My New The Hill Article: "Abolish ICE and Give the Money to Real Cops"

It makes the case for abolishing ICE and transferring its funds to state and local police.

Illustration: Eddie Marshall | ChatGPT

Today, The Hill published my article making the case for abolishing ICE and giving its funds to state and local police. Here is an excerpt:

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has become notorious for its cruelty, abuses of civil liberties and racial profiling. As a result, the agency and the Trump administration's deportation policies generally have become increasingly unpopular.

Yet most Democrats have hesitated to call for its abolition, likely because of fear of seeming to be "soft on crime."

But there is a way out of this dilemma: Abolish ICE and give the money to state and local cops.

ICE's abuses are legion. Its agents routinely detain people with little or no due process, even seizing American citizens and legal permanent residents, as well as illegal migrants…

The ubiquitous use of masks by ICE agents and their refusal to identify themselves and their agency protects them from accountability, ensuring that those targeted often have no way of knowing whether they are being seized by ICE agents, regular law enforcement or common criminals….

The alarming extent of racial and ethnic profiling by ICE is shown by the fact that the agency's arrests in Los Angeles County declined by 66 percent after a federal court order barring the use of these and similar tactics. Conservatives and others who rightly seek a color-blind government must not turn a blind eye to racial discrimination by government agents who have the authority to arrest and detain people….

onditions in ICE detention facilities are often abysmal, featuring overcrowding, inadequate food and denial of needed medical treatment. These conditions are unfit even for the worst imprisoned criminals — and most ICE detainees are far from that. Despite administration claims that ICE is protecting the public against dangerous criminals, 65 percent of people detained as of June had no criminal record, and some 90 percent had no convictions for violent or property crime. Overall, undocumented immigrants have much lower crime rates than native-born Americans….

Growing public awareness of ICE abuses has made the agency very unpopular. Recent survey data indicates that large majorities disapprove of it, and a large minority — almost 40 percent in a recent tracking poll — already wants to abolish it.

Yet most Democrats have hesitated to call for the agency's abolition, probably for fear of seeming to be soft on crime…. But opponents can avoid such accusations by combining abolition of ICE with reallocation of its funds to ordinary police, which would undercut accusations of being pro-criminal or anti-law enforcement. This could greatly expand support for abolition….

In my 2022 book "Free to Move," I proposed dismantling ICE and giving the money to ordinary police, perhaps in the form of federal grants to state and local law enforcement. Recipient agencies should be required to use the funds to target violent and property crime, and abjure ICE-style abuses.

Putting more ordinary police on the streets is an effective way to reduce crime rates, according to a long line of studies….

Focusing on undocumented immigrants is a poor use of law enforcement resources…. Transferring ICE funds to state and local police would allow a greater focus on violent and property crime, regardless of the perpetrators' background….

Abolishing ICE would not end all deportations. State and local authorities could still, in many cases, turn illegal migrants over to the federal government for removal… But abolishing ICE would make deportation much more dependent on state and local cooperation and would empower jurisdictions to make their own choices.

Leaving immigration restrictions more to the states would bring us closer to the Constitution's original meaning. The Constitution does not explicitly grant immigration authority to the federal government, and Founding Fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson rightly argued that it did not have any general power to bar migrants…..

Comments

[Stupid Government Tricks]

A better case would be made to stop spending the money, stop stealing the taxes, lower the deficit, and leave spending to the jurisdictions which collect it.

One of the most evil mistakes in the Constitution is letting the feds borrow money on the states' behalf.

[Supremacy Claus]

Somin is a dirty lawyer. He is dirty. He wants to import millions of fake Democrat voters to make our nation a permanent one party state like Cuba, Venezuela, and Cali. Somin is just an evil person. He refuses to provide his home address so that illegales may be sent to his street and to his home.

Furthermore, dirty Somin refuses to support importing a million Indian bar exam passers. Their pass rate is 50%, lower than even Cali. They speak the King's English and know the Common Law. After 3 months of bar prep, and passing our easy bar exams, give them full lawyer licenses in Virginia. They make $12000 a year now. They will love our minimum wage of $15. Working 3000 billable hours, they would bring home $45000, an amazing raise in income for them. They have high IQs. They work very hard, and will do an excellent job over many hours. They will each bring in 6 family members to live with them. That means 7 million high IQ Indians, and millions more future law students. Until dirty Somin supports importing these great, top shelf lawyer immigrants, dirty Somin needs to STFU.

[Supremacy Claus]

The illegales entered our nation without due process. Dirty lawyer Somin is demanding we have 20 million trials and 20 million appeals to remove them. They are invaders. No due process for enemy invaders. Arrest and seize the assets of their employers. They may have due process.

Strawberry picking is a skill. Allow temporary work visas for the harvest. Most strawberry pickers want to return home after the season. They are not invaders. They are not fake Democrat cheater voters.

