Refugees

Donald Trump Fails to Confront the Truth About the Migrant Caravan

American policy created it.

|

Asylum Seekers
David McNew Reuters via Newscom

President Trump is blaming nearly everyone for the migrant caravan wending its way to the United States: Democrats, Mexico, the home countries of these Central American asylum seekers.

Perhaps it's time he looked in the mirror. Because the country he leads is very culpable.

American deportation policies combined with the Cold War rivalry between America and the Soviet Union have destabilized Central America and turned it into an unlivable hellhole. But instead of taking responsibility and making amends, Trump is feeding hysteria in a bid to rally his base ahead of the midterm elections.

The caravan has dwindled from 7,000 migrants at its peak to just a few thousand now. And, if a similar caravan in the summer is any indication, it will shrink even more by the time it reaches the U.S. in December. But that hasn't stopped Trump from dialing up the panic level.

He has denounced Democrats as "weak" on immigration and, in addition to the National Guard, called up the military to help beef up border security. As if that is not enough protection against what is mostly a procession of helpless women and children, he is now threatening to use his emergency powers to seal the southern border entirely and ban entry without offering any of them asylum hearings, something that the U.S. is legally required to do. He has also threatened to cut off aid to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, the Northern Triangle countries whose residents make up the bulk of the caravan.

But let's examine for a moment why exactly these people are fleeing their homelands and making the dangerous, thousands-of-miles-long schlep on foot to America in the first place.

It is not because they are gullible fools marching to the tune of left-wing Honduran politicos hell-bent on challenging American sovereignty, as the right-wing media narrative has it. (Sadly, even the pro-immigration Wall Street Journal has fallen for this line.) It is also not because liberal billionaire George Soros, the right's all-purpose boogeyman, is paying them to storm America, as implied by fake pictures of migrants accepting dollar bills that spread like wildfire on social media.

The real story begins during the Cold War in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the United States and the Soviet Union turned these three countries into an ideological battlefield. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro started funneling Soviet weaponry and money to not just prop up Nicaragua's left-wing Sandinista regime, but also to use that country as a launching pad for a broader regional insurgency to topple the right-wing governments in its three neighbors, as University of Virginia's John Norton Moore has written. President Ronald Reagan, eager for a showdown with the Evil Empire, responded in kind, funding the Contra insurgency against the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and paramilitary operations to prop up the U.S.-friendly regimes of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

The upshot was civil war and a complete social breakdown from which these countries have never recovered.

As Princeton's Doug Massey noted at a recent immigration conference (that I co-organized on behalf of Reason Foundation), in the 1960s, the GDP of these "frontline countries" was equivalent to those of "non-frontline states" such as Costa Rica, Belize, and Panama. Now the latter cohort's GDP is almost three times greater. Likewise, while the homicide rate of non-frontline states is 19.7 per 100,000, it is 43.5 per 100,000 for the frontline states. San Pedro Sula, the Honduran city where the caravan started, has become the murder capital of the world.

Prior to Reagan's intervention, migration from Central America was negligible. Post-intervention, it shot up, although it never reached beyond 375,000 undocumented migrants from these countries living in America. Right now, at 150,000, it is at a relatively low ebb, although you'd never guess that from Trump's broadsides against the "millions" who want to "break our laws, violate our borders, and overwhelm our nation."

To make matters worse, Massey points out, although Reagan offered mass asylum to Nicaraguans flocking to America because they were fleeing an enemy nation, he refused to extend the same courtesy to immigrants from these frontline nations because their regimes were friendly to America and therefore, by definition, not oppressive — never mind their massive human rights abuses!

The upshot was that while Nicaraguans got permanent residency in America, Hondurans, Guatemalans, and El Salvadorians were consigned to life as unauthorized immigrants. Also, although there were far more Mexicans who were similarly unauthorized, they came to America not to flee violence and persecution but for better economic opportunities. That, combined with the support Mexicans received from established networks of families and friends who had been migrating to America for generations, allowed them to make an honest living here (which is why crime rates in border towns like El Paso with a large unauthorized Mexican population are among the lowest in the country).

Not so for Central American migrants, who had literally no local support. Their destitution and desperation spawned gangs like MS-13 that Trump is now using to scare Americans.

Barack Obama is hardly blameless. He poured fuel on the burning Central American subcontinent when he mass deported some 161,000 gang members and other criminals back to these countries. "[Sending] such a large number of criminals, many of them violent gang members, into countries with relatively small populations, proved to be extremely destabilizing," Massey says. It turned these countries into even bigger cauldrons of conflict and violence where daily life for ordinary people became impossible. Many migrants in the caravan recount heart-wrenching stories of family members being harassed, kidnapped, beaten, and killed because they refused to join the gangs or succumb to extortion.

The U.S. is responsible, at least in part, for the mess in these countries. We ought to be sending planes to evacuate their residents — not greeting them with boots and bayonets.

America is the richer for doing the right thing when it welcomed over half a million fleeing boat people after the Vietnam War. It can't let a president motivated purely by his poll numbers and no sense of compassion or responsibility shy away from its moral responsibility in the face of a far smaller challenge now.

This column originally appeared in The Week

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.

270 responses to “Donald Trump Fails to Confront the Truth About the Migrant Caravan

  1. Oh shikha… Is there anything that isn’t the fault of those nasty Americans?

    1. Not everything is America’s fault.
      But in this case, she has a point.
      The US government did a great deal to destabilize the region and make those countries the “shitholes” that they are today.
      The US government is not *entirely* responsible of course.
      So it is somewhat ironic to see many of the restrictionists around here demand that they “fix their own countries first” before immigrating here, when the US had a big role to play in breaking the countries in the first place.

      1. No, she doesn’t. Sending a country’s criminally inclined citizens back to that country rather than letting them stay here is us destabilizing that country? Sorry, that’s a bullshit argument.

        And by her own logic, Cuba should take them in since Castro was the one that started the destabilization.

        1. No, I’m talking about what the US government did to those countries during the Cold War. Overthrowing governments and installing dictators, funding rebels and militias, etc.

          1. It’s been basically 3 decades since the cold war ended bro.

            If you had said “drug war” you’d sound a lot less ridiculous.

            1. Now Rulpa, go easy on Little Jeffy. You know he’s a special needs child.

              1. He has definitely displayed mental illness in this thread.

                1. Man, I didn’t think it could get any worse but ITT chemleft actually totally lost touch with reality. He is literally having a mental breakdown.

          2. I know what you’re talking about. But our intervention was in response to prior intervention by Cuba and the Soviet Union. So the destabilization was cause by Fidel and Khruschchev. By Dalmia’s logic (which is something of a contradiction of terms) these people should be taken in by Cuba and Russia.

          3. Oh, and not only does her logic suck, her history sucks too when it comes to the Vietnamese boat people. We didn’t take them in as an act of guilt or because they were escaping a third-world country. We took them in because they were fleeing an actual oppressive (you know, Communist) government. And because many of them were subject to individual retribution from that government due to the explicit fact that they had sided with the Americans during the war.

            This article is simply another hysterical irrational screed from an author that publishes a lot of them.

            1. Shikha can’t help herself, someone is rubbing Chapmans head. Plus, being a communist she will not put responsibility on communist regimes.

              She also leaves out that Mexico has offered asylum and they refused.

          4. In this thread, Chemleft loses his shit because I totally refute all of his arguments.

            1. Jeffy says a lot of stupid things.

          5. “No, I’m talking about what the US government did to those countries during the Cold War. Overthrowing governments and installing dictators, funding rebels and militias, etc.”

            … preventing them and the rest of the world from becoming one giant open air gulag of communist totalitarianism.

            You’re welcome.

      2. cool story bro. care to chime in with a defense of the marxist revolutionaries in the area? care to tell us how the governments and the people themselves in those areas have absolutely no responsibility for this whatsoever?

        1. Accurately pointing out what the US government did to those countries during the Cold War is not a defense of Marxism, nor is it an argument that their citizens are completely blameless.

          If you would like to argue that the CIA overthrowing leftwing governments in Central America in order to install right-wing dictators was the correct course of action, then be my guest. But if that is the case, then now we see the long-term fruits of that policy.

          1. “Accurately pointing out what the US government did to those countries during the Cold War is not a defense of Marxism”

            No, it’s just insulting to the agency of the locals and also not the cause of current instability.

          2. Those countries had corrupt forms of government and a dual caste system way before the cold war. My god Jeff, read a god damn book.

            1. Where did I ever say otherwise?
              Of course they did.
              Are you really going to argue that the CIA supporting right-wing death squads and installing right-wing dictators in these countries had *no effect* on the trajectories of these countries? That it’s all the people’s fault and their “culture” which caused them to suffer under US-backed government oppression?

