Court Says Obama Administration Can't Indefinitely Detain Women and Children Fleeing Violence Anymore

|

A federal court has ruled that the Obama administration must halt its policy of detaining women and children seeking asylum in the U.S. as they flee violence in Central America. Via The Wall Street Journal:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the case last December on behalf of asylum-seeking mothers and children who are being detained at facilities across the country, in Karnes City and Dilley, Texas, and Berks County, Penn. The named plaintiffs in the case had all cleared credible-fear screenings, which entitled them to seek asylum in the U.S.

Reason TV profiled one such asylum-seeking family from El Salvador in the video below. The government has held Maria Estela Marquez and her three daughters in the Karnes County Residential Center since August 5, 2014, and the family will not face immediate release as a result of the order because the mother in the case faced a previous deportation.

Originally posted on Jan. 22, 2015. Original write-up below:

"When people knock on your door, and they are fleeing abuse, the United States is obligated morally and legally to let them in," says Virginia Raymond, an immigration attorney fighting for the right of a single mother and her three daughters to seek asylum in the U.S. after fleeing gang violence in El Salvador. 

"Today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it," proclaimed President Obama in a speech announcing an executive action to shield the 4-5 million undocumented immigrants who've lived in the U.S. for five years or more from deportation. In making his case, he shared the story of "Astrid," a college student afraid to attend her grandmother's funeral in Mexico for fear that she'd never make it back over the border. 

What the president didn't address in that speech was the influx of immigrants coming from further south, from the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These are immigrants making the treacherous journey to the border not only for economic opportunity, but to flee violence that threatens their lives and those of their children.

Headlines screamed of a "border crisis" as unaccompanied minors began arriving in record numbers in the summer of 2014, sparking protests in border towns like Murrieta, CA from citizens who wanted the newly arrived immigrants sent back to where they came from. The administration's response was to request $879 million from Congress to detain and deport. Congress denied the funds, but Homeland Security forged ahead with the construction of several new "family detention centers" anyway. The number of beds grew from fewer than 100 to more than 1,000 in less than a year. And a newly constructed center in Dilley, TX will have a capacity of more than 2,000.

Watch the Reason TV video above for a glimpse at who exactly is being held in these detention centers at record rates. The video profiles Marquez and her three daughters, who came to the U.S. from El Salvador after facing violent threats and extortion from gang members. While Maria and her family were seeking asylum from a dangerous gang that operates unchecked by an incompetent and often corrupt government, they almost immediately found themselves locked up in a family detention center in the small Texas town of Karnes, where they've spent the past six months fighting to avoid deportation.

"These are people who want to work, who are peaceful, loving people. And they don't deserve to be sent back to be raped and killed… in a country that does not value them, with a government that cannot or will not protect them," says Raymond.

Approximately 8 minutes. Produced, shot, and edited by Zach Weissmueller. Music by Chris Zabriskie.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.

Advertisement

NEXT: Clint Eastwood and me in Hollywood

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. You know who else indefinitely detained women and children…

    1. Just children in my case.

      1. Indefinitely? Or until you’re done?

        1. It’s indefinite until he’s definitely done.

    2. You know the answer is Hitler, right?

      There’s no way you can’t know that.

      Why did you ask a question that has such an obvious Hitler?

      I don’t get it. It doesn’t make any sense! Question. . .Hitler. . .question. . .Hitler?

      Hmmmmmm. What if. . . .the answer ISN’T HITLER?

      Mind. Blown.

      1. The answer could be RICK FROM WALKING DEAD. Ooooh, topical AND current. #toteswithit

    3. Noah.

    4. What I keep in my trunk is my business.

    5. What I keep in my trunk is my business.

  2. Ah, the refugee scam.

    Hey, Reason – did you know “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary?

    1. It is without the quotes.

      1. They have quotes in the dictionary.

        1. They have quote in the dictionary, yes. Also apostrophe, and probably some others.

          1. I think they’ve got douche and bag in there, as well.

            1. I see I’ve come up against an armed opponent 🙂

    2. Women and children never lie about rape or abuse so they never lie about threats of violence either.

    1. The link goes to the WaPo main page – unless that’s what your proof is…

        1. Wow. Just the headline is awful. I don’t think I’ve got the resolve to dive into that kind of derp right now.

        2. Figures.

          So if I say “All conservatives are militant Jesus freaks because one guy says that christianity is the only constitutionally protected religion”

          http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2…..first.html

          Do you plan on playing the game of “my team is subtle and nuanced with varying opinions but every crank I see on the other team speaks absolutely for everyone on that team”?

