MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

If You Cross the Border, We’ll Kidnap Your Child: New at Reason

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

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

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

View this article

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.

  • damikesc||

    Yawn. Another scorching hot take from Reason.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's too bad if Sullum gets lumped in with the likes of Dalmia.

  • Libertymike||

    Jacob is not Dalmia.

    Yesterday, you made the point that there is only so much water to be drawn from going to the pity well. It is a good point and consistent with human nature.

    Well, how about applying the principle to appeals to fear? My hunch is too many people here, at an ostensibly libertarian platform, would appeal to fear if the subject was zero funding the defense department and / or the FBI, CIA, IRS, ATF, NSA.

    I have no doubt that there would be incessant prognostications of doomsday if people could no longer have their progressive socialist MIC and national security and national surveillance state. The Russians would be coming! The mullahs would impose an Islamist state on our shores! We wouldn't have the rule of law - we would have sharia law!

    If not the Russians or the mullahs, it would be the Chi-coms who would invade and subjugate us! Better yet, the dual citizen Neo-Cohens would be howling that this would be a disaster for Israel and that the jewish state would be overrun and therefore that would somehow be a disaster for Americans.

    As it is, when there are just proposals to slow the increase in defense and security and surveillance budgets, the war mongering types, like McCain and Graham and AIPAC and the intelligence sycophants and the defense contractors and the swampy Trump creatures scream doomsday.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Idiot

  • Ken Shultz||

    As bad as the Red Scare was, McCarthy became a laughing stock in no small part through fear fatigue. Reds under the bed!

    I would also argue that we were subject to a bait and switch in the Iraq War. My argument yesterday was about how if you want to get the overwhelming majority behind you rather than just some of the people some of the time, you need to explain to them why it's in their best interests--rather than just someone else's.

    This piece of information can't be too cited:

    "WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

    Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved."

    ----USA Today, September 6, 2003

  • Ken Shultz||

    Six months after we invaded Iraq, almost 70% of the American people still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. There are a number of reasons for that, part of which has to do with bad information we were fed by our intelligence services, but part of it had to do with the anthrax attack.

    Regardless, the point is that as people became increasingly aware that Iraq had not attacked us on 9/11, their support for the Iraq War faded, or, in other words, as their own interests in the Iraq War became less clear, their support for the war evaporated. The argument that we should make sacrifices for other people will only get you so much support. If you want the overwhelming majority to support doing it, make the case that it's in their own best interests to support it--don't make it about pity for someone else.

    To the larger point, I hope it's getting across that fear isn't like pity in that fear isn't exactly the opposite of greed. Greed and fear can both serve our self-interests. Convincing people to be afraid of something isn't the opposite of convincing them that something is in their own best interests.

    Pity, on the other hand, is more like the opposite of self interest. When I want you to feel sorry for somebody, I want you to stop thinking about yourself. When I'm telling you that you should be scared, I'm telling you to think about yourself.

  • Ken Shultz||

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, we agree that fear and pity are not the same.

    Yes, trying to convince people to be afraid may be in their best interests, and that in doing so, you are trying to get them to think about themselves. But, an appeal to fear is not necessarily a rational effort to get people to think of their own interests.

    Your reference to the Iraq war is a case in point. The President and the intelligence services and most of the media traded in fear and in so doing, one might argue, attempted to get the American public to think of themselves in that "our way of life" was being threatened by Saddam.

    However, one would have to have been quite the gullible goofball to think that Saddam was part of 9/11 or that he presented a credible threat to the life and well-being of the ordinary American.

    Nevertheless, as you note, support for the war waned, in part, because the average bloke said enough with the appeal to the irrational emotion of fear. It is one reason why the GOP was routed in the 2006 congressional elections.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Stupid

  • damikesc||

    Well, how about applying the principle to appeals to fear? My hunch is too many people here, at an ostensibly libertarian platform, would appeal to fear if the subject was zero funding the defense department and / or the FBI, CIA, IRS, ATF, NSA.

    Zero funding for military is just asking for invasion. Gotta pass on that.

    The rest?

