MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Beginning of the End of Trump's Zero Border (In)Tolerance?

He seems to be backing away from criminally prosecuting all unauthorized border crosses

Yesterday, President Trump reversed his hideous policy of snatching kids from the breasts of migrant moms. But he swore he'dBorderBabiesKEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom continue his zero tolerance policy on border enforcement. He even wrote that into his executive order barring separations.

This meant that asylum-seeking parents caught crossing the border between ports of entry would still be criminally (instead of civilly) prosecuted and thrown into government cages with their kids—even though first time unauthorized entry is just a misdemeanor akin to a traffic violation.

What is particularly diabolical about criminal prosecutions is that border patrol agents have actually been going out of their way to entrap migrants. Robert Moore of the Texas Monthly found several instances when immigrants tried to surrender at a regular port of entry as required by law but were told that there was no holding space for them, a total lie evidently, and turned away, forcing these parents to find another route. One woman rebuffed was a badly sunburnt mother with a baby and a 16-year-old girl.

Once word got around that authorities were taking away children if they were caught between ports of entry, asylum seekers came up with creative work-arounds. One mom boarded a bus to Texas from Mexico. When a border agent asked her for her documents at the port of entry, she requested asylum. He could do nothing but process her request as required by law. Still, there must be some special place in hell for officials who act illegally in order to force vulnerable individuals into illegal actions in order to entrap them. Talk about disobeying the rule of law!

But the Washington Post reported today that the administration might in fact be backing away from its zero tolerance policy: "We're suspending prosecutions of adults who are members of family units until ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) can accelerate resource capability to allow us to maintain custody," one official said. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is denying the Post's report. The DOJ insists that it is continuing to prosecute 100 percent of the cases referred to it by the Department of Homeland Security.

But that's totally misleading. What's happening is that the DHS is no longer referring everyone to the DOJ, allowing the DOJ to both claim that it is practicing zero tolerance while actually abandoning it. (It's possible that the administration totally botched its internal communication—but who'd have imagined that!) Indeed, why else would federal prosecutors unexpectedly drop charges against 17 immigrants due to be sentenced for improperly entering the country, as AP is reporting they just did in McAllen, Texas.

The DHS statement implies that its suspension is a temporary step to give ICE time to build more detention facilities—read prisons—to house families together. But the truth is that the administration also faces major legal problems if it replaces family separation with family internment.

Under the 1997 consent decree known as the Flores settlement, Uncle Sam can't keep children in immigration detention for more than 20 days. In 2016, a federal judge extended this rule to families as well. But if the administration continues to criminally charge the parents, then it cannot let them leave as required by Flores without running afoul of other laws. If it does not charge them, however, it can't put them in detention without running afoul of Flores. The House is considering legislation that would let it detain families for more than 20 days, effectively overruling Flores, but that is unlikely to pass. So the administration is somewhat stuck. There is something to be said for contradictory laws when they entangle the government in a web of its own making!

The Trump administration claims that its criminal prosecutions of illegal border crossers were meant to stop the practice of "catch and release" because once released, these asylum seekers don't return for their scheduled court hearing. But that might have something to do with just how onerous, fraught, and unfair the asylum process is. There is not a single migrant who would rather stay in the country illegally if they had the option of doing so legally.

The rational and humane response would be to streamline the process and give people a fair shot at getting asylum, not put impossible hurdles in their way. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions is doing the precise opposite: He has reversed long-standing precedent and stopped granting asylum to abused women escaping domestic violence, something that will make the problem of absconding asylum seekers illegally staying in the country only worse—setting the stage for a future amnesty battle. (As I've noted in the past, under Sessions' regime, even conservative darling Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose Muslim family was trying to force her into an arranged marriage, would not have qualified for amnesty).

But if stopping catch-and-release is the administration's real motive instead of incarcerating these people to give the appearance of toughness, then there are other options short of warehousing families in government cages in abject conditions.

And make no mistake: These conditions are brutal, as CNN's pictures last week from a Customs and Border Protection detention facility in McAllen, Texas, showed. There were 1,100 people crammed in 30x30 wire-mesh, chain linked cages. It's a facility ripe for disease and mental breakdown.

There are far more cost-effective and humane methods short of erecting prison camps including electronic monitoring, periodic check-ins by caseworkers at homes where the migrants are staying and bonds. Indeed, about 83 percent of those released on bonds typically show up for their hearings, a rate that could be improved even more when combined with the other methods.

As I've noted before, zero tolerance policies have lead to monstrous results wherever and whenever they've been tried. So there was no reason to expect that the outcome would be any different when applied to the border. In fact, it would be much, much worse given that these policies were invoked by the most powerful administration against the most powerless and vulnerable people: fleeing migrants.

The administration's reversal on child separation was a small victory for good sense and humanity. Totally ditching zero tolerance will be the real victory.

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.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Vichy Reason doubling up the Dalmia immigration screeds today. They're going to give the whataboutists their just desserts.

  • Nuwanda||

    "Vichy Reason..."

    Perfect.

    And just like Vichy handed Jews over to the Nazis, Reason is handing the country over to the Democrats with its one-note obsessive policy regards immigration.

    Again, where are the well-thumbed copies of Reason uncovered during border patrol apprehensions? Or Liberation Party pamphlets scattered throughout the desert as symbolic trail markers to freedom in the north? Nowhere, that's where. Yet Reason, et al. somehow believe advocating for the destruction of the border will result in more, not less freedom.

    And just like the Vichy government, Reason turns out to be a useful idiot and willing accomplice to those in favor of an anti-freedom future.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    A Republican claiming to favor freedom? While pushing for bigoted, authoritarian, big-government immigration policies and practices?

    Why are right-wingers so impervious to self-awareness?

    Hunch: Homeschooling.

  • Nuwanda||

    Your shot misses since I'm not a Republican, or a conservative. I just don't favor the effective removal of the border, or the negation of its function, and in case you haven't noticed libertarianism is firmly split on the immigration issue as it pertains to the border.

    Problem with your comment is you fail to see any such subtlety in the debate. You either have to be for open borders or a freedom-hating xenophobe.

    Now why don't you address the fucking question: where are the millions of immigrants voting for the LP? Even in elections where LP candidates do well, the non-white, non-male demographic is poorly represented. Immigrants don't vote for the LP that supports open borders. They vote predominantly for the Democrats. Or would you like to provide evidence to the contrary?

  • Sevo||

    "Or would you like to provide evidence to the contrary?"

    Our annoying asshole has yet to provide evidence for any of his claims; (s)he exists to be an annoying asshole.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Last year, the NJ Libertarian Party candidate for lieutenant governor was an African-American woman. We have a few women and Hispanic men among our New Jersey candidate pool and leadership now. Times are changing.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Borders are totalitarianism. Muh anarchy."

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Triggered snowflake.

  • Just Say'n||

    Our brave cheerleaders

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Please whine more about a website to whom you continue to give clicks.

  • Just Say'n||

    Please be less of an idiot if possible, cheerleader

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Triggered snowflake.

  • Just Say'n||

    Keep going. Everyone thinks you're very cool and definitely not just an unhinged Douche bag

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Thanks!

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Fuck me. Someone left the attic unlocked again.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Wouldn't ( too short).

  • Just Say'n||

    So brave

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I'm like the Sid Bream of Reason commenters.

