Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Needless Cruelty of Trump's Border Policy

Trump’s approach has been a model of brutality, inflicting unspeakable horror on children and parents.

In 1729, an Irish political writer named Jonathan Swift noted with sorrow the large number of hungry children in Ireland and offered "a modest proposal" to solve the problem. His suggestion was for people to buy and eat them.

This option, he pointed out, would spare the children lives of poverty, prevent abortion and infanticide, relieve the burden on their parents, and "contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands."

Swift, of course, wasn't serious. He was satirizing the callous disregard of Ireland's British rulers for the suffering of their subjects.

Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions are not joking. Compared with Swift's proposal, their policy of snatching toddlers from the arms of mothers who arrive in the United States to escape turmoil in Central America was exceedingly mild. No child has been eaten. By any other standard, their approach was a model of brutality, inflicting unspeakable horror on children and parents. It was so ugly that on Wednesday, Trump decided to drop it.

But that's a matter of political expediency, not humanity. After all, this is a president who has endorsed torture. In 2015, Trump said he favored waterboarding regardless of its efficacy in extracting information from suspected terrorists. "If it doesn't work," he said, "they deserve it anyway for what they're doing."

His border policy brought to mind John Yoo, a Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration. Asked in 2005 whether it would be legal for the president to order his subordinates to engage in torture "by crushing the testicles of the person's child," he answered, "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."

Trump insisted that family separation was an unfortunate result of enforcing the law. But those working for him said the goal was to terrify adult foreigners out of coming here in the first place. White House chief of staff John Kelly, who previously served as secretary of homeland security, defended taking kids from their parents because "a big name of the game is deterrence."

Never mind that most of these people come out of stark desperation. Never mind that we have obligations under our laws and treaties to grant refuge to foreigners who are fleeing persecution. Never mind that the majority of those who ask for asylum and are released actually show up for their hearings, negating the need for detention.

Let's not overthink what Trump did. The administration doesn't like undocumented immigrants, whom it wants to shut out completely. It doesn't like legal immigrants, whose numbers it proposes to drastically reduce. It doesn't like refugees and has reduced their admissions by more than half. It doesn't like Muslims, even as tourists.

Its treatment of the families coming across the southern border has been motivated not by a devotion to upholding the law but by hostility to foreigners—at least nonwhite ones.

Remember Trump's idea of sound immigration policy: "We should have more people from places like Norway."

The firm belief of Trump and his supporters is that an influx of refugees from Latin America will bring crime, drugs, and other social ills. But we ran that experiment with Cubans, hundreds of thousands of whom came as refugees in the 1960s and '70s—some because Fidel Castro decided to empty out jails and mental institutions.

How well have they adjusted? Cuban-Americans born in this country generally have higher incomes and more education than the average native. More than half of Cuban-Americans in Florida voted for Trump.

The Justice Department adopted a "zero tolerance" policy of arresting everyone entering without a valid visa. That strict approach, it claimed, left it with no choice but to separate children from their parents. It said the alternative—releasing the adults until their court dates—would invite the asylum-seekers to vanish and stay here illegally.

Keeping families in detention together rather than separated is a modest improvement. But there are less harsh options. The organization Human Rights First reports, "Of the individuals who filed for asylum in 2014 and had legal representation, 97 percent of women with children and 98 percent of unaccompanied children were in full compliance with their immigration court appearance obligations as of December 2017."

If you want to prevent these people from absconding, you could provide them with lawyers. You could fit them with ankle bracelets and monitor their whereabouts. You could expand the number of immigration courts to greatly accelerate asylum processing.

You can crack down on unauthorized entrants while avoiding cruelty if you want to. But you have to want to.

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.

  • Nardz||

    Finally, we get exactly what's needed for this illegal immigrant crisis - an article by Chapgal

  • hello.||

    Lol. Chapman: "Asylum seekers who have lawyers tend to show up for their court dates. Therefore provide all illegal aliens with lawyers and they will all show up for their court dates."

    Maybe legitimate asylum seekers with a legitimate asylum case find it easier to get representation and show up because they know they have a good chance of obtaining asylum.

    Nah that couldn't be it. Wet streets cause rain.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Yes, and people who hire pool boys tend to own pools.

    Why in the hell would you hire and pay for a lawyer WHEN YOU HAD NO INTENTION OF GOING TO YOUR COURT DATE?!?

    Jesus wept.

  • DajjaI||

    I love immigrants. They are hardworking and law abiding and contribute far more to society than they take from it in terms of public benefits. However when it comes to citizenship and voting rights, I think it's important that they support free speech and spurn food and healthcare assistance, which they really don't need anyway. Instead however they seem to be aligned with the proggies.

  • SQRLSY One||

    They align with proggies 'cause conservatards hate them! Who wants to vote for people who hate them?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Minorities?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Dajjal

    --- Instead however they seem to be aligned with the proggies. ---

    It would be difficult not to when the OTHER proggies --Trumpistas-- demonstrate a virulent hatred for immigrants' guts with such flair

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    why Are you talking about immigrants like that? Most people like immigrants. Lure using weasel was like Hapman does to confuse them wit illegals.

    It's it even the illegals that people hate. It's progressives like you that smugly like amd dostort amd make our borders porous and dangerous. Dangerous for citizens, and dangerous for the illegals you attract.

    You're a bad person.

  • Whorton||

    ". . .contribute far more to society than they take from it . . " Lets see, remittances to Mexico alone amount to more than 26 Billion dollars a year. (1) That is money that just disappears from the American economy. It is not reinvested, it is not used to purchase American goods and services. It's just GONE. . .Not exactly an asset. Especially when you consider that California's farming industry only brings in about 47 Billion.(2) That is roughly half the value of their entire output, that just disappears.

    1. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/0.....index.html
    2. http://www.norcalwater.org/201.....abundance/

  • alex martin||

    I think this is one of the funniest posts that I have read in this blog. I think Jonathan Swift was a big joker. His solution was not even temporary. Im sorry to say that it was not even a solution. I would support the Trumph border policy if it is not intended to hurt people. It is important to protect the US borders because immigration is now becoming a challenge. I just admire this blog, fresh content every day. I just wish I could have such a blog for my site cheap essays I think I would be miles ahead.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Let us be realistic about what is happening.

    The link above is from Vice, they make a lot of good stuff. Is what is happening in Central America terrible? 100% it is. It sucks. It is hard to watch a documentary about El Salvador and come to the conclusion that country is not entirely ruined. But again, there is a lot of the world that sucks and America cannot save the world or everyone in it.

    Lots of places are screwed and I do not desire to add America to that list though self inflicted suicide. We cannot take in millions of refugees/immigrants/migrants whatever the buzzword of the day is, forgive all student debt in America, provide universal healthcare, pay for a humongous military spread out across the entire globe, and transfer wealth from the young to the old indefinitely. I have zero desire to accept people at the very low end of the economic spectrum into the United States who very likely will end up on being unable to support themselves independently (we means test all legal immigrants before they come here for a reason).

    If it hurts the sensibilities of the sensitive types to condemn poor people to lives of poverty by not inviting them to Club America, tough. There are lots of tough choices responsible people have to make every single day and the world is not made of flowers and sunshine.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    For a moment, stop thinking of nations and states and "Club America", and start thinking about individuals.

    If an *individual* wish to flee horrible conditions elsewhere, and migrate to a place which has another *individual* who will freely contract with the first individual for housing, jobs, assistance, whatever - what does it matter which nationality each of the two individuals involved belong to?

    Suppose you suffered some horrible crime at the hands of the government, and wished to leave the country to another one in which you had other individuals - such as, say, relatives - who would willingly and freely help you. Would it matter if you were an American fleeing violence from the US government, or a Salvadoran fleeing violence from the Salvadoran government?

  • Citizen X||

    Ugh, but thinking about individuals is so much work.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It matters because scumbags like you decided to give them free edducation, free health care, free food stamps, and free everything without our consent.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Let's assume for a moment that I could wave a magic wand and abolish the welfare state immediately.

    Would you still oppose the free migration of individuals?

