MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Dreamer Fix Will Drag the Country Back to 1924

The man who derided Mitt Romney for being extreme is now to the right of the Know Nothings.

A long, long time ago in 2012, there was a real estate developer named Donald J. Trump who lambasted Pinnochio TrumpDonkey Hoter via FoterRepublican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for losing the election with his "crazy" and "maniacal" talk of promising to create conditions so miserable for unauthorized immigrants that they would "self deport." What did Romney say that was so bad? That he would crackdown on employers who hired illegals. "It sounded as bad as it was," said the developer. "He lost all of the Latino vote ... He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country."

Fast forward four years, and the same developer realized that, actually, the problem with Romney's "crazy" and "maniacal" plan was that it was not crazy and maniacal enough. Stirring the racial pot, he found, could pull out just enough votes from the bottom of the barrel to win an election and become president. It might sink his party in the long run, but it would work for now.

And it did.

As soon as he entered the White House, Trump made not just self-deportation but actual deportation of every single one of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country the singular objective of his administration (along with other atrocities like deterring fleeing migrants seeking legal asylum by illegally snatching their children from them). Raids—complete with SWAT teams and sometimes black helicopters—on 7-Elevens, farms, immigrant neighborhoods, and sensitive places followed.

No one was to be spared from his draconian dragnet—not even Dreamers or people who were brought to this country illegally as minors but have grown up here as Americans and know no other country. He had promised to protect these people during his campaign. "They don't have to worry," he said. It was a lie. He scrapped the Obama-era DACA program that offered them a reprieve from deportation and offered them temporary work permits and told Congress that if it wanted to protect them, it should pass a law. He told lawmakers—Republican and Democrat—on television in front of the whole world that he would sign whatever bill they sent his way without any conditions, and even offer political cover to Democrats in red districts where his party had stirred up voters against "amnesty."

But then a few days later, his evil nativist aide Steve Miller seemingly got to him and snuffed out whatever little humanity may have flickered from time to time in the president's breast. He started making all kinds of impossible, Sophie's Choice demands in exchange for giving Dreamers a reprieve (even as his attorney general quoted passages from the Bible to justify ripping babies from the breasts of mothers seeking asylum).

The Southern border might be turning into a scene straight from the Apocalypse, but everytime this president's draconian demands are met in exchange for protecting the Dreamers, he ups the ante and demands more—never mind that vast majorities of Republicans and Democrats support a clean fix for these folks. Just this morning, he declared that he would not sign the "moderate" Dreamer fix. What would this "moderate" bill do? Cato Institute's David Bier points out:

  • On balance cut legal immigration by 1.8 million over two decades. (Even though it would increase the number of employment-based visas, it would scrap the diversity visa lottery program, slash family-based immigration, including for the siblings, married adult children, and parents of sponsors, and slash the annual asylum quota in half. Further, any unclaimed Dreamer green card quotas would just be scrapped, not handed to other categories.)
  • Allow very few Dreamers to convert their renewable temporary visas into green cards or citizenship. Only those who maintain incomes above 125 percent of the poverty level would be eligible unless they were in school or taking care of a child. This means that those who opt for professions such as the priesthood, social work, and other jobs that pay very little would be disqualified, as would any Dreamer who had skipped removal orders or court hearings.
  • Terminate 3 million applications for legal immigration that have already been submitted and are being processed, even though these people have been playing by the rules and waiting in line as restrictionists say they should. Oh, and it will also confiscate their fee.
  • Make even the measly asylum quota arguably impossible to fill by raising the bar impossibly high. In order to prove that asylum seekers have a "credible fear" of being beaten and killed at home, they would have to meet a "more probable than not" test that their claims are true. The only way they could do it is if they carry all their papers and proof on them as they swim across rivers and climb mountains to get here, which very, very few would be able to do.
  • Allocate about $24 billion for border enforcement spending including for Trump's useless wall, an unnecessary biometric system that would track everyone who leaves the country, including Americans, fast-track deportation of unaccompanied minors and much else.

There are some good elements in the bill, such as extending a path to citizenship (no matter how shitty) to legal Dreamers; those who have grown up in America to parents whose green cards have been stuck in a processing maize for decades so that they are reaching an age where they don't have a sponsor and can't stay with their parents. It would also repeal per-country limits on green cards that have extended wait times for foreign techies from India and China to up to 70 years, creating the legal Dreamer problem in the first place.

But all of this is just too rational and humane for this president who says he'll only sign some version of the Rep. Bob Goodlatte's (R-Va.) Securing America's Future Act, a nativist wet dream, as I've noted before. It has nearly all the bad elements of the "moderate bill" in exchange for far less.

It will offer only non-immigrant status on a renewable basis to a small slice of DACA recipients who can meet its onerous eligibility criteria. The bill excludes Dreamers who have already lost DACA. Oh, and those who were under 15 years of age and therefore never covered by DACA. And those who were over the age of 31 on June 2012. And those who entered after 2007. All in all, two-thirds of all Dreamers wouldn't qualify—not even if they are veterans.

But the real kicker is that Dreamers who do qualify would have to maintain income levels above 125 percent of the poverty line, or they would be subject to deportation, not just be disqualified from a green card as is the case with the moderate bill. In effect, the bill would criminalize poverty in this sweet land of liberty!

And to add insult to injury to legal immigrants, it would bar those who have green cards but not citizenship from bringing even their spouses and children here!

This is not immigration reform. It is an anti-immigration bill that would cut legal immigration by 40 percent at a time when America is facing a demographic slump of epic proportions with birth rates at their lowest level ever. Congress hasn't considered a bill this horrible since it passed the racist National Origins Act in 1924, which it then scrapped in 1965.

Yet this is the only thing that this president would sign. The good news is that no one thinks that either of these bills will pass, thanks to the implacable opposition of Democrats.

Donald Trump, however, is resolutely leading his party back to the early 20th century, a time of bald nativism and Know Nothingism. And he accomplished that giant leap back to the future in just four short years.

Talk about "crazy" and "maniacal."

Update: Trump has flipped and now says that he will support the "moderate" plan. In other words, the man who thought that employer crackdowns were too draconian to chase out unauthorized immigrants will only stop holding Dreamers hostage if legal immigration is slashed! By contrast, Mitt Romney wanted to staple greencards to the diplomas of foreign students graduating from American universities among other things to increase legal immigration.

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.

  • John||

    Because anything short of total open borders will never satisfy the reasonites. If the dreamers are so damned important, you should be willing to give something to keep them in the country. If you are not , you are either lying and don't care about them or are a fanatic. Either way your views can be safely ignored

  • Tony||

    Deporting millions of people isn't free you know.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Much less expensive than letting them stay.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    re: buybuydavis,

    ─ Much less expensive than letting them stay. ─

    Liar.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    re:Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless

    -Liar.-

    Cite.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Cite ***what***? It's an obvious lie!

    Labor is ********ALWAYS********* productive. The notion that immigrants "cost" the economy is merely economically ignorant pap. Plus the lying liar isn't even considering the cost of rounding up millions and sending them to countries that don't even know them.

    If you want to showcase your ignorance, there are plenty of Team Red/Trumpista sites where the company you keep reeks the same stink.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Externalities never exist. Muh Free Market."

  • Barbara Yarhead||

    Labor is always productive. True, but your analysis is still ignorant. The issue is never about total GDP. More people means more stuff can be produced, but you are ignoring a lot of microeconomics there. More people also pushes up the demand for lots of resources and thus prices. More labor decreases the cost of labor. These two effects are contradictory and any drop in prices due to vast amounts of new labor does nothing but shift relative demand. The same effect could be had by all wage workers deciding to work for half as much money.
    So the issue is not about total production, but marginal productivity.
    The only empirical way to decide questions about labor productivity is via wages. It can reasonably be argued that sectors of the economy with higher than average wages could use more labor.
    All of this points at a need for a much different immigration policy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Illegals break a lot of laws and use resources without paying in. So don't even start that bullshit here.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This guy must be running for chapter president of Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian Government Policies And Practices On Immigration.

    They don't call it president, though. They call it Top Man.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • ||

    You realize *saying* you're not racist without making a cogent point doesn't mean you aren't, right? Conversely, someone who has legitimate concerns over the consequences of illegal immigration doesn't necessarily translate into them being bigoted. That there are people who are doesn't detract from the thought as a valid concern.

    Carry on, lefty.

  • Mark22||

    Labor is ********ALWAYS********* productive.

    Not if it is consuming more in government services than it contributes in value to the economy; that is true for the vast majority of illegals.

  • Harvard||

    Labor is ******* ALWAYS ******** productive.

    Said by every creator of every forced labor camp ever.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Labor is ********ALWAYS********* productive

    People write stupid things all the time. And some of them are pretty damned stupid. I mean REALLY stupid.

    But this-- Labor is ********ALWAYS********* productive THIS may just be the stupidest thing ever written--ever thought, even.

    I'd love to say that I never knew you had it in you, Old Mex, but, you've been proving that's just not true over this past year. There's a raging leftist doing it's damnedest to rip it's way out of you and you're not doing a damned thing to stop it.

  • Unfreezable Beez||

    Hey that sounds like a swell idea!

    Why doesn't Israel open it's borders and bring in more Palestinians to take up residence, vote in their elections, leech off their welfare, and - of course - provide cheap menial labor that Israelis don't want to do anymore?

    Because everybody knows, driving down the wages, driving up the tax burden, and gradually replacing the native population is a GREAT idea. I'm sure the Jews would LOVE that.

  • Longtobefree||

    There are 46 (at last count, check again tomorrow) armed federal agencies not counting the military.
    They have millions of rounds of high power ammunition, again not counting the military.
    They are already on the payroll.
    How much can it cost?

  • Tony||

    You know what's the strangest thing about suddenly being one of the only libertarians here? That specific feeling of smugness that happens on my taint. Nobody warned me of that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You are not a libertarian. You are a totalitarian. the only reason you're for open borders is that your kind can co-opt those people as voters to expand progressive power. If they were of no use, you would scrape them off and step over them, just like you and your friends have done to union labor, and blacks.

    So fuck you Tony, you evil lying piece of shit.

  • Tony||

    You don't think perhaps that minorities, including Latinos, favor Democrats because Republicans' entire political shtick is to... drumroll... shit all over minorities to scare dumbfuck bigoted cousinfuckers like you into voting for them?

    All Democrats would have to do is pretend to care about these human beings. Actually caring about them is all the more useful for them.

  • XM||

    The minorities here come from cultures with a long and decorated history of collectivism, centrally managed economy and (ironically enough) hardcore nationalism. The democrats give them what they want.

  • ||

    Exactly. Liberals are good at that.

  • Tony||

    So convince them with your great arguments. Or does socialism come naturally with brown skin?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Hispanics favor bigger government at greater rates than non-Hispanic whites. Hence they vote for Democrats, the big government party, more often than non-HIspanic whites.

    That they buy into the race baiting identity politics of the Left is another reason the vote Democratic.

  • Fancylad||

    "I'm one of the only libertarians here"
    I think you've confused "totalitarian" with "libertarian", they don't mean the same thing.
    Also, you're only here because Media Matters pays you fifty cents for each comment thread you derail.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Billions of rounds.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "Deporting millions of people isn't free you know."

