Donald Trump

Trump Boots Out Immigrant Kids [Podcast]

Reason editors discuss DACA, Artificial Intelligence, federalism, and driverless cars.

|

Is Trump merely peeling back his predecessor's executive overreach by rescinding DACA, the Obama-era program that shields immigrant children from deportation, or is the move just disastrous policy that also happens to be morally reprehensible? The latter, says Reason's Nick Gillespie in today's podcast.

"When Republicans start to talk about [the rule of law] it's such horse shit because every law raises priority questions," Gillespie says. "I mean you could technically say pot is still illegal under federal law, so we should be getting rid of all the pot people."

Gillespie joins Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Andrew Heaton to talk about how Trump's immigration policies set America back.

Plus, why Vladimir Putin fears AI (but you shouldn't), and the connection between driverless cars and the ghost of Barry Goldwater.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

NEXT: Good News: Robots Will Steal Only 9 Percent of Jobs, Not 38 Percent Says New Study

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. “I mean you could technically say pot is still illegal under federal law, so we should be getting rid of all the pot people.”

    Dammit, Nick, stop giving them ideas!

    1. Reason is increasingly consistent in attempting to stamp out Liberty in America.

      First, let’s import as many big government voters as we can get our hands on.

      Next, let’s cheer on lawless executive authoritarianism.

      People who actually want Freedom in the US recognize the divergence of federal criminal law and federal policy on pot as a *problem*, not a *template* for further destroying the rule of law in the US.

      1. Rule of Law is only important when it’s inconvenient for the Reason pet causes.

  2. Where is there any evidence of Trump booting out illegal aliens?

    I am sure that they will get either a bus or plane ride to their home country

    1. Interesting use of the term “home country” in the context of DACA.

      1. “accurate” is interesting?

    2. Some of them are rolling stones, and wherever they lay their hat is their home.

    3. Re: DJF,

      Where is there any evidence of Trump booting out illegal aliens?

      You mean they should stop bragging about it in Fox News????

      Why, those gawd-damned liars!

      am sure that they will get either a bus or plane ride to their home country

      You mean Peoria? Or what country are you talking about?

      1. You mean Peoria?

        That would be cruel and unusual.

      2. Well, you are one of the very stupidest people here, so let me explain it to you: the headline is a lie. No one was kicked out. No one even might be kicked out because of this until March.

        Again, you are borderline retarded. Like tony stupid

  3. Trump didn’t kick anyone out. He handed it over to Congress, where it should’ve never left.

    1. Reason is all for congress ceding it’s administrative powers to a strong unitary executive, AS LONG AS HE’S OBAMA

  4. Also, Illegal invaders, AKA Illegal Immigrants, are not screened, don’t pay taxes, draw on welfare systems in the US, and through illegal means have taken away jobs that traditionally teenagers and college students performed. They’ve created massive ‘no go’ portions of cities. They’ve generationally turned SOCAL into a progressive welfare cesspit.

    What evidence does the ‘Open Borders’ group have other than ‘feelz’ that this is in any way a good idea?

    1. They’ve created massive ‘no go’ portions of cities.

      What US city has a massive no-go area? And Cleveland doesn’t count.

      1. San Bernardino, Longbeach, Yakima, Riverside, go for a drive and then get out and walk around in the evening. If you’re not dressed properly or the right shade of skin, you’re in for a treat. We have slums all across the US, there’s no need for us to have extra slums because of somebody’s feelz.

        1. Re; Cy,

          If you’re not dressed properly or the right shade of skin, you’re in for a treat.

          From immigrants????

          Liar.

        2. Yeah, however you define ‘no-go’ area is most certainly not due to undocumented immigrants. For instance, in the 90s, Tacoma had the infamous hilltop neighborhood which I spent some time walking around in, but I guarandamntee you it had dick to do with illegal immigration.

        3. You may or may not recall, but large segments of New York City were no-go areas in the 1970s, but again, not really due to non-citizens.

          1. “We have slums all across the US, there’s no need for us to have extra slums because of somebody’s feelz.”

            Read much?

