MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Tearing Babies from Their Mother's Breasts Is Now Your Government at Work

Zero tolerance enforcement against illegal border crossings turns Wal-Marts into essentially jails for kids.

CNN reports this week on a particularly evil example of U.S. policy toward separating mothers and children enmeshed in our immigration enforcement laws. Natalia Cornelio, an attorney working with the Texas Civil Rights Project, told of how during an interview with a Honduran immigrant who had crossed the border without navigating the near-impossible maze of U.S. immigration law, the woman "sobbed as she told...how federal authorities took her daughter while she breastfed the child in a detention center, where she was awaiting prosecution for entering the country illegally. When the woman resisted, she was handcuffed."

Customs and Border PatrolCustoms and Border Patrol

While not always in such a dramatically horrific manner, in the past month alone immigration law enforcement, according to a federal public defender speaking to CNN, has separated 500 children from their parents in Texas. Some, the public defender reports, have no idea where their children are. There are also reports of children being taken away to be bathed and then never returned to their parents.

And what does life become like for those children taken from their parents? This week some journalistic accounts of what those immigration kid jails are like have hit, though involving kids older than breast-feeding age.

Jacob Sobaroff of MSNBC in a tweetstorm notes the weird banana republic detail of "[o]ne of the first things you notice when you walk into the shelter—no joke—a mural of Trump with the quote 'sometimes losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.' Presidential murals everywhere. But that one is 1st."

The "shelter" in Brownsville, Texas, he visited, called Casa Padre, is overcrowded with 1,500 boys ages 10-17, five to rooms meant for four. Nary an MS-13 member to be seen in this "shelter" that used to be a Wal-Mart where the kids spend 22 hours a day locked inside. The facility Sobaroff got invited to visit (good he was invited because uninvited press are supposed to have cops called on them) is run by licensed child care pros from an operation called Southwest Key, though the proposed new tent city prisons for these poor kids won't be.

The Washington Post also got inside Casa Padre, and reports that:

Yellow lines on the ground mark the area boys must line up. In the cafeteria, a mural tells kids to speak quietly, ask before getting up and not share food. Next to their beds are lists of each boy's belongings: two T-shirts, three pairs of socks, three pairs of underwear, one polo, a pair of jeans. Lights go out at 9 p.m. and come back on at 6 a.m.

There are so many children that they attend school in two shifts: one in the morning, the other in the afternoon. They sit in small, numbered classrooms with yellow walls covered in posters of planets. On Wednesday, through tiny windows they waved to the reporters outside.

"You might want to smile," Southwest Key executive Alexia Rodriguez told the journalists at one point. "The kids feel a little like animals in a cage, being looked at."

The number of children in federal custody spiked by more than 20 percent between April and May of this year. Casa Padre doubled its population over that period, from 542 to 1006, according to a monthly census by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the agency that licenses such shelters.

The CNN story paints a picture of the federal courtroom where these cases are decided as men plead for mercy to be able to attend to their 8-year-old daughters before being sentenced to a couple of weeks in jail.

Cornelio told CNN that, naturally, when interviewing immigrant women about these child-snatchings they "would start crying and would need to take a couple of minutes before being able to continue talking about it." For their part, the Justice Department in Texas' Southern District "could not comment on the number of parents who had been separated from their children or how families were separated because of the zero-tolerance policy."

The application of this policy is not business-as-usual:

It has long been a misdemeanor federal offense to be caught illegally entering the country, punishable by up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine. But previous U.S. administrations generally didn't refer everyone caught for prosecution...

Supporters of the new program credited it with reducing the number of crossings and repeat offenders, while critics said it overwhelmed the courts and U.S. attorneys' offices with low-level crimes that made it difficult to use resources to go after serious and dangerous crime, like drug smuggling and cartels.

Blacks and Indians were past victims of this particularly cruel injustice, and the Trump administration remains pretty proud of their cruelty along these lines when it comes to petty law breakers.

Shikha Dalmia explains everything wrong with the general zero-tolerance family-disrupting immigration policy.

Photo Credit: Customs and Border Patrol

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.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Very sad. I. Don't. Care.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Guys like you never have. That's why better people improve society without you, cramming progress down your throats if necessary.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

  • JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy||

    Okay, ^ that was funny!!

  • Kim Jong Unfollow||

    #FLOL best reply ever and yeah, I got no fucks to give about these low grade bottom feeders.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Just as America's educated, accomplished, tolerant, decent citizens feel about disaffected Trump supporters, especially the downscale, faux libertarian right-wingers in our rural and southern backwaters.

    Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, of course.

  • DarrenM||

    America's educated, accomplished, tolerant, decent citizens

    If you're lucky, you might run into one sometime.

  • BambiB||

    This is just wrong. They shouldn't be tearing babies from the tits of criminal invaders. They should be shooting them both on the spot as soon as they cross the border. Having the little one hanging on a tit just means you can get them both with one shot.

    Anywhere else in the world, 12 to 20 million criminals crossing a border would be called what it is: INVASION. The way you stop invasions is by killing invaders until they stop coming.

    Shoot them at the border.

    (Is Shikha using the pen name "Brian Doherty" these days?)

  • BambiB||

    This is just wrong. They shouldn't be tearing babies from the tits of criminal invaders. They should be shooting them both on the spot as soon as they cross the border. Having the little one hanging on a tit just means you can get them both with one shot.

    Anywhere else in the world, 12 to 20 million criminals crossing a border would be called what it is: INVASION. The way you stop invasions is by killing invaders until they stop coming.

    Shoot them at the border.

    (Is Shikha using the pen name "Brian Doherty" these days?)

  • The baker||

    Here's your cake, sir, but in good conscience I couldn't decorate it with "Congratulations Hillary " because she lost.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Napoleon is a low empathy individual.

  • I can't even||

    I thought all libertarians were?

  • Just Say'n||

    Only toward orphans in our monocle factories

  • I can't even||

    If your don't pry them off the tit, how are you going to chain them to the machinery?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Chain the tit too.

  • ThomasD||

    Go on.

  • shortviking||

    Authoritarians never improve society. Go cram somewhere else.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The authoritarians in this context were the right-wingers who opposed (and continue to oppose) gay rights, supported the drug warriors, cheered for torture, criminalized abortion and contraception, defended abusive policing, opposed voting rights, padded military budgets, suppressed science to flatter superstition in classrooms, invaded the wrong country, whittled the Fourth Amendment, expanded government secrecy, and the like.

    Other than that, great comment!

  • Ariki||

    Then why are you shilling here and not over at Breitbart moron?
    At this point you are just mildly amusing, aggressively preaching your bullshit like the people here don't already understand these things at a level you will never appreciate or attain.

    The next authoritarian will rise with the blessings of the left.
    It wont be you, as much as you hunger for that power.
    Fuck. Off. Slaver.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Guys like me have been effecting progress in America for a half-century while guys like you mutter bitterly and inconsequentially about how you can't stand all of this damned progress, education, tolerance, science, and education.

    Carry on, clingers. You goobers should be better at losing by now.

  • hello.||

    Pretty soon you'll be dead from brain cancer Mikey.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    I'd cheer for your torture. I'd go through the moon for your murder.

  • Paloma||

    I agree with the Rev. And Hugo Chavez is ice skating in hell.

  • Thor||

    Progress? I approve of the governments handling of this matter. So do a lot of other people. God is on our side.

  • Paloma||

    Your god Odin?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Your God is a fairy tale for people too gullible to overcome childhood indoctrination. Adults do not believe that storks deliver babies, that the moon is made of green cheese, or that superstition deserves respect.

    You are free to believe as you wish. You are not entitled to have religion-based arguments treated with respect in reasoned debate, because competent people neither accept or advance superstition in that context, especially with respect to public affairs.

  • JesseAz||

    I've never seen you care about ripping kids away from criminal mothers if they are US Citizens.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Hey, Sally, you try to come cram something down my throat, you halfwitted sack of gopher shit. Give it yer best shot, internet tough guy.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I am really getting sick of Reason's open borders fanaticism.

    You know what's even more complicated than navigating US immigration laws?

    Traveling illegally from Honduras to America. It's really complicated. But she managed it!

    He'd have navigated our immigration laws, too, if she hadn't figured we wouldn't let her in, so she decided to just take what she wasn't legally entitled to.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "I am really getting sick of Reason's open borders fanaticism."

    Same.

  • Feanor||

    Same.

