MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Government Has 'Lost' 1,475 Unaccompanied Minors It Apprehended at the U.S. Border*

Innocent kids will likely bear a terrible cost to "make America great again."

akg-images/Newscomakg-images/NewscomHere's a story that will give pause to anyone whose heart isn't made of granite: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot account for nearly 1,500 unaccompanied migrant children who were placed in its care. The children, most of whom were fleeing violence in various Central American countries, arrived at the U.S. border without parents.*

From October to December 2017, HHS called 7,635 children the agency had placed with sponsors, and found 6,075 of the children were still living with their sponsors, 28 had run away, five had been deported and 52 were living with someone else. The rest were missing, said Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary at HHS.

That means almost 20 percent of the kids in custody have vanished without a trace. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) was responsible for this absolute incompetency coming to light, according to Time.

"These kids, regardless of their immigration status, deserve to be treated properly, not abused or trafficked," said Portman, who chairs the subcommittee. "This is all about accountability."

Portman began investigating after a case in his home state of Ohio, where eight Guatemalan teens were placed with human traffickers and forced to work on egg farms under threats of death. Six people have been convicted and sentenced to federal prison for their participation in the trafficking scheme that began in 2013.

These kids went missing before Donald Trump became president, but his administration is ramping up efforts to stop illegal immigration. One of the main weapons they are using to discourage migrants is to separate kids from parents if they're caught at the border or inside the country. In a way, the U.S. government is using its own incompetence as a scare tactic: Come here, get caught, and neither you nor we will ever see your kids again.

Two weeks ago, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen testified before a Senate committee:

"My decision has been that anyone who breaks the law will be prosecuted," she said. "If you are parent, or you're a single person or if you happen to have a family, if you cross between the ports of entry we will refer you for prosecution. You have broken U.S. law."

Nielsen said the children are transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services officials within two days.

We can expect the number of missing immigrant kids to grow as the border is hardened. But don't worry, Secretary Nielsen feels your pain:

"I couldn't agree with your concerns more.... We owe it to these children to protect them."

In many ways, immigration is the key issue to Donald Trump's rise to power. Within a few minutes of announcing his bid for the presidency, he laid into Mexican immigrants as rapists, drug mules, and disease-carriers. Just a few days ago, he repeated for the umpteenth time on Fox & Friends his patently false scare story about "someone who comes in is bad and has 24 family members yet not one of them do you want in this country."

In the view of Trump and other people against all forms of immigration—including leaders of the GOP who are pushing legislation that will cut legal immigration by as much as 50 percent—newcomers are simultaneously stealing our jobs and living fat off of taxpayer dollars. As bad, immigrants are destroying American culture by refusing to speak English, assimilate into our cultural traditions, and vote for the Republican Party that is dedicated to keeping them out of the country. To "make America great again," immigrants must go.

Yet even the most hardened anti-immigrationist must feel some sympathy for and empathy with those 1,475 literally and figuratively lost souls who have gone missing in the Land of Opportunity. For the wall-builders and the nativists: Is this really any way to make America great again? An immigration policy that lets more families enter and work legally, pay taxes, and stay together is a much better idea.

CORRECTION: The headline and first paragraph of this story originally stated that the children that HHS could not account for had been separated from their parents at the southern U.S. border by the government. That is mistaken. The children were unaccompanied minors from various Central American countries who reached the southern U.S. border between 2013 and 2016.

Photo Credit: akg-images/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • hpearce||

    " An immigration policy that lets more families enter and work legally, pay taxes, and stay together is a much-better idea."

    Obviously that will always be an immigration policy that lets everyone come and stay as they wish - But Gillespie does not state this.

  • Longtobefree||

    We have an immigration policy like that. What's the problem?

  • EirkKengaard||

    We have an immigration policy that lets 'everyone' come and stay? well, in a way we do, and that is a problem. You ask what's the problem? Overpopulation is the problem.

  • Longtobefree||

    You have made the first mention of 'everyone'. No, the current immigration policy let's families enter, work, pay taxes, and stay together. There is one minor condition, you have to actually apply legally, and get accepted.
    Illegal border crossers are not immigrants, they are criminals.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    100% correct.

  • piperTom||

    Longto is 100% wrong. Undocumented immigrants do not get to see a real judge or be represented by counsel because the border patrol officially treats their action as a civil offense. They are human beings and they are largely peaceful, hard working people. Equality for all!

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Do you have a woman in your life or bank account that's better than what I have by my standards?

    Because I totally agree with you about equality for all, and it's not right for you to not let me have what you have.

  • commentator||

    They were obviously talking about equal negative freedoms for all in this context, not equal outcomes. Did you only read the word 'equality' and suddenly see red?

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    It WAS a civil offense until Session changed the policy to criminal, for the sole purpose of separating the klids

  • commentator||

    We have an immigration policy... that lets in "more families" than the current policy allows?

    That sounds mathematically impossible.

  • Eidde||

    "These kids went missing before Donald Trump became president, but his administration is ramping up efforts to stop illegal immigration."

    So this started under some earlier President, but it's worse now because they're detaining more people?

    Sounds to me like they shouldn't be separating *any* families, no matter how many families they detain.

    What a cloister walk.

  • Flinch||

    Meh. The story is federal incompetence, with Trumps name thrown in as clickbait. To be fair... he did sign up for the job, and inherited what the story describes and worse. I have only one question: why is HHS tracking people and not DHS? Having to ask that question in and of itself might suggest the current situation was engineered, and incompetence is just... the tip of the iceberg.

  • commentator||

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    But this failure occurred entirely under Trump. The "lost" children were all in late 2017,,

  • MarioLanza||

    Many of these "kids" - if you examine dental evidence - were probably in their twenties.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    ALL the missing kids entered the country in late 2017. Trump was President.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    These kids went missing before Donald Trump became president

    Irrelevant. I'm still blaming him anyway. He's directly responsible for the rise in white nationalism in this country and its disastrous implications for undocumented black and brown bodies.

    #NoBanNoWall
    #BlueWave
    #Resist

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    Shitbag troll shows how concerned with facts he is. This is why he's commie kid...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Is he s Pb sock, or an AmSoc sock?

  • StackOfCoins||

    black and brown bodies

    I always find this particular turn of phrase curious. It's regularly deployed by a certain kind of leftist Marxist/socialist. Instead of focusing on the life and what sort of quality the individual experiences, it reduces people to an item; the corpus that carries around their brain, the source of thought and will.

    A strange deployment of language, which I suspect has ulterior motivation, though it's hard to put into words exactly what that motivation is.

  • buybuydandavis||

    When they say historical materialism, they mean materialism. You are a chunk of protein to feed the machine building our glorious future.

  • Z565||

    It's hilarious that some right wingers don't realize you're playing the strawman.

  • Lord_at_War||

    I'm selling my condo- when can I move in with you- and you still pay all the bills?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No. The people responsible for any rise in White Nationalism (if there is such a thing, which I tend to doubt) are the nitwits who peddle the 'white can do no right, brown can do no wrong' nonsense that alienates the white working class.

    Which is, after all, why the so-called intellectuals are so find of that bulls*t; they want to be thought of as morally superior to the working class, because they are elitist snobs.

    Now, one could argue that Trump takes advantage of this, but he isn't the one who came up with it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Thank you for the half-educated bigot's perspective, C. S. P. Schofield.

    Carry on, clinger. So far as your betters permit, anyway.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Meh ... What did you major in, what do you do for a living, and how did your college classes prepare you for that career?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ok, keep repeating the Progressive/Left narrative that landed Trump in the White House. Double down on it. Another four years of Trump will, if nothing else, be entertaining as hell, while we wait for the Jihadi attack that tips the country into full-on Imperial mode.

    It won't be a good thing, mind, it's just what I have come to see as likely.

    The Progressive Left Establishment started circling the drain when they began to play Radical Chic games with the likes of Hamas. They could still draw back and become a force for good again, but I'm seeing no indications.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ok, keep repeating the Progressive/Left narrative that landed Trump in the White House. Double down on it. Another four years of Trump will, if nothing else, be entertaining as hell, while we wait for the Jihadi attack that tips the country into full-on Imperial mode.

    It won't be a good thing, mind, it's just what I have come to see as likely.

    The Progressive Left Establishment started circling the drain when they began to play Radical Chic games with the likes of Hamas. They could still draw back and become a force for good again, but I'm seeing no indications.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I hope scum like Arty keep spewing their garbage. Much easier to find them when people finally hit back at progressives and people like Arty start getting investigated for sedition.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No. Not sedition. That's making them far too important. Further, the Founders, who had some experience of sedition and treason, made both charges VERY hard to prosecute, and for good reason. It's too easy for a tyrannical State to use them to suppress opposition.

    Arty and his ilk are losing their place in the Favored position. They've pissed away a lot of political capitol supporting the likes of Hillary Clinton, and the way they're going they won't get it back.

    Let them sink in the quicksand of their own making. Mock them. They would welcome being prosecuted; it would confirm their idiot notion that they are Brave Resistance Fighters. They are simple pillocks.

  • Rockabilly||

    #ResistMyFistAgainstYourCommuinstFace.

  • Flinch||

    Oh, there would be white bodies too, but for the unwritten racist tendencies our State Department has against Europeans in place long before Obama even ran for president. For example, I stumbled across the Visa Lottery program about a twelve years ago, and what I saw was simple: African nations were preferred, South America was second, Asia was more limited, and anyone from the EU was virtually locked out.

  • BladeDoc||

    My understanding is that this is a result of allowing over 40K unaccompanied minors into the country and then transferring them to sponsors (who for the most part are related to them) who then moved without a forwarding address. So basically we have let a large number of immigrants into the country -- which libertarians like, didn't merely house them in orphanages or jails -- which libertarians like, and then didn't track their movements around the country -- which libertarians like. This is basically a way to attack any government policy that falls short of open borders, no?

  • KevinP||

    who then moved without a forwarding address.

    This is the simplest and most likely explanation. Every company with a customer list loses a percentage of its customers like this. And in this particular case, the sponsors may also be illegals, making them even less likely to be tracked by the government.

  • markm23||

    I've been a guardian to my grandchildren; even that involves a background check,a lot of paperwork, reporting to a court annually, and reporting any major changes in status such as moving. I'm pretty sure that if we'd moved without leaving a forwarding address, there'd be a bench warrant for my arrest. So if the INS transferred the kids to other illegal immigrants, that's gross incompetence. If they transferred the kids to foster parents who could stand a minimal background check, and then lost track of 20% of them, that's also pretty incompetent.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You have to keep in mind that, until 2017 at the earliest, policy was exactly to lose track of illegal immigrants. All sorts of obvious avenues for tracking them have been systematically avoided.

    And you ARE going to lose track of illegal immigrants, unless you chain them to a post or something equally absurd, because they're here illegally, know it, and don't mean to make it easy for you to find them.

  • Ecoli||

    Yes!

    How many illegals get "lost" and don't show up for their immigration court case after they are "caught and released">

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Oh, my, what a lovely summation!

    I do get weary of people who will grasp ANY argument if it allows them to flog Trump.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Yeah, next thing you know some liberal will complain about Trump's claim that Mott Pottinger does not exist.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I'm sorry, but I find it hard to take seriously a narrative that equates Trump with a certain despicable Austrian. I'm not saying he's a good man, but if he resembles any historical figure I think it would be Huey Long.

  • Flinch||

    Minus any musical talents, of course.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Hell, I didn't know Long HAD any musical talents.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yeah, we are talking about a population that has a history of living in the US without the feds knowing about it. Many probably moved in with contacts who do not snitch.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Whatever gets done about the mess of our imigration laws, the all too established practice of having restrictive laws and only selectively enforcing them should end. It creates a shadow culture of mostly inoffensive (and heavily exploited) people in which worse things can hide. Even enforcing the present restrictive laws must be an improvement, if only by following the classic pattern of "Want you dry county to go wet? Start enforcing the dry laws.".

    Of course trying to enforce the immigration laws will be a hideously inefficient way of dealing with the drug gangs. And end to drug prohibition would be far more effective.

  • Flinch||

    "Allowing" is a polite term. They came up through mexico by the trainload, waved through with a little payola. Somebody organized that, and paid for it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Here's a story that will give pause to anyone whose heart isn't made of granite...

    You would be surprised.

  • Eidde||

    I'm totally for keeping asylum-seeking families together while *expeditiously* processing their claims.

    I do object to the subhead, which clearly implies Trump gets all the blame for this, followed by burying the lede and disclosing that this started before Trump.

    And I could do without lines like "even the most hardened anti-immigrationist" - I thought the matter under discussion was illegal immigration and abuse of asylum claims. Of course there are people who want to reduce legal immigration too, but you don't have to hold that view to want the country to act like it actually has a border.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm totally for keeping asylum-seeking families together while *expeditiously* processing their claims.

    Exactly. I don't know why this is such a hard thing for some people to agree to.

  • gimmedatribeye||

    " I don't know why this is such a hard thing for some people to agree to."

    Because you refuse to understand anyone's point of view besides your own. It's just easier to write them off as "bigots".

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Writing off bigots is and should be easy. They have been on the losing side in America for a few generations and are deplorable.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    *Yawn*

    Define bigotry.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Anymore it means "heretic".

  • My lying eyes||

    So I should write you off Reverend? Ok.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Arty is the biggest bigot of them all.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Writing off bigots is and should be easy. They have been on the losing side in America for a few generations and are deplorable.

    "Bigots" have been running the world for something like the last 3000 years. The recent aberration in America will likely be corrected in short order.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, you are just victim-whining. If you are opposed to keeping families together while asylum claims are being processed, why don't you explain your case.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Well, the thing is, there are differing interpretations of "expeditiously processing their claims". One that the Left would HATE would reject the vast majority on a variety of grounds.

  • EirkKengaard||

    Well said!

  • Flinch||

    No big surprise: the purposeful conflation of illegal with legal is our indication of a progressive argument. Intentional or accidentally duped? I don't know.

  • Rich||

    "We owe it to these children to protect them."

    "Therefore, I am announcing the formation of a new Federal Agency ...."

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Now what have those kids done that makes you want to do THAT to them?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    These kids went missing before Donald Trump became president...

    Sweet. By making this about Trump we can use the Obama-did-it-too defense and shift the debate until it completely collapses to the default camp vs. camp talking-past-each-other-athon.

  • Eidde||

    No, it's totally bad, I simply would have preferred a traditional Reason-style headline like "Bipartisan incompetence and abandoned children" or some such thing.

  • Eidde||

    Missing, I guess, not abandoned, as in "I know I put those children there just a moment ago, now where are they?"

  • Eidde||

    And I'll admit when Shikha first mentioned some aspect of this policy in the context of "why don't the evil prolife right-wing clingers denounce this?" I had to work to get behind the rhetoric and figure out that she may have highlighted an actual abuse - because some things are true even if Shikha says they are.

  • Agammamon||

    *pats pockets while looking around blankly, trying to remember where he left Jesus*

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Not even that. Placed with families, and then the government didn't keep track of where all the families moved to.

  • Flinch||

    That's odd. I guess HHS never heard of the IRS, and that they get contacted with valid mailing addresses each and every year by people looking for their tax credits? Somebody used these kids TIN to claim a deduction somewhere.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    People are getting emotional again (understandably so), just like right when Trump got elected. Journalism (opinion or otherwise) takes another hit.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Note how Nick never blames Obama or his underlings for anything.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yet even the most hardened anti-immigrationist must feel some sympathy for and empathy with those 1,475 literally and figuratively lost souls who have gone missing in the Land of Opportunity.

    If any of those have gone off the grid of their own accord, I salute them and ask if they have room for one more.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Because if the government doesn't know where a kid is, they are a lost soul. For it is in government alone that we live and move and have our being.

  • MotörSteve||

    Finally, an article about immigration. /sarc

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Obama fucks up and harms children, Reason blames Trump. Video at 11.

  • Don't look at me.||

    No, missing under obama, harmed under trump. See the difference?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Absence makes the harm grow fonder.

  • Flinch||

    So... if somebody got tied to railroad tracks, you would blame the train for the wrongful death we should assume? But more importantly... if we have stupid laws, then congress is the likely villain. And in the case of Obama's DACA program, the only remedy for doing something not authorized by statute [or the constitution] is impeachment. That for sure is congress' fault, and them selecting a speaker on the verge of wet brain in the form of one John Boehner. In the end, we can pretty much blame the GOP on balance. Could it be said these kids were put at risk because they were not deported? We may never know.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Where did Reason blame Trump for the missing kids?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "These kids went missing before Donald Trump became president, but his administration is ramping up efforts to stop illegal immigration."

    Because it is acknowledged that the problem started before Trump, doesn't mean no one is blaming him, as well.

    The next statement says that the Trump administration is using this cruelty on purpose.

    Did you not read the article, or is your TDS so bad, you can't understand what you're reading?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I read the article. Nowhere does Gillespie blame Trump for the 1,475 missing kids.

    Trump deserves blame for continuing and expanding the same policy. But not for those 1,475 kids.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    He doesn't explicitly say that Trump is to blame, he just juxtaposes the govt losing track of the children "separated from their parents by immigration law" with bashing Trump's immigration law enforcement which separates children from their parents.

    If I said that police have been called to 123 Elm Street 50 times for domestic violence complaints by neighbors, and then bash Joe Blow, who resides at 123 Elm Street, for being noisy, 99% of people are going to infer that Joe Blow beats his wife and/or kids. If you're Mr. Spock you might see the trick -- the DV may have happened under a previous resident, not Joe -- but very few of us are Mr. Spock.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    He doesn't explicitly say that Trump is to blame

    Thank you for agreeing with me.

    you might see the trick

    There is no "trick". You are reading into the article what you want to see in the article.

    Let's just be honest, what you really wanted is for Gillespie to blame Obama, like I'm sure all the conservative websites are doing over this story. The fact that he doesn't explicitly blame Obama, but does connect it to current events, leads you to conclude "he doesn't blame Obama, therefore he must hate Trump!"

  • My lying eyes||

    " You are reading into the article what you want to see in the article."

    Akshully...we are reading into the article what Nick wants us to read into the article

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Except he doesn't say what you think he says, and you have to conjure up odd interpretations in order to shoehorn your point of view into his article.

    Just be honest - you are upset that he didn't blame Obama.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Nowhere does Gillespie blame Trump for the 1,475 missing kids."

    I have nothing but contempt for those who use argument by innuendo, then play "Who? What? Me? I never said that!"

    The whole article is about blaming Trump, and anyone else who isn't content to destroy America because there are sad faces outside of it looking in.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Our foster care system is a mess--and that's for the children of U.S. citizens, too.

    I've thought a lot about the cruelty of the immigration system and not just why we put up with it, but why so many anti-immigration people seem to revel in its cruelty. I suspect a lot of it has to with two main things:

    1) Open borders people advocating for the disenfranchisement of voters and total disregard for rule of law.

    On the one hand, a lot of open borders people will stare average Americans in the face and tell them that immigration policy should have nothing to do with their opinion or the opinions of their elected representatives--especially if they or their representatives are of the white, blue collar, deplorable variety. If you set out to find the best way to make voters and average people disregard the suffering of immigrants, you could hardly come up with a better strategy than advocating for the elitist disenfranchisement of the white, blue collar middle class in the Midwest and elsewhere.

    When I say I want open borders, I mean I want to persuade my fellow Americans to demand the senate ratify an open borders treaty with Mexico. I can hardly say such a thing anymore without people assuming I want to disenfranchise them instead--and their assumptions are for good reason. Most open borders people want to inflict an open immigration policy on the American people over their objections and against their will. Why wouldn't that stance provoke a backlash?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Open borders people advocating for the disenfranchisement of voters and total disregard for rule of law.

    Who is advocating for disenfranchising voters? This is a strawman.

    As for "disregard for rule of law", fetishizing obeying the law for the law's sake is a conservative position, not a libertarian one. When the law itself is unjust, moral people have an obligation to break the law. Obeying unjust laws only empowers the authoritarians justifying those laws.

    On the one hand, a lot of open borders people will stare average Americans in the face and tell them that immigration policy should have nothing to do with their opinion or the opinions of their elected representatives--especially if they or their representatives are of the white, blue collar, deplorable variety.

    I don't care what color your collar is, questions of fundamental liberty shouldn't be put up to a vote of the mob, period. The mob shouldn't decide how many guns you get to own, the mob shouldn't decide how much pot you choose to smoke, AND the mob shouldn't decide with whom you choose to associate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Who is advocating for disenfranchising voters? This is a strawman."

    Both Reason staff and a plethora of commenters have argued that immigration across our borders is a right--like the freedom of speech, religion, or the right to own a gun--not

    If you're suggesting otherwise, you're either delusional or lying.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, that's right. However immigration is different than naturalization.

    I support free immigration, but I don't support giving everyone the right to vote.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You support stripping the voters of their input to immigration policy through democracy.

    You're advocating an elitist authoritarianism.

    You want the government to inflict an unpopular immigration policy on the American people over their objections and against their will.

    That's what you're doing. That's who you are.

    Because that is what you want, it is not unreasonable for them to assume that you don't like the American people--certainly not the white, blue collar, middle class of the rust belt. In fact, the reason they flock to populists like Trump is in no small part because of the hatred of people like you.

    Stop hating them and trying to disenfranchise them, if you can, and they might start listening to what you have to say about the desirability of open immigration. But you can't try to inflict things on people over their objections and against their will without provoking an anti-immigrant reaction--just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Look, if those same white, blue collar, middle class rust belt down home good folk wanted to take away my right to own a gun, or my right to smoke pot, I would just as much object to that too.

    This isn't about who is doing the objecting. This is about what they are objecting to.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    What about the neighbor who believes he has a right to take your bicycle and sell it if he does not have enough cash for weed?

  • Agammamon||

    You support stripping the voters of their input to immigration policy through democracy.

    Frankly, so do you. You are *right here* basically telling us that the veto has primacy. That those who don't want open-immigration trump those who do. Neither is the case. Democracy is both sides hashing out their demands and then one side getting stuck because 51% of 15% of the people voted one way or the other. And then a few years later the conversation continues and the pendulum swings to favor the other side. Nothing is permanently settled in democracy. Sure, there's the current status quo - but if you want to keep it then you're going to have to keep fighting over it. That some of us want to change the status quo doesn't mean that democracy is being undermined.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Inflicting an unpopular war, tax, or immigration policy on the American people is oppressive, and that's why those policies need to be subject to representative democracy.

    Yeah, sometimes congress declares a constitutional war that I object to, but the alternative is for the state to be able to declare war without the consent of the voters--and with no way for the voters to be able to put a stop to it.

    So, congress' ability to declare wars that I oppose is not an example of oppression. Congress' ability to tax isn't necessarily an example of oppression either. The inability of the American people to influence or end a war or a tax because those powers weren't in the hands of congress would be an example of oppression.

    Immigration is like that, too--which is why the power to set those rules properly belongs to congress.

  • Agammamon||

    Inflicting a *popular* war on the minority who oppose it is oppressive.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Not by itself.

    If they're forced to pay taxes to support it against their will, that can be oppressive.

    If they're forced to serve in the military against their will through conscription, that can be oppressive.

    Like I said, not giving the voters the opportunity to end a war because of its unpopularity is oppressive--and that was the state of various governments for thousands of years. The people had to pay. The people could be conscripted. The people had no say in whether a war was started or stopped.

    The appropriate solution to that problem is democracy, and democracy means you don't always win the vote. And that's okay!

    So long as democracy isn't about your rights. That's why the First Amendment starts, "Congress shall make no law . . . "; it's because our rights are not the proper purview of democracy. The enumerated powers are within the proper purview of democracy.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Ken's gone full John.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is John an open borders guy like I am?

    Do you even know what you're talking about?

    Are you saying that John is wrong about something?

    If he is, what does that have to do with me?

    Is this statement supposed to be taken seriously?

    Or are you just looking for attention?

  • TuIpa||

    "Unlabelable MJGreen|5.26.18 @ 1:44PM|#

    Ken's gone full John"

    Hey look Hail Rataxes is back to using his other name.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "I support free immigration, but I don't support giving everyone the right to vote."

    How do you square this with children born of immigrants, whether naturalized or not, gaining a right to vote by virtue of being born in the United States?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am open to libertarian arguments for and against jus soli. So tell us why you think jus soli is a bad idea from a libertarian point of view.

  • JoeBlow123||

    It makes no rational sense and is likely to complicate bureaucracy. How can parents reside somewhere and not be citizens and supposedly not receive benefits of citizenship but their child will? How are these benefits utilized, for instance, when the child is a minor and is eligible for Medicaid or some other social service like food stamps?

    Furthermore if naturalization is separate from immigration, the fact someone immigrated to the United States should not automatically grant their children born in the United States the right to citizenship since their parents themselves are not citizens.

  • Ecoli||

    When the census counts bodies every ten years and apportions congressman accordingly, the presence of illegal aliens, particularly in places like California, creates more congressman than would otherwise be there. More congress critters means more political power. Throw in the fact that illegals do vote, and you have disenfranchisement of US citizens.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But Congress is SUPPOSED to represent all residents, not just citizens, at least as far as their interests are concerned. For example, think of public roads. Should funding for public roads, in part, be decided based on only the citizens who use the roads, or should it be based on everyone who uses the roads, even non-citizens? If the latter, then to a degree, the interests of non-citizens are being served by Congress (or more appropriately, by their state legislature). It's not wrong to apportion districts according to total number of residents, and not by total number of citizens. Of course, another question entirely is whether districts ought to be apportioned as they currently are, which I oppose.

  • Ecoli||

    Yes, and that is a good reason to clamp down on illegal immigration. It is wrong for US citizens to support the world's poor.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one here is arguing in favor of giving welfare to undocumented immigrants.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're either doubling down on the disingenuousness or you're completely ignorant of the ruling against Prop 187.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "US District Court Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in Los Angeles ruled that Proposition 187 violates both the US Constitution and the 1996 welfare law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Under the ruling, the PRWORA requires states to follow the federal guidelines established in PRWORA when they seek to regulate the access of unauthorized foreigners to welfare benefits.

    The ruling declared that "California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits. It can do what [PRWORA] permits, and nothing more."

    http://migration.ucdavis.edu/m.....1391_0_2_0

  • Ken Shultz||

    I support open borders anyway. I just do it with intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty requires us to meet the facts head on rather than lie about them. Yes, open borders, without serious changes to federal law and raising serious constitutional questions, necessarily means illegal aliens getting greater access to welfare.

    My solution is to cut welfare benefits for everyone--native born and illegal aliens alike. There's a system where people are entitled to welfare because they're citizens. It isn't libertarianism. It's communism. If you want to argue that illegal aliens shouldn't be eligible for welfare because they aren't citizens, you might as well be arguing that American citizens are entitled to a living because they're citizens. If that's what you think, stop telling everybody you're a libertarian or a capitalist. That's not what you are. You're a communist. Go be a communist.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I wrote, "No one HERE supports giving welfare to undocumented immigrants".

    Of course there are plenty of people who do support giving welfare to undocumented immigrants. They tend not to be called libertarians however.

    Yes, open borders, without serious changes to federal law and raising serious constitutional questions, necessarily means illegal aliens getting greater access to welfare.

    Well then it's a good thing that I believe in multiple levels of reform, not just "throw open the borders but don't change anything else".

    My solution is to cut welfare benefits for everyone--native born and illegal aliens alike.

    I agree with you!

    If you want to argue that illegal aliens shouldn't be eligible for welfare because they aren't citizens, you might as well be arguing that American citizens are entitled to a living because they're citizens.

    But, this makes zero sense. I don't think immigrants of any type should be eligible for any benefits, welfare or otherwise, that are associated with citizenship, because they aren't citizens.

    Another benefit of citizenship is the right to vote. I don't think immigrants should be allowed to do that either.

    And no I don't think anyone is entitled to any particular standard of living. I have no idea where this came from.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You are the biggest goal post mover ever.

    You say no one here is in favor of giving welfare benefits to illegal aliens, and when someone points out that the courts said you can't discriminate against aliens--so more illegal aliens necessarily means more of them eligible for welfare, etc., regardless of what you say you want--you say, "but that isn't what I want"?

    LOL

    The logic of the decision I linked enforcing that principle might even require a constitutional amendment, but we're supposed to pretend that isn't so because you say it isn't what you want?

    More immigration means more immigrants on welfare. Denying this is intellectually dishonest. Intellectually honest people meet the facts head on--they don't deny the world is the way it is every time reality has any surface level, negative implications for their favorite issue, but you've done that over and over again throughout this thread.

    You've picked a conclusion, pretend everything that seems to contradict it is false, and then expect everyone else to ignore the truth because the truth doesn't mesh with your favorite conclusion at first glance. It's intellectually dishonest--the only question is if your lies are so deeply rooted that your biggest problem is lying to yourself.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Regardless of the root cause, you couldn't be doing more harm to the argument of open borders if you tried. Libertarians don't need intellectual dishonesty because the truth has a libertarian bias. Not only are you undermining the case for open borders, you're undermining the case for reason in the minds of non-libertarians.

    Shame on you.

  • Agammamon||

    And that's not disenfranchising anyone.

    Open immigration does not require a path to citizenship. Does not require the path to citizenship to be made easier.

    Doesn't even require opening the border.

    Just requires loosening the restrictions on residency and work permitting - the artificial restrictions that are only in place to set at ease those who are worried about immigration because of the welfare state.

    Get rid of the welfare state and build a wall (if you want). Don't keep it *and* build that wall. We can't afford both and having both only empowers the state - the wall is, essentially, giving the government more money and power to fix something the government fucked up in the first place.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Just requires loosening the restrictions on residency and work permitting - the artificial restrictions that are only in place to set at ease those who are worried about immigration because of the welfare state."

