Don't Let Dead Syrian Babies Drive U.S. Refugee Policy…

And don't let emotionalism drive foreign policy, or immigration laws. That's no way to run a country.


Images of dead Syrian babies have changed the way Europe and America is responding to the refugee crisis in the Middle East.

However heartfelt, it's never smart to let emotionalism guide policy, whether we're talking about refugees, immigration, or war.

Unfortunately, we do precisely that all the time, especially when there's pre-existing consensus in place.

As I write in a new Daily Beast column, we're constantly be yanked around by our feelings and gut reactions precisely when we need to keep a cooler head:

Only a year ago, the sight of two American freelance journalists being beheaded by ISIS flipped public opinion almost immediately in favor of going back militarily into the Middle East.

Once those videos had been released, ISIS, a group with perhaps zero ability to wreak serious havoc on America, suddenly became an "existential" threat to our very way of life. (And this, of course, was exactly the reaction ISIS was counting on.)

And of course, emotionalism is pretty much all we get when it comes to immigration:

Similarly, we should have an immigration policy that is settled and understood so that the statistically rare murder by an illegal immigrant doesn't become demagogic fodder for nativists and presidential candidates. Seventy percent of Americans support a path to legalization for illegals and maintaining or increasing current levels of immigration, attitudes that are rarely present in political discussions of the topic.

As an open-borders, non-interventionist libertarian, I think we should take in or otherwise help as many refugees as we can (in fact, the U.S. is the single-largest donor nation when it comes to humanitarian aid for displaced Syrians) and we should allow anyone who wants to work to enter and leave legally in the United States (as is currently the law, such people should be barred from accessing most forms of taxpayer-supported aid). No surprise there, I realize.

But regardless of your specific point of view on any given issue, I think you'll agree that we also need to get serious as a country to actually discuss, debate, and deliberate on such matters before they are upon us.

Otherwise, we're just going to be jerked around from one "crisis" to another with no real compass or plan. And if the past decade-plus of American involvement in the Middle East should teach us anything, it's that we can always make things worse when we rush into situations or policy decisions.

Finally—and perhaps most importantly because of our ability to rain down bombs from on high, send our youth to spill their blood, and participate in the deaths of millions—we should have a foreign policy that is clearly articulated, "consistent with a free society and aimed at securing America's interests in the world."

That way, when the heart-rending and blood-boiling images wash up on our newsfeeds like so many Syrian babies on a beach, we'll be in a far better position to take righteous and effective action. And we'll also lower the odds that such catastrophes would befall the world in the first place.

Read the whole Beast article here.

NEXT: What the Made-for-TV Movie About Ben Carson, Donald Trump's Closest Rival for the GOP Nomination, Tells Us About His Appeal

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. Uh, I'd rather see one of those animated gifs than that poor lad.

    Here in the states we'd be better served if there was a waiting period between tragedies and the legislation/policy they spur. But crisitunity is the order of the day now.

    1. Yeah, bring on the animated gifs. I had studiously avoided seeing that pic because I'm a big wuss when it comes to shit like that.

      Now my surly teen-aged sons are going to get an extra hug from me today whether it embarrasses them or not.

      1. You're a parent. Embarrassing your kids is in the job description.

        1. Anyone foolish enough to let Mom snap a pic of them doing the See My Wee Wee dance, naked after their bath, deserves what they get.

        2. But I'm so cool....

      2. I've been avoiding this as well. And don't listen to the NPR story where they interview the Canadian in-law of the family. Especially if there is dust in the air when you are listening.

  2. And it begins...


    1. "How can we keep children safe when adults can legally possess significant quantities of marijuana at home within easy reach, or when marijuana retail stores can operate within a stone's throw of a newly built school or daycare?[]"

      By resigning, en masse.

      1. Maybe by training your cops to not start blasting kids as soon as the squad car stops rolling?

        That would have at least saved Tamir Rice.

      2. Probably the same way we keep kids safe when parents can have liquor cabinets and stores near schools can sell beer. In fact it's easier than that since a kid could easily kill himself with a bottle of vodka, but would have a really hard time doing the same with a year's supply of weed.

        1. Actually, I suspect that given half a chance a kid could easily kill himself with a year's supply of weed and a lighter. But from a housefire, not the drug.

