Let the Kids Stay: The Drive to Deport Unaccompanied Minors, Refugees of America's Drug War, is Immoral


So let's get this straight: Like a marauding elephant, America sticks its trunk in Latin America, snorts out

Border Kids

one-trillion in military and other aid to stop the flow of drugs that Americans want, gives a huge push to drug cartels in these countries who unleash all kinds of unspeakable atrocities on innocent civilians, and now, when these civilians desperately try and get their children out of harm's way by grasping at a Bush-era law that is required to give them a hearing, nativists march on the street blathering about America's national sovereignty?

Where were they when their guvmint (which is about to authorize nearly $4 billion in emergency funding to deport these kids immediately) was violating the sovereignty of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala — the three countries from where most of the  unaccompanied minors are coming from?  These countries enjoy the highest murder rate in the world, thanks, in part, to our drug war.

 Yet nativists shamelessly march on the streets demanding that these kids be "Returned to Sender."

America is arguably experiencing its worst spasm of nativism since the early 20th Century, I note in my Washington Examiner column:

 Then, magazines such as Judge ran cartoons depicting a Statue of Liberty with a Chinese face welcoming crime-prone and diseased immigrants. Now, protesters in towns like Murrieta, Calif., are turning away buses carrying these kids to shelters, accusing them of being scabies-infected lawbreakers.

But just as the argument that blacks be kept in chains because slavery was the law of the land lost, so will nativism. That's because it'll run into the Huckleberry Finn Problem.

What is that? Go here to find out.

NEXT: DOJ Backs Off CIA/Senate Snooping Slap Fight

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. and these kids stay, nothing else will happen, right? On a different note, I keep hoping – though almost certain I’ll be proven wrong – that this experience teaches a few Americans (looking at you, progtards) a bit of perspective and humility.

    All those folks who toss around words like poverty and income inequality as if the terms mean something ought to take a look at what the real things looks like. It makes comparing the plight of some fat kid with a new cell phone leeching off the taxpayer in Any City pale by comparison.

    1. What have you done (except sat on your privileged haunches and spew idiocy)about this “nativism” you harp about. Have you gone down and stood with the idiots from “La Raza”? Have you offered your home to take in some of these children? Have you sent money to those that DO offer shelter for these illegals? NO? So, I guess, you’re just ranting about something you know little or nothing about.

      1. Greetings, drive-by commenter. We as US taxpayers have an inherent right to comment on this since we’re paying for that. Thanks. Now go back to Kos or wherever.

        1. Hmm, it sounds too paranoid socon to be from Kos. Maybe Breitbart?

      2. fuck off. This isn’t Slate or Salon or the usual progtard site where insult = argument. And spare me the feelz as logic.

        At least our usual trolls make a token effort at it. You? Not so much.

      3. mmmm….chalupas…

        1. +1 school lunches, or, as my elementary school called it back in the 90’s: “LA Cafe.”

      4. Dalmia is a moron. Who the hell cares what he (or she) thinks or says.

        This is criminal activity. The age of the kids is irrelevant. There parents and the Mexican government broke the law sending them here. The have no had inoculations, Are sick, have lice, scabies and God know what else.
        Send them back.

        1. oops. Make that “their” parents.

  2. Shikka has real talent. Even when I agree with the fundamental premise of her article, she still finds a way to alienate me. I should know by now not to read her posts.

    1. So she’s the Bo Cara, Esq of Reason writers?

      1. I wouldn’t smear her with that comparison, but far and away she is the most annoying Reason writer.

        1. No. Richman is the most annoying. By astronomic levels. Dalmia isn’t even in the same universe.

    2. Kinnath, there are enough people who refuse to read anything that they disagree with or that makes them mad. Don’t be one of those.

      1. I read lots of stuff that I disagree with. I am saying that Shikka is such a terrible writer that I don’t like the read the stuff that I even generally agree with.

      2. I read things I disagree with just so I can tell the author what a moron he or she is.

    3. What was it that alienated you?

      1. Like a marauding elephant, America sticks its trunk in Latin America, snorts out one-trillion in military . . .

        So much fail is so few words.

        I absolutely agree that the US has been fucking around in Latin America for a century and causing terrible problems. But this is plain shit writing.

        1. What-ev.

          I care more about the ideas presented than eloquence, but whatever turns your crank.

    4. Yes I agree. Not only does her prose stink like high school gym pennies, she is really really condescending to those with alternative views.

      I’m not a big fan of what she writes to begin with and her air of superiority is so nauseating

  3. So you are offering to foster care for 1,2,3 of these kids? Oh, you just want to take my money and have someone else do it?

    I think some folks objection is that parents from another country send their kids here and….who cares for them now? Why are they not coming with their children?

    I want Ellis Island back – family shows up, sees doc, get shots, check for warrants….have a nice life, next in line please. This skips even that minimal bit.

    1. If the parents were with their children, they’d both get turned away at the border. Sending the child alone has the maximum chance of actually getting them into the country.

      It’s just one more unintended consequence.

      1. It’s just one more unintended consequence.

        one of our regulars would call this a foreseeable consequence. Nothing unintended about it.

        1. Oh, agreed. I just doubt the parents are happy to send their kids off like that and not be able to come along.

          Although foreseeable depends on foresight, which politicians don’t exactly have in large quantities.

          1. When their kids are delivered back to the parents, this nonsense will stop. If not, it will grow.

            1. When their kids are delivered back to the parents, this nonsense will stop.

              Ah… Whether you keep the kid here or fly him back n+1 times after n attempts, the problem is going to grow.

              1. So parents spending an enormous percentage of their savings to send their kids north and going to repeat it when the kids come back?

            2. The Marxist clown in the WH is resist sending this kids back. It was his actions that encouraged them to come.

              He needs to be reminded of what happens to tyrants.

    2. So, free health care from Day One? Also, Ellis Island existed as a thing back in the day because NY was THE port of entry. Nowadays every International Airport is a port of entry.

      1. Nah, just immunization. If we had an Ellis Island (or 5 or 10) I suspect people would pop in there, rather than running across the SW border.

      2. And Ellis Island could be run the way it was because it was sink or swim once you got into the country. No safety net, no welfare state.

        1. So, free health care from Day One?

          I almost wish BO would lay hand on this hot potato. He’s done a decent job of deterring me from wanting to live in this country and I was born here.

          1. He’s done a decent job of making it like any other 2nd or 3rd rate country – which was probably his intention in the first place.

    3. Don’t worry. Instead of just one free doctor exam when they enter, they instead show up to the local hospital or clinic fortnightly for free treatment for every malady they develop. Said hospital bills fedgov $60,000 for basic visit. FedGov prints money to cover it. Nothing to see, move along.

      1. No, the refugee program is not $60k for a basic exam and shots. (I used to work on the one that FL used to track visits. I think It paid in the $100-$200 range for a phyiscal exam, and a variable payment depending on the immunization of $60-0/shot as reimbursement to the State which passed thru those payments.)

        1. Resulting in the hospitals overbilling the fuck out of privately insured patients then to compensate for the loss leader of gubmint funded care.

          Either way, I’m left with the bill. (Seriously, you should see the fucking bill both my provider and I received for my recent annual physical).

          1. Find a provider with smaller hands so your butt hurts less after the next trip to the doc.

            1. C’mon, are you denying tha private insurance and doctor’s visits are not jacked up above market levels in order to account for the government underpaying the 50% of health care that it funds between Medicare/caid?

    4. Why are they not coming with their children?

      When in my maternal great-grandmother’s case, when she hopped on a boat to Ellis Island at the ripe old age of 12(!), it was to escape an arranged marriage to some yutz back in the old country.

      1. OK, that I get – but she had a reason to flee her parents. This sounds more like parents dump their kids norte and hoping for the kindness of the Americanos.

          1. + 0 Cats in America

    5. Ellis Island didn’t let everyone in. Many were sent back (at the transporter’s expense if the rejected immigrant couldn’t pay for passage). Unaccompanied minors were always sent back whence they came. Here’s a pdf of the immigration law of 1891 which governed the Ellis Island’s operation. It dispels some of the open borders crowds nostalgia about welcoming the wretched refuse of foreign shores.

      1. Ellis Island was sometimes known as “The Island of Tears” or “Heartbreak Island”[43] because of those 2% who were not admitted after the long transatlantic voyage.

        2 percent is “many” to you? Regardless of that, though, the point is that in some ways the immigration policies of the Ellis Island era were more liberal than that of today.

        1. I agree that immigration policies were more liberal in the Ellis Island days than today. Admission decisions were made quickly according to straightforward rules.

          I encourage those interested to read the text of the 1891 immigration law here.

 stat 1084.pdf

          1. Crap, the link is screwed, abbreviated here.

            It is a pdf under ‘’

            1. Absolutely – that is why I want the whole family here, they see the doc, run warrants…

              1. US warrants result in arrest. Other countries’ warrants result in them getting to petition for refuge.

                1. Well, that is where I would change it – if it is not some People’s Republic warrant for Counter-State Activites, then they can go home and answer. I don’t think a warrant from Poland for murder would be good grounds to ask for refuge.

                2. US warrants sometime result in arrest.
                  Then some moronic judge lets them go.

  4. America is arguably experiencing its worst spasm of nativism since the early 20th Century, I note in my Washington Examiner column:

    Given that by most accounts America was a much more pleasant place to live in the early 20th century than it is now, I consider this development a Really Good Thing.

    1. So America was better off *before* it closed its borders?

      I’m not sure you understand what you’re saying.

      1. Maybe you should have learned English before moving here.

        1. People don’t get to point to 20th century America as the result of immigration when 20th century America is when we were restricting immigration.

          That’s all.

          1. Can we stop referring to this as immigration? It’s kids being sent on a perilous journey.

            1. And the premise of the article is that it’s rather more like a forced migration.

    2. “Given that by most accounts America was a much more pleasant place to live in the early 20th century”

      Hawk doesn’t know many blacks, women or gays I guess.

      1. Sure it was look at the global alternatives, we are the tallest midget.

    3. Given that by most accounts America was a much more pleasant place to live in the early 20th century than it is now,

      Citation needed.

    4. Given that by most accounts America was a much more pleasant place to live in the early 20th century than it is now,

      Right, polio, measles, smallpox and a life expectancy of 50 were just good fun!

      1. They didn’t have those in other countries at the time?

      2. Yeah? Too bad you survived all that you idiot.

    5. True, but it was also pleasant during the late 19th century (a time of relatively open borders).

      1. Here again is the pdf of the 1891 immigration law, defining “relatively open”.

        law. stat 1084.pdf

        1. The link is screwed, abbreviated here.

          It is a pdf under ‘’

    6. Given that by most accounts America was a much more pleasant place to live in the early 20th century than it is now, I consider this development a Really Good Thing.

      I’ll gladly live in today’s America than America 100 years ago, because I like free time, technology, cheap travel, etc. Also, I value my health.

      1. Is that because it’s America, or because it’s a hundred years later?

  5. You are one hell of an optimist. The drug war and all its attending violence suggests that the American people will happily support government doing evil on their behalf. I mean, most Americans wouldn’t:

    – Send a SWAT team to a neighbours house.
    – Flashbang toddlers.
    – Shoot all the dogs.
    – Entrap autistic teenagers and seniors.

    Yet they support the state when it does all these things.

  6. It seems kind of nativist to have the opinion that the United States is naturally so much better for children than Central America.

    1. Revealed preference? If the kids are moving here, it probably is better for them.

      1. Kids want to eat candy all day. What do they know?

        1. I need a sarcasm tag, or more caffeine.

          1. Eventually I get everyone.

            1. Have some candy.

              1. I like those chocolate espresso beans – 2 birds / one stone.

                1. Gross. I’ve never had that, but gross.

              2. “He said, from the back of a windowless van.”

    2. Do you disagree, or is this just trolling?

  7. Well, this is one hell of a hill to die on. What, exactly, is the libertarian answer to this? Let the kids starve on the mean streets of America? If so, they should keep their moral harangue to a minimum, since their solution is far less humane than deportation. Give all the kids welfare? If libertarians are all about giving welfare, residency, and citizenship to any kids who traipse across the border, they’ve just created the conditions for a welfare state larger than any in history, operated on behalf of foreigners. So what is your idea, how is it a good thing, and how are you going to force me to pay for it?

    1. Open the borders and let the parents in too?

      Not that you like the answer, but it does solve this problem.

      1. Failing that, at least end the war on drugs, so we stop helping South America turn into a complete shithole.

        1. I certainly support this, even just all by itself.

      2. how does an even further expansion of the welfare state solve the problem? We’re talking the least-educated, lowest-skilled coming into the country. What are they going to do, where will they live, and a host of other questions.

        1. The welfare state isn’t a necessity to keep people alive. It never was. Either abolish it or restrict access.

          Even the lowest-skilled person (short of being completely disabled) can produce enough in this country to raise a family (due to our not-completely-shitty laws and decent levels of capital). It’ll be kind of shitty by our standards, but it’ll be better than their current situation.

        2. We’re talking the least-educated, lowest-skilled coming into the country. What are they going to do, where will they live, and a host of other questions.

          Yeah, wareagle, history has proven again and again that poor people can’t possibly survive on the mean streets of America without handouts.

          1. What employment opportunities would you recommend a 12-year old with no education and no understanding of English in today’s economy?

            1. 12-year old with no education and no understanding of English in today’s economy?

              That’s the fault of overzealous child labor laws and union cronyism. You don’t need much ingl?s to dig a ditch or hammer a nail.

              1. Hence my qualifier of “today’s economy”. Yes, there are laws in place that are bad, but those laws don’t magically disappear once immigrants come over any more than laws regarding welfare do. Another thing: not all of the problems with integrating into the US economy are the result of bad laws. We are a high-income country, and part of our societal values include the idea that childhood is a time for schooling. Most companies will not hire children for full-time work, if only because it looks terrible and Americans would not patronize their businesses. (Side note: most child labor was supplemental and could not sustain a household so good luck with that, Child Labor Bill of 2014.) Low-income minors would be looking for housing, buying food and clothing in a market that is priced out of their income due to the presence of high-income customers willing to outbid them. Moreover, if a child labor bill were passed presumably there would be at least a few American children who would also compete with these immigrants for jobs.

                If you think there is a tsunami of demand for child labor in the US economy, I don’t know what to tell you.

                All of these are of course contractual obligations involving minors which are rife for abuse (as was the case during the 19th century) — except in this case, the children involved don’t even have a guardian to advocate their case.

            2. yard work, my friend started by raking leaves now he has 50 employees. those who want it will.

              1. So the 50,000 or so kids crossing the border will someday employ 2,500,000 doing yard work.

            3. What employment opportunities would you recommend a 12-year old with no education and no understanding of English in today’s economy?


              This entire subthread stemmed from Christophe’s response to your question. You asked:

              What, exactly, is the libertarian answer to this?

              Christophe responded:

              Open the borders and let the parents in too?

              To which wareagle responded with an absurd implication that poor immigrants couldn’t possibly be productive without the welfare state.

              As evidence against such bullshit…I give you…my grandfather.

              1. To which wareagle responded with an absurd implication that poor immigrants couldn’t possibly be productive without the welfare state.

                no, not what I said at all. It’s a reasonable question to ask about welfare state implications when a lot of unaccompanied kids are taken in, and it’s equally reasonable to notice that doing it once means it will have to be done again.

                As to your grandfather, refer to “today’s economy” in which he did not participate.

                1. Respectfully, wareagle, it is exactly what you said (although maybe not what you meant). Go back and read the thread again.

                  Your response was to Christophe’s:

                  Open the borders and let the parents in too?

                  “Unaccompanied” children was not the topic. Their parents do not require welfare to care for their families.

              2. Ah. Well in that case, I can only suggest that the mad rush to the border that we’re seeing now pales in comparison with what we would see in a 100% open borders situation, especially since most of the parents who have done this have other children and likely do not have many skills or abilities.

                Think about it this way: after ~100 years of open borders with PR, the majority of the PR population (60%) lives in the continental US. This population has virtually the same dysfunctional characteristics as American blacks and most other low-income groups which have migrated since the establishment of the welfare state, despite not having a prior history of such dysfunctionality during the 19th. Since this is the only long term open borders experiment with a poor country we’ve had since the enactment of immigration laws earlier in the century, I would suggest that we apply to other countries. If we got even 40% of the Latin American population, that would mean another 224 million people with little work experience, flooding our welfare system. Since these migrants can hardly be expected to know what they don’t know, they would not vote for limited government but rather for the types of politicians and solutions which are familiar to their culture. Add in the rest of the world, and the situation is worse.

                There are all sorts of reasons why we can expect immigration to be less helpful today than it was in the 19th century, but universal suffrage and the welfare state loom large.

      3. And all the parents support themselves and their families how, exactly?

        Jerbs, you’re going to say. What jerbs? Is there a Say’s law of labor?

        1. Here’s the beauty of it. Like all other goods, labor markets tend towards equilibrium.

          Before we closed the Mexican border, Mexican day laborers would move to the US when labor demand was high, and move back when it was low.

          They don’t do that anymore because coming in is so hard that they’re better off staying and waiting out the slump. Government in action.

          1. Evidence please, evidence.

            1. Evidence of what? The Bracero program?, that’s known historical fact.

              1. The article you cite does not read as a ringing endorsement of the program.

                1. I neither endorse or criticize the Bracero program; it seemed like you were asking for evidence that Mexicans used to move here for jobs and then move back.

            2. Here’s an overall look at things

              Pre 1929, and during the Bracero program, the likelyhood of return migration is much higher (it’s even higher during the great depression, but that’s linked to a variety of factors, including stricter laws and deportations).

              Once we start closing the border for western hemisphere nations, we see a big jump in undocumented migrants, who tend not to ever leave (or even move between states, interestingly).

      4. And creates many more, you dunce.

    2. They wouldn’t necessarily “starve on the mean streets of America”; that’s a classic prog emotional appeal. Catholic charities, for example, does a decent enough job with kids, as long as they manage to keep them away from the priests. Let them take care of their own.

      1. Once you’ve established the principle that you will give amnesty to any unaccompanied minor, many more will come. Why wouldn’t they? The magical charity fairy can’t take care of anything close to that entire population’s education, healthcare, occupational and day-to-day needs while maintaining their commitment to the native-born population they’re currently helping.

        1. If coming here means starving to death, then I don’t see many people coming here.

          1. who is starving to death?

          2. That’s more or less my point. Yes, under a libertarian system that would start to happen pretty quickly and it undercuts the purely moral argument that Shikha makes above. Under a welfarist system, these kids stay indefinitely likely as clients of the welfare state — and that signal incentivizes more unaccompanied minors doing the same thing.

            Why do you think it a moral imperative to have the kids stay, if under your principles and libertarian system the most likely consequence is that they starve to death or end up as wards of some charity or other?

        2. The magical charity fairy can’t take care of anything close to that entire population’s education, healthcare, occupational and day-to-day needs while maintaining their commitment to the native-born population they’re currently helping.

          That’s why if you look at the history of immigration, different immigrant groups started their own charities, credit unions, civic associations, and often times parochial schools, etc. etc.

          The decline of most of the organizations is strangely around the same time as the LBJ administration.

    3. When the people who came before you and fucked everything over royally and then ask “well, how would you fix it”, it doesn’t advance the cause much by saying “go back in time and not do the shit you did”. But in reality there is no libertarian way to “fix” decades of damage caused by the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on immigrants, and the war on reason.

      Yet something needs to be done, so:

      Step 1 is to kill the fucking law that causes this problem.

      Step 2 is to find some humane way to settle these kids down someplace (and I have no fucking clue where to put them — maybe we can re-purpose Gitmo ;-).

      1. Step 2 is to find some humane way to settle these kids down someplace

        I have an idea. Why don’t we humanely settle these kids in a place where they can be with their families, speak their own language, and have a familiar social and economic context — that is to say, their own countries or potentially another Latin American country? Not to be a dick about it, but how exactly are a possie of kids with little to no education and no understanding of English supposed to get up to speed in sufficient time to be hire-able by a domestic company and to make themselves contributors?

        1. possie of kids with little to no education and no understanding of English supposed to get up to speed in sufficient time to be hire-able by a domestic company and to make themselves contributors?

          Umm…by joining the Newsboy Legion. HELLO!

          1. Gitmo needs a newspaper I suppose.

            1. Last I heard (a few years ago) the Gitmo golf course was still fucked up from the Haitian refugees. Maybe they could train Central American kids in the landscape arts down there.

    4. The only thing preventing deportation is a particular federal law. It could be repealed. These kids could pretty easily be sent to Juarez.

  8. I thought libertarians understood incentives. I mean as free marketeers, shouldn’t you understand that if an action produces a reward, you will get more of that action. In other words, a critical mass of parentless children coming to America. I’m sure they will be fine fending for themselves…

    1. Now, this one is probably from Kos. But since you’re here: I have more much more important things in my life to worry about other than a “critical mass” of children coming over here.

      1. Not from Kos at all. I just don’t think you’re helping children by encouraging parents to send their kids on a monthlong journey through a ridiculously dangerous set of war torn countries. Even if America’s drug war created the issues, we shouldn’t reward parents for putting their children in harm’s way.

        1. Stop the drug war. Today.

          1. I would welcome that decision. But until that happens, let’s stop pretending that we can help these countries by telling their parents to send their kids here.

