Reason Roundup

Birtherism Becomes Official Border Policy: Reason Roundup

Plus: meet the White House's new marijuana propaganda committee, and how FOIA fights are getting tougher.

|

LOREN ELLIOTT/REUTERS/Newscom

Decades-old fraud claims blamed for new birth certificate crackdowns. Despite their possession of U.S. birth certificates, Hispanic Americans living along the U.S.-Mexico border are being denied passports and otherwise having their citizenship challenged. It seems the president's personal propensity for demanding proof of citizenship—Trump was a key Obama birth certificate truther—has now become national policy.

The Washington Post profiles 40-year-old Juan, whose birth certificate lists Brownsville, Texas, as his home and whose resume includes stints in the U.S. Army and Border Patrol. Earlier this year, the State Department denied him a passport.

Juan is one of a growing number of people whose official birth records show they were born in the United States but who are now being denied passports—their citizenship suddenly thrown into question. The Trump administration is accusing hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Hispanics along the border of using fraudulent birth certificates since they were babies, and it is undertaking a widespread crackdown.

The U.S. State Department said it was related to high "incidence of citizenship fraud" in the region and cited longstanding policy. "But cases identified by The Washington Post and interviews with immigration attorneys suggest a dramatic shift in both passport issuance and immigration enforcement," notes the paper.

Vox immigration reporter Dara Lind poked around and turned up similar results. "My first question with any story like this is 'How new is this really?' Lind tweeted yesterday afternoon. "The answer, in this case, appears to be: mostly pretty new! The Obama admin did a little of it…It's now anecdotally 'surging.'"

Defenders will suggest this is a reasonable response to real issues of fraud. But if that's the case, the State Department is doing a poor job of identifying potential fraudsters—those who challenge these claims usually win. From the Post:

For now, passport applicants who are able to afford the legal costs are suing the federal government over their passport denials. Eventually, the applicants typically win those cases.

But in the interim, some are being kept from reentering the U.S. after trips to Mexico, detained in federal immigration centers, and subjected to other abuses while they struggle to prove that previously validated papers are indeed legit. And, of course, many are financially unable to challenge the government's decisions.

In any case, the fraud that's generally being alleged here happened long ago: U.S. authorities have justified their moves by citing "some midwives and physicians along the Texas-Mexico border provided U.S. birth certificates to babies who were actually born in Mexico"—during the 1950s through the 1990s:

In a series of federal court cases in the 1990s, several birth attendants admitted to providing fraudulent documents.

Whether parents and physicians were culpable in faking birth certificates back then, the recipients have been living as documented U.S. citizens for decades, and likely with little idea about the deception. Now, they face not only restrictions on travel but possible deportation proceedings.

Read the whole Post story here.

FREE MINDS

FREE MARKETS

The White House is launching an awful new anti-cannabis propaganda initiative, according to a new investigation from Buzzfeed. "A committee of federal agencies from across the government" will band together "to combat public support for marijuana and cast state legalization measures in a negative light, while attempting to portray the drug as a national threat," Buzzfeed reports.

Referred to in White House communications as the Marijuana Policy Coordination Committee, it is currently asking the Drug Enforcement Administration and 14 (!) other federal agencies to supply "data demonstrating the most significant negative trends" related to marijuana and its legalization.

"Staff believe that if the administration is to turn the tide on increasing marijuana use there is an urgent need to message the facts about the negative impacts of marijuana use, production, and trafficking on national health, safety, and security," says one meeting summary obtained by Buzzfeed.

None of the documents indicate that officials are seeking data that show marijuana consumption or legalization laws, which have been approved in eight states, serve any public benefit or do a better job of reducing drug abuse.

QUICK HITS

  • Sexually transmitted infection rates are at an all-time high since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started measuring.
  • An important National Security Agency surveillance case that's been getting little attention.
  • "Occupy Democrats has more influence on Facebook 'than virtually any other news source in America,'" notes Will Sommer at The Daily Beast. Now, its creator "wants to take the diehard liberals from Occupy Democrats—and anyone else he can get—onto a social network of his own."
  • The drug ketamine has been found to work on the brain's opioid receptors (previously it was thought only "to act solely on the glutamate system in the brain"), potentially complicating its potential as an anti-depressant.
  • Roy Oliver, a "white former Texas policeman [who fatally shot] an unarmed black teenager in a Dallas suburb last year," has been sentenced to 15 years in prison.
  • Switzerland's "sex boxes" have been deemed a success.
  • "The Education Department is drafting a new approach to campus sexual misconduct adjudication. It will permit colleges to adopt higher evidentiary standards in hearings, mandate cross-examination of relevant parties in a dispute, and stress that all students are considered innocent until proven guilty," an education official confirmed to Reason's Robby Soave yesterday.

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.

345 responses to “Birtherism Becomes Official Border Policy: Reason Roundup

  1. Decades-old fraud claims blamed for new birth certificate crackdowns.

    Kenya after all! I knew it.

    1. I always knew Kenya would be the final boss of our society.

      1. Kenya believe it?!

    2. Hello.

      “In any case, the fraud that’s generally being alleged here happened long ago: U.S. authorities have justified their moves by citing “some midwives and physicians along the Texas-Mexico border provided U.S. birth certificates to babies who were actually born in Mexico”?during the 1950s through the 1990s:

      In a series of federal court cases in the 1990s, several birth attendants admitted to providing fraudulent documents.

      Whether parents and physicians were culpable in faking birth certificates back then, the recipients have been living as documented U.S. citizens for decades, and likely with little idea about the deception. Now, they face not only restrictions on travel but possible deportation proceedings.”

      You live and die by the sword.

      1. You live and die by the sword.

        Lol, what the fuck are you talking about?

        1. I suspect he’s referencing the nature of markets. Create things of value – identity, citizenship – and the market will find a way to offer it for sale.

          1. Markets are kind of the opposite of living by the sword.

            1. Human communication is imprecise. Don’t blame me, I didn’t do it, I swear.

            2. Well, unless you are a sword merchant.

              1. Or a metal merchant.

            3. Not really. If you’re a free marketeer and changes in the market destroy you, it is correct usage to say “live by the free market, die by the free market.”

        2. Maybe immigrants should figure out how to code, since the job of border jumper didnt pan out.

      2. I’m saying if you’re gonna commit fraud and get away with it for a time, don’t be surprised when you may be made to account for your decisions and actions.

        And….what Hamster said.

        1. Sure, why not, lawn order. The parents of now Dr. Juan Suarez, born 1953, committed fraud by securing a U.S. birth certificate for their new son. So let’s yank him out of the hospital where he is head of surgery and deport him in order to punish his parents’ fraud.

          1. Fraudsters dont get to keep the fruits of their crime.

            In this case, citizenship.

            1. Hey, me, did you know using “sussed” yesterday means you’re me? But saying “my dude ” doesn’t mean Cathy is Kivlor?

            2. So, the sins of the parents are to be paid by the child?
              The children in question seem to be the victims of fraud here, not the perpetrators.
              But then, you’re all about command and control, “your papers, please” doesn’t bother you.

              1. If the child lives in a home purchased by parents with stolen funds, the house is sold out from under the kid while the parents are in prison.

                They can all reunite outside the USA and be one big happy family again.

            3. The parents committed the fraud.

              So, are we going to retroactively abort the kids too?

              1. They just get deported. Not American citizens.

          2. All I’m saying is there are consequences to actions. Libertarians understand this, no?

            People need to understand this. I can use company funds to pay for my trip to Europe not related to my business. I may enjoy this for years before the tax man decides to audit me. And I’m caught I have to pay.

            1. And no, those babies shouldn’t pay the price. At all in my view.

              People getting in under false pretences are the ones who should pay a price. I still think deportation is way too harsh. Maybe a fine or something and then Congress should just fix up the gaps in the laws.

            2. All I’m saying is there are consequences to actions. Libertarians understand this, no?

              Do you understand that the people being victimized by the government did not actually commit fraud? That’s why after they get detained and pay tons of lawyer fees, they get their passports.

              1. Oof the patience needed with this one.

                I’m not talking about them.

                “In a series of federal court cases in the 1990s, several birth attendants admitted to providing fraudulent documents.”

                If I poorly conveyed the fact the original fraud committed does have LONG-TERM consequences – in whatever form – I’m sorry. I’m looking at the source that leads to this unfortunate situations for the children. Again, if it were me, I wouldn’t make the kids pay that price. The person who committed the fraud and contributed to the problem, should.

                Undo the bun, Lileth.

                1. The issue isn’t just punishing people who actually were born in Mexico but grew up here thinking they were born in the U.S. The government is depriving people of citizenship, or at least some of the rights and privileges of citizenship, without proving that they were actually not born here – and in most of these cases, the people involved were born in the US. The government is using some instances of fraud in an area to delegitimize a wide swath of births without proving their case in these individuals’ circumstances. That is a clear affront to the rule of law, due process, human rights, and basic decency.

                  1. NO its not. You dont get to keep the fruits of your fraud. In this case, citizenship.

                    1. Setting aside that even in the cases where there was actually fraud, the fraud was not committed by the person who received citizenship, the larger point I was making sailed right over your head. You are justifying taking away citizenship on the mere suspicion that someone could have been born in Mexico even if there the government has not proven that to be the case. You are ok with putting the burden of proof on the people to prove their documents are not fake. Do you seriously not see the problem with this? Do you really think it’s ok for the government to say “Well some people in your area got fake birth certificates, so we’re going to assume yours is fake too unless you jump through our hoops and even then that might not be enough for us”?

                      If you the alternatives are on one hand some people get to live here after growing up here thinking they were born here because their parents and a midwife falsified their birth certificate, and on the other hand that US citizens are wrongly deprived of citizenship or deprived of the rights/privileges of citizenship and forced to jump through hoops to prove it just off of a generalized suspicion, the former is clearly preferable. If you seriously think the latter is justified in the name of minimizing the former you are not a libertarian.

                    2. As my point and the reality of life sailed over your head, criminals dont get to keep the fruits of the fraud.

                      If criminal parents buy a house with their kid living there, the fruit of that fraud can be taken back and sold. The kid would be kicked out.

                      Americans are taking back the fraudulent obtain citizenship and kicking them out of our house.

                    3. I’m assuming in this case you’re talking about the parents committing fraud, and using the money gained to buy a house, and then they’re forced to sell it when convicted to pay back the fraud. To which my reply would be that there’s a concrete victim who is out of money as a result of fraud and is compensated by the sale of the home.

                      Here, you’re stretching to equate that with the people being victimized by someone fraudulently getting citizenship decades ago through no fault of their own. What is the material harm here? What has anyone been deprived of that’s comparable to someone out of money due to fraud? If someone’s grown up here thinking they’re a citizen, they almost surely have American friends, very possibly or likely American family, work for an American company, etc. and those Americans seem much more obviously harmed by this person being deported than any American is harmed by their presence.

                      And once again, you completely fail to address these facts: 1) Most of the people involved here actually are American citizens born in the US 2) The government is infringing on their rights merely off of a generalized suspicion that they could have been born elsewhere, and is not proving their case in individual circumstances before depriving people of the rights and privileges of American citizenship.

                    4. criminals dont get to keep the fruits of the fraud

                      The criminals are not keeping the fruits of their fraud. The criminals are the people who faked the birth certificates, and they’ve actually already been punished here. The *victims* are the children who were lied to and are now facing the consequences of someone else’s crimes.

                      Your analogy of kicking parents out of houses that they fraudulently obtained is not a good one. In that case you are taking away a house from someone who obtained it via criminal means – the children are unfortunately caught up in it but *they are not the ones you are taking the house from*.

                      In the case at hand, you are not taking anything away from the actual criminals. You are *only* taking something away from their victims.

                      As I said below, the proper response is to officially recognize these people as citizens, which they already are for all practical purposes.

                    5. Except – as you keep ignoring – the people being caught up here didn’t actually commit any fraud. Neither did their parents. They were born in the US. Which is why they win the cases in the end (after great expense).

                      The government is using *alleged* fraud 20-50 YEARS AGO to justify fucking with people they have no evidence, whatsoever, have committed any fraud whatsoever. That’s not even probable cause. That’s Stop-And-Frisk level of bullshit.

                    6. And for a guy who claims to be a lawyer of some sort and claims to love the Constitution so much, and claims to be for the rule of law – you sure support arbitrary use of state power for oppression when the people targeted are a color you don’t like.

                    7. Agammamon (and Lynch, and Calis.) all great points!

                      What a clusterfuck and the government indeed shouldn’t be doing that. Sending the kids to another country is crazy.

                    8. Rufus, my understanding is that the cases in question mostly involve denying passports or reentry to adults. The justification being that they *might* have been caught up in fraud that occurred when they were babies.

            3. There’s also a well-established principle of a statute of limitations, which applies to most criminal accusations about the distant past.

              1. The statute of limitations has not passed on this crime.

                Plus, fraud can be tolled sometimes until the fraud is discovered.

                1. It hasn’t?

                2. Your house analogy is not equivalent. If the house is in the child’s name, it can’t be taken by the sins of the parent. If your parent dies and leaves you the house, it’s yours.

                  Also, it can only be taken after a jury finding.

                3. Your house analogy is not equivalent. If the house is in the child’s name, it can’t be taken by the sins of the parent. If your parent dies and leaves you the house, it’s yours.

                  Also, it can only be taken after a jury finding.

                  1. MAGA!

            4. What’s happening here is *your father* used company funds to pay for your college education. Years later he’s audited and its found out – now we strip you of your degree? What purpose would that serve.

              1. Hypotheticals? I love hypotheticals.

                I would not get a college education. I would have been an astronaut. I would have flown to Mars and then Jupiter. Maybe some laps around Neptune for good measure.

                Then when they took away my degree that I didnt have, I would say who cares- I am a spaceman!

                1. so you’ve decided to default to gibberish then lovecons.

        2. Yeah, all those fucking crafty newborns conspiring to get US birth certificates.

          They were wise beyond their years….uh, months….ummm, days.

        3. I’m saying if you’re gonna commit fraud and get away with it for a time

          And if you don’t commit fraud? Since, you know, most of the people involved here didn’t commit fraud?

          And of course the babies were victims of the fraud.

          Live by the idiocy, die by the never realizing you’re a fucking moron.

          1. Rule of Law. MAGA!

            1. And other meaningless buzzwords!

              1. Like buzzword?

            2. Regardless of the legitimacy of the law.
              Your totalitarianism is coming through loud and clear.

              1. Yeah. Libertarians like me are the most totalitarian sumbitches out there.

                I then wonder why immigrants want to come to our country.

                Why do immigrants want to come to a totalitarian, racist, buzzword-loving nation?

                1. You’re not a libertarian. You’re just another alt-right troll. Reddit is full of you idiots posting ‘look what a minority did in another country across the world’ and ‘Look at what Trump’ did posts in any forum that won’t moderate you out of existence.

                2. I don’t think you are a libertarian at all so “libertarians like me” is an empty set.

            3. Depriving people of citizenship with no due process or meeting any burden of proof is totally a win for the rule of law.

              1. Due process is right there in the story.

                Due process does not mean that immigrants win.

                1. The government taking away rights before proving their case and putting the burden of proof on the individual is not due process. It’s a mockery of it. And most of the people involved here are not “immigrants” because most were actually born here. If this was your citizenship at risk I seriously doubt you’d be so cavalier about this, but as long as it just threatens Latino Americans in South Texas it’s no big deal, right?

                  1. Its already proven. People got Due Process. See ya!

                    They can all reunite outside the USA and be thankful, that the USA is so great that we simply send you across the border.

                    1. What the fuck are you talking about? No it has not been proven in the cases described in the story. Most of the people who are able to contest it are able to prove their citizenship to the government’s satisfaction, but that is turning the principles of due process and burden of proof on their heads. It’s abundantly clear that you care about kicking out immigrants above all else and you don’t care if US citizens get caught in the crossfire just as long as they’re Latino and you’re not at risk of being personally affected. I’d love to see your reaction if you were the one who had your passport revoked or were thrown into immigration custody off nothing more than a bureaucrat’s suspicion.