            1. A LOT, but not as much as you seem to bullshit.

        4. Cy|9.5.17 @ 6:53PM|#
          “San Bernardino, Longbeach, Yakima, Riverside, go for a drive and then get out and walk around in the evening. If you’re not dressed properly or the right shade of skin, you’re in for a treat. We have slums all across the US, there’s no need for us to have extra slums because of somebody’s feelz.”

          And we know this because of the cites I’m sure you will supply, right?

      2. I was thinking Camden, NJ, but that has nothing to do with immigrants.

    2. Re: Cy,

      Also, Illegal invaders, AKA Illegal Immigrants,

      They’re not invaders. Immigrants, even the “illegal” kind, are invited in by The Market.

      What evidence does the ‘Open Borders’ group have other than ‘feelz’ that this is in any way a good idea?

      We have sound economic theory and the NAP.

      What do YOU have, besides “illegulz takum er jebz!”?

      1. Your version of ‘Open borders’ worked really well for Ukraine when Russia recently sent a bunch of ‘undocumented workers’ into the Crimean Peninsula.

        They were just immigrants? Right?

        An illegal invader working for illegal wages and illegally using our welfare systems is a good thing to you? Because… Feelz!

        California swinging heavily progressive in the last 50 years has nothing to do with illegal invasion? None at all?

        Illegal:
        adj. Prohibited by law.

        Invade:
        v. To encroach or intrude on; violate.
        v. To overrun as if by invading; infest.

        1. Cy never breaks any laws.

          1. You keep moving those goal posts around. I’m sure someone will eat your bullshit…. someday.

            1. What goalposts? You seem to be very against people breaking laws. I have to assume that you never break any laws.

            2. What do you not appear to grok is that in order to have your way, you need more government and all of its attendant socio-pathologies. Put another way, insisting upon the enforcement of immigration laws means a bigger and fatter welfare state.

              The rule of law requires that no Parliament has the power to enact legislation not specifically authorized by its charter.

              The US constitution is no different. There is no grant of power given to Congress to make law regarding immigration.


              1. The US constitution is no different. There is no grant of power given to Congress to make law regarding immigration.

                False.

                1. Citation, please.

                  1. From the text of the constitution.

                    Remember, naturalization is not immigration. Lots of middle-witters tend to conflate the two.

                    1. “Remember, naturalization is not immigration”

                      Ok, I’ll bite. Elaborate please.

                    2. Okay, so, you acknowledge that the constitution does not grant Congress the power to make law regarding immigration? It simply is not in the text.

                      Naturalization is the process by which an individual acquires political privileges such as citizenship and voting whereas immigration flows from the exercise of property rights, including voluntary agreements between individuals.

                      Check out Ryan McMaken’s article in Mises.org from March 22, 2017.

                    3. “Okay, so, you acknowledge that the constitution does not grant Congress the power to make law regarding immigration? It simply is not in the text.”

                      Nope. That pissing match was woth someone else, take it up with him.

                      What I do acknowledge is that you are so stupid that you think the power to “Naturalize” is expressly limited by the Constitution BECAUSE OF THE DEFINTION OF NATURALIZE YOU CHOOSE TO USE.

                      A very narrow defintion that is in no way definitive.

                      In addition, we are supposed to ignore that all the assorted powers the government must inevitably have to properly regulate the naturalization of the people YOU ADMIT they have the authority to engage in is somehow expressly limited to ONLY deciding on citizenship.

                      Yours is, frankly, a rather stupid, historically and legally ignorant position.

              2. There is no grant of power given to Congress to make law regarding immigration.

                Congress isn’t supposed to make laws? Who knew?

      2. We have sound economic theory and the NAP.

        Neither of which should be confused as evidence.

    3. I wasn’t screened, only pay taxes when I have to, have drawn on the welfare system, and through illegal means have taken away jobs that traditionally teenagers and college students performed – and I was born here. In fact, not a single native-born American was screened and if that’s good enough to allow I don’t see why screening foreigners is such a big cause.

      Its not the *illegals* that have turned CA into a welfare cesspit. Its the perfectly legal residents who keep voting for what politicians *say* they will do without ever paying attention to what those pols do or accomplish.

  5. So Congress passes immigration law.

    Obama decides he doesn’t like that and is going to create his own rules.

    Trump reverses those rules and tells congress to do their fucking job.
    —And a Libertarian publication is against this?

    Principals, or Principles?

    1. What libertarian principles are being violated?

    2. When the issue is a Fundamental Principle of Real Libertarianism, Real Libertarians are pleased to have government by proclamation.

      1. I’m pleased to have government force halted by proclamation, sure.

        1. Governments remove force by proclamation but are historically more likely to exert force by proclamation.

          Decrees giveth, decrees taketh away and those subject to decrees don’t have much to say about which kind they get. That’s what legislatures and courts are there to guard against.

          1. Governments remove force by proclamation but are historically more likely to exert force by proclamation.

            They didn’t this time. If they had, I’d be against it.

            Decrees giveth, decrees taketh away and those subject to decrees don’t have much to say about which kind they get.

            Legislatures giveth and taketh away too. Somehow it’s cool, because legislature.

            That’s what legislatures and courts are there to guard against.

            LOL ok

            1. Look on the bright side, Juice, these “best and brightest” will be able to enact change in their home countries now! Maybe Central America won’t be a third-world toilet bowl in 10-20 years with all these Rhodes Scholars in charge.

    3. Re: esteve7,

      So Congress passes immigration law.

      What? That didn’t happen!

      Trump reverses those rules and tells congress to do their fucking job.
      —And a Libertarian publication is against this?

      You must be kidding. When Obama presented DACA, it lifted several hundred thousand individuals from the worry of deportation from the only country they ever knew. That allowed those people more FREEDOM to pursue their happiness. There’s no way you can un-ring such a bell without consequences. A magazine devoted to freedom and free markets will, of course, be against this sudden reversal.

      1. So tell me, why aren’t you demanding the United States go to war with all nations that have borders and don’t respect natural rights when those are such egregious violations of the NAP? Why is the magical solution dissolving the United States of America? It sounds like your ‘cure’ for a headache would be stabbing yourself in the eye with a switchblade.

        Sorry, if that is libertarianism you’ll continue to enjoy less than 5% of the vote. I’d even go out on a limb and suggest you’d be at around 1% with such opinions, and the only people left would be be nut job anarchists. Last I checked, Libertarianism isn’t actually anarchy, that’s just where some people end up taking it.

        Basically anarchists are our version of Marxists in the Democrat party. They both want to try a system that’s been tried and has failed each and every time, but if you point to those examples it wasn’t a ‘real’ attempt. If anything, Marxists are smarter since at least they have a system and a plan for how it ‘could work’. Anarchists assume that anarchy is a destination, rather than a passing state of disorder which is even more fundamentally flawed than assuming people are selfless as a state of being.

        1. Or, to put it in a phrase that dead-head’s might understand:

          If we’re all one people, and one nation, here on Earth than we have a moral obligation to free all of those people under tyranny. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s been the basis of our foreign policy since at least WW1.

          Anarchist Libertarians: Trying the same shit, but it’s a different day with a new label!

          1. “Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None?except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.” – John Galt

        2. So tell me, why aren’t you demanding the United States go to war with all nations that have borders

          Yeah, Old Mexican! Why?!!

          LMAO

      2. “When Obama presented DACA, it lifted several hundred thousand individuals from the worry of deportation from the only country they ever knew.”

        Very little of these several hundred thousand individuals were under meaningful threat of deportation. Even before DACA, most deportations occurred near the border. The terrifying immigration raids raised by activists did not happen often. And when ICE did grab people off parks and bus stops, Obama didn’t do anything about it.

        In hindsight, it might have been smarter for some of these kids to not apply for this program. The government now has their names and whereabouts, and if anyone of them get drunk and do something foolish, they might be placed on the fast track out of the country. That’s the kind of risk inherent with these “temp solution first, long term implications later” EOs.

        Libertarians should be wary of presidents abusing EOs, even if they’re designed to expand freedom. Because there’s no guarantee they won’t use them restrict freedom. Reason was actually apprehensive about DACA, even as they argued that it was technically legal.

    4. “Trump reverses those rules and tells congress to do their fucking job.
      —And a Libertarian publication is against this?”

      Yeah, kinda hard to wrap your hear around, isn’t it. Of course, the confusion is in believing that Libertarians have any respect for the principles of a constitutional republic, they don’t.

      Trump’s decision was a good one. He threw the problem back to Congress, where it belongs.

      1. Yeah, kinda hard to wrap your hear around, isn’t it.

        Not really.

        The Constitution is a fairly libertarian document. It is not, however, a completely libertarian document.

        So, no, libertarians don’t, and shouldn’t, “respect for the principles of a constitutional republic.”

        1. Iran is a constitutional republic.

        2. It’s not ‘completely libertarian’ because ‘completely libertarian’ doesn’t really mean anything and notably one of the biggest and most glaring flaws with libertarianism is that it completely and drastically misunderstands nations and foreign policy in general.

          The borders debate within our own ranks is illustrative of that defect.

          1. No, Murray Rothbard certainly “[understood] nations and foreign policy in general” far better than say Winston Churchill, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Ike the Socialist his whole adult life Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, and Ronnie the FBI snitch Ray-gun.

            I might add Rothbard understood it better than Kissinger and Mika’s Polark father.

          2. ‘completely libertarian’ doesn’t really mean anything

            Sure it does. It means an individual may do as they choose, provided they don’t infringe on the rights of others in the process. People moving here doesn’t infringe upon my rights or yours.

            1. But –

              confiscating one’s income in order to finance an immigration regime not authorized by the text of the constitution does infringe on your rights and mine.

            2. And there’s the rub.

              If it’s a natural right to have ‘free movement’ than what would be the recourse against a foreign nation who does not allow immigration into their nation? They are infringing on our natural rights just as much as our own government, yet continually you focus on only one parties infringement in the equation.

              1. No, I focus upon all miscarriages of the NAP.

                1. BYODB – still waiting for the constitutional citation….

                  Rule of law……no legislature can exceed the powers granted to it…….even if some feelz there is an “emergency”…..

                  Rule of law………..no implied powers are to be inferred by other organs of the Crown….

                  Rule of law…………no individual is bound to a charter to which they did not consent…….

                  1. Article 1, Section 8. Do you need me to type it for you too, or do you think that’s enough for you to Google it now?

                    1. No, Article 1, section 8 does not set forth that Congress shall have the power to make law regarding immigration.

                      It is not one of the 18 enumerated powers. Remember, only a mid-wit would conflate immigration with naturalization.

                    2. So your contention is the men who wrote it down didn’t understand what they wrote down. You’ll need to cite that.

                2. So you would agree that foreign nations restricting our emigration is a violation. If it is a violation, what is the redress? So far I only see things the United States must change.

                  Making the argument that we can only change ourselves is not only false, but proves that the underlying principles are in conflict. At the very least it’s a terrible argument even without 5000 years of empirical observations that nations without borders either don’t exist, or don’t exist long due to external pressures.

                  1. One issue we should note is that there is a huge distinction to be made between the modern nation state of the last 150-175 years and hamlets, villages, city-states, principalities, kingdoms, and empires between 5000 and 200 years ago.

                    Maybe the United States won’t change, but change will happen to the United States. Its inevitable. Only utopians think otherwise. All of history demonstrates that. America is not immune. Its empire will terminate. It is bankrupt.

                    Thus, I don’t want one penny of my income to be confiscated so that some illiterate, poorly read, ICE goon can be paid. How does that benefit me? More money for public employee unions whose peeps can’t hack it in the private sector?

                    Why should any person concerned about the survival of western civilization, writ large, and individual liberty, free enterprise, and free association, desire one more penny be confiscated in service of empire?

                    Yes, I should be able to travel anywhere in the world, unimpeded by some socialist with a gun and a badge as free markets and free minds trump collectivism.

                    You want more welfare. I don’t.

