Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

If You Cross the Border, We’ll Kidnap Your Child

Trump can’t escape responsibility for the predictably cruel consequences of his "zero tolerance" immigration policy.

At a press conference on Monday, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen indignantly rejected the suggestion that her department's practice of forcibly separating illegal border crossers from their children was intended as a deterrent. "I find that offensive," Nielsen said, "because why would I ever create a policy that purposely does that?"

Nielsen's mentor and predecessor, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, has explained why, describing family separation as a way of discouraging people from entering the United States without the government's permission. But even if we take Nielsen at her word, the Trump administration cannot escape responsibility for the predictably cruel consequences of its "zero tolerance" immigration policy.

In a March 2017 interview with CNN, Kelly, who was secretary of homeland security at the time, was asked if his department planned to "separate the children from their moms and dads." His response: "Yes, I am considering it in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network." In an NPR interview last month, Kelly called family separation "a tough deterrent."

Kelly's implicit argument is that the suffering of children snatched from their parents by federal agents is outweighed by the harm that might otherwise befall children whose families would have made the dangerous trip to the U.S. but for the threat of legally sanctioned kidnapping. Nielsen claims to find this logic abhorrent, but in practice that does not matter.

Like the president, Nielsen blames Congress for failing to authorize extended detention of children whose parents are accused of illegal entry. Under current law, she says, people prosecuted for that crime must be separated from their children.

But the decision to bring criminal charges in such cases is a matter of discretion, and prior administrations generally declined to do so when it would mean breaking up families. "What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law," Nielsen explained. "Everyone is subject to prosecution."

As a result of that policy, the number of children separated from adults at the border has surged, from about 100 a month between October and April to nearly 2,000 in the six weeks from April 19 through May 31. Attorney General Jeff Sessions thinks the solution is simple: People driven to the U.S. by violence or poverty should stop bringing their children.

"If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you," Sessions said in a speech last month. "If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Where Sessions sees child smugglers, someone with a gram of compassion would see desperate people trying to do what they think is best for their families. Even Kelly understands that much. "They're not bad people," he told NPR. "They're coming here for a reason. And I sympathize with the reason."

But if you are determined to defend "zero tolerance," you can't afford sympathy. "Parents who entered illegally are, by definition, criminals," Nielsen declared.

"They could be murderers and thieves and so much else," added Trump, who launched his presidential campaign by describing Mexican immigrants as rapists, criminals, and drug dealers (while allowing that "some" might be "good people"). Anyone could be a murderer or thief, I suppose, but we are talking about people charged with nothing but "improper entry," a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail—or, alternatively, a civil offense punishable by a maximum fine of $250.

The Trump administration is effectively enhancing those penalties by adding the threat that the children of violators will be carted hundreds or thousands of miles away, crying out for their parents and having no idea when (or if) they will be reunited. Even if you don't think that trauma is grossly disproportionate for the parents, their children certainly have done nothing to deserve it.

© Copyright 2018 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    OMG. You LINOs have lost your minds.

    Your positIons on this issue just expose your desperation to support non- Americans over Americans. Good luck with that traitors.

    Open borders is a non-Libertarian position. Trump is definitely exposing all you lefties hiding among Libertarians and Republicans.

    MAGA!

  • ||

    Incorrect. You have lost your soul if you support this policy.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Humanity consists of sending children to jail with their parents"

  • ||

    "Humanity consists of sending children to jail with their parents"

    "Anything the President breaks or finds to be broken he has automatically and by default the power to fix."

    "Zero Tolerance is more important than the Drug War, DCFS, or the VA because reasons."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you think that, you are the one with the lost soul.

    My soul belongs to reason and policies that protect America. I am an American not an American't.

  • Mezzanine||

    No,you're an Americunt

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    How do you type with both those dicks in your mouth? Skills, huh?

  • ||

    Yeah I figured you were a troll, but I still wanted to make that comment for any real people reading this.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    "Incorrect. You have lost your soul if you support this policy."

    No, you have lost your soul if you DO NOT support this policy. Or do you support physical abuse, kidnapping, pedophilia and human trafficking? Which is what this policy, in force since 2007, is designed to prevent.

    Better we just build the wall and remove any financial incentives for illegals. To discourage the behavior that leads to the horrors you support.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Immigration control is a collectivist's orgy of wet dreams.

    The core idea that Big Brother knows better than everybody else who they can hire or work for, or trade with, or do business with, or even where and with whom they can visit, is a collectivist wet dream.

    Immigration control requires government ID and snooping, another collectivist wet dream.

    Government enforcement is yet another collectivist wet dream.

    To claim the government is simply prosecuting trespassers requires government collective ownership of land.

    How can anyone square this collectivist orgy of wet dreams with self-ownership, individualism, libertarianism, or freedom in general?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Government enforcement is yet another collectivist wet dream."
    i.e.
    "I splooge when I dream of anarchy"

    Go try maintaining freedom in Anarcotopia without borders. I'm sure we're all interested in seeing the results.

  • RoninX||

    We have more guns than people. That's how we maintain freedom.

  • JoeBlow123||

    No country agrees with you. No peoples agree with you. That makes your position the extremist position, not mine, despite your gnashing of teeth at "collectivists."

    Carry on with your religious proselytizing against the heathens not part of the one true faith though.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Defense of liberty and freedom is extreme? I guess so, among all the collectivists here.

    There's very little libertarian thought among the nations of the world, because the nations of the world are run by statists, by definition.

    Name any other libertarian thought anywhere in the world.

    Name any collectivist thought among libertarians.

    I guess I shall have to call all you caterpillars, because words no longer have any fixed meaning among you.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Yes you are a prosecuted minority holding onto the one true faith. Hold onto it tight.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Immigration control is the Founders intent to put America in the hands of Americans not non-Americans.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Founders' intent? Why did they leave it out of the Constitution?

  • JesseAz||

    Federal powers to determine the regulations on immigration are in the constitution....

  • Dan S.||

    Strictly speaking, they aren't. Control of naturalization is, but that kind of presupposes that the people being naturalized were already physically present. The country's borders were ill-defined in the early days, so the question of "border control" really didn't arise, and what the attitude of the country's founders would have been on the subject is hard to say. It's not technically one of the enumerated powers, but court decisions have long since effectively made it one, and that isn't likely to change.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Immigration is a subset of naturalization. So yes, it is addressed.

  • J1999||

    It was buried in the commerce clause you clown.

  • Nardz||

    Citizen of the world = largest collectivist position

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Only on Reason does an anarchist call the United States of America 'collectivist' in an attempt to make it seem as bad as the Socialist collectivism of the USSR, Nazi Germany, China, North Korea, and Cuba.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    No, I'm calling YOU collectivist on immigration.

  • JesseAz||

    To be fair.... You say a lot of dumb things scarecrow.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    LC appears to be making reasonable arguments Scarecrow. You could learn something from that.

  • hello.||

    Despite the fact that it is YOU who demand collective funding for migrant relocation. And demand collective funding for infrastructure to bring your slave class to your doorstep. And demand collective funding to provide for the housing food education health care and living expenses of your slave class when your slave wages are not adequate for their material survival.

  • RoninX||

    Do you realize that you are literally channeling Marx when you talk about "wage slaves"?

  • Dan S.||

    Nevertheless, fully open borders IS THE POSITION required by libertarian theory, for the reasons that Scarecrow explains. You can say you don't care, you can say it's not practical, but you really can't say it's not libertarian. To call entering the country without the government's permission "trespassing" does imply collective ownership of the country by the government. You can say that it pales into insignificance compared to the crimes of Communism and Nazism, and you'd be right. But I can say that shoplifting pales into insignificance compared to armed robbery, but they are both still properly crimes. Scarecrow calling immigration control "a collectivist's orgy of wet dreams" is silly, since it is our ordinary day-to-day reality, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But either side of the argument condemning the other for being "extreme" just shows what is wrong with the use of that word. Ayn Rand wrote somewhere about how "extremism" is not something that should be inherently condemned, or that even has a real meaning, and she was right; I wish that word wasn't used today as being almost equivalent to terrorism.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Nevertheless, fully open borders IS THE POSITION required by libertarian theory, for the reasons that Scarecrow explains. You can say you don't care, you can say it's not practical, but you really can't say it's not libertarian

    Of course you can.

