Donald Trump and the Coming Battle Over Legal and Illegal Immigration

The billionaire president-elect may even seek to keep high-skilled foreigners out of the country.

|

"So long as people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully," says Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia, the burden should be on the government "to show to us why they shouldn't be here."

Dalmia sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about the scary prospects for U.S. immigration policy in the incoming Trump administration. Particularly worrisome is that Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) is Trump's chief adviser on immigration. He's uniquely dangerous, Dalmia says, and has broken with the Republican Party by opposing high-skilled immigration—even floating a proposal to scrap the H1-B visa program.

Watch the video above for the full conversation.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Produced by Justin Monticello. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein. Music by Silent Partner.

For more from Dalmia on immigration, listen to our recent podcast interview below.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

NEXT: Is Climate Change Already Solved?

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.

  1. Would….angrily

    I’ll get around to watching the whole thing later if I feel the need to jam sewing needles in my ear canals.

    1. Dalmia has become the Norma Desmond of the Libertarian crowd.

      1. My best friend’s sister makes $90 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and click tech tab to start your work?this website?…. http://www.Trends88.com

  2. So we’re quoting Dalmia like some kind of expert now?

    Fuck no!

    Americans first. After that let some foreigners in. The ones we need. Immigration policy should work for ME. Not the whims of some fucking foreigner, or foreign government.

    1. Immigration policy should work for ME.

      It is working for the Middle East, Suicidy.

    2. “Not the whims of some fucking foreigner”

      So you only want chaste foreigners?

      1. If they remain chaste, we don’t end up paying for their whelps.

        1. It’s a horrible waste of Slavic women, though. President Trump would frown!

          1. Now I’m torn between my appreciation for Slavic women and my dislike of the welfare state…

            1. Join Pan Zagloba’s new immigration plan. Any inbound immigrant has to pass the “Would” test of a panel of experts.

              There will be separate panels to vet male and female migrants.

              Experts will be culled from H&R Forums in the honor of Libertarian moment. CJ will be sent as an honorary ambassador to Monaco (country with highest % of 65+ year olds in the world).

              1. Monaco (country with highest % of 65+ year olds in the world).

                At least they’re rich.

            2. Do what I did, go to where the Slavic Wimminz are. Like Troomp, I even married one! (Unlike Troomp, I’m keeping mine for life).

              1. I’m going to go with PZ’s plan. Despite everything, I happen to like my country and living here. Plus I even speak the local language.

              2. (Unlike Troomp, I’m keeping mine for life).

                Until you’ve given her all our precious capitalist medical secrets, and then her KGB handler will inform her you’re to be ‘removed’.

                1. Yep. Then they can do unspeakable things to our precious bodily fluids.

              3. Do what I did, go to where the Slavic Wimminz are. Like Troomp, I even married one! (Unlike Troomp, I’m keeping mine for life).

                Hmm… “I’m a Serb and have a Canadian passport” might be a good pickup line in St Petersburg or Moscow….

                1. “Won’t the Canadian want it back?”

                2. *Divorced as soon as she gets citizenship*

                  Would be a fun six years though.

                3. St Petersburg or Moscow….

                  NEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

                  You go to:

                  1) Ivanovo (Called, “The Land of Brides” by nationals); or

                  2) Ekatarinaburg.

                  Moskva, you’re just begging for trouble (and more social diseases than you can shake your stick at – and most don’t wash off either).

                  Sankt Peterburg, there are some possibilities, if you can wade through all the Islamo-Mohammedans and manage to peek under those burkas and niquabs.

                  1. *furiously scribbles notes*

                    go on…

                    (and my preference would definitely be Ukrainian over Russian, but I don’t think they have the ‘plucky, brave distant younger cousins’ thing for Serbs, do they?)

                    1. and my preference would definitely be Ukrainian over Russian

                      Wise man. Actually, these days, no, there really isn’t, from what I can tell amoungst these devushki that being a Canadian Serb would be a problem at all, actually.

                      One of the things UKR is better about than Russia, is English is encouraged as a second language, and it’s not uncommon to see English signage (in Russia *EVERYTHING* is in Cyrillic). Some signage is even in all three languages, but that is not the norm.

                      One thing to keep in mind: HIV/AIDS is really becoming a problem here, especially with all the unprotected sex via prostitution (sorry ENB, all hooking does have a real net affect on communities). Should you interested in a UKR gal, ask upfront about her health status (and ask for the most recent test results).

                    2. See, and this is why I don’t ask medical personnel for foreign dating advice, it always turns into “yes the girls are hot and friendly but Jesus Christ there’s a lot of syphilis.”

                    3. it always turns into “yes the girls are hot and friendly but Jesus Christ there’s a lot of syphilis.”

                      This is my wife, Dr. ZG, commenting to you, Mr. Titor:

                      “So, you want my husband to lie to you, that he tells to you that a filthy girl she is clean. Then you cry like child when your penis rots and falls from your body? How often, that you accept clear coins?” **giggles**

                      Ouch dude, she just put the hurt on you.-)

                    4. It’s more “hmm, do I play Russian roulette with the locals and an STD bullet, or just hit on servicewomen? …Servicewomen it is.”

                    5. Luckily, not only does Serbian use a (phonetic) Cyrillic alphabet, I did six years of Russian in school, so I can still read it and understand a bit, so that side is ok.

                      Being Serbian is more of a question if it’s an advantage, five that Russians are probably the lady nation on earth aware of us that we didn’t piss off. We being the worlds shittiest Serb aside…

                    6. Being Serbian is more of a question if it’s an advantage, five that Russians are probably the lady nation on earth aware of us that we didn’t piss off. We being the worlds shittiest Serb aside…

                      Jesus in heaven… Rereading that, I’d like to clarify that I have an iPad, not a stroke.

                    7. I did six years of Russian in school, so I can still read it and understand a bit, so that side is ok.

                      Being Serbian is more of a question if it’s an advantage, five that Russians are probably the lady nation on earth aware of us that we didn’t piss off. We being the worlds shittiest Serb aside…

                      Well then, your best bet is in Odessa, where we live, and women ’round here are generally pretty healthy, and L’viv is also Russified with a reputation of having good women for wife hunting. Kiev is not your best bet, given what you have said, for a multitude of reasons.

                    8. “would NOT be a problem”

              4. i.e. If Groovus tries to leave her, she’ll KEEL HIM.

      2. Chaste Muslims don’t multiply. If Muslims were only as numerous as Jews, we wouldn’t have a problem with them.

    3. Immigration policy should work for ME.

      But I think immigration policy should work for ME.

      1. No, it should work for ME, damn it!

      2. Both of you are wrong. It should work for ME.

  3. RE: Donald Trump and the Coming Battle Over Legal and Illegal Immigration
    The billionaire president-elect may even seek to keep high-skilled foreigners out of the country.

    To Trump and his merry minions, anyone who isn’t already in the country legally will not be allowed to stay here. One has to wonder how many people with excellent skills has been and/or will be turned away. The sad part of this policy is these people are usually leaving a country overwhelmed with violence, an authoritarian or totalitarian regimes who just want to ply their crafts and skill for the benefit of other people and themselves. They embrace the capitalist ideal and just want to be a part of it. Why would anyone turn away these people?

    1. “””excellent skills”””

      So its OK to deport Shikha Dalmia since I have seen no skill demonstrated?

      1. No.
        She proves that even unskilled workers are welcome in our country.

      2. She seems pretty skilled at bringing out the stupid nativist faction in the commentariat. Which amuses me and provides entertainment value, proving the great boon of immigration.

        1. She’s also very skilled at engaging in open tribalism whenever writing about India, and demanding individuals stay in her narrow-minded idea of cultural groups (i.e. Bobby Jindal) so perhaps she’s not the best fit for a libertarian publication.

  4. They’re never going to ditch her are they?

    1. They would have an easier time getting rid of a scorching case of herpes.

    2. Powerful backing by someone on the board, no doubt.

      She’s as divisive as they come. I’ve never so much heard a squeak out of her that indicates that she realizes that there are lots of levels between completely open borders and completely shut borders. She never hints that she realizes that many libertarians would actually agree with her if the welfare state were pared down and focused.

      Her rhetoric is always “fully open borders without reservations” and her justification “fuck you, that’s why.”

      It’s exactly the same problem that the left has, and plenty of people here are sick of it. You can’t just draw a line around a group of people and say “in here are right thinkers, out there are racist scum, xenophobic nationalists” if you ever hope to win anyone over to your argument.

      1. She gets clicks* most of the time (though fewer comments these days, it seems). And that’s the money I guess.

        *my autocorrect wanted to turn it into “cocks” – I’m glad I caught it in time. I will admit I laughed, because I’m cis hetero misogynist.

    3. I’m convinced Gillespie’s boffing her.

  5. “So long as people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully,” says Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia, the burden should be on the government “to show to us why they shouldn’t be here.”

    Fuck You Cut Spending.

    1. Yeah, pare down the welfare state and we’ll talk. Until then, fuck off.

      1. My answer every time.

    2. Fuck you stripey bag!

    3. I’m mad about all these poor Rhode Islanders coming into Connecticut and deflating the value of our Golf Courses and mansions. I promote building a wall.

      1. Why? There’s already a moat. Or do you also want to keep out those from Providence Plantations?

    4. It remains the correct answer to everything: “No, fuck you, cut spending.”

  6. The only way to get her gone from reason is to not watch her crappy interviews.

    1. Well, that was easy enough. Done!!

      1. I’m already not watching her interviews. This is the problem with boycotts I join – I’m already not doing business with people, so how do they know that I will continue to not do business with them in the future for reason X?

  7. “even floating a proposal to scrap the H1-B visa program”

    Well of course we don’t want to import the bird flu! Jeez.

    1. Oh, sure. Next you’ll probably tell us how bird flu is like a disease afflicting the American people. Take your white nationalism and go home.

    2. even floating a proposal to scrap the H1-B

      That was the best bomber of the 1980s.

      1. Even though the band had some catchy and kitschy tunes, overall, they haven’t aged well. Except Kate Pierson, she’s managed to remain Crusty-licious.

        1. Crusty-licious is no kind of qualifier…

          And she is 68 years old.

          Crusty would…

          break her hip.

          1. “For the record, her pelvis was broken when i got here.”

  8. Woo hoo!

  9. Zero chance of me pushing the play button.

  10. “So long as people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully,” says Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia, the burden should be on the government “to show to us why they shouldn’t be here.”

    I agree. It seems the government spends a lot of time finding out if those people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully.

  11. Wonder where that scar on her forehead came from.

    Scars tell many tales.

    I have a few.

    Yes…a few.

    1. Funny thing is, I can’t remember where some of my scars came from. I mean, it must have been something stupid I did as a kid, but they’ve been there so long I can’t remember what it was.

      1. I’m always picking up cuts and scrapes that I’m totally oblivious to until my wife asks me about them.

        1. Pointed questions about the linear scratches starting at your shoulders and continuing down your back?

          1. Total mystery.

            1. “And the purple strap marks across your buttocks? I suppose you don’t recall where they came from either?”

  12. an acknowledgement that immigration comes in legal AND illegal forms. Small steps.

    “So long as people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully,”
    And the ones who do not? We can’t even agree on how to handle them.

  13. Wider gates, taller fences.

  14. I believe in the free movement of people, and I think American business owners should be free to hire whomever we want to work for us–without interference from the government.

    I also think that crying wolf so loudly and for so long on immigration makes it hard for people to pay attention anymore.

    1. I believe in the free movement of people, and I think American business owners should be free to hire whomever we want to work for us–without interference from the government.

      You know I’ve been watching some youtube channels from some progressives who have an interesting and honest take on the elections and Hillary Clinton. To be specific, I’ve been listening to Jimmy Dore’s channel.

      His criticism of Hillary and take on the election is spot on, but (as expected) I disagree with his remedies.

      To get to my point, he has essentially been arguing that businesses shouldn’t be free to hire whomever they want. Because if they do, it becomes a “race to the bottom”.

      1. “To get to my point, he has essentially been arguing that businesses shouldn’t be free to hire whomever they want. Because if they do, it becomes a “race to the bottom”.

        Entrepreneurship is the ability to combine the factors of production–natural resources, capital, and labor. Being free to choose your own factors of production is entrepreneurship. If somebody wants to argue that entrepreneurs not being free to combine those things has a positive effect, then they’ve got a lot of evidence to ignore and a big ugly mountain of absurd logic to climb.

        That international borders shouldn’t negatively impact an entrepreneur’s ability to combine natural resources and capital is the very foundation of free trade, and there is no reason why that same argument shouldn’t apply to the other factor of production–labor. Anyone who believes in free trade should believe in the free flow of labor across borders–for all the same reasons.

        For those who think the problem is social costs and benefits, they should concentrate their criticism on social costs and benefits–not the free flow of labor across our borders. They’re shooting themselves in the foot in an attempt to cure heart disease.

        Shikha Dalmia is basically saying the same thing; it’s just that she’s dragging all that wolf-crying baggage around.

        1. Dore and people like him (and I say this as someone who likes Dore because there are elements of the big picture he gets) is that we should be building walls. But unlike Trump’s walls, the walls of progressivism keep people in, instead of out.

    2. which brings us to the welfare state, inconsistent with open borders. Since the former is not likely to ever go away, the latter seems a dead letter.

      1. I just responded to that above.

        You’re conflating two problems.

        If your problem is with social benefits, then by all means, criticize them.

        If your problem is with social benefits, why talk about the free flow of labor?

        If your problem is that you think these two things are connected in some way, then go after the connection between them. Say they shouldn’t be so interconnected.

        Don’t tell me that the problem is the free flow of labor.

        The free flow of labor is not the problem.

        Put in more specific terms, whatever problems America has, it isn’t that we have too many people who want to work hard so they can get ahead.

        1. Conflating? These problems are more like intertwined. Living in CA should be evidence enough of that. I imagine most illegals are motivated by economic reasons, but there follow-on costs with social services and the like borne by the natives. Social benefits are lure and pretending otherwise makes no sense.

          If you’re worried about labor, numerous statistical measures show an abundance of it already here and sidelined for various reasons.

          1. Immigration isn’t a problem in California.

            Immigration has been amazing for California.

            You should see Los Angeles.

            The Persian community, the Korean community, Little Saigon. Here’s a guide to the restaurants in Little Ethiopia.

            http://www.discoverlosangeles……e-ethiopia

            You should have seen the wasteland downtown was before Mexican and Central American immigrants took it over. Downtown LA would be like downtown Detroit if it weren’t for immigration.

            Don’t confuse the problems caused by government and social services with immigration. The social services are a big problem. The immigration is fine.

            1. Downtown LA would be like downtown Detroit if it weren’t for immigration.

              Hell, with enough immigration you probably could’ve propped up the Soviet Union!

              1. When China was more centrally planned, they were worried about overpopulation and instituted a one-child policy.

                Now that China is more capitalist, they’re worried sick about the demographic crisis they created because of their one-child policy.

                Yeah, communism definitely changes the calculations on the value of labor vs. the cost of social services.

                I bet that’s why it’s so hard to immigrate to social democracies. I mean, yeah, come as an asylum seeker, and they can’t say no, but other than that, who wants you?

            2. “Downtown LA would be like downtown Detroit if it weren’t for immigration.”

              That is nonsense. LA enjoyed the monetary boom created by the entertainment and tech industries, and a growing tourism industry.
              Correlation, not causation….learn it.

              1. Not downtown Los Angeles.

                To whatever extent the entertainment and tech industries moved downtown, it was after downtown was revitalized by immigrants.

            3. Immigration isn’t a problem in California. Immigration has been amazing for California.

              High welfare usage, extremely high public services spending, and the state not only turned blue from immigration, it gets extra electoral college votes dues to millions of illegals.

              So if you think bigger government, more spending, more debt, more crime, and more votes for statism “isn’t a problem,” then immigration has been “amazing” for California.

              1. “High welfare usage, extremely high public services spending”

                Why do you guys keep listing problems that aren’t immigration as if they were immigration?

                1. Because they are linked to immigration. I’m not claiming there’s no crime or welfare use among the native-born, but why should there be any among immigrants? Why import anyone who is a risk or a burden? Which is my argument for ending all Muslim immigration. The risks outweigh any benefits.

                  1. “I’m not claiming there’s no crime or welfare use among the native-born, but why should there be any among immigrants?”

                    I’m imaging myself waking up in a hospital bed after being mugged. You walk into the room and tell me, “Hey Ken, I’ve got great news–the guy that mugged you was an American citizen!”

                    Being an American citizen gives you the right to vote an to be in this country.

                    I’d hate to think that Americans have come to imagine that they’re entitled to social welfare programs–everything from public schools to Medicare–just because they’re American citizens.

                    That is antithetical to libertarianism. Tying entitlements to citizenship is fucking communist.

                    1. By limiting social welfare to citizens, I am limiting social welfare programs. Sound libertarian to me. I am also reducing the incentives for statist-leaning immigration.

                    2. If you think making my future paychecks a right tied to American citizenship will limit social welfare programs, you’re wrong.

                      Why would “Your paychecks are mine because I’m an American” limit social welfare programs?

                      Quite the opposite.

                      And may I remind you that social programs are the very problem–and still would be even if we eliminated immigration entirely?

                      How can turning the welfare state into a right of U.S. citizenship be the solution to the problem of the welfare state?

                      Does not compute.

            4. It’s the Mexicans and Cetral/South American swarming the borders by the millions that are most of the problem. Illegal immigration is not ‘amazing ‘.

        2. You’re dead wrong on this Ken. Welfare come in TONS of regulation than has NOTHING to do with handing out checks.

          Take the third-rail of welfare: the minimum wage. Nothing retards the free flow of labor more than this.

          The more you increase it, the more citizens become unemployed. And the greater the incentive to become (and hire) an undocumented worker working below the mandated rate. No citizen can do the same because the employer is too easy to rat on – but the undocumented worker has every incentive to NOT rat in order to keep his job.

          1. I addressed some of that below.

            It fell far below!

            “Put in basic terms, very few around here are in favor of central planning.

            Minimum wages, professional licensing, immigration quotas, etc. are basically ways to centrally plan the labor markets.”

            To me, the criticism of immigration because of social benefits is like the criticism of marijuana legalization because of crime.

            The presence of marijuana in a black market may be associate with street gangs, but that doesn’t mean that marijuana and street gangs are the same problem. There are things we can do with public policy that break whatever connections there are. In fact, I think much of the association between those two different things are because of bad public policy. Get rid of the bad public policy, and marijuana comes out of the black market–and street gangs won’t be able to exploit that bad policy anymore.

            Now it’s like some of you are telling me that, okay, we can legalize marijuana–just as soon as we get rid of the last street gang.

            I don’t follow that logic because marijuana isn’t the problem. The street gangs are the problem, and they’ll still be here (to a lesser extent) even if we got rid of marijuana.

            Likewise, the free flow of labor across borders is not a problem. Social services are the problem, and they’d still be the problem even if we got rid of the immigrants.

            Focus on the problem–not the non-problem.

            1. Now it’s like some of you are telling me that, okay, we can legalize marijuana–just as soon as we get rid of the last street gang.

              Wrong, Ken. The street gang is a symptom, not a cause. Most of us here are saying “Address the cause, and the symptom eventually goes away

              We’re not criticizing immigration, we’re criticizing the welfare state. Immigration is only a symptom, but certain people decide it isn’t a symptom because their job depends on it not being a symptom.

              As silly as a gigantic wall sounds, it makes more sense than a gigantic Border Patrol bureaucracy. Get rid of the labor protection rackets and neither is necessary.

              1. As silly as a gigantic wall sounds, Ken is beginning to sound like Moses. He can just point to an issue that involves immigrants, raise his staff, and parse immigration from it. The problem isn’t *Jewish* bakers being forced to bake a Halal cake for *Muslims* refugees, it’s the completely unrelated growth and expansion of federal power.

