Immigration

Yes, Trump's Immigration Policy Is Just Like the Holocaust, Except for the Genocide

Nazi analogies do not strengthen the case against forcibly separating illegal border crossers from their children.

|

Over the weekend, former CIA Director Michael Hayden displayed the calm reflection and sense of proportion for which Donald Trump's opponents are known by likening the separation of illegal border crossers from their children to the Holocaust:

Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call / Newscom

Yesterday on CNN, Hayden defended the comparison. "I walked down that railroad siding, where the families were separated," he said, "and that's why I used that picture. That's the scene where families were separated. Now, look, I know we're not Nazi Germany, all right. But there is a commonality there and a fear on my part that we have standards we have to live up to."

Last night Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an architect of the "zero tolerance" policy that has separated thousands of children from their parents at the border, got a chance to explain why Hayden's analogy was unfair. "It's a real exaggeration," Sessions said on Fox News, "because in Nazi Germany they were keeping the Jews from leaving the country."

Let's leave aside the point that Hitler initially tried to expel Europe's Jews (the opposite of keeping them from leaving) and might have stopped short of the Final Solution if other countries had been more welcoming. Is the victims' desired direction of travel really the crucial distinguishing feature between what Hitler did at places like Birkenau and what Trump is doing along the southern border?

Yes, Trump is separating parents from children at the border, which many Americans rightly view as a cruel and disproportionate response to people who enter the United States without the government's permission. But Trump is not proceeding to starve them, beat them, torture them, work them to death, and murder them en masse in gas chambers. These are not minor details.

"I guess I wanted to grab's people's attention," Hayden said on CNN. Maybe Hayden, a retired Air Force general who ran the National Security Agency as well as the CIA, has never heard of Godwin's Law, and maybe he is unfamiliar with the mocking meme that begins, "Do you know who else…" It is easy enough to believe that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who also resorted to the N-word yesterday, suffers from a similar lack of rhetorical self-awareness.

At the risk of stating what I thought was obvious, the Nazi analogies may be effective at trolling Trump, signaling your virtue, or catering to blind hatred of the president. But this sort of eye-rolling hyperbole does not persuade anyone, which requires allowing for the possibility that a policy can be unwise, unjust, or immoral without achieving Holocaust-level evil.

Advertisement

NEXT: New Study Shows Drug War Sends Users to Dark Web

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. Well, just HOW close exactly do the Trumpistas need to get, to the NAZIs, before the comparisons are apt amp and proper? I am told that at a vacated old Walmart, processing camp for illegal humans, a giant mural (non-sarcastic, non-mocking, non-comical) has been panted, for der untermenschen to admire, of our Dear Leader!

    But they are told, “Work (in the USA) will NOT make you free, if you are caught”, and so, I guess we need to wait for the “work makes you free” signs in the labor camps, before we can really actually start yelling and screaming!

    1. “before the comparisons are apt amp and proper?”

      They’ve got a long fucking way to go before the comparisons are apt and proper. Like, light-years.

      Seriously, shit like this trivializes the stuff that the Nazis did to people back in the day.

        1. Open border people now have such crazy desperation moves that all their statements can be disregarded.

          Whew. Makes these articles easy now to disregard all the open border comments.

      1. Incorrect. We’re already there. If you deny it, you are complicit.

    2. Praise be with you, Righteous Feelz.

    3. Oh my God, that was so profoundly stupid

      1. This is the hill you are gonna die on? Some day, you will looks back and feel ashamed.

        1. I feel ashamed for you that you think these talking points are anything more than nonsense

          1. Crying kids in cages are not nonsense.

            1. Yeah, I oppose the separation of children from their parents at the border. But, that is not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is that you’re acting like it’s 1938 and this is somehow comparable to a violent dictatorship. That’s stuff peddled by imbeciles.

              Here I was thinking that presidential kill lists and indefinite detention were things that should be a warning about a tyrannical state burgeoning. But, as it turned out, I was wrong. Apparently, an immigration policy from ten years ago that is still more humane than the bulk of the policies instituted throughout the world is the mark of tyranny, because nonsense.

              1. , that is not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is that you’re acting like it’s 1938 and this is somehow comparable to a violent dictatorship. That’s stuff peddled by imbeciles.

                I never said anything like that. You are making shit up. All I said was this makes me understand more how normal people in Germany came to support atrocities. I did not say anything about this being morally equivalent to Hitler.

                1. Our immigration policies are not at all atrocities. Even this policy is no more atrocious than children being separated from their parents who have been arrested.

                  Save your moral indignation for actual atrocities committed by our government overseas

                  1. In significant ways, the atrocities of the Trump Administration right now are ***WORSE*** that the NAZI abuses! Hear me out?
                    See http://pages.uoregon.edu/adopt…..lowMLE.htm and
                    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..142724.htm
                    “Even brief maternal deprivation early in life alters adult brain function and cognition: Rat study” for starters, and be firmly advised that NO ONE among serious psychologists (excluding Trump appointees and tin-foil-hat wearers) thinks that these kinds of things are doing ANY good for these babies and children! We know it about rats, we know it about monkeys, and we know it about human children? They need snuggles, love, and an attachment figure that is dependable. US-Fed caretakers here are FORBIDDEN from cuddling or TOUCHING these children (past diaper changes I suppose). This leads to an inability to trust people, and mental illness. It ***IS*** known!!!

                    To give VERY SLIGHT (but honest) credit to NAZI butcher-doctors like Josef Mengele, at least they collected data when they took ever-larger surgical bites out of your liver, and froze you to death, and so forth. Took data, wrote papers, and created SOME scientific data. As the Trumpistas slowly carve out ever-larger pieces of the socially functional areas of these baby’s brains, are they keeping and publishing ANY scientific data?!? Hell no! It is pure political red meat for illegal human haters; nothing more, nothing less!

                  2. “Even this policy is no more atrocious than children being separated from their parents who have been arrested.”

                    The scale of it, and the remote distance and poverty of the close relatives, are THE huge differences! In the USA, at least the children of the jail-birds are usually placed with hopefully-loving close relatives or friends, often close by, so that they can at least visit their jail-bird parents. That is ***NOT*** the case here, and that is a YUUUUGE difference!!!

                    1. Yes, you are stupid

                    2. That’s exactly the response you’d expect out of a person who knows that their “facts” and arguments have been utterly obliterated, and they have NO rational response at ALL!

                    3. Howdy Righteous Feelz!

                    4. You provided no facts. You offered emotional nonsense and then a ridiculous comparison between the most humane immigration policies and Nazi Germany. Is insanity a prerequisite in order to be an open border fanatic?

                    5. See http://pages.uoregon.edu/adopt…..lowMLE.htm and
                      http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..142724.htm contain no facts at all? I know that psychology isn’t as rigorous as physics and mathematics, but if you are arrogant enough to dismiss the entirely of what an entire branch of well-meaning and well-studied secular scientists have found… Then your arrogance knows NO bounds, and arguing with you, is like arguing with a brick wall!

                      We COULD let these families stay together in captivity! There’s no known laws of physics against it!

                      Have a good life!

                    6. Sqrlsy, you lost any expectation of a rational response when you said that separating children from their families and properly taking care of them during legal processes was worse than separating children from the families, keeping them starving in filthy encampments, moving them around in overpacked rail cars, using them for slave labor, and then murdering them.

                      Sorry, but you have lost any sense or rationality or proportional response.

                      And, by the by, I have a lot of reservations about psychology papers. I have read all of the problems in the reproducibility crisis, and psychology is front and center, especially where emotional concerns of researchers are on the line. You would not even think of such a study if you did not have a predetermined conclusion.

                    7. “Sqrlsy, you lost any expectation of a rational response when you said that separating children from their families and properly taking care of them during legal processes… (Is like eating your live puppies or what-have-you made-up bullshit that I never said)”

                      Have you EVER studied ONE iota of modern psychology? Have you ever honestly tried to nurture and love a child? “Caregivers” who are forbidden from touching a hugging and squeezing a crying baby are like the naked wire-mesh (not even covered in soft terry cloth like in the studies in 1950, see http://pages.uoregon.edu/adopt…..lowMLE.htm ) monkey-mommies. We the USA taxpayers (thanks to the Trump-NAZIs) are treating human babies worse than modern scientists had learned was best, in the 1950s. Grow a CONSCIENCE, you evil asshole!!!

