Free Minds & Free Markets

Melania Helped Her Parents Become Citizens, But Trump Called Chain Migration 'NOT ACCEPTABLE!'

"CHAIN MIGRATION must end now! Some people come in, and they bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil."

|||Chris Kleponis/SIPA/NewscomChris Kleponis/SIPA/NewscomFirst Lady Melania Trump's parents officially became United States citizens this week, thanks to a part of the law that President Donald Trump has claimed several times must end.

Viktor and Amalija Knavs were sworn in at a private ceremony on Thursday. The Associated Press reports that the Knavs, who came from Slovenia, lived in the country as permanent residents prior to their ceremony. Their lawyer, Michael Wildes, has confirmed that the first lady sponsored their Green Cards.

This family-based path to America—sometimes called "chain migration"—is the most common form of immigration. Through this process, a green card holder or legal U.S. resident "may sponsor a family member for immigration." The president has repeatedly called for limiting this pathway to spouses and minor children, and he tweets frequently about its alleged evils:

NPR notes that this is not the first time someone associated with the first family has benefitted from immigration tools criticized by the president:

[Melania Trump] was paid for several modeling jobs in the U.S. before obtaining a work visa, which would be illegal under immigration law.

Her green card was granted under the elite EB-1 program, according to The Washington Post. That preferential program, popularly known as the "Einstein visa," is intended for immigrants with "extraordinary ability, [who] are an outstanding professor or researcher, or are a multinational executive or manager," according to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services.

Photo Credit: Chris Kleponis/SIPA/Newscom

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

  • Eddy||

    I'm sure Melania and their folks are good people, but do we want to hold immigration reform hostage for their sakes?

    No offense to the current Mrs. Trump, but it's no recommendation to the existing system that it lets billionaires bring their foreign-model wives and their wives' families to the U. S. ahead of skilled workers (yes, I know, she was supposedly a skilled worker herself, but really...)

  • Eddy||

    foreign-model 2nd and 3rd wives

  • SQRLSY One||

    "CHAIN MIGRATION must end now!"

    Except if your daughter has nice tits, and is sleeping with the POTUS, AKA Der TrumfenFuhrer...

    (Irreplaceable jobs skill which aren't in plentiful-enough supply among the natives, you see! H-1B time, hubba-hubba!)

  • Marcus Aurelius||


  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Except if your daughter has nice tits

    Somebody's jealous!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I'm sure Melania and their folks are good people

    Why? Other than sketchy judgment, of course.
  • Eddy||

    Kirkland can't even keep track of his own outrage talking points.

    Remember "some of them, I'm sure, are good people"?

    Artie, if you're going to be pathologically obsessed with Trump's evilness, you're going to have to memorize all of his best quotes.

  • Eddy||

    We already know that Trump is an ex-New York City Democrat who knows how to work the system, and to get what the system allows while it's still legal.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Former Democrat, current Republican . . . much like plenty of Southern bigots.

  • Eddy||

    Like the late Robert Byrd?

  • Ken Shultz||

    So I guess Reason has jumped on the permanent outrage bandwagon? Seems like 90% of the posts these days are meant to inspire outrage. Isn't it outrageous that . . . ?

    Our immigration policies should be whatever they should be regardless of whatever Melania or Donald Trump said or did that was so outrageous. Because Donald Trump and Melania did or said something outrageous isn't a persuasive reason for us to do anything.

  • Tony||

    I can think of another perspective that's become downright oppressive in its repetitiveness.

    He's not inviting you to be a member of his golf club, you know. The company you're keeping are brain-fried cousinfucking morons in a cult of personality. I mean, why bother? If Obama had been this comically hypocritical, you'd be on it like Trump on a 14 year-old beauty pageant contestant.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Auntie Zeituni Onyango and Uncle Onyango Obama will be competing in the swimsuit competition.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You don't enjoy pointing out political hypocrisy? Or is it just Trump hypocrisy you want kept quiet? Did you object to pointing out Obama hypocrisy?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Obama's policies were either good or bad regardless of any tu quoque.

    Trump's policies are either good or bad regardless of any tu quoque.

    There isn't anything anybody should support or oppose because Donald Trump is a hypocrite.

