Pro-life

Conservatives Are Weeping Over the Plight of Britain's Baby Alfie. But Where Are Their Tears For Border Families Being Torn Apart by the Trump Administration?

Does their commitment to family values stop at the Rio Grande's edge?

|

Social conservatives in America have been appalled that the British government wouldn't let the Catholic parents of Alfie, the two-year-old boy

Alfie
Madeleine Lenz / Pacific Press/Newscom

who was suffering from a degenerative neurological disorder, make a last ditch effort to save him despite the fact that the Pope was willing to fly them to the Vatican and cover all the treatment costs. Why did the government refuse the pleas of Alfie's parents ? Because medical authorities told it that this wouldn't be in the baby's interest. And of course they are rational and Alfie's parents are Catholic zealots and therefore incapable of putting the baby's well being ahead of the dictates of their own religion.

But the National Review's David French rightly pointed out there is something deeply "barbaric and tyrannical" —not civilized —about a society that entrusts life and death decisions to the impersonal instruments of the state rather than mothers and fathers with a vested interest in their child's well being. This ought to bother every decent human being of every political and religious persuasion, especially liberals who don't think any regulation is too onerous if it saves even a single life. Yet, as French's colleague, Ramesh Ponnuru noted, there had been no noticeable outrage from liberals over Alfie's parents not being allowed to save him even though it wouldn't have cost British taxpayers a single shilling.

But by the same token, where is the conservative outrage over what their own government has been doing to parents and children at the border, I ask in a column at The Week?

For months now, the Trump administration has been literally kidnapping children from parents arriving at the border in search of asylum and sending them off to prison-like detention camps thousands of miles away. In one particularly egregious case, authorities seized the 7-year-old daughter of a mother fleeing violence in Congo. Without offering her any explanation, they dispatched her little girl to a Chicago camp while holding the mother in San Diego.

Nor is this an isolated incident. A New York Times investigation a few weeks ago found more than 700 cases of parents and children separated just since October, including 100 under the age of 4.

Yet what have family values social conservatives said about this? Nada. Not a word.

National Review has never been crazy about immigration. In fact, hostility to immigrants has been its signature issue forever. However, even it should recognize that not everything is fair in its War on Immigration. Family values don't, after all, stop at the Rio Grande's edge. Or do they?

Go here to read the full piece. And weep.

NEXT: Feinstein Finally Catches Up with Her Voters, Abandons Her Opposition to Marijuana Legalization

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. Should I watch and enjoy the popcorn or jump on stage?

    2. Man, this is like a straight “Fuck You” to Just Say’n

      1. It’s a straight “Fuck You” to anyone who actually believes in individual rights and doesn’t accept the State as God.

        1. As is preventing someone from hosting a Syrian refugee family.

          1. It’s quite a stretch to make that comparison. A pretty tremendous stretch.

            Unless you think parental rights are as important as open borders, which is a rather bizarre position to take

            1. “You can’t leave the country with your child” is somehow just as bad as “you can’t come into this country”.

              Tell me, is the mark of totalitarianism keeping people out of your borders or keeping them in?

              1. Seems about equally bad to me.

              2. “And of course they are rational and Alfie’s parents are Catholic zealots and therefore incapable of putting the baby’s well being ahead of the dictates of their own religion.”

                Explain to me how this isn’t a bigoted statement?

                I know that cosmotarians traffic in religious bigotry after their love for Gay Jay’s “bake the cake” and his burka ban (which he backtracked on after cosmos explained that not all bigotry is OK), but in what world is masquerading parental rights as “religious zealotry” acceptable?

                1. ^ I take this point back. I re-read the passage and it seems like she was being factious. It’s difficult to discern Shikha’s nonsense sometimes

                2. I don’t support GayJay’s stances on those issues, so not sure what that has to do with my comments.

                  Let me ask you this. How do you feel about Christian Scientists refusing to grant a sick child medical treatment that would save the child’s life?

                  1. Well, I wasn’t responding to you.

                    Religious liberty is an essential part of liberalism. Without it you get France with its burka bans and instituting pork as the only option in public schools in order to troll Muslims.

                    Christian Scientists should be allowed to forgo treatment for their kids, unless it endangers the life or well being of the child. I love how everyone pretends like the restraints on religious liberty are so foreign. This is spelled out in federal and (most) state law and was established by judicial precedent before that.

                    All religious liberty demands is that the government afford an accommodation to religious adherents, unless the government has a compelling interest for forcing people to abide by such a law. Further, if a compelling interest exists then it should enforce the law in the least restrictive manner possible. There is nothing radical about religious liberty.

                    1. But, this case is beyond religious liberty (of which there is none in Europe). This is a matter of parental rights. Who knows what is best for your child: the state or you, the parent?

                    2. I support religion liberty. I think most people do. But religious liberty is a very nebulous concept. It is not clear cut like free speech. Where do you draw the line? Obviously, if someone ‘s rights are being violated, that is out of bounds. But when it comes to kids, it becomes more blurry, does it not?