              1. “Are you really going to argue that the CIA supporting right-wing death squads and installing right-wing dictators in these countries had *no effect* on the trajectories of these countries? ”

                They’ve had plenty of time to get their shit together.

                “That it’s all the people’s fault and their “culture” which caused them to suffer under US-backed government oppression?”

                They were shitholes behaving poorly before the US got there.

                1. Tulpa, go ahead and keep responding to my comments if you wish, but I’m not going to give any further responses to you unless and until you stop hiding behind the Tulpa sock.

                  1. Good, that means I win.

              2. You are arguing that the Soviets running a totalitarian occupation for 40 years in Poland had comparatively small effects on Poland when compared to the effects of a few death squads inLatin America
                That is what you are saying and it is epically stupid and at odds with the facts

                1. You are arguing that the Soviets running a totalitarian occupation for 40 years in Poland had comparatively small effects on Poland when compared to the effects of a few death squads inLatin America
                  That is what you are saying and it is epically stupid and at odds with the facts

                  No, John. What I’m arguing is that both Poland and Guatemala suffered for decades upon decades under dictatorial oppression, that Poland was able to recover from its oppression a lot faster than Guatemala was able to recover both because Poland had a much stronger pre-war foundation to build upon, and because Poland had very rich allies from which to draw support. Guatemala had neither.

                  Furthermore, that dictatorial oppression that both nations suffered played a strong role in what those countries are like today. Poland is poorer today than it otherwise would have been due to Soviet oppression. SAME DEAL WITH GUATEMALA, and US-backed oppression. But you can’t seem to bring yourself to deal with the reality of history and the involvement of the US government in these countries.

            2. And why don’t you try reading the goddamn article. The countries in which the US government meddled fared a lot worse than the countries in which the US government did not meddle. If all of these countries have some vague undefined “culture” that is responsible for their outcomes, why aren’t all the countries shitholes? Costa Rica seems to be doing rather well, actually. How come we don’t hear about migrant caravans fleeing oppression from Costa Rica?

              1. “but I’m not going to give any further responses ”

                “And why don’t you try reading the goddamn article”

                chemjeff, a man of conviction.

                I did read the article dumbfuck. Unlike you though, I also UNDERSTOOD IT.

              2. That would be because the US meddling was in response to Soviet funded insurgencies. Of course Costa Rica did better. They were never invaded by Soviet insurgents. You can’t be this stupid can you?

                1. Oh oh oh John but I thought it was all about “the culture” being inferior is why Guatemala is such a shithole country. Do you mean to say that foreign government meddling also had a role to play in the outcomes of these countries? Maybe the CIA installing right-wing dictators in Guatemala played some role in why Guatemala is the way it is?

                  Are you willing to give the US government any blame at all for what happened in those countries?

                  1. No. Had the US not done anything it would have been taken over by the communists and look like Cuba. The US never intervened in Venezuela to stop Chavez. How is that working out?

                    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1…..lan_coup_d‘?tat

                      Described as the definitive deathblow to democracy in Guatemala, the coup was widely criticized internationally, and contributed to long-lasting anti-U.S. sentiment in Latin America. Attempting to justify the coup, the CIA launched Operation PBHISTORY, which sought evidence of Soviet influence in Guatemala among documents from the ?rbenz era: the effort was a failure. Castillo Armas quickly assumed dictatorial powers, banning opposition parties, imprisoning and torturing political opponents, and reversing the social reforms of the revolution. Nearly four decades of civil war followed, as leftist guerrillas fought a series of U.S.-backed authoritarian regimes whose brutalities included a genocide of the Maya peoples.

                      So, the US government shares no blame whatsoever for this?

              3. “Costa Rica seems to be doing rather well, actually.”

                See, this is YOU being a collectivist and lumping all those shithole South American countries together.

                Jesus fucking Christ are you stupid.

              4. “The countries in which the US government meddled fared a lot worse than the countries in which the US government did not meddle.”

                The US meddled a lot less in Venezuela than it did in Columbia. Or Chile. And yet, Chile and Columbia are decent places to live – Chile is actually a very nice place to live – and Venezuela is a total toilet. Could it possibly be that there are other variables here beyone the degree of US meddling?

                1. Yes, there are other variables. But the US government’s meddling is definitely one variable, and one that should not be ignored.

                  1. “Yes, there are other variables. But the US government’s meddling is definitely one variable, and one that should not be ignored.”

                    So are we supposed to ignore the other variables and say that the US is responsible for taking in every refugee from every country in which the argument can be made that the US meddled at some point, no matter the degree of culpability or the remoteness in time of the meddling?

                    Because that’s what Shikha is certainly arguing and you seem to be supporting.

                    1. How about if we don’t ignore our own history? How about if we come to terms with what the government did in our name, and for starters speak with a little bit of contrition and humility?

                    2. Who’s this “we” shit Collectivistjeff?

                    3. I haven’t defended anything America has ever done. I simply asked you a question that you didn’t answer.

                  2. “Yes, there are other variables. But the US government’s meddling is definitely one variable, and one that should not be ignored.”

                    As a counter tribalist, it’s one you certainly fixate upon.

                2. “Maybe the CIA installing right-wing dictators in Guatemala played some role in why Guatemala is the way it is?”

                  Maybe having a culture of graft and corruption where the CIA CAN install someone is ACTUALLY the problem.

                  1. Tulpa, you are a liar and a coward.
                    When you cease being a liar and a bully, and you use your actual sock instead of hiding behind a troll sock, then I pray we can have a productive discussion.
                    Until that time, kindly fuck off.

                    1. That is what jeff does when his own posts back him into a corner.

                      Let that be a lesson to everyone who tries to discuss anything with him.

                      He doesn’t refute me because he can’t.

                    2. “Tulpa, go ahead and keep responding to my comments if you wish, but I’m not going to give any further responses to you unless and until you stop hiding behind the Tulpa sock.”

                      And then he proceeded to respond repeatedly. That should tell you how much integrity he has.

                    3. Why are you here, Tulpa? Why do you post under this troll sock and troll here? What is the point?

                    4. Your schtick seems to be to hold yourself to no standards whatsoever while trying to hold everyone else to high standards that you won’t hold yourself. Is that it?

                    5. Chemleft, if you had something to refute me you’d post it.

                      That you resort to vitriol says almost everything we need to know, with your lie about not responding saying the rest.

                    6. Oh I have plenty to refute you with. Yes congratulations you dragged me down to your level with your trolling. I guess that is what you want here, to drag everyone down into the mud with you with insults and trolling. And it’s rich seeing you get on some sort of moral high horse when you have no morals to speak of in the first place.

                    7. Tulpa, you are the one who said earlier that I approved of violence conducted against right-wingers, when I have never said anything of the sort. When are you going to apologize for this offensive smear?

                    8. “you are the one who said earlier that I approved of violence conducted against right-wingers”

                      No, chemleft, you’re lying again. You asked a question, and I responded “Yes”.

                      But of course you’re lying, it’s what you do.

                    9. Tulpa, you make this place worse off with your trolling and your insults and your complete lack of standards.

                    10. It would be nice for once to have a discussion without Tulpa barging in and flinging poo everywhere.

                    11. And by “flinging poo” you mean defeating your arguments and making you look stupid.

                      Listen Chemleft, you’re free to leave if you don’t like it. Or you could try to get smarter, but trying to silence opposition is what you chose instead.

                    12. You are the one who makes this place worse off. You are the one who ought to leave.

                    13. You’re the one whining.

                    14. Shorter less whiny chemleft “why do people HAVE TO MAKE ME LOOK STUPID BY PROVING ME WRONG!! WHY CAN’T I JUST LIVE IN AN ECHO CHAMBER!!!!”

                    15. You’re not proving me wrong. You’re just trolling.

                    16. “You’re not proving me wrong”

                      Correct you do that when you fail to refute me, now I’m just pointing out that you are a liar and hypocrite.

                    17. No, “flinging poo” in terms of insults and bad faith argumentation. Why don’t you step out from behind your troll sock and use your real sock? Answer: because you do not want the obligation of being held to any standard whatsoever. Tulpa is the definition of no-rules trolling. You are a coward who is afraid to hold yourself to a position and defend it with good faith arguments and reason. You prefer instead the coward’s way to just insult and attack.

                    18. “No, “flinging poo” in terms of insults and bad faith argumentation. ”

                      “chemjeff radical individualist|10.31.18 @ 12:21PM|#

                      Tulpa, you make this place worse off with your trolling ”

                      “chemjeff radical individualist|10.31.18 @ 11:58AM|#

                      Fuck off Tulpa.”

                      “chemjeff radical individualist|10.31.18 @ 12:28PM|#

                      You are the one who makes this place worse off. ”

                      You were saying?

