My New USA Today Article on How Biden Can Ease Border Problems by More Fully Implementing His Own Plans to Make Legal Immigration Easier

The article is coauthored with David Bier of the Cato Institute.

USA Today has published my article (coauthored with Cato Institute immigration policy expert David Bier) on how Biden's border problems can be alleviated by expanding and more fully implementing the Administration's own plans to make legal migration easier:

In response to high border crossings, President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress appear ready to at least partially cave to demands to restrict asylum in negotiations on the contours of an ongoing deal.

This would be a grave mistake. It would hurt asylum-seekers but won't stop illegal migration. Biden already has the right plan for the border. He just hasn't fully implemented it.

The best way to reduce pressure on the border from illegal migration is to make legal entry easier, and Biden's 2023 immigration agenda included many of the necessary measures. Unfortunately, he hasn't made them available widely enough, and this failure is leading to people entering illegally…..

The primary initiative is parole sponsorship, under which immigrants sponsored by Americans could receive authorization to enter legally straight from their home country and live and work in the United States for at least two years….

Biden's plan achieved great initial success, simultaneously helping many thousands of people escape violence and repression and reducing disorder at the border…..

Even so, further progress was stymied because parole sponsorship was limited to migrants from just five countries: Ukraine, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Participation from the Latin American nations (the "CHNV" countries) is capped at just 30,000 migrants a month from all four countries combined….

The backup option – applying for legal entry at the U.S.-Mexico border using the CBP One phone app – might have mitigated the fallout. But arbitrary caps and flawed agency procedures have ruined this option as well. Appointments are capped at 1,450 a day – though there were nearly 9,000 daily migrant encounters in September…..

The combination of horrific poverty and oppression in their home countries and labor shortages in the United States lead people seeking opportunity and freedom to enter illegally if there is no other way to do so…..

It's the same dynamic by which alcohol prohibition led people to illegally obtain smuggled booze from the likes of Al Capone. Barring legal markets in much-wanted goods or services predictably creates vast black markets to which millions of people seek access. When Prohibition was abolished, alcohol smuggling and associated organized crime greatly diminished. Legalizing migration would have similar effects on the black market in immigration….

Expanding legal migration would also save more people from violence, poverty and oppression – and bolster the U.S. economy. Immigrants disproportionately contribute to American innovation and entrepreneurship, thereby greatly enhancing economic freedom, wealth and opportunity for native-born Americans as well…..

Biden should order the agencies to eliminate the arbitrary country limitations and numerical caps on parole sponsorship and CBP One. He should also allow migrants to book CBP appointments in their home countries many weeks in advance.

These options would eliminate the vast majority of illegal immigration, restoring order to a chaotic border.

Biden shouldn't give up on his policies and give in to the demands from the other side. He has already implemented severe asylum restrictions for those who cross illegally, and illegal migration is as high as ever.

Now there are just more people here with no path to legalize their status….

Biden has already laid out a better path forward than imitating Trump. It is time to start following it.

Comments

[SomeGuy 2]

Sure, and Ukraine can solve the problem of Russian invaders by simply passing a law saying it's legal for Russians to invade. Israel can solve the problem of Hamas invaders by simply passing a law saying it's legal for Hamas to invade. Some real "task failed successfully" logic going on here.

The only sliver of a point is that there's a labor shortage-- that's true. In theory, I might be in favor of a guest worker program if they have to go home when the economy turns again. But we all know that's not happening, the migrants will be here to stay regardless of conditions.

The way to stop illegal immigration is to stop illegal immigration-- asylum seekers should be processed and in the overwhelming majority of cases rejected within 24 hours. Other migrants found should be immediately turned back. The reason they keep coming is that they know they can stay for the rest of their lives, so long as they utter the magic word "ASYLUM!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I sense another meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, Cruel, and Un-American Immigration Policies And Practices (joint meeting with Libertarians For White Nationalism, cosponsored by the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and Republican National Lawyers Association) is about to convene at the usual spot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is NOT a labor shortage -- there is a shortage of people willing to work at below-subsistence wages. The RINO objection to increasing the minimum wage is that "the jobs aren't worth that much money" -- and this is the flip side of that.

