Reason Roundup

Federal Judge Halts ICE Family Separations, Says Policy 'Cannot Satisfy the Requirements of Due Process': Reason Roundup

Plus: Oklahoma legalizes medical marijuana and Russian pop star linked to Trumps releases bizarre music video.

|

LOREN ELLIOTT/REUTERS/Newscom

Preliminary injunction on ICE family separation policy. A federal court says the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant children from parents caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border must stop, and that families who have already been separated must be reunited within one month.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have 10 days to put detained immigrant parents in phone contract with their children, ruled Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Tuesday.

  • Within 14 days, all children under the age of 5 must be reunified with parents (unless the parent is determined to be unfit or declines reunification).
  • Within 30 days, and all minors ages five and above must be reunited with their parents.

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in their favor, thus warranting issuance of a preliminary injunction," wrote Sabraw. More from his ruling:

This Order does not implicate the Government's discretionary authority to enforce immigration or other criminal laws, including its decisions to release or detain class members. Rather, the Order addresses only the circumstances under which the Government may separate class members from their children, as well as the reunification of class members who are returned to immigration custody upon completion of any criminal proceedings….

The practice of separating these families was implemented without any effective system or procedure for (1) tracking the children after they were separated from their parents, (2) enabling communication between the parents and their children after separation, and (3) reuniting the parents and children after the parents are returned to immigration custody following completion of their criminal sentence. This is a startling reality.

The government readily keeps track of personal property of detainees in criminal and immigration proceedings. Money, important documents, and automobiles, to name a few, are routinely catalogued, stored, tracked and produced upon a detainees' release, at all levels—state and federal, citizen and alien. Yet, the government has no system in place to keep track of, provide effective communication with, and promptly produce alien children. The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property. Certainly, that cannot satisfy the requirements of due process.

The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in February on behalf of a Congolese woman whom ICE separated from her 7-year-old child and the "hundreds of other parents whom the government has forcibly separated." The suit asserted that ICE was engaging in the "forcible separation of parents from their young children for no legitimate reason," in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"Whether or not the Trump administration wants to call this a 'policy,' it certainly is engaged in a widespread practice of tearing children away from their parents," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, told CNN about the case last March.

In his Tuesday order, Judge Sabraw described the situation as a case of "reactive governance—responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the Government's own making" that "belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution."

FREE MINDS

Oklahoma passes very permissive medical pot bill.

In yesterday's primary elections, Oklahoma voters approved an initiative legalizing medical marijuana. This makes Oklahoma the 30th U.S. state to decriminalize marijuana use by people who get a doctor's permission. And though Oklahoma tends to be a conservative state, its medical marijuana measure is one of the most expansive in the country. "The measure," notes The Washington Post,

… is notable for reflecting one of the most permissive medical cannabis policies in the country. While most states specify a narrow list of medical conditions for which doctors can recommend the plant, in Oklahoma doctors will be able to recommend it for any condition.

FREE MARKETS

RUSSIA WATCH

Bolton in Moscow and Trump look-alikes in Russian pop video. National security adviser John Bolton will powwow with Vladimir Putin in Moscow today. "The president will receive Bolton at the Kremlin," spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. The two men are prepping for a meeting between Putin and President Trump that is supposed to take place in mid-July. "The Trump-Putin summit would be the first meeting of the two presidents not taking place on the sidelines of a broader international gathering," notes The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, Emin Agalavor—the Russian trust-fund kid and pseudo-pop star who helped arrange Donald Trump's Jr.'s infamous Trump Town meeting with Russians during the 2016 election—just released a new music video in which Agalarov appears alongside lookalikes of Trump, Stormy Daniels, Hillary Clinton, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

"The video's political message is not entirely clear," asserts NBC News. "Julia Ioffe, a correspondent for GQ who has written extensively about Russia under President Vladimir Putin, raised one possibility, tweeting that American viewers were being 'trolled and made fun of by Emin Agalarov.'"

QUICK HITS

  • "Supporters of the referendum to ban brothels argue that this will prevent sex trafficking and help [exploited] women," writes Allison Schrader at Qz. But "I interviewed dozens of women who work in [legal Nevada] brothels. All claimed that they felt safe at work. … Meanwhile, all the women I spoke with who'd done sex work illegally had encountered clients who would not pay or were violent.…Banning brothels only eliminates another safe refuge to do the work."

NEXT: Brickbat: Think of the Children

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. NRATV
    This is how the violent left treats Sec. Elaine Chao. An immigrant. The first Asian America woman and the first Chinese America to serve as a Cabinet member in American history. Don’t be fooled. If you’re looking for a true big tent movement, look no further than the NRA.

    1. Hello.

      “Libertarians in New Mexico failed to get enough votes in yesterday’s primary to qualify for spots on the general election ballot.”

      What am I going to do with all these ‘I’m with Libertarian moment’ t-shirts?

      1. Box them up with the “Vegas Golden Knights: Stanley Cup Champions” shirts and send them to Cuba.

        1. Or Venezuela?

          1. Where’s your bully today, Rufus?

            1. Shhh! I already spent my lunch money!

    1. “Just don’t be crazy, please”. The consultant pleaded with the Democratic Party activists. “All historical indicators say that you are going to win back the House, at the very least, if you can just not shout down speakers and not elect bat shit crazy socialists.” His voice had grown hoarse from lecturing the rabble of twenty-something year-old liberal arts majors. “‘Crazy’ is a Western patriarchal construct” a woman in the back of the crowd protested. Her thick framed glasses framed her wide-eyed stare. “What you call ‘crazy’ we call a ‘people’s struggle’ against the oligarchy.” “Christ!” the consultant exclaimed. “You went to Brown, asshole. And you grew-up on the upper east side of Manhattan!” Another activist took offense to the implication made: “Are you denying her lived experience?”

      1. To which the appropriate reply is along the lines of “no, I’m denying the validity of the elaborated fantasies she’s erected over that base. ‘Patriarchal construct’ is a conclusion, not a ‘lived experience’.”
        Lived experience is a valid concept.
        Its use by the Left is basically never valid.

        1. I’ll throw your rebuttal into the next story

    1. Ninja attack?

  2. Apparently the ACLU would rather see the kids join their parents in prison. Well done.

  3. You know who else wanted to update laws to reflect the times?

    1. Moses?

    2. The Sulzberger family?

    3. Draco?

    4. The opposite of a conservative

    5. Socialists?

    6. Hammurabi?

    7. Gracchus brothers?

    8. Pope Francis?

    9. Muhammad?

    10. Me, losing at Monopoly?

    11. The second caveman to get a club?

    1. Seems kinda racist to say that non-whites are incapable of civil behavior.

    2. “But what about civility we keep preaching?”

      “Oh shove it up your ass!’

      “So no….going high when they go…..low?”

      “Stop being an idiot. Go LOWER!’

      1. *cunt punt*

    3. “My personal opinion: No matter how much we dislike or disagree with someone, we should not deny them the chance to have a meal,” [wrote Arne Duncan.]

      “That’s it! Duncan’s on the list, too!”

      1. “If you want to protest and resist, do it in the proper place….Starbucks!’

      2. Providing meals is an oppressive, patriarchal construct

        1. But access to bathrooms is a HUMAN RIGHT!

  4. Within 14 days, all children under the age of 5 must be reunified with parents (unless the parent is determined to be unfit or declines reunification).

    Emphasis added. In which case the parent is immediately deported, right? RIGHT?!

