MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Trump Administration Wants to Holds Dreamers Hostage to Advance a Sweeping Restrictionist Agenda

Nativists have taken charge of immigration in the White House

This week the Trump administration released its list of "border security" conditions in exchange for legalizing RefugeesUnited Nations Foter.comDreamers—folks brought to this country without authorization as children—who will otherwise face deportation in March. That's when Trump's decision to scrap the Obama-era DACA program giving them a temporary reprieve from deportation will go into effect.

But Trump's list of conditions seems less like an opening bid for an eventual compromise and more like a ransom note by a hostage taker, I note in my Week column. That's not a surprise given that ultra-restrictionist White House aide Stephen Miller concocted the list in conjunction with ultra-restrictionist Congressman Tom Cotton. But it's conditions have nothing to do with enhancing border security and everything to do with advancing a sweeping nativist agenda—and it'll criminalize far more immigrants than the Dreamers it will legalize.

The irony, however, is that some members of the Freedom Caucus—the alleged crusaders of fiscal responsibility—are threatening to shutdown the government if these conditions, including $20 billion for a border wall, are not embraced. In this instance, Democrats should respond in kind and threaten to shutdown the government too if these conditions are embraced!

Go here to read the piece.

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

  • DajjaI||

    Trump's agenda is to string the dreamers along for a few months, and then round them up and put them in Sheriff Joe's tent city prison camps and say, "We can't send them home yet - the wall isn't built yet you idiot!"

    The dems can't solve this - they will only make the situation worse with empty promises. What to do? The Pussyhats must come out again and put a stop to this nonsense.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    [Scrolls down. Nopes out of thread faster than BUCS out of a waxing salon.]

  • John||

    Yes, actually expecting the open borders fanatics to compromise in any way is just holding people hostage. Fuck you Dalmia. The US has a border and has a right to enforce it. And the whole point of having a Republic is to force both sides of an issue to compromise with each other. So spare me your question-begging and tortured logic.

  • BYODB||

    I triple-dog dare her to cross the border into Mexico illegally and try to get a job. That should be amusing.

  • Tony||

    So we're gonna pretend that this is about some principle of sovereignty and not about you being a racist fuck.

    Innocent children must suffer because we're a Republic, capital R! Sorry kids, we simply have no choice.

  • John||

    Fuck you Tony. You are a racist pig who don't even view these people as human beings. Take your bullshit elsewhere. At some point, even I can't tolerate it.

  • ||

    Since you're the one who doesn't think that they have a human right to exchange money for labor, it seems like you're the one who views them as something less than full human beings.

  • John||

    No, I think the people who live in the US have a sovereign right to determine who lives here. I recognize the validity of the nation-state. You don't and don't' even understand that you don't because you are stupid.

  • ||

    I think the people who live in the US have a sovereign right to determine who lives here.

    So if the majority voted to revoke the citizenship of all Christian conservatives and deport them, that would be totally cool with you?

  • John||

    Hazel, no one is interested in your revenge fantasies. Go pleasure yourself to porn like normal people.

  • ||

    A non-answer. You just lost the argument. Again.

  • John||

    IT is a non answer to a nonsensible response. Nations have a right to have borders and they have a right to determine who crosses them. That fact does not in any way imply that there is no such thing as citizenship or a right to remain where you are. The right to cross a border is not the same thing as the right to remain in the place you are born and the country of which you are a citizen. So your response is like most of your arguments stupid and nonsensical.

    Hazel, you are dumb as a post but make up for it by being sanctimonious and hateful., Frankly, you are unworthy of substantive responses. You don't understand them and wouldn't accept any truth that conflicts with your fantasies and prejudices if you did.

  • BYODB||

    So, should we also go to war with Iran to make them respect their citizens natural right to leave Iran? Or Russia? Or Cuba? Or China? Or...well any other nation state on the face of the planet if we're being honest.

    Or is your argument that only the United States should have open borders, so we can never leave but everyone else can come and go as they please? I'm sure that's it. Understandably, in such a scenario being a citizen of the United States is a huge disadvantage.

    Open borders is retarded, fundamentally, but if you want to argue that the skills bar for U.S. immigration is set too high make that argument by all means. Maybe then someone will think you're not an idiot.

  • John||

    Hazel is incapable of making a substantive argument BYODB. She has one move and that is declare her position to be morally required and everyone else' position to be morally illegitimate. That is it. That is all she ever does. The rest is just question begging and appeals to bare assumptions that spring from that basic position.

  • ||

    Why don't we try separating the issue of people brought her as kids without their consent from general immigration policy?

    Should people who have lived here since they were children be punished for the actions of their parents? Should the arbitrary nature of geographical boundaries determine the rights of someone who is indistinguishable from an American kid except for the paperwork?

  • BYODB||


    Why don't we try separating the issue of people brought her as kids without their consent from general immigration policy?


    Because that would be retarded. What you're suggesting is that Mexico should send all their babies to the United States. Tell me, who would pay for their foster care?

  • ||

    How come Mexico isn't ALREADY sending all their babies to the US?

  • BYODB||

    Because it's illegal?

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    "For the Children!"

    The median age of the so-called "dreamers" is somewhere in the mid-20s

  • ||

    So what? Why don't you try imaginign what life would be like for you if it was illegal for you to have a job in the only home you've ever known. The longer they've been here, the WORSE it gets.
    They're in their mid-20s because they've been waiting that fucking long to be allowed to have jobs.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    It's not necessarily the only home they've ever known. You could have entered the country illegally at the age of 15 years and 364 days and be a "dreamer". You don't even have to have been brought by your parents. You could have crossed the border on your own.

  • ||

    That's a question of how you define who qualifies for citizenship. There are "dreamers" who came here as infants.

  • BYODB||

    And they were not deported because of DACA, hence a program you probably like is responsible for a consequence you clearly don't like.

    In other words, an idiot.

  • John||

    Why don't you try imaging what it is like for people who see their communities and their schools overrun with refugees who can't speak the language and refuse to even try to meet the standards of the culture?

    You don't' do that because you don't view any of these people as actual human beings. They are all just carboarded cutouts in the morality play that goes on in your tiny brain. The whole point is for you to feel smug and morally superior.

    You are the most narcissistic person on this board.

  • ||

    Having to deal with the damn furriners walking around being all foreign and shit is so horrible. Way worse than not even being allowed to have a job.

    And for the record - as am immigrant, I fucking know exactly what that is like so fuck you.

  • John||

    Yes Hazel, People who show up and commit crimes and take community resources and lower the quality of life. You will never face that because you are happy to expect everyone else to suffer for your principles.

  • sarcasmic||

    People who show up and commit crimes and take community resources and lower the quality of life.

    Same was said about Germans, Irish...

  • John||

    So what? Times change. Our ability to and the desirability of accepting people now is different than it was 150 years ago. If we had a bi empty continent that needed filled, immigration would be much less of an issue.

  • sarcasmic||

    Our ability to and the desirability of accepting people now is different than it was 150 years ago.

    Principals, not principles?

  • ||

    People who show up and commit crimes and take community resources and lower the quality of life.

    Yes, that's an inherent feature of being brought here as a child. Something about crossing the border before the age of ten instills a irresistable compulsion to commit crimes and take community resources. While people who are born here have no such urges.

  • John||

    Being a child doesn't give you any more or less right to be here.

  • sarcasmic||

    Being a child doesn't give you any more or less right to be here.

    Damn straight! Make the children pay for the sins of their parents! Go America!

  • ||

    Being born in the US to American parents doesn't give you any more or less right to be here. if you want to say rights are completely arbitrary constructs, you can say that, but then you have to accept that you yourself don't have any rights that the majority doesn't grant you.

  • BYODB||


    Being born in the US to American parents doesn't give you any more or less right to be here.

    Actually, it does. That's specifically one of the few things that actually does matter.

    If you don't believe in states, just say so, but making these arguments in the 'real world' reveals you to be a retard. Sorry, but it's true. You have no concept of logical consequences or what constitutes international relations. You just see a situation and feel, you don't think. That's a fact.

  • ||

    BYODB,
    it's a rhetorical response. If rights are arbitrary, then the state could simply declare that NOBODY has a right to be here, whether they were born here or not.

    Now, if you find that to be morally wrong in some way, if you think that's going to lead to some pretty unjust results, then you have to revise your assumption that the determination of who has a right to be here or not isn't just an arbitrary thing made up by the state. it has some basis in objective morality.

    In other words, if your philosophical premises lead you to an outcome in which horrible things are happening to innocent people, it's time to rethink your premises. I'm pointing out that horrible things are happening to innocent people.

