MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

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

And abolishing ICE without changing the law isn't the way to fix it.

Early on a Sunday morning in late May, Jose Garcia was walking to his car to grab a coffee mug when several armed agents in bulletproof vests approached and told him he was under arrest.

The arrest was part of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sweep that had picked up 162 people, including at least eight green-card holders like Garcia, who had lived in Southern California for more than 50 years and provided for his family by working three jobs.

ICE targeted Garcia based on a 17-year-old domestic violence misdemeanor, which he says happened when a neighbor called the police after overhearing an argument between him and his wife. The courthouse didn't retain any documents describing the incident in any further detail, but Garcia's guilty plea made him eligible for deportation.

Garcia's ordeal happened at the height of the media storm around family separations at the U.S.-Mexico border. Thanks largely to the efforts of his daughter Natalie Garcia, his case received national attention. His Los Angeles–based attorney, Mackenzie Mackins, believes it was this media attention and the ensuing community support that led to an unusually quick resolution. After three weeks, a judge granted Garcia's case and released him from county jail to return to his family.

"Mr. Garcia's case is just one of many where members of our community, hard workers, have been picked up by ICE and targeted for reasons that are beyond comprehension for most Americans," says Mackins.

Mackins also represents Sergio Quiroz, a 23-year-old college student whose mother brought him over the border from Mexico when he was seven months old. He hasn't returned since.

Quiroz ran into trouble with ICE after a fight with an ex-girlfriend in 2017. He says he threw and broke her iPhone during an argument. She called the police, and he pled to the misdemeanor of simple battery. It's not a deportable offense in itself, but it put him on ICE's radar. The agency then used a detainer to pick him up from county jail, move him to a federal detention center, and put him on track for deportation.

"That's why so many states and localities do not cooperate with ICE detainers," says Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "They see ICE detainers as a way to cast a wide net to pick up people who should not be deported."

Despite policy changes designed to increase deportations, the Trump administration has yet to match the deportation numbers from the early years of the Obama administration, during which Barack Obama earned the moniker "Deporter-in-Chief."

Five days after being sworn in as president, Donald Trump signed an executive order directing ICE to begin targeting "all removable aliens" living in the country. The Department of Homeland Security released a memo rescinding much of the discretion that ICE agents, prosecutors, and judges were previously allowed to exercise.

"The administration has basically unshackled ICE, given it free reign to do what it wants, and basically said no group is off-limits," says Nowrasteh. "It's sort of an effort to roll back the clock, in a sense, to go back to the way immigration enforcement was during the first three to four years of the Obama administration."

The number of immigrants ICE has arrested and detained from the interior of the country has increased by about 30 percent between 2016 and 2017, but arrests at the border and the rate of deportations have slowed, while the backlog of pending cases has spiked. Mackins says that the lack of discretion emanating from the executive order and the DHS memo is causing a system overload.

"When you make everyone a priority, nobody is a priority," says Mackins.

Activists and a couple of prominent Democrats have called for the complete abolition of ICE. But Nowrasteh thinks such a move would do little in itself to solve the immigration crisis.

"The abolish ICE movement is mostly an optical one of propaganda and slogan," says Nowrasteh. "The problem is that if you abolish ICE now and do now change any of the other immigration laws that are on the books, another law enforcement agency is just going to do the same thing in about the same way, and you've really accomplished nothing."

Instead, Nowrasteh suggests abolishing criminal prosecutions of unauthorized border crossing, instead treating such an act as an infraction on par with something like a parking ticket. He would also abolish Enforcement and Removal Operations, a branch of ICE, and shift all interior enforcement to Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which should be tasked to focus only on serious violent criminals and national security threats.

"One hundred percent of ICE resources should be focused on removing national security, violent, and property criminals," says Nowrasteh.

Sergio Quiroz and his mother continue to fight his removal order. As for Jose Garcia, he's back with his family but plans to finally obtain full citizenship to protect himself going forward.

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.

  • Cy||

    Violating sovereignty and the will of a nation and their borders is like parking illegally? Hitler really did get a bad wrap.

  • E. Zachary Knight||

    Who are you to decide who I want to rent/sell my property to or who I want to employ?

  • Cy||

    "Who are you to decide who I want to rent/sell my property to or who I want to employ?"

    Someone who gives a shit about where and how his taxes are spent. If this were libertopia, fine, have it. But it's not. You can have welfare or you can have open borders, you don't get both and you can't have one until the other is abolished.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open borders is not a Libertarian foundation. Its an anarchy and Lefty position.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Zach, you can rent to anyone you choose to. Whether or not they can legally travel and reside here is their problem.

    Do you understand now?

  • retiredfire||

    Who am I?
    I'm the guy reminding you that you don't get to decide what happens on "your" property, if it violates laws passed by the legislators in the country.
    Just as you can't commit murder, rape or mayhem on "your" property, so can you not rent/sell it to, or employ anyone not permitted to be here.

  • Mark22||

    Legally, I'm a US citizen and voter, and as such I get to restrict your liberties.

    Morally, I'd be perfectly happy to open the borders as soon as the government stops taking half my earnings every year under threat of violence. As long as it keeps doing that, I am going to exercise my rights to try to limit the fallout from these policies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    An American voter +1

  • damikesc||

    Are you being punished? No. The person who committed the crime is.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    What individual liberty gives you the right to sic the cops on people who have not hurt anybody? What libertarian principle supports national ID cards and constitution-free border zones extending 100 miles into the country? What form of property right makes it moral for the government to control my property, tell me who I can rent it to, who I can hire, or stick its nose into my business just because you have a hardon for hiding behind big brother to satisfy your bigotry?

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Cy||

    "What individual liberty gives you the right to sic the cops on people who have not hurt anybody?"

    National property rights AKA Sovereignty.

    "What libertarian principle supports national ID cards and constitution-free border zones extending 100 miles into the country?"

    None. We don't live in a libertarian nation. We live in one with a welfare state and property rights.

    "What form of property right makes it moral for the government to control my property, tell me who I can rent it to, who I can hire, or stick its nose into my business just because you have a hardon for hiding behind big brother to satisfy your bigotry?"

    The government gets to control our borders. if you want to contest that, I suggest you take it up with EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT on the planet. Bigotry? Is that what you call someone who can look at our current welfare state and make an honest decision?

    Have fun in your fantasy land you willfully ignorant asshole.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Have fun in your statist semi-paradise, slaver.

  • Cy||

    Newsflash! It's ok to have complex opinions about what is, what should be and what you would like.

    Conceding open borders in our current political environment would pushes the Libertarian party that much further into obscurity. I would love to have completely open borders, but to do so in our current political climate is really stupid, especially if you have any notion of our country becoming libertarian or staying libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution is slavery to Scarecrow.

    Its Anarchy or bust!

  • vek||

    "Newsflash! It's ok to have complex opinions about what is, what should be and what you would like."

    This is what all autistic, purist, libertarians miss. A lot of stuff I advocate for IN THE REAL WORLD is not what I want in a perfect world... But sometimes the order of operations matters. For example welfare state gone BEFORE letting in endless numbers of illiterates from all over the world.

    Frankly in a perfectly libertarian world, where absolute freedom of association existed, I would move to a piece of land where such low lifes were highly limited in entering the property by covenant, because having an endless flood of low education people will make for a shitty and poor society anyway... But if the welfare state and all socialized costs were gone I could at least entertain the idea of open borders. Not in the world as it exists now though.

    Same basic premise applies to 1000 other libertarian positions. There's real world now, and perfect world.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Frankly in a perfectly libertarian world, where absolute freedom of association existed, I would move to a piece of land where such low lifes were highly limited in entering the property by covenant, because having an endless flood of low education people will make for a shitty and poor society anyway..."