    So, we're talking about congress changing laws. We're talking about persuading voters to want something better than what we have now.

    Why does persuading our fellow countrymen seem so horrifying to so many people?

    Libertarianism is about persuading your fellow Americans to want freedom. It is not about seizing the levers of power and inflicting freedom on the American people over their objections and against their will--not on immigration or any other issue.

    There is no libertarian substitute for persuading people to want and demand freedom. Everything else involves tyranny.

  • Agammamon||

    The current restrictions were put in place by executive branch fiat. The 17,000 low-skill visa limit *worldwide* is not something Congress voted on (for example).

    Those things put in place by fiat can be removed by fiat. If you want it voted on - then get Congress to do its job. I'll support that.

    The stuff that *is* completely and solely within Congress' remit - like naturalization - is there any significant push to go around them? I'm not seeing that.

    A little clarification - libertarianism, for me, has nothing to do with the country. Its about individuals. Its not about preferring Americans to non-Americans. Its about opposing tyranny wherever it rears it head (in theory - I'm too lazy). It certainly doesn't mean letting one group tyrannize another while waiting for them to decide to love individual liberty.

    Taken to extremes, your view would have left us leaving slave-owners alone except for peacefully trying to talk them out of the practice.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Libertarianism as a philosophy has nothing to do with any one country, I agree. But in practice the government of a country has to favor its own citizens' interests over those of other countries.

    If you disagree, how do you justify a government violently resisting an invasion? Those foreigners carrying guns around and defending themselves have as much right to do so as any citizen of the country in question.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Technically, I suppose they could argue that it's not "disenfranchisement" if you're still allowed to vote, and voting is merely rendered futile.

  • Agammamon||

    If that's the case, the we're all already disenfranchised and have been for a long time.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Hence the Trump hatred from the political establishment. They're afraid that somebody who's not one of them winning the presidency might be a sign that elections could start mattering again.

    He's not hated for his policy positions, but for the fact that he might actually try to implement the things he ran on doing, instead of pulling the usual bait and switch.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Hence the Trump hatred from the political establishment. They're afraid that somebody who's not one of them winning the presidency might be a sign that elections could start mattering again.

    He's not hated for his policy positions, but for the fact that he might actually try to implement the things he ran on doing, instead of pulling the usual bait and switch.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And let's not get caught up on semantics.

    If we want to use a different word, we can.

    The point is that plenty of people (here and elsewhere) don't want the deplorables to be able to influence immigration policy by way of democracy and voting.

    If being disenfranchised doesn't imply your vote being stripped of its influence, then use another word.

    A rose by any other name would still smell the same.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I don't care what color your collar is, questions of fundamental liberty shouldn't be put up to a vote of the mob"

    This show the first part of your comment to be disingenuous.

    You want to disenfranchise voters. You just don't want it called that.

    And you don't want voters to react to you wanting to disenfranchising them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh okay, I misunderstood what you meant by "disenfranchising voters".

    I thought you meant "taking away voting rights in their entirety from eligible voters". I don't favor that.

    I do favor removing certain questions that revolve around fundamental liberty from the purview of the passions of the mob. AS DO YOU TOO. You don't really want the majority to be able to decide questions of, say, freedom of speech, do you?

    So the real question isn't really IF to "disenfranchise voters", but how much to do so.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Oh okay, I misunderstood what you meant by "disenfranchising voters".

    Setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of congress.

    Congress is specifically prohibited from setting the rules of naturalization so that they would violate the First Amendment.

    That's because the First Amendment protects our rights, and rights are outside the proper purview of democracy.

    Setting the rules of naturalization is within the proper purview of democracy, which is why that power is an enumerated power of congress.

    I find it hard to believe tat you didn't know treating setting the rules of naturalization as if they were a First Amendment right instead of an enumerated power of congress would disenfranchise the voters--especially since you've already made statements that show not only that you know this will disenfranchise the voters but also that you want the voters to be disenfranchised.

    I've got news for you--the voters know you want to disenfranchise them and ignore the rules of naturalization set by congress. And they resent it. Why wouldn't they?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of congress.

    NATURALIZATION, yes. IMMIGRATION, no.

    And EVEN IF Congress had a specific enumerated power to regulate immigration - as I mentioned above - that's not good enough. Just because "the law says so" or "the Constitution says so" shouldn't be a good enough reason for doing ANYTHING.

    rights are outside the proper purview of democracy.

    We agree!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    We keep hearing this, from people who ignore the right on point Constitutional text.

    ""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..."

    Slaves don't "migrate"; That clause had to do with both the importation of slaves, AND immigration.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes slaves migrate, when they are brought along by their owners.

    That entire clause deals with nothing but slavery.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Yes slaves migrate, when they are brought along by their owners.

    Under that definition, the entire slave trade was migration. Slave traders owned the slaves they brought in.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, that is correct, strictly speaking. But the clause you are referring to, is specifically about slavery.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes people. Otherwise Congress couldn't ban importation of slaves as it did in 1808.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes people.

    com·merce
    ˈkämərs/
    noun
    noun: commerce; noun: comm.

    1.
    the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale.

    So unless you are referring to the buying and selling of *people*, as in slavery, then no, Congress does not have the power to regulate immigration as a part of its power to regulate international commerce.

    Every time the restrictionist crowd tries to justify their views on immigration, their arguments always wind up being statist and collectivist.

    First you want to use the argument "if it stops just one illegal voter, it's worth it!" when you would never tolerate that same argument in virtually any other context.

    Now you want to use the argument "Congress can interpret its constitutional powers very broadly so that I can shoehorn immigration into its enumerated powers!" when you would never tolerate, say, a liberal wanting to broadly construe the Constitution to justify what he/she wanted to do.

    This type of reasoning is what leads many people including myself to conclude that in the main, opposition to immigration is not based in rational concern, but is mainly driven by fear and anxiety. Because you are not putting forth principled reasons, but ad-hoc rationalizations.

  • My lying eyes||

    a different version of commerce is, and one in wide use during the founders time is

    "the social dealings between people"

    You look pretty disingenuous using only one definition when a simple search shows a second definition that proves you wrong.

    But then you seem like a lying little so there's that.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Yeah, chemjeff should have edited the 1 out if he wanted that to pass the smell test. Indeed the "social interactions" definition is #1 at Merriam-Webster.

    As open borders aficianados usually think labor should be treated as just another good, it should fall under the definition chemjeff offered too. If they're consistent.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Wait, so you believe that the Congressional power to regulate international commerce really means a power to regulate "the social dealings between people"?

    You realize that if this were the case, Congress would have virtually unlimited power, right?

    Of course the word "commerce" has multiple definitions, but the one I quoted is the only possible one that the Framers could have meant when writing the Constitution and still have one in which the powers of Congress were few and enumerated.

    What do you think you are proving when you make pedantic points like this?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    You realize that if this were the case, Congress would have virtually unlimited power, right?

    No, I don't realize that, because you're wrong. Only foreign and interstate commerce is within Congress' power to regulate. Some of the power to regulate interstate commerce was rolled back by the bill of rights and other amendments, of course.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "When the law itself is unjust, moral people have an obligation to break the law. Obeying unjust laws only empowers the authoritarians justifying those laws."

    What is unjust or immoral about the current American immigration and naturalization process? There are ways to both immigrate and naturalize legally and literally millions of people have done it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The wait period is unreasonable.

    It typically takes two years to get a trial after you've been arrested for being in the country illegally.

    The time it takes to get a visa extension is often longer than a visa is good for. If someone has a legitimate reason to get an extension, they may have to leave the country before their extension application is even processed.

    That's all unreasonable.

    Because congress is the proper forum to set the rules doesn't mean that they've done an excellent job in setting those rules or that the bureaucracy has done an excellent job in implementing them.

    And because millions of people have somehow managed to survive the process doesn't mean more shouldn't have made it through but didn't because the rules are poor or poorly implemented.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "It typically takes two years to get a trial after you've been arrested for being in the country illegally."

    I'll agree that's unreasonable, a violation of the speedy trial clause. They should buy some tour busses, and set up courts in them. They could try you on the way back to the border.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "The time it takes to get a visa extension is often longer than a visa is good for. If someone has a legitimate reason to get an extension, they may have to leave the country before their extension application is even processed."

    My wife worked in both a restaurant and a clothing store as a foreign national in the United States after she finished college. Legally. She even had a SSN. She also was a college educated person from a country that typically does not illegally overstay visas so she had that going for her.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Allowing illegal votes is equivalent to disenfranchisement of legal voters.

    If legal voter Alice votes for candidate A, and illegal voter Bob votes for candidate B, it's equivalent to the government denying Alice the right to vote. The right to vote is not just the right to go through the ritual, it's to have your vote counted with its full weight, not cancelled out by an illegal voter.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Allowing illegal votes is equivalent to disenfranchisement of legal voters.

    Well then it's a good thing no one here is advocating for illegal voting.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    No, just bringing in people who are known to vote illegally.

    "Officer, I didn't kill that man, the ground did. I just gave him a little push while he looked over the edge of the roof."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, just bringing in people who are known to vote illegally.

    This is such a lame argument. "Because 1% of the group might do something bad, keep 100% of them out!" It's actually analogous to the type of argument that the gun-grabbers use. Because a small percentage of guns are used in crime, then it's time to ban all the guns. It also shows that this is not a sincere argument from you.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    1. Illegal voting is not the only reason to oppose illegal immigration, just one among many.

    2. According to that Pew survey, it was significantly higher than 1%. And that's before we get to the severe downward bias in a survey that asks people to admit that they've committed a felony.

    3. If 1% of legal gun owners in the US were shooting people, that would be at least a million shootings. I don't think gun control would be avoided were that the case.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    3. If 1% of legal gun owners in the US were shooting people, that would be at least a million shootings. I don't think gun control would be avoided were that the case.

    So if 1% of legal gun owners were shooting people, would you support gun control?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    In the situation where millions of gun owners were murdering tens of millions of people, there would be some obvious problems that could be solved. I'm not opposed to all regulation of guns. There certainly is a tradeoff between public safety and gun rights, but with about a hundredth of a percent of privately-owned guns used in crimes, and with drowning in swimming pool being more likely than being killed in a shooting, that tradeoff has to be heavily in favor of gun rights.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I did not think that you would answer the question directly.

    So just cut the crap. What is your real motivation for wanting immigration restrictionism? It isn't really a concern about "illegal voters".

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Who is advocating for disenfranchising voters?"

    Every immigrant who gains the vote disenfranchises existing US citizens.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Let's not get lost on the point of that.

    The person who asked that question was himself advocating the disenfranchisement of voters.

    That's the pattern.

    Part Ia) You guys are crazy to think we're against congress voting on this stuff!

    Part Ib) Congress has no business setting these policies.

    Part IIa) You guys are crazy to think we have contempt for the the voters!

    Part IIb) The voters are so disgusting and pathetic, there's no sense in trying to persuade them of anything.

    And somehow, through their perverse and absurd contortions, they paint themselves into a corner suggesting that anyone and everyone should be allowed across our borders--and there's nothing the voters, congress, or the President can do about it. They say that's what the framers intended and that's what being a libertarian is all about!!!

    LOL

    They're just regurgitating poorly reasoned shit they've read here. They're so incapable of thinking for themselves, they end up denying what they're doing even as they're doing it--as outlined above.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. Thinking for yourself really is what libertarianism is all about.

    P.P.S. And they still can't get it through their heads that they're hurting the case of open borders. It's almost as dumb as thinking that if you're pro-choice, you have to believe that elective abortion isn't immortal, when in reality, it's entirely possible for people to think that just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. They end up painting themselves into the most retarded corners. It's not enough to advocate for open borders to voters. No, you have to strip them of their right to influence immigration policy through democracy?

    So libertarian, they're authoritarian? No, it's just plain retarded 'in for a dime, in all the way to wall' thinking.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Let's not get lost on the point of that."

    I wasn't lost on the point. I was making a related point.

    I appreciate your point as well, but that's because I'm not an anarchist, and likely some of your open border compatriots are. Governments be evil, therefore borders are evil.

    I wish we could have a poll and see the 2x2 for Open/Closed Immigration X Minarchist/Anarchist.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Part IIa) You guys are crazy to think we have contempt for the the voters!

    Part IIb) The voters are so disgusting and pathetic, there's no sense in trying to persuade them of anything.

    You seem really hung up on this "contempt for the voters" thing. Okay, Ken. Do you agree with the First Amendment? I do. The very first part of the First Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law..." Which means that the Framers explicitly forbade the voters, via their representatives in Congress, from voting on certain topics, such as freedom of speech. In your view, did the Framers have "contempt for the voters" when they explicitly wrote down WE WILL NOT LET YOU VOTERS VOTE ON THESE TOPICS? If you want to call that "contempt for the voters" then that's fine. But it is a contempt that everyone who isn't a pure majoritarian democrat (little d) also shares, including both you and me. I don't want the voters voting on questions of fundamental liberty. And I view freedom of association to be one of those fundamental liberties. So I am not persuaded by your high moral dudgeon that there is something despicable about not letting the voters vote on everything.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They also clearly defined a means for changing the constitution. In the end, they knew they were leaving it all in the hands of the people.

    "I don't want the voters voting on questions of fundamental liberty."

    You want questions of fundamental liberty determined by unaccountable government power. Got it. Sure hope our unaccountable rulers decide to be good to us.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, so how exactly do you propose having, say, your right to free speech protected? By leaving it up to a vote? What if the people decide to repeal this right (for certain types of speech, such as 'hate speech' or flag burning)? Then what will you do?

  • Robert||

    How's it compare to foster care in other countries? Seriously, I'd like to know how other countries handle foster care, what they do better, what they do worse, why, how....

  • buybuydandavis||

    " but why so many anti-immigration people seem to revel in its cruelty."

    When you weaponize a person's compassion into a club to beat them into submission, many will harden their hearts to your propaganda. Others will troll you to let you know that it aint gonna work. Those doing the weaponizing will believe their own propaganda and interpret that as "revelling in cruelty".

    When is Reason going to change its name to Feelz?

  • TW||

    This.

  • Ken Shultz||

    2) Bleeding heart fatigue.

    Everything seems to hinge on identifying the biggest victim these days. From snowflakes who want to crush the speech of anyone who might hurt theirs or someone's feelings to, especially, identity politics of minorities.

    If the left makes their entire pitch about the victimization of special identity groups and use it as a justification for forced sacrifice, they shouldn't be surprised if people outside those special groups become increasingly calloused towards all claims of victimization. We're supposed to feel sorry for this big-eyed bunny because he can't buy a wedding cake, that big-eyed bunny because women aren't represented in the gaming industry, another big-eyed bunny because he or she can't use the bathroom of his or her choice, etc., etc., etc.

    Ever hear the story of the big-eyed bunny who cried wolf? The townspeople stopped coming after a while. You say the wolf is real this time?

    *yawn*

    That's what's going on here.

