President Obama Not Going to Border While Visiting Texas Could Be a "Katrina Moment," Says Dem Rep.

it's like summer camp if you had to walk hundreds of miles to get there, it were run by government and you weren't sure what was gonna happen at the endAmnestyPresident Obama has a trip planned for Texas this Wednesday and Thursday. He has several fundraisers scheduled as well as speech on economic policy and "at least one" event about the border while spending the two days in Austin and Dallas. Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) rejected an attempt by the Obama team to stage a hand shake photo-op on the tarmac when the president arrives in Austin and instead told the president he could meet him any time to have a "substantive meeting" to talk about border security. The White House said the president would meet with Perry. That meeting won't take place anywhere near the border though, which Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) told Fox News' Neil Cavuto he hoped wouldn't become Obama's "Katrina moment." Via Fox News:

I'm sure that President Bush thought the same thing, that he could just look at everything from up in the sky, and then he owned it after -- for a long time. So, I hope this doesn't become the Katrina moment for President Obama, saying that he doesn't need to come to border.

He should come down. Not only Governor Perry has asked him to come down, but I know my colleagues Filemon Vela and Ruben Hinojosa invited him to come down. And I certainly would ask him to come in, even though I still think he is still one step behind.

But he should come down to the border to see exactly what is happening.

More than 50,000 unaccompanied children have crossed the border illegally since October, three times as many as in 2011, mostly from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, as well as Mexico.  Some parents believe children who are able to cross the border would be permitted to stay, although by law the children are surrendered to the Department of Health and Human Services, who places them into foster homes while their immigration cases go through court, a legal process that takes years.

Neither are the Central American children legally permitted in Mexico. The United Nations is pressing both countries to treat the children as refugees of armed conflicts in order to grant them asylum, something neither country is doing at the moment. Mexico has tried to control its southern border with Guatemala, far smaller than the U.S. border with Mexico, strictly, not particularly offering any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Last year the U.S. and Mexico talked about U.S. funding for increased border security along the Mexican-Guatemalan border.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Nah. A Katrina moment requires both (a) a federally supervised humanitarian catastrophe and (b) a hostile press.

    Whether we have (a) or not, I couldn't say. But we damn sure don't have (b).

  • ||

    Only Obama could go to Texas.

  • Almanian!||

    +1 I'm Not A Crook

  • CE||

    Let 'em all in, I say. But I still can't figure out why the government says it needs another 3 or 4 billion to do what we're already paying them to do to guard the border.

  • waffles||

    Fuck you, pay me.

  • GILMORE||

    +1 Jimmy the Gent

  • Idle Hands||

    dude the Katrina thing was/is still the most ludicrous mountain of a mole hill I've seen. All though if this became a "Katrina" moment for Obama it will be far more retarded.

  • John||

    You are right about Katrina. But if it winds up being the case that the government ends up being responsible for the welfare of thousands of children being held in detention centers, this might be bigger than a mole hill.

  • Idle Hands||

    they won't be held there they are already being released.

  • John||

    Not as quickly as they are coming in. And releasing them just encourages more to come. The only way to stop it, is to send them back.

  • Idle Hands||

    but that would solve the problem John neither side wants to do that.

  • John||

    They will want to solve this problem. Trust me. The problem is thanks to the idiotic human trafficking act that they passed in 08, they can't just send them home. You can't use expedited removal for an unaccompanied minor, since they might be victims of human trafficking. No shit.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    they are already being released.

    To roam the streets? I doubt it. They are being released to someone. Who?

  • db||

    Just train 'em as shock troops for our inevitable return to combat in the Middle East.

  • Idle Hands||

    Also the difference here would be it could be argued that Obama's pandering and blustering about reform/dream act in some way increased the problem, George Bush is not responsible for natural disasters. So maybe it would be a little less retarded.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    George Bush is not responsible for natural disasters

    I see you've swallowed this outrageous teathuglican talking point. Take a quick trip to the Daily Kos and free your mind from the lies.

