MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

United Gates of America: The Trump Administration's Relentless Assault on Legal Immigration

It is systematically jamming every legal channel with red tape.

While the country is fixated on the horrors of (ICE) Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ripping infants from the arms of migrant parents, two people in the Piss TrumpShikha DalmiaTrump administration have been quietly but painstakingly plotting a comprehensive assault on legal immigration: Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House aide Stephen Miller. Both formed a close bond around their shared ultra-restrictionist agenda when Miller served as Sessions' communications director in the Senate. Miller was the brains behind Trump's scheme to take Dreamers hostage to force Congress to enact a 40-plus percent cut in legal immigration. But even before that failed, he and Sessions had started looking for ways to achieve that goal through regulatory means, doing an end run around Congress.

And they seem to be succeeding: A recent Washington Post analysis of State Department data found that the number of people receiving immigrant visas to live in the country is on pace to drop 12 percent in just the first two years of the Trump presidency. Here is how they're doing it.

Erecting Regulatory Barriers to the Asylum Process

Asylum seekers are especially in their crosshairs because Trump himself pledged to deport them without due process. Vox's Dara Lind has obtained the final draft of a Department of Justice memo that calls for treating anyone found between ports of entry as an "illegal immigrant" and denying them asylum. The administration had already started charging migrants picked up between ports on criminal grounds instead of civil ones as had hitherto been the case—never mind that many of these hapless and helpless migrants had no intention of living in the United States illegally. Some of them were lost or misdirected by smugglers (who want to create a diversion for Customs and Border Patrol), or rebuffed by border agents when they tried to present themselves at legit entry points as they are supposed to do. That's why, to date, despite facing criminal charges, they had still been allowed to claim asylum. Apparently even that small mercy will now be rescinded.

The administration knows that a blanket policy akin to an outright ban may run afoul of domestic and international law that requires asylum seekers to at least get a hearing and hence may not withstand legal scrutiny. Therefore, the memo includes a Plan B: It will instruct immigration judges to weigh the circumstances of entry as a major factor in their asylum decisions, making the rejection of their petition a fait accompli. In other words, the administration is gaming asylum laws to deny asylum seekers a fair shot—subverting the law in the name of the "rule of law!"

Showing the Back of the Hand to Refugees

But the administration is not just shutting the door on asylum seekers who land on our shores. It is also turning away refugees petitioning from abroad. Thanks to "extreme vetting," refugee admissions are on track to fall by 75 percent from 2016 levels, according to federal data. The administration has already slashed the annual refugee quota from 110,000 to 45,000; now it won't fill even half of that.

But it's not just asylum seekers and refugees the Sessions-Miller duo is dinging—they are also going after family-based and employment-based immigrants.

Restricting Family-Based Immigration

America implemented a family-based immigration system that gives the immediate family members of Americans and green-card holders priority in order to advance its commitment to family unity. Hence, since 1965 when this system was implemented, about 60 percent of all immigrants every year come through this category. But Trump has been openly hostile to this.

He has barred Americans from sponsoring family members from any of the five Muslim countries listed in his travel ban. In theory, the State Department is supposed to hand waivers from the ban to close family members—spouses and children—on a case-by-case basis. But as Justice Breyer pointed out in his dissent in Trump vs. Hawaii, the travel ban ruling, the administration approved a measly 430 waivers out of 6,555 eligible applicants in the first four months of the ban.

So it is no surprise that WaPo found the number of new arrivals from these countries is on track to decline by a whopping 81 percent. But what is surprising is that virtually all of the top 10 countries that send immigrants America's way, with the possible exception of El Salvador, are set to experience a decline. And around 15 percent fewer immigrant visas were handed to immigrants from African countries. (Interestingly, however, the flow of immigrants from European countries is showing a slight increase.)

How exactly is the administration accomplishing this reduction given that Congress pointedly refused to enact its requested cuts? Basically, by implementing "extreme vetting" for family members as well.

Miller has worked with the State Department to require American consular officers—whom he regards as the "tip of the spear" in pushing his draconian controls—to subject applications to inordinately long scrutiny and slow the approval process to a crawl. The upshot is far fewer visas approved every month.

The administration's excuse for slashing family-based immigration is that this category is not "merit based" so it does not draw the "best and the brightest." That's something of a myth because over 50 percent of immigrants admitted under the family-based and the diversity visa categories—which Republicans are champing at the bit to eliminate—have college degrees, compared to 29 percent of natives.

Shutting Out Skilled Immigrants

But if the administration is so concerned about merit-based immigration, surely it would be opening the doors wide to skilled foreigners, right? Especially when the country has record low unemployment and jobs are going a-begging. A recent Federal Reserve survey found worker shortages in various industries and various skill levels all across the country. The situation is particularly dire in STEM-related industries, where unemployment among Americans is about three percent, and in certain specialized professions—such as computer network architecture—near one percent. In other words, fullest of full employment! So it would stand to reason that the administration should be relaxing things for high-skilled, H-1B visas, especially since every high-skilled immigrant supports about 3.1 American jobs on average.

Think again.

The administration is applying the same basic strategy of smothering this program in red tape as it has done with asylum seekers and family-based immigrants. In particular, the administration is

  • issuing many more "requests for evidence" from employers sponsoring foreign workers. This means that companies have to submit even more paperwork than they currently do to prove to the government that they really need the immigrant's services and couldn't find a qualified American to do the job. Worse, even as it is requiring employers to jump through more hoops, it is denying more H-1B requests. (The policy gamble is that if the government makes the process too fraught and onerous, employers will think twice before even thinking of hiring foreigners.)
  • no longer allowing H-1Bs to renew their visas every three years as a matter of routine, which has been the case to date. They are forcing the visa holder and the sponsoring employer to re-file all the paperwork, as if they were applying for the first time. The horrendousness of this cannot be exaggerated. Most H-1Bs aspire to update their visas to green cards. But employment-based green cards are backlogged for decades, especially for Indians and Chinese. So if these folks can't renew their H-1Bs automatically and their green cards are stuck in limbo, they basically have to live in fear of losing their jobs and being thrown out of the country after buying homes, building families, and putting down roots. This is massively disruptive for those already here, of course. But it also has a chilling effect on aspiring high-skilled immigrants. It may not be a coincidence that H-1B applications have dropped two years in a row (although they still vastly exceed the minuscule annual 85,000 annual quota, which Congress, in its infinite wisdom, set with no regard to the actual economic demand).
  • significantly tightening the definition of a specialty occupation for which it is legit for companies to hire H-1Bs. For example, no longer might a bachelors in Computer Science be enough for Microsoft to hire a foreigner. A masters—or more—might be required.
  • preparing to scale back the Optional Training Program for foreign students that allowed them to stay and work in the country after graduation (12 months for non-STEM students, three years for STEM students), giving them crucial work experience and time to find jobs. Considering how much time and expense foreign students invest to obtain an education in the United States, if this door is shut, they will simply opt for other more hospitable destinations like Canada and Australia. Indeed, the harsh, anti-immigration rhetoric was already turning off foreign students from American universities. Squeezing the OTP program will repel even more.
  • scrapping work authorization for the highly qualified spouses of H-1B holders. This will essentially freeze many of them out of the labor market permanently, making America a very unattractive destination for talented married foreigners.

Spurning Foreign Entrepreneurs

If the visa options for high-skilled foreign workers are limited, they are almost non-existent for foreign entrepreneurs. The Obama administration took a small stab at fixing this situation when it passed the International Entrepreneur Rule—the so-called entrepreneur startup visa. This rule allows foreign entrepreneurs who launch businesses in the U.S. to live in the country for a renewable 30-month term, provided they can secure $250,000 in private venture capital funding or $100,000 in public grants. About 3,000 applications were expected under this rule each year. Other advancing countries such as Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and even communist China, are already offering similar incentives to attract innovative businessman.

But the Trump administration has issued notice to rescind this rule even though it was expected to help create hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs in Midwestern cities between the coasts, not just in Silicon Valley.

We shouldn't be making legal immigration harder than it already is

For many years now, restrictionists have weaponized the unauthorized immigrant issue and rallied Americans around the notion that those who want to come to America need to do so legally.

But as Reason's 2008 pictorial representation shows this wasn't easy even before Trump. Low-skilled foreigners who don't have blood relatives or spouses in America to sponsor them have no legal options to permanently live and work in the country. Just to obtain temporary work permits such as H-2A and H-2B visas, they—and their employers—have always had to endure the bureaucratic equivalent of waterboarding. (For example, these visas require poor migrants to prove that they have a job or property to return to after their assignment in the United States is completed, basically closing off the American labor market to the people who need it the most. Such Catch-22 rules are the core cause of America's unauthorized "problem.")

Click image to enlarge and zoomClick image to enlarge and zoom

But post-Trump, legally immigrating to the U.S. has become infinitely more difficult. Miller and Sessions are subjecting every immigrant in every category—refugees, asylum seekers, family-based, employment-based and entrepreneurs—to the same treatment. What has been listed above by no means exhausts everything the duo has up its sleeve. There is much, much more coming, including a plan to make it difficult for immigrants to upgrade their visa status if they or their American-born family use a whole slew of public services—not welfare, mind you—and even if they pay the same taxes as Americans.

As the Migration Policy Institute puts it, the administration "has initiated several small but well-calibrated actions through regulations, administrative guidelines, and immigration application processing changes" to severely slash overall legal immigration.

Even as Trump is having difficulty ginning up funds for his wall on the southern border, his two minions, with great ingenuity, are erecting a bureaucratic fortress all around the country.

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.

  • ||

    become infinitely more difficult

    My favorite bit of trademark Shikha hyperbole from this post. Keep up that good work!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I expect our latest batch of bigots to be just as effective, over the medium to long term, as were its ideological ancestors, who targeted -- feared, hated, demonized, discriminated against -- the Irish, Jews, blacks, Asians, Catholics, eastern Europeans, gays, Italians, women, native Americans, agnostics, Hispanics, atheists, and others.

    The know-nothing goobers fought bagels, sushi, spaghetti, pierogis, pad thai, burritos, Jameson, egg rolls, and ribs. Today, that sounds like the menu at an Applebee's or 7-Eleven. America will continue to improve despite the wishes and efforts of our xenophobes.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • ||

    ideological ancestors

    And by that you mean the faculty of Columbia?

  • ckgut||

    ha ha......this is too funny. Great comment

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    I agree. And I expect it will improve with an abruptness you'll find breathtaking.

