MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Despite—or Maybe Because of—Trump's Immigration Crackdown, Record Number of Families Crossing Southern Border

Trump's failed immigration policy reveals hard truths about intentions versus outcomes.

Georgetown Book Shop/ReasonGeorgetown Book Shop/ReasonThis can't be making anybody in the Trump White House very happy:

Border Patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September, the highest one-month total on record and an 80 percent increase from July, according to unpublished Department of Homeland Security statistics obtained by The Washington Post....

The latest DHS figures show 107,212 members of "family units" were taken into custody during fiscal 2018, obliterating the previous high of 77,857 set in 2016.

The number of "unaccompanied alien children" and single adults apprehended remained essentially unchanged last month, another indication that more migrants who might have traveled alone in the past are now bringing children with them.

Read more here.

Washington PostWashington PostSo the most openly anti-immigrant president in memory is watching his country be overrun with exactly the sorts of people he promised to keep out. Restrictionists will tell you that's because the media shed too many tears for parents and children being separated at the border and a Republican Congress refuses to pass the sort of budgets and laws that will finally seal the Southern border with a big, beautiful wall. A DHS spokeswoman told the Post:

"The removal of actual family units, or those posing as family units, has been made virtually impossible by Congressional inaction—which will most likely result in record numbers of families arriving illegally in the United States this year."

There's at least three things to note immediately.

First, a recent DHS internal report criticized the policy of separating families at the border for making it harder for border patrol to "focus on their primary mission...of patrolling and securing the border." That is, the government's own watchdog said the "zero tolerance" policy enacted at the urging of Trump adviser Stephen Miller was not a good idea. Second, despite President Trump's claims to the contrary, there is in fact no law mandating that the government must separate minor children from their parents when they enter the country. All the bad press—and the suffering and trauma—is on Trump, not on "the Democrats," or even his own Republican majority.

Third, yet most important from a long-term policy point of view: we need to recognize that governments of relatively free countries don't really control migration flows, especially of illegals coming into the country.

This is something that libertarians understand more readily than many others, because we recognize that governments are generally less efficacious than supposed. All policies produce unintended consequences, but that's especially the case with immigration. Consider the rise of illegal immigrants of Mexican descent since the late 1980s. Writing in 2006 at Reason, Carolyn Lochhead noted that one of the reasons so many Mexican migrants started staying in the country was because of tightened border security that had been put in place precisely to keep them out:

Many experts believe the current pattern of illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America was a consequence of the 1986 law's border tightening, followed by a tougher crackdown in 1996 that built fences in San Diego and El Paso. "The perverse effect has been to dramatically lower return migration out of the country," says Douglas S. Massey, a Princeton sociologist and co-director of the Mexican Migration Project, a longitudinal survey of more than 18,000 migrants, the largest of its kind. "So we've transformed what was before 1986 a circular flow of workers into an increasingly settled population of families. We have actually accelerated the rate of undocumented population growth in the United States and shifted it from a less costly population of male workers into a much more costly population of families."

The problem, Massey says, is that by making border crossing "very risky and unpleasant and increasingly expensive, you prolong the length of the trips, you reduce the probability of return migration, and you make it more likely that migrants…just hunker down and stay." The rate of migration from Mexico has actually stayed constant for the last two decades, Massey found. But the rate of return has fallen by half, from 50 percent to 25 percent.

Migration Policy InstituteMigration Policy InstituteWho knew trying to control thousands of miles of border and millions of individuals' desires could be so tricky, right?

Add to that the simple reality that it's much easier (though still hard) to keep people from leaving a country than to keep them from coming in, especially if you run a capitalist economy based on trade, tourism, and educational opportunities. Cuba and North Korea—nobody really wants to move there and they could build effective mechanisms to imprison those unlucky enough to be born or otherwise trapped there. But in the United States, for the most part, immigration comes and goes in large waves, based on the relative attractiveness of our economic offerings and personal freedoms. In the late 19th century, we passed explicitly racist laws keeping "Asians" out (basically, anyone from the Middle East and Asia), but they weren't coming in giant numbers anyway. In the 1920s, we added equally racist laws designed to block Southern and Central Europeans and their numbers did decline—but mostly because of a global depression, World War II, and the rebuilding of Europe after the war. Indeed, when U.S. immigration law was changed in 1965 to favor "family reunification," nobody assumed that Mexicans or Asians would start entering the country in large numbers, though that is exactly what happened.

"In general," Philip Martin, a farm immigration expert at University of California-Davis, told Lochhead in 2006, "the unintended consequences of immigration reforms are more important than the intended consequences." Probably the only way to make sure you have less and less immigration over time is by totally fragging your economy and doing mass executions.

GallupGallupWhen it comes to the families now rushing the border, two factors are probably most at work to explain the recent jump. The first one is the instability and extremeness of the Trump position, which has swung back and forth between zero tolerance and a return to the prior policy. If you're not sure the door is going to be open or shut on a regular basis, you might as well take your best shot as soon as possible. The other, far-more-important factor is what's going on in the countries from which people are fleeing. By most accounts, we reached peak Mexican in 2007 or 2008, when our economy tanked and Mexico's became relatively attractive to natives. Poverty rates in Guatemala and Honduras, two of the biggest sender countries, are at 60 percent. Gang violence is bad and getting worse, especially in El Salvador, another major contributor to the flow of families. Desperate people go to desperate lengths and there's little reason to think U.S. policy is going to have a major impact on how many people show up at the Southern border.

What we do have control over is how we treat people when they arrive. The zero-tolerance plan wasn't just exquisitely cruel, it was also ineffective, with even anti-immigrant groups acknowledging the slight drop in apprehensions recorded while it was in effect was in line with seasonal fluctuations. There's no reason to be afraid of the people hiking the desert to get here. Their numbers aren't that great and their character is not suspect at all (illegal immigration does not increase violent or non-violent crime).

Here's one final unintended consequence that President Trump might find interesting: His rhetoric and policies on immigration have managed to drive approval of immigration to historic highs. Fully two-thirds of Republicans, 75 percent of all adults, and 85 percent of Democrats now agree with the statement that "immigration is a good thing" for the country today. If Trump runs for a second term, he could drive those numbers even higher.

Watch "ICE's No Tolerance Policy is Wreaking Havoc on Families and Clogging the Immigration System."

Photo Credit: Georgetown Book Shop/Reason

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.

  • TuIpa||

    "Despite—or Maybe Because of"

    So you don't know?

    "Trump's failed immigration policy"

    So you DO know?

    Ladies and gentleman Nick Gillespie, a walking advertisement for the dangers of huffing leather condirtioner.

  • Juice||

    So the goal of Trump's immigration policy is to increase the number of people crossing the southern border?

  • TuIpa||

    Why are you asking me? I didn't write the article.

    Or... Did I?

  • TuIpa||

    "Border Patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September, the highest one-month total on record and an 80 percent increase from July, according to unpublished Department of Homeland Security statistics obtained by The Washington Post...."

    Sounds to me like it's working as intended.