                    2. I was born in the USA. Some of my relatives fought in the Revolutionary War. Some other relatives are Native Americans. Some other relatives came through Ellis Island.

                      My family has been here for a bit. My parents were both Natural Born Citizens.

                      I’m good on the “what if”.

                    3. That’s exactly my point jackass. This isn’t going to affect you, only Americans of Latino descent who you clearly don’t consider to be an equal, real American like you, so you don’t give a shit.

                2. “Due process is right there in the story.”

                  Right. In this case “due process” is “assuming that every birth certificate in a heavily populated region of Texas is fraudulent because a few people may have committed fraud decades ago, whether or not there’s any indication that the certificates are connected to the fraud”.

                  Yep, you’re as libertarian as Antifa is anti-fascist.

                  1. In this case, Due Process means you get a hearing.

                    Buh Bye illegal.

                    1. For sure. Nothing says liberty like a presumption of guilt.

                      Bet you’re a big fan of civil asset forfeiture as well. After all, you’re presumed guilty, but you get a hearing, so it’s all cool.

                    2. MAGA!

                    3. Come on man. You can do better.

                    4. No he can’t.

                    5. Maga

                    6. “Due process” generally simply means that you get notice and the right to be heard. It is not the cure-all that people like to think it is.

    3. Juan is one of a growing number of people whose official birth records show they were born in the United States but who are now being denied passports

      And don’t get me started on his twin brother, Other Juan.

  2. In Pennsylvania, defendants pay a “plea fee”?just to plead guilty. One woman was charged in three retail thefts in which about $25 in merchandise was stolen and was assessed $600 in plea fees. https://t.co/cpZ7y3IgOL
    ? Ethan Brown (@ethanbrown72) August 29, 2018

    The commonwealth’s criminal justice industry isn’t operating for the fun of it.

    1. If they lose funding they might have to stop prosecute victimless crimes.

      1. Technically shoplifting is a crime that has a victim, but I am sure you meant drug crimes.

        1. I meant all the actual victimless crimes they punish, not her crime specifically.

          1. Drug crimes, conspiracy, and prostitution. Really the only victimless crimes in the USA that I can think of.

            1. Person not to possess a firearm.
              Gambling
              public drunkenness
              vagrancy

              Theres more……..

              1. Sounds good.

    1. “Must be ‘Lock her up!’!”

    2. CDS bro.

      1. Her system was unsecured and was hacked by foreign intelligence services. Those are the facts

        1. I wonder if proving the Chinese then executed a number of U.S. agents, exposed by her e-mails, would end the fawning support, in most media circles, for this mendacious woman?

          1. I wonder if proving the Chinese then executed a number of U.S. agents, exposed by her e-mails, would end the fawning support, in most media circles, for this mendacious woman?

            They don’t give a shit that Feinstein had a Chinese spy driving her around for decades, why would they care if the Chinese killed a few agents for her lack of InfoSec?

            Hell, the whole reason China is in its current position today is because the Clintons sold out to them over 20 years ago.

            1. Right. Economic liberalization after the Mao catastrophes had nothing to do with it.
              It’s all about the almighty state and the connivance of those dastardly Clintons.

              1. That shit was over 40 years ago.

                Anyone who thinks granting China “most favored nation” trading status during the 90s had no impact on their economic power is a straight-up moron.

                1. Didn’t Bill also heavily loosen up what tech could be shipped to China?

        2. Your brain is pure dog shit. Trump made the unsubstantiated claim and the FBI answered it by saying there was no evidence the server was compromised. So what do you dog shit for brains types do? You find some email where Hillary joked about having internet trouble and you think that’s evidence to support your unsubstantiated claims. Stupid never backs down. It never sees itself.

          1. Your ideology is pure dog shit.

          2. Whataboutism is the last refuge of the roundel.

            1. *rondel (the piece of armor that protects the armpit)

          3. Your thoughts are pure dog shit.

        3. The State Department email system was successfully hacked by Chinese hackers. If she hadn’t used the private servers, we know China would have had the emails. Now, it’s just randos on twitter speculating, and the President parroting.

          1. Lefties starting to sweat again now that Hillary is under investigation again.

            Obama should have pardoned her.

            1. Hillary’s been under investigation for going on 30 years now. I think she’s probably the most investigated person in American history.

              The closest anyone ever got to pinning a crime on her was storing her emails on her own server, instead of the State one that got hacked by Chinese.

              1. She has never had to be interviewed by the FBI.

                Next she will be indicted by the DOJ.

                Mueller got 2 years. Hillary’s indictment will only take a few weeks.

              2. Actually, people have been closer to pinning crimes on her than that but fortunately for her she found the subpoenaed documents a day after the statute of limitations was up.

              3. “”Hillary’s been under investigation for going on 30 years now.”‘

                Well compare the techniques involved in the FBI investigation of her server, vs the techniques Mueller is using against Trump. Hillary was not investigated, she was softballed.

                Also, Bill and Hill’s associates in the Whitewater affair went down. If your associates going down equates to some level of guilt by you, then they were guilty. Not that I see it that way, but I hear Trump is guilty of something because of his associates are guilty.

    3. Remember on Veep when Selena made up that story that the Chinese hacked her to cover for the offensive tweet she accidentally sent public instead of DM?
      Legacy!

    4. The Chinese didn’t need hack their way in, for a generous donation she would have sold them the password.

  3. “The Education Department is drafting a new approach to campus sexual misconduct adjudication. It will permit colleges to adopt higher evidentiary standards in hearings, mandate cross-examination of relevant parties in a dispute, and stress that all students are considered innocent until proven guilty,” an education official confirmed to Reason‘s Robby Soave yesterday.

    So the Trump administration’s war on women continues unabated.

  4. Man Arrested For Threatening To ‘Shoot’ and ‘Blow Up’ TPUSA High School Leadership Summit
    An Illinois man was arrested last month for threatening to “shoot” and “blow up” Turning Point USA’s High School Leadership Summit at George Washington University, ABC7 reports.

    28-year-old Alexander Micah Cohen tweeted a photo of a man with a baseball bat wrapped in what appears to be barbed wire, writing, “On my way to #HSLS2018 to greet the nice conservative teenagers.” Another tweet reportedly said: “I’m riding through D.C. [to] go and shoot GWU up ? We gon’ come and blow GWU up.”

    1. Well, to be fair, “TPUSA” could easily be mistaken for “TRUMP”.

    2. Shoot and blow up huh?

      I hope that’s a wicked cool movie type deal where he shoots a grenade midair and it explodes killing those dastardly teens.

    3. tweeted a photo of a man with a baseball bat wrapped in what appears to be barbed wire

      How appropriate that a progressive adopted the weapon of a comic book/teevee character who established and enforced a feudalistic society in a post-apocalyptic world.

      1. I thought that was the weapon of choice for pro wrestler Cactus Jack

    1. Say, xi’s kinda *cute*.

    2. “Daisy”. He wont shoot his eye out!

    3. That’s really par for course for 4chan. Rule 63 is old as the day is long.

      1. Is “Rule 63” like Rule 34, but worse?

    4. Daisy Duke and Boss Hogg’s illicit love child?

  5. Roy Oliver, a “white former Texas policeman [who fatally shot] an unarmed black teenager in a Dallas suburb last year,” has been sentenced to 15 years in prison.

    The conviction and sentence (if it stands) is such an anomaly that it’s unlike to act as any better deterrent than any other potential punishment.

  6. UN Appointed Climate Science Team Demands The End of Capitalism
    For the “first time in human history,” the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.” This applies to all forms of energy. Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort.”

    ?

    The shift to renewables might help solve the climate challenge, but for the foreseeable future will not generate the same levels of energy as cheap, conventional oil.

    1. usable energy (“exergy”)

      As opposed to wasted heat (“waxted heat”)?

      1. “Exergy” is whatever xi wants to self-identify as, for example, Ex=mc2.

        But that is only if “m” chooses to self-identify as “m”.

        1. And yet the ‘2’ is not allowed choose xer’s value just because it’s a constant? That’s not fair!

          You’re a variable-ist!

