Patterico's Pontifications

1/17/2019

NYT Writer Calls For Open Borders To Everyone Who Wants To Move Here

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:22 pm



[guest post by Dana]

The New York Times, demonstrating once again that diversity does not include political thought, published an op-ed by recently hired columnist Farhad Manjoo, who attempts to convince us that open borders would be a good thing for the U.S.:

[T]here’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.

Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.

There’s a witheringly obvious moral, economic, strategic and cultural case for open borders, and we have a political opportunity to push it. As Democrats jockey for the presidency, there’s room for a brave politician to oppose President Trump’s racist immigration rhetoric not just by fighting his wall and calling for the abolishment of I.C.E. but also by making a proactive and affirmative case for the vast expansion of immigration.

It would be a change from the stale politics of the modern era, in which both parties agreed on the supposed wisdom of “border security” and assumed that immigrants were to be feared.

As an immigrant, this idea confounds me. My family came to the United States from our native South Africa in the late 1980s. After jumping through lots of expensive and confusing legal hoops, we became citizens in 2000. Obviously, it was a blessing: In rescuing me from a society in which people of my color were systematically oppressed, America has given me a chance at liberty.

But why had I deserved that chance, while so many others back home — because their parents lacked certain skills, money or luck — were denied it?

When you see the immigration system up close, you’re confronted with its bottomless unfairness. The system assumes that people born outside our borders are less deserving of basic rights than those inside. My native-born American friends did not seem to me to warrant any more dignity than my South African ones; according to this nation’s founding documents, we were all created equal. Yet by mere accident of geography, some were given freedom, and others were denied it.

This is so stunningly naive, convoluted, and simplistic, it boggles the mind. To Manjoo, any border security by default, is bad, immoral, xenophobic, and flat-out un-American. To which I say, tell that to Americans who have lost loved ones at the hands of immigrants who should not have been in the U.S. in the first place. While Manjoo wants to put out the welcome mat to anyone and everyone, those walking through the devastating aftermath of the unnecessary loss of their loved ones might see it a bit differently. Their loved ones are dead, but they would not be dead if that immigrant had not unlawfully crossed the border into the U.S. They would not be dead if that immigrant had been prevented from crossing the border through stricter security measures. Period. In the minutiae of border discussions, this pivotal point is conveniently ignored by individuals like Manjoo and the open-borders crowd. It has to be. To confront it would be to accept that the argument to open the border is severely flawed.

I’m uninterested in taking time to debate Manjoo’s claims, one by one, because the inherent dangers and risks that come with open borders speak for themselves. This is some childish pie-in-the-sky thinking that, when we apply basic common sense, becomes self-refuting. With that, it will be interesting to see if and when the new progressives in Congress make their move toward an open border. They will not only have to successfully convince the hoi polloi that this is a viable policy position in the best interest of the U.S., but also convince their own leadership, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, both of whom supported legislature to provide border fencing in 2006. (See Secure Fence Act of 2006.)

Untitled

Officer Singh was a legal immigrant from Fiji, who like Farhad Manjoo’s family, jumped through the necessary hoops to become a U. S. citizen. This unlike Gustavo Perez Arriaga, who illegally crossed into the U.S. via the Arizona border and has been charged with the murder of Officer Singh. Because Arriaga should not have been the U.S. in the first place, Officer Singh’s death was preventable.

–Dana

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

177 Responses to “NYT Writer Calls For Open Borders To Everyone Who Wants To Move Here”

  1. this works so well every place it’s been tried

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Heck why not, that is the future they demand for us.

    Narciso (73bb9b)

  3. Every time! Every dam’ time! I work up a good disliking for Trump and somebody just has to come along and remind me that there are worse things! I’m getting tired of it and somebody better do something about it!

    nk (dbc370)

  4. This is some childish pie-in-the-sky thinking that, when we apply basic common sense, becomes self-refuting.

    Like much of the leftist agenda. Socialism, anyone?

    Bored Lawyer (8ea02a)

  5. Open borders are not workable as the world currently exists. The current immigration laws can be confusing and limiting and difficult and sometimes discriminatory, but immigration laws are necessary.

    Nic (896fdf)

  6. Manjoo is proof that the citizenship test is a joke.

    Munroe (62c16c)

  7. No thanks.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. Pick an ethical framework. Explicitly identify it and own it, at least for purposes of an argument. Then we can talk about which ethical arguments make sense.

    This goes as much for the author of the NYT article as it does for the author of any comment on this thread.

    Having an ethics discussion without identifying an ethical framework is meaningless.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  9. Leviticus,

    Please provide an example of the framework you would operate under. I’m not sure I’m following your thinking and would like clarity.

    Dana (023079)

  10. In the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Thursday, President Donald Trump may have suffered some among Republicans overall, but he saw a huge point gain in a different demographic breakdown, and an unexpected one by conventional wisdom. In early December, the poll had Trump’s approval rating among Latino adults at 31%. The results from the poll released Thursday show the president’s job approval among Latino adults at 50%. That is an astonishing 19 point swing. Prior results had less variance, with Latino approval numbers at 36% in their November 1st findings. It was 27% in the pollster’s mid-October survey. The January poll was conducted during the government shutdown over border wall funding, most notably. So the big swing among Latinos was while Trump and Democrats faced off over funding for the wall.”

    https://www.mediaite.com/trump/shock-poll-trump-gains-19-points-with-latino-voters-during-border-wall-shutdown/?fbclid=IwAR3KhDO7h8l7ODSlz1GdBPavbKHesAIdp3DjrEAyrzsoZvz6E-3-f3S6U_4

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. Dana,

    As an example: one could analyze the issue from a utilitarian ethical perspective.

    “Utilitarianism is an ethical and philosophical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, which is usually defined as that which produces the greatest well-being of the greatest number of people.”

    This provides an explicit set of premises, which can be utilized to assess the ethical quandary at issue – e.g. closed borders vs. open borders.

    Other ethical frameworks, with different sets of premises, could also be utilized.

    The important thing would be to pick one, and state its premises clearly, so that the argument could be assessed for validity and soundness.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  12. These folks want the law to be the standard. Which one has to admit should be the standard.

    JRH (fe281f)

  13. You’ve made the ethical argument here, not me – so I am curious to know the ethical framework or philosophy that *you* are utilizing. If I know the framework, we can have a conversation within its parameters and assess the validity of our arguments in light of the ethical premises at play.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  14. In case you want the data to look at:

    http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll-USA-NOS-and-Tables_1901141631-1.pdf#page=1

    It’s interesting, but I would want to see at least one more poll that is similar because they only interviewed 150 Latinos, which isn’t a huge sample size. The difference between 36% and 50% is abt 24 people, so it could be a statistical outlier.

    Nic (896fdf)

  15. Dana, you couldn’t find a real politician who wants open borders? If not, this is all academic. Like I said, no one really wants open borders – no one who really counts in our political system anyway.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  16. Leviticus, most people aren’t philosophical purists. I’m kind of a Lockian, Millsian Utilitarian on a Thomism foundation with Jeffersonian quirks (Today. Tomorrow I may list those things in a slightly different order or add a founding father or two with maybe an Augustine quote and a Maslow reference). But I don’t think that really tells you all that much (other than that I read too much philosophy in college).

    Nic (896fdf)

  17. “Utilitarianism is an ethical and philosophical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, which is usually defined as that which produces the greatest well-being of the greatest number of people.”

    Forget it, Leviticus. I am not giving you my grandfather’s wedding ring so you can buy food for starving babies in Yemen.

    nk (dbc370)

  18. nk, I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. 😛

    Nic (896fdf)

  19. Leviticus,

    Why do you need to have a rigidly defined framework to discuss this issue?

    Dana (023079)

  20. Most of the Congress has a functional interpretation of open borders, as re the last 30 years

    Narciso (73bb9b)

  21. “Dana, you couldn’t find a real politician who wants open borders?”
    Tillman (61f3c8) — 1/17/2019 @ 8:51 pm

    Two decades ago you couldn’t find a real politician who wanted same-sex marriage.

    Since when does the Left come clean about what they really want?

    Munroe (59c630)

  22. When I hear “the greatest good for the greatest number”, I have a vision of a sled, rushing through the snow, with a pack of wolves chasing it, and the several passengers throwing one out, for the wolves to eat, and give the others time to get away.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Munroe, in other words, you got nothin’!

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  24. nk, yes that type of moral is myopic. But so is capitalism: the big dogs eat the smaller dogs with pure capitalism. That’s not comforting either.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  25. Agree it’s the worst system, except for all the other ones. (I’m misquoting someone badly there).

    JRH (fe281f)

  26. Oh yeah, Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

    JRH (fe281f)

  27. “Munroe, in other words, you got nothin’!”
    Tillman (61f3c8) — 1/17/2019 @ 9:58 pm

    Oh, so you wanted an actual name. Easy peasy. Here ya go:
    https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/25/keith-ellison-poses-with-stolen-land-sign/

    ‘Ellison was caught on video wearing a T-shirt in May that read, “yo no creo en fronteras,” which translates to: “I don’t believe in borders.”‘

    Kudos to Ellison for coming out with what the bulk of Dems actually believe.

    Munroe (d491b5)

  28. the left in this country want to put you in a re-education camp or worse. it was a lot more fun in the past when you could call democrats commies and the democrats say back no we are not . were real americans too! now they say and your racist nazi scum and will be felt with accordingly as vermin not americans. the free ride you had is over democrats want to do to you what you wanted to do to them! have fun!

    lany (826146)

  29. I have been wondering about something immigration-related, and I hope it’s near enough the topic at hand to not be considered a derail.

    There is outrage over sanctuary policies, by which cities refuse to turn over illegal immigrants in their custody for deportation.

    The way I understand, the ICE issues a “detainer”, which is a request by an administrator to hold someone in custody until they can be transferred to custody of immigration authorities.

    These detainers are problematic from several angles. They have no legal standing (they are not warrants issued by a judge) and there is no evidential or other threshold as there would be in the case of a warrant. A bureaucrat or immigration officer says “Hey, hold that guy in custody until we can pick him up – because I said so.”

    I’m unclear on how, if the local law enforcement agency complies, this is constitutional. It obviously would be if a warrant were issued, but how can the police hold somebody without a formal legal basis? In the case of the guy who shot and killed Kate Steinle, as I understand it, he was being released from prison. The feds asked that he be held, and the request was not honored.

    Anyway, what I am wondering is why this isn’t fixed. There should be a process that passes constitutional muster for transferring people into custody of ICE, *and* it should have the same legal force as a warrant, such that failure to honor it is a violation of the law.

    This is a concrete and seemingly obvious step that might require creating a new kind of court or other bureaucracy to review and approve immigration detainer warrants, but involves no massive construction projects and makes the whole process legally sound AND makes compliance mandatory.

    Why hasn’t it been done? Why isn’t it even talked about? Why do people wring their hands over sanctuary cities when it is the stupid non-binding administrative detainer process that makes them possible in the first place?

    Dave (1bb933)

  30. They don’t teach penmanship to kids in school anymore; they’re befuddled when asked to write checks or sign their names in cursive writing and find little use for it in their internet universe. When I arrived on this rock, there were about 2.5 billion people. There’s more than 7 billion now and projected to be over 9 billion by 2050; 11-plus billion by 2100 according to the U.S. Census bureau. And the planet ain’t gettin’ any bigger. We’re close to the immediacy and consequences in our time of managing immigration and economic policies peculiar to the United States and look to debate and institute efficiencies accordingly. Still, broader migratory patterns; climate issues, resource management etc., etc., are stirring noisy attention, particularly with the young, worldwide. It’s all related. And as ‘simplistic,’ ‘wacky’ or even ‘socialist’ as it may seem to older folks today- younger folks spit-balling solutions suggests a reasonable concern for the emerging future they’ll have to live in. We’ll be gone. A mindset for some genuine, ‘real world’ global management establishment may very well eventually appear. Doesn’t do much for the immediate short term problems of the now– but on a grander scale, a century or two from now, it could likely be an accepted norm. 18% of 21st century is already history. Time marches on and people climb over or tunnel under walls. Still, Manjoo was born in 1978 and he likely has a handsome signature.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. If you can’t write in cursive – GTFO

    mg (7e0e37)

  32. i lost my handwriting somewhere along the way

    it’s kind of a humbling experience now when i have to write something on paper

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  33. @DCSCA,

    Why do we believe the 7 billion figure? As I understand it, the vast majority of the population increase is either in China (not a State known for truthfulness) or in various Countries in Africa that get foreign aid based on population.

    I’m not saying that the world population isn’t rising. I’m saying that we don’t know because the measures we rely on are based on trusting organizations that are allergic to the truth.