    Or...is a crackdown supposed to catch fewer people?

  • Juice||

    You impugned the logic of the headline by saying that if someone didn't know whether the uptick of people crossing the border was in spite of or because of the crackdown, then they couldn't know if the crackdown had been a failure or not. Obviously, knowing whether the crackdown has been a failure or success doesn't depend on knowing the reason for its failure or success.

  • John||

    What possible reason could there be for a crackdown causing more people to cross the border? That makes no sense. Now maybe the crackdown is ineffective and doens't prevent people from crossing the border. But there is no rational way it could cause more people to cross the border.

    There really isn't any hill too stupid to die on defending the reason staff is there?

  • TuIpa||

    "You impugned the logic of the headline by saying that if someone didn't know whether the uptick of people crossing the border was in spite of or because of the crackdown, then they couldn't know if the crackdown had been a failure or not. "

    And I was right. And your response was a non-sequitur.

    Fuck off now.

  • vek||

    Well, the REAL question is, are more people crossing the border... Or are they simply CATCHING a higher percentage of those that are crossing?

    If it's just them catching more of them, there ain't nothin' wrong with that! He should set a target of matching the Clinton/Bush years numbers, since in theory that would be nearly 100% of the numbers trying to come now!

  • John||

    What is Trump supposed to do except catch them and not let them in? Moreover, how on earth could locking them up be the cause of more people crossing?

    Do you even listen to yourself? No you really don't. It is immigration and you are a reasonite. So you just emote.

  • Juice||

    So you just emote.

    Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. The theory of psychological projection was developed by Sigmund Freud, an Austrian psychologist commonly referred to as the "father of psychoanalysis." For this reason, psychological projection is sometimes called "Freudian projection." During his sessions with patients, Freud noticed that they would sometimes accuse others of having the same feelings they themselves were demonstrating. By engaging in this behavior, the patient was better able to deal with the emotions he or she was experiencing.
  • John||

    Yes, you are losing this argument badly and are defending the indensible. So you of course claim it is the other side that is projecting.

    Why don't you just yell Red Tony and get it over with? It is a lot shorter and lets everyone know you have lost the argument and are really butt hurt about it.

    If you can't make any rational arguments, at least try some brevity.

  • Saorla||

    Dude, your argument boils down to "A crackdown can't cause MORE of something!" which is childish logic at best. There's this thing called the law of unintended consequences, and efforts to stop something absolutely can prompt more of the behavior it's trying to squelch. Just look at the Streisand Effect for example. If you want to disprove the article's claim, you're going to have to find some facts first.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So the goal of Trump's immigration policy is to increase the number of people crossing the southern border?

    No.

    The goal of Trump's BORDER CONTROL policy is to increase the number of people CAUGHT crossing the southern border.

    And it appears to be working.

  • ||

    So you don't know?
    ...
    So you DO know?

    So the most openly anti-immigrant president in memory

    "Most openly anti-immigrant president in memory."

    In the late 19th century, we passed explicitly racist laws keeping "Asians" out (basically, anyone from the Middle East and Asia), but they weren't coming in giant numbers anyway. In the 1920s, we added equally racist laws designed to block Southern and Central Europeans

    "My memory only works back 2 years, past that it's hit or miss."

  • TuIpa||

    Careful, you're gonna get a ration of libtears for impugning.

  • vek||

    If only those 1920s immigration laws had been tighter, we could have stopped Nick's dirty WOP ancestors from coming! Think of all the trouble THAT would have saved America! ;)

  • ||

    This should be good.

  • Dillinger||

    Flames looked good last nite

  • ||

    Lol.

    I haven't paid much attention to start the season because of baseball and football.

    All I know is I drafted Stastny (even though I generally avoid injury prone players like the plague) and Tuch thinking it would be a productive duo. Instead they're both injured and I had to burn to wire picks to replace them. My goal was to get Palmieri because I have Hall but someone plucked him before me. Pissed me off.

    Palmieri did nothing for me last year, this year he's on fire early.

    I swear sometimes....

  • Dillinger||

    >>>I haven't paid much attention to start the season because of baseball and football.

    i flipped to hockey b/c Sox were between innings. First season I've ever had Sidney Crosby so I'm sure he'll break an ankle by Thanksgiving.

  • ||

    He hasn't scored.

    I also had Guentzel but couldn't protect him and chose to keep....Hoffman.

    Watch the former take off and the latter sputter.

  • Trigger Warning||

    What is hockey? That shit those Frenchboys with missing teeth do with sticks and a can of Copenhagen?

  • John||

    So the judges make it impossible to remove a "family unit" that shows up at the border. Sure enough tons of "family units" start showing up at the border knowing they won't be sent home. But it just shows the futility of even trying to control the border. It doesn't show anything about incentives and the fact that judges and immigration activists are gaming the system or anything. Nope.

    God Reason is fucking apalling. This entire thing is a artificial crisis created by immigration activists who want to overwealm the system. Make it impossible to expidite the deportation of these people and then throw a scream fit about locking people in cages when the government does anything but turn them lose and let them come into the country and stay illegally.

    If reason didn't have bad faith on this issue, it would have no faith at all.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    It does seem like the timing of that caravan from Honduras isn't a coincidence.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>knowing they won't be sent home

    well-positioned Marty Mooses. "sorry folks, park's closed."

  • Juice||

    But it just shows the futility of even trying to control the border.

    Is that a light bulb turning on?

  • John||

    Are you that fucking stupid or just hat dihonest? Is there a lightbuld that turns on for you that woudl allow you to read my post and make an intelligent response?

    I don't think there is. Because like all reason libertarians, you are incapable of having a serious thought about immigration or making an honest argument.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Because like all reason libertarians

    Sounds like "reason libertarians" are not members of Libertarians For Authoritarian Immigration Policies, and that you object to this.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Really need to get you down to the vet so you can be put down.

  • AER1972||

    Missing in all of this is the accountability of those making the decision to cross the border illegally. I guess Nick and his crew have decided to team up with the progressive social justice warriors and open up the borders to the cartel backed caravans of phony asylum seekers. What the hell happened to Reason and the Libertarian movement?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nick Gillespie is an anarchist, so he thinks borders should not exist.

  • rchive||

    Nick is not an anarchist. You're thinking of Katherine

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But it just shows the futility of even trying to control the border.

    Huh. Maybe prohibitions don't work after all. Who knew?

  • vek||

    Give me carte blanche to control the borders. I'll cut down on the number of illegal immigrants by 90% or better within the year. It's not hard, you just have to get serious about it.

    I'd send ICE guys into government schools in California after cross checking fake SSNs used by their parents. Pull their kids out of classes during school hours. Then go arrest their parents during work hours. Ship them all home immediately.

    Show up at construction sites at random, and ask for papers please. Start prosecuting businesses that employed illegals for being accessories in identity theft schemes. Shit, tell border patrol they can start taking pot shots at people on the US side of the border, as long as there were no children present. You could put out a public message saying no prosecutions will happen to property owners along the border for shooting trespassers on their land, them being trespassers and all.