[Malika the Maiz]

The word of the day at Behar’s asylum is dirty.

[Krayt]

The lawyers in charge of the country have created two other categories of fast track immigration for high pay, in demand jobs, to satisfy demands and lower pay: Doctors and nurses, and software engineers.

If it's good for that, both of which are higher risk of injury and death than lawyers, it should be good for lawyers.

[Supremacy Claus]

Mal, are you a lawyer? Nervy to call anyone crazy. Lawyers believe in mind reading, future forecasting, and that standards of behavior must be based on a fictitious character. Lawyers hold many other delusional beliefs. The Catholic Church is slow to change. In the 19th Century the Church decided that Scholasticism is not valid, 600 years late. The lawyer continues to immerse itself in its invalidated methods.

[not guilty]

Supremacy Claus, how do you claim to know about Professor Somin's hygiene?

[Supremacy Claus]

Somin is morally dirty as is the entire lawyer profession. They take our $1.5 trillion, return nothing of value, and are actively toxic to this nation. They are dirty as a brown field of chemical waste is dirty and toxic. They require isolation, excavation, and disposal. Every social pathology, its directs cost, and its collateral damage is 100% the fault of the lawyer profession.

[Fusilier]

ICE has barely 5,000 agents which breaks down to 100 police officers per state. By comparison the NYPD has 40,000 officers to police the five boroughs about 100 square miles. That doesn't include bridge and tunnel police, court officers, state troopers, parole officers, probation officers and 1,000 corrections officers in New York City. Spreading the cost of 5,000 ICE Agents over the 50 states wouldn't make a dent in parking violations!

[mulched]

Once again, an Ilya Somin article where the argument doesn't matter, only the end result.

He doesn't care about the substance of his argument, so why would we?

[Roger S]

And once again, Somin applies his Marxist style of argument.

[Malika the Maiz]

What’s Marxist about it?

[Michael P]

Ilya the Lesser is so fixated on pushing open borders that he doesn't really contemplate that the federal and state governments are supposed to be separate. He just glosses over the distinction with advocacy of big-government, small-accountability block grants.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, now that's just clickbait, it's not even an effort to be serious. I can't even bring myself to engage with it, it's stupid on so many levels.

[ah....Clem]

Note that immigrants, legal or otherwise, commit crimes at a lower rate than US-born citizens. So, why are we throwing so much resource at a narrow slice of the population when the overwhelming amount of crime is committed by those outside of that narrow slice?

Granted, ICE is tasked to do more than just immigration enforcement, but they're not general police going after most of the criminal activity.

But it's not really about combating crime, is it?

[Swede425]

How about combating crime AND getting rid of people who aren't supposed to be here?
Yeah. Let's do that.

[Z Crazy]

The Colonge sex attacks prove otherwise.

All migrants should be considered barbarian savages, a threat to public safety, unfit to live among civilized humans, unless they prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt!

[Malika the Maiz]

Cologne is in Germany, ya goof.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Immigrants is immigrants, ya doofus.

[Malika]

That's crazy, they are different people from different areas. The Cologne attackers were North African and Arab, very few of our migrants are from there. And there are American immigrants in other countries, should they be assumed to be barbarians until they prove otherwise?

[ReaderY]

I think I must have missed the class way back in Statistics 101 where they show you how to use a single incident to prove things about rates. Sorry to be so slow on the uptake here. But could you go over that one with me, maybe give me a remedial refresher course?

[Incunabulum]

No, legal immigrants commit fewer crimes. Illegal immigrant commits more.

Open borders people like to throw both those groups together to make the illegals look better.

[Incunabulum]

And note, it's not Americans that are running interstate sex trafficking rings or pulling u-turns in semis on the highway.

[ah....Clem]

You're new here, so I'm gonna declare Poe's Law and not bother.

"Americans never pull u-turns". Thanks for the laugh.

[GKHoff]

Now read the rest of it: "in semis on the highway."

[Malika the Maiz]

“legal immigrants commit fewer crimes. Illegal immigrant commits more.”

Citation?

[Incunabulum]

You don't demand citations for unsupported assertions that support your existing beliefs though, do you?

[Malika]

So you don't have anything?

[ah....Clem]

Citation?

VIBES, man. It's all vibes, donchaknow?

[Jazzizhep]

I guess you, and people like you, completely ignore entering the country illegally—bypassing a point of entry—is also a crime. Yes, legal immigrants, who have to jump through hoops to get to this country, tend to obey laws more than natives in urban areas. They don’t want undo the hard work they have put in.

Illegals, who have zero skin in the game, do commit more crimes than the general population. You know it is fact which is why you conflate legal and illegal immigrants.

Trump has not been deporting legal immigrants. Even the scumbag Garcia (or hero martyr) was already under a deportation order. Some liberal panty waste judge (of the yeast infection variety) decided his membership in one gang should protect him from other gangs. Yes, his knuckle tattoos most likely identify him as MS-13

(M)arijuana plant
(S)milie face
(1) cross (one true savior)
(3) Ok, not sure what the skull is. Anyone who thinks “3” is a stretch didn’t pay attention to the first three knuckles.