    There isn't anything anybody should support or oppose because Donald Trump isn't a hypocrite either.

    I think I've written this elsewhere, as well. It's sort of like Norm Macdonald talking about Bill Cosby. Paraphrased from memory: "People keep saying the the worst part is the hypocrisy", Norm said. "I think the worst part was the raping. The second worst part was the drugging. The hypocrisy is like 10th on the list".

  • Tony||

    The worst part about Trump might be the pointless trauma he's inflicting on migrant children and their parents for the sake of cynical racist political scapegoating, but it could be the raping too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The really funny part of that monologue was when Norm started getting into, "I think most rapists are probably hypocrites".


    It's probably more of a do as I say not as I do kind of thing, isn't it?

  • ||

    "I think most rapists are probably hypocrites".

    We were promised Hitler and we got "He's a hypocrite on immigration!"

    The issue isn't the hypocrisy. The issue is that I legitimately can't tell whether they're upset that his family immigrated successfully (they and his wife do have agency outside the presidency) or that he is not living up to 'their' expectations.

    I get that Reason wants everyone to immigrate freely. I don't exactly agree with it, but I get it. However, ignoring Melania and her parents' agency and describing this as hypocrisy, conflating the personal with the presidential, stumbling with the is-ought on the chain migration narrative... you're trashing a lot of libertarian principles to strike a glancing blow for some... ideas that are tangential at best.

  • Calidissident||

    What gives any impression that they object to his in-laws getting visas, rather than him trying to denying everyone else that opportunity? What libertarian principles are being trashed here?

    I look forward to this standard being applied to conservative and libertarian critics of future Democratic presidents. For example, when progressive Democrats are criticized for the hypocrisy of sending their kids to private schools while opposing school choice, I expect to see you condemn the critics.

  • ||

    For example, when progressive Democrats are criticized for the hypocrisy of sending their kids to private schools while opposing school choice, I expect to see you condemn the critics.

    I'll do it now. Progressive, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green Party or Socialist; the public political opposition to school choice is the more critical libertarian/freedom issue than the hypocrisy of making a private choice to send your kids to a private school. It's okay to criticize the hypocrisy, but the criticism of personal choices shouldn't eclipse the rectification of public policy.

    Of course, the obvious difference being that school choice isn't exactly the law of the land yet while chain migration is, and was defended as such, in opposition to the president's (insincere?) speech and action.

  • Ken Shultz||

    One of the things I have often criticized in the past is American anti-immigration people who fault Mexican immigrants for coming here and use our social services--but send their kids to public schools on my tax dollar as if they were entitled to my paycheck because they're native born Americans.

    Tying nationality to entitlement is a very communist thing to do--and I won't have any part of that. Saying that Mexican immigrants aren't entitled to welfare because they aren't American citizens is very much like saying that lazy, native born Americans are entitled to welfare because they are American citizens.

    It makes me wretch.

    Even then, though, the point isn't to highlight someone's hypocrisy.

    The point is to make the case for free market capitalism and attack socialist welfare programs--regardless of whether the parasites are American citizens. I assure you, my problems with socialism go far beyond any hypocrisy. I don't like socialism because I have government interference in the markets and the government redistributing wealth.

  • Texasmotiv||

    It's just a matter of revealed preferences. It just shows that their position is a purely political one, and that their personal choices don't conform to the political ideals they claim to espouse. It doesn't make them bad people necessarily (rather the hypocrisy ALONE doesn't make them bad people) it's just that it goes to show that supporting the opposite is better, because look even they think so in their personal life.

  • Calidissident||

    It's interesting you seem to only have come to this realization once Trump became president. I don't recall you spamming these responses every time someone pointed out Obama's hypocrisy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't remember Obama personally being the subject of so much opposition in the past. People were genuinely opposed to him because of his policies. Obama bailed out Wall Street with taxpayer funds, nationalized GM, instituted ObamaCare, raided state legal, medical marijuana dispensaries hundreds of times, and used drone strikes to kill more children than Adam Lanza.

    Obama's hypocrisy wasn't much of an issue--certainly not among staff.

