Immigration

The Government Unjustly Separates American Families Too. But Shouldn't That Make Us More Sympathetic?

An unsatisfying answer to the question of why Trump country seems unfazed by immigrant family separation.

|

Trump
Abaca Press/Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom

President Trump announced today that he would sign an executive order ending automatic separation of immigrant families that enter the country illegally, following days of public outrage over the practice.

Not everyone is against these separations, however. A recent poll found that 97 percent of Democrats were against it, as were 68 percent of independents. Just 35 percent of Republicans shared this perspective.

Many conservative opinion-makers and most national Republican politicians are aghast at the routine warehousing of children and babies resulting from the Trump administration's zero-tolerance approach to illegal immigration. But it seems they may be out of step with conservatives in the heartland, and not for the first time.

The Week's Matthew Walther has an interesting suggestion about why "Trump country is unfazed by the child separation crisis." Trump supporters in the rural Midwest, Walther says, routinely interact with soulless government bureaucracies that vindictively break apart families. Take child protective services: Just a few days ago, my colleague Lenore Skenazy wrote about a case in Minnesota where cops came to take away a woman's 10-month-old baby because they thought the mother wasn't sufficiently freaked out about the kid's cough.

Denizens of Trump country, Walther writes, are accustomed to being treated like this:

The women my wife sees enjoying weekly supervised visits with their children at the local public library in our small Michigan town live in childless homes because their toddler fell down once or because a member of their family was convicted of taking or selling drugs. Parenting is something they have learned to conceive of as a kind of privilege rather than as a right.

They are accustomed to other sorts of random cruelties as well. Many of them live every day with the harassment of police officers, the condescension of teachers and social workers and the rest of the educational and public health bureaucracy, the leers of judges, the scolding of doctors and nurses, the incompetence of Veterans Affairs, even the smirks of grocery store clerks who seem to think that a woman who buys a case of beer while her children are in the shopping cart or when she is using food stamps to purchase her other groceries belongs to a lower order of mammals.

Such treatment is often callous, and often unjustified. But why would being mistreated by CPS or Veterans Affairs make people less sympathetic to immigrant families enduring similar cruelty? If anything, one might expect them to be more outraged about family separation.

Many of the disadvantaged people who deal regularly with CPS probably do feel that way. Black families are disproportionately likely to be split up by the government, but this experience has not hardened their hearts against immigrant families. On the contrary, black Americans overwhelmingly oppose the border wall and believe children who came to the country illegally should be able to remain and become citizens. According to a Quinnipiac poll from April, dissatisfaction with Trump's policies regarding undocumented immigrant children was actually higher among black Americans than among Hispanic Americans.

Why would white Americans with good reason to resent the government for breaking up families nevertheless seem to take ICE's side in the current controversy, while black Americans in the same situation do not? Maybe Trump country is fazed by immigrant family separations to the exact extent that Trump himself is. Now that Trump seems ready to address the issue, I would expect to see a lot of supporters saying the president is right to keep the families together.

NEXT: My Teenage Video Game Obsession Wasn't 'Gaming Disorder'

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. They arent more sympathetic because people like the media dont care and seeing illegals treated better than citizens is bullshit.

    1. Yeah that is pretty much the attitude. They would rather see others suffer as much as they are.

      1. And the media lives up to it.

        The recognition that the “elites” deeply HATES them brought Trump.

        1. “If I have to suffer, then so will you!” is not a particularly noteworthy attitude to take.

          1. “Please, shit on me” is a worse attitude.

            1. What’s funny is they’re supposedly the Christians.

              1. Stereotype much? And you think your one of the educated types!

          2. It’s more “if you don’t give a shit about my suffering why should I give a shit about your feelings over someone else suffering”

            The liberals in question aren’t ever actually involved except to actively try and make the lives of rural America worse.