  • SusanM||

    It's not the size of the ship but the motion of the ocean, CJ.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I've surveyed thousands of women and all they want in a man is a big, fat, peckah.

  • SusanM||

    Do these surveys usually end when the hand cream runs out?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Why stop then?

  • DenverJ||

    You misspelled "pay check".

  • sharmota4zeb||

    :)

  • Yellow Tony||

    Say what you will about Shikha Dalmia, but I would have sex with her if she had a feminine penis.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The one in her purse?

  • Yellow Tony||

    A comment like this reminds me that people in this dimension have no concept of real biological dickgirls. I truly pity you all.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Bad times are descending upon this website. I too just used the phrase "Feminine Penis" in the Bill Weld thread.

  • Yellow Tony||

    "Feminine Penis" in the Bill Weld
    Please don't ever use these two in the same sentence ever again. One of those is an amazing thing, and the other makes me feel queasy like I just scarfed down a baconator and chugged a warm Dr. Pepper.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Your so called "queasy" scenario is just a standard state of being. Work harder on your simile.

  • SusanM||

    ""Feminine Penis" in the Bill Weld"

    Didn't they play at CBGB for a few weeks in '83?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, and they sucked then too.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Oh look, another immigration article!

    This is what, about the 9,000th one this week (so far)?

    Just like a broken record.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Got 'em.

  • perlchpr||

    even though first time unauthorized entry is just a misdemeanor akin to a traffic violation

    OK. Congress should work on making unauthorized entry a felony, subject to 20 years imprisonment.

    Or was this just a bullshit argument in the first place?

  • ||

    Congress should work on making unauthorized entry a felony, subject to 20 years imprisonment.

    Technically, for plenty of native-born parents crossing a state border with their children without permission is a felony.

  • perlchpr||

    Ta da!

  • Don't look at me.||

    BORING!

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Shikha's posts are never boring. They're astonishing exhibitions of idiocy and hysteria. It's entertaining to watch her beclown herself.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    One wonders if she has the slightest bit of self awareness that her columns are like punchlines to a joke. Or if she really takes her own drivel seriously.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Oh, Shikha takes them very seriously.

  • Texasmotiv||

    I don't think she reads the comments, or if she does she posts as 'Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland'.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Snowflake.

  • Just Say'n||

    Grab your pom poms- it's cheerleading time!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Just Say'n, Just Say'n he's our man,

    If he can't whine, no one can!

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes, I'm the one who's whining

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    "Asylum-seeking parents caught crossing the border between ports of entry would still be criminally (instead of civilly) prosecuted and thrown into government cages."

    Yes, being thrown into government cages is often an unhappy consequence of breaking the law.

    And they're not "asylum-seekers" in any meaningful sense of that phrase. They're illegal immigrant who willfully avoided the asylum process and then cried "refugee" when caught. Why did they avoid the asylum process? Might it be because their claims are horse shit?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: An Owl Named Dumb,

    --- Yes, being thrown into government cages is often an unhappy consequence of breaking the law. ---

    That doesn't provide validity to that law.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Is it seriously your position that a sovereign country lacks the power to regulate its borders?

    Or, are you saying that requiring asylum seekers to report to a port of entry for processing, rather than sneaking in, is oppressive?

    Or, are you just completely full of shit?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: An Owchie Named Dumb,

    --- Is it seriously your position that a sovereign country lacks the power to regulate its borders? ---

    A "country" is a concept. Only human individuals of will have sovereignty, you Marxian.

    --- Or, are you just completely full of shit? ---

    Oh, now you're projecting.

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    Sovereign borders are not a Marxist concept, and predate Marxism by many thousands of years. Perhaps a reread of the Communist Manifesto would be enlightening to you, as you appear confused.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Chereth,

    --- Sovereign borders are not a Marxist concept ---

    Borders are not 'sovereign', Chereth. Try to use language correctly.

    --- and predate Marxism by many thousands of years. ---

    That's a lie. Borders like they exist today didn't exist before. People could come and go as they pleased. It wasn't until the 19th Century that you would see checkpoints and Mafiosi governments.

  • Juice||

    Well, "passports" and similar documents were issued as identification when traveling in foreign lands for hundreds of years, but were in no way required. People would indeed move about relatively freely across borders. Restrictions on border crossing, at least in Europe, didn't really start in earnest until WWI, because, well, war. But after the war, the checkpoints and restrictions on travel remained in place, and that's basically when these practices became standard as every country began to reciprocate when their citizens were restricted entry into other countries.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The Schengen Area reversed restrictions on border crossings for the European countries that signed up for it. There are many Eastern European countries that get criticized for being "anti-immigrant" when they balk at taking in Arab refugees from the former colonies of the UK and France even though those Eastern European countries participate in the Schengen Area. Any North Africans or Middle Easterners with French citizenship can move to Poland or Hungary. It is reasonable to object to the unrestricted movement of people directly from North Africa and the Middle East to Eastern Europe when their countries of origin will not allow Eastern Europeans the unlimited right to more to North Africa and the Middle East. That's how open borders and reciprocity work. If borders don't matter, we have to rewrite the history of 20th Century decolonialism to portray its leaders as racists who wanted to fill the world with borders.

  • Ron||

    And all those castles that were built so that they could tax anyone crossing their land. no they didn't have passports but if they didn't pay in gold they payed in other ways

  • Harvard||

    The borders of the Roman Empire, which fluctuated throughout the empire's history, were a combination of natural frontiers (the Rhine and Danube rivers to the north and east, the Atlantic to the west, and deserts to the south) and man-made fortifications which separated the lands of the empire from the "barbarian" lands beyond.

    [That's a lie. Borders like they exist today didn't exist before. People could come and go as they pleased. It wasn't until the 19th Century that you would see checkpoints and Mafiosi governments.]

    Try again:
    Individual fortifications had been constructed by the Roman military from as early as the building of Rome's first city walls in the 6th or 7th century BC. However, systematic construction of fortifications around the periphery of the empire on a strategic scale began around 40 AD under Emperor Caligula.[citation needed] However, it was under Hadrian's rule, which began in 117, that the Roman frontier was systematically fortified. He spent half of his 21-year reign touring the empire and advocating for the construction of forts, towers, and walls all across the edges of the empire.[1] The coherent construction of these fortifications on a strategic scale (i.e. to protect the empire as a whole rather than fortifying individual settlements) are known as the limes, and continued until around 270.

    They even had maps. Maps with lines. Your full of bullshit.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I remember something about Jericho having walls even before the Romans showed up. ;)

  • Cy||

    It's not like someone built a wall 2200 years ago that's visible from space, to enforce a border and control the flow of goods and people into their country! Because that would be devastating to Juice's argument.

  • Headache||

    I guess that wall between China and Mongolia didn't exist.

  • DenverJ||

    It's a pretty good wall... Maybe even a Great Wall.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "That's a lie. Borders like they exist today didn't exist before. People could come and go as they pleased. It wasn't until the 19th Century that you would see checkpoints and Mafiosi governments."

    If you want to return to the days of Goths and Vandals coming and going as they please, I hope you understand what you ask for. Because Goths and Vandals and Huns and Mongols only came and went as they please at the pointy end of spear or arrow.

    You are some sort of Roussean state of nature nonsense spreader. It is no surprise anarchists would gravitate to an illogical doctrine.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Borders are not 'sovereign"

    The concept of sovereign borders has existed for millennia, and i do use language correctly. Perhaps the language barrier confuses you.

    You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about in your posts, or any grans of history. You also strike me as a smug, nasty person. Perhaps if you find the US so reprehensible, you should go back to that paradise Mexico, for which you appear to have no criticism, and leave their 'deplorable' land to those of us you erroneously perceive as 'Trumpistas'.

    People like you just make the rest of us more and more determined to stop illegals. Even if that means shutting down the border entirely, as people like you cannot be reasoned with.

  • Fats of Fury||

    I think he meant Zeppo.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Ahh, I see. No borders. No laws. No government. I actually thought this was a compelling argument when I was 16 ... and stoned. Then I grew the fuck up.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: A Owchie Named Dumb,

    ---- Ahh, I see. No borders. No laws. No government. ----

    No borders and no government =/= no laws.

    Try again.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Dude, if you have no government, by definition you have no laws. There is no entity with the authority to impose rules on those who choose to dissent. In theory, you could have voluntary contractual agreements between your "sovereign individuals", but no entity would have the power to compel agreement and/or compliance.

  • Juice||

    Dude, if you have no government, by definition you have no laws.

    I actually thought this was a compelling argument when I was 16 ... and stoned. Then I grew the fuck up.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    @ Juice, not sure if you're agreeing ot disagreeing.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: An Owchie Named Dumb,

    ---- Dude, if you have no government, by definition you have no laws. ----

    Without government, there would be no lawz!!!!

    And NO ROADZ!!!!!!!!!

    Of COURSE there would be LAWS. What the FUCK do you think English Common Law was?

    Idiot.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Because England never had a government, or some Guy claiming to be a King or anything. How do you think common law was enforced? By chopping your fucking head off if you disobeyed it. What did they call the entity that did the chopping?

    The Government, you could ignorant cunt.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: An Owchie Named Dumb,

    ---- Because England never had a government, or some Guy claiming to be a King or anything ----

    Even KINGS had to abide by the Law, so the law is ABOVE government. People understand GOOD law vs. BAD law. People respect GOOD law, most of the time. People DON'T respect BAD law, most of the time. Government is POWERLESS.

    That's the first. Second, where do you think the 10 commandments came from? Government?

    People CREATE law. Not governments. Unless you want to tell me governments are populated with extraordinary people of special intelligence and wisdom.

  • Harvard||

    [That's the first. Second, where do you think the 10 commandments came from? Government?]

    Not exactly the Ten Commandments, but later in Exodus we have "I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you."
    Ex 23:31

    The word "boundry" puts you in over your head Beaner.

  • Nardz||

    Borders predate humans.
    In fact, life began with the drawing of borders.
    Old Mex fails on historical, anthropological, biological, and even physical levels.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hedoesnt seem avery bright, or educated. A bad combination for someone so snarky and full of himself.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Even KINGS had to abide by the Law, so the law is ABOVE government."

    The Glorious Revolution was Parliament asserting Parliamentary authority vis a vis the King's absolute authority. This was the seminal event where Kings were brought to heel by, yes, another part of the government that the King's historically did not like to utilize (only called to authorize the King to take more taxes usually until the finances of the Kingdom became such a shitshow that Parliamentarians got fed up and utilized their economic leverage to extract concession from the monarchy). Even the English Civil War a little earlier was about these same conflicts, about King's not wanting to have their absolute right to rule infringed upon. Before all these concessions English King's acted in an absolutist fashion, as they continued to act in France until beheaded.

    There were no "Common Laws" that were automatically above the King historically, it was only asserted by killing royalists and deposing absolutist King's and protecting rights extracted from weakened monarchs. You are pretty historically illiterate.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Seriously I have two things for you historical illiterates to Google.

    1) The Glorious Revolution
    2) The Long Parliament

    Rights are not gained or secured automatically and neither are their continuance into the future promised.

  • Texasmotiv||

    JoeBlow you seem to think that the only way to secure rights is with a government. A government is a way to secure rights but not the only way to do so.

    An argument can be made that it is the best way, or the most efficient way, but to claim rights, rules and laws come from and cannot in a sense of government is to completely misunderstand rights, rules and laws.

  • Texasmotiv||

    Autocorrect butchered that:

    'but to claim rights, rules and laws come from and cannot exist in absence of government'

  • JoeBlow123||

    "JoeBlow you seem to think that the only way to secure rights is with a government. A government is a way to secure rights but not the only way to do so."

    There has been no other way to secure them in our thousands of years of recorded history thus far. They are extracted through blood and struggle from the powerful and only kept through constant vigilance.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yeah, the people running the government create laws, and most of the time, the rest of the country agrees to respect them, because neighborhoods where each woman relies of being someone's bitch so that her boyfriend can protect her are not pleasant places to live.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    And who promulgated the common law? Judges. And who appointed the judges? The King. Are you seriously so stupid to believe that the English common was was promulgated in the equivalent of a medieval college dorm bull session.

    I'm done with you. You're asinine

  • Juice||

    I love that response.

    "This law is bad."

    "Oh, so you think there should be no laws, huh?"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They really got him.

    Up next they'll say it's the law, so it must be moral.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "A "country" is a concept. Only human individuals of will have sovereignty, you Marxian."

    Peace of Westphalia laid the foundations for nation states and predated Marxism by a good two centuries. Try again you historical illiterate.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Requiring asylum seekers to report to a port of entry is contrary to the US legal code and the 1951 Refugee Convention, of which we are a signatory.

  • Just Say'n||

    Using international law to defend your position is libertarian-y af

    Should we do international law about claiming refugee status in the first country you enter or nah that's inconvenient to the narrative?

  • Just Say'n||

    "Yes to small government, but no to small international government"

    I love woketarians

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^Literally a Reason-triggering snowflake.

  • Just Say'n||

    Our brave cheerleaders

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Individualism is scary!

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes, the individualism of blindly following whatever the next article at Reason tells you to believe

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I know! That is what I am doing!

  • Nardz||

    No-borders is explicitly an argument that we are all "citizens of the world" and implicitly for world government.
    It's as collectivist as it gets

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Even in the most dramatic take of what you're saying it's still implicit.

    That being said, you made the argument that self choice of association with other individuals is the most collectivist thing you can imagine.

  • Texasmotiv||

    That's some interesting logic. Is saying we should ignore people's skin color and treat them as humans collectivist too?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

    Ignoring the Constitution for LIBERTEEZ!

  • Modus Pwnens||

    1951 Refugee Convention, of which we are a signatory.

    No we are not.

    And we have no obligation to assume someone caught entering illegally is a lawful asylum seeker under the protocols we are signatory to.

  • Happy Chandler||

    I was mistaken. The US is a signatory of the 1967 protocol, which extended the protections of the Convention to post-1951 refugees.

    http://www.congress.gov/treaty.....ution-text

    Ratified by Congress. Unanimously. Binding law.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Yes, being thrown into government cages is often an unhappy consequence of breaking the law."

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

  • sharmota4zeb||

    +1

  • ||

    Will someone feed Dalmia already?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^Snowflake.

  • Just Say'n||

    Your so brave, douche bag

  • Crusty Juggler||

    lol @ your

  • Just Say'n||

    Lol @ you, not "your"

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • perlchpr||

    Are you suggesting that Shikha has befouled herself, and needs to wash her diaper out?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    No. At this point Reason only deserves shit related plumbing products in response to immigration threads. One of these will be my sole comment on any immigration thread from this point forward.

