Reason Roundup

Migrant Arrests by U.S. Border Patrol Were 'Off the Charts' in April

Plus: Protests against prostitution-loitering laws in NYC, Denver mushroom measure passes, misinformation about Section 230, and more...

|

April arrests of migrants at the U.S.–Mexico border were "off the charts," Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee recently. Numbers released Wednesday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) show 98,977 migrant arrests around our southern borders in April, including:

  • 58,474 people traveling with family
  • 31,606 single adults
  • 8,897 unaccompanied minors

An additional 10,167 people were turned away at a port of entry.

The Trump administration is using these high arrest numbers to push its "border control" priorities, which includes $4.5 billion more in funding for things like shelters for unaccompanied migrant minors and beds at adult detention facilities.

"Arrests along the southern border" are "a rough metric to measure illegal crossings," notes Politico. Though they "have risen in recent months to their highest levels in more than a decade," it doesn't necessarily signal an increase in attempted illegal crossings rather than a shift in political priorities.

The arrest numbers are still below "those observed in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, when annual arrests routinely topped one million," Politico's Ted Hessen writes.

But there has been a shift in the kinds of people attempting to cross the border, with fewer single adults coming north solely for economic opportunity and more families fleeing violence, poverty, and political unrest.

"The border has seen illegal-immigrant waves before. This one is different," writes Alicia A. Caldwell in The Wall Street Journal:

Instead of the single job seekers of a decade ago who aimed to sneak in undetected, these are families openly seeking asylum—more like the groups of refugees familiar on borders elsewhere in the world, where wars, famine and genocide have created massive camps of displaced families with nowhere to go.

Families arrive at a U.S. border unprepared to absorb the sheer numbers of adults and children who are, by law, allowed to remain at least temporarily—confounding federal policy and the Trump administration. It is getting more chaotic, as Border Patrol officials shuttle immigrants hundreds of miles to find space.

According to the new federal data, 248,000 parents and children had illegally entered the U.S. by April since the federal fiscal year began in October, more than in any prior full year.

More here.


FREE MINDS

A lot of misinformation about Section 230 has been floating around, often in the service of tech-regulation aims or political attention-seeking. But even attempts at neutral journalistic coverage lately of this federal law have been getting a few key points wrong. Mike Masnick at Techdirt explains:

There's an unfortunate belief among some internet trolls and grandstanding politicians that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act requires platforms to be "neutral" and that any attempt to moderate content or to have any form of bias in a platform's moderation focus somehow removes 230 protections. Unfortunately, it appears that many in the press are incorrectly buying into this flat out incorrect analysis of CDA 230. We first saw it last year, in Wired's giant cover story about Facebook's battles, in which it twice suggested that too much moderation might lose Facebook its CDA 230 protections:

But if anyone inside Facebook is unconvinced by religion, there is also Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to recommend the idea. This is the section of US law that shelters internet intermediaries from liability for the content their users post. If Facebook were to start creating or editing content on its platform, it would risk losing that immunity—and it's hard to imagine how Facebook could exist if it were liable for the many billion pieces of content a day that users post on its site.

This is not just wrong, it's literally backwards from reality. As we've pointed out, anyone who actually reads the law should know that it was written to encourage moderation. Section (b)(4) directly says that one of the policy goals of the law is "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies."

Please read the whole thing.


FREE MARKETS

Denver decriminalizes 'shrooms. I reported in Reason Roundup yesterday that Denver's measure to decriminalize hallucinogenic mushrooms had failed. That's what local outlets were saying based on initial vote tallies. But the final count shows that the measure actually passed. More here from Reason TV.


JUSTICE REFORM

"Every time I'm walking outside, I feel like I'm profiled for prostitution because I am a transgender woman," TS Barbii tells The Root.