  • Eddy||

    "Catholics, eastern Europeans...Italians"

    You can't even keep your talking points straight, you've called for compelling priests to break the seal of the confessional.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Amen

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's hilarious that "food" is the only thing that hicklibs and open borders advocates consistently point to regarding the benefits of unlimited immigration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have yet to get a number from them on how many immigrants is too many.

    Open-ended immigration policy sounds like a genius idea for a country where probably over a billion want to go and live with the ~330 million current residents.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    What about those fancy Indian doctors?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If that was a tangible benefit, it would be a go-to talking point. Instead, it's always "MUH ETHNIC RESTAURANTS". Time after time after time.

  • lulz farmer||

    You mean the ones that rip babies heads off like in the UK? Yeah I'm sure their accreditation is totally 1:1 with ours. Funny though that the main reason they seem to be "needed" is the huge population transfer of their fellow countrymen into western countries, who have an average IQ a standard deviation or more lower than us and end up becoming doctors (and certainly competent ones) at a lower rate.

    Mustn't talk about this stuff, though. It's highly bigoted.

  • Echospinner||

    No you are just uninformed.

    To be a doctor in the US is not easy. To be foreign trained is just that much more difficult.

    Say you completed med school at AAIMS in India. Then you did a residency in something.

    Now you are just beginning. You must pass the same test that US grads take to get to the basic qualification USMLE

    Then you need at least 3 years residency to get a state license.

    Then you need to complete board certification and exams same as anyone in specialty.

    At the same time if you got here on J-1 visa you still cannot work without a green card. You can work for the government in a VA job until that happens about 3 more years down the road.

  • JoeB||

    ...but it's all totally worth it because you are no longer a total slave to a socialist medical system like in your home country. You got your medical degree for free, unlike US doctors, and now you can make a good living as a doctor here. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the foreign medical grads from either 1) getting involved in Medicare fraud, 2) bottom-feeding the available positions with low-ball contracts, since they have no student loan debt to speak of, and, worst of all, 3) voting for every Democrat under the sun.

  • ckgut||

    Using the word bigot shows your lack of interest in communicating with true intent.

  • Harvard||

    She is one tedious twatess to be sure.

  • BambiB||

    So if Indians are so great, why is India a cesspool?
    If criminal invaders are so great, why isn't Mexico a super-power?

    Shikha: It's the White Male Heterosexuals of European Descent (WMHED) who built America. Not women. Not Mexicans. Not blacks. Not faggots. Virtually all the things you use every day - conceived, invented, designed, built by WMHED. When we celebrate "Black History Month" it's a sham. Black History Hour would be enough. If we applied the same standard to WMHED, we'd have a different accomplishment for every minute of a "WMHED" year. The accomplishments of ALL other civilizations of ALL eras in the history of the world pale by comparison to those of WHMED. The achievements of those you are championing? They do not amount to round-off error!

    We really don't need the dog shit from the shit hole countries washing in and fucking up America. And that's the bottom line on immigration, Shikha. We have been allowing a million a year in - and that's way too many. It's double the historical average. They're just sand in the gears. We need to decide what sort of immigrants will be good for AMERICA. For now, ZERO immigrants is the right number. I'm disappointed in Trump. Only a 12% decline? The H-1B program hasn't been abolished? He needs to get busy!

    In the meantime, we don't need more wetbacks, deshi or dots. They could all leave today and tomorrow would be a better America. So fuck your open borders. And fuck your immigration bullshit.

  • ckgut||

    BambiB......you have stated my thoughts better than I could have. Thank you for sharing. The floodgates coming in have to be shut down, until the process is truly functioning the way it needs to be. Politicians on both sides of the fence have been benefiting from the current immigration system that is broken. Needs an overhaul. If you are unhappy Shikha, go home. Reason magazine.....open borders only will work without government programs that incentivize immigrants to come to the US and benefit from the welfare program. I work in a hospital and I see the abuse all the time. So the idea is too reduce government, as of yet I have not seen any libertarian/anarchocapitalist that I would trust in any leadership position. Do you have one in mind? I also have not seen any successful libertarian/anarchocapitalists that are successful in self governing. When I do, then I will support this effort. Need to see actions behind the words.

  • damikesc||

    Given Dalmia's consistent correlation of legal and illegal immigration, her opinion is immaterial here.

    I mean, if the border is just an imaginary line, why would you bitch and moan that legal immigration is being curtailed? Legally, mind you.

    While the country is fixated on the horrors of (ICE) Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ripping infants from the arms of migrant parents

    Dalmia : To beclown an entire article before the end of the first sentence. Example: Man, that opening clause sure Dalmia'd the entire article she wrote.

  • Cathy L||

    I mean, if the border is just an imaginary line, why would you bitch and moan that legal immigration is being curtailed? Legally, mind you.

    If she bitches and moans about illegal immigration being curtailed, and thinks borders are imaginary lines, why wouldn't she bitch and moan about legal immigration being curtailed?

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    The more salient question is, why hasn't she been deported?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Racist Americans allowed her to be a citizen and now she tries to undermine Americans deciding how America should be run.

  • damikesc||

    Vox's Dara Lind has obtained the final draft of a Department of Justice memo that calls for treating anyone found between ports of entry as an "illegal immigrant" and denying them asylum.

    Which, mind you, they are. The only people able to actually request asylum would be Mexicans and Canadians (and we can always deny it). Otherwise, they had to cross the borders of other signatories to make that request. That would be asylum shopping, which should lead to an automatic "no"

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yes, exactly, If your first encounter with the government is inside the country, you ARE an illegal immigrant. Likely just one who was coached to make an asylum claim if caught.

    If you want to apply for asylum, do it at the port of entry. No exceptions.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Is the point of asylum policy to protect people fleeing from real violence and danger back home, or is the point of asylum policy to make sure people fill out the right forms in the right location?

    Hiding behind bureaucratic procedures to deny asylum claims is contrary to the entire point of asylum. And quite frankly it's a cowardly position to take. It's taking the position of being anti-asylum without directly stating it. "Oh sure I'm pro-asylum, as long as they fill out the right forms in triplicate..."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Is the point of asylum policy to protect people fleeing from real violence and danger back home

    By that logic, blacks in our nation's inner cities should be claiming asylum in Canada and conducting a mass migration into Saskatchewan.

  • damikesc||

    Is the point of asylum policy to protect people fleeing from real violence and danger back home, or is the point of asylum policy to make sure people fill out the right forms in the right location?

    ...and you determine that they are actually fleeing real danger and violence back home...how?

    If you need no documentation for a claim, let me sell you this really famous bridge I personally own in NYC...

  • lulz farmer||

    Their homes are dangerous because that's the mean that people like them create. It's their natural state. It's not out of the ordinary. It's not our duty to take on unlimited amounts of these people until we suffer the same fate because our territory is predominately populated by these people.

  • Randy Marsh||

    Yeah sure, the United States fucking with their countries for decades has nothing to do with the instability back there. It's just their natural state to have the US meddle in their affairs and put dictators and topple democratically elected governments.

  • lulz farmer||

    Yeah I'm sure the cargo cult they call "democracy" in their countries is just wonderful, highly functional and that their countries were veritable paradises before the US fucked with them. Like in South Africa where they think if they put on suits and have meetings then magically things happen like when the white man does it. No country left unfucked-with, in any case. Every country with brown people is simultaneously being fucked with so your daughter needs to spread her legs for Somali and Pakistani rapists in a western nation.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Encouraging a legitimate asylum seeker to sneak in, especially during the scorching hot summer months, is encouraging them to risk their lives. You heartless bastard.

    This is part of why we require them to go to a legit port of entry. If they have a boba ride asylum claim, why would they need to sneak in anyway?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    This may be a newsflash to you, but asylum is something you "request", (As in you're not guaranteed to get it.) not something you "take".

    It's like, if you're found in the bank vault at night, you're not a bank patron making a legal withdrawal. The bank patrons show up during regular business hours and peacefully request money of the teller.

  • Tamfang||

    Is it "asylum shopping" if the transit country says "okay you can come in but only if you're on your way to somewhere else"?

  • Azathoth!!||

    yes.

    there's no such thing as a 'transit country'. You're supposed to stop and get help in the first nation you get to.

  • damikesc||

    So it is no surprise that WaPo found the number of new arrivals from these countries is on track to decline by a whopping 81 percent. But what is surprising is that virtually all of the top 10 countries that send immigrants America's way, with the possible exception of El Salvador, are set to experience a decline. And around 15 percent fewer immigrant visas were handed to immigrants from African countries. (Interestingly, however, the flow of immigrants from European countries is showing a slight increase.)

    I thought it (family based immigration) was so seldom used as to be immaterial.

    YOU have said this. Repeatedly.

  • Cathy L||

    I'm sure you have a citation.

  • damikesc||

    Have you not read Dalmia?

    Is the open borders new claim that family immigration IS common?

    We've been told, for a while now, it is rare and it takes so long to happen as to be meaningless...

  • Azathoth!!||

    From

    "The White House's Proposed Dreamer Fix Is an Abomination" By Shikha Dalmia--

    Indeed, thanks to decades-long backlogs in various family-based categories, there is less chain migration to the United States now than when Trump's grandfather came.

    Hell, there's an entire article--

    "The Pernicious Myth of 'Chain Migration'" By Shikha Dalmia

  • JoeB||

    Nice comeback, Azathoth. Actual citations much appreciated.

  • damikesc||

    It is also turning away refugees petitioning from abroad. Thanks to "extreme vetting," refugee admissions are on track to fall by 75 percent from 2016 levels, according to federal data. The administration has already slashed the annual refugee quota from 110,000 to 45,000; now it won't fill even half of that.

    AND?

    If you qualify, you qualify. If you don't, you don't.

  • ||

    Thanks to "extreme vetting,"

    Or...Thanks to stricter enforcement of the laws related immigration criteria specific by bipartisan legislation.

    Disclaimer...I'm an Open Borders persons...but egads...Shikha's writing is simply excruciating to read.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    She is the worst enemy to,your cause.

  • ckgut||

    Yup, Dalmia, this is the way it works. Vetting is a positive thing, not negative as you see it. When I see all these open borders people leaving their doors unlocked, moving outside of their expensive, gated communities, giving up their security, inviting refugees to come live in their homes, etc......then I see the action behind their words. For now, it is just meaningless babble supporting some agenda.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""started looking for ways to achieve that goal through regulatory means, doing an end run around Congress."'