  • Tony||

    So you are assholes who have no self-control and thus everyone who disagrees with you should shut up and let you have your way. Whiny manchild syndrome is spreading from the top down it seems.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony is an idiot who doesn't know that I want open borders.

  • Tony||

    All I know about you is that you've turned Trump apologetics into an art form. (Trump's #1 issue is building a big beautiful wall on the border.)

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're a fucking idiot.

    I went through a whole list of things I condemned Trump for yesterday, and I won't repeat it for you--because you're a remarkably stoopid individual.

  • Tony||

    You're a better advocate for Trump than his own lawyers. Granted, he can't get great lawyers, but I still mean it as a compliment.

  • My lying eyes||

    Why do you lie about easily checked things?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Why do you lie about easily checked things?

    This isn't directed at my statement, is it?

    http://reason.com/blog/2018/05.....nt_7287369

  • Agammamon||

    Tony, you are way off base here. More than usual. Ken here can usually put up a decent argument as to why he supports or opposes a particular issue - which is more than you've ever done.

  • hello.||

    So you are assholes who have no self-control and thus everyone who disagrees with you should shut up and let you have your way. Whiny manchild syndrome is spreading from the top down it seems.

    Yes it is the people who are tired of being raped financially and otherwise in order to accommodate every whinging grievance group who are the whiny manchildren. Not the whinging grievance groups who are raping others financially and otherwise in order to get what they want. Narcissistic projection is spreading from the bottom... well mostly just to the bottom.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm old enough to remember when Republicans portrayed themselves as "compassionate conservatives". Now it turns out what they really meant was "compassionate* conservatives" with a big fat asterisk meaning that their compassion is highly selective and subjective.

  • Tony||

    *Fetuses only. Subject to maximum cynicism.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, not just fetuses. That's just incorrect.

    A while ago, I read an article - can't find it now, alas - which analyzed poll results from Republicans about which categories of government spending should be expanded or cut. This was like in 2014 or so, so well before Trump. The poll results showed that *among Republicans*, the only categories of spending that a majority of them favored cutting was "foreign aid" and "welfare". Everything else - even education spending, even health care spending, you know, ObamaCare! - they favored either keeping the same or expanding. The author analyzed these findings by suggesting that what really motivated Republicans was not really a desire to cut spending generally, but a desire to cut spending for those they deem unworthy. So they view foreigners and welfare recipients as "unworthy", but the "worthy" people like themselves, whose children are in public schools and get health care from the VA, they are fine with continuing that spending. And I think that's a better way of looking at whom they really feel compassion for. It is compassion only for the "worthy". Foreigners are unworthy and so they get contempt instead.

  • Tony||

    In-group and out-group. Politics at its simplest. Expertly exploited by the Republican party for half a century and counting.

  • Agammamon||

    How do you think the Democrats work? 'Intersectionality'? Heard of that?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I don't think somebody has to be "unworthy" for you to not want to give them your money.

    A less awful interpretation is that Republicans view charity as a private function, not a proper role of government.

    And view aiding people who aren't even in the US, or citizens of the US, as not any proper function of the US government.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A less awful interpretation is that Republicans view charity as a private function, not a proper role of government.

    This is the libertarian view, not the Republican view.

  • My lying eyes||

    Oh so you speak for all Republicans?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's a quite common Republican/conservative view of the matter, not limited to libertarians.

  • hello.||

    This is the libertarian view

    Good to see you finally acknowledge that your support for the welfare state and more specifically your desire to see its advantages accrue primarily to immigrants and racial minorities is not libertarian.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sympathy fatigue is real regardless of whether you or I like it.

  • Tony||

    You can be the world's most emotionless hardass as still favor the most progressive of policy platforms on the merits alone. If your public policy beliefs are motivated by an active desire to see certain types of people suffer, then it's the duty of decent people to push you outside of the overton window, if not behind a tiny window in a locked door.

  • Agammamon||

    No you really can't. Which is why none of the emotionless hardasses ever favor them. We expect results. And while what libertarianism offers isn't perfect, it at least offers a pathway to prosperity. None of the Progressive programs, planks, or policies do. They are a pathway to dependency.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And sympathy fatigue works both ways.

    You know, right after the election, I did look more critically at the plight of a lot of Americans living in economically depressed areas, and I did have a lot of sympathy for their condition. There is a lot of pain and suffering in small rural communities especially. But most of that sympathy has worn off from me now. What I tend to think now is that a lot of them want to rearrange the entire American economy in order to revolve around the choices that THEY have made in THEIR lives. And I'm sorry, if you are born into such a great country like America, and you don't bother to get a good education, you don't bother to ever leave your hometown to explore other opportunities, and you think that you can just keep living your life the exact same way that your parents and grandparents did and that the world will stand still for you, then some of those poor choices are on you.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    What I tend to think now is that a lot of them want to rearrange the entire American economy in order to revolve around the choices that THEY have made in THEIR lives.

    The economy's been subject to "rearranging" for a long, long time. Primarily in favor of the big banks and big corporations (and of course their mutual BFF big govt), revolving around the choices THEY made. It's not an unprecedented feature of Trump. If you're referring to their support for tariffs, it's only to be expected that they want in on the economic rearrangement action. If you're referring to their support for deregulation, go pound sand.

    If you're suggesting that we need to go to a completely free economy, I'm with you. We're a tiny sliver of a minority of a minority in that regard. I'll stick with the side that's at least somewhat in favor of a free market.

    if you are born into such a great country like America, and you don't bother to get a good education

    like the legions of college graduates working as baristas and cashiers?

  • hello.||

    You had faux-pity for those people when you were blaming them for your god-queen's humiliating defeat. We're long since past that part of the narrative since uneducated rural whites had little or no impact on the election and you got your fresh talking points.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    my god-queen?

    You mean Ayn Rand was on the ballot?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Sorry, but the preferences you've revealed--at length over the history of your posting here conflicts hilariously with your stated preferences.

    And objectivism, you? Please.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Sympathy fatigue is real regardless of whether you or I like it.

    The rural-religious Rust Belters seem destined to experience the brutal end of this in a few years. When successful, educated liberals and libertarians are no longer willing to subsidize the objectionable, left-behind backwaters (joining Republicans, who have been fellating established economic interests for years), the consequences could be startling, even in communities already hollowed out by bright flight.

    Maybe it is time to develop a system to rescue the children?

  • Ken Shultz||

    You think the left will just leave the deplorables alone?

    Not on your life!

    What's the point of being an elitist if you can't lord over deplorables?

  • SIV||

    "compassionate conservative"=progressive

    This is why Jeb lost.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "I'm old enough to remember when Republicans portrayed themselves as "compassionate conservatives". Now it turns out what they really meant was "compassionate* conservatives" with a big fat asterisk meaning that their compassion is highly selective and subjective."

    The immigration debate has been ongoing for my entire life. In that time jack and shit have been done about it. The only thing that is changed in my view is that it is now considered racist by liberals and a crime by libertarians to restrict illegal immigration and enforce legal immigration. You are surprised people tire of this and become jaded? I invite you to join reality.

    This is like the Germans being surprised that one million Syrians and Afghanis joining Duetschland leads to a rise of an explicitly anti-immigrant party as the third largest party in the Bundestag. I mean, how can the SPD and CDU compete with headlines likes the rape spree that occurred in Cologne when it comes to motivating people to vote like the AFD had. Or explain the rise of the Five Star Movement in Italy in response to literal waves of migrants that hit the shores in Italy every time the weather improves. Or Viktor Orban in Hungray.

    You would have to be a literal moron to not see the connection between far right parties and unchecked migration. But hey keep beating that drum for open borders, if it doesn't work great the first time around then I am sure Americans will see the error of their ways and reject far right populism.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You would have to be a literal moron to not see the connection between far right parties and unchecked migration.

    Okay, so what's your plan? Do what the far-right parties want so as to appease them?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Okay, so what's your plan? Do what the far-right parties want so as to appease them?"

    Enforce legal immigration policies.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Enforce legal immigration policies.

    Such as, something along the lines of what AFD supports? Because that sure sounds like appeasement.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Enforcing the law is "appeasement"?

    Would it be "appeasement" if a cop who shot a suspect in cold blood was convicted of murder?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Where do you get these tortured analogies?

    It would be appeasement to buckle in to the demands of far-right parties in an attempt to prevent them from gaining power.

    Was it illegal for Germany to accept Syrian refugees?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    So doing what the voters want in a democracy is appeasement. Got it.

    And yes, it is against international law for the refugees to go through other safe countries to get to Germany.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Such as, something along the lines of what AFD supports? Because that sure sounds like appeasement."

    The AFD is the product of the moderate parties failure to tack towards the middle. Alienating broad swaths of society by unilaterally instituting unpopular policies has rather naturally resulted in alienation and anger. Same with Trump and Bernie and Orban and Corbyn and Five Star etc.

    It is possible for individuals to both feel for and want to help Syrians and be disgusted with the corruption of a system who cannot easily deport Bosnians, Nigerians, and other economic migrants. Considering how stupendously generous Germany is with their social welfare I would say the people have a right to be disgusted with the current state of affairs. It is even more embarrassing to see the world press clutch their collective pearls at the gall of Germany to offer cash for economic migrants to return home willingly or for Australia to keep illegals offshore in Nauru as if Australia owes Sri Lankans citizenship.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    If you call someone with any leftist policies a racist for long enough, they don't really have anything to lose by making common cause with actual racists.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    If you call someone who disagrees with any leftist policies a racist for long enough, they don't really have anything to lose by making common cause with actual racists.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you call someone who disagrees with any leftist policies a racist for long enough, they don't really have anything to lose by making common cause with actual racists.

    Only if your inner morality is dictated by the names that other people call you.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If you call someone who disagrees with any leftist policies a racist for long enough, they don't really have anything to lose by making common cause with actual racists.

    Except that the 'actual racists' usually aren't actual racists. In Europe, most got their 'racist' label from noticing the rampant crime and suggesting this might not be a good idea.

    People are so afraid of appearing to appease or agree with 'the right wing' that they let actual horrific crimes go unchecked because the right wing would be empowered if they did anything about these crimes because the right wing was saying that those crimes were happening--we can't have anyone that the right wing was right--ESPECIALLY when they are.

    Reality
    Derangement
    Syndrome

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I remember when one particular Republican when on the "compassionate conservative" bandwagon, and it pissed off most other conservatives because it implied conservatism wasn't compassionate unless it was handing out goodies.

  • hello.||

    I'm old enough to remember when Republicans portrayed themselves as "compassionate conservatives".

    That was 18 years ago and a term coined by George W. Bush to indicate support for a robust welfare state combined with good fiscal stewardship. The same bullshit Clinton was peddling with his "Third Way". It is telling that that is your definition of an ideal conservative philosophy. I can tell you that you won't find it anywhere in The Conscience of a Conservative.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You're a meany if you won't submit to our policies and destroy your country. Look at all these sad faces!"

  • Jerryskids||

    The government has lost track of the kids, the kids aren't necessarily lost. (I'm sure the commentariat here alone knows where half of them are, these monocles don't mine themselves.)

  • buybuydandavis||

    Only *orphan* fingers and tears touch my monocles.

  • Joe_JP||

    "even most hardened anti-immigrationist must feel some sympathy for and empathy"

    Optimism at Reason? Perhaps, this is where the "they are animals" comment (see Randy Balko tweet for one such connection) comes in? It helps when you take children from "animals."

    Policy changes under Trump along with his overall mentality worsens this situation. But, bottom line, the people in power is where the buck stops. The system was flawed before he came into office, but "Obama" doesn't wash.

    When Obama was in power, he was given responsibility for things, some of which he only had limited control over. Also, when his polices and/or mentality on some issue affected a situation or it even seemed that way, he was called on it. No new rules are being applied here.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    " It helps when you take children from "animals.""

    Yeah, if somebody proposed taking children away from MS13 members, after a proper court hearing, I'd be in favor of it. Because those are the "animals" Trump was talking about, remember. And as a general rule MS 13 are a very nasty bunch.

  • Joe_JP||

    His comments were discussed at the time and there was an open-ended nature to the remarks.

    So, I don't "remember" that.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You don't remember that because about 90% of the coverage deliberately avoided putting the remarks in context... Said context being him answering a question about MS 13.

    It was a deliberate smear job by most of the media.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Full clip of Trump's comments:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4ph5_8HfNg

    *IF* you give Trump the benefit of the doubt, then his 'animals' comment is referring only to MS-13 gang members.

    There are plenty of reasons not to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Furthermore, Trump's own imprecise language is what really creates the doubt here. If he had only said "these GANG MEMBERS are animals" or "these CRIMINALS are animals" or something other than just simply "these are animals" without any qualification, he could have avoided the whole fuss.

    But oh no, because Trump uses imprecise language, and the media like a lot of other people decide not to give the man in charge the benefit of the doubt, and it's a "deliberate smear". Poppycock.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    There are plenty of reasons not to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    The primary one being that you don't like him?

    He did use imprecise languauge. He knows he's under constant attack from the leftists, the MSM, and the deep state (but I repeat myself), so he has to be more careful about giving them damaging soundbites. But he was responding to a question specifically about MS13. No benefit of the doubt needed.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The primary one being that you don't like him?

    How about his long history of impolite and derogatory comments against immigrants of all types?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Which exists solely in your head. Well, not solely in yours, also in the heads of your fellow leftists.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Wait, so Trump didn't start his campaign for president by referring to the majority of undocumented immigrants as "rapists and murderers"? That was all just a lie?

  • My lying eyes||

    "chemjeff radical individualist|5.26.18 @ 7:04PM|#

    The primary one being that you don't like him?

    How about his long history of impolite and derogatory comments against immigrants of all types?"

    So it's worth it to you to appear extremely obtuse to the point of dishonesty because he was mean.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The primary one being that you don't like him?

    How about his long history of impolite and derogatory comments against immigrants of all types?

    He's married two immigrants so far. Maybe he means it when he uses the therm 'illegal'? He sure as fuck knows more about the topic than you--having lived with it for decades.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    EOA: So what do you think about Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson?
    chemjeff: Those football players are terrible domestic abusers.
    EOA: Oh, you think all football players are terrible domestic abusers?
    chemjeff: No, I was just talking about Rice and Peterson.
    EOA: Well, you should have siad "Rice and Peterson are terrible domestic abusers", not "football players are terrible domestic abusers". And I don't see any reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You didn't even watch the video, did you?

    Here's a better analogy:

    Football Recruiter: I'm having a hard time evaluating all these athletes trying to come on to our team.
    Coach: Don't worry, we're working on solving these problems.
    Recruiter: Why one of them might be a Ray Rice and I wouldn't even know it.
    Coach: We have people coming onto the team, or trying to come on — and we're stopping a lot of them — but we're taking people off the team. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them off the team at a level and at a rate that's never happened before.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    No, that's a worse analogy. A football recruiter deals with good players by definition, while a cop deals with criminals primarily.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    My analogy most closely mirrors the actual discussion that Trump and the sheriff had on that day. Just watch the video that I posted.