    1. Real Talk: even the best, most loving parents have days when they’d at least consider declining reunification.

      1. #NotMyChild

        1. #HashtagsShouldBeCalledPoundSignsAgain

          1. #IStillCallThemTicTacToeBoards

            1. #WhatAreYouTwelve?

              1. #WhatAreYouTheTwitterNomenclaturePolice #GoGargleBalls

                1. #WellPlayed

                  1. #ICallThemNumeralSigns
                    #WhenTheFuckWereTheyPoundSigns
                    #WhatIsAPoundSignAnyway
                    #IsItASignTellingYouToPoundSand
                    #BecauseInThatCase
                    #

                    1. #AreYouKiddingMe?

                      #OnLandlinesTheyWereAlwaysCalledPoundSigns

                    2. #MeToo #HardestHit

                    3. #GoPoundSand
                      #IsAGoodResponse
                      #ToMorons

                      #HaikusAre
                      #KindOfDifficult
                      #TwoBeatsLost

                    4. #HaikuJustTakeTime
                      #YourHatredMakesItHarder
                      #YouAreSoSaucy

                    5. Dude, you’re waaaay over. You have to read the hashtag/pound sign.

                    6. No. Go back to Twitter, gayboy.

    2. My guess is that was inserted in recognition of the fact that many of those kids came with “guardians” who are not in fact their parents.

      1. Good guess. And if the parents don’t get deported, that does nothing but make the problem bigger as everyone realizes that the way to get into the country is to bring a minor child with you.

      2. So how then does the parent decline? Hell of a ruling, Dana.

    3. Do kids separated at the border from drug smugglers count and do they get their faces put on a milk carton?

  5. “reactive governance?responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the Government’s own making” that “belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution.”

    A good description of most government action.

  6. Within 14 days, all children under the age of 5 must be reunified with parents (unless the parent is determined to be unfit or declines reunification).
    Within 30 days, and all minors ages five and above must be reunited with their parents.

    There must be some furious Republicans out there. After all, these illegals are illegal, and because they’re illegal they deserve to have their illegal children taken from them. Due process is for citizens, not illegals, so these illegal families should be broken up because they’re illegal.

    1. Look, so far as Republicans are concerned, they don’t want these families split up. They want them deported intact.

      But if you can’t deport a family instantly, you have to detain them, and the family separation was due to a court ruling during the Obama administration barring detaining children along with their families.

      Open borders fanatics are just trying to create a legal catch-22, where you can’t detain children with their parents, and can’t detail parents without their children, and you can’t just skip to immediate deportation, so that by default the only remaining option is to let them go.

      1. Actually, “open borders fanatics” (meaning, here: anyone who doesn’t appreciate the admin’s current tactics) are pointing out, quite correctly, the ever-increasing ratchet of enforcement that necessarily must occur in order to enforce any prohibition.

        Passing one law isn’t enough. Then more laws, then more goons with guns to enforce those laws, more liberties restricted, until the lawbreakers find a way around THOSE laws, etc., etc… Repeat ad infinitum.

        What will you do when family separation doesn’t prove an effective deterrent? Start shooting them at the border?

        1. Seriously, what is the end game here for the border-restrictionist crowd? It’s not possible to have a 100% secure border. Keep increasing the heat on the illegal human border crossers until… what condition is met? And what level of tactics are you willing to endorse in order to obtain that condition?

          1. Seriously, what is the end game here for the border-restrictionist crowd?

            Machine guns. Let the piles of rotting corpses serve as a deterrent.

            1. Let the piles of rotting corpses serve as a deterrent.

              Piles are only good for mass graves and news reels. As a deterrent along a border, you’d want to spread them out.

            2. And yet that is NOT happening.

              Its funny to twist an American Rule of Law and securing of the Border argument into Americans killing a bunch of immigrants.

              Keep it up. Trump is becoming more popular by the day.

            3. Land mines shift the blame to the “user”.

              1. As long as the mine field is properly labelled.

                Skull and crossbones are universally understood as something bad is ahead.

          2. Keep increasing the heat on the illegal human border crossers until… what condition is met?

            The welfare state is dismantled. The drug war is ended. Healthcare is repealed. Income taxes suspended.

            I’d love to believe it’s not an either/or option, a false dichotomy, except even the more sensible members/side of your argument is effectively, “We’ve leveraged ourselves into debt so deep that we need to import people into the tax base to keep moving forward.” rather than anything that even remotely resembles “Fuck You, Cut Spending.”

            1. ^ This.

              People fail to realize that immigration issues are an end result of other things, so ‘fixing’ immigration requires ‘fixing’ a host of things that are widely popular that people don’t want fixed.

              For example, you’d have to burn credentialing and the minimum wage to the ground as one example of a prerequisite. You might think that’s a good idea, lord knows I do, but if you can’t get your way there then you also won’t get the immigration system you want. What is the movement on the minimum wage? Oh, right, increasing it which is the opposite of helping immigration arguments.

              Put your energy and rhetoric to better use, because loudly proclaiming that you want open immigration assumes that anyone in the populace agrees on the baseline requirements to get there. Spoiler Alert: most people don’t want those things, and they can’t have their cake and eat it too.

          3. Make is abundantly clear that Americans run the show in America.

            See the tactics about the catch-22 as Brett Bellmore said? “where you can’t detain children with their parents, and can’t detail parents without their children, and you can’t just skip to immediate deportation, so that by default the only remaining option is to let them go.”

            This is evidence that the open border people and non-Americans dont get it. You will never win and the more you fight Americans wanting relatively secure borders the more you push people to side with Trump.

            Furthermore, the longer this goes on the less likely Americans will want border policy relaxed anytime soon.

            You people have really underestimated American resolve to secure the border and enforce immigration policy.

            1. You will never win and the more you fight Americans wanting relatively secure borders the more you push people to side with Trump.

              Not to put too fine a point on it but the other side needs to realize that the ‘Fuck [white nationalist] Americans’ attitude is going to bite them in the ass as well. Legal immigrants and the children of immigrants favor more secure borders, especially when a democrat is leading them or at least promising them free shit. They specifically did/do the opposite of what both/either side doesn’t want them to do and at least one side claims they wouldn’t do. Come in, vote democrat, expand the welfare state (either by direct consumption or legal advocacy), and demand secure borders.

              This is not the libertopia you are searching for.

              1. They specifically did/do the opposite of what both/either side doesn’t want

                Well that was complete shit. They specifically did/do the opposite of what both/either (libertarian) side wants.

              2. Legal immigrants went through the process and probably realize how different American Rule of Law compared to their home country. After being accepted as as American citizen, it is evidently very ego boosting. You need to fight for the country that embraced you and protect its freedoms and the Constitution that tries to protect those freedoms.

        2. You get more of whatever you reward. If the rule is anyone who shows up with a small child gets released into the country with no real way to make them show up to a court hearing or be deported, then everyone in Central America who wants to come to the US will show up with a child.

          To the extent there is a crisis of children coming to the border, it is one that has been entirely created by first Obama and now the courts insisting that anyone who shows up with a child can’t be detained. Either be honest and admit that you want the US to accept virtually the entire population of Mexico and Central America as refugees or admit your culpability in helping to create this problem.

          If you are disturbed by children being detained at the border, the solution to that is to get people to stop showing up at the border with minor children. And you don’t do that by telling them doing so means a free pass into the country. Grow the fuck up and start making choices based on the facts as they are and not as you want them to be.

