Travel Ban

Yemeni Mother Can't See Dying 2-Year-Old Because of Trump's Travel Ban, Family Says

"It's separating family-literally separating family from each other."

|

Ting Shen Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

The family of a 2-year-old U.S. citizen with a rare brain disease says President Donald Trump's travel ban is stopping the baby's mother from seeing him before he dies. "It's separating family—literally separating family from each other," Abdullah Hassan's father, Ali, tells KPIX.

Ali Hassan and his wife Shaima Swileh were both born in Yemen—one of the countries covered by Trump's travel ban—where they met. About 10 years ago, Ali moved to California, where his grandparents moved decades ago. But he returned to Yemen on multiple occasions, including after Swileh gave birth.

Tragically, their son Abdullah was born with a rare and severe form of hypomyelination, a genetic disorder that affects the nervous system. The disease got worse over time, and eventually it became difficult for Abdullah to breathe. He is currently on a ventilator and is likely running out of time, his father tells the San Francisco Chronicle.

When Abdullah was about eight months old, Swileh took him from Yemen to Cairo, where Hassan soon joined them. Hassan, who's an American citizen, was able to obtain U.S. citizenship and a passport for his son. But Swileh had a much harder time. She waited for months to hear if the Department of State would grant her a visa, only to be denied. A letter from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo said her request had been shot down "pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9645."

The proclamation in question, issued in September 2017, was Trump's third attempt at a travel ban. In June, the Supreme Court defended the proclamation's constitutionality, reasoning that the administration "has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review." And while the ban allows would-be travelers to apply for a waiver, Swileh's request for one is reportedly still being processed.

With Abdullah getting worse, Hassan took him to California earlier this year. He's currently on life support at a children's hospital. Swileh hasn't seen her son since they left. "She starts crying and crying every single day. She wants to be next to her son," Hassan tells KPIX.

Trump's travel ban isn't likely to deter foreign-born terrorists, most of whom come from nations not covered by the ban anyway. Plus, as an internal Department of Homeland Security document explained in March, "most foreign-born, US-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry." But the ban does mean that many people who have good reason to enter the country, like Swileh, aren't able to.

NEXT: Andrew Cuomo's Sudden Cannabis Conversion Highlights the Cowardice of Leading Democrats

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Few things are lamer than Libertarians trying to do emotional reporting because they dislike a policy.

    Joe is awfully bad at it as well.

    1. Re: damikesc,

      So when Reason reports on people’s lands being taken by the EPA, you’re against that as well? Or does your principle only extends to reporting that doesn’t embarrass DJT and his outright racist policies?

      1. When I see “Well, the EPA took away the land and, well, BABIES DIED!!!”, I’d see a comparison worth making.

        And, uh, what “Race” is being targeted here?

        1. Re: damikesc,

          When I see “Well, the EPA took away the land and, well, BABIES DIED!!!”,

          So that’s a big YES, your principles only go as far as reporting that does not embarrass the president and his outright racist policies.

          And, uh, what “Race” is being targeted here?

          Arab-Semitic who also happens to profess the wrong religion in the eyes of rednecks. Next question?

          1. So that’s a big YES, your principles only go as far as reporting that does not embarrass the president and his outright racist policies.

            I’m not overly concerned about your PMS’ing on this issue, son. I’m mocking the laughably melodramatic bullshit here.

            Hmm, ALL Arabs are banned?

            That’s news to me. I remember substantial bitching that some Arab states are specifically not banned. I guess those critics were wrong. Good to know.

          2. Go read the “travel ban”.

            It doesn’t cover the vast majority of the world’s Muslims and doesn’t have a “not a Muslim? You’re cool!” exception clause.

            It does ban people from a few countries with bad identity controls and lots of terrorism, though, which are majority-muslim.

            O noes, right?

            (And it blanket-bans all travel on a NK passport, not just the Visa restrictions of the others.

            Are North Koreans banned because racism or because religion? And South Koreans are unrestricted and don’t even need a visa?

            Go on, try and explain it as religion or race.)

            1. It does ban people from a few countries with bad identity controls and lots of terrorism, though, which are majority-muslim.

              It lifted whole-cloth from an Obama administration’s recommendation, got rebuked, and scaled back from it. It’s Trump’s less racist version of the Obama’s administration’s unconstitutional immigration policy.

              1. That and “Muslim” is not a race.

                1. So being anti-Musllim cannot be “racist” anyway.

                  1. The left now uses “racist” as an all purpose epithet. They’ve about worn it out, along with “homophobic”. I wonder what they’ll move on to next?

    2. damikesc, luckily for you Joe is NOT a Libertarian.

  2. Yemeni Mother Can’t See Dying 2-Year-Old Because of Trump’s Travel Ban, Family Says

    Don’t let anybody tell you that Trump is not pro-family…

    … You can tell them “Oh, you don’t have to tell me! I know!”

