The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
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.

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…..
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
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.
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.
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.
The word of the day at Behar’s asylum is dirty.
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.
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.
Did a lawyer steal your wife? It honestly comes off that way.
No, John. My wife died after 41 years of marriage.
A dirty lawyer stole my $1.5 trillion and returned nothing of value last year. A dirty lawyer allowed endless wars costing millions of lives and $trillions in damaged infrastructure, but immunized the civilian warmongers and their families. A dirty lawyer allowed a billion crimes to go unanswered last year. When the dirty lawyer prosecuted 1 in 500 serious crimes, 20% of the time, the dirty lawyer had the wrong guy. Then when the dirty lawyer had the wrong guy, he stacked charges and forced the innocent guy to accept a plea bargain.
This profession is dirty like a chemical waste dump. It must be isolated, excavated, and disposed of. The 30000 members of its hierarchy must be arrested for their insurrection against the constitution. Volokh has an endowed professorship and is on the arrest list. He is a dirty lawyer indoctrinator of intelligent and ethical young people, multiplying his toxic influence a 1000 fold. He has destroyed the intellect of 1000's of kids with supernatural doctrines, copied from the Catholic Church catechism. His legal spawn dress in Sunday go to meeting clothing. They go to a court that looks like a church. They stand, they sit. A scumbag in black clerical robes runs their supernatural service from an elevated altar. They practice an adversarial practice copied from the disputation method of Catholic Church Scholasticism. This scumbag on the bench uses Latin, and other lawyer gibberish to justify decision totally based on feelings, biases, self interest, bad moods this morning, hanger (for proven leniency, give the judge a sandwich). These little tyrant bitches must be cancelled to save our nation.
So just a generalized lunacy, I see.
Hi, Somin. Ninth Circuit ended birthright citizenship for those not under US jurisdiction.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/20/23-55803.pdf
Go one step further -- go with an undergrad law degree like we do with nurses and engineers of all kinds. Reduce seven years of education to four, use dual enrollment with high school to reduce that to three and fire half of all law professors as they are no longer needed.
Ilya wants to make immigration a state issue because he mistakenly believes that all states will be like California and Massachusetts -- and forgets about states such as Arizona and Texas which actually tried state enforcement during the NoBama and Brandon eras.
So if you went with immigration being a state issue -- and only subject to state rules -- you could have a Florida literally taking a "shoot on sight" approach while a Texas authorizes private bounty hunting.
And even worse than even this, you would go back to the 1787 era when everyone had to go though customs to cross a state line. The First Circus upheld this when General Mills did this with the Maine State Line during Covid, so Florida could require everyone to have a passport to enter the state.
Small Georgia towns could set up "immigration traps" and charge people like Ilya $500 for not having a passport in possession.
I really don't think that Ilya has thought this out beyond the fact that a dozen leftist states simply wouldn't enforce immigration.
And as to rural Califormia counties and their Sheriffs, has he ever heard of "shoot, shovel, and shut up"? You would have illegal aliens simply disappearing and who would ever know? It isn't like you can do a missing persons search on someone who doesn't exist in the first place.
You could literally not.
Hi, David. You literally could lynch thousands of black people in front of hundreds of people over 100 years, and prosecutorial discretion would immunize the lawyer founded and governed genocidal maniac KKK. What is wrong with you?
Immigration hurts all workers from manual laborers to the topmost professionals. I demand that Somin advocate importing a million Indian lawyers who passed the very difficult Indian bar exam. They now earning $12000 a year. They would love to do his job for $50000. They have topnotch intellect and knowledge of the law. After a 3 month prep course, all could pass our easy bar exams and should get fully licensed. Serve the need for more and cheaper legal services, including at the Supreme Court appellate level, maybe for a high $50 an hour. Until he does, Somin needs to STFU.
Dirty lawyer hypocrite Somin refuses to address the problems that could easily be solved by importing a million Indian bar passing lawyers.
Supremacy Claus, how do you claim to know about Professor Somin's hygiene?
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.
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!
I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but you appear to be off by a factor of three re ICE agents. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2025/01/16/us-border-patrol-immigration-customs-enforcement-agents-numbers/77596539007/
And that's before the massive increase ( more than $160 billion) in immigration enforcement and deportation operations under the latest spending bill.
You're confused! Border Patrol and CBP don't conduct interior enforcement and removal. BP and CBP are border guards! ICE Agents do interior removal and there are less than 5,000. If you want the entire 3rd World to move here then eliminate the BP and CBP making OPEN BORDER!
ICE has done a great job in Los Angeles with meager resources. Classrooms are much less crowded this August. There are young black men looking for day labor outside of Home Deports now. Much less foot traffic in business districts.
Los Angeles was completely addicted to illegal aliens.
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?
And once again, Somin applies his Marxist style of argument.
What’s Marxist about it?
Class warfare fails the dirty Commies in the USA. Trotsky lived a few months in the Bronx and said that. The dirty Commies have replaced it with disgruntled crybaby minority grievances. Keep trying, dirty Commies.
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.
More, he doesn't realize that many states would be far more aggressive than ICE ever dreamed of being.
TX & AZ have already tried to imprison illegals under state trespass laws.
Texas lo execute people....
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.
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?
How about combating crime AND getting rid of people who aren't supposed to be here?
Yeah. Let's do that.
Being here ILLEGALly is itself a crime.
What part of "illegal" do people not understand?
It is not. Janitors make bad lawyers.
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!
Cologne is in Germany, ya goof.
Immigrants is immigrants, ya doofus.
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?
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?
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.
And note, it's not Americans that are running interstate sex trafficking rings or pulling u-turns in semis on the highway.
You're new here, so I'm gonna declare Poe's Law and not bother.
"Americans never pull u-turns". Thanks for the laugh.
Now read the rest of it: "in semis on the highway."
For an American to drive a semi, he has to be able to parallel park it with 10 feet more than the length of the truck. It's part of the CDL exam.
Having learned how to do that he wouldn't try to turn on a crossover...
“legal immigrants commit fewer crimes. Illegal immigrant commits more.”
Citation?
You don't demand citations for unsupported assertions that support your existing beliefs though, do you?
So you don't have anything?
Citation?
VIBES, man. It's all vibes, donchaknow?
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.
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.
"Note that immigrants, legal or otherwise, commit crimes at a lower rate than US-born citizens."
The words "legal or otherwise" are doing a lot of work in that sentence. It's a particularly dishonest way of statisticulating
Legal immigrants have careful followed the immigration law, and have gone through a selection process designed to favor those whom the system believes will be productive residents and then citizens of the country.
Illegal immigrants, in contrast, start off their journey here by breaking one set of laws, have gone through no selection process, and in many cases have failed to make it in their native lands.
Combining the two in one statistic is the third type of lie in Mark Twain's famous quip.
Illegal immigrants, in contrast, start off their journey here by breaking one set of laws, have gone through no selection process, and in many cases have failed to make it in their native lands.
No stats, no facts. Just vibes.
I'm moving and grooving to day so I can't check this source carefully, but here's something to offer instead of your...frankly bigoted assertions.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD004.pdf
Allow let me to rephrase that since you seem to be struggling to understand:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
Facts are stubborn things. VIBES are squishy and soft and comfortable, which is why so many prefer vibes to facts.