    If you want to go after Trump for his trade or immigration policies, there's plenty to target there. Again, the main gist of the opposition, here and elsewhere in the world, seems to be about opposing Trump personally rather than his policies.


  • Tony||

    Obama, the president who was never criticized unfairly. How did he do it?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Either that, or hypocrisy is a silly, childish, naive thing to accuse a president of, and the staff here at Reason were better and grown up during the Obama administration.

    Do they not teach about Plato's "noble lies" or Machiavelli in freshman college classes anymore? Staff in the past certainly woudn't write as if this were all new to them.

    Pretending to be ignorant is better than being ignorant, in a lot of ways, and assuming that someone is just pretending to be naive is probably giving them the benefit of the doubt.

  • Calidissident||

    Just search "Obama hypocrisy" on this site and you get a plethora of results. And did people not cite Obama's hypocrisy on many of the issues you list when condemning him?

    I don't see how this is just "opposing Trump personally." The issue isn't his parents getting sponsorship and citizenship, it's that he wants to deny that to everyone else. And it's completely fair to question why he suddenly thinks it's ok when his in-laws do it.

    And who are you talking about when you say there wasn't much opposition to Obama personally? If you're trying to make a broad argument about his opponents in general that is completely laughable.

  • kevrob||

    Somewhere on the list should be "Now I can't enjoy old Cosby album routines anymore."


    Kevin R

  • Ken Shultz||

  • buybuydandavis||

    It is not hypocrisy to take the benefits of a legal system while supporting a change in the law so that the benefit is no longer available.

    Libertarians should know this better than most.

    "But Ayn Rand cashed her social security checks! The Hypocrite!"

  • ||

    You don't enjoy pointing out political hypocrisy? Or is it just Trump hypocrisy you want kept quiet? Did you object to pointing out Obama hypocrisy?

    I don't have an issue with the hypocrisy as much as I can't tell, as Eddy touches on, who the hypocrite is here. Does Reason think Trump's family shouldn't have been allowed in the country or is chain migration wrong when Trump does it? Did Trump end chain migration and carve out a special exemption for his in-laws? Or are we up in arms because Melania Trump has agency independent of Trump? And, as Ken points out, hard on top of the confusion between the collapse of American media and the fact that Trump has not (yet) started foreign wars, nationalizing healthcare, etc. It kinda extrapolates from the idiocy of Reason's open borders position.

    We were promised Hitler (did anyone say this about Obama?) and, instead, we got "He's a twitter-hypocrite on immigration!".

  • Tony||

    Nobody expects Trump to call his in-laws' behavior "totally unacceptable" or to ask them to return to where they came from.

    But you could do your part to recognize the president as a racist pandering hypocrite.

  • ||

    But you could do your part to recognize the president as a racist pandering hypocrite.

    If recognizing the hypocrisy means people can't tell if I think he should be more racist and pandering (whether that's what I want or not), should I do my part to recognize the hypocrisy?

    The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous", "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".

    Does Reason want the Kvands to be denied immigration? If no, then pointing out the hypocrisy in contradiction to one's wishes would be hypocritical. If yes, then all the articles on open immigration are hypocritical. Normally, the reason (drink) someone points out a hypocrisy is to rectify the logical inconsistency. The way "we" criticize politicians, including Trump, for running on a platform of platform of fiscal responsibility and then destroying any/all budgets. It's clear that we either a) would prefer they behave fiscally responsible or b) tell us up front they aren't fiscally responsible. Pointing out the hypocrisy of a candidate that promised to triple every budget and didn't is, itself, self-defeating and hypocritical.

    I mean, we're not mind readers here and when we are, we get chastised for it.

  • Calidissident||

    No one is pointing out the hypocrisy to encourage him to deny his family or anyone else the chance to immigrate. They're pointing out how he and his family personally benefit from a program that he insists is terrible and wants to close for everyone else. It illustrates the insincerity and falsity of the arguments he makes.

    It's also not comparable to your example involving tripling budgets - that would be true if it was calling him a hypocrite for promising to end chain migration and then not doing it (which wouldn't make sense anyways, because the only reason he didn't is because Congress wouldn't approve it, not because he didn't want or try).