  • BYODB||

    Rights are not arbitrary, but tell me this: Why is it you advocate for essentially all of Mexico to be given free reign to immigrate into the United States but you don't appear to give any shits whatsoever that American citizens can not just walk across the border and work in Mexico because of their border and their immigration policy?

    Additionally, and this is important, natural rights can be in opposition to one another. You pretending otherwise doesn't make your arguments any stronger. In fact, they reveal that you don't really understand natural rights you just want to stand on them while advocating for a preferred policy position that is frankly insane.

    I have never seen you make the argument that the law should be changed. Rather, you argue that only American borders are illegitimate. You may not even realize you're doing it, but that's because you don't think.

  • ||

    Natural rights cannot be in opposition to one another. If you think they are, then you haven't figured out what things are really rights.
    A lot of libertarian philosophy is a project to define a single set of universal internally consistent rights. Wherever we find a conflict, that just means there is more philosophical work to do.

    Of course I think the law should be changed. American immigration law is horrendous and unjust on many levels. But the reason we are arguing about dreamers today is because people like you refuse to budge on any of the many horrendous and unjust things about immigration law that have existed for a long time. This situation, in which the dreamers find themselves, is caused by the immoral and unjust laws which you support. We're in this meta-argument in which we're just saying "well at least let these people who have been raised here since children stay and get jobs" because you guys refuse to alter the underlying laws which would allow them to become citizens - because that would be "amnesty".

  • BYODB||


    Natural rights cannot be in opposition to one another.


    So, theory confirmed. You don't understand what you're talking about. I suggest reading something, anything, about natural rights.

  • ||

    Nope, you're retarded and don't understand rights theory any more than you understand immigration law.

    Stop trying to pretend you've researched things you clearly don't have the fainted inkling about.

  • BYODB||

    So you don't believe that property rights and someone's right to live can be in opposition when someone tries to steal something from someone and that someone shoots them.

    Good to know. Frankly, I have actually read a whole lot on the subject of natural rights and I can say definitively that you have not. You do not have a cursory understanding of natural rights. You just want to stand on them to make bad faith arguments.

  • ||

    So it's all moral relativism for the conservative, eh? Fascinating.

  • sarcasmic||

    refugees who can't speak the language and refuse to even try to meet the standards of the culture...

    you don't view any of these people as actual human beings. They are all just carboarded cutouts

    Um...

  • KDN||

    Not now, he's rolling.

  • ||

    So, like making it illegal for the children of white Christians to have jobs would be a totally cool way to force Republicans to compromise on (say) national health care?

  • Lily Bulero||

    If the white Christians were brought into the country illegally?

  • ||

    By their parents? Without their consent?

  • Lily Bulero||

    They didn't consent, so it was wrong to bring them here, is that your claim?

    Or they didn't consent at the time, but now they decided the U. S. would be a great place to live?

  • ||

    People should have the right to continue living in the community in which they were raised, get a job, and become productive adults, like everyone else around there. What you're saying is that because of an arbitrary distinction based on place of birth, you would have two children who grew up side by side, and one should have the right to go to college , get a job, and pursue happiness, and the other should be abducted by armed men and sent to a foreign country.

  • BYODB||

    What is stopping them from applying to citizenship?

    Why were they able to grow up in a country they have no legal right to reside in?

    Oh, it's because of policies you prefer? Wow. It's almost like this is a self-made crisis by useful idiots like yourself.

    Do you even know what DACA stands for? Deferred action means deferred action, and that policy is directly responsible for this. Oops!

    It's literally a case where a crisis was manufactured so that people like you could make the very arguments you're making. If their deportation wasn't deferred for so long, this wouldn't be an issue now. Also, for the record, nothing is stopping them from applying for citizenship now, or any of the days prior to now. Nothing whatsoever.

  • ||

    What is stopping them from applying to citizenship?

    You have no idea how the immigration laws work, do you?
    People cannot just walk into an immigration office and apply for citizenship.
    You have to immigrate first, which involves getting a permanents residents visa (green card) and then waiting 5 years to naturalize.

    In order to get a green card, you have to meet certain, very limited, criteria, such as being sponsored by a close family member, or by an employer. There are limited quotas and it is very hard to get. It took me 10 years to get a green card via brother/sister sponsorship. Employer sponsorship is nearly impossible unless you have an advanced degree or at least a BS in a STEM field + 5 years work experience. Most "dreamers" can't get a job in the first place, so they have no work experience. In addition, the law requires anyone who has been in the US illegally to return to their home country for a minimum of 2 years before even applying. In short there's a long list of reasons why they can't get green cards.

