MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Conservatives Would Use Mollie Tibbetts' Murder To Build the Police State They Once Denounced

As with school shootings, terrible events breed really bad policy ideas.

Poweshiek County Emergency Management Agency/FacebookPoweshiek County Emergency Management Agency/FacebookThe killing of [Mollie] Tibbetts, who went missing on July 18 but whose body was found only this week, is an unspeakable tragedy. Her killer should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Yet many conservatives who have long assailed the government as incompetent at best are now so blinded by xenophobic rage over her murder that they've turned into the thing they claim to despise: vociferous boosters of big government.

That's the start of a New York Times article I have in the paper today. The details are appalling. Tibbetts, a student at the University of Iowa beaten and murdered. The police have a man in custody. He's definitely an immigrant, and possibly an illegal one (his lawyer disputes that). His legal status is far less important than the way the murder is being used to advance a number of restrictionist items on Donald Trump's and the GOP agenda. As George Rasley, the editor of Conservative HQ, a site run by "funding father" of the Right, Richard Viguerie, says

The real killers are the politicians who keep our borders open and who continue protecting illegal aliens," Mr. Rasley wrote. "Mollie Tibbetts was killed so that somebody in Iowa could have cheap labor, and she was killed so that the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the rest of the Washington-Wall Street-Silicon Valley Axis could hit this quarter's earnings target."

Never mind that immigrants, including illegals, commit fewer crimes, including violent crimes, than natives (stats are in my full piece). The result of the past few years' rhetoric is that every time there is a crime committed by an immigrant—and unlike after school or mass shootings, when they usually only send hopes and prayers—Republicans and conservatives double their efforts to turn America into something a little more like an open-air prison:

Conservatives who used to denounce worker databases such as E-Verify and national ID cards as affronts to the rights of states, business owners and individuals to make their own security and hiring decisions now support all such measures to round up undocumented immigrants. Conservatives who used to denounce government snooping and even the census now support internal checkpoint laws that result in thousands of legal citizens being mistakenly deported each year. Conservatives who used to talk passionately about family values have shown little empathy when the Trump administration has separated migrant families crossing the southern border or when ICE agents have arrested fathers accompanying their wives to give birth.

Read the whole piece here.

Democrats do something similar, of course, after school shootings. They roll out a host of proposals that would use an outlying case—a terrible and tragic one, to be sure—to clamp down on freedom for law-abiding people. I'm not fishing for whataboutism here, a way of saying both sides are hypocritical. I'm saying both sides are wrong to make that play. In the case of violent crime committed by immigrants, legal or not, the facts do not in any way suggest we need to create an impermeable border wall and a series on ongoing, invasive, ever-widening checks on virtually aspect of our lives. There's no way to track just illegal immigrants who are likely to commit crimes (other than the same way we might for any citizen, which is through local police work) that won't roll us all up into a surveillance system that will give the government massive amounts of information about us without making us safer.j

Virtually all research concludes that immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, commit fewer crimes, including violent crimes, than native-born Americans (among other things, they do not want to draw attention to themselves). In 2016, the Cato Institute's Alex Nowratesh writes, "the homicide conviction rate for native-born Americans in Texas was 3.2 per 100,000 natives while it was 1.8 per 100,000 illegal immigrants and 0.9 per 100,000 legal immigrants." In raw numbers, 32 undocumented immigrants and 28 legal immigrants were convicted of homicide in Texas, compared with 746 native-born Americans.

In today's climate, it's hard to recover where the GOP was in 1980, when George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan debated who would be more inclusive toward illegal immigrants.

We're creating a whole society of really honorable, decent, family-loving people that are in violation of the law," Mr. Bush lamented. "Rather than talking about putting up a fence," Mr. Reagan suggested, "open the borders both ways."

in the mid-1990s, as Matt Welch has pointed at Reason, it was the Democrats who got tough on immigration, with Bill Clinton sounding Trumpian with promises to build a wall and deport as many Mexicans as he could find (while running for Senate in New York in 2007, Hillary Clinton was staunchly against giving illegals driver licenses). There are many reasons why the parties have changed rhetoric on immigration (for all the love he showed late in his term, Barack Obama was no friend of immigrants). Some of them are geographic, some are demographic, some are economic (with the effective end of private-sector unionism, Dems no longer fear the wrath of the anti-immigrant AFL-CIO and others they once did), etc.

One major point is to recognize and combat the conservatives such as Richard Viguerie, who back in the day was the sort of guy who saw one-world government in every UNICEF box and a police state in every attempt to pass a national I.D. card. They are using a terrible crime to push an agenda they once abhorred.

Another related point: The number of Americans who think immigration is a good thing for the country is at a record level. Even two-thirds of Republicans think so. We shouldn't let the murder of Mollie Tibbetts become the pretext for bad laws any more than we should let the Parkland school shooting lead to laws that would restrict the Second Amendment to no good end.

GallupGallup

Related Video: Sanctuary Cities are as safer or safer as similarly sized cities with different policies. Here's why.

Photo Credit: Poweshiek County Emergency Management Agency/Facebook

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

  • John||

    And police unions would say that reason would use tragedies to enact harmful policies. And they would have just as much of a point as reason does here. Either the actions of one person can say something about a larger problem or it can't. Sorry but you can't say that the actions of an individual cop means that we need to change the laws for all cops and then swear up and down that one of your beloved dreamer Mexicans murdering a woman doesn't mean that we need to do something about enforcing the immigration laws.

    The bottom line is that if this guy had never gotten into the country illegally, that woman would be alive. If you don't think that is a good reason to try and keep people out of the country, then say so and be honest about your position being that it was her duty to die so that Mexicans may roam free, because that is what your position is.

    The truth is the reason doesn't have a problem with this murder except that it might result in this guy being deported. Reason gives about as much of a fuck about this woman's life as the police unions do about some poor bastard who gets shot for having a remote control in his hand. In both cases the person is just another egg to be broken to make your particular omelet. Fuck all of you.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fuck all of you.

    lol

  • John||

    Yeah, the rape and murder of a woman is real funny there Crusty. Is it the fact that it is a woman who was murdered that makes it so funny or that it was done by a sacred Mexican?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It's more like your self-important fake outrage.

  • John||

    Of course it is fake Crusty. How could anyone be outraged by the rape and murder of some college student? That is funny isn't it? Except of course the fact that this poor dreamer is going to be deported. That isn't funny.

    Maybe Reason can organize a trip out to piss on this woman's grave. That sounds like something that would be right up your ally.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I heard a clip of Fauxcahontas on MSNBC dismissing her murder as 'regrettable', but Americans need to focus on the real tragedy of babies being separated from mommies at the border.

    Fuck the democrats, and fuck Reason. Citizens first.

    Build the wall.

    No more illegals.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Liberty first.

    Ignore the bigoted, right-wing authoritarians.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Says the bigoted Lefty doing his best to destroy Liberty in America.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Guys, I have an idea for a new game called "John or Tony?" Take a comment by John or Tony, and replace the actual topic they are bitching about with blanks. Then you have to guess which one said it.