Did you actually READ the article you link to?
It assumes that the arrest rate is comparable to the crime commission rate. That assumption is highly questionable, as there is a good reason why illegal immigrants, who are harder to trace, are less likely to be arrested. Also, their victims are often illegal immigrants themselves, who are reluctant to contact authorities for obvious reasons.
Buttressing this point, in almost every category, legal immigrants have a higher arrest rate (and hence, acc. to the study's assumption, commission rate) than illegal ones. That is unbelievable on its face, for the reasons I posted. Legal immigrants should have the lowest crime commission rate.
So, sorry, I am unimpressed with that analysis. You can call that a "vibe" if you like. I call it critical analysis. See if you can "struggle" to understand it.
Good lord.
The same motives to not be arrested apply to not doing crimes.
So having not addressed the evidence, and provided none of your own, you're vibesing your way into a group being inherently more criminal.
That is shades of a race science bullshit tropes from back in the day.
Most of society moved on from that; you seem to be backsliding.
Your "critical analysis' seems to entail making assertions that comport with your priors without citing any evidence that they are supported by, like, you know, facts.
Yes, there is room to cast doubt that arrest rate or incarceration rate tracks perfectly with crime rate. But while we have data on arrest rates and incarceration rates, unless someone has been arrested or convicted of a crime we don't know who they are. So arrest and incarceration rate are what we have to go on. It's not a perfect proxy, but it's what we have.
And for both rates, illegal immigrants < legal immigrants < US-born.
There is no "immigrant crime wave" It's a myth perpetrated by, well, we know who.
Here's another study. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime Happy reading.
How about no?
So will local police enforce immigration laws?
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.
Why would they be a permanent underclass?
Ask the victims of the Colonge sex attacks.
they do not hold civilized values. They have no impulse control
They are dirty and evil.
Each individual immigrant won't. The point is that you have a never-ending stream of them, which constitutes a permanent underclass.
A stream of immigration is what happened for over our first one hundred years as a nation.
Someone had to pick the Cotton
It's not just English it's history (or math) he struggles with as well.
"A stream of immigration is what happened for over our first one hundred years as a nation."
And there was a welfare state back then that would give free sex changes and food stamps, right?
And the south grew into a global superpower based on a limitless supply of arbitrarily cheap labor, right?
Right?
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.
"The Biden administration funded NGOs to teach illegals how to lie on asylum application."
Cite?
Oh. I'm sure Newsmax can explain it all.
You obviously don’t read the news. Over the last 3-4 months, this has been all over it. The Biden Administration spent tens and probably hundreds, of billions of dollars through a large number of Dem controlled NGOs. And once in those NGOs, it was passed on to other Dem controlled NGOs, etc. Most of the money spent by these NGOs to support illegal immigration appears to have come through USAID. Much of our knowledge of how this was done is thanks to Elon Musk and DOGE “following the money”. As a result, USAID was shut down, and its functions folded into the State Department.
Ah. A vague conspiracy theory. Who could've guessed.
There was in fact no such news. USAID, of course, does not have a budget in the hundreds of billions of dollars in the first place, the NGOs were not "Dem controlled," and none of it was for "illegal immigration."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Slaves were kidnapped, brought here in chains, and kept in those chains (real or metaphorical) for their entire lives, and passed down to their kids. Illegal immigrants are desperate to come here, and can leave whenever they want, and their kids are Americans.
I agree with that 100%. But just to be clear, is it your position that our borders should be open? If not, is it your position that anyone who is clever enough to enter illegally gets to stay? If not, then what do you think enforcement should look like?
And if there have to be walls around the country, the walls should have doors, and the doors should be open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
(Let's see how many people react with horror and call me a leftist for saying that.)
To put it less poetically, I think that we should screen out criminals and Yankees fans, and let the rest in.
But I would note that your question conflates border enforcement and deportation of people already here. Whatever the rules at the border, I think that once people are here and have lived here otherwise¹ law-abidingly for a few years, they should be permitted to stay, unless and until they commit a crime.
¹Yes, I said "otherwise law-abidingly," to preempt the wiseguys who say, "But they're illegal aliens, so they're by definition not law-abiding."
"Law abidingly"
And what do you think about INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8)
Or do those laws not count either?
Let's answer for David.
INA 245(c)(2) and INA 245(c)(8).....well, he doesn't think THOSE laws should be enforced with illegal immigrants either. Those are those working without legal authorization laws. Illegal immigrants gotta work, that's why they're here, isn't it?
Let's go further. What about practicing law without a license? That's just an extension of working without legal authorization.
Wait...NOW David is suddenly going to realize that THOSE laws should be enforced, even against illegal immigrants. Because "that's different". Nothing to do with the fact that suddenly it's HIS job that's being competed against.
Interesting how selective the laws that David thinks should be enforced are...
Boy, are you stupid.
We require licenses to make sure professed lawyers, and others, have some idea what they are doing, and aren't harming clients by their ignorance.
What this has to do with immigrants is a mystery.
Armchair seems to be having a fruitless conversation with himself.
For the record, I am a libertarian. With all that implies about professional licensing. That I make fun of Armchair for being a fake lawyer doesn't change that; there's no libertarian principle against mockery. What that has to do with immigration, I'm ot sure.
Armchair seems to be having a fruitless conversation with himself.
It's all very sad... seems like an argument he should win.
But what we notice is...David avoids actually answering the question.
But go ahead David. Say you don't think there should be professional licensing laws for lawyers. That anyone should be able to practice law, whenever they like, for whoever they like.
Is that something you honestly believe?
Not sure which part of "I am a libertarian" you fail to grasp.
P.S. Also amused at your "David avoided answering the question… that I didn't actually ask David in the first place; indeed, I instead answered for him."
Armchair, how do you interpret: "I am a libertarian. With all that implies about professional licensing?"
Like you, I prefer a wider gate, which is more of a libertarian position than a leftist one. That said, there are tradeoffs, and these tradeoffs must be resolved politically with laws which should be respected. Absent a deportation norm illegal crossing will only be incentivized. But I agree that exceptions can probably be tolerated based on length of stay and other criteria.
Sure, that's the squishy middle I'm in as well. And most people in America, with some flex as to where the status quo is versus the idea.
But squish positions don't engender passion, and don't motivate people to vote based on them.
MAGA, with it's 'they have no right, cruelty against them is good actually' position are terrible people, but sure are motivated.
So, too, the Prof. Somin position of maximizing legal and illegal options on as many fronts as possible.
Immigration has been a big part of the mix behind many though not all of the populist spasms in America; this one has the people in power being as hateful as any icepick-wielding know-nothing. I hope we come out of this one.
LOL I see Armchair hasn't been back since his spasm of drama.
So your argument is, "The way we treat them makes them an underclass… so we should treat them that way only harder."
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.
Troll harder.
"That's Somin's point: he doesn't want immigration laws enforced."
Of course, it was merely a rhetorical question.
"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?
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:
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.
Oh, I can envision this comment thread going well.
Especially with your comments in it.
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.)
I hope this plan gets the consideration, and treatment, that it deserves.
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.