    Also, for the record, nothing is stopping them from applying for citizenship now, or any of the days prior to now. Nothing whatsoever.

    Yeah, you have no idea how immigration law works.

  • lafe.long||

    In order to get a green card, you have to meet certain, very limited, criteria, such as being sponsored by a close family member, or by an employer. There are limited quotas and it is very hard to get. It took me 10 years to get a green card via brother/sister sponsorship. Employer sponsorship is nearly impossible unless you have an advanced degree or at least a BS in a STEM field + 5 years work experience. Most "dreamers" can't get a job in the first place, so they have no work experience. In addition, the law requires anyone who has been in the US illegally to return to their home country for a minimum of 2 years before even applying. In short there's a long list of reasons why they can't get green cards.

    Well the process is definitely the problem. I'm not sure the answer is, "Fuck it, let everyone stay".

    All the bullshit talk about immigration, borders, etc... and no one talks about actually fixing the ridiculously broken path to citizenship.

    Legal immigration should be possible in months (if that), not decades FFS.

    Reduce the incentives to illegally immigrate.

  • ||

    Well the process is definitely the problem. I'm not sure the answer is, "Fuck it, let everyone stay".

    Can we at least let people who have been raised here since childhood stay?
    Would that be okay with you assholes?

  • BYODB||


    Can we at least let people who have been raised here since childhood stay?
    Would that be okay with you assholes?

    Why would you expect it to work this time, when it didn't work in the 90's? What did Einstein say about that, again?

  • Cyto||

    I have sponsored employees for work visas and green cards.

    It is unbelievably time consuming and expensive. It costs many thousands of dollars and takes years.

    Which is stupid. Like crazy stupid. There is no excuse for our immigration policy to be as stupid as it is, on many levels.

    But this dreamer thing is way, way worse. If you take off the "immigrants good - anti-immigration xenophobic bigots bad" blinders, you can see that the policy of encouraging illegal immigration is way, way, way worse than having a too restrictive immigration policy.

    The "dreamer" idea and the "wink and nod" policy that preceded it is designed to create an underclass that cannot legally work in the US. Perfect for employment in labor-heavy industries like food production and construction. Anybody that needs low skilled labor for cheap is going to love a huge population of illegal aliens.

    So instead of working with the Bush republicans to get through a real set of reforms that increased quotas and allowed for non-citizenship path work visas, the democrats decided to entice millions of poor people to come to the US illegally by promising to "defer action" on deportation.

    How any "immigrant rights activist" could see this as anything other than a cynical ploy to create a political issue while locking millions of people into low wage jobs with no legal protections is beyond me.

    I guess everyone just keeps expecting that Amnesty III is around the corner.

  • BYODB||


    I guess everyone just keeps expecting that Amnesty III is around the corner.


    This is exactly it Cyto, and I completely agree with your assessment of the cynical ploys that were used to get us to where we are today. As a matter of fact, I pretty much entirely agree with everything you just said.

  • ||

    No, the "dreamer" idea is a desperate attempt to find a solution for millions of kids who don't have legal visas so they can, you know, live their lives and pursue happiness, before they turn 30, maybe.

  • BYODB||


    No, the "dreamer" idea is a desperate attempt to find a solution for millions of kids who don't have legal visas so they can, you know, live their lives and pursue happiness, before they turn 30, maybe.

    So it is your contention that it is impossible for them to do those things in their legal home country of Mexico?

  • BYODB||

    Actually, I have to immediately amend this statement since plenty of illegal immigrants are actually facilitated through Mexico from other countries like Guatemala and Columbia. It is not a purely Mexican phenomena.

  • ||

    Even if they returned to their home countries, there is no guarentee they would get a legal visa. Again, there are lots of people who wouldn't qualify for a visa because they don't have close US relatives or college degrees.
    So they would be giving up their entire lives on an enormous risk - the idea that the US government might *maybe* let them back into the country, where their friends, families, and lives are. Given the track record of the US government on such matters, for a lot of people, it would be crazy to take that risk. Nevermind that it might be something they can't even afford to do - their families might not have the money to support them and they might not even speak the language.

    And that's just the kids. There are millions of people who are legally married to US citizens and have US citizen children who are in the same situation - they would have to leave their kids for years in order to apply.

