ICE

A Woman Regrets Her Trump Vote After ICE Deports Her Daughter-In-Law

"I've always been proud to be an American. But now I'm ashamed."

|

|||Peggy Peattie/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Peggy Peattie/ZUMA Press/Newscom

When Shirley Stegall cast her vote for Donald Trump in November 2016, she never imagined that his immigration crackdown would affect her family. Now the Missouri woman's daughter-in-law has been shipped to Mexico.

The Associated Press tells the story. Letty, the Shirley's daughter-in-law, immigrated illegally to the United States in 1999, at age 21. After she married Shirley's son Steve, she obtained a Social Security card, a work permit, and a driver's license. The couple bought a house, became the owners of a Kansas City Bar called The Blue Line, and are the loving parents of a 17-year-old daughter, Jennifer, from Letty's previous marriage.

In 2012, Letty was pulled over and charged with misdemeanor drunk driving near her house. She spent a month in jail, and her case was transferred to immigration after the authorities discovered her illegal status. Under President Barack Obama's administration, Letty could stay in the country if she agreed to being fingerprinted, paid processing fees, regularly checked in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and, of course, had no other incidents. In February of this year, Letty was arrested in her driveway and placed on a plane to Brownsville, Texas, without her family's knowledge. She was then forced to cross the border back into her native Mexico.

While Letty hopes to return to her husband and daughter soon, Shirley has found herself questioning her support for Trump. Though the president claimed that he would use his tough immigration policies to get "the bad ones—the really bad ones," the number of immigrants arrested without criminal records rose by 150 percent from 2016 to 2017, NBC reports.

Shirley cast her vote believing that Trump would direct resources to deporting immigrants with criminal records. "They didn't take out the people who are dangerous," she said. "The murderers are still there. The gangsters are still there. The rapists are still there."

"I've always been proud to be an American," Shirley said. "But now I'm ashamed."

Jerry Rosetti, a patron in the Stegalls' bar, tells the AP that while he still supports Trump and thinks illegal immigration was wrong, he doesn't believe that Letty should have been deported.

"I would trade places with her in a minute," he said. "She shouldn't be in Mexico. She should be right here, right now."

Letty has been barred from returning to the United States for the next 10 years, but she and her family hope that her marriage to Steve will be enough to allow her to return within the next two. Letty did not apply for a green card after her marriage, because an attorney assured her that she had little to worry about since her husband and daughter were citizens. But now that Trump has signed an executive order that put all illegal immigrants under the threat of arrest, marriage to a U.S. citizen is no longer the simple path to citizenship as it once was.

NEXT: Report: DMV Worker Sleeps 3 Hours a Day at Work for 3+ Years, Keeps Job

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. She came here with the promise she would not commit any crimes. She broke that promise and got deported. Have fun dying on the hill of “but the evil Trump is deported, criminal aliens”.

    1. Indeed. Why Reason won’t be honest that they want no borders is getting tedious.

      Isn’t personal responsibility a fundamental part of libertarianism? It seems not…if it’s immigration, butt sex, or drugs. For everything else, sure.

      1. Isn’t even Reason’s position on drugs one of personal responsibility?

        That’s how legalization works, eh?

        1. Yes indeed. Could there have been “parody” in her past as well? If so, the basic legal principles established by America’s leading criminal “satire” case, documented at

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          would also weigh against her. Had she expressed “criticism” of our leader? If so, the idea that her situation should garner any sympathy is even more far-fetched. We should all be proud to be citizens of a great nation where laws are finally being forced again, just as they were intended to be when they were written.

      2. What part of personal responsibility involves stopping other people from crossing a border? They’re responsible for themselves.

        1. Actual national security.

          1. Oh I see. She was a terrorist?

            1. Clearly her bar is a front for Al-Qaeda.

              1. ……..And here is Jeff, right on cue, with a moronic attempt at snark.

                Idiot.

            2. You dont need to be a terrorist to be in violation of US immigration law.

              Bye bye dumb chick who never filed green card papers.

              1. You make an argument on the basis of national security. Someone calls you on it. You change the subject completely.

                You’re getting dumber by the day, loveprostitution.

                1. National defense. National security. Its all right there in the Constitution.

                  You have been dumb since the first time you trolled us Tigger.

                  1. I didn’t see this till now, so let me respond:

                    You claimed it was about national security. Somebody asked you how. You simply stated that she broke the law. When I pointed out that you didn’t actually answer the question, you just said “it’s all right there in the Constitution” but didn’t bother to cite how this all adds up into a single, rational argument.

                    So, first it’s about national security, then it’s about how she broke the law, and then it’s about the Constitution. Somehow they’re all connected, but you can’t explain how because having an argument that makes sense is just a waste of your time.

                    See a shrink, loveprostitution. We’re all worried about you.

                    1. Its fun when trolls advocate shrinks for comments that they have no response for.

              2. So it is ok for govt almighty to “bye bye” someone for failing to put in the right papers?

                You are an unrepentant statist.

              3. she was keeping her options open

            3. Ca we sign you up to be the target of the next criminal alien drunk driver? Or don’t you give a fuck about Americans killed by people who aren’t evens supposed to be here?

          2. Jennifer Letty? More like Jennifer Lefty! Amirite LC.

            1. Is she a lefty, I dont know.

              I know she ain’t in America no more. Hahaha.

              1. I don’t know either, though it’s possible I’ve talked to her before. I drank in that bar a couple years ago.

                Hope she makes it back to the states.

                1. I bet you if she does make it back to the states legally, she will file the proper paperwork.

                  1. Maybe, she might not have legal recourse to return. No skin off my ass either way she manages to comes back.

          3. Deport the idiot mother in law as well! Aiding and abetting terrorism and a threat to national security!

            Serves her right for voting for Trump.

            1. Fuck you traitor.

        2. They’re responsible to, you know, NOT cross the border illegally.

          And then, when given a chance they did not deserve, to NOT commit other crimes.

          1. So your view on personal responsibility and the drug war is that people are personally responsible for not taking illegal drugs? “Personal responsibility to obey the law” doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

            1. I believe that if it’s against the law you can:
              a) work to change the law
              b) break the law and suffer the consequences, hoping your civil disobedience leads to a
              c) follow the law

              Being libertarian doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the law. It means you have to work to change stupid laws.

      3. Why Reason won’t be honest that they want no borders is getting tedious.

        Could be that they don’t, in fact, want no borders. What does that even mean? The border is where the US stops and Mexico or Canada starts. Unless all governments magically disappear all of a sudden, how could one have no borders? I don’t think most Reason writers even favor completely open immigration, but I could be wrong.

        It seems to me that the real question here is a recurring one among libertarians. Whether it’s better to have bad laws enforced and hope that people will then want to change them, or to have bad laws ignored, but stay on the books, leaving the possibility of selective enforcement in the future. Of course there is also a reasonable debate to be had about what immigration laws are appropriate. But you don’t have that debate by reducing your opponent’s views to a stupid caricature.