  • Drake||

    Not much question that he initiated the crisis. How he planned to exploit it in his small mind is an interesting question.

    Maybe he thought a big enough border mess would generate support for some kind of amnesty deal. Any moron could have told him it would backfire badly.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not much question that he initiated the crisis.

    Yeah, the Deporter in Chief planned this all along. This place can go full looney bin sometimes.

  • John||

    I think he initiated it by accident. They were not planning for this. He just talked out his ass and it happened.

  • Idle Hands||

    I think your giving way to much credit to this administration.

  • Drake||

    Well... this is very fishy. Somebody knew in January.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-.....ration.htm

  • MegaloMonocle||

    I have little doubt that the Administration greenlighted publicity and whatnot about the Dream executive order or whatever.

    And that they were hoping/planning for a mild influx of cute Hispanic kids for use as propaganda props.

    I don't think they expected this.

  • Almanian!||

    THOSE HURRICANES WERE A DIRECT RESULT OF BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!1! THE BLOOD OF THE DEAD IS STILL ON HIS EVUL HANDS1!!!1!1!

    /yes some believe this

  • Whahappan?||

    But Bush is responsible for the Democratic Mayor's and Governor's handling of Katrina.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If the FEDs are going to ask us to fund federal emergency relief (and they shouldn't) then they can't complain when it's pointed out they didn't save the day

  • Idle Hands||

    Then you would agree that if the Dems are pandering for immigration reform and raving about the dream act on spanish radio and telemundo they shouldn't be surprised if that is used in a twisted form of telephone tag that involves tens of thousands of child immigrants.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I doubt you'd endorse such attenuated responsibility in other matters. The people guilty for that mess are the parents.

  • Idle Hands||

    your absolutely right. However also you want the best for your kids and if you thought sending them to another country knowing you couldn't go either you would probably due the same.

  • Idle Hands||

    also I agree with the caveat being that the gov always handles natural disasters terribly, so its tough to blame any administration more than another in that dept because they all suck.

  • Hooha||

    Call me paranoid, but it reeks of a cagey liberal political maneuver, to me.

    They know that the Republicans can, have, and probably will self-destruct over this issue, so they need to bring it up over and over again, as much as possible. Even if that means opening themselves up for a little short-lived embarrassment.

    This non-issue is political bait, nothing more.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Sista Sarah says this is an impeachable offense:

    "His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.'" ......

    "It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment,"

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....67401.html

    Let's rachet the crazy up!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No mas? Good grief that woman is a troll.

  • ||

    Obama should be impeached and removed form office.

    The IRS was actively attacking groups and individuals based on their political beliefs.

    Obama was President and in charge of the IRS.

    Regardless if he know about or ordered it it is his responsibility.

    That said their is no way in hell anyone in government today would uphold that sort of standard on themselves or their peers.

    He should be impeached and removed from office...but the reality is there is no way in hell that would happen.

    Note: if Palin was actually in power she would not vote to impeach...and in no way rule under a standard where she is held responsible for what the government does under her. Also shrike is an idiot to think she is crazy or dumb. She said something controversial and got her name in the news and probably sold a shit load of books or whatever she is selling. Seems like a sane and smart thing to do in her shoes.

  • MJGreen||

    Screw all that.

    He authorized the killing of an American citizen without due process.

    He engaged US forces in an attack on a sovereign nation without Congressional authority.

    These two qualify as crossing the Rubicon for me. When the President can't even abide by the Magna Carta, he is an enemy of modern Western civilization as we know it.

  • ||

    yeah those as well.

    Also no way in hell anyone in power would require on their peers that kind of standard for impeachment and removal....therefore there will be no impeachment.

  • creech||

    Isn't Sarah Palin the chick that Sen. John McCain found "outstanding" just as, it's been pointed out, he finds
    Hillary's work as secState "outstanding." So McCain can only be believed when he says something nice about someone on your team?

  • Almanian!||

    Let's rachet the crazy up!

    Don't look 'em in the eyes...

  • Swiss Servator, Alles Klar||

    Is he yelling for cake again?

  • ||

    Katrina was a fabrication of the media to get at Bush. Everything that happened was either failed local government or failures of long standing failures of the army corp of engineers.

    Obama will not be touched as no one in the media wants to harm Obama in any way.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Don't you think this "border crisis" is just a planned distraction to get the focus off Benghazi?

  • WTF||

    Don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

  • ||

    I want open boarders...so i don't give a shit really.

    That said in the crazy "government must solve everything and save everyone" humanitarian aid crowd the "border crisis" is as big as Katrina (another thing I don't give a shit about) and Obama is "failing" as much as Bush ever did with Katrina.

  • PapayaSF||

    Corning, how anyone can look at the current border mess and still think open borders are a good idea is beyond me.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Hey Weigel.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Corning, were the House Republicans in on that?

    http://www.npr.org/documents/2.....ummary.pdf

  • ||

    In hurricane ally the US government put up a wall against the fucking ocean, drained it with pumps located below sea level, built a city with subsidies in the resulting hole, filled it full of welfare recipients and those welfare recipients elected a state and local government that can at best be described as kleptocracy.

    And the only thing standing in the way is FEMA which the only power it is capable of is writing checks and can only do that after congress give the go ahead.

    yeah not Bush's fault.

  • jmomls||

    *full of welfare recipients and those welfare recipients elected a state and local government that can at best be described as kleptocracy.*

    Don't forget the stupid drunks they would show on TV every year during hurricane approaches in N'awlins saying 'I ain't leavin'...ain't never been no damage here no how'...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, I'm doubting the House GOP called out Bush's failures because of that. Sure, there were a lot of things going wrong there and then, but FEMA and the feds performed badly. Bush himself admitted this.

  • ||

    FEMA and the feds performed badly.

    You are a drooling idiot bo.

    All the feds have ever done during a natural disasters is write checks to state and local government.

    In every single disaster before Katrina that is exactly what it did. That is how they are set up that is how the laws that govern them are written, that is how local and state governments draw up their disaster relief plans and that is how it has always been done.

    The state and local government had zero plans or services in place to handle it therefore the checks (the money) the feds wrote went to nothing because there was nothing in place to begin with to handle the disaster.

    The only way Bush could be at fault is if he was some sort of unicorn wizard who not only foresaw a complete collapse of local government but had then completely redesigned how Federal disaster relief works and then hired and trained a force of 1000s of federal relief workers (and an agency to contain them) and set up plans for the new Orleans years before the disaster took place and therefore would have had to foresee it years before it occurred. Which of course if he foresaw it he would have simply had the pumps rebuilt above sea level and prevented the whole damn thing in the first place.

  • ||

    Note: generators not pumps above sea level.

    Obviously water pumps are made to work while underwater.

  • Almanian!||

    Oh sure, Ed! And I suppose the US has to play mom to anyone who comes into this country no matter what. Your pie in the sky, all or nothing take on this is typical. Just like the Neocons. You deserve each other!

    /rant reset from another thread

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    It's a competition to see who can push the most of John's red buttons the fastest.

    Quick, Ed, some ass-sex before he cools down!

  • Swiss Servator, Alles Klar||

    You left out "weed"!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Well, this seems as good a time as any to point out that precisely this scenario is what we are constantly told is a nightmare scenario on the part of right-wingers which would never be remotely plausible in an open borders situation. Is this really the hill that libertarians want to die on -- and if so, do they have an idea of what what we should do with the current 50,000 child migrants?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I don't know many libertarian open border supporters who think unaccompanied children should immigrate ( or do any traveling of substance for that matter).

  • NoVAHockey||

    Free Range kids!

  • John||

    If they can't, then is the border really open? If we have any rules, then we are right back to enforcing them.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But for the current restrictions their parents would have come too. This is a problem at restrictionists feet, not immigration supporters

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    So that the parents of the kids (neither of whom can support themselves in either their country or ours) will add to our welfare burden. That's what the Grand Libertarian Bo-dhisattva's plan is? Wow.

