Hi Oren -- I actually did publish a post that estimates what nonfarm payroll growth would have looked like this year if the foreign-born population declined as much as CPS shows: roughly 2 million fewer jobs over 6 months. The post is here:
No mention of masked men shattering people’s car windows and disappearing people. No mention of the continued attempt to eliminate due process. No mention of shipping human beings that made the mistake of trying to improve their families’ lives to be raped and tortured in third world prisons. This deportation policy makes me ashamed to be an American.
What a compelling argument to do absolutely nothing. You've really sold me. Anything that makes your landscaping and DoorDash less expensive is good for everyone else.
Where was the due process with the American voters to let countless of illegal immigrants to enter in the first place despite it being wildly unpopular?
Was "due process" used when the meaning of "asylum" changed to "I don't like my country because it sucks" and we started offering everyone the same protection that was only offered to applicants with high diplomatic and political value to the US?
If you want to know how we get to clutching pearls over due process over deportations, it's because of the years we spent ignoring the due process involved in enforcing the *laws* the American people told our legislators we wanted in the first place.
The rest of your comment is just straight gibberish. But I get it. You are insecure and scared. It’s easy to pick on the weakest people and blame them for all of your shortcomings.
What specific part of it confused you? It doesn't appear to have confused anyone else.
As an aside, your armchair psyschoanalysis is fun. I can play ,too!
Is your fear of rejection of the white women in the dating pool of your socio-economic class to acute such that you feel a compulsion to echo their values on topics like immigration completely, without even thinking critically about them in the first place?
Were you asleep between 2021 - late 2023/early 2024?
The Biden administration only reversed course on immigration once it was absolutely impossible to ignore that the Democratic party was on the losing side of an 85/15 split on border enforcement, and that it was giving Trump a big edge in every single swing state.
Yes, I hope you are sitting down when I inform you that the Democrats do not have a deeply principled stance on this issue.
Republicans are likewise unserious. Don killed the bipartisan bill spearheaded by Rep Sen Jim Lankford, who's no centrist squish. It was purely political, Don wanted to demagogue the issue. Again. Don has been crystal clear regarding what he thinks about brown people. I believe what he says. I compiled a short list above. And he says it over. And over. And over.
No kidding - the Democrats are complaining about this precisely because you're losing on the issue politically - in a huge way.
Oh, I'm sorry - did you think they were seriously objecting to this on moral or ethical grounds? Ha! No, they're not. They were simply painted into a corner after promising megadonors/NGOs that they'd take hilariously unpopular positions on issues in exchange for big donations.
And Donald Trump simply picked up these fumbles and ran for a touchdown politically. Not really hard to understand.
Also hilarious - the idea that a pork laden multibillion dollar "border security" bill was necessary to do what Trump did on his first two days in office by simply rescinding Biden's EO's.
That "mUh bOrDer BiLL!" ever became a talking point to begin with is a serious indictment of our unserious, uncurious, and highly partisan Acela Corridor journo establishment.
RI is being flippant, but his question is fair, and you didn't answer it.
What is the appropriate response to the army of illigals migrants that swept into this country under Joe Biden and prior admins? Who should get to stay? Who should be sent home? Should they be encouraged or forced to leave? If the latter, how?
You have a fair point. I don't like the heavy-handedness either. But I also don't like ignoring the problem, as both parties have done for decades. So what actual solutions would you propose?
Because right now, the only choices I've been presented with are open-borders and mass-deportation. And if those are my choices, I come down in favor of the latter.
I don’t think the choice is as binary as “open borders” or “mass deportation.” There are legit solutions that uphold the law and respect constitutional rights.
Due process matters. Or at least it should. People shouldn’t be deported to countries they’ve never even lived in, nor should we trample the Constitution just because the system is overwhelmed. A sensible approach would be to expand the immigration court system—more judges, more public defenders, more clerks—so that people can actually have their cases heard in a reasonable timeframe. Right now, the backlog is so bad that many cases sit for years. That’s not fair to the immigrants or to the government trying to enforce its own laws.
Maybe focus deportation resources on recent arrivals with no legal claim, serious criminals, and those who don’t show up for hearings. At the same time, provide clearer, faster pathways for people who are here with valid asylum claims or strong ties (family, work, community). That way, you’re not wasting resources trying to remove someone who’s been here 15 years, is paying taxes, and has U.S. citizen kids.