    He's got a phone and a pen.

    Funny how people have no problem with the end run around Congress when it someone they like, doing something they want and they never consider that the next guy may use the same approach with something they don't like.

  • JoeB||

    You mean by actually enforcing the law, which is using the eraser, not the pen, on prior executive decisions inconsistent with law (catch and release, for example). Try again.

  • Ken Shultz||

    While demonizing individuals in the Trump administration is fascinating to some people, I'm sure, if we want to be persuasive with the swing voters whose support we need in order to implement a more open, legal immigration policy, we probably need to make the case for legal immigration rather than just merely demonize our opponents or make appeals to pity.

    After all, the impressive wage gains made by unskilled workers over the past two years are probably not divorced from immigration enforcement. If the only answers you have to that observation is drawing devil horns on Trump and Sessions and a pity party for how hard it is for immigrants to immigrate, we're gonna lose the argument on immigration.

    The American people won't commit economic suicide to save the polar bears from melting glaciers, and they won't forego their own standard of living because Sessions is evil or because immigrants are so sad-eyed and cute either. The fight against global warming won't get anywhere until people come to believe that green energy will improve their standard of living rather than hurt it, and legal immigration won't get the support it needs until people become convinced that it will improve their standard of living either.

    And compared to global warming, the case for legal immigration is easier to make. Why can't you seem to make that case?

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Why not both? Besides, any anti-immigrant American who thinks his wages went up because an immigrant didn't steal his unskilled job probably isn't reading this website, or much of anything else.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The purpose of libertarianism is to make the world more libertarian by persuading more people to choose libertarian solutions of their own free will.

    Doesn't everything but persuasion involves coercion?

    Were you planning to seize the reigns of power and inflict libertarianism on your lessers using the coercive power of government?

    Our job is to preach the libertarian gospel to the heathen. Jesus started out with 12 guys, one of them a traitor, with no mass media, no internet, and the Roman empire in his way. We've got the internet and everything. We should be able to do at least as well as he did.

    Get to work. Convert your friends and family first. Off you go. Chop! Chop!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You said one traitor.

    Libertarianism has more traitors than that. Gillespie, Welch, Shikha, Bill Weld, etc.

    It makes it harder to advocate Libertarianism when many of the public faces of Libertarianism are LINOs or outright Lefty infiltrators telling people to vote for Hillary or that bakers must bake cakes.

  • ckgut||

    Agreed. Reason magazine has changed its message for sure. Who bought your soul Reason?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well Butler, if you import enough low,skilled labor fast enough, it will definitely depress wages. The supply/demand curve ensures this.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Why should we indulge the ignorant fantasies of the nativists? We don't indulge progressives when they make ridiculous claims like "speech is violence". We laugh at them and rightly so.

    If your argument is that people won't support a more relaxed immigration policy unless they personally are going to see a benefit from it, and that we should try to persuade them on this basis, then this is a sucker's game. What you're asking is to try to persuade people why liberty is a good thing from a utilitarian point of view. The problem with arguing this position is that the moment the exercise of liberty is not a "net positive" from a utilitarian point of view, the entire argument falls apart. Hate speech is not a social net positive yet it should be legal. Even if relaxed immigration standards isn't a social net positive, it should still occur nonetheless.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Why should we indulge the ignorant fantasies of the nativists"

    You are a weak minded ignorant person. You need constant correcting, for which you show complete ingratitude. Yet you have the balls to impugn the ideas of others?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I like how you dissected my argument coolly and rationally, instead of going directly to the ad-hominem insults.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, you make the same soft headed points over and over, even after you have been repeatedly corrected. More effort has been expended on this endeavor than you will be worth in a lifetime.

    Your immigration points are ALL discredited. Many times over.

    So just stop.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You mean points like "the US's broken legal immigration system encourages more illegal immigration, and throwing money at ICE or a wall isn't going to stop that"? You've refuted that point? I'd like to see that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I've refuted it, LC has refuted it, John has refuted it, etc. etc.. You're just too goddamned stupid to listen. You post the same shit, more or less, in every one of these articles.

    You just keep rotating busted tires.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If your argument is that people won't support a more relaxed immigration policy unless they personally are going to see a benefit from it

    Libertarians are no longer supposed to believe in self-interest now?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I believe it's in everyone's enlightened self-interest to support liberty for its own sake.

    But I think Ken's point is that libertarians should be making the argument that liberty is desirable because it produces tangible benefits. The problem with this argument is that it excludes a wide swath of activity that ought to be legal, such as "hate speech". There is no tangible social benefit to "hate speech" yet we libertarians should oppose making it illegal nonetheless.

    It's similar to how Republicans used to sell the idea of tax cuts. They used to sell tax cuts on the premise that they would "pay for themselves" or "grow the economy". But the moment when these things didn't turn out to be true, the argument for tax cuts vanished. The proper way to sell the idea of tax cuts isn't on some utilitarian point, but because it's your money and you deserve to keep more of it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I believe it's in everyone's enlightened self-interest to support liberty for its own sake.

    "Liberty" as an abstract principle means little to someone just looking to put food on the table and pay their bills. "You should support open borders because it benefits you in vague ways" isn't an argument, it's an appeal to emotion.

    The problem with this argument is that it excludes a wide swath of activity that ought to be legal, such as "hate speech". There is no tangible social benefit to "hate speech" yet we libertarians should oppose making it illegal nonetheless

    This has little relation to economic considerations. "Hate speech" is a subjective term that was invented as a rhetorical cudgel by leftists. Every complex society that has ever existed has always limited who could migrate there. The ones who didn't maintain those controls inevitably found themselves eliminated.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "You should support open borders because it benefits you in vague ways" isn't an argument, it's an appeal to emotion.

    Well then it's a good thing I'm not making the utilitarian argument for open borders. I'm making the principled argument for more open borders - liberty should be defended for its own sake.

    "Liberty" as an abstract principle means little to someone just looking to put food on the table and pay their bills.

    So you are arguing against the abstract concept of liberty. At a libertarian forum. Huh.

    The problem with your argument is that it works exactly the same used to justify taking away liberty from people in all sorts of other situations. According to your own argument, there is no compelling reason to keep "hate speech" legal, since "no one cares if it doesn't help to put food on the table".

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Well then it's a good thing I'm not making the utilitarian argument for open borders. I'm making the principled argument for more open borders - liberty should be defended for its own sake.

    The point is that people aren't going to give a shit about your "principled argument" because it's nothing more than an appeal to emotion and doesn't benefit them in any tangible way.

    So you are arguing against the abstract concept of liberty. At a libertarian forum. Huh.

    The theorist tends to be baffled when it doesn't apply to the utilitarian side of the equation.

    The problem with your argument is that it works exactly the same used to justify taking away liberty from people in all sorts of other situations.

    There's a lot of different justifications for taking away liberty from people in all sorts of other situations. You act as if these limits just appeared recently and haven't been a part of the nation's history in various forms since the beginning.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh give me a break. Defending liberty for its own sake is not an "appeal to emotion" by any stretch of the imagination.

    And of course the state has justified its coercion against individuals for a whole lot of reasons. Why are you enabling the state?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Defending liberty for its own sake is not an "appeal to emotion" by any stretch of the imagination.

    Denying that utilitarian considerations should be taken into consideration out of principle isn't a defense of liberty, it's willful delusion.

    And of course the state has justified its coercion against individuals for a whole lot of reasons. Why are you enabling the state?

    So what you're arguing for is anarchy. That's why no agreement on "immigration reform" will ever be good enough for you short of open borders.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff has stated many times he does not believe in the rule of law. He is an emotion driven idiot, not worthy of a debate.

  • damikesc||

    Well then it's a good thing I'm not making the utilitarian argument for open borders. I'm making the principled argument for more open borders - liberty should be defended for its own sake.

    Except you do not support open borders completely or you'd have to oppose property rights. Or do you think borders that you support are the only valid ones?

    According to your own argument, there is no compelling reason to keep "hate speech" legal, since "no one cares if it doesn't help to put food on the table".

    Keeping it legal, arguably, does not help put food on the table. True.

    Outlawing it actively keeps food off the table and prevents any semblance of change for the betterment of others.

    Since outlawing it has zero benefits, keeping it is beneficial by default.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Except you do not support open borders completely or you'd have to oppose property rights.

    Open borders in the context of these discussions refer to *national* borders, not individual property rights. Perhaps you can find some Marxists who want to abolish all property rights entirely. But that isn't the libertarian position by any stretch.

    Keeping it legal, arguably, does not help put food on the table. True.

    Outlawing it actively keeps food off the table and prevents any semblance of change for the betterment of others.

    Oh no no no. If you're going to start applying cost-benefit balancing tests to liberty, then you have to include ALL the costs and benefits, because that is what the utilitarians hostile to liberty will do.

    The utilitarian correctly argues that there is no good reason to keep "hate speech" legal, because there is no tangible social benefit to it. Making hate speech illegal would be beneficial for those most likely to be negatively affected by hate speech, which is in reality everyone.

    And if you don't like the hate speech example, there's plenty more where that came from. How about owning semi-automatic weapons? What is the utilitarian benefit for that? How about burning flags or kneeling for the national anthem? How about smoking pot? How about aborting a fetus with Down's Syndrome? Once you open up the utilitarianism can of worms there is no putting it back.

  • damikesc||

    The utilitarian correctly argues that there is no good reason to keep "hate speech" legal, because there is no tangible social benefit to it. Making hate speech illegal would be beneficial for those most likely to be negatively affected by hate speech, which is in reality everyone.

    Fine.

    I agree with them.

    Their beliefs are hate speech, though. They should all be imprisoned.

    I mean, I should be the one deciding hate speech.

    If you do not recognize the problems of banning hate speech. then you've gone beyond "pedantic twat" to "fucking moron"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You don't get it. I'm not arguing for banning hate speech. YOU are, implicitly, because you are the one wanting to apply utilitarian balancing tests to the exercise of liberty.

  • damikesc||

    I'm the one opposing it outright and providing a reason why others should as well.

    Appeals to emotion are fertile for morons, not adults.

  • JoeB||

    Hey, even von Mises argued against large changes in culture as might happen with mass immigration. Can we make an argument that national borders constitute the property line of the nation's citizens? That is personally how I think of it.