    Neither is confiscating millions of guns, but that doesn't stop some people from getting hardons thinking about it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Which is why the USA is a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

    The residents of the USA have the most freedom compared to non-Americans who want to enter the USA.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Views based on principle are 'fanaticism' and can be ignored.
    Views based on the ever-shifting opinions of the mob are right and proper, and should be adopted in full.

    Got it!

  • John||

    You don't seem to understand what the work fanatic means. Go look it up and get back to me after you understand how nonsensical your statement is.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I know what the word fanatic means. And you are using the word fanatic to smear people who offer arguments based on principle, if those arguments support free migration. I get it. People who take uncompromising positions on liberty are 'fanatics' who should be ignored.

  • Longtobefree||

    The fanatic is that stupid looking green baseball mascot patterned after the Disney 'Figment' character, right?

  • JoeBlow123||

    I do not know how you write stuff like this seriously. I could substitute the word "liberty" for "Catholicism" or "Christianity" or "workers rights" or "communism" or any other faith based bunch of bullshit and the sentence would still work swimmingly.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Muh principles"

  • Mark22||

    Views based on principle are 'fanaticism' and can be ignored.

    You have no principles, just feelz.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Because anything short of total open borders will never satisfy the reasonites."

    Borders are bad, m'kay?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    What about Barnes and Noble?

  • Longtobefree||

    We still have a Books-a-Million

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,
    ─ Because anything short of total open borders will never satisfy the reasonites ─

    The non-Fascists, at least, John. The non-Fascists.

    'Open Borders' merely means open to trade, to the free flow of goods, of services, of capital and, yes, of labor. Immigration, free and unhampered, would be consistent with Free Markets.

    And they're not "total" open borders. THE MARKET regulates who comes in. Not the State.

    Oh, PLEASE PLEASE go ahead and say that Libertarians worship the Market as Gawd. Please, do it! Do it! I dare YOU! Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it! And your path to total stupid is complete.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Open Borders' merely means open to trade, to the free flow of goods, of services, of capital and, yes, of labor. Immigration, "

    Get back to me when you and your Mexican friends want to make that a two way relationship. instead of shitting on foreigners that come to Mexico.

    In the meantime GTFO of my country.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's not the right-wingers' country, loser.

    The liberal-libertarian alliance has been calling the shots for decades, achieving progress despite the efforts and wishes of authoritarian, bigoted, disaffected losers like you. Mostly, you just get to whimper about how much you hate all of this damned progress, science, reason, education, and tolerance.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No Arty, this IS my country, and not yours. In fact, I'll arm wrestle you for it.

    Cross dressing dummy...........carry on Klinger.

  • Mark22||

    'Open Borders' merely means open to trade, to the free flow of goods, of services, of capital and, yes, of labor. Immigration, free and unhampered, would be consistent with Free Markets.

    That would be nice. But that's not what you're advocating; you are advocating unilateral open borders.

    The non-Fascists, at least, John. The non-Fascists.

    You're indeed not a fascist, you're a neo-Marxist, which is just as bad.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Because nothing short of another Trail of Tears will ever satisfy nationalist conservatives!

    See what I did there?

  • Harvard||

    Made yourself look the idiot?

  • Cranedoc||

    Sharia Shakia is getting dumber.
    "And he accomplished that giant leap back to the future in just four short years."

    I'm no math doctorate, but Trump took office barely a year and a half ago. I guess he was also POTUS during most of Hussein's second term? That would have been nice.

    Why do they let this low IQ person write?

  • buybuydandavis||

    She drew the short straw to defend Open Borders.

    They know they have no argument but "muh Kochs", but they don't like to make that one in pubic.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    I suppose Reason will keep this up until the last subscription is cancelled.

  • Tony||

    Note Trump's response to what was then considered a very radical idea in 2012 that opens this article.

    You are the radicals, not Reason. Extreme radicals.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Extreme radicals for not wanting to give the entire world access to our overly-generous welfare system? No.

    You know what *is* extreme? Your stupidity.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Extreme radicals for not wanting to give the entire world access to our overly-generous welfare system? No.

    This is such a red herring. The question of what rules, if any, should be set for those wanting to come here, is different than the question of what rules, if any, should be set for those wanting government welfare.

    It is perfectly consistent to argue that there should be free movement of labor across borders, and also to argue that only citizens should get government transfer payments based welfare.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Well put Jeff.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Stupid fat fingers. I meant to add that no, it's not a red herring, because Shika et al. never make your distinction.

  • Tony||

    It's a straw man, like every single counterargument on immigration is.

    "Our immigration system is flawed in the following ways..."

    "Open borders! She wants Mexicans to have free rape access to our daughters! And given castles to live in with free daughter-rape dungeons!"

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hey Jeff, you're o the same side as Tony. That doesn't say much for you.

  • Mark22||

    It is perfectly consistent to argue that there should be free movement of labor across borders, and also to argue that only citizens should get government transfer payments based welfare.

    That doesn't solve the problem because migrants consume massive amounts of government services other than welfare.

    The correct solution is therefore to require migrants to pay at least as much in taxes as the per capita government spending; anything less than that, and migrants are a burden on US tax payers.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The correct solution is therefore to require migrants to pay at least as much in taxes as the per capita government spending; anything less than that, and migrants are a burden on US tax payers.

    How about this instead: Treat migrants identically to similarly-situated citizens when it comes to their tax burdens. If the state wants a progressive tax system, where those on the lower end of the economic spectrum are not expected to pay their fair share, then the same goes for both migrants and citizens. If the state wants a flat tax system, then the flat tax should be applied to everyone, migrants and citizens alike.

    But what you seem to advocate is that poor citizens should get to benefit from a progressive income tax system, but poor migrants should not. That is just a double standard.

  • Mark22||

    I very much hope you'll advocate that position widely and publicly!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Since many people (falsely) believe that migrants pay no taxes and get a 'free ride' at taxpayer expense, advocating that all be treated equally under the tax code seems to be a net improvement.

    Should migrants be taxed *harsher* than native-born citizens? If so, why?

  • Mark22||

    People correctly believe that the vast majority of migrants pay no net taxes and instead are a net drain on US tax payers.

    Illegal migrants shouldn't be taxed at all, they should be punished for violating our laws and then deported.

  • JoeBlow123||

    It is disingenuous and ridiculous to pretend that these two concepts can be separated at this juncture. There is zero indication they can or anyone has any intention of separating them. Immigration and naturalization, have and continue to go hand in hand.

    Yes yes, you have beautiful principles. Congrats. For those that continue to live in reality it is very obvious there is little separation. Once individuals are granted access to the country they can easily go on the dole. This is why immigrants are means tested before they immigrate.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is disingenuous and ridiculous to pretend that these two concepts can be separated at this juncture.

    The two concepts ARE separate. The practical matter is different. I'm arguing the principle of the matter.

  • DenverJ||

    What about other things? Like school systems being swamped with non-English speakers, or wages being undercut by cheap labor, or Somali taxi drivers kicking passengers out in the middle of nowhere because they have alcohol in their baggage? What about the simple human desire to keep your culture, something you wouldn't deny any other people on earth?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Like school systems being swamped with non-English speakers

    In a system of privatized schools, individuals will be free to choose the schools that they wish. Even under the status quo, we've been making great progress with charter/magnet/voucher schools to enable more choices for people. So even under the current statist paradigm, it is not difficult to imagine charter-based schools where parents and children can choose the schools that best fit for them. Yes they would still be funded by taxes, but it would be no worse than currently, and has the added bonus that you or your children wouldn't have to associate with foreigners if you didn't want to.

    or wages being undercut by cheap labor

    No one is entitled to a job. What's more, from an efficiency point of view, it is completely absurd that a native-born citizen should be able to complete 12+ years of relatively expensive education and graduate highschool with no other skills than those of an illiterate migrant from Guatemala. The problem of native-born citizens competing with migrants for low-skill low-wage jobs is ultimately a problem with education. Even if we had German-style or Japanese-style education system, there would still be citizens who just couldn't measure up to their potential, but the problem would be way reduced compared to currently.

    In other words: cheap labor SHOULD be the ones filling jobs that only require minimal skills. American labor isn't cheap and shouldn't be.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Somali taxi drivers kicking passengers out in the middle of nowhere because they have alcohol in their baggage?

    Taxi drivers who don't want alcohol in their taxis should post a sign clearly indicating so. Not posting a sign, and then getting outraged when someone brings in alcohol and kicks out the passengers, is a form of fraud IMO.

    What about the simple human desire to keep your culture, something you wouldn't deny any other people on earth?

    That is what freedom of association is all about.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You are the radicals, not Reason. Extreme radicals."

    Actual US immigration law, which we don't in fact enforce, is still among the most lax and most welcoming in the world.

    The US has the largest foreign born population in the world.

    If you want to rant against ethnonationalism, train your sights on Japan. Or China.

  • Oli||

    Or like.. the current US President?

  • buybuydandavis||

    If you're a race baiter

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or a progressive traitor.

  • Longtobefree||

    I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Every time I think about subscribing Shika dumps another screeching screed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would anyone subscribe to Reason?

    Let the lefties pay for Reason so we can get the occasional Libertarian-ish article and then we Libertarians can blast all the lefties in the comments.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    There's always The American Conservative for you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would anyone give Reason money?

    Let the lefties pay for us to be able to discuss Libertarian issues in the comments.

    If Reason goes bankrupt, a new lefty cosmo website will try and grab the Libertarian masses.

  • Tony||

    As soon as he entered the White House, Trump made not just self-deportation but actual deportation of every single one of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country the singular objective of his administration (along with other atrocities like deterring fleeing migrants seeking legal asylum by illegally snatching their children from them). Raids—complete with SWAT teams and sometimes black helicopters—on 7-Elevens, farms, immigrant neighborhoods, and sensitive places followed.

    Libertopia is upon us.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tony,

    Libertopia is not Trumpo-topia. Don't be as confused as Red Ton... I mean, John.

  • Nardz||

    That's not what I heard.
    I've read that in the future, shortly after the fish invasion was beaten back, that the half-john half-fish being was severely injured but not dead. To save him, half-john half-fish was merged with Red Tony, creating a half-john half-fish half-red Tony hybrid that haunts the minds of both man and fish, child and egg alike.

  • Shirley Knott||

    And Cthulhu smiled.

  • Tony||

    Ironically, in this realm I am way into cookware, so being pansexual in my case is to be very choosy.

  • Nardz||

    I believe it was so written by Fuschia Tony (half-fish, half-john, half-tony took too long to say, so he changed his name), but I can't remember if FT started out as Red or Yellow

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jesus, in his fourth incarnation, travelled back in time and used The Hand of Gabriel to cauterize that iteration of the timeline. thereby negating it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " Trump made not just self-deportation but actual deportation of every single one of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country the singular objective of his administration"

    If only.

    Build the Wall and Deport them All.

  • DenverJ||

    The use of the phrase "along with other atrocities" indicates that the author believes "actual deportation of every single one of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country" is an atrocity. Overlooking the fact that the actual number is at least twice that, how is it an atrocity to deport illegal immigrants?