                      For example, if foregoing medical treatment endangers the child, should the State step in? Who decides when the child’s well being is being endangered, and how bad does it have to be? Life threatening? Stunting their growth?

                    3. But religious liberty is a very nebulous concept. It is not clear cut like free speech.

                      I think it’s only nebulous because we make it so. Religious liberty falls under speech, under belief, under general freedom of association. It’s not particularly blurry.

                      The second part about kids is the blurry part. How much control people have over their children. I don’t think religion should factor much into the argument either way. I certainly do not want a system where Person A can take their kid to Italy because they’re Catholic, but Person B can’t because they’re not. Religious liberty should not give special rights. And I hate that we are often in such a controlled space now, that people have to use Religious Freedom explicitly to have freedoms everyone should have.

                    4. “But when it comes to kids, it becomes more blurry, does it not?”

                      Yes, but isn’t this the same concern as with parental rights?

                      “if foregoing medical treatment endangers the child, should the State step in?”

                      It does already

                      “Who decides when the child’s well being is being endangered, and how bad does it have to be?”

                      Permanent disfigurement or endangering the life of the child. For instance, circumcision is not legal in every European country, because it is not really a medical necessity and it reduces sensitivity in the sex organs. In the US it must be allowed, because it is a religious practice and the effects are minimal.

                      I understand your concerns, but there are few, if any, instances where religious liberty has been employed to endanger the life of a child. I don’t doubt that there are some, but it is rare. In this instance, though, the case in the UK, though, this was not an issue.

                    5. Who is the state to interfere with the choices made by Christian Scientists regarding the medical treatment of their children?

                      The state’s compelling interest doctrine is, at bottom, a progressive, totalitarian construct.

                    6. Christian Scientists should be allowed to forgo treatment for their kids, unless it endangers the life or well being of the child.

                      That’s the whole point, isn’t it?

              3. Excellent

            2. Being able to invite someone into your house seems like an important aspect of property rights. But that’s just me.

              1. Yes, it is. And I don’t even take issue with immigration.

                But, in no way can the two instances be compared as the same issue

                1. Why should the government be able to force Christian Scientists to perform actions on their children? If they do not believe in certain medical practices that is their right.

          2. So, I’m open border. I think there is still a distinction to be made between a country not allowing people to come in, and a country not allowing people to leave.

            I understand the connection that she is trying to make here. But I think it’s tenuous at best, unless you want to just make it a general issue of any restriction of freedom is comparable to any other restriction of freedom. Which may be valid, but doesn’t seem to be the argument being made here.

            1. She is often a clumsy writer, including her delivery of sarcasm.

              1. She is often a clumsy writer

                But a professional clumsy writer.

            2. “want to just make it a general issue of any restriction of freedom is comparable to any other restriction of freedom”

              Which, in itself, I find hard to accept. The most gruesome actions taken by the State are when it employs its monopoly on violence: police killings, wars overseas, and now killing kids for the glory of the State.

              What warped reasoning would conclude that State murder is somehow on the same level as immigration restrictions or drug legalization.

              It’s the same complaint I have with people raging against Trump for not taken in refugees, but shrugging when he blows Syrians up. They are not morally equivalent. One is clearly worse than the other

              1. I would agree. The ONLY hope I had coming into Trump was that he would be an “isolationist” as people like to say. There is a lot we do in this country that is wrong. We fuck with ourselves in many ways that I consider immoral.

                But there’s next level immorality to start blowing up foreigners who we can’t even pretend have a say in our nation. And I am furious as well that most people, conservative and liberal, progressive and reactionary, seem to just shrug at murder. It’s one thing that for me highlights that most of the progressive types who feign love of immigrants are truly only in it to gain votes.

                Because they sure as shit don’t give a damn about the foreigners who aren’t immigrating.

                1. Trump is a murderer just like his predecessors. He has been a tremendous disappointment with regards to foreign policy.

                  The fact the no one, not even on these pages, discusses the forced starvation of the people of Yemen is a travesty.

                  1. It was a great disappointment. Trump has not been entirely bad. But the war stuff has fallen aside as an issue. Almost more offensive is how often our overseas adventures are discussed only in terms of money spent.

                    I don’t want to waste money either, but that’s not even close to the main problem with going places and murdering people.

      2. I’m just here to see the car wreck. The aftermath of a high speed head-on collision, two crumpled Beetles destroyed on the side of the road, fifty or sixty dead clowns scattered around the place.

        1. It’s going to be cathartic I think. OBL is gonna be trying out their new aggressive stance, and probably get people riled up.

          1. Just wait until the conservatives read the alt-text. The surname Gonzalez is perfect for anybody that remembers the 90s. Well played Shikha.

    3. [reserves seat for John; puts hole in bottom of popcorn bucket]

  1. Ahahaha. Shikha is trying to equate a British family trying to leave the UK to find medical care with non-Americans being granted temporary asylum in the USA.

    This crazy lady is the worst. Why Reason pays her is one reason why I refuse to donate to Reason.

    1. What the British government did to Alfie and his family is an outrage and should serve as a reminder that you don’t entrust any government, including the United States government, with any power and you certainly don’t give the government the benefit of the doubt.

