Reason Roundup

What It Means That ICE 'Lost' 1,500 Refugee Children: Reason Roundup

Plus: Instagram shadowbans #strippers, and how to deal with all those privacy notices

|

GEO Group

Information about immigration agents, unaccompanied child refugees at the border, undocumented minors in the U.S., and which president started what has gotten mixed up in a number of ways over the long weekend. It turns out, many "Trump era" immigration problems have their roots in Obama-era enforcement and policies.

A photo purportedly showing new all-babyseat-outfitted immigrant detention buses in "Trump's America" went viral, after being shared by Fusion anchor Jorge Ramos in a now-deleted tweet. But as many people pointed out, the photo was from 2016, during Obama's presidency.

In a post retweeted more than 15,600 times, ABC Houston's Antonio Arellano described the vehicle as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency "prison bus just for babies." But according to a 2016 press release from the family detention center that owned the vehicle, it was there "to provide offsite field trips" for the 4- to 17-year-old children enrolled in the center's school. "Field trips consist of going to a variety of places, such as the San Antonio Zoo, seeing a movie at the local theater, going to the park, etc.," said the GEO Group press release.

The bus may be a symptom of a broken immigration system, but it's not anything sinister in and of itself, and certainly not some special new transport created to roundup undocumented babies in Trump's America.

That's not to say that ICE has't been up to evil things, under the Trump and Obama administrations.

These allegations are based on federal records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They concern cases of unaccompanied minors caught attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between 2009 and 2014. (Read the full report here.) These days, it's ICE's treatment of refugee minors traveling with their families that's raising alarms.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said anyone attempting to "cross the border unlawfully" would be prosecuted and that if they had a child with them, "that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don't want your child separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally."

That news got conflated with another story, that of the government "losing" nearly 1,500 immigrant children. Many connected the dots and assumed these "lost" children were the same tots taken from their families by border agents, but this is incorrect.

The 1,475 unaccounted-for refugee children were explicitly ones who were caught at the border unaccompanied by a family member or adult. These kids are processed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, then released to immediate or extended family or "other people that the child has a pre-existing relationship with," according to lawyer Josie Duffy Rice. "If none of those categories apply, then the kids normally stay in a shelter."

In checking in on these kids, the Department of Health and Human Services didn't put in a ton of effort. "Basically by all accounts HHS did a cursory reach out to check on these kids," explained Rice.

The children may be lost, or they may be with people trying to keep them away from immigration agents for a reason. "The problem," writes Ephrat Livni at Qz, "is that many of those missing kids may well be with their parents or families, and they may have gone off the grid deliberately to avoid" ICE agents. Livni explains further:

Once a child joins a sponsor, the ORR relinquishes responsibility—that's what has people up in arms now. The sponsorship agreement essentially leaves it up to the child and their sponsors to show up for further immigration proceedings.

That's not great. But demands to crack down on ORR release policies could make things worse for the kids who disappeared, and for those who will continue to arrive alone at the border. Asking ORR to be more strict about releasing undocumented kids, and keeping an eye on them after they are released, could make it harder for sponsors to step up and take in their family members. It could also incentivize more disappearances for those who do, forcing more families to exist underground to avoid authorities.

FREE MINDS

Instagram shadowbans sex-worker rights and strippers.

The #stripper category on Instagram is also no more.

FREE MARKETS

As usual, more regulations made things worse. "If you're located in the EU, you're probably getting consent requests from every service you've signed up for since 1975," writes Mona Ibrahim at Polygon. The European Union's General Date Protection Regulation has led to compulsory revamping of privacy policies set by video games, social media sites, and virtually anything with a digital component. The change has led to an overwhelming amount of updates for customers in the U.S. as well as the E.U. "But, frankly, the disclosure requirements under GDPR seem to have one over-arching effect, and that's content-dense privacy policies that aren't as easy to navigate as companies want to believe," writes Ibrahim.

And while this may satisfy legal requirements under GDPR, the practical effect is information fatigue, despite guidance from the appropriate authorities to eliminate just that. These regulations were supposed to make things simpler for everyone, and they are not.

So what are the rights granted under GDPR? How are they enforced? Will you be able to take advantage of these new rights, or will they only benefit those in the EU?

Check out Polygon for a good explainer. And see Andrea O'Sullivan, writing here earlier this month, on how the new rules will make Facebook and Google even more powerful and "the EU's GDPR should serve as a cautionary tale for Americans eager to rein in tech titans."

QUICK HITS

  • "Even when the criminal-justice system finally admits it got it wrong," writes Radley Balko, "it does so in a way that assigns the least culpability possible to the people who are most culpable for the injustice."
  • Trump's on-again, off-again future meetup with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un gets a boost today by a visit from Chairman Kim Yong Chol, who will meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in New York.
  • Virginia Republican Rep. Thomas Garrett announced yesterday "that he is struggling with alcoholism and will abandon his run for a second term in Congress so he can focus on recovery and his family," reports The Washington Post.
  • The infamous "Marshmallow Test" experiment might not mean what we think it means.

NEXT: Was Epic Systems Really an Epic Loss for Workers?

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. But as many people pointed out, the photo was from 2016, during Obama’s presidency.

    It was a bus for democrats BECAUSE THEY WERE SUCH BABIES BACK THEN. Am I right?

    1. “BACK THEN”?

      More like all the time.

      1. TRICK QUESTION. In 2016 it was the Republicans who were babies.

        1. Babies cannot read which is how America got ObamaCare.

          *drops Little Tikes microphone*

          1. [picks up lovecon89 from day care]

            1. Yeaaaaa. Baculum picks me up on his Huffy Green Machine.

      2. me-ow

        1. [puts Big Bird band-aid on Bee Tagger’s owie]

    2. Hello.

      Trump is making a mess of Obama’s chaos!

    3. It can’t be a bus for democrats, it’s too long.

      1. and the bus for Republicans is not short enough, amirite?

  2. “Even when the criminal-justice system finally admits it got it wrong,” writes Radley Balko, “it does so in a way that assigns the least culpability possible to the people who are most culpable for the injustice.”

    Honest question, are there groups of people known for being good at doing it differently?

  3. “Even when the criminal-justice system finally admits it got it wrong,” writes Radley Balko, “it does so in a way that assigns the least culpability possible to the people who are most culpable for the injustice.”

    I see Balko is joining the president in the assault on our most important institutions.

  4. So what are the rights granted under GDPR? How are they enforced? Will you be able to take advantage of these new rights, or will they only benefit those in the EU?

    A new email blast with answers to these questions will clear it right up.

  5. That’s not to say that ICE has’t been up to evil things, under the Trump or Obama administrations.

    YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE OF THEM, ENB. THOSE ARE THE RULES.

  6. Trump’s on-again, off-again future meetup with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un gets a boost today by a visit from Chairman Kim Yong Chol, who will meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in New York.

    The president is just juicing Big Apple tourism. Probably having the Norks and Pompeo stay at Trump Tower.

    1. “Check out Times Square. They’ve got the best desnudas there. Very classy.”

    2. “Check out Times Square. They’ve got the best desnudas there. Very classy.”

    3. Please let Trump be the master negotiator he said he was in his book.

  7. The bus may be a symptom of a broken immigration system, but it’s not anything sinister in and of itself, and certainly not some special new transport created to roundup undocumented babies in Trump’s America.

    If the media is just going to lie about refugees and their children, just turn these people around at the border.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 9 authorizes Congress to regulate migrants after 1808. Congress is exercising that enumerated power.

    1. If the media is just going to lie about refugees and their children, just turn these people around at the border.

      Oh, fun, everyone can play this game. Anytime someone else lies, you get to punish your enemies.

      1. Anytime someone else lies, you get to punish your enemies

        So, the progressive playbook going back 50-plus years?

    2. Importations, bud, not immigrants. AKA slaves for the pinheads who think not so much.

  8. UK Judge Orders News Blackout Following Arrest Of Tommy Robinson For Reporting On Sex Grooming Gang Trial

    “Tommy this, an’ Tommy that …an’ Tommy go away”
    …I observed, as I have before, how in almost the entirety of the western world, whenever anyone draws attention to some of the more problematic aspects of Islam, the state cracks down not on the problematic aspects, but on the guy who draws attention thereto. In Britain and Europe, we are an incident or two away from literally “shooting the messenger”.

    1. The narrative for open borders cannot be derailed.

      1. What are a few raped children to protect the narrative?

        1. Lol.

          I guess you also want to ban guns because of a few dead children?

          1. If you support this, you support a government enforced embargo on reporting school shootings to discourage copycats.

            1. Good thing I don’t support it.

          2. Only the “party of personal responsibility” is allowed to blame an entire religion for the actions of a few bad people.

            1. Nothing says “We need more of THESE folks” like mass child rapists with officials too scared of being called racist to stop.

              I’m not seeing the benefits of open borders here, but YMMV.

              1. So you’re saying you also support preventing immigration by Catholics, right?

                1. Do you REALLY want to compare the numbers involved?

              2. Nothing says “We need more of THESE folks” like mass child rapists

                You are referring to ICE agents, right?

            2. Are you kidding? Who is allowed to even acknowledge their religion? Everyone in the UK calls the perpetrators “Asian men”, like there are Buddhist gangs running around raping young girls

              1. And everyone in the UK knows exactly what “Asian men” means. Try being less provincial next time.

                1. Yeah, it means “in order to avoid offending the Pakistani-Muslims who are mostly responsible we will pretend that all Asians are equally culpable. Yeah that might offend other Asians but what are they gonna do about it?”

                  Progs are, if nothing else, total cowards, so they prefer to pick on the ones who don’t fight back

                  1. I’m sorry that in all your time being a mommy you didn’t have time to learn anything about British vernacular. Maybe you should try reading a book sometime that has words, not just pictures, in it.

                    1. This is not even clever trolling. Try harder

              2. Buddhists can be assholes too.

                If you study the history of Southeast Asia, you will read all about it.

                1. Sure Buhdists can be assholes. And they are assholes in a conflict that goes back to the Muslim invasion of India. The Mogul invasion of India resulted in the worst genocide in human history. No kidding. And it was the Hindus and Buhdists who were on the wrong end of it. Unsurprisingly, Hindus and Buhdists still hold a grudge and that conflict continues to this day.

                2. That doesn’t explain why it’s offensive to call Muslim rapists Muslim but OK to use the less precise “Asian” descriptor that offends more people who had nothing to do with that incident. It’s OK to offend some Asians but not others?

                  1. And I don’t really care about avoiding offense at all, this just shows that the supposed goal of PC language is bullshit. If it was just about sparing feelings they wouldn’t trade one generalization for an even worse one

            3. A Brit famously said “you follow your traditions and then we will follow ours” when dealing with the indian custom of wife burning (British tradition being hanging those who would set a woman on fire). Now Brits are forced not to discuss foreign traditions that may be at odds with British sense of ethics.

            4. Personal responsibility does not mean cultures do not exist or that you cannot make general conclusions about the people in them.

              Do you deny that Islamic cultures in general and especially Pakistan and the Gulf condone child rape and especially the rape of nonMuslims? If you do, you are wrong because those cultures do do that.

              What does that mean? Does that mean everyone from those places is a child rapist? No it does not. It does, however, mean that if you have a large community of people from those cultures, child rape will be a lot more prevalent than it would be if the population were from a different culture.

              Personal responsibility doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as culture. The funny thing is that you have no problem seeing that when talking about American Christians. You and Hail and others like you will make all kinds of sweeping generalizations about them. Somehow that all goes out the window and you are all about never collectivizing anyone when we are talking about Muslims and doing so allows you to virtue signal.

              1. “Personal responsibility does not mean cultures do not exist or that you cannot make general conclusions about the people in them.”

                Let me play along… only gun owners commit gun violence. /sarc

                Pakistan is an extremely corrupt, backwards government. I wouldn’t say that it’s the culture that condones it necessarily. The government isn’t the culture. Our government once condoned slavery, but I wouldn’t say Americans were/are a culture of slave owners.