                    8. OH COME ON MOTHERFUCKERS IT’S MOTHERFUCKING RIGHTEOUS FEELZ IN THE HOUSE. RIGHTEOUS FEELZ NEVER TAKES NOTHING SERIOUSLY, IT’S ALL SHITPOSTING, JOKES, AND RANDOMNESS. THE FACT THAT THIS HAS TO BE POINTED OUT IS ANNOYING.

                      Sorry for the all-caps Righteous Feelz, just too many dumbasses in this thread.

                    9. “The scale of it, and the remote distance and poverty of the close relatives, are THE huge differences! In the USA, at least the children of the jail-birds are usually placed with hopefully-loving close relatives or friends, often close by, so that they can at least visit their jail-bird parents. That is ***NOT*** the case here, and that is a YUUUUGE difference!!!”

                      I don’t know about the scale but taking peoples kids away in the U.S. happens in every jurisdiction pretty much every day. I gotta think it’s a pretty big number. Didn’t I read a story yesterday about a 10 month old whom cops were poised to grab because his mom took him home from the hospital before some asshole doctor signed off on it? And wasn’t there a big scandal recently about the government “losing” a bunch of immigrant kids who it turned out had been placed with loving relatives? Citizenship is no bar to being separated from your kids and immigrant kids are routinely processed and placed with resident relatives where possible. It’s all pretty fucked up but everybody is fucked,
                      These people have a natural right to freedom of movement and the pursuit of happiness. If I were in charge I’d probably let all of them in to take a shot at bettering themselves. But they’d still be risking some doctor, nurse, social worker or cop deciding to kidnap their kids. This controversy is frankly getting silly on both sides and distracts from the larger issues.

                    10. The scale of it, and the remote distance and poverty of the close relatives, are THE huge differences!

                      When you refer to “the scale of it,” are you referring to the fact that the number of children separated from their parents because the latter are charged with entering the country illegally is less than 1/10 the number that is placed in foster care because one of their parents is incarcerated for violation of non-immigration laws?

                2. “I never said anything like that. You are making shit up. All I said was this makes me understand more how normal people in Germany came to support atrocities.”
                  OK.

                  “I did not say anything about this being morally equivalent to Hitler.”
                  Yes you did, right above.
                  Are you too stupid to realize it or hoping we wouldn’t notice?

              2. Not an immigration policy for ten years. Not even quite ten weeks.

                1. “I just woke up last January. What did I miss?”

                  You are petulant piece of shut with the bullshit you wrote below. You ignorant shit head. Go virtue signal somewhere else

                2. “Not an immigration policy for ten years. Not even quite ten weeks.”

                  Yeah, I’m sure it was called something like “the Affordable Family Rule” or some such under that lying piece of shit, so it really wasn’t the same, right dimbulb?

                  “Obama’s Immigration Agencies Separated Children From Their Families, Too”
                  […]
                  “Long before that, however, the administration of Barack Obama ramped up a program with a sometimes similar effect.
                  Since 2008, the United States has had a policy known as the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP), or Lateral Repatriation. This program focuses on detaining male migrants of Mexican descent.”
                  https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/obamas-
                  immigration-agencies-separated-
                  children-from-their-families-too-2/

                  Oh, and fuck off.

        2. More likely his kids will feel ashamed that he was their dad.

          1. Your so brave, asshole

          2. “More likely his kids will feel ashamed that he was their dad.”

            I hope your kids are bright enough to recognize one of their parents is a lying piece of lefty shit.

    4. Well, so far they’re doing the same things the Obama administration did. So you’re saying that Obama is a Nazi as well?

      1. If Trump is a Nazi, Obama certainly is too.

        Of course neither of them is.

        I was amused to see this from then Senator Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFv_v16Orqw

        I guess he was a Nazi (by today’s stupid standard) in 2005,

        1. Funny how this wasn’t a problem a short few years ago.

          It’s really hard to make people believe you are an independent voice when you are part of a choir.

          What’s on tap for next month? The homeless.

      2. No they’re not.

    5. Trump might be a Fascist Lite without being a full blown NAZI.

      Trump fits all of the 14 elements of fascism (genocide is NOT one of them)

      http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

      Of course some like #6 (control of mass media) doesn’t mean actual ownership but instead how he manipulates TV programming who fear challenging him.

      1. “doesn’t mean actual ownership but instead how he manipulates TV programming who fear challenging him.”

        Lord knows Trump has the media totally under his spell. Except for the fact that the MSM would love to ride the guy out of town on a rail They’ll buy the tar and feathers if that’s what it’ll take to get ‘er done.

        You’re a loony.

        1. Trump was born of the media as a reality TV star and ran his campaign on billions in free media from the MSM.

          You just don’t like you conservatives likened to your fascist brethren.

          NAZIs hated liberals almost as much as Jews.

          1. I’m not a conservative.

            You’re falling into the standard political loony thought pattern of “anybody who disagrees with me is obviously a fascist/Nazi/socialist/communist”. Which means you’re self-identifying as a loony.

            As bad as Trump is, any comparison of him or his policies to actual Nazism is ridiculous beyond description.

            1. I called him a Fascist Lite and not a Nazi. And he fits into the category by the definition I linked to.

              Scapegoating minorities, hatred of scientists/intellectuals, military supremacy, fervent nationalism, read the list. He has it all.

              1. Yeah man +1^!!!

                Plus… https://reason.com/archives/201…..n-peterson is an excellent list of the mis-doings of Trump, Pence, Arapaio, and other ? people who are totally scummy, but Team Red defends them anyway!!!

                1. I don’t disagree on the policy. I disagree with the emotive nonsense hyperbole. Nothing about our immigration system is even vaguely similar to Nazi Germany.

                  Take care

                2. SQRSLY you are making more insane posts than normal.

                  1. Evil humans do evil things. Trump is evil… So he does evil. No surprises here! To quote from my link from the earlier Reason article…

                    “To take the most obvious example first: Many conservatives have spent the past couple of years making excuses for a man who cheated on his wife with a porn star; who lies about that and everything else, constantly; who ran a scam university; who filed for bankruptcy four times; who hired illegal immigrants and paid them substandard wages; who refused to pay contractors for work they had done; and much more. Never once has Donald Trump taken personal responsibility for any of it.

                    What kind of man is that?”

                    Go check the links in the article that I linked to, for more details about Trump, and then tell me that Trump is not an evil, self-absorbed narcissist!

                    1. Evil humans do evil things. Trump is evil… So he does evil.

                      Further, Nazis do evil things. Trump does evil things. Therefore Trump is a Nazi. Q.E.D.

                      Gosh, this is fun!

                    2. Hitler breathed oxygen, and you breathe oxygen, so you are just like Hitler!

                      By God, that is a totally stupid argument, yes, by all means!

                      But the fact that the argument is stupid, does NOT give you any kind of ethical, legal, moral, or spiritual “blank check” to start acting in more serious ways, like Hitler! Certainly NOT without getting questioned!

          2. You neglect to mention that that “billions in free media from the MSM” was them shrieking 24/7 that he’s a Nazi who’s going to literally destroy the whole world.

            1. Bullshit. He got a free pass until elected. The worst they called him was a philanderer.

              1. You’re deluded. But that’s not news.

              2. “Bullshit. He got a free pass until elected.”

                So, Trump got a free pass (“controlling the media” from your goofy list) until he became President, but since then the media has been all over his ass. By your logic, then, he displayed a so-called fascist tendency prior to his election, but stopped doing so once he was elected.

                Um…..you should be happy that he dropped that fascist behavior once he had to actually govern. By your logic, I mean.

                I suspect that logic wasn’t something that you did well when you were in school.

              3. Billions in free publicity!

      2. Trump might be a Fascist Lite without being a full blown NAZI.

        Trump fits all of the 14 elements of fascism (genocide is NOT one of them)

        It’s weird how he comes up with 14 criteria without actually defining a fascist or fascism. Without that, his list seems excessively whimsical and exceedingly detached. Like corruption could be rampant, we’re lining up people and executing them, and the elections are totally fraudulent, but we’re not fascists because we don’t have enough flags, don’t enforce sexist gender roles, or aren’t hating artists and intellectuals hard enough.

