Border Crossings

Filthy, Overcrowded Border Detention Sites Called a 'Ticking Time Bomb'

Short-term holding tanks marked by poor food and unsanitary conditions as immigrants are imprisoned for weeks longer than they should be.

|

No showers for a month. No food but bologna sandwiches. Eighty-eight men crammed in a cell with a maximum capacity of 41. At several immigration detention and processing sites in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, people are being held in dangerous, overcrowded, unsanitary conditions for far longer than the intended 72-hour limit.

New information—and some devastating photos—about America's poor handling of immigrants crossing the southern border comes not from activists or politicians but from the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (OIG). A report publicly released Tuesday details a nightmare scenario for immigrants who are caught attempting to enter the U.S. through Texas. The report is bluntly titled "Management Alert—DHS Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention of Children and Adults in the Rio Grande Valley."

The Rio Grande Valley sector of the Border Patrol more than doubled its number of immigrant apprehensions from October of 2018 to May 2019; there's been a 269 percent increase in the number of families apprehended by Border Patrol during that span. Note that these apprehensions include not just people crossing the border illegally, but also those legally seeking asylum at ports of entry.

The disasters above were facilitated in part by the massive immigration enforcement actions of President Donald Trump, whose administration has essentially clogged the adjudication system. People detained by Border Patrol are only supposed to be held in these facilities for a maximum of 72 hours for processing. Then they're supposed to be transferred to other agencies that handle cases. But as the report notes, all the immigration facilities run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Health and Human Services (HHS) are already overfull, leaving these folks trapped in facilities designed for short-term detention. The report explains:

Border Patrol was holding about 8,000 detainees in custody at the time of our visit, with 3,400 held longer than the 72 hours generally permitted under the [Transport, Escort, Detention and Search] TEDS standards. Of those 3,400 detainees, Border Patrol held 1,500 for more than 10 days.

The report includes a number of unsettling photos of the conditions in the Rio Grande Valley centers:

One unidentified senior manager of a facility described the place as a "ticking time bomb," and it's clear the increasingly desperate conditions are creating security problems for detainees and staff alike. The inspectors had to end one visit to a detention center early because detainees who saw them started banging on windows trying to get their attention and held notes to windows to let them know how long they had been held there. The situation was becoming increasingly bad for all parties, including Border Patrol employees. From the OIG report:

At the time of our visits, Border Patrol management told us there had already been security incidents among adult males at multiple facilities. These included detainees clogging toilets with Mylar blankets and socks in order to be released from their cells during maintenance. At one facility, detainees who had been moved from their cell during cleaning refused to return to their cell. Border Patrol brought in its special operations team to demonstrate it was prepared to use force if necessary. Additionally, detainees have attempted to escape while removed from their cells during maintenance.

The report further notes that children at three of the five facilities they inspected had no access to showers. And while the facilities had baby formula, diapers, juice, and snacks for children, juveniles were not being provided with hot meals as required by the department's own standards.

In its response, the Department of Homeland Security said it is working to increase Border Patrol's capacity, adding two tent cities to the Rio Grande Valley area that can detain an additional 500 people each. The OIG responded to that plan with a reminder that while relieving the overcrowding is a helpful response, there is still the matter that these people are only supposed to be held for 72 hours before being transferred to ICE custody. It is not the role of Border Patrol to hold immigration detainees in custody for more than three days.

This report comes on the heels of a similar report in May about overcrowding during inspections of holding facilities in El Paso. Those facilities have seen a massive 619 percent increase in apprehensions from October 2018 to April 2019 over the previous year's numbers. Again, these are primarily entire families being detained in conditions similar to those found in the Rio Grande Valley area.

Read the Rio Grande OIG report here. Read the El Paso area OIG report here.

Advertisement

NEXT: "Prominent Pornography Researcher Frames Defamation Claims As Sexual Harassment, Prompting a Defamation Suit by Her Target"

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. What is the solution to this problem?

    1. Eliminate the welfare state, cut the minimum wage, and legalize drugs

      1. I’m broadly in favor of all three of those, but none of those will stop migrants from wanting to come here.

        1. But they would eliminate most of the arguments against letting them come here.

          1. Exactly. The point is not to stop them, but to eliminate the negative aspects of them being here.

            1. That cab’t happen unless you make them all educated, intelligent, low crime, and with liberty minded political beliefs… IE it will NEVER happen.

              Low skill immigrants will always fuck up a civilized country, welfare state or not.

        2. There would be considerably less people fleeing other countries, and probably the same people coming to work.

          And we all break like three laws a day and get away with it, illegal migration would turn into one of those laws that no one cares about.

        3. Pedo Jeffy would love to have those kids at his house. He’s just a big tickle monster.

          1. Look dowmthread at how Pedo Jeffy endlessly shitposts, destroying any possibility of a rational discussion.

            1. You really are shameless.
              You are third, behind Tulpa and the literal bots, with your complete lack of anything constructive to add to any conversation.

              If anyone is living in anyone’s head, it is you living in my head, you who trolls me and stalks me from thread to thread.

        4. Immigrants use public assistance at higher levels than US citizens.

    2. Stay home. Don’t try to illegally enter the US. No border crowds. Problem solved.

      1. And if all the heroin users stopped using heroin, we wouldn’t have such a big heroin problem in this country. Problem solved!

        1. “If all the people obeyed my commands, then there would be no problems anywhere!”

          1. Like stopping at the border to apply for an ID?

        2. Yes, bignose. If more people found something better to do with their time than inject themselves with a dangerous narcotic, fewer of them would die. But thousands of them won’t do that.

          So Darwin will solve the drug death problem before libertarians do.

          1. I guess we’ll just have to pound our fists harder and commit more resources to stopping the flow of heroin into the US. I mean, what other choice is there?

            1. No, just let the druggies overdose themselves out of the gene pool and act as an example to smarten up people who don’t want to die in a pool of their own vomit.

        3. If all the progtards committed suicide then the world would be nearly a paradise.

          1. And yet they won’t, which is probably why you live most of your life in a state of violent frustration. That’s truly unfortunate, and I hope you find some happiness in your life.

    3. Liberalize immigration laws so that there is no need to put peaceful migrants into camps.

      If migrants could simply walk to any border checkpoint and get an ID card granting them permission to be here, they wouldn’t have to abuse the asylum process in order to try to get in.

      1. That isn’t how any country works.

        1. Okay, and?

          1. We live in the real world not your anarcho-libertarian Utopia. The logistics of this system seem problematic at the least.

            1. It’s just logistics. You are attempting to use logistics to argue against the principle of the idea.

              1. It’s just logistics. You are attempting to use logistics to argue against the principle of the idea.

                And you’re using sophistry to deny reality.

                1. Pedo Jeffy lives to puke up his pablemic sophistry to deny reality. And he likes it when illegals rape American children.

              2. Are 5 claiming that logistics do not matter? That logistics are not the difference between success and utter failure? Did you really just dismiss logistics? In other words you have no answers just empty platitudes.

                1. That an idea is difficult to implement, does not argue against the correctness of the idea itself.

                  1. Logistics can be the difference between difficult and impossible. Workable and unworkable. The fact that you so blithely dismiss logistics demonstrates you aren’t really serious about creating a working system so much as advancing your views.

                  2. For example, NASA has discovered a planet that is in the Goldilocks zone and appears to have both a deep atmosphere with high concentrations of oxygen, water, and tolerable gravity. We could colonize it (idea) except it is 100s of light year away and no object can travel faster than the speed of light (damn theory of relativity anyhow) this is the logistics, which makes the idea impossible to implement.

                    1. However, Mars on the other hand, despite it’s hostile environment, would be possible to colonize but difficult. Likely to difficult for the foreseeable future.

                  3. Pedo Jeffy, the rent was due Monday. Where the fuck is my money, bitch?

                    1. That is quite amusing. Who is the one around here responding to every single post that I write with an insult? That would be you, Shithead.

          2. And your a fantasist.

      2. An ID card. So that requires some form of background check. What would stop them from getting in? Could you hold them until they pass health and criminal background checks?
        Who is going to man these border checks? What a about those who refuse to go through the process will you support deporting them? And how would you enforce that? Once the receive the ID card can they stay here indefinitely? Will they then be fully eligible citizens? Can they then fully access all public programs?

        1. Shush, we’re not supposed to mention these complexities. This is supposed to be Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Border Enforcement.

        2. See, this is where you try to use minutiae to argue against the larger principle. Death by a thousand cuts and all that.

          If you are opposed to the idea, because you think it’s a bad idea, then just say so.

          If you are supportive of the idea but you think the idea is too difficult to implement, then just say that instead.

          Instead you try to discredit a worthy idea by pretending to care about a million details.

          I’m happy to discuss details, but I’m not going to let minutiae derail a discussion over the broader idea involved here.

          1. No, these are legitimate questions. These are the actual things you will have to deal with. The fact that you have never answered these questions demonstrates that you have no idea how the logistics would work. Also once again you are attempting to dictate to others the perimeters of the debate. I believe this is because, contrary to what you claim, you are not willing to discuss the issue. Details matter, otherwise you will be dealing with the law of unintended consequences. Your refusal to discuss the details and to blow them off as u worthy of discussion shows how weak your argument is.

          2. His complaints are obvious ones.

            What if somebody refuses to use an ID? What then? What if the cornerstone of your policy is shat upon by immigrants?

            Would you support shutting down the border THEN?

            BTW, remember how much heat Trump got for calling countries shitholes? Seems the Left now agrees with him in regards to all of Central America.

            1. Look, the ID thing is a compromise on my part. If it were up to me, there would be no ID’s at all. Just come and go as you please.

              So if you find the ID thing too troublesome, then that’s fine with me.

              But now you are going to scream OMG OPEN BORDERZZZZ!!!!!! INVASION!!!!! SOCIALISZMS!!!!!!!!

              So you don’t like open borders – fine. When I offer a plan that is a compromise on my part, you say “that’s totally not workable!”

              Well how is the rigid border enforcement strategy working out for you, champ? I mean, there’s aren’t even trainloads of illegals headed for the southern border and already people are worked up by the more modest (but still outrageous) family separation and migrant camps. How do YOU think you are ever going to implement deporting 10 million people and keeping all the INVADERZ!!! out without turning the US into an open-air prison?

              I think the ID card idea is a lot more workable than the complete clusterfuck that we have now. But if you think the ID card idea is far too unworkable, then let’s hear your idea *that is totally better* and that will actually work. Building giant walls and throwing illegals into cattle cars isn’t happening, champ, so what’s your next greatest plan?

              1. Or how about we do a better job securing the border (and get serious about it) and then worry about what or how to deal with those already here illegally?
                Also, it isn’t a true compromise if it is not workable. It is an empty talking point so that you can move the goal to your desired position. So in other words it isn’t meant in good faith. And if an ID card is not workable, how well would open borders be? Do you foresee a good number of possible reasons that is not a truly desirable or workable solution?

                1. Or how about we do a better job securing the border (and get serious about it) and then worry about what or how to deal with those already here illegally?

                  The government HAS been “getting serious” about securing the border for the past 30+ years, and this is the current result.

                  At what point will you just say that the government “securing the border” in the way that you all want to see it secured, is just beyond the government’s ability to do in a competent manner? Much like, say, the government trying to “end poverty” or “run health care” or “stop drug use” or about a million other things that it fucks up on constantly?

                  Or, the other possibility is, I suppose, that the government isn’t “getting serious” about securing the border is that there are just too many of those pesky laws, rules, rights, judges, and Constitutions in the way of stopping the government into turning the nation into an open-air prison, with cattle cars of illegals headed for the border. And if that’s the case, then I don’t want the government to “get serious” and nor should you.

                  Actually the ID card thing was Ken Shultz’s idea, I just cribbed it from him. He actually persuaded me that it was at least a worthwhile compromise that I could live with. So if you want to offer complaints about an idea “offered in bad faith”, take it up with him.

                  1. First, until recently the government has done little other than okay lip service to actual enforcement. And Congress (Democrats mainly) has fought against any increase in border enforcement. The Democrats are openly campaigning on ending enforcement. The openly endorsed DACA, which has contributed to the current situation. Any attempt Trump has made to step up border enforcement has been contested in the courts and in the press. Congress has denied him funding or authorization to do much other than nibble around the edges. There is not strict enforcement.
                    Also, even if it is Ken’s idea, if you accepted it and then offered it, your refusal to provide answers demonstrates that you are throwing out a red herring so you can move the goal post. Ken, I am betting has thought through these scenarios. You seem to be offering just platitudes so you can claim to have offered a “compromise” but we are the ones who rejected it. Now you are attempting to scapegoat Ken when called out.

                    1. And *somebody* is sponsoring/financing these mass movements.

                    2. First, until recently the government has done little other than okay lip service to actual enforcement.

                      This is bullshit.

                      1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act
                      Made it a crime to hire an undocumented migrant

                      1996: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
                      Mandated fences, increased funding for enforcement,

                      2006: Secure Fence Act
                      Build even more fences, more money on enforcement

                      ICE budget, 1990-2019:
                      https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and-border-security
                      In 1990: $263 million
                      In 2019: $4.6 billion

                      This is not “lip service”.

                    3. Pedo Jeffy, it isn’t bullshit.

                      Now where is my money?