          2. I agree with stopping the drug war, won’t happen but I agree.

            That still doesn’t eliminate the incentive to send kids here if we are taking them no questions asked.

        2. War torn? What war would that be?

    2. that’s poor trolling. You folks need to up your game. No imagination, no coherence, just mindless bullshit. C-

      1. You think that allowing these kids to stay doesn’t send a message to keep sending more? I mean, do we really think we are helping kids by saying “hey come on a horribly dangerous journey through a bunch of shithole countries, and if you don’t die on the way, you can stay!”

        1. Soooo… you for expanding legal immigration in order to keep kids from having to make the dangerous journey to come here illegaly?

          1. I don’t pretend to have a ready answer to this problem. I don’t write an illconceived article with a nonsensical conclusion every time I get a notion.

            1. Well, if you really care about teh childrenz, you might argue in favor a greater legal immigration.

              Somehow I’m guessing you’re wrapping your nativism up in “it’s for teh childrens”, which seems… strange.

              1. Nope.


                Kids are dying. Opening the border doesn’t fix that problem until the in between countries stop sucking. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t. I’m not a psychic. But I know that right now kids are dying on their way here.

              2. Secure then boarder. Then we can talk about immigration reform. Not before then.

        2. of course, incentives matter. I’m calling bullshit on the “libertarians/as free marketeers” stuff that is apparently supposed to mean something. Apologies if I misunderstood your intent. But people wanting to tell libertarians what they believe is becoming tiresome.

          1. I am a free marketeer myself. That’s why I understand that when you give Mom and Dad a reward for sending their kids somewhere, they’ll just keep doing it. And it’s not necessarily what’s best for the kids.

            1. agree 100%. The “humane” solution to this has unintended consequences written all over it.

            2. You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

              1. mmhmm

    3. Dalmia almost exclusively covers illegal immigration apologia and the culture/politics of India. I am not sure how doctrinaire libertarian she actually is.

  9. snorts out Border KidsNBCone-trillion in military and other aid to stop the flow of drugs that Americans want,

    The fuck? You’ll have to source that whopper, Shikha. Even adjusting the last 50 years of Drug War spending for inflation into 2014 dollars, I’m calling massive bullshit on that.

    Mendacious as a proggie.

      1. And AP doesn’t source it either. Annual drug war spending is pretty constant at around $16 bb. Even if we assume the high end of $20 billion and lock that in for 40 year, you only get $800 bb (I can’t believe I said only and $800,000,000,000 in the same sentence). I still call bullshit.

        1. Many trillions if you count the anguish and lost productivity of the tens of millions we have put in our jails (our own citizens) and the total affect on their families and society.

          Add in the druggies themselves not producing much – druggies being MORE prevalent because of Forbidden Fruit – and you do have trillions in losses to our economy over decades.

          Of course, that doesn’t count the murder, intimidation and all the other benefits of the drug wars.

          Here is an idea. Take all these kids. Pay for their integration by doing away with 90% of the DEA and all of the law enforcement and infrastructure related to the war on drugs….add some to the kitty with a small tax on the new legal pots (and hopefully other drugs)…..

          Never happen, though. Right Wing Law and Order demands the ability to arrest almost any citizen for freeing their minds. Can’t have free minds…or they may vote differently.

        2. In the age of Obama and an overwhelming number of low information fools, $800b
          is nothing. Remember, Obama has raised the national debt by $8 trillion in 5 years.

  10. I’m telling you: turn them into our Imperial Army recruits in exchange for.citizenship. What could go wrong?

    1. Lincoln did it to the Irish streaming off the boats during the war. And what a shining example of constitutionally checked executive power Lincoln was.

      1. The first of my family line walked of the boat in 1865 straight into the PENN INF… took awhile for the rest of the extended family to be convinced to come over and join him. Like…20 years.

  11. This proves again that libertarians only care about expanding the welfare state for aliens who will be voting against economic freedom and higher taxes in the near future. These “children” and their parents are and will be long term welfare dependents. Time for pseudo-libertarians to come clean and admit they are just socialists in disguise.

    1. go fuck yourself

    2. if libertarians are for nothing else, they are for expanding the welfare state.

      We have a new slate of trolls, it seems, and a new round of derp.

    3. Yes, letting our foundational principles undermine vague, hypothetical and short term utilitarian concerns would be the better way to be true libertarians.

    4. Yes, because the natives are completely blameless in bringing about the Total State we live under. Troll harder.

    5. That’s not intellectually honest to call them pseudo-libertarians. Some perhaps are just misplacing causality on a very distorted issue, at worst. The free movement of people is all well and good but this is not the free movement of people. This is government causing a problem for these refugees, and then forcing “natives” to bear the cost of that problem via taxation and forced integration.

  12. Serious question: What does the US do with unaccompanied children who present themselves to the authorities under the guise of escaping violence — given that these children are from *Chicago*?

      1. Well, yes; but *seriously*, what are the “policies and procedures”?

  13. There is too much nativism on the right (and some on the Left, especially when it comes to China or ‘cheap goods’ in general), and sadly there is too much among libertarians and ‘classical liberals’ who easily (and conveniently) allow the NAP to be trumped by vague utilitarian concerns.

    Having said that, as a strong supporter of freedom of movement and immigration rights (same thing I think), that does not mean we must support people sending unaccompanied minors over the border. Think of it it this way: everyone here, I think, would be unopposed to the idea that people legally in the US should be able to go from South Carolina to California, but who would think hundreds or thousands of South Carolinians pinning notes to their minor children’s clothes and sneaking them on trains to California is OK?

    1. who would think hundreds or thousands of South Carolinians pinning notes to their minor children’s clothes and sneaking them on trains to California is OK?

      Apparently, *many* people.

    2. the border is not a “vague utilitarian concern.” I realize some here champion open borders but that’s not going to happen. In any country, not just this one.

      The use of children as pawns is a distraction used to play on emotions. And if you take in this bunch, get ready for the next – even larger – group to follow.

      1. The vague utilitarian concern I am speaking of is the argument that these immigrants will come and become recipients of and proponents for the welfare state. That’s hardly certain, especially in the long term. Yesterday’s Irish American immigrants later voted for Reagan eventually, for example.

      2. Exactly. It’s already been established that (American) 26-year-olds are “children”.

      3. This is one reason I cannot support the libertarian “party”. Open borders… well they seem pretty open at the moment. Unfettered drug access? Look at the increase in traffic death is Denver.

        The libertarian polices are badly flawed. That is one reason why they will always be a small meaningless party.

    3. The fact the kids are sent unaccompanied is purely a consequence of the law we wrote.

      Fix that (either by removing the special treatment of unaccompanied kids, or by extending it to accompanied ones) and you fix the problem.

      You’ll still have the current pile to deal with, but you’ll fix the incentives.

      1. This.

      2. The fact the kids are sent unaccompanied is purely a consequence of the law we wrote.

        More white-man’s-burden style racism, denying agency to the people who actually made the decision to send their kids north unaccompanied.

    4. and sadly there is too much among libertarians and ‘classical liberals’

      God you sound like an self-important asshole.


