MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Latest Plan To Slam Legal Immigrants Who Merely Qualify for Public Benefits Is a Travesty

The right has given up the pretense that it is only opposed to illegal immigration

Nosey TrumpDonkeyHoter via Foter.comWhite House aide Stephen Miller, an arch restrictionist, is about to release rules that would make it almost impossible for legal immigrants to obtain green cards, citizenship, extend their visas, or even obtain visas in the first place if they or their American family members so much as qualify for a whole slew of public benefits.

As I note in my Week column, under the guise of protecting American taxpayers from "welfare-mooching" immigrants, Miller is making a diabolical use of administrative powers to restrict legal immigration to only the tippy top. He is also doing an end-run around Congress which pointedly refused to accept Trump's DACA fix when he attached to it his poison pill to cut legal immigration by nearly 40 percent.

I note:

The perversity of this [Miller's scheme] cannot be overstated.

An immigrant would be barred from upgrading his status if he married, say, an American woman on Social Security disability till he crossed the 250 percent earning threshold. Or consider, a real-life example of a Haitian green-card holder who works 80 hours a week as a nursing assistant but has a severely disabled American daughter who receives public assistance. His citizenship petition may not have a prayer. In effect, Miller's plan would penalize immigrants not because they are needy but because they have Americans in their lives who are.

What's particularly unfair about this is that it's not like legal immigrants get any reprieve from taxes. With very, very few exceptions, they pay all the taxes that Americans do and then some (if you count all the fees that they and their employers have to constantly cough up to get and keep their visas). Denying them a shot at citizenship would mean creating a permanently disenfranchised class that can be taxed but will be barred from basic assistance (in addition to all the federal means-tested benefits), and won't be allowed to vote, eviscerating America's bedrock commitment to no taxation without representation.

Go here to read the piece.

But while I'm at it, let me point out that the restrictionist right had long maintained that it wasn't motivated by nativist concerns and its beef wasn't with legal immigration, just illegal immigration. That few on the right have pushed back against Trump's near daily assaults on legal immigration reveal that claim to be a complete lie. In fact, the right has only egged him on. Just last night, Laura Ingraham ranted on air, "The America we know and love doesn't exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don't like ... this is related to both illegal and legal immigration." [Emphasis mine.]

Referring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Latina social democrat who won New York's congressional primary, Ingraham said, "Let's face it, they [immigrants] are not too big on Adam Smith and the Federalist Papers."

Ingraham is, of course, right about Ocasio-Cortez. However, the fact of the matter is that she, Trump, and Miller, aren't too big on Adam Smith, either—or for that matter The Federalist Papers, or else they wouldn't show so much contempt for the checks-and-balances that the founders enshrined. They wouldn't know the Wealth of Nations from Das Kapital if Jesus himself appeared on her show and read it to them. Indeed, Trump's entire mercantilist-restrictionist agenda is a giant middle finger to Smith's carefully articulated case for free trade and free immigration in the Wealth of Nations. Trump's stupid attack on America's "trade deficit" or what Smith called, "the strong Jealousy with regard to the balance of trade," is exactly what his magnum opus was debunking.

The reality is that Trump's scheme to enrich American workers by limiting trade and immigration is more in line with Marx, given that Marx was perhaps the only major political economist of any political persuasion post-Smith to bad mouth immigration.

Marx regarded England's decision to absorb the "surplus" Irishmen being driven out of their country during the Great Famine not as a benefit but a ploy by the English bourgeoisie to "force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class." Trump and Miller's protestations that Third World immigration will "immiserate" the American worker has its genesis in Marxist thought. And their efforts to do an end-run around Congress to implement their anti-immigration agenda are a slap on the face of the Founders.

So if Ingraham wants to restore respect for Smith and the Founders of this country, she may want to begin by holding Trump and Miller accountable for their anti-American machinations. Then she should put down her copy of Das Kapital and crack open the Wealth of Nations and The Federalist Papers.

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.

  • Don't look at me.||

    I thought they all started small businesses and food trucks to benefit society.

  • John||

    And I thought libertarians were against the welfare state.

  • Cathy L||

    Does that mean libertarians who don't have employer-sponsored healthcare were morally required to pay the Obamacare penaltax rather than buying insurance on an exchange?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am sure John is going to voluntarily reject his Social Security checks. Just call him Spartacus.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I dont even have a social security number and never paid into the system.

    No social security for me.

  • LynchPin1477||

    You aren't a US citizen? Or you are still a child?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You dont need a birth certificate nor social security number after being born in the USA.

    I have a birth certificate but no SS number. I have a Tax ID number instead.

  • LynchPin1477||

    An ITIN, or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, is a tax processing number only available for certain nonresident and resident aliens, their spouses, and dependents who cannot get a Social Security Number (SSN).

    via irs.gov

  • Juice||

    This might explain his Freudian hangup about citizenship and immigration. The lady doth protest too much.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Juice, I was born in the USA and some of my family has been here even before the Revolutionary War. I dont need a social security number and some of my family members never applied for one either.

    Unless your employer requires one, you dont need one.

    The IRS used to give everyone who requested one a Tax ID to pay taxes due.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) is an identification number used by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the administration of tax laws. It is issued either by the Social Security Administration (SSA) or by the IRS. A Social Security number (SSN) is issued by the SSA whereas all other TINs are issued by the IRS.
    Taxpayer Identification Numbers
    Social Security Number "SSN"
    Employer Identification Number "EIN"
    Individual Taxpayer Identification Number "ITIN"
    Taxpayer Identification Number for Pending U.S. Adoptions "ATIN"
    Preparer Taxpayer Identification Number "PTIN"

    Look at that. Changes to US Citizens not being able to get Tax IDs anymore.

    You know that there is not a single law that requires American citizens have a social security number?

  • LynchPin1477||

    You have to have a tax number if you have any income subject to income or payroll taxes, and it seems like that has to be SSN if you are a citizen.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You dont even have to have a tax ID. You are required to pay taxes on income. As long as you pay the tax, the who what when where why dont matter.

    The government cannot force you to get a SSN.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lynchpin cannot stand it that someone refuses to get a SSN, pays taxes, earns a living, and will never draw social security.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They're also against the police state.

  • GlenchristLaw||

    Libertarians believe in equal treatment under the law, even a bad law.

    (Except when dirty foreigners and icky gays are involved, of course...)

  • LynchPin1477||

    That's highly debatable

  • LynchPin1477||

    (the bad law part)

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Libertarians are the kind of people who promote stepping on rakes while insisting they're appalled by people getting whacked in the face.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, Shikha represents the non-Libertarians out there.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Self described "progressive libertarian"

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I thought they all started small businesses and food trucks to benefit society.

    Seriously. This is some major goal post moving from our favorite idiot.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I thought they are all totally ineligible for government welfare assistance.

  • Tony||

    I so look forward to a long thread where everyone pretends that what Miller and Ingraham are almost totally concerned about isn't the dilution of the white race like any common fucking white supremacist. There's gonna be a lot of not seeing going on here, I bet.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Can we whitewash these problems away? Whitewash everyone, and we'll all be the same, right?

    See http://www.bobvila.com/articles/whitewashing/ and let's get started!

  • Ron||

    Just for the sake of argument what would be the moral problem with protecting any race as long as no other races are harmed. We expend millions in defending some owls whose only differentiations are the type of food they consume, shouldn't we also take the same care to protect an individual race?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, we used to (still do? Don't know...) spend millions to shoot common barred owls who might otherwise interbreed with (and "sully the blood") of the racially pure spotted owl... So why can we do that with owls but not humans? Interesting question... My off-the-top- of-my-head answer? Power! We can shoot owls, and they can't shoot back. We can shoot other races, but they can shoot back! (So long as Government Almighty doesn't take all of their guns away).

    I know, I am giving a political-practical answer, where perhaps an ethical question was being asked... I don't think it is ethical to shoot any race (people or animals) unless we have like some sort of way-over-riding higher cause, like the local galactic cluster will otherwise implode, or some such... But that's just my opinion!

  • Ron||

    yes the question was ethical since i did add no harm to others

  • Tony||

    You're gonna have to describe the hypothetical methods, because I can't figure out how you "protect" a race without harming others. At minimum, you're restricting other races from interbreeding, no?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Being American has no race. Americans come in all races.

  • Ron||

    I have no desire to restrict however those who choose to not dilute should not be mocked for making a choice that scientist and animal lovers do everyday for species they deem more benificial than others. A true libertarian would respect ones right to choose to interbreed or not to without questioning there moral charachter

  • hello.||

    You're gonna have to describe the hypothetical methods, because I can't figure out how you "protect" a race without harming others.

    And yet you assure us that affirmative action causes no harm to anyone.

  • Tony||

    Nobody's entitled to a spot at a university. Not even a white person.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Especially not a white person. Right?

  • Tony||

    For the sake of argument, see the 20th century. Tried it, decided it was literally the worst thing ever.

  • Agammamon||

    How do you 'protect' one race without harming the others?

    Has Affirmative Action protected Blacks while harming others?

    Do protections for owls not harm property owners?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    How do you 'protect' one race without harming the others?

    You don't. That's the whole point of ethnocentrism vs. humanitarianism. The problem with the open borders crowd is that they think non-whites will default towards the latter rather than the former, despite the last 50 years of evidence indicating otherwise.

    The faction that is able to successfully implement its own "tribalism is bad except when we do it" strategy is inevitably going to be the one in charge of things. In a highly multicultural society, it is THE winning strategy for control of that society and its resources, because it's the only one that actually plays to win. The only society in which humanitarianism fully works is one in which one group is so utterly dominant that other tribes or factions don't pose a threat to control of the society's resources and power.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The open borders crowd deludes itself with the fantasy that an increasingly multicultural society won't lead to increased conflict. Native Americans who attempted to act as peace agents between their tribes and whites inevitably became pawns of the latter, who manipulated their humanitarian impulses into agreeing to give up ownership of the tribe's best lands to white control and settlement. The reality is that an ethnic group that cleaves to a sense of its own manifest destiny will annihilate those that don't every single time, because they will ruthlessly exploit the goodwill of humanitarians and traitor agents into greater concessions until the other group is effectively suppressed.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In other words, peace may be achieved if one dominant group oppresses everyone else.

    Well - DUH.

    Maybe peace through tyranny isn't such a laudable goal though.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Maybe peace through tyranny isn't such a laudable goal though.

    And maybe Santa Claus will bring you that pony.

    "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

    If you're going to be in denial about the entire human experience, then you're really not in a position to whine about the state or other groups oppressing your liberties. The reality of this country is that a lot of the freedoms we take for granted were established by a group of men that would find your worldview naïve at best and dangerous at worst.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The founders would just laugh an anarchist like chemjeff out of the room.

    B Ack then, anarchists could go live in mud huts trapping furs and yell at the deer tresspassing on their lawns.

  • Cathy L||

    In a highly multicultural society, it is THE winning strategy for control of that society and its resources,
    because it's the only one that actually plays to win.

    Do you understand that libertarians think it's wrong to control society and its resources?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Thats NOT a Libertarian position.

  • Cathy L||

    Okay, that's just funny.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Cathy L, small and limited government is a Libertarian fundamental..

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Do you understand that libertarians think it's wrong to control society and its resources?

    If that's the case. libertarians don't understand much about human history.

  • hello.||

    Do you understand that libertarians think it's wrong to control society and its resources?

    Yeah. Now bake the fucking cake breeder.

  • LynchPin1477||

    control of that society and its resources

    Resources aren't zero sum, and the whole point of libertarianism is to have a society with minimal enough controls that people are, by and large, free to live as they see fit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Resources aren't zero sum

    The amount of resources is irrelevant. It's who controls their distribution that matters.

    the whole point of libertarianism is to have a society with minimal enough controls that people are, by and large, free to live as they see fit.