      2. No heat is truly wasted.

        1. Entropy has a sad.

        2. It’s all about the friction, baby!

    2. How the fuck are renewables more efficient than fossil fuels? They’re woefully inefficient compared to fossil fuels.

      1. It’s the U.N., no logic or science can penetrate their skulls. It’s all about control for them.

  7. “The Education Department is drafting a new approach to campus sexual misconduct adjudication. It will permit colleges to adopt higher evidentiary standards in hearings, mandate cross-examination of relevant parties in a dispute, and stress that all students are considered innocent until proven guilty,” an education official confirmed to Reason’s Robby Soave yesterday.

    Totally unacceptable. The Drumpf regime continues its quest to turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale.

    Vote Democrat in November to fight against rape culture.

    #Resist
    #BlueWave

    1. Because due process is bad! Verdict first, trial after, say SJW’s.

    2. I knew you wouldn’t disappoint after I heard about this

  8. An important National Security Agency surveillance case that’s been getting little attention.

    You mean, this one?

  9. For only $350, you can make a judge exhale a long, exasperated sigh.https://t.co/SqNDF4caPm pic.twitter.com/UbBACMIHZC
    ? LEAD NEWS STACKER – GOOGLE (@TimCushing) August 30, 2018

    Russian collusion is the new chemtrails.

  10. “It seems the president’s personal propensity for demanding proof of citizenship?Trump was a key Obama birth certificate truther?has now become national policy.”

    This is Palin’s Buttplug level garbage thinking.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Makes it seem as if Trump offered no legitimate targets for criticism, so you had to make up shitty connections that aren’t there.

    There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Trump and his policies–especially on immigration. Why not go after one of them?

    1. Do you not think it’s legitimate criticism to point out that they are ramping up enforcement efforts that directly harm American citizens?

      1. Do you think invoking Birtherism helps make that case at all?

    2. You take one tongue-in-cheek comment out of the whole piece and claim that ENB isn’t going after legitimate targets for criticism?

      “Why not go after one of them?”
      Are you ignoring the part where she’s arguing that it appears to be State Dept policy to not issue passports to Hispanic-American citizens? That seems like a legitimate target for criticism that she is, in fact, going after.

      1. “Birtherism Becomes Official Border Policy”

        Do you see that?

        “It seems the president’s personal propensity for demanding proof of citizenship?Trump was a key Obama birth certificate truther?has now become national policy.”

        Did you see that?

        That isn’t tongue in cheek. That’s just ridiculous.

        If she were making fun of people with TDS, I’d say it’s not unreasonable to mistake TDS with someone who’s mimicing TDS.

        Haven’t you read enough yet to suspect that maybe she isn’t parodying TDS at all?

        Palin’s Buttplug makes these kinds of stupid associations every day.

        Meanwhile, cheap labor, legal and otherwise, is good for the economy–which is one of the best reasons to support open immigration. And there’s no need to invoke Birtherism to make that case at all.

        1. I certainly read it as tongue-in-cheek. At worst it seems to be click-baity (if that’s a word).

          My only point is that you should focus on the premise of the piece, which seems to be sound (at least to me). I’m sure we can agree that we don’t want the government singling out certain classes of citizens and potentially denying them the privileges of their citizenship. And that in the case of a fraudulent claim to citizenship the burden of proof should be on the government to prove the fraud, not the individual to prove the lack of fraud (ie innocence).

          1. Wasnt Hillary the first Birther?

            I wonder why that wasn’t mentioned in the Article.

            1. Man are you obsessed with her. Just rub one out to the audiobook of “It Takes a Village.”

            2. Yeah she was. Probably for the same reason as the Republicans who latched onto it… political expediency.

              1. Hmmm. Tomato – Propaganda. Maybe not called the same thing after all.

  11. “The answer, in this case, appears to be: mostly pretty new! The Obama admin did a little of it…It’s now anecdotally surging””

    Get back to me when someone does any actual legwork on this nothing story about minor local problems.

  12. So the Democrats have nominated a black socialist for Governor of Florida? Look out Drumpftards; the people are hitting back! This guy will turn out dozens, perhaps as many as a hundred, votes from the Cuban community alone!

    1. He’s under investigation by the FBI for corruption.

      1. So he’s presidential material.

        1. Hillary wont ever run for President again either.

      2. So now the FBI is good?

        1. The FBI is crooked as fuck… And they’re investigating crooked Hillary.

          The World is Cra-cra.

  13. Switzerland’s “sex boxes” have been deemed a success.

    I like my sex boxes like I like my cheese.

    1. the municipality added several wooden structures furnished with plank beds, “responding to concerns that not all customers want to receive services in their car”

      Now, *that* is customer service.

      1. Most folk might call it a potting shed to be discrete. Not us, me and Charlene call it our ‘Fucking Outhouse’.

    2. Aged and moldy?

    3. Pungent and fuzzy?

    4. Pale, sweaty, with blue veins?

    5. Stinky and smooth?

    6. Piquant and full of holes?

    7. Orange and wrapped in plastic?

    8. On top?

  14. ‘How the HELL does that happen’?! N.M. child abuse case takes APPALLING turn; UPDATED
    #BREAKING: A judge has dismissed charges against 3 defendants in the case of children found in a squalid desert compound in New Mexicohttps://t.co/iuVvawzW4I

    ? WHSVnews (@WHSVnews) August 29, 2018

    MORE: Judge Emilio Chavez ruled he had no discretion to keep the three defendants in custody since prosecutors missed a 10-day limit for an evidentiary hearing to establish probable cause. Prosecutors could still try to pursue charges by seeking an indictment from a grand jury.

    ? Meg Kinnard (@MegKinnardAP) August 29, 2018

    1. And the Sheriff’s gonna say “we love our Somalis, we love our Muslims. Oh, they’re so good, oh they’re so sweet”

      1. Shut the fuck up Cathy.

    2. Prosecutors could still try to pursue charges by seeking an indictment from a grand jury.

      What?! And show that, unlike the prosecutors who “missed the deadline”, they HATE MUSLIMS?

    3. Well, I’d say David Koresh is scratching his head in hell.

  15. Spoke with a media attorney last week who said bluntly that the *only* way to obtain federal records now is to sue. Literally nothing else will work. https://t.co/MnDzICg9fK
    ? Sara Libby (@SaraLibby) August 29, 2018

    And sometimes not even then.

  16. Cuomo Received $25,000 From Weinstein Lawyer’s Firm as He Suspended Probe
    New York Governor Andrew Cuomo halted an investigation into the Manhattan DA’s handling of the Harvey Weinstein case just as the law firm representing the Hollywood producer gave Cuomo’s campaign $25,000.

    1. Cheap date.

    2. Should have gotten an NDA.

  17. South Africa withdraws white farmland redistribution bill six days after Trump warned he was closely studying the situation
    ‘I have asked Secretary of State… (Mike) Pompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers,’ tweeted Trump to his 54 million followers.

    1. Wow, this alone is probably the best human rights accomplishment of any U.S. President since the fall of Communism.

      1. Sadly, you are probably right.

      2. At the very least he should have plenty of room to speak when he tells Obama *and* Aung San Suu Kyi to shove their Peace Prizes up each others’ asses.

    2. Our leftist trolls have a sad

    3. What’s a little ethnic cleansing between allies, amiright? Plus Nelson Mandela was a great guy, Obama assured us of that.

      Of course, I’m not so sure one can blame what SA is doing today on Mandela. I know a few South African’s living over in Joburg and they’re getting a bit nervous.

      1. Are they living in a compound?
        I’ve seen some discussion among South Africans urging those not yet holed up in a fort to do so quickly.

        Irony: Nobel Peace Prize winner Barak Obama goes to South Africa to praise its explicitly genocidal regime and condemn current President Trump for sowing division based on ethnic identity (implicitly, through dog whistling of course).
        Current President Trump influences genocidal South African regime to halt the legalization of genocide.

        1. And I wonder: why would those dog whistling do so if their opponents are the only ones who hear it?
          Seems counter intuitive.

