Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How to Fight Inhumane Immigration Policies? Better Smugglers

Improving smuggling efforts isn't ideal, but it's better than just watching kids get torn from their families.

Christopher Brown/Polaris/NewscomChristopher Brown/Polaris/NewscomOn Sunday, immigrants and their supporters rallied at Phoenix's Central United Methodist Church against the Trump administration's policy of criminal prosecution of border-crossers and the resulting separation of thousands of children from their families. Instead of concessions from the administration, though, they got the dispatch of Wisconsin National Guard troops to bolster Customs and Border Patrol agents.

Good for the protesters. But they might be well-advised to redirect at least some of their efforts away from demonstrations and instead put resources into more effectively and humanely smuggling migrants into the country past the border checkpoints.

The treatment of the migrants, which has involved the confinement of children in sparse, chain-link enclosures (appropriately dubbed "cages" in some circles), is seen by critics as a cruel bit of political arm-twisting on the part of the administration. Trump and company mean to extract a harder-line immigration policy from lawmakers as the price of ending the prosecutions and separations. As the Los Angeles Times asks in an editorial, "What's next, holding a gun to their heads and saying, 'Don't make me shoot'?"

Please, don't give the politicians ideas.

Americans, by and large, don't like the sight of sobbing children dragged away from their parents. "American voters oppose 66–27 percent the policy of separating children and parents when families illegally cross the border into America," a Quinnipiac poll (PDF) released yesterday reports. But much of that 27 percent consists of the president's increasingly nativist Republican base. Voters may well punish the GOP at the ballot box for its current leader's conduct in November and in 2020, but what does Trump care? Having first supported the Queens Democratic machine, and later the post–Ross Perot Reform Party, Trump has never demonstrated loyalty to anything or anybody beyond the boundaries of his own ego (though he certainly demands it of others).

To the extent that the hardline 27 percent has a rationale for its support of separating migrant families beyond raw nativism, it's based on scare stories about gangsters using children as beards to gain access to the United States.

"In the first five months of fiscal year '18, CBP saw a 315 percent increase in individuals using children to pose as family units to gain entry into the country compared to fiscal year '17. Smugglers and drug traffickers know the loopholes well, and they know that if they reach our borders, they will be released into our country and evade the consequences of their criminal action," the Department of Homeland Security's Jonathan Hoffman told reporters last month.

Well...OK. Technically, an increase from 46 bogus families to 191 bogus families does constitute more than a quadrupling of such incidents. But those 191 rent-a-families get lost in the wash of people intercepted by U.S. officials. "Even given the increased number of alleged smugglers this fiscal year and the decreased number of family units, those smugglers, those traffickers, those MS-13 members make up only 0.61 percent of the total number of family units apprehended at the border," notes the Washington Post's Philip Bump.

Which is to say, it's not junior sicarios populating those chain-link enclosures (though that would make for a movie I'd definitely pay to watch).

Republicans in Congress and around the country seem to be balking at the administration's border policy—whether out of principle or out of fear for their political careers doesn't really matter. But they still have to consider a nativist party base that might well cut them off at the knees for opposing Trump before general election voters ever have a crack at them. That leaves a legislative resolution to the cruel border policy a very uncertain thing—even before we consider the likelihood of a presidential veto.

Not that the folks who rallied at the Central United Methodist Church and their counterparts across the country shouldn't continue to try to change hearts and minds—and policy. Legal reform is the only way to guarantee some degree of decent treatment for migrant families that isn't subject to prosecutorial discretion or some other flavor of official whim. Exchanging criminal prosecutions for civil proceedings (an approach often favored in the past) would be a good first step.

"The law also provides for the use of civil penalties, as well as criminal ones. While it states that the application of civil penalties does not preclude application of criminal ones, it also does not compel federal prosecutors to pursue both," wrote George Mason University's Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy, which is hosted at Reason. "Until the administration's recent policy change, civil proceedings were in fact the usual approach in case of families with minor children, under both Democratic and Republican administrations."

Making it easier for migrants to enter—and leave—the country at will, to seek work and return to their homes and families as they often have in the past, would be a better step still. Historically, fewer people bothered to uproot their loved ones when they could easily cross the border back and forth.

But that looks like a distant hope, right now. We should work for it, sure, but we should also consider approaches that don't require legislative changes and majority approval Those changes would include better means for getting migrants across the border and past the watchful eyes of Border Patrol, National Guard, and nativists. Immigrants and their supporters should give some thought, and effort, to improved smuggling channels that treat migrants better than the existing criminal networks, and offer them a better chance of success.

That's a step beyond the "sanctuary city" declarations of refuge for migrants that already has the Trump administration fulminating. But so what? If hardline federal policy is worth undermining, it's worth sabotaging in a host of ways. And an underground railroad for migrants would do just that by harnessing the ingenuity and resources of private groups and public officials that already oppose the current administration to more directly confront its policies.

Improving smuggling efforts is a less ideal solution than getting officialdom off migrants' backs, but it's better than just watching kids get torn from their families. And the way things are going in this country, we may someday need access to reasonably humane smuggling channels to get ourselves across the border in reverse.

Photo Credit: Christopher Brown/Polaris/Newscom

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.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What I want to know is who's just following orders in this situation?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Nazis, duh. /sarc

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The lefties, duh?

  • The gouch||

    Everyone's following orders,,, soros is giving them..

  • Ben_||

    Because being smuggled into a country to live your entire life outside of official society is humane. Or something.

    Don't you guys ever get tired of making things worse for people?

  • damikesc||

    Well, Reason writers wont even see these people. So they do not care.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You know Tucille lives in Rural Arizona, right? Like, probably half the people he knows are these people

  • damikesc||

    Odds are...no. He likely does not.

    I live in the deep south. I can count on one hand the number of actual racists i personally know...yet i am assured we are awash in bigots.

  • ||

    I can count on one hand the number of actual racists i personally know...yet i am assured we are awash in bigots.

    So . . . you're saying there aren't really a lot of illegal immigrants in AZ, that it's just a bogeyman made up for political purposes? Because that's what your analogy is suggesting, but I'm not sure it's so good for your ultimate argument.

  • damikesc||

    There are likely lots of them.

    Odds are, none near him.

  • ||

    They must make a point of giving him a wide berth.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Suburban types like Tucille only ever see illegal immigrants when they're mowing their lawns or vacuuming their houses.

  • MJBinAL||

    bingo.

  • Mark22||

    Because being smuggled into a country to live your entire life outside of official society is humane. Or something.

    Not just that. American citizens who expose their kids to criminal activity or danger will be charged with child endangerment and risk losing their kids.

    It seems odd that people propose being more lenient with illegal migrants who endanger their kids in this way.

  • Cathy L||

    Many of the same people are also against US citizens having their kids removed for those types of reasons.

  • Mark22||

    Really? Have any statistics?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I think the reality is that people think it's ok when it's a policy they like, and not ok when it's a policy they don't like. It's a self centered way of thinking. It's ok, when I think it's ok.

    Many of the people that have a problem with kids being separated at the border would have no problem having your kid removed if you own an AR-15. They are not appalled at the concept of kids being taken as a principle.

  • VOTE MILES||

    They are not appalled at the concept of kids being taken as a principle.

    Because principles are a thing of the past. Principles oblige us to accept things we may not like. And that's an absolute deal breaker for the shrill, self-aggrandizing hypocrites who constitute the new moral majority.

  • damikesc||

    You'd put young children in prison then when their parents commit crimes?

    What kind of monster are you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    When the lefties free the illegal families, they hope for more votes for the price of one release. Its a genius plan except that the American majority is 100% against open borders.

  • rferris||

    You must not be aware of the facilities they have to call them prisons...........after initial screening the chain link goes away!
    When parents commit crimes we put their kids in CPS.....not a prison, but you are still forcibly separated from your kids.............many do think our system is cruel, but why should illegals be treated better than citizens.
    If you think what is happening at our borders is wrong, where have you been for the last 50 years in opposing CPS activities????

    What kind of monster are you????

  • BambiB||

    Those smuggling in criminal aliens should get 20 years in prison for their first offense... followed by exile from the Country they've betrayed.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Sounds like a good idea, but please keep them in your yard.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    They're like leaves. They'll always blow into yours.

    This "fight the power" tack sounds a bit like the Reason party line on gun control, only I don't think they're going to get much voter sympathy with this position anywhere except for parts of southern California. Goodbye libertarian moment, hello obscurity.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Are "migrants" like salmon returning to their native stream to breed? They are driven by instinct to enter the US by any means necessary or die trying? They do not have any conscious control over their actions

    I am unsure how this article makes sense otherwise.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Tuccille is pretty anti-state so in that context it makes perfect sense. (I think he might even be from a mafia family.)

  • Cloudbuster||

    Get with the program. Only White men have agency.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • hello.||

    *crickets*

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The extremism of the open borders crowd is going to create a backlash that will be worse for immigrants than a compromise position on their part would have.

  • JoeBlow123||

    This is so inevitable it is comical more do not recognize it.

  • damikesc||

    I've gone from not caring that much about the border to wanting machine guns nests on the border and an outright cessation of ALL immigration for 20 years.

    Thanks Reason.

  • Cathy L||

    So principled.

  • damikesc||

    I'd allow them if they lived in your house only and you provided all of their needs.

    Otherwise, fuck you trying to make me spend money to make you feel better.

  • Cathy L||

    I hope you never drive on any roads.

  • Homple||

    Roadz.

  • damikesc||

    FFS, you're actually going to use Prog talking points about how moronic libertarian philosophy is (more and more, they aren't wrong that Libertarians are, in fact, complete idiots) here? Really?

    Hey, why not a smoking hot Mogadishu comment next?

  • MJBinAL||

    I hope you can someday become a useful, productive, intelligent person.

    We are probably neither one going to get what we hope for.

  • BYODB||

    It's a natural consequence of utopian thinking, in that people like Cathy assume a whole raft of other policies will also be axed in order to get their way even though all of those policies are hugely popular with the vast majority of the population.

    So, in short, people like Cathy (and many others here) accidentally plan to destroy any hope for a more libertarian tomorrow in order to feel better today.

    Say, while we're on the subject Cat how's the convincing virtually every American that their pay is too high and they need to take a pay cut almost entirely across the board in order to favor open immigration from communist nations?

  • Nardz||

    Axing is all but assured.
    The question then is: who
    Us or them?

  • BYODB||

    That's a silly question, of course it will be the immigrants. They can't vote, and American's aren't willing to destroy the nanny state for anyone. Least of all non-citizens.

  • VOTE MILES||

    So principled.

    Because principles are only for other people, wouldn't you agree?

  • lulz farmer||

    Yeah I'm sure it's more principled to be a deracinated hyperatomized individual who doesn't care if their granddaughter is sold off as a sex slave to Muslims or narco gangs.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Why are conservatives always so ready to resort to violence to enforce their views?

  • ||

    In fairness, liberals are making them do it.

  • VOTE MILES||

    As though conservatives have a monopoly on the impulse to do violence!

    What a clown comment.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Look, the other side does it, too! That makes it ok for us to do it as well!

    Boy, you are a regular Frege.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Hey, smart guy. I actually believe in the NAP, and not just when it suits me.

  • damikesc||

    I respond that way to all invasions.

  • hello.||

    You mean like "Pay for the relocation of these migrants and give them a stipend until they can get on subsidized housing and welfare or else we'll send you to prison for tax evasion"?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Why are conservatives always so ready to resort to violence to enforce their views defend themselves?"

    FTFY

  • MJBinAL||

    Because as conservatives they have a firm grasp on history. The primary method that major societal issues have been resolved historically has been with violence. Further, fascists, socialists (progressives all) use government as their means of force rather than do it themselves usually. Ultimately, this is what the "gun control" is really about. Progressives want the government to have a monopoly on force, because they assume that they control government.

  • Star1988||

    What the hell would you eat? The only people willing to pick your fruits and vegetables and slaughter your cattle are immigrants. Planning to live off the industrial triad: soy, wheat and corn?

  • VOTE MILES||

    This is such a bizarre liberal talking point. Maybe the price of fruit, vegetables, and meat needs to go up to match the real cost of labour and eliminate the market distortions. How about we just let the market do it's thing to balance supply and demand?

  • Ariki||

    Whoa, what sort of crazy idea is this?!?!

    But how would I, an average Joe, know whats best for me without a massive bureaucracy telling what I'm allowed to eat, drink, speak, and think?

    Are you trying to unleash the apocalypse of individual freedom?

  • Gracchus||

    real cost of labour and eliminate the market distortions

    How exactly is a glut of low-skilled labor a "market distortion?" If it is, then virtually everything that causes the market to shift from an initial point of equilibrium counts as a "distortion", whether it's a change in consumer preferences or in minimum wage laws.

    Also, what counts as the "real cost' of labor? The prevailing wages for American-born farm workers? A lot of this just seems like protectionist rhetoric masqueraded by libertarian platitudes.

  • VOTE MILES||

    The real cost of labour is the amount required to feed, clothe, house, and educate (etc.) a family. I'm not an economist, so I won't pretend to know what the actual numbers are -- though the Federal Poverty Level for a family of 4 is currently about $25k and the consensus "minimum" wage for labour is about $15/hr.

    The idea that we have a need for cheap labour from low-cost countries does not strike me as a particularly "progressive" response to a market that says wages are too low. It suggests that we are incapable of feeding ourselves without the sweat of those who are not afforded the same quality of living that we expect for ourselves. Frankly, it reeks of a slave-owning mentality.

  • KevinP||

    In even the agriculture sector, only about 25% of workers are illegals. So 75% are Americans doing the work Americans won't do.

  • rferris||

    So you are in favor of keeping wages low by supplying immigrant labor to keep the costs down so you do not pay more for your veggies?? Pretty selfish and cruel!

    Are you so clueless that you think food is not valuable to humans?? If the cost of labor needs to rise to attract workers, then please let the free market work. Is it not the goal of progressives to raise the wages of farm workers??? If yes, then why advocate policies that do the opposite.?

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    I'd actually be down with this, with the proviso that for every immigrant that illegally enters the country, a libertarian columnist gets his house burned down.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Another conservative promoting violence against those he disagrees with.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    I'm not a conservative. But I'm all for violence when all the alternatives have failed.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Libertarians: all about the rule of law, unless they don't like the laws.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Government deciding what laws it will obey and which it won't is the long term worst thing for limited government.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Government deciding what laws it will obey and which it won't is the long term worst thing for limited government.

    This guy gets it.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    We are for The Law generally speaking not arbitrary laws governing how people live their lives. So yes long history being against laws and skirting them. From illegal gun control laws, sex laws, drug laws, laws governing your personal property...any laws that violate a human's natural rights should be apposed.

    And no I'm not saying Mexicans have a natural right to live in America. Just pointing out libertarians are not for the laws that restrict our liberty.

  • Harvard||

    Liar

  • MJBinAL||

    oh he is correct about libertarians, there just aren't many libertarians working for Reason.

  • hello.||

    libertarians are not for the laws that restrict our liberty.

    Every law restricts your liberty you fucking retard. That's the entire point.

  • VOTE MILES||

    This is the worst kind of unprincipled hypocrisy.

  • ||

    The best kind of unprincipled hypocrisy is following all laws to the letter without reflection.

  • VOTE MILES||

    The best kind of unprincipled hypocrisy is following all laws to the letter without reflection.

    Leave it to a prog to try finding the "best" kind of hypocrisy.

    How about using reflection to establish principles that guide our actions?

  • BYODB||

    I feel obligated to defend S=C since they are a reasoned individual, even if you happen to disagree with their reasoning.

    Taken on it's own, their comment is exactly correct. What you read into it may or may not be.

  • ||

    Appreciated. I count BYODB's willingness/ability to have actual debates on this topic as one of the things that has softened my open-borders absolutism. We disagree on one or two things, but have always been able to have civil and reasonable discussions about them (mostly).

    I also can't help but crack a smile whenever he calls me "they," dating back to our one or two discussion on gender pronouns, even though he knows damn well I'm all Man!

  • BYODB||


    I also can't help but crack a smile whenever he calls me "they," dating back to our one or two discussion on gender pronouns, even though he knows damn well I'm all Man!

    I admit I do find it amusing. I don't have any specific objection to pronouns anymore other than I find it exhausting to endlessly parse pronouns. Anything else is mostly an ad hoc justification.

  • VOTE MILES||

    I agree that S=C tends to post reasonable comments. And I note that you do as well. But what I read into the comment was a suggestion that the alternative to deciding which laws we want to obey is to follow all laws to the letter without reflection, which is not, in my opinion, "exactly correct". It is a false dichotomy. If you don't like the laws, you should fight the laws. If you can't fight the laws, you should leave the jurisdiction. If you can't leave the jurisdiction, you should rebel and be willing to pay the iron price for failure.

  • BYODB||

    Avoiding most of the thorny bits, the baseline is that there are too many laws for anyone to even consider them one way or another.

    Which, of course, makes most of my arguments concerning the rule of law mostly moot even while it's something I very much believe in.

    Immigration issues are an end product of a host of domestic laws that, while popular with voters, have bad ends that people refuse to acknowledge because they want to believe in utopia.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Immigration issues are an end product of a host of domestic laws that, while popular with voters, have bad ends that people refuse to acknowledge because they want to believe in utopia.

    Sounds like democracy isn't really your thing.

  • BYODB||


    Sounds like democracy isn't really your thing.

    Obviously. Anyone that says otherwise hasn't really thought about it.

  • VOTE MILES||

    Obviously. Anyone that says otherwise hasn't really thought about it.

    If you're saying democracy is a farce and a failure, I would tend to agree (mostly because I think people have proven themselves to be too stupid and too unprincipled to be trusted with the enormous responsibility of selecting our leaders and lawmakers).

    But I don't know of a better system than a constitutional democracy. And I'm not nearly naive enough to grant free rein even to those who profess a desire only for "social justice" (indeed, least of all to them).

    So, democracy it is, and all that it entails.

  • MJBinAL||

    Democracy is a poor choice for government. The founders of this country were nearly uniformly against Democracy. They chose a representative democracy based on a constitution as an attempt to gain the primary benefits of Democracy while limited the disasters. It is becoming clear that as proved a failure also since we, as a nation, have spent much of our time defeating all the limits they placed on government.

  • ||

    Democracy is a poor choice for government. The founders of this country were nearly uniformly against Democracy. They chose a representative democracy based on a constitution as an attempt to gain the primary benefits of Democracy while limited the disasters.

    ^ This.

  • ||

    If you don't like the laws, you should fight the laws. If you can't fight the laws, you should leave the jurisdiction. If you can't leave the jurisdiction, you should rebel and be willing to pay the iron price for failure.

    Apologies if my snark was overdone, but I don't agree with this. In my view, the NAP is the only law, and is the only law I'm obligated to follow. I'll try to change any laws that run counter to the NAP, but I'm not going to start adhering to unjust laws just because the political process fails.

    I came to this position precisely because I began my adult life as an anarchist and I tried like hell to do it your way. It doesn't work.

  • ||

    And just to reiterate the central point: believing that the NAP is the only law is not the same thing as just picking and choosing which laws you want to follow and which you don't.

  • VOTE MILES||

    I also privilege the NAP as a guiding principle. But I think it is utter nonsense to call it a "law" in anything more than a figurative sense or to suggest that it could serve as a practical substitute. To suppose otherwise strikes me not only as unaccountably naive but genuinely irresponsible.

  • ||

    To suppose otherwise strikes me not only as unaccountably naive but genuinely irresponsible.

    Yet you said just above that to suggest that you are saying that all laws should be followed to the letter without reflection is unfair.

    So how do you determine which laws count as laws and which don't without being naive and irresponsible? What makes some laws ones that obviously any reasonable person would agree should be followed and some ones that are no big deal that can be ignored in good conscience?

  • VOTE MILES||

    Actually, I said it was naive and irresponsible to suppose that you could or should treat the NAP as a substitute for the law.

    I also said:

    If you don't like the laws, you should fight the laws. If you can't fight the laws, you should leave the jurisdiction. If you can't leave the jurisdiction, you should rebel and be willing to pay the iron price for failure.

    I might have added that you should remove yourself from any position in which you may be called upon to enforce such laws.

    But my point was precisely to deny that you have any right to determine which laws count as laws and which don't.

  • rferris||

    Who does this??.................a theoretical human??

  • lulz farmer||

    My liberty is totally impinged upon when I'm not invaded by an unending flood of the third world and made into a hated minority who these newcomers want to make a tax slave of and a sex slave of women of my group. Why can't I hold all of this freedom and why aren't we simply having debates about why five year old prostitutes are fine and selling them heroin is also fine like real Principled Gentlesirs of yesteryear on internet discussions did?

  • Mark22||

    FYI:

    >1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
    Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

    Particularly noteworthy:

    Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

    Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

    Of course, I'm all for civil disobedience as a political means; but civil disobedience includes accepting the penalties that come with breaking laws.

  • AustinRoth||

    The love of illegal immigration is just beyond my comprehension.

    Advocate for different immigration rules, but illegal is illegal, and the consequences for those that break our country's laws are their's alone.

    I also find the hypocrisy of making this the number one problem today, because TRUMP!, truly disgusting. This administration is doing nothing different than the Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc. administrations on this.

  • Cathy L||

    This administration is doing nothing different than the Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc. administrations on this.

    The problem is that's totally false.