          1. Well, yeah. Isn’t that pretty much how all cable news panels are structured nowadays?

        3. I don’t have a problem with it. My mom wanted me to be a doctor.

          And the kid will be whatever the kid is.

          1. Your mom is disappointed in you.

              1. Because of really low expectations.

        4. best part of the article is Sally talking about whatever “CHOICE” her daughter makes. Choice. Rather a curious word to use, no?

          1. I was thinking the exact same thing. Here the gay community has been fighting for years to get across that they are born gay, it is not a choice — and yet whether to be heterosexual apparently should be a choice in this author’s mind.

            I am so stunned how most of the way everything has been in my life has just turned completely upside down in just the course of the past few years. Gay marriage went from a legitimate debate around the time of Obama’s first election, to a situation now where you could lose your job just for having an opinion on the issue. We go from a situation where it was difficult for gay couples to be allowed to be adoptive parents not long ago — because of concern of their ‘influence’ over children, which we thankfully got beyond — but now we have a gay parent bragging she wants her daughter to be a lesbian. I wonder how that plays in the parts of the country where people are still fighting for some basic rights.

            I’ve always been a major supporter of gay rights, and have had a number of gay friends and colleagues since the early 80s. And I work in both an industry (health care) and in a region (Bay Area) where gays and lesbians are in much higher percentages than the typical American might come across. But even I’m now wondering if the rate of change is a bit too fast and might cause some issues down the road. It won’t hurt for people to feel blessed with positive change and allow time for progress, and not demand a complete overhaul today.

        5. When my daughter plays house with her stuffed koala bears as the mom and dad, we gently remind her that they could be a dad and dad.

          Or they could just be two koala bears with no sexual relationship at all.

          What’s so tiresome about activists of all is that they’re so defensive that they see everything through the lens of their activism. How would they view a straight mother issuing a correction in response to her child’s imagining stuffed animals as being gay couples?

          1. It really all just posturing and pretense. They want people to view them as “enlightened” and “progressive” as it relates to homosexuality, feminism, gender identification, and race. Unfortunately for them they usually end up coming off as just the opposite. It would help if they were sincere and not just being pretentious.

          2. Or they could just be two koala bears with no sexual relationship at all.

            in a sane house, they could be. But not in one which is defined exclusively by the sexual orientation of the parents.

            1. Yeah, the bears could spies or space bears or anything a child could possibly imagine but a story with those suggestions do not help the social standing of the parents.

          3. Love your handle, kahlua.

      1. There’s a couple of things on the main page that are pretty sad….

    2. They can’t get links right?

    3. I get so tired of self absorbed people. It isn’t just that they see everything through the lens of their activism, they see everything as being about them.

  3. “These are people who want to work, who are peaceful, loving people. And they don’t deserve to be sent back to be raped and killed… in a country that does not value them, with a government that cannot or will not protect them,” says Raymond.

    “But, enough about U.S. drug users.”

    1. Yeah, no shit.

  4. This headline is a lie. Only a small percentage of the people who claim to have fled violence actually have. This ruling effectively means the US government cant stop anyone from entering the country. Anyone can claim refugee status. By law anyone who does cant be sent home until their case is adjudicated. Of course none of them show up to their court dates if you let them loose. Why would they? So if you can’t detain them, can’t send them back, and releasing them means they disappear into the country, anyone who wants to get’s in. Great for Libertariians I suppose. Not so good for the rule of law.

    1. Isn’t it our job to advocate against and actively fight laws that are immoral or just plain wrong?

      Immigration, the way it is right now, is a fucking disaster zone. Why not just let them in, and be glad for them? Or are you frightened that one of them will take your jerb?

      1. Are you afraid that if we don’t let in any displaced, poor, desperate minorities you won’t be able to find anyone desperate to accept your lowball offers for hookers? See eveyone can play this game.

        1. You’re not playing a game. You’re just retarded.

      2. Why not just let them in, and be glad for them?

        and you and your fellow travelers can pay for them while they get settled, find a place to live, get the basics covered, maybe find work, etc etc. No, not too worried about my job as English is a firm requirement of it and not too many fluent speakers are coming across this way. But hey, don’t let talking points stop you.

        1. To summarize libertarianism a never ending flood of immigrants can make unending demands on the welfare state, but those Red State Christofacsists better not get a dime tax credits for their children.

