Reason Roundup

Trump Threatens Mass Immigration Action Next Week, Though No One's Sure What He Means

Plus: Amash's anti-surveillance measure is up for a vote, Facebook launches its own cryptocurrency, and more..

|

President Donald Trump is threatening a new round of action targeting undocumented immigrants, starting next week. "Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States," Trump tweeted Monday evening, promising that "they will be removed as fast as they come in."

A little over two weeks ago, the president insisted that Mexico was so willfully negligent at stopping illegal border crossings that the U.S. would impose escalating tariffs on all Mexican goods. Yesterday, however, Trump praised the work Mexico is doing at "stopping people long before they get to our Southern Border" and the progress being made by Guatemala.

But someone must be blamed for the manufactured crisis Trump has devoted his presidency to, and this week it is apparently congressional Democrats' turn. "The only ones who won't do anything are the Democrats in Congress," Trump tweeted last night. "They must vote to get rid of the loopholes, and fix asylum! If so, Border Crisis will end quickly!"

Some are taking this latest round of Trump tweets as a threat of massive new coordinated raids on immigrant homes or workplaces. And, yes, there are the inevitable Hitler analogies, including a lot of Kristallnacht references…

It's not clear just what Trump actually meant in his Monday tweets, as there has been no official statement from the White House or immigration officials yet and the president is prone to bluster via Twitter. But Washington Post reporter Nick Miroff suggested Trump is referring to a thwarted April enforcement operation targeting undocumented immigrants who had failed to show up for scheduled hearings. From the Post piece on that plan:

According to seven current and former Department of Homeland Security officials, the administration wanted to target the crush of families that had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border after the president's failed "zero tolerance" prosecution push in early 2018. … The sprawling operation included an effort to fast-track immigration court cases, allowing the government to obtain deportation orders against those who did not show for their hearings — officials said 90 percent of those targeted were found deportable in their absence. The subsequent arrests would have required coordinated raids against parents with children in their homes and neighborhoods.

However, "a U.S. official says deportations described by the president in this tweet aren't imminent," ABC's Meredith McGraw said on Tuesday morning.


FREE MINDS

FISA amendment vote coming up:

Here's the full amendment text. And here are Amash's statements about the bill, called the "Ending Mass Collection of Americans' Phone Records Act," upon its introduction in March.


FREE MARKETS

Facebook wants you to trust it with your money. The site is launching its own cryptocurrency, called Libra. From The Verge:

The currency is designed not to be a speculative asset, like Bitcoin, but a form of digital money backed by a reserve of assets. You will one day be able to use Libra as payment for online and offline services, Facebook executives say. At the beginning, the company imagines Libra will be used mainly to transfer money between individuals in developing countries who lack access to traditional banks. Eventually, the goal is to create the first truly mainstream cryptocurrency: a decentralized global form of payment that is as stable as the dollar, can be used to buy almost anything, and can support an entire range of financial products — from banking to loans to credit.


QUICK HITS

  • If you saw this commercial as a child, it's not an entirely implausible take:

Advertisement

NEXT: The Court Swims in Political Seas

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. It’s not clear just what Trump actually meant in his Monday tweets…

    But as we already know, markets love uncertainty.

    1. I’m guessing he’ll erect tribunals in true French Revolutionary style.

    2. He threatened to send all the asylum seekers to sanctuary cities in CA. It was a trick, now that they’re in CA he’s going to give CA back to Mexico.

  2. AS SOON AS TUESDAY EVENING, the House will be voting on the Amash-Lofgren amendment to limit the warrantless collection of Americans’ communications (including content) under Sec. 702 of FISA.

    — Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 17, 2019

    They might need some of those communications as evidence at a presidential impeachment trial.

    1. Amash said to limit, not eliminate. Hed still be okay with warrantless collections for opponents.

  3. …Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority ruling reaffirming dual state/federal prosecutions for the same offenses…

    How can this be reconciled with the well-known facts that RGB is no longer alive and Gorsuch is an evil fascist?

  4. Beach read?

    Shouldn’t you be promoting Robbo’s new book?

    1. Absolutely. Promoting “Whores of Yore” as a beach read… Well, let’s just say that fapping at the beach can incur some unwanted attention from the authorities.

      1. Sand and saltwater do not compromise the ideal fapping environment.

  5. Jezebel slams “corporate sponsorship” of criminal justice reform because 5,000 former prisoners will get free Lyft rides to job interviews.

    Intersectionality red lights abound for ride sharers.

    1. I read the other day, and sadly I forgot where and can’t find the link, where Progs were now criticizing the song “This Land is Your Land” because it failed to recognize the aboriginal ownerhsip of the land and the injustice of it being stolen. No kidding. A song that is an explicitly communist song calling for collective ownership of all the land is now not “woke enough” for the left. These people are insane.