            1. The persecution fantasies are amazing.

              1. They sure are. You’re probably not talking about the idiots calling numbered school rooms Nazi death camps though.

              2. And also true?

                My moms home town in California was literally obliterated by excessive environmental regulations passed by assholes in Sacramento, with ZERO regard for the destruction it would bring up in the rural parts of the state that relied on logging. If the Feds and the state hadn’t decided to build multiple prisons (Yay let’s lock more people up!) in the country the whole place would have died out when the mill closed down.

                So yeah, big city idiots who pass laws that make no sense in rural parts of their own state DO in fact do harm to rural communities.

                Washington state, where I live, passed a $13.50 an hour minimum wage that will be phasing in over the next few years. This will crater everywhere in the state that isn’t Seattle, which BTW had already passed their silly $15 minimum anyway. They did it purely to virtue signal. The parts of the state that would actually be effected ALL VOTED DOWN the measure when it went onto the ballot, but got out voted by folks in Seattle who wanted to feel good.

                They don’t care that those low cost of living places don’t need a higher minimum wage, and that being low cost to operate there is one of their only advantages. They just removed any incentive for any company that needs low/mid priced labor to locate to the entire state.

      2. Or maybe their attitude, having been subjected to this shit all their lives, is So what’s the big deal? But it’s easy to trash dumb hillbillies. Pretty sure they won’t show up here and defend themselves.

  2. Your kidding right, what CPS does is different than what ICE does at the border to illegal immigrations .

    Rush was right the lawsuits are already flying after Trump signed the executive order today, proving this was not about family separations it was about hatred for Trump. the left & Reason do not even want due process they want open borders and criminal acts, beyond just the illegal immigration, to be ignored for certain groups

    1. You’re right. CPS doesn’t normally keep kids in cages.

      1. they do put them in jail if there is no foster family to take them right away and most of those foster families are far worse than the cages those illegal immigrants are in. And CPS takes kids form people who have committed no crimes which has been well documented even by Reason

      2. Nor does ICE, but dont let reality slow you down now.

        1. Trump snatching babies out of mommas’ loving and nurturing arms is OK because, dammit, space alien abductors and the Grim Reaper both do the exact same thing anyway!

          1. Hello, Righteous Feelz.

            How are you today?

            Any ideas on where Lebron is headed?

            1. Dumb

              1. Why, its Mr. Misanthrope.

                Hopefully, he will find some happy pills.

                Does it hurt him that his attempts to paint LM as a moron or as an idiot have fallen upon deaf ears?

                Mr. Misanthrope is far closer to being a misanthrope than LM is to being a moron or an idiot.

                Besides, given their entire respective posting histories, it is axiomatic that LM has made far more comprehensive, detailed, nuanced, and substantive posts than has Mr. Misanthrope.

                1. Stupid

            2. I am fine, thanks, how are you?

              Who is Lebron, anyway? The sports super-hero? To being over-taxed & then finally dying, just like the rest of us!

              1. Just fine, thank you.

                Yes, Lebron is that sports super-hero. Lots of folks here in Massachusetts, but, by no means all, are unappreciative of his superlative basketball skills.

  3. Should we not prosecute any illegals who happen to have kids?

    Because that seems to be the only alternative. No prosecution of illegal immigrants. Somehow that isn’t how Chuck Schumer chooses to phrase it.

    1. Should we not prosecute anyone for jaywalking who happens to have kids?

      1. the left is proposing just that.

      2. If they jaywalk into your house?

        1. If people are getting into your house without your permission, maybe you need to get better locks.

          1. Well it sounds like he lives on a traffic island, so that might be the problem.

          2. No borders, amirite?

            1. It’s hard to tell whether you’re right, because it’s not entirely clear what you’re talking about.

              1. I think he’s trying to say that non-Americans coming into our property is akin to trespassing.

                What he’s really saying is that he’s a collectivist and believes in only collective property rights that only the government can protect.