    The honest answer from you will be "no", because in reality, what undergirds the anti-immigrant sentiment from the right isn't OMG COST OF WELFARE (native-born citizens consume vastly more welfare than immigrants do, either legal or illegal ones), but a desire to keep the 'undesirables' out. They pollute the culture, vote for Democrats, drive down wages, etc., etc. So even if welfare were ended today, you would find some other reason to object to free migration.

    But of course the dishonest answer, the one I expect from you, is "yes, absolutely, the moment the welfare state is abolished, I'll permit free migration of everyone!" There are some who sincerely believe this position, I'm sure, but IMO most people who advocate this position do so only because they fully believe that the welfare state will never be abolished in our lifetimes, and so it is a convenient motte argument to hide behind in their motte-and-bailey argument against immigration.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    er, I got the "no" and "yes" mixed up, but you get the idea.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I would not. This was (more or less) how the country operated in the early 1900s. A few people would rejected for various reasons, but most people who wanted to come in got in. And they either got jobs and supported themselves, or they had to survive off the VOLUNTARY charity of others. No fucking welfare.

    This is how it should be.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So why is your outrage so disproportionately against immigrants who consume welfare, which is vastly dwarfed by the native-born citizens who consume welfare?

    I very seldom hear border restrictionists refer to native-born welfare recipients as lazy moochers who are sucking America dry and we would be better off without them. But that's common when describing immigrants.

    Why is the outrage disproportionate to the actual magnitude of the problem?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    What's really outrageous is what complete and total shamless liars creeps like you are.

    I support the complete and total elimination of all welfare programs in America for everyone, and have said so many times. You don't. Your real goal is the "fundamental transformation" of America into a western European - style socialist state.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I also favor the complete and total elimination of all welfare programs in America for everyone.

    So why is your outrage against immigrants taking welfare disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You also favor complete eliminate of government. Don't forget that too.

  • rferris||

    You are not allow to refer to the lazy moochers in such an insensitive manner.........Most folks feel the same about them as illegals.......we just do not want more of them...either of them.

    We are stuck with our own and do not need to add to the sucking us dry head count.

    Why not have legal immigrants that benefit America, rather than illegal immigrants who benefit from America?

    If you sneak into Mexico, France or most other countries you are NOT an emigrant, you are a criminal. Look up their laws and compare to ours!

    As to the magnitude of the problem, try looking up California's population figures including illegals............it is a big problem.

    If we keep allowing illegals onto our welfare system it will not be long before our native leeches are a minority.............how would this make America better??

  • SRoach||

    A few people included a remarkable number of Chinese.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Would you still oppose the free migration of individuals?"

    Yes.

    "But of course the dishonest answer, the one I expect from you, is "yes, absolutely, the moment the welfare state is abolished, I'll permit free migration of everyone!""

    Thanks for projecting.

    In any event, I am not ridiculous enough to pretend there are not second and third order effects from freely allowing what you term unlimited "migration." I am naive enough to pretend culture and acculturation are not real things. I have, for instance, been living in a nation, Japan, with a unique culture for a few years now and am very aware of the differences between peoples and the attractiveness of cultural sameness. I am not naive enough to think if we open up the borders to anyone and everyone that millions would not pour across the border and set up tent cities across the country in parks and anywhere with space.

    But yes! This is definitely an ideal to strive for, to gain a massive amount of disaffected individuals gathered in one area. This is definitely healthy for a democracy and they surely would become Westernized, good Americans in no time *crosses finger they will not form pressure groups to campaign for more stuff and rules amenable to underclass foreigners.* It is well known once people cross the border they are magically blessed with the love of freedom and George Washington and John Locke, right?

  • JoeBlow123||

    It is almost like you are preaching some utopian nonsense, yes? That people are just economic units with nothing else differentiating them (totally not Marxist at all! I am a libertarian, not a Marxist!).

    And let me ask you, how naive are you that you ask me to accept the fantasy that the welfare state will not exist in order for me to accept your unlimited, non-stop immigration fantasy as some ideal to strive for? I invite you to reality, welfare is going nowhere and is likely to increase if anything.

  • ohdelilah||

    One more time for the people in the back: People who are in this country illegally are not (NOT) eligible for Food Stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, or federal student loans. Meanwhile, people in detention centers absolutely ARE being housed, fed, and given medical care, and guess who pays for it? We do. With or without our consent. So, tell us, are you racist, or just willfully ignorant?

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    "For a moment, stop thinking of nations and states and "Club America", and start thinking about individuals."

    No.

    M'kay?

    No one is going to pay pretend for you. Nations don't cease to exist because you feel so much.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Something I have never understood from the collectivist nationalists.

    Why is collectivism on behalf of allegiance to a state considered acceptable, but collectivism on behalf of allegiance to a social class (such as, say, the proletariat) so terrible?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Let me take a stab at an honest answer, maybe to further some discussion of what is a pretty good point.

    I'll take collectivism to mean investing resources in an entity (in this case a state and a social class) with the hopes of some overall increase in something good.

    In the case of a state, at least to the level of some sort of minimum,an individual invests money and perhaps time with the belief there will be some tangible rewards going directly back to the individual.

    I don't think there is anything but an emotional and power investment in a social class, and it's hard to get a tangible reward from that, other than the feelz.

    Hmm, I'm not happy with my latter analysis. Somebody please enlighten me...

  • JoeBlow123||

    Something I have never understood from utopian nonsense pushers is the belief that they do not benefit from the club they are apart of and it is somehow some worthwhile ideal to dilute the power of this club so they can make themselves feel better for having such beautiful ideals.

    I have a word for you, it is called privilege. You are privileged. You are so privileged with safety and security you think these things come naturally. I have another word for you, it is called reality. The reality is that the conditions are ephemeral and not automatic.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Chemjeff, you appear to consider any se,blender of government to be an oppressive collective. So by definition ition you are an anarchist.

    The funny thing hint about that is if we really had anarchy, a touchy feely kid like you would survive about a nano second. Without the rule of law to protect an armchair anarchist such as yourself, bigger meaner guys would come, take your stuff, rape you to death, then cook and eat whatever is left of you.

    That's anarchy. Not something you really want. So maybe it might be good if you were a little bit grateful that those borders and that 'collctivism' that is our legal system actually exist.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "For a moment, deny the reality of how civilization actually enforces peace and order. Muh anarchy."

  • retiredfire||

    Asylum laws are designed for people who have "suffered some horrible crime at the hands of the government".
    Most of the people coming here are not fleeing that. They just think that things where they are, at the moment, suck.
    There is a process for them to "leave the country to another one in which you had other individuals - such as, say, relatives - who would willingly and freely help" them, but they are not following it. Millions are.
    Why should the ones, who thumb their noses at our laws, be rewarded for having that opinion of our national consensus and blatantly say so?
    How would you feel about someone coming into your home, despite your telling them that you don't want them, taking what they want and, on top of it, telling you FYTW - worse, demanding that you agree to let them stay, while the ones, you do invite, are left watching?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I do not care about the health of the state, either the Salvadoran state or the American state.

    I do not care about ephemeral concepts like "national culture". I don't think there is any such thing as a "national culture" that can be rigorously defined anyway. Individuals create their own culture for themselves according to the people with whom they freely associate, anyway.

    I do not care about "solving the world's problems". I don't agree in some universal top-down solution to any big problem anyway. Solutions to problems arise when individuals work together, and this can only happen if they are free to let their talents flourish in an environment as free of coercion as we can make it.

    I do not care about how much money a person makes. If someone makes a million dollars or works for pennies a day, each of them is still an individual human being who are nonetheless equivalent in terms of their natural liberties. The rich person does not deserve more fundamental liberty than the poor person does, and vice-versa.

    It's about the individuals. Preserving liberty for individuals. Without coercion and without depriving other individuals of their liberty. That's the end goal here.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Solutions to problems arise when individuals work together, and this can only happen if they are free to let their talents flourish in an environment as free of coercion as we can make it.

    What if those individuals decide to pool their resources and form a state?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A voluntary state? All the more power to them.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    So you're not against the idea of a state, you're just against the one we currently have to work with.