          1. Either be honest and admit that you want the US to accept virtually the entire population of Mexico and Central America as refugees or admit your culpability in helping to create this problem.

            That’s one of the best false-dichotomies I’ve seen in a while. Very nice.

            1. Why is it a false dichotomy? The choices are as follows; let everyone in or not let everyone in and detain those who show up before you deport them. What other choice is there? If you want to enforce the border and not let everyone in, then you can’t have a system that tells people they can come in just so long as they have a child. So, if you want to enforce the border, you are going to have to detain children. If you are unwilling to do that, then people are going to show up with children.

              Foreseeable consequences are not unintended. If you don’t like the foreseeable consequences of the policies you support, support different policies. But don’t feed me a line of horseshit about how you are not responsible for those consequences because you didn’t mean for them to happen. You absolutely did because they were the foreseeable result of the policies you support.

              1. Why is it a false dichotomy?

                All or nothing is almost always a false dichotomy. Especially when you say that people who disagree with you is to blame.

                1. Don’t just make the charge. Explain why it is. I just explained why those are the options available. Sayin that is a false dichotomy means there is some third choice I haven’t mentioned. Okay, what is it? What is the solution other than detain kids or let them all in? If you can’t give one, then it isn’t a false dichotomy.

                  1. You said that anyone who disagrees with you wants to invite the entire population of Latin America into the States, or must admit to creating the current problem.

                    It’s more like a false-dichotomy seesaw with a straw man on each end.

                    1. You said that anyone who disagrees with you wants to invite the entire population of Latin America into the States, or must admit to creating the current problem.

                      If you refuse to detain children, that is effectively what you want. Again, foreseeable consequences are not unintended consequences. If you are not willing to detain children, then there is no way to prevent everyone down there who wants to come from coming here.

                    2. If you refuse to detain children, that is effectively what you want.

                      The issue was separating families. Run, Forest, run! Take those goalposts and run!

                    3. You’re an anarchist. You want open borders and no government.

                      You’re arguing for a government policy that YOU dont even want because it gets you one step closer to destroying Rule of Law.

                    4. You’re an anarchist. You want open borders and no government.

                      Um, yeah. That’s what I said.

                      ..it gets you one step closer to destroying Rule of Law.

                      More like taking us one step closer to affirming Rule of Law. When legislation written by man and imposed upon society conflicts with what society considers to be right and wrong, you have Rule of Man, not Rule of Law.

                      You claim to support Rule of Law, but you don’t give a shit about society. You just want to impose your will upon anyone who you don’t like. That’s Rule of Man.

                    5. I oppose children being taken from their families in part because it’s happened to me and it is horrible.

                      You seem to enjoy inflicting that horror on families. Why? Because they’re illegal. They’re not even human. Right? No horror is horrible enough because they don’t have their papers. Because they haven’t conformed to your precious Rule of Man.

                    6. As a Constitutionalist and Libertarian I want Rule of Man minimized as much as possible.

                      A small limited government does that or tries to. That is the society that I want.

                      Kids get taken from their parents all the time and in America that is limited more than many countries on this planet. If you are trying to scam the USA and enter without us letting you, then fuck you. We will treat you humanely but you WILL be deported. We are not going to fall for some pedo mixed within families to hurt some kid in our custody so the lefty media can use that to derail deportations.

                      Non-Americans have zero right to over-ride the rights of Americans to self-govern the USA.

                      Sucks that you were separated from your parents. I doubt it was because of you and your family trying to enter the USA illegally since you would virtue signaled for years about that by now.

                      Kids get separated from their parents when the parents get arrested.

                      DONT VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL US LAWS. If you don’t and the government is doing something to separate kids, then I am the People’s side.

                  2. What is the solution other than detain kids or let them all in?

                    And here I thought we were talking about how pissed you are that families aren’t going to be separated, not whether or not kids will be detained.

                    1. Unite all of them on the Mexican side of the US border.

                      Problem solved.

      2. I’m talking about the Republican posters on this site who were appalled at those of us who thought that separating families was appalling.

        1. I think most of the criticism was about the rather unhinged hyperbole that compared the practice to Nazi Germany and ICE to the Gestapo. And that criticism was more than fair

          1. I dunno about that. What I saw was a rousing defense of the practice on the grounds that crossing the border without papers is equivalent to violent crimes that result in children being taken from their parents, so they families deserved it. That and Obama did it first, which means if you don’t like it you are an Obama supporter with no grounds to criticize.

            1. Maybe. I don’t know. But, I think it’s fair to say that everyone had a different reason behind the arguments that they made. It might be wrong to label all those arguing against the policy of promoting hyperbole and open borders and it might also might be wrong to label all those arguing in defense of the policy of simply agreeing with the policy.

              1. I just know what I saw. John confirmed it above by saying you want open borders or you created the problem (presumably by voting for Obama).

                1. I mean, there is a discrepancy in the media coverage and immigrant activist reaction between now and under the Obama administration. And I understand the argument that the Trump administration technically changed policy by instituting “zero tolerance” at the border, but under the Obama administration there were three times as many children detained as there are now. Suggesting that the hyperbolic emotional response from the media and activists is all due to a change in policy to “zero tolerance” is splitting hairs and being disingenuous. We all know that this is being fueled by the concept of children being locked away.

                  1. Suggesting that the hyperbolic emotional response from the media and activists is all due to a change in policy to “zero tolerance” is splitting hairs and being disingenuous.

                    I don’t think that’s the reason. I think it’s because the administration made it news. If Obama had bragged about it then there may have been a reaction. Maybe not. After all, he was a good person with good intentions while Trump is a bad person with bad intentions. And intentions are all the left (and left-run media) care about. Principals, not principles.

                    We all know that this is being fueled by the concept of children being locked away.

                    More like children being taken from their families.

                    I had my daughter taken from me by DHHS and I fought to get her back. Now the ex is trying to take her away. It is one of the worst things I have ever experienced. Twice now.

                    To arbitrarily take children from their parents as some sort of deterrent is just sick as far as I’m concerned. And anyone who defends it is equally sick.

                    1. “We all know that this is being fueled by the concept of children being locked away.

                      More like children being taken from their families.”

                      Your “more like” was the same thing only less outrageous.

                      Maybe you are just stupid.

                2. “I just know what I saw. John confirmed it above ”

                  I didn’t see him confirm anything like what you’re claiming and I’m starting to think you were lying.

              2. Bailey called people who question open borders “bigots” yesterday. It’s not just the commentariat.

            2. “What I saw was a rousing defense of the practice on the grounds that crossing the border without papers is equivalent to violent crimes that result in children being taken from their parents, ”

              Who said that? Quote that shit and shame them ( while also proving that you aren’t completely full of shit)

              1. Shouldn’t you be talking trash about someone on Twitter, Mr. President?

                1. I can multitask

                  1. See, sarc talks about “crossing the border without papers is equivalent to violent crimes that result in children being taken from their parents” and the people who made that comparison.

                    I am saying no one did.

                    People pointed out that the US takes kids as a matter of course, and the outrage was manufactured and fake. They use the example of all the kids taken every day that have nothing to do with immigration, and the UTTER SILENCE on the issue.

                    What I’m trying to figure out is where the ” equivalent to violent crimes” stuff comes from. The kids get taken for all kinds of reasons, and I never once saw ANYONE compare immigration to violent crimes. Either sarc is so fucking stupid that he doesn’t realize they get taken FOR NON VIOLENT CRIMES TOO, or he’s being dishonest.

                    I personally think he’s being dishonest.