                1. Actually, i am saying it is an invasion and should be dealt with accordingly.

                  1. No, you are stretching the meaning of the word ‘invasion’ in order to justify that thuggish authoritarian tactics be used against undocumented immigrants.

                    1. Unfortunately the so called Trump policy has been the practice of ICE before Trump became a billionaire.

                      Only now is the destructive left is outraged! The faux concern media, including Reason (I mean CNN) are doing more to help Putin sew discord. Maybe Mueller should interview everyone espousing this phony pony for colluding with Russia!

                2. Involuntary collectivist, probably, just like the rest of us.
                  And yes, only government can protect the money that government takes from us under penalties of kidnapping, violence and/or death.
                  We already have 47% of the country living off of our labor, why the fuck should we let the entire third world get the rest?

              2. He’s saying that leaving your doors unlocked is analogous to having no borders. Because then anybody can just walk right in. Difficult shit to comprehend… if you’re literally mentally retarded.

          3. Or may a wall.

            1. “May” == “maybe”

    2. Of course. So then Chuck Schumer can scream at the cameras that Trump isn’t doing anything about human trafficking at the border.

    3. “Should we not prosecute any illegals who happen to have kids?”

      You need to read up on your news. Trump has now taken action. It’s time to change your talking points.

      1. Which also runs afoul of legal precedent.

        1. Ya, Trump discovered Obama’s pen in the top center drawer of the oval office desk.

      2. Keep reading.

        A judge declared it illegal.

        So it’s up to Congress, as originally asserted.

    4. At least Chuckles finally admitted on camera that he cannot do the job he was elected to do, and pass legislation.

  4. routine warehousing of children and babies

    Maybe they’re just numb to this type of hyperbolic bullshit.

    1. Yeah, the facilities tours of the ‘tent cities’ that I’ve heard talked about teachers and ESL classes, air conditioning, trucked-in potable water to enhance grey water (re)use (it’s Texas), an ~10:1 student:teacher/caretaker:ward/guard:prisoner ratio, recess toys and activities, etc. and these are reports from Trump’s opposition and people generally enraged with the policy. It certainly sounds better than your average overcrowded US prison or a legionella-infested veteran’s home and definitely better than the shitholes their families dragged them through to get here. Of course it’s all on the taxpayer’s dime so it’s still theft, but ‘warehousing’ is an inapt description.

      The part I’ve actually heard focused on is that because lots of these kids are homeless (or stateless depending on the speaker) family is all they know and it’s really traumatic to separate them from their parents in such a way… like public school systems around the world don’t do exactly this day in and day out.

      1. like public school systems around the world don’t do exactly this day in and day out.

        Boarding schools are largely gone in the US, and I’ve heard of no public boarding school. So sure, kids dropped off for kindgergarten are “separated” from their parents for half the day. And then they go home.

        It’s not really comparable.

        1. Not only that, but the very concept of public school is hated around here. (And for good reason, I might add.)

          So using public school to justify family separation is pretty weaksauce.

          1. But everyone who opposes family separation is a leftist who loves government schools!

          2. Not only that, but the very concept of public school is hated around here. (And for good reason, I might add.)

            So using public school to justify family separation is pretty weaksauce.

            Agreed all the way around. Especially when people hate on public schools without describing them as warehousing children but leap at the opportunity to do the same at what is, effectively, public school in a tent. When they’ll bemoan the trauma and separation anxiety that said tent city induces but shrug at the public school system doing it to regimentedly younger and younger children, year over year. Almost makes it seem like the real problem isn’t the separation as much as the fact that Trump isn’t kissing them enough.

        2. It’s not really comparable.

          It’s not really comparable.

          With this I agree. The average kindergartner has no concept of time or independence and can’t necessarily or exactly have it explained to them while the average child immigrant, being in their teens, is usually pretty well aware of the situation, capable of having it explained to them, and quite capable of caring for themselves independently. Nevermind that the kindergartner will spend more cumulative time in school before the age of 6 than the average immigrant child, for whom 5-7 is usually the minimum cutoff range for separation will spend being “warehoused”.

