Immigration

Obama's Immigration Legacy: 46,000 Parents of U.S. Citizens Deported; 5,100 Kids Ripped From Their Families and Put in Foster Care

|

America has too many dads, apparently

"We're taking them where we take all the kids," an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer told Clara, an undocumented worker living in New Mexico, as he took away her 6- and 1-year-old little girls after a joint raid with the Drug Enforcement Agency turned up nothing in their trailer. Nothing, that is, except Clara and her sister's undocumented statuses. The two women asked if their children could stay with family or friends. The agents said no. Clara and her sister were transported first to a jail, then to an immigrant detention center, and eventually deported to Mexico. Their children were placed in foster care. 

This is just one story of many from a startling new report issued by the Applied Research Center, which found that 46,000 parents of children born in the U.S. have been deported in the last six months, with many of them forced to leave their kids behind. Another 5,100 children of undocumented workers, an estimate that the ARC says is conservative, are currently in foster care and unlikely to see their deported parents again: 

The data on parental deportations does not reveal how many children each of these parents had, or whether their children remained in the U.S. or left with their mothers and fathers. However, the Applied Research Center has also found a disturbing number of children languishing in foster care and separated from their parents for long periods. After a year-long national investigation, we estimate there are at least 5,100 children in foster care who face barriers to family reunification because their mother or father is detained or deported. That number could reach as high as 15,000 in the next five years, at the current rate of growth.

The rising number of parental deportations has corresponded with an overall increase in immigration enforcement under the Obama administration; in fiscal year 2011, a record 397,000 people were deported. Yet parental deportation has also increased as a proportion of all removals. Between 1998 and 2007, the last period for which similar data is available, approximately 8 percent of almost 2.2 million removals were parents of U.S.-citizen children. The new data, released to the Applied Research Center in September, reveals that more than 22 percent of all people deported in the first half of this year were parents of citizen kids. 

If rates of parental deportation remain steady in the year to come, the country will remove about as many parents in just two years as it did in the ten-year period ICE tracked previously. The number of children of non-citizens placed in the U.S. child welfare system will no doubt shoot up as well. Already, according to our research, one in 16 kids in Los Angeles' child welfare system are the children of detained or deported parents. Certain jurisdictions on the U.S.-Mexico border and at least one Florida county included in our field research had even higher rates.

ARC has another report coming out next week, which I'll post when I read it. More Reason on immigration

NEXT: Underemployed Puppeteer Joins Occupy Wall Street

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.

  1. Nice work. You’re only doing your job, though, right? Just cogs in the machine.

  2. Good. Our first catch of the day.

  3. The alt-text is broken.

    1. Working now. Not bad.

  4. Fucking disgusting.

  5. While I’m a staunch defender of the authority of the federal govt to control border crossing, this is awful. They should let the parents take the kids back to Mexico and the (US citizen) kids can come back to the US when they’re 18.

    We don’t prohibit US citizens from taking their US citizen kids with them to foreign countries, so it’s not like the feds have the right to ensure that US citizen minors stay in the US at all times.

    1. Agreed on both counts.

    2. “They should let the parents take the kids back to Mexico and the (US citizen) kids can come back to the US when they’re 18.”

      Still horseshit. You’re basically saying citizens can not have a normal life in their own country, because their life sort of revolves around someone else while they are “minors”.

      1. US citizens can take their kids off to live in Zimbabwe for their first 18 years if they wish. We don’t force parents to keep their citizen kids in the US as a general principle, we (apparently) only do it in cases where the parents aren’t US citizens.

      2. “You’re basically saying citizens can not have a normal life in their own country, because their life sort of revolves around someone else while they are ‘minors’.” Explain to me how that’s not on objectively true statement.

  6. Hope…and change.

    1. Save your tears for legal citizens, Comrade One-World.

      1. The kids are legal citizens.

        Also, the parents are human beings, something you may not have realized.

        1. I don’t think NAZIs think mexicans are humans.

        2. Also, the parents are human beings

          Irrelevant to the question of their legality. Murderers are human, too.

          Bums are human also, and you were against people feeding them in a park a few months ago. So why do you care more for poor illegals than you do poor citizens?

          1. Are racist scum like you human, Slappy?

            1. Ah “racist!”, the battle-cry of socialists and cultural relativists everywhere.

              1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              2. I can think of no legitamte libertarian principle that supports the forcible control of goods and services of businesses. No libertarian principle that demands federal action to insure a specific type of domestic commodity recieve favor. So, while I may not agree, racism is a logical deduction simply by process of elimination.

                1. So anything that you don’t consider a libertarian principle is racist?

                  In any case, libertarianism ends at the border (for us minarchists at least). Minarchism assumes the presence of an overarching force monopoly, so phenomena that occur outside the penumbra of such a force monopoly are not subject to the NAP.

                  1. Tulpa, reading comprehension is important.

                    So, while I may not agree, racism is a logical deduction

                    And again, I see no minarchist principle telling a business or individual, with threat of violance, where they must peacefully obtain goods and services.