The jobs ARE worth more than they are offering (both in terms of wages and working conditions -- it's *both*) and instead of paying more, the RINOs like Ilya simply want to flood the labor market.

THAT is what leads to racism -- often violent racism.

[SomeGuy 2]

Only about a quarter million people actually make the minimum wage, so adjusting it is pretty small ball policy wise. To the extent companies are being irrational by not paying more money, that will sort itself out quickly enough; those that are rational will pay more and reap the benefits. I do agree with not flooding the labor market, though. Chips can fill where they may.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with commingling minimum wage and below subsistence wage is that there are a lot of people earning more than the minimum wage but still not a subsistence wage.

I remember a few weeks back, EV posted a $100k job and someone responded that *it* wasn't enough for California.

[Social Justice is neither]

And there are a lot of people for whom minimum wage is well above subsistence, get out of your big city blue bubble.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte -- the other thing I didn't mention is that it isn't full-time minimum wage but only part time so that they don't have to pay benefits.

The other thing that RINOs often overlook are (a) costs of employment, starting with decent attire and haircuts -- both of which aren't needed if you aren't working, and (b) transportation costs in rural (and even suburban) areas. That means car, that means gasoline -- a lot of employers REQUIRE a car. (Before cellphones, a lot also required a phone in the residence.)

I define "sub subsistence" as being required to rely on public assistance even though working -- and you'd be surprised at what housing and food costs today.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Not taking American policy advice from a Russian Communist. Just say no.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ROTF,L....

[Social Justice is neither]

Right, big blue city with over-priced costs for everything. Get out and prices are way down. Your points on partial work are correct but if you're mid 20s and living on minimum wage you got other problems.

[David Nieporent]

.

I remember a few weeks back, EV posted a $100k job and someone responded that *it* wasn’t enough for California.

That's not what "subsistence" means.

[David Nieporent]

.

There is NOT a labor shortage — there is a shortage of people willing to work at below-subsistence wages.

Sort of by definition, nobody can work at below-subsistence wages. At least not for more than ~3 weeks.

The RINO objection to increasing the minimum wage is that “the jobs aren’t worth that much money” — and this is the flip side of that.

No; that's the people-who've-taken-economics objection.

The jobs ARE worth more than they are offering

How did you calculate that? Show your math.

[AmosArch]

Labor shortage? News to all the unemployed, underemployed, and homeless people I see.

[SomeGuy 2]

If somebody is involuntarily unemployed right now, then they are not looking hard enough for work. Underemployed is possible, but there's a lot of jobs out there, they should keep looking too. Homeless are mostly grifters-- at least right now, they could be working but usually aren't. And why should they? The city/do-gooders will feed them, then they sell their SNAP/"disability" for alcohol and drugs. The Ninth Circuit has made sure that they can even build shanty towns and it takes years of legal wrangling to do anything about it. We've made their lives so easy that they're typically not interested in working. Ever try to take someone up on their "WILL WORK FOR FOOD" signs? The backtracking is hilarious.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Ever try to take someone up on their “WILL WORK FOR FOOD” signs? The backtracking is hilarious.

Who says right-wingers have no sense of humor?

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit. Not a step beyond. Until replacement. You get to whine and whimper about it as much as you like, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

I know, I know, it puts the lotion on it's skin.....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, do not confuse RINOs with Conservatives -- the RINOs want what once was called "corporate welfare." It's not cheap labor, it's subsidized labor, and there is a difference.

As to the "Will Work for Food" folks, they'd be damn fools to get into a vehicle with someone they don't know, regardless of what the promises are. It's a good way to wind up in a bodybag.

Notwithstanding that, exactly what is the job being promised, under what conditions, and why is it being done outside of government oversight? It's like a lot of the jobs you see posted on Craiglist -- what guarantee do you have that you'll actually get paid -- and some of these people are so slimy that my guess is that you won't.

