The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How Biden Can Alleviate Pressure on the Border by Making Legal Migration Easier
Cato Institute immigration policy expert David Bier explains how it can be done, in a NY Times op ed.

In a recent New York Times article (non-paywall version here), my Cato Institute colleague David Bier - a leading expert on immigration policy - explains how President Biden can alleviate pressure on the southern border by expanding opportunities for legal migration:
A bipartisan immigration deal to restrict border crossings took a hit last week when Donald Trump pushed Congress to reject it. It's the latest in a series of episodes over the last decade where one party blows up a deal just as the other gives in. President Biden wants to break this cycle, but to get the politics right, he must get the policy right first.
As long as the border is in chaos, Mr. Trump bets voters will continue to prefer him on this issue. He's almost certainly right. But perhaps it's chaos, not immigration per se, that upsets voters, and Mr. Biden can curb the chaos by letting more immigrants come to the United States legally….
It seems that some Republicans would just as well let the crisis at the border persist. In response, Mr. Biden must not merely blame Republicans for blowing up the deal and then leave the issue alone. The president will always receive the bulk of the blame whenever there is lawlessness and chaos….
The politics here are frustrating policy reform, but better policy could help the politics. Mr. Biden can double down on expanding parole sponsorship programs that allow people lawful and orderly ways to enter the United States.
Letting people in through private sponsorship programs negates the need to expand resources because they'll have the opportunity to line up jobs and housing in advance of getting here. If all else fails, they will have U.S. sponsors to help them out if necessary.
Some Republicans may not like immigrants coming in — legally or otherwise — but American voters don't buy invasion rhetoric to describe people getting vetted to travel here legally. Fearmongering about drug smugglers and terrorists can work when people enter illegally.
Right now, Mr. Biden has only created legal processes for five countries — Ukraine, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela — and he has set a cap far below demand. These processes are legal and orderly. Expanding these procedures into other major origin countries and letting more people enter legally will reduce the flows to more manageable levels.
As discussed in Chapter 6 of my book Free to Move, it is indeed the case that real or imagined chaos at the border is a major factor in stoking public hostility towards immigration. This creates a vicious dynamic where restrictionism leads to increased illegal entry (as desperate migrants have no other way to escape violence, poverty, and oppression), which in turn bolsters support for more draconian restrictions, and so on.
The best way to break the cycle is by making legal migration easier. Just as the abolition of alcohol Prohibition massively reduced illegal black market sales of booze, so making legal migration easier cuts down the illegal kind, and reduces pressure at the border. It also bolsters the US economy and helps people fleeing oppression and poverty find freedom and opportunity.
In a November USA Today article, David Bier and I made the case for this approach in more detail and outlined a variety of additional measures Biden could take to make legal migration more accessible.
Relying on discretionary executive action is not ideal. Such policies could potentially be reversed by future unilateral executive action. It would be better if Congress and the executive would make these policies permanent. But executive action along these lines is authorized by existing statutes, and is far better than either doing nothing or giving in to restrictionists (thereby feeding the vicious circle rather than breaking it).
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's like a medieval doctor cheerfully advocating for trepanning as a surefire way to alleviate pressure on the brain. Truly a lifelong solution!
its still the only treatment for depressed skull fractures
Considering there’s a high economic demand for immigrants, expanding legal immigration makes more sense.
How many did you buy? Are they cheaper by the dozen?
Drop the welfare state first so we can see how much if that demand is real and how much is because Uncle Sam pays people to be leeches. Until then the simultaneous demands for higher minimum wages, more guaranteed benefits and open borders is just a dishonest attack aimed at destroying America and Western Civilization more broadly.
You must not be aware of the current labor shortage in many areas.
P.S. every one of these migrants is working harder than 99% of Americans did to become US citizens. That's probably one reason their productivity is basically equal to native-born citizens despite the additional hurdles:
"Immigrants tend to have very similar incomes to the native born. Immigrant households in 2021 had a median income of $69,622, compared to $69,734 for native-born households. Fourteen percent of immigrants were poor (that is, with family incomes below the official poverty threshold of $27,500 for a family of four with two children in 2021), compared to 13 percent of the U.S. born."
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states
What would we do if we didn't have Mexico bordering on us? Starve? Our economy would collapse?
Or just some combination of wage increases and automation?
Considering current native-born birth rates, yeah kinda. Eventually. Less abruptly than you present. The point is the labor pool needs to expand and current citizens aren't keeping up.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/12/the-long-term-decline-in-fertility-and-what-it-means-for-state-budgets
The 2022 SIPP indicates that 54 percent of households headed by immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used one or more major welfare program. This compares to 39 percent for U.S.-born households.
The rate is 59 percent for non-citizen households (e.g. green card holders and illegal immigrants).
Compared to households headed by the U.S.-born, immigrant-headed households have especially high use of food programs (36 percent vs. 25 percent for the U.S.-born), Medicaid (37 percent vs. 25 percent for the U.S.-born), and the Earned Income Tax Credit (16 percent vs. 12 percent for the U.S.-born).
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-USBorn
From the same study you cite:
"The high welfare use of immigrant households is not explained by an unwillingness to work. In fact, 83 percent of all immigrant households and 94 percent of illegal-headed households have at least one worker, compared to 73 percent of U.S.-born households."
This tells us several things: (1) immigrants are not unwilling to work; (2) they are taking low-wage jobs, which is presumably why they use welfare services at a higher rate. (Also, children, as explained in the cited report.)
I submit that the problem you're identifying is really a problem with the low-wage sector of the labor market. We have choices: (1) allow low-wage jobs in the "dishwasher" category to go unfilled, which stifles economic growth; (2) raise wages for the same category of workers, which puts upward pressure on prices; or (3) spend money from the public fisc in the form of welfare. To date, voters have preferred #3.
Social welfare for people with full-time jobs is CORPORATE welfare.
immigrants
Ahh yes, that's the real stuff. None of this 'I'm only talking about illegal immigration.'
And, of course, not normalizing for socioeconomic class at all. Which is another great tell.
Claymore Mines on the border would be more effective, and might be a good counterbalance to Ilya...
Yeah, cuz eff 'em, right?
I'm amazed how cheaply some people would sell out the national moral high ground that helped build the 20th-Century U.S. in the first place. We make plenty of errors, but landmining the border against desperate people who want nothing more than to work hard and pay taxes would be an unforced unmitigated PR disaster. Not to mention, evil.
So????
Make it double-row fence with the mines between them. Make it a free-fire zone with lots of warning signs in English, Spanish and pictographs for those who can't read wither of those two languages.
We could just hand out blankets laced with smallpox?
I'm an open borders kind of guy. I think all border crossing should resolve down to private citizens deciding who is trespassing and who isn't. I ought to be in favor of open borders here and now. But I'm not, because the immigrants are being enticed here by all the stolen and redistributed taxes, and that same thieving government makes it illegal for them to work. Sanctuary cities whine about the flood of expensive welfare cases. No one wants to stop the government from enticing all these immigrants with free housing, free food, and no work.
It's insane.
No one wants to stop the government from enticing all these immigrants with free housing, free food, and no work
Jesus Christ, this isn't a thing at any kind of actual level.
Is this the latest bullshit talking point the right's putting out? The old 'illegals are all on welfare' lie?
Who is paying for the housing and food for the illegal aliens in New York? Chicago? Denver?
I mean when did New York Mayor Adams become a right winer?
Yes, how luxurious…free tents and food banks!
They are being housed in hotels.
https://nypost.com/2023/09/25/nyc-now-preparing-to-spend-staggering-extra-1b-on-hotels-alone-to-shelter-migrants-for-three-more-years/
There might be a middle ground between keeping them in cages and keeping them in hotels, but that's unlikely so long as it's a culture war shibboleth for the right where every dysfunction and cost can't be fixed so long as it shows how the system is broken.
The system isn't broken. The people running the system are abusing the system.
And if you don't like the current system then change it legally. If you don't have the votes to change it the current rules need to be enforced.
Then you're going to have to pay a lot more in taxes.
Was I paying more in taxes during the Trump presidency?
You had the pandemic during the Trump presidency.
"There might be a middle ground between keeping them in cages and keeping them in hotels,"
Yes. Just don't keep them at all. Turn them around back across the border.
Yes, the middle ground is on the other side of the border. Unfortunately, that constrains wouldbe Biden voters. Most states don't require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Arizona is somewhat of an exception in that you have to prove citizenship to vote for state and local offices, but you don't need proof of citizenship to vote for federal offices.