Barbii and "more than 100 current and former sex workers from New York City" lobbied state lawmakers in Albany "for two pieces of legislation they say would protect them from abusive policing," writes Terrell Jermaine Starr:

Currently, a 1976 New York state law allows police officers to arrest people for loitering for the purpose of prostitution, even though "purpose" is not clearly defined. Several assembly members and senators wrote a letter to the NYPD inspector general last month questioning the wisdom of policing sex trafficking alongside sex work between consenting adults. As of now, sex work is illegal in New York state and virtually everywhere else in the union.

Barbii and other women The Root spoke to are part of the organization Decrim NY, which is pushing for full decriminalization of sex work in the state. Current laws allow for too much space for abuse by police officers, who can take advantage of people taken into custody on prostitution charges, activists say. That abuse includes sexual assault and being forced to become a CI. That's why activists arrived at the state Capitol after 9 a.m. Tuesday, hoping to convince lawmakers to back the legislation before the annual legislative session ends next month.

Sex workers and criminal justice reformers in Rhode Island are also lobbying for lawmakers to at least study decriminalization of prostitution.


QUICK HITS

  •  "99.75% of a young person's life satisfaction across a year has nothing to do with whether they are using more or less social media," says the coauthor of a new Oxford University study on children and social media use.
  • Mar-a-Lago member Cindy Yang is suing the Miami Herald for libel over a story "that she claims falsely portrays her as the one-time head of a day spa prostitution ring," reports Courthouse News Service.
  • The rise of "fear-based social media."
  • "Unintended" consequences:

NEXT: Florida Is Creating a New Sex Offender Registry Just for Prostitution Customers

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. The Trump administration is using these high arrest numbers to push its “border control” priorities, which includes $4.5 billion more in funding for things like shelters for unaccompanied migrant minors and beds at adult detention facilities.

    See? These immigrants are costing us money!

    1. Hello.

      Why is ‘border control’ in quotes?

      Also. Didn’t a recent judicial ruling state the administration can ask asylum seekers to wait in Mexico?

      “…where wars, famine and genocide have created massive camps of displaced families with nowhere to go.”

      There’s famine and genocide in central America? I know things aren’t great but to that extent?

      1. There’s famine and genocide in central America? I know things aren’t great but to that extent?

        And even if there is famine or genocide somewhere south of Mexico, why do we have to take asylum seekers who could more easily escape famine and genocide by simply staying in Mexico?

        1. You don’t understand Ray. No one who understands that the welfare state and open borders cannot co-exist will ever understand. That’s because you’re talking about reality, and the leftists, an-caps, and progressives are all talking about utopia.

          And if you don’t believe in utopia you’re a racist.

          1. Ryan, don’t forget that there are an-caps like me who do want one more third world analphabet muddying my waters.

          2. the welfare state and open borders cannot co-exist

            Open borders cannot coexist even with great private generosity. In a world in which billions live in shitholes of violence and poverty, a country which is one of the most peaceful and prosperous in the world can survive open borders only by “letting the market decide” by treating excess and unneeded immigrants with utter ruthlessness, forcing them to leave or starve. Americans aren’t going to do that, so the massive influx of immigrants that would result from open borders would destroy our way of life, as we struggled to feed and care for the surplus population.

            1. “For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.”

              What a racist homophobe egomaniac to say such a thing.

    2. More money for shelters and beds for migrants.

      Those racist hate filled *monsters*!

  2. I reported in Reason Roundup yesterday that Denver’s measure to decriminalize hallucinogenic mushrooms had failed.

    “But in my defense I was tripping when I wrote that.”

  3. Barbii and “more than 100 current and former sex workers from New York City” lobbied state lawmakers in Albany “for two pieces of legislation they say would protect them from abusive policing…”

    You getting smacked around is a small price for legislators to pay to protect you from trafficking.

    1. Sex workers are the natural prey of feral police.

    2. Is it profiling when they judge you to be a prostitute mistakenly or when they judge you accurately?

      1. This was my question. A sex worker complaining about being identified as a sex worker?

        1. Um….don’t blacks and Hispanics complain about being profiled because they are black or Hispanic? So yes, identifying someone correctly could be profiling. It is the categorizing for enhanced scrutiny that is the problem.