  • hello.||

    *IF* you give Trump the benefit of the doubt, then his 'animals' comment is referring only to MS-13 gang members.

    *IF* you are not functionally retarded and can understand the English language there is no need to give any benefit of the doubt because the remarks are simple and unambiguous.

    There are plenty of reasons why a person who was functionally retarded and illiterate might have trouble.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Yet even the most hardened anti-immigrationist must feel some sympathy for and empathy with those 1,475 literally and figuratively lost souls who have gone missing in the Land of Opportunity.

    It appears Mr. Gillespie has never spent much time among the ignorant, downscale, superstitious, disaffected, easily frightened right-wing bigots of America's lesser stretches, and consequently knows nothing about them.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    "and consequently knows nothing about them."

    But the good "Reverend" knows ALL ABOUT THEM!!! A real "man of the people"!

    And a braying jackass, to boot!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I am a man of the reasoning, decent, educated people of America's great liberal-libertarian alliance.

    I am losing interest in the intolerant, ignorant, right-wing goobers.

  • Agammamon||

    Cool, so we can set up the going away party.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The stale-thinking, authoritarian right-wingers have been on the losing side of America's culture war throughout my lifetime and there is no end in sight. Bigots don't even like to be known as bigots any more, at least not publicly. More disaffection is the right-wing future in America.

  • My lying eyes||

    Why do you try so hard to appear intelligent by overwriting literally everything you post?

    You're the player queen if ever there was one.

  • Sevo||

    The insufferable asshole seems very frightened that someone is brighter than he is, and terrified of being found a poseur; IOWs a very insecure, not real bright guy who compensates with bloviation.

  • hello.||

    You're a lot more fun when you use your main account, Mikey.

    How does it feel to know that while you die of senile dementia in a taxpayer-funded nursing home, the healthy and happy intolerant ignorant right wing goobers are going to vote in the political reform that cuts off your old-age welfare?

  • Michael Hihn||

    (shudder)

  • My lying eyes||

    "It appears Mr. Gillespie has never spent much time among the ignorant, downscale, superstitious, disaffected, easily frightened right-wing bigots of America's lesser stretches, and consequently knows nothing about them."

    Take your family problems somewhere else.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Another explanation for why the American people aren't sympathetic to the suffering of illegal aliens is because much of the white, blue collar, middle class is stupid, racist, and full of hate, in which case the best hope for alleviating the suffering associated with immigration is soft-authoritarianism--inflicting a more humane policy on the American people with the coercive power of government.

    That solution may be immoral, doomed to failure in a democratic country, not to mention undesirable--but it has the benefit of confirming a lot of people's preconceptions about the deplorable nature of the white, blue collar, middle class . . and if it ultimately leads to denouncing the deplorables for being racist, stupid, and selfish, then it's a win/win!

    It works so well in swing states, too--that's why Hillary won the election!

    /sarc

    Me, I'll stick with working to persuade my fellow Americans to want open borders of their own free will, but I guess that's just because I'm a libertarian. It'd be a lot easier if phony libertarians weren't out there advocating for authoritarian solutions, but the rest of us will get there eventually with or without you.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why not work toward a rural white America that is better than half-educated, develops a bit of marketable skill, and ditches the backwardness, intolerance, and superstition that cause it to fail in America?

  • Sevo||

    Somebody beat ya to is asshole:
    "Like the Jews that Moses led out of Egyptian slavery, the half-savage, stupid, ponderous people of the Russian villages ….. will die out and a new tribe will take their place – literate, sensible, hearty people"
    Maxim Gorky, "On the Russian Peasant", 1922.
    We know how that worked out.

  • hello.||

    How does it feel to know that you are so stupid that a bunch of half-educated backward intolerant superstitious rednecks with no marketable skills beat you to a pulp in an election that was supposed to be a landslide and are living happy lives while you pathetically project your insecurities into the void of the internet?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Stay in your lane!

    That post was clearly OBL's prerogative!

  • Rich||

  • SIV||

    These kids went missing before Donald Trump became president

    Time-Traveling TRUMPLER

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump's evil is a pathway to abilities some consider to be unnatural.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I was actually waiting for this dishonest story to show up at Reason.

    They didn't lose the children. They placed the children with relatives, and then lost track of some of the relatives.

    Is it the libertarian position that the government should always know exactly where everybody is?

  • SIV||

    Yes, That's why libertarians are demanding everyone be tattooed with their identification number and wear a yellow star.

  • DajjaI||

    Given the level of outrage, hysteria and freak-out that I'm witnessing on Twitter, I can only conclude that the answer is that most of the kids are now back with their families. There's just no way so many kids can be 'missing'. #thatisall4now

  • SIV||

    So Obama was actually the architect of the Final Solution to the unaccompanied minor question.

  • Longtobefree||

    A much better way is clearly to machine gun the family while it is together at the border, right?
    This kind of 'losing' kids is like 'losing' virginity. The kids aren't lost, it's just that the feds don't know where they are. Maybe they could look in the nearest school?

  • Michael Hihn||

    As outrage mounts ...no surprise ... Trumpsters yawn and take credit,. while Trump denies credit and blames Democrats

  • Right-Left=Zero||

    As bad as liberals!

  • Nardz||

    Dear god... he's replicating!
    We're through the looking glass here, people

  • johndub||

    Nick, I believe one ought to ask how many of these kids intended to get "lost" in the US before I criticize a federal buraecrcy for letting them do it. I think you will find that getting "lost" here was their goal and what they risked their lives to do.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    At the age of four? Wow!

  • Agnes||

    Their parents were apparently willing to take that risk.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    Has nothing to do with unaccompanied kids coming here to get lost, intentionally. Like many, you've confused two separate issues -- the "lost" kids were unaccompanied, entered and "lost" under Trump.

    For the separated kids, the policy is only three weeks old. You don't know that, but refugees should have?

  • hamilton||

    Nick, and Reason: you used to be so, so much better than this.

    The Facebook lede for this article says "Innocent kids are bearing a terrible cost to "make America great again."

    It took almost no googling to get some context behind this (which is still full of government stupidity - remember when you were libertarian and used to hate that shit?).

    The ORR was reporting in April 2018 on progress based on recommendations from a GAO report in 2015. An additional report by Kathryn Larin on the same day this year noted that the work done - which was to perform follow-up checks after placing unaccompanied minors with their sponsors - was progressing but was not enough. Kids were not "missing" - 14% of the sponsors were not able to be contacted within the target 30 days after initial placement. They did not follow up further, this not being a recommendation; in fact the "long standing" position of HHS (per the 2018 ORR report) was that HHS responsibility for the children ended once they were placed with a sponsor (who, by the way, was a parent or relative 90% of the time, and yes that includes last year when the Evil One was president).

  • hamilton||

    (continued)...

    The placement of minors with actual sex traffickers (yeah, really, that was vomitous enough) happened in 2015. Who was president then?

    So this was a government office that was asked to reconsider its position and act to improve the livelihood of kids (without funding by the way), reporting that it had sort-of done so but not completely and needed more resource to do so, and all in response to data and anecdote that all happened in the last administration. And you guys made it about Trump.

    I hate the government. I'm a libertarian. You had a real story here on our principles and (inaccurately) turned it into an anti-Trump screed.

    This shit is no better reporting than ThinkProgress or Breitbart.

    You guys suck.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    The placement of minors with actual sex traffickers (yeah, really, that was vomitous enough) happened in 2015. Who was president then?

    The "lost" kids were all sent to sponsors in late 2017. Who was President then?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    If this report was about unaccompanied minors, then Nick is flat-out lying when he writes:

    Charged with taking care of the children of migrants who are separated from parents due to immigration laws, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot account for nearly 1,500 of its charges.

    If they arrived as unaccompanied minors, that means (a) their parents are not migrants, and (b) they were not separated from their parents due to immigration laws.

  • SIV||

    Nick is flat-out lying

    That's consistently his modus operandi.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    "If this report was about unaccompanied minors"

    It's not. Why would you assume otherwise?

    "then Nick is flat-out lying

    Do you ever watch any news or commentary? This has been widely reported.
    And you "proved" Nick was lying, starting from your own assumption that he lied. .

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    I just watched Rick Santorun describe/defend the policy, which nobody denied was launched by President Trump.
    The sponsors are rarely relatives. They volunteer (like taking a foster child) and must be vetted,
    The reason the kids are lost -- per Santorum -- is their sponsor neglected to or stopped checking in.

    The undeniable fact -- by Santorum -- is that the government takes those kids from their parents, and then never tracks them -- per Santorum. That's crazy. He - Santorum - said, in effect, that if the parents later become legal residents, there is no way to get their kids back. In Trump's America.

    Family values?

  • Jayburd||

    The dogshit in the article is being tracked into the comments.

  • Rich||

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    You should see what a Venezuelan whore does when you give her $10. Not that Portland is much different.

  • lap83||

    "What a beautiful historic moment!"
    "I like money"

  • buybuydandavis||

    Got your fresh, hot, virtue signaling here!
    Only $10!

  • gphx||

    Truly stopping illegal immigration would end this problem as well as the countless needless deaths in the desert.

    A biologist friend found a woman trekking through the desert with a baby wrapped in cloth. He could see it was in trouble and convinced her to let him take them to the hospital. The baby died shortly after arrival.

    Here's an idea: Instead of blaming the people trying to put an end to such tragic loss how about blaming the idiots who smuggle children into a nation overly deadly terrain.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Truly stopping illegal immigration would end this problem

    Okay, so what's your plan? Does it involve something other than more money for law enforcement, more regulations and restrictions on everyday activity, and less liberty for everyone, both citizens and noncitizens included? No? Didn't think so.

    Prohibitions just don't work. They never have.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Prohibitions do reduce the amount of the prohibited activity. The fact that they don't reduce the activity down to zero doesn't mean they "don't work".

    Yes, there are bad side effects to any prohibition. There are bad side effects from prohibiting kidnapping for ransom too. The hostage is more likely to be harmed when a kidnapping does occur, and the kidnappers have little incentive to release the hostage when the ransom is paid. Does that mean we should legalize kidnapping?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Prohibitions don't work because they cause far more problems than they solve.

    Yes, alcohol prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption, along with certain social ills associated with alcohol consumption. But it also created the modern federalized police force (and we see how well that is turning out), created a giant underground market that was ripe for exploitation by gangsters, killed people because they drank moonshine that was really poison, and took away everyone's liberty to engage in an activity that was pronounced by fiat to be a crime, when it was victimless.

    Kidnapping is not a victimless crime.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "Yes, alcohol prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption"

    I've seen this claimed. I've seen the opposite claimed. Both claims have evidence that is said to support the claim.

    But what occurs to me is that, given that the consumption of bootleg booze was a crime, how much credence can we give ANY statistics on it?

    We don't KNOW how much alcohol was consumed during Prohibition, and probably can't know. We DO know that police testimony before Congress asserted that there were more speakeasies in major cities than there had been saloons before the passage of the Volstead act.

    WAs there a falloff in consumption outside of urban areas that offset that? We just don't know. We do know that a wide variety of ills came with Prohibition, not least of which was the creation in the popular culture of the 'good drunk' character. That didn't really start falling off until the 1970's. Go look at the drunk persona of Dean Martin; by today's standards he's creepy.

  • My lying eyes||

    "Prohibitions just don't work"

    China's one child policy says you're an idiot.

    Prohibitions DO sometimes work, so your simplistic, absolutist assertion is wrong, and you're a liar.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    Thank you, this is another example. China wanted fewer female children, and got them.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    Prohibitions just don't work. They never have.

    Even the US prohibition on slavery? Or, is this where you post 500 words explaining either

    1) yes it worked, but when I said "never" I meant mostly never, but am too lazy to be accurate

    OR

    2) it didn't work.

    Face it, either way you're wrong.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    THIS is the Prohibition that any sane person arguing in good faith would conclude that I was referring to in context of this discussion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitionism

    Prohibitions are associated with VICTIMLESS CRIMES. Like drinking booze or smoking pot. Not slavery, not kidnapping, those crimes have victims.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Prohibitions of victimless crimes don't work. They may reduce somewhat the prohibited behavior, but they wind up causing many more problems than they solve. That is why they don't work.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    In proving you wrong, they proved you right.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    Nah, he's still just wrong.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    so what's your plan? Does it involve something other than more money for law enforcement, more regulations and restrictions on everyday activity, and less liberty for everyone, both citizens and noncitizens included?

    I do have an idea that involves something other than the above, but I suspect a bunch of you wouldn't like it. Because you're the true liberty-lovers or something.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Vote Democrats into office and wreck the economy again, so the immigrants won't want to come? That seems to be the strategy leftist-supporting libertarians are most comfortable with.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    What is the "leftist-supporting libertarians" solution to stop illegal drug commerce?

  • hello.||

    I do have an idea that involves something other than the above

    You haven't had an idea in your life but I'm sure you could regurgitate of some Gillespie's tasty cock juice and pretend it was a well-considered proposal.

    On the other hand there are many serious immigration reform proposals that don't involve impinging on the liberty of the citizenry put forward by people in think tanks who have considered the issue more deeply than the bottom of their navel like you. In addition to making a completely nonsensical statement that "prohibition doesn't work", which could be used to argue against literally any law including theft, rape and murder, you are also constructing a ridiculous strawman to fill out your false dichotomy. Oh wait I mean "chemjeff" is.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    On the other hand there are many serious immigration reform proposals that don't involve impinging on the liberty of the citizenry

    Like what?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So, are you really arguing in favor of prohibition of labor?

    What's your plan, then?

  • My lying eyes||

    Yeah man, all those people who would be slaves sure are less free.

  • Ivivi Premprach||

    I'm sure they think the cost was worth it. It seems that MJGreen disagrees. He thinks they should have toiled away and liked it. And chemjeff agrees because that particular prohibition didn't work. Prohibition never does you see.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    You guys doubling down on the slavery analogy is hilarious, and supports chemjeff's actual point better than he could.

    God, just think of the responses if chemjeff started by comparing what it would take to end illegal immigration with what it took to end slavery.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Actually, slavery in most of the US was ended without any violence. Only the places where the elites profited mightily from it had to be bled into submission.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    The first point is a good lead into thinking about why some laws are either effective or redundant, and why others are wholly ineffective and lead to conflict and breakdown of order; why the Man of System can have trouble moving the chess piece around the board. Which, I'll say, you did get at above re: the 'demand' on the migrants' part to come here. The greater the demand, the greater the need for more oppressive measures, so much so that it may be self-defeating.

    Which gets to the second point, again confirming chemjeff's argument.

  • hello.||

    Can chemjeff gargle a mouthful of your jizz while you say that?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    My favorite was the China One-Child Policy.

    "See? See? 'Prohibitions' work! Look at the Communist Chinese government imposing an extremely authoritarian law seeking to regulate very private personal behavior! If they could do it, so can we!"