    True. But if you think you're going to arrive at that point without employing violence against those who actively want to take your shit and tell you what to do with it, RACIST BIGOT, you're kidding yourself.

  • hello.||

    Resources aren't zero sum

    Lol. It's cool when you come right out with the Marxist post-scarcity retardation directly.

  • LynchPin1477||

    what would be the moral problem with protecting any race as long as no other races are harmed

    1) It's base collectivism, doling our "protections" based on superficial and meaningless characteristics. It reduces the dignity of the individual.

    2) What exactly are we protecting this chosen race from?

  • Kivlor||

    I think it is quite presumptive to proclaim that they are mere superficial and meaningless characteristics...

  • LynchPin1477||

    Race is *defined* through superficial and meaningless characteristics. That's why using it to judge individuals and groups of individuals is wrong.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You better check your privilege.

  • Kivlor||

    They are indeed defined by "superficial" characteristics if we literally mean "from the surface" as in we can generally tell a person's race by looking at them. If you are using the term (and I bet you are b/c context) as "appearing true or real only until examined more closely" you are woefully mistaken. The closer we study races, the more apparent and real the differences become. Meaningless is a value judgement that I seriously doubt you are well-read enough to make the determination on. Stop letting your knee-jerk reactions get the best of you.

    Races are basically subspecies. And if you're going to start calling subspecies meaningless distinctions, well, biologists may take issue with you on that loony claim. "There's no meaningful difference between a great dane and a corgy.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Please feel free to 'enlighten' us on what meaningful biological differences exist as a result of differences in phenotypes or national origin.

  • Kivlor||

    IQ and congenital diseases are two that come to mind off hand.

    I mean, negroes are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia and are much more sensitive to glucose meaning they become diabetic more easily, for example. Caucasoids are more likely to have issues with heart disease. Orientals are more likely to have congenital musculo-skeletal defects.

    But go on telling people that they can't and shouldn't look at reality because it threatens your weird hokey religion.

  • LynchPin1477||

    The IQ stuff is tied up with all kinds of confounding variables and thoroughly unconvincing to me. Fair enough that certain diseases have higher incidence in certain groups. When I said meaningful I was thinking in the context of the conversation going on here, i.e. meaningful for treating one group of people differently under the law or in broader social interactions. I don't find congenital diseases meaningful in that context.

    And the only 'religion' I'm espousing is that we should judge people as individuals and not based on their membership or lack thereof in some chosen group.

  • Kivlor||

    The races are quite different in behavior and criminality, which necessitates different treatment "under the law" to a certain degree. You don't send an equal number of police to non-criminal neighborhoods as you do the criminal ones if you want to stamp out violent crime. You focus on the offending ones. Which inherently means putting the boot on negro and to a lesser degree hispanic neighborhoods.

    Boom. Mind. Blown.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Boom. Mind. Blown.

    Hardly. People have been trying to dress up their racism in a thin veil of science for well over a century, at least. Thanks for making yours a little less thin, though.

  • Kivlor||

    So, you've got nothing then? We are different but if you acknowledge it you're evil or something? Can't police criminal neighborhoods because it might be wacist?

  • hello.||

    Other than when you're making blanket pronouncements about the work ethic of the entire Latin American immigrant community right?

  • TuIpa||

    You forgot to log in to your Cathy account.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>the dilution of the white race

    can we never do race arguments again instead? difference in melanin = difference in being?

  • hello.||

    If they were smart they'd do what your side did with the blacks and genocide 30 million of them by abortion so they never rise about a fixed percentage of the population.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Meet Tony, the race baiting vermin

    Like a good Lefty, all he has to sell is the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics.

  • SQRLSY One||

    When humans are outlawed, only outlaws will be human!

  • Cloudbuster||

    When, oh, when, is Trump going to deport Shikha Dalmia?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Right after he takes your house through eminent domain.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump's never taken any property via eminent domain.

    As a private businessman he tried and failed.

  • DaveH||

    Most of this article is something I would Facebook-post to an (immigrant!) friend's timeline. Unfortunately, the last few paragraphs descend from professionalism into invective, and render the article quite unsuitable for the purpose of explaining or convincing anyone who is not already drinking the Kool-Aid.

    Just sayin' – who are you really writing for?

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's an spplication to work at Salon

  • M.L.||

    Reducing slightly the millions of third world poors flooding the country is a TRAVESTY. Yeah, right, ok.

    Is it a travesty because the reductions should actually be much greater? That would make sense.

    The real travesty is de facto open borders, and replacing Americans with massive waves of immigrants who will vote for socialism, all because the Chamber of Commerce wants to make sure wages stay low, and Democrats want to replace the American electorate with people who will vote for them, and other powers that be frankly want to destroy America.

    We're at an all-time high water mark for the levels of immigrants here, even while being at an all-time low for achieving assimilation, and also all-time low for needing mass immigration for labor and to settle the countryside.

    Time to cut back, 50% reduction sounds about right but Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of that or more, and black and Hispanic Americans are actually even more in favor of this than whites, polls have shown again and again.

  • Cathy L||

    We're at an all-time high water mark for the levels of immigrants here

    That's not accurate.

  • TuIpa||

    Your graph has two lines, and he is correct according to one of them.

    What the fuck is it with you and your innumeracy Kivlor?

  • Cathy L||

    Fuck off, Tulpa.

  • TuIpa||

    Awwww don't get upset because I outed you Kivlor.

  • Cathy L||

    I know you're Kivlor too. It's not that hard to tell. And it's not exactly atypical for you to accuse your other socks of being me.

  • Kivlor||

    You know, I'm waiting for someone to try and accuse me of being Mexican's sockpuppet that he runs as a foil or some nonsense next.

  • Kivlor||

    You need to update that graph to include the 30,000,000+ illegal immigrants in the country. With that in mind, the population is indeed at an unbelievable high-water mark.

    Also, it is not evident that a nation of 1,000,000 people assimilates an additional 1,000 at the same rate that a country of 300,000,000 assimilates 300,000. There is an issue of scale here that isn't really being considered .

  • Cathy L||

    Lol. "An issue of scale" like you have no idea how many illegal immigrants are currently in the country?

    The chart includes them. You apparently think they account for about one in 11 people here. Or you're just innumerate, or full of shit.

  • TuIpa||

    I love that you are trying to establish that you aren't the same poster by arguing with yourself.

    But it's been done, and by better.

  • Cathy L||

    But it's been done, and by better.

    That's where you're wrong. I know you think it's everyone's greatest goal to run a bunch of sockpuppets to feel important, but it's not.

  • Kivlor||

    I think that if you take the time to analyze statistics, there are probably ~30,000,000. This is based on incarcerations, usage of federal assistance, etc. Which, as you point out is a tremendous number.

    One of my local elementary schools had illegals at an estimated 60% of the population of kids a few years ago.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Time to break out your Trump Border Restrictionist Bingo Card!

    replacing Americans : Check!

    immigrants who will vote for socialism : Check!

    Chamber of Commerce wants to make sure wages stay low : Check!

    Democrats want to replace the American electorate : Check!

    destroy America : Check!

    all-time low for achieving assimilation : Check!

    BINGO!

  • hello.||

    The Open Borders Bingo Card is a lot easier. There's only on square.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Not an argument

    You'll notice that Lefties do that a lot

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: M.L.

    Reducing slightly the millions of third world poors flooding the country is a TRAVESTY. Yeah, right, ok.


    Come and see Trumpistas conflate the undocumented with those who migrate legally! You can feed the Trumpistas - here's a bag of peanuts! Come, come, five cents per seat! Bring your kids!

    NO, YOU FUCKING FASCIST. MILLIONS OF 3RD WORLD "POORS" ARE NOT "FLOODING" THE COUNTRY, and Steven Miller's "wonderful" idea is NOT meant to address the undocumented but to discourage LEGAL immigration in toto.

  • TuIpa||

    Cathy/Kivlor's graph says otherwise.

    Sorry, argue with the numbers not me.

  • hello.||

    Stop trying to use terms of art that you don't understand you illiterate peasant.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As things stand now, the current choice is whether you favor a welfare state, or a police state.

    Ideally we'd have neither, of course.

    But if you want to keep out the immigrants because of welfare, that must necessarily mean a police state to enforce all those laws.

    But if you want so-called "open borders", that will probably mean more immigrants using welfare, but less police knocking heads and separating families.

    So, pick one: Police State or Welfare State?

  • Ron||

    I think we have both a police state and welfare state now. almost everyone is affected by some form of welfare and no one does anything without the governments approval otherwise the police will come for you

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, we do have a great deal of both.
    Ideally we want neither.
    So pick the one you want to prioritize getting rid of first.

  • Ron||

    If you remove the police state then fewer people would need welfare so I say remove the police state.

  • Tony||

    Welfare state, with immigrants helping pick up the bill.

  • Agammamon||

    So you're voting for both.

    Because a welfare state inevitably leads to a police state.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I don't think that second part is accurate. That's not a defense of the welfare state, but I don't have the impression that the generous welfare states of Europe are police states.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    That's not a defense of the welfare state, but I don't have the impression that the generous welfare states of Europe are police states.

    With the direction those countries are going with "hate speech" laws, that's not really accurate anymore.

  • LynchPin1477||

    That's unrelated to welfare policies.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But it is related to national policy in general, which welfare policies grow out of.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I see no practical or ideological reason why policies leading to greater welfare are related to restrictions on speech. You are trying to draw a connection where none exists.

  • hello.||

    That's unrelated to welfare policies.

    Your statement wasn't about welfare policies relating to police states. Your statement was that you didn't think the generous welfare states of Europe are police states. They very clearly are so now you are trying to backtrack so you don't look quite as stupid. Unfortunately your stupidity is right there in black and white still.

  • hello.||

    Also if you need an example of how welfare policies lead directly to police states you could take consideration of the NHS in the UK literally prohibiting the parents of a dying child from removing the dying child from the state medical facility to give him treatment elsewhere entirely at their own expense. Or the entire fucking history of the Soviet bloc from the end of WWII until 1991. You ignorant motherfucker.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Also if you need an example of how welfare policies lead directly to police states you could take consideration of the NHS in the UK literally prohibiting the parents of a dying child from removing the dying child from the state medical facility to give him treatment elsewhere entirely at their own expense.

    You don't even need to take that into consideration. There's fucking security cameras all over the damn place in the UK. How the hell could anyone see that Orwellian nightmare and not call the UK a police state?

  • hello.||

    I don't have the impression that the generous welfare states of Europe are police states

    You're incredibly stupid so that's not terribly surprising.

  • Tony||

    I don't see why that's the case. And isn't policing the only thing you want the state to do?

  • ||

    Do you really not see the difference between thinking there should be police and wanting a police state?

    Really?

  • hello.||

    It's chemjeff the crypto-communist who refuses to make the distinction so it's only fair that Tony should play along.

  • Tony||

    Perhaps if the only thing the state does is police, it might want to get really good at it.

  • hello.||

    Hey look the crypto-communist is presenting a false dilemma based on a complete and total mischaracterization of basic immigration law enforcement that has existed in this country since the late 1800s. Let's all take him very seriously and wisely choose economic slavery.

  • NashTiger||

    Nah

  • buybuydandavis||

    "muh anarchy"

    "all states are police states"

    There's not point discussing immigration law with "all laws are bad, m'kay?"

    Note that his own argument fails by his own standards, as a welfare state necessarily entails a police state too. Gotta collect them taxes! Tyranny! Police State!

    So his alternatives are actually Police State vs. Welfare and Police State.

    He loses again.

  • ||

    "..Then she should put down her copy of Das Kapital and crack open the Wealth of Nations and The Federalist Papers.

    I don't know if Dalmia read Wealth of Nations (my guess is no) or The Federalist Papers (slightly more realistic) but given her track record, I'm guessing she missed the point.