  • ||

    No one is pointing out the hypocrisy to encourage him to deny his family or anyone else the chance to immigrate.

    The issue is the question begging. Chain migration is the law of the land. The president may not like it (I'm ambivalent), but Congress has already told him to sit on a tack. And, while I don't follow his Twitter feed, it seems like he's stopped talking about it. Ultimately, it leaves the very real sentiment or implication that all libertarian positions on all immigration can just be assumed, always.

    I haven't combed through all of the Clinton/Obama/Bush hypocrisy articles, but the ones I recall made sure to make the larger point of providing a logically coherent platform as an alternative to the hypocrisy (in the same article). Rather than just jumping up and down and shouting "Crazy person! Right there. Craaayzee!"

  • ||

    Augh! The Hihnsanity got to me. I meant to quote that, not bold.

    When is Reason going to stop pandering to the masses and get an edit key?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But you could do your part to recognize the president as a racist pandering hypocrite."

    Or, you could do your part by recognizing Tony as race baiting vermin.

  • Tony||

    How much of an insane fuckup does this guy have to be before you stop soiling yourself in his defense?

  • buybuydandavis||

    I note you don't defend your race baiting

    Losing your nerve, race baiting vermin?

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    You seem plenty happy to point out hypocrisy in other contexts.

    And politicians who say one thing while doing the opposite for their own gain is something Reason has been doing a looooong time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What are you talking about me being happy to point out hypocrisy?

    That's not my game. I'm the one who's usually making fun of arguments against hypocrisy. The idea that we shouldn't do what's in our own best interests if doing so makes us hypocritical is laughable. Haven't you seen me make that argument before?

    And no libertarian should be surprised by politicians who say one thing and do another--fer Christ's sake.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    Time to shut it down boys. Libertarians shouldn't be surprised by the government doing dumb shit anymore, so there is no longer a need for libertarian publications and websites that report on the government doing dumb shit. Mission accomplished.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Libertarians shouldn't be surprised by the government doing dumb shit anymore"

    Not only is this retarded, it ignores what I actually wrote.

    I'm an open borders guy.

    I'm an open borders guy regardless of what Donald Trump and Melania say or do.

    Were you an anti-immigration person before you read this post? Did reading this post change your mind?

    This post isn't even really about immigration. It's subject is mostly Donald Trump. Yeah, I'm tired of discussing the personality. I oppose Trump's policies on immigration and trade. This article isn't really about that. Itsn't it about opposing Trump because he's a hypocrite? At best it might be about being pro-immigration because Trump is anti-immigration.

    Logic fail.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    Trump is a big boy, he doesn't need you to defend his honor in Internet comment sections for him

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's not the internet comment section.

    It's the article(s).

    Trump is hypocrite. I'm so outraged.

    I'm so outraged, I think I might . . . fall asleep.


  • Jerryskids||

    Saying one thing and doing another doesn't necessarily make Trump a hypocrite, it could be it just makes Trump a liar. A political opportunist who doesn't really believe the populist rhetoric he's spewing but doesn't mind whipping up the mob as long as they call him their leader. And then there's the idea that immigrants should be kept out, except for the ones Trump and other Top Men can personally vouch for, i.e. "rules are for the little people". Whether it's hypocrisy, lying or putting yourself above the law, it's not doing anything different than any number of other politicians - so why is it that anybody would trust Trump's draining the swamp and making radical changes in the way Washington operates? I know they say "don't pay attention to what Trump says, pay attention to what he does", but now we're not supposed to pay attention to what he does, either?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Reason *is* the permanent outrage bandwagon. Where have you been there last 5-8 years?

  • buybuydandavis||

    All TDS, All the Time

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I'm still on the fence about immigrating to Israel. Maybe I should start a Go Fund Me page. Do you think many people would contribute towards helping me move out of the USA?

  • Eddy||

    Why, what have you done in the USA?

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Yo mama!

  • Eddy||

    By the way, tell *your* mama that I left the money in an envelope under the lamp on the bedside table.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Church donation?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    That was a popular fundraising method for churches in Cannan, back in the day. Countries tended to be theocracies at the time. The Torah implemented a separation between whore and state to protect the whores.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Actually, this sums up what I've done in the USA. I geek out even in the middle of the yo mama jokes.