    Your stance relies on Marxist and leftist ideas about what a nation IS. My stance relies on libertarian ideas about the inviolability of private property

    To you the border is an imaginary line that 'rulers' set up for reasons.

    To me the border is a gigantic property line that the founders agreed to for mutual, voluntary support--and that my grandparents bought into when they petitioned to join the American body politic by becoming citizens. As a citizen I re-affirm that petition every time I vote and pay for the upkeep of the country.

    My stance is backed up by the history, laws, and practices of the US.

    Your stance is a creation of Marxists and leftists--but not JUST Marxists and leftists. It is the stance of Marxists and leftists who are actively working to destroy the ideas behind America because they expose the utter wrongness of every single leftist idea simply by existing.

    It's why they work so hard at not just de-platforming liberal(libertarian), and other right-wing speakers, but also trying to make their words illegal.

  • rferris||

    Well sais and right on as to Libertarian thinking!!!@!

  • hello.||

    Anarchism is not the same as libertarianism. Minarchy is a fully libertarian position. And in order to have minarchy you need to establish jurisdictions for courts at a bare minimum.

  • DarrenM||

    Anarchism means the strong rule. Slavery is effectively "legal" to the extent that means anything. What matters if raw power. I don't see this as very libertarian.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Open borders would be a fine policy...if the other States in the world were on a par with ours. They aren't. A few are better. The vast majority are worse than we were in 1900. If we want to KEEP a society that is better than that, we need to have some kind of filter on who we let in.

    Now, we can argue about what KIND of filter, but we need a filter. As for the 'cruelty' of keeping some people out and not treating them with kid gloves when they come in anyway; that is a cruelty that stems directly from our disinclination to be an Imperial Power. If people want to live in out society, and we won't expand to include them, then they are going to try to break in, aren't they

    *evil grin*

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Open borders can only work in non-welfare states, and if immigrants, while afforded some legal status, are not necessarily granted citizenship.

  • ||

    Open borders can only work in non-welfare states, and if immigrants, while afforded some legal status, are not necessarily granted citizenship.

    Even this ignores some other pretty obvious anti-libertarian consequences.

    Say we run illegal immigrants through military service before granting them citizenship, are we cool with separating them from their families to deport them to Iraq?

    Say we don't do a single damned thing with the drug war, are we cool with separating them from their families for dealing/using rather than immigrating?

    Say we don't do a single damned thing with the domestic spying, if we grant illegal immigrants a foreign agent status does that mean they have no right not to be spied upon (as well as the citizens they interact with by proxy)?

    Do we let Russian hackers and Chinese IP thieves in and grant them citizenship? They get to protest public speakers, right?

    I'm not against making it easier to be a citizen but the fact that open borders rather obviously compromises or sets up the compromising of a lot of liberties that Americans enjoy and hold sacred shows either it to be a half-baked idea or at least the notion that it's inherently libertarian to be incorrect.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    If we had truly open borders, then would it be permissible for 10,000 Chinese soldiers to arrive in our shores and set up camp? According to many who post here, and several of the writers, we have no real say in the matter.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I thought there were 1 billion Chinese...

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    That are all soldiers? No. And in my hypothetical, only 10,000 show up. You can have a billion show up in yours if you want.

  • DarrenM||

    Just for trivia, total PLA active forces = 2,333,000.
    http://www.businessinsider.com.....y-forces-1

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    I notice no one replies to your very good point.

  • ||

    Immigration control is a collectivist's orgy of wet dreams.

    Open borders is a collectivist's orgy of wet dreams.

  • JesseAz||

    An intelligent libertarian understands borders are necessary given the statistics welfare state. You don't seem to be an intelligent libertarian.

  • JesseAz||

    Stupid auto correct. Statist, not statistics.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    "Immigration control is a collectivist's orgy of wet dreams."

    I'm sure you think that. It's also a necessary tool, along with sovereign borders, for our nation's survival. I'm addition to be ing constitutional.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    I can be for border security and not want to see children removed from their mothers. Let them stay with them in a holding cell. If you want to target gang members and welfare frauds I am with you. You want to try to stop illegals at the border I am with you. But if your idea of good law is to use children as a deterrent then no sorry my Catholic upbringing won't ever agree with that. There is special place in Hell for those who hurt children.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As someone pointed out, many of these 'separated' kids arrived at the US border by themselves.

    Who cares anyways. Deport them all. Kids, women, men.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Who cares anyways."

    The border restrictionist position in a nutshell.

    "Who cares about those people!"

  • JesseAz||

    The idiots position in a nutshell...

    "If a single child dies anywhere in the world it is America's restrictionist policies that caused it"

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Chem, your encouragement of these oieole places them in danger. You bear responsibility for harm that comes to them.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    How many of you taken in, Mr. Caring?

  • DarrenM||

    Not just "many". Most.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The other open border tactics are not working, so they sent kids to tug at the heart strings of Americans to let the kids into the USA. Once the kids are allowed to stay, the parents ask to enter the USA.

    Fuck these people hurting kids by using them as pawns.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    hurting kids by using them as pawns.

    It seems that both sides are doing this, quite honestly. The fake media outrage as well as Trump as a negotiating tactic. Such is politics, unfortunately.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Those of us against illegal immigration aren't using them at all. We just want it to stop, and have our sovereign borders respected. Once that's all sorted out, we can look at reasonable numbers for work VISAs and the like. Although with 'the fight for $15' the days of needing to import low education low skilled labor are coming to an end, considering increased automation. Loading up the welfare roles is probably not a great idea.

  • JesseAz||

    Is ignorance the foundation of your argument. The criminal proceedings for the separation reunite the children generally in hours or days. It is the liberal coached asylum claims that extend the incarceration for months due to judicial backlogs. The ninth has ruled that children can not be held for more than 20 days, hence the separation. Reappearance rates for those claiming asylum and being released is under 15%, so release is not a choice. Then there is a fact that we have documented cases of coyotes including non related children in crossings so families can claim children and be released. A 2015 article in the NYT claimed this was a relatively large number of instances. So dhs has to separate children as they determine if there is actually a family relationship.

    The policy of releasing crossers with children only further encourages child trafficking and risks to hildren crossing deadly terrain. Obama himself recognized this fact and in his own word separated families as a deterrent.

  • JoeBlow123||

    When did everything become asylum anyways?

  • JesseAz||

    When it became the preferred open border loophole du jour.

  • Benitacanova||

    Where can I apply? I'm being persecuted by the resistance.

  • NashTiger||

    None of the children have been hurt. None. Zero. Separating them often prevents the hurt. Idiot.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    True. Especially since a lot of them turn out to be not the children of the folks they're with.

  • Lewis Goudy||

    "There is special place in Hell for those who hurt children."

    Is that premise part and parcel of every Catholic upbringing?

    If I were Hell's Architect there would be a special place for those who worship children, and a very special place for those who capitalize--and they are legion--on such idolatry.

  • hello.||

    Catholics lecturing anybody about child abuse is pretty fucking rich.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Open borders is a non-Libertarian position."

    That's incorrect.

    However, I will agree that people losing their minds over this issue is really pretty bad. Is it horrible that families are split up over a non-violent crime? Yes. I watched MSNBC for a little while last night just to see how they were covering the story, and it was so much faux outrage. If it weren't an election year and something to blame Trump for, it would be a pretty small story I think.

  • JesseAz||

    Open borders around a welfare system is indeed an anti libertarian position.

  • ||

    Is it horrible that families are split up over a non-violent crime? Yes. I watched MSNBC for a little while last night just to see how they were covering the story, and it was so much faux outrage.

    Exactly. I said this yesterday, NPR ran three back-to-back stories about how terrible it was that we were separating families at the border and then ran an almost fairy tale piece about a heroine-addicted mother who got her child taken away, recovered, reunited with her extended family who had adopted the child, and eventually regained custody. The juxtaposition of "The separation of children from their parents is a terrible and unforgivable inhumane atrocity... except on the occasions when it produces the (social) outcomes (some) people like." was bizarre. Especially considering how they hammered home that Trump could snap his fingers and make the zero tolerance policy at the border go away without even mentioning the policies, let alone the fact he could arguably do the same thing, with drug users/abusers.

  • JesseAz||

    National review found statistics that 21000 American citizens have their kids handed over to social services due to crimes, the vast majority non violent. Another 100k lose their kids due to CPS. Just yesterday an article on reason highlighted medical separations through CPS because of idiot doctors who disagreed with family doctors. No outrage like these articles though.

  • hello.||

    It's almost like the people flogging this issue don't give a flying fuck about children.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    And don't forget the IG report to distract from.

    If FBI agents Strzok and Page had written about a black suspect and "blacks" and "African Americans" instead of Trump and Trump voters, the media would have already crucified them.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Sorry, the problem is more than just that the kids are being separated from their parents. The problem is that the parents are not being told where there kids are and are not being allowed to communicate with them.

    If the parents in custody were being kept informed on the kids locations and being allowed regular contact with the kids, I would not have much less of an issue with this policy.

    What's more, nursing infants are being separated from their mothers. Just with in the last couple of weeks, there was an incident in the news where ICE agents literally pulled an infant off his mother's breast in the middle of feeding.

  • JesseAz||

    Wow. Lots of blatant lies in your post. I'd link the dhs response about granted phone calls and nursing mother's but you wouldn't read it.

  • XM||

    The parents are given a sheet of paper that explains their options. They can communicate with their children via video conference and phone calls.

    That story about a baby being ripped apart from a mother's breast is a lie.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    From jail? The horror! The horror!

    I vote we set up a law that anyone who brings his kid to shoot Matthew Slyfield in the face gets to leave with his family and a "promise" to show up for a hearing in a few months! Who's with me?

    Nursing infants? Jeez. You really are gullible as fuck, aren't you?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And with this, another meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, And Cruel Immigration Policies And Practices is called to order . . .

    Carry on, clingers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hillary lost. Carry on clingers.

  • DarrenM||

    It's funny how they must cling to the fantasy that Hillary would have been Queen President if only . . .

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Keep calm and cling on, bitter loser.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "If you don't want the liberty of American civilization destroyed, you're an authoritarian racist nazi meany!"

  • Longtobefree||

    Just for the record, the Nazis were socialists.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "We must crush the liberty of foreigners in order to create the gated community faux-liberty of Americans!"

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Chem, do you.make cogent arguments, or just engage in mindless hyperbole? To be honest, your snotty, emotionalism makes me want to shut down all immigration just to spite you.

    Which is the opposite of the persuasive argument you probably think that you make.

  • hello.||

    Controlling entry and departure to and from our national borders does not impinge on the liberty of foreigners.

  • rferris||

    Foreigners have the liberty of coming to our country uninvited and by breaking our laws...............that is some liberty foreigners enjoy in the USA.

    No wonder they want in, as they (and USA citizens) have no such rights in their own country.

    Are you intentionally talking nonsense???

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Well, there's clingers and then there's anal cling-ons. How ya hanging in there, turd?

  • DajjaI||

    I agree this policy is atrocious, but it's been on the book for decades and has just been waiting for someone like Trump to exploit it. The lawmakers knew it was there and they couldn't change it because they just couldn't get the support. So now the chickens have finally come home to roost. But it's good because it exposes the problem and Trump is losing. I'm not going to get hysterical because I'm in it for the long game. We can fix this, but it will take time. Use all peaceful means at our disposal - reason, ridicule, opprobrium. Violence will backfire. Actually all the bolshies on my twitter feed are responding to my pleas of moderation with "If you're not licking our azzes you're the enemy." They then block me and happily proceed as if there is no opposition. They are walking the primrose path into cages that are much smaller than the ones they are getting so worked up about. So let that be a consolation for us libertarians.

  • Spinach Chin||

    Trump is losing so badly he has the highest approval of his presidency.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "No, no, no, it's too much winning, we just can't take it anymore!"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    With all this winning, I almost don't have enough time to build tear barrels for election 2018. Those Democrats are going to lose their asses and start crying again like after election 2016.

  • JesseAz||

    GOP offerred a fix just yesterday and crying Schumer said no.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Because they don't want a fix. They want another wedge issue going into the midterms. Democrats never actually care about these people. They're nothing but cheap devices for progressive exposition. Just like blacks and white blue collare union labor used to be.

  • rferris||

    So TRUE.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Trump can't escape responsibility for the predictably cruel consequences of his "zero tolerance" immigration policy."

    Trump stands convicted of meanyness.

    Still waiting for Reason's masthead to change to Feelz.

    The guy enforcing the law is responsible, not those who passed the law, nor those who broke the law.

    And what is he responsible for? Putting lawbreakers in detention, and not putting their children in detention with them, but putting them in separate facilities.

    Do we have family jail for Americans? Or are their children "cruelly ripped from the arms of their parents"?

    The hysteria in this shows the desperation of Trump's enemies. It's so completely absurd. So predicated in hypocrisy and duplicity. Like so many antiTrump hysterias that the nattering class shrieked were the end of the world, and the end of Trump, it will die with a whimper in a couple of weeks, thoroughly discredited.

    And Trump will still be our President. Get over it. And seek professional help.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am just so glad that people like you are here to point out the Reason inconsistencies in their arguments. It helps my knowledge of the subjects increase as we talk about the issues.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    The guy enforcing the law is responsible, not those who passed the law, nor those who broke the law.

    That is an interesting position, and it seems to me the inevitable outcome of that position is anarchy.

    Anarchy may be better than what we have at this point. When laws in general are perceived as generally corrupt and ill conceived, maybe we already have anarchy.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Yeah, that's pretty retarded. If we want to enjoy the rule of law, IMO one of the essential components of a free society, then expecting selective application through enforcement options instead of proper legislation in the first place (or remedial legislation for unjust or impractical laws) will at best lead to corrupt banana republics. Or, as you suggested, anarchy.

  • ThomasD||

    "The guy enforcing the law is responsible, not those who passed the law, nor those who broke the law."

    Shorter Buybuydandavis: 'We are a nation of men, not a nation of laws.'

    Yeah, I'm not real surprised to hear him say that.

  • ThomasD||

    Sorry, apologizes - missed the sarcasm

  • Ron||

    maybe we already have anarchy"

    I've always said that when you make to many laws to prevent anarchy people start to ignore the laws and you get what you were trying prevent, anarchy.

  • buybuydandavis||

    We did.

    The US won the Defense Protection Agency corporate wars.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    " That is an interesting position, and it seems to me the inevitable outcome of that position is anarchy.

    Anarchy may be better than what we have at this point. When laws in general are perceived as generally corrupt and ill conceived, maybe we already have anarchy."

    Anarchy is what we will have if we end up with open borders. It will not end well.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I think I finally have understood what this is about after days of teeth gnashing. It appears to me the primary purpose of this "zero tolerance" policy is to criminally charge all illegal aliens caught at the border. This is the deterrent Kelly speaks of, to criminally charge all illegal aliens caught. Children are separated as a result of these criminal proceedings as a secondary result of this action, not a primary result. In other words, this is not the intended deterrent. The media, instead of attacking the "zero tolerance" criminal proceedings, goes after the soft underbelly of this tactic which is to imply Trump's administration is making it a primary purpose to separate children from parents as the deterrent.

    Two questions
    1) Am I reading this wrong?
    2) What is the solution that is amenable to all then? I have zero issues with criminally prosecuting illegal aliens. Do we make some family friendly illegal alien jail? Put them in some illegal alien camp/small city to roam free? Or are we not allowed to criminally prosecute the parents? Or do we just simply throw up our hands and let them all in because children?

  • MasterThief||

    Reason's position seems to be that we don't enforce our borders at all. Maybe the more reasonable writers here would like there to be some noting of who is coming in, but the majority of articles argue for anybody to be able to enter this country unimpeded (we hear nothing of other nations' border enforcement)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The 'zero tolerance' policy is to end run around all these legal attacks on the President's power to enforce immigration law that Congress created.

    Trump wants as few immigrants slipping through the border cracks as possible. he will be able to say that this election year and it will be super popular.