They simp for illegals, especially those who commit sex crimes against white girls!
yawn
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.
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.
What evidence do you have about this "understanding" of the Libertarian Party during the 70s?
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.
There's much that makes sense to me there.
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.
"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.
Which Democrats called for that?
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)
You will do nothing of the sort because no one is stupid enough to give you any authority to do so.
David, that is possibly the best idea I've seen on the VC in years.
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?
They are with federal consent.
x
Once again you post incomplete information.
Well, for anyone not a deranged law professor, the detention is, in fact, the first step in the due process.
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.
But would an activist engaging in pushing his activism care?
>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.
Or they avoided prosecution for the crimes they committed.
Illegal entry, the first conviction, is a misdemeanor (a victimless one, at that). Overstaying a visa isn't a crime at all.
Both are still grounds for deportation.
Thank you for that irrelevant observation. The discussion was about crimes, not deportation.
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.
Projecting again. This time about irrelevant observations.
Yes, that's why ICE isn't exclusively a law enforcement agency. Which is why it's odd that some get upset about deporting aliens with no criminal records. Yes, that's correct. Many aliens are deportable despite having committed no crime. Immigration enforcement is not exclusively a criminal law enforcement exercise. Why the pro-immigrant advocates like to make a big deal that immigration warrants do not have the same level of authority as criminal arrest warrants.
If anyone wants to make a policy argument that we should be prioritizing for deportation aliens with criminal records, I'm right there with you. Especially since we have finite resource to effectuate deportations. But what I can't accept is the bogus notion that aliens without criminal records can't be deported. Happens all the time, and is explicitly authorized, dare I say required, by law. The colloquial "illegal" in illegal alien can also mean in the country without authorization, which is grounds for deportation.
Good to know, that misdemeanors aren’t crimes.
The number of Americans not in compliance with tax laws is higher than the number of undocumented aliens.
Citation?
Or is that only for other people?
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.
Was going to cite the same.
Assuming your number of illegal aliens is correct, that works out to 15% of Americans and 100% of illegal aliens.
But since your number of illegal immigrants was chosen specifically to make your point, you are probably not correct even in a straight up numbers comparison. Nobody believes there are only 14 million illegals here.
Assuming your number of illegal aliens is correct, that works out to 15% of Americans and 100% of illegal aliens.
As one of my math professors used to say "You just claimed that Wednesday is equal to cheese" It's not even wrong.
But since your number of illegal immigrants was chosen specifically to make your point, you are probably not correct even in a straight up numbers comparison. Nobody believes there are only 14 million illegals here.
The number comes from the Pew research center. So clearly somebody believes it.
There are likely somewhat less than that, yes.
Wishful thinking on your part. As is typical, you stick your head in the sand, and don’t see what is going on around you, then virtuously claim that nothing is happening.
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.
Who cares about due process?
Safety, peace, and order are more important?
Z Crazy is zee crazy.
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.
What would a new agency do that ICE isn't? What incentives would this new agency have to not act in the same way?
Behave legally?
Not conceal their identities?
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?
Why do you think the first modern police force in the Western world required police to wear easily identifiable badges?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Precisely. They make these demands in the name of transparency, but it's really to secure target lists.
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.
They make these demands in the name of transparency, but it's really to secure target lists.
Some things never change.
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!
Sarcastr0 — At least in America, militarized communities maintained in anonymized circumstances have commonly spawned thriving drug cultures. Two conspicuous examples: U.S. combat forces in Vietnam, and the missile silo launch crews tending America's land-based strategic deterrent. Both groups delivered major military scandals, with high levels of drug use among officers and enlisted men doing critical jobs, and widespread trafficking to keep the demand going.
On that basis, I expect ICE forces of occupation in urban America to become conduits to import drug use into communities under their surveillance.
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.
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!
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.
Look, it's a bad situation.
On the one hand, yes, OF COURSE law enforcement should be identifiable, in order to be accountable.
On the other hand, it's not imaginary that the left has developed a culture of extra-legal retaliation for perfectly legal conduct it doesn't like, ranging from petty harassment to outright murder.
So, realistically, the purpose the left has in demanding that they be identifiable is acquiring a target list. So that agents will go out during the day to enforce perfectly legitimate laws, and come home to find their home firebombed.
Here's the sort of people we're dealing with: See who's on her shirt? A murderer.
That's why I suggested anonymized badges that make individual agents traceable without any rando being able to film an illegal being captured and find out where the agent lives and where their kids go to school. What's wanted here is FORMAL accountability, not informal.
Bellmore — If what you want is formal accountability, then you have a major beef with Trump, MAGA, and ICE. Because it could not be more obvious that none of those wants accountability at all. Their intent is to make ICE terrifying, and conspicuous lack of accountability is part of the image intended.
I don't particularly disagree with you. I've said before that, while Trump is generally trying to do things I approve of, he's usually doing them in the most obnoxious way possible.
That doesn't change the fact that the left want to know who these agents are in order that they can extra-judicially retaliate against them even if they do absolutely nothing illegal.
It is in fact entirely imginary.
I linked to that video, David. She thought she was entitled to get in that couple's face just because the guy was wearing a HAT she didn't approve of. She went NUTS on them.
And that shirt she's wearing: Who's she celebrating by wearing his face around? Luigi Mangione. A freaking MURDERER. Killed an innocent man in cold blood. But to her he's a hero.
That cold blooded murderer is a hero to a lot of people on the left. For murdering a law abiding person they didn't like.
That's the sort of person you want to help learn who ICE agents are, and where they live: Somebody who thinks it's OK to commit murder if they find the victim unsympathetic.
Like I said: entirely imaginary. A guy was wearing a hate symbol, and some woman yelled at him about it for a few minutes. This is not "the left" doing anything, let alone firebombing someone's house.
"A guy was wearing a hate symbol and some woman yelled at him about it for a few minutes."
Some woman who celebrates a cold blooded murderer... Some people would find that aspect concerning.
Yeah, that's the thinking that's a problem: The idea that you can retaliate against people any time you don't like some perfectly peaceful lawful thing. That you're entitled to scream in somebody's face because they dare to not hide that they're a member of a major political party.
That you don't have to tolerate the other side, in a 50-50 nation.
You're normalizing something that's flatly incompatible with maintaining a peaceful society.
The goal here is to make sure people like that women know who the ICE agents are, so that at a minimum their lives can be made hell on earth for enforcing the law. And maybe more than that, if the right nutcase gets the info.
Oh, fuck you, Brett.
You are letting your paranoia and related conspiracy theories run away with you.
The "left" has not, in fact, " developed a culture of extra-legal retaliation for perfectly legal conduct it doesn't like, ranging from petty harassment to outright murder."
I'm sure you have an anecdote or two, but that's bullshit and you know it.
It’s not all leftists who threaten ICE agents (and other LEOs) by revealing their identity in order to threaten them and their families. It is rather a small subset of the most radical ones. But what your run of the mill leftist does is to ignore it. Just look at David here sticking his head in the sand, and pretending that it isn’t happening.
The problem is that the left in this country is tacitly allied with, or intimidated by, violent, militant, Marxists and anarchists. We saw this around the country starting in the summer of 2020. They are relatively small in number, but yield immense power these days, in Dem politics. And we are going to see this sort of thing until the Dems separate themselves from these violent groups, as they finally mostly did with the KKK 60-70 years ago (“mostly” because all of the top Dems showed up to laud former Grand Kleigle Bob (“Sheets”) Byrd at his funeral).
In support of Bruce Hayden's dystopian fantasies, his sole "fact" relies on a funeral from 15 years ago of a guy who denounced the Klan many decades before that. That's it. His entire case. It's so pathetic. Especially since single person in the country knows that the Klan is now on the side of the GOP.
You left out the "alleged."
LOL. "Retaliate against."
Remember, Brett favors the pardons of the J6 attempted insurrectionists, violent and no.
Meanwhile, he'll take a T-shirt and weave a whole-ass conspiracy out of it. Police state tactics good, because T-shirt very sinister.
When you live in a badly written political thriller, the black evil of the opposition allows one to rationalize every evil thing as necessary for this administration to do. To own these imaginary evil leftists that are in every institution and hiding on every street.
Troops in the street; face-hidden secret police; broad sweeps for gun crimes; rewriting the Constitution; revenge prosecutions; federal occupation of states...Somehow these are the ones Brett says are doing just normal peaceful stuff. It's the invisible antifa leftists and their violent shirts you gotta watch out for!
Every paranoid insane accusation turns out to be a confession of what Brett yearned for his own side to do.
The worst libertarian.
Why would the incentives for this agency be different though? Why would they not respond the same way as ICE does?
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.
Waiting for Eugene to "gladly" post a response from a fascist arguing for extrajudicial killings of all non whites in America.
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.
I think he is just an anti-American Marxist who wants to destroy the USA.
Somin consistently advocated against government power from zoning laws to eminent domain to the ACA. Some Marxist!
You don't even understand the basics of American civics. We've established that.
So where do you get off?
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.
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.
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
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.
Why should the federal government be giving money to local police in the first place?
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.
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.
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.
Let's be realistic here about why all this money is being routed through Washington, instead of being spent directly via much more efficient paths. There are two reasons.
1. State and local limits on borrowing.
2. Direct linkage in the voters' minds between spending and taxes.
The left wants much higher levels of spending than the voters are ever likely to be willing to fund through taxes. So you need as much as possible of the spending to be financed by debt, and/or through opaque paths that avoid the local voters connecting the services with the hole in their own wallets.
The big reasons that more money goes, on a per capital basis, to rural America are first that the military, by and large, needs the wide open spaces. The amount of land in NV controlled by the military exceeds the size of maybe a dozen individual states. Much of it is used for training. Do you want to live next to a bombing range? Or deal with jets going supersonic on full military power? Or even risk nuclear obliteration through a preemptive nuclear strike? Similarly, the Army also needs large blocks of land to train, including, again, live fire areas.
Then, there is the problem that the federal government owns a significant portion of the west. It has to be maintained, and doesn’t support itself by paying local or federal taxes. Sell it off, and it would cease to be a tax burden, but instead could generate tax revenue. Making things worse, urban and suburban politicians, at the behest of their constituents, have effectively driven up the costs of maintaining this land, and the adjacent land, while crippling the federal government from recouping these costs.
No they are not. They just use the money as an excuse to try to make the rural folk do what they are told.
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?
But that would be transferring money to the rural areas.
The question is why are these well off cities getting federal money? Money which came from the well.off cities in the first place.
No, masking just shows that leftists are using doxing and intimidation to prevent ICE (etc) agents from doing their jobs.
Except that regular police do, as expected, identify themselves and have little or no problems. The fact is that ICE seems to operate more like secret police. Secret police generally don't want their identities know and they use the lack of identity as a terror tactic.
That's because regular police are not generally enforcing laws the left wing consider to be objectionable.
When they are, they come under attack, too.
I don't think the issue is whether the laws is objectionable or not. Many people are offended by the ICE tactics which are more secret police like than standard law enforcement. Those objecting to the ICE tactics are significantly broader than the left. ICE approval has dropped and is underwater.
Yes, they are. You really don't know much about the left, a group you talk about all the time.
What police officer in the U.S. has had his home firebombed by the left because he enforced an objectionable law?
Would doxing a law enforcement officer be illegal?
The problem with answering that question is that "doxing" is a word made up on social media, and can mean a variety of different things. Some of those things could be illegal, but most could not be.
But that seems to be an argument that ICE agents should be allowed to protect their identities from disclosure when that disclosure could result in danger to themselves and their families. If doxing them is often legal, Constitutionally, then criminalizing disclosing their identity publicly would be unconstitutional. So, the only safety that they can have is to hide their identity while executing their assigned duties.
Safety from what? Again, there's no danger. There are about a million LEOs in the U.S., and to a rough estimate zero attacks per year on their homes and families.
This is not about safety; this is about moral cowardice. Don't get me wrong; LEOs are physical cowards too. But that's not what they're worried about.
>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.
Its also an absolutely unfounded argument
"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!!!"
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.
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.
Boy, won't you be surprised when you read the series of Supreme Court decisions on the topic of what immigration laws and enforcements are allowed and how executive and executive federal powers in the immigration sphere are essentially plenary.
The cases of Chae Chan Ping, Fong Yue Ting and Nishimura Ekiu are illustrative.
But Professor Somin is making a policy argument here, not a constitutional one. Plenary power includes the power to relax immigration restrictions, not just tighten them. These decisions in no way imply Congress is obligated to restrict immigration. Moreover, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the country’s first large-scale immigration restriction, which is the source of most of the cases you cited, was enacted well over a century into this country’s existence, and remained an isolated exception for about the next half century.
He's making both. He thinks is policy preferences is the actual correct constitutional interpretation.
What's annoying about his advocacy, which is almost gaslighting, is that he talks about his policy preferences as if they are the law. Not should be the law. Like they are the law yet no one else has yet recognized this obvious truth. Why I name it gaslighting. He engages with others as if he has current legal precedent on his side. At least the Pro-Life crowd were singularly focused on the injustice (from their perspective) of Roe v Wade. Or the anti-birthright citizenship people that Wom Kim Ark is an obstacle. Somin doesn't bother to articulate what precedent(s) are blocking his preferred interpretation. I don't think he even can, because his beliefs defy legal common sense--given the essentially universal consensus that the federal government can regulate immigration.
I agree, to some extent. AZ v US was precisely that the states couldn’t enforce immigration law, if the federal government decided not to. The federal government has almost exclusive power in this realm. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the result is going to be that states cannot interfere with the Federal government enforcing (federal) immigration law.
Somin may have merely been making a policy, and not legal or Constitutional argument. But he claims to essentially be a Constitutional Law expert. And, without adequate disclaimer, he has to be assumed to be staying within the bounds of current Constitutional and statutory law. Congress might be able to delegate immigration law enforcement to the states. But they haven’t, and are unlikely to do so, in an era of Sanctuary states and cities.
“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.”
But that is not for the states or local governments to decide. That decision is federal, which means the laws enacted by Congress and implemented by the President. It pretty much has to be that way, since immigration is a national issue, since the right to travel is a fundamental right. We have almost no bars to travel between the states, and that means that Sanctuary states and cities could completely undermine national immigration policy, by welcoming in illegal immigrants, who are then able to easily travel throughout the rest of the country.
2025 - "House Republicans vote to defund D.C. police and schools"
Also MAGA - DC Police and schools are failing.
The District of Columbia is ranked 2nd in the nation for per-pupil spending (only NY spends more).
Not anymore
"The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has become notorious for its cruelty"
Said without evidence
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.
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.
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.
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 illegal parking violations!
So Ilya's brilliant plan is:
1) Abolish ICE
2) Give the money to the same police who have refused to allow ICE to pick up people on detainers, and who have the insane habit of releasing often violent illegal alien criminals back onto the streets.
I knew Ilya was stooopid, but this takes the cake. The number of illegals getting deported would immediately drop to zero, and illegal alien crime would go through the roof.
Why does "Reason" give this most unreasonable man a podium? He obviously hates the US and all we stand for.
w.
How would this work with respect to states that are sanctuary states? I assume some would just forego the money.
That is literally the whole point of the exercise: Devolve immigration enforcement to the states, so that it won't happen in sanctuary jurisdictions. Rendering it futile to do elsewhere, and setting up a political dynamic (Thanks to illegals counting for apportionment.) that favors jurisdictions that do everything possible to increase illegal immigration.
Remember, the bottom line is that Ilya thinks there shouldn't BE any immigration laws, and such laws must be defeated by any means possible.
Prof. Somin doesn't really hide his thinking; dunno why you need to make up an additional secret agenda behind what he's advocating for.
Can we stop pretending that it's a secret agenda? Somin writes quite a bit on the topic, here and elsewhere, and does not conceal the fact that he's opposed to all immigration laws, and regards immigration controls to be unconstitutional both at the federal AND state level.
There's no secret agenda here, it's all out in the open.
The federal government doesn’t have immigration power. It was never delegated in the Constitution. The courts built it later on “sovereignty,” which I think is untenable. By contrast, the 10th Amendment suggests the states probably do retain that authority, since powers not delegated are reserved to them or the people.
...Necessary and proper...
Necessary and proper doesn’t create new powers. It only allows execution of powers already delegated. If immigration isn’t enumerated, it can’t be conjured out of “necessary and proper.”
"Necessary and proper", the old sea hag auntie of the commerce clause.
Many many people disagree with your interpretation. It's even arguable that only enumerated subjects are within government's powers. But I always enjoy how people like you make statements of opinion as if they are unarguable facts.
You’re right that there’s plenty of disagreement in how people read the Necessary and Proper Clause — that’s constitutional law for you. But notice the text:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
That language ties the clause to execution, not invention. It lets Congress build the machinery for powers that are already there, like creating lower courts to carry out judicial power, or setting residency rules to execute naturalization. Even in the case of treaties, ratification alone isn’t enough; most require an enabling act from Congress to have domestic effect. But it doesn’t let Congress conjure up new subject matter that was never delegated in the first place.
I’ll admit I fumble through the matter — and really, all any of us have are interpretations, which makes them feel like opinions. I just try to keep my opinions informed by the text and the structure, and I appreciate any light others can shine, because that’s how I keep learning.
Since you mentioned many people see it differently, I’d be interested in how you interpret it. Thanks for engaging — the Founders didn’t get together and sing Kumbayah after all.
Yeah, that's Somin's argument, which runs into the migration or importation clause. You've got to ask why the Constitution forbade Congress to pass before 1808 a sort of law it had no power to enact anyway. Courts have generally concluded that clause meant that the federal government WAS understood to have the power to regulate immigration.
Is it the most solidly established power out there? No. But if you're going to start winnowing away powers that have no constitutional basis, it's hardly where you'd start; How about the war on drugs? There's no constitutional basis for it. Or federal gun laws; Not only lacking in constitutional authority, they're explicitly prohibited!
Both are enormously more destructive of the rights of Americans. But it's not the rights of Americans Somin is out to protect. It's the rights of everybody else, who might want to BECOME an American, even though we don't want them.
The time-boxed restriction doesn’t itself delegate a power afterwards. It just set a boundary on what Congress might try. To actually exercise that power after 1808, it would still need to be found among the enumerated powers and immigration simply isn’t there.
The same “sovereignty by necessity” logic props up federal drug control, gun laws, education, and many other things. But that’s exactly the problem: it replaces sovereignty by delegation.
So the working standard becomes: “whatever powers those in power think are necessary for sovereignty at the moment.” But that isn’t delegation, that’s discretion and it’s exactly what the Constitution was written to guard against.
A time-boxed restriction isn’t a grant. If the First Amendment said “no censorship before 1808,” that wouldn’t mean censorship power appears in 1809. Same with the Migration clause.
The time-boxed restriction doesn’t itself delegate a power afterwards
I'm sorry, that's weak, and I love the idea government only can exercise powers it is clealy granted consciously. No growth by chin-rubbing rationalizations by the power mongers to arrogate more power that would have been laughed out of the room back in the day.
Do you know what else was unanticipated? Cynical power mongers deliberately encouraging illegal immigration to leverage the apportionment rules.
Federal immigration control wasn’t anticipated — the Constitution speaks of naturalization, not immigration, and states managed residency well into the 19th c. Not all voters were even citizens then. That’s why apportionment was tied to persons — the Framers assumed free movement and non-citizens among the governed. If we had amended the Constitution instead of letting pragmatism rule, we’d be better off.
Do you know what else is a figment of your imagination? Cynical power mongers deliberately encouraging illegal immigration to leverage the apportionment rules.
I’ll admit the phrase sounds weak in isolation. But in context of Article I, Section 9, I think it fits — those clauses are restraints, not delegations. Here it was constraining Congress’s existing commerce power, delaying its use until 1808 rather than creating it anew.
Nobody thinks that the 1808 provision itself constitutes a delegation of power. But it incredibly strongly implies the existence of that power.
I mean, if you moved into an apartment complex that had a posted rule saying, "No using the laundry room on Sundays," you'd think it really really weird to learn that there wasn't a laundry room in the apartment complex at all.
Art. I, sec. 9 specifically makes an exception involving the "migration" of persons, which implies Congress does have some power over immigration.
Immigration touches multiple powers delegated to Congress, particularly the power over international commerce.
Congress can and from early years did regulate incoming ships, including such things as requiring certain paperwork regarding the people on board. That regulates immigration.
What about the power to regulate territories? Congress could regulate entry into territories, including from Mexico and Canada, which again is something that regulates immigration.
Arguably, and this was a matter of dispute during the Alien and Sedition Acts controversy, the immigration power is more limited than it was actually applied.
Regulating ships and paperwork is commerce — regulating cargo. That’s not the same as regulating people once they’re here. The line between commerce in persons (slave trade) and migration is exactly why the Constitution treated them separately.
The United States owns the territories, so it can regulate entry there under the Property Clause. But it doesn’t own the states. They are sovereign members. They only delegated certain powers, and immigration wasn’t one of them.
Take it up with the Supreme Court. In recent years, AZ tried to enforce federal immigration law, and the Supreme Court told them that immigration control is a purely federal function.
