Immigration

Progressives Lost Big Time on the Border Emergency Aid Bill

They failed to include even basic safeguards to protect migrant kids.

|

The House voted 305–102 last week to pass a $4.6 billion border funding bill. In theory, the money will improve conditions in the government's detention camps for migrant kids. But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) argued that the Trump administration doesn't need more money; it needs to release the kids it's holding. She was right, but she failed to stop the legislation.

The progressive and Hispanic caucuses weren't able to strip $81 million out of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) budget. Instead, the bill will direct $788 million to new Border Patrol facilities; $112 million to food, medical care, and other necessities for people in Border Patrol custody; and $866 million to shelters under the jurisdiction of Department of Health and Human Services. This was basically the same bill that previously cleared the Senate, 84–8.

The outcome puts on full display the growing fracture between the progressive and moderate Democratic caucuses. It also represents a considerable loss of face for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, given that she had initially declared the Senate bill a nonstarter. She was forced to back down after Blue Dog Democrats—who did not want to be seen as weak on border security—threatened a revolt against their more progressive colleagues' demands to cut enforcement spending. "In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly pass the Senate bill," Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic lawmakers. "As we pass the Senate bill, we will do so with a battle cry as to how we go forward to protect children in a way that truly honors their dignity and worth."

The bill's opponents did manage to kill President Donald Trump's request for money to build his wall. Since the federal courts last week stopped Trump from declaring a national emergency to divert military funds for the wall, that's a significant setback for him.

But that was the only substantial victory for the bill's opponents.

The progressives fought to prevent the Department of Human Health and Services (HHS) from keeping kids in its detention centers for more than 90 days. The 1997 Flores settlement requires Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—generally the first point of contact for asylum seekers—to release unaccompanied kids from its detention facilities within 20 days to either their parents or other relatives. If these guardians are not immediately available, then the kids are supposed to be handed to HHS. HHS facilities are better than CBP detention camps, which are now so crowded that one doctor declared after the recent visit that they've come to resemble "torture facilities." But HHS, unlike CBP, can detain the kids indefinitely, because Flores does not apply to it.

Progressives wanted to impose a limit on stays in HHS facilities and one version of the bill did just that. But this provision was stripped out of the final legislation. In its stead, Vice President Mike Pence gave Speaker Pelosi a verbal "assurance" over the phone that the administration would voluntarily adhere to that limit. Good luck getting them to stick to that.

The number of migrant kids in CBP and HHS custody is increasing. That's partially due to Trump's zero tolerance policy, which forces these agencies to give ICE information about any relatives who come forward to claim the kids. If these relatives happen to be out of status, ICE can initiate deportation proceedings against them, deterring them from coming forward in the first place. The progressive and Hispanic caucuses wanted to include provisions to prevent such information sharing. Their measures didn't make it in. (Some watered-down substitute language may temper such cooperation somewhat, but immigration advocates aren't sure yet.)

In short, the administration created the migrant kids' sorry conditions, then used their plight to win billions of dollars for agencies with a record of abuse and neglect. It remains to be seen whether this will make a whit of difference in the conditions the kids have been living in.

NEXT: John Hickenlooper's Bragging About the Pot Legalization Measure He Opposed Shows That Reality Can Change People's Minds

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. Migrant children should be released – on the other side of the Rio Grande and told to seek asylum in Mexico.

    1. Thanks; I was just about to post that same sentiment. Of course she means just turn them loose in the US.

      1. And no responsibility on the part of the parents and families dragging their kids into this shit, eh shikha? you stupid piece of shit.

        If i own a hotel, and way more people show up to stay there than i have rooms for…and they start leaving garbage and pissing n shitting everywhere…its my fault for not having a bigger hotel right?

        Because that’s basically what you fucking idiots are complaining about with these detention centers. The fuckin people shouldn’t be here in the first place.

    2. Exactly wrong. Since more immigration into the US is always a good thing, we should want as many migrant children as possible crossing into the US.

      1. Since you appear to take the position that more uncontrolled immigration is a positive good I have a Question. With the decrease in world poverty more people will be able to make the trip. How many per year do you consider to be a good number? 2 million? 6 million?
        There are about 50 million college-educated people in India alone. Suppose one-fifth decided to make the trip. Suppose those without the education can scrape up the cash to come as well.