      1. Speaking of self important assholes, look in the mirror.

  14. Yet another horribly reasoned article by Dalmia. Basically, “we created the problem that put these kids in danger, so we should encourage their parents to abandon them and send them on the most dangerous journey of their lives to the country that fucked them in the first place!” Great argument dumbass.

    1. Her point is a moral one.

      1. I’m a utilitarian in some ways. I’m just interested in the lives of innocent children.

      2. but her moral concern ignores reality and I contend that is done on purpose. She’s long opposed any measure of border control and now she’s doing what the progs do – appeal to emotion since it’s children involved and you don’t hate children, do you?

        1. Yes. She’s a hack. I troll her articles constantly hoping to read something that isn’t moronic, and I am always disappointed. My new life’s work is to constantly go on comment boards and trash her as much as possible until she writes something that isn’t horrible!

          1. Dude, that’s really the worst love letter ever.

      3. Her point offers no practical solution to the moral problem that is most relevant with respect to these children.

      4. Her point us a retarded one that skips logic. We give money to fight drugs-then a miracle happens- then children enter illegally. We give more money to fight drugs here, are kids fleeing our borders? Regardless of how you feel about the drug war, the principle causes are from communist/ socialist governments being miserable and a vague created by Obama that children will become citizens if they sneak across.

        1. We give more money to fight drugs here, are kids fleeing our borders?

          Because the drug cartels we are funding conduct most of their operations outside our borders.

          1. Which doesn’t support your “we caused it” point. It refutes it.

            1. If we prop up violent criminal gangs, then yes we are culpable.

              1. “violent criminal gangs”

                The DEA? 🙂

      5. I don’t think it’s moral to put in a gun in your face and force you to pay for and tolerate the integration of those who can’t pay their own way. Dalmia’s problem is her usual one, she accepts false premises. As though the solution to the problem of the government created problem, is for the government to force third parties to bear the cost of that problem.

        Of course there are moral concerns in how we handle these particular children. But the far far more pressing moral issue is whether those policies that create the problem continue and whether the solution should involve further political coercion.

      6. Her point is BS.

    2. Progs blame problems on Bush; libertarians blame the war on drugs.

      1. Bush, whatever his faults, isn’t responsible for half our jail population.

      2. libertarians blame the war on drugs.

        That’s not fair, we may be blaming the war on drugs for causing the problem, but we’re also blaming the welfare state (from healthcare to education and minimum wage) and child labor laws for making the problem exceptionally impractical to solve.

        Personally, I’d blame the war on soda too, but I can get both Coke and Pepsi from Mexico at my local grocery store for pretty much the same price as the ‘American’ varieties.

      3. And when they’re not blaming the war on drugs, they’re blaming the welfare state, which is their universal get-out-of-jail-free card, unless it isn’t. Hence, the appropriate response to illegal immigration is to open the borders and get rid of the welfare state, while the appropriate response to marriage inequality is to mandate recognition of gay marriage. Get the government out of marriage? Of course, daahhlings, but since that’ll never happen….

  15. “We created the problem” was a crock of shit in the ME and a crock of shit in South America. Most of these countries bought into communism despite our efforts. They’ve been shitholes since their existence.

    1. “Most of these countries bought into communism despite our efforts.”

      Ever occurred to you that our ‘efforts’ in another nation might have unintended consequences, ones bad for the people that actually live there?

      1. But despite that, if we really want to help them, just letting them come here and live in the United States isn’t some obvious answer that doesn’t need some deep thought. I can’t stand these rushes to judgement that this hack writer always makes. I don’t think she’s ever thought out an argument. She just goes “Kneejerk reaction! Write article!”

      2. Of course they have unintended consequence, nearly everything they tried in South America failed.

      3. Yes of course. Look at what a great place Europe and the Pacific rim would be if we hadn’t put our “effort” into fighting evil. You are a fool.

    2. Um, no. A lot of people bought into Communism precisely because of our efforts. They saw the U.S. government and its cronies commit all sorts of horrible atrocities while paying lip service to capitalism and markets.

      1. So now we should royally fuck their children as reparations?

        1. Moving to the US == Royally Fucked?

          Really? Why do you think we’re having trouble taking you seriously?

          1. Going on a month long journey by yourself as a child through a series of ridiculously dangerous countries is royally fucked.

            1. Revealed preference. If people are taking the risk, it means the expected benefit is larger than the expected cost.

              But since you’re so convinced this is the equivalent of the long march, why don’t you find us some numbers as to what percentage died?

              1. They aren’t taking the risk. Their parents are taking it for them.


              2. If you find that article revealing, please feel free to share it with whomever. It popped up first when I typed “border crisis kids dying on the way here” into Google’s news page for full disclosure.

          2. I love that you refer to it as “moving to the US.”

      2. Citation definitely needed. Most of the US interventions were to stop communist movements, and most of those interventions failed. The movements preceded YS intervention and outlasted it.

          1. The banana wars had the US intervene in a government adopting socialism and distributing private property. Again, it failed and socialism prevailed.

            1. Did you even read the link? It involved a lot more than just one country…

  16. I still stand by Milton Friedman when he said you can have open borders or a welfare state, but not both.

    1. ^this^

    2. Open borders are fine when people bear the cost of their own migration and integration. Only then is the free movement of people mutually beneficial like any voluntary transfer of value.

  17. These kids have been victimized enough, now they’re political pawns.

  18. What a bizarre, illogical, emotional rant that collectivizes guilt for bad things happening in other countries.

    The question still is: what do you do with these kids? My understanding is most of them have only vague ideas of where their relatives are, who are most likely illegal aliens themselves, so the government being able to find them is unlikely. There is no good place to send them except back to their known relatives in their native countries.

      1. How surprising that he grew up to be a Castroite party hack.

        Great work, Bill Clinton!

        1. No wonder Elian hates America. He was forced out at gunpoint.

  19. We should do what the Mexicans do and put them on a bus to Canada. Time they got left holding the bag.

  20. This recent wave of illegals flooding our shores en mass somewhat reminds me of the Muriel Boat Lift under Carter.

    Definitely not an act of nature. Just the leaders of other countries dumping those in their society they don’t want upon us. I remember the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, but that doesn’t mean it was unregulated immigration that Lady Liberty is asking for. She wasn’t offering free goodies to those huddled masses either.

    1. Actually we had pretty much unrestricted immigration back then.

      The only group to be significantly restricted were Asians (and only in California). Imagine that!

      1. No we didn’t.

        All immigrants were medically screened and many were quarantined or sent back. During some periods they were required to have family or show some money.

        It wasn’t unrestricted.

        The Muriel Boatlift was unrestricted.

        How did that turn out ?

        1. I looked and I can’t find anything before 1882.

          As far as the Muriel Boatlift, what I’ve seen so far is that while the Cuban government did empty out their jails and asylums, on net we still won.

          Hell, had we kept it up, I suspect we’d have forced the Cuban government to close their borders again, as we started draining more and more productive people out of their country.

          1. I’m not sure what you consider a “net win”.

            I just remember watching the boatlifters rioting in American prisons and the crime wave that followed the boatlift.

            Castro bent Carter over without lube ala’ Putin and Obama re Syria.

      2. If it was unrestricted, they wouldn’t have been processed through Ellis Island.

        1. Unrestricted doesn’t mean uncounted or unmonitored.

          I can count things as they go by without imposing restrictions.