    Here is one:


    GJ hasn't done shit except run two irrelevant Presidential campaigns and make Libertarianism stand for _____ and ______. If you want ot vote for him, good for you. But I don't see why _____ would consider that he is totally _____ and doesn't really give a shit about _______ or _______. What is Johnson going to do for me other than tell me to _____ and how fabulous _____ is.
  • MasterThief||

    John. By merit of caring about libertarianism

  • Tony||

    John, don't you ever get tired of letting the right-wing horseshit factory do all your thinking and emoting for you?

  • John||

    Don't you ever get tired of people dying so you can feel smug? Of course not, if you did, you would not be a leftist.

  • Tony||

    Remind me never to be a child on your lawn.

    They want you in a thoughtless rage because they don't want you thinking when you vote.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    But when there's a school shooting it's totally fine to listen to and abide by the political wisdom of a teenager.

  • Tony||

    I'm not saying Tucker Carlson should be forced to shut up, I'm saying he's a terrible person who gets paid to make John angry for the interests of other terrible people.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I'm not saying Tucker CarlsonRachel Maddow should be forced to shut up, I'm saying he's a terrible person who gets paid to make JohnTony angry for the interests of other terrible people.

  • Tony||

    She's more informative and exasperated than rabble-rousing.

    White grievance is a specific thing.

  • damikesc||

    It's DIFFERENT when I like it

    Translated that for you, Tony.

  • John||

    Tony you are such a fucking moron. It never occurs to you that someone can think for themselves. Just because you mindlessly repeat whatever you hear on TV, doesn't mean everyone does. I don't watch cable news you half wit.

  • Tony||

    No you read right-wing dreck on the internet. You constantly link to the Daily Caller and ilk as if you think those are legitimate news sources.

    The maddening thing is you'll turn on Trump without a moment's hesitation as soon as The Bubble decides to cut its losses and turns on him.

    I'm not sure I would recommend actually thinking for yourself. It's a lot of work for dubious reward.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    The only thing left on the internet to read is dreck, it simply varies by source. What Tony would call objective is actually left wing dreck: Huffpo, WaPo, CNN, Vox, MSNBC, NYT, etc. Half the articles on this site are dreck to some, and the other half are dreck to the rest.

  • Tony||

    When authoritarians seek power, truth is always a victim. If you think the NYT is precisely the same as FOX News as providers of propaganda, FOX News has already won you over.

    You're not supposed to notice.

  • damikesc||

    If you think the NYT is precisely the same as FOX News as providers of propaganda, FOX News has already won you over.

    Why insult FNC by comparing them to the laughable NYT?

  • Tony||

    I'm sorry for what has happened to you. I'm sorry for the anguish you will feel should the world set itself aright and the strange little cult you have been suckered into dies a very timely death.

  • TuIpa||

    Yes, we get it, you think your preferences are objectively better, while actually being no better.

  • damikesc||

    I'm sorry for what has happened to you. I'm sorry for the anguish you will feel should the world set itself aright and the strange little cult you have been suckered into dies a very timely death.

    Tony's daily affirmation, for us to enjoy.

  • The_Hoser||

    Islam?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony you are a subnormal moron who is a total follower and in thrall to the progtard hive mind. You have no business criticizing ANYONE.

  • Tony||

    It will certainly come as a surprise to me if it turns out I'm wrong and Tucker and Tits & Friends were right all along, but I'm willing to consider it to some degree a possibility.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Youre always wrong tony. Always.

  • EBL||

    Immigration is a good thing...legal immigration.

    Being opposed to illegal immigration (especially illegals who engage in crime--especially murder) is not promoting a police state. Obviously preventing illegal immigrants is not going to prevent crime. Most immigrants (undocumented or not) are not violent felons. But let's not pretend allowing people into the country without screening is a good thing. It creates an underclass, it hampers assimilation, and it allows for exploitation of those workers.

  • John||

    The fact that most immigrants are not violent felons is not a reason to keep the ones who are out of the country. Reason seems to think letting the violent ones in is a necessary and acceptable cost for allowing the nonviolent ones in. Well, fuck that.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, John, MOST cops aren't violent either. I guess we shouldn't worry about the ones that are at all, per Reason.

    Why doesn't Reason change their markets to Open Borders, Open Minds or something?

  • John||

    Just open borders. That is really all they care about. Everything else is negotiable.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Well, immigrants decide voting districts so the other negotiable topics will become mandatory and non-negotiable soon enough.

    Allowing immigrant hordes of potential democrat voters is a long-strategy play.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Immigration is a good thing...legal immigration."

    People get the causation backwards.

    If we set our laws so that immigration benefits Americans, then legal immigration will be good.
    If we set our laws so that immigration harms Americans, then legal immigration will be bad.

    The causation goes from recognizing the kind of immigration that benefits America as good, then making it law. Simply making any old immigration legal can be good or bad.

    It depends what you think you have in America in the first place.
    If Americans have created a better country than Landicans from the Land, then adding Landicans probably makes the US worse.

    Do Americans create a better or worse country than foreigners? The net migration flows answer that question.

  • damikesc||

    Stunning...Republicans SEIZED stories on Reason.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The key difference is that Democrats use tragedies to push for desirable policies (common sense gun safety legislation) while Republicans exploit tragedies to advocate evil policies (draconian anti-immigration enforcement).

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #OpenBorders
    #LibertariansForGunSense

  • John||

    The key difference is that Democrats use tragedies to push for desirable policies (common sense gun safety legislation) while Republicans exploit tragedies to advocate evil policies (draconian anti-immigration enforcement).

    That is a fantastic piece of trolling. Bravo. Yes, this is what reason actually believes; it is okay when they do it.

  • NashTiger||

    I can't get over just how much more cogent and effective you are than Tony or the notRight Reverend

  • rudehost||

    Yep nothing evil about disarming the 22 year old 95 pound female so she is easier to rape.

  • Shirley Knott||

    OBL is close to the truth here.
    Conservatives haven't been about reducing the size and scope of government power since before Eisenhower.
    Nor have Liberals.
    Two wings of the same bird of prey, more interested in growing their power than all other factors combined.
    Insofar as there is a difference, it is solely in where they target the power.

  • John||

    Yes, Shirley, this woman's murder just distracts from the larger issue of how evil the Rs and Ds are. But politicizing her death is wrong, unless you are the one doing it I guess.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    This story is just another example as to how un-healthy jogging really is.

  • John||

    Yeah, she had it coming I guess. And to think evil ICE will probably deport this guy too. The nerve of them.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    If there is one victim in this story it's a federal police agency.

  • John||

    Yeah, not the woman who was murdered because the feds are too incompetent or don't care to secure the border. She isn't a victim at all. In fact, her death is really funny. You said so above.

  • Tony||

    How much outrage do you have for the detained children?

  • John||

    HAve any of them been murdered? You are totally outraged over kids being left here to be taken care of by the feds but don't give two fucks about this woman. Why is that?

  • Tony||

    I can't give a fuck about every person who dies, even if Tucker Carlson instructs me to.

  • John||

    can't give a fuck about every person who dies

    Yes, you only have time for the ones whose deaths support your politics. We know that.

  • Tony||

    Are you for real right now?

  • soldiermedic76||

    We will remember this next time there is a mass shooting and Tony doesn't use it to push to take away our 2A rights.

  • Tony||

    Oh I'll push to take away your 2nd amendment rights any day of the week.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yes, because you are an authoritarian piece of shit, who doesn't understand liberty. However, my point was as soon as there are bodies you will use it to your advantage, just as John said.