Third, part of the solution has to be fixing the pipeline. Investing in border infrastructure and asylum processing at the ports of entry makes it less chaotic. And we need to work with countries of origin on root causes—because until that pressure is addressed, people will keep coming regardless of who’s in the White House.
I don’t see the Trump administration doing any of the above because it’s just a reality show.
You're right. Trump is PT Barnum. And you'll get no argument from me on any of these ideas. More judges? Yes. Stronger border? Yes. Focus on criminals and new arrivals? Yes. Border-level asylum determination? Yes. And most of that is currently being done. I would add stronger e-Verify to discourage illegal hiring.
But after that, you still have (min) 10-15M people here: long termers who hid (or were ignored); visa overstays; arrivals as young children. And yes, some of these should ot be sent back -- I agree! But saying they all deserve "due process" is a cop-out, since what "process" they are "due" is precisely the question. We can not run every one of them through a Habeus process with a court appointed public defender -- it would take decades. So what are they "due"?
Ideally that question gets answered by Congress. They've shown little interest and less ability. Absent Congress, the process should at least be designed by an elected representative of the people (the President). My least favorite option is a process designed by unelected, rando judges from all over the country, each of whose "due process" varies in accordance with his or her political persuasion.
Regardless of some high profile heavy-handed examples, it seems to me the process currently being followed is working. Foreign born workforce percentages are falling. Blue collar wages are rising slightly. People are leaving of their own accord. And border traffic is down 95%. This is the goal.
I respect that those high profile cases leave a bad taste in your mouth. Some of them do in mine too. But again, show me a serious politician proposing anything else that can solve this problem. There aren't any.
How about the bipartisan bill negotiated by right wing Sen Jim Lankford? A bill that gave R's all the major items they've pursued for years. Serious pols on both sides knew it was the right path, but Don killed it mid campaign. He didn't want solutions, he wanted the issue to demagogue.
But if we're gonna deport our neighbors instead of criminals, could we please observe that quaint constitutional notion known as due process, it's kinda important. And, perhaps we can end the made for TV spectacles? No head shaving, no log chains, no frog marches for the cameras before loading fellow humans on a plane bound for foreign prisons. And please, no more Kristi Noem in full cowgirl regalia riding horses through the "set". She should spend her time studying complex topics like habeas corpus and doing penance for murdering her dog.
Why the spectacles? Why the highlighting of the cruelty? Don's public comments tell us why.
The Lankford bill didn't pass for the same reason that has killed every "comprehensive immigration reform" proposal: the two parties are solving different problems. The Dems (and Chamber PAC Reps) want a quick and easy pathway for lots of new voters / cheap labor. Most of the rest of the GOP (and much of the working-class Dem base as well) wants seriously restricted immigration.
Lankford's bill would have thrown a lot of money at the problem, but the 5K daily cap before an "immigration emergency" could be declared was the deal breaker, and not just for Trump for but for the House GOP too. It would have legally ruled 2.5M border jumpers every year a normal and acceptable condition. It was the Democrats that wouldn't cut that provision when asked., Which tells you what they were really after. Lankford's bill would have "solved" the problem by changing the terminology so it didn't exist. Which isn't surprising, since Sen Lankford is a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Chamber of Commerce; just look at his campaign contrib data.
It sounds like you have very negative views of Trump and anyone in his orbit. You're entitled to those, and I might well agree with you about some of them. But complaints about Kristy Noem's wardrobe aren't an argument about how to decide what to do about the 10-15 million people who aren't the "easy cases" like criminals or deadbeats or recent arrivals.
And every day we wait, the larger that group gets and the harder it becomes to deal with it. Again, at least Trump is trying to deal with it.
The USA already admits some two million legal immigrants each year plus the temporary immigrants allowed in via H1-B and other work-related immigration programs, so there's no excuse for permitting illegal immigration. Illegal immigration benefits employers looking for cheap labor, Dems wanting cheap votes, and related groups. When illegal aliens steal Social Security Numbers to get in order to get hired, this creates a serious problem for the innocent victim, i.e. Identity Theft. Also, when illegal aliens use public services like hospitals and don't pay the bills the taxpayer is on the hook for these charges.
Hmm, that timeline doesn't comport with what I recall. But, both sides have never ending excuses, compromise comes hard to the doctrinaire. Centrists like me are an anomaly, I get it. Unfortunately, lasting solutions require legislative action, not Don's loopy EO's. Ironically, Don is stretching the boundaries of executive action in ways that R's will soon oppose when wielded by the next D prez.