  • damikesc||

    Your problem is that it is not.

  • Cathy L||

    No, my problem is that you can't be deported for being a jackass.

  • damikesc||

    Principles, not principals, eh?

  • Cathy L||

    I am anti-jackass in all circumstances.

  • damikesc||

    Yet you tolerate yourself.

    I guess you are anti self reflection,

  • MJBinAL||

    You are stupid. It is a true shame, but you are stupid.

  • ||

    What? Session announced a new zero tolerance policy weeks ago and suddenly the number of separated children has skyrocketed. You're wilfully ignorant if you don't understand the difference.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Skyrockted usually means much greater than before. Which means it was being done before.

    Every admin does something a little different, so to claim otherwise would be false. There may be general likenesses, but still differences. For example under the ATEP program, the Obama admin would release the kid's parent a thousand miles away from where the kid was held.

  • damikesc||

    Given the media claiming photos taken in 2014 were recent, I do not take their reporting on how unprecedented this is terribly seriously.

    The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia hypothesis is a shockingly accurate phenomenon.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The media is even doing stories about how the liberals messed up releasing Obama era photos and how it gutted their emotional position.

    This shit is priceless.

  • Hackmaschine Mutter||

    NPR: "Deportations, or "removals" increased in each of the first four years President Obama was in office, topping 400,000 in fiscal year 2012. Obama oversaw more deportations than George W. Bush did, just as Bush oversaw more than Bill Clinton did."

  • BYODB||

    And, for what it's worth, the Obama administration changed the definition of deportations which could only adjust the numbers of what is considered a deportation upwards.

  • rferris||

    Come on, it is not totally false. All the laws Trump is enforcing were on the book during Obama's terms. He did enforce the laws sporadically , unevenly and intermittently, but he did do the same stuff on a more limited scale.
    Glen Beck did a show on Obama's detention camps and the National Review did a full expose........the media was not interested in manipulating you at that time.
    Trump IS enforcing the laws on the book consistently and with vigor.

    SO, you are WRONG to say totally false when it is mostly true.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Completely false. This is a new policy.

  • ||

    Whether or not it's a new policy really depends. In the context of dealing with illegal immigration generally speaking, this a totally new, thinking-outside-the-box approach to dealing with the criminal inaction of the Obama administration on this crucial issue.

    When it comes to the bad optics of the screaming children, this is no change from previous policy and the Obama administration was actually far more effective at removing illegals.

  • BYODB||

    Which, in terms of Obama, was worse in my view since he campaigned on reforming immigration and spent all his political capital on...not immigration reform.

    With Trump, he's doing more or less exactly what he campaigned on. Even if that thing is a bad thing, it's at the very least a more honest thing overall.

  • ||

    Even if that thing is a bad thing, it's at the very least a more honest thing overall.

    I agree. I'm just endlessly amused at the contortions Trump's apologists have to keep indulging in while loudly declaring their principled consistency. It's either a new approach or it isn't. The Obama administration was either turning a blind eye to illegal immigration and letting smugglers use children as "get out of jail free cards" or the administration was also separating families under the exact same policy Trump's administration is, but it can't be both.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Obama hated America so much, he employed the exact same policy that Trump is now using!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obama loved America so much, he employed the exact same policy that Trump is now using!

  • BYODB||

    On this I absolutely agree. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, and I'm sure I'm not immune to it but it's always easier to spot from afar.

    I think Trump gets more of a bad rap than he necessarily deserves, but much of it is deserved. If I take away the central premise that Trump is somehow deranged, I find that there's perfectly reasonable justifications for at least some of the things he does. Not all of them, but more than he's given credit for.

  • ||

    I think Trump gets more of a bad rap than he necessarily deserves

    No doubt. The greatest disservice the left wing media is doing to the country is being so completely unhinged about leaping to frame absolutely every thing he does as the worst, craziest, most unprecedentedly Hitlery thing ever. It makes it trivially simple for his supporters to dismiss critics and ignore the actually stupid and contradictory things he does.

    The trouble is that the actually stupid and contradictory things are pretty far from being beyond the pale and are mostly pretty typical. Both sides want to pretend he's being super revolutionary, when the open secret is that he is more of the same in so many ways.

    The MSM (both sides) just doesn't want actual debate - they are much more happy with two sides shrieking crazy-pants BS at each other until a riot starts.

  • BYODB||


    The MSM (both sides) just doesn't want actual debate - they are much more happy with two sides shrieking crazy-pants BS at each other until a riot starts.

    Well, in many cases it's easier than defending their indefensible views I suppose. I've even heard that logic and reason themselves are outmoded and should be done away with since they're patriarchal constructs, which is one of the most anti-feminist arguments I think I've ever heard in my life.

  • MJBinAL||

    The new approach Trump is taking is ... enforcing the law more consistently. He didn't write the law. The law did not change. And the practices did not change. He is just enforcing the law more, and more consistently.

  • ||

    The new approach Trump is taking is ... enforcing the law more consistently.

    So - Obama didn't do the same thing? . . . Or he did?

  • hello.||

    Nope. It isn't. This is not a debatable point in any way shape or form. This policy dates to 2002. The Trump administration actually enforcing the law is a novel change from 8 years of Obama not enforcing the law. But the policy has not changed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obama was the person who said that "...if you have deep ties to this country and you are willing to get right by the law and do what you need to do, then you shouldn't have to worry about being deported or being separated from your kids."

    Obama statements about separating immigrant kids

  • MJBinAL||

    All of which was in violation of the law.

    Once again, the change is that Trump is enforcing the law more, and more consistently.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Completely false Baculum. Here is Obama discussing it.

    President Obama made a personal plea Friday for the families of Central America not to send their children to America, trying to stanch the crisis of illegal immigrant youths flooding across the border.
    "Our message is absolutely don't send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers," Mr. Obama said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
    He made the plea in response to a bipartisan group of senators who Thursday demanded that he "personally make clear" that minors jumping the border won't get special treatment.
    The president, who continues to struggle with how to deal with the thousands of unaccompanied alien children flooding across the southern border, stressed that the journey to America isn't safe for children traveling alone and that the U.S. will send them home after they arrive.
    "Our message is absolutely don't send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers," he said. "That is our direct message to the families of Central America: Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they'll get sent back. More importantly, they might not make it."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Problem is, there are actually two different policies being discussed.

    The first is the one that authorizes family separations. That has been around for a while, yes.

    The second is Jeff Sessions' new 'zero-tolerance' policy. That is very recent.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jeff Sessions would never implement a major policy shift without Trump's approval and Trump was partly elected to be tough on illegals and secure the borders more.

    I am not even sure what 'zero tolerance' is supposed to be with immigration. No president including Trump has ever turned away every single immigrant.

    Is Trump being tough on immigrants? Yup.

    I thought Obama has a short period where he was tough on immigrants and turned away a bunch of them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am not even sure what 'zero tolerance' is supposed to be with immigration.

    Well, perhaps you should take it up with him.

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions today notified all U.S. Attorney's Offices along the Southwest Border of a new "zero-tolerance policy" for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien.

  • lulz farmer||

    None of these people have to live near the teeming masses of savages they bring in. They get to externalize the costs onto you, so why would they care as long as they profit from the perverse incentives present?