    IRS --- turn it over to Dept of Commerce and slice funding significantly. Simplify the tax code to make the costs of "avoiding" tax more costly than the tax itself would be.

    ATF --- has never shown any capacity for competence. Should've been ended long ago.

    CIA --- I get that an intel service is needed. But they have become a very dangerous little fiefdom. Massive reorganization and a cut in funding is needed.

    FBI --- Zero funding is a step too far. But cuts and Congress needs to firmly oversee them. Any FBI agent who refuses to turn over documentation should be turfed, instantly.

    NSA --- make it part of the FBI with the identical level of significant oversight.

  • Libertymike||

    Invasion from whom?

    Are you conceding that the only defense is the bloated defense department and the MIC?

    Are you more confident in an outdated, centrally planned, collectivist organization than other means of defending your world?

    In a free society, there is no need to have communistic, progressive, centrally planned entities, including the pentagon and the IRS and the FBI and the CIA and the NSA.

    Would you curl up, roll over, and die if all of those Soviet institutions went bye-bye?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Garbage

  • Libertymike||

    Hey, you have changed your name to reflect your personality.

    Well, the 12-steppers say that the first step to recovery is recognizing the truth.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Dumb

  • damikesc||

    Invasion from whom?

    The assumption that no country would opt to invade a country that unilaterally disarmed is illogical. It'd also end Europe because they already disarmed and rely on us for their protection as is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    OPEN BORDERS or bust!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    It's only open borders if our citizens can freely cross too. I don't hear much criticism about our neighbor's policies that require us to show a passport.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

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

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

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

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Desperation after the Backpage website was shut down.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Oh look, another immigration rant that fails to mention that all those asylum seeking people showing up at the southern U.S. border with Mexico were supposed to apply to Mexico for asylum and not the United States. And it should be Mexico's responsibility to give it to them and not the United States.

    But none of them want to get bogged down in talking about that. It interferes with the hysterical screeching about "the children".
    The old "we must do it for the children" routine is alive and well.

  • Conchfritters||

    You want a depressing immigration policy? Look no further than Mexico. And those Honduran women run the gauntlet just passing through there. I know a Honduran guy who snuck into Mexico to get to the US, and he was arrested by the Mexican police, passed off to the coyotes (in this case the Zetas) for a kick back, then extorted for more money at the point of a gun when he got to Texas. People have found "rape trees" just past the border of Guatemala in Mexico adorned with women's bras and underwear from Central American women who were raped once entering Mexico. Fucked up.

  • Vernon Depner||

    So, the tens of thousands of US kids who are in foster care or group homes because their mothers or fathers are incarcerated have been "kidnapped"?

  • I can't even||

    Yes - we should do the kind thing and put them in the general population of a prison with their parents.

  • Rich||

    Indeed. The crying of those kids after Mama or Papa was hauled off by the authorities is heart-rending.

  • Z565||

    Some more so than others. It depends on whether the law upon they were convicted was just and then the question is whether the punishment is fair. The drug warrior types have been kidnapping children for decades as one example.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Or those enforcing "sensible" gun laws.

  • Ken Shultz||

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

    This is like my argument against comprehensive gun control: There is no way to implement it without subjecting millions of people who have never shot anyone to law enforcement and incarceration. Whatever you imagine the upside of persecuting people who haven't done anything wrong will be, persecuting individuals who haven't done anything wrong or to violate anyone's rights is an unacceptable price for that "greater good".

    These children haven't violated anyone's rights. Their parents haven't violated anyone's rights either. I appreciate that the Constitution enumerates the power to set laws regarding these matters. However, law enforcement should only punish people for deterrent effects when they have done something to violate someone's rights--and these children haven't violated anyone's rights. If you want to try their parents for child endangerment and separate families on the basis of that charge, then there's already a way to do that.

    That isn't what they're doing. What they're doing is persecuting children who haven't done anything to hurt anybody.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Open border people are using kids to be the anchors and be permitted to remain in the USA no matter what Trump promised Americans about border security.

    Then the parents and relatives will ask the USA to enter the USA because their familia is legally present in the USA.

    Deport them all immediately.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It doesn't matter what open border people are doing.

    The government is persecuting children who haven't done anything wrong.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Then let the families be reunited - on the other side of the border back in Mexico and let Mexico deal with them,

    As it should have done in the first place.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We're talking about people who haven't yet had their day in court, aren't we?

    These are people who are contesting their deportation because they say they have a right to be here under U.S. law.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Nope- they got to Mexico first and Mexico is supposed to take care of them.

    End of story.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Nope- they got to Mexico first and Mexico is supposed to take care of them."

    What are you talking about?

    You're saying that people in the United States don't have the right to contest deportation if they came from Mexico--because they're from Mexico?

    I'm sure you mean something else, but you're gonna have to explain it to me.

    Our laws should govern our court system. If our laws say that people have a legal right to contest their deportation, then that's what they have. We're talking about what to do with their children while they're waiting for a trial.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The law also allows for the children to be separated.

    So you have nothing to complain about.

    You can't have have it both ways.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The law also allows for the children to be separated.

    So you have nothing to complain about.

    You can't have have it both ways.

    Who wants it two ways?

    The way I want it is that people are given the opportunity to contest deportation before an immigration judge and that their children aren't being persecuted despite having done nothing wrong.

    There's no contradiction there anywhere.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    If separating them is allowed by law it's not "persecution" QED.

    Case closed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If separating them is allowed by law it's not "persecution" QED."

    Total horseshit.

    Does the term "banality of evil" mean nothing to you?

    We make fun of government employees saying "procedures were followed", here, practically every day!

    You know better than this.

    P.S. Because you want a secure border doesn't mean you have to condone any means to achieve that. Because idiot progressives advocate all sorts of stupid shit on immigration doesn't mean you need to respond with silly shit of your own either. For goodness' sake, you seem to be forgetting half of what you know simply because it's about immigration. Let's be careful to become the polar opposite of Dalmia on this stuff. The perfect opposite of her intellectual dishonesty isn't our own brand of intellectual dishonesty. It's intellectual honesty. No, because you want a secure border and just immigration enforcement doesn't mean you have to condone anything and everything that purports to further that goal. You're probably shooting us in the foot. Swing voters need to know that not everyone who wants a secure border and the enforcement of immigration law--necessarily approves of stripping children from their mothers.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Total horseshit."

    Not on your say so.

    The people coming through Central and South America are not the responsibility of the United States to take care of - at all.

    If they want to apply for asylum they are supposed to apply to Mexico and Mexico is the country that is supposed to deal with it - period. Instead they go all the way up through that county to get to the United States. They know what they are doing and they know the risks they are taking. They have no one to blame but themselves for their predicament. They could have kept their family together but staying on the Mexican side of the line. The fact that they didn't is on them - not anyone in this country.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I'm pretty sure that to exercise that "right" requires going through an outlined process which they have not done. There is no country in the world that will let you in without some sort of process. The notion that people can walk across a border and nothing should happen to them doesn't exist anywhere.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I'm pretty sure that to exercise that "right" requires going through an outlined process which they have not done. "

    I don't know that to be the case.

    The law says they have a right to contest their deportation. For all you know, they may be here legally. For all you know, the INS may say they're someone they aren't. For all you know, they were born in the U.S. and taken to Mexico as children. For all you know, they're here legally and the government lost their paperwork.

    We can't know for sure until they've had their day in court. The question is what to do with their children while they're awaiting a hearing with an immigration judge.

    You're assuming they're not in the country legally before any judge has made that determination.

  • Vernon Depner||

    If they are caught in the act of crossing the border illegally, then they should simply be sent back across the border as quickly as possible. If they are apprehended away from the border and not caught in the act, then I suppose they have to be given their day in court. In that case, they should be given no special dispensation to keep their children with them. Citizens in jail awaiting adjudication for any other misdemeanor enjoy no such privilege. Treat illegal border crossers the same.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""For all you know, they may be here legally"'

    I'm talking specifically about people crossing the border. You can't cross borders without a passport in almost all countries. If you know of any that allows crossing their border without a process, which includes showing your papers, please let me know.