                You and Hail and others like you will make all kinds of sweeping generalizations about them.”

                Citation needed.

                1. Pakistan is an extremely corrupt, backwards government. I wouldn’t say that it’s the culture that condones it necessarily. The government isn’t the culture. Our government once condoned slavery, but I wouldn’t say Americans were/are a culture of slave owners.

                  The government has nothing to do with this. And yes, the US once allowed slavery. If in say 1820, you had allowed a large influx of American southerners, would you be surprised that support for slavery within your country increased? The American South sure as hell was. Why do you think slavery existed if not because our culture condoned it? Do you know anything at all about history? Go learn something about the early abolitionist movement and get back to me about your fantasy concerning the US culture not really condoning slavery.

                  You seem to be as obsessed with the government as the worst Prog. The only difference is that progs think the government is the source of all good and you think it is the source of all evil. Both of you are equally and similarly crazy.

                  1. You seem to like to make generalizations about everything that you talk about, whether it be me, the people of Pakistan, immigrants, etc. If you’re really for individual liberty/responsibility, maybe you should realize that individuals make decisions that don’t reflect the culture at large.

                    As far as Pakistan goes, those in power tend to dominate but they don’t define the culture of the people. Almost all of the recent examples show institutionalized, state-sponsored (or condoned) rape in Pakistan. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. When you allow people to get away with horrible things like rape and murder through corruption and bribery, then you get the worst of the worst to commit those atrocities. That doesn’t mean that it’s a cultural norm.

                    Do you know what happens to people in Pakistan who call for more western, liberalized conditions? Just because the people live in fear of the almighty government doesn’t mean that there is a cultural espousal of the evils that corrupt governments permit or espouse.

                    1. As far as Pakistan goes, those in power tend to dominate but they don’t define the culture of the people. Almost all of the recent examples show institutionalized, state-sponsored (or condoned) rape in Pakistan.

                      Sure. And why do you think that happens? It is because of the culture at large demands it. Has it ever occurred to you that governments often are expressions of the people they govern and do things because the public demands it? Who do you think runs the Pakistani government? Martians?

                      Your position seems to be that child rape only occurs because the evil Pakistani government forces the good people of Pakistan to do it. Do you realize how stupid you sound? Your complete unwillingness to admit any fault in culture or in populations at large cause you to make the absurd conclusion that the government condoning bad things can never be the result of the people demanding it do so. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

                    2. “Your position seems to be that child rape only occurs because the evil Pakistani government forces the good people of Pakistan to do it.”

                      No, it happens because there are perverted people in the world in all cultures. It happens more frequently in Pakistan because the government allows the well-connected to get away with it (ie the risk/reward scenario is skewed by government corruption). Roughly half of the instances in the link that I provided above were committed BY government officials.

                      It happens in the US too, does that mean our culture is more likely to commit child rape? It happens less frequently in the US because you are less likely to get away with it.

                      Do you realize how racist it must sound to the moral people of Pakistan to assume that their culture promotes it? Or to assume that they are all terrorists? Would you want US culture to be “defined” by the violence on the streets of Chicago? Or by the actions of the Timothy McVeighs of the world?

                2. http://pjmedia.com/spengler/th…..y-hungary/

                  If culture doesn’t matter and immigrants can’t do anything to change a country but make it better, why then is Hungary now the safest place in Europe for Jews? How did that happen? For the entirety of the post war years, Western Europe lived in guilt over the Holocaust and terrified of anti-Semitism rising again. Yet, it has risen again in every place except those nations that refuse to accept Muslim immigrants. Is that just bad luck? Or does the nature of Muslim immigrants have something to do with it?

                  1. I dispute part of this. Germany has ALWAYS disliked the Jews. After the Holocaust, there was an undercurrent of being mad at them for making Germany look so bad.

                    I did find it odd that of the three major fascist powers of WW II, the other two didn’t seem to care about Jews. Mussolini didn’t and Italy did next to nothing to support the Holocaust until the Nazis took over. Spain never really sold out their Jews.

                    Now France…they couldn’t WAIT to sell out theirs.

                    1. “It happens in the US too, does that mean our culture is more likely to commit child rape? It happens less frequently in the US because you are less likely to get away with it.”

                      Postmodernist claptrap.

        2. They’re running w my sol’n to a bunch of social problems, wherein I believe publicity about the problem is worse than the problem itself. A lot of things are bad in this world mostly because people know about them.

          1. Like that sci-fi story where society restored innocence about death.

      2. I don’t know if it’s open borders so much as a nation being paralyzed by political correctness. Maybe a little of both.

        1. The “pro government control over labor” movement likes to make the point that every time an immigrant commits a violent crime, it’s a reason to stop immigration altogether. Stop trampling on their narrative.

          1. This coming from a guy who thinks it’s perfectly okay for someone’s private property rights to be violated.

            1. I defy you to quote me ever not defending private property. If you think government can hand out permission slips to be within it’s borders, then it appears that you prefer public property rights (ie a form of collectivism).

              If an immigrant or a citizen commits a crime against you or your property, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, just as you wouldn’t punish all citizens for the actions of one (for instance make it illegal to own the same firearm as was used in the commission of a crime) you shouldn’t condemn all non-citizens for the actions of one. That’s the definition of respecting personal freedom/responsibility.

              1. I defy you to quote me ever not defending private property.

                It was right here

                “Or better yet, why can’t the “people down there who own land on the border” allow free and open access to their land from people regardless of whether they have a permission slip?

                If you think government can hand out permission slips to be within it’s borders

                Hey dumbass, human society has been discriminating against who can move in for centuries. That’s basic social anthropology and zoology. Just because you think anarchy can overcome millennia of scientific group formation doesn’t mean it’s true.

                1. Hey dumbass, human society has been discriminating against who can move in for centuries. That’s basic social anthropology and zoology. Just because you think anarchy can overcome millennia of scientific group formation doesn’t mean it’s true.