        1. That’s crusty’s parody sockpuppet bro, not a real poster.

          1. I feel so embarrassed and so…dirty.

      2. I think everyone has been clear in telling you this childish parody sockpuppet of your is boring crusty.

        It’s time to move on.

      3. We need a more expedient and rigorous policy of integrating them into our school systems, placing them in jobs commensurate to their public education, and then taxing/subsidizing their occupation to support natives and the federal government.

        And if that sounds like wanton and institutionalized slavery to you, you’re a xenophobic racist.

      4. Progressives may have to start holding American children hostage too, instead of just migrant children.

        Only then will they get their no borders, no walls, and no USA at alls

      5. Yet another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Cruel, Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Polices And Practices convened at reason.com.

        Are the Libertarians For Tariffs and Libertarians For Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics meetings still scheduled for later today?

        Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, that is.

        1. “Presses X”.

        2. The Reverend has nothing in his soul but hatred of Americans.

        3. In today’s episode, Rev. shows what a bigoted racist asshole he is by claiming that keeping children with their parents in Mexico is worse than being separated in detention centers.

        4. What if a girl who wants an abortion is pregnant with a baby girl? Is the “I was too fucking dumb to use protection, so now I’m not only going to micromanage the baby in my bellies lady parts, I’m going to murder them” meeting still on?

      6. how is it always a good thing, dullard?

    3. What should be done, is legislation to get rid of the rules that allow illegals to be released in the US. The Democrats put in a bunch of loopholes, that allow illegal alien criminals to remain in the US along with all the rest, including those carrying communicable diseases.

      But the Democrats walked away from negotiating with Trump. They don’t want to govern with him, and prefer to oppose him on everything. Which is how I expect they’ll treat conservatives, as that’s how Obama’s IRS treated Tea Party groups.

      1. What should be done, is legislation to get rid of the rules that allow illegals to be released in the US.

        Specifically what?

        Make it a felony to be present without the right papers?

        1. Making the asylum laws consistent for all asylum seekers would be a good start. That would go a long way in stopping the flow from Central America.

          Also abolish TPS. Abolish chain migration. Model our immigration laws on those of Canada.

          Of course, you know all of this, you just ask endless dumb questions cause that is your schtick.

          1. None of those things actually addresses the original question, which is, what is specifically to be done “to get rid of the rules that allow illegals to be released in the US.”?

          2. But let’s just take one from your list:

            abolish TPS

            Why?

    4. Well, the bill also didn’t protect the kids from being kidnapped from border towns, which is apparently a problem that is growing very quickly.

      But Dalmia et al don’t care about that.

  2. How about they stay where they are and are taken care of by their parents and not the US taxpayer? I guess that is too much for “Libertarians” to stomach.

  3. There’s only so much our progressive allies for open borders can accomplish through the normal political process. As long as Drumpf’s illegitimate Russian puppet government is in power, this draconian war on immigrants will continue — complete with literal concentration camps.

    That’s why everyone in the progressive / libertarian alliance must sign the MoveOn petition to impeach.

    #Impeach
    #AbolishConcentrationCamps

    1. God this OBL sock of yours is fucking boring crusty.

      1. Crusty? Now that you mention it, haven’t heard from him for a while. Someone suggested that he’d moved out of a chinchilla cage in the back of a pet shop and was trying to adjust to his new life, but that was months ago.

      2. This might be hard for you to understand, Tulpa AKA “I was the Alien” AKA “Tony lies and cheats” AKA “chemjeff’s rapist imports” AKA “Obama ate a dog.”

        But not everybody here switches usernames just for the sake of it. In fact I believe you’re the only regular who engages in such childish behavior.

          1. Ha! That’s rich.

        1. The Left is always enraged when they can’t silence the Right.

          Keep those Leftist tears flowing.

      3. Hey, some of us only come here for OBL’s takes, which are much more moderate, measured, and practical than the Shikha/Binion party line

        1. Winner.

  4. In short, the administration created the migrant kids’ sorry conditions, then used their plight to win billions of dollars for agencies with a record of abuse and neglect.

    Bullshit.

    That’s like saying a 15 year-old runaway who ends up in a den of inequity was caused by the den of inequity. The parents knew what to expect. If you’re going to blame anyone, blame the parents. If you’re going to say the parents had no more choice in leaving an abusive home that the 15-year old runaway, that’s a valid argument too.