  • DenverJ||

    Too much curry

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    He scrapped the Obama-era DACA program that offered them a reprieve from deportation and offered them temporary work permits and told Congress that if it wanted to protect them, it should pass a law.

    This is where Dalmia's entire argument fails.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I still think that's relatively reasonable. Congress should have to do their job.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Rule of Law? That's crazy talk!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Well, more then that. Obama's thing was never vacated for being illegal. More like a philosophical belief about how that power should be delegated.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I agree that Congress is the proper venue to decide what should happen to the Dreamers, and not via executive fiat.

    And Trump initially sounded like he objected to DACA on that basis. But as we now know, Trump objected to DACA not just on that basis, but because he opposed it on its merits too.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Ultimately, that doesn't seem to change the calculus. If making Congress handle it is the right move, it's the right move.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Initially he thought he was going to get some ballot security in return. That would have made the deal politically survivable for him.

    But the lunatics in Congress made it clear that no additional border security was an absolute negotiating point for them.

    It would have killed him politically to agree to an amnesty without anything in the way of border security in return, so the Dreamers get to pay the price for Congress not being willing to deal.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Amnesty is treason.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Bigots suck.

    In America, bigots lose.

    They still get to whimper, though.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are a bigot loser Arthur, so that does fit.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " Trump objected to DACA not just on that basis, but because he opposed it on its merits too."

    That's the hope of the people who voted for him.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    I agree that it is reasonable. Which I why I'm forced to conclude her criticism of it deeply damages her argument.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Terminate 3 million applications for legal immigration that have already been submitted and are being processed, even though these people have been playing by the rules and waiting in line as restrictionists say they should. Oh, and it will also confiscate their fee.

    Perhaps one thing that all here can agree on is that this is a really shitty move.

    Also, perhaps one reason so many are willing to jump the border instead of waiting in line, is that they don't trust our government to play by its own rules.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Perhaps one thing that all here can agree on is that this is a really shitty move.

    I wonder, I bet you'll get a lot who disagree anyway.

    but everytime this president's draconian demands is met in exchange for protecting the Dreamers, he ups the ante and demands more—never mind that vast majorities of Republicans and Democrats support a clean fix for these folks.

    I truly doubt the end of that statement. Why have no laws been pushed out if this is so? And why did Obama feel the need to do this by executive fiat originally. It's lip service on Democrat and Republican's part to say they are for it. I get the feeling most are not willing to actually do anything to support it.

  • HGW xx/7||

    You know, that's a good point. Honestly, I do lean towards tighter immigration rules, but just as prohibition and the drug war have failed (rightfully so) in forcing a "morality" upon the public, using the heavy hand of government to punish people for something like this will only force them to find new ways around the rules. It isn't going to stop it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Perhaps one thing that all here can agree on is that this is a really shitty move."

    The shitty moves are by those trying to turn the US into a shithole country.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So you are in favor of cancelling the immigration applications, and confiscating the fees, of three million applicants before their applications have been fully processed? If so, on what basis?

  • Jerryskids||

    I don't see why not, the reason the illegals come here illegally is that as far as they're concerned they're just fleeing one banana republic for another. This is how banana republics operate, get used to it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I would be in favor of refunding the application fees.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But you would be in favor of canceling the applications?
    These are the people who waited in line, as you demand.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Sure. Cancel. If that's what's best for Americans.

    If it makes you feel better, say that we denied the applications. There were *applications*. Just as we have the right to set the acceptance terms, we have the right to change those terms.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you change the terms capriciously, then you give little reason for potential migrants to follow the rules. Why should they follow the rules when the state may, in the next minute, just screw them over anyway?

    Your support of this undermines your own position of wanting less illegal immigration.

    And you know this, because your actual position is just little to none immigration at all.

  • DenverJ||

    You are correct here. Stopped clocks and all that.

  • buybuydandavis||

    No, if we fail to *enforce* the rules we have, migrants have little reason to follow the rules.

    "And you know this, because your actual position is just little to none immigration at all."

    My position is that our immigration policy should benefit existing Americans. Government of, by, and *for* the people. The American people. It's strange that something so fundamental to the principle of self government is considered radical.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Cancelling the applications of illegal immigrants who were only being allowed to apply in the first place by Obummer's executive fiat? Those applications? Sure, cancel everyone of them, and use the fees to help fund deporting them.

    Any other applications should still be allowed to proceed though.

  • Paloma||

    That would be Trump supporters.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Trump supporters are the good guys. Not like filthy progressive traitors.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Trump supporters are disaffected, poorly educated, economically inadequate, socially inept, downscale, superstitious bigots.

    Some Trump voters merely appease the bigotry and ignorance in an effort to advance the Republicans' retrograde political agenda.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The fact that you hate Trump means that Trump is doing well.

    We simply go by the opposite of what you say.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    American society has been going the way I say for a half-century and more.

    And it is not going back, despite the efforts and wishes of right-wing malcontents.

    I am content.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Except, they aren't. This is bigger than America. You now have nationalist governments in Hungary, Poland, Austria and Italy, not to mention Trump in America and Putin in Russia. Even the European governments that don't yet have nationalist governments, the support and influence of those parties grows with every election.

    If you don't like Trump, you'll like what comes next even less.

    In short, the whole is sick of your shit, and it's getting ready to do something about it.

    See you in the camps, chump!

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    *whole world

  • Harvey Mosley||

    "... even though these people have been playing by the rules..." except for the fact that they are here, you know, ILLEGALLY.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So let me see if I can understand the border restrictionist view on employment:

    Jobs created by American companies should be filled first and foremost by American workers. If an employer wishes to hire a non-American for a particular job, that employer must first get permission from the state. This permission should be very difficult to obtain. Therefore, from a functional point of view, freedom of association between employer and employee should only be respected among Americans. Freedom of association between American employers and non-American employees not only should not be respected, but should be actively discouraged and, when necessary, punished by the state.

    Do I have that about right?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The libertarian stance, if I understand correctly, is that the we own all of the land in the US. The government is us. Thus the government owns all the land. And thus it has full right to decide who comes in.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The libertarian stance, if I understand correctly, is that the we own all of the land in the US. The government is us. Thus the government owns all the land. And thus it has full right to decide who comes in.

    If so, it sounds a lot like the anarcho-socialists who claim private property rights are a form of theft.

    So I have a hard time wrapping my head around people who claim to be limited government types while simultaneously granting the state ownership rights over all the land.

  • Jerryskids||

    There are several of them here that bring up private property rights and trespass wrt to illegal immigration. Non-sarcastically.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I know. And that is a position that is normally held by the left side of the libertarian spectrum.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Not really.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: BestUserCarSales,

    ─ The libertarian stance, if I understand correctly, is that the we own all of the land in the US. The government is us. ─

    The libertarian stance is never that the government is "us". Who is "us", anyway? The government is the government.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I was mocking a common argument here.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    I was mocking the mock.... Oh, fuggedaboudit. I concede the game.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    I think the problem with mocking that argument is that it is essentially true. And hasn't really been effectively refuted.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What is essentially true? That the government owns all the land?

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    That legally, the population of the country has turned over stewardship of vast swaths of the land to the government.

    So no, definitely not "the government owns all the land?" If I had intended to say that, I would have. When someone uses the word "essentially" it is a modifier. So, it would be unnecessary if I thought "the government owns all the land?" since the person I was replying to said "that the we own all of the land in the US" and so my statement wouldn't need a modifier like "essentially" if my point was that I believed "that the we own all of the land in the US." I would simply have said "it is true".

    So, I would appreciate it if when you ask a question, you attempt to avoid also answering it. That isn't how polite, adult conversations work, and you can avoid making flawed assumptions as you did, and won't be put in the position in having the concept of an adverb as a modifier explained to you.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    And by the way, I don't think that is the libertarian argument, just the in the ground legal reality.

  • Paloma||

    "The government is us" is a progressive conceit.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is ironic that the same people who mocked the Democrat Party for their 2012 slogan of "Government is just the name for the things we all do together", are now claiming that government should have proper ownership rights over all the land in the country.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Forcing foreigners to get a visa to visit or work here is not draconian or concede the government owns everything.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Actual border restrictionist view on employment:
    Immigration policy should not be set to cater to the profits of corporations, but to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

    America First.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Immigration policy should not be set to cater to the profits of corporations

    Bernie Sanders? Is that you?

    but to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

    And by "our", you specifically mean Americans only, right? What about the blessings of liberty for non-Americans?

  • buybuydandavis||

    What part of "self government" don't you understand?

    It's not the job of Americans to secure the blessings of liberty for non-Americans, nor has the federal government been delegated that power or mandate.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's not the job of Americans to secure the blessings of liberty for non-Americans

    So it *is* the job of Americans to deliberately squash the liberty of non-Americans?

    If a non-citizen has a job here, no citizen's liberty is being deprived. And yet you favor deporting this non-citizen if he/she lacks the correct papers.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "So it *is* the job of Americans to deliberately squash the liberty of non-Americans?"

    Just can't be inferred from what I said.

    "If a non-citizen has a job here, no citizen's liberty is being deprived. And yet you favor deporting this non-citizen if he/she lacks the correct papers."

    You are mistaken if you believe that an underclass of indentured servants who can be deported at the whim of your disemploy imposes no costs or risks to other Americans.

    I favor expelling those who illegally invade US territory.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay then. Whose liberty is infringed upon if a non-citizens has a job in this country?

    Of course there are "costs and risks". There are always "costs and risks" with any exercise in liberty. But if we made the permissible exercise of liberty contingent only on minimizing "costs and risks" then we wouldn't be favoring liberty at all.

    invade

    lol

  • Paloma||

    And one of those blessings of liberty is the ability to employ the best person for the job at a salary we mutually agree on. Another is the right to form a corporation with other people in order to make a profit.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Employ him all you like. You are not entitled to have US immigration policy cater to your employment preferences.

    Foreigners on US soil affect others besides their employers.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually, citizens *are* entitled to have their government respect their liberty. *You* are not entitled to impose majoritarian rule that tramples on individual liberty.

    Foreigners on US soil affect others besides their employers.

    Sure they do. And?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "And by "our", you specifically mean Americans only, right? What about the blessings of liberty for non-Americans?"

    I swear to God human rights liberals like Barack Obama and Samantha Powers and neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Eliot Abrams and George Bush have used nearly identical words to justify invasions of foreign countries.

    Not America not our problem. If foreign countries want to reform that is their prerogative, but it is not Team America World Police's job to carry the world's water.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not asking for invasions to fix countries. I'm simply asking not to actively squash the liberties of those who do happen to come here.

  • buybuydandavis||

    No, you're just asking for an invasion to screw this one

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Furthermore, what about the blessings of liberty for Americans wishing to associate with non-Americans?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Skype
    If that doesn't fulfill your needs, try air travel.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But you would not permit Americans to associate with non-Americans *in America*, using their own private property. No? How is this not a deprivation of liberty *of Americans*?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Associate with anyone you want, using your own private property.

    But the US still has jurisdiction over your "own private property" for certain purposes. You don't get to build ICBMs.

    Move to Anarchotopia if that's what you want. Let me know how it works out.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But the US still has jurisdiction over your "own private property" for certain purposes. You don't get to build ICBMs.