                Nevermind that the welfare state and the CRA are expanding and explicitly forcing inclusion explicitly without regard for national origin. It’s got fuck all to do with Shikha and Ken, et al.‘s one true immigration.

                1. You get all this from me saying that the free flow of labor isn’t the problem; the problem is the welfare state–and we should focus on the problem?

                  Do you have a problem with other people accusing you of using immigration as a proxy for the welfare state. Are you proud of that?

                  Is there some reason you want people to go after immigration instead of the welfare state? Do you believe immigration exacerbates the problem of the welfare state–or that immigration is a problem itself regardless of the welfare state?

                  Are you even disagreeing with me on any of these issues? From that statement, I can’t really tell.

              2. “We’re not criticizing immigration, we’re criticizing the welfare state. Immigration is only a symptom.

                So, we agree that the free flow of labor across our borders is a good thing?

                Awesome.

                1. No, because immigrants come from shitty countries and bring shitty policies with them in ways that imported goods don’t.

                  Immigrants drive down wages and drive up welfare demands. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s the immigrant who takes the handout, or it’s the displaced citizen who takes it.

                  If there were no welfare, then free flow of labor might be an unadulterated good. Might.

                  But the observation is that the displaced Americans are going to vote in unappealing ways. The least unappealing of the outcomes might be the immigration restriction. Otherwise you’re going to get shit like banning Uber.

                  1. Immigrants drive down wages.

                    Low labor costs are a good thing for the economy and people who consume labor.

                    Cheap child care is a good thing.

                    See China.

                    It’s like having cheap oil–only more so.

                    1. “Immigrants drive down wages.

                      You want the government to protect you from competition?!

                      That’s called “rent seeking”.

                    2. I’ll believe unchecked immigration is butter on our bread when I read the government is dumping immigrants in Chevy Chase, East Hampton, Martha’s Vineyard, Chappaqua; and Ken has sublet his basement to an extended family of muzzies from Syria.

                    3. “I’ll believe unchecked immigration . . . “

                      Who said anything about unchecked immigration.

                      I guess I’ve been over it so many times, I figure people are sick of hearing about it.

                      The idea is that we have a treaty with Mexico that specifies certain criteria the Mexican government has to meet–where they (and we) can guarantee ID for Mexican citizens, can verify that they haven’t been convicted of a felony, and can guarantee that they’ve been immunized against certain diseases.

                      If those people were free to come back across the border to go to work, come home from work, etc., the only people traipsing through the desert for miles in the middle of the night would be the cartels and the terrorists. The people seeking work would just go through a checkpoint.

                      In fact, all the illegal aliens seeking work give the cartels and the terrorists a tremendous amount of cover to hide behind.

                      Again, just because I’m against terrorism doesn’t mean I have to be against the free flow of labor across borders–you know, since those are two different things.

    3. I believe in the free movement of people, and I think American business owners should be free to hire whomever we want to work for us–without interference from the government.

      That makes you a minority around these parts. Though I do know that you’re a business owner. There seems to be some Labor vs. Capital divide on the issue that I wouldn’t expect in a comment section populated by libertarians.

      Curious, that.

      1. At least it allows for discussion instead of a chorus of agreement.

        1. Can’t we just go back to calling everyone racist like we did on Nov 7?

        2. No, I think we can all agree that Dalmia is terrible.

          1. No, I think we can all agree that Dalmia is terrible.

            I still remember when you handed her hindquarters to her on a silver platter in these very comments; been trying to find it. I don’t remember exactly when it was. It was over Mussel’many and Hindus, if you recall the conversation.

            1. I think it was either her hyperbolic comments about the Gujarat riots and Modi’s complicity in them. Or just one of her bog-standard anti-Hindu “daddy never gave me the pony I wanted” articles.

              1. She specifically waded into the comments to engage you, HM. Not something she often does. That’s what stuck out in my mind.

                1. I don’t remember that.

                  Huh.

      2. The ‘if you have employment offer, you can skip to the head of the line, otherwise wait your turn’ is not really on offer, is it?

        1. I’m not exactly sure what you mean.

          1. If the objection to regulating immigration is “business owner should be free to hire whomever he wants” then the answer is “Sure. Offer to hire that guy over in the other country and we’ll let him in.”

            Kinda like H1-B visa or Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker program, but you don’t have to Prove Need, just hire an employee and you can bring him/her over.

            1. I’d agree with that. I was just confused by the “skip to the head of the line” as that’s already what occurs with non-immigrant work visas as compared to immigrant family reunification or diversity visas.

              1. diversity visas.

                Please tell me this isn’t being used in the way it sounds like it’s being used and is actually a neutral program with a socjus-sounding name.

                1. You probably know it as the “Green Card Lottery” program. Basically, every year 10 million people apply for 50,000 visas, divided proportionately by population among six regions of the world. Applicants from each region are randomly chosen.

                  1. Okay, that’s not what I feared it would be given the name. It predates the time when the term got corrupted.

                  2. Applicants from each region are randomly chosen.

                    Well, yes. But there is a large number of countries that are not welcome. China, India, etc. Hence, “diversity”.

                    1. Correct. Countries that already have a relatively higher rate of immigration to the US are not eligible to be part of the program.

              2. Ah, I meant in the sense that you show up at consulate, say “here’s my job offer” and visa is yours within 48hrs.

                So question for libertarians who want a “guest worker” class – how do you avoid the same results that the German attempt had? To me it sounds identical, and yet they still wound up with enormous Turkish underclass…

                1. Well, one thing to do is not be like the Europeans that consider their great-grandchildren to still be “Turks” regardless of how well assimilated they are.

                  1. Assimilating children is out of scope of guest worker program, though. The whole point is to have them over to work, not permanent settlement. So you could call it a feature, not a bug. At any rate, acceptance strikes me as a societal, not policy issue.
                    Mixed marriages are exception, but by law at the time I think one parent was sufficient for citizenship. They went with “at birth” relatively recently but outside the period program was active.

      3. I think the opponents of the free flow of labor are more vocal about their opposition and less keen on differentiating between their problems with the free flow of labor and their problems with things they (correctly or incorrectly) associate with that.

        Put in basic terms, very few around here are in favor of central planning.

        Minimum wages, professional licensing, immigration quotas, etc. are basically ways to centrally plan the labor markets.

        Few here are in favor of that in those terms.

        1. I am not in favor of rioting by unemployed black people who should/could be doing the shitty jobs we pay Mexicans to do. If only we 1) paid a bit more and 2) welfared a bit less.

    4. I think American business owners should be free to hire whomever we want to work for us–without interference from the government.

      Agreed, with the conditions that

      (1) The welfare state be cut so far back that Americans have the strongest incentives to get off their asses and work

      (2) No immigrants or their families get any public assistance of any kind.

