Deportation

When De Facto Americans Are Deported

|

Deported Americans: Life After Deportation to Mexico, by Beth C. Caldwell, Duke University Press, 248 pages, $94.95

Peter Sean Brown was jailed in Florida last year for a probation violation. Three weeks passed before the charge was dismissed. During that time, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) mistakenly thought Brown, who was born in Philadelphia and raised in New Jersey, was a deportable Jamaican.

ICE asked the county jail to honor what's called a "detainer"—a request that Brown be held for ICE pickup. Brown repeatedly told his jailers that he was an American citizen, but they ignored him. After a judge dismissed the probation violation, he was turned over to ICE, which recognized its error in a few hours and released him. Brown is now suing the sheriff who runs the jail for illegally holding him for ICE.

You may have heard about that case. You're less likely to have heard about millions of other people, people who have been in this country practically for their entire lives, who really have been deported, often accompanied by spouses and children who are U.S. citizens. The courts provide these deportees no relief, because they were neither born here nor naturalized. They might as well be citizens—they've lived in the United States for years and we know them as Americans. But de facto does not equal de jure.

This disconnect between life and the law is the theme of Beth C. Caldwell's Deported Americans. Many people in the United States have no papers but are wed to American citizens; about half have U.S.-born children. Two-thirds have been here for more than a decade. Many came when they were so young that they have no memories of the countries where they were born. Their language is English. They celebrate the Fourth of July. But they're at risk of banishment.

That risk precedes the current president. From 2009 to 2013, during the Obama administration, 1.5 million noncitizens were deported. The Trump administration has continued the expulsions. More than a quarter of a million people were sent packing in fiscal year 2018, a 13 percent increase over 2017. Most of the deported are Latino men who were adjudged as criminals—though the crimes that most committed were traffic infractions, driving under the influence, or immigration violations, such as coming back to the country illegally after being kicked out.

Today, more than a million children in the United States, most of them citizens, have parents who have been deported. Many suffer from depression, conduct disorders, and, in Caldwell's words, the "constant sense of a diminishing and ambiguous future." Many other U.S.-citizen kids have left the country to be with deported parents. About 600,000 such children reside in Mexico, for example. Most arrived speaking only kitchen Spanish. They founder at school and are bullied by classmates. One study found that they display more symptoms of depression than do children who stayed in the U.S. after a parent was deported.

Caldwell, a legal scholar in California and a former public defender, interviewed some 100 people who were deported to Mexico or who stayed in the United States after a loved one was banished. They compared their experiences to dying, amputation, and rape. They were depressed, anxious, and suicidal. Some scholars have described the deportation experience as "social death."

A woman named Melany talked about living happily with her undocumented Mexican husband in New York City until the day police stopped him for not wearing a seatbelt. He was deported, tried to return via the Southwest desert, and almost died before being caught and expelled again. Melany joined him in Mexico, and the couple now live on a farm, raising vegetables and earning less than $100 a week. In New York, Melany wore designer clothes. In Mexico, her home sometimes lacks running water.

Melany told Caldwell about a recurrent nightmare. She's in Central Park and sees her husband. "She walks toward him, he grabs her, and she breaks into pieces." Meanwhile, her husband dreams about the desert. Both frequently wake up screaming.

A recent Gallup poll found that eight in 10 Americans support a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally. Given that high figure, why is America so bollixed about legalizing and naturalizing our compatriots who happen to have been born abroad? Caldwell answers with a historical map of the legislation and court decisions that brought us to this point.

In America, virtually all immigration policy flows from the antique idea that a country must define itself by rejecting unwanted foreigners. This is enacted through what's called plenary power—the principle that Congress, not the courts, has the sole ability to regulate foreign affairs and international relations, including immigration. With judges hesitant to intervene, the rights of the foreign born and their U.S.-citizen families can be trampled in ways that would never happen if immigration were not involved.

Marriage and family are the most glaring arenas of abrogation. The right to marry has been deemed fundamental by our justice system, and in the past half-century we've seen a march toward extending that right. Loving v. Virginia, decided by the Supreme Court in 1967, outlawed prohibitions on interracial marriage. In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges extended the right to wed to same-sex couples.

Yet when it comes to the right to marry an immigrant, courts have said that deporting the spouse of a U.S. citizen does not violate the Constitution, because the citizen can live with her spouse anywhere else in the world where they're both allowed. In other words, to enjoy one right (marriage), a U.S. citizen spouse must give up another right (to live in the United States). Yet in other legal contexts, the Supreme Court has said it's unconstitutional to force someone to choose between two basic rights.

In nonimmigration contexts, courts forbid the government from separating children and parents absent a compelling state interest. Kids clearly suffer terribly when a parent is deported. Yet as Caldwell points out, American courts have routinely dismissed children's challenges to a parent's deportation.

But things may be changing. Some judges are having bouts of conscience. Others have already challenged the plenary power doctrine.

For an example of judges' consciences kicking in, consider the case of Andres Magaña Ortiz, who came to the U.S. from Mexico at age 15. Three decades later, he was a successful coffee farmer in Hawaii with a wife and three children who were American citizens. When the government set out to deport him, Magaña Ortiz applied for what immigration law calls a "stay of removal." But because of the plenary powers doctrine, the 9th Circuit said it had no authority to grant the stay.

Even so, the judges called their decision neither "fair [nor] just." The government's "insistence on expelling a good man from the country in which he has lived for the past 28 years," the court said, "deprives his children of their right to be with their father, his wife of her right to be with her husband, and our country of a productive and responsible member of our community." One judge expressed dismay at "having to participate in such inhuman acts."

Caldwell thinks that in the long run, individual rights will increasingly trump plenary power. To help things along, she proposes two changes. First, courts should treat the deportation of people who grew up in America with the same gravity as when they consider whether to denaturalize a citizen. (Though the Trump administration has made noises about broadening that punishment, it is considered draconian—denaturalization is traditionally reserved for people exposed as former Nazi concentration camp guards or people who have funded terrorists.) Second, courts should protect the rights of U.S. citizens and their noncitizen loved ones to keep their families whole.

Caldwell also proposes legislation to reverse the automatic social death of immigrants convicted of crimes. Before 1996, judges could consider, case-by-case, the harms deportation could wreak on a person and his or her family. That discretion is not allowed today, and immigrants convicted of crimes are uniformly painted as "bad hombres," no matter the offense they committed.

Passing laws to protect these people would be "a political challenge, to say the least," Caldwell writes. "It would require a radical transformation in public discourse from one that demonizes noncitizens who have been convicted of crimes to one that recognizes their humanity." Don't hold your breath.

Still, Caldwell suggests concrete legislative reforms. One would again allow judges to exercise discretion, even in aggravated felony cases. Another would offer deported "criminals" a legal path back into the U.S. based on their demonstrated rehabilitation.

Even amid growing nationalism and xenophobia, Caldwell concludes, new concepts of citizenship are emerging—concepts that derive from individuals' cultural associations rather than where they were born. As the Canadian political scientist Joseph Carens has put it, "People who live and work and raise their families in a society become members, whatever their legal status." Recognizing that fact, and honoring it under the law, could propel America out of reaction and into the modern world.

NEXT: Allegations of Sex with the Devil Aren't Libelous,

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. Oh well….the Original Sin (borrowing a Christian term) here was coming to my country illegally. It starts there. So bye bye for now, illegal aliens. Come back through the front door, next time.

    We have a legal process to emigrate and remain in the United States. The Congress made the law. It is not unreasonable to expect foreigners to obey our law.

    1. ALSO, all of you SUPPOSED illegal sub-humans, make sure to not even be SUSPECTED of being an illegal sub-human! Else you may get dumped on some foreign nation, where you weren’t born, and don’t even speak the language!

      In self-defense against this, we may need to start having our birth certificates tattooed on our foreheads. Will the ICE pigs accept the validity of birth certificates tattooed on our foreheads? If not, I guess it might have to be, straight on through to micro-chipping us all!

      1. The fact that you had to immediately jump to an emotional hyperbolic strawman shows the weakness of your argument. Stick to eating shit.

        1. The fact that you immediately approve, and defend these actions show how violent you are.

          1. Good thing he didn’t do that then lololol

          2. Where dod I do that skippy?

        2. Squrlsy LIKES getting the opportunity to call brown people subhumans–it let’s him air his racism without anyone noticing because he blames other people for his nasty feelings.

      2. If you’re an American citizen, you should have a copy of your birth certificate in a safe place, and ideally a passport or passport card. It’s not a legal requirement, but as you can tell, if you can’t prove that you are a US citizen, you are at risk of being treated like a non-citizen.

        You don’t have to have it “tattooed on your forehead”, but having it in a safe place where someone can retrieve it for you is sufficient. Of course, if people can reasonably suspect of not being a citizen (e.g., because you don’t speak English), then you’d do well to actually carry something on you at all times.

        1. Of course, if people can reasonably suspect of not being a citizen (e.g., because you don’t speak English)

          There is no official language in this country. Maybe you didn’t learn that in citizenship school.

          1. There is no official language in this country. Maybe you didn’t learn that in citizenship school.

            Legal immigrants are required to be able to speak English; it’s part of the citizenship test.

            Therefore, while there is no requirement to be able to speak English, an inability to speak English gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant.

            1. Which other aspects of law-enforcement thuggery do you heartily endorse?

              Stop telling other people they hate freedom.

              1. Bake the cake, faggot.

                1. Exactly. You don’t get to endorse maximum federal government thuggery and then call anyone else a government-loving freedom-hater. Not without looking like a stupid racist hypocrite.

                  1. I love how Tony pretends his laws aren’t unconstitutional, so he can draw false equivalence.

                    Lololollololo

                    You don’t even understand the debate being had ahahahahahaj

                    1. Same debate as always. As long as the brown menace is getting the jackboot, it’s perfectly libertarian.

                      Why do you think you people exist?

                    2. Why do you keep trying to change the subject lolololol

                    3. Why do you keep behaving like a person with a serious mental disorder?

                    4. Why do you keep posting conversations you have with your caregivers, in a sad attempt to change the subject?

                      Lolollol

        2. VHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS, CITIZEN? says the libertarian

      3. ITT, Collectivist Jeffy admits that he thinks we should respect individual liberty, but only for the good of the collective!

    2. These illegal immigrants are not on YOUR property.

      You keep wanting to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property. What are you even doing at a libertarian forum?

      You want to restrict my ability to spend my money on goods made in China.
      You want to restrict my ability to spend my money on labor that I wish to hire.

      If you’re going to take partial possession over my life, then maybe I should start sending you part of my bills.

      1. You keep wanting to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property. What are you even doing at a libertarian forum?

        We currently live in a non-libertarian society where the state takes more than 50% of my income, in significant part to finance illegal immigration, welfare, and cheap imports from China. As long as that continues, I have no qualms about using the mechanisms of the non-libertarian state to defend myself against non-libertarian theft of my private property.

        If you’re going to take partial possession over my life, then maybe I should start sending you part of my bills.

        You already do. That’s why I claim “partial possession over your life”.

        As a libertarian, I’m happy to stop claiming partial possession over your life as soon as you stop sending me the bills.

        1. I claim “partial possession over your life”

          I see, so you are an authoritarian using libertarian-sounding rationalizations to justify your authoritarianism.

          1. Kinda like forcing your neighbors to pay for your illegal laborer’s rent, medical care, and his 8 kids to attend school with 3 free meals per day. Oh and of course he’s getting to your property on your private road that you payed for – you certainly wouldn’t be socializing infrastructure costs since you’re such a radical individualist and totally not a snot nosed Canadian retard on the 7th year of his undergrad program at U of T.

          2. Oh Jeff knows he got stfu he started putting words in propel mouths.

          3. I see, so you are an authoritarian using libertarian-sounding rationalizations to justify your authoritarianism

            No, I’m a libertarian engaging in self-defense: people use the state to take my private property and I use the state to defend myself.

            1. Okay then. If you regard immigration restrictions as “self defense” because they are going to be moochers sucking off your tax dollars, then I expect you to carry that argument to its logical conclusion.

              It’s time for the state to require permission in order for citizens to give birth.

              After all, birth is just immigration via a vagina instead of via a border crossing. And if immigration may be duly restricted because you think they are just going to consume all these tax dollars, then why should newly born citizens have the complete liberty to pop out babies who will ALSO consume all these tax dollars?

              As good libertarians, it’s imperative on us to impose a system of birth restrictions, and concomitant enforcement, as long as there exists a welfare state. After all every new mouth that is born represents more liberty stolen from all of us, and it’s just “self-defense” to force couples to get permission before giving birth.

              Amirite?

              1. then why should *citizens

              2. Your argument is wrong for many reasons, but I’ll stick to the one that touches on this argument: agency. No one can choose where, when, or if they are born. Similarly, people who were brought here as children had no agency in that act. (I have known people in those circumstances, and would argue for their citizenship.) An adult chooses to sneak in or overstay his visa.

                1. But my proposal is not a restriction on the child. It’s a restriction on the potential PARENTS, who very much do have agency.

                  So restricting parents from importing a new citizen into this country unless they get proper government permission, is no different than restricting employers or other sponsors of immigrants from importing foreginers into this country unless they get proper government permission.

                  In fact my proposal is even more defensible, since new native-born children are automatically citizens and are ENTITLED to the benefits of the welfare state when born, unlike foreigners who are (mostly) not. So it is even MORE an act of self-defense for the state to use force to stop parents from irresponsibly having children that will suck on the public teat.

                  1. You have to try to be this dense.

                    1. So show me how my argument is wrong.

                    2. Condoms aren’t 100% successful, just for starters.

                      If you weren’t intentionally thick headed I’d bet you could come up with some other reasons if you took a step back from the current silly whole you’ve dug and thought about it.

                    3. Hole. Lol. See how I noticed I was wrong and acted accordingly Little Jeffy?

                    4. Condoms aren’t 100% successful, just for starters.

                      That’s not actually an argument against my proposal. If someone has a child without permission, it just means that the criminal parents should be thrown in cages and separated from their baby. We can’t condone such illegal behavior, can we?

                      Look, these irresponsible parents importing a new welfare-sucking leech into our society are committing an act of aggression against all the taxpayers. And the NAP clearly permits acts of aggression to be dealt with by force, even from the state.

                      So, JUST LIKE with immigration, where it is presumed that new immigrants will commit violence against taxpayers by consuming all these welfare dollars, and therefore a just and prudent response is to curtail immigration, we should do the same for childbirth. Agreed?

                  2. So restricting parents from importing a new citizen into this country unless they get proper government permission, is no different than restricting employers or other sponsors of immigrants from importing foreginers into this country unless they get proper government permission

                    It’s quite different because one (limiting immigration) is a power granted to government, and the other (limiting child bearing) is not. Since I’m a law abiding citizen, I operate within the bounds of US law, which means that I can vote to limit immigration, but I cannot vote to limit child bearing.

                    Progressives and leftists in the US tried to give government the power to limit child bearing at the beginning of the 20th century; that’s how we got eugenics and forced sterilizations. Fortunately (as far as I’m concerned), that did not stand.

                    In any case, immigration and birth are not equivalent, even if you simply don’t understand the differences.

              3. Okay then. If you regard immigration restrictions as “self defense” because they are going to be moochers sucking off your tax dollars, then I expect you to carry that argument to its logical conclusion. It’s time for the state to require permission in order for citizens to give birth.

                When I vote to restrict immigration, I exercise my political powers to get the US government to exercise its powers under the US Constitution.

                Is restricting births a power the US government has under the US Constitution? Progressives like you used to think so, that’s why you gave us eugenics and forced sterilizations. However, conservatives and classical liberals like myself prevailed and that’s not a power the US government has anymore. Thank God.

                After all, birth is just immigration via a vagina instead of via a border crossing.

                Not at all. People born in the US and growing up here are culturally and ethnically American; people crossing our borders are not.

              4. People born here don’t immigrate.

                They exist here in potentia as sperm and egg.

                They never existed anywhere else.

                Unless you’re an advocate of the idea that life begins BEFORE conception. In which case some type of divinity chooses where they go. And the US has specific laws regarding the government being prohibited from interfering with the divine.

                And that’s why you’re wrong.

                As always.

      2. If you’re going to take partial possession over my life, then maybe I should start sending you part of my bills.

        You already are. The SNAP, WIC, TANF, Section 8, SSI, Medicaid and free school lunch that your freely-contracted illegal laborer uses in order to raise his standard of living to the minimum standard ensured by the government that you endorse is socialized across everyone in the country. If you want to take responsibility for the wellbeing of your freely-contracted laborer and stop sending us the bills then we’ll be more than happy to give you back possession over your life.

        Of course, this is entirely theoretical since you are a Canadian citizen living in the greater Toronto area and your own existence is heavily subsidized.

        1. Of course, this is entirely theoretical since you are a Canadian citizen living in the greater Toronto area and your own existence is heavily subsidized.

          Ah, that puts his comments in perspective. What drives Canadians and Europeans in their arguments about the US is envy and despair; they want to bring down the US to their level.

      3. You’d have a point if you were flying them in to your property and they lived, worked, and went to school there. But seeing as how we put all those expenses on the public teat, the public (even the ones we disagree with) are going to feel they have a say in the matter.

  2. “Brown repeatedly told his jailers that he was an American citizen, but they ignored him.”

    Fortunately for Brown, the mistake was corrected before he was dumped back on his SUPPOSED “shithole nation of origin”. What if you are a USA-born person (sometimes even a USA veteran) with brain damage or other incapacity, suspected of being an illegal sub-human, and not even capable of taking back to ICE pigs? You get dumped on some foreign nation, where you were not even born! I bet it happens a lot! (Foreign-shores-dumping brain-damaged American vets is ALSO a good way to shrug off the long-term costs of American war-mongering).

    What if it came to light that another nation did this exact same thing to us? Would the xenophobe Trump regime start dropping nuke-bombs, or what?

    1. Fortunately for Brown, the mistake was corrected before he was dumped back on his SUPPOSED “shithole nation of origin”.

      Government can detain you to determine your identity and citizenship; that’s not a “mistake”, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

      What if you are a USA-born person (sometimes even a USA veteran) with brain damage or other incapacity, suspected of being an illegal sub-human, and not even capable of taking back to ICE pigs?

      If you’re not legally competent, someone else is responsible for taking care of your legal affairs. They are also responsible for not letting you wander around by yourself. (It sounds like this may apply to you.)

      You get dumped on some foreign nation, where you were not even born! I bet it happens a lot!

      It actually almost never happens; if it did, you’d never hear the end of it from corporate media and progressive politicians.

      1. “If you’re not legally competent, someone else is responsible for taking care of your legal affairs. They are also responsible for not letting you wander around by yourself.”

        If all of my care-takers have died, or emigrated away from the USA to seek more freedom… Then if I am brain-damaged or decrepit in my old age, our “papers please” society has NO PROBLEMS with dumping me on some “shit-hole nation”!

        Does it not occur to authoritarians that other nations might resent this? That in the longer term, “what comes around, goes around”? The Trumptatorship is doing long-term damage to our relationships with other nations!

        1. If all of my care-takers have died, or emigrated away from the USA to seek more freedom… Then if I am brain-damaged or decrepit in my old age, our “papers please” society has NO PROBLEMS with dumping me on some “shit-hole nation”!

          Actually, your legal guardians are legally required either to take you along or transfer legal guardianship to someone else.

        2. “Then if I am brain-damaged or decrepit in my old age, our “papers please” society has NO PROBLEMS with dumping me on some “shit-hole nation”!”

          So we shouldn’t deport people because of retards? That’s your argument? We should stop how we’re doing things because some people may be retarded? Is that all you have?
          We should have strict border security to protect the retards is a better solution because if we make it so ICE can’t deport the mentally-deficient then if ICE pulls someone over their first strategy to avoid deportation will be to drool and crap their pants. If everyone is Gilbert Graping-it then no one is illegal!

          1. It isn’t respectful to other nations to dump our native-born unwanted on them. That’s the essence of what I am saying. The Trumptatorship has no problems with doing this kind of thing, as long as it is “accidental”, nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

            What comes around, goes around! The Trumptatorship has done, and is doing, profound damage to our relationships with other nations! Just imagine Trump and Trump-dick-lickers’ responses to “shit-hole nations” (through their official arms, ICE-like) “accidentally” dumping their unwanted native-born (Mexicans for example) across our borders, into the USA!

            1. This does go two ways. If Mexico doesn’t like us dumping people on them then it would behoove them to stop people from crossing the border. If your neighbor has a problem with you and you are doing nothing to rectify the issue then don’t be mad when they handle the issue on their own.
              We should just let this happen because of “relationships”? Some friends aren’t worth having if they’re fucking up your shit. You can find a new friend.

            2. The Mexican version of ICE is not dumping Mexican citizens on us, but our ICE seems to be “accidentally” doing that to USA “unwanted” onto Mexico. That’s the difference. It’s a lopsided relationship built on lopsided USA power. Mexico is essentially forced into RXing (at ports, borders, airports) “cattle cars” full of exportees (“accidentally” including unwanted USA-born people). Now in your mind’s eyes, imagine Mexico wanting for the USA to do the same thing for unwanted Mexicans?

              “Might makes right” at the end of the day, for Xenophobic, bigoted Trump followers!

              1. The Mexican version of ICE is not dumping Mexican citizens on us

                They literally print and distribute pamphlets on where to find watering stations and safe passage across the border.

                Any other strawman you’d like us to dispense for you Mikey?

              2. “They literally print and distribute pamphlets on where to find watering stations and safe passage across the border.”

                Well good for them! They actually care for the welfare of people! All humans are people, you know!

                If I tell heroin junkies where to find safe, clean needles, or Narcan, am I guilty of approving of EVERYTHING that they do? Or am I merely guilty of treasuring human life? Better is better, and worse is worse! Do NOT make the perfect be the enemy of the good! We are NOT responsible for every doing of everyone that we help.

                1. Lolol you were wrong and stupid Old Mex.

              3. “Might is right” comes long before Trump and while you may disagree with that statement there is probably a person stronger than you that can smack you really hard and prove the statement correct. Complaining about that obvious fact of life makes you look like a kid on the schoolyard crying that the other kids are bigger and tougher than him.
                Why does thinking that someone should follow the legal process of entering the US equate to support of Trump? So if you follow US laws you are a Trump supporter? Listen to yourself. You’re looking for enemies because tribalism has gone to your head.

                If my neighbor has a stray cat that she feeds and it has babies in my yard it is reasonable for me to throw them in a bucket and dump them in her yard. If she gets pissed then she is out of line. Not me.

                1. Humans v/s cats… As the superior species, we are free to be responsible owners, and sterilize at will, declaw at will, euthanize at will, and so on, as long as we act responsibly, with benevolence, not cruelty. Are you arguing that I can do the same to human beings? My irresponsible neighbor spits out a baby, and abandons it on my yard, and I can just dump her baby back onto her yard, and wash my hands of it all? THIS kind of thinking is what allows SOME libertarians to give the rest of us, a bad name!

                  WHAT ethical or moral authority is it, that allows me to disregard “treat others the way that you want to be treated”, or, amend it with an invisible-ink clause after it, saying, “but only if they were born on the RIGHT side of the river, the RIGHT side of the mountain range, the RIGHT side of the railroad tracks, and the RIGHT side of the invisible lines in the sand”.

                  God? Karma? Evolution? Cosmic consciousness? Democracy? WHAT authority allows my “ethics” and “morality” to think this way? WHO said that I am superior for having been born on the RIGHT side of a border? Keep in mind that “democracy” in the past has blessed slavery, Native American genocide, no votes for women, concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, and so on.

