Reason Roundup

Trump, Congress Have No Idea Who Should Fix Immigrant Family Separation: Reason Roundup

PLUS: Initiative 77 passes, D.C.'s restaurant scene despairs.


Sipa USA/Newscom

President Donald Trump met with congressional Republicans last night to discuss options for addressing the routine separation of immigrant families who enter the country illegally. But nobody is quite sure what Trump wants, which is a problem. Republicans don't want to do anything without his stamp of approval, and Democratic leadership appears to be in no hurry to fix a problem that could significantly damage Republican chances in the midterms.

"There's no need for legislation," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) said yesterday, explaining why he opposed a bill from Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Tex.) that would add additional immigration judges so that asylum cases could be heard more quickly. "Mr. President, you started it, you can stop it, plain and simple."

Some Republicans, though, agree that the best short term fix is a presidential decree, rather than new legislation. "The White House could change it in five minutes and they should," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.) "It's a mistake. It's a change in policy by this administration."

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor who has often defended Trump in the context of the Russia investigation, told Fox & Friends that the president absolutely had the authority to end the separation policy, and should do so immediately.

More than 2,000 immigrant children are currently being held in detention facilities, away from their parents who are awaiting asylum hearings or deportation. That's because the Trump administration has taken a zero-tolerance approach to enforcing immigration law, and has pledged to prosecute every single person who enters the country illegally.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen dealt with some blowback while she was having dinner at a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C., last night. Activists with the D.C. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America confronted her while she was eating. "You can't enjoy your dinner until you reunite all of those families!" they shouted at her.

And former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski came under fire for his jarringly callous response to news that a 10-year-old with Downs syndrome had been separated from parents.


The College Fix has a writeup of Heterodox Academy's inaugural "Open Minds Conference," which featured panel sessions about free speech and open inquiry on college campuses:

A long, wide-ranging discussion about free speech and campus politics featured academics like Alice Dreger and John McWhorter, the latter of whom observed that, around 2014, open discussions became harder in his classes.

"It got to the point that a certain minority of students could swerve or even staunch discussion with what's called the social justice warrior ideology," he said. That ideology, McWhorter said, has become "a religion."

Dreger, who resigned her position at Northwestern University rather than withdraw a controversial article from a bioethics journal, has for years advocated ideological pluralism in higher education.

"What we need is a new kind of branding in universities, where the brand is about diversity of opinion and diversity of viewpoints," Dreger said.

Heterodox Academy was started by New York University professor Jonathan Haidt, a contributor to Reason.


D.C. voters approved Initiative 77, which would raise the minimum wage for restaurant workers. Many in the industry—including many workers—stridently opposed the move, because tipped employees can actually earn well above the minimum wage, absent government interference. According to The Washington Post:

Restaurant associations and owners who bankrolled the opposition campaign said that the tipped-wage system helps them stay open in an industry where profit margins are slim and that the passage of Initiative 77 could lead to higher prices, layoffs and shuttered businesses. Perhaps surprisingly, hundreds of workers agreed that a higher base wage could threaten their livelihoods and mobilized against the measure.

"I can't lie, I am disappointed. I trust that the council will listen to the tipped employees of D.C. and take action to protect our voices, which have been loud and clear," said Dawn Williams, a 32-year-old server at Daikaya who said she makes more than $30 an hour. "The intentions seem good on paper, but it will hurt us and our burgeoning, diverse restaurant industry."

All is not lost for opponents of the measure, however: the city council could vote to void it. Ten of 13 city council members came out against Initiative 77, as did Mayor Muriel Bowser.


  • #sobrave: The co-creator of Fox's TV series Modern Family will be leaving the network in protest of Fox News' evilness—as soon as he's done making bank.
  • Embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted out of the building yesterday.
  • Trump couldn't resist taking one more swipe at Mark Sanford.
  • George Mason University's Tyler Cowen explains why it's also wrong—and often unnecessary—to separate American families while parents await trial.
  • Behold:

NEXT: Brickbat: The Rule of Law

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump couldn’t resist taking one more swipe at Mark Sanford.

    Never leave em wanting more.

    1. Hello.

      Watching Dems and the left faux-love those kids to death is priceless.

    2. Did he swipe left, or right?

  2. The co-creator of Fox’s TV series Modern Family will be leaving the network in protest of Fox News’ evilness?as soon as he’s done making bank.

    That’s on Fox?

    1. FAKE NEWS

      (It is apparently produced by Fox for ABC.)

  3. George Mason University’s Tyler Cowen explains why it’s also wrong?and often unnecessary?to separate American families while parents await trial.

    Someone makes his living off an industrial complex other than the prison one, I see.

      1. They’re not going to like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

        Killing societal norms for your benefit rarely ends with those norms returning.

        1. The shoe will never be on the other foot and they know that. Their opposition are middle class families, whereas they are privileged single white kids (based off of voting data).

          What person with a family is going to spend their time harassing government officials in order to earn woke street cred?

          1. Sufficiently pissed off people will. The left considers its opponents violent crazies, at least that’s what they say.

            1. I’ve told my state’s head of the Democrat party to go fuck himself when he tried to shake my hand at a restaurant.

              1. Yeah, none of this is adult-like behavior. Call me old fashioned, but refusing a man’s handshake over politics is petty. Not as petty as harassing people at a restaurant over politics, but socialists are just overgrown children to begin with.

                1. That’s right. You shake his hand, then tell him to go fuck himself.

                  Or, to be slightly serious, just politely tell him you aren’t buying what he’s selling. More people being dicks to each other doesn’t help, I don’t think.