    I guess the exceptions would be refugees and asylum seekers, but there is a process for them.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "'For all you know, they may be here legally.""

    In that case, they have use the process necessary to be legal.

    I am not for people who have jumped through the hoops, or are jumping through the hoops to be deported unless they have violated the rules of the process.

    Having said that, I can entertain an argument on open borders. I prefer the ability to vote with my feet.

  • damikesc||

    Then stick them with foster families.

    Would you prefer that?

    The government is dealing with a problem that the illegals are causing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The government is dealing with a problem associated with administering justice in accordance with our Constitution, one of the few things I'm happy to pay taxes for the government to do.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Then stick them with foster families."'

    That's one way but you need volunteers for that.

    Perhaps Rachel Maddox will volunteer.

  • creech||

    If America is now run by Nazis, I would think the immigrants would just keep moving one more country north. Canada would love to have them, right? Surely, a ticket on the Hound and an escort from Texas to Alberta is cheaper than whatever it costs to do what ICE is doing now.

  • Longtobefree||

    Haven't read the Canadian immigration policy, have you?

  • Frank Thorn||

    # of illegal aliens in the USA = 12,200,000 (2007, Wiki)

    Greyhound bus capacity = 55

    # of buses needed to transport 12,200,000 illegal aliens = 221,818

    Greyhound bus length = 45ft

    Length of a line of buses carrying 12,200,000 illegal aliens = 9,981,818 ft

    # of feet in one mile = 5,280 ft

    Length, line of buses full of illegals parked bumper to bumper = 1,890 miles.

    Distance: El Paso TX to Sweet Grass, MT = 1,227 miles

  • I can't even||

    Holy Fuck - the stupidest movement ever. Suddenly a 2-decade old policy is the height of evil and all Trump's fault - but out the other side of your smarmy mouths you'll complain the President shouldn't dictate immigration policy.

    If you want open borders (I don't) then support legislation as such. This constant bitching about absolute nonsense is annoying. If they aren't separated, they won't be processed in time and released never to be seen again.

    Pay no attention to the DOJ and FBI being exposed as out of control and desperately resisting Congressional oversight - Kids are being kidnapped!

  • sarcasmic||

    You know, you're right. The fact that it has been going on for twenty years makes it just. By the same logic the drug war is perfectly just and wonderful because it's been going on for decades. Yup.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    This is a criticism of partisan hacks, not a defense of this policy.

  • I can't even||

    Criticize the policy if you want. Don't run around acting likes it's a brand new crisis that Trump somehow created all by himself.

    It's a fucking distraction.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Trump administration bragged about it. Had they not brought attention to it, nobody would have noticed or cared.

  • I can't even||

    Bullshit. If the IG report wasn't released last week, they wouldn't have this crap dialed up to 11.

    They'll kill Cruz's legislation in Congress then find a different topic to scream their TDS next month.

  • John||

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-.....ver-949099

    he number of undocumented children being held without their parents in U.S. government custody has seen a 21 percent increase in the past month after the Trump administration announced its "zero tolerance" crackdown on families caught crossing the border illegally, it has emerged.

    Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families spokesperson Kenneth Wolfe told Newsweek on Wednesday that it had as many as 10,852 undocumented children in its custody—a significant jump from the 8,886 that were in the agency's custody on April 29, according to the Washington Post. spokesman for HHS's Administration for Children and Families told

    In fiscal year 2013, under the Barack Obama administration, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had as many as 25,000 unaccompanied children in its care across 80 shelters, according to a July 2014 article in Mother Jones.

    Reason never said a word about this issue when Obama was doing it. If it is so important, why didn't they? This is just woktarian journolist bullshit. The whole thing is just pathetic.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    And yet there you sit
    Fist raised into the heavens
    Yelling hopelessly

  • John||

    And yet, here you are defending the indefensible. Is pretending something is not what it is okay just so long as it agrees with reason?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Constantly raging
    Yet you can not leave this site
    You choose you own fate

  • Rich||

    Beautiful.

  • Libertymike||

    Hey, its Sparky the Misanthrope!

    Glad to see you have aligned your name with your personality.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Dumb

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I agree with you on the media faux outrage. But apparently emotions sell. You'd expect better from Reason.