                    19. Oh I missed one

                      “You are a coward”

                    20. You are a coward. You hide behind this troll sock where you don’t have to take responsibility for holding yourself to any standards. You are liberated to say whatever you want, no matter how outrageous (like falsely accusing me of advocating for violence against right-wingers) knowing that you will never be held responsible for any of it. Stop being a coward and I’ll respond to your actual arguments. But you’re not proving me wrong. You are only demonstrating how much of a jerk you are.

                    21. “”No, “flinging poo” in terms of insults and bad faith argumentation. ”

                      “chemjeff radical individualist|10.31.18 @ 12:42PM|#

                      You are a coward”

                    22. Yup there you go. Refusing to hold yourself to any standards while just attacking and trolling others.

                      Why don’t you start by apologizing for falsely accusing me of supporting violence against right-wingers?

                    23. “No, “flinging poo” in terms of insults and bad faith argumentation. ”

                      “chemjeff radical individualist|10.31.18 @ 12:52PM|#

                      Yup there you go. Refusing to hold yourself to any standards while just attacking and trolling others.”

                      Something something mote something beam something

                    24. “You are liberated to say whatever you want, no matter how outrageous (like falsely accusing me of advocating for violence against right-wingers) knowing that you will never be held responsible for any of it. ”

                      Because “chemjeff” is your real name.

                      “But you’re not proving me wrong. ”

                      Admission that you know I’m proving you wrong.

                    25. So, just to be absolutely clear you were lying when you said you weren’t going to respond to me.

                    26. Coward.
                      Use your real sock. Don’t hide behind Tulpa.

                    27. And Jeffy throws his tantrum, takes his yptoys and runs home crying. Because he is a little bitch who can’t make a real argument.

                    28. Don’t forget liar. He lied in this very thread.

                    29. As if “kill all the lefties” is a serious argument coming from people like you.

                    30. Well, you are the master of unserious arguments so I’ll have to defer to you.

                      Out of curiosity though, who said “kill all the lefties?”

                    31. No, but it would solve an awful lot of problems, wouldn’t it Jeffy?

                    32. So you don’t favor killing lefties?

                    33. So no one actually made the quote you quoted?

              5. Because a large number of wealthy Europeans, Asians, and Americans move there to protect their wealth from money grabbers!

                1. Sooo here’s the thing guys:

                  Would they have been BETTER OFF if we’d just let the communists take over?

                  I think not.

                  But THAT is the real argument here. We intervened and stopped the commies from taking over. This had negative repercussions because there were wars there… But you’re magical situation of them just going on and becoming the Switzerland of Central America somehow WAS NOT ON THE TABLE.

                  You can’t ignore reality. Reality was that they were either going to be taken over by ruthless communist dictators… OR we could back some less than perfect guys who would stop the commies. At no point in time was being a perfect, stable, democracy on the table there.

                  Unless you accept this fact, you really can’t judge what we did to be right or wrong. Fact is if we’d never sent a dime down, the commies would have taken over… And they would have surely been even worse than the right wing guys. AND right wing rebels would have been fighting guerilla campaigns ANYWAY, just with way lower odds of winning.

                  The commies were the ones that borked it there, just as in Korea, Vietnam, etc. You cannot judge our actions against some non existent scenario where Guatemalan George Washington takes over and everything is hunky dory. In all likelihood our actions made life FAR better there than they would have been otherwise, even if it’s still pretty shitty.

      3. Sometimes I log in wondering how dumb of a statement you can make Jeff and you never disappoint. Let’s take a country line say….. Poland. They’ve literally been invaded and controlled by foreign entities for decades in the last few hundred years. They currently have a stable government and economy. They didn’t keep complaining about the injustices of the last century as a reason to remain under a corrupt government.

        America didn’t create he culture of corruption, the bribes to get anything done in government. What would it take, Jeff, for you to put any blame on the culture of central America or other countries? It’s obvious you are coming from the point of ignorance. Dare I ask how many times you’ve visited those countries? Bet I have you beat.

        1. Also, Poland accepted no immigrants.

        2. Poland was subjected to the Holocaust followed directly by forty years of Soviet occupation both of which make anything that happened in Latin America pale by comparison. Like all Progressives, Jeff is a racist who sees brown people as children who are forever victims of the superior but evil white man

          1. The only racists around here are the ones who see brown people as a threat importing some vague inferior culture that will turn the US into a sea of inferior brown people just like themselves.

            And by the way, last I checked, Cuba isn’t full of white Aryans, and the Cuban government also had a hand in oppressing the people in Guatemala and elsewhere in Central America. It’s not about white people oppressing brown people, but foreign governments meddling in the affairs of these nations to be used as proxies in their geopolitical struggles.

            1. “The only racists around here are the ones who see brown people as a threat importing some vague inferior culture”

              Culture is a race?

            2. Jeff, honestly, you’re a stupid fuck. You’re whinging about racism while discussing colonies populated by the descendants of white Europeans.

              Spain isn’t full of brown people you fucking moron.

              1. And isn’t his shitposting just annoying? He ruins perfectly good discussions with his softheaded thinking. Open borders bullshit, race baiting, and counter tribalism.

                1. It’s why he gets kicked off of so many websites.

                  1. Oh really?
                    Which ones have I been supposedly kicked off of?

                    1. Ace of Spades.

                    2. Is that it? You said websites.

                    3. Hionest Chemleft “oh well yeah but but but…”

                    4. And I already kinda figured you are one of Ace’s minions. I have a pretty good idea which one too.

                    5. I’m sure your assumptions are as stupid as the rest of the stuff you post.

                    6. So, not content to kick me off Ace’s website, you now feel compelled to follow me here and torment me at a completely different website. How is this not stalking and creepy?

                      You have really taken this personally haven’t you?

                    7. You did stick up for me several times at Ace’s website. And now you must feel like I betrayed you and betrayed your advocacy for me when I finally decided that I could no longer associate myself with what the Right had become, and more specifically, what Ace & co. are now advocating in favor of. That really hurt, didn’t it?

                    8. I actually have no ide what that site is about, all I know is that someone trolled you for getting kicked off and YOU LOST YOUR SHIT.

                      “So, not content to kick me off Ace’s website, you now feel compelled to follow me”

                      Like that. It has you so deranged that you don’t seem to understand that I predate you by a decade.

                      But keep letting a kickban get to you so much, newb.

                    9. “You did stick up for me several times at Ace’s website. And now you must feel like I betrayed you and betrayed your advocacy for me when I finally decided that I could no longer associate myself with what the Right had become, and more specifically, what Ace & co. are now advocating in favor of. That really hurt, didn’t it?”

                      See? You sound like a fucking luntic, all because some shitty blog kicked you for being a jackass.

                      Get it together n00b.

                    10. No you don’t. You are just using this Tulpa sock.

                    11. “No you don’t”

                      Solid retort n00b, looks like you realize you fucked up again.

                    12. My hunch is that you are one of Ace’s minions who knows of the legend of Tulpa, and you have adopted this sock to continue to torment me here. Sure you torment others, but you seem particularly fixated on me. The nick predates both of us by a while, yes. But you don’t.

                    13. But at least we both agree that yes, Ace’s blog is rather shitty.

                    14. Then why does it bother you so much that he kicked you?

                      Right.

                    15. “My hunch is that you are one of Ace’s minions who knows of the legend of Tulpa, and you have adopted this sock to continue to torment me here”

                      “, but you seem particularly fixated on me”

                      Holy shit that is some self-important derangement.

                      Take your fucking meds n00b, then ask around. You are making a foo of yourself.

                    16. I’m not the one who needs meds.
                      How many times have you responded to me, vs. anyone else who comments here?
                      It’s not self-important to be able to do math.
                      I think I am closer to being right than you will ever admit.

                    17. “I’m not the one who needs meds”

                      Common sentiment among paranoiacs like you.

                      Like I said n00b, you don’t have to take my word for it. Ask around.

                    18. So, if I copy your sock into Word, and change the font, your sock actually spells “TuIpa” with a capital I instead of a lowercase l. Huh. So you are even impersonating the actual Tulpa nick with a fake one.

                    19. So I guess that means you aren’t the original Tulpa then. But an impostor, who has taken the Tulpa sock in order to hide behind it to avoid all responsibility for the comments you might want to make.

                    20. So why again are you hiding behind the Tulpa sock? Because you are a coward.

                    21. No n00b, because it works, especially on unmedicated paranoiacs like you.

                      I’m right aren’t I? You ACTUALLY ARE mentally ill!!!

                      Lolololll Jesus chemleft, turn off thd computer and go get some help, you clearly need it.

                    22. If you knew anything about “the legend of Tulpa” as you put it n00b, you’d understand why your post is colossally stupid.

                      Go ahead. Ask around. But get some meds in you first.

                      Because that paranoia of yours ain’t getting any better.

                    23. “But an impostor, who has taken the Tulpa sock in order to hide behind it to avoid all responsibility for the comments you might want to make”

                      Hey n00b, is this stupidity supposed to make sense? It’s not like your birth certificate says “chemjeff radical individualist.”