    That's funny I hear the gun-grabbers use almost identical arguments to justify why gun control is such a good idea. "Lol but you can't own your own nukes for self-defense, therefore, confiscate gunz!"

    No, individuals can't and shouldn't own ICBM's. That does not justify every single encroachment of property rights by the state.

  • Mark22||

    Well, and the response is simple: the Constitution delegates powers over borders to the federal government, it doesn't delegate power over gun control to the federal government. A wise choice I think

  • Paloma||

    Oh, we know we can always try air travel. That's why we can build factories in other countries where it's more profitable to manufacture something.

    But we also are entitled to trade with others, employ them,and buy from them - whoever we find the best deal from.

    But the Blessings of Liberty do NOT include the right to demand anyone else, including your fellow citizens, to employ you over someone else, nor make sure that you are paid what you think you should be.

  • JoeBlow123||

    If you refuse to look out for your fellow citizens (who also have the power to vote your stuff into their pockets) do not be surprised if they loot you or maybe even kill you. Society falls apart if we leave people behind unless you intend to treat them mercilessly like helots. But as their are citizens I believe this makes this rather hard to do, so convince and actually prove to your fellow citizens that freedom and opportunity are good or they will reject these concepts in favor of socialism and totalitarianism.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    so convince and actually prove to your fellow citizens that freedom and opportunity are good or they will reject these concepts in favor of socialism and totalitarianism.

    Okay then. I'm advocating for freedom and opportunity right now. And yet you seem to be resistant to these ideas. Is it your suggestion that I should advocate only for freedom and opportunity for citizens?

  • JoeBlow123||

    Your entire line of reasoning is that immigrants have an inherent right, a liberty, to come and go wherever they want at their leisure. There is no utilitarian demonstration how this is beneficial to citizens, just that it is the natural right of immigrants to come and go as they please.

    But the reality is these immigrants then exist in great numbers in our society with politicians and activists then agitating (quite successfully) for citizenship for them. All the while these non-citizens birth loads of citizens who then reliably vote for the party agitating for their parents blanket citizenship. Simply, millions of illegal immigrants create many many millions of citizen children. This is our reality. I think it is pretty easy to watch the voting patterns and demographics of California shift over the past 30 years and see where this trend would go in the wider United States if unchecked immigration was to hit the entire United States.

    I personally see nothing utilitarian for myself in inviting in loads of uninvited guests to then vote for things I do not like.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay then. If you are going to adopt a utilitarian ethos then I'm going to expect you to be consistent. Perhaps 'hate speech' should be banned after all. What is the utilitarian value in shouting hateful words? Perhaps gun ownership should be restricted only to licensed users. What is the utilitarian benefit in permitting untrained, or barely trained, gun owners loose on the streets? Perhaps bakeries should after all be forced to bake wedding cakes for all customers regardless. Sure it's a violation of the baker's liberties, but wouldn't the benefits of a more inclusive society far outweigh the small costs?

  • JoeBlow123||

    1) I honestly suggest to present some form of a utilitarian argument if you ever hope to convince non-believers. I personally am not convinced by moralizing, it is off putting.
    2) Perhaps it is possible to find hate speech laws not useful or utilitarian? I do not know why it is such a stretch to believe people like myself to have a myriad of views from across the political spectrum. I am not trying to create an internally consistent philosophy, I am just watching the world and seeing the way it looks and thinking what looks rational to me based on the information I possess.

  • Paloma||

    So you think if someone doesn't "look out for" i.e.favor their fellow citizens over non citizens, they should be robbed or killed. And some people think that Black Lives Matter is radical!

  • JoeBlow123||

    "So you think if someone doesn't "look out for" i.e.favor their fellow citizens over non citizens, they should be robbed or killed. And some people think that Black Lives Matter is radical!"

    I have no idea where you got that. I am just stating the obvious that, historically, poor people with no political rights rebel and take at gunpoint. Poor people with political rights vote themselves more loot. So either the economy provides opportunity for all equally, or poor people will vote themselves more stuff if they become so numerically large that other societal cross sections cannot vote them down.

    That is what America is supposed to be about, right? Equality of opportunity?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It certainly limits the liberty of association of basically everyone.

  • buybuydandavis||

    As Thomas Sowell would say, "Compared to what?"

    Feel free to associate with whomever you want in the Anarchotopia that is more free than the US.

    What's that? That only exists in your head?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: buybuydandavis,

    ─ Immigration policy should not be set to cater to the profits of corporations ─

    Why not?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Liberty is government of, by, and for the corporations."

    This Libertarian Moment brought to you by Open Borders, Inc.

  • Paloma||

    One of the Blessings of Liberty is the freedom to form corporations and make profits.

    Your statement is a non sequitur.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Corporate limited liability is a violation of Free Markets.

    Funny how Reason never rails against that. It's almost as if "Free Markets" is just a convenient slogan they use to rationalize policies that benefit corporations.

  • Paloma||

    So now you're opposed to corporations too. Does that make you a communist or merely an extreme socialist.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's fine to have corporations. I just recognize when the government enables them to violate free market principles more often than Reason does.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "So let me see if I can understand the border restrictionist view on employment:"

    Based on past experience, you are soft headed and incapable of understanding anything.

  • Mark22||

    Jobs created by American companies should be filled first and foremost by American workers. If an employer wishes to hire a non-American for a particular job, that employer must first get permission from the state. Do I have that about right?

    Yes. That's US law actually. It's not libertarian, but we don't live in a libertarian nation.

    Once we live in a libertarian nation, those restrictions can be eliminated.

    Freedom of association between American employers and non-American employees not only should not be respected, but should be actively discouraged and, when necessary, punished by the state.

    American employers and non-American employees can (and do) associate freely, just not on US soil.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open borders is still not Libertarian as it ignores the national property rights of the citizens of that nation.

    Open borders is anarchy- No national boundaries.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There is no such thing as "national property rights of the citizens of a nation".

  • Mark22||

    In a libertarian society, there would be no "national property rights", since all property would be private property There would be property rights that are effectively like "national property rights". For example, roads and parks would function like common areas in an HOA and could exclude people based on nationality.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because the US government should not respect the liberty of its citizens to associate with whom they choose?

  • DenverJ||

    Do you know why the Israeli government rejects the right of return for Palestinians? Because letting in millions of Palestinians would end Israel as a Jewish state.
    Do you know why many many many Americans don't want their country flooded with ignorant, third world people with medieval beliefs and social constructs? Because it would transform America into another third world country full of ignorant people with medieval beliefs and social constructs.
    I'd you want to live in a third world shit hole, move to one; don't turn America into one.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, then: if this is your argument, then complete the following sentence.

    American citizens should have the liberty to freely associate with whom they choose if and only if:

  • DenverJ||

    They aren't bakers? I jest. There's no if. The first amendment recognizes the right to associate with who you want, and like most of our rights, it simply codifies natural rights.
    I'd you wish to associate with any one, go for it. That doesn't mean the person you wish to associate with has a right to immigrate.
    I have a right to free speech. That doesn't mean that anyone I wish to speak to should be allowed to immigrate here so that I can talk to them.

  • Skyhawk||

    ...their asociation(s) do NOT:
    Require the confiscation of even more of their neighbor's labor and/or wealth under threat of violence, kidnapping, and/or death to pay for the housing, food, medical care, education, daycare, police and fire services, when those associations haven't paid into the system continually through generations like their neighbors did.
    ... their associations don't come here and commit identity fraud and/or Social Security fraud at a rate of between 50-75% which, according to the New York Times and SSA, Mexican illegal aliens currently do.
    ...Aren't illiterate, uneducation, disease-ridden layabouts just here for the freebies.

    Let's start there.

  • Mark22||

    It should do so. It shouldn't do so selectively for privileged groups, which is what you are proposing.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Stirring the racial pot, he found, could pull out just enough votes from the bottom of the barrel to win an election and become president."

    Reason adopts Leftist identity politics race baiting.

    Not surprising coming from the self proclaimed "progressive libertarian".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's Trump who adopted the identity politics with his scapegoating of Mexicans. Shikha is just observing it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Foreigners are not a race. Neither are Americans.

    Self government is government of, by, and *for* the people. Not all the people in the world. The people of the polity who incorporate the government.

    If you want to denounce self government as "identity politics", grow a pair and be open about it.

    "Muh anarchy"

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: buybuydandavis,

    ─ Foreigners are not a race. ─

    Trump wasn't talking about 'foreigners'. He specifically derided Mexicans.

    ─ Self government is government of, by, and *for* the people ─

    Right. But the State defecates on that idea, every time it tramples on individual rights including the individual rights of immigrants and those who want to employ them, rent to them, sell to them and even marry them.

  • buybuydandavis||

    He derided Mexican illegal aliens.

    Are illegal aliens a race now?

    Notice how you ignored the " Not all the people in the world. The people of the polity who incorporate the government."

    "Muh anarchy"

  • Paloma||

    Oh bullshit. Trump derided Mexicans, specifically. "They are not sending us their best people". Note the mentality. Individuals don't move, they get sent. "Some, I assume, are good people". What was THAT about?

  • buybuydandavis||

    TDS drops IQs 30 points.

    In your own quote, he's distinguishing those being sent from those remaining behind.

  • Paloma||

    In a statist's mind, individuals don't move, somebody or some collective is SENDING them. Trump's language is a dead giveaway of the statist collectivist mindset.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Once it's clear you lost the point, it's time for an evasion.

    Trump was talking about Mexican illegal aliens.
    Suggesting otherwise is race baiting.

    QED

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, its not dumbass.

  • Mark22||

    "Trump's language is a dead giveaway of the statist collectivist mindset."

    Mexico is indeed a statist collectivist s...hole

  • sharmota4zeb||

    So, he specifically referred to the Mexicans who get sent from Mexico because Mexico rejects them. That's a bit like saying American high school dropouts are a race and then calling someone racist for looking down on them.

  • Paloma||

    No, it's like saying high school dropouts have been sent out into the job market by their school because the school rejected them. It's not just a limping analogy, it's paralyzed.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Whether they were sent or not, they're still not a race.

    QED

  • Mark22||

    So Trump acknowledges that there are smart Mexicans, they just don't come to the US. Hence not a racial thing.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Foreigners are not a race. Neither are Americans.

    Neither are gays and lesbians, but there most certainly is 'identity politics' surrounding them too.

    Self government is government of, by, and *for* the people. Not all the people in the world. The people of the polity who incorporate the government.

    Why, you're right! I am completely in favor of only granting the right to vote only to citizens, and I'm sure you are too. This has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the free migration of labor across borders.

    The nationalist identity politics on the right is about elevating Americans as superior human beings compared to all of the dirty foreigners. You argue as much yourself when you declare people from 'shithole' countries to be in the condition that they are at due to their inherent flaws, ignoring every other factor. Are Americans superior human beings? If so, why?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Your ideal country contains a deportable indentured servant class without political franchise. Mine does not, at least not in any large numbers.

    "The nationalist identity politics on the right is about elevating Americans as superior human beings compared to all of the dirty foreigners. "

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    Americans have created a country more free, secure, and prosperous than most around the world. The Swiss and the Japanese are doing a pretty good job for themselves too. Maybe better.