  4. That’s what local outlets were saying based on initial vote tallies. But the final count shows that the measure actually passed.

    We’re they tripping?

  5. “The Trump administration is using these high arrest numbers to push its ‘border control’ priorities”

    Terrible, but exactly what you’d expect from an administration run by alt-right white nationalists.

    Fortunately the era of inherently racist policies like “border control” is coming to an end. Voters are moving toward the Koch / Reason position on immigration, and the next Democratic President will campaign and win on an open borders platform.

  6. One of his top advisers is a lobbyist who represents a gaming company that would compete with the tribe’s planned casino.

    Still, always bet on red.

      1. In Minnesota the Indian casinos have stuffed the pockets of both parties because they hate competition, and as a consequence their casinos suck.

    1. John Denver said ‘bet on the blues’ – – – –

      1. You ever hear “Leaving On A Jet Plane?”

      2. wtf Saint Louis, John Denver would root for the Avs.

      3. Well, now rocky mountain can get higher.

    1. Even more bad economic news.

      Why American families are struggling to pay for child care

      I know why! It’s because the Drumpf economy sucks and there’s not enough immigration.

      1. There is good reason child care is so expensive — it’s a very involved, labor-driven industry. ridiculous licensing requirements.

    2. Not sure if stocks are a bellwether or a signal for the economy as a whole. That divergence was pretty evident when I was in investments years ago.

  7. 99.75% of a young person’s life satisfaction across a year has nothing to do with whether they are using more or less social media…

    Until Meghan pops out that prince and then it’s all about that quarter of a percent.

    1. Shoulda named him Jughead.

  8. Mar-a-Lago member Cindy Yang is suing the Miami Herald for libel over a story “that she claims falsely portrays her as the one-time head of a day spa prostitution ring…

    You’re a Trump donor. The rules of journalism are suspended in your case.

  9. Singapore fake news law a ‘disaster’ for freedom of speech…

    Intended consequences.

    1. I dare say there is no such thing a fake news.

      Too many people that have drank the Kool-Aid from their favorite 24 hour not so news channel can’t tell the difference between news and opinion.

  10. But even attempts at neutral journalistic coverage…

    Attempts at what now?

  11. Today, the world champion White Sox visit the White House.

    Angry, bitter, intellectually challenged black and brown members of the champs will not attend, including the overrated manager, pimp for Puerto Rican progressivism, Alejandro Cora.

    1. Wow, you can’t even see the right color of Sox when you look.

      1. I feel like he’s just trying to be a parody at this point.

        1. He has been doing the same shtick forever on this site – he should be loved and adored.

          1. No one thinks you should be loved and adored Crusty.

              1. Whitey Sox visit Whitey House.

      2. a play on only Blanca players going to visit President T … Cora and Price crying in their cheerios

    2. The White Sox (notice the capital W in white) are the racist baseball team from Chicago. The Red Sox are the oppressed POC team from Boston.

      1. And the Black Sox?

        1. Landis was a tyrant.

    1. The latter is a form of circle jerk?

      1. I haven’t been this confused since Oprah said tossing salad was something dirty that teens were up to.

    2. The circle game is just contributing to the toxic masculinity that will lead you down the path to white supremacy?

    3. First they game for the complete dorks playing stupid games on television, and I stayed silent…

    4. wtf there’s a white power hand signal?

      1. No, but yes

    5. I thought that was the sign the catcher gives the pitcher when he wants him to throw a slider.

      1. Cubs ban circle-punch guy but promote wife-punch guy. W.

      2. I thought that was the sign the catcher gives the pitcher when he wants him to throw a slider

        No, it means his butt-hole is open for guests.

  12. One of the shooters in the Denver school shooting is apparently a social justice warrior, and the other shooter is transgender.

    https://www.local10.com/news/crime/accused-colorado-school-shooter-identifies-as-devonkillz-on-snapchat

    This tells us nothing about social justice warriors or transgender kids, of course, but it might be interesting to watch the left’s reaction to this shooting in the media.

    If the suspected shooters had been white, MAGA hat wearing, Republicans, there wouldn’t have been anything to learn from that either, but the message in the media would be all about how the solution is to violate our Second Amendment rights.

    The solution to this shooting is more likely to be about violating the First Amendment by banning offensive speech towards LGBTQI+ on social media.

    1. You mean having years of vicious hatred of anyone who didn’t totally support homosexuality and now gays, unless of course they are Muslims, might have caused some people to take such language seriously and act on it? Who knew?

      SJWs are crazy, vicious fucks. I imagine the more unbalnced of them acting on their fantasies is only going to become more common.

      1. There is an argument to be had over whether it’s reasonable, healthy, or cruel to feed into a kid’s expectations that the rest of society can or should be made to change its attitudes just to accommodate you and make you feel comfortable.

        Your mom is responsible for your feelings when you’re an infant, but over time you’re supposed to become responsible for your own feelings–regardless of what other people do or don’t do. It’s called “growing up”.

        Anyway, I stop feeling sorry for anybody the moment they start shooting at innocent people. I’m not sure that will happen in the media. They’re as likely to see the shooters as the victims–based on their identity.

        1. I have no sympathy for any of these people. But, we have an entire popular and political culture that is doing everything it can to create them.

      2. There’s no question we’ve enabled people with some form of mental illness.

        Politicians are such gutless idiots and cowards on this front.

        1. Should we forcibly commit individuals with mental health issues again? If so how should we go about doing so?

          1. He’s talking about “enabling” them through voluntary behavior, far as I can tell.

            “You mean having years of vicious hatred of anyone who didn’t totally support homosexuality and now gays, unless of course they are Muslims, might have caused some people to take such language seriously and act on it? Who knew?

            If you don’t want social justice warriors to lash out violently as if they have a right to do so because they’re social justice warriors and everyone else is a subhuman, right wing extremist, then maybe you should stop trying to persuade young social justice warriors that if people disagree with you it’s because they’re subhuman, right wing extremists.

            I don’t see anything here about throwing people in mental hospitals. That appears to be all in your head.

            1. @The SJW was stopped by three young men, the first to charge him was Kendrick Castillo, who was fatally shot. Two other kids wrestled with the guy and one managed to grab the gun. (That kid has signed up with the Marines after graduation). The transgender shooter was disarmed and subdued by a private security guard before she or he could kill anyone.

              In the vigil that followed that evening, kids and parents walked out in protest after the governor tried to politicize the event by turning it into an anti gun rally.

    2. Brah, I posted this info in yesterday’s Roundup HnR.

      This tells us nothing about social justice warriors or transgender kids, of course, but it might be interesting to watch the left’s reaction to this shooting in the media.

      It’s going to get dropped fairly quick. The tranny kid demanded to be identified as a male (which should make prison interesting if they try her as an adult), and apparently a bunch of students from the school walked out of a vigil yesterday because Dems Jason Crow and Michael Bennet were trying to politicize it. They started chanting “mental health!” outside the building.

      Maybe banning socially maladjusted assault nerds will make our schools safer.

      1. I don’t suppose that episode will make the mainstream news anytime soon either.

        Do you still have the link?

          1. That link is full of awesome.

            1. The spin on NBC was different…

              I don’t know about the actual stories… I just saw the teasers. They made it look like students weren’t putting up with the anti-gun control crap of the republicans any more and were spontaneously and angrily protesting. All of that was implied by the order of events as shown in the clips, not overtly stated.

              Just – School shooting!, Protests Erupt, Calls for Gun control are resisted by republicans! Students walk out in anger!