                      Jesus Christ man, take your haldol.

                    24. You’re not the original Tulpa. So who are you?

                    25. TuIpa. Do your meds fuck up your eyes like thet do your brain?

                      Here’s the story, since you’re a n00b. A woman named Mary Stack was Tulpa. Mary Stack NEVER posted as Mary Stack, she posted as TuIpa. I recognized the font trick, and counter trolled her as Tu I pa. She got doxxed and retired TuLpa, and I have used Tu I pa to kick around idiots like you ever since. I have been Tu I pa for longer than the original posted. People like you LOSE THEIR SHIT like you habe when they see Tu I pa.

                      That you didn’t know that should put to bed any stupid ideas you have about predating me. Registration exists because I exploited the font trick.

                      Now take your clonazepam before you shit yourself again.

                    26. Cool story bro.

                    27. Aww you realize you’ve been making a fool of yourself!!!

                      Don’t worry little guy, we all know you aren’t very bright.

                      You must feel like a giant idiot though.

                      “Cool story bro”

                      Yup, that proves it. You clearly realize how stupid you look now, n00b.

                    28. “Cool story bro.”

                      I think the best part about that response is that you asked a question, got an answer you weren’t expecting, but HAD to say SOMETHING to save face.

                      And then it failed.

                    29. I’m not sure why I should believe you.

                    30. You don’t have to you fucking moron, I told you that. Feel free to inquire with others.

                      Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you.

                      Take your fucking meds n00b.

                    31. If you really have been trolling Reason for years and years, then that is even more sad and pathetic.

                      I can’t imagine what kind of person would spend years and years to troll places just to provoke reactions and derive joy from seeing people lose their shit.

                      If you are telling the truth, I actually feel kinda sorry for you.

                    32. “I can’t imagine what kind of person would spend years and years to troll places just to provoke reactions and derive joy from seeing people lose their shit”

                      You don’ t have to imagine, juat look in a mirror you insane fuck.

                      “If you are telling the truth, I actually feel kinda sorry for you.”

                      No, that’s just something stupid you say because you keep losing debates and rhetorical battles to me and have to find ANYTHING you can say to make it seem like you’re not deeply upset about making a fool of yourself.

                      Chemleft, here’s the truth. You LIED. In THIS THREAD. And since that lie all YOU have done is fling poo.

                      At no point have you acted like an honest person and ADMITTED your lie, you just ignore it.

                      Because you are severely mentally ill and to acknowledge that your illness causes you to lie would destroy you.

                    33. “chemjeff radical individualist|10.31.18 @ 11:42AM|#

                      Tulpa, go ahead and keep responding to my comments if you wish, but I’m not going to give any further responses to you unless and until you stop hiding behind the Tulpa sock”

                      That is a lie. You lied. Why would anyone care what you think? You’re a mentally ill liar.

                    34. No, it actually wasn’t a lie.

                      It was more like a broken promise.

                      Because I was absolutely sincere when I wrote it that I was going to be the better man and not respond to your provocations. But congratulations, you did successfully trigger me and I wrestled in the mud with you. Of course, like wrestling a pig in the mud, it’s a bad idea, because you get dirty too and the pig likes it way too much.

                      You have no business lecturing anyone about decency or honest behavior. All you are on these forums is a troll. I do actually feel sorry for you. It is deeply sad and pathetic to derive joy from humiliating and tormenting and bullying people, and to continue doing it for years and years and years. If anyone around here has some mental issues, it’s not me, it’s you. You should go get help for your anger issues and your self-esteem issues.

                    35. LoLz. This thread! Jeff! LOL

                      That is all.

                    36. I know. They both need to shut the fuck up and go sit in the corner.

                      Kids. :-\

                    37. Actually, I’ve heard from people who have pigs, that they don’t like mud much. It’s just that their sharp little feet cut up the soil in their pen, and when combined with milk slop and other liquids, it creates a muddy environment. Given their druthers, they’d rather be out in the corn field.

            3. “The only racists around here are the ones who see brown people as a threat importing some vague inferior culture that will turn the US into a sea of inferior brown people just like themselves.”

              The only racists around here are the ones who can only see the color brown when they see big government voters.

        3. And Poland had a lot of help from Western Europe, the US, and NATO to get it back on its feet after the Cold War ended. A country like Guatemala has had to endure dictators and civil wars for more than a full decade after the Cold War ended, and the only rich neighbor that Guatemala has turns a blind eye to them now because they are no longer useful in geopolitical struggles.

          And frequently when I find people blame “the culture” for their problems, it is just a vague and indirect way to collectivize and otherize them as some inferior mass of people. Because these accusations typically lack any sort of specificity. What, *specifically*, do you want me to find blame in “the culture” of these places, that is *entirely their fault* and not linked in any way to foreign meddling in their internal affairs?

          1. ” it is just a vague and indirect way to collectivize”

            But “the US is responsible” isn’t I guess.

          2. ” What, *specifically*, do you want me to find blame in “the culture” of these places, that is *entirely their fault* and not linked in any way to foreign meddling in their internal affairs?”

            A disdain for the rule of law and an acceptance of corruption as the cost of doing business, among other things.

            1. And some thing Jeffy doesn’t understand about importing them all here is that you can’t bring all of there here, without here becoming like there.

              And who the fuck wants the US to become like those shitholes?

              1. If the state doesn’t recognize the liberty of movement, and if the government creates a police state in order to track down all of those illegal humans, then we are undermining our own values.

                There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as staying in stasis. Either this place becomes more authoritarian and xenophobic, or this place becomes more welcoming of foreigners.

                Yes foreigners will change the country in some undetermined way. Parts of it will be positive, parts of it will be negative. But creating an authoritarian xenophobic police state certainly seems like far more negatives than positives coming from that plan.

                1. “Either this place becomes more authoritarian and xenophobic, or this place becomes more welcoming of foreigners.”

                  You really lack perspective if you think that anywhere else in the world has been or can be more welcoming to foreigners than the US has been and is.

                  1. The point is, there is no option on the table for “nothing changes”.
                    Either the state recognizes freedom of movement, and yes the place does change in both positive and negative ways to accommodate more foreigners, or the government creates an even larger police state to enforce the border harder and kick out the foreigners. Just like there is no option for “open the borders and nothing bad will happen”, there is also no option for “enforce the law harder and nothing bad will happen”. TANSTAAFL.

                    1. How many more foreigners would you like?

              2. And who the fuck wants the US to become like those shitholes?

                No reasonable person wants the US to become more like Guatemala.

                1. But let’s import the population thay made it that way…

                  God damn you are fucking stupid chemleft.

                  1. So what is the alternative?

                    1. Is the alternative “enforce the law”? Is the alternative “kick out the illegals”? Is the alternative “mandatory e-Verify” and things like that? Because all of those come at a cost. The more you make this place into an authoritarian xenophobic state, the more it sounds like letting Guatemalans in doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

                    2. Um, not import them?

                      I can see now why you get kickbanned from shitty blogs and think you predate long time posters here, you’re clearly an imbecile.

                    3. No one is arguing to “import” anyone.
                      The argument is about whether to allow them to migrate here or not.

                    4. So you don’t know what is actually happening and what words mean. That, on top of some serious paranoia makes it clear you really must be severely mentally ill.

                    5. You are still a coward hiding behind a fake Tulpa sock.

                    6. And so you don’t substantively respond to my comment, instead you fling yet more insults and call me names, then I suppose, by the Rules of Tulpa, then that means I have won the argument since otherwise you would have delivered a well-reasoned refutation. Thanks!

                    7. “instead you fling yet more insults”

                      Like you have?

                    8. I responded substantively to you several times in this thread and YOUR response was

                      “Tulpa, go ahead and keep responding to my comments if you wish, but I’m not going to give any further responses to you unless and until you stop hiding behind the Tulpa sock.”

                      So save that shit n00b, YOU threw a tantrum.

                    9. YOU threw a tantrum.

                      Says the guy whose stated purpose is to troll.

                      You dragged me down to your level. Isn’t that the response you were looking for?

                      I mean, you weren’t really looking for a serious discussion, were you? You were looking for any excuse at all to fling poo. And you found it.

                    10. See, I do respond substantively, once, to your comment. And your retort is to accuse me of being mentally ill. You were never looking for a discussion. All you were looking for is any reason at all to use your Big Book of Insults.

                    11. You threw up some reflexive right-wing response that you knew would provoke a reaction. And when you got the predictable reaction, you said “a-ha that is my opening to throw out some insult bombs”. You didn’t approach this conversation with anything like a good faith attempt to argue or reason. Your whole purpose here is to troll. And bullshit arguments are just your opening lines for trolling.