I'm not a fan of these beggars, once screaming at one of them "because I don't fucking want to" when asked "why" I couldn't "help him out with a couple of dollars" (I had first politely said "no") but this is exploitation.

It goes all the way back to the legendary NH Governor Meldrim Thomson, who once reportedly told a bunch of welfare protesters that he had a bus on the other side of the capitol that was ready to take them to jobs. While I know what he meant, but my response would be "if it is too good to be true, it ain't" and that would be with a Governor who has some level of respect from that alone. Some random dude or dudette -- no freaking way!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually no -- what you will find is that the people complaining the most about not being able to find employees actually are complaining about not being able to find employees that meet their criteria and qualifications.

A common expectation is near 24/7 availability for 15-20 hours of actual employment. A lot of people aren't able to do that, in part because they are already working for someone else with similar expectations, but also because they have children and other responsibilities. It's one thing to expect someone's life to revolve around a full-time M-F job.

Aquaculture involves hard manual labor in cold, wet, and often mosquito-infested conditions. Those employers complain about not being able to find employees who can pass their drug test -- well, if they were paying more, they probably could.

And then there are employers who are just plain arseholes and burn through employees -- or large employers make promises of well paying full-time jobs to part time employees, and never deliver on that. LL Bean is a good example of this, it would hire a lot of people in the fall to either fill orders or (back then) take phone orders -- making every one of them think they would have a full time job later if they worked hard enough -- and then fired them all in January.

It took about 15-20 years, but they managed to burn through *everyone* who would ever consider working for them, and even if the people they'd fired hadn't found a full-time job elsewhere, they weren't going to be fooled a second time. (I worked for them one fall and for a long time would get the annual "wouldn't you like to work for us" letter -- which went into the woodstove.)

They first moved their call center to a suburb west of Portland (Freeport is 20+ miles north of Portland) and I believe now have move a lot of their operations out of state. I've also heard that Amazon is quite close to burning through its pool of potential employees -- nationwide.

Much of retail has the rule of three -- for one opening, they will hire three employees, with the exception that one will be gone in three weeks and the second in three months. Well not only do they not get those two people back again, but they also aren't inclined to go work for their competitors, either.

But I think the biggest problem is the arsehole front line supervisors -- bullies who got there by being bullies, who often aren't very bright, and who cover their incompetence by bullying. People will work hard, often for less money than they really deserve, if they are treated well. QED those who can't find employees....

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Ah, the same old regurgitated stereotypes and talking points of a soul-less conservative who has never known a day of hardship in his life.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some of them have forgotten it though -- or don't take into account inflation.

One guy genuinely thought he was being generous offering $100 a day for hard physical labor involving concrete work, from dawn to dusk. In Maine, in the summertime, that's 5AM to 9PM -- 16 hours, or $6.25 an hour -- half of the Maine minimum wage.

And no, he didn't find anyone.

[Drewski]

"Things I don't understand are easy."
You obviously have no idea what goes into processing asylum applications. No way is 24 hours a reasonable amount of time.

[Randal]

In theory, I might be in favor of a guest worker program if they have to go home when the economy turns again. But we all know that’s not happening, the migrants will be here to stay regardless of conditions.

Uh, StupidGuy, the population of illegal immigrants did drop in the US when the economy turned sour circa 2008. They went home.

You guys are blinded by your hatred for non-whites. It's totally gross.

[mydisplayname]

Enforcement of immigration laws is important, to be sure, and of course we all expect President Biden to rigorously enforce the laws we have put in place to prevent invaders and other unwanted parties from entering our nation illegally. But the thrust of the author's opinion seems to be that existing laws should not be enforced and, in fact, should be changed in a manner which deprives every American citizen of his right to peaceful enjoyment of that which is his own.