                  1. Tried that for a while. Did not help. Give them what they have given to others.

              2. You lost an opportunity to give him a stink palm. Or a spit palm. Or a Hitler-five.

                1. My favorite is to quickly shove their hand down my trousers.

                  Usually they are so shocked I can get off the necessary 3 shakes necessary to achieve orgasm. Then I accuse them of sexual assault. People believe the victim, as everyone obviously wants my hot bod.

                  Really puts those slavers in their place.

              3. It’s unfortunate decorum precluded punching him in the face.

        2. Killing societal norms for your benefit rarely ends with those norms returning.

          So what percentage of this comment section is performance art?

          1. 100 percent.

  4. Many in the industry?including many workers?stridently opposed the move, because tipped employees can actually earn well above the minimum wage, absent government interference.

    If you didn’t want to have your decisions made for you then you shouldn’t have been a juicy target for unionization.

    1. Worst of all, tipped employees are actually paid based on their competence, and not for being a warm body that sometimes shows up. We can’t have that.

  5. Flashback 2014: Senators McCain and Flake criticize AG Eric Holder for ending prosecution of 1st-time border crossers

    Letter w/ @JeffFlake: AG Holder stops prosecutions of 1st-time border crossers under Operation Streamline: #Arizona

    ? John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) September 9, 2014

    1. It’s all about principals isn’t it?

      1. Listen if you’re looking for principles, Nazi, then you are on the wrong website

        1. Principals / principles ? there’s a difference you know.

  6. Embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted out of the building yesterday.

    The man is an American patriot. He shouldn’t be treated like this.


    1. Strzok, very much unlike Trump, wants to testify under oath.

      1. Well…with immunity. Otherwise, it’s the Fifth.

        …and, unlike Trump, he doesn’t really have an option.

        1. That’s not what I heard. He wants to testify without immunity or the 5th.

          Why would he need immunity?

          1. Because the IG recommended possible discipline for him and McCabe

            1. A good paddling behind Quantico?

    2. Is he being separated from his family?

      1. Or from his LOVER?

    3. Traitors are heros in Progworld!

      1. For not liking Dear Leader? What treason?

        1. How is he a traitor?

          1. The FBI/CIA used FISA courts and the 5 Eyes to spy on and try to entrap a rival political candidate, which wouldn’t be treason, just highly illegal.

            It elevated to treason when they tried to cover their asses through a soft coup of the duly elected POTUS.

            Constitutionally, it is a tough call on whether it is treason by law. Either way, they are traitors by definition.

            1. Pure bullshit.

              1. Someone didn’t read the IG report. It’s not treason, but it showed a lot of politicization of justice. Not to mention that it showed the the FBI and DOJ were deliberately withholding information from Congress.

                But, I understand how a libertarian would feel compelled to instantly defend the FBI. Because “libertarian” is literally a word without meaning

                1. Don’t let Donald Trump catch you impugning the honor of law enforcement officials in this way, he doesn’t like such unpatriotic displays of ingratitude for the noble sacrifices made by these brave heroes.

    …”Since 2014, to name one example among many, at least half a million Central Americans who came here illegally have been released inside of our borders,” he continued. “Did anyone vote for that? Who’s going to pay for that? Not the people you’ve been watching on television today. Their kids go to private school if they have them. Their neighborhoods look like they did in 1960. No demographic change at all, just like they like it. There is no cost to them. The cost is entirely on you, but don’t complain or else they will call you Hitler.”

    1. Collectivist bigotry is ok when enabled by majority rule, or even just by whim of our betters?

      1. Do you really believe that immigration policy is just bigotry imposed by the majority? The US has the most liberal immigration system in the world. So does that mean that the rest of the world is run by the Klan or something?

        1. Yeah, that’s the odd part. Our immigration policy is more lenient than fucking Germany’s.

          1. Odd? Our slave policy may have been better than Brazil’s. We may have treated Japanese immigrants better than Germany treated Jews.

            Is that all that counts, finding someone worse to point the finger at?

            Immigration control is collectivist. It requires collective decision-making, collectivist land ownership, collectivist national IDs, collectivist enforcement. Everything about it is collectivist.

            Here’s an example of how you immigration freaks can’t help but think collectively: you (some of you) cite disease as a reason to control immigration. The simple solution is to reject diseased immigrants. It doesn’t require IDs, documentation, jails. Just check each immigrant for disease. Quarantine contagious ones if necessary on a case by case basis. But no, you want to reject everyone because a few might be contagious, but only those with the wrong or no government ID, regardless of health. Got the right ID? Come on in, regardless of health!

            Bunch of fucking ignorant collectivists who can’t even begin to imagine what liberty is.

            1. And they act like citizens don’t pay for it, both in taxes and loss of liberty. Are they now in favor of the border control checkpoints 100 miles from the border, too, where citizens regularly have to interact with people questioning them for no reason at all other than where they live?

              1. Given that people like you oppose ALL controls on the border, we are done compromising.

            2. Your comparing the US to an ideal that does not exist. Why not complain that our unicorn policy is insufficient?

              1. No, he’s not comparing the US to anything. He is being morally absolute.

                And it’s true that a lot of police state sort of stuff will be necessary and liberty will be compromised to really secure the borders. And it requires a pretty collectivist view of the country as a whole. And that’s something that libertarians who are for restrictive border controls need to think about a lot. If there are going to be significant limitations on immigration over the southern border, there will have to be a compromise between tolerating illegal immigration and tolerating invasive policing and immigration enforcement. No wall is really going to work. And you aren’t going to catch all or most illegals without much more enforcement activity away from the border, which I at least find pretty unacceptable.