      3. Christophe here is something that someone above posted. It shows just how restricted immigration was.

        1. 1891 is the start of widespread immigration restrictions.

          Of course is was restrictive.

          I posted the whole list above. There’s a whole century where we do fuck all.

          1. Again, not immigration. Parents sending kids to their death. See below once again 🙂


            1. Even if your characterization was accurate (and no, the relative numbers do not bear that out), that doesn’t apply to 1891 laws (which predate this by quite a bit).

              1. I know…I just wanted you to see that I was right about kids dying on the way here 😉

                1. “I just wanted you to see that I was right ”

                  How sad.

                  1. I used the winky face to indicate my playful nature!

            2. I’m torn on whether I should read newsmax, townhall, fox, drudge or breitbart for my “news”.

              1. Breitbart

              2. Just keep watching MSNBC so you don’t pull a muscle.

              3. I sure don’t read Reason for my news.

                And as a small factoid, you can’t read “Drudge” for news. He just provides links to many different sources. I always laugh when I hear some idiot liberal criticize Drudge.

      4. You should do a little research before you post ridiculous comments.

  21. Why is inevitable that there are always some who cannot see the forest for trees?

  22. Again, the biggest issue I have with my fellow libertarians when the immigration issue comes up is the tendency to revert to dipshit progspeak about “nativism” “racism” et al.

    I love hispanics, worked alongside many while in high school, and have an appreciation for the culture. Damn good people generally. But I’m not particularly keen on coughing up $75,000 to each of the 50,000 kids, only to find that the dollar amount requested will be doubled four months henceforth while people south of the border, naturally responding to incentives, will send us another 100,000 people, and our govt will claim each in need of $200,000 of various spending.

    That’s not racism or nativism or anything like it. I guarantee I speak far better Spanish than Shikha and have more familiarity with the intricacies of Central American culture. But because I’m sick and fucking tired of massive social costs imposed by the way our current govt doles out bennies to immigrants (who I don’t blame for taking teh free shitz, as you’d be a fool not to take free money offered by the bigger fool).

  23. Sorry Shikha these countries have always been shit holes and thats why we, the U.S., became involved in an attempt to stop this kind of thing from happening. We as a nation can not handle this type of mass influx and just because some idiot president Bush made a stupid law which I don’t think was ever actually singed into law, please correct me if I’m wrong on that, does not mean we can’t change that law do to abuses of the law. If you want open borders get rid of the welfare state otherwise the boarders must be controlled.

    1. It wasn’t a stupid law. It addressed a real problem. Obama has misused the law to further his own evil interests.

  24. It’s one thing to have open borders, which I support as a general philosophical premise.

    It’s another thing to have open boarders, i.e. people coming to here with no particular ability to work or gain income but rather coming here solely on the reliance of the welfare state to cater to their every need, a belief so ingrained from the fucking govt of the country you’re boarding at advertising about all TEH FREE SHIZ available al norte.

  25. Christophe challenged me to find some numbers about kids dying on the way here. This article isn’t perfect, but I think it’s a pretty good example of what we are doing by giving parent’s the incentive to send their kids here.…..-t-Make-It

  26. Here’s a humane idea that doesn’t require expanding the welfare ranks or creating pop-up government run orphanages.

    Obama comes forward and says on national TV, “Shit guys, I guess I didn’t think this through and the government should obviously not be in the business of raising thousands of small disease-ridden children. But these kids are evidently not wanted by their parents, so charities and potential adoptive parents–have at them. Otherwise we will have to return them to their country by *insert reasonable deadline*”

    It will also never happen.

    1. Shit guys, I didn’t think this through…

      How Obama should start every speech.

    2. It would require Obama to take responsibility and to admit he made a mistake. You are right. It ain’t gonna happen.

  27. Nativism is an evil, but almost as asinine is the banal sentimentality these immigration treads typically descend into.

    Illegals are neither a diseased horde of parasites nor wholesome, oppressed victims of a cruel world.

    1. Thanks LB. It’s refreshing to get the occasional nuanced view on this topic.

    2. Agreed. They’re rational actors, no more, no less. It is our fault if we don’t have a sane immigration process in place, not theirs.

      And yes, I realize that most libertarians would have a different definition of sane policies from myself on these matters.

      1. As much as Reason likes to play this as libertarian dogma and insinuate that any deviation from the open borders/boarders argument is akin to nativism and outright racism, I think there is a vocal and sizeable contingent within the libertarian movement that are maybe a bit more skeptical about the wisdom of importing a massive subsidized underclass.

    3. Nativism is an evil

      Why? Is my preference for my own family’s interest over your family’s also evil? How about my preference for my community over your’s? My country over your’s?

    4. You mean like stating nativism is evil? Don’t be so asinine, dunce.

      Nativism: the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.
      (especially illegal immigrants).

      So what’s wrong or evil about that? Since when is acting in your own self interest an evil thing?

  28. What about the ones that aren’t “refugees”, but are actually foot soldiers in the war, only for the other side? Do they get to stay?

    I wouldn’t worry about anybody getting deported, or about the flood of teenagers slowing down. By law, they are being moved into American homes, and being given years of residency there while their “due process” rights as “trafficked children” grind on.

    This is a huge success for getting as many illegal aliens into the country on a quasi-permanent basis. The border is open if you are under 18. Yay!

    1. Let’s not forget the racist aspect of the law that permits those under 18 from Central America to stay but sends Mexican children home immediately.

      Mexican children aren’t victims of the drug war?

      The hypocrisy of squawking “drug war” without addressing the weird inequality in how we’re treating these “refugees” is bizarre.

      Look, due to some well intentioned but poorly thought-out legislation a loop hole was created that allows minors from Central America to not only immigrate here but also provides for the care and feeding of them. Central Americans figured it out. They’re just taking advantage of it.

      1. Given Costa Rica’s success in the recent world cup, it’s worth considering giving all these chilrunz to Jurgen Klinsmann to see if he can create a USMNT solely out of german and costa rican kids.

      2. Are Mexicans and people from Central America of different races ?

        I never knew there was a Mexican race and a Peruvian race, and a Guatemalan race. All separate and distinct.

        If not, how could “racist aspects of the law” be anything other than derp ?

        1. Yeah, most Central Americans are Native Americans from tribal backgrounds while many Mexicans are mixed native and Spanish. So. if you ask them, they’ll tell you that the catch all “Hispanic” is about as relevant as telling a German that they’re Irish.

          Mexican can be incredibly racist in their attitudes to Central Americans and natives.

          1. So a half Mexican and half Native American is a different race from a full blooded Native American ?

            By your logic a half black and half Caucasian is a different race than a full black.

            So you are saying that Obama and his children are a different race than Obama’s father who is a Tribal Black African ?


          2. And the Spanish descendants in Mexico are very racist towards actual Mexicans.

  29. The idea that we are responsible for the drug war in other countries is problematic, at best. It denies everyone by Americans any agency. Those countries are capable of saying “We think this is a bad idea. We’re not going to fight in your drug war.” Sure, it would be a hard decision, but to pretend they have no say in the matter is deeply insulting.

    And typical prog-style “white man’s burden” racism.

