Immigration

Trump Says Kidnapping Unauthorized Immigrants' Children Is an Effective Deterrent

His homeland security secretary says that rationale for family separation is "offensive."

|

White House

Donald Trump thinks routinely separating illegal border crossers from their children, a practice his administration abandoned in June amid a public outcry, was an effective deterrent. "If they feel there will be separation," the president told reporters on Saturday, "they don't come."

Back in June, you may recall, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen indignantly rejected that rationale for family separation as "offensive," saying, "Why would I ever create a policy that purposely does that?"

Nielsen's mentor and predecessor, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, had repeatedly explained why. In a March 2017 interview with CNN, Kelly, who was secretary of homeland security at the time, was asked if his department planned to "separate the children from their moms and dads." His response: "Yes, I am considering it in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network." In a NPR interview last May, Kelly called family separation "a tough deterrent."

According to Kelly, family separation was a calculated strategy of deterring unauthorized immigrants by threatening to kidnap their children. According to Nielsen, it was the unfortunate result of congressional inaction combined with the Trump administration's determination to finally enforce the law. According to Trump, it was both:

If they feel there will be separation, they don't come. You know, if they feel there's separation, it's a—it's a terrible situation. We want to go through Congress, but the Democrats don't want to approve anything. They're obstructionists.

That was not the only example of immigration doublethink during Saturday's Q&A. Trump also said he thinks legal immigrants should be able to sponsor the immigration of their relatives, as his wife did with her parents, but affirmed his opposition to "chain migration," which is made possible (although not easy) by a policy of allowing legal immigrants to sponsor the immigration of their relatives.

Advertisement

NEXT: Does Trump Mean the End of the End of History?

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. Donald Trump thinks routinely separating illegal border crossers from their children, a practice his administration abandoned in June amid a public outcry, was an effective deterrent. “If they feel there will be separation,” the president told reporters on Saturday, “they don’t come.”

    And he’s mistaken about this? The policy may be wrong morally AND ALSO effective.

    Stop with the sad partisan reaching, please, you look like the worst kind of hem tuggers.

    1. We have exactly zero data to show whether he’s mistaken or not.

      1. ^^^THIS

        1. Is stupid. Any parent would tell you so.

          1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

            1. How do you let me control you like this?

              1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

                See what your mindless trolling looks like? Do you like it?

                1. I don’t care.

                  You on the other hand are clearly very upset.

                  1. You don’t care about how evil you have become?

                    1. That’s not the first time you have proven you forgot what you just asked.

                      How fucking stupid are you?

                    2. Not as stupid as you are evil!

                    3. Well, actually you admitted you were as evil. Repeatedly. Today. In this thread.

          2. And as a parent and a grandparent, if I knew in contemplating something like this that being separated from my child or grandchild was a likely consequence of deciding to go forward, that would indeed be a powerful deterrent. To my mind there is nothing more important than my children.

      2. We have exactly zero data to show whether he’s mistaken or not.

        You don’t have children, do you?

      3. We have exactly zero data to show whether he’s mistaken or not.

        Doesn’t make a difference and I’m not 100% convinced it’s the most amoral thing we could be doing. If they don’t care, why not take them (fools and their money, right)?

        Before, during, and after Trump there will be/were stories about waves of unattended minors from Guatemala and immigrant kids being left, presumably by coyotes, in the AZ desert with a lunchbox and a bottle of coke.

        Yet another example of why “Just open the borders.” is a stupid policy that doesn’t really address any/all issues.

    2. Well a better deterrent would be to auction those kids off publicly. That would help pay for the wall and might even reduce the incentive for NAMBLA-type predators to kidnap American kids.

      Alternatively, I have been assured by a very knowing American that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. The skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.

      Combining these two, we could easily restock hunting preserves and provide wonderful American-made entertainment and nourishment without the need to import same from China. With the side benefit that reducing the number of Papists (and Muslims if we send boats over to those countries in order to collect ‘immigrant’ families and harvest their younguns) will also greatly reduce the birth rate of our enemies who will otherwise invade us if they are allowed to grow up to maturity.

      1. What part of that wall of stupid is supposed to deal with the fact that it would be an effective if highly immoral deterrent?

        I’m right, and you hate it, and me, and are willing to make a fool of yourself to prove it.

        1. Satulpatanic Satulpan:

          In days of old,
          When knights were bold,
          And toilets weren’t invented,
          We stopped by the road,
          And dropped our load,
          And walked away contented!

          The days of old are over now… We have toilets now. Please be considerate of others, and drop your loads there, instead of a nice, clean, rational web site like Reason.com!

          1. Oh great, you’re so upset you resorted to that stupid rhyme thing you do.

            Take your meds bro.

            1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

              1. Why would you let me have power over you like this?

                1. As if you’ve never done that, troll!!!

                  Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

                  1. I don’t think your strategy of admitting you are as bad as I am is going the way you expected.

                    1. See a priest and get an exorcism!

                      Be sure to pay your bills, lest you get re-possessed!

                    2. Take your own advice, guy who admitted he was behaving just like me.

        2. I made a perfectly modest proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Mexico being a burden on their parents or this country and for making them beneficial to the publick of America.

          I should have realized I guess that some here have difficulty with anything more complex than…

          1. Cool story bro.

            Again, What part of that wall of stupid is supposed to deal with the fact that it would be an effective if highly immoral deterrent?

            I’m right, and you hate it, and me, and are willing to make a fool of yourself to prove it.

            1. You just hate that MY proposal is even more profitable and effective than Trump’s. His just forces us to spend money and raise people’s taxes while playing whack-a-mole with increasing floods of invaders. Mine becomes increasingly profitable the more invaders there are and could even result in dividends being paid to taxpayers or the state being able to fund its entire operations without requiring taxes at all.

      2. OK, I get the “Modest Proposal” element of satire and irony in this post (though Jonathan Swift you’re not). I could have gotten along quite well today without it, but I get it

    3. Still crying I see.

      1. Yes Cry More Cathy, we can see your post. Admitting it like that isn’t necessary.

        How does it feel knowing that is what you’ve been reduced to?

        1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

          1. Damn, I really got you upset. You’re literally spamming the thread.

            1. As if you’ve never done that, troll!!!

              Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

              1. So you’re admitting you’re my equivalent?

                Lol ok bro. You said it.

                1. Wow, you have REALLY sunken LOOOOW, when you BRAG about snatching people down into you black hole of wallowing in stupid and evil!

                  Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

                  1. And you admitted you’re just as bad.

                    1. No, I only troll the evil trolls. I don’t troll everyone insight.

                    2. So only occasional evil.

                      “. I don’t troll everyone insight.”

                      One look at this thread will show that I don’t either, so we are by your own admission exactly the same.

    4. Stop with the sad partisan reaching,

      A libertarian website objects to cruel authoritarianism.

      Half-educated, bigoted, faux libertarians object.

      Carry on, clingers. For so long as your betters permit.

      1. “Half-educated, bigoted, faux libertarians object.”

        To the claim that the behavior isn’t effective. Thtat isn’t an endorsement.

        I’m not surprised you aren’t sophisticated enough to understand that.

        1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

          1. “Satulpatanic Satulpan”

            God man stop trying so hard, you’re embarassing yourself.

            1. Satulpatanic Satulpan:

              In days of old,
              When knights were bold,
              And toilets weren’t invented,
              We stopped by the road,
              And dropped our load,
              And walked away contented!

              The days of old are over now… We have toilets now. Please be considerate of others, and drop your loads there, instead of a nice, clean, rational web site like Reason.com!

              1. God damn you have literally been sitting here waiting on me.

                Thank you for giving me that kind of power over you.

                1. Yes, you and the Evil One both lust after pointless and senseless power to torment people. I pity both you and the Evil One.

                  Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

                  1. What does that have to do with you being so. completely in my thrall that you lirerally allow me ownership of your free time?

                    1. I’m trying to wake you up to your own narcissistic evil. Can you hear me?

                    2. Well, sinking to my level is certainly a strategy.

        2. Artie isn’t sophisticated enough to understand much of anything. He just loves to take his “carry on, clingers” shot once or twice a day. We, his betters, have long since learned not to take him seriously

      2. Kirkland considers the US Constitution an authoritarian document.

        Big surprise there.

        1. Kirkland is just a bad troll that lost his hunting ground and doesn’t have the chops to make it here.

    5. Time to abandon ship! Tulpa is here; the IQ level of the postings here are due to be cut in half!

      Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

      1. Satulpatanic logic:

        Killing the not-so-smart kids in class might not be moral or ethical, but who cares about that; it would sure be an easy way to raise the average test scores of the class full of kids!

        1. It probably would.

          And would be immoral. Like I said about taking kids.