        1. Repeal all unconstitutional law and enforce all law no matter how stupid.

          This universal enforcement tends to get Americans pissed that there are so many stupid laws and they demand repealing those Constitutional but stupid laws.

          1. Bake those gay wedding cakes and photograph those gay weddings then!

            1. Are you still here?

        2. Having a bunch of unenforced laws on the books just gives government more power to arrest you if they go looking for technical violations to nab you up.

        3. Could be that they don’t, in fact, want no borders. What does that even mean? The border is where the US stops and Mexico or Canada starts. Unless all governments magically disappear all of a sudden, how could one have no borders?

          1. This site. Fuck the squirrels.

            If you have no limits on who goes in, you have no borders. Period.

            Makes you wonder if Reason locks their office doors at night.

            1. That’s simply not true.

              States have borders, but no controls in most cases.

              And, while I may have missed it, I don’t recall ever seeing anyone from Reason calling for absolutely no controls over who enters the country.

              1. Zeb, meet Shihka Dalmia………..

                1. As much as I cringe whenever I see a Dalmia piece, I don’t ever remember seeing a piece penned by her arguing for complete no borders. Perhaps I’m wrong.

    2. You just don’t have any heartstrings to tug, meanie.

    3. She didn’t violate anyone’s rights. The same cannot be said for you, government worker, as you live off funds stolen from hard-working Americans.

      1. Violating people’s rights are irrelevant.

        She violated a crime against public good. Immigration law violations dont require ‘victims’.

        1. The whole purpose of the Constitution and the formation of the United States was to keep people’s rights from being violated.

          Mad King George could enforce “crimes against public good” as well as anyone.

          1. No, youre wrong as usual.

            The whole purpose of the constitution was to be supreme law of the USA and protect rights.

        2. Violating people’s rights are irrelevant.

          She violated a crime against public good.

          This is what conservatives really believe.

          1. Lefties think dissidents violate laws against the nanny state.

  2. Resources are limited. They should be concentrated on where they would do the most good.

    Deporting business owners with citizen families ranks low on the list, and MS13 is happy that resources that had been focused on them are being diverted to deporting business owners and running baby jails.

    1. I thought MS13 was a myth. Only racist think MS13 is a problem. RACIST

      1. NANCY PELOSI IS A MEMBER OF MS-13!

        1. Pelosi is the leader!

          Thug-fo-life!

        2. “NANCY PELOSI IS A MEMBER OF MS-13!”

          Do you post here to prove how stupid a human can be, or is that sort of a side effect?

          1. Butthole has had a rough 1.5 years with Trump as president.

            Much of the socialist state has been rolled back or has come to the attention of Americans who are sick of it.

          2. I am mimicking wingnuts you dumb hick.

            1. I was being serious like Left-nuts.

            2. PB is a malignant tumor.

    2. It didn’t take many resources. She was, you know, right there and guilty. This wasn’t some elaborate sting operation.

      1. The arrest was six years ago. She was not in custody. They sent agents out to arrest her.

        1. She wasn’t in hiding. That’s essentially no resources.

          1. The fact that she CONTRIBUTED to the economy and created resources has no bearing. She stole her job from some toothless meth head hillbilly from Kentucky.

            1. So anyone who has a job, or owns a business will now be exempt from any consequences for breaking the law?

              1. Don’t be silly

                Only illegals should be exempt from the law

                Illegals First!

    3. This “limited resources” argument only came into play in the last two years of the Obama administration. How come there were so abundant resources before that?

      From the story:

      “Officially, Stegall’s deportation process began under President Barack Obama. He became known as the “deporter in chief” for presiding over so many removals but changed tactics in the final two years of his presidency, when ICE was directed to exercise discretion to defer action on certain migrants with standing removal orders, including those with citizen children and living in the U.S. prior to 2010.”

      1. Yes there are limited resources and someone like this shouldn’t be deported, but I don’t get why we have such ample resources to impose these standards on legal immigrants (who could face deportation for a DUI conviction and do need to renew their status), but not for illegal immigrants?

        1. Also, why didn’t her marriage to a citizen matter? That’s bizarre

          1. Some people get lazy and dont file the required paperwork even though that paperwork would have kept them from being deported.

            Its the result of non-Americans thinking that Americans wont enforce their own rules anymore.

          2. Because she chose not to become a citizen for some reason. And she claims a lawyer told her she didn’t need to bother getting a green card. Which seems impossibly stupid

            She made the choice to remain an illegal alien. Oh well

            1. Not much sympathy for her. Illegals got lazy about applying because Booosh and Obama said it was okay.

            2. ok, here’s the full quote

              “Stegall didn’t apply for a green card after getting married because her former attorney told her she had little to worry about with a citizen husband and daughter and because, under U.S. law, she likely would have had to return to Mexico and wait out the process there.”

              So she didn’t do it because it would have been inconvenient, and she wanted to enjoy the fruits of her crimes.

              1. Man I love seeing what other people call “inconvenient.”

                Me, I consider a trip across town “inconvenient.” Living in another country, away from my family, for months/years/indefinitely, is a few levels up from that.

                1. And yet legal immigrants that I know have spent six months to a year everyplace from China to Mexico to France while waiting for their visa status to change. And a legal immigrant I know was deported back to France and blocked from returning for 10 years because her visa had the wrong occupation code, a mistake her employer made, not her. I also know a guy whose wife waited a year and a half in Brazil before joining her husband to make sure she’d be in status when she arrived.

                  Immigration enforcement makes life inconvenient for people who play by the rules all the time. If we’re suddenly worried about inconveniencing those who don’t, we’ve got our priorities backwards.

              2. It doesn’t work that way. On the contrary she wouldn’t have been able to leave the states during that period.

            3. It could be due to cost. It is not cheap to apply for citizenship.

              1. Too bad. Wasting taxpayer money to deport your ass is not cheap either.

              2. Oh, I forgot about the “Well, it’s inconvenient” defense.

              3. $725 to file the paperwork if you are able enough to fill out forms correctly. You can even pay with credit card if you don’t have the cash on hand. You can also apply for a fee waiver. Probably gets costly if you decide to get an immigration lawyer involved to fill out paperwork for you…plus, I bet many of them are predatory.

        2. The machinery takes time to move correctly. Trump showed that you can turn it on a dime, but the resulting shitshow makes a big mess. It’s politically bad, wasteful of resources, and doesn’t make the country safer or better.

          From 2009 on, first gradually and then much more efficiently, focus turned on the two priorities of serious crimes and recent arrivals. Using resources to first detain and then fly her to Mexico was a waste. Her family is punished, a teenager loses her mom, and nobody is better off. Why?

          1. Rule of law that Democrats passed in 1946?

          2. “From 2009 on, first gradually and then much more efficiently, focus turned on the two priorities of serious crimes and recent arrivals. Using resources to first detain and then fly her to Mexico was a waste.”

            That is not true. This only occurred in the last two years of the Obama administration and an executive order was only discussed during the 2012 election.

            The story we are talking about even refutes your talking point.

  3. “”Jerry Rosetti, a patron in the Stegalls’ bar, tells the AP that while he still supports Trump and thinks illegal immigration was wrong, he doesn’t believe that Letty should have been deported.””

    Red voters finally figuring out how the law works. Justice is blind, and so is the law. It doesn’t care if some is a good guy or a bad guy, you can’t legislate good or bad. You can only legislate a blanket decree. You wanted all illegal immigrants deported, she is an illegal immigrant, so don’t whine she got deported. You got what you wanted!

    Allow people to cross the border legally and it suddenly becomes easier to check who is good and bad at the the gate. But force them to skip the fence and non gets a chance to check. And now we’ve broken up the family of Americans because otherwise baby Trump would cry.

    1. That is all well and good but this woman committed a crime.

      1. The edgy libertarian in me says that it shouldn’t be a crime.

        1. It’s suddenly “edgy” for libertarians to believe in individual liberty for all over collectivist property rights.

          1. Not everyone agrees that DUI/DWI shouldn’t be a crime and plenty of people here have made logically consistent arguments for and against.

            I, personally, think it amounts to precrime as no one is harmed by your impaired driving unless you get into an accident. It is ridiculous to me how big of a deal we make it.

            1. I actually am sympathetic to that argument. But it is a crime and a reasonable one, though one I would get rid of if it were up to me. Hard to have much sympathy for her.

            2. I got a DUI 6 years ago, and after paying my fines, taking classes, and dealing with the hassle I have not gotten behind the wheel with ANY alcohol in my system since. I believe the punishment should be severe because it puts innocent people at risk. Even with the harsh penalties, my DUI classes were mostly filled with repeat offenders.

              1. Congrats on your success

            3. DUI should be distracted driving like messing with your cell phone, yelling at your kids…. where you are weaving or not driving safely because of some distraction.

              Honestly, its like old people who should not be driving because they are unsafe but refuse to get off the roads.

              DUI never needed to be its own crime. MADD had an agenda and they got their wish. Meanwhile local government made millions of misdemeanors off “serious misdemeanors” where nobody is injured or property damaged.

        2. Seriously. But I guess this is a meeting of Libertarians for MADD.

        3. The boring libertarian in me says she violated the contract.

          1. The social contract?

            1. Constitutional contract?

              1. She was one of the signers of the Constitution? Why would we deport one of them?!?!?

                1. If you stay in the USA and accept the protections of the Constitution, you agree to abide by the rules of the Constitution and duly elected government.

                  You can then change the Constitution or move.

                  Which option would you like?

                  1. I didn’t agree to shit. Fuck off, slaver.

                    1. That seriously never gets old, no matter who uses it.

                      +1 Cathy.

                    2. I didn’t agree to shit.

                      But you’ll still take the benefits.

                    3. Bye bye then Cathy. Or you will always be unhappy, slaver.

                      meanwhile the rest of law abiding Americans will demand that our laws are Constitutional and come from a small and limited government.

                    4. meanwhile the rest of law abiding Americans will demand that our laws are Constitutional and come from a small and limited government

                      Tell me another one!

                    5. Youre a socialist shit heal.

          2. she agreed to being fingerprinted, paid processing fees, regularly checked in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and, of course, had no other incidents.

            1. How did she break the contract?

              1. Apologies, I seem to have misread the chain of events.

            2. Not a valid contract, since it was coerced. It was rescinded by the Trump administration anyway, so it doesn’t even apply here.

              1. Her agreement there wasn’t coerced, unless you apply a useless definition of coerced.

                However, I misread the order of events, so it doesn’t really matter.

        4. Her crime was drinking and driving if not for that as an illegal married to a citizen she would still be in the U.S.

    2. “Allow people to cross the border legally and it suddenly becomes easier to check who is good and bad at the the gate. But force them to skip the fence and non gets a chance to check. And now we’ve broken up the family of Americans because otherwise baby Trump would cry.”

      “Force them to skip the fence”…….

      Did she have gun to her head and was told she either got a bullet to he brain or had to cross the fence?

      “And now we’ve broken up the family of Americans because otherwise baby Trump would cry.”………

      You really say stupid shit, don’t you? Oh, and it’s a family of some Americans, and an illegal.

  4. “The murderers are still there. The gangsters are still there. The rapists are still there.”

    Hey, enough already about Trump supporters.

    1. We are tired talking about the murdering, raping, gangsters that are Nazi Socialists.

    2. “”The murderers are still there. The gangsters are still there. The rapists are still there.”

      Hey, enough already about Trump supporters.”

      Sounds more like the Clinton Crime Family.

  5. She never imagined that as an unlawful immigrant, her daughter-in-law might get deported.

    I … see.

    Obviously, Trump is wicked, because reasons.

    (And I like how DUI suddenly isn’t “dangerous”.

    I mean, it ain’t “stabbing people” dangerous, no.

    But it’s not exactly Safe And Harmless.)

    1. For most people, driving with .08% BAC is no more dangerous than driving with a head cold, or kids in the car or loads of other perfectly legal things.

      1. Everyone’s tolerance is different, and some people are OK driving at .12% while others are unsafe at .05%. They should instead measure response time. Those who can’t respond quickly enough should be charged, and those who do should be let go.

        1. The government should have to have probable cause that you are unsafe to drive which is almost impossible to come up with.

          1. Agreed. Have always opposed sobriety checkpoints because they’re unconstitutional. Police should only pull over people who are driving erratically or committing moving violations. I happened to crash my car, so it was pretty obvious I was guilty even before they took my blood for testing.

          2. How about just get some self control and don’t drink and drive? Like it’s hard to just drink a fucking water!

            I don’t want inebriated shitheads plowing into me when I’m driving so keep the laws.

        2. nope, need a baseline for each person. Measure reactions times as a young adult, then test every ten years until ‘science’ says your times are unacceptable.

          Now go tell every post 50 year old, their reactions have deteriorated to the point they are always driving at a .05 equivalent. Go ahead, take all their keys. Reaction times and BAC levels are BS.

          Old folks wake up at a .05 equivalent and then commence to taking a plethora of legal medications before getting in the car and putting on makeup at 70 miles an hour.

    2. A DUI generally fucks up most people’s lives. But i guess we can’t inconvenience an illegal.

      1. No kidding. A few years ago, a 29 year-old applied to work at my company part-time. He had a DUI when he was 20. Failed the background check. He said we were the fifth part-time job that had turned him away; he’d given up applying for full-time.

        I think it’s excessive. But it’s a bit bizarre to take a stand for an illegal alien with a DUI unless you’ve previously led the charge to let others with DUIs get their lives back.

  6. Pedant on: “the number of immigrants arrested without criminal records rose by 150 percent from 2016 to 2017”. She technically did have a criminal record. Pedant off.

    No matter your stance on immigration, the government shouldn’t be able to just pick you up and take you to an unknown location without at least notifying your family/next of kin/whatever and notifying you of what’s going on.

    1. You know who else would pick up people and take you to an unknown location without a least notifying your next of kin of where you are?

      1. Rahm Emanuel?

      2. prison guards?

      3. Socialists?

      4. CIA?

      5. Prince Paris of Troy?

      6. Bachelor party attendees?

      7. Kin from the movie “Kin”?

      8. Obama?

      9. Bachelor party bus?

  7. A Woman Regrets Her Trump Vote After ICE Deports Her Daughter-In-Law
    “I’ve always been proud to be an American. But now I’m ashamed.”

    I voted for GayJay but plan to vote for Trump in 2020, since he will be the most Libertarian-ish politician out there.

    1. This trolling effort gets a B-

      1. The lady is ashamed of Trump and will likely not vote for him.

        I will likely vote for Trump in 2020, so her non-vote will be cancelled out by my vote.

        1. Not exactly because different states, but you get the point.

        2. I was commenting on “the most Libertarian-ish politician” out there.

          1. Ah. I would say that Trump now has a better Libertarian government record than Gary Johnson and there are 6.5 years to go. Gary Johnson did pretty good with New Mexico but its a tiny state.

            1. Is it the taxing of imports, the increased spending, the going after otherwise peaceful immigrants, the farm subsidies, or the continuation of war in Afghanistan that you like the most about his libertarianism?

              1. Don’t forget the missile strikes in Syria, “just to prove who’s boss”

                1. Thanks Jeff. I almost forgot perhaps his *most* libertarian act! There have been so many that it’s hard to keep track.

              2. Offer free trade to trading partners who end trade restrictions;
                Gorsuch;
                2 for 1 EO repeal;
                rollback hundreds of EOs and Executive rules;
                shrink government employee numbers;
                offer 2 budgets that cut many federal agencies;
                fight for America;
                fight for the Constitution;
                enforce immigration law;
                not escalate most wars (except 4000 more troops in Afghanistan and a few hundred new troops in Syria to fight ISIS;
                stand up to North Korea,
                new SCOTUS justice assuredly being better than Kennedy;
                ending clearances for ex-bureaucrats
                ….

                1. “Offer” but not accomplish anything.
                  “Fight for” but not accomplish anything.
                  Symbolic issues.
                  Ignoring the $1.3 trillion spending bill.
                  Ignoring picking winners and losers in the trade war that’s easy to win.
                  Not expanding the wars…except the ones he is expanding.

                  1. Still more Libertarian. Plus, those are excellent achievements after only 15. years as president. This while nearly 100% of the media has TDS and Congress has RINOs undermining Trump’s Libertarian moves and 100% of the Democrats undermining his Libertarian moves.

              3. Which part of the CBO 26BB cost estimate for DACA is the most libertarian in your mind?

                1. What part of the $92B Cato Institute estimate of reversing DACA is libertarian?

                  1. The problem with DACA is that it was imposed by executive fiat. The cost is ancillary to that point

                  2. Really?
                    An estimate of how much DACAsses wouldn’t contribute, if they weren’t allowed to continue their educations and were all deported?
                    Ignoring the fact that eliminating DACA wouldn’t mean they would be immediately deported but simply join the other 11 (to maybe 30) million illegals, whose chances of deportation are slim, at best.
                    CATO beclowns themselves with such “analysis”.

                    Invading – as in occupying, without being granted permission – another’s territory is about as aggressive as it can get. Yet “libertarians” don’t consider illegal immigration as a violation of the NAP. Go figure.

              4. To be fair, his foreign policy has been less hawkish than his predecessors thus far, including engaging in negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan and ending the CIA funding of Syrian opposition groups.

                Not great, but better than his predecessors in terms of foreign policy so far

                1. The signaling of his willingness to perhaps end the war in Afghanistan is actually a real positive that shouldn’t go overlooked. It’s a little too early to tell what his endgame is there, but we can be hopeful.

                  1. Agreed. I don’t think he’s been bad on foreign policy, but still hawkish as shit, which just goes to show how unbelievably bad American foreign policy has been

                2. The neocons in the media will never give Trump credit for that unhawkish strategy.

                  I wish he would pull all troops back to USA immediately but I think he believes that he can end Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria on a high note.

                  Trump might pull troops back in Europe if things with NATO and Russia settle down and same thing with troops in Asia if some good peace deal with North Korea happens.

                  I still it will end badly in North Korea. Hopefully not.

                  1. I think it’s a bit soon to call Trump “unhawkish”. Time will tell.

                    1. Yes. Way too soon to declare him as “unhawkish”, especially since his policies are still extremely hawkish- they just look better than his immediate predecessors so far

                    2. unhawkish is probably too generous for Trump. I wold say that active combat is really only happening in Syria so that makes Trump less hawkish than Obama, Booosh, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.

                      Trump is tough with North Korea, China, and ISIS but no combat in China and NK yet.

                3. It wasn’t long ago that people were convinced we were on the brink of nuclear war with North Korea

                  1. Trump’s talks with NK have not changed that they still have nukes and have less-than-effective ICBMs.

  8. I ultimately regret every decision that puts faith in someone else. Where’s my article?

    1. We all know that you have a byline Fist. The only question is who’s?

      1. Whose byline? Who’s Fist?

        1. Damn it.

  9. I get the angle here, but a legal immigrant would face the threat of deportation from a DUI arrest. Why should legal immigrants be held to more stringent standards then those who did not immigrate legally?

    1. Legal immigrants should also not be held to that standard.

      1. Agreed. But, that’s not how it works right now. DUI’s are just like a really bad traffic ticket right now, since .08 is such a stupid standard

        1. A misdemeanor DUI seems like a petty reason to deport someone. Particularly someone who has waited upwards of seven years for a green card

          1. Of course its petty but DUI is treated a one of the most serious misdemeanors and people are even sent to prison after “x” amount of DUIs.

            Immigration law probably says any crime can result in deportation.

            If it does, change the law or be stuck with that phrase.

            1. I get your point and I don’t care for people who only complain about these rules when it impacts illegal immigrants and then completely ignore the issue when it effects legal immigrants, but the rules are stupid as shit

              1. Most rules are stupid, unconstitutional, or unnecessary.

                Take cell phone laws. Distracted driving is already against the law. Distracted driving already includes messing with cell phones, messing with radios, eating, yelling at your kids in the back seat….

                As an American, I want immigration rules to limit who enters the USA. These rules should be simple and clear so everyone knows what to do, why, and what the consequences are.