        2. What does “most” have to do with it? Majority rule, collectivist ownership, collectivist decisions, collectivist think all round.Hitler was less bad than Stalin, who was less bad than Mao. Pol Pot was less bad than all of them. What’s that’s got to do with it?

          Are you perfect? Do you react to all criticism with “I’m not the worst”?

          Frederick Douglas had pretty good slave owner, for a slave owner. Should he have accepted the status quo?

          1. Call me crazy, but suggesting that immigration policy is entirely motivated by bigotry sounds more like the deep thoughts of a progressive than anyone using their brain.

            1. Well, we went about a century with federal intervention until our immigration policy was hijacked by xenophobes and protectionists.

                1. Yup. That’s exactly what happened.

                  1. It is exactly what happened. The Page Act and Chinese Exclusion Act were among the first pieces of federal immigration legislation and were ethnically targeted.

                    1. And that progressive legislation was undone in the 1960’s. If some people advocated for vouchers in order to escape racial integration would that forever make the voucher system “collective bigotry”?

                    2. J1999 said “Well, we went about a century with[out] federal intervention until our immigration policy was hijacked by xenophobes and protectionists.”

                      You implied that wasn’t true.

                      I showed it was true.

                      Then you moved the goalposts.

                      I especially like the part where you think someone is going to care that it was “progressive legislation.”

                    3. “Call me crazy, but suggesting that immigration policy is entirely motivated by bigotry sounds more like the deep thoughts of a progressive than anyone using their brain.”

                      Notice how I said “entirely”. But, you are right that J1999 did specify we went a century without federal intervention, but I clearly showed that he was wrong to suggest that “our immigration policy was hijacked by xenophobes and protectionists”.

                      Our immigration system today was hijacked by xenophobes? The 1960 immigration laws were motivated by bigotry?

                      Maybe if more hyperbolic nonsense were included this would make more sense?

                    4. No, the federal government only got involved in immigration without constitutional authority because of it. 1960’s laws had more to do with labor union protectionism.

                    5. The protectionist part was never undone. Now we’re just adding a dash of collectivist bigotry to make it more authentically progressive.

                    6. The protectionist part of your statement is the only part that makes sense here. Yes, the US has quotas on immigration per country, but interestingly enough the open borders crowd never talks about that.

                      Why is that? Why does the open borders crowd only care about those who don’t abide by the system?

                  2. Yup, they were the deep thoughts of progressives.

            2. suggesting that immigration policy is entirely motivated by bigotry sounds more like the deep thoughts of a progressive than anyone using their brain

              It is not entirely bigotry. Some of it is standard ignorance. Some of it is irrational fear. Some of it is selfishness. Some of it is tribalism.

              How much bigotry should be part of the mix, especially from a libertarian perspective?

              1. You heard it here. Deciding who comes into your country is selfishness.

          2. “Frederick Douglas had pretty good slave owner, for a slave owner. Should he have accepted the status quo?”

            So, this is a rather asinine analogy to use. A better example of your line of thinking is: “The US has laws protecting property interests. This was once used to defend the ownership of slaves. All property laws are motivated by bigotry!”

            See, how stupid you sound?

            1. Immigration control is collectivist property control. Why do you find that so hard to admit?

              You are the clowns bragging how US collectivist control is not as bad as some other places. Why are you so reluctant to admit what you are bragging about?

              1. I reject your premise and I think the open borders crowd is really good at reviving fascism in the world and that’s about it. The state exists and eliminating borders is not going to get of it, but it will most definitely result in a reaction that will not be enjoyable.

                Have you not paid attention to the effects of your policies in Europe?

                1. EU policies are government importing refugees. Once again, government is at fault. Your solution is more government.

                  1. Yup. Go with that: “the problem is that the EU government is forcing in refugees”. That’s exactly what’s going on

                  2. How do you think the illegals get taken care of here?

                    It isn’t due to them having money.

                    WE have to pay for them.

                    So fuck you for making me pay money so you can feel better.

              2. Immigration control is collectivist property control. Why do you find that so hard to admit?

                You are applying ‘collectivist’ incorrectly.

                The owners of a property have a right to control how that property is used. The number of those owners does not alter their valid ownership.

                It is not ‘collectivist’ to do as one wishes with one’s own property.

                If there is a difference of opinion over what to do with a property, the owners discuss it and decide how to proceed. They can do this in any fashion they choose. A secret ballot being the most equitable.

                Occasionally, there are, even when playing by the rules all agreed to, owners who decide, after losing out, that the whole system is bad because they didn’t get their way.

                This is no different than a tantrum from a spoiled child and should be treated as such.

            2. Yeah, he sounds really stupid filtered through your moronic brain, that’s for sure.

              1. I am the child of immigrants. You are a well to do white liberal. I assure you that no legal or illegal immigrant would characterize the American immigration system as “collective bigotry”. You might know that if you ever talked to an immigrant beyond barking orders at your landscaper

                1. You seem to know a lot about me. News flash: I am also a first-generation American. I do not have a landscaper. And you seem to fill in a lot of “gaps” with made-up stuff, since Scarecrow Repair hasn’t been talking about “collective bigotry” but about “collectivism.”

                  1. “Scarecrow Repair & Chippering|6.20.18 @ 9:47AM|#

                    Collectivist bigotry is ok when enabled by majority rule, or even just by whim of our betters?”


                    1. Okay, I was wrong about that one quote. Want to admit you were wrong about…anything?

                    2. Of what was I wrong about?

                    3. That I’ve never talked to an immigrant beyond barking orders at my landscaper, for one thing.

                    4. That’s literally the only thing. I’ll take your word on the matter

                    5. Immigration control is recognition of US vs THEM.

                      American passport? Ebola? Come on in!