    Plumbing shit parts.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Creep.

  • Just Say'n||

    When you do this are you and Chipper 69ing the whole time?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am so much better than you at this, you uncreative, whiney, nothing.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes, I can tell. You're very cool

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Your dumb!

  • Rufus T. Firefly.||

    You're

  • buybuydandavis||

    Just what Reason needs for all their hysterical pants shitting!

  • XM||

    We don't criminally prosecute (by default) migrants who enter through official ports of entry and request asylum.

    http://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/0.....nce-policy

  • Eidde||

    "But the truth is that the administration also faces major legal problems if it replaces family separation with family internment."

    Oh, NOW they tell us!

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    How about option #3: family deportation?

  • Eidde||

    It's almost as if every possible action other than doing what the progressives want will be shrilly denounced as the second coming of Hitler.

  • perlchpr||

    "almost". Heh.

  • ||

    They aren't going to do any harm to democracy, the welfare system, or the natives just by showing up here; but just by showing up here the taxpayers are obligated to hand them everything they their advocates require on a silver platter instantly and without question lest their human right to a speedy and unexamined naturalization be violated.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: mad.casual,

    --- [...] but just by showing up here the taxpayers are obligated to hand them[...] ---

    Liar.

  • DenverJ||

    The second they are taken into custody the taxpayer is feeding, housing, and clothing them.

  • Rufus T. Firefly.||

    I believe you're a little biased because they are your people. Funny (or depressing) how easily someone can go from being libertarian to full blown collectivist due to identity politics.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    See? Democracy works!

  • Lawn Darts||

    So, if I'm beaten up by my spouse, I should seek shelter in another country? I think that's one of the things she said.

  • Eidde||

    Get your ass to Mars. It's the only way to escape.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Lawn Darts,

    --- So, if I'm beaten up by my spouse, I should seek shelter in another country? ---

    She's not prescribing you nothing, Trumpista. She's saying YOU have NO right to stop a person from immigrating only because you say "Being beaten is no good reason to infest my country! MAGA!"

  • Chereth Cutestory maritime aty||

    You may not think borders are legitimate. Your problem is that every country on earth, including the US, does not agree with you.

    So when you act snotty and self righteous about it, you come off as a buffoon. As you are the unreasonable one.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Chereth.... whatever,

    --- You may not think borders are legitimate ---

    They're NOT legitimate. Borders are lines on a map placed there by conquerors.

    --- Your problem is that every country on earth ---

    My problem is with authoritarian assholes like you who argue on top of intellectual shitheaps like assigning an organismic character to collective CONCEPTS instead of using reason and moral principles.

  • Headache||

    The wall between China and Mongolia is now just a line on a map drawn by the Mongolian Kahn.

  • Ron||

    They're NOT legitimate. Borders are lines on a map placed there by conquerors

    I can stand all day and yell the sky is green and it won't change a thing much like your cries of non legitimate borders. those conquerors you hate so much are deaf to your cries and will only stomp you if you ignore those lines they created

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Mexican, you just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Everyone recognizes our sovereign borders, except you. For fun, why don't you try and march into Canada spouting all that drivel, and find out what happens.

    Please report back with your findings.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Oh, no--not ALL borders.

    Mexico's borders are just fine.

    So are everyone else's.

    It's only the West whose borders are bad and oppressive. Because no one and nothing else ever conquered territory. Ever. Except evil Europeans.

  • Lawn Darts||

    Shikha is the one that singled it out as a special case for crocodile tears. Not me. You're right, it's a stupid thing to make policy around.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Lawn Darts,

    ---- Shikha is the one that singled it out as a special case for crocodile tears ----

    That's not a prescription, so stop equivocating.

  • Lawn Darts||

    You call it equivocating. I call it empathizing. I was imagining myself, in the first person, in someone else's situation. Then I was concluding that throwing myself on the mercy of a bunch of foreigners and their hostile bureaucracies, laws and detention centers would be a bad way to deal with the betrayal of spousal abuse and the consequent need for emotional support. In other words, this sounds like a bullshit box you can check to get to the head of some line. It sounds like a bullshit reason for any national policy. Yes, there were a lot of unstated implications in my original short sentence. But I'm not real invested in whether you got all those subtleties. I'll just leave it lying here for those who did.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Lawn Darts,

    ---- I call it empathizing. ----

    Empathizing with what? You're merely attacking a clumsy strawman.

    --- I was concluding that throwing myself on the mercy of a bunch of foreigners and their hostile bureaucracies, laws and detention centers would be a bad way to deal with the betrayal of spousal abuse ---

    Right. Because you know what spousal abuse looks and feels like to know the woman is exaggerating. Very empathic of you.

    Christ - Trump really made them Trumpistas come out of the woodwork.

  • Harvard||

    Wank on Old Beaner. Your solidifying that wall.

  • DenverJ||

    Ahh the victim card. I was the victim of a crime NOT COMMITTED BY MY GOVERNMENT therefore I get to jump to the head of the line, even though that's not the traditional definition of asylum. Also, I have a child so you can't arrest me for breaking the law.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    And by"immigrating" you mean sneaking into a country by flouting it's laws, but then immediately appealing to that country's other laws when caught.

    The first "immigrant" who has the moral stones to say "I do not recognize your sovereignty or laws, and have a right to live wherever I choose" and then consistently refuses to appeal to refugee laws, I will applaud. I won't agree, but I'll respect their intellectual honesty.

    I'm not holding my breath.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: An Owchie Named Dumb,

    ---- And by"immigrating" you mean sneaking into a country by flouting it's laws ----

    No, I mean immigrating. What the GOVERNMENT does is criminal. When GOVERNMENT imposes a prohibition on a peaceful trade or commerce or movement of people, it is THE GOVERNMENT that is acting like a criminal enterprise. When government prohibited alcohol, peaceful individuals became criminals overnight, presumably "flouting" the 'nations laws' whenever they took a drink. Then, ALL OF A SUDDEN, they stopped being criminals, despite ethanol not changing a bit. What changed? Government criminal actions.

    Immigrants are not 'sneaking in'. It's government that says they're 'sneaking in'.

    --- The first "immigrant" who has the moral stones to say "I do not recognize your sovereignty or laws[...]" ---

    Countries don't have sovereignty. Only human individuals of will have sovereignty. You're, AGAIN, confusing the CRIMINAL actions of an authoritarian government as justification for calling immigrants 'criminals'. Was the Chinese hero who stood in front of the tanks in Tiannamen a "criminal"?

    You Trumpista Fascist asshole.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    I actually with a lot of what you say above. However, if an "immigrants" position is as you describe above "your border laws are illegitimate", and they then flee to refugee laws as a defense, they are being hypocritical. It's an all or nothing defense.

    As for being a "Trumpista", I declined to vote for any of them as an act of political hygiene.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: An Owchie Named Dumb,

    ---- However, if an "immigrants" position is as you describe above "your border laws are illegitimate", and they then flee to refugee laws as a defense, they are being hypocritical. ----

    Why would you consider that a person trying to fool a criminal enterprise - i.e. the government - is a 'hypocrite'? The person is merely defending him or herself.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Because I don't view the government as a criminal enterprise. It's an entity comprised of a combination of time servers, con men and power grabbers. But, humankind is largely comprised of avaricious, evil cunts, who can rationalize any scheme to take what's mine. I'd rather deal with a government that at least has to tip their hat to the rule of law, and an enforcement arm subject to some legal restraints rather, on the other hand, having to personally shoot every fucker who decides he wants to take what I have.

