Poll: Eighty Percent Of Americans Oppose Sanctuary Cities

us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-seal-plaque-lThere is an interesting poll out this week by Harvard-Harris for The Hill newspaper that shows an incredible eighty percent of Americans oppose so-called sanctuary cities and that cities should be required to turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities. It is a striking contrast with Democrats who have gone “all in” on opposing immigration policies of the Trump Administration, including support for sanctuary cities. There are opposing polls showing support for cities and there are always legitimate questions raised by some polls that rely entirely on Internet polling. This may be such a case.

We have previously discussed the status of sanctuary cities.  I have maintained that these cities are in a poor legal position to oppose the federal programs and that they would face the loss of badly needed federal funding.  It appears that they may also fall short on public support, though it is important to remember Tip O’Neill’s advice that “all politics is local.”

The Harvard–Harris Poll survey also found strong support for the types of reforms pushed by the Administration. Some 77 percent said they support comprehensive immigration reform against only 23 percent who oppose.  Indeed, some 53 percent of voters said they support Trump’s immigration executive order.    Those figures will likely encourage the Administration to stay the course despite the strong criticism coming from Democrats and the media.



119 thoughts on “Poll: Eighty Percent Of Americans Oppose Sanctuary Cities”

  1. The 20% is misleading. I wonder whether the term, sanctuary cities, was ever defined? Are we to assume that all people, involved in this poll, actually understood what the term, sanctuary city, described? I’m not convinced of that. Does anyone recall the segment, broadcast when Jay Leno had his program on NBC, where random, average people were stopped, in the street, and asked the most basic of questions regarding current events and politics? I do. Many were clueless. No. Actually, MOST were clueless. Had no idea as to what they were even being asked, let alone, how to answer the questions. I’d bet that it’s not that 20% of the participants actually support sanctuary cities, it’s that 20% of the knuckleheads that they polled thought that the term “sanctuary cities” had something to do with religion or a house of worship.

    1. I attend a sanctuary church and live in the middle of a sanctuary city. I am duly blessed. 🙂

      1. Of course, you’re blessed. Blessed until one of those undocumented individuals, that you support and protect and drunk as a skunk, with no valid driver’s license and no insurance, slams his vehicle into yours, causing untold personal and property damage, leaving you–alone–to pay for his crime and pick of the pieces of your shattered life.

        Ahh, yes, blessings.

        Blessed until one of those undocumented individuals–who would never have been legally allowed to enter into this country, given his horrendously violent and criminal past–rapes or murders a loved one.

        Ahh, yes, blessings.

        Blessed until a loved one, so addicted to heroin, which has been transported into this country and disseminated throughout our country, via the Mexican drug gangs and their mules, finally takes the life of that loved one.

        Ahh, yes, blessings.

        I suppose that you and I have very different concepts as to the meaning of BLESSINGS.

      2. Your pastor and church board should be duly tossed into a federal lock up for a couple of months to give you a due lesson in the consequences for striking attitudes.

  2. Time to stop the Liberal Left.
    Schumer and his cronies want a lawless society.
    Opposing everything that is good for America.
    President Trump is on the right track.
    America safe again.
    America great again.
    America powerful again.
    America number 1 again.

  3. The next step is reforming automatic birth citizenship so that government is no longer splitting the immigration status within the family. A bill is in the House, but Paul Ryan is mum about the schedule for bringing it to the floor. I understand why it’s important to fill the 9th Supreme Court seat before passing such a bill.

  4. Every member of Congress and state legislatures elected to office with districts that have sanctuary cities should be ineligible for leadership positions within government. Actually I don’t understand how they can actively support policies that promote violating federal immigration laws and not be removed from office. Isn’t that a clear violation of their constitutional oath of office?

    1. There are more than a few Texas republicans have parts of their districts that are in sanctuary cities. Call Pete Sessions. He has parts of Dallas in his district and is in a republican leadership position.

          1. That’s not the point. The question is would disqualifying legislative members from leadership positions discourage them from supporting policies in their districts that violate the very laws their respective bodies pass? Violating their oath of office should disqualify them from office altogether but THAT won’t happen.

        1. Do you think Trump will cut off the funds to Washington DC, the city in which he resides?

          1. Again, wrong question. Should Trump cut off funds to ANY city that has policies encouraging the violation of federal law? If one believes in the rule of law then the answer must be yes.

            For a legal blog, I’m often fascinated by how many people here actually support violating the law. I frequently reference Bastiat’s “The Law” because there is a lot of wisdom in what he says. I’ve also commented that our constitutional republic has been replaced by a utilitarian democracy. And that is being kind to the motives for ignoring our rule of law. Who can deny the following logic?

            “Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

            Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

            It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

            It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

            What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

            In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
            No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

            The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it.” Frederic Bastiat


            1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/constitutional-problems-with-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.4038d188100f “The constitutional issues raised by Trump’s executive order are not mere technicalities. If the president can make up new conditions on federal grants to the states and impose them without specific, advance congressional authorization, he would have a powerful tool for bullying states and localities into submission on a wide range of issues. Such an executive power-grab also undermines separation of powers. Congress, not the president, has the constitutional authority to attach conditions to federal grants to state governments.

              Even if the power-grab is limited to withholding funds when states or localities violate other federal laws and regulations, it is still a grave menace. There are literally thousands of federal laws and regulations on the books. No jurisdiction can fully comply with all of them. If the president can withhold funds from any state or locality that violates any federal law, without needing specific authorization from Congress, he would have sweeping authority over state officials.

              Trump’s order is exactly the kind of high-handed federal coercion of states and undermining of separation of powers that outraged conservatives under Obama.” I remember when conservatives were for local control. lAn attempt to penalize the sanctuary cities will end up in court and your interpretation of the rule of law is “your” interpretation of the rule of law. 🙂

              1. SWG – I am for local control, just not with federal dollars. With federal dollars comes controls. The SC has settled this issue. So, if the cities are not playing the game, they get the money taken away.

              2. granny,
                The entire point of my previous post was to convey the 2 principle flaws with the law. 1. Enabling the creation and enforcement of “laws” that actually infringe the rights of others in an attempt to achieve some utilitarian goal is not the purpose of government. It encourages the use of law as a weapon not for justice, but for retribution. 2. People lose all sense of what is lawful. Without respect for the law they then take it upon themselves to determine what is just…in their own worldview.

                “If the president can withhold funds from any state or locality that violates any federal law, without needing specific authorization from Congress, he would have sweeping authority over state officials.”

                If the enforcement of federal laws is within the power of the executive, then please explain to me why he needs “specific” authorization from Congress to enforce federal law throughout the land?

                1. Most but not all of the money dispersed by the federal government is dispersed according to formulas that are set by congress. Many of these formulas are very complex. Trump could pull back on some money that is dispersed out of discretionary funds I would imagine.

              3. Immigration is a federal responsibility and has been since 1790. “Local Control” is obstructing federal law enforcement. That should lead to quite severe sanctions.

    1. We do welcome them. Is it too much to ask that we follow existing procedures? 8 years of Obama bombs in the ME didn’t help the migrant situation either, but that never enters the echo chamber.

        1. You seriously do not understand the difference between illegals and immigrants? Or is this just leftist clever-speak? FFS

          1. Lots of very nasty comments about Muslims, black people, and Mexicans around these parts…..

            1. So all Muslims, black people, and Mexicans = immigrants? Come on, Granny. Do better.

          2. Yes, illegals are people who are here who have not followed the correct procedures for entering the country. I don’t see an argument. But, as I say, for the progressives, laws just seem to be a suggestion.

            1. No, laws are an excuse to engage in warfare against political enemies, like Conrad Black.

        2. Not anti-immigrant; anti-illegal-immigration.

          Swarthmore Granny – do you support illegal immigration? And if so, why?