  3. Nothing like a dirt-nappin' kid to brighten my day.


    1. Anchor babies? Too soon?

      1. Well, for some period they're more like Buoy Babies, but - no, never too soon.

        1. Get me two scoops of ice cream and I'll show you how to make a dead baby float.

          *im going to hell*

          1. *passes Florida Man his very own hand basket*

            1. I just read WTF and Almanian!'s posts....

              It's hand baskets all the way down.

  4. I am such a stick in the mud. If my town comes under attack from savages I will stay and fight and send the wife and kids off to Germany or wherever. This refugee crisis seems to be the opposite. I don't mean to an Internet Braveheart about this. If we all could afford a plane ticket to Fiji I would be on board. But as a choice with limited resources I will stay.

    1. 4 million Syrian refugees surely equals at least 400,000 of them capable of bearing arms to fight the savages driving them out of their towns. Surely there are enough surplus arms floating around that could be employed? I'm reminded that about 1/4 of the total population of the Confederacy took up arms against Yankee invaders under the dubious proposition that they
      "were protecting their homes and families."

      1. Fighting ISIS takes guts.

        The western Europeans are such pussies you can literally walk there and take whatever you want. Why fight? Particularly if you have ideological disagreement with ISIS? Much easier to invade Europe and fulfill a 1500 year old dream.


        1. you can literally walk there and take whatever you want.

          As a resident of Western Europe, I feel you are using the word "literally" a bit loosely.

          1. Okay, it's faster to take a train. But walking is an option too unless a Hungarian reporter trips you up.

    2. To answer your question from yesterday, Manhattan Beach. 100% of our water is imported.

      I looked it up, and it does look like Long Beach gets quite a bit of water from wells.

    3. 70% of the migrants are males.

      That means that 30% aren't (I know, math is hard). If we assume that, say half of the 30% is in a family group, that would mean that around, say, 20% of the refugees are family groups, and I believe that means that 50% of the migrants are unattached males. (Note: off the cuff, math errors possible).

      Sorry, but when 50% of a migrant group is unattached males, that's more of a barbarian invasion than a refugee crisis.

  5. Outrage has become utterly banal. People lose their shit on things ranging from what so-and-so said to a dead lion in Africa.

    It's hard to care about any of these things because it gets so dull, let alone build up any sort of momentum towards legislation. So in that regard, I think it's a good thing that will prevent knee-jerk laws in the future.

    1. Wait, so-and-so said something?

      Way to raise my blood pressure, now I'm going to start a petition campaign.



      2. But what did so-and-so say to a dead lion in Africa?

        1. "Sumbitch is heavy. We better get that wrecker over here and tow it."

  6. You know who else let emotions drive foreign policy?...

    1. Garibaldi?

    2. Jefferson Davis?

      1. +1 Tears of a Clown

      1. Before or after J-Lo?

        Wait - wrong one. Never mind...

      2. Better than mine, but technically that was domestic policy.

    3. You know who else let immigration policy drive a party? or website?

  7. "Don't Let Dead Syrian Babies Drive.."

    I agree.

  8. Not sure how I feel about posting the picture of that poor child.

    1. Yeah, way to deflate my sarcasm boner, Nick.

    2. Has it anything to do with feeling less respect for Nick?

      /asking for myself

    3. Not sure how I feel about posting the picture of that poor child.

      I'm just surprised at the restraint not to use alt-text...

  9. I'm considering making a joke, but I'm not sure if I'm ready to take the Tiara away from Nikki yet.

    1. Doesn't she have spares?

  10. I view importing large numbers of Muslims as insane. It will end horribly in Europe and the U.S. will feel the consequences even if we decline to participate in this stupidity.

  11. I'm not sure that a child who safe from war and died because their parents were greedy enough to try a stupid way to get to a different country to soak the citizens there for welfare is a great argument to try on most people, much less libertarians.

    1. All that matters is the pic and the narrative, SF.

      "Hands up! Don't shoot!"

      Pic of 12-year-old Saint Trayvon

      Elian Gonzales in the closet, crying, with the SWATzi with the AR bodily pulling him from the dude holding him....

      Wait. That last one caught the moment exactly...

    2. The normal human condition is to live in abject poverty while keeping the neighboring tribe from raping your women and stealing your children. Adjust your perspective.

  12. Could someone who still spends their time paying close attention to world events please explain something to me?

    What's happening in Syria now to cause this refugee crisis. This civil war in Syria has been raging for how many years now? And only recently (the last couple of months) this refugee crisis has been in the news. Is there some new development in the war which has caused this exodus?

    1. It's more pull than push at this point.

      Free-shit in Europe is PULLING them in. If the first boat or train loads were booted back to where they came from a few years ago, this wouldn't be happening. But when word spread that there was free shit to be had - and rich countries to eventually take over through demographics, the stampede began,

      1. and rich countries to eventually take over through demographics

        Because that's how it works.

        1. Sure. Ask the Celts in England or Spain or the Native Americans here how it works.

          1. Ah, so "demographics" is an archaic term for "superior weaponry and coordinated campaigns of conquest and colonization".

              1. HM's leading the francophone demographic takeover of H&R! Get 'im!

            1. Or, "lacking the balls to fight off an invasion". Which describes part of the problem of the late Roman Empire and the Vandal kingdoms of North Africa that fell to the Muslims.

          2. That was a bit of a different situation, I think. There are also plenty of historical examples of relatively peaceful mass-migrations which didn't largely replace the previous inhabitants of a place.

            I think Europe is in some trouble because of all of the poorly assimilated immigrants from the middle east, but I don't see any good reason to consider it an invasion or colonization at this point. But they do need to get rid of the multiculturalism-is-great crap. That's not going to work with all of these new people from the Islamic world.

            1. Name one that involved Islam.

              1. Peaceful that is - I agree that it won't work with people coming out of the Middle-East.

              2. The other ones involving Islam were large military invasions, which isn't happening here. New things do happen.

                You may well be right. I just don't see any reason to think so at this point. And if Islam does somehow become dominant in Europe, I still don't see, at this point, a reason to think of it as an invasion or colonization

                1. Much of the spread across North Africa was not a large military operation. They would establish a base, make raids - murder, rape, enslave and generally spread terror - until the locals submitted to Islamic rule. Use extreme pressure - taxes and slavery - to convert the locals.

                  Once they had enough converts and/or a new generation of Islamic warriors, they move the base west and repeat. Few major battles were involved.

                    1. If that really was the game it would be awesome.

                      Build your Rabat (fort). Lead some raids. Extra points for rape and murder. Sell your captives at the slave market to fund your next moves...

                  1. Still pretty different from what is happening now.

                    1. 1. Establish a population center in or near enemy territory.

                      2. Build mosques and forts (call them community centers to appease the stupid).

                      3. Get converts.

                      4. Use terror tactics to get concessions, special treatment, respect, etc...

                      5. Get control, impose Islamic law.

                      Nothing has changed. Much of western Europe is well into stage 4. Try to publicly criticize Islam in Sweden or Belgium.

                    2. Nothing has changed.

                      That's ridiculous. Everything changes all the time.

                      I remain quite unconvinced.

                    3. What's different? Other than much of western Europe no longer practices Christianity.

                    4. Build ... forts (call them community centers ...)

                      Any "fort" that can be destroyed by a single firebomb... isn't.

                    5. How many have been fire-bombed? The locals right now lack the guts - and know the cops will do far more to protect the Muslims than they will do to protect the locals.

                    6. Well, if you extrapolate what has been happening in France and Scandivia with their current populations of unassimilated Muslims (welfare queens, rape gangs, no-go zones), it sounds like the current slo-mo barbarian invasion is pretty much sticking to form.

    2. The new developments didn't come from Syria. Until several months ago Syrian refugees got Algerian visas, flew there, crossed the border to Libya and took a boat to Italy. Those boats sank all the time, but there was no video footage. Now Algeria stopped granting visas to Syrians and about the same time Merkel was pushed to declare that Germany would accept more Syrian refugees. With the Algerian route closed, the refugees are moving through the Balkans to Hungary. Lots of media coverage of the refugees crossing the land borders and demonstrating in European cities.

      1. So the refugees were always coming, but they weren't traveling along telegenic routes, within convenient distances from hotels frequented by western media?

      2. I think this is the answer that Paul was looking for.

    3. Paul,

      I think you're correct in that millions of Syrians have already fled their country and sought succor in neighboring nations/regions. Perhaps the difference today is that a significantly greater number of them are trying to reach "Western Democracies" in addition to the other areas.

      You may call me cynical for this, but last week I had some thoughts.
      Western governments funded and assisted some of the "rebels/freedom fighters" who were warring against the Assad Regime. Rather than helping topple the government, this prolonged/exacerbated the conflict, and millions of refugees fled the horrific conditions. Now that the fleeing citizens and their tragic deaths are being covered in greater detail in the "western press" some of the same governments are showing their humanitarian benevolence by opening their borders to more of those fleeing.
      It struck me that the same individuals/government officials who are partly responsible for the original problems are now quick to show how they have solutions to the (inevitable) problem of the displaced Syrians, which they in fact helped create. Sometimes one of the best ways to avoid being exposed for the mistakes/wrongs that you have done is to appear to be a hero.

      This is, of course, sheer speculation on my part.

      1. So after breaking their leg, we're benevolently handing out crutches?

        1. In a nutshell.

          1. It is one of my impressions.

            Perhaps I'm being pedantic/overly picky, but I prefer "

            So after breaking their leg, our government is benevolently handing out crutches?"

            We didn't get to decide any of it, although we get to pay for the tools used to break the leg and then the crutches and any physical therapy.

      1. Excellent.

    4. It's my understanding that ISIS has basically kicked the revolution into overdrive. This has turned the refugee spigot from slow drizzle to fully open.

      But that's just gathering information from various news sources and could be off the mark.

  13. Activist: We want change.

    Me: OK, What did you have in mind?


    Me: Go fuck yourself.

  14. To me the "interesting" part is how much crap countries who "are so heartless they won't take enough refugees" are getting, compared to the deafening media silence about the countries producing the refugees.

    I'll lay odds most of the people outraged at Germany and the U.S. can't even name the countries the people are fleeing from.

    1. "Um...like....Syriaaaaaaaa? And.....Hitler???"

    2. I thought we were bombing the countries they were coming from in an attempt to make life better there?

      1. Bomb them into prosperity. Isn't there some economist or other who would smile upon that plan?

        1. The guy doing the bombing... what's his name... Oh yeah, Obama!

  15. it's never smart to let emotionalism guide policy


  16. what so-and-so said to a dead lion in Africa.

    How much of a badass do you have to be to talk smack to a dead lion?
    Go say that to a LIVE lion, Bub, and not one of them tame zoo lions, neither!

    1. Pretty sure lions don't speak English, but I wouldn't want to risk it on a non-dead or uncaged example.

      1. If that lion wants to live in an AMERICAN zoo, he'd better learn to speak English!


  17. But regardless of your specific point of view on any given issue, I think you'll agree that we also need to get serious as a country to actually discuss, debate, and deliberate on such matters before they are upon us.

    Good luck with that, Mr. Gillespie. The last month or so has convinced me the tenor of American politics has become one of two tribes of emotional morons occupying the same geographic expanse. Anything beyond "Yay Us!", "Fuck You", and "Awwweee" are pretty much fag talk. Idiocracy has descended on us a few hundred years early.

    1. Trump's got what plants crave.

      1. Trump's part of it. For one tribe. But, it's also Cecil, the dipshit church lady down in Kentucky, and the ongoing saga of the social justice cadres with the other.

        They're forming an incessant underlying whine of stupid that overpowers just about any political discourse.

        1. "Who's going to sign your marriage certificate now, hmm? Could it be... SATAN?!?!?!"

        2. Reason would be part of it....

          But despite all the links to Vox, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Dailybeast, Guardian, Slate, WaPo and other "progressive" tabloids to numerous to name found here at reason none seem to link back....

          1. That Vox won't link back to any criticism of their inane babble is hardly surprising but is hardly a black mark against Reason.

    2. We didn't recognize cousin marriage fast enough to blame them sister-fucking hicks. In retrospect, we probably ought to have set up our fall guy before we went full retard.

        1. He's the unknown stuntman that makes Obama look so fine.

  18. I've been trying not to focus on that photo.

    1. Like Pope Jimbo, I too had managed to avoid the photo. Ugh.

      1. It's just a dead kid face down on the beach, geez.

  19. That slimy fuckbag Chertoff was om my teevee this morning, saying nobody who "just wants economic opportunity" should be considered for admission to this country. Because the last thing we want is a class of immigrants who might create wealth and grow the economy. Also- 9/11!9/11!9/11!9/11!9/11!9/11!9/11!9/11!
    What a maroon.

    1. Chertoff used his position to create economic opportunity for himself while screwing multitudes of taxpayers and travelers. May he suffer at the hands of the Dark Ones.

  20. Wait a minute. I've seen that photo, but from the opposite angle.

    So do you mean to tell me that a bunch of shitty journalists surrounded that toddler's body and took a bunch of propaganda pictures?

    1. Either that or someone screwed up and posted the picture in mirror image.

      I haven't seen it before, so I have no idea.

      1. Well, now I have "Dead Syrian Baby" in my search history. And I didn't find the one I was looking for.

    2. I've seen that too. And the answer is yes.

    3. Wouldn't it be awesome if the photographer didn't check if the child was alive first and just started snapping photos instead.

      1. The body was posed. I forget all the details, but someone "corrected" the body's position and that of its clothes prior to photography.

  21. I heard a radio report from a Hungarian who said that Hungarians saw so many of them with cell phones and nice clothes, they thought the migrants couldn't be that bad off.

    She also advised against living in Hungary because it is a depressing place with a high suicide rate. Her explanation was that Hungary has been on the losing side of history so many times it made sadness part of the national character.

    1. I always thought that more thorough reporting standards explained the high suicide rate in Hungary. Or at least that's what I heard from Hungarians.

    2. Magyar women are very attractive. That is all.

    3. Her explanation was that Hungary has been on the losing side of history so many times it made sadness part of the national character.

      That's kind of an eastern European thing.

      My mother was half British and half Czech. The dueling melancholy and ongoing sense of foreboding was a sight to see... and live with.

    1. I was expecting that from someone.

  22. There was a refugee from Uzbekistan who settled in Idaho. It turns out he was a wannabe jihadi.


    1. You mean "a Boise man," you racist.

      He could just as well have been a Tea Party activist, but you don't hear about *those* terrorists in the media!


  23. Side note: if you're going to transport your non-swimming wife and kids on the ocean, maybe spring for some life jackets?

    1. The French diplomats were stopped from selling life jackets.

      French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on Friday suspended an honorary consul in Turkey for selling rubber dinghies and life jackets to refugees risking their lives crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.

    2. Can we blame deodorant choices, or at least vaguely attribute it to austerity?

      1. And let's not forget the role of the Koch brothers.

  24. "As an open-borders, non-interventionist libertarian, I think we should take in or otherwise help as many refugees as we can. . . .and we should allow anyone who wants to work to enter and leave legally in the United States (as is currently the law, such people should be barred from accessing most forms of taxpayer-supported aid)."

    That's what I mean when I call myself an open borders libertarian, too, with the caveats that 1) they aren't carrying a communicable disease and 2) that they are identifiable (so we can check to see if they're violent criminals or on a terrorist watch list).

    I'm not convinced Syrian refugees are up to snuff on point 2. Certainly, knowing that the Russians told the FBI to watch the Boston Marathon bomber and that the FBI considered the Boston Marathon bomber a suspect in a triple murder before the bombing--and yet did nothing to stop him--I don't have a lot of faith in our federal government to distinguish between people coming from that part of the world who are terrorist threats and people who aren't.

    I appreciate that the refugees are more likely to be Christians or Shia (rather than ISIS Sunnis), but the Assad regime has been our enemy for a long time, too, and there isn't a lot of pro-American support on any side in that civil war--not even among Christians. Being pro-Assad and anti-America is the one thing the Shia, the Christians, and the Sunni seem to have in common.

    1. "Being pro-Assad anti-America is the one thing the Shia, the Christians, and the Sunni seem to have in common."


  25. I'm open to the suggestion that we have a moral responsibility to help these refugees since our destabilization of Iraq (and our disbanding of the Iraqi military) led directly to the creation of ISIS, but we should also consider that if the legitimate purpose of our government is to protect our rights, then our government also has a responsibility to protect us from those who may mean us harm.

    Surely, this isn't an all or nothing question, is it? Isn't there some way we can help these refugees without bringing them within our borders?

    1. The government confiscated my resources to engage in military action against something that doesn't affect me. You have a long uphill battle to make me feel that I have any moral responsibility to give up even more of my resources to help anyone.

      1. I think your responsibility to help refugees in this case may be like your responsibility to pay for the police to go to the scene of a shooting, protect any survivors, and make sure the wounded can get into an ambulance and off to the ER. No matter what Tony says, leaving helpless people bleeding in the streets isn't what libertarianism is all about. When helpless refugees come to our borders, I think we may have a moral obligation to help them, like I said, especially if we were the proximate cause of them being refugees.

        The question for me is whether we should bring them into our borders considering that they may be a security threat. If we can help them without bringing them into our borders, then maybe that's what we should do.

        P.S. There are about a million things on my list of what we could cut from the federal budget before we got to aid for helpless refugees. Honestly, I see it as like paying to give a public education to poor crippled children.

        1. I don't see "helpless refugees" in the photos of European borders. I see an army of invasion. They may succeed where the Sultans, Caliphs, Grand Viziers, and Khans failed.

          1. Maybe you should try Paxil.

        2. I mean, I agree with the sentiment but I still believe that humanitarian assistance given using stolen money without my consent cannot be a moral act for the same reason that your stealing money from me to pay for food for the needy is still immoral. It's an easy morality when the sacrifice you make to help someone is not your own. I realize that part of what you're talking about involves the processing of identification, background checks and so forth, which of course isn't something typically accomplished by charity, but I maintain that the point still stands. Americans are generous--as are, I believe, most people--and more than willing to donate money and/or time to good causes. When the government uses tax money to do the same it tends to be less efficient and robs the "donors" of any feeling of responsibility.

          Of course, knowing that the government is going to extort money from me and mine anyway, it would at least be some comfort to think that it's going towards humanitarian concerns as opposed to any of the billion bullshit line items it currently funds.

    2. "and our disbanding of the Iraqi military"


      I don't know how to break it to you....they disbanded themselves, awfully quick too. Crushing defeat and having your country run over by the opposing force usually does that to an army.

      That one really chaps my arse, as I worked with enough of the IA to have them laugh off any suggestion that they would have stayed intact. When we were making sure they were actually paid, fed, equipped and trained, it was hard enough to keep Mr. Jinood in his unit and on the job.

      1. Your anecdote aside, De-Baathification not only fed the insurgency and alienated Sunnis from the whole nation building process, but it was Saddam loyalists that brought Zarqawi to Iraq and assisted him--and that was the beginning of ISIS.

        I strongly recommend this article. I don't believe any subscription is required.


        There's no question that the Arab Spring was not a creation of the U.S. government, but when the Arab Spring came to Syria, it made huge opportunities for ISIS possible that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

        We can certainly say this: there wasn't any ISIS in Iraq or Syria before we invaded Iraq, and without our invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi's organization in Jordan wouldn't be ISIS. He'd have still been Osama bin Laden's red-headed stepchild.

  26. Yesterday on Yawn Vanity, the token liberal harpy was asked how she planned on screening out possible terrorists from refugees. She made homina homina noises and accused people of being heartless.

  27. So... why is the article picture the dead Turkish kid?

    Also, as evidenced by Denmark and Australia, the surest way to stop people from dying in transit is to stop giving them free shit when they arrive. These Migrants keep steadfastly refusing to end up registered in certain countries because other EU locations give out better benefits.

    The migrants are 75% young males, and less than 15% children. This is not the demographic pattern you get from refugees fleeing a conflict, this is the pattern you get from economic migrants looking for money.

  28. Perhaps the European migrant situation will spur a little thinking about the implications of a borderless nation.

    1. Europe has borders. If it were borderless people wouldn't have to come packed into dangerous boats and trucks and whatnot.

  29. Not one mention of the inconvenient fact that the United States and most of western Europe are already practically bankrupt and can't afford the stresses upon the existing system as it is now. Amazing.

  30. I disagree. I think stage-managed photos and coordinated campaigns to accept arbitrary numbers of who-cares-who as "Refugees"

  31. "emotionalism"

    OK I should use logic and reason....except when Reason writers point and shriek "sexist nativist racist xenophobe restrictoinist from India ass mouth" then I should use emotionalism...got it.

    Makes perfect sense if you think about it.

  32. Two thoughts:

    (1) You are dead on point, Nick.

    (2) Ain't gonna happen.

  33. Keep in mind, of course, that much of the information that we need to really evaluate our immigration policy is purposely obscured by government agencies that refuse to track and/or report such tidbits as:

    (1) Seriously, how many immigrants (stratified by legal v illegal) are on welfare of some kind?

    (2) Seriously, how many immigrants (stratified by legal v illegal) commit violent crimes in the US?

    1. Considering that both sides claim to have the stats to back up their stories, yeah, this is annoying.

  34. Seeing the dead child was very sad. I could not avoid it, because it was on every form of news media I see. Oddly, the revelation that the child's father was a human smuggler, and directly responsible for the child's death, received almost no coverage at all. The father charged each passenger 11,000 Euros for the fateful trip. Here is a link from Reuters-
    The father's story was nothing but lies.

  35. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.