        2. You know perfectly well that I don’t want the welfare state to pick up their damn tab, wareagle.

          We should let them in, and let them fend for themselves.

          Nature of freedom, and all that jazz.

          1. Foreseen consquences are not unintended and all that mariachi music.

          2. We should let them in, and let them fend for themselves.
            Nature of freedom, and all that jazz.

            yet, the welfare state says we don’t do that. It cannot co-exist with open borders.

            1. What better way to illustrate the evils of a welfare state?

              1. Evil and entrenched, it appears. Lot of money and power to be found in poverty.

              2. Anybody who doesn’t already see those evils is never going to.

                1. They will when the well goes dry.

                  1. Unfortunately it will then be dry for all of us.

                    The beast isn’t going to starve until it’s already eaten all our food and us with it.

                    1. So best hurry it along and start over then, huh?

            2. the welfare state says we don’t do that. It cannot co-exist with open borders.

              All the more reason to flood America with immigrants. Drown the welfare state.

          3. “You know perfectly well that I don’t want the welfare state to pick up their damn tab, wareagle.”

            Doesn’t matter what you want, the welfare state will take what it wants from the rest of us to “pick up their damn tab”.

            1. Doesn’t happen in Canada. The ‘immigrants took muh welfare’ line is just another nativist lie.

              1. the US isn’t Canada. Dances with trolls defeats his own argument, and yours, down thread.

                1. No he doesn’t, and Canada is not somehow different from America, except that immigration into Canada is a lot easier and that’s one of the reasons our economy is better off.

                  1. of course, he does by relying on figures that say immigrants bleed the system less than natives, as if this is an actuarial exercise. Yes, I’m sure immigration into Canada is easier since there is not a flood of unskilled, uneducated, poor people sneaking into the country. Apples to hammers is not a good comparison.

                  2. and Canada is not somehow different from America,

                    Canadian immigration policy is very different than the US ,e.g. much more than half of immigrants are “economic.” How the fuck do you not know this?

                  3. immigration into Canada is a lot easier

                    No, it isn’t. Canada doesn’t have any land borders with countries that people are desperate to get out of.

    2. Actually, the ROL is just fine and will be better of without the War on Immigrants.

      Good day for freedom. Nativist tears are yummy.

  5. “While Maria and her family were seeking asylum from a dangerous gang that operates unchecked by an incompetent and often corrupt government, ”

    And they came to the US to escape that ?

    I hope they don’t get sent to Detroit, or Chicago, or St. Louis, or….

    1. Or the state of California?

      Or Washington D.C.?

      Honestly, it would save time to name the places where that isn’t standard operating procedure.

    2. Some better accommodations were in the works…

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014…..lar-hotel/

    3. and we should believe Maria’s story because………
      this is the open borders version of “for the children.”

  6. I agree with this ruling and would be willing to chip in a couple grand to see these refugees resettled in peaceful countries like Costa Rica.

    1. Me first.

  7. OT: Kids do the darndest things – like cover Led Zeppelin on xylophone

    http://www.dailydot.com/entert…..one/?fb=dd

    1. My daughter’s High School band had an unbelievably awesome xylophone corp. Get music program all around but I certainly didn’t expect xylophones to be that cool.

  8. “When people knock on your door, and they are fleeing abuse, the United States is obligated morally and legally to let them in,”

    and how is that you know this to be true?

    1. Um because immigrants never lie.

      1. nope, just like coeds crying rape and O-bots calling his critics racists.

        1. That’s different nerdy libertarians are afraid of morning after second thoughts from the drunk girl they bring home biannually.

          1. Aaaand filtered.

    2. and how is that you know this to be true?

      Who cares? If they aren’t criminals give ’em a work permit and vaccinations and let them seek the American Dream.

      1. if only we had a system for that. Oh, wait; we do. But it involves coming in the front door, not using an emotional appeal for the sake of circumventing the system.

        1. The “system” is pretty much fucked, so I don’t give a rats ass about moralizing in its favor.

          I’ve worked with and hired a large number of immigrants, both legal and illegal and if I want someone for a job that is going to work hard and not bitch they are my number one choice. The myth that we are about to be overrun by a hoard of people who want to sit on their asses and collect and live on welfare it absurd. Mostly they want the same things that any American wants, and welfare doesn’t cover that spread, so they will work.

