MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'This Is a New Low...To Separate Mothers from Their Children': Rep. Pramila Jayapal

Congresswoman says asylum seekers are denied 'basic human rights,' abused by Border Patrol.

Time, Nick GillespieTime, Nick GillespieAs Donald Trump plays nice with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, the United States government is treating possible asylum seekers inhumanely and separating children from mothers, according to Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

The Washington Post reports that "lawmakers and public officials" recently met with 206 migrants being held in a federal detention center in SeaTac, Washington. Most of the people were from "Cuba, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, she said, but there were also people from as far away as Eritrea." Jayapal said that many claimed to be fleeing from gang violence, rape, and political persecution, thus potentially making them eligible for legal asylum.

"It was absolutely heartbreaking. And I've been doing immigration-rights work for almost two decades. I am not new to these stories," Jayapal told The Washington Post on Sunday. "I will tell you there was not a dry eye in the house. … Some of them heard their children screaming for them in the next room. Not a single one of them had been allowed to say goodbye or explain to them what was happening."

Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed Thursday it was temporarily moving 1,600 detainees into federal prisons "due to the current surge in illegal border crossings and implementation of the U.S. Department of Justice's zero-tolerance policy." Previously, ICE has held detainees in county jails or in privately contracted facilities....

"Just the abuse that they endured, being called filthy and stinky and being mocked for crying, Jayapal told The Post. "One woman said 'I want to be with my children' and the Border Patrol agent said: 'You will never see your children again. Families don't exist here. You won't have a family anymore.'"

One can only hope that quote isn't accurate, though as a description of current federal policy, it's not so far off the mark. Due to an increase in the number of people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, the Trump administration is trying to prosecute all people it catches crossing the border, even those who might have a legitimate case for asylum. As part of that process, which the ACLU argues is illegal, children are routinely separated from children. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has defended the separation of families, publicly declaring:

"If people don't want to be separated from their children, they should not bring them with them... We've got to get this message out. You're not given immunity."

At the same time, Donald Trump has blamed the separation of families at the border on a "horrible law" passed by "DEMOCRATS":

The Post notes that the president's claim is wrong, reporting "there is no law specifically requiring the government to take such action, and it's also the policies of his own administration that have caused the family separation."

I applaud Trump's action with Kim Jong-un. While the North Korean leader is a tyrant and mass murderer, the larger goal the president is pursuing—averting possible nuclear war in a part of the world that is still technically at war—is laudable. That he can at the same time be separating children from their mothers (including those who might have legitimate claims for asylum) and blaming it on Democrats is unconscionable.

Photo Credit: Time, Nick Gillespie

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.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Those South Americans seeking asylum are supposed to request it from Mexico - not the United States.

    They have no one to blame but themselves for going all the way up through Mexico to try to get into the United States.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    are supposed to request it from Mexico

    Supposed? By whom? On what authority?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    International law. You are supposed to request asylum in the first safe country you arrive at.

  • BYODB||

    In fairness, Mexico ain't really 'safe' since the government there consists of essentially cartel puppets. Cartels that like to use 'migrants' to smuggle drugs into the U.S. when they bury them in a shallow grave, in fact, so their government doesn't have much interest in cutting down on that kind of thing.

  • Sigivald||

    "Safe" in the sense of "not causing the same danger to the targeted group", not "is a nice first-world country".

  • JeremyR||

    Mexico is safer than many American cities. St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore.

  • Parallax3D||

    That's funny, because I LIVE in St. Louis, and I ROUTINELY get travel warnings about places like Reynosa Mexico, but I've NEVER gotten a travel warning for St. Louis.

  • thesafesurfer||

    So you are advocating sealing the Southern border of the United States to protect us from collapse of the failed Mexican state. I CONCUR!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Indeed. The international law that people like Arty's democrat elite owners so revere.

  • Dizzle||

    Ding ding. Nothing else really needs said. Tell these folks if they don't want separated from their families at our border...dont come to our border. Go where you're supposed to according to international law. Problem solved.

    But why follow international law when liberals and douches parading as libertarians don't want to follow our own. Let's just say f all borders, property laws, and sovereignty. I'll be over around 7 to take all your stuff with my merry band of ms-13 flunkies.

  • thesafesurfer||

    BINGO!

  • Mickey Rat||

    International law as established by treaties. This is to distinguish a refugee from a mere migrant.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The sort of authority thst usually gets Leftists all hot and bothered.

  • JesseAz||

    Why am I not shocked that Arthur is ignorant to agreed to international asylum norms.

  • I can't even||

    With the possible exception of Venezuelans, nobody from South America comes close to meeting the definition of "refugee" or "asylum seeker".

  • thesafesurfer||

    Hear! Hear!

  • Juice||

    In the post above, there was no mention of anyone from South America.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The same goes for Central America.

  • JesseAz||

    In the post above there is no mention that we separate mother's from their children all the time when they break US laws. Why should immigrants be granted more stringent concerns of family unification than us citizens. Show me one time a us citizens was not taken to jail because of the children.

  • Mark22||

    Well, the only other option is Canadians. South/Central Americans and Canadians are the only people who realistically can show up on our border as "refugees" in large numbers.

  • damikesc||

    That's what Reason seems so oblivious to. But they do fall for good sob stories.

    You do not get to asylum shop. You want asylum? You request it from Mexico. If they say no...that's life.

  • sarcasmic||

    These people entered the country without permission, which means they're not even human. So breaking up their families isn't cruel. They're just animals. Like slaves. They don't feel emotions and familial love like humans. They're illegals.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Too true, too true. Only those worthy of liberty are deserving of it. And only those who have read all relevant international treaties, and filled out the correct government forms in triplicate, are deserving of liberty. Patrick Henry would be pleased!

  • Cy||

    Patrick Henry was fighting foreign invaders who believed in authoritarianism. I'm sure all of the influx of immigrants are all about freedom. Uh-huh... yep... None of them are regular passengers on the 'free shit train.' Nope... none of them. I can't understand why anyone would ever flee Venezuela, it's a PARADISE!

  • sarcasmic||

    He was not fighting foreign invaders. He was fighting a tyrannical occupying force. A government from afar that ruled over the affairs of everyone with absolute power and total indifference. Kinda like the federal government.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yep. The federal government is evil, plus.....,,Drumpf! So we better kick out all the illegals, for their own safety.

  • MJBinAL||

    Bullshit. There are no countries in the world that allow unlimited and uncontrolled immigration. None. Mexico gives them free pass to get the US, but will not allow them to stay. Even the countries around Venesuela that are allowing refugees from that shithole are trying to prevent most from staying and trying to track them.

    It is SO difficult to go to the consulate in your home country before traveling thousands of miles to sneak into the US. I mean, that hundred mile trip to the consulate to file paperwork and see if they will accept you is WAY to hard.

    After all, they are going to make you wait your turn so that folks who applied before you go first. And they are going to make sure you are not carrying any nasty deseases like TB or Polio before letting you in.

    Oh the horror.

  • sarcasmic||

    Other countries are doing it so that makes it ok!

  • damikesc||

    The USA is the only country not allowed to control their borders, apparently.

  • JoeBlow123||

    It is not Team America World Police's job to save gang ravaged El Salvadoreans from gang ravaged El Salvador.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one is suggesting to invade El Salvador and destroy MS-13.

  • Cy||

    But Chemjeff, It's for the CHILDREN! The FEELZ train cannot be stopped. IWe're morally obligated to save the world!

  • Paloma||

    So stop the War on Drugs and keep the drug warriors out of El Salvador.

  • JesseAz||

    We get it. You don't believe in the idea of a country.

  • sarcasmic||

    The USA wasn't a country until it started requiring immigrants to have papers? Cool. I didn't know we didn't have a country until the early 1900s. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Cy||

    So if you leave the door open on your house, it must stay wide open for all of eternity!

  • BYODB||

    I note you cite pre-great society, and I suspect that's for a reason. Probably because after the great society we had to control immigration to make our various Ponzi scheme's viable.

    But one thing we definitely don't want to do is curtail those Ponzi schemes. Right? We want to import as many non-citizens as we can into our tax base, purely for their own good. It has nothing to do with social security, guys, we double-pinky swear!

  • Azathoth!!||

    Other countries are doing it so that makes it ok!

    Well, according to you, yes, absolutely. You act as if it's perfectly fine for every other country to forcibly expel illegal immigrants--and well as suggesting illegal immigration as an option for their own citizens.

    It's only when the US decides not to simply let them that you have any problem with it.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    They may be deserving of liberty in their own countries, but that does not imply that we have an obligation to let them leech off ours.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You don't "leech" off of liberty. That's not what the word means.

    Either a person is entitled to liberty anywhere, or they are not.

    Have you all really given up on the whole natural rights doctrine?

  • JoeBlow123||

    Do you believe God continues to grant us natural rights? On what basis do natural rights exist?

  • BYODB||

    Holy shit JoeBlow, I sense that you've figured it out. It's a damn good question to ask of people who are atheist or agnostic.

    The reason why is that the entire underpinning of natural law rests on god, big 'G' or little 'g'. Take that away, and you're left with a positive rights interpretation. Ruh-roh!

  • Paloma||

    Natural rights grew out of Aristotle's philosophy, as a product of Enlightenment thinking.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    I don't believe in natural rights, but that point is irrelevant to this argument. They should have liberty in their own countries.

    It might be jingoistic, but it is true that freedom isn't free, so it is in fact possible to leech off of another country's that works long and hard in securing its liberty. If that country is willing to take in foreigners, fine, but these foreigners are coming in without permission.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Apparently you haven't noticed the welfare state and the infringements to personal liberty that that entails.

  • GeoffB1972||

    Everyone is entitled to liberty everywhere, but it can only be enjoyed if it is secured individually, collectively or in some mix of the two. Your right to liberty does not imply your right to the resources that others use to secure their liberty.

  • JesseAz||

    It must be nice having such a child like notion of liberty Jeff.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Let me guess. The "sophisticated" notion of liberty is one in which liberty is denied to some in order to preserve it for the privileged few?

  • JesseAz||

    Anarchy isn't liberty Jeff.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jesse, Jeff is like a retard who never got past making the same stupid arguments as a college freshman in his first philosophy class. He gets straightened out in every one of these articles and then returns in the next one to make the same dumb argument. Jeff is a waste of time. He is brain damaged and is incapable of forming new memories or ideas.

  • JoeBlow123||

    America and Americans cannot save the world from itself. Or do you propose that we should be righting every wrong in the world?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    According to Jeff, The Who,e world has a unilateral right to come here at will and move right in. Laws don't matter. Except the ones he likes.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    He doesn't have a childlike notion of liberty, he just plays dumb when it suits his sophistry.

  • BYODB||

    Correction: Only those willing and able to seize liberty from tyrants are deserving of it. That's just a basic fact, and Patrick Henry was well aware of that.

    One might ask why all these 'migrants' are so unwilling to fight for freedom where they are if they are so liberty minded.

    You might recall the phrase "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    Notably, our forefathers were not pacifists.

  • Sigivald||

    One might ask why all these 'migrants' are so unwilling to fight for freedom where they are if they are so liberty minded.

    I imagine a fair number of them would be willing to, if they had any way to and enough fellow-minded people for it to have any chance of working.

    But the source countries are almost uniformly disarmed (at least, you know, the decent folk are) - and in the examples here of e.g. massive gang violence, the oppressor isn't even a state - it's people who'll kill your entire family for trying to fight back. Combine that with the love of liberty not being universal, and "they should just fight!" doesn't work so well.

    The British in 1776 were pussycats in comparison to modern oppressor states or failed states.

    "Just fight for liberty!" is rough ... especially since, note, even the Founders had French assistance, and didn't start from as awkward a place as, say, a Guatemalan pseudo-peasant.

    America has gained a lot by being a place that attracts the freedom-minded from, well, all over the world.

  • BYODB||


    I imagine a fair number of them would be willing to, if they had any way to and enough fellow-minded people for it to have any chance of working.


    Maybe, but one could equally make the argument that by removing liberty minded people from the rest of the world we are tacitly supporting those states by removing dissidents from their population thus cementing their regimes in place.


    Note that I don't have a problem with legal immigration, and really even illegal immigration is something I recognize that can't really be effectively stopped with methods I find acceptable, but let us not pretend that these groups are especially liberty minded. They were willing to engage in armed revolutions many, many times and you might note those revolutions were almost entirely communist.

  • Ron||

    I suppose maybe we could arm them and send them home? that has worked so well in the past.

  • Paloma||

    They don't want to be murdered? Great Britain at least had a basic understanding of human rights. They did sign the Magna Carta, after all. Forming a rebellion against a murderous communist regime or a gang of crazy eyed genocidal religious fanatics is a different story. You cross them you die.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yep, thank goodness we got that out of the way. So they are not even human and we can ship them back to where they came from in a UPS box.

    Now that I have enjoyed making fun of you.

    We arrest people for breaking the law ALL THE TIME, and the first thing that would happen with a family caught breaking the law together would be that the men, women, male children and female children would be placed in separate facilities. WE ARE TREATING LAW BREAKING NON-CITIZENS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WE TREAT LAW BREAKING CITIZENS.

  • sarcasmic||

    Right. Same as drug users who victimize society with their immoral behavior. Society is the victim, and that justifies breaking up their families and putting them in prison. Oh wait, there is no victim there which makes the drug war unjust. Apply the same principle to... fuck principles! They're illegal!

  • MJBinAL||

    Principals my ass. You are so full of shit.

    We regulate immigration for a number of EXCELLENT reasons.

    We make sure that people coming here are not carrying communicable deseases like Polio or drug resistant TB,

    We control the rate of immigration so that immigrants acculturalize rather than create a sustained mini version of the culture they came from. This is important to libertarians, since nearly all of these immigrants come from Socialist or Facist countries and support these kinds of political ideas. They may be wonderful people, but we need them to adopt our culture and hopefully embrace freedome rather than just getting a job, or the dole to get more and better stuff.

    Historically, when we had periods of large immigration, it was followed by periods of nearly no immigration. This broke the flow from "the old country" than continually refreshed the communities ties to the old culture.

  • sarcasmic||

    We make sure that people coming here are not carrying communicable deseases like Polio or drug resistant TB,

    I can see that argument.

    We control the rate of immigration so that immigrants acculturalize rather than create a sustained mini version of the culture they came from.

    Like the Chinese, Germans, Irish, Italians...

    This is important to libertarians, since nearly all of these immigrants come from Socialist or Facist countries and support these kinds of political ideas.

    You sure about that? Ever talked with any of these people and asked them if they came here to escape those systems or to create those systems here?

  • damikesc||

    We control the rate of immigration so that immigrants acculturalize rather than create a sustained mini version of the culture they came from.

    Like the Chinese, Germans, Irish, Italians...

    you're aware that after the immigration boom of the early 20th Century, immigration was ground to a near halt for DECADES afterwards, right?

    Assimilation is not a quick process. And championing "Your culture is every bit as good as ours" is hardly helpful there.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    you're aware that after the immigration boom of the early 20th Century, immigration was ground to a near halt for DECADES afterwards, right?

    Yes. The immigration restrictions of the 1920's were explicitly racist attempts to stop the "inferior races" from coming here. That is why the quotas were set to allow lots of northern Europeans to come here, but very few southern/eastern Europeans to come here. It had nothing to do with "allowing assimilation to occur". That was just the pretense to justify the racism.

