MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How Nancy Pelosi Set an Immigration Trap for Republicans

She is dividing Republicans while uniting Democrats.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a Machiavellian genius. She took the rift between congressional Republicans and PresidentNancy PelosiScottCNPAdMediaSIPANewscom Donald Trump on immigration and turned it into a canyon-sized chasm, weakening the GOP before the 2020 elections. At the same time, she teed up an immigration bill in the House that could bring her party together right before the 2020 elections.

Trump this afternoon vetoed a congressional resolution to stop him from declaring a national emergency on the southern border and using it to raid unauthorized funds to build his wall. The Republican-controlled Senate didn't want to have to vote on the resolution. But once Pelosi successfully pushed it in the Democratic-controlled House, parliamentary rules left Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell no choice but to bring it up for a vote.

This put Republicans in a difficult position: Whether to vote for their principles (don't laugh!) and stand up against their president's power grab, or give up their principles and obey the president to enlist his support—or at least not incite his wrath—before the 2020 elections. Ultimately, only 12 Republicans joined the 49 Senate Democrats to vote against him (and only one of those, Maine's Susan Collins was up for re-election next year).* All the rest fell in line (including, disappointingly, Ben Sasse, that alleged evangelist on behalf of the Constitution).

Neither chamber has enough votes to override Trump's veto, but prevailing wasn't the point for Pelosi. She wanted to enjoy the spectacle of conservative agonizing.

Even as Republicans were contemplating how best to negotiate that trap, Pelosi was busy preparing the Dream and Promise Act. The bill would allow 2.5 million people—"Dreamers" and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders—to obtain permanent legal status. Dreamers are people who have grown up in America after they were brought to the country as minors without proper authorization. TPS holders are folks who have permission to live in America on a temporary but renewable basis because their countries are engulfed in political turmoil (El Salvador, Honduras, Liberia) or embroiled in a natural disaster (Haiti).

Both these groups have become vulnerable to deportation under Trump. He scrapped the Obama-era DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Renewals) program, which gave eligible Dreamers temporary legal status and work authorization. Meanwhile, he has pledged not to renew current TPS holders' status once it lapses, which will force 98 percent of them to leave.

There are currently about 320,000 TPS holders in the country. The bill would allow many of them to apply for green cards right away, something that they can't do as TPS holders unless they marry an American or find an employer who can sponsor them for an H-1B visa. Once they've spent five years on a green card, they become eligible for citizenship.

Dreamers would have to jump through more hoops, on the theory that, unlike TPS holders, they are in the country illegally and should have to do more to earn their green cards. Those Dreamers who arrived in America before the age of 18, have led a crime-free life, and are working toward a GED or an equivalent would be able to apply for "conditional permanent residency." After 10 years on that status, they'd be able to apply for green cards and eventually citizenship.

The bill would cover all the 700,000 DACA beneficiaries. But there are 3.6 million Dreamers in the country, and so well over a million won't be covered. This makes it a pretty moderate bill.

Why didn't Pelosi go further? Because she wants to make it easy for moderate Democrats to support it. At the same time, there's no downside for more radical Democrats in embracing it—it's a clean bill, without any of the border-enforcement poison pills that Trump was demanding as his price for legalizing Dreamers. In short, it'll allow Democrats to mobilize their base without alienating others.

Meanwhile, although the Supreme Court declined to take up DACA in this year, it might well do so in fall and issue a decision sometime in 2020. And should the Supreme Court uphold Trump then—which is entirely possible, given that scrapping DACA is quite likely within the presidential prerogative—Democrats will have something cued up to replace it and prevent Dreamers from being deported en masse. If Republicans scream "amnesty" at that point, which they will, they will come across as heartless monsters, especially since 82 percent of Americans favor the legalization of Dreamers.

That isn't a good image for voters to have in their heads just before they schlep to the polls. But that's what Pelosi has set up.

*Correction: The piece had originally noted that Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina had voted for the resolution to censure the President. Apparently, after penning an oped in the Washington Post opposing Trump's executive order, he switched his vote last minute. The error is regretted.

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.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well. These should be some quality comments.

  • Eddy||

    Chemjeff was right!

  • Rockabilly||

    Chem Jeff wants open borders, says passports are racist, no need to check incoming people to see if they are inoculated against any diseases.

    Any everyone can get free stuff.

    fuckin' A!!!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He is also ok letting any pedophiles in too. No questions asked.

  • AER1972||

    So does the silly woman author, Delmia..She claims that is what all the Libertarians, Milton Friedman and the Austrian School of Economics want .. Why did Reason hire this interloper?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Better quality than shilling for illegal alien pedophiles, eh Pedo Jeffy?

  • Nardz||

    Nothing will ever top that thread.
    Chemjeff went full chemjeff there

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Buzz buzz buzz.
    Shoo both of you.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Never going to stop Pedo Jeffy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He will switch to a different sock like he did before.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It won't save him anymore than it did PB. Pedo Jeffy has too distinct a style of idiocy.

  • JesseAz||

    Lolz. Jeff talking about quality comments.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    That is a Hitchcockian photo.

  • What's that smell?||

    She is an evil, evil, cUnt. But it brings me joy to see she is losing control of her party, her mind, and her bladder.

  • colorblindkid||

    Other than Justin Amash, there is not a serious person left in Washington. Nobody wants to solve any problem. Nobody wants to address any issues. It is entirely about trolling. It is entirely about political stunts, useless grandstanding, and symbolic victories.

    No wonder people didn't mind voting for Trump. He's just a caricature of every other politician, and he's only really bad because he hasn't had the decades of practice they all have.

    Get rid of them all.

    Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional leaders in both parties have been far more toxic and corrosive to our institutions than Trump. That's the entire reason we're stuck with Trump to begin with.