    The lefties and their open border allies thought they could stop Trump from fulfilling the immigration part of his campaign promises and they have not been able to. They are furious and desperate.

  • Mezzanine||

    The videos and pictures of children and cages isn't really gong to help his popularity however.

  • ThomasD||

    Every time people are shown that -at least some of- those pictures are either staged, date from the Obama years, or picture unaccompanied minors (the vast majority of all minors so detained) then the net effect is less negative to Trump, and more negative to the media.

    Which is one of the reasons they have become so loud and screechy in the last week or two - they recognize that the usual stuff was not having the desired effect.

    Shortly someone is going to make a Downfall parody about this push by the media and I'm sure various Reason contributors would get named, if they weren't considered such two-bit players.

  • JesseAz||

    Sure if the linot of your intelligence is short video clips and pictures. Some people actually look beyond just the facial aspects of an issue though.

  • JesseAz||

    Limit... Not linot. Fat fingers on a phone.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    It certainly works for progressives.

  • DarrenM||

    I heard they were going to put up tent cities. I'm sure that will mollify the critics.

  • JFree||

    What is the point of criminal prosecution? All that means is putting them in jail for six months and then presumably deporting them after we figure out how to reunite them with their kids who we've also paid to put into 'foster care' and support. That is the most expensive and most time-consuming option. If your goal is the end-state of 'deported', then shouldn't your goal be to get there as quickly as possible?

    That means CIVIL prosecution as the main option - where the max penalty is the $250 (which is dumb as hell to try to extract from the poor) followed by deportation. The barrier to doing that fast is the backlog in immigration courts which is now well over a year.

    So if the purpose is 'zero-tolerance' then HIRE THE FUCKING JUDGES WHO ENFORCE THAT. If the purpose is deterrence, the only option is to execute the children because deterrence doesn't work unless the US is a crappier more violent shithole than the shithole they are fleeing.

    Since neither of those is happening, then I can only presume the purpose is political. To allow R voters to take glee that their govt is finally doing the long-overdue and kicking brown people around because this is America and that's what the founders wanted but were too pussy to admit.

  • JFree||

    Just the math here for all the morons advocating criminal prosecution:

    Avg all-in cost of jail for a year is $45,000. So say $25,000 for six months. Trials where the prosecution is seeking jail are gonna be a lot slower and more expensive too.

    v

    Forgoing a $250 fine.

    Yeah this must have been a real close decision. Why it's almost the exact same thing since zeroes by definition don't matter

  • JesseAz||

    Why do you ignore the costs of schooling, medical, infrastructure, etc if released into the interior. Seems dishonest.

  • JesseAz||

    And who is the moron who doesn't understand the criminal process is short, the asylum claim isn't. Likewise the GOP is putting out bills to hire more judges. Schumer just said no. Reappearance rate if released into the country is under 15%.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Fair points. I admittedly do not know enough about this and will read into this.

  • JesseAz||

    The criminal prosecution doesn't take months. The asylum claims after do

  • JFree||

    And your point is what? That these folks may actually be presenting legitimate issues re asylum but we should be railroading them because the US govt has a very long history of being on the wrong side - and still is - in those three countries and we need to keep doing that at all costs and without any noodgy 'victims' presenting themselves here?

  • hello.||

    US policy from the 1950s is a perfectly good reason for a 20 year old couple with a baby to get asylum.

    By that criterion I am entitled to asylum in my choice of about 35 countries.

  • JFree||

    From the 1950's? The President of Guatemala from 2012-2015 is a School of Americas graduate, had forced one of the few previous non-puppet Prez's out when he was Dir of Military Intelligence and based on info presented to the UN is almost certainly guilty of war crimes and genocide committed during their civil war. Ousted because of 'customs corruption' (read getting caught being bribed by US multinationals)

    His successor as acting President has always been a member of the political party that the military started in the 1954 coup as political face of the juntas (which created the death squads), and as high court judge in 2013 annulled the genocide verdict against the guy who was Prez during the genocides.

    His successor (current) is a clown (literally) who campaigned as an outsider but is pretty obviously a puppet of the same groups. The drug gangs are run by former low-level military trained by us - 'opposed' by the military also trained by us. 2% of the people (directly tied to us) still own 70% of the arable land (in an agricultural country) because WE have opposed (by violence) all calls for land reform for 100 years.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    We send money to these countries to so,vet these problems. Their people should have no need to come here.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What is the point of criminal prosecution?

    The point is to put their names on a list so that if they are caught again, they are then charged with a felony.

    Evidently, the Trump alternative to letting 30 million Central Americans into the US, is to put 30 million Central Americans into US prisons.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Better to put 30 million Central Americans in Ce trail America.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is close, but not entirely correct.

    Kelly has gone on the record to state that family separation *by itself* is intended to be a deterrent to illegal immigration.

    See the very bottom of this transcript of an interview with Kelly.

    So yes they do want family separation to be used deliberately as a weapon to stop illegal immigration.

  • hello.||

    Here's the actual text that the crypto-communist refused to actually quote since it doesn't say anything even remotely close to what he claims it does:

    Are you in favor of this new move announced by the attorney general early this week that if you cross the border illegally even if you're a mother with your children [we're going] to arrest you? We're going to prosecute you, we're going to send your kids to a juvenile shelter?

    The name of the game to a large degree. Let me step back and tell you that the vast majority of the people that move illegally into United States are not bad people. They're not criminals. They're not MS-13. Some of them are not. But they're also not people that would easily assimilate into the United States into our modern society. They're overwhelmingly rural people in the countries they come from – fourth, fifth, sixth grade educations are kind of the norm. They don't speak English, obviously that's a big thing. They don't speak English. They don't integrate well, they don't have skills. They're not bad people. They're coming here for a reason. And I sympathize with the reason. But the laws are the laws. But a big name of the game is deterrence.
  • hello.||

    Family separation stands as a pretty tough deterrent.

    It could be a tough deterrent — would be a tough deterrent. A much faster turnaround on asylum seekers.

    Even though people say that's cruel and heartless to take a mother away from her children?

    I wouldn't put it quite that way. The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long.
  • buybuydandavis||

    Prosecuting all establishes a criminal record, which then allows *actual* criminal prosecution with actual penalties the next time they cross the border.

    There is no "solution" for the Trump side, only the selection between different costs. We will not be selecting "destroy America".

    In Anarchotopia, there are no costs to being invaded because unicorn farts will ensure our liberty, now and evermore.

  • BenjaminTheDonkey||

    We've come a long way in just a few decades, I'm surprised by the humanity of how we're treating immigrants.

    http://allthatsinteresting.com/napalm-girl

  • Pat001||

    Take your neighbor's kid with you across the border into Canada, and then see what happens when you attempt to re-enter the U.S.

  • TGoodchild||

    Or send your kid there, alone, to become a statistic.

  • Ron||

    Heck just try and take your own kid to another state on an airplane. the legal hassels and verification process is so outlandish and filled with pitfalls designed to trip up legal guardians that I know poeple who refuse to take their kids on planes

  • The Last American Hero||

    What are you talking about? I've flown with my kids multiple times per year every year for the last decade. They require no ID, and on rare occasion they get a stray question from security about their name or their age - hard to tell if its a spot check or not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Activists with the D.C. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America crashed Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's dinner Tuesday evening and appeared to chase her from the building.
    According to a Facebook Live video posted to DSA's Facebook page, protesters surrounded Nielsen's corner table at MXDC Cocina Mexicana, located just a few blocks from the White House.
    The activists chanted about Nielsen and the Trump administration's zero tolerance policy for illegal immigrants, called the DHS secretary a "fascist pig,"....

    Ironic that socialists with fascist fever reams are calling her the fascist.

  • Pat001||

    Gotta hand it to the Left - they're always on offense. This stunt went on for 10 minutes so I wouldn't be surprised if the restaurant manager was in on it.

    A better question is, Why aren't people following Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi around DC, holding pics taken in 2014 of kids caged up in detention centers while Obama was POTUS? If they really cared they'd have been outraged four years ago.