    (And yes, it was racism by whites against other whites, because at the time, they viewed different types of white people as belonging to different races. Germanic whites were superior to Slavic whites, etc. Which is just another way of saying that the entire concept of race as people commonly use it is bullshit.)

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    You know what was going on in southern and eastern Europe in the 1920s...

  • Dizzle||

    There's a reason so many privately owned construction and paving companies are named for Italian-American families... Because we are better than you, and we work harder than you.

  • MJBinAL||

    "You sure about that? Ever talked with any of these people and asked them if they came here to escape those systems or to create those systems here?"

    Yes, I am sure. I not only am I sure, the Democrat party and the Progressives are sure as well. People from these societies are reliable Progressive (Socialist) voters.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Here is the difference.

    Suppose you commit a serious crime. The law requires you to go to jail. You're separated from your family. That is sad, but then again you did break the law, and due to the severity of the offense, the punishment may be considered just.

    Now, suppose you commit a less serious crime. The law does NOT require you to go to jail for this less serious crime, yet the enforcers of the law insist that you go to jail anyway, to send a message to everyone else. In this case, your family is being used as a political weapon that is unconnected to the crime that you yourself actually committed.

    Can't you see the slightest bit of qualitative difference here?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Even if you commit a less serious crime, if you are considered a flight risk you are still held in jail until your trial.

  • damikesc||

    Yes. They are committing a serious crime. They are, legally, an invasion.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "invasion" lol

    And now we get to the point where the border restrictionists abuse the language to make undocumented immigration seem much scarier than it really is.

  • Cy||

    Apparently you've never been to slums in California or border towns in Texas. Just because an invasion doesn't happen over night, doesn't mean it's not an invasion.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Still waiting on those mandatory abortions

  • damikesc||

    Is an invasion not intentional entry into a country a group not permitted to be there?

  • Paloma||

    No. It's not.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, you spout the same broken bullshit every time. You've been corrected. So shut up and go away. Adults are trying to talk here.

  • Paloma||

    Well next time you get caught speeding in your car with your family, it'd be only fair if you, your wife, and your kindergarten son and infant daughter all got sent to detention camps.

  • JesseAz||

    Isn't this where you say ms-13 are good people who are just misunderstood?

  • Cy||

    MS-13 members have children too! It's FOR THE CHILDREN!

  • Mark22||

    These people entered the country without permission, which means they're not even human. So breaking up their families isn't cruel. They're just animals. Like slaves. They don't feel emotions and familial love like humans. They're illegals.

    Well, Sarcasmic, that's clearly the dehumanizing way you think of migrants: "slaves" and "animals" without agency.

    The rest of us prefer to think of migrants as human beings with free will, people who understand that choices have consequences, and people who can legally be held responsible for their actions.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    My school district spends an average of $12k/year per kid (not counting capital expenses, debt service and teacher's pensions)

    Solve for the equilibrium if all children who want in are allowed into the country.

  • Juice||

    Sounds like you have a problem with the way government schools are funded.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Yeah, I do. But it's not going to change in the forseeable future. So my choices are to pay taxes for all the kids in the township, or pay taxes for all the kids in the township AND all the kids from around the world who'd like a free education on me.

    Oh and I also get to pay state taxes to support the "chronically underfunded" Philadelphia school system that has students with seventy different languages to deal with. I am truly honored to have to pay for that.

  • sarcasmic||

    or pay taxes for all the kids in the township AND all the kids from around the world who'd like a free education on me.

    If the kids live in the school district then someone is paying property taxes for them either as an owner or a renter. It's not like they're living in tents in the park.

  • MJBinAL||

    No, they are living illegally (but of course that is such a harsh word) three families in a cheap rented house. So they they tax contribution is minimal.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Ban all poor children

  • Vernon Depner||

    Compromise: allow the poor children we already have, but refrain from rolling out the red carpet for all the poor children in the world.

  • BYODB||

    This was already done, and the price of that amnesty was border control. Guess which half never really happened?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    If the kids live in the school district then someone is paying property taxes for them either as an owner or a renter.

    What MJBinAL said, plus nonprofit and government housing doesn't pay property taxes.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Ban all poor children

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Planned Parricide is working on that.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    No! I've been told by "open boarders" folks on this thread and Reason writers that illegals come over, take nothing from the government, buy million dollar homes, and do nothing but abide by our laws and contribute more to our society than us lowly citizens could possibly ever do!

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Oh, are we in favor of licensing parents now? Mandatory abortions if your neighbors don't feel like paying for your kids' school? Count me in.

  • sarcasmic||

    Those children will presumably live somewhere with parents who pay property taxes, either directly as property owners or indirectly as part of their rent. No different than anyone else.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    How can you not understand that the brown pigment in ones skin allows them to simultaneously take our welfarez, take our jerbz, and contribute nothing to society.

  • sarcasmic||

    They talk funny too.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    The property taxes on the rentals don't come close to covering the costs of the kids. Sure that's already an existing problem. But to say that since I already have to pay taxes for a bunch of deadbeat kids, that it's no big deal to pay for EVEN MORE deadbeat kids doesn't sound like a libertarian solution.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can't honestly use the property tax argument anymore so you're moving the goalposts.

    Like others said, your problem is with government schools, how they are run, and how they are funded. Not with immigration.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    Do you even know how property rentals work? While a portion of the rent goes toward overall property taxes, it's not a surcharge and sure as hell isn't the same as owning a home and paying property taxes. As someone who owns a home and rental properties. it's not the same amount. How far would you like to move the goalposts on the costs that illegals impose on our healthcare system when they go to the ER for a regular doctor's visit?

  • sarcasmic||

    I know that taxes on businesses, and renting is a business, are passed onto the consumers. In this case the renters.

  • MJBinAL||

    I originally thought you were an idiot. I now understand you are just dishonest.

    It is necessary, to work within the world as it exists, not in some fantasy land. In our real world, we have welfare programs, publicly funded schools, and funding systems that are "progressive". We don't have any hope of changing that any time soon, so any policies you favor need to be evaluated based on the conditions we have now.

    I happen to believe that we should not have publicly funded schools, and that tax systems should not be progressive. What I believe, or you believe, is not relevant. We have to work within the constraint we have.

    So you can stop with the bullshit statements like " your problem is with government schools, how they are run, and how they are funded. Not with immigration" because we all know that that is a constraint we do not have the power to change at this time, or any time soon. I have come to believe you are not an idiot, so therefore you putting this type of argument up is simply dishonest.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So the 'libertarian' solution is to spend $200k per undocumented immigrant on a wall to keep them out, in order to avoid paying $12k per undocumented immigrant to educate them. Brilliant!

    Here's a better idea: Don't spend public money on the wall, and don't spend public money on education.

  • damikesc||

    This is more of the "we will compromise on border security if you compromise on immigration and amnesty" bullshit that your side has peddled and lied about for 30 years now.

  • JesseAz||

    Its more than 12k. Children who require immersion or ESL in public school system cpst nearly twice as much in actual resources, money and time from teachers, and slow down the education of fellow students. Many studies have shown this. But you prefer argumentation fr ignorance.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Here's a better idea: Don't spend public money on the wall, and don't spend public money on education.

    Awesome idea! Talk to your leftist allies about that idea and see if they're on board. Cause otherwise it has no chance of happening and is irrelevant.

  • MJBinAL||

    No, they are living illegally (but of course that is such a harsh word) three families in a cheap rented house. So they they tax contribution is minimal.

  • JoeBlow123||

    If there is anything a prosperous, high tech, society needs more of it is definitely people who cannot speak English.