    The real problem is isolationist regime which think imports of both goods and people are evil, that only exports and deportations are good, and has bigoted immigration policies to back it up.

    1. “”In short, the administration created the migrant kids’ sorry conditions””

      The Obama admin?

      1. Hindisght makes me wonder if that was intentional or a spell-checker 🙂

      1. Damn, is anyone here not a sock for a parody?

        1. Besides OBL/crusty and SQRLAY/Old Mex/Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf?

          No idea, I just point out the incredibly obvious ones.

        2. Only Michael Hihn, the One and Only True Captial-L Libertarian.

          All other commentators are just pretenders and/or cut-rate comedy acts.

          1. like if Chrissie Hynde and Will Ferrell had a baby?

          2. All other commentators are just pretenders and/or cut-rate comedy acts.

            Why, thank you. What a nice thing to say.

      2. To be fair, blaming the parents (or, as the case may be, the human traffickers using them as leverage) isn’t out of bounds.

        I suspect the reason most of these kids are having problems and in some cases dying isn’t the housing conditions, it’s the result of people dragging them across hundreds of miles of desert and jungle and being subject to exposure, unsanitary conditions, and lack of food, medicine, or clean water. By the time they get here, their constitutions are probably just about shot and it doesn’t take much to push them over the edge.

        1. I don’t think anyone argues that the migrants are, in the main, in perfect health upon arriving.

          But it ought to be the job of the state to not make their condition materially worse. They absolutely have a duty of care here.

          1. But it ought to be the job of the state to not make their condition materially worse. They absolutely have a duty of care here.

            Not really.

            1. So can I then put you down as being “pro-concentration-camps”?

              1. As long as I can put you down as “pro-child molestors”.

                1. But I’m not actually defending the molestation of children.
                  You are, however, advocating for shoving migrants into ghettos.

                  1. But I’m not actually defending the molestation of children.

                    I said you’re defending child molesters. For someone who likes to cry about how your words get twisted, you sure do like to indulge in the same practice. Must be that left-wing projection.

                    1. I “defend child molesters” in the exact same way that you “defend child molesters” – that they are human beings who, despite their horrible crimes, nonetheless have basic human rights.

                      Would you execute a child molester without a conviction, a trial, or even an arraignment? No? Okay then, you are “defending child molesters” too then.

                    2. You need to work a lot harder on your gaslighting.

                    3. And what do you think the state’s duty of care ought to be for migrants in their custody? Is there any minimal level of care that the employees of the state should be obligated to maintain?

                    4. Like I said, work harder on your gaslighting.

                    5. You need to work a lot harder on your gaslighting.

                      See there you go – you cannot handle an actual mature discussion, so you instead throw out some cheap debate trick.

                      Does every human being have some basic core set of human rights?

                      Does this include child molesters?

                      Is it possible to support the basic human rights of all people without endorsing the horrible crimes that some of them commit?

                      Are you actually going to discuss an issue in a mature fashion or are you just going to call people names?

                    6. The only people trying to gaslight about me, around here, are people like you, who continually infer that I somehow support child molestation. That is a disgusting, revolting, and completely false accusation.

                      And as we saw from this discussion, the only reason you brought it up is to deflect from your apparent position that the state has a very low duty of care, if any, towards migrants in their custody.

                      If a migrant gets sick while in the custody of the state, is there anything that you think the employees of the state should be obligated to do to take care of the migrant?

                    7. See there you go – you cannot handle an actual mature discussion, so you instead throw out some cheap debate trick.

                      Stop defending child molesters and I’ll stop treating your arguments like the exceptional offal that they are.

                  2. Pedo Jeffy doesn’t defend molestation of children. He just wants to import all the foreign child molesters, because open borders.

                    Which is effectively suporting violent child rape.

                2. or rather, camps

    2. The Open Borders crowd created these conditions by rewarding not only illegal immigration, but specifically illegal immigration with accompanying minors.

      It’s almost like they have some interest in expanding child trafficking to the US.

      What, oh what could that interest be?

      1. Freedom? Freedom of association, freedom to do business, to rent, hire, trade with?

        You know, freedom.

        1. How about the ability to not have to support them? If current trends continue, we’ll be looking at over 1.2 million or so illegal immigrants a year, who will have to be housed, fed, given medical care, educated, and found jobs. Somehow I doubt that the Progressives who want them all to be released are about to dig into their pockets to pay for this.