    Hey, I have an idea: why not just let some or most of the adults migrate, work, and send money to the kids at home like they did during the Ellis Island period? That way, we don't get saddled with the kiddies' welfare costs and get the people who were actually invited by Americans to improve their country?

    Just a thought.

  • ||

    That is also what migrants tended to do prior to recent crackdowns on the border. The only reason most illegal immigrants bring their families today is that they cannot reliably enter and exit the US at will for a few seasons or a few years and send the proceeds back home where it is cheaper for their families to live.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Another part of it was that in the Ellis Island period, it was prohibitively expensive to import wifey + kids, and that under the Bracero program wife + kids weren't allowed to immigrate with the worker. While I agree in part with what you're saying, it's probable that immigrants today would want to bring their families in much larger proportions than previous immigrants, and that the public cost would consequently be much higher.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The only reason most illegal immigrants bring their families today is that they cannot reliably enter and exit the US at will for a few seasons or a few years and send the proceeds back home where it is cheaper for their families to live.

    Right. That's why so few Puerto Rican families moved permanently to the US.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why do you assume their parents could not support themselves here?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Because if they are here legally, they have to ply their wares in a market with the current regulations and government in place -- regulations which make it very difficult to hire Central America-cheap labor, house the laborers in Central America-cheap housing, live in communities with Central America-cheap policing, etc. They tend to be marginally employed in Central America and paid bottom-floor wages, and would be paid the same here. To support a Central America-sized family would be difficult in our economy. To do so in a way that would not be considered "degrading" by Americans would be impossible.

    They will also find, much as other low-income communities in the US regardless of ethnicity, that welfare pays better than work as far as hours spent and so forth. Where they can get it, they will as would any rational economic actor.

    Could their parents support themselves here independent of family obligations? Probably/possibly, but not if they are also required to pay the full cost of having their children in our country, using the many resources available to children (e.g., public schools).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This nations history is replete with immigrant families doing exactly what you predict they could and can not.

    Didn't your family immigrate somewhat recently? How did they make it?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Didn't your family immigrate somewhat recently? How did they make it?


    Depends on what you mean by "my family".

    Immediate family: joined the military, got a degree. Haven't lived in the continental US too long (~4-5 years out of my military career and then Tucson/Phoenix), but by the time I was I had a graduate degree in an eminently employable field, had a functional understanding of US language/culture, and an affinity with US Constitutional values and limited govt. Never been on welfare and none of my children will be either, from the looks of it.

    About half my siblings have a similar story. One is a successful realtor in Georgia, a sister works as a professor in Penn U. The others who moved here from PR are on welfare or completely unemployable cases. (One, for example, is the very stereotype of the failed artist.) All of us migrated before having families, and it's very easy to find large, welfare-addicted families in NYC or any center of large-scale PR migration in modern times. I predict that with open borders and no other changes to our domestic policy, most poorer immigrant groups would look very much like the domestic PR community. Sadly, that is not a compliment and I don't appreciate the government's role in making PR immigrants a community of indolents.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    - math
    - statistics
    - history
    - wife has a bunch of social worker friends with stories that make the most dysfunctional trailer trash sound like the Cleavers

  • PapayaSF||

    Why do you assume their parents could not support themselves here?

    Lots of real-world evidence?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't know many libertarian open border supporters who think unaccompanied children should immigrate


    I'm not sure if I've seen that explicitly stated by many open borders advocates, and if the borders are not secured nor a person's entrance in this country prohibited (i.e., the much-derided "wide gate, tall fences" solution), I don't see how children could be restricted from entering the country (or made to leave it) in the preferred open borders regime.

    Who else don't "open borders" folks want in the country? This might be fun...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Major Derp, wanting open borders does not mean unaccompanied kids being sent over

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It does in practice, you idiot. Do you seriously not understand how this is a logical consequence of having an open borders policy (i.e., no immigration law or enforcement)?

  • ||

    Open borders does not mean no immigration law or enforcement: It means no quotas and no abrogation of free migration without compelling reason applied and proven individually.

