It's hardly an "accusation." Your thinking on the issue appears irrational otherwise. If I'm wrong (about both the irrationality of your position on immigration and the motive), by all means, educate me. Given what we know about the impact of immigration on crime and various aspects of the economy, what we know about aging patterns and birthrates, and what we know about trends in unauthorized immigration in America (the huge drop in illegal crossings over the past decade and the declines in the total unauthorized immigrant population over that period, for example), why would you now see this as an important issue that we should divert scarce resources to? I'm gathering that you support Trump's shift in priority for ICE from catching violent criminals who shouldn't be here to harassing ordinary people. Why is that? And given that you normally present yourself as a supporter of the U.S. Constitution, why do you make an exception in this case?
I would need to write a book to address all of this.
I am a textualist-originalist. Article I, Section 8 only grants Congress the authority to deal with "naturalization", and never "immigration". Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, this is a states' rights issue. All currently existing immigration legislation (e.g., the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) is unconstitutional.
However, leaving immigration to the states is not feasible as it was in the 18th century. Therefore, I call for an immediate constitutional amendment granting to the federal government the ability to secure our borders and regulate immigration.
From there, the first priority would be border security. Your response commits a common error---conflation of legal and illegal immigration. Although I do support a reduction in many forms of legal immigration (a topic for another day which you and I have touched on before), illegal immigration is a more pressing issue.
For example, I'm sure you saw this headline in today's paper:
11-Time Deportee Attacked Wife with Chainsaw in Front of Children, Say Police
https://www.breitbart.com/texas/201...ith-chainsaw-in-front-of-children-say-police/
You and I have discussed previously the too-frequent instances of multiple-time deportees committing heinous crimes in the USA. With real border security, the vast majority of these crimes would not be committed. In my estimation, a southern border wall would be an excellent investment. For approximately $20 billion and minimal annual upkeep costs, people like the fine gentleman described in the article would have a very difficult time regaining entry after their first deportation. There are other benefits to such a barrier, some of which I will mention below.
Now to briefly address a few of your minor points:
- Given what we know about the impact of immigration on crime...
Immigration increases crime, obviously.
Legal immigration probably reduces the overall crime rate, which I think is what you meant to say.
In my view, the US population is already too high. I would like the population to fall by about 33%.
I'm gathering that you support Trump's shift in priority for ICE from catching violent criminals who shouldn't be here to harassing ordinary people.
It's more accurate to say that Obama shifted interior enforcement priorities to target only those who were convicted criminals. Under Obama's 2014 enforcement memoranda, 87% of the estimated illegal alien population would not be an enforcement priority. FY 2016 was the first year this new policy was fully implemented, and the results were alarming. Over 92% of those removed were criminal convicts, and the total number of interior removals fell to only 65,000. The last time the total number of interior removals was this low was around 2005. I would be more comfortable with a 65%/35% criminal/non-criminal split in interior removals. In FY 2017, we hit 84%/16%, so we're moving in the right direction.
the huge drop in illegal crossings over the past decade
This isn't the first time you've equated apprehensions with illegal crossings. Obviously the former is a decent proxy for the latter, but it is only a proxy.
More importantly, this is a case in which the underlying quantity is more useful than the rate of change. In FY 2017, we had over 400,000 apprehensions in the SW border region. With a proper physical barrier, we could cut that number down well below 50,000. That's good for the migrants who are attempting the dangerous journey and it would free up manpower/funds.
And given that you normally present yourself as a supporter of the U.S. Constitution, why do you make an exception in this case?
I already addressed this above, but I have interacted with you so much over the years that I think I know what you're getting at even when you don't make it explicit. You probably think I am suspending my concern for civil liberties in the name of interior immigration enforcement. I'm not. I wish for all people in our borders to be afforded 4th Amendment protections. I oppose excessive use of force. However, presuming the necessary constitutional amendment (detailed above) has been ratified, I oppose your proposal ("abolish ICE") on the grounds that interior enforcement is a necessary aspect of immigration enforcement.
Read again.