                    12. “You threw up some reflexive right-wing response ”

                      And YOU threw a tantrum and freaked the fuck out.

                      Stop blamong me for your stupid ass behavior n00b.

                      ” And when you got the predictable reaction”

                      Funny that you admit you throwing a tantrum was predictable.

                    13. “See, I do respond substantively, once, to your comment”

                      Wait, you think freaking the fuck out is responding substantively? Lolo

                      Besides you stupid fuck, YOU are accusimg ME of never responding substantively.

                      Seriously n00b, you can’t even keep your shit together to remember what you said.

                    14. “You were looking for any excuse at all to fling poo. And you found it.”

                      By your definition of fling poo, so have you.

                      You’re just a sad little liar who has a very distorted opinion of his own behavior and importance, and flatly refuses to seek the mental help he needs.

                    15. “I mean, you weren’t really looking for a serious discussion, were you? ”

                      What kind of pathetic out of control paranoiac are you that YOUR behavior is MY fault.

                      Grow the fuck up n00b.

                    16. Oh no. It’s my fault that I sunk to your level. But that is what you were after in the first place. At least be honest in your intentions. You never wanted a discussion. You wanted to fling poo.

                    17. Except I RESPNONDED to you substantively, which you lied and said never happened, and then you threw a tantrum.

                      YOU acted like an idiot just because my answers to you made you look stupid.

                      It’s all right here to be read you mentally ill retard.

                      What the fuck is wrong with you?

                    18. “At least be honest in your intentions. You never wanted a discussion. You wanted to fling poo.”

                      Except you did that first.

                      It is all right here, time stamped.

                    19. Is it any wonder you get kicked off of websites?

                      You’re obviously deranged and not in touch with reality.

                    20. No, not quite. It’s more like:
                      You: comment
                      Me: substantive response to comment
                      You: snarky response + insult
                      Me: another substantive response
                      You: you’re mentally ill!

                      So yeah, you have no interest in discussion which was your intent all along.

                    21. “Me: substantive response to comment”

                      Actually you isane moron, you insulted me, demanded I change my name (wtf?) and adhere to your demands.

                      That you think that is a “substantive reply” just shows how mentally ill you are.

                      “”Tulpa, go ahead and keep responding to my comments if you wish, but I’m not going to give any further responses to you unless and until you stop hiding behind the Tulpa sock.””

                      That’s yoir post. You are liiterally arguing THAT post is a substantive reply, because you’re mentally ill and won’t seek help.

                      It is obvious now that you get bammed because you are credibly unhinged and dangerous, and no one wants you shooting up a building.

                      You can’t even admit you did it!! You think trollishly demanding shit is a substantive reply!! You’re fucking insane!!!

                    22. “So yeah, you have no interest in discussion which was your intent all along.”

                      No, that’s just the insane justification you use to dissociate from your mental illness and the replies it produced.

                    23. “chemjeff radical individualist|10.31.18 @ 11:42AM|#

                      Tulpa, go ahead and keep responding to my comments if you wish, but I’m not going to give any further responses to you unless and until you stop hiding behind the Tulpa sock”

                      That is a lie. You lied. Why would anyone care what you think? You’re a mentally ill liar.

          3. Poland was ground into the dust by a 40 year totalitarian occupation. Nothing that ever happened to Latin America compares to that. And the US has sent hundreds of billions of dollars in humanitarian aid to Latin America. A hell of a lot more than we sent to Poland

            You are just dumb as a post and seem to like being that way

            1. Poland already had a Westernized, industrialized state of affairs, and a democratic government, before the Second World War. And, Poland had a lot of help from a LOT of rich countries to help them get back on their feet. And, Poland is STILL poorer than it otherwise would be due to the repression.

              Yes it helped that they had a history of democratic governance before the war, something that Central American countries lacked, in the main But it also helped that Poland found itself with some very rich patrons, while no one gives a shit about Guatemala.

              1. “Poland already had a Westernized, industrialized state of affairs, and a democratic government, before the Second World War”

                So you’re saying Poland is better off because of their culture.

                1. “while no one gives a shit about Guatemala”

                  So it’s not our interference, it’s that we didn’t interfere enough.

                  God damn jeff how fucking stupid are you?

                  1. Fuck off Tulpa.

                    1. “chemjeff radical individualist|10.31.18 @ 11:58AM|#

                      Fuck off Tulpa.”

                      Jeff, when he realizes he has made a fool of himself with stupid positions.

              2. Yes Poland is European and has a better culture. That is the entire point you moron. The cultures of these places were broken long before the Cold War and that explains why they suck today and Poland doesn’t

                1. What *specifically* do you mean by “the cultures of these places were broken”? Trying to compare cultures in this vague way is counterproductive. You need to set some criteria if you want to make any sort of meaningful comparison.

                  If Poland was surrounded by other poor countries, and no European Union and no NATO and only one rich neighbor who decided to turn a blind eye to them after decades of meddling in their affairs, then Poland would be a lot closer to a Guatemalan shithole today than it is currently. Would you agree?

                  1. “What *specifically* do you mean by “the cultures of these places were broken”? ”

                    “Poland already had a Westernized, industrialized state of affairs, and a democratic government, ”

                    Chemleft, you answered it yourself.

                  2. Something all the European democracies have in common (that the US shares) is that those cultures supported revolution and a willingness to die in bringing about something better for themselves and their descendents.

                    “Give me liberty or give me death” is not a universal sentiment – anyone who wants libertarian governments should be painfully aware of that.

                    When people decide to pack up and leave their countries to go to a better place where the hard work of building has already been done rather than create something similar in their own countries, they are emblematic of a culture at odds with our’s and europe’s.

                    And all that stupid intervention we experimented with in the name of democracy and American Exceptionalism was us trying to export that culture – not leave those countries to be shitholes of corruption. It failed. Probably made things worse. Just like it failed in Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and the list goes on… and on… and on… because ultimately, the people in those countries weren’t willing to put in the work to own it for themselves.

                    What makes you think they’d fight for freedom here? In a place they feel isn’t theirs?

                    1. When people decide to pack up and leave their countries to go to a better place where the hard work of building has already been done rather than create something similar in their own countries, they are emblematic of a culture at odds with our’s and europe’s.

                      So people who leave California or Massachusetts, in order to go to Texas or Florida, which has more favorable politics and policy for them, they are not emblematic of American culture?

                      I think you are falling too much for the romantic notion that everyone in the West are noble fighters fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Some are, yeah. Some are not. Some are pacifists, some fight in different ways other than with physical violence, and some simply seek opportunities elsewhere, just like all other people.

                    2. Damn dude, you just got lit up… insults aside. I enjoyed the substance of the thread and chuckled at the rest.

                      Your cultural relativism is great for feelz but not for actual arguments. This article’s writer, and all you Marxist fucks who creep around, really should come up with better arguments against the West or simply admit you hate the founding of the USA and everything it stands for.

                      Or move to Guatemala

              3. Oh Jeffy, you are endearing in you own sad pathetic way. I think many of us could some up our feelings for you as follows, in the words of General Melchett:

                “I’ve come to regard you as a sort of son. not a favourite son, obviously; more an illegitimate backstairs kind of sprog, who nobody really likes”

                1. If this thread is any indication, he actually has extremely severe mental problems.

                  1. Jeffy loves idiotic arguments and false analogies.

          4. “Noticing that different people have different cultures is so waycist!”

      4. In this episode of Reason, Shikha and Commie Jeff take the over the mantle of Hate America First from Sheldon Richman.

        While the US was imposing the Monroe Doctrine on the Americas, most of the world, including the Americas, were spared rule by fascist imperialism and communist authoritarianism by the US.

        You’re welcome.

    2. Actually, as a country founded on white supremacy and genocide, the US is responsible for unimaginable oppression of black and brown bodies. Of course the least we can do to atone is welcome marginalized communities with open arms.

      However, even if this country had a flawless global human rights record, open borders would still be the only acceptable position. Immigration has countless benefits and no drawbacks, as Reason and Cato studies confirm.

      #AbolishICE
      #NoBanNoWall
      #OpenBorders

      1. Finally, the “R” word in an honest admission from oxy-moronic OpenBordersliberal-tarian. Reparations with some guilt thrown in. Sweet.

        “Immigration has countless benefits and no drawbacks, as Reason and Cato studies confirm.”

        You know, it is said that it’s best to end on one’s strongest point when attempting to persuade and you end with that obvious bullshit. Expand on benefits to whom, besides the invaders, to provide a better understanding. I want to hear about how all the billions in remittances these people make back to their home countries, while bleeding US dry, benefits America.

        “No drawbacks” and your proof is because Reason and Cato say so we all must disregard our own intellect. Fail!

    3. If everything was America’s fault then why do they keep coming here.

      BTW If it wasn’t for Russian meddling in our hemisphere we wouldn’t have either, Maybe

      1. If someone is lobbing bombs at your location, the safest place to be is in proximity to the bombs’ source. No one in their right mind will direct a bomb at themselves.