Without strong borders -- borders which resolutely preclude the entry of any person we as a group decide we do not wish to harbor -- we would likely become as bad as Israel, a nation whose citizens murder all those they disfavor (see, for example, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-death-toll.html). How else could we protect our birthright, our homes, and our freedoms?

It is unsurprising that the nonsensical cry for open borders applies only to American borders and not to Israeli borders: the plea to allow an unlimited number of Palestinians into America is far louder than the plea to allow an unlimited number of Palestinians into Israel. One who fails to make the case for an Iron Wall around America while maintaining that an Iron Wall is "obviously" needed for Israel is a hypocrite.

[Jerry B.]

Based on questions I’ve asked of pro-immigration folks, they’re generally all for people sponsoring immigrants and being responsible for them, until you ask how many they’re willing to take.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, you've spoken to Somin?

[Sarcastr0]

How is it somehow some big weakness to be in favor of a policy you will not individually take advantage of?

[Armchair]

Shows a lack of personal responsibility. They’re happy as long as “someone else” does the work and takes on the burden.

Same reason the Blue states were so happy with illegal immigrants, until they started seeing them in (a fraction of) the massive numbers that the Red States had.

Then suddenly it was a problem. Because now they had the burden.

[Randal]

How stupid can you be. California and New Mexico are both blue states on the southern border. They've found ways to deal with immigrants without being assholes about it.

[Vernon Depner]

California has chosen to NOT deal with it and is suffering terribly because of that.

[Frank Drackman]

Most amazing thing about this post is "USA Today" is still around.
I mean, they were cutting edge in 1982, Weather Map Color Coded! Color Photos on front page! Box Scores with more than just "AB/H/BI", MLB/NFL Standings with more than "W-L. Pct, GB", and a whole page with a paragraph of news from each state.
Always sucked they didn't have a comics page (really good crossword though)
and after 2 weeks in Israel, I might be coming around on this Immigration thang.
We're gonna need someone to kill these Arab Terrorists, not like our "Real Amuricans" are up to the task.

Frank

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pablum sells, especially in less-advanced communities. USA Today circulation seems to continue to be relatively strong.

The remarkable publication in this "still around?" context is the zombie rag, Newsweek

[Dr. Ed 2]

How much of USA Today is hotels?

[MaddogEngineer]

Decrease illegal immigration by allowing them to enter legally is quite the take.

That's not solving the problem, it's getting your way policy wise, something the broader public doesn't actually agree with. As we're finally seeing with blue states squealing under the burden.

[David Nieporent]

The burden is in significant part because they're not allowed to work when they first seek asylum.

[Armchair]

Sigh,

Here's Eric Adams, Democrat, Mayor of NYC screaming for help. Saying immigrants will cost NYC over $12 Billion

https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/583-23/as-city-nears-arrival-100-000-asylum-seekers-since-last-spring-mayor-adams-lays-out-updated#/0

That's just 100,000 asylum seekers. "Legal" seekers. The actual number in the US is closer to a million. So, now you're looking at $120 Billion in costs. At least. And that's just now.

No wonder Biden's got to back off. He losing his own party.

[Sarcastr0]

Does anyone believe the 'I'm for immigration but not illegal immigration' nonsense from the right these days?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just what is the position coming from the left?

[Sarcastr0]

The left doesn't seem to have much of a vision for immigration. You don't see open borders stuff like Prof. Somin coming from then; just 'the status quo sucks be less cruel to undocumenteds.'

I see out current policy being used to attack the Dems more than the GOP from the left, actually.

[Frank Drackman]

Moe-hammad Atta was here "legally"
and if he'd knocked some chick up while he was here (I don't know, did he?) Moe-hammad Atta Jr. would be an boner-fide Amurican Citizen, because/"Birthright"
probably be just about to murder his first Infidel right about now.

Frank

[Michael P]

Are you saying that Ilya Somin doesn't actually want to make all immigration legal?

[Sarcastr0]

Weirdly I said nothing about Prof. Somin. I don’t agree with libertarianism, including open borders. But at least he’s consistent in telling us what he really believes.

