Family Issues

The Long, Dark History of Family Separations

How politicians used the drug war and the welfare state to break up black and Native American families

|

Taking Children: A History of American Terror, by Laura Briggs, University of California Press, 256 pages, $24.95

America exploded with indignation in 2018, when the Trump administration initiated mass separations of border-crossing migrant children from their parents, shipping the kids to the federal equivalent of orphanages.

The administration said the parents had broken a federal law that prohibits crossing the border without documents. Never mind that many, if not most, of the families intended to claim asylum, or that they handed themselves to Border Patrol agents as soon as they traversed the international line. Never mind that when claiming asylum, a person without papers can legally cross at any place on the border whatsoever. These parents had broken no law, but the administration defined them as criminals subject to arrest and trial. While in jail they couldn't care for their children, officials said, so the government needed to take the kids.

The administration also said that it was sending a "deterrence" message to Central Americans: If you come here, we will take your children.

Public outrage and civil rights lawsuits quickly softened President Donald Trump and swayed judges. By summer's end, most of the parents and children were reunited. Most, that is, who fit a highly constrained definition of "families"—adults caring for their biological children only. Aunts, uncles, grandmothers, and older siblings head many families in poverty-stricken and violence-ridden countries. But extended kin trying to escape terrible conditions are often accused of "trafficking" the children in their care.

As a result, many immigrant children remain in federal detention. Family separations continue apace, but most of us have moved on, telling ourselves that the boys and girls of 2018 are back with mom and dad, that the whole thing was an aberration, that America loves family unity.

But these separations, as shocking as they were to some Americans, are part of a much longer history. Different arms of the government have been destroying families for a very long time, a history entangled with race, immigration, and colonization. The current administration's family separation policy is only the most recent example of this appalling legacy.

Most of us already know some of what Laura Briggs writes about in Taking Children. Most of us are aware that, for hundreds of years, African-American children were routinely and forcibly separated from their parents on auction blocks. And many know that in the 19th century, Native American children were removed from their families and shipped to white-run boarding schools, where they were stripped of their Indigenous clothing, dressed as Westerners, forbidden to speak their native tongues, and kept from their parents for years.

If slave sales and boarding school seizures were the family separations described in Taking Children, the work would read like an A.P. high school textbook. But Briggs, a historian at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, also recounts outrages that are only a few decades old. Resurrecting this forgotten history, she demonstrates its continuity with the recent separation of migrant families.

For years in America, unmarried, pregnant white women had been disciplined by being hidden in "homes for unwed mothers" and pressured to relinquish their newborns for adoption. Cloistered and closeted, most of these white women remained invisible, even as unwed-mother homes and adoption agencies wanted nothing to do with pregnant black women. Unmarried African Americans mostly kept their babies, and the families were highly visible.

But as the civil rights movement reached its apex in the 1950s and early 1960s, white supremacists lashed back. Beginning in 1958, the Mississippi legislature started crafting legislation to discipline unwed mothers. One 1964 bill called for charging them with a felony, punishable by sterilization or three years in prison. The de facto targets were black women and their children.

The Mississippi bills did not pass. But other Southern states devised related punishments, using welfare as a tool of social engineering. In 1957, at the height of Little Rock's school desegregation fight, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus enacted a rule to remove families headed by unwed mothers from the welfare rolls. During the same period, Florida ceased to recognize common-law marriages, redefining them as "illicit relationships" and "illegal cohabitation." Florida and Tennessee defined households headed by unmarried mothers—again, disproportionately black women—as "unsuitable" and kicked the women and their kids off assistance.

Seven Southern states enacted laws along these lines. Briggs documents caseworkers telling mothers that if they wanted to stay on the rolls, they needed to relinquish their sons and daughters to foster care.

One of those seven states was Louisiana. In 1960, after New Orleans faced a court decision requiring it to racially integrate city schools, Gov. Jimmie Davis and the legislature announced a "segregation package" of new laws to stop the desegregation order. Most were deemed illegal by the federal courts, but one that survived was a "suitable home" provision intended to prohibit 23,000 children from receiving welfare. Black New Orleans residents considered the rule a political punishment and turned it into a national and international issue. Black civil rights groups and white allies organized "Operation Feed the Babies" to collect food, clothing, and funds for the threatened families. Aid came from as far away as England.

The statute was overturned. But in 1961, the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare mandated that children could be removed from homes deemed "unsuitable"—including because of a mother's extramarital sex and cohabitation—if the mom refused to "rehabilitate." Not until 1968 did the Supreme Court forbid welfare bureaucrats from investigating poor parents' sex lives. In the meantime, the foster care system swelled with black and brown children.

While compulsory boarding school attendance for Native American children was abolished in the 1930s, Briggs notes that it was quickly replaced: White welfare workers were soon coming on to reservations to evaluate children's need for foster care. Particularly vulnerable to being taken were children whose mothers weren't married or whose caretakers were extended family, such as grandmothers. (Grandparents were considered too old to raise children.) Again, foster care numbers burgeoned. By the 1970s in North Dakota, Native Americans constituted only 2 percent of the state's population but half of the children in foster care.

Sustained activism by Native Americans resulted in the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, which mandated that tribal governments, not white-dominated county welfare departments, decide whether Native children should stay with their families. But it's not clear whether the situation improved. One federal study found that a third of Native children were still in out-of-home care in the mid-1980s.

Meanwhile, the separation of American children from their American parents continued with a vengeance, mainly because of the drug war. This too fell more heavily on the poor, thanks in part to mandatory minimum sentences for possession of crack—a relatively affordable drug—compared to much lighter sentencing for crack's monied-people cousin, powder cocaine. Black children entered foster care at an alarming pace as crack charges put their parents in prison. Incarceration rates for women tripled in the 1980s, and four out of five black women in jail or prison had children living with them when they were arrested. Today 10 million American kids, including one in nine black children, have a parent who has been locked up.

Briggs also decries the criminalization of pregnant women who test positive for illegal drugs or alcohol. Many of us remember the '80s and '90s press panic about "crack babies" with permanently destroyed brains. These babies' abnormal symptoms turned out to be short-lived and mostly due to other conditions related to their mothers' poverty. During the same period, fetal alcohol syndrome in newborns became a concern. It's a medically valid one, although maternal drinking's worst effects on babies are also tied to poverty. But rather than seeking to address the poverty, authorities arrest the pregnant mothers and take their older children. Native women are disproportionately prosecuted. Briggs notes that the most avid supporters of criminalizing women for mistreating their unborn fetuses are people who are trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So the family separations of 2018 were hardly the first time the government unjustly tore kids from their parents, and they probably won't be the last time either. Then–Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said it best while explaining why she thought taking children from their parents on the border was OK. It was "no different," she explained, "than what we do every day in every part of the United States."

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Giving Them Grief

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. End the war on drugs! What I put in my body isn’t the government’s business. Both Dems and GOP deserve blame, but it seems more Dems are willing to work towards ending the drug war. Oregon measure 110 isn’t a permanent solution, but a step in the right direction. Some Dems oppose it, but it’s mostly conservatives and GOP opposing it. Religious folks too.
    Of course you have Mormons which are usually GOP and they not only want to expand the war on drugs, but many would ban alcohol and tobacco if they were given the chance.

    End the war on drugs!
    Start a war against Mormons!