                    The sad part is, he thinks the people making those comparisons think the policy is correct, when many of them think it is abhorrent, but aren’t willing to abide the newcomers pretending they care about something they’ve been silent about until it could be hung around my neck.

                    1. So it’s been an hour, sarc has obviously seen this since he posted and replied to other posts in this thread, so it’s safe to conclude he knows he was lying.

                2. Ssh, the President is posting on Reason. LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!

                  1. Sad!

    2. Due process is only for people who obey the law! If you break the law, you don’t deserve due process, you’re just scum!

      1. They are getting Due Process. The US Government is determining that their claims to be inside the USA are denied and they are being deported en masse (just like under Obama).

        Constitution satisfied.

      2. Illegal immigration is explicitly an attempt to avoid due process

        1. Ohhhh!! Truth burn!!!

      3. IF YOU ARE CAUGHT IN THE PROCESS OF BREAKING THE LAW then the only ‘due process’ you get is sentencing.

        Because there’s no question that you’re guilty.

        What is wrong with that?

    3. Why do the same people who demand that the US not be the world police simultaneously demand that the US be world daddy?

  7. “The video’s political message is not entirely clear,” asserts NBC News.

    It is truly a dark time when we can no longer look to pop stars for thoughtful political analysis.

    1. There’s very little that celebrities don’t know, but at least we have ENB to keep us informed about the things that really matter.

    2. The Russians hacked NBC News and brainwashed them into taking Dan Rather seriously again. I WANT TO BELIEVE!

  8. “A federal court says the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from parents caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border must stop

    The separations stopped a week ago.

    “Whether or not the Trump administration wants to call this a ‘policy,’ it certainly is engaged in a widespread practice of tearing children away from their parents,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, told CNN about the case last March.”

    Last March?

    Wasn’t necessarily a policy–and that was last March?

    No mention of the Supreme Court upholding the travel band . . . um . . . yesterday?

    1. Ken, I’m gonna jump in here this once & explain something to you in the hopes of stopping very similar complaints week in and week out: the content of the Roundup is determined by many things, including what stories I or others at Reason feel are most important, what stories are getting the most general attention, what stories might be of interest to libertarians that are getting overlooked, what stories appeal to my own idiosyncratic tastes, and *what stories we have already covered elsewhere on the site* or have in the immediate works. This Roundup doesn’t mention the travel ban because it’s been covered in multiple other recent/featured posts ’round these parts, and in others planned to come. Chill

      1. She does read the comments. Now, I feel bad for you, ENB. Just avert your eyes

      2. Stop pretending you’re a libertarian. You’re a mostly conventional, standard-issue left liberal following the agenda and the template of the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, Bloomberg, and all the rest of liberal media outlets you get all your information from.

        1. Stop pretending you’re a libertarian.

        2. Like I said, avert your eyes! This is a land of wolves (and roosters for some reason)! Promise me that you will never, under any circumstances, ever read SIV or Weigel’s remarks. They. Will. Haunt. You

          1. It’s way too late for that. She’s even responded to Simple Mikey’s mewlings before – with a sort of puzzled amusement, which is probably the best way to approach Mikey, if approach him you must.

            1. It amazes me that Gillespie, of all people, is the one with the foresight to avoid the comment section.

              1. I don’t think Britches has ever stuck his toe in this particular cesspool either, but that’s because his disdain for the commentariat knows no bounds.

                1. I wish Stossel would join in the comment section. No one every says anything critical about the ‘stache

                  1. Even Kurt Loder jumps in the comments on occasion. Kurt Loder! Teenage me from the ’90s gets a thrill every time.

                    1. It’s pretty sweet to watch 90’s MTV VJs writing and talking about libertarianism. I’m not going to lie that I lusted after Kennedy as a wee lad. Also, Kurt Loder. Who can say no to that dad bod?

                  2. That’s because Stossel is a real, honest-to-goodness libertarian, and everyone knows that.

          2. All you have to do is just look at her links. With the exception of a couple that are from offbeat source like NORML and something called “coindesk”, they’re always all from the standard liberal media cesspool and Twitter.

            I will admit that her obsession with hookers, sex slaves, and legal prostitution is a libertarian position that is somewhat outside the conventional lefty media norm. It’s kind of her thing.

            1. Simple Mikey Hears Dog Whistle, Is Dog

            2. …so you’re saying that you have a problem with the fact she sources the roundup from mainstream sources rather than sites like TIMECUBE. From what I know about you, that makes perfect sense.

            3. Because as everyone knows, the correct sources for a true libertarian to cite are Breitbart and Infowars.

      3. Chill

        Yeah, good luck with that.

      4. “Chill”

        Jesus Christ you are fucking lame

      5. …the content of the Roundup is determined by many things, including what stories I or others at Reason feel are most important, what stories are getting the most general attention, what stories might be of interest to libertarians that are getting overlooked, what stories appeal to my own idiosyncratic tastes, and *what stories we have already covered elsewhere on the site* or have in the immediate works.

        So Reason staff as a group does determine what the narrative will be.

        ENB, Trump won the Travel ban case. That is news. Its not the news that many at Reason want. Instead the immigration narrative of Reason went for two weeks about how bad, blah blah, Trump is. Reason staff’s position was rejected by the SCOTUS.

      6. I took his comment about ‘no mention of the travel ban’ to be referring to that article in particular, or possibly the judge’s order itself, and not to the Roundup. Of his four questions, the first is directly responding to the first quoted section of that particular article, and then there are three questions after the second quoted section; the first two are directly in response to the quoted section and presumably the last question is too.

      7. what stories might be of interest to libertarians that are getting overlooked

        Let me know when you guys start doing that again. Also, let me know when you guys start taking libertarian perspectives on things again. It seems to me that the reliable libertarian perspectives come from Stossel and Tucile. Maybe give them more posts.

        1. That’s what I’ve been finding. Was a little annoyed to see Tucille join in on the overwhelming open borders crusade of Reason writers last week.
          To be fair, Stossel is a bit of a right wing/conservative brand of libertarian. Not totally sure what side Tucille falls on, but it does seem vaguely left if not in the middle of that divide. ENB, Newly Woke Welch (who used to seem vaguely right-leaning), Shikha (why is she even here?), Soave, and a number of other prominent writers here are very left wing. Gillespie was getting really bad, but by comparison is starting to look moderate. Bailey frustrates me with his AGW and SJW beliefs/rhetoric but even more so in poorly evaluating information and getting enthused over ideas that would have horrible outcomes for libertarians (if he thought deeper)
          I get that I’m fairly right wing and conservative but have a strong libertarian streak. I started coming here because I wanted a more consistent libertarian take on the news. I’m getting to the point where I’ll just go to right wing news sources and put up with their religion and ‘Murrika cheerleading because they otherwise are presenting more of a classical liberal view than Reason

    2. The separations stopped a week ago.

      At the border. CPS separations of domestic families on private property (some of them immigrants as well) still continue at the rate of 1 three-week immigration policy fiasco every three days.

      1. And the silence is deafening.

  9. Simple solution.

    No amnesty at border. Full stop.

    If you’re at the border, you’re turned away. No hearing at all. Just sent back home.

    1. You monster! At least give ’em an ice-cold Coca-Cola first!

      1. Mexican Coke is better anyway. They use real sugar, you know.

        1. ^ So much this.

    2. We’d need to secure the border first, and as several other commenters here have pointed out in recent months, that’s unpossible because of the Constitution and the technology necessary to keep walls from being climbed over is at least several thousand years away.