    Over and over 'nativism' is employed in lieu of solid argument, it's just a pejorative - Dalmia is absurd. An immigrant lecturing the BadThinkers about how selfish it is to not let anyone in who knocks at the door...and of course if they or their kids need shelter, food...etc.

    Nativism is the radical idea that the natives of a country have more of a right to it than people who've never set foot in it - and desire to come, not for love of the culture, but for a job, and/or welfare.

    Which raises another point - it's one thing to call for open borders, another to call for open borders in a welfare state north of a couple dozen basket cases with high birth rates.

    Frankly, it's idiotic, whether or not Libertarian Fonzie things No True Libertarian thinks otherwise - it's a stupid idea, one that Brookings supports.

    Let's face it - Reason is corporate libertarianism.


    The answer here, btw, is to NOT LET THEM CROSS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Ditto.

  • Paloma||

    Bye Felicias

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Reason advances libertarian position.

    Faux libertarians whimper.

    Good times.

  • Juice||

    I don't think they even claim to be libertarians.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Faux libertarians claim to be libertarians.

  • DarrenM||

    Open borders may be libertarian, but I think the rule of law takes precedence. At least it should.

  • NashTiger||

    FAUX Libertarians cram things down people's throats (who didn't consent)

    Can't you find another hobby?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    By the 'you need the consent of the NashTigers' standard, segregated schools and school prayer would still be with us, gay-bashing would still be great sport for conservatives, women would be unable to vote, and black men would be compelled to lower their gaze in the company of white women.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Tearing Babies from Their Mother's Breasts

    Pics?

  • DarrenM||

    So, were they glued on or something?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Tearing Babies from Their Mother's Breasts Is Now Your Government at Work""

    What do you mean now? It was happening under the last admin too.

  • some guy||

    It goes back at least to Vietnam...

  • Ron||

    It also happens to Americans but to mostly cute white kids for resale by the CPS to adoptive parents, its called medical kidnaping, google it, is very real. People don't adopt problem children they want cute healthy white ones so they will take them from law abiding white women who have no legal means of recourse and can't get the media to help because they are white.

    CPS = child protective services

  • ||

    I know I feel privileged just hearing about it.

  • retiredfire||

    "Tearing Babies from Their Mother's Breasts Is Now Your Government at Work what happens when you try to bring your baby into our country, illegally."
    There, FIFY.
    To be followed by; "SO DON'T DO IT!"
    But you've gotta love how the open borders author describes the entry: "...a Honduran immigrant who had crossed the border without navigating the near-impossible maze of U.S. immigration law"
    You mean the nearly impossible maze that 1.6 million manage to navigate, every year?

  • DarrenM||

    This is how we weed out the riffraff. If someone can navigate the "near-impossible maze", they're allowed in. On the other hand, you have those for whom it's way too complex. Some of them write for Reason.

  • Ron||

    Once people learn they will lose their children for breaking the law maybe they will be less willing to evade our laws. spread the word to all those countries from where they come from.

    This is not sarcasm.

  • some guy||

    If we just shot illegal immigrants on sight, that would probably make them less willing to evade our laws too. It would be an evil act though, just like this.

  • Ron||

    Is it also evil then when an female U.S. citizen commits a crime and she is separated form her children when incarcerated? Do people only have to have a child to not suffer the consequences of their actions? How is separating a criminal from their offspring evil?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You cannot distinguish victimless crimes from theft and assault and murder?

    No, of course not. You believe in the collective right of politicians to control people's freedom to hire who they want, or to rent to whom they want. You are a collectivist with no sense of proportion and no sense of what self-ownership means.

  • JesseAz||

    illegal immigration isn't victimless. It consists of stolen identification, unlicensed drivers, increased cost to tax payers, etc.

  • Paloma||

    In other words, OTHER victimless crimes.

  • perlchpr||

    "Fraud" is victimless?

  • JoeB||

    So you clearly do not pay taxes. Freeloader.

  • retiredfire||

    If wanting a democratic republic, that passes laws that the majority want, so that we have an ordered society is "collectivist", then what you advocate is anarchy.
    There are several paces that will accommodate your ideology - Somalia comes to mind.
    Why don't you go there instead of harping about the vast majority of people, here?

  • some guy||

    Depends on what the citizen did. If all she did was commit some victimless misdemeanor (like, say drug possession), then yes, it would be evil to forcibly separate her from her infant. If she murdered someone, that's a different story.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "You believe in the collective right of politicians to control people's freedom to hire who they want, or to rent to whom they want."

    If they want a job in a foreign country they can get a visa like everyone else in the world has to do in any country. Not immoral.

  • JesseAz||

    CPS rips the kids away for merely letting the kids walk home from a park a block away by themselves. Who said anything about a misdemeanor?

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Actually, it sounds like a great idea.

  • some guy||

    What other misdemeanors do you think should be met with immediate execution, without trial?

  • Paloma||

    People who use plastic straws and pollute Mother Earth!

  • DarrenM||

    Erecting a straw man for the purpose of knocking it down. That's a hate crime.

  • Just Say'n||

    Murdering people to own the libs

  • Paloma||

    Ronnie Hitler doesn't care.

  • Feanor||

    And what's your argument against stopping them from crossing to begin with?

  • Kim Jong Unfollow||

    I'm down with shooting these low grades.

  • d_remington||

    There's nothing evil about shooting trespassers.
    -Libertarians.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Good point, Ron. Let's also take kids from Christian parents that break truancy laws.

  • damikesc||

    Are those parents CITIZENS?

    Thats a key difference.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think the moral distinction is nil.

  • damikesc||

    Not looking for laws to make people more moral. Seems to cause a lot of problems. Banning abortion would be a very moral thing to do. Yet, I oppose it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Which is reasonable. But there's a big difference between not having a law, and having a law. Your abortion case is one where we're defaulting to minimizing government force. This situation is one where we are enabling government force.

  • damikesc||

    The alternative is bankrupting ourselves and causing mass misery to citizens.

    Personally, I worry about Americans WAY more than I worry about Hondurans.

  • perlchpr||

    How else are you going to end the welfare state?

    I say let 'em all in. Bring the pain.

    Note: "letting them in", and "letting them work" is not even close to the same thing as "letting them vote".

  • BYODB||


    I say let 'em all in. Bring the pain.

    And people wonder why libertarianism isn't terribly popular among the general public.

  • perlchpr||

    It's got nothing to do with being popular.

    A massive influx of people who don't look like the populace and don't speak the language will absolutely drive the majority to stop stealing from themselves to support wastrels.

    If I could get them to stop some other way, I would generally prefer to be less disruptive to the culture. But I can't so, I'll take what I can get.

  • Paloma||

    I don't worry about either one. I only worry about individuals. I see no more reason to worry about hillbillies in Kentucky or Wall Street Bankers or Hondurans in general.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Banning abortion would be a very moral thing to do.

    Where moral = superstitious and authoritarian.

  • BYODB||

    Definitions of what is and is not human life, and declaring ending that life is legal based upon that definition, is totally moral right?

    I don't think it's moral either, but that doesn't have anything to do with the reasoning for keeping it legal.

  • retiredfire||

    It is superstitious to believe that a baby, in the womb, is a human being?
    You're one fucked up individual.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Anti-abortion zealots and religious kooks are essentially one big bag of gulllible, authoritarian goobers.

  • DarrenM||

    Metaphysical argument:
    A fetus is not a human being until it has a "soul", which is is obtained at some unknown point after pregnancy becomes known to the mother but before it is no longer convenient to obtain an abortion.

    Humanist argument:
    A fetus is not a human being until some indeterminate point in development where it possesses the minimal function that we recognize as "human". We choose this point to be, coincidentally, also after pregnancy become known, but before it is no longer convenient to obtain an abortion.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Yes, there's nothing more libertarian than citizenship. It's what they dream of all night long. The first word they homeschool their kids.

  • damikesc||

    It's time we treat being a citizen here as the gift it is.

    Again, if you don't want us to solve the world's problems, this is part of that equation.

    World: Go take care of your damned selves.

  • Paloma||

    And just how did you earn that "gift" by popping out of a vagina?

  • BYODB||

    How does one ever earn a gift? Generally, gifts are free to the receiver.

    Would you prefer some other method of determining citizenship in the welfare state? Perhaps a test of some sort, and if you fail you're killed (you know, since no nation will just take kids a nation doesn't want...oh wait...)

  • Paloma||

    Okay. Worthy then. How is it you can accept a gift that you didn't earn, but insist someone else not be gifted with it?