Yes, of course, many Democrats openly celebrate a perceived electoral advantage associated with massive amounts of illegal and overall immigration, both for their party and their long term policy aims overall. Some (even commenters here) gleefully anticipate the “replacement” of those who they think have wrong views. Other more unsavory elements on the left focus specifically on race and reducing the percentage of evil white folks for some reason.
Illegal immigrants can’t vote. There’s nothing inherntly superior about being white, so there being more non-white people around isn’t significant, even if they weren't still very much in the minority. The Great Replacement Theory is neo-Nazi shit.
Aren't supposed to vote and can't vote are two different things. Note Arizona's practice above. In Minnesota you can same day register and vote if you have a utility bill with your name and address on it.
Do you really think Biden would tolerate the masses of border jumpers if he thought they would vote Republican?
Well, it took me 30 seconds of research to discover Amir is wrong.
According to the Minnesota Sec. of State website, Minnesota voters can same day register with a utility bill showing an address in the precinct, but that voter would also need to show one of the following with photo:
-Driver's license, state ID or learner’s permit issued by any state
-U.S. Passport
-U.S. Military or Veteran ID
-Tribal ID with name, signature and photo
-Minnesota university, college or technical college ID
-Minnesota high school ID
The utility bill only serves to show that you live in the jurisdiction where you are registering to vote.
Nice try. Is every comment you make here a lie?
Have you any evidence of illegal immigrants illegally voting in significant numbers? Have you any evidence that Biden or anyone else is is operating a scheme to have illegal immigrants vote for democratic candidates? Would you tolerate illegal immigrants if they voted Republican?
Even Trump didn't 'just' do that, he kept them in cages.
"...and no work."
What economy are you living in?
Next week :
"How Biden Can Restore Sight to the Blind by Making Legal Migration Easier !"
"It's the latest in a series of episodes over the last decade where one party blows up a deal just as the other gives in."
Not true.
It's always Republicans who blow up a deal previously made after Democrats gave in. Republicans won't take "yes" for an answer.
By give in do you mean promising to limit the number of illegal aliens to 2.8 million per year?
The limit on illegal aliens is zero. That’s already the case.
The 2 million number is the limit on asylum applications, which is currently infinite. It’s quite a thing to entirely shut down asylum once a limit is reached. That’s a big change to the law.
Those crossing illegally are not the ones who would qualify under increased legal immigration. Those that qualify for legal immigration are vetted, possess skills the USA needs and most often are well educated. Those crossing the border illegally are often barely educated if at all. Increasing legal immigration will have zero effect on illegal immigration.
The government is not qualified to decide what "skills the USA needs" any more than it is qualified to decide the proper amounts of any other foreign or domestic inputs into the economy. What is it with right wingers who suddenly become central planners when international borders are involved?
More Little Green Men coming in to destabilize our nation. These invaders are almost all military age males. Soaking up welfare funds which cannot therefore go to citizens. Shameful for the Conspiracy to advocate for the end of the America experiment, which is based on libertarian principles.
Remember Rome and the Vandals...
Claymores & Warthogs.
Libertarian principles are in line with open borders. You realize that, right?
Libertarian principles are in line with open borders once the US is a nightwatchman state.
As I pointed out in another thread earlier this week (probably the Monday open thread?), you do not understand libertarianism. You're 100% wrong, both as a philosophical and historical matter. Libertarian principles are in line with open borders. Period. Not "once" anything. Fundamental liberty is not contingent on other things.
"You’re 100% wrong, both as a philosophical and historical matter."
Says the guy pounding his shoe on the podium and offering no argument but one from authority. Sorry, but given your history on anything not a legal topic, I will find a second opinion.
Lets look at what mises.org has to say about this since they are largely what passes for the libertarian party brain trust these days. While they do have their Somin clones in folks like Walter Block, there are additional voices such as Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella who according to you 100% don't exist. I find titles like "Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State". It might not be the actual position of the Mises institute, but it is certainly has been discussed in the past.
As to whether this is defensible philosophically, all we need to is look at "The Journal of Libertarian Studies" and find the paper "Does Being a Libertarian Entail a Necessary Commitment to Open Borders?". Fundamental answer: "No it does not" which comes with an associated discussion of freedom of association and its consequences.