  • Paloma||

    But can somehow steal jobs from English speakers.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Yeah you are right, lets continue to bring in the uneducated. It is not like America does not have a problem with an increasingly ignorant population already. Lets up the percentage!

  • Mark22||

    Education is massively supported by state and federal programs, not just property taxes.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Nope. State funding is a very small slice of public school funding in most states, and direct federal funding is just a sliver. In most places almost all public school funding comes from local property and income taxes.

  • Mark22||

    Education is about 16% of California state spending, healthcare is 35%, and welfare is 8%. All of those are services kids of illegals take disproportionate advantage of.

    The idea that illegals somehow pay for what they use is utterly out of touch with reality.

  • Jerryskids||

    Adjusted for inflation, the school district when I went to school was spending about 9k per pupil per annum whereas today they're spending about 14k and the schools are demonstrably worse now than then. But we're talking about immigration here, not the many failings of government schools.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You'll find that the worst performing public schools in the country are among those with the highest per-pupil spending.

  • Cy||

    So if you're arrested for breaking the law, you'll get separated from your kids?!!?!? What!?!?!? You gambled with your families lives and future and it didn't turn out the way Disney told you it would?!?!? OMG, someone get on the phone with Robert De Niro, he'll put a stop to this immediately!

  • Dan S.||

    People who apply for asylum were not "arrested for breaking the law", they are actually following the law. And President Trump cannot change the law unilaterally.

  • MJBinAL||

    We are of course, not talking about people who followed the system and applied for asylum. We are talking about people who came to the US illegally. Were caught, and then wanted to apply for asylum.

  • Cy||

    Shhh.. you're going to hurt the narrative. THE FEELZ MUST NOT BE DENIED! Quick, post some pictures of the cildren! IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN YOU MONSTER!

  • damikesc||

    "applying for asylum" and "being granted asylum" aren't the same thing.

    And the children mentioned in the article were obligated to request asylum in MEXICO, not here.

    They wanted our benefits. We owe them nothing.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    The Keebler Elf said otherwise, and he is telling the truth because his cookies are delicious.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    They are breaking international law. You are supposed to apply for asylum in the first country you reach, not the one with the juiciest welfare benefits.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They are breaking international law

    Which, even true, is a violent felony which justifies separating kids from families, right? Right?

    Oh wait, you're in favor of separating kids from families as a matter of principle. To send a message. To use the kids to make a political statement. Right?

    I mean, it's an invasion man! Any means is justified in order to stop the invasion!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    If people on their way north turn around and go home for fear of being separated from their families, rather than faking an asylum claim, I think that's a good thing. Being respected is more important than being loved.

    The world has to know that if you fuck with the eagle you get the talons.

  • Paloma||

    They are asshole with no soul and no morality.

  • Mark22||

    People who apply for asylum were not "arrested for breaking the law", they are actually following the law.

    If they come to the US through Mexico or Canada, they are required to apply for asylum there, not in the US.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Ma'am, do you know why I pulled you over? You were driving 30 mph in a 25 mph school zone. That is clearly against the law. I see you have children in the backseat. What were you thinking, risking your children's well being by committing an illegal act? I'm going to have to take your children away from you - for their own good, of course. If you didn't want your kids taken away from you, maybe you should have paid closer attention to your speedometer. Have a nice day!"

  • Cy||

    Equating 5 mph over the speed limit, an infraction with felonies. I smell desperation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Equating failure to have proper paperwork with murder and rape. I smell desperation.

  • damikesc||

    sarcasmic, how would you define an invasion?

    Just curious.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    An invasion is an ARMY entering a territory in order to control it.

    Immigrants are NOT invaders. They're being INVITED IN, by the Market. You know , that thing Trumpistas eschew and scoff at. Because they're Fascists. Fascist.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No no. Don't you get it? When I went shopping at Walmart yesterday, I totally invaded the place. Why, I walked right in! There was no border security at all! Why didn't the police arrest me for invasion? Who knows? Must be that lax border security!

  • Rhywun||

    Depends on whether you expected WalMart to hand over anything you asked asked for from the shelves.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Being invited in by the welfare state and Soros-funded NGOs, you mean.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    First mention of Soros! Drink!
    That's square B12 on the Republican Comment Bingo board, if you are playing at home.

  • damikesc||

    So, spies cannot invade? Spies generally are not military.

    It is ANY unwanted entrance from a group not permitted to be there.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So the European colonists were invited to America? By the market?

    Good to know.

  • sarcasmic||

    sarcasmic, how would you define an invasion?

    Brown people crossing the border without papers in search of a better life of course.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Why 'brown'?

    Why do you fuckers always go to 'brown'?

    Do non-mestizo Mexicans never migrate? Are all illegal immigrants brown?

    Or are you just trying to create a racial issue where none exists? Especially here. You KNOW that most of the posters who aren't in favor of illegal immigration on Reason are not racist, they're generally for expanded and expedited LEGAL immigration.

    You KNOW it's not an issue of 'brown skin'.

    And yet you bleat 'rayciss!' like the most mind dead SJW sheep. Here, where we could actually have a discussion about it sans the dreck that mires the debate down in the wider populace.

    Unless.....you are resorting to 'rayciss!' because you...don't ... have ... anything else........oh. wow.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do you fuckers always go to 'brown'?

    Because I never hear anyone complain about immigrants from Europe or Canada. Only those brownies from south of the border and those Muslims with brown or black skin. I don't think it is conscious racism, but I do think racism plays a part. Or at least other-ism. They look different. They talk different. They come from different political systems and different economic systems.
    They come from different cultures.

    They're different.

    They're other.

    Other-ism.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Sarcasmic, you're one of the best posters here.

    Witty, incisive. Fun to read. I quote some of your stuff IRL

    I KNOW you're not this stupid.

    Because I never hear anyone complain about immigrants from Europe or Canada.

    You don't hear complaints about immigrants at all--not here.

    You hear complaints about ILLEGAL immigrants--and the difference is VERY important. Central and South Americans have a much easier time getting here. AND they do come here. In comparatively large numbers.

    European and Canadian illegals are much rarer--so the media spread face of illegal immigration is generally a Central or South American.

    But the anti-illegal immigration people aren't the ones who put it there. They talk about ALL illegal immigration. That of Central and South Americans, that of Caribbeans, that of Eastern Europeans, that of Pacific Islanders.

    Anyone who comes here illegally.

    And you know this.

    But you wind up defaulting to 'racist' and 'otherist'('otherist' really? See what I mean? you forgot xenophobia. This weird stance is eating your brain.)-- and it's really starting to look like you're doing it because you don't really have a valid argument.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Come on Azathoth. No one is buying what you are selling. 98% of the bitching in this forum from the anti-immigration crowd concerns brown people south of the border. REGARDLESS of their immigration status. Even those who legally seek asylum status have their motives questions and their integrity impugned for no reason other than they somehow don't deserve asylum in the snap judgment of Internet commenters.

    And yes, a great deal of the anti-immigrant animus comes from an othering of immigrants. Time and again they don't mind treating immigrants as second-class people who aren't worthy of liberty in the same way "real Americans" are. Just read the comments on any Shikha immigration article and imagine if the people advocating harsh treatment by the state against undocumented immigrants would EVER advocate the same treatment for comparable crimes committed by citizens, or anyone else for that matter. Who in their right mind on this forum would ever advocate "the state should tear children away from parents for the minor crime of trespassing, just to teach them a lesson not to do it" if it were applied to citizens? Not a single person here. But they fall all over themselves attempting to justify the exact same thing applied to undocumented immigrants. Why do YOU think that is?

  • Azathoth!!||

    98% of the bitching in this forum from the anti-immigration crowd concerns brown (not a term used much in the anti-illegal immigration crowd) people south of the border.