  • AER1972||

    I don't care for Trump as a person yet much of what he has done resonates with me. Likewise I don't always agree with everything the Libertarian party is pushing for e.g. Open Borders, Legalized Heroin, Bill Weld (what a disgrace)... Progressives regardless of party affiliation (e.g. Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton(all of them) Biden, Bush (all of them), Romney, Harris, Warren ) are just plain bad for the country. Trump despite his negatives has in fact exposed most of the insidious natures of these cancerous cretins who have been so destructive to the Republic. He may be a braggadocios boor and a rather annoying tweeter but he does bring out the infantile character in so many that it has become very entertaining. Election night 2016 was the most entertaining television since the Moon landing. H emay not survive a second term but it has been a great ride with 2 decent SCOTUS picks, Keystone pipeline,opening ANWR, Jerusalem, VA correction, Defense build up, Lowering corporate tax rate, etc...

  • Jerryskids||

    Hats off to Nanct Pelosi, it takes a Machiavellian genius to make Republicans look like unprincipled shitweasels. Almost as difficult a feat as making Democrats look like unprincipled shitweasels. Truly a tour de force.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Seems to me, that by going through the green card process, the illegal immigrants eligible under this "Dream and Promise Act" program would be screened by the government, as our border restrictionist colleagues demand that immigrants should be, and therefore the "unworthy" ones would be weeded out.

    You don't want unvetted strangers here. Well, here is a way to vet them.

  • Ordinary Person||

    More than screened. They'd have to live crime free lives for 10 years before applying for citizenship. So there's no immediate citizenship ( the right thing to do). They'd have to "get in line" so to speak for the magic papers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Of course you want to grant them citizenship no questions asked. On whites are starting to bail on the democrat party, and you are desperate to add to the voter rolls. It's not like you actually give a shit about these people.

  • JesseAz||

    Crime free? May want to educate yourself. Most crimes are waived. Only violent felonies or drug charges generally harm an applicant. And there are active DAs who reduce charges for this very reason for illegal immigrants. It is a huge scandal in California. But who needs facts when Jeff and OP have feels to guide them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Care to provide any references at all for your claims?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump just checked Congressional stupidity.

    He signed his first Veto.

  • Moderation4ever||

    Now it goes to court. The fact that the Congress first denied funds and then denied an attempt to circumvent Congress to get the funds, will influence the court. I predict the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution Article 1, Section 9 and deny funding not authorized by Congress..

  • Bubba Jones||

    Doubtful. Trump is following the law for national emergencies. And congress has expressly declined to change the law.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your citation fell off Moderation4ever

    Under the Constitution, the resolution goes back to Congress to see if they want to override the veto by voting again at 2/3 majority or more.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Nope. No court. The veto is final.

  • JesseAz||

    Congress actually authorized the funds, they simply didn't appropriate. Likewise Congress passed the NEA. They can repeal it at any time though. Good try at a rational thought though.

  • AER1972||

    which is why so many Senators opposed Trump. They now have cover to rescind the law.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a Machiavellian genius. She took the rift between congressional Republicans and PresidentNancy PelosiScottCNPAdMediaSIPANewscom Donald Trump on immigration and turned it into a canyon-sized chasm, weakening the GOP before the 2020 elections.

    Hahaha. Maybe Trump and Pence will resign in defeat, so Pelosi will ascend to President.

  • MoreFreedom||

    This is all for show. How does it matter? If it splits the GOP, I say it suggest we get more GOP politicians supporting Trump's Immigration polices in the next election. I'd also bet that Trump would allow more immigration provided it was skilled people who want to work instead of being welfare leeches.

  • JesseAz||

    Doesnt split anything. They knew they needed to hit 66 votes. It was a show vote for 12 Republicans. this happens all the time with letting certain members pad their moderate voting record.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The resolution did not challenge the constitutionality of Trump's actions, it is merely a dispute over policy. Passage of the resolution would give the Democrats no incentive to try and take back legislative authority conceded to the executive, as it would get rid of the issue without addressing the constitutionally questionable aspects of the emergency powers law.

    Sasse did not betray his principles with that vote.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Yeah undoubtedly some district court judge will rule against Trump on statutory interpretation and ultimately he'll win in SCOTUS right around the 2020 election. I'm not sure how any of this political theater makes Republicans or Democrats look good or bad at that point. This will all be forgotten a week from now as we ponder the relative strengths and weaknesses of Beto versus Spartacus.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Beto has a proven record of driving minorities out of office. This should be fun.

  • Nardz||

    You have to give it to Spartacus, he found quite the beard: Rosario Dawson

  • Nardz||

    And Beto is a spaz

  • damikesc||

    How is Beto portrayed as more than the honkiest cracker known to man who married into a fortune?

  • creech||

    Whycome Republicans didn't do something about immigration when they controlled the House and Senate?
    Looks like GOP dominated Senate will have to come up with something more reasonable than the Pelosi bill, the two bills won't be adjusted in conference, therefore no bill will pass and what to do about immigration will be resolved by the results of the 2020 election.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    What to do about immigration hasn't been resolved by any previous election. Why will 2020 be different?

  • Eddy||

    Mohilizing the base is like greyhound racing, you need a stuffed rabbit for them to chase, but never quite catch.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Yup.

  • JesseAz||

    That pesky 60 vote threshold. You do know about that in the Senate right?

  • Kazinski||

    Because the Washington chapter of the GOP is and has been for amnesty and more immigration, legal or not. But the vast majority of GOP voters are deadset against illegal immigration and amnesty for the vast majority of those that come here illegally. So of course they aren't going to get anything done.

    Some like Lindsey Graham are now trying to burnish their credentials by being hawks on the wall so they can push for DACA amnesty and the expanded H1 visas that the chamber of commerce wants.

    I'm pro immigration, but anti-illegal immigration. And I think they should shut down H1 visas completely. Why should corporations have their own private immigration system?