    I'm willing to accept a government in order to avoid the full time, and disheartening job, of killing hunan parasites myself. I can then devote my attention to pretty girls, good wine, fast cars and my dogs.

    But I still get to yell at the news on occasion.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Well said, An Owl Named Dur.

  • DenverJ||

    Of course. The hoary use of the phrase "the sovereign state of x" is no longer operational, because Old Mexican so decrees.

  • Rufus T. Firefly.||

    Double negative makes your statement positive.

  • Happy Chandler||

    If the actions of the state would put you back in credible fear of life, then yes.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    No you don't understand. Certain countries lack domestic violence shelters for women and have such a misogynistic perspective that an abused wife cannot seek help from her own family, much less the police or non-profits. Those countries are ****. Check out this Reason article to learn more about it.

    Oh wait ... I forgot. I can't think of any Reason articles criticizing other countries for the systematic wife beating that necessitates refugee status for women from those countries. It's almost like the authors at Reason self-censored to avoid criticizing the residents of those countries.

  • Jerryskids||

    There are far more cost-effective and humane methods short of erecting prison camps including electronic monitoring, periodic check-ins by caseworkers at homes where the migrants are staying and bonds.

    Why no mention of the churches, immigrant aid societies, community and social welfare groups clamoring for these immigrants to be released into their custody? These people have housing facilities, clothing, food, everything to take care of these immigrants and are willing to take responsibility for making sure the immigrants return for their court date, so why isn't the government willing to let these charitable organizations provide the services the government can't or won't?

    Note, I don't just mean no mention of these groups in this article, but no mention of them in any of the many articles I've seen about the Disorder At The Border. I'm sure dozens of these groups exist - all the do-gooders must have raised millions of dollars to help these poor unfortunates they feel such pity for. Right?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Jerryskids,

    ---- Why no mention of the churches, immigrant aid societies, community and social welfare groups clamoring for these immigrants to be released into their custody? ----

    Do you think they don't exist just because they're not mentioned here? Of course they exist. They have been helping immigrants for a long time. There was a recent Fox News debate between Reverend Fascist (the one who went to Jerusalem during the opening of the new bull's eye for terrorists the US built there) and another church pastor about the appropriateness of churches providing sanctuary to undocumented immigrants. Of course, Reverend Fascist MISquoted Jesus by saying "render unto Caesar" to justify his anti-Christian stances.

    So these societies exist. Trumpistas decide to either ignore their existence or call them Traitors To The White Race or something or other... I lost count.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: General Skarr's Prized Petunias,

    ---- When did he say he thinks they don't exist? He's asking why they weren't mentioned. ----

    Here:

    " I'm sure dozens of these groups exist - all the do-gooders must have raised millions of dollars to help these poor unfortunates they feel such pity for. Right? "

    The sarcasm is quite telling. Perhaps you need to read his post again, before going off like that.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: General Skarr's Prize Petunias

    ---- He said that he was sure dozens of those groups exist ----

    HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

    Yeah, right. I'm SURE he said that MANY times.

    (See how that works?)

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: G,

    ---- I don't know if he said it many times ----

    You're being purposefully obtuse. I read the comment many times to be sure of what he's talking about, so either there's a disconnect between how he started the comment and the unnecessarily snarky and glib "do-gooders" who raised "millions of dollars" etc. etc. or he had the computer go to sleep or something. The point is that these groups DO exist. The fact that they aren't mentioned in an article doesn't mean they don't exist. If the point is to emphasize someone's hypocrisy, I don't see it. There's NO justification for government's criminal actions. They're not putting animals in kennels, they're putting human beings whose only 'crime' is seeking a new life and offer their labor in peaceful trade.

  • Yellow Tony||

    You know damn well that Old Mexican is nearly a Hihn-class sperg.

  • Headache||

    Dam, the Old Mexican must be constipated!

  • DenverJ||

    Illegals flood the border and we give them housing, let them in, etc. Result = millions more illegals flood the border. We detain them for a few weeks and then deport them. Result = millions less illegals flood our border.
    If you want more of something - subsidize it. If you want less - penalize it.

  • Homple||

    These organizations get a lot of money taken at gunpoint from taxpayers by the illegitimate governments you keep railing about.

    For example: from 2015, and I'm sure the money is still flowing.

    Catholic Church collects $1.6 billion in U.S. contracts, grants since 2012

    From The Washington Times

    https://tinyurl.com/ybj8wy66

  • sharmota4zeb||

    They do exist, but in my town they already have their hands full helping the illegal junkies. I wonder if, "Sober up! We need that shelter bed for an immigrant," will ever catch on as a motto.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.theatlantic.com/new.....rs/529887/

    ICE had a much more cost effective and less cruel program. It was shut down.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The point is to cram through an invasion using child shields.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The Hamas foreign policy in a nutshell.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    Comparing some poor schmucks coming from Guatemala or Honduras because they want a better life, whether for economic reasons or whatever, with the Islamist terrorist Hamas and their abuse of children in the service of Pali nationalism is, you know, lacking persuasiveness as an analogy...

  • Juice||

    why isn't the government willing to let these charitable organizations provide the services the government can't or won't?

    The government wants to retain its control of people. It feels very insecure when it does not have complete control.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    These people have housing facilities, clothing, food, everything to take care of these immigrants and are willing to take responsibility for making sure the immigrants return for their court date

    Really? They're willing to be thrown in prison if the illegals don't show up for court? You have a link for that?

    Cuz if the "responsibility" they're taking is a $100 fine and a wagging finger, Soros is happy to cover their expenses.

  • Thor||

    Shikha Dalmia needs to give it a rest. We know where she stands. The rest of us don't give shit about these people or there families. We don't want them here. Most of us would implement far worse policies than the current administration if we were in running things. Keep that in mind.

    This is fake news.

  • Thor||

    "their". before the grammar police come and take me away.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    ^ Christ, what an asshole

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Thor,

    ---- The rest of us don't give shit about these people or there families. ---

    You're giving you and your bucktoothed Trumpista folks too much importance.

    --- We don't want them here ---

    What's with this "we" shit, Kemosabe? "We" may be you and your hillbilly inbred Trumpista folks, but the REST of the country INVITE immigrants. The MARKET invites immigrants in.

  • Just Say'n||

    You're rather unhinged. You ever think that maybe people would take you open border fanatics more seriously if you weren't so selective in your support of freedom of association?

  • Just Say'n||

    There were no insane freak outs by you when so called libertarians were saying "bake the cake" and people were losing their livelihood over not wanting to associate with certain marriage ceremonies

  • Texasmotiv||

    Are you saying that immigration laws are 'freedom of association"?

    What exactly are you saying?

  • Azathoth!!||

    but the REST of the country INVITE immigrants. The MARKET invites immigrants in.

    nah, your girl lost, Mex.

    Man, don't you feel dirty now that you can be included in the Hillaristas? But that's where your path leads, Mex. When all your supposed 'libertarian' or 'anti-government' stances lead to the government having more and more power, you're part of the problem.