          Ultimately, please quantify the amount of trauma inflicted on these immigrant teens so that we may judge the amount of trauma inflicted by other childhood maladies relatively or shut the hell up about the trauma being inflicted by a rather luxurious, taxpayer-funded tent on someone who fled a shithole, across Mexico to get to it.

  5. Just say no asylum, period.

    1. Yesterday, in his column, Pat Buchanan wrote, “[w]e are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.”

      Pat added, that “the existential question remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic of our nations and our civilization.”

      1. If Western ideas can be overwhelmed by a few million peasants from Guatemala then those ideas were never very sturdy to begin with.

        1. I get the distinct impression that your ideas are overwhelmed by your ability to open your mouth.

        2. If Western ideas can be overwhelmed by a few million peasants from Guatemala then those ideas were never very sturdy to begin with.

          A few million? I guess a “few” could mean 12+ million.

          What’s the population of Chicago?

        3. A few million here, a few million there. It tends to add up.

        4. If Western ideas can be overwhelmed by a few thousand Cuban revolutionaries then those ideas were never very sturdy to begin with.

          If Western ideas can be overwhelmed by one angry Russian then those ideas were never very sturdy to begin with.

          If Western ideas can be overwhelmed by a few dozen nuclear warheads then those ideas were never very sturdy to begin with.

          See how easy this is when you’re stupid?

          1. Hello, you forgot: If western ideas can be overwhelmed by a charismatic socialist Austrian and his small group of brownshirts, then those ideas were never very sturdy to begin with.

            Almost all internal takeovers of countries have been started by a relatively small number of determined people. It doesn’t take millions.

        5. La Wik
          The largest foreign-born population in the world is in the United States, which was home to 39 million foreign-born residents in 2012, or 12.6% of the population.

        6. So, let’s recruit Nazis to serve as professors in universities.

          I’m sure that couldn’t hurt higher education at all.

        7. Western ideas are already being overwhelmed by leftists. Those few million peasants from Guatemala would just be the tipping point.

      2. Dumb

      3. Pat has been peddling that Death of the West apocalypse for decades. Sorry, Pat, you can’t fight demographic trends without becoming a genocidal tyrant.

        1. Sorry, Pat, you can’t fight demographic trends without becoming a genocidal tyrant.

          Sure you can. Maybe not if you fall for the same sort of ideology = demography falsehoods that Pat falls for but still probably closer to ‘difficult’ rather than ‘impossible’.

        2. “Sorry, Pat, you can’t fight demographic trends without becoming a genocidal tyrant.”

          Now that’s some fuckin’ ignorance right there. Ever hear of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The one that lyin’ POS Kennedy stood in the senate proclaiming would not change America. Kennedy spewed lie after lie.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUmuajQROk

          Frosty Woolridge, “The 1965 revamp of the entire immigration system. It ended 40 years of low immigration, got rid of solid numerical caps and opened upchain migration into every overpopulated country in the world, exploding annual immigration numbers.”

          http://rense.com/general94/whydid.htm

      4. Are we east of Guatemala? Or does Pat Buchanan just not have a clear sense of where North America and Central America are located.

      1. US and Venezuela don’t want anything to do with that 1951 protocol. It’s so outdated.

        1. Venezuelans hold the top spot for asylum seekers. About 18,000 are seeking asylum, according to the Department of Homeland Security. About 250,000 have emigrated to the United States. Another 3.8 million, more than 10% of the country, have fled elsewhere. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Panama are the most popular spots, with 3,000 a day going over the border to Colombia.

  6. But why would being mistreated by CPS or Veterans Affairs make people less sympathetic to immigrant families enduring similar cruelty?

    Because for many of them, they are not only treated poorly by pretty much every government agency, but they harbor resentment that the ‘undeserving’, like undocumented migrants, are treated better than they are. So when migrant families are torn apart, their reaction is instead “well it’s about time they get their comeuppance”.