    If individuals buy up land, it's all their private property, yes? So even if all of the individuals aren't actively using all of the land it's still all theirs, yes? And if that land is contiguous they've essentially formed their own state. If all of those individuals decide to form a committee to oversee the use of the land, they've essentially formed their own government. So now tell me why you get to have a say in how they use their land.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Again, *if it's all voluntary*, then bully for them.

    The major problem arises is when this pooling of resources becomes involuntary.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Like welfare? But you don't believe that people have a problem with welfare. If you won't believe that, why don't you tell me the real reason I'm against unlimited immigration for everyone?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But you don't believe that people have a problem with welfare.

    I didn't say that.

    What I said was, I don't believe that concern about the cost of the welfare state is the PRIMARY motivating factor for closed borders among MANY of the closed-border enthusiasts.

    I don't deny that the closed border crowd, by and large, are concerned about the welfare state.
    And I also don't deny that there are some among the closed-border crowd who DO view that as the primary concern.

    If you are one of those people who favor closed borders primarily because of their burden on the welfare state, then good for you. I can understand and respect that argument. I don't agree with it because the cost to the welfare state arising from immigrants is puny compared to the cost to the welfare state arising from native-born citizens.

    What I can't tolerate are people who use the welfare argument as the motte to justify their real position, which is they just don't want immigrants here at all for cultural or demographic reasons. Not saying that's you specifically, but I do believe that is true for a lot of our Reason Republicans here.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    I didn't say that.

    Um...

    chemjeff radical individualist|6.21.18 @ 9:13AM|#

    What is bankrupting the country are the native-born citizens' reliance on the welfare state. The immigrants' contribution to this problem is a rounding error in proportion.

    No one sincerely believes that the true reason you are opposed to free migration is because of the cost of the welfare state.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Disbelieving the claim that welfare concerns are a primary motivating factor for closed borders is not equivalent to believing the claim that closed border enthusiasts are "fine with welfare".

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    What I said was, I don't believe that concern about the cost of the welfare state is the PRIMARY motivating factor for closed borders among MANY of the closed-border enthusiasts.

    Don't try to soft peddle your statement when it's right there for others to read. If this is what you meant then this is what you should have said to begin with.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is what I said from the start.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    That is what I said from the start.

    No it isn't, I copied your initial post. Sorry not sorry, I don't believe you.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes it is. You misconstrued my statement of "welfare concern is not their true reason" as implying "the closed border crowd are fine with welfare". They are not the same thing.

  • Libertymike||

    Oh, ye Misanthrope of little faith.

    Its obvious that you are distorting his position, Mr. Misanthrope.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Dumb

  • retiredfire||

    "The major problem arises is when this pooling of resources becomes involuntary."

    Does that problem happen as soon as you don't have unanimous agreement on how the resources are pooled?
    One individual, or a minority of the whole, get to have veto power over the pooling?
    The laws that exist are the best we can do to get a majority's beliefs into existence.
    Currently those beliefs are such that we want to limit how many, and who, we let into the country.
    Your position is a minority one. You are free to make it, but don't condemn those of us who agree with the majority, regardless of why that majority opinion exists.
    When it comes down to it, most people believe that the laws should be respected, obeyed and enforced. What you seem to want is anarchy.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    But some of us do care that scumbags like you are bankrupting the country with your endlessly expanding welfare state giveaways.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Weigel's something something,

    Keep insisting on that lie if it makes you feel better. It is still A LIE.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What is bankrupting the country are the native-born citizens' reliance on the welfare state. The immigrants' contribution to this problem is a rounding error in proportion.

    No one sincerely believes that the true reason you are opposed to free migration is because of the cost of the welfare state.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're assuming it a reliance.

    Its like roads. If they're there, why not use them? Maybe some of native-born citizens have a strategy to bankrupt the USA, so we can start anew after a civil war.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    No one sincerely believes that the true reason you are opposed to free migration is because of the cost of the welfare state.

    And this is your problem. When you refuse to sincerely believe in someone else's sincerely held beliefs then there is no point in engaging with you. So all you're going to get is retaliatory action.

  • damikesc||

    When I see how unwilling "immigration forever" types are to even notice that there are problems with their desires, then I see no reason to negotiate with any of them.

    The constant "immigration is all good" is a mindset devoid of intellect.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Sorry not sorry, but I am just tired of the bullshit emanating from the closed border crowd.

    Listening to the closed-border right complaining about OMG THE WELFARE is like listening to the hysterical left complaining about OMG THE CHILDREN when it comes to family separation. Everybody with a brain realizes that the cost of the welfare state, or the well-being of the children, are not the primary argument. It's the motte in a motte-and-bailey tactic.

    Sure I have no doubt that many on the closed-border right are genuinely concerned about the welfare state. But I'm sorry I no longer believe that it's their primary argument for closed borders.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Sorry not sorry, but I am just tired of the bullshit emanating from the closed border crowd.

    Then please stop bringing it up. Don't ask a question then say "I don't believe you" when it's answered. It's about as dishonest as you can get.

    I personally am not against people coming to America, I'm against welfare. Just because immigrants use less welfare than citizens doesn't mean that they're not adding to the welfare burden. I'm willing to bet that if welfare went away immigration levels would decrease. Maybe not by a huge amount, but it would decrease. There's obviously plenty of open land for more people to live on and there are plenty of jobs to go around. The problem is and always has been with handouts.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I can respect that argument. What I can't abide are people, who evidently don't include you, who complain about immigrants consuming welfare, but then always seem to find endless other ways to express their opposition to immigration.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    What I can't abide

    I hate to break it to you, but the people you can't abide don't really give a shit what you think. Constantly harping on it just hardens their stance against you.

  • SRoach||

    I think, but do not know, that the general public issues with immigration are several.
    1. Immigrants tend to vote progressive. Whether or not that progressive is pre-1960's Republicans or post-1960's Democrats, the side that is diluted will object to adding so many opposing votes to the electorate.
    2. Immigrants tend to pad progressive states, and Texas. Since we count everyone as one person. (I think we should not count non-permanent persons at all and only count the permanently disenfranchised native-born, (ex-cons), as 3/5ths, but that's me. I think it'd force people to revisit the reason they want the things they do. Maybe the prisons would empty out and the prisoners given their lives back, if prisoners and former prisoners weren't worth as much as free men and women when redistricting for the House of Representatives.)
    3. Immigrants frequently aren't "American" minded. This IS a problem if they come from a place with traditions that are counter to individual liberty. We have enough native born who want someone else to take care of this or that. We don't need more.
    Continued...

  • SRoach||

    4. Immigrants don't speak English, don't do American things, don't eat American foods. This is usually ephemeral, (except for the Hispanics, who go an extra generation speaking Spanish).
    Personally, I like my Americanized Hamburgers (Hamburg being a town in Germany), Hot Dogs, (also borrowed from Germany,) Pizza, Pasta, (both quite distinct from similar dishes in Italy), Egg rolls, Tacos and Burritos. I don't drink, so I can't speak to Whiskey, but I do like Irish music.
    Most, if not all, of it quite distinct from its parent form.
    5. Immigrants out-breed the native-born. This is a problem, but the problem is us "native-born" not producing enough children to replace our own population. I am part of the guilty in this, as I am a bachelor. So I've heard, if it weren't for immigration, our population would be on the decline, like it is in Japan.
    6. Immigrants DO take jobs. They'd take some of those same jobs if they're not allowed to immigrate: There's a lot of manufacturing in Mexico. SOME of the objection to immigration has always been job-protectionist. Immigrants frequently work harder and, frankly, better, than their native-born competition. This isn't good if you're a low-skilled native-born anything looking for a job that doesn't demand much.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Your idea of open borders only works if all the other countries in the world are willing to reciprocate. Which they're not.

    I'm not anti-immigrant. I've lived in Texas for 44 years and change - since I was in high school - and I've seen this stuff go on continuously since then. There's no way to count how many illegal immigrants I've come across in that time, and my observation is that the majority of them are decent people who are about the hardest working group of people around. Wailing about illegal immigration across our southern border is, to me, like getting pissed off about Tuesday. It's just something that regularly and continuously happens. Human nature is what it is.