    Its funny that the Mormons/Mormon apologist commenters either won’t respond to my criticism or just straight up lie. That should tell you a lot…

    1. If people steal or break other laws because of their addiction arrest and prosecute them for those crimes. Encourage treatment but don’t force someone into treatment. Forcing drug treatment on addicts who are unwilling to get clean is a waste. Forcing someone to go to 12 step meetings is dumb and unconstitutional. If I was in a 12 step program I’d be pissed if court ordered people who don’t wanna be there started showing up. Despite what some may say those things can be religious, so court ordering them is unconstitutional. They’re way less available, but the secular alternative to 12 step meetings could be court ordered. It’s a bad idea, but not unconstitutional.

      Now I’m rambling.

      END THE WAR ON DRUGS
      START A WAR AGAINST THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS

        1. That’s ok. He won’t fill out the ballot correctly.

          1. Voting machines can’t detect crayons.

        2. ^Trump voter

      1. ‘Now I’m rambling.’

        So, no change. And, you’re still poorly informed, poorly educated, or ignorant, or all three. Ignorant, as in not aware. As for your ‘unconstitutional’ argument re treatment programs and NA/AA etc, I doubt that would stand up in court. But give it a shot.

        1. Why ami poorly informed? I don’t care what courts say. 12 step programs are religious. They require faith in a higher power or spirituality. That’s just another word for religion. The government shouldn’t be able to force people to attend religious services.

      2. Despite what some may say those things can be religious, so court ordering them is unconstitutional.

        * * *

        START A WAR AGAINST THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS

        So . . . court-ordered rehab program that could be religious = unconstitutional. Government slaughter of citizens for having the wrong religion = constitutional.

        Gotcha.

        1. Mormons are trying to destroy our country and our secular govt and replace it with a Mormon theocracy. Why does every conservative on here stick up for them? They worship a con artist pedophile? Do you all not have a problem with that? Their religion is goddamn nonsense. You’re are only making yourself look stupid when you defend nonsense? Do you all want to be ruled by stupid fucking squares? Imagine President Mike Lee but he’s President for life and a dictator?

    2. You seem to be painting with an awfully big-fat-brush by throwing any Mormon into the Progressive Mormonism Camp and we won’t even go into just how fascist that big-fat brush is. Hitler history has already demonstrated the end results of your propositions.

      And P.S. — Prohibition was enacted by Progressives (i.e. Later joining Democrats – look up PRO; prohibition party rise)… The party vote on the 18th Amendment was equally DNC-75% and GOP-78% so your pretending it’s all GOP’s fault is flat-out wrong.

      1. “Progressive mormonism” there’s very few of those. 90% of mormons are authoritarian far right nutjobs.

        You need to learn history. The Democrats who supported prohibition were mostly conservative southerners. Back then conservative southerners we’re almost all Dems.

        Prohibition was a mostly conservative movement. The effort to repeal mostly prohibition was progressive.

        What’s with you inbred cons trying to rewrite history to fit n today’s convient little boxes? The reality is way more complex.

        1. ..and here you do it again; “authoritarian” far-right. The right champions limited-government; how is that even relative to “authoritarian”?

          Are we to pretend limiting the governments authority “too far” is “authoritarian”? What; too authoritarian of the authority itself or something?

          These phrases are just lefty flappy gas – there’s no substance to be found.

          1. The right talks a lot about “limited government” and “liberty,” but their actual policies differ. The past two GOP president’s have been big government Republicans. There’s not much difference between Dems and GOP. Social issues the GOP is certainly more authoritarian. Gay marriage, abortion, many cons want to put crosses or the ten commandments on public property(that violates the 1st amendment. To those who say it doesn’t if all religions can be displayed then wherever there’s a cross or ten commandments there needs to be the symbol for my religion. Just a big sign that says “Fuck Mormons!” My religion is just as valid as anyone elses). Biden and Harris aren’t models of criminal justice reform, but certainly it’s been the right who screams about being tough on crime, law and order, the war on drugs, and the death penalty(giving the govt the power to kill is really “limiting” govt?) Let’s not forget the original cancel culture: the cons who want an anti flag burning amendment.

            Cons fetishize the constitution while ignoring parts that don’t fit them in that exact moment. It was written in the 1780s by flawed people. There are many great things in it, but not everything in it works today.
            There are certain Mormons that believe it’s some kind of divine document. The Bundy’s who had that standoff with feds and comitted sedition by taking over Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Ezra Taft Benson who was in the Eisenhower administration and LDS president. If it’s divine then why does it need to be amended? Was the 3/5 clause divine? Fugitive slave clause? A lot has changed. Unilateral secession is illegal, so we have to amend and adapt. I’m a gun owner, but I think the 2nd amendment needs to be revised. I don’t understand why law abiding gun owners have a problem with more thorough background checks?

            To be fair Trump lies and contradicts himself so much we can’t really know what he thinks. He seemed to ignore the 1st amendment when he gassed those protesters for his bible photo op. His DHS secretary hasn’t been confirmed by the senate, but sent goons to Portland to cause trouble. He’s suggested the 22nd amendment shouldn’t apply to him because “Obama spied on my campaign” which is false.
            The deficet and debt have increased under Trump(some of that is from covid, but before that hit spending had been increasing and his tax cut hadn’t paid for themselves like many claimed). W started two wars while cutting taxes and expanding medicare(I don’t necessarily view that as a bad thing if it was funded properly. Also 9/11 influenced everything and many people look bad in hindsight). Obama took over during the financial crisis and spent like a poet on payday. However, by the end of his presidency he had reduced the deficet. I know no one on here will agree, but spending on healthcare(Obama and Bush) isn’t as bad as wars(Bush) and tax cuts for the wealthy(Trump). All three have signed off on some form of bailouts.

            Trump is certainly acting authoritarian when he asks his far right paramilitary vigalantes to “stand back and stand by.” Hitler had far right goons fighting in the street for him too. Not saying Trump is Hitler. I get called a Nazi on here for simply saying I will defend myself and calling out Mormon propoganda.

            1. “The right talks a lot about “limited government” and “liberty,” but their actual policies differ.”

              The left doesn’t talk about ‘limited government’ AT-ALL and anything being entertained as ‘liberty’ is about actually taking liberty away from ‘those’ people to fit a collective scheme, popularity contest, or gangster affiliation pride.

              And the BIGGEST give-away is pretending that the U.S. Constitution (what makes the USA the USA) is “flawed” which coincidentally is the very ‘Supreme Law’ the master ‘rule-book’ that ensures individual liberty and justice.

              The left not only talks about the USA with de-stain they’ve managed to dismiss it’s very rule book and are now blaming their own (flawed-socialism) on that which they chose to ignore. They essential have turned a football game into a political slaughter-fest by pretending there wasn’t any master football game rule book.

              Frankly; The left is treasonous by it’s very definition of pretending we are nothing but a mobster-democracy.

              1. “And the BIGGEST give-away is pretending that the U.S. Constitution (what makes the USA the USA) is “flawed” which coincidentally is the very ‘Supreme Law’ the master ‘rule-book’ that ensures individual liberty and justice.”

                You’re the type I was referring to when I talked about fetishizing the constitution. It’s not treasonous to point out what some consider flaws in the constitution. The parts about slavery weren’t flawed in your opinion? People bringing up it’s flaws and advocating change is how we got the reconstruction amendments. It’s how women and 18 year olds got the right to vote! I said there were great parts we shouldn’t mess with, but it should be amended in some cases. It’s not treasonous to want to improve our country.

                What does “flawed socialism” have to do with anything? You know those words lose their meaning if you label everyone left of center a “socialist.”