  • Joaquim||

    chemjeff is right. No self-respecting libertarian will defend steel tariffs if he works in the steel industry, just because he directly benefits from it. Statist policies often benefit some groups at the expense of the majority (see: Public Choice Theory)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No self-respecting libertarian will defend steel tariffs if he works in the steel industry, just because he directly benefits from it

    There's a reason libertarians tend to not be blue-collar workers.

  • lulz farmer||

    Modern libertarianism seems to be like communism where the claim is that it would work if only people did X things that are completely against their rational self-interest. That's weird.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No, Jeff is wrong. Don't encourage him. Very few laws benefit everyone equally, at all times.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    One injustice justifies another. Got it!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeff, you say the stupidest shit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You can cut the horse crap about some theoretical good to everyone else.

    There are so many benefits to bringing unskilled workers into this country for so many people, when I see people criticize the Trump administration for being evil on immigration instead of pushing the advantages of unskilled labor, it makes me wonder how committed they really are to the cause of legal immigration. It's like they don't believe in it themselves.

    Well I do. Labor is a resource, like oil, and having more of a resource available to the economy for less cost is better--though not better for everybody! People who are overpaid for their labor because the government is effectively protecting them from competition at the border aren't better off because of more legal immigration, but they're the minority. Whatever problems we have in this country, they are not because we have too many people here who want to work their asses off and achieve.

  • lulz farmer||

    I see. All of the mere peasants should live like they're in the third world and if they can't compete with Chinese slave labour I suppose they deserve to die, or otherwise go die in a field somewhere. Good show, old bean

    You are aware that at this point their incentive becomes to pick up a rock, murder you and take your stuff, right? People aren't "overpaid" when they get paid enough to actually be able to start a family and live a normal life. Libertarians are so tone-deaf. Just like communists. Except you have this conceit that you think you're actually working with nature and incentives when you're not.

  • damikesc||

    I believe it's in everyone's enlightened self-interest to support liberty for its own sake.
  • Ken Shultz||

    "I believe it's in everyone's enlightened self-interest to support liberty for its own sake."

    I believe immigration helps far more people than it harms, and some of the people who benefit from it the most are people who would need to go without if they didn't have access to cheap immigrant labor.

    The working mothers of southern California who benefit from cheap childcare, cheap house cleaning, and someone to watch their elderly parents for cheap aren't just the upper middle class. Every working mom can afford the help of an immigrant like that and maybe can't afford to go without it--especially those working single mothers who might not be able to afford to go to work without that cheap labor being available.

    There are all sorts of working class people who benefit from the work of unskilled immigrants--far more than there are people who are put out of work because they can't compete with immigrants who can't speak English and have no more than an 8th grade education.

  • lulz farmer||

    These mothers wouldn't have to work and pawn off the childcare to an uncaring, sub-minwage stranger who will never give the same level of care and nurturing to their children that they would if we had a system like we did 60 years ago. They could just stay home and raise them.

    However, that is bad for the ultra-greedy who think they should be able to amass fortunes that would let their bloodlines live like kings for the next 1000 years, costs to the wider society be damned.

    Working class people do not benefit from their locale being turned into a dirty, dangerous third world sewer. Not that you'd know anything about that with your gated community libertarianism.

  • ckgut||

    Bravo, the last thing I would ever consider is trusting another individual to raise my children, care for my parents or take care of my belongings like I would. There is no way another individual is going to put my interest above their own. The fact that we even need a social class and a working class has been set into motion long ago and has been to the detriment of the masses.

    If you are going to have children, then you need to be prepared to raise and educate your children and not expect someone else to do this for you. Expecting the state to educate your children and that the state has your children's best interest at heart is preposterous.

    As a nurse, people thing the nursing homes, hospitals, etc. are going to put your parents interest first above the profit and loss numbers. You are crazy. When my father was in the hospital, I was with him 24/7 bc I know as a nurse, there is no way the system will provide the appropriate care because the nurses are staffed so thin. The staff was not going to reposition him every 2 hours, feed him small amounts every 2 hours when he was awake, etc. We have to be responsible for our own families.

    I do not believe in hiring people for a low wage and expect them to put my families interest above their own. It isn't right. This is not an arguing point.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Liberty should be extended to all.

    And defended from those who wish to destroy or deny it.

    People always forget that part.

  • lulz farmer||

    Yes I'm sure my liberty is best served by turning my country into a carbon copy of Pakistan where the women of my group are taken as sex slaves by the conquerors.

  • lulz farmer||

    I want open immigration but only into your neighborhood and legal measures to prevent your flight from that neighborhood once it becomes unlivable because of the open immigration.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Or flight of the immigrant from his neighborhood. I agree.

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    Who gives a fuck if they're skilled or not? As long as they're healthy, they should be good for at least 60 hours of labor.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    At least the hot looking females. If they're hot enough I can provide 60 hours of work easy.

  • Flinch||

    "Systematically jamming..."? Never mind - it's Shikha once again, who can't calibrate that the democrat "dreamers" are off topic/not legal immigrants in the first place [or she is wilfully serving the conflation of their ongoing narrative that seeks to confuse the voter and promote anarchy as an "american value"]. We have too many laws, and in the case of immigration the actual enforcement of them has revealed that things were not being managed the past several decades and just left to rot on balance.
    But I do like the funkadelic vibe of the Trump drawing.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    "While the country is fixated on the horrors of (ICE) Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ripping infants from the arms of migrant parents..." You lost me there at migrant parents. How can any of your descriptions and analyses be trusted when you start with slanted coinage?

  • Ben_||

    About the "International Entrepreneur Rule": Visa categories don't get invented using a "rule". They get passed by Congress and signed into law.

    Is Reason for or against "rule of law" and Constitutional government?

  • m1shu||

    H1-B immigration was abused in order to replace experienced American workers with cheap labor from India. They had no special skill over and above Americans other than the willingness to work for cheap. Many of them were paid less than the minimum due to the fact that the consulting agency took a cut from their pay for the privilege of booking them. Then crammed them into corporate apartments with cheap particle board furniture.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If we follow the ideas of garbage like Shikha, and the Reason staff, our standard of living will be shredded in the name of 'open borders no matter what'.

    Fuck that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That's right! The purpose of liberty is to maintain a high standard of living for the chosen people, Americans!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    America is the best!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Regimes that don't focus on maintaining a good standard of living for their citizens tend to be removed in short order.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    My standard of living is fine. The whining comes from folks whose problems are self-inflicted, such as choosing to stick with declining towns and dying industries against all evidence; avoiding a decent education; and coasting through life.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The whining comes from folks whose problems are self-inflicted, such as choosing to stick with declining towns and dying industries against all evidence; avoiding a decent education; and coasting through life.

    Great summation of Black Lives Matter!

  • damikesc||

    Chemjeff, an argument that Libertarianism = self-economic suicide is not likely one that much of anybody would support.

    Reason is so gung-ho because they aren't in competition with illegals.

  • lulz farmer||

    Tell me more chemjeff about how the purpose of liberty is to uplift the downtrodden global proletariat class or something along those lines. Are you some kind of Maoist third worldist or just cynically arguing in favor of this state of affairs because you personally profit.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yeah Jeff, the purpose of liberty is to drive down the citizen's standard of living in favor of incoming hordes of foreigners, no matter what!

    Moron.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    More of this "gated community libertarianism" thought. That only those inside the gates deserve liberty. Got it!

  • lulz farmer||

    Gated community libertarianism refers to people like you who get to externalize the costs of your open border lunacy because you live in a gated community where you don't have to interact with the riff-raff you brought in and foisted on other people.

  • damikesc||

    Either you want us to build nations or you do not.

    I do not want us to nation-build overseas. Nor do I want to repair other countries by bringing their problems here.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I do not want us to nation-build overseas.

    Neither do I.

    Nor do I want to repair other countries by bringing their problems here.

    I'm not interested in repairing other countries either. I don't care about the health of the state, either this one or another one.

    What matters is human liberty.

  • lulz farmer||

    How is my "liberty" served by denuding me of the right to free association and turning my living space into a cross between sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east? Do tell.

  • JoeB||

    So, here's a thought. Ten million Sharia-loving immigrants per year for ten years. OK with you. Then they vote to impose Sharia on you and your family. They vote for Sharia-loving legislators who craft and pass Sharia-based law. Female genital mutilation supported by tax dollars. No drivers license for females. Fine, right? That's totally fine with you.

  • Mark22||

    Miller and Sessions are subjecting every immigrant in every category to the same treatment.

    Good! Uniform, predictable immigration rules!

    Miller was the brains behind Trump's scheme to take Dreamers hostage to force Congress to enact a 40-plus percent cut in legal immigration.

    That's the consequence when you let in 10-20 million illegals: legal immigration needs to be cut to make up for it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If the constitution allowed for it, I would make up for it by stripping progressives and other open borders supporters of all their assets and forever banishing them from the US.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would rather just take away the lefty ability to control education of kids and instead teach kids about Liberty, freedoms, the Constitution, Rule of Law, and making America the great place that it can be.

    End the propaganda of the Left.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I totally agree. They should all have to wear dunce hats on Sundays too.

  • Lester224||

    So volunteer to be a teacher. Open your own charter school or for-profit school. Betsy DeVos is doing her best to fund you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, they'd rather bitch and moan all day, evidently.

  • damikesc||

    How many refugees are you housing personally, Jeff?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I do like the infographic detailing the complexity of current US immigration laws. I'm willing to bet the most ardent Trumpists probably have no idea how screwed up the status quo is when it comes to immigration law. They must think that border jumpers must have some sinister intent because they can't be bothered to go "wait in line" like at the Immigration DMV or something and get the correct papers easy-peasy, when in reality, the broken status quo encourages illegal immigration because it is so difficult to come here legally.

    If the Trumpists want to reduce illegal immigration, they would make legal immigration easier.

  • Mike Laursen||

    re: They must think that border jumpers must have some sinister intent because they can't be bothered to go "wait in line'.

    Not just they must think that, there are plenty of citations of them saying exactly that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Of course there are some undocumented immigrants who behave badly, just like in any population there are some who behave badly.

    The right-wing media of course exaggerates all of these claims, to perpetuate the narrative that undocumented immigrants are mostly lowlifes and gangbangers.

    In reality, many are just looking for opportunities here, with no ulterior or sinister motive at all.

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    States use to handle immigration policy with an open door policy towards low skilled workers. They also required bond in case they became a public charge. I'd rather have a third party take on the risk and let the market call bullshit on the paranoia.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That idea would be far preferable to what we have now.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Feel free to take in an vouch for as many immigrants as YOU personally can house.