    Same. I can't kick crazy bums or crackheads or criminals out of where I live or move to anywhere that does so the last thing I want to do is to get more poor people with low socialization in the USA way of life to come here. They may be great citizens when they come here but their progeny seem to fall off the wagon real quick with their neighborhoods being low education mono-ethnic hot zones rife with crime. Yes, I am talking abou California.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So, just eliminate "public" property?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There is no "public" property.

    It all belongs to Americans. Some Americans just paid extra for parts that get limited government attention.

  • vek||

    As I said if true freedom of association existed, and/or there were no public property, it would deal with most problems created by unlimited mass immigration... But as it stands we more or less do collectively own public land, and collectively pay for public goods. In such a system it MATTERS who you let in.

    The funny thing is though, if we had true freedom of association, and covenant communities could exist, almost all native born people who could afford to would move into areas where the floods of low education foreigners were not allow. What does that tell you about what people REALLY want?

    Most citizens have been against even the level of immigration we have, and especially against low skill immigration. Leftists wanting votes and corporatists wanting cheap labor have completely ignored what the citizens actually want for decades. The same has happened in Europe where nobody ever wanted to become a minority in their own country.

    People have had enough of being ignored. If we don't get sane policies NOW, we're going to get extremely harsh policies in the future... People just don't like this shit because it ruins quality of life, and anybody who has ever lived around tons of immigrants knows this.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    it ruins quality of life, and anybody who has ever lived around tons of immigrants knows this.

    I live around tons of immigrants (even my wife is one!), and quality of life is *fantastic*. Neighborhoods full of "americans"? Eh, hit or miss.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Yes, I am talking abou California.

    And this shows how little you know about california.

    I want to do is to get more poor people with low socialization in the USA way of life to come here.

    And this shows how little you know about immigrants or their progeny.

  • vek||

    I grew up in California jackass! I live in Seattle now, and there are plenty of immigrants around me here now too... The difference is the type.

    See in California it was mostly lower class illegal Mexicans. There were issues with this shall we say... For instance the only gang members in the entire town I lived in, all Mexican. Poor people bring problems, and I'm not saying this as somebody who was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I've actually lived around poor people at lots of points in my life! Importing millions of people that are destined to be poor simply creates problems. Did I forget to mention I'm part Mexican too? So, yeah, a California born person, who is part Mexican, who can accept that there are big problems with shit tons of poor immigrants.

    In Seattle now I live in a very nice neighborhood. I have lots of immigrants around me here too. The ones here, however, are all legal immigrants, mostly with advanced degrees since they can afford to live in this neighborhood. Guess what, no crime problems! No welfare use! No ME having to subsidize their roads/schools/etc because they don't make enough money to cover that shit!

    I don't hate Mexicans, and a lot of them are nice people... But that still doesn't mean it makes logical sense to import millions of low education people into a post industrial economy, and take all the problems that come along with them.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    We don't live in a libertarian nation.


    What a fucking sorry ass excuse. Would you be just as happy in Russia or Nazi Germany? Would you make just as many excuses for expanding state power there?

    Damn what a philosophy -- the government has too much power, so let's help it get more.

    What a maroon. Fuck off, slaver.

  • Cy||

    It's not an excuse. It's reality. You've made it clear that you don't operate in reality. You're incapable of charting a path from where we are to where we want to be. You can't even acknowledge that it takes a hell of a lot more steps than "Fuck off, Slaver."

    I'll leave you to your little corner of solitude where you can yell at yourself in a mirror about how virtuous you are.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He doesnt like the US Constitution nor rule of law under that Constitution.

    They want Anarchy baby!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Anyone who thinks the constitution as written represents government overreach and should be tossed aside should set off big red flags for anyone.

  • Nardz||

    Maintaining and defending a nations border is expanding government power?
    No, it's pretty much the only justification for having a nation or State in the first place - and has been so since the beginning of civilization 15-20 thousand years ago. Indeed, institutional control of borders created - at least allowed - civilization to begin.

    Your opinion is incredibly childish.

  • vek||

    God you're dumb scarecrow!

    Let me ask you a question: If supporting an absolutist position on one very marginal right, completely unlimited international freedom of movement, destroys/degrades ALL your other rights and quality of life... Is it perhaps not the logical choice to make a few concessions on that single right to in fact protect MORE rights overall?

    Because that's low skill immigration in a nutshell. They increase MY taxes, they increase the crime (don't confuse high skill/legal immigrants with low skilled illegals), and if they ever vote or their legal children do they vote for bigger government.

    On a purely practical level international freedom of movement of low skilled half illiterates is literally THE LAST freedom I would want to push for. There are too many real world reasons it is fucked.

  • Mark22||

    What libertarian principle supports national ID cards and constitution-free border zones extending 100 miles into the country?

    What libertarian principle gives the government the right to take away half my earnings every year? None. We don't live in a libertarian society.

    just because you have a hardon for hiding behind big brother to satisfy your bigotry?

    It's not about my bigotry, it's about your attempts to enslave me to pay for your pet projects.

    Fuck off, slaver.

    Yes, indeed, fuck off you slaver. Taking half my labor is worse than feudalism or traditional US slavery.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    It's not about my bigotry, it's about your attempts to enslave me to pay for your pet projects.

    I guarantee you, the vast majority of what's being taken from you for pet projects is not being used for immigrants, illegal or otherwise, except in certain quarters' hysterical and inaccurate fever dreams.

  • Mark22||

    So what? You think rape is OK if you only stick it in 1"?

    And the math isn't rocket science either: there are at least 10 million illegal immigrants and at an average per capita government federal expenditure of more than $10000, those amount to $100 billion in annual costs to federal government. But this demographic pays next to nothing in taxes. $100 billion is about 2.5% of the federal budget and 10% of the annual budget deficit. That is quit substantial.

  • Truthteller1||

    You lost at "bigotry".

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    And why the fuck would any libertarian think majority rules can void rights? Who the fuck put the majority in absolute charge of anything?

    The will of a nation my individual ass. Fuck off, slaver.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The same one that accepts redistribution via the welfare state, slaver.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What right, dumb dumb?

    Americans have the right to decide what happens inside their borders under the protections of the Constitution.

  • JFree||

    Americans have the right to decide what happens inside their borders

    I agree 100% with that. Which makes the sort of stuff that Trump is doing even worse. Because what it means is that YOU are responsible for every fucking excess of his.

    YOU are the one who, in defending those excesses and calling for more, demonstrates that your vision of freedom/liberty within a context of sovereignty and self-governance is just crap. The only thing you personally seem to give a shit about is the freedom to have your govt abuse someone else. Which makes you an asshole - whose freedom ain't worth defending by anyone else.

    For decades, I thought the all-to-quick resort to 'racist' whenever anyone mentioned problems with immigration was sleazy. Cuz I saw problems with immigration too. But since Trump made his case by appealing to the worst instincts - and is now carrying that out to excess - I now see folks like you for what you really were all along.

    Not interested in immigration problems at all. Just happy to see govt be your jackboot against people who are different.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would deport illegals so fast it would make your head spin.

    A 5 minute hearing for refugees. Ask, "what proof do you have that you are in fear of your life because of politics"? None? This court hereby orders you deported.

    Next!

    Give them Due Process and get them the fuck out of the USA.

    Americans like me are sick of non-Americans ignoring our Rule of Law based on our Constitution and want free from us. Our goodwill has been exploited.

    Its not racism because America has no national race. Americans of all shades support Trump.

    You are right about all Americans being responsible for what Trump does. I am happy he is deporting them.

  • JFree||

    I would deport illegals so fast it would make your head spin.

    Well 700 of the 3000 kids who were separated from their parents are now de facto kidnapped. Because their parents WERE deported (many very quickly if they didn't claim asylum) - and Trump/ICE didn't have the slightest fucking plan in place for ever reuniting those kids with their parents. So those 700 kids are now in jail in the US - while their parents are who the fuck knows where (the US govt doesn't know). And without the judge actually ordering the govt to reunite those kids (which folks like you opposed), there is no way any of this would even have been known - until probably forever because they/you just don't give a shit about ACTUAL DUE PROCESS as it applies to any of them.