                      No American passport? Healthy as a horse? GTFO!

                      How is that not bigotry?

                      Then there’s the collective effort required to enforce immigration control. Government ID, government police, government control of land, checkpoints, employment checks …

                      How is that not collectivism?

                    6. “American passport? Ebola? Come on in!

                      No American passport? Healthy as a horse? GTFO!

                      How is that not bigotry?”

                      So that’s the goal, right, to eliminate any distinction between citizens and immigrants? You may be surprised to find that legal immigrants are never afforded entry if they are sick, even with nothing more than the flu.

                      “How is that not collectivism?”

                      I took issue with your “collective bigotry” statement, which was pure stupid. Immigration policy may be collectivist, but it most assuredly is not bigoted, unless treating citizens and immigrants differently is bigotry, in which case bigotry means nothing.

  8. America is just the most racist and horrible kind-treating nation in the World!

    All immigrants should avoid us Americans and our country.

    1. *kid-treating

  9. “There’s no need for legislation,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D?N.Y.) said yesterday, explaining why he opposed a bill from Sen. Ted Cruz (R?Tex.) that would add additional immigration judges so that asylum cases could be heard more quickly.

    I said yesterday it would be interesting to see who opposed it. The problem of course here is that Schumer is never interesting.

    1. Both parties agree on the issue: They won’t legislate, they want the king to rule by fiat. Except if the king is Trump (or a Republican), of course.

  10. Embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted out of the building yesterday.

    So SOMEBODY’S watching the watchmen?

    1. I suppose that “somebody” can mean “the watchman’s embarrassed boss.”

      1. You ruined it.

        1. Now you sound like my mom.

          1. Must. Fight. Image. MUST. FIGHT. IMAGE!



            1. Always remember, you’re the one who took a throwaway reference to an unrewarding childhood and turned it into incest. You did that.

              1. Now he has to live with that. The images- they will haunt his dreams

              2. OH JESUS YOU WERE ONLY A KID

                GODDAMN CITIZEN X




  11. Democrats’ Border Separation Bill Would Let Nearly All Parents Who Commit Federal Crimes Get Off Scot-Free
    Every Senate Democrat has signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between foreign children at the border and U.S. citizen children.

    1. Luckily, Democrats don’t have a majority in Congress.

      1. They will in the next Congress.


        1. You two should keep talking.

  12. If it’s Al Bundy, it’s on Fox – or at least was back in the 80s.

  13. OT but great news! Up to 200 sets of remains belonging to American servicemen are expected to be transferred from North Korea to the U.N. command in South Korea in the next few days, two U.S. defense officials confirmed to Fox News.

    I can only guess how most of the media will cover this great success for Trump.

    1. Seriously, this has to be a joke.

      1. I’m going to murder your family and never show you the remains. For the rest of your life, you’re gonna wonder: did they die? Did they run off? Where did they go? What the fuck happened to them?

        You’re never gonna know, and that question will trouble you for the rest of your life.

        1. I’m not going to wonder any of those things if they were in a fucking war. And certainly not if I never met them because that war happened 70 years ago.

          1. Sounds like you have a real close knit family

            1. How many of your great-grandparents have you dug up lately to make sure they were really dead?

              1. Glad you asked. I had a great-grandfather who first immigrated to this country before everyone else in order to secure a job and housing for his family to eventually immigrate over. After a few years he never wrote anymore. His last known whereabouts was Youngstown, OH.

                My family has extensively searched for his grave. It is normal to want to mourn your dead and know where their remains are. Especially if they died prematurely due to an unnecessary war.

                1. Well, honestly that seems pretty pointless, but it also doesn’t sound like you are wondering whether he died. Spending political capital on bringing back some bones seems like a huge waste. Dead people are gone.

                  1. That’s incredibly offensive. Too bad all your woke compassion doesn’t extend to families who had their child killed overseas in a pointless war.

                    But, then again, you are part of the brand of “libertarianism” that Bill Kristol approves of, so it makes sense

                    1. Upthread, I was a liberal. Now I’m what, a warmonger?

                      It’s offensive to me to waste political capital on superstitious nonsense.

                    2. Just Sayin…just tell her that the corpses are from illegals….

              2. It’s hard to raise a family.
                They have to be buried close together according to all the necromancers I know.

    1. Oh dear, how will any part survive without having the head of McCain’s super-awesome campaign of 2008?

  14. “It got to the point that a certain minority of students could swerve or even staunch discussion with what’s called the social justice warrior ideology,” he said. That ideology, McWhorter said, has become “a religion.”

    Like I’m going to listen to someone who doesn’t know the difference between staunch and stanch.

    1. It’s really weird seeing it used as a verb, even when I know what is meant.

    2. Irregardless, not everybody tows the lion of proper usage.

    3. If you’ve got it, flout it.

  15. I learned in college that because the US is a white supremacist country, black people can’t be racist and white people can’t be victims of racism. Despite what your outdated dictionary might tell you, racism requires privilege + power, which POC obviously don’t have at an institutional level. It’s disappointing Racism Dog was unaware of this.

  16. “You can’t enjoy your dinner until you reunite all of those families!” they shouted at her.

    Sounds like a challenge.

  17. So about that trade war Trump has supposedly started………177&gen=1

    U.S. Exports Climb to New Record

    1. The hate runs deeply
      Anger at what you can’t change
      Let emotions flow

      1. It seems to Sparky. You should work on that. Lighten up a bit.

        1. John can no longer cope
          He projects to hide his rage
          Only he is calm?

          1. I’m digging the haikus.

    2. Apparently you don’t know much about how trade actually works.

      1. You apparently don’t understand how trade wars work. Let me give you a hint, they do not produce record exports.

        1. Trade is flexible. Trade wars, depends on the war. Goods not traded one place may be traded elsewhere.

          You seem to think of trade wars as some blanket smothering. You also don’t allow for lag times.

