My New USA Today op ed on Biden's Impressively Far-Reaching Pro-Immigration Agenda

It goes far beyond merely reversing awful Trump policies, but does still have some drawbacks.


President Joe Biden.


This morning, USA Today published my new op ed on the Biden administration's impressively expansive pro-immigration agenda. Here's an excerpt:

The new Biden administration has the most expansive pro-immigration agenda of any president in decades. In the wake of Donald Trump — the most anti-immigrant president in modern times — it was inevitable that any Democratic successor would change course. But the scope of Biden's agenda goes well beyond merely reversing Trump's more egregious policies. If fully implemented, it would have enormous benefits for both potential migrants and current U.S. citizens.

It is especially notable that Biden is pursuing this agenda amidst the COVID pandemic. Historically, economic crises tend to promote nativism. The last year has been a rare exception, as public attitudes have continued to become more pro-immigration.

Biden's otherwise admirable policies do have two drawbacks: heavy reliance on executive actions, and his proposal for a $15 minimum wage that would shut many recent immigrants out of the labor market….

Some of Biden's initiatives terminate Trump policies, such as reversing the anti-Muslim "travel bans" forbidding entry by residents of many nations with large Muslim populations….

All told, Biden's agenda would expand legal immigration by up to hundreds of thousands of people per year, and enable many millions of undocumented migrants already here to "come out of the shadows" (as Barack Obama put it), and begin to live normal lives, fully integrated into our economy and society. These changes would transform the lives of vast numbers of migrants fleeing poverty and oppression….

The Biden policies would  provide major benefits to  American society. Bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows would increase their productivity and facilitate assimilation. Increasing employment visas and other migration would further expand immigrant contributions to America's economy. Immigrants contribute disproportionately by starting new businesses at higher rates than natives, and making major contributions to scientific and other innovation….

One key weakness of Biden's immigration agenda is the heavy — even if sometimes unavoidable – reliance on executive actions. What one president does with a "pen and phone" can often easily be reversed by the next, as Biden himself is doing with many Trump initiatives. Some of the new policies are susceptible to legal challenge. The 100-day moratorium on deportations has been temporarily blocked by a federal court, for example.

Sadly, Biden's laudable immigration initiatives could also be undercut by his proposal for a nationwide $15 minimum wage. If enacted, it would price millions of workers out of the job market by making it unprofitable for employers to hire them, and would have a disproportionate negative effect on recent immigrants. This would both reduce immigrant workers' ability to contribute to the economy and impede their assimilation and social mobility…. Hopefully, Congress will reject this idea.

NEXT: Issue-Voting and Impeachment

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “…and enable many millions of undocumented migrants already here to “come out of the shadows””

    Freeing up the shadows for those who are not here yet?

    If it’s such a good plan, why does it only apply to people already here?

    Surely he wouldn’t want to set us up for the same problem in the future?

  2. “If fully implemented, it would have enormous benefits for both potential migrants and current U.S. citizens.”


    Ilya, it is said that those who fail to learn from history get to relive the mistakes of the past, and current US citizens do not want a horde of migrants coming in. And, Ilya, you might wish to look at what happened the last time there was such a horde — and what happened in response.

    Yes, Ilya, the Klu Klux Klan openly marching in Washington, DC and upwards of 25% of the males in some states being members. Operation Wetback and mass deportations. Etc.

    Ilya, this is not going to benefit US citizens — who WILL be pissed….

    1. The Dem party is essentially waging war on the preexisting electorate by using immigration to dilute the vote to their favor. Make no mistake this is the primary reason why they are open borders as demonstrated by the among other things the ‘proimmigrant’ Obama admin moving heaven and earth against a few german homeschooling families.

      1. “The Dem party is essentially waging war on the preexisting electorate”

        The Dem party tried recently to throw out millions of voters in six states? I really think that was the other one…

        1. We tried to throw out the votes of people WE DID NOT WANT HERE OR VOTING IN THE FIRST PLACE. We never consented to the third worlders who immigrated post 1965 Immigration Act, which means we don’t consider them or their descendants our countrymen.