      3. He fits all the elements of fascism except for the two parts that actually matter.

        1: Violence against political opponents.
        2: Violence against vulnerable persons.

        1. As a quick search, I didn’t find the terms “ownership”, “tariff”, “trade”, “closed”, “economy”, or “industry” in the article so the connections to Trump in the one direction and fascism in the other are loose at best.

          It’s pretty easy to both define fascism and draw parallels between current (and past) policy and fascism. This article does both poorly. Probably because it seeks to inject things like patriotism and sexism into fascism.

    6. I got a question. When did everyone become an asylum seeker now? I never heard this a year ago. Now everyone coming across the border is an asylum seeker?

      This stuff is so frustrating. I want to say it is wrong whatever is happening (I also have no idea what is happening other than a lot of people seem to think it is bad and involves children, the media is scarce on details and big on emotion), but no one says what is acceptable. Can we jail parents and kids together? Can we confine them to some area that is not a jail together? Or are we no longer supposed to care about national sovereignty and our borders? What is the end goal here?

      Everyone is big on bitch fits and scarce on solutions. So here is my solution. Keep them together then provide them a one way flight back to their homes after processing the parents for breaking a law.

      1. Lowest common denominator; if one is an asylum seller than they all could be, so you group them together.

        And what if they won’t tell you what country they came from? Mexicans get shipped back directly, but other countries have a hearing. Do you think Mexicans admit they’re from Mexico?

        My question, and I’m a heartless bastard, where is the blame for the parents who knowingly put their kids in this situation. A part of the deterrent plan is publicizing that this will happen…

      2. Here’s the thing – asylum seekers are supposed to request asylum in the first safe harbor they come to which means that if they originally came from Central America, they should be requesting asylum in Mexico and NOT traveling through Mexico to sneak into the United States.

  2. Yes, ‘separating’ a child and parent when the parent commits a crime is what happens. My uncle who is in jail was ‘separated’ from his children. That’s what happens.

    JFC, this is how you got Trump. Everything needs to be dialed up to 11, and every ridiculous emotional response vomited out for all to see.

    What is the alternative? Oh, not arresting the parent when they commit a crime. Sorry, a child is not a fucking get out of jail free card, or a free ‘get into the US’ card

    1. What happened to the old-fashioned idea that freedom of movement is a human right?

      When did liberty-minded people endorse collective ownership and coercion against individuals exercising human rights?

      When did obeying unjust legislation and collective coercion become the standard of freedom?

      1. What happened to the old-fashioned idea that freedom of movement is a human right?

        Nothing. but if it is, it has nothing to do with whether you have children. If reason wants to make that argument, they need to make it and stop acting like children somehow are relevant to the argument.

        1. It’s very relevant to point out the atrocities that come from having this level of a police state.

          1. So keeping unaccompanied children under some level of care and not just turnign them to the four winds is an atrocity?

            And it is amazing how Libertarians somehow forget the concept of incentives. You get more of whatever you reward. maybe taking in every spare kid in Central America is a bad idea that will just encourage people to send their kids on a long and risky journey to the US is a bad idea.

            But hey, lets not worry about the second order effects of policies. Let’s not face reality as it is and understand that there often are no good solutions. Nope. Let’s just do whatever the fuck makes people like you feel good about themselves. If that causes all kinds of harm and makes the problem worse, who cares. You will feel good and that is really all that matters.

            1. The part that absolutely blows my mind is that these policies and decisions have been in place since the Obama administration and people who two months or even 3-4 weeks ago were 100% on board with “The POTUS absolutely should not have this much power.” are now shrieking “Ignore the decisions and policy, snap your fingers and make all this nastiness go away!” With 100% full knowledge and cognizance that if he did that, in 1-2 terms, we’d be right back where we started and this time might have actual Hitler at the helm.

            2. And it is amazing how Libertarians somehow forget the concept of incentives. You get more of whatever you reward. maybe taking in every spare kid in Central America is a bad idea that will just encourage people to send their kids on a long and risky journey to the US is a bad idea.

              So, I am an open-borders types. But your point is a non-sequitor anyway as the question is the treatment of these families under detention and not the underlying question of their status. So don’t shift the issue away from the question of the treatment of prisoners.

            3. You get more of whatever you reward.

              Does that also work when you reward government? Think hard about this one.

              1. Nicely done.

            4. “You will feel good and that is really all that matters.”

              Burned hard as fuck.

          2. It’s curious how even when nothing has changed policy wise in the United States, with regards to immigration policy, over the past fifty years (if anything it has been liberalized), suddenly these policies are the markings of a police state

            1. It’s not that curious when you are discussing it with a fair number of people who have thought it had the makings of police state for decades at least.

              Yeah, there is lots of hypocrisy on this issue. But you keep talking about it as if no one here has been consistent about it.

              1. Consistently insane enough to compare the world’s most humane immigration policy with the Holocaust? Yes, those people are not well

                1. Or maybe I misread where your comments are directed.

            2. It’s not sudden.

              In fact, one of the biggest things that should come out of this episode is the failures of the media. This is not a new event, and the fact that it’s only being elevated to an issue now should make all aware of the possible bullshit that is hidden away by the media constantly.

            3. If you’re able to openly complain about living in a police state then you’re not really living in one.

          3. You keep using this word atrocity. You either do not know what it means or do not care that words have meaning.

            That you weren’t in pants shitting mode back when Obama was in charge of all this answers that question nicely.

      2. They are not liberty-minded people. No collectivist can truly be liberty-minded, because collectivism relies on judging people on group membership liberty requires elevating the individual above the group.

        1. You are kind of like a buzz word generator, aren’t you?

          1. What, big words scare you? Words with useful meanings?

            Immigration control is collectivist thinking. If you can’t understand that, if all you can do is insult the messenger, then you’ve admitted you are too dumb to be anything but a collectivist.

        2. If i believed you that might actually mean something.

          But you are simply not credible on this issue.

        3. Man you sound like a religious fanatic.

      3. Is it a human right to move freely between nations? I mean, really?

        Historically, I wouldn’t say so. I think it is fair to say that “freedom of movement” has been the reason for countless atrocities in history and much human suffering.

        The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that the libertarian understands human nature, and understands that limited government is necessary, if not ideal in a perfect world. Even the most limited government has borders that it controls against outsiders.

      4. “What happened to the old-fashioned idea that freedom of movement is a human right?”
        Uh huh. 22 million foreigners inviting themselves into another nation is called an “invasion”.
        Or did Attila the Hun have a “human right” to move himself and his hordes into Europe?

    2. Democrats are writing new laws today to do just that. if you have a kid no jail for any crime for anyone. Anarchy here we come

    3. Not arresting and separating child and parent over misdemeanor. It was that dirtbag Sessions who decided asylum seekers without the proper criteria would be prosecuted as criminals.

      1. Horseshit.

  3. You know who else used the wrong N-word?

    1. Ash Williams?

    2. Steve Harvey?

  4. You know who else compared America to Nazi Germany…?

    1. Phillip K. Dick?

    2. Conservatives during the Obama administration?

      Proggies during the Bush administration?

      Pretty much everyone, at one time or another?

      1. William Rhoden in Forty Million Dollar Slaves?

      2. Margaret Atwood?

    3. The Toyota marketing department?

  5. Other governments have separated mothers and children.

    I agree, but that’s one creepy looking elementary school in that picture.

  6. The left is into “where are the babies?” and “where are the toddlers?” mode. I assume at some point Trump will be accused of selling them to the Russians. The fact is, these are mostly young men. That’s how economic migration works – you send your teenage or young adult son first and he sends money back home. That’s not a slam or condemnation.

    However, the media, saying they are ‘refugees’ and ‘children’ are fertilizing the ground for all sorts of conspiracy theories when the pictures don’t match the claims, instead of retracting the claims.

    1. Reason always informs us that every illegal comes here to work. Why would someone coming here to work bring their children with them? Reason basically will say anything to further the open borders position.

      1. Why would someone coming here to work bring their children with them?

        Because they also have a family they are supplying for, or children they need to take care of. I honestly don’t understand what contradiction you see there.

        1. Yeah, you take them and face the prospect of homelessness until you find work instead of just leaving them where they are and sending money back or sending for them later like people have been doing since the dawn of time.