                  1. Because that’s what a polity is. Go read some Sophocles, or Plato, or a bunch of other guys. A man has more responsibility to his own children than to a total stranger. Next, he has more responsibility to his extended family than to a stranger, then to his local community, etc. We should always treat others with compassion, but we are not responsible for everyone- would it be responsible towards my dependents I give all my money to beggars, or quit my job to build housing for the homeless?

                    1. I agree with what all you said above.

                      Under the Trumptatorship, though, simple human kindness… Giving water, food, or shelter to a stranger w/o first asking for “papers please”, leaves us exposed to prosecution for “aiding and abetting” illegal sub-humans! I would highly advise that you do NOT open a door, or press an elevator button, for a stranger, in sight of an ICE officer, as bad as it has gotten!

                      I imagine that Jesus Christ would be in jail today for “aiding and abetting” the illegals in his crowd of 5,000, during the “eating of the loaves and the fishes”, w/o asking for “papers please”, first. Do NOT feed the illegal sub-humans; it is a CRIME today!

                2. “ Might is right” comes long before Trump and while you may disagree with that statement there is probably a person stronger than you that can smack you really hard and prove the statement correct. Complaining about that obvious fact of life makes you look like a kid on the schoolyard crying that the other kids are bigger and tougher than him.”

                  The least libertarian post here.

                  Tough guy you are poster.

            3. We cannot dump people on other nations with that nation’s consent. If you cannot demonstrate legal presence in the US and you have no other place to be, you may face a long detention.

          2. So we shouldn’t deport people because of retards? That’s your argument?

            Mikey Hihn lives in a Medicare-funded assisted living facility where he is slowly but mercifully dying of senile dementia so you can see why this would be a very personal and relevant issue for him.

            1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

      2. I’m loathe to mention this idea, for fear of inspiring the Trumptatorship… But in the interests of frightening those who can still be frightened, into taking some defensive and corrective actions… Such as not voting for Trump, for example…

        I foresee regular ICE raids for busting SUSPECTED or POSSIBLE illegal sub-humans! It will start at old-age homes and mental hospitals. If no fully competent friend or relative is there and on-guard, if you can NOT firmly PROVE that you’re a LEGAL human, you get dumped on some vulnerable random “shit-hole” nation!

        Then it will move to comatose car-crash victims, under “expedited removal”. Remove them quickly, before the relatives find out!

        Then it will move to ALL of us, who aren’t wealthy, and supporting the right political party! “Real ID” requirements will pile up ever higher and higher! And you will have to renew your “human being license” twice per year! If found in arrears, off you go!

        1. You’re operating under the false assumption that Trump is trying to do anything other than what he says he wants to do: deport people who are in the country illegally.

          Then it will move to ALL of us, who aren’t wealthy, and supporting the right political party!

          That is what Democratic-Socialists do, in my personal experience.

  3. https://reason.com/2019/01/17/michigan-marine-detained-by-ice/
    Once Again, ICE Detained an American Citizen
    The ACLU blames local law enforcement after ICE detains an American-born veteran with the intent to deport him.

    1. Now do mistaken identity for non immigration crimes. Or do you think this only happens with ICE? Still stick with only emotional arguments.

      1. This is whataboutism! “Well, it’s OK for law enforcement to make some occasional false arrests for the CRIME of blowing illegally on a cheap plastic flute. They do the same thing for the crime of murder”. I am saying, the draconian enforcement of immigration law itself is the problem! False arrests are “merely” a to-be-expected byproduct!

        To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the cheap-plastic-flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

        To avoid being falsely arrested for being an illegal sub-human? You got me! You’re on your own!

        1. Stop pimping your sad ranting Old Mex.

        2. I am saying, the draconian enforcement of immigration law itself is the problem!

          According to you, what would be a “non-draconian enforcement of immigration law”?

    2. If your identity or citizenship are unclear, you may get detained. That’s the only way law enforcement can possibly work. Why is this a surprise to you?

      1. I am unpleasantly surprised that SOME people in the USA, the supposed “home of the free, and land of the brave”, have willingly marched right on down the path to a “papers please” society! Your doctor, dentist, dog, cat, and marriage all have to have a license… And now, I have to have a license to be a human being!

        “When humans are outlawed, only outlaws will be human”.

        1. No, you are simply ignorant. You apparently don’t understand the difference between detention and arrest.

          The US has detention because in the US, people do not have to have papers. That is, in the US, it is legal to be without papers. But since police still need to determine someone’s identity, they may have to keep you from leaving until they can do so. You can shorten that period by actually making it easy for them, but you are not legally obligated to do so.

          In countries in which “papers” are required, simply being without papers makes you subject to arrest.

          You’re “unpleasantly surprised” because you’re a pampered, ignorant fool. You are throwing temper tantrums because living in a society together with other humans inconveniences you.

          1. You are completely inverting the burden of proof that the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect against.

            It’s the police’s job to prove that they have some good reason to believe I’m not a citizen. It is not my job to prove to them that I am a citizen.

            Stop carrying water for the cops. They don’t need your help. They have the guns after all.

            1. You are completely inverting the burden of proof that the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect against.

              No, you simply keep projecting your own misconceptions on what I wrote.

              1. The Fourth Amendment, and really the entire basis of liberty, is that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove that citizens ought to be deprived of liberty. The citizens should not have the burden of proof to prove to the state why they ought to have liberty.

                And citizens have the liberty to walk around without papers. It is their constitutional right to do so. Did you learn that in citizenship class?

                1. The Fourth Amendment, and really the entire basis of liberty, is that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove that citizens ought to be deprived of liberty.

                  There is a long legal history of the 4A and in common law making distinctions between “stops”, “detentions”, “arrests”; “reasonable suspicion”, “probable cause”; and a lot of other concepts that you all just lump together.

                  And citizens have the liberty to walk around without papers. It is their constitutional right to do so. Did you learn that in citizenship class?

                  Yes, and unlike you, I actually understand what it means: for a US citizen it is not, per se, against the law to walk around without papers (it is against the law for non-citizens to walk around without papers). However, that doesn’t mean that walking around without papers is consequence free.

                  1. Yes, there’s a long history of people trying to cloud the issue of liberty. That’s why libertarians exist, to call bullshit on much of this.

                    However, that doesn’t mean that walking around without papers is consequence free.

                    It ought to be consequence free. Why shouldn’t it be? It’s not my job to do the police’s work for them. If they want to detain me, they need some objectively reasonable belief that I’ve done something wrong. “Speaking Spanish” isn’t it. If they want to keep detaining me, then they need to tell me what I’m under arrest for, or set me free, or get a warrant. It’s that simple. I’m not going to carry around my papers for THEIR sake. Why should I?

                    1. Yes, there’s a long history of people trying to cloud the issue of liberty. That’s why libertarians exist, to call bullshit on much of this.

                      We don’t live in a libertarian society. And you’re not making libertarian arguments, you’re simply trying to dismantle some policies you find inconvenient while ignoring the massive violations of liberties in other parts of society.

                      It ought to be consequence free. Why shouldn’t it be?

                      Well, I leave that for you to work out. I also leave for you to work out how you may up being detained and/or deported by private property owners in a libertarian society, probably far more easily and with far fewer legal protections than right now.

                      If they want to keep detaining me, then they need to tell me what I’m under arrest for, or set me free, or get a warrant. It’s that simple. I’m not going to carry around my papers for THEIR sake. Why should I?

                      You should do it for the same reason I pay my taxes: it’s the system we live under right now and if you don’t comply, you’ll suffer the consequences. Furthermore, I’m unwilling to grant you your liberty until you reciprocally grant me mine.

                    2. Furthermore, I’m unwilling to grant you your liberty until you reciprocally grant me mine.

                      So you don’t actually support liberty for its own sake. You only support liberty insofar as you get something personally out of it. Is that it?

                      If Jose’s rights are violated by the state, then you don’t give a shit, because hey it’s not you that was arrested, right?

                    3. “So you don’t actually support liberty for its own sake. You only support liberty insofar as you get something personally out of it. Is that it?”

                      Now do Chinese citizens Hypocrite Jeffy.

                    4. If Jose’s rights are violated by the state, then you don’t give a shit, because hey it’s not you that was arrested, right?

                      Sort of like how you don’t mind if NOYB2’s rights are violated, because hey your mom needs a Mexican gardener to fuck her a couple times a week since your dad left, right?

                    5. So you don’t actually support liberty for its own sake. You only support liberty insofar as you get something personally out of it. Is that it?

                      Not at all. I don’t want to get “something personally out of” anybody. I have never used the American government to enrich myself. I have never used any US government benefits. I have always paid far more in taxes than I have used in government services.

                      All I want to do is limit the damage the US government does to my financial health and private property. You want to expand it by importing more low skill, low wage workers, and I object to that.

                    6. Not at all. I don’t want to get “something personally out of” anybody. I have never used the American government to enrich myself. I have never used any US government benefits. I have always paid far more in taxes than I have used in government services.

                      All I want to do is limit the damage the US government does to my financial health and private property. You want to expand it by importing more low skill, low wage workers, and I object to that.

                      So you pretended to disagree with me, then you ended up agreeing with me.

                      You’ll only support liberty if, say, your taxes goes down, or some regulation affecting YOU is lifted.

                      When did liberty become this zero-sum game for you?

                    7. So you don’t actually support liberty for its own sake. You only support liberty insofar as you get something personally out of it. Is that it?

                      That’s how it works, dumbfuck. “Liberty” as a principle doesn’t mean shit if the “individual” determines that the type you’re pushing isn’t to their benefit.

                    8. “You’ll only support liberty if, say, your taxes goes down, or some regulation affecting YOU is lifted.”

                      He can’t stop proving how dumb he is.

                    9. Shorter Jeffy: you should support individual liberty for the good of the collective.

                    10. So you pretended to disagree with me, then you ended up agreeing with me. You’ll only support liberty if, say, your taxes goes down, or some regulation affecting YOU is lifted.

                      That’s not “getting something out of” it, that’s ending a violation of my rights.

                      When did liberty become this zero-sum game for you?

                      It’s not a zero-sum game since costs are not additive and the outcomes are path dependent. The only possible path to a free society is first to turn back the social welfare state and then to open borders; try to do it in the reverse order and you destroy the country.

                      In fact, whether you’re a useful fool or an actual socialist, your approach of arguing in favor of flooding the country with third world working class people is right out of the playbook of socialists for destroying Western democracies.

            2. It’s the police’s job to prove that they have some good reason to believe I’m not a citizen. It is not my job to prove to them that I am a citizen.

              Detention by police isn’t a legal proceedings and questions of “proof” don’t enter. As part of their regular duties, and consistent with the 4A, police may need to determine your identity and/or citizenship. For example, they need to do that if they have reason to believe that you have committed a crime, that you are a witness, and/or that you are in the country illegally. While they determine that, they can detain you. You have the option of shortening that process by helping them.

              1. Just ask if you’re free to go. Detention is an arrest.

                1. “Am I free to go?”

                  “Can you identify yourself?”

                  “No. Am I free to go?”

                  “No. I have a reasonable suspicion that you were engaged in (illegal activity X). I need to determine your identity.”

                  1. Continued detention is equivalent to an arrest.

                    An arrest requires probable cause, warrants, all of that stuff.

                    So if you really want to go down that road, you have to throw out the Fourth Amendment. Which I’m thinking you really want to do anyway.

                    1. So how do the police actually go about arresting a person in your fantasyland where the 4th amendment means that no one has to identify themselves or comply with an officer’s order under any possible circumstances unless a judge has conducted a several day long legal proceeding evaluating the evidence that the officer wasn’t allowed to collect?

              2. The standard you are trying to come up with here is “reasonable suspicion”, which is quite frankly extremely problematic. Even still, the police must have an *objectively reasonable belief* that an individual is committing a crime. Guess what, “speaking Spanish” is not an objectively reasonable belief that a person is an illegal immigrant.