          1. then fix the system that allows for an orderly and legal process based on something other than appeals to emotion. I’m not arguing that a good many illegals work hard; to an extent, they are the only honest brokers in this deal. But, the welfare state is a factor and you cannot have both it and open borders.

            We have enough who will come here to game the system, and that’s on top of the native population doing the same thing while the rest of us who don’t like it get called all sorts of names. Sorry, we’re not a theme park.

            1. But, the welfare state is a factor

              Not really.

              A common conservative refrain is that immigrants, once they enter the U.S., “immediately begin to depend on government welfare,” as Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama recently put it.

              That’s simply not true, according to a Cato Institute study by Professor Leighton Ku and lecturer Brian Bruen, both of George Washington University’s health policy department.

              Ku and Bruen looked at social welfare programs ranging from Medicaid to the food stamp program to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Their findings: Poor immigrants consistently utilize welfare programs less than their native-born counterparts. Furthermore, when poor immigrants do participate in welfare programs, the cost is less, resulting in a lower bill for the taxpayer.


              Poor immigrants are a welfare bargain compared to poor natives.”
              Take Medicaid. Non-citizen immigrant adults and children are about 25 percent less likely to be signed up for Medicaid than their poor native-born equivalents. When they do sign up, poor immigrant adults consume $941 less on average than poor native adults every year. The story is the same for poor immigrant children. Looking at CHIP data, the study finds poor immigrant children consume $565 fewer dollars than poor native-born children.

              1. That’s a red herring. More poor immigrants means more welfare spending… regardless of how much welfare they consume relative to poor natives.

              2. utilizing them “less” does not equal not utilizing them at all. Add in things like schools and non-welfare govt services and it adds up. When someone speaks of a “welfare bargain”, a re flag is begging to go up.

                You are not arguing a principle; you are quibbling over dollar amounts.

                1. Silly me, I forgot that immigration is a zero-sum equation.

                  1. Clearly you are what you dance with.

              3. Dances-with-Trolls: Your quoted evidence amounts to “Well, they aren’t as much of a drain on the taxpayers as the citizens who are a drain on the taxpayers!” Wow, great, but why are we importing anyone who is a drain on the taxpayer? We’re fucking broker than broke.

                And, of course, Cato ignores the costs of the children of immigrants, who are not only a big drain on the taxpayer, but disproportionately become criminals when they grow up. And the fact that this is a conscious plan by the Democratic Party to flood the country with people who are likely to vote for bigger government.

                1. And, of course, Cato ignores the costs of the children of immigrants, who are not only a big drain on the taxpayer, but disproportionately become criminals when they grow up.

                  Gotta citation for that?

                2. the children of immigrants, who are not only a big drain on the taxpayer, but disproportionately become criminals when they grow up. And the fact that this is a conscious plan by the Democratic Party to flood the country with people who are likely to vote for bigger government.

                  Lies caked with more lies.

                  Get it through your head: your hysteria and naked xenophobia are not my imperative. You have no right to constrain my freedom of association because you’re afraid of the brown people from across the Rio Grande.

                  1. You have no right to constrain my freedom of association because you’re afraid of the brown people from across the Rio Grande.

                    spare us the racist!11! bullshit. And when those people’s being here infringes on the rights and wallets of others, then yes, there is a clear right to constrain. There is no right to the resources of another person.

                    1. when those people’s being here infringes on the rights and wallets of others, then yes, there is a clear right to constrain. There is no right to the resources of another person.

                      Irrelevant.

                    2. if that is irrelevant, then you have nullified the primary purpose of a govt – to protect the rights of its citizens. Sorry, but your desire to associate with some illegal does not trump my right to be protected from his reaching into my wallet for any number of services paid for bona fide citizens.

                      An immigration process exists, fucked up as it may be. And since you brought up brown people, why are they unable to navigate it like people of other hues have?

              4. Ku and Bruen looked at social welfare programs ranging from Medicaid to the food stamp program to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Their findings: Poor immigrants consistently utilize welfare programs less than their native-born counterparts.

                That’s just a flat out lie. No wonder he doesn’t link to the paper.

                1. That’s not a lie, that’s fact. That’s data.

                2. If you’re really interested, you can read the paper here.

                  1. I’ve read the paper. “Comparable low-income native-born” is an unnaturally specific reading of “counterpart”.

                    1. I haven’t read it yet. Could you please expand on that?

                    2. CIS released a paper that was cooked in their favor. In turn CATO released a paper that was cooked in their favor. One of the things they did was compare immigrants to similar citizens. When they did that, immigrants used less welfare than “comparable low-income native-born.” It’s a key point, and at no point are Ku and Bruen deceptive. Nowratesh is lying when he skips all that and just says “counterpart.”