Sure, the photo was a misrepresentation. The media’s representation is just as bad. But people on this blog who worship MSM as purveyors of truth, are just as guilty. They have simply convinced themselves they don’t fall for hoaxes. History says otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, his knuckle tattoos most likely identify him as MS-13
(M)arijuana plant
(S)milie face
(1) cross (one true savior)
(3) Ok, not sure what the skull is. Anyone who thinks “3” is a stretch didn’t pay attention to the first three knuckles.

LOL, do you know how outcome-oriented reasoning works? How you typed that out without exploding into a ball of shame I do not understand.

They have simply convinced themselves they don’t fall for hoaxes
INDEED.

[Swede425]

How about no?

[Bob from Ohio]

So will local police enforce immigration laws?

[Phanatic]

That's Somin's point: he doesn't want immigration laws enforced. He wants a limitless flood of a permanent underclass.

It's not even an argument that we can abolish border controls once we abolish the welfare state. He doesn't care, he just wants an effectively infinite number of poor people who are completely dependent on government handouts, because God forbid he has to spend an additional penny on a head of lettuce.

[David Nieporent]

Why would they be a permanent underclass?

[Z Crazy]

Ask the victims of the Colonge sex attacks.

they do not hold civilized values. They have no impulse control

[Supremacy Claus]

They are dirty and evil.

[Phanatic]

Each individual immigrant won't. The point is that you have a never-ending stream of them, which constitutes a permanent underclass.

[Malika the Maiz]

A stream of immigration is what happened for over our first one hundred years as a nation.

[Frank Drackman]

Someone had to pick the Cotton

[Malika]

It's not just English it's history (or math) he struggles with as well.

[Jazzizhep]

I get it David. In the third generation they are not underclass. They are typically successful Americans. They work hard and develop entrepreneurial instincts. The problem is we keep letting an underclass in. They replace those in the third generation that have moved up. We have a permanent underclass—even if that underclass is different people because we keep letting them in.

Obama understood we can’t have a cradle to grave entitlement program while constantly letting in people who need cradle to grave entitlements for two generations. He wanted cradle to grave entitlement more than he wanted illegals getting those entitlements. He did away with work requirements for welfare recipients while simultaneously cracking down on immigration.

He knew cradle to grave entitlements is simply not compatible with open borders. Biden, or whomever was in charge, wasn’t as smart.

We can’t be the entire worlds’s “chicken in every pot.” Obama knew that. The addled Biden did not. The Biden administration funded NGOs to teach illegals how to lie on asylum application. The Biden administration handed out hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of “promise to appear” notices years in advance. Notices to appear have a less that 20% rate of being honored.

[Malika]

"The Biden administration funded NGOs to teach illegals how to lie on asylum application."

Cite?

[bernard11]

Oh. I'm sure Newsmax can explain it all.

[Armchair]

"Why would they be a permanent underclass?"

This doesn't legalize this group of people. Ilya doesn't propose that in this proposal. He just proposes making deportation harder. It just makes it so there's no enforcement to deport them. They still can't get a bunch of benefits. There's still no road to citizenship for them. They still can't be legally employed.

And sure...for some professions....gardener, maid...they can be paid under the table. But for anything "upper class"? Lawyer, doctor, judge...Not a hope. You think a big law firm is going to hire an illegal immigrant as an associate? They know it's illegal, and they can be sued.

So, this class of individuals is kept in the "lower class" jobs...at sub-lower class wages. They don't have a lot of defense to being fired...they're illegal immigrants. Their employer can always be like "Oh, I suddenly realized that they were illegal immigrants, and it was illegal for me to hire them".

Sounds like a permanent underclass....Someone cheap to clean your rooms and mow your lawn, as Hunter would say.

[Sarcastr0]

ICE is currently acting as a thuggish, masked, secret police that alternates between ambushes and intimidation.
It is focused specifically on a couple of groups.

If you don't see how that *itself* creates an underclass, you're not trying.

[Armchair]

Think of this like slavery.

If you eliminate slavery, there are no slaves. If you ensure that all slaves are gone, there's no slavery.

If you put a system in place that keeps them around, then there's a permanent underclass.

[Sarcastr0]

The way we eliminated slavery is we dealt with the slavers.

We did not force them into deportation when they very much didn't want to go.

It's concern trolling to pretend you care about illegals when you want cruelty and mass deportations.

Quit with the faith, though with you it might be you're too dumb to see the bad faith in whomever you're parroting.

'they're a poor underclass!' GRIND THEM BIND THEM GIVE THEM THE BOOT NO DUE PROCESS RAZOR WIRE ON THE BORDER.

