Immigration

Kirstjen Nielsen and John Kelly Keep Lying About 'Zero Tolerance' and Child Snatching, While Donald Trump Tells the Truth

The president, unlike his subordinates, admits that family separation was a deliberate policy aimed at deterring illegal border crossing.

|

C-SPAN

Last June the Trump administration abandoned its "zero tolerance" policy on illegal border crossing, which forcibly separated thousands of children from their parents, in response to widespread, bipartisan outrage at the practice. I am still writing about it, because current and former administration officials keep lying about it.

At a congressional hearing yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was repeatedly asked about the family separations, and she once again insisted that they were simply an unfortunate side effect of enforcing the law. The April 6 memo in which then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy "directed all U.S. attorney offices along the southwest border to prosecute all adults who were referred for prosecution," she said. "That's what it did….The consequence of any adult going to jail in this country is that they're separated from their child. That wasn't the point of it. The point was to increase prosecutions for those breaking the law and not except any class of aliens."

Even taking Nielsen at her word, the Trump administration surely was responsible for the completely forseeable consequences of refusing to make exceptions for families traveling together. Nor did Sessions seem much concerned about the suffering inflicted by the new policy. In a speech the following month, Sessions said migrants had no one to blame but themselves if their children were kidnapped by the U.S. government. "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you," he said. "It's that simple….If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

But why should we take Nielsen at her word when her mentor and predecessor, John Kelly, explicitly presented family separation as a deterrent to illegal immigration? In March 2017, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Kelly about rumors of "a new initiative that would separate children from their parents if they try to enter the United States illegally." Kelly said he "would do almost anything to deter the people from Central America [from] getting on this very, very dangerous network that brings them up through Mexico into the United States." Blitzer pressed him to clarify: "Are Department of Homeland Security personnel going to separate the children from their moms and dads?" Kelly's response: "In order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network, I am considering exactly that. They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents."

That December, after Nielsen had taken over from Kelly, her staff prepared a memo that presented her with three "short term" options for dealing with the "border surge of illegal immigration." Two of those options, "Increase Prosecution of Family Unit Parents" and "Separate Family Units," explicitly involved taking children away from their parents. Under the first option, "The parents would be prosecuted for illegal entry (misdemeanor) or illegal reentry (felony) and the minors present with them would be placed in HHS custody." Under the second option, Nielsen would "announce that DHS is considering separating family units, placing the adults in adult detention, and placing the minors under the age of 18 in the custody of HHS as unaccompanied alien children." Nielsen nevertheless told the House Judiciary Committee last December that "we've never had a policy for family separation."

After Sessions issued his memo, Kelly, who by then had become the White House chief of staff, again described family separation as a "tough deterrent" in an interview with NPR. "The laws are the laws," he said, and "a big name of the game is deterrence."

The president himself has described family separation in similar terms. "If they feel there will be separation," the president told reporters last October, "they don't come."

Two months later, Kelly blamed Sessions for this policy. "What happened was Jeff Sessions, he was the one that instituted the zero-tolerance process on the border that resulted in both people being detained and the family separation," Kelly told the Los Angeles Times. "He surprised us." Kelly, who left the administration in January, reiterated that claim yesterday during a forum at Duke University, saying the "zero tolerance" memo "came as a surprise" to him and other officials.

Nielsen can deny that family separation was official administration policy, just as she insisted yesterday that the fenced enclosures used to confine children and other unauthorized migrants are "not cages." And Kelly can pretend that a policy he publicly endorsed less than two months after taking over the Department of Homeland Security was actually Jeff Sessions' idea. But Donald Trump for once is telling the truth: Family separation was intended as a deterrent. Nielsen and Kelly have accomplished an impressive feat by managing to be less honest than the promiscuous prevaricator who currently occupies the White House.

NEXT: Americans' Least Favorite Company Isn't Even a Company. Can You Guess What It Is?

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. Another good deterrent would be just to shoot the animals once they cross into no mans land.

    1. Ethiopian Jews in the 1980’s had to worry about that possibility if they walked to Israel, because they had to cross unsympathetic countries before they reached Israel. Once they made it to Israel or an immigration camp outside of Israel, they were safer.

      1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

        click here =====?? http://www.payshd.com

        1. THINK ABOUT IT?..
          Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

          >>>>>>>> http://www.Theprocoin.com

      2. Israel has long had a policy of LEGALLY accepting new jewish immigrant. That is there law.

        The US law requires prior permission.