Perhaps you're right, Lankford is a closet lefty, and Don is sincere about sober, balanced, well designed, long term reform while D's are not. But perhaps I'm right, and Don's repeated racist comments betray his actual feelings. How else to explain the made for TV spectacles? The gratuitous, log chain soaked cruelty? The head shaving? Why the dehumanizing language-infestation, poisoning the blood, vermin, animals, etc? Let's hope it emanates from a different place than we've seen elsewhere throughout history, I never imagined such movements could find purchase in America.
My guess is you wouldn't allow your son to dehumanize the little brown girl next door like Don does daily with immigrants who are not unlike two of his three wives. I wouldn't. Why would we countenance such behavior from our president? He's told us, explicitly, what he thinks. We should believe him.
It's interesting that those who say we need a lot of young workers to do all these unfilled, undesirable jobs are the same folks who say reshoring manufacturing will be useless because "automation" will take away all the jobs. Isn't this an excellent dovetailing, however, of reduced influxes of new workers and fewer worker needed, due to automation? Constantly bringing in new workers just to constantly keep enriching the top 1% is not honestly come-by "growth" or enhanced GDP - it's just a Ponzi scheme that's already collapsing for millions of left-behind US families and communities and in the raging immigration debate.
Other than seeking new Democratic voters (and increasingly Hispanics are voting Republican) it’s not clear to me exactly why the Biden administration decided that it was a good idea to open our borders to millions of unskilled, uneducated people. It ended up costing the Democrats the 2024 election. Allowing a relative small number of the well educated in each year is probability a good idea.
This was one of the most disastrous policies the country has seen in my long lifetime. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here undermines the wages of our working class and exacerbates our national housing crisis when we can’t house our own citizens. It consumed billions of our tax dollars which could have been put to better use.
The age of mass migration is over. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay there and work to improve their living conditions.
I also don’t understand those who say that we should not deport the majority of these interlopers. They violated our laws and continue to violate them. No one believes that they have a right to visit Paris as a tourist, rent an apartment and live their life there without the permission of the French people and no one would argue that the French have no right to kick their sorry asses out of that country. Why do the same rules not apply to the United States? They clearly do.
i could solve the whole issue with a few simple steps :
1.) increase the fines for hiring illegal aliens to $50000 per head
2.) create a tip line where people can report employers and receive a $10000 tax free reward
this will not only increase the risk of employers getting caught but also put their livelihood at risk if they do so they will act quickly to dispose of the illegal aliens they hired and with no job they leave
"If the goal is simply to maximize the total number of workers in a country and the GDP they produce"
For many people (Tyler Cohen perhaps the leading voice among them) this is expressly what America exists for. America is a free market, and markets exist to produce more and better stuff, therefore, America exists for GDP growth. It sounds convincing, an it's not false -- GDP growth is good. But it's no the highest good.
For folks like Cohen (and much of our laptop and ruling classes), Saint Pope JPII's statement, "man was not made for the market but the market for man" is utterly nonsensical.
I would say there is nothing about this deportation policy that looks good to anybody. At best it amounts to necessary cruelty. It is not a moral decision it is a financial decision- a means to the end of raising wages for the working class.
There is nothing Christian about this policy. Immigrants did not export millions of our jobs to China.
Immigrants did not manage our corporations as financial toys rather than as engines of prosperity for everyone.
This policy represents harvesting the lowest hanging fruit available. And it is a solution for a past wrong that may prove to be extraordinarily foolish in the future- given that DEpopulation from lower birth rates is a looming crisis around the world.
Is there a strong argument to be made in support of this policy? Yes
I have to push back on your comment "there's nothing Christian about it". We're supposed to love our neighbors, but in this case, the choice is between rival definitions of "neighbor".
Garcia's (and the 20M like him) continued presence in America directly harms the weakest, youngest, poorest, disabled, and least skilled of our fellow citizens. Illegal immigrants make it harder for teens to get their first jobs, single mothers to find work, empty nesters to save for retirement, and urban black men to start their careers. There is no serious argument on this point: mass, low-skilled immigration harms blue collar wages.
So it's fine to say Trump's methods are heavy-handed (I agree) and picking "low hanging fruit" (maybe so). But if my choices are Trump's heavy-handed fruit-picking or a return to the uniparty consensus of "whine but do nothing"... I'll take Trump.
Show me a serious politician proposing a viable, Christian alternative. What is it?