          Very ignorant, you are. Very unimaginative, no curiosity about how things actually work. You just like sounding off for no particular reason. It makes your comments boring and plentiful, like kale. You are too predictable to even be any fun to bait.

          1. You are completely ignorant. A trade war is just that, a war. the reason why trade wars are bad is that they shut down international trade going both ways as each side retaliates against the other with more tariffs. If the US is having peak exports, there is by definition not a trade war going on. It is really that simple.

            Don’t call people ignorant when you so clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are just pretending every fact must support whatever superstition or talking point you have adopted.

            1. Only John is smart
              To disagree is futile
              His rage is inspired

            2. “”A trade war is just that, a war. “”

              The term war is over used.

              1. True. Vic. It is a metaphorical war in that both sides try to damage the other through tarriffs.

            3. There is nothing libertarian about the trade stance many have taken here. It is a conservative stance; they want the status quo. Not because they are principled, but because they are brainwashed by the cronies who benefit from the status quo.

              We have all the leverage to make trade more free and fair, which is the goal Trump is ultimately working at, but Reason wants nothing to do with it because of where they get their money. They offer no alternative other than we’ll just be libertarians and eventually the whole world will follow.

              1. The alternative to The Dotard’s idiotic trade war was the TPP.

                BUT OBAMA! BLOOP! DERP!! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                was the reply from Trump-tards.

              2. And I’ve never understood the notion that free trade is impossible so we should settle for managed trade, but open borders are totally possible and we should reject a more liberalized system that maintains borders.

                1. All trade deals are managed trade because you have to deal with exceptions and country of origin.

                  The old “WE DON’T NEED BUT ONE PAGE FER A FREE TRADE DEAL” is idiotic.

                  1. Because woketarians do not buy into free trade.

            4. You’ve upped the ante! I called you ignorant, you call me completely ignorant. I wonder what else I am ignorant of. Oh wait, you told me, everything.

              I’ve told you a million times to not exaggerate.

              If you ca’t understand how trade and trade wars are not “completely” fused together, then yes, you are ignorant about both.

              1. “I’ve told you a million times to not exaggerate.”

                This from the guy whose only justification for his immigration policy is to cry “bigot”

                1. Thanks to political correctness, not enough people use the term bigot to describe bigots.

                  The bigots try to hide behind terms such as “traditional values” and “colorblind.” Others are timid because they do not want to seem politically incorrect, or harsh.

                  Me? I call a bigot a bigot. Accuracy is a virtue, and sugarcoating the dysfunction, immorality, ignorance, and vestigial bigotry that afflicts much of can’t-keep-up America has not worked.

            5. People around here are apparently unwilling to admit that tariffs and international trade are often used as political bargaining chips, and are seemingly unaware that we already have something to the tune of 12,000 tariffs to use as barter for international policy change.

              No surprise, though, given that one of the major weak points of libertarians is foreign policy. The ethos seems to fail to account for the existence of non-libertarians.

              This doesn’t mean I’m in favor of tariffs, it’s just a simple acknowledgement that ‘free trade’ isn’t the only consideration when talking about tariffs. That few around here seem willing to even notice this fact is telling.

    3. In response to the Federal Reserve’s announcement that it would raise its interest rate target, Chairman Paulsen stated:

      “With our economy growing strong thanks to measures like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and regulatory reform, I’m glad to see the Federal Reserve taking careful steps to maintain our economic momentum.”

      The conspiracy theorist in me thinks, ‘What better way to distract from good economic news than to focus on undocumented kids in cages.’

      But that’s just me being silly.

      1. The GOP distracted Americans from good economic news for seven years until 2017.

        It was EBOLA!! MIGRANTS!! BENGHAZI!!! BLOOP! DERP!! KENYAN!!! forever.

        1. Tribal politics does get silly, doesn’t it?

          And we’re still screeching at each other about migrants.

          1. And Russians

            Hey, what happened to those totally not insane, but definitely insane Russia fever dreams?

            1. They’ll be back. When it’s convenient.

          2. Yes. Although both parties do it conservatives are worse because they freely lie 24/7. Democrats are pussies who can’t fight at all.

            Democrats “climate change is real and models show steady increases in temperature”.


            1. Tell me more about Russians manipulating election results, please.

      2. Raising the price of money always helps the economy, and I’m glad to see the Fed isn’t like a bunch of NeverTrumpers who would do something to deliberately retard economic growth just to spite Trump.

  18. Reasonable Politicians Need to Take Immigration More Seriously
    ? Jonah Goldberg
    …Waves of immigrants invite reactions. Many people like to call these backlashes racist, and in some cases they are. But they are also entirely natural, human responses to sudden cultural changes. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government may fall because of one such reaction. (The 86 percent of Germans who want to see a more forceful approach to repatriation can’t all be bigots.) Votes in favor of Brexit didn’t strongly correlate with unemployment very much, but they did with attitudes on immigration.

    President Trump’s election was in part a reaction to high levels of immigration, legal and illegal. If people don’t want unreasonable politicians to exploit immigration-fueled anxiety, then reasonable politicians on both sides need to take immigration far more seriously than they have so far. If they don’t, things will get much worse than the spectacle on the border today.

    1. Goldberg is such a moron. What does he think we should do? Let everyone who wants to come in? That would seem to invite the backlash that he is talking about. If we don’t do that, then what do we do with the people who show up with children? Give them a pass? That is the same as letting someone in. And most of these “children” are unaccompanied.

      Goldberg is forever claiming to want people to be reasonable. Yet, he never seems to have any idea what being reasonable is or that perhaps there is only the best of a bad set of options.

      1. Did you…read the posted excerpt?

      2. John is a genius
        His hatred for the dumb sways
        No one to his side

  19. What I don’t get:

    Republicans say Obamacare is bad. Reason and the MSM fall over themselves demanding the GOP propose a better policy.

    Democrats say the immigration law is bad. Nobody seems to expect them to propose a better policy.

    Reason…why is that? Why don’t you demand Democrats provide a better option?

    1. Curious thing, information is. If you don’t actually access it, you are unaware of it.

      IOW, if you actually read Reason, you’d know they have done exactly what you complain about.

      (This applies to much of what you whine about, not just this particular whine.)

      1. Really?

      2. Sorry…”no borders” isn’t a policy.

        1. So you probably think making no decision at the trolley line switch is not a decision in itself?

          Not deciding which restaurant to go to is not a decision?

          You have a funny concept of “no” and of “collectivism”.

          1. Well, Reason felt “no Obamacare” wasnt a decision or policy. Just requesting similar treatment for issues.

    2. The Democrats have immigration bills, genius.

      1. As did the GOP when they had “no proposals”.

        Feel free to list them.

        The Democrats have no proposals. They have nothing.

        1. Uhhhhhh…

          So are you bitching that the MSM is full of shit, or agreeing with them and deciding to be full of shit yourself?

          1. Im bitching that Reason is literally no better.

        2. In fact, at the moment the Democratic proposal seems to be ‘we refuse to do anything for nakedly political reasons’ which tells you exactly how serious their furor over ‘the children’ really is.

  20. “Trump, Congress Have No Idea Who Should Fix Immigrant Family Separation”

    If only there were a document that specified who passes laws.

    1. Also this is an adorable way of framing what is actually going on. Instead of honestly stating “Democrats Are Playing Politics to Ensure the Immigration Issue Remains a Point of Contention”.

      You’re a great woketarian, Robby.

      1. Eddie, why do you keep changing handles? More importantly, will you stick with this slightly edgier one?

        1. I’m too much of an asshole to be Eddie. He’s actually likable.

          Also, is Eddie the good reverend?

          1. WTF- Sparky- I don’t get a damn haiku of derision? Jerk

            1. His haikus are made
              To mock those whose sound and fury
              Signify nothing

              1. Thank you

              2. Dude, you went too long on the second line.

                1. Yeah, well guess what, Sparky?

                  You had half an hour to make your move. The fact that you didn’t suggests that you view Just Say’n as second-rate. Why you gotta do him like that?

                  1. you view Just Say’n as second-rate.

                    Hah! I don’t give him that much credit.

                    1. I think the world of you, too, Sparky

          2. I haven’t seen Kirkland for a while. Maybe he walked into traffic and got hit by a bus while he was distracted typing out a post about how “clingers” need to accept the overall good of public transit.

            1. It is posting nonsense over in the immigration article.

  21. Some Republicans, though, agree that the best short term fix is a presidential decree, rather than new legislation.

    Congress wanting to offload its responsibility onto another branch? Now I’ve seen everything.

    1. Trump has a classy pen and a big-league phone too, as it turns out.

    2. I’m glad that both sides have agreed that the president should rule by fiat and that Congress is a mere advisory council.

      Make America Ruled by Kings Again!

    3. My hopes for Congress reclaiming some of their powers from executive bureaucrats are dashed again.

      1. Don’t say that quite yet, since it appears Trump is more than willing to punt this shit right back at them.

        That said, most idiots think the President should rule by fiat so…ultimately I don’t think Trump will have much success in pointing out that the very people bitching the loudest are also the specific people who are empowered to fix the thing they’re bitching about.

        1. And people like “libertarians”are on board with the whole “rule by fiat” system.

          Ruling by fiat was one of the most fundamental flaws in the Weimar system.

          1. It was also the fundamental flaw of the entire Obama administration, and apparently Democrats and the far left didn’t notice until Trump.

            1. And Trump seems more interested than most Presidents in having Congress actually do their job. I’m still hoping he decides to stop enforcing all unclear laws and regulations.

              1. I suppose I should mention the corollary, which is Republicans instantly forgot it as soon as Trump was in office.


  22. A new report that put the cost of illegal immigration at $113 billion a year shows that the burden falls disproportionately on urban blacks who have to pay taxes to fund free services to undocumented aliens and then compete with them for those same programs.

    In seeking a “better deal” for black Americans, the report from Project 21, part of the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research, is calling on Congress and the White House to bar illegals from receiving public aid except emergency services and prosecute groups that use federal funds on those in the country illegally.


    The people who advocate for open borders are always the ones who think they will benefit from it and never anyone who will suffer any kind of negative consequence from it. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with advocating for policies that are in your self-interest. What is wrong is to do so pretending you hold some kind of moral high ground and the people on the other side are somehow racists or morally inferior to you rather than just like you advocating for policies that are in their best interests.

    1. So what you’re saying is that having principles is actually wrong. Sounds great.

      1. Imagine starring in your own comic strip and being America’s lovable cat lady to becoming Julie Borowski’s troll on Twitter to now trolling John.

        I hope things turn around for you Cathy. The world needs your vapid takes

        1. That really makes me feel bad.

          1. Worse than when John Stossel rolled his eyes at your moronic identity politics? I don’t see how that’s possible

      2. If your principles always match up with your self interest, they are not principles. They are rationalizations. Whenever your position benefits you, your appealing to your “principles” rings very hollow. Show me where your principles ever caused you to take a position that was not in your self interest or shut up about your principles.