    1. “Pro-family obviously means pro everything related to every family ever with no side effects, no competing priorities of “family”, and nothing else! One bad thing happens to one family, means ANTIFAMILY!!!”

      Yeah, no?

      Look, “pro-family” is a dumb label, and the President’s a shit – but so is that argument.

      1. Re: Sigivald.

        Pro-family obviously means pro everything related to every family ever with no side effects,

        Side effects? To being pro-family?

        What would those be, Mr. Karl Marx?

        1. saying you’re pro-family is like saying your pro-emotional argument

        2. John Wayne Gacy can’t see his grandchildren either due to some anti-family bullshit by the state.

          1. Coulrophobia at its worst!

          2. I’m not anti-rattlesnake family but I’m certainly not pro-rattlesnake family either.

            You know what other creature uncharacteristically births live young? Hint: Not frogs.

  3. But the ban does mean that many people who have good reason to enter the country, like Swileh, aren’t able to.

    We must allow anybody here who wants to come here. They ALL have good reasons. Hyper emotional caterwauling is the lynchpin for the…LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!!!

    On this day, Reason decided to become a speechwriter for Chuck Schumer.

    1. Re: damikesc,

      We must allow anybody here who wants to come here.

      I don’t know who you refer to with the use of the pronoun “we”, but people should be allowed to invite in anyone he wishes, never mind the wittle fweelings of bigots and unionized thugs.

      1. I don’t know who you refer to with the use of the pronoun “we”, but people should be allowed to invite in anyone he wishes, never mind the wittle fweelings of bigots and unionized thugs.

        Nah. Because you won’t be held SOLELY liable for anything that person YOU invited did. And it’d be your fault since, you know, they had no right to be here except you REALLY wanted it.

        You put down a massive deposit to pay for the services this person might use — refundable, of course, when they leave — and we can talk. And by massive, we’re talking low seven figures minimum.

        Otherwise, stop asking me to pay for you to feel like a good person for once in your life.

        1. Re: damikesc,

          Nah. Because you won’t be held SOLELY liable for anything that person YOU invited did.

          Under what legal theory should I? Aren’t people the owners of their will?

          You put down a massive deposit to pay for the services this person might use — refundable, of course, when they leave — and we can talk.

          Should I require the same from you for your children? Who knows what they may use?

          stop asking me to pay for you ….

          Nobody asked you to do shit. YOU are the one complaining about a problem that YOU have with people YOU don’t know.

          1. Under what legal theory should I? Aren’t people the owners of their will?

            So, you want to invite them in and have no responsibility for what they do? Man, sounds like a great deal for everybody else.

            “Yeah, we know that the new immigrant is a bit of a bum and leaves a huge mess…but Old Mexican REALLY wanted him here…”

            Should I require the same from you for your children? Who knows what they may use?

            I already pay for them and quite legally liable for anything they do. Nice try though.

            Nobody asked you to do shit.

            You are, you insipid dunce. You’re asking ME to pay for the expenses of people who have no right to be here so you can feel like a nice person. For once in your life.

            Fuck you. You want to feel good? Pay for it yourself. I don’t give two shits if you feel good.

            1. Re: damikesc,

              So, you want to invite them in and have no responsibility for what they do?

              I am asking you again: Under what legal theory would I be responsible for what another person does or does not do?

              You are, you insipid dunce. You’re asking ME to pay for the expenses of people who have no right to be here

              I’m not, you paranoid schizophrenic nincompoop. I’m not asking you to do shit and you’re not paying for anyone. You pay taxes, the same as I. That’s something we do because the State makes us do it, not immigrants. People come into the US with two good arms and a mind, ready to work. Perhaps I should pass you the bill for your kids, or whose permission did you seek to push them on to the rest of us?

              And people who come here have every right to be here. What they don’t have is a right to a job or to a house but if someone is willing to trade those things for their labor, who the FUCK are you to impose yourself in the middle of that trade?

              1. And people who come here have every right to be here.

                If we allow them, they are PERMITTED to be here. We can toss them out immediately. You seem confused on what a RIGHT is.

                1. If we allow them

                  Maybe you think you have some sort of power through the government and that’s why you say “we” but you and I are not any part of it. Unless one considers the host to be part of its parasite.

              2. “You pay taxes, the same as I.That’s something we do because the State makes us do it, not immigrants.”

                How do you weigh the damage done by the state on US citizens, vs. the damage done by the state on everyone else? If we agree “the state” must exist to maintain some baseline level of order, why should it not lean toward the people who pay for its existence?

                Or perhaps your under the impression utopia exists, in which case pass me the needle because that’s the only way to get there

        2. Couldn’t you say the same thing about children?

      2. Anyone they wish to invite in. That is, The Market should be allowed to let anyone the Market invites in.

        1. Sorry, we have a Constitutional Democratic Republic and the Constitution has not been changed to say that.

          Let us know when you successfully follow the rules and get enough support to amend the Constitution.

