Government

Brutal Treatment of Asylum-Seekers Is the Reality of Government

That’s why its role in our lives should be reduced to the minimum.

|

Members of President Joe Biden's own political party are unhappy with him over the brutal treatment of Haitian refugees at the U.S. border. Scenes of government agents on horseback pushing back men, women, and children (and allegedly striking some with their reins) elicited understandable cries of outrage and distancing from the actions by the White House itself. But these displays of righteous indignation over the events in Del Rio, Texas, are a little rich coming from people who usually applaud an activist state. If you want a government that does a lot, it's going to do it good and hard, and somebody will inevitably get hurt.

"I urge President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas to immediately put a stop to these expulsions and to end this Title 42 policy at our southern border," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) criticized the administration with regard to the public health authority under which migrants are being turned away at the border. "We cannot continue these hateful and xenophobic Trump policies that disregard our refugee laws. We must allow asylum seekers to present their claims at our ports of entry and be afforded due process."

"I'm not just unhappy with the cowboys who were running down Haitians and using their reins to whip them, I'm unhappy with the administration," commented Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). "What we witnessed takes us back hundreds of years. What we witnessed was worse than what we witnessed in slavery," she added in what we can only hope was an exercise in hyperbole and not a display of her historical knowledge.

Biden's nominal political allies may try to link the border policies to the last administration, but they've been defended and extended by the current occupant of the White House. Relief came only from a court injunction scheduled to take effect within days on the grounds that, despite its appeal to Title 42, the federal government has no authority to expel those seeking asylum. The president and his allies likely wish the injunction had come sooner, before millions of people saw video footage of border agents confronting refugees. As it is, the White House finds itself backpedaling from enforcement of its own policies.

"We've watched the photos of Haitians gathering under a bridge, many with families, and the horrific video of the CBP officers on horse — on horses using brutal and inappropriate measures against innocent people," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki intoned on Wednesday in response to questions about the scenes. "So, as it relates to those photos and that horrific video, we're not going to stand for that kind of inhumane treatment."

But if Psaki, the president she serves, and their allies are truly horrified by the scenes from the border, it's fair to ask what they thought expulsion of refugees was going to look like. After all, District Judge Emmet Sullivan's injunction was based in part on recognition that refugees trying to enter the country "face real threats of violence and persecution if they were to be removed from the United States." With that to look forward to, are they really expected to turn away with a shrug when officials invoke public health concerns as justification for sending asylum-seekers off to their fates?

For that matter, what do Schumer and Waters think law-enforcement in general looks like, whether it's at the border or in cities and towns within the United States? Only weeks ago, Waters praised the administration for extending a since-voided ban on landlords evicting non-paying tenants. Schumer has pushed for tougher laws against everybody from robo-callers to limousine drivers. Both are big fans of turning government power against gun owners. It's unlikely that these two very enthusiastic makers-of-laws intend for their legislative wishes to be enforced with nothing more than strong words.

That's the problem with politicians and their supporters who decry the undeniable brutality inherent in the enforcement of laws and policies they don't like while calling for state intervention in other areas of life. Whether or not it's ultimately captured on video, enforcement requires violence by state agents against members of the public. All too often, that involves breaking into people's homes, dragging them off to filthy and dangerous jails, and then coercing them into guilty pleas.

"On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce," Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter argued in 2014. "Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you."

The Haitian refugees in Del Rio capture the sympathy of many people because it's obvious what they're resisting: expulsion to a country that was a mess even before it was struck by a crippling earthquake in August.

"I will not be associated with the United States inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the dangers posed by armed gangs in control of daily life," Daniel Foote protested this week as he resigned his position as special envoy to Haiti.

To the extent that some refugees are being admitted to the U.S. despite official policy, violent actions against them look not just cruel, but arbitrary. The luck of the draw might get them safety—or trampled.

But the heavy hand of the state is always applied in an arbitrary fashion, with many forever successfully evading laws, the enforcement of which destroys the lives of others. That people who are well-connected and powerful can simply ignore rules that are harshly inflicted on those with less clout makes the brutal nature of enforcement even more infuriating.

It's good that politicians are outraged by the brutal treatment of refugees seeking asylum in the United States. It's encouraging that the Biden administration is still capable of being embarrassed by video footage of that treatment. But we'd be better served if those officials conceded that such brutality is always the reality of law enforcement and the reason why its role in people's lives should be reduced to the minimum.

NEXT: Project Hail Mary

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. Encouraging tens of thousands of migrants (many of them single women and children) to make a thousands of miles long trip from South American into Texas and reside in squalor under a concrete bridge is just fine, but having lose horse reins around a few of them is “brutal.” Such is the opinion of this Koch machine.

      1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.JHQ Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now. Your Success is one step away see …
        Open this web…… WorkJoin1

      2. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FLT And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

        Try it, you won’t regret it!……………JOIN JOBS

        1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

          So I started……… https://xurl.es/wa8vl

    1. Social welfare is not asylum.

    2. Border agents did not whip anyone, it kind of undermines the legitimacy of your argument if your first and best example is demonstrably false. Then you insist on referring to the migrants as “refugees” and without any evidence to back up your claim. Until a migrant’s case has been reviewed by the courts and reasonable evidence is found to substantiate the migrant’s claim of persecution by their own government they are not refugees. Elsewhere you refer to them as “asylum seekers,” which is better. Your argument that border agents are the problem in this situation is hard to follow as it seems to be built off an assumption that people breaking the law are not the instigators in this situation and those tasked with the difficult job of enforcing the law are, somehow, the ones acting in an aggressive and brutal fashion.

      If there is anyone to be infuriated with it is the government of Haiti, and any other country in which the government has robbed their citizenry of opportunity and prosperity. It is they who we must target our rage at, not the overwhelmed men and women trying to maintain order and process claims of being a refugee. Lastly, it is important to keep clear eyed about the reality of who is a refugee and who is not. Of those crossing the border illegally only a small percent are found to have legitimate claims of persecution once the courts are able to get to their case. It is a shame that our border cannot welcome refugees with the warmth and protection they deserve because of the overwhelming amount of people choosing to exploit the process in order to avoid the legal process of becoming an American citizen.

      It is baffling to watch people hurl vitriol, rage, and violence at the people working hard to clear the path and keep the gate open for these refugees while saying nothing and doing nothing about the governments responsible for creating these situations or the people who lie about their refugee status and attempt to circumvent the laws of the very country they wish to move to who only serve to make it harder to protect those who are in need of protection.

      And you’re angry because a man on a horse didn’t whip anyone… but you’re just going to pretend they did anyway?

  2. They are unvaccinated and are trespassing on public property. The two deadly sins of modern society.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist
      February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
      Flag Comment Mute User
      What is there to talk about?

      From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

      They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.

      1. My favorite part of his rationale is that it would give license to police to basically mow down protesters who are “trespassing” in public spaces.

        Trump could have just razed the entire city of Portland and CRI would have approved.

        1. He was told that in that very thread and denied it.

    2. The Haitians have a wildcard up their sleeve, which will grant them immediate citizenship and accolades from the left, for being ‘brave’. Claim to be gender fluid.

  3. Maybe we should encourage them to return to where they have already been given asylum. Only the left and their media minions can turn a shitshow like this into all cops are racist monsters. Maxine is obviously correct. Tens of thousands of people trying to illegally enter the country are exactly like slaves being forced to America.

    1. They aren’t being persecuted by anyone. They aren’t asylum seekers or refugees any more than a coal miner is an asylum seeker or refugee because he lost his job. Given federal and international movements to eliminate the coal industry, quite arguably less so.

    2. Grant them safe passage to Quebec.

    3. I was amused by Maxine’s analogy to the “slavery we’ve seen’, because we’ve never ‘seen slavery’ and she doesn’t understand the ‘institution of slavery.’ She is a moron.

      The slavery which I am familiar with, the slave-drivers would have left them under the bridge, and guaranteed they remained under the bridge.

      Get a grip.

  4. I’ve long been of the opinion the only appropriate response to libertarians involves vigorous use of a baseball bat.

    I see no reason to change my mind.

    1. I’m becoming more welcoming of that idea.

      The only thing worse than a progressive democrat is a moron libertarian giving them cover.

    2. Libertopians, especially the ‘no enemies to the left’ sort might require a more permanent approach.

    3. Strange, I see application of a diver to the head of assholes like you to be appropriate.’
      Fuck off and die.

  5. The Biden administration committing Hait crimes against the refugee dreamers massing along the US-Mexico border.

  6. Do we have a good “whip” picture?

    I’m trying to see a whip and I can’t.

    1. Maybe Reason can whip one up quickly.

    2. There were some good ones on the Daily Mail the other day. Heroes in cowboy hats chasing terrified negros and whacking them good. Trump would be proud.

        1. Trump is out of office. This is on SleepyJoe.

          1. Biden Botches Border is just a dog bites man story given Sloppy Joe’s ineptitude.

          2. Don’t confuse the infantile piece of shit.

        2. He’s grabbing the guy by the t-shirt with his hand.

          Where is the “whip”?

          1. For someone who talks about jack-booted thugs in reference to raising some rich guys taxes, You seem pretty accommodating to the use of force by the government otherwise.

            1. I learned not to uncritically accept the hot take democrat/media narrative a long time ago. If you’re going to get me to feel shame for that, you’ll have to try really hard.

              I’m against government authoritarianism, which is exactly why I’m skeptical when authoritarians start screeching about violations of individual rights.

            2. For someone who supports mass murder, why are you bothering to comment, commie-shit?

        3. Wow. You doubled down on the leftist idiocy. But you cry when called a leftist.

          An unnamed Border Patrol agent told Townhall’s Julio Rosas that mounted agents often twirl their reins to keep migrants at a distance so they’re not crushed underfoot.

          Ortiz said that he did not believe that the reins had been used to strike any refugees and none of the photos or videos that have circulated of the interactions appear to show the reins making contact with migrants.

          Maybe you prefer they get crushed sarc?

          https://www.nationalreview.com/news/psaki-announces-border-patrol-agents-will-no-longer-use-horses-in-response-to-false-whip-narrative/

        4. Adorable. Sarcasmic has never seen horse reins.

        5. So….. hitting the sauce early today?

        6. Um, where is the video showing border patrol agents whipping people? It’s certainly not there at the Daily Mail.

      1. The press is already correcting itself after deliberately misleading the public. No whips were used. They were using the ‘reins’ they use to control the horse which is what one would expect to happen when you don’t put 250,000 army at the borders to repel and invasion. Thanks Donald!

        1. It doesn’t even look like they’re being hit with reins. It looks like reins flopping around while they ride.

          1. That is exactly what happened. But sarcasmic is broken and pushes every leftist talking point now.

          2. If you look closely, you’ll see those two guys are carrying plastic bags full of plastic bottles and Styrofoam trays, if anybody deserves severe beatings, those monsters do. But you may also notice the man on the horse is grabbing the one guy by the shirt, leaving one half of the split reins to flop freely in the breeze and, unless he’s steering the horse with his dick, doesn’t have a free hand to be wielding a whip.

            1. I steer my horse with my dick.

              1. Your euphemisms are cruel and disgusting, colonizer!

            2. Plus the “victim” is smiling. Maybe they stole the cowboy’s lunch?

        2. Look, it’s not their fault that any time they see a strip of leather in proximity of a black man they think “whip”. It’s not like their parents raised them to think that way, they were just born like that.

      2. God damn. You fell for that bullshit? They are horse reins you ignorant fuck, not whips.

        Not shocked you were stupid enough to fall for the leftist narrative.

        1. Fall? At this point it’s pretty clear that sarc is always looking for racism even when it’s not there. Like he wants, even needs racism to exist to justify his, uh, moral supremacy.

          1. I steer my horse with my dick.

            1. “He was majoring in Animal Husbandry, till they caught him at it.” –Tom Lehrer

  7. What is it these people are seeking refuge from again?

  8. How many immigrants is ‘just right?’ According to Statista, 142 million people want to emigrate to the US. Air travel was 4.5 billion passengers in 2019, so there isn’t any real barrier to actually delivering them here, and I suspect the number of those wanting to come is much higher.
    There has to be some control, and those immigrants may be poor, but they are not stupid. All know to say they are refugees and have been on their cell phones getting coaching on what to say to support the claim. There are no economic migrants at all if you are to accept all claims.

    1. Interesting figures.

      If I were China, I’d sent a few hundred million Chinese ‘assylum seekers’ to the U.S. in a few years, they’d have a lot of power.

  9. How do legitimate Haitian asylum seekers get to Del Rio,, Texas in the first place? There are rules for asylum, and they do not include going through multiple safe countries before applying at the most desirable one. Also, they apparently went to Del Rio because that is a port of entry that cannot handle this many aliens applying for asylum and they were hoping the Biden administration would just give up and let them in. Most of these people are not coming from Haiti directly, they have been long term residents of other countries and decided to come to the US because Biden promised to because Biden promised to a squish on immigration policy, when he was also promising to a hardass on pandemic policy.

    Most of the people camped in Del Rio look like they are trying to game the system, and greeting about picture of immigration LEOscon horseback is merely an emotional appeal. Though it is true that enforcement of law is backed by violence which is why you should be cautious about what you make against the law.

    1. Asylum stopped meaning what the dictionary says it means during the previous border cluster when Dems could not stop talking about kids in cages.

    2. There’s a simple answer to that question, but nobody’s asking it.

      The surprising answer, which the migrants provided independently in different places and at different times, was universal: on Sunday, September 12, the Mexican government effectively sent a mass of migrants it had bottled up for months in its southern states up to the American border. This move, which appears to have been done under the cover of Mexico’s independence week of celebration known as El Grito, essentially foisted a humanitarian problem onto the Americans in a single week.

      As to why they wound up in Del Rio, that’s an even easier answer – it’s one of the few crossing points along the border that the Mexican cartels don’t control.

  10. More libertarian pretzel logic. We’ve come a long way baby, since the Wright Brothers – we can easily fly in 2 billion ‘asylum seekers’ to our borders and according to this screed, issue them a desk summons to appear at some time in the future to adjudicate their asylum claim. PS Limited “libertarian” government is designed and obligated to shut down illegal entry at our borders period, no exceptions, end of story. Whoever wrote this should seek asylum…in an asylum.

  11. My heart bleeds for Schumer and Waters, it must be so frustrating to see this heart-breaking use of the law and know there’s nothing you can do about it. Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment to allow the House and the Senate to have some say in the creation of laws rather than leave law strictly in the hands of the President. Then we wouldn’t have to see such spectacles as Schumer and Waters impotently begging for Biden to change the law.

  12. Most of these people already had asylum – in Brazil and Chile. They’ve been living there for a decade, with permanent resident status. They’re just coming here for economic benefit and free stuff.

    1. exactly right, but the msm will never point this out because it negates their narrative

  13. After all, District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s injunction was based in part on recognition that refugees trying to enter the country “face real threats of violence and persecution if they were to be removed from the United States.”

    Citation Tucci? Because for 90% of asylum cases this is a bald faced lied.

    1. All too often, that involves breaking into people’s homes, dragging them off to filthy and dangerous jails, and then coercing them into guilty pleas.

      Tell us again about J6 and the 9 months of solitary confinement, no showers or basic care, dinners of bread and tartar sauce… for the average plea of “parading.”

      Reason isn’t exactly the moral center of this discussion.

      1. Reason isn’t exactly the moral center of this discussion.

        One narrative slip and they won’t be free of violence and persecution in this country.

    2. And Emmett Sullivan has already shown himself to be a partisan hack with the Flynn case.

    1. Maybe CPB will get to use all the riding accoutrements while they clip-clop around on invisible horsies a la Monty Python.

      1. Use of large wooden badgers against minorities is a hate crime.

    2. Is this what you think tax dollars should actually go towards? I guess this and enforcing abortion restrictions and keeping a standing army that costs 800 billion dollars a year is ok. Giving money to old and poor people is, of course, out of the question.

      1. Even if I did: still better than communism, which enslaves everyone equally.

        1. You left out the part that give commie-shit a woody: Mass murder of millions of innocent people!

      2. A standing army is a legal duty of the federal government. Handing out money is not. And I’m not surprised you favor infanticide. Your kind always does.

        Better you should die. Soon would be good.

    3. The horses should be ridden by intelligent apes.

  14. Asylum gets tossed around kinda cheaply these days. Why are people who managed to get from Haiti to Central and South America the US taxpayers’ responsibility?

  15. A Democratic congresswoman, who represents huge numbers of black Americans, has referred to the treatment of alien nationals, stopped while trying to cross the Mexican border illegally from their residence in Latin America’s wealthiest country, as “worse than what we saw in slavery.” What is next, is Jerry Nadler going to call it “worse than the Holocaust”? It boggles the mind that voters can be conditioned to put up with these kinds of grotesque insults time after time.

    1. Yeah. Exactly how many Haitians were dragged to death by the horses?

  16. “But these displays of righteous indignation over the events in Del Rio, Texas, are a little rich coming from people who usually applaud an activist state. If you want a government that does a lot, it’s going to do it good and hard, and somebody will inevitably get hurt.”

    —-J.D. Tuccille

    It’s wrong to dismiss this as typical consequence of heavy handed government. The fact is that the Biden administration is treating Haitians differently than they’re treating the asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras–who are NOT being flown back to their home countries en masse like Biden is doing with the Haitian refugees. The fact is that the treatment of Haitians is an elective policy of the Biden administration. The Biden administration is treating Haitians differently–and it appears to be because they’re black.

    “[Biden] Administration officials said the flights were necessary to break a cycle of Haitian citizens migrating to the U.S. They said they hoped that once deported citizens land in Haiti, word of their arrival would spread quickly through social media and deter more from attempting to enter the U.S., according to people familiar with their thinking.”

    —-Wall Street Journal

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-flies-haitian-migrants-home-in-bid-to-manage-del-rio-border-crisis-11632167064

    The Biden administration isn’t doing this with asylum seekers from Central America. It has become increasingly apparent that they’re treating Haitians differently because the Biden administration doesn’t want more black people coming to the United States. Everyone who is apologizing for the Biden administration’s behavior should be ashamed of themselves. These actions are racist–certainly by the “standards” of the media. Either they need to start treating everyone the same, regardless of race, or the Biden administration needs to stop discriminating against Haitians, specifically, just for being black.

    1. This is interesting but why would they do this? Is it because Latin American foreigners are a subject of interest of the U.S.’s largest minority and a key source of swing votes, Latino U.S. citizens; whereas black West Indians are not a subject of interest of a major U.S. demographic? Thus allowing the Administration to make a “tough on immigration” gesture without risk, in their thinking? Because there has to be such an angle. Even Governor Wallace always had an opportunistic reason for everything he did.

      1. A part of it is that the wealthy Democrat establishment in the northeast retires, owns vacation homes, or has moved to estates on the beaches of Florida, and they don’t want waves of millions of black Haitians washing up on the beaches of their rich and powerful donors. They don’t want refugee camps established in the same town as these powerful donors either.

        All of this has happened before.

        George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both instituted a policy that anyone coming from Haiti by boat would be immediately sent back to Haiti without an asylum hearing. The Supreme Court backed Clinton up, saying that so long as the Haitian refugees didn’t make it to U.S. territory, the governing treaty didn’t say they were entitled to asylum. This basically led to the wet foot/dry foot policy, which said that if you were caught at sea (wet foot), you went back to Haiti, and if you made it to Mexico and then walked to the Texas border (dry foot), you would get an asylum hearing.

        Notice, the effect of the policy is to keep Haitians away from the beaches of Florida.

        Make it to Texas, and you get an asylum hearing!

        Two notes:

        1) Obama ended the policy of sending Haitians back to Haiti if they were caught by the Coast Guard.

        2) Biden appears to be ending the policy of giving Haitians an asylum hearing if they make it to Texas through Mexico by foot.

        P.S. This is also why it tends to be extremely difficult to get permits for offshore wind farms and offshore oil rigs–if they can be seen by from the beach properties of wealthy Democratic donors. Energy crisis/smenergy crisis–don’t ruin the view out our big donors’ breakfast nook.

        1. Forgot to add the link:

          http://www.crfimmigrationed.org/lessons-for-teachers/148-hl9

          Slide to the bottom to read about “Refugees from Haiti” and “The Haitian Boat People”. All of this has happened before, but not the way Biden is handling it.

    2. ” The Biden administration is treating Haitians differently–and it appears to be because they’re black.”

      Exactly. And it is because the Democrats fear that an influx of Haitians into the black community risks too much disruption of their carefully crafted political dominance of those fiefdoms.

      Not that TooSilly is going to admit that.

  17. Stop calling them asylum seekers. They’re not asylum seekers. They’re illegal immigrants from a shithole country, who didn’t use the process in place to be granted legal entry into the US.

    Legitimate asylum seekers are political dissidents from Hong Kong, or Afghans who worked for the US for 20 years and are now being hunted by the Taliban. Those are legitmate asylum seekers.

    1. Again, as I said above, there’s a better case that a coal miner put out of a job by government regulation is a refugee or asylum seeker than an immigrant from a nation that’s had billions in aid showered on it for a decade.

    2. Because they’re abusing the asylum process, doesn’t mean they aren’t asylum seekers. Legally, they’re crossing the border and turning themselves in to Homeland Security. They then defensively object to being deported on the basis of persecution in their home countries. Very few of them, whether they come from Northern Triangle countries or from Haiti, are actually fleeing persecution, and they’re actually harming legitimate asylum seekers who really are fleeing persecution.

      There are people stuck in Afghanistan today who are legitimately in fear of persecution and didn’t make it out–because the agency that processes their claims were overwhelmed by the bogus claims of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers at our southern border. Filing bogus persecution claims to seek asylum is not a victimless crime. The ultimate solution probably has to do with securing the border. The ultimate solution has to do with making sure people who file bogus claims are ultimately deported.

      Biden picking and choosing between his favorite bogus refugees based on criteria that may have little to do with anything but his racist donors in Florida not wanting black people washing up on the beaches in front of their estates isn’t the solution. The solution needs to be systematic, treat everyone the same, and still respect the rights and liberties of real victims of persecution who come to American to seek asylum. Biden has completely screwed the racist pooch, and rationalizing his behavior towards Haitians isn’t the solution. Holding Biden accountable for his awful behavior is part of the solution.

      It may gets so bad that Biden starts calling for a wall at our southern border.

      1. I thought Biden resumed the wall building months ago?

  18. “I’m not just unhappy with the cowboys who were running down Haitians and using their reins to whip them, I’m unhappy with the administration,” commented Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). “What we witnessed takes us back hundreds of years. What we witnessed was worse than what we witnessed in slavery,” she added”

    Is this an attempt to discredit criticism of the Biden administration? Because it comes across like quoting some idiot talking about “legitimate rape” as if he were somehow representative of everyone who thinks elective abortion may be immoral. Nothing is true because Maxine Waters says so, and just because she says something is racist, doesn’t mean it’s false.

    1. just because she says something is racist, doesn’t mean it’s false.

      if she didn’t say so many things are racist, she’d have a bit more credibility. Don’t blame people for not taking that gasbag seriously. And the people from Guatemala or Honduras are no more asylum seekers than the Haitians are. The term has been cheapened by overuse, kinda like ‘racist’ has been.

      1. I agree that she has shot her credibility through over a period of decades, but the credibility of Maxine Waters isn’t the issue. The issue is the Biden’s administration’s horrific and racist treatment of Haitians, and the American people’s false belief that the Democrats are somehow immune to charges of racism.

        The Democrats are objectively racist in the way their city councils protect the police from accountability in places like Chicago, Minneapolis, and New York City. The Democrats are objectively racist in their opposition to school choice, which, disproportionately, traps minority children in terrible schools. The Democrats are objectively racist in their support for hiking the minimum wage, which disproportionately pushes low skilled people of African ancestry out of work.

        That the Biden administration is racist in its enforcement of asylum law shouldn’t surprise anybody. There is no good reason for libertarian capitalists to give the progressives a free pass on their disgusting racism. We should be crucifying them with it.

        People actually vote for Democrats because they mistakenly believe that the Democrats aren’t racist, they need to be disabused of that notion, and the way Biden has behaved is apparently racist–no matter what Maxine Waters says about anything. The truth simply doesn’t depend on what Maxine Waters says.

        1. No argument here about Dems being racist. They’re also intellectually dishonest. The same folks who carried on about “kids in cages” and made a punch line of asylum under Trump have worked overtime to silence coverage of the border now. Only now does the administration’s intentionally feckless policy draw attention and that will fade in another day or so.

          The pictures also do not show what Waters and others claim they show, but emotion has always trumped reason on the left. Whether deportation is applied in a different fashion vs hispanic migrants is a worthwhile discussion.

          1. “The pictures also do not show what Waters and others claim they show”

            It may not be worse than it was during slavery, but the pictures are highly indicative of demonstrating Biden’s racist policies in action. The most shocking the thing about The Schlesinger Report may have been that it reveled that the photographs that were released from Abu Ghraib showed “interrogation procedures” that were entirely authorized by the Bush administration (even if they weren’t authorized to be used against legitimate POWs in Iraq).

            I see these photos the same way in that they show in graphic detail the ultimate results of Biden’s racist policy to chase Haitians back across the river. Whether what they’re doing is legal is beside the point–if the point you’re trying to make is that Biden’s policy is racist and a pathetic attempt to compensate for his own terrible lack of reasonable, popular, and coherent policies on immigration and the border.

            Are you in favor of building a wall along our southern border? That’s generally not something I support, but if you do, why aren’t you calling this out as a racist atrocity and telling people that if they built a wall, Biden’s disgusting display of racism on horseback wouldn’t be necessary? Walls don’t discriminate on the basis of race. We shouldn’t let the progressives’ enthusiasm for calling their enemies racist at the drop of a hat discourage us from calling out their racism when we see it.

            1. why aren’t you calling this out as a racist atrocity and telling people that if they built a wall, Biden’s disgusting display of racism on horseback wouldn’t be necessary?

              I’d be arguing with the same people who think the wall itself is racist. You can’t get people to connect the dots when they refuse to even see them. Biden’s view toward black people is well-documented, and his party DID NOT CARE. This is an I-told-you-so moment, which makes the hyperventilating from the left a bit much.

              Plenty of folks have called out the progs’ racism. How’s that worked out? Black people continue voting for Dems despite mounds of evidence that this is self-defeating behavior. At some point, the horse (perhaps the wrong time for this metaphor) has to put his in the water and take a drink.

  19. If there wasn’t a strong central govt it’s not hard to imagine that TX would still be a slave state or some sick twisted 1984 version of a slave state. The walls would built to keep people in and Dallas would be a sister city with some Nazified European capital.

    1. Sullum, you are a moron.

      That is all the thought the mental vomit you posted here deserves.

    2. it’s not hard to imagine if you have suffered a head injury that short-circuited your ability to think.

    3. Actually, considering that slavery is tolerated nowhere in the modern western world, it’s almost certain that Texas would have no slaves today regardless of the Civil War.

      1. Is this a feature or a bug to reactionaries like you?

        1. If you’re a communist, it’s an implicit bug.

          1. Can’t have communism without slavery; that’s what it is, for pete’s sake.

      2. Read the 13th amendment. Slavery is legal in the US as a punishment for crimes.

    4. You’re an idiotic, toxic, lying propagandist piece of shit. Kill yourself.

  20. Mmm…
    Every illegal-immigrant-wannabe is an asylum seeker and must be meticulously cared for.
    Who cares if it’s to actual citizens detriment?
    And long horse reins that have been used for centuries to control horses?
    Brutal Man.
    Brutal.

  21. news flash for you jd: these people are not asylum seekers. these are haitians who’ve been living in central america. they saw the news that slow joe has an open border and they see the opportunity to live in america. they just see a better place to live than haiti or mexico. they’ve violated our laws and are here illegally. every last one of them should be deported immediately. too bad you’re buying into the liberal narrative.

    1. News spreads fast of the 5 trillion, the budget reconciliation permanent socialism for anyone on the globe who wants it.

    2. They are asylum seekers in the same sense that a rapist could be considered a sexual partner. Technically correct but in the most watered down and deceptively neutral version possible. Gotta love the open borders leftists.

  22. Looks like the Asshole Brigade is busy in the comments today. Can’t possibly imagine why.

    1. The concept of actual asylum seeking is being bastardized by this nonsense involving people going thru multiple safe countries to come here?

      Yeah, not a problem.

      Would, honestly, be easier to kill off asylum as an option in the first place.

      1. Asylum should be limited to the first safe country they arrive in. Applications for asylum in the U.S. could be processed at the embassies in Mexico City or Ottawa.

    2. Don’t bother with logic when dealing with this lefty pile of shit.

    3. Yes, your leftist friends are indeed assholes.

  23. The news videos I saw appear to show overwhelmed border patrol agents trying to hold back people who wanted to rush the border. There were long reins flying around, but I didn’t see a clip of someone whipping someone with a rein. It might have happened. I did see the famous picture of a border patrol agent grabbing a running man’s shirt, though without knowing the exact circumstances I don’t know how you can call that abuse.

    You can sympathize with people wanting a better life or for having the bad luck of being born in Haiti, but no country in the world would allow a large group of refugees to rush their border. I guess we’re expected to though.

    1. So you get “whipped” with a rein. Big deal. It’s not an actual whip. These people aren’t some kind of Paris Hilton types who’d sue someone for staring at them too hard.

      How else are you going to physically stop people from crossing the border illegally? Shoot them? Not all physical contact is evil.

  24. What about the brutal treatment I get every time I try to break into the Apple store at 2am?

  25. Brutal Treatment of Asylum-Seekers Is the Reality of Government
    That’s why its role in our lives should be reduced to the minimum.

    Surveilling the border and preventing illegal crossings is a core function of government. No one has anything to fear from border cops unless they are an illegal immigrant. All illegals should be deported.

    If Congress wants more immigrants to vote Democrat, that’s up to them to change the laws.

  26. More children have been shot in Chicago this year than have died of COVID in the entire country but Mad Max and China Joe care more about horses on the border than that. These people are pure evil.

  27. Reason:
    Taxes are theft
    Tarrifs are a tax on consumers
    Cradle to grave public charge migrations are NOT taxes.

    Me:
    I was taught a different definition of public charge. Good to know, public charge =Libertarian Utopia

  28. Sometimes we want to post a beautiful image on Facebook, Instagram, or another social network but do not know precisely what. We joined the useful to the pleasant and selected beautiful images with phrases of various kinds for you to share on your networks. Check it out!
    https://bit.ly/3ApHRkY

  29. “elicited understandable cries of outrage ”

    Understandable?

  30. Defending our borders against invaders is not only a legitimate responsibility of the federal government, it is their first and most important responsibility. If we have laws that say otherwise, they need to go.

  31. If I tried to “break in” to another country and police tried to scare me away, I’d be happy they didn’t arrest me and throw me into jail, not complaining of a human rights violation.

  32. Normally I am a proponent of fairly liberalized immigration, but I see pictures of the masses crossing our borders, see the estimates that approximately 2 million will cross our border illegally this year and the pragmatist in me sees we cannot have liberalized immigration without better control of the border. What is happening at the Southern border should make any self reflecting open borders type step back and question the fundamentals of their beliefs.
    Yes, immigration for the most part is a good thing. Yes, America is fundamentally a charitable and humane society and it is in our nature to want to help those who are less fortunate (though progressives to often ridicule this notion). Yes, in their circumstance I would do the same thing, and my Great Grandfather’s parents did do something similar (but legally). However, unchecked immigration is not necessarily a benefit (ask the Amerindians). Charity can be taken advantage of, and by being taken advantage of make people less charitable and forgiving. And my ancestors came here legally, in an age when immigrants were inspected like animals, into a society far less welcoming and proved themselves by homesteading in Eastern South Dakota, a land far harsher than their previous home in Southwest Norway.
    So what can be done about it? I contend that before we can do anything we must first address control of the border, while at the same time trimming drastically the red tape that is such an impediment to legal immigration. Unfortunately, Reason and many only focus on the second part and forget the first part. We cannot have a legal, liberal immigration system without robust border control. And part of robust border control requires internal enforcement as well. If released into the US with orders to appear, we must have a system to enforce this. We cannot simply give them an slip of paper and forget about them. We must have a system to police those who overstay visas (while making visa reapplication easier and more timely). We must have adequate judges to hear the cases and move through the backlog and we must realize that, however much, it goes against our principles, most of these are not legally eligible for asylum and live by those rulings. We can argue to change those rules, but we cannot simply ignore the rules because we don’t like them. You will never get a majority of Americans to agree to more liberal immigration laws as long as our southern border remains so porous. I would say the same thing about the Northern Border, however, it isn’t practically speaking much of a problem currently. Thus, we must focus our limited resources on the biggest problem currently facing us.
    This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with where the bulk of our current problem is coming from. Until we fix our borders, it is whistling in the wind to ask Americans to embrace any talk of more liberal immigration. Instead focus on the gross level of red tape that makes legal immigration such a hassle. Focus on the lack of immigration judges that slow down the system. These are things I believe most Americans, especially most conservatives, would agree need to be fixed. And finally, stop myths about people being whipped by horseman (even the guy who took the infamous pictures is stating no one was whipped and that the CBP officers were not attacking anyone or acting inhumanely). Horses have long been used for crowd control and most of the actions being demonized were actually being utilized to protect the safety of the rider, the horse and the crowd.
    Horses are intelligent animals. They want to avoid harm. They are large, with sharp hooves and when spooked, they will either flee or strike out, however, in my experience, horses will stand their ground more often than not when confronted with danger. Horses are good at moving a crowd, can control a crowd quite well, but, if the crowd becomes unruly, grabs at their reins or their head, the horses first instinct is protect itself. If you grab at a horses head, it’s first instinct is to bite, rear (to protect it’s head) and/or strike out with its feet to gain room to escape. What appears from the video is that the CBP didn’t have enough horses to form a moving wall to control the crowd, and it became a mob quickly. Also, crowd control takes specialized training for horses, desensitizing them to loud noises and unruly crowds. CBP horses are mostly trained for patrol duties and pursuit. This is apparent in the video, where the horses are chasing single fleeing individuals, much like a good cutting horse or roping horse will pursue a single cow or calf. This is what they and their riders are trained to do. Unfortunately, the surge of Haitians is so grand in size that what was really needed was crowd control. Twirling reins is a common cue by horsemen to indicate that the rider wants the horse to move it’s front body. Split reins allow better control. Twirling a rein, even in horses trained for crowd control, can also be utilized to fend off people from trying to grab at the reins or the head of the horse and is meant to protect all parties.
    If anything is horrendous about the images it is that the CBP was simply overwhelmed, not enough resources and placed in a position that neither they, nor their mounts were trained for. As someone familiar with horses, I saw a chaotic scene, that could have easily involved major injuries to horse, rider and the crowd. I saw riders doing their best to control a chaotic scene while protecting all bodies involved. I saw some supreme horsemanship, that likely prevented serious harm or even death. A 1500 pound horse, when it takes fright can become deadly to anyone on the ground.
    You can argue the CBP shouldn’t have been there, but that seems to imply that you oppose any enforcement of the borders. That is simply pollyandish nonsense. Even with a liberalized, ID check, immigration system you still need robust enforcement to patrol areas that aren’t ports of entry, because even with that system you will have people that shouldn’t be allowed into the country (criminals and terrorist and the like). Just because the system is easier to use, it won’t eliminate the existence of people who won’t follow the system, and who shouldn’t be allowed in to the country. Any system that is enacted short of a totally open borders, and ID check is not completely open borders, requires you to secure the border for it to work. We once did have truly open land borders, and they failed. Hostile Mexican Revolutionaries attacked across the border, killing American citizens, bandits freely attacked across both land borders. It got so bad that a majority of Army was stationed on the borders, patrolling and enforcing the borders. It even lead to the US military entering Mexico in reprisal for the killing of American citizens.
    To have a liberal immigration system requires us to have an orderly immigration system.

  33. The magazine is called reason, and yet they float narrative based on morality and faith, and ignores video evidence that disproves a lie. What exactly does this place stand for?

    What happens if a million people tried to apply for a single job at the Mcdonalds website? It would likely crash.

    What happens if 100 people tried to enter the Mcdonalds all at once? There would be suffering.

    A certain reality supersede the question whether these migrants have the legal and moral right to asylum. Because it’s reality. A nation cannot handle massive waves of humanity who tries to enter the nation by using asylum as backdoor. It would create logistical nightmares. If we actually KNEW when the Haitians were coming and who they were, we still couldn’t find housing or these people. Where are Afghans staying? Military bases.

    So thousands of people gather under a bridge to shelter from the heat. People drown to death. Some sexual abuse and violence is inevitable. No one can protect them, regulate their movement, verify their background for their own safety, etc.

    Again, this is reality. The undying mantra about “they’ll build America” does not change this fact. If 50 illegal immigrants built a shanty town inside a mall, mall management will be utterly unconvinced by the moral argument that these people might benefit the economy. They’ll be kicked out.

    A RATIONAL society that operates on reason and fact cannot adapt a libertarian border policy. A nation cannot be a Utopia that grants entry to unchecked number of people in the name of charity – no more than a business can operate if they sold every product at a loss because low prices help out poor people. If hte best case scenario for open borders is CA, then the country would be so freakishly expensive to live in that no meaningful growth would ever occur.

  34. Brutal Treatment of Asylum-Seekers Is the Reality of Government

    They are not “asylum seekers”, they are illegal migrants trying to take advantage of the US welfare state that US taxpayers pay for. They should be punished for breaking our laws and deported.

    And, yes, the reality is that government uses force against people who break the law. That is one of the main functions of government.

  35. Tuccille: “It’s (govt.) role…should be reduced to a minimum.”
    Here’s why that is a false option.
    Rights, e.g., the right to liberty, to self-govern, is absolute and therefore not subject to consensus, or rights do not exist. I do not enjoy my liberty with permission of the majority, or congress, or the SCOTUS. I am born free, taxed and ruled to death. There is no “limited” coercive govt. Once granted the power to initiate violence and limit itself, who will “reduce it to a minimum”? It must be abolished and replaced with a non-violent, voluntarily tolerated set of rules, subject to each individual’s consent. This is true freedom.

Please to post comments