      1. I have nothing to say to that except choices have consequences and our government is populated by assholes.

        Fight the drug war or fight for sovereignty.

    1. It denies everyone by Americans any agency.

      Well, yeah, those “brown people” Dalmia claimed to love so much – in a deleted post – are really just children, regardless of their chronological age. It says so in the MSM!

      And typical prog-style “white man’s burden” racism.

      Because they’re members of violent societies that elect and participate in corrupt, incompetent governments, those pitiful – but loveable ‘n’ cuddly! – brown people need to escape from other cuddly people and be taken care of by non-cuddly people.

      So the cuddly people should be here instead, to help make our own gov’t bigger and more corrupt, one little vote at a time.

    2. You touch on something that has bothered me for a while, but I can’t quite express: we masochist political junkies, in truth, have ZERO say in the current policies and operations of our gov’t, much less historical acts. eg, I oppose the drug war wholeheartedly, but am accused of being nativist when I object to bearing the cost of it’s “refugees”.

      This is WHY I’m for the smallest state possible: it matters not what my personal beliefs are, yet I personally bear the burden (or reap the benefit) of my govt’s actions.

      In short: go fuck yourself Sheeky

  30. I come here for reason, if I wanted emotional ranting I’d go to the HuffPo.

    1. I’m drinking some of your moonshine!

    2. Maybe they should change the name of the magazine to “Tantrum”…

    3. Reason is in short supply on the Reason website.

  31. This comment section is growing faster than Nicaraguan parents send their kids to their death!

  32. I like the idea above of treating every unaccompanied minor illegal immigrant as an orphan under US law. Their biological parents would have no rights under US law to immigration or anything else. We can at least cut off the possibility of these kids being the start of chain immigration for all their relatives, which might reduce the incentive to send them here.

    I know, the open borders crowd loves chain immigration. But, this is just one of those philosophical differences, I guess. I’m just unwilling to compound the idiocy of the welfare state with open borders.

    1. Meh, chain immigration is not an effective backdoor to get open borders.

      At this point I’m just expecting the growing underground economy in this country to take care of the problem (since no one will verify your legal status), long before we win politically.

    2. It would be so much simpler to rescind the legislation that created the exemption for Central American unaccompanied minors and send those currently in the system home en mass.

      That’s what should be done but it won’t happen.

      1. Congress can change the law but Obama will never sign it. This was his doing and it was his goal.

  33. So let’s get this straight: Corrupt Central American governments accept one-trillion in bribes, unleash all kinds of unspeakable atrocities on their citizens and expect USians to fix everything.

  34. Has Shikma forgotten the libertarian gospel of “is vs. ought”? You’re not allowed to declare anything to be moral or immoral, since you never saw an ‘ought’ growing on a tree…

    It is the technical rationalization for subjectivism, after all.

    So you cannot say that open borders are moral or immoral; if you were consistent, you would never make value judgments regarding the world outside your skull, since it does not come with percepts stamped OUGHT.

    Your philosophical chickens are coming home to roost, though you are not perceptive enough to identify them…

    1. Dude, all of her articles are like that. She’s writes literally the worst reasoned articles of any author I’ve ever read.

      1. That’s not even a good ad hom, but at least you managed to reveal the fact that you don’t know shit about philosophy or how to apply it to real-world problems.

        Libertarians constantly reference the “is vs. ought” dichotomy–when it is convenient. When you’re trying to say that everything is subjective, so why bother arguing, either implicitly or explicitly it is this (phony) dichotomy you reference.

        The is-ought issue is fundamental to the ethics of subjectivism.

        1. .

    2. That’s Hume, not libertarians.

      1. So clearly Hume would agree that children ARE dying on the way here, but it would be dubious to claim that we OUGHT to stop encouraging their parents to keep sending them to their death!…..-t-Make-It

      2. Uh yeah, thanks bub. As I’ve already said, libertarians love to reference the is-ought issue when they are trying validate subjectivism.

        But when it’s time to talk about the “NAP” or such similar nonsense, then you drop the is-ought dichotomy and become dogmatic rationalists.

        It’s boorish to watch.

        1. .

        2. “It’s boorish to watch.”

          But not to comment on!

  35. Just as I suspected. As usual, a matter of national security has become an emotional sob sister propaganda campaign, ramped up by a bunch of weak minded people.

    Yes, the U.S. has done its share of creating bad situations for a very long time in Central America. However, not all the blame can be laid at our doorstep.

    It is not our fault that the Spanish created a very different and very fucked up society there long before Americans north of our border with Mexico even knew the place existed.

    Anyway, by sending their kids up here, the Central Americans know that they will get humane treatment from us, whereas the word humane is not seen very much in those garbage dump societies.

    The solution to this overflow is to seal/militarize the border with Mexico and process legal immigrants through our legal ports of entry. Will this be done?

    Probably not, because there are probably too many politicians getting paid off hard to trace big bucks under the table to ignore the disasters created by drugs, illegal weapons, sex traffic, and as usual, cheap exploited labor.

    Failure to security out borders is a form of “treason” on the part of our fucking politicians. These assholes forget that no matter how rich they become they will also pay for the failure top secure our border.

    1. Failure to security out borders

      Like closeted homosexuals adopting the “shield of righteousness” in an attempt to hide their sexuality, you can attempt to hide from La Migra by posing as an ultra-nationalist. However, your poor command of your second tongue, English, shall always give you away.

      1. Heroic Mulatto,

        Hi Asshole! Sorry to disappoint you but I’m not gay. You just don’t like my opinion, so you took the opportunity to attack me because I made a typo or two.

        Of course I should have proof read better, so as to prevent that. Otherwise, looks like you have no opinions of your own on this issue, except your rant against my opinion.

        On that note, I guess you will just have to eat shit. In order to do that, you can just stick your index finger up your bung hole, lick it, and pretend it is a Hershey Bar. GET FUCKED.

        I am an ultra-nationalist based on legal immigration to this country. I am proud of it. Who and what are you?

        Have a nice evening you worthless piece of shit! FUCK OFF.

  36. Note how Americans who want a secure border are demonized as cruel racists. Note how those who are against illegal “immigrants” are smeared as “nativists”. The usual bullshit propaganda os very effective.

    1. You mean the usual bullshit propaganda like putting immigrants in scare quotes?

      1. MWG,

        FUCK OFF, YOU PIECE OF SHIT. Have a nice day, Ass Chunk.

        Don’t like my scare quotes? Shove it up your asshole.

  37. Being from south Texas, and married to a Latina (5th gen Texan), and growing up around illegals my whole life, I would have to say that I’m probably one of the most understanding people when it comes to the immigration issue. I am a straight-line libertarian on 95% of issues, but the border just ain’t one of them. It’s a complex issue and I don’t think we should think in terms of 100% open or 100% closed border.

    1. I definitely think the legal migration quotas should be higher- perhaps 10x higher- and I certainly have no qualms with more brown folk coming here. It’s new to people in Iowa, but not down here. But my problem with this story is that these kids have no support system, can’t be employed (when under 15 years of age) and by default become wards of the state. We hate the welfare state, right guys? That, or you allow the parents to follow them here and then you have a whole litany of real social problems that can cause. Simply, not everyone in the world is tolerant and will embrace a 50x increase in immigration from Central & South America. sucks, but it is reality.