    We're doing things right that other people are not.

    Countries are what they are because of the people who live in them. Import people from a shithole country, and you're importing a little bit of that shithole into your country. Import enough, and you can become a shithole too.

    Hypothetical: All Americans are raptured, and Mexicans move in and take over.
    Questions: Is that America? Is it likely to be as free, secure, and prosperous as America or Mexico?

    America is a people, not a place. People can join. America will remain free, secure, and prosperous only if those people share the American values that create and sustain that freedom, security, and prosperity. We can make Americans out of foreigners without those values, but not overnight and not at an unlimited rate.

    The data is clear. The foreign born relatively lean left and support bigger government, hard. Unchecked immigration is a recipe to destroy liberty in the US. That's why the Dems cooked it up.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Your ideal country contains a deportable indentured servant class without political franchise. Mine does not, at least not in any large numbers.

    It's a bit touching how you are able to feign concern for migrant workers. But nobody at this point really believes you give two shits about foreigners. You just want the 'indentured servant class' to be citizens, that's all.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    Okay then. What about American citizenship creates superior human beings? How about the so-called 'anchor baby' born to undocumented immigrants. What makes this child 'superior' while his/her parents are 'inferior'?

    Your analysis is extremely arrogant and hubristic. America is a great place because we have good people, yes. America is also a great place because we have also been very fortunate in our history. We were not bombed to oblivion in WW2. There have only been three or four major wars on our entire continent for the past 500 years, unlike Europe or Asia or even Africa. And when compared to some of the Western Hemisphere former colonies, the US had a comparatively mild revolution. I submit that if the American Revolution had looked like what the Haitian Revolution was like - far more brutal and punitive - the US today would resemble a lot more like what Haiti looks like now.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's a bit touching how you are able to feign concern for migrant workers. "

    I didn't. I'm not all about the feelz.

    "What about American citizenship creates superior human beings? "

    It doesn't. It's having grown up or assimilated to a culture of Liberty that makes Americans superior at creating and sustaining a free, prosperous, and secure society.

    There is no magic dirt.

    Haiti is Haiti because of Haitians.
    America is America because of Americans.

    Countries are people with places, not places with people.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The foreign born relatively lean left and support bigger government, hard. Unchecked immigration is a recipe to destroy liberty in the US.

    Why do you think they support bigger government? Because they're born that way? Because they are mindless robots accepting whatever their former culture taught them? How about - because that is what a large number of NATIVE-BORN citizens also support, and these immigrants HAVE assimilated to adopt the views of left-leaning native-born citizens? If your concern is the unchecked growth of the state, immigration is the least of the problems. The real problem are the native-born citizens who created it and support it. It wasn't immigrants who creates Social Security or ObamaCare. It was native-born citizens on the left who did. Trying to reduce the size of the state by keeping immigrants out is like trying to cut down on your electricity bill by turning off one lightbulb. The real problem with high electricity bill is the giant A/C unit, not the few light bulbs in the house.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Because they are mindless robots accepting whatever their former culture taught them?"

    Babies don't create their own cultures when they're born. They learn the one they live in.

    And yes, we've got plenty of problems with our own increasingly statist neighbors. That's why it would be particularly disastrous to imports tens of millions more statist voters from abroad.

    You can rage at the reality of how culture is passed down if it offends some silly notions of free will that you have.

    But that simply doesn't change the *data* of how immigrants *in fact* prefer big government more than Americans.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: buybuydavis,

    ─ Reason adopts Leftist identity politics race baiting. ─

    Liar.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Racist and race baiter

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Liar, again.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No he's not. Now why don't you go and berate Mexicans for all their shitty statist, close border policies that are far more draconian than what America has in place?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's only racist when Whitey does it"

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Pretty much. America is so overly generous and lax compared to any other country on earth and Old Mexifry here displays a massive sense of entitlement that they deserve even more.

    No foreigner is owed anything by the US. Quite the opposite in fact.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Federal government *owes* it to Americans to secure *their* liberty.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So the President makes the laws huh?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Laws are evil. Muh anarchy."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The President is executing immigration law and Constitutional authority.

  • HGW xx/7||

    My concerns of immigration don't stem from taking jobs away. If someone wants to bust their ass more than some one else, so be it. What I don't want to happen is for a respect of the laws and values of this land - an adherence to the constitution and the appreciation of our (sadly at times quasi) capitalist system - to be cast aside to the annals of history.

    What I want is a people, whatever they look like, to support and fight for all the amendments and grow our economy. Survey after survey shows that by and large immigrants want more government to do more things, which is the worst recipe for preserving our rights. Many come from nations that have no concept of a second amendment or an unfettered freedom of speech.

    If our schools, especially universities, understood the importance of classical liberalism, there would likely be much less concern. It's become a battle, though, with the left loving (ie using) immigrants for easy votes to affect the change they want to see; how many times do progs wax on about how we should be more like Europe or South Africa? The right, in turn, has gone full anti-immigrant without fully grasping the negative consequences that will create.

    I don't know how to save the freedoms of this country. We're great salesmen for lots of useless shit; we should get better at selling the things that matter, what makes freedom worth fighting for.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: HGW xx/7,

    ─ What I don't want to happen is for a respect of the laws and values of this land [...] to be cast aside to the annals of history.─

    That's what capricious government does. The more laws it imposes and the more arbitrary the actions justified with those same laws under the guise of 'obeying the laws in the books', the ****LESS**** the respect for the 'Rule of Law' that Trumpistas so often talk about.

    ─ Survey after survey shows that by and large immigrants want more government to do more things ─

    The size and scope of government hasn't been growing because of immigrants.

    Take a look at the federal budget, and you will see that the biggest chunks of mandatory spending - Medicare and Social Security - are meant to keep THE ELDERLY happy. Not immigrants.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bastiat said that when the law and morality are in conflict, one must choose between the two.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Aristotle said "for this is law, for order is law; and it is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens."

    Quotes from dead guys are fantastic.

  • TLBD||

    He also cautions us to look for the unseen.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What I want is a people, whatever they look like, to support and fight for all the amendments and grow our economy.

    I want this too. But I am not willing to use coercion and deprive people of individual liberty in order to achieve this result.

  • HGW xx/7||

    I can respect that, but if what happens if we keep bestowing the rights and liberties to a populace who generally see individuality as an overall burden? Won't we at some point no longer have any liberty to grant, so to speak?

    Mind you this goes for both citizens and non-citizens. I just want to hear thoughts on this.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I can respect that, but if what happens if we keep bestowing the rights and liberties to a populace who generally see individuality as an overall burden? Won't we at some point no longer have any liberty to grant, so to speak?

    Then we have done a poor job at selling the merits of liberty. We have to continually be making the case for individual liberty. If we can't do that then it doesn't matter what the immigration rules are, we will become a socialist state one way or another.

  • Jerryskids||

    That's what I've never understood about the anti-immigrant crowd - they're always going on about how immigrants don't share our values and if we let them in they're going to change our culture. Leaving aside the fact that American culture is nothing if not adopting and adapting bits and pieces of other cultures, why would you assume that American culture is so weak and fragile that a few million foreign invaders can just sweep in and take over? You don't have much faith in America if you think our system is so weak, do you?

    And then there's the idea that the people smart enough and self-motivated enough to take a look at the shitholes they're in and say "Fuck this shit, I'm getting my ass to America" are demonstrating exactly the American spirit we're looking for. Are there a bunch of wild animals in amongst these illegal immigrants? You bet your ass there are, because Americans in general are wild animals. We're cowboys, we have little respect for authority, we don't like being told what we can and can't do, we break rules just on general principle, we got big swinging dicks and if you fuck with us we'll kill you. We're loud-mouthed obnoxious assholes and we're PROUD of it, goddammit.

  • Cloudbuster||

    why would you assume that American culture is so weak and fragile that a few million foreign invaders can just sweep in and take over

    America going from ~85% non-Hispanic White in 1960 to less than 50% nob-Hispanic White in 2040, is not "a few million foreign invaders"," it is a demographic tidal wave of unprecedented proportions.

  • Paloma||

    So you aren't so much worried about American culture, but American white people. But that's totally not racist.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Would Japan still be Japan if the original Japanese people made up less than half its population? I postulate no.

  • Mark22||

    "Hispanic" is not a race, it's a culture. And you bet I'm against living in a Hispanic culture: it sucks.

  • TLBD||

    Sounds good in theory but why do they consistently vote statist?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because, like most Americans, they have been presented with only two choices in the political realm. But from their point of view, aside from differences on other issues like taxes and government, one political tribe is actively hostile to their very presence here, while the other tribe is condescending and flattering to their presence. Which one would you choose - the one who wants to lower your taxes, but wants to deport your relatives - or the one who wants to raise your taxes, but would let your family stay?

  • TLBD||

    Perhaps that would make sense in 2018, but you're being dishonest if you're trying to say it makes sense through recent history.

    Rampant statism has little to nothing to do with deportation and everything to do with values, culture and extremely short sighted self-interest.

  • TLBD||

    Perhaps that would make sense in 2018, but you're being dishonest if you're trying to say it makes sense through recent history.

    Rampant statism has little to nothing to do with deportation and everything to do with values, culture and extremely short sighted self-interest.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Rampant statism has little to nothing to do with deportation and everything to do with values, culture and extremely short sighted self-interest.

    It's the values that assimilated immigrants have adopted from the natives belonging to the political tribe that doesn't despise them, yes.

    Again, you all complain that immigrants "import their culture". It is the opposite: immigrants adopt the culture of their new home, which is far more statist already than you all are willing to accept.

    Look at how many Republicans threw a hissy fit because Hillary called them "deplorables". What do you think the predictable response of immigrants is when a person like Trumps insinuates that they are rapists and murderers? Or that the rhetoric emanating from Team Red always regards immigrants as, *at best*, headaches and problems that must be dealt with, and *at worst*, seditious traitors leading to the downfall of America?

  • shortviking||

    I don't have much faith, personally. We live in a country in which the two major parties are different sides of the same statist overspending coin.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You don't have much faith in America if you think our system is so weak, do you?

    Our country has withstood exposure to lasagna, bagels, tacos, Jameson, sushi, collard greens, pierogies, lutefisk, kiwifruit, pad thai, gumbo, falafel, jerk chicken, cabbage rolls, and poutine.

    We still manage to sell and consume plenty of baloney, American cheese, and Wonder bread.

    We'll be fine.

  • Mark22||

    We're not anti immigrant, we're against people breaking US laws.

  • XM||

    "We have to continually be making the case for individual liberty."

    We can always try, but the media belong to the left and have already shouted us down. And most of the immigrants are not libertarian in the slightest.

    Your heart is in the right place, but the "free movement" society cannot meaningfully exist. If employers here (home to the biggest economy in the world, ran by companies with presence abroad) could just bypass the government entirely to hire their own personnel from outside the country, the unintended consequences would be unimaginable.

    If CA became its own country and played out their open borders fantasy, they'll be bankrupt within 20-40 years. It's completely futile to ponder "But what if they adapted libertarian policy" because it won't happen.