The Christian solution is to focus on labor rights for everyone. Because the perverse incentive underlying all this is white boomers know it benefits them to have cheap health care, amazon, and farm workers. So you could spend the rest of ur life arguing with them or you could have a robust labor rights system that doesn't allow them to use the fear of deportation to scare ppl into submission.
I missed where you said you supported the policy. My mistake. I got hung up on the accusation of intentional cruelty.
In your lament, I agree with you. I sincerely wish this wasn't necessary. 40 years of failed political leadership (of both parties) have made it necessary.
I still maintain that the accusation of un-Christianess is false though. I support this policy not in spite of being a Christian but because of being one. A secular liberal can look the other way as his neighbor's house is being overrun and say, "gee, it's too bad the govt isn't there to help him." A Christian can not.
Then you failed to understand what he said. He has nothing to be guilty about he's trying to do the best he can by both definitions of neighbor. You simply can't see it because you're engaged in motivated reasoning whereby reducing labor costs is always a net positive because it benefits your economic, class, and generational self-interest.
American Indians did think of that, and interlopers suffered death as the penalty. All peoples try to maintain their own territories for their own people, sometimes unsuccessfuly as the Apache found out with the Comanche.
So once anyone crosses the border--we have to keep them? Forever?
And as far as nothing looking "good": Wanna bet? Tell us why someone with the ethical baggage of Trump got elected? And after promising mass deportation?
And as far as population arguments: We have 40M plus foreign population (legal and otherwise). That's California + Florida together. The #1 pain point for citizen wallets is housing. Strained medical services also kick our wallets where it hurts. Zillow posts a shortfall of 7M homes versus the number of families. Where we only at 20M foreigners (still a massive amount), gee, you think your rent bill might be a little more managable?
Is there any ceiling on immigration (people per year) where it ceases to be a net benefit? Or is it just more leftist platitude..... immigration always and everywhere in any amount is good?
I feel good about it. It secures the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Not for invaders from foreign lands who flaunt our laws. They can go back and make their own countries better.
Altough biden took things to a new level we are not to forget that the pre trump republican party also used to be willing participants in the whole illegal immigration scheme in fact some republicans in cooperation with democrats tried to pass amnesty up to the last minute before trump took office in jan 2017 !
Illegal immigration always came with a significant burden not only in terms of cost but also in regards to national security .
Illegal immigration could be addressed funding and building-out processes for legal immigration, and mandating the use of the E-Verify system. Neither past (and current) Administrations or Congress have the political stomach to do this. The results could have been far less disruptive and less expensive than the current ICE activities. However, both parties would have missed an opportunity to stir-up the passions of their base. We need leadership to solutions, not inflamed passions.
No. The point is less immigrants generally. We don’t meed a gazillion people from countries and cultures vastly different from ours. They’re not bad people inherently, but we’re not an economic zone and have the right and duty to preserve our country.
AI and automation isn’t going to serve you dinner at a restaurant. AI and automation isn’t going to fix your plumbing or pick fruits and vegetables. AI and automation isn’t going to run all the “new factories” we’re suppose to be getting. AI and automation isn’t going to pay into Social Security or health care insurance. AI and automation isn’t going to change your diaper of bath you in a retirement home.
We need a balanced, coherent, and verifiable system for sufficient legal immigration.
Hi Oren -- I actually did publish a post that estimates what nonfarm payroll growth would have looked like this year if the foreign-born population declined as much as CPS shows: roughly 2 million fewer jobs over 6 months. The post is here:
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/reported-multi-million-decline-us-immigrants-just-doesnt-add
There is a supporting spreadsheet that lays out all the calculations and lets you simulate a different immigration change if you want. Jed
Replying to boost since surprisingly no one is engaging.
No mention of masked men shattering people’s car windows and disappearing people. No mention of the continued attempt to eliminate due process. No mention of shipping human beings that made the mistake of trying to improve their families’ lives to be raped and tortured in third world prisons. This deportation policy makes me ashamed to be an American.
What a compelling argument to do absolutely nothing. You've really sold me. Anything that makes your landscaping and DoorDash less expensive is good for everyone else.
Where was the due process with the American voters to let countless of illegal immigrants to enter in the first place despite it being wildly unpopular?
Was "due process" used when the meaning of "asylum" changed to "I don't like my country because it sucks" and we started offering everyone the same protection that was only offered to applicants with high diplomatic and political value to the US?
If you want to know how we get to clutching pearls over due process over deportations, it's because of the years we spent ignoring the due process involved in enforcing the *laws* the American people told our legislators we wanted in the first place.