  18. Decades-old fraud claims blamed for new birth certificate crackdowns. Despite their possession of U.S. birth certificates, Hispanic Americans living along the U.S.-Mexico border are being denied passports and otherwise having their citizenship challenged. It seems the president’s personal propensity for demanding proof of citizenship?Trump was a key Obama birth certificate truther?has now become national policy.

    Shikha, US policy has always been proof of birth for US citizenship.

    Even the Founders gave themselves a Constitutional exception because they could not have been born in the USA, since it was not around when they were born.
    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    1. “Shikha”

      ICWUDT

      1. Lol

    2. Well, it’s also rather a well established policy to scrutinize proof of birth when applying for passports. So I’d say she’s being rather consistent in her alarm raising.

    3. That quoted passage does not say what you think it says.

      And these people already had proof of US birth – the government just rejected their own certificates.

  19. The Trump administration is accusing hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Hispanics along the border of using fraudulent birth certificates since they were babies, and it is undertaking a widespread crackdown.

    Ha, there’s literally no remedy. The state’s records are what’s being called into question by the state.

    1. Yeah, I noticed that too. It’s not a good sign when the government is saying ‘we don’t know who’s records are real, but we’re going to suspend some of them based purely on ethnicity anyway’. Even if you’re pro-border control, that’s a concerning development.

      1. Just wait until the team that doesn’t like white people gets back in charge.

  20. stints in the U.S. Army and Border Patrol

    Karma is a bitch

    1. Your name is Karma?

      1. yay, someone decided to make a Tulpa version of me. I’m honored

        1. I think the fact that you’re running your Cathy and Kivlor socks in the same thread is far more interesting.

          And neither one is at all interesting, more intensely pathetic really.

          1. I was wondering who would bother wasting their time with making an account based off my name. My top 2 guesses are you and Hihn.

            I dont have time to bother with sock accounts Tulpa. Do you?

            1. For you? Nope. You’re a nobody running a couple socks, calling you out and making fun of your stupidity is sufficient.

          2. There’s nothing interesting about you running a bunch of your socks in the same thread to make them appear more real. You do it constantly. Maybe it’s interesting that you think everyone does…but no, I’m going to go with more intensely pathetic.

            1. Why would I bother making a sock to accuse your sock with?

              How fucking stupid are you?

              Yesterday you accused several posters of being me, with the “proof” being common use of a suposedly obscure term.

              You and Kivlor are the only people to use the term “my dude” here. You slipped up and when you did it, and gave yourself away.

              Now, keep in mind, before you bleat your meaningless denial, that this is YOUR STANDARD OF PROOF.

              Now go get your fucking shinebox.

              1. Why would I bother making a sock to accuse your sock with?

                Because I don’t have a sock, and you want to be the only one who’s allowed to make the commenters dance.

                Yesterday you accused several posters of being me, with the “proof” being common use of a suposedly obscure term.

                I never said it was obscure. I said you like to use it.

                You and Kivlor are the only people to use the term “my dude” here. You slipped up and when you did it, and gave yourself away.

                Except I’m not actually Kivlor, and you were trying to make it look like I was.

                Now, keep in mind, before you bleat your meaningless denial, that this is YOUR STANDARD OF PROOF.

                I don’t have a “standard of proof.” I mentioned you had a tell. Just trying to help you out, my dude.

                1. “I don’t have a “standard of proof.” I mentioned you had a tell. ”

                  Which you used to make your exceedingly stupid conclusion. Which is a standard of proof.

                  “I never said it was obscure. I said you like to use it”

                  I don’t believe I have ever used the word “sussed” and I never said you said it was obscure, but if it isn’t, it’s not of much value is it?

                  “This commom word everyone says proves it!!!”

                  Lol!

                  Look at you DESPERATELY trying to find a way to argue that I didn’t use your standard to arrive at my conclusion!!

                  I fucking got you and you CANNOT STAND IT!!!

                  “Except I’m not actually Kivlor”

                  You are by your standards from yesterday.

                  Make up your socking mind, or better yet, just own up.

              2. Cathy uses the term “my dude”? Huh, I hadn’t seen anyone here but me use it. Not that it is really obscure.

                it’s a well known meme Tulpa.

                1. And? The two of you post at the same time, have similar posting styles and are THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE USED IT.

                  This is YOUR standard Cathy.

                  1. Meh, it’s no surprise others would use it because it’s not obscure. Posting at the same time hardly makes us the same person. That’d be like saying because LC and I post at the same time, or Ken and I do, that we must be the same guy.

                    1. “Meh, it’s no surprise others would use it ”

                      Tjey didn’t.

                      Only you/Cathy i.e. the same person.

                      Lol look at you DESPERATELY trying to spin this.

                    2. Dude, believe what you want. No skin off my back.

                    3. It’s not belief, it’s your standard Cathy

                      lovecons uses “sussed”, is me.

                      Cathy uses “my dude”, is not Kivlor.

                      This is literally your argument.

                    4. What? Using the term sussed? You’ve lost me. Is that supposed to be an obscure term?

                    5. You tell me Cathy, it was your proof yesterday.

            2. “Cathy L|8.30.18 @ 10:05AM|#

              “There’s nothing interesting”

              Yes stupid sock, that’s exactly what I said.

              “And neither one is at all interesting, more intensely pathetic really.”

              1. I think your desperate denials are pretty strong evidence.

                1. Isn’t it fascinating that as soon as the evidence was presented, Cathy/Kivlor makes a few desperate denials and then flees.

                  I think it’s because a google search proves my point, and she knows it.

                  1. I dont know about Cathy, but lurking on Reason isn’t the only thing I have to do in a day. I was having breakfast with my wife and kids, and honestly Tulpa, you and everyone on the internet take a backseat to them.

                    1. “I dont know about Cathy, but lurking on Reason isn’t the only thing I have to do in a day”

                      How do you not know about yourself?

                      And you sure have found PLENTY of time to post about not being Cathy, Cathy.

                  2. Isn’t it fascinating that as soon as the evidence was presented, Cathy/Kivlor makes a few desperate denials and then flees.

                    I think it’s because a google search proves my point, and she knows it.

                    lol

                    1. okay, it’s odd that you posted literally 2 minutes after me. I’ll give Tuipa that.

                    2. Yeah, that’s all you can do is laugh at getting caught.

                    3. “okay, it’s odd that you posted literally 2 minutes after me. I’ll give Tuipa that.”

                      Not really, I used to use that technique when I was a less sophisticated sockpuppeteer like you are.

                    4. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” is a line from the c. 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, where it is spoken by Queen Gertrude Cahty/Kivlor in response to the insincere overacting of a character…

                    5. so, you’re saying that you are I sincerely overacting

                    6. *insincerely

                    7. Yes, you and Cathy, are overacting.

                      And you are ignorant of the play, clearly.

                    8. It’s kind of funny too that after not understanding the reference, you make a very Cathy like remark that not only shows your ignorance of Shakespeare, but that you suddenly seem to be not busy and posting at the same time as Cathy.

                      And by funny I mean completely expected.

                      You simply don’t have the intellect to change your style enough not to be obviously Cathy.

                    9. You put me and Cathy as Queen Gertrude you rube. Which would indicate we are saying it, in response to someone else’s overacting.

                      Who is it that doesn’t know Hamlet now?

  21. Pope Francis
    @Pontifex

    We Christians are not selling a product. We are communicating a lifestyle.

    1. Indeed, Francis. Yes, you are.

  22. Without laws, people devolve into ape-like creatures, warring and killing each other for resources. That’s we need government. And we need regulations to make rules so society can work, in all areas except for these:

    1. Vaginas
    2. Voting
    3. Borders

    1. Well, penises too. If you’re a woman.

    2. Keep your open border voters out of my vagina!

      1. I got there in the nick of time
        Before he got his hands across your state line, yeah

      2. I always thought that, as a nod to the classic “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries,” the gay activists should have used, “Keep your rosaries out of my butt. Actually, on second thought, don’t.”

        1. Now do Catholic priests vis-a-vis alter boys.

          1. Hmmmm, all I got is “Do not your laws deploy in my altar boy.”

          2. “If you abort children, who will we fuck?”