        1. Of course not, bombs are expensive compared to bullets.

          Did you think you had a point?

        2. There are a lot of people not in their right mind. 17 years ago, 19 guys not in their right minds (or were they) used planes and themselves bombs.

  2. “Perhaps it’s time he looked in the mirror. Because the country he leads is very culpable.”

    Ok, Shikha Dalmia is ‘trumping’ the President’s irrational rhetoric with her own.

    1. “The U.S. is responsible, at least in part, for the mess in these countries. We ought to be sending planes to evacuate their residents”

      Next up Shika talks about giving African Americans reparations…

      1. Shouldn’t African American reparations start in the South, Central, and Caribbean Americas, where over 95% of the trans Atlantic slave trade went?

  3. Wow, Shikha will accomplish the impossible, and force the commentariat to defend Obama–even, in the particular matters under discussion, Obama compared to other Presidents.

    Obama’s foreign policy evils are legion, and even Latin America did not emerge unscathed. But it is completely unfair to compare his “destabilizing” deportation of violent, criminal Salvadorean nationals back to the country where they belong (and have a right to be) by international law, with the longstanding interventionist policies of Reagan and other presidents into the internal affairs of sovereign nations in the region–as though returning citizens to their home countries were just another foreign policy act, a “destabilizing” intrusion into and manipulation of their domestic affairs, like sending invading troops or fomenting a coup or what have you. What nonsense.

    1. Interfering in other nations business started long before Reagan was even born so I’m not sure why people like to single him out as if he was the start of all history.

      1. I have no idea. Neither I nor Shikha (on this occasion at least) appear to be doing any such thing.

        1. quote from your own writing

          “with the longstanding interventionist policies of Reagan”

          Just above my comment less than an hour before

          1. You should work for CNN. I said “Reagan and other presidents.” Because I chose Reagan (whom I happen to think is clearly one of the better presidents) as the president to bring up as an example, explicitly stating that he is not alone among them, to you this is suggesting that “he was the start of all history” in terms of intervention.

            Why did I choose Reagan to mention, to single out as en example? Because Shikha fucking did, and this is her fucking article I am commenting on. She brought up a specific example of one of Obama’s policies, and a specific example of one of Reagan’s. And I thought it was incredibly remarkable–that was the whole fucking point I made–that she (a person most of the commentariat thinks of as a prog in thin libertarian clothing) was forcing us to side with Obama (whom we utterly loathe) in a particular unfair comparison of one of his particular policies with one of Reagan’s (whom we all like much better).

            When you started muttering about what “people” like to do in “singling out” Reagan, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were suggesting that Shikha had done so, and found it obvious that I was simply replying to her as the relevant context would suggest of normal human beings. Because to think instead that I was suggesting that Reagan invented interventionism would be ridiculous. But there you go.

            1. …And I do think that Shikha, who did no doubt relish the attempt to attack bad old Reagan in front of her cocktail-party friends (indeed, her progtarianness is actually even better revealed by her even greater stretch to overeagerly attack Obama, since the stereotypical progtarian M.O. is basically that they get the biggest chubbies of all when they get to show up progs themselves as actually being better and more principled progs than the progs are) also did not necessarily do what you suggested either. This is a Central American caravan, so she was justified in focusing on the issue of Central American interventionism (and its relation to immigration) and should probably not be read as making suggestions about the grand history of American interventionism in general. She might have chosen T.R. if she wanted to talk about the worst Central American interventionist of all, of course. But that is ancient history, and did not result in a mass refugee migration to the U.S. She is absolutely correct to single Reagan out as having greatly escalated the Cold War, rightly or wrongly, in Central America (what, is his commitment to doing that a myth?), whose unrest brought waves of Central American political refugees to our borders where there had been far fewer before.

              1. …But regardless, even if I am wrong about this, it turns out you were suggesting that I had been the one “singling Reagan out as if he was the start of all history.” Which is, again, preposterous.

  4. Writing is in the style of OBL. Hmmmmm.

    1. OBL meaning OpenBordersLiberal-tarian or Osama bin Laden?

      Either way, yes.

  5. The Jacket is on right now on NPR’s issues show 1A.

  6. And you’re shitting yourself about it, so he wins.

  7. The blame lies with the governments of the people who had to/chose to leave and try for a better life in the US, not Donnie or any US policy.

  8. Our Border is sacred

    [citation needed]

  9. The U.S. is responsible, at least in part, for the mess in these countries. We ought to be sending planes to evacuate their residents

    Uh-huh, and how many of their residents should we “evacuate”? Something equivalent to our responsibility? So, 50%? 70%? 90%?

    1. 100% because immigration is an unqualified good, always, and the only thing better than immigrants is more immigrants.

  10. Yes we are responsible, but it’s not just Trump. This has been true for decades. You forgot to mention the drug war destabilized these countries. Also, aid to these countries only creates violence. Thus, Trump’s threat to cut it off is a good thing. As a libertarian, you should know this. Finally, immigrants needs to export the values of freedom and prosperity that they learned here back to their home countries. Until they do that there is little America can do to help them and the problem will only continue.

  11. Actually, coming to the U.S. border and requesting asylum is very legal. What’s illegal is what Trump is doing: deploying the military to shoo(t) them away before they can request an asylum hearing.

    Is that really what the Administration is planning on doing? On shooting bullets across the border into the Mexican republic? Or, for that matter, closing all the processing stations and letting no one present himself in an orderly fashion to border guards to request and fill out an asylum application form?

    I had assumed that Trump was, perhaps technically inappropriately (but hardly without precedent, nor I think what any other president would do in the same place with perhaps a bit more pro forma politeness) allowing his personal opinion to be expressed that he is skeptical that all these people as a whole have legitimate asylum claims, and thus addressing them “turn around!” as though they have no business entering. And as for the troops: It is a huge, far bigger than usual crowd, so the usual border will have to be reinforced. Better manpower, less chances for an ugly incident between the crowd and overwhelmed border forces. They are there to make a show, and ensure order, not to provoke a bloodbath. It could take a very long time to process all these people if that is what they are expecting…

    1. …These people get a fair asylum review by international law. And I think the evidence is rather overwhelming indeed that nearly all will be rejected. They deliberately passed through an entire country, minimum, without requesting asylum. The attitude they are displaying is quite baffling. Shame on whoever has misled them, on whoever is using them as pawns to make a political point.

  12. I suspect Trump overplayed his hand by going after birthright citizenship, but, just in terms of the upcoming election, I’m pretty sure that both the mail bomber and the Pittsburgh shooting are now ancient history.

    I should also add that seeing Trump go over the top on things like birthright citizenship is a function of the media making the midterms a referendum on Trump. It’s rather absurd to complain about Trump going over the top on issues like this ahead of the midterms if and after you’ve contributed to making the midterms a referendum on Trump.

    1. We talked about the birthright business yesterday. I think its status is quite firmly: No one gives a shit. It will not energize either his base or the opposite base, nor will it even do much to directly sway the key “shy immigration hawk” demographic–the Long Island soccer-mom types who are quietly a good deal less woke on racial issues than their urban-bougie counterparts (but whose light, latte feminism makes them dislike Trump), and whose middle-class, ’90s-style law-and-order instincts could cut against Trump on guns or for him on cops or illegal crime and gang scares. Birthright is way too abstract, and way too obviously a nonstarter, for Joe Anything to get excited. The press doesn’t seem to grasp that.

      What it will do, as I mentioned, is to get that press all histrionic about this very extreme step, to push Squirrel Hill a bit out of the sole attention of their news cycle for the home stretch. Like I said, it does not matter whether they recognize that this is the real reason for the strategy–not even base-pandering per se; they can recognize it and indeed point it out all they want. Doesn’t make a difference; they have indeed been manipulated into talking about it and the further details make no difference.

      Squirrel Hill is very, very dangerous for Trump. And it is not ancient history. It is a godsend for Democrats.

      1. “Squirrel Hill is very, very dangerous for Trump. And it is not ancient history. It is a godsend for Democrats.”

        So that’s why they showed up to stage a protest that he was paying respects?
        You gotta get out of New York, man.

      2. Squirrel Hill is already last week’s news.

        It’s over. The migrant caravan is still ongoing.

        By Monday, Squirrel Hill won’t even make the third page.

        From a news story with legs standpoint, a mass shooting like that either needs to happen on a Monday or Tuesday–or be a much bigger story. Happening on a Friday would have given it little legs. Happening on a Saturday morning was the worst time possible from a news cycle standpoint.

        The people who cared about Kavanaugh have already made up their minds. The undecided swing voters out there who will actually show up at the polls aren’t thinking about Squirrel Hill, not anymore this week and it’ll be forgotten by next week.