      1. I am fine with the US government having the limited power enumerated in the Constitution. That power includes regulating naturalization and immigration. Article I, Sections 8 & 9.

        1. No, the power does not include immigration. Read the clause.

          Naturalization is not the same thing as immigration.

          Anyway, don’t you think Lysander Spooner’s view of the constitution is the superior one? Have you ever read his work, “The Constitution of No Authority”?

          As you know, you and I never consented to the giving up our natural rights to no stinking government.

          1. “‘accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions.'” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 705 (1893).

            Sorry, but The Founders were not anarchocapitalists. States have borders. It’s the right and responsibility of a State to defend those borders.

        2. For months now, the Trump administration has been literally kidnapping children from parents arriving at the border in search of asylum and sending them off to prison-like detention camps thousands of miles away. In one particularly egregious case, authorities seized the 7-year-old daughter of a mother fleeing violence in Congo. Without offering her any explanation, they dispatched her little girl to a Chicago camp while holding the mother in San Diego.

          Which part of naturalization involves splitting up families and sending 7-year-olds to “camps”

    2. Yeah, Dipshit Scumbagetta is a big reason why nobody donates to Reason anymore, with the exception of two or three of the world’s richest men.

      1. Dipshit Scumbagetta

        You’ve got to be able to come up with something better than this. The initials aren’t even in the right order.

        1. He’s really let himself go recently.

      2. I may think of her as Shitbrain Dogma since it generally summarizes her take on the topics she covers if you’re not already a true believer in her camp. I’m not going to write it into every article she writes no matter how stupid I find the comparisons.

  2. Conservatives Are Weeping Over the Plight of Britian’s Baby Alfie. But Where Are Their Tears For Border Families Being Torn Apart by the Trump Administration?

    Reed Richards took a look at that stretch and said “Fuck that, that’s way too far.”

    1. Shikha may not be a deep thinker or even a decent writer, but you have to admit her troll game is on point.

    2. Indeed. In fact, Reed Richards should invent a de-progtardation ray. Them use it in CA and NY.

      1. Reed Richards is one step away from being an authoritarian madman. Hell, in the Ultimate universe he does just that.

  3. Remember when this was called whataboutism?

    If you’re going to print this drivel trying to compare parents who aren’t allowed to leave a country and are denied a choice in their child’s well being by state bureaucrats to people not being allowed into a country can you at least change the tagline on your publication to “Hive Minds and Managed Markets”? At least be honest at this point

    1. Which is why when there are articles chronicling the obscene swamp like activities of Trump administration officials, see, e.g., Scott Pruitt, Tom Price, Steve ((( Goldman Sachs ))) Mnuschin, et al, one should not impulsively, in a pavlovian fashion, start talking about Obama, and the chocolate one’s appointees, right?

      1. Don’t know why people bring up Obama. He is no longer employed here. A has been, if you will.

    2. “Hive Minds and Managed Markets”

      +1 Dalmia as Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

  4. Oh, I don’t know; maybe one case involves legal citizens of a country and the other does not?
    Just guessing here.

    1. Maybe…
      But we know that both cases involve authoritarianism, and your position that the government can determine who can move where is just as authoritarian as the “left” saying that government gets to make your healthcare decisions.

      1. No, one involves where you live and the other if you live.

  5. The author of this article seems to forget that parents who try to sneak themselves and their kids into the US illegally KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING. They know the possible consequences, and they take the chance, anyway. Alfie Evans was sick and being refused medical treatment by the government. Two completely different situations. This is political posturing at its finest.

    1. It’s Shikia, so it’s shit.

  6. BOOM! Conservatives exposed for the total hypocrites they are! You cannot possibly be logically consistent if you simultaneously get upset about Alfie, while opposing Reason’s immigration agenda.

    This is why Shikha Dalmia is my favorite libertarian writer.

    1. I know that you are a troll, but this is just such a bad parody.

      1. I’m neither a troll nor a parody. If I really felt like trolling a libertarian website, why would I agree with its stances on most issues (except guns)? That doesn’t make sense.

        1. So the only Reason editorial stance you disagree with is guns? I think you better think long and hard about this, or the guy inside the Chinese Room is gonna say “fuck this, I quit.”

          1. OBL is really phoning it in today. I hope whoever’s sock that is is doing alright.

          2. My biggest disagreement by far with Reason’s official ideology is on guns, specifically Sullum’s and Doherty’s writing on the subject. I support common sense gun safety legislation, oppose the NRA, and reject the right-wing interpretation of the Second Amendment. I would like to see a ban on deadly military style assault weapons as a good first step toward #GunSense.

            I have also criticized Reason’s coverage of Net Neutrality, having expressed disappointment that ENB has not written much about how the reversal will affect feminist issues like abortion access. ENB’s old site Bustle.com has done good work on this; see for example Why The FCC’s Net Neutrality Decision Is A Stealth Attack On Feminism.