  • Eddy||

    Wikipedia lists the various national emergencies, with the ones still extant in outlined in green.

    https://bit.ly/2TSBx0u

  • grb||

    And you'll find every other one a consensus and/or non-controversial exercise of executive power.

    What you won't find in all others is this :

    (1) Use of a NEA declaration because the president lost a debate, lost a election, lost a government shutdown battle.

    (2) Use of a NEA declaration against the wishes of the American people, by every poll, by a sizable margin.

    (3) Use of a NEA declaration in a snit, because Congress refused to fund a pet project.

    (4) Use of a NEA declaration as an obvious political stunt.

    Yep. We're in completely new territory here. Something for the courts to keep in mind, eh?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties lose....again.

  • JesseAz||

    DACA was due to a lost debate in Congress you fucking idiot. You can claim this is unique in any way you want, but Daca spent money on positive benefits. It was done not under NEA, but it was the backup option if needed.

    2) depends on how the question is asked idiot. If you ask Americans of they want border protection it is a 90% yes rate.

    4) all executive orders are a political stunt. Just like everytime Obama used the NEA.

  • grb||

    Depends on how you ask the question, huh? The American people were asked if Trump should get money to build his goofy wall. They said No by a large margin. What about that do you not understand?

    Also, I picked out a NEA declaration at random : "Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe" Wow; the very essence of a political stunt, right? Help me out here : Is that aimed at the massive pro or anti-Zimbabwe voting bloc in the US?

    Look, Trump craps all over the Constitution to fulfill an imbecilic promise to the minority of voters of his political base. Why? Because he lost the debate, lost the shutdown, lost the congressional appropriations vote, lost the election, lost the congressional emergency vote. And he will lose in the courts. Why? Because he a whiny toddler throwing a snit because grownups don't take his stupid nonsense seriously. You can applaud Trump every step along the way if you want. More fool you

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor grb sock.

    Trump wins again.

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    No. They were asked loaded questions like "Do you support spending money on an ineffective wall?"

    The left has said that a wall would be ineffective so many times (without proof) that people start to believe it.

  • grb||

    God, you're such a liar :

    Gallup - January 2019 :

    "Please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose significantly expanding the construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border?"

    60% - 40% against, total oppose vs total favor

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Nope. People want the wall. They don't want democrat bullshit.

  • FactsNotAttacks||

    Man, its kinda sad that people who disagree with you can only seem to come up with insults rather than well reasoned arguments. Anyway thank you for the well thought out comment.

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuck you Pelosi, you're a worthless piece of shit.

    Fuck off !!

  • Dizzle||

    Yeah shikha, too bad the democrats will tote out some socialism loving piece of shit you'll tell us is the bees knees...

    And then they'll lose because no matter how cool you think Pelosi and aoc are, we fucking hate socialists.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    From a Koch / Reason libertarian perspective, "socialists" who are pro-immigration are clearly preferable to "capitalists" who are anti-immigration.

    And I guarantee the Democrats will win the 2020 election. They'll definitely win the Presidency and expand their House majority, and possibly take the Senate too.

  • Dizzle||

    I heard they're setting up to turn California into a ruling class spaceship/asteroid thing like ultron did with sokovia too. They need to be airborne to literally look down their noses at us.

  • Agammamon||

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a Machiavellian genius.

    Uhm, sort of. I mean, if you ignore how she's currently scrambling to prevent the insane-wing of the Democratic Party from becoming its mainstream. So whatever trap she's set for Republicans, she's going to have great difficulty monitoring it and ensuring its set off properly when she's busy bolstering her defenses, facing a coup at any moment.

  • grb||

    Pelosi faces zero danger of a coup. The imagination is a wonderful thing, but don't let it run hogwild.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    GRB should take it's own advice.

  • JesseAz||

    So the multiple votes passing gop amendments wasnt a coup?

  • damikesc||

    Pelosi is a powerless figurehead. AOC runs the Dems now. Pelosi is just her bitch, too weak to do anything.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Outwitting establishment Republicans hardly qualifies one as a genius. Hell, it doesn't even prove that one is competent. It's basically at the 'tricking your dog out of the tennis ball' level of cunning.

  • mpercy||

    OTOH, even an idiot like Bush was able to (allegedly) trick a large number of high-profile Democrats in Congress to authorize and fund his wars. So it's not like the bar is set very high.

  • grb||

    I'm willing to give Ms Pelosi kudos, but the OP is oversell.

    (1) Trump was happy to sign the pre-shutdown budget accord, but then took heat from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. That threw our insecure president into frenzied panic, and he reversed direction 180 degrees overnight. The shutdown and emergency resulted - all from Trump's timorous fear over meanie quips from entertainment clowns. Yes, that's pathetic - but don't blame Pelosi.

    (2) Asked why he did nothing on the wall his first two years as presidency, Trump gave this excuse : "but I was a little new to the job, a little new to the profession." Now, we're all used to DJT lying at a toddler's level, but that's even worse than usual. Did Pelosi make him lie? No.

    (3) Trump's brown-people-hysteria was full bore pre-midterms, complete with the banana republic-grade stunt of rushing thousands of troops to the border to thwart the caravan "invasion". These soldiers were just toys in little Donald's sandbox (useless in the situation) but presumable he thought the voters would be conned ....... They weren't. Trump lost the election. He lost the shutdown. He lost the budget vote in Congress. He lost the emergency vote. The wall itself is a loser in every poll of the American people (by a large margin). But Pelosi didn't make Trump a loser; he just is.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    On scale from "zero" through "totally imagined", how much influence do you consider Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh to actually have on Executive policy and decision making?

  • grb||

    Trump reversed himself on the pre-shutdown budget accord due to panic over his political base. He shrugged his shoulders about minimal wall funding late afternoon, then screamed government shutdown early next morning. So who induced this sudden anxiety attack? Coulter and Limbaugh were the major critical voices during a span of only a handful of hours.