    Because they make up the majority of illegal immigrants. Because the media uses illegal immigrants from Central and South American as the face of the issue. There are a whole ton of reasons besides racism in the anti-immigrant crowd for why this is.

    REGARDLESS of their immigration status.

    Never any cites for stuff like this. Weird, huh?

    Even those who legally seek asylum status have their motives questions and their integrity impugned for no reason other than they somehow don't deserve asylum in the snap judgment of Internet commenters.

    People from Central and South America coming north to seek asylum are supposed to seek asylum from the first country they arrive at. They're not supposed to look for the best refugee package.

    But you know that. That's why you utter the cry of the wild SJW--'rayciss!'

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Never any cites for stuff like this. Weird, huh?

    Have you read the comments to this article?

    People from Central and South America coming north to seek asylum are supposed to seek asylum from the first country they arrive at.

    That doesn't stop certain commenters from claiming that they don't deserve asylum ANYWHERE, not even Mexico. Do you even read the comments here?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that if a white woman claimed to be suffering abuse at the hands of, say, a Muslim man, and applied for asylum here on that basis, there is not a single one of the immigration restrictionists here who would immediately rush to disbelieve her story and claim that she's just making it all up and just wanting to come here for the free bennies. But since it's a brown woman claiming abuse at the hands of a brown man, well, the attitude around here is fuck 'em both.

    And unsurprisingly you completely ignored the rest of my comment. That the border restrictionists around here have, by and large, resorted to treating immigrants as second class people generally not worthy of American citizenship by any standard, even if by legal means. THIS is the bigotry. Just because SJW's abuse the term 'racist' doesn't mean that there aren't actual racists out there.

  • Azathoth!!||

    All those words.

    Still no cites.

    And yes, I HAVE read the comments from the people here who are against illegal immigration. In general they don't refer to race at all--save to be disgusted at being called racist

    And it is the anti illegal immigration side that consistently points out that the pro-illegal immigration side wants a permanent underclass of illegal immigrants who have limited rights who can be exploited. Gods above, there are people writing articles on this very site who've whined about having to pay their nannies and gardeners and other servants more.

    And you need to read up on what one can request asylum for. How is the white woman suffering abuse? Why does her race matter and not the race of the Muslim ma---wait---you're just assuming he's some race other than white because he adheres to a certain set of beliefs. And you think that you get to call others out for being racist?

  • sarcasmic||

    Which, by the way, is perfectly natural human behavior.

    It's just that it has such a stigma attached to it that people deny reality.

  • Mark22||

    Brown people crossing the border without papers in search of a better life of course.

    That kind of racism is what you really believe in, isn't it?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

  • Mark22||

    Families in search of a better life has always been a big deal with people like you.

    See the similarity between you and people like you from the last century?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, you figured me out! Not wanting families needlessly torn apart by government goons is exactly like harboring Aryan racial supremacy fantasies! What kind of drugs are you on?

  • Mark22||

    No, Chemjeff, showing pictures of families to advance your political agenda is just like other fascists.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Wow, that's pretty weaksauce. I'm pretty certain every politician ever has used their family at one point or another for purposes of political campaigning. Are they all fascists?

    I imagine Hitler loved his mom. Is love of one's mother now evidence of Nazism?

  • Nardz||

    chemjeff radical individualist|6.12.18 @ 9:55AM|#
    This is an invasion.
    This is not an invasion.
    See the difference?

    Ah, the good ole "I know it when I see it" logic!

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Just read the comments on any Shikha immigration article and imagine if the people advocating harsh treatment by the state against undocumented immigrants would EVER advocate the same treatment for comparable crimes committed by citizens, or anyone else for that matter."

    They are not Americans, they are not Americans problem. This is not an unreasonable position.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So it's okay to treat other human beings like garbage if they weren't born here. Got it.

  • JoeBlow123||

    We are free to treat foreigners with the rights accorded to foreigners. They can receive the consular services of their country of origin and follow the visa rules and immigration rules established by the United States concerning their country. If they become a legal resident and a US person then they are afforded additional rights due to their legal status in the United States.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay so what's the cutoff then for the seriousness of the crime when it's appropriate to separate families?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    When keeping kids in a jail with violent adult offenders might be the more dangerous option.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That implicitly assumes that the crime in question is on the level of seriousness as a violent felony, in order to justify separating families.
    Is illegal border crossing a violent felony? I think not.

  • Cy||

    Keep moving those goal posts around, the Feelz will not be denied!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Who said you need a felony to separate families?

    There is no constitutional right to have your family kept intact, as your leftist pals recite whenever the topic of CPS taking kids away from US citizen parents comes up.

  • H. Farnham||

    I think the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights covers that.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Ninth Amendment was NOT intended to be a magician's hat. You're not supposed to be able to pull enforceable rights from it on a whim.

    It was the product of fear that enumerating rights would be interpreted to make doing anything not in the list ipso facto illegal.

  • H. Farnham||

    "You're not supposed to be able to pull enforceable rights from it on a whim."

    I believe the Ninth was more about acknowledging the existence of unenumerated negative rights. The Bill of Rights was intended to limit government action rather than provide rationale for ever increasing government intrusions.

  • Nardz||

    9th = right to revolution

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    It implicitly assumes nothing, dullard. As I posted above and you ignored, when you're considered a flight risk you can be held in jail for less serious and nonviolent crimes. If those jails also contain people being held awaiting trial for more serious, perhaps violent offenses, then keeping kids in that environment might not be safe, even if they're there with their parents.

  • Rich||

    I smell a Supreme Court refusal.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Hey fuckstick, CPS separates US citizen families all the time with no crime whatsoever. Your leftist pals never had a problem with that, so this is obviously crocodile tears.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "One instance of government coercion justifies another!"

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    No, it doesn't. But the leftists treating this as a terrible violation of human rights are obviously disingenuous. Doesn't make them wrong (I have argued elsewhere why they are wrong) but it does make them scurrillous scoundrels.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Then make a principled argument for a change. Because all I see you doing is whataboutism.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Whataboutism? What is this, instagram? Adults call it tu quoque or ad hominem.

    I have made arguments against their (feeble) arguments elsewhere on this thread.

    Now I'm moving on to showing that not only are they wrong but they are also dishonest.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Also, it's not an ad hominem if the argument is about the hominem in question.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Whataboutism? What is this, instagram? Adults call it tu quoque.

    I have never understood why there is a supposed 'logical fallacy' about pointing out that an act that was accepted once should be accepted again.

    What makes that logically inconsistent?

    What I find doubly amazing is when those being called out for their hypocrisy demand consistency from the people calling them out--"you said this was wrong then, why are you saying it's okay now?" Why? Because you demanded it be so YOU moved this act from verboten to permissible when you refused to act on it's criminality before. WE were forced to accept that now, this is okay. And so we did it. And all of a sudden it's wrong again--but only for us. The act you forced us to accept in the past is still okay FOR YOU, but we are being held to a standard that no longer exists except for us.

    No. The 'logical fallacy' is the idea that a thing, once accepted, can be denied as acceptable to others based on their stance before acceptability.

    Not " or ad hominem" Ad hominen is attacking the speaker not the speech.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The fallacy is the belief that an action is judged to be right or wrong based solely on the person performing the action.

    So, for example, the fact that Obama imposed tire tariffs at one point, is supposed to justify the claim now that "tariffs are good", and therefore Trump's tariffs are justified, regardless of the merits or demerits of the particular case at hand.

    YOU moved this act from verboten to permissible when you refused to act on it's criminality before. WE were forced to accept that now, this is okay.

    Even in your hypothetical situation, if I refused to respond to a "criminal act", that does not suddenly make the crime not-a-crime, and it does not in any way *compel* you to accept the legitimacy of said criminal act.

