MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Justin Amash: Say You're Not 'OK' With the Wall

You should call for a guest worker program to solve the problem of unauthorized immigration.

WallNewscomIf there is one bright star in the bleak congressional landscape, it is Justin Amash, the Republican congressman from my home state of Michigan, who was just re-elected for his fifth term. At a time when almost every other GOP politico has flipped and flopped on Trump, depending on whether his/her political ambitions are served by cheerleading or resisting him, Amash has been a lonely voice of sweet reason. He has unwaveringly stood up to Trump not to score points or advance his career—or his stock among liberals—but for the sake of a principled libertarianism anchored in limited government, markets, fiscal responsibility, pluralism, tolerance, and a humane and pro-growth immigration policy.

So it is very disappointing that he commented this week to the Ionia Sentinel-Standard that he does not have an "inherent" problem with a border wall to control illegal immigration. This shows just how much Trump's presidency has moved the Overton Window on immigration in general and the wall in particular.

That Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), who called Trump "a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot" who "doesn't represent my party" after Trump proposed his Muslim ban, should now be four square behind the wall is one thing. Graham pulled a Trump Tower–sized switcheroo last year when his poll numbers in South Carolina tanked and it became clear that his #NeverTrump stance might cost him his re-election bid. At that point, he started shooting little Twitter valentines to Trump declaring that the Donald is "just what America needs" because he "relishes being the Law and Order president and a strong Commander in Chief."

Mitt Romney, the incoming freshman senator from Utah, has pulled another switcheroo of his own. After accepting Trump's endorsement twice—once before his failed presidential run and then for his Senate bid in the fall—Romney penned a scathing op-ed this week denouncing Trump as "divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions." No doubt, Romney is trying to replace outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake as the Senate GOP's leading anti-Trumper (which would be a worthy goal, except that Romney is no Flake). He too has said he'd vote for Trump's wall, a position that represents a small glimmer of consistency in Romney, actually, given that he was way ahead of the curve in staking a harsh restrictionist position: Running for president in 2012, he declared that he wanted to push illegal aliens to "self deport"—a position that Trump at the time called "maniacal" and blamed for Romney's loss.

In contrast to Graham and Romney's opportunism, Amash has been a sincere and steadfast voice of opposition, a man who consults not his political interests but his bedrock commitments when he opines on Trump's policies and antics. He has supported Trump's criminal justice reforms and the few other good things the president has done. But he has also gone after Trump in no uncertain terms for bad-mouthing minorities and immigrants, and for proposing to get rid of birthright citizenship by executive order, and for waxing rhapsodic about his "easy to win" trade wars, and for mocking Rep. Mark Sanford for losing the election.

Amash has also called out other Republicans—including fellow members of the misnamed Freedom Caucus—as they've drifted toward Trumpism, trading their commitment to limited government and fiscal responsibility for a protectionist, reactionary nationalism. Amash was the only Republican who opposed the House GOP's resolution last summer "supporting the officers and personnel" of ICE, a bill whose sole purpose was to embarrass the anti-ICE left. In a tweet, Amash denounced as "dubious" the resolution's claim that ending ICE would allow gangs to roam free. He asked why his party would "treat a federal agency as though it's beyond reproach and reform."

So again, it's troubling that Amash of all people would now be saying that if the wall is "done thoughtfully," after taking into "consideration private property at the border and environmental concerns," he'd be "OK with it."

Walls are the specialty of Communist regimes that regard the outside world as a threat to their control. A wall with Mexico, a friendly neighbor, would be particularly terrible, because it would cut across an area that has historically been integrated around geographic, economic, cultural, and even ethnic lines. Indeed, the border in towns like Laredo, Texas, literally runs through families, with one half living in America and the other half in Mexico. Even mortal enemies like India and Pakistan have not erected artificial physical barriers between them, holding out hope that one day they will bury the hatchet and be united in trade and friendship.

Setting that aside, there are also many practical reasons why the wall would be "inherently" bad and not "OK."