    Now, is that embarrassing for you? Sure. No one with any self-respect wants a president who'd panic over the likes of Rush and Ann. But my advise is to just deal with it. Check the timeline, and see that I'm right. Verify the 180 degree reversal, and see that I'm right. Try and come up with any alternate explanation, and see that I'm right.

    Then just deal with it.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Yikes. What spectrum did you just fly off the deep end of?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The retarded one. GRB is a stupid progtard.

  • grb||

    Mr Potato doesn't deal with facts very well, does he? But let's not write him off as hopeless yet. We'll give him one more chance :

    (1) Trump and congressional leaders negotiated for weeks on a budget accord to fund the government. Their agreement included 1.6 billion dollars for border security. Trump announced his support for the accord in a late afternoon public event.

    (2) The scuzzy underbelly of right-world infotainment criticized Trump over the deal, with the star headliners being - yes - Ms Coulter and Mr Limbaugh.

    (3) First thing next morning Trump renounced the accord, repudiated weeks of negotiation, and trashed the deal he praised just hours earlier.

    Now, Mr Potato, above you claim it's ludicrous trash like Limbaugh and Coulter could influence "executive policy and decision making". With a normal adult president less prone to panic, I'd agree. But a normal adult president (using normal executive policy and decision making) wouldn't have wildly switched his decision 180 degrees overnight, would he?

    So, Mr Potato, time for you to chip in : Why did Trump panic? What abnormal "executive policy and decision making" process led to his bizarre behavior? I await for your excuse, but the answer's pretty clear : He took heat from some clownish pundits, and he doesn't stand heat very well. He really should stay out of the kitchen, but I guess it's too late for that......

  • Interskeller||

    You guys all criticize grb, but provide no counter argument whatsoever and no evidence or rationale why he is incorrect.

    Sure looks like it went down exactly as he said to me. trump accepted 1.6, then got a lot of bad press from fox news and the right and reversed course.

    What about that didnt happen?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is exactly what happened.

    But there are a bunch of Trump boot-lickers here at Reason who will do everything in their power to defend him and throw shade on anyone who dares to criticize Dear Orange Leader.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Jeff, right?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Talking to himself.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    The irony of replying to my own comment with that is not lost on me.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Don't know about Rush and Ann, but Trump evidently talks to Sean Hannity daily, sometimes several times in a day.

    http://mashable.com/2018/05/14.....CCE4Z_Qqq7

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So? I'm surprised you had time to look that up in between kiddie porn jackoff sessions.

    Sick fucker.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Fuck off, asshole. Don't you have some more progressives to threaten to murder?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hey, at least I'm not trying to sneak in illegals so I can watch them rape their kids.

    Not like Pedo Jeffy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Man you really are a disgusting human being.
    Go back to 4chan.
    Don't you have some more progressives and Muslims to murder? You're always threatening to.

  • JesseAz||

    If they were the child raping kind like you support or that Britain tries to hide, I'd be all for their murders.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah, I'm disgusting because I call out a sick kiddie porn illegal lover out like you.

    You're a huge piece of shit Pedo Jeffy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh fuck off. I don't love pedophiles, I don't defend pedophilia, that is all made up bullshit because you lead a sorry disgusting pathetic life where you have no higher ambition but to troll the internet shitposting and lying and threatening violence on your opponents.

    You're disgusting because you threaten to murder your opponents. You're either a keyboard warrior or you are a few eggs short of a dozen. Or both.

    Shit like you post is what inspires killers like the New Zealand nutjob. People like you are more to blame for the Christchurch violence than anything Trump said. You should be ashamed of yourself, if you were capable of feeling shame.

    Now buzz off and go kindly find something productive to do with your life instead of wasting it here insulting and threatening to murder people.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Here is just a small example of Shitlord here threatening to kill people:

    http://reason.com/blog/2019/03.....nt_7717671

    http://reason.com/blog/2019/03.....nt_7717378

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

  • Nardz||

    This is sad, chemjeff.
    We're all watching your slide toward suicide, and you just can't stop.
    Maybe you'll be luckier in your next life.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Believe me, you aren't that important in my life for me to even consider suicide.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor chemjeff.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Funny, I've never actually threatened to kill anyone. I just let people know how aggressively I will defend myself and my rights. If you,leave me and mine alone, you are completely safe from me.

    I also advocate real Americans standing up for our God given rights, much as the founders did. This is a lot of what you're trying to twist around. Or maybe you're just too fucking stupid to comprehend any of this. That is very plausible.

    As for you, it makes sense that a dullard lossy soyboy, such as yourself, would try and blame me for NZ. Especially since I keep calling you out for being a pedo lover. You are. Wow want illegals here so badly that you are thrilled to have child rapists come here just for it's own sake. You're a sick fucker.

    And I'm not the one endlessly posting the same bullshit discredited arguments, shitposting and ruining any possibility of serious discussion about immigration and border security. That's you, with your dull, sophist arguments disputing basic constitutional law that is completely settled.

    At least after your little tantrum, I can see we're starting to get through to you. Good. That means we should redouble our efforts.

  • Interskeller||

    What is the point of your comments? You just look stupid and your not changing any minds with your insightful commentary. Do you actually believe that trump is not corresponding with hannity and watching fox news constantly?

  • Dizzle||

    You're saying this like fox news is a bad thing. Yet it consistently provides the most balanced representation of our national landscape, and has been deemed the network to "offer the most airtime to its oppositions ideas" for at least the last 3 elections.

    The true danger in our media isn't with republican fox news being more fair than than literally every other network. It's that there is so little diversity of ideas on the other networks.

    It's no wonder so many liberals are just talking point shills who throw tantrums when confronted instead of being able to debate. You can't understand your opposition if you ignore or shelter yourself from everything they do. And that's how liberals live their lives

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Who cares if he is?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    That's just it. I'm not saying that he's not influenced by whatever he just heard, but specifically Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh I don't think rank highly on people with much direct influence. At least, not as much as fanatical TDS zealots would have you believe.