    I could go on. You could do hard core shit under present laws, if you ignored activist judges. With a few sensible new laws, you could get even more hard core.

    Once you started doing shit like that, striking terror into the hearts of the lawbreakers, the numbers even trying to cross would plummet.

    I'm part beaner myself, and I say FUCK ALL THESE PEOPLE. We don't need millions more dish washers in the USA.

  • mlwjr||

    You could get rid of 75% of it by prosecuting the shit out of companies who employ illegals. Make it hurt

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    True.

  • vek||

    Seriously.

    If people show up, and don't have legal rights to come in... They should literally be returned to wherever they belong... I dunno, the next day? Maybe 2 days tops. There is no reason for any of this nonsense. Not a single person from Mexico, or any of those central American countries has any legitimate reason to claim asylum. They should all be automatically denied, and returned instantly. It's just them trying to game the system.

    Should I go try to claim asylum in Lichtenstein because it's a super affluent, super low tax, awesome country, just because it might be awesome to live there? It would be total bullshit. And they would tell me, rightly, to GTFO. We should be doing the same.

  • Saorla||

    You're like those people who say that "real communism" hasn't been tried yet and if only it was "done right" it would be great. No matter how many times the US's border and immigration policy is shown to be a failure, you'll just continue to scream that it hasn't been "done right" instead of admitting that your ideas were fundamentally wrong. That kind of cognitive dissonance would be impressive if it wasn't so laughable.

  • vek||

    Wrong idiot.

    I don't expect some perfect situation. I don't expect ZERO illegal immigrants. However history shows, including recent history from the European migrant crisis, that enforcement can make a HUGE difference. Israel is another example.

    If you make it known you're not fucking around, and you will find and deport everybody who illegally enters with some zeal, it reduces the number that even try massively.

    It's like traffic laws. If there was NEVER a single person pulled over for speeding, people would speed A LOT MORE. Everybody would be going 30-40 over all the time. If you spent the money to try to stop EVERY instance of speeding, that too would be ridiculous, a huge waste of money. However a proper balance of enforcement can get the number of people who speed too excessively within reason. THIS is the type of immigration enforcement we need. But we need to go extra hard core at first to make sure people know we're serious, and to deal with the backlog our non enforcement has created.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Savoring, that is what we call a false analogy. The fact is that our border laws aren't generally followed. Not really the same as socialist regimes.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Probably the only way to make sure you have less and less immigration over time is by totally fragging your economy and doing mass executions.

    The drawback of the tremendous Trump economy. If only he was the dictator we all knew him to be, the president could turn us into the type of place that fences its people in and/or lines them up against a wall (which we know will happen if you don't vote this November). But I digress.

  • John||

    The dark night of fascism is falling on America. Peter Suderman and the rest of the reason staff assure me of this. But it is all futile as Nick's post shows.

    You can't even parody reason anymore.

  • ||

    The other strange thing about Reason is apparently 'post-modernism' and 'cultural Marxism' are all in our heads.

    And they're annoyed with Jordan Peterson for some reason.

    Which I don't get at all. I just finished his book and I gotta tell ya, there are some points raised in there that would be an opportunity for Reason to reach out and explore more with him because they strike me as relevant to libertarianism.

    Instead, we get passive-aggressive jabs.

    Come on Reason! Hey-ho, let's go!

  • John||

    The fact is that immigration activists are creating this "crisis" and literally trucking and paying people to come to the border. Why not talk about that? God forbid reason just tell the truth. Nope. They are totally incapable of telling the truth or having any kind of thoughtful opinion on immigration. It is just pathetic.

  • ||

    NGOs were doing that in Italy. Italy was sending migrants back and NGOs were picking them back up and sending them to Italy which caused a lot of friction.

    Then they wonder why Salvani got elected.

    Don't fuck with the sanctity of a nation's borders. It's privilege to enter a nation. Not a right.

    Right or wrong, this is how citizens view this. And now we're at a point European nations had enough and Americans acknowledge 'okay, fix this damn thing'.

  • vek||

    I'm glad the Italians are getting serious.

    This stuff has got to stop. Regular people all across the western world are tired of seeing their countries turn to ship because commies want to bring in millions of low education voters from 3rd world shitholes.

    In the USA we are a weird deal... But in Europe, those people have the right to maintain their own homelands as THEIR homelands. France should NOT become a multiculti nightmare. It should stay France. And I HATE the French! But it's their right to eat baguettes and wear stupid stripey shirts in peace, without having to worry about being blown up by some fucking Muslim nut job.

    I personally think the USA has the right to maintain our culture too... And let's be honest, the culture of the USA is 100% Anglo-Germanic in nature. The folks that came in later essentially got converted to that Anglo-Germanic culture too, and got lost in the mix. With the rates of immigration, and the nature of current immigrants, the USA has already been irrevocably changed. But we can probably manage it if we get shit under control soon. I think Hispanics will integrate OKAY if we stop the flood gates, and Asians seem to do just fine.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    People like that should be quietly put down.

  • ||

    And by the way, it was a very tame book. Not sure why it ruffles feathers.

    I guess they just can't understand his popularity and look to nit-pick to try and explain it?

    I think his forceful 'take care of yourself and stop blaming others' is what resonates more than anything he has to say on post-modernism. I think people relate to his advice on things - which are refreshing to be frank.

    Not to many of us around here but you'd be surprise at how many people that slap of the side of the head.

  • ||

    off

  • John||

    It is a totally tame book. And it ruffles feathers because the wrong people read it and like it. Reason under Nick is about cultureal snobbery more than anything. Ken Shultze nailed it when he called it a lifestyle magazine.

  • ||

    Teen Vogue offers to buy Reason.

  • AER1972||

    oh that explains it

  • Dillinger||

    >>> Fully two-thirds of Republicans, 75 percent of all adults, and 85 percent of Democrats now agree with the statement that "immigration is a good thing" for the country today

    god-awful indefinably stupid polls-as-fact ...

  • ||

    4 in 5 dentists agree! Brushing your teeth is good!

    I'd like to meet the one guy who dissented.

  • AER1972||

    Do you understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration or as with most progressives/Reason staff you simply are clueless?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They're not clueless, they're dishonest. Flatly refusing to admit the distinction is a standard rhetorical tactic, so they can accuse people who simply want controlled immigration of being "anti-immigrant".

  • vek||

    When people answer that question, they always have their idea of ideal immigration in their head.

    In most peoples head it equates roughly to: A legal immigrant who has a high value degree, no criminal record, likes the idea of America, and speaks fluent English.

    That is NOT the type of people coming here from Mexico. Average education is 8th friggin' grade. And pols chastise native born high school graduates for not getting more educated! Gimme a break.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They're thinking of legal immigration. Not a bunch of unchecked illegals swarming here like locusts.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>you simply are clueless?

    fully 2/3 of republicans don't agree on anything
    75 percent of all adults don't agree on anything
    85 percent of democrats don't agree on anything

    define "immigration is a good thing" for me too while you're at it. solid definition. go.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Meh. Nothing that can't be fixed with the judicious use of Napalm.

