Thomas Homan

Good Riddance to Trump's Border Bouncer

"If you're in this country illegally and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable."

|

June will see the end of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Tom Homan's brief but controversial tenure heading the agency. Homan is the chief architect, among other things, of the administration's policy of taking kids from their border-jumping parents. The main reason he is quitting is that lawmakers were planning to use his confirmation hearings to air his record.

Homan, who started as a border patrol agent in 1985, was White House Chief of Staff John Kelly's choice to run the agency because Homan is a true believer in President Trump's immigration agenda. He informed Congress last year that he intended to go after anyone in the country without authorization, not just those who have committed a serious crime while here. "If you're in this country illegally and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable," he noted. "You should look over your shoulder, and you need to be worried."

True to his word, Homan developed a two-pronged "zero tolerance" policy. One prong is focused on border enforcement and the other on "interior" enforcement—that is, targeting those who are already settled within the country.

To advance the first prong, Homan advocated family separation at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE's umbrella agency. Between last fall and this spring, The New York Times found 700 verifiable cases of children being transferred to different detention camps from their parents, sometimes across the country. A hundred of those children were under the age of 4. One was an 18-month-old toddler.

As for the second prong, overall arrests jumped 40 percent in Trump's first 100 days because of Homan's aggressive approach. And 26 percent of those arrested had no criminal record—even by an inflated definition that counts minor misdemeanors—up from 13 percent in 2016. Homan has sent agents into sanctuary cities specifically to send a message that aliens are not safe anywhere. He compared Oakland, California, Mayor Libby Schaaf to a "gang" member for warning residents of an impending ICE raid. His claim that because of her more than 800 criminals avoided capture was so exaggerated that San Francisco's ICE spokesman quit rather than peddle it.

NEXT: Brickbat: Nip and Tuck

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. “Homan is the chief architect, among other things, of the administration’s policy of taking kids from their border-jumping parents. ”

    He didn’t put children in jail with their parents? The monster!

    1. He separated them and then lost track of them, you heartless bastard.
      That’s why Trump was forced to reverse his craziness, again.
      Now we need somebody to protect us from his fuckup with Kim Jong Un, before Putin rolls our President tool.

      1. He “lost track” of them insomuch as the people who were then entrusted with many of these children (relatives), lied about their location, disappeared with the children to avoid deportation, and refuse to cooperate with the agencies held supremely responsible for people who are hell bent on breaking the law.

        Trump was “forced” to reverse this policy because doing so set the democrats on their heels, and literally showed how absurd their demands were.

        FYI, didn’t vote for the guy.

        1. He “lost track” of them insomuch as the people who were then entrusted with many of these children (relatives), lied about their location, disappeared with the children to avoid deportation, and refuse to cooperate with the agencies held supremely responsible for people who are hell bent on breaking the law.

          Lie

          Trump was “forced” to reverse this policy because doing so set the democrats on their heels, and literally showed how absurd their demands were.

          (pees my pants laughing at the wackiness)

          FYI, didn’t vote for the guy.

          What you did here is actually worse.

    2. This comment at an ostensibly libertarian website? Are FreeRepublic, StormFront, and RedState redirecting here, or all they all offline?

      1. How come you defended Boston children’s hospital taking away a kid a few years back because their doctor disagreed with the parents doctor?

        1. I do not recall the case, but I suspect it involved substandard parents who were attempting to prevent a child from obtaining indicated medical care, likely consequent to delusion.

          I do not believe libertarianism entitles an unreasonable parent to deny education, medical care, shelter, food, or the like to a child.

          1. JesseAz is a master of false equivalencies.

            Left – Right = Zero

  2. I have some honest questions for Shikha:

    1.) How do you feel about the North Korean practice of jailing families for the transgressions of one family member
    2.) What exactly should happen to parents who illegally enter the country with their children?
    3.) How do you feel about someone arrested for a misdemeanor like DUI, shoplifting, etc. and sentenced to time in the city or county jail?
    3a) If their children are with them a suitable relative cannot be located, should the children be placed in detention with their parents?

    1. 3.) Children should be a get of jail free card. If you punish parents you are also punishing the children. If you jail the parents you increase absentee parenting. If you fine the parents you are taking money that could help the children.

    2. Shikha is a piece of shit who is trying to undermine Americans deciding American immigration policy.

      She knows that the immigrant kids will used as tools to get visas for family members while the immigrant kids are waiting for immigration hearings. Of course, they have immigration attorneys assigned to represent them and Guardian at litem attorneys to represent them because they are underage.

      1. Shikha is a piece of shit who is trying to undermine Americans deciding American immigration policy.

        Fuck off, slaver. nearly 70% of Americans oppose you assholes. That makes you and Trump the pieces of shit defying Americans. (When you’re not demanding your entitlements as you slurp the government teat.)

        1. Hihn. The ultimate stalking slaver bot.

          You have 20 seconds to comply or off to the gulags with you.

          1. Says the guy who would have supported slavery because it was Rule of Law Man.

            1. The Constitution did not ban slavery and there was a compromise to allows states to regulate it until 1808.

              I would never own slaves and would be against slavery, just like I am against slavery now.

              I would much rather have teh USA formed and get rid of slavery then have a Sarcasmic Anarchy-land where there are a bunch of slave holders because the strongest rules there.

              1. You do know that the only one who looks bad when you call me an anarchist is you, don’t you?

                I can’t figure out if you are a cop or a prosecutor. Either way you have no respect for human beings. All you care about is control. You want people to submit. You hate liberty. You want people to be ruled.

                1. no, LZc is right, you’re wrong. Beg his forgiveness and move on.

                  1. You fucking illiiterate WHINERS.

                    As my former brother-in-law explained .. a SOCIALIST priest of the Revolution Theology …
                    Slavery had existed for all of human history, cirted in the Old Testament. It was brought to the New World by Europeans, but we repealed it in fewer than 90 years, That is something to be PROUD of, pussies, (“Pussies” was my addition)

          2. Hihn. The ultimate stalking slaver bot.

            Goober gets downright PISSY, because I expose his moral hypocrisy! Typical of the Authoritarian Right. (sneer)

            loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

            My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.
            I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

            Alt-Right TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. ONLY if it lines HIS pocket!
            loveconstitution (sic) Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG) …. claims that a multi-trillion debt increase (tax cut) is “giving my own money back ” …FROM WHERE, GOOBER?

            What kind of “fiscal conservative” DENIES federal debt is stealing from our future … from his own children?

            HE WOULD CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO ENRICH HIMSELF, BECAUSE HE’S ……… “ENTITLED.” ……. AND SO SELF-RIGHTEOUS, (also like the Authoritarian Right

            Libtards borrow trillions for free stuff
            Conservatards borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
            Both with entitlement mentalities. Both goose-stepping America toward Hell … arm-in-arm

            Left – Right = Zero

        2. The Constitution decides the immigration process morn. The people live under the Constitution. If you don’t like it, leave. And 70% of Americans don’t agree with you shithead. 84 % want illegals out of the country.

          1. Bullshit. If you can’t honor our Constitution, then leave.
            If you can’t be truthful then stay with your tribe at Breitbart, Infowars and WND

    3. Brendan equates Trump with the savagery of North Korea ,.. and is too dumb to know what he did.

      1. Is that what I did?

        North Korea works very had to keep families together, even multiple generations, when someone is sentenced for a crime.

        Trump (and Obama), on the other hand, didn’t see fit to keep children detained with their parents.

        1. Is that what I did?

          “and is too dumb to know what he did.”
          But here you reveal a different possibility, Bullshit.

          Trump (and Obama), on the other hand, didn’t see fit to keep children detained with their parents.

          You’re full of shit on Obama, And reversed yourself when I called you out.