  • Paulpemb||

    Because they don't actually care about children, immigrant or otherwise, and this is just a convenient cudgel to bash their political enemies with.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    OT but great news! Up to 200 sets of remains belonging to American servicemen are expected to be transferred from North Korea to the U.N. command in South Korea in the next few days, two U.S. defense officials confirmed to Fox News.

    I can only guess how most of the media will cover this great success for Trump.

  • JWatts||

    CNN: Breaking news - Trump policies risk contagious disease outbreak by bringing unsanitary biological material back from North Korea!

  • Paulpemb||

    They will show lots of pictures of the flag-draped coffins being taken off the airplane and claim that 200 American soldiers were killed by Trump!

  • Longtobefree||

    "If You Cross the Border, We'll Kidnap Your Child"

    If you cross the border illegally, we will incarcerate your child (as well as you)

    Truth in headlines

  • The Last American Hero||

    I've crossed the border several times and not had this trouble. I must have gotten lucky. Or maybe it was that I crossed at an actual checkpoint with the appropriate documents in hand. Try running a border checkpoint into Canada sometime with no paperwork and see how polite they are about it.

  • Mencken Sense||

    "What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law"

    Children are separated from their parents every day in every community in America, when their parents are arrested. Should we exempt parents from arrest for shoplifting, armed robbery, assault, etc.?

  • Sean Trapani||

    Precisely. It seems even "Reason" editors lose their objectivity when Trump is part of the equation.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump *and* Open Borders.

    Not that they care about the kids. They want to hire them to polish their monocles with their migrant orphan tears. Never so sparkling!

  • lap83||

    Undocumented immigrants deserve to be treated just like citizens! Except when it makes us sad!

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The law is in place to prevent smugglers from kidnapping children, claiming them as their own w/o documentation, and then casting off the kid to a horrible fate after the kid serves as their ticket into the U.S.

    I realize the Reason party line is that no trafficking exists, as opposed to the government just overblowing it, but the above was a real issue. Reason isn't being honest until it acknowledges that.

    Housing small children with masses of older kids and adults is risky too. Reason isn't being honest until it acknowledges that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one seriously believes that the border restrictionist crowd supports this policy because they are oh so very concerned about the children. Like with the images of crying babies on TV, the claims that putting children in cages is "for their own good" is just using the kids as props.

    If you had your way, those very same kids would be languishing and dying in the shithole countries without you lifting a single finger to do anything about it. So spare me your crocodile tears about wanting to do "what's best for the kids".

  • hello.||

    If you had your way, those very same kids would be languishing and dying in the shithole countries without you lifting a single finger to do anything about it.

    You supported the invasion and "liberation" of Iraq then I presume?

    Tell me you radical individualist how much I am obligated to go into other countries and help the poor to assuage your guilt complex? And at what penalty?

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    "No one seriously believes that the border restrictionist crowd supports this policy because they are oh so very concerned about the children"

    Most of them do. Unlike you Chemmy.

    Do you ever engage in debate that doesn't involve sophist nonsense or blatant emotionalistic bleating?

  • buybuydandavis||

    No one believes that *anyone* is primarily concerned about foreign children.

  • Iheartskeet||

    So, I didn't notice Reason commenting on Nielsen's assertion that the vast majority of the kids being held weren't separated form their parents, but rather were unaccompanied by them.

    Therefore, photos of vast camps of kids actually show kids who were crossing the border without their parents...and I don't see the inhumanity of caring for these kids. For most, looks like we're doing the best we can.

    Is that statistic wrong or otherwise misleading ? What am I missing ?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    You are missing the fact that the left wants to use this to get power to implement policies that Reason supposedly doesn't support.

  • vek||

    Sooo you're basically saying that the government should NOT enforce the law and bring criminal charges, to criminals, because then we have to take their kids and put them somewhere... So we should obviously stop enforcing, what, maybe all laws that aren't rape or murder when the criminals have kids?

    I would be okay with them building special family detention facilities, I GUESS. But even that is ridiculous. I mean why don't we build special prisons for native born people who have kids so they can live with each other too???

    Fuck off. People are tired of your bleeding heart bullshit. IMO they shouldn't be separated at all, but that's because the second they're found they should be IMMEDIATELY put on a bus back to where the fuck ever they belong. There shouldn't be any waiting or other bullshit. There is no reason foreigners should be given any due process whatsoever once they're proved to be here illegally.

    This is coming from a part beaner mind you. No sympathy for this shit. Enough is enough.

  • JFree||

    Of course that's the solution. Because unaccountable government kidnapping is EXACTLY what creates liberty.

  • hello.||

    And by unaccountable government kidnapping we mean a clear and public legal process by which immigrants just happen to get treated the exact same way as anybody else who breaks the law.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Don't confuse the fucking idiot with facts. He's smoking some pure Hyperbolic Chronic. I'm sure he'll come down soon.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    No, no, no, no, no. Unencumbered access and open borders to people who allowed statists to ruin their own countries and then fled here to vote some more statists into power (to "help" them, of course) is the path to freedom and liberty.

    Any retard knows that. Right, retard?

  • vek||

    It's mind boggling how people can't separate the theoretical outcome in their head from the practical reality that is obviously unfolding in the real world.

    It's fine and well to accept something in theory, but if the theory doesn't hold to real world outcomes you need to accept that the theory was wrong.

  • Lewis Goudy||

    "There is no reason foreigners should be given any due process whatsoever once they're proved to be here illegally."

    The reason that foreigners who have been proved to be here illegally should be given due process is the the Constitution of the United States guarantees it to all "persons", without exception. It is not a right possessed by some smaller class satisfying this or that predicate. If you wish the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment altered to restrict its scope, by all means so advocate, but you can't very well implicitly dismiss the Constitution as a nullity and mouth "due process" in the same breath.

  • DarrenM||

    It makes a difference *where* illegal immigrants are picked up. If it's in the interior, you get more "due process". If it's at the border, probably not as much.

  • vek||

    1. I probably could have worded that bit better.

    2. The founding fathers, and later people who crafted amendments, unfortunately used poor wording themselves frequently. If they'd been wiser in their wording it may have saved us a LOT of trouble dealing with statists and other idiots. They assumed people would have too much common sense...

    3. What I really meant was that there should be no need for a big bunch of bullshit when deporting people. It should be as simple as an illegal going into a court room the day after they're busted and the judge saying:

    "Okay Juan, we've determined you're a citizen of Mexico. You were caught illegally trespassing in the USA. You will be put on a bus tomorrow morning. Don't come back or we will throw you in a proper prison where you might get shanked next time for awhile before you get sent back again. Have a nice day!"

    There should be no illegals suing the US government over stupid crap. Them challenging our laws. Etc. They broke the law, they should be able to be sent back immediately. That IS due process. Speeding tickets that are clear cut can be handled this simply, and so could 99.9% of illegal immigration cases.

  • vek||

    I imagine, technically speaking, the reason they can do all this other bullshit is because of the particulars of other poorly written laws with respect to refugees, immigration, etc. All of which could be changed to be more sane, and not allow for the kind of nonsense that happens now. There is NO SUCH THING as a legitimate refugee from Mexico. The last time anybody might have had a legit claim there was the last time Mexico had a civil war, which was 100ish years ago IIRC. So it should be cut and dried "Nope, you're going on a bus home."

    That's more what I meant.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Why stop at rape and murder? If you bring your kid a rapin' or a murderin' (especially if it's a politician or a reporter), you go FREE (with a "promise" to appear in six to nine months before a judge).

    What could be saner and more libertarian than that?

  • vek||

    Why nothing obviously! Innocent until proven guilty is a corner stone of our legal system after all! So no reason to not extend such fair treatment to suspected rapists and murders I guess!

    Some extreme libertarians seem to be almost this daft sometimes...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border.

    This is similar to the "if you don't want to be shot by cops do everything they say" argument that seems so appealing to Trump supporters (as well as Democrats in charge of urban police departments). Short of a negative personal experience with law enforcement, you're not changing any minds on the topic anytime soon.

  • Mencken Sense||

    Luckily, most American voters are not child traffickers.

  • ThomasD||

    It's only similar to the extent that both utilize the if-then formulation. Otherwise, in the particulars, they are quite different.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Also in that as arguments neither seems to be especially persuasive, probably because both are over-simplifications.