  • JoeBlow123||

    Heh you are right. Lets make everyone an American citizen. Everyone. Lets annex Mexico, split it into like 10 states. Annex South America. Annex Canada. Freedom needs more lebensraum.

  • Paloma||

    The Louisiana Purchase? Texas? Alaska? Hawaii? Puerto Rico? All annexed.

  • perlchpr||

    This is... concurrence?

  • perlchpr||

    Sounds reasonable.

    If we have to support the people born there, then why the fuck shouldn't we take over the resources and manage them competently?

  • BYODB||


    Okay. Worthy then. How is it you can accept a gift that you didn't earn, but insist someone else not be gifted with it?


    Presumably it was gifted by the founders of the United States via their rebellion from Britain and continued down through the Constitution, why?

  • hello.||

    How is it you can accept a gift that you didn't earn, but insist someone else not be gifted with it?

    This is the rationale behind the estate tax. Good to see libertarians fully on board with "you didn't build that".

  • DarrenM||

    The same way anyone born in any other country is "worthy" of being a citizen of *that* country. Why do you think the U.S. is so exceptional?

  • Paloma||

    No, it's not a key difference.

  • Ron||

    CMB
    Read my earlier comment where our government is already doing essentially that

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Good point, Ron. Let's also take kids from Christian parents that break truancy laws.

    More important, we're going to end homeschooling by the goober fringe.

    The yahoos didn't see gay marriage coming, either.

  • hello.||

    The only thing ending soon is your irrelevant and obsolete life Mikey you old piece of worthless shit Medicare freeloader.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You must have me confused with an off-the-grid, pill-chewing, unemployable, uninsured, faux libertarian Trump supporter who relies on faith healers and lives in a town whose two-day-a-week clinic is staffed by GED-holders.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Once people learn they will lose their children for breaking the law maybe they will be less willing to evade our laws. spread the word to all those countries from where they come from."'

    I suspect it will work as well as learning doing drugs leads to prison deters people from doing drugs.

    People tend to accept the risks when they like the reward. The reward in this case is living in the land of more opportunity than where you are leaving.

    Personally, I wouldn't want my country to be known for doing that even if it does help.

  • ||

    Once people learn they will lose their children for breaking the law maybe they will be less willing to evade our laws. spread the word to all those countries from where they come from.

    This is not sarcasm.

    Please note: The overwhelming majority of minors in detention crossed the border sans parents.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Right, because losing your children has done anything to keep our homegrown criminal population down.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You are not a great libertarian if you think this is a RECENT thing the government is doing.

  • Just Say'n||

    Still evil as shit, despite the rank hypocrisy Doherty and Reason are showing here.

  • some guy||

    What hypocrisy? Doherty addresses the recency of the policy here:

    Cornelio told CNN that, naturally, when interviewing immigrant women about these child-snatchings they "would start crying and would need to take a couple of minutes before being able to continue talking about it." For their part, the Justice Department in Texas' Southern District "could not comment on the number of parents who had been separated from their children or how families were separated because of the zero-tolerance policy."

    The application of this policy is not business-as-usual:

    It has long been a misdemeanor federal offense to be caught illegally entering the country, punishable by up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine. But previous U.S. administrations generally didn't refer everyone caught for prosecution...

    Supporters of the new program credited it with reducing the number of crossings and repeat offenders, while critics said it overwhelmed the courts and U.S. attorneys' offices with low-level crimes that made it difficult to use resources to go after serious and dangerous crime, like drug smuggling and cartels.

  • Just Say'n||

    www.snopes.com/fact-check/toddler-cage-photo/

    Yup. And Doherty should probably stop getting all his information from Vox

  • Just Say'n||

    www.businessinsider.com/migran.....ned-2018-5

    Whoops- wrong link above. That's from a false viral photo

  • some guy||

    The article did use the qualifier "generally".

  • Just Say'n||

    Come on, now. That's a weaselly way out.

    Would it have been that hard to criticize the policy without falsely suggesting that this is a new policy? This undercuts the cause that you are advocating here, because it reeks of hypocrisy

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    In fact, more needs to be done to emphasize that this is not recent policy. Not to save Trump from some criticism, I could give a rat's ass if people are shitting on him. We need to do this to emphasize that this is an inherent outgrowth from the power that the federal government has over people.

    It's not an issue of having the right guy in charge. It's an issue of lessening the power they have over others.

  • Just Say'n||

    Damn, BUCS, I find myself agreeing with you almost all the time. Which, I'm sure, makes you feel horrible about yourself.

    By lying and making this about the president this becomes a political football and the argument is immediately undermined when it is shown that this is not a "new" policy.

    When it becomes about the man in charge, rather than the system in place, then people default to "well we just need the right TOP MAN". To be fair, I think that is what Reason believes at this point as they seem to abandoned all principles in favor of some rock solid TDS.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Right on, BUCS. Unfortunately, that does nothing for the tribal warfare.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Amen BUCS.

  • Citizen X||

    When a man has consumed the amount and variety of porns that BUCS has, it grants a certain amount of wisdom as to human foibles.

  • BYODB||

    I feel somewhat obligated to say that this is an outgrowth of the federal government that is overwhelmingly popular with the majority of the populace of the United States (and every nation on Earth, by the by), even if they don't understand how or why.

    I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, no one is talking about making anyone who wanders into the U.S. a citizen. Ignoring reality in favor of principles might make one feel right and superior, but it utterly fails to accomplish anything. Maybe that's not a good or a bad thing, but you'll have to convince the majority of America to take a pay cut and end the welfare state to get your way if you're passingly familiar with economics.

    Good luck. I suppose I mean it, too.

    I do find it amazing that a group that seems to pride itself on economic and civic knowledge throws it all out the window the second someone brings up immigration. It's quite curious. Even more curious is the sudden desire to legislate based upon feelings instead of well reasoned logic.

    It's just more proof that humans are humans, no matter what ethos they claim.

    I don't disagree with BUCS, either, but it's utopian thinking. Recognizing that might be the first step to actually making arguments that anyone outside the bubble would agree with. Without that, this is navel gazing. And if we need to resort to emotionally appealing arguments that have bad ends...well I don't see much daylight between libertarian and progressive.

  • some guy||

    I don't get it. Did Doherty report the toddler cage photo as real or something?

  • Just Say'n||

    I made a mistake with the first link. Apologies

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Maybe that specific photo. But I saw one that was going around facebook and when I clicked the link it went to a 2014 article and the photo was part of that article.

  • some guy||

    Don't want to get treated like a thug? Don't try to find a better life for yourself and your kids like a thug...

  • That guy!||

    Exposing my child to significant risk of incarceration for my own petty financial gain is a good thing! I'm a good parent for doing it!

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Obeying the collective right to have a government control your life is a good thing.

  • That guy!||

    Ignoring legitimate risk to my children becausd of my ideology and for my own financial gain makes me a good parent!

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Balancing the chance of a better life against the certainty of a worse one.

    Substituting the collective wisdom of strangers running a corrupt government for individuals weighing of risks and benefits, that's an excellent Libertarian party plank.

  • That guy!||

    I'll happily trade my child for a vague uncertain financial gain!

  • Paloma||

    I'd happily trade your child too.

  • JoeBlow123||

    There is a way to pursue a better life. It is called get a visa.

  • DarrenM||

    So, you think all the countries these people are coming from are "shitholes"?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    They are trying to make a better for their kids, jackass.

  • Just Say'n||

    No, you see, children should also be punished for the misdeeds of their parents

  • I can't even||

    By accompanying their parents to jail? Or not accompanying them?

    I keep forgetting which is the bad one.

  • Just Say'n||

    In both cases they are still separating children and their parents. In the immigration instance they are being detained, along with their parents, but in separate quarters.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why should children be punished for their parent's actions? Why wouldn't children of detained illegal immigrants at least be allowed to stay with their parents?

  • Just Say'n||

    www.businessinsider.com/migran.....ned-2018-5

    Also, Doherty doesn't help his cause by lying about this being a "new policy".

    All of this can be true at the same time.

  • Just Say'n||

    People who don't have children may not understand the inhumanity of this policy, but those who do understand how utterly offensive it is

  • I can't even||

    I have children, wouldn't want them in jail enough if I was there.

  • damikesc||

    Not sure we have enough room for special "family jail cells"

  • I can't even||

    Because there are often violent unpleasant people in jails?