    1. Exactly

    2. The nerve of these proles!

  7. So does Trump’s order mean the kids get sent to the same detention facility the parents get sent to?

    1. Yes, now families will all be detained together, under the same “zero tolerance” policy that will involve all of them being criminally prosecuted instead of civilly fined.

      1. How can you fine somebody who is broke and not subject to our laws?

        1. Maybe you can ask the people at DOJ who have been doing it for years. In any case the idea that people resident in the US are “not subject to our [sic] laws” is nonsense.

          1. You do not feel they are.

            Just sayin’.

            1. Has anyone ever told you you’re incredibly inarticulate?

              1. I do not concern myself with what dim folks think of me.

          2. Maybe you can ask the people at DOJ who have been doing it for years

            But now you are outraged!

  8. If the Dems want to run on open borders and not being mean to gang members, by all means go for it.

    1. Well the Republicans are sure doing a heck of a job running on being needlessly cruel to children.

      Seems like both tribes are running on moral bankruptcy

      1. Why not, they’ve bankrupted everything else they’ve touched.

      2. Whatever you think of the Republican’s and, by implication, Obama’s immigration policies, the current Dem response to this issue is so over the top and driven by emotion and hatred of Trump it’s not to be taken seriously.

        1. It’s all about the feelz with Team D

        2. Most of these children were separated from their parents long before they reached our border. We can heed the (disingenuous) cries to reunite them with their parents and send them all back to them.

      3. “needlessly cruel to children.”

        Providing security, food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, and entertainment to children brought by foreign invaders.

  9. Robbie is pretty late in his defense of Peter Fonda’s free speech. I guess he’s waiting for Ken White to weigh in so that he can make believe he knows what he is writing about.

    1. +1 for the Dopehat reference.

      1. Stupid

  10. And for heaven’s sake why do people keep referring to CPS as legitimating in any way using children to *deter* an activity?

    First, in libertopia, there would be no CPS at all.

    Second, even if we are stuck with CPS, it is not hard to find plenty of cases where CPS has not just abused their power, but even when they are acting in good faith, acted according to poor information or acted too aggressively against the parents ‘for the sake of the children’.

    Third, even when CPS isn’t acting corruptly, and even when they are acting properly and with good information, it is always to stop some type of known abuse from continuing. It is not to deter parents from committing some other activity using their own children as leverage against them.

    So the analogies are pretty terrible all around.

    1. And for heaven’s sake why do people keep referring to CPS as legitimating in any way using children to *deter* an activity?

      It highlights the complete hypocrisy and dishonesty of those making this such an issue, for one.

    2. “…it is always to stop some type of known abuse from continuing. It is not to deter parents from committing some other activity using their own children as leverage against them.”

      Bullshit. Does not require “known abuse” and it only takes alleged abuse and you will see CPS leverage those kids to stop whatever alleged behavior CPS deems unsafe. You will see CPS force the parents, with threats of child removal, into leaving their home and putting children with family members or a community resource as part of a safety plan.

      Some analogies are fine. It’s your argument that is terrible because of your deliberate ignorance of CPS.

  11. It makes me feel even more strongly that the politicians shouldn’t be trusted with power. But I am assured that this is crazy talk.

    Of course we can have a massive, all-powerful government and that power will never be abused, provided we put the right people in charge. Anybody who believes otherwise is a kook. Do I have it right?

    1. It makes me feel even more strongly that the politicians shouldn’t be trusted with power. But I am assured that this is crazy talk.

      Oh no no no. The only way to get a truly libertarian society is to have an immense border control apparatus to keep out the undesirables from the gated community of True Libertarians inside. Such a huge assemblage of state power would never ever ever be used against the good libertarian citizens within. Oh no no no.

      1. And when they decide to vote against your preferences en masse?

        Because they will.