Now we can go full pedant and argue these are not real libertarians for some subjective set of real libertarians, but I am not finding you persuasive.
Brett repeatedly references the fact that he was an active Libertarian Party member in the late 70s as the basis for his claims. So the other day I quoted the LP platforms from 1976 and 1980. Here, I'll do it again, since I still have that post handy. The 1976 Libertarian Party platform:
"We should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted travel and immigration."
Here's 1980:
"We therefore call for the elimination of all restriction on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for those people who have entered the country illegally. "
(Every time I posted the links the Reason commenting system ate the comment, so I am not providing it, but if you google you can find those.)
You are performing a bit of a dishonest bait and switch. You have retreated from the motte that Brett does not understand libertarianism and that libertarianism supports open borders 100%, to the bailey that the Libertarian party had an open borders platform in 1976 and 1980.
Yeah, sure the Libertarian Party supported open borders in those elections. Hell, my guess is that 50% of the current Mises guys do as well. That actually may be current position for the capital L Libertarian party, though they steer clear of that and abortion when trying to raise funds. Your bailey is actually accurate. It is the motte that is the lie.
There are plenty of small L libertarians who have historically and philosophically been sceptical of unlimited immigration. As noted by my sources, your motte statement is somewhere between wrong and stupidly wrong even if you try to move the goal posts further and argue you were only talking about the 80s. This is the classic Milton Freedman quote from that period:
"Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal."
Note that last sentence. Freedman was well aware that if it were legal, the usual set of moral busybodies would fall over themselves handing out other people's money to the detriment of personal freedom.
Brett repeatedly references the fact that he was an active Libertarian Party member in the late 70s as the basis for his claims
Did you miss that context for why DMN brought that platform up? It's right there close to the top of the comment.
So your point is that because Brett was a Libertarian party member he had to believe the party line and be unaware of existing thought sceptical of immigration ?
Well done. That's remarkably stupid. I would think Brett would have an excellent handle on the actual thinking going on at the time being in the midst of things. It should also come as no surprise that the actual thinking is a bit more nuanced than a strawman built by a partisan hack destined for a bonfire.
My point is that Brett purported to be explaining the Libertarian Party position at the time based on his experience working with the Libertarian Party.
Brett could have said, "Libertarians believed this, but I disagreed with them." But that's not what he said. What he said was, "Libertarians didn't hold these positions. Prof. Somin is far more radical than they were."
... and why wouldn't we believe him ? The Libertarian party is often at odds with libertarians. As shown, there is a large literature that clearly demonstrates your statement that :
"Libertarian principles are in line with open borders. Period. Not “once” anything. Fundamental liberty is not contingent on other things."
is pure partisan bullshit and frankly simply incorrect. Now that you have yanked the goalposts back to the more defensible "That's what the Libertarian party believed", you are now pushing the fallacy that because it was the party line everyone must believe it. I am perfectly comfortable with the possibility that Brett probably better understood his colleagues than some outsider pedant dipshit with an axe to grind.
You're right Artifex, there are libertarians who believe in libertarianism, then there are libertarians who believe in tinfoil hats. Brett is of course the latter type.
“Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State”
I assume the libertarian was objecting to the Welfare State part of that equation, not the Immigration part.
See what I mean from the other thread? The bigots have now invented this fake term "military age males" as a new talking point.
The term "military age males" has been used in many other contexts for a very long time. In this country the age spread is usually referenced to the militia act.
That was the standard term we used in Iraq and Afghanistan when referring to the population that can either join the military or the insurgents.
If this was such a good deal that the Republicans “blew up”, show us the full text of it, so we can evaluate it ourselves.
I mean, you must have a copy, since you’re so sure it was a great deal.
You know what blew up the deal? The Democrats weren't offering anything a sane person would expect them to actually deliver, because they reserve the right to simply not enforce any immigration laws they don't like.
Huh. You admitted this was a lie in Monday's thread but you're just going right back to the well, eh?
Not much self-respect remains after all the brainwashing, I suppose. Sad.
You must be a LLM, because you hallucinate a lot.
Well, to remind you, on Monday you revealed that what you mean by this is Biden chose not to continue Remain In Mexico, which SCOTUS has confirmed is a legitimate policy choice for Biden to make under the law. So there are no immigration laws going unenforced.
You knew that on Monday, so what happened?