    THAT is the sort of crap that you are actually advocating.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Pretty much everything you just wrote is either a massive exaggeration or complete bullshit.

  • JFree||

    Oh hell - you ain't heard the half of what's happening cuz you choose not to listen

    Trump/ICE asserting that ACLU - not govt - has to find deported parents (yeah the number cited there is 450 already deported - the other 250 just can't be found so their kids are still being detained)

    Detained kids are being given mind-altering controlled substances - without parental consent - and by a doctor who isn't even certified to treat children.

    Can go on and on but only two links/post are allowed

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ypu cannot kidnap criminals. Illegals are all criminals even the DACA young adults and even the kids.

    Deport them all and let them reunite on the southside of the US border.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, Trump operating constitutionally and within established law is massive excess.

    Would you please be so kind to submit a list of laws we are allowed to support without upsetting your delicate sensibilities? Or is do we just bow to your individual whims to run the country?

  • vek||

    If previous leaders had done their fucking jobs, and not let it turn into such an out of control disaster, we wouldn't be having such a problem now. After awhile of enforcing this stuff correctly people will realize it's not worth coming here illegally, and the numbers will go down. Also if we just maintain steady work at the issue, there won't be a flood of people to deal with at any given time for those that do still come.

    The fact is there ARE huge problems with mass immigration, legal or illegal. In the USA our illegal population is pretty fuckered, but our legal immigrants are pretty decent, at least the first one in the chain who gets in on merit.

    I'm not a bleeding heart, so I'm just not going to cry over people getting what they KNEW could come at any moment. If I go and smoke crack, bang a 15 year old hooker, and then get busted by the cops and thrown in prison for a long ass time should anybody feel sorry for me? I say no. None of those is a violation of the NAP, although somewhat morally questionable, but I KNEW what could happen... So IMO you just have to take it on the chin like a man, just like all these illegals.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    After awhile of enforcing this stuff correctly people will realize it's not worth coming here illegally, and the numbers will go down.

    Is that how it worked with alcohol prohibition? "After a few years of enforcing it correctly, people will stop drinking"?

    Is that how it worked with drug prohibition? "After a few years of enforcing it correctly, people will stop smoking pot"?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeff, as usual you make spurious analogies. And they are analogies that have been previously discredited. Justice all your retread arguments.

    Since you have nothing new, just shut up and listen.

  • vek||

    Jeff, note I said "The numbers will GO DOWN" not that it would be zero. With virtually all types of crime you cannot stop it 100%. But rigid enforcement does in fact reduce plenty of types of crime. I see no reason immigration would not be one of them.

    I believe alcohol consumption actually did go down during prohibition. But it brought a ton of problems, and costs too. Obviously I don't think alcohol should be illegal anyway, but a prohibitionist could have in fact felt that it was worth it.

    Same thing with immigration enforcement. The question is is it worth the cost? I think so for immigration. Obviously not for lots of other dumb things like drug prohibition.

  • Mark22||

    And why the fuck would any libertarian think majority rules can void rights?

    Because they do, every day. For example, majority rules void my property rights and my rights to freedom of association. We don't live in a libertarian world.

    If we did live in a libertarian world, you'd have open borders, I'd keep the fruits of my labor, and we both could indulge our bigotry to any degree we like.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dont let them fool you. Libertaraians supports property rights, rule of law under the constitution, and national soveriengty.

  • Mark22||

    I think in a libertarian world or country, there would still be national borders, but such borders would be essentially open for workers, goods, and services between libertarian countries.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You know who else-

    Oh, wait.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    What it comes down to is the immigrant deporters are using the State to infringe individual liberty. The excuse of borders and illegality is just a smokescreen. Enforcing immigration controls requires national ID cards, a huge bureaucracy, voiding the Constitution within 100 miles of the border, and none of that is compatible with libertarian philosophy. Immigration junkies are statists plain and simple.

    Fuck off, slavers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Scarecrow hates Libertarianism and Americans.

    Rule of law under the Constitution defeats his nonsense political positions every time.

  • JFree||

    Do what must be done. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Notice how they don't ever talk about maybe just modifying a few laws, like that 100 mile thing? iI's just all Nazis and Hitler should we have any border whatsoever.

  • JFree||

    It's you fucking Republicans who control the entire government. YOUR responsibility to 'modify a few laws'. YOUR responsibility to shit or get off the fucking pot.

    Instead you assholes are just rejoicing in the application of the jackboot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The more you lefties get upset the more that I am sure Trump is doing a fantastic job.

    Literally, whatever you lefties want, the USA should do the opposite.

  • Mcgoo95||

    ...and by "lefty" you mean anyone who doesn't agree with your neocon, trumpist bullshit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm not a republican. I do make use of them to get things done where possible. Like getting rid of all the illegals.

    Build the wall.

    MAGA!

  • vek||

    You are WRONG again of course. We don't need the 100 mile Nazi zone. We don't need national ID. Or anything else too horrible. Just a little keeping an eye out for people who are here illegally, and actually tossing them out 100% of the time when they're found.

    If you come into the cross hairs you'll have to produce a birth certificate, or other documentation that you have a right to be here... Just like EVERYBODY has to do now to prove their identity. If you can't, then out you go.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just a little keeping an eye out for people who are here illegally

    How is the state supposed to know who is here legally or not, without something like, say, a national ID card?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The wall would help.

  • vek||

    The millions of times in peoples lives where they have to use official documentation? All those times when somebody seems a little sketchy, or has a run in with the law, and they check said documentation?

    In a sane world, people wouldn't hire illegals, or rent to people without proper docs, states wouldn't issue drivers licenses to illegals, etc. If we just didn't have places issuing IDs etc to illegals, all those things you need a regular ID for, or SSN for would be enough to nab most people. Simple and easy. I've owned businesses for about 15 years, and I've never hired and illegal immigrant... If one had applied, I probably wouldn't have called ICE on them 10 years ago, but I definitely wouldn't have hired them... Now I'm even tempted to call ICE because everything has turned into such a shit show.

    No individual is a problem, especially the good ones who don't get into other illegal activity and work hard... The problem is 10 million such low income "good people" all of a sudden collectively DO become a problem. Poor people don't pay enough taxes to cover their use of basic services, which means I have to foot the bill. Fuck that! Toss 'em out!

  • Mark22||

    What it comes down to is the immigrant deporters are using the State to infringe individual liberty

    And I make no excuses for supporting that: as long as the State takes half my earnings and uses a large part to subsidize social services for low income earners and illegal immigrants, I have no qualms about using the State to try to keep the numbers of those people down.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "So because the state fucks me over, I am totally fine with the state fucking THEM over."

    Real principled position there, champ!

  • Mark22||

    "So because the state fucks me over, I am totally fine with the state fucking THEM over."

    I'm not just "totally fine" with it, I demand it.

    Real principled position there, champ!

    You better believe it: it's called "equality under the law".

  • ||

    Yeh but what's his stance on kneeling during the anthem, eh? HM?

  • Exsqueezeyou||

    "...what's his stance on kneeling during the anthem.."

    Well, one can guess about America Loving Jose Garcia and his NFL shirt. Probably beating his wife on Super Bowl Sunday too.

    Garcia loves America so much he waited 50 years to decide he will become a citizen.

  • Rhywun||

    Just what I was hoping for today - more deportation porn.

  • ||

    I don't understand why ICE can't prioritize. If they're doing what's in this article I don't see how this helps America; let alone it being humane.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That's what they did for the last half of the Obama administration. It largely worked.
    It was a conscious decision by Trump to spend resources on people who contribute to the country and, at most, have minor offenses.