        1. The people you have to worry about voting against your preferences are the native-born citizens already living here who do it right now.

          Who created the welfare state? It wasn’t penniless Guatemalan migrants.

          Who created the surveillance state? It wasn’t day laborers from Mexico.

          1. Who will try to end either?

            Not them either. They make it less likely.

            1. If native-born citizens can’t or won’t end the welfare state, then it doesn’t matter what we do with immigration. The whole thing is going to collapse anyway.

              And for all the scare talk about how much undocumented immigrants cost the government in terms of welfare, it still dwarfs how much native-born citizens cost the government in terms of welfare.

              So I want the welfare state to end just as much as you, it’s just that I’m not willing to scapegoat and demonize foreigners as being the source of the problem.

              1. er, “is dwarfed by”, not “dwarfs”

              2. Good points. Except, “it’s just that I’m not willing to scapegoat and demonize foreigners as being the source of the problem.”

                Not the source, but expansion.

              3. “If native-born citizens can’t or won’t end the welfare state, then it doesn’t matter what we do with immigration. The whole thing is going to collapse anyway.”

                Yes, so let’s help bankrupt the country faster. That’s a good idea.

        2. Just like millions of native-born Americans!

          1. Yes, this definitely helps the NO BORDERS!!! argument.

            1. No, it just hurts your pro-borders argument.

              1. Hitler and Stalin had low regard for borders as well.

              2. No borders worked out GREAT for Native Americans.

      2. Possibly I’m misunderstanding your sarcasm, but I don’t see how not trusting politicians with power is advocating for an “immense border control apparatus”.

        1. I am being sarcastic. There are plenty of so-called libertarians around here who think that the only way to achieve libertopia is to forcibly keep out the undesirables, using copious amounts of state power.

          1. Ah, thanks for the clarification. It’s been a long day.

          2. As stupid as Rand was she at least understood that you needed a magical force-field over Galt’s Gulch in order to make it work. Marxist Utopianism is by far the silliest.

      3. Everyone knows you really achieve a truly libertarian society by handing the keys to your colossal welfare state to illiterate Guatemalan gardeners.

  12. But why would being mistreated by CPS or Veterans Affairs make people less sympathetic to immigrant families enduring similar cruelty? If anything, one might expect them to be more outraged about family separation.

    Holy Hell! I wish I could say that only Robby would’ve written something so dumb.

  13. But why would being mistreated by CPS or Veterans Affairs make people less sympathetic to immigrant families enduring similar cruelty? If anything, one might expect them to be more outraged about family separation.

    Is this your first day on planet Earth? What does misery love?

    1. There were days I wish I could have been separated from the kids.

  14. The comments section of reason.com may be the only place on the entirety of the internet where the opinions expressed are frequently more thoughtful and rational than what we find in the body of the articles. Case in point, an article that barely bothers to make a distinction between the rights and expectations of American citizens in relation to their government and those of migrants who have crossed the border without benefit of law.

    1. Apparently most of,the Reason staff believe that illegals have more rights and entitlement to government services than immigrants. For example, there have been literally dozens of articles exalting illegals in the last month alone. Yet zero articles on the plight of our military veterans, who are committing suicide at the rate of around 8,000 per year. Plus all the vets differing and dying while waiting endlessly for medical treatment. Yet illegals are due immediate free medical care, including free services for transgender illegals.

      Yes, Obama’s had a facility built so these precious trans illegals would not have to wait even a day for their hormens and whatever else they demand. Meanwhile, vets who need legitimate treatment and surgery often wait months at a time.

      1. Foreigners First
        Criminal Foreigners to the front of the line

  15. But why would being mistreated by CPS or Veterans Affairs make people less sympathetic to immigrant families enduring similar cruelty? If anything, one might expect them to be more outraged about family separation.