    So, no, open borders advocates don't want unaccompanied minors. A minor should not be able to get a visa without a parent, just as a minor cannot do a lot of other things without a parent.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    How will you enforce this law if you do not ask for documentation or secure the border in a meaningful sense? Do open borders advocates agree with kicking out unaccompanied minors who have come with their parents' consent, as in this case? From what I hear tell by the open borders folks, there is no way to secure the border, our enforcement efforts are in vain, and we should grant amnesty because immigrants haven't hurt anybody. If you agree, then how can you support deporting immigrant minors and how would you enforce this policy in a manner different from the current regime or what has been suggested by those on the right (both of whom are often critiqued by open borders advocates)?

  • ||

    From what I hear tell by the open borders folks, there is no way to secure the border, our enforcement efforts are in vain, and we should grant amnesty because immigrants haven't hurt anybody.

    This is all true.

    Nonetheless, if entry is easy then the government does not need to secure the border, enforcement efforts can focus on actual threats, and amnesty is simply the recognition that resident illegal aliens should have had easy entry before.

    I would support deporting immigrant minors -- i.e., denying them visas -- who neither had their parents' permission to enter nor had apparent means to be taken care of.

    Once the state actually allows free people to behave freely, it doesn't take rocket science to resolve perceived problems.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    It means no quotas and no abrogation of free migration without compelling reason

    An open door, if you will, for restrictions

    applied and proven individually.

    Exactly this requirement under the human trafficking laws is why we can't deport the kiddos en masse and put a stop to this.

    You can either have controlled immigration with rules, regs, bureaucracy, and enforcement agencies, or you can have a (wide-) open border. Make your choice. But don't call a controlled border an open border.

  • ||

    An open door, if you will, for restrictions

    Yes. The government can always claim lots of things are in the public's compelling interest. That goes for immigration as well as virtually everything else. But if it (a) isn't a quota and (b) must be individually applied in each specific case, it's at least a suitably oppressive burden on the state.

    But don't call a controlled border an open border.

    Accepting 98% (the acceptance rate for third class passengers at Ellis Island) rather than rejecting 99% (5,000 unlimited entry visas with a high of 500,000 illegal immigrants) is open borders in my book.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, nearly all libertarians supporting immigration rights I can think of support some restrictions for those with certain diseases, national security threats or something like unaccompanied minors.

    I assume everyone here is OK with unrestricted movement between states here in the US, but I'm betting we'd all still oppose people attaching a note to their kids shirt and sneaking them onto a train to California.

  • PapayaSF||

    Again, nearly all libertarians supporting immigration rights I can think of support some restrictions for those with certain diseases, national security threats or something like unaccompanied minors.

    Which means controlled borders. Which means a fence or equivalent, and deportation of those considered undesirable... all of which I've seen argued against here by advocates of open borders.

  • ||

    all of which I've seen argued against here by advocates of open borders.

    Citation needed.

    When advocates of open borders argue against deportation, they are arguing against deportation of harmless people.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    A minor should not be able to get a visa without a parent,

    You can require visas, or you can have open borders. You can't have both.

  • ||

    The practical effect of open borders is nothing more than an elimination of quotas.

    Visas under open borders would be unlimited in number, duration, or allowance to travel, reside, and be employed.

    But they would be issued.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Why issue a visa at all if there are no restrictions or requirements?

  • ||

    You can require visas, or you can have open borders. You can't have both.

    By the way, I'm trying to meet advocates of immigration restrictions halfway in suggesting that noncitizens in the country should be identified by visa. It seems a small price to pay for a lot of security benefit for the population. Nonetheless, I probably could be convinced it wasn't necessary if you wanted to try.

    But if you don't know what "open borders" means, please stop acting like you do.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    What you're describing isn't open borders.

    Its "high fence, wide gate".

    I'm just looking for a little accuracy in labeling, here.

  • ||

    I don't care if you call it Beatrice.

    It's the policy I'm interested in, not the name. If it's so interesting to you, I presume you are supporter too.