    But the idea you keep proposing is one of those things that is theoretically fine but completely impractical.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: beavis the lumberjack,

    --- Your idea of open borders only works if all the other countries in the world are willing to reciprocate. ---

    Right, and there can't be free trade unless all countries are free of sin.

    Anti-market ideologues on the left and the Trumpista OTHER left beat that dead horse forever: people can't have a free market because they're too greedy, or there can't be free trade unless all countries have perfect governments or there can't be an open border because... something.

    Open borders ---open to the free flow of goods, of services, of capital and, yes, of labor--- is a concept consistent with the respect for free markets and people's right to act upon their decisions without undue hindrance. Why should that be contingent upon what governments in other countries do is something that you will have to explain without looking foolish, a tall order indeed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open borders is part the anarchist's strategy.

    No national boundaries and then no nations.

  • Cathy L||

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    It is. Most of the world is not like us.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a horrible idea.

    Anarchy is a pipe dream.

  • SRoach||

    To amplify.
    Anarchy leads to Feudalism.
    I don't want to live as some feudal serf, even if I probably do like the guy who would end up as the local lord, so I don't want Anarchy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You know what's also part of the anarchist's strategy?

    Widespread individual gun ownership.

    Maybe it's time to restrict that too? /sarc

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gun ownership has been around a lot longer than anarchy as a political movement.

  • ipsquire||

    Free speech and freedom of religion are also part of the anarchist's strategy. Are they bad too?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All the natural rights are part of the anarchist's strategy. Including biggest force wins.

    There is no government to protect rights.

    As I said- pipe dream.

  • damikesc||

    I do not care about ephemeral concepts like "national culture". I don't think there is any such thing as a "national culture" that can be rigorously defined anyway. Individuals create their own culture for themselves according to the people with whom they freely associate, anyway.

    A sentiment in existence solely because this national culture allows such frivolity.

    Most other countries would never accept such idiocy. Your beliefs would have been stamped down hard almost anywhere else.

    Hell, free speech is an abnormality. Our concept is very much an outlier. I guess we need to go back to the European model where free speech is a myth.

  • Cathy L||

    A sentiment in existence solely because this national culture allows such frivolity.

    Sounds like you're not crazy about your national culture.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A sentiment in existence solely because this national culture allows such frivolity.

    Really? So this "national culture" of free speech absolutism is evident since, say, speakers at college campuses don't get shouted down and hounded from the stage due to their views?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    damikesc, you may not be aware of this, but in certain segments of American society, "free speech" is a dirty word. This is their small slice of 'national culture' that they have created for themselves. I strongly disagree with their views. But they are just as much of a part of the 'national culture' as your views or my views.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Free speech allows dissent and dissent will not be tolerated by tyrannical statists.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "I do not care about the health of the state, either the Salvadoran state or the American state."

    That is a fantastic statement from someone who benefits every single day from the health of our national project. But yes, your ideals are beautiful and you are such a moral person. Keep on the good fight, you best among us.

    The state is pretty weak in Afghanistan and El Salvador, anarchy is working swimmingly there yes?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: JoeBlow123

    --- But again, there is a lot of the world that sucks and America cannot save the world or everyone in it. ---

    The gobernment can do something --- STOP THE WAR ON DRUGS, ASSHOLE!

    Paraphrasing Jim Carrey.

  • ||

    The gobernment can do something --- STOP THE WAR ON DRUGS, ASSHOLE!

    How many immigrants, legal or otherwise, do we bring/allow/let/welcome in to end the war on drugs?

  • ohdelilah||

    If reducing the number of immigrants from parts south is the goal, one of the most important things we can do is end the drug war. Much of the violence and the economic insecurity these people are fleeing is a direct result of the US-fueled, US-funded drug war.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Yes I agree we should. Our drug addiction is directly financing the drug violence in South America and Central America. It is disgusting.

  • Iheartskeet||

    What strikes me about Reason articles on this and some other topics, is a complete lack of actual journalism.

    Rather than dive into the issue in all its complexities, we get a superficial treatment that one could equally glean from just watching CNN.

    Meanwhile, we will get far more info from...the comments section !

    The days of a Love Canal type investigative effort are done and done it appears.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    It's not about any kind of truth. Reason has an open borders agenda. That eclipses everything for them. Why disclose all the facts, or even tell the truth when obfuscation and lies will advance that agenda faster?

    Or simply put, Nick and the gang have largely destroyed their own credibility in pursuit of their agenda.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They're all auditioning for Salon.

    @edkrayewski was actually competent old school journalism. Naturally, they shitcanned him.

    Ron is ok. Sticking on the science beat helps. But he'll likely be shitcanned for an SJW soon enough. Then we'll hear how
    "Biological sex is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples"

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Let's not overthink what Trump did. The administration doesn't like undocumented immigrants, whom it wants to shut out completely. It doesn't like legal immigrants, whose numbers it proposes to drastically reduce. It doesn't like refugees and has reduced their admissions by more than half."

    Shorter Chapman: Trump and conservatards hate non-white immigrants, legal or otherwise, and RELISH the idea of PUNISHING illegal humans!

    http://www.goodreads.com/quote.....ust-all-in
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangmen and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! "

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    illegal humans

    I don't know if this term will ever stop being funny. Whoever said only the 'evil proggies' are the ones that want to change language to suit their needs?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We can go back to calling them migrants like the Constitution uses when it gave Congress the authority to regulate migration of free persons and slaves after 1808.

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 9: The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So the maximum punishment of illegal humans who illegally import themselves, authorized by the Constitution, is actually a maximum of $10 per head, tax or fine, or some such!

    Good to know!

    I wonder what the per-head punishment costs, per illegal human, spent by "La Migra", is, right now? Meanwhile, "La Migra" doesn't babysit my kids, doesn't build me any buildings, doesn't mow my yard... "La Migra" won't even scratch my ass for me, when my hands are all bandaged up from carpal tunnel surgery recovery! But the illegal humans would be perfectly willing to do these things, and more, in free & consensual acts of economic exchange freedom, for me and others

    Who's in favor, here, of following the Constitution, and even more importantly, of following basic principles of INDIVIDUAL freedom?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    illegal humans

    Makes me chuckle every time.

  • SQRLSY One||

    When humans are outlawed, only outlaws will be human!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    $10 importation for slaves. Yup.

    Unfortunately for you, slavery was banned after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

    Migration of free persons continues today and is regulated by Congress as per that clause.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Can you find even one court case which justifies the federal power to regulate immigration as being based in that clause in the Constitution?

  • retiredfire||

    None of them have to, because Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 has been interpreted to include regulation of those, who would be subject to naturalization.
    All courts have ruled that the Congress has the right to decide who is permitted to enter the country, justified by this power, enumerated in the Constitution. Some of them may try to get around it, but none have made that kind of ruling.
    You're barking up the wrong tree to claim the government has no such power.

  • Libertymike||

    Why do you continue to misinterpret Article 1, sec. 9?

    It does not unequivocally declare that Congress has the power to regulate matters of immigration. Again, why take the progressive view and imply powers not expressly granted? Your reliance on this provision to support the contention that Congress can regulate matters of immigration is misplaced. It also puts you in the camp of big government lovers.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    No, it isn't. And stop,conflating reliance on the constitution with some kind of government leviathan. When you talk like that, it turns off anyone we might actually bring over to,our side.

    Stop talking like a kook and the LP might actually win a few elections. This goes for everyone else too, not just you.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Apparently Steve Chapwoman doesn't pay very close attention to the news.

  • Citizen X||

    Congratulations, "Steve Chapwoman" is your laziest stupid nickname yet.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Their approach [Donald Trump's and Jeff Sessions'] was a model of brutality, inflicting unspeakable horror on children and parents. It was so ugly that on Wednesday, Trump decided to drop it."

    Yesterday, I predicted that the left would continue to blame Trump for a policy he'd ended. It's as if Trump had never ended the policy, or, indeed, as if there were no difference between Trump ending the policy and not ending the policy.