    I hear leftists here lament the fact that we don't have free healthcare, maternity leave, free college etc. But the many practical benefits this country offers to outsiders is GINORMOUS. We have 10 times the population of Canada for a reason. But there's a breaking point to anything in life. At a certain point, increase in immigration will have to exist harmoniously with a measure of sound policy.

    Otherwise, the kind of nonsense that happened in Seattle will become harder and harder to check. There are way more student immigrant activists than immigrants who actually run their own businesses.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If CA became its own country and played out their open borders fantasy, they'll be bankrupt within 20-40 years.

    Probably, if they never changed anything and insisted on granting ample benefits to everyone regardless of citizenship status. But no one here advocates for such a thing.

  • Nardz||

    To you, Jeff, "individual liberty" = worldwide collectivism

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That's cute.

  • Paloma||

    Sure Because Us vs. Them is totally non collectivist.

  • Number 2||

    "Stirring the racial pot..."

    So speaketh the woman who wrote that all whites are neo-Nazis and only brown people care about liberty.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Not all whites are bigots (or appeasers of bigotry). Mostly it's just the faux libertarians, Republicans, conservatives, and backwater goobers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Kill yourself, you treasonous piece of shit.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And miss the opportunity to continue to lord over jackasses like you?

    Things have been going my way in America throughout my life. I enjoy watching American progress vindicate my preferences while relegating retrograde right-wing jerks to just and deserved political irrelevance. I enjoy the wonderful life I have been able to build on work, skill, effort, education, and decency in America, and in particular on the powerful economic and social advantages I possess over the disaffected, deplorable residents of can't-keep-up America.

    Guys like me don't need to gobble street pills to get through another desolate day, or kill ourselves for relief from a world that doesn't go our way.

  • TLBD||

    I don't think the Volokh Conspiracy was worth this epic asshole coming over here.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Soon you will overstep and the lessons will begin.

  • Ecoli||

    Rev, you are a real sweet heart and represent your side very well.

    Carry on.

  • Paloma||

    #2 Care to cite the actual article?

  • Number 2||

    Sure:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com
    /archives/2016/11/17/
    why-minorities-will-save-american-consti/amp

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Foreigners are better than Americans because foreigners hate Trump more than Americans"

  • The Last American Hero||

    Trump offered to expand DACA in exchange for money for his silly wall. But that wasn't good enough.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Let the yahoos and bigots have their fun while Trump is in office with a sycophantic, immoral Republican Congress.

    Our great liberal-libertarian alliance will right America's course soon enough, forging our progress in line with a half-century and more of recent American history. America desegregated its schools, stopped most of the gay-bashing, legalized abortion and contraception, threw prayer and creationism out of our good schools, and the like against the efforts and wishes of conservatives, and most of the goobers never saw it coming.

    We have experienced successive waves of intolerance and ignorance before -- Italians, gays, Jews, eastern Europeans, blacks, the Irish, Asians, Catholics, women, and others were hated, feared, demeaned, discriminated against. The backward and intolerant are never a good bet in America over all but the shorter terms, however, and our current batch of bigots seems nothing special, its reliance on the charms, insights, and effectiveness of Donald J. Trump notwithstanding.

    Do your damnedest, losers. Before long, your betters will resume making America great while you return to society's sidelines, from which you can mutter disaffectedly and inconsequentially about all of this damned tolerance, progress, science, reason, and immigration.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Excellent post. It's always encouraging to see more left-libertarians in this comment section.

    Who do you think left-libertarians should support for President in 2020? I mean, it's a given we'll end up voting for the Democratic nominee, but at this point I have no idea who that will be. Assuming Hillary doesn't run again, my current favorites are Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, and Corey Booker. And if it absolutely has to be a white male, I wouldn't mind Andrew Cuomo.

  • buybuydandavis||

    You should sue. Clear violation of "look and feel" patent.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You would vote for a white male? Check your privilege!!!! Only a racist would vote for a white male. You aren't nearly woke enough!

    You sound like you're more like a closet Drumpf supporter.

  • Eidde||

    "When recruiting members, the Klan sometimes distributed cards listing "(t)he separation of church and state" as one of the organization's principles. Bearing this out, Klan pamphlets declared that "(t)he fathers" and "the founders of our republic" had "wisely provided for the absolute divorce of church and state." Both in the South and the North, members even recited in their Klansman's Creed": "I believe in eternal separation of Church and State.""

    -Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State, p. 408

    "The Klan...played a significant role in passing an initiative measure requiring all children eight to sixteen years of age to attend public schools. While targeting Roman Catholics, the compulsory school bill would have eliminated other private and denominational schools. As the only state to pass such a law, Oregon gained notoriety and faced numerous legal challenges. The law was never implemented, and the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1925.

    "...successful bills with connections to the Klan banned teachers from wearing religious garb in the public schools and blocked public schools from using civics and history textbooks with negative remarks about the Founding Fathers and American heroes. The Klan's political agenda also included support for bills to improve state roads and public education."

    Oregon Encyclopedia

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

  • NashTiger||

    I didn't vote for him (the first time), but Trump surely is MAGA.

    No more Rule by Bureaucrats
    No more weaponizing of Federal Departments, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Agencies against American political opponents
    No more Progressive Judiciary
    Lower Taxes
    More Growth

    As for tolerance, he is the only POTUS to be sworn in as an advocate for gay rights, ever. The only one to ever initially run for POTUS as an advocate for gay rights, ever.
    I'm for Science, I'm pretty sure he's pro-Fracking, pro-Nuclear Power, pro-Vaccines, pro-ultrasound, and pro basic biology (X,Y chromosome)
    As for Reason, I'm sure he is fed up with Lefties in Libertarian clothing like the rest of us are

  • buybuydandavis||

    Think they'll sell me the rights to the Reason.com trademark once they switch to Feelz.com?

  • TLBD||

    I didn't vote for him either but I certainly plan to next election.

    Articles like this just steel my resolve that the lunatic left needs to be politically erradicated. Reason has no interest in crushing the left and taking it's place. Instead they just want to virtue signal for their Cosmo friends while simultaneously licking the boots of the Kochs.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I voted for GayJay but unless the LP puts forth a truly Libertarian candidate, I will vote for Trump in 2020.

    Trump has done more Libertarian-ish things in office than Gary Johnson would have ever done.

  • NashTiger||

    I literally gagged a little as I voted for Johnson/Weld

    I'm starting to feel really bad about not voting for Trump in '16, especially now knowing how he loves to take the fight to Progs

  • Echospinner||

    I have never regretted voting for libertarians.

    Perhaps our gag reflexes are set at different levels.

  • hello.||

    A lot of faggots lose their gag reflex after a while. That's probably what's happening.

  • Thor||

    The "official" Libertarian Party stance on immigration can't be implemented until every other platform piece is in place otherwise it's suicide. That is why it seems so patently stupid on its surface.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Sure it can. It will just destroy the country.

    That's by the Libertarian Party can't have nice things. Like power.

  • TLBD||

    Libertarian part is a joke and Reason is doing it's best to make the ideology the same.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open borders is not Libertarian. It ignores national property rights by citizens of that country.

    The LP has a bunch of anarchists hiding among us Libertarians.

  • Star1988||

    How hard is it, really, to satisfy both camps here? Make immigration much more free and easy, and simultaneously restrict immigrants from any public assistance/programs. In effect, create a Citizen-verify system instead of an E-verify system. And anyone who wants to collect on any program needs to do the paperwork to get proof they are eligible.

    What am I missing that appears to have made this a non-starter?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Voting patterns are more important than welfare, because they *determine* what welfare policy will be.

    Import big government voters, get big government. Duh.

    Open borders with big government immigrants means big government, whatever legislative deals one pretends to swing today.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one is arguing to give migrants the automatic right to vote.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one here is, I should add. Of course there are some on the left who are. But that is not the argument in these forums.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Illegals can vote in California.

    Illegals can vote in California

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    LC, you're wasting your keystrokes. Jeff is a willing useful idiot for the progressives.

  • DenverJ||

    That's not fair, at least in this case. I disagree with Jeff, but his arguments on this subject seem principled.

  • Tony||

    They most definitely have a more democratic sensibility than you guys, who are fooled into voting against boogeymonsters, every two years on the dot.

  • hello.||

    who are fooled into voting against boogeymonsters, every two years on the dot.

    Kind of like how Trumputin is literally Hitler and the world literally ended the day he won the election?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well bully for them. But I think that's a bad idea.

  • Paloma||

    For school board? Can they vote for PTA president too?

  • TLBD||

    Because the left will at first opportunity make them full citizens and eligible for all benefits?

  • Tony||

    How about we give benefits to an illegal and take away yours so it evens out? You weren't planning on using them anyway.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Many open border people dont really care about non-Americans.

    Its about destroying American rule of law and our ability to control our own country.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Granted, a handful of people are making extremely racist comments about immigrants and their descendants. Last Sunday, an elderly Unitarian at a gay and bisexual meetup subjected me to a racist rant about the descendants of Hispanic immigrants who attend the Spanish language mass. He told me they read out loud from the prayer book without knowing the meaning of anything of the prayers because they grew up in America as monolingual English speakers.

    Oh, wait. I misremembered that. He was complaining about the Jews who still pray in Hebrew, which makes his rant standard Progressive wisdom. Remind me again why Reform Jews pray mostly in English.

  • sarcasmic||

    Stupid libertarians don't understand. There are a fixed number of jobs just like there is a fixed amount of wealth. The pie does not grow. Any job taken by an illegal is a job stolen from an American, just like profits are wealth stolen from poor people.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I'm actually in favor of issuing more visas, preferably through a reciprocity program and/or a random lottery open to people from all countries. However, I've noticed the jobs argument made in favor of immigration consists of:

    1) Immigrants do not take jobs, because they spend the money they earn thereby causing a need for more employment.

    2) Immigration will solve our labor shortage.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The law of supply and demand doesn't apply to importation of foreign labor because Libertopia"

  • TLBD||

    As I point out below consistent downward pressure on wages by importing more and more labor is destructive if wages are lower than welfare benefits.

    Even the open borders globalist must understand this. At a certain point mass immigration is not only detrimental for us, but for the global economy as well.

  • TLBD||

    I don't personally care about the jobs. I'll compete with anyone. I care about the liberty crushing ideologies being imported.

    Though keeping labor cheap enough that welfare is a better option than work is incredibly bad policy. Unseen...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I care about the liberty crushing ideologies being imported.

    The 'liberty-crushing ideologies' are ALREADY HERE and have been for quite some time. Socialism, communism, authoritarianism, fascism, etc. Immigrants don't bring them here. They're here already.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These ideologies are a minority in the USA.

    Which is why lefties want to bring more people into the USA that lived under these authoritarian politics. Many of these sheep actually vote for more of the same tyrannical type of American politicians.

    Always ask why. Why do lefties want more non-Americans to flood into the USA? One reason is that they are trying to alter American demographics to gain power.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It certainly isn't because lefties value human beings. Every single aspect of their political ideology is the devaluation and debasement of the individual and humanity in general. Including their positions on abortion, immigration, etc.. Everything is only a tool to advance their power and crush individual liberty. which are the only things that ultimately matter to their kind.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    These ideologies are a minority in the USA.