  • Entelechy||

    Those aren't immigrant families arriving ashore-- it's new members day at Mar Del Lago.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I thought it was New Employees Day.

  • M.L.||

    "First ... the "zero tolerance" policy ... was not a good idea. Second, despite President Trump's claims to the contrary, there is in fact no law mandating that the government must separate minor children from their parents when they enter the country."

    LOL. You'd think this guy would have a clue what he's writing about, but no.

    The law is that you can't detain these children longer than 20 days. But if you don't detain illegal border crossers, and you just let them into the country, they rarely show up for some court date later. They just join the 20 million and counting illegal alien population.

    So what you have is a choice between de facto open borders, or family separation. (Not to mention that many of them are not families and are being trafficked by dangerous criminals).

    The extreme left wingers have been carefully setting it up this way for decades. The laws and the court decisions are a ruse for implementing a de facto open borders policy. This is key to their long term goals of a socialist utopia, destruction of the 2nd amendment, and so on. Just replace Americans with new voters more amenable to your agenda, and completely remake the demographics of the country so as to divide and conquer with identity politics. Of course, others are happy to go along for the wage suppression effect.

  • John||

    So what you have is a choice between de facto open borders, or family separation. (Not to mention that many of them are not families and are being trafficked by dangerous criminals).

    Nick knows that. He just wants totally open borders and is too dishonest to admit it. Reason doens't want anyone deproted or denied entry for any reason. They don't even want criminals deported. They don't even try to pay lipservice to it anymore. As far as the people that are murdered or victimized by the criminals who cross the border, Reason's view is that natives commit crimes too, so why should they care if immigrants do it? That is what they think. Don't give a flying fuck about the harms caused by immigation. Just eggs for the omelet. They are flat out leftists on this issue.

  • M.L.||

    Gotcha. I was going to mention the dishonesty and intentional obfuscation conclusion as well.

    This idea of de facto open borders is monumentally stupid. It's similar to the idea that we can carpet bomb a country in the Middle East and suddenly they will adopt democracy and love liberty. It's just as foolish to think you can move masses of people from one country to another, and suddenly they will love liberty. No, they will bring their crime-ridden and corrupt hellhole cultures with them.

    Now, in reasonable numbers and with concerted efforts at assimilation, this can indeed be accomplished. But our mainstream culture and our educational institutions are actively thwarting assimilation, not teaching appreciation for liberty and foundational American values. So -- so much for that idea.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Cruel, Bigoted Immigration Policies And Practices.

    Sponsored by LibGloss, a leading manufacturer of libertarian drag products for right-wingers who masquerade as libertarians.

  • M.L.||

    I don't call myself a libertarian, since that label is now associated with some of the most brain-dead and stubbornly idiotic viewpoints around. In fact, I roundly mock "libertarians" for their various blind spots and egregious foolishness.

    This is despite the fact that I am very pro-liberty and pro-markets, and relatively liberal on social issues such as gay marriage.

  • vek||

    Low and slow is the only way for immigration and assimilation to work well.

    I don't understand how people don't grasp that people don't change when they set foot on the "magic dirt." Or that letting in people that are half illiterate in their native language aren't going to magically become 6 figure earning computer programmers, or engineers. In most cases the vast majority of their kids won't either. Hispanics in the USA have lower levels of high school and college graduation than black Americans, which are already dicey as fuck.

    It's just all delusion, and ignoring any and all objective facts on the subject.

    If we only let in high quality immigrants in the first place, immigrants would be a boon. But you let in low quality immigrants, and it's more trouble than it's worth. It's that simple.

  • AER1972||

    and open borders coupled with a welfare state is economic suicide. Especially when 95% of those immigrants are under educated.

  • rchive||

    "So what you have is a choice between de facto open borders, or family separation. (Not to mention that many of them are not families and are being trafficked by dangerous criminals)."

    We could try immigration reform, after which maybe people could enter the country legally and be able to work and become part of normal society, a little bit more easily? Just spitballing the really obvious other option...

    Stop with your false dichotomies.

  • Cy||

    There are still going to be illegal borer crossing attempts, there will still be 'families' trying to do so. So, where are we then? Just let all the doe eyed little kids and there saintly parents in? Who gives a fuck why they're fleeing their country?

  • M.L.||

    This is not a false dichotomy -- it's a real dichotomy under current law.

    I'm all for immigration reform, but Congress has to do it. However, you do realize that people CAN currently "enter the country legally and be able to work and become a normal part of society." We admit more immigrants than any other country in the world, by far. We are the most generous nation in the world. We have been admitting over 1 million per year for decades, and we now have the highest level of immigrants in all of history. The pace of immigration has overwhelmed the pace of assimilation. How many immigrants per year do you think we should allow?

  • vek||

    And there's a question: How many SHOULD we allow.

    1 million a year has radically transformed the country for the worse. Entire swaths of the country have gone sharp left, EXCLUSIVELY because of demographic shifts. Texas will probably go blue in 10 years, EXCLUSIVELY because of Hispanic immigration. Not to mention wages being suppressed, crime issues, on and on.

    What if it was 2 million a year... Or 5 million.

    Frankly, if it were ALL PHDs and engineers, 1 million might be okay, at least economically... But we definitely don't need more than that. Even if they were all high quality, we could probably use lower immigration for awhile. At least until the last bunch gets half way assimilated.

  • D-Pizzle||

    People already can enter the country legally, work legally, and become a part of normal society, but you already know that, I'm sure. Try a little honesty and stop using euphemisms like "immigration reform" when what you really mean in unfettered immigration.

  • M.L.||

    There is absolutely nothing futile about trying to control the border.

    Walls are effective. Israel's wall stopped like 99% of illegal border crossings.

    But a wall isn't even the biggest thing. Just implement e-verify, deny welfare and other services to illegal immigrants, aggressively deport those who commit other crimes, and change the laws such as those at issue here which make it difficult to stop them at the border. Illegal immigration solved.

    Then, reform legal immigration to a merit-based system, and reduce immigration overall -- due to the fact that assimilation isn't happening, and the foreign born population is now at an all time high in the entire history of the U.S.

  • Here for the outrage||

    I think assimilation happens when you let people do what they want. Govt housing is terrible.

    First generation immigrants cost an average of $1600. After that they net $1,300.

    That 5% federal spending cut could support a lot of caravans for some sweet sweet long term growth.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/ campaign-stops/what-does- immigration-actually-cost-us.html

  • Here for the outrage||

    * Support at the voting booth ---> end result is good

  • vek||

    WRONG.

    The average Hispanic income in the USA, as well as Black for that matter, means the entire Hispanic population in the USA are net tax drains. You're not a net tax payer in the USA until you hit almost $60K a year. Basically only Jews, Asians, and whites hit that number on average.

    Of course, with only skilled immigration, EVERY SINGLE IMMIGRANT FAMILY could in fact REDUCE the tax burden on native born Americans, if they all had skills that made them net that $60K a year or more. THAT would be a policy that actually benefited native born people.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If any group coming here is a likely de. Or at vote then it should be kept out. We should start exiling democrats while we're at it.