                    1. If I want to contract with a pizza parlor to deliver pizza to my house in 5 minutes, I can’t complain that the county is violating my freedom to contract when it turns out to be illegal to do so because the delivery guy would have to go over the speed limit on the intervening streets.

                      Likewise, no one is stopping you from signing a contract with a Mexican worker. The govt has no obligation to change unrelated laws to make fulfillment of your contract easier.

                    2. So you are in agreement with trade barriers and embargos…thanks for the clarification.

                2. Property rights? Freedom of association?

                  I believe there is a natural, negative right to emigrate. If I leave a country, I am asking for nothing, except to be left alone. Immigration, on the other hand, seems like a positive right. I have to go somewhere that I do not own. This being the case, I have to be accepted where I wish to go. The right to freely associate also includes the right to exclude others, doesn’t it?

                  I am not a member of the body politic of Mexico or Canada. Do they get to decide who joins? Free association and all that? Is it unlibertarian to disallow convicted violent felons to immigrate?

                  I am not saying at all that immigration is bad. I remain personally undecided if I think that there should be restrictions on immigration or not, but I am completely unconvinced, so far, that there is a natural, negative right to emigrate.

                  Would Seasteaders be forced to accept anyone who wished to immigrate because of their natural rights?

                  Obviously, if you don’t believe in borders these points are moot. Are borders Libertarian?

                  1. I have to go somewhere that I do not own. This being the case, I have to be accepted where I wish to go.

                    Indeed. It would behoove you to buy property where you are going or rent from someone willing rather than try squatting where you are not wanted.

                    The right to freely associate also includes the right to exclude others, doesn’t it?

                    Certainly does. But it doesn’t include the right to tell your neighbor who he can associate with.

                    Would Seasteaders be forced to accept anyone who wished to immigrate because of their natural rights?

                    So long as they could afford their upkeep in such a resource-constrained place, yes. Again, given that seasteaders would have virtually no unowned land, an immigrant would need to buy some or rent some from a willing party.

                    Of course the seasteaders could collude to form a united front against newcomers. This is reasonably possible in a small seasteading prototype, but would be unlikely in a larger seastead. And it’s beyond ludicrous in the United States.

                  2. Are borders Libertarian?

                    They are libertarian to the extent that they restrain less libertarian governments’ sovereignties outside them.

                    But they are illibertarian to the extent that they are used to violate the rights of individuals.

              3. Ah “racist!”, the battle-cry of socialists and cultural relativists everywhere.

                Except for the parts your plagiarized from Africa, I don’t see anything “objectively superior” about your “culture” you inbred honky.

                1. Just every thing about it. Or would you prefer to live in a Non Western Hellhole?

                  If you can’t see that Western Civilization is objectively superior to every other culture on earth, you have a problem.

                2. Lets look at a chart with color-coding indicating average per-capita income and national GDP.

                  Then lets see how those colors compare between Africa, and Europe (and nations with European cultural heritage).

                  Will that be objective enough for you?

                  1. Color coding? Sounds like whistle words to me.

                  2. Just objective enough to show that your kind are the parasites of the world, feeding off the land, resources, and blood of the Sun People, you piece of shit, redneck hillbilly trash.

                    1. Hey buddy, we all hate Slappy, but lets not devolve to his level and lob accusations against entire races.

                    2. Check out CtI’s weblink….he’s a Farrakhan Black Muslim-type. Watching him/her? and Slappy go at it is like watching matter and anti-matter collide.

                      Though, I suspect, in the end, they’ll just agree to hate the Jews.

                    3. Though, I suspect, in the end, they’ll just agree to hate the Jews.

                      +1

                    4. Maybe you should have been advanced enough to STOP us from taking advantage of all those people for so many centuries.

                      You can’t say “Africa has been held back because of European rule” without explaining how Europe came to rule it in the first place. Somebody had to kick somebody’s ass at some point in an initial encounter.

                    5. Wow. So I assume that you’ll be greeting our new Chinese overlords with open arms, because might makes right and all that?

                    6. Well, the Chinese are probably going to be our overlords because they aren’t plagued with “diversity”, and they’re damn clever too. It’s not so much “might makes right”, as “might makes it possible to get rid of people who don’t like what you’re doing”. Which is pretty much how it’s always been, and always will be, no matter how much it makes libertarians cry.

                    7. Hey, you smelly fucking negroid, how ya’ doin’? Get bored chucking spears, and decided to use a computer developed by those evul white people to talk about how much white people suck?

                    8. *Response to CtI

          2. Feeding bums in a park != allowing parents to keep their children

            I never said that bums should have their children taken away.

        3. The parents can come visit the kids in America as soon as they have the proper papers.

      2. Look everybody! Its Reason’s resident white nationalist! Hey Slappy! How the hell ya doin’? Anything new with your fight to maintain white culture and purity?

          1. That. Was… interesting.

          2. My worst nightmare is your fondest dream: a flood of poor, barely-educated illegals coming in and demanding massive increases to welfare, food stamps, unemployment payments, medicaid, and bilingual education at taxpayer expense. Yep, sounds like libertarian paradise, if you ask the folks around here.