            1. Lefties do like to fuck kids, dont they?

            2. Ha!
              That was good Tony.

              Chipper, yours not so much

  23. The drug ketamine has been found to work on the brain’s opioid receptors (previously it was thought only “to act solely on the glutamate system in the brain”), potentially complicating its potential as an anti-depressant.

    Seems like that confirms its potential as an anti-depressant.

    1. I’ll let you all know in a couple of weeks.

  24. Vox immigration reporter Dara Lind poked around and turned up similar results. “My first question with any story like this is ‘How new is this really?’ Lind tweeted yesterday afternoon. “The answer, in this case, appears to be: mostly pretty new! The Obama admin did a little of it…It’s now anecdotally ‘surging.'”

    TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED (outside of Hitler’s Germany)

    1. And the Bush and Obama administrations, which started these programs, and the Clinton admin, which took the case to court in the first place.

      Hitler’s all the way down!

      1. Politifact and Snopes rate this report mostly false, but…
        Trump!

  25. The answer, in this case, appears to be: mostly pretty new! The Obama admin did a little of it

    I don’t know much or how little of it the Obama admin did – the Bush admin did some too. Luckily it seems to have been mostly discontinued under Obama.

    But how much previous admins did it, and how much it was reported on and criticized at the time, is a wholly separate issue of whether it should be going on now.

    And the answer to that latter question is a definitive “no”. The government needs to have a reasonable suspicion that a *specific* document was forged – putting the burden of proof on an applicant that is in otherwise good standing is akin to asking a criminal defendant to prove their innocence instead of the government having to prove their guilt, and it flies in the face of the sense of justice that underlies our system.

    And of course there is a question of whether this is even a proper response to legit cases of fraud. It makes sense to punish the people who faked the certificates. A person who received a fraudulent birth certificate *as a baby* and who has lived their entire life believing (and having the government accept in other contexts) that they are a citizen is a *victim* of that fraud. They should simply be officially recognized as citizens (which they are for all practical purposes) – not punished for someone else’s crime.

    1. All of this

      1. Yes.
        Of course.
        Rule of law.

    2. Maga!

    1. I only skimmed that piece, so my only take for now is that Jon Stewart does not seem much like a black barbershop kind of middle-aged Jewish comedian. Was Michael Rapaport unavailable?

      1. Yeah. Stewart as the moderator of a black barbershop “debate” show where everyone agrees with each other about everything seems like one of the weirdest choices imaginable.

        You would think an old head like a Jim Brown or Bill Russell would make a lot more sense. But those guys would never voluntarily agree to take part in a minstrel show in a million years.

        1. And Jim Brown is pro Trump, so he’s right out

  26. NPR: The School Shootings That Weren’t
    This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, “nearly 240 schools … reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.” The number is far higher than most other estimates.

    But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization, assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government’s Civil Rights Data Collection.

    We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.

    1. FACEBOOK TAKES DOWN NPR REPORT QUESTIONING THE ACCURATE NUMBER OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS FROM 2015?2016
      Facebook removed an NPR article posted to their platform Wednesday morning, claiming it was spam. The article itself questioned the number of school shootings that actually took place during the 2015?2016 school year.

      The article, which was published on Monday, is titled, “The School Shootings That Weren’t.”

      It discussed 235 school shootings counted by the Federal Government during the 2015?2016 school year. NPR reporters tried to independently verify that all of these actually occurred, they could only confirm 11. Of the 235 school shootings recorded by the government, 161 told NPR that no shooting actually occurred, and the other 71 school shootings could not be confirmed.

      When Sean Malone shared the article on Facebook, however, it was removed because “it looks like spam and [it] doesn’t follow our Community Standards.”

      1. Of course.

        That article pissed me off, so it got reported.

        That’s how consensus works.

    2. Hey, a nine year old boy compiled those statistics, so how dare you question them! By next week, it will be 240 school shootings per day (!) and the NPS and National Geographic will be endorsing it.

    3. But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened.

      Kudos to NPR for actually doing the legwork on this rather than simply regurgitating news reports as evidence.

      1. Now that a Republican is in office, NPR can start doing journalism again. Them’s the rules.

  27. Sexually transmitted infection rates are at an all-time high since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started measuring.

    Between the “this product does not protect against HIV and other STDs” and the standard FDA disclaimer it’s a wonder the world isn’t run by insane syphilitics!

    1. I always wondered why that was on every commercial for any med that remotely concerns sex. Why on earth would anyone suppose that Viagra would protect against STDs? Does Grandpa just suppose that he is taking some sort of magic all-purpose sex pill that makes his every sex concern evaporate?

    2. Are you so sure it’s not?
      I see little evidence to suggest otherwise.

  28. The White House at one point said more pot enforcement would be forthcoming, though President Donald Trump has never said he was onboard with that agenda and he announced in June that he “really” supports new bipartisan legislation in Congress that would let state marijuana legalization thrive

    Buzzfeed acknowledges Trump has shown no support for the ONDCP initiative.
    Looks like the “New White House War on Weed” story is a bust.

    1. Hahaha

      Yes, if Trump claims in public not to support something, then does it in secret, that means he really doesn’t support it.

      1. But I am told nearly every day that DOJ is supposed to be independent of the President. Yet, he is now responsible for not stopping something DOJ is doing. Which is it?

        1. It’s not the DoJ. It is the ONDCP. which Trump was denounced for trying to eliminate. See below.

        2. Who said DOJ is doing this? It’s being coordinated by the ONDCP, which is part of the White House.

        3. The President sets priorities for the department. The President should not be involved in charging decisions.

          The President can say “Marijuana enforcement is/is not high priority.”
          The President can’t say “Don’t investigate my dealer friend.”

          1. Why not? Obama had the IRS become a political weapon.

            Obama had the DOJ and FBI let Hillary off the hook.

            Either bureaucrats are to be politicized or they are not. Under Obama, they certainly did.

            The rules have been set. Just like Bill Clinton getting away with fucking around being no big deal. Trump gets to fuck around too. Its no big deal.

            1. There was a big congressional investigation into the IRS. It fizzled — there was nothing there. Obama wasn’t involved, there were hold ups on conservative and progressive organizations, and the organizations didn’t even need the certificate. So, no, Obama didn’t have the IRS become a political weapon. Neither did Lois Lerner.

              The FBI and DOJ were investigated. Remember, that’s why Comey was fired — because he was insubordinate in his comments that hurt Clinton. Trump was so concerned about how unfair Comey was to Clinton that he fired him at great personal risk. The charging decisions, however, were found to be reasonable.

              1. Comey was fired for being incompetent.

                Many more bureaucrats should be fired for the same thing.

                1. Didn’t you read the firing memo?

            2. A big investigation while Obama was president? Nope. Everything was stuffed under the carpet.

    2. Buzzfeed’s “investigation” keeps referring to the ONDCP as the “White House” or the “Trump Administration”.

      You might remember the outcry from the fake news media, Democrats, NeverTrumpers and other progressive-prohibitionists back when Trump proposed all but eliminating the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Yeah, Trump is so down with the ONDCP he tried to cut their budget by 95%.

      1. Tried? So he didn’t. So your boy didn’t do shit and is equally valuable to anti-drug-war libertarians as progressive-prohibitionists.

        1. Quick. Name Trump’s Drug Czar…
          Trick question:

          HE DOESN’T HAVE ONE

          I recall this here journal of cosmotarianism was hopeful and optimistic about Obama’s first drug czar.

          Yup. Radley Balko even reported he ended the war on Drugs!

          Again, Trump doesn’t even have a drug czar and was roundly denounced by progressives for trying to eliminate the ONDCP.

            1. So he has only been nominated not appointed?

              Hes the acting drug czar and has not been confirmed by the US Senate.

  29. http://www.washingtonexaminer……mmigration

    Turns out pretty much everything Reason and Cato claims about immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t do and immigration not hurting the wages and job prospects of the poor is completely contrary to the facts

    1. B-b-b-but labor is immune to supply and demand. More laborers doesn’t mean lowered wages. It’s a good thing for the poor to have an extra 30 million people to compete against them, who aren’t bound by labor laws like the citizens here.