  • Echospinner||

    "due to the fact that assimilation isn't happening, "

    Darn those Amish.

  • vek||

    Yes, because a small number of productive, non criminal, Amish living in rural areas are the same thing as MILLIONS of poor, crime ridden, ethnic ghettos in half of our major cities... Hispanics account for ~35% of murders in the USA today... Given that we had practically no Hispanics 50 or 60 years ago (it was a couple percent), and that they were well integrated... One can safely assume if we HADN'T allowed in all these illegals, and granted them amnesty, then allowed still more in... That our murder rate would probably be 30% or so lower than it is.

    But pay no mind to that! We can just ignore it, just like we ignore that blacks commit 50% of murders. Just get used to entire parts of cities becoming no go zones! It'll be totally fine!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just implement e-verify, deny welfare and other services to illegal immigrants, aggressively deport those who commit other crimes, and change the laws such as those at issue here which make it difficult to stop them at the border. Illegal immigration solved.

    Indeed! All that needs to be done is to create a huge regulatory burden on every single employer, create a greater police state to find all of those illegal humans, and rip up those asylum treaties so that those illegal humans can't use that whole "refugee" bullshit as an excuse to come here. Gee, what a libertarian idea!

  • M.L.||

    Overall, I'm for a drastic reduction in the already massive regulatory burden on employers. E-verify is nothing compared to what already exists, such as remitting to the IRS a huge chunk of every single paycheck that every employer ever issues. You could also simply enact stiff penalties on employers which would be a complete deterrent. I'm not a simpleton who refuses to acknowledge the value of any regulation whatsoever.

    I'm also for a lesser police state in various ways. However, I don't think entails a materially greater police state to simply deport those that are already being arrested and imprisoned for violent crimes.

    I'm very much in favor of refugee programs, but it is obvious these are being abused. Refugee status is supposed to be reserved for those populations that face extreme and violent political persecution in their home countries, on the basis of their religion or ethnicity.

  • vek||

    Fuck people gaming the system Jeff.

    We don't even need E-Verify.

    The IRS already knows about MILLIONS of illegals that have used fake SSNs. Simply turn all of those over to ICE. They can start nailing every single one of them systematically. Every person that has done that is either an illegal, or somebody else who committed identity theft.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh look! Little Jeffy once again opines with another soft headed, discredited statement.

  • rchive||

    Everytime you try to reduce the total amount of immigration arbitrarily, just in terms of numbers, you will get more illegal immigration. It's the same as alcohol prohibition, drugs, sex work, etc.

    Also, illegal immigrants are already barred from receiving welfare, and they pay sales tax and excise taxes.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But illegal immigrants routinely engage in identity fraud, to pretend to be legal residents. This also gets them around the ban on their collecting welfare.

    It's not like they walk into the welfare office and immediately identify themselves as deportable illegal aliens.

  • vek||

    Wrong.

    Many types of crime are reduced by enforcement.

    Imagine if ZERO traffic stops were ever done for speeding. The number of speeders would go up exponentially. Spotty enforcement, as we do now, keeps it lower. If they upped their game to trying to pull over every person a cop ever saw speeding, the instances would drop still further.

    It's about finding the sweet spot that keeps law breaking to a reasonable limit, and expenses reasonable as well. Given the huge public burden on tax payers, it can be very cost effective to boot out illegals with children.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Also, illegal immigrants are already barred from receiving welfare, and they pay sales tax and excise taxes.

    While strictly true, they can (and many do) collect welfare benefits on behalf of their American-born children.

  • Barnstormer||

    The headline is so enormously stupid it can stand on its own. It doesn't need the subsequent stupid essay to prop it up.

  • Tamfang||

    If you can't decide even whether the causality is positive or negative ("Despite—or Maybe Because of"), why mention the 'cause' at all?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    75 percent of all adults, and 85 percent of Democrats now agree with the statement that "immigration is a good thing" for the country today

    America is great.

  • America||

    Thanks!

    I like to think my ability to tolerate people like you who are constantly wrong is a big part of my appeal.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Define immigration.

  • Cy||

    You're right, Trump's MAGA campaign has been successful so far. I'm glad to see you supporting him. I know how you have a lot of very racist and biased issues. It took a lot to over come them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    America is great, in part, because most Americans are not selfish, insular, backward, bigoted, gullible, easily frightened yahoos who rant about immigrants and immigration in an attempt to cope with their largely self-inflicted problems.

    America is great, in large part, because we have overcome successive waves of ignorance and intolerance related to immigration, religion, race, or perceived economic pressures (involving Irish, blacks, gays, eastern Europeans, Hispanics, Jews, Italians, women, Catholics, Asians, agnostics, etc.) and because this latest batch of bigots is nothing special.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    America will be far greater when you breathe no more Arty. So go commit suicide.

  • XM||

    Most of these people are not families. I wish people would stop repeating this. Most of the kids crossing the borders arrive with strangers.

    They keep coming because (1) they expect humane treatment on this side of the border, despite all the hysteria over "concentration camps" (2) moving from their homeland to the United States is effectively moving from one of the worst places on earth to one of the best places (3) the US already has a sizable Latino community.

    If we were detaining less than a hundred migrants a year, Trump's zero tolerance policy would be less of an issues. It would be logistically easier to process everyone quickly and identify families who must be kept intact. But we're dealing with thousands of these people with new incoming wave.

    Now that default separation is over, we're likely back to stuffing families together in detention centers. The solution is either admitting everyone as refugees or asking US taxpayers to fund more facilities to house the human tsunami that hits the border every year.

    This isn't a tenable for most American voters. It's not a matter of not having heart. Whether it's homelessness or wars, they won't tolerate long term quagmires without an acceptable solution. Trump firmly advanced on solution. It wasn't the best, given that he underestimated the resources. But it was a break from the usual muddled middle ground.

  • AER1972||

    so we are required to support these people why?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well let's see. An immigrant shows up at the border without the correct papers and says "help help I seek asylum". What do you do? Say "screw you, I'll ignore the law and international treaties and deport you anyway"? But if you don't do that, then the only other options are to set them free pending their asylum hearing, or keep them housed in jails in the meantime, at taxpayer expense. And I'm guessing you don't want them roaming free. So what's the other option?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not the way asylum works.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I gave you the Cliffs Notes version.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    no you gave the Cliff Claven version Jeff.

  • M.L.||

    Set them free -- on the correct side of the border. Pending their asylum hearing. In other words, just don't let them cross.

    However, if they wish to put up by U.S. taxpayers with three hots and a cot pending their asylum hearing, I'm OK with that too, and that should be a completely voluntary decision on their part. If they want to be let out (on the correct side of the border) they can do so at any time.

    And, their children should be allowed to stay with them (contrary to current law), but the U.S. must of course be able to protect these children by separating them from the people who brought them in, if there is reason to believe they are in danger, being trafficked, or the U.S. was lied to about their familial status.