            1. Wouldn’t it be easier to get rid of welfare than to prevent people from crossing the border?

            2. a flood of poor, barely-educated illegals coming in and demanding massive increases to welfare, food stamps, unemployment payments, medicaid, and bilingual education at taxpayer expense.

              You shouldn’t talk about the Irish like that, you know.

            3. Yea, THAT’S what libertarians want.

              Barf.

              1. People advocate for that all the time on this website. That is what open borders are. If you advocate for open borders, then you are declaring your desire to have exactly what I wrote above.

                They will vote to keep the welfare state. So get it out of your head that the welfare state is going anywhere if you let them in.

                1. “People advocate for that all the time on this website.”

                  Do they? You must be reading the comments through white nationalist tinted glasses.

                  Also, the welfare state wasn’t built and isn’t sustained because of teh immigrantz. It was built and continues to be supported by whites who have traditionally held power and the overwhelmingly white population that continues to vote them in.

                2. If you advocate for open borders, then you are declaring your desire to have exactly what I wrote above.

                  They will vote to keep the welfare state. So get it out of your head that the welfare state is going anywhere if you let them in.

                  What about those of us who advocate for no borders and no state of any kind, welfare or not?

                  1. To pick hairs, property lines are borders, no?

                    1. To pick hairs, property lines are borders, no?

                      True. I should have specified “arbitrary borders drawn up by arbitrary collective entities.”

                      For example, I have no problem if an individual, say Slappy, says “No [Insert Ethnic Slur Here] allowed on my property!” That is, real estate, in both the original and inherited meaning of the words, owned by a real person.

                    2. Gotcha.
                      No borders sounds so Van Jonesy.

                  2. What about those of us who advocate for no borders and no state of any kind, welfare or not?

                    You agree with White Indian?

                    1. You agree with White Indian?

                      In that we both follow a flavor of anarchism, yes. However, I don’t see anything wrong with settling down on farmland and plowing a few acres, if you’re willing to put the work into it.

                    2. Same here. I, and probably HM as well, believe in private property. Just not an overarching monopoly of force on how you can use your property, aka the state.

                      WI doesn’t seem to believe in the concept of property.

                    3. Ok, sorry about the White Indian remark. “It” is a piece of shit and my comment was inappropriate. My apologies.

                      It helps if you know with who you are arguing. Libertarians believe in law and the State, I thought. There is no point on discussing the appropriate powers of Law or the (Libertarians believe inevitable) State with those who don’t believe in them in the first place. Unless you have previous knowledge of the poster you might be discussing very different issues. How much Law is a very different question from IF there should be any Law.

      3. Save your tears for legal citizens

        I agree, which is why you need to get your white ass back to Europe, you pencil-dicked peckerwood.

        1. “peckerwood” nice throwback term…let me try
          “cum bubble”

        2. Ok, It should be obvious with talk like that that you are from the Obama reelection squad. Another term will allow him to continue slaughtering innocent Africans…..

          1. could Obama be invading Africa to prepare for some kind of grand homecoming scheme? you must be nuts.

  7. I don’t understand why the children can’t go back with the parents???

    1. The feds would probably argue that that would constitute deportation of US citizens, which is illegal.

      1. Something is missing from this story… I don’t know how anyone could stop parents from taking their children with them…. is it because they don’t WANT to take them with them? The beginning of the story talks about the women wanting to leave the kids with friends….

        1. I don’t know how anyone could stop parents from taking their children with them

          You’d be surprised at the amazing things that are accomplishable with guns and badges.

          1. I have this vision of some kid getting forcibly deported to be with his daddy a while back.

            1. That picture still makes my blood boil. One of Reno’s jackbooted thugs, with his fucking pig finger on the fucking trigger of an MP5 pointed at a crying child, sending him back to Cuba.

        2. Sending them to live with known, trusted people might sound better to them than leaving it to the government to Decide What Is Best For Them ™. And keeping them in the U.S. might be better than having them grow up in the shithole that is Mexico. Really, the feds are offering no good solutions.

      2. The feds would probably argue that that would constitute deportation of US citizens, which is illegal.

        But they aren’t being deported. They are going back to the Olde Country with their parents.

        As long as its optional whether they stay or go, it ain’t deportation.

        Plus, this makes me incandescent with rage.

        1. I’m sorry, incandescence has been banned.

        2. It’s not their Olde Country if they were born in the US. And we’re mostly talking about toddlers and below here, so it’s not like they’re competent to choose whether to stay or go.

          but on the larger point I agree. The kids should go with the parents and have the option of coming back when they are adults.

          1. we’re mostly talking about toddlers and below here

            ????

    2. What happened to “anchor babies”?

      1. Tying babies to anchors and dropping them into the depths of the ocean is a disgusting and barbaric practice, regardless of how fun it is.

        1. Tying babies to anchors and dropping them into the depths of the ocean is a disgusting and barbaric practice, regardless of how fun it is.

          What if they are baby, mass murderers?

      2. Re: rsi,

        What happened to “anchor babies”?

