U.S.A. fact of the day

Number of unaccompanied minors, age 17 or lower, apprehended during or after border crossings, fiscal year 2017:

41, 456

Trump aside, what exactly is the plan here?

Hat tip goes to @BaldingsWorld.


I wonder are accompanied children really with parent(s) or sex traffickers?

Interesting concern. Sex traffic, divorce disputes, kidnapping and slavery are real.

To avoid this, there are some conditions to let a child cross an international border: travel with both parents and passport, travel with one parent and the authorization of the other parent, travel with a relative and the authorization of both parents.

There should be an intelligent way to help, but leaving the door wide open is an invitation to abuse a loophole.

>17 or younger

Well, Jesus. By all means, you should definitely conflate people who are a few days shy of 18 with pre-schoolers. That's a great way to cause alarm and confuse the situation, which is really all that the Dem tribe wants to do these days.

The cartels are very active in using teens to smuggle drugs on foot, and also to run water and food to smugglers who are making the five-day trek. Border patrol catches many teens every day with empty water jugs, traversing the desert just over the border.

These people show up in your bogus number of "immigrants" who are unaccompanied "minors."

I'm sure Peter Fonda is terrified for them. God forbid they get separated from their parents!!!

I think this would be related to how much prostitution is there in the US? Wikipedia estimates there's maybe 1M prostitutes in the US. Given over 300M+ people in the US how regular Americans would fall into prostitution (of age or underage)?

On the other hand Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting podcast on immigration/border issues in the 1970's. Back then it was common for kids to swim accross the Rio, sell watermellons in the US and then go back home for supper.

Kill them all and let God sort them! Let us be blunt: Castillians will be Castillians.

Fix the law so they can be deported as soon as apprehended. They come here because we let them stay. If we stopped accommodating them they would stop coming here.

Deportion is nothing compared to being killed or maimed so they'll keep coming until the conditions in their home country are safe.

And the more people the US admits the longer their home country won't be safe... The US cannot be a pressure valve for Latin American dysfunction without actively aiding said dysfunction.
The meta-message is "Don't try to make your country better, go north!"
If that option had been available in the 1980s then Eastern Europe might still be communist.

Strangely though, West Germany accepted every single East German that could escape, defected, or was stripped of their citizenship, and look at what happened anyways.

And what pray tell were the numbers? Also, nb the DDR only got its act together after Poland and Hungary had led the way (neither with a richer, freer country speaking the same language on their borders)

As high as the West Germans could make it, especially in terms of convicted criminals.

'For example, I learned this week that communist East Germany actually sold its political prisoners — and their relatives — to West Germany for many years.

"They were very short on money — they were asset-stripped by the Russians," explains Gavin Haines, a freelance journalist who wrote about the prisoner sales for the BBC. "So they thought, 'Well, we have these prisoners. We don't have any money. Let's ransom them across.'"

Sometimes it was for cash, sometimes it was for goods. Either way, it's a pretty desperate policy to enact. But it was a big business for the East Germans.

"Figures do vary, but between 1964 and 1989 there were approximately 33,700 political prisoners that were sold," Haines says. "In addition to that, they obviously had lots of family members. So there was an additional 250,000 people who were sold."' https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-11-06/during-cold-war-buying-people-east-germany-was-common-practice

Family re-unification, particularly of pensioners, was also a source of East Germans taking advantage of West Germany's generous welfare benefits, by the way.

East vs West Germany is more like California vs the rest of the U.S. We accept those who escape from California because they are oppressed and over taxed. But they still speak our language, have things in common with us and most of them can be rehabilitated if given the chance.

Perhaps this is correct, but thats not the point Cliff tried to make. You've moved the goalposts of the initial undefendable claim

Also, did West Germany accept every single Pole, Czechoslovak, Hungarian or Soviet citizen who managed to escape or defect?

Nope - there was a lot of competition for defectors back in the Cold War, with the U.S. in particular delighted in taking them. However, did West Germany send back a single defector? - not really. (However, not all 'defectors' were sincere, and nobody in the West had any interest in the KGB, Stasi, etc. smuggling agents in as defectors.)

Plus, during the Cold War, a lot of Pole, Czechoslovak, Hungarian or Soviet citizens considered West Germans to be pretty much the same people that had caused WWII, and had no desire to live there.

Imagine if we said the same thing about states or small towns: How is Mississippi going to get better if we let people move? Republican dysfunction only lasts this long because we let people migrate to Democrat controlled urban areas.

In practice, there are people we are allowed to dehumanize, while others get to have rights. It's not the most logical of situations.

Democrats have zoning and environmental regulations that inflate housing prices that keep poor people out. In fact, Democrats force blacks out of the neighborhoods. Just look at Portland and Seattle.

Wrong. Houston is a deep blue city but they don't have zoning laws and yes people are moving there and housing prices are going up.

"Wrong. Houston is a deep blue city ..."

That's laughably wrong. Houston is not a "deep" blue city. It leans slightly left. Hillary Clinton barely got a majority there with 54% (Trump
= 42%).

Compare that with the State of California where Hillary Clinton got 62% of the vote (Trump = 32%).

Completely wrong. These migrants stopped completely when Trump first came to office. Only when they realized he was all bark and no bite did they start coming again. They are not refugees, they are economic migrants. We know this because they cross other, safe countries to get here.

EXCELLENT observation.

You mean like all the Syrians crossing Europe to reach Germany in 2015?

Connect them with family or friends in the US and give them citizenship, a stipend for the receiving family, SNAP, TANF, and free tuition at university.

Or Dachau, as the Republicans want. In the words of Cartman, 'it will be a camp, for people to concentrate in! like a concentration camp!'

Pretty simple choice for the obese retards who call themselves conservative Americans. Do you want to be the beacon of hope for the world a la George Washington or the diabetic obese low IQ sequel to the Nazis.


Well when you put it like that .... the sequel to the Nazis obviously.

This is Poe's law at work, right?

As the great Kurt Schlichter says today:


So what are we supposed to be outraged about today? There’s always something, and it’s always the worst thing in the history of ever. And it’s almost always a scam designed to manipulate you into obeying the liberal elite. That’s the real outrage.

As long as it makes you and Kurt mad, I'm happy.

That is nice. I am happy for you. But since Trump won it looks like the Left has been so upset they have been driven out of their mind.

The Left always looked tragically unhappy, but they are simply certifiably so now.

The Right can't be too happy when they're running "white civil rights" rallies in DC, can they? All that "oppression" must be getting to them.

I think most of the Right is completely relaxed about what a tiny number of fringe weirdos do. Certainly Trump was last time. As is sensible. Giving them the spotlight only allows their message to spread.

It is the Left that will, as usual, be driven insane - and to violence. Which the Deep State will totally excuse.