          Good luck!

          1. Even if you’re horrible interpretation of the Constitution were correct (it’s not), it’s pretty telling that you think that it would require an amendment for Congress to simply not regulate something. Yeah, you’re not a statist at all.

            1. Your not you’re. I hate myself.

            2. Without an interstate commerce clause, the federal government would have no specific authority to regulate commerce between states.

              The fact that you dont know how the constitution workd is very telling.

              The fact that people like you dont want to hold government to its enumerated powers, is not my fault.

  4. These stories are just not working on Americans anymore.

    You know who doesnt get to see their kids anymore…. every American killed my Muslims who hate America for purely religious reasons and take their hatred out on non-military Americans.

    It sucks to be lumped into a ban on Yemenis. Yemen is a shithole and does not value Constitutional freedoms that we value. It has been a hotbed of Muslim terrorist activity for over 50 years.

    America has never controlled Yemen, that was the British and Ottoman Empires. What have we ever done to Yemeni people?

    1. Nothing is the answer.

      People have to help themselves and the USA cannot be the savior nor the boogieman for everyone.

      1. What have we ever done to Yemeni people?

        Drone strikes?

        1. Drones strikes- Yemen

          I cant believe you walked right into that one and Obama’s ordered murder of American Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.

          In 2002, Bush allowed a drone strike of Al-Qaeda agents passing through Yemen via vehicle.

          Then starting in 2010, Obama decided to blow the shit out of the country every year he was president.

    2. We owe them because we owned slaves 154 years ago, obviously.

      And we’re racist if we try and nation build internationally instead of simply importing all of their problems and try to fix them HERE instead.

      1. We might owe the US citizen man and child something. It’s not as if this is some random Yemeni refugee with no connection to the US.

    3. Re: lovecons…. yeah, right.

      These stories are just not working on Americans anymore.

      Bigoted ignoramuses are not the only Americans who step on this land, L.

      1. Don’t worry, we won’t hold your ignorance and bigotry against you.

        Honestly, I doubt many of us expect much more of you anyway.

        1. Re: damikesc

          I hold yours against you, though.

          1. Aren’t you just ADORABLE?

            So, so cute.

            Again, I don’t get mad when youngsters eat paste, either.

            1. Re: damikesc,

              Aren’t you just ADORABLE?

              You too, schnookums, you!

              Again, I don’t get mad when youngsters eat paste, either.

              I don;t either. I do pity mediocre assholes who blame immigrants for their failures. Reminds me of a certain people who, let’s say, felt “stabbed in the back”.

              1. …or people who have a hard time living with the consequences of bad decisions…

    4. Yeah, why should the wife of an American citizen and the mother of an American citizen be allowed to visit her son before he dies. If the fuckers wanted to do that they should have thought about it before they were born brown.

      You people are awful, just like your Orange God.

      1. Yeah, why should the wife of an American citizen and the mother of an American citizen be allowed to visit her son before he dies.

        …perhaps she could’ve become a citizen? You know, that option existed. Shame she didn’t take advantage, but I feel no real need to fix people’s poor decisions.

        1. Re: damikesc,

          but I feel no real need to fix people’s poor decisions.

          You haven’t the foggiest idea of what you talk about. You;re like Tony discussing economics, except less knowledgeable, and that’s saying a lot.

          1. You haven’t the foggiest idea of what you talk about. You;re like Tony discussing economics, except less knowledgeable, and that’s saying a lot.

            Clearly she isn’t a citizen, so feel free to list the inaccuracies.

            1. Re: damikesc,

              Clearly she isn’t a citizen
              Not being a citizen is not prima facie evidence of a “bad decision.” Your comment is, however, prima facie evidence that you know nothing about the process. You’re free to find out, of course.

              1. Not being a citizen is not prima facie evidence of a “bad decision.”

                She is pissy she cannot be here.

                Seems rather blatant evidence that she made an exceedingly poor decision. Don’t worry. Some people chose to invest in Enron stock too.

        2. “perhaps she could’ve become a citizen?”

          Maybe she doesn’t want to be a citizen. Maybe she applied and the application was bogged down in the system – it takes a long time – or maybe she was denied. Who knows? Who cares? This isn’t about citizenship. It’s about simply allowing somebody to visit who has a legitimate reason to request permission to do so. I thought we libertarians were against one-size-fits-all government decisions, but then again, the Trumpsters among us aren’t actually libertarians.

          1. Maybe she doesn’t want to be a citizen.

            That seems to fall under “tough shit”. People often make poor decisions. She did. Sad, but hardly my concern. It’s not my job to fix her mistake.

            Perhaps they should’ve taken the child to a country more open with their immigration policy…oh wait, there ISN’T one. Funny, huh?