  • JoeBlow123||

    Ehh, the more I read news the more I am convinced I should start exploring options to immigrate to Japan or Australia or New Zealand or some place not yet infected with this type of baloney.

  • Harvard||

    Lol. I'd pay good money to see the look on your puss when you see the litany of restrictions those named countries put on immigration.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I never said it was possible or even easy. Which is exactly what I would be looking for, yes? A country that actually screens applicants?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are still plenty of us willing to fight for Americans deciding what immigration policy will be and it wont be open borders.

  • Dadlobby||

    For over 30 years US (anti) family courts have been stripping one parent of their rights without cause to feed state coffers with reimbursements from the federal government under Title IVd of the Social Security Act to the point that 40% of children live absent their biological father (60% in the African American community). Parental rights have been undermined by the regulatory nanny state (see free range kids) and the public education system. The "war on drugs" ensures we have a high percentage of men in prison, ripped from their children, and no butthurt screaming there. It is a crime to enter the US illegally, and the (liberal) courts have ruled you can't incarcerate children in with those charged with crimes. This isn't about children, if you cared you would address parental/father/men's rights issues of U.S. citizens.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Go dads!

  • Jerryskids||

    Personally, I'm about one more story away from advocating machine-gunning the children in a trench. Anything to get this nonsense to stop.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would not want that but Americans have a right to secure their borders and admit who they want based on the Rule of Law.

  • ||

    The real truth is that almost all the minorities look at whites and the good things they have, and say:

    "You know, they're no better than us! If we just lived in the same country as they did, we'd do just as well! They just steal everything!"

    So they run to the white countries and live shoulder to shoulder with the hated white thieves. And when they realize that they are not the same, they go into a state of cognitive dissonance, where they can't admit the truth. They really aren't as good.

    Abortions, bastard kids, crooks, tax cheats, drug users, street gangs, failing schools, closing hospitals, welfare fraud, affirmative action, drunk driving, wife beating, etc.--the list goes on and on. Its quite a price to pay for a hamburger cook, a lawn mower, or a cleaning lady. Hispanic family values--what a laugh!

    The left is still pushing thee same ol' racist nonsense. If you don't like your country being illegally overrun by worthless Hispanics, you are a racist, and you have a problem. You can't believe your lying eyes and those damn statistics. Hispanics should be judged as individuals, until there are enough of them here to shoulder you out, then its back to the tribe. Its just another variation on the same theme.

    Go to sleep, little sheep. Watch your movies and read your books until the country is ruined. Tribalism is for bad people. You don't want to be bad now, do you? Sit back and play nice until its all over. Schumer and Pelosi said so!

  • Cathy L||

    Cool story bro.

  • ||

    If you don't like your country being illegally overrun by worthless Hispanics, you are a racist.

    Your argument here is that white people are inherently superior and that the colored only come here through a sort of cargo-cult thinking where if they come and stand next to white people they can pretend to be white people's equals, which they will never be.

    There is no law against you making this argument, but the argument is in fact racist, pretty much by definition. Grow a pair and own it.

  • hello.||

    Statistical reality is racism.

  • ||

    Statistical reality is racism.

    Have the balls to argue that other races are inferior without denying that it's a racist argument. That's what I'm saying. The passive-aggressive posturing is just pathetic.

  • ||

    Yes, certain races are intellectually inferior on average. Sorry if that truth hurts.

  • ||

    Yes, certain races are intellectually inferior on average. Sorry if that truth hurts.

    I'm not even arguing against you're oft-debunked and idiotically collectivist point, and your "truth" causes me no angst because I doubt there are many on this green globe of ours who give a shit what you think about anything.

    What I'm asking you to do is to stop pissing and whining about people calling you a racist. Because you're a racist. And a whiny cunt to boot.

  • vek||

    Uhhh, it's never been debunked actually... All the statistics show clear differences in IQ between different ethnic groups, that are consistent world wide. The gap varies, but the hierarchy is always consistent. Environment plays a part, but so does genetics. If it was all environment then starving children in Asia wouldn't have vastly higher IQs than well fed middle class blacks in America... But they do.

    There's a reason life outcomes by ethnicity are PERFECTLY aligned no matter where a given ethnicity lives in the world. Jews have the highest IQs of any discernible ethnic group, then East Asians, then Europeans, then others in between, and finally sub Saharan Africans. Coincidentally Jews, Asians, and Europeans (in that order) are always the most successful everywhere in the world, others are in between, and Africans always the least.

    It sucks that evolution didn't have social justice in mind when it optimized humans for existing in different environments, but nature isn't fair.

    Fortunately they've identified the first several hundred genes related to intelligence, so science will probably get this all sorted out beyond ANY shadow of a doubt before too long. The Chinese (and other Asians) still openly admit racial differences, and have zero problem doing research into the subject. Debunking the lie that all people are interchangeable widgets, no matter their ethnicity or sex, may be the only good thing that comes about from Chinese domination in the 21st century.

  • rferris||

    Intelligence is not the only indicator of success. I feel that our highly intelligent left wing professors at our universities show that using intelligence as a proxy for being worthwhile is a fools errand.
    It is OK to say America has the strongest and fastest black people in the world........it is not OK to ponder why.
    Charles Murray is still being vilified for his accurate book on the subject. ( the bell curve).
    If you believe the nonsense that all cultures are equal, then you are stupid enough to believe all races are identical......................otherwise science and accepted research has shown that things are not that simple.

  • vek||

    Raw intelligence is not all that matters. However it is mighty important at the statistical level. Especially in this ever more complicated world intelligence is simply becoming even more important. 1000 years ago being big and strong was super important still, even in the most advanced societies on earth. Nowadays it's a secondary nice to have thing at best for 90% of professions.

    But yeah, people who ignore the pretty clear leanings all the evidence shows about group differences... It's just being delusional because you don't like reality. It's no better than socialists who completely ignore all the hard evidence that socialism brings poverty.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I know, right?

    Alt-Right Shitlord: argle-bargle 'brown people are inferior' argle-bargle

    Normal People: That's a pretty awful argument, and racist to boot

    Alt-Right Shitlord: STOP CALLING ME RACIST, YOU SJW!!!

  • MJBinAL||

    Good Lord, the earth must be changing it's spin. I kinda agree with you. I cringe every time ActualRightWingPatriot posts. BUT, don't let him fool you, all of those labelled Alt-Right by the media are not racists. Although ActualRightWingPatriot certainly is. (ActualRightWingPatriot, Dude, just SHUT. UP.)

  • lulz farmer||

    Hey all, normal rational person here. Come pound my wife and destroy my country and people. I'm normal and rational.

  • BYODB||

    And, given their user name, it's almost certainly a case of Poe's Law.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, I don't think it is, unless it's OBL-level deep-parody with even more commitment.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, it is true that Poe's Law cuts both ways...

    I'm from the truly rural part of Texas, so I have indeed met this type. They are out there, it's true. Hell, I've met old timers that still hold a grudge against the Japanese which is...an impressive level of hatred given the time frame.

  • lulz farmer||

    "Racism" is a meaningless buzzword you're using to try to delegitimize whites having any countries where we won't be ground into the dustbin of history via unending immigration, slanted policies that cripple our birth rates by siphoning our wealth away and the promotion, pressuring and coercing of abominations like miscegenation. No one needs to justify anything to you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, the immigrant argument is that whites are racists for not allowing the superior brown people into the USA>

  • ||

    Some have argued that it is difficult to find a way to enforce immigration law without violating the NAP and creating an intrusive police state that is a bigger problem than the immigrants, but you tend to ignore those people and instead argue with Tony (even when you're not actually arguing with Tony).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You dont even need a national ID card to enforce immigration law.

    Create a border zone to deter and prevent most illegal immigration. Make the punishment for aiding, abetting or assisting illegal immigration to work or live in the USA punishable by death. You get one warning.

    Make all visa overstay offenses a warning and then death on the second offense.

    Make works visas tied to family and employers so they are financially responsible if the visa holder does not leave the USA when ordered to.

    All immigrant babies wanting to enter the USA must have an American lefty to put them in their house and take care of them.

    Also the USA would have no welfare or social security.

  • ||

    Yeah, see, a lot of us would put all you say here under the heading of "creating an intrusive police state that is a bigger problem than the immigrants."

  • rferris||

    No Kidding, this must be a leftist solution, because it is worse than the problem

  • lulz farmer||

    Flooding my country with millions of racially alien peasants, forcing me to pay for them via taxation, externalizing onto me the costs of having them here so you can profit and then setting policy to benefit them at my expense are all forms of aggression, brah. This autistic libertarian insistence that only direct force is aggression is stupid. If you blockbust my community with these savages, you're using a form of aggression on me and I have every right to respond with my recreational nukes.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Get a load of the Bircher here...

  • Mark22||

    And in Germany...

    In recent days, Ms. Merkel has faced an increasingly virulent mutiny over the issue, which threatens to fracture her governing coalition as early as next week.

    The mutiny is led by her own interior minister, Horst Seehofer, a former Bavarian premier with a towering stature and plenty of beer-tent charisma, who sounds more in line with the nativist forces shaping politics in neighboring countries than with his own boss.

    His region found itself on the front line of the refugee crisis in 2015, when Ms. Merkel opened the borders to hundreds of thousands of migrants who poured into Bavaria. He has long been an outspoken critic of her decision, and in recent days the two leaders have been locked in a standoff.

  • Mark22||

    Nice...

    "The Bavarian conservatives are closing ranks with Europe's populists," said Andrea Römmele, a professor at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin. "This is serious. It's pure populism."

    Heaven forbid government implement policies that voters actually want! Heresy!

    Reminds me of Yes Minister!

    [Government] is for what the people don't want but ought to have!
  • Cathy L||

    I hope you enjoy the future of US gun control as much as you're enjoying that story.

  • hello.||

    I wasn't aware that gun control enjoyed broad popular support. Or that migrant resettlement was an enumerated constitutional right.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

    67% believe gun laws "should be made more strict".

    92% favor requiring universal background checks.

    70% are in favor of requiring all guns to be registered with the police.

    Be careful about the populism you wish for.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, we have the 2nd Amendment which makes populist notions of gun control impossible to fully implement. That and the majority of Americans do NOT support gun control.

  • lulz farmer||

    lol if you think that the 2nd amendment will matter when the country is a majority brown communists who hate whites. They'll wipe their ass with your constitution.

    That's the main impetus behind the pushers of mass immigration, though, because it in reality has impoverished America, most American people and the people of the west for that matter. These countries probably have never had lower living standards and have not had higher amounts of debt. That's what you get, though, when you bring in masses of people who are incapable of producing more value than they consume.

  • BYODB||

    Be careful when citing statistics based upon methods that are proven to be less than predictive.

  • MJBinAL||

    Be careful about the sources for your stats. Gallup has a reputation for using leading questions to get the poll results they want.

  • KevinP||

    In my experience, the American public often expresses an opinion in favor of abstract "common sense gun regulations", but when the gun ban lobby comes up with a specific proposal like "let us ban common rifles with folding stocks and irrelevant cosmetic features", the public runs from it like it was a leper.

    Poll from Bloomberg-Bankrolled School Misleads on Support for Gun Control


    Quote:
    In 2016, gun control supporters asked Maine voters to vote for Question 3, which would have required background checks on private firearm transfers. Mainers rejected the measure 52 to 48 percent.

    That same year, a ballot measure asked Nevadans to support the criminalization of private transfers. The poorly constructed measure barely passed; 50.45 - 49.55 percent.

    In 2014, Washington voters approved I-594, which imposed a background check requirement on even some of the most innocuous conduct involving firearms. More popular, the measure still only passed 59-41 percent.

    In a piece for the New York Times titled, "Support for Gun Control Seems Strong. But It May Be Softer Than It Looks," Margot Sanger-Katz discussed this divergence.

    The author noted that "While a wide range of gun control laws appear popular in polls, support may soften once details emerge and they're subjected to a robust political debate."
  • loveconstitution1789||

    More and more Americans are getting the unconstitutional gun control law rolled back.

    2nd Amendment!

  • Mark22||

    You're thinking in false dichotomies.

    See, I like limited government with enumerated powers. One of those powers is border control; gun control is not one of those powers.

    Within the framework of limited, enumerated powers, I prefer government that actually represents the people, rather than the preferences of a ruling elite.

    I know, it can be a hard concept to grasp, but give it some thought, Cathy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Within the framework of limited, enumerated powers, I prefer government that actually represents the people, rather than the preferences of a ruling elite.

    Really? Even when those same people demand gun control? How about when they demand welfare? How about when they demand single-payer health care? Should the elites tell them no?

    You can't have it both ways. You can't be in favor of 'populism' only as long as you agree with the mob.

  • vek||

    Did you miss the whole part about LIMITED, ENUMERATED POWERS???

    He's saying the government should be very limited in the types of things it can do. But within the things it is allowed to do, it should more or less be governed by what most people want.

    It's not a very bad way of thinking about things really, if the limited and enumerated powers are properly limited.

  • Mark22||

    Really? Even when those same people demand gun control? How about when they demand welfare? How about when they demand single-payer health care? Should the elites tell them no?

    I think I was crystal clear: I think government should represent the people even when the people make choices that I disapprove of.

    You can't have it both ways.

    I'm not trying to have it "both ways", you are: "Chemjeff, the totalitarian individualist"

  • rferris||

    I believe it is the 'elite" that are running the mob.....do you think all the major media covering the same stories from the same angle is random???

  • VOTE MILES||

    beer-tent charisma

    Sounds a lot like "beer-hall charisma", which sounds like he might be in favour of some kind of putsch, which sounds very ominous indeed. Right-thinking citizens take note!

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    It's so annoying that communists keep showing up in America to stand up for human rights and dignity. Why won't they stop so we can talk about Josef Stalin? Hmmppff!

    Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen decided to wind down from a long few days of lying her ass off about the Trump administration's family separation policy by dining at a fancy Mexican restaurant in D.C. So, activists at the Metro D.C. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America decided to pay her a visit.

    Metro D.C. DSA member Margaret McLaughlin said that the DSA got a tip that Nielsen was at MXDC Cocina Mexicana, which is situated just a short walk from the White House. On about 30 minutes notice, around 15 DSA members showed up and filed into the restaurant, and yelled "Abolish ICE," "Shame," and "End Texas concentration camps!" at the DHS secretary while she tried to enjoy her dinner.

  • Mark22||

    It's so annoying that communists keep showing up in America to stand up for human rights and dignity. Why won't they stop so we can talk about Josef Stalin? Hmmppff!

    That's how communists and socialists operate: they claim to stand for human rights and dignity, and when they get into power, they turn into mass murdering dictators. Each and every time. That's the essence of socialism.

    And it isn't merely "annoying", it is scary as hell that these people aren't condemned for the proponents of an evil, mass murdering ideology that they are.

  • ||

    It's so annoying that communists can't seem to deal with anything at all without resorting to mindless mobs chanting hyperboles at people who are powerless to do what they ask.

    Michael Moore lives!

  • cyndilou||

    Is Tony Cathy L now?

  • hello.||

    Most likely another Hihn or Palin's Buttplug sockpuppet.

  • ||

    Most likely another Hihn or Palin's Buttplug sockpuppet.

    I see - you're one of those people.

  • Ariki||

    Lol a buttplug in a sock.
    :oD

  • Mark22||

    Lol a buttplug in a sock.

    Isn't that called a "blackjack"?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Here's Stephen Miller's Cell Phone Number, If You Need It
    The Trump administration's policy of separating immigrant children from their families has been credited primarily to the strenuous efforts of White House adviser Stephen Miller. Perhaps you would like to call him about it....

  • damikesc||

    I remember when doxxing was bad.

    Then the media decided to dox people left and right if they angered them.

  • Ariki||

    Mob rule FTW.
    I'm sure that will end in utopia......

  • ||

    Yessssss. This article, and the shitstorm of hateful comments it's sure to provoke, give me life.

  • colorblindkid||

    You had me until "And the way things are going in this country, we may someday need access to reasonably humane smuggling channels to get ourselves across the border in reverse." Ruined the entire article. Unnecessary hyperbolic attempts at snark are infuriating.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    2chili and his band of mercenaries will be mt first choice for smuggling services in AZ. Those guys go above and beyond to help your kid blend in by kitting them out with a Nintendo DS, authentic pizza grease fingers, and a Diamondbacks Yankees cap.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I don't understand. If they are "refugees", shouldn't they be applying for asylum in Mexico?

    I don't think we should be prosecuting first time offenders and splitting up families. They should be documented and shipped back to central america, and notified that if they do return, they will be prosecuted and likely separated from their children during detention.

  • ||

    I don't think we should be prosecuting first time offenders and splitting up families. They should be documented and shipped back to central america, and notified that if they do return, they will be prosecuted and likely separated from their children during detention.

    How dare you suggest a reasonable compromise!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mexico is a shithole though.

    They want into America and that is all there is to their fight. The lefties and open border will say whatever it takes to get that.

    Luckily, there are enough of us on the other side to get the border closed and as many deported as possible.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They should be documented and shipped back to central america

    When Obama did that, the Republicans complained that it was "catch and release" and therefore he was "soft on immigration".

    Trump/Sessions are doing what they are doing because Republicans don't find your idea to be a suitable compromise.

  • damikesc||

    After the same people are sent back repeatedly, then yes, it is soft.

    I'd give them ONE send back. Then it's jail. No trial, no nothing. Jail.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Then it's jail. No trial, no nothing. Jail.

    Gee, that kind of power could never be abused.... /sarc

    So it's indefinite detention then? Like the Gitmo detainees? Penniless Guatemalans deserve the same punishment as Al Qaeda terrorists?

  • BYODB||

    You might have more success if you noticed that he said that was for a second offense, although I'd say imprisonment of illegal aliens is a cost I'd rather not bear since it'll almost certainly be higher than any of the other potential costs outside of direct transfer payments made to the illegal immigrant.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually I'm wrong, that is not what the term 'catch and release' refers to.

    But nonetheless I doubt that modern Republicans would stand for this type of compromise.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Now that Republicans now have evidence in hand that lefties are trying to flood the USA with immigrants to change demographics.

    Fuck them! These people are not stealing our Democratic Constitutional Republic with a bunch of non-Americans voting for free-shit giving Democrats.

  • Mark22||

    But nonetheless I doubt that modern Republicans would stand for this type of compromise.

    Not only do they stand for that, that's pretty much practice under Trump/Sessions.

    The way parents stay separated from their kids for any length of time is (1) if they sneak into the country illegally, then (2) claim asylum, then (3) have their asylum application rejected, and (4) appeal the rejection.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not only do they stand for that, that's pretty much practice under Trump/Sessions.

    Jeff "Zero Tolerance" Sessions would like to have a word with you.

  • Mark22||

    Jeff "Zero Tolerance" Sessions would like to have a word with you.

    No, he would like to have a word with liars like you.

  • BYODB||

    When Obama did it, I think the issue that was taken with the 'release' half was specifically which side of the border they were released on.

  • rferris||

    yowee are you wrong...................most were released INSIDE of the USA and that was what the complaining was about.
    You seem to have missed the topic when it was in the news during the last administration.

  • MJBinAL||

    ^THIS^

    By definition, anyone from a country that does not share a border with the US should not be eligible to claim asylum. The International Law that progressives love so much says that they must apply with the first country they enter.

    So, we should only consider applications for asylum from Mexicans and Canadians.

  • Mark22||

    So, we should only consider applications for asylum from Mexicans and Canadians.

    We should also have a limited list of countries from which asylum is granted. Few places in the Americas should qualify. Furthermore, domestic violence and crime are not justifications for asylum.

    And asylum should be a temporary status, not a pathway to immigration.

  • lulz farmer||

    No no, you see, being from a poor country that's poor because it's populated by people like you is now grounds for "asylum." It means you're somehow oppressed and you get to welfare shop for handouts in a wealthy white country.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Can I donate to an organization that smuggles people from Guatemala to Canada?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How to Fight Inhumane Immigration Policies? Better Smugglers
    Improving smuggling efforts isn't ideal, but it's better than just watching kids get torn from their families.

    There is no problem. The more illegals deported, the better.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Huh. I didn't think Reason would actually go there. But they did.

  • ||

    Anyone who denies the reality of race, that average IQs varies tremendously among the races, is part of the problem.

  • ||

    There's a term for people who think one race is superior to all others. Will you cry if someone applies it to you?

    *readies Kleenex box*

  • ||

    Nope. Because racist requires treating someone immorally. Believing in facts cannot be racist.

  • MJBinAL||

    Sorry, but you are very wrong. You are making a big mistake. Your views and values make you a racist. If you act upon them you are guilty of racial discrimination. Being a racist jackass is not against the law. Depending on the situation, racial discrimination is.

    Get that difference? Racist?

  • ||

    ^ What MJB says. Your argument is "it's not immoral to be racist, because non-white races are, in fact, inferior to whites."

    That you are personally racist is not a debatable thing: it's just a function of language and what words mean.

  • ||

    No. Racism is immorally treating people badly as individuals because of the group they're in. It's not racist to ascribe negative traits to a group.

  • vek||

    It depends on your definition. In the OLD definition of the term racist it generally required somebody to HATE everybody of a certain race, simply because they were of that race. Acting upon it may have been needed in some peoples minds too.

    You're using the NEW definition of the word racist, which is to say anybody who believes there could be A SINGLE DIFFERENCE AT ALL between any given genetic populations is a racist.

    I'm very much not racist based upon the old, traditional meanings of the word. However because I can accept the unpleasant fact that human groups (whether you want to use race, ethnicity, nationality, etc) DO have statistically valid differences in tons of traits... That makes me racist in 2018. Yet, the facts still stand. Some groups are taller than others, some groups are stronger than others, and, dare I say it... Some groups are smarter than others.

    There's overlap between populations on all traits, but the fact is that statistical averages DO exist, and those differences effect real world outcomes, whether you like it or not.

  • vek||

    There's a reason Jews and East Asians are incredibly successful minority populations IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD where they live. Yet there is not a single country on earth where Africans have ever become a successful minority group. The only small sub groups that have ever even done so so are when we specifically skimmed nothing but the cream of the crop from entire countries, like from some Caribbean countries... But that's just skimming the cream, which has nothing to do with the average.

    I don't LIKE the fact that intelligence varies so much between groups, but it is not even disputed by mainstream science that IQ scores vary widely. The only argument at all is whether it is genetic or environmental. Even if you believe that it is 100% environmental (which it is not) it still explains why blacks do so poorly everywhere in the world (since at present their IQs are far lower), and Chinese are super successful (their IQs are higher than even whites).

  • vek||

    If it is environmental then priority number one should be to figure out a way to raise black IQs via environment to match those of whites or Asians. This would solve their poverty problem, their crime problem, and end racism since the reason people are biased is mostly because they SEE the problems caused by blacks in everyday life.

    Nobody is racist against Chinese people in the way we supposedly are against blacks... That's because they make more money and commit less crime than whites, and whites instinctively know this even if they don't know the stats that prove it.

    So figure out how to improve black IQs and you can end racism! Until that happens they will be low income compared to Jews/Asians/Whites, and have higher crime rates, which will make some people weary of their presence in too great of numbers. Even those that claim to be not racist would NEVER dare move into an all black neighborhood, because their altruism ends when it starts to personally involve their own safety and security.

  • rferris||

    Superior in what way?? Asians have higher IQ's than whites on the average, as I am white, does saying that make me a racist or does it make me a person who respects truth and knowledge.

  • vek||

    That's what is so stupid about it all. Whites aren't even the smartest ethnic group, Jews and Asians are both smarter! Yet it's only racist if white people believe that there are any objective facts on the subject. So dumb.

  • MJBinAL||

    Just Great! ;-/

    So the new policy with smugglers and the illegals they handle should be ... shoot to kill and leave the bodies lay.

    Asshole.

  • 1allen23||

    So, the Hitler lefties now want the children to be with their parents in jail??? WOW!!! The left has hit a new low. The intent of the law passed by congress and signed by Clinton was to protect the children from the harsh jails while their parents wait for a hearing which could take months. Is that really what the lefties want? Talk about cruel and inhumane!! The lefties are disgusting!!!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Outrage troll attempt is weak. Go back to Vox, cynic.

  • DListon1||

    Ya, Trump does and says stupid, over the top and nutty shit sometimes but this is more proof his detractors are even worse. This article is perfect example how the Anti Trumpers have lost their minds and morals

  • vek||

    WOW.

    Encouraging smugglers to get better at bringing illegal immigrants into the country... WOW. That is some serious stupid.

    If we don't end up fixing our horrible immigration policies I will have one solace in my old age: I will be able to tell all the morons like this "See, we all fucking told you so! We told you allowing unlimited low skilled immigration from the 3rd world was a bad fucking idea, but you geniuses just wouldn't listen. Now look what we have, a 2nd world country because they dragged us down by their sheer numbers. And I'm sure you're happy that governments size and scope has tripled right? Fucking morons."

    Of course if we win and save the country from this we will eternally have to listen to how cruel, and evil we were to not allow millions of dish washers in, and how much better the country would have been with them all... Between being able to say "I told ya so!" and actually saving the country I still have to go with saving the country though.

  • Dan S.||

    harnessing the ingenuity and resources of private groups and public officials that already oppose the current administration to more directly confront its policies.

    No public official has any business getting involved in something like this. And no one with children of his/her own should risk arrest, and consequent separation from those children, for the sake of unknown other children. But if some childless people who are not "public servants" feel a need to take that risk, go for it. Maybe lets see, though, if family separations really are stopped, or greatly reduced, under the new executive order issued after this piece was published.

  • BILKER||

    I agree we should not separate families. Heard them all together onto barges and cattle boats and take them to nearest port to their home country and dump em off. That should cost far less than confining them in old walmart stores and feeding, clothing and medicating them. Send em back immediately!!!
    BTW; F*CK DENIRO

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    Fucking "Reason", this maybe my last straw. "Better smugglers"? Seriously? You fucking assholes, importing large amounts of a alien population into a culture that has been successful is stupid. All one needs to do is look at the border towns and Europe to see how that works out so well. "Reason" is staffed by Cosmotarians who have no fucking idea about how we live on a day to day basis which is the reason (see what I did there) why they identify with the regressive left. They don't see the skyrocketing crime, or the use of welfare programs sky rocket out of control they site pro globalist bull shit numbers to show that all immigration is good. Its not.

  • lulz farmer||

    Why does no one take libertarianism seriously anymore? I just can't figure it out when I read articles like this.

  • Kalja||

    Not only by building a wall, but laying a huge anti-personel minefield as well.

    The ones who tried to enter illegally put the children in harms way. NOT the ones protecting nations borders. You are advocating undermining the rule of law.

    Can you imagine how a person from some far away country, say like Finland is looking at this? The jaw needs to be picked up from the floor regularly. You are not speaking in some mysterios forbidden language. Everyone can understand you. Why do you think people like Orban are in power in eastern europe? Why Italy went fully rightwing populist?

    We are listening, watching, reading. Most of the time in utter bewilderment and astonishment. Not going to allow this happen in my country. Ever. Immigration and especially illegal, unwanted, uninvited immigrants can suck my arse. We do not owe them or anyone else on this planet anything.

    Not a leftist anymore. And I'm just a drop in the flood of the working class and former leftists exiling themselves to the so called "right wing populists". Labour unions are already feeling it. Last (and my final) meetup was a constant whine about declining memberships. They can eat shit too. Not coming back as long there is even a single pro-immigration communist as a member.

    People like you, who unironically advocate for removal of the rule of law have played a major role in all this. I dont want to be even mistakenly to be associated with likes of you.

  • Adrian Day||

    If you advocate open borders, then you should have the honesty to say so. If you do not, however, surely the immigration laws should be enforced in some way or another. Helping to smuggle more children into the country would not be good for most of the children and would not be good for U.S. taxpayers. Why is it that you think the immigration laws should be totally ignored and not other laws? I don't know any other country on earth where I can go with my child (or perhaps a borrowed child) and expect to walk in and set up shop, with the "right" to "free" (that is, taxpayer-funded) schooling for my child.

  • rferris||

    Reason needs to hire some actual Libertarians, they are losing it!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    When you're so addicted to MUH TACO TRUCKS that you come out in favor of human trafficking.

  • Deplorable Victor||

    You are ridiculous and criminal. Putthe army on the border. Stop the invasion of these criminal lowlives.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online