  • retiredfire||

    Why wouldn't children of detained illegal immigrants at least be allowed to stay with their parents?
    Because then, you assholes would be complaining about children being in an adult prison.
    Adults find it hard to protect themselves, there. And you want to put children there, too?
    Admit it. All you want is for none of these people to be apprehended and held until they are processed. You just want them to be able to wander in and blend with the other millions of identity thieves, welfare cheats, fraudsters, etc. that have managed to avoid capture.

  • That guy!||

    My priorities are my financial solvency, not my child's safety!

  • JoeBlow123||

    "They are trying to make a better for their kids, jackass."

    Are we talking about Bernie Madoff now? I agree, that guy was totally ramrodded. He just wanted a better life for his children!

  • Paloma||

    Great argument. Well thought out and totally believable.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I am not the one peddling ridiculous arguments that amount to "But think of the kids!" I thought libertarians were supposed to at least to pretend to present some sort of utilitarian argument and not rely on brute force moralism like they are a bunch of Catholic nuns?

  • Feanor||

    So are thieves.

    Completely irrelevant.

    At issue is whether in a welfare state, and a Constitutional Republic, citizens have a right to control who comes in, to visit, to work, or to get welfare if, gee, they have trouble getting work.

    Shifting the costs onto the very people who voted against the endless flood of 'undocumented' migrants continuing.

    What about their rights?

    Forget the silly idealism of Libertarian Utopia - I mean right now, when we pay taxes to a government, and most people want these laws enforced...

    Why is it moral that what someone in Honduras wants for their kids matters more than the people being taxes, and voting, and who were born here?

  • Paloma||

    And those parents who exposed their kids to live fire trying to sneak over the Berlin Wall? Totally responsible when the six year old gets shot in the back! THEY WERE WARNED!

  • That guy!||

    I WANT WHAT I WANT, AND MY KIDS WILL SHUT UP AND DEAL WITH IT!!!

  • JoeBlow123||

    "And those parents who exposed their kids to live fire trying to sneak over the Berlin Wall?"

    Enforcing legal immigration is now equivalent to the Berlin Wall. OK. Keep moving those goalposts.

  • Paloma||

    The totalitarian mindset is exactly the same.

  • JoeBlow123||

    You are changing definitions to fit your own hobby horse. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is dangerous in that it cheapens what a word actually means. If you want to discover what totalitarianism actually is I suggest you read about the Great Terror in Russia between 1936 and 1938. Or perhaps about the Cultural Revolution in China.

    Telling non-citizens they must obtain some form of legal framework, whether a tourist or student or work visa, to visit a country not of their origin is not totalitarianism.

  • Rhywun||

    Don't cut in line like a thug.

  • some guy||

    Ah yes, this line that formed due to arbitrary rules created by xenophobic protectionists. Whatever happened to freedom of association, man?

  • Just Say'n||

    It's rather insane to say that immigration rules were invented by "xenophobic protectionists". Again, I repeat: this policy is evil, but it is not new and the open borders crowd is rather unhinged.

  • Paloma||

    THESE immigration rules were invented by xenophobic protectionists, and those who cater to them.

  • IceTrey||

    It will be implemented immediately after every human agrees to live by the NAP.

  • Rhywun||

    Maybe you could go create your own country without borders or rules, man, instead of wishing to change ours into something that most Americans - sorry, xenophobes - don't want.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    "Ours"? Might fine collective of frogs you got in your pocket there.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Scarecrow, you should realize by now that Trumpistas harbor NO sympathy for individual rights but clearly came out of the closet to proudly show everyone the kind of dangerous collectivists they were all along.

  • SQRLSY One||

    All Hail the Mighty Trump, who Trumps ALL calls for ANY hint of humanity and decency!

    (Let them eat the mercies of their USA-Fed jailers; It's all Momma's milk to the tiny snatched-up babies).

  • SQRLSY One||

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142724.htm
    Even brief maternal deprivation early in life alters adult brain function and cognition: Rat study
    "Children exposed to early-life stress or deprivation are at higher risk for mental illness and addictions later in life, including schizophrenia," said study co-author Brian F. O'Donnell, professor of psychological and brain sciences at IU Bloomington.
    ...
    ...
    We can thank Trump for creating the next generation of the mentally ill, and criminals, which will be used for justifying future rounds of treating people worse than most of us would treat our dog! Or our rats!

  • IceTrey||

    And the parents have no responsibility for that stress?

  • SQRLSY One||

    They bear about the same responsibility for the punishments wreaked upon their children (being deprived of stable parental care) as did the parents of children left as orphans, when "witches" were hung, drowned, or burned at the stake, in Dark Ages Europe.
    ...
    If'n ye don't want to be punished like a thugling, don't be born to thug parents!

  • Cloudbuster||

    Because there are only two kinds of people, Anarchists and Dangerous Collectivists!

  • Paloma||

    That doubles as an answer for those who want to outlaw guns.

  • Eidde||

    I would imagine that if, in Dickens' day, they could let a person's children stay with them in debtors' prison, they can let an illegal immigrant's children stay with him/her in detention, at least if it's a case as blatant as a "Guatemalan immigrant" who may have had the chance to apply for asylum in Mexico but didn't do it - which should lead to a prompt deportation of parent and child, right? No need for separation.

    Of course, in longer and more complicated cases, I can see there might be problems keeping the kids among the adult population, especially if the adult population includes unvetted violent criminals, etc.

  • Eidde||

    Thus, ironically enough, the case for separating parents and children is actually *greater* with parents who have some shred of a meritorious case for asylum but have to wait for their hearing...wait where? In a kid-friendly facility? I have to admit a certain lack of knowledge of the logistics here.

  • d_remington||

    There were far less debtors than there are foreign invaders.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    As others have said, this has always been the case.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    So was slavery, up to 1865 or so.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Cool, and Mars is red. Non sequiturs are fun.

    Meanwhile, as long as crimes exist, and women exist, and children exist, this is an inescapable outcome.

  • some guy||

    But for citizens it only happens after the woman has been tried and convicted in a court of law. Also, when the citizen does it the child doesn't just get sent to a different jail than the mother.

  • Just Say'n||

    True

  • perlchpr||

    But for citizens it only happens after the woman has been tried and convicted in a court of law.

    I presume you meant to add "in cases where the defendant hasn't been arrested, or has managed to make bail."

    Because pre-trial detention is totally a thing that happens.

  • damikesc||

    You're arguing that the woman DIDN'T enter the country illegally, in spite of her not being a citizen nor having a visa?

    Not sure how a court hearing would override the core problem of her actually doing it.

  • Paloma||

    Mothers and fathers who are convicted of any crime in the United States don't have their kids ripped away and sent somewhere where they don't know where they are. Their kids are sent to other family members or caretakers known to the convicted person. The kids know where their parents are and the parents know where the kids are. They don't get taken while someone is awaiting trial and nobody tells them where their child is.

    This is not the case with mothers and fathers who are already here, but either came without permission or overstayed their permission. This treatment is reckless, abusive, and inhumane. It's cruel and unusual punishment.

    The difference we see with Trump is the utter callousness he and his ilk display. Obama may have done the same thing, but he'd at least ACT embarrassed or concerned about it, even if he'd probably continue with the same policies.

  • BYODB||


    Obama may have done the same thing, but he'd at least ACT embarrassed or concerned about it, even if he'd probably continue with the same policies.

    Terrible reasoning, by the way, but notably Obama's deportation numbers are a lie and, I wager, so are Trump's. They would only be comparable to each other, since the definition of what counts as a deportation was changed during the Obama administration.

  • Paloma||

    Not to justify, but it is the reason for the outrage against Trump. He is quite unsympathetic. So was Hillary, for that matter. What's the saying again? Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

  • BYODB||


    Not to justify, but it is the reason for the outrage against Trump. He is quite unsympathetic. So was Hillary, for that matter.


    I agree, honestly. It was an unpopularity contest.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Their kids are sent to other family members or caretakers known to the convicted person. "

    Yeah, well, guess what: That's what happens with illegal immigrants, too. It's just that when somebody has just illegally moved here from another country, such other people are usually hard to find.

    I guarantee you, if you, a single mother with no identifiable relatives, commit a crime, you will be separated from your child in the same manner if you go to jail. Perhaps we should have jails with child care facilities? But I don't see why people here illegally should get better treatment than citizens.

  • Paloma||

    Have you known any single mothers who have gone to jail and been separated from their children? I have. They always go to relatives. Even if in the very rare case there are no relatives, the mothers still know where their children are.