          Our legal immigration system is supposed to determine how many immigrants our nation can absorb without strain or over population, as well as screen out criminals and treat communicable diseases such as anti-biotic resistant TB. In addition, there are services to help illegal immigrants learn about their new country, its laws and customs and services.

          So why would anyone support skipping the whole thing? No concerns about drug running, gun running, human trafficking, identity theft, gangs, or even the environmental impact of all the trash dumped along immigrant trails or the effects of over population and sprawl? Why all the concern about Trump and Bannon as an existential crisis, but not a whit of concern about people coming from regions infamous for murdering gays and Jews and abusing women, whose identity cannot be proven and we have to rely on the records kept by Syria, a hotbed for ISIS and al Qaeda? No concern at all? It’s just the alt Right that are dangerous and not people who come from places where they actually do kill Jews and gays and women??? Just seems like a strange suspension of logic.

          I’ve never heard a compelling argument for illegal immigration over legal immigration. The only excuse seems to be that some of them are really nice, which is no reason for them to circumvent the legal immigration system. I’ve never heard a sparkling personality would permit me to engage in any other non violent crime like, say, identity theft, which is rampant among illegal immigrants. I also have never heard a compelling reason for why we prioritize Muslim refugees over the Christians they persecute and murder, who are so afraid they cannot even stay in same camps. What’s the problem with “extreme vetting” and making real sure we don’t accidentally import ISIS? I suppose it would be similar to inviting 10 men at random from a neighborhood run by Crips to go stay at your neighbor’s house, assuring him that no Crips would be so rude as to include themselves, especially since you ask each person, “are you a Crip?” The blue shirts are all circumstantial.

          According to the Senate Immigration Subcommittee database, “at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, were born abroad.

          At least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born (71 were confirmed natural-born, and the remaining 129 are not known). Of the 380 foreign-born, at least 24 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 33 had overstayed their visas. Additionally, of those born abroad, at least 62 were from Pakistan, 28 were from Lebanon, 22 were Palestinian, 21 were from Somalia, 20 were from Yemen, 19 were from Iraq, 16 were from Jordan, 17 were from Egypt, and 10 were from Afghanistan.”

          In addition, there were the following convicted of terrorism here in the US:

          Iranian 5
          Iraqis 19
          Libyans 2
          Somalians 21
          Syrians 6
          Sudanese 3
          Yemenis 20

          That is a LOT of near misses, when you imagine the carnage that 4 plane hijackers and 2 brothers with a pressure cooker did. Plus there is the radicalization terrorists bring to our people here, both at mosques in person and online.

          It’s a problem. And it’s concerning. And it’s not racist to be concerned. Yes, there are really nice illegal immigrants and Muslim refugees. Go through the legal immigration system and we’d better make darn sure we screen out the terrorists. Because I remember the sniping and blame game that went on after 9/11. The topic on everyone’s minds and all the headlines shrieked how this could have been prevented if only – the CIA and the FBI shared information, expired visas had been followed up with as part of illegal immigration reform, PC did not prevent people from raising red flags such as when the hijackers were only interested in learning take offs and not landings, etc.

          And here we are again, ignoring history like we have amnesia, and repeating the mistakes of our past. In addition, many of our politicians are in complete denial of how too many refugees from regions infamous for human rights abuses have affected crime in their countries, most especially against women, gays, and Jews…Hmm…what a coincidence because that’s who was the victim of violence in their home countries, too. I may be going out on a limb here, but they might not have suddenly shaken off the misogyny, anti-Semitism, and homophobia merely by setting foot here. And they may be a rather marked difference between asylum seekers such as Malala Yousafzai (shot in the head by the Taliban for promoting the education of girls), poets, women escaping arranged marriages, Yazidi, Christians, and dissenters against extremism than in….everyone else in the general population who think it’s just lovely to mob and kill someone accused of insulting the Prophet or of being gay.

          This needs to become a common sense, rational discussion on solutions rather than an emotional one.


          1. Why does the floating islands of plastic killing wildlife get all the attention of activists and actors, and not all the plastic trash destroying the environment and killing wildlife along illegal immigrant treks?

        1. That all began long before Trump. I’m sure he’ll do his worst, but let’s remember that all started under Obama. The man dropped over 20,000 bombs, apparently including depleted uranium weapons and white phosphorus in 2015 alone. Talk about climate change…

          1. All the more reason to let the refugees in. Here, I though the Iraq and Afghan wars were started by Bush Must be fake news.

            1. The Afghan war was started by the Taliban and al Qaeda and we’d been in a state of belligerency with Iraq since 1990 (when they conquered and despoiled Kuwait).

    2. It’s not ‘pretty clear’, and the Magisterium has been explicit on that point. This is another instance of freebooting by a member of a religious order whose charism is for single-malt scotch and sodomy.

  5. I am personally glad to see the number is so high. I am against sanctuary cities unless they want to lose their federal funding. And they should. And this includes all federal funding to the city.

  6. Knowing that less than 20% of the population are anarchists is somehow not very comforting when you find that most of that number are Democratic officials in major cities.

  7. A sanctuary city is like a rebel without a cause.
    One way to make them obey the law is to make a list of all sanctuary cities and then a list of all residents of such cities. Then publish The Shit List and advise the rest of America to not deal with those people. Bar the post office from delivery mail to those cities. Create an Army draft for all residents. Yes bring back the draft! Make every resident ineligible for social security benefits. Close down the VA hospitals in those cities.
    Sanctuary is sanctimony for self.

    Also outlaw the head scarfs throughout America.

  8. Followed by the fifteen new federal level judges, splitting up the 9th circuit, and getting rid of the Fourth Branch unless their home branch of government keeps them. All Judicial under the Judicial. All rule making under the legislative and just cut them out of the Executive branch budget and EO their work product as unusable without being passed by Congress etc.Should cut federal employment by a hundred thousand or so. Take a while to untwist and untangle this regressive garbage and get back to straight up Consitutional government. Keep supporting the outsider damn the former insiders damn be he who crys hold! Enough!

    When you think about it they aren’t important anymore anyway including their lame stream media.

  9. Where is Congress? What are they planning to get done in fist 100 days? The highest priority should be getting Judge Gorsuch confirmed, as well as all Administration appointees.

    1. Congress will get nothing done. All they want to do is toss some bon bons to the Chamber of Commerce (following ‘regular order’, of course, to keep Orrin Hatch and Richard Burr happy).

  10. If you had seen what I have and the damage that illegals do to our country you would be aghast: everything from unlicensed drivers committing hit and run accidents and injuring citizens, to welfare fraud, to turning parts of cities into run down gang dominated blights, to child molestings, to triple homicides, to even being assaulted and spending time in the hospital. I’ve seen enough to make me 100% against sanctuary cities. If you went through what we did and didn’t have the same opinion about sanctuary cities you are either a fool or in complete denial.

    And it is not just a criminal justice problem, we started seeing people with tuberculosis arriving and some of the healthcare workers here came down with the symptoms. It was unheard of here for probably 80 years and illegals brought it back. Then there is the dollars they cost society.

    None of this needs to happen and who suffers? Average citizens suffer because elites live behind white picket fences and rule from ivory towers. While they were out pontificating themselves and having their palms greased by political donors at lofty dinner venues people like us were picking up the pieces of lives wrecked by someone in the United States that had no business or right to be here. Illegals are here for one reason, politicians of the past wanted them here.

    The poll shown here does not surprise me at all. The far left in our country, not surprisingly, puts illegals as a higher priority than citizens. Why? because they live in an echo-chamber of like minded people and do not get out into the real world. The fact that these politicians would rather challenge the federal government and risk financial benefits in the form of grants from the feds being removed shows exactly who is more important to them. Frankly speaking this is unconscionable.

  11. Deport them all. Then deport the people who advocate for Sanctuary Cities

    oh and btw, heres how Mexico handles illegals

  12. Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s improve our monitoring of visa overstay (such as occurred with the 9/11 hijackers.)

    When I travel overseas, I often need my passport at every hotel. The country’s government knows where I am. When we offer a visa, locations should be kept track of. There shouldn’t be the temptation to just bolt, depending on the groaning bureaucracy to fail to figure it out for a decade. Unlike the “papers please” argument typically claims, visa holders would be allowed to travel anywhere, like anyone else in the US. But their residence needs to be tracked in a database, regardless of nation of origin, so they can be promptly found when their visa expires. We don’t need to make it easier for the next 9/11 maniacs.

    Remember that movie, Greeencard with Andy McDowel and Gerard Depardieu? The entire plot revolved around the INS grilling the protagonists to uncover their sham marriage, when in reality, illegal immigration is enabled and encouraged. In fact, I hold no animosity for nonviolent illegal aliens. How could I? We’ve invited them, crafted special benefit programs for them, rolled out the red carpet, and even routinely have marches and protests in favor of them. How can I blame them for coming here the wrong way, when our country has so earnestly explained to them that it’s OK and this is how it’s done? That still doesn’t mean we can’t stop it and fix this mess.

    1. When I travel overseas, I often need my passport at every hotel. The country’s government knows where I am.

      Yes and traditionally that passport goes to the local police station before it is returned to you – or a police person comes by the hotel, depending. They definitely know who is connected to that passport.

    2. Congress or DHS/State could mandate all temporary visitors maintain a working e-contact while in the US, whether email address or mobile phone. 99.99% of visitors have such an e-contact already. This would allow the DHS to issue personalized alerts about impending expiration of the visa.

    3. I guess we see now that alot of these government programs are created to control us, not protect us. When you look at it in this light, the whole situation makes a lot more sense.

      My question for the left is, why can’t we just follow the immigration laws we have? It seems for Democrats, laws are always optional. Seems to work for Clintons.

  13. I think the salient point is that the hard Left is in direct opposition to what the people want.

    Sanctuary cities even protect dangerous felons and gang members from deportation. That’s why one of the latest roundups in NY ejected rapists and pedophiles sheltering from ICE.

    It is absolutely crucial that we secure our border, whether by some combination of wall, moat filled with alligators, drones, cyborgs, or women with frying pans. I don’t care how we do it. But once we shut off the flow of illegal immigration, we will blessedly, finally, no longer have the angst over what to do over the really nice illegal immigrants, or the kids who were brought here young. Every year it’s the same crisis. What do we do about those who aren’t violent? Those who only steal identities to work here? Those who just don’t pay taxes because they get paid with cash under the table? Always it’s a moral dilemma. If we stop the flow completely, the dilemma goes away. Everyone who’s here can be assumed to be legal, so no more resentment against line cutters or worry about cartels running guns or drugs or abused women and kids. No more small children dead in rivers or lying out in a desert. No more garbage from illegal crossers closing every arroyo. No more heavily pregnant women making arduous crossings they have no business making close to their due dates so they can have an anchor baby. No more antibiotic TB failing to get treated because they didn’t go through the health screening. No more dangerous criminals getting dumped across the border only to casually stroll back. And no more demonstrations or riots or boycotts or angst about sanctuary cities. No more taxpayer subsidized car insurance for illegal aliens that provide less coverage than what is required by citizens (which is guaranteed to piss people off and damage race relations.)


    Streamline the legal immigration system. Ensure costs are down for the needy. My God, we’d have millions upon millions of dollars to spend on infrastructure, homeless shelters, reservoirs, alternative energy, protecting open space, endangered species…if it didn’t go down the sinkhole of illegal immigration. Just think of the strain that would be lifted from our over taxed benefits system, the room in our overcrowded jails, and the improvement in race relations if the resentment against illegal aliens evaporated because all immigrants were legal.

    1. “… moat filled with alligators, … cyborgs, …..”

      I am really fascinated with the alligators and cyborgs. I mean, if we can build a self driving car, why not a cyborg – and much cooler than a wall that will just collect graffiti.

      Build a cyborg now!!!

      1. Well, futuristic cyborgs would take care of the whole argument about the ineffectiveness of a physical wall. Just think of the grant potential. Robo Cop and Tangled (“Frying pans! Who knew?”) have been playing lately. 🙂

    2. I think the salient point is that the hard Left is in direct opposition to what the people want.

      But not in opposition to what the lawyer left want. The lawyer left will continue to get their way until we have the sense to geld the judiciary.

  14. Just carry out the other half of Simpson-Mazzoli Act to the letter. Once that’s completed and working as intended review current immigration laws to see if any changes are needed. Allow no one in without proper application, anyone caught coming in like they do now immediately send them back.

  15. The Democrats are becoming increasingly irrelevant to all but the fringe. It’s amazing that they learned absolutely nothing from the presidential election.

  16. I am not surprised really…. I think like many things over 20, 30 years it has become something untenable. The whole Francisco Sanchez killing of Kate Steinle just encapsulated the problem… and living in San Francisco, it is very apparent, the Democrats are absolutely maniacal about pushing the immigrant and, most especially, undocumented issues.

    By now they cannot hear themselves…. but I suspect it is falling very flat thru the country, with the exception of the very few states and the large cities where they hold on to power.

  17. Let’s pass and rigorously enforce Mexico’s illegal immigrant laws: first offense two years hard labor. Second offense ten years hard labor.

    Let’s also follow Mexico’s lead for the top 1%: change from 40% or 50% federal income tax bracket to among the lowest of all OECD nations. Eliminate all or most safety net programs for the oldest, weakest, and least able Americans, and export all USA poverty northward to Canada.

    Problem solved!

    /sarc off

    1. If we really wanted to stop undocumented workers from working in the USA we would go after the businesses that keep hiring them. Fine businesses $50,000 for every illegal found working on the premises, raid in a random but persistent way. Hard labor for executive and business owners for trpeat offenses. That will shut the entire problem down.

      1. No it won’t. A certain % of illegals make a living through crime…..ID theft, pimping, stealing cell phones, stealing cars, selling drugs, ripping off govt., etc. When mandatory E-Verify kicks in, don’t expect everyone pushed out of the workforce to leave. Some % will turn to under-the-table employment and some of that will be criminal trades. We need a system, such as a bounty system, to turn in illegal immigrants who make a living off the radar.

        1. Also true but then we have our own version of the same thing so that’s chop our own weeds and here’s six months at hard unpaid labor. What’ about the kids. Take them away as the parent(s) are unfit and make baby factories unprofitable as well.

        2. Regrettably E-Verify is not the answer. It IS a ‘get out of jail free card’ designed to protect the Republican constituency. ALL E-Verify says is the applicant has a ‘valid’ social security number. IF the employer uses E-Verify they are NOT subject to fines. It does NOT say there aren’t 500 people using the same SSN.
          The federal government could shut this down any time they choose with a simple query for SSNs being used by multiple parties. NO wall necessary. They could stop illegals working anywhere in a heartbeat. They don’t want to stop illegal immigration.
          While you’re right about illegal activity, almost all such activity preys on their own communities. AND – Like vitrually all ethic immigrants in history, the community keeps much of these problems to themselves. If you take the money out of those communities the bad guys will not change but they may come out of the woodwork so law enforcement could deal with them. Won’t happen, but if it did you would have a very painful and violent period of transition.

          1. Nothing is ‘the’ answer and if you’re looking for ‘the’ answer, you’re wasting your time. What there is and can be is measures to reduce the dimensions of our problem to a point where it is not socially significant anymore. That means a half-dozen different policy measures.