[Armchair]

"The way we eliminated slavery is we dealt with the slavers."

You're not arguing to "deal with the slavers". Because YOU ARE THE SLAVERS. You're the individuals who "need" the "illegals" to keep working the jobs as maids and gardeners to "keep America going".

Remember. You are the slavers. You "need" to keep the cheap labor.

[David Nieporent]

So your argument is, "The way we treat them makes them an underclass… so we should treat them that way only harder."

[Armchair]

Incorrect.

This makes a "PERMANENT" underclass.

There will always be people who violate the law. It just happens. Someone's always going to work under the table for various reasons. But, ideally, it's kept to a bare minimum.

But when you enshrine it into de jure law, it makes a permanent underclass. That's what this does. That's what you propose.

[thesafesurfer]

Troll harder.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That's Somin's point: he doesn't want immigration laws enforced."

Of course, it was merely a rhetorical question.

[Suudy]

"Leaving immigration restrictions more to the states would bring us closer to the Constitution's original meaning. The Constitution does not explicitly grant immigration authority to the federal government, and Founding Fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson rightly argued that it did not have any general power to bar migrants….."

Wait, wait. Wasn't this decided already by SCOTUS that the federal government was the sole enforcer of immigration in Arizona v US? You want to delegate this to the states? You want TX to enforce the law? You think that would be better than ICE?

[ah....Clem]

Originalism can be used in many ways.

As Scalia put it in the dissent in Arizona v US (joined by Thomas and Alito), "Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution..."

It might seem surprising to see Somin in a league with Scalia et. al., but it's not a completely unreasonable position, and it's not clear that Somin is proposing overturning Arizona v US. As he says above:

State and local authorities could still, in many cases, turn illegal migrants over to the federal government for removal… But abolishing ICE would make deportation much more dependent on state and local cooperation and would empower jurisdictions to make their own choices.

[Incunabulum]

Yes, he does. In the EU sense. Then CA and NM can open their borders and once these people are in the rest of the states will be forced to allow them to .ove freely.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, I can envision this comment thread going well.

[thesafesurfer]

Especially with your comments in it.

[David Nieporent]

My proposal (which I've said before here) is not quite the same as Prof. Somin's: abolish ICE and don't give the money to anybody, because the government already spends too much. That does not mean zero immigration enforcement; it means that on the rare occasions when immigration enforcement is needed, it should be done by general law enforcement agencies (federal or state) rather than specialized ones. (I would abolish virtually all specialized law enforcement agencies: DEA, ATF, etc., and for similar reasons: when there's a whole agency devoted to one particular crime, then that agency has the inherent tendency to exaggerate the importance and prevalence of that crime and the need to spend money on it, but not the need to solve it.)

[Swede425]

I hope this plan gets the consideration, and treatment, that it deserves.

[MaddogEngineer]

Except how that is not quite the same as Somin's ask here is significantly significant. With its implicit presumption of not having any immigration enforcement, since state/local police do not have default federal enforcement authority, and certainly a future Democrat presidency is not going to allow giving deputizing state officials. And blue states will continue not allowing their police to cooperate in immigration enforcement.

Somin continues to engage in bad faith on the topic of immigration. Because he doesn't believe immigration enforcement is legitimate or constitutional.

P.S. Democrats recently also called for non-federal police to be defunded.

[Z Crazy]

They simp for illegals, especially those who commit sex crimes against white girls!

[ah....Clem]

Because he doesn't believe immigration enforcement is legitimate or constitutional.

The pure libertarian (small l) position is that the government has no business telling anyone whether they can be here or not. In that sense Somin is just sticking to his principles. Yes, this position is impractical, like so much libertarian dogma, but at least it's sticking to principle.

Then again, the position that we should expend a tremendous amount of resources finding and deporting every illegal/undocumented immigrant is equally impractical.

Democrats recently also called for non-federal police to be defunded.

A relatively small fringe chanted "defund the police", which may go down in history as one of the worst political slogans ever. It's hardly the mainstream democratic party position.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I joined the libertarian movement, back in the 70's, it was understood that, while you might open the borders after everything else was accomplished, and the US had a night watchman state without any publicly funded welfare, you'd never do it before that point.

Because a welfare state with open borders is just insane, and if you did that, the rest of the libertarian program, every bit of it, was doomed, because the country would be flooded with people who WANTED a welfare state.

Well, the borders weren't legally thrown open, but they were de facto, and the libertarian moment predictably passed. I guess Somin is advocating a mercy killing for libertarianism?

He sure doesn't want to talk about path dependence, that's for sure.

[Malika]

What evidence do you have about this "understanding" of the Libertarian Party during the 70s?

[Krayt]

All other thins being equal, in an ecnomically free society, the more, the better.

The reason is sans government command and control, rationing, and so on, The People are free to respond to each others' needs and wants.

That's why I published the hierarchy of nobility of liberal immigration policy.