    When someone can no longer differentiate between motives and actions, why think of them as libertarian or even reasonable anymore?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It worked fantastically for Trump's political purposes. The left cannot even see nor admit their political misstep.

    Trump now gets credit for ending Obama's ICE policy of separating immigrants from their kids while waiting to be deported.

    Trump has been toying with lefties for months while they move out of 'check'.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You don't seem to be registering the fact that Trump isn't getting credit for ending the practice.

    Trump's supporters are still out there defending the practice as if it were anything but an embarrassment.

    Trump's detractors are still blaming Trump for the practice--even though he ended it.

    See Chapman's article for evidence of the latter.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're right that the lefties are not giving Trump credit and they never will.

    History gives Trump credit. That is really all that matters in TDS-land.

    I think Trump's supporters for immigration reform are saying much more than kids should be separated from their parents before being deported.

    I am one of them that supports deporting as many illegals as possible and turning away as many scammers looking for asylum as possible. I am part of the silent majority on this issue who are now not so silent. The lies with this issue expose the utter desperation to prevent illegals from being deported and immigration rules from being followed.

    The immigrants can end all the separation of kids immediately. Agree to deportation and be deported in a few days. See ya. The lefties and their scammer immigrant cohorts are losing and that is a good thing.

    If you want to come into the USA legally, apply and wait for an answer like everyone else.

  • ipsquire||

    Ken - "You don't seem to be registering the fact that Trump isn't getting credit for ending the practice."

    Not on your facebook feed, but he is and will with the voters who have MAGA hats.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't have a facebook feed.

    And the midterms won't be decided by people who wear MAGA hate.

    They'll be decided by swing voters.

  • ohdelilah||

    Trump didn't end it. The zero-tolerance policy is still in place. By law, children can only be held with parents for 20 days. After that the children will be separated.

  • Cathy L||

    So...you quote the post saying "Trump decided to drop it" and then go on to talk about how "the left" is acting as if the policy never ended. What kind of sense is that supposed to make?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump gets historical credit for ending Obama's ICE policy to separate kids before deporting them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So...you quote the post saying "Trump decided to drop it" and then go on to talk about how "the left" is acting as if the policy never ended. What kind of sense is that supposed to make?"

    Read the piece again.

    Despite the fact that Trump ended it, they're still blaming him for it--as if he hadn't.

    Just because he ended doesn't mean they can't continue to blame him for it. And that's what they're doing--from the headline on down:

    "The Needless Cruelty of Trump's Border Policy
    Trump's approach has been a model of brutality, inflicting unspeakable horror on children and parents"

    Is this not blaming the policy on Trump?

    And isn't it blaming Trump even though he's the one that ended it?

  • Dadlobby||

    "Snatching children from the arms of mothers", this a HuffPo gynecentric feminist rag now? Fathers don't matter? Nor does the fact the U.S. has been tearing families apart in (anti) family courts for over 30 years so that states can reap the financial windfall of federal dollars under Title IVd of the Social Security Act. These U.S. parents (mostly fathers) committed no crime, abuse, or neglect and had "children ripped from their arms". But if a parent marches their kids across multiple countries to enter the U.S. illegally (a CRIME) you get butthurt? BTW, these aren't refugees, they are economic migrants who chose to take the risk.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The same people saying "Snatching children from the arms of mothers" are all over divorce laws that strip children from their fathers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Judges that strip kids from their parents are cruel.

    "Forcibly separating children from their mothers is cruel. Pretending otherwise is unnecessary, stupid, and pathetic."
    -Ken Schultz

    I know Ken is open border but has usually been the voice of reason and advocated the dangers of pushing Americans too hard on illegals, so that Americans would come around to relaxing border restrictions.

    He jumped on the hysteria bandwagon now and joined those who chose principals over principles.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Needless Cruelty of Trump's Border Policy
    Trump's approach has been a model of brutality, inflicting unspeakable horror on children and parents.

    TDS

    Deporting people is not brutality, horror, nor cruelty.

    Neither is separating people from their children to house them before deporting them. People in the USA that get arrested get separated from their kids all the time.

    You open border people really are losing the fight and you are getting so desperate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Forcibly separating children from their mothers is cruel. Pretending otherwise is unnecessary, stupid, and pathetic.

    Did the government officials who defended the policy even deny it was cruel? They just said it was legal and a deterrent.

    If you think you have to pretend ridiculous things are true in order to support a secure border, then you might want to double check that your intellectual integrity is still intact. And the idea that separating children from their mothers isn't cruel is a ridiculous thing to pretend.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I guess all police are cruel for separating kids from their arrested parents.

    Pretending otherwise is unnecessary, stupid, and pathetic.

    You open border people really messed up this argument up.

    Its all moot since Trump ended the practice, not Obama, Chapman, of Shikha. TRUMP did.

  • Cathy L||

    I guess all police are cruel for separating kids from their arrested parents.

    Pretending otherwise is unnecessary, stupid, and pathetic.

    Yes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That's conveniently pro-anarchy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Separating children from their mothers is cruel--even IF IF IF it's necessary.

    You claimed that separating children from their parents isn't cruel.

    That's false.

  • gclancy51||

    Yeah, but love constitution is an edgelord, didn't you know? Bad to the bone!

  • ohdelilah||

    Having seen first hand how police treat children during drug raids and traffic stops, I completely agree that all police are cruel. And Trump did NOT end the practice. He merely reworded it.

  • Mark22||

    But we ran that experiment with Cubans, hundreds of thousands of whom came as refugees in the 1960s and '70s—some because Fidel Castro decided to empty out jails and mental institutions.

    How well have they adjusted? Cuban-Americans born in this country generally have higher incomes and more education than the average native. More than half of Cuban-Americans in Florida voted for Trump.

    Cuban Americans escaped a wealthy, market-oriented nation after a communist takeover and actually were politically persecuted. That is very different from the illegal migrants coming from South /CentralAmerica today.

    Your analogy is utterly reprehensible.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Shhh... do not break the narrative.

  • Mark22||

    Its treatment of the families coming across the southern border has been motivated not by a devotion to upholding the law but by hostility to foreigners—at least nonwhite ones.

    No, it's a hostility to migrants who break the law. It is neither hostility to foreigners nor is it based on race.

    Chapman: stop projecting your own racism and xenophobia onto others.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chapman and the most of the Reason crew cannot help it.

    They hate Trump so much that their LINO racism just exudes into almost all articles they do.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Mark22,

    --- No, it's a hostility to migrants who break the law. ---

    Your argument would be convincing if only the State showed the same zeal for respect for the law if the State jailed jaywalkers and litterers and put their children in kennels with the same consistency.

    But your argument is not convincing precisely because the separation of families had NOTHING to do with law enforcement but, as the Keebler Elf admitted, with kidnappjng children to scare parents shitless. It's a tactic, pure and simple.

    Trumpistas, the ghouls, love it, of course.

  • damikesc||

    I still like the belief that illegals should be protected to a level citizens are not.

    Citizens get busted for illegal entry and they will lose their kids during a prison sentence.

  • TLBD||

    I think the better analogy would be trespassing, which is a misdemeanor in most places (where the penalty often depends on intent), not jaywalking or littering, though jaywalking or littering can land you in jail if you keep getting caught.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It would be better if the US border was right on the national boundary and we could just never let the immigrants onto US soil. The reality is that the US border is set away from the national boundary so immigrants are on US soil when they reach our border checkpoints.

    As Americans do, we take most of them in and care for them but have to be forceful because they are not following the legal procedure so they will be deported.

    Most people get visas a head of time or ask permission and wait for an answer.

    Americans have been too nice and we were being taken advantage of.

  • ||

    Lenore Skenazy has made a career around these parts highlighting families being harangued for letting their kids ride the bus, play in a park, sleep in an unlocked car for 5 min., play in their own yard, and even do "nothing" alone in their own house.

  • retiredfire||

    "...though jaywalking or littering can land you in jail if you keep getting caught."
    So can trespassing - if you refuse to cease and leave the location, where you are committing it, and, especially, if you come back after being told to leave.
    And all of those - littering, jaywalking and trespassing - have actual punishments, while deportation is not a punishment. It is simply returning the situation to what it was, before the offense occurred.
    No fine, no jail time, just "there you are, back where you belong".