          Regarding blacks, I would have returned them to Africa after the end of the civil war. There’s no reason they should still be here 160 years later.

          1. Thanks for representing Trumpistas so well!

        2. Your poodle and dead great great grandmother dont get to vote sorry.

    2. “you might wish to look at what happened the last time there was such a horde”

      I think the Irish, Italians, Jews, etc., turned out rather well here. YMMV I guess.

      1. It appears the half-educated bigots, superstitious clingers, and disaffected culture war casualties who constitute the bulk of the Volokh Conspiracy’s fans disapprove Prof. Somin’s libertarian content.

        1. These are your illegal aliens Artie.
          Half-educated, bigoted, misogynist, superstitious yet you cling to them so fervently.

          1. Thanks for representing Trumpistas so well Jeff!

      2. Irish, Italians and Jews didn’t have 80 IQs.

        1. Back then the Aktenturds said just that, that they did.

  3. Your “country” cares more about the people in it who violated the law of the land to come here then they care about you, its citizen. Just think about that before voting next election…

    1. Perhaps the WASPs have pretty much succeeded in locking themselves out of political relevance for the foreseeable future.

      Because of this we unfortunately may go through a period of one party rule which I’m sure the ‘libertarian’ Somin would get a kick out of followed by backlash to the excesses as the Dems lose leverage over the descendants of the illegals and a shift of the pendulum back to moderation but at the cost of untold lives and havoc. Hopefully the newly dominant Hispanics will be smarter than self hating yt.

      1. Why do you assume that fading WASP dominance (I guess you’re talking about all those Catholics in SCOTUS and the POTUS, right?) =some anti-libertarian hellscape? Is libertarianism a WASP thing?

        1. The concept of limited government seems only to be limited to The West. And it is apparently dead here, so the coming hellscape will be taking over shortly. Sit back and enjoy the decline. The winter of a civilization is the best time to live and thrive.

          1. “The concept of limited government seems only to be limited to The West. ”

            There’s some kind of irony here that much of the rest of the world was ruled for quite a bit and until somewhat recently at gun point by ‘the West…’

            1. You mean conquered by superior civilizations?

              1. Today’s superior civilization includes educated, modern, successful American communities, distinguished from our desolate, ugly, can’t-keep-up backwaters.

                1. Of which, you want to import millions of bigoted uneducated and useless clingers.

              2. Superior? Awesome. Thanks for representing Trumpistas so well!

                1. I have no problem acknowledging that Western Society during the Enlightenment up until probably World War 1 was superior in many ways. That is one reason they were able to conquer and colonize a good chunk of the world.

              3. Exactly.
                And Rome fell because…

                1. I know! I know! I know! The answer to this is LIBERALS!

          2. Limited government appeals to white males only, and even then, only to people within the Protestant culture. There’s a reason that Argentina is the way it is, even though it’s one of the whitest countries in the world.

            1. Too bad about all those evil ‘papist’ SCOTUS judges, eh?

            2. Limited government appeals to white males only

              White males like Ayn Rand, I guess.

              1. Yeah, exceptions disprove the rule. Obviously.

            3. Although many try to point out that exceptions of every cultural and identity background have endorsed the concept of limited government, I think it is true that the idea is mostly popular among white men of the West. Many others in different societies have no problem with their lot in life being the servant or vassel of a ruling class. The concept on the rough, independent, individualized man is really only something that existed in a handful of European nations and migrated over to America largely due to the economy and geography of the country.

              1. Yes. Everybody else is largely okay being chattel slaves. Why conservatives are morally obligated to not only permit, but champion, the mass immigration of such people who will turn America into tyranny, is beyond me.

    2. You know they mostly care about their own personal vanity, right? That’s why mean tweets matter to them and the lives and welfare of Americans don’t.

  4. When the second sentence of the excerpt beings with “In the wake of Donald Trump — the most anti-immigrant president in modern times…”, I have to wonder whether the author has no idea what he’s talking about, or if he’s lying. Or perhaps we’re supposed to think that “modern times” means “since 2017, pretend Obama didn’t exist.”