                  In other word: being a racist bigoted jerk is natural, so let your inner asshole shine through! Isn’t that right?

    2. To be fair, the UK courts are censorship-happy and suppress comments on judicial proceedings even where Muslims were not the focus of the case.

    3. from the first link:

      The judge in Tommy Robinson’s case, Denise Marson, pulled a neat trick today.

      She threw him in jail for 13 months, and banned anyone in the UK from talking about it

      I did not know British judges could tell the Queen what she can and cannot say.

      1. The Queen is by tradition even more constrained than regular people in saying what she thinks, and that’s really constrained.

      2. What is it with these heavy-handed chick judges?

        Britain is a shithole.

        1. Hey, at least you don’t live there, so they’ve got that going for them.

          1. Your family deserves rape.

  9. suggests that being able to delay gratification at a young age may not be as predictive of later life outcomes as was previously thought.

    Has anyone tried those Smashmallows? I can’t figure out if I like them, but I don’t think I do.

    1. Based on the last college dorm I looked at, compared to what I experienced in the 70’s as a college student, I don’t think attending college these days implies much delay of gratification. I was middle aged before I had that sort of standard of living, college in the 70’s involved living 2-3 in a room, not luxury apartments with individual bedrooms.

      1. Huh, what dorms were these? Because my dorm was a shared 200 sqft space in an old hostel the university bought

        1. My niece’s dorm over in Spartanburg.

  10. It would be nice if people were honest about what happened with immigrant children. Obama made a rule that said unaccompanied children got to stay in the country. So, every family in Central America that had an extra kid put them on the bus and sent them to the US. The thinking was once the kid got here and got a Green Card, they could bring their parents over. This created a crisis as more and more people just sent their minor children over the border. And the federal government was totally unequipped to deal with them. The immigration activists knew this and saw the resulting crisis as a bonus and PR opportunity.

    If you are pissed off about the fate of those kids, blame the parents who sent them and the Obama administration and immigration activists who used them as pawns to create a crisis for their political purposes. You don’t have to agree with the state of immigration law to see how cynical and awful it is to use kids to create a crisis to further your politics. And that is what happened.

    1. Exactly John. The non-Americans are sending kids to the USA to try and pull at American heart strings to get more adult non-Americans into the USA.

    2. So, every family in Central America that had an extra kid put them on the bus and sent them to the US. The thinking was once the kid got here and got a Green Card, they could bring their parents over.

      I’m sure you have evidence of this, and you’re not just talking out your ass as usual.

      1. The evidence is the surge of unaccompanied minors that happened after Obama made the announcement. What other explanation do you have? Why would people start sending kids unaccompanied other than because they were told the kids would stay once they got here?

        Does that need to be explained to you? I know you are dumb as a fucking post, but even someone of your low intelligence should be able to grasp that you get more of what you reward.

        1. To be fair to Rataxes, if it had been “every” family, the problem would have been much, much worse.

          One family in a hundred or a thousand was bad enough.

    3. “If you are pissed off about the fate of those kids, blame the parents who sent them ”

      It’s America’s fault for not providing every foreigner with enough money to live at a US standard of living. If we did, they wouldn’t be forced to come here. It’s all our fault. We do it because we’re so racist.

  11. Many connected the dots and assumed these “lost” children were the same tots taken from their families by border agents, but this is incorrect.

    If you can think of an easier way to get outrage clicks and likes, the twittersphere is all ears.

  12. For some reason, the left always seems to conclude that the ‘wrong’ people shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves. This, gun control, “our violence is speech; your speech is violence”…

    Columnist’s hot take: Israel has no lawful right to defend itself against armed struggle
    My Latest:

    Under international law, Palestinians have a lawful and moral right to use “whatever means necessary,” including “armed struggle” to resist Israeli occupation.

    And Israel has no lawful right to defend itself!https://t.co/cUc1eIrWVP

    ? CJ Werleman (@cjwerleman) May 28, 2018

    1. But I thought this wasn’t about “armed struggle” by Palestinians; I thought it was about a bunch of Palestinian flower children chanting “Kumbayah” until the IDF shot them for no reason.

    2. fta:

      Texas Darlin’

      1. all squirrels must fucking hang.

        **
        Texas Darlin’

        1. I give up.

          Well played, you little bastard squirrels. Well played.

  13. Real Conservatives Refuse To Kneel Before Their Liberal Overlords
    Because today, being “better than that” means being willing to allow other people to control you by defining you, and the definition is always “a pushover.” You’re supposed to be “conservative,” our conservasuperiors tell us, and we must therefore rigidly adhere to their precious “conservative principles.” But these bear no resemblance to real principles, much less conservative ones.

    Allow me to sum up these fake principles:

    Don’t ever fight.

    Don’t presume to exercise your own right of free expression.

    Lose like a gentleman.

    Yeah, no. Hard pass, Fredocons.

    1. Excellent, now apply the same principles to the federal budget.

  14. Virginia Republican Rep. Thomas Garrett announced yesterday “that he is struggling with alcoholism and will abandon his run for a second term in Congress so he can focus on recovery and his family,” reports The Washington Post.

    SPOILER ALERT: Sex scandal coming up.

    1. “And when I recovered from the booze-induced blackout, this dame was yelling at me about something or other.

      “And I later checked my closet and found several bags full of money, labelled ‘courtesy of Archer Daniels Midland.’

      “The thing of it is, I was so drunk I had no idea where the dame and the money bags came from.”

  15. If you bring a child with you to commit a bank robbery, you will lose your child as well. Bringing children with you to commit crimes frequently leads to losing custody of your children,

    1. Presenting yourself at a port of entry and claiming asylum isn’t a crime, fuckhead.

      1. When you cross other countries to do so, yes, it is. You cannot pick and choose where you seek refugee status.

        1. So you’re saying we are now in the business of enforcing Mexico’s immigration laws? lol

          1. International law.

          2. It’s international treaties, actually, not a country’s immigration law. But nice try.

            International treaties don’t permit asylum status-shopping.