  • vek||

    There is not a single legitimate asylum case from Mexico or central/south America. Legally they're supposed to all go to countries OTHER than the US, because they don't border us, other than Mexicans. But Mexico isn't a failed state... So they can fuck off.

    In short, tell them all to fuck off immediately, and return them from whence they came.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There is not a single legitimate asylum case from Mexico or central/south America.

    So, no due process for them?

    Ignore all the asylum treaties that the government signed?

  • vek||

    Are you really that unknowledgeable on the subject?

    The asylum treaties we have signed off on REQUIRE people to apply for asylum in the first bordering country that isn't borked by war, failed state, etc. Which is why Syrians running to Sweden is bullshit, just as people from central America running here is bullshit.

    The people who crafted those treaties probably envisioned this exact kind of nonsense, which is why they wrote the treaties like that. As with everything else that doesn't fit the fagtard prog master plan, they've simply been ignoring the law. For the feelz you know! Because FEELZ are the most important thing in the world!

    But yeah, when a nation doesn't have any issues that create the proper circumstances for asylum, there is no reason to hear any particular case. Stuff like your husband beating up on you, as featured in a Reason article, are reasons to move to a different city without telling the guy... Not a different country.

    It's nothing but economic opportunism at the expense of first world populations. And I'm tired of paying for it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Vet, Little Jeffy is completely ignorant. Period.

  • damikesc||

    Asylum is provided by the first signatory they arrive at.

  • Echospinner||

    You should not have to support anyone. That includes about half the population of West Virginia for example. They are citizens and can vote right? Well now we know why the welfare state keeps expanding.

    How about the guy who shows up at the border and says he has a cousin in Kansas with a store who will give him a job. It checks out. Would you let him in with his wife and two kids?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You should not have to support anyone. That includes about half the population of West Virginia for example.

    You figure Americans should let most West Virginians die in a pit of dysfunction, ignorance, backwardness, superstition, poverty, and failure?

    I believe we should help West Virginians. The young West Virginians, in particular, deserve help.

  • vek||

    If he's not a citizen, he should fuck off to wherever he came from. Becoming an American citizen is not owed to every person in the world.

  • rchive||

    "Most of these people are not families."

    Gonna need some pretty strong sources for that one

  • Ron||

    its just anew tactic but it will only force Trumps hand since this can't be allowed to continue. of course that makes you think there are maybe certain people organizing this just to push trump. who could that be?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Fully two-thirds of Republicans, 75 percent of all adults, and 85 percent of Democrats now agree with the statement that "immigration is a good thing" for the country today.

    Huh. So the Republicans we get commenting here at Reason aren't even representative of their own tribe.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, we are, it's just that if you use the word "immigration" when talking with a conservative, they assume you mean "legal immigration", because if you didn't, you'd have said "illegal immigration".

    It's like if you say that you made a withdrawal at the bank, people just assume you don't mean you robbed it.

    Legal immigration IS a good thing for the country, because it systematically excludes people whose immigration would likely be bad for the country, and favors educated, law abiding, English literate immigrants.

  • ||

    It's like if you say that you made a withdrawal at the bank, people just assume you don't mean you robbed it.

    Even at that, "Are withdrawals a good thing?" is going to get the opposite answer of "Is a bank run a good thing?" even if you're talking about completely legal withdrawals in both cases with or without policy proscriptions.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Have you read some of the comments here from your fellow Republicans?

    There's a great many of them who doubt the propriety of even legal immigration.

    Legal immigration IS a good thing for the country, because it systematically excludes people whose immigration would likely be bad for the country, and favors educated, law abiding, English literate immigrants.

    Only if the system is rigged to generate that type of outcome. But there is no requirement that a legal immigration system MUST include only "educated, law abiding, English literate immigrants". Go talk to some of your fellow Republicans, especially the Tom Cotton types.

  • vek||

    I think we should only let in economically productive English speakers... If somebody isn't bringing something to the table that will benefit the current citizens of this country, they shouldn't be let in. I'm all for Mexican doctors and engineers... Not so much for middle school educated, in Spanish only, dish washers.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If somebody isn't bringing something to the table that will benefit the current citizens of this country, they shouldn't be let in.

    If someone isn't going to benefit the collective, then the state should forbid that person from entering. Got it!

    Do you see now how immigration restrictionism is just another form of collectivism?

  • vek||

    Who cares? It works.It ain't perfect, but it is better than open borders.

    By your retarded, extremist position, THE FAMILY UNIT is a form of collectivism. I suppose it is technically. But it's a good one, that produces good results. Same as borders and immigration laws.

    I believe in the concept of the nation state, so sue me.

    I unequivocally deny that anybody has a RIGHT to migrate internationally to any place they care to. Without nation states, and without immigration control, no 1st world country can exist. PERIOD.

    It would cause a leveling of standards of living globally. This would be a disaster for all 1st world nations. As I am not big on slitting my own throat, I say let 3rd world toilets fix their own countries. I have no obligation to make my life worse to benefit foreigners.

    If your SOLE argument for destroying every 1st world nation on earth is: Cuz freedom of movement! You should realize that small gain in freedom, is not worth all the OTHER freedoms and prosperity lost to enact it. So fuck off.

  • damikesc||

    Are we obligated to allow anybody who wants to come here in?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga! Deport as many as possible.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What are you willing to pay, in dollars and in liberty, for this to happen?

  • vek||

    Well, $12K a year per child for their public schooling... That's $156,000... 3 kids or so on average... So maybe $432,000 per family? Not that it would ever come to being that expensive anyway, but that's an upper bound.

    That doesn't even account for roads, water, other government spending. Just sending their kids to school.

  • vek||

    Well, $12K a year per child for their public schooling... That's $156,000... 3 kids or so on average... So maybe $432,000 per family? Not that it would ever come to being that expensive anyway, but that's an upper bound.

    That doesn't even account for roads, water, other government spending. Just sending their kids to school.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Add to that the simple reality that it's much easier (though still hard) to keep people from leaving a country than to keep them from coming in, "

    Not even remotely true. Rather, it's the case that powerful factions in both parties didn't WANT to keep these people from coming in; Business on the right, that wanted cheap labor that could be intimidated with the threat of exposing them as illegal immigrants if they complained about working conditions. Democrats on the left who wanted to accelerate their "inevitable demographic victory" by importing a new people.

    If we wanted to keep these people from coming in, we could. You just don't want us to.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If we wanted to keep these people from coming in, we could. You just don't want us to.

    Yes, of course it is possible. But like with all prohibitions, in order to be effective, it would require creating a police state to do so.

    Too many people on the prohibitionist right are unable or unwilling to look soberly at the costs of the things that they propose with regards to immigration policy.

    Just things like "mandatory e-Verify", which a lot of people on the prohibitionist right favor, would require creating a huge regulatory burden on every business. If enforced strictly, it would mean that if I wanted to hire my neighbor's kid to mow my lawn, I would first have to verify his immigration status otherwise I'd be breaking the law. I doubt you would really want a regulation that meddles in the labor market that severely. Or would you?