    The whataboutism fallacy is just a way for people to not have to think through principles and details, and just lazily point to the guy in the other tribe to justify their own hypocrisy in doing what they wanted to do all along but lie about it.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The fallacy is the belief that an action is judged to be right or wrong based solely on the person performing the action.

    Is it?

    Because it's being called 'whataboutism' when someone points out that an action was lauded and celebrated when done by a leftist, but is a dire criminal act when done by someone who is not a leftist.

    The people shrieking 'whataboutism' are DEFENDING the idea that an action is judged to be right or wrong based solely on the person performing the action. They think that this is a correct stance.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, you're gaslighting again. Whataboutism is the claim that because (e.g.) Obama did some act, then that act is now legitimate for Trump or anyone else to do, regardless of what that act is.

    Obama raised tariffs? Then it's okay for Trump to raise tariffs. And if someone criticizes the tariffs on their merits, you all shout BUT WHAT ABOUT OBAMA'S TARIFFS???

    No one forced you to accept Obama's actions as legitimate. You chose to do that yourself because you wanted the power to do what Obama did without having to defend the principle of the matter. You wanted the power to set tariffs without having to justify Obama's tariffs. You wanted the power to abuse executive authority without having to justify Obama's abuse of executive authority. That is why it's a fallacy and why you are wrong. Man up and just admit that you didn't really disagree with much of Obama's use of his power, you just disagreed with HOW he used the power.

  • Paloma||

    Your Nazi pals never had a problem with separating children from their parents either! So this is obviously being fair and tough minded. Like your Nazi pals.

  • MJBinAL||

    idiot

  • MJBinAL||

    How about,
    The officer "Sir, do you know why I pulled you over? You were driving 30 mph in a 25 mph school zone. You are also driving without a license and this is the seventh time you have been arrested."
    The judge, "Sir, this is the seventh time you have appeared before this court charged with driving without a license. On the previous six occasions, you were released on bail to care for your children, and failed to appear on your assigned court date. Your bail is denied and your children are remanded to CPS."

    THAT Jeffy my boy, is how it works.

  • MoreFreedom||

    The government separates criminals from their children all the time here in the US, for citizens when they go to jail. I'm not going to pay WaPo to read their suspect reasoning, and besides WaPo has been shown to be a liberal propaganda outlet. I expect it amounts to the government choosing to not enforce the law. And I've read Obama was also separating parents and children. Just like the children in dog kennels picture, with all the liberal rags saying Trump was doing this, when the picture was taken during the Obama administration.

    As for separating children and their illegal immigrant parents, send the entire family back to the country from which they came. I'd rather have more legal immigrants, and ones that work and contribute rather than come for the free welfare. Until we get rid of welfare, I'm not for allowing immigration of non-workers.

  • sarcasmic||

    And here I thought libertarians required a victim if someone is to be called a criminal. Calling "society" the victim is the same justification used to toss drug users into prison. Principals, not principles.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Counterfeiting doesn't have a victim.
    Treason doesn't have a victim.
    Bribery doesn't have a victim.
    Insider trading doesn't have a victim.
    Perjury on behalf of a defendant doesn't have a victim.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Some crimes are victimless, therefore let's make more victimless crimes!"

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Wow, moving the goalposts and a strawman at the same time. Nice to see you can multi-troll.

  • sarcasmic||

    Counterfitting is fraud and the victim is the last person holding the counterfit bills who is deprived of the value that they thought they had. It's basically theft and it does have victims. So it causes harm.

    Treason is an odd one. One person's traitor is another person's freedom fighter. All depends on which side you're on.

    Bribery is another odd one. It tends to happen where the system is so unjust that greasing the wheels is the only way to get things one.

    Insider trading should not be a crime because it prevents price signals from showing the true value if what is being traded.

    Perjury obstructs justice and prevents courts from being able to function properly. It causes harm.

    Illegal immigration is little more than people crossing the border without permission. With the exception of communicable diseases, I fail to see the potential harm. Most of the arguments against it are rooted in economic fallacies or cultural prejudice.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    So the goalposts are moved from has a victim to causes harm? There are plenty of arguments as to why illegal immigration causes harm.

    Also, counterfeiters often get caught in the act of trying to spend their counterfeit, before anyone else holds it. They even get caught just possessing or transporting it, before they've made an attempt to spend it.

  • sarcasmic||

    There are plenty of arguments as to why illegal immigration causes harm.

    The vast majority of which are rooted in fallacies or prejudice.

  • 10mm||

    Unfortunately, no.

    Mexicans are some of the nicest, hardest working people I know in SoCal.

    But the fact, regardless of ideologies, is that the government education/health/infrastructure systems are based on taxes, whether we like it or not. And unfettered illegal immigration from the south has burdened these systems to the breaking point, where those that have been forced to play by the tax rules (citizens and legal immigrants) now suffer from the unregulated/undocumented/illegal population living among them without said rules.

    Yes, yes, I know they pay sales tax, and a fraction of some property taxes, but truly they are a deficit to our system without the 'proper papers' as people put it. Hey, I'd love if we didn't have to play by the government education and healthcare system, but that's a little pie in the sky for this discussion.

    My bigger question for those that support illegal immigration, do you oppose greater legal immigration as a solution?

  • Mark22||

    Illegal immigration most certainly has victims: US tax payers.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    --- The government separates criminals from their children all the time ---

    In the first place, the government DOESN'T do that unless children are at an immediate risk or there are no other relatives that can take care of them, and that's if parents cannot make BAIL, you ignorant and creepy authoritarian.

    What the Keebler Elf and his band of Fascists are doing is separating children from parents who are assylum-seekers. That means: they broke NO law. The fact that the Keebler Elf doesn't want to hear their REASONS for seeking assylum is a whole and totally different thing that has NOTHING to do with breaking laws. His orders have instead everything to do with Trumpista ultra-nationalism, xenophobia and just plain hate. He's a gawddamned Keebler Elf for cripes' sake!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    the government DOESN'T do that unless children are at an immediate risk or there are no other relatives that can take care of them

    Bullshit. Ever heard of CPS?

  • MJBinAL||

    Oh NO! You mean we are not putting them up together at a Trump Resort? The inhumanity!

    Why, this is terrible, I guess them will just have to go home.

  • MJBinAL||

    they, not them!

  • I can't even||

    So when the policy changes and illegal minors are chucked into a holding pen with adults and get abused - Reason won't write countless articles about how our immigration laws cause kid-rape, will they?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Yep. Female dogs gonna female dog.

  • Z565||

    The world can always use more cruelty, indifference and selfishness.

  • Juice||

    Some of the Republican commenters here are doing their part.

  • damikesc||

    I miss the days when Libertarians claimed they didn't want the US to solve the world's problems.

  • BYODB||

    Agreed. I'm often labeled an isolationist, which is amusing since it's obvious at least half the actual authors here at Reason don't understand foreign policy. The commentariant understands it better than the publication, but it's clear that libertarians in general deserve the label of foreign policy illiterates.

  • Cy||

    The world needs more hopes and dreams right? Fuck freedom! Right? Someone hold a gun to that persons head and make him do it! You don't like this guy stealing you taxes, trespassing or breaking your laws? Fuck you, his sob story is more important!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You are one of the worthy people who deserve freedom.
    Those shithole people from shithole countries, well, fuck them!

  • sarcasmic||

    Only people with papers from the government deserve freedom. They don't have permission and they aren't obeying orders. Therefore they are not free.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    They weren't even born on the same side of a line as us! How can you not see the importance of that?

  • Cy||

    Lines are all just relative to the FEELZ! SOCIAL JUSTICE MUST BE ATTAINED FOR THE UTOPIAN FUTURE!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Yep that's what it is. Treating people like human beings, respecting the NAP... that's what makes us SJWs.