      If employers want pay wages and benefits to cover the costs of their imported workers and their families without taxpayer funding, fine with me. Otherwise, stuff it.

      1. Again, this is a bit like saying that we should only legalize marijuana once there are no more street gangs.

        Street gangs would still be a problem even if we got rid of the non-problem of marijuana.

        Social services would still be a problem even if we got rid of the non-problem of the free flow of labor.

        1. No, it’s the opposite. If you end welfare, then citizens will do the jobs we currently import people for.

          Just like legalizing drugs ends the violence.

          One difference is that ending mass illegal immigration will drive up wages and reduce the demand for welfare. So in an important way, immigration and welfare is a two way street, whereas drugs and violence are one way.

          1. “If you end welfare, then citizens will do the jobs we currently import people for.”

            Well, let’s just work on ending welfare then.

            Why bring immigration into it?

            “One difference is that ending mass illegal immigration will drive up wages . . . “

            Again, you’re talking about rent seeking and protectionism.

            If we banned Japanese imports, it would be better for the economy because it would increase the cost of American made cars?

            There isn’t anything capitalist, free-market, free-trade, or libertarian about that argument.

          2. It’s always a great argument to compare the thing you’re trying to justify to something else that’s completely different.

    5. Ken, if you believe in the free movement of people, have you considered removing the locks on your doors?

  15. Recycle, America.

    1. So, are you saying we should mulch the migrants?

      1. But only with renewable energy sources.

      2. Ok. Can I pick through the hot teen migrants before the mulching starts?

  16. Wasn’t that bad. Always short on specifics when it comes to alternatives though.

  17. “So long as people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully,” says Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia, the burden should be on the government “to show to us why they shouldn’t be here.”

    Because in a time of unemployment, increasing the labor pool without a corresponding increase in capital and jobs just exacerbates the problem?

    And because, in the event of a conflict of interests (e.g., per the above, there are two people and one job), a republican form of government as an agent has an ethical obligation to be biased in favor of the interest of its principles (citizens) over others (non-citizens). You know, government “by the people, of the people, and for the people”. Government is not some abstract global force for human good, it is the agent of specific group of people, which does not include aliens, legal or otherwise. It’s just like a lawyer — if in the middle of your case, he feels bad for the other party (or got paid by them or wants their business in the future or…) and decides to start helping them improve their legal argument, he isn’t being nice, he is betraying a critical ethical obligation.

    1. what unemployment? 5% jobless rate.

      /prog

    2. You know, government “by the people, of the people, and for the people”. Government is not some abstract global force for human good, it is the agent of specific group of people, which does not include aliens, legal or otherwise.

      Absolutely.

      Where I think the open borders people start, though, is with the presumption that freedom of movement, as a fundamental right, includes freedom of movement between countries. Which, taken at face value, is inconsistent with screening or restrictions that are generally accepted, even by open borders types. We generally don’t regard communicable disease as a basis for restricting fundamental rights (remember the uproar over sequestering people exposed to Ebola?). We generally don’t punish people who are convicted in foreign courts. Screening for either disease or criminal history isn’t consistent with the open borders premise.

      There’s also the economic screening. You generally can’t immigrate here without a job, so we screen to keep obvious welfare cases out. And, yes, there are lots of welfare and other tax-funded benefits available to immigrants.

      So you start from a couple of different places:

      (1) Nations have the right to control their borders, and should do so for the benefit of their citizens.

      (2) People have a fundamental right to travel and live wherever they want.

      1. Until people are truly clear and committed to what the fundamental basis of immigration policy is, they can’t argue coherently for their side of the debate, and we can’t figure out how to close the gap between the two fundamentally different approaches.

        1. The advocates leave those details out because virtue signaling. And when push comes to shove they’ll compromise whatever principle they had to not lose the virtue signaling.

          Pardon my purity test, but free movement of people shouldn’t be qualified with “as long as they have a job.” Free movement to me means I can come here and sponge off anyone that offers. It’s no different than someone from Detroit deciding to up and leave and go to New York to find a job. If they aren’t shaking people down for subsistence, the “job” aspect doesn’t really matter.

          If you’re attaching the “job offer” aspect to the immigration policy, then you’re completely avoiding reality and are a waste of time.

          Also, we have a “free movement of labor” issue even disregarding immigration. Occupation Licensing has gotten to ridiculous heights and shows no signs of abating. Basically it’s a form of welfare and it needs to die. There’s all kinds of issues with states not reciprocating on things like nursing licenses. AFAIK, the state of IL requires residency before applying for a nursing license and this hampers people who have to move for family reasons. I know of one case where the husband took a nice job offer in a different state but his nurse wife had to wait 6 months before she could work because IL doesn’t have reciprocating agreements.

          Immigration issues are a symptom of an over-regulated welfare state, not a cause.

          1. Pardon my purity test, but free movement of people shouldn’t be qualified with “as long as they have a job.”

            That’s why I listed it separately – the open borders folks don’t generally include it in their list of “but we’ll screen for that”, unlike disease and criminality, which are typically on their list, when pressed.

            Free movement to me means I can come here and sponge off anyone that offers.

            Indeed it does. Citizens generally aren’t too happy if the one doing the offering is the government, though. And why should they be? This defaults back to “government exists for the benefit of its citizens, not the world at large”.

            1. That’s why I listed it separately

              I wasn’t directing that at you – I think we pretty much agree. The “open borders” pundits are always qualifying the virtue signaling with “work peacefully” implying that employment is a pre-requisite which means they aren’t as “open” as they want you to believe with their virtue signaling. Basically, I’m calling Dalmia an elitist gasbag going out of her way to make it sound like the status quo is some new libertarian idea. It ain’t new, and it ain’t libertarian.

          2. True. If a hot chick can get some dude to pay for all her shit, a job shouldn’t necessarily be a prerequisite.

      2. I don’t have a problem with a country letting people in during a humanitarian crisis. This means you’re not screening them based on their employment prospects.

        What I don’t like is taking on millions of refugees while other perfectly capable countries sit idly by not taking any.

        I also don’t like the dishonesty that’s come with a lot of the reporting. One example would be characterizing large groups of people as “refugees” suggesting they’re coming from Syria when in fact they may have already been in another country for years, but socialism fucked their shit up, so they’re moving to the next country.

        I’m not even saying we shouldn’t take them in… because in a way, that’s all the evidence you need that they’re looking for work– I’m just saying that not everyone is escaping assad’s (or Obama’s) bombs.

        1. I’m not even saying we shouldn’t take them in… because in a way, that’s all the evidence you need that they’re looking for work

          Actually, many of the migrants to Europe seem to be looking for the best welfare deals. The famous picture of the drowned kid on the beach was from a family shifting countries for welfare.