        That is a myth created by conservatives. You have to be 21 in order to petition for your siblings and parents, and depending on which, the process can take from 2 to 16 years.

        1. Anchor babies enable the family to receive social welfare benefits beyond WIC. Technically the little US citizen is the only one getting them but he isn’t dexterous enough to swipe the EBT card all by himself.

  8. When precisely again did libertarians become a bunch of one-world, culturally relativist hippies?

    1. This isn’t even about immigration. This is about breaking up families.

    2. When, precisely, did you give up on trying to form at least minimally-cogent arguments?

      1. He tried once? Are you sure?

    3. Did your ancestors get their passports stamped by the Indians when they landed here, you sister-fucking cretin?

      1. No, mine brought guns and took it from the ignorant savages and then built a nation.

        1. Fuckin’ classy.

      2. Hmmmm did the Native Americans (in any wave, because there was more than one) get their passports stamped?

        1. No, they just passed us by and killed a lot of us for food.

        2. I got here and they got here….

          1. No, I got here and they got here….

            1. No….

      3. Are you a product of the State-Run Mandatory School System?

      4. No, we fought them for the land, and won. Whereas the Mexicans are just coming here, having a bunch of kids, and getting welfare for them, paid for by white taxpayers. God, I fucking love the government.

    4. Re: Slap The Enlightened,

      When precisely again did libertarians become a bunch of one-world, culturally relativist hippies?

      When precisely again did it become any of your fucking business (or the government’s) who employers decide to employ? It’s THEIR money, not yours.

      When precisely did it become the business of the government to purge at bayonet point people that are productive and have otherwise not victimized anybody? And Christians, at that?

      Because bomb-throwing Afghanis and Iraquis, if you can speak English: It’s a new visa! Come on down!

      1. What does being christian have to do with anything? So now you’re against granting visas to “bomb-throwing” Afghanis and Iraqis (no stereotypes there!), but not to christians?

        1. Re: anon,

          What does being christian have to do with anything? So now you’re against granting visas to “bomb-throwing” Afghanis and Iraqis (no stereotypes there!), but not to christians?

          I’m trying to make a point here!

          Ok, just kidding. The point is that the xenophobic are so keen on deporting Mexicans and other Latin Americans, when they know jack-shit about how the immigration process works – as I mentioned, it seems hypocritical to want to expel Christian immigrants and yet accept the “hated” Muslims with open arms.

          1. I’d think the xenophobic would reject all immigrants. Plenty of them are worried about “sharia” in the US and don’t want any muslims.

            1. Re: anon,

              Plenty of them are worried about “sharia” in the US and don’t want any muslims.

              That’s not reflected in US Immigration policy. If you’re an Afghani or an Iraqi who speaks English, you can get a visa to migrate into the US. Mexicans have either to go through an incredibly expesive or lengthy process, or cross the border illegally, English proficiency notwithstanding.

              1. Interesting. I wonder how many republican voters know about that.

              2. That’s 1/2 true, OM. I assume you’re talking about the Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) for Iraqi and Afghan Translators/Interpreters, which is intended to allow Afgani and Iraqi interpreters who worked for the U.S. Armed Forces to immigrate to the U.S. And if you read the weblink, you’ll notice there is a limit to the amount of visas issued per year.

                It’s no different than the visas we gave to those Hmong who helped the CIA during the Secret War in Laos.

                1. Next: Torino Akbar?

                2. So that’s how my Marine Iraqi coworker got to the US.

                  For the record, evidently Iraq is such a terrible place that a man with a PhD in chemical engineering decided to work as an interpreter for the Marines so that he would have a chance to come to the US.

  9. just more anger more fuel

  10. It should have been very clear to everyone from the very beginning that Obama hates illegal immigrants.

    From the stimulus package hoodwink–that was nothing more than a bailout for state union employees–to the use of TARP to bailout the UAW, Obama has been marching to the unions’ drumbeat all along.

    Unions have been extremely hostile to illegal immigrants for decades. The whole strategy of a union is as a means to monopolize labor access to an industry–and illegal immigrants are nothing but a threat to union monopolies.

    The unions have been hating on illegal immigrants for decades.

    In 1969, Ch?vez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers’ use of undocumented immigrants as strikebreakers….In its early years, Ch?vez and the UFW went so far as to report undocumented immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers, as well as those who refused to unionize, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[21][22][23][24][25]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C?sar_Ch?vez#Immigration

    This is just another example of Obama being all about representing the unions again. And anybody who’s shocked at Progressives using the coercive power of the state to hurt individuals who get in the way of their agenda should wake up already.

    1. Re:Ken Shultz,

      And also a reminder of the kind of double-faced scumbag Cesar Chavez really was. I piss on his grave.

      1. Cesar Chavez was fine in his younger years, when he understood that to improve the lot of farm workers, it was necessary to make sure they couldn’t be competed with by scabs from Mexico. Then he became a politically correct Hispanic MLK, and it all went to shit.

  11. I wish Team Red would see that immigration enforcement is diametrically opposed to family values.

    Illegal immigration is largely about good parents escaping violence and poverty and seeking the best life for their children possible, in spite of a legal system that does everything in its power to prevent this.