  • Tony||

    I'm glad we agree that John is being a cynical, crass piece of shit.

    Body count is an important statistic to apply to many policy debates, I would think, but we shouldn't substitute statistics with agenda-driven anecdotes.

  • soldiermedic76||

    So let's compare body counts. How many murders are committed with long arms (all types)? Less than 300 per year. So please, let's argue statistics next time you call for an assault weapons ban.
    The sad thing is, is that you actually believe you are making a cognitive point, however, anyone with any one with the least amount of critical thinking can see you contradict yourself and are rather puerile in your arguments.

  • Tony||

    Who said anything about long arms?

    And we certainly spend a lot of money and attention over far fewer deaths by Muslim terrorists.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Do you even know what a long arms is? Hint: all rifles, including so called "assault rifles" are long arms, dumbfuck.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    But you can find a way to give a fuck about every illegal detained?

    You are such a vile, weaselly piece of shit. The fact is you are a sociopath and incapable of empathy. Your feigned concerns are merely a tool for the advancement of your progtarded causes. in this case protecting the influx of illegals en masse. So as to bolster the progressive voting rolls.

  • NashTiger||

    Who instructed you to care about Heather Heyer?

  • Paloma||

    How much outrage for self appointed border patrol goons who find water left for people - maybe kids - crossing the desert and pour it on the ground?

    This is just nativist hysteria. No one wants their loved ones murdered. But the doer having a green card doesn't make the families any happier than if they don't.

  • damikesc||

    Well, the media seems quite upset if you dare mention Mollie's death now.

    Why were they so concerned about her until the moment it turns out an illegal killed her?

  • Tony||

    I never heard of her until the day Michael Cohen plead guilty and Paul Manafort was found guilty.

  • damikesc||

    So you ALSO don't watch the media. Got it.

  • TuIpa||

    Which makes it interesting that he claims to, and to be informed generally.

  • Tony||

    Even the best informed can hardly keep up with every murder victim, even if they are being abused in death by FOX News for cynical racist purposes.

  • NashTiger||

    Dead Mollie Tibbets - bad for business

    Dead Heather Heyer - good for business

  • Skyhawk||

    I'm outraged that the money that is stolen from me at the point of a gun is paying for the housing, food, medical care, and entertainment for the children of criminals that have invaded the country illegally.
    The children should be stapled onto their parents and launched by catapult back over the border.

  • Paloma||

    I'm assuming your talking about taxes? Because we all pay them, including immigrants, legal and illegal. And I don't like paying shit for your crap either, but there you go.

  • NashTiger||

    No, only half of us pay them

  • Tony||

    If illegal immigrants are causing a bunch of violent crime, why are we fixated on this one instance? You'd think it would get lost in the noise if it were so common.

    At least this poor girl didn't die in vain. Who could want more than to become immortal as a racist talking point?

  • damikesc||

    If illegal immigrants are causing a bunch of violent crime, why are we fixated on this one instance?

    You're obsessed with white nationalists and the largest gathering of them possible included 20 people.

  • Tony||

    One happens to occupy the Oval Office. His party exploits the dumb by appealing to their racism. And unlike immigrants, white nationalists have a track record.

  • John||

    Yeah, Trump is a white nationalist whose economic policies have lead to the lowest minority unemployment rate in history. Worst racist ever!! God you are a moron. More than anything, you are just stupid.

  • Tony||

    Which policies would those be?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Lower taxation, deregulation, renegotiation of unfavorable trade agreements, the destruction of Obamacare. You know, all the things that are good for the country and anathema to you.

  • damikesc||

    Funny, Trump was literally never racist until the moment he ran for office as a Republican. Then he became a white nationalist who has done more for blacks than his predecessor.

  • Tony||

    Even Sarah Huckleberry admitted that claim was a lie.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Funny, Trump was literally never racist until the moment he ran for office as a Republican.

    Half-educated rubes apparently missed his birther period.

    Bigoted losers must have missed his "Central Park killers" episode.

    Disaffected right-wing goobers seem to have missed his comments concerning the relative candidacies of Jews and blacks with respect to counting his (inherited, dirty) money.

  • damikesc||

    The Clinton promoted Birther thing?

    Funny, Hillary isnt a racist...allegedly.

  • Tony||

    So how does it absolve Trump's birtherism if Hillary started it? Doesn't that make him both a racist conspiracy theorist AND someone who believes things Hillary says?

  • damikesc||

    Doesn't that make him both a racist conspiracy theorist AND someone who believes things Hillary says?

    Why are you supporting a racist?

    YOU said the conspiracy theory made one a racist. So, if Hillary was behind it...

  • Tony||

    She wasn't, but I'll pretend she was for the sake of this rhetorical exercise.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, YOU are the 'half educated rube'. All of use libertarian, conservatorial, and conservatives here are significantly better educated than you. You are a weak, ignorant, stupid little excuse for a man.

    If yo usad the slightest bit of sense yo wold admit that and seek the release of death. No go drink your Drano.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I, like most libertarians, find you to be droll.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Funny, Trump was literally never racist until the moment he ran for office as a Republican.

    Half-educated rubes apparently missed his birther period.

    Bigoted losers must have missed his "Central Park killers" episode.

    Disaffected right-wing goobers seem to have missed his comments concerning the relative candidacies of Jews and blacks with respect to counting his (inherited, dirty) money.

  • soldiermedic76||

    A white supremacists that has a number of minorities working for him. Whose son in law is Jewish (and one of his personal advisors). And whom has received awards in the past from the NAACP?

  • Tony||

    Which number would that be?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    The best number, of course. Everyone says so.

  • soldiermedic76||

    At least six last time I checked, including the ambassador to the UN, several cabinet members, the head of the FEC.

  • John||

    If illegal immigrants are causing a bunch of violent crime, why are we fixated on this one instance? You'd think it would get lost in the noise if it were so common.

    You can and it does. This just happened to get picked up by the media. Most of the time it doesn't because people like you see it as just one of those things and nothing to be concerned about or important enough to get in the way of your feeling smug.

  • Tony||

    I don't feel smug, I feel factual. You don't care about violent crime. You care about the brown menace. Immigrants, legal or illegal, don't commit more crimes than average. So your entire premise is bullshit.

  • John||

    I don't feel smug, I feel factual

    Your lack of self awareness really cracks me up sometimes.

  • Tony||

    Presumably then you are aware of how you're a victim of desperate propaganda meant to distract you from the president's legal and moral shitstorms? And that your idea of immigration policy is to take a single anecdote as justification for a brutal mass application of force? Because you are so self-aware?

  • Cy||

    It's not propaganda! She's dead! Get it? FUCKING DEAD. One of the people you and yours have encouraged to break the law time and time again, has killed her. That's not propaganda you lemming. They're facts!

  • Tony||

    So are the children of Sandy Hook.

  • Cy||

    The ones that died because team blue created a target rich environment?

    The same team blue who is responsible for the laws that made it illegal for Mollie Tibbetts to be carrying when she was attacked?

  • damikesc||

    So are the children of Sandy Hook.
  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony wishes more school shootings happened so his team can leverage that into banning guns.

  • soldiermedic76||

    At least six, including the UN Ambassador, the head of HUD, Transportation, Labor and the FEC.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Illegals commit more crime than average Tony. So just stop with your progtarded lies.

  • Paloma||

    Because you say so. So everyone just stop with your lying statistics that disagree with the appropriately named Last of the Shitlords, because he just knows.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    LotS is right. Lefties are wrong.

  • Brian||

    Can we get back to impeaching Trump, ostensibly for campaign finance violations, but really because we hate everything he stands for?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The only people who hate what Trump stands for are educated, decent, tolerant, accomplished, modern people.

  • Brian||

    So when did you start liking Trump?

  • buybuydandavis||

    That's how the Commies saw themselves as they built their mountain of corpses 100 million high.

    They never change.

  • Cy||

    He's definitely too tough of the sacred illegal invaders. He needs to be throw out.

  • DajjaI||

    People are always desperate for a pretext to hate. If there were a hundred murders then you might have something. But just one? Puh-lease. Just as terrorism hysteria has dissipated, so will this anti-immigrant frenzy. Having said that, many immigrants are deeply anti-freedom. I mean sure they say they support freedom, but ultimately they'll fight it on every issue. Basically they are socialists like AOC. This is the real threat to the country.

    Also I agree it's hypocritical to get worked up about this case and ignore the school shootings that kill lots more people.

  • Tony||

    How clever of all these socialists to sneak in and work their way up the capitalist ladder to provide a better life for their family.

  • damikesc||

    Socialists tend to make tons of money. Castro was incredibly wealthy. Ditto Chavez. Maduro is rich as hell.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It's easy when you steal it at gunpoint. Just like every socialist does.

  • Brian||

    It's well known that poor people trend towards democrat/socialism, and, as income goes up, people trend towards independent or republican.

    So, yes, socialism is the politics of poor people, and letting in more poor people is letting in more socialists.

  • Tony||

    Poverty is not a genetic condition. Maybe they come here to the land of opportunity and the net result is more capitalists in the world.

  • Brian||

    Yes, poverty is not a genetic condition, and they're not exactly fleeing Libertopia.

    One would think there'd be a teachable moment in that.

  • Tony||

    How much fun are we having pretending this is about anything other than race?

  • Brian||

    How much fun are we having recycling the moral high ground that was won three generations ago, because we're out of better ideas, and don't really know how to deal with anything else?

  • Tony||

    How many Norwegian immigrants would have to murder young women before John started to care, do you think?

  • Brian||

    I'm sorry, but I really can't hop onboard with our obsession on John. He's great and all, but I'm really not turned on.

    Try again.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    How many Norwegian immigrants would have to murder young women before John started to care, do you think?

    As many as entered the country illegally.

  • Tony||

    The answer is: infinity Norwegian immigrants. When white people commit crimes, you see, they do so as individuals.

    Not to say that the FOX News audience would tolerate quite high levels of Norwegian immigrant murderers if it meant they were fucking other white people and making more white American babies.

  • damikesc||

    Only white Progressives.

    White conservatives dont get that perk.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Tony: "When white people commit crimes, you see, they do so as individuals."

    Not to progressives, they don't.

    Please, in your effort to be smug about illegal aliens, don't accidentally undermine the entire basis for rectifying historical social injustice through redistribution: collective white guilt.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Are they here legally? I'm just fine with booting illegals from anywhere in the world.

    The racism is all you Tony. Conservatives and libertarians are beyond caring about such trivialities. And a lot of us are either non-white or part of mixed race families anyway.

    So watch your fucking mouth. As usual you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Haven't you heard? Failing to base one's opinions on race is now racist.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Well, if you can point to Norwegian Immigrants committing high profile murders (or murders period) you might have a point. Also, you may want to study how Scandinavian immigrants were treated during the 19th and early 20th century. They weren't exactly welcomed with open arms.

  • Cy||

    It's ironic that someone in Iowa, who couldn't legally be armed, is murdered by an illegal invading predator, is being used as some kind of counter argument that a bunch of kids and adults who also couldn't legally be armed, were murdered by a different predator.

    Pointing out that the illegal invading predator shouldn't have been in the country to begin with while discussing enforcing our immigration laws is perfectly legitimate. Pointing out that all of the people, in government, the media or just in general who constantly circumvent and encourage the circumventing of the already existing laws and are partially responsible for the actions of the person THEY LET IN and continue to encourage that MORE BE LET IN, apparently, is also a bad thing?

  • DajjaI||

    Tell us more about how much you care about people:

  • Cy||

    Picking who you care about and why is intelligent.

    Letting anyone who wants to into our country so naive, white tower, wealthy people can feel woke and not have to pay very much for someone to do their laundry, is partially why Mollie Tibbetts is dead.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    But just one? Puh-lease.

    Kate Steinle might say hello at this point, were she still alive.

  • DajjaI||

    The bullet had ricocheted on the pier's concrete walkway before striking Steinle

    It was a freak accident.

  • Cy||

    He wasn't even found guilty of 'man slaughter.' Talk about a bunch of brainwashed idiots.

    If you wield a weapon in public and accidentally kill someone, you are responsible for their death. WTF is wrong with these people!??!?

  • damikesc||

    Illegals aren't responsible for their actions.

    Come on, Cy. You expect to treat dark-skinned folks as EQUAL to whites?

    The Democrats have never been on board with that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The DA tanked the case on purpose. I heard an interview with a woman who also had a family member murdered by one of Tony's precious law abiding illegals. She said that case had the same prosecutor as the Steinle case.

    According to her, the prosecutor barely gave a shit about the case, and tanked it too.

    Just another reason we need to deal with our progressives before it's too late.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    More and more Americans have realized we are at war with Lefties and have been for decades. Some just would not accept it until recently.

  • lap83||

    "Never mind that immigrants, including illegals,, commit fewer crimes, including violent crimes, than natives (stats are in my full piece)."

    OK try this thought experiment: you are a murderer/rapist in a Central American country and you want a new life for yourself probably to escape local law enforcement . (notice to those preoccupied with shouting racism at opponents: I am talking about a hypothetical specific human. If you read it as "typical Mexican" you are the racist) So as an actual Central American murderer /rapist are you going to be more likely to go through legal or illegal means to migrate? Obviously the latter. The point is that there are bad and good people everywhere and they often make different choices based on different incentives. Just because some good people might be desperate enough to go the illegal route does not make it OK to ignore all of the bad people who inevitably do the same. That is horribly naive and foolish

  • lap83||

    And btw eventually you are going to create disincentives for good people to come if you don't do anything about the bad people. Yes, your beloved hard working immigrants do not necessarily want to come to a country alongside psychopaths. Maybe if you call them racist too they'll change their minds, but I doubt it

  • Paloma||

    If you are a murderer/rapist in a Central American country, you probably would make out better in Central America. Possibly with a government job.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Intern Joe writes an article about the family's wish to not politicize this, and I get the feeling we're gonna get four more articles politicizing this before it's too old to capitalize on.

    And none of the articles will be effective at anything except making the author feel better about border politics, I suspect.

    Like sands through the hourglass. These are the days of our lives.

  • Cy||

    Don't talk down to your betters! They have degrees in lefty right think and they really hate mowing their own lawns.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The two concepts are contradictory: One cannot have negative liberty while ensuring most versions of positive liberty. Using the same word to describe them only introduces confusion.