Now, if that were what I meant by his not enforcing immigration laws, rather than an example of a policy change intended to facilitate illegal immigration, you'd have a point.
So…. what immigration law is not being enforced? On Monday, Remain In Mexico is all you could come up with. Have you suddenly discovered a new one?
Got nothing, huh. That's what I thought. All lies all the time.
Biden is letting in as many migrants as he can. The proposed bill will not change that.
Well then why not pass it and use Biden's inaction against him while proving that Republicans are capable of putting country above party?
Has it NEVER occurred to you that the only way you'll ever get what you want is if democracy has totally broken down, because it's that unpopular?
Have you NEVER considered what the government foisting policies on the people that the people hate is doing to our political culture?
Why did we get Trump in the first place? It's because Republican voters couldn't rely on establishment Republicans to not do as you suggest! They'd had one conventional Republican after another get elected, and then try to make deals to betray the people who'd elected them!
So, what do you think is going to be the result if you got what you're asking for? You think the majority that don't like massive illegal immigration would just give up and embrace it?
No, they'll just go looking for a bigger wrecking ball. If turning it up to 11 doesn't work, they'll turn it up to 20.
Bottom line: If you want peace in a democracy, the government has to be responsive to the voters, not repeatedly prove they don't care what the voters want. You getting what you want on illegal immigration could be the last straw for American democracy, because what's the point in even having elections if they don't WORK?
Half the states are careening toward open rebellion (much like the other half under Trump) and Ilya demands more of the very things people rail against. If Ilya was a paid agent and devout ideologue of communists I can't see what he'd advocate for differently.
Well, that's because you're too stupid to know what communism is.
Also, too stupid to read the post to which you're responding. Bier's point, as well as that of Prof. Somin, is that if people are concerned with problems caused by illegal immigration, then we can work to solve those problems. On the other hand, if your real objection is that you just don't like brown people, well, then, none of those problems can be addressed.
Setting aside everything else that's wrong with what you wrote, you fundamentally misunderstand representative democracy. It is not "betraying" voters to make legislative deals.
It is, if they're deals you sent them there to not make. What good is voting, if you get the same policy regardless of who you vote for?
Like I said, you fundamentally misunderstand representative democracy. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Moreover, you're like a child, stomping his feet and demanding ice cream for dinner. You're not entitled to get what you want when you want it from the govt, because you're one person, not a majority of the country. "I elected this guy to never compromise" is not an adult position to hold. Other people have different policy preferences, and you have to accept that and work with them, not just insist you get all of what you want or else.
Even a child wouldn't be silly enough to deny that ice cream was a real thing, in response to a complaint that you ordered ice cream and the waitress brought you rice.
We're not talking about impossible policies. We're talking about policies that are entirely possible, and there's just a disagreement between the voters and professional politicians about whether they're desirable.
And the point of voting is to make the opinions of the voters controlling!
You're talking about outcomes, not policies. And even in the context of policies, you're talking about policies that would be possible if you had the votes for them. But the GOP doesn't get to unilaterally legislate.
Also, the point of voting is actually to pick people who will make policy choices for you. You're confusing representative democracy with ballot initiatives.
Well, the voters elected Biden, so we got our ice cream. Of course you don’t get your ice cream when you lose an election. But here you are throwing a tantrum anyway rather than respecting democracy.
And Biden will be elected again, in part because immature Republicans have just admitted that they don’t really care about solving problems anyway. That’s never been a winning message in American politics.
If your side’s ice cream is such a luxury that it can only be produced by a completely unified federal government with a MAGA president, MAGA House majority, and MAGA Senate supermajority, then I’m afraid you may never experience the sweet taste of ice cream because that’s never gonna happen.
Of course the voters elected Biden. Did he run on increasing illegal immigration 5 fold? No, he did not, because he wanted to win.
Wait, just the other day you were whining that Biden was campaigning on eliminating Trump's harsh immigration policies.
Man you are cognitively unwell. You should try one of Trump's dementia tests.
It's not possible to betray voters by the legislation you pass? That's an interesting position. The lobbyists and party donors will get a kick out of it.
Look, this is absurdly serious.
Ilya, why do you suppose the LP was formed back in the 1970's? Why didn't Hospers and company just pen op-eds listing the elements of a libertarian society, and demanding that Republican legislators implement them the next day regardless of what the voters thought?