      1. Well Woody was a privileged white man. Yeah he was an Okie migrant but that is still privilege.

        1. He was a migrant and all woke Trumpists know that migrants are bad. Just look at what the Okies did to California!

          1. Even funnier when legal migrants don’t illegals inside the USA.

            1. *don’t want illegals…

      2. In a social order where status is based on wokeness, what seems bat-shit crazy to outsiders is merely “logical” posturing.

      3. This Land Is Whose Land? Indian Country and the Shortcomings of Settler Protest June 14, 2019

        This perhaps? There are quite a few articles similar to this that appear when looking for what you are referencing.

        This Land Is Your Land” is one of the United States’ most famous folk songs. Its lyrics were written by American folk singer Woody Guthrie in 1940, based on an existing melody, a Carter Family tune called “When the World’s on Fire”, in critical response to Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America.” When Guthrie was tired of hearing Kate Smith sing “God Bless America” on the radio in the late 1930s, he sarcastically wrote “God Blessed America for Me” before renaming it “This Land Is Your Land.”
        -Wikipedia “This Land is Your Land”

  6. We need minute by minute updates on Suave’s book sales. Is he going to give away freshly prepared artisanal fruit sushi as a special promotion? The public needs to know.

    1. If Robby doesn’t have a book signing event where they serve fruit sushi, offer free samples of hair product, and have a little doggie pen to play with Milton and Friedrich, he will have failed us all.

      1. Who even buys this guy’s books?

  7. millennials don’t own homes because this quiznos commercial put a hex on us as children…

    Quiznos knows your solvency issues.

  8. Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris is getting her own monthly column at Essence magazine.

    Unrelated: Essence magazine can now be found in the fiction section of your newsstand.

    1. In France, essence is gasoline.

      1. And very heavily taxed – – – –

    2. Remember… this is not a campaign contribution… if it was trump it would be

  9. I hope these media types realize how hard Holocaust comparisons backfire. Yeah, there’s really a lot of similarity between peacefully deporting illegal immigrants who legally shouldn’t be here and Nazis destroying your places of worship, restricting your legal rights, and killing millions of you because they hate your religion and what they believe it stands for.

    1. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

    2. How do you peacefully deport someone if they don’t want to comply? These types of things invariably require government force.

      But I do agree, even as someone for far fewer restrictions on immigration, the Holocaust / Nazi references are counterproductive to the cause. Debate on the merits of the issues.

      1. Every law requires goverment force. So, by your logic every law is comparable to the Holocoust. Really?

        And the Nazi references are just a sympton of the bigger problem which is that people like you are fanatics who can never articulate any position that doesn’t involve letting the alien into the country.

        The dream of open borders is not going to happen. So all you are doing by refusing to offer a reasonable compromise and ensuring that the actual radicals on the other side win because they will be in the position of offering the only alternative.

        1. So all you are doing by refusing to offer a reasonable compromise and ensuring that the actual radicals on the other side win because they will be in the position of offering the only alternative.

          This is the same argument that Chemjeff/jeffysock1/jeffysock2 made last Friday regarding socialism.

          The mask is slipping.

        2. I was replying to the OP’s claim that they would be “peacefully deport[ed].” That’s nonsense, no laws can be peacefully executed every single time.

          So, by your logic every law is comparable to the Holocoust. [sic]
          WTF are you babbling about, or are you just building strawmen again? We can argue about the justification of force without invoking the Holocaust, which was kind of the point of my post.

        3. So all you are doing by refusing to offer a reasonable compromise and ensuring that the actual radicals on the other side win because they will be in the position of offering the only alternative.

          I’ve offered what I think is a reasonable compromise multiple times on Reason.com.

          Expand the worker visas to have no limits. Require background checks on everyone to obtain a visa and allow free travel back and forth across the border at ports of entry. The visa system should ensure no access to federal welfare programs. No pathway to citizenship for the visa holder.

          This would allow the border security to be improved. Rather than chasing down decent people in the desert the border patrols can focus on the actual “bad hombres.”

          1. We dont need to comprise Leo. Your side is losing. There will be border security. There will be mass deportations of illegals inside the USA. The United States will return to Rule of Law and support of the US Constitution.

            What Americans choose to do with non-Americans entering the USA is for Americans to decide.

            1. Those laws seem to be working so well. And why does your side always need more laws and more funding?

              Are you willing to let the President skirt Congress to get your way?

              1. We dont need MORE laws. Trump is using existing laws to deport illegals.

                Getting rid of most immigration laws and adjusting the existing immigration laws to make deportation hearings last 5 minutes would be a huge improvement.

                Do you have a legal reason for staying inside the USA? No? See ya.

                Congress can control the entire immigration situation if they wanted to. Democrats want as many illegals as they can get, to stay in power come election 2020. RINOs undermine enforcement of existing immigration laws. Republicans are too worried about abortion to focus on settling the immigration situation.

                1. I disagree completely.

                  It’s quite similar to the war on drugs. You can make all the laws you want, but people will continue to avoid those laws. You can build fences but people will continue to go around those fences. Enforcement will only result in making more criminals, more standoffs between immigrants and border agents, etc. It will necessarily grow government to need more border agents, more courts etc.