      2. “Open borders” has been an intrinsic part of libertarianism since that movement has existed.

        From the book Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland, published in 1981 and, at one point, given out to all new members of the Libertarian Party (I got mine in 1997):

         • Should it be legal for people to travel or move into and out of the U.S. without limitation?
        Liberal: We should give more help to people trying to escape poverty and political oppression so they can to come to America, but not without limitation because they take jobs from Americans.
        Conservative: No. We have too many immigrants already. Everyone will want to come to America. They increase welfare costs, take our jobs, increase crime and disease, and refuse to learn English.
        Libertarian: Yes. All individuals have the same rights, regardless of where they were born or where they live now. Anyone willing to take responsibility for himself or herself has the right to travel and seek opportunity, including across international borders. America has always benefitted from immigrants
        who arrive with nothing, work hard, start businesses, become
        educated and improve America’s economy.

        From the Libertarian Party platform of 2000 (still the 20th century)

        We welcome all refugees to our country. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference. We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

        In more recent years, the LP position has become a bit more moderate, but not all that much. So the notion that Reason‘s support for (essentially) open borders is something new, and that it is a departure from the traditional libertarian position caused by support from the Koch brothers, is just totally false.

        Libertarian =/= Conservative

        1. So you’ve always been useful idiots for progressives?
          Good to know

        2. Yes, I’m for open borders for people who take responsibility for themselves. Given our current political and economic environment, that means excluding 90% of the people who come to the US.

          We can have open borders one we have gotten rid of the welfare state and reduced income taxes and entitlements to zero.

  5. The 1997 Flores settlement requires Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—generally the first point of contact for asylum seekers—to release unaccompanied kids from its detention facilities within 20 days to either their parents or other relatives.

    I am incapable of seeing how this could go very wrong.

  6. The facilities can only hold so many people. Once overloaded the government has to deal with it in some way. Jimmy Carter dealt with it by sending Cubans to places like Ft. Chaffee in Arkansas. One of the places where George Takei was held during WWII.

    For people that think we should just let them in, then what? Where will they sleep, eat, ect? Basically you would be making them homeless inside the US. How does that make it better?

    1. Where will they sleep, eat, ect?

      That’s their problem.

      1. That’s their problem.

        Ummm…no? That’s going to be the problem of the communities they get dumped in.

      2. So holding them and giving them a place to live and something to eat is horrible but kicking children out into the streets telling them “that is their problem” is okay?

        What is it about immigration that makes Libertarians retarded?

        1. What is it about immigration that makes Libertarians retarded?

          Mindless devotion to abstract principles, even when the immediate effect of acting according to those principles would be disastrous. Like many cultists, doctrinaire libertarians are in a suicide pact with their belief system.

          1. Well thank heavens you’re here to tell us all that we are asking for too much liberty, gosh darn it!

            1. You’re not asking for liberty, you are promoting the enslavement of American tax payers, who have to for the bill for your self aggrandizing follies

        2. John, how else will the unholy appetites of all those child rapists Pedo Jeffy wants to import here by sated?

      3. “”That’s their problem.””

        So on your doorstep is an acceptable answer?

        I’m not saying we have to provide that. But those who advocate just letting them go should provide some answers.

        1. “”But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) argued that the Trump administration doesn’t need more money; it needs to release the kids it’s holding. She was right,””

          Perhaps Billy and Shikha can explain what happens to them after they are released. Unless you have resources and plan, they will end up homeless. Also, they are kids, released to who?

          Just saying release them is nothing but virtue signaling . What’s your plan?

          Here is an idea. Create a sponsorship program. If you want to sponsor one of more of the kids, you can have them come live with you.

          1. The Obama Admin released them to foster care and then lost them.

            Some of the kids were illegally or unaccountably shuffled from one place to another, others the family as a whole moved with no known forwarding address.

            Simply releasing them to so-called “good samaritans” is not going to be enough.

            1. The Obama Admin released them to foster care and then lost them.

              Fake news.

            2. “”Simply releasing them to so-called “good samaritans” is not going to be enough.””

              What do you think is good enough?

      4. Bernie’s extra houses? For a socialist, that man has more houses and money than anyone not put against the wall.

        1. It could be The Bernie Bunch.

          Where’s Sherwood Schwartz?

  7. “The outcome puts on full display the growing fracture between the progressive and moderate Democratic caucuses. It also represents a considerable loss of face for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, given that she had initially declared the Senate bill a nonstarter. She was forced to back down after Blue Dog Democrats—who did not want to be seen as weak on border security—threatened a revolt against their more progressive colleagues’ demands to cut enforcement spending.”

    The part in bold is where they get it wrong.

    The reason the so called, “Blue Dog Democrats” supported the bill wasn’t because they feared, “to be seen as weak on border security”. That interpretation is just coming from Binion’s and Dalmia’s fevered imaginations. The Democrats who supported that bill did so because they didn’t want to be responsible for the suffering of thousands of children because they refused to pass the bill.

    And they would have been responsible for that suffering–by their own philosophy–if they’d refused to pass this bill. Anybody who harped on the suffering of these children and then turned around and opposed funding the relief because the bill in question insufficiently signals their favorite stance on open borders issues should be ashamed of themselves–whether they’re in the progressive faction of Democrats or whether they’re so called libertarian journalists.

    P.S. I strongly suspect that DACA is one of the contributing factors as to why so many of these children are making the journey across Mexico to lodge asylum claims in the first place. The people who still support that unconstitutional disgrace should all be ashamed of themselves.

    P.P.S. The ultimate solution to this mess is cooperation with Mexico. Trump’s agreement with Mexico has done more to alleviate this crisis than any other proposition to come out of either major party, and Dalmia has opposed that perfectly legal and constitutional solution every step of the way.

    1. DACA is absolutely a contributing factor. There was an immediate spike when it was announced. Economic migrants no longer had to sneak across with a pregnant woman, they could just use their already (foreign) born kids.

      And you’re right about the “blue dog” Ds. Not sure if that name applies, or if they just have a modicum of sanity. Holding children hostage isn’t a good look for them.

    2. “Anybody who harped on the suffering of these children and then turned around and opposed funding the relief because the bill in question insufficiently signals their favorite stance on open borders issues should be ashamed of themselves”

      If the Left were capable of shame, they wouldn’t be the Left.

      Their emotional range is a lust for power and rage when that lust is thwarted.

      That is

  8. Let’s put Shiksa in a cage. With AOC. Minor celebrity death match.

    1. AOC would destroy her with a mule kick.

      1. For some odd reason, that made me laugh out loud.

        AOC does have a mule-like appearance with those over sized teeth. And those crazy eyes will put a stupefying seizure on her enemies.

  9. It’s a Shikha Dalmia article folks, why are you even bothering to debate it?

    1. What, you think we actually read it?

  10. Says I when I saw the byline: “Oooh, a *combined* Shikha + Binion article? That’s gotta be weapons-grade derp.”

    New low for Reason, and these days that’s quite an achievement. Whatta rag.

  11. sounds like (D) needs to weed out the Clintonistas.

  12. The 1997 Flores settlement requires Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—generally the first point of contact for asylum seekers—to release unaccompanied kids from its detention facilities within 20 days to either their parents or other relatives. If these guardians are not immediately available, then the kids are supposed to be handed to HHS. ….. But HHS, unlike CBP, can detain the kids indefinitely, because Flores does not apply to it.

    Progressives wanted to impose a limit on stays in HHS facilities and one version of the bill did just that. But this provision was stripped out of the final legislation.

    So CBP catches some kids, can’t find their parents or other relatives, so turns them over to HHS and then……HHS is supposed to turn them loose? TO WHO? Do they sell them at auction, part ’em out, send them to the scrap yard, put them in the pound and offer them for adoption, what? What the fucking fuck are you suggesting the government do with kids they can’t find parents or relatives of?

    1. ” TO WHO? ”

      To the child traffickers.

      Encouraging child trafficking to the US is a twofer for the Left. More parentless kiddies to diddle, then more votes when they become adults.

      1. You want to reduce child trafficking?

        Okay, let’s make migration easier, so that migrants don’t have to resort to hiring shady coyotes or abusing loopholes in asylum laws in order to come here. Sound good to you?

        1. Or, we use RapidDNA to determine if they’re actually related to the child their claiming, and take them out and shoot them in the back of the head if they fail.

          1. Due process, what is it again?

            1. Not citizens, no trial.

              1. So in your view, then, what rights do non-citizens possess?

                1. The right to not be trafficked by kidnappers to gain entry to the US.

                  1. Is that all?

                    Do you regard foreigners as having free speech rights in the US?

                    1. Do you regard foreigners as having the right to not be kidnapped and used as leverage to enter the US?

                    2. Kidnapping anyone for any reason is a violation of that person’s rights. Because it’s an initiation of force against that person. Sure, we can agree on that.

                      Of course, to know if any violation of anyone’s rights actually occurred, the customary way to figure it out is via an adversarial judicial process involving trials and juries. Not instant-DNA kits as the sole pieces of evidence, and not summary execution out back.

                      So if you want to know if a person has been kidnapped, and is not simply, say, traveling willingly with an associate, wouldn’t you want to know with some level of certainty beyond just a DNA test whether someone’s rights were really violated?

                    3. So if you want to know if a person has been kidnapped, and is not simply, say, traveling willingly with an associate, wouldn’t you want to know with some level of certainty beyond just a DNA test whether someone’s rights were really violated

                      A child’s being taken across hundreds of miles of desert and jungle, to the point that they’re near death, by complete strangers, of their own free will?

                    4. Pedo Jeffy, yesterday was the 1st. Where’s my rent?

                2. The right to a quick removal from the US.

  13. Is there anything scarier than people who are sure they’re right?

    There were plenty of Democrats who voted against funding for suffering children–not for libertarian reasons. They voted against funding for suffering children because they’re so sure they’re right, they thought there was no way the people who support them would blame them if children kept suffering because of a lack of funding.

    Muslim fanatics believe in predestination–it eliminates uncertainty. God hasn’t rejected you because you eat pig. In their minds, you eat pig–because God rejected you. Whatever else is going on in the mind of a suicide terrorist, to scream, “God is great!” just before they murder random strangers also requires a total lack of uncertainty. They go to final judgement with the absolute certainty that their omnipotent God wanted them to murder those people; otherwise, he wouldn’t have let them kill those people in his name. Their intentions were pure. Allah Akbar! How can they be wrong?

    That’s like the kind of certainty that’s required to be a progressive and vote to deny funding for suffering children–and think no one will blame you for it because your motives are pure. I’d understand if we were talking about libertarianish politicians who were making some kind of principled argument about the proper role of government, but we’re talking about progressives. Their whole spiel is about using the coercive power of government to force powerful people to sacrifice their income for the benefit of downtrodden victims like asylum seeking children.

    They wanted to use those suffering children as pawns. They’re sociopaths. And if they think that shitting on suffering children like that will have no negative consequences for them–because they’re pro-immigration–which just makes them even bigger monsters. If the socialists ever take over the country and start marching us kulaks up against the wall, these will be the politicians giving the orders. They have no morals, and, worst of all, they’re sure they’re right. God save atheists and the rest of us from those who are sure that they’re right.

    1. >>>sociopaths

      this.

  14. The Democrats have zero incentive to address the immigration situation so long as they feel they can pin any negatives on Trump. If they manage to win in 2020, they’ll still have little inclination to address it in any way other than minimizing enforcement efforts. Unpleasantness like “child confinement” will be swiftly memory-holed by the press if the Dems don’t benefit from publicizing it.

  15. ” . . . If these relatives happen to be out of status, . . . ”

    What exactly is ‘out of status’? The accurate phrase is ‘criminal border crosser’.
    Simple, true and accurate.

    (Full disclosure: I know this is Shikha, but I can’t stop myself)

    1. “illegal alien”

  16. Is “more legislative safeguards needed” to protect children the libertarian position on this issue?

    That would be the opposite of libertarian positions on every other issue.

  17. ” The 1997 Flores settlement requires Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—generally the first point of contact for asylum seekers—to release unaccompanied kids from its detention facilities within 20 days to either their parents or other relatives.”

    This is how the #DeepState authortariansim rolls.

    “Settlements” between Democratic administrations, Democratic activist groups, and Democratic judicial authoritarians magically becomes binding law on the country from here to eternity.

    Trump should tell them to pound sand.

  18. ” But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) argued that the Trump administration doesn’t need more money; it needs to release the kids it’s holding. ”

    Invasion America, now and evermore!

    1. I would say, sure in her district. But I live there so no.

      1. As non-combatants immigrants, I’m not entirely clear on why they can’t be forcibly housed in private homes. Especially the “private” homes of government employees.

        If this shit runs over to a lame duck administration, I half hope Trump would do it just to watch heads spin trying to enforce the 3, 4, and 5A rights of Congress critters against illegal and foreign minors.

        1. They should house them in the Capitol building.

  19. In short, the administration created the migrant kids’ sorry conditions,

    You created their sorry conditions by convincing them to come here.
    If their conditions are truly bad you should support sending them home as a remedy. That you choose not to shows that either the conditions are overstated by those trying to drive their political agenda or you value these children as political pawns more than you value their health.

  20. If their conditions are truly bad you should support sending them home as a remedy.

    Funny how the proposed solution of “improve the horrible conditions of the migrants at the camps” doesn’t seem to enter your lexicon.

    1. Oh good Jeff the libertarian is here to tell us how he wants to spend our money.

      1. For maintaining decent conditions for people in the custody of the state? Well yeah. I’m not an anarchist you know.

        I also don’t think prisons should turn into Mad Max Thunderdomes. Funny that.

        All people have certain rights, and those whose obligation it is to take care of others, have a duty of care to those in their custody.

        I suppose you think the state should not spend any money on those who are in its care? Or perhaps, the state should not have anyone in its care at all, not even prisoners duly convicted? Wow that would make you a fairly radical anarchist. I had no idea. I thought you were just a run-of-the-mill rightwinger who came here to fling poo at libertarians. Please, tell mus more about your radical anarchistic ideas about how you would provide for punishment of those who violate the NAP without state-run courts or prisons.

        1. I came back to polish that turd I flung into something useful.

          Since you asked, I’d leave enough federal prison space for violent offenders and release the rest, cut welfare programs 95%, remove the minimum wage, cut the military budget in half, and legalize drugs.

          And that would practically eliminate any need to spend money on the border. Didn’t a bill just pass for loads of cash to improve these conditions? I missed your post praising Trump for getting that done.

          1. Since you asked, I’d leave enough federal prison space for violent offenders and release the rest, cut welfare programs 95%, remove the minimum wage, cut the military budget in half, and legalize drugs.

            Well then, we do agree on a few things after all.

            What is your motivation behind these positions? Why do you want to reform federal incarceration practices, cut welfare, remove the minimum wage, cut the military budget, and legalize drugs?

            And why do you think doing these things would obviate the need to spend money on the border? I didn’t see anything on your list about decriminalizing peaceful migration.

            Didn’t a bill just pass for loads of cash to improve these conditions? I missed your post praising Trump for getting that done.

            You expect me to praise Trump for only partially ameliorating a problem that he had a big role in creating? You’re not serious, are you?

            1. I didn’t see anything on your list about decriminalizing peaceful migration.

              This from the same fuckhead that claimed not letting in child molestors was restricting their liberty.

              1. So you believe not letting in child molesters, or anyone else, would NOT be restricting their liberty?

                1. Stop sticking up for child molestors.

                  1. So you’re not going to answer the substantive question, and instead will just engage in banal demagoguery. Got it.

                    “Hey RRWP, stop sticking up for racists and white supremacists”

                    1. People who whine about child molesters having their liberties restricted by not being allowed to enter the US don’t deserve to have their question-begging indulged.

                      “Hey RRWP, stop sticking up for racists and white supremacists”

                      Bitch, my skin’s browner than yours.

                    2. Oh fuck you and your cheap demagoguery.

                      You can’t handle an actual discussion on the original issue so you instead just try to score cheap points. And now you try to weasel out of this discussion by taking some baloney moral posture.

                      No one here is pro-child-molestation.

                      SOME of us here take the issues of liberty and asylum seriously.

                      Some of us don’t, and instead treat asylum applicants like filthy foreigners who don’t deserve anything more than a bullet to the head.

                    3. Fuck you and your disingenuous virtue-signaling.

                      Child molestation would be considered a violent crime. Not letting child molesters in is not restricting liberty nor peaceful migration.

                      No one here is pro-child-molestation.

                      I said stop sticking up for child molesters. Not child molestation in general.

                      SOME of us here take the issues of liberty and asylum seriously.

                      Yes, and people who do take it seriously shouldn’t be whining when child molesters aren’t allowed to enter the country.

                    4. I said stop sticking up for child molesters.

                      Do you believe it would be acceptable behavior for a convicted child molester to be tortured in prison, by the prison guards? As in, actual literal torture? Should this type of behavior be tolerated?

                      If you answer “no”, then you are agreeing with me – that all people, no matter how terrible their crimes, possess some basic core set of human rights.

                      If you answer “yes”, then you are arguing essentially an anti-libertarian position that basic human rights are not inalienable, that certain horrible people lose ALL of their rights if they commit some crime, and that it’s open season on them.

                      So which is it?

                    5. He did it again! He can’t help himself.

                    6. I said, stop sticking up for child molesters.

                    7. Pedo Jeffy, just stop. No one here is sticking up for racists. You however, have a history of being a booster for foreign child rapists who want to come here.

                      None of us want to import racists. You sick kiddie rape loving used colostomy bag.

                      Also, where’s my fucking rent?

                2. Were they convicted by a jury of their peers?
                  If yes, then no, it’s not restricting their liberty to tell them to get bent.

            2. I’m merely pointing to ways to reduce detaining people so we don’t have to build government funded shanty towns on the border. You’re always going on about these detention centers like they are prisons, I’m just taking it one step further.

              And I don’t get your child molester defense. They’d be in jail.

              1. So you want to let nonviolent criminals out of federal prison in order to free up room to put illegal immigrants in those prisons? Is that your argument?

            3. “”You expect me to praise Trump for only partially ameliorating a problem that he had a big role in creating?””

              Trump didn’t bring them here. The problem is too many in too short of time for the system to handle.

              Do you blame Jimmy Carter for the Mariel boat lift that resulted in Cubans being sent to the same place George Takei was sent by FDR?

        2. Migrants and asylum seekers are not imprisoned. They can leave if they want if they don’t like the conditions. And if Democrats just stopped their opposition, we could deport them.

    2. So you want to force me at gunpoint to pay money in order to provide random people I don’t know and I don’t care about with comfortable living arrangements in the US? That’s what you call “libertarianism”?

  21. Somewhat related:

    Trump, earlier today:
    “I think it is very important to find out if somebody is a citizen as opposed to an illegal,” Trump said. “It is a big difference to me between being a citizen of the United States and being an illegal.”

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/01/trump-census-1393746

    Can we now dispense with the fiction that the real reason(s) behind the proposed citizenship question on the Census was anything other than trying to use the Census to find illegal immigrants, and/or to deter them from even participating in the Census in the first place?

    1. Who claims it was fiction?

      1. Wilbur Ross, for one

    2. Can we now dispense with the fiction that the real reason(s) behind the proposed citizenship question on the Census was anything other than trying to use the Census to find illegal immigrants, and/or to deter them from even participating in the Census in the first place?

      Yes, pretty much everybody agrees that that is the reason.

      You seem to have a problem with that; why?

    3. If you’re not a citizen, you don’t get representation in congress. That should be pretty straight forward.

  22. the Trump administration doesn’t need more money; it needs to release the kids it’s holding.

    Where? Into the wild?

  23. But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) argued that the Trump administration doesn’t need more money; it needs to release the kids it’s holding.

    I agree: send them back to Mexico. Do the same with the adult illegals. Problem solved.

    1. Release them all in Portland, Oregon.

      1. Would rather unleash a few thousand Hell’s Angels in Portland. Drop them off right next to the Antifa protesters. Hilarity will ensue.

        1. And US tax payers have to pay for their medical treatment and subsequent incarceration? I don’t think so.

  24. […] The president also just signed a bill that spends $4.6 billion to address humanitarian and other concerns on the border between the United States and Mexico. While the law frustrated progressives who felt it didn’t adequately address policies related to the detention of children, it more significantly didn’t include any funding for Trump’s signature border wall. […]

  25. […] The president also just signed a bill that spends $4.6 billion to address humanitarian and other concerns on the border between the United States and Mexico. While the law frustrated progressives who felt it didn’t adequately address policies related to the detention of children, it more significantly didn’t include any funding for Trump’s signature border wall. […]

  26. […] “Progressives Lost Big Time on the Border Emergency Aid Bill,” by Billy Binion and Shikha Dalmia […]

  27. […] “Progressives Lost Big Time on the Border Emergency Aid Bill,” by Billy Binion and Shikha Dalmia […]

  28. […] “Progressives Lost Big Time on the Border Emergency Aid Bill,” by Billy Binion and Shikha Dalmia […]

  29. […] “Progressives Lost Big Time on the Border Emergency Aid Bill,” by Billy Binion and Shikha Dalmia […]

Please to post comments