I’m noting the comments. All of whom thus far are nativist, not just anti-illegal.

Including your deflection just now. It’s revealing.

[Michael P]

Ah, yes the famously leftist Ilya Somin.

You can't argue with the other comments here, so you hallucinate some "nativist" sentiment and argue against this thing that is only in your head.

Your accusation of deflection was pure projection.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the guy who brought up Somin, what are you carping at me about?

I sure can argue with the comments here, they're economically utterly wrong. About minimum wage, and labor markets, and the actual unemployment rate, and immigrants use of benefits.

Which you should know, because you've argued that with me on previous threads.

But your posts here are clearly not ones you think too hard about.

[Michael P]

You're responding to a post that Somin wrote, and pretending he's not there. Maybe you should read less of what you imagine people really mean and more of what is actually on the (web) page.

My experience arguing with you has convinced me that you're the one who is likely to be wrong on economics, as well as about what others are saying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The right? Are you suggesting the left supports illegal immigration?

Pretty much everybody supports some immigration, pretty much everyone supports some restrictions.

[Armchair]

If Sarcastr0 couldn't strawman, he wouldn't be Sarcastr0

[Harvey Mosley]

Aren't you the one who is always ranting against people assuming bad faith?

[Sarcastr0]

Where did I *assume* anything, chief?

People on this thread are coming out against immigration generally. The right and the GOP claim they're only against illegal immigration.

This is inconsistent.

[Harvey Mosley]

I'm on the right. I think legal immigration ought to be easier. But we shouldn't make it easier (and we shouldn't make legal immigration harder at all) until we have control of the illegal immigration problem. That includes figuring out the best way to handle asylum seekers quickly so that legitimate claimants for asylum are given asylum while those abusing the process are deported as soon as possible. I also think that illegal aliens should not be allowed to apply for legal immigration while they are here illegally. We shouldn't reward illegal behavior.

Does that make me against immigration generally? Or just not part of the right?

[Kazinski]

Well I'm on the right, my wife is an immigrant.

I'm trying to bring her mother over, that's imminent, and her sister, that's about a year or two away.

And I'm against illegal immigration.

I think the Democrats want illegal immigration because legal immigration may lead to too many people from middle and upper class backgrounds who are not sympathetic to redistruitionist policies.

My wife is chomping at the bit to vote for Trump next year. I'm sill hoping it won't come to that.

[Sarcastr0]

Well you sure are letting a lot of folks on here make some pretty ridiculous arguments against your interest, then.

I think the Democrats want illegal immigration because legal immigration may lead to too many people from middle and upper class backgrounds who are not sympathetic to redistruitionist policies.
Having talked to Democrats, as well as studied how voting works, I know you're just making shit up about Dems sekret motives.

Brett's in that stupid club, you gonna join it?

[Kazinski]

I'm not making anything up I'm expressing an opinion. "I think" is generally taken as a clue that the writer is expressing an opinion not asserting a known fact.

[Randal]

I’m not making anything up I’m expressing an opinion.

How are those different when it comes to factual assertions?

[Michael P]

He's "letting" people make stupid arguments? What do you propose he do: Revoke the First Amendment? Buy Reason and hire you to pre-screen all comments? Argue against comments that you also aren't arguing against?

For someone who claims that others aren't thinking much about their comments, you sure are writing some doozies.

[Sarcastr0]

Selective outrage at letting right wingers on here roll nativist, while yelling at Dems all the time, his convictions don't seem quite so strong, eh?

[Kazinski]

"Letting right wingers roll nativist"

I don't actually see any problematic or troubling statements above. But then again there are about 14 muted comments in my thread.

I mute left and right indiscriminately, my criteria is they don't make any effort to make serious arguments, they just want to name call and enrage, rather than engage. Once I see a few posts like that, and they start cluttering my thread then I mute them.

I don't think I'm missing much, and no I don't think I have aǹy duty to act as the tone police or a volunteer moderator. I mute and move on.

If you want to engage and encourage them, that's up to you.