    30 should be good.

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    They normally have family to stay with and a job lined up. I doubt they would jeopardize their status if given the chance. Their economic incentives are much greater than to live the life of crime.

  • lulz farmer||

    >even uses the term "undocumented"
    What a walking parody you are.

  • Mark22||

    They must think that border jumpers must have some sinister intent because they can't be bothered to go "wait in line"

    Most border jumpers would never be allowed to immigrate at all, ever, because they don't meet the requirements.

    I do like the infographic detailing the complexity of current US immigration laws. I'm willing to bet the most ardent Trumpists probably have no idea how screwed up the status quo is when it comes to immigration law.

    There are many people besides "Trumpists" who oppose your hare brained ideas on open borders. And I know exactly how screwed up the status quo is when it comes to immigration law, having gone through the process.

    And let's be clear here: the people opposing Trump on this aren't interested in fair or streamlined immigration, as their arguments, their policy proposals, and their past actions demonstrate;: all of those amount to you giving a collective middle finger to legal immigrants like myself.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Most border jumpers would never be allowed to immigrate at all, ever, because they don't meet the requirements.

    Which requirements? You mean the ones that put arbitrary caps on immigration from certain countries?

    There are many people besides "Trumpists" who oppose your hare brained ideas on open borders.

    You're right, there are!

    And let's be clear here: the people opposing Trump on this aren't interested in fair or streamlined immigration, as their arguments, their policy proposals, and their past actions demonstrate;: all of those amount to you giving a collective middle finger to legal immigrants like myself.

    Why would people who favor a more generous immigration policy want to "give the middle finger" to current immigrants? Your argument makes no sense.

    The fact that legal immigrants, such as yourself evidently, successfully navigated a broken system, is not a sufficient justification to keep the broken system forever. I would think that legal immigrants would want a simpler process so that others wouldn't have to go through the crap that they went through!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Open-borders advocates believe any kind of immigration policy that doesn't let anyone in automatically regardless of who they are is "broken".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I consider the immigration system not strict enough but also inefficient in letting in spouses of Americans and skilled workers.

    They consider it 'broken' because its not open border.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perhaps. But there are ways to fix current policy without going all the way to "open borders". For example, what is the basis for these arbitrary caps on immigration from particular countries? Perhaps these could be relaxed. What is the basis for a special class of visa for high-tech workers? These are just abused by the vested interests for their own benefit. Perhaps this class of visa could be eliminated entirely.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Perhaps. But there are ways to fix current policy without going all the way to "open borders".

    Except that's not what you're advocating. Every complaint by open borders advocates centers on the "unfairness" of "fake lines" and "paperwork". Appeals by open borders advocates for "immigration reform" are no more sincere than those by gun control advocates for "common sense gun control".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, so suppose my "real agenda" is completely open borders, which you object to. So your position is to completely defend the status quo, even the broken parts, just to spite me and my agenda?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Okay, so suppose my "real agenda" is completely open borders, which you object to. So your position is to completely defend the status quo, even the broken parts, just to spite me and my agenda?

    Why would I defend the Hart-Celler Act, submitted by two Democrats and promoted heavily by a third?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you don't support the status quo and you don't support my ideas, what is the position that you do support?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The pre-Hart-Cellar Act would be a good start.

  • damikesc||

    Well, compromising on gun control laws certainly hasn't slowed that train down.

    Offering amnesty in the past, repeatedly, didn't satisfy you.

    You do understand that, at this point, we recognize that people like you do not negotiate in good faith?

    You always want what YOU want first and then OUR wants will come later...oops, I mean never.

    Why not offer us OUR incentives first for once? Show us good faith for the first time in the history of the open borders movement.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So don't negotiate with me. But do propose something that will actually fix the brokenness of the current system. Simply "throw more money at ICE and build a giant wall" doesn't fix the root problem, which is, the complexity and brokenness of the system encourages illegal immigration because the legal process is too fucked up. Just building a wall won't stop that core dynamic.

  • damikesc||

    So don't negotiate with me.

    OK.

    But do propose something that will actually fix the brokenness of the current system.

    Strict enforcement of the laws on the books. Extremely strict.

    Simply "throw more money at ICE and build a giant wall" doesn't fix the root problem, which is, the complexity and brokenness of the system encourages illegal immigration because the legal process is too fucked up.

    You assume that your analysis has any validity here.

    Just building a wall won't stop that core dynamic.

    Seemed to work for Israel awfully well...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Israel's wall only "works" because they are willing to use deadly force against those attempting to breech the wall. Is that what you wish?

  • damikesc||

    Israel's wall only "works" because they are willing to use deadly force against those attempting to breech the wall. Is that what you wish?

    An invasion is an invasion. There are ways to deal with them.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    True. This rhetoric that walls don't work is utter bullshit.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Walls don't work UNLESS the wall's guards are willing to use lethal force to defend them. And in no realistic universe are Americans going to support US soldiers gunning down innocent Mexicans on the border.

  • lulz farmer||

    Of course they'll support it, all it needs is the right rhetoric showing what will happen if this demographic invasion continues.

  • Echospinner||

    "Israel's wall only "works" because they are willing to use deadly force against those attempting to breech the wall. Is that what you wish?"

    Exactly.

    So let Trump build his wall. Means nothing and who cares about money at this point. We can print all we need. Now see what a defensive wall really means.

    Israel is facing another offensive. Balloons filled with fire. Just fucking think about that.

    If that is what Trumpists want that is what will happen.

  • lulz farmer||

    Except we have a better case for gunning down people who are trying to invade us, seeing as we didn't recently push those people out of a place they'd been living in for about 1300 years. Just saying. Their demands to invade us do not mean we have to cave and let them in and give them free everything forever.

  • damikesc||

    The Muslims left Israel at its founding, expecting an easy defeat of the new Jewish state.

    Their "advocates" lost.

    They made a bad choice, one Israel asked them to not make at the time.

    I do not see any need to empathize with "Palestinians" (who are really only Jordanians that Jordan does not want)

  • Mark22||

    The fact that legal immigrants, such as yourself evidently, successfully navigated a broken system,

    I have been through the immigration system in several countries; the US system as written actually is one of the simpler ones for legal, skilled immigrants. What makes the US system "broken" is that it tolerates rampant lawlessness and has been hijacked by progressive political interests.

    I would think that legal immigrants would want a simpler process so that others wouldn't have to go through the crap that they went through!

    I spent a couple of decades trying to get away from a country full of totalitarian, collectivist assholes; why the hell would I want to make it easier for such people to come to the US? What I want for the US is a highly selective, skill-based immigration system.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What makes the US system "broken" is that it tolerates rampant lawlessness and has been hijacked by progressive political interests.

    So instead you want the US system hijacked by nationalist conservative interests. Is that your argument?

    How about: not having a system that can be hijacked in the first place, by any group? THAT is the more consistent libertarian position.

    I spent a couple of decades trying to get away from a country full of totalitarian, collectivist assholes; why the hell would I want to make it easier for such people to come to the US?

    Well, this is shifting the goalposts. You said I am "giving the middle finger" to legal immigrants. That isn't true. I'm not "giving the middle finger" to any immigrant. What seems to make you upset is that I am NOT "giving the middle finger" to the supposedly "unworthy" immigrants.

    In your view, should there be an ideology test for immigration? If so, how would you prevent this ideology test from being hijacked by some special interest group?

  • Mark22||

    You said I am "giving the middle finger" to legal immigrants. That isn't true.

    Oh, it is very much true, you are simply too ignorant to recognize it. I said people opposing Trump on this aren't interested in fair or streamlined immigration, as their arguments, their policy proposals, and their past actions demonstrate: all of those amount to you giving a collective middle finger to legal immigrants like myself.

    That is, under the policies that advocates for illegal migrants have been pushing, a legal immigrant who entered a decade ago might be forced to leave the country, while an illegal migrant who entered at the same time is getting naturalized.

    You will, of course, sharply protest that that is not what you actually want, but what matters is actual policy, not stated intentions.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is, under the policies that advocates for illegal migrants have been pushing, a legal immigrant who entered a decade ago might be forced to leave the country, while an illegal migrant who entered at the same time is getting naturalized.

    Then maybe you should complain to these "advocates for illegal migrants". I personally have never advocated for this position.

  • Mark22||

    As I was saying: You will, of course, sharply protest that that is not what you actually want, but what matters is actual policy, not stated intentions.

    You are as predictable as you are ignorant and bigoted.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You are arguing against a strawman, which is typical I suppose.

  • Mark22||

    You are arguing against a strawman, which is typical I suppose.

    I'm not "arguing" at all, since that would mean that you have an actual, well articulated position and justification for that position, which you don't.

    What I am pointing out is that the kinds of groups your vague statements align with have been pushing legislation that has been screwing over legal immigrants.

  • Mark22||

    In your view, should there be an ideology test for immigration?

    No. What gave you that idea? As I was saying, I think there should be an economic test for immigration.

    A simple, rational, objective test is: people who consistently pay more in taxes than the average amount of per capita government spending should be allowed to immigrate (5 years of work permit, 5 years of permanent residency, then an option for naturalization).

    As a nice bonus: the smaller and more libertarian our government becomes, the easier it become to immigrate. When the government has shrunk to near zero, we have open borders.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No. What gave you that idea?

    Gee I don't know, maybe it was a comment like:

    I spent a couple of decades trying to get away from a country full of totalitarian, collectivist assholes; why the hell would I want to make it easier for such people to come to the US?

    So you want this simple rational, objective test for immigration, even if it means "totalitarian collectivist assholes" would be able to immigrate too?

  • Mark22||

    So you want this simple rational, objective test for immigration, even if it means "totalitarian collectivist assholes" would be able to immigrate too?

    Correct. The US can easily deal with, and assimilate, a modest number of "totalitarian collectivist assholes", in particular if they have a net positive fiscal impact.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So it is only about the money from your point of view.

  • Mark22||

    So it is only about the money from your point of view.

    No, not at all. It is about libertarian principles and property rights. If the US government didn't take half my income in taxes, I could donate much more money to worthwhile and effective charitable causes.

    See, forcibly taking my money to redistribute it to people who walk across the Mexico-US border illegally isn't just a violation of my property rights, it is also condemns the people the money is redistributed to to a lifetime of government dependence and oppression, and it hurts the countries those people are coming from.