                We have piecemeal immigration laws because politicians are scared to create an immigration plan that benefits as many Americans as possible.

              2. Could be worse. Canada considers DUI disqualifying for entry. A lot of people used to crossing the border casually under our centuries-old border culture found this out the hard way after its demise.

          2. she hasn’t waited any time for a green card. She didn’t try to get one.

            1. He’s comparing what would happen to a legal immigrant.

          3. A misdemeanor DUI seems like a petty reason to deport someone. Particularly someone who has waited upwards of seven years for a green card

            But isn’t it, ultimately, that person’s fault? If you wait so long and then do something that you know, in advance, can risk your status…isn’t that their own fault?

          4. Canada won’t let any American in who either has a DUI or any major misdemeanor traffic convictions (Based on the correct perception that many drink drivers plea bargain to those offenses.

          5. How about follow the rules? Don’t drink and drive? Drink a Coke? Don’t be deported?

            Real hard, right?

        2. Because DUI shouldn’t even be a crime, for one thing, and it certainly shouldn’t start when you barely have a buzz on.

            1. And of course it’s only getting worse since zero-tolerance policies for marijuana have been adopted.

          1. Driving while intoxicated is super dangerous.

            Driving at .08 BAC is not necessarily dangerous.

            Its a hard crime to prove and articulate, so MADD went mad and got a bunch of badly worded state DUI laws passed.

            1. Logically, if they went with “Well, they looked drunk”, courts would toss out every conviction. A hard number at least provides a baseline.

              1. A standardized field coordination/reaction test, performed in front of a camera, to be used as evidence should be sufficient.
                Having an arbitrary “blood-alcohol content” standard would then not be needed.
                It could apply for any substance that produces impairment – even prescription meds.
                In one jurisdiction, those arrested for DUI were given the field-sobriety test for a video recording immediately after being brought to the station.
                In every case that was challenged, the challenge was dropped after the driver watched themselves take that test.

          2. You are dumb.

  10. So voting for Hillary would have made her proud?

    1. Maybe she realizes that something as big and broadly defined as “America” is always going to give you things to be proud of and things to be ashamed of.

  11. Come across the border, marry a citizen, get a Social Security card, a work permit, and a driver’s license and start a small business like a thug, get deported like a thug. /sarc

    1. Fail to file required paperwork for green card and commit a crime, get defiled and deported like a criminal.

      1. You know who else loves filing paperwork?

    2. How did an illegal alien get a SS card?

  12. What’s the point of deporting someone who, on net, is producing value?

    Deport the useless and the criminal not a business owner. And not over a dumb mistake like what she did.

    If this was a board game where to win you had to collect more points via points-bearing tiles than anyone else would you willingly give up any tile that increased your point total? No, you would hoard them.

    Keep the valuable. Lose the dross.

    1. Deport them all and then accept applications for immigrants that were productive.

      1. Now do citizens…

        1. You can change the Constitution to allow unproductive citizens to be deported. Otherwise, they are here to stay.

          If we cut welfare by 100%, they would have to sink or swim.

          1. You can change the Constitution to allow unproductive citizens to be deported.

            Nothing in the constitution prohibits deportation as a punishment for a crime, unless you were to think that’s cruel and unusual, but that’s subjective.

            1. Actually the 14th Amendmemnt does. Once a citizen always a citizen.
              Amendment XIV
              Section 1.
              All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
              [….]

              Part of that was so ex-slaves could not be stripped of their citizenship and deported to Africa.

              1. So they follow due process and it’s all good.

                1. I would think that being in the country of which you are a citizen is one of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. And those can’t be taken even with due process.

              2. Once a citizen always a citizen.

                And? You can be a citizen of the USA and still be forced to live elsewhere. Don’t worry. You’ll still be liable for US income taxes.

              3. “Part of that was so ex-slaves could not be stripped of their citizenship and deported to Africa.
                A big part of that was to counter the Dred Scott decision that declared him not a citizen, thus not protected by the Constitution.

            2. Chris Cantwell was just banned from the State of Virginia for five years, so there must be something that allows “banishment” as a penalty. As archaic as that sounds

              1. I would say Chris Cantwell has a 14th Amendment claim.

                You cannot be banished from your resident state, per the 14th Amendment.

                1. You cannot be banished from your resident state, per the 14th Amendment.

                  Why not?

                  1. Juice, you didnt read the 14th Amendment?

                    1. Juice, you didnt read the 14th Amendment?

                      I see no prohibition of deportation of citizens. I didn’t say anything about revoking citizenship. You can be a citizen without being able to reside in a place. Prisoners are banished from everywhere but the prison where they live. Doesn’t make them non-citizens.

              2. How does that even work?

                1. Banishment?

                  In Georgia, Kat Williams was banished from two counties for some crime. IIRC domestic charge. If he is caught by police in those two counties then that is contempt of court.

                  Banishment from a county or city is one thing but from a state is unconstitutional. I personally think banishment from a county is illegal unless a state constitution allows it. Its government telling you were you can live. If you are under probation for a crime then that is one thing but after your sentence is complete, government regulating where people can live is bad news.

                  Its like the sexual offender ban from living within “x” feet of a school. That is the same unconstitutional government power preventing people from living whee they want.

                  1. The sex offender ban is administrative; that is why it should be unConstitutional along with all other such measures. Including such a provision in someone’s sentence, I don’t see how the Constitution could possibly protect our society from such sentences–although I agree they are not only contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and liberalism itself, but incredibly stupid. Some things, unfortunately, simply must be left to the ordinary political culture of a society to restrain itself; a constitution cannot cover all liberal bases.

            3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trop_v._Dulles

              Stripping someone of citizenship as a punishment for a crime is currently considered “cruel and unusual”

              1. Luckily, she wasnt a citizen and failed to file the required paperwork for her green card.

                1. Luckily, she wasnt a citizen and failed to file the required paperwork for her green card.

                  Lucky for whom? You, the required-paperwork-loving libertarian?

                  1. American Libertarians want rule of law under our Constitution.

                    Government requires paperwork.

              2. Stripping someone of citizenship as a punishment for a crime is currently considered “cruel and unusual”

                So it’s cruel to deport someone. It’s “a form of punishment more primitive than torture.” Interesting.

                1. Key word is AND. The punishment has to be cruel AND unusual.

    2. What’s the point of deporting someone who, on net, is producing value?

      The law is the law! /s

      Seriously though, I don’t think she should have been deported, but should Jeff Bezos be allowed to murder the occasional vagrant drifter because he’s producing a shitload of net value?

      1. I mean, maybe?

        1. Will it reduce Amazon delivery times by another 15 minutes?

      2. Obviously not.

        Though that would be a great Prime series.

        She didn’t harm anyone, she owns a business. She’s not on welfare. Give her a pass.

        This isn’t Pedro the bricklayer looking for work outside the Home Depot who can’t prove anything about his contributions.

        This woman was a member of her community and maybe even an employer of Americans (can’t tell from the story) and she gets booted for a misdemeanor? C’mon.

        1. These people think the immigration laws are a joke.

          Follow the Constitutional rules like the rest of us, change the rules, get the fuck out, or risk the threat of deportation.

        2. This isn’t Pedro the bricklayer looking for work outside the Home Depot who can’t prove anything about his contributions.

          Because his contributions, no his evidence of contributions to … something…, mean something. Or something.

          1. As a mere laborer and mostly invisible in society he is less valuable and more expendable. She started a business and maybe was an employer. So she’s higher on the to-save list.

      3. If Jeff Bezos murders a vagrant, there’s an actual victim.

        If he’s caught driving with a .08 alcohol blood level, there’s not a victim.

  13. Though the president claimed that he would use his tough immigration policies to get “the bad ones?the really bad ones,” the number of immigrants arrested without criminal records rose by 150 percent from 2016 to 2017, NBC reports.

    Maybe in Trump’s view those are “the bad ones – the really bad ones.”

  14. This is right up there with the ‘poor Fed prosecutor’ pity-party from yesterday.
    You may have a point, but you just showed you can’t make it.

  15. When Shirley Stegall cast her vote for Donald Trump in November 2016, she never imagined that his immigration crackdown would affect her family.

    Everybody always votes for the bear to maul somebody else. They don’t grasp that, to a bear, one person’s the same as another.

    1. As the sadly missed RC Dean used to say, “You today, me tomorrow.”

      1. That was part of those rules that he wrote or something.

        1. Yup, his Iron Laws:

          You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.
          Money and power will always find each other.
          If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
          The less you know about something, the easier it looks.
          You aren’t free unless you are free to be wrong.
          You today, me tomorrow.
          Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

          1. “The less you know about something, the easier it looks.”

            Like macroeconomics and governing?

            1. Tony’s brand of socialism just does not fit.

          2. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

            Oh, god. I used to have a boss who I tried over and over again to make this point to, and she could just never ever get it.

            Everything was always top priority.

            That was a miserable job.

      2. I will never have to worry because I would have applied for citizenship and never been arrested for DUI while I was an illegal.

        I also would not have been an illegal immigrant in the USA.

  16. “Though the president claimed that he would use his tough immigration policies to get “the bad ones?the really bad ones,” the number of immigrants arrested without criminal records rose by 150 percent from 2016 to 2017, NBC reports.”

    This may sound stupid, but what counts as a “criminal record”? I only ask, because the woman had a DUI, but they included this sentence in the article. Does a DUI not count on a criminal record? I’m seriously confused. Not trying to argue

    1. I think the point of citing those statistics is to demonstrate that it’s not just the bad ones being deported, on the assumption that the people without criminal records are not really bad guys. Doesn’t imply that she is part of the no criminal record group. I’m pretty sure any misdemeanor conviction counts as a criminal record.

  17. Face-eating Leopard Party Voter Shocked: “I Never Thought the Leopards Would Eat My Face!”

    1. “Clearly THIS jack boot will never be on my neck, unlike the last jack boot”

      1. It’s truly befuddling. And my guess is this thinking is common across many voters.

        1. Look at Democrats praising the intelligence community right now. It’s like the Church hearings never happened or something.

          “This time it will be different!”

          OK, buddy

    2. I know, right?

      It still floors me that people who have undocumented immigrants in their families would vote for a guy like Trump, who boasts very loudly about wanting to deport people *like their own relatives*.

      It just goes to show, I think, that to a lot of Team Red voters, the term “illegal immigrants” really just refers to images and stories that they see on the TV (Fox News, etc). Who are naturally always depicted in a negative light, because most media outlets, not just Fox, will only report on undocumented immigrants when they’re doing something wrong. So when a guy like Trump says “deport the illegals”, they hear him say “deport the bad people that I see on TV”.

      1. I can’t help but believe this is true of most people’s political beliefs. They don’t believe it will happen to them. The state is a force for good, and thus aligned with them as good people.

        1. I absolutely believe it will happen to me, which is why I started off libertarian and then went full ancap. I want the government to be as small as possible so that when it goes crazy and tries to eat me, I might have a chance of surviving.

      2. You have no clue about Republican voters do you?

        Most want everyone to follow the rules like they do.

        If you are not following the rules then change the rules or expect consequences.

        1. “Like they do” being the key phrase there. No one follows all the rules. Everyone makes judgements on what rules they can reasonably get away with ignoring or bending and behaves accordingly.

          1. Do YOU try and follow the rules? I do. I am also aware that I violate numerous laws throughout the day.

            Most are unconstitutional law but some are speed limits.

            1. Illegals are purposely and blatantly violating American laws because they dont like them. Not because immigration laws are unconstitutional or some other legal defense.

              Many of the immigrants causing problems are openly hostile to Americans deciding American law.

              Fuck them. Deport them. Once all those assholes are deported, then we can streamline immigration rules and let in productive immigrants again.

              The more these illegals push Americans, the most Americans will lock down the Southern border and demand a 20 year period of assimilation for current immigrants before relaxing immigration rules.

              1. You have got to change your media diet. You are seriously in the sewers of fucknut city.

                1. Tony, as you are one of the stupidest pieces of shit imaginable, I wouldn’t be throwing stones.

                  He’s right

                  You’re wrong.

                  You’re pretty much always wrong.

              2. Illegals are purposely and blatantly violating American laws because they dont like them. Not because immigration laws are unconstitutional or some other legal defense.

                Many of the immigrants causing problems are openly hostile to Americans deciding American law.

                I also violate American laws because I don’t like them, and I’m hostile to the Americans who decide them. And I’m sure just about everyone else here could say the same. What of it?

            2. No, I don’t try to follow rules, I try to be a decent person and behave decently toward other people. Otherwise I make a judgement call on whether following a rule that I don’t agree with is better or worse than the potential consequences of not following it.

        2. Trump — noted rule follower.

          1. It’s why you hate him with all your being.

            1. Yes I hate Trump because he is so conservative in his demeanor and actions. He’s practically Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey.

              1. Whats downton abbey?

        3. You have no clue about Republican voters do you? Most want everyone to follow the rules like they do.

          This is why I struggle with those on the side of liberty who want to expand our membership through the Republican Party. Just because R’s generally talk a good game about economic policies, they still lick the boots of authority. They say rule of law as if that means all laws are just. They almost always side with law enforcement by default. They generally think that our rights come from a piece of paper that government issued. They’re more worried about winning elections than consistency of principle.

          By expanding our membership rightward, we do more harm to our message than good. We have people arguing that immigration restriction is a libertarian policy position for Christ’s sake. I’d rather have a fundamentally principled little group than a slightly larger group with no clear principles.