    C. S. P. Schofield (531c3d)

  34. Well it’s a multiple of the current us population is it 15, 18 x

    Narciso (96850e)

  35. You don’t need a warrant to tell a cop, “Officer, stop that man, he stole my wallet”, Dave. You have a reasonable time after that to convince the magistrate that they take him in front of that there is probable cause that he stole your wallet. If you don’t, they let him go, and he sues you for false arrest.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Dana,

    I would settle for “loosely defined” or “vaguely defined,” as a practical matter, and set aside “rigidly defined” as aspirational or academic. But I do think that at least a loosely defined ethical framework is called for when making an ethical argument.

    Under even the loosest ethical frameworks, there’s a big difference between having open borders and nk having to give me his grandfather’s wedding ring (which, for the record, I have not requested). What we’re dealing with there is a rhetorical framework, not an ethical one.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  37. Message to teh people on a Friday. Listen well, my friends… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Rg5FGs-9w

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. The ethical framework is The Polity, commonly translated as The Republic, but in Plato’s time understood as The City-State of Athens.

    So, never mind my grandfather’s ring:
    Question 1: What is the greatest good for the greatest number of the members of the Republic of The United States? Open borders or controlled entry of non-members?

    Question 2: How can utilitarianism possibly be called an “ethical” theory? It is a contradiction in terms. Utilitarianism is, well, dare I say it?, utilitarian. It is the choosing of a policy for the polity.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. Oops! The Republic of the United States of America. Not the United States of Mexico.

    nk (dbc370)

  40. *An* ethical framework. There are many beyond state consequentialism.

    But I do appreciate you identifying one (really).

    Answer to Question 1: clearly, controlled entry of non-members, from this ethical perspective.

    Answer to Question 2: utilitarianism can be called an ethical theory because it prescribed a means of identifying right action.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  41. I picked utilitarianism primarily because you suggested it, but it was a solid suggestion on your part because that’s what the Supreme Court also applied in the gay rights cases: “The government can legislate on the basis of morality (until we say different in the next case), but when it affects a protected class it must also show how it prevents a harm to, or confers a benefit on, society.” — Justice Anthony Kennedy (construed)

    nk (dbc370)

  42. I suggested it as an example, and a widely known one, for the sake of illustrating what I meant by “ethical framework.” I have no affinity for utilitarianism, even loosely defined, because I’ve always found its mechanisms for calculating “goods” to be incredibly arbitrary.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  43. Arbitrary, like building the superiority of one group’s interests directly into an ethical framework, rather than searching for an ethical framework that can answer the question in level terms.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  44. If your old and grey like me. Get your eyes checked. What a difference shooting clays. 🏆

    mg (6ab313)

  45. What if there were some kind of magical middle ground here, whereby we could still screen everyone at the border for security concerns, but couldn’t exclude anyone just because they were a Mexican (or a Guatemalan, Honduran, etc)?

    We could call it something like “ethical open borders.”

    Leviticus (c85add)

  46. you can have a wall and still have open borders if you want

    but then if you get tired of head lice and tuberculosis you can put things on pause

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  47. The “group” is mankind’s most important survival trait, Leviticus.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. Wtf is wrong with enforcing the laws we have for illegal entry?

    mg (6ab313)

  49. If no lawyers were involved in this lawyer made crisis. No crisis would exist because most of us use common sense as our moral compass.

    mg (6ab313)

  50. The family is, nk. The “group” is just a short step from the State.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  51. Family, clan, tribe, nation-state, it’s an evolution in cooperation. We may or may not get to planet, solar system, galaxy, but if we do, I’m getting a lightsaber.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. 12 gauge for me, nk. 😎

    mg (6ab313)

  53. Guys, cut the offensive “family” rhetoric.

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/16/google-family-triggered-meltdown/

    Munroe (59622e)

  54. You don’t need a warrant to tell a cop, “Officer, stop that man, he stole my wallet”, Dave. You have a reasonable time after that to convince the magistrate that they take him in front of that there is probable cause that he stole your wallet. If you don’t, they let him go, and he sues you for false arrest.

    Thanks nk, but isn’t this a bit different? In the situation you describe where the suspect was in custody of another law enforcement agency, would it not require something more than an administrative request to transfer them to custody of another law enforcement agency?

    In any case, the present voluntary system is clearly problematic and needs to be fixed.

    (I’ve also read that it in cases where the requests are honored, it can take days for the Feds to take custody, imposing custodial and legal costs on the local authorities).

    Dave (1bb933)

  55. Probably one of the dumbest op-ed pieces the Times has run in a very, very long time… which is an exceptional achievement.

    B.A. DuBois (80f588)

  56. I know that in gun cases, local law enforcement partners with the feds to go after persons prohibited by federal law to possess guns or ammunition. I don’t know that there is a constitutional bar to local police enforcing federal law, particularly if the crime (in this instance illegal presence in the U.S.) is being committed in their presence. If they decline, it is more a matter of discretion and allocation of resources. And virtue signalling. And politics. And pandering.

    (I’ve also read that it in cases where the requests are honored, it can take days for the Feds to take custody, imposing custodial and legal costs on the local authorities).
    They get federal (LEAA) money for that. What Trump threatened to withhold?

    nk (dbc370)

  57. Leviticus,

    Whether Duty or Virtue or any other framework you choose, it is going to be a bit questionable given:

    What if there were some kind of magical middle ground here, whereby we could still screen everyone at the border for security concerns, but couldn’t exclude anyone just because they were a Mexican (or a Guatemalan, Honduran, etc)?

    We could call it something like “ethical open borders.”

    Are you insinuating that there is currently an intentional effort being made to exclude individuals because of their brown skin and not because of a legal exclusionary reason?

    Dana (023079)

  58. I am referring to the same “legal exclusionary reason” as you are, Dana. We can throw Norwegians and Canadians onto the list with Mexicans and Hondurans, and it won’t change my assessment that we could handle security issues and screening completely independently of immigration status.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  59. Also, there are per-country *quotas* for certain kinds of immigrant visas, a concept which seems profoundly wrong to me. It’s a legal exclusionary reason in that it’s what the law requires, but that doesn’t mean it *isn’t* exclusion based on ethnicity — it’s just legalized exclusion based on ethnicity.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  60. norweegers are much less likely than mexicans to come over just to have anchor babies and snarfle up a bunch of welfare

    that’s just one of their things

    they also have really good recipes for fish and also many side dishes featuring various incarnations of the humble potato

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  61. This Op-ed is not in the printed paper and the online version doesn’t say that it is.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  62. It’s true enough: America on;y became great in the first place because of immigration.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  63. The argument Farhad Manjoo makes does not rely much on the idea of liberty or human rights. And it’s not an argument, therefore, against selective immigration. Just an argument that immigration quotas are stupid. But he really is offering aliberty proposal.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  64. I think thsi issue is going to become very divisive. and you ain’t seen nothing yet. It’s where teh slavery issue was around 1850.