    1. No, we’re supposed to understand that Obama rigged reporting criteria in an effort to look like he was engaged in more border enforcement than was actually the case. Inflating deportations by counting people turned back at the border as deported, for instance.

      He knew the sort of border policies the public wanted, even if he was determined not to deliver them.

      1. Since, 80% of American Citizens want less Immigration by illiterate welfare users, perhaps we could have a system to weed them out…

        1. I fear we soon will…

    2. You’re supposed to play along and mouth the words the communist overseers expect.

  5. Guys,
    It all has to do with locking in the Latino vote. Who cares if a $15 minimum wage hurts many residents and new immigrants.

    1. There’s some of that, that’s hardly *all* it has to do with. Sometimes people are actually idealists – even politicians!

      Especially given polling of Latinos on the issue lately, the cynical view may be put to the test shortly.

      1. Idealist politicians are go nowhere politicians.

        1. If they’re pure, sure. But if you learn to pick your battles, you can survive on the Hill.

          Though I’d allow it’s not a happy life.

    2. Latinos like to be able to find a job and have a safe neighborhood to live in too. They’re hardly monolithic.

      Some Latinos vote like Americans. Others vote based on identity politics.

      1. Some Latinos vote like Americans

        Mask off, eh?

        1. What mask? Just because you’re not a pro-American voter doesn’t mean Latinos aren’t. Latinos like America a lot more than elite professors and their followers.

          You think me saying Latinos are pro-American is a problem of some kind?

          1. Oh, not the Latino thing. It’s the people who disagree with you aren’t American thing.

            That’s well beyond nationalism. An American deals with living in a society with multiple points of view they do not agree with.

            Like, I think you’re pretty bad, and it sucks I have countrymen like you, but you are an American. And as has been seen in recent years, you vote like one too.

            1. Noteworthy in your statement is yet another criticism of Americans. No other country’s citizens are treated as badly or criticized as consistently by you guys as Americans are.

              1. You’re denying large swaths of the country are even real Americans. You don’t get to go after me for just criticizing Americans.

            2. America has certain ideals. If you believe in open borders, gun bans, mandatory cake baking, and free money to welfare queens and their bastard children, you ain’t an American.

          2. You think me saying Latinos are pro-American is a problem of some kind?

            He thinks that you saying that Latinos aren’t American is a problem of some kind.

            1. That might be a problem if you weren’t lying about that.

              Some Latinos are American and some aren’t, of course. A Latino individual from, say, Chile who might move to, say, Australia and become an Australian citizen isn’t an American (in the sense the word American is used in the US).

              1. Nice try. But you said some Latinos vote “like” Americans. That necessarily means that they are not Americans. One would not say that some beagles bark “like” dogs, because that’s nonsensical; they are dogs. (Now, one might say that some seals bark “like” dogs, because seals aren’t dogs.)

                Of course, a Latino individual from, say, Chile, who might move to, say, Australia and become an Australian citizen does not vote like Americans because he does not vote at all. The only ones who vote are ones who are Americans, but you said they only vote “like” Americans.

                1. Or to put it another way that might make the offensiveness more obvious: “Some Trump supporters can think like human beings do.”

  6. Can’t think of anything more important in the midst of a pandemic and economic crisis than letting in a ton more people!

    lol is this really what passes for a top mind these days?

    1. You post a lot here, can you link me to some where you indicated your passion for fighting the pandemic that were not immigration restriction based?

  7. I’d like to know whether this open-borders policy will continue once the Democrats are satisfied that they have imported enough voters to keep them securely in power, and no longer need more immigrants.

    Then we’ll probably see editorials in the NY Times about how it’s time to reconsider immigration.

    1. You do know that Dems aren’t open borders, right?

      Prof. Somin is, but he’s hardly a Dem.

      1. Open to potential Democrats.

        But once the whole country is Democratic, we’ll be instructed that immigration restriction is OK and isn’t fascist after all.

        1. “But once the whole country is Democratic,”

          We will always have our pockets of ignorance, bigotry, superstition, and backwardness. They will become increasingly less populous, but they will persist.