    And, Mex, you've jumped on that train with gusto.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ lol

  • Just Say'n||

    Lol. Cheerleader

  • MotörSteve||

    ANOTHER immigration article?!?!?
    *lights self on fire*

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Wish You Weren't Here

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Opening act is Ted Nugent who will throat punch the headliners on stage while riding a wild buffalo. 'Merica, Fuck Yeah!

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

  • Jayburd||

    You look into her eyes and just try saying no to Melania.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Her eyes say "no", but my mouth says "pretty pretty please?"

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Ok, ok, uncle.

  • Rockabilly||

    Shikha wants more poor peoples in America so they can register to be democrats and freeload for life.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Republican.

  • Just Say'n||

    ^ woketarian

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Boring.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is a grown-up or most likely a fourteen year-old

  • sharmota4zeb||

    In Mexico, the law says a 14 year-old is over the age of consent. Democracy allows the law to reflect the views of the people.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    ---- What's happening is that the DHS is no longer referring everyone to the DOJ, allowing the DOJ to both claim that it is practicing zero tolerance while actually abandoning it. ----

    Which is consistent with how Trump puts up a show: It's all an act. A sham.

    Unfortunate DHS Secretary Kirstjen "IKEA Cabinet" Nielsen didn't get the memo and was genuinely surprised. Poor thing, she looked like a deer in headlights while denying that it wasn't their policy to kidnap children to punish their parents.

  • Harvard||

    A border isn't a border if a hummingbird can piss over it, huh?

    Sweden is rapidly beginning to think so, google up Sweden immigration. Germany and England slowly awakening too.

    Your transparency on the immigration issue is obvious. You care little for "immigrants". Your schtick is only about saving Mexicans from...well....Mexico. Might you care enough to go (back?) to Mexico and make an earnest attempt to make it less the shithole so our southern border might more resemble our northern?

    Every "issue" you have with illegal immigration, aside from your globalization fantasies, could be addressed with work visas and a border wall.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's not about saving Mexicans.

    It's about destroying America.

  • Thor||

    We have all the Mexicans and Central Americans we need. There are only so many lawns to mow.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We should be focusing on importing more tall, blonde big breasted nordic women with slim waists. An extra ten million wouldn't be bad.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    If you thwart the ability of the American people to enforce their will by using tangled legalistic tactics, such as coaching illegals to claim they are seeking asylum, eventually the people are going to say fuck it and tear down the entire legal framework. And then where are you.

    I don't approve, I merely foretell. I sure as hell don't want to lose the rule of law either.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The more disaffected right-wingers mumble about civil war, and Second Amendment solution, and 'one of these days, I swear, you're going to push us too far, and then . . .', the more I know America will continue to progress and be great despite the goobers' efforts and wishes.

    Bitter mumbling is what losers do. And right-wingers have been losing the culture war in America for more than a half-century.

  • Headache||

    The more disaffected right-wingers mumble about civil war, and Second Amendment solution, and 'one of these days, I swear, you're going to push us too far, and then . . .', the more I know America will continue to progress and be great despite the goobers' efforts and wishes.

    Bitter mumbling is what losers do. And right-wingers have been losing the culture war in America for more than a half-century.

    WTF is this? Rev you are nothing. The wet spot below Shikha's ass has more dignity than you!

  • Yellow Tony||

    The wet spot below Shikha's ass
    Hot.

  • Rufus T. Firefly.||

    And if you scratch the wet spot, it smells like curry.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Meh ... the ctrl-lefters who run the drug den in Paterson will mumble to me once in a while. They painted a line for 2 blocks in the street near their drug den and think the line means they can control who is allowed in their area. When I was there earlier this week, one of them shouted that I don't know who I am messing with and that they are killers. I replied, "Meh ... I've dealt with killers before," and went back home. Sure, there were a few funerals in my town this spring, but on the other hand, the neighbors in my town who used to tease me because they thought a law abiding libertarian was a soft target don't tease me anymore.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the open borders crowd should put their theory into practice by hanging out in gang territory just for the hell of it.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    By the way, the guy who tried the "We're killers" line only escalated to implied violence when I didn't react the way he wanted to his initial greeting. As soon as I got to his block, he gave me the eye and grabbed his crotch. I looked him up and down to size him up, thought, "He's a hot lad, but I don't have the time or money to rent us a hotel room this week and my boyfriend is already angry enough at me." So, I continued walking to my car without acknowledging him. I guess the rejection of his romantic offer made him a bit moody. My ex-wife could be like that at times. Don't get me started on the night she and I argued over her plans for me to pick her up at the mikvah. Jewish women are scarier than the Canaanites, so says Judges.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "eventually the people are going to say fuck it and tear down the entire legal framework"

    The framework is already torn down. Only the Right follows the law.

    The Right can surrender and be slaves or fight back *in kind*. Those are the options against the lawless Left. Rule of law is simply not a current option with them.

    And why should it be? What's not to like when you always get your way? Why should the Left *ever* follow the law when they pay no price for relentlessly breaking it, but are still given the benefit of the Right's deference to it?

    One way rule of law is subjection.

  • DenverJ||

    ^ this.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    OT: Eternally wrong neocon soothsayer Krauthammer dead.

  • Thor||

    OT: Reality Winner pleads guilty. Bye bye!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Sadistically ironic nominative determinism in action

  • DajjaI||

    Yep. ICE actually had it pretty good. Net immigration is actually negative, and catch and release was basically doing its job. Then they overplayed their hand with this 'zero tolerance' policy. They really should just retreat and pretend it never happened. On the other hand I love how it exposed the bolshies. I've never seen such hysteria, even with the response to the Muslim ban, which was just as broad-based. I don't think this will help them in the elections assuming we resume a more balanced approach with immigration.

  • Thor||

    Immigration is a winning issue. You can't stop the Trump train.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Immigration is the dream fight for the Right for the midterms
    I was worried Trump was unwilling to fight it
    Looks like he just timed it for the election

    We're going through another "Trump can't say that, he's done now!" cycle

    Always starts with media hysteria against something Trump says or done, then claims that he is doomed, then ever growing push back from the grass roots as Trump gains more and more ground until he's won.

    MAGA

  • No, You're a Towel||

    Is it "Daddy" Trump that drives your libertarian ideals, or just making sure there are no immigrants? I can't tell, but I can say it doesn't look much like libertarianism...

  • jdd6y||

    Build the fucking wall. And build one for Mexico, too, along their southern border. Avoid having to deal with millions of needy central americans.

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't really care about any of this, but I do appreciate douche bags like Crusty being such brave cheerleaders.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Obsessed.

  • Yellow Tony||

  • Thor||

    We need Joe Arpaio in charge of immigration camps. Put the moms, dads, and kids in tent cities in the desert. Make them all wear pink attire in their cages until they are deported. No more day camps for kids.

  • General_Tso||

    Nutraloaf 3 times a day will send them running back over the border!

  • Texasmotiv||

    Let's just shoot em! They are inferior to us anyway. We could just pass a law that says that they are only 3/5ths a person!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Texasmotiv, You socialists sure don't like people do you?

  • No, You're a Towel||

    loveconstitution, you sure are confused about what a socialist is, aren't you?