            Want another example? I think the First Amendment should be read in a way that does not protect hate speech against marginalized groups. This is not a view I often see endorsed here, although Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky has expressed it elsewhere.

            1. You are a well informed troll, and you write well. You are my favorite troll. I am a true fan.

  7. Here’s something to think about and even possibly use for your next article, Shikha. “Conservatives” don’t like immigrants for the same reason they don’t like prostitutes.

    1. They’re too expensive?

      1. They won’t do windows?

    2. Dey terk er jerbs?

  8. “And of course they are rational and Alfie’s parents are Catholic zealots and therefore incapable of putting the baby’s well being ahead of the dictates of their own religion.”

    Just a reminder, the bullshit that Reason spews as “libertarianism” is more about TOP MEN than anything else. The irony is that they cream themselves over “free range kid” laws, but could give two shits when the state kills your kids.

    1. To be fair, the context (the preceding sentences and the following paragraph) firmly paint that line as clumsy sarcasm, a parody of the NHS’s position, not as something that Shikha actually believes. But she’s really not a very good writer.

      1. How’s the popcorn?

        1. Popcorn is great, because with a little salt and a little butter, it tastes like salty butter.

            1. Its got fucking artificial flavor…..no offense intended to Cousin Willie. He seems like a nice guy.

              1. Sure. Tasty, tasty artificial flavor.

          1. No need to bring your own salt. Just Say’n brought enough for all of us.

      2. It does not help that she has in the past declared an American of Indian heritage to be an inauthentic Indian because he converted to Catholicism.

    2. She’s being facetious there. The next paragraph where she agrees with those who disagree with that stance shows that.

      1. Ok. I re-read it and maybe I was being unfair

        1. Splitting across two paragraphs makes it very confusing. She should not have done that.

          Perhaps she thinks the statement is so obviously sarcastic that it requires little emphasis. But she overestimates the general perception of her writings.

          1. Yes, I got had too. This should have been edited better. She got it a little back on track but it was poorly constructed.

            In the end, my bad so forget my little diatribe below – partly.

            1. This Alfie story really pissed me off for some reason.

              1. You know who else was really pissed off by Alfie? Citizen X. The idea of a midget alien that eats cats really sticks in his craw.

              2. It’s because it’s the first and only time this story has been mentioned, and the way the story was used was not to discuss the atrocity in of itself, but to bludgeon others over her own pet topic.

                1. Yes.

                  The reality is that conservatives are better defenders of religious liberty and parental rights than cosmotarians who have reduced liberalism down to nothing more than managed trade and open borders.

                  1. The reality is that conservatives are better defenders of religious Christian liberty and parental rights

                    FTFY

                    Call me when a conservative somewhere defends a Muslim or Satanist.

                    1. http://www.becketlaw.org/

                      Here you go. You really aren’t familiar at all with religious liberty, I take it

                    2. You will note that this group is also primarily underfunded by the Knights of Columbus, which is a conservative Catholic men’s organization (which has the distinction of being labeled a “hate group” by People for the (un) American Way.

                      You keep recycling those progressive talking points, though, and eventually you might be right

                    3. The Knights of Columbus is a hate group? You kidding me? It’s just old guys who rent out their hall for random shit.

                      Oh, and Pancake breakfasts. Pancakes without end.

                    4. Whoa, they even defended a Santeria priest. Ok, I respect these guys.

                    5. From the Becket Fund Web site (they’re conservative supporters of religious freedom):

                      “Despite (the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act), some inmates still face persecution for peaceful displays of religious devotion. In the case of Holt v. Hobbs, Abdul Muhammad, an Arkansas inmate, has been denied the ability to grow the ? inch beard his Muslim faith commands?even though Arkansas already allows inmates to grow beards for medical reasons, and Mr. Muhammad’s beard would be permissible in 44 state and federal prison systems across the country.

                      “…Mr. Muhammad is now represented by Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law and Becket.

                      “On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Mr. Muhammad….”

                    6. Not familiar with the work of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, I see.

                2. That does rankle. Pretty common occurrent around here TBH.

                3. That does rankle. Pretty common occurrence around here TBH.

    3. ” the bullshit that Reason spews as “libertarianism” is more about TOP MEN than anything else. ”

      Winner!

      Benjamin Tucker’s critique of Herbert Spencer in 1884 applies to Reason:

      “It will be noticed that in these later articles, amid his multitudinous illustrations (of which he is as prodigal as ever) of the evils of legislation, he in every instance cites some law passed, ostensibly at least, to protect labor, alleviate suffering, or promote the people’s welfare. He demonstrates beyond dispute the lamentable failure in this direction. But never once does he call attention to the far more deadly and deep-seated evils growing out of the innumerable laws creating privilege and sustaining monopoly. You must not protect the weak against the strong, he seems to say, but freely supply all the weapons needed by the strong to oppress the weak. He is greatly shocked that the rich should be directly taxed to support the poor, but that the poor should be indirectly taxed and bled to make the rich richer does not outrage his delicate sensibilities in the least. Poverty is increased by the poor laws, says Mr. Spencer. Granted; but what about the rich laws that caused and still cause the poverty to which the poor laws add? That is by far the more important question; yet Mr. Spencer tries to blink it out of sight.”