                  You can argue that all of that is justified in order to crack down on immigration, fine. But don’t argue that there’s a simple solution, because time and time again history tells us that no amount of laws or enforcement will curb all illegal activity.

                  1. Its NOT like the War on Drugs. Drug laws are unconstitutional. Every single one. There is no federal or state power to ban products or services. Even the Prohibitionists knew this basic constitutional fact.

                    We might not need a border fence if Democrats AND Republicans cut food stamps, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, free schooling, and Medicaid. On the other hands millions of immigrants came to the USA before there was welfare like that. Many immigrants came through Ellis Island (NY) and Angel Island (CA), checked for disease, and counted for population purposes.

                    There is a simple solution. Admit that Americans get to decide immigration policy for the USA and that policy is that illegal immigration will not be tolerated. No slack for illegals.

                    The few outlying illegals would be easily rounded up and deported. Just like America does not tolerate really violent criminals and just let them break US law.

                    1. Even if I granted you the constitutionality piece, I’m talking more about enforcement in terms of similarities with the war on drugs. There are more than 20,000 border agents and they can’t seem to stop people from coming here. That’s 10 agents per mile on the southern border. Even if you could stop them with a physical wall, it doesn’t account for people overstaying their visas. What’s next, you’re going to stop granting work visas? I wonder what that would do to the economy?

                      There is a simple solution. Admit that Americans get to decide immigration policy for the USA and that policy is that illegal immigration will not be tolerated. No slack for illegals.

                      Will not be tolerated. Haha… you keep telling yourself that.

                    2. Its happening which is why Lefties and open border people are so upset.

                      You can keep telling yourself that it is not working.

                      Border patrol stops tens of thousands of illegals each month. The immigration system filled with Lefty bureaucrats are letting illegal go inside the USA. Some immigration lawyers are lying about the legitimacy of their client’s asylum claims. The Lefties are campaigning for immigrants to come to the USA with lies about illegally living inside the USA. The system is swarmed because of it and the now documented immigrants are being released to sanctuary cities pending their immigration hearings.

              2. What is Congress wearing under that skirt?

            2. Who are you arguing with? Leo’s compromise includes border security. The rule of law can exist just as well with a law that allows for more worker visas.
              You want the Constitutional order, great. The constitution allows any border policy from completely open borders to walling off the whole country. So your constitution and rule of law argument is totally irrelevant here. Leo’s proposal is entirely consistent with those principles.

              1. I don’t need to argue with anyone. Leo is the one offering a compromise because that side lost. The time for compromise is over.

                Trump was elected to enforce immigration law and deport every last illegal. He is doing that. He cannot be stopped by open border types because he has the support of most of the states. Now they want to compromise. Fuck that.

                We’ll secure the border, deport illegals, and then try to keep future illegals from coming into the USA illegally.

                Nobody is falling for this tactic of compromise after you have punched Americans in the face for years. Compromise at that stage is for suckers.

              2. More hyperbole from Zeb.

                The USA is not “walling off the whole country”.

                Some people/states have exposed themselves as people who are willing to undermine constitutional immigration regulations. Sanctuary cities are an example of that. Rule of Law is relevant.

                1. Come on, dude, learn to read. I never said that the US is walling off the whole country. I mentioned that simply as the hypothetical opposite extreme to open borders. All I said is that it would be allowed by the constitution.
                  You are quite right, Trump is within his constitutional powers to work to deport illegal aliens from the country. I’ve never said otherwise.
                  But Congress still is who should be setting policy for the future and if they ever get their shit together to actually do anything with immigration policy, it is still an open question what that policy should be.

                  1. Zeb
                    June.18.2019 at 11:56 am
                    “walling off the whole country”

                    Yes you did liar.

                    You can back track all you want. You came in trying to back up Leo and fucked up.

                    1. Yes, I did type the words “walling off the whole country”. You really think that proves I claimed that is what is happening? Try actually reading what I wrote.
                      Here’s what I said:
                      The constitution allows any border policy from completely open borders to walling off the whole country.
                      That’s it. It’s exactly what you say (correctly) every day about the constitutional powers the federal government has to control immigration.

                    2. Its hyperbole because no American I have ever heard says that we should wall off the USA.

                      Secondly, the Constitution does not provide power to keep Americans from traveling in and out of the USA. The federal government can regulate but not prevent Americans from traveling.

                      I know you’re upset that immigration is being regulated and there are Libertarians on here advocating for it. Stick with your basic arguments like Ken Schultz does about immigration. You will be better off.

            3. The have to go back.

        4. i think he was just pointing out that “peacefully deporting” is a bit of a stretch with words, while we are all here playing analogy police.

          i think he even agreed with you the holocaust comparison was no good.

          But you probably stopped reading the comment right after his name right cause it’s easier to attack people than ideas?

          1. Not “he” you, you obvious sockpuppet.

        5. It’s spelled “holocous-cous.”

          And it’s delicious.

      2. >>>require government force

        but not government ovens. no comparison.

    3. It’s almost as if Trump does or says something stupid, and people on the left are compelled to rush to the microphones and the internet to say “oh, no, buddy….we’re not going to let you out-stupid us”.

    4. Does it not phase media dipshits that if the Nazis deported all Jews outside the Third Reich, there literally would have never been a Jewish Holocaust?

      1. Funny thing about history, your wokeness level has no effect on the truth of events.

    5. People forget that the Nazis didn’t march into power proclaiming a plan to burn all the Jews. They took a series of steps that only culminated in the “final solution.”

      Consider what it’s like being “undocumented” in the U.S. today. You can’t legally work. Maybe you’re being monitored by ICE between court dates and allowed to live a semblance of a life, but ICE can revoke that at any time, without warning, for any reason, leaving your kids and family behind. Now Trump is devising new ways to push them out of subsidized housing, deny them legal avenues to legitimization, and make life hell for them – all to “deter” other immigrants.

      I realize that conservatives believe that undocumented immigrants “deserve” all of that. I’m sure many Germans felt the same way about the Jews, who they often viewed as somehow cheating the system prior to Hitler’s progression of restrictions. But the question is less about whether they “deserve” it than it is about drawing an objective comparison between the lives that undocumented immigrants lead in this country and that Jews – still “tolerated” initially but clearly second-class – experienced under Nazi rule. The comparison fits more neatly than you’re probably ready to admit.

  10. “But someone must be blamed for the manufactured crisis Trump has devoted his presidency to . . .

    ENB is now referring to asylum seekers flooding our southern border at a rate of more than a million a year (in May) as “a manufactured crisis”–am I reading that correctly?

    Regardless, she’s burying the lead–or maybe she just doesn’t recognize the lead or know what it means. From the second half of Trump’s tweet she linked:

    “….long before they get to our Southern Border. Guatemala is getting ready to sign a Safe-Third Agreement. The only ones who won’t do anything are the Democrats in Congress. They must vote to get rid of the loopholes, and fix asylum! If so, Border Crisis will end quickly!

    —-President Donald Trump

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1140791402323959809

    If that part about Guatemala agreeing to become a “third safe country” is accurate, that will be a huge step forward in Trump’s efforts to stop the flow of asylum seekers from Central America.

    As everyone but ENB knows, the agreement that emerged from Trump’s meetings with the Mexican government to avert the tariffs a couple weeks ago was centered on Mexico agreeing to put a “third safe country” agreement before the Mexican Senate for consideration if Mexico’s efforts to stem the tide of asylum seekers crossing into Mexico from Guatemala is deemed unsuccessful 45 days after June 7. If Mexico were to enter into a “third safe country” agreement with the United States, it would make Central Americans ineligible for asylum in the United States if they came to the U.S. by way of Mexico.

    We’ve had an agreement like that with Canada for decades. The reason Mexico has given for their reluctance to enter into a “third safe country” agreement with the U.S. is because they said they needed a similar agreement with their neighbors to the south. If Guatemala enters into a “third safe country” agreement with the U.S. or Mexico, it will take away Mexico’s primary objection to entering into a “third safe country” agreement, or, i.e., it will make a “third safe country” bill far more likely to pass in the Mexican Senate.

    Incidentally, if Trump manages to stem the flow of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras through negotiations with our neighbors, without actually imposing any tariffs, without building a wall, without using emergency declarations, and by negotiating policies that are completely within the constitutional purview of his presidential powers, then he should be congratulated for his achievement. What’s not to like?

    That ENB is throwing a temper tantrum because Trump is achieving these things constitutionally and without tariffs is amazing typical of journalists with TDS.

    1. When you are in the advocacy propaganda game, words mean what you need them to mean.

    2. >>>“a manufactured crisis”–am I reading that correctly?

      if someone’s paying them to storm the border ha then it would be a manufactured crisis but I figure not what enb meant.

    3. I was willing to buy that the ‘crisis’ was probably exaggerated right up until I read the NPR story on African migrants coming through the Mexican border. When you start having asylum seekers from a completely unconnected continent, you can’t claim the issue is manufactured.

      1. >>>you can’t claim the issue is manufactured.

        if their travels were bought/paid for by third parties yes you can.

    4. “What’s not to like?”

      Invasion USA may be halted.

    5. We’ll have to bookmark this page so that, when the facts again shift and make Trump’s “deal” with Mexico look like the convenient fiction it always was, we can remember how easily you were duped by a known liar’s tweet.

      1. SimonP,

        You’re not against Guatemala entering into a “safe third country” agreement with the United States and/or Mexico, are you?

        I don’t know if this deal will actually happen until it happens, but, yeah, I’m hoping for the best . . . for the USA . . . since I’m an American. And considering that this solution is constitutional, without taxes, doesn’t build a wall, etc., why shouldn’t I hope it happens?

        If you’re talking about what’s happening in regards to Trump’s agreement with Mexico, that’s not according to me. That 45 day agreement to reevaluate asylum seeker levels and to pursue a “third safe country” agreement with Mexico was mostly reported by the Mexican government–Mexico’s Foreign Minister, especially.

        There is no reason to believe he would misreport the contents of the agreement. They seem to be highly favorable to the U.S., with the only obvious benefit to Mexico being Trump’s decision to withdraw tariffs for now.

        Bookmark all you like.

  11. So the Democrats do not see any campaign contribution issues with a a corporate entity giving Kamala Harris a platform to advertise herself?

    1. And they do not see any sexism issues with the platform being “monthly”?

      1. geez i didn’t either but funny.

    2. You can’t accuse someone of being a hypocrite if doing so just makes you a hypocrite yourself.

  12. http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/06/15/sex_predator_or_metoo_prey.html

    Great article on the other side of libel and slander; namely the ability of people who have been slandered to clear their name and obtain compensation for the damage done to their careers and reputation by a slander. Libertarians have this Pavlovian response to the term “free speech” and start frothing at the mouth and believing con men like Ken Dopehat White who advocate for making libel and slander suits more difficult to win in the name of “free speech”.

    That is bullshit. With freedom comes the responsibility for the use of that freedom. Advocating for libel and slander laws is no more an attack on free speech than advocating for negligence laws an attack on driving. We had a much better Republic before New York Times v. Sullivan and the totally arbitrary public figure doctrine.

    If it were easier to sue and clear your name, people would be a lot more careful about slander and the public discourse would improve.

    1. “No one can deny the possibility that my opponent fucks sheep.”

      1. The public figure doctrine allows Journalists to not have to worry about whether what they are saying is actually true. To meet the standard all you have to do is show that you didn’t know it wasn’t true. This is even worse when you consider the use of anonomous sources.

        Carter Page is a great example of someone being victimized by this. One media outlet after another has accused him of being a Russian agent, something that is entirely untrue. But since he is a public figure, he has no way to sue those outlets for slander because they have “anonomous sources” that say he is and thus meet the Sullivan test. He could sue the sources because they likely know it is not true and would fail the Sullivan test. But, since they are anonomous, he has no way to do that. So, he is basically screwed.

        1. To meet the standard all you have to do is show that you didn’t know it wasn’t true. This is even worse when you consider the use of anonomous sources.

          There have been some journalists recently who have been pimping the idea that anonymity on the web should be completely eliminated, under the guise that it’s too easy for “Nazis” to “spread hate.” I’d honestly be fine with this if, in exchange, journalists were forced to reveal the names of their sources or be thrown in jail.

          1. Then you won’t have any sources detailing the corruption within the government

            1. Then you won’t have any sources detailing the corruption within the government

              Anonymity needs to be a mutually-supported facet of American life, then. If it’s selectively applied, then it’s effectively worthless.

              1. I agree. Ironically enough, there’s plenty of people here who think anything you post online can come back to bite you, and the people who track you down for your posts are justified. (Ken being one)

            2. Do we have that now?

    2. This is a big reason why the decision on the Gibson’s lawsuit against Oberlin, the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, and the Sandmann’s lawsuit against Big Media is such a huge deal, collectively. The corporate/activist Left is largely used to getting their way when it comes to slandering their targeted enemies, without any repercussions whatsoever. They’re used to not being accountable for their actions, in violation of the interest in keeping social interactions peaceful and respectful.

      Hitting these people in the wallet through lawfare, a strategy the left has been practicing for decades, is a far better means of curbing their excesses than the alternative, which would inevitably be them pissing off the wrong person and getting a shotgun blast in the face as a response.

      1. In the past, the left slandered public figures and were protected by the public figure doctrine. Only in the last few years have the gotten in the business of slandering and ruining the lives of ordinary people. Deprived of the protection of the public figure doctrine, they are open to some real liability.

        One of the things that really annoys me about Ken White is that he shills for gutting libel law but never talks about just who his clients are. White, as he says before nearly every sentence he speaks, is a “First Amendment Lawyer”. Listening to White, you would think that all of his clients are little old ladies in tennis shoes being sued for protected speech by big meanie politicians. And maybe that is true but I doubt it. I bet he has some actual paying clients and those clients are media companies. And when he shilling for laws making it harder to sue for libel, he is just shilling for his clients. That is of course his right. But it would be nice if he would tell us that rather than posing as the brave defender of free speech rather than just another abulance chasing lawyer that he actually is.

    3. One market solution is that more and more Americans dont believe a word coming the MSM.

      1. Or politicians.

        Which is all a good thing.

  13. “A little over two weeks ago, the president insisted that Mexico was so willfully negligent at stopping illegal border crossings that the U.S. would impose escalating tariffs on all Mexican goods. Yesterday, however, Trump praised the work Mexico is doing at “stopping people long before they get to our Southern Border” and the progress being made by Guatemala.”

    —-ENB

    Wow, Trump is so crazy!!! Who knows why he does anything?!

    Um . . . did anything happen between two weeks ago and today that might have changed Trump’s mind?

    Is ENB completely unaware that the Trump administration and the Mexican president came to an agreement on how to stop the flow of asylum seekers through Mexico since then–as well as what would happen if Mexico failed to stem the tide of asylum seekers after 45 days?

    I’ve repeatedly posted coverage of this agreement from Bloomberg, Reuters, and the Wall Street Journal over the past two weeks. Maybe it’s not fair to assume that news people know what’s in the news. Is ENB insulting our level of knowledge and intelligence, is she genuinely uninformed herself, or is there some other more likely explanation–even better than TDS?

    1. They don’t see Trump’s win as a win. The faster Trump and the people who care about sovereignty lose, the quicker anarchy can reign free

    2. ” Is ENB insulting our level of knowledge and intelligence, is she genuinely uninformed herself, or is there some other more likely explanation–even better than TDS?”

      She’s lying and she knows it, like the rest of the MSM. They are self conscious propagandists.

      To the Postmodernist Left, all argument is simply rhetorical manipulation to the end of power. They use whatever arguments best manipulate you in the moment.

      It is a severe mistake to assume they ever believe a word of their own rhetoric.

  14. “The U.S. Has Its Eye on Big Tech. Will Criminal Inquiries Result?”
    […]
    “The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have divvied up antitrust oversight of the Silicon Valley giants, and Congressional committees are investigating whether they have stifled competition and hurt consumers. Only the Justice Department can pursue a criminal investigation, but the F.T.C. and Congress can refer a case to prosecutors if they uncover evidence of illegal conduct.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/business/dealbook/google-facebook-apple-us-tech-oversight.html

    Expect a 2+ year investigation by a special investigator into whether they colluded with the Russkies to get people to buy stuff. And when that doesn’t pan out, they’ll be accused of whatever BS congress can dream up.

    1. On the one hand, the socialists want us to believe that it’s ridiculous for us to think that they’ll ever use the coercive power of the state to implement their socialist. After all, they’re democratic</i socialists!

      On the other hand, every time there's a hint that there might be a way to throw business executive in jail, all the democratic socialists start licking their lips. Throwing capitalist in jail. It’s their fantasy. It’s what makes them tick. It’s what they want.

      1. In “Skin in the Game”, Taleb points out the amount of envy among those who produce nothing (government functionaries included) for those who actually produce ‘stuff’ and make humanity more prosperous as a result.
        Bernie, as an example, probably finds the process of being truly productive a total mystery; imagining that those who do so just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

        1. I’ve seen it trying to get plans approved so often–especially if you’re dealing with a city engineer and you’re a developer who didn’t go to college. Why should you make so much money? I went to school! You don’t deserve it!

          On the left, it’s much more of a general thing.

          Throwing suits in jail is the left’s clitoris.

          1. P.S. There are a ton of hard working construction people who work their way up into becoming developers, too. One of the smartest guys I ever knew worked his way up through a grading company, started his own company, and bought land on the cheap out of RTC for redevelopment. He’d find land with too much dirt on it next to land with not enough–and offer to move the dirt from parcel to the other in exchange for some of the land in both parcels. He ended up practically owning the town he lived in. There were a couple of engineers he treated like they added some value. He treated the others like they weren’t worthy to fetch his lunch for him–and they weren’t. They wouldn’t have lasted as his gopher for a week, but they treated him like he was a stupid redneck. I’ve worked with the biggest investment banks on Wall Street. He was among the most impressive people I ever knew.

            1. You can be smart with no balls but be jealous of the smart people WITH balls who get stuff done.

              Steve Jobs was a smart guy with balls. Wozniak was smart with no balls. There is a reason why more stories have been done about Steve Jobs (who definitely was considered a jerk by many people who knew him)

              1. On a side note: Apple clearly has a bunch of smart people still working there, while Jobs is dead.

                Apple is losing market share daily after being at the top of the market when Jobs ran things.

  15. Headline of the Day: “Saudis Continue Push to Reduce OPEC Production”

    Well, that’s the important part of what’s going on. The lead is buried in stories about squabbles over the date of the next meeting.

    “Saudi Arabia has said it is confident that the deal between OPEC and allied producers, also known as “OPEC+”, to cut a combined 1.2 million barrels of oil production during the first half of 2019, will be extended, according to a report from S&P Global Platts.”

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/debate-over-opec-meeting-date-distracts-from-decision-on-output-cuts-2019-06-17

    Why is that an important story?

    It used to be that just about anything that threatened world oil production could send the whole market into a tailspin. Rebels in Nigeria take a piece of territory with an important pipeline? Tailspin!

    Notice what’s happened since May.

    Oil prices are actually down since the first attacks on tankers were launched in the Persian Gulf. If the Saudis want to cut production because prices are too low–even while the Iranians are rattling their sabers–then things have changed. I don’t know if it’s that the Iranians haven’t caught on yet or if they’re victims of the old adage about how when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But, . . .

    The Iranians are threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, but the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group may be there awaiting orders to impose an embargo. I’m trying to think of a good analogy. This might be like Osama bin Laden threatening to kill himself if we don’t withdraw from Afghanistan. Really Osama?! Do you promise? Wait a second, let me go get some popcorn before I say “no”.

    Point being, Iranian oil isn’t that important to the world oil markets anymore. Fracking has a lot to do with that over the long term. In the medium term, China’s economy isn’t growing as rapidly, and that’s putting downward pressure on oil prices right now. No doubt, the Saudis have an incentive to deprive Iran of revenue since they’re engaged in a proxy war everywhere from Syria to Yemen, but given that prices are falling despite events in the Strait of Hormuz over the last month, I suspect the Saudis would be pushing for production cuts anyway.

    If the Iranians imagine they’re likely to get the Europeans to successful press Trump to drop sanctions from a weak position like this, they’re terribly mistaken. It is astounding how much pain the Iranians are willing to subject their economy to–just for the right to enrich their own uranium for civilian use. In fact, anybody who still believes that the Iranians only want to enrich their own uranium for civilian use after all the pain they’re still willing to subject themselves to for refusing to come back into harmony with the NPT is an idiot.

  16. Immigration is a “manufactured crisis”?

    While reasonable folks may differ as to the desirability of mass immigration, the fact that we are seeing immigration at levels that have only been seen briefly over a hundred years ago should be reason enough to provide a rational basis for concerns. Add to that the fact that the percentage of US residents who are foreign born is also at a level unseen in a century and you definitely have a situation that demands some sort of attention.

    The “manufacturing” of crises we have seen in this arena are caravans organized by leftist political groups, feigned outrage over “separating families” that was actually court mandated, sanctuary cities that bristled over suggestions that illegals would be directed their way and the use of military troops at the border when tens of thousands of people are camped across the border stating their intention to illegally cross en mass.

    The last one is of course a direct result of the first one, so we have a chicken/egg problem on the issue of who is doing the manufacturing.

    1. Yeah, after “manufactured crisis”, this is the second funniest quote of the day:

      “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.

      —-Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason, May 9, 2019

      https://reason.com/2019/05/09/migrant-arrests-off-the-charts-in-april-reason-roundup/

      P.S. The numbers for May were much higher than the numbers for April–they’re coming in at well over a million a year now with an even larger proportion of unaccompanied minors.

    2. Illegal immigration into the USA is clearly a crisis for America because the MSM is ramping up their propaganda of their Narrative.

      Anytime the media does this, you know its bad for America.

    3. Hell, I’m hardly an immigration hawk as you all well know and I can see that the situation at the border is something that can reasonably be called a crisis. I’m all for immigrants coming to work. But coming to seek asylum (whatever that may entail), I’m not so sure about. If they are really desperate to escape some horrible situation, then I think having Mexico take many or most of the refugees/assylum seekers seems like probably the best course.

    4. The underlying migration flux is not “manufactured,” save perhaps by the corrupt and/or ineffective governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

      We refer to the “crisis” at the border as “manufactured” because conditions on the ground are largely the product of Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy. He’s pushed to detain more people, for longer, separating them from their families, and pushing them back over the border to stay in Mexican holding pens, while slowing asylum processing and making a mockery of due process. He’s doing all of this without the resources necessary to do so, resulting in overcrowding and health and sanitation issues, and then blaming Democrats when Congress doesn’t come running with a blank check.

      That’s what’s manufactured here. Trump’s immigration policy is entirely based on making life hell for immigrants. It is expressly manufactured, and it appeals to his base only because it is something he has brought it about.

  17. >>>Some are taking this latest round of Trump tweets as a threat of massive new coordinated raids on immigrant homes or workplaces.

    thank you, Katie Couric.

    1. I don’t know that this is the way things should be, but I think this is the way things are: The appeal of the campaign for Dreamers has been largely crushed under the weight of the flood of asylum seekers.

      Under the Dreamer narrative of people being brought here by their parents and having no control over the matter, where do we fit kids who came here by the hundreds of thousands without their parents?

      I’m not sure the U.S. has the authority or the means to accommodate runaways. If an American kid runs away from home and goes to Guatemala, does Guatemala even have the right to keep him there?

      Did your parents abuse you? Are you willing to testify against them? Is there an international agency that can prosecute abusive parents? Is there an international agency that can reunite runaways with their parents?

      1. >>>I’m not sure the U.S. has the authority or the means to accommodate runaways.

        seems nicer to take in the kids.

        >>>The appeal of the campaign for Dreamers has been largely crushed under the weight of the flood of asylum seekers.

        totally see this, yes.

        1. Remember Elian Gonzalez?

          It used to be really important to reunite kids with their parents. I guess that’s not as important anymore, but I’m not sure why.

          1. >>>Remember Elian Gonzalez

            had not. didn’t he become a little jerk or something? Janet Reno may she r.i.p. was not woke.

            1. González joined the Young Communist Union of Cuba in June 2008 shortly after graduating from junior high school. At age 15, he began military school. In a November 2013 speech, González described his time in the United States as “very sad times for me, which marked me for my whole life”, asserting that the Cuban Adjustment Act led to the denial of his rights, including “the right to be together with my father, the right to keep my nationality and to remain in my cultural context”.
              -Wikipedia “Elian Gonzalez”

              One less Communist trying to undermine the United States from inside America.

              1. I suspect he might not have turned out to be a communist if he had stayed with his family in the US. Not a lot of commies among Cuban Americans.

                1. Maybe. Maybe not.

                  Evidently there are some 600,000 Young Communist League members in Cuba. As of 2017, Cuba has a population of 11.48 million people.

              2. I suspect the Elian Gonzalez says what he’s told to say.

                1. True but he likely didn’t have to join the Young Communist Union.

                  Maybe its required for people with international fame.

                  I just don’t really buy it when Commies say that they didn’t want to be a Communist.

                  If I was forced to live in a Communist shithole, I would be fighting the Communist state as much as I could.

  18. >>>If you saw this commercial as a child …

    thinking underestimate average age of reader.

    1. Robby saw it as an adolescent and it made his hair stand on end. So he vowed that he would never have a bad hair day ever again.

  19. OpenSecrets.org: 2020 Presidential Race

    Holy Crap! The MSM and reason has been going on and on about Democrats and their campaign donations so far.

    Trump has over $118.5 million already and he hasn’t started campaigning yet. That is more than all the Democrats put together.

    I’m sure Democrats will have more money than Trump just like in 2016 and lose again.

  20. ‘ President Donald Trump is threatening a new round of action targeting undocumented immigrants, starting next week. “Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States,” ‘

    No, Trump is threatening to deport *illegal aliens*, as stated in the Trump quote you supply.

  21. I’m sick of hearing democrats defend the rights of intruders/invaders/obese starving refugees/human traffickers/poor immigrant children! They have absolutely no regard for the homeless, the drug addicted lost souls or the the rights of American Citizens babies! They demonize anyone who criticises their righteous demands entitling them to commit infanticide! It is portrayed as a national tragedy if a child that was dragged across the desert dies in the custody of our border patrol. Yet, they refuse to change the laws enabling this.
    They have passed laws in 9 states for doctor assisted euthanasia. They have passed, in the house, the Equality Act that would erase women’s rights! They know the drugs are coming through the Southern Border and they don’t care! MS-13 gangs have spread throughout the country, selling drugs and commiting violent crimes. DACA has enabled many of them to be here.
    The MSM only reports the most pathetic cases. Now, we have 3rd world diseases spreading…
    Do not blame this President for the corruption that is being exposed. These lifer politicians are making big money allowing this to continue. They are Corrupt and need voted out or thrown out.
    Did you know it is cheaper for the insurance companies to pay for doctor assisted euthanasia than it is to pay for cancer drugs?
    I could go on all day about the democrats lies and crimes.
    You don’t have to like this President, but you cannot deny that he works relentlessly to better the lives of American Citizens and he has done more in his 3 years than the swamp has done in 30 years!
    I hope he rounds them up and sends them back. They need to respect our laws! And I don’t want to hear about what Jesus would do, Jesus did not tell you to comfort the thief. Jesus said to help the immigrant, not keep them. The Bible also states that the first generation cannot become citizens. I would take that to mean, assimilation is vital.

  22. […] authorities clarified the president’s Tuesday tweets warning of a new national crackdown. “The acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement […]

  23. […] authorities clarified the president’s Tuesday tweets warning of a new national crackdown. “The acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement […]

  24. […] authorities clarified the president’s Tuesday tweets warning of a new national crackdown. “The acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement […]

  25. […] of their work and lack of attention to practical details. After Trump tweeted last week about massive ICE raids to come in 10 major cities, the New Yorker‘s Jonathan Blitzer spoke to one […]

  26. […] of their work and lack of attention to practical details. After Trump tweeted last week about massive ICE raids to come in 10 major cities, the New Yorker‘s Jonathan Blitzer spoke to one […]

  27. […] of their work and lack of attention to practical details. After Trump tweeted last week about massive ICE raids to come in 10 major cities, the New Yorker‘s Jonathan Blitzer spoke to one […]

  28. […] Donald Trump previously said he would direct ICE to carry out the raids in June, but postponed them after some in his circle […]

  29. […] Donald Trump previously said he would direct ICE to carry out the raids in June, but postponed them after some in his circle […]

  30. […] Donald Trump previously said he would direct ICE to carry out the raids in June, but postponed them after some in his circle […]

  31. […] Donald Trump previously said he would direct ICE to carry out the raids in June, but postponed them after some in his circle […]

  32. […] Donald Trump previously said he would direct ICE to carry out the raids in June, but postponed them after some in his circle […]

  33. […] Donald Trump previously said he would direct ICE to carry out the raids in June, but postponed them after some in his circle […]

Please to post comments