  • Mark22||

    Which requirements? You mean the ones that put arbitrary caps on immigration from certain countries?

    No, I mean the requirement of making a positive net contribution to the country and not becoming a public charge. That requires an above average level of income. It's the usual requirement for immigration systems around the world.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Maybe the "usual requirement" isn't what the US should be basing its immigration system on. Does the US base its taxation or health care policy or gun laws on the "usual requirement" around the world? No, and it shouldn't.

  • Mark22||

    Does the US base its taxation or health care policy or gun laws on the "usual requirement" around the world? No,

    Generally, yes, actually.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So your argument is that the US should copy the rest of the world on all of its policies?

    So say hello to strict gun control and single-payer health care!

  • Mark22||

    So your argument is that the US should copy the rest of the world on all of its policies?

    Not at all. I made my argument on its own merits. You objected to it by saying that this is what other countries do, therefore we should do something different. I merely pointed out that we do lots of things that other countries do, so your objection isn't valid.

    So say hello to strict gun control and single-payer health care!

    Are you really so ignorant that you believe that's what the rest of the world is like?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not at all. I made my argument on its own merits. You objected to it by saying that this is what other countries do, therefore we should do something different. I merely pointed out that we do lots of things that other countries do, so your objection isn't valid.

    Oh, that is too funny. You exactly inverted the argument. YOU attempted to justify your position with "that's what the other countries do". Which is a weak justification for any argument.

    And yes, most of the rest of the world has much stricter gun control than the US. Most of the rest of the developed world has some form of single-payer health care too.

  • Mark22||

    YOU attempted to justify your position with "that's what the other countries do". Which is a weak justification for any argument. Which is a weak justification for any argument.

    I'm sorry you misunderstood. I didn't give that as a justification for the utility of restrictive immigration policies, but merely for the legality.

  • damikesc||

    Maybe the "usual requirement" isn't what the US should be basing its immigration system on.

    When somebody offers an option on immigration policy that isn't open borders, you seem to shoot it down awfully quickly.

  • damikesc||

    Was unaware "It's hard" was justification for ignoring laws and expecting to repurcussions for doing so.

    You want a simple law?

    No immigrants.

    Since you don't want none, it gets more complicated since we aren't going to be "YO, EVERYBODY, COME ON IN!!"

  • lulz farmer||

    Maybe there just isn't a right to up and go colonize someone else's country. Maybe the people in those countries don't want the fundamental character of their nation altered forever by being forced into proximity with unwanted alien peoples. Maybe legal or illegal doesn't matter--we just don't want these people and it's not "liberty" when you force us to mix it up with them.

  • Lester224||

    As soon as immigrants settle in they want to pull up the ladder behind them. See historical antipathy to: Irish, Italians (considered non-white initially) , Catholics in general, Chinese, Jews (also considered non-white initially), etc..

    The uptick in anti-immigrant feelings recently are due to the upcoming demographics challenge I think: Soon white people will be in the minority, and there is a bit of hysteria about it. However, even shutting down immigration entirely won't prevent that demographic change unless you can convince the Latino Catholics to stop reproducing at the rate they do. You can try to prevent them from voting I suppose: a lot of 'conservative' politicians are attempting to make it harder for anyone with an inflexible day job (like most of the working class and lower classes) to vote by eliminating Sunday voting, early voting, auto-registration etc.

  • lulz farmer||

    Irish and Italians weren't considered non-white ever. It's why they were allowed in to begin with. They were considered different to the Anglo-Germanic founding stock, though and thus not highly desirable to be swamped with. There isn't a "white line" that shifts. That is just rhetoric. Chinese aren't white, Jews just pretend to be white cynically while being anti-white.

    When whites become a minority, things will be bad. It's not hysteria. We need only look at places like Rhodesia and South Africa to see what will become of us if we don't get a handle on this and begin working to engineer a solution using the same kinds of coercive tools that we used to create the problem in the first place.

  • Ben_||

    If these people are too good to comply with the immigration laws, they're too good to live in the US. If they're too impatient to follow the law, they're too impatient to be US residents. If they're too [anything] to follow legal procedures, they are welcome to stay home. Or go to Canada or Europe or some other country besides the US.

    And yeah, we should make legal immigration less bureaucratic — as part of a plan involving strict limits and requirements on immigration, and guaranteed enforcement of those requirements, and enforcement of past laws on illegals already here, and a wall.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Ok Jeff. If we;

    Build the wall
    End chain migration
    Get the sting illegal population under control

    Then yes, we should absolutely put a lot of effort into modernizing and streamlining existing immigration procedures. Guliani gave a great interview I the subject a few years ago advocating just this, and in great detail.

    But the above items come first.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You are going to have to be more specific. What specifically do you mean by "ending chain migration"? Do you mean that a husband cannot bring his wife over as an immigrant? And what precisely do you mean by"under control"?

  • Mark22||

    You are going to have to be more specific. What specifically do you mean by "ending chain migration"? Do you mean that a husband cannot bring his wife over as an immigrant?

    Let me chime in here: a husband with a job in the US can bring his wife and children as part of their job relocation. That's where the chain ends. No other relatives can be sponsored.

    For elderly parents, there can be a separate non-immigrant visa, renewable every three years, provided the host family accepts full financial responsibility.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The screwed up part are the 10-20 million illegals, and an immigration policy that transfers market power from American labor to corporations and foreigners.

  • mpercy||

    The evidence shows that 1M people every year manage to do just that. If 1M people every year can manage to go through the hoops--and yes, the hoops are byzantine and need to be streamlined--then it is in truth the case that all the border jumpers are choosing to jump in line and make demands.

    If I invite someone into my home because they are hungry and need shelter, that's good. But if the same person had crawled through an open window, ate my food and camped out in my house it's not a crime against humanity to call the cops and expect them to get hauled off to jail. And further, just because he managed to get in through the open window, I'm not at all obligated to let him stay in the house, nor do I have any obligation to feed, clothe, or provide healthcare or education for him and his children. He's lucky all I did was call the cops--I could have shot him instead.

  • JoeB||

    I have gone through the legal immigration process. It's not the salt-mining horse-whipping experience that illegal apologists like you make it out to be. It requires motivation and patience. It requires respect for US citizens and their laws.

  • Mark22||

    Therefore, the memo includes a Plan B: It will instruct immigration judges to weigh the circumstances of entry as a major factor in their asylum decisions, making the rejection of their petition a fait accompli. In other words, the administration is gaming asylum laws to deny asylum seekers a fair shot—subverting the law in the name of the "rule of law!"

    Asylum seekers coming from Mexico should seek asylum in Mexico or some other nation, not in the US. So he isn't subverting the law, he is enforcing it. The fact that in the past, the US has chosen to be more generous doesn't make such generosity the law.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What if Mexico isn't safe for the asylum seekers either?

  • Mark22||

    What if Mexico isn't safe for the asylum seekers either?

    Mexico is a parliamentary democracy that ranks about the same as Greece and Brazil on the Freedom Index. In what way would Mexico not "be safe" for asylum seekers?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Read this for starters

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/who.....yre-coming

    A lot of migrants suffer abuse just by traveling through Mexico.

  • Mark22||

    A lot of migrants suffer abuse just by traveling through Mexico

    That's not an asylum issue, and it's not America's problem.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is an asylum issue when the relevant asylum treaties entitle asylum seekers to request it in the first SAFE country. If Mexico isn't "safe" then it's not wrong for the US to hear their claims.

    Are you in favor of the concept of asylum at all?

  • Mark22||

    Mexico is "safe" in the sense of asylum law.

    If relatively high crime rates were a concern, then the US wouldn't be "safe" for Hispanic refugees either; we should ship them off to Iceland.

  • damikesc||

    It is an asylum issue when the relevant asylum treaties entitle asylum seekers to request it in the first SAFE country. If Mexico isn't "safe" then it's not wrong for the US to hear their claims.
  • damikesc||

    Fuck this site. Seriously, Eats comments all the fucking time.

    If Mexico is unsafe for asylum, how is it more safe to walk thru and approach us instead?

    We have embassies in most countries. Why not go, you know, THERE for an asylum request?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Hey, you're right. Maybe they should go to embassies and follow the proper procedure. I actually agree with you there.

    Where I disagree, is the claim that because someone didn't follow the proper procedure, that their potentially legitimate asylum claims automatically become nullified. That they aren't actually fleeing persecution at home if they didn't fill out the right forms in triplicate.

  • damikesc||

    Where I disagree, is the claim that because someone didn't follow the proper procedure, that their potentially legitimate asylum claims automatically become nullified.

    If cops can prove you committed a crime by doing illegal things themselves, the conviction is overturned regardless. No matter how rock solid the evidence is.

    Your claim is nullified because you committed a crime to make it.

  • Mark22||

    Where I disagree, is the claim that because someone didn't follow the proper procedure, that their potentially legitimate asylum claims automatically become nullified. That they aren't actually fleeing persecution at home if they didn't fill out the right forms in triplicate.

    Fleeing persecution at home gives them the right to asylum somewhere; it doesn't give them the right to asylum in the US.

  • mpercy||

    Are we supposed to take seriously the notion that vast majorities of illegal aliens are in fact being subjected to real persecution by their government or government proxies?

    Being poor and wanting a better life than one can forge in one's home country is not a basis for asylum or refugee status. Being afraid of crime in one's home country is not a basis for asylum or refugee status. Having an abusive husband is not a basis for asylum or refugee status (see CNN's sob story today).

    Very few articles I've read with stories about illegals have had them quoted as saying anything close to resembling a basis for asylum. Usually it's been like CNN's abusive husband story, or just plain "I wanted a better life" asylum demands.

    Nolo.com: "Historically, for example, the need for asylum or refugee status has been recognized in situations where a foreign government has:

    imprisoned and tortured political dissidents or supposed undesirables
    fired weapons on protesters
    committed genocide against a certain race
    made sure that members of a certain religion were left out of the political process,

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You're right, that's crazy. Why, it's like a bank refusing you for a loan because you first tried to rob the bank, and made a loan application only after the security guard stopped you. Madness!

  • Flinch||

    That would make too much sense as it guarantees legal entry to the US. No leftist would ever stand for that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That is Mexico's problem.

    That is the immigrant's problem.

    These immigrants are not qualified for political asylum. They are poor not political refugees.

    Someday, Reason will focus on that point rather than so much TDS.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    These immigrants are not qualified for political asylum. They are poor not political refugees.

    Sure, some are. But some are not.

