Arrest made in Mollie Tibbetts murder, suspect held on federal immigration detainer, reports say


So that no one has to live like this:

People having their families is critical to letting them function, particularly if they’re planning to live here longer than a few months.

And the idea that the immigrants are causing the jam is flatly false.

It’s hammfisted policy, which States & cities know is counter-productive, which is why they don’t cooperate. It’s not worth it in terms of manpower or court time to chase after & deport people who aren’t causing harm. ICE does it to themselves.

jus soli has been U.S. policy for over a century, and I’m not here to argue with you whether that was wise.

What I’m pointing out here, is that since it is children of immigrants who are citizens that disproportionally get to use these benefits, and the rest are afraid to come near it, the actual per estimate for how much illegals use of Federal benefits is low.

It’s been established before that it’s local & State services are what are hit hardest, not Federal Programs.

For Federal purposes, illegals are a fiscal boon. So if you were looking for an outsized impact, you were looking in the wrong place.

Lincoln was evolving on this position, and was talking about giving it to African soldiers who served in the Union Army, and it’s likely, had he lived, he would have concluded to go even further.

He originally didn’t even want to fight a war to end Slavery or destroy “Slave Power”, he certainly adjusted his point of view on that.

And I meant what I said, if you read the debates on the 14th amendment in the Congressional Globe, you will see them discussing Women’s right, and that of “Asiatics”. The push for this was so strong, that the 15th Amendment was nearly the 18th in affording suffrage. If they had stuck to it’s original draft, it would have been.


Here you are, claiming that you’ve been “red pilled” on human dynamics, yet all you’ve shown is an argument taking shortcuts. You’re analyzing along one dimension, that of culture, and assume that it determines what all other disciplines must fall in line with. Except, they don’t, and you’re own analysis of culture, has turned out to be superficial.

You underestimated what immigration was like in the 20th and 19th century, until I pointed it out.

You claimed current immigrants were assimilating worse, when studies show they’re doing better than the Germans.

You claim that there is no purpose for low-skilled immigration, and yet Economists have a consensus, going in the opposite direction.

And btw, it’s high skilled work where immigrants compete with natives the most, not low skilled.

So Cwolf, Where exactly is your leg to stand on?

To echo you, I have the data here, it’s on my side. Immigrants spur on wage growth, labor demand, and job creation. In no developed country, does a spike in immigration, create a spike of unemployment among natives. Instead, countries which have free markets and higher immigration rates than us, prosper more than we do.

It turns out that dealing with bottlenecks in labor, as well as skills, ensures your economy prospers as well as it can hope.

As F.A. Hayek pointed out decades ago, humans organize their societies chiefly from the bottom up, and the economy is apart of that pattern. Emergence is apart of the reality we live in.

Claiming that widespread restrictions adds to a country, is to claim that central planning understands human society, better than humans understand themselves.

There can be exceptions, like in times of war, but an exception is not what you’re proposing here. You’re claiming that basically all the data we have on the long term effects of immigration, is a lie.

Or claiming it doesn’t apply, based on pseudo-futurist thinking, that economists have won the debate on for over a century.

In short, not seeing where your claim of “everything” holds up. Seems to be your temperament talking.


Your “data” is ALWAYS compiled by those who want open borders and a flood of unskilled, uneducated laborers to lower their costs. WHY don’t you ever acknowledge that, AS?


Except it’s not corporations, It’s economists; economists are the ones saying this, across the damn board. None of their costs are lowered, they’re just bulldogs for what Frédéric Bastiat described two centuries ago, the seen and unseen.

The very point of economics, is to pick up on realities you don’t see.

Breaking windows doesn’t help the economy, due to unseen effects.
Public works can be terribly wasteful and draining on society, due to unseen effects.
Disbanding Troops doesn’t mean static unemployment and suffering, due to unseen effects.

Most of what immigration does, goes unseen, and you can only register it by going off of previous experience, or by measuring their contribution to growth across the country.

Surprisingly, good news doesn’t sell; bad news gets talked about more. Immigration suffers from the same image issue as guns, for the same reason; the spotlight fallacy.

A handful of instances are used to generalize the effects of the rest.