  • Mark22||

    Your argument would be convincing if only the State showed the same zeal for respect for the law if

    The US government shows the same immigration enforcement zeal against people from Europe. And, of course, in terms of race or ethnicity, South Americans are the same kind of people as other members of the former Spanish empire.

    But your argument is not convincing precisely because the separation of families had NOTHING to do with law enforcement but, as the Keebler Elf admitted, with kidnappjng children to scare parents shitless.

    Deterrence is a major component of law enforcement. In this case, what government is trying to deter is not just illegal behavior on the part of parents, but also the risk parents expose their kids to when committing their illegal acts.

    Trumpistas, the ghouls, love it, of course.

    Yup, insults and lies is all you have.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "If government punishes citizens with overly harsh sentences for minor crimes for purposes of deterrence in order to 'send a message', then why shouldn't the government do the same thing to immigrants? What, you don't want the immigrants to be treated better than native-born citizens, do you? What are you, some sort of America-hater?"

  • Mark22||

    "If government punishes citizens with overly harsh sentences for minor crimes for purposes of deterrence in order to 'send a message', then why shouldn't the government do the same thing to immigrants?

    There is no "sentence"; these parents can get reunited with their kids whenever they choose to. What they can't do is get reunited with their kids and stay in the US unless their asylum application is approved.

    And these people are not "immigrants", they are illegal border crossers.

  • ohdelilah||

    And they hurt you, how?

  • ||

    Trumpistas, the ghouls, love it, of course.

    I actually considered owning 'the ghouls' yesterday. Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and even liberals have been swept along by progressivism so long and hard that most are ghouls (see Reason's reporting on the ACLU). At this point, I think most of the electorate is composed of soulless ghouls that died on hills long ago. At this point, even the memes are zombified.

    NPR runs three back-to-back stories detailing the hypothetically irreparable trauma these kids have been subjected to and the actual, physical health consequences they may suffer as a result (like heart disease after 60!) if they never experience the love and warmth of their parents (or any caregiver) again. At best, I can only muster a guttural 'muh.' and think "At least they didn't leave them in a locked car for two minutes with the windows cracked on a 65 degree day."

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    OldMex, your snotty comments really make people want to double down against illegals. Even if anyone thought you might have a lint, no one will give a smug jerk like you the satisfactin.

    You are a lousy booster for your misplaced cause.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Don't Get Played; Get Woke to the Outrage Scam
    Look for the indicators. Is it something that seems unreasonably horrible? Well, like something that sounds too good to be true probably is, something that sounds too bad to be true likewise is probably not true either. Does Trump ordering screaming babies to be wrenched from their innocent mommies' arms and cast into dungeons sound pretty extreme? Yeah, because it is. And it's a lie.

    Is it something where the proposed solution benefits the liberal elite? For global warming, the answer they give to this threat THAT WE MUST ACT UPON RIGHT THIS MINUTE is to give liberals more power. Same with global cooling. And same with global staying the same.

    Are you allowed to ask questions? If you start pointing out that maybe a good way to avoid being arrested for illegal entry and being separated from Junior is to not enter the U.S. illegally with a kid, is the response that you are a hating hater of hatred and probably a Nazi too? If they are trying to shout you down or browbeat you into silence, that's an indicator that you're in the midst of another Cat 5 outrage.

  • TLBD||

    I always say something like this to my liberal friends.

    I don't outright disagree with them, I usually just say I'm skeptical and list the classic scam.

    Step 1: They tell you about some disaster that is about to happen to you or the world.
    Step 2: They convince you that they know every detail of it, and they are the only experts who can fix it.
    Step 3: They will fix it for you, but you must give them money (or power).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nice tactic.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Before even inspecting the link I already knew it was a Schlichter column.

    This is the guy who generates clicks and bucks and views for attempting to incite the next civil war.

    It's a mystery (not really) on why so many self-professed 'nationalists' look up to this guy, who wants to destroy the nation that they all claim to love so much.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Kurt Schlicter is a retired IS Army Colonel and JAG lawyer with impeccable credentials. He wrote a piece a while back to illustrate how horrible a civil war would be for both sides as a warning that no one should want to go down that path.

    You denigrate him because he speaks logically and intelligently, destroying your bad, emotion based arguments. Which makes you more angry. As usual, instead of refuting his arguments, you libel the him. When the fact of the matter is that he is ten times the man you will ever be.

    Chem Jeff, have you ever done anything of value with your life? Do you have any real character or integrity? I certainly see little sign of it in your commentary.

  • retiredfire||

    If anyone is inciting a civil war, it is the advocates of anarchy, of which, chemjeff, you are one.

  • damikesc||

    Assume you do not want to just let illegals go because they have kids --- not necessarily theirs --- with them.

    How do you do so?

    I'd say simply say "no" to ALL asylum requests and send them back.

  • Mark22||

    I'd say simply say "no" to ALL asylum requests and send them back.

    This isn't even about asylum requests; people who request asylum at a border crossing are not separated from their kids.

    This policy only affects people who try to enter the US illegally and then claim asylum after they get caught. And even then, asylum processing is usually fast; they only get separated for a significant amount of time if their asylum application gets denied and they contest that finding.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Legitimate asylum requests are fine. But a bad job market, spousal abuse, crime, etc. are not any legal basis for refugee status under international treaty. Nor is country shopping. These people should be settled no further north than Mexico. Not a one of them has any business making an asylum claim in the US.

  • TLBD||

    Someone mentioned on another thread that there are already like 3 new articles on this same subject.

    Which kind of touches on my main issue with Reason in the Trump Age: They have become unoriginal. They have also become very one-sided and one-dimensional on certain issues that are far more complex than they are making them out to be (such as trade and immigration).

    I never came to Reason to hear the same garbage I can get from pretty much any other news source. TDS is killing this magazine.

  • damikesc||

    Reason articles are boring as shit. None of their writers, outside of Stossel, routinely write interesting articles.

    The comments are quite good. The commenters deserve better material to riff on.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have never been to a website where I ignore many of the article and go straight for the comments to see what is really going on.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The place has been slowly but steadily going downhill ever since it got hijacked by a bunch of wokeltarians about 10-12 years ago.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's this thing I call "Jane Fonda Syndrome", where someone starts out with a reasonable position, but in defense of that position, they go way over the edge--so far that they end up making a mockery of the position they set out to defend.

    Criticism of the Vietnam War could be reasonable. It was expensive. There were a lot of civilian casualties, not to mention American GIs. You could criticize the conscription. Somehow, in Jane Fonda's mind, that wasn't enough. She had to believe that the communists in North Vietnam were the good guys! She ended up posing on North Vietnamese antiaircraft guns with spent shells all around it, vouching for the good treatment of American POWs--who were actually being tortured. It started out innocent and reasonable enough, but we always have to check ourselves.

    Otherwise, we start insisting on the most ridiculous things.

    Wanting a secure border is perfectly reasonable. I want a secure border, too. Anybody who thinks stripping children away from their mothers isn't cruel because they want a secure border, however, has gone far more than one toke over the line. How embarrassing to those of us who want a secure border--if the rest of the world now thinks we're the ones who imagine that stripping children from their mothers isn't cruel. What Jane Fonda did by vouching for the good treatment of tortured Americans was bad--but could what she did have been any worse for the anti-Vietnam War movement? How embarrassing for them!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. You went WAY over on your open border position.

    You have said that "Forcibly separating children from their mothers is cruel. Pretending otherwise is unnecessary, stupid, and pathetic."

    Judges are cruel for doing it. ICE agents are cruel for doing it. Police are cruel for doing it.

    Separating kids from their parents is cruel. Sending your kids thousands of miles unattended is NOT on that cruel list, mind you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jane Fonda chose to sit on an 'AA' gun in North Vietnam. Luckily, she does not have kids or didn't take hers with her.

    Immigrant parents choose to try and scam the US immigration system. They can 100% avoid being separated by racist and cruel Americans by not crossing the US border.