    Are you willing to state categorically that exactly 0.0% of the asylum seekers have legitimate cases?

  • Mark22||

    Are you willing to state categorically that exactly 0.0% of the asylum seekers have legitimate cases?

    They may well have legitimate cases, and if they are in Mexico, they are required to make those cases to the Mexican government, 100% of the time.

    Nevertheless, the US graciously allows people to walk up to border checkpoints from Mexico and request asylum in the US, in which case they are not separated from their children and not arrested. That's current practice, under Trump.

    People who cross into the US illegally from Mexico categorically should not even be allowed to make asylum claims to the US after they have been caught; they should be forced to make those claims to the proper authority, the Mexican government.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    People who cross into the US illegally from Mexico categorically should not even be allowed to make asylum claims to the US after they have been caught;

    The validity of an applicant's asylum claim doesn't just magically vanish if that applicant didn't fill out the right forms at the proper location. Hiding behind bureaucratic procedures is a frankly cowardly position.

  • damikesc||

    The validity of an applicant's asylum claim doesn't just magically vanish if that applicant didn't fill out the right forms at the proper location. Hiding behind bureaucratic procedures is a frankly cowardly position.

    If you commit a crime to make the request, then fuck your request and fuck you.

    I. Do. Not. Want. To. Solve. The. World's. Problems.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So, given the hypothetical situation of two identical people with legitimate asylum claims from, say, Guatemala, if one person fills out the right forms at the right embassy, but the other one does not and only applies for asylum after being picked up by ICE, then you would grant the first person's claim for asylum but send the other one back to a state of persecution. Is that it?

    You don't really believe in the concept of asylum, do you?

  • damikesc||

    So, given the hypothetical situation of two identical people with legitimate asylum claims from, say, Guatemala, if one person fills out the right forms at the right embassy, but the other one does not and only applies for asylum after being picked up by ICE, then you would grant the first person's claim for asylum but send the other one back to a state of persecution. Is that it?

    Yup. Wouldn't even spend a moment thinking about it. One did it legally. One did not. I would even bar any further asylum claims from the one who did it illegally.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So the procedure is more important than actually saving asylees from persecution. Got it!

    Which suggests to me that you don't actually believe in the concept of asylum. They are all just gaming the system, right? No real persecution?

  • Nardz||

    Virtue signalled

  • Mark22||

    The validity of an applicant's asylum claim doesn't just magically vanish if that applicant didn't fill out the right forms at the proper location.

    Their asylum claim to the US is invalid because the US is not the right country to apply to.

    Hiding behind bureaucratic procedures is a frankly cowardly position.

    There is no "hiding" there: if they come from Mexico, their asylum claim is invalid. Courts in the past have chosen to overlook that, but we are under no moral or legal obligation to continue to do so.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Their asylum claim to the US is invalid because the US is not the right country to apply to.

    How do you know unless you actually listen to their asylum claim?

  • Mark22||

    How do you know unless you actually listen to their asylum claim?

    Where did I advocate that they shouldn't be listened to? From the article: It will instruct immigration judges to weigh the circumstances of entry as a major factor in their asylum decisions, making the rejection of their petition a fait accompli. So, a judge will look at their case and most likely, under US and international law, determine that the US is the wrong country to apply in. That's the law. You just happen not to like what the law says.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Where did I advocate that they shouldn't be listened to?

    Gee, maybe it was this statement:

    People who cross into the US illegally from Mexico categorically should not even be allowed to make asylum claims to the US after they have been caught

  • Mark22||

    Gee, maybe it was this statement:

    As I was saying: a judge will look at their case and most likely, under US and international law, determine that the US is the wrong country to apply in. That's the law

    That is, they should be listened to, and if a judge determines that they "cross[ed] into the US illegally from Mexico" their asylum claim should be denied because it is not a valid asylum claim.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So the persecution doesn't matter to you, only that the applicant filled out the proper papers in the proper location.

    Sometimes, you are just too much.

  • Mark22||

    So the persecution doesn't matter to you, only that the applicant filled out the proper papers in the proper location.

    Fortunately, that's easy to fix: US border agents are happy to drive them to the proper location and give them the proper forms to fill out, outside the US.

    And unlike your attempt at obfuscation, these people didn't make a clerical error: they deliberately violated Mexican border security, then undertook a dangerous journey through Mexico, and then violated US border security, and tried to live in the US without an asylum claim. That's not "improper papers" or an "improper location", that is multiple crimes committed not for the purpose of fleeing persecution but in order to enrich themselves. And, yes, given my massive US tax bill, I very much object to that.

    How much do you pay in taxes every year?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    they deliberately violated Mexican border security, then undertook a dangerous journey through Mexico, and then violated US border security, and tried to live in the US without an asylum claim.

    What you have described is true of every asylum seeker everywhere. When they flee war zones or oppression, they violate border security of the nation they fled to, and probably broke many other laws at the same time. The whole point of international agreements regarding asylum is to create a workable compromise between saving desperate people fleeing very dangerous conditions, and protecting the sovereignty of the nations to which they are fleeing. When nations agree to this compromise, they agree, broadly speaking, not to be complete hard-asses when it comes to *some* of the laws that these asylum seekers are breaking. So I am willing to cut them some slack when it comes to crossing national borders if they really have a legitimate case for asylum.

    Do they all have legitimate cases? No.
    Are they all innocent victims of oppression? No.
    Are some of them trying to game the system? Yes.
    Should their applications be rejected based solely on the manner in which they applied for asylum, without considering the merits of their claims or the specifics of the oppression that they claim to be fleeing? Absolutely not. That is just hiding behind bureaucracy, and in a very cruel manner to boot.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How much do you pay in taxes every year?

    This is ridiculous. The US is a signatory to international agreements that govern asylum. Should the US not honor those agreements? It requires tax money to do that. And besides, the whole point of government is to protect human liberty. There is a lot of crap that taxes shouldn't pay for, but saving people from oppression isn't part of the crap. I will gladly pay taxes to save desperate people fleeing oppression, and quite frankly, you come off as a soulless monster by complaining about these particular taxes.

  • Mark22||

    The US is a signatory to international agreements that govern asylum. Should the US not honor those agreements?

    And those agreements say that asylum seekers are required to seek asylum in the first country where they are not politically persecuted. That is not the US. It is you who keeps proposing that we ignore the international agreements on asylum.

    And besides, the whole point of government is to protect human liberty.

    Yes, of its own citizens, not of every human being on the planet. If we try to protect human liberty of every human being on the planet, our own country turns into an oppressive shithole and an evil empire. (Furthermore, many of those people even chose to reject liberty.)

    I will gladly pay taxes to save desperate people fleeing oppression, and quite frankly, you come off as a soulless monster by complaining about these particular taxes.

    I emigrated from an oppressive country. You are trying to turn the US into such an oppressive shithole, and I strongly object.

  • JoeB||

    So, you pay minimal taxes. Got it.

  • Mark22||

    What you have described is true of every asylum seeker everywhere.

    That is simply not correct. The situation that asylum seekers cross a thousand miles through a friendly nation where they are not politically persecuted, then violate yet another nation's borders is highly unusual. And it is crystal clear from the choices of these people that they are choosing to come to the US over Mexico not because of political persecution, but because they like to receive US benefits.

    Should their applications be rejected based solely on the manner in which they applied for asylum, without considering the merits of their claims or the specifics of the oppression that they claim to be fleeing? Absolutely not

    If they try to enter the US illegally instead of applying to a US border checkpoint in Mexico (a far safer and easier alternative), that is unequivocal evidence that they are trying to game the system.

  • GabrielSyme||

    Heck they don't even have to go to the border! They can request asylum at the nearest American embassy or consulate, saving them tons of money and danger and travel time!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So you're saying that Mexico is a shithole?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Parts of it are, sure. Parts of every country are shitholes.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Parts of it are, sure. Parts of every country are shitholes.

    This is hardly a support for your contention that these migrants couldn't gain asylum there instead of the US.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Sure, some could, based on their circumstances. I am not saying they are all angelic victims. Of course some of them are trying to game the system. But some are not. My only point is that there are some legitimate reasons to believe that Mexico may not be a "safe country" for *some* asylum seekers. Not all, some.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    My only point is that there are some legitimate reasons to believe that Mexico may not be a "safe country" for *some* asylum seekers. Not all, some.

    Which is hardly justification for taking in everyone claiming asylum here.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's a justification for at least listening to the asylum claims. Are you in favor of at least that much?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's a justification for at least listening to the asylum claims. Are you in favor of at least that much?

    Not in the context you want to practice it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So tear up the asylum treaties then?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So tear up the asylum treaties then?

    Just the ones you support.

  • lulz farmer||

    Mexico is a bad country because of Mexicans. The places these people are coming from are bad places because they are full of people like themselves. Project that onto America, or Canada, or a European country and think about what those countries would look like as a result of your open borders lunacy when they are primarily populated by people who tend to naturally create places like Mexico or Honduras.

    Magic soil isn't real. These people don't become like us when they move to our country. Their descendants don't, either. They just turn our countries into dangerous, grubby places like the ones they came from.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Countries are people with places, not places with people

    Mexico is Mexico because Mexicans have made it that way
    America is America because Americans have made it that way

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Jeff

    The US shows up as one of the TOP 10 unsafe counties in the world, at least for women, according to a recent poll of experts by Reuters. Mexico didn't make that list so how can you call Mexico less safe than the US.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The world is full of unsafety. Not our job to make up for the shitholes other peoples make of their countries.

    We stopped imperial fascism in WWII, and communist totalitarianism in the Cold War. We've done more than our share to make the world safe for the next 1000 years.

    Time to make America safe and prosperous.

    America First.

  • Joaquim||

    Amazing how nobody here actually addressed the substance of the article. Weren't you people only against ILLEGAL immigration? Shouldn't you be worried about more barriers to LEGAL entry? Thought so

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I think there are some people on the pro-Trump side who are really just opposed to illegal immigration, and have no problems with legal immigration.

    But I also think there were a lot of people on the pro-Trump side who were happy to use the issue of illegal immigration as a vehicle to push through their real agenda of restrictions on all immigration.

    It really isn't all that different from how many Democrats used the issue of uncompensated medical care to push through more regulations on all health care in the form of ObamaCare. It's the same kind of baloney just in a different form.

  • lulz farmer||

    What's wrong with being against legal immigration of cultural and racially alien people? Do tell. Why are you trying to denude us of our right to free association, bucko?

