Contrary to the bromides, immigrants cause less crime than natives.

How does this study account for “sanctuary” policies that reduce the number of laws that are enforced, the reduced presence of Law Enforcement in No-Go Zones (that are on video existing in America), and the court system in these cities that often refuses to sentence illegal immigrants for crimes.

How does this study separate immigrants who come legally through the process, and illegal immigrants who often live in areas with their own extra-judicial forms of justice and simply don’t call the police?

Immigration does not cause unemployment.

That is a strawman argument, of course it does not CAUSE unemployment.  But simple supply and demand, basic economics forces you to accept that it does drive wages down.  That Jeffrey makes this strawman is shameful.  Look at how big corporations use H1-B visas to hire immigrants at lower salaries than citizens.

Immigrants don’t consume more public benefits than natives; in fact, they use fewer.

Again, stacking the deck by including legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.  Legal immigrants, most who enter based upon merit, like H1-B, and others “most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer.”  Legally, immigrants should not be using any public benefits, and the legal immigrants don’t.


We have video documentation of welfare fraud where illegal immigrants are even coached on how to illegally collect public benefits, receiving earned income credit, and child tax credits, and stealing social security numbers to file false tax returns.


They don’t love liberty less: they poll in as more libertarian.

That may be how they poll, but that is certainly NOT how they vote.  Again, still lumping in legal immigrants with illegal….


Apparently, the facts don’t matter.

The truest thing you have said, now say it in the mirror.  Then stop using strawman arguments that no one is making, stop race baiting, and look at the statistics and evidence pursuant to the issue of illegal immigration.


Immigration restriction is a fundamental attack on the rights….

Yes, this is true.  But until the rights to my income and property are enforced and taxes drop to zero I have zero sympathy, and zero tolerance for my rights to be sacrificed to fund a non-free-market open-borders society.  You can have your open borders when I can have my income and property.


But here is the clarifying fact: the economic and cultural conditions that allow free migration between states within the U.S. are identical with regard to free migration between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. The only difference happens to be the government that issues citizenship documents.

Fallacy of oversimplification.  How much data do you need to see of the vast disparity in the “economic” conditions, would you like me to perform an ANOVA for you?  How many photos do you need to see the vast difference in “cultural” conditions between US and Mexico.  Changing states still keeps one liable for federal taxes, while changing countries does not, the 16th Amendment factors heavily into this.  Your claim is soundly falsified. 


Immigration policy has become an extension of national politics. Whoever wins gets to control the presidency.

Yes, and that is the problem.  Again, as I have said, you can have your open borders and your “right to migrate” the instant I have the right to my income and property.


Read Mr. Tucker’s article here: