Bill to punish lawless officials in sanctuary cities with fines and jail time


Republicans have control right now. They could easily end welfare for foreigners – easier than building a wall. If welfare is a key incentive in illegal immigration, then surely this will end it.


See, it’s not a key incentive though. It winds up being a bonus, in addition to tax free work.


I keep seeing it used as a key argument, and solving it is a no-brainer. It’s hard to justify welfare for illegal immigrants. They’ll sound especially terrible trying to defend it. Seems to me that Republicans could have a big win with this and solve (or at least partially solve) a problem that’s highly important to them.


So all us construction guys are dirty bathwater to you, to be discarded now that our usefuness has been devalued. Got it.


Alright, let get something stright RIGHT NOW.

I do not owe you my business, or my money. You are not entitled to that. Do not even try to guilt me into thinking otherwise.

We can talk about not subsidizing the immigrants through welfare, but if that passes, and they still undercut you; that’s that.

Consumers choose, they always have. Asking the government to step in because you don’t like their choices, is not only absurd, it flies in the face of why we have a market to begin with.


It would not end anything, the Federal Judiciary has already ruled several times that Laws which discriminate between citizens and non citizens regarding access to public assistance are not Constitutional.

They are entirely wrong but they are also consistent, lacking any evidence that the GOP would ignore the Judicial Branch (even Trump has stopped short of that); the passing of any such “Law” would amount to nothing more than an excuse for opening the borders.

Much like repealing Obamacare was an easy pass as long at it had no chance of being implemented the GOP will use “Limiting Welfare” as their plausible deniability for supporting open borders; the GOP knows the courts have their Leftist backs.


Irrelevant for 2 reasons.

  1. The cost of Welfare has nothing to do with the labor market.
  2. I have taken great pains to clearly state multiple times that my argument is absolutely NOT based on or in any way reliant on the “cost of giving Welfare to illegals”.

The Left WANT this to be the debate because it keeps the focus off the consequences of subsidizing one element of the labor market at the expense of another to insure a permanent dependent class in poverty regardless of how well the economy grows.

Absolutely irrelevant to the issue of labor, native Welfare rats DO NOT WORK; they remain entirely supported by the public dole for generations.

Welfare as a cost to taxpayers is horrible, Welfare as a cost to the Social well being of our nation is even more horrible; but citizen Welfare does not effect the ability of wages to balance with the cost of living in the various regions of the country.

My argument is specifically about illegal immigrants, they do take the Welfare but they also practice the trades that they practiced in their own countries while being made LEGALLY EXEMPT from taxation and the regulations that their citizen competition is forced to adhere to at gunpoint.

A free labor market benefits everyone, a labor market designed to subsidize illegal aliens in the workforce with the earnings of the citizen workforce that they compete with benefits ONLY the politicians who rely on a large percentage of voters being dependent on government to survive.

I refuse to allow the lie that Welfare is a separate issue from the labor market to go unchallenged.
I refuse to allow my argument to be misrepresented into an argument that I am NOT making just so responses can be offered.
I refuse to pretend that Milton Friedman was addressing my argument (or had even ever heard it for that matter).
I refuse to pretend that government cronyism applied to the labor market is any more beneficial than any other application of cronyism.

Welfare is not going anywhere and illegals will not be denied welfare any time soon, that means the only realistic way to let the market determine wages based on the actual economic realities in all regions is to enforce our immigration laws and deport those who break them.

Immigration cannot benefit us until Welfare is eradicated, it can only impoverish us and insure such a large dependent class that forming a voting bloc big enough to eradicate it will be impossible.

That is what happened in Kalifornia, mass immigration was used to devastate the labor market so the percentages of people dependent on government would grow to an insurmountable electoral majority.

If you want the fight to eradicate Welfare to be “Shirked”, the best way to do that is to pretend that we have a labor shortage that must be addressed by importing labor while Welfare is still running full steam ahead.

You don’t build coalitions by driving as many people as possible into utter dependency on the thing you are trying to eradicate.


When I was a cop in Texas, we used to occasionally run across illegals in our city. We’d arrest them and the Border Patrol would come by and take them off our hands. I don’t EVER recall arresting one of them who did NOT have a specific name and telephone number in his wallet written on a small slip of paper. The name and number were those of one of our own County Commissioners who owned a substantial-sized ranch in the SE part of the county.


And yet you think I owe you the financial support of the “cheap” labor you demand. You expect me to help bear the costs so you can pay far less. That imported labor isn’t any cheaper, really. The costs are just shifted away from the initial purchaser to people who have nothing whatsoever to do with that transaction. One way or another, that deferred labor expense has to be paid. Eventually, those costs will come back to you, perhaps in higher taxes, perhaps higher prices in other sectors, perhaps in a shattered, lawless society where you live in constant fear. You are demanding that several million of your fellow citizens be economically displaced, perhaps irrevocably, for your momentary convenience. (They’re just dirty bathwater, after all.) That’s bound to have consequences.