          I think my favorite response is from people like you who have gotten so wound up getting kicked around by me that they can’t even find a coherent objection, they just HAVE TO HATE ME.

          1. I oppose evil, that is all. I don’t hate it quite so much as I just oppose it. Hate corrodes the vessel that holds it, so I try to avoid hate. But I will continue to do my best to oppose it.

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..110841.htm Psychologists define the ‘dark core of personality’

            Take a good, hard look at the above article, then take a good, hard look in the mirror, and see if it doesn’t apply to YOU!!!

            1. Take a good long look at my post and see if your reply isn’t an insane incoherent mess of a rant.

              You don’t even have an objection that makes sense. You act like I didn’t clearly denounce the act of taking children.

              You’re literally bitching about nothing because of your personal hatred of me.

              1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

                1. Ok, this is always my favorite part.

                  Reply if I own you.

            2. Read the article and think it facile though generally articulate.

              For one thing, I think the condemnation of the notion that “the end justifies the means” is incorrect. If the end doesn’t justify the means in any particular case, what does?

              I need to improve my company’s performance, so I decide to fire certain people. What justifies that “means”? Only the end of improving my company’s performance.

              I’m trying to put an end to the war with Japan and decide that the most expedient way to do that is to nuke two major Japanese cities. I decide to do so knowing that the devastation to property and humans will be disastrous. What justifies the means? Only the end of putting an expedient end to the war. Now, we can discuss whether those means can be justified under any circumstances, but we know what in fact justified them at the time.

    6. It IS morally wrong. What they should be doing is shooting all the invaders the instant they cross the border and leaving their bodies in the hot sun for the vultures to eat. Don’t separate babies from their mommies! KILL THEM ALL!

      After a dozen or so have been blown apart by the finest military hardware we can field, and the videos broadcast to the world (but most especially to Mexico) with the message, “This is what you get if you try to invade America”, the invasion will STOP!

      Then enact a law that fines people $1000/day if they negligently employ or rent property to an criminal alien. (Negligence defined by running an E-Verify check.)

    7. He’s not at all mistaken. If they are the children of the immigrants, then leaving them in detention with rapists, drug importers (who are violating laws and being violent to violate them, even if the laws themselves are pointless) and child traffickers.

      And some of the children provably ARE trafficked, and the adults with them are not parents.

      Reason needs to get rid of the bleeding-heart libearal cocksucker contingent ruining its content.

  2. Know who else separated children from their parents?

    1. CPS; 24/7/365

    2. THX 1138?

    3. Abortions?

      1. Kermit Gosnell on line 2.

        1. I had to look him up. Abortion doctor was convicted of murdering alive babies. Not fetuses…babies.

          1. You had to look-up Kermit Gosnell because the national media refused to report on it.

              1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion…..n/2072577/

                Oh, Cathy. Anything in defense of your God.

                You forget that Kristen Power shamed media into discussing the topic after they were noticeably absent at the trial.

                1. Again, my links are from 2011, years before the trial and years before the column you just linked.

                  1. Yup. They mentioned the arrest once and then ignored it. You win. Totally disproves the point that Democratic consultant Kristen Power made in her column.

                    1. “The media is ignoring the atrocity that we are funding in Yemen”

                      “Lol. You’re so wrong. Here’s an article where they mentioned Yemen. Totally disproves the point”

                    2. an article where they mentioned Yemen

                      “mentioned”

                      Again, your claim, “You had to look-up Kermit Gosnell because the national media refused to report on it” was simply false.

                    3. Cathy L, I have never heard of that guy.

                      Along with that I pick my news from hundreds of news sources, means that it was not pushed news. I also could have missed it. I have missed news before and will in the future.

                      However, I tend to catch non-Narrative news because it shows up somewhere I skim through.

                      I caught this news because I was at Reason and a commentor mentioned it.

                    4. Cathy L, I have never heard of that guy.

                      I caught this news because I was at Reason and a commentor mentioned it.

                      What’s funny is that at least two other commenters have mentioned it in threads in which you were also present. But I guess you just didn’t notice it then.

                    5. That is funny. You must have my reply to their mentioning of the name then.

                    6. “at least two other commenters have mentioned it in threads in which you were also present. But I guess you just didn’t notice it then.”

                      Ladies and gentlemen, Cry More Cathy’s idea of evidence.