            1. “That seems to fall under “tough shit”…..That seems to fall under “tough shit”….Perhaps they should’ve taken the child to a country more open with their immigration policy…oh wait, there ISN’T one. Funny, huh?”

              Because no other country in the world allows non-citizens to visit their country. Ever. For any reason. All those pictures you see from so-called “tourists” are just Fake News.

              This isn’t about permanent immigration. She’s trying to get a visa to visit. Your head is so far up Trump’s ass that you can’t distinguish between the two.

              1. Because no other country in the world allows non-citizens to visit their country. Ever. For any reason. All those pictures you see from so-called “tourists” are just Fake News.

                Do you have any clue how our immigration laws stack up to literally every other country on Earth? They are going to be dramatically less friendly than we are.

                This isn’t about permanent immigration. She’s trying to get a visa to visit. Your head is so far up Trump’s ass that you can’t distinguish between the two.

                I. Do. Not. Care.

                At all.

                Sob stories mean shit to me.

                1. “I. Do. Not. Care. At all.”

                  Hey, does Trump have any polyps up in there?

          2. Or you know, dad and son could have stayed with mom because this country is so racist right?

            1. Everyone always wants to get into the United Racist States of America for some reason.

          3. Maybe she doesn’t want to be a citizen.

            LOL!!!1!1!

            She probably doesn’t want to be a citizen and that’s precisely why we *should* let her in!

            Seriously, stop, you’re making my ribs hurt.

            1. “She probably doesn’t want to be a citizen and that’s precisely why we *should* let her in!”

              You know, I visited Germany, Austria, and Poland a couple of months back, and I have no desire to be a citizen of any of those countries. But somehow, they let me in for a visit anyway. They didn’t even ask if I wanted to be a citizen.

              She has a valid reason to request to be allowed to visit, and she’s very closely related to two American citizens. So, why should her request to visit be denied?

              1. And if they told you no…would you whine that they were being super-duper mean to you?

                1. That noise you just heard is my point zipping along about 30,000 feet over your head.

              2. They didn’t even ask if I wanted to be a citizen.

                Weird. They don’t ask if you’re a citizen at McDonald’s either.

                Every time I’ve been to Europe, they did check my passport at the airport coming and going and ask me the usual ‘nature of my trip?’, ‘duration of stay?’, and whether I had a good time.

                One weird thing that has happened a few times: train trips originating and terminating within the EU, even within the same country, can and do get passport checks.

                So, sure, they didn’t ask you if you wanted to be a citizen, but it’s not like they’re a HS football team or extracurricular club looking for new recruits.

                She has a valid reason to request to be allowed to visit, and she’s very closely related to two American citizens. So, why should her request to visit be denied?

                I didn’t comment one way or the other. Just laughed at the oxymoronic idea that she doesn’t want to be a citizen and that’s why we should grant her citizenship. Seems to me she has at least a couple very valid reasons to want to be a citizen.

                1. “Just laughed at the oxymoronic idea that she doesn’t want to be a citizen and that’s why we should grant her citizenship.”

                  SHE’S NOT ASKING FOR CITIZENSHIP. SHE WANTS A VISA TO VISIT HER SON BEFORE HE DIES. AS FAR AS I KNOW, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT SHE SHOULD RECEIVE CITIZENSHIP. I’M SURE AS HELL NOT SAYING THAT.

                  The point is that there’s zero harm to the US in letting her visit. None. Turning her down is being shitty. Celebrating her being turned down is ghastly.

                  Holy hell, mention foreigners coming to the United States for any reason and some people completely lose their shit.

                  1. Holy hell, mention foreigners coming to the United States for any reason and some people completely lose their shit.

                    You’re the one shouting.

                    I’m just pointing out that the fraud that’s being needlessly hypothesized and advanced as an (absurd) argument.

                    If we weren’t hyperventilating over her kid, the backwardness of the argument would be obvious. People are kept out of places where their loved ones die all the time. I’m not saying it’s right in this case or at all, but it’s not like the case in the UK where they kept the kid from leaving the country to explore treatments that might save him. Absent the realities of medical treatment, the same ‘because feelz’ apply to ‘let her in’ and ‘give her free healthcare’. It’s morally abhorrent to deny free healthcare to a mother who’s about to lose her son.

          4. “… the Trumpsters among us aren’t actually libertarians.”

            They aren’t very humane either!

            1. EVERYONE DESERVES FOOD, WATER AND SHELTER PROVIDED BY THE STATE!

              What’s that? You don’t agree?

              How inhumane of you

              1. Permission from Government Almighty, to travel from here to there (on your own dime), can scarcely be compared to the “right” to take from my wallet, the resources to feed yourself and who knows how many others.

                Do I have to explain the nature of the difference between negative rights and positive rights? Would you listen to me if I explained?