    1. I wish team red would see that ending the welfare state is more important than weeding out people they think are of the wrong color.

      Somehow team red imagines that I’m okay with paying for team red’s rotten children to go to school–so long as their children are native born and white?

      I don’t give a crap who they let across the border so long as 1) they aren’t terrorists and 2) I don’t have to pay for their healthcare, education, etc.

      But if the red state welfare queens out there imagine that I don’t mind paying for their healthcare and their children’s educations–just because their children are native born and white? They’re wrong.

      A welfare queen is a welfare queen–even if her ancestors came across on the Mayflower.

    2. This isn’t an inherent feature of immigration enforcement. We could have immigration enforcement without breaking up families. Simply change the policy to allow US citizen children to go with their deported parents and come back when they’re adults.

    3. Illegal immigration is also about people fleeing their countries instead of fixing them, so that nothing will ever change.

      1. Yes, because we all know that individuals have the collective duty to ‘fix’ the state.

      2. Because brain-drain is economically neutral.

        1. Brain Drain probably applies much more to legal, rather than illegal immigrants. But it’s another good example of why third world countries remain mired in poverty, when the first world lures them with open arms.

          1. “Brain Drain probably applies much more to legal, rather than illegal immigrants. ”
            By and large conceded.
            Yet change still occurs.

            “But it’s another good example of why third world countries remain mired in poverty, when the first world lures them with open arms.”

            Yup, by allowing them greater opportunity for advancement, caused by the mother country being a comparative hellhole in the first place. I think that applies both to State-approved and State-frowned-upon immigrants.
            Your overall point escapes me.

            1. I think he means individual should be forced to remain in said hellholes for the good of the collective.

              1. That’s my take on what he’s saying, MWG.

                I mean, we took all the “good” Cubans, which is why the country has been mired in poverty for the last half century. I’m sure if they had stayed, they could have turned everything around. Somehow. Don’t ask for details.

                1. Under that theory, North Korea should be utopia. Leaving that country can get you executed.

                  1. I guess all the “good” Koreans just happened to be in the south.

        2. Because brain-drain is economically neutral.

          Are you assuming that intelligent, productive people could be so in any context? Because that’s not true. Often, leaving a smart, capable person in a nation with horrible institutions does little more than waste their chance at productivity. Smart, capable people have been around for most of human history, but they need a framework to be productive in.

  12. I can’t fathom how these bureaucrats can sleep at night. Absolutly disgusting. I always assumed the citizen kids were sent back with them or given to relatives etc…but foster care is a fate worse than most to force upon these children.

    1. I always assumed the citizen kids were sent back with them

      Me, too.

      But that’s what I get for underestimating the moral vacuum that exists in government bureaucracies.

  13. 5,100 Kids Ripped From Their Families and Put in Foster Care

    “”THEY WERE ILLEGAL!! (or related to illegals… same thing) THEY WERE TAKING OUR JOBS AND DESTROYING OUR SUPERIOR CULTURE THEY WOULD HAVE GROWN UP INTO SOCIALISTS WHO WOULD DEMAND ALL CHANNELS EXCEPT TELEMUNDO BE BANNED! SOCCER WOULD BECOME THE NATIONAL PASTTIME AND THEYD BECOME DRUG LORDS AND SPREAD LEPROUSY. STATISTICS ARE LIES ALL OF THEM ARE LAZY WELFARE QUEENS AD CRIMINALS. AND REAL “REASONABLE” REASON, REAL LIBERTARIANS BELIEVE IN DEPORTING PEOPLE WHO DRIVE DOWN THE COST OF LABOR FOR FARMERS, BECAUSE FARMERS SHOULD BE USING ROBOTS DESIGNED BY NON-HISPANIC NATIVES….””

    Ahh, there…that should pre-empt at least 1 or 2….

    1. Slappy beat you to it.

    2. And don’t forget, they’d probably want the day off for a big party on Cinco de Mayo. {Shudder] Oh, the humanity, the horror.

      1. Mexicans don’t much celebrate Cinco de Mayo, you know. ?Diecis?is de septiembre!

        1. Do I get still get to drink?

          1. Yes, but only tequila.

            1. I don’t always drink tequila, but when I do, I drink Patr?n.

              1. You and Lil Jon too, apparently.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xx6aBfRlUo

                You are aware that Patr?n is not even really Mexican?

                The Patr?n Spirits Company, based in Las Vegas, Nevada, was formed in 1989 by John Paul DeJoria, a co-founder of John Paul Mitchell Systems.

                Thats right = the hairstylist.

                Its a made-up superpremium brand. When Absolut blew up in the ’80s, despite many experts not even thinking it a particularly well-made vodka, a lot of marketing people tried their own hand at crafting booze that *seemed* high-end. Patron has been one of the more notable successes at convincing people it was worth extra money for some reason.

                1. *shrugs* I like the taste. Maybe it’s a placebo effect.

    3. of that statement except the SOCCER PART….that would really be going too far.