  • JoeBlow123||

    ""See? See? 'Prohibitions' work! Look at the Communist Chinese government imposing an extremely authoritarian law seeking to regulate very private personal behavior! If they could do it, so can we!""

    There is no comparison to enforcement of legal immigration to the one child policy. Literally every country in the world requires a visa to visit, a special visa to stay long term, and some process to become naturalized to stay indefinitely.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, then read above. When I pointed out that prohibitions don't work, "lying eyes" first incorrectly claimed that the One Child Policy was an example of the prohibition to which I was referring, and then proudly stated "no wait, you're wrong, prohibitions can work, just look at Communist China!" So evidently, at least a couple people believe that labor prohibition CAN work, and as 'proof', gives the example of Communist China. Which only reinforces my point, that the only way a state can get a prohibition to 'work', is to create an authoritarian regime that deprives people of liberty and ultimately creates more problems than the prohibition solves. So either "lying eyes" thinks the One Child Policy is a good model to emulate when it comes to enforcing labor prohibition, or, more likely actually, "lying eyes" is arguing in bad faith.

    Literally every country in the world requires a visa to visit, a special visa to stay long term, and some process to become naturalized to stay indefinitely.

    Yup. States are gonna statist. I fail to see how we should validate this statism with more of the same.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Which only reinforces my point, that the only way a state can get a prohibition to 'work', is to create an authoritarian regime that deprives people of liberty and ultimately creates more problems than the prohibition solves."

    Which would be great if you want to define enforcing legal immigration criteria as authoritarian. I think many people would disagree with this.

    I am sympathetic to both sides and understand in a perfect world it is unfair to restrict people from going where they want to go or doing as they please. But this is far from a perfect world and when large numbers of foreign people show up it usually incites racial, ethnic, religious, and economic tension that cause tremendously larger problems than sticking with the status quo. After living in Japan, a giant monoculture, I have come to appreciate this tremendously. The country is safe and their politics are rational. This is better than can be said for the bullshit that is ripping apart Europe and America.

  • Illocust||

    How about leaded paint? Or those tiny magnetic balls? Government prohibits the buying of products all the time without a significant problem showing up beyond that the products no longer being available.

  • buybuydandavis||

    A big, beautiful wall!

    With laser turrets!

    pew pew pew

  • SIV||

    Sick of Reason and its "Jennifer Rubin-libertarians"?

    I give you Smokin' Hawt Turkish Lingerie Models

    You're welcome, cucks.

  • buybuydandavis||

    ' Innocent kids are bearing a terrible cost to "make America great again." '

    Innocent kids are bearing a cost because we live in a shitty world full of shithole countries. It's not the job of Americans to make it right for everyone in the world. America First.

    If we had a big, beautiful wall, a lot more of those kids would be with their parents right now.

    "That means almost 20 percent of the kids in custody have vanished without a trace. "

    Just like their parents were planning to live without a trace when they brought them to the US. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

    Try to take your head out of your propaganda shithole for a moment. Wouldn't you expect a *hell* of a lot more than 28 of 7,635 to escape their foster homes to avoid eventual deportation?

    Will the West's freedom and rule of law survive survive the West's pathological feelz? Looking unlikely.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In your view does the US government have ANY obligation, whether legal or moral, whatsoever, to non-citizens currently on American soil? Any obligation at all?

  • E. Kline||

    I'm fine with the U.S. government making it illegal to kill illegal aliens for sport or just for the fun of it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The government has an obligation to its own citizens to enforce its duly enacted immigration laws. An obligation it has willfully skirted for decades.

    As for non-citizens, our obligations depend. We have no obligation to let them in the country in the first place. We should be open, clear, and honest about the terms under which we will allow them to come into the country.

    If they violate our laws, we have an obligation to treat them as humanely as other criminals.

    Let's assume we're talking about people who have followed the rules for entering the US.

    Separating children from parents is likely done as a cost effective means of ensuring the safety of the children. We don't know who is whose parents. We don't know how they treat them.

    We know, from Reason reporting, that human smuggling entails a lot of rape and violence.

  • buybuydandavis||

    And we do know that Mexican law is much more permissive about sex with children than American law. I don't know about corporal punishment.

    Here's an article. Sounds lovely
    https://goo.gl/XV25wJ
    "Mexico is one of the countries where violence is most exercised against children and young adults. Physical abuse and homicide are the main threats to these groups. Up to 2009, the National Agency for Family Development (Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia, DIF) confirmed 20 thousand child abuse cases. Even with this figures, there is no comprehensive system of children's rights protection and the entities responsible do not have the sufficient funds to guarantee the safety of children and young adults."

    Looks like separating children from their parents is the best of crappy options.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Watching some of these people, here, it's a real embarrassment to open borders. It isn't just that they're ultimately advocating stripping the voters of their power to influence immigration policy in the name of elitism over deplorables either. It's also the way they're willing to twist and misconstrue the Constitution.

    Watching what some of these people are doing to Article I, Section 8 and the enumerated power of congress to set the rules of naturalization is like what progressives do when they try to twist and misconstrue the Second Amendment into saying, somehow, that we don't have the right to keep and bear arms at all.

    It's pathetic in exactly the same way as social justice warriors and the progressives are pathetic when they're wiping their asses with the Constitution.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    When I think elitism, I think of these kids and their parents.

    It is fun watching you embrace democratic rule while still fetishizing the Constitution.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Constitution insists on democracy in its appropriate place. Rational people understand this.

    When I call Trump's attack on Assad unconstitutional because he didn't obtain a congressional authorization as required by Article I, Section 8 as the Constitution requires given congress' enumerated power to declare war, that's both embracing democratic rule and insisting on abiding by the Constitution. They're not mutually exclusive.

    The Constitution enumerating a power to congress is democracy.

    It's those libertarians who suddenly wipe their asses with the Constitution whenever the issue involves immigration that are making a fetish out of something. They're making a fetish out of immigration.

  • Mark22||

    I don't see Ken embracing "democratic rule". The US doesn't embrace "democratic rule", and neither do libertarians. The US is a nation of limited government, not "democratic rule".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    they're ultimately advocating stripping the voters of their power to influence immigration policy in the name of elitism over deplorables either.

    I'll just be real clear here in my response to you, Ken, on this point:

    I want to strip the power to influence questions of fundamental liberty, from ALL the voters, not just the 'deplorables'.

    So don't feel too bad, I"m an equal-opportunity 'elitist' then, I suppose.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "I want to strip the power to influence questions of fundamental liberty, from ALL the voters, not just the 'deplorables'."

    Civilized nations have a way to deal new people coming. Paperwork, limit the numbers, pick who you want to show up. If you think it is such a great idea to remove government from the equation I am sure people can return to the days of pitchforks and rounding up the foreigners and beating them until they leave town. It is not like we have not seen a rise in this type of activity in Europe and America in response to large numbers of uninvited foreigners.

    But yes, please keep beating that open borders drum and continue to be surprised when people turn towards the right in disgust with the democratic processes. Never saw it coming this time!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But you are illustrating the real problem with this comment. If the genuine opinion of masses towards immigrants is already highly xenophobic, then IF the government is going to reflect the will of the people in this matter, why should this same government establish some bureaucratized process for immigrants to enter at all? Wouldn't the government be acting contrary to the will of the people in this case? And if this is the case, then isn't the rise of xenophobic right-wing parties in Europe and America just reflecting the will of the people the way that the pro-restriction crowd insist that it ought to? So what is the problem then if Germans vote for AFD? That's evidently representative of the real will of the German people!

    And just to be real clear, I am not an anarchist, I am a minarchist. So I do favor having a police force to prosecute crimes that violate liberty. Obviously beating foreigners (without provocation) ought to be a crime that is punished. So I would expect that, in the absence of restrictive laws against immigration, that the police would continue to prosecute crimes that do violate people's liberty.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "So I do favor having a police force to prosecute crimes that violate liberty. Obviously beating foreigners (without provocation) ought to be a crime that is punished. So I would expect that, in the absence of restrictive laws against immigration, that the police would continue to prosecute crimes that do violate people's liberty."

    So you wish to tell the people throwing up "no immigrant's allowed" signs to tear them down, open their cities to them en masse in whatever numbers desire to come, and then when they become annoyed with the situation enough to become violent to throw them in jail. This is some pretty heavy handed Soviet style shit. If the Kulaks don't like collectivization then Siberia it is!

    Perhaps it would be easier to skip these steps and just restrict immigration like every other culture, every other country, so people can slowly become accustomed to the new people. Perhaps accede to their desires as expressed through the democratic process?

  • JoeBlow123||

    One more point. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism himself, wrote in the Wealth of Nations that poverty is relative, expectations are culturally dependent.

    "A linen shirt … is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct."

    Introducing loads of new people into a defined area with different culturally dependent ideas on what impoverishment looks like and just generally different cultural expectations is bound to introduce difficulties. It is best to limit these issues by introducing relatively culturally homogeneous individuals to the new society (wealthy and educated people to wealthy and educated countries for instance) in limited numbers so as to avoid cultural misunderstandings and issues.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good Lord. No one here is arguing in favor of FORCED COLLECTIVIZATION. This is ridiculous. If you do not want to associate with undocumented immigrants you should have every right not to. What you may not do is use the power of the state to force immigrants not to associate with whomever THEY choose. Get it?

    "Perhaps accede to their desires as expressed through the democratic process?"

    Like putting people's rights up for a vote? You sure you want to do that?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "What you may not do is use the power of the state to force immigrants not to associate with whomever THEY choose."

    You keep acting like immigrants do not change the politics of places. This has real world consequences for regular people. California, Reasons favorite whipping post for fucked up politics, has turned so far progressive due to the mostly illegal immigration occurring in the state that I seriously doubt a conservative of any kind, whether financially or religiously or of character, will ever again carry the state.

    So, arbitrary numbers, lets say 70% of a given area does not want new people to show up and they do not want immigrants, 30% do. The 70% like their small town. The 30% think this is stifling and sell property to the new people, sell them cars, apartments, give them IDs, hire them, whatever. So now the 70% effectively lost any say in how their community is governed because the 30% took matters into their own hands.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    First, no one here is arguing to give undocumented immigrants the right to vote just for crossing the border. I agree with you and everyone else here that Congress can and should make appropriate rules for naturalization, and that not everyone on the planet, and not necessarily all immigrants, will be eligible.

    Second, if undocumented immigrants caused California to turn blue, then why didn't undocumented immigrants also cause Texas to turn blue? Surely the undocumented immigrant 'problem' is at least as bad in Texas as it is in California. Perhaps there is more going on than the simplistic hypothesis of "brown people turn places blue".

    Third, if we are going to make liberty conditional on the outcome of its exercise, then we aren't really in favor of liberty. People are entitled to liberty whether they use that liberty for a purpose that we would consider 'good', or 'bad'. To argue that liberty is only allowed when people use it 'correctly' is going down the same statist path as, say, the people who want to criminalize 'hate speech'. They only favor free speech as long as it's 'good' speech. Likewise, it appears that you favor migration but only if it's migration of the 'right' people (ya know, people who won't vote for the Blue Tribe). I'm sorry, but conditional liberty isn't really liberty, as far as fundamental rights are concerned.

  • JoeBlow123||

    1) "First, no one here is arguing to give undocumented immigrants the right to vote just for crossing the border."

    This is the de facto policy of the progressive wing of our political spectrum, blanket amnesty and naturalization. Furthermore, illegal alien parents give birth to legal American children. There is no way to separate immigration and naturalization neatly like you prefer to do. This is why the United States means tests immigrants before they hand out a green card, the state is not looking for more mouths to fund.

    2) "Second, if undocumented immigrants caused California to turn blue, then why didn't undocumented immigrants also cause Texas to turn blue?"

    I just looked up the statistics and they have roughly the same share of population that is illegal, about 5% each. That being said I have a plausible reason, perhaps it is because California was already purple and Texas was as red as red can be? Are you actually arguing that poor immigrants are not predisposed to vote for progressives though?

    3) "Third, if we are going to make liberty conditional on the outcome of its exercise, then we aren't really in favor of liberty."

    This sounds great on paper, the communists had lots of great slogans too about the equality of the working man and the utopian classless future. Your utopia is equally as undesirable. How many far right parties you want to see spring up before you get it that people do not like seismic changes in their cultural fabric?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    This is the de facto policy of the progressive wing of our political spectrum

    Then go argue with them. Right now however you're arguing with me, not them.

    Enough about criticizing my ideas. So what is your big plan?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Enough about criticizing my ideas. So what is your big plan?"

    Deport economic migrants like any other place does. After we have that handled and people stop freaking out about immigration and the very real possibility a giant amnesty is handed out that rewards huge numbers of very poor people with voting rights to vote themselves more loot, introduce a system that allows for the legal immigration of people here in larger numbers as long as they hold jobs. If they go off the grid and are caught then deport them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Deport economic migrants like any other place does. After we have that handled

    But that will never be "handled". That is the problem with prohibitions. Migrants will find more and more clever ways to circumvent the prohibition. And it will require more and harsher responses from the state in order to continue the prohibition.

    What number of undocumented immigrants would you consider an acceptable number to have in this country before you would be supportive of more immigration?

    And what measures are you willing to consider in order to find and deport undocumented immigrants?

    If they go off the grid and are caught then deport them.

    How will the state know if someone goes "off the grid"? If a migrant family chooses to be subsistence farmers, would you send ICE to deport them? How about if a migrant doesn't have a job but is not directly consuming public benefits - i.e., lives with relatives. Would you deport this migrant?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "What number of undocumented immigrants would you consider an acceptable number to have in this country before you would be supportive of more immigration?"

    I would be fine with actually attempting to enforce the laws and not actively promoting illegal immigration through promises of amnesty, disabling illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses and other documents without providing proof of legal residence, not promoting sanctuary cities, and swiftly deporting those who are caught. To stop providing any governmental assistance to illegal immigrants. An exact number, how many, does not bother me.

    And yes I would deport anyone caught if I was king of the world. They want to immigrate then they can do it legally like everyone else. If they don't like that then too bad. I would like to legally immigrate to New Zealand or Australia but if they don't want me, too bad for me. It's their choice.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, the laws are actually being enforced. They cannot be enforced with 100% compliance because that is the nature of a prohibition. So you want them enforced harder.

    disabling illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses and other documents without providing proof of legal residence

    A legal residence may just be a place where an undocumented immigrant has agreed to a rental contract with a landlord. Would you make it a crime to rent or sell property to an undocumented immigrant?

    not promoting sanctuary cities

    "Sanctuary cities" are places where local law enforcement has chosen not to cooperate with the enforcement of federal laws. Would you require local law enforcement jurisdictions to enforce federal laws?

    and swiftly deporting those who are caught

    How swift is swift in your view? Some migrants may have legitimate claims of asylum. Would they get a chance to plead their case?

    To stop providing any governmental assistance to illegal immigrants.

    Define what you mean precisely by *any* governmental assistance. For instance, suppose an undocumented immigrant is charged with a violent crime. Would you permit this person to have access to a public defender?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Okay, the laws are actually being enforced."