    I note one things right now. Democrats say they are for border dcontrol but they are talking about drugs, not people. And they mention addin g personnel

    Trump is talking about people. And he has to lie about them to make his case, because he knows his policy is callous and cruel.

    There can never be 100% enforcement. the question is hwo cruel do you want to get

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  65. Trump is talking about people. And he has to lie about them to make his case, because he knows his policy is callous and cruel.

    And Trump has hired undocumented foreigners at Mar a Lago, Bedminster and Trump Tower. So not only is he an immoral liar, he is a bad actor with no credibility on the issue. It’s like a fox being a spokesman for henhouse safety.

    JRH (fe281f)

  66. Munroe (d491b5) — 1/17/2019 @ 10:23 pm

    OK, s you found one rep. wearing a t-shirt. That’s really nothing still, since it pressed, I doubt he’d be for completely open borders.

    But making the charge that because some .001% of Democrats say they want open borders, so they must all want open borders isn’t really fair at all. See, I could claim that since a larger number of Republicans are Nazis, then all of them secretly are or want to be Nazis. But that’s not right – I don’t argue that way.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  67. *if pressed (busy day, trying to work this in).

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  68. President Trump is like a fox that cuts all the regulations to where the prosperity is abundant all over the place.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  69. it won’t change my assessment that we could handle security issues and screening completely independently of immigration status.

    And how exactly would this work? If an individual wants to come across the border with good intentions, they are more likely to go through a legal port of entry for screening. But if one has a criminal background and or wants to come into the country without good intentions, why would you think they would go through screening process? If there is no barrier in place, why would they not just go through porous border sections instead?

    Two things: my screen time is limited today as I am wrangling a toddler, and I also have difficulty typing today, so I’m dictating in my phone, so things may sound choppy.

    Dana (023079)

  70. One World Order. They really do believe it and think they’ll be in charge not realizing the state of humanity for almost all of existence is the boot of one man on the face of another.

    NJRob (fef3fc)

  71. OK, s you found one rep. wearing a t-shirt. That’s really nothing still, since it pressed, I doubt he’d be for completely open borders.

    But making the charge that because some .001% of Democrats say they want open borders, so they must all want open borders isn’t really fair at all. See, I could claim that since a larger number of Republicans are Nazis, then all of them secretly are or want to be Nazis. But that’s not right – I don’t argue that way.

    Tillman (61f3c8) — 1/18/2019 @ 12:57 pm

    That’s the same lie leftists used when claiming tolerance for civil unions wouldn’t lead to forced homosexual marriage or the onslaught of discrimination against Christians that the left now willingly embraces.

    Leftist taqiyya.

    NJRob (fef3fc)

  72. Or that they weren’t trying to push socialism and communism on society and destroy America in the process.

    NJRob (fef3fc)

  73. NJRob, you extreme rhetoric is not helpful. I could be calling all of you Republicans / Trumpettes Nazis, but it’s not helpful, it’s just being an ass. Democrats take a lot of heat for sticking up for gay people, and abortion rights. So no, they don’t feel the need to hide anything.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  74. I love gay people and I love abortion but I love President Trump more than beans and fishsticks!

    I love too much.

    But that’s my own cross to bear.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  75. BS. Go back just 8 years to prove your words false as Obama and Hillary both said marriage was the union of a man and a woman.

    NJRob (fef3fc)

  76. I would have to think it over further, but I think I would have no problem with a wall if our defaultmigration policy was that “we will not deny anyone entry solely on the basis of their nationality or country of origin.”

    Leviticus (c85add)

  77. Actually, I will immediately refine that. “We will not deny anyone entry except on the basis of specific and articulated security concerns.”

    Leviticus (c85add)

  78. plus tuberculosis

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  79. I could be calling all of you Republicans / Trumpettes Nazis, but it’s not helpful, it’s just being an ass

    It would not be helpful, but more importantly, it would be intentionally untruthful.

    Dana (023079)

  80. I love too much.

    Have you hugged a transvestite Mormon FBI agent yet today?

    Dave (b00907)

  81. Here’s a prominent Democrat (although she may be one that coherent Democrats are quietly yet somewhat frantically trying to distance themselves from) with a convoluted evasion in response to a poignant question:

    https://twitter.com/HenMazzig/status/1086298722995265537

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  82. She was hot as a bowl of fvck per the Deep State Media Complex until this past Summer.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  83. no i went to the dentist today

    they said i have beautiful gums

    and they’re right what can i say

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  84. We will not deny anyone entry except on the basis of specific and articulated security concerns.”

    How about, we will admit aliens only on the basis of specific and articulated economic benefit to the United States?

    nk (dbc370)

  85. How about blowing up the tranny bathrooms and going back to MEN and WOMEN?

    mg (7e0e37)

  86. Dems are more interested in blowing teh tranny, mg.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  87. America is a ship traveling through the oceans of Destiny. If we let everyone who wants to board us, they will swamp us and sink us.

    nk (dbc370)

  88. @90. It’s a designated section of a continent adrift on a 4.5 billion year old planet w/multiple land masses that’s 75% water w/a shell of gases five miles deep at the bottom of its atmosphere capable of sustaining life. Pretty puny piece of real estate in the grand scale of thing.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  89. @91 Location, location, location

    Dave (b00907)

  90. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/largest-single-group-migrants-tunnels-border-wall-arizona/story?id=60462672

    Although the photo suggests tunnel is too grand a word.

    I will just say that the post’s premise…that some illegal immigrants commit murder, thetefore we need to keep the number of legally admitted immigrants unrealistically low…is possibly the most inane idea I have seen here.

    Kishnevi (ce6470)

  91. We will not deny anyone entry except on the basis of specific and articulated security concerns.”

    Clearly this would remove any quotas for immigration. If we open the flood gates, is there any limit to how many we would take in if uncontrolled numbers become an economic hardship, especially the border states where they would be most likely to populate ?