  • vek||

    That's bullshit. We don't need a police state. Illegal immigrants are everywhere in certain states. You can throw a rock any direction and hit one in California. 1/3 of the kids in my classes in school were illegals or the children of illegals.

    Just a half assed enforcement would cut things down to within reason. Although there are plenty of reforms we could make to make it easier, without becoming a total police state. As I mentioned above, the IRS already knows about MILLIONS of fake SSN uses from illegals. We could START by tracking down every person from that list. Perhaps charge businesses who had a lot of illegals working for them as accessories to committing identity theft, since they KNEW they were fake SSNs. I have had dozens of employees over the years, and not one was ever an illegal.

    It's not an impossible task, and it wouldn't require a police state.

  • vek||

    That's bullshit. We don't need a police state. Illegal immigrants are everywhere in certain states. You can throw a rock any direction and hit one in California. 1/3 of the kids in my classes in school were illegals or the children of illegals.

    Just a half assed enforcement would cut things down to within reason. Although there are plenty of reforms we could make to make it easier, without becoming a total police state. As I mentioned above, the IRS already knows about MILLIONS of fake SSN uses from illegals. We could START by tracking down every person from that list. Perhaps charge businesses who had a lot of illegals working for them as accessories to committing identity theft, since they KNEW they were fake SSNs. I have had dozens of employees over the years, and not one was ever an illegal.

    It's not an impossible task, and it wouldn't require a police state.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    1. If you start advocating that the state round up children of undocumented immigrants (who are citizens, by the way) at school, then that will discourage those families from sending their kids to school. Then what? You will have ignorant kids, and a harder time finding those families.

    2. Not every instance of a 'fake SSN' is an example of identity theft. Some are honest mistakes. And what you are actually advocating for, here, is a national ID card. Gee, that wouldn't ever be abused, would it?

  • D-Pizzle||

    1. He advocated nothing of the sort. He just used kids in schools to demonstrate the magnitude of the illegal immigrant population.

    2. So You want to use the existence of a tiny minority of cases to justify zero enforcement. Got it.

  • vek||

    1. We shouldn't have birthright citizenship. Frankly, I would be ALL FOR deporting those people along with their children, who shouldn't be citizens anyway. It's not what the law says in the US, according to flawed interpretations IMO, but whatevs. It's what almost every other country on earth does. It requires a parent to be a citizen to have children be citizens. We should change our laws to that.

    As for them not getting done learnt... That's illegal, thanks to the nanny state laws we have. We should prosecute them for it, or at least use it as an excuse to track them down and deport them.

    You miss the entire point though. The point is to make it so horrible, and terrifying that they simply go home, or stop coming. THAT is the point of it all. We've been too soft for decades, which is why this stuff has got out of control.

    2. Sure, some are mistakes. Those people won't be deported obviously once that is determined to be the case. But the vast majority are foreign nationals, or Americans doing other identity theft shit. That should not be tolerated from illegal immigrants OR citizens. It's not a national ID card to investigate CRIMES that are already against current law... The cops should be looking into this kind of stuff even if we didn't have a single illegal, cuz identity theft is fucked. How retarded are you?

  • Cy||

    Word searched article for "Venezuela" and "Socialism." Guess what isn't in the article?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    If you want to reduce immigration, tank the economy again.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    I wouldn't call it a failed policy when its been obstructed and never implemented. Here comes good old Nicky G, the border eraser.
    Reason still hasn't hired an illegal immigrant yet have they? Still hoping one jumps the border with a journalism degree?

  • vek||

    "we need to recognize that governments of relatively free countries don't really control migration flows, especially of illegals coming into the country."

    Bullshit! You just have to have the WILL to control it. Everybody in Europe a couple years ago: "ZOMG all these people are coming from the middle east and Africa, there's nothing we can do to stop them! Let's welcome them with open arms then I guess, welfare for all!"

    Hungary built a fence, and put guards on said fence... Guess which country HASN'T taken in millions of people from the ME and Africa? Hungary. And other nations that weren't having any of that shit too. Somehow the ones that gave a shit, even though they were more dysfunctional nations, and by all rights should have been less able to deal with the problem, dealt with it.

    Whereas Germany, France, Sweden, etc have been flooded. Now Italy has decided they're going to deal with the problem, and magically they are. They're turning back entire boats, and talking about outright shipping all the fuckers back where they belong. Whoda thunk?

    The reason people have kept pouring in illegally is because we have had 1/10th assed (calling it half assed would be far too generous) enforcement for decades. If we'd been consistent about finding and returning people, it would have discouraged large numbers. Nobody claims it would be ZERO, but there's a big difference between 10+ million (maybe as high as 20 by some studies) illegals, and saaay 1 or 2 million.

  • vek||

    Throw in stuff like birth right citizenship (which is a BS thing almost no nation has), welfare, etc and it's easy to see why so many break the law. Growing up in Cali, you could have literally just walked into any classroom I was in and snagged a dozen children of illegal immigrants, and then snagged their parents, and off they all go. Then we might have had enough money for paper and basic supplies, not to mention less than 32-34 kids per class...

    As I said, nobody thinks it will be zero. But just like enforcing laws against MURDER or RAPE, you can't stop them all... But there is some point at which it becomes good enough enforcement to be acceptable.

    Bottom line is, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to catch and deport a family than it is to send a single one of their 6 kids to public school in the US, with free lunch no doubt, and tons of other expenses as well. Statistically averaged out illegal immigrants as a group are a huge tax burden on native born Americans. Sure, they suppress wages for the working class, which benefits those people that actually pay taxes too... But I'd rather have somebody working at McDonalds who speaks proper English anyway. Then there's their anchor babies voting, crime issues, on and on.

    Ship them all back!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    But I'd rather have somebody working at McDonalds who speaks proper English anyway

    A conservative promoting a "proper English" standard exhibits a stunning lack of self-awareness.

  • vek||

    LOL

    Yes, because Donald Trump DIDN'T win the $100K on up income earners in the USA or anything... Nothing but illiterate hicks are conservative...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Bullshit! You just have to have the WILL to control it.

    The government can prohibit alcohol! You just have to have the WILL to control it!

    The government can prohibit weed! You just have to have the WILL to control it!

    The government can ban guns! You just have to have the WILL to control it!

  • M.L.||

    This is a very low IQ response. The first question is whether the government should prohibit alcohol, weed, guns, murder, fraud, theft, and so on. Feasibility and effectiveness is only part of the equation.

    Should a nation have borders, and control immigration? I think the answer is yes, and probably over 90% of people would agree. And, there is nothing very difficult about doing this to a certain degree in certain ways. This is unlike drug and gun bans which are very difficult.

    Why Israel's Border Fence Worked

    Israel cut its illegal immigration rate by "99 percent" by constructing a 143-mile fence along its southern border.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Having borders, and controlling immigration, are two different things.

    Borders simply delineate the extent of the state's sovereignty. Borders does not necessarily imply that the state must keep track of who enters and leaves.