                      No Cathy, unlike you, not everyone reads every post to see if they can bitch and moan about it like you can’t seem to stop doing.

                      Remember that day at the beginning of your sockpuppet’s existence when you pretended to be sane and rational?

                      You sure fucked that up.

                    7. You’ve never heard of Gosnell. Don’t worry, good news is on the way. They’re making a movie about it so you should be able to catch up without too much work.

                    8. That is the funniest form of Lefty lying.

                      Someone is raising the issue that the media might be discriminating against news that tends to not follow a Lefty narrative.

                      Lefty supporter finds one media resource and acts like that is the perfect rebuttal. Then commences to crack the whip to get everyone back on Narrative.

                      Media continues using most resources to push some other Lefty Narrative.

                    9. Lefty supporter finds one media resource and acts like that is the perfect rebuttal.

                      I found dozens. I posted two.

                    10. Cry More about him being right about you Cry More Cathy.

                    11. They mentioned the arrest once and then ignored it.

                      Lol. Once? Just because I posted only one link each? Come on, dude, you know it won’t take me long to post more.

                    12. You convinced us, Cathy L.

                      The media discusses abortions as much as Brett Kavanaugh.

                    13. All of your links had to do with the initial arrest. I know that the Gosnell story really upsets you because it besmirches your God, but at least be honest here. A democratic consultant admitted the media blackout and then shamed them into reporting the trial and you want to pretend like reporting on the initial arrest was satisfactory.

                    14. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/a…..on/274966/

                      Right-wing wacko, Conor Friedersdorf, also notes the media was ignoring the story.

                      Sorry if it offends your God

                    15. Cathy has been reduced to stupidly bitching and mindlessly blubbering in defense of monsters.

                      Sounds about right.

                    16. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

                    17. This kind of obviates any vlaim of supierior morality you may have.

                    18. I only troll evil trolls, not everyone insight, like you do.

                      Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

                    19. “not everyone insight”

                      So you’re evil like me and you lie too.

                    20. “So you’re evil like me…”

                      Are you PROUD of being evil? You think karma will never get you?

                      Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

                    21. As proud as you are for behaving exactly the same way.

                    22. Uhhhhh do you not think Friedersdorf is on the right? He’s definitely on the right.

                      Also, that article isn’t about the media “ignoring” the story, but not paying more attention to it than it did. That article is from April 2013 and I saw plenty of stories from March 2013 about the trial.

                      It’s not like the trial was particularly interesting, the charges themselves were plenty lurid to generate all the headlines anyone needed to learn about the story.

                    23. “Uhhhhh do you not think Friedersdorf is on the right? He’s definitely on the right.

                      Your link is broken.

                    24. Friedersdorf is “on the right”. Wow. You really are just a progressive

                    25. I’m still waiting on those dozens of links Cry More Cathy insisted she had.

                    26. All of your links had to do with the initial arrest.

                      Okay, so, the part where the national media refused to report on it was a lie. You were lying.

                      I know that the Gosnell story really upsets you because it besmirches your God, but at least be honest here.

                      Lol. You’re right, abortion should be much easier to access so people don’t have to go to dangerous back-alley style providers like Gosnell. It should be offered routinely by every surgical clinic and hospital, and covered by insurance since insurance must cover maternity care. Then no one would have to see shitty practitioners like Gosnell who abuse and assault their own patients. Why would that be hard for anyone to admit?

                      A democratic consultant admitted the media blackout and then shamed them into reporting the trial and you want to pretend like reporting on the initial arrest was satisfactory.

                      You want to pretend like any of that means you aren’t full of shit and that the national media “refused to cover” the story. There are also dozens of articles on the trial.

                    27. Shorter Cry More Cathy – “STOP POINTING OUT THAT I WAS WRONG WAHHHHHHWAHHHHH”

                    28. Cathy: The media reported about it, look here are two articles about the initial arrest

                      Me: They stopped reporting after the initial arrest and that was called out by a variety of voices, including a Democratic consultant and libertarian Conor Friedsdorf.

                      Cathy: They’re right-wing hacks who offend my religious sensibilities

                    29. The media also does not give urban black violence stories as much attention as Narrative stories. Why is that?

                      2) The Poor, Black Victims Theory
                      This theory holds that sparse coverage shouldn’t surprise us, despite the sensationalistic details of the Gosnell case, because horrific things happen to poor black people in urban areas all the time, and the press ignores them. Why should this be different? This theory is at odds with the counter-theory that the liberal media typically obsesses over stories about poor, black victims, at least when they’re subjected to blatant racism like the women in the Gosnell case. Sparse coverage, despite the provocative racial angle, proves a media coverup, according to the counter-theory.