[KenveeB]

"Does anyone believe the ‘I’m for immigration but not illegal immigration’ nonsense from the right these days?"

I do believe in immigration but not illegal immigration. And we could do a whole lot better job streamlining and improving the legal immigration process if we weren't flooded with illegal immigrants taking all the attention and the services. I would like to make a better system, but you can't make repairs when you're drowning.

[Sarcastr0]

The OP is about keeping our current system but making it more streamlined.

That's my point - do you support that? Or no support for such things until we put up the wall or some such?

Many on here seem ticked off at the idea that we make our immigration system less of an arbitrary horrorshow. Or that it exists at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

The OP is about the Biden administration streamlining things by violating statutory immigration law. "Biden should order the agencies to eliminate the arbitrary country limitations and numerical caps on parole sponsorship and CBP One."

The arbitrary country limitations are statutory, thanks to the Immigration acts of 1965 and 1990.

[Sarcastr0]

1) That's not all the OP discusses. But we all know by now where you stand on immigration policy at least as implemented, even if you occasionally pretend it's only the illegals you're against.

2) Discretion is discretion, and here it is broad. It'd be a testable case, but this is not the slam dunk you think it is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Discretion and the President's constitutional duty to take care the law is faithfully executed seem to be at odds.

I guess that's why the Take Care blog shut down after Trump left office. They never really viewed it as an actual obligation, just another excuse for lawfare.

Systematic discretion in enforcement of the law is a usurpation of legislative authority by the executive, Sarcastr0. Barring a claim that enforcing the law would be unconstitutional, a President should properly never do it.

[M L]

"Many on here seem ticked off at the idea that we make our immigration system less of an arbitrary horrorshow. "

Trump tried to do that, and the left was all "literally Hitler."

[M L]

You're saying all of the right is for zero immigration perpetually?

[ReaderY]

Every time government makes something illegal, there is a cost. People who if left alone might arguably otherwise be productive members of society are labeled criminals and get hunted down and punished or removed. Society has to invest resources to hunt down and remove them, and in prisons to maintain them. Having large numbers of people incarcerated or in hiding costs society a great deal.

Policy is often a matter of costs and benefits. It is always open to argue that the benefits are not worth the costs.

I disagree with Professor Somin’s constitutional arguments on immigration, and I am skeptical of absolutist libertarian positions generally. The society that purports to maximize individual liberty may be in reality one that fails to keep its less powerful citizens from being oppressed by its more powerful ones.

Nonetheless, it is absolutely open to libertarians like Professor Somin to argue that the benefits of illegality are not worth the cost and society is better off with legalization on any particular issue. And on this issue, he might be right, at least in part.

[Armchair]

Somin has a maximalist take that all immigration should be legal.

Outside of the points that illegal immigration doesn't results in imprisonment, but deportation, there's the more important point that no modern country has unlimited immigration these days. And the tactics proposed to obtain his desired viewpoint (just don't enforce it!) are problematic.

A good analogy is taxation. Some people want more taxation. Some people want less. But no modern country has "zero" taxation. It doesn't work. And the argument some people put forth is "just don't pay your taxes, they're unjust" doesn't work.

Like illegal immigration, some people take advantage of this. That's the real advantage "using" the illegality of illegal immigration for their own purposes.

[Vernon Depner]

this failure is leading to people entering illegally…..

How do you know that? Are you simply assuming large numbers of illegal entrants would prefer to be here legally, or is there real information about that available? And would they even be able to get here legally? The crime lords control who approaches the border—do you believe they will abandon that revenue stream just because US policy changes?

[Armchair]

Yes, people would prefer to be here legally. A plane flight into a major airport is often cheaper than the "fees" charged to get people across the border illegally.

[Vernon Depner]

People who are brought in by the coyotes often (usually? I don't know) do not have the money. The enter in a state of indentured servitude to the crime lords, which is a huge source of revenue for them.

[Armchair]

Coyote fees run $1500 to $2500 a person to get across the border. And I assure you, they collect that, up front.