      1. A trickle of dedicated illegals circumventing a wall, Border Patrol, and risk of deportation is far better than ignoring the issue and let non-Americans do whatever they want.

        I remember you mentioned that secure border Americans would come around to relaxing border restrictions if they were not pushed so much. I agree with that statement.

        The more the open border and non-Americans push, the more resolved secure border Americans will become.

        Open border people will never win and the fight will be more restrictive laws, based on constitutional authority, and a more secure border than originally planned.

    3. You know, the government has signed treaties that deal with claims of asylum.

      Should the government just ignore those treaties?

      1. An argument based upon an appeal to international agreements falls flat for me

        1. An argument based on the Constitution, you mean?

      2. Yes.

        1. OK, now, should Trump just ignore those treaties?

        2. Well, so much for THE SACRED RULE OF LAW.

          1. Maybe, instead of just ignoring them, it would be more appropriate have some sort of public ceremony at which copies of the treaties are torn up or burned.

      3. You meant the treaty that America only has to accept Mexican and Canadian asylum seekers? Mexico has to handle all asylum seekers coming north from Central America?

        Asylum is not a magic pass into the USA.

      4. Again, not talking about asylum, or actual refugees.

        Talking about illegal migration–hence the term ‘amnestiy’. Refugees are not ‘amnestied’.

    4. Most illegal border crossers are not apprehended at the border. They’re caught later further inside the country, which makes some process necessary to determine they are in country illegally before they can be deported.

      Obviously, increased border security that would allow more of them to be caught red-handed could expedite deportations.

  10. Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate and political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    Oh lord I heard that airhead squawking on my morning news. Conveniently, that interesting nugget of information was left out of the story. If the GOP bothers to run anyone against her, they might want to consider reminding voters that she is a socialist?

    1. I don’t understand how her winning a single primary somehow means “socialism is on the rise”. Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate for decades. The far left has always been socialist. The fact that they can win a Democratic primary just shows how far out of the mainstream the Democrats have become not that socialism is any more popular than it ever was.

      1. I bet my monocle she won entirely because of her hue and her last name, not her views. Expect to hear stories about how she “looks like Queens”.

        1. I am quite sure of that. Expect to also hear stories about how she is a national sensation. Nothing is going to sell in places like Ohio and Michigan than a New York Socialist.

          1. “national socialist sensation”

            1. Ten bucks says some journalist uses that phrase without a hint of irony.

            2. You know who else… you know what, never mind.

              1. Chicken.

        2. What’s a ‘Queens’?

          1. A place that doesn’t have as many old white farts like Crowley hanging around as it used to.

          2. Fat guy with semi-hot wife on a TV series mostly populated by has-been and wannabes.

            Or a gaggle of prancing gay men not on stage.

            1. The sexism of TV sitcoms is really remarkable. On that show, a fat guy with a dead end job somehow has a fairly hot wife who stayed thin despite having kids. Jim Belushi used to have a show where he played some schlub whose wife was Courtney Thorne Smith. The Big Bang Theory is about a bunch of nerds who somehow manage to bang a series of very hot women, though the biggest nerd of all ends up with Miam Bilialick in a rare nod to realism.

              1. Further back was ‘Still Standing’. Fat Mark Addy (Robert Baratheon on GOT) married to the delectable Jami Gertz.

          3. ‘Boy the way Glenn Miller played…’

            1. “….songs that made the Hit Parade….”

        3. Expect to hear stories about how she “looks like Queens”.

          All I can hear is “Not a threat to the West or the American way of life.”

    2. Isn’t Romney the Republican opponent? I thought I heard somewhere that her winning is basically just symbolic because Romney is going to crush her. I may have my stories mixed up though.

      1. No, this socialist was elected to a safe Democratic congressional seat. She unseated Crowley, who’s a high ranking Democratic member of Congress

        1. Shit, she’s from NY. I definitely got my stories crossed somehow. I blame Savannah Guthrie.

      2. Romney is a RINO. A mormon RINO.

          1. Nice!

    3. I won’t say Crowley lost the D primary because I moved out of his district, but…he did sometimes have Conserative Party cross-endorsement.

  11. Anyone else notice how the price of wood has gone through the roof? Fucking protectionist assholes.

    1. I noticed that. Prices are rising everywhere it seems
      Fucking sucks.

      1. Prices have been rising since Booosh and wen through the roof under Obama.

        Its called inflation.

        1. http://markets.businessinsider…..mber-price

          Data goes to 2004. Downward trend into the recession, bottoming ~$200. Up and down, between $200-300 under Obama. Latest price $563.

          http://futures.tradingcharts.c…..nuous.html

          Before Bush, heading into the dot-com bust lumber was dropping from $300 to $200.

          So, basically everything you said was fiction.

          1. Those are markets and futures, dumb dumb. That is not the same as market price for lumber.

            Lumber price also varies from region to region and other market factors like taxation, regulation, and availability of supply can up prices.

            1. Is there any evidence that price of lumber has gone up? Because inflation has been near zero.

    2. Yup. Payed well over 30 bucks for a sheet of half inch RTD plywood the other weekend. The guy behind the counter said something about trade with Canada and my buddy (hard-core Republican) immediately jumped into “well if we finally figure out that we can make this stuff over here and get some tariffs in place then maybe prices will come down”. The guy looked over at me, and I just smiled and shook my head. Economic ignorance isn’t just for Democrats.

      1. You discussed trade policy at a hardware stores? You and me visit very different hardware stores

        1. Nope, specifically why I just shook my head and didn’t say anything. Politics seems to be a pretty common topic of conversation in rural Kansas, though. I figured it was pretty normal everywhere.

      2. I guess the hardware guys didn’t mention that prices of wood have been going up for years because Canada needs more money to pay for welfare programs.

        Funny thing when socialist governments like Canada raise prices artificially above market price and not a peep from economic illiterates.

        1. No, he didn’t mention anything like that, because it was just a quick exchange about how quickly and recently the price of lumber has shot up and we were bitching about prices. Then my buddy threw in a Republican platitude, and we left to go build a cabinet.

          1. Then my buddy threw in a Republican platitude, and we left to go build a cabinet.

            In a more rational world, this would be the complete extent that politics would impact daily life.

            1. Hey it’s what Jesus the carpenter used to do. They talk about it in the fifth book of the gospel; the one the two party duopoly doesn’t want you to read.

              1. The First Council of Nicaea left out the Gospel of Hank because it was just 20 chapters of Jesus drinking beer and shooting the shit with his neighbor. Which is too bad, because it’s supposed to have some really good car maintenance tips in it.

                1. Damn Partii di Republicanus et Democratus have been screwing things up since 325.

        2. http://markets.businessinsider…..mber-price
          He didn’t mention it because it isn’t true.

          1. Oh dumb dumb, those are commodity prices not prices of lumber at the store.

            If you built things, you would know from month to month and year to year what lumber costs.

            1. Ah, proof through assertion of anecdote.

              If the price increase is not due to the cost of lumber, where’s it going? Not to Canada, as was asserted.

              The commodity price is more important, because that’s what goes into construction. Your average homebuilder is not buying their lumber at Home Depot.

              1. The complaints about lumber prices weren’t coming from homebuilders.

                They were coming from people picking up lumber at Home Depot.

                Pay attention.