          1. “We will always have our pockets of ignorance, bigotry, superstition, and backwardness. They will become increasingly less populous, but they will persist.”

            Unfortunately that’s true. Yesterday I was reading about a bunch of racist idiots who thought that minorities were too stupid to understand acronyms.

            Can you imagine how fucked up an education you have to have to think something like that!

          2. I’m sure AK will like it when the third worlders move in down the street because his other Americans neighbors who go to church are just superstitious jerks…

        2. Utter nonsense. Your feelings are not the sekret motives of Democrats.

          1. You are a fucking liar. You people constantly say “Demographics is destiny” and “A democratic takeover is inevitable.”

            1. ““Demographics is destiny” ”

              That’s your Fuhrer dude.

      2. He’s hardly pretending to be anything else at this point.

        The only reason Democrats aren’t in favor of legally open borders is that they find illegal immigrants preferable to the legal sort.

        Kind of like the slaves that they used to use to swell their representation in Congress: They count for apportionment, but can’t vote. Only no pesky 3/5ths clause, illegals count as much as any citizen. And they’re much more tractable employees than legal immigrants, who don’t have as much to fear from a call to ICE, and are entitled to labor law enforcement.

        Open borders would not be nearly as useful as nominally closed borders left undefended.

        1. The only reason Democrats aren’t in favor of legally open borders is that they find illegal immigrants preferable to the legal sort.

          This is utterly insane. If Democrats prefer illegal immigrants to legal ones, why is Biden trying to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants?

          Did you think for one second before you write this paranoid nonsense?

          1. And what do you suppose legalizing them would do to the flow across the border?

            1. Because the one-time-only 1986 amnesty worked so well….

        2. This is a particularly deranged post.

          First, the Democratic Party today is hardly the Democratic Party that used ‘slaves…to swell their representation in Congress.’ I mean, do you think 90% of black person’s are idiots who can’t see they are voting for their once enslavers, or do you think you might not get the nuance that in a two party system the parties change their positions on things over time to a dramatic degree?

          Second, it’s funny that conservatives such as yourself castigate the Democrats for their ‘path to citizenship’ for the undocumented and then turn around and make the argument you’re making. What flavor is that cake you are eating and having too?

          1. There’s no contradiction: I want them all deported.

            Every. Last. One.

            1. No, there might not be a contradiction in your view but there’s one in what you charge your opponents in holding (they can’t want a bunch of illegals because they can’t vote but swell apportionment and want a path to citizenship at the same time).

              1. I suppose my position would be irrational if it were the simple one you attribute to me.

                Democrats favor illegal over legal immigration, because illegal immigrants warp apportionment in their favor, adding to the weight of each Democratic vote.

                They also make desirable employees, because they have fewer rights than legal residents, and behave accordingly.

                They have the advantage of driving up income inequality, which is politically beneficial for Democrats in several ways. Under progressive taxation, the more inequality, the politically easier it is to increase taxes, because most voters aren’t paying the taxes. The votes of the poor are cheaper to buy, the wealthy become a better source of graft and a more efficient source of taxes.

                But once you have accumulated 10-20 million illegals, you start to see the potential to suddenly inflate your voter base right before a risky midterm. And at the same time attract a huge new influx of fresh illegals. So, why not?

                1. “Democrats favor illegal over legal immigration”

                  And, yet, they are constantly attacked by your ‘comrades’ for pushing a ‘path to citizenship.’ So, as I said at the beginning, at the least your comrades are barking up the wrong tree, right?

            2. Brett Bellmore wants every last undocumented immigrant deported.

              I want every clinger vanquished in the culture war, then replaced by a better person.

              I win. Being an obsolete, ugly, bigoted right-winger has consequences.

              1. “then replaced by a better person.”

                Can you start by replacing yourself? Thanks. It shouldn’t be too difficult. Any random stranger off the street is likely to be less vile than you.

            3. There’s no contradiction: I want them all deported.

              Every. Last. One.