    I see no reason why people who are here without permission or have overstayed their visa should get treated like actual criminals, even if those criminals are citizens. So what? They are still criminals and a potential threat to me and my family. Hondurans here without permission aren't.

  • d_remington||

    >Their kids are sent to other family members or caretakers known to the convicted person. The kids know where their parents are and the parents know where the kids are.

    Alright, so jail the parents and kick the children back over the border into mexico, so they can 'go to their grandparents'.

  • hello.||

    Obama may have done the same thing, but he'd at least ACT embarrassed or concerned about it

    The Obama voter in a nutshell. Sure he had the exact same policies but he at least lied to us about it like a decent and honorable person!

  • DarrenM||

    So, what are the representatives in the embassy or consulate of the country these immigrants are from doing about it? I'll be they are writing letters and burning up the phones protesting this terrible treatment.

  • ThomasD||

    You're not even particularly bright.

    Like no woman ever entered the Federal prison system while pregnant.

  • some guy||

    This baby was taken away prior to prosecution for a misdemeanor. And the crime was victimless as well. You're not even comparing apples to oranges.

  • ThomasD||

    I'm talking about what the Federal government historically has done, and continues to do That it may occur under different sorts of circumstances is immaterial. The point being that Doherty's breathless pants shitting ignores what has always been.

    And illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.

  • ThomasD||

    People who go into Federal custody get separated from their children. That is the way it has always been.

    You really do not have a problem with that.

    You (and the author) are just seeking to use it as a tool for sympathy regarding illegal immigrants.

    It's the worst form of hypocrisy.

  • Paloma||

    Cruel and unusual punishment. This is not just "separated from their children".

  • Paloma||

    Who exactly are the so called victims of illegal immigration?

  • BYODB||

    In a welfare state? Literally everyone.

    Next question?

  • Paloma||

    Or literally no one.

  • BYODB||

    Depends if you consider the destruction of wildly popular social programs and the implosion of society 'bad', one might think. My definition notwithstanding.

  • Paloma||

    Implosion of society? You're really reaching here. They're about as likely to cause an implosion of society as plastic drinking straws.

    About as many Mexican immigrants, illegal and otherwise, go back to Mexico each year than come here.

  • hello.||

    About as many Mexican immigrants, illegal and otherwise, go back to Mexico each year than come here.

    And yet somehow we have managed to accumulate a permanent surplus of 11-13 million of them since the last amnesty in 1986. Weird.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    If it leads to more of the worthless >65 crowd dying, I'm all for the implosion of society.

  • DarrenM||

    And you eat Soylent Green for breakfast.

  • Frank Thorn||

    Idaho Transfer had a solution for illegal immigration.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Let the bigots have their fun.

    As has occurred throughout American history -- including with respect to the similar goobers who hated, feared, and discriminated against Italians, gays, Catholics, eastern Europeans, Jews, agnostics, women, Asians, atheists, the Irish, and others -- intolerance and ignorance are destined to be bad bets in America over all but the shorter terms. These xenophobic losers will be overcome and marginalized, as their predecessors were.

    More recently, decent Americans have been generating progress in America on everything from gay rights and religion in schools to racism and misogyny, against the efforts and wishes of conservatives. The people who cheer today for bigoted, authoritarian immigration policies have spent their lifetimes being beaten -- soundly -- by their betters in America on just about every social issue that has arisen.

    The "traditional values" advocates are riding high at the moment, but they never saw gay marriage, the end of anti-miscegenation laws, legalized abortion, the removal of prayer and creationism from good schools, desegregation, and other important elements of societal progress coming, either.

  • Eidde||

    "bigoted, authoritarian immigration policies"

    Are you talking about the immigration statutes currently on the books? Which bigots passed those laws? Name names.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I am referring to the Trump administration's enthusiastic, cruel, bigoted conduct.

    The bigots don't win in America, not over time. Today's intolerant yahoos will fail soon enough, just as those who ranted against Italians, blacks, gays, the Irish, Asians, women, Jews, and others were pushed aside by the greatness of America.

  • Just Say'n||

    I didn't realize president obama was a bigot?

  • Eidde||

    If it's cruel and bigoted for Trump to enforce the laws on the books, then logically, the laws on the books are cruel and bigoted, as well.

    So, are you willing to name names? Who passed these laws?

  • Eidde||

    Well, if you can think of answer be sure to let us know.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Collectivists and xenophobes passed those laws. What else do you need to know?

    If you don't think so, then explain why the first immigration laws were against Chinese. Japanese, and other Asians, and then biased in favor of white norther Europeans, and still biased.

  • Eidde||

    OK, but Artie said was focusing on "the Trump administration's enthusiastic, cruel, bigoted conduct."

    As if Trump had invented these immigration statutes out of whole cloth.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Before you celebrate turning America into the Weimar Republic, you might want to think about what happened after people got fed up with it. And this time there isn't another America to come to your rescue, especially when Europe is getting as fed up as we are.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Before you celebrate turning America into a collective paradise, you might want to think about what has happened to sever single socialist paradise since time immemorial. Then you might want to consider what it means to be an individual with the right to hire at will, or trade money and goods, without the collective second-guessing you.

    But you won't. You're just another collective control freak, otherwise known as statist, communist, socialist, fascist.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    All I know about fascists is that every film I've seen from 1930's Berlin shows a civilized, industrious city filled with civilized industrious people.

    Nearly every major American city looks like a cross between clown world and a war zone.

    Who did that to us? Hint: it wasn't the fascists.

  • Citizen X||

    The hallmark of a civilized, industrious person is a willingness to shove his neighbor into an oven. It is known.

  • Just Say'n||

    Firing lines and starvation camps too.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    We all know that no nation ever creates biased propaganda.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Napoleon has watched every film about 1930's Germany he could find, for some reason.

  • Paloma||

    I'd much prefer present day New York, Chicago,or Los Angeles to 1930s Berlin. Ewwww.

    You might like North Korea. People work hard and it looks pretty clean.

  • Paloma||

    I'd much prefer present day New York, Chicago,or Los Angeles to 1930s Berlin. Ewwww.

    You might like North Korea. People work hard and it looks pretty clean.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    We've uncovered a local chapter of Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Policies And Practices.

    This meeting appears to have been a fashion show, because these right-wingers are all parading around in unconvincing, silly libertarian drag.

  • hello.||

    Then you might want to consider what it means to be an individual with the right to hire at will, or trade money and goods, without the collective second-guessing you.

    And then you might want to run away into the woods with your waifu and start your own society... with a huge moat around your castle. And then you might want to realize the rank hypocrisy and idiocy of basing your entire worldview on a shitty short story written by an ornery sex addict who died on Medicare.

  • perlchpr||

    This the best parody account currently running here on Reason. :) I love it. Keep it up.

  • IceTrey||

    Bigot means intolerant of the opinions of others. Are you OK with the ISIS opinion that all non Muslims should be killed? Bigot!

  • Just Say'n||

    Doherty is wrong. This absolutely has precedent. But, "principals before principles" and all that.

    But, despite precedent and the rank hypocrisy involved here, this policy is still evil as shit.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Oh yes, sure, and slavery had precedent, and so did hanging for stealing an apple, and gassing Jews and rounding up Japanese.

    Precedent, we got precedent for anything you want.

  • Just Say'n||

    "this policy is still evil as shit"

    I'm sorry, do you not understand how words work?

  • Just Say'n||

    Me: No, this isn't a recent phenomenon, but it's good that the media has learned how to do investigative journalism after eight years of being sycophants

    You: SHUT UP! TRUMP!

    Me: You don't seem stable

  • Ron||

    My only hope is that all the attention the media is putting on our government today is not just a fad while Trump is King and they continue to monitor our governments failings long into the future no matter who claims to be the saviour.

  • BYODB||

    It's a fad, as soon as a Democrat is back in office immigration will be 'fixed'. Likely by fiat. Again.

  • DarrenM||

    So. What drugs are you taking? Where can I get some?

  • hello.||

    Having borders is exactly the same as murdering 6 million Jews and enslaving millions of Africans.

    Take your medication. All of it. At the same time.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    The usual litany of bigotry masquerading as the collective right to control trespassing on the collective government's property that the individual tenants pay fealty on to the collective owner.

    The usual litany of the collective right for the collective government to interfere in the victimless crime of voluntary trades of rent for an abode, or work for pay.

    We can't have any of that individualistic claptrap here! This is a country that values property rights and freedom of association of the collective!