    Also, if we have an open border under any specific security measures, how do you then define the United States of America if there is basically an uncontrolled movement?

    Moreover, without any kind of barrier, why would someone with not good intentions willingly submit to a legal port of entry to gain access to crossing the border rather than breaching a portion of the border with no obstacle in their way?

    Dana (023079)

  92. I will just say that the post’s premise…that some illegal immigrants commit murder, thetefore we need to keep the number of legally admitted immigrants unrealistically low…is possibly the most inane idea I have seen here.

    Kishnevi (ce6470) — 1/18/2019 @ 3:21 pm

    I think you need to re-read the post. Illegal immigration is not the same as legal immigration, and nowhere has it been said that legal immigration numbers should be lower because of the actions of an illegal immigrant.

    Dana (023079)

  93. Open borders means essentially all immigration is legal, doesn’t it Dana?

    Dave (8ee42c)

  94. that made me chuckle, Col.

    mg (7e0e37)

  95. if we take miss Manjoo at her word, it means virtually unlimited,

    narciso (d1f714)

  96. I will just say that the post’s premise…that some illegal immigrants commit murder, thetefore we need to keep the number of legally admitted immigrants unrealistically low…is possibly the most inane idea I have seen here.

    Kish, you’re accusing Dana of advancing an argument that she simply doesn’t make. This is the thrust of her point:

    [Manjoo’s call for open borders] is so stunningly naive, convoluted, and simplistic, it boggles the mind. To Manjoo, any border security by default, is bad, immoral, xenophobic, and flat-out un-American. To which I say, tell that to Americans who have lost loved ones at the hands of immigrants who should not have been in the U.S. in the first place. While Manjoo wants to put out the welcome mat to anyone and everyone, those walking through the devastating aftermath of the unnecessary loss of their loved ones might see it a bit differently. Their loved ones are dead, but they would not be dead if that immigrant had not unlawfully crossed the border into the U.S. They would not be dead if that immigrant had been prevented from crossing the border through stricter security measures. Period. In the minutiae of border discussions, this pivotal point is conveniently ignored by individuals like Manjoo and the open-borders crowd. It has to be. To confront it would be to accept that the argument to open the border is severely flawed.

    The only possible quibble you can make is that in the fifth sentence she doesn’t place the modifier “unauthorized,” “illegal,” or “undocumented” (or whatever) in front of the word “immigrant,” but the fifth sentence carries over the idea she outlined in the fourth sentence where she specifically says “if that immigrant had not unlawfully crossed the border. . .” I can’t for the life of me figure out how you got to “Dana thinks we need to reduce the levels of legal immigration.”

    JVW (54fd0b)

  97. Open borders means essentially all immigration is legal, doesn’t it Dana?

    Presumably Serbian war criminals and Joseph Kony would still be barred entry, but then again, perhaps not.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  98. Are there any countries in the world who allow unrestricted immigration?

    Guessing if there are they are probably countries with a lot of people trying to get out…

    Dave (8ee42c)

  99. the point is…

    america elected a president what was quite clear that he did not support nancy pelosi’s tuberculosis caravans

    but she shut down the government to keep the tuberculosis flowing into america

    now all the trashy federal workers are getting welfare just like the head lice migrants!

    LOL!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  100. 2nd time illegals should be deported for life, or else.

    mg (7e0e37)

  101. Dave – prior to the Page Act (which banned immigration by Chinese women), the US had no restrictions on immigration. It had rules for *naturalization*, but that’s not the same thing; anyone could come here for the first century of our independent existence.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  102. oh my goodness the prejudice and bigotry what greeted head licers of that era was truly remarkable Mr. aphrael

    not even the most enthusiastic anti-head lice activist in the whole America wants us to go back to that regime

    people were SO mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. I will just say that the post’s premise…that some illegal immigrants commit murder, thetefore we need to keep the number of legally admitted immigrants unrealistically low

    That is…not the post’s premise.

    Patterico (6467ac)

  104. Manjoo argues for a vastly higher number of legal immigrants. Open borders does not mean no borders. It means letting people who want to come here, come here.
    Dana disagrees with that, and to back up her view, cites the fact that some illegal immigrants have killed Americans. It so happens that I agree with Manjoo (except I think a relatively thorough background check should be requited, and if you are from a country where it’s not possible to do that, tough cookies), but I fail to see how that point is in any way relevant to Manjoo’s point. That is why I called it inane.

    And I think it ought to be obvious that letting in more legal immigrants makes border security easier. Among other things, it lets ICE and LEO focus on those who actually are bad hombres.

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  105. Mr. Kishnevi do you think building a wall per President Trump’s specifications would make the eventual implementation of your preferred immigration policies more or less likely?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  106. I think the Wall that Trump wants is a giant waste of money and effort that will do nothing to actually help border security (defining the latter as keeping people and goods out whom the laws of the US say should not be allowed in).

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  107. Kishnevi,

    should nations be allowed to determine who is permitted to enter its borders and become legal residents and eventually citizens? Any nations at all?

    NJRob (4d595c)

  108. “It so happens that I agree with Manjoo (except I think a relatively thorough background check should be requited, and if you are from a country where it’s not possible to do that, tough cookies)”
    Kishnevi (2f2ab7) — 1/18/2019 @ 4:50 pm

    So, only a security check? No, check as to whether the immigrant is able to provide for his/herself, as is currently done? Meaning, assurances that the immigrant won’t become a ward of the state. Or, should we care?

    If the answer is yes, then a ton of people are instantly excluded. If no, I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

    Munroe (0c363b)

  109. should nations be allowed to determine who is permitted to enter its borders and become legal residents and eventually citizens? Any nations at all?
    Yes.
    But facts and principles demonstrate that having more immigrants is a good thing. The main reason illegal immigration is a problem is that we let too few people in legally.

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  110. paying piggy pensions out the wazoo to our dirty border patrol thugs isn’t exactly the best way to get a return on our hard-earned dollar that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  111. So how many people do we need with what skill sets, and how many are too much.

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  112. “The main reason illegal immigration is a problem is that we let too few people in legally.”

    Are there studies that provide some evidence that this is the case? Or is this a gut feeling?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  113. There is this thing called the free market. Conservatives used to say it was better than government in deciding this sort of thing…

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  114. There are studies. I refer you to the pages of Reason (the magazine) if you actually want to learn something.