    3. My stocks are going through the roof too!

  12. “RUSSIA WATCH”

    WTF? LOL

    1. Whoever said Sarah Palin was irrelevant was wrong. We need her watching now more than ever.

      1. Seriously. Why isn’t she keeping an eye on this? Good thing libertarians and the Weekly Standard are paying attention to make believe

  13. There was also a major free speech victory at the Supreme Court yesterday.

  14. Whenever anyone compares Trump to Hitler, their knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis inevitably consists of having seen Schindler’s list and once having flipped through a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in a bookstore while briefly considering buying it.

    I know they are dishonest and stupid. But as much as anything they are ignorant. They think Trump is Hitler because they don’t know anything about Hitler but think they do because they believe whatever makes them feel good.

    1. You just don’t get it, do you?

      Trump and his supporters are literally Hitler, but the people who are electing open socialists are not socialists for reasons.

      Got it, Nazi?

      1. That is right. Trump, a guy who was lawfully elected and has respected every court order that has been issued against him is Hitler. The people sending violent mobs of thugs out to harass and attack their political opponents are the forces of democracy and good.

    2. Watching progressives compare Trump to something from Orwell is arguably worse.

      The progressives are arguing for some of the same fundamental things Orwell was decrying, and to see them cite Orwell in their defense . . . Orwell would have denounced them.

      “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

      —-George Orwell

      Using the coercive power of government to force people to behave as if the believed certain things for the common “good” is what being a progressive is all about–and they want to compare Trump to something from Orwell?!

      1. P.S. Here’s progressives on Trump from Orwell:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KeX5OZr0A4

        Is that Shika Dalmia in the third row?

    3. You might want to read Masha Gessen.

      You may disagree with her. But you cannot call her ignorant. You may even learn something.

      1. If she thinks Trump is anything like Hitler, she is ignorant or lying. I might as well be reading someone who claims the earth is flat. No. I won’t learn anything other than how stupid or more likely dishonest Gessen is.

        1. Okay, you’re not interested in challenging your positions. Only throwing out uninformed attacks.

          Many smarter people than you or me have examined parallels. If you truly believe in liberty, it is something to be aware of.

          1. There is no need to ‘challenge’ a position like ‘Trump is not like Hitler’. It is a demonstrable truth.

            A person who claims to have examined ‘parallels’ is not smart. At all. Intelligence, of any type, is foreign to such a person. Such a person would aspire to idiocy.

            But you are correct in one particular.

            Such a person is far smarter than you.

  15. 43 percent of female criminal investigators at the agencies reported some form of gender discrimination

    Nowl, *that* is especially heinous.

  16. 10-term U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (D?N.Y.)?described roundly as “the Queens Democratic party boss” and floated as the Democrats next House speaker if the party can take back Congress?lost in Tuesday’s primary elections to 28-year-old Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate and political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    She’s pretty cute, for a wannabe tyrant with shitty ideas.

    1. Share some of that wealth, baby.

      1. I hear Bernie Sanders has a really nice vacation house. There seems to be a lot of money to be made demanding everyone else give up theirs.

        1. He earned that dacha fair and square by conceding primary defeat to Herself!

  17. Mob Violence and Gun Ownership
    However, what if these seemingly disconnected issues run on converging tracks, rather than merely parallel ones? We are watching Democrats, perpetrators of the incremental coup, encouraging the rise in political mob violence to overthrow the existing political order. Eventually, sooner than later, the Democratic mob will feel empowered by its immunity from consequences to expand its tactics and target nongovernment citizens for bullying, intimidation, and inevitable violence. This is exactly the tactic the political left understands will be enabled most by strict gun control, meaning confiscation. After all, mob violence as a tool of political enforcement, will be far easier and more effective if those against whom it is deployed are not capable of defending themselves. Disarmament of the law-abiding has always preceded violent revolution. This is the entire purpose of “gun control.” Only one side will be equipped for the impending violence.

    1. I have been saying this forever. Antifa talks a lot of shit about going into people’s homes and terrorizing them, but they never actually do it because to invade people’s homes in this country requires a death wish. If the Progs ever succeeded and disarming this country, that would not be the case and Antifa and their ilk would start doing things like that.

      The left is a fascist movement. Fascist movements depend upon the use of mob political violence to terrorize their opponents until they take power and can use the ordinary powers of government to do so. The only thing that prevents the left from doing that is the US public being well armed. One of the biggest lies the left tells is the idea that the Right has guns because they may someday take on the army. No, by the time the army is against you, it is too late. You need a gun so that you can defend yourself against political terrorism so that they army never turns against you.

      1. Right-wing terrorism is terrorism motivated by a variety of ideologies and beliefs, including Islamophobia, anti-communism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazism, and a mindset against abortion. This type of terrorism has been sporadic, with little or no international cooperation.[1] Modern radical right-wing terrorism first appeared in Western Europe in the 1970s and it first appeared in Eastern Europe following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.[2]

        Right-wing terrorists aim to overthrow governments and replace them with nationalist or fascist-oriented regimes.[1] The core of this movement includes neo-fascist skinheads, far-right extremists, and youth sympathisers who believe that the state must rid itself of foreign elements in order to protect its citizens.[3] However, they usually lack a rigid ideology

        You’re an idiot.

        1. You are a retard. You are so stupid, you can’t even make a sensible response to a post. We are talking about mob violence. Some unsited quote about “right wing terrorism” whatever that is, has nothing to do with the point. You really are a waste of space.

          1. Dipshit Dsve Weigel is back from his busy week of covering the elections.

          2. There is no real “mob violence” you stupid bastard. What domestic terrorism there is comes from your conservative brethren like Dylann Roof.

            1. Roof was an idiot who shot up a church because he couldn’t get laid. That is not political violence dumb ass. Political violence is the Bernie Bro trying to murder Republican Congressman.

              1. It is also a Trump guy driving into a crowd and murdering someone.
                It is also anti abortion activists murdering doctors and shooting at clinics.
                It’s also a Trump guy stabbing people after yelling epithets on a train.

                The list goes on.

                1. The lefties always have everyone beat in the USA relating to violence.
                  List of Weatherman group violence

                  Front be Liberation de Quebec
                  This is for you Rufus

                  Symbionese Liberation Army

                  May 19 Commies

                  United Freedom Front

                  Nazi Bund

                2. It’s also a Trump guy stabbing people after yelling epithets on a train

                  He’s a berniebro.

  18. Trump tax cuts carry a big price tag: Huge debt and risk of another financial crisis, budget office warns

    To bring the red ink down to the historical average level, taxes would need to increase 17% — $2,000 per household — or government spending would need to be cut by 15%. Over the last 50 years, federal debt has average about 41% of the gross domestic product.

    Just keeping the federal debt at its current, historically high level would require increasing taxes by 11% ? $1,300 per household ? or cutting spending by 10%.

    http://www.latimes.com/politic…..story.html

    Cut spening – you Con Man Jackass.

    1. Paul Krugman’s prediction was essentially correct. Drumpf’s election has caused economic ruin.

    2. Hey shreek, where’ve you been? And how soon can you go back to there?

  19. Within 30 days, and [sic] all minors ages five and above must be reunited with their parents.

    Serious question: If a judge can mandate stuff like this, why can’t they mandate stuff like, say, “Within 30 months, the government must enable teleportation of minors to the destination of their choice”?

    1. Because one is realistically feasible and remedies due process concerns, whereas the other one isn’t and doesn’t?

      1. Because one is realistically feasible and remedies due process concerns, whereas the other one isn’t and doesn’t?

        It didn’t remedy jack shit. The policy of reunification was SOP since the Obama administration or are you people morons enough to believe that the separations that occurred even then just ended with leaving these kids in foster care or releasing them to the wild? The only time it didn’t apply was when parentage and/or reunification wasn’t clear or necessarily desired but a judge mandated it in order to fix a problem that didn’t exist; so, off we go.