            1. Yes, typically if you cross another safe country to seek asylum in a country you prefer, even if they decide you’re deserving of asylum, they can dump you back over the border to get it in the first country. Because you’re only a refugee in the first safe country you hit, the next one you’re just a migrant.

            2. oh that’s rich, the “anti-globalist” crowd is now citing “International Law” as a justification for their positions

  16. These regulations were supposed to make things simpler for everyone, and they are not.

    It’s hardly the EU’s fault that their subjects are stupid or lazy.

  17. http://www.steynonline.com/867…..my-go-away

    The UK manages to arrest and sentence Tommy Robinson to a year in prison for the crime of reporting on the Ratherham trials in a single day. Reporting on a trial that embarrasses the government and shows that it allowed Muslims to rape thousands of children over more than a decade apparently “prejudices” the trial. And that is a crime you know. The UK government cares deeply about giving its defendants a fair trial, especially when it was a part of the crime in the first place.

    Disgraceful. And it is absolutely relevant here. This is being defended by every American liberal I have seen comment on it. They would love to have the same rule here.

    1. Pretty much.

      I do wonder…exactly how many officials who allowed it were punished? And I mean beyond being fired (though I doubt that happened much, either). How many faced criminal charges?

      I’m assuming the number is hovering at around zero.

      I hope the most far right administration in history takes over several colleges to show these kids what their desires lead to. I find their speech on conservatives pretty hateful, after all.

      1. I hope the most far right administration in history takes over several colleges to show these kids what their desires lead to. I find their speech on conservatives pretty hateful, after all.

        It’s all about principals, not principles, for H&R conservatarians.

        1. That is right and principles demand complete surrender to leftists. Right Hail? Let the leftists win so you can feel good about following your principles is always the answer isn’t it?

        2. No. The only way to teach some people lessons is to make them experience the misery they demand for others.

          1. That will definitely help and not lead to people trying to inflict misery on you because you’re a terrible person.

            1. They are ALREADY trying to inflict misery on conservatives. Have been doing so for years. And they champion banning “hate speech” due to a belief that THEY will define what it is.

              People on the Right, for years, have been saying “why do you assume YOU will make that decision?”

              Note, we aren’t for banning “hate speech”

              But a lot of college students and law students ARE for doing so.

              They need to be taught what doing so leads to.

    2. The account I read… He was arrested, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced all in about 3 hours total.

      Real Star Chamber stuff.

      1. But the child rape ring? Took YEARS to uncover…and then recover back up.

  18. ICE agents “allegedly used stun guns on the minors for amusement or punishment, kicked them and threatened to either rape or kill them.” https://t.co/w8BWc4R2vi
    ? Todd N. Tucker (@toddntucker) May 25, 2018

    The would-be reformers kind of blew their load with false allegations of hundreds of missing children.

    1. Or how those pictures were because of Trump’s harsh policies.

  19. Perhaps it is time for us to re-examine our ties to Europe due to their fairly harsh suppression of rights of their citizens. Poland wants a base of ours there. Close up the one in Germany and put it in Poland instead.

  20. So, as I read this, ICE lost these kids because they were not strict enough at keeping tabs on where they were? The kids are somewhere in the country beyond the reach of ICE, so they should have been more authoritarian to the sponsors and demanded t hey check in regularly, with penalties for noncompliance, I suppose.

    1. So you’re saying you didn’t actually read it.

      1. So you are saying you have no answer to his point and are just trolling? That is your move I guess.

        1. He doesn’t have a point, because he’s too uninformed. There isn’t any problem with ICE not knowing where these kids are.

          1. Then what was the pearl clutching over this story by the open borders crowd about last week?

            1. It’s not that they don’t know where they are, even though they don’t.

              It’s that there’s no problem with it, because they were already placed. Not ICE’s responsibility anymore.

              The pearl clutching was just an effort to pretend Trump had misplaced them. Hadn’t noticed them drop off the back of the truck, or something like that. When it’s just that a casual effort to get in touch with the families hadn’t been immediately successful for some of them.

  21. So there were problems and abuses associated with immigration law enforcement even when Obama was president? That just makes the case for open borders even stronger. Any person of any age who shows up in this country has a fundamental human right to live here.

    #NoBanNoWall
    #AbolishICE

    1. Does your conception of “any person” include the likes of a young Anders Breivik?

      1. Of course. Why shouldn’t it? Are we going to use “pre-crime” like in that Tom Cruise movie?

        1. Ding-ding.

          #Intellectual consistency even when it means not being with her

  22. The infamous “Marshmallow Test” experiment might not mean what we think it means.

    Marshmallows are boring. This new study reinforces that.

  23. The children may be lost, or they may be with people trying to keep them away from immigration agents for a reason.

    So who should be more outraged that Trump isn’t keeping tabs on these young illegals? The pro- or anti-immigration crowd?

    1. If the government had kept them in detention, that would be imprisoning children. But letting them go is abandoning them. Maybe their parents and families are the ones responsible for them rather than the government?

    2. The obvious solution is tracking chips and tattoos on forearms. /s

  24. It seems to me that putting your children into the U.S. government’s hands is always a bad idea, regardless of which rascal is occupying the White House.

    1. Remember too that everyone not charged with a federal crime who is in ICE detention is there by choice. You can always leave and go back home. You end up in ICE detention because you refuse to go back home and they don’t trust you to show up for your court appearance to adjudicate your claim to stay. So it is a little hard to get that upset about the conditions in these places once you realize whatever the conditions the people in them have freely chosen to remain in them.

      1. I just can’t figure out what makes the Knights so fricken effective. It’s unreal how they hit back and forecheck. Amazing really.

        1. It really is. It is just one game. I wouldn’t call the series just yet. But when you consider that the Capitals just shut out the Lightning in two straight elimination games, the Knights putting up six goals on them is pretty incredible. The Caps are bigger and while not as fast, not slow either. They are going to have to enforce their will on them the way they did the Lightning. This nonsense has to stop. You can’t let an expansion team win the cup.