Nonsense, of course. We get it, AS. You want open borders and unrestricted immigration…JUST like the corporations who take advantage of those immigrants. It’s just the latest form that slavery has taken. The road to serfdom isn’t all that far wrong. Today, it winds its way through Mexico to our southern border, begins in our embassies and consuls all across the world when they issue “tourist” or “education” visas willy-nilly without acknowledging that a fair percentage of those receiving them have no intention of ever going back home again.


Yes, just like they took advantage of the Chinese in sweat shops; creating their +300 Million Middle class.

Just like they took advantage of Mexico, creating their urbanization spree.

Dave, you’re just rehashing leftist, anti capitalist nonsense at me at this point. I can find Bernie Sanders giving the same spiel.

Yup, just like a leftist. If you can’t credit people their autonomy, of choosing what they do here, then you aren’t looking closely.

Learn Liberty Dave:

If it’s better than their alternatives, people will pick it every time.


Go back and quote me saying any one of those things(I didn’t). I’ve said from day one that Irish and Italian immigration was a massive problem. Show me where I said “immigrants were a boon from Ireland back in the day - unlike these Mexicans in 2018”

By one single metric.
With over 40% of them into the 3rd generation primarily identifying with their country of their grandparents.

Slave labor is great for the plantation owners. I have never disputed this.

And yet you sit here parroting talking points from the Koch brothers, George Soros and the Chamber of Commerce. Pretty much the exact opposite of “bottom up”.


You tried to say assimilation was easier because they were European

You tried to call Mexican immigration more problematic because of “quality”, when “quality” of the early 20th century was no different (if anything it was worse).

And the first time I posted the riffraf immigration image at you, was to counter this point.

You keep trying to conflate China, India, and Germany to Mexico and there is no comparison.

Again, you keep trying to conflate Italy and China with Mexico. Country of origin matters.

We have several which confirm Mexicans are pretty run-of-the-mill when it comes to adopting English.

“identifying with country”, is actually you talking about how they identify ethnicity, not nationality.

And yet, you can’t defend that word choice.

What you’re actually doing, is invoking a Marxist argument of “exploitation”. One that fails to understand how it is Human capital grows in the first place.

Mexicans are in a state of industrialization; and we can see by the results in Mexico over the past 20 years that it’s working.

I like things that work Cwolf. I like systems that lead to people becoming better off, through choices of their own, that does nothing to harm the natural rights of others. Marx got it wrong.

People making arrangements as to who they work for & hire is bottom-up, by definition. It’s emergent human action.

Government interference into this is top-down, again, by definition.

Austrians take the CoC to task over more than a few things (like subisdies and the Ex-im bank), that they sometimes agree isn’t really relevant as what is top down, and what is bottom up.

That’s decided by the actions taken, and whose taking them (1st parties vs 3rd).


Yes, we were talking about Italian immigrants in 2018 - not the 1800s. Italy is a fine country to get immigrants from in 2018 because it’s developed. Perhaps Mexico will be fine in 2050 - but certainly not today.

My country of origin example was Norway in 1920 to America in 1920 - versus modern day Somalia vs the modern U.S. If I’m recalling properly, wasn’t this during the whole “shit hole” event? I don’t recall saying that the cultural gap between the U.S. in 2018 and Mexico in 2018 is wider than the gap in culture between the U.S. and random European countries in the late 19th century.

I don’t want Mexicans here because of their culture true enough. But it’s not because the culture is too dissimilar from our own. I think most Mexicans could assimilate just fine - they just mostly don’t want to. While I think someone from Bangladesh, the Sudan, or Yemen would legitimately struggle to integrate - it’s a drastically different culture.

You seem to prefer things that collect welfare.

The right of a people to defend territory is probably the most fundamental property right in existence. It’s primary even before the concept of personal property. It’s even more ancient.

A pride of lions has no concept of personal property, but they certainly have territory.


Nope, my post is making consistent references to this, even before I posted the image.

If you’re responding to me at the time, you’re responding to this.

Norway was 3rd world in 1920. You’re talking about low-skilled loggers and farmers who wouldn’t have completed grammar school.

Statistics say no: immigrants use less welfare than the native born, and work harder.

Equally, most immigrants don’t compete with natives; they compete with themselves.

And even when immigrants do compete with natives, it tends to be in high skill arenas, not low-skill.

The fact of the matter is, there’s not even a connection between people being competitive with Immigrants over work, and their perceptions of them. The two trends completely diverge.

Pointing towards temperament being the real culprit as to how people perceive the issue. The immigrants are simply a scapegoat for other anxieties they have less control over.

You’re not defending property if someone in your house is hiring the “intruder” to go mow the lawn.

It’s sad Cwolf, as you only see immigrants rush the border, because we created a low-trust immigration system, filled with opaque procedures, years of tedious filler, and unclear expectations.

When the system was high-trust, the damn rules were followed.

When both immigrants and employers know the government game is rigged, yet that they would still like to work together, it’s no coincidence they decide to make their own arrangements, sans government.

And that’s a bottom up action. By definition.

It’s not “defending property” to leverage an immigration system in bad faith, to stop these two from working together. You’re just violating their liberty.


C’mon, AS. You can’t POSSIBLY believe that Mexican illegals are the least bit interested in assimilation. Drive through ANY SW barrio if you believe that. MEXICAN flags are prominently displayed, advertising signs are all in Spanish and even many homes are painted in the slightly garish hues favored by Mestizos. Their kids come to school completely unable to speak English–even those kids born after the parents snuck across the border. The Latino activists don’t want Latinos to become Americans. They want America to become Latino.


Why have Mexicans learned english faster than the Germans? If illegals alone we’re resisting, their rate should be slower, not faster.

Milton Friedman is the one who said that illegals are the ones most like pre-1914 immigration, because they use less benefits than legals (or natives), and their primary reason for being here is work.

You would have seen the same thing of German conclaves in Wisconsin and Michigan in the early 20th century. They named a town in North Dakota after a then-sitting Chancelor in Germany.

German immigration peaked in 1870, but there were 700 German-printed newspapers in America in 1900.

The problem is Dave, you’ve didn’t live in the previous era of large immigration waves and you don’t know what’s normal for assimilation or not.

When we actually make that comparison, we see how Mexicans have adjusted is middle-of-the-road, to include illegals.


Another indication that your “history” is colored by a severe lack of education, AS. Bismarck, N.D. was named after Von Bismarck in an effort to attract German investment in a proposed trans-continental railroad…NOT because everyone spoke German there. It didn’t work, but the name stuck anyway and the railroad was built without German investment. The large influx of German immigrants came about primarily during and immediately following the American Revolution. One of my own ancestors was among that group. He immigrated from Alsace-Lorainne in the early 1800’s, though he’d been born in Bavaria, and became a naturalized citizen in 1824. I have a photocopy of his naturalization papers in my safety deposit box! Alsace-Lorainne, when he came here, was still part of Prussia and German was his native language. One of his great-granddaughters married a descendant of Ethan Allen’s brother in the late 1800’s. They were MY great-grandparents, one of whom lived to 1952 where, at the age of almost 11, I was allowed to be one of her pall-bearers. By 1824, he was FLUENT in English or he would have been denied citizenship in the U.S. My great-grandfather died in the late 1930’s. His last name was Alward. His youngest daughter, my grandmother, lived to the age of 91, dying in 1979. Neither she nor her elder sister ever admitted to us to having German ancestry because of WW II, I suppose. I learned all these things when my mother’s sister did a genealogical search in order to qualify for DAR membership.


Except this is a lie. That never stops being a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. When you include all types of government care, from healthcare, to child tax credits, to educating their children, to incarceration costs, they draw FAR more in care than any demographic of native Americans.The median illegal immigrant household has more than $30,000 expensed annually on their behalf. While paying less than $4,000 in total taxes.

Gosh AS, it’s almost like I’ve been saying that this entire time and the problem is primarily that we have a crap immigration system, and we should reform our system like every other country in the world and only take people who will fit here.

Maybe because you’re comparing people in 1870 growing up on farms to people growing up with English language television.

I don’t know how poorly Germans integrated in 1870. But I do see how piss poorly Mexicans integrate compared to literally any other significant immigrant group I’m aware of.


You’re talking about “Edwinton”, the cities’ original name. It came from Edwin Ferry Johnson; chief engineer for the Northern Pacific Railway company.

In 1873, the Northern Pacific Railway renamed it Bismarck, after Otto von Bismarck, to attract more German immigrants there.

The largest influx was the Volga Germans fleeing Russia in the mid 1800s.



If you think there’s a qualification, there is; only people of a certain income level qualify to use most of these benefits to begin with.

The fact of the matter is, at a given level of income, immigrants use less. Even when they’re legal and qualify for the same programs.

Except your qualifications defy what we actually know about immigration, and you take no notice of countries having higher immigration rates than us, and performing better.

We don’t need a test for education, or English-speaking, and it isn’t “Mexican culture sucks”, because Mexicans can & have assimilated here (and they’ve increased that rate overtime).

Without you realizing it, what you’re actually trying to control for is temperament, which none of those things do.

The fact is immigrants out of the box stress conscientiousness more often than Natives, hence their higher worker participation rate, and higher instance of entrepreneurship… in every. single. country.

You can’t deny this, nor that they produce more than they consume, so you pretend it’s somehow a competition between immigrants of one place vs another, when there’s no reason we can’t have both.

Control for criminality, for sickness, for association with terrorism. If you want something on top of that, demand they pledge not to publicly voice support for anything in relation to our enemies or to anti-American causes.

Beyond that, what hell else is necessary?

And the internet, and a globalized culture. And phones that translate things for us, and get better and better at it each year.

The importance of this cannot be understressed. It’s easier for people, even from far-flung cultures, to develop an understanding with us.

Which means old nativist assumptions, which were already proven wrong a century ago, have even less hold today.

Equally, there’s demographics:

Immigration is part to how sociological forces deal with it. Standing in its way doesn’t make sense, just because the person is poor or uneducated.


Why do you keep posting this crap:

Immigrants commit less crime…

Immigrants use less welfare…

blah, blah, blah…

When this stuff does not apply to ILLEGAL immingrants?


Yes it does:

illegals use less welfare than legals & natives ( because they qualify for less, and are less aware of it)

And they commit less crimes; probably because they’re aware of how precarious their presence is, and some are even interested in building a profile they can use to legalize with.

So no Old Dog, the point remains.

My sources aren’t about just legals, or a composite, most of them either are, or include measures of illegals on their own.


It’s all BS:

  1. You’r not counting illegals with American born children who do receive many benefits.

  2. You’r not counting illegals who collect fraudulently.

  3. You’r not counting illegals arrested in sanctuary cities who will not count them.

So much for the CATO studies.

Now your demographic video simply does not apply to the United States. The U.S. demographics, while not perfect, are much better than Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, Greece, Poland, South Korea, Canada and many, many more. Mexico, India, Turkey and a few others are better. Our “baby boomer” crisis is nothing like what most of the rest of the world is facing.


Yeah they do:

"Pew Research Center estimates that in 2014, 4 million unauthorized immigrant adults, or 39% of the total, lived with their minor or adult U.S.-born children, compared with 2.1 million, or 30%, in 2000. "

From the CATO study itself:

Again, as the Department of Agriculture states; illegals avoid collecting benefits with them, because they think the Government can track them (no idea if they can), and that it counts against them if they try to legalize.

They do it, but it’s smaller than the legals or natives.

You got to put things in proportion.

Even sanctuary cities have data on whose using their benefits; I know this for a fact. I know someone whose an actuary for the city Denver (and Colorado PERA), and they most certainly do this. That they don’t turn over that data to Federal authorities or ICE for enforcement matters (assuming that it’s even useful) is immaterial.

More like “so much for 5 minutes of effort”. Do this for a few months, I’d bet you’d have talking points we could use for a discussion, which I’d welcome btw. I’m not trying to suggest that I know everything, but I certainly seem to put in more effort to grasp what we’re dealing with.

Getting worse, and heading their direction. We’re already below replacement.

And the only reason we’re not in their situation today, is because our immigration rate is higher than most of them. Our native fertility rate is practically the same.