    Think of the analogy of a public municipal park. In most, there are no walls and no one keeping track of who comes and who goes. Yet the municipal government still gets to set the rules for legal behavior in the park (no drinking alcohol, no campfires, etc.)

    So I am absolutely in favor of a nation having borders. I am not in favor of the state trying to keep track of who comes and who goes.

  • vek||

    Well, you're an outlier Jeff. Most sane people want to limit who comes into their country. People aren't big on child rapists, murderers, etc.

    Once you've conceded that, it's a question of what qualifications are legit.

    I think immigration should only be people who will not be a burden, or an annoyance, to the natives. So no net tax drains, shitty people, or people that don't speak the language.

    As for controlling it... As I have said a million times, nobody thinks you can have ZERO illegal immigration.

    It's about finding a level that is acceptable. We can't get to ZERO murders either... But legalizing murder would be a stupid idea. Trying to stop EVERY murder would be stupid too, the cost would be too great.

    But with murder, speeding laws, rape, many other things... and illegal immigration, you can find an acceptable balance. People DO NOT like where it has come to. So obviously more/better enforcement of current laws for one. I don't think we need much/any change in the laws with respect to illegals as is, although we do need to change our legal immigration rules.

    Simple as that. People who make the bogus argument that some problem needs to be 100% solved are the idiots... End ALL poverty! Never gonna happen. But the right policies CAN keep it to a reasonable level, by having a strong economy. Same deal with illegals.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Most sane people want to limit who comes into their country. People aren't big on child rapists, murderers, etc.

    Is this where you equate immigrants with child rapists and murderers? This is the type of inflammatory comment which leads reasonable people to conclude that you're really just bigoted against immigrants. MOST of them are not child rapists and murderers, just like MOST PEOPLE are not child rapists and murderers.

    I think immigration should only be people who will not be a burden, or an annoyance, to the natives.

    That should be the qualification for CITIZENSHIP, not mere immigration.

    You want the mob to have veto power over who gets to live in the neighborhood. Why should that be the case? Why should your neighbor have the power to prevent you from buying a house in the neighborhood?

  • vek||

    Ugh,

    As I've said before, I'm part beaner myself! I don't like low education fucks moving here from anywhere. They're a burden, and we don't need more of them. I don't care where they come from.

    And if you knew how to read crime statistics, you would know that Hispanics are VASTLY over represented in basically all crime stats in the USA. Now, you can play a statistics game because there are a number of 1st/2nd/3rd generations born here NOW, but mostly all children/grandchildren of recent illegal immigrants. But it's a simple fact that Hispanics are ~15ish % of the population, and ~35% of murders. Less bad than the 13% and 50% of blacks... But given that the 64% of whites ONLY commit about 15% of murders, NOT better than anybody other than blacks in the USA. SO yes, they do commit more crimes.

    Plus I grew up in Cali. Knew lots of Mexicans in gangs growing up... No white kids, Asians, Jews though... Funny that. I guess that stats show it wasn't just my lying eyes. Last I checked there are no Indian gangs in Seattle where I live that have formed from all the IT guys who live here either.

    If you only let in top notch immigrants, you avoid ALL these problems... AND they're net tax payers, instead of drains.

  • vek||

    As for the other point, as long as we have birthright citizenship, even just being on our soil creates all those burdens if they have kids. If we want to talk about eliminating that, and expanding work visas I'm all for it. But nobody on the left, or the crazed open borders libertarian types, will ACTUALLY have a sane discussion about these things.

    It's always "Let in every illiterate peasant from anywhere in the world, or you're LITERALLY HITLER!!!"

    Which is a garbage argument. Many people have lived in areas that were once nice, and are now shitholes thanks to illegals pouring in. They have seen this shit with their own eyes, and know the consequences. Why do you think people who hate illegal immigration the most are all in the areas where most of them have moved???

    My entire home town was a literal PERFECT suburban town outside of SF. It was heaven on earth in northern California when my dad grew up there. It was going down hill when I was growing up there, but okay. It is now basically a 3rd world country, filled with 3rd world peoples. You cannot convince me I didn't see what I saw happen with my own eyes.

  • damikesc||

    Are you going to continue conflating legal and illegal immigrants? It is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Furthermore, walls only work when they are backed by the credible use of lethal force. So the Berlin Wall worked, but Hadrian's Wall didn't. The people are not going to stand for soldiers shooting unarmed Mexicans at the wall.

  • vek||

    Why not? You shoot a handful of them to make the point, and it might cut down crossings quite a bit! :)

    People illegally crossing borders SHOULD be subject to lethal force in theory, although I don't know that I would necessarily push for it on our border just yet.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The people would not stand for family separations. You think they will totally go with soldiers shooting unarmed women and children? You're delusional.

  • vek||

    You did see the smiley face right?

    But obviously, you should only shoot at the groups that are all men. And actually, lots of people were fine with family separation. It was basically fag progtards, and women, who whined about it. Both categories of people we need to stop paying attention to if we ever want to fix this country. Bleeding hearts have their place in society... But if a nation gives too much sway to people who emote, instead of think, your nation will collapse.

    That is exactly what is bringing down America right now... And if we don't fix it with reasonable approaches now, we WILL get the hard line fixes down the road when people demand order.

  • vek||

    But really, the force doesn't have to be lethal. It could be electronic, and non lethal.

    Loudspeaker says in Spanish: "You have been detected by our automated border crossing system. You are being viewed by a border agent now. If you don't turn around now, agents will be dispatched you detain you and return you to Mexico. Drones will follow you until the agents arrive."

    Then follow through. That's 21st century border control, and frankly with the cost of cameras, and AI systems for detecting movement, it would probably be cheaper than agents.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But really, the force doesn't have to be lethal. It could be electronic, and non lethal.

    Then the wall won't work.

    Show me a wall that works that ISN'T backed up by the credible use of lethal force.

  • vek||

    So you paid no attention to anything I wrote?

    Wall. Cameras. Drones. Loudspeakers. You warn them they have been detected, and then go GRAB THEM if they don't turn back... But you don't HAVE to shoot them. That's FORCE, just not lethal force.

    If they shoot first or something, you can obviously waste their asses, self defense and all.

    As I said above, if we don't fix these messes now with reasonable reforms, we WILL end up going hard line in the future. People have had enough. When people get too pissed, they WILL start killing other people. We can easily avert this by just doing sane things now... But if sane things don't happen, anything is possible in the future.

  • macsnafu||

    Government laws...something, something...unintended consequences, etc.

  • Truthteller1||

    An increase in border enforcement is going to increase the number of people detained. It's common sense to most people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump ran on preventing more illegals from not getting caugh and deported.

    More illegals are getting caught.

    +1 Trump

  • JFree||

    Well this 'caravan/army' that's making it's way here should raise questions about what the immigration endgame is. Why those folks are leaving their shitholes - and why we think just stopping/arresting them here at our border will actually work.

    It won't of course. Americans are far too stupid and tribal for that. Instead this entire issue will be about domestic politics/elections and how the 'solution' should be 'managed' in order to produce better election outcomes

  • Berha123||

    thats true

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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