          1. If the Caps do win the cup I expect we’ll see hysterical rants on MSNBC about how suspicious it is that a team with a Russian for a captain won. No coincidence that this happened during the Trump administration!

        2. The Knights are effective for two reasons.

          1) They have four second lines.

          They may not have three guys who would all be on the first line in any other team in the NHL, but they have 12 guys who would all be on the second line–and their second line is better than the second line of a lot of other teams. That’s part of what makes them effective. Their third and fourth lines are often better than your second line, and why wouldn’t they be? They got to pick from the best of the second lines everywhere in the NHL.

          2) Fleury

          When Fleury is hot in the playoffs, he was batting 95% going into last night, you have to put twice as many pucks on net as the Knights to get the same number of goals.

          P.S. We should expect the Knights to win their opener at home. That was not an excellent performance by the Knights. Fleury allowed four goals. Going forward through the rest of the series, he may drop down to his statistical average. That’s why the average is such a bitch, always dragging the statistical anomalies down.

          1. P.P.S. The NHL will never allow an expansion team to abuse their privilege to pick from other teams the way the Knights did to acquire Fleury ever again.

            Pay the Pens cash for the promise not to protect a player? That was wrong.

            1. Pay the Pens cash for the promise not to protect a player? That was wrong.

              On the contrary, that was absolutely brilliant. Why not use your resources to ensure you can pick decent players and not the scrap heap/overpaid veteran garbage that expansion teams usually get? These team owners aren’t that concerned about “competition,” because they deliberately keep shitty teams in operation instead of letting the bad ones go out of business.

              Vegas just being in the Finals is a big “fuck you” to this anti-competitive attitude. It’s actually better for the game because it means that the other team owners didn’t get to take advantage of a fat expansion team franchise fee to slough off their dregs onto a 20-win punching bag.

              1. “On the contrary, that was absolutely brilliant. Why not use your resources to ensure you can pick decent players and not the scrap heap/overpaid veteran garbage that expansion teams usually get?”

                Um . . .does the treatment of Kings’, Sharks’, Jets’, and Capitals’ fans land anywhere in your calculation?

                They already had more than enough benefit in being free to pick players from other teams. Paying cash for the promise not to protect someone was bullshit. They’ll never let someone in that position abuse that privilege like that again.

                1. I may have been unclear in my original statement.

                  The problem wasn’t the Knights being free to pick from other teams.

                  The problem was using that ability to pay cash to the Penguins for the promise not to protect Fleury. Paying cash for the promise not to protect Fleury was bullshit. The league will not allow that to happen again.

                  Picking from other teams, otherwise, is a separate issue.

                  The reason the Knights are in the Cup is because they have the goalie who won the Cup the last two years in a row.

          2. It’s kind of funny what a difference a few percentage points can make. In baseball, the difference between getting hits three out of ten times and two out of ten times is huge, but hot goalies are even more important in hockey.

            If you’re blocking 91%, you’re doing well. They gotta put ten on the net to get one by.

            If you’re blocking 95%, they gotta put 20 on the net?

            How you gonna get twice as many scoring chances?

            Holtby shouldn’t have allowed five goals. That was a Boudreau era effort last night. Trotz teams don’t play defense like that in the playoffs. Trotz teams don’t play defense like that during the regular season.

  25. “Trump’s on-again, off-again future meetup with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un gets a boost today by a visit from Chairman Kim Yong Chol, who will meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in New York”

    It’s called “negotiation”.

    Successful negotiations over contentious issues involve making demands and refusing to capitulate.

    Color me impressed.

    I’m not impressed by the suggestion that we should capitulate to whatever the North Koreans and the Iranians want because the NAP requires us to bend over, spread our cheeks, and politely insist that they don’t screw us.

    I don’t approve of Trump using trade policy to pressure the Chinese into pressuring the North Koreans, but just because I don’t like the call the quarterback makes, that doesn’t mean I want my team to lose. I hope Trump throws a touchdown. For the sake of the country and American security, I hope Trump is wildly successful in with the North Koreans.

    1. You mean being desperate to enter into negotiations and make a “deal” such that the other party knows you will not walk away is a bad way to negotiate? Who knew?

      It is amazing that the simple act of being willing to walk away from a negotiation if it isn’t giving you a deal you can live with is some kind of alien thing to the media and political establishment. It is further evidence that they believe in the magic power of words. You never walk away from a negotiation because the mere act of negotiating magically makes things better. This is what they actually believe.

      1. Really, I’m impressed the US got this far in negotiating with the North Koreans.

        If the benefits prove to be illusory then walk away, to be sure.

        But I’m certainly rooting for *any* President – Republican, Democrat or socialist (but I repeat myself) to win a negotiation with North Korea and make the world moderately safer.

        1. They got this far because Trump was willing to pressure China by threatening to deny access to our markets. No other President had done that. Previous Presidents were too wedded to the idea of “free trade uber alles” to see trade as just another negotiating tool within a holistic approach to pursuing the nation’s interests. Even if you believe in the value of free trade, there are other values at stake. If you say up front “we will never deny people access to our market” you are depriving yourself of a valuable tool you can use to pursue other interests. In this case, getting China to help us pressure North Korea is a hell of a lot more valuable than some general commitment to free trade.

      2. Isn’t that how we ended up with ObamaCare?

        Obama knew the only deal he could get was a system that was built to self-destruct, but he couldn’t bring himself to walk away–because he couldn’t let it look like he’d achieved nothing through negotiation ahead of an election.

        So, he decided to do what was best for his own political career and fucked the nation.

        If Trump is willing to open himself up to criticism of having made overtures to the North Koreans only to be slighted–for the sake of the country–then he should be congratulated for that. If Trump would rather walk away from any deal than capitulate to the North Koreans and pretend it’s a personal victory, then, yeah, that’s +1 for Trump.

        1. Obama knew the only deal he could get was a system that was built to self-destruct, but he couldn’t bring himself to walk away–because he couldn’t let it look like he’d achieved nothing through negotiation ahead of an election.