    Agreed. Hate the term positive liberty/rights. They are not. The more appropriate term is entitlements.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Shit. Wrong article. Sorry

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    GET OUT OF HERE WITH THAT.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    How embarrassing.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Democrats do something similar, of course, after school shootings.

    I was at my old man's and he, as usual, had CNN on. They were decrying - without hint of irony - that Republicans would politicize this woman's death. They were stunned.

    We're in a post-fact era, if we were ever in a facts-based era to begin with. We even see it in the language. We don't think things, we feel things. "I feel that more immigrants are crossing the border than ever before." Not think or even believe. "I feel like if we could just take guns away from the crazy people, we would be so much safer." We emote now. That's how we get things done. I guess emotions we seem to be feeling ourselves are marginally more believable that data we didn't gather ourselves.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "In 2016, the Cato Institute's Alex Nowratesh writes, "the homicide conviction rate for native-born Americans in Texas was 3.2 per 100,000 natives while it was 1.8 per 100,000 illegal immigrants and 0.9 per 100,000 legal immigrants." In raw numbers, 32 undocumented immigrants and 28 legal immigrants were convicted of homicide in Texas, compared with 746 native-born Americans."

    ----Nick Gillespie, New York Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2018/08.....betts.html

  • Ken Shultz||

    The problem with comparing one average to the other is that you're including statistics from areas of the country where most Americans simply never go.

    I don't think the question is whether illegal immigrants commit more violent crimes than than the native born in the worst parts of Detroit, Chicago, and Cleveland. Middle class America never even drives through those neighborhoods. The question for most Americans is whether illegal immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than in the suburbs.

    It's true that illegal immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than their native born socioeconomic counterparts, but marginally improving the crime rate in the ghettos they move into doesn't mean much to middle class voters either. I think average Americans are worried about the children of illegal immigrants, too--who revert closer to the violent crime mean of their socioeconomic counterparts with each successive generation as they become more Americanized.

  • NashTiger||

    He's not comparing violent crime rates, he's comparing murder Convictions, which is something different.

    Whose murders more often go unsolved - natives, or illegal immigrants?
    Whose rapes and assaults most often go unreported - natives, or illegal immigrants?
    ho is more likely to kill someone drunk driving without a license?

    Don't buy the statistical sleight of hand for even a second, it easy to see thru

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm glad to see Gillespie pursue more open immigration from the perspective of what's in America's best interests, anyway--rather than trying to guilt us into making sacrifices for the benefit of others. Still, I see the crime statistics as a negative. That's okay. We don't have to defend every aspect of what we want--just show that the downsides are more than mitigated for in other ways. An open border would be more secure--and keep out more convicted criminals. Having access to cheap labor improves our quality of life and our standard of living--even if illegal immigration means more crime in absolute terms.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    what's in America's best interests

    How is this even defined? By a poll? By majority vote? By whatever Congress or the President or some court says?

    One of the big reasons for favoring market-based mechanisms for decision making is that they don't rely on majority vote in order for all parties to be satisfied in the outcome, as opposed to democratic-based decision making, which necessarily creates a set of winners (the majority) and a set of losers (the minority).

    Why not adopt this same philosophy when it comes to immigration? Get rid of trying to decide "what's in America's best interests", it is unknowable anyway. Instead let each individual define for him/herself what is in his/her own best interests, and permit them to act accordingly.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Why not adopt this same philosophy when it comes to immigration? Get rid of trying to decide "what's in America's best interests", it is unknowable anyway."

    We're talking about how Gillespie and others should argue for immigration?

    Noting wrong with arguments that center on the benefits--whatever they are.

    There is something wrong with arguing for immigration from the perspective of the immigrants--and we get a lot of that around here.

    This cute little bunny with big sad eyes was going to work one day, when the big bad ICE wolf came and carried him away. *sniffles*

    That covers about 95% of what I read here about immigration--not just regularly at Reason but over the past week here at Reason!

    Yes, we can disagree about the benefits of anything, but that's the terms the arguments need to be framed within--if you want people to change course on anything.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why should I change course?

    1) Because if you don't, you're a stupid redneck.
    2) Because making sacrifices for the benefit of other people is your purpose in life.
    3) Because they're cute.
    4) Because Donald Trump is a monster.
    5) Because changing course is in your best interests (whatever those are).

    The persuasive argument is 5).

    A certain percentage of the people will respond to messages about how pathetic and helpless immigrants are. How many Americans cared enough to give a dollar a month to save Sally Struthers' African kids from starvation?

    Less than 1%?

    If you want people to do something other than what they're presently doing, you need to persuade them that doing what you want them to do is in their best interests. Because some of those arguments are better than others and different people have different interests only affirms that we must be talking about the real world.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ken, best of luck to you convincing open border people to talk to secure border folks and convince us that open borders is the way to go.

    They like to do it their way even thought the Constitution is 100% on the side of rule of law and the federal govenrment regulating immigration under Article I, section 9.

  • Ken Shultz||

    1) Gillespie is doing it right before your eyes. His argument that crime isn't associated with immigration is effectively arguing against the suggestion that immigration is against the interests of America and Americans.

    2) Because the Constitution protects congress' ability to set the rules of immigration doesn't mean those rules can't be changed--if the American people want congress to change them. The way to get people to want to change them to allow open immigration is to persuade the American people that doing so is in their best interest.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As you have said multiple times, the more the open border lie and cheat against American interests to secure the border, the more Americans will be against easing immigration rules.

    The correct strategy is to cave to Americans securing the borders and then letting American ease immigration rules soon.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Native born Americans"

    How many of those were dirt right "Americans", born of illegal aliens?

  • Ecoli||

    1. To the extent possible, eliminate illegal immigration. If that means a border wall, or drones patrolling the southern border, or a quicker deportation of illegals who get across, then do any or all of those things.

    2. Amend the constitution to eliminate birth right citizenship

    3. The first consideration for lawmakers should be what benefits the citizens of their own country. If the US needs immigrants then make the case for that need and sell it to the American people, then make immigration laws that support that justified immigration.

    Doing those three things does not create a police state. Quite the opposite, in fact.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The most effective way to eliminate illegal immigration is to make legal emigration easier. You don't need a militarization border if people can come and go easily at a border checkpoint.

  • Cy||

    Where do you set the 'immigration bar?' Ok, now everyone below that bar is still going to illegally invade your territory. Now, what are you going to do about enforcing your new bar?

  • MikeP2||

    Sentry guns?

  • Hugh Akston||

    If I were going to set an immigration bar anywhere, it would probably be pretty close to the border checkpoint or maybe near the consulate. That way immigrants can enjoy a nice drink while they wait for their paperwork to be processed.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Solve immigration by making the border checkpoints too fun to leave. I like it!

  • Ecoli||

    See item 3.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    1. To the extent possible, eliminate illegal immigration. If that means a border wall, or drones patrolling the southern border, or a quicker deportation of illegals who get across, then do any or all of those things.

    At what cost? Does the cost even matter?

    3. The first consideration for lawmakers should be what benefits the citizens of their own country.

    The problem is, there is no consensus on whether a particular individual who wishes to migrate to this country would benefit "the citizens" of the country or not. If a poor Guatemalan wants to immigrate here to work in the soybean fields, the farm owner obviously likes it because he gets cheap labor, but the unskilled citizen displaced from that job obviously doesn't like it. Which citizen's interests should the government take into consideration?

  • Ecoli||

    It is relatively easy to look at real world examples of immigration policies gone bad. The chaos in Europe, for example. Don't do that.

    In terms of cost. What does it cost the taxpayer to provide public schooling for one child? Multiply that cost by the number of children. Anything below that number provides a savings. Add in the cost to taxpayers for other societal costs (medical, food, costs to upgrade infrastructure such as roads and sewers) and the costs of illegal immigration increase. It is not too difficult to calculate what uncontrolled immigration costs.

    Should US politicians ignore US citizens who are driven into third world poverty by an uncontrolled flood of unskilled Guatemalans? It seems to me that politicians should not do that. Are we (US citizens) supposed to simply sit on our hands while the US spirals downward to the level of Guatemalan poverty?

    The problem of poverty of our neighbors is primarily their problem, not ours. If you are so concerned with their problems then go and help them. Spend your own money and time to do that; don't assume that you have the right to help yourself to the wealth of your fellow citizens to placate your sentimental attachment to open borders.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is not too difficult to calculate what uncontrolled immigration costs.

    Fine. Then do that, and then add up the cost of the policies that you want to implement. How much does it cost to hire all of the border guards you want to hire? How much does it cost to hire all of the IRS agents to enforce employment laws against undocumented immigrants? Plus, look at the cost in terms of *lost liberty*. How much liberty will Americans have to sacrifice when they are told they must get national ID cards in order to thwart illegal immigration? How much liberty will Americans have to sacrifice when you have an army of ICE agents looking over their shoulder to make sure they are complying with all the laws they are supposed to be complying with?

    Should US politicians ignore US citizens who are driven into third world poverty by an uncontrolled flood of unskilled Guatemalans?

    Should US politicians ignore US citizens who are driven into bankruptcy by an inability to hire cheap labor to make ends meet in their businesses?

    See, I can ask the leading questions too. Why should US politicians listen only to the US citizens who are workers, and not to the US citizens who are employers and entrepreneurs? Plus, there's whole lots of other voices to listen to. There are all sorts of people who are both burdened, AND helped, by immigration of all types. Why shouldn't US politicians listen to their voices too?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    How much liberty will Americans have to sacrifice when they are told they must get national ID cards in order to thwart illegal immigration?

    You mean like any other form of ID we already get?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Should US politicians ignore US citizens who are driven into bankruptcy by an inability to hire cheap labor to make ends meet in their businesses?

    "Gee where the fuck did all these labor laws come from the last 100 years? It's a big fucking mystery!"

  • Paloma||

    If we are talking about rights, the unskilled citizen has no right to a particular job. He may not LIKE that, but that doesn't mean his rights are being violated. I would hope people could try to learn to think in terms of rights rather than "interests". Interests conflict, rights, properly understood, do not.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh I agree with you. No one has a right to a job. But to the border restrictionist crowd, they tend to believe that jobs created in America should be prioritized for Americans, and they claim that ought to be the case because "that's what's best for America". I call nonsense on that whole argument.

  • Nardz||

    Yet you believe your noble savages have a right to live in a particular place...

  • sarcasmic||

    they tend to believe that jobs created in America should be prioritized for Americans

    Not only that, but they believe that there is a static number of jobs. That the job economy is a zero-sum game. So every job "stolen" by a foreigner equals an unemployed American. They are willfully ignorant of the fact that immigrants grow the pie, creating more jobs for everyone, because this willful ignorance justifies their arrogance and contempt.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They are willfully ignorant of the fact that immigrants grow the pie, creating more jobs for everyone

    Especially government social service workers.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The first consideration for lawmakers should be what benefits the citizens of their own country. "

    That's so racist ... if those citizens are majority white.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Conservatives love their police state because it will only be used on the criminal scumbags, never on law-abiding folks like them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The good decent real Muricans have nothing to fear!

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Yes, as a matter of fact, I'm a big advocate for People Like Me! Those are the kind of people I like! I certainly prefer it to a situation that is detrimental to People Like Me. And I'm perfectly willing to cop to the notion that if a police state best serves the interests of People Like Me (which is not foregone conclusion), then I'll be perfectly happy to support one.

    So, no, I'm not buying a word of your Freedom'n'Equality universalist bullshit, especially when the consequences look most likely to lead to the eradication of People Like Me. Feel free to cram it sideways up your ass.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    if a police state best serves the interests of People Like Me (which is not foregone conclusion), then I'll be perfectly happy to support one.

    Well, this is something that both the socialist left and the restrictionist right both share: they both favor suffocating government reaching into everyone's lives, but magically they never think that they themselves will be the victims of all this suffocation.

    People like Adolf here think that only the brown people will be the ones who will suffer at the hands of the police state. Wait until he finds out that HE will be the one suffering along with all of the hated brown people, as the government strips more and more of the liberty of the citizens in order to fight their prohibitionist war against undocumented labor.

    But then again I guess a guy named Adolf thinks "papieren, bitte" type laws are just A-OK.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    But then again I guess a guy named Adolf thinks "papieren, bitte" type laws are just A-OK.

    I would certainly prefer not to have them then to have them. But if the choices are between "papieren, bitte" and letting idiots like you turn the country into Somalia, I'll bite the bullet and produce the papieren.

    When I'm forced to choose between two option that suck, I'm going to choose the one that sucks less.

  • Paloma||

    You can be a big advocate for People Like You, but that doesn't mean those People think YOU are like THEM. They just might think you're the freak that's NOT like them.

  • Paloma||

    And Somalia is the way it is because of tribalism. It's a huge desert of PEOPLE LIKE US vs PEOPLE LIKE THEM. There is no individualism, everyone has to stick to their tribe. And they don't need to ask for papers, they know exactly who is in their tribe and they hate them.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And Somalia is the way it is because of tribalism.

    Europeans practiced tribalism all the way up through the post-WW2 era. What makes Europe different from Somalia?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You know, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the mentality which presupposes that illiterate Guatemalans are such a threat that a literal police state must be constructed which oppresses the citizens in order to keep those Guatemalans out.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Guatemalans made Guatemala what it is.
    Americans made America what it is.

    Countries are people with land. Change the people, change the country.

    I don't want America more like Guatemala. Neither do most Americans.

  • sarcasmic||

    Government and country are not synonyms.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Government and country are not synonyms

    Yeah, they are.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So:

    Guatemalans are inferior people who made Guatemala a shithole.
    Americans are superior people who made America a world leader.

    Is that your argument?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Are you seriously arguing that Guatemalans did not create the policies of Guatemala? Do we file that along with the logic that claims that immigrants who consistently vote for a larger welfare state and larger government (which you secretly like but can't admit) will somehow increase the chances that we'll reform the welfare state?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    chemjeff continues the open borders fiction that socialist peasants are natural libertarians.

  • damikesc||

    OT: Given the uproar over campaign finance violation claims involving Trump, the media seems way less interested in the DNC laundering about $84M in 2016.

    As Brazile said last year, the Clinton campaign completely controlled the DNC's money in 2016. All donations to the DNC, since Hillary controlled the money, should qualify as donations to her --- which went far over the legal limit. And precedent does indicate that doing that is quite illegal.

    Copy of the lawsuit. The Federalist is one of the few who have even mentioned it:

    http://thefederalist.com/wp-co.....awsuit.pdf

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    FAKE NEWS! Haven't you heard? Trump will be getting impeached any day now!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nice! Thanks for that heads up.

  • MikeP2||

    So, Nick, how long are going to keep referencing that crap Cato data? It is really pathetic to push such a hard line, when the only data available exists for 1 state and is itself based on population estimates. Especially when that one state is Texas of all places, which is not in any way representative of the rest of the country.

    Yeh, yeh, its all there is, and cato pleads for credibility with various arguments, but you sure as heck wouldnt give credibility to similar data that showed the reverse.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    The other day somebody posted an excellent deconstruction of that Cato data. Given that it appears that Gillespie can't be arsed with rebutting it, I'll post it again.


    Illegal Immigrants Are Far More Likely to Commit Serious Crimes Than the U.S. Public

  • Paloma||

    Justfactsdaily vs. Cato. Hmmmm.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Ad hominem

    One could just as well conclude that Cato, being an open borders advocacy group, has zero credibility when it comes to "studies" pushing open borders.

  • ||

    "Never mind that immigrants, including illegals, commit fewer crimes, including violent crimes, than natives"

    This is unlikely to be true of illegal immigrants. To my knowledge, I have never deliberately committed a felony in my life, as a natural born US citizen. But merely crossing the border illegally is a felony! So every illegal immigrant has deliberately committed at least one more felony than I have, and every illegal has committing that crime!

  • Tony||

    But merely crossing the border illegally is a felony!
  • Tony||

    It's actually a misdemeanor. And being in the country without authorization isn't a crime at all in most cases.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Being in the USA is illegal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *without permission or being a citizen

  • sarcasmic||

    Because freedom means asking permission and obeying orders.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Or just voluntarily living in a constiutional democratic republic.

    Anarchy-land will never happen unless you move outside the USA dude.

  • sarcasmic||

    "It used to be the boast of free men that, so long as they kept within the bounds of the known law, there was no need to ask anybody's permission or to obey anybody's orders. It is doubtful whether any of us can make this claim today." -Hayek

    Notice "bounds of known law," which kinda contradicts all of those anarchist accusations.

    Not that you have ever attempted to make an honest argument.

  • Paloma||

    It should be for the likes of you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I will be just fine with no SSN.

  • TuIpa||

    "And being in the country without authorization isn't a crime at all in most cases.".Thix

    This is factually incorrect.

  • Skyhawk||

    Big government is the reason why hordes of third-worlders have invaded the country. Get rid of the welfare state, or vigorously enforce immigration laws.
    Can't have a huge welfare state AND open borders.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Then you are just trading the cost of the welfare state consumed by undocumented immigrants, with the cost of the regulations and heightened enforcement for finding and kicking out all the undocumented immigrants.

    TANSTAAFL after all

  • Skyhawk||

    No. You get rid of the welfare state and the unwashed masses won't have as many incentives to come here. Thus, eliminating the need for multiple redundant bureaucracies trying to catch them before they cross the border then giving them free housing, food, medical care, child care, etc. when they throw up their hads and say 'Oops, another one got in'.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Illegal immigration is driven mainly by (1) the difficulty in legally immigrating, and (2) economic opportunity here. We saw the latter during the Great Recession, when the welfare state was as big as it ever was, yet net migration from Mexico was negative. So I am skeptical of the hypothesis that the welfare state is the CAUSE of illegal immigration.

    And there is still no such thing as a free lunch. The things you want to do come at a cost, and it would behoove you to spell out those costs if you want an honest accounting.

  • sarcasmic||

    So I am skeptical of the hypothesis that the welfare state is the CAUSE of illegal immigration.

    It's not a hypothesis. It's a Big Lie. Repeated over and over and over...

  • buybuydandavis||

    Compare
    "Illegal immigration is driven mainly by (1) the difficulty in legally immigrating,"
    vs.
    'Rape is driven mainly by the difficulty in obtaining sexual consent'

    No means NO
    Our country, our choice

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The welfare state is over 2.5TT annually in this country. You're claiming that securing the border will cost that much?

    Your math skills are as good as your logic.

  • Jerryskids||

    Even if illegal immigrants commit fewer murders than native-born citizens, one murder committed by an illegal immigrant is one murder too many. It's not as if if we deport all the illegal immigrants they'll be replaced by native-born citizens more likely to commit murder, there will be just that many fewer murders committed. The murder rate per million residents or whatever may go up, but the absolute number of murders will go down. So I say we build a wall that will keep all the illegal immigrants out and then we won't have any murders committed by illegal immigrants. Well, except maybe for the ones who use fake ID's to appear to be legal immigrants and slip through the system so that we don't know they are illegal immigrants until after they commit murder. But that's as unlikely to happen as somebody getting their hands on a gun who isn't legally supposed to have a gun. And then we can just outlaw guns and there won't be any murders at all.

  • Paloma||

    You're not seriously stooping to the "even if it saves just one life" mush are you?

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Libertarianisn in One Country, as John Derbyshire called for.

  • Toast88||

    And Dems use school shootings to push for their anti-gun policies—so what? It's par for the course.

    And I'm sure the next time there's a school shooting, we'll see MSM headlines denouncing Dems for using a tragedy to further their pet policies, right?...Right?...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perhaps some of the border restrictionists might care to mention the *costs* and *tradeoffs* associated with their preferred policy goals. Everyone is in favor of stopping murderers. That has unanimous agreement. Where we disagree on is the level of the police state that would be necessary in order to try to stop all of the murders.

  • TuIpa||

    "Perhaps some of the border restrictionists might care to mention the *costs* and *tradeoffs* associated with their preferred policy goals"

    Perhaps you'll one day stop pretending you care and just admit you want more brown people so you can stick it to whitey.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    C-. You're just phoning it in. I expected more personal invective.

  • Ecoli||

    We have proposals in front of us to limit illegal immigration, $25B to build the wall. Let's start with that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A wall is worthless unless it has people patrolling it. How much will all that cost?
    You want more regulations on businesses who might hire undocumented immigrants, right? How much will the regulations cost? And how much will it cost to hire all of the IRS agents to enforce these regulations?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    A country is more than its GDP, but I wouldn't expect an open borders advocate to understand that from their suburban whiteopia.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Fun fact. All major decisions seem to be made on the basis of anecdotes.

    I work for Pharma and you would expect us to be strictly data driven.

    Nope! Major decisions rest on which doc we talked to last week.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats do something similar, of course, after school shootings.

    No they dont do something similar.

    Lefties want to take guns away and use any excuse they can. All the evidence shows that more weapons make people safer. We know from England massive non-gun crime problem that having less guns does not make a society safer.

    Americans want more secure borders and use an illegal's violent crime to prove the point that if that illegal had not been in the USA, that crime would have not happened.

  • sarcasmic||

    No they dont do something similar.

    Both teams want more government, more laws, more cops, and less freedom. The only real difference is their stated intentions.

    Americans want more secure borders

    So do drug warriors. How's that working out?

    if that illegal had not been in the USA, that crime would have not happened

    Because prohibition works so fucking well and exemplifies the spirit of liberty.

    Alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, immigrant prohibition.

    Nothing can't be solved with more laws, more men with guns saying "Show me your papers," more restrictions, more asking for permission, more obeying orders... Right? Right?