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  115. But facts and principles demonstrate that having more immigrants is a good thing. The main reason illegal immigration is a problem is that we let too few people in legally.

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7) — 1/18/2019 @ 5:42 pm

    Having skilled, productive, peaceful, immigrants who want to adapt to American culture is a good thing. Having invaders, anti-assimilationists, devotees to their nation of birth, socialists, welfare abusers is not helpful to America and are undesirable.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  116. And yet Cato institute has a way of dismissing other factors in their studies as with the immigration pause with certain countries.

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  117. Rob, most immigrants are described by your first sentence. Your second sentence was the recurring theme of anti-immigrationists throughout American history*, and just as lacking in reality.

    *Did you know Franklin complained about all those Germans taking over Pennsylvania?

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  118. “There is this thing called the free market. Conservatives used to say it was better than government in deciding this sort of thing…”
    Kishnevi (2f2ab7) — 1/18/2019 @ 5:58 pm

    There is this thing called the welfare state….

    Munroe (1ef2c5)

  119. Dave – prior to the Page Act (which banned immigration by Chinese women), the US had no restrictions on immigration. It had rules for *naturalization*, but that’s not the same thing; anyone could come here for the first century of our independent existence.

    Yes, of course, but for most of that time there were large areas settled only (thinly) by Indians where land was readily available. The per capita costs of government services, in real terms, were also far lower. I don’t think the situation in the 1800’s or even first couple decades of the 1900’s is very relevant to today.

    Dave (1bb933)

  120. People tend to forget that America has its national roots in the violent dispossession of land from prior inhabitant cultures, an economic strength based on a slave economy, and a legacy of making war against other societies in pursuit of misguided imperialist ends. The notion of American exceptionalism as a premise for any ethical framework is badly, badly flawed. America is not exceptional. Its history and its people are the same as every history and every people.

    Leviticus (c85add)

  121. America is very exceptional but it’s all getting corrupted

    crappy universities

    filthy propaganda media

    dirty sleazy treasonous military

    rogue and abusive law enforcement

    child-molesting public schools

    climate change hoax all up in everything

    it’s a very sick society

    but you can still go to real america and see why this was once a very very exceptional place and people

    and I’m not just talking about the butter cow at the Iowa State Fair

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  122. Rob, most immigrants are described by your first sentence. Your second sentence was the recurring theme of anti-immigrationists throughout American history*, and just as lacking in reality.

    *Did you know Franklin complained about all those Germans taking over Pennsylvania?

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7) — 1/18/2019 @ 6:09 pm

    I disagree and growing up in NY and living in NJ I have more experience with the 2nd group than the 1st.

    If the 1st statement was the predominant faction, the left would be building a wall and restricting immigration as fact as humanly possible.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  123. 123
    How can you live in a country like this?
    The shame.

    mg (7e0e37)

  124. “The notion of American exceptionalism as a premise for any ethical framework is badly, badly flawed. America is not exceptional.”
    Leviticus (c85add) — 1/18/2019 @ 6:51 pm

    There’s that opinion. But, the millions trying to enter this one country have swayed me otherwise. How could so many be so badly, badly wrong?

    Munroe (15e677)

  125. People tend to forget that America has its national roots in the violent dispossession of land from prior inhabitant cultures, an economic strength based on a slave economy, and a legacy of making war against other societies in pursuit of misguided imperialist ends. The notion of American exceptionalism as a premise for any ethical framework is badly, badly flawed. America is not exceptional. Its history and its people are the same as every history and every people.

    Leviticus (c85add) — 1/18/2019 @ 6:51 pm

    American history is the history of the world from the beginning of time with the exception that we have created modern civilization. We, America, are exceptional.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  126. But, the millions trying to enter this one country have swayed me otherwise. How could so many be so badly, badly wrong?

    it’s even more impressive if you express it in terms of the number of head lice what make this brave and arduous journey

    my country tis of thee

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  127. Leviticus…The US is exceptional because of the ideals and principles which shaped its founding. We rejected slavery because it conflicted with them, and we are now gradually dealing with the destruction of Native America (I would argue that has more claim to be called America’s Original Sin than slavery does.) American imperialism was opposed on those principles when we first started being imperialistic (Mark Twain was a leader in the movement). And people respect us, and we exercise our influence the most, when we at least seem to defend those principles.

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  128. That is common to settler state (Russell mead’s term, 30 years ago) us Canada Israel australia

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  129. “America is not exceptional.”

    If you truly believe that, you have my sympathy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  130. Some people like America, some people don’t. You can’t like every country.

    nk (dbc370)

  131. Twain was very naive, did he think the phillipines would have been left to its lonesome self no the germans were raring to jump in.

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  132. puzzled why you evoke those stupid doomed native americans Mr. Levitivus

    they were pioneers of the original open borders policy

    how’d that work out

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  133. Rob, I live in So Fla. I think proportionately we have even more immigrants than you do (I think only California and Texas have more, and I may be wrong about Texas.) And the first group predominates here.

    I am inclined to say your experience reflects living where you do more than it does immigrants in general. But I am from Boston, so perhaps I am a bit biased about New York and environs :)

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  134. Manjoo argues for a vastly higher number of legal immigrants. Open borders does not mean no borders. It means letting people who want to come here, come here.
    Dana disagrees with that, and to back up her view, cites the fact that some illegal immigrants have killed Americans.

    But she does not argue what you claimed she argued, and you should acknowledge that. I pointed that out quite explicitly, and I don’t like being ignored.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  135. Native Americans proved open borders suck.

    mg (7e0e37)

  136. oopers Mr. *Leviticus* i mean

    i did a misspeller there on accident

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  137. If you’re going to use such derisive language to describe an opinion of a poster here, you should first ensure that the opinion you’re deriding is actually their opinion. In this thread you failed to take that very basic step.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  138. Yes but the latter group, really screwed up the fmrs reputation so much so people are still talking about the mariela malingerers nearly 40 years ago, there were plenty of good people in the cohort but they aren’t remembered. This is what happens when you virtue signal with immigration policy.

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  139. Twain was very naive, did he think the phillipines would have been left to its lonesome self no the germans

    And if they did?
    If we had spurned imperium and then stayed out of WWI?
    Quite possibly Germany would have won, and then no Hitler, and possibly Bolshevism would not have been allowed to sustain itself in Russia….

    (Alternate history is great because there are no facts to constrain you)

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  140. The first you I came down to south flirida, the school enrollment ran to 5 PM. Clinton was burned by the backwash at ft. Chaffee so he opened up Gitmo to interdict.