      1. B-b-b-but labor is immune to supply and demand. More laborers doesn’t mean lowered wages. It’s a good thing for the poor to have an extra 30 million people to compete against them, who aren’t bound by labor laws like the citizens here.

        Labor provides supply and demand. Immigrant workers have food bills, house payments, etc. Supply creates demand.

        Japan shows the dangers of a stagnant population.

        1. Supply creates demand, wow. Ok. Sure. Which economist are you quoting there, by the way? I’d love to know.

          1. THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE

            1. This is one reason that we have $20trillion in debt. Lefties think giving old people thousands of dollars each month leads to a stronger economy.

              Spending is stronger until the debt bill comes due.

        2. 1. Not in equal measures.
          2. Supply doesn’t create demand ceteris parabis
          3. The world has been proclaiming the end of Japan all my life. It hasn’t come to pass.
          3a. if Japan fails it isn’t due to immigration, but due to it’s own people not choosing to have children

          1. Shut the fuck up Cathy

          2. 1. Low wage work has the highest propensity to spend. That’s why tax cuts or refundable credits like the EITC are much more efficient than high end or corporate tax cuts. They get spent. Also, remittances counterbalance the trade deficit (as much as that matters…not much).

            2. Humans create demand. Human provide labor. Therefore, increased labor increases demand. The low skill native worker will serve the fries that the low skilled immigrant orders.

            3. Not the end of demand. Going on three decades of stagnation and persistent deflation. The US chose to allow increased immigration in the ’80’s, and has had much stronger growth. The Japanese export model reached saturation and didn’t have a growing domestic market.

          3. We have $20trillion in debt because of welfare programs like EITC.

      2. Look, we need those illegal immigrants doing jobs for two main reasons:

        1) To shore up the welfare state that unemployed American’s are living off of so that they don’t need to do those jobs.

        2) To shore up Social Security by setting up a large number of people paying into the system that are legally unable to receive benefits from it.

        No one is pushing amnesty or immigration reform for ethical reasons, although the electorate may see it that way. It’s a cynical ploy to create a legally ambiguous underclass.

        The main result we’ll see over time? Increased identify theft and fraud, for obvious reasons.

    2. If a majority of the workers are illegal immigrants, then they’re doing the jobs Americans won’t do, and that’s a good thing.

      If a minority of the workers are illegal immigrants, then illlegal immigration doesn’t matter, and that’s a good thing.

      It’s like you’re not even woke.

    3. I’ve always found this entire line of thought strange. In a free market the wages and supply are determined by demand. If there’s a higher demand than supply for more then naturally wages must rise to draw more applicants. Importing workers from foreign states prevents the market from adjusting as it should.

      1. should have said “for more [insert job]”
        I accidentally used < instead of [

      2. Importing workers from foreign states prevents the market from adjusting as it should.

        Importing workers is a method that the market uses to adjust. The only preventing is that government is preventing the labor supply to increase. You mistake government impeding the importation of labor as a market force.

        1. Since people make up the market and people make up government policy. Government policy is part of the visible hand of the market.

          Ideally, we want to keep that to an absolute minimum. Unfortunately, other nations dont feel that way.

          1. Are you seriously trying to defend Kivlor’s argument that the government actions are part of a free market but the freedom of movement and association of individuals impedes the market?

            1. Government impedance is still part of the market. Its affects trade, so its part of most markets.

              We call it “free market” but few markets are truly ‘free markets’.

              1. Let me ask my question in a simple way so you can answer it.

                Which of the following is an example of a free market action in regards to a supply shortage of labor?
                a) The government limits the ability of people to join the labor supply through legislation
                b) Individuals move to areas with labor shortages and become part of the labor supply

                Which situation above should libertarians prefer as a reaction to a supply shortage of labor?

                1. I’ll use small words that you’ll be sure to understand. You warthog faced buffoon.

                  1. a) or b)? It seems to be a simple question for a libertarian to answer, to me anyway.

                    1. You would not know a Lib-er-tar-ian ans-wer if you heard one.

                    2. Try me. You still haven’t answered it.

                2. Which situation above should libertarians prefer as a reaction to a supply shortage of labor?

                  What caused the labor shortage? If the government executed 12 million people and is looking to annex surrounding regions, the distinction between a and b drops considerably on the list of libertarian priorities.

                  If the government set a mandatory baseline for wages that caused the labor shortage and then specifically and concertedly encouraged immigration policy that subverted those wage mandates, some libertarians (and non-libertarians) might call that treason.

                3. We are all but citizens of the world.
                  F the USA.
                  Reverse colonialists of the world, unite!

            2. Government actions are impeding freedom of movement and association, for sure. For example, I can’t hire an employee without providing them healthcare, a particular wage that isn’t below the legal floor, and keep track of their taxes for them.

              Of course, I don’t need to do that with illegal immigrant labor. There’s a reason why I’d be prohibited from hiring them, and the specific reason is because it goes against 100 years of progressive labor policy.

              You’ll note that no one around here seems to think the legislation that specifically makes open borders an impossible notion is the primary culprit. No, it’s Trump and immigration policy that’s the problem.

              Stupid is as stupid does. And the reason why is clear: American’s like inflating their own wages at the direct expense of increased immigration, and it’s the reason why illegal immigrants in particular are the people everyone is talking about. They’re the only kind of workers that are immune to all those regulations and laws, even if the employer is still liable.

              It says something that employers are willing to risk being caught to hire them.

        2. importing people is a government action Leo.

          1. Why?

            1. Why is having a police force or military a government action? Why is having a tariff?

              1. Why are you still sockpuppeting Cathy?

          2. US Constitution. Its been explained to you over and over.

          3. Who is “importing people”?

            If you walk into a Walmart during business hours, did Walmart’s manager “import” you into the store?

            1. It’s amazing. We actually have people arguing that a legitimate function of government is “importing people”; whatever in the hell that means.

              1. It’s badly stated, for one. ‘Importing people’ isn’t the job of the government, keeping workers that don’t follow American labor law is (no matter how much you and I might disagree with it).

                You’ll note that even American’s get busted and prosecuted by the IRS for the same thing, which is much more of a punishment than an illegal immigrant worker suffers for the same crime.

                I’ll believe the outrage when libertarians go full-bore anti-labor law and attack the minimum wage and labor regulations with the same religious furvor that they attack immigration controls.

                And, for the record, if you go after opening up the borders before dismantling those labor laws you’re a fuck wit since you’re effectively advocating for the most painful policy for everyone involved. It’s no surprise that flavor of libertarianism is a non-starter, and it’s a big reason why the party (and ethos) struggles to break 5%.

                1. Minimum wage is popular, passing in most states that allow ballot initiatives. Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, usually with over 60% of the vote, even in red states. Killing minimum wage is not a winning issue.

                  Cutting education (another argument about immigration — we have to educate their kids!) is a losing issue. Quite a few of the Oklahoma legislators who blocked tax increases to save their schools are voted out. Same thing happened in Kansas.

                  Immigration is a winning issue for the same reason it has been since the Chinese Exclusion Act. Economics isn’t the reason.

            2. “Importing” – giving permission for entry.

              Same – same.

              1. Importing isn’t the right word in this context, I’ve used it before as well but I try to limit it to actual situations where companies are in fact importing workers. The government doesn’t import anyone, it’s a gatekeeper. There is in fact a difference.

      3. Importing workers from foreign states prevents the market from adjusting as it should.

        Subsidizing domestic wages via immigration policy is what prevents markets from adjusting as they should from a pure laissez-faire perspective.

        If the “market rate” for my labor is $15/hr only because the state is forcibly preventing those willing to work for $10/hr from entering the country, then $15/hr isn’t really the true market rate, is it?

        1. On this, you are correct. One might simply note that the minimum wage was explicitly invented to harm immigrant labor. Being shocked about that nearly 100 years later is to be an idiot, and you’ll note why everyone ‘feels bad’ for illegal immigrants no one at all is talking about lowering the minimum wage.

          Thus, most people aren’t thinking about this issue. They’re seeing pictures of crying kids or people at deportation centers and saying ‘that’s not right!’ while at the same time demanding higher minimum wages. It’s full-retard level thinking.