                1. The standard you are trying to come up with here is “reasonable suspicion”

                  No, you are still not getting it. I’m not talking about the justification for the stop per se. I’m saying that whatever justification the police have for interacting with you, if they have a justification for determining your identity or citizenship status, they can detain you for doing so for a reasonable amount of time.

                  1. if they have a justification for determining your identity or citizenship status

                    And what would that be?

                    1. Well, for example, if they see you pick up a prostitute, or work as a day laborer along with other illegal aliens, or smoke pot, or vape in the wrong place, or whatever.

                  2. work as a day laborer along with other illegal aliens

                    Huh. So in your world, if I’m seen associating with illegal aliens, that is reasonable suspicion enough that I’m an illegal alien myself?

                    You don’t really like freedom of association, do you?

                    1. No Jeff, you impossibly stupid fuck, in the LEGAL WORLD that is probable cause.

                      You asked and got an answer, and then tantrumed about it.

                    2. You didn’t ask me what I “like” you asked me what currently might constitute reasonable suspicion.

                2. Guess what, “speaking Spanish” is not an objectively reasonable belief that a person is an illegal immigrant.

                  I agree. However, an inability to speak English should give rise to a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant, since legal immigrants are required to be able to speak English.

                  1. However, an inability to speak English should give rise to a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant

                    Tourists and visitors don’t have to learn English.
                    Natural born citizens growing up in a non-English-speaking household don’t necessarily have to learn English.
                    Learning enough English to pass a test 30 years ago and then never using it again, is a reasonable reason for not speaking English.

                    1. Non-citizens are required to carry papers at all times.

                      And, yes, there are citizens who may, for one reason or another, not speak English. But they are so rare that an inability to speak English raises a reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally (or violated the requirement to carry papers).

                    2. Why do you think it is rare?
                      Have you ever been to the Chinatown part of a large city?

                    3. Notice how cytotoxic jumps to Chinatown since he lives in the GTA where the only substantial non-white demographic is east Asian. LMAO.

                    4. “Why do you think it is rare?”

                      He doesn’t. Stop lying.

                      “Have you ever been to the Chinatown part of a large city?”

                      Have you ever made an honest attempt to discuss anything you sad stupid fuck?

        2. If you are an American citizen, get pulled over for a broken tail light, and can’t provide your ID, registration, and insurance what do you think happens to you? Do they just let you go? You’re lucky if they give you 24 hours to bring it down to the station because there is no guarantee you show up.
          Why should it be different for ICE?

          1. Because cytotoxic’s mom needs that Big Mexican Wiener on the regular.

      2. In this country, law enforcement does not have a legal right to detain someone merely on suspicion that that person is not a citizen. Law enforcement has to have some sort of probable cause. And “speaking Spanish” is not probable cause. Please read the Fourth Amendment.

        1. Please read what I said. Nowhere did I say any of the things you attribute to me. I said that if law enforcement needs to determine your identity/citizenship (e.g., because they have probable cause), they can detain you.

          However, I think an inability to speak English ought to be probable cause in a rational world, since English is taught in schools and required for naturalization.

          1. “Please read what I said. Nowhere did I say any of the things you attribute to me.”

            You’re arguing with Little Jeffy. That’s what he does.

        2. “In this country, law enforcement does not have a legal right to detain someone merely on suspicion that that person is not a citizen.”

          This is true, but let’s put it into practice. The person they stop asks if they are being detained. We don’t know what kind of bullshit reasoning the officer is coming up with so let’s say he says “yes”. Then the the officer is probably going to take them in if they don’t identify themselves.
          In the process if it is discovered that they aren’t a legal citizen they aren’t set free even if the officer had no reason to detain them.
          Soooo, yeah. Don’t really matter.

          1. Well, that’s why it’s a good idea to carry identification. You know, just like it’s a good idea to wear a coat in the winter, wear a condom while having sex, etc.

            1. And you can switch those around if you want. There’s no reason not to wear a condom in winter or a coat during sex.

        3. “In this country, law enforcement does not have a legal right to detain someone merely on suspicion that that person is not a citizen”

          Cite the caselaw. You do this constantly, where you assert shit then demand links of others.

          So no more assertions cytotoxic. Links or STFU.

  4. https://reason.com/2019/07/26/u-s-citizen-was-on-the-verge-of-self-deporting-after-being-detained-for-weeks-at-squalid-immigration-facility/

    U.S. Citizen Was on the Verge of Self Deporting After Being Detained for Weeks at Squalid Immigration Facility
    The young man was finally released from custody this week.

    1. The young man illegally crossed into the US declared to be a non-US citizen and was recorded as such. That’s why he was detained.

      If you try to enter the US as a non-citizen while actually a citizen, you end up in a world of trouble, and for good reason.

      1. Mikey Hihn easily identifies with the mentally retarded, mentally ill, and mentally confused since he’s housed at taxpayer expense in a facility for precisely those type of people.

        1. And you ID with NO ONE other than Your Own Noble Self, you arrogant jerk!

          What comes around, goes around! Be warned!

          1. Ah, Old Mex has reached thd warning us of replacement stage. How racist.

  5. https://reason.com/2019/07/08/u-s-citizens-are-at-risk-of-detention-and-deportation/

    U.S. Citizens Are at Risk of Detention and Deportation
    Increased immigration enforcement at times sweeps in Americans

  6. https://reason.com/2019/06/10/ice-failed-to-properly-screen-veterans-before-deporting-them/

    ICE Failed to Properly Screen Veterans Before Deporting Them
    ICE agents told investigators they were “unaware” of policies to avoid deporting veterans—the same policies the agency assured me it was following in 2016.

  7. https://reason.com/2017/02/10/us-military-veterans-deported-trump/

    U.S. Military Veterans Can Still Face Deportation
    Donald Trump said during campaign that undocumented veterans are a “a very special situation,” but his executive orders don’t exempt vets from deportation.

    HOW MUCH MORE of this ICE-fascism are we going to put up with? How much more, before the xenophobic bigots start to develop a conscience?!

    Young people, do NOT enlist in the armies of the Evil Empire! YOU will stand up for THEM, but THEY will NOT stand up for YOU! (Things may change after the Trumptatorship passes away, but I won’t be holding my breath).

    1. You should copy and paste more completely dishonest bullshit from one media outlet to prove how serious and well-informed you are on this issue Mikey.

      1. You’re too stupid to refute anything posted here. All you do is thread-shit. Do us all a favor, and go away!

  8. My favorite part was using an actual citizen who Ice mistook for an illegal immigrant for a few hours to justify illegal immigration in the latter two thirds. Nothing like argument through emotion.

    The US allows 1 million a year to immigrate here. Until one of these emotional arguments addresses why that number is too low, I cant be bothered to even consider them honest in their views.

    1. But they’re “de facto” citizens!

      1. They are also “facto” violators of immigration laws. No need for the de.

    2. https://reason.com/2019/03/21/trump-is-fighting-to-dramatically-restri/

      Trump Is Fighting to Dramatically Restrict Legal Immigration
      The president’s stance on immigration goes well beyond fighting illegal entry.

      Out-take:
      “In other words, Uncle Sam is shutting out people whom American citizens want to marry or spend their lives with or just have come and visit.”

      Under the Trumptatorship, immigration has fallen drastically. It infringes on MY and YOUR freedoms!

      1. Given that the country has been flooded with tens of millions of illegal migrants, people who will take time to assimilate, integrate, and process, yes, it makes sense to reduce legal immigration for a decade or two.

        Take your pick: deport the illegals and continue current levels of legal immigration, or let many of the illegals stay and reduce levels of immigration accordingly. You can’t have both.

        1. How about we do what has worked and stop being racist, xenophobic assholes and puppets of right-wing blowhards who have no intention of offering good ideas to fix an immigration system whose dysfunction works so well for their corporate backers?

          1. “Thanks for coming to my Ted talk” – Elizabeth Warren

            Let us know when DU pushes some updates to the talking points, you poor AIDS-ridden faggot.

          2. Yes, take your own advice, Tony: stop being a racist, xenophobic asshole and political puppet.

      2. So the ones entering illegally are fucking it up for the ones that want to follow the process and we’re supposed to reward everyone?
        This is the kind of shit that can get lefty Mexicans to vote Republican. At the bottom of the ladder it’s already hard enough to find work and now they have to compete with the illegals. They’re not going to be happy. Just follow the rules like the legal ones did.

        1. Just follow the rules like the legal ones did.

          What if the rules are completely fucked up?

      3. Under the Trumptatorship, immigration has fallen drastically.

        No, it hasn’t. The actual number of people admitted has actually risen. The composition of that group has been shuffled in certain ways. But the actual total number has increased, not decreased. Stop trying to perform tasks that require numeracy Hihn, your disease has completely obliterated the extremely limited capabilities with which you began.

    3. This article is shit. You conflate de facto to de jure in your first tale to strike an emotional connection. There does need to be a line somewhere, and completely open borders without any rules or enforcement isn’t an answer. It’s the lack of an answer.

      While I can empathize with their plight, it doesn’t mean I need to kneel to their ignorance or outright transgression against Constitutional laws. I don’t like law enforcement as it exists any more than you do, and I get kicks out of screwing with cops. I practice with my family about how not to tell enforcement anything and to refuse anything you don’t strictly have to provide. I also agree border patrol doesn’t really have a right to patrol 200 miles inland. They do get to patrol at the border and investigate arrests made by other agencies.

      1. I meant this as a standalone comment. Oh well.

    4. Jesse, to be honest, I would want to let in 5MM (yes five million) annually in the front door, using very stringent criteria for entry. POTUS Trump is right in his reasoning about this. We have built an amazing country. Really – you can live your dream here. It is almost magical. That is worth something.

      We should let in only the best and brightest from all over the world, with a focus on mathematics, the sciences, medicine, and engineering. We can and should be choosy. And aren’t these the people we want building America for tomorrow anyway…only the best and brightest we can possibly find and make them American citizens?

  9. Wow I can spend nearly $100 for someone to lecture me about how law breakers should be gifted citizenship. What a bargain!

    And btw , we need to put an end to birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. The fact that it’s used as part of the heartstring pulling here is absurd.

    1. Notice they never get past the emotional arguments to discuss welfare, costs, upper limits on numbers, or even what the actual numbers are?

      1. Look at the violent person worried about food stamps! Stamp your foot some more, lol.

        1. Look at Mikey Hihn frantically creating new socks to regurgitate the same talking points over and over and over and over again.

          1. God it is so obvious and sad

  10. The chickens are already starting to come home to roost!

    The Trumptatorship’s bigoted exenophobia is becoming more obvious with respect to immigration. Canada has real leaders, who understand these things, compared to our knee-jerk exenophobic-nationalistic my-country-first Trumpistic jerks. So Canada is now attracting venture capital from the USA, for cutting-edge development of AI. In Canada, you can bring in hard-working immigrants. In the USA, you cannot (at least, not nearly as much). So the venture capital now goes to Canada.

    Trade restrictions can sometimes make sense from a national-defense standpoint. In this case here, if this kind of things goes on and on and on, we’ll have to start depending on Canada for USA defense, when the AI-driven warrior killbots are running the wars!

    https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/05/why-we-moved-our-silicon-valley-startup-to-canada/
    Why we moved our Silicon Valley startup to Canada

    1. You point to the case of a single startup, a startup that’s trying to automate legal processes. They probably moved to Canada because they were afraid of running afoul of America’s bogus restrictions on “practicing law without a license”.

      Most AI startup investments are wasted; most AI startups are bullshit. If they want to leave to Canada because they can’t hire enough low wage third world labor and can’t figure out how to work remotely, let them go and burn up their millions in flames.

      As for Canada’s immigration system, that’s what Trump has been trying to replicate: a system primarily based on skill and qualifications. It’s the Democratic-Socialist-Fascist party that has been preventing this.

    2. If only the poor multi-billionaires in silicon valley could hire the best and brightest engineers out of New Delhi then America could one day hope to have a thriving technology sector to rival that of Canada!