    This is disingenuous. The whole system we have has enabled people to obtain enough official documentation, bank accounts to SSN to drivers licenses, that there is virtually no enforcement of laws. The system has no become so perverted that cities and countries and one half of our elected officials are actively trying to promote illegal immigration and shield those who came here illegally. Is this even debatable?

    There is a reason Australia keeps their migrants in Nauru and risks the wrath of the pearl clutching class. Because their politicians rightly understand establishing policies that encourage illegal immigration will only result in more illegal immigration. One million migrants did not beeline to Germany in one year because all the rest of Europe sucks, but because Angela Merkel set up the batsignal declaring "All are welcome here." America has had that batsignal on for decades now. I would prefer that signal be turned off, to stop promoting the policies that encourage illegal immigration, go after the loopholes the enable illegal immigrants to gain official documentation they have no business obtaining, and stick with legal immigration.

  • JoeBlow123||

    But who am I? Nothing will change. All this debate is just window dressing for the reality shit is stuck the way it is. I predict our far right groups to gain more strength on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment will the left buckles down on more socialist bullshit while people like myself just say fuck it, whats the point? What is the over under for the number of years until we have our very own Reichstag fire?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The whole system we have has enabled people to obtain enough official documentation, bank accounts to SSN to drivers licenses, that there is virtually no enforcement of laws.

    Fraud and identity theft are already illegal. What more do you want? Make them more illegal? Make the penalties harsher? Increase law enforcement resources more to combat these crimes?

    Which is kind of my point all along - in order to perpetuate the prohibition, the ratchet of government enforcement has to tighten steadily upwards. You didn't answer my question of whether you thought renting or selling property to undocumented immigrants should be illegal, or whether local law enforcement agencies should be forced to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement. If you're consistent you really have to answer 'yes' to these questions. And then when undocumented immigrants find ways around these, what is the next layer of enforcement?

  • hello.||

    Then go argue with them. Right now however you're arguing with me, not them.

    You're a progressive you just happen to be a particularly stupid one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I want to strip the power to influence questions of fundamental liberty, from ALL the voters, not just the 'deplorables'."

    You want to strip the deplorables of this power because you disapprove of their opinion.

    You want to strip the deplorables of this power--despite the Constitution granting them that power by way of Article I, Section 8.

    The Constitution enumerating the powers to congress is the essence of democracy.

    Congress being specifically prohibited from making laws about something is part of the essence of protecting our rights.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting . . . "

    ---First Amendment

    That you suddenly can't tell the difference between what congress is required to do and what congress is prohibited from doing is telling. It either shows that you don't understand the difference between democracy and our legal rights or it shows that if immigration is the proper purview of democracy, you'd rather be wrong than right.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In the meantime, you say you don't want to disenfranchise deplorable voters, you just want to strip of their ability to influence policy with democracy? This is one of the reasons deplorables have become increasingly immune to calls for compassion on immigration. You cannot advocate stripping voters of their right to influence public policy within the proper purview of democracy and then expect them not to react to that. And telling them it's just raining when you're just pissing on their heads isn't the solution. That just adds kerosene to the fire.

    You're part of the reason the deplorables turn to populists like Trump, and you're a big part of the reason why they've become increasingly immune to empathy. If you want to make a real contribution to the cause of open immigration, stop advocating soft authoritarianism (disenfranchising voters) and start working to persuade deplorables of the benefits of open immigration--to them. If you can't figure out how open immigration benefits deplorables in the rust belt, then go do some reading. That means you've got a huge hole in your understanding of free markets, capitalism, and the value of human capital.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Or even, stop calling large groups of voters names, and then being surprised when they don't vote for your chosen candidate.

    And you could do that either of two ways; stop calling them names, or stop having the gall to be surprised when they vote against you.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "within the proper purview of democracy "

    Many here don't think that there is any proper purview for democracy.

    "Governments be evil. Borders be evil."

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, they suddenly rediscover the enumerated power of congress when the president attacks a foreign country without an authorization from congress. Congress is enumerated that power in the same place as the power to set the rules for naturalization.

    Again, they don't seem to understand that congress' enumerated powers are the proper purview of democracy when it's their favorite issue. When someone is doing something they don't like, then all of a sudden they remember that democracy has its appropriate place and ignoring that is unconstitutional.

    Meanwhile, the difference between someone who only cares about the Constitution when it suits them to do so for other reasons and someone who doesn't give a shit about the Constitution can be hard to tell.

  • hello.||

    Mostly poor little tykes like this one who aren't in a big hurry to be found.

  • SIV||

    Hey Hampton Creek, go fuck yourselves. Real Mayonnaise Rocks

  • Cyto||

    Wow, what a mess of an article. First, the subhead makes the whole thing a lie... "Innocent kids are bearing a terrible cost to "make America great again."" places the whole thing at the feet of Trump, even though the "evidence" is from prior to his administration. That's pretty crappy.

    Then you take 15 kids who were forced to work at an egg farm and juxtapose them with the 1,500 kids who the department can't find to imply that all 1,500 are victims of "human trafficking".... double bonus points for the use of the words "human traffickers".

    Some idiot over at Salon or Vox could have written this and gotten away with it. But here at Reason everyone knows that your original position is open borders and you just backed into all of the rest of it in order to provide an emotional pull for your position. Then you ham-handedly hang a lampshade on it by saying anyone who isn't on board with your argument has a "heart of granite".

    You took some good facts and wrote a mess of an argument with it. It would have worked at MSNBC. Here? Total fail.

  • Cyto||

    Oh, and lest you get defensive and toss about the nationalist label, I'm a straight libertarian. Not only do I support real immigration reform, I've put my time and money into getting people through the mess that is our legal system of immigration. But as a "no true Scotsman" Libertarian it is my right and responsibility to criticize sloppy writing and argument.

    Besides, I've been around long enough to know that you know better. This is fodder for "the Fifth Column" to make fun of you.

  • Mark22||

    And the irony of it all is that it was all fake anyway: read the correction.

    The "poor, innocent, lost children separated from their parents" were actually just people who showed up at the US border and claimed to be teenagers, were released into the US population, and then disappeared. And they disappeared not because some horrible sex trafficking ring captured them, but because they didn't want DHS to be able to find them.

  • Michael Hihn||

    FAKE NEWS (yours)

    ... not because some horrible sex trafficking ring captured them, but because they didn't want DHS to be able to find them.

    You made that up (didn't want DHS to find them"). If they'd run away, their sponsors would say so, as they did for the known runaways.

    AP reported
    From October to December 2017, HHS called 7,635 children the agency had placed with sponsors, and found 6,075 of the children were still living with their sponsors, 28 had run away, five had been deported and 52 were living with someone else. The rest were missing, said Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary at HHS.

    Missing. Unknown.

    What IS fact is that minor children are being separated from their parents -- the practice began under Trump as announced by Sessions on May 7th.

    If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law.

    Lie. The law was for "unaccompanied alien children."

    The 1500 missing is kinda crazy, for a policy which began a few weeks ago. But the separations are new, under Trump.. And Trump lies -yet again - when he blames Democrats - again - for outrage caused by -- yet another - policy blunder

  • Mark22||

    The 1500 missing is kinda crazy, for a policy which began a few weeks ago.

    Which is not what happened.

    The 1500 missing are unaccompanied individuals who claimed to be minors and disappeared under Obama.

    They have nothing to do with "the policy which began a few weeks ago".

  • Michael Hihn||

    The 1500 missing is kinda crazy, for a policy which began a few weeks ago.

    Which is not what happened.

    I appreciate the retraction

    The 1500 missing are unaccompanied individuals who claimed to be minors and disappeared under Obama.

    Correcf!

    They have nothing to do with "the policy which began a few weeks ago".

    Glad you agree!

    Now just correct your claim on why they disappeared.

  • Mark22||

    I appreciate the retraction

    Indeed, your retraction is appreciated. Perhaps you had a sudden moment of lucidity from your generally fog of senility?

  • Cyto||

    It needs more of a retraction. The government has since clarified that reporters are conflating two separate stories, and that "missing" in this case means that they tried calling all of the host families and 1,500 of them didn't answer the phone or return the call.

    That is all.

    So no. Not missing. Didn't answer the phone.

    Huge difference.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    The reason given -- by the administration -- for not answering the phone is that they do not want to be found. Many are illegals themselves!!!! Surely you don't think there was only one phone call...

    Huge difference.

    Ummm. forget the typical Trumpian bullshit. If the host family does not answer or call back .... how will the kids be reunited with their parents? They are LOST.

    The administration separated kids from their parents, placed parents in detention facilities as illegals ... so their kids could be placed with walking-around illegals, who then disappear ... while the parents are in a known location they cannot leave.

    It was all there in the explanation. Tribalism means hearing what one wants to hear.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Yet even the most hardened anti-immigrationist must feel some sympathy for and empathy with those 1,475 literally and figuratively lost souls who have gone missing in the Land of Opportunity.

    The problem isn't the 1475 illegals that have gone missing. The problem is the 30 million who haven't.

  • Cyto||

    My take on the "literally and figuratively lost souls?"

    They are not lost in any way other than "this bureaucracy can't find them". The fact that they have a status for "run away" and these don't fit there means that they can't contact the host family. Which could mean that they found a way to place 1,500 kids with human traffickers who have figured out how to trick the government into giving them free slave labor, but I doubt it.

    More likely the host families have simply moved and failed to leave a forwarding address. Which is somewhat surprising, given that the kids are probably receiving a subsidy from the government. Surely they thought to check with the benefits side of things to see where the money is going.... right?

    Odd that such a high percentage of families would "go missing" if money is involved. Still, they do that with foster kids at the Department of Families and Children all the time, so I suppose it is possible. But 20% seems an impossibly high number. High enough to make me suspect bureaucratic incompetence is at the root.

  • Jimoxe||

    I guess the lesson here is don't bring your kids with you if you plan on sneaking into our country.
    Kind of like you wouldn't bring your kids along if you plan on committing some other crime like robbery, rape, or murder.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Look, this is a false equivalence. You know, if you think about it, that normal people bring kids along while they commit crimes every day.

    Speeding springs to mind. Or crossing from a jurisdiction where soda is taxed to one where it isn't in order to pay less. Think that isn't a crime? I'll bet the nannies who passed the tax in the first place made it one.

    Now, I'm not saying that illegal immigration is that trivial. But let' not get into a snorting rage about "Good people don't bring their kids along when they break the law". That's just silly.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You know, if you think about it, that normal people bring kids along while they commit crimes every day."

    And if arrested, they are separated from their children. Every day.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So because kids are sometimes legitimately separated from their parents by the state, that means the state separating kids from parents is justified all the time?

  • hello.||

    No it means that separating kids from their parents because the parents committed a crime is "legitimate" whether you like the law (soda taxes) or not (immigration).

  • Mark22||

    The state separates kids from criminal parents because the criminal parents go into the criminal justice system and presumably we don't want the kids to accompany them there. And that justification indeed holds "all the time".

    (However, if you read the "CORRECTION" above, nobody got separated at all.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    However, if you read the "CORRECTION" above, nobody got separated at all.)

    You're confusing two separate issues. Separation IS new policy, under Trump.

    You're may be confusing that with the 1,417, which goes back a few years. THEN the law was enforced against "unaccompanied alien children."

    HHS data says 700 children have been separated, 100 age 4 or under.
    Even Fox News reports it as new policy.

    "Trump administration considering to separate families who illegally cross U.S.-Mexico border"

  • Mark22||

    You're confusing two separate issues. Separation IS new policy, under Trump.

    No, you are confusing two separate issues. The children who have been separated by DHS under Trump are accounted for.

    It is the unaccompanied individuals who claimed to be minors and were released under Obama who are unaccounted for.

  • Mark22||

    Sorry, that was ambiguous; by "nobody got separated at all", I was referring to the missing children only.

    Trump, of course, separates children from their criminal parents, like we do with all criminals. Trump's administration also seems to be able to keep track of those children.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Trump's administration also seems to be able to keep track of those children

    For 3 entire weeks!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Tangental thought;

    I'm not totally sure where I stand on this. Open Borders sounds like a swell idea, until you look at what might be coming across them. And to deal with that you'd either have to close the borders again or go into full-in Imperial mode and spread civilized behavior with the sword.

    Not that I'm sure I'm against that, mind.

    But the open borders idea is dead on arrival, and it is dead because of a singularly stupid thing the Progressive/Left did a while ago; trying to obliterate the term 'illegal alien'.

    The common citizen knows goddamned well that that is bullshit. One can argue that the immigration laws are unfair, but that doesn't mean that illegal aliens aren't lawbreakers. If the argument had focused on the stupidity of the law, and compared it to other stupid laws, some headway might have been made. But the Left preferred to virtue signal that THEY were BETTER and NICER than the Unwashed, by coming up with the term 'Undocumented Alien' and then dropping THAT in favor of making no distinction between Illegals and legal immigrants.

    And the Unwashed, who outnumber the Beautiful People something fierce, dug their heels in.

    The Progressive Left Establishment has put the stink on Immigration Reform, and made things harder for everybody.

    It's what they do.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    A person from El Paso can move to Michigan's Upper Peninsula, because they have so much in common with the people there.

    A person from Juarez cannot move to El Paso, because they are too different.

    This does not make sense. It seems quite illogical. Here's the interesting part: the appearance of a possible logic flaw doesn't appear to matter. What matters is what was already decided. Whether this observation is interpreted as a valid point, or obtuse idiocy, seems largely based on preset conditions. A good faith attempt to detach and analyze, or a bad faith argument reliant on emotional appeal - well, here's a pretty Schrodinger's cat in a box.

    It might be up in the air, which One True Way is best way, and yet we may be unintentionally making even better arguments that our communication skills are... sub-optimal. Whether this inefficiency is causative of all these problems we can't solve is still very much in question.

  • Mark22||

    A person from El Paso can move to Michigan's Upper Peninsula, because they have so much in common with the people there.

    No, they can do that because citizens can move freely within their country of citizenship.

    A person from Juarez cannot move to El Paso, because they are too different.

    Difference has nothing to do with it, it's about citizenship.

    Note that Mexico has strict restrictions on Americans moving to Mexico, so you aren't even advocating open borders, you are advocating giving rights to Mexicans that Americans don't enjoy.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    you are advocating giving rights to Mexicans that Americans don't enjoy.


    You are demonstrating what I referred to above. I advocated no such thing. You chose to interpret it that way.

    Difference has nothing to do with it, it's about citizenship.


    Different citizenship, perhaps?

    See, thanks, this is what I'm talking about.

  • Mark22||

    You are demonstrating what I referred to above. I advocated no such thing. You chose to interpret it that way.

    If you advocate letting DACA and South American migrants stay, that is exactly what you are advocating.

    Different citizenship, perhaps?

    Well, let's plug that into your statement:

    A person from El Paso can move to Michigan's Upper Peninsula, because they have so much in common with the people there they are US citizens. A person from Juarez cannot move to El Paso, because they are too different they are not a US citizen and hence do not have a right to move to the US under either US law or international law.