                      -The Atlantic
                      14 Theories for Why Kermit Gosnell’s Case Didn’t Get More Media Attention
                      Conor Friedersdorf Apr 15, 2013

                    30. “you know it won’t take me long to post more.”

                      And yet you haven’t Cry More Cathy.

          2. dude’s a peach.

            1. Thanks man. Every day, I learn something new here in the comments.

    4. Baron Bomburst of Vulgaria?

    5. Ron Paul?

    6. US Bomber pilots?

  3. Let’s just consider this thread a place of silent reflection.

  4. How is this different than when children are separated from their parents due to common sense, sensible gun legislation?

  5. disingenuous to re-re-pretend the shit wasn’t going on before T

      1. common knowledge requires link?

        1. Well that depends. If you’re trying to persuade people to your point of view, then backing up factual claims with documented evidence is more effective than just making assertions. If, on the other hand, you’re just posting to make sure your keyboard and internet connection are working, then yeah, assuming the things you ‘know’ are common knowledge is probably fine.

          1. Or, you could just stop bitching at people and do a little legwork like people who care to know things do.

            1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

              1. I see you’ve accepted that you’re evil and have just decided to roll with it.

          2. figured it had been discussed to death @HnR the previous admins and Congress were culpably equivalent such that cites not required … my bad

      2. We’ve gone from “that’s whataboutism” to “the difference is that the Trump administration has a zero tolerance policy, which is different from the previous administration” to “you’re making this all up”

        Never change, grandpa

          1. The second link is about unaccompanied minors. The Vox link specifically says that the Obama administration didn’t separate families as a standard policy.

            To be fair, it’s not entirely clear what ‘shit’ Dillinger is referring to above, but since this article is about Trump’s policy of separating families of undocumented immigrants, it’s reasonable to assume that he’s making the claim that the same thing was happening under the Obama administration. A claim which has yet to be substantiated as far as I can tell.

            1. “Jeh Johnson, DHS secretary under the Obama administration, told NPR earlier this month that he couldn’t say that family separations “never happened” during his tenure. “There may have been some exigent situation, some emergency. There may have been some doubt about whether the adult accompanying the child was in fact the parent of the child. I can’t say it never happened but not as a matter of policy or practice. It’s not something that I could ask our Border Patrol or our immigration enforcement personnel to do,” Johnson said.”

              http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/po…..728060002/

              1. It is an established fact. The question is how things are being defined. Each side wants to impose a caveat to justify their position. But, children were separated from families.

  6. Q Mr. President, do you think the original family separation policy from this summer was effective in deterring people from crossing at the border? Did it work?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, I will say this: If they feel there will be separation, they don’t come. You know, if they feel there’s separation, it’s a ? it’s a terrible situation. We want to go through Congress, but the Democrats don’t want to approve anything. They’re obstructionists.

    If they feel there’s separation ? in many cases, they don’t come. But also, in many cases, you have really bad people coming in and using children. They’re not their children. They don’t even know the children. They haven’t known the children for 20 minutes, and they grab children and they use them to come into our country. You got some really bad people out there.

    We’re doing an incredible job. But the one thing I will say: The country is doing so well economically and every other way that more people want to come in than ever before. So we have to be very strong.

    1. What he said among 2 other replies to questions that do not match up with outrage narrative.

      1. An honest man like Trump wouldn’t make a claim like that without strong evidence to support it. And an honest guy like you wouldn’t repeat a claim like that unless you had seen evidence that it were true. So by all means share it with us so we can all be persuaded.

        1. loveconstitution, along with the rest of the Trumpkin brigade, still doesn’t even understand what Trump is being criticized for here. He’s not being criticized for being cruel, or for saying something is effective that isn’t. He’s being criticized for disagreeing with his own administration about the purpose of family separations.
          Although Trump also disagrees with himself on that.

          Just like he disagrees with himself on whether he’s in favor of “chain migration.”

          1. In disagreeing with the facts and previous statements, Trump is just parroting his wife.

          2. We Libertarians tune out the constant barrage of lies and falsities after being exposed to Lefty propaganda for decades.

            What are you open border liars advocating again?