          I don’t agree with that assessment at all – Obama was willing to agree to anything at all simply to establish the principle of federal control of healthcare. Notice for all the GOP’s running on the campaign issue of repealing Obamacare, we still have Obamacare. Because the challenge to repealing Obamacare is “if you repeal Obamacare, what are you going to replace it with?” and I’m pretty sure Obama knew this is the way things work. Just like his Presidential agreement with Iran that was in no way a binding agreement on the US for lack of Senate ratification, he knew once the agreement was made it would be difficult to unmake it in just the way so many people were willing to argue that backing out of the deal was somehow the US refusing to honor its word. Or all the questionable Executive Orders, it’s not as easy repealing the EO’s as it was issuing them because somehow magically what was created with the stroke of a pen becomes The Law Of The Land and TLOTL can’t be undone with a mere stroke of the pen. (See the 9th Circuit’s rulings in Goose v Gander on Trump’s power to change executive priorities Obama established by fiat for example.)

          1. Obama’s insistence on getting that piece of crap through congress was all about the implications for his own reelection.

            He was afraid he would suffer a defeat for seeming ineffectual–like the failure of HillaryCare put a millstone around Bill Clinton’s neck.

            It wasn’t only that way with ObamaCare either. Obama often settled for shit legislation or a shit deal rather than walk away and being seen as ineffectual. That was his nature.

  26. Oh, and please be aware, even if and when we make a deal with the North Koreans, they will continue to play a game of brinkmanship. They will continue to try to violate our agreement to test our resolve to enforce that deal. They will only enter into a deal and abide by it so long as doing so is better than the alternative.

    In that way, trade being more advantageous than funding communist rebels all over the world, China became more of a trading partner and less of a security threat to the United States. Here’s to hoping the same thing happens with North Korea.

    Reagan walked away from negotiations with Gorbachev at Reykjavik. If it’s in the best interests of the U.S. for Trump to do the same to Kim, then that’s exactly what he should do–no matter what the White House press corps says.

    1. Yup.

    2. Yup.

  27. ICE agents “allegedly used stun guns on the minors for amusement or punishment, kicked them and threatened to either rape or kill them.”

    Government is just another word for the torture and threatened rape of immigrant children we choose to do together.

    1. Nerd

      1. Na gif fo mi na kaka, dzhemang.

        1. I don’t speak Romulan.

          1. [takes $parky’s nerd card and rips it up]

    2. I got a feeling Bezos personally nerds out over that show. You know he dreams about going to Mars when he turns 200 and becoming President of Mars after he defeats Elon Musk in a space battle.

      1. Apparently, Bezos loves the books and was pissed that SyFy beat Amazon to the first-run rights in the first place.

        You may be on to something with the Bezos-Musk space rivalry – Musk is a big fan of Iain M. Banks’s Culture novels, the first of which is also being developed at Amazon.

  28. Will you be able to take advantage of these new rights, or will they only benefit those in the EU?

    The second one, but only if you consider not being able to access the LA Times (among others) a benefit.

    1. I’ve had sites contact me to renew my consent, and I’m not even in the EU, they were sending the notices to everyone in case they had EU subscribers.

      1. A lot of companies weren’t paying attention in the runup to GDPR going into effect on the 25th. Then, since the prospect of a ?20,000,000 fine has a way of focusing the mind, they panicked.

        1. These are mom and pop subscription lists, so I guess they’re trying to cover all bases rather than risk the fines. And they’re American operations, they probably don’t even have any euros in the piggy bank to pay the fines with.

          1. I am glad Vatican Singles Digest is on top of things.

  29. These kids are processed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, then released to immediate or extended family or “other people that the child has a pre-existing relationship with,”

    such as the arresting ICE officer.

  30. Reason covers up this key news: Hasbro gets a trademark for the scent of Play Doh

    It’s tough to trademark a scent, probably because you have to show it’s nonfunctional. A functional scent would come under patent law, meaning it expires after a certain time and competitors can use it.

    Trademarks, OTOH, last as long as the product lasts, so they can never be ripped off by (say) rival toy companies.

    Make Reason cover this – #StopTheCoverUp!

    1. Wait, so Crusty’s scent is patented?

  31. Oh, biggest free speech story in the English speaking world right now is still about Tommy Robinson.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-44287640

    He’s the founder of the English Defense League, an anti-Islam, anti-immigration group, and he’s been thrown in jail to server a 13 month contempt of court charge for streaming live from outside of a courthouse during an ongoing trial of a Muslim “grooming” trial.

    “Grooming” in UK parlance appears to refer to what we’d call facilitating child molestation, what the anti-Islam immigrant groups refer to as “rape gangs”, and what ENB would object to being called “trafficking”. Suffice it to say, the trial was about a group of Muslims who were facilitating statutory rape and/or child molestation within the Muslim community in the UK.

    A judge (effectively) ordered that no one could report on the trial, and so they’ve made a martyr of a leader from within the anti-Muslim activist community–something our First Amendment prevents from happening. If you want to see what the U.S. would like like without First Amendment protections for hate speech, look at the UK.

    It’s a shit show.

    Do you think it’s impossible for anti-immigrant Alt-Right people to become folk heroes? Just violate their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press–and watch the impossible happen right before your eyes.

    1. As I mentioned, the UK courts are censorship-happy, they didn’t even allow reporting on Thalidomide litigation.

      The theory is that a news blackout on, say, a sensational murder trial would stop the *Sun* or whoever from whipping up prejudicial publicity against the defendants. But when a trial intersects with issues of public policy, then this sort of censorship can cut off vital public policy debates, like “what happened and how do we stop it from happening again”?

      Imagine if courts in the U. S. could shut off debate on immigration by forbidding coverage of the travel-ban litigation.

    2. “The 35-year-old was broadcasting on social media outside the city’s crown court where a trial was ongoing.

      A ban on reporting his 13-month sentence at the same court was lifted after being challenged by the media.

      Robinson was livestreaming via his Facebook page when he was arrested for a suspected breach of the peace outside the court.”

      —-BBC Link from Above

      We were discussing yesterday why we couldn’t seem to find UK references to the length of his sentence yesterday. That explains why! The court prohibited the media from reporting that he’d been sentenced to 13 months in jail for broadcasting from outside the courthouse!

      I swear, the First Amendment isn’t just the guarantee of so much of our freedom. It’s also what makes us American.

      1. I see stories like this and its really emphasizes the importance of the free speech and freedom of the press.

    3. Orwell’s ghost is probably screaming “1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a how-to guide, you assholes!” right about now.

    4. My woodchipper would like to know how exactly a British gag order is any different than an American gag order.

      1. It’s politer and slightly more inbred.

        1. English wood chippers don’t even work because the teeth are all crooked.

  32. Good news column?

    The Expanse was picked up for another season by Amazon.

    Yay capitalism!

      1. I bet your wife has banned that Belter talk in the bedroom.

        1. She didn’t have to. Turns out Lang Belta is like German – it’s impossible to sound sexy while speaking it. Live and learn, sasa ke, kopeng?

    1. The Expanse: The Trials and Tribulations of Hillary Clinton’s Tailor.

    2. SyFy’s problem was apparently that more people were watching it on Amazon than on their network and they had no claim on the streaming money.

      1. Yeah, SyFy only got the first-run live view rights, apparently on the assumption that this whole “internet” fad was going to blow over any day now. Amazon had US streaming rights and Netflix had international streaming rights.

  33. For every argument there is a right side and a wrong side. Those on the right side are on the right side because they’re right. Those on the wrong side are evil and hateful and must be punished by those on the right side. The punishment should involve, but not be limited to, forcing those on the wrong side to live with the consequences of their evil, hateful actions. The right side should make sure the wrong side is constantly punished. Those who desire to switch from the wrong side to the right side must constantly be reminded that they were on the wrong side. If someone on the right side makes a mistake, it can be waved away by pointing out that the wrong side would have been worse.

    1. Yeah well that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

    2. THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE

      Claiming outright to be on the right side means you’re on the wrong side.

      1. Or you have the moral high ground.

        What is the moral high ground? That’s for winners to know and for losers to find out.

        1. This is what claiming outright to be on the right side looks like.

          1. What do YOU know loser?

            Gotcha!

            1. Thank you for reminding me of this.

              THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT RULE

              It’s reasonable to act like a giant crybaby when someone from the wrong side says you’re wrong. Not only is it reasonable, logic demands it.

  34. I do think its interesting that Reason published stories on Memorial Day but nothing on those veterans who died in service to the United States.

    Chapman did publish a Reason article about Dreamers though.

    1. Well, there is the question of which veterans died in service to the United States and which ones died in service to the United States’ government. Just because you think you’re doing your patriotic duty doesn’t mean you’re entitled to respect if what you’re doing is just the opposite of patriotism. Ask noted “patriot” George Washington about how overthrowing the government of your own country is somehow commendable.

  35. Councillors and police ‘had sex’ with Rotherham abuse victims
    Two local councillors, one of whom is still serving, and a police officer have been accused of having sex with victims involved in the Rotherham child abuse scandal.

    1. Girls as young as 11-years old suffered rape by multiple attackers, trafficking across the North East, abductions, beatings and intimidation. The reports found that councillors and police officers were aware of the abuse, but chose to “disbelieve, suppress or ignore” it.

      W.T.F. is wrong with these people? This story just gets sicker and sicker.

  36. These kids are processed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, then released to immediate or extended family or “other people that the child has a pre-existing relationship with,” according to lawyer Josie Duffy Rice. “If none of those categories apply, then the kids normally stay in a shelter.”

    In checking in on these kids, the Department of Health and Human Services didn’t put in a ton of effort. “Basically by all accounts HHS did a cursory reach out to check on these kids,” explained Rice.

    The children may be lost, or they may be with people trying to keep them away from immigration agents for a reason. “The problem,”

    We’ll find them when they fill out their census forms.

    1. Or when they show up to vote this November.

      1. When the media reports that a majority of Trump supporters actually believes that millions of illegal immigrants voted in 2016, they mean to come across surprised and exasperated at your stupidity and gullibility, not impressed by your sleuthing skills.

        1. Sure Tony, there is no truth to it at all. That is why you are so able to joke about the subject. Right? It is not like my joke struck a nerve or anything. Nope.

        2. And illegal immigrants never vote. That is also why Democrats are so unconcerned about voter ID laws.

          1. You generally have to have an ID of some sort to register to vote.

            You don’t have to believe in rightwing bullshit, you know. It’s not required of you.

            1. But illegal immigrants generally do have ID of some sort, where the sort is “fraudulent”.

              And ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions are getting pretty aggressive about handing out as many privileges of citizenship to illegals as possible. It’s not like they’re actually pretending to expend any effort keeping them from being registered to vote.

              So, I wouldn’t say I’m confident over a million illegals voted in 2016. But I’m not confident it’s false, either, given the level of determination to make sure nobody is allowed to check.

              1. Why don’t you put together some statistics or evidence to prove your claim, rather than mere suppositions.

  37. I would do well on the marshmallow test because even as a child I had no sweet tooth. Make it a foie gras with port reduction test, and that would test my self-control.

    1. Duck guts covered with burnt wine. Sounds delicious.

      1. Even Tony’s food cravings are obnoxious.

  38. Everyone in favor of ENB taking over all Open Borders advocacy from Shikha, say “aye”.

    I’m sure I’d be arguing against what ENB has to say too, but having actual facts honestly presented in an immigration article at Reason is such a shock to my system that I felt the need to speak up in support.

  39. There’s a big fuss about children – “unaccompanied minors” – caught attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between 2009 and 2014.

    But how old are these “unaccompanied minors?” Presumably just not 21, but if they’re 16-19 and old enough to join the army or go to college they are no longer children and should be in a different category. Teenagers 13- 15 (who often enjoy a lot of autonomy) also deserve their own category while pre-teen children are obviously, still, children.

    Knowing the numbers in each age-group would give a far better idea about the issue and any resolution…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.