  11. But de facto does not equal de jure.

    Yep. Too bad we don’t have a President or a Supreme Court willing to legislate a comprehensive immigration reform that could address this problem, maybe some sort of “squatter’s rights” as the common law recognizes. If only there were a third branch of government capable of legislating.

    I don’t know how you would create a third branch of government, if they were appointed like the Supreme Court they would be unaccountable to the people, but if they were elected they would be too timid to actually propose any meaningful legislation for fear of being unelected. Maybe we could create two divisions within this third branch, one elected by the people and one appointed by the legislatures of each state. (Hey, I’m just spit-balling here, it sounds like a crazy idea but I haven’t really thought this whole thing through so who knows?)

    1. Off of the top of my head, I support what you say about going back to the old way, having Senators appointed by State Legislators. Too much direct democracy doesn’t work, in a nation nearly chock-full of stupid-head voters. We should couple that with re-working the allocations, though. Hi-pop states (Texas, California, Florida) should get at least SOME more Senators than Alaska and Rhode Island!

      Another big problem is the totally un-elected “4th branch” of Government Almighty, the regulators who regulate on whims and fancies. I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. Trump made a good move against these un-elected regulators!

      https://reason.com/2019/10/10/trumps-new-executive-orders-to-restrain-the-administrative-state/
      Trump’s New Executive Orders To Restrain the Administrative State
      Federal agencies evade the rulemaking process, yet still levy fines, revoke permits, and seize property via “guidance.” Trump’s orders may put a stop to this practice.

      1. Too much direct democracy doesn’t work, in a nation nearly chock-full of stupid-head voters.

        Behold the rallying cry of fascists and totalitarians.

        1. I advocate that perhaps SOME voting should be a little less direct… Not eliminate it.

          Meanwhile, you advocate NO vote EVER, for, say, someone brought across the border, at age 1/2 or 2, who has lived here ever since, w/o “proper papers”. And I am the fascist and totalitarian?

          “Papers please!”

          1. WAHHHHHHHHH THE ILLITERATE MEXICAN WHO COMES TO FUCK MY MOM TWICE A WEEK ISN’T ALLOWED TO VOTE! WAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

          2. I advocate that perhaps SOME voting should be a little less direct… Not eliminate it.

            It’s not the policies you advocate, it’s the reasoning behind it, that makes you a fascist: “in a nation nearly stock-full of stupid-head voters”.

      2. Hi-pop states (Texas, California, Florida) should get at least SOME more Senators than Alaska and Rhode Island!

        And thus be completely undifferentiated from the house of representatives. Makes good sense Mikey.

  12. could propel America out of reaction and into the modern world.
    Not a single country in the world has, or ever has recognized an unlimited right for foreigners to enter in unlimited numbers and remain within its borders.

    1. Native American tribes getting over-run by Europeans doesn’t count, since they weren’t “real countries”? They should have used more walls and more violent resistance? Might makes right? Europeans had the might, so they were right? If not, why not? Should all people with European genes “go back to where they came from”?

      1. The vast majority of “Native Americans” (probably about 95%) were killed by European diseases, not by war. That’s why Europeans could settle so easily in the Americas. Most of the land that Europeans settled on was unoccupied to begin with.

        Those Native Americans that remained were treated just like any other nation: they made alliances amongst themselves, with, and against Europeans. They lost their self-governance and instead became equal citizens in the USA, a better deal than many Europeans got in Europe when their nations were conquered and incorporated into larger nation states.

        The idea that all of North America somehow belongs to “Native Americans” or that Europeans perpetrated a deliberate genocide or treated Native Americans any differently from each other simply is out of touch with reality.

        As an immigrant from Europe, my family was ousted from its ancestral home. It happens all the time. If people dwell on this generations later, they only hurt themselves.

        1. “The vast majority of “Native Americans” (probably about 95%) were killed by European diseases, not by war.”

          They gave us syphilis and we took it back home so I think the score is even.

      2. Do you count successive waves of aboriginal people who displaced earlier tribes? Do you really want to play “who got here first” and how to judge various land area claims?

        1. No! Absolutely not! People and plants and animals move, migrate from location to location! “Make peace with it” should be the default policy!

          Someone moved polar bears to Antarctica, and they’re wiping out all the penguins? OK, let’s go kill some polar bears! But this kind of thing should NOT be our first, knee-jerk move! It’s too expensive, and WAAAY often, has un-expected, negative consequences!

          1. People and plants and animals move, migrate from location to location! “Make peace with it” should be the default policy!

            And yet here you are proposing that Native Americans should be able to deport Europeans from North America, even from lands and territories where Native Americans had no established borders, governance, or even a physical presence. Isn’t it frustrating when you can’t keep track of your own point because fo your illness Mikey? Why not do the dignified thing?

            1. And you’re too stupid to understand sarcastic QUESTIONS! Not statements!

              Why be an asshole? Is it helping you any more, than beating your cats and dogs is helping you?

              1. “Why be an asshole?”

                Lolololo hypocrite. Fuck off Old Mex.

      3. Ah, the lame Native American argument. Firstly, most Native American tribes warred upon, killed and displaced each other well before Europeans arrived. The Aztecs, for instance were so vicious that their Tlaxcaltec and other neighbors provided the Spanish with the bulk of the armies that defeated them. Secondly, if the Native Americans had had a coherent immigration policy that they enforced, they would perhaps not have been overrun by European immigration and would have been able to continue warring on, killing and displacing each other in peace.

  13. There is no such thing as “de facto” US citizenship.

    If you’re eligible to become a US citizen, you need to apply, take the oath, and take on the obligations that come with US citizenship. Those obligations include, among others, worldwide taxation and worldwide income and investment reporting; selective service and the draft; loss of US citizenship if you take on another citizenship.

    If you’re not eligible to become a US citizen (e.g., because of a serious criminal history or because you are in the US illegally), deal with the reality of it and leave.

    The idea that there is a class of people who have the benefits of US citizenships without any of the obligations is absurd and offensive to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens.

    1. Those sound like some pretty serious obligations. What are the benefits again? Voting? Woop de do.

      1. Sad to say, as we move in the directions of an authoritarian “papers please” police state, the “other benefit” of citizenship is WORKING to make an honest living! Under “real ID” and “Unexpired Employment Authorization” papers requirement, you’d better NOT do ANY productive unauthorized work, and allow Government Almighty to get wind of it!

        OH NO!!! ILLEGAL SUB-HUMANS DOING PRODUCTIVE WORK W/O AUTHORIZATION!!! COMMENCE PANTS-POOPING IMMEDIATELY!!!

        1. OH NO!!! ILLEGAL SUB-HUMANS DOING PRODUCTIVE WORK W/O AUTHORIZATION!!!

          Well, you may consider illegal migrants to be “sub-human”; I consider them perfectly human criminals.

          And, yes, doing “work without authorization” is a serious problem, since US citizens are bound by numerous restrictions and requirements that increase their labor costs, while illegal migrants can compete at much lower labor costs and violate many US laws with impunity.

          You’re basically turning the US into a libertarian state for low-skilled illegal migrants, while enslaving American citizens to the state.

          1. “…US citizens are bound by numerous restrictions and requirements that increase their labor costs…”

            Sounds like we need to tear down those arms of Government Almighty, instead of blaming the illegal sub-humans all the time!

            1. And you have my full support for open borders after we turn the US in to a libertarian, free-market society with minimal government regulations and taxes.

              But that’s the only order in which these things can be done. If you reverse the order, you turn the US into a third world socialist shithole.

              1. If you reverse the order, you turn the US into a third world socialist shithole.

                It’s almost like Mikey Hihn, the gun control supporting “hands off muh Medicare!” welfare leeching piece of shit, isn’t actually interested in a libertarian free-market society and actually desires a socialist government.

      2. The main benefit of becoming a US citizen is that you can’t be deported; meaning, you can be assured that you can remain in the US until the day you die.

        1. Unless you speak Spanish and aren’t carrying your papers. Then you get deported anyway, citizen or not.

          1. You really know nothing about immigration, do you? In addition of getting a certificate of naturalization, all naturalized citizens have their fingerprints and photos stored. So proving citizenship for naturalized citizens is very easy. My guess is that DHS can verify citizenship for naturalized citizens within minutes.

            1. Shush.
              You’re destroying the narrative.

          2. Then you get deported anyway, citizen or not.

            Of course we don’t have any example where this has actually happened, but hey wouldn’t it be great if it did? We’d have quite a narrative!

              1. I suggest you re-read that article yourself and try to figure out what actually went wrong.

    2. No such thing as de facto citizenship? Are you Donald Trump that you get to simply declare that? There is such a thing as adverse possession, aka squatters rights, that’s been a legal principle for a long time. It’s kind of how Europeans came to own North America.

      1. Adverse possession, a century and a half of warfare and bloodshed between rival European empires, po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

  14. ICE asked the county jail to honor what’s called a “detainer”—a request that Brown be held for ICE pickup. Brown repeatedly told his jailers that he was an American citizen, but they ignored him. After a judge dismissed the probation violation, he was turned over to ICE, which recognized its error in a few hours and released him.

    If we didn’t have tens of millions of illegal aliens in the US, this wouldn’t happen.

    Furthermore, if we had a system like Europe, where every European can establish their citizenship easily, this wouldn’t happen either; the same system is, of course, used as a requirement for employment.

    1. Yes, and the European standard of living is below that of the USA, partly as a result. Also, Europe faces a “birth dearth” worse than ours, so they REALLY should allow for more immigrants!

      https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/birth-dearth-20-countries-with-lowest-birth-rates/
      Birth dearth: 20 countries with lowest birth rates

      I’m thankful to live in the USA, where we COULD allow more influx of Hispanics from nearby nations… Who do NOT commit suicide bombings in the name of “Hispanifascism”, as compared to the products of the religious-ideological ROT running far-to-common in Islamic nations close to Europe… Sad to say!

      1. Yes, and the European standard of living is below that of the USA, partly as a result.

        You’re seriously suggesting that the European standard of living is lower than that of the US because Europeans can identify themselves? Get real.

        I’m thankful to live in the USA, where we COULD allow more influx of Hispanics from nearby nations

        Have you actually experienced what kind of shitholes the parts of California are that have had a large “influx of Hispanics”? Are you so deluded to think that these third world migrants have either the capacity or the willingness to finance the US social welfare system?

        Multiculturalism is a recipe for conflict and decline. As an immigrant with skills, fortunately, I have a choice: if the US goes down further this self-destructive path, I’ll leave again. I pity the Americans that don’t have such a choice and have to live with the resulting economic failure and chaos.

        1. “US social welfare system” is admittedly a problem. Here is my fear:

          The collective hive mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Too many min wages and other mandates. Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that The Collective Hive created, The Collective Hive gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies… And now also property confiscations for wall-building… So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).
          When will we stop the perpetual cycle of Government Almighty always getting bigger, to fix the LAST batch of problems created by excessive Government Almighty?

          1. The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies… And now also property confiscations for wall-building… So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

            Your history is wrong. Border and immigration enforcement is a proper function of the federal government and has been around longer than the welfare state.

            But we agree on this much: the welfare state, government restrictions on private property, and immigration restrictions should be abolished. Where we disagree is on the order.

            You think that we should abolish immigration restrictions right now. I think that’s foolish. We need to abolish the welfare state and government restrictions on private property first; only then can we end immigration restrictions.

            1. Mikey Hihn the gun control advocate will get around to opposing the feds just as soon as 50 million new Democrat voters are created. Yessiree bob.

              1. Hispanics (many of them) don’t want to vote “R”, because they perceive that “R” people hate them. Do YOU want to vote for rulers who seemingly hate you?

                “Hispanics vote “D” because they are welfare mooches…” is a self-fulfilling prophecy, in exactly this manner! Good job, bigoted xenophobe!

                1. You’re pretty racist arent you? Nearly half of hispanics vote R.

                2. It’s racists like you who have created the propagandistic fiction that Republicans hate Hispanics.

                  What Republicans hate is illegal immigration and welfare dependency, from anywhere and by anyone, regardless of race. Republicans want equality under the law. Democrats want race-based policies.