  • BYODB||

    I actually do know that, and it's specifically why I asked you elsewhere why you don't make the argument that the law should be changed to lower the skills requirement for applying for citizenship.

    Do you believe that American needs a large, mostly uneducated workforce without any applicable skills to the American economy? Why, or why not?

    If it's a rights thing, it's strange that you only advocate for a one-sided approach that alienates actual citizens rights.

    And, once again, anyone can apply for citizenship, and it is a process. You have once again failed to reveal why it is that these particular people are unable to do so, beyond they don't want to go home to Mexico for two years as a punishment for trying to jump the queue. You also fail to recognize that DACA caused this problem, and I wager you're a big proponent of that. This mess is the fault of people like you, so don't make this out to be the fault of anyone else.

    We're not the one's that deferred action on deportations for so long that people literally grew up in this country waiting to be deported. And, make no mistake, they have indeed been waiting to be deported. They could have started the naturalization process at any time in the intervening years, yet they did not.

    Yes, it is a shitty situation and yes I feel bad for them. The law could indeed be updated, and almost certainly should be, but your arguments are shit arguments. Get better ones.

  • chemjeff||

    "they don't want to go home to Mexico for two years"

    It's not their home! To them Mexico is just as much of a foreign country as it is to any white native-born American.

    Let me ask you this. If that one condition - the requirement to return to their 'home' country for 2 years - were waived in the case of dreamers, but all others were strictly enforced, would you still be opposed to letting them pursue citizenship?

  • ||

    If the law says it's not their home, then the law is fucked up. The law should conform to what is morally just. In every meaningful way, America is their home. The law should recognize that.

  • BYODB||


    The law should conform to what is morally just.

    So we should make abortion illegal, institute sharia law, and give out free guns to everyone?

    Or...wait a sec...you're just using your own view or what is moral and trying to apply it to everyone regardless of what those individuals believe is moral? Oh. Ok, that makes more sense.

  • ||

    Again, a lot of libertarian philosophy is an ongoing project which seeks to understand what is objectively just. Indeed, there's considerable research showing that most people have innate ideas of what is just and moral, and a lot of that project is one of reasoning through those innate instincts to come to some sort of uniform consistent ideas of justice and morality. So 500 years ago, people thought being gay was immoral, but we've evolved - we've reasoned our way to better concepts of justice and morality. It's called progress. It's not all relativistic. We've actually gotten better and closer to the truth.

    I think most people would agree that punishing children for the crimes of their parents is unjust. I think most people would agree that it's unjust to deport someone to a foreign country they don't even remember.

  • BYODB||

    I have no opposition to their pursuing citizenship in the first place, none whatsoever, but I also don't believe it's a wise course of action to reward the political ploys used to get us to this juncture in the first place. So, no, I don't think that's a good idea even while it appears reasonable at first blush.

    Trump is actually doing more or less the right thing in holding this group of kids hostage to try and force actual reform. That may sound pretty cold hearted, but it's nowhere near as cold hearted and calculating as the decisions made by Democrats that led us here in the first place.

    Make no mistake, I'm completely on board with immigration reform. I am not in favor of endless amnesty, and that's more or less what people have been talking about in reference to these people in particular. Again. No offense, but I actually remember the 90's and it didn't work then and it won't work now.

    Frankly, when it comes down to it, I fully acknowledge that many of the so called 'Dreamers' won't meet the standards to become a citizen. Some will, and some won't, so letting them stay while the process goes forward would just be stringing them along for a few more years.

  • ||

    OF COURSE I think immigration law should be changed, you retard.
    Libertarians have only been arguing about how fucked up immigration law is for like 20 years.

    The only reason we have DACA is because fucktards like you block any serious attempts to change the law to make it easier to get legal visas.

  • BYODB||


    The only reason we have DACA is because fucktards like you block any serious attempts to change the law to make it easier to get legal visas.


    This is factually not the case. Not the case whatsoever. You are lying. Full stop. Period. Reform didn't happen because of Democrats, and Democrats put DACA in place.

  • ||

    "You are lying"

    Please. You're the one going around claiming that DACA is a sinister plot to create a class of people without legal visas.

    Yes. I wish that some sort of immigration reform had passed long ago. Both Democrats and Republicans have at various times blocked that effort. Mostly at the best of the same people - domestic white working class labor - the same people who are behind Trump. Right now they are Republicans, but they used to be Democrats.

  • BYODB||


    Please. You're the one going around claiming that DACA is a sinister plot to create a class of people without legal visas.