              5. Non citizens aren’t eligible for medicaid or CHIP, even after ACA expansion. How did they “sign up” for something they couldn’t get?

                Even if poor immigrants generally use welfare than nativists (which include immigrants born here?), they’re not really a bargain. That’s because they generally don’t pay into the system that supports them.Poor immigrants either work for cash or don’t earn enough to pay income tax.

                I came to this country when I was 10 and not 13 years later I qualified for Pell grants. My parents were involved in the church and paid little in income tax but still took advantage of Healthynet LA (or whatever it was called before ACA).

                Immigrants aren’t bums, but the math is plain. There are obviously top tiers in that rank that pump the economy, but they’re not the norm.

            2. But, the welfare state is a factor and you cannot have both it and open borders.

              So do the right thing and get rid of the welfare state.

              1. fine by me, Francisco. What do you think odds of that happening are?

                1. Indeed, wareagle. Fine, Francisco, first let’s eliminate the welfare state, and then we can talk about open borders. Until then, libertarians should be against mass immigration. Deal?

                  1. No, PSF, let’s open the borders and use it as leverage to eliminate the welfare state. Why do you Republicans need to do everything backwards?

                    1. let’s open the borders and use it as leverage to eliminate the welfare state.

                      Because that won’t work. It assumes that bankrupting the welfare state with more poor people will cause voters to says “Let’s eliminate welfare for everyone!” Nobody but libertarians think that way. 90% of voters do not. More poor people empowers the left.

                  2. “Lets eliminate the welfare state and then we can talk about legal drugs”

                    “Lets eliminate the welfare state and then we can talk about eliminating anti-smoking campaigns”

                    “Lets eliminate the welfare state and then we can talk about [insert freedom to be sacrificed here]”

                    It just doesn’t fucking end with you people. “I like freedom but my head is too far up my ass to really understand it, so you all have to sacrifice your liberty because I am afraid of [insert boogeyman here]”. Not interested. We’re just moving on and forward. Once again, we’ll take the lead and you’ll have to follow and moan and bitch as usual.

                    1. the welfare state has nothing to do with drugs or the other straw men you have erected. We’ll send you the illegals then. Enjoy. Your country has already moved to dial back the scope of govt but, hey, let Canadians redefine freedom of association.

                2. It happened in the mid-90s under a Democratic president.

                  I see no reason it can’t happen under Paul.

                  1. It happened in the mid-90s under a Democratic president.

                    welfare reform was driven by a GOP Congress and a Dem president astute enough to read the political tea leaves. Many in Bill’s party were adamantly opposed and the Dems today are almost wholly opposed. Plus, the GOP lacks the political balls to put up with the media firestorm that would ensue when “the poors” are tossed into the streets where the living envy the dead.

                    1. Wareagle is correct.

                    2. Yeah!

                      “We could never do that today”…is a lame excuse to do nothing.

        2. The Front Door is mostly closed thanks to people like you.

          1. and how did I close the front door exactly? My parents managed to navigate it so rethink your biases.

            1. Your parents did, many millions of others cannot. It’s been made clear here at Reason that the door is closed for unskilled labour.

              1. you can’t have a welfare state and open borders. Why anyone would want to import millions of people to siphon from a system already breaking the country is a mystery that maybe Canada should answer. And pay for.

                1. That’s why we need open borders. Cave the welfare state, which is unsustainable anyways. In any event, Canada has lots of immigration and a welfare state and interestingly enough it’s working relatively well.

                  1. genuinely believing that open borders would cause the US govt to scuttle the welfare state is just derp on steroids. And does Canada have millions of illegal immigrants? It barely has millions of citizens.

                    1. Canada is restrictive about who it lets in. They are letting in Chinese entrepreneurs, not Guatemalan peasants. Although Canada does have an idiotic soft spot for Muslims, hence their growing population of sharia devotees and terror supporters.

                  2. “Canada has lots of immigration”

                    We have like 10 times more immigrants here, and most Canadian immigrants are either Chinese or Europeans. And a good chunk of them move down to the US.

                    Canada does not pay for the healthcare or education of non citizen, minus some exceptions. You can’t be “exempt” from paying into their healthcare system, because some of the cost is fixed into the cost of living.