    But hiding behind the excuse that someone else committed an atrocity is not a very compelling argument for why you are apparently condoning this behavior now.

  • Tony||

    He was hoping you wouldn't notice that.

  • Frank Thorn||

    Pro Illegal immigration administrations are the atrocity.

  • John||

    I didn't think it was outrageous then and don't think it is now. The people claiming it is need to explain why they ignored this for so long before anyone should take them seriously.

  • sarcasmic||

    Reason never said a word about this issue when Obama was doing it.

    The Obama administration didn't brag about it. Trump's did. That is what made it news.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Yes, it's not like there isn't some bias in our media that is fueling this and exaggerating it beyond all reason. No, that's not possible from the truthtellers in the media.

    Seriously, they were hyping this as Evil Trump when the images were from 2014 and you think this is only news because Trump...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you want open borders (I don't) then support legislation as such.

    The selfish and bigoted are positioning this so that the backlash against immorality could include something close to open borders.

    Keep up the good work, clingers. You're taking the absolutist gun nuts, the anti-abortion zealots, the fans of Israeli right-wing belligerence, and a few other extremist elements of the Republican-conservative electoral coalition down with you.

  • Rich||

    the Trump administration cannot escape responsibility for the predictably cruel consequences of its "zero tolerance" immigration policy.

    Why not? Congress routinely escapes responsibility for the predictably cruel consequences of policies it mandates.

  • creech||

    Why? Because some pro-Trump people are now second guessing their voting while I doubt there is one pro-Hillary voter who has moved to the Republican side because of this. All it takes is a few voters, at the margin, to move and the GOP's House majority goes away. Don't you think the media knows this and is playing "ripping kids from their mothers' arms" for all it is worth?

  • sarcasmic||

    I was thinking about the argument that criminals are routinely separated from their children.

    That happens after conviction and sentencing.

    These families are being broken up without any due process, just to be mean.

  • Libertymike||

    The argument is weak for many reasons, including what you note.

    Another weakness in the argument is that the overwhelming majority of the criminal convictions of said parents are for malum prohibitum offenses.

    People just gotta have their Leviathan.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Dumb

  • Libertymike||

    Hey, its Sparky the Misanthrope!

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Stupid

  • Rich||

    That happens after conviction and sentencing.

    That happens after arrest.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ever heard of bail?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Ever heard of poverty? Plenty of people can't make bail and sit in jail until trial. And there are those who are denied bail because they are flight risks. An illegal migrant is pretty much the definition of a flight risk.

  • sarcasmic||

    These people aren't being held in cells. They're in camps. I can't think of a reason to separate families under the circumstances other than to be mean.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Currently the law does not allow that. It could be changed, of course, but I'm not jumping to the conclusion that there aren't reasons for it.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Should we use the migrant camps in Europe as a guide for the kind of behavior we can expect? maybe it's possible that part of this policy follows the same logic as to why we don't toss minors into the same prison system as their parents.

    Is it cruel, yes. Is it less cruel than trapping them in with adult gang members & frustrated adults? possibly.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""If You Cross the Border, We'll Kidnap Your Child: New at Reason""

    Perhaps they are trying to make a funny like the classic National Lampoon cover with the dog. Otherwise, Reason is now competing with the tabloids. No one's child is being kidnapped. It's a piss-poor analogy that I wouldn't expect from a magazine called Reason.

    If you are in any country with your kid(s) and you get arrested you are separated. If it's a couple of kids, it's probably not that hard to manage a place for them. When it's a few hundred it becomes make shift facilities. Every liberal crying about this would have no problems separating kids from parents if you violated gun control laws. That fact that the law(s) being broken are on foreign soil makes the separation issue more dire. Who gets your kid(s)? I'm not a fan of zero tolerance of anything. But if this admin is going to do it, they need a better plan of dealing with the kids.

    I was talking to a liberal last night who was railing against our border policies. I asked if they had a passport, they said yes. I asked why. They said to visit other countries. I said, exactly.

  • Rich||

    It's a piss-poor analogy that I wouldn't expect from a magazine called Reason.