  • IceTrey||

    Unfortunately we live in the real world not Libertopia.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    So you dress up out bigotry and xenophobia and lust for collective coercion in the numb acceptance of reality.

  • IceTrey||

    Name one country you can move to without the governments permission. Taxation is theft but I pay them because the reality of being thrown in jail if I don't. You're focusing on the symptoms instead of the disease which is governments initiating force.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    'Taxation is theft,' said every disaffected, no-count, half-educated right-wing yahoo who ever talked him mom into granting internet access.

  • IceTrey||

    What do you call taking a persons property at the point of a gun?

  • perlchpr||

    "Butterfly kisses"

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's 'no account', you softheade, hillbilly, inbred. No account.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's 'no account', you softheade, hillbilly, inbred. No account.

    You know, I should know better. Never whip off an annoyed 'gotcha'.

    Because you will never fail to get yourself.

    It's 'no account', hick

    And it's 'softheaded', hillbilly, inbred --you blind idiot.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's 'no-count,' which means 'having no value' or 'not worthy of being counted.'

    I don't blame you. I blame the backwater religious schooling, or perhaps even homeschooling inflicted by a substandard mother.

  • BYODB||


    Name one country you can move to without the governments permission.

    An excellent point often missed in the back-and-forth sophistry from both sides.

    Nevermind that emigration is also restricted both by the American government towards its own citizens and in the nation they're trying to immigrate into.

    Of course, you'll note not a single fucking person on this board has any problem with not being able to leave the U.S. and live and work where they please, no, they simply want to make sure they can get as much black market labor as humanly possible paying into social security.

    I'd take these types of dolts seriously if they ever made the flip side argument of the United States should go to war with, for example, Mexico for their flagrant violation of the natural rights of every United States citizen and furthermore the people of the entire planet.

    The biggest irony is that this would appear to be justified by the NAP given their set of conditions. Reason, and the open borders crowd, give a face to the lie that libertarians are especially rational.

  • hello.||

    When you are counting on the evil collective to pay the rent for an abode for the illegal worker that you hired and you are counting on the evil collective to educate his children and you are counting on the evil collective to feed his children and you are counting on the evil collective to bring his pay up to parity with transfer payments and you are counting on the collective to pay his medical bills and you are counting on the collective to provide him with a telephone and you are counting on the collective to maintain the byways he uses to access your rugged individual homestead then the evil collective has both a collective and individual right to collectively tell you to go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    This week some journalistic accounts of what those immigration kid jails are like have hit, though involving kids older than breast-feeding age.

    I don't know why, but this sentence (composing 50% of a two-sentence paragraph) is an absolute word salad to me. I think I know what it's saying but it seems like it could be done with a lot less chewing (if it's even needed at all).

  • Rhywun||

    I find it kind of curious that on this issue, the go-to sources are without exception CNN, WaPo, and MSNBC. Ladle on extra heapings of emotional appeal and is it any wonder I find this endless series of posts to be less than satisfying.

  • Just Say'n||

    www.businessinsider.com/migran.....ned-2018-5

    How dare you question these brave firefighters!

    Also, despite the hypocrisy here: THIS POLICY IS STILL EVIL AS SHIT

  • DarrenM||

    Perhaps you could explain why shit is evil? Would it be better if everyone were constipated all the time?

  • ||

    It says a lot when Vox, while still batshit insane, manages to tamp down the TDS:

    The Trump administration wants to keep families together — in immigration detention
    The Trump administration really doesn't like the Flores settlement. In fact, administration officials blame Flores for the fact that they're separating families to begin with.

    The administration's line on this has been consistent: It would like to be able to detain all immigrants who enter the US without papers until their cases are resolved (and, preferably, resolve those cases as quickly as possible with deportation orders). To the administration, the extra legal protections against indefinite detention of asylum seekers, and much stricter protections under the Flores settlement against indefinite detention of children and families, are nothing but legal "loopholes" that Congress should close.

    Nevermind that the overwhelming majority of minors detained were apprehended crossing without a parent. Reason's got a wedge to drive and drive it they shall.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    --- In fact, administration officials blame Flores for the fact that they're separating families to begin with. ---

    "I blame Walmartand the ants in my backyard for my penchant for hitting people on the head and for being an odious asshole."

    /An administration official.

  • ||

    So the law specifically says to hold children and their parents disparately and your rebuttal is to attack the administration official who expresses dissatisfaction with the law?

    I know your stance on immigration, but this isn't even consistent with that. It almost seems like you'd sell the 1st Am. down the river to prevent these people from talking about immigration.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Rhywun,

    --- I find it kind of curious that on this issue, the go-to sources are without exception CNN, WaPo, and MSNBC.---

    When you have corroboration from Trumpista assholes who get off at the image of children being snarched out of the arms of 'human dirt from shithole countries' (their parents) and by Fox News whenever their Trump Dick Sucking Squad seriously argue that people who "commit crimes" have their children removed from their care, then it becomes difficult to argue that CNN, WaPo or even MSNBC are misrepresenting what is happening.

  • hello.||

    With the full corroboration of the voices in your head you can justify anything.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Tune in tomorrow for the next chapter of La Cabana Del Tio Tomaso

  • General_Tso||

    It's really been a full court press for Reason authors this week.

    Journolist pushing the 'taking babies from mothers' point now?

  • damikesc||

    She didnt seek asylum in Mexico...why?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Because she doesn't like pozole.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You didn't either .... why?

  • damikesc||

    Well, I'm a citizen.

    She is not.

    Profound difference there.

    If I went to Mexico with my child illegally, they'd be far less friendly than we are being.

    Just sayin'.

  • JoeBlow123||

    National laws and international laws are only good when they are convenient in the hardcore libertarians quest to convert the world to the one true faith, anarchy (with property rights, somehow. These imaginary lines good, these imaginary lines bad!).

  • Juice||

    These imaginary lines good, these imaginary lines bad!

    Looks like you support securing state borders against intruders from other states, then.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I am in favor of requiring visitors to obtain a visa some form of permanent resident status, as every other country in the world also does. Not an immoral stance.

  • hello.||

    The states forfeited their right to do that when they federated you fucking retard. And totalitarians like yourself decided that they can't be un-federated.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    It's thanks to things like immigration and economics that we can discern human beings from the Trumpistas.

  • hello.||

    You couldn't discern your asshole from a hole in the ground if you had a map and a funnel. It's not your fault though. You're actually pretty bright for a Mexican.

  • ||

    It's thanks to things like immigration and economics that we can discern human beings from the Trumpistas.

    Hillary Clinton: Human or Trumpista?
    John Boehner: Human or Trumpista?
    Ronald Reagan: Human or Trumpista?

    When the T-800s say they're in favor of open borders and you let them in, don't call us, OK?

  • IceTrey||

    First end drug prohibition so people won't have to flee the black market violence then work to make their countries more capitalist so they can just stay there.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: ice Trey,

    Yes but people still retain the right to migrate to where the Market invites them, even without the war on people's choices aka the war on drugs. Even so, you're right thqt ending that war thus allowing capital investment to return to those countries would be one of the most rational policies to implement if one is genuinely concerned about undocumented immigrants. Trumpistas, unlike you or me, are sadits who are thirsting for more abuse against defenseless people.

  • hello.||

    Is is The Market that's cutting all those checks from the Treasury Department?

  • VinniUSMC||

    There is no right to migrate into the US. Fin.

  • ||

    So this undermines the whole child sex trafficking narrative, right? Why would you risk a felony at a gas station in the Midwest in order to kidnap a sex slave from their parent when there are thousands of unaccompanied and undocumented minors walking around the Southwest quasi-randomly just waiting to disappear?

    I can't wait until some lawyer in the administration figures out how to try one of these minors for trafficking themselves.

  • shortviking||

    I love that Reason apparently wants children to be put in holding cells with their criminal parents. Because emotions.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Libertarians wouldn't put anyone in holding cells under these circumstances.

    I do not expect conservative bigots to understand.

  • IceTrey||

    Correct. First libertarians would end drug prohibition so the violence stops then they would export libertarianism to all other countries so the people who live there would just stay there because hey it's Libertopia and there's no reason to leave!

  • Ron||

    you know what we had before the drug wars pushing people north to safety. We had despot warlords fighting and killing each other pushing people north to avoid the violence. How do i know this, history plus our family brought some of them into our home who were running away from this violence in the 60's. The violence that never seems to end down there, they seem to find reasons to kill. that said all countries including ours seem to find reasons for war, we are just better at insulating our selves from it.