                1. I’ll listen. But I reserve the right to make funny faces while you talk

                2. I started this research myself, and I can see where you’re going. But I don’t know how to balance 100 million new people with human assimilation rates that suggest to not let 100 million people in at once.

                  For instance, millions of people worldwide would love to chop your head off because of your beliefs. Are you going to protect their right to come here?

                  1. I understand that Islamofascists are yea verily Islamofascists, and I,too, would like to keep them out. I don’t know what fraction of Islamic folks are Islamofascists, but whatever it is, it is too high.

                    But I have noticed that “Islamofascist”, the word, is clearly a “thing”, and “Hispanifascist” is not. That post-9-11, Hispanic would-be immigrants have paid the price for Islamofascists’s fascisim, is truly a Dark Sin against Hispanic would-be immigrants, who just want to come here to work hard and make an honest living, and not commit suicide bombings.

                    Other comments? Open up the borders more, and 100 million come here? No, I doubt it… Most folks want to stay home with their friends and family. Are you willing to tear up roots and move to Mars and learn to speak Martian? No! Ditto for MOST of them! And if we tore down socialism here and opened up jobs (got rid of licenses), they would ONLY come here to WORK, and they COULD support themselves (w/o licenses in their way). We’d all be better off.

                    Bring on Libertopia!

                    1. I’ve dropped the notion that latin americans would automatically vote more socialism in, or use more welfare in the long term than the average american, despite how easily it is to get pulled in that direction. I’ve also dropped the notion that Islam is an automatic cause for concern, despite large numbers worldwide that would love to see the US go down (some of them I’d even say have good reason to hate us).

                      There have been multiple polls that show over 100 million people would immigrate to the US if they could. I consider that a good thing. But how that would get done, and how everyone else could absorb that change, is a huge unknown. I don’t like the notion that people who take caution with this, when combined with our welfare state, are unfeeling or inhumane. And just because you doubt they would all come here doesn’t mean a global recession combined with our welfare state wouldn’t make it so.

                      And licensing is a sham of an operation dedicated to creating more bureaucrats and lobbyists, and you’ll never hear me speak well of it beyond medical doctors.

                    2. But I have noticed that “Islamofascist”, the word, is clearly a “thing”, and “Hispanifascist” is not.

                      Maybe it should be.

            2. “They aren’t very humane either!”

              The only truthful thing SQRLSY said all year.

    5. What have we ever done to Yemeni people?

      Actively support the Saudi’s war against them that has killed 100,000 or so of them.

      Other than that, not much.

      1. So, GM owes tons of people tons of money because their cars have been driven by drunks and killed people.

        Oh wait, that’s different. Because…reasons.

        I know the reasons, mind you. But I don’t think you do.

        1. The U.S. air force refeuls jets flown by Saudis that are bombing people in yemen.

          That’s a touch different than drunks driving GMs vehicles. Find a better suited analogy.

          And GM does owe people tons of money, but it has nothing to do with their vehicles. Something about a bailout.

          1. The U.S. air force refeuls jets flown by Saudis that are bombing people in yemen.

            Are US pilots dropping bombs?

            No?

            Then it is identical. We aren’t killing anybody. And I do not care if our allies are doing so. I don’t want to police the world. The world is there for us to make money off of.

            1. In the case of drunks killing people with GM vehicles, GM manufactures a vehicle and then it is sold to an individual. That is the end of GM’s involvement.

              In the case of U.S. made airplanes dropping bombs on Yemini people, U.S. companies manufacture the airplanes and sell them to the Saudis. The Saudis use the airplanes to drop bombs, but U.S. involvement doesn’t end there. These planes need to refueled in flight to be effective and Saudia Arabia does not have the ability to do that. Tanker airplanes that are 100% owned and operated by the U.S. government are being used to perform this function.

              To say that those two things are identical is to tell a lie.

              1. We are no more liable than a gas station.

                Sorry, but it is not my concern to watch out for the world.

                1. OK, let’s try this analogy. A guy shows up at the gas station with a bunch of glass bottles and rags and starts filling up the bottles. Gas station owner asks him what he’s doing. He says “gonna burn down some houses”.

                  This seems like a better analogy to selling military products and services to Saudi Arabia. If you know that someone is going to do bad stuff with stuff you sell to them and you don’t refuse to sell it or do anything else about it, I think you bear some moral responsibility.

                  1. I am happy to hear evidence that Congress sold weapons to Saudi Arabia with “Fuck You Yemenis” written on all the ordinance.

                    The USA gave trucks, weapons, and food to the USSR during WWII. The Russians in turned used much of that equipment to subdue all of Eastern Europe.

                    Americans are such bad people.

                  2. Damn, I need to refresh before posting. Now I need a delete button.

                2. We are no more liable than a gas station.

                  If someone walks into a gun store and says “I need 1000 rounds of ammo because I want to shoot up a night club” and the clerk sells him the ammo, is the clerk or gun store liable in any way or no?

                  The US is refueling Saudi planes for the sole and explicit purpose of bombing Yemen.

              2. These planes need to refueled in flight to be effective and Saudia Arabia does not have the ability to do that. Tanker airplanes that are 100% owned and operated by the U.S. government are being used to perform this function.

                To say that those two things are identical is to tell a lie.

                Actually, Saudi Arabia owns the fleet and a significant portion are AIrbus (i.e. French). Similarly, the planes dropping bombs are a mix of US, UK, and other European manufacturers.

                The situation is more like the US has interests and assets being monitored in the region (Libya, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.) and Saudi Arabia intermittently makes use of the network established there.

                You’re not entirely wrong, you just paint a picture like the US wouldn’t be involved if it weren’t flying these refueling missions and that Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be able to attack Yemen if it weren’t for the US and it’s not even close.

                1. Without U.S. help, I’m that you are correct that the Saudis would still be able to bomb Yemen.

                  That doesn’t take away from the fact that the U.S. is indeed directly involved in the bombing of Yemen.

                  Just because there is a war going on in the middle east doesn’t mean the U.S. has to participate.

                  1. We probably should doubly not participate when participation means that we are fighting on behalf of
                    Al Queda

                  2. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the U.S. is indeed directly involved in the bombing of Yemen.

                    No, they aren’t. Directly would be the people dropping the bombs or people dropping the bombs at the direct request of the US or the Saudis.

                    Using Juice’s example, the gun store clerk may be liable but, unless the shooting happened in the gun store or maybe right outside, he didn’t directly participate in the shooting.

                    I don’t think you know what the word ‘directly’ means.

      2. … that’s a wonderfully nuanced look at the Yemeni Civil War!

        (It’s not entirely wrong, but it’s not exactly entirely right, either.)

        1. What if China was selling weapons and giving military support to Canada and Canada was bombing American cities.

          Would you not hold China partially responsible?

          I mean, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 and the Afghans had a lot less to do with the 9/11 attacks than the U.S. has to do with the ongoing bombing of Yemen.

        2. What if China was selling weapons and giving military support to Canada and Canada was bombing American cities.

          Would you not hold China partially responsible?

          I mean, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 and the Afghans had a lot less to do with the 9/11 attacks than the U.S. has to do with the ongoing bombing of Yemen.

          1. Lol. Let’s be realistic.

            Canada will use pucks to bomb.

            1. CHINESE MADE pucks.

            2. In the hands of the right slapshooter, pucks can be more deadly than a Lefty Neo-Nazi at a Lefty AntiFa rally, driving over people.

      3. My memory needs refreshing. How many New Yorkers did Saudis kill on September 11, 2001?

        1. Those were American planes from New York…

  5. “This is sad, so the policy is bad” is just wonderfully thoughtful and rational for Reason to push as argument.

    (The policy might be bad, but having read the latest version of the “travel ban” and the waiver section it’s not obviously horrible in its entirety.

    And the claim here mostly seems to be “this is sad, so it must be bad”.

    I’d say I expected better from Reason, but sadly I no longer do.)

  6. I’ll repeat my possibly idiosyncratic view that the marriage relation (in the boring man/woman/children sense) is protected by the 9th Amendment. So if the husband is an American citizen he should have the right to have the companionship of his wife and children in the U. S. unless the wife is charged with a specific offense and imprisoned on those charges.

    1. i like it.

    2. Very idiosyncratic.

      I mean, it’s not impossible that there’s some 9th Amendment right there, but there’s no really obvious argument that there is, since the 9th only says “there are non-enumerated rights”.

      (Would this right exist if the marriage was solemnized online without ever meeting, for instance?

      Would it persist for the person using it to enter if they then immediately divorced?

      Or is it a right only “real, serious” marriages have?

      I might well agree with you that that is a preferable policy to have, but I’d need a much stronger argument that that’s a Constitutional Right [non-enumerated].)

      1. Flip that around – would the ratifiers believe that they were empowering the federal government to make an American choose between living in the country or having conjugal access to his wife? There’s nothing specific to indicate that such power was delegated to the feds. Why assume it was?

        And after the laws were modified to let women keep their U. S. citizenship after marrying foreigners, would the feds be empowered to require exile on the woman’s part if she wanted to enjoy conjugal relations with her husband? That would be giving citizenship with one hand and taking it with the other.

        I’m not arguing that in such cases, the feds would be required to recognize subsequent marriages with the first spouse still alive-there had not yet been a consensus concretized on that subject so the feds could insist on recognizing the first marriage only.

        But if marriage by proxy is legal, why not recognize it as much as any other marriage?

        1. But if a divorce decree deprives the spouses of conjugal access to each other, then of course the feds wouldn’t have to insist on that which the decree has already deprived them of.

    3. Plus it’s just the humanitarian thing to do.

      I disagree with the open borders philosophy but let’s not be nuts about it.