                    4. Most of those were exactly lip service. The 1986 immigration bill is probably the biggest example of lip service and the Genesis of bad feelings in regards to amnesty thatanu conservatives have. The 2006 fence bill authorized a fence to be built but withheld funds to build it. It is another example of lip service. Are you trying to prove my point?

                    5. Also, are those numbers adjusted for inflation? How much of that money is tasked with border security and how much is related to the war on terror?
                      The 1996 bill had more to do with deporting convicted felons. And though it did authorize some fencing, very little was actually built because of lawsuits and lack of dedicated funding. So once again mainly lip service. So far all of your citations are proving my point rather than yours. It is almost as if you are trying to prove me right.

              2. You didnt offer a plan you raging dumbfuck. You didn’t offer a compromise you raging dumbfuck.

              3. “But now you are going to scream OMG OPEN BORDERZZZZ!!!!!! INVASION!!!!! SOCIALISZMS!!!!!!!!”

                I’ll note you didn’t DISPROVE it. Just whined.

                “Well how is the rigid border enforcement strategy working out for you, champ? I mean, there’s aren’t even trainloads of illegals headed for the southern border and already people are worked up by the more modest (but still outrageous) family separation and migrant camps. ”

                The people “worked up” about it — ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU. I do not CARE if the “families” (read traffickers) are split up. Want to be a family together? Go the fuck back home.

                “How do YOU think you are ever going to implement deporting 10 million people and keeping all the INVADERZ!!! out without turning the US into an open-air prison?”

                Seal the border, renounce all asylum treaties, and tell them to go fuck themselves.

                Allowing asylum requests, you seem to miss, is a compromise by me.

                “But if you think the ID card idea is far too unworkable, then let’s hear your idea *that is totally better* and that will actually work. Building giant walls and throwing illegals into cattle cars isn’t happening, champ, so what’s your next greatest plan?”

                You’re aware a wall is infinitely more plausible and workable then the hodge podge of nonsense you came up with, right?

                Build a wall. Stop feeding the illegals who refuse to go home. We are free to stop you from entering. We’re under no obligation to take care of unwanted guests.

                1. And tax the hell out of remittances

                2. The people “worked up” about it — ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

                  Who also happens to be an American. Why do YOU think Trump ended his “zero tolerance” family separation plan? Even Trump the most hardline anti-immigration president, the most i-don’t-give-a-fuck president, in recent memory, couldn’t handle the criticism that his policy created. If Trump can’t pull off separating families, what makes you think any other leader will be able to pull off something that is even more draconian?

                  There aren’t going to be mass deportations. There isn’t going to be a giant 2,000-mile wall. At some point YOU need to operate in the field of reality.

                  I do not CARE if the “families” (read traffickers) are split up.

                  You evidently don’t care if real families are split up either.

                  And, you are not the only person whose opinion matters.

                  https://time.com/5315110/family-separation-policy-polling-republicans/

                  You’re in the 27%, pal. What percentage of people do you think would actually support mass deportations of illegals?

                  My plan of ID cards is more likely to happen than your plan of “deport ’em all”. And you say MY plan is ‘infeasible’. Huh.

                  Seal the border, renounce all asylum treaties, and tell them to go fuck themselves.

                  “Seal the border”. And you called MY plan ‘infeasible’.

                  1. So Jeff is taking responsibility for the deaths of countless migrants by encouraging them to drag their children through hundreds or thousands of miles of desert.
                    What a scumbag

              4. Pedo Jeffy, if it were up to me, I would exempt you from protection under the law and let you have your personal anarchy. The pop some popcorn and watch what would happen to you.

              5. How about we biometricallly Id anyone unlawfully in the country, form a data base of that data and mandate anyone unlawfully in country banned from applying for citizenship, green card, any type of entry for 100 years. All property acquired by illegal alien forfeited. Period. No exceptions, no excuses. How about a 80%+ tax on all funds transferred out of US to any country whose citizens violate our immigration laws. How about a lifetime bar for any illegal who “accidentally” votes, uses any type of welfare or support. How about we ban any type of welfare, taxpayer aid to any household having an illegal residing, temporarily or permanently. How about cutting off welfare to those that aid and abet illegal immigration. That’s a start.

            2. Haha. We should “show compassion to people fleeing violence, poverty and corruption”.

              But don’t you dare call the places they are coming from shitholes!

              Everything in lefty ideology is an absurd contradiction.

          3. Holy shit what a retarded comment. Wanting actual details is using minutiae? This is why nobody takes you fucking seriously. Just admit you’ve never though about the issue deeper than “open borders ” because you’re a naive dumbass.

            1. He is really fucking stupid. His parents really dropped the ball by not smothering him in his crib.

          4. Pedo Jeffy, that these people may be violent criminals or carrying infectious diseases is not ‘minutia’. Seriously, if karma is a thing then you should be violently raped to death by an MS-13 death squad.

          5. No, it is you who are pretending to have a worthy idea that deserves credit.

      3. “”Liberalize immigration laws “”

        We already have the most liberal immigration laws in the world.

        Laws, even the most liberal of them, don’t matter unless you enforce them.

      4. If migrants could simply walk to any border checkpoint and get an ID card granting them permission to be here, they wouldn’t have to abuse the asylum process in order to try to get in.

        Are you an idiot?

        What do you think is going on?

        Migrants are coming to border checkpoints and are being processed so they can get an ID that will give them permission to be here.

        But the processing takes time.

        And not everyone passes.

        1. It’s nice that the US and all our citizens are in such a good place that we can spend energy, time, and resources to accommodate the people from other countries insisting we let them in and give them greater economic opportunities than they’d have in their native lands.
          But it is mighty rude of us to insist that they go through some type of process, even if we don’t make them go through the process everyone else, like JW, has to go through.
          It is definitely too much to ask that these migrants treat us with a modicum of respect. They have no choice but to flood our borders and bang the doors down.

          1. Ah yes, the “soft racism of low expectations”.

            “It’s too difficult for people of color to get ID to vote”.

            “We can’t expect people from south of the border to improve their lives where they are at. They are not capable”.

            Jeff is a patronizing racist.

        2. Migrants are coming to border checkpoints and are being processed so they can get an ID that will give them permission to be here.

          Umm, no. The long delay is due in part to the asylum application requirements which have a ‘credible fear’ screening, hearing before a judge, etc. All of that nonsense can be done away with if we just recognize that most of the migrants aren’t legitimate asylees, they just want to come here to work and live peaceful lives, and if you want them to have an ID card so they can be tracked like some sort of animal with a tag, then fine, it’s not good, but it’s better than what we have now, which is kids in cages and deplorable filthy shelter conditions.

          1. Ah, you ARE an idiot.

            The long delay is due in part to the asylum application requirements which have a ‘credible fear’ screening, hearing before a judge, etc.

            You understand this–

            Migrants are coming to border checkpoints and are being processed so they can get an ID that will give them permission to be here.

            –which is exactly what you asked for, but since it’s what’s happening it’s too slow.

            But what you don’t seem to grasp is that it’s NOT actually ‘too slow’–for the normal flow of migrants.

            This isn’t that. The system has been overwhelmed.

          2. “…better than what we have now, which is kids in cages and deplorable filthy shelter conditions.”
            Cages and deplorable filthy shelter conditions that they voluntarily enter into.
            None of them are prevented from leaving, whenever they want.
            Going back is ALWAYS an option.
            What you, and the rest of the idiots, who use this “reasoning, don’t want to see is them doing so, because it upsets your goal of destroying America.

      5. “If migrants could simply walk to any border checkpoint and get an ID card granting them permission to be here, they wouldn’t have to abuse the asylum process in order to try to get in.”

        And if people could just walk into banks and be given money without any strings attached, people wouldn’t have to rob banks, either.

        1. migration =/= theft

          1. It is when it’s done illegally moron.

          2. You could also justify pulling all funding to help migrants because they aren’t entitled to our labor

      6. “The problem is Americans not wanting their country invaded”

    4. We could start by shooting them. And save a few rounds for the assholes who encouraged the situation. I’ll bet the problem would be solved within 48 hours.

      1. #LibertariansForTheUnrestrictedRightOfGovernmentAgentsToKillOnSight

        1. Yeah, there’s been a lot of that going around lately.

      2. You’ve got it backwards. Attack the traffickers first. A few cruise missiles hitting the mansions and compounds of the trafficking gangs and their enablers in the Mexican government should discourage at least some of the influx.

        1. I know! Maybe the US government could engineer a coup against the corrupt governments in Central America. It worked so well last time, didn’t it?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

          1. Maybe we could trade pathetic pedophiles like your for these foreigners you love so much. Just not the pedophiles

    5. The problem is mostly about asylum seekers flooding into the country from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They’re coming for a number of reasons, but the policy reason has a lot to do with DACA. Once it became clear that sending children to the U.S. was a way to give them de facto citizenship, it created a large incentive for Central Americans to bring or send their children here.

      The solution to that problem is already on the way. DACA was an unconstitutional executive order, which Trump rescinded. The Supreme Court will hear objections to Trump rescinding DACA soon, and even Shika Dalmia wrote that it’s unlikely that DACA will survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Obama simply didn’t have the constitutional authority to overrule Congress. Setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress like the power to declare war.

      It should probably be noted that some 90% of asylum claims from these Central America ultimately fail.

      The other long term solution is contained in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (signed by Bill Clinton). Among other provisions, it allows the United States to enter into bilateral “safe third country” agreements, in which it is agreed that an asylum seeker must seek asylum in the first country they enter. In the case of Mexico, Central American asylum seekers would become ineligible for asylum in the United States if they came to the U.S. border by way of Mexico. We’ve had a bilateral “safe third country” agreement with Canada for decades.

      Reason did a terrible job of covering the Trump administration’s summit to avert his threatened tariffs against Mexico, recently, but the outcome was that Mexico agreed to introduce legislation into the Mexican Senate to enter into a “safe third country” agreement with the United States–IF IF IF the Mexican government failed to significantly reduce the flow of asylum seekers to the U.S. border withing 45 days of June 7th (the date is from my faulty memory). If and when Mexico adopts a safe third country agreement, it will practically destroy the incentive for asylum seekers to flood the U.S. border from Central America.

      1. Do 90% fail due to illegitimate claims, or due to 90% not showing up to the hearings?

        1. My understanding is recently 90% have failed and 80-90% fail to qualify when actually reviewed.

        2. Marcus,

          That’s in total.

          A portion of that 90% are not eligible for an asylum hearing because their request for asylum isn’t based on any claim of persecution.

          Another portion of that 90% are given a hearing and show up, but their request for asylum is denied by the judge–because he rules that they don’t meet the criteria for whatever reason.

          Another portion of that 90% never show up for their hearing and a judge denies their request for asylum on that basis.

          When you add them all up, less than 10% of the asylum seekers who show up are judged to have legitimate claims. The rest are gaming the immigration system. I feel sorry for the asylum seekers with legitimate claims who are being subjected to unnecessary waiting periods because of all the people who are just gaming the system to try to get around our immigration laws.

          Let me look for some stats so people can start talking about this intelligently.

          1. Here are some statistics. Anybody who doesn’t like what I have to say can show me where I’m wrong. I’m just calling the numbers like I see them.

            The numbers we have available are mostly for 2016 and earlier. The flood of immigrants has worsened since then, as I’ll show in the next post, but this establishes the kinds of numbers we’re talking about.

            There are two kinds of asylum claims: affirmative and defensive. If I understand correctly, the affirmative is like when someone shows up at the embassy or at a border check point and walks up and asks for asylum. That isn’t a crime. Defensively is like when someone is caught entering the country illegally between checkpoints and is charged with a crime. Homeland Security gives these statistic separately. I’ve gleaned these numbers from their data, which I will link below.

            Affirmative Asylum Cases from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (“Northern Triangle” combined):

            2016

            Cases with a Hearing: 25,801
            Cases where Asylum is Granted: 3,606

            3,606/25,801 = 14%

            Defensive Asylum Cases from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (“Northern Triangle” combined):

            2016

            Cases with a Hearing: 39,881
            Cases where Asylum is Granted: 2,005

            2,005 / 39,881 = 5%

            25,801+39,881 = 65,682 Asylum Cases (Affirmative + Defensive)
            3,606 + 2,005 = 5,611 Asylum Cases with Asylum Granted

            5,611 / 65,682 = 8.5% success rate.

            https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Refugees_Asylees_2016_0.pdf

            See page 7 for those stats.

            Please also note that this is only counting the people whose claims are on topic–they say they’re being persecuted. As many as 30% of asylum seekers aren’t even granted a hearing–they say they want asylum, but when you ask them why, it doesn’t have anything to do with persecution. So that 8.5% success rate is actually smaller when you consider that 65,682 number may only represent 70% of the people who ask for asylum.

            65,682/x = 70/100

            x=93,831 total asylum seekers.

            1. I just realized the end of my equations page got cut off.

              To finish, 5,611 / 93,831 = an overall success rate of 6%, when you factor in all those who don’t even qualify for a hearing.

              Imagine if 94% of TARP bailout recipients didn’t even own a home.
              Imagine if 94% of Medicaid recipients were found to be never sick and never in the hospital.
              Imagine if 94% of social security recipients were actually working youth under the age of 50.

              1. Thank you for taking the time to calculate these.
                So long story short, current inadequate immigration system is overwhelmed and abused. US politicians do not want to fix it because of electoral concerns (better to grand stand than solve the problem , or actual solutions poll very poorly with their bases)

              2. I’ll wager that a good number of those granted asylum requests are through a very generous interpretation of what being persecuted means.
                They are supposed to be for those fleeing a war situation – none of the countries involved are engaged in one – or from a government effort to personally make them a political prisoner/executee.

      2. “It should probably be noted that some 90% of asylum claims from these Central America ultimately fail.”

        Do they?
        What percentage of these “failures” get deported?
        After how long in the US?

        Every day they remain in the US the asylum claim has succeeded, not failed.

        1. I broke the numbers down for you above.

          https://reason.com/2019/07/03/filthy-overcrowded-border-detention-sites-called-a-ticking-time-bomb/#comment-7839864

          My understanding is that the ones who seek asylum “defensively” are people who are already in custody for breaking immigration law. They’re contesting deportation on the grounds that they’re seeking asylum. If they’re the ones who have a 5% success rate, it’s probably reasonable to suspect that the other 95% of that 39,881 are among the hundreds of thousands who are deported every year.

          The affirmative cases are another matter, and it should be noted that the baselines for 2016 hardly do 2019 justice. May of 2019 saw asylum seekers coming in at almost a million a year clip, which is why the facilities are overloaded, and the number of those who are found eligible for asylum appear to be even lower now than they were in years past.

          I believe it’s that 86% of the affirmative bunch that was typically released into the U.S. to await trial in the past. Plenty of them never bother showing up for their court date, and they’re effectively given U.S. residency until their court date–which typically takes years. Eventually, they either go home of their own accord or become illegal aliens.

          1. Meanwhile, the Jeffy types insist they ALL are eligible for asylum and that no laws are being broken, when they make their bogus, initiated-by-treasonous-immigration-lawyer claims and they all should just be let in.

    6. The immediate solution to alleviating this crisis was the House finally passing the Senate bill to approve funds to care for the flood of asylum seekers (especially children). They finally did that last week. Trump has been begging the Democrats to fund care for the deluge of children, but Pelosi’s Democrats refused to do so. It’s hard to condemn Trump from the top of a pile of suffering children when there isn’t a pile of suffering children to stand on–so they decided to wait a while for the pile to build up. After all, it is an election year.

      1. Not an option Ken, you know that. It’s either Blame Trump, or ‘Both Sides!’

    7. What problem? Immigrants today don’t realize how great things are. When I was a lad we used to DREAM about eating only bologna sandwiches, not showering, and sleeping on concrete floors.

      We ate only used toilet paper rolls, were forced to shower five times a day with sulfuric acid and steel wool washcloths, and slept in matchboxes in the gutters on the edges of pig farms.

      1. Yea, definitely not their choice to come here.
        We’re assholes for not giving these callers more of our resources.

        1. Bologna 3x a day is probably 1000x better than eating a desert rat once a week.

          I for one would not like to shower with 88 men and their baloney sweats.

          Oh yeah, that time I was in jail, guess what I got 3x a day? Baloney and no shower…

        2. It’s the responsibility of Americans to feed, clothe, house, and heal the entire world.

      2. “We ate only used toilet paper rolls, were forced to shower five times a day with sulfuric acid and steel wool washcloths, and slept in matchboxes in the gutters on the edges of pig farms.”

        i’m sorry — did we ask them to come up here uninvited?

      3. When I was a lad we used to DREAM about eating only bologna sandwiches, not showering, and sleeping on concrete floors.

        I’m sorry, is that better or worse than what they left?

    8. Stop people crossing the border. Build the danm wall!

      People do not have a right to come here. If they cross, politely escort them back to Mexico or Canada or (if they overstay visas) wherever the hell they came from.

      We are a sovereign nation. People need to ask politely, “May we come in. We have:

      a. Skills or other resources you need

      OR

      b. verifiable governmental persecution due to race, religion, etc. that qualifies us for asylum and we are willing to ask for this before crossing the border.

    9. A multifaceted approach is required. Both Ryan (formerly HFTO) and Ken Shultz have formulated solid components of the solution (there may be others but I didn’t read all 270+ replies).

      Other thoughts:

      •Clarify the 72-hour rule to indicate that the policy is only to be applied when the actual number of migrants is under a certain threshold under which it can be upheld (i.e., if the facility can process 2500 migrants per 3-day period, then any number of migrants above 2500 shall still be detained but the 72-hour rule shall not apply to them).

      •Instead of transferring migrants to ICE, allow transfers to private sector contractors. Businesses which need cheap laborers can take migrants on a temporary basis and immediately put them to work (on a strictly voluntary basis, of course). This will kill three birds: Reducing migrant overflow, allowing migrants to earn a wage, and allowing businesses to “vet” those who are actually here to work.

      •Use civil asset forfeiture (normally a detestable practice) to seize blighted properties in shithole cities (e.g., Detroit); offer these properties as temporary housing for entire migrant families, to help alleviate concerns of families being separated.

      •Offer early release to non-violent offenders who are currently incarcerated; use the newly-freed prison cells to house migrants [hmmm, wasn’t this idea once put forth by a particularly-contrived episode of Oz?].

      •Allow volunteers among migrants to be injected with a subcutaneous RFID chip; such volunteers will be allowed to freely roam about, with government continuously tracking their movement (in the event that some select few may be troublemakers).

      •End the practice of imprisoning and then deporting immigrants who commit violent crimes; instead create quasi-autonomous prison cities on the border (Bolivia has a couple of these; I can’t attest to their efficacy, but cursory research suggests they tend to be largely self-sustaining, with very little government oversight).

      Ahm, that’s all I got for now. Just brainstorming, really. Probably some of these ideas suck.

      1. Some were good, many sound expensive, some sound like you’re creating human cattle for the government to corral

    10. Immediate deportation. You get caught transported to a processing facility and processed, placed in a bus plane or train back to your home country. No asylum requests will be accepted that are not initiated outside the boarders of the U.S. accept upon special circumstances. Cut off all government aid to illegals already in county and watch the crisis solve itself rather quickly.

      1. Until you cut off welfare and dumb shit like DACA, Birthright citizenship will be worth risking life and limb for most of these people. Win desert frogger and your kids are set

    11. Close the border. Fix our immigration laws. Overturn the Deep State authoritarianism of the Flores Settlement.

    12. Shipping them all back to their home nations. The US is closed. We do not need any immigrants of any kind. We need mass deportations.

    1. So – it was wrong when Obama did it but it’s okay now? Or it wasn’t wrong even when Obama did it? I’m unclear on the angle here.

      Or is it, let’s stop paying attention to this problem and focus on the fresh issue at hand, which is that politicians tend to be opportunistic, lying hypocrites?

      1. Shh. It’s Breitbart’s turn to give an in-kind donation to Trump’s campaign. Fox & Friends used up their quota.

        1. Generic fallacy. Dispute the facts not the source. In your parlance provide citations as to why the article is wrong. You made the claim now back it up.

          1. Oh, well look who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

            It’s called a joke.

            1. It’s called a joke because you got called out on it. It was meant to discredit him, joke or not. This is still a logical fallacy. You live to demand citations for people, even when they are joking. You also live to use fallacy fallacies, e g. discrediting an entire argument if they commit a fallacy (an argument is not automatically fallacious because someone commits a fallacy). You just are whining now because I am using your own bullshit tactics against you.

              1. That’s always the way with the Left.

                When called on their bullshit, they back pedal denying they ever said or implied anything at all. “Hey, whoa daddyo, just a joke, don’t be so uptight!”

      2. Pretty much nothing was said about it during the Obama administration. Draw your own conclusion.

        1. Draw your own conclusion.

          Okay. I conclude that it was wrong even when Obama did it. Obviously the left-wing media wasn’t going to call him out on it, the same way the right-wing media isn’t going call out Republicans.

          So where was the right-wing media during this outrage?

          1. the right wing has been calling for the house to sign the bill the Republican senate passed over a year ago to eleviate this situation but the dems don’t really care about immigrants other than as cannon foder for political purposes. the dems did finally sign it this week but it takes time to get things moving thus the media rush to make all sorts of claims before they are resolved

            1. the right wing has been calling for the house to sign the bill the Republican senate passed

              My question was, where was the right wing media’s outrage during Obama’s term? Where was the bill when they had both houses of Congress? They repealed ObamaCare many times, but somehow this never came up, even though they could have passed anything they wanted secure in the knowledge that Obama would veto it.

              1. Are you confused about why Trump?

              2. Could it be because anything short of amnesty they even discussed automatically resulted in the Democrats and the media (by and large) labelling them as racists and bigots? Sort of like how when Bush tried to reform the subprime mortgage industry in 2005 he was called a racist by Barney Frank. Who then blamed him in 2008 when the bubble broke. Or how Paul Ryan tried to reform Social Security, without impacting those currently receiving it, and there were commercials of him throwing Grandma from the train, with little to no pushback from the left and the MSM?

                1. Could it be because anything short of amnesty they even discussed automatically resulted in the Democrats and the media (by and large) labelling them as racists and bigots?

                  Then why are they proposing legislation now? Wasn’t I just told that the Republicans are trying to fix the situation but the Democrats won’t let them? Have the Democrats gotten over their tendency to scream “racist” at anyone who disagrees with them, which is why the Republicans can do now what they couldn’t do five years ago?

                  1. They are proposed increased funding to deal with the bad conditions inside the detention facilities. Nice attempt at a gotcha but short of the mark.

                    1. My intent is not “gotcha” – you’re one of the conservative-leaning fellows I respect and I don’t think you argue in bad faith.

                      But this is not a response to the question I asked:

                      They are proposed increased funding to deal with the bad conditions inside the detention facilities.

                      They are now. They weren’t five years ago, or even one year ago.

                      This thread started with AlmightyJB’s rejoinder that Democrats didn’t care about these detentions when Obama was president.

                      My response to that was twofold:

                      1) people are more obsessed with the “which side is to blame” question than they are with the actual problem they claim to be concerned about solving, which is not helpful

                      and

                      2) the Republicans also didn’t care about this issue when Obama was president. The Republicans have had plenty of opportunity to do something about this, but have shown that it’s just not a priority for them – they had all of 2017-18 to pass whatever they wanted.

                      The rest of the subthread is people who just can’t abide me saying No. 2.

                    2. My quibble with number 2 is that even if the GOP had done something it would have been misrepresented. It is definitely an issue that is ignored until it can get votes. But until we have a truthful debate about it, we will never be able to solve it.

                    3. even if the GOP had done something it would have been misrepresented

                      Fair enough. And I would pose that this in addition to the lack of political benefit from their own base accounts for why they didn’t say or do anything. The left-leaning press, of course, was also happy to ignore this stuff during the Obama years.

                      But until we have a truthful debate about it, we will never be able to solve it.

                      100% agree.

                    4. Why does the right have to be outraged? It would be consistent for them to not be outraged right now just like they weren’t outraged back in 2014. #Whataboutism

                      But, since you believe that no right wing media cared in 2014 just like no left wing media, then there are some pesky facts in your way.

              3. Paul Ryan is a RINO, not a conservative. There is the problem. McConnell isn’t much better.

          2. Are we the ones who asked the people to come here? Are we responsible for their welfare? How does that work. When did Libertarianism become “the government is the source of all do-good-ism for all indigent types who trapse through the land? What hypocrites you all are saying that the Government now must care for these trespassers when you say welfare is unconstitutional!!!! Pick a position and stick with it. But quit choosing a position of convenience which gives you a temporary sense of moral superiority.

            1. Is it “welfare” for the state to give prisoners, in actual prison, three meals a day? No. It is part of the duty of care that ANY authority, the government or otherwise, owes to anyone that is in the care of the authority.

              It is completely mendacious to be calling meals for PRISONERS “welfare”.

              1. Fine. As I said, just dump them back on the other side of the border. Are you happy now? Collect them at the border and sho0w them where the other side is.

                1. We are only providing them meals because we don’t consider them “prisoners” but people being processed for “asylum claims” which were supposed to be done on the other side of the border. Get a grip. Besides, the “starvation” claims are being made by self-serving politicians and lawyers (but I repeat myself) who want open borders. If you want open borders, then don’t ask for these people to be fed, given medical care, or any assistance what so ever. Do You Advocate that? Yes or NO??

                  1. “Get a grip.”

                    Ah, I see you’re unfamiliar with chemjeff.
                    It’s not gonna happen

              2. We are only providing them meals because we don’t consider them “prisoners” but people being processed for “asylum claims” which were supposed to be done on the other side of the border. Get a grip. Besides, the “starvation” claims are being made by self-serving politicians and lawyers (but I repeat myself) who want open borders. If you want open borders, then don’t ask for these people to be fed, given medical care, or any assistance what so ever. Do You Advocate that? Yes or NO??

      3. It means democrats and the media don’t really care about Immigration or immigrants. It’s just political mud. Immigration law was created by and is owned by Congress. The Dems now control the house. Where’s their immigration bill?

        1. Politicians tend to be opportunistic, lying hypocrites. Noted.

          Back to the people in cages – something that should change, or A-OK?

          1. What part of “where’s the bill?” did you miss???

            1. What part of “Politicians tend to be opportunistic, lying hypocrites” did you miss?

              The Dems don’t really care about the immigrants. Noted.

              Therefore . . . what?

      4. No. It’s hypocritical to bitch about something you ignored previously.

        But, you already knew that.

        1. But, you already knew that.

          Yes. One might even argue it was exactly the point I made about deflecting from the conditions in the camps (i.e. the topic under discussion here) to “politicians are hypocrites,” which is not a particularly new or interesting observation.

          1. Since you seem to be feeling bitchy…

            Nothing can or will happen because too many people who weild power to change things have their own interest in mind.

            Dems, Republicans, and the media all benefit from this situation.

            So they have no incentive to change anything. Until ghe variables change, that is the situation.

            1. I don’t understand why people keep repeating my point back to me and acting like they’ve done some great “gotcha.”

              Politicians are insincere hypocrites. Yes. Agreed. That’s totally true.

              Should I say it again?

              If a politician says something, they are likely lying.

              Still not enough?

              Politicians are lying, insincere douchbags, as a general rule.

              So, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, about the overcrowding in these camps. Okay because “Obama did it, too?” Okay because “Democrats are hypocrites?” Not okay, but mainly Democrats’ fault because “hypocrites?” And therefore . . . .

              1. What are YOU going to do about it?

                1. You haven’t the foggiest idea what this discussion is actually about, do you?

                  1. I think maybe you need to ask yourself that question, because you sound insane.

                2. Whine that he isn’t getting answers when he is getting answers.

              2. “I don’t understand why people keep repeating my point back to me and acting like they’ve done some great “gotcha.””

                I don’t know why you think that has anything to do with my post.

                There was no attempt at any gotcha.

                “about the overcrowding in these camps. Okay because “Obama did it, too?”

                No but there is no political will to do anything.

                ” Okay because “Democrats are hypocrites?” ”

                No but there is no political will to do anything.

                ” Not okay, but mainly Democrats’ fault because “hypocrites?””

                No but there is no political will to do anything.

                “And therefore . . . .”

                And therefore nothing. There is no political will to do anything.

                The answer won’t change just because you can’t seem to stop acting like a fuckng retard.

                1. So there’s no political will to do anything.

                  And this responds to something I said how?

                  1. ““And therefore . . . .””

                    Read your own fucking post clown.

                    There is not therefore. No one has any political will to do anything because doing nothing serves their purposes.

                    THAT is the answer to your stupid, relentless but repeatedly asked “about the overcrowding in these camps.”

                    Nothing. That is your answer.

                    1. Nothing. That is your answer.

                      That’s not an answer. You’re actually agreeing with what I’m saying.

                      Here’s a cookie.

              3. No more hearings for requests. Mass denials and send them home forcefully. Next time, don’t rush the border and make demands.

                I know you don’t like the solution…but it solves overcrowding exceptionally quickly and easily.

                1. I know you don’t like the solution

                  Because

                  1) it’s not actually a solution – it’s like saying the solution to the drug problem is “we just need to round them up faster;” it sounds like a solution, but it isn’t one.

                  2) What you are proposing would require a police state that would empower government agents to a degree that as libertarians we normally disapprove of, even when the government is saying there’s an emergency. And it still wouldn’t work – Drug War 2.0.

                  1. The US military is unable to secure our southern border?

                    1. Immigration is a civilian law enforcement matter, not a military matter.

                      Do you want to tear up Posse Comitatus as well?

                    2. The US military is unable to secure our southern border?

                      According to you, yes.

                    3. Posse Comitatus deals with using the military to enforce laws inside the US but it says nothing about securing.

                    4. Posse Comitatus deals with using the military to enforce laws inside the US but it says nothing about securing.

                      Yeah – Posse Comitatus is not really relevant. The US Army clearly has legal authority to secure the border. If they have one legitimate function, that would be it.

                      I think what Jeff is trying to get at is that it would take Berlin Wall levels of border security to seal it off from all intruders, and then we would have the problem of trade, travel and legal immigration.

                      As others have said, if we can’t keep drugs out of maximum security prisons, keeping people from crossing the border by force is probably a lost cause. If you’re going to hermetically seal it against all crossing, maybe that would be achievable (at great cost), but if we’re going to continue trading with Mexico, allowing US citizens to visit Mexico, allow Mexicans to visit the US, and allow legal immigration over that border, sealing it off is just not in the cards.

                  2. Posse Comitatus is very much relevant here. Illegal entry is a MISDEMEANOR. It is a civil offense, not even a felony, and it is a matter for civil law enforcement. The military’s job is to repel military invasions. If you want to change the law to redefine illegal entry as an ACT OF WAR, then that is what would be required to get the military involved in securing the border from people who are NOT a part of any organized army and who are NOT seeking to occupy territory and place it under the control of a foreign government.

                    The cynical part of me believes that the reason why the right-wing nationalists have been amping up the talk of INVADERZ!!!! over the past several years is to create the public pretext that a military response is required for civilian law enforcement purposes at the border. But that would just be too cynical though, wouldn’t it?

                    1. It is only a law once the cross the border. Stopping them from crossing the border is a legitimate function of the military. Even at the time of the law being passed, the military was used at times to secure the border, especially against bandits and hostile Indians crossing it.

                    2. The cynical part of you is as idiotic, fanatical, and psychotic as the rest of your thinking.

        2. No, its hypocritical to bitch about the government involving itself in the welfare of its citizens and then demanding that it provide for the welfare of indigents who come into our country unasked, uninvited and sometimes after deportation (and towing children misrepresented as their own). Quit being such hypocrites on welfare. Become a democrat or say that these “immigrants” need to fend for themselves or that the voluntary donations of others and the free market must care for them.

      5. So – it was wrong when Obama did it but it’s okay now? Or it wasn’t wrong even when Obama did it? I’m unclear on the angle here.

        It’s not right OR wrong. It’s what happens when the system, designed for far fewer people, gets overwhelmed.

        The people screaming now didn’t care when it was Obama.

        We didn’t care then, and we don’t care now. The glut will work itself out or the system will be expanded to cover it

        1. It’s not right OR wrong. It’s what happens when the system, designed for far fewer people, gets overwhelmed.

          Agreed – I argue this exact point elsewhere in this thread. By “wrong” I mean primarily “undesirable.” I think we all agree that the people packed into cages is not a good thing and that, all else being equal, we would like this to not be happening.

          The people screaming now didn’t care when it was Obama.

          Yes. They are hypocrites. Also a point I argue elsewhere in this thread. And the Republicans who claim to care about this so much now also didn’t give a shit when Obama was doing it.

          The glut will work itself out or the system will be expanded to cover it

          And the sun will rise tomorrow. Or maybe it won’t.

          1. If the sun doesn’t rise all this will be moot because you’ll all be dead and I won’t have to bother with you anymore.

            By “wrong” I mean primarily “undesirable.” I think we all agree that the people packed into cages is not a good thing and that, all else being equal, we would like this to not be happening.

            There are a lot of ‘undesirable’ things here. It is undesirable to have people illegally entering my country.

            It is undesirable that the system designed to handle this has been overwhelmed.

            But that is not the fault of any American. Stay in YOUR country–or submit to this undesirable process.

            But whatever you do, stop whining about it. It was YOUR choice. Shut the fuck up and deal or go the fuck home. America doesn’t need more whiny assholes.

            We already have our own leftists.

            1. So . . . “shit happens?”

              that is not the fault of any American

              Many things that are the result of combined individual choices are not the “fault” of any individual.

              That was actually my whole point, which seems to have triggered so many – pointing fingers and sputtering over whether Dems or Reps are to blame for the situation is not helpful, and only distracts from the actual problem that might be able to be mitigated in some way if partisans would stop screaming at each other for two seconds.

              1. pointing fingers and sputtering over whether Dems or Reps are to blame for the situation is not helpful,

                Indeed.

                Just do what JFree does – blame it on Team DeRp.
                Pretty close to the truth.

              2. “Many things that are the result of combined individual choices are not the “fault” of any individual.”

                You can point out who in the US forced these people to come here. It’s the Godzilla in the room and you just dance around it.

                Unfortunately in Jeff’s world, and to a large extent yours, “I want it” suffices as an excuse.

            2. Everything in lefty ideology ignores freedom of choice. It screws up their victim narrative. They didn’t have to come here, and in fact, have been discouraged from doing so. Doesn’t matter. They’re here, now what?

              That may seem practical, but their poor choice leaves many here with little sympathy for what conditions they encounter when they arrive. You know what else is practical? Don’t come, and our overwhelmed border security will be in no position to deny them rights that they don’t have.

  2. To paraphrase Donnie Rumsfeld: you go to border war with the enforcement services you have, not the enforcement services you want.

    1. And that’s really the problem, with its root in partisan politics.

      The same exact thing happens with the drug war. Prison overcrowding dates exactly to the Reagan administration ramping up the drug war in the ’80s. The private prison system arose in response to the inability of the government to create facilities to house all the people suddenly being incarcerated.

      The belief, of course, was that the ‘get tough’ policies would finally beat the Drug Scourge.

      On the other side, though, people don’t like that so many people are going to prison for victimless crimes and that prisons are so unpleasant, but they tend to think that the way to combat this is to oppose prison funding, which of course just makes everything worse.

      With immigration, on one side you have the “let’s get serious and round all these people up” camp, and on the other you have the “de-fund ICE and don’t build new detention facilities” camp. Get the two together, mix in 1/4-1/2 cup of partisan bile, and you get the current crisis.

      1. Yeah pretty much. Government fucks up whatever duty is given to them. So it’s not surprising that they fucked up trying to house migrants in camps. They’re cramming the migrants into these horrible conditions because they don’t know what the fuck they are doing.

        Like how they separated kids from their parents, and then had no idea where the kids went and deported the parents, turning the kids into basically orphans. It’s horrible.

        1. They’re cramming the migrants into these horrible conditions because they don’t know what the fuck they are doing.

          I would posit that it’s more that their hands are tied by their mandates on the one hand and their lack of funding on the other.

          For all the vaunted talk about nationalism, bigotry, and hatred, how things like the Holocaust actually happen is through policy decisions made by people far removed from the consequences, and the people at the bottom simply going through the motions because what else are you going to do?

          Witness how fast the actual suffering of these people gets swept aside while Dems and Reps scream at each other over which is more hypocritical in their refusal to actually do anything.

          The fundamental principle of all government: it’s easier to find someone to blame than it is to find a solution.

        2. And the parents have no responsibility for the situation?

          1. Of course they do.

            However once the government assumes custody that changes.

            1. Blaming the government for a crisis created by the kids’ parents is asinine. Additionally, the crisis is because the system is vastly overwhelmed. Democrats refused to admit this was a problem for nearly a year, but now they want to blame Trump. He does bear some of the blame but there are far more who are at least, if not more, culpable. I would state the first blame lies with the parents. Who were warned that this could happen. That they were not going to get asylum without going through the process. Instead, they tried to overwhelm the system (or activist tried to use them to overwhelm the system). This was done in part to create a crisis by activist and some Democrats, to score points. It is sad but blaming Trump is just rank partisanship.

              1. Blaming has nothing to do with it.

                1. Which the current administration has been trying to do since at least the beginning of the year. The Democrats however, until even their sycophant media could no longer ignore it, resisted any more resources for a system that is overwhelmed.

        3. Government fucks up whatever duty is given to them. So it’s not surprising that they fucked up trying to house migrants in camps

          This from the same guy who said the government has a duty to provide them with decent care. Don’t cry that the government should do something and then claim in the next breath that it’s going to fuck it up anyway.

          1. The government DOES do have a duty to provide decent care. Unsurprisingly they routinely fail in that duty. Which is why I’m in favor of not putting migrants into government-run camps in the first place.

            1. Can’t wait until they’re in charge of our health care!

              1. I know, right? *sigh*

            2. “The government has a duty to ________!”
              “The government fucks everything up!”

              That you appear to believe these are mutually compatible positions is a failing.

              1. Well, having a duty to do something doesn’t necessarily mean one won’t fuck it up.
                However, the cognitive dissonance that defines Jeff’s thinking is typical of progressives – “the government fucks everything up; the government should do more!”
                Psychotics are annoying

                1. Hey, dumbass, *I’M* the one saying to let the migrants out of the government cages so that they are no longer at the tender mercies of the morons at CBP and ICE.

                  YOU are the one who wants to keep them held captive by idiots that YOU KNOW are fuckups.

                  1. Indeed, let them out of the cages back in the country of origin. Why can’t you accept such a reasonable solution?

                    1. They can be released from “detention” any time they want by simply saying “I want to go home”.

                  2. Hey psycho, I don’t want them being held either.
                    I don’t want them here.
                    So I’d be fine with simply kicking them out of the country.
                    You want them let in no questions asked, because you’re a xenophilic fanatic who believes whole heartedly in the white man’s burden and noble savages.
                    Deal with your self-loathing in other ways

                    1. Bingo!

        4. “Government fucks up whatever duty is given to them.”

          Well, given banks like Bank of America have decided to cut off private prisons from using their services, government is the only one who can.

          Thanks market.

          “They’re cramming the migrants into these horrible conditions because they don’t know what the fuck they are doing.”

          The migrants aren’t free to go home?

          Why do you assume brown folks have no ability to make decisions of their own?

          1. The migrants aren’t free to go home?

            Show me an authoritative reference which explains what happens if a detainee withdraws his/her asylum application.

            I am willing to bet that what will *actually* happen, is that the migrant will then turn around and be charged with the crime of illegal entry.

            1. Citation required.

            2. You mean, like the ones apprehended at the border and turned away?
              The ones the 0blama administration, unlike any previous one, called deportations?
              Seriously? They’ll take on the expense and effort of charging them, when simply letting them go home would be cheaper and easier?
              That thinking is stupid, on steroids.

  3. Now we know where Trump’s pinching pennies for his border wall.

  4. You either detain them or release them. If you release them, you have de facto open borders.

    1. Eliminate the asylum laws that give central americans special status.
    2. Make the US immigration laws similar to those of Canada.

    Do those two things and a lot of the crisis is solved.

    3. Put pressure on the central American SH countries to fix their degenerate societies.

    Accomplish number three and there won’t be hordes of fleeing for their lives. And if you accomplish number three you can claim that you really are compassionate.

    Democrats won’t even consider any of those three approaches.

    1. 1. Eliminate the asylum laws that give central americans special status.

      Which asylum laws give Central Americans specifically “special status”?

    2. You either detain them or release them. If you release them, you have de facto open borders.

      Not if you (forcibly) release them back into Mexico.

      1. Is this where you advocate that the government ignore its own asylum laws as well as international treaties governing asylum?

        1. No, this is where I advocate the the US government follow its own asylum laws and enforces international treaties.

          It is you who advocates that the US government ignore its own asylum laws and international treaties.

          1. If they’re legitimate refugees, then sending them back is called refoulment, and is not permitted.

            Of course you knew that, right?

            1. If they’re legitimate refugees, then sending them back is called refoulment, and is not permitted.

              South and Central American refugees are claiming persecution in South and Central America, not in Mexico. Therefore sending them back to Mexico, from where they entered the US illegally, is not refoulment.

              1. If Mexico were a safe third country, it would not be refoulment.

                Our laws do not declare Mexico to be a safe third country. Nor can it really be considered to be a “safe” country on its own merits.

                So if Mexico is no better than the place that these refugees are fleeing, then sending the refugees to Mexico is tantamount to refoulment.

                1. So you’re admitting that Mexico is a shithole country?

                  1. Lots of countries are shithole countries.

                    1. So, yes.

                2. “Our laws do not declare Mexico to be a safe third country. Nor can it really be considered to be a “safe” country on its own merits.”

                  This is a very right wing argument for a border

                  1. wall

                  2. Why? Is Mexico planning to invade?

                    1. If they were, how could you justify trying to stop them? Don’t Mexican soldiers have the basic human rights to go anywhere they please and to keep and bear arms?

                3. So if Mexico is no better than the place that these refugees are fleeing, then sending the refugees to Mexico is tantamount to refoulment.

                  It is quite common for refugees to have to seek asylum in a country where they will be economically worse off and be subject to more crime than in the country they fled from.

                  Refugee status isn’t about providing people a better or safer life, it is about safety from specific forms of persecution.

                  Mexico is “safe” in regards to valid claims of asylum South and Central Americans can make. That’s all that matters.

                  1. It’s not about economics either. For example, if a person is being persecuted by drug gangs in Guatemala, and flees the persecution by traveling through Mexico to the US, but the same drug gangs are also operating in Mexico, then sending this refugee back to Mexico would be no different than refoulment.

                    1. The same drug gangs are operating in the US. Does that mean no asylum until Canada?

                    2. If I’m not mistaken, MS 13 is one of those drug gangs right? Don’t the operate extensively in Latino migrant communities in the US also? So by your logic, the US isn’t a safe harbor either (pretty sure MS 13 is in Canada and they are in Alaska) so maybe we need to send them to Iceland?

                    3. BTW, Canada will detain you if cross the border illegally.

                    4. For example, if a person is being persecuted by drug gangs in Guatemala

                      Fear of drug gangs is not a valid justification for refugee status under international law. The US should immediately stop granting refugee status for such reasons.

                      Furthermore, Guatemalan drug gangs that operate in Guatemala and Mexico also operate in the US, so the US wouldn’t be a “safe country” by your definition anyway.

                    5. For example, if a person is being persecuted by drug gangs in Guatemala

                      Nearly all of MS-13s victims in the US are Hispanics, at least for now, and these gangs operate quite openly within the barrios of most major American cities, where the migrants tend to congregate once they skip their hearing and disappear into the country. So how does that make the US a safer place to live than Central America?

      2. Wouldn’t the Mexicans have a say in that?

        1. No. Mexico is both legally and morally obligated to take these people back. And the US can easily enforce those obligations.

          1. Even if they’re not Mexicans?

            1. Yes, even if they are not Mexicans.

            2. They came from Mexico. Why is it our responsibility to figure out their true home?

            3. You got that right Vern.

            4. Well duh. All the browns look alike. Who cares which country they get dumped in.

              1. In fact, the law is independent of race: you are required to seek asylum in the first safe country you get to. Mexico, Canada, Europe, and Japan are all safe countries for asylum seekers from other countries, and therefore people who enter the US illegally from any of these countries have no valid asylum claim. The skin color of the asylum seeker has no relevance, nor does the skin color of the citizens of the safe country.

                I’m sorry about your obsession with race and skin color, Chemjeff, but you should really get over that.

              2. chemjeff radical individualist
                July.3.2019 at 2:15 pm
                “Well duh. All the browns look alike. Who cares which country they get dumped in.”

                Glad you were kind enough to admit you’re a fucking bigot; no they don’t all look alike.
                Scumbag lefties all post lies alike.

    3. 3. Put pressure on the central American SH countries to fix their degenerate societies.

      Such as? What type of pressure did you have in mind?

      1. Not serving as a pressure valve for their social and economic problems.

    4. Send them back.

    5. “3. Put pressure on the central American SH countries to fix their degenerate societies.

      Accomplish number three and there won’t be hordes of fleeing for their lives. And if you accomplish number three you can claim that you really are compassionate.”

      The coup d’etat in Honduras orchestrated by Obama and Clinton in 2009 did not result in a reduction of hordes seeking asylum. It’s probably much safer to say that the coup was the opening act of the exodus from Honduras. And nobody but a democrat would claim that orchestrating coup makes one ‘compassionate.’ Same goes for the refugees from places like Libya and Syria streaming into Europe thanks to America meddling, again democrats.

      1. A US-backed coup in Guatemala in the 1950’s, US-backing for rebels in El Salvador in the 1980’s, US backing for a coup in the 1990’s – why it’s almost as if US meddling in those countries does more harm than good.

        Maybe the LAST thing that the US government should do is “put pressure” on those governments.

  5. Short-term holding tanks marked by poor food and unsanitary conditions as immigrantsillegal migrants are imprisonedchoose to stay for weeks longer than they should be [allowed to stay before being deported].

    There, FTFY

    1. Requesting asylum is not illegal.

      1. Requesting asylum is not illegal.

        Correct. And that’s why it is wrong to say that these people are “imprisoned”; they are simply prevented from entering the US.

        Furthermore, since they entered the US from a safe country, their asylum claims should be rejected immediately and they should be immediately deported.

        1. Correct.

          Then why did you refer to them as “illegal migrants”?

          And that’s why it is wrong to say that these people are “imprisoned”; they are simply prevented from entering the US.

          Oh no they’re not “imprisoned”, they’re just being held in prison-like camps. Kinda like summer camp. Got it.

          Furthermore, since they entered the US from a safe country, their asylum claims should be rejected immediately and they should be immediately deported.

          Funny, the law does not declare Mexico to be a safe third country.

          1. They aren’t imprisoned because they can leave. They just can’t enter the US.

          2. Then why did you refer to them as “illegal migrants”?

            Because they entered the US illegally. The fact that they afterwards claimed asylum doesn’t change that fact.

            Oh no they’re not “imprisoned”, they’re just being held in prison-like camps. Kinda like summer camp. Got it.

            They are not imprisoned at all because they can leave any time they want; all they have to do is drop their asylum claim.

            Funny, the law does not declare Mexico to be a safe third country.

            It doesn’t have to. Mexico is, by definition, a safe country for refugees from South and Central America because people fearing political persecution from their governments down there obviously are not persecuted by the Mexican government, since it’s a different government.

            1. Because they entered the US illegally.

              Requesting asylum at a port of entry is not illegal, and is not illegal entry.

              They are not imprisoned at all because they can leave any time they want; all they have to do is drop their asylum claim.

              No, they’re just being held against their will in prison-like structures. Are you really defending imprisoning people who haven’t committed a crime? Sure, all they have to do is drop their asylum claim, meaning, be sent back to the repression that they are fleeing. What a great choice!

              And asylum claims do not have to rely upon persecution from just the government. Surely you know this.

              1. “No, they’re just being held against their will in prison-like structures.”

                They are free to go home and leave the “prison-like structures” immediately. It is in no way like prison or a concentration camp.

                1. They are free to go home and leave the “prison-like structures” immediately.

                  Several people have said that here but no one has been able to back that up. I doubt it’s that simple.

                  1. Probably not for the ones who came with kids – not until the actual parentage has been established. And the ones that didn’t bring juveniles would probably steel need to have verifiable means to return to their country of origin.

                    Not like Mexico wants them back once they’ve realize they aren’t getting into the US.

                    1. Anybody who enters illegally from Mexico, we can send back to Mexico right away under current law.

                  2. Several people have said that here but no one has been able to back that up.

                    You have been pointed to the USCIS manual on asylum and refugees several times; this time, Google it yourself and actually read it.

                    The upshot is that when people drop their asylum claims they simply become people without a valid visa on US soil. At that point, they have the same options as everybody else in that situation: voluntary departure or deportation.

                    What additional “back up” do you want?

                    1. I haven’t read any reference on this either.

                      And even assuming you are correct, then if a refugee tries to leave, then that refugee will be charged with a crime.

                      Totally not a prison.

                    2. I have looked at the USCIS manual (even though your link to it didn’t work). There is no answer to this question in it.

                      What additional “back up” do you want?

                      A quotation from or link to a government source describing the procedure in question. No, it is not in the USCIS manual. I find it highly unlikely that a detainee can simply announce he no longer wishes asylum and be given a ride to the border where the Mexicans will happily let him back in.

                    3. And even assuming you are correct, then if a refugee tries to leave, then that refugee will be charged with a crime.

                      If their only illegal action was an illegal border crossing followed by an asylum application, they won’t be charged with a crime. After withdrawal, they can leave any time they want to onto non-US territory (voluntary departure).

                    4. “And even assuming you are correct, then if a refugee tries to leave, then that refugee will be charged with a crime.”

                      No idiot, not if they go back.

                      How are you this fucking stupid?

                      “I haven’t read any reference”

                      We know. You’re fucking lazy, and use it as a tactic constantly. That’s why we make fun of you for it.

                    5. A quotation from or link to a government source describing the procedure in question. No, it is not in the USCIS manual. I find it highly unlikely that a detainee can simply announce he no longer wishes asylum and be given a ride to the border where the Mexicans will happily let him back in.

                      As I was saying: someone who drops their asylum claim enters the same status as anybody else in the US without a valid visa or permit. The procedures are therefore “expedited removal”, “voluntary departure”, and/or “deportation” and they are described in detail by USCIS. Go look them up.

                      If expedited removal or deportation applies, Mexico is obligated to take people back; whether they are “happy” about it is irrelevant.

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist
                      July.3.2019 at 3:06 pm
                      “…Totally not a prison.”

                      If you can walk out, it is not a prison.
                      How long does it take for you to manage to include lies in every fucking post, asshole?

                    7. I looked up the volume on refugees for my own edification and it’s curiously not available on the .gov site. Thoughts?

                    8. The procedures are therefore “expedited removal”, “voluntary departure”, and/or “deportation” and they are described in detail by USCIS.

                      The paperwork that has to be filled out in those cases is described in detail in the USCIS. The actual physical procedure for releasing and deporting someone in detention who withdraws an asylum claim is not. I remain skeptical of these “they can leave any time they want to” claims.

                    9. I think JW is talking out of his ass. I think instead “they can walk out at any time” is probably something he heard on Breitbart, accepted as truth, and is now spreading the same disinformation here.

                    10. I’m sure there must be a procedure for people in detention to withdraw their asylum claim and leave the country. I’m equally sure that it can’t be as simple as their signing a form and immediately being given a ride to Mexico.

              2. Requesting asylum at a port of entry is not illegal, and is not illegal entry.

                Correct. And in that case, they can stay in Mexico and are not in US detention centers.

                No, they’re just being held against their will in prison-like structures. Are you really defending imprisoning people who haven’t committed a crime?

                No matter how often you repeat that lie, it still doesn’t become true. These people are not held against their will and can leave any time they want, just not onto the territory of the US.

                And asylum claims do not have to rely upon persecution from just the government. Surely you know this.

                That’s a red herring (and you need to read up on asylum law). The important point is that whatever persecution refugees from South and Central America flee from simply doesn’t exist in either Mexico or Canada, both of which are modern Western democracies with functioning legal systems.

  6. Give them all a hearing date and release them back in Mexico.

    Or automatically deport, without a hearing, anyone who shows up when the detention center is full.

    Why is this so hard? It is the same rationing system everyone seems to want for health care. Why is this different?

    1. even our jails won’t accept criminals when full, unfortunately they just release them back into society

  7. If people agree to take their relatives’ children in–once their children make the journey unaccompanied across Mexico to the U.S. border–I’m not sure they should be charged as accessories to child trafficking. However, as Lenore Skenazy’s typical stories confirm, American citizens are charged every day with child endangerment for doing far less.

    I find it outrageous when someone is charged with child endangerment or child neglect because they let their kid walk to school or play in a park by himself. That outrage starts to break down, however, when we’re talking about people encouraging children to walk across Mexico by themselves in the hope that they will cross the U.S. border safely.

  8. I see that there is already some scum of the earth here defending it. Quite pathetic and shows just how terrible some people are.

    1. It is a symptom of what the reactionary right has turned into.

      If AOC says “these camps are horrible”, then the right-wing Trump boot-lickers will try to defend the indefensible in a show of tribal solidarity against The Left.

      1. Or, we realize it is a crisis that has many parents and is not easily solved. Pointing fingers at Trump, especially when he has been asking for money and aid dealing with this for months is an excercise in pure partisanship. BTW, since you so love pointing out logical fallacies, you are resorting to ad hominems and gross generalizations, also oversimplification.

        1. “”Or, we realize it is a crisis that has many parents and is not easily solved.””

          Largely the reason I bring up Jimmy Carter and the Cubans. A democrat president had to deal with a large influx in a short time. He did what he thought was his best option to handle the situation. You have to put them somewhere, Carter used older military bases such as Ft. Chaffee in Arkansas. Which just so happen to be one the places George Takei was held during WWII.

          I do find it interesting that many of the people that think Trump is so horrible with this issue, don’t find Carter horrible for his actions, nor FDR for his actions. They praise FDR even though he imprisoned people just because of their race and considered them potential enemies due to the war. They are very willing to overlook such evil when it’s someone on their own team.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist
        July.3.2019 at 2:39 pm
        “If AOC says “these camps are horrible”, then the right-wing Trump boot-lickers will try to defend the indefensible in a show of tribal solidarity against The Left.”

        If AOC says anything, you can assume it’s a lie; you and she are a lot alike.

    2. wearingit
      July.3.2019 at 2:33 pm
      “I see that there is already some scum of the earth here defending it. Quite pathetic and shows just how terrible some people are.”

      Defending what? Did you somehow figure we could read your mind?

  9. Letting them all go is all very well, but then what? I mean, even considering the “jobs Americans won’t do” there isn’t an unlimited supply of work for low-skilled laborers.
    That’s not an argument for restricting their freedom of movement, but it is a question that will have to be answered somehow and I’m not hearing an answer from anybody. The market would adjust in accordance with the principles of economics but I strongly suspect that Democrats would absolutely not accept the answer of just letting the migrants work it out for themselves.

    1. there isn’t an unlimited supply of work for low-skilled laborers.
      That’s not an argument for restricting their freedom of movement

      Yes, it is.

      The market would adjust in accordance with the principles of economics

      No, it wouldn’t, because our public assistance programs and private charities make it possible for migrants to stay in the US regardless of whether the labor market needs them or not. How many unemployed Somalis have gone back to Somalia?

      1. No, it wouldn’t, because our public assistance programs and private charities make it possible for migrants to stay in the US regardless of whether the labor market needs them or not. How many unemployed Somalis have gone back to Somalia?

        Yeah, that’s where I was going with that. I think the public assistance and private charities will be swamped. Somebody will have to have an answer for that. And if the Democrats intend to sell this to the American public they’re going to have to explain how they’ll deal with this.
        In the absence of those assistance programs the market would adjust, but the Democrats would have fits about it. They see the Law of Supply and Demand as an evil trick of those dirty capitalists rather than as a basic truth.

      2. How many unemployed Somalis have gone back to Somalia?

        Not a great example, as our Somali population largely came here as refugees from the civil war, not as migrant laborers.

        1. Oh c’mon S=C, you know as well as I do that all of those so-called “refugees” are the same, lying socialist layabouts. Why it’s the Somalis’ own fault that they couldn’t single-handedly stop/win a civil war and turn their home country into a Garden of Eden. It is known.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist
            July.3.2019 at 3:21 pm
            “Oh c’mon S=C, you know as well as I do that all of those so-called “refugees” are the same, lying socialist layabouts. Why it’s the Somalis’ own fault that they couldn’t single-handedly stop/win a civil war and turn their home country into a Garden of Eden. It is known.”

            Keep posting lies, scumbag; your rep only grows.

    2. I mean, even considering the “jobs Americans won’t do” there isn’t an unlimited supply of work for low-skilled laborers.

      Not unlimited, but I have little doubt that part of what is encouraging the current surge is the extreme shortage of labor we’re experiencing in California right now.

      The last time we saw a tapering off of illegal immigration to California, it was because the labor market was glutted and there were better opportunities in Mexico. I’ve never seen anything showing any sort of correlation between enforcement efforts and illegal immigration numbers (just like with drugs, oddly enough).

      People who tend to go ape-shit over illegal immigration seem to think that if we open the border, eventually the population of the USA will be 6,000,000,000 and the population of the rest of the world will be 0. When history has shown time and again that once the labor market is glutted, the immigration will stop.

      1. When history has shown time and again that once the labor market is glutted, the immigration will stop.

        I understand, and I’m fine with it. I very much doubt the Left is fine with it.

        1. I very much doubt the Left is fine with it.

          True – and that’s pretty much how we got to all the welfare programs for undocumented immigrants. Anecdotally, I’ve never noticed this being the main reason migrants come here, but I’ve also always dealt with migrant workers. I don’t come across the ones who aren’t looking for work.

          I still maintain that we need to deal with those policies – I don’t think the flow of people can be halted any better than the flow of drugs can.

      2. Not unlimited, but I have little doubt that part of what is encouraging the current surge is the extreme shortage of labor we’re experiencing in California right now.

        The extreme shortage of legal labor in California is due to the high cost of living and the high cost of regulation.

        The last time we saw a tapering off of illegal immigration to California, it was because the labor market was glutted and there were better opportunities in Mexico.

        Correct: migration from Mexico to California will end when California and Mexico are about the same in terms of economic opportunities and wealth; i.e., when both of them have turned into shitholes.

        1. The extreme shortage of legal labor in California is due to the high cost of living and the high cost of regulation.

          Partly, yes. We bring in probably as many people from Oregon as we do from Mexico.

          when both of them have turned into shitholes

          I think that’s unnecessarily pessimistic. The economy in northern Mexico has gotten a lot stronger in the last 20 years.

          1. I think that’s unnecessarily pessimistic. The economy in northern Mexico has gotten a lot stronger in the last 20 years.

            I strongly suspect that’s why Mexico is feverishly hustling south American migrants through their country to the US border.

          2. Mexico’s per capita GDP ($PPP) is $20000, about the same as Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Turkmenistan, and China; it’s a shithole.

            The US is at over $60000, about the same as Switzerland. Without massive numbers of low-skill migrants, regulatory capture, and a social welfare state, we’d probably several times that.

            1. Mexico’s per capita GDP ($PPP) is $20000, about the same as Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Turkmenistan, and China; it’s a shithole.

              Nationally, yes. The south, where most of the population is concentrated, is still very poor. The economic strength was largely in the Monterrey area, and had a lot to do with Cemex. It’s been a while since I’ve seen data on this, though, so I don’t know what it’s like now.

        2. Is there a choice other than shithole?

          Norway?

      3. if we open the border, eventually the population of the USA will be 6,000,000,000 and the population of the rest of the world will be 0. When history has shown time and again that once the labor market is glutted, the immigration will stop.

        History shows that net immigration slows down or stops when the labor market is full AS WE CONTINUE TO IMPOSE NORMAL CONTROLS ON IMMIGRATION. We have no history of what would happen if we opened the borders, as no modern country has ever tried that. Given how the residents of shitholes around the world clamor to get in to the US and jump at every opportunity, there’s every reason to believe that opening the borders to everyone who wants to come would result in a tsunami of immigrants. Billions, no, but tens of millions, certainly, and possibly hundreds of millions.

        1. tens of millions, certainly, and possibly hundreds of millions

          I strongly doubt that, but I acknowledge that if that were the case, it wouldn’t be horrible of us to think twice about whether we would want that to happen. Which is why even though in the most abstract of principles I oppose it, in pragmatic reality having some sort of gatekeeper system to at least keep track of raw numbers is probably a necessary evil.

          The trouble is that, as with so many issues, neither mainstream “side” is actually interested in solutions, only finger-pointing.

    3. The market would adjust in accordance with the principles of economics

      It does adjust: low-skilled Americans go on welfare or disability while low-skill illegal migrants do jobs without the regulatory burdens and costs that legal American workers would be subject to. And US tax payers are forced to foot the bill not just for the welfare/disability of those low-skilled Americans but also for the infrastructure and government services the illegals require.

      In effect, US tax payers are subsidizing the employers of low-skill workers, and simultaneously paying low-skilled Americans to sit at home and do nothing. Even disregarding the unfairness to US taxpayers, it is not a sustainable system, to say nothing of the profound human cost.

      1. I’m talking about the free market, which is unfortunately something we don’t have. That’s why I think the consequences of just letting the migrants in are not as simple as some make them out to be.

      2. All of this is true, and addressing those policy problems will be a lot easier than stopping the physical flow of people.

        1. All of this is true, and addressing those policy problems will be a lot easier than stopping the physical flow of people.

          I agree. And the policy solutions are simple and other countries are already using them: bullet-proof national ID cards with citizenship and residency information, and use of those cards as a requirement for employment, taxation, banking, housing, real estate, driving permits, car registrations, education, welfare, and healthcare. Abolish Jus soli. Add to that strict tax code enforcement against employers.

          All of that wouldn’t just take care of illegal migration, it would actually improve the privacy of American citizens compared to the use of social security numbers and private background checking agencies.

          1. bullet-proof national ID cards

            This opens up a whole other can of worms with regards to the Fourth Amendment.

            Right now there is absolutely no law which requires anyone to have any form of ID.

            FORCING someone to get an ID card would be a type of ‘unreasonable search’.

            Furthermore you can be absolutely certain that what goes in to the chip on that national ID card will contain more than just your name. Will it contain biometric data? How about fingerprints? How can the state legally compel a citizen to give the state its fingerprints and DNA samples when that citizen hasn’t been accused of doing anything wrong?

            And that is not to mention the federalism issues. ID’s now are mainly state-level ID’s. Federalizing all the ID’s would be a huge power grab by the feds. Do you really want that?

            1. That’s already been done. State drivers’ licenses and ID cards are now required to comply with federal standards. At this point, states are in charge of only the cosmetics of the cards. Your license is now your internal passport.

            2. Federalizing all the ID’s would be a huge power grab by the feds.

              There’s this thing called the Real ID Act you should probably familiarize yourself with.

  10. Is ticking time bomb another way of saying crisis?

  11. I still don’t have any sense as to what the solution here is… and when I mean solution, I mean a solution that will come from a bipartisan approach in the congress which leads to:

    cutting the welfare state, eliminating the minimum wage and legalizing drugs– those things aren’t going to happen in the next 72 hours.

    The way I see it the border agencies have a few options:

    A massive funding increase allowing them to build the holding facilities allowing the detention of the migrants in a more pleasing manner.

    Turning away migrants at the border and increasing pressure on Mexico to at least participate in this process.

    Simply releasing anyone at the border within 72 hours into the United States territory with a pinkie promise to follow up with officials at a later date, whether they could be processed or not, leading to potentially very dangerous (including politically dangerous) second-order effects.

    I’m open to suggestions.

    1. I don’t think either party wants to address the problem long-term, ever. It’s been a problem ever since I can remember, and all the parties have ever done is try to play it to their advantage in election years.

      1. Well, there’s always been illegal immigration, but not at the rates we’re seeing now. So that is a new problem.

      2. Yes, that is the real problem.

      3. As with pretty much every other problem, Democrats have a bill ready to go as soon as Mitch McConnell takes a long walk off a short dock.

        Both sides!

        1. Yeah, the ACA solved our healthcare problems.

          1. Republicans gutting the ACA didn’t seem to improve things much either.

            1. Look back at your post which I commented on and tell how your comment here applies.

              1. I don’t know what your comment had to do with mine. The ACA improved healthcare outcomes, and Republicans gutting the ACA worsened them again. It’s all just data. Nobody promised or said we achieved utopia.

    2. Things have changed a lot in recent years. The Mexican model has been to not get caught. They would learn about jobs in North Carolina or Wisconsin and show up by whatever means. Net migration from Mexican citizens has been subzero for quite a while. The Central Americans are showing up and turning themselves in for asylum, something Mexicans would have done if there was one chance in 1,000 that a Mexican would be granted asylum in this country. It is our law that they have the right to do this. Mexico doesn’t have to stop them, except for threats from the US government. There’s a short-term crisis in need of a short-term solution. Longer term, we NEED comprehensive immigration reform.

    3. 1) The Supreme Court supports Trump’s rescinding of DACA.

      The Supreme Court hears that case in October 2019.

      Even Shika Dalmia expects Trump to win that one.

      2) Mexico introduces a bill in the Mexican Senate to enter into a bilateral “third party country” agreement with the U.S., taking away the eligibility of most Central Americans for asylum in the U.S.

      There’s been some progress on that front, too. Take a look at this story:

      “WASHINGTON/GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) – The United States and Guatemala are close to reaching a safe third country agreement as part of an effort to curb U.S-bound migrants, President Donald Trump said on Wednesday, offering no details about when such a deal might be finalized.

      Trump . . . said last week that a pact was close. About a week ago, however, Guatemala’s interior minister, Enrique Degenhart, said discussions were ongoing but a deal had not yet been reached.

      . . . .

      Under a safe third country agreement, Guatemala would be obliged to process asylum claims from migrants who entered its territory first while en route to another country. That could apply to U.S.-bound Honduran or Salvadoran migrants passing through Guatemala.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-guatemala/trump-us-guatemala-close-to-a-safe-third-country-deal-on-migrants-idUSKCN1TR2JB

      I see Trump pursuing all these solutions and a lot of people who seem to be completely unaware of what’s going on. I hope none of you rely on Reason for your information anymore because after reading some of these stories, you can come out the other side more ignorant than you were when you walked in. If we were relying solely on Reason for our information, I don’t know that they’ve ever mentioned Trump seeking a safe third country agreement with Mexico–much less Guatemala.

      This is important, by the way, because one of the reasons the Mexican government is reluctant to sign off on a safe third country agreement is because they don’t want to be the final destination of Central America’s walking poor either. Mexico’s foreign minister has said repeatedly that he’d like to see Trump and Mexico pursue a multilateral safe third country agreement with Guatemala–to help take the pressure off of Mexico and help ease the way of the agreement between the U.S. and Mexico through the Mexican Senate.

      Why would Guatemala want to sign a safe third country agreement? Well, I can think of 250 million reasons right now, which is how much the U.S. is sending to Guatemala this year. I’d rather we didn’t send them any money anyway, but if they aren’t willing to sign off on a deal we need to stop their people from flooding our southern border, then we should definitely give them nothing.

      Regardless, it looks to me like Trump is pursuing the long term solution to this problem, that things are happening much faster and more decisively than the popular news media is reporting, and it appears that Trump’s solutions are respectful of the Constitution, they don’t rely on executive orders, they don’t involve building a wall, and they’re likely to be effective in discouraging bogus asylum seekers from flooding here by the millions. Just because the pop media isn’t reporting on this stuff, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

      Mexico’s 45 days to stop the flow of asylum seekers or put a third safe country agreement to their senate for a vote is up in a couple of weeks. I don’t know how much quicker you can get to a solution than that.

      1. I might have missed a close italics tag in there somewhere. It’s a good thing I didn’t try to bold something.

  12. Once upon a time, immigration reform proposals failed because of the new Republican voter stance, rather outrage, against ‘amnesty’. Now, immigration reform means more enforcement in the eyes of most Trump supporters, and so they support the notion. There is no way out of this if we can’t agree on terminology.

    Our LEGAL immigration system is broken and has been for decades.

    1. Our LEGAL immigration system is broken and has been for decades.

      Absolutely. It gives Mexican migrants little solace to tell them that to “wait in line” for the legal opportunity to migrate here will take in some cases over 30 years. So it is completely unsurprising that some of them will risk breaking the law and try to come here legally.

      The way to alleviate the illegal immigration problem is to make legal migration far easier than it is now. That way, fewer incentives to break the law.

      1. Yes and tell the migrant in the Philippines who is following the law that their immigration status is being held up because ICE accounts for illegal immigration in the calculations of allowed immigration. As a result the greater the number of illegal entries the fewer legal immigrants are allowed entry. But tough on them because they don’t share a border with is right?

  13. Let the humans out of the cages. Give them a hearing date. If they don’t show up, how the fuck does it affect you?

    You afraid there are terrorists hiding out in the cages?

    I hope you’re proud of what you’ve permitted in the name of tax cuts for billionaires.

    1. “‘Let the humans out of the cages””

      Sure, on the Mexico side. If they can’t get back in how the fuck does it affect you?

      1. My country being exposed as a racist fascist shitshow makes it very unpleasant for me to travel in Europe. That’s how.

        1. Dude, if you think our liberal immigration policy is racist or fascist it shows you don’t know the meaning of either word.

          Anyone could have given such a crap answer as your to the how does it affect you question. But everyone else seem to be smarter. Have you ever been to Europe? Probably not, having to apply for a passport would be racist in your eyes.

          1. Our immigration system isn’t racist because something can only be racist if it discriminates against white people, am I right?

            Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t be soiling himself in glee if directly into your ears if the kids we were putting in cages were Norwegians.

        2. Wow. Just wow Tony. Do you know how fucking elitist asshole you sound with that comment? *Oh I’m uncomfortable traveling in Europe as a wealthy American male*, instead of actually volunteering, giving your entire net worth to help the tens and tens of thousands of those you claim to care about. Additionally, the billions and billions of the worlds poor. You’re too busy leisuring in Europe. Typical wealthy Democrat.

          1. Yes I’m aware. That’s the joke.

    2. Tony
      July.3.2019 at 3:27 pm
      “Let the humans out of the cages. Give them a hearing date. If they don’t show up, how the fuck does it affect you?”
      Well, don’t put them in cages. They can stay in Mexico however they wish and we can post hearing dates.

      “You afraid there are terrorists hiding out in the cages?”
      WIH does that have to do with anything?

      “I hope you’re proud of what you’ve permitted in the name of tax cuts for billionaires.”
      I hope you’re proud of being one of the scummiest liars who posts here, shitbag.

    3. And along comes Tony to scream at clouds.

      1. Just want children to be let out of cages.

        All this in the name of individual freedom. Almost makes you think pretty much any evil fascist horror show can be justified with bullshit about individual freedom. Irony is lost on these people, just like anything else that requires more than apelike thought.

        1. Just want children to be let out of cages.

          Yeah – I remember this being a huge issue for you back in 2014.

          1. But Obama!

            Sell it to someone who doesn’t pay attention to right-wing lies and deflections.

            1. It’s not a deflection. Rather it points directly to the stark hypocrisy and unprincipled, faux-righteous bull shit from your flock.

              Answer the question: DID YOU CARE IN 2014?

              No you didn’t. Just like the rest of the progressive movement.

              Your ‘guy’ was in power so all was good.

              1. OBAMA DIDN’T DO THIS.

                And Trump is president now. Republicans never have any fucking accountability for you cunts. Always the victim of something.

    4. If they don’t show up, how the fuck does it affect you?

      It doesn’t. The fuck do I care if working class labor gets cheaper and the price to paint my left-coast blue city home goes way down? It’s win-win for me.

      1. Without enhanced labor protections, all you’re calling for is for the cheap labor pool to come from American citizens. How is that an improvement? At least the migrants have a work ethic. How many white people do you know who that can be said about?

        1. Haha. Yeah. White people are terrible.

          Don’t change a thing, tony. Haha

    5. “how the fuck does it affect you?”

      You really do not care if a public health crisis occurs. Typhus, Bubonic Plague or something worse, pandemic like spreading (Ebola?). The health infrastructure we have completely breaks down during major disease outbreaks. No reasonable society does this without vetting (Spain might be have future issues). We cannot let tens of thousands of people come and shit on the streets, in the waterways, on crops. Rule of Law not open borders. Come in legally and go through the process.

      1. Thus far public health, there is measles which has nothing to do with immigration, is not so bad. Anti vaxxers are the problem.

        Typhus has nothing to do with homeless which has little or nothing to do with immigration. Murine typhus has been endemic to Los Angeles for many years. It is spread by fleas from infected rodents.

        Bubonic plague. Another interesting disease. Also spread by rodents including squirrels, prairie dogs, rats, rabbits, not immigrants or homeless people. Last I know there is no fence or whatever keeping squirrels out.

        Around here we have been warned about zombie raccoons. They have a viral disease, distemper. Also we have coyotes, foxes, keep an eye on your dog.

        Tuberculosis. That could be a concern. Ebola, oh talk with me about that.

        1. But middlefinger’s comment is part of the otherization and dehumanization inherent in nationalistic tendencies. Of COURSE the migrants carry diseases like typhus and bubonic plague! This is just accepted without question, because those migrants sure seem like dirty filthy people, don’t they? It’s insidious: myths like these are easily propagated because they seem so believable, because they comport so nicely with the nationalistic narrative. And then you have everyone believing this fake news of migrants spreading typhus everywhere. A typhus outbreak somewhere will be immediately blamed on Guatemalans. Etc., etc.

          It’s this whole MINDSET that needs to be blown up. It’s the MINDSET that the nationalists are creating that needs to be resisted by libertarians and anyone else who believes in the dignity and worth of every single individual, no matter where they are from.

          1. Did he say that they DO carry the diseases listed or that they could carry those diseases? Are you misrepresenting his statement so you can vilify him and his supposed associates? You seem perfectly happy to dehumanize those who disagree with you. Just out of curiosity, is there anything untrue about the statement that 3rd world countries, such as Central South American countries, have a higher incidents of communicable disease, especially among the poorer communities? And if this is true, wod open borders possibly increase the risk of an epidemic or pandemic significantly? So what about his statement do you exactly object to? Or is your objection based solely on your own bias that anyone who supports border enforcement must be an evil nationalist out to destroy the ‘brown people’ as you said above? Can you perceive that others can disagree with your open borders stance without being a bigot?

          2. chemjeff radical individualist
            July.3.2019 at 7:26 pm
            “But middlefinger’s comment is part of the otherization and dehumanization inherent in nationalistic tendencies….”

            Oh, oh, jeff! Were you ‘triggered’?! Were you ‘othered’?!
            Got any more SJW jargon as amusement?

        2. Fleas are simply a vector for typhus and plague. However, to transmit the diseases the first need an infected host, correct? Or are you arguing that these diseases spontaneously occur in the fleas? Also, poor living conditions, especially in crowded conditions can increase susceptible hosts and increase flea populations to transmit the diseases. Actually, homeless populations do tend to have higher incidents of both typhus and plague, often because they have lowered immune systems related to poor nutrition and close contact with rodents and fleas. Poverty often contributes to outbreaks in communicable diseases.

      2. middlefinger
        July.3.2019 at 4:56 pm
        ‘You really do not care if a public health crisis occurs….”

        Lame hypotheticals do not advance your argument.
        None of the diseases you mention have been shown anywhere in the immigrants, regardless of your sympathy for them or otherwise.

  14. Actually finding solutions for this problem is seemingly a lot less fun than figuring out who to blame for this problem. Everyone is getting really, REALLY good at the latter.

    1. Maybe not a lot less fun but more politically advantageous. The fact is that this problem could be better handled by almost any other administration. In part because President Trump strategy is to bully the asylum seekers and most of his followers accept this approach. The correct approach has been used before and has worked.

      1.) Slow the flow:
      Get State Department people analyzing the problem in Central America (CA), get recommendations to improve conditions and pump aid into these countries. Note: Trumps wants to talk about other countries’ potential (NK for example). Let him apply some of that to the CA.

      2.) Treat asylum seekers with respect.
      People treated with respect will be more cooperative. I know sound implausible, but its a basic tenant of good business practice.

      3.) Process asylum claims more quickly
      Skip the wall put the money into more asylum courts and run them around the clock.

      4.) Dump private prisons, use NPs
      Private charities are likely to do better taking care of these people. They certainly can’t do worse.

      No guarantees here but what the Administration is doing now is certainly not working.

      1. “1.) Slow the flow:
        Get State Department people analyzing the problem in Central America (CA), get recommendations to improve conditions and pump aid into these countries. Note: Trumps wants to talk about other countries’ potential (NK for example). Let him apply some of that to the CA.”
        Not our problem or business. No, that’s all. Just NO.

        “2.) Treat asylum seekers with respect.
        People treated with respect will be more cooperative. I know sound implausible, but its a basic tenant of good business practice.”
        This ain’t business, but ‘seekers’ have often turned out to be liars; so the first problem is to separate one from the other, The ‘other’ isn’t due respect.

        “3.) Process asylum claims more quickly
        Skip the wall put the money into more asylum courts and run them around the clock.”
        Ha and ha! Bureaucracies do not speed up.

        “4.) Dump private prisons, use NPs”
        For what?

        1. If and when Trump finds it necessary to threaten the Mexican Senate with tariffs if they don’t sign onto our bilateral “safe third country” agreement, suddenly “slowing the flow” won’t be a legitimate solution according to half these jokers anymore.

          I oppose Trump hitting Mexico with tariffs, but I’m not about to lodge a protest vote while Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Kamala Harris, or some other socialist–if Mexico signs up as a “third safe country” and Trump drops the tariffs before November of 2020.

          I’ll have been wrong. He’ll have been right. And that’ll be that.

          1. “If and when Trump finds it necessary to threaten the Mexican Senate with tariffs if they don’t sign onto our bilateral “safe third country” agreement, suddenly “slowing the flow” won’t be a legitimate solution according to half these jokers anymore.”

            When Mexico simply acts as a conduit, and (in all likelihood) supports the transport of people across their country, I have a bit of a problem.

      2. 1.) Slow the flow:
        Get State Department people analyzing the problem in Central America (CA), get recommendations to improve conditions and pump aid into these countries. Note: Trumps wants to talk about other countries’ potential (NK for example). Let him apply some of that to the CA.

        I don’t support government-to-government foreign aid, because that is just wasted money that is inevitably spent on graft and corruption, and never gets to where the money is intended to go. The best “foreign aid” that we libertarians could support would be to let individuals from Central America come here and work, and send remittances back home. Those remittances will do more to improve the lives of the poor in Central America than any foreign aid package will do. And it is 100% voluntary – it does not rely at all on coercive taxation.

        2.) Treat asylum seekers with respect.
        People treated with respect will be more cooperative. I know sound implausible, but its a basic tenant of good business practice.

        Absolutely.

        3.) Process asylum claims more quickly
        Skip the wall put the money into more asylum courts and run them around the clock.

        Absolutely.

        4.) Dump private prisons, use NPs
        Private charities are likely to do better taking care of these people. They certainly can’t do worse.

        I’m not a big fan of private prisons. I would trust private charities and NGOs more than I would trust private prisons, or even state-run prisons.

        Another way to clear the asylum backlog is simply to make legal immigration easier. That way, fewer people, who truthfully have no legitimate asylum claim, won’t clog the legitimate asylum system with a bogus claim, and instead they can come here, work, send remittances back home, like they were likely intending to do in the first place.

        1. “I don’t support government-to-government foreign aid, because that is just wasted money that is inevitably spent on graft and corruption, and never gets to where the money is intended to go. The best “foreign aid” that we libertarians could support would be to let individuals from Central America come here and work, and send remittances back home. Those remittances will do more to improve the lives of the poor in Central America than any foreign aid package will do. And it is 100% voluntary – it does not rely at all on coercive taxation.”
          Oh, how your wonderfulness grows! Details, please. We all want world peace and no hunger, but most of us understand getting there takes more than empty ‘wishes’.

          “Absolutely.”
          You and M4e have yet to define how you identify them.

          “Absolutely.”
          You and M4e have yet to define how you would accomplish that.

          “I’m not a big fan of private prisons. I would trust private charities and NGOs more than I would trust private prisons, or even state-run prisons.”
          So what? It’s not as if your opinions are worth a lot.

          “Another way to clear the asylum backlog is simply to make legal immigration easier. That way, fewer people, who truthfully have no legitimate asylum claim, won’t clog the legitimate asylum system with a bogus claim, and instead they can come here, work, send remittances back home, like they were likely intending to do in the first place.”
          Good idea. Maybe you and M4e can get Pelosi et all to work on that instead of grand-standing over the places which they ignored prior to 2016.

          1. “Good idea. Maybe you and M4e can get Pelosi et all to work on that instead of grand-standing over the places which they ignored prior to 2016.”
            The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill in 2013 that Speaker Boehner failed to pass in House. Speaker Pelosi not the problem. Nor for that matter is John Boehner. It is recalcitrant Republicans unwilling to deal with the realities of immigration. The issues is more important than the solution.

            1. The 2013 bill was basically the 1986 bil all over again. Amnesty now for border security later, we promise.

  15. oh brother….time bomb to what, idiot?

    1. Not sure, but agent 86 will save us.
      We have the building surrounded by 300 crack sharpshooters.

    2. time bomb to what, idiot?

      A prison riot.

    3. Would you believe 150 of duty sanitation workers?

  16. we must let them in, they and their first generation kids will surely vote to repeal Obamacare, stop and further expansion of the welfare state, and work tirelessly to eliminate favoritism for minorities at major universities in the US…Moron Nickie’s libertarian moment is here!

    1. If they promise to vote for trump can we let them in?

      1. It would show that they’re the right sort.

        1. Pod 2 might agree

  17. “Pelosi caves, progressive Democrats angry, as House passes humanitarian border bill”

    —-ABC News, June 27, 2019

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-dismisses-mcconnells-threat-kill-humanitarian-border-bill/story?id=63988762

    It’s amazing that some people still can’t seem to get it around their heads that Nancy Pelosi and the progressive Democrats opposed funding relief for these suffering children.

    It’s like the little minds just can’t see the truth if it goes against their programming. Yes, Democrats angry because the bill to relieve this suffering was passed. They were hoping to use these people’s suffering as a cudgel to push for their preferred agenda.

    That’s what happened.

    1. Don’t worry. There’s plenty more suffering to be exploited. You seem to forget these people are professionals.

      1. I actually agree with Mtrueman, has he frozen over?

    2. It’s all about not wanting Orange Man Bad to look good.

      No principles. Just cynical politics.

  18. Mexico has to choke off the migrants who have illegally entered that country.

    But there’s no border crisis. Nope.

    It’s been tormenting and looming for decades. And now shit has hit the fan.

    Send lawyers, guns and money.

    1. One of the most disingenuous aspects of this . . .

      Here’s a thread from April 2019. Some of you may remember, when U.S. District Judge Richard Seebord ruled against the Trump administration and enjoined them to stop shipping asylum seekers back to Mexico to await their hearing. From the ruling:

      “Nothing in the ruling prohibits the U.S. from detaining would-be asylum-seekers until they can be granted a court hearing, and nothing requires immigration officials to release asylum-seekers into the U.S., Seebord wrote.”

      https://reason.com/2019/04/08/us-cant-force-asylum-seekers-to-wait-in/#comments

      Go look at what the stupidest people in this thread were saying about holding asylum seekers indefinitely back then.

      Go look at what the left was saying about how Trump is free to keep these “defensive” asylum seekers locked up in U.S. custody if he’d rather not release them into the U.S. while they’re awaiting trial.

      To what extent do you suppose the conditions in these facilities are directly related to that injunction?

      1. Enjoy Every Sandwich
        April.9.2019 at 8:23 am
        I presume that those who are cheering this ruling will support providing funds to house all of these asylum seekers?

        Nah, of course not.

        Mickey Rat
        April.9.2019 at 9:22 am
        Next they are going to complain that these people are being held in deplorable conditions and must be released in the US and then find another friendly and unscrupulous judge.

          1. Oh, to clarify (because I see now it might look weird): I was not posting those as examples of stupid commenters – rather, I was struck but how EXACTLY Mickey Rat called it

  19. I read a LOT of history; US, European, Asian, and African. You are informed of prior mistakes and successes, such reading providing judgement when examining future efforts.
    But Post-Colombian South and Central American history has remained a space on the book shelves bereft of occupants. No great surprise; they all seem to vacillate between thug militarists and thug lefties forming governments. There seems nothing to learn there.
    Sowell looks to have a handle on matters when he compares cultures; those that produce and those that don’t, and it shows even in a comparison of post-Colonial Africa and ditto South and Central America; see, for example “Is Africa the Next Big Economic Success Story?”
    ( https://nationalinterest.org/feature/africa-the-next-big-economic-success-story-19297 ), and “Factfulness” (Rosling).
    Iberian culture, either at home or as exported to the Americas, seems to disdain actual production of goods, and none of the native S/C American populations have managed to revolt to the point of removing the Iberian-culture dominance. Anecdotally, there is no lack of ambition among individuals from Central and South America, but the culture (and governance) remains. Like Islam, there has yet to be an ‘enlightenment’, and that is a problem.
    Further, Taleb in “Skin it the Game” makes a pretty clear argument that an intolerant minority can enforce an un-popular result on a general population, but only if the “enforcement” is through government coercion. Not hard to accomplish if you have an AOC, for instance, in a position to enforce an ‘intolerant minority’ opinion by fiat.
    The concepts of free markets and free minds is far from universal (read “English, Meaning and Culture”, Wierzbicka) and the US as currently governed really offers neither.
    Personally, I welcome Jorge (probably here illegally) who removed that roof, safely, in one day, but did not welcome his cousin Juan who seem best skilled at leaning on a broom-handle.

    1. So should the swarthies be contained to their own countries where Darwinian selection can take its course, or should we import them as a permanent worker underclass we can exploit? What’s wrong with the latter? Afraid they’ll try to spread their swarthy brown cooties to your grandchildren?

      Since culture is something that is arbitrary and changeable, what are you bitching about? If they come here, they’ll adapt to the allegedly superior culture, no?

      Might it be that you say “culture” when you mean “race,” but want it to sound nicer?

      1. Oh, look! Fucking lefty ignoramus shows up to prove how stupid a human can be!

        Tony
        July.4.2019 at 12:40 am
        “So should the swarthies be contained to their own countries where Darwinian selection can take its course, or should we import them as a permanent worker underclass we can exploit? What’s wrong with the latter? Afraid they’ll try to spread their swarthy brown cooties to your grandchildren?”
        I made no comment regarding that, but a fucking lefty racist seems to have strong feelings about it.

        “Since culture is something that is arbitrary and changeable, what are you bitching about? If they come here, they’ll adapt to the allegedly superior culture, no?”
        Gee, look there; claim minus any evidence at all. But fucking lefty ignoramuses are sorta stupid that way.

        “Might it be that you say “culture” when you mean “race,” but want it to sound nicer?”
        Might you be projecting your racism on others? Why, it certainly seems that way.
        Please tell us, oh fucking lefty ignoramus, what “race” are those of Iberian culture?

        1. Do you even know where Iberia is, you ignorant plagiarist?

          1. Tony
            July.4.2019 at 1:35 pm
            “Do you even know where Iberia is, you ignorant plagiarist?”

            So the best the fucking lefty ignoramus can do is hope I can’t identify the Iberian region.
            Fuck off and die, shitbag.

            1. Frankly I have my doubts you can even figure out Google.

  20. Most of you idiots would rather get a zinger against Democrats in your quiver than see a single child not live in shit and be traumatized for life. Racist rightwing media has poisoned you and turned you into cunts.

    1. Hey! And another thing! these kids are poor and hungry and homeless. You fucks don’t even want to food and house and provide healthcare to them for the foreseeable future. You e all got stuff and they dont! The worlds not fair and it’s because of you!

    2. oh stop your affectation fake tough guy

      1. I thought my affectation was more effete liberal.

        It’s just that I really detest people who are so addicted to rightwing media that they care more about political zingers than the suffering of children.

        1. No you don’t.
          You don’t actually give a shit about the suffering of children and you absolutely care more about getting in political zingers.
          Nothing wrong with that – your willingness to admit as much is one of your redeeming qualities.
          As far as right wing media goes, I get the impression that no one here watches as much as you do.

          1. Then how do they come about the same rightwing media bullshit talking points that have no relation to fact? I doubt it’s a miracle.

            The difference between them and me is that I choose my political inclinations based on real outcomes for human beings, while they spend all their time whining about what victims they are at the hands of imaginary forces invented by interests who exploit stupid people for power.

  21. They were also called “literal concentration camps” run by “literally Hitler”.

    1. Well, as long as they’re not that bad, it’s literally libertopia.

  22. So, I am supposed to feel badly because these morons try to come into America illegally while they know of the horrible conditions awaiting them when they arrive at their destination? Really? These conditions are caused by the sheer numbers of them arriving en masse and hence a self-created tragedy. Everyone reaps what they sow.

    1. try to come into America illegally

      One more time:

      It is not illegal to request asylum at a port of entry.

  23. There is one main point to be made here.
    Only around 6-8% of these illegals are actual asylum seekers. The rest are literally making the claim to circumvent and abuse the system.
    Also, all of these immigrants are making their way through Mexico to get to America. Mexico is considered a ‘safe’ country for any genuine asylum seekers. Under international law these asylum seekers should apply for asylum in Mexico. If you are a genuine AS then you should never even get to America.
    That being said, then everyone crossing the border illegally should literally be dumped straight across the border without a court hearing.
    The only people who should be allowed into America without being deported are those that cross at a genuine point of entry.
    It’s not rocket science. America should knock down all of these detention centres and ship them all back to Mexico.

  24. Can’t they be put to some useful work? Building walls maybe?? Something useful if we are feeding them bologna and bread. I remember going to work as a 14 year old and packing baloney sandwiches for lunch. 10 hours in scorching heat in cornfields. Now I have to work overtime to pay for their health care and welfare?

  25. why would we not let in all these people who would work tirelessly against Medicare for all efforts from the Left, don’t we know the libertarian moment is upon us!

  26. “Crisees…I don’ see no steenkin’ crisees…” -DNC and media catamites about two months ago.

  27. Dump them all in every Blue district whether they are a sanctuary City/county/state or not…they wanted them, make their wish come true and let them have them.

  28. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> Detail of work

  29. […] two agencies have been making headlines recently for the deplorable conditions in their migrant detention facilities. Ocasio-Cortez made a […]

  30. […] two agencies have been making headlines recently for the deplorable conditions in their migrant detention facilities. Ocasio-Cortez made a […]

  31. […] two agencies have been making headlines recently for the deplorable conditions in their migrant detention facilities. Ocasio-Cortez made a […]

  32. […] two agencies have been making headlines recently for the deplorable conditions in their migrant detention facilities. Ocasio-Cortez made a […]

  33. […] two agencies have been making headlines recently for the deplorable conditions in their migrant detention facilities. Ocasio-Cortez made a […]

  34. These places should be 10x worse than this to discourage more of the bastards from coming!

Please to post comments