For starters, as Nick Gillespie and I (and numerous other Reason writers) have pointed out repeatedly, notwithstanding the hysteria about migrant caravans, border apprehensions are at a historic low; the number of Mexicans entering the country without authorization has plummeted, due to entirely natural causes. And it is unlikely to pick up again, because Mexico, like the rest of the world outside Sub-Saharan Africa, has completed its "demographic transition"—meaning its fertility rate has dropped as more infants survive to adulthood—so it no longer has surplus young men to send our way. Indeed, right now there are more Mexicans leaving America than entering. Even if you see immigration as a battle, building a wall would be fighting the last war.

Furthermore, at least half of the unauthorized population consists not of border jumpers but visa overstays (a non-trivial number of who at any given time are illegal because America's Kafkaesque immigration bureaucracy failed to renew their visas in a timely fashion). A wall will do nothing about that. And the profits for drug smugglers are too huge to be deterred by a wall, as the Bipartisan Institute's Theresa Brown has argued. Nor will it thwart motivated terrorists. The best way to enhance border security is not a silly wall; it's to give those who mean no harm legal avenues, such as guest worker visas, to come to America. This will reduce cross-border illegal flows even more, handing America far more operational control over the border far more cheaply.

There is an argument, as I said last week, for paying Trump some ransom money for his wall in exchange for legalizing DREAMers (those who were brought to the country without authorization as minors) and Temporary Protected Status holders (those trying to escape turmoil or violence in their native countries). This is especially true since he has dropped his asking price considerably since the last shutdown. At that time he was demanding $25 billion and a 40 percent cut in legal immigration. This time, he wants "only" $5 billion.

But just because it is sometimes necessary to pay ransom to avoid a bigger catastrophe doesn't mean it is "inherently" OK, no matter how small the amount.

That Amash, the man with the strongest moral compass in the GOP, should be signing off on a wall rather than calling for a guest worker program shows just how much the conversation about immigration policy has deteriorated in the GOP, compared to the 1980s when such sentiment was conventional wisdom in the party and the country.

Indeed, watch this 1980 debate between George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and weep.

When asked whether kids of illegal aliens should he allowed a free education in public schools, Bush argues "yes." It would do no good to anyone to deny them an education, he says. Then he goes on to point out that the only reason that substantial illegal immigration even exists is because America has made certain forms of labor that should be "legal" "illegal," turning a whole bunch of "honorable, decent, family-loving people" who are "good" and "decent" and "part of my family" into law breakers.

Reagan one-ups Bush and says that "barriers" are not the answer to dealing with all the unemployed youth in Mexico at that time who wanted to come to America to work. "Open the border both ways," he declares, calling specifically for "work permits" so that Mexicans can "come and go" legally from America. He points out that the fact that Mexicans can come to America to work is a "safety valve" that "prevents the lid from blowing off down there" and calls for working with Mexico in a "mutual recognition" of our common problems. No idiotic demands that Mexico pay for a wall. No denouncing it for sending "rapists" and "criminals" and not its "best people."

Sad!

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If only Amash could have a policy disagreement with the president without taking counterproductive shots. He could learn from Senator Paul about having a chance at being effective.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    As one of my friends loves to say: If, if, if! And if my mom had two balls, I would have two fathers.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    And if my mom had two balls, I would have two fathers.

    This might seem like a harmless expression, but as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community I can assure you it is quite hurtful. Plenty of women have penises and testicles, or "two balls." It doesn't make them any less female. A mother with testicles doesn't automatically become a father. It's an act of misgendering to imply otherwise.

    It's 2019. We need to move past this right-wing science-denying nonsense that absurdly claims anatomy and chromosomes determine gender.

    #TransWomenAreWomen
    #ILoveScience

  • ||

    After her third pregnancy, a friend joked that my wife had to grow a pair in order to get back in shape. Pointing out the fact that she had, in fact, grown three pair up to that point had the precise desired effect on all parties involved.

    I'm still waiting for the day when I can use that joke in front of our sons.

  • JFree||

    Hahaha

  • BambiB||

    nice try, troll.

    You are almost coherent - which means you can't be what you purport to be.

    But then, Shikha tries to pretend she has a brain - and we all know THAT'S not true.

  • Teddy Pump||

    God help U!!!

  • David1234||

    And V and X and Y and Z!!!

  • uncbio||

    You may live your life however you wish, I have no issue with that. However you cannot force others to live in your fantasy world. If you have xy genotype your phenotype is male. That is science. If you lack a y chromosome your phenotype is female. Science doesn't care about your feelings.

  • K. Bailey, Voluntaryist||

    Sounds like you like pseudoscience fueled by propaganda and a warped sense of reality. People are free to call themselves whatever they wish but just because I call myself an elephant doesn't make me one. #reality

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So it is very disappointing that he commented this week to the Ionia Sentinel-Standard that he does not have an "inherent" problem with a border wall to control illegal immigration. This shows just how much Trump's presidency has moved the Overton Window on immigration in general and the wall in particular.

    Neither did Hillary Clinton well before the word Trump was a household name.

  • JesseAz||

    Neither did the Democrats whose 2013 immigration bill had funding for 600 miles of wall.

  • Ken Hagler||

    The wall started construction in 1994, during the Clinton administration, and has been extended steadily during every administration since. It's Dalmia's insistence on lying about easily verifiable facts that has, in part, led me to suspect that the Reason editorial staff is actually anti-immigration, and just publishes her articles to make the pro-immigration side look bad.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So possibly they only hired the mystical girl--the one in favor of sending men with guns to force women into involuntary labor--to make other antichoice infiltrators look bad?

  • DajjaI||

    It's hypocritical to bash Amash for allowing the wall when you're urging him to pay the $5 billion ransom for it. What the heck is he supposed to say?

    Anyway the solution is for the dems to hold out. First of all it's good for libertarians if the government is shut down. It shows we don't really need it. Secondly Trump will use it as a pretext to round up and detain the bad hombres indefinitely. Meaning the DREAMers would be selling out their uncles. Also as a citizen whose 'homeland' is Israel, I too could be in their crosshairs. So yes this affects me personally. (I would be rendered stateless since Israel would reject me under numerous false claims.) Finally if the DREAMers really want citizenship, then just renounce welfare and medicaid. You're young and healthy and productive and don't need it anyway. Then Americans will have no excuses not to welcome you with open arms.

  • BambiB||

    no excuses ... except they're criminals who should be hunted down and executed!

    $5 billion works out to about 11 hours of Federal spending. If congress spent two weeks on every $5 billion expenditure, it would take over 30 years for them to come up with a 1 year allocation.

    Do we need a wall? not if we're willing to put a bounty on all the criminal aliens and jail anyone who employs them or hires them.

    Including YOU!

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Oh no! Now the lying shitbags of Reason will no longer be able to pretend that they love Amash!!!

    Though I seriously doubt that he cares very much.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When asked whether kids of illegal aliens should he allowed a free education in public schools, Bush argues "yes."

    Well, back in 1980 there wasn't the Internet as we now know it and there weren't opportunities for online education that wouldn't require sending kids to school at all.

    If you read the scary statistics from the anti-immigrant groups about how much welfare that immigrants consume, the vast majority of it is related to public school expenses associated with the children of immigrants. Personally I think it is a stretch to call public school "welfare", and I also think it is not terribly fair to fault immigrants for consuming this type of "welfare" since in most places there are truancy laws. BUT, even if these objections were not an issue, one way to get around this would be to have a system of online education. It would be cheaper than what we have now, it could easily be adapted to serve all students, not just those of immigrants, and kids would still be getting an education.

    Personally I think public education is going to get a major shake-up in the upcoming years, like all other sectors have experienced, due to the internet, and this could hasten it along.

  • JesseAz||

    I like how you keep dropping illegal from illegal immigrants Mr. Goldfish.

    But like usual you miss out on the argument you attempt to strawman completely. In border states the cost for English as a Second Language education can double in cost from the education of an English speaking citizen. This is a huge drain on educational resources. You also ignore the other forms of welfare associated around the issue from food stamps from the us born child, hot lunch, Medicaid, and even repayment for child care services in some states. You seem to think these have no costs for some stupid reason. Then you fail to note that the drop out rates for ESL and children of illegal immigrants is higher than the national average, so we are paying extraordinary costs for bad results.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I wrote:

    "If you read the scary statistics from the anti-immigrant groups about how much welfare that immigrants consume, the vast majority of it is related to public school expenses associated with the children of immigrants."

    Note the words "vast majority", not "the entirety". Do you care to dispute this claim? If so, cite your source.

    While you are at it, why don't you care to explain what you think should be done with regards to education of immigrant children (both legal and illegal immigrants). If you don't think they should get an education, then please explain why you think the costs of the consequences of uneducated children running around will be lower than the costs of educating the children.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Aha! This ties in with why it is WAY cheaper to subsidize abortion--until the medical profession can be completely deregulated, unlicensed and competitive--rather than go to a Romanian communist system of forcing women to reproduce at gunpoint. The Romanian solution correlates well enough with expensive violent crime rates 20 years later according to the statistics in Freakonomics. Even Italy and Ireland have quit kidnapping women into involuntary labor! Sometimes I think the Amerikaner Mauer project is intended to help Mexico force Mexican women to reproduce instead of seeking medical help in Canada. Tomorrow... American women, and day after tomorrow, military conscription!

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Amash has been a lonely voice of sweet reason. He has unwaveringly stood up to Trump not to score points or advance his career—or his stock among liberals—but for the sake of a principled libertarianism anchored in limited government, markets, fiscal responsibility, pluralism, tolerance, and a humane and pro-growth immigration policy.

    So it is very disappointing that he commented this week to the Ionia Sentinel-Standard that he does not have an "inherent" problem with a border wall to control illegal immigration.

    So his opinion on the wall must be because Trump and can't possibly be because he doesn't have an inherent problem with a border wall absent Trump.

  • Jerryskids||

    "How can somebody so smart have such a dumb opinion?"

    You know, reasonable people might stop to think that maybe if somebody you think is smart says something you think is dumb the problem might not be in your mistaken belief in how smart they are but your mistaken belief in how dumb the statement is.

  • JesseAz||

    Shikha has never been considered smart. She only knows the corollary about dumb people saying dumb things based on her own personal experience.

  • Jerryskids||

    In this scenario it's Amash that's the smart one. Maybe Shikha could reconsider her own libertarian bona fides in light of Amash's statement.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Her what? sorry, she's straight prog.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Self declared "progressive libertarian".

    Really.

  • David1234||

    I haven't read her stuff. If she is "progressive" in the lefty-cuckoo sense, why is she on the staff of Reason magazine?

  • darkflame||

    Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with the wall. It won't accomplish anything, and that money would most likely go to something worse otherwise. Most likely bombing people for daring to run their country in a way that doesn't prioritise the USA or expanding a corrupt federal agency. It might be a shit reason, but I could see the government getting into lots of worse stuff if their attention wasn't on this right now.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    You mean make the wall a monument to the worse things the government could have done with the money?

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    I'd say handing out our money to shithole countries in exchange for their migrants is a pretty shitty way to spend money

  • ||

    Seems like we just got done tearing down a bunch of monuments to guys who did precisely that.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    So a physical barrier will not work as a physical barrier? That's interesting. The walls is Israel work pretty well, I guess physics works differently on different continents.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Of course walls can work.

    The fact that Lefties and open border freak out about a border wall is precisely because it DOES work.

  • Juice||

    How long are those Israeli walls? How far is any point on those walls from civilization?

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    So we agree walls work, and the discussion should be about where they go and how large they should be.

    Thanks, I thought I was going crazy for a second

  • Ray McKigney||

    You have to understand, if something is not 100% effective, then it's utterly pointless.

    So you can stop using condoms. Complete waste of time.

  • JesseAz||

    Or medical care in general. End medicaid!

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    Here's an idea: since Mexico apparently won't pay for the wall, we can lower the cost of building it if we hire some illegals to do the work!

  • Jerryskids||

    And then stiff them on the bill.

  • Ken Hagler||

    Years ago, Penn and Teller's show "Bullshit!" had an episode on the border wall (this was before the political class decided to pretend that it was all Trump's idea and had never existed before). They hired a bunch of illegal immigrants to build a ten-foot wide section of wall to the specs of the existing wall, then see how long it took them to go over, under, or through it. It turned out that some of the illegal immigrants they hired had, in fact, worked on building the existing border wall.

  • StackOfCoins||

    I remember that episode, and it was beautiful, like most of that show. The only parts I didn't care for was when they went after obviously batshit people like the dolphin episode.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mexicans are paying for the wall.

    I have been assured that they more in US taxes than they receive in bennies.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    OT: America, you have finally fucked with the wrong people. We have buried our anger for too long. Now it is time for us to rise up and defeat our enemies! Pick a side, people - shit just got real.

  • lap83||

    Another subtle "fuck you" from Trump to Romney's presidential hair

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    The best way to enhance border security is not a silly wall; it's to give those who mean no harm legal avenues, such as guest worker visas, to come to America.


    Those visas already exist. That's not the problem. The problem is that the process to obtain such a visa requires navigating through a bureaucratic nightmare the likes of which puts autoritarian Communist regimes to shame. The process is burdened by political considerations which purport to protect the interest of American Workers® rather than respond to real market demand. An employer has to bend over backwards to show that a real and honest effort was made to find that disinterested lazy 'Merican who could ever want the job, as if the money the employer is offering belongs to the Nation and not him. The process provides a good glimpse of how an equivalent Socialist regime would hobble every activity if given the chance to act the same way as immigration policy makers.

  • ||

    puts autoritarian Communist regimes to shame

    And by 'puts authoritarian Communist regimes to shame' you mean 'shames most of the modern world in it's efficiency and/or usefulness'. If the US is a Communist Dictatorship with regard to immigration, Canada, Australia, Most of Scandinavia, Japan, China, much of the ME are post-apocalyptic hell holes (sometimes literally and figuratively) with regard to immigration.

    Your analogy about it being a horrible communist dictatorship makes sense with the way people fled *into* Cuba, China, Venezuela, the USSR, etc., etc. as they became communist dictatorships. /sarc

  • Hank Phillips||

    I know Puerto Ricans opposed to the 2nd Amendment who absolutely refuse to move to Cuba.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The process is burdened by political considerations which purport to protect the interest of American Workers® rather than respond to real market demand.

    You should travel to Canada on business sometime and enjoy being peppered with questions designed to plumb out why you're going there to do The Job that good, clean-cut maple syrup-blooded Canadians should be doing.

  • JesseAz||

    Our system is such a burden that 1 million people a year navigate the system successfully. Stop saying dumb things.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Around 1 million people a year manage to make it out of the end of a very long, convoluted, and bureaucratic nightmare of an immigration pipeline.

  • JesseAz||

    1 million are chosen from millions more applicants. Seems like it isnt that burdensome.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Seems like"? Do you even know? Sheesh, why don't you do some basic Internet research about how immigration works in this country.

    http://travel.state.gov/conten.....ocess.html

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Here's the basic steps:
    1. File the petition for an immigrant visa. It's a long form. You may want to hire a lawyer to help, after all, you only get one shot at this. Also, pay the $535 fee.
    2. Wait for your petition to be approved. If you are applying from Mexico, the wait can take as long as 20 years. So if you are a good Mexican who is willing to wait his turn, you won't see the US until at least 2039. Happy waiting!
    3. Then, you get a letter saying your turn in line has arrived. You now have to choose an agent to represent you. Again, another lawyer. Wait at least 3 weeks.
    4. Pay more fees. About $500. Wait some more.
    5. Then fill out an online visa application form. It is a long form! The "sample" form runs 76 pages. You may want a lawyer. Wait some more.
    6. Meanwhile, your sponsor has to fill out a form demonstrating proof of financial support. This form is way more intrusive than your typical IRS tax form. More lawyers! Maybe even a CPA too.

    (continued)

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    7. Then, you have to gather up all sorts of documents - birth certificate, etc. - and hand them all over. Don't forget one! If you do, you have to start all over. Send them in. Wait some more.
    8. Get a medical exam. Now you get to pay a doctor! Make sure your doctor fills out the right form.
    9. Then it's time for your interview! Cross your fingers that the government schedules your interview at a time when you are actually available. You *may* be able to reschedule your interview, but it's not a sure thing! Wait for the results of an interview.
    10. Then, you get your immigrant visa! Pay another fee. Congratulations! You're now legally allowed to come to the US.

    But this just means you are a lawful permanent resident. Not a citizen. You now have to wait three more years to be eligible to apply for a green card.

    So if you are a Mexican, and you started today, you *may* be able to become a citizen in, oh, 2045.

    Yeah, piece of cake! What a simple system!

  • Nardz||

    Yet more than a million people every year manage to do just this.

    "It's not fair because it's hard and requires effort" -progressive mantra

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So I suppose I'll put you down as "kneejerk defender of the status quo".

  • Harvard||

    OLD BEANER'S POEM:

    I cross river, poor and broke,

    Take bus, see employment folk.

    Nice man treat me good in there,

    Say I need go see Welfare.

    Welfare say, 'You come no more,

    We send cash right to your door.

    Welfare checks, they make you wealthy,

    Medicaid, it keep you healthy!

    By and by, got plenty money,

    Thanks to you, TAXPAYER dummy.

    Write to friends in motherland,

    Tell them "come, fast as you can".

    They come in buses and Chevy trucks.

    I buy big house with welfare bucks.

    They come here, we live together,

    More welfare checks. It gets even better!

    Fourteen families, they moving in,

    But neighbor's patience wearing thin.

    Finally, white guy moves away.

    I buy his house, and then I say,

    "Find more aliens for house to rent."

    In my yard I pitch a tent.

    Send for family. They just trash.

    But they, too, draw welfare cash!

    Everything is very good.

    Soon we own whole neighborhood.

    We have hobby, we call it breeding,

    Welfare pay for baby feeding.

    Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?

    We get free! We got no bills!

    TAXPAYER crazy! He pay all year,

    To keep welfare running here.

    We think America Darn good place!

    Too darn good for white man race.

    If they no like us, they can go.

    Got lots of room in Mexico.

    Orange Man Bad!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    If $5B for the wall were the biggest budget issue the Federal government or any other government had to deal with, I'd be 100% OK with it.

    Instead, it's less than 1/50 of IL's pension obligations.

    Can we find someone "worse" than Trump who's willing to shut down the government over funding for a $500K house or a $35K car?

  • ||

    They really should just agree on $3 billion and sign off on it. Ridiculous to die on this hill. Illogical.

    But they have to feign outrage and pretend to be 'principled'.

    They remind me of asshole Canadians who never gave a shit when Bill Clinton was assaulting women while serving in PUBLIC OFFICE but all of a sudden won't 'give Trump money by going to the USA on vacation' because he had sex with a porn star and is, get this, as one person said, 'a serial adulterer'.

    People are full of SHIT.

  • ||

    I should add, Trump was having sex as a PRIVATE citizen.

    He didn't fuck a woman while President has he?

    Since I'm on it, this is how sad the left are. One guy told me 'it was just a blow job' in his attempt to try and paint Trump as worse than Clinton.

    Right. 'just a blow job'. I think it was a little more than that. I'm sure he was one of these people who cried 'what will I tell my daughter!' after Trump was elected.

    Like I said. It's the height of hypocrisy. Worse, they double down on it.

  • ||

    I should add, Trump was having sex as a PRIVATE citizen.

    Not to mention that Clinton got impeached not for the sex, but for the perjury. Similarly, if it's going to happen for Trump it will appear campaign finance related. Which is odd because his campaign was so atypically funded by his own money and small donors and it seems kinda likely she wouldn't have come forward if he weren't running for office and he would've paid her to keep quiet even if he weren't running for office (he already paid her to keep quiet once, right?). Like impeaching Clinton because he once played the saxophone at a campaign rally for free... or not for free, whichever one is worse.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I was against the border wall until some infiltrator caused weak-minded fools on the LP platform committee to mutilate the Migration plank. Now that it demands uninspected entry for suicide-vest Saracens and Ebola vectors, I'm beginning to agree with the overwhelming majority of registered voters. I am hoping the Texas LP does not plunk for importing Saracen berserkers or Ebola vectors.

  • ClosetedConservative||

    Well, we need to do something!

  • ||

    Watch. The Democrats will build a wall if it doesn't happen during Trump's administration.

    They after all were all for a fence back in 2006, right? Now that Trump has put a spotlight on the need for one and reminding the electorate of the fact it's not really a new idea it now has more public support. The perfect time for Democrats to swoop in and build one I reckon.

  • retiredfire||

    In 2006 the demoncrap presidential candidates weren't bleeding voters like they have in the past three elections.
    0blama in 2008 - 52.86% of voters
    0blama in 2012 - 51.01% - 3.5 million fewer, with a population growth of around 9 million
    HiLIARy in 2016 - 48.02%.

    They need that new electorate NOW. Americans are running away, in droves. If the Republicans could figure out a way to get them on their side, we just might have a chance at stopping this socialist slide.

  • An Innocent Man||

    You can tell when the boss has his thumb on the pay scale.

  • Benitacanova||

    I thought amash was ok but if shiksa likes him...

  • lafe.long||

    Shorter Dalmia:

    "Disappointing to find out Amash is actually a Nazi! Orange wall bad! REEEEEEEE!"

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Here I was, thinking the billions of dollars we send to shithole countries in exchange for nothing was money poorly spent. But now I'm told a physical barrier, something that would direct people to proper ports of entry, and aide in their journey, is worse than spending money on nothing. I learn so much here.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason donations keep paying her to write crap.

  • JFree||

    Guest worker programs are fucking horrible.

    Leaving ANY immigration decisions in the hands of employers merely encourages them to shit on the bottom of the ladder. Even in purely economic terms, employers should have to take the labor market itself as a given not as something they can distort/manipulate. It is precisely advocacy of this sort of shit that created the reaction (ugly racist and xenophobic) against a few decades of manipulated cronyist immigration policy and enforcement.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Corporate America needs more indentured servants to drive down working class wages and keep them from getting uppity.

  • Hank Phillips||

    In Egypt, even the Pharaos, had to import, Hebrew braceros. --Tom Lehrer

  • A Lady of Reason||

    Any solution that stops illegals is a good one, but unfortunately none seem to be working now...
    https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/

  • Yearnd||

    I am not yet convinced that for Trump that the Border wall is simply a way to force the debate forward on the sorry state of our immigration laws and the constant interference of a few federal judges in the President's efforts to enforce the border as he sees fit.
    If he were allowed to use existing law including e verify then the wall might become a moot point. Anyone who enjoys the current state of affairs is just selling out the future of the country because the number of border jumpers is unlimited on both sides of the border,, and unless they are integrated and assimilated they will continue to be a drain on spare public resources.

  • rferris||

    Considering the 250+ miles of wall that is already in use, if the wall did not work this would be the proof. Problem,is these stretches of wall/FENCE work very well.

    If you want to see Obama's wall, you can't , because of all the barriers to stop you.

    Does Dalmia ever have a good thought?? I guess a Guest worker program would be good, but only if we had border security which she opposes.

    I can get leftist rhetoric, slander and attacks without having to visit leftist sites...............how cool of Reason..........

  • retiredfire||

    If walls don't work, then what stopped that "caravan" from just walking into California?

  • UncleSam13||

    I'm okay with a wall. In fact build a wall make it a hundred feet high!

  • retiredfire||

    Shikha, you ignorant slut.

  • Harvard||

    Redundant

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Walls are the specialty of Communist regimes that regard the outside world as a threat to their control."

    Communist walls were predominantly to keep their subject populations from emigrating.

    But Shikha never lets the facts get in the way of The Narrative.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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