      2. The only reason a “birth dearth” is a problem is if you have social welfare schemes that need to be supported by an ever-expanding influx of younger people to support the current and future benefits of older people. Coincidentally, Mikey Hihn is an old worthless piece of shit dying on Medicare in an old age assisted living facility.

        The real irony is that the illiterate Mexicans he thinks are going to keep his worthless and obsolete old ass alive not only don’t pay taxes but eat up more welfare dollars than he does.

        1. Birth dearth is no problem? News flash: If you’re 90 years old, on your death bed, the last person in your nation… Even if you worked your ass off, and hoarded tons of gold for your old age… The gold isn’t going to feed you (and you can’t eat gold, it’s not nutritious), bathe you, change your bedsheets, or do ANYTHING for you!

          Did you learn NOTHING in stupid-school?

          1. He learned that you were just a sad fucking sock puppet Old Mex.

  15. “The courts provide these deportees no relief, because they were neither born here nor naturalized. They might as well be citizens—they’ve lived in the United States for years and we know them as Americans.”

    See, there’s your problem. The power to set the rules of naturalization was not enumerated to the courts, and unless they’re born here or naturalized, they aren’t citizens.

    The power to set the rules of naturalization was enumerated to Congress, and the separation of powers doesn’t only kick in when you’d like it to because it’s an issue that’s near and dear to your hearts. If you want the courts or a president to disregard the separation of power and democracy–within its proper purview–and inflict your will on this issue instead, then you might as well be an authoritarian.

    As an aside, if you don’t like the way the rules are and disregard your obligation in a civil society to persuade your fellow Americans to change their minds–so that their representatives in Congress will change the law–then you also might as well be an elitist.

    1. Something about a guy with a pen?

      1. All the things he did with that pen–and without Congress–were mostly undone with a pen.

        Anything done with an executive order can probably be undone with an executive order. DACA goes before the Supreme Court later this month on that very question–and everyone from the Cato Institute to Shika Dalmia expects Trump’s executive order to shut down DACA to survive the scrutiny of the Court.

        If you want a climate change treaty like the Paris Accord or the Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran to stick, you need two-thirds of the Senate to ratify it. We can get a new guy with a pen every four years if we want. And it’s the same way with naturalization policy.

        Even the guy with the pen didn’t have the power to change policy enough to make the Dreamers American citizens–he needed both chambers of Congress to do that. Meanwhile, just about everything he did with his insignificant pen power disappeared as soon as he wasn’t in the White House anymore.

        We will never get a better naturalization policy until we change the policy. All the Jedi mind tricks and noble lies of the Obama administration did nothing in the end. They’re just gonna have to start treating their fellow Americans like people and start trying to persuade them rather than make them believe noble lies.

      2. Sharpies are freedom pens!

        1. Oh OK, you’re a huffer it all makes sense now.

    1. Well, that’s a kick in the nuts!

      Don’t open your doors wide to allow fresh air through your house! At least, not before notifying your neighbors about what you are doing!!!

      And for sure, don’t call the cops for a “welfare check” on your neighbor’s open doors! Stick your neck out a wee tad, and walk on over to his or her property, if you’re that worried, and ask them how they are doing!

    2. Good Lord. That is awful.

    3. There was a time when a person concerned about their neighbor would just go over there and check on them themselves. The total erosion of social norms and Christian charity is a small price to pay for compulsory gay wedding cakes and secular Marxism though.

      1. “Christian charity” is a funny term from someone like you! “Treat others the way that you’d like to be treated”, for you apparently, has an invisible-ink clause after it, saying, “but only if they were born on the RIGHT side of the river, the RIGHT side of the mountain range, the RIGHT side of the railroad tracks, and the RIGHT side of the invisible lines in the sand”.

        Doesn’t sound “Christian” to me! Or, simpler put, it doesn’t sound benevolent or even-handed to me.

      2. You and Bill Barr should get a room.

        Yup, it’s the fault of the gays and the “Marxists” that the cop shot an unarmed woman in her own home. LOL

  16. As long as we want to have a nation, and especially one with membership benefits, we will need to define who is a member, along with who else has the right to reside here.

    As for amnesty, I do NOT support granting citizenship for ad hoc reasons, but I could support some forms of legal residency. If that seems unfair, well, TFB.

    1. I completely agree with the membership part. But membership is different than residency. Property owners should be free to decide who they wish to sell or rent their property to, citizens or not.

      Think of it this way: multinational corporations are free to buy property in this country, why not Jose the undocumented immigrant?

      1. Well, property owners aren’t free to do that. Nor are we free to decide what services to pay taxes for, what social programs to support, or what wealth transfers we want to participate in.

        Until we have those liberties, we won’t and can’t tolerate open borders.

        Restore our liberties and you get your open borders.

      2. Think of it this way: multinational corporations are free to buy property in this country, why not Jose the undocumented immigrant?

        So we can add Foreign Direct Investment to voluminous number of things about which you are hopelessly and utterly ignorant.

        1. And Clark Gable knows all, sees all, understands all, but can do VERY little other than insult other posters. Out of laziness? Or spite? Or… Dare I speculate… He doesn’t REALLY know all, see all, or understand all, at all, perhaps?

  17. “De Facto Americans” is a bullshit term.

    You are not an American citizen unless you were born one or naturalized.

    All this effort to force an unpopular immigration policy on the American people through unconstitutional means would be better spent on persuading the people necessary to change the law.

    “De Facto Americans” are not American citizens if they weren’t born American citizens or naturalized, and repeating your noble lie over and over again isn’t persuasive. It just makes you look dishonest and authoritarian.

    1. The most reasonable explanation for why they try to make us believe their noble lies–rather than persuade us to change the law–is because they’re elitist snobs. They think the American people are beneath persuasion, so they use noble lies and bullying instead.

      I once house-trained by girlfriend’s dog by convincing him that if he shit in the house, he would turn invisible. That’s the way these people are treating us–and then they wonder why the American people turn to populism, which in all its forms is always, necessarily, a response to elitism.

    2. Libertarians for “papers please” government. For government-defined identity. For sparing no public dollar to ruin the lives of otherwise law-abiding humans who only contribute to the social fabric and economy.

      I don’t think you get to tell me I hate freedom.

      1. The Constitution enumerates setting the rules of naturalization to Congress–for good reason. Some things are outside the proper purview of democracy, which is why the First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law”. Other things, such as treaties and declaring war, absolutely need to be democratic–after all, it isn’t a free society if the government can impose treaties and wars on the American people over their objections and against their will.

        The rules of naturalization fall within the proper purview of democracy. Free citizens need to be free to decide how other people go from being non-citizens to citizens. A common feature of issues within the proper purview of democracy is that respect for polices within democracy’s purview need to be respected regardless of whether they’re smart or correct. Those policies need to be respected simply because the American people want them that way.

        Incidentally, it works that way with treaties and wars–not just the rules of naturalization. Sometimes we enter into treaties, wars, or pass rules for naturalization that I oppose. The solution to that isn’t to back authoritarian solutions from some president or the courts–that will shit all over the democracy and the Constitution. The solution is to persuade my fellow Americans to change their minds.

        Have you ever persuaded anyone of anything, Tony? The only thing I’ve ever see you persuade anyone to do is to support right-wing Republicans just to spite dishonest authoritarian socialists like you. Keep up the good work.

        1. Why are you explaining to me of all people about the utility of a system of laws?

          I just want to stop being told I hate freedom by people who are perfectly comfortable ruining people’s lives by the millions for what is, at worst, a misdemeanor of being on the wrong side of an imaginary line drawn by people whose ancestors arrived much later than those of their victims.

          1. “Why are you explaining to me of all people about the utility of a system of laws?”

            Because you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand it.

            “I just want to stop being told I hate freedom”

            Then stop hating freedom and start supporting free association and property rights you sad freedom hating fuck.

            1. You are so fucking stupid it’s painful.

          2. The point is, Anthony, that illegal aliens do not belong here, as a matter of law. You don’t have a problem with commentors here; your problem is with the Congress, who made the law.

            If you do not like the law, petition Congress to change it.

            1. Is your argument that all laws or just or what? Most people here spend most of their time bitching about existing policy. What point are you trying to make?

      2. For sparing no public dollar to ruin the lives of otherwise law-abiding humans who only contribute to the social fabric and economy.

        You can’t be “otherwise law abiding” if you enter the country illegally; you break a law every time you sneeze, laws that citizens are required to obey.

        And almost no illegal migrant “contributes to the economy” more than they take out. Sorry.

        1. “And almost no illegal migrant “contributes to the economy” more than they take out. Sorry.”

          Said by one who sees all and knows all?

          I am told that evil is like an insatiable thirst… Whatever I can get, is NEVER good enough! Der TrumfenFuhrer will never be sated, not even when foreign states are our vassals, their territories our Lebensraum, and their citizens are our untermenschen-slaves.

          Der TrumfenFuhrer’s insatiability (and that of His Minions as well) are also evident at our border policies. Illegal humans are tax slaves even more so than most of us USA citizens are… They pay into Social Security, but cannot benefit! See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

          So we’re partways down the road already, of turning our illegal sub-humans into untermenschen-slaves, and Der TrumfenFuhrer wants to demonize them some more! WHAT will it take to slake The Donald’s thirst?!?

  18. In one text exchange released by congressional Democrats last week between Mr. Sondland [U.S. Ambassador to the EU] and William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Kyiv, Mr. Taylor expressed concern that there appeared to be a link between a delay in sending almost $400 million in U.S. aid to Ukraine by the administration and Mr. Trump’s political interests.

    Mr. Taylor texted Mr. Sondland in September: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

    Mr. Sondland wrote back five hours later: “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” He added: “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”

    Before sending that text message, Mr. Sondland spoke to the president for about five minutes by phone to ask whether there was any link between the aid and Ukraine’s agreement to launch investigations, according to the person familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump “assured him that the aid cut off was not tied in the manner Taylor suggested”.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sondland-to-testify-he-took-trumps-denial-of-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-at-his-word-11570933206?

    1. Remember that part in The Usual Suspects, when Virgil says something like, “So what if you get a chance to shoot the devil in the back? What happens if you miss?”

      Pelosi and the Democrats may be about to find out.

      If they come up with bupkis on this, Trump may win 2020 in a landslide.

      1. How does it really feel that you’ve become a sad, slimy toady for the most obviously corrupt president, possibly politician, in American history, and it’s all OK with you because of that goddamn (R) after his name? He didn’t even have the (R) until late in life! What are you trying to get from this? Are you sexually attracted to him or what?

        He’ll be impeached. He won’t be removed. That’s a win-win for Democrats. I can’t wait until that reality intrudes on your sad, delusional little cheerleading.

        1. They’re coming up with bupkis regardless of how I feel about it.

          1. The problem with getting all your news from right-wing propaganda outlets is that you don’t get all the information you need to have an informed opinion.

            1. No one cares why you’re so uninformed Tony.

            2. Facts are facts regardless of where we get them.

              Meanwhile, the facts in these texts were publicly released by the Democrat controlled House committee that’s leading this impeachment investigation.

              What you said was stupid in so many ways, it’d be amazing coming from anyone but you.

            3. “In one text exchange released by congressional Democrats last week . . . “

              That’s what it says in the text I quoted. It’s the very first part of the very first sentence!

              Did Tony just call congressional Democrats “a right-wing propaganda” outfit?

              LOL

              1. What the fuck are you even talking about? Trump said he did nothing wrong, and that’s your evidence?

                1. The facts I quoted came from a Democrat controlled House committee that’s pushing to impeach President Trump, and you responded that I was getting my facts from a right wing propaganda outfit.

                  That’s what you did, Tony. That’s who you are.

              2. Did Tony just call congressional Democrats “a right-wing propaganda” outfit?

                Well, he IS a Bernie bro.