  9. “Alfie’s parents are Catholic zealots and therefore incapable of putting the baby’s well being ahead of the dictates of their own religion. ”

    Oooh that’s spicy!

    1. Dalmia is certainly a bigoted idiot, isn’t she?

      1. You having a hard time recognizing sarcasm?

        1. Shikha did not do a good job in writing this piece (nor does she ever). It is difficult to discern the sarcasm

          1. Agreed, she is a clumsy writer.

            1. No. She is hateful and stupid. If anything her bad writing helps her by covering up just how vile her opinions actually are.

            2. She’s a better troll than a writer. Every article of hers gets the commentariat ginned up beyond recognition.

        2. The only way the article makes sense if the whole thing is sarcasm. She’s equating a formerly free nation that now asserts that it owns it’s citizens so completely they cannot leave without permission even if it causes their death – with a country that regulates which foreigners can enter and stay.

          Never read such a false equivalency.

          1. It’s click bait.

  10. A stupid article written by a stupid bitch.

      1. Actually that comment was more than acceptable

      2. Come on Dajjal. You know only people that are winning the argument resort to ad hominems.

    1. Exactly.

      That is why when Reason chronicles the horrendous abuses of taxpayer money by Trump and his appointees, one should not respond with “what about the chocolate Jesus?”

      1. Depends on whether you’re using that as a defense of current waste or an attack on the one-sided application of the standard.

        Calling out dishonest arguments and players is fundamentally different from a “so what, you do it too” defense.

  11. apples and oranges. i don’t come to reason to get links to fucking newsweek. plz do better

    1. I think the current narrative is more blackberries and oranges.

    2. Really? I find Brickbats the only part Reason that is actually readable anymore.

  12. Stupid question: How many countries are there between the Congo and the United States that this family could have sought refuge in?

    National Review has never been crazy about immigration. In fact, hostility to immigrants has been its signature issue forever

    LOL no it hasn’t. Not even close.

  13. Catholic zealots? And this matters because?

    “Because medical authorities told it that this wouldn’t be in the baby’s interest. And of course they are rational and Alfie’s parents are Catholic zealots and therefore incapable of putting the baby’s well being ahead of the dictates of their own religion”

    Fuck you Dalmia you brain-dead idiot. Go fuck yourself. Let’s start with it’s none of you business what people decide what to do with their OWN FUCKEN KIDS.

    Am I seriously reading this bull shit on a magazine called Reason? So basically, they had to shut up and do as they were told? And you write for Reason?

    They accept this false dichotomy and lazy strawman to set up a stupid point about Trump?

    The kidding was dying. They wanted to go to Italy and try something. Why is this political? How in the world is this irrational? Are you seriously advocating the bureaucracy has final say?

    This article is retarded by even your standards you pseudo-intellectual. Go write for Salon already.

    I for the life of me can’t understand Reason publishes what’s become a bit of a TDS comic strip.

    1. Part of this comment I retract but not all of it because I still think it’s a pointless false equivalence at its roots.

    2. The line about Catholic zealots is poorly-executed sarcasm. Slow your roll.

      1. Because apparently, only a Catholic Zealot would not take a single doctor’s word about their kid being hopeless and want to go somewhere else and try something new. Dalmia is not just a bad writer. She is a really horrible person. Who the fuck looks at this story and sees it as a way to score points for some unrelated political issue like immigration? She is just a sick twisted and sad person. What a bitch.

        1. Unlike John, really great person who is never disingenuous in his arguments.

          1. Yes, Tony you are every bit as horrible as she is. Normally your vileness is bad enough. But to sit here watching you smugly crowing over the government murdering some child because they are unfit in your eyes is just too much for even me. Why don’t you sit this one you, you miserable nasty creature?

            1. I’m here until you get caught telling about 10 lies to 10 different people and you flee the thread, as usual.

              1. Trust Fund, you and your progressive friends are unapologetic bigots. Especially with the continued questioning of peoples religious faith in Senate confirmations (a practice explicitly forbidden by the Constitution and human decency)

                1. Oh really, when was the last atheist who got approved by Republicans to anything?

                  1. Oliver Wendell Holmes?

      2. I did on that part. My bad. No more will speak of this…

        Or else…..

  14. Why does Shikha always have to take a conversation and a debate have the most retarded, far-fetched, absurd hot take on it? She is an expert in false equivalencies. I think we should let in more immigrants and refugees for sure, but these cases are in no way related.

    1. Good question. I don’t really understand how you can see the government of the UK murdering this kid in the name of the common good and your first thought be “how dare people talk about this when children are being deported in the US”. That is just fucked up. I am not sure which is worse Dalmai or the fact that reason doesn’t seem to be embarrassed by what she writes.

      1. Your making Shikha’s specific point on this article a lot more far-reaching than it is. The point of this post is the hypocrisy of being against the government coming between parents and children in the Alfie case, and the specific examples cited of splitting up families of non-citizens, just because they’re non-citizens.

        Specifically:
        Do you agree that a mother and child seeking asylum should be split up and detained thousands of miles apart simply because they don’t have paperwork that says they can be here?

        1. Calling this out as hypocrisy might have some weight to it if this was not the only article on Reason that directly referenced the facts in the Evans ordeal at the hands of the British government and its agents. The silence was deafening here, despite this touching on parental rights, government health care, immigration and free speech issues

          1. I don’t disagree with that. Even the free movement of peoples, which many consider a natural right.

            But that certainly doesn’t change the point of the article, which is actually spot-on (though not necessarily well-written and somewhat trolling as has been pointed out numerous times up- and down-thread)

            I’d certainly like to hear how our more conservative commenters feel about the cases Shikha references of families being split up by the government, without jumping to the conclusion that we have to grant everyone that crosses our border citizenship.

            1. It is certainly troubling at the least, however, Shikha I’d so far out there on her open borders stancd that many of us expect her to be making the latter argument. It is based upon her past writings and a well established pattern. Her past stances makes it hard to provide her with the benefits of doubt.

        2. No, I don’t. But I also don’t see splitting up the mother and child and detaining them thousands of miles apart as morally equivalent to killing the child.

  15. One person can’t be this fucking dumb. It’s simply not possible.

    1. Dalmia isn’t dumb. She doesn’t hold American values so she’ll write anything that advances her agenda of letting more non-American’s into the country.

      1. She doesn’t hold American values

        Oh please do let everyone know what “American values” are, as I’m sure you speak for all Americans.

        1. “Any suggestion that values are not universal across every corner of the globe is *totally* racist”

  16. I have read in National Review articles glowingly describing naturalization ceremonies. Nationsl Review’s editorisl position tends, at worst from an open borders perspective, to an ordered flow of immigration. Demonizing other’s position because they will not go as far as you want is low emotional appeal and does not contribute to a civil, rational debate over issues.

  17. Terry Shiavo all over again. One fewer brain-dead human means one less GOP supporter.

    1. Tony, do you have your advance medical directives in place? I trust that your family would not want to have to endure watching you looking at balloons all day.

      1. Well, they don’t have to visit. It’s not like I’ll notice.

    2. Trust Fund Tony returning to his progressive roots: eugenics. You are a vile human being

      1. So is it the libertarian position that the United States federal government should dramatically intervene in a specific pull-the-plug situation between husband and wife in order to get political play with their dumbfuck religious zealot voters?

        I’ll presume you speak for all libertarians until someone explains otherwise.

        1. In no way did anything you say pertain to the case or make any sense.

          1. Tony’s political positions are guided solely by whatever will benefit him personally. For instance, he’s pro-open borders not because he believes in freedom of movement but because it allows him to quickly move goalposts into foreign jurisdictions where they can no longer be found.

            1. That’s silly. I’m pro-open borders so we get a lot more Democratic voters.

        2. I’m perfectly willing to tell the federal government not to get in the way if Tony’s wife chooses to put a pillow over his face and say it’s because he’s brain dead. Because 10th Amendment.

    3. Yes, that British infant sure was a hardcore Trump supporter.

      Before you hit submit, did you look at what you’d written and think, “this is definitely a thoughtful, intelligent, non-psychopathic thing to say in public”? Because you shouldn’t have.

      1. Once the GOP gets a good look at the demographic situation I assume they’ll be all in favor of importing brain dead immigrants and fast-tracking their citizenship.

        1. I assume they’ll be all in favor of importing brain dead immigrants

          You say that like it’s somehow different from your earlier admission that you want to import more Democrat voters

      2. Before you hit submit, did you look at what you’d written and think, “this is definitely a thoughtful, intelligent, non-psychopathic thing to say in public”? Because you shouldn’t have.

        Having read this, posted at Reason, to Tony, below a Dalmia article, by you… I think I burst a blood vessel in my eye.

        1. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

    4. The Schiavo case was about who was best placed to speak for her: her husband who was de facto married to another woman at that point, or her blood relatives. It was not about agents of the state overruling the patient’s guardian’s decisions.

      1. It was a government intervention shitshow of epic proportions.

        1. As usual, your knowlefh3e and understanding is about an inch deep.

      2. But they were intervening on behalf of Jeebus, so that makes it ok.

      3. And who sired three children out of wedlock and who afterward, out of pure spite, had Terri buried in an undisclosed location so her parents could never find her final resting place.

        1. Like many othet cases of family law when there is a heated dispute, the aftermath can be extremely ugly.

        2. Lol. You guys never realize when you lose something do you?

    5. Heh.

      It never ends with their lack of humanity.

      No wonder they want the government to make all decision on compassionate and humanism for them. They have none despite the rhetoric they ‘care’ about people.

      I hung out with a prog. When pushed came to shove, he always showed his true colours. It wasn’t pretty.

    6. Wow this was a pretty fucked up comment even for here.

  18. Another shitty article from Dalmia, who left her shit hole country for the USA, and wants to let all the dregs of the world into the USA so it too turns into a shit hole. She lives in Detroit so living in shit holes seems to be her main goal in life.

    1. What about the marvels of Mumbai?

  19. Some of the comments here are despicable. If you have a problem with the article then state it with FACTS and REASON. Otherwise GO AWAY.

    1. No, what is despicable is using the UK government murdering a sick child in the name of the common good as a segway for Dalmia to talk about a totally unrelated hobby horse of hers. Whatever you think about US immigration policy, it has nothing to do with this case and fuck Dalmia for claiming it does and engaging in the absolute worst sort of false equivalence.

      1. That was a little better, thank you.

      2. She doesn’t help herself with her maladroit writing style.

    2. So what? It’s a dishonest article and Dalmia writes this garbage all the time.

    3. Here are the facts:

      The State said that a child had no chance at life. They couldn’t diagnosis what he had, but they said that he should be removed from life support.

      The parents disagreed and said that they would pay to have their child moved to another hospital overseas. The State refused to allow them to leave the borders of the country (which somehow is totes ok with ‘open border’ types) or even take their child home.

      The boy continued to live without life support so the State starved him for seven days. He died.

      No one who takes the State’s position here can claim to be pro-liberty in anyway whatsoever. The fact is that conservatives are better defenders of individual rights, in this case. And cosmotarians have exposed themselves as being nothing more than statists who love managed trade and open borders (unless you want to leave- then the country can stop you for reasons).

      1. Here are the facts:

        Shikha doesn’t take the State’s position here.

        Now, please proceed:

        1. No But she makes the complete false equivalence between the state murdering a child and dealing with children of parents who choose to come here illegally. And that is bad enough.

          1. Yup.

            The other part is what if the faux-gods of NHS were wrong?

            Evil.

          2. Asylum seekers don’t enter the country illegally.

            1. Yes they do. They just ask for status to change that. No one makes them come here. And many of them see their claims denied.

        2. No, Shikha is trafficking in false equivalency. In what way is murder comparable to restricting immigration? And if that is the matter than why not write an article “A lot of people upset about police killings never say a word about legalizing heroin”.

          1. Well sure. But dajjal myth doesn’t want to talk about that. He wants to tell you all the things Dalmia didn’t do.

            She didn’t preach the wonders of Amway either.

  20. Also, making not submitting to the judgements of government medical professionals who’s position that starving and dehydrating a child is less painful and traumatic than the pontential of him dying in transit to the facility willing to try to treat him iillegal is a little bit different, than any immigration issue.

    This article is just crass.

    1. “…starving and dehydrating a child is less painful and traumatic than the pontential of him dying in transit to the facility willing to try to treat him.. ”

      Crass, vulgar, obscene…

      What price to pay while pimping your chosen belief? Be it open borders or socialized healthcare, eggs gotta be broken to make that omelet. Who cares if rancid eggs make for a poisonous feast?

      1. Maybe it’d be fine if we made a frittata instead of an omelet?

        Maybe shirred social-eggs?

  21. NHS to the Pope: we’ll show you who gets to play God.

    Shikha: I’m with them!

    As to the truly relevant case, anyone remember the Iranian child caught in Trump’s travel ban – that was then cleared for entry for life saving surgery?

    1. That is not quite right. Dalmia’s position is that if you don’t agree with her thst anything other than open borders is an injustice, you cannot be uoset by anything else you may consider an injustice. It is just a petulant temper tantrum.

  22. I think it may be time to go elsewhere for a while.

    1. glibertarians.com

  23. Oh come now. You’re complaining about the authorities taking undocumented children away from their parents? What’s the big deal? It’s not like they’re actually *people* or anything, like Americans or Britons.

    1. That’s not really fair.

      In one case a child is being murdered and the parents were disallowed from leaving that country’s borders to seek other medical advice. In the other a child is not admitted into the country.

      There is so much false equivalency here that it is mind boggling

      1. There is so much false equivalency here that it is mind boggling

        And the notion that it’s just poor writing is some manner of displaced optimism covering for the fact that it’s just plain shitty thinking.

        It cannot be said enough; Whatever Shikha’s position is, she’s a discredit to it.

      2. You honestly think jeff is going to be honest about any of this?

  24. Unlike the Dalmia Drivel, here is an article worth reading:

    “A Social Scientist on the Liberal-Left Biases of Social Scientists”. It’s over at national review.

    1. Thanks, looks interesting so far

    2. I find that both NR and Reasons are better in their “main articles” than in their blogs.

      (Reason’s articles are sometimes very good. NR’s often are, though naturally as by far more a libertarian than a SoCon I tend to agree with them less often.

      Reason blog entries are very, very hit and miss (hah!), while I think NR’s general bar is slightly higher.

      A really good Reason blog post is very good. Dalmia’s posts are never in that category, sadly.

      I mean, she can write.

      She just doesn’t seem to think she needs to display … “reason” in her arguments all that much?

      “Stop asserting and start arguing.”)

  25. Up until a few years ago, this place was different because the staff and the commentariat were all committed to the same vision–even if they disagreed on everything else.

    “When REASON speaks of poverty, racism, the draft, the war, studentpower, politics, and other vital issues, it shall be reasons, not slogans, it gives for conclusions. Proof, not belligerent assertion. Logic, not legends. Coherance, not contradictions. This is our promise: this is the reason for REASON.”

    —-Lanny Frielander

    Reason
    Issue #1
    May 1968

    If we’ve come to imagine that everything that happens in the world means whatever we want it to mean–or because interpreting it that way seems to benefit our favorite causes–then we have lost our way.

    1. There’s a reason (hah!) I let my subscription lapse … and that was during the comparatively good Gillespie years.

      I generally respect Welch in other contexts, but was not super fond of the magazine’s direction under him.

      Mangu-Ward I have no opinion on as a person, but at least the H&R section of the magazine is increasingly a dumpster fire.

      (“Bring back Postrel!”

      I don’t think she wants the job of running Reason again, though.)

  26. What’s the argument here, that Britain should take them in and then deny them healthcare?

  27. I’m not sure who is meant to be convinced by this argument. Concern trolls? Everyone else would be turned off.

    Conservatives are Weeping Over the Plight of Britian’s Baby Alfie. But Where Are Their Tears For College Graduates Who Have Difficulties Paying Their Student Loans

    Conservatives are Weeping Over the Plight of Britian’s Baby Alfie. But Where Are Their Tears For Single Mothers Who Have To Deal With the Gender Pay Gap

    1. You’ve nailed it, perhaps without knowing it.

      The Alfie Evans episode simply has to be made about something else. Can’t have it be a straightforward story of how conservatives’ warnings about the inevitable outcome of socialized medicine being so publicly and fatally realized.

    2. Yep, this is it. The two episodes have literally nothing to do with one another.

  28. *reads headline*

    *sees Shikha byline*

    *jumps directly to comments*

    1. You want some popcorn? I’m about to microwave another bag.

    2. I do that with almost all Reason articles these days.

      Found out that Ed is gone. Their best, and nearly only, journalist.

      Ron is the only journalist left at Reason that comes to mind.

      All the rest are bloggers auditioning for Salon.

      1. Doherty and Sullum are still A+.

        I sometimes disagree with them. I never question their integrity or commitment to liberty.

  29. Keep in mind with Dalmia’s charges of hypocrisy. This is only article on Reason that directly references the Evans ordeal at the hands of the British government and its agents. Despite this case touching on state run health care, parental rights to represent their children’s interests, rule by “top men”, immigration, and free speech.

    1. Yep, clearly too esoteric for an ostensibly libertarian publication.

  30. I’m on twitter, comment on how asinine this article is, and see how everyone else responding to the article thinks the same.

    Come here, and who is it, but Shikha, when the walls fell!

    Doesn’t @reason care that everyone thinks Shikha is an idiot?

    Can’t wait to see if there is any Open Borders supporters here who are going to support this idiocy. Tony? Hihn?

    I don’t think many. Even in Reason’s own comments section, most Open Borders supporters think she’s an idiot, and hurting their cause.

    1. “liberals who don’t think any regulation is too onerous if it saves even a single life.”

      That’s a pretty fucked up caricature. Yeah she’s not winning many friends.

  31. So temporarily separating parents from children is just like denying medical treatment to children, while forbidding parents to provide it for them. Got it.

    1. Excuse, denying *life-saving* medical treatment.

  32. “But by the same token, where is the conservative outrage over what their own government has been doing to parents and children at the border,”

    And where is the outrage from Shikka that Mexico didn’t grant those Central Americans asylum instead of shepherding them all the way through their country up to the United States?

    Why is it assumed that Mexico is supposed to get a pass on taking asylum seekers but the United States is obligated to take them?

    1. Nice catch!

      “It’s totally racist to criticize Brown countries”

  33. Couldn’t those families be together in their native country? No one is keeping them from leaving the US.

    The thing with Evans is that other countries offered to take him and pay for his medical care, but the UK refused to let him out of the country.

  34. “He who fights with monsters might take care, lest he become a monster thereby; for if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.”

    This was a bad idea.

  35. I imagine their tears are absent because “families broken apart at borders as part of asylum claims” is not nearly as widely publicized compared to “court orders infant to starve to death even though parents are willing to spend own money to avoid that”.

    They don’t have a duty to be psychic or omniscient, you know.

  36. How many immigrants have the government murdered?

  37. Apparently, it’s far better to be dead than to live in Latin America.

  38. Britain literally murders a child via starvation while the patent stand by and plead for the kids life, and this suitor really thinks the situation has any similarities to just refusing to immigration laws? How the hell does that make sense. Murdering a child in cold blood is in no way equal to enforcing a state border on who is allowed top enter a country.

    1. Damn autocorrect. Parent and to in the above paragraph.

  39. Oh something else that shows how long the reach of this article is. The doctor offering treatment could have been in the building next door, and the whole event would have gone down the exact same way. This had nothing to do with immigration. The Brits government refused to allow the baby to leave the hospital premises period.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.