Because they were serious libertarians, not spoiled children prone to magical thinking.
They understood that you couldn't impose libertarianism on an unwilling democracy. You couldn't just have politicians elected to NOT be libertarians say, "You know what? Screw what the voters elected us to do, we're going to implement your libertarian program. The revolution starts NOW."
It's not JUST a case of the politicians being unwilling to do this. The voters who elected them wouldn't tolerate them doing it! You had to persuade the voters FIRST. Only then could it be possible to implement libertarianism in a democracy. Thus the LP was formed.
The LP that's currently at about 1% in a good election. A lot of that is due to discriminatory ballot access laws, and other legal defenses against third parties the Duopoly implemented back when they noticed we were making inroads, but a lot of it is because libertarianism just isn't that popular, we didn't win over enough people.
Open borders is radically unpopular. Never mind that you think it's the right thing to do, surely you realize that. That's why Biden has had to pretend that he's desperately fighting illegal immigration, even as he does everything in his power to aid it. Because he knows what he is doing isn't popular except with a radical faction on the left.
So, suppose you get your deal. (You're not.)
How do you think the voters will respond?
You think they're going to say, "Yay, the Congressmen we elected to put a stop to illegal immigration just legalized it, hurrah! We now understand we were wrong, and will gladly reelect them!"
No, they're going kick them out of office, to the extent incumbency doesn't shield them from the voters wrath, and go looking for people who won't betray them. Even if those new people aren't particularly savory. Even if they're like Trump.
Don't want to be burgled? Just give all your possessions away voluntarily! Then you won't be the victim of chaos.
That's right, because Ilya's argument was "let everyone in." /s
Nuance just isn't possible on this issue for some people.
Yes, Ilya’s ultimate argument is just let everybody in, because while he theoretically concedes some exceptions to completely open borders, he doesn’t allow for any possible enforcement mechanism.
Like, sure, the government is entitled to keep out plague carriers, but since it isn’t allowed to require people to enter through customs to be inspected, how are they supposed to do that?
Or, they can stop invading armies... Unless they don civilian clothes while crossing the border, of course.
The way to alleviate the pressure is to make everyone in the world a US citizen. It will be a bear paying entitlement benefits to the billions of new citizens in Asia and Africa.
Open border.
Generous welfare.
Socialized medicine.
Choose at most one.
The U.S. has chosen none.
We do have quite generous welfare though. Moreso for immigrants than citizens, right Chicago, Boston and NY (whose children are being evicted from schools and athletic facilities)?
But having hospitals with a duty to treat, regardless of ability to pay, the border issues, and subsidies for travel and living being offered to the immigrants, I’d suggest we are ‘doing’ all three, even if not ‘chosen’.
'We do have quite generous welfare though'
Haha no.
As if Biden could be trusted. I don't put it past Republicans or other politicians to purposefully not fix problems they were elected to fix in an effort to keep themselves in the job.
But this bill is just a bill to expand legal immigration and hinder immigration enforcement. It does nothing to stop illegal immigration, just the opposite.
Faux News is running a story that in NYC some Illegal [at Bushwood] Aliens were arrested after beating some Cops and then released with no Bail [the Aliens, not the Cops, although with NYC I wouldn't be surprised], somebody please tell me what really happened....
Frank
The NY Post confirms the story, and it's on video, so, yes, that's what really happened.
If Ill-egal Aliens are going to beat up Cops and not go to jail glad it's in New York and not my neck of the nape.
As I mentioned in the other thread, Biden said back in 2014, 2015 and other times that he wanted to unleash a “constant, unrelenting stream of immigraiton. Nonstop. Nonstop.” “Not dribbling,” Biden said. “Significant flows.” He claimed that “We need it badly from a purely economic point of view” and gave cultural explanations as well. He went on to explain his thinking in racial terms, “Folks like me who are Caucasian..for the first time in 2017 we’ll be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock. That’s not a bad thing, that’s a source of our strength.”
One may question whether Biden is right or wrong in his belief that essentially unlimited immigration/open borders is the best policy, or that superficial skin color diversity should be a focus and end in itself that is so valuable as to outweigh other considerations. Or who exactly benefits from it, when he says “we” and “our” who is that referring to? Polls show Hispanic Americans for example are even more supportive of restricting immigration and enforcing immigration laws than other Americans are, perhaps because of their economic interest.