    4. Re: Brendan,

      — 1 .) How do you feel about the North Korean practice of jailing families for the transgressions of one family member —

      Even more reason to criticize the Trumpista administration for pursuing policies that puts America’s image on par with North Korea’s. Right?

      — 2.) What exactly should happen to parents who illegally enter the country with their children? —

      Absolutely nothing. Not having the State-issued transit papers is not a crime, not a real crime at least. But for Trumpistas, who now advertise their positivism, State shapes reality. How many lights do you see? There are four lights, because the State says so!

      — If their children are with them a suitable relative cannot be located, should the children be placed in detention with their parents? —

      Why not? They’re not human, anyway. They’re all rapists, according to Trump.

      1. I find it telling you skipped question 3

      2. Re: you response to question 1, how is Trump’s policy like North Korea? One of these administrations keeps families together in detention, while the other separates children from their parents when the parent is detained.

    5. 1) They knew the risks.
      2) Send them to Canada. Trudeau said he would take all refugees.
      3) Do the crime, pick up litter along the roadside.
      3a) See #2.

    6. 2.) What exactly should happen to parents who illegally enter the country with their children?

      They should be given a lollipop and sent on their way, no questions asked.

      What, have you never read a Shikha article before?

    7. Milton Friedman was ok with open borders on one condition: no welfare state. That’s honest at least, because it both self regulates and prevents a services driven meltdown as has been unfolding the last few decades – hungry people self deport when things don’t pan out. I don’t recall Shikha ever making half as much sense, or even touching the subject. Come to think of it, has Shikha ever asked “and then what?” alongside any of her open border musings? Maybe I missed something.
      On the human end, family detention for simple illegal entry is humane. But if one of the family members has committed a violent act, then normal arrest/prison rules should apply and the perp has separated themselves from their family as far as I’m concerned. Is that so bad? Seems fair to me.

  3. I’ve come to believe Shecky is actually a parody team, devised to expose the jejunity of the Libertarian “party”.

    1. Normally I wouldn’t waste my time with Shikha’s drivel, but this one was short…don’t waste your time.

  4. When humans are outlawed, only outlaws will be human!

  5. Homan is the chief architect, among other things, of the administration’s policy of taking kids from their border-jumping parents.

    Didn’t BOosh and Obama combine their retarded architecture skills to be doing this exact thing for the last 18 years?

    1. No, you illiterate delusional fuck. This is why you and your Republican friends are the worst. Obama can’t be both “open borders” and ” zero tolerance”.

      1. Salmons nail, you dumb dumb. Obama wanted open borders to change demographics in favor of Democrats and simultaneously tried to force immigrants that would not vote Democrat to self-deport by ‘kidnapping’ their kids.

        1. Re: lovetheTrumpstate,

          — Obama wanted open borders —

          Liar.

          1. Nice retort. Very convincing.

            I clearly convinced you that my statements were correct and it pisses you off.

            1. You’re a liar because Obama INCREASED deportations.
              DACA was totally legal, just a changing of priorities, which a President is allowed to do — but you rightwing-goobers-masquerading-as-libertarians MUST convey your racism and bigotry.

              Pathetic and shameful.

              1. Yes and no. Deportations for those caught at the border went up, but for those already deep in country [farther than 100 miles from the border] the numbers went down to nearly zero. It’s worth noting border arrests don’t generally find their way into scheduled/formal deportation hearings. These “voluntary” returns were counted as deportations. Like most things that seemed good under Obama, the stats could not have come into existence but for changing accounting methodology [kind of like GDP]. The LA Times did a piece on this in 2014.

                1. You avoided the total numbers, and I know why you did.

      2. GD you’re stupid, SN.

        NO one said Obama was “zero tolerance,” but he was profoundly schizophrenic on this issue, initially incarcerating the children, and then engaging in “catch and release” which is a wholly idiotic way to enforce border security.

      3. GD you’re stupid, SN.

        NO one said Obama was “zero tolerance,” but he was profoundly schizophrenic on this issue, initially incarcerating the children, and then engaging in “catch and release” which is a wholly idiotic way to enforce border security.