                    You want more public employees with guns and badges. I don’t.

                    You appear to be deluded into thinking that Caesar’s praetorian guard “protects muh freedomz”. I am not.

                    1. Well, that was a long-winded strawman. You want to actually say something next, or did I touch a nerve by pointing out you had absolutely no idea what is and is not an enumerated power of Congress?

                  2. So you would agree that foreign nations restricting our emigration is a violation.

                    Certainly

                    what is the redress?

                    There is none. Leave it be. It’s beyond our span of control, short of war. Action is justifiable but not worth the cost.

                    That we shouldn’t act morally because other nations don’t act morally is not an argument for an immoral policy.

                3. Then why only advocate for one half of the victims of the violations in the conversation? I note you didn’t answer the central question: What is the recourse against a foreign nation infringing upon your natural right to free movement?

                  Keep in mind, the answer you list will also apply to the United States. You don’t get to pick and choose who gets to keep their borders and who does not when using the premise of natural rights inherent to all men as your basis here.

                  You are automatically picking and choosing who actually gets to benefit from those rights in both scenarios, but only in one of them are you asking for selflessness and altruism.

                  One way benefits don’t sell well in the context of who can exercise those supposedly inherent rights. You are expecting Americans to behave irrationally for the ‘greater good’ here, and that’s utopianism in a nutshell.

                  1. For reasons unknown, the USA is held to a standard Libertarians hold LITERALLY nobody in the world to. We’re held to a standard nobody has been held to in recorded history. Shocking that we fail so often in their eyes.

        3. It is quite acceptable to disagree with the constitution, it is another thing entirely to simply make up laws ad-hoc.

          There are parts of the constitution that I would like to see changed. However, when political leaders act contrary to the constitution’s limitations then our country is on the road to dictatorship, similar to Juice’s beloved Iran.

  6. Spare me the misplaced bleeding heart crap. Illegal means NOT Legal. A country without borders and means to prevent invaders is no longer a country. I have been a staunch Libertarian for a long time but the policy on Open Bo0rders is insanity.

    1. Re: Joseph C. Moore (USN Ret.

      Spare me the misplaced bleeding heart crap. Illegal means NOT Legal.

      Leaving aside the idiotic tautology, the only reason immigrants are deemed “illegal” is because they don’t have the appropriate government-issued transit papers. That’s all. That doesn’t mean they’re criminals or that they’re from another planet.

      I have been a staunch Libertarian for a long time but the policy on Open Bo0rders is insanity.

      Translation: You were never a libertarian.

      Libertarianism: The political philosophy that holds as the only worthy political goal the greatest possible liberty for all human individuals of will. That includes immigrants.

      1. And screw the idea of a legislature passing laws. Government by decree is fine when one of Libertarianism’s Sacred Tenets is involved.

        1. And screw the idea of a legislature passing laws.

          Hear! Hear!

        2. Re: Homple,

          Government by decree is fine when one of Libertarianism’s Sacred Tenets is involved.

          You mean YOU don’t hold liberty for all as a sacred tenet?

          Well… I have to admit, I am not surprised.

          1. No, we just believe in things called property rights and the sovereignty of nations.

            Illegal Invasion by definition violates NAP. If they didn’t initially use force to cross our borders in the first place, none of us would need to be having this discussion. Sadly we’re not discussing how they should be punished, we’re discussing how they should be rewarded.

            1. No, we just believe in things called property rights

              LOL, no you don’t.

              Illegal Invasion by definition violates NAP.

              smh, no it doesn’t.

              1. If it only addresses immigration rather than emigration than what’s the fucking point?

                Just because everyone on planet Earth would suddenly be decreed a dual-citizen of the United States doesn’t equal shit and it would be an immediate call to war with every other nation on planet Earth that disagree’s with our notions of social justice and natural rights.

                If ‘open borders’ is what you seek, the only path forward is global war and imperialism. Ironic, yes?

          2. I’d like to build the World a home
            Right in your back yard
            Because I’m free
            And N.A.P.
            I’m sure it won’t be hard.