    You’ve missed the point. It’s not about sympathy for the “immigrant” families. The outrage is at the outrage. People raging and hand-wringing against separate detention of parents and children at the border are in effect saying, “how dare Trump treat illegal border crossers as if they were white trash deplorables!” You don’t see why lower income heartland people accustomed to being shit on by government bureaucrats, especially regarding their children, would find that offensive?

    1. And, being Trump country, government bureaucrats are mostly leftist snobs.

    2. Vernon, you nailed it. The outrage is over the outrage?or actually, the lack of comparable outrage over the 1,400 American kids taken away for every one at the border.

      Factor in the reality that (a) (as Rand Paul noted) dragging kids through the desert is per se child abuse; (b) the only parents being separated are ones not entering appropriately through ports, and are often coached to claim asylum only after being nabbed trying to sneak in unnoticed; (c) such disingenuous claims for asylum are immoral because they poison the well for legitimate asylum seekers who go to proper ports, and (d) ersatz asylum seekers have the option to leave with their children instead of being separated (!!). I couldn’t imagine a more potent recipe for resentment.

      This goes beyond human nature as a deeply ingrained reaction to the perception of unfairness. Even non-human primates throw a fit about unfairness under experimental conditions designed to let one see the other being rewarded with more grapes for competing the same or lesser task. It’s foolish to expect magnanimity under these circumstances, and rather uncompassionate to not recognize their reaction as natural and legitimate.

  16. We are offering a wide range of pharmacy products that nearly cover all what you will need. Fast and discreet Delivery ,quality Guaranteed 100%,Express with UPS,FedEx,EMS with Tracking numbers,No Rx require. Email: stevemeds77@gmail.com Text : +1 (978) 225-0960 or visit our website: https://www.familymeds.wordpress.com To Place Your Order.

  17. Walther’a thesis doesn’t even pass the smell test. The people in my Facebook feed cheering family separations are the same ones who cheer every other abuse by armed agents of the state. The police and military can do no wrong. These people are authoritarian statists thru and thru.

  18. “even the smirks of grocery store clerks who seem to think that a woman who buys a case of beer while her children are in the shopping cart or when she is using food stamps to purchase her other groceries belongs to a lower order of mammals.”

    You’d think a ‘libertarian’ would understand the resentment of someone who has had their pockets picked allegedly for the children seeing the loot spent on their parents’ beer instead. Like it’s unreasonable to expect someone subsisting on the coerced charity of others to at least spend it wisely.

    Damn straight I get pissed when I see that somebody living off my taxes is buying luxuries I pass by to save the money that was left me.

    1. But this resentment is based on a whole host of assumptions. What if the beer money came from a job, and not from welfare? What if the beer money was a gift from someone else? What if the beer is for someone else? And without even considering the various factors at play, it’s the instantaneous judgment from the store clerk that is the most galling. As if a person’s entire moral worth as a human being can be judged by one commercial transaction at one grocery store. It does not hurt to try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and try to understand what they are going through before casting judgment on them as a terrible human being.

      1. Sure it MAY be any of those things… Or they just a likely may be a dead beat drunk who doesn’t want to work.

        I don’t know what kind of life you have lived, but I have personally known TONS of dead beat moochers. They disgust me, because I know I have to pay for them. There’s nothing wrong with feeling a bit disgusted when you see this kind of thing. As long as you don’t beat their head in with a bat out of anger it doesn’t hurt anything.

  19. There are basically three choices here:

    1) Incarcerate the adults, but not their children. That is to say, family separation.

    2) Incarcerate them both. That is, putting children in jail.

    3) Incarcerate neither. In which case the illegal immigrants go so that they can vanish into the population.

    Do you really think the average person doesn’t realize that you object to #1 because you want #3? That the screaming isn’t about the treatment of children, but just about the enforcement of popular immigration laws?

    You aren’t as clever as you think, nor are others as stupid as you hope.