    BTW those we brought into our home were legal refugee asylum seekers.

  • Mark22||

    Libertarians wouldn't put anyone in holding cells under these circumstances.

    Correct. Libertarians wouldn't let these people use roads or step on private property, which means they'd have to stay where they came from and the question wouldn't arise.

  • d_remington||

    Or they'd shoot the parents for trespassing and put the children in monocle labor camps.

  • hello.||

    No no no you don't understand. It is evil collectivism to subject the border to democratic processes. But stealing from your neighbors to build the infrastructure necessary to bring your underage hookers into the country is the mighty Invisible Hand at work.

  • Brendan||

    What is supposed to happen when people show up at the border without a visa or other entry permit?

    Just putting everyone into a large detention center while their case is worked out seems to be a recipe for abuse, especially towards the children. Splitting the parents and kids up is frowned upon here and other outlets.

    Splitting the men and women up just means separating children from their fathers, mothers from their sons, etc. and still brings risk of abuse.

    There isn't going to be enough space and money for each person to get their own little apartment while they await disposition. If that became the way, I'm sure we'd hear complaints in short order about how tiny the living area was or some other BS.

    So please explain what is supposed to happen when a family of people presents themselves to immigration and doesn't fit one of the criteria for immediate entry (visa, permanent residenct, GRANTED asylum request, etc.).

    I think immediate removal will become the standard process - asylum claims will be researched and the person notified of their application status in their home country. This would largely undermine the concept of asylum, but would keep families intact.

  • Ron||

    Well we could put them in housing camps like we did the Japanese. Oh wait that would be frowned upon as well. this just goes to show its not about the separating of the families, the separation is just a line to use to claim evilness to those who are not for open boarders and of course TDS

  • ThomasD||

    If we can immediately eliminate the realities of current immigration law then we can immediately eliminate all realities of the welfare state.

    IF we do both I'm good.

    Otherwise sorting this out is going to be messy and time consuming.

  • ThomasD||

    And if Reason devoted 1/10th the pixels they devote towards open borders towards eliminating the welfare state (not fine tuning it ala Suderweigel) I'd find them somewhat credible.

    But they don't, because they are full of shit.

  • Paloma||

    They just ran an article about doing away with farm subsidies. And tariffs.

  • BYODB||

    I actually agree with you here. Taken as a whole, the publication is internally consistent between welfare and immigration but it's curious that no article is ever able to articulate that perhaps the labor regulatory schemes and welfare state of the U.S. is an overwhelmingly popular stumbling block to getting their way on immigration.

    I'm curious if emotional appeal arguments and moral arguments like the ones in this article are intended to win allies among those who would line up libertarians against a wall and shoot them, if given the chance. If so, I have some advice for them: don't.

  • hello.||

    Taken as a whole, the publication is internally consistent between welfare and immigration

    No. It is not. Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch have both penned lengthy pieces about how a robust welfare state is fully compatible with libertarianism.

  • Sigivald||

    That's great (really, it is - those are good policy ideas).

    But that's not "the welfare state".

    (Then again, hey, I'm for a [moderate] welfare state ala Hayek.

    "Libertarian" is a big tent and we don't all have to be Rothbardians.)

  • ||

    Well you could put them on reservations. That worked out real well for us. Oh, never mind.

  • DarrenM||

    We do need more casinos.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Natalia Cornelio, an attorney working with the Texas Civil Rights Project, told of how during an interview with a Honduran immigrant who had crossed the border without navigating the near-impossible maze of U.S. immigration law, the woman "sobbed as she told...how federal authorities took her daughter while she breastfed the child in a detention center, where she was awaiting prosecution for entering the country illegally. When the woman resisted, she was handcuffed."

    Yes, this is a wholly unbiased source and we can absolutely trust that it went down exactly like she said and there are no other salient facts to concern ourselves with. /s

    Also, " a Honduran immigrant who had crossed the border without navigating the near-impossible maze of U.S. immigration law" is an awfully long way of saying "illegal alien."

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The bigoted, gullible yahoos who still swallow birtherism (and are awaiting the Rapture) are skeptical about this report, and demand proof?

  • Sigivald||

    How about the atheists who knew Obama was an American all along, but also recognize advocacy groups as being what they are?

  • Cloudbuster||

    The Kirkland School of Argumentation: When you toss out terms like bigoted, gullible, yahoos, birtherism and Rapture you no longer have to bother with making an actual point.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, his comment is bigoted and anti-religious, and his handle is cultural appropriation of Christians.
    So three strikes?
    And since the web is still here despite the loss of government control called 'net neutrality', can we silence him like he is/was a conservative?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    My point was that birthers are in no position to offer pointers on evidence. Don't like it? Quit aligning politically with society's lessers.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Please continue to insert irrelevant non sequiturs to distract from the discussion.

  • hello.||

    I agree. It was wrong of Hillary Clinton to start that conspiracy and her supporters should silence themselves.

  • Mark22||

    My point was that birthers are in no position to offer pointers on evidence.

    It's like a 2-for-1: not only are your ad hominems not an argument, the personal characteristic you base them on is false too.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    As opposed to the bigoted, cum-guzzling, shit-eaters like yourself?

  • VinniUSMC||

    That's the nicest thing anyone's ever said about Artie.

  • Cloudbuster||

    The "shelter" in Brownsville, Texas, he visited, called Casa Padre, is overcrowded with 1,500 boys ages 10-17, five to rooms meant for four.

    Gasp! The horror!

    Yellow lines on the ground mark the area boys must line up. In the cafeteria, a mural tells kids to speak quietly, ask before getting up and not share food. Next to their beds are lists of each boy's belongings: two T-shirts, three pairs of socks, three pairs of underwear, one polo, a pair of jeans. Lights go out at 9 p.m. and come back on at 6 a.m.

    There are so many children that they attend school in two shifts: one in the morning, the other in the afternoon. They sit in small, numbered classrooms with yellow walls covered in posters of planets. On Wednesday, through tiny windows they waved to the reporters outside.

    I'm at a loss as to how any of this is supposed to sound bad. I, too, once attended an overcrowded school with split shifts. The classrooms were numbered! I believe there were sometimes yellow walls in some of my school classrooms (I may have blanked out some of it due to trauma)! And posters of planets! I know you're all wondering how I managed to survive this Auschwitzian level of horror.

  • Sigivald||

    "Bad optics and makes you sad" is a basis for policy now?

    Jesus Copulating Christ, Reason.

    Argue better and cut the tearjerkery.

    If I wanted that, I could read The Nation or something.

  • leninsmummy||

    Agree

  • buybuydandavis||

    I hear they'll soon be changing the magazine's title to Feelz

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "told of how during an interview with a Honduran immigrant who had crossed the border without navigating the near-impossible maze of U.S. immigration law,"

    I've heard stories of people who withdrew money from a bank without navigating the near-impossible maze of bank policy, too. It was called "bank robbery".

  • Cloudbuster||

    *slow clap*

  • Juice||

    Opening a bank account is a near-impossible maze? It must be to people like Brett, I guess.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Whoosh!

  • Tony||

    *Matthew Mcconaughey voice*

    Now imagine they were Canadian.

  • Cloudbuster||

    OK, I'm imagining ... and ... Oh, no! ... Justin Trudeau is crying so hard his eyebrows fell off! ... Best. Day. Ever!

  • Agnes||

    We wouldn't even be talking about this if America would just pay for and solve Central America and Mexico's problems!

  • Tony||

    Not all alternatives to concentration camps for children are 100% savory, but they're probably mostly all better.

  • hello.||

    We could line them up against the walls instead of warehousing them. That's the style your regimes usually go with.

  • DarrenM||

    We could at least stop starving them, although I'm sure burying the corpses provides them with good exercise.

  • ||

    Boy, if only we'd done something similar back in 1491.

  • ||

    "Is a gun being held to the heads of these asylum seekers?" Um, yes, yes it is. Literally.

  • Longtobefree||

    Really? Citing CNN?
    With what is clearly unverified hearsay?
    Whiskey
    Tango
    Foxtrot

  • Rockabilly||

    My fucking tiny fucking violin is fucking playing I don't give a shit.

  • leninsmummy||

    Get a paper bag you're hyperventilating.

    This reads like propaganda written by a very obvious college newspaper. The quality of 'argument', black and white thinking and ridiculous rationalizations and euphemisms all combine to make a second rate shitstorm.
    Can someone recommend a truly libertarian publication that actually explores libertarianism in an intelligent way? Thanks.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason 10 years ago?