        Beyond that, everyone has principles. Pointing to yours as proof of your argument is just begging the question.

        1. It’s probably not in my self-interest to be in favor of allowing poor immigrants into the country since I’m a net taxpayer. So, yeah.

          1. So you admit that immigrants are a drain on the system rather than a net plus? If you do, you are about the only open borders advocate who does.

            1. Yeah, along with 47% of Americans.

            2. John, did you see that Sparky has changed his name to align with his personality?

              1. Moron

        2. If your principles always match up with your self interest, they are not principles.

          This is actually something that most people seem to be incapable of understanding, and I’m really glad you made this point.

          It’s one reason why it’s usually beneficial to fully understand several different ethos and philosophies and to examine things using each of them independently. It will help clarify things, but it’s effort so most people simply shrug and say ‘but muh feelz’.

          And, just to be super clear, we are all human so we will all succumb to ‘the feelz’ at one point or another. Not one of us is perfect.

    2. A belief in Open Borders can easily be a moral position and not a utilitarian ones. Advocates of almost all policies tend to fall back on utilitarian arguments, but that doesn’t mean they are they are necessary utilitarian principles. I’m certainly OK with Open Borders regardless of the net economic effects. The freedom impact is more important to me than the net economic impact.

    3. But they do.

      Their communities are still lily-white and gated.

      Their kids’ schools are still private.

      Those illegals are always sent nowhere near them.

      Place a detainment facility in Beverly Hills, the really rich areas of SF and Portland and you will have an uproar.

      1. Well, yeah, because they don’t want the immigrants to be detained.

        1. Its easy when you deal with zero negative repurcussions for your issue. Im all for totally open borders if we put all of them in the nicest parts of Manhattan, Seattle, LA, and Chicago.

    4. Funny thing I remember conservatives saying things like “welfare is responsible for poverty” people so wouldn’t immigrants keeping welfare away from blacks be a positive for blacks according con logic.

      1. 113 billion a year shows that the burden falls disproportionately on urban blacks who have to pay taxes to fund free services to undocumented aliens and then compete with them for those same programs.

        They end up paying for services they then don’t get. Are you retarded or just unable to read?

        1. You’re too fucking stupid to reach.

          1. No, you have no argument here but are too stupid and emotional to change your position.

            1. Does Sparky think he’s fooling anybody with his poetry?

              Thornton Melon had more of a genuine interest in poetry.

              1. Idiot

                1. Thornton Melon wasn’t an idiot. He was a good businessman, had the skills necessary to build a suit shop into an entire chain. He figured out he could make money by catering to gentlemen with a particular body type. Sure, maybe his son didn’t need to go to college, but let’s be realistic here: it probably didn’t hurt, especially since his son didn’t really know what he wanted to do for the rest of his life at the time. Spending a few years getting a degree while you figure that out isn’t the worst waste of time.

                  1. Very good observation, General.

                    Thornton’s son did have the skills necessary to snag Valery Desmond.

                    1. Dumb

            2. If you believe as many conservatives do that welfare causes poverty by creating dependency then recieving less welfare because others are using it is a good thing. Blacks should be thanking immigrants for taking away the dependency according to con logic 101.

              1. If you believe as many conservatives do that welfare causes poverty by creating dependency then recieving less welfare because others are using it is a good thing.

                Logic fail, since it isn’t a net reduction in welfare recipients it’s a change in demographics for welfare recipients.

          2. Welfare is designed to transfer wealth from people who don’t use welfare. If welfare was funded by the recipients of welfare then it wouldn’t be welfare now would it.

    5. Hate is in control
      Emotions now run John’s life
      A tough choice ahead

      1. I’m detecting a pattern, $park?.

        Are you turning Japanese? 😉

        1. I’m hoping that the calming effect of poetry can quell the overwhelming rage that John is holding onto. I don’t know if it will work, but I’m determined to at least give it a try.

          1. You are a kind person.

  23. “Trump administration pulls US out of U.N. human rights council”
    “…Haley, Trump’s envoy to the United Nations, said the U.S. had given the human rights body “opportunity after opportunity” to make changes. She lambasted the council for “its chronic bias against Israel” and lamented the fact that its membership includes accused human rights abusers such as China, Cuba, Venezuela and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
    “We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights,” Haley said.”

    Better headline:
    “Trump pulls US out of agency with “human rights” in its name.”

    1. They should tear it down and put in a roller coaster.

      1. I think we should let NYC tax ’em; that’ll drive ’em out of town at least.

    2. Talk about giving dictators legitimacy, that HRC made a mockery of human rights.

      It’s too bad that it had to be over the issue of Israel and the HRC president criticizing American policy separating children from the parents of suspected illegal immigrants, but I’m glad to see us leave that mask behind anyway.

      If there were ever an international organization that made a mockery of human rights by giving the worst state abusers of human rights a platform from which to decry human rights abuses like they care, the UN Human Rights Council was it.

      I remember when the other nations in the HRC elected Ghaddafi’s representative to the UN as their leader. We should have pulled out then.

      1. Totally agree. The UN HRC has been bullshit for years, but we played along and leaving over Israel was far from the best reason. But overall it’s still a good outcome.

    3. Yeah, putting some of the biggest human rights violators on the council made it clear how big of a joke it really was. Personally, I loathe the U.N. so I’m not crying any tears over Trump giving them the finger.

      Next, maybe he can give the finger to the WHO?

      1. Next, maybe he can give the finger to the WHO?

        They won’t be fooled again!