    Ask for permission to enter the USA and wait for a response like everyone else.

  • TLBD||

    I get what you're saying, but the reason this was pushed so hard by the left is because they know there isn't a reasonable alternative, it was a transparent attempt to weaken border security, and I think many on the right are pissed because they know the left doesn't actually care about these kids, and they believe (probably rightly so) that the issue was way over-hyped and not anywhere near as horrible as the left is making it out to be.

    The right was politically out-maneuvered on this one. Trump took a look at his hand and cut his losses.

  • TLBD||

    For example: How can you be sure that these kids are with their actual parents and not smugglers or traffickers? Should you not separate them until you are sure so they can't be coached?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    With all the screaming by the left, they missed that Trump only ordered that ICE keep kids together with parents arrested at the border together.

    I guess families won't be put back together if they are already separated.

    And as you ask, how are the adults with kids supposed to be guaranteed to be parents and not nefarious adults.

    The lefties don't care about this question as it allows them to sue if something bad does happen.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The right was politically out-maneuvered on this one. Trump took a look at his hand and cut his losses."

    That's exactly correct.

    It might even be like an accommodation vs. freedom of association issue. Regardless of who's rational and correct on that issue, voting against the Civil Rights Act amid the civil rights movement could be a political loser.

    Politicians make political calculations. If the Democrats succeeded in turning the upcoming midterms into a referendum on stripping children away from their mothers, the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance.

    Whether that's as it should be is another issue entirely.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, and there's no reason why honest libertarians who want to see immigration law enforced need to die on the hill of stripping children away from their mothers either.

    One can both want the enforcement of immigration laws and also oppose ripping families apart.

    I'm looking forward to the post mortem discussion of this policy, where we try to figure out why anti-immigration people felt like they had to go there.

    Part of it is that a huge segment of our population still feels politically disenfranchised be elitists for various reasons.

    Part of it is empathy fatigue. You can only play on people's sympathies for so long, and the social justice warriors and progressives have been making pathetic victims out of every issue for at least ten years--people are sick of being forced to feel sorry for everybody.

  • TLBD||

    Part of it is empathy fatigue. You can only play on people's sympathies for so long, and the social justice warriors and progressives have been making pathetic victims out of every issue for at least ten years--people are sick of being forced to feel sorry for everybody.

    They've been caught in so many lies and obfuscations, I do not believe them anymore. Besides, ultimately, anyone living on this soil has it better than 95% of the rest of the world.

  • TLBD||

    Which goes to what I like about Rand Paul and dislike about libertarian-leaning guys like his father or Flake or Sanford or even Amash sometimes. He only picks battles he can win. Even when it looks like Rand lost (such as his "grandstanding") he really wins by maximizing his message. The guy may seem squishy to a lot of libertarians, but he consistently advances the cause of liberty by playing politics when necessary, while guys like Flake and Sanford fade into irrelevancy because their first principle is that the world sees them as principled (ego).

    I get the political calculations. But, we also need people on the sidelines pushing the truth when the politicians cannot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Here is someone on your side Ken.

    "WE SHOULD RIP BARRON TRUMP FROM HIS MOTHER'S ARMS AND PUT HIM IN A CAGE WITH PEDOPHILES AND SEE IF MOTHER WILL WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE GIANT ASSHOLE SHE IS MARRIED TO," Peter Fonda tweeted early Wednesday morning.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Anybody who thinks stripping children away from their mothers isn't cruel because they want a secure border, however, has gone far more than one toke over the line.

    I completely agree.

    The worst arguments in defense of this zero-tolerance policy has to be the ones that started with "if immigrants didn't want X to happen to them, they shouldn't have attempted to cross the border in the first place".

    The worst part is that this argument works for almost any value of X.

  • Mark22||

    The worst arguments in defense of this zero-tolerance policy has to be the ones that started with "if immigrants didn't want X to happen to them, they shouldn't have attempted to cross the border in the first place". The worst part is that this argument works for almost any value of X.

    Putting criminal adults into adult prison is a perfectly reasonable value for "X". Nobody has seriously asked for other values of "X".

    Furthermore, they only get locked up until their case is adjudicated; they can choose to end their application for asylum-after-illegal-entry any time they choose and be reunited with their kids any time they choose.

  • Mark22||

    Anybody who thinks stripping children away from their mothers isn't cruel because they want a secure border, however, has gone far more than one toke over the line.

    So you are saying that in each and every circumstance "stripping children away from their mothers" is cruel? How about if the mother beats the children senseless? How about if the mother dangles the children from a 12th floor balcony by their left foot? How about if they mother is a drug abuser and doesn't supervise the children? How about the mother chooses to commit a crime and exposes their children to massive risk in doing so? That's what we are talking about here.

    Furthermore, the mother has complete control: she can apply for asylum at a port of entry and not get separated, or she can choose not to file an asylum request after being picked up for illegally crossing into the US, or she can choose not to contest a denial of the asylum request. Kids don't get "stripped away from their mothers", mothers make a choice that a few months more of pointless legal proceedings is preferable for them than to be with their kids.

    You're defending cruel and abusive parents.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So you are saying that in each and every circumstance "stripping children away from their mothers" is cruel?

    You're defending cruel and abusive parents."

    I wrote, "Anybody who thinks stripping children away from their mothers isn't cruel because they want a secure border, however, has gone far more than one toke over the line."

    I didn't write, "Stripping children away from abusive parents is cruel".

    That latter part is something you made up in your head after quoting me saying exactly not that.

  • Rich||

    You could fit them with ankle bracelets and monitor their whereabouts.

    Or with cell phones and monitor their conversations *and* whereabouts.

  • smalleyd||

    Thanks to Reason I've become a build-the-wall supporter. I don't even read their immigration rants anymore. I just go straight to the comments for more honest reporting.

  • TLBD||

    Me too, really. I think its impact will be limited, but I'll get quite a bit of joy watching their woketarian heads explode.

  • Ron||

    https://medicalkidnap.com/2018/06/20/ mother-faces-jury-trial- as-texas-seeks-to-terminate -her-parental-rights-over- daughter-injured-by-gardasil-vaccine/

    Hers some real needless cruilty far beyond anything happening at the border. If you want windmills to tilt go after medical kidnaping

  • Ron||

    also comparing Trump separating parents from kids is not even close to the canabalistic comparison made in the article such TDS comparisons only lessen any arguments made and soon people will just ignore anything you try

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Swift, of course, wasn't serious

    That goes without saying, since getting FDA approval always makes any practical solution impractical.

  • Unhappy Chandler||

    "Trump's approach has been a model of brutality, inflicting unspeakable horror on children and parents"

    Sorry, I'm all out of hyperbole induced outrage.

  • TLBD||

    You actually read the Chapman article?

    Chapman is easy; take the leftist outrage against the right, wait at least 3 days until all leftist talking points can be consolidated, then write an article rehashing all of it while claiming you are libertarian.

    That about the jist of it?

  • AnnJo1||

    "Of the individuals who filed for asylum in 2014 and had legal representation, 97 percent of women with children and 98 percent of unaccompanied children were in full compliance with their immigration court appearance obligations as of December 2017."

    This highly suspicious claim is made in Human Rights First's (HRF) fanciful "Myth v Fact" sheet on immigrant families' track record on showing up for their hearings. You have to read the footnotes carefully to get a realistic handle on what really happens, but the sentence above should put anybody on notice that something is fishy about the claim. HRF wants you to believe that only 2 or 3% of women with children or unaccompanied minors fail to show up for their hearings. Not true.

    Note that it covers a period of three years, at least. (File for asylum in 2014, still in process as of December 2017.) As written, the statement refers only to people who "had legal representation" presumably throughout that entire period or until their cases were resolved prior to December 2017.

    Realize that if your client disappears on you, you cannot continue representing him/her, so by the time an order of removal is entered in absentia, the person will no longer be represented, and therefore won't be counted as part of the 2 or 3% who are acknowledged by Human Rights First as being out of compliance with their court obligations.