        1. Larry is full of shit on all levels. The ONLY children Obama incarcerated were UNACCOMPANIED — as did Busg. Only asshole Trump destroyed families, something else he was forced to retract.

          You seem equally brainwashed on what “catch and release” even MEANS — like dumbfuck Trump — which was a COURT RULING — and is NOT RELATED in the bass ackwards way you claim.

          Trumpsters be REALLY scary,

    2. Dude, there’s a narrative that needs to be stuck to.

    3. Good point. Other people doing it first makes it OK. Not only that, but criticism of the what is happening now equates to support of what happened then. No one can be critical of separating families without being an Obama voter who supported separating families when he did it.

      right?

      1. Its okay to separate kids when you arrest the parent. Its 100% okay.

        Its also okay to arrest a kid when they are breaking immigration law and deport them and their parent as quickly as US law will allow.

        I tricked you because you’re so dumb.

        1. I bet your mom thinks you are clever.

          1. YOUR mom knows that I am clever.

        2. Would it have been OK for the Native Americans to imprison all the Europeans who showed up in America, and separate them from their kids, and lose track of them? Or, since the Native Americans had oral-tradition laws rather than written laws, their ownership of the lands meant nothing?

          When the space aliens show up and confiscate Earth, since our ownership laws aren’t written on dilithium micro-corpuscles, then we’ll have no cause to bitch, then, I suppose…

          1. I love hypotheticals!

            So,

            “Would it have been OK for the Native Americans to imprison all the Europeans who showed up in America, and separate them from their kids, and lose track of them? Or, since the Native Americans had oral-tradition laws rather than written laws, their ownership of the lands meant nothing?”

            1) Whatever their rules (laws) said.
            2) Native tribes never ‘owned’ the land as we think of property rights and ownership. If they did not want you violating their territory, they killed you. No court. No Due process. No appellate review. Straight death by bunga bunga.
            3) Aliens are by definition bot of this earth, so they have zero claim to those Earthlings willing to fight for their right…to….party!

            1. “1) Whatever their rules (laws) said.”

              Unless you are of 100% Native American ancestry, then, you don’t belong here, you rules (laws) violator you (or descendant thereof)!

              Get off of their yard!

              1. I have Cherokee blood, so part of me belongs here.

                I will send the rest of me back to Europe, Africa, and Asia.

              2. And that is why the native ownership argument is without merit. You don’t judge ownership by collectively looking at a group of people and determining “they”, -meaning a person who belongs to a racial group have no right to be here. The europeans who came here, may not have explicitly understood property rights and individual rights, but they were in the process of doing so. There is no moral argument that says one should comply with someone in 1776 that required someone to leave based on their color of skin. It is MUCH more understandable that there would be unavoidable conflict between a group of people who semi believed in property rights or at least had some good ideas about how to establish them, and another group who you know, based on their “system” would show no interest in a piece of property that was empty space, but then suddenly become interested in that property being of collective racial origin, as it is being developed. We know this would have happened. Same with the jews.

                1. Some Native Americans welcomed the newcomers, and some did not. There was plenty enough fighting and suffering for everyone! But in the end, the newcomers stayed, and we are all now better off for it having happened.

                  Same story now… Some welcome the newcomers, and some do not. In the end, the newcomers, many of them, illegal humans as well as legal humans, will stay. And again, in the end, we will all be better off for it.

                  1. Is the country now known as Turkey better off than when it was Anatolia, before it was invaded with Turkic tribes who cannot replicate the kinds of things they made? Is Rio de Janeiro better off now than before they mixed it up and created an abomination of a mixed race population that has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world?

                    Your “progress” view of history is lacking, to say the least.

          2. Yes it would have been okay. They didn’t successfully defend their nation(s) and eventually were overrun. The Britons, Gauls, Anglo-Saxons, Carthaginians, Byzantines, and Trojans all sympathize.