  • Thor||

    Decent hard working Americans struggle to find affordable day care and we waste how money per "illegal"? $700/ day for the kids I hear. It's a travesty.

  • Headache||

    LOL

  • buybuydandavis||

    Paganism is increasing popular. Thor is making a comeback.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    Yes paganism tracks well with ethnostatism... very late 19th century/early 20th century European... and we all know what flourishing of liberty that brought!

  • Texasmotiv||

    Yeah we should use that money for building walls that won't keep immigrants out, or for government paid maternity leave! Or single payer healthcare! Man being a libertarian is easy!

  • buybuydandavis||

    It comes down yet again to the lawless Deep State. The Flores *Settlement*. Note that it does not say the Flores *Statute*.

    Globalist Deep State apparatchiks negotiate with Globalist activist groups. In what way is this supposed to be binding law? It's legislation from the apparatchik cubicle.

    Always, the Right does nothing but bend over to Leftist government authoritarianism.

    Much like Obama's "deal" with Iran, the deal died with the administration that made it. 20 years ago.

    Trump should tell any judges seeking to enforce the "settlement" to pound sand. It's not law. Let them take it to the Supremes.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    You know, I have lurked around here for quite a long time and never said anything--until now. But I have to chime in: the Bannonian rhetoric about "Globalists" and the "lawless Deep State" that some of you "libertarians"--who are, curiously, adamant about accusing others of not being libertarian--are using nowadays is rather sounding a curious mix of years-past paranoiacs and demagogues like the John Birch Society, LaRouche freaks and Noam Chomsky leftists...in other words, not really that libertarian, if one is to really analyze it. Stranger still is worrying about the "Deep State" while demanding that the state get its goons to be extra tough and harsh, especially on foreigners. Just sayin'!

  • DenverJ||

    The Libertarian fetish with open borders is certainly not going to help them win votes. Open borders is the default libertarian position, but it only makes sense in a country without entitlements and a world without such a disparity between prosperous free countries and extremely poor dictatorships/kleptocracies.

  • vek||

    God damn it I hate bleeding heart morons.

    Reason, as especially Shitma, are constantly pushing for FORCED ALTRUISM as some kind of virtue. We don't owe anybody asylum in our country. And certainly not people who are supposedly bailing here because their boyfriend hit them back home in Guatemala. I feel sorry for people in bad situations, but I also feel sorry for homeless Americans. It doesn't mean that FORCING ME AGAINST MY WILL to be altruistic towards them is the right answer for the problem.

    Shit hole countries need to fix themselves. This is the only real and permanent solution. The USA/Europe cannot take in 6 odd billion people that live in countries shittier than ours. It just can't work. They need to pull themselves up by their own boot straps.

  • Widhalm19||

    Well-written and correct.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    There is, perhaps, another perspective that doesn't involve lefty "forced altruism" nor justifies dumb zero tolerance policies that lead to all sorts of unintended consequences--remember that very libertarian caveat?-- that are immoral?

  • lulz farmer||

    A true libertarian lets Pedro and Ahmed bang his wife. It's 2018.

  • vek||

    The problem is what you propose DOES NOT EXIST in the world as it exists in reality.

    If we abolished the welfare state, and ALL forms of socialized costs, then the NAP and all that silly line of thinking would apply... But it doesn't. Every single low income person in the USA instantly becomes a drag on people who are actual net tax payers. THAT is reality as it exists. In the current system it is a form of aggression against ME, having very real direct effects on my life, and I don't like it.

    Also, as far as purist stuff goes, the truth is even with no welfare/socialized anything, open borders would STILL not be desirable for most citizens of any 1stworld country. It may be a manipulation of "the market" and freedom of movement, but limiting immigration is the SOLE THING that artificially keeps wages high in the 1st world.

    People would keep coming until wages equalized with the 3rd world. Even a country like Mexico with open borders would probably be swamped until they were dragged down lower than they are. We often forget Mexico is one of the richest countries on earth per capita, and I'm sure plenty of poor uneducated Africans/Indians/Etc would be glad to go there if allowed.

  • vek||

    I don't think even the top 10% of the population would be better off with open borders. Wages would be crushed all the way on up into high level accounting, programming, doctors, etc with open borders. So explain to me why 90%+ of the population should voluntarily destroy their standard of living? Principles??? LOLOLOLOL Nobody cares about those idiot, not when the stakes are so high.

    Not to mention living in a society like that sucks for the middle class, and even the wealthy. Poverty isn't fun to look at, and neither is the crime that comes along with. Billionaires in the USA (who aren't celebrity ones) can walk around with no guards and no fear, try doing that in Brazil! I live in Washington state, my father LITERALLY physically bumped into Bill Gates at a resort here once. He apologized and walked off thinking that the guy looked a lot like Bill Gates, only to discover it had in fact been him. He could have killed him! But Bill feels so safe just wandering around in the USA he didn't even have any security clearing the way or anything. So even for the ultra wealthy there are quality of life things that make living in a country like the USA worthwhile. So even the few people that might ostensibly benefit have reasons they may not find it desirable either.

  • vek||

    So NO, you will never convince people open borders are a good idea, because they're an objectively BAD deal for people in 1st world countries. 3rd world immigrants are the only ones who benefit. All we have now is a lot of people duped into thinking that accepting 500 of the cuts, out of the death of 1000 cuts, is a good idea. But none of them would even go full tilt, because even those morons know better.

  • Robbie12345||

    The Los Angeles Times reports that up to 8 million of 11.1 million (72 percent) illegal aliens commit job-related felonies. La Raza says that illegal aliens contribute $15 billion annually in Social Security payments through payroll taxes [by using illegally obtained Social Security numbers - felony]. The citizen of the United State is being sold out by the very people that say they are for law abiding citizens. In California, the Democrats run on this and support those how will commit felonies.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    There is, one would imagine as a libertarian--or is it "libertarian"--that you would see an alternative to Know-Nothingism of the Right and Know-Nothingism of the Left. Or am I too optimistic about you guys?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Under the 1997 consent decree known as the Flores settlement, Uncle Sam can't keep children in immigration detention for more than 20 days. In 2016, a federal judge extended this rule to families as well.

    Speaking of detaining immigrants and the families of children, my friend got locked up in a psych ward for a couple of weeks for daring to criticize the local wellness center. I'm all for handing out more immigration visas, preferably through a reciprocity program and/or a random lottery that is open to people from all countries. Enforcing immigration law is fine. Perhaps New Jersey should release its long term psych patients and convert it's state run psychiatric hospitals to detention centers for illegal immigrants. After all, those facilities were designed to humanely house patients for their own good even if they did not face any criminal charges.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    At least you are proposing something more reasonable and debate-worthy than "deport all these barbarians!!!" that some other commenters here, especially the ones that seem to worryingly inducted into the utterly non-libertarian personality cult surrounding Donald Trump, are proposing. I have never posted here but I have been reading comments on Reason for many years, and I have been surprised in the last couple of years how much it has degraded.

  • vek||

    Well I'll tell you what. I didn't vote for Trump, and I kinda think he's an idiot. But he's stumbling around doing more decent things for the country than any other presidents in recent memory.

    The reason I toss purist libertarian stuff out the window on the immigration issue is that it is literally a battle for survival of our civilization. None of these people vote even as conservative/libertarian as the native population. EVERY SINGLE IMMIGRANT GROUP votes waaay left of natives. I'm for skilled immigration, even though they vote wrong. But the low skill ones additionally put a drag on net tax payers in the USA. People like you (I imagine) and I. I could go on for days.