      3. The fact that YOU dont think people give a shit about illegals belays your ignorance of what Americans care about.

        Americans care greatly about illegals taking advantage of Americans and seemingly ignoring our immigration laws. Its partly why Trump won.

        Feel free to have opinions but you might want to admit that you have zero idea why Trump is more popular than Obama ever was.

    2. I’m very energized by Trump stating he would attempt to end birthright citizenship.

      If he actually *did* it, instead of just *talked* about it, I’d be more energized still.

      I wonder if all those Army Engineers Trump is sending to the border to stop the Caravan will find it military prudent to build a wall to deal with the latest wave of the invasion.

      Hope so.

  13. 1) How long do locals need to get their shit together? Let’s say I hypothetically agree with the premise of this article. How long after the Cold War ends do the locals need before it stops being anyone else’s fault?

    2) The drug war is far more to blame for these problems today.

  14. Re: Trump Goes More Bonkers Over the Migrant Caravan

    So… Shikha Dalmia Goes More Bonkers Over Something Trump Said, huh?

    SSDD.

    1. Have you listened to the things he says though?

      I’m sure you never shit your pants in rage over some innocuous thing Obama said once.

      1. Nope, I’m an adult, and you are telling on yourself.

        1. I am also an adult, and as such, even if Trump were nothing more than vulgar, he is unfit for the job he’s in. Vulgar people deserved to be shunned in public life, not elevated to the highest position in it. But Republicunts aren’t adults, they’re evil morons.

          1. Republicunts

            You watch your mouth, young man!

          2. Note to Tony: your concerned school marm act kind of falls apart if you can’t manage to go three sentences without calling people cunts.

            1. I’m not expecting to be the fucking president am I?

              1. No. And you shall be shunned as well!

                *shunning*

              2. Politics is downstream from culture. When the entire culture revels in vulgarity don’t feign surprise and dismay when it elects vulgarians.

                1. Nothing could be more gauche than turning yourself orange in mid-conversation, good sir.

                2. It’s not the vulgarians that concern me. It’s their poetry.

              3. Actually, we’re jist talking about you being an adult, which isn’t expected either.

      2. “Have you listened to the things he says though?”

        I hear things now and then. Sounds to me like he’s trying to make his detractors act all batshit crazy, over and over again. And it appears to be working.

        “I’m sure you never shit your pants in rage over some innocuous thing Obama said once.”

        You’re right, I never did.

        1. And is this behavior or motives you admire in the president of the United States?

          1. I didn’t say that at all. Curious how you came to that conclusion, but whatever.

            I will admit, however, that it’s entertaining watching his opponents talk about what an idiot he is while he’s busy getting them to act like unhinged squirrels who’ve lost their nuts.

  15. It would almost seems that the notion of “catholic guilt” isn’t actually catholic at all (maybe primal), given the the insane need for left leaning social justice types to feel guilty about nearly everything (as long as they’re white, or can blame white people). This notion that the US is to blame for the humanitarian crises in Central America is ridiculous. These nations have never been stable and, most likely, will never be stable. It’s not doing them any favors to treat them like children. They need to grow up.

  16. How easily Democrats forget that they were recently as anti-immigrant as Trump is now. Jimmy Carter did not want the boat people here in the late 1970s. Unions didn’t want immigrants to lower their wages. So, what happens now when you have $15 minimum wages pressuring employers to eliminate low skilled jobs?

  17. No, Reason refuses to be reasonable. The U.S. is NOT the world’s policeman, nor its sugar daddy. The “migrants” (read lawless crowd) want to FORCE their way into the U.S.illegally as their countries, run by tyrants and/or crooks, cannot sustain employment at levels where most folks have a job. It seems as of late that Reason, once my favorite magazine, seems to be unable to discern right from wrong and reasonable from its opposite. I sincerely hope they are able to right the ship they are sailing on, namely Reason Magazine.
    Jim Gallagher

    1. Re: CGN,

      nor its sugar daddy.

      No one is asking America to be anybody’s sugar daddy. You’re making stuff up.

      The “migrants” (read lawless crowd)

      They’re not lawless, they haven’t broken any laws. You’re merely supporting the notion that Trumpistas are keen on scaring dumb and credulous whites with the made-up hobgoblin of a horde of horrible brown-skinned people.

      You are a liar, a fabulist.

      It seems as of late that Reason, once my favorite magazine, seems to be unable to discern right from wrong and reasonable from its opposite.

      Quite the contrary, it is clear Trumpistas are bereft of rationality, sinking ever further down the pit of nativist xenophobia and anti-Market bromides. The MARKET invites migrants in. They’re not criminals and they’re not scary.

      1. Old Mexican, they haven’t broken any laws yet – if they try to enter our country illegally, that will no longer be true. As for escaping brutality, by international law, aren’t these refugees supposed to seek asylum in the next country that borders their own?

        1. The caravan, all of them, already broke international law. Don’t let this dirty old Mexican fool you into inviting him over

  18. If US government meddling in the domestic affairs of Middle Eastern countries led to ‘blowback’ which fueled the rise of terrorism and anti-American sentiment in those countries, why is it so unreasonable to hypothesize that a similar effect may be manifested in Central America, just manifested in a different way? Guatemalans didn’t turn to terrorism in the main, but they did decide to flee their miserable conditions that were created IN PART by decades of foreign meddling in their domestic affairs.

    1. It is exactly the same. Just as I fully disavow people that believe in terrorism, I also disavow people that believe they are entitled to live in the US for past actions of our government. Both groups put their energy into blame instead of taking responsibility for their future. They are both wrong and perpetuating a cycle that will, eventually, lead to disaster.

  19. The boat people got here long before the current wave of xenophobia. If that happened today, instead of being welcomed we’d be hearing nonstop about how the Vietnamese Navy was sending a massive army to launch an amphibious assault.

    1. There’s a much clearer case of American responsibility.

      “Join us, we’ll help you keep the communists out of your country!”

      “Oops, we changed our mind, we’ll let the communists in after all, hope this doesn’t get you in trouble for supporting us.”

      “Well, OK, maybe we’ll let some of you escape to the U. S.”

      1. ^^ Seconded. Logged in to say pretty much that.

    2. Reason is retarded about which vietnamese were allowed to come to the USA as much of their open border nonsense has been.

      The USA allowed tens of thousands of Hmongs into the USA and they are hill people, not boat people.

      The non-Hmong vietnamese refugees admitted into the USA were mostly south vietnamese who aided the US effort in the Vietnam War. Many were ARVN survivors who would have been executed by commie north vietnamese once they conquered vietnam.

  20. Soon to be ringing America’s doorbell…but we turned the porch lights off.

  21. >>>”American policy created it”

    Czech policy to change it?

  22. OMG Trump is talking about not letting the 7,000 strong peasant levy into the country! The HORROR! How dare he?!

  23. “. Post-intervention, it shot up, although it never reached beyond 375,000 undocumented migrants from these countries living in America. Right now, at 150,000,”

    Wrong.

    “The surge was driven chiefly by Latin America, which saw its numbers double from about 335,000 in 2011 to 668,000 in 2016, pushing it past Asia as the top-sending region.”

  24. We ought to be sending planes to evacuate their residents ? not greeting them with boots and bayonets.

    All of them?

    1. It’s the white man’s burden to go to foreign countries to round up and leave with their noble savages…

  25. Damn Yankees!

  26. We have no “moral obligation” to take in anyone from any country. And Obama did not “destabilize” these countries by sending 161,000 criminals back to them. Obama, to his actual credit, helped to prevent further destabilization in this country by sending them back. However, since Trump was elected, Obama and the rest of the left have been working overtime to encourage destabilization.

  27. In many ways, the caravan/army is the fault of US policy.
    Specifically, granting birthright citizenship and generous welfare programs combined with an indulgent lack of law enforcement regarding illegal entry and fraud.

  28. Most of the caravan are economic migrants. They’re not fleeing the kind of political oppression and instability that struck their nation in the 70’s. And if they are, we have official asylum process they can seek at the proper consulates. Mexico offered them jobs and asylum – why didn’t all of them take it on the spot?

    Citing historical grievance to bolster one’s position is one of the surest signs that you lost the argument. We’re not going to take in 7000 unverified migrants from any country (whose economic policy undoubtedly leans left or socialist, despite US support for “right wing” regimes), no more than we would create endless welfare for the native Americans owing to past atrocity. Although we might be doing that now.

    Sure, we can mind the historical context. The US had a hand in all sorts of global development. We went to war with Mexico but also sent supported their conflict against France. There are poorer nations still feeling the effects for Western colonization eons ago. But I’m not under some illusion that most of the caravan voted for policy and politicians that helped make a cesspool out of their nations.

  29. Oh Shikha HOW can you possibly blame Trump for what has been going on for well over a century and a half in Central America?