  • Aloysious||

    Is the rent due?

  • Eddy||

    Yeah, "rent" is our secret code word.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony would give you his left slipper to leave. He hates the joooows.

  • ||

    Melania Helped Her Parents Become Citizens, But Trump Called Chain Migration 'NOT ACCEPTABLE!'

    Chain migration of mothers-In-law *is* unacceptable.

  • kevrob||

    It;s not "chain migration." It's "crony immigration."

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I guess that makes family values "crony values."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You have some proof that Melania's parents did not follow immigration rules.

  • AmendmentXMigrant||

    Is this another form of pension spiking?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Nope, still don't give a damn.

  • Ron||

    So Trump was right and he doesn't want his inlaws around

  • Eddy||

    Historically, (highly offensive joke about "chain migration" deleted)

  • Calidissident||

    Whatever you want to call it, it definitely doesn't work the way Trump portrays it where you can sponsor your cousin who can sponsor their aunt and suddenly you have dozens of people here in a span of a couple years.

  • Calidissident||

    As I said above - by itself, no one cares that Trump's in-laws got sponsorship and citizenship. It's that he's demonized this when other people use it and tried to take it away from everyone else. It's completely fair to question why it's ok for his in-laws but not anyone else.

  • Calidissident||

    His in-laws getting sponsorship isn't a problem. Him trying to deny that to everyone else is. That's what people are pointing out.

    No one is surprised that Trump is a hypocrite or baffled by why he's doing this.

  • Calidissident||

    I might be a bit confused here, because I was under the impression that by "this is/isn't a problem" you were talking about his in-laws getting citizenship rather than hypocrisy or chain migration and Trump's position on it.

    Who is feigning surprise here? This article does not read to me as if the writer is surprised by this development, and I haven't seen other people commenting on it act surprised either.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    It's possible to be against a law and still utilize it, because it's legal. See Ron Paul.

    As an aside, I'm far more concerned about anchor babies than chain migration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Im more concerned about anchor babaies who are then used as reasons for chain migration.

  • lap83||

    Melania did something that was not completely consistent with her husband's views? Unacceptable, Trump should keep his woman in line.

  • Juice||

    Some people, like my wife, come in and they bring their whole family with them. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

  • General_Tso||

    The only immigration that the increasingly misnamed 'Reason' doesn't like is that which involves the Trumps.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Ayn Rand cashed her social security checks! The Horror!"

  • Sigivald||

    Dinner dinner, chicken winner.

    "It's not hypocrisy to use a program you think would be better off ended, as long as it's still around" is evidently only true of people Reason likes, I guess?

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's ridiculous to be having an article like this on a purportedly libertarian web site.

    Anyone who has been a libertarian for 10 minutes has heard this charge leveled a libertarians. The Ayn Rand anecdote is apocryphal.

    Another indication that Reason isn't manned by libertarians anymore.

  • Tony||

    Turning down ill-gotten loot is the least a principled person can do to prove she's not a fucking hypocrite.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The media hates that Trump donates his presidential salary.

    The media hated that Ron Paul gave extra Congressional expense money back to the Treasury.

    The media hates that Rand Paul gives extra Congressional expense money back to the Treasury.

    Go fuck yourself Tony.

  • Tony||

    I was talking about Ayn Rand you ridiculous simpleton. You know what her defense of taking social security was? She was against it, thus it was OK. I suppose that's Trump's excuse for his family taking advantage of the precise policy he has screeched against?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, everything you say is nonsense. Its partisan nonsense. You cannot even connect to points of logic to form a complete thought.

    Just give your blessing to sharmota4zeb to leave, so you can be rid of one more jooo.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sorry (((jooo)))

  • Tony||

    Tell me, mum, when your little Trump is on the witness stand, where will it tickle you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What witness stand?

    Is that what are you are clinging to before you off yourself?

    Tony, Trump will never be charged with any crime or have to testify at any trial.