      1. Re: Rufus the Monocled,

        It all depends on what people mean when saying “Open Borders”. To me ?an Anarchocapitalist? it means open to trade, to the free flow of goods, of services, of capital and yes, of labor. It is the most consistent policy with free market principles that can exist. It doesn’t mean that people have a right to a job, to a house or to things, but people have the right to move and seek a new life and people inside the political border have every right to invite in whoever they gawd-damed please, no matter the wittle fweelings of paranoid xenophobes, unionized thugs and white supremacists.

        1. Currently, the immigration system of the West is not as free as you would like.

          It’s somewhat restrictive. That is, there are rules and laws in place to control the inflow of immigration. One fundamental role of government and duty to its citizens is to provide security and this falls under this function.

          Is our system paranoid and racist?

          1. Yes and yes. Obviously.

  7. If you want to change people’s minds about immigration, you should explain to them why it’s in their best interests to do so.

    Trying to make people feel even sorrier for the victims won’t change any minds that haven’t already been swayed.

    1. Re: Ken Shultz,

      If you want to change people’s minds about immigration, you should explain to them why it’s in their best interests to do so.

      Because truth is predicated on its popularity. Huh.

      Got it!

      1. Tax payers don’t want to pay to support a single, additional person.

        Explain to the tax payers why it is in their interest to foot the educational, nutritional, medical, and recreational costs of non citizens.

        1. I think that applies regardless of their citizenship.

          1. True. However, those are two separate discussions. As regards to non-citizens, tax payers can simply say no thanks.

            1. tax payers can simply say no thanks

              LOL, do you check the “NO THANKS” box and mail it in?

        2. “Tax payers don’t want to pay to support a single, additional person.”

          What the everliving fuck does this statement have to do with this situation?

          1. Read Ken’s comment. Then read OM’s reply and my reply to OM.

            If you still can’t figure it out, sleep on it.

            1. “Read Ken’s comment. Then read OM’s reply and my reply to OM.”

              I did already. She wants to visit her son, then go back home. It’s not gonna cost the taxpayers a penny. The amount of people that taxpayers want to support doesn’t enter into it. So, again, what the everliving fuck does your comment have to do with this situation?

              If you don’t answer again I’ll assume that you don’t have an answer…?..

              1. Are we trying to help this one person, or are we trying to change policy?

              2. I can’t help you, Bevis. It’s rocket surgery.

                No hard feelings. You’re a great guy.

                Maybe in some future thread I will make sense to you?

      2. “Because truth is predicated on its popularity. Huh.”

        Changes in public policy depend on popularity, whether we like it or not.

        Is this all just mental masturbation to you, or do you actually want to change public policy?

      3. Y’know, as a regular denizen of the Reason comment section, I immediately understood the truth of the matter on reading about libertarian autism.

  8. From the link–

    “People with this condition usually have normal development throughout the first year of life. Development slows around the age of 1. Most affected children learn to walk between the ages of 1 and 2, although they usually need some type of support. Over time they experience muscle weakness and wasting (atrophy) in their legs, and many affected people eventually require wheelchair assistance. Weakness in the muscles of the trunk and a progressive abnormal curvature of the spine (scoliosis) further impair walking in some individuals. Most people with hypomyelination and congenital cataract have reduced sensation in their arms and legs (peripheral neuropathy). In addition, affected individuals typically have speech difficulties (dysarthria) and mild to moderate intellectual disability.”

    There don’t seem to be any respiratory issues.

    What’s really wrong with this child?

  9. Yemeni Mother Can’t See Dying 2-Year-Old Because of Trump’s Travel Ban, ***Family Says***

    They may be slower than molasses at Christmas but don’t let it be said that Reason won’t, eventually, learn its lessons.

  10. First, I thought our health care was horrible. Shouldn’t he have kept him in Yemen or Cairo?
    Second, Joe you should work for Vox. It’s nice to see you cherry pick one example.

  11. Trump is a damned xenophobe, illiterate economically, full of bluster and a general idiot. But the mother is going to be crying and crying when her child dies regardless, and the child almost certainly would have died much sooner and the mother would have gotten her crying over with much sooner if the father hadn’t been a US citizen getting US medical care. Instead of counting the B+ blessing they’ve gotten instead of the F- they would have gotten back in Yemen, this concentrates on them not getting an A+.

    Jeezus, Joe, there are a million better examples of xenophobia. Did you go out of your way to pick one of the worst?

    1. Re: aaaaa whatever,

      But the mother is going to be crying and crying when her child dies regardless

      So that’s your take, that the mother doesn’t have to see her child for the last time because the kid will be dead meat regardless.

      Keep that in ind when the State stops you from seeing your loved ones.

      1. No, I’m hard core open borders. My take is that this is one sorry example of what is wrong with immigration control.

      2. See, the problem with appeals to emotion is that people are fickle and stupid and what gets this lady in the country today might not work tomorrow.

        1. Nobody is more emotional than gun festishists. All politics is about emotion.

          1. If you can’t read and don’t like the 2nd amendment, well we have a process to change that.

            1. I suspect you’re not talking about unelected judges pulling a brand new reading of the text directly from their butts as they did in Heller.

              1. Right? Scalia even had the balls to say that “shall not be infringed” means “can be limited.”

                1. Scalia was wrong. There are no exceptions for the 2nd Amendment.

                  Many justices are scared of what government power would be lost if the Constitution was read for what it says and does not say.

                  Imagine if Social Security, Medicare, and medicaid were all declared unconstitutional since they are not taxes… they are retirement plans, senior medical plans, and catch all medical plans.

                  Over 75% of the federal budget would disappear overnight.

                2. Say what you will about Scalia, he wasn’t a total freak lunatic who thought law set down centuries ago should be an unlimited license for a modern society to accept tens of thousands of preventable deaths for no good reason whatsoever.

                  1. Like medicare? Medical deaths far out number gun deaths.

          2. Tony|12.17.18 @ 5:54PM|#
            “All politics is about emotion.”

            And for those who don’t find that sufficiently heap full of bullshit, here’s some vintage whine from our resident lefty scumbag:

            Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
            “I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”

    2. “Jeezus, Joe, there are a million better examples of xenophobia. Did you go out of your way to pick one of the worst?”

      Exactly; “lame” doesn’t begin to cover it. “Pathetic” might.

  12. The Don should have banned Ebola carriers, then Black Death vectors, and only then suicide-vest Saracen berserkers. Or maybe George Waffen Bush, Republican, chould have had sense enough to realize that the people Daddy bombed might figure two could play, banned entry, and the World Trade Center would still be there instead of only in Richard Dawkins books.

    1. hey remember lolwut?

      lolwut?

  13. Trump is standing up for American interests and he is more popular than ever because of it.

    Trump has not massively expanding American conflict unlike his predecessors and he is more popular than ever because of it.

    Trump is enforcing immigration law and he is more popular than ever because of it.

  14. as an internal Department of Homeland Security document explained in March, “most foreign-born, US-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States

    Obviously the solution is to not allow foreign-born people entry to the United States if they will be “based” here.

  15. Figures, Joe Setyon never mentions the USS Cole bombing in….YEMEN!

    STOP propagandizing Joe. You will be outmatched by Libertarians every time.

    1. Was this baby in on that?

      1. Original sin.

  16. I read this in the paper this morning; go ahead, read the whole thing.
    Yep, a single case issue, caused by Obo, but since Trump didn’t personally give special dispensation it’s ****TRUMP***!!!!@!
    I didn’t post it in the links this morning since it was obviously a lame stretch even for the Reason victims of TDS, but I see that I was wrong: Somebody found this guy Setyon who is badly afflicted enough to make an ass of himself.
    Fuck off.

    1. Open wider, Sevo. You never know when your better have more progress for you to swallow.

      And you will continue to obey, clinger.

  17. too bad so sad

  18. If an American mom is prevented by a coercive government from seeing her dying child in a foreign country, then that’s a terrible tragedy and we all ought to have compassion for her.

    If a Yemeni mom is prevented by a coercive government from seeing her dying child in America, then fuck her. Who cares about that piece of shit foreigner. She’s probably just using the excuse of her child to worm her way into our great country anyway.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist|12.17.18 @ 8:22PM|#
      “…If a Yemeni mom is prevented by a coercive government from seeing her dying child in America, then fuck her. Who cares about that piece of shit foreigner. She’s probably just using the excuse of her child to worm her way into our great country anyway.”

      If a lying lefty asshole makes a totally false equivalence, then fuck him, lying lefty asshole.
      Peddle your shit where logic is irrelevant; you’ll be much more appreciated, since you have no idea what it means.

  19. You know, people, it is possible to support border restrictionist policies without being a total dickhead about it.

    Saying ‘who gives a shit about this grieving mom’ doesn’t help your side.

    1. You know, idiot, it is possible to oppose Trump without making an ass of yourself.

    2. Its the only thing you pieces of shit hear.

      You hate all sorts of people, so Americans not falling for Lefty propaganda hurts your sensibilities.

  20. Libertarian site publishes libertarian content.

    Disaffected, deplorable right-wingers convene a spirited meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, Cruel Immigration Policies And Practices in the comments.

    Just another day at reason.com. Carry on, faux libertarian clingers.

  21. Thank God Trump is President!

  22. So Trump is preventing this child from leaving the country in order for his mom to see him one last time?

    Not like there aren’t plenty of good children’s hospitals in countries with less restrictive entry regulations.

  23. 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.Mesalary.com

  24. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.creative-biogene.com/ word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.