    Nicaragua’s troubles did NOT begin in 1970. That was a major polar shift. WHAT was that uprising all about? After three generations of nasty Somoza US puppet dictatorship, the people of Nicaragua had had more than done with US backed/run government, and when he murdered one of their national heroes, Pedro Chamorro, the owner/editor of the ONLY newspaper in the natioin that was fearless in publishing the TRUTH of Somoza’s corruption (La Prensa) the people rose up in anger. Feeling threatened, Somoza proclaimed that Pedro’s funeral would be a small private affair, closely controlled as to who might attend. Thjirty thousand Nicaraguans proclaimed otherwise and attended anyway, then followed him home to his lavish palace. They rushed the place, grabbed him, and disappeared him onto a DC 3 late that night,which flew off to no one know where. Good riddance to bd rubbish.

    Having suffered greatly under US led government, dictator style, the PEOPLE wanted no more of US policy or rule. It was into THAT vacuum the nine person ruling junta stepped…. headed by Daniel Ortega, who I believe was the brother of Fidel’s head of military or national security. It was HE who brought in the Cuba/Soviet travesty. That was in 1979. He ruled for ten years, being ousted in one of the most corrupt and rigged elections anywhere, which he lost by a landslide anyway.

    1. Our government have been meddlling in the governments and poliltics of EVERY latin nation from Venezuela around and though Panama and up into Mexico for five generations. You may have noticed, but have chosen to ignore for the sake of your argument here, that Mr. Trump has, far more than most recent US administrations, greatly reduced US action and meddling in those same nations. In point of fact, Trump’s stand on the present invasion (what else can it be accurately called if not an invasion?) is in the main to tell them NO we will NOT fiix your problems, go back home and do it yourselves. . THAT is his underlying message. Best thing ANY US president has said in three generations. They can NOT continue to look to us to rescue them from their bad decisions. WHY cannot those people elect good and honest leaders?

      1. Sure, our meddling has brought them the drug industry and resultant wars. But WE have not told them to keep their citizens disarmed and helpless against crime and corruption. WHY is it the droguistas are armed, and no other civilians are? Good news in Brasil, they’ve elected a president openly campaigning on a promise to enable the common man to own and carry about defensive weapons. Until Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, all do the same, the cartels will continue to run the places into the ground, and the common man will do his best to flee…. with good reason.But Trump has only been in the White House not quite two years now….. so I suppose we MUST blame him, and NOT the kinyun who we just dumped, who did all he could to meddle, destabilise, promote the droguistas and related corruption.. and keep the commoners disarmed as HE and his pal Holder systematically armed the Sinaloa Cartel.. remember Fast and Furious?

        1. Well said, tionico

  30. Don’t care for the long read, the title was enough for me. I’m pretty sure he HAS Confronted the truth…he sent over 5,000 Troops to deal with it! Don’t like it? To damn bad!

  31. Yes, that may be so; but it was American Judge-made policy…..and judges aren’t supposed to be making policy.

  32. And we intervened to stop the Communists in Korea too… And saved half the country at least, which has turned into one of the most amazing nations on the face of this earth.

    How many decades do they get to use us HELPING THEM not being taken over by brutal communists dictatorships as an excuse? For forever, just like blacks will get a pass for the next 5,000 years because of slavery? At SOME POINT people need to take responsibility for their own shit. It doesn’t take this long for a country to get its shit together, so don’t go blaming it on us anymore.

    I’m not big on intervention, especially not in the current geopolitical climate… But when the USSR, China, etc were pushing international communism globally, we almost didn’t have a choice but to do it.

    In these cases there is something close to a 100% chance they are WAY better off for us having helped them NOT be taken over by communists.

    The truth is they need to get their shit together, and fix their own countries. The sad reality that many libertarians can’t stomach, is that they may NEED to get hardcore for awhile. Kicking down doors, mass arrests, and shooting lots of these crazed gang members that are fucking up their countries. Sometimes such things are needed to establish the initial order, from which you can return to more civil ways of dealing with things.

    1. I am not for intervening in foreign affairs but the facts are that South korea, west germany, and much of western Europe would not exists as is without USA intervention. South korea would have been conquered by north korea, germany would have been united under a commie regime, and the Warsaw pact would have run rough shot over france, italy, Austria, and west germany.

      1. Yup. Some people take libertarian theories too far to be workable in reality.

        Those libertarians are why more sane and moderate libertarians are not taken seriously. And it is a tragedy, because the general principles of libertarianism are correct. You just have to throw a little common sense into the mix on a few issues like immigration, foreign policy, etc and it would work out great. Somebody like Ron Paul sticks to the general ideas, but is sane enough to realize there are exceptions to the rule that do come up from time to time in the real world.

      2. The world is an open air gulag without US Cold War intervention, and tributary states of Imperialist Fascist Empires without US WWII intervention.

        You’re welcome, world. Now stop trying to invade our country.

  33. The time for political correctness has passed.

    Trump lathers up bigots. His ardent supporters are uneducated, disaffected bigots. His voters appease bigotry.

    Pittsburgh didn’t want Trump in its town because he lathers up bigots. Evan McMullin called out Steve King for bigotry on national television. When former Cruz mouthpiece Alice Stewart objected (because ‘KIng is a friend’), she was called out, too. An hour or so later, Jeff Toobin labeled Kris Kobach a bigot, and didn’t back down when Kobach whined about how ‘outrageous’ it is to call someone a bigot on national television.

    Decent, responsible Americans are recognizing that appeasing or sugarcoating bigotry is wrong. Accuracy is a virtue. Call a bigot a bigot.

    1. Go fuck yourself collectivist idiot.

    2. The Left has nothing to sell but the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics.

  34. Maga!

  35. Another Marxist essay on Reason.com. Why is this collectivist idiot allowed to post her hateful words on this website? Shitka would destroy every good thing about liberty and freedom in the US if she could. Wake Up!

    1. The real question is why they still allow us to post on their site.

      Reason.com went pomo cultural marxist globalist. America hating is to be expected.

  36. Who cares why the caravan exists? The issue is stopping it. Bombing runs would not only end this one, but would prevent future caravans.

  37. Shikha has it right again. Any government intervention only makes things worse. If we stop interfering in Central America, end the drug war, and stop telling Mexico how to police its borders and how to govern the people of Mexico, the caravans north would likely subside.

    Trump is on an exhilarating power trip looking to see who he can hurt with his newly discovered weapons of executive power. Power is evil.

    1. You know what else would work? Shooting every single one of them. Nobody would ever dare attempt to pull shit like this again.

      But just as we aren’t going to do that, we’re not going to stop interfering in foreign countries affairs. The truth is there is nothing wrong with us having discussions with foreign governments about what they should do. Giving them advice, telling them our preferences, how we might be able to help each other on goals, etc. These are all valid things. There are limitations to how far we should go, like there is really no threat anywhere in the world as it exists now that justifies starting a war like the Soviet threat arguably did back in the day… But countries are never going to stop working with each other on things. Some of those things, like both sides thinking drugs are bad, are not going to be awesome.

  38. “Any government intervention only makes things worse.”

    I agree, let’s cut off all aide and see what happens.

    If you like 7,000 caravaners, imagine 200,000,000

  39. Yes, Poland had a lot of help from a LOT of rich countries to help them get back on their feet. And, Poland is STILL poorer than it otherwise would be due to the repression.

  40. “President Trump will ban entry without offering any of them asylum hearings, something that the U.S. is legally required to do”

    Again not true, he’s banning ILLEGAL but NOT legal entry at a border crossing because so many simply think they can cross the border illegally and merge into the US without asylum hearings or passing any immigration formalities.

  41. This rant doesn’t pass the smell test:
    1. The problem is separating the legit caravan members from the illegit. They aren’t all one or the other. There is no way under current law to perfectly vet them all.
    2. Legit asylum seekers can signal their legitimacy by applying legally. Such seekers need to apply by the First Country Rule—–and not asylum shop.
    3. Economic migrants—as ‘many’ have stated they are—–are not asylum seekers and have no right to enter the country, The rhetoric on this issue conflates the two categories. Whether we need or want economic migrants depends on our domestic labor market.
    4. The Leftist Blame Game America Bad, Every Other Country Good is essentially hogwash. (The author does blame the USSR). We have been giving foreign aid to these countries for years. That counts as ‘reparations’. When do the ‘reparations’ end ?
    5. A country has an economic incentive to export its criminals. We don’t want any of them—— regardless of the alleged crime rates of immigrants ( usually illegal and legal lumped together for data availability) reasons.
    6. When do people take responsibility for their own choices and actions ? No one HAS to be an MS13 member.
    The answer from the Left is: never. That approach increases (not decreases) crime by blaming everything on others, the easy way out of the Left.

  42. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you…..

    http://www.geosalary.com

  43. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.