.

    They are Criminal Trespassers, so they should be punished for that - Deportation and being made to wait in line like every *legal* immigrant is proper.

  • Mark22||

    They are Criminal Trespassers, so they should be punished for that - Deportation

    Deportation isn't punishment.

  • ranrod||

    BULL****

    this writer is a sellout!! Obama should have been arrested and impeached but the phony Republicans, media, courts
    are ALL complicit..............

  • gphx||

    How does someone 'not know' they're living and probably working using someone else's stolen identity?

  • Pepe||

    The fact that DACA was illegal to begin with appears to not have any bearing on Mangu-Ward's reasoning- this power is granted only to Congress, regardless of your feelings.

  • Mark22||

    Dragged here by their parents or guardians, DACA beneficiaries are free of the original sin of illegality (for surely we are not so Old Testament as to hold children culpable for their sins of their fathers?

    I came to the US legally as a kid, started feeling at home here, then had to leave again. That wasn't punishment, that was simple reality of how citizenship works across the world. Probably thousands of children of legal foreign workers experience that every year.

    For some reason, you seem to think that kids that were brought to the US illegally deserve something that even kids that came to the US legally with their parents don't deserve. Why exactly is that?

  • Cy||

    "Why exactly is that?"

    Because it feeeeeeeelz good... Sadly, they're all 'Dreamers' and you're not. Also, brown people.

  • فارس عز||

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    DACA kids shouldn't be made to pay for Obama's hubris ... but families that come here legally should, and so should ordinary Americans.

    All DACA proves is that it is easy to step in shit but hard to scrape it off your shoe.

  • seahorsedan||

    The SCOTUS ruled many decades ago that deportation is not a punishment. To me Obama's sympathetic deferral backfired. It is like bringing home an injured baby alligator. If you keep it too long it will eat your dog. If you keep them longer they will eat you. When they get big enough to make demands return them to the wild.
    One English word that no one apparently has ever taught dreamers and is never heard at protest rallies or seen on their banners is "thanks". I guess the U.S. high schools they attended at public expense never taught American civics. I suppose we need to apologies for the free education that gets them into U.S. colleges or the U.S. workforce that wasted their precious time because, to hear them tell it; are useless in Mexico. They are going to Mexico, The DACA kids don't seem to exhibit even a hint of gratitude for the deferment or education they got.
    President Trump, invited establishment nationalist corporate globalists to the table and they chose to go a different route. They chose MSM propaganda, race baiting and ANTI First Amendment violence. Globalists own them and they own the DNC along with way to many politicians on both sides of the aisle. I say due to the numerous complaints about the free service, there will be NO MORE FREE SERVICE. Just say no to Globalism. We are nobodies colony.

  • Lester224||

    Kick those valedictorians out before they open their own businesses and employ people.

  • Queen Screwup||

    "To be clear, I think virtually any plan to expand the raw numbers of immigrants to the United States is good—I'll take chain migration, amnesties, quota increases, asylees, refugees, or any other way in."

    WTF? LMAO And who will pay for all these people? Oh, right, citizens. And how? More taxes. This person is a fucking moron.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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