1. This is the shining city on the hill. Come here and live free, free from dictatorship and corruption, and make a better life for yourself and your family.

That's the world they come from anyway, rely on building their own income, but must do so under the yoke of corruption and tyranny. The US is a walk in the park for them. Nobody wanting in is looking for handouts, just to have that weight lifted.

2. In an economically free society, the more the better. See link above.

Empiracle data shows The People will respond and solve shortage issues faster than they become serious. This is the downward trend, a 5 and 10 and 20 year running average. This is a wonderful reason that really is not separate from #1.

"Low hanging fruit all gone, warning!" This is the common sense response. And the disproven lie.

For example, drilling gave way to offshore oil rigs, which was just about to give way to giant, computer-stabilized drilling ships that sunk pipes through two miles of water, drilled down a mile, made a right turn, and drilled two more miles. The online book in the link describes myriad examples, all in the face of gloom and doom talking head prognostications.

That was abandoned when even better tech, fracking, came along.

3. Import younger workers to shore up Social Security. This lets politiciabs kick the can down the road a few more decades, to put off unpalatable choices (for their jobs) like cutting benefits, increasing taxes, or increasing borrowing. This is a pure utilitarian reason.

4. Because, for whatever reason, they settle in more blue states, burgeoning their representages. This increased power is used to increase burden on business and taxes, and reverses #2, indeed, becoming a perverse aping of the burden of corruption listed in #1, that people of the world flee from.

[Bwaaah]

There's much that makes sense to me there.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As to "immigration enforcement," the excerpt includes this:

"Leaving immigration restrictions more to the states would bring us closer to the Constitution's original meaning."

Whatever his policy choices, Somin is not saying the government can't enforce immigration laws at all.

For instance, his argument that Trump is misusing executive power in various respects to enforce immigration laws doesn't mean any enforcement is unconstitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whatever his policy choices, Somin is not saying the government can't enforce immigration laws at all."

Bzzt! In fact, Somin actually does argue both that the federal government lacks any power to regulate immigration, AND that, as a consequence of the 14th amendment, the states, too, are denied that power.

To be fair, he has occasionally allowed that the federal government might have the power to exclude plague carriers, known violent criminals, and invading armies.

To be even fairer, he hasn't conceded any power to actually DO the first two as a practical matter, since he contemplates a system under which there'd be no opportunity to identify such.

[Malika the Maiz]

Which Democrats called for that?

[ah....Clem]

So, you think there are too many law enforcement agencies in the Federal Government? Shirley, you jest:

OSSaP
USDA-OIG
USFS
USFS LEI
APHIS IES
DOC-OIG
DOC OSY
BIS
OEE
NIST
NOAA
CRSRA
NMFS
OLE
DOD-OIG
DCIS
PFPA
PPD
DoD Police
DLA
NSA
DIA
NGA
NGA Police
USACID
ACI
USAMPC
DACP
DASG
USACC
NCIS
USMC CID
OSI
AFSFC
DAF Guard
ED-OIG
ED-PSD
OCR
DOE-OIG
DOE-HSS
NNSA
OST
HHS-OIG
FDA
OCI
NIH
DHS-OIG
FPS
FLETC
USCG
CGIS
CGPD
CBP
USBP
AMO
OFO
OPR
FEMA
OCSO
ICE
HSI
ERO
OPR
USSS
USSS UD
CAT
TSA
OLE
FAMS
FFDO
OI
USCIS
FDNS
HUD-OIG
HUD-PSD
DOI-OIG
BIA
BLM
BOR
SRF
NPS
USFWS
FWS OLE
DOJ-OIG
ATF
DEA
FBI
BOP
USMS
DOJ OPR
DOL-OIG
DOS-OIG
DS
DSS
DOT-OIG
USMMADPS
OFI
BEP
USDT-OIG
TIGTA
SIGPR
SIGTARP
BEP
BEPP
FinCEN
FinCEN-OSI
IRS
IRS-CI
USM
USMP
VA-OIG
USCP
USCP OIG
USCP OPR
LOC
LOC-OIG
GPO
GPO-OIG
AOUSC
Federal Probation Officers
CIA SPS
EPA-OIG
OECA
NASA-OIG
NASA OPS
OPM
OPM OIG
USPS
USPS-OIG
USPIS
SI
SI-OIG
NZPP
Amtrak-OIG
OSSSO
FRB/CFPB-OIG
TVA-OIG
TVAP&EM
NRC
NRC-OIG
NSF
NSF-OIG
NARA
NARA-OIG
PC
PC-OIG
RRB
RRB-OIG
SBA
SBA-OIG
FDIC
FDIC-OIG
GSA
GSA-OIG
SSA
SSA-OIG
AID-OIG
CNCS
CNCS-OIG

(extracted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Department_of_Justice via a snippet of python)

[thesafesurfer]

You will do nothing of the sort because no one is stupid enough to give you any authority to do so.