          1. Yeah, there’s a reason they’re all skipping a dozen countries on the way to Germany and Sweden.

        2. Clicked too soon.

          Under “nations have a right to control their borders for the benefit of their citizens” approach, a case would still need to be made that the citizenry is better off with these refugees living here. Depending on the refugee, that case may be easy or hard to make – the interesting question would be what criteria to apply.

          1. ” a case would still need to be made that the citizenry is better off with these refugees living here. ”

            Someone needs to fund social security, and white millennials aren’t going to build this economy making youtube channels.

            *ducks*

        3. What I don’t like is taking on millions of refugees while other perfectly capable countries sit idly by not taking any

          This can’t be stated enough. Much more the fact that there are refugee groups that have been waiting in camps for decades (Bhutanese, Laotians/Vietnamese, etc.) that should rightfully be ahead of line. Indeed, the Syrians were quite content to let Palestinians languish in their camps at their borders for generations.

          1. God, and what about non-Muslim Syrians? One of the first thing Zoolander’s government did was cancel priority for Yazidis and Christians, because apparently Mark Steyn was a goddamn optimist.

            1. One of the first thing Zoolander’s government did was cancel priority for Yazidis and Christians

              Seriously? That’s as shitty as FDR turning away boatloads of Jews in circa 1939.

                1. Trudeau accused the PMO of trying to select refugees that would better serve the government’s political agenda, something he called “disgusting.”

                  You mean agenda like protecting people targeted for genocide?

                  1. Unlike Rob Ford, bet Daily Show didn’t have a bit on that.

                    As I said, Steyn was an optimist. Anyone suggesting liberals would do that in, say, 2008, would have been dragged before a commission as an islamophobe.

                2. A report by CTV News that cited unnamed sources said the PMO was discouraging the Department of Citizenship and Immigration from accepting Sunni or Shia Muslims and instead told it to focus on groups that the Conservatives had identified as particularly vulnerable to persecution, such as Arab Christians.
                  ?
                  Trudeau accused the PMO of trying to select refugees that would better serve the government’s political agenda, something he called “disgusting.”

                  And they did it. Can’t find it now but they were explicit that refugees will NOT be considered by religion.

        4. The problem with refugees is that their departure creates a horrible brain-drain for the area they are fleeing. By an large refugees are above average capability. The incompetent typically can’t get their shit together enough to become a refugee.

          Encouraging migration dooms the fleed area to generations of suckitude. It perpetuates the crisis.

          The western world should be providing on-site support, not a neon welcome sign.

        5. I’m not even saying we shouldn’t take them in

          I think the problem there is with the “we”. The people making the decision to let people in don’t have to bear the costs.

          I think unrestricted immigration would be fine… provided immigrants are required to be privately sponsored. You want to bring someone in? Great: post a $500k-$1M bond for 20 years.

      3. You generally can’t immigrate here without a job

        lolwut

        You left out “or be related to someone who is already here”

        1. Fair point. I think the theory is that if someone in the family has a job, they will support their relatives. Although with a crappy job and enough relatives, the family will still be getting welfare.

        2. You left out “or be related to someone who is already here”

          Which is about 15 to 20 year process, at best.

        3. Yeah, my mom came here on my father’s coattails. She wasn’t happy about it, but she took comfort in knowing she was at least classing up the place.

          1. I would like to clarify that Pan Zagloba’s Immigration Plan has automatic acceptance clause for Proper Englishwomen Of The Right Sort, Who Are Reluctant To Move But Duty Demands. Every country needs them, on the off chance they generate a Margaret Thatcher.

            1. My mother would get top priory in Pan Z’s INS. She roughed it in the colonies for King and country, bringing culture to the unwashed prospectors and fur trappers that populated this little backwater.

              Go #Brexit!

              *sings ‘Rule Britania’*

              1. *tries to link There’ll Always Be An England, fails*

      4. freedom of movement between countries undermines the concept of countries.

        I for one do not wish to live in the “median” country if I don’t have to.

      5. There’s also the economic screening. You generally can’t immigrate here without a job, so we screen to keep obvious welfare cases out.

        Large parts of legal US immigration are family related. And illegal immigrants aren’t screened.

        (2) People have a fundamental right to travel and live wherever they want.

        No, they don’t. They have a fundamental right to freedom of movement:

        Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country,[1] and to leave the country and return to it. The right includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where the individual resides or works

        Freedom of movement between countries is a libertarian concept, but it only makes sense to apply it between libertarian societies, not nation states (welfare states in this case).

    3. I appreciate that no pedant pointed out the obvious mistake: “principals, not principles”.

  18. “A 2015 Unesco report said that in terms of absolute numbers, India – with 28.7 crore illiterates – was the country with the largest number of adults without basic literacy skills in 2010-11 compared to 2000-01 when it had 30.4 crore illiterates.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes…..749744.cms

    287 million illiterate adults in India!

    India made a big mistake in concentrating on educating an elect few–just so those elect few could get rich in the United States.

    Instead of training some of the world’s best mathematicians, the Indian government should have invested in teaching its poorest children how to multiply and divide.

    It was an elitist view of how to develop. The idea was that India would need engineers and scientists to advance, centrally plan, and modernize the country–typical socialist idealism.

    1. While a large number, let’s look at it a a different way –

      According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can’t read. That’s 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can’t read.

      1.252 billion people so 22%.

      So you can say the same thing here.

      1. I suspect that there’s a reason why it says “adults in the U.S.” as opposed to U.S. citizens. Whereas I don’t imagine India has the same levels of immigration into the country as we do.

        1. Whereas I don’t imagine India has the same levels of immigration into the country as we do.

          Also, as the father of literate pre-schoolers and sub-5th graders, I can also say that’s pretty functionally literate. 6th Grade – Jr. High is about the time it goes from reading fundamentals to the mechanics of language and literature/cultural appreciation. I don’t know the literacy standards in India but I strongly suspect they’re more towards or inclusive of the ‘making your mark’ end of the scale rather than the ‘doesn’t understand Nietzsche’ end.

      2. so roughly the number of recent immigrants.

  19. The Chinese did at least one thing right under the communists. The communists went out and taught every peasant kid how to read, write, do basic math, etc. Doing factory work requires those basic skills. When Chinese peasants’ were displaced from their plots, they could get work in factories–and live better than before.

    As labor becomes increasingly expensive in China, you’d think India would pick up the slack. But if Indian peasants can’t read, do math, etc. well enough to work in a factory, all that cheap labor just goes to waste.

    Oh well, at least the Indian government underwrote the cost of sending highly educated computer scientists to get rich in America. Taking advantage of the Indian government’s foolish education policies, that seems to be a nice chunk of what H-1B is about.