    4. Didn’t BOosh and Obama combine their retarded architecture skills to be doing this exact thing for the last 18 years?

      No, you retarded Fox imbecile. They only punished unaccompanied youngsters, did NOT yank kids from their families. Thanks for showing everyone what am obedient puppet you are, of our Fuhrter’s pathetic lies. Don’t miss today’s indoctrination. As you continue demanding your government entitlements.

      1. Tony is the resident FOX watcher here.

        Tony is that you?

        1. It isn’t the real Hihn, that’s for sure.

          1. So you’re crazy in all your aliases!

        2. I quoted your bullshit — where you parroted Fox.
          I understand your shame at being a Fox puppet, but ….

  6. “”If you’re in this country illegally and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable.””

    This, a thousand times. I don’t want illegal immigrants to be comfortable. I want them to live in fear until they self-deport.

    1. 100% agree Brett.

      1. They don’t have a permission slip from Uncle Sam. Shoot them on sight. Shoot the kids first. We want to make the parents suffer before they die.

        1. Anarchists love to have it thunderdome. Strongest survive.

          In the USA, we have Rule of Law corrupted by Rule of Man. Even with that corruption of the Constitution, Americans are not shooting kids.

          We deport them. We should deport as many as possible, as quickly as possible.

          1. I know we aren’t shooting kids. That must make you sad.

            1. Hyperbole and lies are fun for you. Anything to destroy this Constitutional Democratic Republic to get to anarchist-land.

            2. Says the guy who supports the war on drugs because it is rule of law.

              1. You support the war on drugs?

                I sure don’t since the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional. The US government nor states can ban anything without altering their Constitutions. Even the Prohibitionists knew this and got the 18th Amendment passed.

                All drug laws are illegal, therefore, I do not support a war on drugs.

                Bad try there, anarchist.

                1. I sure don’t since the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional.

                  It’s law. You don’t get to pick and choose. All or nothing.

                  1. So you admit that you don’t even understand how our system of Constitutional law works?

                    Explains a lot of your nonsense.

                  2. you can pick and choose if you have a standard for what a proper law should be, in that case you are not choosing arbitrarily.

              2. Sarc, you are just a total shitbag. Just a shrill, dishonest bag of fecal unpleasantness. Probably a closet progtard too.

        2. It’s like the line from Portal: I don’t want them dead, I just want them gone.

          I wish them the very best of futures, in their own countries. If they want to be in this one, let them apply for entry, and we’ll look into whether it’s in OUR interests, too.

      2. 70% of Americans agree that you and Brett are subhuman, which you confirm again here.

        Conservatards = Libtards

        1. lc1789 supports rule of man. That means using legislation to put society in its place. The people don’t matter. What matters is what our rulers dictate to us. When the laws of society and man conflict, lc1789 will always side with the laws of man.

          Especially if it harms people he doesn’t like.

          1. Sarcasmic definitely supports Rule of Man. He’s an anarchist. Its all about the strong survive. Make your own rules and and all that.

            I support Rule of Law under the US and state Constitutions.

            Good luck with anarchist-land, Sracasmic.

            1. Re: lovetheTrumpstate,

              — I support Rule of Law under the US and state Constitutions. —

              From the standpoint of the US Constitution, you actually don’t. The policies pursued by the administration have nothing to do with the constitution but with their discretion. So much for rule of *law*.

              1. Article I, section 8 & 9 give power to Congress to regulate naturalization and immigration.

                Under Article II, the Executive executes the law Congress creates. Executive discretion which is perfectly legal.

                1. You and your same bullshit. Article 1 section 8 give Congress the power to naturalize only. Article section 9 limited Congress from regulating the importation of slaves until 1808. SCOTUS has wrongly cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as giving the Federal government authority to regulate immigration. In that case, we had a treaty with China that allowed for the free migration of their citizens into our country which made anti-Chinese state laws invalid. We never had fully open borders since states had some restrictions on immigrants.