    Are you kidding? Collectivist authoritarianism is the dominant ideology among both major parties.

  • DenverJ||

    That's twice I'm agreeing with you in this thread. Stopped clocks-twice a day. Your quota's been met ;)

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    Yet you support the "right" of liberty for those here illegally, despite the fact that they overwhelmingly support socialist policies and ignored our rule of law.

    Some of your posts come across as a little ignorant of what real world is like, and why we shouldn't just grant everyone that comes here a free pass.

  • TLBD||

    That is pretty much what you get when you deal with anarchists.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am not an anarchist. I am a minarchist.

  • hello.||

    You're actually a crypto-communist. And one of the dumber ones.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    In related news, the UK transferred Tommy Robinson to a jail with a high Muslim population, making people fear for his life. He has already received death threats and harassment from Muslims, but 20,000 people rallied in support of him in London on Sunday.

  • buybuydandavis||

    So much cultural enrichment!

  • Paloma||

    So keep the fucking British out!

  • lap83||

    "He has already received death threats and harassment from Muslims"

    As usual, the Muslims are just minding their own business when the Western Satan comes to destroy their peaceful way of life. They are just defending their homeland

  • Rich||

    But the real kicker is that Dreamers who do qualify would have to maintain income levels above 125 percent of the poverty line, or they would be subject to deportation. In effect, the bill would criminalize poverty in this sweet land of liberty!

    "Oh, very well. They must maintain school GPAs above 2.0."

  • Echospinner||

    And clean up their rooms. Wouldn't hurt to empty the dishwasher too.

  • Harvard||

    What's an indentured class for?

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • AlmightyJB||

    black helicopters?

    Well that's just taking things too far dammit.

  • Clamshell Blister Pack||

    The question of what rules, if any, should be set for those wanting to come here, is different than the question of what rules! OK OK!!

  • NashTiger||

    Am I the only one who was really excited at the prospect of returning to the Coolidge years?

    Our most Libertarian POTUS, probably our most underrated POTUS (because historians hate him for repudiating the Progressive Era)

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Old Right is New again!

  • Cloudbuster||

    Going back to the immigration laws of 1924 would be the best thing that could happen to this country. Coolidge for President!

  • Michael Cook||

    Actually, 1924 was not a horrible point in time for America. A remarkable number of homes were getting indoor plumbing, electric lights, and a telephone at explosive rates. A black middle class lived in some of those homes, at least in the North, although these Americans were socially quite different than many of their descendants today. Middle class blacks were fanatic church goers and like other churchy citizens overwhelmingly favored Prohibition because alcohol abuse was seen as the major cause of spousal abuse, child abandonment, absenteeism, inability to hold a job, and many other ills that blemished a proud people.

    The main problems of the time were Jim Crow/KKK and that Hollywood was creating myths and new cultural norms at a frantic rate, to include glamorizing gangsters and "sophisticated" swilling of illegal booze and everyone smoking like chimneys. The stock market was doing so well even your local dentists and schoolteachers were starting to borrow money on their homes to speculate in stocks.

  • NashTiger||

    Coolidge was a champion of racial equality, after having inveterate racist Wilson segregate the entire Federal Govt.
    Coolidge was also a champion of "deregulation", such that it was, coming off the supposed "Trust-busting" era.
    There was no Federal marijuana prohibition, no Federal Drug laws.

    Coolidge drastically cut the new Federal Income Tax

    Coolidge held Federal spending FLAT, during a time of incredible growth

    Coolidge eschewed Internationalism, and every other bit of the Progressive/Wilsonian era

  • Thor||

    I love it. Trump should squeeze every last ounce ounce of consessions he can get using the dreamers a bargaining chip.

  • Frank Thorn||

    Agree. Attach Conceal carry reciprocity and welfare reform.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And tagging and tracking of progtards.

  • Frank Thorn||

    I stopped reading at "Shikha Dalmia", however the comments are interesting, as to be expected..

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    Yeah me too. Why do they post her articles here? To piss off libertarians? She's horrible.

    I did think it was funny when someone called her "Sharia Shikha" though.

  • Michael Cook||

    1924--hemlines were gong up. Women's unmentionables were becoming easier to remove. Large concrete arrows were poured in a line across America to guide low-flying airmail pilots. My paternal grandfather died at age 27 after going to a chiropractor for low back pain. He actually had acute appendicitis. A medical doctor was called to his home and performed an emergency appendectomy on the dining room table, but couldn't save him. The table was still in the family when I was a child and the story never failed to be repeated at Thanksgiving dinners.

    My father, perhaps understandably, grew up an alcoholic. The nearby town of Ekalaka, Montana, was completely cut off from civilization by snow for four months every winter. By1934 there was so little cash in town each bank note was recognizable by wear and tear marks and given a nick name. Lord help the single woman who came by an unexplained five or ten dollar bill.

    The year 1944 found dad in the Pacific, taking pictures of very freshly dead Japanese.

    By 1984 I was a drug and alcohol counselor on a nearby Indian reservation. The Crow Indians are sitting on at least $20 billion in coal which was worthless under Obama. I myself have a stash of old family mineral rights leftover from homestead days that Citizen Trump may yet turn into treasure for me. Pray my liver holds out!

  • Echospinner||

    "I myself have a stash of old family mineral rights leftover from homestead days that Citizen Trump may yet turn into treasure for me. Pray my liver holds out!"

    Hope your liver and health holds out as well.

    Do you really think that Citizen Trump cares about your old family mineral rights and the treasure you think is yours? Seriously this guy is all for government seizing property. Look it up.

    Not just him, the rest of them do not care about that.

  • cthulhu||

    Yawn...it was obvious that this was a Shikha screed just from the headline. Let me know when Shikha and her ilk have given up their homes, cars, etc., to the so-much-more-deserving-than-the-rest-of-us illegal aliens; only then would I conclude that Shikha et al. are remotely serious and deserve to have their viewpoints treated with any respect at all.

  • Jayburd||

    Trump predicted to win 2nd term in landslide as opponents run out of adjectives.

  • Tony||

    Well this place sure turned into a shitshow.

    If I wanted to watch a bunch hillbillies masturbate to Donald Trump, I'd find the appropriate website, something you ridiculous morons should consider.

  • Michael Cook||

    I prefer to be called a poor Montana farm boy rather than a hillbilly, although I am no longer a boy or even remotely poor, and am married to my cousin. Here I am starting my 8th decade with 20/15 vision and a rifle that can nail a watermelon at 1000 yards first shot. Best of all, FLOTUS is as gorgeous as my lady with similar values and qualities.

  • Tony||

    Does your lady speak English? Because that would be a difference.

    Bet that would have bugged you in another first lady in another time with perhaps another skin tone.

  • hello.||

    Melania Trump speaks six languages including English. But even if she didn't, aren't you the one advocating for illiterate pig fuckers from Mexico? Can you maybe make up your mind?

  • Cy||

    Mexico people, in Tony's mind, are all brown, because he's a racist like that. So, they have special super powers called 'oppressed.'

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Melania Trump speaks six languages including English.

    She also claimed to have a college degree and to be in the United States legally.

    Gullibility has consequences. hello. is one of them.

  • Tony||

    But have you heard her attempt to speak it?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I would rather listen to her than you. You stupid cunt.

  • Tony||

    You hated what she had to say when it was coming out of Michelle Obama's mouth.

  • Devastator||

    The comments are a disaster, Reason is fine, so is Cato (who is smart enough to not allow comments). Carry on soldier, I'll stay in the trenches with the unwashed masses. Just don't hit that show comments button and you'll be a lot happier.

  • Sean L.||

    Cool. Nice to see Nancy Pelosi on staff at reason these days.

  • jjsaz||

    Demagogue much?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's clear that the border restrictionists here, at least the ones who hew to the libertarian thinking of things, view the Non-Aggression Principle as an incomplete statement of when government may act. Violations of the NAP justify government action against people who initiate force against each other. But border restrictionists want government action against people who have not initiated force against others, but instead have, say, associated with migrants who lack proper papers. Question: So what clearly is your standard for when government may act against individuals, in the general case, not just specifically tied to immigration?

  • Echospinner||

    Do you know of a good legal charitable defense fund? I am thinking mostly of the children being held at the border and their families.

    There is no convincing people through argument on this issue. At some point you are on one side of it or the other. At this point the other side has a great legal defense fund - taxes that you and I forcibly pay.

  • Mark22||

    Violations of the NAP justify government action against people who initiate force against each other. But border restrictionists want government action against people who have not initiated force against others

    The US government, my fellow citizens, and illegal migrants all currently violate the libertarian NAP against me. Supporting the protection of national borders is a perfectly legitimate and rather moderate response.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The US government, my fellow citizens, and illegal migrants all currently violate the libertarian NAP against me.

    So your response to this is.... to violate the NAP even harder?

  • hello.||

    It's clear that the crypto-communist moron is setting up a strawman argument about the theoretical application of the non-aggression principle (which he himself rejects entirely) despite the fact that we do not live in a libertarian society and that the non-aggression principle does not guide or inform any of the laws of our country. Given the reality in which we actually live where collectivization (government coercion) imposes costs upon each of us on behalf of all the others we have to weigh costs and benefits. That which is seen and that which is not seen. That which is seen for the crypto-communist moron is a huge class of illiterate and uneducated potential voters to recruit to his cause of growing government. That which is seen by the corporate class is a huge class of illiterate and uneducated black marker workers who reduce regulatory compliance costs and wages. That which is unseen to both groups is the social cost of an influx of illiterate and uneducated people at the extreme bottom end of the income distribution curve and the financial cost to the taxpaying class of supporting them and their families.

  • Cy||

    "migrants who lack proper papers"

    This is so disingenuous. They lack proper citizenship. They lack proper education. It's a long list.. But here's the thing, they could be the second coming of Christ and we still don't have to let them in. We're in a giant private club called the USA, it has laws set by the people in that club. In those laws are things like 'asylum' and immigration, some very lax laws by international standards, and if someone can't abide by those laws, it's perfectly reasonable for our club to kick them out of the clubhouse.

    Did you get that Chemjeff or do I need to right it in crayon?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Analogizing the US to a private club is problematic because it implies that the state may engage in some very illiberal actions. The state has an obligation to use its authority for the preservation and protection of liberty, the one duty for which we the people cede to it the legal monopoly on the initiation of force. It's obligated to protect the liberty of everyone otherwise it loses its legitimacy, and just becomes another group of thugs with guns, like e.g. the government of Saudi Arabia.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Like all religions, the anarcho-libertarianism you advocate for can use the purity test to push an agenda further beyond reasonableness. For instance:

    "It's obligated to protect the liberty of everyone otherwise it loses its legitimacy, and just becomes another group of thugs with guns, like e.g. the government of Saudi Arabia."

    The United States is not Saudi Arabia. It is not even close.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I spoke imprecisely, I don't intend to equate the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia.

    My view is that, while no government lives up to the libertarian ideal, some are better than others. The degree to which the government achieves this ideal, the more legitimate of a government it should be regarded as. The US is better than most but still there is ample room for improvement. Saudi Arabia of course is near the bottom of the list. Their government really is just thugs with guns.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So I am supposedly a "crypto-communist" (lol) while you go on and on bleating about how "we" the collective have to engage in a utilitarian cost/benefit analysis. Too rich. The only collectivists around here are the border restrictionist crowd. They routinely reduce the USA into nothing more than a collective for which they demand that the majority vote of this collective should control the scope of each person's interactions with anyone outside of the collective. It is not just collectivist, it is totalitarian in its scope.