    What did DACA do? It created a class of people without legal standing to stay in the country permanently and directly is responsible for the very people's plight that you're currently railing against?

    Yeah, we're done. You can't even recognize direct causation and culpability. You are hopeless.

  • ||

    And, once again, anyone can apply for citizenship, and it is a process.

    Functionally no. There is no pathway to legal status for many people. Not everyone can get a green card. It is effectively impossible to get a green card if you don't have a college degree and don't have any close US relatives.

  • BYODB||


    It is effectively impossible to get a green card if you don't have a college degree and don't have any close US relatives.

    So, this is a tacit admission that you believe that we need more uneducated workers without a skill set that is applicable to the American economy because...we don't pay out enough in welfare already to American born citizens without college degrees?

    Tell you what, abolish all welfare programs and then we'll see how many uneducated immigrants want to come to the United States.

    That, or explain why illegal immigrants in particular are more resistant to taking free money. Something you have, notably, failed to do in the past even while you're more than willing to use bad statistics that lump all immigrants in together instead of parsing out the highly educated legal immigrants.

  • ||

    So, this is a tacit admission that you believe that we need more uneducated workers without a skill set that is applicable to the American economy because...we don't pay out enough in welfare already to American born citizens without college degrees?

    How about we just make it legal for people who have been here since childhood to get visas - even if they don't have college degrees?
    Is that okay? Wait, you're not even cool with that? Thanks for proving my point.

  • BYODB||


    How about we just make it legal for people who have been here since childhood to get visas - even if they don't have college degrees?
    Is that okay? Wait, you're not even cool with that? Thanks for proving my point.


    I have literally already explained why not elsewhere. The fact you make the argument a second time without addressing the rebuttal is telling.

  • ||

    They could have started the naturalization process at any time in the intervening years, yet they did not.

    No they couldn't. You can't naturalize unless you have a green card first, and they cannot get green cards. You do not understand what the immigration laws are.

  • BYODB||

    You are lying again.

    There can indeed be a process of naturalization even if everyone doesn't make it through said process.

  • ||

    Again, you can't START the naturalization process until 5 years AFTER you get a green card.

    You seriously have major reading comprehension problems.

  • BYODB||

    So in your opinion being denied by the process means there is no process. As expected. If I have reading comprehension issues, in your view, it's because you don't make a cogent case in my view.

    Think more, emote less.

  • ||

    Again, you can't START the naturalization process until 5 years AFTER you get a green card..

    You're being willfully obtuse now.

  • BYODB||

    Last thing I'll say on the subject, since a green card is a prerequisite for naturalization it is therefore part of the naturalization process, you tremendous idiot.

  • Lily Bulero||

    In any case, haven't you seen all those "Trump Deports Christians" articles, like this one, where after some hemming and hawing the media acknowledges that they've been convicted of serious crimes?

  • Lily Bulero||

    Here's an article which starts off with this soft-focus description of a veteran facing deportation...then after a few paragraphs throws this in:

    "...he shot and wounded a police officer during a robbery near Detroit and was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

    "He finished his sentence last fall. But instead of being released, Shaou was immediately detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and scheduled to be deported on the April flight."

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    A law to make illegal for the children of white Christians to get a job couldn't get past the 1st or 14th Amendments.

    What Constitutional right allows illegal aliens to cross the border and remain here?

  • ||

    The question is not what's legal, but what's morally right. it's morally wrong to deny people who have lived here since they were kids the right to have a job - or to hold that right hostage to win some other political victory from your political opponents.

  • John||

    According to Hazel sparky. Hazel is the ultimate arbiter of what is moral. And anyone who disagrees with her is by definition immoral. That way Hazel doesn't have to bother with thinking or making an argument. She can just appeal to her principles and declare any disagreement morally illegitimate.

  • ||

    Accdording to pretty much everyone's definition of human rights, including, and especially, libertarians. Since we're talking about the right to exchange money for labor, after all.

    If you think that the state has the right to decide who is allowed to have jobs, you can stop calling yourself a libertarian right now.

  • John||

    Yes Hazel, we know. Your position is the only moral one and the final answer on any subject. You think people have a right to cross any border. We think people have a right to collectively decide that they can't. There is nothing that says your position is any better other than you like it.

  • ||

    I sure as fuck think that punishing a person for the actions of their parents is immoral. As does nearly everyone else - who isn't a racist fuck.