  20. Preliminary injunction on ICE family separation policy. A federal court says the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from parents caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border must stop, and that families who have already been separated must be reunited within one month.

    So after the SCOTUS mentioned that federal district courts issuing national injunctions will not be tolerated, a federal district court judge does exactly that?

    They are “district” for a reason. Their district court jurisdiction covers a relatively small area.

    1. This will be overturned. And the judge knows it. But it will take a few months and the judge will feel he has done his duty to the cause. This is the kind of crap that needs to get judges impeached. What is the point of having a judge if they are going to ignore the law laid down by Congress and interpreted by higher courts?

      1. This is the kind of crap that needs to get judges impeached.

        CONTEMPT!

      2. The majority opinion from yesterday suggested as much

    2. They’re doing this because they think they will win the long game playing it this way.

      The insane left has decided they’re not going to follow any rules any longer. They’re out for blood and total war.

      1. The mistake of this thinking is it gives the SCOTUS precedent to control lower courts.

        If Congress would grow some balls, they could impeach these judges for intentionally refusing to follow precedent.

  21. Canada is now preparing steel quotas and tariffs on China and others to prevent producers there from dumping the goods that they can’t sell to the US.

    The thing about the idea of total, unfettered free trade is that almost nobody actually believes in it. Most people believe in doing what they think is in the best interests of them and their people (whether their particular decisions are right or wrong is another question).

    Anyone who thought Trudeau was awesome simply because he stood up to the big poopyhead was kidding themselves. Trudeau is just doing what he believes to be in the best interest of Canadians, and I strongly suspect that most Canadians are quite OK with that. That’s all.

    1. Pretty much. Canadians are the most apathetic bunch of people around. They’ll happily sleep at the switch so long as they believe anything we do is swell because we’re Canadian and Canadians always do the right thing.

      We’re getting raped and pillaged by the dairy cartel but who cares? As long as we don’t have the choice of American competition and their ‘cheap’ dairy!

      1. I do think that the best thing for the world as a whole, especially in the long run, would be if everyone voluntarily agreed to eliminate all of their tariffs across the board.

        But that will never, ever happen. There will always be someone out there trying to game the system in their favor.

        1. Trump did ask for that and was laughed right out of the room.

          France is possibly the most protectionist country in the G7.

          1. Shame Reason blames Trump when countries like France refuse to lower tariffs and Trump offers to get rid of tariffs.

      2. Rufus, I give you the most Canadian war ever

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11…..napps.html

        1. I remember that. Pointed directly to the foolishness of our attitude towards the military in the post-war era.

      3. Seems to me that Canadians are very much in tune with the idea that Canadian trade policy should benefit Canadian companies at the expense of their competitors from elsewhere. You won’t find many people in Canada, I suspect, who think otherwise.

        Can’t say I’m opposed to the idea that American trade policy should primarily benefit Americans myself. It’s just that my focus is on American consumers, their standard of living, and their quality of life. Focus on that, and I come to the conclusion that protecting American companies from their competitors overseas is not in the best interests the United States.

        Anyway, Trudeau isn’t an ideologue so much as he’s trying to deal with the political fallout of upcoming concessions to Trump on NAFTA. That’s why he ran his mouth when he should have stayed quiet ahead of Trump’s meeting with Kim, and that’s what’s driving all of his thinking on trade now.

        If he makes concessions, he can’t make it look like he’s Trump’s lapdog–so he as to growl a lot.

        If he doens’t make concessions, it may hurt the Canadian economy, and there’s political fallout associated with that, as well.

        1. The last two sentences: You just highlighted a dimension in Canadian politics every PM has had to carefully weigh: How to not look like you’re bowing to America while making it look like we’re sovereign.

          1. Sometimes I wonder if maybe Quebec wouldn’t be better off on its own. At least it has its own identity that involves something besides “we are not Americans”.

            1. There are pros and cons. There are some criteria met I would like first before I consent.

              1. It is my understanding that Quebec is broke and could never leave without sticking the rest of Canada with an enormous bill. I don’t know that much about Canadian politics, but my instinct says that if it was ever going to happen, it would have happened by now.

                1. Yes and I agree.

                  Quebec misplayed its card and the bottom line remains it signed on to Confederation.

                  It has a lot of powers anyway.

          2. “How to not look like you’re bowing to America while making it look like we’re sovereign.”

            Which of course means you are bowing to America by even considering the issue in the first place.

  22. Network news yesterday ran some clip of a kid crying for her mother in a detention center. Followed by peal-clutching from the news reader. Hey, you can see that every day in every day care center in the U.S. and most summer camps too. Guess every American kid ever has been traumatized for life.

    1. They can’t seem to figure out that anyone dumb enough not to understand that this sort of thing is an unfortunate consequence of the actions of the parents and went on under every administration is already voting Democrat. They are not persuading anyone to come to their side.

      1. Thanks John, I needed a comment blaming the victim(s) of the separation.

        1. Yes. No one makes them show up at the border. If you bring your kid to the border, you know what is going to happen. So, yes you are responsible for it occurring. It is called personal responsibility.

          1. Many of the immigrants know better than Americans how our immigration system works.

            They are counting on their kids being accepted into the USA based on emotion and Americans charitable spirit. Then the kids get assigned an immigration attorney and probably a social worker because they are minors. The parents and family then use the kid to get visas.

            Its a scam and fucking up the real people who are begging for political asylum because they will be murdered for being Libertarians in their socialist shithole country that the poor immigrants then left to try and get inside the USA.

            We don’t want scammer immigrants who do not respect that the USA has immigration rules to follow.

        2. Well, when you know the consequences and you do it anyway, you sound a little silly blaming other people.

  23. lost in Tuesday’s primary elections to 28-year-old Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate and political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    A rare good-looking Democratic socialist? Dammit, we’re never going to hear the end of her

    1. she’s inexperienced though, so the political machine will probably spit her out in a few years looking like a haggard old shoe

      1. Damn political machine preventing good socialists from socialisming the shit out of everyone

      2. Maxine Waters is only 35 and look at her.

        1. Oh SNAP!

    2. You know who else was a good-looking Democratic socialist?

        1. Well, I was thinking of the weeping secretary in the Downfall parody, but that answer will do.

      1. Trotsky. Duh

      2. http://www.google.com/search?q…..20&bih=945

        Leni Riefenstahl?

        1. Nice try a negging, Captain Dumbshit.

          1. I know I have no shot now that’s she’s officially married to the George Clooney of Mother Jones magazine.

            1. That is far from the only reason you don’t have a shot.

      3. Ferrets look mostly good, and they subscribe to democratic socialism in the form of “what is mine is mine, what is yours is up for grabs”.

      4. FDR?

    3. She is the only good looking female Democratic politician. Can you name another? I can’t.

      1. Of course not. If they’re pretty then they must be dumb, which is why the pretty ones are all Republicans.

        1. Wait a minute …. Is that *sexual harassment*?

      2. Tulsi Gabbard. Also, one of the last sane Democrats. More anti-war than most libertarian publications and groups.

        1. Never heard of her but she is pretty cute.

          1. The American Conservative, Mises, and the other anti-war types have been pimping her since 2010 or so.

          2. She criticized Obama for failing to identify Islamic extremism as the enemy when he talked about ISIS in his SOTU a few years ago and she has been out of lockstep with the Dem establishment in other areas too, especially foreign policy

            1. I really wish the Democratic party would regain its sanity. As it is, there is no real way to hold the GOP accountable. Voting the Republicans out of office effectively means turning the country over to the “Too Crazy, Stupid, and Evil to Vote For Under Any Circumstances Party”. And that is not a good situation for anyone.