    DRINK!

    Every liberal crying about this would have no problems separating kids from parents if you violated gun control laws.

    "That's different, and you know it! Guns *endanger* kids!"

    They said to visit other countries. I said, exactly.

    And they said ....

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    They said nothing. Because they got the point.

    What are we drinking?

  • ||

    Why do liberals think America has a moral obligation to every brown skinned peasant form the third world?

  • Frank Thorn||

    It is not about morals, they need voters.

  • Jerryskids||

    Most of these kids crossing the border have been kidnapped by the drug cartels and forced to swallow balloons filled with cocaine to smuggle into the United States. Once here, they are killed by their captors in order to extract the cocaine. The lucky ones, anyway. The unlucky ones are sold to pedophiles for sick sexual torture before being killed. You won't hear about this from the lying mainstream media or the Democrats wanting to push their evil agenda though, will you? Trump is simply defending these poor unfortunate children from predators by taking them into protective custody and this is the thanks he gets?

    C'mon, Trump, what's with the weasel-worded half-truths, we elected you because you'll entertain us with your bald-faced whoppers. Don't worry, we'll defend you, surely someone somewhere once used a child as a coke mule so it's not like we won't accuse the people who accuse you of lying of themselves being liars.

    Or space aliens. Say the kids are the victims of space aliens and this is why we need a space force, tie the two things together. Chinese space aliens! Ooooo, I'm getting a tingle running up my leg just thinking about it!

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    If You Cross the Border, We'll Kidnap Your Child: New at Reason

    Yes. If you have a problem with that, stay the fuck home. Easy enough, right?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Indeed so.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    I guess if they find it so horrendous and beyond the pale they should just stay home.

  • ||

    Serious question. How many genetically unintelligent mestizo peasants is America obligated to take? 10 million? 50 million? 100 million?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    All of them, and then the same people will complain about the outcome.

  • ||

    Pretty much. Anyone who doesn't accept that intelligence is not evenly distributed among the races at this point, given all of the evidence for this, is part of the problem.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Anyone who doesn't accept that intelligence is not evenly distributed among the races at this point, ""

    Intelligence is not evenly distributed among people in general. Race isn't relative to this idea.

  • ||

    Sure it is.

  • Tony||

    Twasn't Latinos who put the dumbest president ever in office. That was the master race what did that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Trump will sign an executive order to end family separation.

    I assume the Trump supporters will be pissed.

    After all, those dirty illegals deserve to have their families broken up!

    I mean, they don't have their fucking papers!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    One of the most galling parts of this entire discussion, is that we have armed thugs from the state who are separating children from their parents, *by choice* - not out of necessity - and explicitly using the children as a weapon of deterrence against illegal immigration - and far too many people come to the forums to argue that, really, it's the penniless Guatemalans who are the real bad guys here.

  • sarcasmic||

    They don't have papers from the government. That's worse than murder.

  • Michael Cook||

    In my career as a corrections officer assigned to a court it was my frequent duty to remand defendants into custody. Often these folks came to their court appearances with kids in tow because they hoped that might sway the judge to leniency on making bail or some other compliance issue.

    If the child was a baby or toddler, our courthouse had on-site daycare, if parents chose to use it. The majority of the people bringing their kids to court day were mothers. The charges were various--domestic violence, DUI's (DWI's in some states), shoplifting, welfare fraud, immigration issues, or often a great big combination of things that had accumulated.

    I did sometimes have to take babies out of mom's arms so she could be handcuffed and led away. In that manner I learned about infants born drug addicted. My wife and I became foster parents to two such children. My son was a patrol officer in a big city for 15 years. Today he and his wife have adopted three heroin babies.

    The slightly older kids I would baby sit in the courtroom until a CPS caseworker showed up to take them. The kids didn't want to talk much--they were used to the drill and mostly wanted to play games on their phones. I assume the children were not taken away to be starved, neglected, and abused, although mainstream media coverage of late certainly seems to imply that just happens all the time, don't you know.

    Hyperbole in the age of political hysteria and angry vengeance witch hunts makes truly an ugly spectacle.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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