    All defendants in the Mueller's cases will either be acquitted or pardoned.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tony, this is why your favorite Democrats need to read bills before they vote for them. It's not Ayn Rand's fault that FDR neglected to insert a clause to limit social security benefits to members of the Democratic Party while taxing everyone to pay for it. I guess he was too busy patrolling our borders to prevent immigrants from coming in. Thanks to the strict immigration policies that FDR maintained, the foreign born population in America shrank in the 1940s and 1950s in absolute terms even while the native born population grew. Back in the 1990's no one complained about FDR's immigration policies as they were opening up his memorial on the National Mall.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tony, this is why your favorite Democrats need to read bills before they vote for them. It's not Ayn Rand's fault that FDR neglected to insert a clause to limit social security benefits to members of the Democratic Party while taxing everyone to pay for it. I guess he was too busy patrolling our borders to prevent immigrants from coming in. Thanks to the strict immigration policies that FDR maintained, the foreign born population in America shrank in the 1940s and 1950s in absolute terms even while the native born population grew. Back in the 1990's no one complained about FDR's immigration policies as they were opening up his memorial on the National Mall.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Darn squirrels. My modem got jammed because of the live video I was watching. You don't want to know.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The only people who should benefit from unjust laws are those who foist them on us"

  • Tony||

    If you willingly benefit then you consent.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties hate it when People take social security and try and tear it down. The Lefties cannot understand why someone would tear down the welfare.

    It just does not compute.

    Lefties also think once you take some benefit that you paid into, you cannot be opposed to it. Like cops all split stolen cash so all cops involved are guilty of taking money. Lefties look at all like experiences for the crimes that are being perpetrated on people.

  • Tony||

    If you are the global spokesperson for not taking government handouts, you could jolly well not take government handouts if you wanted to live up to your lifelong lecturing.

    But someone told her that she could lose all her Atlas Shrugged money if she got sick like old people do, and she made up an excuse, which amount to "As long as I don't like it, I can take the money." Hogwash, I tell you!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    It is OK to play by the existing rules while trying to change those rules. That's how communists buy train tickets to the city so they can attend protests.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, if you live a day in the USA you consent to live under the US Constitution and its Constitutional Democratic Republic rules.

    That means the Electoral college is your friend now. The 1st amendment.

    I almost forgot, the 2nd amendment too. Tony wants zero infringement on all Arms now. Good job Tony!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "If you eat your dollop of gruel in the gulag, you consent"

  • TangoDelta||

    It's just part of my attempt to bankrupt the government in the hopes that we'll be forced to start over. It's why, when voting in Cali, I vote for every single stupid expensive proposition that comes across my ballot. Once I'm satisfied that implosion is sufficiently imminent, I'll be leaving to my mortgage free personal refuge in a state far far away.

    More bullet trains! We'll penetrate that budgetary armor sooner or later!

    Sometimes, you just have to bulldoze the lot before you rebuild.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I understand that strategy and applaud your honesty.

  • Tony||

    "Galt's Gulch is for pussies who can't put their money where their mouth is."

    --Atlas Shrugged, page 5,603

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Ironically, moving to Israel would be a way for me to go Galt. I could be more productive in a country where being Jewish is normal and the government never arrested anyone for same-sex relationships. Only my lack of Hebrew fluency makes me a freak there. It's strange. My picture of my great-great grandparents taken in Russia around 1910 shows them sitting with a Hebrew or Yiddish newspaper. Jews struggled greatly to publish Hebrew and Yiddish newspapers in Russia. The tzar severely censored Hebrew and Yiddish publications and required a license to publish them. The land was under Russian authority thanks to the conquest of Poland by Germany, Russia, and Austria in the 18th Century. The Polish were sort of the Cherokee of Europe during the age of the steamship.

    Choosing to have the newspaper in the picture signaled their pride in being Hebrew speakers. My grandfather attended American government run schools. So did my dad. They never became fluent in Hebrew. Their schools and mine did not teach Hebrew. Assimilation into American culture was a major goal of government funded schools for most of the 20th Century.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And when Congresscritters fully took advantage of the exemptions to ObamaCare that they wrote for themselves, I am sure you were totally on board defending their use, no matter how unseemly, of a legal program.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They're the ones who actually got to *vote* on the measure.