  • AnnJo1||

    Delving further into Human Rights First's "fact" sheet --

    A clearer picture is evident from footnote 1 of HRF's sheet: Of the roughly 25,700 cases of adults with children on alternatives to detention (i.e., released) who landed on the "master calendar" hearing scheduled between July 2014 and May 2015, roughly 12,400 had their cases completed during that time, and of those, 10,400 had orders of removal issued in absentia -- in other words, were no-shows for their hearings. HRF claims that means that 60% showed up for their hearings and only 40% were AWOL. No.

    Because we only know that 12,400 had hearings actually happen. What we know is that OF THE CASES THAT WE KNOW ACTUALLY WENT TO HEARING, 84% were no-shows and 2,000 showed up.

    The other 13,300 may have had hearings continued (to give their lawyers time to find them, perhaps), or because the system was swamped, or because they failed to show for one hearing but the court re-set it to give them another chance, or because their notice came back as undeliverable, or for any of the numerous other reasons court hearings get canceled or continued.

    The other thing that we know is that that as of 2016, there were nearly ONE MILLION unserved Orders of Removal -- people who had been in the immigration system, were not placed in detention or were released from detention, and have used that opportunity to avoid being deported.

    HRF's "Myths vs Fact" sheet is basically a fraud.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Heh. Thanks for the info.

  • Barry soetaro||

    "Unspeakable horror"? People put their kids alone on a 2000 mile trip to try to get into the Big Freebie and the left says, yeah! Where were you when obama had kids locked up in doghouses? Oh, that's right. You ignored it because it was obama, but now it's Trump.
    The left has no solution. If so, what is it? Open borders?
    Lawyers and ankle bracelets? Really? And maybe have NASA track the millions pouring in, right?
    There are about 130,000,000 people who recently said when polled they wanted to move into the US. Now. And that was just central and South Americans. Give that some thought. Take a good look at the shambles in Europe, then cry all you want for lawyers and ankle bracelets.
    See if you can get a few million dem lawyers to head south for free...

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    "If you want to prevent these people from absconding, you could provide them with lawyers. You could fit them with ankle bracelets and monitor their whereabouts. You could expand the number of immigration courts to greatly accelerate asylum processing."

    Or, you could detain them until their hearing date SINCE THEY ENTERED THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY!

  • MEndersby||

    Total BS. Entering the country illegally is a serious crime, 1st degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months jail plus fine, one notch below a felony. In fact, a second offense is a felony.

    These criminal aliens should IN NO WAY be afforded more consideration than AMERICAN CITIZENS and their children. As we speak, hundreds of thousands of AMERICAN children, if not millions, are separated from their incarcerated parents, the vast majority for misdemeanor crimes. Some are even incarcerated for being poor, unable to pay fines or child support, certain irony there.

    Liberal outrage on the treatment of criminal aliens is disingenuous, this article excellent example. Crime is crime, processed through the courts, incarceration pre and post conviction ordinary course of business. Accommodations are jail,prison, as one would expect.

    But go ahead, continue to take your message that foreigners, criminal aliens deserve far better treatment than American citizens and their children to the political arena, and see how that turns out for you.

  • Robert Arvanitis||

    As Reason readers know, the wisdom of crowds always prevails, especially in the comments here today.
    I can add only a suggestion to the author - Tame your adjectives: "needless cruelty," "unspeakable horror," "model of brutality?" Read a history book. ANY history book. Learn of man's true nature and recalibrate your emotions.

  • ranrod||

    open borders anarchists run this site
    ----------
    Separation of alien families" is an emotional artifice concocted by globalists.
    In the years since the attacks of 9/11 other terror attacks were carried out by international terrorists who also exploited vulnerabilities in the immigration system, killing still more innocent victims. Some of the terrorists had actually been able to acquire political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship, proving the the entire immigration system lacked integrity. Today our politicians, from both the Democratic and Republican parties, aided by the mainstream media have constructed irresistible incentives for millions of illegal aliens to head for the U.S. border, by whatever means possible.
    The biggest incentive for this stampede is the promise of a massive amnesty program under the guise of proposed legislation to legalize unknown millions of aliens who supposedly would have qualified under Obama's DACA (Deferred Action - Childhood Arrivals) program.

    DACA: The Immigration Trojan Horse in which I explained that DACA had its origins in two failed legislative efforts, Comprehensive Immigration Reform and then the DREAM Act, to provide up to 90% of the entire illegal alien population of the United States with lawful status.

  • ranrod||

    Little if anything is ever reported in the media about these tens of thousands of incarcerated American citizens who have been sentenced to lengthy prison sentences and separated from their children. The message would be clear and utterly insane, either enter the United States with a visa or bring a child with you if you are ineligible to enter legally.

    Here is the message that must be sent to all aspiring illegal aliens: A child is not a substitute for a visa!
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ 270492/proposed-legislation-daca- aliens-spurs-stampede-michael-cutler

  • Spookk||

    They are invaders. Set up the military at the border and begin shooting and bombing them. Maybe then they will go the fuck away.

  • ohdelilah||

    What a scary place your mind must be, to be so full of hate.

  • Roscoe BoDeen||

    Its beyond my comprehension why anyone would want immigrate to this country where many proclaim that it operates a failed economic system, is infested with systemic and institutional racism, and is dominated by a "white, patriarchal" power structure. I guess I'm missing something.

  • Adrian Day||

    First Question: do you believe in open borders? If not, should illegal immigrants be arrested? If so, should the children stay with them in detention? And if taking children away from illegal immigrants is so heinous, why should it be acceptable to separate children from other law-breakers?
    Those with Trump derangement syndrome need to decide whether they want open borders, or to allow lawbreakers to go free. Start by being honest, instead of criticizing Trump for everything he does.

  • Jayburd||

    The Harry Browne Doctrine- Eliminate minimum wage and welfare benefits and OPEN THE BORDERS.

  • ||

    "A model of brutality, inflicting unspeakable horror on children and parents"

    Hyperbole much?

    Yup...those TV images from Texas were the modern-day equivalent of Bergen-Belsen upon liberation by the Allies.

    I go to Reason to escape the propaganda-style word play of CNN - not to see the Libertarian equivalent of it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Trump's approach has been a model of brutality, inflicting unspeakable horror on children and parents."

    Clown Magazine

    Americans who break laws and are taken into custody are separated from their children every day.
    The hysterical pants shitting over every day law enforcement shows the depths of dishonesty the media swims in.

    "You can't enforce the law against them; they have children! But only if they're foreigners."
    Foreigners First!

  • ohdelilah||

    There's a difference between placing a child in a presumably safe place while the parent serves a justifiable prison sentence, and actually using the children to punish the parents for what are victimless activities. The only time that happens to American citizens is when they are arrested for drugs. If there's one group of people who are more vilified in our society than immigrants, it's drug offenders, but as brutal as foster care and some group homes can be, even the children of drug offenders aren't actually incarcerated, aren't put in tent cities or abandoned warehouses, aren't denied even human touch, and even drug offenders never lose track of their children. In any case it's unconscionable. Any law that can't be enforced without violence against children is a bad law.

  • swampwiz||

    I think we have to consider that we need to be a FEMA of last resort for problems within the "walking distance" of our border. These folks will be taken in and given a cot in an air-conditioned tent, 3 square meals, and clean hygiene facilities. They don't have to be let in and add to our illegal immigration situation.

  • ohdelilah||

    "Needless cruelty" implies that there are times when cruelty may be necessary, even justified. I would argue that there are not.

  • ohdelilah||

    "Needless cruelty" implies that there are times when cruelty may be necessary, even justified. I would argue that there are not.

  • Reverend Draco||

    Note to illegals (and other criminals):

    When setting out to commit a crime. . . leave your kids at home. Better yet, choose parent over criminal and your kids will be fine - as will you.

    Seriously - what kind of lackwit gets riled up about criminals and their kids being separated?
    Shoplifters, drunk drivers, tax evaders, muggers, bank robbers. . . criminals get separated from their kids. Duh.

    That the outrage is reserved for only one criminal class proves it to be fake outrage and virtue-signalling bullshit.

    Grow up.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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