  • Jerryskids||

    LOL - Trump is as shallow as the oil film on a puddle of water, do you seriously think there's any thoughtful analysis and deep thinking that goes into his policy and decision-making? He cares what people think about him and what they're saying about him and mostly that they *are* thinking about him and talking about him. And that's it. Trump hasn't got an ideological nor principled bone in his body, it's how he can change his mind 180 degrees three times in 5 minutes without batting an eye, it's just whatever sounds good at the moment.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Eh. I don't presume to know the man's thought processes.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I'm not sure how you think somebody becomes, let alone stays, a billionaire, while being as mentally damaged as you TDS sufferers insist Trump is.

    It's ludicrous, like some couch jockey pointing at the latest Olympic track team gold medalist, and insisting that he's an out of shape slob.

    TDS isn't just figuratively a mental illness. It literally is one. You guys are insane, incapable of processing reality.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +10

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not sure how you think somebody becomes, let alone stays, a billionaire, while being as mentally damaged as you TDS sufferers insist Trump is.

    Two words: Paris Hilton

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Goddamn you just get dumber by the minute saying stupid shit like that. Fucking Pedo Jeffy.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    You'd be blown away by what goes on behind the scenes. That woman runs a multi billion dollar empire. You enjoy the dumb blonde narrative, and she knows it. Makes it all the easier to collect the cash.

    I'm done piling on you, but you really need to gain a deeper understanding of public figures and how they project themselves versus how they run their businesses. You think the Kardashians are dumb? Playing right into their hands.

    You think by calling Paris dumb you're dunking on her, but in reality its just the opposite

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    She's famous because she's rich. She's rich because she's famous. And the cycle started because of daddy's inheritance. Huh, sounds kinda familiar.

    I'm sure Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, and Donald Trump for that matter, are not complete idiots. But they aren't geniuses either, because people in their position don't have to work hard or be really smart in order to be rich and stay rich - their status and inherited wealth carries a lot of the burden for them.

    Paris Hilton took daddy's money and turned it into a little bit more of daddy's money. So did Trump. Good for them. But it's not like they made their billions by their sheer grit and determination alone.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor chemjeff is bad at math.

    Trump or Paris Hilton taking even a hundred million dollars and turning it into a billions dollars if far better than chemjeff will ever get from his $50

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Hey, for once I agree with you. Paris Hilton and Donald Trump both will likely make much more money than I will. (More than $50 however, mind you.) That is because I didn't have a rich daddy to bequeath me millions of dollars. And you know what? That's fine. They are entitled to their money. But don't pretend that they are geniuses or superior people just because they have money.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You know what happens to most people who have a rich daddy bequeath them a fortune?

    They fritter it away. At best they end up with a much smaller fortune. It's a rare person who can come into a huge sum of money and enlarge it while living a lavish lifestyle.

  • grb||

    1950s : Fred Trump makes little Donnie a millionaire by age 8, through trusts and partnerships.

    1960s : Trump turns 17, and Fred gives him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building; Trump graduates from UPenn & Daddy gives him a $1 million annual salary.

    Early '80s : Trump is in his 30s, and still receives a $260,000 yearly salary from his father, plus millions reaped from trusts and deals handed to him.

    1987 : Trump has a $11 million minimum loan debt to his father, and faces a massive tax penalty if the debt is canceled. Fred buys a 7.5 percent stake in one of Trump's condominium buildings for $15.5 million, then sells it back to his boy four years later for $10,000. Problem solved.

    1990 : Trump can't make a $18.4 million bond payment for Trump's Castle Casino. Daddy dispatches one of his bookkeepers to purchase $3.35 million worth of casino chips. The employee was instructed to then leave without placing a bet.

    Such is the stuff business genii are made of, huh? Between 1989 and 1992 Trump was near financial meltdown from his insane extravagance and bungled deals. Fred pumped millions of dollars into keeping sonny afloat - plus the stake in Daddy's business empire gifted to Trump was collateral for the massive loans which kept junior from drowning in red ink.

    As the country is now.....

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    More GRB bullshit..........

  • grb||

    Brett Bellmore : "I'm not sure how you think somebody becomes, let alone stays, a billionaire, while being as mentally damaged as you TDS sufferers insist Trump is."

    Pretty hilarious comment. Let's review the business genius of Donald John Trump in order :

    (1) Daddy stakes him with tens of millions of dollars. He blows through it all.

    (2) Daddy stakes him with tens of millions more. He has some disciplined success for a while. This is the period of Trump Tower.

    (3) Then he squanders everything even more recklessly. Multiple casino bankruptcies, sports teams, an airline, grotesque expenditures. Trump teeters on the edge of total financal collapse. Daddy keeps him afloat.

    (4) Then comes a dark period when Trump is kept on a leash. A rich person's lease mind you, but still a leash. Daddy again comes to the rescue, this time by dying.

    (5) The final stage of DJT, Business Genius is nonstop petty hucksterism : Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Mattresses - anything he can slap his name on.

    Forbes estimated that Trump was worth $200 million in 1982 when the stock market began to climb. If he'd put that money in an index fund that year at a 0.15 percent fee, he'd have $6.3 billion today after dividend taxes, almost certainly more than his actual worth. Face it : Pretty scamming is the only skill he's ever shown, and Donald Trump - Business Genius is the biggest scam of all.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You sure are good at puking up Media Matters pablum. Do you have SS single original thought?

  • grb||

    Don't need an original thought - I have facts.....

    In contrast, you have neither facts or originality, just spittle-spraying bile....

    Are you satisfied with the nothing you are?