          1. American libertarians follow the U.S. Constitution. Those who don’t are nothing but anarchists.
            The Constitution say that Congress can decide who may legally enter the U.S.
            Illegal immigration is a violation of the NAP. There is no more aggressive act than occupying territory without the permission of the owners.
            No libertarian, especially an American one, should be supportive of illegal immigrants.

            1. The Constitution say[s] that Congress can decide who may legally enter the U.S. be naturalized.

              The Constitution does not grant the authority for the Feds to regulate who may immigrate. Immigration and naturalization are two very separate things. Only through an expansion of the Naturalization Clause and Commerce Clauses in 1884, over 100 years after the founding, do we see the Feds regulating immigration. Prior to that immigration regulation was a state issue.

      3. She had a work permit and social security number. She wasn’t undocumented.

        1. How’d she get a SS number? She is illegal.

  18. I’ve read a few of these types of articles since Trump became president. Each time, people keep telling me I’m supposed to be outraged. I just wind up wondering if they read the same article I did.

    1. You didnt fall for the open border outrage, hidden in the anecdotal story of a criminal who refused to file for her green card?

  19. ” she never imagined that his immigration crackdown ”

    Immigration advocates once dubbed then-President Barack Obama the “deporter-in-chief.” Will President Donald Trump take over that title?

    Trump got to the White House promising “law and order” and directed immigration officials to deport anyone in the country illegally ? no exceptions.

    Data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement show that overall, fewer people were deported in fiscal year 2017 than in 2016 (fiscal year 2017 included ~four months of the Obama administration). Overall removal numbers include individuals arrested by ICE in the interior of the country and individuals apprehended by immigration officials at the border and turned over to ICE for removal….

    ….Homan attributed overall decline in deportations to a border that’s “under better control.” There were fewer southwest border apprehensions in fiscal year 2017 than in 2016, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    The horror

    it also notes that percentage of deportations of ‘already residing in US’, & criminal deportations, have risen as a proportion of the total.

    that can be a factor of ‘catching fewer border-crossers’ w/o any shift in policy. Assuming “differences” = intentions by presidents is specious; these numbers ebb and flow because of local response to conditions on the ground.

  20. I live only 2 hours from the Mexican border, but if I were to visit there I could be arrested because I had a DUI 6 years ago (Canada has the same rule). I won’t attempt to visit Mexico because I respect their laws. Why can’t the good people of Mexico respect ours? BTW, the US does not prohibit people who have DUIs in other countries from visiting here.

    1. Is that why you won’t visit Mexico? Or is it because you would either be arrested or refused entry?

      Why would you respect a law that arbitrarily punishes you for irrelevant past offenses?

      1. It upsets me more that I can’t visit Canada. I visited once before my conviction and would like to go back, but I can’t. Have no reason to visit Mexico (been a few times years ago), but now that I’m not allowed to I kind of want to go. But I don’t want to end up in a Mexican jail for violating their stupid law.

        1. I don’t know about Mexico, but Canada lets you apply for a waiver. Probably better to apply in advance rather than just showing up at the Port of Entry and waiting hours for approval, or worse, rejection which is always a possibility.

          Also, you won’t end up in jail, they just won’t let you in.

      2. So if you visit my home you just do whatever the fuck you think is ok, and ignore any rules I have you consider “irrelevant”.

        1. No. Mexico has the power to refuse entry. So Antilles doesn’t enter. Doesn’t mean he has to like it or respect it. He just has to accept the reality of the situation that he can’t legally enter Mexico.

          1. What if he said Mexico was dressing provocatively and “asking for it” by being a tease? I’m also guessing that it one enters Mexico, wearing a condom is advisable.

    2. Yes. The US still has the most liberal immigration policies in the world. Trump or no Trump

        1. That is a profoundly stupid article. As a percentage of our population we don’t let in as many immigrants as other countries. What a baffling metric.

          The rules to enter the US and become a citizen are significantly more lax than any nation in Europe or any nation in the world.

          1. Truly surprised that Luxemburg tops the list

            1. And Israel coming in at 2nd. I honestly don’t understand why Israel has so many immigrants, because I have no understanding about the “right of return”

              1. Well, that was kind of the whole point of the modern state of Israel, wasn’t it?

              2. Israel’s immigration policy is that everyone who has the most obscure claim to Jewish ancestry will be accepted to apply*. Others need not apply, other than maybe if you have millions to invest etc.

                But, also, Israel is a transmigration point for those from countries that it is hard to emigrate from to the US, eg the former Soviet bloc. For a number of reasons it is easier for an Israeli resident to get into the US than is the case for many other countries.

                *Admission is not automatic; there have been a number of controversial cases of people and groups whose claims have been rejected.

            2. It’s actually not surprising given its small population and the fact that it is a tax haven.

              There are plenty of rich people who love the idea of living in a tax and privacy paradise. Luxembourg gets more of them because it’s in the middle of Europe. People who have tried the Caymans or the Bahamas give up after a few years because they get bored while those who try Panama or Belize give up because of the pervasive crime. If you get bored with Luxembourg, you can get in a train or a plane or your car and be in any one of many countries that have something else to offer.

              Although, you probably should forget about applying if your net worth isn’t multiple millions of dollars. There aren’t that many jobs there and while the welfare state is pretty generous, they aren’t looking for any more freeloaders.

          2. I understand that the very reason we have so many undocumented immigrants is because it’s so difficult to get in legally.

            And why shouldn’t we have the most liberal immigration rules? We are a nation made up almost entirely of immigrants and their recent descendants. We became the greatest country on earth ™ by doing that, or at least in spite of it.

            1. Yeah big shitbags like you and your commie pals ar fucking it up with all the welfare. We did NOT become the greatest country on earth through welfare.

              1. Actually, as early as the 1810s there were complaints in the press about immigrants coming here to go on relief.

          3. Do you seriously think that metric is “baffling”? I mean, it’s all right there isn’t it: you say we have “lax” immigration laws, but we don’t let in as many, for our size, as other countries. Perhaps that’s because people just don’t want to come here. But wait, there are millions of illegal immigrants, so more people did want to come here! But wait, we have the most lax immigration laws…

            1. There are also millions of immigrants leaving.

            2. The number of people admitted says nothing about the ease of access. So yes they are totally different measures. You would have to have an IQ that requires both hands to count to ascertain the difference.

      1. The USA has let in millions of immigrants over the last 20 years alone.

  21. Lots of people regret it. Lots of people still think Hillary’s choice of apparel and hairdo is more of an offense than Trump’s concentration camps and forced relocations. Maybe stupid people should just not vote next time.

    1. Are Trump’s concentration camps like Obama’s concentration camps?

      Ar Trump’s forced relocations like Obama’s forced relocations?

      But yeah, the less of you Lefties that vote next time the less Lefties will be upset.