            2. Says the guy who is happy with three felonies a day because it is rule of law.

              1. Which felonies a day do you mean? I don’t commit 3 felonies a day. I get the reference but its more like 3 misdemeanors a day.

                Depending on which crimes a day you are referencing, they are likely unconstitutional, so that would make those laws illegal on their face.

                1. You probably do commit three felonies a day and don’t know it. The fact that you don’t know the reference says a lot.

              2. If you really want an answer try asking a decent question. Like- What makes executive discretion compatable with legality and legality that is proper?

          2. lc1789 supports rule of man

            As a conservatard.
            He also brags of his entitlement mentality, sucking the gummint teat, but saying his own father is “selfish as shit” on Social Security,

        2. 70% actually agree that they don’t want catch and release dumb fuck.

        3. 70% actually agree that they don’t want catch and release dumb fuck.

          1. Dumbfucks who CALL it “catch and release” tend to be Trumptards. They have NO CLUE what it actually is, and that it’s a court ruling, not a policy of that Kenyan Nigger (/sarc)

        4. Question on your 70% number. What does it pertain to: separating families or allowing them in the country. Did they poll the same people that said Hillery would win? As to immigration while I am not a socialist, my views on immigration do align with Sweden.

    2. Re: Brett Bellmore,

      — I don’t want illegal immigrants to be comfortable. I want them to live in fear until they self-deport. —

      That’ll do wonders for the effort to look for real criminals.

      1. Illegals ARE real criminals.

        1. Re: lovetheTrumpstate,

          — Illegals ARE real criminals —

          See? I wasn’t lying when I said Trumpistas waste no time to advertise that they’re quite the positivists.

          No, you authoritarian asshole. Illegals are NOT real criminals, just like any person who breaks some Mickey Mouse law is NOT a real criminal.

          1. Illegals are criminals because they violate the law. Literally the definition of criminal is a person who breaks laws.

            1. So if congress passed legislation that said one must to ten jumping jacks before saying hello, with the penalty for noncompliance being death, you would support killing people who didn’t want to jump.

              Because legislation is law, and criminals deserve whatever the legislation says they deserve.

              1. What a stupid hypothetical. Immigration law vs compelled action. You’re dumber than usual today.

              2. Oh Sarcasmic, I love hypotheticals!

                If Congress passed legislation, I would send in Stanley Nickels for my taxes.

                I would only be for punishing non-jumpers with unicorn rides.

            2. Yes but a legit question is if – Literally, you say, the definition of a criminal is a person who breaks laws, then how can you then say, but some laws are unconstitutional. I would agree with rule of law, and at the same time agree that laws can be illegal, but there has to be some standard. perhaps you could explain a bit more about about this standard, because I think some people get the idea that since a president has full power over some law that there is something inherently wrong with it and therefore there should be some objection that has the same kind of thinking that would cause you to acknowledge drug laws are illegal.

              Sounds like the argument is that Trump isn’t acting like a libertarian, which isn’t a surprise to anyone, but in this context, the president has total right to NOT act like a libertarian because in this case the constitution doesn’t require him to, which ironically makes his action compatible with libertarian principles, maybe, unless you think that the constitution should not allow laws that deport people for doing things that don’t actually violate someones rights.

              Of course one can say you cannot use something you disagree with as your defense, and that therefore the constitution does not apply to those who want to destroy it or to those who’s intentions are not known.

            3. Misdemeanors are not criminals, chump.

          2. Invading someone else’s country isn’t “breaking a Mickey Mouse law.” Maybe that’s how you see it since Mexico is such a dirty toilet bowl–but then again Mexico actually enforces its southern border except when it feels it can dump the people coming through on America, like it does its excess people essentially using America as a pressure-release valve. Mexico also has a law on the books to prevent changing the country’s ethnic makeup. Oh but if we do anything like that it’s somehow illegitimate.

      2. If it wasn’t for the need to enable illegal immigration, we could seriously crack down on identity theft. That’s a real crime, isn’t it?