    There are simply too many real world problems to get overly caught up on how some theoretical principle would apply in a world that doesn't actually exist. Down here in the real world low skill immigration, or outright open borders, brings a TON of actual problems. Things we could completely avoid by not allowing in low skill immigrants.

    IMO Principles are only useful in so far as they produce good results. Things like freedom of speech always are for the best. Guns! No unreasonable searches! All good. But immigration can be an existential threat to a civilization. Just ask the ancient Romans how my barbarian Germanic ancestors respected their laws and traditions... Not so much. I don't want the USA to become Rome V 2.0.

  • Widhalm19||

    Is Reason a Libertarian news site or a Leftist propaganda site? Seriously? This writer, Shitkara, is a Leftist to her rotten radical core. What's going on here?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Many Reason staff were hiding as Libertarians for years.

    Trump caused many of the LINOs to blow gaskets and reveal themselves for the lefties that they are.

    Pick a writer and see what articles they write. Its very telling how they are not Libertarians.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    Without agreeing with everything Shikha says, is there a possible way you might consider that everyone who disagrees with you is no more a "Leftist" than you are a "fascist"? Or am I wrong?

  • Mark22||

    is there a possible way you might consider that everyone who disagrees with you is no more a "Leftist" than you are a "fascist"? Or am I wrong?

    Shikha's position on immigration is objectively leftist, since she favors open borders for the proletariat; in socialism, that serves both as a means of destroying capitalist societies and as a communist ideal.

    And wanting enforcement of national borders is a conservative position, an ideological opposite of both leftism and fascism.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Why don't more Central Americans go to French Guiana and join the French Legionnaire?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Liberty for Americans is more important than liberty for anyone else.
    It's okay to initiate force against foreigners due to the "liberty hierarchy" noted above.
    Taxes are theft, but taxes to pay for a wall and a huge border security state are "less theft" than taxes to pay for welfare for anyone ever.
    The state routinely oppresses its citizens with zillions of laws and an overly aggressive police state, but all of that can be overlooked in the case of border security. Keeping out the undesirables is more important than tearing down the police state.

  • DenverJ||

    Uh huh. One of the few legitimate jobs of the government is to defend the country, ie not letting hordes of barbarians invade via our southern border.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    Do you really think that the majority of people trying to come across the border are trying to "invade" America? And do you really think the majority of these same people are "barbarians"? It seems, if not vaguely racist (and I do think there might be something to that charge), perhaps might just be exaggerating the case, slightly?

  • Mark22||

    Do you really think that the majority of people trying to come across the border are trying to "invade" America?

    Why did the Vandals sack Rome? Was it because they disapproved of the Roman form of government? Of course not. At the individual level, invasions are usually driven by poverty and the desire to plunder.

    And do you really think the majority of these same people are "barbarians"? It seems, if not vaguely racist (and I do think there might be something to that charge), perhaps might just be exaggerating the case, slightly?

    In what way would it be "exaggerated"? The situation is quite analogous to the situation the Roman empire faced vis-a-vis the countries and civilizations that tried to attack it. "Barbarian" refers to small, impoverished nations and civilizations that attack a wealthy empire in order to plunder its wealth.

    And in what way would it be "racist"? South Americans are descended from white Europeans, just like Americans.

  • lulz farmer||

    Keeping out undesirables literally is more important on the hierarchy of needs. You see, if you are overrun and replaced then all is for naught. Those who don't protect against this simply don't exist in the future, as things go. Keep fanning your own balls about being a rugged individual who doesn't care about any of that, though.

  • Mark22||

    It's okay to initiate force against foreigners due to the "liberty hierarchy" noted above.

    Illegal border crossers are initiating force against Americans.

    Taxes are theft, but taxes to pay for a wall and a huge border security state are "less theft" than taxes to pay for welfare for anyone ever.

    Yes, quite objectively, spending money on keeping future welfare cases out of the country is cheaper than paying them welfare. Keeping people out of the country is also an enumerated power of the federal government.

  • vek||

    Who cares about the strict principles chemjeff? I don't on this issue. I'm being pragmatic.

    Do I care more about my own interests and those of my neighbors than some random African or Mexican? YUP! I sure as shit do. And frankly it is the job of our government to see to OUR best interests, NOT the interests of random foreigners. Those foreigners governments are supposed to be taking care of their shit. That's how it works.

    The USA can't save the whole world, so why is it wrong for me to not want to wreck my country trying to do it? I could donate every penny I make to feeding the homeless... The problem is if I did that I too would become homeless.

    So I'd rather just take care of our own shit, and let others take care of their shit. Does that make me evil and cruel? I don't think so. Is it any more wrong than somebody being willing to bail out THEIR child from a bad spot in life, but not somebody elses kid? It's the same thing. Take care of your own first. I don't want to have my taxes jacked to subsidize low income Mexican immigrants who don't pay enough into the system to support what the government spends on them. If we don't let them in in the first place, problem solved!

  • Dadlobby||

    I'm so tired of these border kids "ripped form mothers" articles I can't even find the strength to post about the 40% of children in the US living apart from their biological fathers, ripped from their arms to fuel federal dollars to states under Ttile IVd of the Social Security Act. Unlike the border illegals, these parents (mostly fathers) are forced to pay a "child excise tax" for children they may, or may not, be able to visit with 4 days a month. http://nymensactionnetwork.org.....rt-reform/

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Deport them all!

  • 10mm||

    Next up, referring to all US prisons as "Internment Camps" and demanding the release of all the baby daddys that were separated from their children.

  • Mark22||

    What is particularly diabolical about criminal prosecutions is that border patrol agents have actually been going out of their way to entrap migrants. Robert Moore of the Texas Monthly found several instances when immigrants tried to surrender at a regular port of entry as required by law but were told that there was no holding space for them, a total lie evidently, and turned away, forcing these parents to find another route.

    "But Mr. Judge, the front door was locked, so the homeowner diabolically forced me to smash a window and steal their stuff."

    One woman rebuffed was a badly sunburnt mother with a baby and a 16-year-old girl.

    "But Mr. Judge, I'm a sunburned woman with two kids and no husband. If the US taxpayer doesn't cough up a few million dollars for housing, medical treatment, and education for me and my kids, I'll have to go back to my own country and get a job."

  • vek||

    The short version of what all the sane people are saying is this:

    I don't believe in rigidly adhering to principles to the point of suicide. Because that's fucking stupid.

    The real world problems associated with low skill immigration, and especially true open borders, would be so crappy that there's simply no reason for anybody to put up with it. So boo hoo purists, some people aren't willing to shoot their own dicks off so they can say they're super principled. Deal with it.

  • InternetHandle12||

    All it took was non-stop lies and mis-information from the media.

  • TxJack 112||

    Libertarian is not a synonym for ignorant or liar. No children where "snatched from their mothers breast". Is the definition of libertarian now become the same a progressive? Is over the top rhetoric and disinformation the goal of Libertarians? Countries have borders and countries have laws. without either, there is no country. Expecting people to enter a country LEGALLY is neither inhumane or evil. You can have unrestricted LEGAL immigration and have a country. Unrestricted illegal immigration is chaos.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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