      1. Shucks, you just stumbled upon our secret agenda…..

  14. ya know, as libertarians many of us have our pet issues. Mine was the drug war (never did drugs but once enlightened on the principles and saw it equated with alcohol i empathized fully). Now however I feel a change within myself. Immigration is an issue of which I am extremely passionate. I think it will beome my new number 1 pet issue.

    1. I don’t know if I would call it my ‘pet issue’, but immigration was sorta the ‘straw’ the broke the camels back for me in terms of leaving the republican party. Everything else (WoD, WoT, Iraq, etc…) just sort of followed.

    2. That’s funny, immigration is an issue I’m passionate about too. Maybe we should forge an alliance.

      Oh wait. By “immigration” you mean “open borders”.

      1. Oh wait. By “immigration” you mean “open borders”.

        Well, duh. The word is composed of the Latin prefix in (changed to “im” in front of a vowel sound), meaning “in, into, on” and migratio, which is a noun derived from the Latin verb ago, meaning “to put in motion, to move”.

        So how else can someone or something “move in” if a border is closed?

        1. I don’t support closed borders either. I support ticket turnstyle borders with interlopers held in place by MAGNETS.

          1. Ah, I see. You have convinced me, because MAGNETS are cool.

    3. Going through the immigration process for my wife has made it amongst my top priorities. Just found out a few days ago they screwed up our application. AGAIN.

      1. For my wife it took five months with the Feds. That was with NO screw-ups, it just took that long.

        1. We’re going on our third year, not counting her try at getting a work visa before. Between the government and our incompetent first lawyer, many screw-ups have dragged it out this long.

        2. Lucky bastard. It took us 7 months to get a fianc? visa. No screw ups but a helluva lot of paperwork.

          1. Fortunately I am done with ICE. It took a total of almost 4 years for citizenship and that was AFTER 11 years of H1B. Those of us who experience this particular hell and especially as libertarians have a very in-depth perspective.

  15. P.S. I am still mad at you Riggs

    1. “disgruntled commenter Clich? Bandit”

      1. Sufficient and acceptable

  16. I must admit though, I am somewhat appalled at the closing of the borders that has happened during the Obama administration.

  17. For a HardworkingImmigrant, the guy in the photo has pretty skinny arms.

    1. Tulpa, you are the dunphy of immigration.

      1. I had no idea that you have such a high opinion of dunphy.

  18. The number of children of non-citizens placed in the U.S. child welfare system will no doubt shoot up as well. Already, according to our research, one in 16 kids in Los Angeles’ child welfare system are the children of detained or deported parents. Certain jurisdictions on the U.S.-Mexico border and at least one Florida county included in our field research had even higher rates.

    Can you guess what comes next?? Can you??

    YES!!! More appropriations!!! “We need more staff – it’s for da childrunz!”

  19. Reason hasn’t had a good nutpunch in a while. That picture’ll do it.

    1. Yep. As the father of a three-year-old girl, that picture’s pretty heartbreaking.

  20. My first reaction was outrage. My second reaction was… are we SURE that this is what’s happening? Is it possible (as other commenters have mentioned) that the parents are refusing to take the kids home because they want them to grow up in America? Maybe a little original research is in order.

  21. 1. Am I the only one skeptical about this article??? Look at the website of the Applied Research Center: “Our mission is to popularize racial justice and prepare people to fight for it”. This isn’t exactly an unbiased source.

    2. That said, the 5100 kids are not necessarily just children of illegal aliens. It says their mother or father has been DETAINED or deported. This means that there may be other crimes involved.

    3. I agree the kids should go back to Mexico (or whereever) with their parents. However, there could be legal factors the article isn’t mentioning that keep them from allowing this right away, like permission from the other parent (if the couple is divorced) or simply obtaining a passport/visa for the child.

    4. Is the author’s solution to allow exceptions for illegal immigrants with children? That would be like darn near ALL of them.

    5. I can’t help pointing out that if these parents so strongly wanted to keep their families together, they wouldn’t have left their families in Mexico (or wherever) and illegally crossed the border in the first place. They knew the risks, but went ahead anyway.

    1. Quick hypothetical. Say that the US annexed Mexico, and proceeded to run it as an internment camp. Many Mexicans would naturally wish to escape into the US proper. Those who did so would, by definition, be engaging in criminal behavior. How would this situation affect the framing of your above questions?

      1. If the USA was putting Mexicans in internment camps, I’m pretty confident that most Mexicans would flee SOUTH, not north. So your hypothetical is a moot point anyway.

        1. That is a plausible assumption in a certain percentage of cases; what of the others?

          1. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn’t change anything even in that situation. The US still has to respect international agreements it has signed regarding asylum requests. Is that what you are getting at? (although the US could do a much better job of policing out the fake ones).

            1. It has to do with removing the national component from the equation, in order to find if or how this affects your sentiments with respect to the movement of people over borders.

    2. Re: John Rohan,

      Is the author’s solution to allow exceptions for illegal immigrants with children? That would be like darn near ALL of them.