    I don't complain about those who voted no.

  • kevrob||

    That's "return of stolen property."

    (Until you get your principle and any estimated interest back, plus the
    difference between that and an average return of pension-grade
    investments in the markets...)

    Kevin R

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I'm sure Blumpf really wanted his in-laws hanging around permanently. Great argument.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I thought for sure Shikha would do this one.

    I love the logic that one cannot be against something while still allowing people to comply with the rules until they are changed.

  • Number 2||

    Hmm. Does this count as "whataboutism?"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "It's okay when Trump does it because he's playing 17th dimensional chess."
    "It's okay when Trump does it because he's making the libs cry."
    "It's okay when Trump does it because he's no more corrupt than all the rest."
    "It's okay when Trump does it because that's what the people want."

    So it doesn't really matter what stories break next week or next month regarding Trump, we can expect the usual people to come here and repeat:

    "It's okay when Trump does it because __________________________"

    and just fill in the blank when appropriate.

    Evidently Trump is never supposed to be held to any standard.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just once I would like to see any of our regular Trump sycophants here actually call him out when he's done something wrong. Just once. Don't worry your reputation as a total Trump toadie will be secure even if you do.

  • Kivlor||

    I bemoaned him for bombing Syria. There's your "just once". Others bemoan other things he does that they don't like.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Are you going to suck our dicks if we do?


    Trump fucked up not having the FBI and Justice Department re-investigate Hillary.

    Trump fucked up signing the bloated federal budgets.

    Trump fucked up for not firing Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller for incompetence.

    Trump fucked up for not having pink slips issued for 50% of the EPA, HHS, DHS....

  • buybuydandavis||


    Trump supporters criticize him all the time

    Some objected to destroying ISIS as well.

    Signing the previous crappy budget instead of vetoing.


  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump hasn't built the wall. We call him out on that all the time.

    Ann Coulter was sending out daily updates of "Miles of New Wall Built: 0" for a long time.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Your criticisms are about things that Trump hasn't done, but in your view ought to.

    I am talking about criticizing him for something that Trump HAS done, that is wrong.

    The only thing that I see on your lists is him signing the bloated insane budget.

    Is that the only single solitary example that you can come up with?

    How about attempting to take away a woman's house in Atlantic City so that he could build a parking garage for his casino. Was that wrong?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh, and bombing Syria. Yes that was a fuckup as well.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I mentioned things Trump HAS done.


  • TangoDelta||

    Casino? Oh you're counting for all time not just as potus. I'd count plowing companies into the ground and bankruptcy as fuckups. But if we're going outside their time in public office for all politicians, to be fair and all, then we're going to be here a really long time.

  • TangoDelta||

    "extraordinary ability, [who] are an outstanding professor or researcher, or are a multinational executive or manager,"

    Or Melania would have had to meet 3 of 10 listed criteria as proof of "extraordinary ability". Four of which are:

    1. Evidence of published material about you in professional or major trade publications or other major media.

    2. Evidence that your work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases.

    3. Evidence that you command a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.

    4. Evidence of your commercial successes in the performing arts.

    Seems to me if she was a magazine model, that would tick #1. If she worked as a runway model that would satisfy #2. I don't know what the average remuneration for models is but it isn't hard to imagine she could have earned enough for it to be considered a "high salary" in Slovenia but I'm willing to give #3 a pass. As for #4 I think a lawyer could easily make a sufficient claim that modelling was a performing art since dance includes things like whip and nae-nae, why not the catwalk strut?

  • vek||

    And Trump would still be correct, because we do need to end chain migration.

    If one guy in a family becomes a great brain surgeon... But the rest of his family barely got through elementary school, why the hell should we let them in? The brain surgeon brings a lot to the table, the others do not. Making them stay in their home land is not torture. This should apply to people from ALL countries, including European ones. We don't need British high school drop outs any more than we need ones from Mexico.

    As for them using the law as it exists? Why wouldn't they??? I disagree with some of the tax write offs that exist, but I'm still going to use them until the laws are changed and made more fair overall. Same with plenty of other laws. The way it is now may be dumb, but you might as well use it to your advantage if you can, even while trying to change it.


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