  • ||

    So when they say Obama deported illegals, it was largely via ICE operations? Are you saying Obama was not doing that too? That would surprise me.

  • Happy Chandler||

    In much of Obama's first term, ICE was much less targeted. People complained about it. After that, the focus was narrowed to criminals and recent arrivals.

  • Just Say'n||

    What he means to say is that once a second term was secured and near the end of that term, hoping to galvanize supporters the administration narrowed its focus

  • Exsqueezeyou||

    "... spend resources on people who contribute to the country and, at most, have minor offenses."
    Yeah, like domestic violence. #HappyChandlerHatesWomen

    Yeah, FFS when I break into a home I expect to remain there unmolested when I'm contributing by taking care of my personal needs.

    Contribute what exactly and at what cost? And how the fuck does catch and release "largely work" exactly?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Right, his wife is now better off with her husband, the breadwinner, deported. After a misdemeanor.

    Right. You're watching out for her. I'm sure she was waiting for this day.

    Another one broke a cell phone. I guess I hate cell phones?

    Are you this dumb or merely pretending to be?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Deport them!

  • JFree||

    Good. I can feel your anger. Strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.

  • Nardz||

    Interesting reference.
    Prequel trilogy (only saw 2nd and 3rd) - separatist movement creates crisis; hypocritical religious order intervenes and provokes turn to Darth Vader, but it's okay because "good intentions"; republic crumbles from within.
    Original trilogy and new ones - rebellion commits acts of terrorism, as does empire, but good intentions; then, newly reinstated republic crumbles within 30 years and has 50ish people left loyal to it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jfree is the evil emperor plapatine who mureders innocents and is trying me the libertarian skywalker to the darkside.

    Unfortunately for him, I wont and continue to stand my ground so he wants to electrute me into submission and death when I wont comply.

    Its like every socialist national history of all time.

  • Exsqueezeyou||

    "...I don't see how this helps America; let alone it being humane."

    You need another monocle.

  • JFree||

    I don't understand why ICE can't prioritize.

    Of course they can prioritize. They are choosing not to - under the direct orders of Trump - in order to satisfy the rabid howls of those who supported him precisely because he would blame immigration problems on the immigrants themselves not on those elites who set immigration policy in order to screw others.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Delays delays delays.

    They have zero legal reason to be in the USA, so they need to be deported as fast as legally possible.

    We get it. You dont like that. Unfortunately for you, Trump is legally enforcing laws that are Constitutional.

  • JFree||

    Just make sure you completely ignore all the elites who don't have a damn problem either with govt being the jackbooted thug against anyone at/near the bottom. It serves their interests.

    As long as the boot is on the face of brown people who are different, you're happy. Blame the immigrant. Hell - that can last forever too. And the longer it lasts, the more Americans at/near the bottom are gonna be harmed by both the illegals AND the lack of change in immigration policy. But WTF do you care about that? As long as the jackboot is kicking you're happy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Free, are you capable of having an adult discussion? Or do you intend to make wild hyperbolic emotional statements that have no basis in reality? Like the way that idiot Chemjeff odes.

    I suppose he will rear his moronic head next.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He is quoting a fictional emperor palpatine. Jfree is a goober in his parents basement that hates libertarianism.

  • Mcgoo95||

    ...and you're neocon, homeless republican with a a bad case of subcutaneous racism. Suck a dick

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Nope. LC is one of the good guys around here. Whereas you sound like some treasonous progtard.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Oooh progtard. good one. You asshole Trump apologists are becoming very annoying. If you disagree with nearly ever article Reason publishes and you defend every one of Trump's policies, why are you here? Just don't want to be called Republicans?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So are you a sock, or some new progtard who wandered in?

  • Mcgoo95||

    How is anything I've ever said "progressive", asshole? LIke I previously said, you throw around terms like "lefty" and "progtard" at anyone who disagrees with you or Trumps position. Suck a turd.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Instead, Nowrasteh suggests abolishing criminal prosecutions of unauthorized border crossing, instead treating such an act as an infraction on par with something like a parking ticket."

    Which would provide an unfair advantage of entry to illegal immigrants versus legal immigrants, which is not "immigration reform" so much as it is protecting the immigrants that fit the identity politics pyramid of hierarchy.

    Everyone who is talking about "immigration reform" are only talking about protecting illegal immigrants, while disadvantaging legal immigrants.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's not a competition. You want more legal immigrants? Allow legal immigrants. There's not an upper bound here. Legal immigration is not affected by illegal immigration.

  • Just Say'n||

    There are quotas in place for immigration from specific countries, yet this is never discussed by people who jokingly say they are in favor of "immigration reform". Further, legal immigrants can be denied entry for offenses that those in favor of "immigration reform" say should not be a rationale for deporting illegal immigrants.

    That's why legal immigrants tend to be the least sympathetic to the issues faces by illegal immigrants.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Is that a problem? Fine, change the rules. Allow more immigration, it's what built this country.

    The ones who complain about illegal immigration are also typically the ones who support reducing legal.

  • Just Say'n||

    "are also typically the ones who support reducing legal"

    Sometimes, yes. However, those rules won't be changed, because this is about importing lower skilled immigrants which is acceptable among well-to-do whites, whereas, legal immigrants tend to be more skilled which would put them in competition with well-to-do whites which is why they have less concern for those immigrants. Let's just be honest about it

  • Rhywun||

    this is about importing lower skilled immigrants which is acceptable among well-to-do whites

    Especially those who run businesses that offer jobs "Americans won't do".

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's not importing anything. It's people who choose to come here.

    Democrats are protecting the H1-B program from Trump's attempts to deport high-skill workers. So, you're basically 100% wrong.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.computerworld.com/a.....trump.html

    Clinton wanted to make a green card automatic for foreign students who graduate with a STEM degree. So, 100% opposite of what you said.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clinton wanted to make america die a bit more.

    She is a traitor.

  • vek||

    That's because in the most desireable country in the world to move to, we SHOULD be selective. There are hundreds of millions of people who would like to move here if they could... Unless we want to be crammed in like sardines in China we should limit the number of people coming in.

    If you can choose to let in somebody with ZERO criminal history, that has a stable marriage, a great profession, etc... OR a wife beater who obviously has no education so he has to work 3 shit jobs like the guy in this article... I know the kind of person I want moving in.

    If you increase the percentage of low/no education people in a nation, you literally drag the standard of living down with it... If you INCREASE the percentage of the population with high skills you will INCREASE the standard of living of the nation. This is how Switzerland or Lichtenstein operates.

    We have no reason to want to take in any old dreg off the street, we'd be flooded too quick.

  • JFree||

    Everyone who is talking about "immigration reform" are only talking about protecting illegal immigrants, while disadvantaging legal immigrants.

    Well that's just nonsense. It is REPUBLICANS who are in charge of the entire government. They are the only ones whose use of that phrase matters one whit now.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Many progtards, and open borders republicans keep fucking things up and make it hard for Trump to fix things like he promised.

    It would help if you would get behind Trump and his efforts to build the wall, so we can get the illegals under control. once done, then we can look at setting up a much improved guest worker VISA program so people can come and go easier.

    Which is a lot more productive than whining about open borders that will make this country socialist and destroy it.

  • JFree||

    Waaah waah waah

    Indeed - all opposition and dissent must be eliminated and the GOP must be purged of all rebellious elements. What's needed is - well - an Enabling Act.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ok, so it's now clear you can't have a rational discussion on this issue.

  • vek||

    Would you agree that all the Republicans who refuse to CUT SPENDING should be purged from the party and replaced with people that will???

    I sure as hell think that would be awesome. Any sane libertarian should be down for that too. I feel the same way with immigration reform. We need to fix our broken system and make it more sane, and then actually enforce the friggin' law. I'm all for tossing people out who aren't on board.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Why should anyone here care what the Republican Party does or doesn't do?

  • vek||

    Because they're the ruling party for now? And because for the last several decades they're the ones that align slightly better with libertarian views? If the Dems start having civil libertarians that are also fiscally conservative join them again, we can give a shit about them too!

  • Happy Chandler||

    I'm not sure what the gratuitous slam of abolish ICE is. In her proposal, she wants to abolish the enforcement and removal division, which is the one that is the focus of Abolish ICE. Why can't CBP and USCIS handle the investigatory functions?

    She should be working with the Abolish ICE movement, not hippie stomping.

  • Just Say'n||

    Sounds like a powerfully stupid idea to abolish one agency only to hand off their responsibilities to other agencies. Do you think they won't increase their numbers to accommodate their new mandate?

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's about priorities and reporting. Since ICE is tasked with only removal, their motivation is to remove more people. It doesn't matter who, just increase the numbers. Justify their budget by removing more people. Push to get more people removed.

    USCIS is tasked with immigration and citizenship, so the head would balance the immigration priority with the removal priority.

  • Just Say'n||

    "USCIS is tasked with immigration and citizenship, so the head would balance the immigration priority with the removal priority."

    Makes about as much sense as eliminating the Education Department and then tasking the Labor Department with their responsibilities. This is some epic level slight of hand

  • Happy Chandler||

    USCIS is in charge of immigration. Why is it weird that immigration enforcement should be under that umbrella? It was for decades.

  • ||

    They'll fudge the numbers like Wells Fargo. Here's your new credit card!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "That's why so many states and localities do not cooperate with ICE detainers," says Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "They see ICE detainers as a way to cast a wide net to pick up people who should not be deported."

    They also, I presume, take objects off of the local criminal justice industry's conveyor belt and deliver them far away to have someone else's incarceration business milk their situation dry.

  • retiredfire||

    "They see ICE detainers as a way to cast a wide net to pick up people who should not be deported."
    What would Immigration and Customs Enforcement want with " people who should not be deported"?
    Oh, you mean, those who should be deported, but that you don't want to be deported?
    Every illegal alien should be deported - PERIOD.

  • Eddy||

    It sometimes helps to wade through the TDS and find actual examples of injustice.

    "The courthouse didn't retain any documents describing the incident in any further detail, but Garcia's guilty plea made him eligible for deportation."

    If the charge against you is that you were convicted of domestic violence 17 years ago, but they don't have the documents to prove it, that seems to me to be a problem.

    Also, shouldn't there be a statute of limitations for precisely this sort of situation - so that a conviction so old that many jurisdictions don't even retain records can't be the basis of "we finally got around to it" deportation?

    (I know we're supposed to say "removal," not "deportation," I'm just trying to annoy the nitpickers)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    This will probably be cleared up by his attorney at a hearing. But, assuming this is all even being reported accurately, putting something like that in the article doesn't help pull at the open borders crowds heartstrings enough.

  • vek||

    Did you guys both miss where they DIDN'T deport him after he got his hearing?

    In other words some reasonable-ish justice was served. If a guy popped up on your screen as a wife beater, and he was in fact a repeat wife beater, and we could deport such a person... Should we not toss them out? Or a car thief? Or any number of other things that are very undesirable, but maybe not quite murder or child rape? I'm of the mind that we should not allow people with virtually any sketchyness to immigrate here. Why should we?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm of the mind that we should not allow people with virtually any sketchyness to immigrate here.

    Maybe the decision on whether or not a person ought to immigrate here should not be in the hands of you, or me, or the state, or any third party.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, it should. It definitely should not be at the whim of any foreigner.

  • vek||

    Sorry bro, but in a world with over 7 billion people, most of which are accurately described as half illiterate peasants still... I want SOMEBODY to be limiting who can come into my first world country.

    The thing you open borders morons don't ever seem to grasp is that the ONLY REASON any first world country exists on earth is because of limiting immigration. With all the poor, uneducated people in the world, if they could all just move wherever they want, every first world country would be turned into a 3rd world country in a matter of years. That's just reality dude.

    As the rest of the world becomes wealthier, and more educated, this issue will become less severe. However there are still matters of culture, the laws foreigners with foreign views on things support etc. So even in that world I don't want open borders, but as the world is now it is total suicide as a first world country. Why should anybody already in a first world country want to turn it into a third world shit hole???

  • Eddy||

    As far as deporting all those "Dreamers," didn't the President suggest that Congress should legalize at least some of them? He also said that if Congress didn't legalize them by a given deadline, he'd start enforcing the laws against them (horrors!).

    In light of this, if Congress hasn't legalized any Dreamers, isn't that kind of a mandate to start deporting them?

    Unless Trump thinks the immigration statutes are unconstitutional (and there's no sign he thinks this), he has to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

    If Congress doesn't like it, they can pass some laws and earn their keep.

  • Happy Chandler||

    He has been enjoined by the courts from deporting DACA recipients.

    Congressional inaction is not a mandate for anything, it's just a sign of how easy it is to gum up the works.

  • Eddy||

    Then why is he going after the dreamer in the article - the ipod-thrower?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Assuming this article is accurate.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Maybe he didn't have DACA paperwork? I can't find any more info online about his case.

  • vek||

    Because the people actually covered by DACA had to meet some very minimal thresholds, one of which was no criminal record. If he had been DACA at some point he may have lost it over that incident even under Obama.

  • Curly4||

    ICE's No Tolerance Policy is Wreaking Havoc on Families and Clogging the Immigration System . . .
    That is like saying the police no tolerance policy is filling the prisons. No it is not the "No Tolerance Policy" that is filling the prisons it is people committing crimes that is filling the prisons.
    It is the same with what ICE is doing. It is those who chose to come to the US illegally that is causing this "Clogging" of the immigration system. ICE is doing the job that it was created for. For ICE not to take into custody people who is in the US without authorization they would be failing to do the job that they hired for. That would be like a police officer catching a person with stolen goods and letting that person go on his way unhindered.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That's totally accurate if there are unlimited resources.
    That's totally accurate if you pretend there is no difference between holding someone and releasing them with a court date.
    Plenty of people are arrested for crimes and not charged due to resource issues.

  • Mark22||

    Plenty of people are arrested for crimes and not charged due to resource issues.

    And that is a lousy status quo that needs to be addressed legislatively.

    It is certainly not a justification for even more executive branch corruption and abuse of power.

  • vek||

    This is why having reasonable laws is the key. Somebody having a joint shouldn't be illegal... But every mutha fucka who gets caught stealing cars should be rail roaded. I don't think our immigration rules are unreasonable, it's just been a lack of enforcement for decades on end that has created a back log of enforcement that needs to happen. We'll work through the mess eventually, and as we do it will discourage more people from moving here, lessening the need for future enforcement still further.

  • DJF||

    """""instead treating such an act as an infraction on par with something like a parking ticket."""""

    When you get a parking ticket you don't get to stay in that parking spot, you get towed.

  • JFree||

    Do what must be done. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Are you capable of sustaining a stream of logical thought for any length of time? I know you norms don't excel at that particular function, but you appear to be more challenged than the median neuro typical.

  • Exsqueezeyou||

    "...says Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "They see ICE detainers as a way to cast a wide net to pick up people who should not be deported."

    Should not be deported?! Are they citizens/resident aliens or does Alex think he is the official gatekeeper?

    Casting a wide net sends a wide message: Stay The Fuck Out!

  • Happy Chandler||

    Enforcement has next to no effect on the number of crossings.
    It's just a large use of resources that provides little benefit to anyone.

  • retiredfire||

    Since we can't possibly know how many crossings there are, how could you know this?
    An the source of ipulleditoutofmyass, dot, com doesn't count.