    You are right, many migrants are not well educated and would likely fall in the lower end of the income distribution. So what? If you only favor the application of liberty when it produces results that you like, then that is not liberty.

    And you are right, that we don't live in a libertarian society. So if your response to this is "since we don't live in libertopia, let's just keep piling on the statism more and more!", then that makes you just another statist asshole like those in the other two major parties. Which is what you are, a statist asshole troll.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're not a crypto communist. You're just an idiot.

  • JoeBlow123||

    People have a different opinion from you. Tough shit. Maybe stop acting like you are living on some mountain with the only legitimate, pure opinion and people would not act so annoyed with your endless moralizing.

  • Echospinner||

    Chemjeff you did a great job defending your libertarian position. Every internet argument degenerates to absurdity as we know. You do not respond to personal insults and keep giving rational arguments for your position.

    I agree with you about the border situation which is itself degrading into something worse than before.

    Did you read Melania Trump finally saying something through her spokesperson today? A subtle rebuke of this zero tolerance crap. If she asks for "heart" she is saying that the new policy is heartless. It is heartless. It is immoral. She is an immigrant, she knows how difficult it is even for an elite.

    I will give away something.

    Few days ago my daughter sent me a picture. My mother and her parents when my mom was a baby. My grandfather was an immigrant in the day. From Russia he got here on a boat and went through Ellis Island. No money, no skills, no way he could legally get here today. He told me stories of his life.

    Today my wife is out of town in NYC. She texted me a picture of the Statue of Liberty. The first thing he would have seen as America. She is first gen immigrant but that is another story.

    Individuals have rights. The government and collective will try and take that away. Do not let them.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Individuals have rights. The government and collective will try and take that away. Do not let them."

    The government is made up of individuals. Some good some bad. Just like society at large. They are not some conservative fantasy George Soros institution with nefarious goals or the Knights Templar or Illuminati. They are regular people. While it is important to ensure government power is dispersed and neutered, it is also important to ensure it is not so weak that it is incapable of any action. In other words, the exact reason the Articles of Confederation were axed and Federalists debated Anti-Federalists.

    Again, the key take away here is that it was normal individuals inside of the government that were making these decisions, not the Freemasons or Jesuits. People. As the people in power in a democracy reflect on the population at large, our leaders generally reflect our societies priorities.

    In any event, this is not the late 1800s, early 1900s any longer. No longer can a man or woman plop down on a piece of land with the promise to improve it with labor and gain title to the land. The West is settled with all the good areas currently farmed and everywhere else parceled up. Furthermore, we do not have some massive industrial state hungering for cheap labor either. That is dead. The country is not the same as it was in 1776 or 1899 or even 1970.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's clear that the border restrictionists here, at least the ones who hew to the libertarian thinking of things, view the Non-Aggression Principle as an incomplete statement of when government may act. "

    Maximal liberty consistent with peace and order.

    No one has developed ways to maintain peace and order without coercive power.

    When you get Anarchotopia working, let us know.

    Until then, the NAP as an out of context absolute is infantile religious dogma of clerico-libertarians.

  • hello.||

    Trump made not just self-deportation but actual deportation of every single one of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country the singular objective of his administration (along with other atrocities like deterring fleeing migrants seeking legal asylum by illegally snatching their children from them)

    Everything in this entire sentence is a blatant lie. Why do you bother? Do you honestly think anyone is stupid enough to believe your lies?

  • Ecoli||

    What if Hillary had won?

  • Harvard||

    Gillespie, Chapman and Shecky would have received more invites to better parties.

  • Michael Cook||

    I'm still in the dumps because while the body of the recent I.G. report was cram full of damaging insights and true facts concerning the Deep State wings of the FBI and DOJ, the executive summary of that document as hand delivered to the White House by Rod Rosenstein himself was pure Deep State propaganda unrelated by legal logic or principle to the report itself.

    Worse yet, I contend everywhere that the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation has far exceeded in nastiness, intellectual dishonesty, and unprincipled brutality anything ever done by J. Edgar Hoover or Sen. Joseph McCarthy in their most unjustifiable investigations and witch hunts. More troubling yet, Rod Rosenstein and his remaining Deep State apparatus apparently still have the power to withhold the documents which would reveal how the Democrat-devised Special Counsel investigation of all was orchestrated and justified.

    It wasn't the peeing prostitutes. It wasn't 24-yr-old Pappadapolous repeating a tale at a cocktail party that he obtained NOT from inside the Trump campaign (where he was scarcely known) but which he had been purposely spoon fed by Deep State FBI agents themselves as a pretext to unleash the enormous mischief of the huge Democrat-plotted special counsel investigation and bitter persecution of Trump and any associates, regardless of how distant or innocent.

  • Devastator||

    You may need to readjust that tin foil hat. You are receiving a bad conspiracy channel on your antenna. Possible an Alex Jones transmission.

  • Michael Cook||

    Low info Democrats are going to get this "conspiracy theory" shoved up their backsides fact by fact, document by document, explanation by explanation tested in courts and convicted by evidence. It will not happen quickly, but the truth will out. We will see who has the excrement sandwich to choke down.

  • Devastator||

    Trump has some decent immigration policies, but his police state mentality is easily extended to regular Americans. He really does think despotism is the way to go.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    At least he's less despotic than that awful Obama.

  • Echospinner||

    He is also wider than Obama. Supposedly taller but they look the same height in photos so I am skeptical about that.

  • fatcyst||

    You're just a lying sack of shit.

  • VinniUSMC||

    I wonder, how many articles on "Reason" start with caricatures of Hillary or Obama?

    The TDS is strong with Shikha Dalmia.

  • buybuydandavis||

    She's auditioning for Salon. They all are.

  • Tony||

    Oh my god do you people ever stop whining.

  • vek||

    1. I don't know all the details of the current bills proposed. They've been getting switched/tweaked, but I imagine ANY of them are an improvement over the current state of things.

    2. We owe NOBODY the "right" to immigrate to our country. If an immigrant doesn't improve the life an current citizens, why should we let them in? Out of COMPELLED ALTRUISM??? What does Ayn Rand have to say about that sort of thing?

    There is a pretty obvious lack of need of low/no skill labor in the USA. If anything we just need to remove the welfare state back stop from the native born low skilled people, and they would be MORE than sufficient to fill any job openings. Yet THIS isn't discussed by Reason. Only the need to pile in even more half illiterates from around the world, who will vote against liberty in all its forms. GREAT idea Reason.

    The NAP is cool... But frankly I give no fucks about it. I am a libertarian because in 99% of instances it produces the best results. If in a few instances it clearly DOES NOT produce the best results, why be in favor of bad policies? For freedom? If one freedom, international movement, destroys all other freedoms, is that a positive still? Is that something to strive for??? I think not. That's the reality of the situation no matter how much dancing around the subject Reason wants to do.

  • vek||

    As for so called Dreamers, fuck those people. Their parents came here illegally, and they're not citizens. If Nazis war criminals snuck into the the USA after WWII and their kids were in tow, should that mean we should have let them stay? No.

    Fact is we don't have to let anyone in period, whether they're decent people or not. The Dreamers are thoroughly unimpressive as a group. They have lower High School and college graduation rates than average, by a LOT. They have higher criminality rates. They're basically mediocre/sub par at best. Why should THE USA let in sub par losers? We're the USA. We could choose to let in nothing but PHDs and we'd probably STILL max out our 1 million a year or so legal immigrants.

    When somebody can explain how some High School drop out or half illiterate from a shit hole country is more useful as a new citizen than a nuclear physicist or brain surgeon THEN I will consider that we should have open borders or give amnesty to the Dreamers... Problem is that is an impossible argument to make, because the hill skill immigrant is always a better bet. So I will never have to follow through and give any shits about low skill useless immigrants. Let them fix their own countries, we don't need them here.

    Again, I'm into libertarianism for the results... When results diverge from dogma, I will take results. Illiterate Guatemalans don't produce much in the way of results unfortunately...

  • fatcyst||

    +1

  • Azathoth!!||

    People keep saying this--"the free movement of labor across the border"

    But "labor" doesn't move. People move. Not 'labor'.

    That entire idea is Marxist garbage--as is the notion that labor has value. It doesn't.

    The PRODUCTS of labor CAN have value--IF someone wants them.

    People are not labor. Labor is a thing that people get paid to do.

  • MJBinAL||

    On balance cut legal immigration by 1.8 million over two decades. (Even though it would increase the number of employment-based visas, it would scrap the diversity visa lottery program, slash family-based immigration, including for the siblings, married adult children, and parents of sponsors, and slash the annual asylum quota in half. Further, any unclaimed Dreamer green card quotas would just be scrapped, not handed to other categories.)

    In other words, the bill is targeting against chain migration. Just what it is supposed to do, and just what most of us want it to do.

  • vek||

    Yeah but why shouldn't we let in an entire extended family of illiterate goat farmers because ONE sibling out of eight actually went to college and learned something useful so they could get in on merit???

    That's basically the logic you have to use to be in favor of endless chain migration. Nothing stops the American citizen who got here on merit from visiting his family back in Brazil or wherever they're from... It's no different than somebody who moves to the West Coast from NYC having to go visit their family in NYC at Christmas. People deal with it, everybody doesn't always get to live in the same town as their folks/siblings etc.

  • MJBinAL||

    Allow very few Dreamers to convert their renewable temporary visas into green cards or citizenship. Only those who maintain incomes above 125 percent of the poverty level would be eligible unless they were in school or taking care of a child. This means that those who opt for professions such as the priesthood, social work, and other jobs that pay very little would be disqualified, as would any Dreamer who had skipped removal orders or court hearings.

    Yes, since we have a welfare system, we plan to make you demonstrate that you will not be using it. In other words we do not intend to import immigrants who will be living on the dole when they get here. A very worthy goal.

  • MJBinAL||

    Make even the measly asylum quota arguably impossible to fill by raising the bar impossibly high. In order to prove that asylum seekers have a "credible fear" of being beaten and killed at home, they would have to meet a "more probable than not" test that their claims are true. The only way they could do it is if they carry all their papers and proof on them as they swim across rivers and climb mountains to get here, which very, very few would be able to do.

    Yes, millions of people coming here and lying have caused us to follow the usual path and require they provide some proof. You are a (not very good apparently) lawyer, you should understand the conceopt of proof.

    This should not be a huge problem since under international law most of them should have applied for asylum in the first country they came to anyway. By this measure the only people filing for asylum in the US should be Mexicans and Canadians. By law, this clause should not make a great difference.

  • MJBinAL||

    Allocate about $24 billion for border enforcement spending including for Trump's useless wall, an unnecessary biometric system that would track everyone who leaves the country, including Americans, fast-track deportation of unaccompanied minors and much else.

    Yep, that "useless" wall that would not matter to you if it was really going to be useless. Yep, we really DO intend to enforce the law this time.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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