  • damikesc||

    I'll ask:

    WHY do we need more people?

    400 or so million seems more than sufficient.

    Why do we NEED more?

    An actual reason, please.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    WHY do we need more people?

    WHY do we *need* more guns?

    WHY do we *need* hate speech?

    WHY do we *need* to smoke pot?

  • damikesc||

    WHY do we *need* more guns?

    They're legal products and do not require me to expend a penny for you to have one.

    WHY do we *need* hate speech?

    Who says what is hate speech?

    I say we have speech. Period. If YOU, personally, wish to make distinctions, knock yourself out.

    WHY do we *need* to smoke pot?
  • damikesc||

    WHY do we *need* more guns?

    They're legal products and do not require me to expend a penny for you to have one.

    WHY do we *need* hate speech?

    Who says what is hate speech?

    I say we have speech. Period. If YOU, personally, wish to make distinctions, knock yourself out.

    WHY do we *need* to smoke pot?
  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good Lord you missed the point.

    The point is, exercise of liberty doesn't require a "need" before it is justifiable.

    I should be able to smoke pot whether or not I have a "need" for marijuana or not.

    I should be able to migrate somewhere else whether or not I have a "need" to migrate or not.

  • damikesc||

    The point is, exercise of liberty doesn't require a "need" before it is justifiable.

    There is zero right to entry to this country.

    Sorry, but that is the reality. Such a right does not, has not, and will not exist. Hope and pray as you wish...it will not alter.

    I should be able to smoke pot whether or not I have a "need" for marijuana or not.

    You're mistaking "something legal" for a "right". Rights are significantly more important than "things that are legal". Proclaiming all legal things as rights does nothing more than bastardize the concept of rights.

    I should be able to migrate somewhere else whether or not I have a "need" to migrate or not.

    Do so. Let me know how that works out for you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Such a right does not, has not, and will not exist.

    Argument by assertion. Clever!

  • damikesc||

    No. A right to enter any country on Earth has never been a right.

  • lulz farmer||

    Some people want to financially benefit via cheap labor and perverse incentives, consequences be damned.

    Some people really just hate white people and want us gone.

    There's no real argument in the positive for why, though. No one is telling me how I'm freer and my life improved by being forced into proximity with Pakistani rape gangs or Mestizo gangs like MS-13. This libertarian nostrum about more people = better than doesn't hold much water. Little countries like Iceland or Luxembourg have far better living standards than these gigantic tens to hundreds of millions population African countries, and it's because "human capital" isn't equal.

  • Lester224||

    Birth rates. We're swamped with aging baby boomers with no one to change their diapers and it's only going to get worse.

  • lulz farmer||

    I bet our birth rates sagging has nothing to do with being invaded by tens of millions of people we have to subsidize through increased taxation, or "free trade" policies that make having maintenance-level births or higher impossible.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's not all that complicated. We're opposed to illegal immigration, because illegal immigrants are the sort of people who wouldn't be let in under any rational system of legal immigration.

    The answer to that isn't an irrational system of legal immigration that invites in criminals who don't speak our language.

    That's like thinking the answer to bank robbery is the bank just handing out money voluntarily to anyone who asks for it, so that nobody ever bothers robbing them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Deport as many illegals as possible.

  • M.L.||

    The Trump Administration's Relentless Attempts to Enact the Clear Will of the American People

    Do liberal morons even realize that African Americans are extremely in favor of cutting immigration and instituting a merit-based system?

  • Mark22||

    On the complicated looking Infographic, lucky then that Trump wants to radically simplify this, namely by getting rid of the blue and green boxes! By getting rid of those boxes, the waiting times and processing backlogs for all the other forms of immigration also disappear.

    And when you look at what's left, the yellow boxes, you see that it's actually a fairly uncomplicated process: you need an employer to sponsor you, then you go for your greencard interview after a few years, and after another few years, you go for naturalization.

    So, thank you Shikha, for making such a compelling argument for Trump's skill-based immigration proposals. You will love it!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just eliminating legal paths for immigration won't stop the demand however. It will drive an increase in illegal immigration instead. That is what prohibitions do.

  • lulz farmer||

    Nobody has to meet the "demand" with anything other than machine gun fire if those making the "demand" don't get the hint. There is no right to go invade someone else's country. My liberty isn't served by being forced to live near these dangerous, third world, bioculturally alien invasives. In fact, quite the opposite since I'm being denuded of freedom of association.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff is a soft headed idiot who feels (definitely doesn't 'think') that everyone in the world can unilaterally decide to be American at will, amd we have no right to restrict their movements. So by his feelz, a foreign army can march right into the US and we have no say in it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah because "open borders" is synonymous with "invading armies". LOL

    I'd explain my actual view on the subject, not your ridiculous stereotype, but (1) I've already done so on multiple occasions, and (2) it would be wasted effort when applied to you.

    Good Lord you are ridiculous sometimes.

  • lulz farmer||

    Yet the end result of being colonized by these people will be no different from being invaded by a marching army. It is a distinction without difference.

  • Echospinner||

    So you got your "machine gun" loaded or are you all talk lutz.

  • lulz farmer||

    Absolutely, all that's needed is a large enough mass of people willing to do what must be done in order for us to meet our basic survival need of not being swamped and forcefully mixed out of existence by these invasives and you'd better believe I'd be willing to fight for it.

  • mpercy||

    Reconquista, baby.

  • damikesc||

    Well, they assume people like you will protect them.

    Punish them harshly. Punish those who aid and abet their crime harshly.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Define "harshly".

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Why?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    How far are you willing to go to enforce your prohibition?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Gunning down MS-13 members would be a good start.

  • damikesc||

    Imagine your definition of "harsh". Go with that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't know, I can imagine some pretty harsh punishments.

    But at this point your views don't seem rooted in reason, or even reality.

  • damikesc||

    Says Mr "there is a right to enter other countries"

  • Mark22||

    I didn't suggest "eliminating legal paths to immigration", I suggested eliminating most family-based immigration beyond spouse and children. I strongly favor skill-based immigration.

    As for "how prohibitions work", that's nonsense; immigration isn't alcohol prohibition. You can't brew up a batch of immigrants in your basement, and Americans do not get addicted to immigrants.

  • XM||

    More foreign nationals became citizens so far in the last two months than the same time period in 2016.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....d=56326232

    "The number of people becoming citizens between June 28 and July 10 marks a slight decrease from last year, when nearly 15,000 people took the oath, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but a sharp increase from 2016, when about 7,000 did so during the same time period."

    The path is citizenship can be long (expect multiple trips to the crowded INS locations) but bearable. My mother (English level - ESL) became citizen 10 years ago or so and the "test" involved basic questions, including gems like "what does the stripes in the flag stand for".

    How many of the 14k legal immigrants who were sworn in on 4th of July can be citizens in places like Germany, where language proficiency is required? Our northern neighbor uses merit based system and much of their immigration population is Chinese.

    If Honduran were merely fleeing violence, maybe they could run away to Panama or Nicaragua, where the murder rate is much lower. But they risk the lives of their children by migrating ALL the way to America. We're at a different place than 99% of the world when it comes to immigration, we're the Disneyland of the world. I wish we would stop discussing immigration in a vacuum.

  • Benitacanova||

    Ummm, yay?

  • madam margaret||

    Libertarians need a much better discussion of immigration than leaving it in Shikha's anti trumpist hands

  • Truthteller1||

    What happened here? Reason?

  • Echospinner||

    C'mon Trumpists do not want immigrants. A handful of super scientists, tech supports, groundskeepers for golf courses, but that is it. We got enough of those already.

    Every so called reform bill introduced limits and complicates legal immigration even further.

    Build the wall. Who cares about wasted money at this point.

  • SezWhom||

    So, wouldn't it be nice if the writer bothered to compare US policies to the policies of other countries. How about an examination of China, NK, Russia, France, etc?

    That the writer thinks it's terrible that Trump is legislating from his desk, would go a long way if the writer could point out that he was equally upset when Obama did it.

    Nowhere does the writer examine actual immigration law. Apparently, laws in the nation of laws, no longer matter.

  • PG23COLO||

    Shikha speaks up for the rights of immigrants and exposes the mean-spiritedness of Trump and his cronies.

    Trump, Sessions, and Stephen Miller are doing a lot of harm to innocent people.

  • lulz farmer||

    Your argument is literally "you're a meanie-head!"

    The cultural, ethnic genetic interest costs imposed upon the host population? We cannot talk about that, that's mean or something. Reason dot com is basically HuffPo with libertarian jargon at this point.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump, Sessions, and Miller are doing their duty.

    A Government of the People, by the People, and for the People, to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

    "to ourselves and our Posterity"

    Not the whole damn world.

    America First.

  • Mark22||

    Shikha speaks up for the rights of immigrants and exposes the mean-spiritedness of Trump and his cronies.

    As an immigrant myself, let me say: Shikha is an ignorant, self-righteous jerk, and she certainly doesn't speak for me.

  • TGoodchild||

    So, so much misrepresentation, intellectual dishonesty, incoherence, and illogic, so little time - it simply must be click bait (ya got me!). This being July 2018, I can't continue to pretend that Dalmia actually believes what she writes and yet doesn't mistakenly, for example, drown in a five-gallon bucket.

  • Mark22||

    I can't continue to pretend that Dalmia actually believes what she writes

    I think she does. She knows that under a skill-based immigration system like Canada's, she would never have been admitted to the country. And her need for reducing cognitive dissonance is greater than her need for rational debate.

  • An Innocent Man||

    I used to support immigration, but the more Shriekha Dalmia I read, the less I do.

  • Widhalm19||

    Why does this Leftist Radical keep spewing her lies her on Reason.com. This is a Libertarian news source and forum. Shitka is a Marxist and an open borders supporter. Ban this b*tch.

  • buybuydandavis||

    As a devoted member of the Shikha Haters Club, I would like to give Shikha her due on this article.

    This article was actually reporting. Actual facts about what the administration was doing, instead of the usual non-stop bout emotional diarrhea over her hatred of Trump.

    1 point awarded to Shikha.

  • JoeB||

    Why do the Central Americans go north through "hostile" Mexico? Nicaragua is nice, and Costa Rica very peaceful also. Both have Spanish as most common language. The perfect place for asylum if oppressed, right?

  • JoeB||

    Finally, if anyone ever wonders if Shitka has TDS, please refer them to the illustration above.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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