    *cue the retard calling me an anarchist followed by an actual anarchist telling the retard how retarded he is*

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have a bot trolling me. Interesting.

    *cue sock puppets for sarcasmic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If America is so racist and violent, why do immigrants want to flood into the USA?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Because of the problems in their home countries, which are ultimately the fault of white people. So opening our borders is the least we can do for black and brown people who are fleeing bad situations that US policy is responsible for.

  • sarcasmic||

    Good question. Why would any immigrants want to be in the same country as you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because Americans are not racist.

    We do have some racist anarchists like you in America. But you can be avoided as your anarchy-land will never happen.

  • sarcasmic||

    The guy who gets an erection when brown kids are separated from their brown parents is calling me racist. How cute.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Im brown. How is me being brown and wanting illegals deported racist? Man, your nonsense comments get worse and worse.

  • sarcasmic||

    So you're brown and racist. No wonder your parents are ashamed of you.

  • Eddy||

    "E-Verify and national ID cards"

    OK, who supports these? I presume the Congressional leadership, but that's not "conservatives." Ann Coulter, of course, so there's one conservative.

    I'm genuinely interested - what other conservatives have been pushing these things? Extra points if they changed their mind in the last few years, as the article at least seems to imply.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Conservatives have been beating the drum on mandatory E-Verify for years now.

    Here's one Republican who wants mandatory E-Verify:

    http://www.shrm.org/resourcesa.....y-use.aspx

    Also:

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/p.....ok-everify

  • buybuydandavis||

    I show up with my social security card and my birth certificate when I start any job.

    E-verify is a perfectly sensible and minimally intrusive way to help enforce our borders.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because freedom means asking permission and obeying orders.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You want anarchy. That's fine, but that's never worked in human history, so you should probably deal with that too.

  • sarcasmic||

    Another person who has never read Hayek.

    "It used to be the boast of free men that, so long as they kept within the bounds of the known law, there was no need to ask anybody's permission or to obey anybody's orders. It is doubtful whether any of us can make this claim today." -Hayek

    Notice "bounds of known law," which kinda contradicts all of those anarchist accusations.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Believe in the power of magic!

  • SovereignMary||

    Nick Gillespie - The issue is not whether lawbreaking undocumented, i.e., Illegal Alien border crossers, commit fewer crimes than legal people residing in the U.S.
    The issue is that we have enough criminals and murderers in the U.S. without having lawbreaking Illegal Aliens adding to the already too many crimes and murders. Duh!

  • wreckinball||

    God
    How predictable

    Let's see the right to own fire arms is an explicit constitutional right.

    Entering the country illegally not so much. This case emphasizes just enforce the f-ing law.

    It's not a "both sides" moment

  • Bearded Spock||

    Reason's obsession with their heavily-manipulated polling data on immigration reminds me of the gun control movement's obsession with their heavily-manipulated polling data on gun control.

    We are told constantly that overwhelming majorities of gun owners support assault weapons bans and universal background checks, but for some reason that support never translates into Congressional action.

    Similarly, we are told constantly that overwhelming majorities of Americans view immigrants favorably and support expanded immigration, but for some reason that support never translates into Congressional action.

    For a group that supposedly has the support of 70-80% of the population, it should be a slam dunk to get Congress to pass an amnesty bill to help them, no?

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    It's certainly a mystery how a country that enthusiastic about immigration could ever have elected Donald Trump, who made building a wall his signature issue.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's certainly a mystery how a country that enthusiastic about immigration traditional health care could ever have elected Donald Trump Barack Obama, who made building a wall health care reform his signature issue.

    Pick an issue and a candidate, wash, rinse, repeat...

    *yawn*

  • Jerry B.||

    Ms. Tibbets' family asked that her death not be used for political purposes, so I'm going to honor their request by not reading this article.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Republicans and conservatives double their efforts to turn America into something a little more like an open-air prison:"

    In a great man places in the US, people never used to lock their doors. Changing security situation, changing security measures.

    If folks like you didn't enable an illegal invasion of the country and work tirelessly to prevent any measures to halt that tide, folks like me wouldn't see the need for increased security from that invasion.

  • Nardz||

    ^bingo

  • buybuydandavis||

    In a great man*y* ...

  • NoVaNick||

    So? Progs use every school shooting to try an advance their anti-gun agenda and Nick here wants conservatives to take the high road? There is no high road in politics...

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's no fair when the Right fights back!"

  • Hank Phillips||

    Back in the Libertarian Defense Caucus days, more people understood that politics is the continuation of war by other means. Voting a good libertarian platform gets bad laws changed with minimum bloodshed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a war now. The Lefties will do anything to get rid of Trump, guns, and civil rights.

    The only question is when this Tree of Liberty will get watered.

  • sarcasmic||

    You water it with your own urine every time you support Trump's protectionist and xenophobic policies.

  • Peacedog||

    Immigration of any kind should only occur as a kind of talent poaching from other countries.

    If we are in fact entering an era where technology will wholesale eliminate many low end jobs, then most immigration, especially from the developing world, simply shouldn't happen. No advantage exists to admitting people to the country who will require multiple generations to become productive citizens if they cannot be employed in the meantime.

    If the individual isn't ready to work right now and can be expected to do so for several decades, then that person becomes a liability to the country and it's citizens.

    The issue of legal versus illegal is even easier. Countries exist because they have borders. If you are here illegally, then you have already broken the laws of the country in question and should be expected to do it again. It also prevents that society from determining if your presence is a benefit or not. People forget that Ellis Island routinely turned away potential immigrants. It was the right decision then and it is the right decision now.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Thank Allah and Minerva Nick finally found a job that matches his skill set. I'll miss him as much as McCain.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    OT: USA and Mexico updating terms to NAFTA. Uh oh, more cracks in the trading partners against the USA and freer trade or better trade deals for the USA.
    US & Mexico updating NAFTA for better terms

  • wreckinball||

    The language has really been fucked up to push ideology
    These folks are illegal aliens

    If I break into your house am I an undocumented resident?

  • XM||

    The equivalency game here is getting tiresome.

    I frequently read right leaning sites, and none of them have pushed for a police state or proposed immigration enforcement that's a flagrant violation of the constitution. Not at Hot Air, NRO, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, Patterico, etc. Not even at Breibart, at least not yet. The conservative reaction to the tragedy has been expressing outrage at what they perceive as lax immigration standard and selective media coverage on immigration issues.

    Most gun owners aren't criminals, but that's not an argument for dismantling background checks. Why does crime rate for immigrants matter on this issue? There's no distinction between murders committed by an undocumented foreign national (who never should have been in the country) and immigrants who are American citizens?

    Even Obama deported gazillons of people near the border. The government can't reunite some separated kids with their parents because they're criminals. Even if only something like 2% of these illegal inflow are dangerous, that's probably significant. If the country was open borders, immigrant crime rate would inch towards native level, especially since Latin America is much closer to US than Asia.

  • Peacedog||

    +1.

    Also keep in mind all of the statistics for illegal alien crime are crap, precisely because we have no idea how many of them are in the US.

  • sarcasmic||

    Most gun owners aren't criminals, but that's not an argument for dismantling background checks.

    The argument against background checks is that criminals can easily purchase guns privately, and that "shall not be infringed" doesn't make an exception for criminals.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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