            I’d like to let the world move in
            And put you on the shelf
            ‘Cause here’s the deal
            It makes me feel
            So good about myself.

      2. It appears that immigration is the issue that really separates the conservatives from the libertarians. People who thought they were libertarians look around and start to think these people are crazy, so they go back to their Republican meet-up or wherever they came from.

        1. Nice bait and switch….

          I’m 100% for Immigration, screen em, make sure they can take care of themselves and cut them loose into a free market economy.

          Sadly, we don’t have a free market economy. We have a heavily regulated economy with a welfare state.

          Illegal immigrants, can go back to where ever they came from and go through legal channels.

          1. Instead of noting that since immigrants skew younger than the general population and thus buttress rather than drain the welfare state, I’d ask why you think it’s OK to deny people individual liberty based on environmental circumstances beyond their control?

            1. “Instead of noting that since immigrants skew younger than the general population and thus buttress rather than drain the welfare state, I’d ask why you think it’s OK to deny people individual liberty based on environmental circumstances beyond their control?”

              I’m not denying them anything. They can have all of the individual liberty they can handle, in their country of origin. They can have all of the rights of a US Citizen, if they go through the legal channels of immigrating into the US.

              I am all for denying any kind of a reward to Illegal invaders. That includes giving them or their children citizenship or visas. Why aren’t we talking about punishments for years of theft from US Citizens? Why are we discussing how much we’re going to allow these people to be rewarded by our governments? Feelz? That’s it?

              1. We aren’t denying them anything that their home country doesn’t also deny to us. Their country denying our natural rights is fightin’ words. I mean if it’s worth destroying our country to do it, it must also be acceptable to destroy their nation to do it, right? Unless you assume we don’t have equal rights to them, and thus we must accept that we are trapped here while they are free to pass between.

                Sorry, I know when someone’s selling snake oil.

          2. Nice bait and switch….

            I…baited? Then switched? Huh?

            I’m 100% for Immigration

            LOL, no you’re not.

            1. You only think that because the only system of immigration you believe in is ‘completely 100% open borders’ which is as ludicrous a position as you’ll likely find around here.

              1. “I’m 100% for the right to keep and bear arms. That means that to exercise that right you must fill out a ton of forms, pass a test, pay a fee, register your fingerprints and photo, register the weapon, etc. And since that all takes time, you might have to wait for a few years while we process your documentation. It’s all cool, because I’m 100% for your right to own a gun.”

              2. which is as ludicrous a position as you’ll likely find around here.

                Worked fine for a hundred years, until the US government decided to start restricting the “undesirables”, namely those filthy Asians.

                Very libertarian.

                1. Worked fine for a hundred years, until the US government decided to start restricting the “undesirables”, namely those filthy Asians.

                  Uh, you do realize the 1790 Naturalization Act restricted citizenship to white people only, right?

                  1. Naturalization Act of 1790

                    Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.

                    Citizenship was restricted, but the border was essentially open until the Page Act of 1875.

                    The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as “undesirable”
                    The law classified as “undesirable” any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer

                    1. So you advocate for importing people, but not giving them the legal protections and other rights as outlined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

                      Well, at least you’re more honest about it than the Democrats or Republicans.

            2. Yes, you started by using ‘immigration’, a legal channel for non US citizens to work in, live in and immigrate to the US. You then equated it to illegal immigration (the subject being discussed) to immigration and ‘No true scotsmanned’ every Libertarian on here defending our rights by insulting us claiming we’re Republicans.

              That must be some Ivory tower you live in. No history books. Rainbows painted on the walls. Maybe a puppy or two roaming around with a maid running behind them picking up poo.

              Oh Boy, this projection thing is fun.

              1. Oh boy. Immigration is immigration. If you want to make some of it illegal then you’re not 100% for it.

                And one cannot be a true Scotsman if he’s not a Scotsman to begin with.

                1. So when someone gets raped it’s just sex.

                  Because, Illegal Sex is Sex right?

                2. It’s cute, but lousy logic. Why does everyone on planet Earth have a right to free transit except Americans?

                3. Juice, some immigration is illegal. I suppose some countries might have open borders, but I doubt it. Open borders has a nice, “I am so morally superior to everybody else” ring to it but it is a dumb idea.