    1. Interesting article on India at Cato

      1. Fairly significant chunk of change from remittances coming in.

  20. Dear lordie, to be so wrong on so many points despite having so much information! The HB1 is a brutal weapon against AMERICANS! Her statements are biased and slanted, complete with all manner of lies.

  21. Someone posted this Trump video on facebook. As I’m listening to it, I’m thinking about Bernie Sanders giving the same speech (albeit with a few tweaks) and how pumped the Bernie bots would be to hear it.

    https://youtu.be/nF0YpXcZw9U

  22. So long as people are coming here to live on their own dime. And they aren’t.

    So the process needs to be changed.

    We currently let in shitloads of people from Mexico and Central America simply because of proximity. That leads to 73% of those immigrants receiving welfare benefits, compared to immigrants from Europe and Asia being on welfare at around 20% rates. It’s unacceptable.

  23. How can an Indian lady who talks with a thick accent like Apu write like a Harvard educated white woman? That’s what I want to know.

    On a more serious note – I would honestly like to walk into a business, make my own deal with the HR, get a position, and tell the boss “I’m a good and peaceful worker, the burden of not hiring me is on YOU!” I just…. don’t think either a society or a business can function this way.

    There are thousands of people waiting to be legalized the proper way. It’s simply not fair Mexicans and visa over stayers get an advantage because they set foot in the country first.

    1. thank you, come again

    2. How can an Indian lady who talks with a thick accent like Apu write like a Harvard educated white woman?

      That’s the way they come from the factory. We’ve got millions of ’em. After Trump builds the wall, you’re next gardener will prolly be a particle physics post-doc. When it comes to a source of cheap labor, they’re the best kept secret in the country.

  24. CNN continuing with their unbiased pants shitting.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/…..index.html

    1. Does anybody use Twitter for anything other than getting outraged on Twitter about what somebody else did on Twitter? Its like a social network version of a circular reference error in Excel.

      1. Yeah. When a police helicopter is circling around my neighborhood or fireworks go off on a Tuesday Twitter usually has the answer to why.

        Otherwise, no.

    2. I’ve interacted with communist douche bags on twitter. That doesn’t make me a communist or a douche bag.

      CNN might not survive the next four years.

      1. Commenting on Hit’n’Run… now, THAT makes you a douchebag.

        1. The should be donations drive slogan!

      2. The progressive media needs to die.

    3. It’s a pro-Trump deep cover black op, right? This is a conspiracy to keep him in power?

    4. Damn! They’re almost starting to sound like Reason!

  25. I wouldn’t waste my time watching this. I already know Angela Merkel’s stance and Dalmia’s is no different.

    Simply put, a welfare state cannot survive with wide-open borders. And you can’t destroy the welfare state by opening the borders because the recent immigrants want to expand the welfare state. If you really think the collapse of the welfare state will end up with everyone just agreeing to revert back to the original Constitution, you’re too ignorant of history to be taken seriously.

    Dismantle the welfare state FIRST, then open the borders. Doing it the other way doesn’t work.

    1. Will never happen. Welfare is only getting bigger. The only way welfare gets dismantled is if (when) it causes a total economic collapse because there are too many takers and not enough givers.

      1. will it even be dismantled then? Evidence shows that the failure of a statist policy is to statist even harder.

    2. Western lefty-statism produces finances and family structures that are ultimately doomed being predicated on programs that borrow from tomorrow’s children to pay for gimmes today – and then forgetting to have and raise said children.

    3. I already know Angela Merkel’s stance and Dalmia’s is no differen

      Their ugly potato sack heads should be knocked together, Three Stooges style.

    4. I already know Angela Merkel’s stance and Dalmia’s is no different.

      And I’ll betcha Europe is still cursing Angela Merkel long after Adolf Hitler is a forgotten man. Hitler only fucked up Europe for a generation. Merkel has set the stage for civil strife for the next 500 years.

  26. “So long as people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully,” says Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia, the burden should be on the government “to show to us why they shouldn’t be here.”

    END THE FUCKING WELFARE STATE!!!!!

    Jesus, when will open borders people come to the realization that acceptance of their beliefs is largely dependent on ending the welfare state?

    1. Yo! [raises hand]

    2. To which I reply:

      Dr Hoppe is correct, though, to fear the consequences of an open borders policy coupled with a generous welfare state. One need only to look at the examples of France and England to see the consequences of allowing people to immigrate, denying them the ability to earn a living, and offering them a monthly stipend to sit around and do nothing. Of course, in such societies the problem is not limited to immigration itself, but any form of population growth. Every new baby born to someone living in the country has a similar chance of ending up as a strain on the capital stock of the country. Banning immigration serves only to prolong the inevitable collapse, and that if one accepts this as justification for preventing people from immigrating into some country, then one must also, to be consistent, be in favor of restricting births of new babies.

      But so what? Why should we expect further limits on liberty for the sole purpose of propping up a hostile political and economic regime? What loyalty do we owe the sort of state that seeks to create a permanent class of dependent, unemployed and unemployable? … Should we sacrifice our principles because they are inconvenient?

      1. Every new baby born to someone living in the country has a similar chance of ending up as a strain on the capital stock of the country.

        Hmm. Not so sure. A baby born to a well-off American family probably has a greater chance of success in life, and even adding to our capital stock, than an illiterate, unassimilated, unskilled foreigner. Of course, you can come up with counter-examples, but as a generalization, I think this is quite flawed.

        Now, once you start thinking that maybe whether or not an immigrant will be a net contributor depends on the attributes of that immigrant, you’re well down the economic screening road.

        The distinction between a native-born citizen baby and an immigrant is also quite easy to resolve on the model that the government, and thus immigration policy, exist for the benefit of the citizens, not the world as a whole.

        Plus, I’m not clear what “the capital stock of the country” is. Sounds pretty collectivist.

        1. Exactly. There would be no reason to even consider such a concept as “Capital stock of the country” unless one is trying to perpetuate a welfare state.

  27. You lost me at “Shikha Dalmia.”

  28. Illegal bs legal answers the question. When the laws were made dictating who was legal or not the policy was set. Now we could go back and change those laws so people currently considered illegal are legal but I can’t see any justification for a policy that essentially says fuck the laws TOP MEN will decide instead.

  29. “So long as people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully,” says Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia, the burden should be on the government “to show to us why they shouldn’t be here.”

    The US is not a libertarian country, it’s a nation state with high taxes, a large welfare system, and strong interference in private association. All such nation states limit immigration, and for good reasons. There is neither a valid legal case nor a valid moral case to be made against such restrictions.

    Once the US has moved closer to libertarian principles, then we can consider removing limits on immigration.

    1. The problem is the US will never move closer to libertarian principles unless it enacts some limits on immigration. Among a bunch of other things that will never happen either. Immigration seems to do a good job of creating nationalists and socialists, and even national socialists. But never, never has it ever been known to create libertarians.