      1. Nope, they’re crueler. Did you support them when Obama was doing it? Cheer on this particular policy? Attaboy Obama!, I’m sure you said. Or perhaps they weren’t cruel enough?

        1. Shocker!
          We never heard of the “family separations” when it was done by 0blama.
          At least nowhere near with the intensity that your buddies in the treasonous media are touting it.

    2. Are you suggesting no one ever made cracks about Trump’s clothes and hair?

      1. I was using her clothes and hair as a metaphor for all the minor, sexist, ridiculous crap she was held responsible for while Trump pussy grabbed and insulted dead soldiers on his way to the presidency.

        1. I never judged Hillary for her appearance or gender. I opposed her because she’s a corrupt, incompetent, horrible person. I didn’t vote for Trump but I’m glad he won over her.

        2. I was using her clothes and hair as a metaphor for all the minor, sexist, ridiculous crap she was held responsible for

          I agree. Palin really got an unfair shake.

        3. Except that Trump didn’t “grab any pussies”, though he, hyperbolically, said women would let him, to gain access to his wealth and power, and he didn’t insult a dead soldier, just his muslim parents, who tried to use their son, who died at the hands of muslims, I might add, as a way to attack Trump’s popular opinion that radical islam is a threat to our freedoms.
          And HiLIARy wasn’t held responsible for any sexist or ridiculous crap, but she was for her failed ideology and hubris in thinking she didn’t need to campaign to get her expected reward for riding Bill’s coat-tails.
          Other than that, your comment is completely accurate

  22. She knowingly broke the law. No sympathy.

    1. Hillary?

      1. Everyone the leftists love.

  23. LIBERTARIAN = OPEN BORDERS ANARCHISTS
    The US is being eliminated and many US citizens are complicit..
    Illegal alien numbers – Youve been lied to for decades!
    ALL MSM media sources repeat the same old media/political lie of only 11-12 illegal aliens in the USA!!
    Whenever these politicians and their media regurgitate these numbers you will know them for their cover up!!
    Univision boasted 50 million
    2010 – Retired INS M. Cutler writes of 40-50 million would receive amnesty if ever it is granted…
    Debbie Schlussel writes of 40 million..
    CAPS Study 2007 reports of up to 38 million..

    1. Some people who call themselves libertarians are Open Borders Anarchists
      Some people who call themselves libertarians are for small government Anglo American Liberty

      1. And most are somewhere in between those two.

  24. Nothing unusual to see here.

    Trump voters such as Shirley Steagall tend to spend their entire lives learning the hard way, from the unexpected (by them) consequences of their counterproductive conduct.

    They choose quick pocket money over education. Then they stick with declining towns and dying industries against all evidence. That is how they become the depleted human residue in our can’t-keep-up stretches.

    They believe fairy tales are true. That is how they become gullible, ready victims of charlatans.

    They refuse to accept responsibility for their self-inflicted problems, instead blaming others for no sensible reason. This interferes with self-improvement.

    They see street pills, revival meetings, tobacco, guns, faith healers, lottery tickets, more street pills, bigotry, and Donald Trump as solutions. With predictable consequences.

    1. I had no idea president Trump’s base was inner city blacks.

    2. Yes, Rev., but all of those same things that you say about those who are vulgarly known as “white trash” are true about inner city poor blacks.

      The difference is that a significant number of poor white voters, who believe all of things you list, vote Democratic while only a trivial number of black voters vote Republican.

      The plain true fact is that if (until recently Democrat) Donald Trump had run for the Democratic Party Presidential Sweepstakes on the same platform he would have beaten both Hillary and Bernie.

  25. “I’ve always been proud to be an American. But now I’m ashamed.”

    Why do so many people think that their feelz are an argument?

    1. Her shame to be an American is based on a delusion.

      She was *never* an American.

      FTFY

      1. My mistake. I thought it was the deported lady instead of her mother in law.

        Mom in Law is just one of the stupid who can’t see the consequences of her policies until they’re rubbed in her nose.

        Yes, people will get deported if we enforce borders. You might know some of them.
        And yes, the more of Mexico we import, the more we import the failings of their culture. The violence, the corruption, the pedophilia, the Big Government, the lawlessness, the drugs cartels.

        1. Its like the 0blamocare supporter, until they learned they had to pay for it.

      2. Quoth the collectivist…

    2. Same reason the girl bulliers went carpetbiting crackers when one of the Dixie Chicks confessed the shame she and I both felt at having a mystical baboon flinging faeces from the White House. So is Bye Bye a sockpuppet alias for the musician who recorded “Saddam’s Whore”?

  26. I don’t know what anyone expected here. Mr. Trump made it crystal clear he was going after everyone who wasn’t here legally. Maybe some people were thrown by all the talk about the gang members and thought those folks would be targeted first. But they aren’t hesitating to go for the “low-hanging fruit” too. If you didn’t want this, you should have voted for Gary Johnson,

    1. This woman was a drunk driver as well.

      We don’t need to import more drunk drivers.

      1. But a drunk driver was elected president (yes, George W Bush was arrested for drunk driving in 1976, this came out about a week before the 2000 election.)

        While drunk driving can have serious consequences for the driver and the public, a single offense should not result in deportation. If she had caused a fatal accident, had multiple DUIs, or committed other crimes, then that would be different.

        1. Lol.

          “Illegal immigrants shouldn’t face consequences for their actions until they literally kill someone”

          I can’t believe nobody takes you fucking morons seriously.

        2. She was caught drunk driving “near her house” in 2012 and would be left alone if she stayed clean.
          “In February of this year, she was arrested in her driveway…” – REASON doesn’t say for what – but I suspect it was her driving home from a stint at the bar, where she indulged in a few for herself.
          “Lit up” by the patrol car “near her house” and stopping for them, in the driveway.
          Be careful reading REASON. They omit pertinent facts, sometimes to stoke their narrative.

  27. Should have filed out the paperwork.

  28. I’ve never regretted casting my libertarian spoiler votes. Every such vote packs the law-changing clout of anything from a vanload to a stadium full of votes wasted on identical looter parties. Roe v. Wade, conscription for undeclared wars, Comstock laws, blue laws, prohibition laws–all were whittled away by the increasing stream of LP votes. But with Nixon’s soft machine STILL paying the media to slit our throats…

  29. Woman surprised to find that the law applies to people she likes. Footage at 10.

  30. It’s funny how drunk driving is never a serious crime when an illegal alien does it. Or an NFL player.

  31. 1 month in jail for a misdemeanor dui?

    I am guessing she was a repeat offender or had other things on her record. More to this sob story than what we are getting here.

  32. Letty did not apply for a green card after her marriage, because an attorney assured her that she had little to worry about since her husband and daughter were citizens.

    Bad legal advice results in a bad outcome.

  33. So is Shirley also ashamed that her daughter-in-law is a menace on America’s roads?

  34. Oh cry me a river.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.