The Right has already been on a violent rampage. The Charlottesville thugs are in jail for murder and looking to do some time. 20 Trump associates indicted by the FBI. Cohen selling out the American government to the highest bidder. Trump himself could go down for any one of his baker's dozen scandals. You may be right. The Right do look relaxed cuffed in orange garb.

I have not been following what is going on with Charlottesville thing but as I understand it one man, not plural, is in prison on suspicion of murder. Even though he may just have accelerated to get away from a mob attack.

The FBI has indicted Russian companies that did not exist. When one Russian company turned up to defend themselves in court, Mueller's team went into panic because they knew the indictment was nonsense. All they have done is railroaded some minor figures they used paid informants to trap. Plus Michael Flynn where it looks like the FBI altered the 302 to frame him.

Trump might be railroaded too. After all he does not have the immunity from criminal prosecution Hillary does.

You mean like the President's former campaign manager and former national security advisor and a bunch of oligarchs linked to Putin? The government is disputing Concord's claim that it didn't exist in 2016. I will take the side of the US government over a Russian oligarch from Putin's inner circle.

"Even though he may just have accelerated to get away from a mob attack."

Have you ever watched video of the Challenger drive into the crowd?


Look at seconds 33 - 36, and explain to me how it's anything but the driver of the Challenger deliberately crashing into the cars and crowd.

Oops. This should have been the video link:


When (not if) it begins, James T. Hodgkinson will look like Mother Teresa.

Hmm: If that is intended as a parody of the liberal position it is a pretty good one. If it's an honest reflection of your thoughts, you really need to work on your marketing. We all know the true believer liberals want to give citizenship and welfare to any brown person who shows up, but they know damn well that it's unwise to state it in such explicit terms. They have long ago learned to lie about their intentions and pursue their aims through backdoor means since probably not one in twenty people would be on board with their program.

"...diabetic obese low IQ..."

If you are a liberal, these probably aren't things you want to bring up in the context of an immigration debate. No one actually believes that Central American peasants are an intellectual boon to the nation.

How 'bout neither?

You mean the Obama camps they're being sent to? Kind of racist to pin the achievements of an african-american on the white man.

If the ethnic cleansers had the courage of their convictions, they'd use them as substitutes for the schools and churches a certain demographic seems to enjoy shooting up.

Well, I do fear only Dear Leader is a coward. Many of the rest aren't, they're just realistic enough that they have to make the bulk of people more miserable before they'll accept more drastic action.

Well that was a disgusting comment. However political violence lately has been pretty much a monopoly of the Hard Left and their friends. It is not the Right that is trying to protect Islamism with accusations of Islamophobia - although it is nice to see that Direct Marketing scam in the SPLC is paying out to someone.

Nor is it the Right that is shooting members of Congress. Or shooting up groups opposed to abortion. Or beating people for marching peacefully through Charlotteville.

"marching peacefully through Charlottesville"

Nooot exactly

Yea bad example. Instead just about every other city where gatherings of righties (and a dwindling number of old free speech lefties with a punk orientation) are radically outnumbered.

The media and the Democrats have clearly co-ordinated once more to try to bring Trump down. They have had more success with this one than with previous ones.

That they do not care about the children is obvious both from the fact that they use staged photos, as well as photos from the Obama administration - when no one cared about this at all, and the fact that the Democrats are determined not to allow a solution.

So until Trump is removed expect to hear a lot about this. Or if not this some other bullsh!t claim - presumably with the same Soros-MoveOn money hiding behind the cynical exploitation of children as with gun control.

And the second he is gone, America will go back to doing whatever it is doing and no one will care.

Taleb introduced the very useful word pedophrasty, but the right doesn't seem too keen on picking it up.

May be because the right almost voted in a pedophile into the Senate.

"The left does not care about children" has to be the biggest self-own of all time.

First of all, you conceptualize humans who don't care about children. That puts you in the domain of psychopathy right there. Then you say that it's not you, who came up with this psychopathy, that has it, but your political enemies.

How about this, instead: all normal humans on all points of the political compass care about children.

But we have an obvious problem with the abnormals.

Actually no. This has been going on for decades. Under Clinton, under Bush and under Obama. No one cared.

So rather than everyone caring about the children, actually the evidence seems to be that no one does. Except when Journo-list decides it wants to whip up a frenzy. That everyone is virtue signalling.

But no one cares. Partly because everyone knows that ICE is not the SS and they are not being held in concentration camps. Even if, for political reasons, no one wants to say so right now.

However the shameless cynical exploitation of these Clinton, Bush and Obama policies by the Left is something else. When Van Jones suddenly discovers this is Hate when he was totally fine with serving in an Administration that did precisely this - and many of the photos are from the Obama period - you are dealing with another level of hypocrisy.


When the abnormals are running the party it is really time for the normals to get out.

You don't have to be a liberal. You don't have to be a progressive. You certainly don't have to be a Democrat.

Just be an independent with good old center-right values.

Be an authentic values voter.

What a good idea. Here is Nancy Pelosi visiting those self-same Concentration Camps - and praising them. Demanding that the issue of children crossing the border not be politicized. Insisting that this is not the time for politics but for solutions:


So is she abnormal too? She saw those children behind the barbed wire and she was fine with it. Even though it is just like Dachau!

Does another crazy comment really improve your position?

With thousands of unaccompanied children arriving at the border you have to do something. Even if you care, especially if you care, you have to try to find the least bad option.

Do you notice how hard you are trying not to find the least bad option?

You can call pointing out the shameless hypocrisy of the Democrats, CNN and the rest of the Left crazy if you like. But the truth remains none of you cared until Journolist pulled the switch to hysteria. Nancy Pelosi even inspected a facility the Democrats now compared to the Holocaust and she praised it.

Least bad option? That is what Trump has been trying to do. What the Democrats have been impeding. What the Left does not want because then they could not make political capital out of exploiting this issue. An issue they were fine with when Obama did it.

It is not my job to find solutions. I am content to point out what is one of the most disgusting lows in Leftist politics this century.

Buddy, today's news is that Trump's "system" was to separate all parents and children at the border, and take down no information, create no tracking system, etc.

You are defending a change to the status quo that creates child jails, where no one knows where everyone belongs.

Of course you have to say "It is not my job to find solutions."

You are defending anti-solutions. Forced breakage.

So having been caught out beating up a non-story to paint Trump as literally worse than Hitler, you are now changing the goal posts once more? It is not the separation! It is not the wire! It is not Auaschwitz redux! It is the incompetence of the Federal bureaucracy?

Well I suspect this is nonsense. Hysterical bed wetters just got to wet the bed.

If comments on MR make you deranged, you should consider a new hobby. Your comments read like ateenager with steam coming out his ears.

Come on, you know you want to - just say this was staged by hard leftists out to make America look bad - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/jun/19/children-separated-from-parents-cry-at-us-detention-centre-audio

Particularly since this recording is what make the issue real to anyone who has children. Luckily, people such as yourself are unaffected by such political manipulation on the part of children wanting their parents.

Why, why, why would someone subject their children to this?? Because it's worth it to them for the chance of making more money, I guess? Shouldn't everyone unite in condemning this greed?

Add an extra letter or something when you are hijacking, "Anonymous"

Perhaps a wake up call for you to get a less anonymous 'nym? Go back to the polar bear perhaps?

Or maybe I should mix it up more, on the conviction that this is about ideas and not personalities.

If it's not about personalities, what exactly did he 'hijack'? Again, calling yourself 'Anonymous' kind of makes it hard to credibly accuse others of stealing your 'identity'.

It is highly likely that it was staged to make America look bad. As other photos have been. They have taken pictures of protests and passed them off as detention centers. They have taken pictures from 2014 and passed them off as current.

And it does appear that this one is faked too - although I am not sure what the Guardian has been seeing.

Particularly since this recording is what make the issue real to anyone who has children.

Which is the point. As with the gun shooting, they do not want reasoned debate. They want emotional over-reaction because the purpose is to take Trump down. Children cried under Obama and everyone on your side of this argument was fine with that. If you have any record of condemning this before it became politically convenient to do so, please let me know.

Trump is president today. The ball is in his court. If he, Sessions, and Miller enjoy throwing children into cages, it is on them.

I am sure he enjoys it just as much as Obama did

'Children cried under Obama and everyone on your side of this argument was fine with that.'

I don't have a side in this argument. The recording was clearly as staged as a smuggled picture out of the gulag (just ask your local commissar about the authenticity of gulag pictures - any that do not have the stamp of the local authorities is clearly a forgery).

That America is fully capable of stripping small children from their parents at its borders is nothing new to me. That the Trump Administration decided to do it in such a way that it has blackened America's reputation is not a surprise to me either. That Trump lied about how he was forced to do it, and powerless to stop it, did not really do much to make his reputation as a liar any worse, of course.

The fact remains, most people with children hearing that tape are going to be disgusted with the overt policies that lead to such a situation, and regardless of their political affiliation, will try to change a situation that they consider completely beyond the pale of common humanity.

The thing that is really too ironic is that Peterson, a man concerned about the evil that people can commit when an institution becomes too powerful, has a truly modern example of how people thinking they are doing good twist language to try to justify their evil acts. One can be confident that a Canadian such as himself, America hater that his nationality would suggest he is, will soon incorporate this example in future youtube videos.

All this stuff has been pretty much debunked.

But even if it were true that all these presidents were separating children from parents at the boarder, does that mean we should not care about it now when it has been bought to our attention?

The US has been pretty much screwing up central and south America, both politically and economically, for it's own advantage for years - this is just the chickens coming home to roost.

Should you care about the cynical exploitation of these children for partisan gain? Of course you should. It is outrageous.

The US has given Latin America pretty much everything that is good about the place. Without the US they would be struggling to hold on to the steam engine. Latin Americans screw up Latin America. The US simply provides technology, help, medical advances, loans, remittances and military help to keep the Communists from making everything much worse.

'The US simply provides technology, help, medical advances, loans, remittances and military help to keep the Communists from making everything much worse.'

And America even helped this man on the path to possible sainthood - 'Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez (15 August 1917 – 24 March 1980) was a prelate of the Catholic Church in El Salvador, who served as the fourth Archbishop of San Salvador. He spoke out against poverty, social injustice, assassinations, and torture. In 1980, Romero was assassinated while offering Mass in the chapel of the Hospital of Divine Providence. Though no one was ever convicted for the crime, investigations by the UN-created Truth Commission for El Salvador concluded that extreme-right wing politician and death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson had given the order.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero

Yes, damn that Jimmy Carter and his Democrat administration for co-operating with Death Squads in Latin America!

Of course - American protection of Central and South America has been a truly bipartisan effort since the Monroe Doctrine, almost two centuries ago.

And in case you were unaware, this fine American institution was set up by a Democratic president, and the intensive focus on anti-communism and suppressing people like Romero was also the result of a Democratic president's policies.

'The U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) was founded in 1946 and originally located at Fort Gulick in the Panama Canal Zone. The School aimed to instruct the armed forces of Latin America using training programs that were doctrinally sound and compatible with United States customs and traditions in a cost effective and militaristically professional way. From 1961 (during the Kennedy administration), the School was assigned the specific Cold War goal of teaching "anti-communist" counterinsurgency training to military personnel of Latin American countries. At the time and in those places, the label "communist" was, in the words of anthropologist Lesley Gill, "... an enormously elastic category that could accommodate almost any critic of the status quo." During this period, Colombia supplied the largest number of students from any client country.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation#History

Jimmy Carter, one must note, as America's first born again Christian president, does not believe in the institution of sainthood as practiced by the Catholic Church. Kennedy, on the other hand, likely did, and his shift in policies led, two decades later, to Romero being provided the opportunity to become a martyr of his faith while celebrating mass in a hospital chapel.

I care.

Yes but did you care before 2016? Did you care before Trump came to office. Did you care about this for instance:


Immigrant children as young as 14 housed at a juvenile detention center in Virginia say they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells.

The abuse claims against the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center near Staunton, Virginia, are detailed in federal court filings that include a half-dozen sworn statements from Latino teens jailed there for months or years. Multiple detainees say the guards stripped them of their clothes and strapped them to chairs with bags placed over their heads…

The complaint filed by the nonprofit Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs recounts the story of an unnamed 17-year-old Mexican citizen apprehended at the southern border. The teen fled an abusive father and violence fueled by drug cartels to seek asylum in the United States in 2015.

After stops at facilities in Texas and New York, he was transferred to Shenandoah in April 2016 and diagnosed during an initial screening by a psychologist with three mental disorders, including depression. Besides weekly sessions speaking with a counselor, the lawsuit alleges the teen has received no further mental health treatment, such as medications that might help regulate his moods and behavior.

AP reported abuse of children back when Obama was in office. Did you care then? Because CNN didn't. Or at least if they were running 24/7 attacks on The Light Bringer I missed it.

I do. I care vewwy, vewwy much.

The polarization profiteers are having a heyday exploiting the “forced separated children” issue up to the tilt with blatant exaggerations (caged children) and crocodile tears. I am afraid that will backfire on those we wish to protect.

Private companies make a lot of money off of housing immigrant children.

Solve for the equilibrium.