          End expansive labor protections and the welfare state, and immigration can and will solve itself. That no one advocates for this shows you exactly how serious people actually are about the topic.

    4. John what other rights would you say should be sacrificed to prop up wages?

      1. Immigration into the USA is NOT a right.

        1. What about freedom of association for employers? You know, to employ whomever they want?

          1. You can associate all you want in the USA. There are no limits to interstate business associations.

            Non-Americans dont have a protected right to freedom of association, only people who live under the protections and limitations of the Constitution do.

            You can hire whomever you want. They just might be able to enter the USA.

            1. Interesting… The Constitution doesn’t protect your right to freedom of association, unless you believe it is in the 9th Amendment, which incorporates all natural rights as belonging to the people. We can certainly agree on that point!

              The founders themselves disagree with your overall premise though.

              4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens.

              -Thomas Jefferson

              Jefferson believed that all people had rights, citizens and aliens alike.

              1. Inside the USA, you mean?

                The Constitution applies to anyone inside the territory of the United States.

                1. The Constitution applies to anyone inside the territory of the United States.

                  Even illegal persons illegally inside the United States? Be careful LC, you’re starting to make some sense on this subject finally.

                  1. Yeah. The constitution even applies to illegals inside the USA.

                    Unfortunately for your little bad argument, the Constitution also enumerates the power of naturalization and regulation of immigrants to our government.

                    The illegals get their Due Process and deported because current immigration law allows that.

                    1. So you disagree with Jefferson (quoted above)?

                      4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens.

                      Emphasis added by me.

                      Quite frankly I’ll take my advice on what is or isn’t in the Constitution from Thomas Jefferson over “loveconstitution1789”

              2. The Constitution does NOT apply to people outside the territory of the USA.

                1. So those people don’t have rights because they have no equivalent paper which says they do?

                  And here I thought the Constitution was a way to form and limit the power of government. I must have missed the part where the Constitution was the means by which natural rights are bestowed upon people. Thank government almighty for granting us our rights!

                  1. I’ll use small words that you’ll be sure to understand. You warthog faced buffoon.

                    1. Is this your new way of conceding an argument?

                    2. You have no arg-u-ment.

      2. Their right to my tax dollars paying to feed their kids because they’re too lazy to do it themselves.

        1. Sounds like you have a problem with welfare not immigration. Also, try to stay on topic.

          1. Both welfare and immigration are the problems.

          2. Sounds like you have a problem with welfare not immigration

            If you think we’d still see the same number of immigrants with no welfare system, you’re delusional.

            1. Again, it sounds like we should be reforming the welfare system. We can agree on that!

              1. And immigration.

                1. And immigration.

                  I can also agree. Let’s make it much easier for people to come to the US to work and associate.

                  1. Get a visa like everyone else in the World.

            2. If you think we’d still see the same number of immigrants with no welfare system, you’re delusional.

              Huh.

              When the economy went into the shitter, illegal immigration decreased. Did the welfare state decrease?

              Even when Obama was proposing his DACA plans. Did illegal immigration surge?

              1. Yes, illegal immigration absolutely surged when Obama spoke of DACA.
                Unless you think 70,000 children per month being flung across the border isn’t a surge

    5. “Turns out pretty much everything Reason and Cato claims about immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t do and immigration not hurting the wages and job prospects of the poor is completely contrary to the facts”

      I don’t remember Reason making the case that immigration doesn’t hurt the wages or job prospects of unskilled labor.

      I remember Reason making the case that cheap labor translates into good things for the economy.

      And that’s what I’d argue.

      It’s much like the case for free trade. Yeah, free trade hurts people who can’t compete with foreign imports on price here in the U.S.–and that’s a good thing for American consumers.

      Creative destruction is a good thing.

      And as someone who took construction jobs right out of high school in San Diego, competing with illegal labor, I’m here to tell you that people who can’t compete with illegal aliens, most of whom have no more than an 8th grade education and many of whom can’t speak English, are a really sorry lot of native born Americans. Those native born meth heads need to be displaced by hardworking people from elsewhere.

      1. I don’t remember Reason making the case that immigration doesn’t hurt the wages or job prospects of unskilled labor.

        Ken, I was a little busy so I didn’t get to this until now, but here’s 3 times they’ve claimed that recently. It’s a typical claim in the pro-immigrant argument.

        The argument is literally “Labor is immune to supply and demand when sacred browns are involved”

        I doubt you’ll be back to this thread, so I’ll probably post it to the morning roundup today for ya.

    6. Translation: The state should subsidize the wages of Americans via immigration policy.

      1. You can’t even get that right?

        It’s rent seeking.

        It’s central planning.

        Do you not like criticizing people for that kind of thing for some reason?

  30. “”It Was All A Set-Up” – Pentagon Whistleblower Exposes Russia Probe Reality

    Adam Lovinger, a former Defense Department analyst, never expected that what he stumbled on during his final months at the Pentagon would expose an integral player in the FBI’s handling of President Donald Trump’s campaign and alleged Russia collusion.

    Lovinger, a whistleblower, is now battling to save his career. The Pentagon suspended his top-secret security clearance May 1, 2017, when he exposed through an internal review that Stefan Halper, who was then an emeritus Cambridge professor, had received roughly $1 million in tax-payer funded money to write Defense Department foreign policy reports, his attorney Sean Bigley said. Before Lovinger’s clearance was suspended he had taken a detail to the National Security Council as senior director for strategy. He was only there for five months before he was recalled to the Pentagon, stripped of his prestigious White House detail, and ordered to perform bureaucratic make-work in a Pentagon annex Bigley calls “the land of misfit toys.

    1. Whatever is in there, and it’s not easy to tell, is as lame as the claim of ‘collusion’ itself: ‘So-and-so met so-and-so and this and then that and, well, see?!’
      Plus, ZeroHedge is about as reliable as Business Insider.

      1. Let’s not get carried away here. It’s at least as reliable as InfoWars.

      2. It will be interesting to see what Judicial Watch discovers in their lawsuit. If anything.

      3. Stefan Halper was the informant used in the Trump campaign.

        This is a friggin shady guy. Forget about Trump for a moment.

        From his Wiki page

        “”Halper played a central role in a scandal in the 1980 election. But it was not until several years after Reagan’s victory over Carter that this scandal emerge. In connection with his position Halper’s name came up in the 1983/4 investigations into the Debategate affair, which was a spying scandal in which Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials passed classified information about Carter administration’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering (Iran hostage crisis). Reagan Administration officials cited by The New York Times described Halper as “the person in charge” of the operation.[7][8] Halper called the report “just absolutely untrue”.[9] “

    2. “”And for that, Bigley said, Lovinger has paid the ultimate price in his 12-year career as a strategist in the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment””

      Wow all this time Trump used Bigley, he was referring to a person.

  31. Can anyone prove that Trump was actually born in the US? I mean, with a reputable source who was present? How do we know his mom didn’t take quick jaunt over to Canada for the birthing? Fuck that, how do we know that he wasn’t switched at birth with a wetback baby?

    1. He wasn’t born, he was spawned, at it wasn’t on this planet. There’s a reason all the Trumps look like aliens in bad human suits.

    2. Lefties had a sad.

  32. Good job Shikha, you got some serious web traffic today.

  33. “Occupy Democrats has more influence on Facebook ‘than virtually any other news source in America,'” notes Will Sommer at The Daily Beast.”

    Well, no. That’s what Will said the Miami New Times “noted”. Which doesn’t mean it’s true. But why should “Reason” be more accurate than “Occupy Democrats”?

  34. Time to boycott In-N-Out, amirite?

    Is this going to work better than the Chick-fil-A boycott?

  35. Trump was correct that Obama’s BC proves he was not eligible to be the POTUS because his father was a foreigner thus he was not a natural born Citizen.

  36. “In any case, the fraud that’s generally being alleged here happened long ago”

    Sure they used fake documents and aren’t really US citizens, but their fraud happened a long time ago!

    Trump’s supporters elected him to enforce immigration law.

    Another little bit of promises made, promises kept.

    Still waiting for The Wall.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.