            Trump hates immigrants? Trump married an immigrant.
            Trump hates chain migration? Trump helped his wife’s parents before he was president to become US citizens.
            Trump blah blah blah….

        2. I posted the actual quote. Reason hates to do that because it blows their skewed articles out of the water.

          1. I wonder if there’s an automatic alert set up on Reason’s Discord channel to let them know that LoveCon ’89 has posted yet another devastating takedown of their carefully constructed lies.

            Sullum is probably crying inconsolably even now because you posted Trump’s bullshit claim and non sequitur dissembling.

            1. (1) Its a known fact that Reason is a propaganda outlet. We talk about it all the time in the comments.

              (2) Reason staff cry on a daily basis for various reasons. Most is because of TDS related fatigue.

              1. “2) Reason staff cry on a daily basis”

                Fuck, ENB cried because I pointed out her writing is garbage.

                1. painfully funny moment.

            2. Sullum might not be but you certaily are in his stead.

              1. Satulpatanic Satulpan:

                In days of old,
                When knights were bold,
                And toilets weren’t invented,
                We stopped by the road,
                And dropped our load,
                And walked away contented!

                The days of old are over now… We have toilets now. Please be considerate of others, and drop your loads there, instead of a nice, clean, rational web site like Reason.com!

                1. How does it feel in the gutter with me?

  7. Lets ask Lefties if they think criminals ever consider that their crimes and subsequent incarcerations will result in family separations.

    1. Libertarians and other non-movement conservatives will arrange it so that entering the United States is not, for most people, a crime. Soon enough. The nativist, authoritarian bigots have roughly two years to have any say in this and, likely, a few months to pass any legislation.

      After that, a return to American progress seems likely.

      Carry on, clingers. While you still can.

    2. non-Americans want to come to the Land of nativist, authoritarian, bigots for some reason.

  8. 8th amendment violations? If only we had people here who loved that document.

    Is the act of separating families a punishment for crossing the border? My answer before would have been a resounding no, but who knows now.

    1. Typical. Ignore all my comments about the 8th Amendment.

      Every criminal defendant is entitled to non-excessive bail, including murders.

      Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      Unfortunately for your position, deportation hearing are not criminal proceedings. The crime of being in the USA illegally is ignored and the US Gov just seeks to deport.

      I am fine with bail for illegals. Set it at $1000 and set the hearing for the next day. If the illegal does not show, keep the $1000 and add their name and info to a do not admit ever list.

      1. You mean Open Borders via Bribery.

        1. You mean nothing.

  9. I’m too lazy to look it up but I’m pretty sure the Obama admin said the same thing and no one batted an eye

  10. If you’re asking, “what’s the best way to deal with illegal immigrants who travel through a third country (Mexico in this instance) before filing asylum claims in the US?” my answer would be on the order of “deport them promptly.”

    But what to do with their children in the interim?

    I can’t claim expertise on this, but at least in clear cases of abuse of the process maybe the case could proceed fast enough that parents and children would be reunited promptly in their countries of origin.

    1. Unless of course you want a more liberal immigration law. But the third-country doctrine seems the last place you’d want to go in liberalizing immigration laws, even assuming liberalizing immigration laws is a good idea.

      Or maybe the point is we’re supposed to emote and vote Democrat?

  11. Sure it was a deterrent, so would be mass slaughter or any number of things.

    What a stupid headline.

    His closed border anti-immigrant policies, his tariffs and trade wars, he has lots of stupid policies. Pick on them, not actual truthful honest statements.

    1. Is there any evidence that it is an effective deterrent though? Are there fewer attempted illegal border crossings since this policy was announced?

      1. How exactly do you propose to measure it? Are you going to allow for people who want to ditch their children? Don’t tell me there are none unless you provide evidence.

        Lessseeeee ….. immigrants complain about it. Hmmm, could something they don’t like be a deterrent? Or are they just complaining for the gringo cameras and actually enjoy being separated?

        I dunno, sounds like a matter of incentives, which means we need an Economist!

      2. “Is there any evidence that it is an effective deterrent though?”

        Are you seriously asking this?

        What kind of fucking idiot thinks taking kids away from parents won’t be a deterrent?

        1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

          1. How does the slop feel?

      3. “Is there any evidence that it is an effective deterrent though?”

        Are you seriously asking this?

        What kind of fucking idiot thinks taking kids away from parents won’t be a deterrent?