              All as voiceover for clips of students protesting loudly and walking out.

              1. That’s the kind of shit that might swing Colorado red.

            2. Interview requests made by a USA TODAY reporter were rebuffed; multiple students said they had agreed not to talk to journalists.

              Many students appeared unaware the event was organized by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Sen. Michael Bennet and Rep. Jason Crow, both Democrats, both spoke at length about the need for federal action. The Brady Campaign invited reporters to cover the event.

              Uh-oh…kids are not following the gun grabbing Narrative.

          2. “”In an apology issued afterward, Brady Campaign said all efforts should be focused on supporting the STEM students, families and faculty members.

            “We are deeply sorry any part of this vigil did not provide the support, caring and sense of community we sought to foster and facilitate and which we know is so crucial to communities who suffer the trauma of gun violence,” the statement said.””

            They are not sorry. They apologizing because their plan went south. The Brady campaign’s sole purpose was to make this a political issue about gun control.

            1. Yeah, they were there to use a dead child as a prop.

            2. The event was apparently one of three that had been organized. I wonder where the other two were located.

              Anyway, no surprise that Handgun Control, Inc. misread this. Highlands Ranch has been a Republican stronghold in the metro area for 30 years; if this had happened on the north side of town, in Boulder County, Westminster, or Arvada, for instance, the reception would have been far different.

        1. Besides Notion’s link, there’s quite a few others if you Google “STEM Highlands Ranch Mental Health,” but the usatoday link got the gist of it.

          There’s a Colorado Public Radio link that will come up that gives a good overview of what happened, too.

    3. Wearing a Nirvana t-shirt.

  13. I’ve been saying for months that Russia’s 2016 attack on our democracy must be understood in the context of similar acts of war like Pearl Harbor and 9 / 11. Eric Swalwell agrees:

    Remember that time Pearl Harbor was bombed and FDR called the Emperor of Japan? Or the time the Twin Towers were struck and Bush ringed Osama Bin Laden? No? I don’t either. So why’d @realDonaldTrump call Putin after the Mueller Report was released? #CommanderInCheat

    This is exactly the kind of tough talk on Russia this country needs.

    #TrumpRussia
    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. #CommanderInCheat

      OBL you need to pick up your hashtag game. You’re missing these obvious ones.

      1. #OBLdeniesvoteragency

  14. The analysis of Section 230 was interesting, and changes my concerns about platforms like Facebook et al. If correct, they are free to ban anyone and everyone who they disagree with and as long as those people are not employees of the company creating content for the company, then they are ok.

    Honestly, that is probably the best outcome. I think it is shitty that these behemoths are now becoming curators by proxy. But ultimately this is a problem of a few years, even though it seems insurmountable. Recall the Blockbuster cut- back in the 90s Blockbuster used distribution of porn tapes to help grow into a virtual monopoly, then used this position to limit the distribution of “obscene” content, including forcing studios to cut out racy scenes. A lot of people made exactly the same complaints about freedom of speech, and there was a lot of agitating for regulations. In the end, Blockbuster was destroyed by the market, and it is my hope that Facebook and Twitter get the same eventual treatment.

    1. The difference is Blockbuster wasn’t immune for lawsuit as a common carrier. If Facebook and Twitter want to ban anyone from their platform for any reason, that is their right. But if they want to do that, they are no longer a common carrier and should be liable for actual and statutory damages for every copyright violation that occurs on their platform. These companies have made themselves publishers and should be treated like such.

      1. In fact that is what the section 203 specifically says- they can moderate all they want. The protection comes from them being a platform who allows non-employees to post, NOT from being neutral. There may be room to sue them (as Nunes has) on violation of TOS, but if they wanted to moderate the platform such that only liberals were allowed, they would still enjoy 203 protections.

        This was information I was not aware of, and as I said, it is probably for the best. Frankly, if there is going to be a re-legislation of Facebook, you and I both know it will be captured by liberals to REQUIRE companies like Facebook to remove certain content, which will increasingly be defined as “not liberal”. I don’t like Facebook and Twitter’s actions right now (as I didn’t like Blockbuster’s), but the worst thing we can do right now is start regulating them, as that will entrench them in a crony relationship with the government, and they will never go away. Blockbuster, otoh, was left out of legislation, and the market eventually killed them. The same will happen to facebook and twitter if they continue to alienate half the population.

        1. They need to strip them of their exemption unless they moderate in a content neutral manner.

          I am skeptical that the market is going to kill them. It might kill Twitter since it has always been a money loser and nothing but a place for journalists and celebrities to embarass themselves. I don’t think the market is going to kill Facebook or Youtube. They actually provide a service and the economies of scale of a social network make breaking their monopoly very difficult.

          1. The same justifications were made about Blockbuster. It was a behemoth whose stranglehold on distribution affected everything before it- including the writing of screenplays to ensure they could conform to their decency standards.

            I don’t think you realize the danger of what you are arguing for. If legislation passes, it will be more like the legislation Zuck proposed. It won’t be about neutral enforcement, it will be about defining what content is allowed. They will define in law what “harassing” or “harmful” content is, and that will look a lot closer to the definitions being floated on college campuses than anything you or I will prefer.

            And of course, the requirements for this moderation will be so onerous that no one except large, well established, billion dollar companies can meet those expectations. This is exactly what Facebook wants.

            1. Blockbuster died because online streaming destroyed the need for its product. What new technology is going to destroy the need for Facebook and Youtube? I can’t see one. And I say that as someone who would have told you in 1995 that Blockbuster’s business was only going to last until internet speeds got high enough to stream from the net.

              I think you are under estimating the danger of doing nothing. The people who run these tech companies are evil. If given the opportunity, they would create a world that would make Orwell blush. And sadly, technology and vertical integration is giving them that opportunity.

              1. Young adults moved to Instagram years ago. There is hope for moving control away from these massive Lefty webpage platforms.

                Zuckerburg was smart to buy Instagram, so technically FB is still is getting to all those young people.

            2. John wants to ruin the internet because the meanie-heads that run big tech companies have different political opinions than him. He’s working right out of the progressive playbook here, advocating ruinous regulation because he’s tunnel visioned in on a few big companies he doesn’t like, completely blind to the damage it would cause to the wider market.

              1. Were you born this stupid and unable to read or did your parents drop you on your head or something?

                Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? How can someoen write something this stupid and idiotic?

                1. John
                  May.9.2019 at 10:17 am
                  They need to strip them of their exemption unless they moderate in a content neutral manner.

                  I also understood this to mean that you want to see ‘neutral content’ moderation. Maybe you could explain.

  15. In regards to asylum seekers with kids overwhelming our resources to provide for them, this is one of the arguments the appellate court cited when it lifted the ban on the Trump administration’s policy of making asylum seekers who present themselves at the border returning them to Mexico to wait for their asylum hearing. The court didn’t rule on the merits–that trial is ongoing–but a lower court ordered the Trump administration to stop returning asylum seekers to Mexico a couple of weeks ago and that’s now been overturned.

    The appellate court ruling was unexpected because that court is so liberal. There’s just a humanitarian argument to be made that we don’t have the resources to care for all these people, and the Mexican government has agreed to take care of them until their court date.

    1. Make it so that anyone who showed up with a kid gets into the country and you create a crisis whereby everyone shows up with a minor in tow. It is funny how politics can make people retarded. The open borders fanatics understand the concept of moral hazard in any other context but this one.

      1. “It is funny how politics can make people retarded.”

        They aren’t retarded, they simply use feelings to justify their denial of reality. Libertopia is only a couple million poor central americans away

    2. And how about immediate DNA testing to assure that the adult and child are related? You OK with that? Maybe define showing up with a rented kid as sex trafficking? Life in prison?
      Maybe have the UN set up refugee camps just north of the southern Mexico border?

      1. Unaccompanied minors are an issue as far as I’m concerned.

        We’ve all ready stories by Lenore Skenazy about the CPS being called because kids were allowed to play by themselves in a park or to walk home from school by themselves. Parents who tell their kids to travel across Mexico by themselves to join their mother in the U.S., however, we just hand them over to their parents, no questions asked? I don’t know. What happens if a kid’s asylum claim is denied? What if their claims aren’t considered substantial enough to merit a hearing? I bet they reunite them with their parents anyway. I bet kids just get in free when they’re unaccompanied.

  16. MAJOR #TRUMPRUSSIA UPDATE!!!!

    Trump just changed policy on Venezuela and is reportedly frustrated with Bolton that he is being too militaristic (that’s news to Trump?). While I agree with the new policy, it comes right after a call with Putin. Direct evidence that he is literally taking orders from Putin.

    Literally. Taking. Orders. From. Putin.

    As a patriotic libertarian, I’d prefer a President who launched a unilateral war of aggression against Venezuela, as long as it meant I could be sure that President wasn’t a Russian intelligence asset.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

    1. Courtesy of AOC’s puppet-master, Cenk Ugyur.

      1. Since that guy supports the policy, doesn’t that mean he is taking orders from Putin too?

        1. Mind –> blown

    2. Bomb those people into prosperity.

      1. Trump must bomb them to show that he isn’t Putin’s puppet.

    3. >>>As a patriotic libertarian, I’d prefer a President who launched a unilateral war of aggression

      hilarious.

  17. http://freebeacon.com/blog/trump-chick-fil-a/

    Chickfila now America’s third largest restaurant chain. I wonder if Shackford stayed home from work today sobbing upon hearing this news.

    1. In the two years since Donald J. Trump was sworn in as president, the United States of America has achieved unsurpassed greatness in almost every imaginable category. The economy is surging. Tiger Woods is a Masters champion again, after ending his “Obama drought” on the PGA Tour. Mankind continues to enjoy unprecedented dominance over Earth’s inferior species. And now, thanks to booming sales, Chick-fil-A has become the third-largest restaurant chain in the United States, behind Starbucks and McDonalds.

      I can’t tell if this is tongue in cheek or not anymore.

      I must admit that I’m surprised Subway isn’t higher than CFA, those things are everywhere. I will say that for me personally, CFA is one of the best fast food chains.

      1. I am pretty sure that paragraph is sarcasm. That said, Tiger Woods did win a major after not winning one for the entire Obama Administration, the economy is surging, man is still the dominant species on earth, and Chik Fil A is the third largest restaurant chain. So, nothing it is saying is untrue.

      2. It’s OBL’s evil twin.

    2. There is Chickfila opening today, less than 1/2 a mile from my office. In the immortal words of Bart Scott, “CANT’T WAIT!”

      Their shakes are awesome.

  18. “Apparently the Republican chair of the Senate Intel Committee didn’t get the memo from the Majority Leader that this case was closed…”

    —-Rand Paul

    https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1126248808336297984

    This was in response to Donald Trump Jr. being subpoenaed by the Republican controlled Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee to testify (again) about information in the Mueller report.

    Rand Paul is being sarcastic in that tweet, isn’t he?

    When I say, “Somebody forgot to send the memo that the Redskins are supposed to lose”, I’m being sarcastic. Is Rand Paul trying to say that this Never Trump bullshit is based on anything but Never Trump bullshit?

    1. Back from your child porn bender I see.

    2. Indeed, the Obama economy was the strongest 8-year run in the history of this country.

    3. Can you help me understand something, Mr. Buttplug?

      The other day you claimed you never got banned and it was just a matter of a forgotten password. However, “moneyshot” said the following:

      “Conservatives campaigned to have the Buttplug banned.”
      “For all I know some conservative asswipe in IT made an editorial decision on his own.”

      I’m curious because I want to know if my #UnbanPalinsButtplug campaign was worthwhile or not.

      1. “Conservatives campaigned to have the Buttplug banned.”

        Obviously true. The Trump Retards are trying to do the same to ChemJeff with their lies. They hate classic liberals.

        “For all I know some conservative asswipe in IT made an editorial decision on his own.”

        “For all I know” is an admission I didn’t know what happened. It turned out that I had just temporarily lost my password.

        1. You’re the sort of guy who spits in someone’s face and then cries victim after you get justifiably knocked with a punch.

        2. Thanks!

          Unfortunately this means my #UnbanPalinsButtplug campaign was irrelevant. Which doesn’t give me much hope for my #UnbanMichaelHihn campaign. (Although maybe he just forgot his password too.)

        3. You banned yourself by putting up instructions for accessing child porn on the web. Everyone saw it and no one is going to forget it. You are a disgusting devient.

          1. Fuck you, you lying piece of shit. You are a true Trumpstain with your lies – just like that pathological liar.

            1. It is true and you know it. That is why “Palin’s buttplug” got banned. You were on here for years lying and trolling and reason never banned you. That is because reason only bans if you dox someone or post something illegal. You posted child porn links and got banned. Now you have crawled out of your hole with a different handle thinking everyone is stupid enough not to remember why you got banned. Everyone knows and you will never be able to post on here again without being reminded of it. You are just a sick fuck.

    4. Did you inherit whatever made you link to kiddie pr0n?

  19. April arrests of migrants at the U.S.–Mexico border were “off the charts,” Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee recently.

    “Just the facts, Ma’am.”

  20. If you read the section 230 legislation, it was encouraging the development of parental controls for the platform user to block obscene content. It was not put in to give free reign for the platform owners to remove non obscene content the platform owners do not approve the point of view of.

    For television, the editorial POV of Reason was to be sceptical of parental control mandates. For the internet, Reason’s POV seems to be that parental controls should be expansive as to give carte blanc to restrict content from even existing on any platform.

    1. For television, the editorial POV of Reason was to be sceptical of parental control mandates. For the internet, Reason’s POV seems to be that parental controls should be expansive as to give carte blanc to restrict content from even existing on any platform.

      That is an excellent point. But logical consistency and intellectual integrity have never been something that the staff at reason was very interested in maintaining.

  21. Denver counting their caps before they sprout.

  22. Just because excessive border crossing weren’t called an emergency in the 80’s & 90’s doesn’t mean is not an emergency now. A leaky boat eventually becomes an emergency if you don’t deal with it and we haven’t dealt with it and at least Trump is trying

  23. The arrest numbers are still below “those observed in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, when annual arrests routinely topped one million,” Politico’s Ted Hessen writes.

    Politico really hires morons.

    98,000 x 12= 1,176,000

    Well over one million.

    1. citing politico epitome of lazy.

  24. Instead of the single job seekers of a decade ago who aimed to sneak in undetected, these are families openly seeking asylum—more like the groups of refugees familiar on borders elsewhere in the world, where wars, famine and genocide have created massive camps of displaced families with nowhere to go.

    Families arrive at a U.S. border unprepared to absorb the sheer numbers of adults and children who are, by law, allowed to remain at least temporarily—confounding federal policy and the Trump administration.

    None of these are valid reasons for asylum in the USA.

    1. genocide would qualify for asylum in my book. But they can all escape genocide by simply staying in friendly, warm, less expensive Mexico. We should NOT offer asylum to anyone who immediately enters from a country (e.g. Mexico, Canada) where they could have escaped their particular persecution.

  25. more alleged families allegedly fleeing violence, poverty, and political unrest.

    FIFY

    1. Trump should be reading that to Xi’s puppet in Florida this week. Maybe get a better deal.

  26. “Migrant Arrests Up” Let The Good Times Roll

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.