  • Cy||

    When did International borders be come voided by the NAP? Theft and trespassing are ok in the NAP now? Holy shit! I didn't get that memo.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yeah, the "libertarian" position is quickly morphing into the progressive position.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I see the problem now, it's everyone's belief in these ridiculous imaginary lines. The obvious solution is to get rid of every goddamn imaginary line. ABOLISH PROPERTY FOR THE GOOD OF ALL!

  • sarcasmic||

    Property and international lines have nothing to do with each other. The only difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant is papers. That's it. So those papers are the difference between stealing and not stealing? That makes no sense.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    The only difference between a property owner and a trespasser is also papers.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can't trespass on a country. You can only trespass on an individual's property. I thought libertarians rejected collectivism.

  • Cy||

    "You can't trespass on a country. You can only trespass on an individual's property. I thought libertarians rejected collectivism."

    I'm sure there are some Ukranians who might disagree with you. I will say though, there are a ton of Russian soldiers right now that 100% back your absurd mental gymnastics.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Borders around a country are bad because individuals aren't using all the land.
    Borders around a state are bad because individuals aren't using all the land.
    Borders around a city are bad because individuals aren't using all the land.
    Borders around my property are different because I own this land. I even have a state issued piece of paper that says I own this land. But borders and papers everywhere else are bad.

  • BYODB||

    Of course those pieces of paper issued by the state that note you own your land also note that if you refuse to pay taxes on said land the land reverts to the state. Also, you are not allowed to drill on your property or use it in any fashion that the government deems impermissible.

    By all means, though, let us continue to try and move forward the immigration agenda before getting our own house in order. I'm sure anarchy and no rule of law will result in more libertarian outcomes, right?

  • Cy||

    "You are one of the worthy people who deserve freedom.
    Those shithole people from shithole countries, well, fuck them!"

    I'm oppressed! Everyone else must make concessions for me and mine! I want freedom, it's that group of people over there's job to give to me! What? No, I want that group there! These other groups aren't good enough to relieve my oppression!

  • Rich||

    These other groups aren't good enough to relieve my oppression!

    And, even if they were, they cruelly refuse to do it!

  • damikesc||

    Should we overthrow their countries?

    Why not? Do ONLY the ones coming here illegally deserve freedom?

    Hope you like nation building.

  • Cy||

    "Should we overthrow their countries?"

    No, we don't need to do that! Those "countries" just need to understand that they've been wrong since the dawn of man about borders and rights. They just need to accept the SJW view of the world, that happens to be convenient to have at the moment. Then, we can just send some soldiers across some lines, that don't exist by the way, and go and fix the worlds problems by making everything FAIR. BANG! UTOPIA! After all, it worked great for Stalin!

  • Mark22||

    Those shithole people from shithole countries, well, fuck them!

    Correct. It took me a few decades to get away from them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, we get it. The world is divided into two collectives, the Eloi and Morlocks. If the Eloi don't keep the Morlocks out of the Garden of Eden, the Morlocks will devour the Eloi!

  • Mark22||

    If that simplistic analysis is all you can muster, then, fine think about it that way. Either way, hell will freeze over before I will vote for anybody who wants to let large numbers of these people into any country where I'm living.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, I know. You want "gated community libertarianism" where only those in the gates get to enjoy the fruits of liberty, while those outside the gates are told to fuck off.

    "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." -- Abraham Lincoln.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Foreigners are free to come here, they just have to follow the rules to visit. No ones freedom is violated.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    I've always thought so, yes.

  • Jerryskids||

    Their are two many random Things wrong with that tweet for Me to believe that the tweet wasn't written by Michael Hihn. WHAT IS HE TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND THE WALL?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there parents"

    They don't even bother to learn the language!

  • Jerryskids||

    And it doesn't look like he's missing too many meals despite the fact that he's living in government housing along with his whole family, leeching (or is it leaching? Either one works.) off the hard-working taxpayers of this great nation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If people don't want to be separated from their children, they should not bring them with them... We've got to get this message out. You're not given immunity."

    It's true both that you shouldn't try to cross the border illegally with your children and it's true that separating children from their families is awful.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You're of course right, Ken.
    The nauseating part is when the Trumpists try to defend the family separation bit.

  • MJBinAL||

    The "Trumpists" and the "Obamaists", and the "Bushists", why all them think they should follow the law Congress wrote! Unreasonable bastards!

  • Rhywun||

    That doesn't look like staking one extreme position or the other to me. Are you sure you're from around here?

  • Rhywun||

    That doesn't look like staking one extreme position or the other to me. Are you sure you're from around here?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Putting a person in a cage is awful too. But we have determined that it is justified in response to crime.

  • Miss C||

    Considering what one has to endure whilst crossing borders and even multiple borders, the parents should be arrested for child endangerment upon arrival at the US border or after crossing. Most Latin American immigrants are coming here to live a fat American lifestyle. Cars for everyone. Materialistic behavior. Lots of illegal dumping. Exploitation of other immigrants. Bad diets. Taking jobs and college spots from native born Black, white and Latino citizens and legal immigrants. Getting Affirmative Action at the expense of the descendents of Blacks who were brought here against their will. Very bad for Mother Earth and American citizens. It's a no win situation for everyone. Stop the madness! Build the wall!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Curious, does Rep Jayapal also investigate CPS taking children away from US citizen parents on false pretenses, as has happened thousands of times in the past few decades?

  • Cy||

    Or worse, taking them away from a good parent and giving them to a POS parent because one has a vagina?

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    That too.

  • Miss C||

    No!

  • Rhywun||

    Oh goodie, another immigration post.

  • Rich||

    If kids who sext are de jure child pornographers, aren't these asylum seekers de jure human traffickers?

  • MJBinAL||

    Yes, in fact they are.

    In fact, the entire premise of DACA is that these poor children where brought here without any choice and so should not be held responsible. If this is true then their parents are guilty of human trafficing.

  • Miss C||

    Uh, yep!

  • Jerryskids||

    I would quibble with the "new low" part, though. Sure, FDR allowed the little Japanese-American kiddies to stay with their parents when he sent them off to concentration Happy Fun camps, but still....

  • Rich||

    'You will never see your children again. Families don't exist here. You won't have a family anymore.'

    Cold as ICE.

  • Rhywun||

    Second- or third-hand quotes are the most trustable quotes.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    If they're applying for asylum, that means they are claiming that their lives are in danger (and if they're bringing kids, the kids' lives are too).

    If the alternative is myself and my kids being murdered by gangs or the govt back in my home country, I would gladly accept temporary separation from my kids in a safe country if that was the only other option.

    So if they have a problem with being separated from their kids, that would seem to indicate their asylum claim is false.

  • Rhywun||

    murdered by gangs or the govt

    Isn't there a difference there? You can't claim asylum from "gangs", can you? Unless the gangs are the government.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Some of the asylum seekers are doing exactly that. Even more ridiculous, back in 2014 an Obama administration immigration judge ruled that domestic violence is a valid claim for asylum.

  • MJBinAL||

    Actually, they let them claim asylum from places where there is danger from gangs and general lawlessness.

    You know, kinda like Chicago. ;-)

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Good idea. Maybe if we send them to Chicago or Baltimore, they'll realize this country isn't safe and go up to Canada to apply for asylum.

  • MJBinAL||

    Ooooo, someone brought logic to the conversation! Cheater!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, you're absolutely right. People fleeing authoritarian asshole government thugs in foreign countries, will happily tolerate authoritarian asshole government thugs in this country!

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Thugs who take care of my kids in a separate place are preferable to those who would (supposedly) kill me and my family.

    "Utopia is not an option" as libertarians say, at least the ones not aligned with leftists.