  • ||

    Odds are pretty good she didn't read (and misinterpreted if she did) the immigration stance from Das Kapital as well.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Anti-immigrant people actually love them some illegal immigrants, since everything they do is geared towards making more of them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is part of the irony isn't it?

    It is like the unholy alliance between "Baptists and Bootleggers" that kept alcohol prohibition going.

    The Baptists wanted to ban liquor, of course, because it was demon rum.
    The Bootleggers wanted to ban liquor because it helped their business.

    So I guess we might describe the current situation as the alliance between "Restrictionists and Smugglers".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You forgot the anarchists who dont want a Constitution nor rule of law under that Constitution.

    If everything gets bad enough, anarchists can have Anarchy-land. Finally!

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: loveconst.... fucking liar.

    You forgot the anarchists who dont want a Constitution nor rule of law under that Constitution.


    Is your claim that Trumpistas do want it? Please.

  • hello.||

    That's your claim actually since you choose to categorize anyone who opposes your chicano ethno-nationalism as a "Trumpista".

  • hello.||

    That argument can made against literally any restraint on human behavior including rape and murder.

    "Dumbledee dumb diddly dee... if we stopped arresting people there would be no criminals"

    It probably sounds clever when you've spent your entire life around people as stupid as you are. It makes most people educated educated past a 5th grade level chuckle and roll their eyes.

  • Kristian H.||

    It would be easier to get outraged if the judiciary wasn't consistently adding rights to illegal immigrants (DACA 'recipients' can sue because their application was rejected). It may be throwing out the baby with the bath water, but as UofI is showing, that is just what bureaucracies do when their discretion is challenged.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Kristian H.,

    It would be easier to get outraged if the judiciary wasn't consistently adding rights to illegal immigrants


    The judiciary is not adding rights to anyone. Nobody can do that. Each of us is already BORN with rights. You may be confusing delayed or deferred actions from the State as "rights".

  • Kristian H.||

    I don't think everyone agrees with that. What rights we must give to non-citizens and non-permanent residents have some areas I don't think are well considered by right/left/progressive/conservative. I also don't think the judiciary should be the arbiters of society wide changes in what the government MUST do and CAN'T do (Abortion pr Association for instance). Also, when a non-citizen is not here on a legal visa but can sue because a school application was rejected or isn't given a job, I have concerns.

  • ||

    What rights we must give

    That's where you missed OM's point - rights are not "given," they simply are. That's literally the legal basis of the Declaration of Independence. Without a concept of inalienable human rights (i.e. not "citizen privileges"), the American Revolution was simply an act of treason.

    when a non-citizen is not here on a legal visa but can sue because a school application was rejected or isn't given a job

    Is it okay if a citizen can do those things?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Kristian H.,

    I don't think everyone agrees with that.


    That's irrelevant.

    What rights we must give to non-citizens and non-permanent residents have some areas I don't think are well considered by right/left/progressive/conservative.


    No group, or you, grant rights. You would in any instance RESPECT the rights of non-citizens to live, to engage in commerce, to freely associate, just like everyone else is obligated to respect your rights, or mine.

    I also don't think the judiciary should be the arbiters of society wide changes in what the government MUST do and CAN'T do.


    That's a different issue. That has to do with prohibiting something and the judiciary with removing such prohibition or accepting it. Governments cannot grant rights. They at most grant privileges, entitlements, but not rights.

    Also, when a non-citizen is not here on a legal visa but can sue because a school application was rejected or isn't given a job, I have concerns.


    Why? Courts exist to provide arbitration. If a wrong was committed, why would a non-citizen be excluded from the process? A court can dismiss a case if it has no merit. That's up to the court, not up to how you feel about it.

  • TuIpa||

    "That's irrelevant"

    The fuck it is.

  • Cathy L||

    when a non-citizen is not here on a legal visa but can sue because a school application was rejected or isn't given a job, I have concerns.

    If you think this is happening, you are deeply confused.

  • TuIpa||

    Ok Kivlor.