  • Jerryskids||

    LOL - Trump is as shallow as the oil film on a puddle of water, do you seriously think there's any thoughtful analysis and deep thinking that goes into his policy and decision-making? He cares what people think about him and what they're saying about him and mostly that they *are* thinking about him and talking about him. And that's it. Trump hasn't got an ideological nor principled bone in his body, it's how he can change his mind 180 degrees three times in 5 minutes without batting an eye, it's just whatever sounds good at the moment.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its all random that he is acocomplishing all of his campaign promises.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Nancy Pelosi is a valuable ally to us libertarians. The Democratic Party's steady movement toward the Koch / Reason position on immigration has been one of the few positive developments during the otherwise terrible Drumpf Era.

    I told you all the #BlueTsunami would pay off!

    #LibertariansForPelosi
    #OpenBorders
    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall

  • Interskeller||

    I do t really get the whole open borders thing. A wall is pretty dumb when there are much more effective ways to handle border security. But open borders is just as dumb from my perspective. What is the appeal of completely un regulated immigration?

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    Because these idiots think that they can somehow convince illiterate third worlders to be good conservatives. No. They're inherently violent and stupid, and will vote for whomever promises to give them the most free stuff and not punish crime.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I think posting these Shikha articles just counts toward some sort of ideological diversity quota set by someone who is "spearheading an initiative" to "revamp Reason with a focus on engagement among young urban millenials who exemplify the exciting new young Democrat base", or something to that effect.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    This was the first one I'm awhile. Maybe she was on holiday.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    They release her from the home on weekends.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Let her out of her cage?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Who knew Trump had a phone and a pen.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    She's exposing a rift, alright. But it isn't the rift between Republican members of Congress and President Trump.

    It's the rift between Republican members of Congress and Republicans. With Trump on the side of Republican voters, and a significant number of Republican Congressmen on the other side.

    It IS a clever thing to do, because it's going to hurt the Republican caucus badly in the short run.

    Of course, the Congressmen know that, which is why the only Republican Senators who voted for this were those who either weren't up for reelection next year, or were retiring, (Alexander) or from the 'bluest' state that still has a Republican Senator.

    They're counting on the memory of this fading before they go before the voters again.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That and Trump has the money to expand the border security, so there wont be as much voter retribution this year.

  • ||

    Wow. TDS sure comes out in many different shapes, sizes and flavours.

    To go as far as this. Ok Dalmia. We get it. You really hate Trump to the point of calling Pelosi a genius.

    /waves white flag.

  • TJJ2000||

    The lawless "mob" (DACA Executive Orders / DOJ implemented Illegal Citizen Vote count) is running around making self-righteous attacks.. That's rich / severely hypocritical.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    DOJ implemented Illegal Citizen Vote count

    lol, this is a new one

  • TJJ2000||

    https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/15/ wilbur-ross-says-he-did-not-intentionall #comment_7717779

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh good heavens. Judge Jesse Furman's ruling had nothing to do with any supposed right of non-citizens to vote.

  • TJJ2000||

    That's exactly what it did! It gave them a whole new seat in the U.S. House of Representatives which is where "the vote" ACTUALLY has effects. So they didn't get access to cast at the ballot box; whoopty freaken do - the ballot box (almost never) creates law.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The Constitution says to count residents. Not citizens. What do you want Judge Furman to do, ignore the Constitution?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It actually uses the word "persons."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I stand corrected - it is persons, not residents. Either way, the Census is not limited to counting only citizens.

  • TJJ2000||

    The WHOLE Constitution ONLY applies to naturalized citizens. Pretending it applies to butterflies, cows, animals and illegal aliens is purposely being stupid.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

    Persons. Not citizens. Persons.

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    The founders meant "white persons." Otherwise, they wouldn't have put in the 3/5ths compromise. To pretend that they intended to count retarded mestizos from Central America requires a delusion of epic proportions.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The founders meant "white persons." Otherwise, they wouldn't have put in the 3/5ths compromise. To pretend that they intended to count retarded mestizos from Central America requires a delusion of epic proportions.


    To the contrary, the 3/5ths compromise was based on slavery, not race. Free blacks were fully counted, as intended.

    And it's not like they didn't know about Mexico, China or Indians at the time. You have to assume they were very stupid to make this claim.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Is a cow a person? How about a butterfly? No?

  • DesigNate||

    So in your mind a tourist can fill out the census form if they're here?

  • TJJ2000||

    Art 1,2,cl3: The wording in the main Constitution is "free persons" (House census).
    Tack on Enumerated Power, "...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
    ILLEGAL alien 'is' ILLEGAL and therefore isn't a "free person".

    specifically stated in the 14th Amendment --

    ""the privileges and immunities of *citizens* of the United States" added to actually DEFINE what "the people" of the Constitution meant and perfectly elaborated by its author Bringham 3/31/1871, ""...are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." (i.e. The bill of rights)

    The 14th amendment was trampled by the DOJ when it voted 5-4 vote in Supreme Court ruling "free people" in the 14th Amendment included immigrant children.... The old emotional trigger -- "its for the children" (Plyler v Doe 1982) trap.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Free person" here means not a slave. Because originally slaves were counted as 3/5ths for the purpose of the census.

    And besides, back in 1787, there was no such concept as "illegal immigration". So how could the authors have intended to exclude illegal immigrants from the census, when there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant"?

  • TJJ2000||

    "So how could the authors have intended to exclude illegal immigrants from the census"?

    EXACTLY as easily as, "How could the authors have meant illegal immigrants in 'free people' be included in the census"...... As I quote you, "when there was no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant'".

    Goes right back to the enumerated power "To establish an uniform Rule of Nationalization."
    Carried out by the 14th Amendment at a later time stating the *citizens* are 'the people'.