  • Mark22||

    People fleeing authoritarian asshole government thugs in foreign countries, will happily tolerate authoritarian asshole government thugs in this country!

    That's not what they are doing. They are fleeing a failing social welfare system to go to a still functioning social welfare system, which they then make fail as well.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There you go again. Presuming they have bad motives.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Who cares about their motives, they came here illegally. Americas job is not to take everyone from all over the world and give jobs to the poor and dispossessed of every country.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "America" does not have a singular purpose or a singular job. Individual Americans may wish to give jobs to the poor and dispossessed of other countries yet you would deny that liberty *to other Americans* as well as to the immigrants themselves.

    "Illegal" is not the same as immoral, or wrong.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Exactly, I would deny them that right. They are not Americans. They can follow the rules to join the club just like anyone else if they want to immigrate here. They want to get a job here then they can get a visa.

    And no, it is not immoral. Virtually 100% of the globe would disagree with the assessment that anyone is free to move wherever they want with no restrictions no matter who they are or where they are from. It is furthermore not enshrined as any right individuals possess written into any UN document or any other official tract. It is illegal and virtually no one except anarchists would agree it is immoral.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Exactly, I would deny them that right. They are not Americans.

    You would simultaneously be denying the right of freedom of association and contract *to Americans* who wished to employ the "poor and dispossessed". You are taking away rights from American citizens too, bucko. Funny how this never seems to enter into the discussion. That is why immigration restrictionists are inherently collectivist: they elevate group rights of "the people" above individual rights of citizens to decide what is best.

    And no, it is not immoral.

    I didn't realize morality was decided upon by majority vote.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I am not denying anything, they can get a visa like anyone else. This is neither fair nor unreasonable. Furthermore I know from personal experience you can get jobs doing fairly menial things like waiter or retail sales with a foreigner visa because I am married to someone who obtained a visa for both of those kind of jobs.

    And yes, when a radical fringe is trying to change the definition of what is considered moral I think it is a pretty fair to point out they are indeed a radical fringe whose ideas are not accepted anywhere.

  • Mark22||

    I think their motives are perfectly good; that doesn't mean I'm obligated to accommodate them, any more than I'm obligated to allow you to trespass on my front yard.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    By continuing with your absurd analogy that the nation is "collective property of the people", then you ARE permitting me to trespass on your front yard. Don't you get it yet? I'm a part of the people too. If you demand a say over who may enter my private property, then I also get a say in who may enter your private property, including myself if I so choose.

    You are destroying your own private property rights by granting superior phony collective rights over them to the majority.

  • MJBinAL||

    No one is speaking of thier motives, they are observing the available evidence.

    Certainly they don't intend to make the new system fail. They just want, as we are so often told, " a better life". However, their learned behaviors from the places they came from WILL make the new system fail. And that failure IS a problem.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    --- So if they have a problem with being separated from their kids, that would seem to indicate their asylum claim is false. ---

    So Sophie should not have felt so guilty after all, huh?

    You Non Sequitur-loving idiot.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    The Keebler Elf sure has a thing against children of those he vehemently hates.

    Reminds me of something...

  • colorblindkid||

    I understand the emotional aspect of this, but these immigrants and the smugglers that get them here know all the US lpolicies and take advantage of them. It is incredibly hard to tell who is telling the truth. Every single person claims to be seeking asylum. We have no idea if children that show up with adults are actually their children, or if they are just a smuggler trying to get in by claiming another child as their own.

    It is an immensely complex problem. We have gotten hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors in the country over the last few years. How the hell are you supposed to handle that? What are the options?

  • chipper me timbers||

    "What are the options?"

    Why not let them into the country?

  • MJBinAL||

    Fuck you, No.

  • colorblindkid||

    We need some sort of system. We can't just let an extra 10 million poor people come into this country with no record and not even a preliminary vetting. It will not end well. Where is the limit? 500,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,0000? Anybody who says there is absolutely no limit to how many poor immigrants American can take in is dishonest.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If Republicans' positions on immigration derived from principle, Alexander Ovechkin would have been deported long ago.

  • MJBinAL||

    Sigh, another bit of blather from Arty. Oh Goody.

  • librich||

    Jayapal's view seems to me to be a correlate of imperial arrogance. We're the rulers of the world, therefore any public policy issue that we view as a problem deserves our intervention. And the correlate is that any misfortune experienced by any human on earth is our problem and must be dealt with by us.

  • Thor||

    I have no sympathy for these people. We should make their experience as unpleasant and traumatic as possible. The word will spread.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    "These people?"

    Are you referring to the half-educated, economically inadequate, bigoted yahoos gullible enough to fall for Trump?

  • MJBinAL||

    Actually, I was thinking of you Arty.

  • Miss C||

    They are not Americans and they don't have rights accorded to Americans. Neither do Americans who commit crimes in other countries have rights accorded to citizens of those countries. End of discussion. Now that they know that they may be separated from their minor children, they should act accordingly and stay put.

  • Eidde||

    In an ideal world we could take everyone, but in an ideal world we wouldn't have people trying to change countries because they'd be doing fine in their original countries.

    Some triage is needed, focusing I would hope on people who share our basic values and whose destitute condition is merely temporary. Also who don't go in for extreme ideologies like Islamism or socialism or whateverism. And aren't in gangs.

    Of course, in sorting through such a large group of people, the government is bound to make mistakes one way or the other. That's why it's called government.

  • poppavein||

    They broke the law.

    Do you know what happens to people when they break a law and get caught? They go to jail, even before being convicted.

    You know what else? Children aren't allowed to stay with them in jail.

    So unfair to children, right?

  • gphx||

    And here I thought the low was people dragging their kids into America through a 112 degree desert where many get raped, locked in rail cars, and/or die outright.

  • vek||

    I ran out of sympathy for this shit like 20 million immigrants ago. So sorry if I don't shed a tear.

    These people broke the law, came here illegally, and are going to be sent back where they belong... Why should I feel bad? I'd get my ass tossed out of Mexico, or Canada, or Kenya if I illegally went there too.

    Most of these people have no business claiming asylum in any legitimate way. Sure their country may be a shit hole, but that covers 90% of the world... And we surely can't let in 90% of the global population, so they have to deal with it. Asylum for DOMESTIC VIOLENCE??? Are you shitting me??? Your boyfriend/husband gives you a black eye, so the clear and obvious answer is to run to another country, because that's the obvious solution??? LOLOLOLOL Give me a break. Domestic violence isn't cool, but it's not reasonable grounds for letting in some half illiterate from half way across the world either.

    Fuck all these people. Send them all home. If any of them are worth 2 shits they can apply to move here legally... The problem is 99% of them aren't of any real value to America, they're just more low skill janitors/dish washers, which we have plenty of already.

    All of the above is harsh but true.

  • thesafesurfer||

    What is truly despicable is parents committing lawless acts that expose their children to harm.

  • Brendan||

    The path of least resistance will be rejection and immediate deportation to their country of origin.

    Keeping families together would just lead to idiotic comparison to North Korean prison camps, and (most likely) children being abused by other adults.

    Separating men and women means fathers separated from their wives and daughters and/or mothers separated from sons and husbands.

    People who show up without entry approval will most likely be detained and immediately deported while their asylum claim is reviewed.

    Other than just letting everyone in, what is your solution?

  • Jdfusion||

    Again...what happens to AMERICAN citizens (all of the time, since forever) when they get arrested and happen to have children? And no granny, aunt , etc. They will be and ALWAYS have been separated from their mommies & daddies and sent to Children's Services...and we know their record. What makes any illegal immigrant think that they should be able to keep their kids upon their arrest? I feel badly for all children whose parents are this fucking foolish.

    Jdfusion

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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