          Is there anything you won’t believe if it fits your narrative? These people are all just saints. They would never come here for a hand out. They are different and better than every human being who has ever lived I guess.

          You people are comical.

          1. The worst thing about your rhetoric John is how often you just shove words into the mouths of everyone you disagree with.

            Is there anything you won’t believe if it fits your narrative? These people are all just saints. They would never come here for a hand out. They are different and better than every human being who has ever lived I guess.

            Completely apart from anything I’ve said here. They are a variety of people. But your statement is that there is NO reason that they come here except to either commit child abuse, or get on welfare. Which is as insipid as the point you’re accusing me of making.

            Yeah, you take them and face the prospect of homelessness until you find work instead of just leaving them where they are and sending money back or sending for them later like people have been doing since the dawn of time.

            Many do this. And in fact, making it easier for people to come here and work actually makes it more likely for people to do this. This used to be a relatively normal thing, particularly with border towns. Going back and forth used to be pretty common until the militarization of the border made repeated crossings a risk.

            And the answer to the question of welfare abuse is to get rid of welfare to abuse. And one could easily open the border without giving foreign workers anyway, if for some reason you believe that native born welfare recipients are especially deserving.

        2. “Mexico currently receives nearly $24.4 billion in remittances each year from immigrants in the U.S., accounting for about 2 percent of the Mexican GDP, according to the World Bank.”

          It’s easier to support a family in Mexico with wages earned in America than it is to support that family in the U.S. on black market labor wages.

          1. From what I can gather, most of the illegal immigrants aren’t coming from Mexico anymore. And some of those central American places are pretty fucked up. Would you leave your children there?

            1. I don’t really know where most are coming from either, I purely meant in terms of Mexico. In terms of anywhere south of Mexico, they would be obligated to seek asylum in Mexico.

              If anything, it’s an interesting foreign policy point that the United States hasn’t reciprocated for Mexico’s clear policy of routing asylum seekers at their southern border to our southern border and calling them our problem.

              A million plus legal immigrants a year seems pretty generous for a nation of only about 350 million people. I don’t have a problem with that number going up or going down, but emotional appeal arguments don’t generally hold a lot of water with me in terms of national policy and I’ve seen few, if any, real arguments or even realistic solutions mentioned.

              One thing I do know without a doubt, and that is that no wall along a 1900 mile stretch of land will ever be effective at it’s stated purpose nor will it ever be cheap. So, simply put, that isn’t a solution to any problem that actually exists.

              1. Also, it should perhaps be mentioned that there is nothing inherently wrong with Mexico and that nation is probably a step up in terms of standard of living for these so-called asylum seekers from Central America.

                A first world standard of living is not a human right, or if it is someone has rather a lot of explaining to do about how scarcity of resources is a figment of our imagination.

                1. They should read Fred Reed.

            2. But I hear they have really strict gun control laws, so they’ve got that in their favor.

      2. Now they are babies and refugees, who will evidently still be tax paying workers.

      3. They didn’t use to. Go back a few decades and you see the men coming over, working a few months, then returning home only to come back to work more next year.

        Currently that kind of back and forth over the border is difficult. So if they want to ever *see* the family they’re supporting, they bring the family *with* them.

        That said, that only really applies to Mexicans that come over for work/economic opportunity. The refugees that come over are very different cases. For them, not bringing their families means leaving their families for dead.

        1. How long is ‘a few decades’ because if memory serves there were some amnesties in the past ‘few decades’.

      4. I suppose if a drug dealing MS 13 type gang threatened to behead your kids for some suspected treachery, you’d probably take them with you when you sought asylum?

    2. Naw, they are just child actors.

      1. Citing Coulter is lying by citation, if you ask me.

        1. Ann Coulter, Beloved Cunt

        2. Oh I don’t actually believe her, just citing the depths of Republican idiocy trying to defend this whole thing

  7. http://www.4conservative.com/i…..f8217-the/

    Even Vox isn’t buying this bullshit. Most of the kids are not “kids” but young adults and most come alone.

    1. Oh, look, the memo went out. Longtorso and John making the same point. It really is quite hilarious how the Trumpalos get their head filled with alt-right talking points from the same news channels and then come on here to parrot them to us.

      1. So Vox is now alt right? do you have a fucking point? If the claim isn’t true, say why. If it is true or you can’t explain why it is not, shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself. Few things identify the speaker as a retard more than using words like Trumpelo. Seriously, if you have any capacity for embarrassment, you should use it now and either shut up or try again.

        1. It’s Trumpalo, not Trumpelo. Geesh. It, perhaps unfairly to Juggalos, makes certain associations by way of homonym.

          1. So, you have no point other than to show the board you are a retard. Good for you but I am pretty sure everyone already knew that.

  8. I’m sorry, I thought I was on Reason.com, not Breitbart. This isn’t the type of piece I expect to read at the definitive website for left-libertarian, open-borders analysis. It will take a dozen Shikha Dalmia articles to make up for this blunder.

    Do better, Reason.

    1. “Yes, Trump is separating parents from children at the border, which many Americans rightly view as a cruel and disproportionate response to people who enter the United States without the government’s permission.”

      How is this incompatible with an open borders perspective? It’s possible to favor open borders and still roll your eyes when someone compares any immigration policy with some of the most appalling acts in human history.

      1. I think you two are in love now. Congrats

      2. Unlimited unrestricted immigration is so important to us libertarians, and Drumpf is so terrible on our top issue, that it’s our duty to denounce his illegitimate regime in the strongest possible terms. Again, Shikha Dalmia is the standard to which all libertarian writers should aspire. Even in mid 2016, before the hacked election, she was writing pieces like How Trump Could Doom the World. THAT is what I come to Reason to read.

        1. Cool. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the article at hand.

          1. Keep talking to him. You guys are really hitting it off

  9. You can Godwin all you like, but does it not cause the slightest shudder to run up one’s spine to know that we have a President — a head of government, head of state and commander-in-chief — who is literally (yes, literally) defending a horrific policy on the grounds that he is “just following orders”?

    Sorry, Godwin is a cop-out in this instance.

    1. No. But that is because I am not a virtue signaling idiot who thinks every problem has an easy solution. There are 47 million people in Central America. do you want to take them all in? If not, who do you send back? And if you are going to send some back, what do you do with the children they send? You could turn them lose like Obama did. But that often makes their fates very bad and just puts them in the hands of human traffickers and pimps.

      1. You are supporting the separation of little kids from their parents. Just step back and think on that.

        1. John is making a point that is devoid of feelings and is reliant upon recent history that so many seem to have not paying any attention to.

          I can oppose separating children from their parents at the border and still realize that he’s using adult arguments while most are emoting indignation devoid of logic.

          Step back and think on that

          1. Humans respond to emotion, not logic.

            1. I’m old enough to remember when libertarians use to mock people who were simple enough to be swayed by emotions rather than logic.

            2. Humans respond to both. The problem with emotions is that it’s very easy to push so hard you get a push-back.

              1: Say that the government is separating families – Anger at government
              2: Say that the government is separating little children from their mothers – Strong anger against the government
              3: Say that the government is traumatizing children by separating them from parents – confusion followed by research.
              4: Say that the government is worse than horrific dictators for this policy – Anger at speaker for obvious lie

              You see. Each person has a turning point from which appealing to emotion will have a backlash. Appealing overly to emotion will then lead the listening to be more sympathetic to the opposite.

              To put some comparison: the Birthers HELPED Obama. Those with reasonable arguments against his actions were dismissed due to the loonies arguing about birth certificates, college applications, and all that nonsense. Similarly, comparing Trump to Hitler will only help Trump, as people will consider you a lunatic who has no reasonable points.

        2. That is because the alternatives are worse. Think about how stupid and immature you are.

      2. There are over 300 million of us – we could take a lot of that 47 million (which not even close to all of who are trying to come here) without even blinking.

        1. Why is Central and South America special? If everyone from there can move here, why not, say, a third of the population of China and India?

          1. Have you been to California lately?

    2. Is that the same defense of the policy that the previous administration offered or did nobody bother to ask?

    3. Jesus Christ. The Executive “follows orders” all the time. It’s called faithfully executing the laws. People in all walks of life, including politicians, service members, etc., follow orders from their bosses all the time. It’s called doing their jobs. Can you really not see that there is a spectrum of following orders which has a huge expanse that falls short of war crimes?