This is one of those cases where the Court wasn’t applying text, it was making policy. Immigration power was never delegated in the Constitution. It was judicially constructed on “sovereignty by necessity.” The justices may sleep soundly treating that pragmatic workaround as settled, but precedent on top of invention still isn’t constitutional delegation.
Article I, § 8:
The Congress shall have power…
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…
@Bruce Hayden
Sorry, apparently the thread only goes so many levels deep. So I am replying here.
They could have made the delegation with a few words — “and migration of persons” — next to naturalization in Art. I, Sec. 8. They did not. Naturalization is citizenship; immigration is entry and presence.
See discussion of AZ v US below. Your argument might have been plausible before that decision. Since though, it has been binding precedent. Maybe you are correct that SCOTUS overstepped in that case. But they have been doing that, occasionally, since Marbury v Madison. Some of their overstepping and overreaching is eventually reversed or equivalent. We saw that recently with abortion. But it’s not going to happen anytime soon. You just don’t have the votes. My guess is that the vote, today, would probably be 7-2, or at least 6-3 in favor of continuing federal control over immigration - though Justices Thomas and Alito might surprise me, sticking to their views in their dissents.
@Bruce Hayden
Fair point — I don’t deny that Arizona v. US makes the federal immigration power “broad and undoubted” as a matter of binding precedent. I’m just trying to scratch at the deeper question of how we got there, because the path wasn’t inevitable.
Regulating ships and paperwork is commerce — regulating cargo
Now do the 99% of the remaining Commerce Clause Rube Golbergian arguments by power mongers looking to get in the way of stuff at the federal level oh look my spouse is manifesting Gregory House savant level thinking in the investment world.
Now do the 99% of the remaining Commerce Clause
I'll let someone else worry about that since I'm responding to a claim that there is no federal immigration power.
There is one & it was applied from the 1790s on.
Did a search. In the 1790s, Congress did legislate on immigration, but it was narrow and nothing like a general federal immigration power:
1798 – Alien Friends Act
Allowed deportation of any alien deemed “dangerous.” Expired in 1800, never tested in court.
1798 – Alien Enemies Act
Authorized detention/deportation of enemy nationals in wartime. Requires a declared war; amended 1918; still law today (50 U.S.C. §§ 21–24).
1799 – Passenger Act
Regulated immigrant ships; set passenger limits and required manifests for health and safety. Transport regulation, not immigration control.
1799 – Quarantine Act
Authorized federal port/customs officers to help enforce state quarantine and health laws. The act insisted federal officials could not interfere with state or local rules — cooperation, not preemption.
Taken together, these were about health/safety and wartime contingencies, not a standing federal power to police who could enter. General immigration control only emerged decades later.
Don’t get me started on Wickard. When “commerce” stretched from ships and manifests to wheat you never sold, the machine went full Rube Goldberg.
Regulating ships and paperwork is commerce — regulating cargo. That’s not the same as regulating people once they’re here.
The claim was that there wasn't an "immigration power," and now we are debating the reach of the federal power over immigration. The regulation of the entry of people is the regulation of immigration.
The line between commerce in persons (slave trade) and migration is exactly why the Constitution treated them separately.
The provision talks about both migration and importation of persons. So, I'm left wondering, so what?
The United States owns the territories, so it can regulate entry there under the Property Clause. But it doesn’t own the states. They are sovereign members. They only delegated certain powers, and immigration wasn’t one of them.
Territorial Clause. "Property" is separately addressed.
Regardless, again, you are just conceding the federal government has an "immigration power," as a subset of its power over territories and federal property.
I should clarify — my claim is about the states. Congress clearly had powers over naturalization, commerce, property, and territories, but there’s no delegated general “immigration power” to regulate entry into the states themselves. Hopefully this makes my thinking clearer.
Okay. That's a narrower claim.
Regardless of the argument that there is no "general" power over that, Congress still has powers to "regulate entry into the states," including the power over international commerce. The provision in Art. 1, sec. 9 regarding migration is one indication.
==
As to the other reply, your research shows the federal government early on applied immigration power, but it was limited in scope in the early years.
Government power, locally and nationally, changed over the years as various facts on the ground changed.
@JoeFromTheBronx
Relying here due to thread level limit
Even in the Convention debates and the Committee of Detail, it was conflicting. “Such Persons” was a euphemism for slaves, and Morris worried that including “migration” could be twisted to reach free people. Others said it wouldn’t — and in practice it never was. Some read migration as the movement of slaves among the states and importation as bringing them in from abroad, which pairs with Article IV, §2’s equally careful euphemism (“Person held to Service or Labour”). Neither Congress nor the courts ever used the clause as a basis for immigration law. The ambiguity was deliberate: the Framers didn’t want the Constitution stained with the word slave — Madison later wrote they thought it “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” Morris wanted to make it explicit, but Sherman and others refused.
The purpose of the clause was to constrain Congress’s commerce power until 1808 — and that’s exactly what it did. On the very first day the restriction lifted, January 1, 1808, the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves took effect under the Commerce Clause, ending the transatlantic trade. If the “migration” half had been meant for free immigration, Congress or the Court would have used it after 1808 — but they never did.
Incorrect. See discussion of AZ v US below. The Feds do have immigration power, and it is exclusive.
Same as a reply to myself upthread expanded a little.
Fair point — Arizona v. US makes the federal power exclusive as precedent. But the foundation is built on sand: “inherent sovereignty” isn’t in the Constitution. The Migration/Importation Clause was a time-boxed restraint, not a delegation; after 1808 Congress used commerce to end importation, and migration of free persons was never touched. The plenary power doctrine rests on sovereignty the Court read in, not on anything the Framers wrote.
Frustrating as this commenting system is. It is still better than some.
Duplicate
Yes, which is why many criticize those him when he says it out loud. He has beliefs that clearly conflict with the Constitution and court precedents. But because some people agree with him, they excuse that, in ways they would not any other right of center crackpot beliefs--like say that birthright citizenship isn't a thing.
They clearly conflict with court precedents, and he openly says when he thinks those precedents are wrong.
Federal agents arrest firefighters working on WA wildfire
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/federal-agents-arrest-firefighters-working-on-wa-wildfire/
"It is unusual for federal border agents to make arrests during the fighting of an active fire, especially in a remote area."
While ICE serves a function I view as necessary, they're far enough gone this isn't reformable; we need to start anew.
"But a spokesperson for the Incident Management Team leading the firefighting response said the team was “aware of a Border Patrol operation on the fire,” that it was not interfering with the firefighting response and referred reporters to the Border Patrol station in Port Angeles."
"On Wednesday, the two contract fire crews were sent up to the northeast side of Lake Cushman to cut wood for the local community, according to two firefighters on one of the crews."
So, basically you're arguing that if an illegal immigrant gets a job even tangentially related to firefighting, they become untouchable? Because, these guys might have technically been involved in a "fire fighting operation", but they weren't fighting fires. They were cutting firewood.
"While they were waiting for their division supervisor to arrive, federal law enforcement showed up around 9:30 a.m."
No, they were waiting around to cut firewood...
Those agents should be brought up on charges of interfering in emergency personnel in the course of their duties.
Arresting illegal alien firefighters is not an emegency. Allow financial suits for any slowing down of the firefighing on top of jail time.
Quit being wimps.
Honestly, if Posse Comitatus is violated in a city that isn't a federal enclave, send a lone, unarmed police officer down to the guard and tell them to leave or he will arrest them.
Seriously. Make sure a thousand cameras are filming.
This may surprise you, but the Trump Administration appears to have carefully not violated Posse Comitatus (PC). For example, as I understand it, the National Guard is not included under PC. And Marines can legally protect federal buildings and federal officers doing their assigned duty. They can’t act as LEOs under PC, but can protect federal LEOs.
This is just open borders with extra steps.
Why are so many red state commenters so avid to inflict ICE on blue state cities? Why not let states which have to deal with alleged afflictions brought by illegal immigrants deal with the results?
Some deep red commenters, like Bellmore, make it a point to overlook that recent immigrants can't vote, and insist nonsensically it is all about political advantage for blue states. I think Bellmore is more likely concerned that illegal immigrants create economic advantage wherever they go. It disgruntles some red state commenters to admit that, and it disrupts their notion of peaceful enjoyment if they have to compete to keep up with it.
Or, more charitably, if you are a worker with low earning power, maybe you prize preservation of low-cost economic backwaters, which an influx of high-energy immigrants might spoil. As a limited-income retiree, that is a point of view I can share.
I worry that my current perch in a prosperous blue state may at some point become economically unsupportable, and send me looking for an economic backwater I can better afford, and there end my days less expensively.
I might have done it already, except for my distaste to live among neighbors like Bellmore. Plus I have an abiding need for better medical care than I expect I would find in red state emergency rooms.
And I remain mindful that deep red political tendencies practiced in blue states come ameliorated with more humanity than in less fortunate locales. I enjoy a thriving relationship with such a red-tending neighbor where I am now. We are nothing alike politically, but my MAGA-voting neighbor is not a hater. So we find ourselves nicely in league against some snobs down the lane, who look down on both of us.
I am going to miss him if expensive blue state prosperity forces me out. My neighbor and I share wheel barrow and shovel landscaping efforts which the others hire out to immigrants, who tend the neighbors' properties more efficiently than we can manage ours. Their properties look manicured. Ours look more naturally thriving.
We pride ourselves on the difference. For all I know, we both talk politics, but not to each other. I can live with that. Very nicely. I think maybe Bellmore and his ilk would do better to try to find blue-tendency neighbors to be comfortable with.
"Why are so many red state commenters so avid to inflict ICE on blue state cities?"
What other federal laws would you like to let local governments violate, or prohibit the enforcement of? Are you ready for machine gun sanctuaries? Nuclear power sanctuaries?
"Some deep red commenters, like Bellmore, make it a point to overlook that recent immigrants can't vote, and insist nonsensically it is all about political advantage for blue states."
No, they can't vote, but they still count for apportionment, and so add to the weight the actual voters in those places get. Only illegal immigrants count for 5/5ths, not 3/5ths... That's why Democrats totally freaked out over the suggestion that the Census distinguish between citizens and non-citizens: While the state level partisan impact of apportioning on the basis of illegal immigrants is small, the intra-state effect is quite large; Urban areas that are predominantly Democratic would lose quite a few seats in the House, and in state legislatures, if illegal aliens were not counted.
"I worry that my current perch in a prosperous blue state may at some point become economically unsupportable, and send me looking for an economic backwater I can better afford, and there end my days less expensively.
I might have done it already, except for my distaste to live among neighbors like Bellmore. Plus I have an abiding need for better medical care than I expect I would find in red state emergency rooms."
I'm quite nice in person. I suggest you take a serious look at Greenville; If you're in the area I'll show you around.
Legally, non citizens cannot legally vote in federal elections. But they do, or at least did. States like CA have made it very easy for non-citizens to vote, while making it almost impossible to check up on whether they are indeed citizens, and can legally entitled to vote. Getting a DL, signing up for any sort of welfare, and you get asked to register to vote, the default being to do so, and no check is made for citizenship. Then, at election time, poll watchers aren’t allowed to verify eligibility. CA may be the most egregious here, but several other states have somewhat similar loose registration and voting laws.
2020 truther has thoughts about other elections too.
Unsourced, natch. And wrong as to the driver's license. Illegals can get one, but it's a special license that says they can't vote.
I know, amazing they took the effort. It's almost like the whole California conspiracy to let illegals vote is bullshit and he's a delusional crazy person.
As a general rule, Sarcastr0, it's easier to persuade people there's no unicorn behind a tree if you're not adamant that they not be permitted to look behind it.
“Why are so many red state commenters so avid to inflict ICE on blue state cities? Why not let states which have to deal with alleged afflictions brought by illegal immigrants deal with the results?”
Because the illegals that you entice to cross the US border don’t stay put. Nothing to impede their moving from state to state. The only border control that I ever remember stopping at, crossing between states, are the agricultural check stations on CA’s borders, plus, in the past, weigh stations for commercial trucks. But for everywhere else? Flying into Spokane, and driving to our house in NW MT (~2 hrs), we drive through three states, and across two state borders. We usually cross the WA/ID border, on I-90, at maybe 75 mph, flowing with traffic. No doubt, there are a number here in the NE who can tell stories of transiting more states more quickly. And there are innumerable alternate routes across these state borders. I know of at least 8 between our county in MT, and next door ID.
Libertarianism: where everyone is free to do drugs and watch porn in their parents' basement, but not free to create orderly communities (with zoning laws) and ensure safety as well as the cultural and social integrity of one's homeland (with borders).
“Cultural… integrity”
Oh boy
All that's missing is the toothbrush mustache.
It's about being free from government, historically badly abused by the power mongers to enrich themselves by getting in the way.
The illegal immigration issue is perverse as it is being used to gain power by a party dedicated to getting in the way.
Fundamental Theorem of Government Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.
They literally do not care about the welfare of people fleeing terrible, corrupt dictatorships, and just want the numbers to win, to get in the way more easily, to burgeon bank accounts mysteriously you can't prove anything grrr!
They used to be opposed to easy immigration because it undercut union working man wages. Somehow their corruption greed abandoned that and they started touting, "Who do you think will harvest crops, brick new homes?" and the like, as a likeable feature.
Of course, the Republicans picked up that ball and ran with it, adding racist shit like it's all criminals and you know, Mexicans, white man in the suburbs.
Oh, I haven't done this in a while. Dear Lord, please send a giant asteroid to smear this worthless world across the cosmos. Either that, or terminate all these shits so we can be free.
No you America hating commie. Local police have no authority over immigration you like to condescendingly proclaim anytime it fits your open border crusade, but now they do? Fuck off with this suicidal, ideological nonsense. We all know your preferred model is the LA model of ignoring immigration law and catering to illegals as opportunity allows.
It is funny what you think is communist.
To be fair, constitutionally local authorities probably have a more solid footing on immigration than the federal government does. The Constitution never delegated that power to the feds, but under the 10th Amendment states retain undelegated powers unless prohibited.
There is no racial profiling. The races of mankind are Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, and Amerindian. None of these are being singled out by ICE.
There may be ethnic profiling, and the reason for that may be that certain ethnicities make up most of the illegals.
Not so sure about Amerindian. They are primarily East Asian, of at least two different strains. Navajo and related are fairly recently descended from Mongolians. My understanding is that the remainder have been here much longer, from, I believe, closer to Chinese/Korean. In any case, their skeletons are forensicly closest to East Asians. On the flip side, you missed Pygmies and Bushmen, who still survive, despite 18th and 19th Century attempts to eradicate them by Negroids in central and Southern Africa.
I'm not sure which is dumber in this comment: the bad biology ("there are 5 races") or the pointless anthropology ("ackshually, it's ethnicity, not race.").
Open borders pimp whose motive is to destroy the nation. Don't over-think it.
“Leaving immigration restrictions more to the states would bring us closer to the Constitution's original meaning.”
And he claims to be a Con Law prof. In the original Constitution:
Article I, § 8:
The Congress shall have power…
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…
The Supreme Court, in AZ v US, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), determined: (summarized in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States):
Yes, truly an embarrassing thing for a law professor to say, when immigration enforcement advocates have been stymied at having states enforce immigration policies. Because as you correctly note, the Supreme Court says they can't; only the federal government can.
Of course, as I said above, that's Somin arguing in bad faith. Because he doesn't believe in any immigration enforcement. Suggesting the states do it is just a clever way to have it not happen at all, given existing legal precedent. He can't not know that. Because it's a precedent he doesn't think is constitutional. If anything, the 14th Amendment (in response to Dred Scott, which also intimated a state sovereignty authority) took away from the states almost any shared responsibility for immigration, residency, and citizenship regulation, by enshrining a definition of citizenship (state and national) in the Constitution.
" Suggesting the states do it is just a clever way to have it not happen at all, given existing legal precedent."
To be fair, Arizona v. US rested on a pre-emption holding: that federal law pre-empted Arizona's attempt at immigration enforcement. Congress could change that and allow state immigration enforcement. But the change of that happening is minimal, and Somin would almost certainly oppose that.
"To be fair, Arizona v. US rested on a pre-emption holding: that federal law pre-empted Arizona's attempt at immigration enforcement."
THAT would have been a more reasonable holding. What they actually held was that a federal policy of NOT enforcing the federal law pre-empted an Arizona law that in no way contradicted any federal statute.
They took a clause that made laws enacted by Congress supreme, and interpreted it to make the executive branch's decision to not uphold them supreme, instead.
Pretty embarrassing for a supposed lawyer — even if only a patent lawyer — not to know the difference between immigration and naturalization.
Ahhhemmm.
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394-95 (2012)
You just called Justice Kennedy, and the four Justices who joined him, "pretty embarrassing." Which, I agree, they have been on numerous occasions. Still, a lawyer is entitled to rely on a controlling SCOTUS opinion.
Granted, I’m not a lawyer, so maybe I don’t follow the fancy logic. But from where I sit, Sutherland skipped the Preamble and the 10th, inflated “treaties and ambassadors” into everything, and equated government with the nation — then claimed enumerated powers only apply internally. That looks more like narrative than constitutional reasoning.
How to put this?
On an objective, Olympian plane of sheer logic and disinterested, impartial interpretation of the law, yes, they should be embarrassed over this sort of thing.
If Supreme court justices could be embarrassed over this sort of thing, the justices who perpetrated Dred Scot and Slaughterhouse would have been so embarrassed that their descendants would still be observing their solemn duty of drawing clown noses on their ancestor's depictions any time they came across them.
The cases that upheld the New Deal would have embarrassed to the point of death a generation of justices.
Raich and Kelo would have them wearing sack cloth and ashes.
US constitutional jurisprudence is a dumpster fire, it has been all my life, all my parents' lives, and their parents, too. This is small potatoes, really.
Fair point — the dumpster fire has a long history, and Curtiss-Wright isn’t the only log on it. But I still think it’s worth pausing on moments like this. Expanding “treaties and ambassadors” into an all-encompassing foreign affairs power may be small potatoes next to Dred Scott or Kelo, but it shows the same pattern: stretching the text with a straight face until the words mean something they never did at the Founding.
When writing that last comment, I imagined Sutherland as a gymnast doing a vault. Lol.
I do appreciate the conversation taking place here. I’ve been curious about the broader issue for some time, but I haven’t had the chance to devote serious study to it — so for now I just try to scratch the surface. In this thread I have received more substantive feedback than ever before. It’s been nice.
Pretty embarrassing, in my view, for a supposedly top notch practicing attorney. But Nieporent again went off half cocked, and spoke before doing his own research.
I wish I had the time and resources to do serious research on everything the federal government does. The pedigree of the laws and how they’ve been executed is genuinely fascinating to me — though the engineer in me would probably go mad trying to reconcile the text, the compromises, and the precedents. The other night driving home I even started mentally fitting the Constitution into a UAF model. It actually maps surprisingly well — Performers, Enterprise Goals, Capabilities, Operational Activities, etc. The Framers really did an excellent job capturing so much structure and function in such a short document.
Somin just wants to abolish ICE because he is an open borders advocate, it has nothing to do with diverting their budget to local police.
In making his case he embarrasses himself with his scurrilous slurs against ICE agents, who are doing their jobs under trying and dangerous circumstances. He doesn't mention the many assaults of ICE agents by "protesters," the doxxing of agents, and the threats to their families. Shame on him.
Bottom line: if you are here illegally you should self deport, and seek legal re-entry. If you are caught and deported you might never again be allowed to enter.
We, the conservatives in the U.S., seek law and order, and legal immigration, and enforcement of the border and immigration law.
Mr Somin - get your facts straight. Undocumented immigrants do NOT have lower crime rates:
https://www.justfacts.com/immigration.asp#crime
Mr. existoid, nothing in that link proves your claim.
Morris worried that including “migration” could be twisted to reach free people. Others said it wouldn’t — and in practice it never was.
The reply to my comment has an extended discussion on euphemisms regarding slavery.
It doesn't change the language is "migration or importation," which are two different things. One involves involuntary (importation) and the other voluntary (migration) entry.
Whatever the reason for the phrasing (perhaps to lessen the pro-slavery taint by broadening its scope), that is the text.
Its application to free immigration was cited in the Alien and Sedition debates. The Kentucky Resolutions references the provision in noting that "this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends."
Chief Justice Marshall, a ratifier of the Constitution, in Gibbons v. Ogden:
Migration applies as appropriately to voluntary, as importation does to involuntary, arrivals; and, so far as an exception from a power proves its existence, this section proves that the power to regulate commerce applies equally to the regulation of vessels employed in transporting men, who pass from place to place voluntarily, and to those who pass involuntarily.
Also, Joseph Story in his commentaries:
Migration seems appropriately to apply to voluntary arrivals, as importation does to involuntary arrivals; and so far, as an exception from a power proves its existence, this proves, that the power to regulate commerce applies equally to the regulation of vessels employed in transporting men, who pass from place to place voluntarily, as to those, who pass involuntarily.
I'm not resting the immigration power solely on that clause, but it's a helpful one. I also do not limit my understanding of text to the original understanding. But it helps.
If the “migration” half had been meant for free immigration, Congress or the Court would have used it after 1808 — but they never did.
How? By limiting the migration of people, even if the states wished for their entry? It did that.