        2. Republican and Democrat party both want unfettered immigration; Republicans for the human capital, and Democrats for the voting capital. The middle and lower classes suffer the consequences of that, but the R and D leaders could not care less about the middle and lower classes.

          On the issue of immigration, legal and illegal, the major parties are pure as driven snow Libertarian.

          Here is what I want from my legal and political system: Every decision begins with “what is best for the citizens of the US”.

          1. If the middle and lower classes suffer the consequences, why do they continue to support and vote for the R’s and the D’s?

            1. Stupidity. Gullibility. Culture war divisions. Immigration is only one of many issues. Lack of workable choices. Lots of reasons.

              Why do you think they do?

              1. If I had the answer to that……

                Trump, in my view, was right to question the reliability of the voting system. After all, who controls it?

                Does it make sense to leave elections to the state?

          2. Ecoli|9.5.17 @ 8:04PM|#
            “…The middle and lower classes suffer the consequences of that,…”

            Like, oh, lower food costs? Those sorts of consequences?

        3. It certainly reveals the socialist and communitarian impulses that yet plague our enclave.

      3. Leaving aside the idiotic tautology, the only reason immigrants are deemed “illegal” is because they don’t have the appropriate government-issued transit papers. That’s all. That doesn’t mean they’re criminals

        So, if I drive and I don’t have a license nor even applied for one, I’ve not REALLY done anything wrong. Intriguing.

    2. il = not
      legal = legal

      It’s maths, really.

  7. Technically, deporting these folks was Congress’ idea, as expressed in statutes enacted before Trump was Pres.

    Trump says that he believes these statutes are constitutional and so he’s obliged to “faithfully execute[]” them, per the U. S. Constitution.

    So how about this headline: Trump to Carry Out the Will of Congress.

    1. To which Congress replies: “We didn’t mean to actually have these laws enforced, what’s wrong with you, you sadist?!?!?”

    2. “So how about this headline: Trump to Carry Out the Will of Congress.”

      That would be the equivalent of MSNBC finally admitting the hag lost because she’s a miserable excuse for a human being.

  8. Women can stay, guys have to leave. Seems like a fair compromise.

  9. “I mean you could technically say pot is still illegal under federal law, so we should be getting rid of all the pot people.”

    If you assume that the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on that subject is correct.

  10. What is the cost of the 800,000 DACAs?

    If it costs $12,000 dollars a year, per student to fund public education, then the education bill for these 800,000 is more than $115B.

    12,000 dollars/year X 12 years X 800,000 Dreamers…

    There were other costs on top of the education costs, so the actual cost is higher.

    1. Like many, you don’t bother with the other side of the ledger.
      You may be right, but your attempt to show it here is bullshit.

  11. Well, when you have a King instead of representational government, this shits going to happen. If only we had elected Representatives that would be responsible for creating our laws, maybe they could do something, but alas, nothing can be done. I would like to get a refund on those Congressional salaries though.

  12. Article 1, Section 8, clause 4:

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…

    Nothing about immigration.

    1. It boils down to whether the Interstate Commerce Clause covers the situation.

      (I realize that they say there’s an *inherent* power by the feds to regulate immigration, but I’m not taking that part seriously)

      1. “The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the States. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations: the responsibility for the character of those regulations, and for the manner of their execution, belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single State can, at her pleasure, embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.”

        Chy Lung v Freeman

    2. The only people responsible for the Dreamers’ plight are their parents.

    3. The SC in Chy Lung v. Freeman ruled immigration was under federal purview.

    4. “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…””

      Naturalization is about citizenship. DACA is about a path to citizenship. Therefore a naturalization issue. No?

  13. “Borders are morally reprehensible! Anarchy now!”

    I notice an increasing trend for Reason to go VLog when they go truly asshat. Rightly anticipating being torn many new ones in the comments section, they refuse to actually *print* their argument to make it that much harder to refute them point by point.

    Such intellectual cowardice. Sad.