      2. Both good ideas on either side of my answering post. Especially for the business owners including householders with maids to do a little chopping weeds on the country farm.

        Anothere area to think about is the $15 an hour nonsense which only serves to fuel the yen for illegals. But tying minimum wage to a maximum welfare (total value of everything) makes even more sense. As the Swedes found out when they ditched both socialism and welfare it’s hard to defeat moochers when not working is as lucrative as working.

        I still see the need for a program of vetted Bracero workers with these new infrastructure rebuilds coming up in the next few years. That has one dangerous pitfall called Davis Bacon where only the unions get the contracts and the wages are artificially inflated although they are called prevailing local scale. They are local but they are neveer prevailing. or average. it’s a way the politicians get union votes and union donations through the union PAC’s also called laundering tax money.

        But if the employer is required to go to the local employment office and then finds there are no suitable employees they can ask for over the boarder documented workers. At the same time the moochers on welfare should be put on a three job offers and welfare is cut off program.

        A lot of the problems are intertwined but it is always Congress that is the root of all evil in their lusting love for money and persnal gain.

      3. You wanna stop illegal immigration? Simply outlaw remittances to foreign countries from illegals. They’re economic migrants, so no money back home means that’s where they go.

          1. Really simple process. Anybody who handles the remittances has to verify status with photo Id and copy of immigration card. Remittances limited to $100.00. Per transaction. Tax of $30.00 collected on all transfers. Documents available to ICE officials on request.

            1. You’re talking about instituting exchange controls, which incorporate important economic distortions (which are worth it on odd occasions). The way you contain the distortions is to hold multiple price auctions of rations of foreign currency, which is completely incongruent with the administrative regulations you wish to institute. Exchange controls implimented with administered priorities are rife with corruption and favoritism.

              1. That’s why you have monitored transactions. It’s also why you should only let financial institutions handle this and not the local botega. As for currency exchange problems that falls on the sender and not the transferee.

        1. A few practices that would have probably the most immediate and strong effect on illegal immigration (if the gov’t actually implements these to the fullest extent.)

          1. Fine employers $50,000 for every illegal found employed at their company, with a strong possibility of being caught
          2. Require all employers to verify citizenship or work permit for all new hires
          3. Declare permitting housing of illegals to be an offense akin to harboring fugitives
          4. Make illegals ineligible for welfare benefits
          5. Imprison previously deported felon illegals who return a minimum of 2 years
          1. Darren – they put an employer here in prison for hiring illegals for the second time. He owned a series of car washes. They have now been sold to others.

              1. No, they’d be in business. They’d hire the same sort of people who do roofing work in Upstate New York (who aren’t typically Chicanos here unlawfully). Their prices might be somewhat higher and disciplinary issues with their workforce somewhat different.

                1. No one else wants the roofing jobs, the kitchen jobs or the landscaping crew jobs in Texas. Also, many construction jobs are done by illegals in Texas. No one is going to relocate to Texas to work on a roof where the temperatures in the sun are as high as 150 degrees.

                  1. No one else wants the roofing jobs, the kitchen jobs or the landscaping crew jobs in Texas.

                    You’re an economic and sociological illiterate. This sort of work is done all over the country by people from every kind of social background. There’s nothing special about anglos in Texas which makes them incapable of or constitutionally uninterested in short-order cooking and construction-site work. Employers in Texas hire illegals because they can do so for lower wages, because their legal status makes them a more tractable workforce, and because information about openings and vouching for unfamiliar workers takes place now among social subcultures where illegals are plentiful. Employers will hire natives when the illegal labor pool dries up.

                    1. Not end of discussion. The following states have employment-to-population ratios higher than those of Texas.

                      New Hampshire
                      Rhode Island
                      North Dakota
                      South Dakota

                      The only state on this list anywhere near the Mexican border or possessing an abnormally large hispanic population is Colorado.