  • hello.||

  • hello.||

    Yeah Kristian. Mexicans were born with a right to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. HUMAN RIGHTS SHITLORD!

  • NashTiger||

    Like the right to a free abortion?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Shikha is tying in the right to trump American property rights with the right to Americans welfare.

    The Lefties like Chapman and Shikha have gone full TDS.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: loveconst.... fucking liar,

    Shikha is tying in the right to trump American property rights with the right to Americans welfare.


    That's quite the spin, you Trumpista. What Shikha is correctly criticizing is the mere consideration of potential eligibility as an excuse to deny a person a visa or a greencard. That has pre-crime written all over.

  • hello.||

    Yes we must grant them status first and then figure out how much welfare we should be giving them.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Foreigners have no right to be here.
    Our country, our choice.

    Not choosing people based on risk of dependency is totally reasonable.
    We're not charging them with a crime. We're not prosecuting them. We're not imprisoning them.

    We're just saying "No thank you, we're not interested in you joining our club. Have a nice life. Elsewhere."

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    The reality is that Trump's scheme to enrich American workers by limiting trade and immigration is more in line with Marx, given that Marx was perhaps the only major political economist of any political persuasion post-Smith to bad mouth immigration.


    And Division of Labor, and Specialization, and trade. What is Communism if not economic autarky writ large?

    I've read comments from Trumpistas denying the existence of Comparative Advantage! Yup, Trumpistas believe in economic autarky, which explains how they spectacularly somersault while justifying Trump's new tariffs, which are meant to lower other governments' tariffs and bring back American jobs, except that to do so you would have to keep the tariffs but in that case what's the incentive for other governments to lower their tariffs and so......... Trumpistas have absolutely NO credibility. None. At least we know that in one area they have taken their masks off, and that is the pretense that their beef is with undocumented immigrants. That was a lie before Trump initiated his campaign, it was a lie in 2015, 2016 and 2017. We now know they cannot pretend any more. They're MARXISTS. Not that they will admit it.

  • John||

    Whoever gave you any information about economics might as well have given a chainsaw to a four year old. It is just remarkable how badly you fuck up economic concepts and twist them to whatever your position is. You are dumb as post Mexican, but you make up by being crazy.

  • hello.||

    He's doing the best with what his illegal immigrant Mexican mama gave him. The punchline is he's actually probably above average for his cohort.

  • Ben_||

    Libertarianism is about cheerleading for government giveaways now?

  • buybuydandavis||

    That's what Reason is about now. Anything that serves the globalist agenda.

  • hello.||

    Giving mooching lowlife foreign pieces of shit welfare is the actual travesty. Letting in intellectual handicaps like Shikha Dalmia is another. Three generations of imbeciles are well and truly enough.

  • Peacedog||

    I really don't understand the mentality that says any immigrants, legal or illegal, should qualify for public assistance.

    Immigration SHOULD be designed to benefit the society it occurs in. If someone needs government help, why should they be allowed in at all?

    If that person isn't ready to go to work right now, how does it benefit the society they have just become a part of? Hoping someone eventually becomes productive isn't a smart policy.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Immigration SHOULD be designed to benefit the society it occurs in."

    That's only if you believe in self government.

    If want rule of an unaccountable ruling class, you have to destroy the political traditions of liberty and rule of law first. So you import voters without that political tradition. It's not rocket science.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The right has given up the pretense that it is only opposed to illegal immigration"
    "But while I'm at it, let me point out that the restrictionist right had long maintained that it wasn't motivated by nativist concerns and its beef wasn't with legal immigration, just illegal immigration."

    So much Fake News.

    Trump supporters want immigration that benefits the citizens of America. He always said that. We always said that.

    America First.

    We've been clear about desired changes to current immigration law. We were never "We love current immigration law exactly as it is".

    Just another hysterical race baiting article from Shikha. The globalists push the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics to divide and conquer us.

  • rferris||

    This authors strong point is to be essentially wrong on much of what she writes. Superficially on target, but once you know more details she always distorts and misses the mark.
    She would be welcome at the Nation.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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