The rest of your comment is just straight gibberish. But I get it. You are insecure and scared. It’s easy to pick on the weakest people and blame them for all of your shortcomings.
What specific part of it confused you? It doesn't appear to have confused anyone else.
As an aside, your armchair psyschoanalysis is fun. I can play ,too!
Is your fear of rejection of the white women in the dating pool of your socio-economic class to acute such that you feel a compulsion to echo their values on topics like immigration completely, without even thinking critically about them in the first place?
As if those are the only two options. Give me a break.
Were you asleep between 2021 - late 2023/early 2024?
The Biden administration only reversed course on immigration once it was absolutely impossible to ignore that the Democratic party was on the losing side of an 85/15 split on border enforcement, and that it was giving Trump a big edge in every single swing state.
Yes, I hope you are sitting down when I inform you that the Democrats do not have a deeply principled stance on this issue.
Republicans are likewise unserious. Don killed the bipartisan bill spearheaded by Rep Sen Jim Lankford, who's no centrist squish. It was purely political, Don wanted to demagogue the issue. Again. Don has been crystal clear regarding what he thinks about brown people. I believe what he says. I compiled a short list above. And he says it over. And over. And over.
"It's purely political"
No kidding - the Democrats are complaining about this precisely because you're losing on the issue politically - in a huge way.
Oh, I'm sorry - did you think they were seriously objecting to this on moral or ethical grounds? Ha! No, they're not. They were simply painted into a corner after promising megadonors/NGOs that they'd take hilariously unpopular positions on issues in exchange for big donations.
And Donald Trump simply picked up these fumbles and ran for a touchdown politically. Not really hard to understand.
Also hilarious - the idea that a pork laden multibillion dollar "border security" bill was necessary to do what Trump did on his first two days in office by simply rescinding Biden's EO's.
That "mUh bOrDer BiLL!" ever became a talking point to begin with is a serious indictment of our unserious, uncurious, and highly partisan Acela Corridor journo establishment.
RI is being flippant, but his question is fair, and you didn't answer it.
What is the appropriate response to the army of illigals migrants that swept into this country under Joe Biden and prior admins? Who should get to stay? Who should be sent home? Should they be encouraged or forced to leave? If the latter, how?
You have a fair point. I don't like the heavy-handedness either. But I also don't like ignoring the problem, as both parties have done for decades. So what actual solutions would you propose?
Because right now, the only choices I've been presented with are open-borders and mass-deportation. And if those are my choices, I come down in favor of the latter.
I don’t think the choice is as binary as “open borders” or “mass deportation.” There are legit solutions that uphold the law and respect constitutional rights.
Due process matters. Or at least it should. People shouldn’t be deported to countries they’ve never even lived in, nor should we trample the Constitution just because the system is overwhelmed. A sensible approach would be to expand the immigration court system—more judges, more public defenders, more clerks—so that people can actually have their cases heard in a reasonable timeframe. Right now, the backlog is so bad that many cases sit for years. That’s not fair to the immigrants or to the government trying to enforce its own laws.
Maybe focus deportation resources on recent arrivals with no legal claim, serious criminals, and those who don’t show up for hearings. At the same time, provide clearer, faster pathways for people who are here with valid asylum claims or strong ties (family, work, community). That way, you’re not wasting resources trying to remove someone who’s been here 15 years, is paying taxes, and has U.S. citizen kids.
Third, part of the solution has to be fixing the pipeline. Investing in border infrastructure and asylum processing at the ports of entry makes it less chaotic. And we need to work with countries of origin on root causes—because until that pressure is addressed, people will keep coming regardless of who’s in the White House.
I don’t see the Trump administration doing any of the above because it’s just a reality show.
You're right. Trump is PT Barnum. And you'll get no argument from me on any of these ideas. More judges? Yes. Stronger border? Yes. Focus on criminals and new arrivals? Yes. Border-level asylum determination? Yes. And most of that is currently being done. I would add stronger e-Verify to discourage illegal hiring.
But after that, you still have (min) 10-15M people here: long termers who hid (or were ignored); visa overstays; arrivals as young children. And yes, some of these should ot be sent back -- I agree! But saying they all deserve "due process" is a cop-out, since what "process" they are "due" is precisely the question. We can not run every one of them through a Habeus process with a court appointed public defender -- it would take decades. So what are they "due"?
Ideally that question gets answered by Congress. They've shown little interest and less ability. Absent Congress, the process should at least be designed by an elected representative of the people (the President). My least favorite option is a process designed by unelected, rando judges from all over the country, each of whose "due process" varies in accordance with his or her political persuasion.