      1. Following whose orders? That dirtbag Sessions?

    4. Why is it horrific that children get separated from their parents when their parents commit a crime?

    5. I’ll start buying the comparison when, say, somebody finds the trove of millions of gold fillings from the teeth of the undocumented immigrants that disappeared into the ovens.

      This shit is pathetic and insulting.

    6. … who is literally (yes, literally) defending a horrific policy on the grounds that he is “just following orders”?

      So you’re arguing that the POTUS refuse to obey the laws that congress passes? Specifically, you’re arguing that President Trump, a man accused of being authoritarian, should ignore Congress and rule by decree?

      1. Ducking close tag

  10. “former CIA Director Michael Hayden”

    Where does a former CIA Director get the moral high ground to criticize anyone for anything ever?

    1. Especially one who lied under oath about Constitutional violations.

      Looks like we’re in love.

      1. (kiss)

  11. Nothing but non stop wailing and outrage on the local tv news. The meme is that these “asylum seekers” are not criminals and should not be separated from children while being processed. Presumably, a single mother committing an armed robbery would have her kids separated from her if she couldn’t make bail, and very few citizens would be outraged at that. But if she was cited for disorderly conduct at a protest rally, the kids would not be separated (or maybe just overnight). I get the impression that Trump could relent and set up family dorm detention centers, but that progs would then start bitching that anything less than a Hilton resort hotel would be Auschwitz and any delay of more than a day setting them free in America would be inhumane. Somewhere in this “crisis” is a reasonable and humane answer that would probably make most Americans happy.

    1. the reasonable answer is that in most cases where the child arrives with a documented parent they ae released within hours if not a few days at most. all others were arrivals by themselves

      1. First-time illegal entry is a misdemeanor; what has changed is the Trump administration’s initiation of a “zero tolerance” policy toward this minor crime.

        Arriving to ask for asylum is not any kind of crime.

        ‘Enforcing the Law’ Doesn’t Justify Separating Migrant Children from their Parents (Volokh Conspiracy post by a constitutional law professor).

        1. Opinion piece by law professor, but I guess you missed that.

        2. What type of misdemeanor? Highest degree can carry a six month prison sentence.

          1. Sorry, I don’t know what you intend to ask by “what type?” The six-month sentence is correct. The law also allows civil penalties in the range $50-$250. These penalties are for a first-time border-crossing offense.
            8 U.S.C. ? 1325

    2. Because applying for asylum is exactly the same as robbing a bank. But comparisons with Nazis is over the top exaggeration.

      1. Applying for asylum under false pretenses? Crossing the border without applying for asylum?
        Not all cases are the same.

  12. Well, it sort of is like the Holocaust. The difference is that in Germany, there weren’t many voices against that happening and so it continued. There are many ways to approach this, but people in the US view themselves as moral people, and these actions are not consistent with that. I am sorry, but maybe people and their families can’t come here, but they are mostly trying to get a better life. They should be treated with some respect for that.

    1. No, this is nothing like the Holocaust. It’s not even a distant relative.

      Agree that we should treat these people as humanely as possible because they’re, you know, human beings. But the comparison to the Holocaust is ridiculous beyond description.

    2. “The difference is that in Germany, there weren’t many voices against that happening and so it continued”

      So brave to speak-up nine years after the fact.

      Hey, did you know that the Trump administration also has a secret kill list? I mean literally Hitler, right? Let’s get upset about that now, brave random dude

    3. Agreed. But seeing relatively reasonable people slowly getting dragged along into supporting this sort of shows you how it probably happened in Germany.

      1. You have really jumped the shark. You really think this is a brand new policy? US immigration policy is like a police state? Have you never ever even heard about the immigration policies employed in Europe or South America?

        1. Is that your main argument? That this is not new and that therefore we should let it continue? Because that is rather weak.

          1. That is not my argument, because I agree with you on the issue, but I really think that the emotional nonsense is unbelievable bullshit. I do find it curious how suddenly this is an issue, though, since it never seem to bother anyone before.

            1. It was not a criminal matter before a few weeks ago.

              1. “It was not a criminal matter before a few weeks ago.”

                You are one stupid (and proud of it) lefty piece of shit:
                “Obama’s Immigration Agencies Separated Children From Their Families, Too”
                https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/obamas
                -immigration-agencies-separated-
                children-from-their-families-too-2/

                1. Your article mentions nothing about whether these immigrants were charged with misdemeanors or crimes. Just because your a bitter old friendless fuck doesn’t mean you get to call people stupid, which is your usual tactic.

                  Very few people are as stupid as you are. Have fun being a bitter and lonely old man because nobody will care when they find you alone a month after you die.

                  1. Paloma|6.20.18 @ 12:05AM|#
                    “Your article mentions nothing about whether these immigrants were charged with misdemeanors or crimes.”
                    Pick them cherries, asshole, you’ve proven to have nothing other than that.

                    “Just because your a bitter old friendless fuck doesn’t mean you get to call people stupid, which is your usual tactic.”
                    I’m not bitter, nor friendless and but I’m more than willing to call ignoramuses ignoramuses, ignoramus.
                    Oh, and fuck off, ignoramus.

  13. I’d just like to reiterate the observation from earlier today that only so many people respond to the appeal to pity–and playing that pity narrative too long just makes people less empathetic than they would be otherwise.

    The people who support open and legal immigration only because the alternative breaks families apart are already on the pro-immigration express. If you want other people to get on board, you have to make the case for why immigration is good for them–not why they should feel sorry for other people.

    This place used to be fantastic at making the case for why immigration is good for the American people. Make that case. And if you can do it without undermining the enumerated powers of congress or the consent of the governed, you don’t get any bonus points for that at all. That should go without saying.

    Is there anything more self-defeating than arguing that people should support open immigration even if it’s against their own best interests–and oh, that their opinions on the matter shouldn’t be reflected in policy, too?

    1. They’ve got an election in a few months to help the Democrats win. There’s no time for dillydallying in rational discussion, they have to stay on message. There will be time for rational discussion in December.

    2. I’m not sure how any case for immigration could penetrate the fallacies of the anti-immigration crowd. It’s like trying to reason with Tony.

      The fixed number of jobs fallacy, the not contributing to the economy fallacy, the fixed economic pie fallacy, and of course the dishonest rantings of Limbaugh, Coulter and company.

      It can’t be done. You can’t reason someone out of a position they arrived at by emotion.

      1. If we take Ken’s thesis, i.e., that the reservoir of the public’s pity is only so deep, can we apply the same to the constant appeal to fear made by those who think we will all die tomorrow without the MIC / national security / national surveillance state.

        To wit, if one argues that zero funding the pentagon along with Homeland Security for year and the FBI and the CIA and the IRS and the EPA and the DEA, one will encounter lots of emotional, irrational snowflakery that we will all perish because of bad men and evil muzzies and Putin and Kim and, the mullahs.

        Many people hear just would be unprepared to engage in a serious argument about zero funding Leviathan for a year. They would immediately, if not sooner, resort to emotion, irrationally freaking and shriking (homonym intended).

        1. If we take Ken’s thesis, i.e., that the reservoir of the public’s pity is only so deep, can we apply the same to the constant appeal to fear made by those who think we will all die tomorrow without the MIC / national security / national surveillance state.

          Absolutely you can. People have grown deaf to those pleas as well. The only difference is that occasionally a terrorist attack wakes them up. There is no such equivalent in the immigration debate.

          1. Don’t get me wrong, Ken makes a very good point. There is only so often that you can go to the emotional well.

            Although pity and fear are both emotions, they do differ. Fear gets more miles per gallon.

            1. Pity and fear aren’t the basest emotions. Try fear and greed.

              Pity flies in the face of greed, and greed is more persuasive to more people.

              Again, McDonalds, Apple, and Ford don’t use pity in their advertising to try to get you to buy their products–because it doesn’t work.

              When Jesus was tempted by Satan, the temptations were to appeal to our greed and fear.

              ‘Turn all these stones to bread’, Satan said, or in other words, “Give the people what they want”, and they’ll follow you instead of me. Jesus resisted that temptation with “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”. That means humans can choose not to live by greed–but it doesn’t necessarily come naturally. People are motivated by self-interest–greed and fear.