  • vek||

    LOL

    Enforcement has no effect? Says who? We haven't even attempted enforcement for decades! And last time I saw numbers since Trump got in office the number of crossings had dropped considerably. Rigid enforcement of ANY law very much will effect the number of people who commit that crime. If there was 100% enforcement of breaking the speed limit, people would not speed nearly as often. It would still happen, but the numbers would go down dramatically.

    Some laws are simply not that important, so it's not worth enforcing jay walking 100%... But other laws surely are, like rape and murder. I would argue illegal entry is a lot worse than jay walking, and not as bad as rape or murder... But surely worth doing a solid job of enforcing it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    We haven't even attempted enforcement for decades!

    LOL

    Where does this nonsense come from, that the government isn't actually enforcing immigration laws?

  • vek||

    Maybe the fact that I grew up in California? And the fact that I could have pointed out 10 illegal immigrants in ANY one of my classes right off the bat. The fact that you could go into any restaurant, and see half the kitchen staff was illegal. How about a field where fruit was being picked? Etc.

    Every single one of those people should have been arrested and removed.

    Sure they throw out some people when they stumble across them, but there has been no real attempt at enforcing the law as it is supposed to be, which is to say 100% of them being removed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA! Deport as many illegals as you can.

  • JFree||

    Do what must be done. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihn cuts and pastes and spams his comments too. Does it make you feel good to know you're acting like Hihn?

  • vek||

    I agree actually! I don't want any mercy to be shown, since sending people back to the COUNTRY WHERE THEY FUCKING BELONG isn't exactly like murdering them.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And the progtards are always talking about how horrible and racist America is. So wouldn't that make their home countries better and non-racist?

  • XM||

    Is this ICE's fault? He pled guilty, which probably entered court record and whatever his case was became active when Trump facilitated deportation.

    Most people caught by ICE have criminal records. Not all of them are for violent crimes, but in places like LA they actually round up a good amount of dangerous individuals.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fac.....from-2009/

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/02.....mmigrants/

    We're having this kind problems now because immigration was allowed to be such a gray area for decades. Most of these illegals caught by ICE would have left any other country years ago, either by deportation or the fact that the nation won't sustain noncitizens. If you're a green card holder and pled guilty to domestic violence, you probably should have made some effort to become a citizen.

  • Happy Chandler||

    You realize that most arrested by ICE in 2017 (not caught, arrested) were criminals because the non-criminals weren't arrested by policy, right? The policy that was changed by Trump. Look at the graph. The increase in percentage wasn't because there were more criminals arrested, those have always been subject to arrest. It's because they stopped arresting non-criminals. Arresting non-criminals whose only offense is misdemeanor illegal entry is a waste of money that leaves the country poorer.

  • retiredfire||

    Arresting criminals, who commit misdemeanors, is enforcing the law.
    That's one of the necessary functions of government.
    They waste money on far more things that are not necessary. That is making the country poorer, for no good purpose.
    Deporting invaders is a good purpose.
    Nothing is more aggressive, thus a violation of the NAP, than occupying someone else's territory when you have been told not to.

  • Mark22||

    Arresting non-criminals whose only offense is misdemeanor illegal entry is a waste of money that leaves the country poorer.

    The deciding factor in whether someone makes the country richer or poorer is not whether they are criminals but how much they pay in taxes. Almost no illegal aliens in the US pay enough in taxes in order to make the country richer; they are overwhelmingly a burden on US tax payers.

  • Nardz||

    Our system is overburdened, so let's stop trying. We don't have enough resources to function, so let's create more demand for resources.
    Seems to be the argument, no?

    Civilization was created when groups of men came together, formed a "government", with the purpose of holding an area of land and protecting that area from invasion. Border regulation is fundamental to civilization itself. We can debate how to defend, who to let in, who not yo let in, requirements for entry, etc - but we cannot have a civilization without some sort of border regulation.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I don't think any country has ever really survived without distinct borders for very long. Not in any functional capacity.

  • Happy Chandler||

    The United States did not have any immigration laws for over a century.

    The capacity of the US is not fixed. Population growth helps economic growth, otherwise we end up in Japan style stagnation. That's what happens when you close the borders. Welcoming immigrants means more workers, more consumers, more businesses. The US is a big country, we can fit millions more here easily.

  • Nardz||

    The US was sparsely populated land being conquered. Shall immigration policy never be changed? How large a population is ideal? Too small? Too large?

    The point remains, whatever policy you'd prefer, that borders must be regulated for civilization to function. Otherwise you have anarchy - in other words, war of all against all.

  • Mark22||

    The United States did not have any immigration laws for over a century.

    It also didn't have a welfare state, anti-discrimination laws, and public-accommodation laws.

    Get rid of the latter and we can eliminate immigration laws again.

  • retiredfire||

    "Welcoming immigrants means more workers, more consumers, more businesses."
    This thread is not about immigration, but illegal invaders. ICE doesn't arrest lawful legal immigrants.
    We welcome more than a million legal immigrants, each year.
    Our elected representatives - the voice of the people - say that is enough.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Net migration from Mexico is negative. More are going south than north. It was that way before Trump.

    There's plenty of room.

  • Mark22||

    There's plenty of room.

    There is, however, not plenty of money to pay for the government resources those people and their children consume, as a simple look at the annual national budget deficit and national debt show you.

  • vek||

    "Welcoming immigrants means more workers, more consumers, more businesses."

    Here's the thing home boy, WHO they are and what they bring to the table matters. If we imported 100 million people with 8th grade educations tomorrow (the average of an illegal Mexican immigrant), our country would instantly become poorer, lower wage, and more dysfunctional... If we let in 100 million people with advanced degrees our country would instantly become wealthier, higher wage, and better.

    And at a certain point we do have to consider resources too. Half the country doesn't have enough water as is. We could build trillions in infrastructure to move water across half the continent... But we could avoid those costs if we don't balloon our population.

    There is a whole lot of options in between Japan and zero immigration, and unlimited unskilled immigration from the third world. Almost everything in the world is grey, there is very little black and white.

  • mpercy||

    " If we imported 100 million people" with socialist intent, that'd be bad.
    " If we imported 100 million people" with the intent of creating a new caliphate, that'd be bad.

    " If we imported 100 million people" who are well educated, want to work hard, want to stay off the dole, who believe in the Constitution and what it embodies, that'd be good.

    "We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."
    Teddy Roosevelt

    And first, we should at least insist that they come here without breaking the law.

  • vek||

    Pretty much! The liking the constitution bit is the hardest part to find in immigrants... No group of people on planet earth, other than Americans, believes in a lot of the ideals we hold here nearly as strongly as we do. Which is why all immigrants tend to vote for shitty things. Hopefully in time some of them can be converted... Since we've let in so many already, if they're not we're already doomed as a nation with freedoms.

  • XM||

    Japan's economy is stagnant because their society is slower to adapt to new changes, and their lifetime employment culture makes it difficult to fire older generation. And their economy is protectionist. Japan barely touches any of our cars, but their cars make a killing here.

    Population growth is not going to help economies in Korea or Japan. Those countries have a gazillion people stuck in tiny pieces of land. Most Koreans live in stacked apartments and suburban life is a pipe dream. Even if they adapted more of an open economy like the US, their healthcare system or housing situation would start to feel the pinch if 20 million Mexicans moved there.

    California is a house built on tech, stocks, and information. If anything happens to that, then no amount of diversity will be able to save it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Japanese cars are typically far superior to american cars.

    American cars are expensive, uninventive, loaded with things people dont want, and dont always looks good.

  • vek||

    LC1789, might want to check the facts on newer American cars! Since about the mid 2000s the quality gap has virtually disappeared. It really comes down to what particular models one is comparing nowadays, not brands. Lots of GMs are more reliable than lots of Toyotas and vice versa.

    As far as Japan's economy, it is being hurt by a shrinking population. They have all those other problems too, but a growing population always boosts the overall GDP... But the thing is the REAL important thing is boosting per capita GDP, and they have done OKAY with that. That is what really gives people quality of life.