      1. I’m not worried about my jerrrb (most Mexicans coming over aren’t my competition) and I think more labor is a net positive for the production of services. I’ve hired illegals, I’d do it again. I do believe that most adult immigrants are here looking for work, not hand outs. But I think we libertarians have to step out of theory land and look at real-world practical implications of just “letting the kids stay” writ large. And no one is even asking about the implication for Honduras, Nicaragua etc if they lose 1/2 of their youth population.

    2. I just love the word “Latina”. However, it means nothing at all except as a “replacement” for Hispanic or Mexican. The term denotes that such a person might speak Latin. Ha!

      1. moron, it’s a blanket term for Latin people in Central/South America. Lots of different countries down there besides Mexico. Use it when not specifically referring to one nationality (ie Mexican, Cuban). It’s like saying “soda” for all soft drinks, and “mt. dew” for the specific type.

        Or, for legit racists, just say “brown folks”. Same context, really.

        And no, it doesn’t mean they speak Latin, bud. It refers to the region being designated “Latin America”. The more you know.

        1. entropy factor,

          Wrong, moron? I know very well that there are “lots of different countries down there besides Mexico” you fucking son of a bitch!

          My point is that the best term would be Hispanic. How about Spanish Speaking Peoples, Do you like that, you fucking asshole?

          Ram it up your asshole, you pesky piece of shit. Fuck you, retard.

          1. Somebody forgot his meds again this morning.

          2. Not everyone south of the US border speaks Spanish as their native language. There’s a whole bunch who speak Portuguese, as well as a number of ancestral tribal languages. So the terms “Spanish Speaking” and “Hispanic” are not really very accurate.

  38. The problem is not the hundrend thousand kids. The problem is Obama’s lawless tyranny.

    1. HTuttle

      That’s it. Blame it on Obama, and the fucking problem will go away. Right?

      1. No, fool. But we need to identify who cause the problem and how to address it. Why don’t you blame it on the republicans? people like you make me want to puke.

  39. Reasonoid is code-speak for subnormal, faux libertarian.

    The fundamental tenet of any authentic libertarian is to oppose the expansion of the size and scope of government. Increasing immigration increases the size and scope of government.

    No one can claim the mantle of authentic libertarian without first pushing for the shrinking of government.

    For where there is law and all law imposes duties and rights, there cannot be liberty, or that where law is content to leave anyone alone.

    Net Immigration since the 1980s is the chief cause for a fall in real wages.

    So to call for expanding immigration by converting illegals into legals, in effect, is call to make yourself poorer.



        Thanks for rubbing in exactly what my fucking weekend will consist off. Asshole.

        1. LOLZ

    1. Net Immigration since the 1980s is the chief cause for a fall in real wages.

      Nope. I don’t think so. Expansion of the money and credit supply, ie. inflation, is the more likely cause of a fall in real wages, meaning a drop in purchasing power of those wages. Increased taxation of various kinds is another.

  40. Why not run a bus line straight up to the Canadian border, and let them cross there? When we see how the enlightened liberals of our neighbors in the north deal with it, then we’ll know the ‘proper’ way to handle it. We just let them off the bus and say, cross that border, they have socialized healthcare there, far better than our healthcare.

    1. From what I understand that’s pretty similar to the way Mexico has handled the problem: just send the kids north.

  41. I wish all those “compassionate” liberals would sign up to sponsor these kids to the tune of $250 per day. Let them put their money where there ideology is at. After allowing these 50K to stay, what about the balance of 10M that will pour through open borders? Any unintended consequences of that (health care, food, education, jobs)?

    1. Liberals? Perhaps you are missing the fact that most of the pure libertarians here champion relatively open borders?

      As to the $250 per day, I suppose the cost of our gigantic narc army far exceeds that. Cut the DEA budget and help some kids.

      1. Or, cut the narc army AND send the kids home.

        We can do both, you know.

  42. While I agree with you that this immigration issue is a problem of our own making (been arguing to end “War on Drugs” for years because of this same issue), I do not believe allowing these immigrants to stay is a solution to anything. There are still tens of thousands of children in those countries. Should we go and start evacuating them? Why are the children that make the trek to break the law any better than the children trapped in those countries? I am so sorry, but two wrongs still don’t make a right. End the “War on Drugs”, then secure our border, and then, and only then will I entertain a discussion on immigration reform. Otherwise, back to where you came from.

  43. Once again another Blame America Loony Liberal. Seems to me that had the LEFT not supported the Socialists and Communists South of the boarder since the 60’s we might have some influence there. BUT now we have a few generations of people who incorrectly believe all their problems were caused by the US…. Seems the Cold Ware and the spread of International Communism slips the authors mind. Then again Democrats have always fawned over criminals like Castro Guevara, and Ortega. I guess it is because they share a similar Marxist theology

    1. dpbisme,

      Seal/militarize the U.S./Mexico Border, or shut the fuck up.

  44. Quick Rupe Reason, Poll these children. I’m sure 85% at least, are libertarian.

  45. None of your rants or raves do anything at all to resolve the serious problems that threaten the security of our open border with Mexico.

    Seal the fucking border, or shut the fuck up.

    Have a nice day, moron.

  46. Fuck everyone that is in the United States of America illegally. This includes anyone from any country who is here illegally.

    Apparently, Hispanic People believe that they have a special right to be here any fucking way they see fit, because the United States of America shares a border with Mexico. Wrong premise.

    Seal the fucking border. Then, welcome LEGAL immigrants through legal Ports of Entry. All else is a bunch of fucking ass bullshit.

    1. Tell us what you really think Mandalay. lol

      You seem to be in prime form today.

      Is this issue really that near and dear to your heart or you just having a bad day all over ?

      1. He’s pissed off, doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
        I’m a libertarian who believes Reason is off-base on the border crisis issue.

        “There shouldn’t even BE a drug war” and “there shouldn’t even BE welfare” doesn’t make it so. The situation will result in more government, more welfare all by design.

        1. p.s. And more (D) voters in the pipeline.

  47. I accept your resignation – wipe the drool off your mouth after spitting out “nativists” for the 18000th time and get the hell out of here with your ad hom bullshit. This shit wouldn’t fly in a public school debate.

    Yes, public school.

  48. For a philosophy supposedly based on logic, Libertarianism, or I guess its followers, can sure be dim when it comes to immigration. It’s almost as if people become so invested in a stated position that they are willing to ignore all the real world evidence that disproves their position repeatedly.

    Common sense tells us what will happen if all of these people are allowed to stay. More and more will follow. Anybody with a shred of intelligence can predict that because it is so easily predictable.

    And to somehow turn this back on the US because of real or imagined past sins is not even intellectually honest. Frankly it’s insulting to your readers that you would try to use it.

    But here is what Hit and Run would have us do. Open the borders and remove any pressure from failing governments to actually improve their situation. condemn those least able to make a run for the border to continue to be trapped in an increasingly horrific situation. Open a safety valve in each of these countries instead of forcing them to finally do what they must to make living conditions acceptable.

    And by the way, as an added bonus, allow US employers to pay lower than market rate wages because of the increased competition in the labor market.

    These are all common sense results that are already happening. But for some reason, Democrats and Libertarians are totally blind to what is happening in the world around them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.