              1. Ah, but Ken – pity is greed.
                Resentful, vicious emotional greed.
                Pity is an assumption of power over another, and the pitied person is that of the footstool the lord props his feet upon.
                Now, pity has a place and is at times appropriate – but that should not confuse the issue of power it imbued one with through relation to the other.

            2. If you want people to do something different than what they’re doing now, you need to show them why doing it your way is in their own best interests. There are lazy, parasitic, losers in this world who would not be better off in a capitalist system where they had to take care of themselves rather than parasite off the hard work of others. You’ll have a hard time making the case for libertarian capitalism, free trade, and free immigration to those people.

              There are others who still haven’t heard the libertarian gospel. The libertarian gospel is not that we need to shut down free trade and immigration so that the weakest among us can be overpaid. The libertarian gospel is also not that immigration needs to be allowed because we should all feel sorry for the poor defenseless immigrants and their droopy-eyed children with sad empty eyes.

              I want the best for myself and the people I care about. I demand freedom and justice–which I prefer to other things on a qualitative basis. I demand libertarian capitalism because it’s what’s best for me. If you’re somebody who wants to enjoy the fruit of your labor and enjoy a potential that’s only limited by your own ambition, your own intelligence, your own work ethic, your own character, etc., then you should want libertarian capitalism, too.

              No sob stories required.

              1. True. But what was the iconic image that put an end to the Vietnam War? The little girl running naked away from her burning village.

                Think of what brought support for the Civil Rights movement. The image of protesters being attacked with dogs and firehoses. The image of little girls walking to school surrounded by federal marshals and crowds of screaming white people.

                1. No doubt, you can achieve the moral high ground by pointing out the true victims, but that can’t be the only thing if you want a big change in policy to become popular. The Vietnam War was also problematic because it drafted average kids into the military. If you don’t want your kid to get drafted, you better oppose the war–regardless of what’s happening to average Vietnamese kids on the ground in Vietnam. It was also an expensive war.

                  I feel as bad about what our militarized police forces have done to the urban, poor, African-American community by way of the drug war, too, but getting the rest of America to jump on ending the drug war seems to have been as much about taxing cannabis as a source of revenue as it was pity for Black Lives Matter.

                  If you want enough support to get people to make a major change in policy, beating them over the head with pity will get you a certain amount of support. If you want enough support to actually make change, then you need to explain to the rest of them why making the change is in their best interests.

                  1. Incidentally, this is why global warming scaremongering seems to be in a holding pattern, too. They can’t sell forced sacrifice to the unwilling, and they can’t imagine selling solutions to global warming as anything but sacrifice. Make the case for why it’s in other people’s best interests or it ain’t gonna happen–no matter what the science says and no matter how cute the dying, baby, polar bears. Pity will not make Americans commit economic suicide.

                    Thank goodness free trade and open immigration are the opposite of economic suicide, not that you’d know it by the appeals to pity. Given all the appeals to pity, you’d think that’s all we have to offer.

                    1. I truly hope so. Because the message that worldwide poverty has been cut in half doesn’t seem to be getting out. The message that pollution in western countries is at an all time low, and that as economies such as China’s grow, the initial pollution diminishes is also not believed. The message that far fewer people are dying in natural disasters is not heard.

                      But I do hope you’re right.

      2. Says the guy who lives in Maine…

        1. Is that to me?

          Is this going over my head?

          I don’t live in Maine.

          1. That was to me. As if where I live determines the merit of my argument. Nardz is a troll.

            1. Damned WiFi… had a long response I just lost. Anyhow

              Sarc,
              Consider me a troll if you want, but my point was that, living in Maine, you’re as far removed from the effects of and interaction with illegal immigrants as possible. While not completely invalidating your opinion, it lends a necessarily NIMBY aspect to your position.

              I’ve worked and lived in neighborhoods with illegal immigrants my whole adulthood. Neutral, positive, and negative experiences with them individually and in general.

              Your position is based in the abstract. The abstract has merit, but not absolutely and not to the exclusion of other perspectives which you don’t seem to acknowledge.

              1. Original wording was better
                Sooooooooo annoying

            2. Nardz does not act like a troll.

  14. Hitler initially tried to expel Europe’s Jews (the opposite of keeping them from leaving) and might have stopped short of the Final Solution if other countries had been more welcoming.

    Iknowright? Nobody ever talks about how much better Hitler would have been if not for those assholes at the Evian!

  15. It’s been a long time, but I don’t recall any history lessons going into the part where the Jews voluntarily hid in boxcars in the hopes of sneaking into Auschwitz. Maybe that part of the story has been covered up.

  16. Incidentally, I see a big intellectual honesty test materializing for libertarians in our immediate future.

    Fact: Wage increases for unskilled workers are way up since the beginning of the year.

    Fact: A shortage of applicants has been noted all over the country–for unskilled workers, too.

    This is attributable to a number of things, Trump’s deregulation and tax reform among them. However, surely it would be intellectually dishonest to say that deporting illegal aliens couldn’t have contributed to this. That’s certainly what Trump will say.

    If the trend continues, and wages and employment opportunities for unskilled workers continue to increase, through to 2020, you better believe Trump will say the same thing about the “trade war” with China.

    And he’ll probably be right.

    Sometimes, what’s best for the overall economy and what’s best for the overall economy over the next 20 years isn’t what’s best for unskilled workers over the next two years. Intellectually honest libertarians will acknowledge this in regards to free trade and immigration–and defend free trade and immigration anyway.

    The dishonest among us will suddenly start to sound like Tony when he talks about supply and demand.

    1. Shit, that means we might need to admit that welfare tends to reduce native unskilled employment…

      1. Or that a tight labor market is more conducive to freedom than a loose one. God forbid they ever contemplate that question.

        1. Especially given the overwhelming evidence that the American workforce is quite happy inflating it’s wages via immigration controls and credentialing. It’s an actual case of the electorate voting itself largesse.

          Instead of connecting those dots and accidentally creating an argument that might influence opinion, we’re left with the impression that we can have our cake and eat it too. Nevermind that the obvious consequences of such a policy is a collapsed society and less libertarian nation.

          It seems ‘libertarian’ publications aren’t immune to cutting off their nose to spite their face after all.

          1. If you create an environment where people are always in fear of losing their jobs and being replaced by cheaper or better competition from immigrants, which is clearly what reason wants, those people are going to be a hell of a lot more likely to support government largess and intervention in the economy than they would be if they felt secure in their jobs and their future prospects. That simple connection never occurs to these half wits.

            Government can provide you security but it comes at the expense of opportunity. The only way to get people to turn down the security is to get them to see and value the opportunity that comes with turning down the security.

          2. Do you really believe the Labor Dept.’s unemployment stats?

            Throughout the Obama reign, right here on these pages, I criticized the Labor Dept. for fudging the numbers and I am not about to change my tune because Trump is the President.

            If we want to really get a grip on the unemployment stats, we need to look at John WIlliams’ Shadow Government Statistics. For April, 2018, the ShadowStats alternate unemployment rate is 21.5%

            Why would anyone place any faith in the DOL’s U-3 number?


            1. Do you really believe the Labor Dept.’s unemployment stats?

              Not in the least, I’m well aware of how bullshit the standard government measure is. One can only assume they don’t use, say, the U-4 measure because it doesn’t make them look good. Don’t get me wrong, there are compelling reasons not to use that measure but I’m pretty sure none of those reasons are the actual ‘why’.

              1. And, just FYI, I picked U-4 out of a hat not as a specific number that would definitely be ‘better’.

    2. Sometimes, what’s best for the overall economy and what’s best for the overall economy over the next 20 years isn’t what’s best for unskilled workers over the next two years. Intellectually honest libertarians will acknowledge this in regards to free trade and immigration–and defend free trade and immigration anyway.

      They won’t. the reason they won’t is that doing that requires you to admit that what is “best” is a value decision that does not have an objectively right answer. And none of them are honest enough or have the intellectual depth to that. Instead, they will just go on pretending that the laws of economics are effectively the laws of god such that overall wealth is the only legitimate end of economic policy.

