Op-Eds

Immigration Enforcement: Just as Bad for Americans as it is for Immigrants

4 Comments
English: ICE Special Agents (U.S. Immigration ...
English: ICE Special Agents (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) arresting suspects during a raid (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Oakland, California mayor Libby Schaaf prevented nearly 800 arrests by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in early March. That sounds like wishful thinking, but presumably Schaaf’s warning to the public of impending ICE sweeps helped at least some undocumented immigrants avoid the dragnet.

Mayor Schaaf is due our gratitude for her heroism. These ICE raids highlight one side of the case for for reining in (or better yet abolishing) ICE and its sister agencies, US Customs and Border Protection and the US Border patrol. That side is the human cost to immigrants: Workers yanked from factories and farms. Families torn asunder. People seeking better lives dying of dehydration in the wilderness because water caches are destroyed, or killed in crashes as they flee their would-be abductors.

Those are sound reasons for bringing these organizations to heel. But for many Americans, the issue is colored by a mistaken notion that such depredations are the price we pay for protection from … well, something.

Mistaken, yes, but sincerely held. So let’s look at things from the other side of the ledger: The costs “immigration enforcement” imposes on non-immigrants.

The budgets of CBP, Border Patrol and ICE combined top $20 billion per year — ballpark figure, $60 per American citizen, $240 per year for a family of four. That’s several “special occasion” family meals out, spent instead on having ICE drag off your favorite restaurant’s cooks and dishwashers.

Of course, every immigration enforcement “success” makes those meals more expensive even if you eat at home. Every immigrant captured, detained, deported, etc. raises your grocery bill and makes it more expensive to put a new roof on your house. It’s basic supply and demand. Economics 101: Artificially reducing labor supplies raises labor costs.

Why are we paying through the nose for the privilege of paying through the nose?

Then there’s the “Constitution-free zone,” the 100-mile perimeter around the United States in which most of the population lives and in which respect for constitutional protections is treated as, at best, optional. If a federal immigration enforcer doubts which side of the border you’re from, any pretense that America’s a free country goes right out the window.

If you’ve never been stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint or intercepted by immigration enforcers in the “Constitution-free zone,” just watch a movie set in Nazi Germany or the post-war Soviet bloc. That should give you a sense of the “are your papers in order?” vibe.

What do non-immigrants get out of ICE, Border Patrol and CBP? An expensive police state premised on the silly and evil idea that the peaceful movement of people across imaginary lines drawn by politicians ought to be,  or even can be, controlled.

The whole idea of “immigration enforcement” is bad for immigrants and natives alike. It violates the rights of both groups while damaging the American economy and making us all poorer. These agencies and their activities are a repudiation of America itself. Time to de-fund and eliminate them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

On Military Spending and Trade, Trump Puts Americans Last

Leave a comment
English: The Pentagon, looking northeast with ...
English: The Pentagon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

US president Donald Trump signed yet another massive government spending bill — $1.3 trillion — on March 23, after threatening a veto.

Why did he threaten a veto?

Because the bill doesn’t fund his cherished US-Mexico border wall idea, and because it doesn’t address the  Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that he’s threatened to end absent a “fix.”

Why did he sign it?

For the military spending. Because, he says, “for the last eight years, deep defense cuts have undermined our national security,” and we just can’t have that.

Deep cuts? In what universe?

In every year since 2010, the US has spent more than half again as much on its military as in 2003 — two years into the Afghanistan war and the year that it invaded Iraq.

Since 2010, the US has never spent as little on the military as it did in 2007, the year before Trump’s predecessor was elected.

The US Department of Defense’s 2017 base budget was a whopping 7/10ths of 1% lower than the 2010 budget, which was smaller than the 2011 and 2012 budgets. Total US military spending in 2017 was only 4% less than in 2010.

Not only is Trump wrong about what actually happened, he’s wrong about what the effect would have been if things had happened that way. There’s nothing wrong with the security of the United States that “deep cuts” in military spending wouldn’t make better.

The US armed forces are far too big, far too powerful, and far too expensive to bear any plausible relation to defense. The primary purpose of US military spending is not to defend the United States, but to continuously transfer as much wealth as possible from the pockets of working taxpayers to the bank accounts of large “defense” contractors.

It’s a giant welfare program. And nearly three decades of continuous war, starting with Desert Storm in 1991 and escalating after 9/11, are the excuse for keeping the welfare checks flowing.

If Trump was serious about national security, he’d veto any budget that didn’t include those non-existent “deep cuts” he’s complaining about. A 75% cut over 10 years would still leave the US the largest military spender on the planet, but likely much less inclined to disastrously intervene in other people’s arguments.

But we already knew Trump wasn’t serious about national security, didn’t we? His tariffs on steel and aluminum prove that. They, too, are welfare programs designed to benefit corporate welfare queens at the expense of American workers and consumers. And they flout the well-known law of history laid down by Otto T. Mallery:

“If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the Shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky.”

“America First!” Trump cries, while putting Americans last — and in ever-increasing danger.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Death Penalty for Drug Dealers? Be Careful What You Wish For, President Trump

1 Comment

RGBStock.com Vaccine Photo

In his first 2020 re-election campaign appearance in New Hampshire, US president Donald Trump addressed some of his typical bombast to the so-called “opioid crisis.” “If we don’t get tough on the drug dealers,” said Trump, “we’re wasting our time. That toughness includes the death penalty.”

An odd take, considering that one of Trump’s few worthwhile campaign promises was to leave the legal status of marijuana up to the states. That promise should have been kept, and extended to other drugs as well. Instead, he turned Jeff “good people don’t smoke marijuana” Sessions loose as Attorney General, to the country’s injury.

Even more odd, coming as it does from a high-level drug dealer like Donald Trump.

You know, the owner of Trump Winery. And, as of his 2016 campaign financial disclosures, a shareholder in multiple conspiracies to manufacture and traffic in drugs (including opiates) — to wit, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Then again, maybe it’s not so odd. As a major league drug dealer, perhaps Trump is taking his cue from the murderous cartels of Colombia and Mexico. Now that he has the entirety of federal law enforcement and the US armed forces at his beck and call, why not just kill his competitors? Pablo Trumpobar, anyone? El Trumpo?

Or perhaps the sentiment is genuine and he intends, as soon as he gets enabling legislation for the scheme,  to turn himself in, plead guilty, don  coveralls matching his complexion, and put in one of those legendary McDonald’s orders for his last meal.

Either way, it’s a monumentally stupid idea.

First of all, the War on Drugs is over and drugs won. Continuing to pretend otherwise is just a novel way of setting taxpayer money on fire, a featherbedding scheme for law enforcement. People who want drugs are going to get drugs whether drugs are legal or not. Trump doesn’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether he likes it or not.

Secondly, the main effect of imposing the death penalty for dealing in drugs would be an increase in the general level of mayhem and murder relating to the drug trade. If you’re a drug dealer and already up for the death penalty, why not go ahead and kill anyone who gets in your way — competitors, cops, accidental witnesses, customers you suspect of being informants, etc.? It’s not like they can execute you twice, right? It won’t take long for drug dealers who think that way to replace  (posthumously, of course) drug dealers who don’t.

That’s the pragmatic case against Trump’s proposal. The moral case is that both drug prohibition and capital punishment are irredeemably evil big-government crimes against humanity. Worse crimes, by far, than Trump’s own drug dealing activities.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY