Congressman Calls on Capitol Police to Arrest 'Dreamers' at State of the Union

So it's come to this.



An Arizona congressman took to Twitter today to announce he had contacted both the U.S. Capitol Police and Attorney General Jeff Sessions about checking the ID of everyone attending the State of the Union. Republican Rep. Paul Gosar asked them to consider "arresting any illegal aliens in attendance."

A number of House Democrats—and at least one Republican, Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo—plan to bring guests who have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) status. DACA recipients are a subset of the so-called "Dreamers," children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.

President Donald Trump has insisted that DACA recipients shouldn't worry about deportation, although they face that risk after March 5, when their status will expire, absent congressional or executive action.

Gosar's tweet yielded sharp rebukes from a couple of members of his own party:

"Drastic and cruel" has long been the name of the game for the anti-immigrant faction of the GOP, which has been increasingly open about wanting to limit not just illegal immigration but the legal kind as well.

A lack of support from Speaker Paul Ryan makes it highly unlikely Gosar's suggestion will be taken up, even if it might interest Sessions. Congressional sources have told Fox News flat-out that they were "not going to do that."

A spokeswoman for Ryan says the speaker "clearly does not agree" with Gosar. She and Ryan ought to look around at the party they're in to judge how clear that disagreement actually is.

NEXT: The Insane Hindu Protests Against a Bollywood Movie

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. Christ, I’d hate to live in this guy’s district.

    1. I’m sure your representative is equally embarrassing at some point.


      2. you’re my representative Hugh?

            1. Probably at least 2nd or 3rd.

    2. As long as your papers are in order and you can produce them whenever the nice police officers ask, I’m sure you’ll be fine. Unless there’s something you’re not telling us, Fist. Or should I say, Pu?o de Etiqueta?

      1. I only respond to that if it’s in German.

    3. Love the alt-text. I am glad this phrase has been appropriated by the writers. And let’s give props to the Heroic Mulatto, for I believe he was the first to use the phrase on H&R.

      1. I wasn’t first bro.

    4. Figures he’s from Arizona. Let California invade and take them over after they secede. Solve both problems.

  2. I’m hearing a lot of noise about people walking off the job in DC. Sounds like the swamp is draining itself. I’m wondering if THIS is our libertarian moment.

    1. The only ones left will be the guys with guns and deportation orders. Pretty much what I’ve always suspected it would look like.

      1. So it’s going to stay the same? So why are people quitting?

        1. No, the guys with the guns and prisons and jackboots will stick around, but the bureaucrats who actually help people will leave. Libertopia.

          1. the bureaucrats who actually help people will leave

            Both of them??

          2. Tony, I’ve seen you use “retarded” or a derivative to insult people several times recently.

            I am asking you, please, can I get your commitment to be a better person, and stop slurring defenseless people in order to insult others on a meaningless forum?


            1. I agree. To quote George Gobel, “Don’t mock the afflicted”.

            2. This isn’t exactly the place for PC language police hurt feelings. Heard about this place called Slate?

              For your edification, I have exquisite manners. It’s just that it’s not really rude to slur someone when they aren’t around to hear it.

              1. “I have exquisite manners. It’s just that it’s not really rude to slur someone when they aren’t around to hear it.”

                This is how Tony responds to a polite, respectful request to try to be a better human being.

                1. “The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.”

                  1. They call me a faggot, I call them the R-word, it’s just guys being guys.

                    I’ll note that the only person being rude here is the one implying that the other has poor character.

                    1. I simply asked you politely, and now you are casting aspersions. I don’t own you, but your behavior isn’t in line with the positions you espouse or your claims of compassion for others.

                      You are hiding behind others poor behavior to behave poorly. That isn’t adult behavior, and disparaging others in pursuit of a cheap insult because you yourself feel disparaged by an unrelated party is atrocious.

                      I see that you have no shame and will continue to disparage the defenseless. Because, they are not here to see you do it.

                    2. They call me a faggot,

                      The mentally disabled call you that? They’re the ones you’re insulting with your use of the word.

                    3. Well, it’s kinda my shtick.

                      You’ve now insulted me like six different ways, and I’ve not insulted you once. I appreciate your perspective. But I do this on purpose. This is the un-PC libertarian crowd. I like to see if they are up to the realities of a freewheeling society. It means having a thick skin.

                      And if you’re developmentally disabled, it means having hope that your parents are rich and compassionate.

                    4. “You’ve now insulted me like six different ways”,

                      You’ve flatly refused, after a polite request that in no way insulted you, to stop slurring the defenseless. By your own ethical system I’d be right to insult you, so save it.

                      And, you still don’t get it. This is my about you, and the people you hate or feel disparaged by.

                      It’s about defenseless people you have no qualms about insulting for a cheap insult.

                    5. “But I do this on purpose”

                      “Well, it’s kinda my shtick.”

                      I get it now. You have no interest in living by the principles you espouse, nor having compassion for the defenseless.

                      Just say so. Stop couching it in excuses and admit you’re lying about the things you say you beleive.

                      Trolls are common, being one isn’t shameful, just own it.

                    6. By your own ethical system I’d be right to insult you

                      Um, no. You don’t get it at all. Nobody brought up the developmentally disabled except you. I used an immature insult. Something that happens in perhaps the majority of posts on this blog.

                      And when people call me a faggot, I’m sure they don’t mean to disparage any faggots who aren’t in the room.

                      Sorry, I just don’t do the language police thing.

                    7. “Um, no”

                      “They call me a faggot, I call them the R-word”

                      Um, Yes.

                    8. “Nobody brought up the developmentally disabled except you. I used an immature insult”

                      Wait, you actually beleive that?

                      Are you a psychopath?

                    9. But I actually am gay and my interlocutors are presumably, for the most part, abled.

                      If you’d like to make an argument that even using slurs when nobody’s around to be a target of them contributes to a hateful culture, I’d buy that. I’d engage thoroughly with that argument at Slate.com. You might even win me over.

                      But that’s not what you’re saying. You descended out of the blue to act offended on other people’s behalf on a libertarian website. I’m sure the snowflake police will be along any minute.

                    10. Stop, I realize I was wasting my time and that you’re a monster.

                    11. That’s like the 12th insult you’ve hurled my way, and I’ve been nothing but polite. Sorry for not having the same opinion as you, but it may surprise you to know that I am actually a self-aware human being.

                    12. “I’ve been nothing but polite. ”

                      No, Thats the point you keep missing.

                    13. This is the problem with the language police. They think they are justified in being rude sometimes. For the cause. Well there is never an excuse for rudeness.

                    14. ” Well there is never an excuse for rudeness.”

                      Then why won’t you stop being rude by using that slur?

                    15. Oh, you’re right, that is rude, but I’m not making excuses for it. I’m being rude on purpose. You’re doing it out of righteous indignation (which you think is an excuse).

                    16. “They call me a faggot, I call them the R-word, it’s just guys being guys.”

                      Your excuse for being rude.

                    17. I guess that bit of light irony didn’t go over as intended.

                    18. I am a special ed teacher. I work with kids every day who would be personally hurt by any use of the word.

                      That alone should be enough for a self aware person to stop propagating it in any fashion.

                    19. Well if any of them stumble upon Hit, tell them I’m terribly sorry, but we liberals have to establish our non-snowflake cred in order not to be dismissed out of hand as being hypersensitive weirdo stereotypes. This allows us to go on to be dismissed out of hand for believing in Medicare.

                      I actually am a faggot, and when someone calls me one, and often it’s meant with actual hostility, it doesn’t affect me emotionally though, because I’m not a fucking pussy.

                    20. “Well if any of them stumble upon Hit, tell them I’m terribly sorry, but we liberals have to establish our non-snowflake cred in order not to be dismissed out of hand as being hypersensitive weirdo stereotypes. ”

                      Then be more creative, stop making excuses, and stop slurring defenseless people.

                      Stop propagating the word. Be better.

                    21. “I actually am a faggot, and when someone calls me one, and often it’s meant with actual hostility, it doesn’t affect me emotionally though, because I’m not a fucking pussy.”

                      You still don’t get that it isn’t about you, or me. You’re slurring defenseless children.

                    22. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to do your job, but maybe slip something in about “sticks and stones.”

                      Because while I actually try not to have strong beliefs about things, I am rather vehement that you don’t help people by teaching them to be even more defenseless than they already are. I was an activist for civil rights in my day, but we all just assumed, at the time, that conditioning ourselves to dissolve into a puddle over mere words was rather counterproductive. We were taught to develop a thick skin. That’s the activism I believe in. People don’t get what they want by insisting to others how weak they are.

                    23. We get it Tony, you want to continue propagating a slur for the benefit of establishing some cred. Being more creative is too hard, I guess.

                      Don’t worry, I am sure telling them that they are pussies was what you intended, and not accidentally mosntrous.

                    24. Who is this guy, seriously?

                      I’ll give you this, you’ve certainly badgered me enough that I’ll think twice before ever calling one of the cousinfucking morons here the R-word.

                    25. How about you just stop.

                    26. How about you mind your own goddamn business and stop telling me what to do? I get it, you have a bug up your ass. We all do. I’m not fond of the word “queer.” Whatever. Society already agrees with you on your ass-bug, though, so you’re apparently only here to bully me into submission on its behalf.

                      But you already diagnosed me as a psychopath, so you might want to consider who will actually come out of this the better should the gloves really come off.

                      By the way, you didn’t ask what I did for a living. I teach special ed kids to rescue kittens. So there.

                    27. Has anyone else noticed Tony accidentally started slipping into his PB sock?

                    28. Well, now that you mention it we can’t really be sure which one is the sock…

                    29. Do you guys never tire of this endless conversation? I have never used another handle. This just makes it seem like you actually believe that there is only one liberal out there. Like you’re some kind of mole person.

              2. Tony, just end it all. You’re worthless.

                1. This has been an odd conversation.

                  1. I skipped over most of it.

          3. The guys with guns and prisons and jackboots are not part of my Libertopia. Neither are the bureaucrats who help themselves.

          4. Ironically, the ones with the guns are far more likely to fulfill a legitimate constitutional function, unlike the vast alphabet soup of agencies who’s constitutional justification for existing is dubious at best. O_o

            1. Tony doesn’t have problems with armed agents of the state, he just wishes those guns were pointed at his political enemies rather than all of us.

            2. Ding ding ding. See?

              1. In other words, fuck off slaver.

          5. Big fat liar. There is no such thing as a helpful government employee.

    2. You mean mccabe? Using accrued leave to retire early is a federal pastime. Nothing new honestly. I plan on accruing enough sick leave to retire two years early.

      1. I’m hearing noises that he threatened to “burn down the fbi” if he didn’t get his pension. No clarification on what he meant by “burn down”.

        And I also heard the head of the DNC walked off the job for “personal reasons”.

        We need a hashtag for this I think.

        1. #canyousubstantiateanyofthis

        2. why would he not get his pension? it doesn’t really work that way.

          The DNC person that has been around for less than a year? That place needs some work, I’m guessing more and more top level people will leave. Their development person left like 5 months ago because of shitty fundraising right?

        3. McCabe was planning to retire in March anyway. All he did was finalize a date and then put in for a bunch of vacation time.

          As for the DNC, i suspect anyone trying to figure out that top job would spend the first six months just saying “WHAT THE FUCK” over and over again all day and drinking heavily every night.

          1. Jess O’Connell, a longtime Democratic operative, is leaving for personal reasons after joining the group in May, one DNC official told NBC, but O’Donnell didn’t give a specific reason for her departure in an email to DNC staffers Monday.

            Wow, she broke up with the DNC in an email. I like her. A lot.

          2. As for the DNC, i suspect anyone trying to figure out that top job would spend the first six months just saying “WHAT THE FUCK” over and over again all day and drinking heavily every night.

            I don’t know, man. DWS appeared to have only one lonely brain cell so I don’t have much hope that they’ll put anyone with actual chops into that job. Right now it seems like the major qualification is ‘idiot’.

            Meanwhile, over at the RNC, it seems like the major qualification is indeed ‘evil, but sort of stupid’.

            1. DWS had two brain cells.

              They were just feuding.

      2. Uhh you are allowed to accrue enough leave to retire two years early? Which agency/group is this?

    3. Not from my view of the swamp. Building like crazy in Northern VA, DC and MD. Huge homes for defense contractors. MAGA!

      1. 5 richest counties in the US are DC suburbs! I saw a figure a few years ago that 9 of the 10 wealthiest are around DC, but I can’t find anything to really substantiate that since the 2012 census.

        Your tax dollars at work.

      2. Incidentally, I worked for a defense contractor for a few years, in a technical position requiring clearance. My friend is an inner-city 7th grade math teacher and made 5 grand more than me. My company wanted me to move to DC, but I wouldn’t get a raise, and the cost of living up there is quite high even two hours out of DC.

        The real high rollers are directly on the federal payroll. Not saying that defense contractors aren’t huge and inefficient. One of the biggest reasons I left is because I couldn’t reconcile the trillions of dollars in missing military equipment with my small-government ideals.

        1. That is… a… lot… of… money.

          The military is so economically illiterate this does not surprise me. They do not deal with economic realities.

  3. Huh, so the insane position is to assume that order to live and work in a massive, industrial scale welfare state one needs to be invited.

    Cool story. Kill welfare, then lets deregulate immigration. If you come at it the other way around, you can go fuck yourself. End. Of. Story.

    Of course, those who are pro-immigration seem absolutely and completely unwilling to have any sort of conversation about how Americans would need to voluntarily do away with their pervasive and explicitly anti-immigrant labor protections, but that’s because most of them can’t understand past 1st order consequences. Hell, most of them are standing on nothing except their feelings.

    1. You immigrated here from your mother’s pussy, which is different from “another country” only arbitrarily.

      1. Tony, You immigrated here from your father’s ass. Tomatoe-Tomato

      2. He could have been a C-section.

        1. Tony came out of his dad’s colostomy bag. Tony was the least valuable thing in that bag too.

      3. It’s very different, actually, unless you don’t have even a cursory knowledge of biology. Judging from your past comments, this seems pretty likely.

        1. Imaginary lines on a map. At least according to pro-lifers.

          1. So in your opinion, what makes a person a person and when that occurs is entirely known and narrowly defined? Cool. You should write a book about it since it’s been a philosophical question since mankind invented writing. It’ll be nice to get a definitive answer.

            1. No, it’s an unanswerable question because it can’t go deeper than semantics. A person is whatever we decide a person is.

              I prefer a definition that does not force a life of misery on billions of women, but I suppose that’s up for debate.

              1. A person is whatever we decide a person is.

                I have decided you are a straight white CIS normative Republican. Make it so.

                Or, as an actual response to your idiotic comment, I have decided that mankind is innately good and just. How long do I need to wait for it to come true?

                Oh, and that ‘life of misery on billions of women’ thing is called ‘nature’ and without it our species stops propagating.

                1. Too bad women can vote now cuz good luck selling that line to them.

                  1. I’m pretty sure most of the planet has a way bigger problem with infant morality and that abortion is a first-world construct, but you just keep doing whatever you possibly can to avoid addressing your own stance on immigration or DACA. It’s totally not a transparent dodge on your part that illustrates your shallow thinking.

                    1. Abortion is a human right as due to people as the right to own property. More, maybe.

                      Prove different. With science.

    2. Who invited you exactly?

      1. Two bored teenagers in the back of a Caddy, probably.

        1. Are you sure it wasn’t a rusty Ford Fairmont with one door a different color than the rest?

          1. No. But i am willing to throw it all away on the implication that homeboy grew up calling his grandma “Mom.” That’s just where my head’s at today, i guess.

          2. Something rusty was probably involved.

            1. Just accept that I wasn’t first and move on, my man.

      2. Congress, why?

    3. It’s so interesting for you to give an ultimatum and then in the very next sentence complain about people not willing to have a conversation.

      1. I like how you say ‘it’s interesting’.

        Fact: If you invite a ton of immigrants in while an expansive welfare state is in place, you’re crashing the welfare state in the more painful way than if you reverse the order of operations. Yet, somehow, those types are the one’s who are painted as compassionate.

        I give an ultimatum (not even really what it is, it’s just a baseline without which any negotation is in bad faith) because even those who are against such a policy, that being limited immigration, are against the end results of their own preferred policy initiative. So, yeah, inability to see past even rudimentary first order consequences.

        The most amusing thing is I’m not even an immigration ‘restrictionist’, it’s just that the specifically libertarian position on this involves massive social upheavals. Notably, I don’t even have a problem with massive social upheavals I would just prefer for the collateral damage to be minimized. Somehow, to some Libertarians, I’m the extremist. That’s pretty damn funny to me, rather than insulting or demeaning. Such a ‘position’ in a party of so-called ‘reasoned’ individuals will never cease to amuse.

        1. Oh, and it is indeed an invitation when you promise lavish benefits if you manage to show up. Don’t be so triggered that you assume it isn’t.

        2. This is a good argument. Like you said elsewhere in this thread, most politicians just perform first-aid on the gaping wound and leave the real work for the next guys/girls. SS is like that, too.

          A lot of libertarian views are impossible fantasies. Sometimes I think we’re even more deluded than communists. We know from the effect on other semi-socialist countries that an influx of unskilled immigrants overloads the welfare system and brings down the quality of life for everyone. We need to consider realistic ways to rectify that. One is restricting access to those services (including reducing the flow of immigrants), another is promoting assimilation and productive work. Ideally we’ll use a combination.

          I like the operational order argument. Even when people consider the consequences of their actions, they don’t think about anything further. Of course humans are pretty hard to model. It’s why economics is such a shitshow, but we can make informed guesses.

          I fully agree with your position that mass immigration right now would be a problem. I don’t think we can compel people to dismantle or even reduce the welfare state. Even if we could convince people, I don’t know that our lovely representatives would do it. So that’s about where I get stuck on reasonable solutions.

          We’re going to have to stop the bleeding first, and then we can actually start the surgery.

          1. A lot of libertarian views are impossible fantasies. Sometimes I think we’re even more deluded than communists.

            No, not deluded necessarily. They are ethos which are ideals that can never be met. That said, libertarianism lets communists try to be communists but strangely enough communists don’t give libertarians the option to try libertarianism. That isn’t really an argument, just an odd observation.

            1. Fair point about communists. They’re awfully militant about pushing their impossible utopia. They loathe diversity of thought and tolerance of differing ideas.

              I oscillate trying to decide to stay true to our ideals or relenting and letting some stuff pass.

              The founders didn’t pull all-night meetings because they were in agreement about everything. It’s hard to use them as role models because of, you know, slavery, but they got a lot of other stuff right. I think their dissension is why our government is pretty bare bones. Future generations can dress it up or tear it down as desired. Everyone’s totally fine with ignoring the constitution now. If people don’t like something about the constitution (federalism, hate speech, guns), then they ought to get to work pushing an amendment. We haven’t had one of those in 30 years, and not a real one in 50. If any of these issues are truly “common sense” and popular, then it should be easy to pull the 2/3 necessary to get it through the legislature. I honestly want to see one pass. I want to see ~2/3 of this country agree on something; it’d be good for us.

              I don’t think it’s unproductive to debate specifics on a website, but I don’t see that leading to meaningful change. Even the people on this site that make me absolutely furious align with me on 80% of issues. Hell, I think most normal people could get on the LP wagon if we could just sell ourselves better.

              1. Even if I disagree with them, I like the open borders articles on this website because it might catch the eye of a wavering progressive. Everyone knows that we’re pro-decriminalization, annnnd that’s about it.

                Saying “Dream on, rag head.” on a Shikha Dalmia article is pretty extreme. Highly polarizing comments that have nothing to do with libertarianism are counterproductive. Our attention spans have become so short that as soon as we see something disagreeable we just dip out. Conservatives already co-opted the Tea Party which was supposed to be a grassroots small-government movement. Glenn Beck went off the deep end. We can’t even use a label to identify ourselves without generating visceral disgust in outsiders because of the aberrant behavior of a few vocal assholes.

                Sorry, just venting…

          2. I fully agree with your position that mass immigration right now would be a problem. I don’t think we can compel people to dismantle or even reduce the welfare state. Even if we could convince people, I don’t know that our lovely representatives would do it. So that’s about where I get stuck on reasonable solutions.

            This is why I say that inaction is our chosen path on immigration. There is no workable plan that anyone likes, so defacto our immigration system is a national shrug.

      1. “Invited,” “imported,” “brought in.” The totalitarian assumptions behind a lot of the closed borders rhetoric is pretty interesting, for some value of “interesting.”

        1. Don’t forget the one where other countries send people, but obviously not their best.

          1. You rang?

            1. You don’t really need to look for totalitarian undertones where Fidel Castro was involved.

        2. Oh, was I using closed borders rhetoric? Odd, I thought I was just stating the obvious.

          Under current U.S. policy, roughly several billion humans would be eligible for Medicaid at the very least. What level of taxation would be required to support something like that, or is it gauche to ask?

          Why is it so hard for libertarians to admit that open borders has it’s own set of order of operations to be implemented? Is it because you know it’s a seriously hard sell that the majority of Americans will never accept? That’s the only reason I can think of.

  4. Why is this guy’s Twitter handle not @GosarTheGosarian? What a missed opportunity.

  5. A lack of support from Speaker Paul Ryan makes it highly unlikely Gosar’s suggestion will be taken up

    All this hubbub is irrelevant anyway, given that the unconstitutional e.o. has been taken to be legal. So you can’t really arrest them.

    1. Yeah, and I was wondering if the Capitol Police have jurisdiction in immigration matters anyway.

      1. I think any cop even state can arrest for an immigration violation. State cops don’t HAVE to enforce federal law but they can.

      2. I think any cop even state can arrest for an immigration violation. State cops don’t HAVE to enforce federal law but they can.

  6. ‘Dreamers’ – by which we mean, “illegal immigrants with sympathetic stories”

    Language: if you can force people to use your words, you control the debate. “Chain migration is a lie!”, but “Dreamers” is dreamy.

    I don’t agree with anyone in this ‘debate’ because there is no debate. theres just hysterical signaling on either side, and no one is actually telling the truth.

    1. So what is the truth? Or does “no one” include you?

      1. Gilmore is an honest hombre.

      2. “”what is the truth””

        here’s one:

        – that there will be no significant reform of immigration policy in our lifetimes, and that all the hoo-hawing that Reason and others do about it is mostly a distraction from more important and achievable legislative goals.

        the GOP aren’t anti-immigrant nazis, and the Dems aren’t going to create some brown-tidal-wave of socialist latino voters. shit will mostly stay the same, but the issue will be used to mobilize people in one direction or another regardless, using the same hysterical heated rhetoric, but mostly keeping the status quo preserved.

        1. I agree that not much is going to change regarding immigration any time soon. But DACA is an achievable legislative goal, and therefore not really a distraction.

          I also agree that Republicans aren’t “anti-immigrant nazis”, but the fact is that many of them (including the president) campaigned for office specifically on platforms of opposition to immigration and fearmongering thereof. Also a fact is that many Republicans are working on policies to reduce both legal and illegal immigration, and to deport the immigrants that are already in the country. So I’m not sure the “nazis” thing is the important part.

          But yes, the Democrats will not ride a demographic wave to a permanent majority, and things will more or less maintain homeostasis.

          1. “DACA is an achievable legislative goal”

            It is a policy which one president passed by fiat. it will die because that’s not how you should create law. any libertarian who objects to excessive executive authority should object to law being made in this fashion, regardless if it tugs their “But muh “dreamers”!” heartstrings.

            1. This, but of course much like the last time an amnesty was rammed through under Clinton they’ll promise that they’ll do all the hard work after they excuse all the idiocy of the last few administrations.

              That’s been our ‘immigration’ system since most of you have been alive, I’d wager, and thinking it’s going to seriously change now is probably stupid.

              The fact of the matter is these amnesty waves are politically necessary because we can’t effectively stop them along 1900 miles of border and we like their under-the-table cheap labor while maintaining higher pay for American citizens as a matter of law.

              Basically, every side is saying the same thing: We love our underclass of defenseless labor at below the artificial price floor set by the government. Also we want to keep the artificial price floor to protect our higher wages. I mean it, both sides are saying exactly this whether they know it or not. There are more than enough useful idiots to go around.

              Democrat voters like it because they’re too stupid to understand intentions aren’t results, and the Republicans go along with it because employers love the labor. No one, except perhaps the voter, gives a shit about the people.

            2. If we’re sticking to facts, The DREAM Act has never passed. It was a Durbin/Hatch initiative in 2001. What Obama did by “fiat” was within the boundaries of his office which, among other things, oversees allocation of federal law enforcement activities. It was in no way excessive and it was never a law.

              1. What i said:

                “It is a policy which one president passed by fiat.”

                yes, not a law. its not how policy should be created.

                but the fact it has been *treated* like a law, where its expiry is being seen as a ‘policy shift’ by the current administration rather than a deadline baked-in by its own limitations.

                – “It was in no way excessive

                very debateable. if you recall the timing of its expansion in late 2014, he purposely put it off until after the elections because he knew how unpopular it would be, knowing it would hurt democrats. (it still did) i think that’s sufficient illustration of how ‘excessive’ it was, at least politically.

                if congress couldn’t muster enough support to pass it properly it has no business being the de facto policy of the land.

                “his office which, among other things, oversees allocation of federal law enforcement activities. “

                yes, i understand the prioritization issue quite well. and were the only aspect of the policy a matter of choice on how to enforce existing law, he would have been in his purview.

                but that’s not really what was being done. DACA reinterpreted law, not ‘chose where to enforce’. if it were a matter of guidance, he wouldn’t have needed an executive order.

                I support immigration reform. Bullshit like this prevents it because it allows politicians to duck the difficult issues of fixing a broken system. its stupid and it shouldn’t be defended.

              2. You may try to make the argument that 0blama was trying to oversee allocation of federal law enforcement activities, but that would be as big a lie as his claim that what he was doing was “prosecutorial discretion”.
                Anyone, with two brain cells to rub together, knows it was a faithless use of his role to give a form of amnesty to a whole group of people.
                But what went beyond, that which he claimed to have the power, was the awarding of work permits. In no section of his responsibilities did he have that power – it being an affirmative action rather than the falsely-claimed passive one that protected the DACAsses from removal.

  7. So, this seems to be where the open borders circle jerk is taking place, apparently a counter to the closed borders circle jerk in the Dalmia thread.

    1. There is no “open borders” circle jerk. That’s the real trick that’s being pulled. The Democratic position is turned into an extreme strawman for the sake of making the GOP position seem reasonable.

  8. Of course. Of course. Libertarians are shitting their pants because a Congressman correctly asked for the LAW to be enforced. The LAW is the LAW, and these so-called “dreamers” BROKE THE LAW, so they deserve to deal with the consequences.

    But I guess Libertarians don’t want all laws to be enforced equally, which is just anarchy, and there is no place in my America for anarchy.

    1. The Constitution prohibits the government from requiring ID on demand.

      1. OTOH: no SSN, no service.

      2. It is perfectly legitimate for capitol police to demand identification from people attending SOTU. It is also perfectly legitimate for them to transfer to DHS illegal aliens that they happen to identify that way.

      3. It does?
        Which Article and Section says that?

    2. Actually DACA recipients have valid permits allowing them to be here. It would be BREAKING THE LAW to arrest them.

      1. This is absolutely wrong. What is correct is that it was at the Presidents discretion to deport them or not. Since it was established by executive action, it can be undone by the same.

        Had your fill of kings, yet?

        1. The USCIS disagrees with you: “An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be present in the United States, and is therefore considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period deferred action is in effect.”

      2. Actually DACA recipients have valid permits allowing them to be here. It would be BREAKING THE LAW to arrest them.

        DACA is merely a promise by the executive branch to deprioritize deportation. It is not a legal permit to be in the country. DACA recipients are still in the country in violation of US immigration law, with all the consequences that that has.

  9. He obviously doesn’t know what a legal Terry stop is. Virginia is not even a stop and ID state. Why is it such a big deal for them to go back to their countries? People move to different countries all the time. I mean their parents weren’t afraid to move.

  10. Keep in mind Gosar’s the one who suggested the Charlottesville thing was staged by Obama and paid for by (((Soros))). He ain’t got both oars in the water to start with and I imagine he’s auditioning for a job as one of Trump’s fluffers.

  11. Well, we can count on the secret service to assure us that all attendees have passed a thorough background check, and pose no threat to the president, if not the country. (Except for the elected democratic members and senators, they get in anyway.)

  12. Is the mean-spirited, authoritarian bigot who proposed the ‘papers, please’ interrogation of every person who attends the State of the Union address a Republican?

    1. Card carrying–of the old-is-new-again Trump variety. Complete with tinfoil hat that fits snugly under the white pointy one.

    2. We need someone protecting us from mean spirited authoritarian bigots like you who are demanding more of the “money please” interrogation of every person who makes an above average income.

  13. Team X member says something outrageous, Reason staff rush to portray entire team as sharing same belief. Dios m?o!

  14. I predict Donald Trump will wear a dark grey (but not funeral back) suit, a white shirt, and a red tie his SOTU address.

    1. Doesn’t he wear boring blue nearly all of the time?

  15. We’d be better served if the Capital Police would arrest every Congressperson who had used public funds to scratch the back of a constituent in return for campaign support. I hear quite a few of them might be there tonight.

  16. This is just scummy and hateful. He passes and supports racist bigoted laws then hides behind those laws to make people think he isn’t racist and bigoted. Just another scumbag politician. I wonder how long before we see news reports that he has been soliciting transvestite hookers or diddling little boys.

  17. My wife and I live in Southern AZ Gosar’s remarks are obscene.

    We depend on good immigrants to replace the folks his generation is not producing.

    Economic growth and general well-being depend on more workers and greater productivity.

    Xenophobes can’t get the job done. How about deporting him to San Francisco?

    He is why decent guys like Flake are leaving. As with currency, the bad drives out the good.

  18. “Drastic and cruel”, was my old nickname.

  19. Hillary Clinton

    “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay […] So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

  20. Bill Clinton

    All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

  21. I think it is shameful for government representative to bring illegal migrants to the SOTU address, and even worse with the deliberate goal of pressing for getting them citizenship.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.