Regardless of some high profile heavy-handed examples, it seems to me the process currently being followed is working. Foreign born workforce percentages are falling. Blue collar wages are rising slightly. People are leaving of their own accord. And border traffic is down 95%. This is the goal.
I respect that those high profile cases leave a bad taste in your mouth. Some of them do in mine too. But again, show me a serious politician proposing anything else that can solve this problem. There aren't any.
How about the bipartisan bill negotiated by right wing Sen Jim Lankford? A bill that gave R's all the major items they've pursued for years. Serious pols on both sides knew it was the right path, but Don killed it mid campaign. He didn't want solutions, he wanted the issue to demagogue.
But if we're gonna deport our neighbors instead of criminals, could we please observe that quaint constitutional notion known as due process, it's kinda important. And, perhaps we can end the made for TV spectacles? No head shaving, no log chains, no frog marches for the cameras before loading fellow humans on a plane bound for foreign prisons. And please, no more Kristi Noem in full cowgirl regalia riding horses through the "set". She should spend her time studying complex topics like habeas corpus and doing penance for murdering her dog.
Why the spectacles? Why the highlighting of the cruelty? Don's public comments tell us why.
The Lankford bill didn't pass for the same reason that has killed every "comprehensive immigration reform" proposal: the two parties are solving different problems. The Dems (and Chamber PAC Reps) want a quick and easy pathway for lots of new voters / cheap labor. Most of the rest of the GOP (and much of the working-class Dem base as well) wants seriously restricted immigration.
Lankford's bill would have thrown a lot of money at the problem, but the 5K daily cap before an "immigration emergency" could be declared was the deal breaker, and not just for Trump for but for the House GOP too. It would have legally ruled 2.5M border jumpers every year a normal and acceptable condition. It was the Democrats that wouldn't cut that provision when asked., Which tells you what they were really after. Lankford's bill would have "solved" the problem by changing the terminology so it didn't exist. Which isn't surprising, since Sen Lankford is a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Chamber of Commerce; just look at his campaign contrib data.
It sounds like you have very negative views of Trump and anyone in his orbit. You're entitled to those, and I might well agree with you about some of them. But complaints about Kristy Noem's wardrobe aren't an argument about how to decide what to do about the 10-15 million people who aren't the "easy cases" like criminals or deadbeats or recent arrivals.
And every day we wait, the larger that group gets and the harder it becomes to deal with it. Again, at least Trump is trying to deal with it.
The USA already admits some two million legal immigrants each year plus the temporary immigrants allowed in via H1-B and other work-related immigration programs, so there's no excuse for permitting illegal immigration. Illegal immigration benefits employers looking for cheap labor, Dems wanting cheap votes, and related groups. When illegal aliens steal Social Security Numbers to get in order to get hired, this creates a serious problem for the innocent victim, i.e. Identity Theft. Also, when illegal aliens use public services like hospitals and don't pay the bills the taxpayer is on the hook for these charges.
Hmm, that timeline doesn't comport with what I recall. But, both sides have never ending excuses, compromise comes hard to the doctrinaire. Centrists like me are an anomaly, I get it. Unfortunately, lasting solutions require legislative action, not Don's loopy EO's. Ironically, Don is stretching the boundaries of executive action in ways that R's will soon oppose when wielded by the next D prez.
Perhaps you're right, Lankford is a closet lefty, and Don is sincere about sober, balanced, well designed, long term reform while D's are not. But perhaps I'm right, and Don's repeated racist comments betray his actual feelings. How else to explain the made for TV spectacles? The gratuitous, log chain soaked cruelty? The head shaving? Why the dehumanizing language-infestation, poisoning the blood, vermin, animals, etc? Let's hope it emanates from a different place than we've seen elsewhere throughout history, I never imagined such movements could find purchase in America.
My guess is you wouldn't allow your son to dehumanize the little brown girl next door like Don does daily with immigrants who are not unlike two of his three wives. I wouldn't. Why would we countenance such behavior from our president? He's told us, explicitly, what he thinks. We should believe him.
typical democrat
You can put down the pearls, no one buys this moral posturing following bidens equally inhumane policy
It's interesting that those who say we need a lot of young workers to do all these unfilled, undesirable jobs are the same folks who say reshoring manufacturing will be useless because "automation" will take away all the jobs. Isn't this an excellent dovetailing, however, of reduced influxes of new workers and fewer worker needed, due to automation? Constantly bringing in new workers just to constantly keep enriching the top 1% is not honestly come-by "growth" or enhanced GDP - it's just a Ponzi scheme that's already collapsing for millions of left-behind US families and communities and in the raging immigration debate.