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    10 years ago they were in a lather about Ron Paul's newsletters. The last time Reason was reasonable was back in the 20th century. Maybe.

  • Dadlobby||

  • Mark22||

    Don't want to be separated from your kids? Don't try to cross the US border without a visa. Simple, eh?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Or, if you want to seek asylum, report to a legal border crossing (or better yet, to a US consulate or embassy in your own country) and apply for it legally, rather than sneaking across the border illegally.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    So quick, lawbreakers, shove a kid onto a body part and watch the "Reason"-able fuckwits around here rush to defend you for any crime.

    I can see NAMBLA members running to grab kids and shove 'em down their pants right now, knowing the tenthwits at "Reason" will INSTANTLY defend them for pedophilia since, of course, they'll have a toddler sucking on their dicks.

  • hello.||

    Reason already advocates for the rights of pedophiles and will only continue to do so more vocally as they become the next fashionable sexual civil rights group.

  • Vernon Depner||

    What? Can you give an example of Reason advocating for the rights of pedophiles?

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    I may not agree with shooting journalists in the head, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it to a Reason editor...as long as you have a brat on your teat when the law comes to get you.

    What pure fucking idiocy passes for fucking thought around here. Brian Doherty may be the simplest fucking idiot I've ever read. Oh, the lawbreaking illegal alien SAID so? Well, by all means, it MUST be true. I mean, no lawbreaker EVER FUCKING LIED.

    Fuck me, this asshole is seriously goddamned idiotic.

    Do the rest of us a favor and stop using oxygen so that someone with a fucking modicum of brains won't have to share with you.

  • Paloma||

    Get your own column, smart guy.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    From his bio on this site:

    "Doherty's work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Wired.com, Mother Jones, Spin, National Review, The Weekly Standard, San Francisco Chronicle and dozens of other publications."

    So the answer to his puerile idiocy is right there. Appeared in the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Mother Jones, and the SF Chronicle. That's where they publish clowns.

  • Thor||

    The Libertarian Party needs to drop the open borders bullshit. It's a non starter with most people and clearly doesn't fit with the rest of the platform. As a citizen, open borders diminishes my individual freedom on just about every measurable level.

  • Vernon Depner||

    It's because they see crossing the border illegally as a "victimless crime". It's a matter of principle for them that any act to be punished as a crime should have an identifiable person as the victim. They are willing to follow their principles over a cliff.

  • Bob Mitchell||

    I can't believe anyone would believe CNN.

  • Plow Horse||

    Good. Once news of this propagates south, perhaps there will be fewer illegals trying to come here.

  • Tom from MySpace||

    There are a lot of blowhards who kneel before their idol Trumpf on this site. They forget this country was built on immigrants. Hell, they forget their grandfathers and grandmothers were immigrants who sought asylum in the US, just like the people seeking asylum now. They have no sympathy, compassion or concern for other humans. They act all tough online, but if someone ever held a gun to their heads and said they were taking their child away, they would ball their eyes and crap their pants. Your time will come...maybe not in this world, but the next.

  • hello.||

    If you try a little bit harder you can probably fit in another trite cliche.

  • Tom from MySpace||

    Where? Up your ass?

  • buybuydandavis||

    The country was built by settlers.

  • Mark22||

    They forget this country was built on immigrants

    Technically, this country was built by colonists, not immigrants.

    They act all tough online, but if someone ever held a gun to their heads and said they were taking their child away, they would ball their eyes and crap their pants.

    As an immigrant myself, you bet I would. That's why I obeyed the immigration laws exactly and why it took years to be allowed to enter the US, followed by decades to get citizenship.

  • JFree||

    this country was built by colonists, not immigrants.

    So where do slaves, indentured servants, and transported convicts fit into your distinction?

  • Kim Jong Unfollow||

    if you replace this entire article with this haiku, you'd end up knowing:

    cheese has holes.
    more cheese = more hole
    more holes = less cheese
    more cheese = less cheese

  • Jdfusion||

    What in the Hell happens to AMERICAN citizens if THEY are arrested?!? Haven't they ALWAYS been separated from their children? Of course they have...and EVERYBODY knows it!! This is the most ASSNINE argument to date.

    Jdfusion

  • buybuydandavis||

    #ForeignersFirst

  • hello.||

    4 TEH CHILDRUNZ!!!!

    Congratulations you are now a parody of yourself.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tearing Babies from Their Mother's Breasts Is Now Your Government at Work

    This article reminds me of the time the Division of Youth and Family Services took my friend's daughter from him and his baby mama a few months after she was born. They already had her older sister. Could we please get more articles about the need to eliminate child protective services?

  • JFree||

    So what is the actual legal basis for this forced separation? Does anyone know that?

    Is it because the US doesn't actually have any family detention centers so we instead forcibly separate families so we can call the children 'unaccompanied children' and then stick them into that system where the govt can traffic them to foster families?

  • KevinP||

    If children were detained with their parents in jail, there would be an even bigger uproar from the left.

  • TxJack 112||

    I realize advocating for unrestricted open borders has been the position of Reason for quite some time, but at least be honest about this issue. Children are taken from their parents every day in this country. When parents go to jail and there is no one available to care for them or if there is evidence of abuse, children are removed from the care of their parents. When a family decides to illegally cross the border, the parents are criminals under US law. They are arrested and since their children are innocent victims, they are taken and cared for by the Feds. This entire issue is nothing more than a smokescreen for a push for open borders. I find it so ironic that those people most supportive of open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants always seem to live in states minimally impacted by the problem. It is very easy to support an issue when you know someone else will be paying all the bills.

  • TxJack 112||

    "Yellow lines on the ground mark the area boys must line up. In the cafeteria, a mural tells kids to speak quietly, ask before getting up and not share food. Next to their beds are lists of each boy's belongings: two T-shirts, three pairs of socks, three pairs of underwear, one polo, a pair of jeans. Lights go out at 9 p.m. and come back on at 6 a.m.

    There are so many children that they attend school in two shifts: one in the morning, the other in the afternoon. They sit in small, numbered classrooms with yellow walls covered in posters of planets. On Wednesday, through tiny windows they waved to the reporters outside."

    Gee, I grew up in a poor family and what these kids have is just slightly less than what I started and ended with every school year. I usually had two pairs of jeans. By the end of the school year, those jeans always had iron on patches over the knees and decorative patches, if I managed to tear them somewhere else. Many of my clothes were purchased at stores, like Goodwill or Salvation Army because that is what my parents could afford. They act as if the classrooms are prison cells. Hello? in Mexico, when you finish eighth grade, you are finished with school unless your parents can afford to pay for you to attend high school. In countries in Central America, kids leave school much earlier. No, their daily lives are not like ordinary American children, but ordinary American children did not enter the country illegally with their parents.

  • JFree||

    I grew up in a poor family

    Family? You had a family? Why we used to dream of having a family in our detention orphanage

  • TGoodchild||

    That these people are encouraged by progressive politicians to come here and risk their lives in the process is the true crime. Why do they think that anything different would, or should, happen?

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, Trump says this is following a democrat created law that the democrats can change tonight.
    So it is the democrats again.

  • John Rohan||

    As for children being taken from their parents: This is the product of the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement, which said unaccompanied minors who came to the U.S. had to ultimately be released to foster care or a relative, etc., and could not be detained. That became legislation in 2008. In 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agreement ALSO applied to ACCOMPANIED minors. Until February of 2016, accompanied minors were allowed to remain with their parents who were in detainment. But after the court ruling, even accompanied minors were not allowed to be kept in custody. The accompanied kids now have to be released from custody after 20 days.

  • JFree||

    So this is a consequence of an ACLU lawsuit to prevent kids from being in prison?

  • KevinP||

    When parents commit crimes, their babies are torn away from the breast when the parents are sent to prison. Should we sent the babies to prison too?

  • jjjjj||

    How is it a near-impossible maze when you have a single page (okay, 2 pages in a magazine) flowchart that largely depends on factors that have already been decided?

  • Frank Thorn||

    This web site is a joke. They need to rename it Unreasonable.com

  • Dadlobby||

    Nice gynocentric headline. Because nobody gives a shit about tearing children from fathers as is done in the U.S. on a daily basis, parental rights destroyed without cause. One does wonder, what manner of parent marches illegally with their children into this predicament in the first place? Unjust law or not, they walk into it then complain it's there.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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