  • TJJ2000||

    Your stance sinks of corrupt manipulation. Everyone can see that.. A sovereign nation writes a Constitution for its people and you're trying to pretend it applies to any person in the universe.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I guess they would call it something different back then when your illegal friends would rape small children. Eh, Pedo Jeffy?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fuck off Pedo Jeffy. Your dream of illegal pedos voting to eliminate the age of consent will never happen.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    buzz buzz buzz

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chemjeff trying uses that sound to gets kids out of frame.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    1. If illegal immigration represents an invasion, in the military sense of the word, then should illegal immigrants be regarded as unlawful combatants/prisoners of war? Deprived of all but very minimal due process, held in POW camps, etc.?

    2. If illegal immigration represents an invasion, in the military sense, then does the presence of illegal immigration represent an act of war? Should the US formally declare war on Mexico and other Central & South American nations?

    3. If illegal immigration represents an invasion, in the military sense, then should a citizen associating with an illegal immigrant be regarded as treasonous? What should the punishment be *for citizens* who give material comfort to illegal immigrants?

    4. If illegal immigrants are invaders, and captured ones are to be held in something like POW camps, then when are they to be released? Normally POW's would be released only upon the cessation of hostilities. When would you consider the hostilities to have ended in this regard?

    5. Do you see how creating a warlike mentality among citizens with regards to illegal immigrants can lead to distrust and paranoia?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I don't know that national emergency is equivalent to a state of war. You're talking about private citizens, not the actions of a state. Maybe that's the point you're trying to make? The "warlike mentality" is highly subjective. I don't think there is much of that outside of a miniscule minority of crazies who do not exemplify any significant portion of the population, if at all. The distrist and paranoia you speak of is more the distrust and paranoia you exhibit about us deplorables.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't know that national emergency is equivalent to a state of war.

    I'm referring to the people who consistently refer to illegal immigration as an "invasion".

    If illegal immigration really is invasion, in the military sense of the word, then why NOT declare war on those nations that are "invading" the US?

  • Nardz||

    "in the military sense of the word"

    Goddamn, you just can't resist highlighting your inability to argue logically rather than emotionally

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm being precise. If you're going to throw around the Constitution's reference to "invasion", which CLEARLY means a military invasion (since there was no such thing as 'illegal immigration' back in 1787), then I expect you to mean what you say.

    It's the people who use "invasion!" that are trying to drive an emotional response here.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its so cute when chemjeff tries to act like he even likes the constitution or wants to follow it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I suppose the child victims of your illegal alien pedo friends have an emotional response to the anal invasion they suffer.

    But pedo Jeffy is happy to bring all those monsters here because open borders.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Pedo Jeffy you just made up a bunch of irrelevant bulkshit because you're desperate to destroy our sovereign borders so you can bring in as many illegal foreign pedophiles as possible.

    Illegals swarming is a problem,and is escalating. So the adults in the room are going to deal with it.

    So fuck off Pedo Jeffy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Go away and find someone else to bother.

  • Nardz||

    "Go away and find someone else to bother."

    An odd position for you, considering that you explicitly argue against the validity of such sentiments when directed toward asylum seekers who sexually assault children... because they "deserve" asylum in the US anyway.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You're misrepresenting my argument, as usual. I'm tired of trying to explain it to you because you clearly don't want to listen to it anyway.

    I'm arguing against harrassment. Which is all that Shithead contributes to this forum.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Chemjeff youre one of the biggest trolls around here.

    Bounce to one of your other sock puppets and try again.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I don't have sockpuppets, LC1789.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Just lots of pedo pals.

  • Dizzle||

    Yes to all the above. Fuck the illegal ones.

    Find more willing to go through the proper naturalization and visa processes, with skills we need.

    If that makes Americans think Latin Americans are less worthwhile than Asians or middle easterners because Asians n middle easterners have better educations and skills. So be it.

    We really should be shitting on south/latin America and its socialist ways. Maybe the citizenry will fight more for themselves in their home countries and demand higher standards when they realize they aren't just gonna waltz in here with no real skills and get shit handed to them

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Find more willing to go through the proper naturalization and visa processes, with skills we need.

    You do realize that the legal process can take as long as 20-30 years in certain cases, right?

    And that is just to get legal residency. Acquiring citizenship takes years longer.

    So when you or others say "just get in line and follow the legal procedure", what you are basically saying is "you can't come in at all, legally or not".

    If you want more people to follow the legal process, you have to at least make the legal process worthy of being followed. If it was a 20-year wait for me to get a legal driver's license to drive on the roads, I'd probably say "fuck that, I'm driving illegally" too. Wouldn't you?

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    Your post implies that anyone has a "right" to immigrate here. They don't.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, it presupposes that human beings are going to do what human beings always do, find ways around restrictions placed in their path.

    What do you think will happen if you tell would-be immigrants, "we don't want you here illegally, and we don't want you here legally either"? Do you think they will just say "well okay sure!" Or do you think they will find ways around the schemes that you have placed to keep them out?

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    Not if we make it uncomfortable enough to stay. For example, we could:

    1) deny them any health care
    2) deny their kids citizenship for being born here, and deny them education
    3) punish employers who hire them
    4) refuse to investigate any crimes committed against them
    5) refuse to provide any government services in any other language

    Right now, we not only don't put any real restrictions, but we have large segments of our population actively working against the few that are in place. Mestizos from Latin America are basically squatters, meaning they seek to come here to take as much as they can get, but don't ever really plan on being contributing members of society.

    They don't share our culture, history, political and literary aspirations or anything else.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not if we make it uncomfortable enough to stay.

    Here is the problem with your whole strategy.

    In order to deter them from coming, you would have to make being here WORSE than staying in their home country. In other words, make America a shithole country. Is that what you really want? Otherwise, even having whatever miserable opportunities that you leave for them available here will be better than the next-to-zero opportunities that they have where they are currently at.

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    It would be very easy. They don't want to be in jail, do they?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well that depends. Would you rather be in an American jail, or a Mexican jail?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Also:

    1) deny them any health care
    2) deny their kids citizenship for being born here, and deny them education
    3) punish employers who hire them
    4) refuse to investigate any crimes committed against them

    How do you plan on enforcing these items? It's not like illegal immigrants have tattoos on them saying "I'm an illegal!" It would mean, effectively, law enforcement hassling all of the brown people, citizens or not, under suspicion that they are illegal immigrants. Is this really fair to American citizens who happen to be brown?