[Incunabulum]

Except local cops aren't allowed to enforce federal immigration laws.

>The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has become notorious for its cruelty, abuses of civil liberties

No it has not.

>ICE's abuses are legion. Its agents routinely detain people with little or no due process

When I am caught committing a crime I am also detained without due process? What due process is there for arresting someone who the officer has knowledge of their committing a crime?

[David Nieporent]

Except local cops aren't allowed to enforce federal immigration laws.

They are with federal consent.

x

[thesafesurfer]

Once again you post incomplete information.

[Longtobefree]

Well, for anyone not a deranged law professor, the detention is, in fact, the first step in the due process.

[Incunabulum]

The article makes a lot of emotional assertions and provides no evidence backing them up - not even anecdotal.

And it seems to be saying things that a lawyer trained in legal procedure would know are not true.

[Social Justice is neither]

But would an activist engaging in pushing his activism care?

[Incunabulum]

>65 percent of people detained as of June had no criminal record, and some 90 percent had no convictions for violent or property crime

They were all in violation of immigration laws.

[Roger S]

Or they avoided prosecution for the crimes they committed.

[David Nieporent]

Illegal entry, the first conviction, is a misdemeanor (a victimless one, at that). Overstaying a visa isn't a crime at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Both are still grounds for deportation.

[David Nieporent]

Thank you for that irrelevant observation. The discussion was about crimes, not deportation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Really? Because I thought the implication of (Falsely, as it happens.) insisting that most aren't "criminals" was that they should be left alone.

You really didn't mean to imply any such thing?

I say falsely, because it's actually quite hard as an illegal alien to exist in this country without routinely breaking various laws. Illegal employment, identity fraud, fraudulent use of public services by pretending to be a citizen. It goes on and on.

Even if sanctuary jurisdictions do their best to make it difficult to enforce these laws, that doesn't make violating them legal, and the people who violate them non-criminals.

[thesafesurfer]

Projecting again. This time about irrelevant observations.

[Bruce Hayden]

Good to know, that misdemeanors aren’t crimes.

[Malika the Maiz]

The number of Americans not in compliance with tax laws is higher than the number of undocumented aliens.

[Incunabulum]

Citation?

Or is that only for other people?

[ah....Clem]

US population 342 M
Percentage of that who pay Fed income tax 53%
(does not include individuals who only pay payroll tax or sales tax)
Percentage of taxpayers not in compliance 15% (https://www.davidsplinter.com/TaxGap.pdf)
Illegal immigrants 14 M

The arithmetic is left as an exercise for the reader.

You're welcome.

[Malika]

Was going to cite the same.

[Krayt]

Illegal immigrants are criminals! (Please imagine rapes and robberies and assaults!)

"How so?"

They are illegally here! That's the criminal's crime!

This is profound, time to coin a new word, asininnitry.

[Z Crazy]

Who cares about due process?

Safety, peace, and order are more important?

[David Nieporent]

Z Crazy is zee crazy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note that pro-MAGA commenters will skip straight to insistence to leave ICE alone, no matter how corrupt or ineffective its practices.

Why not advocate instead for a ground-up reform of immigration enforcement, using a new agency. Make getting rid of ICE a first step. Somin's proposal to do that by distributing its funds among local law enforcement might have bi-partisan political promise, if it came as a catalyst to also restart policy consideration on border enforcement.

Better state and local law enforcement, plus better border enforcement, seems like a notion that ought to command broad political support. I could imagine Ocasio Cortez supporting that. I could imagine Dick Cheney supporting it. I can't imagine outright racists supporting it. All three of those are points in its favor.

[Incunabulum]

What would a new agency do that ICE isn't? What incentives would this new agency have to not act in the same way?

[bernard11]

Behave legally?

Not conceal their identities?

[GKHoff]

Why is it important to know their identities, from which can be found their home addresses and family makeup? If you could identify an unmasked ICE agent as Joe Blow, what would that get you that is legal to get?

[Malika the Maiz]

Why do you think the first modern police force in the Western world required police to wear easily identifiable badges?

[bernard11]

Among other things, so if they do things they shouldn't they can be identified, complaints against specific thugs can be filed. No secret police, please. Is that too much to ask?

Why do police wear badges? How often do they get doxxed?

[Brett Bellmore]

I can think of a couple compromises:

1. ICE agents wear badges that are anonymized but linked to them, and if you have any complaint a court proceeds to follow it up without revealing their identity to you unless they're convicted of some crime.

or,

2. No mask, name on badge, and any adverse action against them is made a REALLY serious federal crime.

[ah....Clem]

Why do they need this level of anonymity when every other law enforcement agent, other than those working undercover, display their badge and don't hide their face. And increasingly, they are wearing body cams that both expose them when they misbehave and protect them when false accusations are made.

ICE is mostly arresting farm hands, roofers, gardeners, meat packing employees, delivery drivers, etc. who would otherwise just be going about their job. It's not like they are dealing with dangerous criminals, despite what FOX wants you to believe.

[Bruce Hayden]

Because these ICE agents and other LEOs are actively being doxed, resulting in threats to their lives and that of their families. And that is precisely why the left here wants to prohibit them from masking - so that they can intimidate the ICE agents individually and through their families.

[Brett Bellmore]

Precisely. They make these demands in the name of transparency, but it's really to secure target lists.

[bernard11]

Right Brett. It's all a conspiracy.

For a minute there I thought you might be remotely reasonable, but in the space of an hour you disillusioned me.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the libs! That's why they need to look and act a lot like a drug cartel that's taken over America.

Except no drugs!

[Bruce Hayden]

And, yet, the photos showing ICE raids invariably seem to be in urban settings, and are being protested by mostly white liberal activists - who are the ones trying to dox and intimidate ICE agents.

Here is my suggestion - trade stiff prison sentences (10+ years) for doxing or intimidating ICE or other federal LEOs, for preventing those LEOS from hiding their identities.

[Sarcastr0]

Invariably!

I'm just glad ICE has someone to white knight for them...or is it lick their boots?

Naturally, despite EV posting about it a number of times, grappling with the speech implications of banning doxing does not weigh heavily on you!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Hayden and Bellmore, I do not want ICE agents doxed. I absolutely do want them—like I want all LEOs—to be in a professional posture where they take well-trained care not to do things that make folks need to dox them.

Masked and unbadged, ICE agents are worse than state-sponsored secret police. They are a private thuggery, loyal not to process, not to professional standards, but only to whatever thugs they think have charge of them.

It is dismaying to me to see erstwhile self-styled American conservatives calling for an unconstrained federal secret police.

[Incunabulum]

Why would the incentives for this agency be different though? Why would they not respond the same way as ICE does?

[Incunabulum]

The reality So.in is that Biden poisoned the country against your 'totally and completely open borders' stance. Only well off people - people who can insulate themselves from crime - still hold this luxury belief.

[Jaypd]

Waiting for Eugene to "gladly" post a response from a fascist arguing for extrajudicial killings of all non whites in America.

[ReadMore]

It's becoming increasingly clear that Ilya has dedicated his scholarship to pro-immigration arguments for one purpose: import enough immigrants so that he hopefully ekes his way out of the bottom 50th percentile of Americans in terms of physical attractiveness. It's all for naught; no matter how many millions of people are imported, he'll still be a paskudnick.

[Roger S]

I think he is just an anti-American Marxist who wants to destroy the USA.

[Malika the Maiz]

Somin consistently advocated against government power from zoning laws to eminent domain to the ACA. Some Marxist!

[dwb68]

Open borders advocate advocates for open borders and to abolish ICE. In other news from the Department of Who Didn't See That One Coming...

This post might have been timely in 2020 at the Democratic Primary.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Politically, it is understandable that Democrats as a whole (putting aside certain ones) are loath to support abolishing ICE.

I can see the "defund ICE" quips.

Anyway, I wouldn't transfer the money to local law enforcement, which often has its own problems. They often warrant less funding with some of their functions transfered elsewhere.

I would lean toward David Nieporent's proposal.

[Frank Drackman]

Ilya,
we had an Erection last November, 160,000,000+ took part (some even alive in Chicago)
Your side lost.
Actually, even Kommon-Law and Light in the Loafers Tampon Tim weren't for defunding ICE.
There'll be another Erection in 2028, "45/47" trying to become "48", ooop-sey!!! I mean JD Vance.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Ilya Somin is has a good idea. There are any number of metrics to look at to see that ICE has failed. The fact that they wear masks and lack name tags alone tells you the program is not working. They regularly screw up arrests. They regularly target non-criminals who are easy targets. If ICE was succeeding you would not see them advertising signing bonuses. They would have people interested in doing the work. Dump ICE and give the money to the local police who know the law and know their communities.

[Davy C]

Why should the federal government be giving money to local police in the first place?

[ah....Clem]

Why should the federal government be giving money to local police in the first place?

Because urban areas are the engine of economic growth, with more well to do people, and rural areas are not. So, there is a feeling that we should subsidize the local infrastructure of these poor, rural areas by taxing the well-off in the cities. Just like rural electrification was one of the great successes of the New Deal.

As a resident of one of those more well to do areas, and a fairly well-off person myself I don't really mind that I live in a net-donor area. But the people who are most opposed to this arrangement seem to be concentrated in areas that benefit from it. Go figure.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, if urban areas were really the engines of economic growth, they'd be the very source of the funds being used to subsidize them, and it would be simpler to just cut out the middle man.

[bernard11]

I'm sure many residents of urban areas would be delighted to be relieved of federal tax burdens, so they could direct more of their funds to their own area.