            4. You think the WSJ is “right-wing propaganda”?

              Hahahahahahahahahahaha

        2. THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!

          1. More than half the country wants Trump impeached and removed.

            1. Incorrect.

              Cite the poll so I can cite the correction.

        3. Define corrupt, and tell us how to judge that. Trump is belligerent, impulsive, short-sighted, biased, inconsistent, impulsive, ignorant, egotistical, irrational, and impulsive. But most corrupt? Compared to Harding (Teapot Dome), FDR (who found the US Constitution inconvenient at best), LBJ (talk about political patronage and leverage), Nixon (remember Watergate?), and Clinton (compassionate, horny, and Slick).

          1. Trump is also quite open about his distaste for Constitutional restrictions against his power. Oddly enough, he seems to be more respectful of those restrictions and hasn’t repeatedly violated the courts declaring an action unconstitutional

            1. Theif….isn’t that the craziest part in all of this = Oddly enough, he seems to be more respectful of those restrictions and hasn’t repeatedly violated the courts declaring an action unconstitutional

      2. “Trump may win 2020 in a landslide.”

        They’re only doing all of this because they know he is going to win by a landslide so scandal is their only strength. Trump isn’t winning. The dems are just that bad. They could have had this if they ignored the progressives. Heck, if they parroted what Trump supporters like that Trump says they could win it.
        Pelosi figured it out a while back. If democrats would just get off of social media and stop watching the news then Democrats could stand a chance.
        If I was Trump I would be paying cinematographers to stand outside of Trump rally’s to film the protestors beating up the Trump supporters. HD quality and good angles would make for amazing content in campaign commercials.

    2. This entire impeachment spectacle is completely bizarre.

      Quid pro quo is how Washington works. It’s a scandal now? Since when?

      1. It’s a felony to ask a foreigner for campaign help. Just imagine it was Hillary.

        Christ.

        1. I don’t have to imagine that and it seems completely different this go round.

          1. Because this time it’s both true and he has an (R) after his name?

        2. Just imagine it was Hillary.

          So far we’ve got Italy, Australia, the UK, and Ukraine who contributed directly to her campaign via the Chris Steele oppo “dossier” and through the subsequent cointel operation from the Obama administration. You were saying?

          1. So is it bad or not? Only bad when the person has a (D) after her name? Only bad when it’s made up rightwing propaganda horseshit, but not bad when it’s true and the guy is an (R)? I’m having trouble following the ethical narrative here.

            1. Why do you constantly come here looking for libertarian approval you sad fuck?

              We ARE NOT R’S OR D’S YOUR SAD LITTLE MIND NEEDS TO GRASP THAT

              “I’m having trouble following”

              So nothing new then.

              1. You are (R)s who think you’re too cool to admit to it, except you’re less cool than actual fucking (R)s, which is just sad.

        3. “Just imagine it was Hillary.”

          “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

          —-Mother Jones, May 28, 2015

          https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals/

          That’s something that actually happened.

        4. You jumped pretty far ahead there and instantly made this out to be “campaign help”. Pointing out that someone broke the law isn’t “campaign help”. It only becomes that in a round-about way.
          It’s not illegal for Trump to ask if someone in the US committed a crime. That would mean that if you are a presidential candidate you have immunity. That’s not the case.

          1. Don’t you creeps understand how fucked up it is to pressure a foreign govt into a conspiracy to slander an American citizen with a made up investigation for a political purpose? It’s rhetorical question because how could a Trump supporter understand it? You wouldn’t be a Trump supporter if you any sense or honor. Trump wasn’t investigating corruption he was inviting it. He was using the office of presidency to advance a criminal scheme.

            1. I’m not a Trump supporter, but so what? Trump calls a dude, says his lawyer will get in touch, the dude is all cool about it, and he released the transcripts. That’s really all that’s there. The funny part is that by just this happening Trump may have won because of how the Dems consistently play their hand in the worst way possible.
              Don’t look to this as something to be outraged by because doing so is pointless. You can’t do anything about it. Look at the people that allowed it to happen. Look at the people that got the ball rolling to force the never-Trumpers to support Trump. Look to the people that got the labor unions to side with Trump. Find each one of them. Then don’t reelect them. That’s all you can do right now aside from masturbate.

      2. “Quid pro quo is how Washington works. It’s a scandal now? Since when?”

        The Democrats and the news media would love to have us talk about whether a quid pro quo is okay, but I’m reluctant to have that conversation over a quid pro quo that never happened.

        We have two pieces of evidence that have been made publicly available, now, and both of them show that there was no quid pro quo. It wasn’t in the transcript, and it was actively denied in a text message–after someone asked about it.

        Whether Trump should face manslaughter charges for running over a pedestrian while he was under the influence is an interesting question, but I haven’t had that conversation with anyone because there isn’t any reason to believe that President Trump ran over a pedestrian. In fact, all the evidence proves the opposite of the allegations.

        1. I just think it’s funny they came up with something so blatantly hypocritical.

          1. They’re blowing my minds by the day.

            Liz Warren just revealed an ad smearing Mark Zuckerberg for supporting the Trump campaign for president.

            At the end, it admit the advertisement is false. The ad is intended to go after Facebook for letting the Trump administration say things that aren’t true in their advertising.

            Opposing the First Amendment seems to be one of the main planks in her platform. She’s campaigning against the First Amendment, or, perhaps, in her imagination, the First Amendment has an invisible clause that says it only protects smart speech and the objective truth. I wonder, does she think the First Amendment doesn’t protect stupid religions–only the smart ones?

            Not long ago, progressives were joking about how Trump was supposedly acting like the bad guys in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Has there ever been a president that advocated for polices like those of the government in Nineteen Eighty-Four as much as Liz Warren?

            It blows the mind.

            The impeachment witch hunt make sense if you think of it in terms of the Democrats trying to distract average Americans from what the candidates for president are saying while trying to win the nomination–because that’s so embarrassing. The only thing is that the Democrats aren’t that smart and they aren’t that stupid. They aren’t smart enough to orchestrate this–it’s just the people in deep blue districts pressuring Nancy to impeach or lose the Speaker’s chair. And they aren’t that stupid because when they end up with big chunks of nothingburger all over their faces, it’s gonna feed straight into Trump’s rhetoric about how the establishment in Washington is out to get him.

  19. $95 for a 250 page book telling people what everyone already knows?

    1. I can’t believe it took 150 comments to get here. $95. Holy schmoly.

  20. Do you think there might be a decade some point in the next few decades where you right-wing morons stop worrying about the goddamn brown menace? I realize the gay menace was a nice refreshing distraction, but it’s pretty much been the brown menace in your people’s politics since long before your ancestors arrived here (but not before the brown people arrived–the ones in question were actually here before you).

    1. Just imagine they all wanted to come in and vote R.
      Jebus.

      1. Some of us are in favor of individual freedom regardless of which political party it helps.

        1. They’re called libertarians.

          Certainly not Democrats.

          1. Libertarians in a platonic form, perhaps. Very few of the ones here, who seem quite unashamed to argue that we must use federal thugs to expel undesirables mostly because they think they’ll vote for Democrats.

            1. The republican position on multiple issues is just as consistent and loving as the Democrats.

              That’s why I’m a libertarian. What’s your excuse?

            2. “Very few of the ones here”

              When you turn trespassing into racism in an attempt to draw some kind of stupid comparisons on the use of force, you have to realize that not a single libertarian anywhere cares why you think about their libertarianism.

              You seem sadly possessed of a weird deep seated need to have libertarians both agree with you and like you, despite over a decade of continuous disappointment.

              1. What does trespassing have to do with anything?

            3. Very few of the ones here, who seem quite unashamed to argue that we must use federal thugs to expel undesirables mostly because they think they’ll vote for Democrats.

              Most of the libertarians left. The few that are left are drowned out by right-wing trolls who spew personal insults as if they were arguments.

        2. Unless it’s serving the public. Because you like slavery.

        3. Look at the Squad. That’s who the kind of people you bring in vote for.

          And if I have to make a choice between the Squad and your average socially conservative Christian politician, I pick the socially conservative Christian politician any day, because the Squad is far more racist, bigoted, intolerant, and destructive than any social conservative.

    2. Do you think there might be a decade some point in the next few decades where you left-wing Marxists stop worrying about the goddamn white male capitalist menace?

      1. When it stops being a menace, sure.

        1. Oh OK, so they should have stopped before they started, glad you admit that.

  21. Foreigners working on tomato farms bad. Foreigners helping a president with his campaign, what’s the bid deal!?

    1. maybe they think it’s a felony to use foreigners for campaign help.

    2. Foreigners helping a president with his campaign, what’s the bid deal!?

      Let’s ask Chris Steele. He’s kind of hard to get in touch with nowadays, you might have more luck using Nellie Ohr as a go-between.

      1. Whatabout the Clintons!

        Try a new argument. Bonus points if it’s not a bullshit rightwing conspiracy theory.

        1. You’re kinda flip-floppy on the whole “let’s use the Clintons to point out double-standards” standard.

          1. Between the two Clintons, the only wrongdoing ever uncovered was an extramarital affair. Either that or Republicans have been monumentally incompetent at nabbing them for anything else, despite decades of trying.

            The Steele dossier thing is an utterly false, bullshit, nonsense, horseshit desperate right-wing deflection. You can look it up on fact-checking websites, but you won’t.

            1. The Clintons have been found just as guilty of crimes as Trump has.

              Are you still complaining about double-standards?

            2. Also, in what sense is the Steele dossier false? I thought Trump was just horrible for his pee fantasies.

              1. The idea that Hillary did anything wrong by paying for oppo research in a legal way. The fact that the Steele dossier has not been found to be false should concern Trump’s apologists, but instead they make up fantasies and act like children.

                1. “ October.13.2019 at 3:20 pm
                  The idea that Hillary did anything wrong by paying for oppo research in a legal way.”

                  Kinda like how Trump is bad in non-legal ways, too?

            3. “Between the two Clintons, the only wrongdoing ever uncovered was an extramarital affair.”

              See, you’re already lying. Perjury isn’t an extramarital affair. And no, don’t pretend it is all part of the same thing.

              I don’t personally care about either the affair or perjury, but you’re clearly lying right there. And we all know why.

              1. Bill Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial, not that it has fuck all to do with anything. Clinton could have murdered a nun and it wouldn’t have anything to do with how guilty or innocent Trump is. I feel like you probably don’t even understand how this works.

            4. Not many people know this story. As Hillary Clinton says: Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.

              The dark cloud of the War on Women is forever hovering over Republicans but usually manages to land on Progressives and Democrats.

              Washington Post: Bill Clinton Rape Accuser’s Story Aired


              Quote:
              Juanita Broaddrick told her story to a national television audience last night, saying she did not tell authorities 21 years ago of her contention that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her because “I just don’t think anyone would have believed me.”

              In a gripping account punctuated by sobs, the Arkansas woman told “Dateline NBC” that in her Little Rock hotel room, Clinton suddenly “turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him ‘no.’ . . . He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. . . . And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him ‘no.’ . . . He wouldn’t listen to me.”

    3. Lololl did you think this was a point? Ahahah Trump has broken you.

    4. Excellent analysis, Tony.

      As depressing as the Drumpf era has been, there is still one positive development. It’s nothing short of miraculous how Democrats like you have fully embraced Charles Koch’s immigration agenda. Look out — next thing you know, you’ll warm up to his position on the minimum wage as well!

      #OpenBorders
      #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

      1. I’m not for “open borders,” and nobody else is either, I’m just against racism and other forms of irrationality.

        1. I understand if you Democrats don’t think “open borders” polls well enough yet to use the expression. Nevertheless, your party is rapidly moving toward the immigration position favored by billionaires. As a Koch / Reason libertarian I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate that.

          #BillionairesKnowBest

          1. Since when do Team GOP suckups like you care about poor people? Pathetic.

            1. Actually, poor people are the Republican Party’s voting base. You’d know this if you paid attention to Mr. Buttplug and Rev. Kirkland’s posts.