Other than seeking new Democratic voters (and increasingly Hispanics are voting Republican) it’s not clear to me exactly why the Biden administration decided that it was a good idea to open our borders to millions of unskilled, uneducated people. It ended up costing the Democrats the 2024 election. Allowing a relative small number of the well educated in each year is probability a good idea.
This was one of the most disastrous policies the country has seen in my long lifetime. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here undermines the wages of our working class and exacerbates our national housing crisis when we can’t house our own citizens. It consumed billions of our tax dollars which could have been put to better use.
The age of mass migration is over. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay there and work to improve their living conditions.
I also don’t understand those who say that we should not deport the majority of these interlopers. They violated our laws and continue to violate them. No one believes that they have a right to visit Paris as a tourist, rent an apartment and live their life there without the permission of the French people and no one would argue that the French have no right to kick their sorry asses out of that country. Why do the same rules not apply to the United States? They clearly do.
It stopped inflation and helped the bottom line of corporate America.
i could solve the whole issue with a few simple steps :
1.) increase the fines for hiring illegal aliens to $50000 per head
2.) create a tip line where people can report employers and receive a $10000 tax free reward
this will not only increase the risk of employers getting caught but also put their livelihood at risk if they do so they will act quickly to dispose of the illegal aliens they hired and with no job they leave
"If the goal is simply to maximize the total number of workers in a country and the GDP they produce"
For many people (Tyler Cohen perhaps the leading voice among them) this is expressly what America exists for. America is a free market, and markets exist to produce more and better stuff, therefore, America exists for GDP growth. It sounds convincing, an it's not false -- GDP growth is good. But it's no the highest good.
For folks like Cohen (and much of our laptop and ruling classes), Saint Pope JPII's statement, "man was not made for the market but the market for man" is utterly nonsensical.
I would say there is nothing about this deportation policy that looks good to anybody. At best it amounts to necessary cruelty. It is not a moral decision it is a financial decision- a means to the end of raising wages for the working class.
There is nothing Christian about this policy. Immigrants did not export millions of our jobs to China.
Immigrants did not manage our corporations as financial toys rather than as engines of prosperity for everyone.
This policy represents harvesting the lowest hanging fruit available. And it is a solution for a past wrong that may prove to be extraordinarily foolish in the future- given that DEpopulation from lower birth rates is a looming crisis around the world.
Is there a strong argument to be made in support of this policy? Yes
Is it a policy anybody should feel good about? No
I have to push back on your comment "there's nothing Christian about it". We're supposed to love our neighbors, but in this case, the choice is between rival definitions of "neighbor".
Garcia's (and the 20M like him) continued presence in America directly harms the weakest, youngest, poorest, disabled, and least skilled of our fellow citizens. Illegal immigrants make it harder for teens to get their first jobs, single mothers to find work, empty nesters to save for retirement, and urban black men to start their careers. There is no serious argument on this point: mass, low-skilled immigration harms blue collar wages.
So it's fine to say Trump's methods are heavy-handed (I agree) and picking "low hanging fruit" (maybe so). But if my choices are Trump's heavy-handed fruit-picking or a return to the uniparty consensus of "whine but do nothing"... I'll take Trump.
Show me a serious politician proposing a viable, Christian alternative. What is it?
The Christian solution is to focus on labor rights for everyone. Because the perverse incentive underlying all this is white boomers know it benefits them to have cheap health care, amazon, and farm workers. So you could spend the rest of ur life arguing with them or you could have a robust labor rights system that doesn't allow them to use the fear of deportation to scare ppl into submission.
Agreed. I think that's a part of the solution to this problem and also to a good many others.
This sounds like a guilty conscience looking for absolution.
Several people here have raised serious objections (practical and moral) to your proposals. You have yet to respond to any of them.
I agreed with the policy advanced by American Compass.
I missed where you said you supported the policy. My mistake. I got hung up on the accusation of intentional cruelty.
In your lament, I agree with you. I sincerely wish this wasn't necessary. 40 years of failed political leadership (of both parties) have made it necessary.
I still maintain that the accusation of un-Christianess is false though. I support this policy not in spite of being a Christian but because of being one. A secular liberal can look the other way as his neighbor's house is being overrun and say, "gee, it's too bad the govt isn't there to help him." A Christian can not.
Then you failed to understand what he said. He has nothing to be guilty about he's trying to do the best he can by both definitions of neighbor. You simply can't see it because you're engaged in motivated reasoning whereby reducing labor costs is always a net positive because it benefits your economic, class, and generational self-interest.
Oh boy
It’s 100% moral, the right to immigrate is not absolute.
Even if we wanted to, we cannot let the entire third world into the US from a practical standpoint.
Every year from reproduction their population increases an order of magnitude more than out country could accept.
Plus, we brain drain their communities.
You’re referring to legal. Yes, it was 100% illegal, too bad the American Indians didn’t think of that defense.
American Indians did think of that, and interlopers suffered death as the penalty. All peoples try to maintain their own territories for their own people, sometimes unsuccessfuly as the Apache found out with the Comanche.
Legal and illegal immigration need to be stopped, or at least reduced 99% for a meaningful period of time.
Absolutely
You know what, I apologize Jim. I didn’t see the last sentence of your original post. I think we’re on the same page here.
👍
American Indians were right, they just lost. And countless of our US countrymen died in conflicts with Indians.
Thank you for pointing that out to me. Good to know.
So once anyone crosses the border--we have to keep them? Forever?
And as far as nothing looking "good": Wanna bet? Tell us why someone with the ethical baggage of Trump got elected? And after promising mass deportation?
And as far as population arguments: We have 40M plus foreign population (legal and otherwise). That's California + Florida together. The #1 pain point for citizen wallets is housing. Strained medical services also kick our wallets where it hurts. Zillow posts a shortfall of 7M homes versus the number of families. Where we only at 20M foreigners (still a massive amount), gee, you think your rent bill might be a little more managable?
Is there any ceiling on immigration (people per year) where it ceases to be a net benefit? Or is it just more leftist platitude..... immigration always and everywhere in any amount is good?
John, I don’t always get the point the first time I read something either. A lot of times I will take notes as I read. Good luck to you.
I feel good about it. It secures the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Not for invaders from foreign lands who flaunt our laws. They can go back and make their own countries better.
Altough biden took things to a new level we are not to forget that the pre trump republican party also used to be willing participants in the whole illegal immigration scheme in fact some republicans in cooperation with democrats tried to pass amnesty up to the last minute before trump took office in jan 2017 !
Illegal immigration always came with a significant burden not only in terms of cost but also in regards to national security .
The blessings of liberty obtained by imprisoning hapless immigrants in El Salvador and whatever other dungeon has a vacancy.
Really?
What do you propose Jim? Welcome anyone who wants to come here, and toss ‘em and their kids on public benefits when the country is broke?
Drive down wages, increase crime, and decrease trust and social cohesion in American communities?
I’m sure you’ll be fine in your gated community.
Yep, live next door to Tom Brady and just down the street from Jeff Bozo.
You got me!
Dodged the question.
I agreed with the policy advanced by American Compass.
Never forget that Wall Street is a leftist ally in this (and other) matter.
Thanks, tragic situation all the way around
The American Indians were right, they just lost.
“A sugar high.” Great way to describe impact of illegal immigration (on employers, not taxpayers)
Great stuff as always
Illegal immigration could be addressed funding and building-out processes for legal immigration, and mandating the use of the E-Verify system. Neither past (and current) Administrations or Congress have the political stomach to do this. The results could have been far less disruptive and less expensive than the current ICE activities. However, both parties would have missed an opportunity to stir-up the passions of their base. We need leadership to solutions, not inflamed passions.
The solution is mass deportations, not your pearl clutching.
No. The point is less immigrants generally. We don’t meed a gazillion people from countries and cultures vastly different from ours. They’re not bad people inherently, but we’re not an economic zone and have the right and duty to preserve our country.
AI and automation isn’t going to serve you dinner at a restaurant. AI and automation isn’t going to fix your plumbing or pick fruits and vegetables. AI and automation isn’t going to run all the “new factories” we’re suppose to be getting. AI and automation isn’t going to pay into Social Security or health care insurance. AI and automation isn’t going to change your diaper of bath you in a retirement home.
We need a balanced, coherent, and verifiable system for sufficient legal immigration.
No, we need next to no legal immigration. I don’t care about your social security.
Americans will do any job given they are paid enough. Employers should not benefit from quasi slave labor.
I’m pro worker.
How does this square with slowdown in hiring for new college grads?