But most are generous to our rural compatriots, and so are willing to see money go to them. It would be nice if those compatriots made some sort of small gesture of appreciation, rather that continuing to describe urban areas as shitholes, as you and others like to do.

But never mind, we know you're ignorant, and tolerate it.

[Davy C]

If you want to even out urban and rural areas, the state government could do that. Why does it have to be the federal government?

[Bruce Hayden]

No, masking just shows that leftists are using doxing and intimidation to prevent ICE (etc) agents from doing their jobs.

[Ken Arromdee]

>The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has become notorious for its cruelty, abuses of civil liberties and racial profiling.

This is one of those disingenuous arguments where someone makes an argument that sounds sympathetic, but which he doesn't actually care about.

I absolutely do not believe that if it could be shown that ICE agents were kind and always followed the law, Ilya would say "oh, okay then. I'm now fine with ICE". No, he opposes ICE as long as ICE is a thing. Whether they're "cruel" or engage in "racial profiling" makes no difference.

[Spinach Chin]

Its also an absolutely unfounded argument

[ah....Clem]

"While it is true that the nihilists broke into Mr. Lebowski's apartment, beat him up, and urinated on his carpet, Prof. Somin doesn't care that the nihilists urinated on his carpet. Even though there is ample evidence of these same nihilists breaking into people's apartments and beating them up, without urinating on their carpets, Somin condemns them because he opposes nihilists. I call FRAUD!!!"

[Sarcastr0]

So it may be true, but Somin doesn't *mean it* so it doesn't count?

This is some new extra dumb style of ad hominem.

[ReaderY]

I think Professor Somin is way over the top. But I think he has a reasonable argument that our current immigration laws are both too strict and being enforced in too draconian a fashion. This country wen through its first century and a half with almost no restrictions on immigration. One of the complaints against King George III in the Declaration of Independence was that he was stifling immigration, which the Founders thought was necessary for the country’s development and which in fact helped this country grow from a small backward group of colonies to a major world power.

[hobie]

2025 - "House Republicans vote to defund D.C. police and schools"

Also MAGA - DC Police and schools are failing.

[Spinach Chin]

The District of Columbia is ranked 2nd in the nation for per-pupil spending (only NY spends more).

[hobie]

Not anymore

[Spinach Chin]

"The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has become notorious for its cruelty"

Said without evidence

[Bruce Hayden]

The problem with giving states and local jurisdictions the money that ICE is getting in order to enforce immigration law, is that in Dem states, their LEOs wouldn’t enforce immigration laws. They are already Sanctuary states and cities. Why would anyone think that Sanctuary state and city LEOs wouldn’t be allowed to enforce immigration laws? We know that they wouldn’t.

Ilya’s obvious intent here is to eliminate federal enforcement of immigration law. without actually suggesting a viable alternative. He has repeatedly taken that position here. And if they can siphon off some of the ICE funding for their own purposes, that’s even better.

[thesafesurfer]

Ilya Somin is infamous for his ideologically driven rants, his fabrications, and his misrepresentations. It is an utter fabrication that ICE arrests declined because of racial profiling. They declined because corrupt judges ignore their sworn duty to uphold the laws of the nation and instead issue orders based on pro-immigration ideology that hamstring the ability of ICE to do its job.

Ilya completely fabricates conditions at ICE facilities out of thin air without a shred of evidence to support his claims. Citing the fabrications of other immigrant advocates creates a circular chain of misinformation that crumbles like a house of cards when confronted with reality. The academic studies Ilya call evidence are as reliable as the Iowa poll that said Kamala would win the state by 3%. He cited that same types of studies to claim that the administration's tariffs would lead to immediate recession, massive unemployment, and ruinous inflation. On that topic reality exposed Mr. Somin, charlatan.

Ilya lives in a fantasy world where self-anointed elites like himself claim the right to dictate on an unlimited number of topics to the unwashed masses that they despise , but mainly on the made up out of thin air universal right to immigrate. He makes a living off of a constant supply of illegal immigrants serving as conduits of government funding to his educational and think tanks institutions. Government funded tuition funds for illegals accounts for 10 to 15% of high institution funding, and the grants to "study the problem" makes ideological advocates like Ilya wealthy. The prospect of illegals being deported fills him and his kind with a much fear as a junking contemplating where his next fix comes from.

Ilya Somin is a charlatan who makes a living leeching off tax dollars supplied to him and his institutions by illegal immigration.

[Keldonric]

The odd thing about Chae Chan Ping is that it flipped the logic. If immigration wasn’t delegated to the feds, then by the 10th it should have remained with the states. Instead, the Court waved in inherent sovereignty in an extraconstitutional move to hand it to Washington.

The deeper error was conflating the government with the nation. The government is an agent, exercising powers by delegation. Sovereignty belongs to the people and the states. By inventing “inherent sovereignty,” the Court let the agent claim powers never delegated to it. That was the easy way out, instead of requiring an amendment.