              I’m sure you do. Which is absolutely despicable. Contemptible. Morally disgusting.

              As I understand it you have recently become a devout Roman Catholic. How do you square your views of immigrants with your faith?

              I really shouldn’t ask, because your rationalization super-power is surely going to provide a bullshit answer.

              1. I wish them well, in some country they hadn’t entered illegally into. If someone robs a bank, is letting them keep the money the Christian thing to do? Their very presence here is ill gotten goods.

                That’s my view of it.

                1. Your view equates a victimless crime — crossing an imaginary line on the ground (or failing to do so) — with a real crime — theft.

              2. No, what is contemptible and morally disgusting is your porting “Because we were strangers in the land of Egypt” from an obligation to help the poor on an individual basis to allowing mass immigration into an existing nation.

  8. “One key weakness of Biden’s immigration agenda is the heavy — even if sometimes unavoidable – reliance on executive actions. ”

    Sure, just an unavoidable weakness. Not, you know, a consequence of the actions’ fundamental democratic and legal illegitimacy, representing as they are a determination to circumvent laws that can’t be repealed because they’re popular.

    Screw democracy, and the rule of law. Nothing really matters but the imperative of replacing the current electorate with one less libertarian, in the name of liberty.

    1. “Screw democracy”

      No need to quote Trump and the 100+ Representatives and over a dozen Senators for whom this was a rallying point recently, we’re talking immigration policy.

      1. Knock off with your tired whataboutism

        1. Lol, a person who wants legally, democratically enacted immigration reform =/= trying to overturn a free and fair election result! You saw this word ‘whataboutism’ and, without understanding it, thought you’d lob it.

          1. A person who wants the executive to order it with a “pen and phone” is “legally, democratically enacted immigration reform”?

            What are you smoking?

    2. Brett, you argued *vociferously* about the broad executive powers being both legal and proper when it comes to immigration during Trump.

      So you can screw right off with this bad-faith turning on a dime.

      You’re also wrong on substance, but your inconsistency is just so glaring, no need to get to that.

      1. You don’t see a difference between the President deciding to enforce the law, and the next President deciding not to?

        1. Emergency funds to the border wall was enforcing the law?

          1. Yes libs there are laws against crossing our borders without proper authorization. Hard to believe I know, but they are right there in the law books…

            1. Jimmy, just as there are laws against raiding the budget without proper authorization. However consequential you think ignoring illegal border crossings might be, that is small potatoes compared to blinking at deliberate presidential abuse of appropriations. You will shortly see that clearly, when Biden starts down the same road.

              1. There’s also the national emergency act, which Congress stupidly passed. Maybe they should repeal it.

  9. Doing it by executive action might be better received if it included a pledge to propose a bill to be passed by Congress.

    It is a dangerous trend to have executive actions by one administration, but when the next administration tries to reverse them, SCOTUS blocks it because the public had relied on the benefits. I’m thinking of DACA. It was created by a mere memo (not even an executive order), but it could not be reversed without a more extensive rationale and APA procedure.

    Suppose all future laws follow this path? Have we rendered Congress impotent?

  10. I’m not thrilled with the opening a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants here as of 1/1/2021 . .

    I can see a moral claim on a path to citizenship for those who have been unauthorizedly in the US many years and don’t really have a native land to go home to. However, this proposal does not address this issue. I guess he projects that Kamala will need some votes for her reelection campaign.


    1. The vast majority of our history involved little to no restrictions on immigration. Also, the Declaration of Independence explicitly cited this offense of King George: “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither”

      You’re out of step with America.

    2. Nativist bigots do like to wrap themselves in the flag, when they’re not waiving the Confederate one.

      1. He said, notably showing only contempt for an American.

        1. Nativist bigots are not America, they just like to think they are.

          1. Anti-Americans like to say stuff like that.

            1. Very on brand for certain Americans to declare the people who agree with them are Real America, and all those other people are fake America.

              Really helps with rationalizing disenfranchisement and the like.

              1. You expect anyone to believe that people who only have complaints to offer about America and Americans aren’t anti-America?