        1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

          1. So, is behaving exactly like me supposed to get you what you want? If it works, you’ll be proving I was right to do it.

            1. So you like to practice pre-emptive revenge… If you can strike first, and then the other guy strikes back, him striking you back, PROVES that you were right to go on the attack?

              You know this is right out of the Evil One’s playbook, right? You are enslaved to the Evil One! Whether the “Evil One” is real or not? “Machs nix”… In your head only, or “real” on some level, no matter… You are enslaved to the Evil One!

              1. Exactly the same way.

    2. Sure it was a deterrent, so would be mass slaughter or any number of things.

      What a stupid headline.

      Great. So I guess Nielsen is stupid too, right? Or did you fail to read the post?

      1. Politicians lie? I did not know that. Thank you for your informative post.

        1. Which one is lying?

          1. You’ll have to tell me, I’m too new to this idea.

  12. Deportacion para todos!

  13. Oh, come on! Obama did the same thing and nobody complained! That makes it OK!

    1. Its okay AND nobody complained about it during Obama’s teenure.

  14. If it isn’t effective, there are probably a lot more non-parents accompanying those kids than we thought

  15. I’m so glad progressives have finally started to care about preserving the autonomous family unit from government interfer….. Bwahaha couldn’t quite get it out

    1. The Lefties hate that most Americans are not buying the bullshit they are selling.

      Lefties attack the idea of American family unit all the time and then Americans are supposed to care about non-Americans trying to sneak their kids into the USA to get chain migration rights.

      The Lefties live in a fantasy world that died with Bill Clinton’s semen stain on the Blue Dress.

  16. Well that was fun kicking Hugh and Cathy around. Their incessant bitching amd wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments has gotten incredibly tiresome.

    And that wacko SQRSLINSANE has apparently literally lost his mind because of me. Cry More Cathy seem to be doing the same.

    1. Get thee behind us, Satulpatanic Satulpan!

      If you don’t like it, post your utter crap on some other web site, please!!!

      1. Because you’re legally required to post your tear stained reply.

    2. Aww, you’re still crying all the way down here huh

      1. Yes, that is what everyone thought when they read your sad follow him around truth hurts so you have to say something post, Cry More Cathy.

        1. Satulpatanic Satulpan:

          In days of old,
          When knights were bold,
          And toilets weren’t invented,
          We stopped by the road,
          And dropped our load,
          And walked away contented!

          The days of old are over now… We have toilets now. Please be considerate of others, and drop your loads there, instead of a nice, clean, rational web site like Reason.com!

          1. I see you’ve become comfortable behaving like me.

            1. So you are proud of yourself for thinking that you have infected others with your stupid and evil, while I am trying to wake you up. You’re a sad, sad case! But I won’t give up on you!

              1. I’m proud of pointing out that you’re behaving exactly the same way.

  17. If they feel there will be separation, they don’t come. You know, if they feel there’s separation, it’s a?it’s a terrible situation. We want to go through Congress, but the Democrats don’t want to approve anything. They’re obstructionists.

    Funny, I don’t see the word kidnapping in here, nor would I define the verification process of whether or not an immigrants child is really their child to constitute kidnapping.

    The man said he supports reform to immigration law. But as it stands he must enforce the current law. Keep circling the drain, “Reason”.

    1. Kidnapping requires illegal force or removal without release.

      Illegals that agree to immediate deportation are released.

      Illegals that don’t are granted a deportation hearing with an immigration attorney.

  18. It’s pretty obvious how much Cry More Cathy hates being kicked around by me, she literally follows me around to tell me about it whenever I post.

    I can’t remember having this much control over how upset she gets.

  19. “Donald Trump thinks routinely separating illegal border crossers from their children”

    Reagan would say that it’s not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.

    The Left has gone past being habitually wrong to being habitually absurd.

    When adults are taken into custody by government, we don’t put their kids in custody with them. If you go to jail, your kids don’t go with you. This is nothing new. The hysterics over it is an absurd clown show. Anyone who means their hysteria in earnest should be sedated left to nap it off in a padded room.

  20. This is such biased BS. No one is getting kidnapped. When you commit a crime of breaking into someone else’s home, you get treated like a criminal that you are.

  21. Trump is a mean and nasty many, using political power to hurt people. That’s what it’s there for.

  22. Creative Biogene can offer you several phagemid vectors that can be used in the phage display to satisfy your various downstream research needs.https://www.creative-biogene.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.