    3. This is America. I don’t want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan and served by a Venezuelan in spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian.

      1. This is America. I want everyone to follow the Rule of Law under the US and state Constitutions.

        1. Re: lovetheTrumpstate,

          Hey, ignoramus: the US Constitution restrains the ***State***, not people. People don’t have to follow shit.

          1. I see you’re a Rule of Man, man.

          2. Hey ignoramous, they actually do have to follow laws based on the granted powers of the federal and state constitutions.

            1. Learn what those laws are.

  7. — The main reason he is quitting is that lawmakers were planning to use his confirmation hearings to air his record. —

    Must be a great read if he’s too embarrassed by it.

    — His claim that because of her more than 800 criminals avoided capture was so exaggerated that San Francisco’s ICE spokesman quit rather than peddle it. —

    A planet where officials won’t peddle the administration’s lies?

    1. “His claim that because of her more than 800 criminals avoided capture was so exaggerated that San Francisco’s ICE spokesman quit rather than peddle it.”

      I’ve always found that explanation dubious. It strains credibility.

      I’m not so naive to believe that a government spokesperson would resign just to avoid exaggerating statistics.

      Was the spokesperson in question due to retire anyway? Did he or she have another job lined up already? Is he or she running for office somewhere?

      Pardon me for being skeptical of government spokespeople who would rather resign than exaggerate statistics, but being generally skeptical of the principles of government spokespeople is kind of a default position for all libertarians.

      1. A government spokesperson with principles is like a hooker with a heart of gold.

      2. Re: Ken Shultz

        — Pardon me for being skeptical of government spokespeople who would rather resign than exaggerate statistics —

        Perhaps but that doesn’t mean the statistic wasn’t pure and unadulterated Trumpista bullshit.

  8. “26 percent of those arrested had no criminal record”

    74% of those arrested had a criminal record.

    1. “3 felonies per day”.

    2. Better that 10 guilty go free…

      1. Every time an illegal is inside the USA unlawfully, they are guilty.

        1. Then maybe it’s time to change the law.

          1. There is a method for that.

            Calling Americans racists and Nazis for wanting to control their borders is not that method.

          2. Only if they’re forced to settle in your neighborhood–preferably in your house–and you and they are legally denied the ability to leave the area and settle elsewhere.

        2. Then maybe it’s time to change the law.

          1. Yep. Exactly what the relevant electorate thought when they elected Trump.

    3. Re: Ken Shultz,

      Do you accept the state shows a 75% accuracy on the number of arrests they make or would you prefer the state makes a tiny greater effort to reach 99.999%?

    4. 100% of those arrested who were subsequently found guilty of breaking the law ended up with a criminal record.

    5. “74% of those arrested had a criminal record.”

      I have done extensive personal research, and I have determined that of those 74%, 85 % of them, in turn, had a criminal record because they don’t understand English as well as the rest of us do! And so then, they were arrested because they read this web site here… http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … And they thought that they SHOULD do this listed things, instead of NOT doing them, and so, they were busted for blowing on a cheap plastic flute, w/o a Doctor’s prescription!

      1. So fake research then.

        1. No more fake than your “constitutional” justification for expensive, cruel, and draconian punishments for illegal humans, when the maximum constitutional penalty, in such cases, is actually a $10 fine!

          1. It turns out that invading a country is a serious thing.

  9. How does this lunatic Leftist keep getting space to vomit her lies here at Reason.com?

  10. How does this lunatic Leftist keep getting space to vomit her lies here at Reason.com?

    1. She and her Hihn bots get massive website visits, so they can turn that revenue into Hillary donations.

  11. Just what I wanted to greet me at work after a pleasant day off & away from here – an immigrant thread full of crazy. I hope abortion’s next!

    1. Yes, abortionz.

      And don’t forget that prostitutes are actually sex workers!