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  141. That wasn’t the way of the world then, the German example is seen in the hetero massacre seen in gravity’s raimbow.

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  142. Sorry, Patterico, as much as I respect Dana and you*, I think I gave a very fair summary of Dana’s argument. I din’t see how the fact that some illegal immigrants are killers has any bearing on Manjoo’s claim that we should admit almost everyone who wants to come here.

    If that is not what Dana meant, then perhaps someone could explain her real meaning to me.

    *Heh, I might respect Dana more than you.

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  143. No, kish she explicitly contrasted officer Singh with arriaga.

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  144. But how does that argue against Manjoo’s claim? Shouldn’t we want as many people like Singh?

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  145. But I am from Boston, so perhaps I am a bit biased about New York and environs :)

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7) — 1/18/2019 @ 7:16 pm

    Oohhh, that’s a low blow. But it does explain the animosity we express from time to time. Boston and NYC is a rivalry as old as time. And yes, time really does begin with the Sawx trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  146. “But how does that argue against Manjoo’s claim? Shouldn’t we want as many people like Singh?”

    People like Singh are few and far between in any country. Letting a zillion sub-standard Singhs in unvetted because you have some romantic ethnic need for your entire extended family to come over to a country where a large portion will be nothing more than wards of the state or employees of last resort for the shadiest firms and drug gangs is nothing more than a reckless confirmation of the fact that The Restrictionists Were Right All Along.

    Father Jerry (f28f29)

  147. Yes because she explicitly argues against any enforcement actions,

    Narciso (18a7c2)

  148. In January it’s not nice
    Caravans like hordes of mice
    Scuttling in to overwhelm ICE
    Say it once, say it twice
    Say grubby little kids with lice

    In February it will feel
    Like we’ve all OD’d on Fentanyl
    With Hondurans smuggling every pill!
    OD once, OD twice
    Grubby drug cartels with lice

    In March MS13 kicks down the door
    And splatters brains upon the floor
    It loots the house and roars for more
    Robbin’ once, robbin’ twice
    Grubby teenage gang with lice

    nk (dbc370)

  149. Fr Jerry, two things
    First, if I wanted to read Breitbartian twaddle, I would read Breitbart.
    Second,Most people are like Singh. If they aren’t in your neighborhood, you need to find a new neighborhood.

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  150. Oh, yeah, I just remembered for some reason. New Zealand enforces a BMI requirement (no fat people), both for admission and permission to remain, on its legal admittees. What with obesity and pre-diabetes being such a antional epidemic, worse than non-ciliac gluten sensitivity and lactose intolerance combined, we should do the same thing.

    nk (dbc370)

  151. Blatant discrimination against Samoans and other Polynesians, nk.

    Kishnevi (2f2ab7)

  152. “Second, Most people are like Singh, If they aren’t in your neighborhood, you need to find a new neighborhood.

    ‘If your neighborhood sucks, just immigrate to a better neighborhood!’

    Thank you for writing a completely self-refuting statement.

    Nope, the Singhs are outliers. MS-13 persists and rules in Mexico because more Mexicans are willing to tolerate, deal with, or endure MS-13 rule than they are Jeffersonian democracy. Communism rules in China because more Chinese are willing to tolerate, deal with, or endure Communist rule than they are Jeffersonian democracy.

    Those who find the wherewithal to come to America legally and gladly assimilate are by definition going to be the exceptions to their country’s culture, not the rule. Letting their families chain-migrate in when they never made the effort to come in the first place will only end in tears.

    Father Jerry (3bcaf1)

  153. Sorry, Patterico, as much as I respect Dana and you*, I think I gave a very fair summary of Dana’s argument. I din’t see how the fact that some illegal immigrants are killers has any bearing on Manjoo’s claim that we should admit almost everyone who wants to come here.

    If that is not what Dana meant, then perhaps someone could explain her real meaning to me.

    *Heh, I might respect Dana more than you.

    I think her real meaning is very clear and very far from what you have claimed. Rather than someone like me banging my head against the wall by trying to explain it to someone who seems like they’re not trying very hard to understand it, why don’t you try stating her argument in a way that you think she (and I, and JVW, and everyone else here who is trying to explain to you how badly wrong you got it) would agree is what she is actually trying to say?

    If you’re not willing to try that, I’m certainly not wasting my time with this any more.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  154. Every time! Every dam’ time! I work up a good disliking for Trump and somebody just has to come along and remind me that there are worse things!

    Or worse, that he’s not wrong. Then of course, as I move on board, one of his rabid supporters makes me feel unclean again.

    “He’s a fool!” (slap)
    “He’s the President!” (slap)
    “He’s a fool!” (slap)
    “He’s the President!” (slap)
    “He’s a fool!” (slap)
    “He’s the President!” (slap)

    If you remember the scene….

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  155. There is this thing called the free market. Conservatives used to say it was better than government in deciding this sort of thing…

    So, wait. You would throw open the borders, allowing shanty towns to surround massively overburdened cities, with accompanying disease, squalor and human suffering just because you have some asinine theory about how it will work out?

    When it has never worked out? We tried this in the US in the Gilded Age and if you ignore the short lifespans, the urban nightmares and the mass exploitation of the immigrants, then it’s a fine system. But, hey, the knocking shops are very well staffed.

    I often think that Libertarians and Communists are two sides of the same coin, with their thinking reduced to political shibboleths, resting on dogma and the belief that their favored system will work if it is finally done right.

    Then again, I admit to being a failed Libertarian.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  156. And even if the ragged immigrants in their shanty towns are better off than where they were, the cesspool that all but the richest of us would be living next to isn’t worth the game.

    It’s bad enough now. Do you think that objection today is because of something other than intolerable conditions? Good God, why would ANYONE vote for someone like Trump if their backs weren’t to the wall?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  157. If you remember the scene….

    Sorry, no.

    nk (dbc370)

  158. What movie?

    nk (dbc370)

  159. Manjoo argues for a vastly higher number of legal immigrants. Open borders does not mean no borders. It means letting people who want to come here, come here.

    Dana disagrees with that, and to back up her view, cites the fact that some illegal immigrants have killed Americans.

    But she does not argue what you claimed she argued, and you should acknowledge that. I pointed
    that out quite explicitly, and I don’t like being ignored.