  • sarcasmic||

    I sure as fuck think that punishing a person for the actions of their parents is immoral.

    I'm afraid to say this, but I agree.

    As does nearly everyone else - who isn't a racist fuck.

    Yeah. Because if you support enforcing the law as it is defined then you are racist. There is no other possible explanation. Like maybe a person is economically illiterate and believes there are a fixed number of jobs out there, and that any job taken by an immigrant is one a native can no longer have. Maybe the person doesn't understand that immigrants grow the economy by creating wealth, creating new demands, starting businesses, employing people, paying taxes, etc..

  • ||

    We're talking about people raised here since children, not *exactly* immigrants. Their default state is that they were already here. They were here before they reached the age of majority. So if you're going to make arbitrary disctinctions between groups of people, now you're doing it not based on any individual action of theirs, but based on some collective characteristic such as birth location. Often birth location is correlated to ethno-religious background. And people who don't like people of other ethno-religious backgrounds therefore may use birth location as a means to discriminate. it might not always work 100% of the time, but it's a loose rule to say "Fewer Hispanic Catholics, please". "Racist" is just creative license.

  • lap83||

    I sure as fuck think that punishing a person for the actions of their parents is immoral. As does nearly everyone else - who isn't a racist fuck.

    but punishing people for the actions of elected officials by calling them racist fucks....that's totally fine

  • Sam Haysom||

    Which is why we let bank robbers children keep the loot.

  • ||

    Having a job is "loot" stolen from Americans who rightfully own those jobs! Got that?

  • ||

    Of course states can exist. Not all states are based on just laws. Some states are downright evil. A state that denies people who have been here since they were children the right to have jobs and punishes them for the actions of their parents falls in the "evil" category.

  • ||

    Who said it has a right to exist? I just said it exists. States don't have rights. States are constructs made up be people - it's the people who have rights.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Sophistry at its finest. Have you ever read a book? Not a long blog post a book. Your thinking is so mushy and shallow.

  • Bubba Jones||

    It is morally wrong for the offspring of illegal immigrants to be put in this position.

    The lesson is that we shouldn't turn a blind eye to illegal immigration.

  • lap83||

    I know this makes me racist to say so, but I don't think morality has much, if anything, to do with our views on national policy. Morality involves the choices I make, not the political bumper sticker slogans we espouse.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: John,

    Yes, actually expecting the open borders fanatics to compromise in any way


    Depends on what you mean by "compromise". Open borders entail open to trade, to commerce, to the free movement of goods, services, capital and, yes, labor. Why would I compromise such level of personal freedom? Would you?

  • Cyto||

    Does mobility of labor automatically include citizenship?

    If I want to work in Russia, do I get to vote there as well?

    The problem with mobility of labor being equal to mobility of citizenship is that your nation ceases to exist as an independent entity pretty quickly.

    To make the conundrum easier to spot, lets flip it around an look at, say, Venezuela. Lets give them a personal freedom based immigration policy. And lets say they want to have a socialist worker's paradise, so they nationalize the oil industry and take billions in US owned equity with it. And just for the sake of argument, lets say the US doesn't like this. Today, we'd have to go to war. But in our imaginary war, not so much.

    We could just send a couple of million people down to Caracas and vote in our own guy. Problem solved, without firing a shot.

    Completely unregulated immigration in an unequal world creates several untenable situations, whatever the upside might be.

    And that's what is on the table here. You'll note that the phrase "guest worker" doesn't exist any more. It hung around for about 5 minutes while everyone ran away from Bush on immigration reform, and it hasn't been seen since.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Cyto,

    Does mobility of labor automatically include citizenship?


    No.

    Who turned that into the main issue? No one else but government and its lousy immigration policies. Most immigrants would not seek citizenship. But because of the arbitrary nature of government immigration rules and how they're applied, the only hope for many immigrants of not being caught in a dragnet pulled by obnoxious xenophobes and rabid racists is by obtaining citizenship. Respect for Natural-fucking-Rights would alleviate this worry.

  • BYODB||

    Huh, so there are no such things as work visa's. I imagine that's news to a lot of people that already have them.

    But no, you're totes right and citizenship is the only path to working in these United States.

    Honestly, in all fairness, you're probably right for the guys that come across the border without many job skills who end up mowing lawns and doing construction work. Equally frankly, I've seen the end results of that labor and while many of them do a great job at nailing things together there's a lot of them that fuck that up too. Frankly, I blame the builder more than the workers and I blame the government more than the builders.