  • vek||

    Well, as a matter of COMMON FUCKING SENSE they're both correct arguments.

    My dad hates cops. I used to really hate cops, but since I haven't been arrested for anything since being busted for underaged drinking as a kid I have eased up. Even still my dad taught me to generally do everything they say, and if anything calmly state any disagreements and assert your rights if you have to. But if they push the envelope and TELL you to do something, you'd better comply or face the consequences.

    This is common sense for if you DON'T want to get beat down. Almost every single one of the so called "police shoot innocent black guy" incidents would have not happened if the black guys hadn't been doing obviously stupid shit, and disobeying the cops. Not 100%, but most could have been avoided.

    Same deal here. If you don't want to risk being separated from your kids for a few weeks, don't take them on an illegal trip to a foreign country where the laws state you may/will be separated.

    Pretty clear cut to me...

  • LynchPin1477||

    Almost every single one of the so called "police shoot innocent black guy" incidents would have not happened if the black guys hadn't been doing obviously stupid shit, and disobeying the cops. Not 100%, but most could have been avoided.

    They also wouldn't have happened if the police hadn't shot innocent unarmed people, sometimes without even giving them a chance to follow the orders the police were yelling at them.

  • hello.||

    Which is what makes the analogy to immigration so stupid since this is a drawn out public legal process following an arrest for an offense.

  • vek||

    Personally I have a big problem with shoot first, ask questions later police policies. For obvious reasons.

    However the way you're spinning things IS NOT the way most of the big outrage mill incidents actually happened.

    A few have, and those cops deserve to be roasted.

    But in most of the cases, if you watch video, or if you hear eyewitness testimony, the black guys were:

    1. Disobeying, repeatedly, direct commands by the police.

    2. Had already said/done illegal/sketchy things, which is why the cops were on them in the first place.

    3. Were high/drunk, or acting so.

    4. Acting belligerently, aggressively, and in many cases being verbally aggressive towards the cops.

    5. In several cases they either continued to try to escape, in some of the cases in vehicles heading towards the police. In other cases they started heading towards the police on foot against orders from the cops.

    6. Finally, in a number of cases they made quick movements that looked like they may have been looking for a weapon on their person, or in their car in some cases.


    So in conclusion if a cop gets called because somebody did something illegal/sketchy, pursues them, finds them seemingly high, they refuse to obey your commands to lay down, they verbally insult you, are physically aggressive towards you, then all of a sudden try to run away again or charge you, sometimes reaching into jackets or towards glove boxes... You don't think the cops are in the right to use SOME level of force against them?

  • vek||

    Personally, I'm more of the mind they should tase the crap out of them versus shoot their real gun. But tasers seem to be out of vogue because they too can kill people once in a blue moon.

    I'm not saying there aren't totally unjustified cases. There are. Like that concealed carry permit guy somewhere in the upper midwest, that was total bullshit. But almost every major outrage case I've seen in the media the cop was not being entirely unreasonable when you look at the full context.

    Whatever the case, almost ZERO of these people would have been shot had they not been aggressive towards the police, and had they obeyed the commands to surrender and get cuffed. It's common sense, which is why I will likely never be shot by a cop. YouTube the Chris Rock sketch on this subject.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Fist, that is a completely false equivalence. What you're saying is that expecting consequences from any lawbreaking is the equivalent of being subjected to criminal homocide from LEO.

    Not an argument anyone should take seriously.

  • vek||

    See my post above. The vast majority of the big media sensation cop shootings, the media greatly distorted the facts to fit their narrative. Video and/or eye witnesses tended to paint very different pictures of what actually happened in all those cases.

    Not saying NO completely unjustified ones have happened. They have. But cops are people, so mistakes will always happen, and in their line of work that means some people will get shot... But the "narrative" surrounding it all being pushed by the left wing media is very different from the reality of most of those cases. Also, according to that study done at Harvard by a BLACK professor, he found cops are every bit as likely to use violence, including shooting, on white perps as blacks. He wasn't expecting to find it, so it surprised him.

  • Nom de Sobriquet||

    why would I ever create a policy that purposely does that?
    Because it's a good fucking idea! If you don't want something to happen, you disincentivize it. That's what a deterrent is.
    legally sanctioned kidnapping
    Nicely done. Stoop to hyperbole.

  • Rich||

    "I find that offensive," Nielsen said, "because why would I ever create a policy that purposely does that?"

    "I don't like things that suck!"

  • Nom de Sobriquet||

    Yes! Thank you. Me, too. Things that rule, or nothing.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Deterrents only work if the action that is intended as a deterrent is worse than the alternatives.

    So if these migrants really are fleeing violent terrible conditions back home, then the only way that the US could deter them migrating here is to make their experience here even more violent and terrible. Otherwise, why would they leave?

  • vek||

    Fortunately most of them aren't really fleeing anything that bad. They're just hoping to see their income double/triple. So we shouldn't have to be too horrible to convince them to not risk it.

  • JFree||

    Most of them are coming from Honduras (2nd highest homicide rate in the world - virtually zero solved), El Salvador (highest homicide rate in the world) and Guatemala (higher homicide rate than Mexico - and I'll bet most of them are coming from the more violent areas of the country).

    So you're wrong. To deter them we're gonna have to get off our lazy butts and start being #1 - in homicides. We just need to jack up the number of homicides here from 17,250 to 267,100. And we will finally be #1 again. MAGA.

  • JFree||

    Actually we prob need to jack up our homicide rate quite a bit higher than that because as you say they could earn a higher income here. So how much higher does our homicide rate have to be than El Salvador to offset the double/triple income? Double? Triple? I think we should aim high just in case there are other positives of living in the US other than just income - a million murders a year has a nice ring to it

  • hello.||

    Most of them are coming from Honduras (2nd highest homicide rate in the world - virtually zero solved), El Salvador (highest homicide rate in the world) and Guatemala (higher homicide rate than Mexico - and I'll bet most of them are coming from the more violent areas of the country).

    No they aren't.

  • JFree||

    That links from 2012 and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the asylum-seeking migrants who are having the kiddies napped

  • vek||

    Most illegals are just coming here from Mexico dude.

    The smaller numbers from those countries may be harder to deter, but in a way we don't have to go quite so far as you propose. Perhaps if we just made it miserable enough they would just stay in Mexico instead, since it is a step up from their homelands still.

    I guess Mexico changed their tactics recently by letting people pass through to here, but until a few years ago they were dealing with their southern border very harshly. Like shooting people trying to cross in many cases.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well I think you just summarized why so many Republicans support this 'zero-tolerance' policy. They implicitly believe, like you do, that the migrants coming here are conniving liars. That the real bad guys here are the penniless Guatemalans.

  • hello.||

    They implicitly believe, like you do, that the migrants coming here are conniving liars.

    Just because they misrepresented themselves to illegally enter the country and then stole identities or created fraudulent ones in order to stay? That's strange. Why would anybody characterize an upstanding person like that as a conniving liar?

  • vek||

    I get why they want to come here. Their lives will be a lot better. I get it.

    That they would lie, and illegally cross a border makes some sense to me too. I don't even think most of them are bad people per se. They are mostly destined to be poor, and their kids are far more likely to be involved in crime than native born people. But they're not all MS13 members, most are decent, but low productivity (economically) people. They won't pay in enough in taxes to support the added costs they bring, just like low income native born. But I GET why they want to come here.

    But why we should tolerate it is a separate question entirely.

    I don't think we should. We don't need millions more low education immigrants. Not from ANYWHERE. I don't want 8th grade educated Germans here either, because we have enough low education unemployable people already. 21st century post industrial societies just don't need a bunch of no skill labor dude...

  • JoeBlow123||

    I would rather our military, if invited, go down there and get very religious with these gangsters than accept the bar tab of Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador. Train their countries to demolish their gangs.