    Illiterate Guatemalans will boost GDP, but it will tank per capita GDP. Personally I think 1st world people need to start breeding again, and just shoot for replacement rate... But I would rather have the problems that come from a declining population like Japan versus the problem of turning into a third world toilet, which is what our politicians are basically doing to us and Europe now.

  • Mark22||

    The arrest was part of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sweep that had picked up 162 people, including at least eight green-card holders like Garcia, who had lived in Southern California for more than 50 years and provided for his family by working three jobs. ICE targeted Garcia based on a 17-year-old domestic violence misdemeanor, which he says happened when a neighbor called the police after overhearing an argument between him and his wife.

    He had nearly five decades to become a citizen; he chose not to. As long as you choose to live in the US as a non-citizen, you remain subject to removal for a whole range of reasons, from petty crimes to disease and using government services.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That doesn't mean that it's not dumb to remove him. What's gained? A broken family. For nothing.

  • Mark22||

    That doesn't mean that it's not dumb to remove him. What's gained? A broken family. For nothing.

    What is gained is equality under the law, as opposed to making arbitrary decisions based on whether you like the defendant.

    This guy didn't end up in this situation for reasons beyond his control, he ended up in it because of choices he made, and those choices should have the same consequences for him as for anybody else.

  • vek||

    To play devil's advocate, what's gained by letting him stay here?

    Keeping a wife beater, who maybe only got arrested for it once... But how many other times did it happen? I've never had to cops called on me for beating a woman... He obviously is working worthless dead end jobs since he has to work 3 to support a couple people. This means he's probably been a net tax drain his whole life... Such workers really aren't needed in a country where low end wages have been flat for decades and we have the lowest labor force participation rate in nearly half a century.

    So he's pretty much a useless human being either way. Not a huge gain, or a huge loss. Truth hurts, but he's pretty typical of low skilled immigrants. He's not actively trying to be horrible, but he's thoroughly mediocre, and in fact a net drag on native born tax payers, even if he doesn't collect direct welfare.

    They didn't boot him anyway, so quit whining.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    To play devil's advocate, what's gained by letting him stay here?

    Maybe there should be no "letting" anyone stay or go. Maybe the freedom to come or go should not be subject to some central authority's decision.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Maybe, but definitely not.

    You're a broken record. Bleating out the same bad idea over and over, backed by the same discredited rationale over and over.

  • vek||

    As I said above, until the world isn't filled with mostly half illiterate peasants this simply doesn't work. No first world nation can survive as a first world nation with open borders. The only reason the USA, Europe, Japan, etc are nice is because they DON'T let in the hordes of third world people who wouldn't bring much to the table. We can only absorb them in so fast.

    You may be willing to commit suicide for principles, but I am not. I want to live in a first world country, not a third world shithole. If ALL I have to do to keep that from happening is NOT let in uneducated foreigners, I'm 1000% okay with that!

  • Mark22||

    "The administration has basically unshackled ICE, given it free reign to do what it wants, and basically said no group is off-limits," says Nowrasteh. "It's sort of an effort to roll back the clock, in a sense, to go back to the way immigration enforcement was during the first three to four years of the Obama administration."

    Yes. We call that "enforcing the law impartially". It's what the executive branch is supposed to do.

    The executive branch is not supposed to second guess whether a law is good and then selectively enforce it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "ICE's No Tolerance Policy"

    The "actually enforce *some* immigration laws" policy

  • vek||

    Sooo a WIFE BEATER is not worthy of deporting... But we're supposed to allow people to flee to our country to avoid abusive husbands, as per the nonsense that was spewed about some of the central American refugees in an article a few weeks back.

    LOLOLOLOLOL

    Make up your minds! Is wife beating something good or something bad? If it's sooooo horrible we have to allow foreigners into our country on asylum grounds, then how can it be a good thing for us to keep wife beaters here that we can legally deport???

  • Benitacanova||

    Blah blah blah.

  • The_Hoser||

    He certainly deserves a break. I mean, he only had 50 fucking years to get his citizenship.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That is Trumps fault, Im sure.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You know what the easiest way, as an illegal immigrant, is to avoid having your family broken up?

    Stay home, don't illegally immigrate.

    Seriously, it's as simple as that. Ideally I'd just immediately deport them, and keep them together on the bus ride back to the border, but it seems judges won't permit that. So, since just letting them go means not enforcing the border, I guess I have to agree to separating families.

    And, if you don't like that? Don't invade our country.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Don't invade our country

    "invasion" lol

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "If you don't want to be punished for hate speech, it's just so simple - don't say hate speech!"

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Not even remotely analogous, because Americans have an enumerated right to freedom of speech, while non-Americans have no right, enumerated or otherwise, to enter the US.

    No, it IS as simple as that: If you don't want unpleasant consequences from illegally entering a country, then don't illegally enter that country.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The point is that you are stealing a base with your implicit premise.

    You presume that the current immigration regime, of criminalizing people who lack the correct papers, is moral and just.

    Here is a simple thought experiment. Suppose you and I are neighbors owning adjacent parcels of land, and I invite you onto my property. Would you agree that there *should be* no third party - not other neighbors, not the majority, not some court, not the state - who should have the power to prohibit or stop that travel from occurring?

    Now suppose there is an international border separates our parcels of land. How does your answer to the above change, if at all, and if so, why?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "of criminalizing people who lack the correct papers"

    You stated that backwards: They lack the correct papers because they're here criminally.

    Your reasoning works in a state of anarchy, largely because in a state of anarchy your inviting people into your land wouldn't cost other people anything, wouldn't impose upon them any burdens.

    But we are not in a state of anarchy, we are a welfare state with democratic government that has the power to tax. Which means that your inviting people in to your land absolutely can effect other people, and very negatively.

    I've remarked before that libertarians have always been open borders, but at one time libertarians commonly recognized that actually opening the borders was the last item on our to-do list, not the first. You can't have open borders and a welfare state. You have to get rid of the welfare state FIRST.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Your reasoning works in a state of anarchy

    It actually works in the state of reality as well. By you taking that last step from your property onto my property, not another soul in the universe is affected. It's only decisions that may be made subsequent to that migration that may or may not affect other people.

    If you were to come onto my property, even invited, and murder me, no sane person would argue that your act of murder would be sufficient justification to deprive everyone of their right to migrate between parcels of land.

    But, if you were to come onto my property, and then mooch on the taxpayer dole, somehow, you and others argue that this act justifies depriving everyone of their right to migrate between parcels of land. It is nonsensical.

    Which means that your inviting people in to your land absolutely can effect other people, and very negatively.

    The invitation doesn't. Actions and decisions taken subsequent to that migration may, or may not. And, you had better be careful with your loosey-goosey standard of "if exercise of liberty affects someone else, even in a small way, then that liberty should be curtailed". There's plenty of environazis and gun grabbers who would wholeheartedly agree with you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And libertarians also understand that TANSTAAFL. In the current state of things, if we have open borders, then yes, there will probably be more people on welfare, and that has an associated cost. BUT, if we have closed borders, that ALSO has an associated cost, in terms of taxes to pay for a police state to enforce the border as well as regulations ON CITIZENS to enforce the border. I am happily willing to concede that the financial cost of the police state for a closed border scenario is probably less than the financial cost of an expanded welfare state in an open border scenario. But what is the cost of lost liberty associated with all of the new police state powers that you wish to give to the state to enforce the border? You may have lower taxes but you will lose more and more of your Fourth Amendment rights and your liberty to employ the person that you wish without first having to get permission from the state.

    So please tell us all why we should accept the tradeoff of a smaller welfare state at the cost of a larger police state.

  • Mark22||

    By you taking that last step from your property onto my property, not another soul in the universe is affected.