              1. The truth is that the richer you are the more likely you are to vote GOP. To which, I ask again, since when did GOP suckups like you start caring about poor people? I mean, if you really don’t care and you are employing that argument to “own the libs” that’d Be kind of monumentally pathetic.

  22. Dear Team GOP:

    You should come to the affinity group I recently formed: People for Using GOvernment FOrce to Send Undesirables to Gulags— or PUGFOSUG, for short. We meet every Monday at midnight in George Soros’ underground bunker— in San Francisco, of course. You guys would fit right in!

    1. Got any more passages from the Mueller Report to copy / paste today? Apparently some clueless people here still don’t understand that Russians are controlling our government.

      #TrumpRussia
      #ItsMuellerTime
      #MaddowWasRight

      1. You asked. I provide, Trump suckup.

        Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

        Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

        Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

        Doesn’t it suck that GOP bootlickers like you couldn’t even get a majority of people to support impeaching some old pervert who lied in court about fucking his intern. Dear Leader just had one hilariously corrupt talk with a foreign leader and now half the country wants to reverse an election. So unfair! The walls are closing in!

        1. Great stuff.

          Don’t forget to include the parts that prove Drumpf has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987.

          We’ve reached the tipping point. It’s the beginning of the end.

          1. Hey look, GOP suckup thinks obstructing Justice is ok just because someone said something about how weird he acts around Putin. Fabulous! You go, fanboy!

            1. I was calling for Drumpf’s impeachment long before you started posting here. Now that I think of it, I was calling for his impeachment before Hillary Clinton even gave her concession speech.

              #StillWithHer

              1. Of course it was before Hilary’s concession.

  23. It seems the Joker movie is even more problematic than I had realized.

    In “Joker,” black women are visible but they are not seen

    #MoreDiversityInFilmsAboutCriminalClowns
    #CastGaboureySidibeInTheSequel

    1. Suckup, you sure do worry about what some movie reviewer says. How do you have the time? Are you long term unemployed?

      1. Hmm, now you’re confusing me. Reading a movie review on a Sunday afternoon is evidence of long-term unemployment?

        Besides, you should know the main problem in the #DrumpfRecession isn’t unemployment. In fact, it’s over-employment. As AOC has explained, the unemployment rate is actually “too low” — because everybody needs 2 or 3 jobs to survive.

        1. Awesome…AOC as a source.

        2. You’re supposed to parody people by being more ridiculous than they are. How do you do that when the people you’re parodying go off the charts ridiculous?

          If AOC really said that, and OBL is still able to parody effectively–despite that kind of competition from reality–then OBL deserves a webby for best parody evar!

        3. Tell me how often you read a movie review and then apply sweeping conclusions about the zeitgeist, GOP suckup.

          1. It happens surprisingly often, especially with serious works of art like comic book movies.

            For example, anyone who didn’t like Captain Marvel must be a misogynist.

            Furthermore, anyone who doesn’t recognize Black Panther as the greatest movie of all time (right-hand column) is a racist white supremacist.

            #WakandaForever

            1. You sure do have a lot of time to worry about movie reviewers, suckup. As a libertarian I don’t like bullshit wars, drug laws, and jack-booted thugs putting people in camps. I’m concerned mostly with macro-aggressions like that. I’ll leave the speech codes to perpetually-aggrieved snowflakes like you.

  24. Any body say bad things about orangemanisbad.

    1. There is no evidence of a quid pro quo.

      All the evidence shows that there was no quid pro quo.

      As you go through the end of you weekend, when you’re walking around in your Trump hating shoes, listening to your Trump hating music, driving your Trump hating car, and eating your Trump hating food, try to remember this: There is no evidence of a quid pro quo.

      If there were, you could link to it, but there isn’t, so you can’t.

        1. Rank speculation on your part that is contradicted by the two pieces of evidence we have.

          1) The text exchange

          Mr. Taylor expressed concern that there appeared to be a link between a delay in sending almost $400 million in U.S. aid to Ukraine by the administration and Mr. Trump’s political interests.

          Mr. Taylor texted Mr. Sondland in September: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

          “Mr. Sondland wrote back five hours later: “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” He added: “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”

          Before sending that text message, Mr. Sondland spoke to the president for about five minutes by phone to ask whether there was any link between the aid and Ukraine’s agreement to launch investigations, according to the person familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump “assured him that the aid cut off was not tied in the manner Taylor suggested”

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/sondland-to-testify-he-took-trumps-denial-of-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-at-his-word-11570933206

          There is no evidence of a quid pro quo–quite the opposite.

          2) The transcript of the Ukraine call

          There is no evidence of a quid pro quo there either.

          In summary, you can’t link to evidence of a quid pro quo because there is none. If you didn’t know there wasn’t any evidence of a quid pro quo, I suspect it’s because you don’t care whether there was a quid pro quo. You want Trump impeached regardless. For the rest of the country, however, overturning the results of a presidential election requires more than your fevered imaginings.

          P.S. There is no evidence of a quid pro quo. If you can persist in believing in things despite all evidence to the contrary, I suggest you avoid answering the door when the Jehovah’s Witnesses come knocking. Believe me, Pelosi’s Democrats aren’t the only people who would love to recruit someone with that ability.

      1. “All the evidence shows that there was no quid pro quo.”‘

        Pointers on evidence standards from birther-Benghazi-‘lock her up’-level clingers are always humorous.

        1. Did a YouTube video cause Benghazi?

  25. More than any other generation before them, Millennials are OK with socialism. A 2016 Gallup poll found 55% of those then aged 18-29 said they had a positive view of it

    I wonder what the figures were like in 2006. If this keeps up and Trump keeps representing the brand of strident free market capitalism we’ll probably be signing songs about how great the revolutionary tractor is by 2024– which is something i’ve Always wanted to do. You go, Team GOP. Trump 2020! All praise to the bountiful wheat harvest of 2026!

    1. “Trump keeps representing the brand of strident free market capitalism”

      LOL

      Look, it’s great that you’re #Resisting Drumpf, but you need to do it in a fact-based way. Do you spend so much time reading the Mueller Report that you don’t read what Dalmia and Boehm write here? Drumpf is bad because when it comes to immigration and tariffs, he’s not free-market capitalist enough.

      1. Trump 2020

        Who said i’m Resisting Trump, suckup?

        1. Retard fight!!!!

          (Except one is just pretending)

          1. I guess when I came here I thought of libertarians as rugged individualists who were capable of executing Python code, cleaning a musket and shearing a beaver pelt. But the more time I spend here the more I realize i’m Wrong. I mean, working for Lord Snorzos as I do, do you think we’d allow some Trumpian dick to troll us over at Media Matters? Fuck that. First we’d ban him, then dox him and then send over an Antifa brigade to rough him up and fuck his girlfriend. But not here. Here, you just allow some run- of-the-mill GOPer to make fun of fellow libertarians and run amok. Really, you guys are some of the biggest pussies around. Do you just wimp out like a bitch when some Republican tells you how great Trump is? Bleech… pathetic.

            1. In case anyone didn’t know who BigT was referring to as the actual retard.

  26. I was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint recently and asked for my license.

    Why should suspected illegals be granted more leeway than us citizens?

    1. Maybe there shouldn’t be sobriety checkpoints either.

      1. Exactly.
        Replace it with the monthly “Meet your Police” nights where officers greet all the drivers. It will really help bring the community together.

      2. SCOTUS ruled sobriety checkpoints legal.

    2. Mr T

      Why should you be randomly stopped at a checkpoint?

      1. So cops can plant drugs on you to meet their quotas?

  27. So apparently “de facto Americans” is the new term of art for illegal aliens – and just when I’d finally learned to use “undocumented immigrants”.

  28. So, by “de facto” Americans, you mean, “Not in any sense Americans”? The same way bank robbers are “de facto depositors”, and burglars are “de facto houseguests”?

    1. No, the author means individuals who are culturally American and have assimilated into American life, but who lack official government papers.

      It’s your tribe that makes a huge deal about immigrants supposedly not assimilating, right? Well here we have a bunch of immigrants who have assimilated. These are the types of immigrants you WANT here, isn’t it?

      1. Strange that the law would treat people who are only “American” in a legally irrelevant sense as not being Americans.

        Bottom line: By “de facto” Americans, the OP is referring to people who aren’t Americans. Citizenship isn’t subject to adverse possession.

        1. So, by “de facto” Americans, you mean, “Not in any sense Americans”?

          That is what you wrote. That is a false statement. These individuals are culturally American and have assimilated here for years and decades.

    2. Silly man, bank robbers are “de facto withdrawers”, not depositors.

  29. In America, virtually all immigration policy flows from the antique idea that a country must define itself by rejecting unwanted foreigners.

    Virtually all immigration conflict comes from the left’s denial that a country can have legitimate immigration policy.

  30. The trolls are strong in this one.

  31. During that time, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) mistakenly thought Brown, who was born in Philadelphia and raised in New Jersey, was a deportable Jamaican.

    In all fairness, he was born in Philadelphia and raised in Jersey. Is deportation all that bad?

    1. Especially to a place like Jamaica, which is a tourist destination.

      1. Unless you are Jamaican.

        1. The staycation destination.

  32. Unlike the author and some commenters, I’d draw a clear line between illegal aliens who are married to U. S. citizens and those who are not.

    I’m not referring to bigamists who have one spouse in one country and another in this country. I’m not referring to serial marryers who get divorced until they hit the jackpot by remarrying a U. S. citizen. I’m not referring to phony marriages like “gay marriage” or whatever.

    I’m referring to actual bona fide spouses of American citizens, who should be treated as lawful residents even if initially they weren’t. With this disclaimer – that the marriage should be annulled if the foreign spouse concealed his/her immigration status.

    This isn’t about the rights of the foreign resident, it’s about the rights of the U. S. citizen – the right to marriage, which despite the distortion and mockery of that right in 2015 is still a bona fide constitutional right when properly invoked.

    Yes, an American woman should be presumed entitled to live with her foreign husband in America, and an American man should be presumed entitled to live with his foreign wife in America. The presumption could be overridden of course if the foreign spouse commits a crime, but the basic rule should be as stated.

    If you can establish U. S. residency by persuading the appropriate officials, good for you. If you can establish U. S. residency by persuading an American to marry you, good for you. I’d treat the situations the same.

    1. Oh, I’d add this extra caveat – that the marriage should be indissoluble during life and each spouse should be able to sue for alienation of affection or criminal conversation, to demand child support, etc. In other words, end up in court if you don’t take the marriage seriously.

    2. Eddy….so tell us how you define ‘bona fide spouse’. That matters.

      1. Yes, Eddy, please elaborate. We definitely need ICE agents poking around every married immigrant’s life to determine if he/she is a “bona fide spouse”.

        1. They actually do. In my friend’s case he had to provide old love letters to the judge.

    3. You would wish. But marriage is no longer a ticket to residency. My friend had a hell of a time getting his wife in to this country from the Philippines. He had to prove that they were having sex. Marriage certificate not good enough, had to prove it wasn’t a marriage of convenience.

      He was seriously considering smuggling her in from Canada before they approved her. Then it took another five years to get her permission to work here.

  33. “They might as well be citizens—they’ve lived in the United States for years and we know them as Americans.”

    No, they may not as well be citizens.

  34. NINETY FIVE DOLLARS?!?!?!

    Last book I bought, dead-tree variety, hardback, non-fiction, was around $20. The last fiction book was $24. Because I like chunky hardbacks.

    Hell, are college textbooks even going for that much now? Okay, maybe they are. But this doesn’t look like a college textbook.

  35. Your “de-facto Americans” are people who hold citizenship in other countries, with whatever rights and responsibilities come with that citizenship.
    I cannot agree that people who are here illegally should be granted special rights just because they have gotten away with illegal activity for an unusually long time.
    I have tried to understand the open borders perspective, but the logic of it just escapes me. It just seems so self destructive.

Please to post comments