                1. Yes, the Constitution can be amended but that is not what is happening because the left can’t get enough votes to amend it. Instead today’s socialistic policy just ignores it entirely and any discussion of it leads to calling it “flawed”, “outdated” and/or “living”.

                  1. Again if you keep labeling everything “socialistic” it loses it’s meaning. Bernie Sanders, AOC, and a few others qualify, but there are very few actual socialists in power.

                    “Instead today’s socialistic policy just ignores it entirely and any discussion of it leads to calling it “flawed”, “outdated” and/or “living.”

                    How can people ignore it and criticize it at the same time? That’s not ignoring it.
                    Just because you fetishize the constitution doesn’t mean everyone should. If people think it’s flawed the first amendment guarantees them the right to say so. You’re free to say why you think they’re wrong. Hopefully if people keep expressing their opinions about the constitution enough people will be convinced to vote to ammend it.

                    Are you suggesting people shouldn’t discuss or criticize it? That’s kind of authoritarian.

                    1. Discussing a law doesn’t mean violating it (socialistic policy being the #1 violation).. Respecting the very foundation of the USA the Supreme Law doesn’t mean fetishizing it.

                      The fact that you’re trying desperately hard to make any respect towards the USA’s foundation and Supreme Law look to be a mental illness and the ignorance of it’s violation does say a TON about you though.

                    2. I’ll use another word than fetishize. You’re claiming I don’t respect the constitution. I do respect it, but I believe it is flawed and ammending it should be discussed at least. You claim that I don’t respect the constitution because I think it’s flawed. We must have different definitions of respect.
                      From my point of view you take any criticism of the constitution as disrespect? I think people that feel that way are treating it as some sort of divine document and are nuts. From my pov you’re putting it in a place where it’s above criticism. You see why some would call that authoritarian? Revering it so much that criticism is viewed as morally wrong or something?
                      I respect the constitution, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved. The founders thought so.

            2. And I see you know how to cherry-pick needles (many; I’ll grant you that) in the haystack to paint your own narrative so here’s mine..

              1. The Constitution which you deem ‘flawed’ is about limiting government and individual liberty.
              2. President Trump which you pretend is “authoritarian” in his position.
              – Cut the EPA budget
              – Cut taxes
              – Insisted to cut 2-Regulation for every 1-New one
              – Has an entire administration working at ‘limiting’ government (the list is actually quite long)

              but it seems all you can semi-praise is gov ‘healthcare’ plans (gov-power over it’s people’s liberty) and stealing from the wealthy (gov-power over it’s people’s wealth) and pretending that 9/11 wasn’t actually a national threat presented by foreigners and thus deem it’s reaction more “authoritarian” (over foreigners) than the very “authoritarian” demands over it’s own citizens.

              1. The Constitution was flawed when it was written. To say otherwise is saying slavery wasn’t flawed. It still has flaws that need to be addressed. A lot has changed since the 1780s and there’s nothing wrong with trying to improve our country. There have been 17 additional amendments since the bill of rights was ratified. One was a repeal of amendment. The 11th amendment was ratified while Washington was president, and the 12th while Adams was president. So I guess some of the founders saw flaws in it since they amended it.

                2. President Trump is authoritarian in many ways in my opinion, and many agree with me. “Cut the EPA budget.” What specifically did he cut? What does the EPA budget have to do with authoritarianism? I realize many don’t like the beaurocray of some of these agencies, but cutting their budget=\=less authoritarian. If he cut enforcement and that allowed people to dump on public land consequence free I’d say that’s authoritarian as hell.
                Full disclosure I’m a wildlife biologist so you’d probably disagree with everything I do for work. Trump has pressured govt agencies to manipulate science to make it more compatible with his policies. If that’s not authoritarian than I don’t know what is. His tax cut increased the deficet, so there’s an argument to be made against the cuts.
                The repeal regulations just for the sake of repealing is just politicizing them for political gain. What type of regulations? Why should they be repealed? If you’re serious then you should try to look objectively at regulations and decide what’s best. Setting a number to repeal ahead of time is just shameless pandering.
                “Has an entire administration working at ‘limiting’ government (the list is actually quite long)” again what specifically are you talking about? Again saying and/or doing that’s things without specific reasoning is just pandering in my opinion. What should we get rid of and why?

                I prefer progressive polcies on health care, but I believe they should be done at the local and state level first and when possible. I hate him, but Romney had the right idea when it came to healthcare. It should be done locally.
                You’re entitled to your opinion, but most people don’t consider taxes stealing.

                “pretending that 9/11 wasn’t actually a national threat presented by foreigners and thus deem it’s reaction more “authoritarian” (over foreigners) than the very “authoritarian” demands over it’s own citizens.”
                Never claimed it wasn’t a serious threat. The patriot act was an authoritarian overreaction. Going to war in Iraq was an authoritarian overreaction. Torturing people was an authoritarian overreaction. Creating ICE was an authoritarian overreaction.

                1. Comments in review
                  1. Mormons (mostly GOP) would ban alcohol & tobacco they need destroyed
                  – corrected: The Prohibition party was full of Democrats
                  – reply: I never said that
                  2. 90% of Mormons are authoritarian far right nutjobs.
                  – corrected: The right is about limited government not authoritarian
                  – reply: but their policy isn’t all limiting
                  3. The Constitution was written by flawed people and the GOP and Trump are authoritarian.
                  – corrected: The Constitution defines the USA and insures freedom.
                  – reply: It’s flawed
                  4. What’s so great about limiting the government anyways; maybe that’s flawed – I like progressive policy and “What’s

                  and the real issue with continuing this conversation

                  “If he cut enforcement and that allowed people to dump on public land consequence free I’d say that’s authoritarian as hell.”

                  lmao! You don’t even have basic understanding of what the word “authoritarian” means short of calling anything you don’t like “authoritarian”..

                  1. …and P.S. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t support the idea of “public land” because that would make us a communist country. It’s not “public land” it’s land in limbo that the left has use environmental excuses to hijack (steal) and pretend that we are communist.

                    1. I do understand what authoritarian means. Dumping who knows what on public land consequence free and not giving anyone a voice to complain or protest is authoritarian.

                      Whether you think there should be public land doesn’t matter since we have federal, state, and local public land in this country.
                      The doctrine of public trust goes back to the Magna Carta, and our courts have affirmed that doctrine. Martin vs Waddell is the most notable case.
                      You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re in the minority. Out west only the fringe right wingers want to get rid of public land. Heck most the suppport is astroturfing from property owners and companies looking to profit off of natural resources. If keeping the land public made them money they’d be all for public lands. Most people believe our natural landmarks should be protected and everyone allowed to enjoy them.

                    2. I still don’t know what you’re getting at exactly. The numbers in your post don’t correspond to the numbers in my post, and you didn’t address any of my arguments.

                      You seem to keep going back to “Democrats were responsible for prohibition.” And my reply is they were conservative democrats. Also trying to connect prohibition in the early 20th century to what Mormons want to do now is not what I’m suggesting at all. Mormons don’t care what happened back then. They only care about imposing their values on everyone as soon as possible. Anyways, The people for prohibition back in the early 1900s were conservative. Many were democrats since the demcrats had it’s southern conservative wing back then. Progressives were for repealing it.

                    3. “public land” for government functions NOT gigantic swaths of land. The Supreme Court and every document in history confirms this… As well as just common-sense in that we’re not a communist country but you really hate that don’t you… You’re a pure supporter of communism.

                      Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212
                      the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, !!!-but were reserved to the States respectively-!!!. Secondly, the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. Thirdly, the right of the United States to the public lands, and the power of Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the sale and disposition thereof, !!!-conferred no power to grant to the plaintiffs the land in controversy-!!!

                    4. Again when you use “socialism” and “communism” really often they lose their meaning. Especially since I don’t know what would make you think I’m a communist. Unless your definition of communism is anything left of Trump? Again you would be in a small minority.

                      Even if the land belongs to the states it’s still public land. It’s just state public land not federal public land. You’re entitled to you’re opinion, but not many agree with you. If they did do you think we’d have such large amounts of land owned by the state and federal government? I’m glad we do because I enjoy hunting, camping, snowboarding and public land allows almost everyone to enjoy those things.
                      If that makes me a “socialist” or “communist” it must be lonely for you living in a country that’s majority socialists and communists. If you don’t like it why don’t you leave? You seem pretty authoritarian since you think the US Constitution is some divine document that shouldn’t be criticized.

                    5. Authority, the exercise of legitimate influence by one social actor over another. Authoritarian definition is – of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.

                      “Again when you use” words in places that don’t mean their definition your message becomes meaningless.

                      Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

                      So according to you –
                      1. The USA Constitution is “flawed” and deserves to be criticized and dismissed instead of changed. (but that’s not disrespect you say)
                      2. Anyone who doesn’t support socialism and/or communism is a “minority” and should move.
                      3. “Most People” should rule the USA
                      — but I’m sure that’s only true when “most” don’t support the Supreme Law and Individual freedom (proven by #2)

                      The USA is founded on the Constitution which ensures individual freedom and justice. That is what has made this country great. That is what this country IS!!!

                      It’s P.O.S like you that are destroying this country with your de-stain for it, ignorance of word meanings and purposeful attempt to undermine it. You need to MOVE… There’s plenty of nations out there that are socialist and communist – WHY ARE YOU HERE in this one which isn’t trying to derail it????

      2. Never did I claim prohibition was “all GOP’S fault.” Back then there were conservative and liberal wings of both parties. It was conseratives of both parties that supported prohibition.

        Why do you cons lie so much?

        1. “but it’s mostly conservatives and GOP”
          “Mormons which are usually GOP and they not only want to expand the war on drugs, but many would ban alcohol and tobacco if they were given the chance”

          “The Democrats who supported prohibition were mostly conservative southerners. Back then
          …. conservative southerners we’re almost all Dems….. ”

          ^Thus; conservative in ‘your’ definition is “almost all Dems”! 🙂

          A conservative Dem? Someone rewrote history alright; from “conservative government” (i.e. reduced) to resistance to change problem being change-from-what could be anything anyone wants to pretend it is so that definition means absolutely nothing at all in politics. Almost like this rewriting history about Dems ending slavery and giving women the vote – coincidentally a complete contradiction to the reality of it.

          1. Never claimed Dems ended slavery or gave the women the right to vote. These strawmen you make are weak as hell. Please try harder.
            Or I’m guessing you just don’t know history. The parties membership and ideology aren’t static or set in stone. They can change election to election and certainly over decades.
            Conservative southerners we’re traditionally Dems. From the war of southern aggression until the mid 20th century when several things influenced realignment. The New Deal attracted blacks, Catholics, and other minorities to the Dems. The mainstream Dems supporting the civil rights movement caused southern conservatives to leave the party. Strom Thurmond is probably the most famous example. John Connally is another well known example. Many just retired or died off. I can’t think of the name, but Trent Lott worked for a dem congressman who retired and then endorsed Lott as a republican. This is a tangent, but illustrates my point nicely: Lott later lost his job as leader of the GOP in the senate for saying he was proud he voted for Thurmond when he ran for president, and had others we wouldn’t have the problems we have today. Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform. I feel silly pointing this out, but so many cons don’t seem to understand history.

            There used to be conservative democrats and liberal Republicans. Geography played as much a role as party did sometimes. Older examples: Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive republican. He ran on the progressive party ticket in 1912 because he thought the GOP candidate, Taft, was too conservative. The south was dominated by Dems for 100 years and many were conservative democrats. Grover Cleveland was from New York, but he was a conservative dem. Recent examples: Nelson Rockefeller was a liberal Republican. Oregon had two GOP senators in the early 90s because they were liberal Republicans. After the civil rights movement was supported by mainstream Dems there became fewer and fewer conservative Dems. Many became repulicans or died off.
            This is all very easy to find out, and again I never claimed Dems ended slavery of gave women the right to vote.

            1. All that is relative to the discussion how? Short of providing the historical substance and proof of exactly what I stated?

              “The parties membership and ideology aren’t static or set in stone. They can change election to election and certainly over decades.”

              –or– perhaps the very definition of the word ‘conservative’ has been changed which would make all the sense in the world now wouldn’t it as well as the very definition of ‘liberal’.

              1. You claimed I “rewrote history” and for some reason kept mentioning democrats ending slavery and giving women the right to vote which I never claimed.

                To be fair I don’t really get what your point is. I thought you were criticizing my use of “conservative Democrats” because you thought there weren’t any, so I explained that there used to be a lot of conservative Democrats.
                You seem to have a problem with the way I use the word conservative.
                Defining “conservative” as “reduced” is very narrow. It’s “reducing” the ways you can use it.
                In a political context I would define conservative as someone who wants to uphold tradition socially, favors less government intervention economically, favors a strong defense but limited foreign intervention. It’s hard to define and can encompass a wide variety, but I feel most people have an idea what a social or fiscal conservative is.

                To be fair I really don’t get what your point was/is?

    3. “Its funny that the Mormons/Mormon apologist commenters either won’t respond to my criticism…”

      I think most people just realize that you’re trolling… and that you’re not even a particularly funny or clever troll.

    4. The first 2.5 sentences were good, then the rest just becomes bigoted screeching.

      1. Mormons are the real bigots. I’m only bigoted toward mormons. No one is forcing them to have such stupid and evil beiefs. Mormons are bigoted towards everyone not Mormon. LGTBQ, Blacks, Latinx, almost everyone except pacific islanders because they’ve converted/brainwashed so many.

        It’s good to be bigoted towards stupid, destructive pieces of shit.

        1. Lets try to address the actual issue you have. Exactly what do Mormon’s believe that is so evil that would require their destruction? You tried to peg them with prohibition ( Are they lobbying for re-enactment of the 18th Amendment? ) You tried to peg them with tobacco bans ( Are they lobbying for more tobacco bans? ). Why don’t you throw out your big-fat brush and speak about AN ISSUE instead of demonizing groups of people according to their religion.

          1. I didn’t “peg them for prohibition.” Most today support the war on drugs. If given the opportunity they would ban alcohol. They’re incredibly stubborn. It’s one thing to not admit LDS scripture is ridiculous because it’s sacred to them. However if given the chance they would ban alcohol because it goes against “the word of wisdom” in doctrine and covenants. People would complain and they’d justify it by saying to each other things like “people are upset now and it may take a while to get used to, but in the long run they’ll see that we were right.”
            I know how those bastards operate. The tobacco age in Utah was 19. They have ultra restrictive alcohol laws. I realize other states have similar laws, but I don’t think other states make it fucking impossible to buy liquor or real beer in some areas. The liquor stores are state run and there aren’t that many of them. That means someone in a rural area may have to travel a long way just for a 6 pack of good beer. I know for damn sure thats by design.
            They don’t openly talk about their plans because they’re trying to hide it and/or they don’t even realize what they’re doing.
            The road to hell is paved with good intentions. To be fair I realize I come off as paranoid and crazy. If you haven’t interacted with Mormons on a large scale I shouldn’t expct you to understand. They never think they’re wrong. If given enough political power they will start applying their religious beliefs to laws. They already do. Why does Utah have strict tobacco and alcohol laws? It’s not a coincidence. They will keep pushing until someone suggests “why not make liquor illegal?” “People won’t like it at first, but in the long run they’ll see. They don’t need that stuff.”

            I don’t care what a bunch of cons think. I will never understand why people stick up for them though. They worship a pedo con artist! Like why do they deserve your sympathy? Their beliefs are silly and it’d be funny if they didn’t breed like goddamn rabbits and try to convert everyone they encounter. They’re trying to take over. Their idea of an ideal society is much different from everyone else’s. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

            1. Yes, your issue with them is spot on but the Mormon religion itself doesn’t actually promote legally dictated-Mormon-virtue. Actually; it champions free-will. Thus; the issue isn’t really about the Mormon religion itself; its about the ‘Karen’s’ (human nature habits) in the religious body who self-justify judging others which is actually a sin by it’s own religious doctrine.

              These types of Mormons use their religion for self-pride instead of self-improvement and you said it very well by, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

              Which also fits to a T a certain political party I can think of 🙂

              1. Are you LDS?

                Mormons champion free will for mormons. Non Mormons need to be coerced and it’s ok because they’re being saved.
                Democrats wanting to have those with higher incomes pay more taxes to support heathcare, food staps, etc isn’t the same as what Mormons do.
                Democrats have to be elected to implement their policies and are usually pretty straighforward about it. Momons need to be elected, but they don’t run on being Mormon. They usually downplay it, but it affects every aspect of their decision making.

                1. Democrats think it’s a right to steal more from those who are successful. They don’t believe a person deserves anything by rightfully *earning* it. Everyone must be a useless slave of the state.

                  The very foundation to their core belief is that
                  POWER to STEAL = WEALTH (criminal)
                  … instead of …
                  VALUE = WEALTH

                  What’s funny is you don’t seem to acknowledge the astounding resemblance of what you’ve been complaining about all this time and Democrats coercing (oh, wait; it’s not coercing; it’s law (gun-force)) and pretends to “save” the people (healthcare, food stamps, etc…) by stealing from them. You don’t seem to acknowledge that piling on gov-regulations is actually what “authoritarian” means.

                  So instead of complaining about the actual (law) as being authoritarians (which Democrats love); you resort to Mormon’s (which don’t write gov-gun enforcable law) as a religious group and talk about things their religion doesn’t even support.

                  1. “Democrats think it’s a right to steal more from those who are successful. They don’t believe a person deserves anything by rightfully *earning* it. Everyone must be a useless slave of the state.

                    The very foundation to their core belief is that
                    POWER to STEAL = WEALTH (criminal)
                    … instead of …
                    VALUE = WEALTH”
                    That is YOUR INTERPRETATION AND OPINION of what “Democrats think.”
                    most people would disagree with you. You’re free to think that, but most democrats aren’t socialists. They’re capitalists who support a strong safety net and welfare programs. You’re entitled to think that’s stealing, but the majority of people here don’t and the majority of first world nations don’t. They all have stronger welfare and safety net programs. Parties on the right have won recently in many countries, but they already have universal health care, pensions, etc. I’d have an easier time voting for someone like Boris johnson if I knew my health care and retirement was covered.

                    Since we don’t have those things here people who want them have to vote for Dems even if they disagree with their other policies since the GOP has gone wants to get rid of the few safety nets we have.
                    The rest of the developed world don’t think the Dems are criminals who want to everyone to be slaves to the state. You’re in a very small minority.

                    Maybe that’s why I’m having a hard time understanding you? Because you’re a far right loon.

                    I complain about Mormons because they’re pedo con artist worshippers sho want to shove their beliefs down our throats. I can’t expect people not familiar with them to understand, so I’ll tone down the rhetoric. I’ll never stop pointing out how goddamn stupid and backward their religion is. It’s the right thing to do.

                    1. lmao… So that’s your counter argument – “most people”… As long as most people think it’s okay to steal then it’s okay…. As long as most people think the Constitution is trash then it is…

                      You’re the very definition of sheeple.

                      I do have a question for you though; If Democrats want their safety net what in the world is stopping the DNC from starting a DNC LLC contract membership that offer ONLY those “most people” as you state that option ( after all; you say they champion capitalism ). Under what delusion must this ‘safety net’ be FORCED upon every citizen of the land as well as those who want no part of it?

                      And; how it that position any different than the one you started complaining about with Mormons….

                    2. Most people don’t consider it stealing. There is nothing I will say to convince you it isnt. There is already private insurance and pensions, but some democrats think we need government intervention because it’s not profitable to cover everyone. So many people would not have coverage because they don’t make enough money or whatever. The vast majority of people don’t consider it stealing, and you’re free to move to another country. I warn you though like I said before most developed countries have more of a safety net(and higher taxes) than the US. You’re free to think it’s stealing, but very few agree with you, and those who don’t aren’t sheep.

                      Health insurance and pensions used to be pretty standard compensation. Perhaps the rights demonization of unions and their decline has something to do with that.
                      In my opinion it’s simpler if employers don’t have to worry about health insurance and pensions, but I understand some don’t like the beurocracy of government and that’s fair.
                      I’m not gonna convince you and your entitled to your opinion.
                      Mormons are the fucking sheeple they’re the ones who believe native Americans came from Israel and god turned their skin dark because of sin with no evidence.
                      At least liberals can point to countries with universal healthcare and strong safety nets and say it’s popular there. I’m not even a huge uhc proponent, but my original point was id rather have tax money spent on it then wars(like Bush) or tax cuts for wealthy people like Trump.
                      I assume you think the police and military should be privatzed too? And if you think using tax money for healthcare is wrong then what do you think of Trump’s travel for vacations, golf, and Melania flying back and forth from NY so she doesn’t have to stay with him? He’s already spent more than Obama did, and he can afford those things himself since he’s so rich? Money for healthcare and food at least isn’t wasteful “theft” like what Trump spends our money on.
                      Why are we forced to subsiize mormons and other relgions? They’re tax exempt and the money people give them is tax deductible. I never agreed to that, it’s stealing by your definition!

                      We have to pay for thins we don’t like sometimes. Both dems and Gop love to talk about protecting minority rights when it’s convenient, but it’s bullshit. I’d rather beforced to at for healthcare than military or to subsidize religious indoctrination for kids(school vouchers).

                    3. “Most people don’t consider it stealing. There is nothing I will say to convince you it isn’t.” — BECAUSE IT IS! And blind sheeple is no excuse.

                      lmao.. Your argument literally flops right on top of itself.

                      “government intervention because it’s not profitable to cover everyone”. THEN DON’T!!! The DNC doesn’t need to cover everyone. In fact the U.S. Constitution forbids the Union of States from this type of socialism. And pretending that government intervention is going to make it “profitable” or even pay for itself is just delusional. They’ve been trying for decades now and the only thing happening is MORE THEFT every-time new x,y,z plan gets passed! It’s so freak-en bad it’s the most costliest world-wide. Before all this UN-Constitutional garbage came along; doctors came to your door for the price of a pizza!

                      Funding National Defense is done by theft too but justifiably. Not only is it one of the job functions of the Union of States the USA (entire nation’s existence) is vulnerable without it.

                      But all in all; the only excuse you’re really sitting on is “most people” in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Nation. When this nation falters it will be because “most people” wanted it to and that will include you.

                    4. ..but I’ll tell you what; If you think “most people” is the required amount to pass a Constitutional amendment for Universal Healthcare. Then at least the Democrats wouldn’t be ILLEGAL CHEATERS as well as authoritarian dictative thieves.

    5. but it’s mostly conservatives and GOP opposing it.

      This is a funny lying narrative you leftists have been using. Harris was bragging about her arrest record on the issue just 2 years ago.

      1. Donald Trump was talking bout executing drug dealers and praised dictators that do. He also appointed Jeff Sessions as AG. Sessions is a big drug warrior. Why was it blue states that first decriminalized pot? Why is it a blue state trying to decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs?

        Why do you cons feel the need to lie?
        Harris’s record isn’t great, but what she’s saying now is better than what Trump and Pence want to do.

    6. Of course you have Mormons which are usually GOP and they not only want to expand the war on drugs, but many would ban alcohol and tobacco if they were given the chance.

      FFS, Mormons, as other Christians, use wine for communion. They had and have their own vinyards. Beer, wine, and liquor is widely produced by Christian monasteries. The idea that prohibition is somehow linked with Christianity or conservatism is ludicrous. I mean, how ignorant can you be?

      Prohibition is the brain-child of progressives and other leftists, people who think they can change human nature and design an ideal society. Those people do overlap with some Christian nutcases, like some Calvinist groups.

      Start a war against Mormons! Its funny that the Mormons/Mormon apologist commenters either won’t respond to my criticism or just straight up lie. That should tell you a lot…

      Mormons have never hurt me or harmed me. The gay bars in Salt Lake city are nice, clean, and have many straight Mormon folks going to them because they are fun. It’s socialists and progressives that are violently anti-drug and anti-homosexuality once they get into power.

      1. Salt Lake City is the worse city in the country. Such backwards alcohol and tobacco laws(used to had to be 19 to buy cigs and I know other states have weird laws) there are more bars in SLC than there used to be but it’s still a shithole. They had those private club bullshit rules.

        Mormons act nice because there trying to convert people. Those they can’t convert will be forced to live under their theocratic rule.

        1. Perhaps you’ll find a nice home in Detroit? Luckily; you have the right to move wherever you decide home is.

          1. I dont live in Utah anymore. Problem is since they breed like fucking bunnies and try and convert everyone they come in contact with they’re showing up everywhere. It’s bad in rural areas because they’re suceptable to it because of inbreeding. It’ll eventually make its way to the south.

        2. Such backwards alcohol and tobacco laws(used to had to be 19 to buy cigs and I know other states have weird laws)

          In what way are their laws “backwards”? Utah seems to avoid both the crime that strict prohibition used to bring and the high rates of alcoholism that other states have.

          but it’s still a shithole

          Well, if your measure of “shithole” is that the state strongly discourages excessive alcohol consumption, obscenity, and promiscuity, it is a shithole. Of course, by that measure, every state ever run by (democratic) socialists is a “shithole” too.

          1. Are you LDS?
            They avoid high rates of alcoholism because most the people are Mormon and don’t drink. The laws aren’t a deterrent.
            The government’s job shouldn’t be to discourage “excessve alcohol consumption, obscenity, or promiscuity.”
            If someone’s drinking leads them to breaking the law then it’s the government’s job to stop them, punish them, and try to prevent laws being broken in the future.

          2. What or who are you referring to when you say “(democratic) socialists?” There aren’t any socialist governors or democratic socialist governors in the US.
            You folks on the right really need to stop referring to everyone left of centrists as socialists. You aren’t helping your cause, because many aren’t going to take you seriously. The word loses its meaning if you use it all the time.
            If people on the left referred to John McCain as a far right teabagger would you take them seriously?

            1. Let’s start with the basics shall we?
              Socialism definition is – any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

    7. End the war on drugs!
      Start a war against Mormons!

      FTFY.

      1. All Mormons are morons, but not all morons are Mormon?

    8. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this Anm month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions……….Click here

    9. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this Acv month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions……….Click here

  2. I keep spending all my money on drugs and alcohol —
    ….. “But rather than seeking to address the poverty” … and filling my bank-account with other peoples money for an endless supply of more drugs and alcohol – you want to deem me unsuitable for child rearing! The Nerve!!!

    You can’t do that because I’m of X-skin color or Y-nationality or maybe I’ll just claim asylum from White Supremacists of the U.S. or from anywhere because I can!!!

    Yep; sounds just like the compulsive shallow excuses heard daily by everyone dealing with the incompetent. Do all the drugs you want but don’t even try to cross that line of pretending your sorry state of affairs is anyone’s problem but your own.

    1. The Long, Dark History of Family Separations
      How politicians used the drug war and the welfare state to break up black and Native American families

      Notice how the headline says this but the article immediately goes into Trump and illegal immigration?

      TDS from unreason if you can believe it.

      1. The article is about a book on the history of the government separating families. The first 5 paragraphs are about Trump’s policy of separating families. This is most recent example; should the author have just ignored it? The remaining 14 paragraphs are about the book and other examples of the government separating families throughout the years. The article is not about Trump, it’s about the book. The Trump stuff is just an introduction. It seems like it’s you that has the other form of TDS.

        1. the paragraph count is cute.

        2. I rate this article a good one that actually makes the point that the Trump administration’s action in that regard is not anomalous. However, it does mislead by omission by making this out to be a particularly American problem. “[W]hat we do every day in every part of the United States”, yes, but also pretty much everywhere else in the world.

          1. But I knew it’d be a good piece when I saw Debbie Nathan’s byline.

  3. If people steal or break other laws because of their addiction arrest and prosecute them for those crimes. Encourage treatment but don’t force someone into treatment. Forcing drug treatment on addicts who are unwilling to get clean is a waste. Forcing someone to go to 12 step meetings is dumb and unconstitutional. If I was in a 12 step program I’d be pissed if court ordered people who don’t wanna be there started showing up. Despite what some may say those things can be religious, so court ordering them is unconstitutional. They’re way less available, but the secular alternative to 12 step meetings could be court ordered. It’s a bad idea, but not unconstitutional.

    Now I’m rambling.

    END THE WAR ON DRUGS
    START A WAR AGAINST THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS

    1. Was supposed to reply to my post above and not create a new thread. Goddamn.

      This is the only website that fucks with my phone a lot so I end up with a ton of typos. I don’t know why, but it’s really frustrating.

      1. Do you blame your phone for your bigotry too?

    2. Awe; there it is… Your entirely enraged because you got busted for drug possession and are now required to go through a 12-step program.

      Yep; that’s socialism (a socialist program) alright. Next question; is this requirement by State, City, County or Federal law? This is actually very important; Federal has really has no jurisdiction here short of imports. State’s all have their own Constitution and more “authority” get granted the smaller the governing body goes.

      Thus; If it’s federal law – I agree it’s B.S. If it’s State law and the State’s Constitution allows it and you hate it – it’s time to take responsibility for ‘choosing’ to live there; and don’t give me this bundle of excuses of how you stubbed your toe and have to live there.

  4. No papers? We’re taking your kids! MAGA 2020!

    1. Or; you could just have decided NOT to immigrate illegally!!!

      1. ^ The bootlicker motto

        1. Leo, apply your mentality to other situations. If a mother/father is arrested, should the kids be able to go to the jail with the parents? That is essentially what you’re implying here. The people crossing the border are detained for violation of law. This is the same as an american citizen getting arrested for a crime and ending up in jail. In which situation are you advocating the kids should stay with the parents? I’m hoping you have some consistency here and this isn’t just a sophomoric attempt at politics.