                      The median employment-to-population ratio in these states when last measured is 0.646. That in Texas was 0.609. So, Texas rate of mobilization was 5.4% lower than that of the median of this 22 set sample. According to Pew, illegal aliens make up 6.1% of the population of Texas. The median of the foregoing states is about 1.5%. They’re replacing that illegal alien labor quite effectively.

                      Let’s check the Bureau of Labor Statistics data on what share of the national labor force is employed in select occupations:

                      3.9%: construction and extraction occupations
                      3.2%: b & g employees
                      9.0%: food preparation and related occupations
                      1.9%: Select personal care occupations (home health, childcare)
                      0.3%: agricultural wage labor

                      That’s about 18% of the workforce, and about 3/4 of it is in occupations wherein you would not expect much state-to-state variation (as you would in construction &c and agricultural labor). Even if every single illegal alien employed in Texas was working in these occupations, somewhere around 2/3 of those currently working in them are not illegal aliens. The notion that legal residents ‘do not want these jobs’ is just tommyrot.

                      Stop lying to your self and lying to others.

          2. These aren’t bad ideas. They require (1) proper staffing of a federal police force dedicated to immigration enforcement in the interior and (2) nurturing the morale of that force through administrative leadership, among other things.

            It will also likely require gelding the federal courts, who will use phony 14th amendment jurisprudence to remove legislative discretion over the distribution of welfare benefits. There are a variety of remedies available to contain the courts. Congress and the president need to start making use of them.

            Here’s the following suggestion:

            1. A federal detention service separate from the Marshall Service and separate from the Bureau of Prisons. Illegal aliens apprehended are deposited in cells and left there until deportation. If they’re 1 yard over the border, that’s where they go. An expenditure north of $5 bn a year would suffice at current prices for detention facilities holding 60,000 at any one time.

            2. Amendments to the federal criminal code which make it a crime to be present in the United States unlawfully. Once apprehended, you are sent to one of these detention centers until you’ve had a hearing. Consequent to a hearing (which will be curt, rather like small claims court), you’re set back to detention and released at such time as you are due for deportation. The time served should at least be equal to a growing season, but, in any case, scaled to the amount of time you’ve been present unlawfully. If Mexico attempts to inhibit deportation, you tell them they take their citizens back or the port of Veracruz will be demolished by a naval artillery barrage.

            3. Bisect ICE. Divide into a police force chasing contraband merchandise and a different police force looking for immigration violators. Given the number who overstay their visas, the eventual size of the force may be quite large. Back in the day in New York, 68,000 police officers and civilian auxiliaries thereto used to process 250,000 cases to conviction and disposal and make 1.4 million arrests.

            4. Again, the Wall. About 50 feet high topped with razor wire, with guard towers every 600 yards. About 25,000 armed border guards would cover all shifts. You build it slightly inland and shoot if they disobey instructions to cease, desist, and leave.

            5. Implement that check-in and check-out system Congress has mandated for about 20 years now. Someone doesn’t show at the airport, harbor, or border station, federal investigators swing into action.

            6. Implement eVerify.

            Before you can punish people, you have to have the personnel to do it.


            Have lawful immigrants acquire incrementally the franchise to draw on common provision. Public defenders and legal aid lawyers might be available immediately, as might things you cannot be bothered to police, like seats on subsidized public transit. After a time, they’d earn privileges such as school vouchers and berths in state schools, a franchise to apply for public medical insurance, a franchise to apply for unemployment compensation, a franchise to apply for public l/t care insurance, &c. It would take about 12 years of living and working in the U.S. to be treated as a native in every realm.

          3. Then there is the new AZ sheriff who went in the other direction, what I’ll call “Going California”:


            The added tragedy for the victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is that they weren’t supposed to be there. The crime would have been prevented if they’d been deported, especially those who had a prior conviction. The lost opportunities to boot criminals out translate to real people being the victims of real crimes, not just abstract figures.

Comments are closed.