      1. There can be honest debates about how best to pursue any particular qualitative preference and whether job gains made artificially by way of protectionism and immigration restrictions are sustainable, but I appreciate the general idea–that there are no quantitative goals with trade offs that aren’t also associated with qualitative preferences.

        Libertarianism is supposed to be about opposing one group of people imposing their qualitative preferences on others using the coercive power of government–and that would be true of job gains gained by way of protectionism and immigration restrictions.

        I’ll keep arguing against both protectionism and bad immigration restrictions–from an honest perspective–despite the facts, but, apart from Sullum and a couple others, Reason doens’t give me much confidence that they’re up to the task.

        Trying to make people feel sorry for Dreamers and illegal immigrant families certainly won’t cut it. They’re gonna have to do better than that.

    3. Some of us will point out the…..oddness….of thinking that raising the price of labor is a good thing. Maybe even that praising Trump for the wonderful job he’s doing of raising prices is some form of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

      1. Yeah, unless you’re selling your labor, which everyone with a job is doing.

  17. Still, you gotta love the irony . . .

    Trump, 2016: “Only I can fix it!”
    Trump, 2018: “Only they can fix it!”

    1. Would you rather be the all-time sack leader or have won at least one of the 4 Super Bowls in which you played?

      1. +1 Jim Kelly

  18. The reason you’re not supposed to compare things to the Holocaust is out of respect for the victims of one of humanity’s most uniquely terrible actions.

    But we also have to be careful not to employ rhetoric that amounts to “It’s not as bad as the Holocaust, so it’s OK.”

    1. It’s literally not even close to the Holocaust. It’s not even particularly inhumane in comparison to the immigration policy of almost every other country throughout the entire world. My God, this is so dumb.

      1. Separating parents from young children and putting those children in camps, over a misdemeanor, is pretty harsh. But I suppose the debate can be had. What Trump should worry about is the American people finally finding some sympathy for the people his entire political career is based around calling dangerous animals.

        1. They’re clearly not put in any “camps”, and some of these kids were merely separated with unrelated adults they were travelling with. When the border agents process them, they have to make sure that the family is actually a family. Migrants posing as fake families are not a small segment of this group.

          Separation of family has occurred under Obama. Not only that, he stuffed families inside cramped detention centers in apparent violation of the Flores settlement. The libs slept comfortably in their beds and let the likes of Harvey Weinstein rape women. Let’s not pretend scoring political points isn’t the main objective of this very selective outrage.

          If the parents are convicted, the minors would be assigned to new legal guardians. This sort of “separation” already happened. Remember that story about the government famously “losing” dozens of children sent to families? Yeah, the families never responded to voluntary feedback calls because they were likely illegal themselves.

          No mass shooting has involved guns obtained through “gunshow loophole”. The loophole in our immigration policy is big enough that thousands of South Americans can try to enter the nation ever year – by rafting on rivers, entrusting minors to human traffickers, travelling together through deserts. This is a human tragedy waiting to happen.

          1. Scoring political points on Trump’s psychopathic overreach is all Dems have right now. I’m beginning to think he’s not deliberately selling America bit by bit to the Chinese. He is just so fucking terrible at this.

            1. Tony|6.19.18 @ 9:40PM|#
              “Scoring political points on Trump’s psychopathic overreach is all Dems have right now.”

              That and promising free shit forever to low-watt bulbs like you.

          2. The lefties and their useful idiot open border people have lost it. They are so desperate to stop Trump and make sure immigrant demographics favor their candidate this election they will scream nonsense over and over.

            1. Typical slow witted, mentally challenged con. The Constitution you claim to love so much was written by liberals.

    2. Don’t you believe in the so-called ‘two state’ solution? Curious…

    3. ‘uniquely terrible

      Please explain what was unique about it? Genocide is not something only the Nazis did. This was done before Germany and done again several times during the 20th century by some of your favorite countries.

  19. This comment section has gotten so terrible that people are honestly debating whether or not an immigration policy that has existed for nearly a decade now is suddenly just like the Holocaust.

    1. You know who else acted like the Holocaust wasn’t going on?

      1. Polar bears?

        1. Well they are white, therefore racist. Makes sense they would deny it

          1. Plus, they eat baby seals alive.

      2. Me, apparently, because it’s 1938 and apparently an immigration policy that is still more humane than the rest of the world’s policy toward migrants is somehow a sign of a coming Holocaust or something

      3. The Democrats during WWII?

      4. The French?

      5. Henry Ford?

    2. Sigh. It hasn’t existed for over a decade.

      1. He has repeated it so many times, it has become dogma to him. I have yet to see any proof.

  20. The bolshies (socialist Jews) on my twitter feed are pissing themselves in excitement about how this is the start of the holocaust. If I dare speak out for peace, freedom and prosperity they all block me. It’s a hyper ideological echo chamber of marxism. “If you’re not with us you’re against us.” It’s a repeat of history from 100 years ago and it’s amazing to witness. They are clearly agitating for violence. But that will quickly backfire as I use every opportunity to warn – but they block me even for that!

  21. Dumb, da dumb, dumb, duuuuumb…

  22. This article is literally genocide. Reason is literally Hitler.

    1. I mean, literally.

  23. Someone please explain to me why it is horrific that children get separated from their parents when their parents commit a crime? Just on principal.

    Also, if you have a little kid walk to school, some hysterical person will try to get the parent arrested for child endangerment. But I haven’t seen one mention of child endangerment as it applies to bringing children illegally across a national boarder through the desert, where people die routinely trying to cross.

    1. It’s racist to expect illegal immigrants to have agency, or something

    2. Oh, I’m sure the CPS of whatever state they are in would love to get their hands on these kids.

    3. Someone please explain to me why it is horrific that children get separated from their parents when their parents commit a crime? Just on principal.

      Ok I’ll bite, only because I’m late to the party. Clearly we can agree that all crimes aren’t equal. Libertarians traditionally believe that crimes that harm people are fundamentally different than crimes in which nobody is harmed.

      We could all agree that people shouldn’t be jailed or separated from their children over traffic violations, even though they are crimes, because nobody is directly harmed. Murder on the other hand is a reason to jail someone. Those extremes are easy.

      Generally speaking, immigration causes no direct harm to anyone or their property. Much like drug convictions, it doesn’t make sense to libertarians to jail someone and separate families for crossing a border. Thus the outrage.


      1. We could all agree that people shouldn’t be jailed or separated from their children over traffic violations, even though they are crimes, because nobody is directly harmed.

        True, although notably in these United States you can and will be separated from your children (in jail, even) over traffic violations (for nonpayment, or through exceeding arbitrary limits) so I suspect that the vast majority of the population doesn’t agree with this statement or is simply so immune to reason and logic that no argument will sway them.

      2. Thank you, Leo. Best comment in the whole thread.

        1. Deport them all. MAGAZINE!

          1. *MAGA too

    4. If I get caught speeding should my kids be taken away? Basic immigration violations are misdemeanors.

      1. If you’re arrested for a misdemeanor, your kids are taken away. You don’t get to go to jail with your kids.

      2. Invading another country is an act of war.

      3. Misdemeanor punishment can range from a $25 fine to six months in prison.

  24. Right-wing apologists have persuaded me that Trump and his supporters are not as immoral and reprehensible as the Nazis were.

    It’s 85 percent as immoral and 90 percent as reprehensible, tops.

    1. Nope. My grandfather was in the Corps of Engineers in WWII and he and some of his buddies came upon the immediate aftermath of some SS guys committing a minor atrocity in mid-April right before the end of the war. His battalion literally interrupted the attempt to bury the (1100) bodies – the victims were burned alive in a barn. I’ve got the pictures he took of the aftermath.

      As terrible as Trump is, he’s not 5% of that shit.

      Carry on, loony.

    2. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|6.19.18 @ 6:11PM|#
      “Right-wing apologists have persuaded me that Trump and his supporters are not as immoral and reprehensible as the Nazis were.
      It’s 85 percent as immoral and 90 percent as reprehensible, tops.”

      Dimwit assholes have persuaded me that dimwit assholes are not nearly as bad as the dimwit assholes who supported Stalin.
      99% minimum.

  25. Google U.S. Aid for Central America / Mexico and see what we’ve been doing and the programs we’ve created purely for Central American and Mexican people.