                    There’s less grey areas of immigration in Canada. The process might be simple (I imagine they’re less overwhelmed by applicants compared to the US), but if you’re not a citizen, then you’re out of luck.

                    Canada is a boring, frozen wasteland. Immigrants don’t care about hockey, and in reality, they won’t so easily trade high cost for secure government services.

  9. Well we could eliminate most of that violence by legalizing drugs but that would require real compassion instead of fake compassion for solely political reasons.

    1. Look, those assets aren’t going to forfeit themselves.

  10. Was watching Drugs, Inc earlier. US spending lord knows how many millions chasing a coke plane around in a High tech P-3 spy plane for over 8 hours with no bust. The amount of resources and lives we put into stopping people from getting a party drug is stupid. Interesting the first time they lost him was over Belize. Evidently Belize doesn’t allow us in their airspace. Good for them.

    1. I never miss a chance to watch that show. I would recommend it to everyone.

      I especially like the episodes in Puerto Rico and Columbia. It’s immediately obvious how badly our war on drugs has fucked up those countries.

      1. Oh, and the one with the submarines. It makes it clear that there’s no way to win the war on drugs.

        1. It makes it clear that there’s no way to win the war on drugs.

          Yes there is. The way to do it is YOU DON’T PLAY.

          #JustSayNo
          #StraightEdge
          #DopeIsForDopes

  11. They should release the refugees onto college campuses. After experiencing a few days of the campus rape epidemic, they’ll flee back to Central America.

    1. Or Phoenix Joe could have non-stop bus service to the north east. See how long that last.

  12. “When people knock on your door, and they are fleeing abuse, the United States is obligated morally and legally to let them in,”

    The US government is morally obligated to serve the interests of the citizens of the US, not the citizens of other countries.

    The problem is that it serves neither, it looks after its own interests.

    1. The US government is morally obligated to dissolve itself, not the citizens of other countries.

  13. I guess it didn’t occur to them that if you let everyone in who says they’ve suffered violence, that you might be letting in the ones who are perpetrating the violence.

    1. Or ISIS terrorists for that matter.

      1. They would NEVER take advantage of Open Borders like that! Because racism or something.

      2. Hey, the Atlantic says they don’t vote.

  14. So you flee a country rife with violence by going to a country with the largest prison population in the world, cops that shoot at the sound of rice crispies, and an inevitable collapse of its currency on the near horizon. These women keep seeking out abusive relationships.

  15. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me dude.

    http://www.FullAnon.tk

  16. Will this include women and girls fleeing FGM? Or is that a religious practice that multiculturalists will insist is good and wholesome?

  17. Communist magazine The Weekly Worker publishes one of the funniest letters I’ve ever seen.

    Phil Kent has accused me of holding positions I never held in relation to Stalin, the issue of peak oil and reptilians (Letters, January 15).

    Um…

    I never claimed that the future of humanity “may rest on the beneficence of extra-terrestrial reptiles”. I replied to Andrew Northall’s letter of December 18 and referred to the reptilian control theory, which argues that for thousands of years humanity has been controlled by a reptilian race, using their mixed reptile-human genetic bloodlines, who have oppressed and exploited humans, while claiming descent from the ‘gods’ and the divine right to rule by bloodline. Ancient and modern society is obsessed with reptilian, serpent and dragon themes, possibly due to this heritage. Even the flag of Wales has a dragon on it.

    Most people have closed minds, depending on the issues. Mention the possibility of aliens secretly manipulating humanity behind the scenes and the shutters come down. Perhaps Kent should contemplate Einstein’s words: “If at first an idea does not sound absurd, there is no hope for it.”

    And it ends with an Einstein quote! Brilliant!

    1. Hey, there, Irish? Think you’re so smart, remember: Even. The Flag. Of Wales.

      Explain that, Colonel Brainiac!

    2. There’s been a millennia long conspiracy by space aliens and this society is the best they can do? They’ve had 1000s of years and made this? Wow, they suck.

    3. Do have a better explanation for this thing that is secretly running the federal government?

      1. Sorry, that’s note quite reptilian. But it is scary!

        1. I think Jarrett is quite reptilian. How about Bob Filner?

  18. ??????? Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer has gone so far as to
    I’m going to show you how I make a living online! Here is a company that will pay you $100 if you don’t make money in 24 hours. Take a look this company has an A+ Business Bureau Rating
    Get Paid Up To $23.75 Per hour …..

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.