  30. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  31. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  32. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  33. GASP! EVEN HIGH SKILLED FOREIGN IMMIGRANTS?!?!?! FUCKIN LITERAL HITLERRRRRRR

  34. I SUPPORT ALLOWING CHICKS WHO LOOK LIKE THE ONE IN THE PIC IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE SOME SKILL ON THESE NUTS

  35. It is a plan, hairbrained IMAO, to increase the labor participation rate and maintain the low, even drive lower, the unemployment rate. Populism demands it, as do the people that voted for Trump. The evidence, it seems to me, says that legal immigration is not the problem and so restricting legal immigration won’t do anything for the under and unemployed.

  36. There is an incredibly high amount of H1-B visa fraud and abuse. I used to be in favor of the program, but am much more skeptical, now.

    1. Few people appreciate how much H1B *harms* shareholders by corrupting middle management and distorting business practice.

  37. Trump is correct. Most companies fudge their requests for educated immigrants. I know a half dozen college trained, experienced software engineers whose only defect is that they are native-born Americans and they want American, not Indian, wages.

  38. “So long as people are coming here to live peacefully and work peacefully,” says Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia, the burden should be on the government “to show to us why they shouldn’t be here.”

    Is Big Government peaceful, or is it an infringement on your rights, and thereby an initiation of force?

    PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
    Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
    Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

    1. Foreigners don’t have any rights to be here.

      1. True. But my point goes further.

        Reason’s pro immigration position for populations that support bigger government is fundamentally support for the initiation of force on US citizens.

  39. I love Shikha’s advice for Trump. Contrary to everything said in his campaign.

    Let tons more in as guest workers! Don’t build a wall! Do nothing on enforcement!

  40. I get Paid over ?80 per hour working from home with 2 kids at house. I Never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    ??..>>>>>> http://www.jobmax6.com

  41. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  42. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ?
    —————->>>> http://www.Max43.com?
    ?

  43. Key word being “ILLEGAL”. If people who aren’t even citizens can violate our laws, why can’t we?

  44. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>> http://www.centerpay70.com

  45. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>> http://www.centerpay70.com

  46. It always irks me to hear these self-appointed “experts” talk about “high skill immigration”. Only a small number of H1b visas are actually used by US firms for the way it was intended to be used – to hire smart foreign students who graduated from US universities, people who already hold F1 student visas, in areas where we have a skills shortage. Microsoft, Facebook, Google each use no more than a couple of hundred of these a year for their new hires. Instead, a large number of this visa is used by outsourcing firms(7 are Indian) to bring in low skilled, under qualified workers directly from India, graduates of India’s notoriously low quality “engineering” colleges. Per WSJ, only 1 out of 100 Indian college grads are employable. Most of them barely speak any English, barely write any code and had to be trained by the US workers they replaced.

    We need to stop these outsourcing firms from using the H1b as well as the L1 and B1 to directly bring in workers from India. Make them hire US citizens, reduce the annual allotment from 85,000 to 10,000, and increase the fee from $2,500 per visa to $100,00 per visa. This way companies will only use it to hire real talent instead of using it to hire cheap compliant foreign workers. This is supposed to be a visa to plug a temporary shortage, but companies are abusing it so much they are turning it into a long term solution. We can’t keep relying on foreign workers forever, it’s time to nurture homegrown talents.

    1. Make them hire US citizens, reduce the annual allotment from 85,000 to 10,000, and increase the fee from $2,500 per visa to $100,00 per visa.

      $2,500 is a joke. The contracting pimps skim more than this per month per hire.

  47. More shit from Shika.

    Why should the criminal invaders not be here? Because they are criminals and they’re invaders. We shouldn’t treat them kindly. They didn’t just accidentally wander across the border. They invaded. We should give them a short period to flee – then execute them if they don’t leave. This is not THEIR country. So FUCK THEM!

    1. Whoa, easy bro. Per my comment below, a big dynamic in illegal immigration is welfare. Now, the illegals didn’t exactly “invade”. We set of a policy of handing out freebies, and looking the other way and/or winking at illegal workers and those that hire them. Say YOU, are living in some dirt ridden village, and your family living on scraps. You can bring your family up here and properly support your family with US welfare and the establishment’s tacit or even explicit blessing, wouldn’t you take the US on it’s offer? What I’m saying is: The illegal invasion is OUR fault. We did all but send engraved invitations to them. Why should we blame the illegals for accepting? We need to direct our fire at those elites in our country that made this all possible.

  48. Talking about “immigrants” as one entity in public policy is one of the great intellectual cop-outs in our times–ain’t a single group at all, but 2 groups that have zilch in common. Skilled legal immigrants are our economic lifeblood. Low skilled illegals AREN’T criminals (Trump gets the diagnosis wrong, but gets perscription right), lovely people, work hard, BUT…. they are largely on welfare. So, OK Dalmia puts the burden of keeping people out on the non open-border crowd, you got it: The unskilled illegals, by being on the public dole, are net economic drags, so we should keep ’em out, QED. Do the math. You see a restaurant line cook, in say, Manhattan. Works his butt off. But he has has a home, right? And has a wife (usually) and 2-5 kids. He makes, what, $7-10? So there’s big city rent, food, health care, high taxes, transportation, etc. How’s that $10/hour covering all that? Well, it DON’T, lol! Big Big Gov, fills in the massive difference. The old cliches hold: Cheap labor us $$$…….U can have open borders, welfare, but not both, etc. Why we are still arguing in circles about the obvious is beyond me.

  49. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  50. It’s a simple proposition:
    Legal Immigration = Good!
    Illegal Immigration = Bad!

    We need to return to the Good, and as a first step: Repeal the Immigration Act of 1965.

  51. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  52. Work oppertunity: Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85USD/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551USD pop over here this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://JobNews80.com

  53. I am confident that there we are going to hear lots of other discussions and disputes. But as usual there are two sides of the problem. Financial and moral. Let’s start with the first one, immigrants work to make money and control personal finance to live a decent life. Would Americans get new opportunities for career after all immigrants are fired? I really doubt. The problem is much deeper and American unemployment has different roots. And probably, it’s useless to talk about moral side, as it’s rather subjective thing. It’s time to decide who we are: humans or aimals.

  54. My God what are the authors smoking??? There is no such thing as far as crossing the border is concerned as a “Legal Immigrant”. Did they become “Legal” U.S. Citizens in there own country before crossing our border? No, so in that case they would be what….come on…..say it with me……that’s right….”ILLEGAL”. Therefore, what will most likely happen in the future now that we have a President with a backbone is this….once they arrive at the U.S. border that “ILLEGAL” will be properly controlled, properly vetted, properly managed, and go through the Citizenship process properly (if they make it this far) and in a timely manner or there will be consequences.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.