    I confess this characterization of Kishnevi’s does not seem unfair to me. Dana wrote:

    This is so stunningly naive, convoluted, and simplistic, it boggles the mind. To Manjoo, any border security by default, is bad, immoral, xenophobic, and flat-out un-American. To which I say, tell that to Americans who have lost loved ones at the hands of immigrants who should not have been in the U.S. in the first place. While Manjoo wants to put out the welcome mat to anyone and everyone, those walking through the devastating aftermath of the unnecessary loss of their loved ones might see it a bit differently.

    I guess I am missing something in Dana’s argument that distinguishes it from what Kishnevi said. I wholeheartedly agree with her dismissal of Manjoo’s proposal in the first sentence, but I don’t see that what follows is an effective criticism of it.

    Earlier he wrote:

    I will just say that the post’s premise…that some illegal immigrants commit murder, therefore we need to keep the number of legally admitted immigrants unrealistically low

    While (having recently made the same mistake myself) I do not endorse or defend Kishnevi’s harsh choice of words, this seems like what Dana was saying.

    Dave (1bb933)

  160. The “they shouldn’t be here” argument has been bothering me for a while. Dana expresses it:

    [T]hose walking through the devastating aftermath of the unnecessary loss of their loved ones might see it a bit differently. Their loved ones are dead, but they would not be dead if that immigrant had not unlawfully crossed the border into the U.S. They would not be dead if that immigrant had been prevented from crossing the border through stricter security measures. Period. In the minutiae of border discussions, this pivotal point is conveniently ignored by individuals like Manjoo and the open-borders crowd. It has to be. To confront it would be to accept that the argument to open the border is severely flawed.

    I don’t dare hope I will change anyone’s mind but let me try to explain what seems flawed to me in this reasoning.

    Let’s suppose there were a law that people born on Thursdays could not procreate. If they did, their children would have no citizenship rights and be deported.

    Naturally, some people born on Thursdays would violate the law and have children anyway. And some of these children would remain in the country without legal status. Since children of people born on Thursdays are much like everyone else, a few would commit violent crimes including murder.

    Would it be a reasonable defense of the (bad) law, or a good argument for tighter enforcement of it, to argue:

    ” [T]hose walking through the devastating aftermath of the unnecessary loss of their loved ones might see it a bit differently. Their loved ones are dead, but they would not be if those people born on Thursday had not had a child. They would not be dead if that child of people born on Thursday had been deported through stricter security measures. Period. In the minutiae of procreation discussion, this pivotal point is conveniently ignored by the free procreation crowd. It has to be. To confront it would be to accept that the argument to allow people born on Thursdays to have children is severely flawed.”

    Even if they commit violent crimes, a law against children of people born on Thursdays makes no sense unless they commit violent crimes at a rate significantly higher than the rest of the population. In the case of illegal immigrants, my understanding is there is no evidence of that. Indeed, if the recent Yale study which found that there are over 22M illegal immigrants in the US is correct, the crime rate is about half what it was previously believed to be.

    Dave (1bb933)

  161. To be clear, I believe there are good reasons for enforcing immigration laws strictly, but the fact that illegal immigrants commit crime (at a comparable or lower rate to the rest of the population) is not one of them.

    Dave (1bb933)

  162. I have four potato.
    Legal resident steal two potato.
    I now have two potato.
    Illegal steal one potato.
    I now have only one potato.
    Such is life.

    You understand maybe? It no matter who steal more or less. If no illegal I still have two potato. Or math too hard maybe?

    nk (dbc370)

  163. You understand maybe? It no matter who steal more or less. If no illegal I still have two potato. Or math too hard maybe?

    Is problem though.

    Illegal pick all four potato to begin with.

    Dave (1bb933)

  164. “Even if they commit violent crimes, a law against children of people born on Thursdays makes no sense unless they commit violent crimes at a rate significantly higher than the rest of the population.”
    Dave (1bb933) — 1/18/2019 @ 11:26 pm

    True. But, this is not the battleground on which the immigration battle is fought. Meaning, it’s not a relevant analogy.

    Singh’s killer had DUI violations which could’ve triggered his deportation. If your law said that people born on Thursdays could be deported if they commit a legal infraction, the law would make some sense as a crime reducer even if people born on Thursdays are no more likely to commit crimes. People who commit crimes are much more likely to commit more crimes.

    Obviously, deporting criminal citizens is not an option. Deporting those here illegally is. Yet, even with our current “cruel” (according to Manjoo) immigration policy, it is rare and usually only after much pulling of teeth and legal hurdles. Many are given sanctuary.

    As for legal immigrants, who are not citizens, they can be deported but the hurdles are quite prohibitive. If they commit crimes, we’re pretty much stuck with them and all subsequent crimes they choose to commit. In that way, radically increasing legal immigration would increase crime. Simply because it becomes much more difficult to deport the troublemakers.

    Munroe (916de3)

  165. I’m suddenly reminded of Muhammad Ali’s quote about the Viet Cong.

    No illegal immigrant has ever stolen any of my potatoes. Anyone here who’s had their potatoes stolen by an illegal immigrant, please raise your hand.

    (I’ll submit in advance that simply paying taxes doesn’t count).

    Leviticus (c85add)

  166. You mean the draft dodging American hating Cassius Clay? No potatoes, but I have lost family because of these crimaleins. I hope you and your family stay safe.

    mg (7e0e37)

  167. I grow my own food, I don’t need no stinking, lice infested crimalein touching my food.

    mg (7e0e37)

  168. One stole my life.

    Kathryn Steinle (0ff60d)

  169. #metoo

    Sgt. Brandon Mendoza (0ff60d)

  170. No illegal immigrant has ever stolen any of my potatoes. Anyone here who’s had their potatoes stolen by an illegal immigrant, please raise your hand.

    There are people here who have had potatoes stolen by illegal immigrants. Not literally. But as a metaphor? Yes.

    Patterico (6467ac)

  171. Kathryn Steinle (0ff60d) — 1/19/2019 @ 4:56 am
    Sgt. Brandon Mendoza (0ff60d) — 1/19/2019 @ 4:57 am

    Why the multiple screen names? We have our eyes on you.

    felipe (023cc9)

  172. Have had a window smashed, car stereo stolen and gasoline siphoned from a vehicle by illegals.

    But they never touch the spuds left out for bait.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  173. “Have had a window smashed, car stereo stolen and gasoline siphoned from a vehicle by illegals.”

    And he loved it!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4452 secs.