  • DajjaI||

    The wall will not be paid for by Mexico. It will be paid by future taxpayers and for the life of me I can't understand why they (and their parents) are silent about this stupid pointless boondoggle waste.

  • Libertarian||

    The Feds have tons of money. So much money that I just heard on the radio that they're going to help Vegas pay for cops' overtme.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Nobody cares what you think Dajjal.

  • lap83||

    Shikha's immigrant photos always give the impression that only adorable, innocent children are affected by immigration policies. Which is ridiculous....she acts like the wisened, lovable old grandmothers don't even exist.

  • Lily Bulero||

    lol

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a deal for illegals to get citizenship in return for something the Democrats don't want to do. That's politics baby!

    I say deport all the Dreamers and let them reapply for citizenship, so what would you rather have.

    BTW: Open border types are not in charge, so these are your only two options.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Exactly the libertarian free ride off of Republican victories is ovah. The wilderness sucks it really does but that's what happens when you bite the political hand that feeds way too many times. You can try crawling over to the leftists and begging for influence like Hazel and Tony but they are probally a lot more comfortable on their knees than most.

  • ||

    Exactly the libertarian free ride off of Republican victories is ovah.

    When was this "free ride" and where did it get us? I must have missed it.

  • BYODB||

    Hell, for that matter where were the victories?

  • Sam Haysom||

    Being returned to your nation of birth is a punishment but we should have open borders so that our nation comes to ressemble that nation.

    Libertarianism people it's not catching on.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    The Dreamersillegal immigrants have to go back. This is not their country and they don't belong here.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    No one owns the "country" and they have every right to be here.

    A country is lines on a map placed there by conquerors. Why would a person's individual rights which stem from that person's exiatence be predicated on being on the wrong side of that line is something you will have to explain without sounding like a Communist.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    What is a "State"?

  • Cyto||

    I've seen variations on this take across the talking-head universe over the last few days... that innocent children who are the best of the best and everyone acknowledges are deserving of citizenship are being victimized.

    It is horse shit. Full stop.

    The entire point of creating the "dreamer" category was to create this situation. It was all a lie from the jump.... and you'll note that there was no "path to citizenship" involved. Just an empty promise designed to create an untenable situation to win political points. It was one of the most cynical and damaging political moves of our lifetimes, and nobody even bothered to notice what it truly was.

    As everyone expected at the time, announcing that kids wouldn't be deported if they came here illegally resulted in thousands upon thousands of underage illegal immigrants "dreaming" of the US. Remember all the horror stories of people getting stranded, swarms of immigrants overwhelming small communities, etc?

    Well, now we have reached the end game of this evil gambit. All those poor innocents came here at our invitation... how can you heartless people deny them amnesty?

    It was straight-up evil to put these people in this position, and everyone involved knew what would happen at the time. They just didn't give a shit. They wanted to win political points, so screw the people.

    They could have gotten actual immigration reform at any point. Bush offered better than they hoped for. But they wanted this instead.

  • Rhywun||

    It was another case of kick the can kid down the road. President "not my problem" at his finest.

  • Lily Bulero||

    My only objection to deporting them is a constitutional point - if the power to regulate immigration is part of the power over foreign commerce (and not just an extraconstitutional "inherent power" like some say), then how long after someone has moved in foreign commerce is he still subject to regulation?

    In a constitutional republic people would at least be *asking* these questions.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    What Trump and his mwrry band of Trumpistas are doing is using the tenuous status of these so-called Dreamers to get some of the most restrictive immigration policies that have been offered since 1920. The proposed "points" system purported to replace the immigration visa lottery and family-based sponsorship is not supposed to become something new for new applicants but to be imposed ON CURRENT applicants who already paid money and are waiting diligently in line. The Trump administration is not being serious about this issue because they know the Demo-rats will throw the Dreamers under the bus. The cynical aspect of this dog-and-pony sgow is that Trump DOESN'T care that he is throwing the Republicans under the bus as well.

    Seven Problems With Trump's Immigration Principles

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    What country is easier to immigrate to than the US? Asking for a friend.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Nativists have taken charge of immigration in the White House

    By restricting immigration from countries identified as terrorism problem areas by the previous admin?

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Anyone who has read up to this point has now lost 10 IQ points and must eat cake.

  • TW||

    Hopefully chocolate and not the urinal variety.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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