          1. Well I was replying to the old trope that if you don’t like the punishment, don’t commit the crime. The point of the topic is that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.

            Now to your point.
            You say “crime” as if all crimes are equal. Illegal border crossing is a federal misdemeanor. It’s on par with other “crimes” as impersonating a 4H member, or desecrating the character of Smokey Bear. (it’s true, I looked it up.) Would you propose that all misdemeanors be treated like this? Ie detaining the accused and separating their kids from their family. Seems like an unreasonable, undue burden for a non-violent offense.

            1. You say “crime” as if all crimes are equal.

              No, I said detained, as per the law. This happens at the border and it can happen for crimes.

              Illegal border crossing is a federal misdemeanor.

              Has no bearing on detainment for the border. That is valid policy in regards to people crossing illegally. It has been upheld in courts many times.

              It’s on par with other “crimes” as impersonating a 4H member, or desecrating the character of Smokey Bear.

              The same punishment, but not the same detainment policies as per government policy. You’re being dishonest here.

              So in summary:

              You’re problem isn’t apparently the separation issue (as you completely ignored it in the cases of crimes) but the fact that detainment policy is different for a misdemeanor when applied to illegal border crossings. Make that argument instead then instead of going for cheap political points.

              Many would rule the policy is not unreasonable due to the high flight rates and no-shows for immigration hearings. This is why the bail system exists. What property/family is in country that would stop an illegal immigration from fleeing a court date? We utilize those metrics in the other examples you gave as a means to release on their own recognizance.

              1. You’re problem isn’t apparently the separation issue (as you completely ignored it in the cases of crimes)

                The separation is just one problem. We shouldn’t separate parents from their children for light and transient reasons, and certainly not against the accused (not yet convicted) who show no danger to the children. That’s what due process is all about.

                but the fact that detainment policy is different for a misdemeanor when applied to illegal border crossings. Make that argument instead then instead of going for cheap political points.

                That was my point.

              2. Many would rule the policy is not unreasonable due to the high flight rates and no-shows for immigration hearings.

                So hold the kids hostage to make sure the parents show up to court? Is that supposed to be a MORE defensible reason to separate kids from parents?

                1. Lying Jeffy at it again. He was clearly talking about detaining the parents because due to the nature of the crime. Because the parents are detained, the children must be also, and since children and adults aren’t detained together, they must be separated. You could argue that the parents shouldn’t be detained at all, as Leo did.

                  But no, you have to go all Lying Jeffy and claim that children are being held hostage, while the parents are let free? And then you wonder why I call you Lying Jeffy.

                  1. The “policy” here is the policy of separating kids from their parents. Jesse here thinks that it’s okay to separate kids from their parents because otherwise the parents won’t show up to their court hearings. And not surprisingly you show up to defend his grotesque defense of state power. Of course I agree with Leo that neither the parents nor the kids should be detained. Jesse’s response and your sick defense of it just goes to show that immigration restrictionism requires more and more awful measures in order to enforce it.

                    1. Wait, are you actually claiming that the parents are let free, and the children are detained? You got a cite for this?

                    2. No answer huh? Of course I know why. You’re a dishonest piece of shit and got caught being ridiculous in your lies.

                2. We get you’d prefer the children be detained with the adults for easy availability to the sexual predators and barring that no consequences for violating laws you don’t like while politicians you don’t like are in office.

                  1. Oh just stop it. This type of crap is not funny and is getting very old. Take your juvenile schtick elsewhere.

                  2. No no, it’s more ridiculous than that! Lying Jeffy is trying to claim that the parents are being released, and their children are being held hostage so that the parents show up to court!

                    This is even better than yesterday, when he admitted that TDS clouds his thinking.

          2. Right, so pre-assume that all arrests are legal, that all laws are legal, that everyone breaking a law is a dastardly criminal with no rights of any kind.

            Individualism? Fah! The State knows all, sees all, has no flaws.

            1. that everyone breaking a law is a dastardly criminal with no rights of any kind.

              But they’re ILLEGALS! And they’re FOREIGNERS!

      2. This does not compute with people who hate America and the wealth that we have.

        Americans dont want illegals entering the USA without visas, so America must be destroyed.

        Luckily, Trump will win reelection and America will finally get a handle on its illegal immigration problem once and for all. Democrats will never win nationally again, so that planned forced demographics shift against American Liberty will be thwarted.

        1. Luckily, Trump will win reelection and America will finally get a handle on its illegal immigration problem once and for all.

          He promised to do that in the first 4 years. Are you saying he failed?

          1. Trump has a handle on limiting illegals which has caused Lefties to expose their lunacy and another reason Biden wont win this election.

            Once and for all as in Lefties off themselves after he’s reelected so a GOP House and Senate can finally amend the Constitution to fix all the loopholes Lefties have been taking advantage of.

        2. You think you speak for all Americans? Then you are a statist.

          Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Alphabet troll is still here?

    2. So you were fine with it under Obama? You’re fine with it in the past? You’re fine with it when CPS does it? Because you have a weird fixation on it only when you can utilize it for histrionic political talking points.

      You’re broken.

      1. Sarcasmic is just gonna Orange Man Bad harder!

      2. Oh get off it. The nature and severity of the underlying crime MATTERS when it comes to assessing whether separating kids from their parents is morally acceptable or not. That is why it is completely dishonest and disingenuous to compare separating kids from parents for the ‘crime’ of illegal border crossing, vs. separating kids from parents for instances of, say, child abuse. Saying “it’s done in this one context therefore it’s valid in all contexts” is just ridiculous.

  5. “America exploded with indignation in 2018, when the Trump administration initiated mass separations of border-crossing migrant children from their parents, shipping the kids to the federal equivalent of orphanages.”

    On a continent with 600 million people, how many children are required to count as “mass”?

    1. However any are politically expedient.

    2. It occurs when the number is > 1 more than Obama did. It was that number the entire time though!

  6. Never mind that when claiming asylum, a person without papers can legally cross at any place on the border whatsoever. These parents had broken no law, but the administration defined them as criminals subject to arrest and trial.

    Horseshit. You can cite no authority to back up your ridiculous claim.

    1. Illegals break valid federal law when crossing US border without permission from the US Govt.
    2. You need a valid reason to claim asylum and being poor or not wanting to live in your shithole is not a valid reason.
    3. unreason is a propaganda machine.

    1. You cite no authorities either. What makes your unproven assertions any more valid?

      1. Poor alphabet troll doesnt know how cites work for the person making the claim and a limit as to how many times I have to repeat my citations to unreason staff.

  7. No no no, Ms. Nathan, you have it all wrong.
    See, separating kids from parents is totally justified. Because the parents are criminals. Why are the parents treated like criminals? Hush, that is not important. It’s just important to know that the parents are criminals. So you don’t want to put kids in jail with their parents, do you? DO YOU??????

    And, stop it with your anti-American nonsense about what happened in the past. That is in the past. It’s a long time ago. It’s forgotten. All you have to know is that America is the greatest nation in the history of the universe. Bringing up forgotten facts from the irrelevant past is just carrying water for America-haters. No need to examine the past, just forget it. Unless it’s Confederate statues. Then, it’s very important to remember the past by keeping those statues up, lest we “erase history”. We can’t allow history to be erased by those Marxist tyrants. But we can allow history to be erased by MAGA hat wearing patriots. So stop bringing up what dead people did to Indians like 500 years ago. Who cares. It doesn’t matter. America is the greatest!

    1. And besides. Obama did it first. That justifies everything. It is the Obama Rule. Whatever Obama did in the past is now valid in the future forever and ever.

      1. And besides. Obama did it first. That justifies everything.

        The fact that it is the law is justification enough.

        Pointing to Obama just shows that, in the past, even the American left wasn’t as batshit crazy as you are.

        We can have a debate about whether current immigration laws are just or unjust. But until those laws change, they need to be enforced as written.

        1. They do not. Laws are not enforced all of the time. There is a township near me where they decided not to charge people for marijuana possession even though it is still illegal here for example. It was just not worth it for them.

          I do not think the law forces them to separate these families. Let them find another solution.

          1. I have no problem with the notion that local and state governments should be able to override federal law in specific circumstances. But that’s a different situation.

            When it comes to family separation, we’re talking about federal law being ignored by federal agencies; that is not acceptable.

        2. NOYB2, circa 1850’s America:

          “We can have a debate about whether current slavery laws are just or unjust. But until those laws change, they need to be enforced as written.”

          1. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

            The federal government at the time didn’t enforce slavery laws, so it couldn’t have stopped enforcing them.

            If you’re saying that the executive branches of slave states should have been able to selectively enforce slavery laws in those states, I don’t see what you think that would have gained: such a selective enforcement wouldn’t have served to end slavery, it would simply have made the slave states more corrupt.

            Finally, if you’re saying that free states should not have been forced to enforce the laws of slave states, I fully agree; they should have been able to nullify and/or secede from the union over federal laws that they considered unjust. If that’s what you’re saying, I’m in full agreement. But that doesn’t apply to immigration questions.

            The executive branch of government should faithfully execute the laws that were passed by the legislative branch. Members of the executive branch still individually have the choice not to execute laws they find objectionable and unjust by resigning. But if they try to impose their policy preferences on society against the wishes of voters, by definition, we have a lawless tyranny.

    2. So you didn’t bother to read the actual review and see it’s discussions on past policies and even mention of CPS type actions against parents.

      Kudos for your stubborn ignorance.

      1. Lying Jeffy admitted yesterday that his TDS clouds his judgement.

        1. Oh look it’s Troll Mac here again to troll.

          My judgment is fine. It’s your judgment, with your decision to spend an insufferably large amount of time here doing nothing but trolling and mocking, which needs some serious scrutiny.

          1. You were drunk last night when you said that weren’t you?

            1. Why should anyone believe your trolling bullshit?

              1. You admitted TDS drives you. Anyone can see it for themselves is the voting thread yesterday.

                I’m just curious if it was the TDS, your innate dishonesty, or alcohol that made you forget you did. And some of your other posts indicated you were drinking.

                1. Hey Troll Mac, did you stop beating your wife?

      2. You missed the entire point of my little comment, didn’t you?

        See, separating kids from parents is totally justified. Because the parents are criminals. Why are the parents treated like criminals? Hush, that is not important. It’s just important to know that the parents are criminals. So you don’t want to put kids in jail with their parents, do you? DO YOU??????

    3. See, separating kids from parents is totally justified. Because the parents are criminals. Why are the parents treated like criminals? Hush, that is not important.

      It’s quite important: the parents violated our laws, the laws that the people of this country have chosen.

      You’re perfectly welcome to try to change the laws, but obviously you haven’t been able to get a majority. Now you want to undermine laws you don’t like by undermining their enforcement. That’s not acceptable.

      1. It’s quite important: the parents violated our laws, the laws that the people of this country have chosen.

        So when Suburban Housewife Karen is arrested for littering, then CPS should rush to her house and snatch her kids away from her. Right? Because Karen’s now a CRIMINAL! She BROKE THE LAWS!

        1. Housewife Karen isn’t likely to leave her house and hide from authorities to avoid the fine for littering, you know, because she owns a house and is connected to the community. If Karen is thrown in jail for some reason, and she has no one in her life that could take care of her kids, then there is actually a good chance her kids will be taken by the authorities.

          But you know all this, you’re just being a dishonest piece of shit.

          1. And here is Troll Mac intentionally and dishonestly missing the point that I made, and trying to substitute one of his own in its place.

            The POINT, you fetid moron, is that separating kids from their parents is NOT justified SOLELY by their parents breaking some law. So NOBY2’s, and Jesse’s, and your, defense of family separation simply because the parents broke a law is incorrect. Otherwise, the cops would be justified in yanking Karen’s kids away from her if she broke even the most trivial of laws.

            You know this, but you are a dishonest troll, so you go into this strawman argument about avoiding the law. That’s not the point and you know it. Argue in good faith for once in your life instead of the disgusting little roach that you are.

  8. And today Native American Tribes, with the help of the Federal Government, will forcible takes adopted children away from their parents. Because kultur.

    And given the shitstorm the Left had over Barret’s family, it won’t be too much longer before the same thing happens to all inter-racial and inter-ethnic families.

    My best friend was Chinese, his dad came here from Hong Kong. He married his highschool sweetheart, a Latino. And they adopted a Black orphan who’s a senior in High School. And there are Leftists out there who would forcibly take their son away.

  9. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>Check here.

  10. Black civil rights groups and white allies organized “Operation Feed the Babies” to collect food, clothing, and funds for the threatened families. Aid came from as far away as England.

    So they didn’t need the government welfare?

  11. As a result, many immigrant children remain in federal detention.

    That’s simply a lie. Immigrant children are not put “federal detention”, only illegal migrants are. And that’s because we don’t even know whether the adults are related to the children because the adults don’t have any documentation. Yes, illegal migrant adults will continue to be separated from illegal migrant children because it’s the right thing to do. The adults crossing the border created this horrific situation, and the US is trying to deal with it as best we can.

    This has nothing to do with the practice of separating Native American children from their parents in a misguided attempt to assimilate them, another progressive policy that was based on good intentions but is obviously abhorrent.

    1. The way I see it they are families until proven otherwise not the other way around. We are also talking about mostly asylum seekers. They have not broken any laws.

      1. The way I see it they are families until proven otherwise not the other way around.

        And how is it in the interest of children to place them in the care of adult criminals and kidnappers who just took those children to gain easy entrance into the US?

        The safe thing to do is to separate adults from children until it can be determined that the adults are actually the guardians of those children. Note that we have the same policy for US citizens inside the US.

        We are also talking about mostly asylum seekers. They have not broken any laws.

        Asylum seekers who enter the US from Mexico without authorization have broken our laws, since they are clearly not being politically persecuted in Mexico.

    2. Even ICE calls them “detention facilities”.

      Non-U.S. citizens who are apprehended and determined to need custodial supervision are placed in detention facilities.

      https://www.ice.gov/detention-management

      1. Even ICE calls them “detention facilities”.

        Yes, and so did I: Immigrant children are not put “federal detention”, only illegal migrants are [put into federal detention].

        Putting illegal migrants into federal detention until their status can be determined is the correct policy. And separating adults and children in detention until the family relationships can be legally determined is also the correct policy.

  12. Expanding from groupings that most brains need (race, gender, etc) to a more subtle grouping, kids losing a parent really gets disastrous in America when lawyers hold them hostage in custody battles, a $50 billion per year industry. Demented divorcees get away with tactics that are far from legal in enlightened places like Denmark.

Please to post comments