A plane ticket from Mexico City to Houston is a fraction of that. Let alone a bus ticket.

[Brett Bellmore]

A plane ticket from Mexico City to Huston lands you right in the hands of immigration authorities. In fact, I suspect you can't even board the plane in Mexico without a valid visa or border crossing card, but if you can you're certainly not disappearing when you land.

You're not paying the coyotes to get you to the US, you're paying them to get you there with a decent chance of avoiding capture.

[David Nieporent]

Um, please try to pay attention. The issue was whether immigrants would prefer to arrive legally or illegally, if the former were an option..

[Kazinski]

I think you aren't thinking this through. There will always be some limit to legal immigration, the number of people they can process with their staffing levels. Right now for someone who qualifies and is not subject to quotas it's about a 10-12 month wait for them to process a immigration visa. And about 1500 in processing fees.

Even if they expand the immigrant visa categories, and relax the standards, then it will just make the waiting times longer.

[Armchair]

There's a difference between time and paperwork, versus just dollar value.

[Sarcastr0]

I actually think it's a safe assumption that illegals not somehow into being illegal and subject to deportation and raids at any time.

I think the issue is you think the Mexican side of the border is a well controlled criminal enterprise. This would seem to give rise to some weird outcomes.

[Vernon Depner]

the Mexican side of the border is a well controlled criminal enterprise.

That is correct.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Mexico is a failing state, worse than in the days of Poncho Villa, and what did we do then?!?!?

[Sarcastr0]

You getting that from anywhere other than your ass?

[Michael P]

He's probably paying attention to the world around him, which I guess sets him apart from you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/world/americas/mexico-cartels-violence.html
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-09-21/how-many-people-work-for-the-mexican-drug-cartels

[Sarcastr0]

Sure seems organized.

[Harvey Mosley]

How to end crime: Make everything legal!

[John Rohan]

I wish Biden would do this - it would guarantee that he won't be re-elected in 2024.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is the answer to bank robbery banks just handing out money to anybody who asks? Wouldn't be robbery then, if they did it.

What Somin flatly refuses to acknowledge is that living in the US is a scarce resource. Not only in the sense that the country's carrying capacity is limited, but in the sense that the US AS the US, rather than just a section of land with that name, could be lost if we bring in too many people with different values from ours.

When somebody comes from a failed society, does Somin ever ask WHY it's a failed society? And whether or not people coming from it might be bringing that failure with them?

[David Nieporent]

Look, Brett still doesn't get the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum!

[John Rohan]

It is an inherently immoral act (malum in se) to allow so many more people than this country can handle it once – they can’t all be properly screened, people are sleeping in the streets on cold nights, and even US citizens are being kicked out of homeless shelters. It would be like 500 parents dropping their kids off at a day care center when there is only 1 worker to watch them. Is that moral?

Not to mention encouraging a journey to the US which is rife with sexual assault, results in numerous deaths, and enriches human smugglers. That’s not moral in my book either.

[David Nieporent]

.

It is an inherently immoral act (malum in se) to allow so many more people than this country can handle it once –

There are two main types of immigrants: refugees and economic migrants. The former are ones for whom even sleeping on the streets here is safer than where they come from. It is immoral (and illegal) to send them back to be persecuted.

The other come here because they can make a living here. They can do so even despite all the roadblocks the government puts up; otherwise they wouldn't come. The U.S. as a small-c country can handle all of them and many many more. It's the U.S. as a government that has trouble handling them. So Ilya's proposal is to: stop. Stop thinking that central planning will ever be anything other than a failure, and just let it sort itself out.

[Vernon Depner]

That's insane. If we just threw open the doors and allowed ANYONE to enter our country and stay as long as they like, we would be inundated by a tidal wave of newcomers from shitholes all over the world. Hundreds of millions would try to flock here in Gold Rush style. Our culture and our prosperity would be in ruins.

[Harvey Mosley]

So you're saying there should be no penalties for not paying taxes?