            2. She’s more known for opposing our actions in Syria, Iraq, exiting the Iran Deal, and our current Russia fever dream panic.

              She’s no different from Rand, Massie, and sometimes Amash with regards to foreign policy

              1. She is pretty anti-war, which is good obviously,but she also recognizes that radical Islam is a threat, unlike a lot of anti-war types (coughReasoncough) who seem to think it will magically correct itself if we’re just nicer to the terrorists.

      3. The only one I can think of is Tulsi Gabbard, but she’s not a typical Democrat. I don’t know what it is, the power-hungry craziness affects their appearance in some way?

        1. Democrats are all feminists. And feminism has always been nothing but a power play by the ugly girls to take revenge and power back from the pretty ones. So, it would make sense that most Democratic women are homely.

  24. Weep not, my darling Drumpfkenc?cken. Weep…. not…….

  25. National security adviser John Bolton will powwow with Vladimir Putin in Moscow today. “The president will receive Bolton at the Kremlin,” spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. The two men are prepping for a meeting between Putin and President Trump that is supposed to take place in mid-July. “The Trump-Putin summit would be the first meeting of the two presidents not taking place on the sidelines of a broader international gathering,” notes The Washington Post.

    Hurry up Mueller and kick him out of office already!

    #TrumpRussia

    1. Bolton, the man who advocated for war against Russia during the Bush administration, is a Russian stooge. So smart

    1. Hmm. Any ruling on compulsory income taxes?

      1. They’re the price we pay for a polite society, you know. You can tell by how polite society is now.

        1. Go gargle balls

            1. Is anybody here licensed to gargle Balls? No? What about bonded. No?

              Then stop this illegal black market ball gargling this instant!

    2. This is going to cause lots of gnashing of teeth from the left. Hold on tight!

      1. This is to quote our former VP a big fucking deal. Public employee unions are nothing but a giant ATM for the left. This ruling means they can no longer force people to pay them dues and actually have to account to their members for how they spend the money. That means they will have a fraction of the money they have now and likely won’t be able to use the money they do have to fund the rest of the left. This ruling is to the left what ending Prohibition was the mafia.

        1. It goes beyond that. Union membership will decline because there’s more incentive to be a “free rider” now. So it will be a battle to maintain 50%+1 among the people who don’t want to pay more than their co-workers.

          1. I think the free rider issue is overrated. Unions exist in open shop states. The difference is that in open shop states they have to give their employees value. The thing about being in a union shop where you don’t have to join is that when you do they have to care about you in particular, since there is no guarantee that your replacement should you be fired or leave. That means the union really goes to bat in grievances and disputes with your employer. And that is a good thing. That is what you pay a union for. Your wages are set by the market. Unions have a lot less to do with that than they claim. There is only so much money a company can pay. But how they treat you is something that unions can make a difference and that is not something that you can free ride on. Unions in closed shop states generally don’t do that as much since all they care about is your dues and your position not who fills it.

            The way to think about open and closed shop is that it is like school choice. Whenever you are forced to pay your money to something, that entity is never going to care about giving value in return the way it would if it had to compete for your dollar. Unions are no different in that regard.

    3. AFSCME, which I think is the biggest union left in the U.S. (I may be wrong about that), is about to take a massive hit, as is the democratic party in general.

      Even liberal government employees prefer to keep their money, given the choice.

    4. Nice. I can’t wait to drink to this tonight. The left is going to go apeshit.

  26. http://ijr.com/2018/06/1106138…..-children/

    Democratic volunteer threatens to shoot Republican reps children.

    Behold the inherent violence of Trump’s America.

    1. Not getting a lot of media attention.

      I swear to God if someone tries to murder Rand Paul again and he doesn’t shoot back, he’s dead to me

      1. I swear to God if someone tries to murder Rand Paul again and he doesn’t shoot back, he’s dead to me

        He was on the mower oblivious to being tackled. I’m not entirely convinced that, had he been armed, he wouldn’t have wound up shot with his own gun.

      2. Rand Paul is rich enough to hire a body guard for a few years.

        He needs to be packing heat. Most politicians are chickenshit which is why they need protection details.

        If Rand Paul shot someone in self-defense while being attacked, the lefties would never mess with him again.

        Freedom is not free.

    2. Well, we were warned that the election of Donald Trump was going to lead to an upsurge in fascist violence.

      1. It still amazes even me how the Scalizi shooting has just been written out of history. Had that guy had better aim it would have been the worst political killing in US history. And the media made sure it was out of the papers by the next week.

        1. I don’t even see any updates on James Thomas Hodgkinson, who did the shooting.

          1. Here’s your update: he continues to be dead.

            1. Thanks. I forgot that he died.

              I think the last thing that I saw on him was that he was seriously injured by return fire.

              Your best comment this year Citizen.

    3. Please don’t associate us with him, he doesn’t deserve the “Florida man” label. We have standards. /other Florida men

    4. “His banner picture showed his support for Planned Parenthood.”

      So he’s consistent.

      At least it’s an ethos.

  27. Anyone else seen this steaming pile of dogshit? I’ll withhold further comment for the time being, so if anyone is curious what I’m linking to, you;ll have to subject yourself to clicking on it. Just be warned: have a barf bag handy.

    1. Are they joking? That clip is a bad joke, right? Like, somebody was trying to be ironically unbearable but overshot the mark?

      1. Sadly, I don’t think it’s a joke. I caught the tail end of a commercial for it last weekend just as I turned on the TV (they wouldn’t be running ads for if it was a joke) – so I looked up the trailer out of curiosity. Now I wish I had just left it alone. It looks more like “The Fast and The Furious the Series” set in Hawai’i where the characters all have the same names from a popular 80’s TV show (I probably just gave it away) while having as little to do with the 80’s series as possible outside of the character names.

      2. Are they joking? That clip is a bad joke, right? Like, somebody was trying to be ironically unbearable but overshot the mark?

        Actually, I kinda wanna commend whomever made the clip. If I’d said, “Condense an entire season of unwatchable garbage down to 4 min. of highlights that both sizzles with action and ward people off watching.” I couldn’t have gotten a better product. I simultaneously feel slaked by the action, confident that everything else about the show is garbage, and that I don’t need to see any more.

        The only thing I can say is, needs more mustache.

    2. We really do live in a world where nothing is sacred. Let me guess, he probably drives a Tesla. The horror.

    3. Fucking Hollywood and their utter lack of creativity to remake a popular show for its time and fuck up the legacy.

      He fucking doesn’t even have a Selleck or Stossel mustache. Punk has afternoon shadow.

      He drives the Ferraris though. Gotta be cool.

  28. Oh fuck it. Just build a wall around California, and open the border to Baja.

  29. forcible separation of parents from their young children for no legitimate reason,”

    Jailing and prosecuting the (ostensible) parents for committing a crime is “no legitimate reason”…

  30. Air Force veteran sets self on fire to protest treatment under VA
    Veteran engages in self-immolation to protest treatment by VA

    This was barely mentioned in the news outside of Atlanta but the news is all over Joe Jackson dying.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.