        1. Even as I wrote it, I was hoping someone would make the joke. Thanks for not disappointing Leo ^_-

  24. “Suspending US-South Korea military exercises risks called risky gamble”
    “SEOUL ? U.S. and South Korean defense officials formally suspended a major joint military exercise in hopes of advancing nuclear negotiations with North Korea. It’s a bold gamble that could trigger a serious security crisis if the talks falter and the allies are forced to resume the drills, infuriating North Korea, analysts say.”

    1) What “analysts”? You won’t find any by name; I’m guessing they exist between the ears of the writers.
    2) “Gamble”? Well, we might have to restart them and that’s bad, ’cause Trump and stuff!!!!!!!!!!!
    Page 2 in the Chron.

    1. The US and South Korea have been wargaming the next Korean war for nearly 70 years. Korea is a very mountainous peninsula. There are only two ways up and down it. The opportunity for maneuver is very limited. The war plans for a North Korean invasion are about as well honed as any plans in history. There is zero risk to stopping these exercises for a few years. At some point, we will need to resume them if the North doesn’t come through with its side of the bargain. But if we do, we will not have lost anything.

      1. I completely agree with this.

      2. And the people now whining that Trump ‘gave away’ something with pretty much zero value are the same ones whining a year ago that Trump was putting us on the verge of nuclear war.

      1. Don’t care.
        I’m not going to ‘correct’ links for Reason’s cheapo site management.

  25. Worst AM links ever.

  26. “Mr. President, you started it, you can stop it, plain and simple.”

    “Very well. I’m declaring another National Emergency.”

    1. All Hail King Trump. You heard them Donny, do whatever you please! Congress does nothing but steal from taxpayers, they have no interest in anything else.

      1. Congress doesn’t even steal enough from taxpayers to cover their own bills. It’s more like “Congress got an Amex Black and quickly proved they shouldn’t be trusted with credit.”

        1. “””Congress got an Amex Black and quickly proved they shouldn’t be trusted with credit.””‘

          Anyone who just pays the interest and nothing on the principle should not be trusted with credit.

  27. Alex Griswold
    that terrible racism dog account had to delete this tweet, because that’s not the kind of racism their followers are interested in

    Collectivism is only bad if you can’t bludgeon who you perceive to be your opponents with it. It is known.

  28. “Catherine Rampell: We’ll be cleaning up Trump’s mess for generations”
    “Consider, first and foremost, all the ways he’s trashing the planet.
    In pandering to his base last year, the president announced plans to pull out of the Paris climate accord, which would have required the United States to sharply reduce its carbon footprint by 2025.”

    And then you can consider all the rest of the feel-good crap with which we are no longer associated, like that ‘human rights’ debacle.
    Ms. Rampell has a problem here; when Ds do it, it’s a ‘lasting legacy’ like that S/S ponzi scheme, when Rs do it, it’s a mess we need to clean up, like, (I HOPE) one more SCOTUS appointment.
    You can help Ms. Rampell recover from TDS for pennies a day, or you can turn the page (please turn the page, and hope her case is terminal).

      1. Don’t care.
        I’m not going to ‘correct’ links for Reason’s cheapo site management.

    1. How many of the parties still involved are going to hit their targets?

      Its odd that we pulled out of Kyoto yet still outperformed all of them in the emissions goals.

      1. “Germany blames a roaring economy and migrants for missing its 2020 climate goals”

        Kill the economy, that’ll make it easy to revert to the neolithic.

        1. Don’t forget that you need to kill off a lot of the native population too to make room for all those migrants. It’s a two-fer, although I suppose of if you kill off swaths of the economy the second goal will sort of just happen on it’s own.

  29. Actually, Trump does know what to do. Build the wall.
    Congress, however – – – – – – – –

    1. A 1900 mile border is impossible to effectively police. This is actually known.

      Deregulation and ending the drug war would be more effective by far. Curiously, no one seems to notice Trumps deregulation efforts or how those might aid in helping legal or illegal immigrants who are already here.

      Our current moral majority in the Democrat party, that overlaps with the Republican party, are absolutely uninterested in ending the drug war which would be a massive help to ending the current migrant ‘crisis’ that looks much the same as the last one. And the one before that, and the one before that…

  30. Good morning my darling Drumpfkims. What’s c?cken?

    1. 6n8, -7txYn2, 80.8vvTUH{-}HUTvv8.08

    2. Geez, are you back with that crap? Take some meds.

  31. “Mr. President, you started it, you can stop it, plain and simple.”

    Chuck Schumer is a fucking liar. And he really loves his rule by Executive Fiat – surprising for a Senator.

    1. He loves the Imperatorship, if not the current holder of it.

    2. “Use your pen and phone when it’s something we like and you’re a fascist dictator if you do it for something we don’t like.”

  32. Since Simple Mikey has already been assigned, I’ve determined that Libertymike shall henceforth be known as Racist Mikey. I have devised a simple scale of Buffoon to Retard that can be used to rate his posts. Betting on the possibility that he will exceed Retard from time to time, pluses can be added to denote just how far the excess.

    1. Have you considered leaving your basement for a while? You know, get some fresh air and sunshine, that sort of thing?

      1. Not until all those villagers with pitchforks leave.

      2. Your mom is down here keeping me company, if you know what I mean.

        Besides, I have tanning lamps and fresh air is being piped in.

    2. I might not always agree with Libertymike, but he’s far more reasoned than 90% of the morons that post here.

      1. Being more reasonable than other morons doesn’t sound like a huge accomplishment to me.

        1. Clearly, it is around here. Sort of ironic, given the name of the publication.

  33. plans to pull out of the Paris climate accord, which would have required the United States to sharply reduce its carbon footprint

    It “required” the US to do absolutely nothing as it was not a ratified treaty.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.