    This is why Reason bleeds supporters to the Alt-Right. They’re too cowardly to confront ideas. The Alt-Right isn’t.

    1. But the argument is always the libertarian argument which is well known. Humans as sapient beings have the natural right to liberty.

  14. @realDonaldTrump 7:38 PM – 5 Sep 2017
    Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!

    Oh. So this was all a big nothing.

    *relaxes sphincter*

  15. buybuydandavis|9.5.17 @ 11:16PM|#
    “Borders are morally reprehensible! Anarchy now!”

    The jingoists are out in force tonight.
    All of you whiny protectionists pull the same sort of shit that proggies do when pitching minimum wage crap.
    When even one of you looks at both sides of the ledger while claiming the ‘costs of illegal immigrants’, I’ll be more than happy to look at the numbers. So far, the lot of you have yet to approach the honesty of Tony, for pete’s sake.
    Either argue honestly or put a sock in it; I’m tired of reading about how brown people make you nervous. You (all of you) claim ‘the wetbacks cost us taxpayers money!’
    Prove it or STFU.

    1. Expect the Patriots to be out in force every night.

      It’s really up to Reason to make *their* argument, and make it available for analysis. It’s not my blog. I don’t have a billionaire benefactor paying me to comment here. If they refuse to transcribe their propaganda, that tells you how confident they are in their argument.

      When Reason has made their sorry attempts at an argument for Open Borders available, I and many others have torn them a new one, and can be counted on to do so again in the future.

      See Shikha articles for details.

      1. buybuydandavis|9.5.17 @ 11:38PM|#
        “Expect the Patriots to be out in force every night.”
        The jingoists who wrap themselves in the flag when they have no real argument? Yep, those slime-bags are here always. Nice to see you admit to being in the ‘club’ of such dimbulbs.

        “It’s really up to Reason to make *their* argument, and make it available for analysis. It’s not my blog. I don’t have a billionaire benefactor paying me to comment here. If they refuse to transcribe their propaganda, that tells you how confident they are in their argument.”
        Reason has made the ‘argument’ many times with clear and verifiable data that immigrants, legal or not, make the US more prosperous than it would be otherwise and they have done so showing both sides of the of the ledger. You claim they are wrong; let’s see the numbers. Or, you could always STFU if you don’t have any, as I presume you and the others don’t.
        Cont’d

        1. More:
          Oh, and this is particularly telling:
          “I don’t have a billionaire benefactor paying me to comment here”
          Are you proud of yourself for taking Tony’s ‘talking point’?

          “When Reason has made their sorry attempts at an argument for Open Borders available, I and many others have torn them a new one, and can be counted on to do so again in the future.”
          You and the rest of the slimebag jingoists have done nothing of the sort. You’ve made asses of yourselves in public, whining that some ‘uneducated’ people from south of the border might steal your jobs and claiming (absent any data whatsoever) that they cost the US taxpayer money. Reason has at least debunked that pile of crap.

          “See Shikha articles for details.”
          I’m no fan of Shicka, but she looks like a paragon of honesty compared to you and the rest of the jingoists.

          I repeat: Produce the data or admit you’re a fucking imbecile and STFU.
          Data, pal, data. That’s all it takes and you and the rest of the protectionists don’t have it. None. DATA.

  16. If there is no video of Trump using a steel toed boot kicking these immigrant kids out, then it didn’t happen.

    1. There is none, it didn’t happen, and Trump did nothing of the sort.
      He sent ti back to congress with a 6-month grace period to do what they were supposed to do before Obo fucked it up and the ‘fake news’ sources are now screaming that their news isn’t fake.
      They are as dishonest as the jingoists challenged above and equally defensive about it.
      “Clowns To The Left Of Me, Jokers To The Right”

    2. Object permanence is still a challenge for you?

      1. “Object permanence is still a challenge for you?”

        What mean?

  17. An executive fiat was overturned by executive fiat. That’s the problem with “a pen and a phone”.

    1. Exactly.

  18. Look at the bright side.

    Hillary Clinton will NEVER be president !!!

Please to post comments