      1. And the skyrocketing popularity of the Libertarian Party as they are taken so seriously as an alternative.

        1. Yeah I’m sure everyone’s going to take it very seriously now. What’s Aleppo?

    2. Happy Independence Day to everyone in the World!

      They all helped contribute to America’s independence and deserve to vote in our elections to make the USA like what they want.

      Yipppeeee.

  12. Merkel, to Survive, Agrees to Border Camps for Migrants
    BERLIN ? Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build border camps for asylum seekers and to tighten the border with Austria in a political deal to save her government.

    ?OPINION: Denmark’s new laws on immigrant ‘ghettos’ are a chilling look into what happens after the border
    “Starting at the age of 1, ‘ghetto children’ must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in ‘Danish values,’ including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments.”

    1. The nationalism and anti-migrant sentiment that has challenged multilateralism elsewhere in Europe is taking root ? fast ? in mainstream German politics.

      Just call them racist Nazis and be done with it already, NYT. I mean there is no other possible reason the Germans have had enough of the rapings and the giving up their homes for “migrants”.

      What we’re seeing in Denmark goes beyond a Trumpian desire to halt the flow of immigration.

      LOL – hyperbole isn’t just for Reason writers any more.

      1. Saying you are against the refugees culture which includes an objectification and obligation to rape women who are immodest is racist. Germans should change their culture to accommodate those tired and poor refugees seeking to make a better life for themselves by creating the same shit hole conditions that caused them to flee their homes.

    2. Good. If that’s the only way to get ungrateful refugees to meld with their new home then so be it. Children are the future and who wants a generation of lovers of Sharia Law/

  13. They have no right in this country, the Supreme Court has ruled. Illegals, children, their parents, none have a right to be here much less break in. Good for Homan defending this country. We need to separate all families on the border until we figure out who they are then expel them post haste. We have enough scum in this country from the jungle.

  14. “Homan is the chief architect, among other things, of the administration’s policy of taking kids from their border-jumping parents.”
    Since when is enforcing a federal law a “policy” for just one administration?

    I might, reluctantly, agree with more immigration as libertarians want if they would first agree to welfare reform, illegals get no federal handouts and ending anchor babies. But, the libertarians seem more interested in helping illegals than they do citizens of our country.

    1. That’s because a lot of libertarians are just cultmarx communists (see, anti-white racial communism, third worldism) or are cynical types who profit off of the perverse incentives of bringing in hordes of actual savages while externalizing the costs onto the mere peasants they enjoy abusing.

      I think most serious people have abandoned libertarianism at this point because the ideology doesn’t make sense in the real world anyway. It’s become this sort of mind virus for purely ivory tower people who think having a vocabulary full of libertarian jargon makes them big brained rather than just an insufferable dweeb.

  15. “Homan is the chief architect, among other things, of the administration’s policy of taking kids from their border-jumping parents.”
    Since when is enforcing a federal law a “policy” for just one administration?

    I might, reluctantly, agree with more immigration as libertarians want if they would first agree to welfare reform, illegals get no federal handouts and ending anchor babies. But, the libertarians seem more interested in helping illegals than they do citizens of our country.

  16. Hey remember Elian Gonzales, being ripped from his relatives arms in Miami literally at gun point? Proof that Democrats really care about the children.

    1. Do you realize you said something that stupid in public?
      His “arrest” followed a court ruling in his case.
      Shame on you.

  17. I am clouds from manchester, i hear how people are talking about The powerful spell caster called DR Ewan in regard of how he bring back ex lover, Winning lottery, getting pregnant and getting married to their dream lover and i also contact him to help me cast a spell in regard of my ex lover whom i love so much that left me 2yrs ago, but today my ex is back to me and we are happily married with 3kids and i am so much happy for the help i found in you DR Ewan. I and my family are very much happy and we are living large now, i am grateful and appreciate your good work . Thank you and may you live long to help people in problems. if you are going through any problem at all he will help you contact him on his email is covenantsolutiontemple@gmail.com or add him on watsapp +2349057353987 check out his webpage http://besthelptosaveyourmarriage.simplesite.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.