Let’s get something straight RIGHT NOW. Society does not owe you access to cheap labor. Society doesn’t owe you it’s continued existence. Civilization is not the default state of man. It must be constantly maintained by conscious effort, and when you take without putting back you are degrading it, and you are trying to take the livelihoods of several ( 7? 15? Who knows?) million people. And their economic displacement absolutely will be your problem, along with everyone else.

Heh, ever heard the expression “Hit dog hollers”? But I could not possible care less what you think. This is a public discourse, I just want to make sure your utter contempt for your fellow human beings does not go unnoticed.


Blatantly false; build a wall around welfare. I have never stated anything different.

Half right, It doesn’t owe anyone welfare.

It however, Cannot block my making arrangements to work with a foreigner, just because they’re a foreigner.

Society isn’t “giving me” anything, it’s blocking an exercise of a negative right, that of Freedom of Association, and Freedom of Contract.


If I bring my cousin over from Italy to work in a software business, it is completely within my right to do so, and completely within his right to work with me.

You can’t tell me “no” and insist that I hire an American instead; it’s none of your business.
It’s society interfering with a voluntarily arrangement.

It’s the collective whose insisting that it doesn’t like my choice, one I made as an individual with my own freedom, and my own resources.

Because it is viewing my resources, as its own. Which is completely toxic to the idea of individual freedom.

If it’s welfare that is generating this idea, then I repeat; build a wall around welfare, and leave my cousin and I to our business.

No, immigration correlates with increased employment among the population.

Jobs exist; Construction workers I know went into other business. Jobs that had skills that required more of them than the Construction jobs they had before.

Having low-skilled immigrants who could do that work, forced them to look further up the value chain. Or into another industry.

That’s the conservation of labor at work. If a low skilled, illiterate immigrant from Mexico can displace you, then you are overqualified for what you do, and you should be doing something else.

Something that takes advantage of the education that society gave you, and which makes you qualified for more than what that immigrant can do. English speaking skills alone make entire categories employment open to you that they can’t access.

The thing is, having the immigrants here, makes more better paying jobs for Americans available.

It’s the same effect as increased trade.


Essentially, nonsense, AS. If you want to bring your cousin from Italy to work for you, NOBODY objects…as long as you bring him/her here LEGALLY. Help him/her sneak across the border or bring him/her here on a tourism visa and allow him/her to overstay their visa, and you have a problem.

I don’t have a problem with LEGAL immigration. I DO have a problem with an illegal INVASION of my country for ANY reason…including job hunting. Not because there are no jobs here they can fill, but because they are ALL criminals the moment the step across the border without government sanction or the very DAY they exceed the time limits on their visas.

I’m having a problem with your willingness to ALLOW the Democrats to import millions of these third-world basket cases who will INEVITABLY become Democrat voters because they’ll be convinced that their presence here is because of the good offices of Democrats, and we KNOW what the Democrats want for this country–conversion to a socialist nation with THEM in control of us all.


Alright, I’ll grant I made that mistake.

I don’t believe that strategy can work, because you’re then putting the law at odds with Supply & Demand.

Immigration has to reach a clearing point; both to balance out our trade with economies over the border, and to keep our businesses competitive with their foreign competition who could otherwise undercut them, right here in the U.S…

When you force the law to interfere with this activity, which livelihoods depend upon, you tend to incentivize the creation of black markets in labor.

The farmer who can’t spend 3 months wading through paperwork to get a handful of people through, the dairy farmer who needs people year round, not seasonally, the meatpacker whose set up in a county that’s been depopulated for decades, and relies on whomever wanders into town, etc.

The immigration system is inflexible, poor at registering niche labor needs, and costly to interact with. Enforcing it puts people who otherwise would be law abiding, up against a wall. They either break the law to continue the relationships they need, or they go out of business.

Criminalizing work arrangements like this, doesn’t seem to me to be compatible with an idea of natural rights. It’s overly micro-managerial, and insists that people & their businesses exist at the pleasure of the Government, rather than the other way around.

What about if you replaced illegal immigrants, with a legal Guest worker program, like Bracero? What is it about increasing the amount of legal immigrants to fix illegal immigration, that is objectionable to you?


But it isn’t “your own resources” that are paying the difference that make that illegal labor so much cheaper, but you keep insisting that you are entitled to have it. It isn’t that you want society to stay out of your business, you want society’s thumb tipping the scales in your favor. Labor does not exist in a vacuum, and similar labor employed under similar conditions will have a similar cost. You are demanding that large swaths of the domestic labor pool be economically disenfranchised for your benefit by the importation of a labor pool which is exempt from the conditions under which the domestic labor pool must operate. And you insist that since it will have an immediate benefit for you, there will be no consequences.