      The solution is to grant a resident card to people that can prove: they have a job, they have not committed any crime (and I mean a crime, with an actual victim, not made-up crimes the politicians like to invent), and are not taken any form of government assistance themselves. It should be the same for anybody who wants to live and work in the US, kids or no kids.

      1. “and are not taken any form of government assistance themselves”

        I can has “ROADZ!” objection?

        In seriousness would this exclude the younger ones who happen to have stellar grades in government schools and the like?

      2. So in other words, you would still be deporting people who have US citizen children.

      3. I agree, OM.

        And if they do that for 10 years, they get fast tracked to citizenship (like within a year) without any outrageous legal fees.

  22. How many problems did the(relatively; unless you were Chinese, etc.) more open-borders policy cause the U.S. before the twentieth century compared to the complications more state intervention in the movement of people has brought? Has that ever been quantified?

    1. According to the original laws on the book regarding immigration, Asians were the scourge of this country.

      http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html

      1. Great googly moogly! The background warps the myopia.

        “Critical race theorists and legal scholars have also explored the imbrications of race, citizenship and the American legal system.”

        Ironic Engrish is ironic.

        1. Funny – but imbrication is a real word.

    2. hazeeran|11.3.11 @ 7:19PM|#
      How many problems did the(relatively; unless you were Chinese, etc.) more open-borders policy cause the U.S. before the twentieth century …

      They let the Irish in. Which is exactly when everything started to go to shit. I rest my case.

      1. No way. Ben Franklin was right before that: we didn’t need any krauts krauting all over ‘murica.

      2. Freaking gingers…

  23. Aw c’mon guys, go easy on slappy, you know how he gets when his sis rejects his advances and the boys down at A3P don’t even want to play nekkid wrastlin’ no more.

    Let him have his racist fun, it’s the only joy a piece of shit trash-honky like him ever gets.

  24. Not to be all conservative, but this is sort of the natural consequence when you allow birthright citizenship but take a firm stance against illegal immigration. Legally, it would be just as wrong to grant illegal immigrants a pass as it would be to deport citizens who’ve done nothing wrong. Kids should have a special legal status where their citizenship is tied to their guardians’ citizenship. Any sort of automatic citizenship should kick in at the age of majority.

    1. Legally, it would be just as wrong to grant illegal immigrants a pass as it would be to deport citizens who’ve done nothing wrong.

      Well, your problem seems to be that you’re confusing morality with the text of our current laws.

    2. It’s not a natural consequence at all. Just because you’re a US citizen doesn’t mean you can’t live in another country for years at a time. Even our president did so (assuming he’s a citizen 😉

  25. There should be no birthright citizenship – for anyone.

  26. Real Question: How are they “forced” to leave their children behind? Can’t they take their children with them to Mexico?

    I’m not saying it’s a good situation, but I really don’t understand what they mean when they say “forced”.

  27. This a WONDERFUL article, brave and clear.
    Many people who consider themselves libertarians have yet to realize that liberty is not co-extensive with America. When patriotism and the love of freedom collide, a true lover of liberty has little trouble choosing.
    Far too many libertarians conflate the flag and the ideals we wish it stood for, just as far too many American Christians conflate God and country.

  28. I have not laughed this hard in a long time. Man, that was refreshing.

    Wow! Just wow! True Libertarians getting all teary eyed over….FAMILY!

    Oh, for bloody fuck’s sake, gents. Seriously? This is the same bunch that relentlessly mocks any and all “family values” politicians. As if you gave a shit about “family.”

    Furthermore, what a bunch of hack reporting. Who exactly are the adults being deported and why? Did they commit other crimes? Did they have communicable diseases? Did they beat their kids? Best not to ask. That’d be racist. Anyway, let’s just all assume they’re card carrying members of the Mises Institute with clean bills of health who really loved their kids. Plus, we all know that once you ejaculate into a woman’s vagina, why, you automatically become a model human being who respects property rights and understands the Laffer Curve.

    Damn, I sure was hoping the Free State Project would have launched s few years back. I would have loved to see how True Libertarians would react to Socialist immigrants who demanded immediate residency rights. I mean, that’s different of course. Just like when Sarah Palin goes all anti-abortion vs. Ron Paul doing the anti-skull vacuum shuffle. Palin cites the Bible. Ewwwwww! But Dr. Paul, he’s against abortion…for science and appletinis in the Sheraton lobby bar in Georgetown at 7:00.

    1. “Holy Cow” is a textbook example of a fake libertarian. As his confused rant demonstrates, he’s a classic rightwing populist who has pulled libertarian jargon over his dead-end resentments to give them a more intellectually respectable tone. At heart, he is just another American nationalist–and that is NOT the same thing as a libertarian.

    2. I don’t get this weird confusion by right-wingers where saying that someone should be able to live and work here freely means we automatically have to give them citizenship and welfare?

      I’d give every current illegal immigrant who is not a real criminal legal residency/work visas with no path to citizenship. If they want the path to citizenship, they have to start from the beginning like legal immigrants. In the meantime, we can make the legal immigration process significantly better.

  29. Awww, that’s nice, Grady. But do tell, where am I confused? What don’t you understand? Perhaps I can help: either you respect property rights or not. Property rights are at the heart of libertarianism.