    1. There is also:
      4) Incarcerate neither and just send them back.

      Trump et al. deliberately chose not to do this, they chose Option #1 because simply removing the undocumented immigrants from the country wasn’t enough for him or his base, he deliberately chose to use the children’s separation to *send a message*. That is the monstrosity going on here. Removing them wasn’t good enough, he had to *teach those illegals a lesson, gosh darnit! And if it requires yanking kids away from parents to do so, then so be it!*

      The immigration laws in question can’t be all that popular if so many people are opposed to what we are seeing now.

      1. The point of prosecuting is to establish a criminal record so that *next time* they can be put in prison.

        If you just let them go, it’s the same old catch and release.

      2. I believe that is, unfortunately, not accurate. Mainly because we have to give all these people excessive amounts of “due process” to throw them out. So it takes a bit of time. I think we ought to just send them back immediately, like the day after we verify they aren’t citizens and are here illegally. But if we could even do that you know the leftist mob would start bitching about something… “The horror! They’re sending illegal immigrants back to their home country so fast that sometimes there isn’t even time to give them 3 meals a day before they’re sent home! THE HORROR!!!”

      3. He can’t do #4, due process doesn’t allow for immediate deportation if the deportee contests it. You have to go through the potentially lengthy process of PROVING that the family you have detained is deportable. This is utterly necessary because otherwise the government could just deport anyone it liked, even citizens.

        And you can’t just release them after a promise to show up in court in a month, they’d go into hiding.

        That only leaves incarceration, if you’re going to enforce the law. Though I’d be willing to experiment with radio tracking collars.

      4. The problem is with employment, until they take away that incentive border crossings will continue when there is only a 1% apprehension rate. They’ll take their chances over getting raped, killed, and extorted by the rampant gangs in mexico and central america. Take away the work incentive (via e-verify mandated employment at all levels (fix that system stupid US bureaucracy)) and they would stay put. It’s all kicking the can down the road currently and just fixing the symptom rather than the cause.

        1. Anyone caught knowingly hiring illegal aliens should get a 1st time fine of $10K for each individual hired, and escalating up to felony imprisonment. Once again you have to cut off the source of why they come here in the first place.

        2. The problem with e-verify is that it is fucked for citizens, AND more importantly, you can simply hire people properly under the table.

          You simply pay people cash, and the whole thing is useless dealing with the actual problem, yet still screws citizens. This is already how tons of illegal employment works anyway. Even the ones that use false socials could be nailed by the IRS FAR EASIER by simply flagging any situation where the reported name doesn’t match the social. This is an easier and less intrusive way of doing the same thing.

          Other than that, there should simply be big fines for employing illegals. This will make employers weary of hiring them even under the table, and those that do will probably only do it up until the time they get busted the first time.

      5. I vote for
        5). Keep them out except at legal points of entry, and grant asylum only for political persecution. If they have the hundreds/thousands to pay coyotes or pay for the trip, they have enough to wait for the legal process.

        Where is the libertarian argument that ‘open borders’ (used to mean accepting illegal border crossers) violates property rights of those who reside on or near the border?

  20. “The Government Unjustly Separates American Families Too. But Shouldn’t That Make Us More Sympathetic?”

    Is it more just to send children with parents when the parents commit crimes?

    I know children ride sparkly unicorn ponies all day in Anarchotopia, but in the real world, the children of criminals need to be put somewhere when their criminal parents are held, and “prison for the whole family” doesn’t seem like a great option to most of us.

    When you can come through and *deliver* on sparkly unicorn ponies, let us all know.

    1. Well, it turns out that legal residents who are sent to prison have their kids ‘taken’ by the state, just like these kids.
      So we free thieves, murders, and rapists if they have a kid? I don’t think so.

  21. I’ve known a several of these cases, the vast majority of kids taken away from shitty parents are needed. Most of those kids were in situations where those kids’ parents were trying to get to the next pill, next budweiser, or video game rather than caring for their kids. The government has it’s place in such conditions where no one else is going to look out for the kids.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.