    2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here =====?? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  2. After Sessions issued his memo, Kelly, who by then had become the White House chief of staff, again described family separation as a “tough deterrent” in an interview with NPR. “The laws are the laws,” he said,

    The LAWS are the LAWS. Thank you!

    1. The laws say that some of the people who get here illegally get to stay, once they present their cases in a court of law.

      1. The law doesnt say they have to be allowed to stay in the country while awaiting adjudication. They can wait at home for that to happen.

        1. Agree JesseAz. At least we should put them back across the border for a nice vacation in Mexico until their case comes up for review.

  3. The US should annex the 6 bordering states of Mexico: it solves The Wall and adds more territory. Mexico could pay for it but I think we can get them on the cheap.

    1. At least get Baja Cali and Baja Sur…that’d be some nice property to have.

      #SaluteThe52Starz

    2. As if pushing our southern border into Mexico would eliminate our southern border.

      1. It’ll be shorter in length.

        1. it should be the Panama Canal.

          1. Manifest Destiny 2.0 from Pole to Pole!

            1. why not? one love.

        2. But longer in coast. No net decrease in the amount of porous border.

          1. I’m in the More-the-Merrier philosophy.

      2. You mean again? As in 1847? Religious prohibitionists are setting us up to LOSE NM and AZ if they keep busting people for victimless enjoyables already legal in Mexico. Texas is looking at a potential Dole Drain as ancient hippies drawing social security discover they can evade Bummercare and asset-forfeiture looting by simply moving across the Rio Grande valley.

    3. Let’s trade with Mexico. We’ll give Massachusetts in exchange for the Mexican states bordering the USA.

      That reminds me, how are the Yankees doing?

      1. What does Massachusetts have to do with the Yankees?

        1. go Sox.

        2. Trading people is also common in baseball. Land has people attached to it when nations trade land.

    4. Set it up to function like the Romulan Neutral Zone?

      1. The Kobayashi Maru scenario is unwinnable.

    5. I’ve been suggesting this for a couple years now. Annexing Mexico would give us a chance to apply laws across the border, eliminate the cartels, immediately raise wages over there, and allow rich Americans to buy retirement homes in the 51st state of Mexico. Property values there would skyrocket and Mexicans would be sitting on a gold mine.
      Win win!

      1. Sitting on gold mines is what got them invaded the first time, by Cortez.

  4. “That’s what it did….The consequence of any adult going to jail in this country is that they’re separated from their child. That wasn’t the point of it. The point was to increase prosecutions for those breaking the law and not except any class of aliens.”

    Even taking Nielsen at her word, the Trump administration surely was responsible for the completely forseeable consequences of refusing to make exceptions for families traveling together. Nor did Sessions seem much concerned about the suffering inflicted by the new policy. In a speech the following month, Sessions said migrants had no one to blame but themselves if their children were kidnapped by the U.S. government. “If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you,” he said. “It’s that simple….If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”

    Yeah, because when laws are enforced against American citizens, families are never separated.

    Ask Shaneen Allen.

    1. Yes. In effect, he’s saying, “how DARE the administration treat illegal border crossers the same way Democrat municipal governments treat niggers!”.

    2. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      1. huh? because enforcing a law should depend on whether or not the perpetrator has children?

        1. The answer to your question is no. However, having a law should require violations of someone’s life, liberty, or property.

          1. Yes, on Planet Libertopia, it would work that way. Here on Earth, we still live in nation-states, with borders we need to defend as a matter of survival. We can’t treat foreigners the same as citizens and survive.

            1. >>>we still live in nation-states, with borders we need to defend as a matter of survival

              less-so today than historically? do you individually think about the border all day or are you just you and life goes on?

              1. What?

                1. is your literal property under attack?

                  1. Not at the moment. Why do you ask?

                    1. you seem to think we need to defend shit as a matter of survival I wanted to make sure you weren’t under attack.

                    2. Our current efforts to defend our shit seem to be adequate so far. They could be improved.

            2. So you’re agreeing with me in principle, but abandoning your principles? This is a libertarian site. I thought libertopia was the goal?

              1. That’s right. In the world as it is today, we could not survive as the only principled libertarian country. If we fully honored the rights of everyone in the world and allowed everyone who wishes to come here to come on in and be treated as equals, our way of life would be destroyed by the resulting tsunami of immigrants, and there would be no liberty or prosperity here for anyone. Following our principles over that cliff would not free anyone. Our immediate goal should be more liberty and respect for rights for our citizens, while we control our borders sufficiently to keep immigration and foreign workers at a manageable and beneficial level.