  • JFree||

    Umm - you do know that we DID train the guys who are now making money as gangsters. Before they were gangsters, they were the death squads during the long civil war there. And we trained them at Fort Benning (School of the Americas) - specifically in all the skills they used in the death squads. After the civil war, they decided that they had a)developed a taste for the violence and b)needed to make money doing something else and drug trafficking is very lucrative

    MS-13 started as nothing more than the death squad guys training low-level street punks (many of whom had actually fled the genocide during the civil war - some of whom were then deported back after the usual juvenile crimes) in how to be more effective in their violence. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the way they are 'incenting' the drug muling is by making them an offer they can't refuse (drug mule or uncle/brother/mother/cousin/etc gets a bullet in their head)

    THAT is what WE created. It's blowback and is a direct consequence of 100 years of always doing the wrong thing the wrong way and being on the wrong side in that part of the world. Repeating it blindly is unlikely to work better this time.

  • hello.||

    Yeah where do we get off on our interventions in central and south America! We should just erase our southern border and nationalize the airlines so we can run a 24/7 relocation service and bring every precious soul to America.

    By the way MS-13 started out as a street gang in L.A. Not disaffected paramilitary Americanos in El Salvador. If you're going to spin a compelling conspiracy theory it helps if it is connected at least tangentially to reality.

  • JFree||

    By the way MS-13 started out as a street gang in L.A.

    It started among Salvadoran refugees in LA. After the 1982 Orantes injunction ordered the INS to stop dicking around with them, the Atlacatl Battalion (the death squad battalion trained by the US) sent some soldiers to infiltrate the refugees and the way they infiltrated was by teaching the refugees kids 'how to defend themselves'. Once the entire Atlacatl Battalion was disbanded in 1992, a reasonable number of them left the army for drug trafficking - and some of those kids with criminal records were also then deported back to Salvador 'because the war is over'. At that point it all kind of morphed into a transnational decentralized street gang, organized like a trained death squad, financed by trafficking.

    The model worked so well - and apparently became known to younger generation of School of Americas grads - that it was repeated by a couple dozen Mexican Special Forces trained by the US/Israel who defected and formed Los Zetas.

    The 'gangsterizing' of ALL those countries is blowback. WE created it. And now we are dealing with the refugees fleeing that. Get your head out of your ass.

  • JoeBlow123||

    It was the Cold War. The Soviets tried to destabilize the Americas so we responded. The world is not always nice.

    Anyways, I do not feel I am responsible for the crimes of my progenitors. Not my problem.

  • JFree||

    The Soviets tried to destabilize the Americas so we responded.

    No. In Guatemala, the elites we put in place supported by the military we trained simply slaughtered the indigenous in order to steal their land. In Salvador/Honduras/Nicaragua, the land had already been turned into plantations long before - and the peasants were landless and had nothing and would never get anything and protested that. So they were amenable to both liberation theology (if Catholic) or Marxism (if not). And since the US was supporting the plantation owners and the military, the campesinos looked for weapons from whoever would supply them - which unsurprisingly turned out to be countries that didn't like us and wanted to bog us down.

    WE destabilized those countries.

  • JoeBlow123||

    For one, again, it was the Cold War. I do not care. Two, I took the same history classes in college that hammered home "United States bad" and felt bad about what our predecessors did a long time ago. But frankly this is a waste of time. Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras have had decades to figure their issues out free from the shadow of geopolitical conflict and if they have not so far it is not my problem.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    "Deterrents only work if the action that is intended as a deterrent is worse than the alternatives."

    Good, now you understand why we need the wall. This is a big step for you.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    You heard it hear first, kids! The only option is SURRENDER!

  • ClearVision||

    If your parent(s) breaks into Disney land, they don't give you lifetime passes; they call the cops and you get arrested. During the arrest you would be separated from your parents. This is nothing new.

    Where was this manufactured outrage when Obama had these exact same policies in effect?
    Would this be yet another, convenient "Pretend to Care" issue, just in time for the mid-term elections?

    Remember Black Lives Matter? During the general election it was so very important, afterwards? Forgotten and discarded.

    Look at every outlet, and every talking head that is suddenly upset about "the children" of people attempting to enter US territory illegally. Quotes because it turns out, that in most cases their is no family relationship between the minors and the adults detained. Every one of these outlets & talking heads, is getting paid by the Democratic party.
    Factor that into your future reading of "news" from these sources.

  • ThomasD||

    Remember all those Suderman articles on the massive affront to liberty called Obamacare?

    Did any of them have the same sort of hyperbolic absolutist oppositional tone to what the government was doing that these 'immigration' articles have?

    These people have no principles other than progressitarian principles.

    This is shilling for more Democrat party voters.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Where was this manufactured outrage when Obama had these exact same policies in effect?

    Good Lord. I'm so fucking tired of this fucking argument.

    Obama didn't dial up the policy to eleventy and make a big deal about 'zero tolerance'. That was Trump's doing.

  • hello.||

    Obama kept his mouth shut about it while the exact same things were happening so that makes it completely different because reasons. I am definitely not a crypto-communist shill for the Democratic Party or anything like that.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    No Chem, Obama's had cover from a compliant media. If he murdered a baby in public, they would cover it up for him.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Nothing like the puke stew of defending one guy for doing the same thing as another guy because the one guy just did it quieter.

    You must be real popular in the Hypocritical Cunt Club.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Remember Black Lives Matter?"

    Back of the bus.

    It's "Foreign Lives Matter" to the front!
    Foreigners First!

  • ThomasD||

    "If You Cross the Border, We'll Kidnap Your Child"

    Kidnap.

    You've lost your mind, Sullum. The pants shitting is bad enough, screeching louder about it isn't going to improve the situation.

    Or, you know, maybe take some advice published right here at Reason and recognize that bad "analogies do not strengthen the case against forcibly separating illegal border crossers from their children."

  • No Longer Amused||

    I suppose the alternative of a border minefield and machine gun towers is preferable?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Solar powered laser turrets!

    Pew! Pew! Pew!

  • vek||

    If they're solar powered we might be able to get some Dems to vote for it... Or it will at least make their heads explode trying to decide between clean energy and cleaning up the border!

  • ||

    Christ alive the comments are overrun with xenophobic shitheads. What happened to the old school commentariat?

  • NashTiger||

    pointing out blatant hyperbolic lies is xenophobia?

  • The Last American Hero||

    They got Glib.

  • hello.||

    Lol. 90% of the comments are Democratic Party shills regurgitating their HuffPo talking points just like you. Don't you worry your pretty little head.

  • ||

    Right. I've been commenting here since you were in diapers. Which, to be fair, was this morning.

  • ManBearPig||

    What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. All in this room are now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on you.

    I can't believe Reason would publish such liberal propaganda. Either we are a nation of laws or not. Blaming the president because people are attempting to illegally enter this country under the guise of seeking asylum is just stupid beyond belief. This whole thing is just a smoke screen to distract the uninformed from the coup d'etat that was ordered by Obama to keep the Trumpeter out of the White House.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I can't believe Reason would publish such liberal propaganda."

    How many years since the last time you visited Reason?

    You're going to love one of their new writers. Shikha.

  • ManBearPig||

    The insanity of the left is making a mockery of the their party. I hope they keep it up. Their abject lunacy will ensure they will never win another election.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Your tough guy is caving as we speak.

    Like most bullies, it's all soft under the bluster.

    I won't say he is flipping, because we're reserving that term for the Michael Cohens, Rick Gates, Paul Manaforts, and Roger Stones of the world.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Your commentary really serves to galvanize opposition to everything you believe in.

    Carry on clinger. With friends like you, there won't be a de o rat party for long.

  • ManBearPig||

    When you determine to violate the laws of the United States, you have no right to complain of the consequences.

  • EirkKengaard||

    @ manbear - Not according to the left.

  • RoninX||

    Said no libertarian ever.

  • Think It Through||

    Kidnap?

  • Lewis Goudy||

    It is misleading to dub improper entry a misdemeanor subject to a mere six months incarceration. That is the case only for a first offense and even then only if the offender has not been refused entry, has not been removed or deported, and has no outstanding order of removal or deportation. According to press accounts, many of the parents of the separated children do not satisfy those criteria and accordingly--presumably--are being prosecuted as felons.

  • wreckinball||

    What? The offense is being the country illegally. The punishment should be return to Mexico immediately if possible. The solution is to speed the process up.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Catch and release is no solution.

    It's like if I mug you, and you never do anything more than take your wallet back. Why would I ever stop mugging you?