    Now for a year’s supply of Turtle Wax, tell me: how does open borders (meaning anyone at anytime for any reason can legally enter the US without any proof of identity) promote property rights?

    1. You have the right to invite anyone onto your property, house them on your property, and employ them on your property regardless of where they happened to be born. Denying that right — as immigration law generally does — abrogates property rights.

      Therefore open borders promotes property rights.

      1. MikeP,

        Do you live in an enclosed biodome?

        I’m not sure why you don’t understand the very simple concept that anyone you invite onto your property still affects things outside your property as well. They create waste and sewage that must be hauled/pumped away. They require schooling, which is paid for by all taxpayers (even if you homeschool, there are taxpayer expenses involved for officials to check on the home, etc). They will inevitably receive some form of welfare payments. Some will run afoul of the law and require court hearings/public defenders/incarceration. They use water (which is at a crisis point in the SW USA). They make noise that your neighbors might not appreciate. Even a pure libertarian has to concede that one’s property rights don’t include the right to infringe on other people’s pocketbooks and property rights.

        1. You could at least have the decency to use the word “roads.” Some of us want to get an early start on our Friday drinking binge.

        2. Even a pure libertarian has to concede that one’s property rights don’t include the right to infringe on other people’s pocketbooks and property rights.

          No doubt.

          In particular, the open borders visa I would propose would explicitly not be a path to citizenship and would explicitly deny all targeted welfare for the holder and his citizen children.

          1. As long as they have birthright citizenship for the American-born children of illegals, any decriminalization of these immigrants will amount, in the long run, to giving them a road to citizenship.

  30. Property rights, as you call them, are the alpha and omega of the Koch Brothers version of libertarianism, for rather painfully obvious reasons, but they are not by any means the heart of the idea of personal liberty. Rigorous libertarianism is involved in constructing a model which allows for liberty even among those who have not inherited billions of dollars. I realize that’s a bizarre notion for you, but try to get your li’l head around it.

    1. You couldn’t be more wrong, and you have it exactly backwards. Suppression of the poor always begins with the removal of property rights.

  31. Another example of a law that when efforced does more social damage than the behavior it is trying to prevent.

  32. Current Immigration Laws were called broken and dysfunctional by many
    politicians and Mr. Obama himself. There are 4.5 American citizen children
    who live every day in constant fear of losing one or both parents due to
    deportation, there are thousands of American citizens who cannot adjust their spouses status. American citizens face separation from their family members for unknown period of time, possibly indefinitely.

    Sign the Petition at http://wh.gov/b9y to return the value to the term : AMERICAN CITIZEN by: Immediately adjusting immigration status of American citizen’s immediate family members (parents, spouses, children) to Permanent Resident.

  33. Current Immigration Laws were called broken and dysfunctional by many
    politicians and Mr. Obama himself. There are 4.5 American citizen children
    who live every day in constant fear of losing one or both parents due to
    deportation, there are thousands of American citizens who cannot adjust their
    spouses status. American citizens face separation from their family members
    for unknown period of time, possibly indefinitely.

    Sign the Petition at http://wh.gov/b9y to return the value to the term : AMERICAN CITIZEN by:
    Immediately adjusting immigration status of American citizen’s immediate
    family members (parents, spouses, children) to Permanent Resident.

    1. How about this: Don’t give a little Mexican citizenship just because his mom squeezed him out on the right side of the border. Protect the value of US citizenship by making sure that people can’t get their kids citizenship by breaking the law. Then deport the illegals, and have them take their children with them.

    2. “There are 4.5 American citizen children who live every day in constant fear of losing one or both parents due to deportation….”

      Got a photo of that half of a child? I’d like to see what s/he looks like!

  34. Simple solution: Send the kids back with their parents. And abolish jus solus citizenship. It’s a retarded idea anyway.

  35. If we abolish the doctrine of jus soli (and jus sanguinis too, I assume?) -effective retroactively, on what grounds will we, current US citizens by virtue of jus soli and/or sanguinis, be able to establish our citizenship?

    If not retroactive, on what equitable principle can we, former recipients, ask for abolishing that method of transmitting citizenship?

    As for the “send the kids with their parents until they’re 18,” that happens as well. But it seems like that resolution simply delays the problem by a generation, ensuring that your acculturated and probably patriotic US citizen children will be lawfully joined by many thousands of entering adult US citizens who may not speak English, have no sense of identity or pride arising out of their US birthplace and heritage, and will share no common culture.

    It’s clear that having emotional outbursts and trolling are often the preferred form of discourse here, but for the few who actually appear reasonably able to consider alternative points of view to their own: wouldn’t it be better for our own interests in the long-term to legislate in a way that promotes better future “Americans” in every sense of the word?

  36. Greetings Now i’m for that reason happy I stubled onto any site,Nike Dunk High Prefer came across you will just by error, at the same time Document was first Nike Dunk 2008 Gold Black browsing relating to Bing just for something.

  37. Intuitive Illegal Immigration 101 http://bit.ly/fVo2Tz

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.