Relative to the ~1M annual legal immigrants, this actually seems pretty small. If that number of children stayed stable across time it seems the US could easily absorb those numbers in steady state

It's not stable

Given the depopulation in rural and flyover country, that generally goes for the GOP and went for Trump, more immigrants, especially families with kids are needed to come into the US with generalist skills typical of rural folk.

A skills based immigration system will admit people with education from urban areas dependent on urban services, and skills that are not flexible. They will not be the stoop farm labor, man the kill floor and the meat cutting, do the shovel work and hod carrying on construction jobs.

That meat processing plants are not completely shutdown is due to the refugees from places like Somalia that have legal status, limiting the number of illegals to 20% or plant workers.

The meat packing plants were moved out of cities like Chicago, NYC, etc to get away from union labor, but by moving plants into small rural towns, opportunities are limited, so only the kids who don't have the drive are left behind to work at the plants.

Yeah because if a meat packing plant had a choice between offering a higher wage or shutting down, they would totally choose to shut down.

The industrial revolution was driven by the fact wages in Britain were high. Some people think this is a bad thing and we need more cheap labor to make sure that never happens again.

'The industrial revolution was driven by the fact wages in Britain were high.'

Clearly, the idea that industrial revolution was actually driven by the steam engine is just unimaginable these days, isn't it?

The development of the steam engine was driven by the fact that wages were high. Are you stupid?

Here I was, thinking the development of the steam engine was driven by the need to pump water out of mines (including coal mines), a need that had no connection to the level of wages.

'The atmospheric engine was invented by Thomas Newcomen in 1712, and is often referred to simply as a Newcomen engine. The engine was operated by condensing steam drawn into the cylinder, thereby creating a partial vacuum, thereby allowing the atmospheric pressure to push the piston into the cylinder. It was the first practical device to harness steam to produce mechanical work. Newcomen engines were used throughout Britain and Europe, principally to pump water out of mines. Hundreds were constructed through the 18th century.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_atmospheric_engine

Are you ignorant? Or is the idea that the Industrial Revolution was based on the development of the steam engine just unimaginable these days? Note that the wikipedia article does a fairly concise job laying out the history and reason for the development of the steam engine - and it was not because the wages of horses to drive mine pumps had risen too far.

"...do the shovel work and hod carrying on construction jobs."

Last summer a drywall company owner in my city was lamenting a supposed worker shortage because of rumors of increased deportations after Trump's election: "'It just breaks my heart when they have to leave because of the situation,” said Martinez, whose employees typically work 15-hour days and six or seven days a week." (An alert Steve Sailer posted the AP article: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/texas-companies-tie-worker-shortages-155847367.html)

I bet it did break his heart!

Progressives: the folks who brought you weekends and the 40-hour workweek! And the folks who took them away! Because nothing says goddam lazy bum - to a highrise-dwelling, NYTimes-reading-type - like an American startled to learn the job is 15-hour days and six or seven days a week! And fugeddabout workman's comp! Just better be careful with that nail gun!

Sailer also drew my attention to this perplexing phenomenon, of falling wages at an Iowa meatpacking plant:


There was a window, which may now have closed, when the Times' reporting staff sometimes still seemed to be operating somewhat independently of its editorial staff.

I'll go do my ablutions now.

They could, but the question remains, why would they want to? A built-in assumption always creeps into in these discussions, namely that the United States NEEDS to accept any immigrants at all.

I've been puzzled about this as well. Historically when the left wanted something - say, Marxism - it wrote reams and reams about why.

What is strange with the immigration religion is the silence that has accompanied the shift. It is, as you indicate, a suddenly-settled truth, with none of the discussion of rationale or of the future that you might expect.

"Immigrants are better people." Maybe so. I don't know. It raises some obvious paradoxes. But whether or not, the statement does not exactly rise to the level of intellectual discourse of the sort I thought the left once prided itself on.

The difference is that they've boiled their discourse down to pithy propaganda phrases ("America is a nation of immigrants", "They're just trying to make a better life for themselves", "This isn't who we are", "That's what they said about the Irish/Italians/Jews", etc) which have the effect of shutting down discourse rather than encouraging it, and in the process warding off scrutiny of their deliberate misrepresentations of history. The left has become pure political will, devoid of substance. Hey, it's worked out pretty well for them up until now.

Why do you want to come across so willfully ignorant? There are libraries full of literature about how immigration is important for economic growth (in addition to the moral and libertarian arguments which you dismiss as 'propaganda'). Growth is positive change in working people x productivity per capita. Without immigration you don't grow (Japan). And there's also plenty of writing about the skills immigrants bring. On the low end they do the jobs natives don't want and on the high end they start companies.

There's a reasonable argument to make against too much immigration, especially low-skilled, but saying there's no argument on the other side is childish and stupid.

Way to miss the point completely, while also confirming it via your use of the very same propaganda phrases: to pick only one example, "They're doing the jobs Americans won't do!" -- needs only "the fruit is rotting in the fields!" to achieve true libertarian climax. Psst, "a country" is not defined as "an economic zone".

My point was not about whether there are arguments for and against immigration. It was about how these debates typically go down, and how dishonestly the pro-immigration side goes about it. One *might* suspect they're not actually interested in debate at all...

You're doing a lot of projecting. Both extremes behave that way, your tribe does it too.

Indeed they do. However if you have some examples, I'd love to hear them -- I can rattle off pro-Open Borders zingers all day here. Generally, the Open Borders crowd doesn't strike me as having spent much time thinking about the counter-arguments of immigration restrictionists, arguments which often have little to do with economics. Again, these conversations have little to do with real debate.

Well, they've forgotten their own recent history. Take population control, a subject once intimately connected with the immigration issue. Though by no means the exclusive province of the left, worries about population growth, resource use and environmental effects therefrom, were definitely in the mix of concerns of the (non-Catholic) left. If anything, it was Big Business that rubbed its hands in glee when evangelicals waxed lyrical about environmentalists wanting to stanch the flow of "brown babies," because it gave it a convenient talking point with which to co-opt the whole thing, import cheap labor, and undo decades of efforts by unions. Meanwhile, feminists were united in considering birth control - population control - the means of freeing the women of the "Third World" as those old UN annual reports styled it, from their chains. And pacifists believed overpopulation fueled war.

Then boom. One day it flipped. All because we didn't run out of copper or whatever it was? And as suddenly nature - nature nature, not just the Things We Consume - didn't matter anymore. Because wasn't nature sort of ... artificial? I mean, people are part of nature, right? Which abruptly truncated to: people ARE nature, right? Just people, that's all nature ever was. And they should all come here - that way there can be more of them at home, and more of them here, and more all total, which is terrific.

It's baffling to me, because I'm on the young end of the range of people who should remember this stuff, even if they've changed their minds. To pretend, "This topic has always been taboo among civilized people" is - I'm sorry to drop the cliche, but I think it's a first for me - the most Orwellian thing I've ever experienced.

"Trump aside, what exactly is the plan here?"

Nothing. This whole controversy is obviously contrived by the Democratic Party and pushed by their lackies in the media. This is no different now than under Obama.

Trump is simply a Clinton puppet, with Clintons sitting at home passing around the remote control tablet, saying "ooh ooh, lets see what happens when we make Trump tweet this stupid thing?" And "lets get the Freedom Caucus to back $1.5 trillion in annual deficits!"

My grandfather came here at under 14 years old and moved in with an uncle, got a job.

Well obviously a rational plan is needed, one that prioritizes the needs of the poor. Because any thought of conserving US prosperity is obviously morally offensive, we must look at how best to divvy up the pie and give it away. Since Africa is beset with numerous governments and according to the World Bank in 2013 had 389 million people living in extreme poverty (less than $1.90), Congress must immediately enact legislation directing the Air Force and Navy to offer free transportation to all Africans who wish to immigrate to the US. We can easily afford this within the existing US budget if we merely give up luxuries like public universities, social security for people who own property or have any savings, public radio, national parks, etc. It would be unfair to our new fellow citizens to saddle them with the national debt we have already accumulated, so the total national debt must be split up and assigned on a per capita basis to each individual in the country previously. Allowances must also be made for reparations to African Americans and a deduction allowed and redistributed across the rest of the population. Anybody who opposes this plan is racist...and Hitler.


Is prosperity dependent on 100% highly educated workers age 35 and up with no children, who retire at some point, say 85, and then die?

What's wrong with the old neocon plan of state-building? I was against the Iraq war and the prowar neocon establishment but now that they have been drummed out in succession by Obama and Trump, democrats then republicans, its time to revisit some of these ideas with fresh eyes. If the US is able to build functioning societies in the middle east and africa, then those societies will act as magnets of prosperity for local migrants and we in the West will have new trading partners. It is better to fix the root of the problem than to turn our societies into police states just to watch the border. Is this something Trump is looking at?

If the Gulf Wars have taught us anything, and they haven't, then I would think it is that you cannot turn Baghdad into Peoria. The people of Peoria make Peoria such a nice place to live. Giving the people of Basra a piece of paper and asking them to be nice to each other does not make Iraq like Lake Woebegon.

Hence the border must be enforced. Because God knows there is ample evidence that giving Mexicans a piece of paper and asking them to be nice does not make LA Peoria either.

-----"does not make LA Peoria either."
How many Angelenos want to move to Peoria anyway?

And Peoria is surely happy about that.

With the pension problems Illinois has of late, I'm sure its the other way around.


And for the kicker: https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/el-paso/crime

Those unaccompanied minors spend an average of 56 days in government care before being placed with a sponsor, who is usually a relative. There is a network of local non-profit agencies, funded by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, who are responsible for identifying and screening the potential sponsors or foster families. If the children are school age, they are enrolled in school. Public schools do not discriminate based on immigration status. The students' English language proficiency in high school will determine if they take standard exit exams or have different graduation requirements (this helps schools protect their graduation rates, even with high numbers of recent immigrant arrivals). If the students graduate high school, they will not have access to federal college loans. Most will attend vocational schools or community college. They will enter the workforce at a relatively early age, most likely pay more taxes than their U.S.-born peers, and they will never qualify for Social Security or other benefits unless they can become citizens. The plan, in short, is that the U.S. will continue to profit tremendously from the low cost of a partial public school education.

This sounds legit.

Most of it, I think. Instead of saying undocumented workers pay more taxes, I should have said that they have a higher labor force particpation rate (from the Pew Research Center).

And they have more children.

Eliminate immigrants and non-whites and the US population would be shrinking 10 million per year, while the coastal cities grow in population by 10 million people (and area). If that had been the case starting in 1980, US population would be maybe 100 million and 25 States would have 3 votes in the electoral college.

Confirmation bias. Weak!!!

Show me the statistics and sources that support your claims.

"immigrant children 56 days" was an easy Google.

They will enter the workforce at a relatively early age, most likely pay more taxes than their U.S.-born peers

This whole welfare state thing means that lower wage immigrants are likely to be collecting more from the government than they pay in their entire lives. That is the point of a welfare state - massive transfers from the (many Legacy American) rich to the (mainly immigrant) poor.

That is ignoring the immense social costs of immigration as we have seen in the rape gangs of Rotherham and other places.

Immigration is a net loss for society. It just benefits those that want cheap nannies.

H-1B: Nearly three-quarters of Valley techies are foreign

A colleague and his family just returned home to Europe because his family was dealing with too much crap about being immigrants. They were educated to the hilt and masses of experience in government and academia so that is a huge loss to the USA.

"masses of experience in government and academia so that is a huge loss to the USA"

Haha good joke

So when your argument is shown to be irredeemably flawed, you are going to change the subject and talk about something completely different? How often do the children of Silicon Valley engineers get put in detention for illegal crossing the border?

They were educated to the hilt and masses of experience in government and academia so that is a huge loss to the USA.

Ha! If only we could send all those "educated" to the hilt with masses of experience in government and academia to Europe! It wouldn't make America perfect but it would be a step in the right direction.

I prefer we show them the door. They storm the gates, cross the border, we catch them, then we put them outside the gate. The Democrats then make lots of noise and Trump wins in 2020.

Please talk some more about the MS13 thing.

Violation of international law.

You cannot remove asylum seekers without a judicial hearing.

This takes months.

This is untrue and is a common misperception. States do not have a duty under international law to grant asylum even to legitimate asylum seekers, or even a hearing; the only duty they have is the customary duty of non-refoulement, to not return them to the place from which they are claiming that they are persecuted. Several drafting States specifically rejected a general right to asylum being placed on countries. Asylum seekers do have the right to seek asylum under international law, but no state has the duty to grant it. The relevant international legal documents say nothing about process; furthermore, asylum proceedings are typically characterized as administrative or executive, rather than judicial. Asylum and refugee rights in the United States, that grant the right to a hearing, are governed under US law, not international law. This is the case countries in Europe as well; several countries include a right to asylum in their constitution, but that is domestic law, not international.

United States treaty obligations:

We may not as a matter of law:

impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves (Article 31)

expel refugees (Article 32)

Next time try to cite something more esteemable than faux news or Nazi Limbaugh radio.


Next year marks the 150th Anniversary of the completion of the transcontinental railroad with the hammering of the final spike at Promontory Point, Utah. Union Pacific plans a big show. This really was a major accomplishment for the US.

How many hundreds perhaps thousands of uneducated Chinese immigrants built the western end of the railroad, the Central Pacific Railroad? (And how many were killed blasting the right of way through the Sierra's?)

These uneducated Chinese immigrants turned out to be magnificent Americans, hard-working family men. It was the same with my Irish grandparents. We have a huge nation. We can freely open our borders and accept poor Latins, Africans, and Asians in great numbers with no negative impact to the economy. If anything, it will increase the growth of the country.

All of them will turn out to be hard working individuals thankful for the opportunity to live in, grow their families and build the future United States. It's no different from the Chinese immigrants who built the Central Pacific RR in 1869.

Poe's law?

Just because Irish immigration turned out fairly well, it does not follow that Somali immigration will as well. Chinese Americans were not allowed in just like that. There were generations of laws to keep the numbers low and make sure there was some assimilation. Even so Chinese Americans probably have not worked out all that well for the US. They disproportionately sided with China in the Cold War for one thing.

However the main flaw in your argument is that you try to claim that new immigrants are like the old Chinese immigrants. Why not compare like with like? African immigrants now with Africans brought to America then? How has African American immigration worked out since the 1640s?

As it turns out Mexican immigrants are not quite like African Americans but they are really not like the Chinese either. Having imported one largely dysfunctional underclass it makes no sense to allow another to cross the border.

'How has African American immigration worked out since the 1640s?'

Even you must be aware that between the 1640s and 1840s, Africans did not 'immigrate' to America.

And if those African 'immigrants' had been given the choice to either 'immigrate' to America or go back home on the next empty slave ship, basically 100% would have chosen to go back home to their families.

How do you know? There have been hundreds of opportunities for freed slaves to go back to Africa. Virtually none of them have ever taken one.

After all, their home had probably been burnt down and their families murdered when they were enslaved by other Africans.

In fact these days it is held against people like Lincoln that he once supported the idea of sending freed slaves back.

'There have been hundreds of opportunities for freed slaves to go back to Africa.'

Strangely, I was not talking about freed slaves, but the actual African 'immigrants' being given the chance to either enter the U.S. or to go back home.

Of course, those 'immigrants' were never given a choice.

But sure, if you wish to believe that if you were captured, chained, sailed across an ocean, and were then asked whether you wanted to go home or into the slave pen, that you would pick the slave pen, be my guest.

How to know I hand type e-mail and user fields

That would be wonderful if it were true, but the evidence does not seem to support it.

And what about MS13, the Norte of, and the Sureños?

I live in Central CA. The local news station reports a gang stabbing, shooting, or drug bust daily. Then there are the rapists, peepers, and child molesters - most from Mexico, almost all from Latin America.

Face it, Latin America has a serious pathology holding it back. Mexicans are not just like the Irish, not even close.

The cultural and world view differences are profound.

If California was so bad, then why do people keep moving there? I'd love to move to CA but the housing prices are nuts.

You can buy mine!

Most people moving in are foreign devils - the come in on h1bs. They come to work in Silicon Valley - chance of a lifetime.

We also get a lot of the very poor and illegal aliens hopping on the gravy train.

Hispanics seem to commit crime at about the same rate as white USAers. See: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm

Most people from El Salvador are white, Hondurans mixed and Guatemalans natives.

"I live in Central CA. The local news station reports a gang stabbing, shooting, or drug bust daily. Then there are the rapists, peepers, and child molesters - most from Mexico, almost all from Latin America."

Somewhere in CA crime is fairly low. And it's definitely lower than it was before, indexed for population. Indexed for population, peak property crime occurred in 1980, and peak violent crime occurred in 1992. As of 2016, property crime is only 36% of its peak, and violent crime is only 40% of its peak.

Compared to other states, California is generally towards the middle of the pack. California is only consistently near the worst in one category of crime. That crime category is...vehicle crime, of course!


For those who doubt my claim about crime in Central CA.


If you include all the surrounding areas, including what we're once little surfing towns, the change is incredible.

The changes due to immigration from Mexico and Central America are profound and negative.

Once again, in addition to murder, we have assaults, stabbings, rapes, peepers, child molestation, auto theft, chop shops, drug dealing, burglary, gang graffiti in what used to be beautiful areas, ... , it is a disaster for all except for the perps themselves, their families ( poor mijo), and the true believer SJWs and the looney left.


Based on an addition of the subtotals in the data set, I think the overall total should be 41,546, not 41,456.

Why not just have expedited asylum processes for the kids? In the meantime, send them to live with relatives or foster parents; if necessary, put them in halfway decent housing. If they don't get through the asylum process, send them back. And if they get through, send them to relatives, try to get them adopted, etc. Not sure there's anything else to do if we want to be halfway humane about it. This shouldn't be that difficult.

Why not just let everyone that wants to come in?

Also you're a racist for sending the adults back, you racist. Don't you know those people will be executed upon return to their home countries?


Not suggesting to let everyone in... You send them back if they don't meet the asylum standards, as I state above. Also, we're talking about unaccompanied minors, so the issue here isn't whether to send "the adults" back. I guess the main thing I'm adding is that you could just expedite the asylum process, which in my limited experience as a legal representative for an asylum seeker has been absurdly slow.

Shouldn't the libertarian answer always be they're free to stay if they can find a job or a relative willing to support them?
If they can't, well, perhaps some conservative organization that opposes immigration can buy them a ticket home.

WTF is going on, Tyler when did you become a racist?

The United States must become the third world, because if everywhere is a third world shithole then there will be less inequality, and for some stupid reason everyone being equally poor is better than everyone having an opportunity to be not poor.

I just think we can like give money to the poor and everything will be fine, it always turns out fine in the long run.

How do you set Trump aside? He's the President.

He's saying Trump doesn't have a plan which is in all likelihood true. This is my Straussian reading.

It is also possible that the policies in place before Trump were not far from the least bad options.

There is no plan. Democrats don’t have to put forward a plan, and don’t want to, because they believe demagoguery plays better to their liberal base. Republicans are divided between those who want amnesty and those who want enforcement, and so can’t pass any laws relating to immigration or enforcement. It appears to be an issue that is divisive across party lines, and given the importance of partisanship to the strategy of Democrats and Republicans, it is something that can’t be solved because it divides the caucus. So in other words the solution is the imperial executive (as Obama showed by granting de facto legal status to many immigrants in direct contradiction to US law).

The Democrats, when they held the government, both put together and implemented a plan.

It may not have been perfect, but in these situations I'm not sure everything can be perfect.

I think it is very important to remember what we were talking about here. This is all about Trump's deviation from the previous status quo.

It is pretty clear he made things worse, and his defenders are doing nothing but hand waving, saying "worse is fine because before it was bad?"

Why don't you try finding and owning an improvement instead?

"I think it is very important to remember what we are talking about here"

"none of those words mean what you think and you are a tribalist"

"start caring about people"

I think that is sadly nonsensical.

it is not nonsensical

you think you are better than other people

I think you are a tribalist who does not think and does not say things that indicate that you have thought about the issues, and who has not shown that you care about the best outcomes for those who suffer from the stupidity of others

that is a conflict of opinion

that is not nonsense

grow up and show some respect for those who suffer from the lack of honesty so many people exhibit

I say both that the current system may not have been perfect, and that we should try to find the least bad solution.

That is the opposite of tribal.

Elsewhere on the page I say:

You don't have to be a liberal. You don't have to be a progressive. You certainly don't have to be a Democrat.

Just be an independent with good old center-right values.

Be an authentic values voter.

That too is the opposite of tribal.

Good response, and I retract any implied dissatisfaction with how you said what you said.

But What if there is no solution?

What if abortion is not a social issue, or a feminist issue, but simply an issue of war between the powerful who can abort their children and the powerful fetuses who are so charmingly cute that they can stop a woman from choosing abortion even if she wants to? What if it is war, and not a problem than can be solved?

What if crime will always be with us, because we are not like the lucky Brits of the 40s who had the planes and the bombs and, eventually, almost the nukes, but we are like the Irish of earlier centuries, who could not fight off the criminals from the next island over, not even for a single decade of peace in any generation?

Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation.
I am not an optimist (as far as this world goes, I am an optimist with respect to the events described in the Bible as our future) and if you are an optimist, feel free to have the last word.

Thank you. For what it's worth, I think in a democracy we have to trust the majority on hard questions, because that too is the least bad option.

and tell us what you will do about the millions of innocent children aborted every year

what will you do about the victims of crime who would not be victims if not for liberals who do not care much about victims of crime

tell us about the better outcomes that you claim to care so much about

you won't because you are a tribalist

your tribe supports abortion, so you support it

you never thought about the victims of the Miranda rule, did you

that is not nonsense and it is not sad

it is a challenge to your tribalist world view

You clearly have me confused with someone who is not a pragmatic independent.

I used to say "centrist" more confidently, but if Trumpians are the modern right, I have to move a bit left. So call me a center-left independent in this day and age.

It's too bad because there are a lot of RINOs I believe in. Heck look at Ronald Reagan on immigration, but today Ronald Reagan is a RINO and out of the party.

When Reagan was POTUS CA wasn't overrun by Mexicans. Now it is. The demographics changed and so did the politics - it is now a crazy leftist state. It is also on a collision course with fiscal reality.

Well if it makes you feel better, CA was in Mexico before it was in the USA. Also it should make you feel better that CA has had a budget surplus the last few years. And that It just beat the UK to become the 5th largest economy in the world. Of course, Gavin or whoever gets elected needs to keep playing smart to keep CA in the lead.

Driving a Porsche and living in a mansion does not make you wealthy if you are in debt to your eyeballs: http://www.pensiontracker.org/index.php

Pension costs are crowding out other spending in local budgets. We are all on the hook for those pensions. We're phooked!

Actually in Reagan's day Los Angeles was still called Los Angeles, and not Whitey McWhitesville.

If you assume everyone who doesn't like Trump is a liberal you will miss out on really a lot of the political landscape.

I disagree that Democrats had a plan when they held the government. They had the House, a supermajority in the Senate, and the presidency and they did not pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. They had other priorities. We will see what happens in the 2018 midterms, but there is a non-zero chance that by 2020 Democrats once again control the House, Senate, and Presidency. Even under those circumstances, I strongly suspect that Democrats will find it an agonizing process to pass comprehensive immigration reform from the House, because one way or another such a bill is going to be unpopular with voters that Democrats need to win the Presidency and keep control of Congress. All I am saying is that immigration is tough politically for both parties, so neither party has any credible path forward towards comprehensive immigration reform. Which is why the White House has so much influence over immigration and enforcement, just like it has so much discretion over waging war. No one in Congress wants to be on the hook for real legislation on war or immigration.

You did just fault Obama for getting things done in the face of a congressional roadblock.

I understand that you may not like his solution, but as I say elsewhere in the page, I see it as an attempt at balance.

If we gave every 17 year old who arrived at the border an apartment, a fast car, and a Harvard scholarship, obviously we would get way too many.

Obviously too we have to do something humane with those 17 year olds. The serious question is what?

It would be really nice if the whole Congress saught balance on these issues.

I suspect that we don’t disagree as to what outcome we want to see. I think we are disagreeing that executive action in the face of a paralyzed legislature is a plan. As seen by how wildly policy can change from one administration to the next, executive action is merely a stopgap measure. It is triage, which is better than nothing but doesn’t solve the underlying problem of having so many immigrants without legal status. The executive can only grant de facto legal status, not real legal status.

Agreed. And here is a pretty powerful summary by Will Wilkinson:


As I say above, it is important to remember that Trump screwed up so bad, he created a system where he split up families without taking tracking information without any idea of how to put them back together again.

He created it? You mean he personally came up with the procedures, the governing regulations, hired the people, etc.? Or did he inherit the system?

He split up families? Name one family that Trump personally split?

The way he created it was being an incompetent handing authority to incompetents creating incompetent policy.

This is what happens when no one in the chain of command has the nature to stop and think things through.

And to be honest buddy, you sound like you'd fit right in.

“The Democrats, when they held the government, both put together and implemented a plan.”

Illegal immigration surged during Obama’s presidency after falling by half in the years previously.

So if your plan is to make the problem worse, sure it was a zinger.

Then in 2017, what happened? Arrivals fell 25% to a 46 year low.

The distinction between Dems and Trump is pretty simple. The former has policies that incentivize arrivals, while the latter is all about deterrence.

I'm not sure about your surge, but the serious answer is that when you're balancing something like "how can we be kind to asylum seekers but not get too many of them" it's hard.

You might recall that Obama got a lot of criticism from the hard left because his family detention (together) was designed to split the difference and be a bit harsh to prevent too great as in-flow.

But he was trying to find balance with that kind of thing.

No I don't recall that. Cite? Pictures or it didn't happen.

Find the balance? Yeah, right.

Tyler just linked it. An immigrant rights lawyer complaining that family detention (together) was a disincentive, and that Obama acknowledged it as such.

Obviously I think breaking families and then losing track of children is too harsh on that scale.

Trumpies want to bring back concentration camps.

Don't need to. They have inherited enough from Obama. When such camps were totally cool!

Why can’t we just have open borders? #ProblemSolved #LegalizeFreedom

Once they're in and people see the results of that policy, it's too late. You can't get them back out again. Civilizational collapse will be inevitable.

Rome had an open border.

So did America.