                1. You think I only have complaints to offer about America?

                  Pretty sure I’m more positive about America than you are at the moment.

  11. One thing I don’t understand is why haven’t those promoting illegal immigration quit their jobs in order to allow an illegal alien to take their place. Because, that is what they are asking the rest of American citizens to do.

    1. Why don’t those advocating smaller government refuse any government benefits whatsoever? Stop driving on the roads or attending public colleges or…

      It’s a dumb argument dude.

      1. “Why don’t those advocating smaller government…”

        Point of order. People who are advocating for immigration restrictions are advocating larger government.

    2. Because labor doesn’t work that way. Lump of labor fallacy, among other things.

  12. To some it is a novel idea that a country ought to exist to service the citizens of that country primarily and almost exclusively. That is how the rest of the world works, but for some reason America is supposed to let in anyone who can walk across the border….

    1. Prof. Somin has argued many times it will benefit American citizens. So take your question begging elsewhere.

      1. We all know that is disingenuous cucking which is common among the open border types. “But, hey, we have great ethnics food in those diverse neighborhoods!!!!”

        1. disingenuous cucking

          Oh fuck you. This is below even your usual moronic level. Do you have something to say?

          1. You more or less prove my point. If the open borders cucks are right about it being such a benefit, why not craft their arguments around reams of data that show it is good for everyone? The answer is quite obvious – unrestricted immigration is not good for citizens and is not a tide that raises all boars.

            1. Good for guys like Bernard11 though. Lower pay for workers means more profits for Bernard11. Rich guys can easily escape the destructive consequences they visit upon average Americans.

        2. Meanwhile they personally live in a rich neighborhood behind a gate.

          1. Why do you hate capitalism?

            1. That sounds like a confirmation on the rich neighborhood and the gate.

              Whatever chaos and deprivation his policy choices create for the rest of you, seems like Bernard11 will be insulated from it behind a wall.

              1. That’s what liberal Jews do. Diversity and inclusion is for the white middle class, while they live in their lily white suburbs like Scarsdale and Westport.

      2. Professors argue nonsense all the time

  13. WTF is wrong with you? With 10% unemployment, what number of illiterate third worlders do you think is too much? Is there any number? You are one sick, sick puppy.

    1. Says the tribalist, racist, misogynist bigot. You see, Akenturd shows that these kinds of arguments (about the workers!) is bad faith nonsense. We know what animates him.

      1. Anyone on the left who says “tribalist” while arguing identity politics is god deserve to be drug out into the street….

        1. More threats from Jimmy.

  14. The truth is, this type of “open immigration” policy is designed to keep African Americans down.

    1. If liberals actually advanced policies that helped minority communities they couldn’t be assured of the votes…

  15. To a non but curious libertarian it speaks volumes that the one major area of massive federal government intervention, restriction and spending that so many of those ostensibly of that persuasion just really, really love (as indicated by every Somin post on this) is the one involving migration of mostly poor persons of color…This prospect obviously animates ostensible libertarians like nothing other than gun control laws, the prospect of poor persons of color entering this nation (rather than massive government efforts to stop them) is obviously an *existential threat* to these ‘libertarians.’

    It’s like they are trying to justify what the critics of this movement charge…

  16. There are lots of ways that allowing lots of immigration benefits the US, but one of the most important is that it makes it difficult to sustain support for a large welfare state.

  17. Ilya is enthusiastic about devastating the jobs and salaries of all Democrat constituencies, especially Black people.

    He needs to support the immigration of lawyers from India. They have over a million of them, making $25000 a year. They are trained in the British Common Law. Recognized the Indian lawyer license. Failing that, bring them over, give them 8 weeks of CLE, and have them pass the bar exams. Hire them for law school at $30000, a big raise for them.

    1. I think their backup plan is de-policing by the Democrats who control those cities. They are hoping enough Americans get murdered so there are always plenty of job openings for the people they want to import.

      1. They are hoping enough Americans get murdered so there are always plenty of job openings

        Jesus, this thread has revealed how many of the more hateful commenters here are actually full-on nuts.