    5) refuse to provide any government services in any other language

    You do realize that English is not the official language, right? What about American citizens who don't speak fluent English?

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    I'd repeal the 14th Amendment and clarify that the protections of due process apply to white citizens only. So brown citizens could be stopped without probable cause.

    The only American citizens who don't speak fluent English are retarded Hispanics who immigrated here in the past 60 years or so.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    the protections of due process apply to white citizens only

    Not even for people like this and this?

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    You can always find a few exceptions, but the fact remains that most non-whites are anti-American leftists.

  • soldiermedic76||

    So fix the legal system. Also, part of the reason it takes so long is because of all the illegal aliens! Illegal immigration is factored into the amount of legal immigrants allowed on. Additionally, processing illegal aliens who are captured eats up a good portion of the time the departments time, allowing less resources for legal immigration. Your fucking argument just proves the damage that illegal aliens fo to those who follow the rules. Fuck your stupid.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So fix the legal system.

    Okay, how?

    Unless it involves increasing the amount of legal immigration, you'll just be right back where you are right now.

    Once again: if people had to wait 20 years to get a legal driver's license, there'd be a shitton of illegal drivers out there. The solution in this case is not to aggressively punish the illegal drivers, but to cut down the wait time on getting a driver's license.

  • Echospinner||

    Libertarians want to limit government power.

    Pelosi is exactly what Sharma wrote in the first line. Very good at it. So much so that the outsider president knows.

    This is not new in politics. I cannot find where libertarian perspective is Trump or Pelosi.

    Always focus on the individual.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Always focus on the individual.

    Amen.

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    Any "libertarian" that claims to support open borders is either not a libertarian or is too stupid to recognize that filling America with 100 million mestizos will lead to the end of individual liberty.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'd rather have 100 million mestizos here than 100 million people like you.

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    Then put your money where your mouth is and move to El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No thanks, I'll stay here thankyouverymuch.

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    So in other words, you're full of crap. you know that a majority mestizo population create a sh*thole society, but you claim that you'd rather have them than conservative whites. Because you hate whites so much.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If it meant replacing 100 million of your type - bigoted angry resentful dickheads - with 100 million mestizos, I'd take that risk.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I am not certain if Delete is a troll or if I am actually forced to agree with Jeff? I prefer strong borders but his post upstream about due process only applying to white citizens is beyond stupid. I can only conclude it was meant to troll. At least I hope that was the intent. BTW, Jeff this doesn't mean I support your position either, as regards to open borders.

  • DeleteGrossLiberals||

    Why should semi-retarded Aztec and Mayan squatters be entitled to the same legal protections as those whose ancestors came from Europe and helped build America?

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    New troll. Zero creativity

  • Eddy||

    He sounds like the guy who posts (or used to post) at Volokh under the name ActualRightWingPatriot.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Pedo Ieffy actually be,wives all the stupid shit he writes. He is that much of an idiot. This is why he will gleefully stand by while some illegal rapes a small American child so lomg as that illegal comes to the US.

    He is a sick stupid scumbag.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Just one quibbling observation: It's not Trump's wall. God's Own Prohibitionists hired The Don to push their National Socialist platform and he is performing, just as Indian politicians legislated a wall separating Pakistan, and their Executive Branch saw to enforcement of that law--complete with snipers, dogs and whatnot.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And you're another complete idiot. Why do you even talk that way? It doesn't make you clever. It's more like a desperate attempt at trying to appear pretentious, but instead you just come off as some faggoty weirdo.

    You're a bigot and a perfect, very much like Pedo Jeffy, except you like fucking the kids after you watch them die.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "This put Republicans in a difficult position: Whether to vote for their principles (don't laugh!) and stand up against their president's power grab, or give up their principles and obey the president to enlist his support—or at least not incite his wrath—before the 2020 elections."

    "muh principles" = Support the Globalist Uniparty

  • tlapp||

    For those that want open borders do you lock the doors to your home? Do you ask who is there before allowing them in? It really is that basic.

    "you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." Milton Friedman

  • mpercy||

    "especially since 82 percent of Americans favor the legalization of Dreamers."

    I support legalization of Dreamers AND immediate deportation of their parents.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They *all* have to go back.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Anytime anyone accuses a politician of being a "Machiavellian genius", you're overstating your case.

    Pelosi passed a bill that will divide Republicans. Further down the pipe, she's working on some message legislation that will rally her own base and possible rile Republicans.

    So a good move, sure. But don't oversell it.

  • D3F1ANT||

    EVERYTHING they do is to divide Republicans. Big deal. Trump won anyway. They ought to try making decisions to help the country instead of trolling the POTUS. someday the shoe will be on the other foot. I wouldn't want my side obstructing to this degree, either.

  • zaxijidoma||

    I just started 6 weeks ago and I've gotten 2 check for a total of $2,200...this is the best decision I made in a long time! "Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways, thank you!"
    Click here >>>>>>>>>> www.Theprocoin.com

  • Salero21||

    Is her name Pelouse or Pelousy?

  • D3F1ANT||

    This site is called "Reason"!? ROFL!! This blog would be hilarious if it weren't an indicator of the author's derangement!

  • AER1972||

    Dalmia
    is another Progressive plant hired by phony-Libertarian Reason upper management . I seldom read her drivel. In this case her gushing praise for Pelosi is both nauseating and just wrong. DACA may be an issue for progressives but no one outside of this ideology don't care either way

  • AER1972||

    Why in the world did Reason hire this progressive nitwit ? Everyone of her columns are an affront to Libertarian values and beliefs. I am just baffled with her being at Reason.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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