But regardless of all that, the fact is that Biden has done this illegally, and without the consent of the governed. His administration and the various NGOs are working overtime to flood the nation with as many unknown illegal immigrants as possible. Why? It’s hard not to see it as pretty anti-American.
Chart:
https://i.ibb.co/cc1tD08/GFJM2n-TWc-AAeff-Q-format-jpg-name-large.jpg
And as I mentioned in the other thread in response, Biden didn't say that.
And as I replied, yes he did.
He used the phrase a number of times, once in connection with describing what he imagines “started all the way back in the late 1700s.” That wasn’t the only time he said it however, and the full context makes it abundantly clear (as if there was any doubt) that this is his policy prescription going forward as well.
2014 statement is covered here: https://thehill.com/regulation/business/208857-biden-hails-constant-unrelenting-stream-of-immigrants/
2015 statement here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?324394-2/vice-president-joe-biden-remarks-extremism-terrorism
Mayorkas sitting next to Biden in the 2015 clip smirking.
Mayorkas is in charge of "Homeland Security" for the United States. Mayorkas was on the board of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), one of the NGOs that works overtime on keeping the illegal immigrant pipeline as full as possible with a huge facility in the Darien Gap.
Wow you're willing to run with pure fiction.
See Brett, this is the real problem with our politics. It's become conpletely unmoored from reality.
Eventually people will decide that reality is better than this strange dystopian fantasy world. That'll be the end of MAGA.
You have developed into a shameful, liar. Who repeats lies he’s been corrected on, so we all know you don’t care about the truth at all.
Of course, anyone who has been to law school, but remains ideologically pure enough to think the government should be cut by 75% isn’t wound to tight to begin with.
Why not just link to Nick Fuentes' twitter again?
Sure thing, gaslight0. You'd know a lot about being a shameful liar.
Biden Admin. Sends Millions to Religious Nonprofits Facilitating Mass Illegal Migration
A CIS examination of one subset of 200-plus NGOs helping a mammoth UN-led immigration assistance project reveals pass-through taxpayer funding of the worst mass migration in U.S. history
AUSTIN, Texas — As the Center for Immigration Studies recently reported, a United Nations-led “Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP)” calls for more than 200 nonprofit groups to dole out $1.6 billion in cash debit cards, food, clothing, medical treatment, shelter, and even “humanitarian transportation” during 2024 to millions of U.S.-bound immigrants in 17 Latin American nations and Mexico.
But suspicions that the administration of President Joe Biden is directly footing the bill for at least part of facilitating the most voluminous mass migration crisis in U.S. history, now in its fourth straight year, can now be confirmed...
https://cis.org/Bensman/Biden-Admin-Sends-Millions-Religious-Nonprofits-Facilitating-Mass-Illegal-Migration
Outsourcing humanitarian aid to extremely poor people, how nefarious.
The trick here, of course, is that "facilitating" just means, "Helping them to avoid starving or getting sick along the way." Anything short of land mines in their path is being called "facilitating."
I've said it before but I'll say it again, the 9-11 Hijackers were all Ill-legal Aliens, sure, they entered though JFK Customs instead of across the Rio Grande, and were dressed a little better, but maybe if some INS agents and a certain Maryland State Trooper had been a little more competent 9-11 would just be another day.
Frank 'Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars'
Minnesota same day registration.
Photo ID and a document with current name and address
APPROVED PHOTO IDS (CHOOSE ONE)
The ID can be expired.
Driver's license, state ID or learner’s permit issued by any state
U.S. Passport
U.S. Military or Veteran ID
Tribal ID with name, signature and photo
Minnesota university, college or technical college ID
Minnesota high school ID
APPROVED DOCUMENTS (CHOOSE ONE)
Can be shown on electronic device.
Bill, account or start-of-service statement due or dated within 30 days of the election for:
Phone, TV or internet
Solid waste, sewer, electric, gas or water
Banking or credit card
Rent or mortgage
Residential lease or rent agreement valid through Election Day
Current student fee statement
③ Registered voter who can confirm your address
BTW, the “standard “ drivers license will accept a foreign birth cert. no need to prove citizenship. If you want the Real ID version you must prove citizenship. Either version will allow you to register to vote.