                This should be the order of our priorities:
                #1) Survive as a nation
                #2) Maximize freedom and rights for our people

                * * *
                #147) Fully respect the rights of foreigners.

                1. “If we fully honored the rights of everyone in the world and allowed everyone who wishes to come here to come on in and be treated as equals, our way of life would be destroyed”

                  We did allow everyone who wished to come here, to come here. There was a civil war, but other than that, nothing that threatened our survival as a nation. Or were you thinking of what happened to the Native peoples who were here before that?

                  1. I mean, what happened to the Native Americans is a cautionary tale….

                    1. We don’t need to look back to the Native Americans. What is happening right now in England and Sweden is a cautionary tale.

                  2. I’m thinking about the situation we are in now, today, and the condition of world today, and what the consequences of unrestricted immigration would be tomorrow, not about history.

                2. #1) Survive as a nation
                  #2) Maximize freedom and rights for our people

                  So you put the collective ahead of the individual. Got it.

                  1. I put our nation’s survival as a prosperous republic first, because without that, any other priorities are moot. Second to that is what type of republic we will be. My preference is the maximum practicable freedom for individuals and respect for citizens’ rights. As long as granting equal rights to foreigners remains a threat to those priorities, tough shit for them. I don’t see any value in making a suicide pact with libertarian principles.

                    1. And how does “granting equal rights to foreigners” (which we don’t do, by the by) threaten our survival as a prosperous nation? And I’m not looking for broad strokes of potential doom and destruction. Evidence is required.

                      (I could quibble with the conflation of “survive” and “prosper,” but we’ll leave that for now).

                    2. I cannot give you evidence of what happens in the future. I can offer only reasoning.

                    3. As long as granting equal rights to foreigners remains a threat to those priorities, tough shit for them.

                      Why do you stop at foreigners? There are plenty of citizens who threaten your priorities as well. Should they be denied equal rights? Once you divide the world into “people who deserve rights” and “people who don’t deserve rights”, it is very tempting to continue to broaden the number of people who don’t deserve rights, if it means additional power and comfort for those people in the smaller category of those who deserve rights. That’s basically the logic of rule by elite or rule by oligarchy.

                    4. It is not tempting to me. If it is to you, that’s your problem.

        2. “You can’t arrest her, she was children! Wah! Won’t someone think of the children?!”

  5. my tiny violin is playing for the illegal alien family, who trump forced to come to the USA illegally, only to have the family separated by trump, who is totally like hitler and pro second amendment.

    1. Did the children make the same choice as the parents? Should your children be accountable if the cops find your meth?

      1. If you are doing meth you are a terrible parent and deserve to be imprisoned and have your children taken away from you, just like if you cross a border without permission.

        Don’t be daft, Eric.

        1. It was a harmless question asked to seek consensus. The correct answer to both of my questions is of course, “Yes”.

        2. What an utterly irrelevant comparison. The parents bringing their children to the border are (for the most part) doing it to protect their children from harm.

      2. I think the family separation is bad, but if we extend your analogy, children should live with their parents in family jails if their parents get convicted for using meth.

        1. Or, to save money, just build walls around the trailer parks.

          1. Or, to save money, just build walls around the trailer parks.

            😀

            You know your family has a bad reputation when the entire planet decides to become a gated community with your family on the other side of the gate.

        2. Family separation seems like a lot of unnecessary work and cost, so it comes as no surprise the government is using it as a strategy.

          1. You forgot the point that it adds unnecessary amounts of government and is anti-liberty. BONUS POINTS!

        3. You could make the argument that a meth addict is a bad parent that endangers their kids. That is not the case for undocumented immigrants.

          1. What is an undocumented immigrant?

            1. An invader.

            2. “What is an undocumented immigrant?”

              An immigrant without documents. This has a couple of subsets… people who don’t have documents because something happened to them (hurricane, flood, fire) and people who don’t have documents because they never had any documents that establish their right to be here.

          2. Wait, you don’t think an argument can be made that transporting a child over a long distance while often poorly nourished and dehydrated, to violate the law of a country and risk imprisonment and deportation is endagering the child?

            Are you on crack?

          3. We’re not talking about immigrants who left their paperwork at home, we’re talking about illegals. So stop your bullshit Chip.

          4. One could make the point that a three month boat ride through some of the toughest seas on rat and plague infested ships, or crossing some of the most inhospitable desert endangers their kids.

        4. Parents who are convicted of crimes lose their children. Parents who are accused of crimes, however, are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

          Since family units that are captured together can all have their deportation hearings together, the reason not to confine them together is… because we thought kidnapping children and threatening to never reunite the families would make the U.S. sound scarier to people considering unauthorized entry.

          1. Parents who are accused of crimes, however, are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

            And if they have the resources to pay bail and the social status to appear to be a good risk to show up for court, they are not taken away from their children until convicted. On the other hand, if they are too poor to pay bail and their social station is such that they are considered a bad risk, they stay in jail waiting for judgement or trial, separated from their children. If that means the family becomes homeless, the children will go into foster care.

      3. Should your children be accountable if cops find the bodies you buried in the cellar? How about we keep the “but the chillunz” BS out of the argument entirely. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether a law should be enforced or whether the law should exist at all.

        1. Agreed feelz have no place here. But I do wonder if we are right to show sympathy for the wicked children who callously allowed themselves to be dragged across a national border illegally.

          1. … in some cases, while infants.

      4. Half of the “kids” you worry about are over the age of 15. If they are doing math with their parents, then yes.

        1. Meth too.

  6. >>>But Donald Trump for once is telling the truth: Family separation was intended as a deterrent.

    and? you want process crimes levied or something?

  7. Seriously, though, let’s set up more courts to process asylum applications quickly. Then families would spend only a few days in a detention center.

    1. But then what do you do with them? Many if not most of the recent wave of claims will be denied. If you’re going to speed up the process, you have to be willing to do the deportations.

      1. Put them on a plane back where they came from. That is what you do. And Reason pretends that the concepty of moral hazard somehow doesn’t exist in this context. The only reason people are coming is because they think they can get in. So, letting them in creates the humanitarian crisis that reason is bitching about. They know that but are just dishonest assholes and pretend they don’t.

        1. The only reason people are coming is because they think they can get in.

          Only reason? I can think of a lot more then one. Economic opportunity and fleeing violence seem to be the main reasons. If you think just deporting people will stop them I think your dead wrong. What we need to do is stop being so awesome and then no one will want to come, so you should vote for AOC if your main political goal is to stop immigration (illegal or otherwise). She would trash this nation so bad immigrants would rather stay in a narco state with no rule of law.

          1. And all of that stems from their thougtht that they can get in. If they don’t think they can get in and will just be sent back, there is no point in going.

            1. I dont agree, people will do almost anything to escape the hell they are in. Unless my chance was absolute zero, I’d try to get into the USA to escape a shithole. And I’d probably make bad decisions like crossing a desert with no water to get out of these countries.

        2. John, you are incapable of putting yourself in these people’s shoes. You were born into a privileged background and work a cushy government job that allows you to post long diatribes here bitching about the government. What would you have done if you were born in Guatemala? Settle for a life of poverty?

          1. “You were born into a privileged background ”

            Oh JFC this garbage again…

            I forget you’re a full on SJW sometimes because your blinding stupidity on the subject of science distracts me.

          2. If I were born there, i would want in the US too. I want a lot of things. But that doesn’t mean I get them. All you are saying is “they want to come here so we should let them in”. Ah, no, we shouldn’t.

            1. If a foreigner wants something it’s the responsibility of every American to make unlimited sacrifices to accommodate those wants.

              So sayeth Chip.

          3. Who can really say? What would the illegal immigrant do if the roles were reversed and Americans were fleeing there?

            We actually have an answer for that: every other country, especially South American, has way harsher punishments for illegal border crossers.

            (Not that we should be as authoritarian.)

  8. What do you want to do? Put kids in detention with adults? That sounds like a very bad plan. If you don’t do that, then you have to separate them. If you don’t like detention at all, then you are just left with a policy of anyone with a child who claims to be theirs can enter the country at any time and is free to stay. Without detention, there is no way to prevent or deter people from entering the country.

    Reason rejects all forms of border control. It is that simple. They are just too dishonest and too incapble of making a good faith argument to admit it.

    1. Maybe family jail? Lock a family unit in a cell or at least adjoining cells. That way they are all together before their hearing, and after the hearing they either get deported together or granted asylum together.

      1. What are you crazy? If we don’t get to tear apart families at the point of a gun as they’re crying hysterically then what was the point of all of this to begin with? MAGA!

        1. Nice for you to admit you have no alternatives and just want to open the borders. You are an asshole but you are an honest asshole which is more than I can say for Reason. You are trying to be mendacious here but it is so transparant that it can’t fairly be called a lie.

          1. SAGN proposed what seems to me to be a common-sense solution to families of illegal immigrants. You should probably try attacking the logic of his proposal instead of arguing with the straw man in your head.

            Or are you of the opinion that there are no alternatives to tearing families apart at the point of a government held gun?

            1. And in typical John fashion… He’s gone.

            2. No one else gets to stay with their kids in lock up. Why should they?

              Christ you open borders people are idiots.

              1. We typically don’t lock people up for trespassing, even if that’s what you think these immigrants are doing.

                1. We apprehend and deport people who enter our country illegally. That’s not the same thing as “trespassing”, as you know and are being disingenuous about.

    2. I like Reason.

      But I think they’re in left field with this illegal immigration issue.

      I wouldn’t like it if Canada were this flippant.

    3. We design the detention centers. If we process immigration requests quickly, we will have few families waiting for a decision. With a smaller group to detain, we can afford to create nicer housing for them to live in when they are detained. Until there’s been a decision by the court, anyone detained should stay in housing that looks more like a motel than a jail.

      1. This year the rate of illegals entering is on pace to hit 1,000,000. That is a whole lot of hotel rooms.

    4. I have read many commenters complaining that Reason is always against border control. I agree that if you are pro border control, the stance of many of the articles might tick you off. But the articles in Reason make no excuses about their viewpoint, and they are hardly too dishonest and too incapable of making a good faith argument about it. This very article that we are commenting on has exactly that approach. Did you even read the article? Now I get many of you are all hot and bothered about immigration and stay up at night fretting about illegal aliens crossing the border and then terrorizing your communities. So obviously the smart thing to do is separate families and lock their children up like lil Felons! I may think you’re all nuts, but I can get that you have a different view on Libertarianism than me. And remember, this platform has a lot of articles, and some of them even are pro ICE. So, saying all of Reason is one way isn’t really true. However, shouldn’t we generally want to decrease the number of people being imprisoned by our government?

      1. We don’t put children in detention facilities with grownups. Duh.

        The pants shitting hysteria over “separated families” is the most moronic bit of hypocritical faux outrage currently in fashion.

  9. It’s sad how lazy Reason has become toward their pet project of open boarders. It’s very possible that Trump meant what he said with regards to a deterrent. It’s also very possible that Kirstjen meant what she said with regards to following the law. Many laws have a deterrent component. This is neither mutually exclusive nor a shocking revelation.

    1. open boarders

      Open Boarder was my nickname at the hostel.

      1. Did you also separate children from their families at the hostel?

        1. Did you expect the wife and kids to join daddy that night?

          That reminds me, I had fun with a same-sex couple a few weeks ago in my area. At least, I assume those guys were a same-sex couple, because they kept their rings on the entire time.

    1. It will never happen. The Mexican president said, “Mexico will NOT pay for your fucking wall!!!!”

      1. Never say never.

    2. “Walls are only racist when Whitey wants one”

  10. What if the undocumented immigrant families open so many food trucks that the food trucks themselves form a wall at the border, making it near impossible for additional entrepreneurial families to move in…not to mention making the food truck industry way oversaturated? Tough questions like this need answers too

  11. The most ridiculous part about this issue that Reason staff ignore is that even a US citizen would be separated from their child if they were jailed for a crime. The Flores Settlement agreement was pretty clear. Children MUST be released. If there isn’t anyone they can be released to, arrangements must be made to care for them. You can’t release a child into the custody of a jailed parent without violating the agreement.

    1. I suppose we could just release them into the wild…

      1. I see potential for another Free Willy sequel there

        1. Or Lord of the Flies.

    2. The Flores Settlement Agreement is Deep State authoritarianism, thwarting the constitutional order.

      An agreement between a Democratic Administration and Democratic Activist groups magically gain the force of law without a single elected official ever voting for it.

  12. What is the alternative to family separation when a non-citizen, with his/her non-citizen children, enters the US illegally?

    1. Open Borders for child traffickers

  13. What happened to the story that family separation goes way back, that the wise and noble Oblahblah himself was a separator?

  14. Politics as she is is not always a pretty thing. In the presidential race, the guy who won the audition for God’s Own Prohibitionists openly declared himself in favor of a policy of “going after their families,” where “they” is a placeholder variable stretchable to cover anyone blurring the boundaries between State jurisdictions or seeming the least bit menacing. The same pool of registered voters that increased the LP ballot share by 328% also elected The Don. Sullum is getting sharp at putting a finger on inconvenient facts.

  15. Well it may have been Sessions’ motive, but he was an extreme example. Maybe it’s not the motive now.

  16. Do you not read your own magazine? This “separation” policy has been thoroughly explained right here on the pages of Reason. And no, it isn’t a “Trump administration policy”.

    It predates Trump. And it was due to a court order, not a thought-out policy by the administration.

    Because the first iteration was that it was evil for the government to put kids into a holding facility with their parents… because other adults are there.

    So the court ordered that they be separated.

    The Obama administration issued the blanket call for people with kids and unaccompanied minors to come to the US. Strike that. Obama himself personally invited them to come on in. Without any actual law or policy to back it up – just a wink and a nod.

    So don’t blame anyone except him for this stuff.

    He could have done it the right way and increased the visa quotas. He just didn’t want to work within the system. He’d rather create an issue for election time with the flourish of a pen… and so he did.

    1. But writing a “Trump is totally terrible for this policy” article is just stupid. “don’t enforce the law’ is not a policy position. In fact, it is an indefensible position.

      Change the law if you don’t like it. We have been down this road for 30 years. Promises were made about actual enforcement of immigration law to stem the tide of illegal immigration. But nobody wants that. They want a large pool of exploitable labor and an election issue. These people (R and D) are absolutely execrable. But that’s no excuse for such sloppy intellectual work as this article.

  17. After Trump abandoned his “zero tolerance” policy, now renting kids to cross the border is big business. Who coulda seen THAT coming?

  18. The pants shitting hysteria over “separated families” is the most moronic bit of hypocritical faux outrage currently in fashion.

    Thousands of US families are separated daily by the criminal justice system.

    We don’t put children in detention facilities with grownups. Duh.

    Nice to know I can count on Reason delivering fodder for my daily Two Minutes Hate.

  19. “Law enforcement personnel get a pass for conspiring to kill people”

    When that’s actually the case, I’m against it.

    When it’s only spin on the American government protecting Americans from invasion, that’s too bad.

    “but leave food in the desert and you should be locked up”

    Conspiracy to commit crime is a crime.

    You want to destroy America. I don’t.

  20. We have never tempered law based on if the criminal had children. Law breakers are seperated from their kids all the time across the nation. Why should those who break in to our nation, like burglers, be treated better?

    The Child Trafficking and Protection Act REQUIRES that children be seperated by Border Patrol is that is no credible kinship documentation. 6 USC 279 then requires that within 48 hours they be transferred to HHS care, under very specific rules.

    Children are being used as golden tickets. Child Trafficking is a $5Billion business. Until Border Patrol started taking photos of each kid and uploading it, they did not realize that the same kids were coming over with new family units again and again. Don’t underestimate the vile low depravity of the cartels. Kids are MONEY to them.

  21. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  22. Patheos has a recent article about migrant children separated from their families being adopted out by Bethany Christian Services, an organization that is supported by Betsy DeVos and her family. Worse, Bethany has long been involved with abusive, fringe psychotherapies for foster and adopted children (e.g. Attachment Therapy and TBRI).

    1. Patheos has a recent article about alien children abandoned by human traffickers and illegal immigrants alleging to be their families being adopted out by Bethany Christian Services, an organization generously supported by the DeVos family and other philanthropists. More to their credit, Bethany has long been willing to try experimental therapies for adopted and foster children with severe behavioral problems who conventional therapists have given up on.

      1. Fixed it for you.

  23. Let’s finish the list of who’s lying and who’s not.

    Reason magazine, and the rest of the media, Democrats and open borders shills are all lying.

    Because of faulty laws, the only alternative to this policy is to let anyone stroll into the country by trafficking some minors with them and saying a few magic words. And make no mistake, these faulty laws were engineered by activists to produce this very situation.

    Probably 60-70 million people in the US right now are only here because of illegal immigration, once you count all of the anchor babies and amnesty and so on. It’s been a sham and an invasion from the start, engineered to replace the American voter so that the country can be fundamentally transformed into a socialist hellhole by exploiting identity politics. The mind of an American voter is an incredibly valuable thing, as stupid as it can be. There is nothing more valuable for the regressive progressives than to import some 3rd world people to displace voters.

  24. Well, unless you can get them all together and can use a bomb. Hmmm, sayyyy, are there are any places you can think of where central planners are collected together?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.