  • Jeff77042||

    If the so-called refugees >>>wink-wink

  • Jeff77042||

    My full comment didn't appear.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I hate it when markup translation screws up the post.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Sounds like Trump is caving.

    (With a loud 'It may look like I'm caving, but I am actually not caving, in fact I am winning and remaining steadfast, as my people, the great forgotten people of America, will obviously understand now that I have told them' message.)

    Maybe Ivanka refused to be in the same room with him until he flipped, or maybe he became frightened when Fox News couldn't climb aboard the Border Cruelty Express, or perhaps he finally recognized that Miller is political poison and a moral cesspool.

  • Mark22||

    Sounds like Trump is caving.

    Hillary 2020 FTW!

  • buybuydandavis||

    He caved, wrote and executive order, and a judge has already ruled it illegal.

    Reaffirming his original claim and washing his hands of any responsibility.

    I was depressed when he caved, but this is even better!

    So much winning!

  • Benitacanova||

    Garbage article. Gar-bahge.

  • buybuydandavis||

    As expected.

  • wreckinball||

    God is the article stupid! Is the Reason staff secretly a retard affirmative action effort.

    Nobody is f-ing kidnapping your child. You committed a crime by illegal entry. If you commit a crime and get put in jail your kids don't go with you.

    But good news, Trump signed an EO that for this particular crime your kids do go with you. Yea, Which solves nothing.

  • Harvard||

    Based on this issue alone, I find myself convinced I could never support a Libertarian Party candidate. Ever.

  • DarrenM||

    Never say "never", or "ever" in this case.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Open borders is one of the reasons that Americans don't allow the Libertarian Party to have nice things. Like power.

  • XM||

    Trump is guilty in causing a 'surge' in family separation. If ripping kids away from their moms and dads is unspeakable cruelty per se, then previous administrations are guilty too. I doubt that they escaped outrage because "at least they were charged criminally by default".

    If we were separating 100 families a month prior to zero tolerance policy, that means as many as 1,200 families are either criminals or otherwise put their kids at risk. That's a crisis just waiting to escalate.

    But if the DHS is correct, most of these kids are separated from strangers posing as their parents / family.

    This isn't really about keeping families together. If we detained families together and the parents are eventually convicted, the kids would be sent to new guardians. That's long term separation. We already sent a bunch of kids to their new homes (remember how we "lost" some of them?).

    The Trump critics basically want these migrants released scot free or accept them all as refugees. The former is the status quo, and thousands of people would try again, along with newcomers. And the travel here isn't a trip to Disneyland.

  • EirkKengaard||

    @ XM Bravo! Well said. But too well reasoned for the left.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Exporting prohibitionism has turned everywhere south of Brownsville into murdering shitholes where looters are elected simply for hating America's violations of individual rights. They then enforce them just the same, or the NSA will tip off the opposition as to their Swiss bank accounts.

  • Mark22||

    Trump can't escape responsibility for the predictably cruel consequences of his "zero tolerance" immigration policy.

    Apparently, irresponsible and cruel parents can, however, escape responsibility for their cruel and abhorrent choice to take their children on a dangerous and illegal trek across the desert, followed by a slave-like existence as an illegal in the US, instead of applying for asylum at a port of entry.

    And apparently, Reason staff writers have no problem defending parents for their illegal and irresponsible choices.

  • EirkKengaard||

    Bingo!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Blame America First, Last, and Always!

  • JFree||

    This year we're grabbing the bull by the balls and we're gonna kick those punks off campus!

  • EirkKengaard||

    "the decision to bring criminal charges in such cases is a matter of discretion, and prior administrations generally declined to do so when it would mean breaking up families. "

    That dodges the matter. Declining to bring criminal charges is a matter of discretion, and not fully enforcing the law. Trump was elected to enforce the law. In any case, Trumps current order, although in conflict with Fores V Reno, allows children to remain with their mothers, in accommodations that are probably an improvement over what they've had.

    No doubt Democrats will find another angle to drive hysteria.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I seem to recall The Don promising to "go after their families..." The same Republican also claimed members of our Mexican buffer state were rapists, then got elected on both counts plus pussy grabbing and killing kids over plant leaves (but NOT to shut down power plants). So, are we quibbling about who "they" are supposed to be?

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    So, Hanky, you ignorant fuck, are you saying that there are no rapists in our Mexican buffer states?

    And I can see how such a cock holster as yourself would have trouble with pussy grabbing, but try to keep up: he's just mimicking the forty-second president. What's wrong with that? Surely, you haven't abandoned the old position that private sexual matters shouldn't matter to the job.

    Killing kids over plant leaves (but NOT to shut down power plants)? So this means you're firmly in the killing kids to shut down power plants category? We'll note that in your file, Hanky.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The same Republican also claimed members of our Mexican buffer state were rapists"

    You must keep missing ENB's articles on rape trees.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Declining to enforce the law is apparently the new cause du jour? So can Trump pretty please state publicly that he'll refuse to enforce the laws against murdering journalists? I mean, since we don't want certain laws enforced. Seems only fair. Or is it only SOME laws you reporters are against?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Declining to enforce the law is apparently the new cause du jour? "

    Not at Reason! Open Borders Uber Alles has been their rallying lunacy for years now.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    "Where Sessions sees child smugglers, someone with a gram of compassion would see desperate people trying to do what they think is best for their families."

    Weird. Could have sworn I saw National Border Patrol Council spokesman Chris Cabrera correcting stupid cunt Brooke Baldwin on just this fucking issue.

    "When you see a 12-year-old girl with a Plan B pill, or their parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of the journey, that's just a terrible way to live. When you see a 4-year-old girl traveling completely alone with just her parents' phone number written across her shirt. I mean, come on now, something needs to be done," Cabrera said. "We had a 9-year-old boy last year have heat stroke in front of us and die with no family around, and that's because we're allowing people to take advantage of this system."

    But he must be just seeing what he wants to see, right, you stunning piece of subhuman lying trash, Jacob Sullum.

    Fuck, I'm sick of this fucking lying site. It's one fucking thing to have an honest disagreement. But this sort of bullshit lying makes you less than worthless. The world would be better off without your dishonest ass in it, Sullum. Fucking kill yourself.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Fuck, I'm sick of this fucking lying site."

    I'm not. A lot of the commenters are great! And Reason cranks out their never ending stream of drivel for us to hoot and jeer at! Good times!

  • vek||

    "It's one fucking thing to have an honest disagreement. But this sort of bullshit lying makes you less than worthless. "


    This is my biggest problem with where Reason has gone over the last several years... You CAN have a rational discussion about a lot of things. But they are just using the same illogical, reasonless, nonsense arguments that the mainstream left wing media uses.

    They're not trying to win the argument with logic. They use lies, hyperbole, and they CLEARLY push an agenda instead of trying to give any semblance of balanced reporting. The left libertarians (if they even are libertarians in their hearts of hearts, I surely have my doubts about a few of the writers) have completely taken over, and any disagreement with their particular interpretation on wedge issues within the libertarian community are considered heresy... Just like with the mainstream left.

    It's sickening. I really only come here for the outrage mill effect at this point.

  • MEndersby||

    Why the hell won't you publish my remarks? No lib enough for you???

  • jerryg1018||

    Gee, we have Zero Tolerance in our schools. Kids get kicked out for wearing NRA tee shirts or biting a pop tart into the crude shape of a gun, so why can't we have Zero Tolerance for foreigners who enter our country illegally?

  • Silence Dogoode||

    If you break into Reason Magazine, illegally, the cops and courts will separate you from your children.
    If you are a single parent, the courts will kidnap your children and put them in foster care.

    When did breaking the law give people a magical power to not get arrested?

    According to those who want unlimited immigration, is there truly no limit to the number of people who can choose to come into our country no matter what the law says?

  • Silence Dogoode||

    If you break into Reason Magazine, illegally, the cops and courts will separate you from your children.
    If you are a single parent, the courts will kidnap your children and put them in foster care.

    When did breaking the law give people a magical power to not get arrested?

    According to those who want unlimited immigration, is there truly no limit to the number of people who can choose to come into our country no matter what the law says?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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