And you have the gall to tell me that if I cant compete with an untaxed, unregulated, subsidized labor pool with the battleship anchor of taxes and regulation dragging me down, then I suck and I deserve to lose my job.


As I said before, Legal immigrants take more benefits, and American labor at the same level takes even more than the other two. This is universal in our labor right now, it is not exclusive to immigrants.

People who are stooped in the minimum wage argument (for instance), argue that Walmart helps their employees sign up for food stamps, ergo “low minimum wage subsidizes the corporation’s bottom line”. And this is a group that’s disproportionately not Hispanics, but African-American.

The only thing unique about illegals here, is that employers can find ways to force them to do things they can’t do to the other two groups, because illegals working under the table.

Trapping them in a place until they “get the job done”, not giving them overpay, not following up and paying out final wages earned after cancelling a contract. Forcing them to work in unsafe conditions, etc.

All of which are problems that. are. solved, if you grow legal immigration to meet the labor gap, and allow the visa to be managed by the immigrant, not the business.

It’s not entitlement. By definition, that word does not fit here.

People have a right to travel, to association, & to contract. No one “provides” any of these things, as they are negative rights you have simply for being a human being with natural born dignity.

You can only disqualify those rights, if the individual you are addressing has commit a wrong; is culpable in a transgression against another person, and that “something” , cannot be simply wanting to come here. There has to be something else.

If you ban innocent, healthy people from coming & working here, you are violating natural born rights.

But every problem you’ve identified is not a natural feature of immigration.

It’s the consequence of a dysfunctional bureaucracy, and the malincentives it creates. Fix the system, grow legal immigration, and every problem you have brought here is addressed.


Is there a Supreme Court case on this?


You want it, YOU fix it. But until it is fixed, there are real world problems created and exacerbated by mass illegal immigration confronting millions of real world people who have done nothing wrong, and telling them “tough shit”, “suck it up”, or “you deserve to fail if you can’t drag a boat anchor while carrying your unburdened competition” just don’t cut it.


They are A.LL “commit(ting) a wrong” by sneaking across the border without government permission to enter, or by overstaying their visas. Why do you think we HAVE laws in the first place?


Immigration was here first and was working fine before Government stepped in and mismanaged it.

Government should be brought to heel, and to change its dysfunctional laws. Bring back Bracero if need be.

What I don’t get, and what I know you cannot argue qixlqatl, is how you can possibly have consensus to build a wall, and not also have consensus to rewrite welfare/immigration into something functional.

If conservatives are in control, they should be able to do the latter. The latter actually solves the problem, not simply attack a symptom.

Welfare does not give the Government knowledge as to what the labor rate should be, anymore than subdizing American citizens tells it how many of our people should move between the states. Further, identifying a problem, even earnest ones you want addressed, does not make government action the solution. That’s an equivocation, and it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

For the actions you want, also creates problems. Problems far bigger than the ones you’ve identified.

Want to see the result of a nation not getting enough immigrants, when its native population doesn’t have a birth rate anywhere near replacement? The brain drain? The emptying of cities en mass, a la Detroit?

Want a large, intrusive police apparatus that does everything the TSA does, but is set up along every highway?

Want us to import all of our food, and all of our clothes?

No qixlqatl, I don’t think you’ve ever asked why these trends exist other than to do what the Left does and chock it up to greed. You’ve equally, never looked for what was behind the problems you were seeing.

That thing being, bad laws.

When immigration is administered by good laws, its benefits maximize. People follow those laws, equilibrium is established, and illegal immigration is a foot note.

But when bad laws disrupt immigration, that is the Government declaring war on the economy, and when that happens, nobody wins. Not the law, not the immigrant, not natural rights, and certainly not the citizen or the economy they live in.

As it stands, illegal immigration is a bad solution, to an even worse problem that will spiral out of control if we try anything else. Until government fixes itself, fixes the error it made 50 years ago, we’ll keep getting more of it.


Laws have to answer to natural law. Laws have to have a reasonable basis in enforcability.

If you write your laws without the context of world human beings live in, then lawmakers are doing nothing more than causing trouble.

Bad laws ruin civilization; enforcing them simply helps that along.


Under natural law, people have an inalienable right to congregate together in a common goal, such as they did when creating the various states, and eventually creating the United States . . . a geographical area. And in doing so, they also have an inalienable collective right to dictate who may, and may not, enter their geographical area.

Why do you have such a problem with the people of the United States, in their collective capacity, determining the rules under which foreigners may enter their country?

Have the people of sanctuary cities not agreed to be part of the collective United States, and abide by the “laws of the United States”?