    In the US, that is quite incorrect.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Another bad analogy by Jeff. No one needs to justify national borders to your dumb ass. Which, once again, is some sophist argument made like you're some first semester college freshman who thinks he's clever questioning the existence of every little thing and feels that every little thing must be justified to him by third parties.

    No one owes you that. I don't owe you an explanation as to why water is wet, gravity is real, or why national borders are important. Use your own fucking time and do your own homework if you are really this ignorant.

    No one owes your ignorant, obtuse ass a goddamn thing.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Looks like Mister Grumpy Pants here is grumpy. Did you lose your binky?

  • Mcgoo95||

    That was awesome. Think you upset First of the Shitheads by explaining to him how he is in favor of a large police state....which he is.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No douchebag, I'm not. I'm in favor of a federal government that observes our constitution.

    Pro tip for you, Jeff is kind of a joe around here, so jumping on the Chemjeff bandwagon is really pathetic.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You must have stolen it, since you're the one always arguing like a child, you need a pinky.

    Fell free to keep it.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Thanks for the "prot-tip", Shitlord. I've been lurking around here a lot than you've been posting. I'm pretty well aware of some poster's political positions. Also aware how there's been a large number trump-apologists here recently...or people that have gone full derp and swallowed all his magic bullshit.

  • Mcgoo95||

    ....also wtf does "Jeff is kind of a joe around here" even mean? Is that some kind of a put down in whereverthefuckyoulive?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "And abolishing ICE without changing the law isn't the way to fix it."

    And there you have, in a nutshell, the problem with the entire Immigration hysteria. It isn't just the illegals; it's that we have, for decades, written the Law to be one thing and then enforced (or not enforced) policy that is another. One side of the debate apparently wants to enforce the laws and not change them, while the other wants to NOT enforce them...and not change them. And the problem is the Law.

    If we have political activists moving to get non-citizens the vote (and we are seeing just that from the Establishment Left) then we cannot have a large immigration population until that movement is killed dead. Seriously; what part of 'you must be a citizen to have the franchise' do these people not understand? Well, of course, they DO understand it, they choose to violate it because they are beginning to lose.

    And the problems with the Law...and not just immigration Law...are shot all through this.

  • JFree||

    it's that we have, for decades, written the Law to be one thing and then enforced (or not enforced) policy that is another.

    I agree this is a problem

    One side of the debate apparently wants to enforce the laws and not change them, while the other wants to NOT enforce them...and not change them.

    This ain't the real division of opinion.

    Yes there are people who want to continue the practice of laws that are written but not enforced and enforcement that is disconnected from legal authorization.

    There are other people who want to link enforcement and existing law going forward. I put the Wall into this category. Doesn't do anything about the visa overstayers - and whether its a waste or not is a separate question - but it is a 'going forward' enforcement.

    Other people want to enforce law retroactively via internal coercion. EVerify and sweeps and passes please and such. I doubt most of these folks are actually interested in immigration at all since the actions they rationalize are simply a convenient excuse for imposing an authoritarian police state.

    Not to mention the entirely different issue of how/whether immigration laws themselves should be changed going forward since the above are merely about enforcement.

    Those who put these all into a dualist - one side or the other and that's it - framework are not talking about immigration at all. They are simply parroting the partisan needs of a political duopoly.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Declare "the door is closed" for all who enter at any point other than a POE, and that those who do will be shipped back to their Country of Origin within 72-hours of apprehension - without exception.

  • Sparky Wilson||

    Does anyone here realize this is all just shit? These issues started in ICE under Obama and no one cared. The only reason people care now is because Trump is the current occupant odd the white house. I worked in a fusion cell under Bush and Obama policies. What Trump is doing is actually trying to address it instead of faking the numbers. Whether you like what he is doing, or not, doesn't matter. He's don't more than the previous presidents. Many children cross without parents. I'd say over half of my apprehensions, of kids, didn't have parents with them.

  • mpercy||

    As a libertarian, I am for more open borders and freer trade. However, unchecked immigration is not compatible with a welfare state (which as a libertarian, I also oppose). Since we have a welfare state, at this point I concluded that I have to oppose unchecked illegal immigration.

    I would most certainly be in favor of a streamlined, more rational legal route for workers, even including unskilled workers, to come here and work, with a few provisos:

    * They are never eligible for welfare benefits of any kind

    There's no need to import poverty.

    * We are not obligated to provide welfare to feed/house/care for their kids or to educate their kids in our public schools or
    * Any kids they may download on site are not citizens

    Of course, I'd argue that citizens shouldn't get welfare benefits either. I'm only sketching out a stop-gap between more open immigration vs existing welfare state. My opposition to immigration is almost entirely tied up in welfare-state costs extracted from taxpayers by force so removing those costs paves the way for my support for freer migration.

  • Mcgoo95||

    I agree with a lot of what you said. I think the guest worker system could use much improvement. The problem is either nobody wants to do the hard work to overhaul the welfare system to close loop holes exploited by illegal aliens, or they are simply too incompetent to do it (probably the latter). I was hoping with the republicans having both the house and senate they might actually be able to fix something...like immigration, or welfare, or the catastrophic health care system. It was a long shot, I know. Their chance might have come and gone already.... or not. We'll find out in November.

  • mpercy||

    I thought this was a Shakia column based on the first few words...

  • mpercy||

    Charity and goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter.

    If the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, then my calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

    The US offers charity and goodwill aplenty, with more than 1M people legally opting to become US citizens every year, plus refugees we adopt.

    So yes, criminal invaders who need to be prosecuted and deported. Seeking that is no more a crime against humanity than calling the cops on the burglar.

  • Mcgoo95||

    But the article was about a legal resident being arrested (detained?) because of something that happened (and probably didn't happen at all) 17 years ago. The article was more about Trump's policy of deporting people legally residing in the country based on nearly no credible evidence.

  • mpercy||

    In all the years he was here legally, he never applied for citizenship? Once naturalized, unless there is an extremely compelling notion that his application was fraudulent he's not gonna face deportation. But if you choose to remain a permanent resident (green card holder), you have to understand you're subject to deportation.

    If the guy I invited into my house beats his wife while he's a guest in my house, calling the cops on him and hoping he goes to jail is still not a crime against humanity. Better?

  • Mcgoo95||

    Just don't call the cops 17 years after he beats his wife in your house.

  • JonFrum||

    If they go to court
    We must deport.

    I don't care about sob stories. I care about the united States of America. If I have to care about one person's sad story, then I have to care about one hundred million. Literally. And that's literally literally, not the figurative literally. Know what I mean? Charles Manson had a sad story too - tough tittie.

  • Mcgoo95||

    .....man, I hope you were scratching your balls and chewing Copenhagen when you wrote that.

  • Peacedog||

    My main beef with this article is that it used two people who had been in the US for decades, yet failed to become citizens in that time. As a non-citizen of the state you are living in, you are a guest. Better be on best behavior or you get the boot. Having lived overseas for almost a decade of my life this was always on my mind. Particularly in the less developed places.

    I'm all for legal immigration if those immigrating want to join the team.

    Permanent residents who have been here more than 5-10 years though need to choose a side or get the hell out.

    If your foreign citizenship is that important to you then you can get a visa like everyone else who is visiting, but doesn't plan on staying and contributing.

    And it's not like the US is Switzerland where becoming a citizen is that high a bar either.

  • Davulek||

    I absolutely agree with the author. I think we should just abolish ICE and put Marine snipers along the border every 1/4 mile with the proper surveillance equipment, a spotter and sniper rifles.
    Nothing says "enter legally" like a bunch of corpses with their heads blown off. I'm sure our "Illegal" immigration problem would dry up within a week or 2 of the first Spanish language news broadcasts of the headless bodies.

  • vaginamerican||

    You know the old Soviet joke: You pretend to respect the law, the law pretends to respect your freedom.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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