        1. It’s a reaction to the oblivious disregard and outright hostility toward Americans we see from you guys.

          All you could manage to talk about on the topic of Americans being murdered is that the commentary wasn’t edifying to you.

          1. Ben, look at the murder rate and do a bit of math. The dumb plan you made up is dumb.

            1. Dems got more work to do on that front. Maybe you can also keep driving Americans to commit suicide.

        2. Sarcastro. You will understand all anomalous lawyer views and choices after reading the Wikipedia article on The Rent Seeking Theory.

          Support Dems. Murder and crime soar. Lawyer jobs are generated.

          1. The murder rate has been dropping for decades, Dems or no Dems.

  18. The original meaning of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in the Constitution is of uncertain scope. And the materials we have from the Philadelphia Convention, the state conventions, and the public ratification debates do not provide clear answers to the precise question we face today.

    That sense of lawyer-muddle is a clue telling that the discussion has arrived in a place where historical review would help. The confusion is that founding era impeachment discussions—so labeled—did not go into exhaustive detail on, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” But there was plenty of relevant discussion at the time, some of it clarifying. The key topic was not impeachment, but sovereignty.

    That historical context leaves no doubt that however far, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” may have extended, all deliberate, consequential offenses against the People’s sovereignty were among them. And to dispose of Trump’s case, you need no more.

    After an election outcome is certain, to continue publicly to lie about it, and attack it, and publicly and privately to invite its overthrow, is a grievous offense against the People’s sovereignty. The election outcome is the People’s decree of their constitutive decision—the defining power of sovereignty. For Trump to attack that after it was beyond question was to set himself up as a rival for the People’s sovereignty, and actually to attempt its overthrow.

    What Trump did was not quite a fit for the constitutional definition of treason, but for gravity and extremity of offense against sovereignty, actual treason would be no worse. Trump’s conduct—in which he continues, by the way, as attested by the flight of his first legal team—has been as impeachable as it gets.

  19. “It is especially notable that Biden is pursuing this agenda amidst the COVID pandemic. Historically, economic crises tend to promote nativism.”

    Yeah, it’s so great that more people can come into the US to quarantine at home. Dafuq? Economic crisis? You mean, the shut downs by Dipshit governors, which are exactly the reason why we shouldn’t be opening the flood gates? Everyone who guessed “pandemic is magically over when Biden is President”, take your square.

    “forbidding entry by residents of many nations with large Muslim populations”

    Forbidding entry by residents of a few nations with large Muslim populations, and also some without significant Muslim populations.

    “heavy — even if sometimes unavoidable – reliance on executive actions.”

    All hail dictator Biden. Thank you Supreme Leader for dictatoring harder and better than Trump was going to, in the fever dreams of letfy scum.

    I think you should go write for Vox, this is ridiculous.

  20. “Sadly, Biden’s laudable immigration initiatives could also be undercut by his proposal for a nationwide $15 minimum wage. If enacted, it would price millions of workers out of the job market by making it unprofitable for employers to hire them,”

    The vast majority of minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs, jobs requiring little skills, but helping to develop important lifetime skills, showing up to work, respect for the employer, etc,
    Its not surprising that progressives would undercut opportunities for the individuals who are most in need of developing those skills.

    Every study, including the famous Card Kruger study cited by progressives, show that raising the minimum wage hurts teenage employment, especially black teenage employment.

    1. “Every study, including the famous Card Kruger study cited by progressives, show that raising the minimum wage hurts teenage employment, especially black teenage employment.”

      Good for under-the-table arrangements with undocumented people though. More rules to bid up prices for a smaller and smaller cartel of haves, who then just ignore the rules and exploit the desperation they create to hire cheap labor for cash.

  21. Only the jews want open boarders. The present day immigrant is a welfare warrior, uneducated, unskilled, driving down labor prices for the bottom end. They are not white, not conservative and will ensure the jewish monopoly on the control of the country, it will eliminate the white christian populace which opposes the jewish game. the country is fucked and the jews are fucking it even harder. end of america.

Please to post comments