    I don’t believe Hitler ever created and had Germans fund a program to stimulate trade, job growth, security and cleaner energy and still housed and fed Jews when they broke their laws. White privilege, which is a phrase which annoys me, is most apparent in articles like these. The U.S. and Trump in comparison with Nazi Germany shows how clearly out of touch people are.

    These people are coming from countries which are rich in oil, metals, gas, agriculture among other things, and yet why do they suffer? Why is a whole country, with aid and resources, still not any better after all of these year? U.S. citizens are currently funding for these people to stay here and be housed / fed along with funding their country in other ways to promote economic growth.

    Put the kids with their parents – does it solve ANY PROBLEM other than making you feel better?


    1. These people are coming from countries which are rich in oil, metals, gas, agriculture among other things, and yet why do they suffer? Why is a whole country, with aid and resources, still not any better after all of these year?

      Likely the same reason why the majority of revolutions in Central America are communist. It’s enough to want to punch anyone that wears a Che t-shirt, but I manage to restrain myself.

    2. For the same reasons populations ‘served’ by welfare in the United States don’t get better. Foreign aid is destructive.

    3. The US War on Drugs.

    4. “Put the kids with their parents – does it solve ANY PROBLEM other than making you feel better?”

      Yes, it does… It fends off massive suffering an mental illness!!! Study your basics of psychology, please!

      See http://pages.uoregon.edu/adopt…..lowMLE.htm and
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..142724.htm
      “Even brief maternal deprivation early in life alters adult brain function and cognition: Rat study” for starters, and be firmly advised that NO ONE among serious psychologists (excluding Trump appointees and tin-foil-hat wearers) thinks that these kinds of things are doing ANY good for these babies and children! We know it about rats, we know it about monkeys, and we know it about human children? They need snuggles, love, and an attachment figure that is dependable. US-Fed caretakers here are FORBIDDEN from cuddling or TOUCHING these children (past diaper changes I suppose). This leads to an inability to trust people, and mental illness. It ***IS*** known!!!

      1. Ok. So we’ll put the adults and children in the same facility together. Does that you feel better? Of course not, because what you really want is no border at all, and you’re simply using these children as political symbols. You could care less about their mental health.

        1. Can you read my mind? Are you God,or a vastly technologically superior space alien?

          You are more wrong than you can imagine! I am actually capable of caring about people that I do not see, and I can love people in the abstract. Since you apparently can NOT, are are highly similar to an unfeeling NAZI, you imagine others to be the same as you!

          PROJECTION all the way down!!!!

        2. Putting adults and children together in a family-style shelter would be better than the status quo.

          What would be even better than the status quo would be to end this border restrictionist nonsense, yes.

          So there’s nothing wrong with being in favor of both positions, one for humanitarian reasons and one for principled reasons.

  26. What’s Mexico’s policy on those seeking asylum?

    Aren’t asylum seekers obligated to request asylum in the first country they enter?

    1. That’s different for feelz.

      Fact of the matter is that some totally not insane people who are clearly insane are making ridiculous comparisons between our nation’s humane and liberal immigration system with Nazi Germany. So, I guess the rest of the world have Super Hitler immigration policies

      1. It’s also cute that libertarians (totally not progressives) are siding with a former CIA chief. Bill Kristol’s favorite brand of libertarianism

        1. You think you look cute in that silly libertarian drag, but the only people who don’t recognize you as an authoritarian right-wing bigot are your fellow faux libertarians.

    2. Look, when you’re desperate and your family is in imminent danger of death and dismemberment you really want to take the time to shop around.

      I don’t fault people for looking for a better place to raise their kids and start a business or what have you, but the U.S. is a welfare state by design so free and clear immigration for anyone who can wander across a geographic border isn’t in the cards unless you want to start talking caste society or indentured servitude.

      1. Or, you know, getting rid of the welfare.

        1. ^ That would be preferred, I just know that the first step isn’t going to happen so neither will free and open immigration.

    3. First SAFE country they enter. Mexico is not safe for those fleeing MS 13 and their ilk.

      1. You’re batting 1,000:

        “First SAFE country they enter. Mexico is not safe for those fleeing MS 13 and their ilk.”

        Assertions are not arguments, and it’s no surprise you don’t know that.

      2. Not our problem.

  27. Hey Sullum ,
    You do not know history you shite for brains .
    The German Government put a tax on Jews wanting to leave Germany. Many could not afford the expense of Leaving.
    Complain about the situation, say you disagree but get the history right .

    1. Many could not afford to leave after the Nazis confiscated all their wealth, which is what they used to wage war.

      1. Ya know, dimwits like you are easy and fun to make fun of.

        “Many could not afford to leave after the Nazis confiscated all their wealth, which is what they used to wage war.”

        Money is fungible, so the money borrowed from the US is what they used to wage war, too.
        Do you post to show you’re not real bright, or is that a side benefit?

        1. And that contradicts what I said just how? What’s it like to be bitter, old, friendless AND stupid?

          1. Paloma|6.20.18 @ 12:22AM|#
            “And that contradicts what I said just how? ”
            It simply points out that what your point was intended to convey is that of an ignoramus.

            “What’s it like to be bitter, old, friendless AND stupid?”
            Dunno, but I’m sure you can tell us what it’s like to be a fucking lefty imbecile.
            Please do tell us, and fuck off.

  28. This is an especially telling meeting of the reason.com chapter of Libertarians For Bigoted, Cruel, Authoritarian Immigration Policies And Practices.

    Carry on, clingers. Until your liberal-libertarian betters decide to arrange more American progress against your wishes and efforts, that is.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|6.19.18 @ 10:43PM|#
      “This is an especially telling meeting of the reason.com chapter of Libertarians For Bigoted, Cruel, Authoritarian Immigration Policies And Practices.”

      This is an especially telling post from the ignorant lefty asshole posing as some sort of superior being, asshole:

      “Obama’s Immigration Agencies Separated Children From Their Families, Too”
      […]
      ” Long before that, however, the administration of Barack Obama ramped up a program with a sometimes similar effect.
      Since 2008, the United States has had a policy known as the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP), or Lateral Repatriation. This program focuses on detaining male migrants of Mexican descent.
      Here’s how it works: Once an immigrant is caught attempting to cross the border without documentation, they are detained, flown or bused across the United States and then shown the exit at another segment of the U.S.-Mexico border?thousands of miles from their original point of entry.”
      https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/obamas-
      immigration-agencies-separated-
      children-from-their-families-too-2/

      Were you born a hypocrite, asshole, or did it take you years of study to become one?
      Or are you just a fucking imbecile?
      Which one is it, asshole?

  29. Immigration is the hill that lefties and their sympathizers are dying on this election year.

    It’s gonna be a Democrat bloodbath.

    1. “two acres and a Guatemalan”

    2. Democrats are guaranteed to win control of the House. It’ll be interesting to see how you respond when I remind you of your predictions otherwise.

  30. My Lord, these kids are being treated so badly, they only have PlayStation 2.

  31. “The USA is a people and a culture, not just an economy, and we have sovereign borders and real laws and distinct culture that deserves respect.” Period.

  32. IG report comes out, “oh my god, what about the kids on the border. Don’t pay attention to the, Coup were conducting.”

  33. Of course, the point is that each little shift in policy seems like no big deal until suddenly you look around and realize what they all add up to. I’m sure plenty of people in Germany in the 1930’s didn’t think genocide was the policy. Until it was.

    1. You’re fukin trash guy.

    2. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry57MQpzrbQ

      Tell me, who are the “NAZIS”.

      1. The Jews were the real Nazis!

  34. I think most people realize that this is all campaign rhetoric. But, again, we are talking symptoms instead of causes. Why don’t we talk about why all the governments south of the U.S. have turned their countries in to basket cases. Come on, its not natural for people to want to leave their home country in mass exoduses. That’s not our fault. Who knew that socialism/dictatorship wouldn’t work!

  35. Yes, in fact, they DO strengthen the argument, because this IS Nazism. Don’t you DARE diminish the facts.

  36. Cons will try desperately to find anything they can to deny their crimes.

    “It’s light years away from what happened in Nazi Germany!”

    Yes, so far. What Trump is doing is how it started. It will only be a matter of time before these people, and all those who oppose him, are put to death,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.