    See how easy that is?

  • Kazinski||

    As Emily Litella would say: "Nevermind."

    "CORRECTION: The headline and first paragraph of this story originally stated that the children that HHS could not account for had been separated from their parents at the southern U.S. border by the government. That is mistaken."

    So it turns out these were teenagers who came by themselves, and for the most part, left the arrangements our generous government set up for them on their own accord.

    Would Gillespie have us put them in camps so we can get a daily headcount?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Nevermind"

    That's Roseanne Rorseannadanna

  • Kazinski||

  • Vernon Depner||

    teenagers who came by themselves

    Or adults claiming to be teenagers.

  • Vernon Depner||

  • E. Kline||

    I had no idea my heart was made of granite.

  • dwshelf||

    It sure seems likely that all of these "lost" kids are being foster parented by adults who are accepting a check to pay for the kids's care.

    How lost can they be when you know where the check is going?

  • Vernon Depner||

    It's my understanding that these "kids" (who in nearly all cases are actually older adolescents or young adults who lied about their age) are placed with volunteer "sponsors", not with the state foster care systems who send checks.

  • dwshelf||

    Yes, that could be. I've not read otherwise. I don't quite understand the motivations of "sponsors" however, except as they are family members.

    Does it seem likely that many/most of them have been reunited with their family, who is illegal, and deliberately trying to be unfindable?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yes, and they wouldn't have to try all that hard. The story is based on the results of an HHS phone survey. I'm sure undocumented aliens know how to use caller ID.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That's quite a correction.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Does NOT correct the outrage -- begun under Trump -- of separating even babies from their parents.

  • Chili Dogg||

    The whole idea is to lose the children so they end up staying here and becoming Democrat voters. BO made a show of sending a small number back, then he let the rest stay.

  • Mark22||

    An immigration policy that lets more families enter and work legally, pay taxes, and stay together is a much-better idea.

    Great, let's admit all the people who actually make a net positive contribution in terms of taxes. That certainly excludes anybody who pays no income tax or who makes below median family income ($60000/year). It probably excludes anybody who makes below the 80th percentile ($95000/year).

    Let's cut them a little slack and say: everybody who prove that they have paid state and federal income taxes on an income of at least $80000/year since entering the country can stay. How about it?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because the government is so great at predicting the future success of individuals...

  • Mark22||

    Because the government is so great at predicting the future success of individuals...

    No prediction needed. You can come and stay as long as you make $80000/year or more; if you don't, you get deported. After 20 years of that, you can apply for naturalization.

  • Mark22||

    CORRECTION: The headline and first paragraph of this story originally stated that the children that HHS could not account for had been separated from their parents at the southern U.S. border by the government. That is mistaken. The children were unaccompanied minors from various Central American countries who reached the southern U.S. border between 2013 and 2016.

    So, in different words, they were teenagers and adults pretending to be teenagers who were released into the US population with no ability to track them and no accountability under Barack Obama. And Nick Gillespie is turning this into "Trump rips poor, innocent children out of the arms of their parents and has them fend for themselves in dangerous America". The stupidity, bias, and incompetence of the media really knows no bounds, does it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So, in different words

    Which are called lies ...

    And Nick Gillespie is turning this into "Trump rips poor, innocent children out of the arms of their parents and has them fend for themselves in dangerous America".

    Shame on you. Nick is PRECISELY correct on that.

    The stupidity, bias, and incompetence of the media really knows no bounds, does it.

    That's you screwing up again. Or lying.

    The correction applies ONLY to those 1,475 children. The Trump Administration IS separating event the youngest of children from their parents -- as announced by Sessions on May 7th

    If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law.

    He's full oh shit on the law, which IS in Nick's correction. The law applies to "unaccompanied alien children." Which is why they are NOT included in the 1,475.

  • Mark22||

    The Trump Administration IS separating event the youngest of children from their parents -- as announced by Sessions on May 7th

    Correct. And the Trump administration is apparently keeping track of those children properly.

    If you're smuggling a child, ...

    He's full oh shit on the law...

    You're attributing something to me that I didn't write.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Correct. And the Trump administration is apparently keeping track of those children properly.

    For three whole weeks!

    You're attributing something to me that I didn't write.

    I attributed it to Sessions, to as evidence that to conclusion about Gillespie is a falsehood. Children ARE being separated from their parents.

  • Mark22||

    Children ARE being separated from their parents.

    They are, and correctly so: we separate children from parents who enter the criminal justice system. For some unspecified reason, you think that's "immoral" when it happens to non-citizens.

    And what alternative do you suggest? Should the children accompany their parents into adult prisons?

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    Should the children accompany their parents into adult prisons?

    Clearly, you don't understand the issue. They've only been treated as criminals for three weeks, which you admit when you defend the children that were "lost" under Trump, all who entered in late 2017. They wet to sponsors, not jail ... and "prison" is a falsehood (with no conviction).

    The fact is that Trump or Sessions changed the policy on May 7th, to intentionally make it more severe, according to Kelly. It's all Trump administration. Period.

  • Mark22||

    Stop misrepresenting the issues. The "lost children" were all unaccompanied minors; they have nothing to do with the separation of parents and children.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    STILL confused! I'll TRY dumbing it down to your level. PAY ATTENTION for once.

    I said:
    "They've only been treated as criminals for three weeks, which you admit when you defend the children that were "lost" under Trump, all who entered in late 2017. "

    a) "Three weeks" is how long the Trump administration has been separating children from their parents. (Announced May 7th)

    b) "Late 2017" -- SIX FUCKING MONTHS AGO -- is the unaccompanied ones, where 1500 were "lost."

    How the FUCK can you confuse early May of 2018 with Oct-Dec, 2017????

    Even wackier:

    Should the children accompany their parents into adult prisons?

    LAME,
    There is no prison. The parents are held in "detention facilities -- the SAME ones used, WITH their kids, BEFORE the families were separated. ... unless you beleeb the Trump admin built totally new facilities and abandoned the old facilities. Do you?

    If the parents are guilty, they are deported, not imprisoned. Without their children?

    If the parents are accepted as asylum seekers, which most are, they are reunited with their stolen children ... who may not be found?.

  • Vernon Depner||

    CORRECTION: This entire story turned out to be bullshit, but we're leaving it up anyway. Maybe it will help us get laid.

  • Illocust||

    And they wonder why when the next story they make on this subject comes up, no one will believe them on that one either.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Nobody wonders why Trumpsters misrepresent the correction so badly. The new practice, under Trump, of separating even very young children from their parents, is both new and shameful.

  • Mark22||

    The new practice, under Trump, of separating even very young children from their parents, is both new and shameful.

    I believe they are looking for foster parents, so if you want to help those children, volunteer.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are you denying -- again -- that children are being separated from their parents.

  • Mark22||

    Are you denying -- again -- that children are being separated from their parents.

    Quite the opposite: I believe children ought to be separated from their criminal parents; I have said that multiple times. What I deny is that children that have been separated from their parents under Trump have been lost.

    What I am telling you is that given that you seem so horrified by this, you ought to volunteer to give those children a good foster home. But, of course, you won't do that, because the extent of your moral behavior consists of public posturing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You do understand, right, that the correction applies to ONLY those 1,475 who came here as "undocumented alien children The story id CORRECT that the separation of even babies from parents is new, under Trump, announced May 7th.

    Still shameful.

  • dwshelf||

    What is shameful is to conflate two stories which are totally unrelated.

    The "lost" kids have nothing to do with contemporary enforcement actions. The very premise of this story is that the kids are being forcefully removed from their parents, and then lost, implying that the parents are searching for them.

    Total bullshit, created by a writer who just feels Trump is immoral, and thus guilty of whatever can be imagined.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What is shameful is to conflate two stories which are totally unrelated.

    Yeah, but thar's Vernon

    The "lost" kids have nothing to do with contemporary enforcement actions.

    As I said.

    Total bullshit, created by a writer who just feels Trump is immoral, and thus guilty of whatever can be imagined.

    Are you denying that Trump initiated a policy, on March 7, of separating even very young children from their parents children - over 100 under the age of 4 -- then blaming Democrats for his own actions. If it's not immoral, why is he denying it?

  • Mark22||

    Are you denying that Trump initiated a policy, on March 7, of separating even very young children from their parents children - over 100 under the age of 4 -- then blaming Democrats for his own actions.

    Not at all. And the policy is consistent with what we do with all criminals. What do you suggest we do with criminal parents and their children? Send the children into adult prison?

    If it's not immoral, why is he denying it?

    Since you said that he is blaming the Democrats for that policy, he is obviously not "denying" it.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    What changed on May 7th was the criminality. Before that there was no crime. It was a civil action.
    How is blaming Democrats not a denial of his own actions?
    And "adult prisons" is also wrong, with no conviction.

    Why do you defend putitng illegals into prison instead of deporting them? You're no friend of taxpayers.

  • dwshelf||

    Trump is enforcing the law.

    Why are people violating the law? Because they have seen it go unenforced, and hope it won't be enforced this time. Consistent enforcement of the law will yield compliance.

    The Democrats could accept the deal. Basically, the well behaved ones can stay, but no more illegals in the future can stay. That would work.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yes, still shameful. These families should simply be sent back across the border. We should not be detaining them for any longer than it takes to deport them.

  • piperTom||

    I have great respect for Nick Gillespie, but here is a case where careless phrasing might lead to a gross misunderstanding. Nick says "Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) was responsible for this absolute incompetency coming to light..." Imagine reading this in a noisy room or after two beers, "Portman was responsible for ... incompetency..."?

    I think this is better: "Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) gets credit for bringing light to this absolute incompetency."

  • Vernon Depner||

    Careless or calculated?

  • XM||

    Are 20 percent of the missing kids wandering the streets of America all alone or working at a Dickensian factory?

    The chances are some of these kids have likely moved, probably to a immigrant rich community. That 8 kids were targeted for trafficking is concerning, but almost 90 kids no longer with their original sponsors were deported, ran away, or moved onto a new family.

    This is an argument for government doing the job it's supposed to (the feds misplace or miscount people all the time) or even not allowing these minors (some aren't that young) to cross the border at all. If they don't come in, they can't get lost in the USA. Problem solved.

    I have no moral obligation to pay unduly high amount of taxes so the government can "end" poverty or childhood hunger, or even fund single payer healthcare. But if 20 thousand people from South America crowds out border, we have an unquestionable duty to accept all of them and take care of their needs at every turn?

    Libertarians oppose utopia selectively, do I have that correct?

  • Miss C||

    Are you serious? Who cares about parents of and illegal alien children thereof. Plenty of illegal aliens enter the US while leaving their kids behind. Illegal aliens add nothing to our lives, indeed they make our !Ives miserable, but we add plenty to their's. The game is not worth the candle!

  • d_remington||

    Yeah, those innocent 25 year old kids with their MS13 face tattoos.

  • bookwork83||

    shouldnt you be pushing for them to lose more of them? I thought the reason position was not to detain them at all- let them get lost on their own

  • XM||

    I think another update might be warranted.

    The HHS has released a statement that these "missing kids" are mostly cases of the sponsor family not returning some followup calls that were voluntary.

    From their recent press release -

    "These children are not 'lost'; their sponsors—who are usually parents or family members and in all cases have been vetted for criminality and ability to provide for them—simply did not respond or could not be reached when this voluntary call was made."

    This is quite telling.

    "While there are many possible reasons for this, in many cases sponsors cannot be reached because they themselves are illegal aliens and do not want to be reached by federal authorities."

    You can read the whole on the HHS.gov site, Reason won't let me link to article because the web address has too many characters.

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    Did you miss that the phone calls are made 30 days after the sponsorship? They were made in October-December, 2017. So the lost kids were assigned in September-November, 2017, all under the Trump administration.

  • XM||

    They're not lost. Some sponsor families never returned those calls. And these are children separated from their families between 2016 and 2018. The HHS started making these calls in 2016.

    Here's the entire first paragraph.

    "The assertion that unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are 'lost' is completely false. This is a classic example of the adage 'No good deed goes unpunished.' The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, began voluntarily making calls in 2016 as a 30-day follow-up on the release of UAC to make sure that UAC and their sponsors did not require additional services. This additional step, which is not required and was not done previously, is now being used to confuse and spread misinformation."

  • OneLoneLibertarian||

    Shame on you quoting only that and not when the current 7,000 kids were checked.
    And this is about UNACCOMPANIED kids, the separations have only been done for three weeks, so, like many, you've confused two separate issues..

    Even Fox News calls out your lie. I have a link.
    "The HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement had gone beyond its legal requirements in late 2017 when it contacted the sponsors who had taken in those unaccompanied immigrant children, Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan said."

    And THIS!!
    Hargan's statement quoted Steven Wagner, the HHS official, who likened the unaccompanied alien children program to a foster care system "with more than 10,000 children in custody at an immediate cost to the federal taxpayer of over one billion dollars per year."

    Again, shameful.

  • Mark22||

    And this is about UNACCOMPANIED kids, the separations have only been done for three weeks, so, like many, you've confused two separate issues..

    We haven't "confused" anything; the article and the media deliberately mixed the two unrelated issues.

    Again, shameful.

    Both the adults and the children have choices. If they are genuine refugees, they should apply for refugee status in Mexico, not the US. If not, they shouldn't even enter Mexico. What is shameful is that American tax payers have to deal with this mess year in and year out and that Democrats have been using these people as political footballs.

  • Cyto||

    What is shameful is reposting this article after HHS corrected the media's mistakes. There is no "1,500 lost children". They made phone calls to 7,000 host families and 1,500 of them failed to answer the phone or return calls.

    The article (and many others like it) intentionally conflate a new policy on refugees (which has nothing to do with this number), some story about "trafficking" children for child labor and this attempt to reach host families "to see if they needed any additional assistance".

    They didn't follow up and send case workers to find the kids because they weren't "missing". They just didn't respond to a call asking if they needed additional assistance.

    Reposting this story without correction after it has all been explained by the relevant officials is really dishonest.

    The story needs a correction to read "oops, my bad. None of that was right. I completely screwed up by relying only on secondary media sources. I should have known that there is a lot of politically motivated reporting going on out there and done a better job of checking primary sources. But I am still opposed to the new immigration policy."

  • ||

    So now it's over 1400 missing children and Trump is not responsible for this unacceptable mistake.
    I DONT CARE WHO'S TO BLAME NOW AS MUCH AS I DO ABOUT FINDING THESE CHILDREN!! This is not how to make America Great again! George W. Bush made the policy that resulted in these missing children. Ok, sooo!? What is Donald Trump doing to find them? It's still factual that under Trump's presidency some undocumented children, taken from their parents arms - ARE MISSING! How does the United State's Department of Health & Human Services misplace children!? And WHY does Trump's administration care more about who did this wrong, or who's at fault here MORE THAN THE REAL AND TRUE ISSUE! The most important thing is finding these minor children!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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