    Let's agree on the term "quotaless immigration" and move forward.

  • ||

    And it's not "high fence, wide gate": it's "no fence, wide gate".

    Being found in the country having not gone through the wide gate is prima facie evidence that you are trying to avoid a reasonable background check and may therefore be a threat. Hence the visas.

  • Almanian!||

    Uncle Pervy's all for unaccompanied children migrating. Right into his van.

  • creech||

    Good question. The monocle factories don't need any more workers now that 3-D printed monocles are available.

  • GILMORE||

    Hold on there. I like my monocles *hand polished*. and little hands do the best work. Also, they eat less!

  • Swiss Servator, Alles Klar||

    But the monocle ore mines can still use replacements for all the orphan miners that perished due to the utter lack of safety equipment, yes?

    *adjusts top hat*

  • Agammamon||

    Its a win-win for us.

    With more minors mining, that's more competition for jobs - means we can get away with less compensation, *including* a reduction in expenses on safety measures.

  • kilroy||

    I hear Guantanamo is still open.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    As an aside, best idea I've heard for what we should do with Guantanamo is to turn it into the Hong Kong of the West.

  • ||

    That's the best idea for what we should do with pretty much any place.

  • Swiss Servator, Alles Klar||

    They could do a reverse Mariel boatlift into Cuba?!

    Somewhere Jimmy Carter just shivered uncontrollably.

  • Almanian!||

    This is pretty much the most-awesome idea EVAR.

    I'm in - Almanian's Cuban Cigaros, Cervesas, Dancing Girls and Cocaine.

    Cause drugs would be legal, too, right? No? Well....shit.

  • ||

    Could Bacardi go back?

  • Rhywun||

    The United Nations is pressing both countries to treat the children as refugees of armed conflicts

    Which "conflict" are they referring to...?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Drug war related violence? That would be rich considering the UN supports the drug war

  • PBR Streetgang||

    The War on Drugs?

  • GILMORE||

    GERMANY GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLL

  • Acosmist||

    Mexico has controlled its southern border - it sends them all up here and out of their hair. Mexico certainly isn't an insane open borders country like the US.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, no. That's not what happens. Mexico is poor relative to the US but well-off compared to *their* southern neighbors. Tons of Central/South Americans sneak across their border.

    Also, regarding difficulty of securing the border, Mexico's southern border is a tiny fraction the length of ours.

  • Acosmist||

    ...which is, holy shit, exactly what I said. Reading comprehension FAIL

    " it sends them all up here and out of their hair"

    What you've just said...

  • db||

    Maybe we need the UK to come in and partition the American Southwest. Worked in the Levant, right?

  • ||

    It only works if France is involved too.

  • Agammamon||

    But he should come down to the border to see exactly what is happening.

    What, exactly, is he expected to see?

    I live just a few miles from the border in AZ and I can tell you that if you walk down to the border with Mexico you're going to see a whole lot of nothing.

    Do these people think that the illegals are walking hand-in-hand in a chain stretching for miles or something? No, they *sneak* across under the cover of darkness.

    Or do you really mean he should go to one of the detainment camps? In which case

    a) Don't need to go to the border for that
    b) What's to stop someone from fiddling the placement of detainees to highlight over or undercrowding? Nice, low population detainment center with clean sheets means there's no problem or one where everyone is hot-bunking and open sewage flows through the yard means there's a major disaster?

  • Hawk Spitui||

    How to solve the crises:
    1. Gather the illegals back at the border.
    2. Shove M-80's up their asses.
    3. Light the fuses of the M-80's.
    4. Drop kick the illegal back over the border.
    5. Repeat until supply of illegals is exhausted.

    Problem solved.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Tell me how this:

    by law the children are surrendered to the Department of Health and Human Services, who places them into foster homes while their immigration cases go through court, a legal process that takes years.

    Won't be taken by Guatemalans, etc. as being proof that, yes, once their kids cross the border, then can stay? They're moved into American family homes, where they will stay for years.

    To me, that sounds like a 100% success for the people shipping their kids to the US.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement