Reason Roundup

Supreme Court Makes It More Difficult for Refugees To Find Asylum Here

Plus: 4 myths about social media law, Trump wants to ban cigarette alternatives, and more...

|

The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to enforce a new anti-asylum rule while a legal challenge to the policy proceeds. The change makes it harder for Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty to be admitted into the U.S. legally—all but ensuring more suffering for migrants and more illegal immigration. Like so much of Trump's immigration policy, this one presents another lose-lose.

Under the previous policy, refugees seeking asylum are not allowed to apply from within their own countries; they must do so at an American port of entry or from within the United States. That's what has led many migrants looking to get out of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras to make the trek all the way to the U.S.–Mexico border and present themselves to U.S. immigration officials in person.

Now such individuals will be turned away if they don't first apply for asylum in any country they pass through on the way here. The new policy "screens out asylum seekers who declined to request protection at the first opportunity," said U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, portraying this as a way to weed out scammers.

But there are many valid reasons why people fleeing Central America would want to come to the U.S. instead of countries closer to home. Many of these refugees are trying to escape violence from gangs and cartels, which often have a strong foothold in nearby nations too. Those subject to political persecution may find their foes are better able to reach them when they're close to their home countries. And of course, many Central Americans have family here already, making a move to the U.S. desirable not just for emotional reasons but for practical ones, such as having a place to stay and folks to help them find work.

Besides, a large number of asylum seekers from Central America are already turned away. This suggests that our process for evaluating such requests—and separating those who "genuinely fear persecution or torture" from those who "are simply economic migrants,"  as Francisco put it—is already working. ("Economic migrants" should of course be more welcome here, too, but that's a subject for another day.)

The new asylum rules were announced in July but were temporarily blocked by a federal court in California. The Department of Justice appealed the decision, and that appeal is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But the Justice Department also asked the Supreme Court for permission to enforce the new policy as it awaits the outcome of the 9th Circuit case.

Canada says it will admit asylum seekers who are rejected from the U.S. under the new rule.


FREE MINDS

Four myths about social media regulation and Section 230: 



FREE MARKETS

OK, who gave Barron a Juul? The Trump administration plans to ban vaping anything other than tobacco-flavored products—you know, to stop people from turning to tobacco! Geniuses, these people. The president's interest in this topic apparently stems from a freakout by first lady Melania.

"The ban, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will impose through regulatory 'guidance' it plans to issue soon, will dramatically reduce the harm-reducing alternatives available to smokers who are interested in quitting and is likely to drive many people who have already made that switch back to a much more dangerous source of nicotine," writes Reason's Jacob Sullum. More:

The flavor ban is aimed at preventing underage vaping, which increased sharply last year….Since selling e-cigarettes to minors is already illegal, a more reasonable approach would have been to improve enforcement of age restrictions. Companies such as Juul, the leading e-cigarette maker, have already taken steps in that direction through robust age verification. If some retailers are still selling e-cigarettes to minors, a logical response would have been to crack down on them. Instead the Trump administration is depriving adults of potentially lifesaving products that seem to be nearly twice as effective in facilitating smoking cessation as alternatives such as nicotine gum and patches.


QUICK HITS

  • What to expect from tonight's Democratic presidential debate.
  • I talked to Free the People's Matt Kibbe about Kamala Harris, Josh Hawley, Backpage, Section 230, and rising illiberalism on the left and right:

NEXT: The mischief and the statute 2

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.

Please to post comments

239 responses to “Supreme Court Makes It More Difficult for Refugees To Find Asylum Here

  1. Now such individuals will be turned away if they don’t first apply for asylum in any country they pass through on the way here.

    Mexico’s southern border is about to snap shut.

    1. I love how the writer claims that this policy will increase illegal immigration. Since it went into place, border apprehensions have decreased dramatically. It would appear that this has actually decreased illegal immigration.

      1. +100

  2. Canada says it will admit asylum seekers who are rejected from the U.S. under the new rule.

    I hear Canada’s better anyway.

    1. Hello.

    2. Especially if the goal is to get the refugees further away from those cartels who take such a keen interest in a bunch of nobodies.

      1. I sure hope nobody tells reason that those cartels also operate in many states. It would make their claims of non economic asylum even weaker.

        1. Yes, the stories of people fleeing MS13 by going to the US, of all countries, really show how unserious people like ENB are

      2. Now you see the genius of Trump wanting to buy Greenland. 4D chess Tom, 4D chess.

        1. Will he buy a bargain basement cruise ship from the companies displaced from the Bahamas and start ferrying asylum seekers straight to Greenland? Seems like a market opportunity.

        2. +10

        3. During the close Gitmo and moved them to the US debate I proposed that we reopen one the secondary forward staging air based in the Alaskan bush and turn it into a federal prison and move the prisoners there. Or one of the Aleutians islands’ abandoned cold war bases. I wouldn’t even think you’d need that much fencing. If they can escape and hike a 1000 miles to the nearest settlement through the Alaskan bush, or swim/boat through one of the worst sealanes weather wise to escape, I say let them.

    3. The Tijuana-to-Vancouver overpass along I-5 is going to be one hell of an infrastructure project.

      1. It is shovel ready.

      2. Just install a new HOV lane with minimum 30 passengers. Next exit, 1300 miles.

      3. Trump’s about to eminent domain Musk’s hyperloop.

      4. Justification for maglev

        1. MAGA-lev

          Trump putting refugees on a train would be epic.

          1. All the stuff Trump is currently doing to enforce Immigration law and secure our border is EPIC.

            MAGA!

    4. There are many victims of gang members in Chicago and Baltimore. I’m glad that Canada will offer them asylum too.

      Oh, wait…

    5. Easy virtue signal. If they don’t make it to the U.S. the U.S. can’t reject them.

  3. Big donors are vowing to stop supporting Kamala Harris’ candidacy if she doesn’t do well in tonight’s debate.

    if there’s anything democrats have learned its that doing well in debates helps you win elections

    1. You notice that Reason isn’t covering the trial of the pro-life journalists who did the expose of PP selling body parts? They were arrested on Kampala Harris orders after colluding with her donors PP. Her agents illegally seized their unpublished work product.
      Meanwhile, everything they allege is being confirmed at trial ( the videos weren’t so deceptively edited after all) and the press is ignoring it, and Xavier Becerra wants a gag order. And Reason is prattling on about Sec 230 myths

      1. Oh, NT, government suppression of speech is only a problem if it involves not allowing antifa to be masked in public.

      2. A Google search shows that Reason has written at least 10 articles talking about the Center for Medical Progress / Planned Parenthood story.

        Did you actually make any effort to see if Reason has written about your pet issue before criticizing Reason?

        1. The trial is this week dummy.

          1. Relevance of that? My point is that Reason has covered this issue, not actively tried to suppress it, as NashTiger implies.

            If you all have such a boner for this particular trial being covered, perhaps start your own news magazine, so you can decide exactly which topics to cover each week.

            1. No he stated they aren’t covering the trial.
              “You notice that Reason isn’t covering the trial of the pro-life journalists who did the expose of PP selling body parts?”

              1. Notice he specifically was speaking about the trial. You just moved the goal post Mikey.

      3. Despite the fact they are against laws preventing animal rights activists from getting jobs under false pretenses at ranches and farms for the purpose of producing agitprop videos.

        Abortion is one of the social liberal sacred cows, they are unlikely to cover anything that makes it look bad even if it means giving short shrift to another stated principle.

    2. Democrats are capable of learning from experience?

    3. take it off!

  4. The asylum decision was 7-2 with only Keagan and the Magic Latina dissenting. When your loony left position has lost RBG…

    1. Did you read the dissent? It was void of any legal reasoning. It was them just saying what they wish the policy was.

      1. No I didn’t but that doesn’t surprise me. There was no legal case to be made.

      2. The Wise Latina was looking out for her in-group preferences, while Ginsburg’s vote was clocked in by a body double.

        1. “Blink once if you want to join the majority opinion, and blink twice if you want to dissent.”

          1. I was thinking more like Captain Pike in the TOS classic “The Menagerie” and his blinking light wheelchair.

            1. Classic.

            2. lol. parodied on Futurama also.

              1. Classic episode.

          2. +100000 Ray +100000

    2. I won’t hear any criticism about the Wise Latina she was easily the best pick of Obama’s tenure and quite possibly the best liberal Judge selected in the last 30 years for the 4th amendment.

      1. Low bar for protector of the 4th Amendment.

        Watch as Gorsuch is blowing her away with not giving government powers the Constitution does not give them.

  5. The president’s interest in this topic apparently stems from a freakout by First Lady Melania.

    “I really don’t care. Do you?”

    1. Key word was apparently from not even an anonymous source.

  6. What to expect from tonight’s Democratic presidential debate.

    jim ross yelling “that’s tulsi gabbard’s music!”

    1. My opponents do not hate corporations and gunz as much as I do

    2. Joe Biden doing push-ups.

      1. And stealing hugs

      2. Joe Biden’s arm falling off and nobody in the media seeming to notice.

        1. All that blood in his eyes went somewhere.

          Dollars-to-doughnuts, the blood will migrate to his ears and drip out during the debates.

  7. http://pjmedia.com/trending/the-morning-briefing-the-new-york-times-is-satan-edition/

    New York Times on 9-11 anniversary, some planes did something…

    But only a big, racist meanie like Trump could not love the media.

    1. It’s so fucking bizarre that they chose to phrase it that way. It’s not as if anyone doesn’t know who was responsible. Maybe it’s a test to see how willing their readers are to swallow utter bullshit. “Planes took aim”? You have to be willfully blind to not see how ridiculous that sounds.

      1. Well, sure. If guns can commit gun crimes, why can’t airplanes fly into buildings. No humans need be involved.

        1. …OR, are they claiming Muslims aren’t really people?

          #OUTRAGEMACHINE

      2. Zeb….You see, they truly are willfully blind. The Coastal uberlibs have absolutely no conception of common sense. They emote, completely devoid of reason, rationality or logic.

        1. “How do you write women so well?”

      3. There are 18 year olds who weren’t born and 21 year olds who can’t remember the day. Yes, memory is fading.

  8. Impossible to think of America as anything other than villainous, here

    “Climate migration”

    1. The fact that the tax payers are sending billions in aid to rebuild the island doesn’t matter. If America will not invite everyone to live here forever, they are villains.

      1. Weird, I come here every day and I can’t remember the last article that thoroughly described all the money we waste on foreign aide to third world countries

        1. REASON endorses global socialism while pretending to reject domestic socialism.

      2. Everyone knows helping them rebuild rather than importing them for an indeterminate amount of time is pure racism.

        1. Just like turning one ship back that didn’t follow procedures while allowing another 100 in is also racism.

  9. What to expect from tonight’s Democratic presidential debate.

    Taxpayers, get out your wallets.

    1. And pass them to the front of the state.

      1. Front of the stage.

        Damn, I realized my error right when I posted.

        1. no error–that was a classic johnism. A mistake that makes the point more poignant

          1. +10

        2. “front of state” better.

        3. If you hadn’t admitted to a mistake it would have been more accurate.

  10. “Many of these refugees are trying to escape violence from gangs and cartels, which often have a strong foothold in nearby nations too. Those subject to political persecution may find their foes are better able to reach them when they’re close to their home countries. ”

    They should be encouraged to go to Mongolia. That’s even further away. For their safety.

    1. Apparently, welshing on a debt to a drug cartel is grounds for asylum according to reason.

      1. Does anyone seriously think the “cartels” give a flying fuck about 99.99% of these “refugees”?

        1. They care for them enough to bury them in mass graves when they can’t extort any more money out of them.

          1. I thought those were the tourists

            1. Tourists are buried UNDER the “refugees”, so nobody will ever dig past to find the tourists.

    2. If your only requirement for granting someone asylum is the person’s claim that he’s trying to “escape gang violence,” then you’re basically granting asylum to everyone who asks and has at least two brain cells.

      1. I just wish someone could tell me where Americans can migrate to when they want to escape gang violence.

        1. Baltimore has a higher gang crime rate than Guatemala. All citizens of Baltimore should be apply for asylum in Canada.

        2. Well if you can speak Spanish , Canada.

    3. They should be encouraged to go to Mongolia.

      Or Greenland.

  11. Big donors are vowing to stop supporting Kamala Harris’ candidacy if she doesn’t do well in tonight’s debate.

    Hopefully she has another busing story up her sleeve.

    1. That was her on the bus Fist.

      1. Kamala: “I remember a story about busing. This uppity bitch wouldn’t move out of her seat. So I sued the shit out of her.

        Fuckin’ Rosa Parks…”

    2. Yeah, that would be a smart play.

      #LibertariansForBusing
      #DiversityAboveAll

  12. “What to expect from tonight’s Democratic presidential debate.”

    A stage full of fantastic candidates, all of whom would be infinitely better than Orange Hitler on our fundamental, non-negotiable issue — open borders.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders

    1. Wow. I did not know any of that.

      1. Steve Buscumi is a great actor. But the first time I read this story my respect for him tripled at least.

    2. +100 never knew about that. I knew he was funny looking.

      Well, the little guy, he was kinda funny-looking.
      In what way?
      I dunno, just funny-lookin’.
      Can you be any more specific?
      I couldn’t really say. He wasn’t circumcised.
      Was he funny lookin’ apart from that?
      Yeah.
      So, you were having sex with the little fella then?
      Uh-huh.
      Is there anything else you can tell me about him?
      No. Like I say, he was funny lookin’. More n’ most people even.

      1. Oh ya.

  13. The U.K. is threatening to use anti-terrorism laws against shops that sell Red Bull to minors.

    The sun never sets on British statism.

    1. As we speak people in the USDOJ are being reprimanded for not thinking of this.

    2. Do they restrict other caffeine products, or just Redbull?

      1. Just Redbull. The UK is tired of McClaren and Williams being back markers in F1. Next they are going to declare anyone who sells a Ferrari or a Mercedes to a minor a terrorist.

    3. I suppose they are suffering from a Red Bull epidemic. You can do anything if it is in the name of fighting an epidemic.

  14. “The president’s interest in this topic apparently stems from a freakout by First Lady Melania.”

    This was y even from an anonymous source but merely an anti orange man speculator. Good work reason.

    1. Sources? We don’t need no stinking sources!

    2. “A story like that’s gotta be true!”

  15. “The change makes it harder for Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty to be admitted into the U.S. ”

    Does poverty give a person refugee status?

    1. No. But it is reason, they are rolling.

      1. They must be majoring in pre-law.

        1. I thought they were pre-med?

          1. Seven years of college, down the drain

          2. I’m not going to stand here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America.

    2. They are only poor because rich cartel members persecute the non cartel members, so all non cartel members can apply here or something.

    3. If poverty is justification for applying for refugee status, Arthur L. Hicklib’s liberal/libertarian cities should be opening up their doors for all the poor black residents of the Deep South.

  16. “Big donors are vowing to stop supporting Kamala Harris’ candidacy if she doesn’t do well in tonight’s debate.”

    That’s disappointing. Harris has always been either my clear first choice, or tied for first with Warren.

    Come on, big donors, don’t give up yet!

    #LibertariansForHarris
    #ProgressiveProsecutor

    1. To be fair… her being a shitty person and awful candidate already stopped her campaign. Donors are just following her actions.

      1. Gabbard won’t be there tonight to point out what a shitty person Harris is, so who knows?

        1. Gabbard was on Tucker Carlson (the horror) the other night actually giving Trump some credit (that Russian whore) for firing Bolton. Expect her to be even further memory holed by the media because they have already began the process of rehabilitating Bolton’s reputation.

  17. Big donors are vowing to stop supporting Kamala Harris’ candidacy if she doesn’t do well in tonight’s debate.

    My guess is without Tulsi in the debate no one is going to call her out on any of her bullshit.

    1. I agree and that is why Tulsi was never going to be allowed in another debate.

      1. I’m pretty sure in this debate Tulsi was going to choke out Kamala. I saw Tulsi’s workout video.

        1. Pics or it didn’t happen

        2. This is a Presidential debate and she’s a capoeirista, save the chokeouts for the cabinet meetings. Martelo do Chao (~spinning back kick) or GTFO!

      2. Funny how Tulsi got locked out while The Mick Who LARPs As A Spic and Spartacus gets a seat at the big kids table, despite the fact that they’re barely polling better than she is.

        1. New drinking game, take a shot every time O’Rourke uses gratitous language in order to revive his stagnant campaign. Take a double shot every time Booker references some possible (probable) fictitious friend who was harmed by loose gun laws or some other white privilege.

  18. if we can’t even let 1,500 people in to temporarily live and work

    ::30 years later::
    “These people have been here for 30 years, we can’t cancel their TPS status, the US is all they’ve known!”

    1. The alien always wins Red Rocks.

    2. From USA Today: 310,000 people from various countries are already here under TPS, “many for more than two decades.”

      “Temporary” apparently means your entire fucking life.

      1. My local rag had a heartstring puller a couple weeks ago about a TPS resident from Honduras who’d been here for 20 years, and was in danger of being deported.

        If you can’t find the motivation to apply for citizenship after living full-time in a foreign country for two fucking decades and having kids, then you’re not really a productive member of society, you’re just a free-loader.

        1. If you can’t find the motivation to apply for citizenship after living full-time in a foreign country for two fucking decades and having kids, then you’re not really a productive member of society, you’re just a free-loader.

          I’m not sure that follows. He could have been working hard and getting ahead instead of applying for citizenship. Though it’s still pretty dumb to complain when your status is officially temporary but you could have done something about it.

          1. He could have been working hard and getting ahead instead of applying for citizenship.

            There are plenty of people who can work and apply for citizenship at the same time.

            1. Sure. All I’m saying is that not applying for citizenship when you could have and then complaining about being deported doesn’t make you a freeloader if you aren’t freeloading. It just makes you a fool.

        2. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/temporary-protected-status-overview

          Looks like it’s not so simple.

          Generally, a person who entered the United States without inspection is not eligible to apply for permanent residence. As of May 2019, three federal appellate circuits had ruled on this issue:

          Two federal appellate circuits (the Ninth and Sixth Circuits) ruled that a person with valid TPS status could adjust status to lawful permanent residence if otherwise eligible through a family-based or employment-based petition, even if he or she entered the United States without inspection.

          The Eleventh Circuit ruled that a TPS recipient who entered without inspection is not eligible to adjust to permanent residence.

          DHS’ position, applicable in all other circuits, is that a TPS holder is not eligible to adjust status within the United States. In order to gain permanent resident status, a TPS recipient must instead depart the country to have a visa processed at a consular post. For many TPS holders who originally entered the United States without inspection, a departure to have a visa interview would trigger bars to re-entry for up to 10 years.

          1. thats our government. Yes you can but no you can’t.

          2. Yet more evidence that the people who scream the loudest about immigration typically don’t even know how the whole system works.

            1. Yes. Let is all bow down to Jeff’s knowledge of huffpost headlines.

            2. Good a reason as any to ship them back.

      2. Well, we are only temporarily alive.

        1. Speak for yourself, fleshbag.

    3. It’s like with Keynesian spending. The spigot can’t be turned counterclockwise.

    4. That someone has been living here for 30 years is a good argument, actually.

      1. 30 years equals temporary in your world?

        1. Didn’t I say the opposite of that?

  19. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $59.3 billion

    Koch / Reason libertarianism maintains that in a healthy economy, the richest people on the planet should be getting richer. But during this #DrumpfRecession? An inexcusable 4 of the top 30 have actually seen their wealth decrease this year, including our billionaire benefactor.

    I guarantee Mr. Koch’s fortune would not be stagnating like this under a Hillary Clinton economy.

    1. If you think Charles is having a bad year, his brother’s is even worse.

      1. REASON was going to ask him for a donation… He took the easy way out.

        1. +100

          It was gonna need to be a BIG donation.

  20. “Like so much of Trump’s immigration policy, this one presents another lose-lose.”

    uhhhh…. I win. I don’t have to pay for it. I also win twice because I get to come to a “libertarian” website and read your emotional appeals, which makes me laugh every damn day.

    1. Icing on the cake, baby!

    2. I mean, you’re obviously paying directly for the increased border spending. There’s an argument you’re paying indirectly as well, in a sense, given the economic benefits that accrue principally to natives through increased immigration.

      I mean, I suppose the best libertarian argument against immigration is that it’ll help keep social security solvent and prolong its final reckoning?

      Personally I like cheap meat and dislike my government putting boots on undeserving necks, so I lose twice.

  21. Why do people think that flavors are what attracts kids to vaping or smoking? Back in the day when I started smoking as a young teenager, no one wanted to smoke any fruity shit (vaping wasn’t a thing). We all smoked Camels or Marlboros, except for the few menthol weirdos and the clove smoking goth kids.
    Young people don’t smoke because it’s candy flavored. They smoke (or more likely vape now) because it seems cool and grown up and rebellious.

    1. Which is why we have to make it illegal for teen-agers to buy vaping supplies – kids are stupid. They don’t see the straight-line connection between vaping and fentanyl. Or the straight-line connection between vaping and sex trafficking, global warming, childhood obesity, and the inexplicable interest in whatever it is the Kardashians are doing.

      1. Vaping rhymes with fracking if you squint hard enough.

  22. “Many of these refugees are trying to escape violence from gangs and cartels, which often have a strong foothold in nearby nations too. Those subject to political persecution may find their foes are better able to reach them when they’re close to their home countries. ”

    But Reason says doing anything about their leadership is violation of the NAP. But Reason says tariffs or economic sanctions is anti free market….

    It’s almost like Libertarians have no solutions to any of these issues besides emotional appeals to me giving money for welfare checks for brown people on the cover page of the article

    1. Reason writers are going long on gold, guns, and ammo.

    2. It’s almost like libertarians don’t think with one mind and disagree about all kinds of things.

      1. The NAP is something all libertarians should agree on. But if you’re going to use the NAP to beat people over the head with you damn well better be prepared to watch other people suffer without trying to reach into my wallet

        1. Yes, if people are calling for giving immigrants/assylum seekers free shit on the taxpayer dime, I agree, they aren’t very good at libertarianism.

          The NAP consistent position is to allow peaceful immigration and to get rid of the welfare state.

          1. The NAP consistent position is to allow negotiated immigration and to get rid of the welfare state.

            FTFY

          2. Thing is, you need to get rid of the welfare state first and since that is a political impossibility therefore so too are open borders.

            This ‘soft touch’ libertarianism that wants open borders while we have a welfare state are courting a worse disaster than what the status quo results in.

            That’s one reason the brand doesn’t sell. They market themselves to people who think, even though they don’t think at all.

    3. Q: How does a libertarian solve a problem?
      A: Problem? What problem?

      1. Q: How does a libertarian solve a problem?
        A: Problem? What problem?

        That’s quite often true, but it’s true for a reason. First, assume that if there were a solution to the problem somebody would have solved it already and therefore the problem is insoluble. Second, don’t waste your time trying to solve unsolvable problems and accept that not making a bad situation worse is sometimes the best you can do. Third, look for a way to turn a problem into an opportunity. Build a retention pond rather than a retaining wall to deal with the flood.

      2. Solve your own problems. Leave everyone else out of it.

    4. The libertarian solution is individual voluntary action, as always.

      The ideal solution IMO is for migrants who want to come here to work, be permitted to do so, and if they choose, they can send remittances back home to support their families. This is a VOLUNTARY form of “foreign aid” that doesn’t depend on coercive taxes being doled out to dictators under the guide of “aid”. It also obviates the necessity of entire families moving here – perhaps only one or two breadwinners would have to do so. It also eliminates the entire baloney of economic migrants making bogus asylum claims.

      1. Agreed.

      2. Who’s socking as jeff??

        1. This has been my position for a while now.
          Are you now just realizing it?

      3. I won’t argue with any of that. But this isn’t about people coming here to work, it’s about people escaping their own version of corruption and americans footing the bill

        1. No, it’s about people wanting to come here to work, but, having no realistic legal means to do so, instead they drag their children along and exaggerate and/or invent asylum stories in order to use the asylum process as a legal loophole to satisfy their desire to come here to work.

          And yes some really are fleeing violence and oppression, but that’s not a large proportion of them.

      4. The ideal solution IMO is for migrants who want to come here to work, be permitted to do so, provided that their passage through, and use of any properties held in common by US citizens is negotiated for and pre-paid by the employer.

        1. If a migrant comes here to work, that migrant pays all of the same taxes that any other worker would pay – income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. Why shouldn’t a migrant be treated on the same footing as any other taxpayer as far as the use of “public lands” are concerned?

          1. Theyre paying for the border wall, thats for sure.

        2. No properties are held in common by US citizens. Some properties are held by the government. That’s not the same thing.
          And why does a citizen who pays no taxes to fund the government infrastructure get more of a say than an immigrant who does pay taxes?

      5. The Libertarian solution is individual voluntary action AND tiny and limited government were needed.

        1. You can’t get rid of government, it’s endemic to the human condition. Put two people on a desert island, and one will declare themselves chief and the other will either follow along or kill them.

          Libertarians like to pretend human nature isn’t deeply emotive, but logic and higher reasoning are the exception rather than the rule.

          Sort of like how people think there are natural rights when no such rights exist in nature. They’re constructs of man, no more and no less. A tiger will not respect your right to a trial by your peers, for example.

  23. “On “the misplaced feminism of Ms. Monopoly.””

    It’s not miplaced if it’s done on purpose. The entire third wave of the movement seeks to punish males for their successes.

    In other words, your friends are assholes.

    1. Feminism isn’t about equality… It’s in the name…

    2. Remember… they pulled socialism monopoly. this is the mea culpa.

      1. Monopoly is anti-market in form. You do not have a choice where you go, you must pay where you land.

        1. Monopoly just isn’t that good of a game.

    3. It’s not miplaced if it’s done on purpose. The entire third wave of the movement seeks to punish males humans for their successes.

      They don’t like women with agency too much either. Go look at the board, ‘Boardwalk’ has been replaced with ‘Chocolate Chip Cookies’. Other properties have been replaced with ‘Retractable Dog Leash’ and ‘Acupressure Tool’. Apparently women can’t own and manage property like regular Monopoly. The only way it could be more hackneyed and not-so-borderline mysogynistic is if Jail were replaced with a kitchen and ‘Go to jail’ were replaced with ‘Make a sandwich’.

      1. fair. Third wavers will attack women who fall out of line too

  24. CA legislature decides rents are too cheap in CA:

    “California passes statewide rent control in effort to ease housing crisis”
    https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/09/12/california-passes-statewide-rent-control-in-effort.html

    It takes a ‘business journal’ based in CA to think this will do other than it actually will.

    1. In other news, the California Dept. of Health blames bedbugs on spontaneous generation.

    2. Nyt also had a headline like this

  25. Not only is Warren not native american… her family has a long history of killing native americans including the Trail of Tears.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/12/elizabeth-warren-a-direct-descendant-of-militia-indian-fighter-who-fought-seminole-tribe/

    1. Indians killing Indians is a cultural thing. Have you seen her cheekbones?

    2. Maybe its why she is only 1/1024 Cherokee. Other AmerIndians would have nothing to do with her family after the bloodletting.

    3. So now guilt by ancestors is good?

      Isn’t it enough reason to despise Warren that her ideas and policies are terrible and harmful without resorting to cheap digs at her family history?

      1. Isn’t it enough reason to despise Warren that her ideas and policies are terrible and harmful without resorting to cheap digs at her family history?

        You can push them out of a plane. You can march them off a cliff. You can send them off to die on some God forsaken rock. But for some reason, you can’t slap them.

        1. Heh.

          But seriously, if there were a candidate who lied about being an Indian and had ancestors who murdered baby Eskimos and raped slaves, I wouldn’t give a shit if they had good policy ideas and cared about individual liberty.
          What’s the point of the ad hominem shit? No one who likes warren is going to change their minds because of this. And people who don’t support her don’t support her because her ideas are bad.

          1. It’s a short hand illustration of her baseline mendaciousness.

            That’s why people keep pointing it out.

            Also, one might rightly think her supporters would like to know about it since racial issues are one of their specific pet peeves.

  26. The DNC, Clinton campaign, FBI, CIA, State Department engaged foreign agents and governments to generate bogus intelligence for the purpose of undermining a POTUS election.

    This, plus illegal leaks to a hostile press resulted in an illegal investigation of the POTUS-elect and later POTUS, complete with further illegal leaks and abuse of DOJ powers.

    The resulting shit-storm (fabricated) resulted in an illegal Special Counsel who further abused DOJ powers and lied.

    The result of all that may well be a ill-founded attempt to impeach the POTUS.

    REASON: crickets.

    1. Orange man bad Tom. Orange man bad. What don’t you understand about Orange Man Bad?

    2. The DNC, Clinton campaign, FBI, CIA, State Department engaged foreign agents and governments to generate bogus intelligence for the purpose of undermining a POTUS election.

      Openly. Not may’ve colluded with a Russian who was in New York and may’ve met with a relative of the candidate under false pretenses.

      The campaign acquired the dossier from a known foreign intelligence operative. The campaign gave the dossier to the DNC. The FBI was in touch with the DNC about the dossier. Everyone knew the dossier was the work of a foreign intelligence asset, everyone knew that the FBI doesn’t open an investigation at the behest of an election committee…

      If Trump were as blatantly and openly guilty he’d *rightly* be in exile or dead.

    3. Shorter Tom:
      “Why won’t Reason buy into the Deep State QAnon Attempted Coup right-wing narrative like all of my friends have?”

      1. It’s not a coup and while he does pass narrative, the facts of his narrative are known and crimes objective. You may not like his narrative about a reckless and inattentive driver or maybe quibble about who was driving and who was distracted, but the fact remains that the car hopped the curb, ran over a couple pedestrians, and came to a stop in the middle of a department store and that’s still a crime.

      2. Shorter Jeff: if it’s not in huffpost it isnt true.

        1. The Daily Wire, on the other hand, is the paragon of absolute truth.

          1. Nah. Not the Daily Wire.

            The Mueller Report.

            Gods, I love your tear filled screeching.

  27. Return asylum seekers to their country of origin in groups of 500, sorted by city or region of origin, with enough M-16s and ammo for everyone who wants them.

    Nothing in the NAP about providing the means of self-defense to people who claim threats of violence against them.

    1. Gold, Jerry, Gold!

    2. I hear Ollie North might be looking for a new job.

    3. I bet you could even find some volunteers willing to train them a bit.

  28. Given how few asylum seekers actually turn up for their asylum hearings and how few of those who do show up are deemed to meet the criteria, describing this as limiting legal asylum seekers seems disingenuous. Apparently about 90 per cent of those asylum seekers are actually economic migrants.

    1. Given how few asylum seekers actually turn up for their asylum hearings

      Fake News.

      https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/

      Truth: Over 99% DO show up for their initial hearings when they have legal representation, and even those that don’t have legal representation, 81% show up.

      1. From Jeff’s link

        “Most Released Families Attend Immigration Court Hearings

        The latest case-by-case records from the Immigration Courts indicate that as of the end of May 2019 one or more removal hearings had already been held for nearly 47,000 newly arriving families seeking refuge in this country. Of these, almost six out of every seven families released from custody had shown up for their initial court hearing. Usually multiple hearings are required before a case is decided. For those who are represented, more than 99 percent had appeared at every hearing held.

        Clearly referring to family.

        1. Yes, that link refers to families. And?

          So how can it be the case that 90% of asylum seekers don’t show up (what DHS claims), and ALSO that 90-ish% of asylum seeking families DO show up? Those don’t seem to be consistent.

          Can we at least get rid of the talking point that “so few” asylum seekers show up to their hearings? Not even Tulpa’s right-wing source makes such a claim.

          1. Because they’re not in danger of getting deportation orders at the first hearing. Why flee before that?

          2. Holy shit.. you dont understand that not all asylum seekers have families?!? Really??? For fuck sake jeff. Just leave with a tiny bit of dignity.

      2. No, your statement is fake news. The 99% showing up was a pilot program of selected people who had attorneys and stronger cases than the average migrant.

        Overall, between 61-76% show up at their hearings as of 2018, although more recent data suggests that rate is lower now.

        https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/

        1. Between all your screaming back and forth on this, almost everyone is getting this wrong. This is important, because I keep seeing people tout this “99%” lie over and over again.

  29. Supreme Court Makes it More Difficult for Refugees To Find Asylum Here

    All the Supreme Court did was stay an injunction issued by a district judge. It’s not the Supreme Court’s job (or any judge’s job) to make it harder or easier for refugees to find asylum — that’s a job for the political branches. Even libertarians should appreciate that fact, but they all too often simply want courts to effect policy outcomes they desire.

  30. I’m good friends with a Christian Extremist who works to provide support to refugees settling in the United States and his wife currently has a full time job with a non-profit NGO doing same.

    He explained to me that “refugee” and “asylum seeker” are not in the same category. He also said that in his estimation, “asylum seekers” often have stories that are a bid shady and sometimes it feels like they’re being coached on “saying magic words” to skip the line ahead of refugees and other immigrants.

    Bottom line, I’m not entirely sure this policy is bad, let alone a human tragedy.

  31. The DNC, Clinton campaign, FBI, CIA, State Department engaged foreign agents and governments to generate bogus intelligence for the purpose of undermining a POTUS election.

    Engaged foreign agents and governments? Well, maybe. At this point, I’m not entirely sure that “Christopher Steele” even exists. What proof do we have that this dossier was information acquired from Russian sources rather than entirely fabricated by the Clinton campaign? Maybe the “Russian collusion” story wasn’t simply designed to implicate Trump, but implicate the Russians as well. Maybe it was just Hillary and her buddy Obama all along.

    1. Maybe the “Russian collusion” story wasn’t simply designed to implicate Trump, but implicate the Russians as well. Maybe it was just Hillary and her buddy Obama all along.

      As long as there weren’t any nasty furreiners involved we should be totally OK with a fabricated story to justify a DOJ investigation into a political opponent.

      1. Now you’re getting it. The whole point of the Russian election-interference story was to bring down Trump and having failed at that there’s no point in pursuing the story any further. Nothing to see here, move along. Who cares if the whole thing was fabricated by Hillary and the entire apparatus of the Deep State under the control of Obama? What’s that got to do with #OrangeManBad?

    2. At this point, I’m not entirely sure that “Christopher Steele” even exists.

      I’ve been saying that for months. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one.

  32. “What to expect from tonight’s Democratic presidential debate.”

    Orange Man even more bad.
    I’ll give more free stuff than you.
    I’ll punish the rich more than you.
    I’ll take away more rights than you.
    I’ll punish those who disagree with our positions more then you.
    I love everyone.

    1. and you’ll all be dead in ten years.
      Also, hope and change!

  33. Hyperbole–

    “The ban, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will impose through regulatory ‘guidance’ it plans to issue soon, will dramatically reduce the harm-reducing alternatives available to smokers who are interested in quitting and is likely to drive many people who have already made that switch back to a much more dangerous source of nicotine,”

    Reality–

    “The ban, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will impose through regulatory ‘guidance’ it plans to issue soon, will dramatically reduce the flavors of harm-reducing alternatives available to smokers who are interested in quitting”.

    And no one has yet explained why people with a harm-reducing alternative that’s tobacco flavored would reject that and go for a harm-enhancing alternative that’s tobacco flavored.

    1. And no one has yet explained why people with a harm-reducing alternative that’s tobacco flavored would reject that and go for a harm-enhancing alternative that’s tobacco flavored.

      Goddamnit Azathoth!!! I’m actually inclined to skip vaping and take up smoking specifically because of the ban and I can read between the lines. Repeat after me: Orange. Man. Bad.

  34. I’m not at my usual computer, so it’s a little harder to fact check some of the things that are being said here by ENB. However, some of the things being written here are clearly less than true.

    “The change makes it harder for Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty to be admitted into the U.S. legally—all but ensuring more suffering for migrants and more illegal immigration.”

    If asylum seekers are no longer eligible for asylum, the incentive for them to come here diminishes almost completely–and no, asylum seekers are not all presenting themselves at the border and then abiding by our due process requirements.

    There are two kinds of asylum seekers: affirmative and defensive. While there are affirmative cases that do come to a border checkpoint and request asylum, plenty of others ask for asylum defensively. That is, they’re caught trying to enter the country illegally, and they ask for a asylum as a defense against deportation.

    Those defensive asylum seekers are the ones that have been overwhelming our capacity to care for them–and they’re coming here illegally by definition. Destroying all incentive for them to come here at all will not increase the number of illegal aliens. Those that go from being affirmative asylum seekers to defensive illegal aliens will be dwarfed by would-be defensive asylum seekers who have no incentive to come here if they are ineligible for asylum at all.

  35. The Supreme Court did not make it harder for refugees to seek asylum. That would uh kid be setting policy. The Court’s job is to determine if Congress has the constitutional authority to set the policy and the executive has the constitutional and statutory authority to implement the policy. It is not the court’s job to render judgement on whether it is a good policy.

    Who ever wrote that headlines is greatly confused about the role of the court.

  36. “Under the previous policy, refugees seeking asylum are not allowed to apply from within their own countries; they must do so at an American port of entry or from within the United States. That’s what has led many migrants looking to get out of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras to make the trek all the way to the U.S.–Mexico border and present themselves to U.S. immigration officials in person.”

    This is completely ignoring some important facts–especially DACA.

    In all of 2012, there were less than 4,500 asylum seekers from those countries.

    Last time I ran the number for all of you, the number of asylum seekers was about 150,000 from the El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in May of 2019–they were coming in at a rate of about a million a year. The other interesting fact from those numbers was that 78% of those asylum seekers were either children or families traveling with their children.

    The difference is DACA. The reason an even increasing tide of hundreds of thousands of Central Americans has came flooding to our border since Obama told them he wouldn’t deport “dreamers” who came here as children is because Obama told them that he wouldn’t deport them. This gave them a tremendous incentive to flood to our country–and bring their children with them.

    The Supreme Court is set to hear the challenge to Trump’s executive order rescinding Obama’s executive order next month. We should get a ruling about June of 2020. Everyone from the Cato Institute to Shika Dalmia expects the Trump administration to win the case, and if the Trump administration wins and puts a nail in DACA’s coffin, we’ll see the asylum numbers from Central America drop dramatically.

    P.S. Anyone who tries to account for that surge in children specifically–without accounting for DACA–is either ignorant of the facts or being willfully obtuse. And no, because you care about people isn’t an excuse for either one.

  37. “There are many valid reasons why people fleeing Central America would want to come to the U.S. instead of countries closer to home. Many of these refugees are trying to escape violence from gangs and cartels, which often have a strong foothold in nearby nations too.”

    ENB seems to be oblivious to the fact that setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress–and Congress is elected to serve the interests of the American voters rather than people in other countries. Even the treaties we’ve properly ratified that govern our acceptance of refugees were entered into on a democratic basis.

    If you want the American people to support loosening the rules of naturalization to accommodate more suffering people from Central America, I suggest you try to persuade the American people to vote for politicians who want that.

    If you want to make the American people regret ever having ratified any treaties that let any asylum seekers in under any circumstances, I suggest you keep arguing for the benefit of Central Americans and continue showing contempt for democracy within its proper purview. Does it need to be said that this kind of elitism is exactly what put Trump in office in 2016? Keep up the good work, and he’ll be reelected, too.

    1. Keep up the good work, and he’ll be reelected, too.

      I think the Climate change debate on CNN sealed that up.

  38. Jarring Democrats, Court Rules Census Must Be by Actual Count

    Does anyone remember this? Bill Clinton and Democrats wanted to use statistical sampling for the Census 2000 count. Nothing like having some extra Democrat voters loaded into the formula to make Blue even Bluer.

    1. Remember it like it was yesterday.

  39. In fact, I remember reading articles that essentially said, “Hey, we can do it with counting salmon and bison, why not human beings?”

    the answer to that is: Because you don’t obviously understand the biological difference between Salmon and Human Beings.

    1. One of them can live underwater.

  40. Canada says it will admit asylum seekers who are rejected from the U.S. under the new rule.

    Um no, the article is from 2017 and was in reference to people claiming to seek asylum who were coming from the Middle East. AFAIK Canada has made no such offer for the far more numerous people coming in from Latin America.

Comments are closed.