Why can’t we just have open borders? #ProblemSolved #LegalizeFreedom

When the State says it will no longer enforce its borders, then people will stop paying taxes to support it, and start drawing their own borders.

Thus, the State will never adopt an actual policy of No Borders because to do so would eliminate the justification for the State as presently constituted.

In other words, Muh Freeedums, be careful what you wish for.

I'm sure Brangelina will adopt them, it'll be fine.

How about punitive sanctions on firms that have hired 3 or more illegals? Extreme fines for those with repeat violations. Also tough fines on individuals using illegal nannies or housekeepers? Stricter rules on revoking green cards for those on welfare. Also making the sponsors of residents pay for any care needed by those seeking government help. The latter two were standard rules for applicants for green cards in the late 80s but were never enforced.

Simpler: give local police authority on the issue.

Let them stay! We need brains in the US. Find foster families. We (publicly if necessary) should educate them and let them be / become new US citizens. Better investment than supporting nonproductive people.

How is it that you've determined that these people are "productive" and that Americans aren't?

"Every great empire was built upon the back of a disposable army of slaves."

We are in a constant struggle against cartels and their smugglers. They can innovate quicker than we can.

1. Acknowledge our culpability in problems south of our border.

2. Better diplomatic relations within the Americas.

3. Expand E-verify. Greater fines for companies. Adjust number of work visas to match demand.

4. End the War on Drugs. Dispense Schedule I drugs in controlled settings.

5. Require all firearms to be registered and secured. Record all transactions.

6. Realize this is a large country with plenty of resources to help those less fortunate.

What, exactly, is our culpability in problems south of our border? The Global South seemingly lacks any moral agency.

I'm not sure what is left to legalize. Marijuana and opioids are de facto legal already, with the distribution networks run by non-violent individuals. Cocaine and heroin are dirty business, so dirty people run it.

"6. Realize this is a large country with plenty of resources to help those less fortunate."

This is incredibly naïve. The "less fortunate" will consume 100% of every resource on offer. I have watched the welfare state in operation my entire life. There is never enough money and there is never any end to the misfortunes sought to be rectified. It's a Ponzi scheme that is running out of suckers.

"What, exactly, is our culpability in problems south of our border?"

You gotta be kidding.

1. The drug war built the drug cartels and gang violence. MS-13's genesis was the drug war.

2. Continuing interference in central and south american governments.
In 2009 we supported coup to oust democratically elected government in Honduras.
3. Remember Iran Contra.
4. Cuba
5. Getting rid of democratically elected president of Chile in favor of brutal dictator
6. Death squads in El Salvador trained by US.
7. Sanctions currently placed on Venezuela to drive it further toward bankruptcy.

These are only some obvious ones.

You'll have to do better than that, Mr. Utne Reader.

The states that oppose the current regime ought to offer to set up refugee camps for them. Massachusetts loves immigrants!

What you describe are sanctuary cities... still that won’t appease the all immigrants are rapists crowd.

Under current policies, perennial promises of "future enforcement" are seen by would-be illegals and employers as a non-credible threats. And they have been non-credible threats up to this point because our government is run by traitors who want us to be overrun. They are in on it. Once the traitors are hanged and credible threats of enforcement are established, the problem will be solved quickly.

Sounds like you think we are being stabbed in the back.

That should end well.

Or not, actually, if history is any guide concerning what happens when that sort of attitude gains the power to eliminate the traitors.

It's telling that in all the right-wing responses in this comment thread, not a single one addresses the issue of literally what to do with the 41k children every year. Lots of high-level rhetoric about what should be done *in general* about immigration, and (of course) lots of vitriol for Democrats, but nobody is even trying to answer the actual question.

This is why both Bush and Obama didn't implement any sort of zero-tolerance policy, despite both men being quite tough on illegal immigration (especially Obama, contra the entire right-wing narrative of his Presidency). The only "solutions" to this issue besides "ignore it and let some people slip through" are either insanely expensive or human rights violations, which is why we are where we are.

I thought this was an econ blog? Hint: the flow isn't perfectly inelastic. It is contingent on the odds of making it to the US and getting to stay and the relative benefit of living in the US vs their home countries. It has been favorable for them because of the goddamn liberals who have been actively subverting the law. Also the corporate interests.

Regarding your laughable claim about Obama being "quite tough" on immigration.



"And they have been non-credible threats up to this point because our government is run by traitors who want us to be overrun."

"Overrun"...by people who want to be safe and earn a decent living?

OK here's the 'plan'.

1. Feel free to come to the US for 6 months 'free'. Provided you're not a terrorist, smuggling drugs, on some type of bad list etc.

2. At the end of 6 months you register that you leave the country. Feel free to come back 90 days later for another 6 months.

3. Alternatively, $2500 and you can get another 6 months and skip the 90 days outside the US.

4. Get caught inside the US breaking these rules and the fine is $5000 or you're deported. If you're deported you can't come back for a year and then it's $3500 for every 6 months.

Since $2500 is not an insane amount to pay every 6 months if you are making semi-decent money (say as a skilled contractor) or going home 90 days isn't crazy if you make less (say working as a picker in seasonal agriculture), this will solve almost all of the illegal immigration problems.

Why does this work? When I visited Amsterdam in the early 00's, they had these street trolleys. You buy a ticket and ride them to your stop but there was no conductor taking tickets. The tickets were cheap but if you got caught in a surprise inspection without a ticket, you'd pay a big fine for trying to cheat the system.

When you make compliance reasonable and relatively affordable people will comply. When you make it expensive and unreasonable you create an underground market for cheating. For example, look what happens when they get crazy about suspending people's drivers licenses. People start driving without them.

Will some people insist on being 'off the grid' for nefarious or silly reasons? Yes. Some people will steal books from the library even though getting a library card is free and almost always without cost.

Fact is management works best when it is management by exception. The US has gone down the wrong path with it's concept of total control everywhere and anywhere. East Germany tried that and even then it couldn't achieve no 'illegal immigration' to West Germany.


Keep to the '6 months in 3 months out' policy for, say 10 years, without causing any trouble and you can apply for citizenship. Pay the $2500 option consistently for 5 years and you can apply for citizenship early (such people would demonstrate assimilation and success in the US and would be laying down roots).

Defang ICE. We should do to ICE what Republicans did to the BATF. Dramatically limit aggressive enforcement capability but dramatically increase their responsibility for positive action. They should be actively encouraging and facilitating positive cases of people coming to the US and their enforcement should concentrate on negative cases (smugglers, traffickers, criminals, etc.). Ideally the job should be 60% encouraging tourism, investment, and positive contributions to the US economy and 40% enforcement. Perhaps they should be moved out of Homeland Security and into Commerce and merged with other departments that work with trade and the economy to send the signal.

Comments for this post are closed